Evening guys! Having emerged from my joyous nerd coma post-Avengers: Age of Ultron, I've decided to post something I've been sitting on for a couple of months now. From around the turn of this year, I've been working on a 'critical assignment for academic purposes' (a.k.a. writing a graded essay for my studies). The task set to my class was simple - investigate an area of the media you find appealing. So what other option did I have than to pursue my passion and write about comic book movies! Much like the majority of other users on this site, whilst I enjoyed Man of Steel, I could recognise there was some departure from the Big Blue Boy Scout we all know - I decided I would investigate as to why in my assignment.
Now I realise that whilst interest is stronger, I don't quite hold the same audience in you guys as I do an A-Level coursework examiner, so I've made some effort to reformat and restructure so that it's more visually appealing and coherent. Nevertheless, please acknowledge that what you read below is not necessarily representative of my own views, neither is it the full reflection of the final piece. Any feedback and criticisms you folks have would be greatly appreciated, and I'd be interested in hearing your views on the matter too!
So here goes nothing I guess...
Why has there been a shift in the focus of superhero films? A critical investigation focusing on 'Man of Steel'
By Ben Golding
Man of Steel marked Hollywood’s third incarnation of the popular comic book franchise of Superman on the silver screen in the summer of 2013. Hoping to revitalise the character for a new generation, the film dwells less on the heroism of Kal-El and more on the turmoil of Clark Kent, attempting to ‘humanise’ the ultimately alien hero. There has been an undoubted shift in focus of superhero genre films in recent years, but why? Is challenging the conventions of iconic heroes like Superman, and the wider superhero genre, a reflection of the changing ideas of heroism and 'realism' in our modern society? Or, do they just mirror a more desensitised audience, and a heavier focus on character development? Has our culture really caused audiences to move beyond simplistic heroism and moral good, or are our views of these iconic characters merely skewed by nostalgia?
Superhero films and media will always be under some scrutiny due to values of heroism; orignially conceived in the past, the nature and morals of superheroes are influenced by ideals and values which have become dated. Perspectives of our beloved heroes change as society and culture progresses, as the characters themselves must be altered to remain relevant. Enjoyment of these superhero films will thus be marred with conflicted desires; we contradict ourselves as an audience by holding onto nostalgic perceptions of characters whilst longing for modern relevance and deep emotional complexity that these heroes struggled to portray when they first appeared in comic books. However, whilst culture may shift, human needs do not; as an active audience we will always seek reward from what we watch.
Film has provided a detailed cross section of the evolution of our heroes, as seen with the character of Superman. Richard Donner’s Superman was a very different take on the character when compared to Man of Steel. Christopher Reeve’s performance and the film as a whole focused on the escapism promised to the audience with “You'll believe a man can fly.”
This aspect of pure entertainment seems to have left modern cinema, as Man of Steel focused more on proving to the audience that the flying superhero was really a man and furthermore, one they can relate to, as shown in the film's flashback scenes. However, in doing so the film placed more emphasis on the action in order to effectively balance the film for modern ‘blockbuster’ standards, and that is where Man of Steel garners most of its criticism, as TIME point out in their review of the film - “Man of Steel is a half-great movie — meaning the first half. Then it collapses into a familiar fight-and-destruction scenario”. The destruction in ‘Man of Steel’ was one of its most prominent criticisms, however slightly less for the presence of seemingly wanton violence, and more so that it wasn’t in tune with Superman’s character.
Much like Michael Bay’s Transformers franchise, Man of Steel suffered from an action-packed third act which sees the hero ‘save’ the city whilst witnessing buildings being ripped apart as a consequence of the climactic battle. In order to put an end to the chaos, Superman, the pinnacle of altruism and heroism, snaps the neck of his adversary, Zod. More akin to a 'flawed' character like Batman, Superman has become twisted into a more violent character, and as a result his ‘heroism’ suffers. In fact, one of the reasons studio executives felt Superman couldn't be adapted for cinema in the modern day was that the character was too old-fashioned and, from a point of financial and cultural interest, too un-Batmanlike. Despite being overwhelmingly popular with the public and making a mammoth cumulative worldwide box office total of $2,463,216,216, Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy were at times criticised for being largely humorless and gritty, a trend which some feel permeated Man of Steel (possibly due to Nolan's role as a producer) and other films of the comic book genre such as The Amazing Spider-Man. However, the increased grit and darker themes are merely characteristics of Nolan’s style of heightened realism: Nolan deliberately chose characters from the Batman comics that made possible a convincing dystopian vision, using Scarecrow, Joker and Bane, as they were those who were most easily translatable into a real world environment. In the case of Bane, his appearance was altered from a 400 pound muscle monster to a terrorist figure half the size - was this decision made in order to correspond with the now-common media representation of fear figures?
Other franchises such as the Bourne and James Bond movies have also shifted toward this new style of visceral yet introspective realism. When the grittier themes of the Bourne films proved successful, the next era of Bond films attempted to imitate this also; John Cleese cited his reason for leaving the Bond franchise as because he felt the film's producers “decided that the tone they needed was that of the Bourne action movies, which are very gritty and humourless.” Exposure to these themes has moved the goalposts in what is deemed acceptable, causing ‘realism’ to have a very different meaning to modern viewers than to those of an older generation, shifting from a more humble and domestic attitude toward a harsher, pessimistic tone. Richard Donner, director of Superman, stated that “the concept of verisimilitude was of great importance to him while making the original Superman” (verisimilitude meaning to appear real). The difference in tone and content between both Superman and Man of Steel just goes to show how our acceptances and attitudes have altered in the past near 40 years. Western culture has moved beyond simplistic heroism, instead favouring conflicted protagonists with grit; there has been a shift in comic book cinema from escapist to empathetic characters. Is this because cinematic spectacle is no longer so far removed from our own reality?
