I think the "Truth, Justice and American Way" has indeed become a thing of the past. We see America more cynical and through a much more critical lense than in the past. Having things like that in a film nowadays would almost come off as American propaganda and the film will be called out on it.
That being said, I thought MOS did a great job at having the theme of "truth, justice and the American way" present in the film without actually saying that line. If you think about it and analyze the film, