Man of Steel Analysis

Man of Steel Analysis

It's rare that a Superhero film comes along that splits the film community right down the middle (however ludicrous and ridiculous the reasons may be). A film that some rate as a Masterpiece whilst others say is among the worst films of all time. Man of Steel is that film.

• Clark Kent/Superman (Henry Cavill) is not a god, he’s an alien from another planet yet he’s been raised as a human his entire life. He’s trapped between two worlds, he’s conflicted, unsure of where he belongs.
• Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) dissuades Clark from using his powers as a kid because he’s afraid of how the world will react to him.
• He can’t train him because he can’t have studied alienology at college and Kryptonians get their powers from the sun, he has no means of figuring this out so all his theories would be based on speculation. That means he has about as much knowledge of Kryptonians as you and me. Even if they tried training him in the barn or the backyard, all the unusual activities would more than likely get the locals asking awkward questions. He's just as confused as Clark is and he can only give him the advice he knows. It gives the father/son dynamic more realism as he doesn't always have the answer to every challenge Clark faces. To me this shows how rooted in a post 9/11 world Man of Steel is.

• When Clark asks him what he’s supposed to do about his heritage, Jonathan answers “maybe” because it’s not his decision to make about what Clark chooses to become, he can edge him in the right direction and tell him what he thinks. But at the end of the day, Clark will have to decide for himself.                                                                                                                 Anyone who criticises this characterisation/dialogue/action fails to comprehend the complexity of the situation. Any adjustments like Jonathan Kent simply saying “help people, no matter what,” just makes the story overly simplistic and lacking in coherence.

• The Military let Lois Lane (Amy Adams) interview Superman because she is a journalist duh! It’s her JOB to find out about these sorts of unusual creatures from outer space. In that way she can act as our audience surrogate and find out things we, as an audience and the military might not yet know…  as well as provide a human perspective. And before you say “oh but we don’t need an audience surrogate in a SUPERMAN movie”. Well,….  My answer is because “shut up!”
• Zod (Michael Shannon) and his Kryptonians bring Lois with them on their Scout Ship because she is a witness to Clark aka Supes, they can interrogate/question her/extract info from her as well as but not limited to mindreading, intel and use as leverage against Supes.

• People complain Supes doesn’t grow as a character. They say he never makes a choice(S) that defines his character. What they don’t seem to grasp hold of is that the Superman in this world is a guy who’s trapped between two worlds and has a responsibility of deciding the fate of both: he’s conflicted by the advice of his biological father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his adoptive father Jonathan, these two perspectives are constantly battling each other out. Ultimately he chooses his adoptive world over his birthworld – he even says it “Krypton had its chance.” The way I see it, we’re seeing this iteration of Superman evolve slowly over the course of several films. Why no one else can see that must be because Superman fans have severe brain damage and just expect Superman to act a certain way no matter what – which disturbs me.

• On the subject of all the destruction in Metropolis, so because it’s a Superman movie you were expecting Metropolis to be completely unscathed in a battle against Superpowered beings? What’s intriguing about this Superman is that he’s got all these amazing powers and doesn’t know how to handle/control them, he hasn’t been trained. He’s vulnerable and you get the sense he is a man working under pressure. So a rather large amount of property damage is not unexpected. The most popular counterargument I've heard is that there's humour and jokes to distract from it but that's bull and not really a counterargument it's more of a justification.       To paraphrase a good parapsychologist "Sometimes sh*t happens. The Avengers don't exist in this universe. The Justice League is not yet formed, someone has to deal with it and who you gonna call?                                                                                                                                       People claim that the Battle of Metropolis destroyed the entire city and that Supes was responsible for most of the destruction and being indifferent to the rest. What actually happened was that most of Metropolis was left completely untouched and the destruction seems worse than it actually is because of the amount of focus given to it as well as the fact that director Zack Snyder doesn't hold back from showing how terrifying it is from a civilian perspective. Also, Clark is also responsible for almost none of it as much of it was done by Zod or Zod's own personal world engine and Clark actually tried to lead him into space even made a point of avoiding buildings when he punched him at one point.                                             When it comes to indifference, he was way too busy trying to stop Zod who isn't exactly the easiest of opponents.

• On the subject of Supes “Not saving anyone in the battle” this isn’t The Avengers where there’re loads of people on hand to do hand over different parts of the operation. This is a SOLO act, he’s got his arms full, he can only save so many people. He just can’t save EVERYONE – that’s just plain unrealistic! Everyone was just expecting him to be a perfect goody-goody two shoes. If you honestly think that Superman “save no one”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EydFeuPK8.                                                              Having New York being destroyed in The Avengers is ok and cities being trashed in Pacific Rim – that’s ok. But Metropolis being obliterated – that unacceptable! It’s a double standard. It’s a F*cking double standard!                                                                                                    So the Hulk caused a tone of death due to his boundless rage during the Battle of New York did he?                                                                                                                                                    I suppose all the destruction in Man of Steel is a bit more extreme than Marvel’s Avengers movies but that’s primarily because the Kryptonians are Superpowered beings with humongous amounts of power compared to The Avengers who are comprised of heroes who aren’t as power as they are by comparison.                                                                                            Some argue the main difference is “Tone” because yeah tone makes all the difference doesn’t it. All of Supes "Destructive Saviour" tendencies get blown way out of proportion since he was only responsible for only a fraction of the devastation. Likewise with his decision to kill Zod as it was clearly the only option left!

• All these complaints represent the problem with rebooting a character as popular as Superman, we know him to well that any action he does that is from the comics, we treat as though it's a given/expected as opposed to natural development. 

• And now onto the subject of the “controversy”. I put this word in quotations because really, there isn’t any.                                                                                                                               As with most “controversies” in popular media, it’s just a bunch of fans complaining about stuff that just doesn’t matter.                                                                                               Superman killing Zod doesn’t bother me in the slightest!                                                        Why? Because for 1. I’m not a butthurt DC fanboy.                                                                     2. Superman was facing an enemy who’s one and only intention was to kill everyone.           One of them had to die. Zod was never going to stop. It was kill or be killed. Sometimes you have to do a bad thing for the right reasons.                                                                                     Captain America says it later on in Avengers: Age of Ultron: Being a Superhero comes with a cost. There have to be sacrifices.                                                                                        Superman was faced with a no-win situation, having to choose between the people of Earth and the people of Krypton. Superman made the ultimate sacrifice for the only world he has ever called home, having to regrettably kill not just a man, but a fellow Kryptonian and possibly the last of his own kind and because he values humans above all else, he will always be alone! But at the same time, it also makes him human; Superman realises he is imperfect and not above human and as a result won’t always have the answer to every challenge he faces. He becomes the stronger hero by accepting what he can’t solve in this world, whilst he seeks the answers to what he can.                                                                                                                             What really disturbs me about all this "controversy" is that Supes had a tough choice to make and audiences can't accept that he did it for a good reason, can only see that he took a life and now they're using it as an example of why this movie sucks.
• He chose to end the fight rather than let millions more lives be annihilated.                            And may I state that by killing Zod, he saved a family + the entire population of Earth from being obliterated!                                                                                                                     Even people who defend the scene admit that it's "not a Superman thing to do" to which I say "Who cares?"                                                                                                                                  I think it's a sign of Clark's transformation of becoming a hero and having to make the hard decision and him being bought up as a normal human being as well as Zack Snyder's attempts to deconstruct the tropes that have defined the character for so long and we see him beg Zod to stop and we can feel him not want to do this thing and ultimately it's something he goes through with and does anyway because he knows it's something he has to do.