My thoughts on Man of Steel

Hmm. [Opens mouth to speak, nothing comes out.] Hmm.

Before I start, a caveat: I couldn't help but notice the controversy over Man of Steel on Twitter, much of it involving Mark Waid, one of the standard-bearers for a view of Superman I share. Passions are running hot over this one, which is both good and bad—it's good that people are talking this much about a Superman movie (or a DC Comics movie in general), but it's disheartening that they're arguing over the fundamental nature of a character that should be well established by now. Anyway, I've avoided reading any reviews or commentary, so other people may very well have said what I'm about to say, and if so, likely much better.

I'm going to offer some general comments about the movie, and then some discussion about some ethical topics raised by it. I'll keep the spoilers until the second part, and I'll warn you when they're coming.

First, Man of Steel as a movie (not as a Superman movie): I liked it. I loathe long films—90 to 100 minutes is perfect as far as I'm concerned—but even at 143 minutes it didn't feel long, and no parts of it dragged. Henry Cavill impressed me as Clark/Superman, having only seen him in The Tudors, and Amy Adams (whom I've seen in most everything she's done) played an effective Lois, but neither blew me away. The finest perfomances by far were Russell Crowe as Jor-El and Michael Shannon as Zod—both stole every scene they were in, and interactions between them were marvelous to watch. (The filmmakers cleverly found a way for Jor-El to appear throughout the movie despite... well, you know.)

The action scenes were spread throughout the movie nicely, broken up by emotional dialogue or flashback. This was important, because the action scenes themselves were intense—while there was little blood, there was more than enough destruction and explosions to earn the PG-13 rating. (I would not be comfortable taking my kids, 5 and 10, to this movie, and they've seen all the recent Marvel superhero movies.)

Visually, the movie was very stylish. While the Smallville and Metropolis scenes were by necessity reminiscent of past depictions, the designs of Krypton and Kryptonian technology were breathtaking, from their 3-D sculpting technology (for lack of a better term) to the armor the Kryptonians wore on Earth. But the movie was just so dim, like it was all shot through a fine gauze. There were no bright colors at all: Krypton was gray with accents of gray. Smallville was brown. Metropolis was—guess what—gray. And if you thought Superman would bring a ray of sunshine into any of this, you would be wrong. We've all seen the movie costume, all muted red and blue, with just a touch of muted yellow thanks to DC Comics' New 52 redesign. (And don't even get me started on the costume's texture, which reminds me of that rubber thingie you use to open the jar of pasta sauce that's been in your refrigerator since Superman Returns was out.)

But the dull tinge of the movie matched its narrative tone well—this is a dark movie through and through. Not quite Nolan-Batman dark, but more like Webb's Spider-Man but with none of the humor. The team behind The Amazing Spider-Man was able to give us a superhero film starring an upbeat character that fit with the current times but still retained some of the irreverance we expect from Webhead. But Man of Steel, featuring a character whose big red "S" stands for hope, was sorely lacking in hope, optimism, or joy. This is definitely a movie for a generation that is more likely to look in the sky and say "it's a bird, it's a drone—yep, it's a drone" with little hope of seeing a hero.

And nothing illustrates that point better than the ethics-loaded notes in the movie. This is where the SPOILERS start, so read on at your own risk if you have yet to see the movie.

----------

I have very mixed feelings about how Man of Steel showed Superman's heroism and ethical decision-making. Don't get me wrong, there are several inspiring scenes of heroism in the movie, such as the scene from the trailers in which young Clark pushes the schoolbus out of the river (at the risk of revealing his powers), and the scene near the end of the movie in which he destroys the world engine while it robs him of his powers. Other characters get in on the action too: Lois, Perry White, and Jonathan Kent all get chances to be heroic. These were fantastic moments in an otherwise dour film.

Unfortunately, these moments we expect from a superhero movie are overshadowed by other scenes that we don't. Clark/Superman makes some questionable moral choices in the movie, choices that may be understandable if any other person made them, but not Superman (or even any other cinematic superhero outside of Wolverine).

I've written a bit the last couple years about Superman's need to use moral judgment, rather than his incredible powers, to resolve tragic dilemmas, conflicts in principles or duties from which he cannot excape "with clean hands." In the comics, this usually takes the form of Luthor leaving Lois dangling off the ledge at the top of a skyscraper in Metropolis while a tidal wave threatens to wipe out a town in Indonesia. What will Superman do? If he can't save both, he has to make a choice, and by necessity that choice will involve a foregone option.

But guess what? In the comics, he manages to do both, to save Lois and the Indonesians. Because he's Superman. He does the impossible. He doesn't let the situation (or Lex Luthor) define his options—Superman defines his own options. He finds a way.

This is most relevant to the end of the movie when Superman kills Zod. After Lois helped the government scientists send the other Kryptonians and their battleship back to the Phantom Zone, Superman faced Zod alone. Zod indiscriminately used his heat vision to reap destruction and murder on Metropolis, and even after Supes had him in a chokehold, the deadly rays from Zod's eyes crept closer and closer to a small group of innocent bystanders. At the last moment, Superman snapped Zod's neck; Zod fell to the ground and Superman fell to his knees in tears.

Superman's remorse was obvious—and so was mine. (Not everyone felt this way; many in the theater cheered, which I've heard was not an uncommon reaction across the country.) This resolution to the story doen't work for me in a number of ways.

First, if Superman had the strength and control to twist Zod's head to snap his neck, why couldn't he turn Zod's head just to divert it from the bystanders? I can let this one go: Zod is a more experienced fighter than Superman is, and perhaps Superman had to put the last of his might into twisting Zod's head without being able to moderate his exertion sufficiently to avoid killing him. Also, this is a young Superman, fighting a physical equal for the first time in his short career. I can excuse him for not having the experience and wisdom to consider other options—people were going to die and he had to make a choice. I get that.

But I don't blame Superman for what he did in the story—I blame those who wrote the story and chose to portray Superman killing his opponent, presumably to make an "edgy" Superman for the 21st century. Even if I accept that Superman had no other choice in that situation, the people who made the movie had a choice whether to put him in that situation. They didn't have to show Superman killing someone—they chose to. They didn't even wait until the third movie, after his heroic ideals had been established and then his "necessary" compromise takes on more weight. No, they chose to show Superman killing someone in his first movie, thereby setting up his moral code for the rest of this appearances in this cycle of films. (Watch out, Luthor.)

And I find that choice despicable. I know full well that tough decisions sometimes have to be made, and Superman is not immune to them. And I love stories that show that moral struggle. But I also love to see Superman find a way to rise above the moral struggle, to show us that if you try hard enough, think the situation through, and refuse to compromise, you can find a way out.

This won't always work for normal human beings, but Superman isn't a normal human being. Superman is an ideal. The ideal. He shows us the best of what we can be. As Mark Waid said on Twitter, Superman shouldn't be written to more like us—he should be written so we want to be more like him. But this is not how the Man of Steel was written, and that's why it fails as a Superman movie.

----------

I saw Man of Steel Friday afternoon, and Saturday morning I went to Barnes & Noble with my son, who loves superheroes. We always look at both the regular graphic novel section and the rack in the kids' section with superhero books. (And we might happen to pass the philosophy shelves in between, just to make sure all my books are facing outwards. I'm a helper.) There's a new book in the kids' section titled Man of Steel: Superman Saves Smallville that tells a simpler version of the story in the movie, including the climactic ending. But it tells the ending a little differently:

So there were other ways to end the story without Superman killing his enemy—whew, and here I thought it was just me. (Ironically, the one reviewer so far at Amazon says even this book is too violent for small children!) Sure, in the storybook the villain got away. But that's one of the ways superhero movies usually end: either the villain is captured, gets away, or dies by his own hand (as the hero tries to save him, of course). More to the point, that's how Superman movies should end.