Could the World Engine be just out of shot?
The World Trade Centre attacks on September 11th 2001 remain a seminal moment in modern society, the first attack on home soil that the United States had experienced since Pearl Harbour in 1941. The events of 9/11 had a very vivid, even filmic appearance, which many related to the imagery of 1990’s Hollywood blockbusters, with one survivor being quoted as saying “the explosions and citywide carnage resembled “Armageddon”. The Bay-directed action spectacle had come out four summers prior and contained scenes of epic metropolitan mayhem that were still relatively new to cinema at the time. However, subsequent to 9/11, the film industry saw a dramatic shift in content and tone, not just in disaster movies, but in the wider genre of action films. The reprocussions of those events in the media have taken varying forms, whether by omission as in Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film or, as is seen to be the case with Man of Steel, by referencing them in a big way. The collapsing buildings and other pieces of iconic imagery related to the attacks made their way into the film, as did dust clouds covering the streets, and civilians running panicked around a city that happens to resemble New York. Although perhaps not entirely ethical, utilising the horrific events of 9/11 on screen, and thus attempting to capitalise on the powerful emotions felt by those affected, has enabled filmmakers to convey a heightened sense of realism and palpable fear due to 9/11’s place in our collective memory. Following the aesthetic cues of 9/11 makes the events portrayed on screen seem both more realistic and, as a result, can be seen as more empathetic to some, who are emotionally invested in the content. This trend of destructive realism has continued on a large scale and as a result, summer movies now seem to be constantly echoing the events, as referenced by Kyle Buchanan in his article for Vulture - “We pray that nothing on the scale of 9/11 will ever happen again, but if something actually did, we’d now have a sickening number of summer movies to compare it to.”
Man of Steel featured even featured brief scenes of small planes hitting skyscrapers and lingering shots of ash-covered Metropolitans being pulled from the rubble. In fact, the plot of the film can be seen to have a strikingly similarity to the events that unfolded on September 11th; the antagonists of the movie, General Zod and his followers, are an extremist cell that are willing to die and take the lives of others for the good of their own agenda. Zod exemplifies this very extremist attitude when he says “I have a duty to my people, and I will not allow anyone to prevent me from carrying it out!”.
The key difference in this instance however, is the opposition. With America’s values compromised and its nationhood under threat, the situation calls not for faceless politicians and innocent civilians, but for the Man of Steel himself - Superman. 'Binary opposition' (two polar opposite forces) of an all-American icon versus a tangible threat such as Zod (as opposed to political leaders against a faceless enemy) adds an element of simplicity; the film grants the audience the wish of seeing their 9/11 nightmares resolved with a happy ending. This also corresponds with Richard Dyer’s theory of 'Utopian Solutions', as Superman’s presence offers a solution to the 9/11 parallel - as Dyer himself states "entertainment offers the image of 'something better' to set against the realities of day-to-day existence."
Heroes can be the beacon of hope for a society that is in need of saving; Sigmund Freud would cite this as a case of ‘wish fulfilment’. As Superman’s victory over his opponents embodies a victory that America can never have, the film could be seen as erasure of the events of 9/11 as, like wish fulfilment, it is 'an unconscious attempt to fulfil ungratified needs, thus resembling hopes and fears'. In the case of 9/11, the real super-heroes were ordinary everyday people, policemen and firemen, as highlighted by Alex Ross’ moving 9-11 tribute cover for DC Comics.
American, and thus Hollywood cinema, values have altered to place more emphasis on the humanised protagonist; President Obama highlighted the worth of their sacrifice and valour, saying “no act of terror can match the strength and character of our country”, and thus the heroes of such a society can be no less. The fact that the whole world witnessed their heroism on that day could potentially bring Superman and his antics down to size and make people reflect on ‘What is a real super-hero?’ However, this nonetheless potentially moves the whole shift and focus of any superhero film. Humanising the characters portrayed on screen doesn't just make them more relatable and empathetic, but also highlights the true worth and value of heroism to modern day society.
Superhero films are not the same productions as they were almost 50 years ago. The past ideals of heroism must be translated into a contemporary culture in order for the heroics to stay relevant, and consequently different emphasis is placed on certain aspects to reflect our current cultural standpoint. Influenced by nostalgia, the simplistic morals and valour that superheroes have come to be synonymous with do not easily translate for a modern audience, as they do not fit within either the genre of introspective drama or action thriller, and it seems easy to lose the balance between these aspects in the production process.
Whilst the format of large action films hasn’t necessarily changed, they have adopted a grittier and more realistic tone – the more visceral and pessimistic representations of ‘realism’ have sparked a shift in tone, corresponding with how we can now relate to cinematic horrors in a post-9/11 society. The September 11th attacks have resonated throughout the media in the following decade, and the resultant destructive imagery seen in blockbuster films is more aesthetically tailored to connote the events of 2001. Likewise, the portrayal of superheroes has been similarly affected, as their humanisation makes their heroics more relatable and empathetic, reflecting how the western ideals of bravery have been re-evaluated in light of the courageousness of everyday individuals. Overall, heroism has not significantly changed, merely the cultural perception of it. However, the underlying concept is still the same – we all want a hero to save us.
---- END OF ESSAY ----
So there you have it! Like I said earlier, I'd be appreciative and eager to hear your guys thoughts on the matter, so don't be afraid to pop a comment down below. Hey, if you're feeling adventurous, why not give the article a thumbs-up or a share if you liked it!