Wallace Keefe Tumblr General Zod Funny
Trauma and the Dark Knight By M.Schinke
Breathe it in, OpinionNerds!
One of the things I love most about the lifespan of movies is the ability to revisit a work, even one you're quite familiar with, and refine an analysis. A good piece of art is never done, even after it's released to the world, because it continues to live and grow in the hearts and minds of the people it affects. Zack Snyder's 2016 superhero tragedy Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a piece that seems to keep bouncing around in the minds and souls of people even if, maybe even especially if, they claim they don't like it. I have written several pieces examining different aspects of the film since I started this blog (in fact a BvS piece was my very first published work in this space) and I never seem to get tired of discussing the film because it never seems to stop generating new ideas and new avenues of examination; most especially because the people who don't like it just can't seem to shut up about it!
One constant source of consternation among the films critics is the curious behavior of one Bruce Wayne, AKA The Batman. The film places the Dark Knight Detective on a path that, if left unchecked, will lead to the cold blooded murder of Superman at his own hands. During the course of this film, Bruce will take the lives of some of Gotham's less reputable visitors, in ways and for reasons that many consider questionable. The conundrum at the root of all of this is; why? What is it that would lead a character many consider at least the second most important superhero ever created down such a dark path? And was this merely the result of a callous and cruel filmmaker that simply wants to see our heroes laid low? There are a number of pieces of information that support different avenues of thought but, from what I can gather after the last couple of years, people seem to want to boil it down to a single defining event – what was, "the thing" that happened that put Batman on this path? The funny thing is; I do believe there is a single, "thing" that led to this, but I don't believe anyone is looking in the right place for it. I've made some Twitter threads about this in the past but I think it's time I put all this down for posterior and try my best to offer up an answer to the question; what the fuck happened to Batman?
So standard type disclaimer; this is all a matter of my own interpretation, my own process. I plan to draw solely on material that is present in the film in some capacity – so no comics or novelizations, web theories or extended material of any kind. If it's not on screen, it doesn't count; so I can't use it. However I will be using some real world information to support the analysis. And again, since this is just my interpretation – I reserve the right to be wrong.
Cruel Intentions
So before we get into an examination of what the potential reason for Batman's turn is we should begin by taking a look at what I'm reasonably sure it isn't. For a long time I agreed with the many who said that the point of Batman's acts is that he is operating against his code, and that the movie specifically takes him to task for this. I wanted to believe that, but I wanted so because it made me feel better about the character in the film, and not because of anything the movie presents. While it is true the specific circumstances of this film are the reason for these actions, the cold hard fact is that the movie does not present the character as having any such code anywhere within the storytelling, and despite what many of us have said, the movie never challenges him on his actions. The audience can be horrified at what he does, the audience can question the nature and validity of his actions, but the storytelling doesn't do this. It doesn't present Batman's actions, outside of his plan to murder Superman, as being specifically right or wrong; they simply exist. But the movie does inform us that these mortal acts are likely not his go-to maneuver, and seeing this starts with pointing out that if Batman in this film were truly a murderer in the style of The Punisher, there wouldn't be a soul left standing in the wake of his escapades. There was no reason to keep the branded criminal alive after learning what he knows, or not to simply blow away all the mercs at the port and take the Kryptonite off of their smoldering corpses. This is the danger of rampant hyperbole in public discourse, the risk that after being reiterated so many times the hyperbole becomes, "the truth", even when it flies in the face of facts. Batman may kill in this movie but it is not without motivation, and it is not without a greater context to consider. While the movie may be challenging us with the events, within the universe of the film it's not being treated as an issue that Bruce has to account for. That may have been a thing that was planned for a later film, but for now you must acknowledge that his acts are on display only for us to contemplate.
What people say they wanted in a Batman solo film before BvS I can almost guarantee they would not have gotten. The point of making Batman older than expected in this film is to support the storytelling concerning the number of years he's been on the job. You can show Batman dealing with a previous case, a truly difficult case even, but that won't give anyone the answer they want; not sincerely, in my opinion. What happened to Batman is the result of the cumulative effect of being out there for so long. It means there isn't one story that will lead you to where he is in BvS, because all his stories lead him there. His lack of faith in people, the reason he himself states as driving his actions against Superman, is not reiterated when Alfred later presses him on the issue, and he opts instead to tell a story about his father and to mention how he feels his war has been meaningless. Indeed, this lack of faith in people is likely a result of the base issue I will present. Clearly, Bruce's challenges in the movie are a complex web of different factors that contribute to his attitude in general, but they cannot be the reason why he acts specifically as he does in this film. I say that because one would have to ask; if Superman had never appeared, how would any of these factors change? None of the things that have happened to him up to that point in his life would have been any different. So while these elements of storytelling can be seen as contributory, they themselves are not the heart of why the Caped Crusader acts as he does.
So, we're starting to drill into the issue – an event that sparks a significant change in the characters status quo and causes an alteration in the behavior we expect. If you were to point to the Black Zero Event and the fight between Superman and Zod that concluded Man of Steel, then I would say you are halfway there. Many people will, in my opinion, correctly point to this as the, "what happened" as it's pretty obvious the effect this has on our man Wayne. But where I think people skew off course is the why;why does this event effect Bruce the way it does? Of course there is an understandable level of anger involved with a destructive event on this scale. We see this event have a radical effect on Wallace Keefe, the man that would go on to unwittingly bomb the Capital Building. But even the death of the man called Jack, someone obviously important to Bruce, isn't mentioned again later in the movie – so how can that be something that specifically drives him? The world obviously knows the truth of the event, and who was and was not to blame and for what. Bruce himself, even while admonishing Superman as a potential threat, admits that he had been nothing but helpful to the world in the time since his appearance. And while Bruce does have a point that this alien could go all bug-shit at a moments notice and set the whole world ablaze with his fiery blue eyes, a decision to make it a personal mission to murder him in cold blood with, basically, his own two hands seems like a rather extreme step to take even out of hatred; an emotion which Bruce himself never expresses.
Now I want you to make note of something. I said hatred isn't something that Bruce expresses. Not just states, or mentions; but expresses. There are a lot of different ways a person can express an emotion. And in storytelling, especially on film, there are even more. This will be important as we move forward.
So now we funnel down further on the issue, past ideas of hatred, past the Black Zero Event and the fallen Wayne Financial building, past the death of Jack and down into what I believe is the real, singular event that set Bruce off in this story. What I believe it to be is the same event that created Batman in the first place; the murder of his parents. I believe that's why it's in the movie, placed right at the beginning, even beyond setting up the Martha device for the films later storytelling. Many critics and people who still claim not to understand the character in the film see this merely as Snyder using the opportunity to put his spin on the Wayne murder; as many storytellers would. But I truly believe that these scenes are in the movie where they are for more reasons than director Snyder just wanting to see Thomas and Martha die. This flashback could have been placed later in the film, but a choice was made to put it right at the head of the movie, and that choice is the foundation of the films storytelling. No matter which way you choose to evaluate it, Bruce's creation of Batman is a response to this event, and everything he does to serve a function as Batman is also a response to this event. This trauma is the singular defining moment in his life, and the reason for it to be so is because of how deep childhood trauma runs. I believe the juxtaposition of this scene against the retelling of the Black Zero Event is meant to draw an explicit connection between the two, making the BZE an extension of the murder of his parents in his mind and drawing them into a single circle of events.
Childhood Trauma and PTSD
To understand why this is important you have to get right down to the root of what created Batman. It isn't just the fact of the death of his parents, it's that it happened right in front of him. It was a traumatic event, and in turn its that trauma that created Batman. I know that's something every Bat-fan says, and it's really easy to toss it out there and not think about, but its important to put that into context with the approach the movie takes to bringing these characters into something that resembles our, "real world". Trauma has lasting effects on a person, and it's even more intense for a child. Childhood trauma can, "rewire" the survivors brain into a state of constant anxiety. They feel ceaseless fear and anticipation of danger ( Childhood Trauma Leads To Brains Wired For Fear – SideEffectsPublicMedia.org Feb 3, 2015 ). This can lead to a whole host of issues including depression, obsessional thinking, problems with intimacy, sleep disturbance, aggression, risk taking behavior, etc. ( Recognizing the Impact of Childhood Trauma, Megan Bronson Phoenix -Society.org, 2004 ) I don't think it takes much to see how this describes Bruce Wayne. While therapy can help mitigate the symptoms, you can't repair the root cause, and it never goes away. The recurring effects of this are known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD), and it's another issue many of us think we understand but clearly do not. By far the most damaging and long lasting effect of trauma is fear. As the Phoenix-Society article states:
Recognizing fear and its roots in trauma:
It is the trapped fear that is at the root of post traumatic stress symptoms (see accompanying handouts). Common fears of children after trauma are described by Lenore Terr, MD in Too Scared to Cry: How Trauma Effects Children and Ultimately Us All.
These common post trauma fears are:
- Fear of another more frightening event
- Fear of separation
- Fear of death
- Fear of helplessness
- The mirror image of extreme rage is extreme passivity—both are fear based
It is often unresolved fear that unconsciously drives a trauma survivor's life and the resolution of fear is therefore essential to recovery and healing.
Classically, Bruce Wayne never sought treatment for his trauma. Instead he created the idea of Batman, a powerful force that he could use to mask his fear and turn it into something useful; a place to put all the anger and rage of his trauma. And for a long time, it worked for him.
Until it didn't.
This is, I believe, the reason why the Wayne's murder and the BZE are placed side by side – because in order to understand the BZE's effect on Bruce you have to understand what happened to create him to begin with. We have become so used to casually throwing around the term, "triggered" as a joke or an insult that we have diluted the true meaning to a callous, and dangerous, degree. According to the Wikipedia article on Trauma Triggers:
Atrauma trigger is a psychological stimulus that prompts recall of a previous traumatic experience. The stimulus itself need not be frightening or traumatic and may be only indirectly or superficially reminiscent of an earlier traumatic incident, such as a scent or a piece of clothing. Triggers can be subtle and difficult to anticipate. A trauma trigger may also be called atrauma stimulus, atrauma stressor or atrauma reminder. The process of connecting a traumatic experience to a trauma trigger is calledtraumatic coupling.
The BZE is a trigger event for Bruce – it reconnects him to the original trauma of his parents death. I find it interesting, beyond the practical reasons, that we see Bruce Wayne dealing with the BZE; and not Batman. As Batman is the construct he uses to protect him, as well as control and focus his fear, entering into this situation without that armor makes him more vulnerable to the effects of a trauma trigger. More interesting is the effect this has in regards to the movies plot, as Bruce has now connected the trauma of his parents death with Superman, creating a link that allows him to turn Superman into a tangible focus for his fear and feelings of helplessness. To simplify, Bruce has transposed his his initial trauma onto Superman and is using him as something he can fight, the idea being that if he can destroy Superman, he can get back what he lost when his parents were murdered – his agency; his feeling of power. Either that or it will kill him; an issue Alfred points out about which he seems not to care. Everything that Bruce does, all his actions and plans in this movie, everything he's experienced in his life up to that point all combine to create one simple condition;
Batman, in one form or another, for one reason or another, is afraid of Superman.
Acting Out
I know this is something that people might have a hard time believing because at no point does Bruce ever say he's afraid of Superman. But remember what I said above; there are a lot of ways that a person can express an emotion beyond words, and there are several cues in the film that illustrate this point, even if Bruce himself doesn't openly acknowledge it.
