Crushing Expectations: Man of Steel

The latest Superman reboot, Man of Steel, has hit theatres.  I have to admit, I went into it fully expecting to hate it.  Zack Snyder’s previous films have all left a bad taste in my mouth.  Dawn of the Dead felt unnecessary and like a 28 Days Later cash-in; 300 was violence-porn mixed with misogyny and racism; Watchmen missed the point of the graphic novel in favour of stylish, overly-violent fight-scenes and Dr. Manhattan’s ever-increasing dong; Sucker-Punch took the creepy misogyny from 300 and applied it to hyper-sexualized, under-age, warrior-vixen mental health patients in an asylum which was a thinly veiled bordello fantasy.  Needless to say, ‘trepidation’ easily describes my approach to Snyder’s Superman film.

I have been proven wrong, however.  I liked the film on a number of levels, and I don’t know how to feel about this situation, given Snyder’s past ouvre.

First, to address the middling reviews the film has been getting.  A lot of them (like the ew.com one and the Montreal Gazette one) are saying that the film makes Superman too angst-ridden over his powers, and that there isn’t enough humour or joy in the film.  Here’s the problem with the first criticism: if Superman isn’t questioning his role in life, the universe, and everything, and is just a swaggering set of abilities, he becomes an uninteresting character.  Because the film focuses on just what Kal-El’s presence means, not just for himself or the people around him, but for all mankind, it causes the character to, well, actually have a character.  Further, it also acts as a way to examine the nature of power and the responsibilities/potential abuses that come along with it (gee, that sounds kind of familiar…  Where have I heard about great power coming with great responsibility?).

As to the second point, that there’s no humour or joy in the film, I would really like to know which movie the reviewers were watching.  The first time Superman takes flight, I felt like I was 5-years-old again, watching Christopher Reeve emerging from the Fortress of Solitude for the first time in-costume.  There is also plenty of humour in the movie, just not the self-deprecating kind found in the earlier Superman series.  Rather than absurdly winking to the audience and saying “hey, we’re in a comic book movie, folks!” that the earlier movies did, living in the shadow of the ‘60s Batman TV series, Man of Steel finds its humour in the interactions between normal people and this demi-god.  Jokes about how people respond to his powers, his personality, and the situation his presence has created have replaced a bumbling henchman (Otis in Superman; Non in Superman II; Richard Pryor in Superman III; Jon Cryer in Superman IV), jokes about how he must be a good Jewish boy (Superman II), or a bumbling man-child managing to get dangerous and topical news stories.  It’s funny.  These same publications complained that The Amazing Spider-Man was essentially re-telling the same story as the first Sam Raimi movie (seen here, for example) and yet complain that Man of Steel isn’t Richard Donner’s movie (or, heaven forbid, Richard Lester’s movie) re-presented.

Speaking of reporters, another aspect of the film which I was proven wrong about is Amy Adams’ casting as Lois Lane.  Once again, after Julie and Julia, I was… apprehensive.  Adams allayed my doubts within her first three lines in the movie.  Her Lois Lane is no-nonsense, driven, strong, and, above all, intelligent and competent.  Adams’ Lois is not the supposed professional writer with atrocious spelling, grammar, and composition that was Margot Kidder.  Nor is she the oblivious-to-the-obvious Lois that Teri Hatcher portrayed on Lois and Clark (although, for my money, Hatcher and Dana Delaney are the two best portrayals of the character to this point).  Adams’ Lois manages to do something that the character should have been able to do for at least 60 years (I’m not saying any more, because SPOILERS).  Furthermore, while she is a confident woman, she is not a sexualized object; a particularly surprising development given Snyder’s cinematic treatment of women in all of his other films.  She wears professional, practical clothing at all times in the film, her clothes never get “conveniently damaged”, despite the destruction and chaos around her, and while there is a romance between her and Superman, she is the one who initiates it, not him.  Oh, and the film passes the Bechdel test, based on the merits of Lois’ discussions with Zod’s second-in-command Faora.

There is also criticism of the way that Krypton and Kryptonians are portrayed.  While I do miss the crystal palaces of Richard Donner’s movie, I think that Snyder, Nolan, and Goyer’s portrayal of Krypton and Zod provide an important commentary.  In this version, Krypton isn’t dying because of proximity to the Sun, or natural core instability.  Instead, the planet is dying because the Kryptonian people took the Shinra route to solving their natural resource crisis: harvesting from the planet’s core until their own greed caused their destruction.  While still heavy-handed, it is nowhere near as absurd as Snyder’s shoe-horning of the issue into Watchmen.  Further, it adds subtext to Zod’s motivations for the film, making him a parallel for invading U.S. forces who are concerned only with their people’s safety and not that of the “native insurgents”.  Again, I’m not going to say any more for fear of giving away spoilers.  It is, however, a far cry from Nolan’s disturbing pro-Republican subtext for the Dark Knight films.

Man of Steel also made me smile because it had several nods to the comic which are firsts for Superman’s big screen efforts.  For the first time, Prof. Emil Hamilton shows up, played by Richard Schiff (The West Wing; The Lost World: Jurassic Park), who is perfectly cast; Pete Ross, one of Clark’s classmates from Smallville, is present along with Lana Lang; Lexcorp branding and a version of Lexcorp tower are present.  Oh, and I have to say, Lawrence Fishburne is perfect as Perry White.

One last point.  The film does have its flaws (the major climactic battle did feel too long; the product placement was obvious and tiresome), but the resolution of the Zod/Superman conflict is not one of them.  Contrary to what Darren Franich complains about on ew.com (again, warning: spoilers), the ending not only does not go against the character’s nature, but is actually canon.  Darren Franich keeps referencing Alan Moore’s “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow” story, while completely missing the point Moore was making.  The reason Moore wrote that story is to show that the Superman that DC was presenting post-Crisis on Infinite Earths is NOT the same Superman as the silver-age Man of Tomorrow, and the story is meant to provide closure and transition.