There are lessons that we learn in life that for one reason
or another we have to relearn time and time again. The lesson I had to relearn
recently was nothing serious; I just had to learn not to take what critics say
seriously. When I had first heard that Man of Steel was coming out this summer
I was excited -- if you’ve been reading this blog then you know what a big
Superman fan I am. But as people saw the movie and were putting in their two
cents, most of it negative, I had some reservations. When I finally saw the
movie I saw a lot of the objections that folks were talking about but it didn’t
stop me from enjoying the movie overall.
So yes, I liked Man
of Steel very much and as I was watching the movie I found that a lot of these
objections could be defended and even explained as to why they occurred in the
context of the movie. So with that in mind, let’s look at five objections to
this movie and see if we can’t defend them. Be forewarned though: we are going
into some dense territory here and beware, there be spoilers here.
1.The Movie is too serious: One of the first complaints that
come up in talking about Man of Steel is that the tone of the movie takes
itself way too seriously. Folks have noted the lack of fun or a sense of humor
in the story. That’s not to say that it’s completely lacking in either, there’s
just not a whole lot of it and at worse it’s a dry sense of humor. But when you
have a movie that’s tackling the difficult questions of "Who am I?"
"Where do I come from?" "What is my place in the universe?"
then the tone of the story can’t help but be serious by default. Take that into
consideration and the tone doesn’t become the worst thing in the world.
2.Pa Kent is a dick?: When I saw the trailer where Kevin
Costner as Pa Kent was talking to a young Clark about how he just saved a
busload of kids at the possible risk of exposing himself, Clark asks his Pa if
he was supposed to just let them drown. Pa answered "maybe". I found
this a bit disturbing for two reasons, the first was that this wasn’t the
character that we had come to know as the good natured, well-meaning, salt of
the earth farmer who taught his son that if a man has great ability then he
should use that ability to help those in need.
This runs into the
second objection I have and it includes an argument that has gone on in the
comic book world for some time: the idea that a person with the power and
abilities of Superman would use those powers to take over the world, kill
whoever he wanted, etc. I think a lot of people who think these things however
omit a big factor when it comes to the character of Clark Kent, that being the
lessons he was taught as a child by the Kents. I’m sure someone who wasn’t
taught to respect life and to help people would definitely use their power to
the detriment of others, but that’s not Superman, that’s not how he was raised.
It’s a nurture vs nature argument.
We do see as the
movie plays though why Pa Kent would say something like this. For one, those
working on the movie tried to ground it in reality and the idea of some entity
such as the government or a corporation finding out about young Clark’s origins
and abilities and trying to gain control of him to their own ends is something
that could conceivably happen in reality. So it would make sense for Pa to want
Clark to keep a low profile. He is telling him to use his abilities for the
benefit of mankind…just not yet. In reality, actions speak louder than words
and when we see Pa Kent sacrifice his life to save people from an oncoming
tornado, the message to Clark is that this is what you should be doing with the
gifts you have. Pa Kent even tells Clark not to expose himself by saving him
from certain death from the tornado because the world is not ready for him. A
very dark experience to teach such a lesson but then again, reality is not wine
and roses. In spite of a more cynical outlook on the world Pa Kent was
ultimately teaching his son about what he should be doing with his abilities.
3. The Christian Parallels/ Misunderstanding of Evolution:
Cards on the table, I was raised Catholic but for several years now I have self-identified
as an agnostic. I have my reasons and this is not the forum for my reasons on
my decisions on something so personal. That said, I have seen plenty of videos
from people who self-identify as either agnostic or atheist complaining about
the "blatant Christian overtones" of this movie. The most obvious
example being the scene in the movie when Superman floats out of the Kryptonian
ship in a crucifix pose. The fact of the matter is that this idea is nothing
new. Practically since the beginning of the character there have been allusions
comparing Superman to characters in the Torah and the Bible. Moses is an
obvious one; Jesus Christ is another considering that Superman is a savior to
many. There have even been theories suggesting that the name "Kal-El"
is Hebrew for "Voice of God" or "Angel of Hope" depending
on who you talk to. Considering that Superman’s creators Jerry Siegel and Joe
Shuster were both Jewish, this may not be that far-fetched.
However, if one was
to look at Superman from a literary viewpoint and not just a religious one you
can see that these character traits don’t just fit Superman but other
characters from ancient religions and mythology as well. The Egyptian God Horus
who came thousands of years before Christ shares many attributes that are
attributed to Christ. Mithra from the Persian pantheon is another early example
of a pre-Christ like figure as well as Dionysus of the Greek pantheon. And
again this is not the forum for religious debate I’m just making the point that
these allusions to Christianity in Man of Steel are far older and far more
common than many really know.
This leads us to
another main objection about the movie from an atheistic standpoint. In one
scene, one of General Zod’s underlings named Faora briefly explains to Superman
that she and the Kryptonians are stronger than him because they have no feeling
for the people of Earth like he does. In their view, this makes him weak
because "it’s just a basic rule of Evolution." Now I don’t know if
this is something the writer actually thinks or if this is just a villain
making lame excuses for their actions as many have throughout the centuries but
it does betray a misunderstanding about what evolution is.
Evolution is a race
of a sort, but it’s a race with no real finish line since species continue to
develop to adjust and adapt to their environment. The idea that a species can
no longer adapt to something is not actually considered the pinnacle of
evolution but an evolutionary dead end. If a species can no longer adapt to
survive to threats in their environment then they may be ready for extinction
rather than being the absolute best of their species. This is where the
Kryptonians lose because while Krypton is certainly a harsher environment than
Earth it was on Earth that Clark Kent gained and learned to master his
abilities. And just because a species developed abilities that allowed them to
survive in one place doesn’t mean those same abilities will make them strong in
another -- in fact those same abilities may be detrimental in another
environment such as Earth.
In actuality this is
a case of a species branching off in different evolutionary directions, with
Superman gaining incredible abilities as a child on another world and the
Kryptonians remaining somewhat stagnant in their growth. So while I’ll admit
the writing to try and show this was clumsy if that’s what the writer was
trying to do, I don’t believe that the movie should be seen as an affirmation
of Judeo-Christian beliefs because of it.
4. Superman kills General Zod: This is another issue that
briefly concerned me as well and oddly enough, it’s a much easier issue to
defend. As I said before, there are plenty of people on both sides of the comic
book world that believe that Superman should kill his foes. Not just as a last
resort but because he can. Again this goes against the moral upbringing he
aspires to, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t killed before. One well known
example was his battle against the monster called Doomsday in the Death of
Superman storyline back in the 1990s which was billed as a battle to the death
in which the two foes ended up killing each other in battle. Now some would say
that this shouldn’t count because Doomsday was a monster and had killed several
hundred people before he was put down. In spite of that however, Doomsday was a
living being.
A less well known
story was when Superman encountered an alternate reality version of General Zod
and his soldiers who had committed worldwide genocide on their version of
Earth. Faced with the fact that a prison of any kind wouldn’t hold them, that
rehabilitation wouldn’t be possible, and that they were more than willing to
kill again, Superman had to make a hard choice. This led to him killing Zod and
his group by kryptonite poisoning. The result of this decision for a long while
left Superman remorseful and unsure of himself, so much so that he left his
Earth for a time.
In Man of Steel,
Superman has Zod pinned down in a single spot after a hellacious battle through
Metropolis. However, Zod decides to unleash his heat vision against the humans
around them. Left with no way to throw Zod back into the Phantom Zone, and the
fear that trying to get him out of Metropolis would only result in Zod trying
to pick off any innocent bystander, Superman is forced to kill Zod or let the
death toll rise. After the deed Superman does have a scene of heavy remorse
since he just committed an act that goes against his morals and gets some
comfort from Lois Lane soon after. Did they deal with the ramifications of this
on a personal level well? I’m think they did ok, could have done better, but
I’m hoping it will be addressed in the sequel.
5.It’s too derivative of other superhero movies: This one….I
don’t really have a defense for. I’m sure plenty of folks have seen this meme
by now…
…..and I have to admit like many I did see a lot of similarities to
other superhero movies like Batman Begins and The Avengers, I also remember
thinking during the final battle between Superman and Zod that it reminded me
of The Matrix Revolutions. The feeling by many was that because the first
Superman movie was so revolutionary that this new one was going to break new
ground as well. Sadly I have to agree that this wasn’t the case, I do however
have a theory as to why this was.
First off, the writer
of the movie said that they were trying to attract the general movie-going
public rather than just the Superman and comic book fans. I think he fails to
realize however that the divide between those two sides is not nearly as wide as
it used to be even twenty years ago. That said, it could be that the team that
made Man of Steel decided to make it more palatable and familiar to the general
public at large so that in the sequel they could have the audience and show us
something different. I think this maybe the case when you remember how the Dark
Knight Trilogy worked out. Batman Begins was a good movie, not great but it was
a good opener to the wider story of Batman. But then The Dark Knight followed
and we all know the accolades that one got. As a Superman fan, I hope that this
will be the case. Now that Man of Steel has garnered interest in the character
again that with the next movie they’ll be able to really show us something
fantastic.
So that’s it, that’s
my analysis of the objections to Man of Steel. Do you agree or disagree with my
assessment? Feel free to leave a comment if you’d like to put in your two cents
of if you think I’ve missed something but please, keep it classy. ‘Til next
time, Cheers!
