Sunday, June 30, 2013

God of Carnage


Zack Snyder (with some assistance from Christopher Nolan) does some interesting things with one of the most archetypally America superheroes, Superman, in Man of Steel. While movies have traditionally presented Superman as the icon of Truth, Justice and the American Way, Man of Steel gives us a questioning hero, a drifter who has not yet defined himself in relation to his environment even if he has an idea of inevitability.

The film opens with an extended segment set on Krypton, home planet of Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his wife Lara Lor-Van (Ayelet Zurer). Unfortunately, Krypton is also home to the militant General Zod (Michael Shannon), and in the time honoured fashion of clearly differentiating the good guys from the bad, Jor-El speaks in an English accent while Zod is unmistakeably American. We soon find out that Krypton is doomed, but Jor-El’s baby boy Kal-El is saved from planetary destruction and sent into space to eventually land on earth.

Grown-up Kal-El, going by the name of Clark Kent (Henry Cavill), occupies himself with odd jobs whilehe tries to figure out Who He’s Meant to Be. Much of the film is about Clark’s road to awareness as told in flashback, which is where we meet the Kents as played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane. Early on, the themes of sacrificing for the greater good and the recognition of accountability are outlined, and I was surprised – and impressed – by how much time Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer were willing to spend solely on investing in their main character.

Along the way, the film introduces a spirited Lois Lane (Amy Adams) and weaves her into Kal-El’s search for himself (it sounds cornier than it is). Many critics have commented that there’s little spark or chemistry between Cavill and Adams as romantic leads, but honestly, the film doesn’t pitch these characters as possible lovers as much as colleagues. The film is so Kal-El centered that romantic subplots are briefly spun off at best. By the time Zod and his cronies make it to earth, having all survived the destruction of their home planet, Kal-El is ready to do what needs to be done.

In completely rebooting the Superman story, Man of Steel gets a few things right, and many things wrong. There are character moments strong enough to make me want to revisit the film on Blu-Ray, and say what you will of Snyder’s work, but he’s a fantastic visualist. In 300 he demonstrated his ability to craft impeccable big-screen carnage, and in Watchmen he took on one of the most daunting directorial challenges of the past twenty years and, in my view, pulled it off. In addition, Nolan’s involvement favours a ‘realistic’ approach to the character, with even the red underpants falling away.

Yet for a film so intent on presenting some sort of realistic take on the superhero, Krypton is strangely fantastical, complete with flying creatures. And for someone who’s excelled at clear, convincing combat in some of his earlier the films, Snyder prefers the fashionable accelerated aesthetics for most of the fight scenes, especially those early in the film. As a result, it’s hard to see who’s doing what to whom, and the 3D only makes it worse. The repeated punch-ins on objects lose their novelty quickly.

Much has been made of the messiah-like character of Kal-El, as if it’s some sort of revelation. The Christ-like character of the hero is nothing new, but Snyder handles it as if the audience won’t get it unless it’s hammered, repeatedly, into their heads. That is Snyder’s approach in general, for most of the film: why show someone getting punched if you can show them getting punched, bounced, and dribbled? Why have a villain verbally express his anger if you can rather show him pick up a car and throw it through someone’s house?

Like it or hate it, Snyder’s visuality, often focusing on movement and using filmic techniques that emulate movement , gets results. In this case, Man of Steel showcases quite possibly the most jaw-dropping action in any superhero movie. For Snyder, less is simply less. The destruction and debris filled finale makes The Avengers seem cute, and I had to wonder about the actual death toll such a battle would have. Overall the film is also a strangely humourless affair, possibly in a misguided attempt to keep things realistic and serious.

Less is less for the characters too, unfortunately. Cavill certainly looks the part of the hero, but he delivers dialogue like a low-rent Michael Fassbender at best. It doesn’t help that the dialogue is seldom imaginative and often overly familiar. Much of what Cavill has to say are clunkers, and would come across as such regardless of who says it. On the other side of the spectrum, Shannon follows the Pacino approach to villainy: shout, and if in doubt, squint and shout some more.  

Man of Steel delivers spectacle in spades, even if it lacks the deep thought that made Watchmen so compelling, even if it skims over the moral quandaries that made the Dark Knight so interesting. While Man of Steel is far flashier, bigger and meaner, it doesn’t have the heart that Superman Returns had (and that’s a sentence I never thought I’d type).

No comments: