Last Son of Krypton, Part 6: MAN OF STEEL
Man of Steel may be the Superman film that many have been waiting more than thirty years to see: a worthy sequel to the first time Christopher Reeve donned the red and blue tights. That doesn’t mean it’s entirely perfect, as changes to the traditional canon and the shift to a darker, more emotionally deep-rooted tone, no doubt borrowed from Christopher Nolan’s successful Batman trilogy, may turn some audiences away from the reboot.
For the last thirty years, Superman has been on a turbulent flight to find his identity. After the huge success of Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie followed quickly by the troubled but overall enjoyable sequel, Superman II, the Man of Steel found himself flying over uncharted territory searching for his true-self. Superman III journeyed into near self-parody, while Superman IV: The Quest for Peace tried to right the ship, ultimately it was denounced as “too little, too late, too boring” by audiences who had grown sour to the Last Son of Krypton’s cinematic adventures. So, like oh so many comic books, Superman was shelved; left to wait for the next time he would be needed.
When comic book films were on the upswing following the success of X-Men and Spider-Man in the early aughts, copyright and DC Comics-owners, Warner Brothers, decided to try again. This time the studio courted X-Men and The Usual Suspects director, Bryan Singer, to leave Xavier’s School for the Gifted behind in lesser hands and resurrect Superman. Singer’s approach was initially met with enthusiasm from fans and featured the greatest of intentions: ignore the flawed stories of III and IV entirely and make a film that picks up where the ‘real’ story left off after Superman II. However, Singer’s 2006 release of Superman Returns, would fail to attract the box office needed to sustain another go at a full-blown series. Superman Returns has since been lauded by many as a creatively bankrupt experiment that may have created a more human Superman but clearly forgot why the character was charismatic and fun. Ultimately, it would take a Caped Crusader to bring the Son of Jor-El back from the dead.
After the mega-success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, the WB realized that they needed a new marquee comic hero to take the silver screen crown after Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises finished the trilogy in 2012. After a pitch presented to Warners by Nolan and Dark Knight & Blade scribe David S. Goyer, Warners realized it was time to resurrect Superman with Nolan at the creative helm as producer.
It’s tough to entrust any filmmaker with the responsibility of bringing the Clark Kent off the page and into theaters. A fine balance of reverence, humanity, and humor is required to that make the character both endearing and revered to audiences. And considering the history of the property, one misstep could launch the franchise back into empty space for another decade. Finding the perfect middle-ground for a character that resonates with generations of comic fans is daunting, if not impossible.
For good or bad, director Zack Snyder was brought on the project and decided with Man of Steel the title character should be treated as seriously as possible. Thus the film has been heralded or derided (your choice) by critics and audiences as “Superman Begins” for its tonal and structural similarities to Nolan’s 2005 Batman reboot and occasional abandonment of minor canon (read: female Jimmy Olsen). The sentiment isn’t surprising considering the success of The Dark Knight trilogy and the creative team behind the project, which is mostly made up of Dark Knight alums joined by Snyder. At the end of the day, Man of Steel may or may not be the Superman people have been clamoring for, but it’s a return to form for the hero and a considerably impressive start to what could be a unique series of films and spin-offs if this take on the Last Son of Krypton continues to resonate with audiences and fans in a way the series has struggled to replicate since Superman III sullied the property in 1983.
Zack Snyder, known for his visual flare, couldn’t have been a more perfect choice to tackle the Man of Steel. Once again, Snyder offers impeccable visual directing, depicting a Superman that simultaneously feels both alien and human, revered and feared, and a world that is unmatched for the series and even unseen in most of its super-heroic contemporaries. The director’s visual eye is up there with some of the greats, though his past efforts have put him in the cross-hairs of critics. His proclivity for unique visual styles has caused many to chime in that he cares not for substance; a statement that I personally find mostly inaccurate. And despite what you might think of Snyder’s past efforts, including 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch, there’s no denying that Man of Steel offers a sentimentality that’s rarely been apparent in the series’ past and sympathy for the title character that I’ve never felt.
Man of Steel jump-starts the Superman story once again by focusing on off-on-his-own Clark Kent trapped between the world he knows and the one he’ll never know — his destroyed home planet, Krypton. While I’ll leave the film’s plot to speak mostly for itself, how the story unfolds is one of the film’s problems. Man of Steel’s story is dramatically structured as if there was no Act 2 present at all. Acts 1 and 2 feel like they’re merged into a hybrid ‘set-up’ act made up of flashbacks and soul-searching until Zod arrives and cues an hour-long Act 3 that Michael Bay and Optimus Prime would be proud of. Yes, the traditional act breaks and plot points are present but the story is told in a way where there’s no traditional build to a conclusion, just character development until the movie explodes ninety-minutes in. There’s no ramp-up of obstacles, drama, or tension, and every supporting character seems to understand what’s happening at every given moment as they establish new exposition or re-hash events that the audience is already aware of along the way. The only thing the audience finds out through the natural progression of the story is found in flashbacks of Clark’s childhood. At times, we’re left waiting for the obvious events to occur so that we can get to the action and the fun meaty of the movie. Essentially, we’re left waiting for Superman to become Superman.
