If you've been here from the start, thanks for sticking around. If you're dropping in for the first time, welcome. Be sure to check out parts one and two of this editorial on establishing Clark's motivations and the importance of the Kents.
Ask fans who the most complex superhero is and chances are Batman's name will come up a lot. But would you be surprised to know Superman is every bit as complex as the Dark Knight? Maybe even more.
Look at a hero like Captain America. He's Steve Rogers all the time, whether he's in the uniform or not. Same with Iron Man, Green Lantern, or Spider-Man. There are two sides to Bruce Wayne - Batman and the billionaire playboy the public sees.
So, what makes Superman more complex? He has three sides to him - Superman, Daily Planet Clark Kent and the real Clark.
Any filmmaker looking for depth in the Superman character should explore this internal trinity. It's a pity none of the films have. How does sustaining two vastly different public personas, (in addition to his own), affect an individual? Physically, Clark is nearly indestructible. But not psychologically.
And what actor wouldn't relish the chance to examine three different sides of the same character...
SUPERMAN
Superman is the part of Clark that allows him to carry his beliefs out into the world. The part of him that leads by example. It's also the part of him under a microscope, so every action he makes is seen by everyone. And it's through these actions where Superman is defined.
Be it ending a life or fetching a little girl's cat out of a tree for her, what Clark does with his power solidifies how the world will view Superman as a symbol.
These are cynical times and some people's exaggerated perception of the Man of Steel leans towards the squeaky clean "do-gooder" from yesteryear. In an age where gritty ass kicking heroes are praised in the comic book and real world, is there a place for someone as noble and just as Superman?
Have we become so jaded that his messages of a brighter tomorrow would only fall on deaf ears? Or maybe that's what the studio believes. That not only would the world reject him in the movie, but audiences would reject him too.
Admittedly, "Man of Steel" is on the money when it says people would react in fear. But not everyone. Wouldn't some react with wonder? Astonishment. Curiosity.
The film depicts an extreme case - Hostile aliens arrive demanding Earth hand over another alien who's been in hiding here for thirty-three years. Of course Clark would be met by a small army under these circumstances.
But what if Superman revealed himself while saving a couple hundred people? Something like Bryan Singer's plane/shuttle scene. A more benevolent first contact.
Realistically, his arrival wouldn't be met with applause like in "Superman: The Movie" but a much more diplomatic response is within reason.
Wouldn't Clark take advantage of that? Offering a sit down with the heads of the U.N. to address their concerns.
Because, in the end, Clark is connected to Smallville, "Clark Kent" is connected to Metropolis but Superman is Clark's connection to the rest of the world. Where he believes he can inspire and do the most good.
One of the big "swing and misses" with the character is at the end of "Superman II" when Clark returns to the diner seeking revenge on the trucker who beat him up earlier.
Nevermind Clark is essentially a god and this trucker, an insect, but the act is so beneath him. Some guy who got embarrassed in front of his girlfriend would do something like that but not Superman.
Is this to say Superman is expected to be perfect? No, of course not. Should his story be told through rose colored lenses while he's shown helping old ladies cross the street?
C'mon.
He should, however, represent humanity's most admirable virtues. He's the embodiment of mankind at its absolute best. Have you heard this one on the difference between Batman and Superman:
"Batman sees the world as it is. Superman sees the world as it should be".
DAILY PLANET CLARK KENT
It's been a running gag for decades - no one can see it's Superman behind those glasses. Least of all, investigative reporter Lois Lane.
Donner and Singer just ran with it. Snyder avoided it altogether by having Lois track Clark down before he set foot in Metropolis.
But the disguise is as much a part of the mythology as Krypton. It can work if handled with care.
One of the purposes of the disguise is for Clark to move about unnoticed.
The "bumbling reporter" gimmick is the worst possible direction to go. A 6'4", 220 lb. walking accident does nothing but draw attention to himself. Realistically, it's only a matter of time before people see it's all an act.
"Superman: Birthright" actually puts some thought into the disguise. It's more than putting on a pair of glasses. Clark, Martha and Jonathan come up with an actual character.
Someone unassuming. The foundation "Clark Kent" is built on is "people need to forget they met you".
"Birthright" not only pulls this off but shows how much of a toll it begins to take on Clark. This would translate well from page to screen but it wouldn't be enough. The disguise is only half of it.
There's this children's show on PBS about a young superhero called "Word Girl". In addition to superpowers like flight, invulnerability and strength, she's basically a living dictionary.
She even has a rogues gallery as deep as Spider-Man and Batman's. The writing is surprisingly witty and clever as well as educational.
Word Girl doesn't wear a mask but one episode explains how she's managed to keep a secret identity - no one's ever gotten a good picture of her.
It would go a long way in keeping a secret identity if Superman remained media shy. No stopping for photo ops. No televised interviews. If there aren't any solid pictures of him, there's nothing to tie him to mild mannered Clark Kent.
Not unlike in Kurt Busiek's "Superman: Secret Identity". His Superman operates under the radar. Literally. He tries to avoid being seen, existing in myth only. He wears the costume to discredit anyone claiming they even saw him.
That's not to say there shouldn't be any photos of him at all. A twelve year old with a phone has the means to take a picture. Even video. Superman's faster than a speeding bullet and only surfaces when he's needed. So what images that do pop up should be of him in action and reveal little about who he is.
And Lois? The disguise would work only until she's had a good look at both Clark and Superman. Afterwards, she agrees to keep his secret. This would not only get Lois seeing through the disguise out of the way but also acknowledges how fragile the disguise is. It's elaborate but one slip up can bring it all down.
THE REAL CLARK
"Superman is un-relatable". That's been the consensus for some. How could any of us possibly relate to a godlike figure? Donner, Singer and Snyder went about this in different ways.
Snyder, Goyer and Nolan gave Clark a more tortured and tragic upbringing in "Man of Steel". There's angst in his life. Some call this portrayal "more realistic". Lois and Clark's relationship was the emotional center of "Superman: The Movie". "Superman Returns" was more about him re-inserting himself into Lois' life after five years away.
Instead of focusing on a love story or changing him into a tormented figure, why not just show the audience the parts of Superman's life that are relatable? Yes, he's Kryptonian but he was raised here on Earth. He leads a human life. Superman may be un-relatable but not Clark.
The real Clark is our "in" to the character. Audiences need to connect to who he is when he's not in the suit or at the Daily Planet. Because those are just extensions of him.
It's as simple as showing him doing day-to-day things like grocery shopping, doing laundry or cheering on the Kansas Jayhawks in the BCS. Or even going home to spend Thanksgiving with his mom and dad. He isn't Daily Planet Clark or Superman all the time so he needs an existence separate from those. One he enjoys going back to.
There's no need to "humanize" him. He's already human, despite what his DNA says. You want people to relate to the character? Show him doing relatable things. Speaking of "humanizing" let's close on this…
IN CLOSING
Mankind should aspire to be more like Superman not the other way around.
"Humanizing" for writers today means giving superheroes our flaws. They make the same foolish mistakes we do. They act out of rage and desperation as we would. Writers "humanize" our superheroes by making them "more like us".
But if you make Superman "more like us", what's left for mankind to aspire to?
We'll wrap things up in the final part of this editorial in a couple days. Your thoughts and feedback are welcome so sound off below. And, as always, thanks for reading.