MAN OF STEEL: RESOUNDING HOLLOW

DIRECTED BY ZACK SNYDER 

STARRING: HENRY CAVILL, AMY ADAMS, MICHAEL SHANNON, KEVIN COSTNER, DIANE LANE, ANTJE TRAUE, HARRY LENNIX, CHRISTOPHER MELONI, RICHARD SCHIFF with AYELET ZURER, LAURENCE FISHBURNE and RUSSELL CROWE 

There is nothing about Man of Steel that we have not seen previously in the beginning story of any given superhero. And I believe when I say that, I am not judging it too harshly. We are in a superhero bubble. It is a time when everyone wants their pet superhero franchise running. Some want more than one, clearly. Christopher Nolan’s investment in Zack Snyder’s reboot of the Superman franchise – one more to DC, against Marvel’s shipload – is suggestive. Having directed the hugely successful Batman trilogy, Nolan teams up with buddy David S. Goyer to write the treatment for Man of Steel. 

The single biggest question on my mind – which I voiced out loud as well – as the end credits rolled was this: What was there in this story that it needed two people to write it? It is the sort of story that, if I told you play-by-play, I would still not have spoilt the film for you. Not any more than the promos would have done for you already. Let me disappoint you further by saying this: There is nothing more to Man of Steel than they have already shown to you on the teaser trailers, and I don’t know who is to blame for that – Syncopy films or its super-talented writing team, led by the inimitable David S. Goyer who is as good a writer as his Christian faith. We saw that in the Invisible (2007). We see it again in Man of Steel. 

Man of Steel has Superman tread the fine line in the Church and State question. America reconciles to Superman and further chooses to believe in him. He is the southern kid raised with the belief that great things are left to God and God alone. But then he could be God if he got around to it; if and when the time is right. Pa Kent (Kevin Costner) says so. In Clark Kent’s (Henry Cavill) life, he assumes a riskier position than Uncle Ben had with Peter Parker in the Spiderman universe. He assumes the role of the Father with full knowledge that he is not and that someday Clark would come to realize it as well. In fact, he would make sure that he does. It is sinful for a man to not know what he has been sent here for, especially when it has been pre-programmed and written down for him. And it goes like this: 

Go to Earth. Get raised in good faith. Find Lois Lane, for it was written in heaven that you should end up with her. Make Krypton live in you, cell-for-cell. 

I think it must be clear by now that I am only familiar with the Superman comics in as far as knowing they exist (seeing how I haven’t expressed outrage at factual inconsistencies). Maybe a little more. With this limited knowledge, I have always thought of DC’s Superman to be inadvertently similar to Nietzsche’s Superman. And while I would have gladly liked my misconception to be rectified, I did not expect it to be overthrown completely. Superman, after all, is what every human aspires to be, isn’t he? He has super-human strength. He see past things, he can hear things that are normally inaudible. Best of all, he can beat Earth’s gravity. He can just push off, if you see what I’m saying. 

A Kryptonian expat by the name of Faora (Antje Traue, does better in latex than Scarlett Johansson could ever have dreamt) taunts Superman in the middle of a duel – You are weak, because you believe in morality. That comes crashing. It had never occurred to me that this is one place where Superman departs from Nietszchean hero-morality. Superman is against evolution. He is the son of Jor-El (Russell Crowe), a Professor X/Martin Luther King Jr. type pacifist. He believes in coexistence – of Kryptonians and humans on Earth – conveniently excluding the fact that they are multitudes stronger than humans and that the Earth’s conditions nurture them in a way it can never do to us. This means Kryptonians would end up wiping out the human race in the survival of the fittest. 

Now, I do not know how much of it is from the comics, but we learn that Kal-El is the only child of Krypton who was born out of intercourse. Everyone else, including and especially General Zod (Michael Shannon, a tad too angry), are mass-manufactured – they are sons and daughters of Krypton who are hence bound to the betterment of their race. They do not have the conception of a Mother or a Father like Kal-El does. On top of that he has a sense of southern masculinity where he replaces Pa Kent as guardian and protector of his Ma(w) (Diane Lane). The result is some delightful man-to-man action where Superman shows Zod what would happen if he dared threaten his Mother.

Such scenes abound in Man of Steel, which are made for the excitable movie-goer. There is the interrogation scene where Lois Lane (Amy Adams) flirts like she knows her Superman more than anyone else. There is repeated mention of Superman as one under complete control of his powers, so much that for him to surrender, he must choose to. You let them put you on handcuffs? Lois asks him, bemused. Superman shrugs and says he had to give people the assurance that he was not above and beyond them. Moments later, in a burst of exasperation, he tells the FBI off saying he has been around for thirty-three years in the world and has not harmed anyone. If you do not see where I’m going with this, soon to follow is a scene where Superman goes to Church. He wants clarification. That he would risk his neck for the people of the Earth is certain. But could he trust Zod with his word? Superman walks out before the Pastor could say anything, but he runs after him asking him to take the leap of faith first. 

But then he needn't be told that. For he is (insert irritating Hans Zimmer-styled thumping here) the son of God.

Almost downright creationist, maybe even based out of the Genesis at places, Man of Steel has more ways to insult the viewer than merely though its painful clichés. Random picturesque shots adorn flashback sequences, adding to aesthetic value in a very Tree of Life way. These shots further elongate sequences where Clark – the kid, the adolescent and the helpless young man – beats himself down repeatedly wondering why he has been sent to planet Earth. To add to it are disgraceful lines that are high on intensity, low on meaning. It would have helped if there was a little more tongue-in-cheek humour that Cavill seems more than capable of. But no. Superman is the next-door introvert who keeps quiet because he is not sure if he has the right thing to say, saving people like that’s all his heart tells him to do. He would barbeque your truck on some electric poles and leave it behind as a thank you note rather than show some attitude.

And then the action sequences. Except for the final clash between Superman and Zod which has some ingenious CGI – you know you have reached the next level when you add shakycam to computer-generated imagery – the action scenes are straight out something like the Avengers or the Transformers series. I mean, sure America has seen a few skyscrapers fall. In Man of Steel, you lose count of those. You remember I spoke of a duel between Superman and the Kryptonian Faora earlier? Easily the hardest to follow, the most you can make of it are rings and blurs of red that say that Superman is being tossed around amidst flying debris. He takes a few, gives them back. We know the transaction happens although we never see it. And in the end, the Kryptonians leave – be it voluntarily, or sucked into a black hole. 

I read an interesting article that said Man of Steel holds the record for the most product-placements in any film, beating Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Other than a neat glimpse of Lexcorp hinting at a possible sequel, I don’t see how it makes sense. For instance, Superman consumes Budweiser. Superman uses Gilette, Toshiba and shops at Sears. Given the skilful hands the film rested in, it would have helped to incorporate the products better in the script – they could perhaps have done a self-parody for all its worth. A Superman movie being just another studio venture, to me, seems unacceptable.

Overall, Man of Steel has a very promising Superman in Cavill, a stellar Kevin Costner as Pa Kent – who is so good playing St. Joseph that it is most unfortunate he had to die the way he does – and a spell-binding last act that seems to be the Nolan trademark. There are a few more curious goings-on like the relationship between Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, the first Black man in the role) and Jenny, and hints of chemistry between Faora and the unstoppable Zod which might raise some eyebrows on comic book nerds. Otherwise, the only thing significantly original about Man of Steel is the rather distasteful beard that’s slapped on to Zod which – for a change – has David S. Goyer written on it.

ON HARD-BALL SELLING AND COMPULSIVE TECHNOLOGY

Peter Jackson, acclaimed director of the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, was in a bit of a pickle last year when he announced that he was going to shoot its prequel ‘the Hobbit’ at 48 frames per second – the usual and requisite amount is 24 fps. Digital projection systems are programmed to operate at 24 fps, which means that for ‘the Hobbit’ (to be released in two parts, in December 2012 and 2013) to hit screens later this year, they’d need an upgrade to facilitate the doubling of rate of projection. 

In addition, in what he dubs ‘the mega-epic pissing contest’, Film-Critic Roger Ebert (writing for the ‘Chicago Sun times’) takes the case of James Cameron (‘Titanic’, ‘Avatar’) who has come out saying that he’s planning to film ‘Avatar 2’ at 60 fps! He also adds with detail on how almost 17000 screens across North America are ‘already’ potent enough having done what’s necessary and are set to project images at 48 fps with a surcharge to be added to the basic cost of the movie ticket. About 39000 screens, he says, would have to do the same by the end of the year, and they’d all together have to be prepared when Cameron brings his bomb along in 2013. 

If this was a pissing contest, they’re crossing streams; it’s pouring on our faces. 

Now, it’s common knowledge that 3D projection had, by itself, caused a hike in ticket price in the past, for a decrease in brightness and picture-quality – for which you don’t need statistics to substantiate. All you have to do is lift your glasses the next time you’re at the theatre. That should help distinguish to yourself the film you wanted to watch from the one you were made to. 

Worse is the fate of enduring a film that has merely been ‘3D-fied’ as opposed to a film that was born so. There are films shot in 3D (like ‘Avatar’) and there are those which incorporate 3D elements through post-processing (like ‘Clash of the Titans’). The comparison is akin to that between a good photograph and one that’s Photoshopped – there’s something lowly about the latter that you can tell but you don’t have enough to file a complaint. The technology is new, it seems exciting; kids love it, parents don’t seem to have a choice – ‘Schindler’s list’ doesn’t play in theatres anymore. Martin Scorsese has endorsed it, with specific reference to Georges Melies’ idea of Film as ‘Spectacle’ in ‘Hugo’, his own authentic contribution to the 3D universe. 

It’s like the surgical procedure that a Good Doctor showed and the quacks of the world were quick to claim license to carry it out on their own. 

We’re days past the premiere of arguably the most awaited movie event of a decade, made by a man who has constantly turned 3D down with a different plan for grandeur in mind. I say ‘decade’ with comfort because I’m sure they didn’t ‘wait’ for movies, back in the day. Today, people play audience to a Trade Fair at home, on TV sets and the internet and it’s like the title-credits are losing out to pre-release marketing as far as ‘first impressions’ go. Speed-Dating seems to have won the People’s Choice award trumping good old-fashioned meet-cute. Trailers are ‘pleasure Bots’ in this lucid dream that plays out like a Philip K. Dick novel of man causing his own disappointment. 

I was as eager to watch ‘the Dark Knight Rises’ as it hit the screen on the 20th of July. But I hate to think my interest in it needn’t have been my own. I don’t know how much of it was ‘felt’ and how much ‘drilled into’ my head against my will – it’s like second-thoughts in the middle of a leap of faith as a voice inside says ‘suicide’. The film has been around for a year almost, debuting online with a teaser that ‘leaked’ and a Prologue last fall as popularized by director Christopher Nolan, having started it with the last instalment, ‘the Dark Knight.’ 

My opinion on the film aside, there’s no doubt that Nolan, with such impressive films as ‘Memento’, ‘Insomnia’ and ‘Batman Begins’ to his credit, would come up with (fairly) engaging fare. Isn’t the hype, in that case, a sort of insistence upon a point that has already been made? 

But then Nolan doesn’t believe in 3D. He’s wary of the ill-effects. In a time where the most obscure of family fare comes slapped with the 3D tag like free candy, it almost appears noble that he denounces it. Or is it? 

An IMAX ticket (in a report by Penn Manor High School) costs about $15.50 (for adults). A regular movie ticket costs about $9.50, while a DVD, let out a few months post-release, costs about $15. I don’t even need to point you to the outrage. Of course, this isn’t a move on my part to question the filmmaker’s intentions. He insists on spectacle, where the spectacle exists by itself; it merely needs to be told. He’s someone doing the telling. I understand. I’m a lover of this spectacle and wouldn’t intend blasphemy. 

Isn’t it a semi-fantastic, wishful thought to say that, though, these days? A more appropriate line would be to say that “the spectacle is manufactured and exists to be sold.” The Weinstein Company would counter-sign it with MPAA approval. 

I’d like to close this write-up with a line from Chomsky’s ‘the Common Good’ (1998), the context being how we fancy ourselves to be in an age of uprising against the totalitarianism of institutions, be it a State, an Education system or even the Entertainment industry; how we think nothing escapes our sensibility, even if not our attention. 

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” 

In other words, Christopher Nolan is smart. Peter Jackson is smart. James Cameron is smart; the Weinsteins are smart and so is the MPAA. 

The big question here is “Are we?”

THE SHEER DELIGHT OF WATCHING HIM RISE

DIRECTED BY CHRISTOPHER NOLAN 

STARRING: CHRISTIAN BALE, ANNE HATHAWAY, TOM HARDY, MICHAEL CAINE, GARY OLDMAN, MORGAN FREEMAN, JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT with CILLIAN MURPHY, JOSH PENCE and LIAM NEESON 

I liked ‘the Dark Knight Rises’ in much the same way that I liked ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II’ and I trust that by saying that I mean no one any discredit. I had always wondered if J.K. Rowling had thought things through to completion before she even began with the franchise – it’s a mystery that has so far been unexplained. But I know for a fact in the case of Christopher Nolan that nothing was preordained. The script to the third film was ‘cracked’ as he puts it; the ends were tied. And it all comes down to how well he could do it. 

So how well has he done it? We shall have to look at the source material for that, regardless of the fact that the screenplay is original and penned by Nolan along with brother Jonathan. The film introduces three characters from various phases of the Batman spectrum as published by DC comics, but the focal point as far as I could see was in the introduction of Bane as a physical counterpart to a fairly weakened Batman. Bane seems to have first appeared in a comic called ‘Knightfall’ where he’s famous for having broken Batman’s back – it was a moment’s half-smile to see the scene repeated on screen, rather religiously. 

Bane (Tom Hardy) breaks Batman’s back, Selina Kyle has his. Nolan has always done a wonderful job of giving comic characters enough human features to inspire empathy in all. Even in the most apathetic character of his – the Joker – he could bring about understanding, if not get us fit our feet in his shoes. Selina, played by Anne Hathaway enhancing the shades of haughtiness we saw in ‘Havoc’, is as capable of vulnerability as Batman wears on bat-suit sleeve. Bane, we see, is capable of some of his own as well. All these people are humans behind their masks where not all who are unmasked are as human as we might see them to be. We had Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson) and Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, who returns for a rather pointless, but exciting, cameo) in ‘Batman Begins’ as examples. In ‘the Dark Knight’ we had Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). That we have yet another in ‘the Dark Knight Rises’ is all I shall say at this point in time. 

Why I felt the need to consult source material was to show the ropes of responsibility that seem to have tied Nolan to the wall as he wrote this screenplay. For all you know, the ropes could be his own, where he wouldn’t want to do injustice to the film from two angles very dear and extremely competent – the previous two films on the one hand, the comic books on the other. There are two loose ends that he’s tied together with fond recollection and a lot of nostalgia inspired by means of spirituality that goes back to ‘Batman Begins’. There’s also a vague rekindling of the Joker’s famous social experiment from ‘the Dark Knight’ that doesn’t work as well the second time around. 

Nolan, thus, looks over his shoulder with a perpetual eye on the past as he makes his way ahead. The result is a heavily-directional pile of sequences that do little but propel the story forward. One of the most fundamental of reasons as to why I liked ‘Batman Begins’ was the power of its scenes where every single one of them stand out. ‘the Dark Knight’, I thought, was a close match, and it is in this aspect that ‘the Dark Knight Rises’ is a little bit of a letdown. I’ve always seen Nolan to be a man capable of bursts of genius alongside constant action so that the bar-chart doesn’t hit a low anytime. But ‘the Dark Knight Rises’ is a little too active for its own good. It’s like he shot a lot of scenes and found a way to fit them in on the editing table. 

Of course this doesn’t imply a complete lack of glory. Batman contributes to ample heroism in the limited screen space he has (Bruce Wayne dominates, even though not as convincingly as he did in ‘Batman Begins’). Selina Kyle does justice to a cameo stretched to the limit with one-liners that thrive on Hathaway’s grace. Bane has his moments in that, as I mentioned before, he’s almost a sort of body double; someone who could match Batman blow-by-blow. There is suspense that’s kept alive right up to the end and there is ambiguity, some cheeky stuff as well, which Nolan has proven, time and again, to be capable of. And then there are scenes that cry for attention as though they’ve been compelled to exist – like the one snapshot that’s supposed to sum up the spirit of the film on the whole, which looked posed and arranged than natural. That didn’t stop me from screaming myself hoarse at it, though. 

I disapproved of Nolan the last time he tried his hand with a big haul of actors (‘Inception’, to be specific). This isn’t to say he didn’t manage to ‘pull it off’ but to say that he does just that. In ‘the Dark Knight Rises’ we have too many characters with too little time – to an extent that one of them has to sleep with Mr. Wayne in a show of desperation. If it’s not fair on part of the characters, it’s even worse on the actors’ front. Aside from regulars Michael Caine (whose Alfred, this time, lacks the usual spice of sarcasm on a melodramatic high), Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox, who looks too composed for one put in a spot) and Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon spends too much time on a comfy hospital bed as the rookie runs around), we have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Det. John Blake who interns with the Batman before recruitment for a permanent job. And we have Miranda Tate, a pioneer of Fusion Energy at Wayne Enterprises, a role that Marion Cotillard, I thought, shouldn’t have been cast in. 

 If there’s one thing I’d give Nolan total credit for, it’s that he knows his action choreography. Ben Affleck ('Gone Baby Gone', 'the Town') is the only other name that comes to mind when I think in those terms. ‘the Dark Knight Rises’ has more than usual – some too dull at times to put on the same pedestal as the man behind them. I could deal with that, though. This is, after all, a two-and-a-half star movie that gets three for the show. Except I’d give it four because I love Batman like that. And for Hans Zimmer and for the love of cheese.