If you know me, you know that I am not a junkie for superhero movies.

There have been a few surprises (think Batman), but otherwise we have about 10 years of forgettable material.

The new Man of Steel trailer is now out and I can’t help but think this may shift some planets for the superhero genre.

Time will tell but watch it for yourself. Not the typical cheese sauce.

Previously I posted a Guardian article which chronicles the way Superman has adapted to changing times. The author says that this Superman may be darker than we remember, but Superman has always adapted to his environment.

After the second world war broke out, he changed his slogan from fighting for “truth and justice” to fighting for “truth, justice and the American way”. That continued during the 1950s, when he became a symbol of muscular American patriotism which could do no wrong.

But as the nation grappled with the turmoil of the 1970s and embraced a more diverse culture, Christopher Reeve gave Superman more human qualities. In Richard Donner’s 1978 film version of the comic book saga, self-sacrifice suddenly became part of Superman’s appeal.

That continued through to the 2006 movie starring Brandon Routh when, with an evangelical Christian in the White House and much talk of the war on terror being a conflict with Islam, Superman was depicted almost as a Christ-like figure. Even as recently as this year, the latest DC Comics story had Superman pack in his newspaper job to start a blog.

“Superman changes with remarkable rapidity and yet manages to paradoxically project an idea of unchanging virtue,” said Professor Benjamin Saunders of the University of Oregon, author of an academic study of superheroes called Do The Gods Wear Capes?

Hannah and I watched a documentary on James Bond and the same theme was present. During the excess years the gadgets of Bond were over the top. Now in the last movie with the recession, his only gift was a gun and a locator. He used to be fighting the Russians, and now he is fighting terrorists.

Bond adapts with the times like Superman.

Harris appropriately closes his article with this reflection.

In the end, perhaps it does not matter how Snyder directs Man of Steel in 2013. He can take Superman in a darker direction, he can bring out a movie more suited to the arthouse cinemas than the multiplexes. He can make him represent the ominous and confusing world of 2013. But in the end the more he changes the more Superman stays the same.

For Superman is not just some sort of unique being flying high above us. In the projection of our desires, hopes and fears, Superman is us.

I really enjoyed this article from Brett McCracken on Zero Dark Thirty and Django Unchained. He writes about a filmaker’s responsibility and argues that depiction is not always endorsement.

From some angles, the suggestion that artistic depiction is endorsement appears ludicrous. A cursory survey of art history reveals as much. Caravaggio was clearly not endorsing the behavior of the Roman soldiers in his paintings of Christ’s passion, for example. And then there’s the entire tradition of social realist art which intends depiction for the very opposite of endorsement: for chastisement or expose. Courbet’s The Stone Breakers and any number of Ken Loach films, for example, do not depict poverty and inequality so as to endorse their existence; rather they depict them to bring awareness to egregious conditions and abominable injustices.

But the depiction of “the ugly” in art as means to bring about reform is one thing. Should artists be given free pass to depict the extremes of ugliness (torture, unspeakable gun violence, hundreds of uses of the “n” word) when their only purpose is to convey a purported verisimilitude to the “reality” of the world in which their story is set?

In short, yes. I believe that insofar as an artist honestly sets out to tell a story that is truthful (to the world in which it is set, to the real struggles of its characters), then it is their right and even obligation to not shield us from the darker elements. As I wrote recently in Relevant Magazine, “Something about the way the world is (that is: difficult, risqué, R-rated) tells us that to be truthful, art must grapple with darkness. As filmmaker Akira Kurosawa once said, ‘The artist is the one who does not look away.’”

For me, it all comes down to whether the artist is in the business of seeing the world more clearly and thus focusing the audience’s gaze on a reality in the truest since.

Here are my top 10 movies of 2012 in order. Below I have a list of the ones I did not see, but that I heard were good. Let me know if I missed any.

1. Zero Dark Thirty (best review by Paul Miller)
2. The Dark Knight Rises
3. Django Unchained (my reflections)
4. Argo
5. The Hobbit (thoughts)
6. Skyfall
7. Lincoln
8. Les Misérables
9. Moonrise Kingdom (review)
10. Bernie

Did Not See

• Silver Linings Playbook
• Life of Pi

I saw Django Unchained.

I saw it because Quentin Tarantino can do something with movies that no other director can. The problem is this “thing” he does is hard to put a finger on.

It has to do with him turning mundane lifeless scenes into ones of great interest. Clever dialogue replaces old cliches. Unorthodox music fades in, and unexpected plot twists unfold.

Clearing the Ground

Django has received much blow back. The ever crabby Spike Lee refused to watch it and said “The only thing I can say is it’s disrespectful to my ancestors, to see that film.” Rod Dreher called it a revenge fantasy, that he will take no pleasure in. The Daily Beast reports how Tavis Smiley criticized the movie for how it flubs the history of American slavery. There has also been quite a bit of discussion about the use of the “N” word repeatedly throughout the movie.

Each of these critiques could be responded to in kind. Tarantino takes liberties with history for effect. I mean come on, did anyone watch his last film? That was not how it ended historically. I did not sit in the theater thinking, is this accurate? Rather he was toying with our emotions for a reaction.

I wonder if Spike Lee has ever watched a movie about the holocaust. If so he has disrespected all Jews according to his logic.

The most interesting and useful critique (from someone who did not see it) was from Dreher. But not in the vein of the Ta-Nehisi Coates kind. Coates observations are right, but in the wrong context. Coates says:

Among those truths, for me, is the relative lack of appetite for revenge among slaves and freedmen. The great slaughter which white supremacists were always claiming to be around the corner, was never actually in the minds of slaves and freedman. What they wanted most was peace.

It was the same with my studies of the Underground Railroad. If you read William Still’s compendium of escapes, you find very few revanchists.

Like I said he is right, historically.

The problem is Tarantino is not interested in writing history.

Rather he wants to make a movie, with history as a backdrop. He is making movies with well known historical backgrounds; WW2 and American slavery, two of the great tragedies in modern history. He loves this scenery because right and wrong are unmistakeable, and the revenge becomes a form of re-writing history for justice.

Typological Justice

Back to Dreher. He says:

I’m not interested in revenge fantasies in large part because I’m susceptible to the cathartic pleasures involved in vengeance…To be clear, I’m not talking about justice or necessity, either of which could require exacting payback. I’m talking about taking pleasure in vengeance. I’m a lot more interested in individuals or communities who decide not to seek vengeance, but rather peace, forgiveness, reconciliation.

I like what Dreher is saying and I am in agreement with him, to a certain extent.

Where I disagree is that I think there is a sense in which we can take pleasure in justice, even at times in the form of revenge.

Jonathan Edwards has a sermon about justice and says that we should not glory in revenge in this life, but rather we will rejoice in it on the judgment day. While we are on this earth we should yearn for everyone to repent and not face the judgment of God.

Edwards is right. However while watching a movie I think we can typologically rejoice in the fact that evildoers are reaping what they sow. If we are image bearers of God, then we have to agree with him in some respect when he says through David in the Psalms

O LORD, God of vengeance,
O God of vengeance, shine forth!

Rise up, O judge of the earth;
repay to the proud what they deserve! (Ps 94:1-2)

Or when David is speaking of his enemies in Psalm 109 he requests that a wicked man is appointed against him (Ps 109:6). Or in Psalm 35 David says:

Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me;
fight against those who fight against me!

Take hold of shield and buckler
and rise for my help!

There are many more verses along these lines.

To be clear, I am saying we are viewing this depiction of vengeance in the movie as a foretaste of what will happen on the last day to all those who have rapped, pillaged, mistreated, enslaved, tortured image bearers and have not repented.

The Last Day

The Bible says vengeance is the Lord’s. We should not take vengeance on our enemies, but as Jesus said, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”

However we will stand in the last day and look to the great white throne and as he pours out all his furious wrath on those who have rejected him we will say, “What the Lord does is right.”

I would even argue that in some sense, we will take pleasure in the Lord’s just actions.

I realize not everyone will agree with this, and it is not popular.

But I cannot escape the Psalms that speak this way, or the sense of justice that swells up in me when a disturbingly wicked person gets punished on screen.

With the upcoming release of the newest Superman, Man of Steel, the Guardian has an article about the way Superman has adapted to changing times.

After the second world war broke out, he changed his slogan from fighting for “truth and justice” to fighting for “truth, justice and the American way”. That continued during the 1950s, when he became a symbol of muscular American patriotism which could do no wrong.

But as the nation grappled with the turmoil of the 1970s and embraced a more diverse culture, Christopher Reeve gave Superman more human qualities. In Richard Donner’s 1978 film version of the comic book saga, self-sacrifice suddenly became part of Superman’s appeal.

That continued through to the 2006 movie starring Brandon Routh when, with an evangelical Christian in the White House and much talk of the war on terror being a conflict with Islam, Superman was depicted almost as a Christ-like figure. Even as recently as this year, the latest DC Comics story had Superman pack in his newspaper job to start a blog.

“Superman changes with remarkable rapidity and yet manages to paradoxically project an idea of unchanging virtue,” said Professor Benjamin Saunders of the University of Oregon, author of an academic study of superheroes called Do The Gods Wear Capes?

Someone needs to put this illustration in a book on the “historical Jesus” and draw correlations to the many Jesus’ that have been adapted through the centuries. Many of these reconstructions of Jesus have elements of truth, but overemphasize one characteristic over another.

Paul Harris asks, “So what will the Superman of 2013 look like?” He suggests we might get a hint from the trailer where after saving a bus full of schoolmates from drowning, a traumatised teenage Clark confronts his stepfather, who is worried he has revealed his true nature. “What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?” Clark asks. His father replies: “Maybe.”

It is a shocking piece of moral ambiguity in the Superman universe, where what is right and wrong have traditionally been clear.

Harris concludes:

In the end, perhaps it does not matter how Snyder directs Man of Steel in 2013. He can take Superman in a darker direction, he can bring out a movie more suited to the arthouse cinemas than the multiplexes. He can make him represent the ominous and confusing world of 2013. But in the end the more he changes the more Superman stays the same.

For Superman is not just some sort of unique being flying high above us. In the projection of our desires, hopes and fears, Superman is us.

HT: Lucas Knisely

Peter Leithart has a brief article about the scene at Mount Doom in The Return of the King. He says,

I have not seen The Hobbit yet, because I am waiting for all the dress up Dwarves, Gandalfs, and Smeagols to head home.
The return to Middle Earth should be enjoyable, hopefully a more relaxing journey than the critics have had.

Rotten Tomatoes has it at 66%. Yikes! The other 3 were all above 92%.

Most of the reviewers don’t like the amped-up 3D technology (48 fps). If that is the only problem then we have a good movie on our hands. I personally always avoid 3D like the plague, and I suggest if possible you do the same.

Thomas Hibbs in National Review writes:

For viewers who were enthralled by Peter Jackson’s majestic films of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, watching the first installment (of three) of Jackson’s version of The Hobbit is likely to be equal parts pleasure and frustration.

The problem with Jackson’s The Hobbit is that the subtle and significant moments get lost in the proliferation of mini-adventures. With the amped-up 3D technology, the action scenes have the look and feel of a high-speed Disney theme-park ride. Now, that experience can be enjoyable so far as it goes, and so long as it does not last nearly three hours. But here it is a distraction from the action itself, as the viewer’s vision gets tugged — occasionally startled — this way and that by the sharply defined and rapidly moving images.

Screenrant has a whole discussion of this issue. Ben Kendrick of Screenrant says:

Adding to the controversy is the director’s choice to shoot in 48 frames-per-second – a format that results in hyper-realistic visuals but, as many filmmakers argue, is so true-to-life that it can actually be a distraction – depriving filmgoers of immersion.

A.O. Scott of the NY Times adds;

Over all, though, the shiny hyper-reality robs Middle-earth of some of its misty, archaic atmosphere, turning it into a gaudy high-definition tourist attraction. But of course it will soon be overrun with eager travelers, many of whom are likely to find the journey less of an adventure than they had expected.

For a positive view of the new technology see Slate’s article.

Film Comment has a good interview with the maker of the Batman Trilogy, Christopher Nolan. Nolan explains some of the reasons he made certain decisions in the flims. For example here is a brief part:

Ra’s Al Ghul is a fascinating character, because he’s not a boilerplate nefarious villain who wants to dominate the world, he’s an ideological villain. He seems to have been ripped from today’s headlines, especially with his rhetoric about the decadence of the capitalist West.

With my co-writers David Goyer and my brother [Jonathan Nolan], we decided early on that the greatest villains in movies, the people who most get under our skin, are the people who speak the truth. So with Ra’s Al Ghul, we wanted everything he said to be true in some way. So, he’s looking at the world from a very honest perspective that he truly believes. And we applied the same thing to The Joker and Bane in the third one. Everything they say is sincere. And in terms of their ideology, it’s really about ends justifying means.

Following on that idea of how Bruce Wayne builds himself into Batman, there’s a great emphasis in the Dark Knight films, and, actually, in all of your films, on how things work, how things are constructed. Nothing is taken for granted or presented as a fait accompli. If Batman needs a batsuit, we see how he orders it, and where all of his toys come from. They have a practical explanation: they’re Wayne Industries military prototypes. We literally see him building himself in a way a lot of origin stories try to gloss over. It’s like how in The Prestige we see the ways in which the magicians accomplish their illusions.

Very much. I’m interested in process, the process of becoming. I’m fascinated by the idea of Bruce Wayne being an ordinary man without superpowers, turning himself into this larger-than-life figure who appears to have extraordinary abilities. And once you start down the road, it’s like cleaning the dirt off something. Once you’ve cleaned one spot, once you’ve peeled back the logic or reality of what it seems to be, you have to go all the way. I’ve never liked films that go part of the way there and then take an improbable leap.