Eruditorum Press

Some sort of samizdat wind effect

Skip to content

Elizabeth Sandifer

Elizabeth Sandifer created Eruditorum Press. She’s not really sure why she did that, and she apologizes for the inconvenience. She currently writes Last War in Albion, a history of the magical war between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. She used to write TARDIS Eruditorum, a history of Britain told through the lens of a ropey sci-fi series. She also wrote Neoreaction a Basilisk, writes comics these days, and has ADHD so will probably just randomly write some other shit sooner or later.Support Elizabeth on Patreon.

114 Comments

  1. Nyq Only
    July 2, 2013 @ 12:35 am

    "A Superman story about how superheroes may not actually be a very nice fantasy is new"

    Maybe not as a movie but Kingdom Come (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Come_%28comics%29) by Alex Ross and Mark Waid does examine this surely?
    On the issue of Waid, I haven't read the review you mentioned could you include a link to it?

    Reply

  2. Froborr
    July 2, 2013 @ 12:53 am

    I dunno, I think Kingdom Come is more about criticizing a particular construction of superheros (the 90s kind that emphasizes "super" while minimizing "heros") and restoring the legitimacy of a more Silver Age view.

    The Superman book I thought of here was Red Son.

    Reply

  3. Campion
    July 2, 2013 @ 1:09 am

    Irredeemable?

    Reply

  4. Anton B
    July 2, 2013 @ 1:55 am

    Hmm…Well yeah …you nearly got me there and I'm glad you found your redemptive reading but…well as you say –
    " Snyder…gives us what we think we want, and then turns it to be just a little too horrifying to actually enjoy. It gives us the big, epic fights we think we come to see in superhero movies, and turns them from wish fulfillment to disturbing and uncomfortable spectacles."
    Disturbing and uncomfortable spectacles are still disturbing and uncomfortable spectacles even with a deconstructive narrative collapse sub-text. I was actually musing during the film how much the Superman mythos now resembles the RTD Doctor Who – All that lonely god from an omnipotent but stagnant techno-world who chooses to protect the Earth angsty stuff. But even 'The End of Time''s bombastic duel with the Master wasn't as grim as 'Man of Steel''s overlong slug-fest with Zod that destroyed Smallville and Metropolis.

    Isn't this just the equivalent of the misjudged concept of a Dark Doctor? Is Henry Cavill being asked to play Colin Baker?

    If this is actually the Anti-Superman I need the closure of seeing the real one turn up and whup his ass.

    Reply

  5. jonathan inge
    July 2, 2013 @ 2:00 am

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  6. Matt Largo
    July 2, 2013 @ 2:02 am

    By this logic, keeping it close to home, the Doctor Who TV movie, with its British fop who knows all our futures, is an unambiguous success, because that's what happens when old gods fight: the world gets turned inside-out.

    Reply

  7. Andre Salles
    July 2, 2013 @ 2:45 am

    I think I would have an easier time accepting this reading if Snyder bothered to show us the aftermath of the devastation at the end of the film. If people were cowering in fear, wary of Superman, unable to trust him, then it would make sense. But they're not. Lois jumps into his arms, the military folks don't even confront him about the greatest massacre in U.S. history. And at the end, Clark Kent starts his job at the Daily Planet, which has miraculously been rebuilt exactly as it was. I think Snyder just wanted to blow a lot of stuff up, and wasn't even thinking about the consequences, to the point where he forgot about them by the end. I would love to feel like there's a deeper purpose to the tarnishing of Superman that occurs in this film, but I don't see it.

    Reply

  8. Froborr
    July 2, 2013 @ 3:00 am

    As I said in response to the draft post, I haven't seen Man of Steel yet so I can't speak to that part. I'm glad you revised the Sucker Punch portion, it's a much stronger argument now… but still ignores the larger context, which is that Snyder has no history of depicting women as anything other than objects of male gaze, and thus has not earned the benefit of the doubt you give him. He is not an established feminist filmmaker who maybe didn't quite pull off what he was going for; he's an established maker of dudebro action movies who made a dudebro action movie with an all-female cast.

    Also, if I'm remembering the film correctly (I watched it only once, and regretted that once), isn't the call for survivors to tell their own stories interrupted by the main character getting lobotomized? Isn't that a rather likelier candidate for the titular low blow?

    Reply

  9. John Toon
    July 2, 2013 @ 3:14 am

    ^ This. (Where did Daily Planet v.1.1 come from? Did they just switch the building off and switch it on again?)

    And also, this is supposed to be DC's big push towards setting up for the Justice League film, but it's no kind of basis for future Superman and/or JLA films for reasons given in the main post. It's something that should have been done, maybe needed to be done, as a side thing, not as the Superman relaunch.

    Personally I blame Frank Miller via Christopher Nolan for everything. (Burnt toast, A-line flares, everything.) There's no point critiquing the simple escapist joy of superhero titles if the titles themselves aren't allowed to be simple joyous escapism any more. And however much or little I care for simplicity or escapism, I sure as hell like a bit of joy in my superheroes. And on that note I go to run crying into the welcoming arms of Marvel Studios.

    (One final parting shot: if this was supposed to be a "realistic" take on the story of a bloke who flies and shoots laser beams from his eyes, there was one absurdly easy win that Man of Steel failed to make. I have yet to see any version of Superman that actually talked with a realistic Kansas farmboy accent.)

    Reply

  10. Col. Orange
    July 2, 2013 @ 3:21 am

    I think there was a balance to be struck (realism vs. wonder), and the film failed to deliver.
    That Metropolis gets broken makes sense to me – this isn't a Superman who's been in super-brawls since he was a teenager. He's 33, has never faced anyone as strong or fast as he is, and all of a sudden he's facing Kryptonian soldiers.
    That said, I hate that he's on Earth for 33 years before he stops hiding. From the thing on the oil rig, you can infer that he's been helping out when he can, but for 15 years it feels like he could have been doing so much more. He should have worked out what he was "for" a lot sooner.
    I guess his douche-bag father's to blame there. Not the Jonathan Kent I wanted to see.

    A friend of mine said he'd have felt better if he'd seen Superman helping to rebuild Metropolis at the end of the film. Can't say I disagree.

    Reply

  11. That Guy
    July 2, 2013 @ 3:40 am

    Hold on – Dawn of the Dead definately depicts its lead character, played by Sarah Polley, as something other than an object of a male gaze. She is an independent, functioning person in the middle of a complex, dangerous world, and is never particularly sexualised. She's depicted almost throughout as intelligent, capable and skilled. (I say almost because there is one inevitable "endangers herself to rescue a dog" moment, though that' not particularly gendered stupidity so much as it's standard movie stupidity).

    And I wouldn't call Watchmen completely "dudebro action" either. In fact, I can't name any of his films that are uncomplicatedly "dudebro".

    I think your'e assuming "Hollywood Filmmaker" automatically means "idiot".

    Reply

  12. Neo Tuxedo
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:19 am

    Or, to put it another way: Man of Steel only looks like a superhero movie. It's actually a giant monster movie.

    (I remember seeing Gamera: Guardian of the Universe on VHS in 2000 and drawing similar parallels between its portrayal of kaijû battles and the portrayal of superhuman battles in Bryan Singer's The Usual Mutants, I mean X-Men.)

    Reply

  13. Ross
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:27 am

    This reminds me of my reaction to the first (of the Michael Bay series) 'Transformers' movie: This isn't a transformers movie; it's a disaster movie where the earthquake is played by giant robots.

    Reply

  14. Rhe Talon
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:36 am

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  15. Froborr
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:44 am

    Wait, Dawn of the Dead was Snyder? Had no idea he directed that. Anyway, never seen it, I'm afraid, but I'll take your word for it. Still not sure that's enough goodwill to make up for the embrace of the vile moe aesthetic that Sucker Punch represents.

    As for Watchmen, it was fairly intelligent for dudebro action, but it was still a movie about men punching other men, explosions, and a single prominent female character in a skintight costume who existed to further the men's stories. Everything the original comic actually had to say is largely erased by the movie.

    Perhaps, however, a better tack to argue against Phil's defense of Sucker Punch is that Snyder has fetishized violence in many of his previous films, so it's not clear that from his point of view–nor, given the aesthetic that dominated the portrayal of women in the anime and video games whose iconography Snyder drew heavily on, the POV of the implied audience–that the action-fantasy scenes are the wrong kind of pornography. Under the moe aesthetic, a woman stripping causes her to lose attractiveness because it makes her overtly sexual and therefore threatening; a woman wearing a fetishistic outfit while fighting monsters is more attractive because "pure," and if she gets injured all the better as it makes her vulnerable and thereby less threatening.

    Have I mentioned that moe is utterly disgusting and misogynistic? Because it's utterly disgusting and misogynistic.

    Reply

  16. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:53 am

    As wrongheaded as your Kansas paragraph is, it does allow me to imagine a book called What's the Matter with Krypton?

    Anyway. I haven't seen this movie and am in no rush to rectify that, as I actively disliked the two Zack Snyder films I've seen prior to this (Watchmen and 300). But I'll pop up to say that my favorite rude reimagining of Superman is Chris Ware's.

    Reply

  17. Pen Name Pending
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:57 am

    There was one scene in the movie that I felt mirrored 9/11 uncomfortably.

    Reply

  18. Scott
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:58 am

    @ Froborr:

    It looks like that on first glance, and the critique of the 90s Anti-Hero breed of superhero is certainly central to the book, but reading a bit deeper, Waid clearly gets some good shots in at the ethos of the Silver Age-style heroics as well. Just look at the cliffhanger to the first issue, where the narrator begins to rejoice in the fact that the old superheroes have returned to sort out the younger generation and show them what's what and generally save all the little people — only to have an apocalyptic vision which makes him realize with horror that Superman's return isn't going to save the day, it's going to destroy the world. And the ending, where all the heroes collectively realize that putting on masks and setting themselves up as an elite just makes things worse and decide to work with humanity on its level. It's a lot more subtle than the standard "hey, aren't superheroes really really messed up?!" style of deconstruction, but it's taking them apart all the same.

    In any case, without having seen "Man of Steel" yet I'm not sure that saying that Waid just wants his 'unproblematic utopian fantasy' and 'doesn’t want any unseemly questioning of that premise' is entirely fair to him.

    Reply

  19. Iain Coleman
    July 2, 2013 @ 5:20 am

    I wonder how much better the world would be if America regarded as its heartland, not Kansas, but New York City.

    (Always seemed to odd to me that the "heartland" is the place where relatively few Americans actually live. I guess it's a state of mind sort of thing.)

    Reply

  20. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 5:33 am

    I wonder how much better the world would be if America regarded as its heartland, not Kansas, but New York City.

    New York was founded as a colonial capital; Kansas was founded in rebellion against slavery. There's not much question as to which strain of American culture has had a greater impact on the larger world—and, sure enough, there are a hell of a lot more powerful New Yorkers than powerful Kansans.

    Reply

  21. Bennett
    July 2, 2013 @ 5:37 am

    I see Superman as more of a Sisyphus figure – a man endlessly going through hoops trying to save the people he loves, fully aware that when he does the moment of victory will be fleeting. Who fights against nothing more significant than faceless henchmen and poorly rendered villains. Who limits his super powers to token uses as he desperately tries to hold onto his place in the real world.

    Of course, all this could be because I've played an awful lot of Superman for the Nintendo 64…

    Reply

  22. Matt Largo
    July 2, 2013 @ 5:50 am

    Agreed. And, speaking as an elitist New England liberal myself, I fear Dr Sandifer's almost gleeful pleasure at Jonathon Kent being a scumbag because he's from a flyover state has more to say about his own prejudices than it does about authorial intent.

    Reply

  23. Chris Andersen
    July 2, 2013 @ 6:00 am

    A what's the matter with Krypton approach to the story might be a fascinating tale to read. After all, Superman was created at a time when Kansas was the heart of progressivism in the United States. The world has changed radically since then, yet we expect a Superman raised in Kansas to have a similar take on life? I don't think so.

    Reply

  24. Spoilers Below
    July 2, 2013 @ 6:11 am

    I personally enjoyed Joe McCulloch's essay on Sucker Punch and The Spirit, and the yawning gap between intention and interpretation:

    http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/disreputable-vision-frank-millers-the-spirit-and-zack-snyders-sucker-punch

    "Regarding the film closely, I don’t think it’s too far off to suggest that Snyder intends his Game scenes to be fleeting moments of empowerment for his female characters, places to be beautiful and kick ass, if always for a very short while; this at least suggests Snyder has picked up some mono no aware along with his anime cutie-pie moe tropes. Critics, meanwhile have suggested that Snyder’s planes of empowerment are nothing more than a cheap excuse to leer at girls half-clad in sexy clothes, objectifying the notion of “empowerment” into yet another commoditized item of hetero male gratification. As luck would have it, everyone is correct!"

    […]

    "Absolutely everything in Sucker Punch eventually boils down to the male gaze, which is to say the showing of Snyder’s cinema, his action, which is to say the whole of his film. The “Sucker Punch” of his title is that the only way for the film’s heroines to find peace is to strike quickly and evade the narrative entirely, and, as in 300, the main ticket out is annihilation. All of the supporting heroines die, and Browning is left a lobotomized ruin, though her sacrifice eventually leads to Cornish’s escape from the Theater, while reverberations of her actions echo down into the Hospital, promising to bring the bad guys to justice; Snyder evokes Terry Gilliam’s Brazil, and though his usage much closer to the studio’s infamous Happy Ending cut than anything else, what’s vital is that Browning is able to exit the shit of her world, which is apparently the absolute best it can provide in the way of a Heroine’s victory.

    "The problematic aspects of this setup are obvious and several. Sucker Punch, as I’ve noted before, is patched together from aspects of “geek” or “alternative” culture, from neo-burlesque to steampunk to anime to gaming; at first I though that Snyder’s relentless sexualization was evidence of wide-reaching and banal fetishes, but then I realized that he was taking things potentially appealing to women—and make no mistake, every cited alternative/nerd element of Sucker Punch is potentially female-friendly, down to the combat in scant, sexy clothes, if almost certainly not high heels—and engaging with them visually in the way that men might stare desirously at women. To Snyder, women (as in female characters) are inevitably trapped in this process, though this can’t implicate genre material as a whole—I mean, you could just dress all of the characters in pants, or not direct the camera up their skirts."

    […]

    "For now, Snyder’s film is uniquely self-loathing and messianic in equal turns, a story about women that’s really about a man staring at women for the sake of men thinking harder about looking at women, since they’re not going to stop looking; is the history of cinema mostly that of boys filming girls, as Godard suggested? Showing us so many sexualized women while damning our eyes is hypocritical, perhaps, as critics have said of Snyder, but the impulse is also fused to the very basis of his approach to genre action, a flawed cinema, but far from the distant rumblings of upcoming no-doubt less troublesome fantasy extravaganzas, where Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury promises nothing more than setting up later, more lucrative adventures, having learned something in another movie life about never-ending conflicts."

    Reply

  25. shadesofcaruso.com
    July 2, 2013 @ 6:11 am

    Superb post, you absolutely nailed it. And much more concisely and wisely than I did; forgive me for pimping out my own post but we agree on quite a lot about the downbeat ending.

    http://shadesofcaruso.com/2013/06/25/what-have-they-done-to-the-man-of-tomorrow/

    Reply

  26. Sean B
    July 2, 2013 @ 6:15 am

    This says a lot of what I've been trying to articulate for weeks — and helped me finally articulate it myself. Thanks!

    http://wineandsavages.blogspot.com/2013/07/zod-hates-women.html

    Reply

  27. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 6:30 am

    Superman was created at a time when Kansas was the heart of progressivism in the United States

    In 1938? Not really. Though the Kansan that the GOP put up to run against Roosevelt two years earlier did come from the relatively liberal wing of the party.

    Reply

  28. IG
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:24 am

    I think Moore and Gaiman did the superheroes-as-not-necessarily-beneficent-gods thing in Marvelman / Miracleman.

    Reply

  29. Spoilers Below
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:33 am

    Anecdotally, if the farmers 300 miles north of where I live are anything like the ones down here, they're perfectly decent and nice folks who just happens to want to live under a system of religious fascism while simultaneously being left completely alone. It's a well known that you don't do business with anyone you don't go to the same church as because they'll screw you as hard as they can.

    Now, I'll be the first to admit that anecdotes are not the same as evidence and hard data, but I'd be hard pressed to imagine a small town farmer who's in debt to the bank and attends a small town church every Sunday raising Superman and having him turn out exactly the way he does in the comics without Clark getting over a lot of the cultural values that would have been ingrained in him.

    Reply

  30. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:38 am

    Superheroes, yes – scads of general superhero stories that are about questioning the genre. Not a lot of specifically Superman ones, however.

    And notably, Kingdom Come still preserves the innate moral integrity of Superman. It posits a world that Superman is too good for, which is, to me, a fairly uninteresting take.

    Reply

  31. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:40 am

    The trouble is that the TV Movie gave little to no indication that it had thought for a second about the possibility that its world might be problematic. Mind you, if you wanted to suggest that it was the model for, say, Doomsday or Last of the Time Lords…

    Reply

  32. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:42 am

    Again, though, a measure of pretending you're the good little franchise film applies here. Sucker Punch was discrete and could end on the totally deconstructive note. This had to follow the endlessly serialized nature of Superman. Which is the basic truth – even the most deconstructive film would not have ended Superman. Superman as a franchise is going to go blithely on after this movie. For the movie to embrace that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

    Reply

  33. Froborr
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:56 am

    On the other hand, if we assume that Superman is meant to be roughly 30 in Action Comics #1, then he was adopted by the Kents around 1908, which WOULD be when Kansas was the heart of progressivism.

    Reply

  34. Andre Salles
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:57 am

    Then what's the point? If we're going to deconstruct Superman to the point where he kills thousands and levels a city without showing any concern over it, and then just act like none of it happened when it comes time to keep the franchise rolling, what's the purpose behind it all? Either we have a Superman film with a realistic and gritty take on the character, which would imply that consequences are real and important, or we have a good little franchise film. We can't have both. We can't have a massacre that no one even mentions later, because neither us nor Superman will have learned anything from all those deaths.

    Reply

  35. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:58 am

    The thing is, I think Snyder adamantly does not intend the Game scenes to be moments of empowerment, although he does expect that the audience will mistake that as his intention and, in many cases, also mistake them as actual empowerment. I think the film is acutely aware that this sort of thing is not empowerment, which is why there's a clear point where the the fantasy stops and is replaced by genuinely brutal and upsetting violence. And that point is meant to make the audience reevaluate their supposed pleasure in what came before. Does Snyder know he's putting together extremely well-done section of male gaze lechery in those scenes? Of course he does, which is why he overtly equates them to erotic dancing in the film. But that doesn't mean that he's endorsing the pleasure. It's the classic trick of absurdist and existentialist theater – taking pleasure and making it unpleasant over time.

    I mean, the banter at the start of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is genuinely funny, but I've never seen anyone seriously suggest that this means that the movie endorses the emotional abuse that the banter is eventually revealed to be.

    Reply

  36. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:02 am

    Well now, let's pause a moment and distinguish. Yes, as I noted, it's perfectly possible that Clark could find a lovely upbringing in Kansas.

    But Clark isn't raised by a particular Kansas family. He's raised by an archetypal one – in a town that's actually called "Smallville" for God's sake. He's raised by the broadest portrayal of "Kansas-style American values" it's possible to conceive of.

    And Man of Steel comes out as Kansas has, over the time it was being made, launched a pogrom on moderates in its state legislature, passed a cripplingly regressive budget, and become the model state for the Koch Brothers.

    I think some anxiety about the archetype is in order.

    Reply

  37. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:04 am

    Yes – it is significant that the nature of the Kansas archetype has changed over the seventy-five year history of Superman. Mainly, as I said, I think reconsidering the mythos in light of the current political climate in Kansas is worth doing.

    Reply

  38. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:04 am

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  39. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:05 am

    he was adopted by the Kents around 1908, which WOULD be when Kansas was the heart of progressivism

    Not really then either—Kansas went for Taft over Bryan in 1908. Bryan himself lived in Nebraska.

    Reply

  40. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:10 am

    To create a bit of grit that haunts Superman's ongoing narrative. To create a little bit of pressure within the broad spectrum of what Superman is that alters how future writers approach the character. Much like the Sylvester McCoy era haunts Doctor Who without the series ever fully embracing the most manipulative and callous version of the character again. The film alters the cultural memory of Superman.

    Reply

  41. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:10 am

    I think there might be better ways to determine whether someone is a "misogynistic, racist religious fundamentalist" than to see whether he voted for Mitt Romney.

    Reply

  42. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:11 am

    Well, fine, what was Brownback's best county?

    Reply

  43. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:13 am

    Either we have a Superman film with a realistic and gritty take on the character, which would imply that consequences are real and important, or we have a good little franchise film. We can't have both. We can't have a massacre that no one even mentions later

    Coming next summer: Superman and the Silurians.

    Reply

  44. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:18 am

    Sam Brownback the Catholic, whose big foreign cause is assistance to Africa? Not sure I'd want to use him as a proxy for fundamentalism and racism either.

    Reply

  45. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:18 am

    The Silurians is a good comparison. It had zero effect on the UNIT era, and its challenge to its morality was completely ignored, as made sense, as it was profoundly cackhanded. But its effect on the ongoing development of Doctor Who was massive and positive.

    Reply

  46. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:22 am

    Oh, yes, and thank you, Froborr, for your comments on the draft. The Sucker Punch section is just my reply to you folded into the original essay, of course.

    Reply

  47. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:23 am

    Are we deciding Catholic fundamentalism isn't a thing?

    Reply

  48. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:26 am

    I don't think Brownback is a pre-Vatican II guy.

    Reply

  49. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:32 am

    My point, anyway, is that you're trading in stereotypes & running roughshod over all kinds of distinctions. If you had just said, "Kansas is a culturally conservative place, and cultural conservatism tends to be associated with various forms of ugliness. What would a Superman raised with those values be like?" then I wouldn't have objected.

    Reply

  50. Froborr
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:33 am

    No problem, Phil. Your take on Sucker Punch is fascinating. Not enough to make me willing to rewatch the movie from that perspective (or any perspective, for that matter), but a legitimately intriguing different take.

    Reply

  51. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:36 am

    Yes, well, that's the tradeoff between nuance and being evocative that often comes up. I am aware that I made the choice. If anything, I think my mistake was trying to hedge it as much as I did – I chickened out on that paragraph between first draft and final draft, and fear in hindsight that I hit an unsatisfying middle ground.

    Reply

  52. IG
    July 2, 2013 @ 8:37 am

    That's fair enough, though I think it's pertinent that (a) Marvelman was originally a direct copy of Captain Marvel, who in turn was (allegedly – according to DC's lawsuit) a direct copy of Superman, and (b) Moore said in interviews that his inspiration for the conclusion to his run on MM was an old 'imaginary' story in which Supes actually did become all-powerful and brought about eternal peace and prosperity for the Earth. ..

    Reply

  53. Dave
    July 2, 2013 @ 9:06 am

    Demanding artistic integrity from one's superhero movies seems a touch naive. Yes, even after all this reading and deconstruction, Man of Steel remains a contradiction, and a rather jarring one at that, judging by the mainstream reaction to the final fight. And the franchise will indeed go blithely on, because that is it's nature, and more generally: the most self-aware and deconstructive pop spectacle is as much a spectacle as the most straightforward and uncritical. Superhero movies are capable of recognizing but never resolving this contradiction for us, and to say it is pointless if the movie indicates the problem of Superman but doesn't resolve it within the movie is to miss the point.

    Reply

  54. jonathan inge
    July 2, 2013 @ 9:16 am

    Two things I take from Joe McCulloch's article:
    1) People really need to watch a film before passing judgement. (Too many who haven't seen "Man of Steel" talking as if they had. Although I don't like the movie, I think most audiences would find it entertaining.)
    2) Folks need to stop comparing "Sucker Punch" to "Brazil." A fitting comparison would be to Gilliam's "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen." One film is about a dreamer who has trouble with reality, the other is all about fantasy vs reality.

    Reply

  55. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 2, 2013 @ 9:18 am

    Thematically, perhaps. But the lobotomy scene is nicked straight from Brazil.

    Reply

  56. BerserkRL
    July 2, 2013 @ 9:29 am

    The "steady erosion of individual choice, rights, and freedom" represents the triumph of "individualism"? That seems to be a strange use of the term "individualism."

    Reply

  57. encyclops
    July 2, 2013 @ 9:45 am

    It would be interesting to see a Superman story that reconsidered the established facts not by keeping the adopted hometown and adjusting the character's values to match, but by keeping the values and adjusting the adopted hometown to match the values.

    That is, if it's true (and I'm not saying it is) that Kansas in 1993 isn't where an adopted alien acquires a sense of compassion, decency, charity, humanism, and selflessness, where is it?

    Reply

  58. BerserkRL
    July 2, 2013 @ 9:45 am

    become the model state for the Koch Brothers

    The antiwar, pro-gay-marriage Koch brothers? I don't think Kansas is exactly their ideal.

    Reply

  59. encyclops
    July 2, 2013 @ 9:54 am

    I've always assumed Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan were standing in for two aspects of Superman. Not quite the same thing as interrogating the symbolic character himself, but the questions are similar.

    Reply

  60. Doctor Memory
    July 2, 2013 @ 9:59 am

    Against this redemptive reading of Man of Steel (and, implicitly, the loathsome Sucker Punch), stands every interview Snyder has ever given and every other movie he has made. It's a valiant attempt, but sorry: no sale. Sometimes a hack is just a hack,

    Reply

  61. George Potter
    July 2, 2013 @ 10:03 am

    Bravo, I say! applause

    Reply

  62. Andre Salles
    July 2, 2013 @ 10:04 am

    I feel like The Silurians set the tone for the Doctor/Brigadier relationship, though. Its reverberations were felt throughout the UNIT era, and its specific events were, in fact, mentioned again, in both The Sea Devils and Warriors of the Deep. I guess it would be a closer comparison if the Doctor himself had wiped out an entire race and not felt even remotely conflicted about it. And the Silurians had ended with a joke about the Doctor's sex appeal. I feel like the show took itself much more seriously than that, which made the ending feel consequential.

    At some point, I think we might be giving Snyder and Goyer too much credit. It feels to me like the entire intention with Man of Steel was to show as much "awesome" destruction as possible, because it's summer and that's what people want. And then to forget about all of that destruction before the end of the film, much like most moviegoers will forget about Man of Steel before they get to their cars. Perhaps there just isn't much more to it. That strikes me as profoundly irresponsible, but perhaps I am caring too much about the ideal of Superman.

    Reply

  63. Theonlyspiral
    July 2, 2013 @ 10:44 am

    Terrance Dicks was a hack. Just because someone is a hack doesn't mean they can't throw together an entertaining yarn.

    Reply

  64. Nyq Only
    July 2, 2013 @ 10:59 am

    To Jese: Yes he was trading in stereotypes but that is because the Kents are intended to be a stereotype. The problem is a conflict. The Kents are intended to be small town mid-west farmers because that is intended to suggest grounded traditional values. Which superficially sounds heart warmingly reassuring – until we ask what kinds of values are those likely to be?
    Superman is one kind of myth, the Kents are another. As it happens they are a myth that is a politicized myth – and a politicized myth that the GOP has been utilising (for example in McCain/Palin's appeal to the 'real' America).
    I don't think that is a bad thing as it happens – I think it helps the notion of Superman as a stand in for US hegemony (he is from the rural world but lives in a big city).

    Reply

  65. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 11:07 am

    The antiwar…Koch brothers? I don't think Kansas is exactly their ideal.

    To be fair, it's been a century and a half since Kansas last fought a war.

    Yes he was trading in stereotypes but that is because the Kents are intended to be a stereotype.

    No, the maneuver was more complicated than that. When you say things like "state this as empirical fact based upon their voting patterns," you're stating that you're stepping out of the stereotype zone. But in fact Phil is just trading in a heartwarming stereotype for a vision of Kansas as the Other.

    Reply

  66. Matt Largo
    July 2, 2013 @ 11:15 am

    Two stories the interpretations of which I an quite stoked to see. Personally, I think you're giving Snyder too much credit. In this case, I think apocalypse porn is just apocalypse porn.

    Reply

  67. George Potter
    July 2, 2013 @ 11:56 am

    The "steady erosion of individual choice, rights, and freedom" represents the triumph of "individualism"? That seems to be a strange use of the term "individualism."

    Strange indeed. And then I got to wondering what real world entities might fight savagely against each other for their own lofty interests, using their devastating power to destroy cities and kill citizens in the pursuit of their own disagreements? What would be stoic faced and callous enough to write off that death and terror as 'collateral damage' and demand praise from their victims for 'protecting them?'

    I thought of a couple.

    Reply

  68. BerserkRL
    July 2, 2013 @ 12:03 pm

    It's been a century and a half since Kansas last fought a war

    Voting for warmongers is fighting a war by proxy.

    Of course both Republicans and Democrats tend to be warmongers, so that doesn't say anything specific about Kansas.

    Reply

  69. Nyq Only
    July 2, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

    OK, fair enough it was perhaps better said as a deconstruction of a stereotype or an attempt to hold a stereotype up against a different kind of generalization: a mean or modal group. Perhaps there is a clearer error – after all the Kents are fictional and live in fictional Kansas. This is a bit like fictional 1950s America – stable families, low crime, material prosperity and good, honest values and comparing it against a reality of entrenched discrimination.
    Of course the other side to this is that the world has many people whose values don't match their values. It is perfectly possible for our socio-politically deconstructed Kents to have both a set of values that are deeply humanistic – valuing people intrinsically, and a naive Kantian deontology (don't lie, don't treat people as a means to an end etc) – but which is poorly generalised. I'm sure many people have older relatives who combine strong positive values with ugly patches of bigotry. That makes Superman more interesting, come to think of it.
    Xenophpbic Kents who are kind to the neighbours (including neighbours who are immigrants or ethnic minorities that they regard as exceptions to the rule) who nevertheless bring up Clark with their values would present a dual challenge to the young Clark. As he grows he needs to fit the values he was raised with two realities: firstly his desire to be part of a big city liberal newspaper and secondly that he is an alien with almost god like powers. What does he shed from his Smallville world and what does he retain?
    Oh how much more interesting if his baby-space-capsule-thingy had landed in Alabama? Or perhaps on a Afrikaaner farmstead in Apartheid South Africa?

    Reply

  70. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 12:20 pm

    Oh how much more interesting if his baby-space-capsule-thingy had landed in Alabama? Or perhaps on a Afrikaaner farmstead in Apartheid South Africa?

    There's a graphic novel that imagines the capsule landing in the Soviet Union. I haven't read it, so I don't know how good it is, but what a brilliant idea.

    Reply

  71. Spoilers Below
    July 2, 2013 @ 12:36 pm

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  72. Spoilers Below
    July 2, 2013 @ 12:42 pm

    There's a graphic novel that imagines the capsule landing in the Soviet Union. I haven't read it, so I don't know how good it is, but what a brilliant idea.

    Red Son, by Mark Millar, Dave Johnson, and Kilian Plunkett. It's awesome and worth the time to read.

    Reply

  73. BerserkRL
    July 2, 2013 @ 12:51 pm

    There was a story, I forget where or by whom, about Superman's being raised in Nazi Germany too.

    Reply

  74. jonathan inge
    July 2, 2013 @ 12:51 pm

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  75. Spoilers Below
    July 2, 2013 @ 1:03 pm

    The "steady erosion of individual choice, rights, and freedom" represents the triumph of "individualism"? That seems to be a strange use of the term "individualism."

    I believe this is colloquially referred to as the "Fuck you, got mine" school of individualism, wherein the priorities of some individuals (those on top and in power) are prioritized over others through force (usually economic or militaristic), and empathy is treated as a silly and worthless consideration. Sociopathic solipsism is its most extreme point.

    So, pretty much the exact opposite of traditional individualism, and not really worthy of the title.

    Reply

  76. George Potter
    July 2, 2013 @ 1:40 pm

    There are really few ways to consider a character like Superman when it reaches a level of depicted power that may as well be called 'divine.' In my opinion because one of the more obvious questions is going to be: 'Why would this God hang around coddling us?'

    From Superman's beginning (and well before he was truly god-like) that answer was most often: 'Because he's whimsical like that.' That's what, I think, was the thing he got from the Kents. A gentle upbringing by decent folks who stressed love for neighbors and lived in a whimsical, rural place called 'Smallville.' It wasn't a political or religious code being evoked, it was a far more general belief that ordinary, rural people were decent, level headed and whimsical. Norman Rockwell painted pictures of it, Frank Capra would soon start making movies about it. Post-WW1 and pre-WW2 media is filled with it.

