BvS Cavill talks about Lois knowing Clark = Superman

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It was always fun to see him making excuses to leave and Lois being suspicious. I understand Lois knowing though. In terms of Man of Steel, it seems like a lot of other people would know as well. Wouldn't Perry figure out that Clark is Superman as much as Lois would? He has met Superman afterall.

 

[Audrey]

I agree 100% with Cavill.

In the Donner films Lois was outright rude to the kind and generous Clark Kent, but she was infatuated with Superman? It does say alot about her character. Makes her seem very shallow. Also makes Clark Kent look like a desperate idiot for chasing a woman thats clearly not interested in him personally, but rather the 'rock star' Superman. Didnt andybody learn anything from 'Coming to America'? If a woman doesnt like you for who you are but instead chases wealth and power then you're a fool for continuing to chase her. Clark Kent holding on to the world's longest crush is just about as unrealistic and bad as lois not figuring out who he really is.

Comments like this infuriate me because they remind me on a regular basis that so many people just outright DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of the dual identity in the Superman mythos.

I think Henry is both right and wrong for reasons I'll get to in another post. But you are ALSO wrong. So let's break this down.

It's very popular to say that Lois is basically a shallow gold-digger who only wants the "rock star" and ignores the "nice guy." That's the narrative that a very sexist culture has written about the Triangle for 2 over the years. Except...it's not true. It's wrong. In fact, it's one of the worst "smear campaigns" in pop culture about a female character.

Let's be extremely clear on something here: Superman in the Richard Donner Superman Movie was the REAL PERSON. When he was dressed as Clark Kent he was hiding who he truly was. He was a disguise. The REAL MAN was SUPERMAN IN THE SUIT.

Now, who the "real" person is in the Superman mythos has changed over the years. Sometimes, it's Superman. Sometimes, it's Clark Kent. Personally, I prefer narratives that make it clear that the "real" person is a little bit of both. Smallville actually took this even further by making it clear in THEIR Triangle For 2 that Clark Kent was not COMPLETE without either his human or his hero side and he found his own identity, in part, through Lois's love in BOTH PERSONAS.

In the Richard Donner universe, Superman went OUT OF HIS WAY to act in a way that was NOT like his real personality in order to hide who he was. He wanted to throw Lois off. He wanted her to be deceived. He changed not only his appearance but his mannierisms and his confidence level.

Lois Lane is presented as a woman who will stand down a mugger. That's how brave she is. Clark Kent pretends to be the kind of man who would FAINT from a mugger. Now, ask yourself if it's fair to punish this woman because she doesn't want to jump the bones of a man who isn't as BRAVE as she is?

The point isn't that Lois Lane is shallow. She's not freaking shallow. It's that she's incredibly brave and passionate. Superman is also incredibly good, brave and passionate. When Superman comes to her as SUPERMAN ---HE IS BEING TRUE TO HIMSELF.

So it's not only incredibly unfair to punish this woman for falling in love with Superman in the Supersuit....but it belies the entire point of the narrative in which Clark Kent is forced to hide his true self when he's out in the world so that he can BE his true self in the Superman suit.

HE ALSO OPENLY HITS ON HER AS SUPERMAN. Openly. That entire interview scene on the terrace is an extended metaphor for oral sex. (Yes. Watch it again. It's a filthy scene.) Now, imagine you are Lois. This incredible, good man comes to you and makes it pretty darn clear that he's interested in you. He's being true to himself. He's openly telling you how he feels. How does it make her shallow to fall for that? It's preposterous to imply that she's doing something wrong here.

Now, by the second movie Lois has started to see through the disguise. She knows the truth. Mind you, she is the ONLY one who figures out the truth just as she was the ONLY ONE who kept figuring it out for decades in the comics which is why this whole "she's stupid" thing is incredibly insulting and sexist.

But frankly, it's ragingly unfair to punish this female character for falling in love with the REAL PERSON as opposed to a disguise where Clark is not being himself. Lois always loves the REAL MAN. That's the consistent thing with this. If the real man is Clark Kent...she falls for Clark Kent. If the REAL MAN is Superman...she falls for Superman. She loves the real man.

