A movie with ideas so good, it only took about 10 years for them to supplant the character’s modern interpretation.
“Superman Returns” saw its wide theatrical release to the masses roughly 10 years ago.
Helmed by “X-Men” film alumn Bryan Singer, the film was meant to be something of a soft reboot of the franchise, using the general foundation of the first 2 Richard Donner films to tell a new series of Superman stories with the benefit of modern visual sensibilities, advances in technology for special effects, and over 25 years of new potential comic book stories to pull from that have brought the source material further in line with the best aspects of the iconic film series representing the character in pop-culture.
With his work on “The Usual Suspects” and the first 2 X-Men films, Singer has proven his worth as a fairly versatile and visual director, which along with his experience in the production of comic book movies and unabashed love of the original Richard Donner film, made him a no-brainer to handle a Superman reboot. Unfortunately, the final results led audiences to an opposite reaction than expected.
Between a perceived ignorance of developments in the source material in favor of developing a completely original story and a reverence for the first film leaving the movie itself to come off as more of a retread than a progressive new entry, “Superman Returns” opened to a lukewarm reception at the box office, ending plans to continue the Superman film franchise until 2013’s “Man of Steel” gave way to the DC Extended Universe.
“Superman Returns” gets quite a bit of flack from critics and filmgoers these days and not entirely for unjust reasons; taken independently at face value, the film demonstrates less of a love for Superman in general than it does a single vision of Superman that they then put through a ringer of plot elements that rehash the original film to a point of being downright formulaic.
The things that it gets right have been done already countlessly and the things that it brought to the table that were new had almost nothing to do with the comic books that the property was based on, in an era where superhero film adaptations were becoming increasingly faithful.
However, I would posit that Singer’s endgame with “Superman Returns” was not the film itself but rather the status quo that it would have to contend with for future installments. No better are the value of these ideas demonstrated than by simply taking a look at the comic books themselves 10 long years later.
As a part of the “Rebirth” initiative, the flagship Superman title has seen a shakeup under the authorship of writer Peter J. Tomasi.
Featuring the Superman of the Pre-New 52 DC Universe succeeding the New 52 Superman after the latter sacrificed himself in the line of duty, the new series features an older and more seasoned Clark Kent assuming his role as a protector and beacon of hope for Earth while maintaining his marriage to the Lois Lane of his universe and learning how to balance his life and duty with the struggles of fatherhood. His son, Jonathan assumes the vacant Superboy mantle and thusly learns from his father that while he doesn’t need to follow directly in his footsteps, he’ll need to learn about his Earth and Kryptonian heritage for whatever he decides.
The run is only nearing its 12th issue and is already one of the best runs of its title character’s history.
The family dynamic of the book falls in line with the characters logical graduation to a new point in life built upon a legacy of stories featuring him operating independently before gradually coming together with his significant other and learning more about the human experience through his own trials and the lives and fellowship of his peers in the superhero community, creating a character that is relatable and consistently curious to watch despite what he’s physically capable of.
In the form of Jonathan and their relationship, the critically acclaimed book provides an empathetic scenario capable of resonating with and producing a wide range of emotional reactions while simultaneously giving providing the character’s in-universe legacy with a metaphor that gets to the heart of why every piece of Superman’s iconography exists the way that it does.
This is something that “Superman Returns” never quite gets around to actualizing on but clearly sets up for exploration.
The film shows us certain vulnerabilities regarding the character that few stories have ever truly touched upon before or since. Unlike modern interpretations of the character that attempt to utilize this vulnerability as the crux of his entire character however, Singer’s film never forgets who Superman is.
Reception of Henry Cavill’s DCEU Superman which takes direct inspiration from Superman works of post-2011 has been polarizing at best; Arguments in his favor appear to be rooted in the idea that his power makes him unrelatable and that the only way to balance out this perceived disconnect is to manifest a sense of emotional instability through reckless and dangerous action.
Meanwhile, arguments against him believe the basis of the character to be founded more in the need for human aspiration; he’s not meant to be relatable but rather idolized, as the fact that we can never be as great as him shouldn’t deter us from trying and thus being the best versions of ourselves that we possibly can be everyday of our lives.
My position on the character in general and my unabashed distaste for this “contemporary” vision of Superman falls in line with the latter but my reasoning for said opinion comes up at something of a middle ground to the logic of both parties.
Superman is more than right to feel lonely and even emotional; he will always be unlike the rest of the planet that he was raised on and no matter what benefits he gains from what makes him different, that doesn’t always lead to happiness.
Like the kid who enjoyed going to school that was ultimately bullied by his peers, the model/actress that has to wonder with each relationship how much their partner loves them despite the money and fame, or the talented prodigy with aspirations and talent to boot that gets slammed back down to reality by the pragmatic relative that tells them they’re unrealistic for wanting to fulfill their destiny with their abilities, Superman’s strengths do not automatically translate into happiness.
What he doesn’t do however, is succumb to this. Like the many people that suffer through some sort of intangible but nevertheless very real problem threatening to drag them down, he soldiers onward with the unshakeable knowledge that protecting the well being of others whenever you can takes precedent over the reality that you can’t change and like a the average Joe combating disability or fatigue, he takes solace in his loved ones and uses that good will to guide himself forward.
His comforting mother Martha proclaims “even if you’re the last one, you’re not alone.” He returns to work, bumping into an older and slightly more callous Jimmy Olsen, who immediately becomes giddy and youthful upon realizing that his good friend Clark Kent is back and well, insisting that they bond after work.
His desire for a sense of belonging becomes fulfilled the moment he is needed to spring into action to the reception of cheering crowds of people despite arriving to a society that has celebrated an article breaking down why a Superman is no longer needed.
Superman draws hope, inspiration, and willpower to serve his purpose from the dear relationships of his life, which he returns in kind by doing everything in his power to ensure that the planet that took care of him is allowed to see a brighter future. Clark Kent isn’t just a disguise for the Man of Steel; he’s a symbol of everything that his beloved parents taught him was right and the person that he chooses to be when the world doesn’t need him to dawn the cape.
All of this culminates in the revelation that he apparently fathered a child, unbeknownst to him, before leaving to seek the answers about his heritage he so desperately wanted.
Through attempting to restore Lois Lane’s faith in him, he himself must also grapple with the reality of letting her go to pursue her happiness while also figuring out how to right by his son in the film, Jason, including potentially allowing him to live his life apart from his heritage until the time is right.
In doing this, he trusts the only other person like him on the planet to the better judgment of humanity, similarly to how he was raised.
Though compelling enough in and of itself through Singer’s framing of drama and striking visual imagery (the continuous shot of Clark floating above the atmosphere listening for trouble before blasting into action just about summarizes the character in my head), his reported plans of implementing sentient satellite of Kryptonian knowledge Braniac as an antagonist along with the newly growing Kryptonian land mass created by climax for the sequel, in addition to the conversations between Clark and Martha over whether or not there are any other Kryptonians out in the universe, lead me to believing that the stage could have been set for a Superman series the likes of which no other medium has provided before despite being grounded in elements of familiarity.
“Superman Returns” is far from a perfect movie. Even with the strength of its own merits combined with whether or not its long term gambit was worthwhile, the film is clearly approached by somebody intimidated by the legacy of its franchise, opting to play things safe.
While the film’s flaws have not undeservedly earned the movie a rocky reputation, it’s three dimensional portrait of its title character and his mythos are something worth reevaluating in the post-modern age of the “Dawn of Justice” debacle.
If nothing else, DC certainly thought so. The resulting story made for one of the best regular comic book series’ of the last 3 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment