HERE THERE BE SPOILERS. YE HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Two weeks ago saw Superman, arguably DC comics' most famous hero, return to cinema in Man of Steel, written by David Goyer based on a story by Goyer and Christopher Nolan and directed by Zack Snyder. I won't go too deep into my thoughts on the film; suffice it to say, it's deeply flawed but a solid blockbuster. The script is in dire need of an edit and the whole thing feels morose and depressing, but the cast is solid and the action is visceral and entertaining. There are some who liked it more than I did, and a vocal group who liked it far less, particularly the controversial ending of the story. Well, I've thought on it, and I'll give it my two cents. Be warned (again), there's spoilers for the flick here. Ahem...
After Superman and apparently the only three members of the Air Force stop General Zod's entourage from terraforming Earth and turning it into a New Krypton (a process which results in hundreds of billions of dollars in damages to Metropolis and killing about 100,000+ people), all that's left is Zod himself. Zod, angry at the loss of his people and the fact that he has no purpose left in life, decides to take his frustration out on the human race. Superman does not agree with that. They fight, in a pretty spectacular brawl that levels even more of Metropolis and probably kills a few more people, culminating in Zod aiming his heat vision at a family of four with Superman trying to stop him from delivering the killing blow. Supes asks what will get Zod to stop, to which Zod replies "Kill me." And Superman obliges, snapping the villain's neck and letting out a cry of anguish, not just for taking a life or becoming the very thing his adoptive father feared he would become, but for annihilating the last living, tangible connection he had to his homeworld.
It's not hard to see why this ending is controversial. Superheroes, as a general rule, don't kill. This is because it would make stories too easy or so that popular villains can keep recurring, but mostly because it's just the morally right thing to do: to not kill. Superman, being the vanguard of righteousness and the best humanity has to offer, especially shouldn't take a life. And yet the 21st century's Superman ends his movie by doing just that. A lot of people don't like it, some people are defending it, but me, I'm of two minds of it, and they are as follows:
1) It makes sense, in this situation, for Superman to kill Zod. It just does. Normally, yes, Superman wouldn't kill anyone with a sliver of humanity, someone whom he thinks can be redeemed. Lex Luthor may be the worst our planet has to offer, but Superman would never kill him because he's still human and could still do good in the world. And Zod, while being a kryptonian, has humanity to him. He has an ethos, a morality, he has beliefs, he has love for his people and for his homeworld. Normally, Superman would work his ass off trying to pull the guy from the brink, to teach him the same lessons Supes himself learned from growing up with the Kents. But these aren't normal circumstances because Superman has no way to contain Zod. There's no Phantom Zone projector, there's no bottled city of Kandor, there's no kryptonite; there's no way to stop this guy. And if Zod's going to keep putting people in danger, the only thing for Superman to do, sadly, is to end him. One to save millions, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, etc. So yes, I believe, in this set of circumstances, it's feasible for Superman to take the life of his enemy. HOWEVER...
2) I don't like that these were the circumstances the writers chose to show. I kinda hate it when people say stuff like this, but I can't think of any other way to describe it: this doesn't feel much like a Superman story. Superman, to me and many others, is supposed to be a beacon of hope and an icon of the human spirit. It's tough to relate to a character with seemingly no flaws, but I've read and seen Superman stories that are relateable, optimistic, brimming with charm and imagination, and don't end with a leveled city, a six-figure death toll, and our protagonist snapping a person's neck. It is possible to do that, Warner Bros.
Perfect example: All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely (quite frankly), widely considered one of the best Superman stories of all time and highly recommended reading from this writer. All-Star opens with the Man of Tomorrow saving the first manned mission to the sun. However, being that close to the source of his superhuman abilities has unintended consequences. Superman's powers get cranked up to eleven, but his cells can't contain that much raw energy and he learns that he's going to die soon. The rest of the series is essentially Superman checking off items on his bucket list while still maintaining his cover as Clark Kent, helping the people, and saving the world.
Issue ten of this 12-issue miniseries highlights this balance. Here, Superman is doing his normal world-saving shtick, like fighting a giant robot or stopping a runaway train, as well as checking off his bucket list by writing his last will and testament and curing cancer. And between all of this larger-than-life stuff, Superman has to divert his attention to stopping a suicidal young woman from jumping off of a building. Because he's Superman, and because saving the life and restoring the hope of this woman means as much to him as fighting Lex Luthor and protecting the globe from an alien invasion. And that is so beautifully human that I tear up just thinking about it.
And that's really my biggest issue with Man of Steel; there's barely any hope or optimism in the whole thing and where there is, it feels feigned and is crushed under the weight of the reality of what's happened. The denouement of the film has Steve Lombard, the Daily Planet's resident pig, asking Lois Lane to go to a ball game with him some undetermined time after the Kryptonians are defeated, as if what they've seen and what's happened to their city is just that easy to get over. Umm...no, movie, it isn't. Metropolis has suffered such catastrophic loss that it'll be at least a year before anything happens in that city. And Superman? Superman let it get to that point. I know he's new to this whole hero business, but could at least start him off with an easier challenge? One that doesn't turn a city into a pancake? And could you at least not have reintroduced the world's greatest hero to a blockbuster-sized audience by having him kill someone?
Think of it this way: DC's grim and gritty hero is Batman, and in all three of his movies, he only killed one guy: Harvey Dent, who was about to shoot an eight-year-old in the head. The rest of his bad guys, not so much. Joker? Sent to Arkham. Scarecrow? In and out of jail for three flicks. Bane? Shot by Catwoman (who Batman told not to kill anyone earlier in the film, mind you). Talia? Car crash. Ra's al-Ghul? He wasn't saved, but he wasn't killed either. Hell, the capstone to Bruce Wayne's tutelage with Ra's was that killing wasn't the way to go. So when bright and sunny Superman is quicker to kill someone than dark and edgy Batman, something's not right here.
Thanks for reading, and I'll see you next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment