So this happened at SDCC:
As trailers are want to do, it reignited a lot of the conversation around differences between the MCU and the DCCU (if that's the acronym we're using?). There are some parts of that conversation I've been meaning to discuss for a while, and this seemed an appropriate time as any to get down to it.
I will admit, "thoughts on trailers" is something I feel ambivalent about doing. I personally can't stand when people condemn a film that's yet to be released based on some microscopic complaint in an attempt to generate rage-clicks, but I do think there can be fun discussions about this kind of thing.
Honestly, I don't know why trailer-dissections are so popular online. It was once general consensus that trailers ruined the movies we were going to see; now 43 minute YouTube videos of people acting like soothsayers are a way to make a living. The Hearth is not, and hopefully never will be, a place where we pull trailers to pieces frame by frame, engaging in a mean-spirited art as accurate as astrology and as joyful as vivisection. Rest assured I'm not here to make predictions, or to get pre-emptively angry, or complain that the lightsaber has a hilt and thus it "ruins my childhood". What I want to talk about are things that don't require a séance to observe - things like tone, characterisation, or broad narrative details.
We'll start with tone, since that's probably the most interesting conversation to have, and is also one of the most obvious things in the trailer.
It's dark. It's dark and gritty, and dark, and no one smiles because it's so dark and gritty.
Online, people don't seem to like this. They're saying Superman is supposed to be all upstanding and optimistic and American. They're saying that the Marvel movies are great, with all their colour and levity, and that Superman really should be more like that. It's strange, but I think that point-of-difference is one of the best things the trailer has going for it.
I like that the DC movies aren't just trying to clone the Marvel movies. I like that they're going for a very different feeling, I like that there's variety. I'd much rather see an underwhelming Man of Steel than an underwhelming Man of Steel that tries to be Captain America.
A huge percentage of our blockbusters come out of Marvel right now, and I like that we're mixing it up a little. I know that Guardians of the Galaxy and Winter Soldier (for example) are playing with different sub-genres, but they're still a lot more like each other than they are like Man of Steel. The only Marvel property that seems to have really departed from their standard tone is Netflix's Daredevil, and that's part of why I think it's such a success.
Man of Steel had a fair-few problems, but they weren't simply due to tone. It's problems were mainly narrative ones, like how Superman didn't think to ask Jor'El about Zod until after he'd been captured and poisoned, or how we had a bunch of Lost-style flashbacks that did next to nothing to contextualise Clark's decision-making or outlook, or how none of the women (including Lois) had anything of any real consequence to do whatsoever.
On the narrative problems of Man of Steel, I like that they're clearly addressing the wanton destruction of Metropolis. Some might consider this backtracking, but I'm going to give the screenwriters the benefit of the doubt - to me, it feels more like they've taken a problem with the previous script (a problem that their audience is clearly interested in discussing) and managed to turn it into a major motivating element of the plot and characters. I think that's clever - it's not genius by any means, but it's clever, and it makes Batman's decision to punch the shit out of Superman a lot more rational than in Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns.
One of the lines that resonated with me most is when Affleck says "he has the power to wipe out the entire human race." Superman is basically a walking extinction-level event, and even if his intentions are noble there's undeniable evidence that he attracts the attention of people who aren't. He and Zod did more damage to Metropolis than the US did to Hiroshima, and I'm really happy to hear people talk about that. We, as an audience, don't really question Superman's presence because we're so used to him (and superheroes in general) but his appearance would be one of the most significant moments in the history of the planet. This is first contact with an alien species, and humanity is ludicrously outgunned by even just one of them. That's a big deal, and I like that it's being examined with more gravity than Thor saying "I pledge my allegiance to Earth, Son of Coul", and everyone just going "Sounds good."
