Man of Steel
This is not the Zack Snyder who directed “Sucker Punch.” Nor is it the Zack Snyder who directed “300.” Or “Legends of the Guardians.” Or even “Watchmen,” which still stands as his best film to date, if only because of how he managed to bring a seemingly impossible piece of source material to the screen with vision and passion for the story. None of these films represents the Zack Snyder who has directed “Man of Steel.” Instead, the film of his I find myself coming to the most when thinking about “Man of Steel” is his first feature, 2004’s remake of “Dawn of the Dead.” That film had the elements that people familiar with the George A. Romero classic remembered, but put them together in a way that was daring and new. The same is true of “Man of Steel,” the sixth live-action feature of Superman in the 35 years since Richard Donner’s “Superman: The Movie” hit movie screens.
There is no room for John Williams’s triumphant theme for that Donner classic in “Man of Steel.” Nor is there a place for the campy, comic book tone that runs deep in the Donner films, with “Superman II” (especially in the restored “Richard Donner Cut”) continuing what the first film started. And the remarkable part? I didn’t miss them one bit as I watched what Snyder, writer David S. Goyer, and producer Christopher Nolan came up with. This film isn’t about to give those movies a big, sloppy kiss the way Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns” did in 2006. Instead, Snyder and co. pay Donner’s films the ultimate compliment by leaving well enough alone. They exist, they have withstood the test of time, and they are much beloved. We don’t need to be reminded of them, or how great they are.
Watching “Man of Steel,” it occurred to me that a “reboot” of a franchise doesn’t need to be as good as what came before; rather, it just has to find something new to explore within what it’s rebooting. Do I think “Man of Steel” is a better film than “Superman: The Movie?” Not necessarily, but it’s value lies in how it approaches the material, and discovers something fresh to be uncovered. In this case, really delving deep into the idea of Superman as an alien being, and what the revelation of his existence means to humanity’s place in the universe. Is it really plausible to believe that Superman would be immediately welcomed with open arms, rather than be seen as a threat to mankind? Humankind has proven itself too paranoid, and afraid of the unknown, to think the former is a likely scenario.
(Similarly, Nolan and Goyer took the same approach to Batman in their “Dark Knight” trilogy, and, in particular, “Batman Begins,” which really looked at the roots of Bruce Wayne’s pathology, and his origins as the Caped Crusader, in a way neither Tim Burton nor Joel Schumacher took on in their films during the late ’80s and ’90s.)
The full-throated embrace of Superman’s sci-fi origins, including the most expanded look at Krypton that we’ve ever seen in live-action, is not only part of what sets “Man of Steel” apart, but also plays into Zack Snyder’s strengths as one of the great, visual filmmakers of modern cinema. (And haters, he is that, even if his narrative storytelling is often lacking.) In less-confident hands, this approach to the character would be cold and lacking in humanity, but the combination of Nolan, Snyder, and Goyer is a, quite surprising, strong one. It seems unfair, to me, to call this a “darker, gritter” take on Superman, a la Nolan’s Batman films. While I firmly believe Nolan’s Batman and Snyder’s Superman could coexist in a larger DC Universe, while the look of “Man of Steel” (be it in the early scenes on Krypton, or the scenes on Earth that make up the bulk of the film) is dirtier, and darker, than anything in the Reeve films, or in “Superman Returns,” I would argue that it’s not a darker approach to the character, but rather, a more grounded one. Yes, we see Superman under arrest, and we see him having to earn the trust of the military and government, but such sights (though new to Superman’s cinematic adventures) fit right in to science fiction classics such as “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” where extraterrestrial beings were feared for what they COULD do, only to earn humanity’s trust with what they ACTUALLY do during their visit to this planet.
That last sentence is crucial to how “Man of Steel” came to win me over, because it brings to mind an unlikely comparison, but one I welcomed when it struck me in thinking about the film. Even going back to the Richard Donner film, there have always been those who compare Superman’s origins– sent by a father (Jor-El, played here by a strong-in-presence Russell Crowe) to a world where the son will redeem humanity –to the story of Christ, and that comparison holds true with “Man of Steel.” However, thinking about the way Snyder, Goyer, and Nolan present the story here, I couldn’t help but think of Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ.” In that film, Christ’s divinity was not seen as a given, but rather, a process he had to go through, as part-human (warts and all), so that he could earn the right to say, “It is accomplished,” when he’s on the cross. This is the underlying theme of Kal-El/Clark Kent’s life in “Man of Steel,” wherein he must find his place in the world in order to change it.
After he lands on Earth, the narrative jumps forward, and shows Clark (played by Henry Cavill, who does what Brandon Routh couldn’t, and keeps all comparisons to Christopher Reeve at bay with his lived-in version of a wayward Clark Kent) taking odd jobs as a way of staying anonymous, although, as we see during an early sequence on an oil rig (as well as a sinking bus when he’s a teen), that’s difficult to do when lives are at stake. His Earthly father, Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner, in his best performance in years), understands the danger in Clark saving these lives with his unearthly powers (after all, not many teens can lift a crashed bus out of a river), but like Jor-El, Jonathan also sees the potential for a savior on Earth in Clark, and when Kal-El is able to finally speak to his Kryptonian father via hologram on a ship that landed in the Arctic centuries earlier, he must find a way to balance both fathers’s philosophies for the greater good. The sequences on Smallville are the strongest look at Clark’s youth with the Kents we’ve seen on film, and it helps us understand the stakes for Clark when he does reveal Superman to the world in a way we never got in the Donner films, and a big part of that are the performances by Costner and Diane Lane as Martha Kent, who give Clark a loving home, while also nurturing him as he must find a way to acclimate to his new planet (another thing never really touched on by Donner, or anyone else in movies, but given great importance here).
There’s so much to discuss about this film (which looks and sounds great, courtesy production designer Alex McDowell and composer Hans Zimmer), which also sets up the relationship between Clark and Lois Lane (the terrific Amy Adams) in a way that is bold and rife with possibilities moving forward, that it’s almost unfair that I feel like I must wrap things up. Yes, the movie is another comic book epic that comes close to 2 1/2 hours, but there’s more than enough story to justify it, even if the film drags a bit during the second act. The film sets up not just Superman, but the larger DC Universe, in a way that is terribly exciting for this comic book movie fan: we’ve finally seen Superman in knock-down, drag-out brawls with physically challenging villains (led by General Zod, played by Michael Shannon in full-tilt bad guy mode), and man, it’s a workout; we’ve been introduced to the larger cosmos, and mythology, of Superman’s world in a way where anything can happen; and, for the first time, I feel like we have a Man of Steel that is both more than human, but also grounded emotionally in a way no one else has managed to do. I can’t wait to see what adventures he has in the future.
