The newest spin on America's First Superhero hit movie theaters this month, and I must say: for a movie about a flying man, it was actually very grounded. At first, I was wary of a more serious, modern take on Superman. Less color, less whimsy, no Lex Luthor, no Jimmy Olsen, and no underpants on the outside! For shame! And did we really need another origin reboot? But like any legend or folktale, whether it's told via oral tradition, serialized print, or hi tech filmmaking, Superman must change with the times. He must reflect the changing needs of both storytellers and audiences. The character's heart is so embedded in our collective consciousness that no matter how many details change, Superman will always remain, well, super.
In Man of Steel, we see an updated version of Superman's origin. Of course, all the familiar elements are still there: "Rocketed to Earth from the doomed planet Krypton, the baby Kal-El was found and raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent in Smallville, Kansas. Now an adult, Clark Kent fights for Truth, Justice & The American Way as... SUPERMAN!" Perhaps now we should just say he fights for "The Humanitarian Way," as this movie boldly asserts.
This particular film had a clear focus on Clark's conflict of identity. Is he a human or an alien? He was blessed to have two sets of parents who believed he could be the best of both worlds. However, he was not Krypton's only survivor, as the militant General Zod and his army also escaped Krypton's destruction by their imprisonment in the extra-dimensional Phantom Zone. Upon their escape, they set designs on Earth as the location for New Krypton, hoping to succeed where Clark had "failed" in reconceiving the race by the use of their artificial birthing technology, the codex. As Clark discovers more and more of his alien roots, he is encouraged by his adoptive father to resist the overt demonstration of his superpowers, but Zod & company have no such moral imperatives, and their arrival on Earth forces Clark out of hiding. In a very dramatic fashion, this film positioned Clark as Earth's only line of defense against these powerful alien conquerors.
That Clark would choose to defend his adopted planet at the cost of resurrecting his homeworld spoke volumes to his character. Krypton seemed to represent an evolutionary dead end -- a highly advanced technological society undone by its own cold, prideful, and dominating ways. Does that sound like a meta-warning to anyone else? I thought it was ironic when the Kryptonian soldier Faeora said, "Evolution always wins," because the barbaric, impatient, demanding, forceful Kryptonians didn't strike me as too "evolved." I guess it depends on whether or not one subscribes to Charles Darwin's theory "survival of the fittest," or instead, Joseph Chilton Pearce's "The Biology of Transcendence." If they had truly "come in peace," Superman might have worked with them rather than against them. It might have taken a longer time for Earthlings and Kryptonians to learn to co-exist peacefully, but it was Zod's mania that stood in the way of his success.
It was clear from beginning to end that Clark/Kal-El was a man of great courage, strong morals and compassion for those around him. The whole plot revolved around Superman overcoming his almost pacifist, more specifically non-interventionist upbringing. In natural disasters, in accidents, in alien invasions, Clark couldn't help but use his natural abilities toward saving as many lives as possible. This may have made him a villain or an enemy to be feared in the eyes of some like Zod, but it is what makes him a hero to countless others. A defender of the weak, he's willing to earn people's trust. He knows the burden of responsibility, that a man with extraordinary power must also show extraordinary restraint. This Man of Steel truly has a Heart of Gold.
Here I must mention two particularly gripping moments in the film. The death of Jonathan Kent, and the killing of General Zod. Pa Kent died when rescuing a dog from a deadly tornado. Clark could have publicly intervened, but Pa strongly refused. Was this brave? foolish? suicidal? I'd like to think that it was at least meaningful. Pa knew that the time was not yet right for Clark to reveal himself, and I guess one of the most valuable lessons he could teach Clark was that an honorable death is one of the greatest things a person (human or alien) could aspire to. This was a recurring theme. And although Clark has great salvific powers, even a Superman has limitations. Pa taught this god-like being humility, where any other man in his place might not have.
And so, Zod arrives, intent on using all his powers to destroy, and Superman has to take him down. Quite notably, this film saw Superman, for 75 years a pop culture paragon of virtue, break his no-killing code. I had heard about "the neck-snapping" beforehand so I was prepared for it. And honestly, I thought it was well handled. It was clearly a last resort, for it was established early on that nothing on Earth could imprison a Kryptonian; even Superman had disadvantages facing Zod in direct combat; and arguably, his artificial genetics defied redemption. But Superman has made this particular exception once before, in the 1988 comic book Superman v2 #22 - "The Price." It's a cultural discussion that we need to have in each generation, is it ever right to take someone's life or is there "always another way" as superheroes are wont to say? Many men are called to war at some point in their life, and for Superman, this was literally a battlefield decision, one that he will likely carry with him for the rest of his life. For most fans, this is sacrilege. For me, it's compelling drama to see Superman in truly compromising, "human" situations.
It's the symmetry and tragic irony of Kryptonian villains that fills this movie with drama and suspense, but perhaps to its detriment, the film hyper-accelerated and condensed key character developments that saw a much slower burn in other forms of media. I was not too distracted by its pacing, but it did seem to take a number of character beats for granted. For example, Jor-El's disembodied consciousness was very quick to presume that his son was ready to accept his heritage and duty. Forget the 12 years of study spent in the Fortress of Solitude in the Donner version. Also, Lois had a real knack for showing up in the right place at the right time with the perfect plot advancing device. Perhaps that's what makes her and Superman such a perfect match.
I loved how the movie really drew from the whole of the Superman mythos. I saw elements of the comics (specifically, New Krypton, Superman: Birthright, Superman: Earth One, the New 52, and the aforementioned Superman #22) and the films (Superman: the Movie and Superman II; it even had some similarities in plot to the recent Avengers film). I should have known that director Zack Snyder would be reverential to the character after his closely detailed adaptation of Watchmen. The influence of Batman veterans Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer was also keenly felt with this more somber interpretation. Gone is the silliness of the Silver and Bronze age, here is the seriousness of the Modern age writ large. As it was in the beginning, these characters are equal parts dark and light. Tragedy and Hope.
The breadth of this film was surprisingly well done. It utilized some of the typical Messianic, Sun-God imagery juxtaposed with some very naturalistic settings and events, but it also played to its more accessible sci-fi, action spectacle strengths. You go from an alien planet, to a farm, a school, a church, and an IHOP, to frozen tundra, military bases, and the great city of Metropolis.
I enjoyed the new, somewhat alternative cast. Red-headed Lois Lane and black Perry White are such superficial details at this point in time, it really didn't make a difference. Amy Adams and Laurence Fishburne are both great actors. The new Jor-El and Lara and Ma and Pa Kent all tugged at the heartstrings. It was cool seeing Superman let loose after Ma was threatened (Another sad irony: calling your adoptive parent "irreplacable"). I enjoyed Henry Cavill as Superman and if he can play up the more unassuming side of Clark Kent (as opposed to the so-painfully-obvious-it's-Superman side we saw at the end), then this franchise should do well going forward. While this film did retread some familiar ground, it ultimately succeeded in leaving its own stamp on the Superman brand, and I would definitely recommend this thoughtful and exciting film to anyone with an interest in superheroes.