Even though they were an element of the movie that was maligned by critics, the dreams that Bruce has are extremely important bits of storytelling that allow us to see how Bruce feels and what he's thinking in ways that are much more interesting, in my opinion, than simply watching him talk about them. So trying to come to an understanding of what's in those dreams becomes necessary to make a full and proper evaluation of the character. The first thing we have to examine is the content of Bruce's dream of his parents death, and the metaphorical depiction thereof. As a dream this is not necessarily a, "documentary" retelling of either the night his parents died or their funeral; and the funeral is the part I want to concentrate on because this is the most important of these visual metaphors. What we see of the funeral is, instead of being there to lay his parents to rest, Bruce runs away before, metaphorically, falling into becoming Batman. One analysis of this could say that Bruce created Batman as a way to avoid truly reconciling with his parents death, and this leaves him psychologically and emotionally vulnerable because as he says, the idea that becoming Batman would save him from his trauma was all, "A beautiful lie".
Now, let's examine the contents of Bruce's nightmares. The first we see is Bruce in his parents crypt, the place he avoided in the opening A Beautiful Lie dream. As Bruce enters the crypt we pan across the back of his head to reveal a portrait; a blue and red clad angel floating above a city in flames. We see this before we are shown the giant bat monster bursting from his mothers burial marker and attacking him as he appears overtly terrified. This, in my opinion, clearly links his fear of Superman to his parents death. The second Knightmare, though it has a place in the larger storytelling of the aborted series of films, centers around a Superman who has helped enslave the world and eventually murders Bruce by tearing out his heart. Superman's entire appearance in the scene is treated with a high degree of menace as he stalks towards Bruce, incinerating his compatriots with nary a thought. Even without the greater storytelling at play this is communicative of Bruce's feelings towards Superman. He sees himself powerless before him, even the image of Batman he's used to protect himself is stripped away. In a dream you can usually fight something you hate. To be powerless and destroyed in your own mind is the result of fear.
Bruce's response to Clark's questions at Luthors party also reveal this fear response the same way his famed 1% statement to Alfred does. These responses are not based on evidence or observation. They stem from an extreme possibility not based on a logical assessment. The 1% statement in specific, the idea that, "if there is even a small chance they might kill us we have to assume they will, so we have to kill them first" is a fear based reasoning. It's a terrible way of thinking precisely because it's an extreme emotional evaluation, and not a logical one. In its original form, when former US vice president Dick Cheyney used it to drum up support for the war in Iraq, it was intended to generate fear in a populace already shaken by the traumatic events of 9/11. It was designed as a trigger to motivate an entire country to act terribly, and you can argue that it was successful. In the film, this perception is the response to the trigger event of Superman's appearance and the destruction that followed. Added to this are several reaction shots throughout the film (the push in to the tight close up just before he hits Superman with the Batmobile is a good example) that, with this evaluation in mind, illustrate an emotional response to Superman beyond hatred or a logical evaluation of potential threat, and I believe it becomes easy to see this thread pulled through Bruce's actions.
While this fear response should be easy to connect with Superman, it is a fair question to ask how it informs the other deaths Batman causes in the film. How does this post traumatic response play into that? I could go deeply into each situation and outline the specific conditions but that isn't the point; all of Batman's actions and choices in the film are being fueled by this ongoing fear response. He's reckless and aggressive because he is not in his right mind, if there is such a thing for Batman. This is what is meant when the movie tells us, "there is a new kind of mean" in him or that he has become, "cruel". Batman's defining trait is not that he doesn't murder his enemies; that's a choice he's made in how to behave. His defining trait is that he's been able to channel the effects of his trauma into something he can use to fight back against that fear and turn it into something, "good". That thing is Batman. No matter how you look at the character, Batman, and the rules and codes that define it, is his mechanism for coping with the effects of his trauma, his way of, "doing something" about it. This movie is specifically set during a period of time when that mechanism, after two decades of repeated physical, emotional and psychological trauma, compounded by the camels back breaking straw of the BZE – has finally broken down and no longer functions to protect him. If he knows the Kryptonite is the only way to kill Superman, and in his mind this is something that he absolutely must do, then it stands to reason that while dispatching a minigun firing mercenary might not be what we want to see from Batman, it is an understandable response. The same goes for the mercs blown away outside the warehouse where Martha is being held (more anti-aircraft fire and not a lot of time to find a different way to deal with them) as well as his extremely violent method of taking on the mercs inside the warehouse. Despite what so many critics have claimed, at no point does the movie ever showcase Batman's actions as heroic or good, nor does it glorify or praise him for the deaths he is a part of. They may be thrilling to watch, but neither the photography or music are creating a, "heroic moment" for them. It's true the movie doesn't vilify him for these acts, but the absence of one response does not prove the existence of the other. At no point is the movie asking you to praise Batman's actions; it isn't even asking you to agree with them. The only thing the movie is asking is that you understand them from that characters point of view. That's what empathy is. It's not condoning the actions or behaviors of another, it's putting yourself in their place and understanding why they would make the choices they make.