But geez... I am so sick of this total and complete misunderstanding of Donner's Triangle. Either you get that Clark Kent is a disguise or you don't. And if you GET that he's a disguise then you can't accuse this woman of being "shallow" when she rejects that FALSE identity and falls madly in love with him when he's BEING HIMSELF.

 

[Deserana]

 

[Audrey]

Lots of good discussion here. I think Henry is both right and wrong.

Here is where I agree with him: I don't have one problem with Lois knowing Clark's identity in Man of Steel. I thought it was powerful that Lois discovered Clark's "otherness" in a narrative where Clark was raised to hide who he was and fear acceptance. Not only does Lois accept him...she protects him.

The meeting scene in Man of Steel was a rif on Action Comics #1.

"You needn't be afraid of me. I won't harm you." Those are the first words Superman speaks to Lois Lane in Action #1. In Man of Steel, we see Clark display his incredible power and we see Lois understandably stunned and afraid. And what does Clark say to her? "It's ok...It's ok. I won't hurt you." Once again, we see Lois experience the super as our human counterpoint and instead of running away she reaches out her hand. It's beautiful and it's way more complex and has more depth than people have given it credit for. What people are missing about the Lois/Clark connection in Man of Steel is that Clark was "othered' his entire life. And this human...she is NOT AFRAID. It's just like Waid's Birthright, "She's not afraid." She's fearless. She finds him when no one else can find him. No, they don't know each other that well yet. But Good God...OF COURSE they are drawn to each other.

So I am totally fine with Lois knowing the truth in the Man of Steel Universe. But not exactly for the reasons Henry listed. Because I think the Triangle For 2 is deeply misunderstood and DOES have a ton of value.

The Triangle For 2 can be a beautiful, complex, complicated, sexy, romantic, desperately lovely thing in the right context. But it must have an end point in order to treat this woman with the dignity she has earned.

Insisting that Lois Lane must always be in the dark is to deny her the agency to have true POV in the narrative. Siegel recognized this very early on when he tried to bring Lois into the fold in the 1940's. (Someone already mentioned K-Metal on here. Happy to see that.) The Triangle For 2 can be an incredible statement on dual identity, on human and divinity, on love and acceptance, on opening oneself up to real love when it's right in front of you....but it MUST have a resolution.

It's also a fallacy that the "triangle" is over when Lois and Clark are married. It's not. The Triangle between them is ongoing even when Lois knows the truth and even when they are laying in bed together as man and wife.

The Triangle isn't just about keeping Lois in the dark. It's also about Clark Kent's relationship with humanity and how he balances his life as both man and superhman. It's about Lois Lane loving him in his reporter clothes when he is forced to keep his head down and her loving him when he is saving people. It's about how Lois fits into that dual identity as the voice for Superman for the people and how she fits into that identity as ONE HUMAN who is "better" at something than Clark Kent is. Bc no matter how hard Clark tries...he can't beat her. All of his powers and he can't beat her at their jobs. She's better. He knows it. She knows it.

I agree with the above poster. Stories about Lois and Clark when they are married and committed are incredible opportunities to explore interesting, mature sides of Superman. The questions raised about heroism and sacrifice and love in this relationship are beautiful. But we live in a culture still obsessed with portraying marriage as "boring" (It's not) or as a death to your youth (It's not) or as being un-masculine. (Again, it's not.)

The only way I'll be mad at Goyer and Snyder is if they allow Batman to complete overtake this Superman sequel and in the process ignore and lose all the beautiful nuances that exist in a Superman story when Lois and Clark are on equal footing with their knowledge. That would be a true crime.

Now here is where Cavill is WRONG:

He's wrong to put it ALL on Lois. Bc keeping Lois in the dark doesn't just undercut Lois's agency....but it undercuts Clark Kent. Clark Kent keeps his identity from Lois Lane because he's scared. He's afraid of truly opening his heart up and going after what he wants. He's afraid of true rejection. He's afraid of losing her. He's afraid for her safety. He's afraid of many things. In the new 52, Superman is a coward. He's with Wonder Woman bc he was too cowardly to just open up to Lois and tell her the truth. So instead....he pushed her away. It belies the sacrifice that Jonathan and Martha Kent made when they took Clark in with no guarantee of what the future would bring by portraying Clark as the kind of man who isn't willing to make the same sacrifice that his parents made. It's cowardly.