To put it bluntly, the screenplay treats the audience like they’re too ignorant to keep up with a complicated plot, which is ironic considering that Nolan & Goyer’s last two Dark Knight movies begged audiences to follow convoluted plots and high-concepts. But once again there’s a problem that’s plagued every Superman in the past and finds itself in Man of Steel as well: How do you humanize a ‘god among man’? If there’s nothing that can stop him then there’s little drama to be felt throughout the story. Movies rely on the simple ideas to move the story forward; like, if the hero can’t overcome X (a story obstacle) then he can never achieve Y (his goal). That in the audience’s head creates drama and sympathy for the character. If there’s never an X that risks Y being achieved, then what’s the point of your story? How can we root for the hero? How can I be on the edge of my seat if I know without a doubt that Superman’s going to pull through in the end? You could argue the same about any movie, naturally, but the whole point is that the onus is on the filmmakers to cover up those tracks, and cause me to forget that I’m watching a movie where the hero saves the day. It’s easy to get caught up in the goings-on of the film, but that’s because the delivery of the story is so impressive and not so much the story itself.
Man of Steel does remedy one issue I’ve always had with the series: humanizing Superman. Admittedly, the stories for Superman have never been hard to follow or too highbrow. They’ve always relied on over-the-top, scene-stealing villains and true-to-life supporting characters, while Superman himself is stuck in the middle of Earth and Krypton, Clark Kent and Kal-El, never knowing which life to lead. It’s an aspect of the character that’s made him compelling to audiences, but has rarely connected with me personally. The lack of humanity in the stories has been what’s always turned me off from them, generally speaking. I’m not sure if it’s the campiness of Reeve’s films or the trudging depiction of the character found in Singer’s Returns, but I could never relate to this super human called Clark Kent on a human level. For the first time, that changed with Man of Steel. Why? Because the characters are depicted so well. It just goes to prove that the right actor can take any role and with the right director turn it into something special.
Christopher Reeve may never be replaced in the minds of fans, but Henry Cavill is fantastic in the role. He’s more emotionally dark than previous depictions, while he struggles being of two worlds and two hearts. Cavill never channels Reeve, which is a good thing for this iteration given the film’s shift in tone compared to the rest of the series, and the character becomes more human because of it. An imitation of Reeve — like Brandon Routh’s turn in Superman Returns — would have been a creative disaster this time around. Man of Steel showcases a Superman that’s just as human as the rest of us and ultimately proves to the audience that you don’t need to be ‘super’ to be a good or self-sacrificing person.
There’s a brilliant character moment for Superman at the end of the film, and it’s one of the most intense moments of its kind that I’ve seen in years in a big-budget film. Without drifting too far into spoiler territory, there’s a moment where Superman has to push himself further than he’s ever had to go emotionally and physically to prove that he’s twice the Kryptonian as anyone else. The decision he has to make leads to saving the future while potentially dooming the past. The decision culminates in a poignant and powerful moment that could have easily been the worst scene in the movie, but instead is resolved with a release of emotion that expresses everything that Clark could not in any other way. You’ll know it when you see it, but those are the moments why I love this movie.
Finally, in this film, for this respective viewer, Superman is heralded as a true, relatable hero and a gift to inspire mankind. And though the occasional spotty line delivery from the supporting cast rears its ugly head or the stray over-the-top monologue by (the always-incredible) Michael Shannon’s General Zod ends up sounding more like scene-chewing than a menacing threat, the film’s cast is strong and it’s in those characters that this story succeeds where some of the others in the series failed. Every cast member deserves the limelight for this success, but if I had to choose one to spotlight myself without question it’s Kevin Costner.
Costner portrays Superman’s earthly father, Jonathan Kent aka Pa, with such powerful, respectful, restraint and passion that it’s hard not to call his performance his best of the last decade. Maybe the last two even. It’s not scene-stealing; rather, Acting 101. And it’s hard not to be emotionally impacted by a stray look of disappointment or concern toward a Young Clark or a warm, endearing smile of affection. If you’ve never seen Dances with Wolves or Field of Dreams and want to know what all the hype surrounding Kevin Costner’s been about, check out Man of Steel and you’ll know why.
I think many will say the film is too serious, and they’ll be right. There’s nothing ‘not-serious’ about any aspect in the movie, which could easily be mistaken as pretension or melodrama, and it’d be hard to argue against either sentiment. But I think that comes with the territory when Snyder’s at the helm. He’s always treated his stories with the utmost seriousness even when they’re ridiculous on the surface. While I personally don’t have a problem with a high-concept blockbuster based on a comic book taking itself seriously, I know it’ll be a critique for many, so let me propose the argument in another way: In my opinion, there’s no better option for a company to treat an intellectual property that’s been on life-support for almost thirty years than with the utmost seriousness. Why? Because of the fans. God help Warner Brothers and DC Comics if they were to release another critical and financial flop from what should be their most successful comic book hero. It’d be the final nail in the coffin for Superman for another decade if not longer. In this case, the filmmakers should prefer to be accused of being too dark and serious than not serious enough and risk losing the fans for good.
Luckily for audiences and long-time fans of the franchise, Man of Steel is a visual triumph with a serviceable story, and will no doubt make the kind of money the property deserves, and in many ways, Superman has never been stronger. Here’s to new beginnings…
Score: 8/10
