Zack Snyder's Justice League

Zack Snyder's Justice League ★★★★½

one of the arguments which i find quite maddening because it is so demonstrably falsifiable yet repeated nonetheless quite often by parties to whom it is extremely useful is is that conservative art is rejected by non-conservatives because of its politics and not due to its formal or idiosyncratic characteristics. zack snyder is an obvious counter-example but far from the only one. christopher nolan and clint eastwood make explicitly conservative art which is valued by a wide variety of audiences for a lot of reasons, but one reason i would argue, is the clear articulation of right-wing philosophies that seek and find mass acceptance among significant segments of the movie-watching populace. i think this is a good thing and i believe in consuming art which is made by people you disagree with, who may even hold views which you yourself find abhorrent, if meaning and value can be found in that art, through either direct or adversarial means. i do not advise that people sacrifice themselves upon the altars of art which would hurt them, especially without cause. i believe in dialogue. i believe we live in a society. zack snyder is an interesting director when he is adapting Frank Miller in 00's green-screen weightless carnage reflecting a hollow siege-driven totalitarian homogenity, but he is way more interesting when reading nominally left-identified comic authors like alan moore and jack kirby against what might seem like natural grain. taken collectively, zack snyder's superman trilogy is an exploration of the limits of power from an objectivist framework under which potentiation of an individual's capacity to manifest who and what they are upon the greatest scale according to their own need and desire is the greatest good and if allowed to flourish the liberated wills of all may conflict but shall more often resolve in harmonious if temporary collaboration of realized shared common interests. there is an implicit and explicit critique of totalitarianism from this standpoint. it is reprehensible to consider an imposed order which would necessarily limit the potentiation of individuals, for whatever reason. so a social order which required everyone to be the same in order to be compliant subjects is obviously tyrannical but what of the individual who has achieved a manifestation of self that is indistinguishable from godhood? how can we tell if they are a tyrant or not? what indeed is the difference between a tyrant and a god? should we then attempt to limit the potentiation of others so as to avoid the possibility of godhood? this question is posed and this question is not simply wrestled with, but answered. the difference between a god and a tyrant is that a god's will magnifies and strengthens the wills of others. a tyrant must dominate or absorb another's will, any other's will: the wills of others must be neutralized or must be a mirror of the tyrant's will. when worshippers desire for their wills to be in harmony with that of their deities, they are not asking for this to be imposed from without so much as of their own becoming in harmony and sympathy with that of their god, who loves and understands them. justice league is a movie about perservering in the face of loss, of unutterable grief. when you have lost something you can't lose, that you can't go on without, yet you go on, and the world goes on, first one day, then the night that follows that day, then another day that is like that day that just happened but a little different, people can adapt to anything, the death of a loved one, the death of a family member, the death of a world, the death of a god, if you give them enough time and enough distance and enough stability in other areas of their lives, people can and will adapt. they will form themselves again around this loss, around this grief, becoming different, becoming strange even to themselves, until that is normal, until it is no longer strange. in this, there is a recognizable obscenity, a faint if continual horror: this universe should not be, it should not be, not like this, not without you, yet it is, and it continues to be, and us along with it, and what is left of the rest of us, the us that isn't us, the us that drops through the floor of nonbeing, the us that have to be called to without hope of answer, or maybe on those nights when the veil is most thin, or in our dreams, or in our memories. we shouldn't be allowed to go on without you because who are we after all if you are not there to see it, not there to behold it, not there to hold it close? who could we be, then? who are we now? who do we continue to be as we drift day into night into day? batman is less grumpy and more like some billionaire defense contractor who just discovered jesus and bought a minivan to take his whole prayer circle along with him to brunch after church to really break down the core insights from the sermon and have extra bacon on his make-it-yourself brunchfast sandwich bc ofc batman goes to the most expensive all-u-can-eat buffet in gotham??? i love this movie because it is ultimately composed of an interlocking