Movie Moments : Superman saves Lois Lane in dramatic style.

(picture courtesy of guy fortune.com)

This moment occurred in Superman (1978). In my opinion this film was good up until this specific moment where superman saved Lois Lane from the jaws of death in such a dramatic fashion. The superman films of the late 70s and early 80s  had very dramatic moments and it was an annoying trend. In Superman 2 (1981), for instance, superman gives up his powers for Lois lane, a mere mortal, while the world is at war with General Zod. He is humiliated by an average brawler in a diner when he is given a beaten and exclaims pathetically, after falling through glass, 'that's my blood.' He has to hobble back through biting cold winds to the fortress of solitude in a hope to recover his powers after he finally discovers that Zod is on the loose. I scoffed at this dramatic spectacle  but I tolerated it because it was not as excessive as the dramatic movie moment I am about to discuss. Although Man of Steel continued this tradition of dramatic spectacle it was not as excessive as the old superman films and for that i was thankful.

Now let's turn to this absurd moment. Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) wants to destroy most of California so that it will increase the value of the barren real estate in his possession. He decides to destroy most of the area by unleashing two nuclear bombs and when one hits it creates a massive earthquake which engulfs Lois Lane and her car thereby killing her. Superman, on escaping Luthor's prison,  kept his promise to Luthor's Hench-woman to dismantle, first,  one of the missiles that headed to her hometown. He is, therefore, unable to save Lois especially as he has to spend time stabilizing the crisis that erupts when the missile creates serious tremors in California. When he finally discovers Lois he is distraught. The great absurd moment occurs when Superman screams out in frustration and flies up, up and away outside of earth's atmosphere. He recalls the voice of his biological father, Jorel (Marlon Brando), saying that he must not tamper with human history. Superman disregards this advice and pays heed to the advice of his earthly father Jonathan Kent, who says he must be on earth for a reason. Is the reason to save Lois Lane? If so then that is a quite pathetic reason. Superman then spins around the earth at such violent speed (mach- 1 billion) that the earth rotates in reverse  and time it self is altered as previous events come back into existence. We watch the absurd moment unfold as all the destruction created by the tremors is corrected and, most importantly, he saves Lois.

This movie moment is absurd because it places superman on a truly godlike pedestal. this man has so much power that he can make the earth spin in reverse. No where in the comics is he that powerful. If he were there would be no villain to match him with. There is also no realistic guarantee that if you spin around the earth at such violent speed that time itself will be reversed. If superman was so fast why did he struggle to get to Lois Lane in time thereby negating the possibility of her death at that particular moment.

This moment condemned Superman to ignominy long before Superman 3 &4. It is here that superman became the judge of the world hence his inevitable quest for peace and his embarrassing address to the United nations a couple years later. it is here that superman took on this great burden  of isolation which would never make him relatable. In Superman Returns (2006) he lifts an entire island  and tosses it like a sponge ball yet allows Luthor to kick him around thanks to a little kryptonite. This excessive display of power in Superman (1978)  ensured that that there was no possibility that superman would ever be seriously challenged hence why in Superman 3 he fights himself for good measure and only a nuclear man in Superman 4 can put up a decent fight which is really a no contest, apart from the nails.

Man of Steel has thankfully addressed this issue to some degree.

Man of Steel (2013): ****/5. Good film but there are noticeable setbacks

Man of Steel is the best superman film ever made. This does not make it the best superhero film but it is certainly a vast improvement on the corny virtuosity embodied in Superman (1978) and Superman 2(1981), the outrageous hilarity in Superman 3 and 4 as well as the stately aloofness in Superman Returns (2006). It is time that people get over the portrayal of superman by Christopher Reeves and the famous score by John Williams. The only thing lacking in this film is a genuine artistic edge which would make the film transcend the superhero genre. Nolan achieved this in the Dark Knight trilogy particularly with the cinematography. Man of Steel has great visual effects and some dramatic moments but the artistic edge is lacking here. There is nothing much wrong with the story because it genuinely makes superman into a relatable individual. The edge taken here is that he is an alien from krypton and so it questions how the people of earth would react to this individual as opposed to simply accepting him readily. This edge has been done before in film but not necessarily for the superhero genre. In the older superman films it was taken for granted that the citizens of earth would accept him without question. This is challenged here and makes for an interesting situation. This film is much more fluid than the previous films and genuinely bridges the gap between two worlds: Krypton and Earth.