Of course, we can easily imagine situations in which Superman would have no choice but to kill his enemy, and skilled creators could craft an engaging story around it. (See my chapter from Superman and Philosophy for one example.) But an argument can be made that not only would it be a bad Superman story, but that it would not be a Superman story at all. Superman isn't the guy who usually does the right thing—Superman is the guy who does the right thing by definition. Any less and it just isn't Superman.

----------

Epilogue: I couldn't find anywhere to mention this, but I was also disturbed by the scene in which Clark lets his father walk into the path of the tornado to save the family dog and help people get to safety. I get that it was supposed to show Clark the folly of hiding his abilities at the cost of innocent lives. But it threatens to introduce an "Uncle Ben" aspect to the Superman mythos in which Clark would forever be plagued by the knowledge that his father died because he stood back. Furthermore, it made no sense in story: Clark could have done exactly what Jonathan did (rescue the dog and help people to safety) without revealing his powers, and in the process protecting his father. As shown, it was a confounding story element that introduces an unnecessary and possibly disturbing element to the Superman backstory—another disappointing choice on the part of the filmmakers.

Comments

[Eric]

Hello Professor White,

Long-time fan here, love your work in the various Superhero and Philosophy books. I teach an ethics course at a college here in Montreal and do so using comic book mythology. I'd love to have a discussion one day, over email perhaps, regarding some of your comments in the essay 'Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker?' and some of my students' reactions to it.

As for 'Man of Steel,' with respect, I believe you may be mistaken when you say Kal's killing of Zod sets up his moral code for subsequent films...at least the way you seem to imply ('Watch out, Luthor.') I do believe his moral code was formed concretely then, but I believe we saw the genesis of the "Never Kill" ethic in Kal, as shown by the remorse. It matches the Byrne story anyway, doesn't it?

I can forgive Kal's less-than-perfect decision making because he had been a superhero for all of a few hours in this movie, and had never been in a fight before in his life. I think, those things considered, he did all right, no?

A more experienced Superman would demand more from us, I believe.

At any rate, just another point of view. :)

Best,

Eric

[Mark D. White]

Hi, Eric -- thanks the very kind and thoughtful comment!

True, his moral compass could point in several different directions after the end of this movie, and time will tell which the writers choose. The argument from inexperience has been made and is valid, though many have countered that his aversion to killing should have ingrained from his youth (although the Jonathan Kent in the film may not have done as good a job at that as have the versions in the comics). This is all part of "humanizing" Superman, I suppose, a program with which I don't agree anyway!

I admitted in my post, however, that the killing made more sense in story than outside it, the larger point being the writers' choice to put him in a situation in which the only solution (assuming it was in fact the only solution) was to kill Zod. In the end, that is what upsets me the most. As Andrew Wheeler wrote today, this is not a Superman that will likely inspire many little kids to tie a red towel around their necks and want to emulate Superman (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/06/21/man-of-steel-moral-superman-review-zack-snyder-david-goyer/). And this is a true loss.

Take care,
Mark

[Eric]

Mark,

You are absolutely right about that scene vis-a-vis kids; while I found the violence a bit over-the-top, it was in fact that last scene that secured the fact that I could not take my son Max, who is 10, to see the film. My voice caught in my throat as I explained it to my wife...I don't want him to see a Superman who had to kill. Not yet, anyway. It may be a bit silly, sort of like trying to prolong the time a kid believes in Santa, but I just can't do that to him. When he's older, and we can have some interesting ethical discussions, yes...but not now.

The film wasn't aimed at kids, I know that, but I guess there's a hope that it would have spoken to the kid in us, still looking to be inspired...and in a different way than Bruce might inspire.

I still really like it and am dying to see the sequel and perhaps even a JLA film, but mostly I hope the Kal in the future movies has it "together" like the one from the (pre-Nu52) comics.

-Eric

P.S. Would you mind terribly if I advanced a question one of my students had regarding one of your essays?

[D]

Professor, I strongly agree with you. I had mixed feelings while I was watching the movie, but the more time that passes, the more I dislike it.

**
SPOILERS AHEAD
**
SPOILERS AHEAD
**
SPOILERS AHEAD
**

Here's how I would rewrite the ending. Assume that everything went exactly the same, right up until the moment that Superman has Zod in a headlock.

As the beams of Zod's heat vision edge closer to the cringing family, Superman pleads with Zod to stop, but his pleas fall on deaf ears. Desperate to save the people, Superman clamps his free arm over Zod's eyes. Twin screams of agony tear the air apart: Superman's, as his costume dissolves and his bare arm blackens and blisters from the incredible heat; and Zod's, as his beams are reflected back into his own eyes, but still he won't turn them off. After what seems like an eternity, Zod falls to the ground, his charred eye sockets staring up blindly, as he has burned out his own brain. Ignoring his physical pain, Superman cries in regret, his one arm hanging limp, a useless charred husk. The onlookers gaze at him with awe, acknowledging his heroism and sacrifice.

The next scene, with the General and the drone, takes place as before, except that Superman's arm is in some sort of cast. The scene between Clark and Martha in Smallville is also the same, but with an extra bit of dialogue at the start; something like this (but better written):

Martha: Clark, I can't believe how your arm has healed. A couple of months ago, I was sure that you'd lose it. But now it looks almost as strong as before.

Clark (flexing his arm): I thought it was gone, too. I guess that fast healing is another one of my powers. I never knew that before.

Martha: Well, why on Earth should you? You never got hurt before.

End result? Earth is safe. Zod is dead. But Superman didn't kill him directly, and chose self-sacrifice rather than the easy route.

Opinions? Would that have worked better for you?

[Matthew Grenier]

Totally pointless post here, but I made the same arguments about the movie (almost word for word, particularly the "they didn't have to write this" aspect) with some friends of mine. Interesting to see someone else articulate the same ideas.

In the end, I don't think Superman is a character that American culture allows the target audience of this movie to accept and understand. With such an emphasis on rationalism, the irrational do-gooder is a ludicrous character to most 20 and 30 somethings.

[Mark D. White]

Bob, I much prefer your alternate ending -- Superman wins the day through sacrifice and Zod dies inadvertently. Huzzah!

[Mark D. White]

Matthew, I suspect you're right about the appeal of Superman to younger people today, but it seems the filmmakers didn't even try to sell the traditional idea of the character. In contrast, I think the Captain America movie, in which Cap displayed admirable heroism and sacrifice, went over well in this regard -- and his character worked in the Avengers in large part in contrast to Tony Stark (as in the comics).

I think, in the end, they simply made a lowest-common-denominator Superman flick, designed to appeal to those who want edge and "realism" from superhero films, to the exclusion of those who wanted more. It's also exactly the kind of movie we expected from Snyder and Nolan -- wouldn't it have great to be surprised instead?

[Bob Buethe]

Thanks for the approval, though that post was mine, not Eric's. I don't know what I did wrong, but my post was signed "D" instead of my own name.

[Mark D. White]

Fixed, Bob, thanks for letting me know!

[Patrick Gerard]

Professor Mark...

I'd like to steer this conversation just a bit because I've wanted to discuss the movie somewhere but feel that most forums I take this to are populated by people who see Superman's killing act as a vindication of their own moral code, which is typically utilitarian. As such, any attempt to disagree results in rather strong disagreement as utilitarians feel the need to defend the scene because they feel it did what was necessary to secure Superman a 21st century audience by transferring ownership of the character over TO utilitarians.

Now... All that said, here's the philosophically interesting wrinkle that cropped up for me: the film generously "quotes" All-Star Superman and Superman: Birthright in terms of dialogue and plot. But there's a key distinction here and the more interesting moral statement here rests not on Superman's morality but Zod's.

Both Birthright and All-Star Superman postulate that Superman's superior senses provide him with enhanced empathy. Birthright's Superman is just a bit sad when even flowers die and is a vegetarian. Reinforcing his ethics (both his uprbinging and his heritage) is a superior objective knowledge of reality given to him by his powers. While All-Star Superman is not explicitly a vegetarian and is considerably less moody (self-assured with a hint of melancholy in the face of death, actually), the book's climax hinges on the notion that Luthor, when in possession of Superman's powers, is psychologically transformed by them into a person who devotes his life to the service of his fellow man. In both instances (and arguably going back to the character's inception), the notion is laid out that power does not actually corrupt. Those with power who are corrupt lack mastery and once they achieve mastery are unable to function as corrupt.

