Oh no, you say, not another brooding superhero. But this one’s the best of them yet.
It may be easier to begin with what I didn’t like about Man of Steel. I wished that Krypton – the planet, the people, the clothes, the pincushion-like robots, the turtle-carapace spaceships – had been envisioned better. Only the awesome Michael Shannon, playing Zod, came close to channeling some sort of otherworldliness, aided no doubt by that protuberant mole on the side of his neck – it looks like a button that, if pressed, would make his head split open and reveal the shiny machinery whirring inside. I didn’t care for the Kryptonian nomenclature either. After all this evolutionary advancement, the best you can do for a power capable of transforming Earth into Krypton is… “World Engine”? That sounds like a Google upgrade, and only marginally better than “Codex,” which might be something you stuck into an IBM mainframe, circa 1964, rather than something responsible for the genetic destiny of an entire race. Where’s the mythic, bone-rattling grandeur of a “Death Star”, a “Mjolnir”?
Otherwise, I loved this film. When I heard that the story was co-written by Christopher Nolan (he also produced), I was afraid we’d have another Dark Knight on our hands. I am not the biggest fan of that solemn, self-important trilogy, which, for all its attractions, made a fetish of its lugubriousness. (I sometimes feel like telling Batman, “Yes, your parents died. Gotham is hell. But after all these years and all this money, can’t you find something to crack a smile about?) The biggest surprise of Man of Steel isn’t that its hero turns out to be a brooder like Nolan’s earlier superhero – or like all of Nolan’s earlier protagonists, really – but that he couldn’t have been anything else. It’s the most natural of developments. Superman – rather, Clark Kent – broods because he is an alien. He broods because he wants to know who he is, where he’s from, who his parents are, why he’s such a freak (you may rightly surmise that a kid who reads Plato isn’t quite… normal), and why he has such strange powers. He broods because he’s like an X-Men character who’s yet to meet Professor Xavier.
And until that father figure arrives in the form of Jor-El (Russell Crowe, in possibly his blandest actorly outing), there’s another reason Clark broods: he is afraid. Through his mother we learn that he’s had a difficult childhood (he found it hard to breathe), and worse, one day in the classroom, he’s frightened by his inchoate superpowers. Through Zod, much later, we see how monstrous those powers must have been, how terrible to control – and it’s no surprise that Clark is wary of them. There’s no triumphant music when he hoists his school bus to shore after it falls into a river, and there’s no indication of levity when he mangles the truck of a misbehaving drunk. Clark is constantly torn between yielding to his natural instincts and respecting his father’s advice to curb those instincts. In the film’s most touching scene, his superpower-free father saves a girl and a dog from a tornado and gives up his life to protect his son’s identity. How can you advertise yourself after this? Seeking anonymity, Clark ploughs through a series of blue-collar jobs. That white-collar Daily Planet gig, with the handy costume-change telephone booth nearby, is going to have to wait.
This tortured aspect of Superman, which has never been put on screen before, makes Man of Steel a genuinely affecting origins story. (It helps that the supervillain is no generic megalomaniac, but someone who needs to kill Superman to achieve his goals.) We know this stuff by heart, and yet, we feel we’re watching it for the first time. The first time we see Clark smile – outside of a photograph from childhood, where he’s holding up a prize – is when he hears his real name: Kal-El. And the first time he laughs is when he tears through the skies. The film wisely saves the flying for this moment, and till then (as in a rescue at a burning oil rig), we’re only given hints of his superpowers. The film, similarly, plays coy with the first-time revelations of details we anticipate: the elevator doors close just as Clark Kent is about to slip on those iconic spectacles for the first time, Lois Lane’s first-ever utterance of “Superman” is beeped out, and there are teasing allusions to Lana Lang and Lex Luthor. The Kansas portions are presented as flashbacks – the first time we see Clark is as an adult with a penchant for sacrificing himself to save his fellow man.
This Superman-as-Saviour angle, too, appears as if for the first time. “He’ll be a god to them,” predicts Jor-El, about to dispatch his son – conceived rather uniquely – to Earth. Subsequently, Kal-El is frequently seen in the crucifixion pose. And when in doubt, Clark turns to his Father. He goes to church, where he learns that he’s going to have to take a “leap of faith.” He’s going to have to learn to trust humans just as they’re going to have to learn to trust a being who’s faster than a speeding bullet. (The action sequences, appropriately, are a blur. Blink, and you’ll miss the shot of Superman attempting to fly away and a Kryptonian villain catching his leg.) There’s a strong element of modern-day warfare in the film – Lois Lane is picked up by the FBI, Zod asks for Clark’s “extradition,” and the (overlong) destruction-strewn climax feels like 9/11 a hundred times over – but the final battle is almost Biblical in its emotional appeal. Superman has to fight his people, the people he’s wanted to meet all his life, to save the people who tortured him while growing up, who were scared of him and mocked him, and who refuse to believe in him even now. You may come away remembering that sermon on the mount about loving your enemy.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2013 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
ViralVora
June 21, 2013
wow we clearly saw very different movies!
you call batman brooding and the trilogy as self-important? is it to justify your praise for MoS or do you feel that the dark knight trilogy hold no merit?
the story and the execution had so many gaping plot holes that it was an assault on one’s intelligence. the 40 minute long destruction which all critics keep referring to as reminder of 9/11 for some reason has almost nothing to do with 9/11 , 9/11 was a terrorist attack the attack on metropolis is because Zod wants to convert earth into krypton-like so they may reside there.
the movie felt more like a Michael bay Jerry Bruckheimer outing than anything Nolan should ever be associated with.
I’d give A+ to Cavill for his portrayal of Clark but the rest are forgettable. I literally wanted to walk out when the whole nonsense about the staff of daily planet being stuck under debris happened and are these hard-hitting journos so stupid that they wouldnt recognize superman sans costume and donning a pair of glasses.
this movie had a lot of potential but the writing of Goyer and the direction of Snyder made it a mediocre movie. perhaps the curse of Superman is a real thing ( for Cavill’s sake I hope it doesnt affect him he is fantastic)
my review here: http://lifein70mm.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/man-of-steel-a-review/
LikeLike
sam
June 21, 2013
I felt there were a lot of good ideas in the film, for example- the ones showing Superman as a lonely freak, etc. But they just got lost in execution. The characters were poorly written, the plot was half- baked and the action scenes were a big bore.The first half was a ponderous plod, with heavy dialogues and little actual conversation, the second half – Michael Bay style headache-inducer.
LikeLike
Abhirup
June 21, 2013
Haven’t seen the film yet, so I won’t be able to comment on it. But your desire to see a smiling Batman is rather baffling. Given Batman’s backstory–which, at least as per its original comic book origins, is far more disturbing and tragic than Superman’s or almost any other comic book hero’s–and the kind of psychotic villains he has to fight (the rogues’ gallery in the Batman tales has always been distinguished by the fact that they aim at scarring their opponent emotionally rather than merely destroying him physically), Batman being a brooding, tormented figure who smiles very little makes perfect sense, just as, given their background and their history of suffering, the Angry Young Man avatars of Amitabh Bachchan rarely cracking a smile makes perfect sense. Yeah, Bruce Wayne is rich, but once you take into account what he has undergone, as a child AND as a superhero, it’s no wonder that his wealth doesn’t make him go dizzy with delight. As cliched as this may sound, money doesn’t buy happiness, at least not when you saw your parents gunned down before your eyes, and the folks you have to confront on a daily basis are the Joker and the Scarecrow kind, and when you don’t even have too many confidants to share your burden with. I am not trying to defend Christopher Nolan’s trilogy here, which I too am not a big fan of. Rather, what I am saying is that the brooding intensity of Batman is the character’s hallmark, and a fitting one as well. So, whatever else might be wrong with Nolan’s films, the portrayal of Batman as brooding and serious is not among their faults.
LikeLike
sara
June 21, 2013
@ViralVora
“keep referring to as reminder of 9/11 for some reason has almost nothing to do with 9/11 , 9/11 was a terrorist attack the attack on metropolis is because Zod wants to convert earth into krypton-like so they may reside there.”
and al qaeda wants to launch terrorist attacks to convert the whole world into an Islamic caliphate. Therein lies the similarity
IMHO of course.
LikeLike
auroravampiris
June 21, 2013
Mr Rangan, after all these years of reading your reviews, you still find ways to surprise me, and quite pleasantly at that. I though you would not like this film – for some reason, I had you pegged as someone who sort of dislikes genre films that try to rise beyond their schlocky appeal. Skyfall, TDK etc rise to mind. I guess MOS sincerely embraces its central Superman-Jesus analogy with no effort at subtlety and that is something that either alienates viewers or attracts them. The people I know have either hated it or loved it. The film never really seems to embrace pulpy Silver Age Superman, not as much as Donner. Then again, it’s been quite a while since comics have been pulpy fun.
Still, the end seems to have alienated several people – the film makes no effort at pretense. The end is Superman literally breaking his ties to Krypton, casualties and conventional morality be damned.
I liked that. I liked that the movie was, while not nuanced, still an attempt at portraying an angry Demi-god with vast powers. I liked that it was about a god struggling with his own humanity. That said, the film didn’t quite manage to get there in terms of philosophical levity and depth – it made no effort to be smarter than thou and still managed to convey its main theme. And maybe that’s why you liked it?
Sorry, long rambling post aside, I like this review. Keep on rocking!
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
June 21, 2013
“Otherwise, I loved the film”. First time I am reading these words in your blog. This movie is not to be missed then.
LikeLike
KP
June 21, 2013
“Yeah, Bruce Wayne is rich, but once you take into account what he has undergone, as a child AND as a superhero”
Batman is not a super hero, he is just a man with gadgets.
LikeLike
awkshwayrd
June 22, 2013
Surprise, surprise BR .. I really thought you would dislike it for precisely the same reasons you disliked TDK, Skyfall, etc. (and the internet and critics are generally up in arms over the various choices this movie makes) I liked it a lot simply due to the intent of doing something different and contemporary with Superman even if the execution in some areas felt lacking when compared to the intent .. At least they finally lived up to the promise the original Superman movie engendered of one day having proper blockbuster action in a superhero movie. The tagline of MoS could easily be “You will believe a superhero can fight .. ”
Just got back from Ranjhana (wishing I had walked out at interval time) and after the headache that movie induced this writeup is the highlight of the evening ..
LikeLike
kbfan
June 22, 2013
the last 1 hour was just a bloody mess. vijayakanth movies are probably more subtle than this. word to the wise: read and love brangan’s review. save your 10quid150rs and watch it on free tv later.
LikeLike
Abhirup.
June 22, 2013
@KP: Uh, no. Batman IS a superhero. Show me another “man with gadgets” who does what he does.
LikeLike
indianmalefeminist
June 22, 2013
Quite surprised that you didn’t like TDK and loved this. Oh well. Anywho, this doesn’t interest me the slightest, so I’ll give it a miss regardless.
PS: Raanjhanaa review coming up, I hope?
LikeLike
Gradwolf
June 22, 2013
I may have had the same gripes with this film as you had with TDK I guess. Maybe because I do think the filmmaking itself is much stronger in that one. But I have to say the parts I liked about this film are the ones without the suit. The action was random and bland and tiring beyond a point. Maybe they were not the goal but it brought the film quite a few notches down.
LikeLike
shravanshankar
June 22, 2013
Completely agree with ViralVora. I wasn’t impressed after watching the movie… Could have been better…
LikeLike
Sid
June 22, 2013
Wow, I guess my feelings about the movie are exactly the opposite. I thought the Krypton parts were very well done. The rest of the film was OK… but that last action sequence was mind-numbingly long — It keeps going on for such a long time that you lose any emotional connection to any of the characters (I was almost reminded of Transformers 2!). And I guess that was my main gripe with the film — I couldn’t really connect with a single character in the film. I’ve never been a Snyder fan, so I just wish someone else had directed this.
LikeLike
brangan
June 22, 2013
sam: I thought the plot was excellent and the characterisation quite good.
Abhirup: Agree on all your points. I was just venting a bit about the super-seriousness of films like TDK.
auroravampiris: I am intrigued by the idea that there is “surprise” to be found when someone likes or dislikes a film. Are people (not just critics) really that predictable? 🙂
I liked this film for the organic way in it approached its heaviness. That’s all there is to any film, really — whether what a film shows arises from its premise in an organic fashion. I don’t have any pre-conceived notions about how a film should only be like this or like that. And this film was one of the most genuinely rousing attempts at myth-making I have seen. There was no sense of overreaching, no sense of biting of more than chewable. The writing was clean.
Yes, I agree the last fight was overlong (and have said so much in this piece, which is NOT a review 🙂 ) — but by then I had bought into the premise, the characters, and some indulgence by the action department did not strike me as all that big a deal-breaker.
indianmalefeminist/awkshwayrd: “Quite surprised that you didn’t like TDK and loved this…” I never said I didn’t like TDK or Skyfall. Just that they didn’t work all that well for me. That’s not the same as dislike. May sound pedantic but there’s a range of possible response between hate and love 🙂
Gradwolf: “Maybe because I do think the filmmaking itself is much stronger in that one…” But I think the writing is better in this one.
LikeLike
chronophlogiston
June 22, 2013
I thought the climax was an exercise in excess. If Superman really cared for our world, he would have flown off into space rather than continue to battle it out with Zod in Metropolis and cause so much death and devastation. I just watched World War Z this week and I really appreciated the fact that the film makers dropped the temptation to go the conventional route with a large-scale climactic battle and instead went for something quite the opposite. Other than that over-the-top ending, I actually did like MoS quite a bit, especially the first half of the movie, including the rendition of Krypton (which so far has never been visualized in all the cinematic versions of Superman).
LikeLike
Jo
June 22, 2013
I liked this film for the organic way in it approached its heaviness. That’s all there is to any film, really — whether what a film shows arises from its premise in an organic fashion.
KYA THEORY HAI SIR JEE!! It is a crappy super hero nonsense. How can anyone who has a grownup mind like this sort of thing? Grow up guys!…..organic way in it approached heaviness it seems:)
LikeLike
saurabh
June 23, 2013
Krypton and it’s design including the architecture and tech was one of the best parts of the movie. Why does everything futuristic have to be from an evolutionary standpoint? It was a perfect blend of yesteryears pulp and futuristic sci-fi. Even if Superman took Zod into space. or in a desert, Zod wouldn’t have indulged him and returned amongst humans to destroy them. Superman had no other option than to kill him. The action was terrific. Superman vs Faora/Nam-ek, Superman vs Wold engine and Superman vs Zod were straight from a comicbook. There is bound to be copious amount of action in a Superman movie. The action was dynamic which separates it from the constant one dimensional. repetetive and exhausting action of the trashy Transformer movies. There are many moments that stand out- Every Kevin Costner and Clark scene, Superman’s flight, the coying ending scene where we see the reporter Clark, which distinguish this movie from the showy and hollow Marvel superheroes like Iron Man, Thor, The Avengers, Spider-man,etc. Strange that no one mentioned Hans Zimmer’s score which complements the images to perfection. The main theme which is fully formed at the end(much like Clark Kent) is rousing and inspires hope.
LikeLike
brangan
June 23, 2013
chronophlogiston: Reg. “If Superman really cared for our world, he would have flown off into space rather than continue to battle it out with Zod in Metropolis and cause so much death and devastation…”
I think it made sense because there’s an emotional angle here. This Superman is still a work in transition. He’s not in that Zen zone yet. And he’s conflicted between saving another species and killing his own. Besides, how can he help it of Zod and his minions insist on staying on Earth and battling it out here? He has to engage with the enemy where they are. The comparison with WWZ isn’t right IMO because there you have an Everyman hero — this is a superhero.
LikeLike
KayKay
June 24, 2013
Glad you enjoyed this B, but am afraid we’ll need to part ways on this one.
