I saw the new we-are-avoiding-calling-him-Superman-as-long-as-possible Superman film last night. Like many others, my expectations before the film's release had been high -- its cast and crew had pedigree and the trailers, drenched in stirring music and imagery, were highly effective.
Then release day came. And the rumblings of discontent could not be missed. It wasn't just from the fanboys. Many reviews were mixed, if not outright hostile.
Expectations duly lowered, in I went... (SPOILERS follow)
...and, in truth, probably enjoyed the film a little more as a result. If only I had done the same for The Phantom Menace.
Nevertheless Man of Steel remained an unsatisfying experience.
Why did it disappoint so? You could just say, "Well, it's not a great film" and, yes, there are some hokey moments1, eye-rolling bits of meaningless dialogue2. and plot-holes aplenty3 if you choose to look for them.
But there's something else at play. And it's do with the central character himself.
Superman...he's just a little bit silly, isn't he?
"He can fly! Yeah, and he's indestructible4! I know -- he's super-strong! Oh, oh, his eyes shoot lasers! Yeah! He's an alien, but..uhh, he looks just like us! And he gets his power from the sun somehow! Radiation, that'll do!"
This isn't a character, it is a child's power fantasy that got carried away.
Now, there are seemingly ridiculous premises to be found in many films. I'm not here to poo-poo the occasional stretch or imaginative leap -- it is amazing what an audience will go with after all. But ultimately the more of these unexplained and slightly daft ideas you cram into one story, the more difficult it becomes to maintain the audience's suspension of disbelief.
This is a particular problem for a "serious" take on the subject like Man of Steel.
Man of Steel is not a comic book concoction of zany characters and outlandish sets; it follows the Dark Knight trilogy handbook of grounded design and a recognisably adult world.
Yet this approach sets up a tonal clash at the heart of the film, the "sombreness" contrasting with the intrinsic shallowness and silliness of its main character (and his adversaries). An irreconcilable tension is felt throughout. Moments of dramatic depth in one scene are undercut in the next by the intrusion of characters like the dubiously-goateedEmperor Zurg General Zod, while the insistence on dour reality means the film-makers can never embrace the humour and fun that so endeared the original Richard Donner film to the public.
I was left with the overwhelming feeling of writers struggling against their material. They know Superman is a bit ridiculous5. Evidently keen to pull it in another direction, they tweaked some elements, removing, for instance, the belief-shattering notion that supposedly whip-sharp reporter Lois Lane could not notice the similarity between her colleague and the chap flying around in his underwear.
But I am not convinced they went far enough -- to make a serious Superman work perhaps more sacred Kryptonian cows needed to be slain. Would the fans have accepted that however6? And after all the changes had been made, would it even be Superman any more?
Man of Steel is by turns snigger-inducingly daft and yawn-inducingly pompous. It also looks spectacular, has some genuinely good acting performances and manages at times, despite it all, to entertain. Above all, however, the film reminded me of an important screenwriting truth, one not even the biggest budget can disprove -- a consistent tone, in which our characters and their actions fit the world in which we place them, is absolutely essential to an effective and enjoyable story.
Footnotes.
1. "The world's too big, mom!" Vomit.
2. "Evolution always wins!" What does that even mean!?
3. Why was Lois summoned onto Zod's ship again for example?
4. Yes, yes. Kryptonite, I know. But that is little more than a nasty allergic reaction to a clumsy plot device.
5. Come on, even his name sounds cheesy -- it's why the film avoids saying it so long.
6. Some are mighty peeved as it is -- "SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL!"
Then release day came. And the rumblings of discontent could not be missed. It wasn't just from the fanboys. Many reviews were mixed, if not outright hostile.
Expectations duly lowered, in I went... (SPOILERS follow)
...and, in truth, probably enjoyed the film a little more as a result. If only I had done the same for The Phantom Menace.
Nevertheless Man of Steel remained an unsatisfying experience.
Why did it disappoint so? You could just say, "Well, it's not a great film" and, yes, there are some hokey moments1, eye-rolling bits of meaningless dialogue2. and plot-holes aplenty3 if you choose to look for them.
But there's something else at play. And it's do with the central character himself.
Superman...he's just a little bit silly, isn't he?
"He can fly! Yeah, and he's indestructible4! I know -- he's super-strong! Oh, oh, his eyes shoot lasers! Yeah! He's an alien, but..uhh, he looks just like us! And he gets his power from the sun somehow! Radiation, that'll do!"
This isn't a character, it is a child's power fantasy that got carried away.
Now, there are seemingly ridiculous premises to be found in many films. I'm not here to poo-poo the occasional stretch or imaginative leap -- it is amazing what an audience will go with after all. But ultimately the more of these unexplained and slightly daft ideas you cram into one story, the more difficult it becomes to maintain the audience's suspension of disbelief.
This is a particular problem for a "serious" take on the subject like Man of Steel.
Man of Steel is not a comic book concoction of zany characters and outlandish sets; it follows the Dark Knight trilogy handbook of grounded design and a recognisably adult world.
Yet this approach sets up a tonal clash at the heart of the film, the "sombreness" contrasting with the intrinsic shallowness and silliness of its main character (and his adversaries). An irreconcilable tension is felt throughout. Moments of dramatic depth in one scene are undercut in the next by the intrusion of characters like the dubiously-goateed
I was left with the overwhelming feeling of writers struggling against their material. They know Superman is a bit ridiculous5. Evidently keen to pull it in another direction, they tweaked some elements, removing, for instance, the belief-shattering notion that supposedly whip-sharp reporter Lois Lane could not notice the similarity between her colleague and the chap flying around in his underwear.
But I am not convinced they went far enough -- to make a serious Superman work perhaps more sacred Kryptonian cows needed to be slain. Would the fans have accepted that however6? And after all the changes had been made, would it even be Superman any more?Man of Steel is by turns snigger-inducingly daft and yawn-inducingly pompous. It also looks spectacular, has some genuinely good acting performances and manages at times, despite it all, to entertain. Above all, however, the film reminded me of an important screenwriting truth, one not even the biggest budget can disprove -- a consistent tone, in which our characters and their actions fit the world in which we place them, is absolutely essential to an effective and enjoyable story.
Footnotes.
1. "The world's too big, mom!" Vomit.
2. "Evolution always wins!" What does that even mean!?
3. Why was Lois summoned onto Zod's ship again for example?
4. Yes, yes. Kryptonite, I know. But that is little more than a nasty allergic reaction to a clumsy plot device.
5. Come on, even his name sounds cheesy -- it's why the film avoids saying it so long.
6. Some are mighty peeved as it is -- "SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL!"
No comments:
Post a Comment