Existentialism and the “Man of Steel”

(Note: this critique contains *spoilers* and should only be read after watching the movie or, if you’re not interested in watching it, then perhaps this will persuade you to do so…)

The Chris Nolan produced, Zack Snyder directed movie seems to have divided audiences and critics alike, drawing particular ire from comic book fans, though this hasn't prevented it from having the biggest June box-office opening ever.

Those Terrence Malick-y teasers signaled that we should expect something different from the usual comic book superhero fare with Man of Steel and while many seem to disagree I think it has delivered and here’s why.

While I will acknowledge that the movie has its flaws (poor, poor Michael Shannon - his role as Zod was a thankless one) it’s a movie that’s worth thinking and talking about not in the least because it has something few summer popcorn pictures do: ideas.

It’s is a story about making choice and arguably that it is choice, free will that makes us human which pitches the movie the context of some of the best Sci-Fi out there - yes, this is well-trodden ground but it’s not something that’s been tried with a character like Superman before.

Kal-El/Clark Kent is the son of two fathers: Jor-El of Krypton and John “Pa” Kent of Earth an apparent dichotomy that becomes much less of one as the movie’s story unfolds.

“Man of Steel” is an origin story but one that departs from various incarnations of the Superman canon - in the same way that Frank Miller made Batman, Wolverine and Daredevil his own when he revamped their backstories in comic book form so do Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer seek to make Superman their own.

One of the best storytelling decisions they made was to tell the Smallville back-story of Clark Kent’s youth in a few, fragmented flashbacks rather than let it unfold linearly which would have made for a slow-moving first act bogged down by exposition and repetition. Instead they chose to open with and focus on the last days of Krypton, Superman’s dying home planet and the events that surrounded Jor-El’s decision to send his son to Earth.

It underscores a point that we must remember: Clark Kent is not of this world and this is communicated very explicitly and viscerally by Snyder in a way that I can’t recall any other superhero movie accomplishing. Through a combination of brilliant camera work and seamless visual effects we are made to feel that Superman is an alien being, so powerful that he could destroy us simply by sneezing on us - it’s in the way he moves, the speed at which he moves, that he can fly, that he shoots heat rays from his eyes - immense power and force radiate from him, and the other Kryptonians when they arrive on Earth - it enables us to understand why humans could fear him.

Which brings us to the premise and central conflict of the film (which, to be clear, isn't between Superman and Zod, that’s merely the plot vehicle for the larger ideas, yes, you read that correctly, ideas, that Snyder is trying to smuggle into a summer blockbuster).

Pa Kent would have his son believe that should he reveal his powers to the world at large, that world would reject him as his existence not only proves that we are not alone but also that we are helpless in the face of the universe: frail, inconsequential and upon realizing this will try to contain Superman and, failing that, attempt (however futile it may be) to destroy him. I think Pa Kent knows that it will be only a matter of time before the world finds out about Superman but he’s trying to get his adopted son to understand that this revelation needs to happen on his terms, when he’s ready.

This is made abundantly clear in the much maligned scene where Pa Kent sacrifices himself during a tornado to rescue the family dog - Clark could easily have done this though, if he had, the many onlookers would have discovered his existence, as so nearly happened when he rescued his classmates in the de-rigeur bus crash scene earlier in the story. It was not his time but it was Pa Kent’s time, a time of his own choosing and consequently the ultimate lesson he could teach his son: that it is choice and free will that make us human.

Uncoincidentally this is the same lesson that Jor-El hoped to impart to his son, though, ironically, he has more faith in humanity than Pa Kent does. Krypton is dying because it has renounced “humanity” trading in the risks, excitement and sense of discovery that went with being a race of explorers for the supposed security of a staid, regimented and fascistic existence in which natural birth has been outlawed in favor of farmed babies, each genetically engineered to serve a purpose in life.

Two Kryptonians rebel against this in very different ways: Jor-El, their foremost scientist, a rebel of the mind, knows that their race is doomed and sees salvation only in starting afresh by sending his newly (and naturally) born son through space to a different planet, carrying encoded within him, the genetic CODEX of the Kryptonian race; General Zod, Krypton’s military leader rebels the only way he knows how (he was bred from before birth to be a warrior) by fighting and leading a failed coup to depose the regime that has led Krypton to the brink of implosion - unable to heed Jor-El’s warning that it is too late to save Krypton and kills him in the process.

Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman carries these warring viewpoints within him and it is the choice he makes between them that defines who he will become.

And we must remember that it is a pre-Superman story that we’re watching - one in which the character is taking shape, making the choices that will lead him to become the Superman that we know - it is crucial to bear in mind that during the majority of “Man of Steel” he is not yet Superman and the movie goes to various lengths to underscore this.

Many detractors of the film have decried the ending in which during a very un-Superman like move (per comic book canon) Zod is brutally killed by Superman and that during the two major battle sequences, in which both Smallville and Metropolis are essentially razed, Superman lifts nary a finger to rescue innocent bystanders - when viewed in the context of the aforementioned point, it makes sense - only by the end of the movie, after these events and very likely because of them, Kal-El has chosen to become the Superman who will protect the inhabitants of Earth from threats both of this planet and from beyond it.

In “Man of Steel” we see Superman as an adolescent, in the forthcoming sequel we will see him as a young man, living with the choices he has made - and with the choices that Zack Snyder has made, that depart from canon, that make this Superman his Superman.

It is rare for this type of a risky approach to be taken with such a major character and there has been a backlash to comic book characters being rebooted but Superman needed a reboot - especially given that Bryan Singer’s more conservative approach in “Superman Returns” failed to yield something interesting.

Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer should be applauded for taking this approach that results in a movie that satisfies both audiences who just want a summer thrill-ride as well as those who want something to think about long after the credits roll.