If you don’t want to hear about the most recent Superman movie, stop reading.Ostensibly this isn’t really about Superman, its about me having a bad day, but it involves Superman, so deal with it.
I went to a party this evening. My boss has gotten a new job, a big promotion. So, she had a party to commenerate the event. Her husband, lets call him Bob, is a nice fella; I like him, I really do. Tonight at the party, as it started to wind down, Bob came over to hang with the graduate students. Chit-chat happened, as it is wont to after a pleasant evening and several bottles of wine. Me, and the other graduate students had been gabbing for a while. We ran the gambit from Super NES to XBox 360 (I recognize that the gambit was limited to video games).
Bob was down. It was his 360 that spurred most of the conversation. At some point we started talking about movies. And at some point something I said about movies really rubbed Bob the wrong way.
This doesn’t entirely surprise me. I am a bit of a movie fiend. And, for all that I will watch virtually enthing that even marginally qualifies as a “film” I have a tendancy to get nit-picky about what I like.
[in order to be purely up-front let me reveal some ratings. Not all, just the ones that might make a difference. Movies that I think count as Tens: Galaxy Quest, Le Femme Nikita, The Terminator, Wrath of Khan, Chinatown, High Plains Drifter, About a Boy, Heathers, The Life Aquatic, The Godfather, Amelie, Die Hard, Magnolia, Raising Arizona, Time Bandits, Brazil, Moulin Rouge. Movies that I OWN that I rank below ___: Showgirls, Raw Deal, Waking Life, Cutthroat Island, Cannoball Run, Showdown in LIttle Tokyo, They Call Me Bruce, Hackers, Logan's Run, Volunteers. You might wonder why I own movies that I think are that bad. Well, wonder for another day, I ain't explaining it. Its merely stated in terms of full disclosure.]
The so-called Bob asked about Superman Returns. I seriously dislike that movie. I have friends that hate it because it is, in their mind a remake of the original. Lex has the same plot the same motives, and the same desires. I don’t dislike it for those reasons. In fact, I think that makes a lot of sense. Lex Luther ought to have the same set of concerns; he is, after all, the negative. He is the criminal character, the one we are meant to dispise and dislike. Lex is the villian.
Superman, on the other hand, has characteristics that I HATE. For starters, Superman hits on a married woman. Now, for those of you who are nitpicky, you’ll point out that Lois Lane is not, in fact, married. No, she is just living with a man, with whome she owns a house, and with whom Superman believes she has a child. IF you really want to make that distinction, you go right ahead. As far as I am concerned, that makes her married.
Marriage is to be in a committed relationship. I do not think marriage is limited to strictly the lgeal or religious standing that it has come to have in light of recent attacks on the right of homosexuals. The marriage vow is a proclomation, a public claim to honor the conditions of a relationship. If you haven’t noticed that I am suggesting that it has absolutely nothing to do with any particular cermony then you do now. If you haven’t noticed that I am suggesting that anything less is a farse then you do now. If you haven’t noticed that I am suggesting that one can be married without having stoof in a church then you do now.
Bear in mind, I made no such claims earlier this evening. And I certainly didn’t make anything like the stringent, agressive claims I have just made here. No, I said that Superman has always been a moral paragon. I didn’t think that this claim was too terribly controversial. Granted I fell out of the comic arena for some time but even the post-modern influence hasn’t seemed to have that drastic effect on the man of steel. Sure, he died, but they never had him engage in any overtly wrong action without there being some reason or cause. Again, I am not current on superman, but look at all the movies and all the old cartoons, serials, and comics; Superman never intentionally does wrong.
Its one of the reasons that Superman is so boring. He was invincible and always right. Batman, on the other hand, had his entire genesis in tragedy. His character was always vengence, regardless of whether or not that was evident from the BIFF! BAM! POW!. Superman’s father was so sure of his own intellectual virtue that he sent his only son away from the planent of his birth. The kansas farm boy never, ever strayed from the moral center of our idealogical character.
My criticism of the movie is that Superman ceases to be the kind of character that we want to live up to. Superman becomes average. This might in itself be a wonderful critique of the world as we understand it. It might be a way of re-envisioning the character. But if you admit that than you must, simultaneously admit that it is a critique or re-envisioning. Superman has never had these characteristics before.
Whether or not I am, in the full on nerd-o-matic comic store geek-festival sense, correct about this analysis is mildly unimportant. It is enough that it be a reasonable position to have about Superman. Or, even, that it be an arguable position to have about Superman. I am willing to engage in the argument.
You see, Superman, in the most recent movie, 1. hits on a woman that he thinks is in a committed relationship and 2. becomes a dead-beat dad. Superman does not, when he first makes his move, have any reason to believe that there is anything not kosher about Lois Lane and Cyclops. Nor does Superman have any reason to believe that the child is his. But even when it turns out that Superman has a son, Superman must forever deny his childs’ existence, otherwise he runs into exactly the same problem he had with Lex towards the end. The boy, and Lois, can be used against him. Just like Spiderman’s care for Mary Jane (which, if you care, I think was properly expressed. Anybody that dislikes Raimi’s version of Spiderman can lick me).
Bear in mind that I have NEVER liked Lois Lane. Primarly because she doesn’t care for Clark, she only cares for Superman. That is, she doesn’t like the individual that exhibits all the characteristics that she claims are important, she likes the individual that has power. I think she is shallow, not as a charcter, as a person.
So, when you ask me what I thought about Superman my response is that the film destroy the image of Superman. It takes what used to be a moral paragon and turns him into a filandering dead-beat dad.
Apparently this criticism was not the kind Bob wanted to hear and, after some discussion, I was called an “asshole,” who needs to get off my moral high ground. I tried to find out where I had misstepped but that led to more trouble. I was asked to define “hero.” I wasn’t entirely sure what the question was asking for and Bob wasn’t willing to hear any counter-questions. When I finally described “hero” the response was seemingly inaccurate. That is, my claim that a hero is someone who behaves in a way that is commendable and is the kind of person that we want to emulate and that we desire to be like, that pretty much ended the conversation.
Now, it might seem like I am writing this because I am pissed off, and, be honest, I kind of am. And, truly, I want to state my position on the whole topic for the record. I am not against a post-modern re-interpretation of comic-book heroes. I just think you miss the point when you do it to Superman. But, it is really about me being really upset about having stepped over a line that I didn’t know existed.
That is, I insulted my boss’s husband. And while I don’t really give a hoot about the poltical implications of that I am bothered that I have upset someone that I not only have no reason to upset but that I actually like. Futher, I feel that it would be inappopriate for my boss to apoligize for her husband’s behavior (he had way more to drink than me). And this not merely because it would put me in hte awjward position of having to accept an apology but because it admits to a kind of notion of emabrrassment that I do not cotton to.
Individuals are responsible for their behavior, not the people they know, are related to, or are married to. It is a kindness to apologize when one’s spouse gets out of hand but to feel that one must apologize is to treat the behavior of others as under your control. It is, in a very real sense, paternalistic. It is exactly the kind of thing that my step-mother would get all uppity about. “You embarrassed me in front of my friends” is to treat the offending person has somehow subservient to your hopes, dreams, desires, and whims. Truly autonomous agents ought never embarass you, in a moral sense (psychology is hard to overcome).
Apoligizing for another should be about your particiaption; “hey, sorry I brought that jack-ass to your party. I thought he wasn’t such a schmuck” not that the behavior of an external agent somehow reflects upon you (or is dependant upon you).
So, what am I saying? I had a bad night. I said some stuff that upset someone that I didn’t want to upset and now I am put into an uncomfortable position. I want to, and in fact have apologized, but I fear that in doings so I will have called attention to what happened in a way that will necessitate a response, the kind of which that I do not think should be offered and certain the kind that I did not desire.
Moral: Superman Returns is a disappointment.
probably everyone who is going to read this has had an arguement with you at some point in the past. I know I have, and I’m relatively certain that I have called you asshole as well. That being said, you have tons of friends who you anger in arguement, but love you anyway. So if so-called Bob dislikes you because of your moral high ground, or even you goat like stuborness, he just hasn’t gotten to know you well enough yet. Perhaps the situation doesn’t call for an apology, maybe it is just a drunk arguement about superman, with lots of superlatives. And despite your defending of your points in the superman arguement, how important is that stuff in terms of your interpersonal relationships . . .
Well, I think you argued very well why Superman Returns completely missed the entire mythos of Superman. I didn’t see the movie and don’t plan to, but I did read the book. It was only after I talked with Polly that I learned of the Superman’s kid thing…they completely glossed over that in the book.
I totally agree with your analysis of Lois Lane…which is why I always preferred Lana Lang, she was in love with Clark and then later found out about the Superman connection. Lois was just an unattractive, aloof bitch who completely dismisses Clark and only gets off on the guy who can fly.
I didn’t like the Superkid angle because that meant that Superman and Lois were having sex right up until he left for Krypton. And he just bailed? Superman? No “See ya later”? Nothing? Please. And I’m not sure I buy that he would sleep with her and not reveal that he was Clark.
The effects look nice in the trailers, but I’m glad I didn’t see it in the theaters. I think I’d rather watch the Justice League Unlimited TV show.
I always liked that Superman was the “boy scout.” He was the unwavering good guy. He would play by the rules always and never tell a lie. Contrary to Batman who had no problem breaking certain rules, told lies now and then, but still had a strict moral code that he didn’t violate.
It’s like the writers decided to make him more real. “Nobody would act like that.” Well, that’s the point. He’s better than normal people. He doesn’t allow himself to do things like that. He holds himself to a higher standard than most. I mean, seriously, there’s a huge Jesus allegory with Superman. Sent to Earth by his wise and powerful father to save mankind from itself…raised by surrogate parents…both man (Clark) and god (Supes) in one person…of the highest moral fiber…willing to sacrifice himself to save others. I mean, is that the kind of guy who is going to be chasing a married woman? (I agree that she is as good as married to Richard White.)
The book also had a big subplot about Mrs. Kent (the widow) being in a relationship with a guy from Smallville and planning to sell the farm and move to Montana…all of which is revealed to Superman the morning he returns to Earth.
I don’t know. I guess the guys making the films didn’t really like Superman and wanted to change it all up. But, if that’s how they felt then why not make a movie about a diff characater? What about Green Arrow? I’m sure he’d have no problem hitting on a married woman who he skipped out on years earlier…in fact, that sounds JUST LIKE a green arrow story.
Bleh, I’m glad i didn’t see it. And don’t worry, you were 100% in the right on that one. I would expect nothing less from you than to argue to the end, and hopefully with large doses of condescending laughter.
I realized one of the main things that bugged me about the movie. They treated him like a Marvel character…and he is not. Marvel characters are more “realistic”, in that they seem to be just like regular people with powers. Only Captain America seems to rise above all that, everybody else in the Marvel Universe is just chock full of faults and shortcomings. And, given the fact that this director is the same guy who directed the X-Men movies…well, a hero is a hero, right? No. DC Heroes are a completely different breed. A lot of the DC comics seem anachronistic at times because the heroes still hold that good guys don’t do bad things. If you are a hero, that means more than just that you can break things or you have metal claws…in the DCU heroes are champions of good and protectors of the innocent. In the Marvel Universe, heroes fight. Sometimes they fight bad guys, sometimes they even fight good guys…a lot of times they just fight whoever they meet up with, including each other. That’s one of the main reasons I liked Marvel comics when I was younger, there was always more action, but after a while I realized what I really liked were stories and characters who did more than just throw punches and smash buildings. Hence, Superman is a favorite of mine…along with Martian Manhunter, Batman, Green Lantern, Green Arrow. They are heroes. DC Heroes…and all that that implies.
Oh, and what the hell is that crap about Superman getting stabbed?? WTF? I know it was Kryptonite, but that’s just stupid. If you are gonna do that, then at least make it a new color of Kryptonite. Maybe he can be stabbed with silver Kryptonite or black Kryptonite, but green Kryptonite doesn’t work like that. I know when they make a movie from a comic they take certain liberties with the character and the storyline, but seriously…Kryptonite is pretty well understood by most people. It’s similar to radiation that only affects people from Krypton…it makes them weak and sick and in large doses could kill them. It does not make them suddenly vulnerable to stabbings. Maybe over a long period of time it might weaken him to a point that you could stab him, but not the way they did it in this case. Jesus, read some comics before you make the movie!!!
