The Case for the Clark Kent Movie
Apr. 7th, 2016 09:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastBill is wrong. I'm stating that clearly, right now, with no equivocation. Bill is wrong. I don't want to hear people repeat Bill's argument as though it's true, thinking themselves deep in the deconstruction of comicbooks. More importantly, I don't want movie makers to act with the presumption that Bill's argument represents clarity on Superman.
In Kill Bill: Volume 2, in which we meet the titular Bill that the protagonist wants to kill (I only remember Bill's name because it's in the title), said Bill tells us his theory of Superman. According to Bill, Superman is the real person and Clark Kent is the costume that Superman puts on. This means that Superman is, unintentionally, making a commentary on humanity in relation to himself.
Again, Bill is wrong. That theory isn't there for Bill to be right. That theory is there for Bill to be instructively wrong. Therefore, if you're going to make a movie, remember how very wrong Bill is.
Before you go bringing up Man of Steel and Batman-v-Superman, this error predates Bill. In the first of the Christopher Reeves Superman movies, we get that mistake. "They can be a great people, Kal-El; they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way." We've been making this mistake since the beginning, because it's kind of hard to write a Golden Age comic book that's about the boring parts of Clark Kent's life, where he double-checks a source, proofreads an article, or questions whether or not he has enough time to stop off for coffee before work.
That's difficult, but not impossible. With that in mind, I present my case for the Clark Kent Movie.
First rule for the Clark Kent Movie is that Superman only shows up in one scene. Only one scene with Superman and only one action scene. Second rule is that nothing that Clark Kent does should be out of the realm for another human being. Sure, he makes use of his unique abilities, hears something that can be investigated or whatnot, but he doesn't do anything that needs a superpower to do, not outside of that one scene.
We'll accomplish this by having a main story be that of Clark Kent, investigative reporter. This is set in a world that is already accustomed to there being a Superman. Fellow Daily Planet journalists might bring him up in conversation. He's talked about on TV or the radio. Superman exists and does things and is a part of the world, but the story still focuses on Clark Kent.
During this story, Kent must both display the Silver-Age-like values that we see at play in Superman and display good journalistic ethics and practices. (Someone should.)
Over the course of Kent's investigation, as he shows these values, we should have various ways of getting the questions out there. Some television personality can angrily call Superman weak and selfish and living in a fantasy world of thinking that there's a way to deal with Lex Luthor without outright killing the man. A psychologist can point out how exhausting it must be to go around acting like the stereotypical Silver Age hero all the time. A friend might just ask what does Superman get out of all of this.
These questions will be answered via flashback to the upbringing of Clark Kent. Here, the rule must be that none of what happens to Clark Kent during his upbringing can be too far from what can happen to any human being being raised in Smallville, Kansas.
A potential sample could be quickly done in a few minutes.
The final scene, after we've seen who Clark Kent is and why, will be that scene in which Clark Kent takes on the persona of Superman. It can be a bit of action for the movie. But, that action must be an expression of Clark Kent's values, the efforts he'll take to save lives, to help people, to lead fights away from people who can get hurt. The point is that Clark Kent isn't Superman's commentary on humanity. Superman is Clark Kent's commentary on what it takes to be a real hero.
In Kill Bill: Volume 2, in which we meet the titular Bill that the protagonist wants to kill (I only remember Bill's name because it's in the title), said Bill tells us his theory of Superman. According to Bill, Superman is the real person and Clark Kent is the costume that Superman puts on. This means that Superman is, unintentionally, making a commentary on humanity in relation to himself.
Again, Bill is wrong. That theory isn't there for Bill to be right. That theory is there for Bill to be instructively wrong. Therefore, if you're going to make a movie, remember how very wrong Bill is.
Before you go bringing up Man of Steel and Batman-v-Superman, this error predates Bill. In the first of the Christopher Reeves Superman movies, we get that mistake. "They can be a great people, Kal-El; they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way." We've been making this mistake since the beginning, because it's kind of hard to write a Golden Age comic book that's about the boring parts of Clark Kent's life, where he double-checks a source, proofreads an article, or questions whether or not he has enough time to stop off for coffee before work.
That's difficult, but not impossible. With that in mind, I present my case for the Clark Kent Movie.
First rule for the Clark Kent Movie is that Superman only shows up in one scene. Only one scene with Superman and only one action scene. Second rule is that nothing that Clark Kent does should be out of the realm for another human being. Sure, he makes use of his unique abilities, hears something that can be investigated or whatnot, but he doesn't do anything that needs a superpower to do, not outside of that one scene.
We'll accomplish this by having a main story be that of Clark Kent, investigative reporter. This is set in a world that is already accustomed to there being a Superman. Fellow Daily Planet journalists might bring him up in conversation. He's talked about on TV or the radio. Superman exists and does things and is a part of the world, but the story still focuses on Clark Kent.
During this story, Kent must both display the Silver-Age-like values that we see at play in Superman and display good journalistic ethics and practices. (Someone should.)
Over the course of Kent's investigation, as he shows these values, we should have various ways of getting the questions out there. Some television personality can angrily call Superman weak and selfish and living in a fantasy world of thinking that there's a way to deal with Lex Luthor without outright killing the man. A psychologist can point out how exhausting it must be to go around acting like the stereotypical Silver Age hero all the time. A friend might just ask what does Superman get out of all of this.
These questions will be answered via flashback to the upbringing of Clark Kent. Here, the rule must be that none of what happens to Clark Kent during his upbringing can be too far from what can happen to any human being being raised in Smallville, Kansas.
A potential sample could be quickly done in a few minutes.
Scene: Jon Kent stands before a small grave near the backyard of the Kent house. The grave marker reads Ol' Betsy.
Jon: Clark, you never knew Ol' Betsy. She was the family dog back when I was your age. She was a good dog, too. She didn't do tricks. She guarded the hen-house that we had back then. She kept a watch on the house. And, she loved. You could always tell she loved you.
Jon: One day, when I was your age, Ol' Betsy was keeping a watch for me when some bullies came around. I knew them, they'd always been mean. They loved making younger kids feel weak and helpless. They were sixteen or seventeen and I couldn't have been older than you. They came into the field to... do something they didn't want the authorities seeing, not important to the story.
Jon: When they saw that Betsy and I were all alone, they decided to have their fun. They held me down, smacked me around and, when Betsy gave them a chomp to let them know she meant business, they took a baseball bat and pounded on her. They ran away when Mom and Dad came around to see what the noise was about.
Jon: Mom was a vet. She did a check and there just wasn't a chance. The way the bones had broken, Ol' Betsy had hours left, and not good ones. There was only one thing left for her.
Jon: Dad was ready, not happy but ready. But, I volunteered. At the time, it seemed like it wouldn't hurt him, but I was wrong about that.
Jon: I'm telling you this, Clark, because you need to know something about strength. That wasn't a strong thing I did. You're stronger than I was back then, and I'm not just talking because of your powers. You're smarter than I was back then, too, you get that from your mom. I wasn't strong, that day. Not at all. Taking a life wasn't strength, it was what happened because I was weak.
Jon: People ask soldiers coming home from war stupid questions, like how many bad guys they killed. That's not a good question. It's the wrong question. You want to make them happy about their glories, ask them about the lives they saved. It's weakness that takes lives, takes them from the people who live them and from everybody who loves them. Strength saves lives and keeps them from getting hurt. Remember that.
The final scene, after we've seen who Clark Kent is and why, will be that scene in which Clark Kent takes on the persona of Superman. It can be a bit of action for the movie. But, that action must be an expression of Clark Kent's values, the efforts he'll take to save lives, to help people, to lead fights away from people who can get hurt. The point is that Clark Kent isn't Superman's commentary on humanity. Superman is Clark Kent's commentary on what it takes to be a real hero.
no subject
Date: 2016-04-08 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-09 04:24 am (UTC)Great Minds Think Alike. I think I'll go with that one.
Thank you. :)
no subject
Date: 2016-04-09 04:46 am (UTC)