There is a series of article-essays by Jean Baudrillard called, collectively, “The Gulf War Did Not Take Place” where the continental philosopher discusses the way in which the mediation of the first Gulf War into images and live TV news constructed a simulated war. This fake war only took place in the perception of viewing audiences, who witnessed a full, proper and dramatic conflict through stories which were essentially fictional. In actuality, Baudrillard claims, the US military essentially walked to Baghdad unopposed, the Iraqi inability to engage in air combat having completely foreclosed on the potential for an actual war. What actually occurred was a pointless, brutal atrocity which would have caused popular discontent had it be represented accurately. The simulation was essential to preserving the image of a free, fair state doing good in the world.
It is unclear whether or not the YouTube critic Dan Olson, in his video “The Snyder Cut does not exist”, was consciously referencing the aforementioned work by Baudrillard. He’s a sharp and well-read guy, so it may well have been intended as such. However, it is increasingly clear that the analogy is over-accurate: there is a fatal simulacrum in play, but it is not the image of the perfect movie in the eyes of the fans or some such triviality. Like most fans of modern pop culture, members of the Snyder Cut movement will likely expect all positive qualities from the released film and be, in some way, disappointed by the end result. But indeed, the advertising campaigns ran for these big modern blockbusters practically make it their goal to induce such projection, up to and including within the movies themselves — consider the much-derided ‘girl power’ sequence in Avengers Endgame: the realisation of the event could never have been satisfying, but it lent anticipation to the entire feature-length Captain Marvel movie before it.
No, the interesting fiction in this scenario is that monolithic conception of movies, the movie industry, movie analysis and movie twitter in the perception of people who don’t want the Snyder Cut and are forced, in their own miniature recreation of the pressures on the architects of the Gulf War, to construct a simulation that explains their bizarre, continued level of effort opposing the production of a single film — and why their authority over the subject of movies comprehensively failed to predict its existence.
Why would you not want a movie to exist, barring cases where the production of the movie would cause material harm? The option to not watch it is a near-universal right. To performatively disavow a movie is to try and say something about yourself, typically a claim to privileged knowledge or good taste. Michael Bay movies, you say, are beneath me. They might be objectively speaking popular, but I am initiated in the rules of being a Good Cinema Fan, whereby we do not like Michael Bay films (of course, as this becomes a popularly held position, the opposite starts to signify an even more refined taste; they’re ‘so bad they’re good.’)
The works of Zack Snyder, broadly speaking, fall into this category. Properly initiated film buffs, particularly leftist film buffs, know that they are not to like Zack Snyder. There is no uniformity in this dislike — which is one of the tells that it is being actively constructed. They cannot agree which of the films are not bad, which of the films are very bad, and which of the films are actively evil in some way, but they nevertheless agree on the overall point: he is a bad director, whom you must doubly disavow: his films are not enjoyable, and even if they were, you ought not to enjoy them. The development of this conviction is performed in a manner akin to numerology; we are to ignore the basic content of the films and focus exclusively on fringe inferences. A film about zombies in suburban America becomes an anti-Muslim screed based on a half-second in a montage. A film where a man risks everything to save humanity becomes a Randian tract. A satire about baby-murdering Stormtroopers becomes a non-ironic statement of intent. If this paranoia about the minutiae of films seems incoherent, well, it can only be a reflection of the incoherence of this fool director himself.
Under this fiction, the realisation of the failure of such a Director can only ever be postponed. Box office disappointments, rather than being a fact of life for big-budget filmmakers, are the inevitable reconciliation of the Director’s failings. Internal corporate movement becomes a morality play rather than petty workplace strife. Where the Director succeeds, it is by accident. Where they fail, it is fate.
The existence of the Snyder Cut is a rupture into this fictional world, potentially throwing the whole thing into doubt. Snyder’s films have fans, and so are not universally held to be unpopular. Those fans have weight with the studio, so they must be significant in number. The movement raised money for charity and seems generally diverse if apolitical — it is not associated with the right. The original release of Justice League is so obviously lacking in quality that little meaningful attempt has been made to redeem it against a future ‘worse’ Snyder Cut. Having set the boundaries of a world where Snyder cannot possibly succeed, the leading figures in this loose movement are forced to explain what has gone so terribly wrong.
And so the Snyder Cut itself, and all of its fans, must be replaced by a series of simulacra. The original cut cannot have existed: instead of the simple fact of a box of film reels, there is the image of Snyder himself performing a catalysing deception, stringing fans along on a hopeless crusade that will never see success. In place of a film director happy to be allowed to finish a project, there must be a scam artist, ill intent behind his every motive. Will he trick the fans, lying about reshoots that will never take place? Will he trick the film studio into spending money on a doomed project? Or is he producing malevolent propaganda for his Ayn Rand views by hiding it in mass media? Take your pick. In place of a small popular movement which funded a few billboards and flyovers, as well as raising a modest amount for charity, there is an organised harassment campaign that we have a moral duty to stand against to the bitter end. And, most ridiculously, the movie studio, rather than participating in funding an (albeit unusual) project they expect a certain amount of success from, has been hoodwinked and lead into grave danger because they did not pay enough attention to the warnings of Twitter film personalities.
“Zack Snyder has tricked Warner Brothers into spending an outrageous amount of money on a movie no-one want except right-wing maniacs” is the ridiculous line we are expected to believe, requiring us to — merely — suspend our disbelief that a single director can pressure an entire movie studio, that a modest production budget is a moral outrage, and that the organised right are wasting their time procuring a four-hour cut of Justice League. And for what? So that we can maintain the image of a world where having the correct taste in pop culture can decide whether or not we are good people.
The “Snyder Cut”, as discussed online, is a fictional object loaded with every meaning up to and including the success of evil over goodness. Each new development, each step in the marketing cycle of leaking news, has to be met with the same level of incredulity. Budget news is more spurious waste. Casting news is more people tricked aboard a sinking ship. Filming news is more proof that the original promise was a lie — and if the people actually anticipating the film don’t see it that way, it’s more evidence that they’re credulous idiots. So the Snyder Cut will not exist. The Snyder Cut does not exist. And post the release of the film next year, expect eagerly to hear that the Snyder Cut did not exist.
If you’re interested in more writing on the work of Zack Snyder, please check out my essay “Morality and choice in Man of Steel”. I have also produced a long-form video essay, “Sixteen attempts to talk to you about Suicide Squad”.
