It's the end of the third act, everything in Metropolis is broken and shattered, why not just add the general public's view of Superman to the casualty list? The shocking death of General Zod by the hands of Superman sent comic purist heads and pretty much the majority opinion of society in a whirlwind; Superman had broken his code of seventy five years and actually killed his enemy. This one act, this one shot that took less than a minute to play out, has many debating that this modern Superman is not the hero the world is annoyed with yet secretly loves, and that the Superman that first made us believe that man can fly and can be a source of good, is gone.
Is he really though? Those who disagree with this sentiment have an answer for the question, "Why did the Man of Steel creators do this?" Superman is not only the most mocked superhero that everyone doesn't like (and still has the highest rate in sold products) because of his great power, but has also historically been hounded for what many consider his greatest stance, that death is not the answer and that he believes in peaceful results. This is often thwarted by the same villains breaking out of whatever prison the Kryptonian puts them in, resulting in more chaos and death. This has long been a source of those questioning his supposedly advanced intellect. Wouldn't you prevent more chaos and death if you just eliminate the source of it? Yes, you have to sacrifice your moral code, but hey, capitol punishment, right? The creators then, says those who support the deadly move, make Superman do what fans have been chanting for decades: "off with his head!"
Yet even as Superman does the act, the audience who called for him to do it for years, who criticized him for continuing the never ending parade of escape, destruction, defeat, locked up, repeat, even as he kills Zod, we are all stupefied. We can't be satisfied, can we? We thirst for blood, yet when it's spilled, we look on in horror and disbelief; what kind of barbarian kills a living being with his bare hands? So what if he killed thousands, destroyed one of the most successful cities in America, threatened a family with small children, and attempted to destroy Earth to recreate his alien home world? Zod still shouldn't have been killed. Why does the word hypocrite come to mind . . .?
But perhaps hypocrisy is not the right word to akin to this situation. Perhaps it should be called expectation. No matter how hard we yell at the movie screen, or how loud we're shouting in our heads for Superman to just "finish him off!" we can--or could--always count on Superman to not be a killer. For the past seventy five years (yeah he's that old) we as an audience, our parents, and even (for some) our grandparents have been drilled with the knowledge that Superman will--would--never stoop to the level of his adversaries, for fear of becoming just like them. We have always held on to this high expectation of Superman, that no matter the circumstance he will never sway from his no killing policy. We always expect him to show us that he does not have to kill to stop evil, since to kill is the way of a true villain.
So . . . what does that say for Man of Steel? Is Superman, the man who stands (stood?) for "truth and justice" really gone?
There is something that has not been mentioned yet in this debate, an important aspect of Superman that has been present since the first issue from 1938: his role as a Christ figure. A Christ figure, in literary terms, means somebody who embodies the characteristic and sacrificial nature of Jesus Christ, and Superman is the ultimate Christ figure. It is stated most popularly in the original 1978 Superman film and is even mentioned in the new installment by Jor-El: he is sending his only son to Earth in order to save the human race, to be a light to them, and to lead them in the way of goodness. Russell Crowe's Jor-El says that they will "stumble and fall" but that one day "they will join [him] in the sun." Heck, even in the nineties Superman dies and resurrects in order to save mankind from Doomsday in the Death of Superman series. And the Fortress of Solitude? Where he goes and speaks to his omnipotent father from the great beyond? Someone going to church and praying? Lots of parallels there.
According to Christian belief, when Jesus died on the cross He took the whole world's sin upon Himself, so that no one would have to suffer the consequences. When Superman is faced with the decision of allowing Zod (whom he has finally captured) to murder an innocent family or to compromise his moral belief in not ending a life, instead of allowing the people to suffer he kills Zod. His emotions about it are made explicitly clear in the film with his dismayed face as he looks at the still form of the evil Kryptonian. Instead of allowing more suffering to happen to the innocent, which would have happened had he allowed Zod to kill the family or let him go from the choke hold, Superman put the pain of doing something horrible on himself, so that he would be the only one affected. Yes, thousands of people had already been affected by Zod's rampage, but Superman realized that it would never stop unless he put the pain on himself.
What many are saying about this new, red brief-less Superman is that it has killed their inner child. As they watched their longtime hero end a life with his own hands, it's as if there is no more hope for humanity. Time is an important factor here. The Superman that enchanted us was from a time where keeping the hopes of children and teens alive was essential. It was a time of war, protests, and many other things that could plague a child should they be aware of it. Thank goodness for those comics to distract them. Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan set out to recreate Superman, to make him fit in our modern world. A world where police now have to be present at movie theatres in case some nutcase who calls himself the Joker decides to barge in and kill the movie goers, a world where children have to attend school always looking over their shoulders for fear a madman will burst in the door and gun them all down. A world where a child who has been taught to not allow adults touch them, must go against what they learned when they go to the airports, for fear someone might be carrying a bomb. That is our world now. Is it too much to say that Superman has changed with it? That when forced to make a difficult decision, you have to choose the lesser of two evils? That in order to be safe we must be groped at airports, allow police to roam school campuses, and (the forefront of the controversial world) use drones to spy on Americans. The only thing Superman has that these other "lesser evils" don't have? His choice only affected him, put all the blame on him, ruining only his image, while the rest of the world benefited from it.
Was allowing Superman to kill a smart move by the creators? Probably not. If their goal was to create discussion, then they succeeded (hence this long piece). To avoid all this controversy, they should not have backed Superman in a corner, forcing him to make that decision. They have already stated that the death of Zod will be addressed in the second Man of Steel movie, showing the affects it had on Clark Kent. Unitl then, the world will continue to debate about Zod's death. However, there is something else to be concerned with; if they dared to put in Superman killing his enemy in order to reflect the severe changes our world is going through today, one must wonder as we the human race continues to head south (after the Boston bombing, National Security debates, more chaos in the Middle East, and who knows what else) what will Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan have this modern Superman do in the sequel?
No comments:
Post a Comment