In Defense of the Dead Superhero

     This isn't going to be a standard Brian and Ukraine post. I just saw Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice and couldn't resist writing out some of the thoughts I had as I was leaving the theater. That's the nice thing about having a soapbox. I can use it as I please. As a warning, if you have the slightest interest in seeing this movie, don't read this post. Everything below the fold will be spoiler territory. I will reference some very specific portions of the film which are pivotal to the story. Turn back now if you don't want that ruined before seeing it.
     Still reading? OK, here are my thoughts. I won't go into the film in detail. But overall, it wasn't a bad film. Director Zach Snyder definitely has an eye for beautifully framed shots. Most of the opening scenes could have easily been in any art film straight out of Cannes. The murder of the Wayne parents, the funeral, discovering the well and the bats. Once the action starts, though, the superhero hits just keep coming. Six superheros in one film, several of them "metahumans" in the parlance of the film. One hero is a mechanical and fighting genius whom we don't get to see do much of the former. Another is a centuries-old woman with the fighting prowess of the legendary Amazons. There are three others hinted at but with no significant screen time. And finally we come to Superman.
     Superman is one of those phenomena that I will never completely understand. Admittedly, I did watch a huge portion of Smallville in college. I also vaguely remember watching episodes of Lois and Clark in the 90's. But my interest, whether passing or genuine, is completely passed now.
     Which brings me to the why of watching this newly released movie. Monday night at English club, Dasha asked if I was interested in seeing a Batman movie on Tuesday night. Batman? I thought, Sure. I think in the back of my mind, I realized it was the newest iteration and was hoping it really was a different one. My disinterest was confirmed after I got home from English. However, I had already promised that I would go and had to follow through. That's how I found myself at one of the most upscale malls in Ukraine on Tuesday night.
     Going into it, I was interested to see a new take on Batman. After three excellent Dark Knight movies, I wanted to see where this new director took the franchise. I have to say, I'm not completely impressed. He succeeded in surpassing the Tim Burton Batman films. But that's not hard to do. His main failing there was in showing that Batman has motivations other than hating Superman. Essentially, though, there are two main points of contention I have with Dawn of Justice.
     First, this is the lesser of the contentions so I'll just put it here and then move on. Dawn of Justice is about a resurrected superhero. A resurrected superhero at Easter. A resurrected superhero, sent from another planet, raised by adoptive parents to save the world. At Easter!?!?! Seriously?!? If Zach Snyder and D.C. Comics were any more on-the-nose with their metaphors, they'd be a pair of Pinocchios. This is the main reason I was never a fan of Superman/Clark Kent.
     Second, and this relates directly to the title of the post, Superman should have stayed dead. At the end of the battle with the resurrected and mutated General Zod, he sacrifices himself to plunge the Kryptonite spear through the monster's heart. In the process, he too receives a mortal blow mirroring his opponent. In the aftermath, we are treated to two very different and moving funereal scenes. At his childhood home, the procession moves out through the cornfield to the cemetery. Meanwhile, in Arlington, a full military funeral complete with fly-over, missing-man formation, and cannon salute lays to rest an empty casket. Back at the farm, we hear that the occupied casket is now in the ground. A mourning and despondent Lois Lane picks up a handful of dirt and tosses it down into the grave. It lands on the face of the wooden casket. In the closing scene, the camera lingers for a few beats too long. It telegraphs the inevitable (but, in my case, hoped against) ending with the clarity of a spotlight. In literally the last second, a few tiny clods of dirt begin to rise from the casket lid. The screen then cuts to black before rolling the credits.
     Under the second contention, I have several problems I want to address. First, superheros without sacrifice are worthless. There are many different kinds of sacrifice. Personal happiness, money, reputation. But in this film, Superman goes directly to the biggest of them all. He dies in the service of saving humanity. That's where I applaud the filmmakers. They chose to show him giving up love, happiness and a future in order that others may have those things. They chose a difficult and controversial story path and made it look beautiful in the process. I do have issues with the imagery they used though. Much of it resembled famous paintings of the death of Christ. But the film makers then chose to say, "You know what, we really didn't mean any of that. He's not dead folks!" That brings me to my second point.
     Second, Superman not staying dead is a cop-out against good storytelling. Good stories come in all forms. Comedy, sci-fi, drama, tragedy. Each is a well-trod path toward featuring an emotional journey. Some journeys are more emotionally-rending than others. Tragedies especially. However, this isn't a film in the vein of tragedies like Hamlet, Othello, or Romeo and Juliet. Considering the ending, it isn't even tragic. This film has a victorious ending. The enemy is vanquished. There is a future to look forward to. But Superman isn't part of it. Until he is.