And speaking of needing to read some comics:
This Spider-Man comic strip has a problem. Can you spot it? It’s not the fact that he is so much shorter than everyone else…not that his costume’s webbing is a little off…not that the perspective in each of the panels is nigh-on redonkulous. No. It’s the fact that a 7 foot, 350lb giant chauffeur just snuck up on Spider-Man and knocked him out cold with a lead pipe! Hello?! What the fuck happened to Spider-sense?! Or his ears and perifireal vision? God almighty! You could’ve had Stevie Wonder in that Spider-Man costume and he would’ve known Col. Mustard was “sneaking” up behind him!! I mean, the whole point of “Spider-sense” is that you can’t sneak up on him. He knows when branches are about to fall from trees or when someone is going to wreck their bike…and he can’t hear the linebacker comin with the pipe? That’s sad. It’s even more sad that I’m so pissed about it. Bleh.
Damn, now my geek-sense is tingling.
Spider-Sense
OK, I’ll shut up now.
And no, I cannot spell “perifireal”.
Man, I am with you on this, mostly. The DC universe has always been much more about good/bad, right/wrong dichotomy whereas Marvel has always been much more about the action. When I was a kid I tended to like the DC comics better, I think precisely because the good guys were good. But as I grew up I found that I liked the characters with more depth. That is, the good guys who are just good, they have to work at it.
Good guys rarely have ethical dilemmas, they always know right from wrong. The only time they do have a dilemma is when its between two goods or two bads. In Superman 1, Supes had to choose between saving the west coast and saving Lois, his dilemma. I think this gets boring and unrealistic after a while. And it goes back much farther than comics, the Lone Ranger was exactly this kind of hero. Its actually one of the things that John Ford and Sam Peckinpah did for westerns, they brought in the anti-hero. Clint Eastwood turned this into a career. But don’t take that as some kind of indictment; I love the issues raised in these later westerns. I could talk for hours about them.
But back to comics. I can think of only one DC comic that I actually collected, with the exception of Batman and of those it was mostly The Dark Knight Returns series. Why? I think its because he constantly struggled between the good and the bad; somtimes doing good by being bad and sometimes doing bad by being good. Marvel Characters were always much better at that. The one DC that I collected was Green Lantern (Hal Jordan). To be honest, I still like the concept of this character, his power comes externally from the ring, but its usefulness is limited to his imagination and his strength of will. That is a really neat part of the character, a strong will. Ignore for a moment that, philosophically, I am relatively uncertain what the hell a “will” is, Hal Jordan was a super heroe because of the strength of this will, the ring just made it possible for him to fly. I bet you could write a series of stories with Hal as a heroe but without the super part. Like a true “what if Guy had gotten the ring” story (maybe they already have, I stopped reading before Hal went insane and became a force of nature).
But, for all that I liked Hal, he never had the interesting dichotomy of Silver Surfer or Namor. Namor especially went back and forth from being a good guy and being a bad guy. I want them to make the movie with him so badly and I am so afraid that they are going to completely and utterly screw him up.
It is the struggle that I think is interesting; the drive for good but the lure towards bad. Marvel has just been better at that, I think. Granted there are folks more well versed on comics than I who might be able to point out all the ways that I have overlooked stuff.
Some addendum stuff: 1. This issue is why I like the new Spiderman movies so much, I think Raimi really understands the heroe problem; it may be corny but the “with great power comes great responsibility” line was taken seriously in the creation of those movies. 2. Its why I have never gotten into comics like The Punisher and Ghostrider. Those characters are about vengence, the issue of right and wrong and the roles we need to play in order to achieve justice are never really an issue. Someone has done wrong, now wrong will be visited upon them. I think its more boring than guys who always know what is right.
So, in closing, I think I completely agree with you except that I think characters like superman are too one dimensional. So, in a sense, I don’t agree with you at all.