WARNING: HERE BE SPOILERS, AND SUCH. YOU HAVE BEEN
WARNED.
Oh, and this post turned out to be a tad longer than
the last one, but don't worry: scientists are now fairly certain that
reading more than 140 characters will, in fact, not kill you. Fancy
that.
(This is the apologetic part of the review where I
whine about whining)
First, something of a disclaimer: I did not grow up
reading the Superman comics. In fact, up until recently, I don't
think I had read even a dozen Superman comics. Like, in my entire
life. This however does not mean that I'm not a fan. I did not only
love the shit out of the Christopher Reeve Superman (I still do), but
I also watched 'Superman: the Animated Series', 'Justice League' and
'Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman'. Religiously, in
fact. I still glee in nostalgia whenever I hear one of those intros
(or see Teri Hatcher, for that matter). So even though I may not be
an authority on Superman, since I don't actually read the comics
(much), I think it's pretty clear that I've got at least something to
say about the character. I, like any other fan, do want to protect
this hero's legacy. This does not mean, however, that I will moan and
groan about every little thing that is not exactly like I remember it
from my favorite incarnations of the characters attached to the
mythos.
Man of Steel has proven to be controversial amongst
critics, especially online. Why is that? Certainly not because this
is a bad movie, because it isn't. It really isn't. There are some
rightful criticisms, mostly given by people who don't regularly
misspell the exclamation mark as a 'one'. But there is more going on
than criticisms being based in set circles. What we are seeing here
is little more than the pathetic howls of a jaded movie audience that
only looks for downsides in movies because they just love to
complain. Butthurt fanboys demanding that their personal pet peeves
are taken care of. Some people simply don't want to see anything new
of deviant. They live in fear of everything. Every single movie has
minor flaws you can point too, but those flaws shouldn't matter on
the grand scale. I too can nitpick about certain things in this
movie, and I absolutely will, but that doesn't make it a bad movie by
any means. It makes it human. Discussing these things is a fun
exercise for fans, releasing our own visions upon the film. That,
however, does not diminish the director's vision in any way. Just to
clarify: this is not about people with actual arguments. This is
aimed at those who have the balls to call a movie 'bad', based on
nitpicking alone.
(This is the usually essential part of the review
where I instead give a quick synopsis with commentary)
Man of Steel is not just the kind of superhero movie
we all know and love, complete with all the drama done well, but it
is also a surprisingly good sci-fi movie. The film opens on Krypton,
and you totally believe it. The only weak point on Krypton that I can
think of right now is the way the animals are animated, they
definitely look like CGI and the designers seem to have forgotten
that the gravitational pull is greater on Krypton, so flying animals
should at least have a gigantic wingspan, or something like that. On
the other hand, they were generally well designed and even more
importantly, they where there! They took the trouble of showing us
Krypton, complete with landscapes and wildlife. Previous incarnations
seemed very studio-y. Before seeing the film I wasn't at all happy
with the fact that this film was yet another origin story, but this
film handles it so well, that all of my former objections about that
point are completely out of the window. So yeah, I'm pretty damn
enthusiastic about this movie. Of course, that doesn't mean there
aren't some hijinks going on every once in a while. Jor-El, for
example, is a supreme kicker of ass. This is weird, since everyone on
Krypton are genetically engineered for their jobs specifically.
Jor-El is a scientist. So what's up with all the ass-kicking then?
