Man of Steel arrived complete with an
extensively retooled Superman mythos. And whether you love it or hate it, it’s
basically the end-point of a process that started with the mounds of derision
which were heaped at Bryan Singer’s door following Superman Returns. Superman
Returns, lest we forget, was Singer’s beautifully contemplative film with one
of the best action sequences ever seen in film, delivered by way of the fantastic
airplane rescue scene. Some people just don’t know what’s good for them.
The first relationship we really see is
that between Jor El and Zod, which is presented in an interesting way,
representing a genuine ideological battle that will pervade the rest of the
film. Michael Shannon brings us a tortured Zod whose tunnel-vision tenacity
makes sense in light of the breeding programme of Krypton. This Krypton is no
utopia. We see it instead imagined in a very different manner to previous
iterations, with plodding dino-creatures and faintly ‘Land Before Time’
overtones.
Twenty-first century superhero films are
focused on large-scale urban destruction, on the minutiae of steel skyscrapers
bending and collapsing, on the sounds of city-wide decimation and metallic groaning.
It sometimes feel like too much, leaves one
wondering how this fictional earth could withstand. Or maybe we have become so
accustomed to seeing these cityscapes devastated that they all blur into one.
To think we sat agog as Roland Emmerich destroyed the White House. This is
perhaps the potency of images of urban destruction we absorbed following 9/11,
a new world iconography, certainly the media have been touting Man of Steel as
a film riven with this imagery. It leaves you wondering whether saturation
point can be reached in such up-scaling of disaster. Will our future blockbusters
show peril differently? Will they judge impact by a different scale?
Our twenty-first century penchant for
origin stories is also evident in Man of Steel. What is this new preoccupation?
The early Superman films offered us little in the way of past, or indeed the
Tim Burton Batman films. Even Superman Returns dispensed with any seeming need
to retool, or to tell a story of how and why. We were always assumed to intuit,
through decades of exposure to the idea of superheroes, why these figures were
donning capes. Why the current fascination with origins? Is it because in an
age of hyper-realism we demand to know how
these unbelievable characters became super, how Godlike figures could
legitimately have evolved in our world?
Man of Steel is immediately obvious as a
departure from the past. It is darker than early era Superman yes, but the soul
remains, the key drive to do good, a Clark Kent still committed to this
principle, remain. In this, Henry Cavill is a triumph as both Superman and
Clark Kent. His accent suggestive of a farm boy authority and a calm and even
fortitude, his portrayal of one of the best known characters in film is one of
the highlights of Man of Steel.
For all those traditionalists out there,
there may be some comfort in the fact that Man of Steel ends with the status
quo. It did not begin with this. In this trick it resembles Skyfall’s modus
operandi, leaving the movie with the character set-up and situations we knew
all along, Kent working at the Daily Planet, using his cover as a journalist to
keep his ear to the ground. Except of course in this telling of Superman, Lois
Lane knows their identities are one and the same. This is interesting because
it removes a couple of relationship dynamics. In the original plotting, Clark
was a devotee of Lane, and she was dismissive and comically dismissive towards
him. However, Superman was also the object of Lane’s affections. This provided
scope for comedy, and for a complexity of relationship and power differentials,
and it will be interesting to see how this new version plays out.
The relationship between Superman and Lois
Lane is handled well, to a point. While the kiss comes much too early, sitting
uncomfortably between two components of one action sequence in which kissing
has little place, the interactions beyond this kiss are tonally spot-on. Call
me a prude, but maybe leaving the first kiss for a second film might have been
a plan with some merit, leaving the audience dangling for the romantic pay-off.
The flirting between the characters is believable, and the final line Lois
delivers is perfection in its punning, kitsch – something which may sound out
of kilter with the rest of the film, but yet which manages to work perfectly.
For those who argue that Man of Steel has no sense of humour, surely small
lines like this suggest otherwise. The film is clearly not going for
knock-about, physical humour, but then the word on the street post-Superman
Returns was that no one wanted that anymore. If Man of Steel is humourless then
The Dark Knight Trilogy is a black, burning hole of misery and despair.
There are two death scenes in Man of Steel
which are particularly poignant and important for the realisation of Superman
as a character. Zod’s death scene, which was incredibly moving, felt like a
bona fide turning point for Superman in the destruction of a connection to his
home, to his self as Kal-El and his father. Yet the immediate juxtaposition of
this relic of Krypton versus the lives of humans on earth was fatally resolved,
and in this resolution was evident the distress and choice which had to be made
by Superman. The music for these sequences, leading up to the death of Zod, seemed
almost reminiscent of Heat, in which two peers in ideological and occupational
conflict with one another must finally face off against the other in a showdown
in which there can only be one winner.
The death of Jonathan Kent also provides a
poignant marker on the road to the making of Clark Kent/Superman. The teachings
and ardent belief of Clark’s father also manifest as something of an obstacle
to be overcome, when he elaborates his reasons for anonymity to Lois Lane by
his father’s graveside. In the putting on of the Superman suit, he effectively
goes against his father’s express and dying wishes, overcoming something within
him, the reticence and conservatism of small-town, rural communities
everywhere.
That this Superman is a Messianic figure is
heavily apparent. The hefty imagery of the cross occurs as Superman exits Zod’s
ship and hangs in space. He is also revealed to be 33, the age at which the
figure of Christ took the long cross-walk in the Bible. Until then, Clark had
lived among people, without anyone, beyond his parents, being aware of his
identity. However, when Zod makes his presence felt, Superman decides to
sacrifice himself, for a people he feels may not deserve it. The presence too
of an earthly and a heavenly father is also something which provides two
differing but almost complementary modes of instruction.
Just like Christ, the mythical figure with
the most merchandise, Man of Steel will rise again, in the sequel which is
racing towards production right now. Clearly the film isn’t perfect, but the
depth of characterisation, and the attempt to build something new and
unexpected are hugely to be applauded. It is brave, and engaging, and feels
like an iteration which may just have staying power.