series of personal chamber dramas which form into one parable about how sometimes it is better to work as a team as long as circumstances really demand it and you know some super-rich dude who is totally gonna pay for brunch so you might as well although it is kind of early this better not end up being some kind of infomercial thing where i have to pretend to be interested in learning how to flip distressed timeshares over mimosas like last time because f that i will be out of there so fast once i finish my croque de monsieur!!! like it is just as dumb and gen-x saturday morning fan-servicey as it needs to be which ofc is a lot??? which idk good for it!!! i think it should have really pushed the envelope though!!! release the #supersnydercut!!! its got to exist right??? ok is it weird/not-weird if god is ur bff but u also have to be ready to kill him at all times in case he u know, flips out??? but then u gotta also be ready to like, uh, unkill him??? as many times as necessary??? that has got to be a lot, dude!!! no wonder u seem so stressed??? but like, what good is having a bff if they can't kill u, right? bc if u go all rogue and r like 'dude, dude, so sorry i'm gonna like kill u all!!!' and they r like 'so sorry dude, no way can i let u kill everyone that is no good dude! no way!' and u r like 'so sorry dude but yes way gotta do it gotta kill everyone u know for like amway and shit' and like dude, that is like heavy, like way way heavy. if u don't wanna think about how heavy that is u can think about why would superman need a spaceship with fists that could punch things? there are good reasons. most of them involve kryptonite? but what are the other reasons? i was sorry krypto the super dog was not in this movie. maybe in the #supersnydercut krypto gets to fly around during the credit sequence intermission? that would be rad!!! i have lots of great ideas!!! y'all should hmu for Justice League 2 cause that's totally gonna happen right hbomax??? i can picture the skullotron thing rising from the everglades now!!!! its gonna rock so hard!!! but it needs to be longer, like a lot longer? this movie was pretty dumb but it wasn't quite dumb enough. it needed more dumb shit to happen, so either the #supersnydercut happens or u can call me for my notes regarding the sequel? i like to think though that we already got the sequel? which rocks just as much i guess? at what point does fascism in art become fascism in everyday life? what determines the outcome of opposition? is it strength alone? is what is just to be determined by who can make it so? do we value free access to information? do we see each other as people or as obstacles/instruments to the achievement of our becoming, of our will? or do we allow the uncoerced becoming of others nurture and strengthen and amplify our own? do we let our fear of another's power destroy our capacity to become ourselves through or in spite of that power? to what extent is adversarial relation necessary for self-knowledge? to what extent will an adversarial relation harm without enlightenment? to what extent will an adversary impose their will as an order contrary to your own desire? if i was god, like not a god, but like, god-god, i wouldn't want to have any commandments because i shy away from the proscriptive, but i would ask you why for the love of me, why any of you would want to be cops, any sort of cops, cops with capes, cops with badges, cops online, cops at home, cops at school, cops for gods, cops against gods, you fail at every turn to police yourselves yet you are all hot so quick to police each other myths and stories and coproganda must be generated to shore up the desire to dominate, punish and control the behavior of others, using violence if necessary, with any set of ready excuses, none of which survive careful examination. what does it mean to be as gods? would you rather worship a god or be a god or be a god and worship a god or gods or worship nothing or do you desire worship to feel more real to become more powerful to find those willing to mirror your will to carry out your desires or face your disappointment, face your wrath? what would it mean to live as if your god was alive on earth now? what would it mean to live as if you were god alive on this earth now? would it change how you treated others? would being god alive on this earth change how you would want to be treated by others? would knowing that god was alive on earth change how you felt about this world? would it change how you felt about others? about what it means to be a being among others? would you seek to worship that god? would you seek to limit the power and influence of that god? would you curry favor? would you look out for other options? a variation on pascal's wager just for fun: assume god is alive on earth right now. assume god can read your thoughts and know your will more perfectly than you. assume god knows what is going to happen and loves you anyway. open your eyes. god is risen is a tautology which does not stop it from being true, or false for that matter. a god who has risen presupposes a god who at some point has fallen. a god who has fallen is a god who can and will fall again. we should assume god as fallen. the death of god is a necessary precondition for god. if god were not dead god would not be god. god could not be dead so god could not rise from the dead only to descend once more into the underworld again and again and this is why on and off, day and night, a code or a language, the presence and the absence of god is itself the absence or the presence of god, the proof necessary, the argument opposed. a god which can be undone by an argument is not a god, but a god who was never there, who is known by the contours of their absence, of the desire for there to be such a god so strong that it persists for decades upon decades, taking upon stable form, stable attributes, is this not evidence of the presence of a god, a god with a name, with many names, with attendant iconography, legend, apocrypha? a god knowable on earth in this life, a god who is always here, available at will, every human and no human, what you know you can never be, would never really want to be, probably? because it is a story about the justified use of personal power and if the use of personal power is always justified is it personal anymore or does it become an agent of something greater than itself? fate or justice or truth? the will of god? is there an inherent limit to the normalization of the use of personal power over others? would one notice when one's use of personal power was in harmony with a greater order? how could one tell? how could one distinguish a legitimate perception of acting in concert with a greater power, a greater order, from one's desire to legitimate pre-existing beliefs? is there a difference? should there be? i do not believe in the legitimate use of coercive force over other beings. i believe it is a necessary fiction people tell themselves in order to get on with their day, to live in the world, to act at all. it is probably impossible to live without exerting coercion over other beings in some capacity in our lives. if we acknowledge this use of force as both necessary and illegitimate where does that leave us? how do we act? instead of assuming an ethics based in a priori justifiable action, perhaps it would be better to assume an ethics based in no justification, in only doing harm, in only doing wrong. if we thought of our actions in terms of harm reduction to other beings, assuming harm as the default, how would that change our moral calculus? if we assume that not only were we doing the harm to other we may suspect we are doing or are doing intentionally but we are doing harm to others we are completely unaware of, how would that alter our behaviour, our moral stance in the world? what if there were no forgiveness, no forgetting, no salvation? what if we just had to live with the knowledge of the harm that we caused others forever without ever being able to make it better, with the possible exception of attempting to not repeat the same known harms in the same way in the future. what if you were god and there were no takebacks, there were no i'm sorry's? you could offer penance. you could offer visible sacrifice, tactile abundance, but it would never undo what had been, it would never undo what you are. to be a god is to be something loved, something adored, something known, something walked with, something feared, something scorned, something despised, something desired, something driven away, something annihilated, something erased, so very often a something, so very rarely a who to be addressed, to be addressed by in turn, to be opened to disappointment, opened to loss, opened to betrayal, opened to heartbreak. to be a god is to know that these cannot be reversed, cannot be undone. time may loop or fold, time may intersect in multiple locations along itself. there are frames to be put in sequence. the sequence tells a story. it cannot help but tell a story. the story is the order of things. first this, then that. there are gaps between the frames. the gaps are a function of the medium. the gaps are a function of consciousness. nonbeing inlaid into being, the anti-life equation written into this world, the abscence by which we know presence, a continuance over gap, moment to moment, a persistence of being over/across/through/within/of the void, that which should not be, which cannot help but be, in spite of itself, necessary and contingent, whose contingency, whose improbability of existence at all, whose flickering nonreality makes more real, more present, more burned-into. when you look away its still there. even after it fades it is as if your eyes still remember it or your optical nerve, a ghost of something, a faded signal, something that isn't, or isn't any longer, like staring into the sun after the sun has set doesn't count as staring into the sun even though it is still totally staring into the sun even though the sun is on its way to the underworld all hail the sun on its journey through darkness may we see the sun again hail hail the sun!!! we love you!!! do not stay gone long!!! in that time we shall keep your things as if you never left in the hopes of your sudden return <3 <3 <3

nathaxnne liked these reviews