Man of Steel

Many would argue that Man of Steel was a shocking disappointment of epic proportion. And they would be right. The first time I saw Man of Steel was on the big screen, and I remember turning to my friend immediately after and expressing profanities about the film that I shan’t repeat – they weren’t pleasant to say the least. Now we could start pointing fingers and naming names, but ultimately it’s not the fault of any one person. Many people blamed Snyder for the faults in the film, naming him as ‘Hollywood’s worst auteur’. I agree that Snyder is part of the problem, but it also goes further back than just the director. Part of the problem should be attributed to the guys that wrote the screenplay; namely David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan. I’m not usually one to criticise either Nolan or Goyer, no one is after The Dark Knight. But they made a mistake on this one. The problem is they tried a different take on Superman, and attempted to make a darker, much more brooding man of steel, but let’s face it, it’s Superman, he’s more of a straight-cut good guy than anyone else out there. He is quite literally the incarnation of good when it comes to protecting earth and its people. I understand that they were just trying to make the film different and unique from what had already been done. But people don’t want different, they want Superman. You know what they say; ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’.

For an origins story there feels to be a lack of the ‘origins’ that we were promised. Apart from the – actually quite beautiful – sequence that the film starts with on Krypton, where we get to see Russell Crowe kick some Kryptonian arse; and a couple of flashbacks to Clark’s childhood, where he realises he’s far from Earths definition of ‘normal’, we don’t get a lot. All we end up with is a combustible planet, and a handful of childhood capers. In theory this obviously seemed enough, but in practice it feels rushed and weak. It’s almost as if they got halfway through shooting all the important origins points of the film, and then Snyder got bored and decided to shoot a fight scene instead. This leads on to the other thing that helps to ruin what could have been an extremely good film, the fight scenes. Every single fight sequence is far too long and far too destructive – not a sentence I ever thought I’d say, I’ll be honest. It just becomes boring and ridiculously repetitive extremely quickly; Superman gets thrown through a building by bad guy, he then punches said bad guy through 2 buildings and so on and so forth, like an overly destructive Chuckle brothers sketch, with Superman and Zod ‘to me, to you-ing’ each other through Vancouver, until all that’s left is dust and rubble. The only reason we’re still hanging around is to see if Clark gets the girl. After all this we finally get to where the film gains some depth, and Clark has to make the ultimate decision – although, let’s be honest, we all saw it coming.

I would love to conclude this here and say that this is all I have to say on Man of Steel, but I can’t. I started off by mentioning that this was my reaction the first time I saw Man of Steel, but since then I’ve watched the film many more times, and I have to admit – grudgingly I might add – that every time I’ve watched it I’ve loved it a little bit more. I’ve come to the decision that the film is beautiful in its own right. While Snyder may not be renowned for his ability to weave complex storylines, or amaze with unbelievable plot twists, there is one thing he can do better than most; make films that are simply visually beautiful to watch. Snyder’s skill as an auteur when it comes to the use of CGI, and the standard of cinematography is rivalled by none. He had already proved this in 300 and Watchmen beforehand – both very different films, yet both equally visually stunning – but he really stepped it up in Man of Steel. Each shot is beautifully framed and composed, from the sequence that depicts Krypton’s demise, to those shots on the icy plains where Clark discovers his heritage and dons the cape for the first time. Even the demolished city at the end is magnificent – and I’ve never seen anyone use so many sun flares so effectively. However it isn’t just the visual aspect of the film that they got right, the casting was also as near to perfect as you were ever going to get. It isn’t just the dizzying array of big Hollywood names that make the cast as impressive as it is though (although it does help having both Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner as Superman’s Kryptonian and Human fathers – respectively – along with Laurence Fishburne as the editor-in-chief of the infamous Daily Planet). The best casting choices by far though were those of Superman and his main nemesis in the film, General Zod. Superman was played by the relatively unheard of Henry Cavill, who, with his sculpted cheekbones and chiselled jaw line, along with his impressive physique is every bit the Superman that we know and love. It’s not just his impressive appearance that’s reminiscent of Superman as the comic book character that he started off as. Cavill manages to show sides of Superman that audiences had never even thought of before. He managed to show sides of Superman that gave the character a bit more depth in comparison to earlier representations of The Man of Steel. It isn’t just the passion to protect the human race that’s important about Superman. It’s also about: his love for his parents (the Kryptonian and human ones, although he only really has a relationship with the human ones); his hardships trying to fit-in to a world where doesn’t seem to belong; and – possibly – most importantly, the responsibility he feels he carries for the future of his race. Cavill portrayed these perfectly, and it’s for this reason that he will undoubtedly play Superman in any sequel or amalgamation that may follow (here’s looking at you Justice League). On the flip-side of the good vs evil spectrum we have Zod, masterfully played by Michael Shannon. Shannon gives us everything we expect from Zod. He portrays Zod as being the epitome of evil – although arguably so if you look into his reasons for his actions. With his menacing looks, and a glare that almost rivals that of Woody Harrelsons’, Shannon more than qualified for the role of Zod in terms of physical appearance. But with Zod it’s more than just looking evil and menacing. His sense of purpose and false righteousness when it comes to protecting Krypton is one of the more important aspects of Zod. And Shannon gets it just right, going all scarily Super-Kryptonian on Superman and a lot of innocent buildings. Shannon also shows Zod’s calmer and more passively aggressive side (which has a tendency to be far scarier than his outwardly-aggressive-completely-maniacal destructive side) mostly in conversations with Kal, in which we don’t see his true, often horrific, meaning until the very last minute.

There’s no point watching Man of Steel with high expectations waiting for it to be on par – or even close – to any of The Dark Knight trilogy, that was never going to happen. But it shouldn’t just be discredited immediately because of its overly long fight scenes, and poor attempt at an origins story. Each shot is visually beautiful and unique, and there are some great performances from some amazing actors. Why don’t we give Snyder a break for once?        

Nymphomaniac Vol. I & II

“If I asked you to take my virginity, would that be a problem?”

This also happened to be my first thought as I sat down to watch my first Lars Von Trier film, and it wasn’t long before I got my answer; “No, I don’t see a problem”, and it was right. It didn’t. However these weren’t just fleeting thoughts that passed through my mind as I contemplated whether mentally scarring myself for the sake of a film was one of my better ideas, these were also the words that marked the first interaction between Joe (Stacy Martin) and Jerome (Shia LaBeouf), whose relationship forms the backbone to the plotline of the film, with LaBeouf popping in and out – no pun intended – every time the film felt as if it was starting to lose speed. The whole film is told in flashbacks by an older Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) who is recounting the story of her life to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) and trying her hardest to present herself as a ‘bad person’ – which she does so quite successfully – much to Seligman’s protests. Although we’re never quite sure whether Seligman is just your standard; find-a-beaten-girl-in-an-alley-and-decide-to-help-her Samaritan, or something a bit more sinister. It doesn’t help when he starts to daydream about Joe’s possible ‘extra-curricular activities’ (I’m pretty sure that’s not how you’re really meant to use a ruler). But the conversations between Joe and Seligman happen to be the more interesting sections of the film. Yeah, I just said that. Every time we cut back to that dark and dingy room we get excited for another piece of titillating information that will further unravel the mystery that is Seligman – although this mystery doesn’t last long into the second film, where we find out the most interesting thing about Seligman and his entire life is laid out painfully bare.

Talking of painful, we come to Shia LaBeouf, the primary love interest. In his part as Jerome, I considered him to give the best performance of his career – although if you consider he’s most well known for his part in Michael Bay films, that wasn’t ever going to be particularly hard – even if his character had to act like a pre-pubescent girl who hadn’t gotten her own way, half the time. Towards the end of the first volume, however, he really shows the range of his acting talents, suddenly becoming a mature and grown-up version of the character, giving us the happiest 10 minutes of the film. But there is one thing about his performance that’s far worse than any Michael Bay film – Side note: I’m not really a huge Bay fan – his accent. He’s almost like a confused impressionist, jumping from Australian, to South African, to full-blown Dick Van Dyke Cockney. Every time he speaks you want to reach into the screen and beat the Australian out of him in an attempt to make him sound like a normal human being – that isn’t a dig at the Australians, I love the Australians, who doesn’t? Why they didn’t just have him play an American character, I don’t know. But it’s the biggest let- down of the film. But what I do know is that the film had a wealth of other acting talent in the rest of the cast. Ranging from Von Trier regulars such as Gainsbourg; Skarsgard; and Dafoe – it would have been good to have seen more of Dafoe though – to Von Trier newcomers like Christian Slater, Stacy Martin and Jamie Bell – considering Bell started off playing Billy Elliot, this role isn’t, I’m sure, what people expected of him. However I think this sort of role suits him perfectly, and he plays it with an air of professionalism not seen in many actors his age. Which is no mean feat when you’re portraying a polite, mild-mannered sadist. However, the biggest surprise was from first time actress Stacy Martin with her portrayal of the younger Joe (mostly in Volume I). Martin threw herself into the role with apparent vigour and determination. And it works. She really goes above and beyond to fulfil the role – even giving oral sex to a man on a train, yeah…that happened. It must have been daunting for the newcomer, working with the likes of Uma Thurman and Stellan Skarsgard on her first feature film, and she gives a performance that will mark her down as someone to watch– although let’s hope she isn’t typecast into this role, that could become tedious – and I have no doubt that we’ll be seeing a lot more of her in time to come.

The film itself is somehow charming with its dark, dry wit causing it to be both slightly funny and completely terrifying, in a very subtle and implied way. The reason you laugh is out of sheer awkwardness, and not being sure what else to do other than break-down and cry in the nearest corner. The terrifying moments stem from what you’re sure is about to happen. The whole film has Von Trier toying with your every thought and emotion; he rips a hole into you, and then tenderly kisses and nurtures it until you feel safe again, to then tear you apart even more brutally than the first time. But for some inexplicable reason this keeps drawing us back in and leaving us hungry for the next part of the story. Immediately after finishing Volume I you want to throw yourself into Volume II and gorge yourself on the story again.

Whenever you tell someone about Nymphomaniac they give one of two reactions; the first is complete and utter disgust that such a film exists. The second is intrigue as to the content of the films, and how much of a ‘shock factor’ they can gain from watching it. Both of these obviously stem from the film being entirely about sex, and in my opinion both of these reactions are wrong. The film is beautiful in it’s own way, from its depiction of sex to the long and meaningful conversations that happen between Joe and Seligman. And yes, the film IS all about sex, but not about the pleasures of sex, it is instead about how sex has the power to ruin lives. About how sex can cause a person to see themselves as a ‘bad human being’. So when watching the film you are placed in two very interesting positions simultaneously; is Joe a bad person? Or do we go with Seligman’s thinking?

“If you have wings, then why not fly?”