The movie does a few things right. Jettisoning Lex Luthor (frankly have never bought into the fact that the arch nemesis of a superhero with God like powers is a bald megalomaniac with aspirations in…real estate????) and kryptonite, having Lois know Clark’s identity upfront (although it makes the rest of the Daily Planet staff prime candidates for glasses themselves), terrific casting (especially with the fathers. Crowe channelling Jor-El via Maximus and the all- American Jonathan Kent embodied by the All-American Kevin Costner is what dream casting is all about) not to mention the film’s tacit embrace of what is logically Superman’s biggest challenge; meeting and reconciling expectations from both his fathers.
BUT…….
YE GODS, why leech a Superman adaptation of all humour, grandeur and fun?
Start with the muting of the pallette a la Snyder’s own 300, then proceed onto darkening the blue of Superman’s costume, the bleeding of his crimson cape into a maroon-ish tint. And top it off with replacing John Williams’ magnificent score of triumphal horns with the broody synths of Hans Zimmer (it’s not a bad score but listen to it without the visuals and answer this honestly: does it evoke Krypton’s Son soaring to the skies or Gotham’s Son bursting out of the Bat Cave on the Bat Mobile? )
Man Of Steel is essentially Superman 1 and 2 stitched together haphazardly with the seams visible and unsightly ( its telling that in spite of its punishing length parts of it still feel rushed)
Its Superman via The Dark Knight. Moody and sombre when it should have been grand and operatic.
It’s a misfire in my book.
LikeLike
Adarsh
June 24, 2013
This was exactly like a Christopher Nolan movie, only that the dialogues sounded more corny than usual because Hans Zimmer wasn’t allowed to work enough to cover it up
LikeLike
saurabh
June 24, 2013
Adarsh: Initially, Nolan was against Superman killing Zod. But Snyder and Goyer convinced him otherwise. Goyer is great with ideas but lack in their execution in the screenplay. You can blame some of the corny dialogues on him. The ” He’s kinda hot ” joke at the end wasn’t funny. They have to get Jonathan Nolan to do the screenplay alongwith Goyer for the sequel.
Although Zimmer nailed it with the steel guitar influence, the repetitive use of Zod’s theme does get a bit boring at times.The track flight (when Superman flies in the canyon) is soaring , triumphant very distinct from the brooding two note Batman theme. Even without the visuals, the track ‘What are you going to do when you are not saving the world?’ screams Superman to me, not Batman. As good as John Williams’ score is, it doesn’t belong in this film. Even Williams would have composed something opposed to his previous work, if he had been asked to do this one. The slow build up of the Superman theme when young Clark pushes the bus up the river fits the images aptly.
LikeLike
Suganth
June 25, 2013
Sorry about the digression. Any piece on Gandolfini? Or, are you not much of a Sopranos guy?
LikeLike
Nirbhay Bhogal
November 14, 2013
Thor: The Dark World is more fun than Man Of Steel, though the latter might have teased out more tears from me. The Norse God of Thunder’s hammer is outlined by the Marvel Studios intro logo in 3D, making for a great sequel opener: the only T of Studios possibly standing in for our hero’s initial as much as for his hammer’s shape. Unfortunately, a subspecies of villainous elves subtitle themselves as cursed, for trying to win back darkness from photonic fief lords, ladies ’n’ vassals. Furthermore, hatred for Islamic surnames is condensed into a flexible taxonomic classification of that subspecies by their own brethren – Kurse(d) for Khurshid – just as hatred of light rays equates the entire species with Islamic extremists who’d denounce religious sects worshiping this planet Earth’s life-bestowing star. Their last leader’s birth name [Malekith for malevolent progenitor] is in turn a rather laughable foil to Loki wearing predominantly green robes, terrestrially ubiquitous green mineral Malachite being absent from this film’s multi-verse for its night-perpetuating ether to be shown off as a starkly inter-textual scarlet with black, particularly since warping the ancient Zoroastrian invocation Khurshid [Radiant Sun] will look & sound ‘ironically’ pan-Islamic in this post-revolutionary epoch of defiantly amnesiac Iranian governance.
LikeLike