Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18


Note that this is a first quick draft, after only two views. I used a specific
methodology of analysis: this is not a “critic” of appreciation, but an analysis
of the movie. The true method of analysis is longer and more complete, and
requires an analysis of the structures that affect more than just the four points
analyzed here, and more comprehensively. This text contains critical movie
information (i.e. spoilers). Also, this was rapidly translated from the French.

1. Introduction

While the movie Batman vs Superman (2016) has only been released for a few
days as this analysis is written, critics already believe that the film is inferior
to Marvel's universe, that it is incoherent for a "lack of structure", that the
events taking place before us are confused and without links. In other words,
the "critics" feel that the film has no internal substance that allows it to be a
coherent whole, a film. The reality is, in my opinion, quite different.

This film is actually structured at a different level than what critics seek to
analyze; that is to say that for them the film must be analyzed in the first degree,
in the literal degree, in its fullness. If this literalness of the film, that is to say
the simple sequences and the images that take place according to the canonical
formats on the screen, is not respected, then the film is considered "incoherent".
However, this film deals with a different structure, that of the symbolic
structure. The fact this is conscious or not on the part of the screenwriter is of
no concern to us for reasons we will not disclose.

Is its literal or cinematic Hollywoodian structure a good "entertainment"? I will

not pass judgment on this here; I leave this field open to each person sensibility
towards movies and their style. What interests me here is the symbolic and
semiotic development of Zack Snyder's work.
From the outset, let us say that we take Greimas's position that symbolic
systems allow for the overlapping of "layers" of signifiers, that is, one thing
can mean many other things at different levels of semiotic analysis. Also, I take
the bias that the symbol is, as with Lacan, a "knot of meanings" that must be
undone, little by little, in a deep enterprise. This in-depth analysis, I do it under
the cover of hermeneutics, thanks to the hermeneutic circle that says that the
part helps to analyze the whole, and the whole to analyze the part. My method
will be that of the religiological analysis of Jacques Pierre made for the
interpretation of film.

To do this, I will use a three-step analysis before going for a summary

conclusion. The first analysis will be that of materials, that is to say the
"material" borrowed from other works or other films directly inserted in the
film by the director and the writers as “building blocks”. The second will be
the level of symbolic structures, including a look at time, space, objects and
characters. Finally, an analysis of the function (morphology) of the film in its
relation to reality.

2. Analysis
 Material

In terms of materials, it is important to note that the concept of Batman vs.

Superman (BvS) itself is taken from a series of comicbooks. Not reading
comicbooks, I will not be able to judge or interpret them in relation to the film:
in other words, they will be left totally beside my analysis and could potentially
reveal additional interesting elements, especially in the choice of the
director/writer elements that have been modified or added as to the original

The most important material is, of course, Snyder's film Man of Steel (2013,
MoS) that introduced us to Superman's figure in his present constitution. I will
use it in a few places here to specify symbolic elements: the present film being
made with direct references (some scene even taken from MoS), it seems fair
to me to integrate it in the material to the study as obviously the director wanted
to build on the first movie.
The film also uses mythological or religious references. For example,
Prometheus is often referred to positively as the main antagonist of the film,
Lex Luthor. Moreover, the name of God is mentioned on different occasions.
Even more interestingly, I do not remember any mention of Jesus Christ,
whereas as we will see, he is the major symbol of the work; again, we must not
see on the surface of the narrative and borrowed materials but dig deeper.

The film occurs in a universe parallel to ours. I say parallel in the sense that
certain facts are modified (for example the existence of superheroes and
fictitious cities like Metropolis or Gotham), but which has the same
constitution and the same history as our world (on the surface).

Superman himself is a material (just like Batman), in the sense that he is

borrowed. This fact is not insignificant, as Snyder himself mentions this:

“I think the relationship between Jesus and Superman is not a thing we

invented in this film, it is a thing that has been talked about since the creation
of Superman. And in a weird way, probably was talked about more when
Superman was created than it is now. It’s one of those things mythologically
you take for granted, a little bit.”

Already on the internet, several analyzes abound on the links between Christ
and Superman, for example at the level of their original name (Kal-El meaning
"Voice of God"), their "operative" age (around 30 years), etc. The purpose of
this talk is to focus on the film itself and its internal symbolic structures first
and foremost.

 Structure
 Time

The film is set mainly in autumn in its imagery, as we can see on the one hand
by the ambient temperature and the festivities that take place there (the
Mexican feast of the dead). This timing seems to me not at first sight very
important, except that autumn is the "dead" season, the darkest, which leads to
the birth of the "unconquered sun" at the winter solstice; as to say, the return
of light to men. But also, it is the season of the "fall" of leaves, of the death of

The film makes use of a classic cinematic effect: slow motion. When the time
slows down in the film, it is usually for ceremonial purposes (funerals) or uses
related to a form of sacredness, a mysterium or a numen that gives rise to a
"whole other", a elsewhere (see Mircea Eliade on the sacred or Rudolf Otto on
the numinous). For example, the introduction plays on this theme for the death
of Batman's parents; the same effect is used when Superman realizes the
uselessness of maintaining relations with men after the bombing; the same
effect is used in the fight between Batman and Superman; etc. Even if time
does not stop, it is conceivable that "what does not change" (i.e. in time) is
closer to a form of sacred; a personal revelation of reality as it is, not as the
character would like it to be.

What is interesting is also the choice of the release of the film: Easter Thursday
in the West. This is the beginning of the Roman Catholic triduum that marks
death as much as the resurrection of Christ. This data is far from innocuous as
we will see later.

 Space

The macrocosmic space opposes Gotham, the dark, corrupt and decaying city,
to Metropolis, the city under the leadership of the Superman. The characters
themselves refer to this dichotomy when they meet while Superman criticizes
how Gotham handles his crime. Gotham is never seen in broad daylight, while
Metropolis is more often (but not exclusively) shown in broad daylight. Also,
in the tomb of his parents, where we see an icon in glass of St. Michael, behind
it represents a city: as if Saint Michael was the savior of the city against the
devil; this element will later be important to make sense of the symbolic links
of Superman.

Each of the two protagonists also have on one side its secular space and its
sacred space (again, for the use of this terminology, see Mircea Eliade). For
Batman, secular space is his “batcave”, where he discusses with Alfred, and
spends most of his time preparing materially. This is where he sleeps, eats and
has sex; in other words, it is the "normal" profane space of everyday human
life. His sacred space is represented by the grave of his parents whom he visits
in great reverence, depositing flowers there and which is also integrated with
his subconscious in his prophetic / premonitory dreams. For Superman, his
secular space is his apartment where he eats and spends most of his time with
Lois Lane. Its sacred space is the mountain and the snowy areas; they are places
far removed from all traces of man, it is his divine "kingdom" that even allows
him to have conversations with deceased figures and symbolically loaded like
his father. In both cases, the link with the parents is a link (through space) to a
form of sacredness.

The mountain is a symbol of sacredness in the Christian tradition, especially

with Horeb, or Mount Sinai, where Moses, prefiguring Christ on the mountain
in the Gospel of St. Matthew (it is a recurring theme at home), is the character
talking with his father. In BvS, the mountain is also the landmark where
Superman discusses with his father the way forward. What is even more
interesting is that his father even makes a comment distinguishing people from
the mountains (i.e., the Father's symbol, the dead ancestor and the Superman)
from the people of the plain. (“humans"). This distinction between the high and
the low, between the father and the son, between the son and the men is
characteristic of the rest of the film. It is a fact that is repeated while the virtue
of Superman is questioned: is the distance that separates man from Superman
not a guarantee of a submission that would cause an imbalance in the order of
things? Is this not a problem that must be regulated by the regulation of its
"divine" character? The problem here is that on the plain, the rules only apply
to men; Superman and the forces of evil who oppose it are not subject to these
same rules.

Also, the film puts a lot of emphasis on the verticality of things. Objects fall,
objects rise. Batman himself, in his speech at the very beginning of the film,
speaks of the "fall", a Christian and platonic reference, where things before
time, "diamond perfect", did not suffer the corruption of the world; but in our
world, everything is falling. It is a concept related to the "long defeat" of
Christianity. Besides the speeches, the film itself shows us these elements in a
cinematic way: Batman falling in the hole, pearls falling to the ground, his
parents falling to the ground, etc. while we see on the other side Superman who
always rises, who seeks the top of the mountains, etc. What falls is humanity;
but there are still possibilities of elevation, like Batman's bats in his dream that
leads him to a "light," or Superman who raises Lois (or at least prevents her
from falling). This Batman discourse on the devolution of the times could be
contrasted with the finale, where Batman conceives an opening (because the
resolved antagonism) where, without denying the Fall, there is a possibility
that opens for the humanity not to build a paradise, but to rebuild what is
destroyed by their decay; a voluntary correction brought to the world.

This verticality is also linked, in the case of Batman, to the “place of

sacredness”: where Superman has a mountain (high-sacred), Batman has a
cave (low-profane). That being said, the cave in itself is a symbol of
resurrection and being reborn; more could be said on this. The cave is inside
the mountain.

 Objects

The objects in the film are associated with men and not with the divine:
Superman's Kryptonian father did not leave him any weapons or significant
objects (except his costume), his human father either, even as a mind on the
mountain. In reality, the objects (and the science / technology behind them) are
the hallmark of man: social constructs that allow for their failure, as
exemplified by the use of technique by Lex Luthor to achieve his ends. With
Batman we have the same paradigm at work; the difference here being that his
objects also make use, at the end, of a loan to the "all other", to the "divine",

The role of kryptonite inside the film is ambiguous: sometimes salvific,

sometimes destructive. It's easy to see why: the movie makes us interchange
the human (Batman) and divine (Superman) points of view; for both, the
effects are drastically different. This point of view is made clear in particular
by the opening scene borrowed from MoS, where we see the divine battles
from the point of view of men (Batman), those who suffer the wrath of heaven
without being able to act. The same technique is used elsewhere as we observe
the actions and reflections of each of the characters. Inside the film itself, the
characters (most notably Lex Luthor) recognize this dichotomy between divine
and human in Superman's opposition to Batman.

Kryptonite is notably forged to make a particular weapon, a spear. This detail

is not insignificant since the spear of Longinus is the spear that pierced the
flanks of Christ in his passion, from which escaped water and blood. The water
and the blood are both linked to the spear while it is lost in a puddle before
being found on the one hand, and on the other it is tinged with Superman's
blood by the cut that Batman makes.

We could also invoke two minor elements in Batman: the pearl of his mother's
necklace that falls with him into the well in his dream, thus pointing to the link
between his fall and his mother; and the use of the rifle against Superman who,
because of the scene of the father's hubris with the clenched fist (see below),
makes a metonymy between Batman and the criminal (who had also used a
rifle); except that in the criminal, there was not this impetus of empathy, this
recognition of the Other.

 Characters and their Trajectory

For this section, I will separate in three the consideration of the characters and
their trajectory in the film. First, I will address the figure of Lex Luthor who,
because the antagonist, is a passive character (because mostly unchanged in
the film), character inferior in the traditional symbolism. Subsequently, I will
address the two active characters, that is to say Batman and Superman.

a. Lex Luthor

Lex Luthor, in addition to the obvious link between his name and that of
Luther, is a character presented as subversive (as demonstrated by his inversion
of the painting of demons against angels): he is opposed to the social order
(senator and government ), he opposes the human aspect (Batman) and divine
(Superman). In addition, he obeys his personal hubris with a "titanic" impetus
(against he Olympian order of gods and man): he associates himself with the
figure of Prometheus, the one who wanted to reject the divine order according
to his own judgment towards men. For him, the human must prevail over the
divine from a purely Luciferian (as in: rebellion for powers, leaded by pride)
and vain point of view: the human must unleash the elemental forces (the
material, the grotesque, the violent like Doomsday) in order to acquire this that
he wants to acquire; it is what drives him to literally criticize Superman's
absolute virtue and to judge him as dangerous. Lex Luthor cannot conceive of
any higher Principle in this world [1], so the material powers of Superman (his
power is unparalleled on earth) is dangerous mutatis mutandis. This is because
Lex Luthor refuses anything superior to the material and individual / subjective
plane that he cannot conceive Superman's reality as a manifestation of a
superior and virtuous Principle; he reduces Superman's figure to the material,
thereby distorting his substance.

