Given the box office returns, it seems that I wasn’t the only one ignoring the critics over the weekend and going to see “Man of Steel” anyway.
Good thing, too, because most of the warnings I’d read turned out to be wrong:
- It didn’t really take itself too seriously. Yes, the production was visually darker than the 1978 version, but I didn’t see any more of a messianic theme than we’ve come accustomed to. Yes, like Jesus, Clark Kent is raised by an adoptive father (which has been true since the earliest iterations of the characters), and has a real father who speaks to him in apparent defiance of the natural order (the norm since the 1978 version), and Russell Crowe’s character does predict that his son will be “like a god” to the people of Earth. But we are forgetting what Jor-El said in the 1978 version, perhaps because we just expected Marlon Brando to talk like that: “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.” I mean, come on. Russell Crowe’s Jor-El was quite down-to-Earth compared to that.
- OK, so it was sort of a modernized version, but that came out mostly in the 21st-century production values, and the costume (and don’t ask me how Jor-El managed to get a perfectly-fitted Superman costume, complete with the family crest, onto a ship that was sent to Earth 18,000 years ago; it’s just one of those suspension-of-disbelief things, like, you know, a man being able to fly) had a very updated feel to it. But the reports I heard that the name “Superman” was never uttered in the film were false. And there’s a great flashback scene to Clark as a little boy playing with a makeshift red cape out by Ma Kent’s laundry waving in the Kansas wind that is about as traditional, simple, innocent all-American as you can get. In fact, Superman directly contradicts the reports that he is a sort of “internationalized” version of the hero by telling an Army general (and I’m reconstructing this from memory, not being able to find the quote online), “I grew up in Kansas. How do you get more American than that?”
- Finally, I don’t think the action was overdone. Which is saying something, coming from me. I thought the bams and booms and crashes were about what you’d expect from two Kryptonians having a fistfight among the skyscrapers of a modern city. Neither too much, nor two little.
My main criticism — and this is more a business consideration for Warner Brothers — is that I don’t see how they top themselves after this, plotwise. (And obviously, they intend sequels — after all, Clark doesn’t go to work for The Daily Planet until the last scene.) General Zod doesn’t show up until the second installment of the Christopher Reeve version, and that seems smart to me. First, you establish that Superman has these abilities far greater than those of Earth men. You have him save people falling from helicopters, and having a run-in with Lex Luthor. After you’ve established that nobody can touch this guy (without Kryptonite), you say, yeah, but… what if he faces a threat from another Kryptonian? And it’s at that point that you trot out General Zod and his minions.
Speaking of Zod, one of the updates is that he is conflicted. He is truly devoted to the interests of his own people, the remaining Kryptonians, and his evil arises from his complete indifference to the fate of Earthlings. I sort of miss the unconflicted Terence Stamp version: “Kneel before Zod!”
Related Posts
Speaking of flying and suspension of disbelief…
No filmmaker has ever figured out exactly what Superman’s flying power is. I mean, is it that he has the strength to take tremendous jumps to the point of achieving escape velocity (in which case, how does he change direction once he’s up there), or is it simply an antigravity thing that enables him to hover in the air, and float (really, really fast) in whatever direction he chooses?
Again, it seems to be both. He takes these dramatic leaps in which he exerts tremendous force upon the ground, making pebbles bounce around on the ground before he takes off. He has to ask Lois to back off a little before he takes off — no, a little bit more, please…
Reviewers have noted how violent his flight seems to be, with the wind roaring past and buffeting him with great force.
On the other hand, at other times he just sort of floats there. So it’s both. And neither. Reflecting the fact that there’s just no logical way to explain it…
By the way, I was really impressed by the way they found an actress to play Zod’s evil-chick sidekick who looked so much like the one in “Superman II.” Only the new one is hotter.
But I guess that’s the magic of makeup. Dark lipstick goes a long way toward achieving that look. I guess it’s easy to fool guys with stuff like that, seeing as how we don’t fully understand how makeup works.
By the way, here’s a completely gratuitous shot of Valerie Perrine from the earlier series.
Hey, Kathryn started this by saying Henry Cavill was “hot.”
Nerd Point 1)
“General Zod doesn’t show up until the second installment of the Christopher Reeve version, and that seems smart to me.” – Brad
INCORRECT. If you think back really hard to the beginning of Superman: The Movie, you will remember that in pretty much the first scene, Jor-El is sending Zod, Ursa and Non to the “Phantom Zone” so technically, they “show up” immediately.
Dang! I think maybe you got me there.
But was it the same actors — Terence Stamp, etc.?
IMDB confirms that Terrence Stamp indeed played Zod in Superman (1978). Sarah Douglas played Ursa in both movies, and Jack O’Halloran played Non in both as well.
One more thing about this…
I don’t think the right actor to play Superman has ever been found.
Mind you, I picture him looking as he did in the Silver Age: Big, muscular, square-jawed, with great maturity in his face.
It’s that last quality that the film-makers have trouble with.
Christopher Reeve’s face probably had the best overall shape, in terms of looking like the comic-book version. But he was too boyish — as is this latest iteration, Henry Cavill.
The guy on the “Lois and Clark” TV series was ridiculously juvenile-looking. He should have been playing Superboy, not Superman.
I still think George Reeves had the best, most grownup-looking Superman face. He was particularly convincing as Clark Kent. This may be because all men looked more mature in movies and on TV in those days. Partly be because I was a kid at the time, and also because Hollywood had a habit of casting actors who were way too old for their roles. I refer particularly to WWII movies made in the 50s and 60s, with privates and corporals played by guys in their 40s. (I still remember the shock of the first WWII picture I ever saw with actors who looked as young as they should have — “The Big Red One.”)
It was also the style, I think, in those days for men on screen to look like Daddy, rather than like Paul Rudd or Mark Ruffalo.
It’s tough to get someone who is both believeable as mild-mannered journalist Clark Kent and built muscularly enough to physically look like Superman is supposed to look. George Reeves looked a little doughy in the old series, IIRC. Christopher Reeve looked good in the face, as you say, but needed a more Schwartzenegger-esque physique to live up to the comic standard. Of course, given that Kal-El derives his super-powers from the Sun, maybe he doesn’t need bulky muscles to be strong.
I’d say that Gerard Butler could pull it off.
Yeah, ol’ George needed to lose a percentage point or two of body fat, to get more of a chiseled look. But in those days, musclemen tended to have a layer of fat that we don’t see on bodybuilders today.
I saw Iron Man Three over the weekend, and ditto! Quite well done.
Yeah, but I think the best one of those was the first one…
As y’all have no doubt figured out, I’m not terribly impressed by the news that’s out there at the moment. It’s like the Dog Days have come early.
I mean, I wrote about Syria and the Iranian election, both of which are big deals, over the weekend.
But closer to home, I don’t see much happening.
Did you see what took up most of the front page in The State today? Something headlined “The anatomy of a sports betting operation.” Yeah, a footnote to that trial they went on and on about all spring.
I’m really curious as to whether the reader interest is as great as the coverage of that would indicate. It never interested me.
Illegal sports betting is a big business. It’s too bad the state can’t take advantage of that. I’ve never understood how Nevada could get the only exemption. How could that stand up in court?
If the concern is gambling having influence over results of games, then just implement a parlay only system with a minimum of 4-5 picks required to win. Or something like the old football cards I would play occasionally in high school where you have to pick at least ten teams and only won when you got at least 8 right.
What exemption does Nevada have? It’s not illegal federally, just at the state level, so SC could have sports books if they wanted to. I think gambling is bad, and only very occassionally play the lottery, probably less than $20/year on it. Several members of my extended family have had significant gambling issues, by which I mean very significant gambling losses. If they’d had significant winnings, nobody would mind a bit.
I think a modicum of data mining and statistical analysis could detect point shaving or any gambling influence over the games, if there was one. I thought the article in The State was interesting, though. It’s kind of a neat topic – minor crimes all around, going on every day in suburban neighborhoods.
I like to gamble when I am in Las Vegas, especially on sports. I’m probably ahead lifetime but not by much.
Vices are a problem when you allow them to be a problem. Would it be a stretch to guess your relatives with gambling issues have other issues as well?
Well, one of them drank too much, that was years ago though. The other one I think mostly had a gambling issue. Both were prominent individuals who basically gambled away their respective family fortunes.
I’ve always shied away from sports gambling – most I ever do is enter a march madness pool at the office or bet lunch on a USC football game. Never dropped any real money on anything, maybe 10.
I hung out with some guys who were really into gambling in college — shooting pool, playing poker, etc. I remember one of them, unable to get anyone to shoot pool with him for money, ran over to the dorm elevators (the pool table was in the basement), hit the button and offered to bet any takers which elevator would come first.
For a brief time, I flattered myself with the notion that pool was a game of skill, not luck. I imagined I was a great player of nine-ball. I had my own two-piece pool cue; I wouldn’t use those crummy things that were provided by the dorm.
One night, I lost game after game, for money, to a guy who kept putting the nine-ball in on the break. He did it three or four times in a row. I think he was as surprised as I was; it was bizarre.
About that same time, I found myself in a poker game with a bunch of guys, and a couple of hours into it, I got a full house. The entire time we had been playing, no one had had a hand anywhere close to that. I bet all I had on it. I borrowed money from other people to keep meeting raises. At one point, I wrote another guy a check to get some cash from him.
The guy across from me, a big, inscrutable guy we all called “Cuz,” won the hand with a full house that was ONE card better than mine. I had jacks; he had queens.
After those two experiences, I quit gambling — or playing games of “skill” for money.
Good thing, too. A week or so later, a lot of the heavy gamblers got thrown out of the dorm.
When I was a wee kid, the officers’ club in Tainan had slot machines. I begged my father for a quarter to try one. He was as surprised as I was when it paid off — a flood of quarters. So my father took them all and gave me one. I haven’t gambled since.
I’m late to this discussion because I only just saw Man of Steel this weekend. I thought it was good.
There were a few more Jesus references in there, I think. Jor-El says to Cal-El when he is up in the scout ship – “You can save them all” and then Cal-El falls out of the ship backwards with his arms outstretched looking like a cross. Also he is 33 when all this happens and the floating thing which Brad pointed out tends evoke angel like transport. I don’t have a problem with any of theses things, but I did notice them.
That was the most fleshed out treatment of the Kryptonian side of the story I think I’ve ever seen. I liked that. Has the thing about Kryptonians having predestination of roles in society and no natural births always been part of the story – that was an interesting twist on Zod’s character – that his actions are because he is programmed to save Kryptonians. Could be those elements were always there and I just didn’t pay that much attention until now.
Also I enjoyed watching Russell Crowe as much as Henry Cavill, personally.
Finally saw it. Completely ridiculous notion — newspapers hiring stringers these days?