The Killer Lady

I have never seen The Ladykillers but this delightful guest post by Chelsea has pretty much made sure that it is the next film I buy. It is safe to call Chelsea an enthusiast of The Ladykillers and her passion for this British film is clear for all to read. It is a pleasure to have her on my blog.

...

"Mrs Wilberforce?"
"Yes.?"
"I understand... you have rooms to let?"

There it is. The first interaction between the story line's antagonist main character "Professor" Marcus and our delightful heroine Mrs Louisa Wilberforce. Visually stunning, Marcus's shadowy entrance is drawn-out and epic, the tension building to a peak worthy of Hitchcock...

Why has The Ladykillers captured my imagination so? What has attracted me to this off-beat black comedy from the mid '50s, so much so that I have dedicated a huge part of my life making it a huge part of my life? In truth, I don't have an answer. Generally speaking I am a reasonably behaved, normal 32 year old woman, married with a full time job. But when I'm exposed to "Professor" Marcus and his unruly, quirky gang I'm a quivering, Beatles-esque screaming fangirl (I even have a drawing of Alec Guinness as Marcus permanently inked on my lower back). But I know I am not alone; there is a growing Ladykillers fan base out there which, when searched for long enough, can be found.

...

My first encounter with The Ladykillers was about seven years ago - a delightfully random television program was informing the British public of the top 100 British films we must all have in our British lives. I believe this delightful Ealing romp was in the top 20. I didn't recognise Alec Guinness at first glance, with his eerie disguise as small-time crime lord and full-time lunatic (ref. "The Booby Hatch"), complete with lank hair and over-sized dentures. The tired, shadowed eyes showing a spark of devious intellect complete the look of deranged silent-movie-villain - check out the long dark coat and even longer grey scarf! Lon Chaney eat your heart out.

I won't continue with a description of each fabulous character at length. The main reason for me writing this is to explore my deep love and fascination for The Ladykillers, and I don't want to bore you all any longer than I have to. So to make it quick...

...

The Ladykillers is a 1955 British black comedy film made by Ealing Studios. Directed by Alexander Mackendrick, it stars Alec Guinness, Cecil Parker, Herbert Lom, Peter Sellers, Danny Green, Jack Warner and Katie Johnson. Ok, so now you know who is in the film. The plot is basically: Five diverse oddball criminal types planning a bank robbery rent a room on a cul-de-sac from an octogenarian widow under the pretext that they are classical musicians.

That's it! The film is simple, subtle, sly and sublime. The dry humour and drollery combined with  characters beautifully underplayed by a first rate cast helps make this little gem memorable and forever lodged in our hearts. It was love at first sight for me; an Ealing comedy with 1950s criminals intent on destroying one another, old ladies, tea parties, parrots and sarcastic policemen! There - no spoilers.

I must have watched this film about 5,000 times (an estimated guess - it's probably more than that). I've bought copies of it for friends and relatives and have many copies of it in my collection; there are different dvd/vhs covers and of course I must have them all, including the fabulous Blu-ray where the film is all cleaned up and in "high def"!

...

I created a Twitter account dedicated to the film... @Ladykillers1955. Yes, I tweeted the whole thing word for word, although the entire script is available online so it was a simple matter of copy and paste. A little time consuming, but it was worth it! My actual Ladykillers website (really it's a blog) is yet to come, It's still in it's incubation period and not quite ready. Through the website I can pretty much display all the The Ladykillers memorabilia I have snapped up from eBay and various other places. So many gorgeous film posters, stills and lobby cards and I just can't resist. It's a great shame to me that there aren't many behind-the-scenes shots or outtakes.

If you've never heard of or seen this movie I highly recommend you go online and buy a copy immediately for future viewing. If you're not an Ealing fan now, you will be after seeing Guinness, Lom and Sellers completely and hilariously beaten down by a darling and feisty old lady.

CM

Notes on a Scandal: An unenjoyable great film.

“People have always trusted me with their secrets. But who do I trust with mine?” – Barbra Covett.

Watching films should be above else an enjoyable experience. Of course you get those stinker films which have you question whether you could have spent one-and-a-half-hours to three hours of your life doing something meaningful – but the majority of the time I love watching films.

And then I came across Notes on a Scandal – a film so well acted, so well directed and so emotionally impactful but a film which I struggle to call ‘enjoyable’.

...

Notes on a Scandal is about a new teacher, Sheba (Cate Blanchett) having an affair with a 15 year old school boy, Sean Connolly (Andrew Simpson). Another more senior teacher, Barbra (Dame Judi Dench) finds out.

...

This film has haunting similarities with the real life case of Jeremy Forrest. This in itself doesn’t render the film not enjoyable, but the fact that I found the case of Mr Forrest disgusting yet the affair between Sheba and Sean compelling is troubling. It reminded me of my time at school when me and my friends would have given anything to bed a certain teacher.

The set up of an older woman or teacher having an affair with a student is nothing new to film but there is something interesting and fresh about the way Note of a Scandal presents this scenario and all credit has to go to Blanchett and Simpson for selling it. They present their characters' scenario as an almost schoolyard relationship (Yeh, I know. But you know what I mean). You almost, and I mean almost cheer for them, just before you gain your senses and realise what the hell is going on.

