Man of Steel v. Character Empathy

Man of Steel will soon be two years old and it continues to polarize audiences everywhere. I've been torn every which way when it comes to this movie. There were single aspects I really liked (first flight, Cavill owning the role), with others I hated (the last 45 minutes), and everything in between. I recently had the opportunity to re-watch Man of Steel in an attempt to finalize all my thoughts on the movie. I remained objective as possible. I won't give the time of day to comic book comparisons because this is first and foremost a movie (a mention here and there may slip in). Putting aside all previous grievances and positives, I decided to take a good hard look at what does and doesn't work inside the context of Man of Steel.

Sadly, I have to say I'm still not a fan of how this movie functions. I can firmly state my opinion that Man of Steel is not a good movie. It has good bits for certain, with some downright beautiful ideas and attempts at honoring the greatest cultural superhero icon on the planet. The positives are amplified with a repeat viewing, proving Snyder and company's heart is in the right place. They clearly love the character and wish to share their love with the world. I'm just not sure they made the right decisions in their portrayal of the titular hero.

Regardless of any opinions on his movies, Snyder can satisfy all the most technical components of a movie with flying colors. He's got the visual style down like few other directors. His movies look like movies. And most importantly, his movies are tonally consistent. However, this time there is a conflict in tonal fluidity when it comes to what is treated as the follow up to Nolan's Batman trilogy and not a movie about. Snyder's take on a Christopher Nolan aesthetic and world pretty much conflicts with everything he wants to accomplish through his Superman story.

Nolan's writing style often involves an excess of exposition to by having characters explain every aspect of the world's he inhabits. Some would say Nolan makes movies that are "dark and gritty" or "realistic" which is complete and utter bullshit (I talk about it a little bit here ICYMI). He makes movies that he believes in so much, we believe them as real too. Think Wachowski movies but more accessible given the current pop culture zeitgeist. There's nothing inherently realistic or gritty about his style unless it is absolutely necessary (Batman Begins is probably his "grittiest" work to date). So how does Snyder follow suit? Grab the most perceptible ingredients of Nolan Batman movies and paint them onto a palette of Superman's world without understanding why any of these flavors worked in the first place.

Look at the opening on Krypton, what exactly happens here? There are a dozen different ways to set the stage for the film. In a span of about 15 minutes we see: the birth of Jesus (Superman is JC in this movie btw), a plead for revival of a space program, a coup, discussion of genetic regulation via Kryptonian babies, a death of Jor-El, the escape of Kal-El, Zod and his soldiers imprisoned in the Phantom Zone, and the destruction of Krypton. That's really a lot to process. All these developments touch on different possible themes for the rest of the movie to follow through. MoS decides to play a juggling act with each of these concepts, only for them to explode in their faces (All our faces. James Franco in Spider-Man 3 status).

The flashbacks in Batman Begins is suited to Nolan's favored technique in telling nonlinear stories. We come to understand the pain Bruce carries from his parent's death, how he struggles with the concept of revenge, and ultimately his reason for putting on the cape and cowl. Nobody tells Bruce he's going to be a "Dark Knight" because that wouldn't make sense for the character at these early stages in his life. It's a structure that is essentially a Jenga tower of plot and character, each element working in tandem to support one another without conflicting ideologies.

MoS has characters like Jor-El constantly state Kal-El will become important; an ideal to strive towards. Then it flip-flops between the ideas by having Jonathan Kent saying Kal should hide his powers because the world isn't ready. Both fathers are played by class A actors, able to bring weight to overly dramatic trailer dialogue. Both characters spout jargon of good ideas that conflict with each other, with neither manifesting in any way beyond mere lip-service.

After being postured to become an ideal for the people of Earth to strive towards, we never get a full understanding of why Kal will be this great symbol of hope. We're told, not shown. Captain America: The First Avenger sorta nails everything you need to know about its inherently good hero. The first 45 minutes of TFA are among the most empathetic moments in any recent blockbuster. We come to understand who Steve Rogers is before we can understand what the symbol of Captain America means. He's always the one willing to put himself on the line for the greater good. The First Avenger follows through on Cap's willingness to protect people from his early training days (the grenade scene), all the way to the finale of the WW2 bits (raincheck on the dance). Most importantly, we understand WHO Steve Rogers AND what Captain America means to the world by the final act of The First Avenger. We feel the loss of the world's first superhero in the MCU. We want him to get to that fucking dance with Peggy. As much as MoS talks the talk about these lofty ideals of Superman and his impact on the world, it never walks the walk.

Please not these complaints have had nothing to do with the character from the comics. Fuck that noise. Whether or not something relates to/fails the source material is irrelevant when a movie succeeds on every other level (Manhunter, Jaws, The Shining, Drive).

Okay, from here on out I basically need to break my promise to you of not touching on the source material (please forgive me, I love you) because the way Snyder handles plot elements here are exactly the same manner in which he covers thematic components in his Watchmen adaptation. Snyder's take Watchmen is one of the truer adaptations of the source material (practically panel for panel) without any of the nuance found in the graphic novel. What was once heavy material questioning the merit of superheroes (among like a million other things) became a traditional superhero story with some pure adoration of the source. Elements that worked on the page seem oddly noncompliant to the efforts made by Snyder and his team.

I think it's safe to say Snyder doesn't have an understanding of conceptualization. Choosing to adapt the source page for page doesn't attribute meaning to the live-action version of the story. Some things don't translate to the screen as well as others (and I don't mean make it more realistic, for fuck's sake). Don't mistake it for the themes not being present in the story. They're in the text. The only problem is none truly manifest in any meaningful way beyond face value. Same thing goes for Kal-El in this movie.

We know Kal-El is going to become Superman, so he's heroic. Why is he heroic? Because saving people is something heroes do. But the movie never makes this clear in any form. Obviously as an audience we're inclined to want to see people saved (especially in a Superman movie). But that is us projecting our own feelings of "Hey, people dying would totally suck in real life. They should also be saved" which is all very true, but if the movie doesn't make it clear that this is its primary extension of the idea perpetuated onto Kal-El, doesn't that mean we're doing the work the movie should be doing for us? I'm not saying to turn our brains off (mostly because that's a terrible argument). I'm saying to turn your brains on and see how Superman could be shown as the hero he's positioned as.

Superman is an icon recognizable around the world. Maybe even on par with Jesus in terms of sheer familiarity (Snyder sure thought so). We didn't need a vast overhaul in mythology to make him relatable through Clark Kent (also because we didn't get to learn who his Clark identity either). We needed to be shown how he became a hero. At the very least, why he became a hero beyond our presumed empathy.

We empathize because Jesus

Please also understand not every character needs an arc. The Captain America movies work so well because they pit Steve Rogers against oppressive ideals of the time he's centered in. He is a constant good, standing against tyrannical forces. Wondering why The Winter Soldier kicks so much ass? Red, white, and blue shine a lot brighter against a morally grey backdrop. Rogers is the same character in each movie, and that's okay. What he's fighting for changes in every appearance but he's an easy character to root for because he's the classic do-gooder. Superman has the same potential of a box-office draw and audience/critical acclaim as the Captain America movies do, if not more so. The biggest idea at play with both characters are that they're both symbols representing true justice.

Snyder loves the DC heroes. He was absolutely right in referencing them as biblical figures. He understands the staying power of superheroes and what they mean to society. I hope we can see these ideas manifest themselves better in future installments. I truly do.

To be continued...

DIEGO'S NOTE: Notice how there was very little mention of Cavill's performance or the controversial destruction? I'll be following this up next Saturday 2/28 with some thoughts on the rest of this movie.