I also really like that Clark is a part of the media that crucify Batman on a regular basis. It raises some questions about why he feels he's permitted to protect humanity where Batman is not. Does he come to question that acts without regulation and oversight, or does he think that he's exempt from such things because he was "born higher" than us? One of the more problematic conceits of the Superhero genre is that it promotes us granting extreme discretionary power to individuals when it comes to the application violence under the pretence of "justice", and I prefer it when the film at least acknowledges the troubling nature of that (Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron, etc.). Seeing Superman interrogate that idea, and how that plays with his distrust of Batman, could be a lot of fun.
Something that was news to me is the casting of Lex Luthor - the part went to "guy from the social network", whose name I wouldn't know if I hadn't just googled it. I'm not a fan of Eisenberg, personally, and I know I have some bias in that, but I'm also not hugely optimistic about this take on Luthor.
Luthor is one of the more interesting characters in the DCU, and if they'd gone with a different interpretation they'd have some really fascinating stuff to play with. I'm not a comics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but my favourite interpretation of Luthor is that he is, in many ways, a humanist. Though he's undeniably selfish, one of the main reasons he resents Superman is because he believes that the world shouldn't be under the jurisdiction of an extra-terrestrial whose sole claim to authority is super-human power. That could've been really compelling, especially considering Batman's whole motivation for fighting Superman in the first place. There could have been such an interesting mirror between the two industry giants who independently work to undo Superman because they perceive his power as a genuine threat to the balance of the world.
Instead, we have some pubescent fop who comes across like the Riddler's boring nephew who can't even properly commit to being camp. His only motivation seems to be "I'm creepy-evil, te-he-he", and that's not the Big Bad I feel like watching right now.
Even if they'd gone with the more traditional "I'm jealous of his gifts - I'm actually the best" play, there are intriguing things to be said about capitalism and genetics. Like him or hate him, Luthor is undeniably one of the most intelligent and successful humans on Earth, and, like him or hate him, his ability did actually contribute to the position he holds in society. Along come Superman, and by virtue of his super-human abilities he's catapulted to a position of incredible power. Luthor feels cheated and decides to destroy him, oblivious to the irony that Luthor also achieved his position due to his exceptional genetics. Though not technically super-human, Luthor's elevated position in the world is due to an ability he was born with. What does that say about meritocracy? If you decide Luthor is undeserving because he manipulated the system to get where he is, what does that say about the economic system that rewards him for it?
Of course, there's nothing in the trailer that strictly rules out any of those kinds of themes, but Eisenberg's "Ooh, I'm creepy - look at my cravat" take on Luthor has an old-money feel to it, which kind of leads in the opposite direction.
While we're on Social Network Guy, did you hear the delivery of "the red capes are coming"? Was that seriously the best take they got from him? If that's the dialogue they're writing for him, it should be delivered with the passion that Emperor Palpatine displays while screaming "Ultimate power!" Why do people think this dude can act? Everyone's losing their shit over Ben Affleck, a clearly talented actor, but they don't blink twice at this goon - I don't understand it!
Say what you want about Man of Steel, Michael Shannon has some real presence. Even if he didn't, Zod could still punch a building in half. Luthor needs to survive on his wit and charisma (be it charming or unsettling), and this trailer gives us little evidence of either. Seriously, Dean Pelton from Community would make a better Luthor at this point.
But we're getting dangerously close to that thing I hate - pre-emptively condemning an element of the film before we have the context provided by the film itself. Maybe this Luthor makes a lot more sense when placed in that world - I don't have the whole story. Besides, this is really a movie about Batman, Superman, and the versing thereof. We mightn't be getting too much of Luthor in the trailer because there just isn't that much of him in the movie.
Ultimately, the thing that inspired me to write this post is that so many people seem content in dismissing this movie as another "not as good as Marvel" superhero film to come out of a different studio. My point is that I'm definitely going to see this film, and I'm not going to do so begrudgingly, or worse, ironically. I have a genuine interest in seeing this movie for what it is, and while my expectations are realistic, I wouldn't call them low.
No comments:
Post a Comment