Lex Luthor, moreover, does not produce, by himself, any act: he asks others to
do, he uses machines and men to create [2]. He is an agent of discourse, like
the senate and the human mass. Indeed the discourse between the divine and
the human is put forward many times in the film, always in a failure: the direct
speech according to the human laws can only lead to a failure because to hold
such a discourse between God and Man, a bridge is needed between the two,
an element that allows to recognize the divine in man and the man in the divine
(see below). The discourse is opposed to the essences of things as well as to
acts; this is what allows Superman's mother to tell him that these people are
only expressing a doxa, an impermanent element that does not change the
reality of Superman. His mother tells him that he owes nothing to the world;
in doing so, she makes him understand that any act of kindness towards the
world is an act of will, of "grace" on the part of Superman, which echoes the
classic conception of the action of Christ. The bankruptcy of the discourse
besides is solved in the death of the human agents, whereas the divine one,
Superman, is untouched (see the senate scene).

Lex Luthor is not alone in his representation of titanic forces: his creature,
Doomsday, is also of the purely material and destructive type. It is Superman's
opposition: both are equally powerful in material terms, but they are not
equivalent in their virtue or substance. Moreover, the mass of people (as in
incoherent force of opinion/doxa) is also associated with this force while it is
influenced by Lex Luthor to position itself against Superman. The first
Batman, before his redemption (see below), is also of the Promethean type,
putting his trust in his material and combative abilities (his weapons, his
physical training, etc.). Lex Luthor, therefore, the man of the discourse - we
could add sophistry of the style of Gorgias - is an antagonist of subversion and
opposition which characterizes the imperfect relationship of democracy and
the corruptible mass.

b. Batman

Batman represents the human aspect; he does so by being attracted as much by

the Promethean account settlement (thus towards "the bottom") against
Superman as by the relation towards the divine (thus towards "the high"). The
human being is here represented as a multiple or incomplete being and torn
apart. This is what the introduction to Batman's dream caution, where the
human falls in the cavern, but is offered a possibility of extricating himself
from the depths to join the light (besides the position of the Bruce Wayne's
child at this moment is that of the cross while he is raised to heaven).

The "first" Batman is a man who tends towards the Promethean aspect, which
refuses the divinity by what it could bring as destruction whereas it is
conceived only from the point of view of the men, that is to say mainly material
and moral. It is the Promethean spirit of Luthor that corrupts Batman by
subversion and ignorance (i.e. the facts built into the checks he receives, the
repeated lies, etc.). It is a question of construction by false mental
representations. He does not have access to the "thing in itself" because he
refuses to see beyond, to shed his individuality by a refusal to communicate
with Superman (we could even ask if it is even possible without the
intervention of an event as powerful as the one who will change him). On the
other hand, what already differentiates him from the mass is his upright
character: he does not ask others to do what he can do himself, unlike Lex
Luthor. He tries to do his best and judges that the best must act (hence his
action in Gotham and then against Superman). It is this same upright spirit that
continues later when it implies the creation of a league of superheroes.

The character does not stay unchanged through the narrative of the
cinematographic work. In the critical scene where he decides not to kill
Superman (which is the film's critical stage, the "symbolic knot" par
excellence), a "second" Batman takes shape.

This one appears by the resolution of Oedipus as conceived in psychoanalysis

[3]. Batman [4] has, since the beginning of the film, a tormented relationship
with the girl/women/mother, [5] especially in the visions of her mother who
dies to whom we give the last words to her father. Thus, the figure of the
mother is deep and striking in Batman, without being seen directly by him. He
cannot resolve this internal conflict by himself, and therefore plans the murder
of a father by divine fatherhood, Superman, in order to resolve this conflict that
marks him. But in the end, the resolution is different. While Superman is about
to succumb to Longinus's spear, after revealing his humanity through fear (see
Batman's speech after the smoke grenade with kryptonite) as well as blood
(Batman's cut on his face in connection with Batman's earlier talk with
Superman about his deity and his blood), Superman opens up to Batman asking
him to save his own mother. The names of the two mothers being the same,
Martha, Batman thinks that Superman asks him to save his own mother (when
in fact, Superman accepts his death and asks him to at least go save his mother).
This resolution of the Oedipus occurs while Batman recognizes a Same in the
deity: he also has a mother, a mother he wants to see again (and we could add,
“his own mother”, since they are, linguistically, the same). Thus, Batman
recognizes his counterpart in Superman while he sees in the Other One a Same:
love and the relationship to the mother. Seeing this link, the Event allows him
not to see an antagonist in the Other but on the contrary to see a part of the
same: this allows for a new Christian morality fixed on the Christ imperative
of the dignity of all being in essence. This change is exemplified in his
treatment of Luthor, which is like the treatment Superman had given him, i.e.,
to spare him

By cutting him off, Batman symbolically opens the visceral dialogue that
allows for an existential exchange, not just theoretical as in congress by the
discourse. Superman accepts his humanity and so they can converse from
human to human (or from divine to divine?), where the oedipal resolution of
Batman and the substantial progression of Superman happens; he reveals his
fully man aspect.
An opening was already prefigured in the father's hubris in the scene where the
closed fist directed against the criminal at the beginning of the film in his
youthful vision caused his death. Superman's hubris is the same as a zoom-in
is made on his fist that closes to hit Batman, the criminal, which causes his
loss; the same loss that leads to the redemption of Batman (because to continue
the fight for Superman leads to his defeat at the hands of Batman, same for his
father, it is in this scene of the fight that everything is played) then that the
same unresolved incident had led to the death of his parents and his own failure.
This creates a link where the human can learn from the divine, and the divine
from man.

Batman thus accepts his role in the story and having solved his internal conflict,
he acquires a renewed virtue that allows him to assist Superman in his fight
against Prometheus / Lucifer. Moreover, it allows him to attend, as a "favorite
disciple" to the death of the divine; this element echoes the death of Jesus while
the first to recognize him as truly God is a Roman legionnaire, that is to say,
one of those who had persecuted him before. We even witness a scene (at the
death of Superman) where crosses appear in the background, in a deep
darkness (echoing the Gospel where the heavens are torn apart and the world
is plunged into darkness), where his disciples and women mourners (Lois Lane
and Wonder Woman) remove it from the cross (the hands of Doomsday) in
order to deposit it in what looks like a cave in the eyes of the spectator: it is a
summary of his passion, his death and his burial. Batman appears at the funeral
as a Paulian figure: passing from a party that drove Christ and his followers to
a party that defends him, he promises to set up a community that can continue
his memory (his speech especially echoing Romans 5: 6 "For when we were
yet deprived of all strength, Christ died in his day for us who were wicked");
thus the League of Justice would become an allegory of the Church.

c. Superman

For Superman, the essence of his transformation is also the acceptance of an

inner conflict. This conflict is twofold: on the one hand his role of the divine
and virtue, on the other hand his Oedipal problem (in this case with the father,
while Batma
The character is torn by the mass and their opinion, while he wants to please
their doxa rather than the inner imperative that guides him to the virtue that his
fathers have summoned him to rule over this world, to demonstrate to humans.
In fact, the Oedipal conflict begins here: he refuses to fully pursue his father's
dream because it could cause problems for humans, especially at the doxa
level. However, this element sees its first stage of resolution in the discourse
that he holds with his father on the mountain: this one tells him a history (of
symbolic and / or parabolic type) as what to do with the good, of how to be the
hero of someone, and of the necessity to be the anti-hero of the someone to do
so. Judges are always appreciated by the person receiving the compensation,
and hated or feared by the one who receives the judgment. Moreover, this
discourse tells him that the Oedipal resolution of the conflict with the world
and his own internal symbolic confusion has passed, for his father, by the
encounter and the acceptation of the Other as being the World, that is, Martha,
his wife (and Superman's mother).

Thus, Superman does everything to go save his mother, this World of his father
that he wants to make his own. In the end, after his existential encounter with
Batman, he accepts the fact that this World is not his and even lets Batman go
and defend her; thus, he shifts his mother to Lois Lane as he confesses his
unconditional love (to which he was preparing a marriage, thus an alliance
before God of Superman (the divine) and the Other (the human), that is, the
World. This acknowledgment takes place on several levels: literally we
understand that Superman's love is so great that he is willing to sacrifice
himself for her (John 15:13 "There is no greater love than give your life for
your friends "). In a deeper sense, however, we can use his father's speech to
substitute the Other (Lois Lane) for the World [6]; thus, Superman admits his
unconditional love for the World (his reality, not the one of his father) and his
desire to save it. We then proceed to the sacrifice of the "living God" against
the forces of darkness; the manifestation of the Principle of Virtue sacrifices
itself in order to resolve the spiritual conflict that is occurring at this time
between the forces of the Order who have resolved at that point their inner
conflict (Wonder Woman accepting her destiny as a combatant in the service
of the world rather than her own service and Batman recognizing the Same in
the Other as a grounding of a spiritually superior ethic (because soteriological)
that puts him at the level of the divine, and lastly Superman himself
recognizing his principled destiny manifested to protect the World) against the
forces of titanic chaos unbridled by the human hubris attracted by the
Promethean promises of a human who would control God rather than open a
dialogue with him as Batman did. This fight of the order against chaos is
exemplified in the references to Saint Michael [7] which are made: the tomb
of the parents of the Batman has a work showing Saint Michael (represented
according to the iconography of the rebirth, that is, i.e. in red and blue, like
Superman) who defeats the Dragon (i.e. the force of chaos par excellence since
long before Christianity), with a sword, piercing weapon in the same way that
Superman will do at the end of the fight. Thus, in Superman, the resolution of
the Oedipus is at the very end, in his death, by the crystallization of the World
in the person of Lois Lane for his destiny.

Thus the conflict is also solved for the entire film while the question that
persisted was "what justifies the power to act in the world?”; the answer is here
given: it is the disinterested love of others, of the recognition in the Other of
the Same which is at the foundation of the human substance, the divinity which
is capax dei and imago dei.

Capax dei because while Lois Lane, through personal devotion, is getting
closer to the deity, Batman is also equal with his participation in the internal as
well as the external conflict with the demonic forces (his internal conflicts
unsolved in his dreams and his fight against Doomsday). Imago dei because
they all share this same inner flame and divine dignity.

For Superman, Christ-like imagery abounds in the fact that it is at the center of
the event of sharing between the divine and the human. His two natures were
united in his death (only his divine aspect was strong enough to kill Doomsday,
but at the same time he was fully human while he was dying weakened by
kryptonite). His resurrection and the ceremony of his death also prefigure this
double nature of Christ: there are two ceremonies that are made to him, and it
is in the fully human one (in his family) that we see the subtext of his
resurrection. His body being, like Christian saints, incorruptible by death, he
already proclames his sacred status.

 Function
The function of the film is complex. On the one hand, we are talking about a
Hollywood movie that, obviously, wants to serve above all as "entertainment".
But on the other hand, at the structural and symbolic level, the film wants to
present us a philosophical movie about Christian virtue.

Christian movie or Christ-like movie? A Christian film would have served to

present a Christian story, uplifting, which seeks above all to substitute the
reality of the film to ours to educate us spiritually and morally. Here, the film
is “Christic” because in the end Superman appears as an allegory of Christ. If
Superman had stayed dead, it would have been a Christian movie, showing us
how to behave ethically like a parable. Here, it is above all a Christ allegory
that seeks to explore the spiritual questions related to the passion of Christ at
this time of Easter.

In the case of the two protagonists, the resolution of the Oedipal complex leads
to a bond that allows the Other to become intelligible by the Same (the bond
of love with the mother and the ideals of the father in both cases). This link is
what allows the recognition that goes through virtue (the strong bond of the
film as demonstrated in Luthor's accusations against Superman conceived as
"Virtue incarnated").

Superman thus fully manifest a Principle (symbolically) in his disinterested

love of the World (symbolized by Lois Lane) which actually makes him, in the
evolian sense, a superman, the Superman: the primordial man who, as a new
Adam , allows the redemption of the human race as exemplified by the
humanist speech of Batman (speech which also shows the inhabitants of
Metropolis gathered, with candles, crying Superman / divinity: this scheme is
the same as the day - in the Catholic triduum or Orthodox paschal vigil - as the
Easter Vigil where the baptismal paschal candles prefigure and announce the
resurrection of the Light of the world). This discourse is of course colored by
the ideologies of our time; the alternative would have been very surprising.
Still, remembering Northrop Frye's analysis of how the Bible is the "Great
Code" par excellence on which the arts of Western society are based, we see
that this Great Code is still present in our society to give metaphysical and
anthropological material to be discussed through the ethical and existential
reality presented in this film.
This Christic film touches in particular the different levels of Christian love,
which culminates in agape, brotherly love for all Others as prescribed by the
figure of Christ (Superman) who here in the film exemplifies it by his sacrifice.

Thus, the function of the film is to present a soteriological and tropological

reflection on the Christic figure. We are presented with a Christ related to Saint
Michael who destroys death by death, thus restoring the balance that
culminates in his resurrection for the fulfillment of the manifestation of the
Principle of immortal virtue that resist both time and space.

3. Conclusion

In short, we saw that the film touched themes related to morality and
Christology (soteriology) to bring the characters to resolve internal oedipal
conflicts that prevented them from putting their internal psychic and spiritual
life in order, which effectively plunges them into ignorance, causing their
external struggle. Then, as they should (and will eventually) unite to defeat the
forces of chaos, they are here presented as an imperative of every human being
who claims to be virtuous. Thus, in the end, we are told that redemption does
not lead to the abandonment of the world, but rather to its uplifting and defense.

Just as Lois Lane is human but shares the life of Superman, Batman is purely
human but ends up sharing this salvific character. The difference is that in
reality, man does not have to open the existential connection with God; he has
only to open himself. In all cases, Batman's act against Superman could always
be interpreted as echoing "taking heaven by force".

In Christianity (orthodoxy), we are saved in our weakness. That is to say, it is

in our errors, our wanderings and our ignorance that we are presented face to
face with our pure humanity and that we thus tend towards an internal
resolution which leads to the possibility of redemption, to the union with the
divine. This same kind of point of view is emitted in the film while Batman
reaches his redemption while he is going to have an excess of hubris / revenge
and that Superman is dying. While MoS presented to us the birth of Christ and
his mission on earth, BvS wants us to meet the passion and redemption of
Christ to which we are led to share as a human.
This film, because it is badly accepted, shows us that it was made for another
era, and that the message it contains is not understood; critics and people are
no longer sensitive to this kind of narrative, symbolism, or values.

[1] Perhaps this is due to his hatred of the Father; in his discourse against God's
agency against evil, he reduces God to his political and social action, claiming
that He never helped him in his relationship against his father (I say “against”
rather than “with”, because it is the impression that Luthor leaves with all
traditions, all relations). We could postulate that unlike the two protagonists,
what makes Luthor passive is precisely this non-resolution of the Oedipal
problem (see below #3).

[2] Moreover, this role of "creator" refers to both Faust and Frankenstein. The
Kryptonite computer itself warns him against the titanic and monstrous
appearance of his creature; but he does not want to know anything, he thinks
that he rises beyond the principles of the world because according to him, their
representation manifested in the world is where they stop: krypton's advice
being dead, its values die with it. In the end, it is not a true creation: he is not
"God": it is a perversion, a mixture (between human and Kryptonian DNA)
that creates an undifferentiation, effectively linked to the chaos of the world.

[3] The complex is clearly introduced into the narrative by the antagonist, Lex
Luthor. He mentions that the true feminine figure of "every boy" is his mother;
as such, this passage is presented when the complex appears obvious to the
viewer for Superman. It is not insignificant that it is Luthor who speaks of it
first: on the one hand he is the antagonist (i.e. the oedipal complex is the real
psychic antagonist of the protagonists); on the other hand, this is a direct nod,
in my opinion, to the author of this complex, that is, Freud. Freud as Luthor
was above all a scientist, a materialist and an anti-religious.

