Superman Returns
Grade: |
 |
Plot Summary:
After a five-year absence, Superman returns to the Earth to take care of unfinished business. Much flying and crystallic chemistry ensues...Opinion:
Superman is indisputably THE iconic comic book superhero of the last century--although it must be noted that Superman as a compelling movie character has some fundamental problems:
(1) He has unlimited strength and is invulnerable, so any 'conflict' between him and a foe basically already has a foregone conclusion. What's so exciting about that?
(When I was younger, I watched the old Justice League of America cartoons where Superman was joined by Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and others--and I always wondered why they even HAD any of the other guys, since Superman could just handle ANYTHING the bad guys threw at them himself. Unless of course, Kryptonite was involved--speaking of which...)
(2) Since Superman has exactly one (1) weakness, you basically have to find ways to shoehorn that weakness into virtually every Superman story in order to create any dramatic tension at all. Having to come up with plot after plot that revolve around Kryptonite can really put a damper on creativity.
(We should note that Superman II got around this problem by introducing three super-villains that have exactly the same powers as Superman does. This solved the 'foregone conclusion' problem when they meet, but introduced another one--namely, the 'fight' between the four of them has no real dramatic tension either, since they can't hurt each other. They could have just sat around a big table and yelled at each other for a while, for all the difference it would have made...)
More annoyingly, the Superman movies couldn't stick with 'just' an invulnerable superhero who can fly, has super strength, and heat vision--but (even in the 'good' Superman movies) they insisted on creating new powers which materialized out of thin air--wiping away memory, and his amazing "Rebuild-The-Great-Wall-Vision" for starters--just at those moments when such new abilities would conveniently prove useful to the plot. Superman was, literally, a walking deus-ex-machina.
(Lex Luthor planned his 'two missile' scheme in the first Superman movie with the thought that even Superman, with all his powers, couldn't be in two places at once. Gee, are we sure? Maybe he just hadn't discovered his amazing "Cloning" power yet...)
And if THAT weren't enough, we have the end of the first Superman movie where Superman casually violates basic principles of space and time by reversing history and saving Lois from death. Unfortunately, I don't think turning the Earth's rotation around--even if it were possible--would actually reverse time. I'm reminded of the scene from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" where they try to run miles off of the odometer by running Cameron's dad's car in reverse. ("Hmmm...I thought that would have worked...")
(Remember, now: Superman I and II were the good ones!)
"Superman Returns" is a decent Superman film--probably the best Superman movie that could be made given the inherent limitations of the character. It doesn't make up new powers for Superman on a whim, and has some original elements even though the main plot involves--wait for it--kryptonite. A well-conceived sequence where Superman saves an airplane from crashing is interesting because it finds an alternate way of creating dramatic tension: we already know Superman himself is never in danger, but there's still a question of whether he'll be able to pull off the rescue in time.
It's obvious if you've seen the original Superman movie from 1978, that director Bryan Singer was heavily influenced by it: the basic plot is very similar, and many lines of dialogue are word-for-word the same. (It'd almost count as a loose remake, if not for the dependence on several events from Superman II for continuity). The acting is good, special effects are first-rate, and for a 2 hour+ movie with a lot of 'talking' parts, it never drags. What keeps "Superman Returns" from being on same level as recent Spiderman or Batman movies seems to be the limitations of the main character--Superman's just not as cinematically interesting as other superheroes, and it's possible that no amount of screenwriting or directorial skill will make it otherwise.
Still, there's a reason Superman is the iconic comic book hero character of the last century--and why many, many people have been anxiously waiting for Superman's return to the big screen for years. Just as an example: our three-year-old--who normally doesn't pay any attention to non-cartoon movies--was enraptured by Superman whenever he was on the screen. Because, gee, he can fly and is super-strong. He spent the next few days putting on a makeshift cape and 'flying' around the house pretending to be you-know-who. Many adults have testified that their 'attraction' to Superman is along those same lines--not as a character but as a fantasy 'alter-ego' who can do things that we only dream about being able to do. (Very few people--let's be honest here--have fantasies about putting on a 'Batsuit' and fighting crime with fancy gadgets...) It could be said that the desire to do great and marvelous, super-human things allows us to respond emotionally to those fantasies realized in a character. This explains, perhaps, Superman's long-held popularity...and perhaps also allows us some leeway in forgiving the arbitrary creation of new superpowers on the fly--after all, if Superman is just an extension of our innermost fantasies, that's exactly what we'd want to happen...
In other words, maybe Superman fulfills a niche within the comic book world that other characters do not. And from that perspective, "Superman Returns" merely by being a decent movie with Superman in it could be considered a success no matter your criteria. It tells a simple story about a man with superhuman powers we all dream about having, who uses them to save people. What more could you want?
Content Analysis: (PG-13 1-1-3-0 on the Baron's PSVD scale)
Like most modern comic-book movies, "Superman Returns" is PG-13, although in this case it is very, very light. Our three-year-old, as mentioned, watched it with us and the 'violence' aspects, even Luthor and his henchmen mobbing Superman on his island, are very restrained. I've seen worse PG movies.
