The word "feminism" gets tossed around a lot these days, and I've wanted to write a sensible think-piece about what it means to be a good male feminist for some time. I juggled trying to be funny or light-hearted, but in my experience that devalues the seriousness of the subject matter and can also come across as condescending, so I'm going to try and avoid that.
Why do I want to write about feminism?
Because I think there are too many people who still have confused notions about what feminism really is, and in particular, far too many men who may be confused about what it represents and what it ultimately means for both sexes. I personally feel more comfortable addressing my own gender because I don't have the authority to discuss experiences I have not been privileged to (i.e. life from a women's perspective). What follows, therefore, is a guide for what I believe feminism truly is and why it's important for men to embrace it.
Why do I use the word "mature" in the title of this article? Because I believe there has to be a willing mindfulness on anyone's part to fully understand and appreciate any ideological concept, let alone follow through on it. If you don't approach this sort of thing with an open mind, you probably won't even get through the next paragraph without rage-quitting this article.
Where should we begin? Well...
. . . first, you have to understand what feminism actually is.
Feminism is the belief that women deserve to be treated as equally as men. That's it, and it doesn't get more complicated than that. Anyone that tries to convince you there's more to feminism than one, simple ideology is attaching more weight than is necessary. That is not to say that actually following through on this belief doesn't involve some degree of effort and mindfulness, but everything essentially boils down to this one idea. If someone asks whether you are a feminist, there's no need to meditate on it at length or attach any "but" statements to your qualification. If you believe that women are equal to men, then you are by definition a feminist. It's important to remember that it all boils down to one, simple qualification and...
. . . ignore anything that detracts from it.
There were times when I doubted whether or not I could call myself a feminist. I've had other self-proclaimed feminists tell me that I'm either not a real feminist or at least a horrible one, not because my mindset deviated from the ideological belief that women are equal to men, but because I didn't conform to the very rigid expectations they had attached to the movement.
It took me a long time to realize that feminism is not a club with only a small number of eligible members; the actual movement and advocacy involves a huge amount of people, and like any large movement, there will be an inevitable degree of selfishness from some individuals who warp or twist it to their own selfish agenda. I know a number of people who are nervous to identify as feminists because they don't want to be associated with some of the more militant or aggressive advocates (who they feel represent the movement as a whole). This is incredibly unfortunate, but we must remember that negative representation isn't a feminist tendency - it's a human tendency. Feminism itself is still the simple belief that women are equal to men, and once we unequivocally support that belief, we can ...
. . . understand what people mean by "privilege."
"Privilege" gets thrown around like a dirty word these days; it is and always has been a word associated with negativity and shame. Two decades ago the word was used in reference to people with wealth and money - people who didn't understand what it was like to be middle/lower class. Nowadays, it crops up in terms like "white/male privilege," and it's important to understand what the word means in that context because although it still holds a degree of negativity, being called privileged isn't necessarily bad.
To admit that one is privileged is to make the mindful admission that one has certain benefits within a cultural/societal system wherein one demographic is afforded more advantages than another. I live in Canada, and I am a healthy/straight/white/Christian/male. Each of those self-descriptors inhabits a category of which my affiliation benefits the most, and in that way, I am an incredibly privileged person. I have never been discriminated against because of my sexual orientation, the colour of my skin, my religious preference, or my gender, but I acknowledge there are people that have. I understand that racism, sexism, and ableism exist in my culture and there are individuals who are/will be unfairly discriminated against.
We have to remember that human culture is based on tribalism - congregating among groups of like-minded and similar people for the purpose of survival - an instinct engrained via evolution since we were primates. We have evolved to be cautious around those that are different from us, and when one group greatly outnumbers another in a multicultural society, the predominant "tribe" is afforded preferential treatment simply because they fall in line with what the majority expects. The majority of the population in the west are white-skinned, and thus visible minorities are at a disadvantage, just as the predominant sexual orientation is straight and therefore anything that deviates from that is still met with caution. There are demographics and members of the population who must overcome more challenges than others because of circumstances they have no control over.
