I started this article thinking I was going to analyze it ala Iron Man 3. It's taken a couple of weeks for me to realize this will never get done if I treat it like that. It also revealed something very important about my opinion on Man of Steel-- I'm simply not very passionate it. Iron Man 3 kept me thinking and loving despite its slew of flaws. Man of Steel has moments that grasp me, but nothing sticks. As a blog dedicated to movies and series that reach out to my heart and mind, I've discovered it doesn't flutter to Man of Steel. I'm not alone, but it's not a universal agreement either. There's a reason for that.Spoilers after the jump.
Deja Vu
This may be the last time Kal-El's origins need to be told for many, many decades. If ever again. On top of Richard Donner's 1978 epic, the story has also been (re)told in an animated television show and ten tedious seasons of the sluggish Smallville. I commend Christopher Nolan and David Goyer for their attempt to put a new spin on the origin, but the result was convoluted.
Introduced is the idea that Krypton is a slave to unnatural birth. It is a culture that breeds citizens for specific jobs. Meanwhile, over-mining has damaged the planet's core and it will inevitably collapse. Jor-El and Lara-El code the life giving power of engineering Krypton's people in their son, Kal-El, and jettison him to Earth. Lets skip the part where Zod, a man engineered to be a great warrior, was smacked down by Jor-El, a man who was bred to be a scientist. I'm not entirely sure what the point of placing Krypton's life-generating object in their naturally born son was. It's a puzzling story device used to set up bigger things later on, but what was the original point?I apologize for the recap, but I'm honestly wondering if I missed something. Allow me to walk through this again: Jor-El believed one of Krypton's greatest faults was the genetic engineering of their population. In defiance he and his wife have a naturally born son. Next, his idea to save their species is to place the engine of unnatural birth within his naturally born son's DNA? If anyone has an explanation for Jor-El's logic, do tell. I'm puzzled.
In any case, Krypton implodes and Kal-El becomes Clark Kent. From there Clark's story is non-linear. He broods across the world, searching for answers, while reminded of pivotal moments from his childhood. This leads to the genesis of Superman.
Parenting and Spirituality
As a fan of non-linear storytelling I loved the way Zack Snyder and David Goyer handled Clark's journey. It worked in Batman Begins and I can understand the need to do it with Clark Kent. At its heart the story is about a man trying to figure out what to do with his life. Where does he belong? How does he fit in? The genius behind this is that these are powerfully relatable questions, ones that require guidance. Good parents will help their children hone their skills and stay with them during the most difficult times. In other cases, people look to higher intelligence to learn more. They might even experience this on a spiritual level.For Clark Kent this is nothing more than a natural progression. His parents are there for him when he struggles with his abilities. (Or curse?) Later, when he comes of age, he looks for his place in the world and seeks a higher knowledge.
Superman has never been without Judeo-Christian symbolism and his Christ-like characteristics are evident with the Earthly father and "real" father mythology. The mythology is even stronger here, since natural birth on Krypton is considered "unnatural" and puts another spin on Superman's Christ-like image. This origin story emphasizes the yearning, and calling, for something higher once we move from the safety of our parents. Clark, as expected, finds his true father and is called by that voice to do great things. Children who have grown in Judeo-Christian homes are sometimes, in a vague sense, groomed and encouraged by their parents to seek out their calling through exploration and higher guidance. No doubt some other religions do the same. I personally don't consider it a mystery that Superman's origins are based on a similar template. The basic mythology works beautifully and I consider it a major strength within the film."It's all in the details..."
While Man of Steel drips of powerful mythology, it slips when connecting the principal players to the audience. Again, I love non-linear stories, but Man of Steel jumps back and forth a little too abruptly for me to connect with the Kents. As a result, key moments like the death of Jonathan Kent, Clark's (Earthly) father, fall flat for me. The flashbacks are just too short and show too little to make an impact.
This isn't to say that there aren't moments that pluck the heart strings. In the final flashback, Jonathan is watching a young Clark play in the front yard with a red sheet tied around his neck. It's wonderfully charming. It's the point Jonathan knew his son's calling and by then we've connected with him enough to register his awe. But when he's swept away by a tornado I didn't feel anything. There wasn't enough of him beforehand.
As I've preached and yelled many times before, it is imperative that we feel connected to characters within epic journeys. If such moments matter to our lead hero then they must matter to the audience. Otherwise, much of the hero's journey is lost on us.
In addition to my fluctuating care for the supporting characters, I have an equal love-hate relationship with how the film showcased its story. The old film student adage goes, "show-don't-tell" (unless it's a heist movie). Man of Steel does this well in a few areas. Although one of the many complaints is that Henry Cavill's Clark doesn't have a whole lot of dialogue, it's largely because we're watching him more than listening. His journey from one spot to another doesn't yield a lot of speech, but as long as what he's doing is engaging it's completely acceptable.
