Thread: "Joyless" ?
View Single Post
Old 10-21-2013, 06:07 PM   #50
Clark Kent > Superman
hopefuldreamer's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South West, UK
Posts: 11,848
Default Re: "Joyless" ?

Originally Posted by Jaxon View Post
I think you're missing the point of JK. He was a country father who had an alien boy with ridiculous powers crash into his farm and he raised him. He just didn't know when the right time would be to let his secret go, probably fearing like any father that he would lose his boy (the same way an adoptive parent really doesn't want their boy to go looking for their real parents because of the potential rejection and diminishing of their relationship).

He was scared, but he did raise him with strong values, values that people were worth standing by. I think Costner's performance was spot on. That look he gave just before his death, he acted the s*** out of that.
No, the film missed the point.

I think this panel says it best:

Johnathon Kent taught me that the strong have to stand up for the weak and that bullies don't like to be bullied back. He taught me that a good heart is worth more than all the money in the bank. He taught me about life and death. He taught me that the measure of a man lies not in what he says, but what he does. And he showed me by example how to be tough and how to be kind and how to dream of a better world. Thanks pa. Those are lessons i'll never forget.
I didn't see that in MOS. All we saw Johnathon teach Clark was that he needed to hide the truth, and that his existence was scary and a big deal and could go either way depending on what kind of man he decided on being and whether or not the world was ready.

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC. View Post
hopefuldreamer, I know it's no secret you have strong feelings about MOS, but allow me to make this proposal to you. Much as in the Donner films, when Superman disobeys Jor-el, and thus truly stands on his own as a man (director's intent btw) so too does MOS Clark live a life doing his own thing saving people despite his fathers warning to the contrary. He too, as Jonathon, is trying to find a balance between what he knows could be the unintended consequences of his existence and power and his own feelings to help those around him (Those consequences are not just the fear of human kind but perhaps their worship, or perhaps his exploitation. It was not all about fear.). I mean, in the film there is only one person who loses their life because Clark's secret must be kept and his name was Jon Kent who was willing to lay down his life so that his son would not only be safe, but also to keep the world safe from the aforementioned unintended consequences of Clark's exposure. He was threading a moral needle as best he could. And you know what? Maybe he was wrong? Shock of shocks, pehaps a film about a proactive hero like Superman is not totally endorsing Pa Kent's view of things as they are presented here. After all, surprise, surprise, Clark is the Clark we all know and love, using his power to save lives and confront the wicked through the film's runtime. Perhaps the themes and messages in the film are more nuanced and open to interpretation as befits the more complex world we live in. As I stated, this balance and nuance was something I greatly appreciated.
I just find it a mess.

It's themes contradict each other. Johnathon's sacrifice is supposed to be this big meaningful point in the story... but how are we supposed to feel about it when we KNOW he is wrong... he's totally wrong. And as the film goes on, he's proven spectacularly wrong. Because the reaction to Clark's existence is something that is taken VERY well... I mean there is almost no negative fallout for him in revealing himself.

It just makes his father look like a scared and over protective man whose lessons Clark had to OVERCOME in order to become a hero... when he should be a man whose lessons ENCOURAGE him to become a hero.

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC. View Post
As for Superman not saving those living under tyrants and thugs, and him not saving Jonathon in the film, I can grant you there is a distinction... Though one could argue it is a distinction without much of a difference, since the end result is the same. Superman allowing someone to die (and it KILLING him on the inside) is still Superman ALLOWING someone to die. Whether that person's name is Jon Kent or Joe Blow the end pojnt is still a (fictional) corpse, now is'nt it?

As I stated dreamer, I know you have strong feelings on the film, but I would like to think what I presented here had both a rationality and an emotional insight. Certainly it was worth more than a curt "Come on" .
I'm sorry, but I don't see the similarity at all.

Allowing your father to die specifically to protect YOU, and not even because something will DEFINITELY expose you, or because something will kill you - but because something MIGHT expose you and that MIGHT be a bad thing... that's just wrong to me.

Not spending your every waking hour flying around the entire world attempting to save everyone because you recognize that in order to be of use to the human race you have to have SOME kind of a life to keep your sanity in tact... totally and utterly different.

And for the record, he might not get involved with stopping tyrants and thugs in a physical way (because it'd be wrong to try and FORCE his own form of justice on the world), but he doesn't do NOTHING about it.

He is Clark Kent, investigative journalist. And it is within that persona that he battles those kinds of people in a way that respects the human justice system.

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."
Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"
Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

Last edited by hopefuldreamer; 10-21-2013 at 06:27 PM.
hopefuldreamer is offline   Reply With Quote