I have an obnoxious habit of being overzealous about movies. In such a spirit, I recently sent this email to World Magazine in response to a movie review comparing the most recent Superman with Christ.
Dear author,
A few thoughts on your recent review:
While I completely agree with your assessment of Superman Returns' directional, stylistic, and plot strengths, I think you may have overlooked a major problem with the film in two ways. Your comparison of Superman with Christ has major flaws which lend to many more moral problems than your mention of Lois' live-in fiance situation.
Surely you recall that halfway through the story Lois Lane's illegitimate son begins to display amazing superpowers, and towards the end of the film, Lois whispers ambiguously into Superman's ear that the son is his.
Perhaps the director attempted to portray Superman as a Christ figure, but Superman's scoundrelesque behavior to Lois and the son she bears him destroys any such resemblance. The last scene of the film shows both Lois and the son of Superman alone in the windows of their home, asking him when he'll be back. It looks more like joint-custody than joined reconciliation.
The true hero in this film would have to be Lois' poor fiance, Richard. Although he lives with Lois, he is trying to marry her, restore her honor, and assume a role as father and husband, though he is deceived in this and pushed aside when Superman returns.
The family situation in this film is hazy, confusing, and pitiful. Lois can no longer be the gutsy and resiliant reporter we all knew and loved. Now she sits alone on rooftops smoking cigarettes and crying, wondering what to do about her kind fiance and her absent superhero, and in the meantime trying in vain to promptly pick up her son from school.
Superman can no longer be the hero we search for. He has a shady past of loving and leaving, who creates domestic messes instead of resolving them.
Lex Luther's crime in the film involves taking Superman's secret powers and using him for his own evil purposes. It seems that Hollywood has done the same in taking a virtuously moral hero and transforming him into an adulterously abandoning cad.
Don't get me wrong, the film was beautiful: lovely icons of American tradition abound, but Superman's behavior in this film is anything but Christlike. Don't mislead us.
11 comments:
I haven't seen the movie, but I really like your letter. Let us know if they publish it!
Hey. I saw the movie and had the same objections as you - illegitimate superchild totally ruined the film for me ...! I was sooo looking forward to a revival of a good Superman film, but ... alas. ::sigh::
I really liked the movie overall (the few action sequences that they had were very cool), but the whole Super Love Child thing was diturbing. I assumed Superman Returns meant that it picked up from where the last Superman movie left off. But with the existence of Super Child I kept thinking, "I haven't seen Superman 3 in a while, but it must have been racier than I remember."
I also like your reply to World. SOunds like there review takes quite a unique perspective.
Good letter. I bet you'll get published. I have no objections to your letter but here's some food for thought, something i've been thinking about for a while. Mary became pregnant before she was married. Why did God set it up that way? I don't know.
Delurking...
Superman Returns is a sequel to Superman 2 wherein Superman gives up his powers for Lois, sleeps with her, regains his powers to save the world, and then literally sucks the memory of their liaison right out of her face.
Unfortunately, World's letters to the editor are never more than a sentence or two.
Thanks, all!
Israel is that you??? I would have recognized the tone anywhere.
The episode 2 business did not really happen, right? Surely it's your famously dry sense of humor.
I'm hoping World would hypothetically cut my letter down for me, or at least that the author (Andrew Coffin) will glance at it. The important thing was just getting if off my chest. I have a feeling they're going to hear from a lot of readers on this one.
And happily discovering that I'm not the only one who had trouble with it (I knew I could count on .tif!)
Mrs. S--you're alive! When are you coming?
Kendall Bethy, God saw to it that Mary did not long remain unmarried.
Spearg, I agree about the action stuff-- it is by far the best action film I remember seeing in recent years.
Actually, the Superkid WAS conceived in Superman 2, when Clark Kent eschews his superpowers in order to be with Lois Lane and they share an evening in the Fortress of Solitude.
To be honest, I don't really agree with your criticisms. I think "Christlike" is a fair description of the Man 'O Steel…anything Heroic, True, or Good must by definition be Christlike, as He is the epitome of those virtues. Now Superman is certainly not Christlike in his fathering of a child, but nor is he in his assumption of a secret identity and his love of a woman. Superman is "human" in his outlook (if not in his planet of origin), as all good heroes are. He is therefore flawed, which allows the flawed audience to identify with him.
Now it may just be personal taste, but I like to have somewhat realistic heroes. The fact that they can overcome their challenges and flaws means that perhaps I, too, can overcome some of the things that beset me. As a Christian, I know that I cannot ever truly win the battle and that is where Christ comes in. But for the purposes of dramatic storytelling, a hero who has made a mistake (leaving Lois) or has self-doubt is one whose ultimate victory is all the more moving and interesting.
And it's a little unfair to call Superman a cad…he didn't know he had a son. He didn't know how badly his leaving would hurt Lois. He clearly wants to do the right thing, but circumstances since he left make that difficult, at best.
My memory may be clouded by time here, but I thought that the Lois Lane portrayal was consistent with the first 2 movies. She WAS a smoker before; that scene in Superman Returns is meant as an homage to the original film, especially as it is followed by another romantic flight, just like the famous sequence from the first Superman.
Also, Lois was a little TOO gutsy and resilient prior to meeting Superman. She is portrayed in the first movie as a bit of a callow, hard-nosed person. Superman brings out another side of her and makes her realize that there may be more to life than she thought. When he mysteriously vanishes, it is a blow that sends her back towards that person she was before. She writes the article "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman" in justification of her own cynicism and anger. His return discombobulates her worldview and makes her battle between her hurt and her relief.
Superman stands for heroism and self-sacrifice…his return is a return of hope to the world and to Lois. This is why the Savior comparisons are being made. Superman, on some levels, can save us from ourselves, our cynicism, and our evil. Why does Lois struggle with his return? Because the world DOES need Superman. The world needs heroes and the world needs a Savior. Superman may not be just like THE Savior, but who wants him to be? He is a foreshadowing of a greater Truth and a greater Savior.
But, since this is a drama, it can’t be that clear cut! He can do all these things, but at what price? This has always been a part of the Superman movie mythos, since movie one. He gave up his powers to be with Lois in the second film, only to have to pick them up again in order to save the world and the woman he loves.
It is, in fact, the most common superhero "cliché" since Marvel Comics revolutionized the genre in the 60's. It is the Spider-Man Dilemma. Great power means great responsibility. If you were the most powerful being on the planet, could you take time out from dealing with mankind's evil to be a good boyfriend/spouse/coworker/sibling? Do you stop saving lives in order to be with Mary Jane? Do you leave the Batcave in order to enjoy your millions and abandon your quest to make something good come from your parents' death? Do you let Lex Luthor destroy the world and the people you love who live in it? Or do you save the world and keep them alive, even if their lives are lived apart from yours?
All superheroes are at some level "Christlike"; they are men of sorrows, acquainted with grief. They are torn by their humanity and their responsibility. In this sense, I thought Superman Returns was a very good movie. A completely perfect hero is either preposterous or God Himself.
I'm fine with realistic heroes; I love Odysseus, Hector, Achilles, and even Lancelot--but I don't expect too much of them.
I don't have issues with Lois smoking; I'm just saying that she's all victim & no heroine since Superman's abandoning her. She's a walking tragedy. Christ heals the broken-hearted.
And I agree that every hero is a dim reflection of Christ's ultimate Rescue (the word adventure comes from the advent of Christ rescuing the church as damsel-in-distress so I hear).
But when heroes compromise morals it seems we would compromise Christ in comparing them with Him.
When Christ returns there will be a wedding feast, not another scene of abandonment.
How can we watch the poor kid wander around his parents' office all day sucking on his inhaler and begging for attention and feel good about Superman?
Mrs. J, I was disillusioned by the movie- fell asleep on little brother's shoulder, actually- although I do think its a rather charming and WASPY trend, that culture-conditioned desire of ours to locate a Christ figure in an American Savior at all costs. World mag is famous for it. Ugggh.
These themes of the sacrificial hero ARE beautiful, always have been, but they are mere themes, and one has go to realize that Christ is not analogous to them, but vice-versa.
I do appreciate Clark's relative pacifism, though.
... and I have to add that the Church has long referred to Mary as God the Father's "most chaste spouse." A good Jewish girl would have understood that her conception betrothed her forever to the child's Father. = case for her perpetual virginity, BTW...
I like mm's comment: make sure that the hero is the one comparable to Christ, not Christ comparable to the hero. But I don't think that the World writer was doing that. He was merely pointing out the obvious parallels.
And of course Lois is a walking tragedy...because she needs Superman. She was a tragedy before he ever came, as well; but she didn't realize it then. It's a consistent romantic portrayal: the hero and heroine complete each other and are unhappy apart.
The scenes where the kid wanders around the office take place BEFORE Superman realizes he is his son. Clearly, at the end of the movie he is trying to establish a relationship.
I guess I'm anticipating that this is but a chapter in a longer story. So you are correct that there is no reconciliation this time around, but the groundwork is being laid.
And I don't think that an imperfect hero necessarily compromises Christ by comparison. A hero who is perfect COULD compromise Christ by drawing too much glory. But an imperfect one can point us toward the Perfect Hero we all desire and can only find in the True Savior.
Mrs. J, you will find that I have blatantly copied you...
Post a Comment