     Dawn of Justice shared the same problem I saw in Star Trek Into Darkness. The character who fought all through the film to the end sacrifices himself nobly and just can't stay dead. At the end of Into Darkness, Captain Kirk sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise. It's a strong scene that shows his commitment to his ship and his friends. Kirk dies of radiation exposure and we are left to imagine a Star Trek without the cockiest rouge in the universe. Then the director, studio, script, and film all cop-out and resurrect him with the blood of a super-human. Kirk's father in the rebooted Star Trek showed more heroism than Kirk ever did in both the new films combined.
     That's where the brilliance of The Wrath of Khan shines. Spock, the most frustrating, logical and ultimately endearing alien in the Star Trek universe sacrifices himself to save not only the Enterprise but his friend Kirk as well. He discards the importance of his own life so that others can live. Take a moment and watch it. That film is thirty-four years old and it's still an emotional roller-coaster. From the highs of victory over the cunning Khan to the lows of pain and loss, that film wasn't afraid to show exactly how high the stakes were. At the end of it all, the payoff of Spock's ultimate sacrifice is a chance to feel alive in our humanity. Then, inevitably, the next film comes along and cops-out by bringing him back. But, for a moment, we have a chance to see how good story telling doesn't always end in a neatly packaged and joyful conclusion.
     In normal, every-day life, we don't see this kind of sacrifice often. The only people who do are police and soldiers. More so the latter. In the spirit of my rant, they are the only true superheros most of us will ever know. So many over the years have paid that ultimate price, only to not come home or be sucked back from the brink of death. Their stories are the most human we will ever see or hear. Look back over the past decade of superhero films and you will see a common thread running through all of them. Superheros are human. Even the aliens have humanity. What are humans if not weak, fallible, and ultimately mortal?
     Here's a suggestion for all aspiring film executives and directors. If you get a shot at a big budget superhero film, make the unthinkable and unpopular decision and kill off the titular character. Make it spectacular, thrilling, heroic, tear-jerking, and worthwhile. Blazes of glory. Going down with the ship. Taking more than a few of the enemy with him. Then allow the next big shot executive who comes along in ten years time to reboot the franchise and put his own unique spin on things.
     Third, Superman not staying dead cheapens his sacrifice. In fact, it cheapens it to the point where the sacrifice has no value whatsoever and may as well have not happened. It's like he pops up at the end and says, "Hey guys, remember that time I died? I really just needed a super-nap to get back my super-strength. Good times right?" In the finale of the film, less than one second in length, the whole preceding two hours have been rendered moot. The dirt rises, telling the audience that nothing of the preceding story will adversely affect Superman. The destroyed buildings and lives will only touch him slightly in a emotional way. He can't bring back the lost lives. He won't be made to pay for the damage (because he's Superman). His life essentially goes back to normal with the girlfriend and job and adoring citizenry.
     Fourth, Superman not staying dead is an obvious money-grab. The future sequels depend on having the titular hero return, better than ever. Rather than taking the franchise in a new, exciting and potentially unknown direction, they chose go with a proven formula. If he had stayed dead, the forthcoming Justice League film could have been built to honor his memory. Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash and others could have all fought the enemies of humanity while remembering the fallen hero who brought them together. Building a franchise on that foundation instills danger and uncertainty of outcome while showing the true stakes of every adverse situation. It would, of course, be a huge departure from the source material. But it would also be an exciting new chapter in the Superman story.
     Some of my problems here are, admittedly, with the source material. From the beginning, Superman was over-powered and nigh on unbeatable. With a character that first appeared in 1938, there is obviously a lot of material they can cover. To have Superman die without exploring a good fraction of those stories on the silver screen would be a waste to many fans.
     Of course, I don't see it that way. My opinion here? Don't take such an over-powered, god-like character, kill him and then resurrect him. It's a painfully predictable and trite conclusion that got nothing less than a facepalm from your dear reviewer. That leads me to my final point.
     Lastly, there is only one superhero who is allowed to arise from the dead (and already has). Superman's god-like powers are just that. God-like. He's so far beyond human that most people, even in the comics and films, can't relate to him. On the other hand, Jesus of Nazareth is far more relatable. He had doubts, temptations, pain, and loss. But, thanks to His true nature as God, Jesus was able to overcome all of these plus death to show His true power. He was literally super-human. Being fully God and fully man, he has the right and power to beat death and live again.
     Seeing a cheap knock-off of Jesus on the silver screen at this time of year is just insulting. Resurrection at Easter time is reserved for one person only. The more I think about it, while the imagery of Dawn of Justice was beautiful, it was far too deified for a fictional character.
     So yeah, that's one massive wall of text but I had to write it. The take-away is this. First, don't insult the intelligence or emotions of the audience by resurrecting characters at the last possible moment. If you have the guts to kill important characters, even titular characters, don't put your audience on an emotional roller-coaster by bringing the character back. Second, if they have been killed in the service of a grand struggle, let the dead stay dead. Bringing them back only cheapens their sacrifice. It's really that simple.