The Hagiology of Superman

Zack Snyder's Man of Steel is the second attempt at a new direction for the Superman franchise in less than a decade. For many superhero properties, a reboot means a darker, grittier take on the character. Snyder (and producer Christopher Nolan) indulge a bit of that angst-driven sentiment here, but to me the most intriguing change in direction for this iteration of Superman isn't really a change, but an expansion within the continuity of his main source tradition.

Soon after the character's debut, commentators (including Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels) noted Superman's resemblance to Moses. Both Israel's founding father and the Last Son of Krypton escaped genocidal calamities as infants, were raised in secret by foster parents, altered the natural courses of major bodies of water, and served as the exemplars and protectors of specific nations' creeds. Both characters also have Hebrew names (Kal-El: "Swift God", and Mosheh, derived from the Egyptian: "Son").

Several items in the movie's subtext hint that Snyder and Nolan have graduated their Superman from prophetic to messianic status. Without spoiling any major plot points or characterizations, here are some of the Christological elements I noticed on my first viewing:

• Jonathan Kent has a deep sense of Clark's special role and strives to foster his potential. He also expresses awareness that his son has another father who sent him to earth for a reason. (One could build an entire post on the Pa Kent/St. Joseph parallels alone).
• As seen in the trailers, Clark travels with a group of fishermen at one point.
• Clark is prominently framed against a stained glass window depicting the Agony in the Garden at a dramatically resonant moment.
• Superman gives his age as 33 (in the original Superman: The Man of Steel graphic novel, he is 29. This can only be a deliberate parallel).
• At least one scene with an implied crucifixion motif.
• Kal-El is referred to as a god and the savior of humanity.
• A woman is the sole witness to the revelation of Clark's superhuman nature, and none of her associates believe her until they see for themselves.

I could go on, but I think the observations above make a strong case that the filmmakers intended to portray Superman as a Christ character. From a theological standpoint, the character's expansion from prophet to messiah is an internally consistent and frankly ingenious reboot approach. It raises the story's stakes and magnifies the character's significance by way of the natural progression of his underlying mythos. Far from spurning Superman's Mosaic roots, Snyder and Nolan have followed that theme to its logical conclusion.

Hollywood: the Money Triumphs over Art

Earlier this month, Disney executive Andy Hendrickson declared that visual spectacle; not a good script, is what draws audiences to movies. The chief technical officer produced a chart showing revenues for the twelve highest grossing films of all time as evidence.

Hendrickson's announcement begs the question of why story is losing to spectacle. One disturbing answer is that western society is outright losing the ability to tell stories. This argument gains some traction when you consider Aristotle's Poetics, in which he laid out the basic principles of what makes good stories work. All of his points boil down to this: because the satisfaction derived from a story depends on the feeling of catharsis achieved in the resolution, and since that catharsis arises from the validation of the audience's shared values, it's very difficult to satisfy an audience that can't agree on which values are important. In the absence of engaging stories, filmmakers are appealing to the lowest common denominator.

I'm inclined to take Hendrickson's pessimistic assessment with a grain of salt. There are still movies like The Return of the King, Toy Story 3, and The Dark Knight on that list. Sure, they ain't exactly Shakespeare, but all of them feature solid characters and thought-provoking plots. Hendrickson is also referencing the worldwide box office numbers. Checking the US records adds the likes of Star Wars and E.T. to the list. Both of those films certainly boasted impressive special effects, but they also epitomize master storytellers Spielberg and Lucas at the height of their creative powers.

Frankly, the USA figures surprised me. I'd expected to find it populated with even more mindless CG-fests than infested the world market. Then I pondered the reason for my initial prejudice and the situation started making sense. The current crop of money-driven, committee-written productions has made me forget that the likes of Spielberg, Lucas, and Cameron once produced genuine works of art to critical and commercial acclaim. Another look at the list reveals a second interesting phenomenon. Highly creative and popular films are still being made, Americans just aren't making them anymore.

Hendrickson's outlook seems symptomatic of the profit chasing that's robbed Hollywood of its vision. The studios have abandoned the concept of making films for the love of the art. Luckily, enterprising outsiders like Sir Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, and Christopher Nolan have stepped forward to pick up the torch.

I think the record shows that you can still make a story-driven movie centered around a well-written script and solid performances. It probably won't outperform the next bloated, gimmick-laden, rehashed tentpole flick; but as long as the world gives people common experiences to share, storytellers will always have an audience.