There's actually nothing that precludes a "Superman" movie from being very violent, since if Superman was ever to get in a real fight with someone it could get...well, very brutal. Most Superman movies (including "Superman Returns") stay away from Superman actually 'fighting' anyone, preferring instead to frame 'action' scenes composed of bullets bouncing off his body before he grabs crooks by the collar to deliver them harmlessly to the local police station. Superman's personality--often condescendingly referred to as a "big blue Boy Scout"--undoubtedly is the primary contributor to his non-violent approach to crime-fighting, versus the lack of violent potential. (A movie where Superman loses his temper and has to deal with latent violent impulses might be an interesting approach for a Superman sequel...assuming that doesn't inherently violate the Superman mythos).
In-depth Analysis:
There's little evidence that the Superman character was visualized as a Jesus Christ-substitute of sorts by his original creators in the 1930's--since in his initial form, Superman couldn't fly, nor was he completely invulnerable to weaponry. Nevertheless, in his modern form, Superman has many parallels--often deliberately emphasized by "Superman" filmmakers--to Jesus Christ, not least of which is his origin where his father Jor-El sends his "only Son" to Earth to be the "light that shows others the way".
It is interesting to note that the original idea of a "Messiah" for the house of Israel was someone just like Superman: someone who would cleanse the world of 'wrong-doers' and ease the physical suffering of the 'good' people, by providing righteous justice to an unjust world. When Jesus arrived as the Messiah, He, in fact, did not provide 'justice' in the form of freeing the Jews from Roman oppression as thought, but rather 'mercy' through the Atonement. (Ironically, had he been a Messiah of 'justice' as visualized, all mankind would have been cast out according to the eternal laws of heaven.)
The transition of Superman into a 'Christ-figure' that dispenses righteous justice instead of universal mercy may have been born of this same idea that kept the early Jews from recognized the "Messiah" in their midst: Most people--even Christians--sort of prefer the idea of a God-like entity who directly punishes those who are 'evil' and protects the innocent. Abstract, unseen concepts such as 'sin forgiveness' and 'final judgment' beyond the veil may very well be true, but are somewhat unfulfilling to mortal minds who wants the wicked to receive their just desserts NOW, not later. Superman presents that 'alternate-Messiah' idea--someone who will dispense justice to those who deserve it...even if the inconvenient truth is that ALL of us are 'wicked' and ultimately subject to eternal justice unless someone steps in the way.
The questions "Does the world need Superman?" and "Does the world need Jesus Christ" are, thus, completely separate issues. The Savior provided, through the Atonement, the more pressing and universal need for a Messiah. But does the world also need a more secular "Messiah", like Superman, to save us from criminals, accidents, and such? Certainly the common secular opinion is that we need a divine 'babysitter' to save us from ourselves.
Jor-El himself in the first movie notes that his biggest fear in sending his son to Earth was that mankind would start to depend on him, and not do things they could have done themselves. Lois Lane writes an award-winning article saying 'no', the world does not need Superman--and while we don't get to hear her actual arguments from the article, one can assume they are along the same lines: we (humans) are the cause of most of our problems, and we can and should be the solution too, without waiting for outside divine intervention to fix things we ourselves broke.
In the movie, Superman responds to Lois by saying: "You say the world doesn't need a Savior, but every day I hear people crying out for one." This shows that people want a Savior, sure--but does the world need a Savior in the secular sense? Is the world better off without having a supreme being who flies in and saves (some) people from tragic circumstances? How would attitudes towards life change without having a divine 'safety net' to catch us when we fall?
People in general, when asked about the role of God in their lives, seem to expect divine hands to swoop down and save them from disaster...but also expect, without irony, to be left alone all other times to do whatever they want. Superman should stop terrorists from blowing you up, for example, but should leave you alone to (in Lois's case) smoke cigarettes without judgment. Morality is absolute when it comes to other people, relative when it comes to themselves. What if God's plan really is to give us free will...and let us do whatever we want with it? How would our actions and choices change if we knew Superman would be around to clean things up?
"Superman Returns" presents an interesting case study in this regard: when Lois's boyfriend Richard discovers that she and her son are missing, he could have easily just sat around and said, "Well, I'm sure Superman will save them...I can't really do anything".
But he could do something...and he did.
Despite knowing of Superman's existence, Richard immediately ran out and flew his own plane to go save his family. In a real way, Richard showed a bravery and goodness that exceeds anything Superman can do, since Richard made his choices not having natural flying ability or invulnerability to fall back on in case of trouble.
It's possible, however, that Richard is the exception that proves the rule: would most people in similar dire situations have done the same, or just have been content to wait for Superman to save the day? Note that in a world without Superman, they no longer have the latter option...
Does the world need Superman? I think Lois was on the right track by saying 'no'--we're better off without him, even if in the end Lois (for perhaps more emotional reasons than logical) seems to change her mind.
Random Notes & Comments:
(1) Richard White is played by James Marsden, who is one step away from being typecast after having been 'the other guy' opposite Superman, as well as similar 'other guy' roles in the X-Men movies, and "The Notebook" . It's too bad he seems to be the guy who never gets the girl (although he kind of does in this movie), but from a 'glass-is-half-full' perspective, if he's consistently attracting women of the caliber of Famke Janssen, Rachel McAdams, and Kate Bosworth, I guess he'll be okay...
(2) Direct parallels to Superman 1 (that I noticed):
- Similar style of opening credits,
- Similar plot with Luthor attempting to acquire prime real-estate,
- Same dialogue about flying being 'statistically speaking' the safest way to travel--from Superman saving Lois from the helicopter crash in I, and saving everyone from the plane crash in "Returns".
- Similar dialogue between Luthor and his female partner-in-crime ("Do you know what my father once said to me?" "'Get out!'?" "No, before that...")
