How Do You Solve a Problem Like Superman?

Why can’t Warner Bros/DC make a good Superman movie?

It’s an interesting question, particularly so, given that they seem so adept at making Batman movies.

By my count they have rebooted Batman on the big screen three times since the ludicrously campy 60’s-era TV show, (four times if you count “Batfleck”, which I don’t because it wasn’t techincally a “Batman movie” but rather some sort of Justice League ensemble nonsense) and each time, the resulting series of “Bats” films has gone on to become a classic. (A few caveats here before the fanboys @ me… yes the original series from the 90’s went downhill once Joel Schumacher took over and Michael Keaton was replaced by a revolving door of other actors, but the two Tim Burton movies are indeed classics, and Nicholson’s Joker is legendary. And yes, techincally the jury is still out on Matt Reeves’ outing with Robert Pattinson, but I thought they did an admirable job, the reviews were good, and WB/DC seem committed to making more).

But while we may quibble over the details of this Batman movie or that Batman movie, the larger point is that WB/DC appear fearless in the face of the daunting task of rebooting Batman over-and-over, sometimes with nary a decade between attempts. And they have been wildly successful in almost every case.

And yet over the last 45 years, since Richard Donner teamed up with Christopher Reeve, the same Studio/Creative Division (WB/DC) has failed over-and-over to make a good Superman movie.

Why?

Superman is the quintessential American Superhero, his motto is literally “Truth, Justice, and The American Way.” He is everything we aspire to be as Americans, honest, courageous and forthright. Making successful Superman movies should be as easy as falling out of a boat.

And yet it has not been.

As you might expect, or else you would not be here reading this, I have a theory. I believe that the problem is not a creative problem, but a philosophical one. A problem that can be summed up very simply, as “Hollywood does not like White Hats.”

I will leave it to the armchair psychiatrists to analyze the reasons why, but Hollywood has always struggled to tell stories about characters that are purely good and decent. And to be fair, it’s hard to make “White Hat” characters work in the movies, particularly in adventure, crime and genre movies, because drama is conflict. Hollywood prefers to tell stories about “anti-heroes”… characters that live in the grey areas between right and wrong, characters that struggle to keep one foot in the light.

I love the way Sean Connery defines the fundamental moral problem of the White Hat in THE UNTOUCHABLES…

“What are you prepared to do?”

“Everything within the law…”

“And then what are you prepared to do?”

That right there, is Batman’s philosophy, my friends. Costner desperately wants to remain a White Hat and Connery is telling him the uncomfortable facts of life. You can’t be, not in this world of men, not if you want to win.

And indeed, one of the major subplots of THE UNTOUCHABLES is how Eliot Ness, a good and decent man, and the ultimate White Hat, is hardened by his relentless pursuit of the amoral Al Capone.

It is this version of dramatic morality that Hollywood is most comfortable with. It is these kinds of heroes that mostly dominate the movies that Hollywood makes.

And that’s the real problem with Superman. At its heart, the modern interpretation of Superman is a Christ allegory, and nothing makes Hollywood more uncomfortable than a pure White Hat like Jesus Christ.

Now, I happen to love Richard Donner’s Superman, and while I’m not going to claim that Donner’s embrace of the Christ allegory is the reason why that movie is great, I will however note that no Superman movie that has ever jettisoned the Christ element of the modern story has been anywhere near as creatively successful as Donner’s outing was.

Listen to part of the speech Marlon Brando, as Jor-El, gives when Superman first discovers the Fortress of Solitude.

“How does a good man live? What is virtue? When does a man’s obligation to those around him exceed his obligation to himself?… even on Krypton, there is no precise science which provides us with the answers… They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show them the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you… my only son.”

“There is no precise science…” no, there is only Faith.

But, of course, the Christ ideal is more than just words. God is ominpresent and all-powerful, so why does he not interfere in human affairs? Because that’s not how it works. God says to us, “you have Free Will and you must make your own moral choices. But because you are human, you will make mistakes… you will fail. And when you do, I will be there to pick you up again.”

Which is exactly how Superman approaches his responsibilities on Earth. He is forbidden to interfere in Human history, rather, his father urges him to “let his leadership stir others to action.”

For whatever reason, and again I will not try to play armchair psychiatrist here, Hollywood does not seem to appreciate this concept. WB in particular seems much more comfortable with Batman’s version of morality. Sadly, Batman’s philosophy is not hopeful and aspirational like Superman’s, it is cynical and defeatist.

Batman says to us “human systems aren’t just flawed, they are irretrievably corrupt. And I will do everything in my power to make sure that the system delivers justice in the way that I think it should be delivered.” Unlike Superman, Batman has no faith in the people who make up the system. He does not believe that people can be better. He doesn’t even seem to believe that humans aspire to be better. And he doesn’t wait around for them to try… instead he uses his wealth and his physical strength to force the outcomes he wants, rather than lead by example and pick up the pieces in failure, as Superman does.

While discussing some of these ideas on Twitter last week, someone made a very interesting comment. He said that while Superman is Christ-like, Batman is Nietzschean and Ironman is Randian. I think this is not only true and accurate, but goes a long way towards explaining why Hollywood has done such a great job with Batman and Ironman, and such a terrible job with Superman.

Both Nietzschean and Randian philosophies are human systems… articulated by human philosophers and defined by human behavior and, as such, they are flawed systems… because human beings are flawed. And because these philosophies are flawed, they can be effectively critiqued by dramatic story-telling. We all know the fundamental complaints directed at these all-too-human philosophies… Randian Philosophy is cold and Capitalist and makes no considerations for the poor and unlucky. Nietzschean philosophy loses sight of the individual in favor of a might-makes-right kind of world where the strong rule over the weak.

Christ, on the other hand, is both purely good and all powerful. You don’t even have to be a psychiatrist to understand why Hollywood would recoil from a character like that in favor of Nietzschean or Randian characters like Batman and Ironman… and no, it’s not because Hollywood is amoral and corrupt. It’s because Hollywood is trying to tell a good story, and as a character, Superman is very hard to fit into good drama precisely because he is all-powerful. How do you create jeopardy for a character that can’t be hurt? And without jeopardy, how do you write compelling drama?

And it’s a shame, because in the original trailer for MAN OF STEEL, WB hinted that they were finally going to get Superman right. The trailer is one of the greatest ever, gorgeously produced and highly emotional. And it contains the line:

“You will give the People of Earth something to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun.”

Beautiful… perfect even.

Unfortunately, while MAN OF STEEL mouthed all the right words, it never really got the dance steps right.

Russell Crowe, replacing Brando as Jor-El, has a great line in the movie which speaks directly to the problem of making a good Superman movie. Superman’s mother worries, “He’ll be an outcast… they’ll kill him.” and Crowe responds “How?… he’ll be a God to them.”

Precisely, and therein lies the problem with telling great Superman stories… the drama must be emotional, not physical. And so, when MAN OF STEEL devolves into 45 minutes of CGI artifacts smashing into each other and destroying Metropolis, the drama is lost, and the movie deflates.

And then, finally, the mayhem ends when Superman, in an act of very human desperation, does something very un-Christian… he breaks The Villain’s neck… and the magic is lost.

And now here we are a decade later. Henry Cavill is out, the latest in a long line of Superman-related casualties, the creative team at DC has been replaced (again), and the fate of Superman… perhaps the greatest superhero ever created… remains in doubt.

Well… here’s the good news. Because I am a hopeful man by nature, I choose to think well of WB and the new creative team at DC… I choose to have confidence that they can finally get Superman right, and I would urge you to do the same…

"They can be a great studio, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show them the way…”