Man of Steel is not just a lousy movie; it is the lousiest
Superman movie that's ever been made. Don't get me wrong: there are certainly things
I liked about it. The dystopian Krypton sequence that begins the film is a film
unto itself, with Russell Crowe providing a brawny, muscular, but appropriately
clinical take on Jor-El. Young Clark being overwhelmed by his powers (and the
film's villains having the same problem later on) is just the sort of detail I
like in my superhero fiction. Lois Lane coming into Superman's circle of trust
from the beginning makes a lot of sense. The performances are strong across the
board (particularly Michael Shannon).
But that doesn't make it a good movie, or a good Superman
movie. I mean, there were things I liked about Superman IV (well, okay, just
Mariel Hemingway). But I'd rather suffer through that again before I'd submit
to another whirl at Man of Steel.
I could go on a harangue about how the film completely
misunderstands key elements of its central character and his mythos, but,
c'mon, that's just going to sound like another comic book nerd losing his shit
because Spider-Man has organic web-shooters. Things get changed, lost, and made
more accessible in the act of adaptation. And that's understandable. I mean, my
ideal Superman movie would have Red Kryptonite, the Bottle City of Kandor, and
the Giant Fricking Key to the Fortress of Solitude. And I know that's sure as
hell never going to happen. If I expected every 150 million dollar movie to
adhere to my tastes and proclivities, I would never enjoy anything, ever. And I
sure as heck wouldn't shell out the cash to go see a movie I didn't fully
intend on enjoying.
I went into this movie wanting to like it. And ultimately,
what I didn't like about it-- the things that made it lousy-- had little to do
with how they adapted the character, but how they failed to deliver on the
premises of their adaptation.
Time and again, characters in the film talk about how the
"S" stands for hope. How Superman represents hope. How he must,
should, and can inspire the people of Earth to be better than they are. And
that is, at its core, a big part of what Superman is about. They pay a lot of
lip-service to this concept.
But that's all it is. Nothing Superman does in the film is particularly
inspiring or hopeful. Mostly he punches the bad guys through buildings and gas
stations, causing massive explosions.
And boy, are there explosions. There is devastation and
property damage and implied carnage on a scale that I've never before seen in a
superhero movie. A death toll is never given, but let's not kid ourselves:
probably thousands of people die during the film's last climactic
seven-and-a-half hours of buildings toppling over. It's a very dark, unsettling,
disturbing vision. And actually it kind of makes sense.
It makes sense because superheroes, and that goes double for
superhero movies, are products of their times, Zeitgeist with a capital Z (the
same goes for zombies, but that's an essay for another time). It makes sense to
dramatize the things we're afraid of, and to reflect the times in the film. It
sets up a world that desperately needs inspiration. That needs hope. That needs
Superman. And I think the filmmakers were acutely aware of this.
I like the idea a lot, and was ready to respond it. Unfortunately,
as I said, he doesn't really do anything other than punch the bad guys and
crash through buildings. At least until the end, when (spoiler alert) he snaps
Zod's neck and then cries about it. I'm not going to get into everything that's
completely wrong, from a true-meaning-of-Superman perspective, with this scene
(again, trying to keep my inner comics-nerd at bay). But taking the film on its
own terms, this act wouldn't inspire anything other than terror and distrust.
The Superman of Man of Steel is a really terrifying and alien
thing. The film plays up this angle, that people will be scared of him and that
it will take time for people to trust him and thus be inspired. But it sets it
up in such a way where the onus is on the character, by his actions, to overcome
those fears. Instead all of his actions simply confirm them.
Nor do we see what would be the logical extension of the inspiration
premise: that is, seeing the people of Earth following in his example. In fact,
the closest thing we get is a scene in which Perry White and another Daily
Planet reporter try to save a third trapped under a pile of rubble. It's a very
good scene, and there's a lovely quiet moment in which White holds the trapped
woman's hand as they wait for what they assume will be their end. But it's a
scene that says something about the basic decency of Perry White, and of people
in general.
I would say perhaps that that scene even refutes the premise
that people need Superman to give them hope. The movie as a whole seems to
refute the premise that we could be inspired by anything so alien. There is no denouement
to suggest otherwise.
The conclusion we are given is committed to putting the last
bits of mythology in place. The closing minutes are focused so intensely and
myopically on Superman, on Clark Kent, and not on the impact, if any, he has
had on our world. This might be part of my problem with the film as a whole.
The Donner Superman, the first half of which might be the closest thing we'll
ever get to a perfect Superman movie, was bigger than the character. It had
room for many things, people, and wonders within its epic sweep. This film by
contrast feels quite small, and there's no room for wonder in its dusty dark
world. No room, in fact, for hope.
