A Super Review
Debbie Schlussel has some fine comments about the new Superman movie that is coming out.
While I agree with some that movies are good just for their entertainment value, it shouldn't be forgotten that they are also very effective "soap boxes" for good or ill. We've been browbeaten for years by films that push a liberal view of life on the American public. Based on the box office success of these films, we can tell how much the American public embraces (or at minimum puts up with) these ideologies.
I've been so distracted by the recent Internet buzz about this new Superman's sexual orientation (the director says he's hetero, by the way) that I've not even realized that the other iconic character in the world of Superman is being tweaked. Now I'll admit that I never watched a single episode of "Lois & Clark" or "Smallville". So, I really don't know how Lois was portrayed in those shows. I don't know if Lois and Supe had...let's call it an active physical relationship. I wouldn't be surprised if they did. We know that they did in Superman II, but as far as I can remember, it was only once (off-camera no less), and if memory serves, it wasn't repeated in any of the sequels. It's a sad commentary on our culture that we've grown to expect that a romantic relationship on television or film has to include by default a physical relationship. That we don't even complain about that sort of thing any more is revealing that we've bought into the idea that it's okay... or at minimum acceptable behavior even if we wouldn't do it ourselves.
But what I think is breaking new ground in this film is that now Lois has a child out of wedlock. Apparently, if I read Ms. Schlussel's article right, there is even some uncertainty about who the father is, meaning of course that Lois had more than one "suitor" at the time. Lois is no longer the one-man girl she's been for decades.
This hardly breaks new ground on film or in any media for that matter, but it does change the fundamental elements that make up who these characters are supposed to be. Comics are a part of American mythology and Superman is right up there at the top of the list. To take these iconic characters and to change them to support modern ideology is to change how we see ourselves. Superman was the icon for "Truth, Justice and the American Way". Lois loves him. Lois is us. We love Truth, Justice and the American Way.
Now Lois loves... someone else. Or at least enough to bring another person into the world. Doesn't that defeat her iconic meaning? I'm hoping that by the end of the film, Lois realizes how wrong she's been and falls back into the blue spandexed arms of her true love, but a baby by another man won't go away even if she changes allegiances by the end. How are we supposed to interpret this new little icon? What does the baby mean? If anyone would like to make a guess, I'm curious.
While I agree with some that movies are good just for their entertainment value, it shouldn't be forgotten that they are also very effective "soap boxes" for good or ill. We've been browbeaten for years by films that push a liberal view of life on the American public. Based on the box office success of these films, we can tell how much the American public embraces (or at minimum puts up with) these ideologies.
I've been so distracted by the recent Internet buzz about this new Superman's sexual orientation (the director says he's hetero, by the way) that I've not even realized that the other iconic character in the world of Superman is being tweaked. Now I'll admit that I never watched a single episode of "Lois & Clark" or "Smallville". So, I really don't know how Lois was portrayed in those shows. I don't know if Lois and Supe had...let's call it an active physical relationship. I wouldn't be surprised if they did. We know that they did in Superman II, but as far as I can remember, it was only once (off-camera no less), and if memory serves, it wasn't repeated in any of the sequels. It's a sad commentary on our culture that we've grown to expect that a romantic relationship on television or film has to include by default a physical relationship. That we don't even complain about that sort of thing any more is revealing that we've bought into the idea that it's okay... or at minimum acceptable behavior even if we wouldn't do it ourselves.
But what I think is breaking new ground in this film is that now Lois has a child out of wedlock. Apparently, if I read Ms. Schlussel's article right, there is even some uncertainty about who the father is, meaning of course that Lois had more than one "suitor" at the time. Lois is no longer the one-man girl she's been for decades.
This hardly breaks new ground on film or in any media for that matter, but it does change the fundamental elements that make up who these characters are supposed to be. Comics are a part of American mythology and Superman is right up there at the top of the list. To take these iconic characters and to change them to support modern ideology is to change how we see ourselves. Superman was the icon for "Truth, Justice and the American Way". Lois loves him. Lois is us. We love Truth, Justice and the American Way.
Now Lois loves... someone else. Or at least enough to bring another person into the world. Doesn't that defeat her iconic meaning? I'm hoping that by the end of the film, Lois realizes how wrong she's been and falls back into the blue spandexed arms of her true love, but a baby by another man won't go away even if she changes allegiances by the end. How are we supposed to interpret this new little icon? What does the baby mean? If anyone would like to make a guess, I'm curious.
posted by AdmiralDack | 9:52 AM
3 Comments:
The baby probably represents nothing other than a feminist agenda. Lois can't be seen as needing to be rescued by the strong male lead, so they try to show strength in another way, by being a single mom. That is my guess.
Show a movie that portrays good values and people will cry that you're shoving your morals down their throats. But it's okay for them to press their lack of morals on the rest of the world.
I agree, Kris. Tolerance is a one-way street with these folks.
Not having seen the movie yet, I'll withhold commentary on this until I see how it's handled. But consider this .. Lois kept the baby. How much "stronger" would she have been to feminists if she'd had an abortion? You have to remember, feminists are NOT about motherhood .. they are about independence from and dominance of men. So Lois in this case is, arguably, even less of a feminist icon because she's a single mother.
As far as identifying with Lois Lane because she loves Superman, I never really picked up on that. ALL the public loved Superman (except for that inconvenient episode in Superman III) because he saved their bacon almost every time. The fact that Lois has a kid really doesn't change her iconic meaning to me, although it does pose a very relevant question to men .. we want to be loved by our wives and families, but if we spend all our time saving the world--and they love us because we do--how good of a parent and father does that really make us? We all want to do well in our jobs, volunteer efforts, churches, etc. .. but too often those responsibilities are prioritized over those of our children and spouses. Lois loves Superman because he's Superman, but Superman makes for a really poor dad to Lois' kid. And if he stopped being Superman to be the kid's father .. well .. he wouldn't be Superman anymore, would he? And would Lois still love him then?
Sorry for the rambling post .. but I do want to see the movie a little bit more now than before ..
Post a Comment
<< Home