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.