    And of course it was a fantasy, but we're talking about a fantasy comic with a main character who liked being shot at because it amused him.

    The 60's Superman Family titles probably pushed the whimsy factor to the breaking point, being almost entirely whimsical and often with a dark, surrealistic edge. The worry of: 'What if my whimsical God becomes angry or hateful?' plagues the Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane series.

    Since then the whimsy's been scaled way back, but it never really goes away. Seriously, only in a whimsical world would Superman's identity remain secret. And please, no hand-wavery like 'He vibrates his face molecules at super-speed' because — if anything — that's about as hundred times as whimsical as 'well, nobody just ever noticed.' John Byrne's modernization in the 80's amounted to 'Let's just treat this guy like Spider Man,' for awhile.

    And from what I've read of Morrison's Superman work, he's brought a great deal of whimsy back.

    So, MAN OF STEEL sounds like Superman with the whimsy extracted, or as close an attempt I've ever heard. I quite look forward to it, just on those experimental grounds. I may love it, I might hate it. But it sounds interesting enough.

    Reply

  77. jonathan inge
    July 2, 2013 @ 1:52 pm

    Zack Snyder says he was influenced by "Brazil" (http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/sucker-punch-zack-snyder-says-big-crazy-fairy-tale-influenced-by-brazil/). Even though that seems to be the end of it, I still don't agree with the comparison. I figure I will provide a detailed analysis elsewhere.

    Reply

  78. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 2:10 pm

    It wasn't a political or religious code being evoked, it was a far more general belief that ordinary, rural people were decent, level headed and whimsical.

    That in itself is a political belief, isn't it?

    Norman Rockwell painted pictures of it, Frank Capra would soon start making movies about it.

    And they both — particularly Capra — did explicitly political art about it. In Capra's case, art shot through with ambivalence: He loved that idea of America but he saw darkness in it too.

    And from what I've read of Morrison's Superman work, he's brought a great deal of whimsy back.

    That must be what I liked about it. As I've written elsewhere, I think Superman works best when it plunges into outright absurdism.

    Reply

  79. jane
    July 2, 2013 @ 3:28 pm

    "That is, if it's true (and I'm not saying it is) that Kansas in 1993 isn't where an adopted alien acquires a sense of compassion, decency, charity, humanism, and selflessness, where is it?"

    Metropolis.

    Reply

  80. encyclops
    July 2, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  81. BerserkRL
    July 2, 2013 @ 3:42 pm

    How It's a Wonderful Life ever got misidentified as a cheery heartwarming holiday story staggers the imagination. It's as though people remember only the last few minutes.

    Reply

  82. George Potter
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:10 pm

    I'd call it a meme more than a political theory when Superman was being conceived and introduced. A very-slow-then pop-cultural-context reacting to the worst of the Depression, or at least the Media as popular culture context

    And they both — particularly Capra — did explicitly political art about it. In Capra's case, art shot through with ambivalence: He loved that idea of America but he saw darkness in it too.

    Yes, they sure did — but mostly after the intro of Superman. I'm actually a huge fan of Capra. He was the chief architect of the [/i]Why We Fight[/i] propaganda films, with much help from George Stevens, and I have huge respect for his talent and (though many deride him for this) his moral focus.

    That must be what I liked about it. As I've written elsewhere, I think Superman works best when it plunges into outright absurdism.

    I've read that article many times. 🙂

    Reply

  83. George Potter
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:12 pm

    And I apologize, Jesse, I didn't quote the first bit. 🙁

    Reply

  84. Nyq Only
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:20 pm

    I haven't read Red Son. I seem to recall an Elseworlds story where Ka-El is found by the Waynes rather than the Kents (i.e. he grows up as Batman rather than Superman). I don't recall a Nazi era Superman (no Nietzsche jokes please) but wasn't there an Elseworld's Batman along this line? I recall it as being a bit naff (Batman sets off to preserve the Austrian school of economics)

    Reply

  85. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:23 pm

    Capra made some stinkers but at his best he was a really compelling and complex artist. A man who makes movies like Meet John Doe and It's a Wonderful Life is not to be underestimated. And to my taste the "Flying Trapeze" scene in It Happened One Night is one of the high points of '30s Hollywood.

    Reply

  86. George Potter
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:26 pm

    How It's a Wonderful Life ever got misidentified as a cheery heartwarming holiday story staggers the imagination. It's as though people remember only the last few minutes

    Well, it's not really in any situation I've ever encountered. My family never celebrated Christmas, and I wasn't allowed to watch much TV.

    In the situations other than that I've encountered, it's constant running on TV during Christmas has become a strange thing in my experience. I know lots of younger people who kind of hate it, and I've actually been to two Christmas parties where the subject of 'should we let the kids watch this?'

    My answer was, of course, YES. It's not a movie about Christmas and Santa Clause. It's a movie about how being non-famous and decent makes you important and better than a rock star.

    That's a message that always needs airing.

    Reply

  87. Jesse
    July 2, 2013 @ 4:28 pm

    Batman sets off to preserve the Austrian school of economics

    This exists, yes.

    Reply

  88. Nyq Only
    July 2, 2013 @ 5:04 pm

    //This exists, yes.//

    Phew – I was worried I may have hallucinated it. Now don't get me wrong, I like Batman, I enjoy Batman but if there is any superhero likely to fall into Nazi-pathological politics surely it is going to be the revenge minded guy with a grudge against society who likes to dress up in black to intimidate those he sees as the scum of society. His alter-ego is his mockery of bourgeois decadence in a state that is on the verge of collapse and which needs a strong (and ruthless) hand to take control. Its why Frank Miller writes Batman well…
    In other words – Batman make an odd fit as a proto-libertarian (not a terrible fit but not a good fit).

    Reply

  89. Nicholas Tosoni
    July 2, 2013 @ 5:29 pm

    RE: The Superman "Elseworlds" stories–

    I've read a really funny one called "Superman: True Brit," with John Cleese (as Kim Bread) and Ron "Howard" Johnson as two of its writers.

    In a nutshell, it imagines what would happen if baby Kal-El had landed in Weston Super-Mare (Cleese's real-life birthplace). And…the Clarks raise their son Colin to conceal his powers; their motto is, "What would the neighbors think?!"

    Reply

  90. Scott
    July 2, 2013 @ 5:48 pm

    "There was a story, I forget where or by whom, about Superman's being raised in Nazi Germany too."

    I don't know about comics — although a Superman raised in a parallel earth where the Nazis won the war popped up in at least one of DC's recent 'Crises' — but this sounds like "Ubermensch!", by Kim Newman. It's a short story in one of his collections (can't remember which), not an actual comic, though.

    "I seem to recall an Elseworlds story where Ka-El is found by the Waynes rather than the Kents (i.e. he grows up as Batman rather than Superman)."

    This was the first comic I ever read.

    Reply

  91. r. j. paré
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

    I enjoyed MoS but, it seems, the parts I enjoyed are the opposite of yours doc [I hated the third act]. I get the impression you're a big fan of the tired, dystopian, deconstruction movement… Which is fine, but at some point we [comic book fans] do want our Superman to be a moral, noble, incorruptible champion and there's nothing wrong with that IMHO: it is called escapism for a reason.

    If every single superhero comic were written in the vein of Watchmen… the genre would disappear. Bitter deconstruction only works when the predominant construction is hopeful.

    Reply

  92. r. j. paré
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:24 pm

    My family watches "It's a Wonderful Life" every year during the holidays. Often, multiple times. How anyone could mistake it for not being a heartwarming holiday tale boggles my mind. It is as though they only remember the dystopian world where George was never born and forget the rest of the story. It was also a powerful and incredibly moral tale as relevant today, in regards income/social class disparity as it ever was.

    Reply

  93. BerserkRL
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:28 pm

    Haven't read the Newman story. The Nazi Superman I had in mind was the Earth-10 Superman, also called Overman, in Final Crisis.

    Reply

  94. BerserkRL
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:42 pm

    I think it's a morally pernicious movie whose chief message is that morality and personal fulfillment are mutually incompatible, and that morality ultimately requires you to give up everything you care about in order to satisfy other people's expectations, even if it drives you to suicide. The tacked-on happy-ending reconciliation doesn't change the basic message. It's designed to make Aristoteleans reach for their xiphoi.

    But aesthetically it's very well done.

    Reply

  95. BerserkRL
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:46 pm

    The horrifying part of the movie isn't the dystopian world without George. That part of the movie is just silly. (Without George, Mary would have been a timid librarian! With glsses!) the horrifying part is all the rest of the movie up to that point, where George again and again tears up everything he longs for in order to satisfy the demands of duty.

    Reply

  96. BerserkRL
    July 2, 2013 @ 7:49 pm

    I have no problem with bitter deconstruction when it's as good as Watchmen. My problem with Man of Steel is that it didn't do an especially good job at bitter deconstruction and it didn't do an especially good job at hopeful optimism either.

    Reply

  97. r. j. paré
    July 2, 2013 @ 10:57 pm

    My full review: https://www.facebook.com/notes/randy-par%C3%A9/man-of-steel-the-review/10151711824045152

    I felt that most of the first 2/3 of the movie was brilliant [exception, the appallingly dumb death scene for Pa Kent]. The final 1/3 almost, but not quite, ruined the movie for me. I still give the film a hesitant thumbs up.. only because I so enjoyed it prior to the video game levels of mindless destruction and the un-Superman like killing of Zod.

    Thankfully, these negatives were offset by the truly awesome fall of Krypton opening scenes, Clark's young life and journey of self discovery becoming a hero. Heck…. if the film ended with his successful leap to flight in the arctic.. it would have been short — BUT almost perfect.

    Reply

  98. Chadwick
    July 2, 2013 @ 11:26 pm

    Dr Philip Sandifer likes Sucker Punch, Dr Mark Kermode hates it.

    Which Doctor is right? There's only one way to find out…

    …FIGHT!

    Reply

  99. John Toon
    July 3, 2013 @ 12:45 am

    I don't think anyone's addressed this yet, but I think the big problem with the Zack Snyder Defence is that it attributes authorship of the film exclusively to Zack Snyder, who may or may not arguably have some sense of self-awareness.

    As the director of Man of Steel, he could certainly have influenced the tone of the film, notably in the big long bust-up, but the script he was given was written by David Goyer, and one might assume some conceptual input from Christopher Nolan. Things like the narrative concept of Science-Fascist Krypton and Douchebag Pa Kent would have come from them. And while Snyder has form in filming deconstructive superhero scripts, one of which he co-wrote, Goyer and Nolan as collaborators have authorial form in the Christian Bale Batman trilogy, which wasn't so much smart and deconstructive as a trowelled-on grimdark homage to Frank Miller.

    I think it's worth comparing Miller's Dark Knight to Man of Steel, as – like Man of Steel – I think it was an interesting idea in principle but one that should have remained separate from the main run of the comic it was commenting on, instead of which – like Man of Steel is probably expected to, for all I know – it became the basis for the next wave of the comic mainstream, quite a lot of which was cargo cult stuff that just seemed to want wallow in violence and misery (see also Nolan, perhaps?).

    Reply

  100. Ross
    July 3, 2013 @ 2:25 am

    The bit that bugs me is that Mr. Potter commits grand larceny and there is never so much as a hint that he will ever face any consequences for it, or, indeed, ever face anything but a profit of several thousand stolen dollars.

    (That alone negates any fantasy escapist angle. If I wanted to see a rich banker shamelessly, brazenly and literally steal a bunch of money, bankrupting a hard-working american, and never face any punishment for it, I can just watch the news)

    The SNL alternate ending is an improvement.

    Reply

  101. BerserkRL
    July 3, 2013 @ 9:05 am

    I think it's worth comparing Miller's Dark Knight to Man of Steel,

    Though again, as with Watchmen: for all its problems (which I could go on about), Frank Miller's Dark Knight was really good; I don't see MoS as being in that league.

    Reply

  102. vitaminbillwebb
    July 3, 2013 @ 9:44 am

    I like this reading a lot, actually. But I think the film is actually about Supes gaining human compassion and responsibility. He learns these things in crisis–"What was I supposed to do? Let them drown?"–and among working-class people like the fishermen he works with. Superman's ethos is a synthesis of Kansas-America's emphasis on the individual and Krypton-America's radical collectivism/fascism. It rejects both and founds a new way forward in the spaces it negates.

    For my money, this is why the pornographic violence of the final act doesn't work. everyone in the movie wants to make Superman choose between Krypton and Kansas, and the film does a good job showing the results as his battle with Krypton requires him to obliterate both. So that's good, but it actually goes nowhere. Where Superman should be learning a lesson about compassion, as his character arc telegraphs for audiences, the plot requires him to participate in ever-escalating pornographic violence. The violence, of course, culminates in Superman's act of violence, killing Zod to save a family. There, we finally get altruistic and compassionate Superman, crying because he has to destroy the representative of Krypton in order to save Metropolis, but it's really too little too late. Man of Steel fails because it's so caught up in seeing that we get the money shot in Metropolis's destruction that it overlooks its thematic and character arc. As Snyder films always do, it puts spectacle before substance and fails as a result.

    Reply

  103. jsd
    July 3, 2013 @ 11:05 am

    Kermode's right. Sorry, Dr. S, but there is no possible redemptive reading of Sucker Punch. It's just misogynistic and gross and icky.

    Reply

  104. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 3, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

    Picking on jsd because he's the most recent commenter to make this point, not because he's the only one, but…

    Why? I mean, perhaps my reading of Sucker Punch is wrong. I don't think it is. In fact, I stand strongly by it. But it could be wrong. But I gave evidence and the like, and if I'm wrong, you know, there's presumably some counter-evidence and all.

    I mean, nobody is under an obligation to refute me at length or anything. But I do wish someone who disagrees would actually go cite evidence to explain why what I identify as the film's turning point is not, in fact.

    Reply

  105. Froborr
    July 3, 2013 @ 12:57 pm

    That is, if it's true (and I'm not saying it is) that Kansas in 1993 isn't where an adopted alien acquires a sense of compassion, decency, charity, humanism, and selflessness, where is it?

    Aunt May's house.

    Reply

  106. Roger Whitson
    July 4, 2013 @ 1:48 pm

    Actually, I think Kingdom Come is pretty good on the Gods kill angle. It's just that Superman backs down before he levels the UN building in the last issue.

    I also think your reading is compelling, Phil, but it's giving way too much agency to Snyder as someone who intends to deconstruct Superman – especially when Superman is a tightly controlled corporate character. Although a vision like the one you articulate here certainly sets up a pretty interesting characterization for a Luther who might not be entirely wrong.

    I'd be more willing to believe that the levels of superhero violence in films have escalated to such a degree that this film was inevitable (if in the form of Superman or not). So, instead of an intentional deconstruction, the superhero film has simply become so excessive that it has simply deconstructed itself. IMO, there's absolutely no reason why DC would want an Elseworlds-style deconstruction of the character to launch a new film franchise. They probably see the darker image as more in line w/ what happened in Nolan's Batman films but on a larger scale.

    As someone who grew up in Missouri, I feel that the Pa Kent portion was pretty over-generalized. Yes, there are obviously many conservatives in that region, but the Kents were based on dust bowl farmers. There's a Steinbeckian aspect to the Kents that I feel is aptly portrayed (if not as memorably) by Costner – i.e. the resilient character who is acutely aware of his limitations in the face of nature.

    Reply

  107. Roger Whitson
    July 4, 2013 @ 1:50 pm

    I'm still pretty-pissed (but not surprised) that Morrison's promised "socialist" Superman was so cordoned-off by DC that he basically faded out after about 7 issues of the new Action Comics.

    Reply

  108. Elizabeth Sandifer
    July 4, 2013 @ 1:51 pm

    I think the difference between Snyder and Morrison in terms of their corporate-unfriendly takes on Superman may come down mostly to the fact that Snyder had the good sense to shut up and make a movie figuring that Warner wouldn't be looking too closely beyond "ooh, it's shiny," whereas Morrison bragged about his socialist take such that they couldn't ignore it.

    Reply

  109. Froborr
    July 5, 2013 @ 8:33 pm

    So, I watched Man of Steel tonight. Sorry, Phil, but I see zero evidence for the deconstruction, and a huge piece of missing evidence that should be there–there is no suggestion that humanity actually does fear Superman. The one general doesn't count–he's Action Movie Military Type A, so of course he's paranoid and reactionary. (Type B-for-Bay is hypercompetent and unfailingly honorable, that was the general played by Benson from Law and Order SVU.)

    This wasn't the terrible movie people are making it out to be. If nothing else, it's a live-action Superman that has Emil Hamilton (who was GREAT in the DCAU) in it, and he's played by Toby from West Wing to boot!

    Mostly, it was just not any fun. The action is tedious and familiar, there's absolutely no sense of wonder, no lightness or levity or humor, and everything is X-Box Gray. (Did Zod in his armor look astoundingly like the Gears of War guy to anyone else?)

    No, I'm okay with a movie not being fun. There's some very good movies with absolutely no fun to be found in them. But they have ideas, and this… doesn't. It apes the form of a coming-of-age story, but there's no character growth, no personality, no chemistry between Lois and Superman. I mean, it's competently put together and does successfully generate sufficient interest in the events on-screen to keep me watching, and at no point does it fill me with rage like, say, Sucker Punch, but it's not actually at all good. It's decidedly mediocre.

    Two stray observations:

    Time elapsed from Jor-El criticizing Zod for being willing to kill Kryptonians to Jor-El killing Kryptonians: 10 seconds.

    Okay, seriously, the Kryptonians have found a solution for the single worst thing about being a mammal, and we're supposed to think it's a bad thing? I mean, preprogamming people for their jobs, okay, that's awful, but there's no necessary connection between that and artificial wombs! You couldn't have set one up, Jor-El, and just not turned on the behavioral programming? You had to implant your wife with a crotchburster?

    Reply

  110. Froborr
    July 5, 2013 @ 8:35 pm

    Oh, one more. "I grew up in Kansas. It's hard to get more American than that."

    Fuck you, everyone that worked on this movie. We really needed a suggestion that white folks from Kansas are more American than everybody else? We don't get enough of that shit already?

    Reply

  111. Alan
    July 9, 2013 @ 11:48 pm

    I think it's a morally pernicious movie whose chief message is that morality and personal fulfillment are mutually incompatible, and that morality ultimately requires you to give up everything you care about in order to satisfy other people's expectations, even if it drives you to suicide.

    Thank you, BerserkRL. Thank. You. This is the best description I have ever seen that articulates why I loathe It's A Wonderful Life with a fiery passion. To me, it's the story of a man whose martyr complex and compulsion to sacrifice his dreams for others drives him to the brink of self-destruction, and then God Himself personally intervenes to show him that his self-destructive martyrdom is actually a Good Thing because of how beneficial it had been to other people.

    Reply

  112. Alan
    July 9, 2013 @ 11:52 pm

    "I grew up in Kansas. It's hard to get more American than that." Wow. That line is in the movie? I think I might have walked out at that point.

    Reply

  113. ricky james
    February 27, 2014 @ 8:22 pm

    Wow Great movie!!! My family watches "It's a Wonderful Life" every year during the holidays. Often, multiple times….

    Jackets” rel=”nofollow”>Superman Leather Jackets

    Reply

  114. Andrew Bowman
    June 8, 2014 @ 5:04 am

    @Nicholas Tosoni

    True Brit is very good, with plenty of Pythonesque moments and references (most obviously with The Rutles) but I have to correct your reference to Cleese's co-author: it's Kim "Howard" Johnson, not Ron. In fact, Kim "Howard" is a Python friend and biographer of some renown; I would imagine some the references were his! 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Roger WhitsonCancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.