Being 7 years removed from a movie that fundamentally changed your life moving forward, you would think the luster and admiration would wear off. Especially when you consider the divisiveness of Zack Snyder’s, Man of Steel. Posting a middling 56% on Rotten Tomatoes, and having to endure countless hours of arguments from those who aren’t a fan of the film, my connection to Man of Steel exceeds all expectations from my previous experiences. Watched in a glorious 4K transfer with a solid surround system certainly helps the experience as it lightly parallels my initial venture into the eyes of Zack Snyder.
A figure who has certainly divided, pissed off, and inspired movie going audiences and comic-book readers for years now, Man of Steel is perfectly emblematic of his style as a film-maker. A film-maker whose scope is broad and lens of the camera limitless in its capabilities. Many moments here range from snappy kineticism, to static and virtually still slow-motion for added dramatic effect. There’s a heavy amount of crash zooms to elevate the grandiose visual effects and scope of Superman’s biggest story to hit the big screen thus far. Slight pans or lingering on the human body at its peak physical performance and structure. As a gym jockey himself, Snyder has shown time and time again that he uses the camera to capture the limitless possibilities of a body reaching its potential. This time focused on the man of steel, Clark Kent.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it many times moving forward, this is a Clark Kent story before it ever was a Superman story. At the heart of Man of Steel is not a pulsing beat of Superman in his prime. Accepted, loved, and the hero that we most recognize from decades of optimistic iconography. That’s not to say that Man of Steel is a “grounded”, “gritty”, “realistic” take on the Superman mythos, because it just isn’t, especially when the movie lays out it’s overly fantastic lore time and time again that overbears any ounce of “realism”.
What’s important here is that Zack Snyder takes those Superman mythos and lends a pair of eyes to the life before THE Superman. As written in both father figures to Kal-El, Jonathan Kent and Jor-El (both played respectively by a terrific Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe), there is a mental tug at the type of man Clark wants to be before he ever reveals what makes this man super. Both fathers fear the results of Clark being exposed as a God amongst men. The response by fearful people who are unsure how to react when the unknown becomes their known reality. Stemming from a figure who challenges their most basic meaning of what it means to exist in a world where the all-powerful (by their own standards) are now deemed powerless in the face of the extraterrestrial. A theme that continues on in Batman v Superman through the lens of Bruce Wayne.
That is also a part of why Man of Steel excels at being the origin story not just for Superman, the DC Universe, or the other heroes that follow, but for Clark Kent first. There’s a reason that Man of Steel is not simply titled Superman, or Son of Krypton, it’s that this alias represents the meaning of Superman before all the bells and whistles of his powers. Flight, super speed, strength, x-ray vision, whatever else, that doesn’t define or embody Superman; the choice to act in good will and good faith does. Which is where Man of Steel begins it’s story, what it centers it’s story around, and how it chooses to end it.
When Jor-El and Lara-El choose to create life with Krypton’s first natural birth in centuries, they choose to give that child a chance to forge his own path on a thriving planet full of humanity instead of a planet on its last legs. Later on Clark faces multiple choices that could easily put him at risk of condemnation. He recollects these moments through visual triggers back to his childhood that helped pave the way into the man he is now, and who he will become. It’s a storytelling technique I hadn’t seen in a superhero film before and it remains one of its greatest strengths. His father Jonathan Kent encouraged his behavior, but isolated him to the truths beyond what his eyes could see out of fear of losing his son to a world that wasn’t ready to accept him as he and his mother already had. This proved to be the most emotionally pivotal scene in Clark’s life, and intended for the audience to feel as well.
When a natural disaster strikes a field in Kansas, Clark has the ability to save his father from something that he could not stop, but Jonathan extends his arm out to his son at peace with accepting that he’d rather die than see his son face the jurors of society. Lastly, as the last line of defense for humanity, Clark faces his toughest choice yet, salvaging Zod and being caught in an eternal war with a zealot, or killing him to save not just the immediate people in front of him, but the world itself. His final choice on this journey conflicts with every major decision he’s made thus far in regards to human life, but it proves to be the only necessary one. He crumbles to his knees and screams in pain at having committed a direct act of murder, finally becoming the last son of Krypton.
Many moments leading up to that is where Man of Steel loses its audience, and I’m not here to debate the merits of its massive action sequences, but to share that it all exists naturally as a consequence of an action. This is primarily evident when Zod uses Clark’s accidental tutorial on how to harness the power of the sun to abuse the power of it. Zod exclaims, “I was bred to be a warrior, Kal. Trained my entire life to master my senses. Where did you train? ON A FARM?!” A notable thread of difference between Clark and Zod laid out right here. Zod, bred by machines and preordained ideas and intentions. Clark, built on the foundation of morals and ethics and bred by a nurturing set of parents. This juxtaposition comes earlier on as well when Faora convincingly tells Clark that, “evolution always wins.” Superman, always being the cape wearing allegory for biblical figures such as Moses and Jesus, is created to be at war with a group of antagonists that represent Darwinism. For decades Darwinism and Faith have been at some form of disagreement, and Superman’s victory here is not emblematic of who is right and who is wrong (that’s just too deep of a point that wasn’t intended to be made), but the core trait of the creation of Superman is realized here in a large scale battle between two theological factions.
Which is where I want to conclude my final words on Man of Steel. For all of the talk, the arguments, the painstakingly long essays in various forms dedicated to dismantling Zack Snyder’s “complete misunderstanding of the character”, all I see is a movie that understands Superman better than any movie has prior. The biblical allegories, Superman’s characteristics defined by the people around him, the shifting of Superman’s architecture as a character based on current political events throughout different eras and how that’s realized through different mediums from a unique lens. That, amongst the points that are intended to be made before others when it comes to thinking of that gleaming red “S”. Clark faces trouble, adversity, and in the face of a fearful race probing his existence from various angles (note the plethora of shots dedicated to a different POV that looks upon Clark differently than someone else) finds himself having to take all that he’s learned, all that he’s experienced, all that has hurt him, and mold that into being that ideal for the people of Earth to strive towards.
Man of Steel puts an exclamation on what it means to be super after it has boldly underlined what it means to be a man gifted with power. Clark doesn’t succumb to the pressures of ideology, theology, and technological evolution, he rather combats those things en route to reminding us that what makes us super isn’t the strength we bear, but the good will to act in the face of uncertainty as a human. There’s a hero in all of us, and to finally achieve those ranks we need to understand our humanity before discovering what we’re capable of.
ความคิดเห็น