Zack Snyder is not a name to inspire great confidence in filmgoers (at least not those I’ve talked to). I’ve only actually seen one of his directorial efforts, and I may be in a minority in quite liking Sucker Punch (2011). That was a film which seemed to depict its abused characters coping with and overcoming their traumas by reconfiguring them as video game challenges; it may not have been entirely successful, but it was a very interesting concept. There’s plenty of trauma in Man of Steel, too, but mostly on the audience’s part. The film itself seems curiously shorn of any human emotion, at least by the time it reaches its absurdly overextended denouement.
A key moment for me in this respect is a kiss shared amongst the crumbling detritus of a ravaged Metropolis, a falling skyscraper barely enough it seems to get the two to break off their kiss to take a look. It would be a moment of bathos if I could rouse enough emotion to care about anyone by this point, but after half an hour of mechanised (and curiously bloodless) destruction, there’s little empathy left in me. If this and Marvel’s The Avengers last year are anything to go by, American blockbuster movies seem to revel in destroying their cities, which is a curious place to be all things considered.
However, I’m getting ahead of myself. The first half of the film concerns itself with the origin story and is (relatively-speaking) fairly low-key and interesting. Most filmgoers are probably aware of the basics: how Kal-El is sent to Earth from the dying planet Krypton by his father Jor-El, pursued by General Zod and his gang of usurpers; how he grows up in rural Kansas as Clark Kent, only slowly growing to understand and control his special powers; how he meets and falls in love with intrepid Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane. If there’s a sense that some of this is superfluous for most viewers, it’s nevertheless welcome if only for its calmer tone and pacing.
It’s never far from the surface that the Superman mythology is a thinly-coded Second Coming allegory, with Kal-El/Clark as a specifically American Messiah; he even has a scene of questioning doubt in a church at one point. As his father, then, Russell Crowe does a good job as a calm centre of Krypton’s benevolent patriarchal power, matched by Kevin Costner as Clark’s human father, even if a lot of his role involves staring off into the middle-distance and mouthing moral platitudes. Nevertheless, Costner’s a master at this kind of thing, and does it well.
These snippets of his rural upbringing are interwoven as flashbacks in what has largely become a peripatetic existence for Clark, as he shows up in enough different places to pique the interest of reporter Lois Lane. The way this unfolds all feels rather perfunctory, and Amy Adams, although likeable as an actor, has little to work with here. It’s not, in truth, a great film for actors of subtlety and imagination. Michael Shannon, for example, plays General Zod, and though he may have had some great roles in his time, Zod seems to require little more than shouting and glowering, a waste of Shannon’s more acute talents. Luckily, this helps the blandly attractive Henry Cavill to impress more as the titular hero. In a film where actorly insight has been pushed into the background, looking the part becomes more of an asset, and Cavill with his chiselled jaw and impressive physique certainly does do that.
I’ve already mentioned the way that by the end, the film seems to lack a sense of humanity: it’s a dour and serious film, dark and brooding without much in the way of levity or humour. This certainly sets it apart from the earlier film series with Christopher Reeve, and may point to the involvement of Christopher Nolan, whose Dark Knight franchise similarly ‘rebooted’ the Batman story, kitting out its world in cold, hard metallic surfaces and glowering darkness. But Batman is an anti-hero at best, where Superman is supposed to embody all the best of humanity. By the end, I feel as a viewer like Laurence Fishburne’s newspaper editor, watching impassively at the filmic destruction all around. Perhaps he feels unable to move from his window (though he does, at length) because he too is wondering where it all went wrong.
This is undeniably a visually impressive film, but at some basic level it has gone awry. I am left cold by its cold surface textures, and there’s little to convince me that any of the characters have any heart. And for a film about a character embodying the best of human nature, that’s a real failing.
Director Zack Snyder; Writers David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan (based on the comic book Superman by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster); Cinematographer Amir Mokri امیر مکری; Starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe; Length 143 minutes.
Seen at Cineworld West India Quay [2D], London, Wednesday 19 June 2013.
8 thoughts on “Man of Steel (2013)”
Wow, harsh words indeed Ewan. I’ve not seen it yet so can’t agree or disagree with you, but I definitely think in general this hasn’t really lived up to people’s expectations.
I’ll certainly be interested to read your thoughts if you do see it. I’ve seen some positive reviews too, so I don’t want to say the film doesn’t succeed at some level because clearly it does. I just wasn’t impressed.
Nice review. I agree, the film was a bit of a mess. Michael Shannon was misused in his role, which is a shame since he’s one of the best actors working today.
He does what the role demands of him, it’s just a pity there wasn’t more to work with. I think the film will please some people (indeed, I’ve seen some pretty positive reviews amongst the blogs I follow), but it just left me unable to care what happened by the end.
Saw this at the weekend, and am totally in agreement with you. A film that takes itself way, way too seriously and misses the point that made the Superman films so universally popular in the first place: the notion that Clark Kent is a geek, hiding the fact he is the strongest man on the planet, is central to the entire character for me. It’s not the worst superhero film I’ve seen of late, but it’s probably the most joyless and earnest. I think you make an excellent point about it having the tone / look / female of Nolan’s Batman films. A bad decision, for me.
‘Female’?!!! I meant ‘feel’.
I spent most of the film waiting for him to be all dorky in the newspaper office, because those were the scenes I enjoyed the most in the original (Clark being an actual empathetic human, in other words), but obviously they decided they were going down the dour/’realistic’ route and couldn’t pretend that no one would recognise him with glasses on, and I just think that was an error…
Definitely! I could definitely accept that idea in a film where I’m being asked not to question a hell of a lot more.