Where people expecting a lot of fistfights in the Kryptonian labs? He
should not be able to kick even the tiniest of butts, yet he's
friggin' Bruce Lee somehow. Moving on. On Earth we see an adult
Clark, essentially being an anonymous Superman, becoming an urban
myth wherever his deeds are done. Wanting to just be human, but
refusing not to help people. He is, as his mother had foreseen, an
outcast. Yet he never stops helping earthlings, no mater how bad they
may tread him. A glance into Superman's famed ideals, of course. In a
scene in a bar we see Clark being humiliated. To show the audience
his grace, he walks away, not beating the guy to Pluto. To show the
audience his humanity however, we see that he did take some revenge
in the form of playing yathzee with the guy's truck. Character
established. Clark and Lois discover the spaceship in ice almost
simultaneously, and this is where they meet. Right off the bat, there
are no secrets regarding his identity towards Lois. Inside the ship
he is able to upload Jor-El's consciousness into the ship's
mainframe. Jor-el then tells him about his Kryptonian decent, and how
their demise came to be. Interestingly enough, the turning point for
Clark in this conversation, the moment where he fully becomes
Superman, at least in spirit, happens off screen. It kind of reminded
me of that scene in Chaplin's The Great Dictator, where the camera
pans away from the action, and instead shows an innocent bird, able
to fly, but caged. Seems like a bit of a stretch, but the filmmakers
might have had this in the back of their heads too, since after this,
Superman learns to fly. When he returns to Smallville and tells his
mother he found his ancestry, we are treated to some striking acting
by Diane Lane. She is happy for him, but in the blink of an eye she
has found the fear of losing the title of mother to some degree. Now
that Clark knows where he came from, will he still consider himself
to be her true son? The dilemma of the moment is immediately apparent
in her eyes, perhaps fueled by Lane's own motherhood. She is one of
my favorite characters in the film, not in the last place due to
Diane Lane's acting. To the religious, she might occasionally even
remind one of Mary. Yes, that one. Then they learn about Zod's
arrival, when he broadcasts a warning to the entirety of Earth. Well,
to everyone who owns a television set at least. So here's hoping that
Jor-El's son didn't turn out to be an North African nomad, I guess.
Actually, now that I think of it, Clark did live quite a nomadic life
for a while, so if the broadcast happened then, me might have put the
whole world in danger, just by not owning a TV. Zod tells Earth that
Superman is among them and that he should be turned in, or they can
all zod off, I guess. I know that was a terrible joke, but it had to
be made. Anyway, in all this mess, you'd expect him to go to the
nearest Kryptonian spaceship and consult his space dad. He'll know
what to do. But in an enormously human act, he doesn't. He doesn't
console the alien about the alien. Instead he visits a priest, a mere
human. Why? Because even though he never felt truly one of the
humans, he now evidently feels more human than alien, and he turns to
a human, a follow human, for help. Nothing the priest says actually
changes Clark's actions, which is fine, because that's not why he's
there in the first place. He needed to confine to a human, before
potentially sacrificing himself for the sake of the human race. After
this there is a bit of a military part of the film. In it, Lois and
Clark have a talk in an interrogation room. Adams and Cavill have
great chemistry here. They do in the entire film, but especially
here. And when Superman stands up and talks to the General trough the
two-way mirror, pure awesomeness happens. It's scenes like these that
remind you even more why Cavill is such a great Superman. However, I
must say that from here, we are rapidly moving towards the end of the
awesome part of the film. There is still a cool scene inside Zod's
ship where Superman has a dream you will remember (it's that skull
thing from the trailer). But as soon as they go outside and fight,
things quickly start getting quite Roland Emmerich -ish. The entire
third act has very little emotional content, and gives us destruction
porn instead. It's like suddenly watching a completely different
movie. It's a shame, really. I would love to see how the movie would
have ended if the characters actually got a change to develop into a
satisfying conclusion. But alas, it was not to be.
Characters and actors.
Superman.
When
I first heard Henry Cavill was going to be Superman, I didn't really
know what to think about that. Having watched some episodes from The
Tudors, I knew he could act but I also distinctly remember being
disappointed by his young age and boyish looks. Luckily, I was wrong.
Dead wrong. Henry Cavill plays a superb, believable, 'human', and
yes, very manly Superman with all the right motivations and morals.
His epic tale mirrors that of the classic heroes of Greek and
Judeo/Christian -mythology while not steering away from the very
human emotions that plague him as a result. So why then do so many
people have such a tepid view of him? I think it is because at many
times he seems to be merely a pawn in a much bigger game. He does not
call the shots. In other words, nearly all of the plot changing
decisions are being made for him, which is not a common place for
a protagonist to be in. He is a god among men, and yet he is being
obedient. That of course isn't really a bad thing. Especially since
it sets a nice contrast between him and Zod & co. (A fun bit of
trivia: Cavill
was supposed to play the
titular character
in
Superman Returns, but was dropped when Bryan
Singer was hired
to direct the film. Although he was initially upset, he told
Huffington
Post
he
“could more accurately represent this incredible character”
because he has more years of acting experience under his belt now.
He is also the first non-American to play the character)
Lois Lane.
Amy Adams absolutely rocks as Lois. As much as I love
the Richard Donner Superman, Margot Kidder's Lois would have been
fired from the Daily Planet pretty quickly. This Lois however feels
like a real, true reporter. She has great wit. There are only a few
little things that could have been done differently. For example,
even though the military is very present in this film, there isn't
even a mention of her father, General Sam Lane. That's a bit odd, but
not an error in any way, so we'll let that one slide. I love her role
in the plot. I love that she knows that Clark is Superman. She's
honest and comes to function as a confidant for Superman. Lois Lane
represents heroism in everyday life, she is humanity. Amy Adams
conveys this well. Her acting has been called flat, but I really
don't see it. She even looks like Lois Lane, except for her hair.
What exactly is up with that? I mean, I know it's shameless
nitpicking to the highest degree, which must seem like great
hypocrisy after what I said in the introduction, but her hair being
the wrong color is the only thing keeping her from being the perfect
Lois (going by looks, Gene Tierney in Leave Her to Heaven is how I
picture the essential Lois, by the way). Seriously, this one, little,
easy to fix thing. But I know, it's nitpicking, so moving on.
This
would've looked more like Lois, but whatever...
Jor-El
Jor-El is of course the
'man' who set it all in motion. Played by Russell Crowe, he comes
across like a respectable man, a natural mentor. Crowe's underacting
has struck many as 'flat', but I see it as nothing less than
powerful. Especially when reciting Grant Morrison, I think the shoes
of Marlon Brando are filled well. His voice is so compelling, that
it's easy to miss when he makes decisions that might not be in
everybody's best interest, because you just naturally believe
everything he says. In retrospect, he does make a few decisions that
need some explaining, however. For example, why didn't he make it
possible for Kal-El to upload Lara's consciousness to a spaceship
mainframe too?
Martha Kent.
My favorite performance is probably Diane Lane's. Her
Martha Kent is by far my favorite incarnation of the character, which says a lot. She brings a lot of humanity to the role, as well
as a realistic deviance. Every word Diane Lane speaks hits home.
Lara Lor-Van (I know that's actually her maiden
name, so don't even think about commenting on that)
Way too short, yet memorable performance by Ayelet
Zurer. Lara is an incredibly important character to the mythos, which
is why I'll never understand why it took so long for an memorable
live-action version to appear. Think I'm exaggerating? Imagine even
one live-action Lara besides the MOS version, right now. Most readers
won't be able to do it. So in a way, Lara has now finally been given
a face for the general public. On the live-action front that is, the
Animated Series already established an awesome Krypton storyline.
Paul Dini
kicks all sorts of ass.
Jonathan Kent.
A surprisingly cold figure. He is set in his ways and
morals, and will not weaver. His deviance is as strong as his
Martha's. In the comics, he dies of a heart attack. Giving Clark a
bitter reminder that there are still stings he cannot fight. In the
film, there is a slightly different end to Jonathan's life. He gets
caught in a tornado while preforming a rescue himself. Clark can save
him, but Jonathan does not want him to use his powers like that out
of fear that the government will take Clark away, or something of
that nature. When asked by Clark “What was I supposed to do, just
let them die?” about saving a schoolbus, Jonathan coldly answers
“Maybe”. Now that his own life is in peril, he stands by his
morals, and signs to Clark not to save him. Clark obeys and lets him
die. A very powerful scene.
General Zod.
General Zod (played
by Michael
Shannon)
is not as strong as Superman. He is stronger. Not only is he from
Krypton, he has also been a military type for his entire life.
Superman on the other hand had just begun his work as Superman and
grew up on a farm. That's quite a difference. The only advantage
Superman has is that it takes a while to get used to the earth's
atmosphere. Which is useful, but of course that does die out, so
there isn't a heck of a lot of time for Superman to defeat Zod, he'll
be too powerful if Superman wastes too much time. So far the
character. The actor, Michael Shannon, definitely has his moments,
but he is constantly on the verge of overacting, sometimes even
crossing that line. Not that odd maybe, when your predecessor is
famous for yelling “Kneel before Zod!”, but his facial
expressions get borderline silly sometimes.
Mr. Angryface McPout, ladies and gentlemen.
Perry White.
You'd be hard pressed to find any actor that would
fit this role better than Laurence Fishburne. The guy's perfect,
that's all I can say about it, really. I mean, what's more to say? It
is very rarely that you see an actor fitting his role so perfectly.
Someone give the head of casting a medal.
Jimmy Olsen.
There is no Jimmy Olsen in this movie. At first
this seemed like a major flaw. After all, Jimmy is Superman's best
pall! How could a Superman movie just gloss over that? But quickly I
realized that he might be in the movie after all. Since this is a
origin story, Superman does not yet work at the Daily Planet (except
at the very end) and thus has not met Olsen yet. We however, may
have. I would not be surprised if the actor that will play Jimmy
Olsen in the sequel (and I'm pretty sure he'll be in that movie) can
be seen as an extra in the Daily Planet. That's right, he might be
under our very noses this entire time. I know what some of you are
thinking right now, “Don't you know that Jimmy Olsen is now Jenny
Olsen?” Well, actually, that was just a rumor. That character is
actually called Jenny
Jurwich
(played by Rebecca
Buller
).
Wait a minute, that guy, over Perry
White's shoulder. Are you guys seeing that? That could definitely be
Jimmy Olsen. Is he? He might be. I think he is.
No wait, maybe it's that guy. That could be him. He doesn't work at
the Daily Planet here, but he still can, in the next movie. Maybe he
and Lois meet and there is conflict because of the interview or
something like that. Could happen, right? Sounds plausible?
[PS:
Haha, you clicked play, didn't you? Don't you feel like a complete asshat
now!]
Lana
Lang.
She
may not have a huge part in this movie, but she's in there. And
that's awesome, goshdarnit. Also, she seemed to have recognized Clark
as Superman, so there's some possible conflict for the sequel.
Faora-Ul.
The
amount of ass kicked by this Kryptonian is almost beyond
comprehension. She's at least as kickass as Zod. In fact, the film
might have improved if she was the main villain and Zod was her
lesser. I kind of want to see her as Wonder Woman now, but that's not
going to happen because I highly doubt that Warner would use the same
actors for different characters in the same continuity.
Dr
Hamilton.
His
role in the movie may not be that big, but the implications of him
being there certainly are! Being a top dog/former top dog for
S.T.A.R.-labs, he has become something of a Lucius Fox to Superman.
But, there is more: S.T.A.R.-labs is actually responsible for DC
character Cyborg. Who was not originally a member of the Justice
League, but in September 2011, was actually established as a founding
member of the league as part of DC's 2011 reboot of its continuity,
the New 52. I am in general not the biggest fan or New 52, so the
possibility of the upcoming (if everything goes well) Justice League
movie being based in the New 52 universe does slightly worry me. But
of course, this string of thought is getting way out of hand, and is
full of wild speculation. The presence of Dr. Hamilton however, is
overall good news. I just hope that if Justice League will have
Cyborg, that they won't stick to New 52 too much. But again, that's
all premature speculation.
Cinematography.
Yes, there is some shaky-cam and there is some
lens-flare. More than some, in fact. It can be annoying and sometimes
even out of place (when people are just standing there talking, for
example. The hell, you guys), but luckily there's not too much of it
and it doesn't consume or ruin the film at all. Not the first two
acts, anyway. The climax often looks more like a Roland Emmerich
flick than it looks like the rest of the film. The framing seems a
bit off at times, like the cameraman showed up drunk and his aim was
slightly off as a result, but in the majority of the film it's fine.
Some scenes, indoor scenes in particular, seem way to dark to me. The
only building that I can think of that was well lit inside all of the
time is the Daily Planet. But that's just how movies look these days,
I suppose. Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about the rest
of the cinematography, because it is beautiful. Especially the
flashback scenes are a feast for the eye. The Smallville scenes in
particular are like Norman Rockwell paintings in an indie flick.
There are close-ups of objects loosely having something to do with
the scenes, giving it a bit of a high-end documentary feel at times,
while not being distracting. In fact, these shots draw you deeper
into the scene, as they give a greater awareness of the character's
surroundings.
Cinematographer Amir Mokri is the guy on the left.
Production design, costume design.
Man, am I divided about this one. A love most of the
design, yet I can't get into Superman's getup at all. But let's start
with the positive. I love Krypton and I love the costumes for Kal-El
and Lara. They seem to be instant iconic stuff, especially Lara's
getups (Jor-El's do seem a bit wrinkly at times). The whole of
Krypton is thoughtfully designed, in fact. The family crests seem
natural to that world, the spaceships actually look like the works of
H.R. Giger, which of course is awesome. And have you seen the
history of Krypton in Art Deco, as shown by that silver thing? What a
stunning sequence that was! So, where does everything go south? At
Superman's supersuit, that's where. And yes, I'm calling it the
supersuit now, roll with it. I think it's a shame that absolutely
everything must be dark and gritty now, it's the look of our times.
But while this works perfectly for Batman, Superman shouldn't have to
be forced to go dark too. He's Superman, he can be a bit corny,
really, it's alright. I am not exaggerating when I say that the blue
in his suit is often barely noticeable and looks like a dark gray
instead. What a load of bullshit that is. And like New 52 Superman,
he has lost his briefs. Unlike the New 52 however, his belt is not
bright red and thus does not properly break up the unitard effect of
having one overall colour (okay, so the New 52 suit isn't perfect at
this either, but at least they're trying!). And the texture on the
suit looks cool in the wide shots, but absolutely ridiculous in the
close-ups. It looks terribly plastic and reminds one of the mats
swimming pools got lying around to prevent people from slipping. Was
this thing made with a 3D-printer? Is that what it is? And now I'm
thinking about that 3D printed Dita Von Teese dress. Which actually
makes it all better, so thanks about that, production design
department, I suppose.
Not what I meant by 'corny', but it's a
start, I guess.
The story and modern-day mythology.
When growing up Clark displays the typical attributes
of the messiah-child -archetype (Anakin/Luke Skywalker, Mathilda,
Carrie, Harry Potter, Akira). Struggling with his powers, being the
outcast. When ushered into manhood, we see our main character
drifting in the ocean, slowly sinking low enough for sea creatures
such as whales to swim above him. An allusion perhaps to Robert A.
Heinlein's novel Stanger in a Strange Land? The basic
similarities is the main character's backgrounds is not to be ignored
in any case. The man from another planet, excelling far beyond their
original selfs on Earth. Both were considered a menace on arrival,
but grew into the messiah archetype. It should not be ignored
however, that Valentine Michael Smith is actually born on Earth, but
grew up on Mars, thus alienating himself from his original home
planet. Stranger therefore follows the premise of Jungle Book
more then it follows Superman. Our hero also shares similarities with
Edgar Rice Burrough's John Carter character. Superman Through the
Ages: The Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster Interview quotes Siegel
as saying: “Carter was able to leap great distances because the
planet Mars was smaller that the planet Earth; and he had great
strength. I visualized the planet Krypton as a huge planet, much
larger than Earth”. Remember that Superman didn't always fly. That
feature was only added on request of the Fleisher Brothers back when
they where animating the famous cartoon shorts. Before that, Superman
simply made great leaps (“Leaps tall buildings in a single
bound!”). The movie may have been referring to this in the scene
where he first starts to fly: before he flies, he makes great leaps.
One of the fun things about superhero tales is that
they often seem like religious tales, but without the hassle of an
actual religion. Which, of course, places these stories straight into
the 'mythology' compartment, and don't you deny it. Mankind has
always told stories of the people they'd wish to be and, more
importantly, to aspire to. We have always created heroes to serve as
metaphors for everyday struggle on steroids, combined with a healthy
dose of wish-fulfillment, and we will always do so. Man of Steel
recognizes and celebrates this fact. There is even an inspirational
speech towards the end accompanied by the footage of a little boy
(Kent himself) running around like a superhero, with a red towel
functioning as cape. Superman's martyrdom is that of Christ, Mithras,
Krishna, and the likes. His tribulations are those of Odysseus, of
Hercules. He is Apollo, he is Dionysus, he is Osiris, he is Horus.
And so on.
Religious allusions.
Superman is a typical messiah archetype. Being a
classic hero he bares resemblance to a lot of mythological and
religious figures. None as clearly as the Jesus type though. Which of
course, isn't in the least bit surprising because Jesus is the go-to
tragic martyr in western culture (besides Superman, I guess?). Some
people take issue with the allusions to religious figures (Jesus in
particular), because it's cliché, they say. And they're right. And I
don't care. Robocop is Christ too, does anyone care? Didn't think so.
Cool is cool. Religious allusions are as fun to me as any other
easter egg or type of symbolism. And they've been there since the
beginning, by the way. As you may have guessed, Jerry Siegel and Joe
Shuster were Jewish. Supes and his dad are called 'Kal-El' and
'Jor-El'. 'El' is Hebrew for 'God'. So, after all this talk about it,
I guess you want some examples. Well, let's start with the most
iconic: the Jesus Christ Pose (and now you've got Soundgarden stuck
in your head, you're welcome). There's one in Superman Returns, I
thought it looked cool then and I still think it looks cool now. In
Man of Steel there is one very early on when we first see him preform
a rescue at sea. When he lies in water, reminiscing his past. Later
in the film we see the main one, when he leaves the spaceship and
before he flies he starts falling in the pose, just as he's about to
save the world, mind you. The words spoken in that moment are even
“You can save them all”. A bit in your face, sure, but cool and
iconic none the less. Some have mentioned the virgin birth thing, but
I'm not entirely sure about that, that can be a coincidence. The
twist there is that Superman is the only one that is NOT immaculately
conceived. One of the most obvious allusions to me was the fact that
he's 33 years old when the main events of the film, and thereby his
sacrifice, take place. For those of you who aren't getting it, Jesus
was also 33 years old (during crucifixion, etc.). And then there's
the church/stained glass thing. In a moment of uncertainty, Superman
finds himself visiting a priest (or revered or whatever, I don't
know), during their entire talk, we see a stained glass right behind
him, depicting Christ. His adoptive father is a tradesman, his baby
cradle kept in a stable, he has a devout female follower whose fate
in him seems unshakable (yes, Lois is Mary Magdalene in this
comparison. What? Why are you making that face?), he gets stabbed in
the side... there are a lot of comparisons that can be drawn here, is
what I'm saying. They may not all be intentional, but a whole bunch
of them certainly are.
