One advantage of spending so much time watching a little blue render bar crawl across my screen is that it gives me the chance to work on Tumblr blogs without feeling guilty.
So here is my opinionated opinion on how a Superman film should be tackled.
I was trawling message boards earlier in the week, and came across a post alleged to be the plot of the new Superman film Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder (300 and Watchmen) and slated for release in the summer of 2013. While the veracity of this has been denied, portions of it do correspond to released production stills.
Either way, it seems in keeping with the way the character has been handled, and I'm afraid it does nothing for me.
I recently induced eye-rolling while at a King Lear cast party when I proclaimed, "I would rather watch a character I dislike do something I disapprove of for a reason I understand, than one I like do something I approve of for a reason I don't understand."
The example I gave was the difference between Batman and Superman. See, I think Batman is a dangerous loon. He is a vigilante with a sense of entitlement. No-killing policy or none, he is still a self-appointed thug. But he is interesting to write stories about.
Superman by contrast is fair, even, non-judgemental. But he is so dull!
I maintain part of this is how his role has changed since the late 70s and early 80s. As Batman was getting darker and edgier, so Superman was getting lighter and fluffier. The Judeo-Christian overtones in his character became ever more overt, even having him come back from the dead after he is killed by the monster Doomsday.
(He's got the whole world in his hands!)
He went from being a protector to a saviour. The problem is if you make a character as powerful and morally pure as Superman it is very difficult to wring interesting content from it.
What keeps Jesus in the New Testament from getting tedious is that he is conflicted about his destiny. He is prone to angry outbursts, and self-questioning.
Superman, by contrast, has wholly accepted his role as Earth's defender and, as well as being invulnerable, also seems immune to self-doubt.
From my point of view, Superman is much more strongly rooted in Greek than Christian mythology. For a start, Superman is a strongman like Heracles, Jason or Theseus. Secondly, once you assume Jor-El is an ancient god and Krypton is Mount Olympus everything else starts to fall into place.
He is a demigod. See, Jor-El has always been cool, aloof, distant. He expects his falable son to go to Earth and become its greatest champion. This also explains how I feel the Fortress of Solitude should be depicted (and was to an extent in Superman Returns) - it is not a glittering palace to take Lois Lane to for a romantic weekend, it is a mausoleum. Cold, austere, hard, like the ruins of a Greek temple.
By contrast, Clark Kent's human world is soft, warm, colourful. He is adopted by loving human parents. As with Achilles, then, he has the choice to live a mundane life and be happy, or live up to his full potential and be isolated. With a character who is invulnerable as Superman is, the only conflict can be ideological.
So why 1946? Well, first of all that I could have had my dream cast: Cary Grant (who allegedly inspired Siegel and Shuster) as Superman/Clark Kent, Katharine Hepburn as Lois Lane and James Stewart as Jimmy the photographer.
Look, everyone. It's Clark Kent and Lois Lane!
Also, I see the best era to set a Superman story as the run-up to World War Two and its immediate aftermath. This is a great way to put the character under pressure. If, as in Watchmen, Superman is asked to intervene to sway the war in favour of the Allies what does he do? He may have the power but does he have the right? He is, after all, here to protect all humanity, not just the interests of a few.
Also, by putting him on the cusp of the nuclear age, it is possible to see how truly awesome his power is, and comparing him to the atomic bomb.
From a visual standpoint, I also think the design of a film set in this era has great potential. In a world of greys, browns and khakis, the red and blue of his costume would pop even more vibrantly.
As poorly received as it was in some quarters, I actually thought there was of good to be said of Superman Returns, but it did feel over-long and often navel-gazing.
Warner Bros, I shall patiently await your call when you decide to re-reboot the franchise in three year's time!
No comments:
Post a Comment