I wasn’t all that keen on the existence of a new Superman film. Between Smallville, Lois & Clark, Superman Returns (which I half liked), and the ponderous, gloomy Zack Snyder films in the new DCU involving the Man of Steel, pretty much put me off of the big red ‘S’ for what I thought might be a lifetime. After the desultory critical (and sometimes commercial) performance of Snyder’s DCU, enter James Gunn, the director of Disney/Marvel’s wildly successful Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy. Gunn’s first foray into the DCU was a poorly attended (although better reviewed than David Ayer’s predecessor) Suicide Squad movie. With the DCU in flux, paling in comparison to Marvel’s output, and with Snyder taking his leave, Warner needed a new captain of their comic book film ship. They chose Gunn, a filmmaker with the ability to handle tentpole releases, and who has a decidedly peculiar sense of humor (see Super and Slither for examples).
The DCU was tired and fraying, and Gunn decided to perform a complete reboot. Ben Affleck was out as Batman, as was Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, and Henry Cavill’s grim Superman was sent packing as well. In reimagining the DCU, Gunn decided to reboot the universe with Superman, which he would not only produce but also write and direct. Superman could be seen as a questionable lift-off point. Superman is the squarest of heroes, and no film featuring the character since Christopher Reeve’s Superman II has been seen as a full-on success.
Gunn clearly understood that the first movie in the refreshed DCU needed to be far different than Snyder’s dark vision, and so it is. This new Superman film is infused with brighter colors, an upbeat demeanor, and a fundamental embrace of silliness. No, the latest Superman movie can’t escape the long shadow of Reeve and Gene Hackman’s marvelous twofer from 1978 and 1980, and it smartly doesn’t even try to. Gunn’s film layers in John Williams’ memorable theme from the Reeve movies, and borrows the lighter tone of those two films. The relationship between Clark Kent and Lois Lane showcases Gunn’s new view of the caped superhero. As played by David Corenswet and Rachel Brosnahan, the two have snap in the banter, and the hint of grit in Brosnahan’s voice, as well as Corenswet’s good-hearted–even innocent–take on Clark/Superman echoes the lilt and froth of Margot Kidder and Reeve from some forty-plus years ago.
One thing Gunn doesn’t do with his reboot is give you the background story of the alien from Krypton. No small boy is landing in a spaceship in Kansas. There is no death of ‘pa’ during Clark’s adolescence. There isn’t even a courtship/identity unveiling between Clark and Lois. Clark and Lois are presented as a tentative couple, and Lois already knows he’s Superman. Choosing not to include a time-consuming backstory allows Gunn to jump right into the storyline, which begins with Superman having lost his first fight, but staving off an invasion by the fictional country of Boravia against a smaller, far less well-armed neighboring country (insert Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Gaza metaphor here). The trouble is, Superman has decided to involve himself in this conflict without the permission of his country’s government, the USA. When pressed by Lois (in devil’s advocate reporter mode) on his decision, an exasperated Clark shouts, “People were going to die!” However quaint and simple the notion may be, Clark can’t imagine being anything other than good. I don’t know if Corenswet is a great actor or not, but I do know his charm, physique, and curled forelock make for a fine Clark/Superman. Any actor in this role has to balance a measure of decency and naivete with derring-do. Corenswet clears that bar better than any wearer of the blue and red tights since Reeve.
Nicholas Hoult is also a pleasant surprise as Lex Luthor. Hoult is a fine actor, but I thought he would lack the gravitas of Hackman or even Kevin Spacey. The last attempt at a young Lex found the excellent actor Jesse Eisenberg completely at sea, but Hoult’s seething, jealousy-laden performance makes for a strong villain. Luthor uses disinformation and lies to paint Superman as a risk to all mankind, and therefore a villain, despite all evidence to the contrary. In that regard, Gunn’s film has clearly taken notes from the state of our current politics, which is mainly about obfuscation and twisting of facts, in the service of painting one’s opponent as a vile creature, even when the creature doing the painting is vile themselves.
When I first saw the trailer for Gunn’s Superman, I felt like I was spotting red flags more than I was spotting a red cape. I saw reasons for doubt everywhere. Can Corenswet fill Reeve’s shoes? What about Hoult? Then there was the insertion of Krypto the dog. A move that looked far too cute by half. Krypto could have been an Ewok issue—the creation of a furry character to appeal to children and sell toys. The truth is, Krypto may be that, but his precocious, unruly nature, coupled with his love of Clark, ends up being a winning move. As a lover of dogs myself, it was hard not to be won over by the scruffy critter and his cheerful rambunctiousness. Learning that the pooch is played by Gunn’s own dog doesn’t hurt either. There’s a point in the movie, after Krypto is dognapped, where Lois questions Superman’s prioritization of Krypto’s rescue, stating he’s only a dog. Superman replies, “I know, but he’s alone and he’s scared,” in such a way that only the coldest of hearts would dismiss his statement.
Not everything works in Superman. The leader of Boravia is, even in a comic-book movie, a bit too cartoonish; the movie sometimes moves so fast that specific characters don’t register that strongly (particularly the great Wendell Pierce as Daily Globe Editor Perry White), and how one feels about the “Justice Gang,” will depend on how well you take Nathan Fillion’s blonde, bowl cut, jerk of a Green Lantern. Thankfully, Isabella Merced’s Hawkgirl, and especially Edi Gathegi (in a star turn) as the goofily named “Mr. Terrific,” register in a much more appealing fashion. I would also add that Superman gets beaten up so much in Gunn’s film that, at times, it rivals a Mel Gibson movie for a lead character taking multiple whuppings. Seriously, take a look at Gibson’s 80s/90s action film history. The man gravitated like mad to characters who received torturous physical punishment. Gibson just might have issues, and so does Gunn’s decision to perpetually put Superman at a disadvantage.
Even so, at minimum, Gunn’s Superman is a really good time. It’s a film that nails the humor and heart (and camp) clichés with such an arrow so straight that resistance is rendered futile.
This new Superman variant has taken some shots from folks of a rightward political persuasion. The argument being that this Superman is too “woke.” It’s a remarkably stupid and laughable point. When has Superman not been woke? Every Superman, from the 1938 comic book origins, through George Reeves on TV in black and white, to Christopher Reeve’s unbeatable version, on to Tom Welling’s adolescent Clark, even Cavill’s darker take, and–much to his consternation–Dean Cain’s color TV Superman has played a character that answers the same question:
What if the most powerful being on Earth used their powers only for good?
The answer to that question is the same as it’s always been. That if we had this grand protector, we, as a people, would not only be protected, but just might aspire to a greater level of kindness and humanity. Yes, that notion, and this latest Superman movie is an escapist fantasy. But as the screen rolled into the credits, I couldn’t help but think that it’s exactly the escapist fantasy we need right now.
Reel Reframe 