Ryan McNeil
It’s easy to give in. The temptation resides within all of us to do what is best for ourselves and those closest to us. To exert any further effort takes sacrifice, takes selflessness, and takes a desire to do more good than most of us possess. However, we all have it within ourselves to make a choice, and for that, we need guidance. We need people to show us the way, and to show us the sort of greater good that can be achieved. We need people to teach us when we are young and impressionable, and also once we are grown and calloused. To overcome those temptations, we need to be taken by the hand and shown what can come when we allow ourselves to trust in something…in someone…
In short: we need a hero.
MAN OF STEEL begins on Krypton. We watch the familiar story of Lara and Jor-El (Ayelet Zurer and Russell Crowe) sending their only infant son, Kal-El, to a distant world in a last-ditch effort to ensure his survival as their planet begins to die. This act of parental protection especially infuriates a Kryptonian general named Zod (Michael Shannon), who vehemently disagrees with Jor-El on the value of free will on Krypton. After acts of treason and sedition – which involve the murder of Jor-El – Zod and his platoon are sentenced to life in an off-world prison.
Kal-El’s spacecraft takes him to earth where he is raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). They name the child Clark and raise him to be kind, respectful, and humble. This proves especially trying when the human-looking-alien child begins to develop special abilities. As these abilities develop, they make Clark seem like a freak to the children around him, and also make him a target for bullying since he cannot fight back. At home though, he is raised with patience and given the values that will guide him as he learns about who he truly is and what he can do.
At age 33 Clark (Henry Cavill) has been wandering the globe alone. He commits random acts of kindness, often-times saving the lives of perfect strangers. His search for meaning eventually brings him to The Arctic Circle, where a Kryptonian craft is buried deep in a glacier.
Unbeknownst to Clark as he searches the globe for answers, a reporter named Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is two steps behind him. After encountering the same Kryptonian craft in The Arctic, Lois is in search of this mysterious do-gooder, wanting to know who he is…and more importantly, what he is.
Unfortunately for both Clark and Lois, before the truth can really go forth, Zod arrives on Earth. Seems as though when a Kryptonian court is destroyed with its planet, a Kryptonian criminal’s sentence is expunged. Unfortunately, that doesn’t leave the criminal in a repentant mood.
One of the first thing that one notices about MAN OF STEEL is a certain lack of awe. The heroism of this movie doesn’t come with the usual spectacle. There are no worlds being spun off-orbit, no cars being lifted, no helicopters hoisted, and no airplanes caught. This time around, Superman isn’t out to stand with his hands on his hips and make us cheer. What he wants to do is embody bigger ideas and make us think.
He wants to think about who we are born as, and who we choose to be. He also wants us to think about what we’re capable of, and what we decide to do with those capabilities.
MAN OF STEEL puts a paradox in play that isn’t usually explored within the Superman Mythology, and it deals squarely with his ability to save lives.
When Clark is a boy, his adopted father warns him off about saving every life he can. When Clark asks if that means that he is supposed to let people die, Jonathan Kent hesitates but honestly answers “Maybe”. What he knows, but doesn’t dare admit out loud, is that there is a natural order to things…and interfering too often will come with great consequence. Later though, as Clark encounters the spirit of his birth father, Jor-El suggests that he can “save them all”. One wonders just how literal Jor-El is being, but the fact that he has just directly contradicted Jonathan Kent cannot be ignored.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how hard he tries, even Superman cannot be all things to all people. He is a god among men, and as we remember that, we must also remember how many prayers to God seemingly go unanswered. Sometimes though, as is the case with the lives Superman cannot save, there is a greater plan. Lives are not strictly saved by acts of bravery; lives can also be saved by inspiring others to be better.
Therein lies the reason to the Jonathan Kent/Jor-El contradiction: Superman cannot literally save people every time death is staring at them, but by inspiring humanity to be better, perhaps he can make people re-examine life on this planet, and make it a better existence.
There’s a duality to that idea, a delicate balance…and in some ways that difficult balance is reflected in the film at hand. It strives to be something new; taking the character tropes we know and bending them into a new direction. Doing so, however, feels jarring when audiences don’t get the trumpet flourishes and hero poses they expect. The film also wants to give us more action than this character has ever endured on-screen, but doing that comes at the risk of bloat, bombast, and effects-overload.
The same way Kal-El struggles to decide when and how to save mankind, MAN OF STEEL struggles to decide which is the best way to depict Superman’s plight. What one takes away from the film, as is the case so often, depends entirely on them.
Is the picture of the crotch titled “it means hope” on purpose or did my computer froze and I can’t see the gif.. If on purpose.. well done, well done! 😀
Heh – no, I don’t use gifs for my reviews so it’s a still image.
I decided to go with my favorite shot in the film and combine it with my favorite quote.
I liked that we got to see the backstory in more detail, but god, couldn’t someone have cracked a smile once in a while?
You didn’t rate this. Any reason why?
Superman smiled now and then when he was talking to Lois. Plus I imagine we’ll get more smiles in the inevitable sequel(s).
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice the lack of stars.
