(Spoilers for "Man Of Steel," but if you think a movie like "Man Of Steel" can be spoiled, you're probably an idiot)
In “The Man Of Steel,” the latest joyless superhero
blockbuster, our title gladiator purposely catapults a similarly-powered
villain through a gas station, causing a massive explosion. It’s one of several
moments when Superman’s pummeling of a villain takes precedence over anything
else onscreen, an ongoing event that eventually leads to Superman continuing to
rain haymakers down on evil Zod as the 9/11’ing of Metropolis occurs in front
of him. I’ve heard many bend over backwards to justify this, in a way that’s
begun to make me physically ill. I suppose there is now some sort of Social
Contract in these films, the acknowledgement that every building that topples
is empty, and/or each faceless death should be meaningless.
Of course, the idea that might-makes-right has been keeping
audiences coming back to see blockbusters for a couple of decades now. The
contemporary version of these fans seems to feel that a little collateral
damage is acceptable, as long as the bad guys get theirs, a concept likely
borrowed from a real life refusal to admit that armies worldwide, including
Americans, produce sickening collateral damage almost weekly (maybe more?). It
recalls a conversation I had with a peer about a special ten minute
presentation of footage for “White House Down,” yet another recent mass-destruction
blockbuster. The plot was unclear to me (I hadn’t seen the footage) so I asked
him how the villain had accomplished enacting such violence against the White
House, suggesting, “Did he use unmanned drones?”
Amusingly, his response was, “No, no, nothing science
fiction like that.” If there wasn’t more evidence that the stomach-turning
truth of violence had surpassed the darkest hints of our imagination, that was
it. As if an unmanned drone would be “science fiction”: the acceptance, and
approval, of films like “Man of Steel” seems rooted in the idea of something
like a predator drone being largely approved by general audiences. It may
slaughter civilians, and it may pose a threat to our security, but as long as
we get the bad guy, what’s another civilian wedding party or two? Hell, even
the name “Predator Drone” sounds like a badass tentpole blockbuster starring
Taylor Kitsch, Rhona Mitra and Idris Elba.
Amusingly, I saw people arbitrarily drawing the line when
criticizing this aspect of “Man Of Steel,” pointing to another similar
blockbuster in “The Avengers” in suggesting how such a thing is done “right.”
This doesn’t seem to be a notion that critics are pursuing, but let me note ALL
FACELESS DEATHS IN MOVIES ARE BAD. Perhaps these films are therapeutic in
dealing with our feelings towards massive disasters like 9/11, but that day was
over a decade ago. The current generation is not getting therapy out of the
visual of skyscrapers coming down, but rather enjoyment. These pictures are not
only finding a way to commercialize death (the villain in “Man Of Steel” is
flat-out murdered in a way that falsely suggests it was the hero’s only option)
but to dehumanize audiences into becoming borderline sociopaths. I’m not
certain what’s more appalling: that “Man Of Steel” one-ups “The Avengers” in
its violence and off-screen death toll, or that “The Avengers” allows this to
happen while its characters are lightly tossing around quips and gags. When the
dust has settled, Tony Stark cracks a joke about schwarma, and no one stops and
realizes they’re likely surrounded by thousands, maybe millions of corpses.