...

The real genius of this film is Dame Judi Dench. What she does in this film is nothing short of spectacular. She plays Barbra Covett, a confrontational, old and difficult school teacher who sees herself as superior to her colleagues and appears to have a heart made out of stone. The way her character is set up in this film it is likely that Richard Eyre (the director) wanted you to hate her but Dame Judi injects so much complexity to Barbra that your heart breaks for her by the end of the film.

Instead of the film being about Sheba and her sordid affair, it becomes a film about Barbra. For some reason that film, for me, presents uneasy questions and becomes very difficult to watch. It becomes a film about loneliness; not being alone as I know it - for a couple of years or so - but being alone for almost an entire lifetime. Imagine having no one to love you back like you love them and, as she says at the beginning, having no one to share your secrets with. 
Another important thing to say about this film is that it is incredibly funny – and that humour is juxtaposed with imagery that shouldn’t be funny. For example, later on in the film Barbra says in her narration, that Sheba doesn’t know what loneliness is, and I paraphrase: "When you haven’t been touched in so long that one brush from a bus conductor sends a twinge to your groin".  That is funny, terribly heartbreaking, but funny nonetheless.  

A lot of her problems come from having too much pride – pride at her status in society (despite being a teacher living in what looks like a dreary London flat) and not wanting to be associated with something she perceives as beneath her, such as being gay. That is the point of Barbra, she comes from a generation where it was not okay to be gay, where it wasn’t widely accepted and so she tries to turn her lesbianism into something akin to a Jane Austen novel (note: I have never read a single Jane Austen novel).

Throughout the whole film she tries to manipulate and trap Sheba into being her ‘lifelong companion’ but it is telling that at the end when all her lies come out in the open she admits that she needs “more than a friend”. The utter desperation of Judi Dench’s character is palpable that by the end of the film you hope she finally finds happiness when she meets another young woman – even though you know that it is likely she won’t.

...

What you have with Notes on a Scandal is one of the best British films I have ever seen. But I did not enjoy it. I spent too much time grimacing and feeling awfully sorry for a lot of people on this film who I consider to be morally troubling.

What this film left me with is questions about the previous generation of gay people in the UK. What happened to them? Are they living happy lives or are they as lonely as Judi Dench’s Barbra is.

                                                              @Chocoteddyfilms

Guest piece: Why we need Man of Steel

Here is Dr Batman again to kick some Superman knowledge for you guys. What is interesting about this piece is that he gave it to me months ago - way before Man of Steel was released. I would be interested to read about how his expectations married with reality. I've spoken to many Superman comic and Donner fans who were really not happy about this film - more so than Superman Returns. It is almost like Man of Steel was a personal affront to them.

Anyway, enjoy.

...

When I was growing up I always preferred Marvel characters because they felt more real to me. Peter Parker felt more like my imaginary best friend: a geeky kid who I could relate to. They all had troubles that many believe make them more human and realistic than their DC counterparts. As I grew older though I noticed something that these heroes tend not to have that DC’s do: they lack a strong moral compass. Few characters (I would argue in any fiction) have as strong moral compass as the two heroes that make up World’s Finest: Superman and Batman. For newer fans just look at the film The Dark Knight to see how strong a moral compass Batman has. But the modern audience gives a lot of slack to the one that started it all, that big, blue boy scout himself Superman, for being too powerful and old hat. Well I believe we need some of his values, some of that truth and justice today making him even more relevant than ever.

Superman never truly goes away but it seems that he always appears or returns to prominence when the world really needs him. When Superman was first created in the 1930s we were going through a worldwide depression. The world was on the brink of World War and economic meltdown. Two Jewish New Yorkers, Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel created The Man of Steel: a man that was for the every American. Superman always fought for the people and showed us what we could do. Clark Kent had a good job that the people could relate to. He wasn’t a rich billionaire like Bruce Wayne. He, like the rest of the people, had to work. As Superman, he showed the world what they could do with their full potential, embodying the American Dream. Superman was a character that personified hope. As Batman struggled through the gritty Gotham city, embodying everything bad about the world after the Wall-Street crash, with The Dark Knight being the only shining light in the city; Superman was different. Metropolis and The Man of Steel showed what we could do if we all worked together and fought to the best we could, understanding that yes we were going through a difficult time but things could be better. He symbolised hope.

When Superman made his first major appearance on the big screen in Richard Donner’s 1978 seminal work the world was again in a mess. Once again the worldwide economy was suffering and Britain was struggling through The Winter of Discontent. We needed that spark of hope that everything could be ok. Yes Superman The Movie was just a film but at the forefront had a character who never judged or blamed his common man. He believed in working hard and fighting for what he believed in. he believed in making sure that he was the best person he could be.

In this post 9/11world where we seem to constantly be on the brink of terror, where we are suffering through recession after recession, where we could be about to face Nuclear War is it not fitting that The Man of Steel returns once more to give us that fable that everything will be alright. That we need to start trying to help each other rather than blame each other. The Man of Steel makes me believe again, it makes me feel like we can do everything that we need to do. The Man of Steel directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan seems to have hit the nail on the head from the trailer. Superman has a strong moral stance that he believes in, that he will fight for, that he would die for (Bear Edit: That he would kill for?). He is here to give the people of earth something to strive towards. One day we could all be supermen.     

I have heard people argue that he is too powerful, leading to Superman hardly even throwing a punch in Superman Returns. But again this just illustrates his strong moral stance. I see Superman as a god. He is a modernised version of the bible. Jor-El (God) sends his only son Kal-El aka Superman (Jesus) to earth where he is adopted by Jonathan (Joseph) and Martha (Mary) Kent who bring him up to the best humanity can offer. They could have taught little Kal-El, or Clark as they name him, to use his power for himself and to put people down but instead he is taught that he must constantly think that he has this great power and should only use it when he has to. Superman at the end of the day has unbelievable power. Can you imagine the strain he goes under to control himself? To make sure that one punch doesn’t kill Lex Luthor, to make sure that when he puts his fist to the ground to fly he doesn’t cause an earthquake.   

In this ever smaller world we live in, we don’t need finger pointing and a blame culture. We should look to better ourselves. We should look to accomplish wonders. We need that big red S: we need hope.   

                          @LJHalsall

Guest Post: Man of Steel by @DCPlod

This guest piece is by DCPlod aka Danielle. I've been a huge fan of her Twitter account for some time. She is ruthlessly funny, intelligent and hard-as-nails tough. This is actually a repost from her blog which can be found here. This is what she made of Man of Steel.

...

First off, let me state I’ve never read a comic book, so I have no idea how Man of Steel fits into or compares to the wider Superman universe. That said, I love the superhero genre, and we’re currently living in a golden age of superhero films (with some, or should I say Four, notable exceptions). I’ll be comparing Man of Steel to Superman 1 & 2 which I consider to be the only films worth watching (yes, not even Kevin Spacey could salvage the mess that was Superman Returns).

Man of Steel is a very worthy addition to the recent canon of serious superhero films – it has the grittiness and brutal realism of the Dark Knight (Nolan’s influence is clear), the spectacular clashes of the Avengers, and the emotion of Iron Man, but yet still retains the core of what makes Superman Superman. It ‘s a great re-interpretation of the character, played to perfection by Henry Cavill - and his history. He captures Clark Kent’s inner turmoil and sense of not belonging, without turning him into a walking pile of angst like Batman; he also puts the steel in his incarnation as the Man of Steel.  I will say this, however: Cavill has a lot of work to do on Clark Kent’s ‘hiding in plain sight’ act at the Daily Planet, which Christopher Reeve nailed. It’s ridiculously obvious he’s Superman.

...

Amy Adams is a Lois Lane for the 21st century. Gone is the woman who throws herself off waterfalls to provoke Clark into proving she’s right about him being Superman; she figures out who he is very quickly and is considerably wiser in how she acts on this knowledge. She’s almost a sidekick as well as a love interest, proving to be far more of a help than a hindrance. Kevin Costner also revealed hitherto unsuspected acting skills as Pa Kent. Costner is an actor I have been singularly unimpressed by in every movie I’ve seen him in – notably Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, where the only thing he managed to outact was Sherwood Forest and that was by being more wooden – but here he brings the right emotional depth as Superman’s adoptive father, and you can see and believe the deep influence he’s had on Clark’s moral and emotional development.

Superman’s true father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) plays a far more active role here than he does in the previous films, while not altering the key means by which he communicates with his son. Crowe turns in a performance vastly superior to Marlon Brando’s phoned in effort. Of course, Brando making no effort is still better than many an actor giving it their all, but the Jor-El of Superman 1/2 still serves purely as an expositionary figure rather than a fleshed out figure connecting us (and Superman) emotionally to Krypton.  A far greater level of importance is attached to Superman’s origin story this time around: Jor-El’s status as a heretic and his reasoning behind sending young Kal-El to Earth are what set up the key conflict between Superman and General Zod.

...

Right, on to said villain of the piece. While Superman calls General Zod a monster. He does indeed do monstrous things, but just how much choice does he have in the matter? Zod is the literal creation of a society where your sole purpose in life is determined by geneticists, and you are basically stored in a test tube until Krypton needs you. Zod was made to be a soldier, so while what he does is heinous, you can see why he does it. To him, Jor-El and Superman are taking his raison d’etre away from him, therefore he must stop them by all means necessary. It makes him a serious villain with understandable motives, a far cry from the General Zod of Superman 2 who took over Earth for kicks and was soon bored to tears by how easy mankind was to subjugate.

...

With regards to the film as a whole: the fight scenes were great; my only complaint would be they went on a little too long, and I found myself thinking “when the hell is Superman going to defeat these guys?” They don’t go lightly on the destruction either – the joint really gets wrecked here. On a meta level it was hilarious watching a virtual parade of characters from my favourite TV shows appear one by one – why hello West Wing’s Toby Ziegler, Elliot Stabler of SVU, Boardwalk Empire’s Nelson van Alden, Hannibal’s Jack Crawford and Doug Stamper from US House of Cards!

All in all: Man of Steel is both a fantastic movie and a really great reboot which should do for Superman what Batman Begins did for Batman.

                       @DCPlod

Guest Post: Man of Steel

Buckle up - this is a long one. The next guest blogger pretty much comes to the opposite conclusion about Man of Steel than I did, but that's alright because he is a much better writer. In fact, Brett Faulds is a beautiful writer and it is an honour to have him on my wee blog. ...

“Superman comics are a fable, not of strength, but of disintegration. They appeal to the preadolescent, (sic) mind not because they reiterate grandiose delusions, but because they reiterate a very deep cry for help.” David Mamet

Much like when losing one’s virginity, time offers many a revisionist to credibility where the celebration dulls and the reality of uncertainty presents itself as a counterpoint. In the moment, you pray for it to be something other than a complete disaster that should’ve been left to the imagination. In Hollywood this is referred to as box office. Critical appraisal has little relevance when the bottom line is whether you’ve delivered the requisite precision required when it came to the money shots.  To be concise, you either strut like Bart to a Bee Gees tune or you do the equivalent of drinking towards oblivion, waiting for enough time to pass, hoping no one remembers.

It was all the fault of Christopher Reeve.

To continue the (perhaps entirely inappropriate) analogy, he didn’t so much strut after ‘Superman’ than clear the dance floor of the world with the words “The Man.” emblazoned red and blue on his arse. Hypnotised by the symmetry, we demanded a repeat performance that going against the logic of all that isn’t Jack Nicholson duly delivered. To this day scientists still debate whether the accruement of underwear thrown into the sky did in fact create the Ozone layer (and they say over population is killing the planet. How do you like them irony apples?).

What goes up therefore must come down (possibly because they didn’t have special pills back then).

One could blame the shift in perspective that came about Hollywood in the decade we really should demand be forgotten. That of the introduction of the comedy sidekick. 

Now is not the time to investigate why this at the time involved mainly black comedians (I guess Jim Belushi couldn’t smother all with his “talent”. I hear the dog from K-9 slid into alcoholism). Trends have always been the fresh boy in the boardroom brought in to suggest innovation (“But, you know, for kids.”) and ‘Superman III’ certainly wasn’t the first. But we’ll forgive Reeve for Richard Pryor and the cheque for 4 million he pocketed. What we cannot forgive Reeve for is ‘Superman IV: The Quest For Peace’....


“You want to stay away from anything Superman can cure for humanity. It is one of the rules about writing for a superhero.” Tom Mankiewicz, writer ‘Superman’ and ‘Superman II’

The ego. The super-id. Complacency of success. Reverence to outright hostility. Those that defend Reeve’s role will of course refer to Cannon Films. They would have a point. However, it was Reeves story. Reeves insistence that because of his previously proven manliness, he knew best. 

Tapping into the legitimate concerns of the Cold War, let us then compare it to another “prescient” movie that came two years earlier and touched on similar themes. The difference with ‘Rocky IV’ (that is how bad it got. Superman was taking notes from Rocky) is it knew how to measure the nonsense with the serious (speech at the end ignored. Stallone never became President). For all the sledge hammering of James Brown miming out of his arse as Carl Weathers said goodbye to his dignity, Rocky never forgot what its core audience turned up for. Reeves did. To conclude the (perhaps entirely inappropriate) analogy, whereas the first two offered us breakfast in the morning, ‘Superman IV: A Quest For Peace’ called up our mum mid coitus and asked her if she wanted to join in.

Thus, Superman was no more. For 19 years. It was Joel Schumachered.


...

“I think that 'Superman Returns' was a bit nostalgic and romantic, and I don't think that was what people were expecting, especially in the summer.” Bryan Singer (Director of ‘Superman Returns’)

The summation of the above is simple. The world had moved on and the serious superhero movie had been introduced into a more cynical, fragile time (ironically, started by Singer with ‘X-Men’). It was simply no longer plausible for there to be a separation from real world, post 9/11 formation of character with the Donner idealism of a singular ideology to believe in. Designed as both a reboot and a continuation, Singer tried to recapture what was so adored about the originals. Whereas Peter Jackson took today’s technology and went back in time for his King Kong movie, Singer took the character into the heart of the previous incarnations, offering reflection, melancholy, regret that events could have turned out differently. A personal movie not personal enough to offer assurance that after everything that had happened in his (movie and real world timeline) absence, everything would be okay. We all wanted to be the guy who could fly and save the world, because the world needed to be saved. 

We did not want to be the guy more worried about his ex to the extent he goes off stalking her home at night (we’ll be fair and suggest he would’ve looked away had Lois been in the shower)....


“Hollywood is the only industry, even taking in soup companies, which does not have laboratories for the purpose of experimentation.” Orson Welles

Everything is reaction in the movie industry. In order to form profitable reaction, connection with formula is mandatory. We are deriding the fourth Superman movie for its pretentious conviction that a movie could change the world (and for, well, being shit). It is not the function of art to aim so high. The most therefore one can hope for is innovation of medium. Which brings us to ‘Watchmen’. Specifically, the graphic novel. Perhaps unfair to compare what was at the time a niche medium with what has always been a populist form, to this day it equally offers validity in the claim that in order to get to the heart of a real world parable, one has to look towards the obscure to achieve permission. Often since cited as one of the most influential pieces of literature by not only those who have since carved successful careers in the same medium, but also from more promoted forms.

... 

“I always say, I'm certain I changed 'Watchmen' less than the Coen brothers changed 'No Country for Old Men.' I'm certain of it.” Zack Snyder (Director of ‘Man of Steel’)

Attempt followed attempt. Directors like Terry Gilliam and David Fincher (oh, just imagine. Remember the three shot, two fade onto the taxi in ‘Zodiac’? If you’ve read ‘Watchmen’, just imagine). The same excuses presented themselves. Budget. Tone. How? My suspicion presents another scenario. One of fear. We have ‘Ishtar’. We have ‘Heaven’s Gate’. We fast forward to ‘John Carter’, a folly so disastrous it sent Andrew Stanton back to Pixar faster than a soap star’s attempt to form a pop career runs from Katie Price’s opportunistic leg spreading. Here was a fascinating historical piece of writing primed for updating in a world offering rejection to the reconstruction of ‘Superman Returns’. Naturally, fear maintained its grip. 

Naturally, at a budget of $130 million, dictation cited formula as compromise. Welcome to Warner Brothers then, Mr. Snyder. Play it safe and we might have something else for you in the future. Something involving a cape. The resulting movie suggested two things:


1.) Hollywood missed the point of the novel. In its day a stunning portrayal of politics and fear mongering designed merely to induce paranoia and distrust in potential voters looking to elect public officials. Whilst offering questions such as who governs those that govern us? Who is accountable in any scenario? Is the bad man the one presented to us or closer to home (how little has changed, huh?). Therefore, to offer anything other than a contemporary update mirroring 9/11 consciousness of response (itself a more than valid construction given the tide of opinion that since the immediate has become more than questionable for its promoted resolution) rendered the whole point of the exercise mute.

2.) Mr. Snyder was merely a hack for hire, fumbling against the dark as he tries to insert his slow motion wire fu hard-on into the unwilling and unwelcome resistance of such things as characterisation. Emotion. Stuff that happens in between to offer weight to the overall (picture the shoot out in ‘Heat’ without the drama the preceded it. Doesn’t quite work now, does it?). One suspected another from the school of James Cameron who sat in the back of the class and wrote “cool action scenes” over and over whilst missing the importance of chaining coherence into a whole.

 A worldwide box office of $185 million does far from a success make. It was an utter nose picking of the source material offering suggesting opinion that his much published inspiration accrued to ripping pages out daily to wipe his backside with. But it was safe. It looked like a graphic novel on screen and it suitably impressed the studio with its standard adherence to generic character beats passing time until shit blows up. Job done. Have ‘Man of Steel’. The boy inside me however, the kid who believed Christopher Reeve was winking at him and him alone was not impressed. The bitter taste of the reaction to Singer’s attempt to reboot Kal-El still lingered and lingers, resolute in its determination to remain seemingly the one sole voice promoting the validity of Bryan Singer’s movie.

...



“I adore the Donner films. Absolutely adore them. It just struck me that there was an idealist quality to them that may or may not work with today’s audience.” David S. Goyer (writer of ‘Man of Steel’)


Unfortunately, this quote makes little sense in context of what is presented on screen. Make no mistake. A more American superhero movie one could not find. It becomes apparent that not only is the design to readdress the flaws of Singer’s movie but to suggest to said audiences that when the dastardly foreigners (one of Zod’s henchmen is so brilliantly Germanic you expect him to ask, “Is it safe?”) come to take their home, we reunite as one to take it back. Indeed, almost every American stereotype is catered for, but it is okay as we get an insert or two of other countries watching 

Zod’s message and panicking like extras do in movies. Consider also that whilst it is the world that gets threatened, the only place the enemy focuses on is actually America (yes, yes. Earth is getting terraformed by a machine taking a break from destroying Zion). Why does this not become a global fight? Because we come to what should be offered as a legitimate question towards how desensitised people have either become or presumed to have become. There can be two conflicting thoughts here. We are 12 years on from 9/11. Surely then enough time has passed? The answer falls into subjection. But it will be a question the movie requires you to answer as buildings fall and people flee from dust clouds. 

The very fact these scenes involve none of the main cast but plot devices 101 the movie could easily exist without simply reinforces what is being told on screen. Yes, there may be thousands nameless and faceless people dying in other collapsing buildings, but here we have the personal moment of someone pulling someone else out of rubble. ‘Superman Returns’ trod very carefully on “The American Way.” in tone, dialogue and character and whilst ‘Man of Steel’ ensures care also to not directly reference what commentary suggests is now an unpopular ideal, I was left in no doubt that this movie was as much a summer blockbuster as it was both a healing process for its target audience and suggested validation for what its country has partaken in since that tragedy.

As for the much vaunted realism, it is a curiosity. Indeed, those looking for light, the very essence of both the Reeve and (I would argue) the Singer incarnations might want to look elsewhere. ‘Superman Returns’ was blasted into a hell normally reserved for Michael Bay onscreen masturbatory technique for its emo-----tional approach to the mythos. ‘Man of Steel’ drowns itself and the audience into portentous self importance with a repetitive declaration this is indeed meant to be taken seriously. The question though is, was Superman ever supposed to be taken seriously? For if this is the purposeful setting up of a shared universe with that Bat fellow, does then a serious incarnation not squat in the tree and take a dump on the very basis of the idea that if Batman was the dark, Superman was the light?

...


“If the world found out he existed, it would be the biggest thing that ever happened in human history...” David S. Goyer

To the absolute crux of the story being told and the one aspect this “new” mythology (“new” as in, based on the comic book ‘Superman: Birthright’) that defines whether or not you can connect on an emotional level. Whilst not an overriding theme in terms of screen time, what scenes we do get adhere to the very notion of how a world would indeed react to such knowledge. For this to have an answer we have to look at the movie in two separate halves and in doing so, we have to analyse Mr. Snyder as a director.

The simple truth is that even with the Dark Knight team behind the story (thankfully, after ‘Sucker Punch’, Snyder’s input into the actual story is minimal), the first hour brutally exposes his limitations. There is little wrong with scenes directly relating to the discussion of such exposure (save for one 30 second scene with a Priest that seemingly flips 33 years of identity crisis towards a positive conclusion), but problems arise significantly with everything that surrounds it. 

Mr. Snyder simply does not know how to direct actors (I will forever pity the poor female cast of ‘Sucker Punch’). Cavill is left floundering in any scene that does not require him to offer one note expressions of determination (CGI or not), which, considering the guy is headlining a $200 million dollar movie is at best negligent and at worst, unforgiveable. It also detracts significantly from the story that is attempting to be told. Identity. Belonging. Purpose. Trust in the compassion and acceptance of others. These are the very essences required to fuel the audience into participating in such a moral dilemma. Emotional moments designed for this purpose are in turn laughable without subtlety of hand to guide. We are shoehorned, bludgeoned through an erratic timeline of forth to back with a startling lack of subtlety and finesse. Indeed, it evokes the travesty of the third act in ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, where competency of technique is replaced with A-C-S-B-Z construction that on the surface is pleading for compliment but in actuality jars the momentum to the point it is allowing the audience to mark out its flaws. 

Ultimately, the dichotomy of personality in the character in relation to his connection to Earth does not in any way match the clarification of Zod’s in relation to Krypton. Which sadly is absolutely what the story intended yet is lost through generic (and again, poorly handled) character beats. This is where ‘Superman Returns’ knocks it out cold. There was connection. There was melancholy. There was care in the prescience of the world they lived in. There was acknowledgment from both sides that co-dependency was a given. It sold Superman as a God like, otherworldly presence that needed humanity to inspire his ideals. It was the core on which the Reeves films where grounded. Singer knew this. ‘Man of Steel’ attempts to try to acknowledge this but simply fails under the weight of displaced, poorly executed emotional grandeur. If only there was a love interest then to persuade Kal-El about what it is he is fighting for.

...

“I liked the fact that Lois was one person with Clark and another with Superman.” Margot Kidder (the original Lois Lane)

Where art thou, Sigourney Weaver? Linda Hamilton? Erm, Kate Beckinsale? Did Jodie Foster actually exist or was she a figment of Travis Bickle’s horny imagination after exiting the porn theatre? Don’t approach Amy Adams for answers. 

We get one line of, “Hey, I’m a modern chick standing up for myself. Respect me.” before she is swiftly relegated to first generic love interest , then woman in peril. This of course is nothing new. If movies have taught anything since time begin it is that all women of our world are helpless, weak individuals constantly in need of the manly man to manly man them to manly town (read: curtains blowing in the wind). Whilst we do get a strong female figure in Foara-Ul (a scene stealing Antje Foara in her first breakout movie. No. ‘Pandorum’ doesn’t count on the grounds of crapness), this is of course not an Earth female for they simply do not exist. 

Dicks rule the world. It is the swinging of dicks that indeed allow the Earth to rotate and keep us all alive. This is no criticism of the actress herself in the same way I cannot fault Cavill’s struggle with the patented Keanu Reeves paper bag in the first hour. There is only so much any talent can do with a role that in one scene threatens to quit (for not being allowed to write a story), only to pout in a similar scene 10 minutes later when threatened with the sack (for not being allowed to write the same story). To use a popular term, she exists solely to offer motivation to Superman that if he does indeed save Earth, he may very well get the ‘V’. Hell, even Jor-El knows this. He basically sends her to her death as a plot initiation point to test how much of a horn his son has got for her.

Two actors to rise above all this nonsense are Crowe and Shannon, but one suspects this is more their ability to function without direction and offer dramatic weight to any line (Costner on the other hand seemed like a one-two take deal. Any scene with himself and the young Kal-El had me reaching for the cynicism of a new born kitten cuddling into its mother). Indeed, General Zod is one of the better recent examples of movie villainy we have seen. Partly because he doesn’t allow himself to be captured as part of the plan (I honestly cannot take another variation on this theme), mainly because the impressively realised scenes on Krypton (involving primarily, Crowe and Shannon) offer much needed weight to the second half of the movie. Alas, whilst this cannot overcome entirely the baffling nature of Jor-El’s plan (he reveals why Kal-El was sent to Earth in a moment where you really should be walking out of the cinema and calling child services), you find yourself grateful it was delivered by an A-game Crowe. Having witnessed all that had preceded it, had these lines been delivered by anyone else involved other than Shannon it would’ve sunk the movie into absolute absurdity....

“He can’t do anything that’s not a visual effect… if he’s going to do something physical, that’s a visual effect. Because he‘s Superman.” Zack Snyder

I offer the concession that I am in agreement about the lack of action in ‘Superman Returns’ (not to mention that Lex was, well, shit). For all its intentions of romanticism to both Reeves classics there just weren’t very many scenes of Superman being super. If this was the fear for moviegoers, for mythological followers still burnt by their Singer experience, allow me then to address fears. This shows every dollar on screen and for the first time in his career, allows Mr. Snyder to offer an identity to the audience. One gets the sense the moment General Zod appears on screen with the viral warning already shown previously to the inter-world, Snyder himself breathes out a thankful sigh of relief and brings the A game the world never thought he had. So we get crunching sequences of people frankly beating the toilet habits out of each other, of swooping cameras, extended one take over the shoulder sequences (which look genuinely impressive when they are of a man flying at full speed to punch someone), mass destruction of small towns (the best set piece in the movie) and entire city blocks, punches that you genuinely feel the weight of. A caveat however presents itself. Bizarrely, the action sequences of ‘Superman Returns’, a movie made seven years previously, offers more authenticity than those on show here. For you see, how your disposition settles on modern cinema will dictate whether you see this as CGI at its most impressive/intrusive. Watching it, I recalled Neo fighting a gajillion Agent Smiths. If you accepted that, you’ll whoop here. The problem with Mr. Snyder’s claim is it is all in the context of the scene. If subscribing to the “throw shit at the green screen” rule of blockbuster, then one might accuse the makers of doing so to hide from the audience that actual lack of context behind what we are witnessing. What makes this assertion so jarring also is it was being overseen by a director who preached to ridicule the necessity of placing his Dark Knight into a real world existence. Let us look at it then from the lead character angle. Batman is not Superman and therefore lends itself more freely to the idea of realism. But the Superman 30 years ago wasn’t the Superman in ‘Man of Steel’. We still believed a man could fly. We still believed he and Zod were going at it. Do we believe a man can fly here? No. We believe we are watching a CGI man flying on the screen. We know there are no such things as Transformers, but three movies making billions in box office shows that, hey, we’ll ride with it, no? We are after all a generation of movie goers and movie makers that no longer have to proclaim ourselves as purists of the medium. With great budgets, comes great responsibility.

The conclusion we find ourselves eager to arrive it then is do we get the full price of a cinema ticket? Yes. Yes we do. One cannot deny the spectacle onscreen (a desire for hipster validity or not). They spent the money to shut off your brain and suspend time. I did. You will. Hours after, you still will. 

Days? Months? Years? Chances are if your brain engages this without cynicism, it will erase such queries when the next big budget ‘wow’ appears. You know in your soul it ultimately all means nothing... Felt nothing… Amounted to nothing. But for the moment when you suspended time, you loved it and that, for many, is what paying the price of a cinema ticket is about. I was able to shut my critique down in a manner I could not even pretend to have done with the first hour. Many will not, but more than the many will. In this sense, what Snyder does here is an unqualified success. 

These are the best actions scenes of the year and I suspect, the best for many a year to come....


"Do the DC characters exist in the universe I created? The answer is yes. In my mind, we have this fantastic character of Superman. It’s not madness that there would be others" Zack Snyder

Are we then heading to a shared DC universe? 

Fundamentally, it shares more than enough genetic traits for the answer to fall into the positives. History and fact offer the conclusion that the idea for such a universe merely exists due to envious glances towards Marvel Studios. The truth is more simple. Warner Brothers and DC long had the idea (but not a clue) on execution other than killing the notion with procrastination. Before reaction to ‘Superman Returns’ (2006) floated around the bowl, we had ‘I Am Legend’ (2007) with the now infamous ‘Superman v Batman’ cinema header (the movie I guess had to be remembered for something). As is want, idiocy from one leads to opportunism for another. Thus, the Marvel universe was born, ‘Iron Man’ (2008) introduced himself and the rest is both history and future.

...

"[Nolan’s] Batman was deliberately and smartly positioned as a stand-alone. The world they lived in was very isolated without any knowledge of any other superheroes. What Zack and Chris have done with this film is allow you to really introduce other characters into the same world.” Jeff Robinov, Warner Bros. President.

Fiscally, a connection to the Dark Knight trilogy would negate the obvious expense of further rebooting Gotham’s favourite son. A closer analysis suggests a more involved look at the audience who visit these characters through the medium of cinema compared to those more personally and emotionally invested in these worlds. Who but the most observant would note the Wayne Enterprises logo on a satellite? Who but versed in previous would nod agreeably at the Brainiac reference when Zod loses his protection and submits to sensory overload? Now conclude which group rests in the minority. The sense surely then lies in a purposeful unity to a staggeringly successful (and in many ways unique) trilogy. Whilst it is true both Nolan and Bale have stated a desire to move on, whereas Marvel are famously more loyal to protecting their chequebook than the talent, Warner Bros. would have little problem requesting a price to be named. After all, to finish on a comparative, ‘Man of Steel’ to ‘Superman Returns’ is essentially nothing more than what ‘The Incredible Hulk’ was to Ang Lee’s experiment.


Time, and box office for ‘Man of Steel’, will detail whether it is time for Warner Bros. to strut.

                                @AjenoMerveilles

My Superman: Man of Steel

I will not let this film Inception me. I won’t be taken in by the big-booming score and the incredible special-effects. It is not happening.

Everything in my bones is telling me that Man of Steel is a special film, but I’m not ready to whole-heartedly scream it out from the highest mountain. Not yet anyway.

…

Truth be told, I am not Superman’s biggest fan. Yes, I admire the Donner films but they have always left me numb. I couldn’t and still can’t relate to them whatsoever. That Superman was far too reactive, far too mild-mannered, passive, cheery, bright and bloody hopeful.

Christopher Reeve’s Superman never felt like an alien with immense power, he felt like a human being that has just come across these gifts. I sensed little conflict in that Superman and the little there was felt forced.

I just didn’t get that Superman.

Thankfully since watching the Donner films I have come across more relatable and interesting interpretations. Yes, I am a fan of the Smallville version of Sups and Red Son is one of my favourite comics of all time. Both these versions taught me that Superman can be a deeper more thoughtful character than I thought he could be.

...

Back to Smallville; say what you will about the show but it got across the idea that Clark Kent was not human, he was different and all throughout that show he was struggling with this fact. There were moments when he was even struggling to figure-out whether his allegiances were with the human race – whether he was bad or good. Again, I found that Sups more relatable than Reeve’s.

I think Cavill's Clark Kent comes from the same lineage as Tom Welling's. The brooding dark nature of Cavill's Clark makes absolute sense to me. If you lived your life not knowing, not only who you are, but what you are then you are not going to be a cheery hopeful person. This film is about Clark's journey of discovering himself and that journey isn't going to be all bright colours. Imagine how emotional the TV show 'Who do you think you are?' is and add an Alien episode. This film goes a long way to explaining why Clark is so hopeful. That hope has to come from somewhere. 

I've hated the way previous Superman films have tried to make Clark Kent appear Jesus like. I've hated the way the public have always accepted him - it never has rung true. In Man of Steel, Clark and the world he inhabits, is a world I recognise. We (human beings) would never accept him as a saviour and protector, we'd try to nuke him.

…

I’ve read a lot of reviews which mark down Man of Steel for being too dark and joyless. Watching the opening sequence in Krypton was one of the most joyful blockbuster cinema experiences I have ever had. I had my mouth open throughout the Krypton scenes trying to comprehend what I was seeing.

What the film did from the beginning was set up the idea that although Clark may look human, he really isn’t. He comes from this beautiful, vast and plush world; where they ride dragon like creatures, use PinPoint screens when they are delivering their children and they genetically modify their population depending on need.

Also, watching the flashback when Clark was struggling to focus his powers further highlights the fact that HE IS AN ALIEN. This disassociation from the human race is why I truly think some have had a problem with this Superman. Although Henry Cavill’s Superman insists that he is as American as the soldiers in the film, Man of Steel systematically points out that he really isn’t and that is one of the things I found most fascinating about the whole film.

…

And the action. I found the action overwhelming. I actually agree with most negative critics of the film who say that there was too much action and Snyder didn’t know when to stop – but I don’t think that this was necessarily thing. The action, again, makes it clear that Superman and the Kryptonians ARE NOT HUMAN – THEY ARE ALIENS. The destruction caused in the action scenes make it clear that this isn’t the Donner Superman. Also, the special-effects are bloody spectacular and helps to sell this world to the audience.

I also found the fight scenes believable. This was Clark's first time out as Superman, there is no way he could have limited the damage - especially against multiple super enemies.

…

Michael Shannon. He is nothing short of just brilliant in this film. I can’t help but comparing him to Heath Ledger’s Joker and thinking that he comes out of that comparison very well.

Shannon plays Zod as a genocidal maniac with incredible depth. I found myself sympathising with Zod in parts of the film and that left me truly troubled. He wasn’t just blindingly crazy; he had a reason for his craziness – to stop Kryptonians from being extinct. When you frame his actions under this reason, he becomes difficult to disregard and he left a lasting impression on me.

The final scene where Zod is left with nothing and all he wants to do is make Kal pay was, for me, truly emotional. Although the finale of this scene has been very controversial, it makes absolute sense.  

Also, a quick shout out to Antje Traue who damn near steals every scene she’s in.

…  

The only negative thing I can say about this film is that I didn’t buy how quickly Clark and Lois' relationship developed. It felt false.

But apart from that, I can’t think of anything else I didn’t enjoy and this makes me feel uncomfortable. The last time I felt this way about a movie was Inception and that didn’t end up well for me.

…

Man of Steel feels like the start of something special. I can’t shake that feeling. I can’t shake that feeling that Man of Steel is a nigh-perfect blockbuster film. I can’t shake the feeling that Henry Cavill will do to Reeves what Ledger did to Nicholson.

Although I have all of these overwhelming feelings for Man of Steel, I am not ready to accept them. I’m going to wait. I’m going to let my feelings marinate.

I would ask people to ignore the professional reviews and give this film a go. I’ll be shocked if you’re disappointed. And if you are, let me know about it.

                                  @chocoteddyfilms