But I intend to go see it anyway. Every interpretation of Superman has had its flaws. Nevertheless, my younger son and I go to all the new superhero movies (most recently, “Iron Man III”). Every sincere effort deserves its chance.
Still, I go forewarned. Both reviews I read this morning — one by Joe Morgenstern at the WSJ, and the other from my app for The State (from McClatchy-Tribune News Service, of course, since The State hasn’t had a reviewer in many a year) — were pretty brutal. Others I glanced at weren’t much more encouraging.
The flaws they point out were predictable ones.
- First, there’s the matter of taking itself too seriously. There are a number of mentions out there of the rather blunt ways that this Kal-El is presented as a Christ figure. Well, we’ve seen that done in quite a few good flicks — “On the Waterfront,” “Cool Hand Luke,” the Lord of the Rings trilogy — as well as some awful ones, such as David Lynch’s execrable “Dune.” Basically, it’s the most compelling narrative we have in Western culture, which is why it crops up in everything from Arthurian legend to Harry Potter and “The Matrix.” But Superman/Clark Kent, properly understood, is an unassuming sort, for all of his power. The character in the comics, at least in my day, didn’t venture into the realm of blasphemy, even for dramatic effect.
- Second, the production “seeks to reboot and modernize the world’s most famous superhero.” Morgenstern refers to “the darkly revisionist premise,” which immediately makes me want to groan. The two-bit philosophers of Hollywood are constantly trying to “improve” perfectly fine old stories with a “modern” twist. Because, of course, we who live in the 21st century are so much wiser, hipper, more moral, more honest, more realistic, than those benighted saps who lived in previous times. “Darkness,” you see, is hip and smart; lightness is hopelessly passé. Which, to use the edgy language of our better, hipper times, is utter bull___t. Superman, properly understood, is square. And that’s a good thing. He’s a small-town American boy (that’s how he was raised by Ma and Pa Kent) with extraordinary abilities and a code of conduct that would have done credit to a knight in the age of chivalry. (Superman is supposed to be very much like the unassuming, all-American Roy Hobbs in the movie version of “The Natural,” not the cynical version in Bernard Malamud’s original novel.) His decidedly unhip Clark Kent persona is a large part of who he is, not a false front like those of Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel. Truth, Justice, and the American Way — without a trace of irony. Yes, I’m influenced in this by having come up in the Silver Age of DC comics, but that is a tradition that needs to be respected. I know DC has a huge inferiority complex because Marvel has always been cooler. But hip and ironic are what Marvel is, not what DC is, and DC should own its squareness. This production is said to be too cool even to use the name, “Superman.” Which is irritating.
- Finally, there’s the empty, soulless, overdone action, which is compared unfavorably in one of the reviews to the “Transformers” movies, which I have thus far successfully avoided. I’ve gotten to where, even in enjoyable films like “The Avengers,” I tend during the more extreme action sequences to want to do the hand-rolling gesture that means, yes, yes, I know, stupendous action, yadda, yadda, let’s move on. The more extreme the effects, the more bored I tend to be. (I like what Jackie Chan does, and hate “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.”) Movie action reached its height in 1963 when a stand-in for Steve McQueen (alas, the rumors that Steve did it himself were not true) jumped over that barbed-wire barrier at the Swiss border in “The Great Escape.” That was awe-inspiring because a real person really did it, and as impressive as it was, it was in the realm of believability that a real man, desperate to escape, really could have done that. Barry Pepper’s skilled sniper, who occasionally missed when rushed in the final battle scene of “Saving Private Ryan,” is impressive because you can believe it. What Superman can do, of course, is meant to be beyond human abilities as we know them. But they’re more “super” if they occur against a backdrop of human scale — which is too seldom the case in “action” flicks today. The “Bourne” movies with Matt Damon did an excellent job of portraying action that is impressive but still believable. Most “action” movies today consider the height of excitement to be tremendous (and unrealistic) explosions that give the multiplex speakers a workout. It sounds like this latest “Man of Steel” is in the latter category.
But hey, they say that the “S” on this Man of Steel’s costume is actually a Kryptonian symbol meaning hope. So I’ll hope this is way better than the reviews say (even though that pretentious “it’s not an ‘S'” conceit is just the kind of thing that makes me groan).
Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Superman, properly understood.
Related Posts
The movie is in line with what DC did in the “New 52,” the revamp that they did in 2012. The characters were de-aged and reset back to the early part of their careers when they were viewed with suspicion by folks rather than as the heroes they had been prior to the reboot. The tone is much darker and edgier (think this movie and the recent “Dark Knight” Batman trilogy) and any “lighter” characters have either been changed or eliminated. However, it was not, for the most part, a complete retconn–much of the earlier history has been retained, at least for the more iconic characters. In spite of protests from some fans it seems to be working for them so far. Apparently most of the comic fans they are trying to appeal to like a more dystopian and “adult” feel to their comics.
Dang. I thought we’d have some fun with this one. I just never know with these pop culture things. I post “Top 12 Songs I Either Missed Entirely, or Didn’t Fully Appreciate at the Time,” and get 85 replies. Not so with Superman.
Oh, well, I appreciate James Cross’ thoughtful reply.
Maybe if Jerry Seinfeld read this blog, we would have got something going. This is his kind of topic.
And James, when the characters are “reset back to the early part of their careers when they were viewed with suspicion by folks rather than as the heroes,” it makes for a lot of dramatic tension.
But again, I came up in the Silver Age, and in those days Superboy was an established hero in Smallville, who just later moved to Metropolis. Most movie “origin” stories have him first being unveiled to the world as an adult. The TV series “Smallville” has him not yet donning the blue suit or the persona, I believe.
But that’s not the Superman I know.
Perhaps it’s a purer, more interesting, more literary story to have him struggling with his identity in Smallville just as other adolescents do, and then emerging as a mysterious caped figure in Metropolis. Perhaps you’ll say that having him as a fully-realized hero in “Superboy” comics is a case of the character jumping the shark, especially the episodes which look back to his time as “Superbaby.” But hey, those spinoff comics gave us Krypto, and Lana Lang, and Pete Ross — and the young Lex Luthor! So they can’t be all bad.
Lana Lang, Lois Lane… quick, everyone — name another LL girl! (I only have one other in mind. Don’t cheat by clicking!)
Don’t care for comic book hero films. Henry Cavill is hot, though.
Indeed he is. Glad they did away with the underpants, like with Batman. I like comic book movies, generally. And not just because of the hot guys in tights. But mostly because of that. Green Lantern sucked, but Ryan Reynolds in that costume? Oh, yeah!
I hope we’ll see a “Bizzaro World” type story on Brad’s Blog. One with Bizzaro Brad supporting free market health care, Bizzaro Bud supporting small government, Bizzaro Doug Ross fighting for unions, large government and world socialism, and Bizzaro Juan Caruso cheering for lawyers everywhere.
“Me am loving some Jim DeMint and Nikki Haley,” say Bizarro Brad. “Me think Edward Snowden big hero!”
That’s what I’m talking about! Don’t forget that you have been a big Sanford supporter in recent years, as well, Bizzaro Brad.
And “free market health care,” as it manifests itself in this country, really does seem to be something thought up on the Bizarro World.
“This am good way to provide health care! Because best health care am inaccessible kind! Me want few people as possible to see doctor.”
The problem with the Bizarro World, of course, is that once you do a double-reverse, you get back to logic.
For instance, you might legitimately want fewer people to have access to Bizarro doctors, because they’d probably be healthier that way…
By the way, this movie turned out to be pretty good. The critics were wrong.