Idealism v. Realism

This week I watched the Batman v. Superman movie, Dawn of Justice. I had heard plenty of negatives about it, so I went in with eyes wide open. There are some problems as far as plot goes, for sure. Most movies tend to have them to some degree, but I'd heard that it had too many story lines going, little character development, and deviation from past character history both in comics and movies.

And to a degree, I can understand what they are saying. Without revealing any spoilers, one big difference is the character arc for Superman. This was evident in the first movie, Man of Steel. Traditionally, Superman has been portrayed as a highly moral, righteous, and benevolent god-like being. Why does he use his powers to help people instead of satisfying his own self-interest? Because, he is innately good at heart.

But in Man of Steel, what you get is a more self-absorbed Superman, who ends up involved in the destruction of a lot of property and life, despite his desire to do the right thing. In other words, he's more like us than the selfless, moral, and ethical hero he'd been portrayed previously. That theme continues in Batman v. Superman. As a matter of fact, it is the premise for most of the city protesting Superman, and why Batman sees him as a threat and tries to take him out.

However, this gives Superman a character arc, room to grow. The basic movie plan is that no one is fully faultless and can resist temptations without a struggle. When they find an established, near-perfect character to depict, it is rare to see them stay that way.

Case in point: Faramir in the Lord of the Rings. In the book, he appears to easily resist the temptation to take the ring back to Gondor, and sends the two hobbits off to continue their journey. In the movie, Faramir desires to take it, commands his men to take the two hobbits and the ring back to Gondor. It is only an attack from the Nazgul that he comes to his senses and lets them go. Peter Jackson's reason for that change is that it diminishes the power of the threat for anyone to be able to resist the ring's pull without much effort.

Certainly it made for more tension and interest in the story. It also makes it more “real” in that we know no one who doesn't struggle with temptation to do the wrong thing, to do what is best for one's self-interest, not even within our own lives. We all have our points where we struggle with certain temptations, even if we don't give in to them. Even Jesus struggled with temptations in the desert and in the Garden of Gethsemane.

That said, our stories have a history of putting in the strong character, who may not “grow” through the plot, but act as the ideal of what we should say, do, and be.

Many Christian fiction stories, especially the romance genre, have these characters. Some would say to the other extreme: they never cuss, act unbecoming, avoid sexual situations, always act appropriate in all situations. The perfect Christian.

The problem with that approach, if taken too far, is few can identify with the person. Consequently there is a temptation for the digester of such a story to feel they can't be that person. Give them some faults, temptations, sins and then not only will the reader/watcher identify with the character, but will see the way to grow with the character to reach a more ideal state of being.

That is in part what I think the director is shooting for with this new version of Superman. Without giving anything away, Superman does show the good in him in the end of Batman v. Superman and it is truly heroic. He proves his selfless core. The big difference you see between this Superman and previous versions was the struggle to get to that point as opposed to being there on day 1. It becomes gold refined in the fire as opposed to an innate goodness that everyone sees at first glance. In that sense, we can identify more with his own struggle to figure out what his place in this world is.

It highlighted for me the friction between a perfect role model and real life.

Superman has always been portrayed as an example of virtues to follow contrasted against the gritty realism where it seems evil rules—no one has pure motives. That's the part Batman plays in this film. He's lost all hope that justice can prevail despite all his efforts to combat the evil in his city. In the end, Superman reignites that flame of hope in him.

Good fiction will not be on either extreme of the idealism v. realism spectrum. Just like we experience in reality, most people have their selfless acts and goals to strive for as well as temptations, ugly behavior, and blind spots to their own sins. When a character is portrayed as being purely evil with no redeeming qualities, it isn't realistic. Likewise a character who appears perfect in all points is no one we've ever met either, aside from Jesus Christ Himself.

So what do I think of this modification to Superman and Batman's character arcs, which differ from previous renditions?

First, I can understand people's aghast at seeing Superman smashing through buildings and not saving everyone, even intentionally killing the villain in Man of Steel.

That had never been Superman before. Superman shouldn't be intimidated into doing wrong by a villain. Even Batman doesn't escape this change. For the first time we see Batman regularly toting a gun and shooting people, not to mention the firepower in his car. Batman kills people in this movie, mostly bad guys, but that is a change from the traditional Batman we've seen before.

Second, while that might be a shock to many people's view of the two heroes, it does give room to see their growth to the “Bright Side.”

You catch a glimpse of it at the end of Batman v. Superman. You see the rise from despair to a joyful hope. It does give the viewer a taste of their journey as to how and why they chose to use their abilities for helping others instead of trying to control everyone for their own pride—the definition of a villain.

Third, we finally get to see heroes struggling with what it means to make life and death decisions that can have devastating consequences.

Fighting evil is a messy business and frequently there aren't any perfect solutions to fixing a situation. Doing the right thing can end up hurting someone else and it isn't always clear what the right thing to do is. For instance, Superman could have killed Lex Luther several times in this movie. Doing so would have prevented many others from dying at the hands of Doomsday who Luther brings to life.

But Superman can't kill someone purposefully without a very good cause, as he did at the end of the Man of Steel movie. Fighting to stop Zod may have been the right thing to do, but resulted in whole buildings coming down on who knows how many people, at least in part by Superman's heat vision. It was more like Godzilla than Superman. It shocks our sense of justice that everything isn't packed into a neat and tidy box by the time the movie is over, but that is reality.

To see their character progressions makes the virtue they demonstrate more forceful, inspiring, and that maybe I too can rise above self-interest and use my abilities and resources to help others rather than hording them for my own pleasure and means. So while the previous versions of these heroes have their value in being role models for our kids, they don't always have the inspirational force that our children can be that person. Rather, sometimes it may do the opposite when they become teenagers and discover that they are not all that super of a man or woman. Because they've not seen Superman battle the evil within as he does the evil without. It came naturally to him.

So I'm content to see where this goes before pronouncing final judgment.

It is obvious there will be more character growth in future movies. While Batman v. Superman has its problems, I recommend to see it. So much happens it might take more than one viewing to catch it all. At first it can seem all over the place, but there is a reason for the madness within the movie, save perhaps for some of the future Justice League characters making cameos here and there (why they don't join in and help like Wonder Woman, who knows?)

Without casting aside the value of the previous versions of Superman, I do see the added value of watching our heroes face the real-life difficulties and consequences of their decisions and actions, and struggle with how to overcome them within themselves. They can be just as heroic in that version as the more pure and virtuous heroes we've come to love.

What do you think? Where on the scale of idealism and realism do you think the characters should fall?

Man of Steel Review

I think I've only done one other movie review. Star Trek 2009 reboot. In that one, I noted some plot holes that didn't invalidate its popularity. Man of Steel also had what I would call plot holes, but I think those affected its popularity due to other issues being weak as well.

First, I'll give my spoiler-free review.

I consider it to be a mixed bag. Good points? Action scenes were well done. Lots of stuff happens. The motivations for Zod were decent, even if inconsistently applied. If you're someone who likes a lot of fights and exciting stuff happening, you won't be disappointed.

Some people didn't like the more "brooding" Clark compared to the comics and previous movies. I thought it lent a little more realism to Clark's personality. There is certainly more "gray" morality presented. It does create some inconsistencies with previous incarnations, however.

Purist will not like this aspect. While I appreciate the more human element Nolan attempts to give Superman, there is a valid argument to be made that some heroes should stay super. That is, super means "above and beyond" something. In this case, above and beyond a mere man.

One theme emphasized is that Clark came to offer mankind hope. Yet, more people die and more destruction is dished out than any other Superman movie. In the end, few people would have lost their lives if Superman hadn't come to Earth. So much for hope.

The message I derived is that Superman can't save everyone. In one scene, a helicopter goes out of control (Hum, where have we seen that before...Mr. Reeves?), one person falls out. Superman saves that one person while the rest die as the helicopter crashes. This isn't about Superman "saving the day" for everyone, but forced to make decisions that stretch his ethics, so we can share in his emotional turmoil.

Acknowledging the problems with all that, it was certainly a fresh view of Superman, despite how well it paralleled Nolan's Batman story.

On the negative side, there was limited and inconsistent character development. How some people are portrayed starting out, like Lois Lane, shifts as the movie progresses. Clark's earthly dad gives him conflicting advice.

There is some character development, unlike the first Transformer movie, but the constant flashback scenes through the first part of the movie end up putting it on hold too many times to let it develop properly. Tell the flashback stories in chronological order and getting to know the characters would have been more complete.

I also felt the dialog was unnatural at spots. Sounded more like the director needed to get information to the viewer than something the characters would naturally say. Likewise, motivations were not always clear why a character did what they did.

Emotions were often not natural in the face of death or such. How Superman defeated Zod made no sense. Examples to follow.