Love can't be decided with fear and a Superman who keeps that wall up between himself and the woman he loves is letting fear dictate his life as opposed to opening his heart. So it's not just all on her. It's on HIM too for being a coward.

It's also not true that Clark Kent and Superman have the "same mannerisms" or even "look the same." That's just not true. Clark Kent went out of his way to change his mannerisms in his two identities and to keep his head down.

So I agree with Henry's point that it works for the narrative to have Lois in the know but the Triangle for 2 is just a way more complex beast than people make it out to be. It's a beautiful, complex thing that eventually must end.

*****Oh and P.S.---There ::is:: no healthier love story in the genre than Lois and Clark when the truth is out between them.

Lois Lane is a mortal career woman. She's not a goddess. She's not a supermodel. She's a woman who is really, really good at her job. If she marries him it will be bc she chooses to. And Clark Kent ADORES her. He never asks this woman to change. Never asks her to stop working. Never asks her to be anything less than what she is. Lois Lane is a female character in a genre that loves to just take female characters and put them entirely in the space of male fantasy who has managed, for 75 years, to maintain her own space and agency. She's not a male gaze fantasy. She's a fictional depiction of a REAL woman who is just as brave as Superman despite having no physical privilege. She's not perfect. But she tries really, really hard to do the right thing and she's really good at her job. And Superman loves her more than anything else. It's not just a great message for women....it's a great message for GUYS. There is a reason it's the most beloved love story not just in the genre but period. Bc when depicted correctly it is arguably one of the most healthy and beautiful expressions of a man allowing a woman to "just be" who she is without compromise in a genre that often refuses to allow women to do that. It's also a beautiful message on physical privilege and how we don't need to have Superman's powers to be his true equal or a hero. It's ragingly beautiful and very misunderstood and wonderful and tragic and sexy and romantic. And it just kills me when people get it wrong.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Damn Audrey, you sure schooled me.

 

[MrMaooz]

Does Audrey always type essays?

 

[Audrey]

Does Audrey always type essays?

Umm..hi.

First off, I type extremely fast. It doesn't take me very long at all to type long posts. That's not meant as a boast. It just is what it is. I write extremely quickly.

Second, I don't have a ton of time to participate on the board. I'm not able to just go back and forth the way some of you are bc my job and family doesn't allow me that kind of time. So if I'm here I'm usually try to express what I think bc I probably won't have the time to post again for a long time. I just don't have the luxury of posting 50 times to get my point across.

If the longer posts bother you...I guess don't read them. I'm only trying to share with the little time I have.

 

[The Question]

Lots of good discussion here. I think Henry is both right and wrong.

Here is where I agree with him: I don't have one problem with Lois knowing Clark's identity in Man of Steel. I thought it was powerful that Lois discovered Clark's "otherness" in a narrative where Clark was raised to hide who he was and fear acceptance. Not only does Lois accept him...she protects him.

The meeting scene in Man of Steel was a rif on Action Comics #1.

"You needn't be afraid of me. I won't harm you." Those are the first words Superman speaks to Lois Lane in Action #1. In Man of Steel, we see Clark display his incredible power and we see Lois understandably stunned and afraid. And what does Clark say to her? "It's ok...It's ok. I won't hurt you." Once again, we see Lois experience the super as our human counterpoint and instead of running away she reaches out her hand. It's beautiful and it's way more complex and has more depth than people have given it credit for. What people are missing about the Lois/Clark connection in Man of Steel is that Clark was "othered' his entire life. And this human...she is NOT AFRAID. It's just like Waid's Birthright, "She's not afraid." She's fearless. She finds him when no one else can find him. No, they don't know each other that well yet. But Good God...OF COURSE they are drawn to each other.

So I am totally fine with Lois knowing the truth in the Man of Steel Universe. But not exactly for the reasons Henry listed. Because I think the Triangle For 2 is deeply misunderstood and DOES have a ton of value.

The Triangle For 2 can be a beautiful, complex, complicated, sexy, romantic, desperately lovely thing in the right context. But it must have an end point in order to treat this woman with the dignity she has earned.

Insisting that Lois Lane must always be in the dark is to deny her the agency to have true POV in the narrative. Siegel recognized this very early on when he tried to bring Lois into the fold in the 1940's. (Someone already mentioned K-Metal on here. Happy to see that.) The Triangle For 2 can be an incredible statement on dual identity, on human and divinity, on love and acceptance, on opening oneself up to real love when it's right in front of you....but it MUST have a resolution.

It's also a fallacy that the "triangle" is over when Lois and Clark are married. It's not. The Triangle between them is ongoing even when Lois knows the truth and even when they are laying in bed together as man and wife.

The Triangle isn't just about keeping Lois in the dark. It's also about Clark Kent's relationship with humanity and how he balances his life as both man and superhman. It's about Lois Lane loving him in his reporter clothes when he is forced to keep his head down and her loving him when he is saving people. It's about how Lois fits into that dual identity as the voice for Superman for the people and how she fits into that identity as ONE HUMAN who is "better" at something than Clark Kent is. Bc no matter how hard Clark tries...he can't beat her. All of his powers and he can't beat her at their jobs. She's better. He knows it. She knows it.

I agree with the above poster. Stories about Lois and Clark when they are married and committed are incredible opportunities to explore interesting, mature sides of Superman. The questions raised about heroism and sacrifice and love in this relationship are beautiful. But we live in a culture still obsessed with portraying marriage as "boring" (It's not) or as a death to your youth (It's not) or as being un-masculine. (Again, it's not.)

The only way I'll be mad at Goyer and Snyder is if they allow Batman to complete overtake this Superman sequel and in the process ignore and lose all the beautiful nuances that exist in a Superman story when Lois and Clark are on equal footing with their knowledge. That would be a true crime.

Now here is where Cavill is WRONG:

He's wrong to put it ALL on Lois. Bc keeping Lois in the dark doesn't just undercut Lois's agency....but it undercuts Clark Kent. Clark Kent keeps his identity from Lois Lane because he's scared. He's afraid of truly opening his heart up and going after what he wants. He's afraid of true rejection. He's afraid of losing her. He's afraid for her safety. He's afraid of many things. In the new 52, Superman is a coward. He's with Wonder Woman bc he was too cowardly to just open up to Lois and tell her the truth. So instead....he pushed her away. It belies the sacrifice that Jonathan and Martha Kent made when they took Clark in with no guarantee of what the future would bring by portraying Clark as the kind of man who isn't willing to make the same sacrifice that his parents made. It's cowardly.

Love can't be decided with fear and a Superman who keeps that wall up between himself and the woman he loves is letting fear dictate his life as opposed to opening his heart. So it's not just all on her. It's on HIM too for being a coward.

It's also not true that Clark Kent and Superman have the "same mannerisms" or even "look the same." That's just not true. Clark Kent went out of his way to change his mannerisms in his two identities and to keep his head down.

So I agree with Henry's point that it works for the narrative to have Lois in the know but the Triangle for 2 is just a way more complex beast than people make it out to be. It's a beautiful, complex thing that eventually must end.

*****Oh and P.S.---There ::is:: no healthier love story in the genre than Lois and Clark when the truth is out between them.

Lois Lane is a mortal career woman. She's not a goddess. She's not a supermodel. She's a woman who is really, really good at her job. If she marries him it will be bc she chooses to. And Clark Kent ADORES her. He never asks this woman to change. Never asks her to stop working. Never asks her to be anything less than what she is. Lois Lane is a female character in a genre that loves to just take female characters and put them entirely in the space of male fantasy who has managed, for 75 years, to maintain her own space and agency. She's not a male gaze fantasy. She's a fictional depiction of a REAL woman who is just as brave as Superman despite having no physical privilege. She's not perfect. But she tries really, really hard to do the right thing and she's really good at her job. And Superman loves her more than anything else. It's not just a great message for women....it's a great message for GUYS. There is a reason it's the most beloved love story not just in the genre but period. Bc when depicted correctly it is arguably one of the most healthy and beautiful expressions of a man allowing a woman to "just be" who she is without compromise in a genre that often refuses to allow women to do that. It's also a beautiful message on physical privilege and how we don't need to have Superman's powers to be his true equal or a hero. It's ragingly beautiful and very misunderstood and wonderful and tragic and sexy and romantic. And it just kills me when people get it wrong.

While I agree with your overall sentiment as to the value the two person love triangle has as a thing that's there at first but eventually goes away, my thing is that I'm still hung up on the fact that it still makes Lois look surprisingly dense for being unable to recognize that the guy she has a crush on and the guy she shares a desk with are the same guy.

To me, the two-person love triangle would only work if Lois never actually establishes a relationship with Superman and never even gets a good look at his face or hears his voice for more than a second, and her infatuation with him is more with him as an idea. Because that doesn't call into question her ability to remember what people's faces look like.

 

[MrMaooz]

Umm..hi.

First off, I type extremely fast. It doesn't take me very long at all to type long posts. That's not meant as a boast. It just is what it is. I write extremely quickly.

Second, I don't have a ton of time to participate on the board. I'm not able to just go back and forth the way some of you are bc my job and family doesn't allow me that kind of time. So if I'm here I'm usually try to express what I think bc I probably won't have the time to post again for a long time. I just don't have the luxury of posting 50 times to get my point across.

If the longer posts bother you...I guess don't read them. I'm only trying to share with the little time I have.

Oh, I'm not bothered. I just notice that your posts are usually fairly long.

 

[Audrey]

While I agree with your overall sentiment as to the value the two person love triangle has as a thing that's there at first but eventually goes away, my thing is that I'm still hung up on the fact that it still makes Lois look surprisingly dense for being unable to recognize that the guy she has a crush on and the guy she shares a desk with are the same guy.

To me, the two-person love triangle would only work if Lois never actually establishes a relationship with Superman and never even gets a good look at his face or hears his voice for more than a second, and her infatuation with him is more with him as an idea. Because that doesn't call into question her ability to remember what people's faces look like.

Well first off, I would point out that Lois is not unique in this regard. NO ONE is able to put it together. Lois is the only person throughout comics history who has repeatedly figured out the truth. So what you are talking about here is a suspension of disbelief not just with Lois but with everyone.

Unfortunately though I think there is a "magic" required with this that you can either accept or you can't.

I think what you have to remember is that 50, 30 even 20 years ago....our media properties were operating under a much less realistic context. We are asked to accept the premise of a narrative in which this bit of "magic" takes place and we are asked to not only believe that " a man can fly" but that all these other incredible things are taking place as well in that same universe.

Now, in the year 2013? We operate under a different asssumption with our media which is why I AGREE that it's the right choice to bring Lois in on the truth right away here. But that doesn't mean that she was ever "dense" in the past as it's a totally different approach to the narrative. It's accepting a sense of wonder in a world vs. approaching it in a more obvious context.

All that said, I personally think Smallville had the best Triangle For 2 because they found a way to explore the dual identity in a modern context through the use of the telephone. Lois and The Blur shared phone calls and connected on a deep level while Lois and Clark Kent fell madly in love at work. It was a beautiful exploration of the two sides of Clark---man and hero---and how Lois intersected them. Eventually, Lois learns the truth bc Clark can't help himself and he grabs her and kisses her in the dark while in his hero uniform. She puts the pieces together from his kiss. But because she had never seen the Blur's face....it as a way to explore this in a more realistic context.

I'm not saying that having her see his face works now with the way we approach media in 2013. It doesn't. But that doesn't mean the "magic" element of it never worked. We don't approach narratives in the same way now that we used to. Double identity/disguises etc were a key component of narratives for centuries. Shakespeare was rooted in the element of disguise/cross dressing/identities for years. It was a different expectation. You were asked to question different things as the audience. It's not right or wrong. Just different. Lois/Clark/Superman is really a superhero romantic riff on narratives set in motion a long time ago about mistaken identity by Shakespeare and other greats. We interpret them differently now because our culture has changed. But in their time...it wouldn't have made anyone "dense" to not see the truth right away. But our media is influenced by our culture and our culture has changed.

 

[Audrey]

Oh, I'm not bothered. I just notice that your posts are usually fairly long.

Only bc I just don't have time to engage any other way. It would have been easier to engage in this convo from the beginning with the other posters but I'm just not always able to do that. So sometimes I jot out quick posts when I have the time and they just wind up long because I've missed so much in the meantime.

Writing longer posts when I have the time isn't ideal but it's all I have time for right now.

Also, frankly, I just think some of these conversations merit more detailed discussion. There isn't always a simple, easy answer. It's a 75 year old property for a reason.

 

[The Question]

Well first off, I would point out that Lois is not unique in this regard. NO ONE is able to put it together. Lois is the only person throughout comics history who has repeatedly figured out the truth. So what you are talking about here is a suspension of disbelief not just with Lois but with everyone.

It doesn't mean it doesn't make her look really bad. She's the only person who actually has face to face conversations with the man in both identities on a regular basis. And she's a Pulitzer prize winning reporter. And not everyone is a major character in the book who we're supposed to respect and think of as being highly intelligent and capable. I think it's especially egregious in her case.

Also, all the times she "figured it out" it was usually because Clark told her.

Honestly, I don't have THAT much of a problem with the secret identity in general. Random people who see Clark walking down the street are, at most, going to think that he's a guy who just kind of looks like Superman and then not really give it much thought afterwards. It's really the people spends a lot of time with and knows personally who aren't in on it who are the ones that raise logical flags.

All in all, I'd prefer the secret identity in general if Superman had a less overt media presence in universe. No interviews, no photo ops, he just shows up and does his job, maybe talks to a few people, and leaves.

Now, in the year 2013? We operate under a different asssumption with our media which is why I AGREE that it's the right choice to bring Lois in on the truth right away here. But that doesn't mean that she was ever "dense" in the past as it's a totally different approach to the narrative. It's accepting a sense of wonder in a world vs. approaching it in a more obvious context.

I'm going to have to disagree here. People have been criticizing Lois' inability to recognize the man for decades. It's not a recent phenomena brought on by modern trends in storytelling, people have been asking why she can't see it since the 40s.

 

[Audrey]

It doesn't mean it doesn't make her look really bad. She's the only person who actually has face to face conversations with the man in both identities on a regular basis. And she's a Pulitzer prize winning reporter. And not everyone is a major character in the book who we're supposed to respect and think of as being highly intelligent and capable. I think it's especially egregious in her case.

I understand but I think again you have to remember that this entire conceit is based on a trope where there is supposed to be magic and suspension of disbelief involved.

I'm not saying you have to agree. You are free to question it. But this is rooted in a narrative device that came to us from Shakespeare and beyond in which you we were allowed to watch narratives with extremely smart people and still suspend disbelief that something like this could occur.

I totally respect your right to just want it out of the way though!

Also, all the times she "figured it out" it was usually because Clark told her.

That...is not true. I don't want to write another essay here by listing Lois Lane's entire history but...not true.

Comics history repeatedly showed that Lois was on to Clark to the point that he went out of his way to try and deceive her bc he KNEW that she had figured it out. The entire conceit of Lois Lane's own comic book was that she was out to prove that he was Superman because she KNEW. It was a book written in a very sexist time period in our culture but the idea that Lois was the one person who kept figuring it out was a repeated motif.

She also figured it out on her own several times in live action only AGAIN to have Clark go out of his way to deceive her for her own protection.

In fact, I can't think of one live action property where Clark tells her the truth where she doesn't already know. In the Richard Donner cut of Superman 2, she knows in the first scene. Even in the Lester cut, she figures it out first and then he pretends to "drown" to throw her off again. On "Lois and Clark" he never actually tells her. She knows when he proposes on her own. On Smallville---he NEVER tells her. She kisses him and knows and she eventually WAITS for him to tell her the truth to respect him. But she knows.

In the animated DVD for Doomsday---she knows. The animated series kept her in the dark bc it was a show for kids. I didn't agree with that. Even in the modern comics, it's implied that she "knew" on some level but was in denial when he finally tells her the truth.

It's very rare to have a narrative in which he tells her where it isn't implied that she didn't already know and was either 1.) in denial or 2.) just was too stunned to believe it. And in many cases...she just outright already knows.

I TOTALLY agree with you that it makes more sense when she is allowed to know the truth. Just to be clear, I prefer stories where Lois knows the truth. I think it's a crying shame that George Perez's concept of Lois knowing the truth about Clark from the start in the new 52 was wiped out. That bothers me a lot. The problem is, right now, DC wants to keep a wall between Lois and Clark bc they want to push this stunt with Wonder Woman. They created a situation where Clark thinks he can't open up to Lois for her safety in order to keep him isolated. And it's a shame. Bc it really undercuts Lois a ton. Perez was correct to have her KNOW the truth from the beginning of the reboot. But if she knows the truth it also means she has POWER. And DC doesn't want Lois Lane to have power right now. If Lois knows the truth then there is nothing keeping Lois and Clark apart. Forcing her to stay in the dark is a forced wall between them. So it's a big mess.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Well first off, I would point out that Lois is not unique in this regard. NO ONE is able to put it together. Lois is the only person throughout comics history who has repeatedly figured out the truth. So what you are talking about here is a suspension of disbelief not just with Lois but with everyone.

Unfortunately though I think there is a "magic" required with this that you can either accept or you can't.

I think what you have to remember is that 50, 30 even 20 years ago....our media properties were operating under a much less realistic context. We are asked to accept the premise of a narrative in which this bit of "magic" takes place and we are asked to not only believe that " a man can fly" but that all these other incredible things are taking place as well in that same universe.

Now, in the year 2013? We operate under a different asssumption with our media which is why I AGREE that it's the right choice to bring Lois in on the truth right away here. But that doesn't mean that she was ever "dense" in the past as it's a totally different approach to the narrative. It's accepting a sense of wonder in a world vs. approaching it in a more obvious context.

All that said, I personally think Smallville had the best Triangle For 2 because they found a way to explore the dual identity in a modern context through the use of the telephone. Lois and The Blur shared phone calls and connected on a deep level while Lois and Clark Kent fell madly in love at work. It was a beautiful exploration of the two sides of Clark---man and hero---and how Lois intersected them. Eventually, Lois learns the truth bc Clark can't help himself and he grabs her and kisses her in the dark while in his hero uniform. She puts the pieces together from his kiss. But because she had never seen the Blur's face....it as a way to explore this in a more realistic context.

I'm not saying that having her see his face works now with the way we approach media in 2013. It doesn't. But that doesn't mean the "magic" element of it never worked. We don't approach narratives in the same way now that we used to. Double identity/disguises etc were a key component of narratives for centuries. Shakespeare was rooted in the element of disguise/cross dressing/identities for years. It was a different expectation. You were asked to question different things as the audience. It's not right or wrong. Just different. Lois/Clark/Superman is really a superhero romantic riff on narratives set in motion a long time ago about mistaken identity by Shakespeare and other greats. We interpret them differently now because our culture has changed. But in their time...it wouldn't have made anyone "dense" to not see the truth right away. But our media is influenced by our culture and our culture has changed.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

long posts in here! yowsa

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I love Audrey's long posts.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It is a messageboard not twitter, so I have no problem with it.

 

[Andreth]

Now here is where Cavill is WRONG:

He's wrong to put it ALL on Lois. Bc keeping Lois in the dark doesn't just undercut Lois's agency....but it undercuts Clark Kent. Clark Kent keeps his identity from Lois Lane because he's scared. He's afraid of truly opening his heart up and going after what he wants. He's afraid of true rejection. He's afraid of losing her. He's afraid for her safety....

It's also not true that Clark Kent and Superman have the "same mannerisms" or even "look the same." That's just not true. Clark Kent went out of his way to change his mannerisms in his two identities and to keep his head down.

While I agree with all your other posts I think Henry wasn't wrong because he's talking with the Man of Steel's Lois-Clark dynamic in mind while saying those things, the way Man of Steel has portrayed them both doesn't make Clark and Superman have different mannerisms so far, yes, we haven't seen much of the reporter Clark at the Daily Planet but I believe he's more aware of the direction and the character he was portraying and will portray in future films, and we've seen plenty of the real Clark Kent, the one Lois met for the first time and met at Jonathan's grave. I guess everything indicates he won't be the bumbling nerd of the Chris Reeve film when he starts working with her at the Daily Planet.
Yes, Lois falls for the real man, and not the disguise, so it's still accurate in this universe.

Clark revealing his powers on their first meeting and Lois finding out his identity also leaves Clark's fears to reveal himself out of the picture.

So basically, what he said is right for the Man of Steel Lois-Clark relationship. I agree with all the other points you made if you try to apply his words to the classic dynamic though. Great posts by the way.

So I agree with Henry's point that it works for the narrative to have Lois in the know but the Triangle for 2 is just a way more complex beast than people make it out to be. It's a beautiful, complex thing that eventually must end.

Agreed

 

[blumatic]

I think we are going to see the best of Lois and Clark. Far too long we've been dealing with the relationship on the surface. Its always a chase. Their relationship never fully realized.

With Lois knowing on this early we can really get some intimate and meaningful conversations. Batman always had Alfred and a lady friend. In MOS universe she can talk to Lois and Martha.

I can't wait to see how Lois keeps this a secret under circumstances that may force her to reveal it.

A real intimate relationship. I can't wait. Hopefully Bruce Wayne doesn't recreate the triangle.

 

[Herolee10]

I think we are going to see the best of Lois and Clark. Far too long we've been dealing with the relationship on the surface. Its always a chase. Their relationship never fully realized.

With Lois knowing on this early we can really get some intimate and meaningful conversations. Batman always had Alfred and a lady friend. In MOS universe she can talk to Lois and Martha.

I can't wait to see how Lois keeps this a secret under circumstances that may force her to reveal it.

A real intimate relationship. I can't wait. Hopefully Bruce Wayne doesn't recreate the triangle.

I think that if Snyder and Goyer stay true to their characters and what they've established, then there shouldn't be any problems.

If anything, the only real concern is whether Snyder will devote the right amount of time in covering the exploration and further development of the Lois and Clark relationship.

If this had been a batman-free film,t hen I'd argue that there would be a stronger chance that we would have more time devoted towards expanding upon Lois and Clark's relationship and showing our first modern take of their relationship on the big screen.

And in regards to that ever dreadful "T" word (triangle).lol, honestly, I'm going to put on my sane cap here folks, there's really nothing in MOS that suggested that they would go down this route.

Really, absolutely nothing. The only problem that Lois and Clark seemed to have had in "Man of Steel" was that they didn't have more scenes with each other.lol

But the way their relationship was handled and built in the film, it was done with a lot of maturity, which is something that most comic book couples on film can't really claim on having had the same.

Hell, if you look at Batman Begins and the first Spider-Man film regarding Rachel Dawes and Mary Jane Watson, it was pretty clear that there were always going to be some problems that would stop them from having a healthy or satisfying relationship with their male leads in the film and that "another guy" would always be a strong possibility when obstacles were concerned. Mary Jane was an indecisive person and she needed the full attention of a man in order to feel validated and Rachel Dawes didn't really see any hope that Bruce would ever come back towards having a normal life and even when she thought he had disappeared for good, she was able to move on by having a relationship with her boss attorney in the film.

So yeah, there were no indicators in MOS at all to say that Lois and Clark will have those type of melodramatic issues when further exploring their relationship.

And if Goyer stays true to his word in terms of what he described on doing for the couple in future installments after MOS, they should be good.

And honestly, you don't bring someone of Amy Adams caliber in acting and waste her in a poorly written character like a person would normally do (for some odd reason) whenever using an actress/actor with lesser fame and skills.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

While I agree with all your other posts I think Henry wasn't wrong because he's talking with the Man of Steel's Lois-Clark dynamic in mind while saying those things, the way Man of Steel has portrayed them both doesn't make Clark and Superman have different mannerisms so far, yes, we haven't seen much of the reporter Clark at the Daily Planet but I believe he's more aware of the direction and the character he was portraying and will portray in future films, and we've seen plenty of the real Clark Kent, the one Lois met for the first time and met at Jonathan's grave. I guess everything indicates he won't be the bumbling nerd of the Chris Reeve film when he starts working with her at the Daily Planet.
Yes, Lois falls for the real man, and not the disguise, so it's still accurate in this universe.

This actually worries me somewhat. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see Clark portrayed like a bumbling idiot again. I do want to see him make an effort to be more low key though -- kind of like the guy/girl no one pays attention to. And for that, he will most definitely have to alter his mannerisms to an extent.

 

[Smallville13]

Great posts Audrey! I wish you were here more often! There's points you make that I could see myself disagreeing with, but they're too eloquently put that I can't even put myself to trying!

 

[the last son]

Yea I didn't like the line that superman and Clark have the same mannerisms. Other than that I agree with him. But as Clark you have to do a little something in disguise

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

They haven't started filming the movie yet. If I worried about every little thing actors said I wouldn't have hair.

 

[DorneyDave]

They haven't started filming the movie yet. If I worried about every little thing actors said I wouldn't have hair.

Lex Lutor confirmed.