However, once Clark finds his true (spiritual?) father, Jor-El explains our hero's origins with a backdrop adopting images of Krypton's past. This is a pet-peeve moment for myself. I typically can't stand stories that have to explain an enormous amount of exposition to the audience and use flashy imagery to go along with it. The hideous Dragonball: Evolution and Green Lantern movies made the mistake to open like this. I remember my least favorite scene in the seventh Harry Potter film was the Deathly-Hallows fable and even the over-praised Lord of the Rings made use of massive exposition in this manner. The difference? Jor-El is telling a story we've already seen. Not simply in this movie, but in previous iterations. I don't understand the point of retelling information that is not only well known, but has been fleshed out in great detail earlier in the story.
I had an idea that, because this movie is told non-linearly, Man of Steel could've opened with Clark on the fishing boat and saving people from the oil rig. The audience would be in on Clark's journey-- trying to find out why he has these powers and what he's doing on Earth. It would have grounded the movie and slowly built to the over-abundant sci-fi spectacle. That way, when Clark finally finds his father, the audience could see the last days of Krypton through Jor-El. It would place us in Clark's shoes and give us a greater sense of revelation for this version of the story. Alas.
The Superman character was first unveiled in Action Comics #1. I'd like to emphasize the word action. It has been the complaint of many fans, and casual movie goers alike, that the Superman movies have skimped on the hard hitting battles. I'm not an avid comic book reader, but from what little I've seen Superman has done some fairly extraordinary things. I doubt that even modern special effects could accurately display the absurd lengths Superman has gone to ensure humanity's survival. That said, Man of Steel makes up for the lack of action in all five of the previous Superman flicks.
The action is a point of both praise and pain. On the one hand, we finally see a Superman that is as god-like as we expect him to be. Dare I say these were the most incredible action pieces of recent memory. I could feel every hit that Superman landed. My head would adjust to catch up with the characters' speed. My jaw was ajar because it was unlike any fist fight I had ever seen. It also went on too long.
In a sense the massive action keeps the stakes high. The story of a young man finding his place in the world is relatively small. Yet, when his place is to stop armageddon the ante is unquestionably exponential. But when slamming villains through buildings and aircraft go on and on it loses its muster.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so callouss as the battles are, admittedly, a whole lot of fun. But I did tire of watching Superman fight a stationary spacecraft with robotic tentacles. There's a fine line between fun and exhausting and I believe Snyder inched over it a little too far.
So with the action scenes in full swing we come to another point of contingency with critics and fans. No doubt many have noticed that the city smashing in Man of Steel makes Transformers: Dark of the Moon and The Avengers look like a pee-wee baseball warmup. I for one had a lot of fun seeing how Metropolis was leveled, but many blame Superman for not saving enough lives during the annihilation of his trademark city.This isn't to say that there aren't moments that pluck the heart strings. In the final flashback, Jonathan is watching a young Clark play in the front yard with a red sheet tied around his neck. It's wonderfully charming. It's the point Jonathan knew his son's calling and by then we've connected with him enough to register his awe. But when he's swept away by a tornado I didn't feel anything. There wasn't enough of him beforehand.
As I've preached and yelled many times before, it is imperative that we feel connected to characters within epic journeys. If such moments matter to our lead hero then they must matter to the audience. Otherwise, much of the hero's journey is lost on us.
In addition to my fluctuating care for the supporting characters, I have an equal love-hate relationship with how the film showcased its story. The old film student adage goes, "show-don't-tell" (unless it's a heist movie). Man of Steel does this well in a few areas. Although one of the many complaints is that Henry Cavill's Clark doesn't have a whole lot of dialogue, it's largely because we're watching him more than listening. His journey from one spot to another doesn't yield a lot of speech, but as long as what he's doing is engaging it's completely acceptable.However, once Clark finds his true (spiritual?) father, Jor-El explains our hero's origins with a backdrop adopting images of Krypton's past. This is a pet-peeve moment for myself. I typically can't stand stories that have to explain an enormous amount of exposition to the audience and use flashy imagery to go along with it. The hideous Dragonball: Evolution and Green Lantern movies made the mistake to open like this. I remember my least favorite scene in the seventh Harry Potter film was the Deathly-Hallows fable and even the over-praised Lord of the Rings made use of massive exposition in this manner. The difference? Jor-El is telling a story we've already seen. Not simply in this movie, but in previous iterations. I don't understand the point of retelling information that is not only well known, but has been fleshed out in great detail earlier in the story.
I had an idea that, because this movie is told non-linearly, Man of Steel could've opened with Clark on the fishing boat and saving people from the oil rig. The audience would be in on Clark's journey-- trying to find out why he has these powers and what he's doing on Earth. It would have grounded the movie and slowly built to the over-abundant sci-fi spectacle. That way, when Clark finally finds his father, the audience could see the last days of Krypton through Jor-El. It would place us in Clark's shoes and give us a greater sense of revelation for this version of the story. Alas.
Action Comics
The Superman character was first unveiled in Action Comics #1. I'd like to emphasize the word action. It has been the complaint of many fans, and casual movie goers alike, that the Superman movies have skimped on the hard hitting battles. I'm not an avid comic book reader, but from what little I've seen Superman has done some fairly extraordinary things. I doubt that even modern special effects could accurately display the absurd lengths Superman has gone to ensure humanity's survival. That said, Man of Steel makes up for the lack of action in all five of the previous Superman flicks.The action is a point of both praise and pain. On the one hand, we finally see a Superman that is as god-like as we expect him to be. Dare I say these were the most incredible action pieces of recent memory. I could feel every hit that Superman landed. My head would adjust to catch up with the characters' speed. My jaw was ajar because it was unlike any fist fight I had ever seen. It also went on too long.
In a sense the massive action keeps the stakes high. The story of a young man finding his place in the world is relatively small. Yet, when his place is to stop armageddon the ante is unquestionably exponential. But when slamming villains through buildings and aircraft go on and on it loses its muster.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so callouss as the battles are, admittedly, a whole lot of fun. But I did tire of watching Superman fight a stationary spacecraft with robotic tentacles. There's a fine line between fun and exhausting and I believe Snyder inched over it a little too far.
Morality
I maintain this is a silly criticism considering how full his hands were, but perhaps it isn't totally unfounded. Man of Steel is practically Clark Begins. This is the first time the character has encountered such a situation. This is now the bar from which he has to improve. Batman was not yet the "Dark Knight" by the end of Batman Begins, interestingly, Clark isn't quite Superman by the end of Man of Steel. The movie certainly provided the steel, but there's more than strength that makes Superman. A highly criticized example is Zod's death by the film's end. Though many refute the idea that Superman would kill in such a manner, it's very clear that this moment affected the character. Superman screams in remorse after snapping his adversaries' neck, only to be comforted by Lois. Was it because Zod was the only other Kryptonian? Was it because Clark had never killed before? Or was it because he was forced to briefly abandon the morals his parents taught him? All the above, I think. It's certainly a more satisfying end for both Clark and Zod than Superman 2's climax.
I'm astounded at how people are upset about Zod's death in Man of Steel, but forget how his arc ended in Superman 2. For those who need their memory refreshed: Superman took Zod's powers away and, instead of taking the now harmless Kryptonian to prison, forced him to fall to his death. This is, of course, with a smile and a wink at Lois Lane who also kills one of Zod's henchmen.
This time Clark's ethical stance is burdened. Men who find their calling must often make hard decisions. Right or wrong, the decision won't be easy and it can be improved upon. I hope this is a notion both the character, and especially the creative team, roll with.
Mind's Eye
A friend of mine said she wished every critic would end their review with the words, "...in my humble opinion." My rebuttal was that it was understood and critics aren't paid to remind readers their work is an opinion. It continued to bother her that critics were basically selling or condemning movies based on a self-indulgent need to be heard. I don't entirely agree with that either, but it makes me think about how easily some people can be swayed. As I write this Man of Steel is sitting at 56% on rotten tomatoes.com. Not a particularly good rating, but clearly representing split masses. I believe I represent that level headed split pretty well, but most either don't like this movie or love it.
My younger sister put up some good arguments for it. Although I felt a little dry, post-movie, she had nothing but praise for it. With the faith of a child, she was very much taken with the Judeo-Christian imagery of the film and even pointed out evidence of it in scenes I didn't think about. The movie and the journey the character goes through, spoke to her on a level it didn't with me. When Jonathan Kent reveals Clark is not of this Earth, Clark begs to pretend that he's still Jonathan's son. The touching moment inspired my sister to dedicate an art piece to the idea that Christ had a similar conversation with his father, Joseph. Like Man of Steel, it paints the man behind the myth. Such glowing inspiration is rare-- even from films. So Superman's latest must be doing something right.
As modern mythology, Superman is still a relevant character. That alone should be worth the price of admission. What I walked out with was a mixture of great ideas and meandering plot details. Man of Steel never convinced me to give myself up to it, but if you spoke to my sister, it's the best story in the Superman film canon. That's the nature of what speaks to us I suppose... in my humble opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment