Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Why I loved MAN OF STEEL

I've always been more of a DC guy than a Marvel guy.  This is probably due in large part to the fact that I was born in the mid-70's and grew up with things like SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, the WONDER WOMAN television show, and "Superfriends" as my primary exposures to the comics world.  Sure, I also watched the classic '67 Spider-man cartoon, but for the most part, Marvel was just not on my radar.  When I became a teenager, this trend continued with the arrival of Tim Burton's BATMAN in 1989 and THE FLASH live-action television show the following year.  DC was all I saw and all I cared about.  Marvel didn't have a big-screen success until BLADE in 1997 and didn't really impact the greater pop culture consciousness until 2000's X-MEN.  By this time, we already had 4 Superman movies and 4 Batman movies (the fact that the latter 2 in each franchise were subpar efforts notwithstanding).  The die was cast.  I was a DC guy, and despite Batman being almost universally lauded as the cooler character, I was always a Superman guy.

I'd always loved Christopher Reeve's portrayal of the Man of Steel and couldn't get enough of the first 2 films in his series (I own both the Richard Lester and Richard Donner versions of Superman 2 after all).  And while Superman 3 is atrociously bad, I still have a soft spot in my heart for THE QUEST FOR PEACE--probably because it was the last one Reeve made and includes Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor.  So when SUPERMAN RETURNS was released in 2006, I loved it.  I loved it for its reverential treatment of the Donner film(s) as a "vague history" (Bryan Singer's explanation of how it fit in the established canon and yet also superseded the third and fourth films). I still remember vividly how I got chills during the opening credit sequence when John Williams' majestic theme burst through the theatre's speakers and instantly brought back childhood memories of watching Christopher Reeve in action.  That film also got me onboard through the use of callbacks to the Reeve films as it included unused Marlon Brando footage as Jor-El and dialogue lifts both direct ("Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and your power are needed. Always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son.") and indirect ("Well, I hope this experience hasn't put any of you off flying. Statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel.").  The film was dripping with nostalgia for the original films, and I loved it for that.  But I also loved the new stuff too--especially the epic plane rescue (which still ranks up there with the greatest of superhero action sequences) and the bullet bouncing off of Supe's eye.  The combination worked great for me, but for whatever reason, it didn't resonate with the general public the way Warner Bros. and DC hoped it would--and so the "requel" failed to relaunch the franchise.

Seven years later, and on the 75th birthday of the greatest superhero ever, MAN OF STEEL was released.  Created as an answer to not only the supposed shortcomings of SUPERMAN RETURNS and GREEN LANTERN but also in the wake of Christopher Nolan's superb DARK KNIGHT trilogy, MOS redefined the character in ways that thrilled some and disappointed others. The film was incredibly polarizing despite being a financial success, and it's controversial ending caused an uproar that called into question the very nature of the character himself.  Does Superman kill? Should he? Is there a circumstance that justifies it? Never mind that SUPERMAN 2 had already shown Superman killing Zod (and that there were multiple examples of similar actions in the comics themselves). MAN OF STEEL's inclusion of "Kryptonian-icide"was deemed too brutal by many and was singled out as an example of the filmmakers' failure to grasp the character's true nature. 

Perhaps almost as damning in the eyes of most of MOS's critics was the portrayal of Kal-El's earthly father, Jonathan Kent, who many felt did not adequately prepare his adopted son to become earth's greatest protector. Some complained that his response of "maybe" to Clark's question about letting his classmates die in the bus accident revealed the elder Kent to be selfish and/or paranoid. I would argue that Jonathan's point--and one of MOS's most powerful themes--is that sometimes sacrifices must be made that appear to be cavalier in the short-term so that a hero can reach their ultimate destiny (and save countless more) in the long-term. In the modern-day universe of MOS, there is a considerable amount of paranoia about what the world would do if it found itself invaded by a member of an alien race--as evidenced by the cover-up of the Kryptonian spacecraft by Colonel Hardy and his men and by Perry White's warnings to Lois Lane about printing an article revealing the craft's potential origins.  Seen through this lens, Jonathan Kent's advice to Clark makes a lot of sense.  He is concerned with protecting Clark's anonymity certainly.  But also there is likely concern for the safety of those who would try to take Clark from the Kents by force.  Any who tried would face physical danger from a boy not yet in control of his powers, and if Clark seriously hurt anyone, he would then have to live with the consequences. Jonathan Kent is desperately trying to save his son from having to make those kinds of choices until the boy is ready to handle any and all fallout from them--even if it means sacrificing his own life to do so.