The film is about an orphan, Kal-el/Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) from the vanquished planet of Krypton. On earth, due to the different atmosphere, he is given extraordinary powers. It is clear however that his world has not left him because General Zod ( Michael Shannon)and his soldiers seek to build a new krypton on earth. It is up to the man of steel to decide whether to side with his own people or to embrace his home on earth.

Positives

This is the best superman film ever released and that is the major positive. It does combine elements from Superman 1 & 2 but it is much more fluid and less stately and much more thrilling. For instance in Superman (1978) Jorel (Marlon Brando) seems so stately when he dispatches his son to earth. In Man of Steel Jorel (Russell Crowe) appears as a man of action in the midst of civil war. There is a genuine sense of urgency while he prepares to dispatch his son who is the first natural birth in Krypton for many centuries. This is important for a country dominated by technology. The codax is an important element in the film and this is what Jorel scrambles to seize as his planet goes to pieces. It is important for superman as well.  

The action sequences in Man of steel are much more dynamic due to the visual upgrade and the significant competition from General Zod  and his second in command Faora. In this case the fight sequences feel like a genuine super powered tussle. In Superman 2, for instance, where Zod was the main villain, the fight between the two and Zod’s supporting cast was lame because the technology was not available at the time to make it interesting. During the tussle between superman and Zod in that film a brawl between superman and Zod’s thug takes place in a sewer. We do not see the actual brawl but hear and see the effects on the surface until the thug is sent flying through the road because superman seemingly won the duel. In Man of Steel the technology is now available for us to see the actual brawl because of the massive visual upgrade. Let’s not talk about Superman Returns (2006) where superman struggles to fend off Lex Luthor and co. because he is poisoned with kryptonite. How lame was that?

Superman is placed in a genuine dilemma with his two fathers. David S. Goyer actually said that this would fuel the tension in the film. His earthly father, Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) tells the young Clark Kent to show more restraint and be patient because in time when he becomes a man he will have to make important choices which will affect the world for good or ill. His father from Krypton, Jorel, actually helps Clark become the actual superman that we see take charge in the film. This is important in creating the necessary transition from the obscure Clark Kent into the dominant world power who embodies the last of an extinct race. It is much like the significance of the Roman Catholic Church which embodies the last vestiges of the Roman Empire. Whenever a dominant civilization becomes extinct it always leaves behind some remnant that commands respect in successive generations and this remnant takes on a mythic almost holy significance (will address this in a miscellaneous post). In the case of Krypton the Holy See happens to be the individual known on earth as the man of steel.

I appreciate how Lois lane is employed in a detective like role as she searches for this mysterious figure that cannot be of this earth. It is clear that the presence of an alien in our midst would generate a lot of buzz and the film capitalizes on this by employing Lois Lane, a media representative, in the capacity of investigator as she seeks to catch on to his mysterious trail.

The film also does well in showcasing the major divide between superman and his claims to earth and Zod’s urge to create a new Krypton on earth. It is made clear in the film that when superman defeats Zod and co. that krypton will never resurface, a great universal empire will be destroyed forever. It is a tough break for superman because he must feel more alone than ever which is why he must try to attach himself to earth. Zod embodies the trials of a dying krypton and he really cannot be blamed for trying to create his world anew.  The film achieves this by creating a lot of historical detail behind the world of krypton and its many planetary colonial outposts which has not been done before in the previous films (Superman Returns did something absurd when it made superman actually go in search of his vanquished planet) which helps to illustrate the rise and fall of this mighty planet. The presentation of the planet is important for it seems that it not only achieved a high level of technological development but that this development appears very organic to the society and so highly sophisticated. Jorel makes it clear that Kryptonians, much like the capitalists of earth, are seeking to subdue the natural world so as to serve their ends. This massive exploitation of natural resources turns out to be the undoing of the planet. It is this attention to historical detail that allows Man of Steel to supersede its predecessors.

Negatives

The main negative here is the lack of an artistic edge which is what you can expect from the director of 300 and Watchmen. The excessive action and the visual effects alone do not create a sense of artistic integrity. There is little subtlety here particularly in the embodiment of the legendary status of the superman character. In order to do this some artistic edge would be needed to represent him in that light.  He does not seem legendary only powerful. The previous films never really developed this element much either. There needed to be some element to make Superman stand out i.e. to be representative of something. I still do not get the ideal that he is to represent since his only victory was in a major tussle with his own people. What does he represent as a hero? Batman was the Dark knight in society willing to do what was necessary to save his city from the disease of crime so what is Superman’s goal? That is the question. I understood what Zod represented ( a man trying to reclaim the past glory of his planet) but not Superman because his objectives are not clear which is why the ending does not offer much hope for the future. If he is going to continue to save earth from major threats etc then what would be the point of a sequel. I know that superman is an orphan from a dead planet but what is he taking to earth apart from his massive powers. The previous films saw him as the great harmonizer and the man who allowed capital to thrive by using his massive power to resolve crises. Is it going to be the same here? We shall see. Why is he the man of steel? Or are they just competing with Iron Man? They say that he represents hope but hope for what? It was never clear but probably it was to make earth wary of the path that Krypton took. Will technology come to dominate us etc? 

I did not like the element of divine providence because it broke with the tale of aliens. Jorel says that Superman will be a god to the earthlings and another lady said that Clark’s strength was a manifestation of something divine. Clark even seeks council in the church etc. Superman is no God but Jorel is probably right which is why constant competition from powerful foes is necessary.

I did not like a particular scene taken right out of Iron Man (2008). This is evidence of the lack of originality due to the lack of a genuine artistic edge. 

The state of the Garden of Eden and the Rise of man

(image courtesy of Wikipedia)

After Man (meaning man and woman) was expelled from the Garden of Eden by the god of the shepherds, or the God of Abraham and Moses, he was given the opportunity to rise from the doldrums. It must finally be laid to rest the theory of the creationists that after Man was expelled from the Garden of Eden he fell from grace and has been falling ever since. This is a mere mystical interpretation of the reverse:  that man has actually risen from the doldrums after being expelled from the Garden of Eden where he stagnated in god’s eternal bosom. It will be better for man if he never return to the Garden of Eden. The main question to answer is: Why did man rise, and not fall, when he was expelled from the Garden of Eden? The answer: the value of his labour allowed him to realize his potential. In the Garden of Eden man thrived in idleness. He never worked or staked his claim to the natural paradise that surrounded him. He was only able to survive at god’s behest which never extended beyond the raw materials provided by nature. Man never worked in the Garden of Eden and as a result was not able to truly express himself. He existed at the level of pure instinct and when he took a bite out of the forbidden apple that contains knowledge he rose to claim his rightful place in the universe. It is doubtful whether the creationists will accept this rational materialistic explanation that emerges from the mystical core pertaining to the so called theme of original sin.

Labour, or labour power, is the means by which man shapes the natural world to suit his own ends. Labour is the means by which man builds civilization, it is the means by which we can grow beyond the narrow confines of the natural world or the Kingdom of god. Man has passed through several modes of production: the slave economy, the feudal economy, the colonial economy, the mercantile economy and the capitalist economy. The common basis for all these modes of production was that man produced through his labour so as to generate his means of subsistence, a means to exchange with other humans so as to acquire something of value or a surplus product for the ruling class or those that control the means of production and subjugate those that work for them. In various modes of production labour is what adds new value to the means of production which are inherently lifeless without the input of the life force which manifests itself through our labour power.  This gift of labour has been the means by which man can extract the resources of nature and refine them for his own purpose. In the advanced capitalist mode of production which has increased the labour productivity of man with the aid of advanced technology, or the amount that man can produce, to its highest levels since his exit from the Garden of Eden man has been able to develop a sophisticated civilization. Man has been able to produce a large amount of commodities or use values which are exchanged in the market. These use values are necessary for some human beings to live and they can only acquire it by the means of exchange which is represented by money. In order to get money however these people have to either work for the money or control someone who produces an equivalent that can be exchanged. These use values that have been produced have lifted man from a bare natural existence. By being fearful of our nakedness we have created clothing that can secure us from the cold and the sun. We have made shoes that allow us to traverse the surface of the earth with little fear of injury from thorns. We have created sophisticated means of communication and means of transport that allow us to traverse the earth without a fear of the unknown.  We have created housing that can secure us from the weather (still working on the tornadoes) whereas animals still shelter under trees. All of these developments occurred after we left the Garden of Eden and so it is a blessing and not a curse because I do not regret the state in which I was born.

If man has been able to develop such a sophisticated society on the basis of the high levels of labour productivity under capital how can it be claimed that he has fallen? Man never fell after exiting the Garden of Eden because there was no Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden represents a period where man was purely instinctive, relying more on sensorial experience than anything else. The Garden of Eden is representative of a time when man lived among the animals and was, as yet, unable to take control of nature i.e. utilizing the raw materials for  his own ends.  Mankind has thrived since man emerged from this lowly state. Eating the forbidden fruit has liberated man and has made him the dominant force in nature. When man took control in his edenic state god, who is representative of nature in all its glory, must have been stunned and clearly saw what would happen to this sphere of pure instinct. If the god of Abraham and Moses was beyond the natural sphere then he would not have been stunned. When man continues to take control of the natural elements the more he is removed from his edenic state and the more he can regulate the vast natural spectrum that functions invariably in repeated cycles.

Man is the foremost member of nature that has been able to generate growth by exploiting the natural elements in order to create things that can enhance his own life. Animals do it as well but on a more limited basis.  Nature functions on a more instinctive level and it is up to man to refine the properties of nature so that it can be reach its true potential. By itself nature is limited to the process of life creation and in man and the other animals that process of life is reflected through labour which in turn acts upon nature in order to create more solid foundations for existence.

The Garden of Eden or the period where man was dominated by nature, is long gone. Those calling for a return to the Edenic state have no faith in the development of human society. The labour of man and the various processes that enhance it  has liberated him from the doldrums of pure instinct. The Garden of Eden represented a time when man was dominated by nature and any return is reflective of a puerile fantasy. The foundations for the Garden of Eden have been removed when man used his labour to create the foundations for civilization. It was only then that he had dominion of all he saw before him.  Nature will always play its role as a source of extraction in the hunt for raw materials.  But no longer will man languish alongside it but will utilize it for his own purpose. This is what has been done and what continues to be done. The extent of exploitation will force man to push into the far reaches of space, the new frontier.  Let the god of Abraham revel in Eden. Eden will always be representative of a period when man must live within nature without altering it. No shoes, no clothing, no means of transport (Man harnessing the horse or the donkey is merely the first stage of the process. When the horse and the donkey no longer suffice man must create more advanced means of transport to carry heavier loads. This is dependent on the extent of production. In capitalism a simple donkey and horse no longer suffices and so cars, trucks, trains and airplanes are utilized.) and no  sophisticated means of communication. When Man advances so does the use values at his disposal to aid in his development. In nature the use values are tied into the natural process which is inadequate because growth is negligible during the natural cycle.  With the advances in human civilization man continues to increase via the inputs of labour power or man’s means of expressing the life force within him.

Always rising, never falling. The fall will come when nature finally reclaims what is hers or when we are forcibly made to return to the Garden of Eden.  The only thing left for man to resolve is the class struggle where by the few and their lackeys rule the many and extract a surplus from their labour so that they do not have to work.