Read on Twitter
I understand the appearance of hypocrisay in this; I do. On the surface it seems that people are saying that all the DC films should be made with the Snyder/Ayer approach regardless of what other directors may want to do. This is being called a violation of creative freedom.
But as always there is another side to this that should be taken into context. With MoS and BvS Snyder established an approach that was more than just a series of aesthetic choices. Initially followed by Ayers the approach was a more solidly dramatic perspective on storytelling.
Placing the characters into a world much closer to ours and making all aspects of the characters conform to the boundaries of that world. This includes their psychological makeups, emotional reactions, limits on abilities and the way they relate to the world.
At the time it was a highly contradictory approach to making films with these characters; to either jettison the high fantasy aspects or make them conform to a radically limited set of constraints. This seemed like an auteur choice at the time.
MoS and BvS, and the first look at SS, felt like films made by those filmmakers. It had the feel of their perspective on not just what the films looked like, but of the total philosophy of making those films. Some people really love them; and I am one of those people, I wont lie.
But for whatever reason between audiences, critics and the studio, there seemed to be a loss of faith in the auteur approach. Films got stalled. Filmmakers began walking away from projects and behind the scenes everything began to seem like it was falling apart.
By this time we had all become familiar with the so called, “Marvel Formula”. In truth, the Marvel formula is more or less the same approach to blockbuster filmmaking that we’ve had for decades. Regardless of rating or story, its a combination of action and comedy.
Sure you can add drama and character, but the main thrust of the movies is on action and comedy. Thrill people, make them laugh, rinse and repeat. The MCU hit the ground running with this in Iron Man but lost it a bit with the next few.
By the time of The Avengers, by which Disney had finally started putting their name on the films, they had gotten mostly back to that formula. We all knew it, most of us loved it. But more importantly; it puts asses in seats. And that puts money in the bank.
So the DC films hit a bit of a rough patch, just like the first few MCU films did after Iron Man. Suddenly, after the very dramatic first look footage, SS starts to look a little lighter, a little funnier. It loses some of its edge and some of its verisimilitude.
Then Wonder Woman hits. It has a lot of emphasis on drama, but it also begins to emphasize some pretty up front humor. And it loses some of the edge of realism. Not of the world necessarily, but in the characters.
They heroes all start to become very, “likeable”. The villains lose complication and start to get a bit broad. Diana herself is a bit broad, a bit more idealistic and overtly, “heroic”. And even though the film initially presents this as a challenge, that never really crystalizes
Then JL hits, and there is a TOTAL reversal of approach. The verisimilitude is all but completely destroyed. There is an OVERT approach to humor where characters openly attempt to be, “funny”. Everything feels simplified. It approaches being cartoonish in a very blatant way.
Then we get Aquaman, SHAZAM! and Birds of Prey' all pretty blatant action comedies. Five films, in a row, that eschew the original approach and all follow the same blockbuster principle; emphasize humor and action. And with the exception of BoP, make sure they feel safe.
This, I believe, is what some people are seeing. Five films all falling into roughly the same storytelling sandbox and following a set of operating principles; draw a clear line between the heroes and villains, keep the violence from being too real,
make the heroes overtly likeable and keep it light with humor and fast action. To many, these do not feel like movies made from a specific filmmakers perspective. To them they feel like tightly controlled products.
The filmmakers undoubtedly have some say over the elements of storytelling, but it seems like thinking inside someone elses box. BoP got to push the content a bit more, but even that doesn't feel like an auteur project. Cathy Yan may have started with a very specific perspective
but the final film doesn't feel like a unique artistic product. Neither does SHAZAM, Aquaman or JL - at least not to those who criticize them the way they do. It's not that they are, “bad movies”. With the exception of JL which is a badly MADE film; hey aren’t.
But they don’t, "feel" unique. They don't, “feel" as if they are driven by a filmmakers perspective on the material. They, "feel" compromised. Obviously a lot of people like that, even people who REALLY like Snyders and Ayers films. But five films later, and we don't have another
movie that, “feels" like BvS. We don't have another film that feels like that sharp deviation from what we consider, "the norm”. We don't have something that feels like an auteur film. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? How the hell should I know. I just see what I think, “is”.
So when you say, “these films don't all need to be like Snycers" keep in mind that, so far, the only ones that even approach that ARE Snyders. People keep telling others to hold out for a possible future where we get that deviation again, where we get that departure from the norm
But for now the only thing that looks to deliver that is Zack Snyders Justice League - a film that was originally picked apart and recycled to MAKE it more conventional. To many this doesn't look like creative freedom.
What it looks like is a group of directors being allowed to to choose how they want to color the same picture, just as long as the use the crayons from the box they're given.
That's just my observation. That’s just how I see it; right or wrong.
That's just my observation. That’s just how I see it; right or wrong.