I’m sidestepping a rating this time because I’m more than slightly biased. Superman is my favorite comic book character, so my enjoyment of this film is more than a little bit rigged. That might sound like a cop-out, but I really don’t think I can be objective on this one.
I don’t see it as a cop-out. It’s actually a pretty honest move.
Sorry, but I call BS on this review. If it wanted to be about the ideas you bring up, it wouldn’t be so cavalier about making the loss of million of lives and the leveling of a city such a spectacle to behold. You can go the complete opposite with this and ask how many lives Superman casually puts at risk and potentially kills because of how many buildings he smashes through in the course of battle.
You talk about guidance in the opening paragraph, a lead-in to the fact we need a hero like Superman, and yet this film completely destroys Clark Kent’s own guidance as a child. The Kents always support and lead Clark in the best way, imbuing him with love and a value for life, something that Jonathan goes against in this film. The Jonathan Kent of the mythos would have told Clark he did the right thing in the bus scene. Here, he gives him that dark answer.
None of the hopefulness, none of the heroism of Superman comes through. It’s a dower, smothered take on the character, if he can even be called that after the drastic changes made.
Even ignoring that, it’s not a well-made movie and the storytelling lacks focus.
You can call BS on the movie – calling BS on the review feels a little rude, James.
…but since you brought it up…
*** SPOILERS ***
Metropolis is a big city, and as the scene plays out, we can see that most of it is still standing. Indeed, a lot of damage is done within the course of battle, but realistically the loss of life would appear to be in the thousands – not millions. What’s more, this slugfest goes on while The Kryptonians are trying to terraform the planet and wipe out all of humanity. So yeah, Superman causes some collateral damage – but compare that to the genocide that’s about to take place if he does nothing.
The situation with the bus is a complicated one, because it’s one that involves a 14-year-old boy. as much of a godsend as “Superboy” would be, the fact is that would be a lot of responsibility to put on to a boy. Jonathan likely understands that, which is why he tells Clark that he has to decide who he’s going to grow up to be. Is he going to be the sort of man who uses his powers only when he wants to – not wanting to stick his neck out for yokels who would dump beer on him? Maybe, but he’s not ready to decide that yet. Hence the dark answer.
Yes, the hopefulness and heroism have been dialed back a bit this time (though I think there’s still a high degree of heroism in saving the whole planet from annihilation). However, considering how little playing up the heroism and hopefulness did for the last three films – maybe it was time to try something different.
There are flaws to the film indeed, but unfocused storytelling isn’t one of them.
Sorry if that came across as a personal attack. I apologize if I came across as too crass and blunt.
I’m don’t think the film actually supports any of your argument. The film never frames the choice that way. Once he gets the costume and his father tells them this is his role, nothing after that puts it in that sort of dichotomy. Even something as cliche as the Spider-Man ultimatum given by Green Goblin on the bridge would do a much better job at framing the film the way you are talking about.
And while it’s true he can’t be all things to all people, the film doesn’t even make it clear whom he is to anyone in this film. His only relationship with real people is in the context of the American Military Complex, Lois Lane or his mother. We don’t see people scared of him or kids who want to be them. We’re told it will scare people, but we’re never shown it.
SPOILERS
Yes, he saves the planet, but I think he would still be pretty torn about the collateral damage he caused, which isn’t the case when he uses the aftermath to make out with Louis Lane.
Comic book writer Mark Waid wrote a piece that also deals with the destruction and idea of heroism and saving lives:
http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/
I think that’s a great way to look at it. I loved the movie whole hog and didn’t have any problems with the morality of Superman as a whole. My only problems were very minor and nitpicky and didn’t detract from the movie experience at all. Like how does he know how to fight when he’s been a pacifist for 33 years? And why does Zod want to make Earth more like Krypton when Kryptonians would be much more powerful if they left it as-is? Though I would explain that last one as he is essentially programmed to protect Krypton and it’s people and he would rather make Earth into another Krypton than have Krypton essentially squatting on Earth.
See, I think that’s part of what led to all the destruction – he didn’t really know how to fight, nor did he have a full grip on how to tale charge of a situation yet.
Really and truly, what I think we witnessed here was a First Flight, and the lessons that Superman will take with him going forward as Earth’s protector.
I’m really torn on this film. The thing I like about Superman is the fun he brings to the screen with his ability to do most anything, but this version of the character doesn’t do much of that at all. As you say, “One of the first thing that one notices about MAN OF STEEL is a certain lack of awe.” And that’s something I have a real hard time letting go of with this character. I love the awe that Superman inspires.
But as you say, this film is more about Superman becoming Superman and deciding what kind of man he’ll be. But this is something that I only really noticed in the hours following the film as I thought back on it. While watching I was so overcome with “debris exhaustion” that I couldn’t make sense of what they were going for in this one. It just seems so much more unfocused than I’d like it to be, but I didn’t expect much else from Zack Snyder. I have yet to really like anything I’ve seen from him. It also seemed incredibly over serious.
But! I did think the final scene was a great nod to the future of the series, and I may just get that modern Superman film I wanted come sequel time. I’m definitely game to give them another shot.