Monday, June 17, 2013

Plato's Man of Steel

Spoilers ahead, to all citizens who have yet to see Man of Steel.

Socrates: Hail Glaucon, it is I, Socrates!


Glaucon: Socrates, trusted friend. Did you too view Man of Steel last weekend?

Socrates: Indeed; it is likely I have seen it. Being that it was the highest grossing June opening of all-time, it is logical that I would be in that number.

Glaucon: Socrates, this movie upset me. They have changed too much. They have ruined Superman.

S: Heavens, my dear Glaucon! How could they have ruined this character. As certainly I have too seen Man of Steel, I disagree it has ruined Superman. I ask you to suppose, Glaucon, what was so terrible about this film?

Was it the suit?

G: Indeed, I missed the bright red underwear.


S: The suit was dull and gray, yes, but all of the clothes on Krypton were such, so it is logical for Jor-El to make a similar outfit for Kal. It would be illogical for Jor-El to make a suit for his son with underwear on the outside when his people had no such garment?

G: Truly so. Then perhaps I am upset with Clark's brooding. Superman should not be as introspective and stoic as he was in this film.

S: To what end? If Superman is to work, he must be equal parts Jesus and Moses, no?

G: Who is Jesus? This is the Bronze Age Greece.

S: Don't fucking get all meta on me, dear Claucon.

G: Then yes, he must be a combination of Moses archetypes and Jesus archtypes.

S: Then it must be that Superman must be 33 years old, the same age Christ was when he died.

G: Truly.

S: So Superman must be 33 in the year 2013. Should any man born in 1980 not brood?

G: Men born in 1980 have unique lives. They grew up watching television. They listened to Nirvana as a teenager. He watched 9/11 as a young man.

S: And would not have Superman prevented 9/11? Couldn't he have saved many lives in the towers?

G: He would not have revealed himself at such an early age.

S: Indeed, Superman being a child of the 80s completely changes his demeanor.
And let us assume the Dark Knight takes place in this same universe, as Christopher Nolan produced this film.

G: Yes, indeed! Why didn't Superman come to the aid of Gotham when Bane held the city for months?

S: If he could not reveal himself in New York, would he reveal himself in Gotham?

G: Indeed, this Superman must have lived through tragedy, unable to help, to prevent his identity. But this film then became too dark, and this film made Superman to do thing he should never.

S: Ah, Glaucon, you mean when Superman killed Zod.

G: Yes. Superman never kills.

S: And why is that?

G: Because he does not. He is above killing. He is the ideal hero and the ideal hero does not murder. He is the super-timocrat.

S: But why does he not kill? Certainly the reason cannot simply be because he does not?

G: It's in his moral code. You have seen this film: when he was a boy, he crushed the pole rather than harm the bully, when he was a man he walked away instead of fighting back against the drunk trucker. He does not harm.

S: Yes, but does not even fight at this point. He has had no opportunity to fight. Zod is his first real fight, therefore his first opportunity to kill. And after he kills Zod, he is obviously disturbed by the act.
G: Truly he was. It will be assumed the no killing clause will enter his morality by the next film. He will battle Luthor or Darksied or anyone, but he will be haunted by Zod's death. And then he will not kill.

S: Should we have assumed that in his first battle, his code of conduct is fully fleshed out?

G: Indeed no; no man is fully formed in their first great struggle.

S: Then therefore is Superman? This is his origin; if not killing is such an important part of his character, shouldn't we see the moment where he decides not to kill, instead of simply assuming he does not?

G: Then killing Zod was indeed the crux of his origin. Killing Zod was his weakest moment, where he formed his moral code. This was the low point that informed all of his high moral choices.

S: Indeed my dear friend. So how is he ruined?

G: Socrates, he is not. If anything it adds more depth to his moral code. He does not kill because he killed in his first fight, and it did not agree with him.

S: And thus, dear Glaucon, the hero is saved and has not perished. He hath become more grounded than he has been since the first movie, and I for one approve of Mr. Nolan and Mr. Snyder's take.





                                      The original Justice League

No comments:

Post a Comment