Overall, I'd give it 3.5 stars on a 5 star scale. Worth watching, especially if you are in it for the action, okay on character and plot development, but nothing that stands out. Conflicting theme points between dialog and actions. Purist will have problems that Superman isn't as super as previously.

Spoilers!

Here are a few specific examples of what I discussed above. Stop reading here if you haven't seen it and don't want any spoilers of significance.

This

is

space

to

give

you

a

chance

to

veer

away

before

seeing

anything

you'll

regret.

Okay, here we go. Plot/character issues I noticed:

1. Clark's earthly father confuses Clark by giving him contradictory advice. One minute he's telling him he's come to give humanity hope, the next telling Clark to always keep his powers a secret, even at the expense of lives. Even saving his own father's.

2. Clark's father's motivation is suspect. The concept is he was willing to sacrifice his own life rather than Clark's secret be revealed, and people treat him differently. If true, however, that is some seriously messed up thinking. Not only because people's lives are more important than Clark's anonymity, but also to avoid putting Clark in the position of knowing he could save people, but not allowing him to. That's got to do a number on your guilt and esteem. This may account for the next issue.

3. Superman seems uncaring about the damage and deaths he is causing, except for Zod's. Fighting Zod and his companions in both Smallville and Metropolis plows through buildings with people in them, topples skyscrapers with people in them, saves some but lets many die, with nary a twinge of emotional reaction, compassion, or an attempt to move the fights to less populated (but not nearly as dramatic) landscapes. Only when he kills Zod does he show any remorse.

4. Lois is chosen by Zod to be taken up to his spaceship with Superman for no apparent reason other than plot convenience. Once there, Zod has her immediately locked away, though later we learn Zod went into her mind (Nolan failed to show that part) to get info on Superman. But conveniently Superman passes her the little "S" data bank, which oddly once she is locked up, she finds an access panel where that "S" stick fits, and despite it all being alien technology that she'd have no clue whether this is a good idea, sticks it into Zod's ship, saving herself and Superman from certain death. Kind of cool, but only due to some luck and coincidental correct guesses by Lois.

5. Killing Zod made no sense. Most people focus on the ethical situation of Superman killing someone in cold blood. Most movies tend to get around this by the hero showing compassion when they could kill the bad guy, but the bad guy invariably takes that opportunity to get the hero, which either forces the hero to kill in self-defense, or the bad guy ends up killing himself (as in Spiderman jumping out of the way as Goblin's glider hits him instead of Parker). But this is consistent with the movie's themes of Superman being forced to make decisions on who lives and who doesn't. However, in reality he didn't have to make that decision to break Zod's neck:

a) The people Zod threatened to kill had a clear path of escape. Obviously Superman was restricting Zod's neck movement to a slow crawl toward the people. They had time to run the opposite direction. Yet they don't take the obvious escape nor does Superman tell them to run. They acted trapped, but they weren't.

b) If Superman had the strength to snap Zod's neck and kill him, he had the strength to keep Zod from inching his heat vision ray toward the people. Superman acted as if he couldn't stop Zod from moving his head, yet has the power to twist his neck in half.

c) Zod's neck suddenly becomes very fragile. For long fight scenes, the two are pounding each other in the face, plowing through buildings, pretty much smashing into each other. Despite all that beating and strength shown in previous scenes, Superman is able to hold Zod in an arm-lock, and then snap his neck. Not believable.

Bottom line, aside from the ethical questions, Superman didn't have to make that decision, nor could he have snapped Zod's neck, given what had immediately proceeded that scene.

6. Superman supposedly would be made weak by the gravity rays transforming Earth. Initially, he seems to be negatively affected by them. Then, suddenly for no explained reason, he was able to go down into the actual gravity ray and fly right up, in, and through the ship. Theoretically, inside the ray should be the worst place for him. If there was an explanation, I didn't hear it.

I could nitpick at others, but those are the biggest issues I noticed on plot and character development. Maybe you saw other issues? Let me know what they were.

Mothman Rides Again!

A new short story of mine has gone public at ResAliens! Ship to Ship Rumors is a space opera/superhero spoof of an old spoof. I'll say no more than that, you'll have to read it to find out for yourself what it is.

This one has some unique literary tactics, which under normal circumstances I'd not do. But spoofs give you more latitude in that department. See if you can figure out which writing rules I've broken and report back here with your guesses.

This story is also included in my recent anthology release, Ethereal Worlds. If you like this one, you'll enjoy reading more craziness that I've created over the past five years.

Thanks for reading!