"Superman Returns" was supposed to blow.
In the 19 years since the last "Superman" debacle, various story treatments had Superman being killed by a mutated Lex Luthor, refigured as a neurotic afraid of his own powers or from a Krypton that didn't explode. Thankfully, the comic book gods saw fit to boot such misfits as Nicolas Cage and Brett Ratner. Instead, Bryan Singer got the gig.
Singer, as fellow comic nerds know, is the guy who did such a masterful job on the first two "X-Men" films. But could he make the switch from Marvel to DC? "X-Men" is all about outcasts and prejudice. "Superman" is more elemental, more pure -- still about alienation, to be sure, but the hero is celebrated rather than reviled.
Fortunately, Singer gets that. Only, maybe he gets it a little too well.
In Singer's vision, the Man of Steel has a bit of a messiah complex. Or maybe Singer himself, or screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Wells, do. The Superman-as-Jesus metaphor is wrapped around the film tighter than Supes' codpiece. (Wow, that might be a little inappropriate. Oh well, it's late.)
That idea's nothing new, though it's more likely that Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster had the immigration experiences of Jews in mind more than a Son of God pastiche. But my word, does Singer lay it on a bit thick with countless images of Superman floating with his arms outstretched, a pivotal scene that might as well have taken place on Calvary, and much ado about fathers entrusting their sons with the future of humanity.
I had no idea when I made an offhand joke to my friend Sue during the previews about "The Nativity" being a prequel to "The Passion of the Christ" that we were about to see "PotC's" sequel, replete with more resurrection imagery than your average Easter pageant.
It works, heavy-handedly as it's sometimes done. Singer gets how to make comic book heroes relevant on film, just as he gets how to translate 2-D action into glorious 3-D special effects. The cast, which I'll deal with later, is almost great, with a few reservations.
More later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey Chip, just realized you were blogging. Glad to see it. I haven't made itto see Superman yet..hopefully tomorrow. I have already been hearing a lot about the Messiah thing and personally it sounds like a good turn for the series to take. The problem with Superman has always been that he's too perfect, which makes for a prettyuninteresting character, which is why you see him get the weirdest supporting characters and some of the more interesting global problems to deal with in the comics. Extending the "Savior of Humanity" aspect further brings a lot more depth to a pretty dull character.
Ever read the old Alan Moore/Neil Gaiman Miracleman series? Now *that's* what I want in a Superman movie!
I'll comment a bit more after I actually see the thing. I was hoping to see Scanner Darkly tonight, but no-go till August I guess. The art show it is!
See, I've never found the character particularly dull -- when he's handled right, at least. (See the current One Year Later storyline in Superman and Action Comics, for example.)
But what I liked about the movie is that Superman was conflicted about his role as the "Savior of Humanity." It goes back to the central conflict of his human and Kryptonian sides, which is always fascinating to me. Duality is a rich concept to me -- a personal one, too.
That said, I'm also into decontstruction of these kind of ideas, too, which has always made me want to read the old "Miracleman" stuff and which made me love Moore's take on "Supreme" a few years ago. Definitely worth seeking out.
I'm looking forward to "A Scanner Darkly," too, but the delay in its arrival here at least gives me time to read the book.
Post a Comment