 |
| Google Images |
I haven't seen the new
Superman movie, and probably won't until it comes out on video. My
wife and I were on a short summer movie kick, spending good money to
see Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness in an
actual movie theater, one of them in 3D, which was pointless. Good
movies, good enough to make us think it would be worth our while to
keep going to the movies all summer. Some of them looked fun: a big
budget zombie extravaganza, a new take on the Lone Ranger, and
Superman.
But I took a look at
those previews for Man of Steel, and I thought, God that looks
dreary. Dark, somber, serious, pretentious, and no fun at all.
Nothing in those previews made me want to hand over any money at the
box office. Nothing about those previews promised that I was going
to have a good time watching Superman fighting General Zod and his
minions and building a relationship with Lois Lane.
Not that my opinion
counts for anything. Apparently Man of Steel has already made
a bunch of money and a sequel is in the works. The fact that it's a
big summer movie, and a superhero movie to boot, likely played in its
favor. For all I know, it's great. I won't know until it comes out
on video. It doesn't look all that good, and the reviews have been
mixed at best, so the impression I get is that I might think it's
just basically kind of okay and a decent way to kill a couple of
hours, but not worth seeing more than once, an accusation you can
level at any number of mega-budget Hollywood movies.
 |
| Google Images |
I saw the first three
Christopher Reeve Superman films when they came out, and
stopped after the third. The first two are perfect movies for young
kids, full of fantasy, humor, wish-fulfillment, and spectacle.
Seeing Margot Kidder buried alive in her car scared me, and seeing
Superman's reaction made me want to cry (though I didn't—who wants
to look like a baby?) His reversal of time by flying around
the Earth until it revolves backwards is a cultural touchstone on a
par with “Here's lookin' at you, kid.” His fight against three
Kryptonian supervillians in the sequel, coupled with his decision to
renounce his own superpowers, achieves a level of drama deeper than
the first film and a tone that is dark, yet manages not to be
off-putting. They're classics for a reason.
All I'll say about the
third movie is that it sucked, and I thought that as a grade
schooler. Richard Pryor being nowhere near funny, Superman getting
drunk and being a dick, a lame villian, that's just some stupid shit.
You can see why I didn't bother with the fourth, though I hear it's
a laugh riot.
 |
| Google Images |
Then there's Superman
Returns, an inoffensive and bland non-adventure that moves like a
glacier and leaves you wondering why they bothered if they were only
going to do things half-assed. There was one moment there, when
Superman prevents an airliner from crashing, accompanied by that
awesome John Williams score, where I thought “That's it, that's the
stuff.” I was almost six years old again. But then boredom ensued
for the next hour and a half. Really too bad, considering all the
money they spent.
(On a side note: How
come kryptonite made Superman all weak and vulnerable to stabbing at
one point in the story, but later he can lift a whole island of the
stuff and hurl it into space? Did being stabbed with a piece of
kryptonite make him immune? You can't make Superman immune to
kryptonite, it's a part of his thing. It's like if at the end of The
Dark Knight, Batman learned to laugh and love and sing Paul
McCartney songs on open mike night. It doesn't make sense and it
doesn't fit the character as he's been established, something you're
generally not supposed to do, J.J. Abrams' radical reworking of the
Star Trek timeline notwithstanding.)
I doubt there are any
moments in the new movie that will be fondly remembered years from
now. Don't know how I know that, but I do. Few gargantuan
blockbusters have those moments nowadays. Blame oversaturation and
hyperstimulation. Everything has the same digital effects, the same
story elements, the same characters. Everything is a blockbuster, a
mega-movie, a sensory carpet bombing. Hardly anything stands out or
feels new. The last genuinely fresh Hollywood movie I can remember
is the first Matrix, and that was almost fifteen years ago.
The recent Batman trilogy felt kind of fresh, but they aren't when
you remember that there have been Batman movies since the
mid-sixties. Brand recognition is the current ideology, so it all
tastes stale before you've even put it in your mouth.
From what I understand,
Man of Steel shoots for that same gritty intensity that mostly
helped the Batman trilogy, and I'm hardly the first person to think
that's an awful idea. Batman is dark, so you tell his stories dark.
Superman is fun, he's breezy and charming, old-fashioned and
nostalgic like a Frank Capra movie. The Christopher Reeve version
nailed that feeling, because the filmmakers understood the character.
I don't think anyone does anymore, at least not anyone who makes
movies in Hollywood. “Gritty worked for Batman, so that must be
what people want. We'll do every movie gritty now. I'm so full of
good ideas.”
There's the school of
thought that says now that we're here in post-9/11 America, we want
to see the harsh reality of the tragedy and the subsequent wars
somehow metaphorically encapsulated in what we watch. But we don't.
We want to be entertained, just like always, and not be bored. Some
folks get that. How about those Iron Man movies and The
Avengers? Lots of fun, and a little breezy, but just serious
enough to make you care what happens. Iron Man even had Middle
Eastern terrorists in it, and still didn't over-play the whole
post-9/11 thing. That's class.
The boredom will start
to set in for us in a few years. Hollywood will have explored every
avenue of the hyper-expensive superhero movie, topping budgets that
are already hovering around a quarter of a billion dollars, telling
stories that are not new, never inspired, and look practically the
same as stuff that came out a couple of years ago. Marvel Studios is
entering into what they call “Phase II”, meaning a sequel to
Captain America, to Thor, to The Avengers, and a
new project called Guardians of the Galaxy that sounds a
little like a cross between The Avengers and Star Wars.
It's all going to be the same as what has already come out, except a
bit different, like when Oreos have chocolate filling.
I think they ought to
dial it back a bit. Cut out the sensory overload. Go ahead and use
the digital effects and big name actors, but can we all take a
breath, reflect and relax? It's too bad they've already made a new
Superman, because an alternate take won't come along for a long time.
Maybe not ever.
I've been having this
mental image of the Man of Steel floating casually above a billowing
cloud bank. The clouds are white and fluffy, like piles of cotton.
He cruises along at a moderate speed, and through breaks in the
clouds one can see the blue, sparkling waters of a bay and the edge
of a city far below. A bridge spans the bay, vaguely resembling the
Golden Gate. Several hundred feet below Superman, a zeppelin goes
by. And a biplane. The world around him has the feel of the late
'30's or early '40's, and as he swoops toward the buildings, in no
great hurry but with some apparent destination in mind, Metropolis
appears practically identical to the Manhattan of that time. Closing
in, we can see vintage Fords and Studebakers, people in period
clothes, and a general hustle and bustle that is unmistakably urban,
yet unrushed. Perhaps there's a little Glenn Miller piping in the
background. Once at street level, without even touching his feet to
the pavement, Superman disappears into a phone booth (were there
phone booths in the late '30's? Who cares, this isn't really our
world) and walks out wearing a suit, a hat, and Clark Kent's
trademark glasses. With a newspaper tucked under one arm, he walks the few blocks to the building housing the Daily Planet's
offices, and begins a new day.
 |
| Google Images |
No comments:
Post a Comment