The idea is never really broached in Man of Steel with Zod. He acquires the power and uses it to destroy. It's a key part of the moral framework of All-Star and Birthright and is omitted here. Moreover, it must be a deliberate omission on some level because the screenplay has a clear awareness of Birthright and All-Star.

The clear answer from the sources is that if there were a Zod, he could not have the kind of anger or sociopathy presented here. This is especially true not just with Luthor in All-Star but with Bar-El and Lilo who could be seen as very direct analogies for Zod. The ultimate reversal of the story with them is that Superman shows his worth to them by showing them compassion and thus perhaps illustrating the worth of things which they had considered beneath them.

I think it's worth regarding the ending of Man of Steel not as a thoughtless change or even one without satisfying alternatives but a deliberate deviation from and rebuttal to All-Star and Birthright. It acknowledges them both and then rejects their morality and their solutions.

[Patrick Gerard]

Also, Bar-El and Lilo were poisoned and did not have mastery yet of their senses.

It's not so much that Zod should have had this knowledge after a few days as it is that Superman should have acquired this knowledge of super-senses' impact on empathy over a lifetime and therefore been able to overwhelm Zod with the cosmic empathy that super-senses seem to bring.

Now, from there, it's possible that Zod would kill himself in shame once confronted with the value of life but even that is a more morally congruent ending when compared with the sources.

[Eric]

Patrick,

One of the more 'metaphorical' battles withing Man of Steel that I loved so much was "Free Will vs. Destiny." Jor-El goes on a lot about having a child that is free to choose, etc. On Krypton, no one seems to get that choice; people are bred for specific duties. Zod was bred for defending Krypton and completely lost it when Kal destroyed the last of it...I don't think Zod was -capable- of having empathy for humans.

This metaphorical battle was my favourite part of the film.

[Richard S Stone]

Not suitable for children because the villain died? Villains in fairy tales die on a regular basis. Villains in Aesops's fables don't do well either. It is the fate of villains everywhere, in fiction. That is the meaning of fiction, as Oscar Wilde put it. Sadly, in real life, villains do not die, they get rewarded with great wealth and power, until they die of old age. Is this the moral lesson you want to advance? Really?

And personally, I was surprised at the ending myself, for two reasons. First, the movie was about 20 minutes too long, and and I began to think it would never end. Second, killing Zod was necessary because he was sure that he had the right to kill anyone who opposed him and he saw it as his duty to kill the weak earthlings. Superman might be able to save Lois and thousands from a flood, at the same time, but he can't change someone from their sick thoughts, especially someone with the powers of Zod. And he could not take the risk of trying and failing.

I think you give too little credit to the moral thought processes of children.

[Mark D. White]

My point has nothing at all to do with the moral thoughts processes of children (other than my ironic comment about the children's book adaptation). If almost any other heroic character did what Superman did at the end of this movie, I would have had little problem with it, since it was fairly clear that in that circumstance, he had little choice. Instead, my problem is with the storyteller's choice to put a character like Superman--a character defined by his ability to solve seemingly impossible problems without crossing that line -- in that situation at all.

[Richard S Stone]

Hmm. I grew up with Superman comics, and he's only a few years older than me, and there's a big difference between the Superman of the comics compared to the movies and the TV version, in black and white, that I used to watch. The Superman of the Man of Steel version is living a whole different and more complicated life, one with sadness and loss. And implacable foes. There may be more room for character development in the movies than in the comics. The whole idea has kind of grown up, along with the rest of us, possibly. Maybe it is a version of Godel's ideas of defined systems not being able to encompass everything, and absolutes failing, Superman cannot find his way out of every problem. He will regret what he had to do. Even Superman has regrets. That is where the story leaves off.