Two weeks after its debut, I got the chance to see the 2013 incarnation of "truth, justice, and the American Way." Man of Steel (MoS), in my opinion, was an entertaining and thought-provoking movie on multiple levels. The bottom line analysis: it was good. I liked it.
Now let's look deeper and I'll tell you why.
Action? Or Violence?
I have very few gripes with this movie. My chief "negative" was the excessive mega-violence of the last 30 minutes or so when Superman confronts his Kryptonian fellows after they come to Earth and are hell-bent on terraforming it into a second version of their destroyed homeworld, Krypton.
Naturally, Superman moves to stop them. And this precipitates an orgy of train-throwing, skyscraper-falling, and heat vision shooting that leaves tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of defenseless humans dead in its wake. And though this level of destruction is shown in the film, its true impact is not really dealt with. In fact, I believe that impact is sacrificed for the sake of more and more action. I indeed believe that MoS crossed the border from action into violence, and mega-violence at that. Something that, perhaps, is not necessarily befitting a Superman film.
I make this contrast because in Superman II, once our hero realizes that he cannot fight the murderous General Zod and his compatriots inside a major metropolis without sacrificing countless numbers of lives, he retreats from the city to the Fortress of Solitude to continue the fight there, thus removing a major tactical advantage from Zod's hands.
In fact, observe that from the opening moments of the conflict, Superman is already strategically calculating this in his mind. However, in MoS we are treated to a superfight of superfights, where beings of incredible, near god-like powers exercise those powers with absolute disregard for the mortals who are either crushed like cockroaches beneath their feet, or made to suffer horribly as collateral damage in the wake of their fiery battles for absolute supremacy.
This observation - and we shall not tarry on it much longer - is somewhat subjective, for indeed many other staples of SF/Fantasy depict just such carnage. And indeed the MoS version of Superman does attempt to limit, if not outright prevent, this level of mega-death. So I am not entirely judgmental of what was portrayed on screen. I do, however, believe it could have been toned down just a bit, and greater emphasis given to other, more worthy areas of the movie. And I will go into some of these as we further the review.
I will not discuss in this meditation certain parallels to 9/11/01 and the global violence it has unleashed throughout the world, its impact on the planet as a whole, or the greater sense of foreboding and uncertainty it has left in the human psyche. Nor will I discuss how modern films are taking advantage of that moment in portrayal after portrayal on the big and small screens.
I believe most of us are intelligent enough to sort out the implications of that assault on our collective humanity for ourselves. And I believe the parallels in MoS are evident for most of us to see.
Dialogue for the "English Language Challenged?"
My second gripe was the under-whelming nature of the dialogue. At several instances I felt that the writers were attempting to pander to those who simply are too ill-read to appreciate high English, or what some might call "the King's English." While I realize that Superman is not Shakespeare, and that we are not being treated to...say a screen adaptation of The Lord of the Rings by comparison, I still believe that the composition of dialogue in a film should be equal to, if not surpass, not only the expectation(s) for the film, but that it should rise to the level of the film's outlook on human events.
MoS failed to accomplish this and I quite frankly felt that I was being fed a mouthful of dumbed down dribble at several key moments, moments that should have risen to a higher standard. A few examples follow.
* The dialogue between the high council on Krypton.
* The conversation between General Zod and Jor-El in the council chamber.
* The battle dialogue between Zod and Kal-El in the superfight over the city.
* The dialogue between hologram Jor-El and Zod on Earth.
* The family conversation between Jor-El and wife Lara before parting from baby Kal-El.
There are more examples I could give, but I'll limit them to those above, for I think all of these key scenes should have left the viewer with an emotional high, an impact that could be delivered by the dialogue along with, or even without visual assistance. Let's take a look at one quick example of how this was accomplished in Superman II.
Observe the power and majesty of these character interactions delivered by two superbly trained and experienced thespians. But more, observe how the might of the dialogue itself allows the actors to power punch this masterful, and very critical scene, into the viewers' minds.
Perhaps my criticism of MoS's dialogue is simply a throwback to my expectations for commanding presence as given in the Superman II performances of Terence Stamp and the late Marlon Brando. But your writer believes it to be more. In Hollywood today there seems to be a trend toward what some in the industry are euphemistically referring to as "natural acting," where the high drama of the Shakespearean style is being put aside for characters that are not "larger than life," but are instead perceived as closer to reality. They act and speak more real, more closely to the everyday, average person.
The Jainist questions this objective. Is this so-called "natural acting" what we go to the movie house to see? I think not, particularly with respect to science fiction and fantasy dramas. If this trend is true, then the Jainist says: CEASE AND DESIST before you forever reduce the brainpower of mass humanity to mental mush! High drama requires high dialogue.
Just as an example, The Lord of the Rings is still the standard for dialogue set by any group of modern SF/Fantasy movies I've seen in a long time. It rose to the level of the King's English and did not relinquish this standard for the sake of dumbing down its message so that the mere simpletons among us could understand it. It raised the bar and asked the audience to come up to that bar. It did not lower the bar so that we as the audience could feel good about our lack of ability to appreciate it. And this was a good thing. MoS should have given us a similar, but not necessarily equal emotional high. Unfortunately it left the Jainist flat at several critical instances.
"So What Did You Like?"
While the above criticisms may appear harsh, there was much to be excited about in MoS. First, I must give credit to the performances of the actors in this story. Even though I believe the dialogue weak at certain instances, and the focus of the story overcompensatory in the area of action and spectacle, I truly enjoyed the characters as a whole.
Quite honestly, your writer loved these moments (and would rather have seen more of this than flying trains) because they demonstrated the humanity and positive upbringing we have all come to associate with Superman. They demonstrated that great power need not be abusive or predatory against those with lesser power. Indeed, greater power demands greater discipline and greater empathy for those who are weaker.
Let's start with the main antagonist in MoS, General Zod himself. Michael Shannon's portrayal of the man trusted with the defense of Krypton in my opinion was a good, if not great one. Honestly I was somewhat underwhelmed by this Zod, but not because of the actor. As before, I believe the dialogue was not handled appropriately by the writers. That being said, I do believe Shannon brought further depth of motivation and personality to the character than was seen in Superman II with Terence Stamp. And this is chiefly because the writers took the time to focus more on motivation and character complexity than the more one-dimensional obsequious self-importance and quest for vengeance of S2's Zod. This, again, is a reflection, mainly, of writing, both of dialogue and of the character direction that does not show up in dialogue. Zod in MoS represents, to me, a completion of the Zod begun in Superman II. I liked him and regard him as a villain to be respected on screen.
Finally, he returns to Earth, flying at supersonic, even hypersonic velocities across land and sea! The pure excitement of these feats is spectacularly acted by Mr. Cavill, causing the viewer to share in the wonder of what it must be like, even in the storehouse of imagination, to realize such greatness. Indeed, as kids are want to do, it makes one want to put on one's red bedsheets, step out onto the front porch, and soar off into the sky!
There are other moments which punctuate Henry Cavill's Superman, such as his defense of his mother after Zod attacks her home, his first sustained uses of heat vision, and so forth that demonstrate the depth of the latest reincarnation of this iconic figure.
Yet suffice it to say, we are given a Superman who is indeed worthy of the character, not a boiled down, dumbed down one who merely demonstrates the ability to exert muscular fortitude, but one who proves that muscle alone does not win battles or hearts.
It is a "go see."
Now let's look deeper and I'll tell you why.
Action? Or Violence?
I have very few gripes with this movie. My chief "negative" was the excessive mega-violence of the last 30 minutes or so when Superman confronts his Kryptonian fellows after they come to Earth and are hell-bent on terraforming it into a second version of their destroyed homeworld, Krypton.
Naturally, Superman moves to stop them. And this precipitates an orgy of train-throwing, skyscraper-falling, and heat vision shooting that leaves tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of defenseless humans dead in its wake. And though this level of destruction is shown in the film, its true impact is not really dealt with. In fact, I believe that impact is sacrificed for the sake of more and more action. I indeed believe that MoS crossed the border from action into violence, and mega-violence at that. Something that, perhaps, is not necessarily befitting a Superman film.
I make this contrast because in Superman II, once our hero realizes that he cannot fight the murderous General Zod and his compatriots inside a major metropolis without sacrificing countless numbers of lives, he retreats from the city to the Fortress of Solitude to continue the fight there, thus removing a major tactical advantage from Zod's hands.
In fact, observe that from the opening moments of the conflict, Superman is already strategically calculating this in his mind. However, in MoS we are treated to a superfight of superfights, where beings of incredible, near god-like powers exercise those powers with absolute disregard for the mortals who are either crushed like cockroaches beneath their feet, or made to suffer horribly as collateral damage in the wake of their fiery battles for absolute supremacy.
This observation - and we shall not tarry on it much longer - is somewhat subjective, for indeed many other staples of SF/Fantasy depict just such carnage. And indeed the MoS version of Superman does attempt to limit, if not outright prevent, this level of mega-death. So I am not entirely judgmental of what was portrayed on screen. I do, however, believe it could have been toned down just a bit, and greater emphasis given to other, more worthy areas of the movie. And I will go into some of these as we further the review.
I will not discuss in this meditation certain parallels to 9/11/01 and the global violence it has unleashed throughout the world, its impact on the planet as a whole, or the greater sense of foreboding and uncertainty it has left in the human psyche. Nor will I discuss how modern films are taking advantage of that moment in portrayal after portrayal on the big and small screens.
I believe most of us are intelligent enough to sort out the implications of that assault on our collective humanity for ourselves. And I believe the parallels in MoS are evident for most of us to see.
Dialogue for the "English Language Challenged?"
My second gripe was the under-whelming nature of the dialogue. At several instances I felt that the writers were attempting to pander to those who simply are too ill-read to appreciate high English, or what some might call "the King's English." While I realize that Superman is not Shakespeare, and that we are not being treated to...say a screen adaptation of The Lord of the Rings by comparison, I still believe that the composition of dialogue in a film should be equal to, if not surpass, not only the expectation(s) for the film, but that it should rise to the level of the film's outlook on human events.
MoS failed to accomplish this and I quite frankly felt that I was being fed a mouthful of dumbed down dribble at several key moments, moments that should have risen to a higher standard. A few examples follow.
* The dialogue between the high council on Krypton.
* The conversation between General Zod and Jor-El in the council chamber.
* The battle dialogue between Zod and Kal-El in the superfight over the city.
* The dialogue between hologram Jor-El and Zod on Earth.
* The family conversation between Jor-El and wife Lara before parting from baby Kal-El.
There are more examples I could give, but I'll limit them to those above, for I think all of these key scenes should have left the viewer with an emotional high, an impact that could be delivered by the dialogue along with, or even without visual assistance. Let's take a look at one quick example of how this was accomplished in Superman II.
Observe the power and majesty of these character interactions delivered by two superbly trained and experienced thespians. But more, observe how the might of the dialogue itself allows the actors to power punch this masterful, and very critical scene, into the viewers' minds.
Perhaps my criticism of MoS's dialogue is simply a throwback to my expectations for commanding presence as given in the Superman II performances of Terence Stamp and the late Marlon Brando. But your writer believes it to be more. In Hollywood today there seems to be a trend toward what some in the industry are euphemistically referring to as "natural acting," where the high drama of the Shakespearean style is being put aside for characters that are not "larger than life," but are instead perceived as closer to reality. They act and speak more real, more closely to the everyday, average person.
The Jainist questions this objective. Is this so-called "natural acting" what we go to the movie house to see? I think not, particularly with respect to science fiction and fantasy dramas. If this trend is true, then the Jainist says: CEASE AND DESIST before you forever reduce the brainpower of mass humanity to mental mush! High drama requires high dialogue.
Just as an example, The Lord of the Rings is still the standard for dialogue set by any group of modern SF/Fantasy movies I've seen in a long time. It rose to the level of the King's English and did not relinquish this standard for the sake of dumbing down its message so that the mere simpletons among us could understand it. It raised the bar and asked the audience to come up to that bar. It did not lower the bar so that we as the audience could feel good about our lack of ability to appreciate it. And this was a good thing. MoS should have given us a similar, but not necessarily equal emotional high. Unfortunately it left the Jainist flat at several critical instances.
"So What Did You Like?"
While the above criticisms may appear harsh, there was much to be excited about in MoS. First, I must give credit to the performances of the actors in this story. Even though I believe the dialogue weak at certain instances, and the focus of the story overcompensatory in the area of action and spectacle, I truly enjoyed the characters as a whole.
This is especially true of Kevin Costner and Diane Lane's Jonathan and Martha Kent. Supplementarily I also appreciated Antje Traue's Faora, and Henry Cavill as the centerpiece of the story, the Man of Steel himself. Indeed, while taking nothing as a whole away from any of the actors (who all performed well given the material), here I am simply pointing to those actors whose characters touched me most.
And in that rubric let's focus specifically on those whom I believe the real "heart" of the film - Jonathan and Martha Kent. While we are not treated to the same discovery of the "god-child" by the more aged couple seen in the 1978 Superman movie, we are given a similar emotional depth. And in the memories of the older and wandering Kal-El, we see the core of where his training in what it means to be human comes from. This is especially true of Jonathan Kent. Pa Kent teaches the young boy Kal-El (Clark Kent) that he is special, that he is the answer to humanity's long-standing hope to encounter other intelligent life in the universe, and most importantly, that he was sent to Earth for a reason. Papa Kent teaches the boy to hold his power with care, and that mastery of great power means, above all else, the ability to master one's self, and to restrain the impulse to abuse superior ability.
It is this discipline and restraint that Kal-El carries well into adulthood and manifests continually throughout the movie, even up to the point of the film's climax - the prevention of General Zod's world engine from terraforming an already living and populated planet, and most especially, in the killing of Zod himself.
Further, Jonathan Kent teaches his adopted son that he must hide his powers until the world is ready to accept him. This hard lesson is taken to its ultimate conclusion when, on the plains of Kansas, a tornado sweeps away Jonathan Kent's life. And though the young Kal-El possesses the power to save Papa Kent from the devastating storm, he honors Jonathan Kent's final request that he sacrifice his own father's life in order to fulfill that idea. The agony of this choice remains with Kal-El, and is one of the focal points of MoS.
Equally, Martha Kent is shown as the boy Clark's heart and anchor. It is she who teaches the child Kal-El/Clark to focus his ability, to see the greater scope of reality, not as a burden for the enlightened, but as a gift to understand the larger truths and scope of existence. This is showcased when a very young Kal-El realizes he has the ability to see through solid objects, such as human skin. He can see a heartbeat, blood pumping, he can perceive sounds inaudible to the human ear, and at farther distances. Martha Kent's instruction for her son: focus only on what you want or need to see, hear, know - to understand - at any particular moment in time. The brilliance, yet subtle love, of this simple lesson is a manifestation of the love of a mother for her child, and in the context of the story, of Martha Kent's deep understanding of the consequences of Kal-El's burgeoning powers.
Further, these core lessons given by Jonathan and Martha Kent add validity to the notion that the 1937-38 version of Superman which we have today was clearly infused with Judeo-Christian values. And they add credence to the Biblical injunction of training "up a child in the way that he should go." The man Clark/Kal-El/Superman obviously did not depart from them.
"And What of the Other Characters You Liked?"
 |
| the megalomaniacal General Zod |
And now to everyone's favorite MoS femme fatale, Faora. I regard Faora as a shadow, or extension of Zod. She is not only Zod's right hand, but his sharpened sword. She is what he cannot necessarily be under enlightened scrutiny - one who enjoys slaughter, death, and combat merely for their own sake. She is a ruthless, cold-hearted warrior who indeed believes that "a good death is its own reward." There is no remorse for the lives she takes other than, perhaps, the lack of efficiency, and maybe even the lack of sufficient slaughter in her acts of violence. She believes that morality is a weakness, and that strength comes with the total disregard for empathy, kindness, or concern for her enemies. I think this was effectively demonstrated when she tried (and failed) to punch Lois Lane's head off during her escape from the Kryptonian prison ship.
 |
| the villainous villainess, Faora |
Antje Traue's portrayal of this sadistic female was spot on. And further, Faora's absolute dedication to victory, and to Zod, regardless of the consequences, and regardless of whether victory is attainable, made Traue's depiction of the character all the more satisfying. Callousness is unattractive enough in a man. And a woman who manifests such despicability is even more enjoyable from a dramatic sense. A++ to Antje for allowing me to feel utter disgust but utter enjoyment for her character's hatred of anything good and decent! And this is what a superb villain should do in drama-- present to us a contrast of an ideal good by showing its opposite and opposing characteristic in the form of an ideal bad. And I gotta say that in some ways Faora was a better image of this than Zod. But perhaps that too was deliberate on the part of the filmmakers, for as I said, she is an image or extension of Zod's will.
The Man of Steel Himself
The Man of Steel Himself
 |
Let us of course not overlook the Man of Steel himself. Henry Cavill impressed me with his portrayal of Superman with respect to the humanity and compassion of the character. This is most especially true when considering his dealings with the United States military and even in the confronting of his fellow Kryptonians themselves. We have already dealt with Superman's killing of General Zod in the final battle sequences. Let's deal then with Kal-El's confronting of humanity when he ultimately reveals himself in the face of Zod's threat.
It is obvious that Superman voluntarily and willingly surrendered himself to the authority of the U.S. government in the form of its defensive structures, and subsequently, and implicitly, to the scrutiny and subjugation of humanity as a whole. Naturally, while Superman was able to defy human authority at any time, unlike Zod and his minions, Kal-El deliberately wished to show himself a friend to the human species despite his superior ability and understanding of the universe as a whole. This is consistent with the Superman that has been portrayed for the last 75 years, and in such framework worked well in the movie.
We also cannot overlook the obvious Christ symbology inherent in Superman's appearance on Earth. In at least two critical scenes we are given this symbolism. The first is when young Clark agonizes over when and how to introduce himself to the world in the wake of Zod's threat to annihilate Earth if Kal-El does not surrender himself. Clark goes to a Catholic church and, with the image of Christ Jesus behind him, confesses to the resident priest that he is the one Zod and the U.S. government are looking for.
Let's bypass my disappointment with the lack of in-depth screen time this actually got - again, in my opinion, this is another moment where substance was substituted for engrossing but overcompensated for action - and focus instead on its meaning.
The second obvious Christ analogy is when Kal-El departs the Kryptonian prison ship after holographic father Jor-El tells him: "You can save her. You can save them all," referring of course to Lois Lane's emergency ejection from the prison ship inside an escape pod, and the human race's impending doom if Zod has his way at terraforming the planet into a new Krypton. Kal-El departs the ship into the vacuum of space, arms outstretched, his legs straight and together in a more than obvious crucifixion-cross pose.
The meaning of both these scenes is quite clear: Clark/Kal-El is a savior for mankind. And though he is not necessarily the ultimate one in the Christian sense, he is a figure, a shadow of the savior sent from Heaven to guide mankind and show them the way to preserve what they are, and what they are meant to be as a creation and expression of the Deity's will and power in the universe.
I also must given Henry Cavill credit for his portrayal of Superman, not as the more mature individual we are treated to in the Christopher Reeve incarnations, but as a Superman less comfortable and less knowledgeable of his power. In several scenes we observe a younger Man of Steel still in varying phases of discovery with respect to his superabilities. The flying scene is especially peculiar to this. Superman begins by realizing his ability to "leap tall buildings in a single bound" by indeed bounding over dozens, even hundreds of whole miles at a time until finally taking to the air in sustained flight that ultimately sees him crash headlong into a mountain - obliterating the mountain incidentally! - yet not being in full control of this astonishing capability to defy gravity! Then the Man of Steel takes full possession of this feat and soars into the very vacuum of space itself!
We'll not tackle the physics of how a man can endure the rigors of space without a suit or other supporting means, but leave that to the suspension of disbelief necessary to make the Man of Steel the man of steel.
Finally, he returns to Earth, flying at supersonic, even hypersonic velocities across land and sea! The pure excitement of these feats is spectacularly acted by Mr. Cavill, causing the viewer to share in the wonder of what it must be like, even in the storehouse of imagination, to realize such greatness. Indeed, as kids are want to do, it makes one want to put on one's red bedsheets, step out onto the front porch, and soar off into the sky!
There are other moments which punctuate Henry Cavill's Superman, such as his defense of his mother after Zod attacks her home, his first sustained uses of heat vision, and so forth that demonstrate the depth of the latest reincarnation of this iconic figure.
Yet suffice it to say, we are given a Superman who is indeed worthy of the character, not a boiled down, dumbed down one who merely demonstrates the ability to exert muscular fortitude, but one who proves that muscle alone does not win battles or hearts.
Yes, this version of the Man of Steel does justice to the Superman mythos. And it lives up to the Superman ideal that we at Epoc Enuma also share...
...the upward reach of humankind.
Grade: 3.5 of 4 stars.
Until next time...
To the upward reach of man.
