Man, oh man, oh man
of Steel…people hated on this film something fierce when it came out. But, we do reserve our strongest online opinions
for those things that matter most ß sarcasm.
Ahhhhh, the
interwebs.
The expectation,
from myself and those who know me, was that I would hate on this movie
too. I was born in ’72, am an 80s child,
and Christopher Reeve’s Superman is my Superman, full stop. What Reeve did with the duality of Superman
and Clark Kent is phenomenal. You not
only believed a man could fly, but you believed he could trick everyone with a
pair of glasses, boring hair, and a slouch.
I love that first Superman film in the way one can only love those
things we are introduced to at a certain age.
Superman: the Movie will always be the top of the heap for me,
even with the ridiculousness of Gene Hackman’s Luthor and his sidekick, Ned
Beatty. So, Zack Snyder’s Man of
Steel had a rough hill to climb if it wanted to make a serious impact on
me.
Let’s bullet-point
this:
·
Lois Lane:
I loved the fact that she used her investigative skills to discover who
Superman was, before he was even Superman.
We’ve been told for years that Lois Lane is an award-winning journalist,
but we’ve never seen that in the films and rarely, if ever, in the comics. Having Lois track him down demonstrated her
ability and made her more than just a cipher.
Added bonus: this changes the dynamic of the relationship between
Clark/Superman & Lois in a way that is novel and interesting. Big props for this storytelling point.
·
Pa Kent:
Man, this portrayal by Kevin Costner sure did have a lot of detractors. And I get that. This Pa Kent does not teach his son to be the
hero the world needs. He does not
instill in Clark the selflessness embodied by Superman. This Pa Kent was selfish and scared of what
would happen to his son, if his secret was discovered. That’s not Pa Kent.
Despite the fact that this interpretation missed the core of this character, I
was impressed with how consistent the characterization was throughout the film,
including the tornado scene. His
motivation came from wanting to protect his son, at all costs. And though I disagree strongly with this
characterization, I, as a parent, fully understood and empathized with this Pa
Kent.
·
Krypton:
I did enjoy the visualization of this alien landscape. It was a bunch of flash with stunts we’ve
seen before (did anyone believe Jor-El wasn’t going to be caught by something
when he stepped off into that freefall? No.), but it was cool. And I’m always down to watch Russell Crowe
onscreen. So, put this one in the plus
column.
·
The Kiss (amid the ruins):
Where did this come from? It’s possible
I wasn’t paying close enough attention, but this felt completely forced,
especially amid all that destruction. I
didn’t feel they built up the romance well enough (which, to be fair, can be
said of 95% of the romances in Hollywood films), and the fact that they were
surrounded by all that destruction…Superman is selfless. One could argue this is Superman before he’s
truly become Superman, except that one’s moral core is formed through one’s
childhood. So, even if he’s new to using
his powers, he should not be new to feeling empathy for others. Bad narrative choice here.
o
Aside: we rarely see Superman putting others
first during the destruction of Metropolis – the sidestep of that oil tanker
(which he could have stopped, avoiding the destructive explosion) is the prime
example of this – which is odd, since that seemed to be at the forefront of his
mind before he discovered and put on the spandex.
·
The Battle with Zod et al:
Yes, Superman needs action. And we got
that with Man of Steel. But it
was so over the top, from my point of view, that it just pulled me out of the
narrative. It was ridiculous, the
figures looked obviously animated, and the speed with which they moved made
things muddled. Somehow, the Flash
television show does a better job with super-speed battles than this feature
film did.
o
Beyond how it looked, a lot of people were upset
with the wholesale destruction of Metropolis.
It felt too real for them, reminded a lot of people of the September 11
terrorist attacks. And I get that. But, viewing this film through the lens of my
personal experiences, I didn’t agree with this criticism. Anyone who’s read Superman comics or watched
Superman/Justice League cartoons has witnessed a similar level of destruction. When Kal-El can let loose with his full
force, and has an equally strong foe, there’s bound to be a lot of explosions
and crumbled buildings. It is part of
the appeal of superhero stories. And
have Michael Bay films or the Marvel films shied away from cartoonish examples
of destruction? (if they have, apologies,
I haven’t seen many of them, though I remember some dynamic explosions in the
ones I have)
o
(another aside: why, as a general rule, is
violence something we don’t usually discuss in our entertainment, but sex and
sexuality are always being put upon by righteous people? ßrhetorical)
o
Why didn’t Superman lead Zod away from
Metropolis or Smallville?
Good question. That is what Superman
should do. It’s his M.O. And I don’t know that I have a good
answer. Superman/Clark seems to have a bifurcated
characterization in Man of Steel.
Before he attains “the suit” he is the mystery man with great power who
assists people, anonymously, apparently out of the goodness of his heart. He puts others first and often sacrifices his
latest identity in order to save people, then moving on to become someone
else. And yet, once he has the big red S
on his chest, he seems to regress in his characterization, unthinking of all
those millions of people suffering and dying as a result of his battle with
Zod. It’s strange. One one level, it makes sense with what we
see of his upbringing by Pa Kent, and yet it goes against everything the
audience learns of him while Lois is trailing his mysterious deeds. I don’t know.
That said, as I watched the battle beginning with Zod threatening Clark’s
mother, which throws him into a wild rage, it never felt like Superman/Clark
had time enough to breathe or even consider taking the battle away from the
city. Sure, the writers and Snyder, as
director, set it up that way, but there really was no respite for him to consider
the consequences. He was just reacting.
Ultimately,
I was less bothered by the actual battle and destruction and more annoyed with
the actual execution of it onscreen. So,
let’s call this one a wash.
·
Superman as Jesus:
Did you catch it? DID YOU CATCH IT? Subtle, Zack Snyder ain’t.
Obviously, they are going to utilize this metaphor in the upcoming Batman v.
Superman film. Of course, I
shouldn’t be coming to Hollywood blockbusters for nuance.
·
His powers, and did the filmmakers do anything
“new” with them?:
Even as horrible as Superman III is, the scene where Superman crushes a
piece of coal into a diamond, along with that opening scene where he freezes
the top of a lake and carries the sheet of ice to the refinery to put out the
fire, are scenes that stick in the memory, because it was a new way, onscreen,
of seeing Superman use his powers.
Though much of what we see in Man of Steel isn’t new, we did get
a new way of experiencing his heat vision, and I thought it was pretty great. I liked the visualization of it, along with
the way it was used (even if the final scene with Zod doesn’t work). So, chalk another one up for Man of Steel.
·
Zod’s Death:
Doesn’t work.
I understand what they were going for with this, but the filmmakers missed the
mark. Snyder seemed to want to draw out
the tension of this scene by lingering on the heat vision as it just burned
into that one spot beside the family who are unable to move away from that
wall. What? Superman is holding Zod’s head still, why
doesn’t he do something other than that hackneyed move where you pull your
hands apart and the person’s neck you were holding breaks? (Is this even real? It’s at least a cliché we recognize.)
For this scene to work you don’t need to up the tension; you need to have it be
a split-second decision. Then it would
have felt true to the narrative. Zod
starts his heat vision, Superman plows through him and finally kills him, or
Superman uses his heat vision on Zod and kills him, or Superman drives an
I-beam (there must be some just hanging around in the rubble) through Zod and
kills him. Bang-bang. It has to be quick like that, or it doesn’t
work. And it wasn’t quick. And it doesn’t work.
The core of the idea is an intriguing one, and an idea that John Byrne left for
others to play with when he was writing and drawing Superman in the
mid-eighties, but they dropped the ball on this one.
All this being said
(written), this wasn’t a bad movie.
There’s a lot to like in it. Ultimately,
I was bored with Man of Steel and likely won’t be checking out the
follow-up. I’ve got too many other
things I want to read/watch/do. Plus, I
view Superman as an aspirational character, a hero to look up to. He needs to be differentiated from the
grimness of Batman because they are different characters with different backgrounds,
who work well within their distinct milieus.
But, I suppose
forcing Supes into the grim ‘n gritty box that’s worked so well was the safe
bet. Too bad, because we already had
that grim ‘n gritty hero, the Dark Knight, and it’s difficult to have the
darkness of Batman without it being offset by the lightness of others, like
Superman. Ah, well, what do I know? I guess it’s official, I’ve become the
curmudgeonly old man who wants you off his lawn.
So, get off my
lawn!
chris
