LOVEFEST Man of Steel, pt. 2 – Response to the HateFest

Man of Steel is an interesting movie because it elicits very strong feelings of dislike in so many people. It is not like other “bad” movies, where people largely ignore its existent. Perhaps it is because of Superman’s status as an icon that so many that did not like the film are not content to let it pass as so many other “bad” movies do. Instead, at least online, many proclaim time and again how terrible the movie is.

I recognize that Man of Steel has its flaws and I’ll be the first to admit that it is not a perfect movie. However, the flaws I hear pointed out most often either 1. Objectively do not exist or 2. Are present in much more beloved iterations of the character. Given the level of ire Man of Steel generates, it feels as though sharing what I love is not enough, I need to respond to what others seem to hate so much.

COMPLAINT 1 – Superman Doesn't Kill!

Except here, here, here, and here. Superman has appeared in multimedia for more than 75 years. In 75 years of telling stories, he has done just about everything, including killing. In only his second appearance, Superman threatens a munitions manufacturer - “You see how effortlessly I crush this bar of iron in my hand? - That bar could just as easily be your neck!” Then after telling the man to leave town, he promises him that if he disobeys “I'll follow you to whatever hole you hide in and tear out your cruel heart with my bare hands!” Yes, in the intervening years Superman's original violent tendencies have been largely removed. But some of Superman's most acclaimed stories demonstrate his dark side. Just last year Injustice: Gods Among Us was welcomed to far more favorable critical reception despite its Superman having killed the Joker and others on his way to becoming a fascist dictator.

At least in Man of Steel, Superman's decision is shown to be agonizing. He is a good man given little other choice and it tears him apart to kill Zod. Just remember, by the time Superman finally decides to kill Zod, he has seen a vision of the earth covered in skulls, he has been informed of Zod's coup on Krypton and his true nature, he has seen that Zod is an equal match for him, and Zod has promised to destroy all he loves. Yes, he does it because Zod is about to kill others, but he also does it because of all he has learned about Zod throughout the film. At the very least, he certainly seems much more hesitant to kill Zod than Christopher Reeves' superman was.

COMPLAINT 2 – This Superman is reckless and destructive.

As Matt asserted in his recent article, this Superman seems to go from selfless do-gooder to reckless powerhouse. I understand that many have this perception of the film, but it is not backed-up by the evidence put on the screen. Superman goes from being a selfless do-gooder saving individual lives to a selfless do-gooder attempting to prevent any destruction by surrendering himself, to a selfless do-gooder who nearly loses his life to save the world, and then to a selfless do-gooder who fights a trained killer in the middle of a warzone in order to prevent any further losses.

Having watched and rewatched the movie in preparation for this essay, I noted only one time when Superman thoughtlessly attacked. That comes earlier in the movie, just before the battle in Smallville. Zod has attacked his home and is threatening his mother. In rage, Superman rushes him and flies through a grain silo, eventually crash landing through a 7-11. (The product placement is fairly bad). This is the first part of the movie where Superman is criticized for not taking the fight away from people. I could understand this argument if he was fighting one Kryptonian, but he's not – he's facing three highly trained soldiers who are at least as powerful as him. Yes, the military thoughtlessly fires on a rural U.S. Town, but Superman does nothing wrong. Zod and his minions know that Superman cares about humans and they don't. Faora says as much telling him that his weakness is a sense of morality. If he were to leave, one of the soldiers would follow after him while the others continued to destroy the town. Significantly, after his first attack on Zod, the majority of the destruction is caused by Zod and his minions, not by Superman. Also of note, Superman goes out of his way to save the U.S. soldiers who only minutes before were firing on him.

He's also accused of being reckless and not caring about human life during his final show-down with Zod. Watch it carefully again and you'll notice that the fight happens in the center of destruction already wrought by Zod and his World Engine. There was a machine literally terraforming the center of Metropolis only moments before. The destruction was already done before Superman got there. When he battles with Zod he throws him into exactly one building, a skyscraper that is still under construction. Yes, there are collisions with buildings, but they are the result of Zod's actions, not Superman's. Even ignoring the inherent issues of pace and structure, it is unclear to me how Superman could have more effectively limited the effects of the battle other than not having it. Given that Zod was the supreme military leader of an advanced civilization who was genetically bred for battle with at least equal strength and powers to those of Superman, and given that Zod had promised to kill all of mankind, it seems like actually fighting him was the right choice. By the way, I counted – Superman throws his enemies into a grand total of two potentially occupied buildings, the aforementioned 7-11 and a small bakery. Otherwise, the destruction is caused by the bad guys.

COMPLAINT 3 – This Superman doesn't save anybody.

Closely related to the other main complaints is that this Superman isn't shown saving lives. Well, at least later in the film. The first half is dedicated time and again to showing him save lives. When this is brought up I notice many refer to how The Avengers showed the superheroes going out of their way to save people as well as fight the Chitauri invasion. However, I think its important to address why this analogy is seriously flawed – there are six Avengers facing an army of henchman and one god.

In contrast, Superman is an untrained Kryptonian facing a small corps of highly trained Kryptonian soldiers who have been genetically bred to be soldiers. Yes, you can show Black Widow, Captain America, and Hawkeye ushering people to safety while Thor, Hulk, and Iron Man continue the fight but that's because there are others to keep up the fight. Superman is the only threat to the enemy, nobody else can face them. So, he must either choose to confront Zod and his soldiers or to save lives. If all six Avengers focused on rushing people to safety, the Chitauri would have killed far more people. Zod was never down for the count, if Superman had neglected him we would have done far more harm than Superman would have prevented by trying to get others to safety.

COMPLAINT 5 – A Batman Begins style journey does not work for Superman

From Matt Singer, "Superman, by definition, is perfect" and so sending him on a Batman Begins style journey does not work.  I'm sorry Matt, you're one of my favorite film writers, but this is not true.

While Superman is often portrayed as a Christ-like figure, especially in Man of Steel, the idea that Superman is, by definition, perfect is not true. Superman has never been portrayed as perfect, he is a man with god-like powers who seeks to do good. But time after time he makes mistakes, in the Richard Donner movies, in the animated series, and in the comic books, Superman is anything but perfect.

The premise for Mr. Singer’s conclusion having been refuted, the conclusion that a Batman Begins style journey doesn’t work is far weaker. For me it worked wonderfully. Of course an orphan who is adopted in a strange land and discovers he has strange powers would go through a journey of self-discovery. It seems like an obvious choice to me.

There is a lot wrong with this movie, but I love it anyway. Clearly, Man of Steel presents itself in a way that many people feel like Superman didn't do enough to save others. Having watched the movie time and again, I just don't think that what is actually put on the screen supports that reading. Matt highlights a statement from Jenny, when she says “he saved us!” and goes on to say “except Superman didn't save Jenny; her boss, Perry White, and his assistant, did.” She wasn't saying that Superman saved her, she was saying that she saved “us” meaning all of mankind. A machine powerful enough to end the world was doing just that. Superman used all of his strength to stop it, and he saved the world. Yes, he did save them all, and he did not drop the ball for almost everyone else. There was destruction in Metropolis, but an alien invasion and the end of the world were stopped.  

CONCLUSION

I know many disagree with me about Man of Steel, but at least it is a film that inspires passion and debate.  As for me, I can't wait to see where this story goes.  Bring on the Dawn of Justice.