Man of Steel

It is puzzling. How can I like the emotion of a film so much and yet be so annoyed by its visuals? How can interesting characters surrender to gratuitous special effects? Such is the case with Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel," the newest franchise reboot, this time about, of course, Superman. This is the seventeen-hundredth film I've seen, and I wish I could have left the theater with a bit more excitement.

But it can be said happily that I did leave the theater thinking about the actors. I get the impression that these performers really insisted that they would only sign on if their characters were made more interesting than they were in previous installments, and for the most part, it works. Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent and Russell Crowe as Jor-El here are not simply cameos. (How cool would it be to have both Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe as fathers?) Superman is fatherless and yet he is not. He has answers, but many of them don't make sense. These two fathers are the moral fabric of the movie. Consider Jor-El's precious goodbye to his only son, and later guidance throughout the film. He is a scientist and a pacifist, ready to engage in a debate to win but just as ready to wield a gun. Also consider Pa Kent's fatherly supervision of young Clark, who is understandably confused (played quite well by young Dylan Sprayberry), far more so than any other teenager. Pa Kent doesn't have many answers, but he does have humility, hope and work ethic, and he tries to instill this in his young adopted son.  He's far more simple than Jor-El, but he's done the best he can. The young Clark panics and begs to keep on pretending to be Jonathan's son. "You are my son," Jonathan replies, holding Clark tightly. It's a moving scene; this is the emotion I mentioned liking so much.

Finally, there's Michael Shannon's performance as Superman's nemesis, General Zod. His multilingual ultimatum to the people of Earth is harrowing. Shannon has a talent for playing villains and morally complex men, but here I think his portrayal is just as much of the latter as it is the former. Zod sees himself as protector of Krypton, and he will fight to save it; he is utilitarianism at its worst. Fortunately, it's not only these four actors I've mentioned who are really good in their roles.  So too are Richard Schiff as a benign scientist, Christopher Meloni as a hawkish military officer, Laurence Fishburne as Daily Planet editor Perry White, and Diane Lane as Martha Kent.  And finally, Henry Cavill as Superman does a remarkable job. He brings unique qualities to the character: youth, vulnerability, pride, confusion, confidence. He deserves accolades for his performance for how well he carries it. But one disappointing aspect of the film is that charming chemistry between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder in "Superman" from 1978 is missing here.

Do I prefer "Superman" over "Man of Steel"? Definitely not. I found the first film to be dull and silly, a classic example of style over substance. Unfortunately, though, that is prevalent more often than not in "Man of Steel." I mentioned Jor-El's ability to debate. At one point, he is engaged in an argument with Zod. Zod and Jor-El are once comrades but now enemies, at odds with how to ensure the future prosperity of their home, Krypton. As Krypton is destroyed, Jor-El manages to send his son to Earth, far away from Zod, where he hopes his son will lead the people of Earth to a brighter future.  Reunited, the tables have turned. Zod has escaped from prison and is ready to destroy Earth, and he doesn't intend any reason or logic to stop him, despite Jor-El's best efforts. It's an entertaining scene, but it's ruined immediately with a cutaway to Superman being chased by some sort of arm machine.  It's unfortunate that Snyder has let visual effects practically ruin "Man of Steel." Visual effects enhanced, not hindered, his previous comic book film, "Watchmen." Here, it is not the case. The first half-hour or so features special effects that look as bad as they were in "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" more than a decade ago. The film's second half features a lot of the character-driven scenes I previously mentioned. But with about an hour left to go, the audience must sit through scene after scene of headache-inducing noise and destruction, with the vision of "Independence Day" but the amateurish performance of "Transformers." And just when you think it's over, there's more (and that ain't a good thing). Supposedly, even Superman's cape in the action scenes is CGI.

So now I feel as though the film has not lived up to its very high expectations.  It's a bit ironic that the previous "Superman" film, Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," which, despite a lot of money and solid reviews (much higher than "Man of Steel"), was deemed so much a failure that the studio felt they needed to reboot their reboot. Studio logic would then dictate that it's time for another reboot. But Superman the character has a great talent for picking himself up, and so I am reminded of previous comic book films. "X-Men" was fairly lame but was followed by an exceptional sequel. "Batman Begins" brought a breath of fresh air to Batman but was not nearly as terrific as Christopher Nolan's masterful "The Dark Knight."  Many fans consider "Spider-Man 2" to be superior to "Spider-Man" (I disagree). So, I have what Superman claims his "S" stands for that the next installment will be much better. This looks like a job for Superman.

Read More →

Arbitrary but Admirable Movies

The DMZ

What I like to consider the "Pather Panchali" of Korean cinema, Park Sang-ho's 1965 Korean semi-documentary "The DMZ" (or "Bimujangjidae" in Korean) is a film once thought to be lost forever but was recently discovered. While possessing nice shots and a definite amount of risk (filming in the actual DMZ surrounded by troops and landmines cannot be too safe), it's not particularly well-made (the original film reviews agree with me), and it requires a tolerance of things like 1960s Konglish subtitles, but it is a film of impressive themes and emotions. Its actors--a boy and a girl playing two children lost in the DMZ searching for their mother--are sometimes annoying but mostly natural and interesting to watch. The idea for the film was sparked when director Park was visiting Japan and met with some Western tourists. The tourists asked him about Panmunjom and seemed to take a thrill in the idea of such a place, without recognizing the danger, tragedy or either countries to the north or south of the so-called truce village. He decided to make this film. It might be assumed that Park hoped and believed that within several years the peninsula would be united in one, but such is the tragedy of Korea.

The Lady and the Reaper


The film that deserved the Best Animated Short Feature Award at last year's Oscars, "The Lady and the Reaper" is an eight-minute piece from Spain. It starts sentimental, then surreal, then absurd. We see an aging woman, longing for her husband and ready to pass away. One night, she dies, and her spirit happily takes the hand of the Reaper to go to the other side--until she's saved. Briefly, a Time magazine photo is seen introducing us to a "famous doctor who saves another miserable life." This doctor is proud of his accomplishment, regardless of the fact that his patient wants to die, but his stubbornness is only matched by the persistence of the Reaper, as the two begin in a seemingly-endless battle over this woman. It is probable that many could make arguments about end-of-life issues with this film, but it is also doubtful that such an idea was the intent of the film. This movie is funny, wonderfully engaging and has a very effective musical score from Serio De La Puente. In my formative years as an ESL teacher, I would show this to my students, regardless of age or level, and of course the activities and assessments would vary, but it was usually a very enjoyable lesson.

The Cow

Dariush Mehrjui's "Gaav," or "The Cow," is about a universal theme regarding a working individual in unordinary times. In this case, he finds himself pitted against every member of the community. Ezzatolah Entezami plays a villager whose proudest prize and accomplice is his cow. While journeying away from the village, the cow is killed by a rival village. The community is concerned that Entezami's character will be unable to cope with the loss. As a community, they decide to tell the villager that his cow has run away. In an interview, Mehrjui talked about how the film was produced in 1969, at the time of the Shah's hightened propaganda about Iran entering a new period of modernity. He noted that the Iranian government was ashamed that Iran was being represented by its "un-modern" villages at international film festivals. But Mehrjui felt the absence of art films of Europe and America in Iran, so he made this film. Incidentally, the film launched the career of Entezami, who is considered one of Iran's greatest actors. The film is also regarded as the start of the Iranian New Wave, and it was also supposedly a favorite of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home


After the seriousness of the previous "Star Trek" film, "The Search for Spock," the cast and crew decided to take a much more light-hearted approach. Practically a slapstick comedy but also with a sincere environmental message, Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and his crew approach Earth to find that their planet is being destroyed by an alien species. Spock (Leonard Nimoy) quickly (in a matter of seconds) decides that it must be because whales are extinct, so they must return to the past (1986) to bring back a humpback whale to communicate with the aliens. Once that ridiculous exposition has passed, the film becomes incredibly enjoyable, as the characters try to make their way through San Fransisco. Chekov cannot understand that 1986 was still during the Cold War, and that it might appear supicious for a man with a Russian accent to be asking for directions to the nuclear vessels (or "nuclear wessels"). Scotty cannot figure out how to speak to the computer, speaking into the mouse as if it is a microphone. Bones finds the primitive surgeries of the hospital to be similar to practices used in the Dark Ages. And Spock's state is disguised by Kirk as being the result of too much drugs in the 1960s. It doesn't help their cause as they explain that in the future there is no money, thus making it difficult to pay for dinner.

Thirteen Days

President Kennedy is warned that the missiles are within range of American cities, that the government would only have five minutes notice, and that the missiles have the potential to kill eighty million Americans. He is surrounded by a group of various factions, led by pacifists like Adlai Stevenson, pragmatists like Robert McNamara and hardliners like Curtis LeMay. The tremendous amount of pressure on the Kennedy administration is efficiently demonstrated in this movie, a movie I would consider virtually the only film justifiably shown at full-length in a social studies classroom. Kennedy, played by Bruce Greenwood, is advised primarily by his brother, the Attorney General Robert Kennedy (Steven Culp) and his chief of staff (Kevin Costner), a role which was largely exaggerated for probably several reasons. Regardless, it's a fascinating film.

Powaqqatsi

Godfrey Reggio's "Powaqqatsi," the sequel to his "Koyaanisqatsi," is a similar-themed documentary. While its predecessor focused on the juxtaposition of nature and modern technology, "Powaqqatsi" has a focus on the impact on humans, specifically on the cultures and work ethics of third world nations. What drives this film, and Reggio's others in his trilogy, is Philip Glass's awesome score, particularly the opening moments as well as what is usually titled "Anthem: Part 2," which was used in trailers for films such as "Philadelphia" and "Dead Man Walking" as well as a sequence in "The Truman Show" (also scored by Glass, a decade later). Michael Dare wrote, "If I could send just one film to the stars as a tribute to the beauty and passion of our species and planet, I'd have a hard time choosing between the two films of Godfrey Reggio. They're both masterpieces, affirming and lifegiving, raising the art of film into the stratosphere. The common language of no language makes his films perfectly international; I can't image anyone from any country seeing them and not walking away with the same message--that our homeworld is beautiful and giving, that all humans are equal in the sight of mother earth, that if we take from her more than she's willing to give, we must suffer the consequences."

Harakiri

Known as the essential "anti-samurai" film, there are many reasons to watch this movie. Its eerie and almost demonic cinematography is reminiscent of more well-known Japanese films like "Onibaba" and "Throne of Blood." Masaki Kobayashi's "Harakiri" is a repudiation of feudalism and authoritarianism, set in the Edo period, as Japan ended its isolation and began the Empire of Japan. Imperial Japan was obviously a period of severe aggression, and it seems to be that Japan feels a great amount of guilt because of this but also wishes not to specifically apologize for its aggression. Anyway, this period served as an allegory for the film. The film's most powerful moment, for most, is its scene of seppuku, or, as it is defined, Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment. The character must use a dull blade (he has sold his sword for food for his family) to commit the act. Supposedly, when the film was shown at the 1964 Cannes Film Festival, members of the audience fainted. See Joan Mellen's Criterion Collection essay and NonStoptoTokyo's Youtube post for more information about the film.

Murmur of the Heart

"Murmur of the Heart," directed by Louis Malle, explores a very unique family. The family, not dissimilar from other families depicted in films, particularly in French films, is led by an opinionated father, with an independent mother, two rambunctious older boys, and one younger boy who happens to be fourteen-years-old and desperate to lose his virginity. His route of doing so cannot be described as conventional, and can be viewed as quite shocking, but much time has past since 1971 when the film played in America, so I will not be the one to provide the details (just go ahead and watch the film). This boy, played by Benoit Ferreux, is more mature than his older brothers but willing to go along in search of his identity, and thus we have a quintessential coming-of-age story. He tries cigars and prostitutes (until that is spoiled by his older brothers), but his quest is postponed (or is it?) due to his heart condition, which requires a hospital stay away from the city. Here, perhaps, he will find what he is looking for.

The Purple Rose of Cairo

While Woody Allen's "Crimes in Misdeamnors" four years after this movie carried with it such a heavy weight which was a feature in some of his later films like "Match Point," "The Purple Rose of Cairo," while serious in romance and the emotions of disappointment, was much lighter. Like any character in an Allen film, Mia Farrow's leading role is one who despite her misery finds solitude in Depression-era America at the movies. Continuing to see the same romance film over and over again, she eventually falls in love with one of the characters, played by Jeff Daniels. A crisis is soon to unfold, as the character Daniel's plays in this fictitious movie jumps out of the screen and begins to talk with Farrow. The crisis, of course, is that now the movie cannot continue with its important character, so the studio sends the actor (also, obviously, played by Daniels) to try and convince this character to return to the movie. As might be expected, a love triangle commences. This movie's sentimentality is perfect, expressing a nostalgic tribute to movies without becoming too engrossing and is one of Allen's finest films.

Young Mr. Lincoln

While exaggerated in many parts for obvious reasons, I was surprised at how accurate many other parts were; the mysterious case Lincoln the lawyer must solve and the way in which he solved it are not entirely an invention. Henry Fonda in the title role (the same year his good friend yet ideological opponent Jimmy Stewart played another idealist politician in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") also looked remarkably similar to a younger Abraham Lincoln. I once asked on IMDb about the makeup effects, as I was convinced that Fonda's cheekbones and forehead were made to appear more robust as Lincoln's were; I was reminded that 1939 also saw the release of "The Wizard of Oz" and its even more impressive makeup techniques. Lincoln, as many are aware, was a complex president, a man of ambiguous nature who signed the Emancipation Proclamation yet who was the only serious politician in the country who endorsed such a silly idea of colonizing American blacks from American soil to Liberia. He was a man who is regarded as a principle figure in freedom yet was the closest an American president has come to tyranny. He fought a war to free slaves yet did so with the sole purpose being to keep the Union in tact. Lincoln was a man of depression, serious thought, and haunted by death. Yet these serious themes are largely ignored here, and Fonda's Lincoln focuses on the Lincoln of humor, wit, intelligence and storytelling.

Read More →