In regards to feminism, men need to acknowledge that in almost all areas of life, being male bears no negative consequence; a man will rarely be refused service, be less likely to qualify for a job, or be more likely to be sexually assaulted simply because they are a man. Women, however, live with a host of scenarios and circumstances in which the simple nature of being a woman will influence how they are treated. Broadly speaking, women will statistically make less money than their male co-workers, suffer gender-based harassment on a sometimes daily basis, and astronomically be more likely to be the victim of sexual assault. It is important for men to acknowledge this divide, because...
. . . the most important thing you can do is listen.
Privilege exists in any culture, and its problem is that it limits the experiences a group of people is able to appreciate. In regards to feminism, men will never experience what it is like to be a woman (regardless of how empathetic or sensitive we may feel we are) and thus we will also never encounter the varying degrees of sexism inherent to our culture. We will rarely ever have sexually inappropriate slurs thrown at us on the street by complete strangers; we will rarely have to worry that our qualities will be judged solely on our physical appearance; we will never feel like we are pressured to perform sex acts because we accepted to go on a date; we will never have our credibility questioned for reporting a heinous crime like rape; and we will never have decisions regarding what we choose to do to our bodies (i.e. abortion) institutionally debated by a group of outsiders. Because we will never experience these things, it's easy to be ignorant of their effects. The current cultural status quo unquestionably benefits men over women.
A good analogy is bullying. Imagine two high school students: one is popular while the other is picked on constantly. The popular student has nothing but fond memories of the school, never aware that bullying ever occurs, while the bullied student lives under constant unease and fear. Now imagine the two students meet and the bullied student tries to convince the popular student that bulling is in fact, a massive problem. The popular student can either a) try to dismiss the problem or worse, become violent in hopes of defending their fond memories of the school, or b) listen to what the other student has to say, and accept that the reality of their high school experience might not be the same for everyone.
This is why literally the most important thing a male feminist can do is simply listen. Too often men either deny or turn violent in an effort to discredit and silence women for trying to point out the inequality they face. Anita Sarkeesian, creator of the excellent YouTube channel Feminist Frequency, receives heaps of uninvited vitriol and threats whenever she posts a video or makes a public appearance. All she seeks to do is draw attention to the poor representation of women in video games in a very civil and academic way, while also constantly reassuring her audience that it is still possible to enjoy as well as criticize any form of entertainment (insisting that she still enjoys many of the games she talks about). And yet, she inevitably receives negative reactions from people who at best try to discredit her and at worst threaten to rape or murder her. Rather than take into consideration the thoughtful perspective she presents, a disturbing number of individuals would rather scream in protest in hopes of preserving a system they are already comfortable with, regardless of whether it disproportionately benefits them over others.
If you are a man, the next time a woman presents you with a feminist perspective, I beg you to listen to what they have to say. It's important to listen, and also to understand...
. . . that by doing so, you lose nothing.
It costs nothing to listen but time. It takes little effort to open your ears to what is being said, to take a backseat and accept that someone different from you with different experiences has something to say. Any advice article on relationships undoubtably says the two most important components in a healthy partnership are honesty and communication. The thing about communication is that it has to involve one party talking and one party listening; a discussion quickly becomes an argument when one side talks but refuses to listen.
You don't have to agree with everything being said, you're not required to evaluate your whole life with new information, and you're not expected to give anything up too. It's important to keep that last point in mind, because...
. . . feminists aren't trying to take anything away from men.
All feminists truly want is for women to be treated as equally as men, to have the same opportunities, to be judged the same way, and to not face discrimination simply because of their gender. Detractors of feminism often take a glass half-empty approach instead of understanding the flip side of their arguments. Feminists don't hate men, they love women; feminists aren't trying to steal your job, they're trying to give women access to the same career opportunities as you; feminists aren't trying to steal your paycheque, they just want to be paid equally for their work; feminists don't want you to stop holding doors for women, they just want you to do it because it's the polite thing to do and not because you find someone sexually attractive; feminists want the same female representation in movies, comics, television, and games as men, not because they want to detract from what's currently available, but because they want something that appeals to them too.
If after that you feel like something is taken away from you, then at best you're just being selfish and at worst you're an incorrigible asshole. If you feel so entitled to jobs you think women aren't qualified for or movies with poor female representation, then you've placed your own opinion and comfort ahead of the security and liberty of another group of people. If that's the case, you probably suffer from...
. . . toxic masculinity, and here's what that actually means.
People who genuinely oppose feminism cling to the notion that men and women are inherently different and that each gender must act a certain way. They believe men are big, strong, breadwinners and women are gentle, feminine creatures. This attitude is what is referred to as "toxic masculinity" and insists that each gender must conform to a set of expectations. It tells young boys they have to play sports, that they can't enjoy feminine things or be gay less they be "sissies," and that they need to dominate over women both in physical presence and practical skills.
This notion might seem extreme, but the effect of toxic masculinity permeates in very real ways: it's men who don't dare date stronger or taller women because they can't stand the thought of being the physically weaker partner; it's men insisting that they solely do household chores like woodwork or carpentry, even if their girlfriend is more capable than them; it's boyfriends who end relationships because their girlfriends make more money than them. These are all examples I've encountered personally, and they are all founded on the male insecurity of not living up to a fictional masculine ideal.
The notion of masculinity itself is not inherently harmful, but this rigid expectation of what a man should be is incredibly unhealthy, and it harms men just as much as women. It traps both genders and represses people from pursuing their passions and reaching their true potential. This is why men need to embrace feminism and...
. . . be more mindful, because feminism helps everyone.
The reason feminism exists as a movement is to spread awareness about the inequality women still face - it is an attempt to teach. Being an effective male feminist requires an ability to listen and be mindful of one's own experience as it applies to others.
It's perfectly natural to find women attractive, whether it's a celebrity, a friend, or a stranger on the street, but it's important to remember that they are a whole person not defined solely by their appearance. It's also fine to watch pornography for sexual gratification, so long as you remember that (like all movies) what you're watching is not an accurate representation of reality. And it's fine to ask a girl on a date, so long as you remember that they're free to reject you in the same way you are free to reject someone you're not entirely interested in. Women don't owe men anything, whether it's obedience, affection, or attention.
The golden rule when it comes to navigating what is and isn't appropriate when interacting with women is to ask, "would I do this if they were a man?" If you wouldn't say/do something to a man, you probably shouldn't say/do it to a woman. In summation...
. . . there are three steps to being a good male feminist.
1) Listen: People who take up causes love to make it their own, to assign their own ideals, to co-opt it for their own sense of self-importance. Your job as a man isn't to protect women, it's to be open to a different person's experience and to offer support - to listen.
2) Be Mindful: Awareness goes a long way, whether it's about your own actions or the actions of others. Recognize when the things you enjoy might not benefit or satisfy others in the same way: you can still enjoy movies and video games that misrepresent women, you can still admire a woman's appearance, and you can still laugh at a dirty joke, but acknowledging the problematic elements of these things stops them from becoming an unhealthy, subconscious part of your reality.
3) Encourage Others: The most important thing you can do as a male feminist - the thing that will truly go the farthest in furthering the movement and helping women - is to speak up and correct the problematic behaviour of other men when you see it. When your friend makes an inappropriate comment toward a woman, tell them it's not okay. If you're at a party and you witness a man pressuring a woman into something she doesn't want to do, step in. Confrontation is difficult and it is unquestionably easier to do nothing and remain in a comfortable little bubble, but your comfort may come at a cost to someone else, and being a true male feminist may require you to occasionally get your hands dirty.
That's what I believe it takes to be a proper male feminist. I hope this has maybe helped clear a few things up, and please feel free to share this if you desire.
And before I go...
. . . here are some extra thoughts.
There are a few final comments I couldn't find a space for naturally in this article, so I'd like to mention them here.
The first is that I believe the most heinous circumstance in which women are devalued in society is in the case of rape accusations. The percentage for falsified rape reports is the same as any other crime at 2%, so it's time to stop pretending it doesn't happen and downplay/dismissing instances when it does. One in four women will be sexually assaulted, which means that many of your female friends may be victims. Rape is a crime like any other, yet it is the only one where a victim's credibility is continually brought into question. I believe men must come to the uncomfortable realization that rape and sexual assault are far more prevalent than we think, and that not all rapists are stalkers hiding in dark alleys. The cold hard fact is that some of your friends may be rapists; you may have committed rape without even realizing it. Admitting rape exists is scary, and admitting you may have contributed to the problem is downright terrifying, but consent is simple: if a woman says no, or is unable to say yes, then the instance in question is rape. To continue to degrade and question victims in order to support our comfortable facade is, quite frankly, disgusting.
Second, I didn't touch much on the idea of objectification, wherein women are presented as objects to be consumed by men. Essays and articles have been written to much greater effect than this blog, but what I want to mention is the unhealthy response men often have as a direct result of this "consumption" of the female body.
The outcry that often comes up over public breastfeeding and images of menstrual blood (such as Instagram's recent controversy) make it painfully obvious how objectionable men are to being presented with images of women as something other than a consumable, sexual object. Demanding that women cover up in these natural instances - while aggressively consuming fetishized representations of the female form - is outrageous and selfish.
Finally, many months ago we had a debate in this country over a woman's right to wear the Niqab. The majority viewed the piece of clothing as a representation of women's oppression and campaigned for its ban. This mindset was donned with the best of intentions, under the pre-tense of protecting women. Where this mindset failed was in mindfulness, and in a willingness to understand that truly embracing women's rights might include permitting something we find uncomfortable. We tell women they are free to wear what they want, but when confronted with a woman who genuinely wanted to wear something that made us uncomfortable, we came up with a number of excuses to make it go away.
We insisted we cared more about women, insisted we were better than a culture often associated for restricting what women can and can't do, but our solution was to furthermore try and restrict what women could and couldn't do. We wanted to ban the Niqab because it would make us feel safe, but by trying to cure an ailment we began imitating the disease. If we truly care about women being free, we have to be ready to accept that some women may do things we find uncomfortable. We came dangerously close to being a country that not only culturally shames women for wearing too little clothing, but quite literally make it illegal for them to wear too much.
These extreme situations have been coming up a lot lately. The Niqab debate, Donald Trump's campaign for presidency, Britain's recent vote to exit the European Union - all of these events have torn down a facade and revealed that our civilized cultures are still rooted in sexism, racism, and fear mongering. I hope we can do better, and I pray my recent cynicism will slowly dissipate as time goes on. Certain aspects of human nature will never change; we will always fear what we don't understand, but hopefully with proper education, insight, and mindfulness, we can begin to do better.
Welcome to Luke's Thought Bubble
Wednesday 6 July 2016
Thursday 12 May 2016
Unfair Critical Bias: Dawn of Justice vs Civil War
Dawn of Justice, despite smashing weekend box office records, was unanimously panned by critics (with a 27% score on review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes) and received a mixed audience reaction. Civil War, meanwhile, is receiving near universal praise (90% on Rotten Tomatoes). How could two eerily similar films render such different verdicts? Critics of Dawn of Justice have lambasted it with everything from not staying true to its characters to having a muddled and confusing plot to Zack Snyder just not being a good director. There's a lot of hate for this movie . . . like, a LOT.
But why?
I think it's far more than the "flaws" its critics thrust upon it. I think there's something more psychological at play, because I truly loved Batman v. Superman. I genuinely enjoyed all the elements and thought they worked wonderfully in the movie, including many of the parts other people seemed to hate. And while I also equally enjoyed Civil War, I can't see a difference in quality large enough to account for Batman v. Superman's divisive critical reaction.
In fact, I think poor DC has been working under several major handicaps that many critics and members of the moviegoing audience fail to acknowledge, all of which resulted in a perfect storm of criticism against the film. Let's look at this situation a little more mindfully . . .
**Spoilers for both Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Captain America: Civil War**
1. The Studio Approach: Auteur vs Formula Filmmaking
First and foremost, both Warner Bros and Marvel Studios are taking different approaches to their separate cinematic universes. Grace Randolph, who runs the excellent YouTube channel Beyond the Trailer, labels the different approaches as Auteur vs Formula filmmaking. Warner Bros prides itself on being considered a "filmmaker's" studio, meaning most of the agency regarding their films are in the hands of the director (or "auteur," in film theory lexicon). While there's a continuity that each individual film in their universe plays into, the film's themselves noticeably carry the stamp of their director.
Marvel, meanwhile, has a very formulaic approach to their cinematic universe. They had wild success with Iron Man in 2008 and their approach hasn't differed much a dozen films later in terms of tone and presentation. While some of their directors like Shane Black (Iron Man 3) and James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy) manage to inject a bit of their own personality, each Marvel movie is very distinctly a Marvel film. They have a template and overarching plot which doesn't allow for much creative liberty from their directors.
Each approach has its pros and cons. Auteur filmmaking creates unique pieces of cinema with one creative mind pushing forward, but can also yield a mixed audience response; the more singular the artistic vision, the more divided the audience's reaction will be. Formulaic filmmaking, meanwhile, allows for little deviation from an established template, but the critical and financial response is much more predictable, with films being largely inoffensive while appealing to the broadest possible audience.
If there was a critical flaw with Dawn of Justice, it wasn't with the film itself but rather with Warner Bros' expectations - they assumed they could yield formulaic filmmaking success off an auteur driven spectacle, perhaps because of their prior success with Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Batman v. Superman was marketed as a movie that everyone could go see when it was very much a film for a specific audience due to its interpretation of the characters, its dark tone, and the storytelling challenge it presents to the audience (more on that later). Warner Bros had inflated expectations for a product that was incapable of meeting them with the approach they chose to take.
2. Brand Allegiance and Entitled Criticism Culture
Like it or not, we humans have a terrible track record of being sympathetic toward other groups of people. We divide ourselves into categories based on our race, religion, country . . . and also among entertainment properties, whether it's betamax vs VHS, Apple vs Microsoft, or DC vs Marvel. Check any webpage comment section involving a debate between two properties and you'll see insults of the harshest variety being slung. Once someone commits to a brand, getting them to acknowledge that anything comparatively exists is like pulling teeth.
It doesn't take much for people to commit to a brand either, and like it or not, Marvel was the first to establish a shared cinematic universe. Their films have been successful both financially and critically, and to many they represent what interconnected comic book movies should be. As a result, there are no doubt a large number of moviegoers predisposed to disliking whatever DC's attempts at a cinematic universe might be for the simple reason that they're committed to the conventions and tone that Marvel established first.
We also live in a culture where - thanks largely to the Internet - everyone has an outlet to voice their opinion. Unfortunately, the go-to that people use to ensure their voice is heard is to make their opinion harsher, louder, and more controversial than the rest. I call this phenomenon "Entitled Criticism Culture" because there are many amateur film critics (not to mention several professional ones) who write harsh reviews with an air of unearned authority as if their opinion is the be-all-end-all. As a rule of thumb, I never take any review seriously that shits on a film with the same vernacular one would use to describe the Holocaust or a natural disaster. There were many reviewers that referred to Dawn of Justice as an "abomination" of filmmaking and an "insult" to DC fans, despite a fair number of fans having received it positively. This is not good, responsible criticism - this is being explicitly cruel for the sake of garnering page views.
All of this to say I feel a large chunk of the criticism levelled at Batman v. Superman had nothing to do with the actual quality of the film and more to do with the selfish and biased nature of people in general. And that's not to say people aren't entitled to dislike the film if it genuinely didn't appeal to them; it's just hard to take an opinion seriously when a review strays from subjective statements like "I didn't enjoy the film" to misguided objective statements like "this film is terrible." A critique is a personal opinion, not an omnipotent declaration - confusing the two only undermines your credibility as a reviewer.
3. Zack Snyder, Film Director
Zack Snyder's early films were great successes, in particular his 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead and his 2006 adaption of Frank Miller's 300. Afterward he was entrusted with the monumental task of adapting Alan Moore's groundbreaking graphic novel Watchmen for the big screen, which he did a commendable job at (especially since many considered it an impossible task). And yet this was around the time that public perception of him started to turn. He became pegged as a director that valued style over substance, a monicker which reached its full-blown pitch with 2011's Sucker Punch.
The previews for Sucker Punch promised a wildly stylized action film about a group of young women fighting Nazi zombies, dragons, and killer robots. Almost immediately it was criticized and dismissed as pure exploitation, an unfortunate stigma which stuck well after the film's release. Critics assumed only teenage boys would find any value watching young women prance around being impossibly awesome, yet even that specific audience was deterred when presented with the film's real narrative about a group of young girls forced to struggle under the heel of a sexist patriarchal system. Ironically, the film was dismissed as pure objectification when it in fact carried a very feminist message. Zack Snyder's fatal error was requiring effort on the part of the audience to put that message together.
The themes and metaphors for patriarchy and feminist rebellion in Sucker Punch are not readily apparent or particularly obvious without some critical thought, and if one doesn't look for them then the film can easily be dismissed as pure exploitation. It requires active engagement and mindful analysis on the part of the viewer to truly appreciate, and Dawn of Justice is no different. The motivations and intentions of the characters are largely cerebral and there are a host of thematic parallels that aren't obvious at face-value. We are introduced to a very bitter Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) and left subtle hints to infer what pushed him to the point of moral bankruptcy at the film's start. Meanwhile, the villain's motivations aren't fuelled by revenge or a mad lust for power, but by a philosophical mistrust of anything more powerful than him. These concepts are more existential and require mindful attention and engagement on the audience's part and encourage multiple viewings; Snyder does not spoon-feed viewers, instead assuming an inherent degree of intelligence in their ability to thoughtfully analyze the elements he presents. Again, this was a gamble that Warner Bros took that inevitably wouldn't pay off with a large audience.
I feel because of the almost "hidden" intellectual nature of Snyder's films (a phrase I'm sure many would disagree with) and his obvious talent for stylized action, public opinion of him often sways into the "style over substance" category. His attachment to films brings with it unjustified eye-rolling and a taint which clouds viewers' bias, which is exactly what happened with 2013's Man of Steel when it was first announced he would direct a Superman film - public perception of the movie took a turn for the worst before it even came out.
It's kinda like how everyone used to love Nickelback but now everyone hates them, and yet no one can actually pin-point when or why public opinion suddenly turned.
4. The Pop Culture Handicap
There's a final handicap that DC has been operating under that I'm surprised I haven't seen more acknowledgement of. To understand it, let's dip back into human psychology and try to understand how the weight of expectation can cloud perspective.
Imagine you're meeting someone for the first time. You know literally nothing about them, and then someone tells you the person you're about to meet is an asshole. What happens to your expectation of that person, regardless of whether they're actually an asshole or not? That comment suddenly informs everything you know about that person because you have no other reference point. You'll be cautiously looking for signs of asshole-ishness, even if they appear to be the nicest person in the world.
What does this have to do with Batman v. Superman? Although Marvel was the first to start a shared cinematic universe, Warner Bros had been releasing superhero movies for decades beforehand. Batman and Superman are arguably the most famous superheroes in the world; Batman had seven standalone films before Batman v. Superman, while Superman had five before Man of Steel. Whenever Warner Bros creates a new iteration of a character, they have decades of past expectations and history to overcome. Marvel, meanwhile, had a clean slate with almost all of their characters. Audiences knew almost nothing about Iron Man or Thor, which meant they were establishing expectations for the first time with each of their films. There was no previous bar to hit, unlike with DC and Warner Bros. Every film and casting announcement is inevitably compared to what came before (just look at the response Heath Ledger and Ben Affleck received) while no one could have cared that Robert Downey Jr. was cast as Iron Man because they had no reference for that character or the quality of the film they should expect.
Batman and Superman have a rich history in movies, TV, cartoons, comics, and video games, so much so that it's almost impossible for anyone - not just comic book fans - to not have a set definition of the characters before seeing Dawn of Justice, which leads to unfair and divided expectations. It's why some say the "true" Batman is quirky and colourful because the grew up watching Adam West, while others believe the "true" Batman is dark and gothic because of Tim Burton's 1989 film. Superman is no different, with his character having undergone multiple iterations across several mediums over the past century. Everyone has a preconceived notion of what the "best" version of a Batman/Superman movie is, so a film like Dawn of Justice is either going to satisfy those expectations (which you'll love) or challenge them (which you'll hate). It's why Superman can be criticized for being too perfect and unsympathetic in the comics, then lambasted for being too emotional and brooding in Man of Steel; it's why we can say superhero movies should be more serious like Nolan's trilogy, then criticize them for being joyless like Dawn of Justice.
Warner Bros literally had no way to present a version of their characters or create a film that would satisfy everyone's expectations, which is why they now have a film that a lot of people love and a lot more people hate. This is why the character of Wonder Woman (portrayed by Gal Gadot) is praised even by critics who disliked the film because this is most people's first introduction to the character; there is no previous expectation or popular definition for what a "good" portrayal of her should look like.
In Conclusion . . .
For example:
Both films feature a villain (Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor and Daniel Brühl as Baron Zemo) who seeks to destroy the good guys (Superman and the Avengers) by turning one superhero (Batman and Iron Man) against another (Superman and Captain America). To accomplish this, they both bomb a political venue to divide public opinion against a superhero (Superman and the Winter Soldier) while using parent(s) as the final emotional trump card to instigate a fight between heroes.
And yet, Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was heavily criticized for being unclear with his intentions, despite flat-out saying he wants to destroy Superman because he doesn't believe a being with such power is capable of being as righteous as public perception insists. Baron Zemo, meanwhile, has been called one of the better and more sympathetic Marvel villains despite his motivations being nothing more than a simple revenge trope (his family was killed during the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron). Two villains with equally convoluted agendas, and yet one receives harsher criticism than the other.
Both films also feature a major fight between superheroes, and yet the circumstances in Dawn of Justice has been criticized despite requiring just as much suspension of disbelief as Civil War. In Batman v. Superman, Lex Luthor manipulates Bruce Wayne into trying to kill Superman while pushing Superman into the fight by threatening to kill his mother. The fight ends when Superman - broken and beaten - mentions his mother's name, "Martha," which also happens to be Bruce's deceased mother's name. Bruce has a moment of reflection, reliving the trauma of his parent's murder before realizing how close he's come to being the same sort of monster that destroyed his own life.
The film was criticized for the ease with which Batman and Superman begin fighting without Superman trying to reveal Lex's master plot, and the fight's end has been painfully simplified by many who insist Batman only stops because their mothers share the same name, ignoring the reflection Bruce undergoes to the memory of his parents' death.
Civil War, meanwhile, features a spectacular superhero brawl with almost a dozen characters. It is being heralded by critics as one of the most spectacular fight scenes in superhero history (which it rightfully is) and yet there is almost no mention about how equally unbelievable the circumstances are regarding the fight's beginning and end. The characters have all been teammates for several films and have overcome monumental challenges together, and yet they too are willing to fight one another with little provocation. The fight subsequently ends when War Machine (Don Cheadle) is injured . . . with everyone seemingly astonished that beating the shit out of each might lead to one of them getting seriously hurt.
I am by no means trying to criticize Captain America: Civil War in an attempt to elevate Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. I am simply trying to point out the hypocritical nature by which one film's flaws are highly criticized while another film's similar flaws are praised and/or ignored. Warner Bros had a host of obstacles set before them, and while some of challenges were the result of the filmmaker and the studio, I find it impossible to ignore the unfair and severely harsh criticism it's received as a result. There is too much else at play to dismiss it (as many have) as simply a bad film.
And there are clearly a number of people who love it, like me. In an age when we have so much available to us, I find the rampant degree of entitled criticism disheartening when we should be thankful that we have such a variety of art available about our favourite characters, regardless of whether we personally love the current iteration. But what the fuck, right? It's always been easier for people to criticize than trying to understand the challenges inherent to the creative process.
So suck it, Internet. You can kiss my adorable Dawn of Justice loving ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)