Righting The Wrongs Of Man of Steel

Righting The Wrongs Of Man of Steel

Having seen Man of Steel only two days ago, I thought I would share my thoughts on the main criticisms of the film and why I think Snyder and co made all the right decisions.

Review Opinion
By darkraven - Jun 29, 2013 06:06 PM EST
Filed Under: Man of Steel
Source: ComicBookMovie.com

Please excuse any errors this is my very first review (Spoiler Alert).

Man of Steel has just been released in Australia (after two weeks of agonizing suspense). I did my best not to get caught up in the hype, the reviews, and discussion that often follow big releases, as I wanted to go in to the cinema with an objective frame of mind. I must confess I am an avid superman fan, as I am with all comic book related movies, but superman has always maintained a special place for me. So you can imagine the level of excitement I had when I was sitting in the cinema waiting for the movie to start.

Before I give my review I would like to say first and foremost that I have no objection with re-interpretations, re imaginings and so on I love to see how others embrace the material. I do have a problem with reboots, particularly when it is done simply on the basis of convenience or money grabbing as I feel it devalues the hard work that came before it. This is not the case regarding the Man of steel as its predecessor “Superman Returns” really didn’t work as well as people had hoped and was difficult to continue the franchise that Donner built.

I will start by saying that the difficulty in making superhero movies and meeting everybody’s expectations is problematic on many levels, because the source material and our individual connection to it are subjective (what we like about a character is highly personal) and our understanding of the character is not always congruent with others. Thus making it very difficult, if not impossible to meet all of our expectations when movies are made because we are all influenced by different aspects of the character.

That being said, I found the Man of steel a brilliant piece of story telling and dare I say, on par with the Dark Knight in terms of its complex moral dimensions. I know this is a bold statement but I did not come to this conclusion easily, as I too was deeply challenged and down right shocked by the events that unfolded in the final act of the film. So I will need to back up my claim, which I intend to by addressing the key complaints about the film and no I don’t mean the stupid ones like why was Lex Luthor and kryptonite not in the movie. More so, I will focus on the more complex issues such as lack of empathy and regard for human life and the moral dilemma of taking life to save lives, which I believe is at the heart of the Man of Steel.


The story

In its most simplistic form the Man of Steel is about an alien being (Kal-El/ Clark Kent) living on earth who happens to possess incredible powers. We learn that Clark spent most of life trying to fit in with humanity, learning what it means to be human and coming to terms with his abilities and purpose. We meet our hero living a lowly existence, hiding himself from the rest of the world for fear of exposure and exploitation and helping whom he can in the process. We see from the onset a very morally centered being with strong altruistic intentions and willingness to use his powers for the greater good. This worked well for me because it helped establish a true connection with Clark and the hero I am accustomed too. In his journey Clark is forced to reveal himself to the rest of the world rather unexpectedly with the arrival of General Zod and his minions. They have come to earth seeking out the last son of Krypton as he holds the key to their kryptonian future. Unlike Donner's adaption of Superman the stakes are defiantly raised in Man of Steel.


In Donner’s adaption of Superman (which I love dearly) Superman was revealed to the world in a relatively safe, innocent and inconsequential manner (saving Lois and her pilot from a minor helicopter incident). In the Man of Steel, Clark/Superman is forced to reveal himself to the world after years of living in hiding in order to protected his adopted home-world from the threat of total inhalation.


It is important to note that Clark/Superman (played brilliantly Henry Cavill), although god like in strength and power is portrayed with wisdom of a common man and is dealing with complex villains who understand their powers (which is equal to his own) and purpose. In the midst of all this, Clark coming to terms with his Kryptonian heritage, only to learn that he is the last son of a dead world (at least until Zod’s arrival). Here we have a complex and multidimensional character that is not only confounded by his current predicament but is still coming to terms with himself, his powers and his true purpose. This revelation is huge, one cannot be expected to encompass the full gravity of this responsibility within such a short period of time.


One of the concerns raised by critics is that Superman showed a lack of regard for human life during the battles with his kryptonian counterparts. This critique raises the greater philosophical question is our sense of morality intrinsic (do we simply know what the right thing to do is by virtue of our existence alone) or is it nurtured through our environment, relationships and our experiences (is our sense of morality shaped by the learning process of our existence)? It is these elements (in my opinion) that moviegoers and critics alike have misunderstood about what the story was trying to convey. Which is indicative to the unrealistic expectation we have placed on the character of Superman in the Man of Steel and where his moral responsibilities lie.


Many critics argue that superman showed little regard for the loss of life (and this loss is not witnessed, but assumed), my questions in response to this, was he in a position to do otherwise? The Kryptonian’s were a military class warrior race bread to rule and dominate and were planning on terraforming the earth and destroying humanity in the process, was superman really in position to dictate how the action would proceed? Even with Superman’s great speed he cannot be everywhere at once. We must also consider that our hero is trying to save a planet that is populated by billions of people from total annihilation this raises the greater moral question:

“Do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many”?

What I did enjoy about the movie is that we are not dealing with one-dimensional characters and simplistic storylines. We don’t always know what the right thing to do is and how our decisions will affect us in the grand scheme of things. People make mistakes, but its what we learn afterwards that shapes our moral and values.I feel these issues are too complex to flesh out in just one movie and should be an area of further development in future installments. The point is that we are all fallible even the people we put on pedestals and this is what was unique about the Man of Steel.



Moving on to the climax of the film and perhaps the most controversial scene in the movie. We are forced to witness the unthinkable happen, Superman killing general Zod by breaking his neck in full public view. I have to admit, that it didn’t sit well with me, I was so shocked I honestly I didn’t know how to handle it. At first I felt rage that my hero’s moral code had been violated and tainted with bloodshed. However, after much debate and deliberation with my cohorts and coming to terms with shear mental turmoil I come to the conclusion that I am glad for the decision.


The reason for this is that our hero is placed in the impossible position of having to decide what he believes is the right thing to do, I must also stress that Superman knew that Zod is not the kind of problem that human beings can solve for themselves. So a decision had to be made how will the greater good best be served?

Unfortunately this is this reality of all the decisions we make. We act only on the information we know at the time and our perception of how this may affect us in future (which is generally optimistic). This process is what guides us in making the best decision we can in the present. We simply lack the foresight to see all the consequences to our decision and actions (this process normally occurs in hindsight and reflection). This was precisely the crux of the moral dilemma in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy.


With every perceived right decision that Batman made in the first two movies led to the devastation that occurred in the Dark knight Rises. Here we have a hero that will kill for the greater good (Harvey dent), choosing not to save Ra’s al Ghul and protecting Harvey Dent’s honor by introducing a totalitarian regime known as the Harvey Dent act. In essence, the act was designed to remove the civil rights of offenders.


Now all though these decisions where made with the best intentions, all of these decisions carried with them catastrophic consequences. This is simply the reality of responding to complex situations and not having the foresight to truly understand what the consequences will be outside of dealing with the immediate threat. What makes the Dark Knight trilogy great is our hero is given the opportunity to face his mistakes head on and learn from the experience. Hopefully this will be at the heart of Man of Steel two.


This is the strength of Snyder and Goyer’s approach to the Man of Steel. They take a relatively simple story and colour it in shades of gray. Making a god amongst men simply a man with all he’s flaws and shortcomings despite his powers and abilities and hold him accountable for this. As Henry Cavil aptly identifies at the end of the movie:

“I’m just a guy from Kansas”.


This is a right that the character of Superman has been denied for decades in movies. Referring back to the coveted Donner adaption of Superman. We will find that he was conveniently denied ever having to take responsibility for his actions. If we recall superman was given a choice either to save the west coast, which was populated by millions, or Hackensack New Jersey from a missile attack devised by Lex Luthor (the Latter was considered the lesser threat of the two). Superman chose the later. He did so to honor a debit to a woman that saved him from kryptonite exposure (because Superman never lies and always keeps his promises).


This was obviously the wrong choice to make because although he saved Hackensack he failed to reach the second missile in time, allowing for greater devastation and death, including Lois Lane. Although he did his best to avert the disaster the missile obviously took its toll. Interestingly, Superman did not fully put his powers into use until he learnt that Lois Lane was dead. Here is where things get very convenient. Superman decides to change history by reversing the earth’s rotation and somehow reversing time in the process. However, rather than going back in time to a place that put him in better position to reach both missiles. The time reversal process somehow erased the events from ever taking place. This in my opinion is the ultimate betrayal of the character and a cheap and convenient way of preserving his moral integrity.


Snyder does no such thing and tackles this head on. We can only hope that the consequences of this decision will be fleshed in the next instalment. I will end by stating that responding to threats of catastrophic proportions are complex problems that are not easy to fix despite how obvious the solutions may seem, take climate change and the war on terror as a case in point.

I feel that Zack Snyder has developed an interesting space in which to continue developing his character and has provided a fresh and valid contribution to Superman lore. One that I feel I should not be so easily dismissed.

MAN OF STEEL & DEADPOOL AND WOLVERINE Star Henry Cavill Joins The Cast Of Live-Action VOLTRON Movie
Related:

MAN OF STEEL & DEADPOOL AND WOLVERINE Star Henry Cavill Joins The Cast Of Live-Action VOLTRON Movie

Zack Snyder Shares Never-Before-Seen Photo Of Henry Cavill As Clark Kent In MAN OF STEEL
Recommended For You:

Zack Snyder Shares Never-Before-Seen Photo Of Henry Cavill As Clark Kent In MAN OF STEEL

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

greenlanter13
greenlanter13 - 6/30/2013, 1:09 AM
Good review man
acheronmagnuz
acheronmagnuz - 7/1/2013, 1:03 AM
Can't agree with you more! Very nice review!
willg
willg - 7/1/2013, 7:58 AM
Excellent review. I wish many of the so called professional critics could analyze the moral complexities as well.
ThunderKat
ThunderKat - 7/1/2013, 5:41 PM
How exactly did you right the wrong?

And don't be afraid to re-edit after posting. The site allows you to do so.
darkraven
darkraven - 7/1/2013, 7:31 PM
My article was a response to those critics who felt that it was 'wrong' to show a flawed hero, one that couldn’t be everywhere at once and fulfill all our expectations. In my opinion this is what’s 'right' about the MOS. In MOS we see a hero who is not in control and I don’t think this sat well with many people.

If you haven't already done so, check out Mark Waid’s critique of MOS (http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/). My post was originally intended as a response to this review.


broncodave83
broncodave83 - 7/1/2013, 10:59 PM
Great review man! I agree that things will probably be different in the sequel and they will build upon the Superman mythology we all have known forever. This was a fresh take on a character that had been stuck in limbo forever and I for one thoroughly enjoy the film makers take on it. It was new and didn't really stray from the Superman mythology. As far as Superman killing Zod, I didn't have a problem with it because I looked at is as this is what happened to make him decide not to kill (if that's the way they go with it). And he was clearly distraught after doing it. But anyways, great review! I enjoyed the read.
colesy
colesy - 7/2/2013, 12:00 AM
This was a brilliant review and I really enjoyed your insight. Spot on.
darkraven
darkraven - 7/2/2013, 6:19 AM
Thanks for all the kind comments and I am glad top see that superman matters again. There is so much potential in this series, just by what was established in this first instalment. MOS is only the start of the hero's journey.

In response to broncodave83 comments I couldn't agree more with your view, this is exactly how I felt the character would develop over time. I think its important to know the value of loss, regret, remorse, to question ourselves and our actions. It is the fundamental basis of our moral development.
MarsivNayr
MarsivNayr - 7/2/2013, 2:18 PM
Hell to the YES on everything that was said!
MarsivNayr
MarsivNayr - 7/2/2013, 2:19 PM
...everything that was very well said!*
CCR
CCR - 7/2/2013, 4:19 PM

Great review! If only everyone who has seen the film could take the time to understand all the little intricacies and complexities beneath the surface instead of immediately calling foul based on their own personal interpretation of what the movie should be about. Not everything has to be spoonfed to the audience, and many, like myself, appreciate it when the filmmakers don't dumb anything down just to be more popular. Awesome flick, this is the Superman movie I've waited to see my whole life!
BringerOD
BringerOD - 7/2/2013, 10:36 PM
Great review! And a Great movie. The low ranking on rotten tomatoes is undeserved.

It is hard to imagine letting your father die. I fully understand why he/they did it, and it still is difficult to imagine. Same reason you cannot commit suicide by holding your breath. I do not believe he could have stood still, watched, and done nothing.

Then, the killing of the test tube babies on the ship? Not too sure about this. “They had their chance”?

Also, a minor critique, kissing after mass destruction. Not that I am against it, just did not fit.
darkraven
darkraven - 7/3/2013, 7:16 AM
I think you raised some very good points and I agree particularly on the last two . In fact, I just came out of the cinema not one hr ago watching MOS for a second time and had your thoughts in mind. Both these decisions did'n t sit well with me either, but I guess in my defence I wasn't trying to say that the film didn't have flaws, it just had more to offer than some people gave it credit for.

eopnalla
eopnalla - 7/6/2013, 9:35 PM
One of the best reviews ive read yet. Sooo many people have failed to see supermans heart, struggle, and character in this movie. They are so used to seeing superman in their mind as an unchangeable thing, yet we've seen many depictions of him in comics, movies and tv. For me, supes underlying thread is doing what he can to protect and save people, and in this movie he chooses to save humanity by sacrificing a new krypton on earth. And he chooses this after only being supes for little more than a day!
View Recorder