This is also, in my analysis, why the Martha Moment works and is likely the only thing that ties the character together properly. I want to point out that the Martha Moment is ONLY about Batman. That moment has no real bearing on Superman as a character other than to be another example of his selflessness. So if you agree; we have a Batman driven by a fear of Superman that he's created by transposing his initial trauma, the death of his parents, and his unresolved feelings about it, onto him. The confrontation between he and Superman is highly emotionally charged and extremely stressful, the perfect conditions for a trauma trigger; which it should be obvious to anyone that the Martha Moment is. But the big question is; why does that make him stop in that moment instead of following through and killing Superman, and what makes his attack on Superman different from the other deaths in the film? The reason this attack is different is because this death would have been intentional. This would have been thought out, planned. It would have been cold blooded murder. He tortured Superman, beat him, humiliated him. Most importantly; he wanted him to be afraid.
When Batman hits Superman with the Kryptonite gas his lines are, "Breathe it in. That's fear. Your're not brave. Men are brave". To be brave is to face an unpleasant condition without showing fear. It's extremely important to note that in this situation, where Batman could be talking about Superman's threat, or the losses in Metropolis or any number of other things, he is spending his time trying to induce a state of fear. Even after he has Superman beaten he doesn't talk about all the justifications he's posed earlier in the movie, instead choosing to talk about his parents and their death; an issue that has no practical bearing on his conflict with Superman but is clearly on his mind at the moment he has Superman at his mercy. This is something people suffering from trauma can unfortunately do – they try to recover the feeling of power they've lost to fear by making others feel that fear instead. The mention of his mothers name in this highly charged situation is a trigger, making him relive the unresolved trauma of his parents death, which is why we see the flashbacks. And in that moment, looking down on Superman laying broken, beaten and afraid at his feet, Batman has a realization; Superman is not what he is afraid of. Once he makes that realization he ceases his attack – but this does not mean he has suddenly resolved his trauma and is not still suffering. This is just a first step to getting back to some kind of stable ground for him, but a true resolution of this trauma would likely mean the end of Batman.
Upon further examination it seems that even Superman isn't immune to the effects of trauma, as he reveals to the specter of Johnathan Kent that he's been having nightmares since the explosion at the Capital Building. I have a bit of conjecture that leads me to thinking that when he tells Bruce he was, "wrong" just before the Big Fight that this is what he was referring to – that he understands what Bruce is suffering and why he acts as he does. I think this is in reference to material that didn't make the final cut and its one of my biggest gripes with the film.
Bring It Back To Me
The main accusation leveled against the director is that he doesn't understand, or even hates, superheros because these depictions of Batman and Superman do not act, "heroically" by their definition. To them I would say this makes perfect sense, as BvS isn't a movie about superheros or villains. It's not about good guys and bad guys, right or wrong or even about acts of heroism. Its about characters dealing with a situation, and that situation has nothing to do with any notions of, "heroism" as they have defined it. I feel this is the bridge to far to cross for some people because they cannot transcend their image of these characters as, "superheros" and just see them as people like we are. Placing these characters in a, "real" world, and dealing with the consequences of what that implies, is more than just saying, "If Batman hits someone hard enough and long enough he'd probably kill them". It's not just about the effect the characters have on the world, but about the effect the world has on them in return. Like soldiers, or policemen, or firefighters, or doctors, the effects of repeated exposure to traumatic situations is going to create fallout for anyone who operates as these characters do. Part of the fantasy of superheros is that they can suffer these repeated exposures with no long term repercussions to their mental or emotional health, something that is just now being addressed in the DC universe with the Heroes In Crisis miniseries.
One constant comment that I see thrown around is not just that superheros are role models, but that the are indeed better than us;especially characters like Superman and Batman. Role models provide an example of behavior by illustrating the effects of choices, good and bad, and helping us to understand the difficulty in knowing the difference. But if superheroes are, "just" better than us, if they don't suffer from the effects of the choices they make in the lives they lead, then the choice they make to keep acting as they do is weightless. These characters aren't heroic because they don't feel the effects of these repeated traumas. They are heroic because they do feel them but continue to act anyway. The fact that they can sometimes succumb to the terrible effects of these repeated traumas doesn't make them any less heroic; but it does make them more human. At least, in my opinion.
The interpretation of Batman as a character born from trauma, driven by trauma and sustained by trauma has endured since the 1970's when Denny O'Neil took over the character and tried to inject a measure of real world psychology into what had been treated as a purely escapist depiction for a few decades. But O'Neil did not invent these elements, he merely extrapolated from what had always been present in the characters make up. What director Snyder, screenwriter Chris Terrio and actor Ben Affleck did was to take that a step further in accordance with the initiative to place these characters into a storytelling world that functions on rules that resemble our own. There is an opinion by critics that to remove this much of the fantasy from the characters world is to destroy something fundamental about them. It robs them of the whimsical joy and simple fun that has made them a staple of birthday balloons and bags of fruit snacks and blow up parade characters. In this they are not wrong; and that's the point. Before these superheros became Saturday morning cartoon sprites or action figures they were characters, and characters exist to tell stories. I believe people are upset because Man of Steel and Batman v Superman don't glorify the characters. But those films don't exist to make the characters looks good; they exist to tell stories that the filmmakers believe are meaningful. Sometimes stories aren't pleasant, and sometimes they aren't fun; but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be told. This may not be some thing appropriate for kids, but I think it should be pretty clear to anyone that this movie was not intended for kids. And as an adult, if all one is interested in is material that makes the characters look good to support their fandom, I would ask them to take a step back and examine why that is because I believe there is something in there in need of exploration.
Bruce Wayne is a trauma survivor; that is consistent across all iterations of the character. How deeply one wants to lean into that aspect of the character is an artistic choice. With Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the filmmakers went all in and made that aspect of the character prominent in the storytelling; just not in the way that most people would expect. Their only mistake in this was in not taking a more direct approach and announcing it. I have come to understand why fans of these characters as superheros have such a difficult time with the movie, but I think those that value them as characters fare much better in evaluating what's happening with them, whether they enjoy it or not. Maybe I am thinking too deeply, and maybe I'm looking to hard, but I honestly believe that when approaching the character from an adult perspective this is how a writer would need to look at Batman if they are going to write the character with any level of sincerity.
In the past I have accused Batman of being crazy. I've joked about it and used it as a punchline just like so mane have. But that is an absolutely brain dead way to look at the character, and I have to own up to that. Bruce Wayne is a survivor, and the fact that he has chosen to take that and constantly throw himself directly in front of triggering conditions to do something good makes him a hero. But even hero's can succumb to trauma, and this movie shows that even though you might stumble you can get back up and find your way again. Surviving a trauma is a hard thing to do; living with it even more so. But if you can do it, if you can pull yourself back together and make something good with the shit hand life has dealt you, that's more than super. That's heroic.
Clever endings aren't my bag.
Laterz
If you or anyone you know is having trouble coping with trauma there are people who can help. Please visit PTSDAlliance.Org for more information.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is available on UHD Blu-ray at Amazon
Follow *NotThePopularOpinion on Twitter @Only_Grey or on Facebook@NotThePopularOpinion
Source: https://notthepopularopinion.wordpress.com/2019/03/31/dont-look-back-batman-v-superman-the-fear-that-drives-us/
0 Response to "Wallace Keefe Tumblr General Zod Funny"
Post a Comment