It is here that MOS finds its closest ties to THE DARK KNIGHT.  While there are clearly cosmetic connections to the Nolan Batman films (non-linear story telling, a Hans Zimmer soundtrack, Oscar-winners in supporting roles,etc.), the portrayal of how a hero is defined by his choices is the biggest reason that MOS can be seen as a sort of spiritual sequel to the 2nd of Nolan's Batman films.  For just as Bruce Wayne decides to continue to keep his alter ego a secret even as the Joker promises to kill people as long he does, Superman is forced to face a similar dilemma in turning himself over to the US government and ultimately to Zod.  By doing so, he potentially sacrifices himself to save others.  It's an incredibly selfless act, if a bit naive.  But in stark contrast to Batman's decision, it is undoubtedly the one Superman would and should make, and the beauty of it is that both character's choices are heroic in their own way. What is more is that Kal-El can only make this decision because of how his earthly father raised him and protected him.  He is ready now to make the hard choices as a man because he was spared having to make them as a boy. He exudes confidence even as a surrenders himself, and even if he's not quite the Superman we're used to, it's clear he's on his way.

In fact, the way the way the film deals with the concept of identity is another one of its strongest points.  Not content to simply re-hash the "how does Lois not know that Clark is Superman" trope, MOS reinvents that whole dynamic by having Lois discover Clark's alien heritage early in the film and makes the intrepid reporter both his confidant and a true force to be reckoned with. Consequently, this version of the Superman mythos gives us a Kal-El who must develop two secret identities.  Of course, there's the "big, blue boyscout," but the Daily Planet's own Clark Kent (who is not fully formed until the final scene) is very clearly another construct that Kal-El needs in order to reach his true destiny and become the hero both his fathers thought he would be.

Which brings us to the end of the film.  This is the point at which the most criticism is aimed, and I believe unfairly so. Some people have gone so far as to blame Superman for the destruction of Metropolis, but I find this argument problematic as he was literally halfway around the world battling the world engine when the siege on the city began. By the time he arrived, most of the damage had been done and most of the citizenry had either evacuated or already been killed. Some say that he should have led Zod away to continue the fight, but doesn't the fact that the fight extended into space only to return to Metropolis take the steam out of that argument? In any case, Zod was not someone to negotiate with at this point in the film. Instead, he was a warrior bred for a single cause--the protection of Krypton--and he wasn't about lighten up or change his mind after being denied his only chance to preserve his race. As he himself stated, there was only way to stop him--to kill him.

Throughout Kal-El's journey to becoming a hero, he faced several difficult choices, or tests if you will.  But now, he was faced with the choice of watching Zod slaughter a family and continue the rampage on Metropolis or end the general's life, have that blood on his hands, and become the last of his species (unless Supergirl shows up as has been rumored). Both are impossible choices, but Superman makes the one that is the least selfish--just as he always has and always will--and clearly suffers emotional anguish in the aftermath. He sacrifices his own innocence to save innocents. Could there be a more selfless act?

Does Superman kill? He did this time, but you can be absolutely sure that he will do everything in his power to not be put in that situation again. He will grow from this. He will get stronger. And he will be the hero we all want and think we deserve. That's why I love Superman. And that's why I love MAN OF STEEL. 

No comments:

Post a Comment