[4] Batman est un personnage très freudien : les théories psychanalytiques,

outre le thème d’Œdipe que je reprends ailleurs dans mon, touchent beaucoup
le psyché d’un point de vue descendant. Comme déjà mentionné, Batman est
lié à cette descente, cette chute (rappelons-nous que tout tombe avec Batman,
y compris dans sa bataille finale contre Superman où celui-ci le soulève au
sommet du bâtiment et plus la séquence se développe plus ils vont vers le bas
; où sont entrainement où les poids sont consécutivement projeter vers le bas)
qui se répercute dans ses rêves. Car les rêves sont un des aspects du
subconscient étudié par la psychanalytique freudienne où se joue le drame
interne. Il est un héro psychologique, le produit d’un traumatisme d’enfance
qui prend lui-même la forme de la peur (ici les chauve-souris) pour combattre
le crime, l’autre-id, qui généralement est un cas de névrose psychotique (on
mentionne brièvement le Joker dans sa Batcave, mais aussi Lex Luthor qui est
traité de psychotique par Lois Lane). Sa ville elle-même, Gotham, ressemble
plus à un immense subconscient collectif où les forces déchainées de celui-ci
ravage son paysage sombre de la nuit, beaucoup plus qu’à une ville
fonctionnelle comme Metropolis (voir le commentaire du patron du Planet
News sur le crime et Gotham). Tout ceci sans parler de l’aspect théâtrale et
dramatique de ses costumes, de sa présence et de son impact. Les criminels de
Gotham, du subconscient, sont enfermés à l’asile d’Arkham, pas dans les
prisons. D’un sens, au-delà de la résolution christique exposée plus bas dans le
texte, Batman représente au minimum la victoire du superego contre l’ego et
l’id ; c’est ce qui le différencie d’un criminel (id) ou d’un vigilante comme le
Punisher (ego). Nous pourrions même rajouter qu’en fait, sa quête pour tuer
Superman vient probablement d’un débalancement interne, où l’ego reprend le
dessus sur

Batman is a very Freudian character: psychoanalytic theories, in addition to the

Oedipus theme that I take up elsewhere in this text, touch the psyche very much
from a descending point of view. As already mentioned, Batman is linked to
this descent, this fall (remember that everything falls with Batman, including
in his final battle against Superman where it lifts him to the top of the building
and the more the sequence develops the more they go down; as are his training
weights being thrown to the ground or his descent into the cave) that
reverberates in his dreams. For dreams are one of the aspects of the
subconscious studied by the Freudian psychoanalytical school where internal
drama is played out. He is a psychological hero, the product of a childhood
trauma that takes on the form of fear (here bats) to fight crime, the other-id,
which is usually a case of neurosis psychotic (we briefly mention the Joker in
his Batcave, but also Lex Luthor who is characterized as a “psychotic” by Lois
Lane). His own city, Gotham, looks more like a huge collective subconscious
where the unbridled forces of it ravage its dark landscape of the night, much
more than a functional city like Metropolis (see the comment of the boss of the
Planet News on crime and Gotham). All this without mentioning the theatrical
and dramatic aspect of his costumes, his presence and his impact. The criminals
of Gotham, of the subconscious, are locked up in the Arkham Asylum, not in
the prisons. In one sense, beyond the Christic resolution in the movie, Batman
represents at least the superego's victory against ego and id; this is what
differentiates it from a criminal (id) or a vigilante like the Punisher (ego). We
could even add that in fact, his quest to kill Superman probably comes from an
internal imbalance, where the ego-id (which is why in the confrontation, as
shown earlier, Batman is the criminal and Superman is Batman’s Father) takes
over the superego.

[5] Whether it is his relationship with Wonder Woman, or his relationship with
women without faces in his bed in the morning, or with his mother's grave in
his dream.

[6] Superman says, in the movie "This is my world ... You are my world". In
the first sequence, Superman looks at the world, but also at the audience,
briefly; in the second part of the sentence, he transposes his gaze to Lois, thus
completing the sliding and the recognition of the Other in the World and of the
World in the Other for whom he bears his love

[7] Saint Michael is a complex figure: he is one of the archangels, protector of

the gates of paradise, chief of the armies of heaven, the one who drove out
Lucifer (i.e., the Promethean spirit in Christianity), and so on. His name, in
direct transliteration in Latin, means "Quis Ut Deus", which can be taken as a
rhetorical question or an affirmation: "Who is God". In the same way, the name
of Superman, Kal-El (mentioned by Lex Luthor), means "voice of God" in
approximate Hebrew.