Man of Steel

I'm going to endeavor to remain spoiler-free here, and talk about the film in terms of theme and tone, rather than in detail.

I saw the film on Saturday, and have been chewing on it ever since. I have to be honest, the more I think about it, the less I like it. The reason is simple, and becomes more obvious to me as I turn over the decisions made here...

I would say the most human superhero, ever, is Spider-Man. Not only are his powers limited, but he also carries the weight of the lives of all of his friends, even after they might betray him. He is defined by his open heart.

Second on that list would be Superman, and it's not by much. His vast power levels set him apart from humanity, but that is negated by a heart that is more open, more encompassing, than any other. Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent, whatever you may wish to call him, is human because he has chosen to be.

Where the film utterly stumbles is in constantly, and oppressively, reminding us of Supeman's alien nature. There's been talk the film was framed as a "first contact" story, and that's pretty accurate. It's also not what Superman is about.

Superman is not about The Other coming to us and changing our world, but about The Other becoming Us, the best of who we are. The Other who becomes the best of us because he was taught that is how everyone should be. Snyder and Goyer seem to poo-poo the immigrant angle, but Goddammit, that's what the story is.

The film positions Superman as a God...and I hate to invoke Chris Reeve, but he has really given the
only absolutely perfect performance of this role, ever...Reeve, at every, single turn, gave us the man. The man is what we can relate to, the man is who we can cry for, and with. The man allows us to see his limitations. The man gives consequence to action sequences.

Henry Cavil may be capable of that. I liked his performance, but it was a good performance of a character who was almost joyless, emotionless and cold. Superman is none of those things. Cavil is at his best in the moments where we see the man...There is a moment of pure joy upon his first flight that screams out "more of this, please!" Also a reaction to a terrible choice that Cavil nailed completely (a divisive moment, but I liked it), even if the rest of the film utterly let him down.

"All those things I could do, all those powers, and I couldn't save him."

That's one of the two defining lines in Richard Donner's 1978 masterpiece. Why? Because it speaks to limitations, not just of strength, or speed, but that Superman is, simply, not a God. He is a man, with powers and abilities beyond the rest of us, but he cannot do everything. He cannot save everyone. BUT HE WILL ALWAYS TRY.

This is where Man of Steel goes completely off the rails, for me. It's no secret that the third act is, essentially a long fight between Cavil's Superman and Michael Shannon's General Zod. It's a huge throwdown, buildings topple, the two titans smash each other around like rag dolls.

Yes, I am disturbed that buildings are falling, innocent people are CLEARLY dying horribly, and Superman is oblivious. What's even more annoying is that Zach Snyder and David Goyer could've solved that problem easily. We only need to see Superman TRY to save innocents, and we will love him, even if he fails. Why not a moment where Superman attempts to hold up a building, only to have Zod use this moment to take a cheap shot, and the building still goes down. Superman instantly feels more human, on many levels, and Zod more dastardly.

But see, the film isn't interested in that, it doesn't care about puny humans. At all. The Daily Planet staff is pretty much half-baked, aside from Lois, and Metropolis itself is just a city. It has no character. It has no life. It's there to simply be a bunch of buildings to get knocked over. I've never seen such huge scenes of MASSIVE carnage feel so antiseptic and cold. Who cares? The film hasn't even taken a moment to establish a world that feels in any way "alive."

You may think those last two paragraphs contradict each other, but, frankly, the latter just makes the former all the more apparent. It's just so blindingly clear that Snyder and Goyer don't care about people, they care about Gods. This whole film is in service to watching two video game characters (and that is EXACTLY what it looks like) punch each other through buildings, and fly thousands of feet through the air.

Drew McWeeny, over at HitFix, found the fight scenes emotional. I suppose that's true, but the emotion is blindingly self-centered. This movie is about Clark/Superman dealing with HIS issues, and saving the world just sort of happens to be part of that. It's ridiculous, and it's NOT Superman. Superman saves people, and, in many ways, is a servant to humanity. I don't see any of that in this film, his personal trials and difficulties should be attached to that. Which is something that Bryan Singer's Superman Returns TRIED to do, and, ultimately, got lost in reverence to Donner's vision.

Poor Brandon Routh...I maintain he could've been a GREAT Superman, but no one can succeed when the mandate is "play Christopher Reeve playing Superman."

Still, Singer was closer than Snyder. Much, much closer. Mainly because Singer pulled out all the stops to make Superman human. Probably too much, but...I prefer that to a cold, distant alien.

The sweet spot...clearly somewhere in between. Superman: The Movie and Superman II hit it, I think. They proved you can have massive, powerful, superhuman action, and never forget that Superman is here to help. He cares about us, all of us, and he cares even more because he can do more than anyone else to keep us safe. Just re-watch the fight in Metropolis from Superman II, it's full of drama, it's exciting, and it never, ever forgets the humanity.

Hell, that version of Superman RUNS AWAY, rather than risk more lives fighting in a crowded city.

Compare that to the climax of Man of Steel, which is about two men in a personal grudge match. Superman wrecking massive slabs of the planet to "save" it. Multiply that with the almost entirely CGI nature of the sequence. Floaty heads yelling at each other. Big deal.

Of course, at the end of the day, it's not Goyer and Snyder's fault, either. It's the mouth-breathing  crowd and their inane "he has to punch something!' calls. Hollywood, long being the purveyors of groupthink, just gave you what you wanted. A big, loud exercise with loving shots of super-powered beings punching each other. Big whoop.

As a post script - I don't blame Nolan for this, at all. I've long maintained that Nolan had to be hands-off member of this production.  It's Snyder and Goyer's show. I figure Nolan was there for cachet, and got a story credit for an off-the-cuff (which is pretty much how it's described) conversation with Goyer.

 What did I like? I loved the Krypton stuff. I love Russell Crowe as Jor-El. I love Keven Costner and Diane Lane as the Kents (although that one scene with Costner....so dumb, but he was good). I thought the cast was game and handled what was thrown at them well.

I just wish what was thrown at them was more Superman and less "let's smash a bunch of stuff."

I Don't Really Believe This Scoop.

That said, IF IT IS TRUE, I'd be very excited. Mainly because Christian Bale is Bruce Wayne, to me, and I think it's STUPID to try to launch a DC Universe on film with a Batman who's not Bruce Wayne. I don't care how popular Joseph Gordon-Leavitt is (and I'm a big fan), but I do not want to see "John Blake" Batman as a cornerstone of a film DCU. Which is also not to say I'm totally against re-casting. I'm not. It's a character thing, not an actor thing, but I am very, very fond of Bale as this character.

Now, that said...I don't see this happening. I don't see Nolan being interested. He was very specific about his Batman films being in a world with no other heroes, and, honestly, despite Marvel's success, I think that is the smartest course of action with this kind of material. Building a world specific to the character you're working on, and allowing that character to be special in that world. As much as I enjoy the Marvel Films productions, there is a generic feel to their world. I've said it often, Marvel Films is making very artful commerce.

Christopher Nolan made very commercial art. I think he said what he wanted to say about heroism and super-heroes in his three films. While I could imagine him finding some interest in telling a story about Superman, being such a diametrically opposed character, I think, based on his other films, shepherding a string of Green Lantern films, for example, isn't going to trip his trigger. Maybe the power running Warner Brothers DC franchise would give him, to do projects he feels more connected to, would. Who knows?

I honestly don't even think that Nolan is all that involved with Man of Steel. I think he lent his name to David Goyer to help move his script forward. Did he look at it and give notes? Sure, but I don't think he was as active a producer as many would like to believe.Will the final product have elements of Nolan's more "real world" Batman take? I would guess so, but I also think that has more to do with the fact that Nolan's Bat-saga was so popular. Not to mention that the same writer (Goyer) was responsible for the original scripts, in both cases.

So, I don't quite believe what El Mayimbe is selling...

But, lets say the WB is trying to circle the wagons, and get the people with a proven track record on board to try to expand the universe. I can't argue that it makes sense from a business perspective, and if Bale is willing to don the cowl again, I'd be happy to see it happen.

I will make this pitch, however...

Just do World's Finest, or Superman/Batman, or whatever you want to call it. I understand that Warners is very high on what Snyder has put together with Man of Steel, if it goes as well as people are apparently expecting, and you bring Bale back, the DC Universe on film is already established. Just by putting those two characters together, the two most universally recognized superheroes in the world (don't even argue - the only thing Marvel has that is close is Spider-Man), you have an epic, event film to rival The Avengers. You also have a cornerstone that you can build from, without eliminating options for the other characters.

IF, in fact, Nolan is actually contemplating jumping into this, I wouldn't be surprised if he was thinking the same thing.

So Brett Ratner Might Direct Justice League

*Blog inspired by a recent e-mail exchange*

At least according to io9: The Most Discouraging Justice League Rumor Imaginable.

Well...

Brett Ratner isn't a paragon of a human being, we know that. Honestly, I don't care. Lots of people are assholes and still make good entertainment.

He's not inspired, but he is a competent, no-surprises director who understands pacing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Ratner was NOT the problem on X-Men: The Last Stand. His directing credits are all pretty watchable, high-concept fluff, with some high points. The Family Man is good, Red Dragon is (surprisingly) quite good (unless you insist on comparing it to Manhunter. I try to take each film on it's own terms), After the Sunset is fun, even if all of those films are clearly "it made money before, make something similar" studio films. And the Rush Hour movies are exactly the kind of high-value, slicky-made entertainments that Marvel is making right now.

The problem with The Last Stand (which is a good comparison, since it's his only other superhero credit) was that Fox was pissed that Bryan Singer (who's, to this day, the ONLY filmmaker who's had a handle on how to do the X-Men) for doing Superman Returns (far better than people give it credit for, but too beholden to Richard Donner's film) and dumped him. They went with a poor script, which Matthew Vaughan- yes, X-Men: First Class (which, it should be noted, had a script co-developed with Singer) Matthew Vaughan, oversaw putting together. A script that checked off fanboy "want list" crap over a cohesive vision. Ratner, was hired VERY late on that film...Fox had a script and a release date, and Vaughan freaked and quit.

I will never call The Last Stand the best X-Men movie, but it is watchable, and the set pieces are well executed and exciting. It also feels connected with Singer's first two films. Ratner understood what he needed to do with that script, not step on the toes of what worked before, what was expected, and keep the shit moving. He's not an auteur, he's not even a "great" director, but he is a workmanlike one. I imagine that if he had come up during the days of the studio system he'd be a "go-to" guy.

Compared to Joss Whedon (if we do a direct Avengers/JLA comparison)...Ratner can't touch him on concepts, scripts, writing, but there's already a script in play. What Warner's wants is a pure director, and on a pure technical level, the nuts and blots of filmmaking, I think Ratner's equal to, or even a bit stronger than, Joss (even if The Avengers was a big step forward for him).

So, yeah...I understand why they're looking at him. I wouldn't even be upset if he got the job, because, if he does it, the chances of it actually getting made probably double. It'll be fun to watch, and probably faithful to what works. The real question is the script, which is what really made The Avengers memorable.


Do I wish they'd find somebody really exciting, with a non-corporate sensibility to really invigorate the JL? Oh. you bet! Justice League's current screenwriter, Will Beall's got a lot of heat coming off Gangster Squad, so I expect it's an exciting script (faithful, "good," or "the right script?" Who knows?).

Ben Affleck (who's a GREAT director waiting for the world to realize it) clearly didn't want it. The Wachowskis are NEVER going to do it. Zack Snyder apparently wants it, but that's because he's exactly what Ratner is, but with visual flair (even if it's cliche visual flair).

Although, that said...the Man of Steel teaser is really awesome.

Look at who Marvel's been using; Jon Favreau, who was fully B-list (if that) before Iron Man, really (and after Cowboys and Aliens, may be again). Kenneth Branagh, who was hardly known for this sort of thing. Joe Johnston, who I think is a fantastic, bordering on genius, workman director, but also has a "hack" label. Whedon, who we know is a genius, but he's a TV guy with one flop film and some internet stuff. Shane Black, a huge screenwriter from 15 years ago, who fell off the map, then made possibly the best film of the 2000's - that nobody saw. They all made great-to-fantastic films.

Honestly, I don't think you can do the shared universe thing with filmmakers with strong visions and things to say. Christopher Nolan, for example, wouldn't want to, and I think, flatly, he couldn't. He wanted to work with themes and psychological elements that would be completely invalidated the second Christian Bale's Batman walked into a JLA meeting room. The saddest thing, to me, is that kind of vision, that kind of pushing at the concept, thanks to Marvel, is dead and gone. Hollywood is fixated on "team 'em up" now.

Yes, Wheadon...who definitely had a strong vision, but what he wanted to say was "gee whiz! The Marvel Universe is neato!!" I think he looks at this like working on a TV show...you can make very, very fun, exciting drama, but, except in VERY rare cases, you're not going to be transcendent. Which is probably the healthiest place to be, and those checks will pay for his Much Ado, and the Dr. Horrible follow-up.

So, yeah...the collective Internet groan may head off Ratner, but the ultimate choice is going to be in the same realm. What I really wish is that Andrew Stanton hadn't so quickly slunk back to PIXAR for Finding Nemo 2 after the pounding he took over John Carter (a top-ten movie for 2012 in my book...screw the box office). He would be an excellent choice for Justice League, or heck, what about Brad Bird? The Incredibles is still one of the best superhero movies ever made, and flat-out the Best fantastic Four movie. I think he proved himself completely with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. These are both mid-tier guys who might take the job as another stepping stone, and represent clear, strong visions of the properties they tackle.