Please excuse any errors this is my very first review (Spoiler Alert).
Man of Steel has just been released in Australia (after two weeks of agonizing suspense). I did my best not to get caught up in the hype, the reviews, and discussion that often follow big releases, as I wanted to go in to the cinema with an objective frame of mind. I must confess I am an avid superman fan, as I am with all comic book related movies, but superman has always maintained a special place for me. So you can imagine the level of excitement I had when I was sitting in the cinema waiting for the movie to start.
Before I give my review I would like to say first and foremost that I have no objection with re-interpretations, re imaginings and so on I love to see how others embrace the material. I do have a problem with reboots, particularly when it is done simply on the basis of convenience or money grabbing as I feel it devalues the hard work that came before it. This is not the case regarding the Man of steel as its predecessor “Superman Returns” really didn’t work as well as people had hoped and was difficult to continue the franchise that Donner built.
I will start by saying that the difficulty in making superhero movies and meeting everybody’s expectations is problematic on many levels, because the source material and our individual connection to it are subjective (what we like about a character is highly personal) and our understanding of the character is not always congruent with others. Thus making it very difficult, if not impossible to meet all of our expectations when movies are made because we are all influenced by different aspects of the character.
That being said, I found the Man of steel a brilliant piece of story telling and dare I say, on par with the Dark Knight in terms of its complex moral dimensions. I know this is a bold statement but I did not come to this conclusion easily, as I too was deeply challenged and down right shocked by the events that unfolded in the final act of the film. So I will need to back up my claim, which I intend to by addressing the key complaints about the film and no I don’t mean the stupid ones like why was Lex Luthor and kryptonite not in the movie. More so, I will focus on the more complex issues such as lack of empathy and regard for human life and the moral dilemma of taking life to save lives, which I believe is at the heart of the Man of Steel.
The story
In its most simplistic form the Man of Steel is about an alien being (Kal-El/ Clark Kent) living on earth who happens to possess incredible powers. We learn that Clark spent most of life trying to fit in with humanity, learning what it means to be human and coming to terms with his abilities and purpose. We meet our hero living a lowly existence, hiding himself from the rest of the world for fear of exposure and exploitation and helping whom he can in the process. We see from the onset a very morally centered being with strong altruistic intentions and willingness to use his powers for the greater good. This worked well for me because it helped establish a true connection with Clark and the hero I am accustomed too. In his journey Clark is forced to reveal himself to the rest of the world rather unexpectedly with the arrival of General Zod and his minions. They have come to earth seeking out the last son of Krypton as he holds the key to their kryptonian future. Unlike Donner's adaption of Superman the stakes are defiantly raised in Man of Steel.
In Donner’s adaption of Superman (which I love dearly) Superman was revealed to the world in a relatively safe, innocent and inconsequential manner (saving Lois and her pilot from a minor helicopter incident). In the Man of Steel, Clark/Superman is forced to reveal himself to the world after years of living in hiding in order to protected his adopted home-world from the threat of total inhalation.
It is important to note that Clark/Superman (played brilliantly Henry Cavill), although god like in strength and power is portrayed with wisdom of a common man and is dealing with complex villains who understand their powers (which is equal to his own) and purpose. In the midst of all this, Clark coming to terms with his Kryptonian heritage, only to learn that he is the last son of a dead world (at least until Zod’s arrival). Here we have a complex and multidimensional character that is not only confounded by his current predicament but is still coming to terms with himself, his powers and his true purpose. This revelation is huge, one cannot be expected to encompass the full gravity of this responsibility within such a short period of time.
One of the concerns raised by critics is that Superman showed a lack of regard for human life during the battles with his kryptonian counterparts. This critique raises the greater philosophical question is our sense of morality intrinsic (do we simply know what the right thing to do is by virtue of our existence alone) or is it nurtured through our environment, relationships and our experiences (is our sense of morality shaped by the learning process of our existence)? It is these elements (in my opinion) that moviegoers and critics alike have misunderstood about what the story was trying to convey. Which is indicative to the unrealistic expectation we have placed on the character of Superman in the Man of Steel and where his moral responsibilities lie.
Many critics argue that superman showed little regard for the loss of life (and this loss is not witnessed, but assumed), my questions in response to this, was he in a position to do otherwise? The Kryptonian’s were a military class warrior race bread to rule and dominate and were planning on terraforming the earth and destroying humanity in the process, was superman really in position to dictate how the action would proceed? Even with Superman’s great speed he cannot be everywhere at once. We must also consider that our hero is trying to save a planet that is populated by billions of people from total annihilation this raises the greater moral question:
“Do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many”?
What I did enjoy about the movie is that we are not dealing with one-dimensional characters and simplistic storylines. We don’t always know what the right thing to do is and how our decisions will affect us in the grand scheme of things. People make mistakes, but its what we learn afterwards that shapes our moral and values.I feel these issues are too complex to flesh out in just one movie and should be an area of further development in future installments. The point is that we are all fallible even the people we put on pedestals and this is what was unique about the Man of Steel.
Moving on to the climax of the film and perhaps the most controversial scene in the movie. We are forced to witness the unthinkable happen, Superman killing general Zod by breaking his neck in full public view. I have to admit, that it didn’t sit well with me, I was so shocked I honestly I didn’t know how to handle it. At first I felt rage that my hero’s moral code had been violated and tainted with bloodshed. However, after much debate and deliberation with my cohorts and coming to terms with shear mental turmoil I come to the conclusion that I am glad for the decision.
The reason for this is that our hero is placed in the impossible position of having to decide what he believes is the right thing to do, I must also stress that Superman knew that Zod is not the kind of problem that human beings can solve for themselves. So a decision had to be made how will the greater good best be served?
Unfortunately this is this reality of all the decisions we make. We act only on the information we know at the time and our perception of how this may affect us in future (which is generally optimistic). This process is what guides us in making the best decision we can in the present. We simply lack the foresight to see all the consequences to our decision and actions (this process normally occurs in hindsight and reflection). This was precisely the crux of the moral dilemma in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy.
With every perceived right decision that Batman made in the first two movies led to the devastation that occurred in the Dark knight Rises. Here we have a hero that will kill for the greater good (Harvey dent), choosing not to save Ra’s al Ghul and protecting Harvey Dent’s honor by introducing a totalitarian regime known as the Harvey Dent act. In essence, the act was designed to remove the civil rights of offenders.
Now all though these decisions where made with the best intentions, all of these decisions carried with them catastrophic consequences. This is simply the reality of responding to complex situations and not having the foresight to truly understand what the consequences will be outside of dealing with the immediate threat. What makes the Dark Knight trilogy great is our hero is given the opportunity to face his mistakes head on and learn from the experience. Hopefully this will be at the heart of Man of Steel two.
This is the strength of Snyder and Goyer’s approach to the Man of Steel. They take a relatively simple story and colour it in shades of gray. Making a god amongst men simply a man with all he’s flaws and shortcomings despite his powers and abilities and hold him accountable for this. As Henry Cavil aptly identifies at the end of the movie:
“I’m just a guy from Kansas”.
This is a right that the character of Superman has been denied for decades in movies. Referring back to the coveted Donner adaption of Superman. We will find that he was conveniently denied ever having to take responsibility for his actions. If we recall superman was given a choice either to save the west coast, which was populated by millions, or Hackensack New Jersey from a missile attack devised by Lex Luthor (the Latter was considered the lesser threat of the two). Superman chose the later. He did so to honor a debit to a woman that saved him from kryptonite exposure (because Superman never lies and always keeps his promises).
This was obviously the wrong choice to make because although he saved Hackensack he failed to reach the second missile in time, allowing for greater devastation and death, including Lois Lane. Although he did his best to avert the disaster the missile obviously took its toll. Interestingly, Superman did not fully put his powers into use until he learnt that Lois Lane was dead. Here is where things get very convenient. Superman decides to change history by reversing the earth’s rotation and somehow reversing time in the process. However, rather than going back in time to a place that put him in better position to reach both missiles. The time reversal process somehow erased the events from ever taking place. This in my opinion is the ultimate betrayal of the character and a cheap and convenient way of preserving his moral integrity.
Snyder does no such thing and tackles this head on. We can only hope that the consequences of this decision will be fleshed in the next instalment. I will end by stating that responding to threats of catastrophic proportions are complex problems that are not easy to fix despite how obvious the solutions may seem, take climate change and the war on terror as a case in point.
I feel that Zack Snyder has developed an interesting space in which to continue developing his character and has provided a fresh and valid contribution to Superman lore. One that I feel I should not be so easily dismissed.