A YouTuber named Nerdwriter--whose eclectic video essays span a gamut of fascinating topics, from how to read art to linguistic analyses of songs to deconstructions of film--has a great video about how Batman v. Superman in particular, but Zack Snyder specifically suffers from eye-catching and memorable scenes, but fails to deliver on genuine moments. I rewatched Man of Steel tonight, and I think Nerdwriter's points apply to the first foray into Snyder's take on Superman.
I still like that movie.
I'd never argue that it's well written (some of the dialogue is horrible, and their aversion of the word Superman throughout almost the whole thing is weird) or not rife with problems, but I still enjoy the film. Part of it stems from my unapologetic joy at "building punching"--sequences where people throw other people through buildings. It can be monsters versus robots (like Pacific Rim, or, as I like to call it, Robot Monster Punch Punch), or monsters versus people and their silly weapons (like Kong: Skull Island, a.k.a. Kong: Helicopter Punch). It took until the false advertising of the fourth Transformers movie and their disgusting lack of actual Dinobots for me to finally say, "Not even building punching can redeem this film in my eyes."
I don't normally park myself for the amount of time needed to watch a movie. Having three kids, it's pretty rare for me to get a chance to see a film in theaters, and my window of kids-are-in-bed-and-I-don't-have-anything-else-to-do is between forty-five minutes and an hour. Since I don't like starting a movie without sitting through to the end, I don't want to watch something in shifts. This leaves The Great British Baking Show episodes and playing video games for my evening entertainment.
As a result of all this, I don't have a lot of critical takes on film. I'm good at parroting what other people think, and I can, of course, deconstruct the movie if I'm of a mind to do so. But I work hard to turn off that internal criticism whilst in the moment, due to its rare occurrence. This means that, if I paid money to watch a movie, I'm preconditioned to enjoy it and like it. (It helps that I rarely select a film that I'm not interested in, again because of the scarcity.) Mix in the fact that I struggle with the idea of watching something new or rewatching something I enjoyed before, and it takes a lot for me to really crack into a film.
All this is to say, I still like Man of Steel.
It has problems. Oh, in the name of me, it sure does. The Jonathan Kent character--which had me excited when I saw the exchange between him and young Clark--is a train wreck. Listening to Zack Snyder talk about Jonathan's character, it's obvious that we felt differently about his role. His reasoning is beyond faulty and his death is stupid. Like, flat out stupid. But that line where Clark asks, "Why can't I just be your son?" and he answers, "You'll always be my son"? That is incredible. But that fatherly guidance that Kevin Costner (surprisingly, since I don't have a lot of appreciation for Costner's skills, to be honest) is capable of exuding seems misguided. "Keep yourself secret. Don't show yourself to the world, yet." It's so bizarre and out of step with the whole moral instruction the Kents are supposed to have provided to Clark.
The film is bloated. Snyder should make like the abs of his lead actors and get more lean and cut out the fat. While Watchmen needed a particular pace (which, I'll admit, is deliberate), Man of Steel's self-importance is so plodding that it makes it difficult to become fully involved. Despite my affinity for The Lord of the Rings' expansive mindset (and, to a certain extent, Watchmen), few films deserve a run-time that's over two hours. Maybe two hours and fifteen, I don't know. Even protracted building punching can get wearisome, and if I'm noticing that I my butt's falling asleep because I've been sitting for so long, the film's making some missteps.
It's sad that Snyder only seems to be able to land on the Alan Moore, brooding interpretation of superheroes are always a contemplation on power, since he explored that so well in Watchmen with Dr. Manhattan. Superman's detachment in Batman v Superman from the humanity that he saves makes sense when watching Man of Steel, a retroactive lens that explains some of what's going on in the film that is otherwise confusing. Clark's alienation (pun!) is bridged by Lois and him feeling like he understands America. But the first contact/origin story that's going on in Man of Steel shows that Clark is not as grounded (another pun!) on Earth now that his father was "right"* about how people are.
Oh, and the Christ metaphor is so overt throughout the whole film, it somehow seems less obvious when there's a shot of Clark talking to Random Priest #1 and there's a stained glass of Jesus in the background that we're watching a retelling of a sacrificial lamb story.
But there are some things about Superman that are inherently fascinating, which sometimes gets lost in the mix of everything else that Superman has come to embody. I love that they heightened the importance of his alien nature. Coming from Krypton makes a tangible difference in the film, which doesn't even bother talking about kryptonite, which is a necessary thing for the character from the point of view of a never-ending comic book serial, but has always struck me as too terribly convenient, particularly with its ubiquity (I'm assuming that most Walgreen's in Metropolis carries some kryptonite, since the crap seems to be everywhere). Eschewing that until the second film is, in my mind, a step in the right direction.
Another thing that works for me? The humility that Cavill imbues into his Superman. Superman's confidence is never worn on his sleeve, and I see that in Man of Steel. This humility is part fear, coming from the problematic childhood with Jonathan Kent, but it's an important aspect of Superman that I like seeing.
And though it isn't the strongest/most important reason for a film, I love the way the shots are composed (except the super-zoom shots that are used again and again), as well as the costuming choices. The spectacle of a Zack Snyder film are always remarkable.
Though the plot is unnecessarily complicated, and the emotional beats are screwy, I don't personally feel that Man of Steel is the steaming pile that many critics and fan felt it was.** I mean, I've watched it, like, three times now. Obviously it has some sticking power (pun!--wait, no, that one works for Spider-Man, not Superman. Ah, well. Close enough).
----
* I disagree that Clark should have ever been raised in a way to be afraid or ashamed of his powers, even if people are the way that Jonathan thought of them as being. Superman's transcendence of humanity's flaws is part of what makes him, well, Superman.
** I'm sad at the way Superman handled the end of Zod, however. The city should have been evacuated as the World Engine took its position over its skyscrapers (Americans have seen enough movies to know they don't hang out in their city when an alien ship comes over it), and Superman's fight should have been tearing through skyscrapers that were abandoned. He should have been more aware of all the human lives he was taking when he punched Zod through a building a million times. That being said, this wasn't an impossible retcon. Batman v. Superman could have had, during the standoff between Bats and Supes, a small conversation that basically allowed Batman to throw the moral high ground at Superman: "You think you're so great? So good? You took lives. When you kill a murderer, the number of killers stays the same." And, just like that, Superman has an area to grow, a way of becoming better. Something overt to atone for. I mean, having Superman kill Zod isn't necessarily "against his character" (he kills a number of times in the comics, most notably against Doomsday), and choosing Earth over resurrecting dead Krypton is a type of death, too, so the film Superman's morals aren't finished yet. That could have been the moment where he decided that all life is precious and that he isn't going to kill again. Or, heck, that he's going to focus on saving lives, even in the middle of a fight! BvS only needed Superman to admit to being imperfect and strive to improve his morals to give him the needed character arc. Instead, he gets moody and takes the Dr. Manhattan route of failing to understand humanity. Hmm. Yeah, Batman v Superman is probably a steaming pile. Anyway, thanks for reading this footnote. I should've figured out a way to work that into the main essay.
I didn't.
I still like that movie.
I'd never argue that it's well written (some of the dialogue is horrible, and their aversion of the word Superman throughout almost the whole thing is weird) or not rife with problems, but I still enjoy the film. Part of it stems from my unapologetic joy at "building punching"--sequences where people throw other people through buildings. It can be monsters versus robots (like Pacific Rim, or, as I like to call it, Robot Monster Punch Punch), or monsters versus people and their silly weapons (like Kong: Skull Island, a.k.a. Kong: Helicopter Punch). It took until the false advertising of the fourth Transformers movie and their disgusting lack of actual Dinobots for me to finally say, "Not even building punching can redeem this film in my eyes."
I don't normally park myself for the amount of time needed to watch a movie. Having three kids, it's pretty rare for me to get a chance to see a film in theaters, and my window of kids-are-in-bed-and-I-don't-have-anything-else-to-do is between forty-five minutes and an hour. Since I don't like starting a movie without sitting through to the end, I don't want to watch something in shifts. This leaves The Great British Baking Show episodes and playing video games for my evening entertainment.
As a result of all this, I don't have a lot of critical takes on film. I'm good at parroting what other people think, and I can, of course, deconstruct the movie if I'm of a mind to do so. But I work hard to turn off that internal criticism whilst in the moment, due to its rare occurrence. This means that, if I paid money to watch a movie, I'm preconditioned to enjoy it and like it. (It helps that I rarely select a film that I'm not interested in, again because of the scarcity.) Mix in the fact that I struggle with the idea of watching something new or rewatching something I enjoyed before, and it takes a lot for me to really crack into a film.
All this is to say, I still like Man of Steel.
It has problems. Oh, in the name of me, it sure does. The Jonathan Kent character--which had me excited when I saw the exchange between him and young Clark--is a train wreck. Listening to Zack Snyder talk about Jonathan's character, it's obvious that we felt differently about his role. His reasoning is beyond faulty and his death is stupid. Like, flat out stupid. But that line where Clark asks, "Why can't I just be your son?" and he answers, "You'll always be my son"? That is incredible. But that fatherly guidance that Kevin Costner (surprisingly, since I don't have a lot of appreciation for Costner's skills, to be honest) is capable of exuding seems misguided. "Keep yourself secret. Don't show yourself to the world, yet." It's so bizarre and out of step with the whole moral instruction the Kents are supposed to have provided to Clark.
The film is bloated. Snyder should make like the abs of his lead actors and get more lean and cut out the fat. While Watchmen needed a particular pace (which, I'll admit, is deliberate), Man of Steel's self-importance is so plodding that it makes it difficult to become fully involved. Despite my affinity for The Lord of the Rings' expansive mindset (and, to a certain extent, Watchmen), few films deserve a run-time that's over two hours. Maybe two hours and fifteen, I don't know. Even protracted building punching can get wearisome, and if I'm noticing that I my butt's falling asleep because I've been sitting for so long, the film's making some missteps.
It's sad that Snyder only seems to be able to land on the Alan Moore, brooding interpretation of superheroes are always a contemplation on power, since he explored that so well in Watchmen with Dr. Manhattan. Superman's detachment in Batman v Superman from the humanity that he saves makes sense when watching Man of Steel, a retroactive lens that explains some of what's going on in the film that is otherwise confusing. Clark's alienation (pun!) is bridged by Lois and him feeling like he understands America. But the first contact/origin story that's going on in Man of Steel shows that Clark is not as grounded (another pun!) on Earth now that his father was "right"* about how people are.
Oh, and the Christ metaphor is so overt throughout the whole film, it somehow seems less obvious when there's a shot of Clark talking to Random Priest #1 and there's a stained glass of Jesus in the background that we're watching a retelling of a sacrificial lamb story.
But there are some things about Superman that are inherently fascinating, which sometimes gets lost in the mix of everything else that Superman has come to embody. I love that they heightened the importance of his alien nature. Coming from Krypton makes a tangible difference in the film, which doesn't even bother talking about kryptonite, which is a necessary thing for the character from the point of view of a never-ending comic book serial, but has always struck me as too terribly convenient, particularly with its ubiquity (I'm assuming that most Walgreen's in Metropolis carries some kryptonite, since the crap seems to be everywhere). Eschewing that until the second film is, in my mind, a step in the right direction.
Another thing that works for me? The humility that Cavill imbues into his Superman. Superman's confidence is never worn on his sleeve, and I see that in Man of Steel. This humility is part fear, coming from the problematic childhood with Jonathan Kent, but it's an important aspect of Superman that I like seeing.
And though it isn't the strongest/most important reason for a film, I love the way the shots are composed (except the super-zoom shots that are used again and again), as well as the costuming choices. The spectacle of a Zack Snyder film are always remarkable.
Though the plot is unnecessarily complicated, and the emotional beats are screwy, I don't personally feel that Man of Steel is the steaming pile that many critics and fan felt it was.** I mean, I've watched it, like, three times now. Obviously it has some sticking power (pun!--wait, no, that one works for Spider-Man, not Superman. Ah, well. Close enough).
----
* I disagree that Clark should have ever been raised in a way to be afraid or ashamed of his powers, even if people are the way that Jonathan thought of them as being. Superman's transcendence of humanity's flaws is part of what makes him, well, Superman.
** I'm sad at the way Superman handled the end of Zod, however. The city should have been evacuated as the World Engine took its position over its skyscrapers (Americans have seen enough movies to know they don't hang out in their city when an alien ship comes over it), and Superman's fight should have been tearing through skyscrapers that were abandoned. He should have been more aware of all the human lives he was taking when he punched Zod through a building a million times. That being said, this wasn't an impossible retcon. Batman v. Superman could have had, during the standoff between Bats and Supes, a small conversation that basically allowed Batman to throw the moral high ground at Superman: "You think you're so great? So good? You took lives. When you kill a murderer, the number of killers stays the same." And, just like that, Superman has an area to grow, a way of becoming better. Something overt to atone for. I mean, having Superman kill Zod isn't necessarily "against his character" (he kills a number of times in the comics, most notably against Doomsday), and choosing Earth over resurrecting dead Krypton is a type of death, too, so the film Superman's morals aren't finished yet. That could have been the moment where he decided that all life is precious and that he isn't going to kill again. Or, heck, that he's going to focus on saving lives, even in the middle of a fight! BvS only needed Superman to admit to being imperfect and strive to improve his morals to give him the needed character arc. Instead, he gets moody and takes the Dr. Manhattan route of failing to understand humanity. Hmm. Yeah, Batman v Superman is probably a steaming pile. Anyway, thanks for reading this footnote. I should've figured out a way to work that into the main essay.
I didn't.