Recently, a CBM user called JJ63 wrote an editorial detailing why he (or she) thought that Man of Steel was one of the greatest comic book films of all time. This editorial is designed as a counter argument to the ones presented there. I will be quoting relevant sections of that article as I address the arguments but, in the interest of fairness, I would recommend reading JJ63’s entire editorial to ensure no context is missed. I will also echo the sentiment that I hope you approach this editorial with an open mind.
The first argument presented is that Clark has an ‘excellent’ character arc. My objection to this initial premise will likely make up the meat of my editorial so I’ll dive in.
“The character arc is about Clark accepting the fact that he is of Earth, not Krypton. You see all the way from when we first see Clark as a child he has been wondering, pondering and asking about who he is and where he came from. He knows he is not of this world, but he yearns to know and discover his "true" home, family and people."
While it’s true that Clark choosing between Earth and Krypton could make up a character arc, the devil is in the details, and the details of Man of Steel actively work against this end result. The Clark we see as a child does not, in fact, yearn for a ‘true’ home. Quite the opposite, he is shown to be scared of the wider world and retreats into what he knows, where he feels safe. This safety comes from the Kent family as his mother calms him when his powers manifest. The young Clark explicitly asks his father if he can just be his son, showing he values the emotional connection he has with those that raised him over any concept of heritage. The moment when Clark ‘renounces’ his father as just someone who found him in a field is clearly born from frustration rather than a representation of his actual feelings. We know this as he still visits his father’s grave and loved him enough to respect his, somewhat asinine, request to let him die.
“However we view his truly human nature when we see him save the bus, and also when we see him save the oil rig. These events prove his humanity to US, the audience but not to Clark...yet.”
This argument seems particularly weak and is an example of one of Man of Steel’s cardinal sins, it tells rather than show. More than that, what it shows is in direct contrast to what it is telling. Throughout the entire film, Clark decides to help people in trouble when he sees they need it, even when he is under no obligation to do so. Clark’s empathy toward his fellow man is not even exclusively related to life and death situations, where one could argue that morality may override apathy. Quite the contrary, an act as (relatively) inconsequential as the boorish harassment of a waitress is enough to drive Clark to action. The film may try to convince its audience that Clark is conflicted and disconnected but it undermines itself with almost every action the character takes.
These actions could potentially be forgiven if the film gave a compelling reason for Clark to feel like he doesn’t belong, but it doesn’t. Instead it uses cheap sentimental ploys to create the illusion of distance. The ploy in question is the use of flashbacks to show Clark being called a freak when his powers first manifest, and being bullied by a few children later for no adequate reason. Childhood bullying can be unpleasant, but it is also only temporary. The power manifestation scenario is one that won’t occur after a slight adjustment period and therefore cannot be considered as an event that informs Clark’s later life in any significant way. Furthermore, as an adult he is actively flattered by attraction of women. Disciplined military personnel can’t help themselves but sing his praises it would seem. The idea of not being able to strike back against bullies due to his strength is also irrelevant to the case as, once again, the film goes out of its way to undermine itself. Is Clark disconnected because he can never act against injustice? No, because he can and does frequently. Returning to the boorish bar patron, Clark proves he can show him up by physical intimidation and even impart his own brand of punishment by destroying the man’s truck. All this without any fear of reprimand no less!
When you look at Clark Kent in this film, it becomes clear that his journey is not about changing as a person, but rather about finding information. The only change that occurs is that when he learns the facts about his heritage, he wears a costume.
“We then hear Zod's speech to Clark about rebuilding Krypton on Earth. Clark realizes Zod intends to destroy humanity in the process of rebuilding Krypton. He is then forced to make a choice, he must choose Earth or Krypton. He must decide whether he is going to defend the world he has known, or join the world he has wanted to know. He now finally knows where he came from, but he realizes that everything he was looking for was everything he already had. He realizes that the home, family, people, planet and everything he was trying to find was what was already here on Earth. He chooses to be human, and accepts the fact that although he was born elsewhere. He "is the most human of us all" (courtesy, Batman).”
The choice as described here by JJ63 does not accurately reflect the situation Clark faces. The real choice is:
1, become complicit in the murder of over six billion people in order to live among dangerous people he doesn’t know
Or 2, try and help the people he has shown he cares about from the genocidal war criminal that threatens them.
Clark obviously chooses the latter because it’s consistent with his character up to now. As a child Clark considers helping to save lives as his innate duty, as seen when he saves the bus and defends the choice to his father. Heck, the people he saved on the bus had apparently been cruel toward him, so it really is no development at all when Clark chooses to save the lives of even more people that he actually likes. He literally makes the exact same decision at the end of the film that he did during childhood. The flashbacks are so poorly considered, they actually drive home the point that Clark did not develop, he just learned some information. Not even that can provide any dramatic meat though as the audience knows all this before Clark.
The next argument presented is that Zod is one of the greatest villains in a comic book film.
“That part of the character translates well on to the screen because it creates a contrast for Clark. Clark is a man choosing who he wants to be, Zod is a man born into who he is. Nothing will ever change Zod, Clark undergoes transformation.”
This idea could have been a powerful one had it been more carefully executed, but it wasn’t. The entire character of Zod can only be effective if the parallel holds up and Clark noticeably chooses his own path. What the film does present us with is something more troubling. Zod is supposed to be flawed critically because he can only be what Krypton intended, he cannot deviate. However, if we look at what Jor-El intended for Clark, we can see that Clark doesn’t deviate either. While he actually starts the film free from expectations, he actually ends it bound by them. The film ensures you know that the S on his costume is a symbol of the house of El, ie, his genetics, the one thing he has absolutely no control over. Jor-El showers his kin with messianic phrases, gives him the suit and tells him to go forth and Clark does. How can the audience feel appreciate the intended parallel between Zod and Clark if the film essentially makes them do the same thing?
The third point made is that the story is great. Now, here, I have to assume we’re discussing the logical details of the plot to a large degree. Most of the plot holes to be found have been pointed out and discussed ad nauseum so I won’t bring them up here. What I will address here is hope. Hope is supposedly an important theme of Man of Steel. Clark would tell you he stands for hope, that’s why he proudly wears it on his chest. Jor-El would have his son give us hope by representing an ideal we can strive toward. The problem is, it’s all hollow at best and at worst? It’s downright dishonest. As the film closes, we see what Clark actually inspires and it’s fear. Fear which he propagates by throwing satellites at the military while offering glib platitudes in response to genuine questions.
That isn’t the worst of it, however. The most depressing thing about Man of Steel is how it makes a mockery of its own high minded ideals. Those that will argue that killing Zod was necessary to save Metropolis are missing the point of the criticism. The film once again tells us one thing, that Superman will give us an ideal to pursue so that we may ‘join him in the sun’ but shows us something much uglier. What it shows us, is that people shouldn’t have to kill but sometimes we have no choice. Even Superman, he who is far stronger, far nobler, far more compassionate than we has to kill sometimes. He can’t escape it. There is no other option. The film wants us to have hope, to be inspired but, even the hero it presents to us, with all the amazing qualities that fiction allows, has no choice but roll around in the mud with us. It cannot be overstated that Snyder and Goyer contrived so that that was the only solution.
How hopeful.
Decisions like those are the ones that expose the emptiness and hollow nature of the film. The characters don’t change, they’re just stuck making the same choices again and again as the film continues. The characters lack complexity, sometimes for thematic reasons (Zod) which the film fails to properly engage with and sometimes seemingly due to laziness (Lois, Perry etc). Interesting themes may crop up by accident (free will, determinism etc) but they’re not engaged with. The film is happy to present an illusion of depth and change while really just indulging in unearned angst and hollow destruction. Snyder may be a great aestheticist, who knows how to make visuals pop and the performances may be good, but at the end of the day there’s nothing in the box.
If this is the film that Warners wants to use as a foundation for their entire DC universe, then fans have every reason to be disappointed.
So ends my counter point. Let the discussion and analysis continue in the comments.