The Obligatory Ben Affleck is Batman Post

Big casting news out of Hollywood yesterday. After some rumors that Warners was trying to lure Christian Bale back to the role, they've announced that the new Caped Crusader, making his debut in 2015's "Man of Steel" sequel, will be played by Ben Affleck. I wasn't paying much attention to the casting speculation, but this is a choice that demands some commentary. I'm disappointed, but not for the reasons that you might think.

Affleck is a decent actor and looks the part of Bruce Wayne, which is all that's really necessary for him to play Batman. You don't need to be a decorated thespian to be a good superhero - "Captain America" and "Thor" prove as much. Affleck's previous turn as a crime fighter in 2003's "Daredevil" was nothing to be ashamed of, and people forget that he was considered a contender for the role of Superman back in the 90s. And he did put on the blue tights briefly for 2006's "Hollywoodland," a period thriller where he was cast as the jaded '50s Superman actor George Reeves. Sure, some of the fans are upset about the Affleck's casting, but some of the fans are always upset. I expect Affleck is perfectly capable of turning in a decent performance as Batman, and have no objections to him on those grounds.

So why am I disappointed? Because Affleck just came pretty damn close to getting nominated for an Oscar for directing "Argo." Over the past few years, he's proven that he's far more valuable to us as a director than as an actor. I know he's continued to take other acting gigs, like appearing in "To the Wonder" for Terrence Malick and the upcoming thriller "Runner, Runner," but I'm worried that being a leading man in a big franchise film, and everything that comes with it, are going to take his attention away from the kinds of projects that are better served by his talent. How is this going to impact "Live By Night," the adaptation of the Dennis Lehane novel that he was putting together with Leonardo DiCaprio? What about his rumored Revolutionary War film, "Bunker Hill"? Scott Cooper has already replaced Affleck on the big screen adaptation of "The Stand"? And I can't imagine that Affleck only signed on for one movie, so how is that going to affect his other potential projects further down the line?

I'd be much more excited about the "Man of Steel" sequel if it had been announced that Affleck was directing it, instead of starring in it. Remember, Affleck turned down a chance to direct a possible "Justice League" movie last year. I'm not thrilled when I see promising directors who have made a name for themselves with smaller films getting involved with the studio franchises, but at least Justice League" would have given Affleck a chance to stretch a little as a director, tackling a big blockbuster action movie after a string of mostly realistic, serious dramas. I'm still waiting for him to show a more range, though "Argo" was a step in the right direction. Affleck being behind the camera would have also made me more excited about the prospect of a Batman and Superman movie than I am at the moment. I understand why Warners wanted him for "Justice League," since Affleck's style is a good match for the starker Christopher Nolan style that defines the current DC movie-verse. Instead, we're probably going to end up with Zack Snyder again, and while I know he's getting better, he's still a director I have some serious issues with. He's still an action junkie in the worst way.

I have to wonder why Affleck said yes to Batman, after expressing dissatisfaction with superhero roles in the past. Warner Bros was instrumental in "Argo" getting made, so saying yes to Batman definitely helps Affleck to cement his relationship with the studio, and that may result in their backing some of his future, non-franchise films. Over at Forbes, Scott Mendelson goes into this possibility in more detail. Like the recent Michael Bay deal that got Paramount to pay for "Pain in Gain" in exchange for Bay directing "Transformers 4," this could be a move that ensures Affleck gets to make his own pictures on his own terms.

I also suspect that Ben Affleck took the role because he just likes acting, which accounts for him casting himself in the lead roles of two of the three movies he's directed. And that's fine, because he's not bad at it. He's not great, which I've felt has held back his work to an extent, but he's always done an acceptable job. As for playing a superhero, on the one hand he's got his artistic credibility to uphold as a serious filmmaker, but on the other hand, it's Batman. What red-blooded American male doesn't want to be Batman?

So put the pitchforks away. It could have been a lot worse. Ben Affleck deserves a chance to show us what he can do, though I wish were talking about him behind the camera instead of in front of it.
---