Superman and religious/mythological imagery go hand
in hand. The Christ allusions must not be taken to mean that Superman
IS Christ, however. He is a Christ-like figure, that's a different
story. Superman, like Jesus, is drawn from Jewish myth (he's totally
Moses too!) and has extended into the dominant religion of the
western culture, including pop culture. It does so without too much
offense to those not looking for these signs, but they certainly are
there for those who are.
Here's the pose in Superman Returns.
MOS has a few of these too...
Off to see Pontius Pilatus, Pontius Pilatus of Rome...
Oh.
Jesus. We get it. You're Jesus.
About the action packed third act.
A common complaint about this movie is the wall to
wall action. And I don't entirely disagree with it, the complaint I
mean. The sheer scale of destruction reminds one of the destruction
of Krypton, all the while this destruction is birthing the new
Krypton. Or at least, it is attempted. So sure, there are good things
to say about these sequences. Here's the thing, however: the epic
action in the third act often leaves little breathing time in between
scenes, creating the danger of a jaded and dulled audience at times.
It's a common rule in film making: too much adrenaline = dulling,
that's why there's such a thing as comic relief. It would
improve the pacing of the movie if this sequence was heavily cut and
the earlier parts of the movie had been given more time. Heck, trow
in some more flashbacks in between scenes, make the whole movie
driven by flashbacks, I don't care. Talking about flashbacks... (you
are looking at the king of segues right now)
Storytelling trough flashbacks.
I've seen a lot of people on the Internet complain
about the editing and continuity of the movie. Well, they must
fiercely hate Batman Begins then. Also, do they not know what
flashbacks are? It can actually be a great way to tell a story, as it
can focus merely on the needed highlights of a character's past
without feeling rushed at all. Imagine all the flashbacks back to
back, right after the opening on Krypton. Not a pretty sight, is it?
But put in a right narrative and kablamo, you have a powerful story,
condensed by the power of flashing back. Thanks, David S. Goyer! I
should also note that the flashbacks are by far the most visually
beautiful parts of the movie. If the whole movie looked like that, I
would not be the least bit surprised if it got nominated for an
Academy Award for cinematography. And I would root for it.
Supes kills Zod.
I warned you about the
spoilers. A lot of people have been taking issue with this scene.
'Superman does not kill' they say. Well, sorry, but that's a load of
bullocks. Superman usually doesn't kill, but he has done it in
situations where he really had to, and as you may remember, the
situation in the scene was just that. It plays out like the classic
moral question, only much easier: “You are Superman. A General that
is at his least as powerful as you has threatened to kill the
entirety of mankind, and the chances of you stopping him in the
future are slim. He is also threatening to kill a family with his
heatvision right now. You are holding him in a headlock, but he is
able to continue regardless. The laser is closing in on the family,
your choice now is to let the family die and letting the maniac that
wants the wipe out humanity live, or you snap the guy's neck and save
the day. Probably not only for the family, but the entire world might
just be at stake. Would you snap Zod's neck?”. It is hardly the
moral question or our time. Of course Superman's action here is
completely justified and in character. I would not trust him with his
mission if he would not have that sense of justice in him. "But his code!" you yell, not understanding how computers work, "he has a strict moral code against killing!". Well, since MOS chronicles the very beginning of Superman, maybe this is the faithful day he actually come up with and decided to live by that code in the first place. Didn't think of that, did you?
A common reaction amongst certain fanboys.
Superman the American.
In the comics, 'Truth,
Justice and the American Way' have long been replaced with a much
more international sentiment. Superman is undoubtedly an American
icon, but where Superman used to be a perfect reflection of the ideal
American man with a twist, DC now tries to make him the ideal man,
without one nationality, instead. They have been doing so for quite a
while now, but never as strongly as in 2011's Action Comics #900,
when Superman actually renounced his US citizenship. This was a clear
message that Superman is standing ready, not just for Americans, but
for the entire world. Whenever someone is in peril, nationality makes
no difference. All of this makes it a bit surprising just how much
the movie celebrates his Americanism, creating somewhat of a contrast
with contemporary comics in that respect. We see the Stars and
Stripes several times, the military plays up the patriotism and when
assuring the General of his good intentions, Superman actually says:
“I’m from Kansas, sir. I’m about as American as it gets.”
None of these things are inherently bad or anything. Hell, I laughed
at the Kansas remark. But these things, when taken into the light of
the comics, certainly are a tad peculiar.
Lois knows.
And all credibility would be lost if she didn't. The
fact that she does makes it possible for her to be a close confidant
to Superman, which elevates her above most incarnations of the
character in my opinion. The treatment of her character in the past
has unjustly tied her name to the tiresome Damsel in Distress trope,
well, take a good look at Man of Steel. There's no 'damsel' here.
Instead we see someone that honors her integrity as a reporter, but
also honors her integrity as a human being well enough for Superman's
secret to be safe with her. How anyone could not love this character
is beyond me.
Marry me!
Shit, did I just say that out
loud?
Allusions to Justice League and other superheroes.
-Supergirl! When Clark is walking trough the
spaceship in the ice, we can clearly see an opened, empty, pod. Who
was is for? Well, Kara Zor-El certainly comes to mind! And where is
she now? Something tells me that we'll see in the sequel. She was
also the focal point of the prequel comic, by the way, read it here.
-That underwater scene that I said may be alluding to
Stranger in a Strange Land could also be a Aquaman thing. Heck,
Aquaman could even be behind the oil rig disaster, creating conflict
in the future.
-Speaking of Aquaman, the codeword in the military
command was ' Trident'.
-Remember that military woman that said she though
that Superman was 'kinda hot'? Well, her name is Major Carrie Farris
(played by Christina Wren), which sure sounds a whole lot like Carol
Ferris, a Green Lantern character. In fact, that's the character
played by Blake Lively in the Green Lantern movie. Now, I realize
that the name isn't exactly the same and it could all still be a
meaningless easter egg, or even a massive coincidence. How big are the odds though?
-There is a close-up of a satellite of Wayne
Enterprise.
And finally, the part of the review where I trow
in some more observations that I couldn't really place anywhere else.
-That guy that used to bully Clark, but turned around
after he got saved totally recognized him during the climatic battle.
That's going to bite him in the ass in the next film, I tell ya.
-In fact, a lot of people are going to know exactly
who he is. All his former classmates and their parents, for example,
will be able to figure out exactly who this Superman guy is. Heck,
most of Smallville won't have much trouble connecting that Superman
guy with the weird guy with the supposed superpowers from the Kent's
place. I kinda hope that this is going to be an issue in the next
film. Disbelieve can only be suspended for so far, you know.
-There is a satellite that gets knocked out of orbit
in the climatic trowdown which bears the Wayne Enterprises logo.
Foreshadowing that, holy shit, Batman will be in the sequel! Okay, it
may have just been a friendly nod from Snyder to Nolan at the time.
But still.
-The LexCorp logo show up a couple of times too, by
the way. Most notably on the side of a truck that gets thrown around.
That's all, folks!
Because I had to seriously cut down this article,
there will be a few Superman related articles in the future. Some of
them might be (these are working titles):
The literary and mythological origins of
Superman and his place in modern-day storytelling.
Superman and Nietzsche.
Lois Lane and feminism in western pop-culture.
Superman and Dr. Manhattan.
Superman's guilt.
Superman and Judaism.
They will not come right after each other, because
this is not a Superman blog. I can promise you that there will be
vastly different subjects in the meantime. If fact, I'm not even sure
if I will post a Superman related post next week, so I'll just have
to see for yourself.
See you next week!
-The Kryptonian Crayon
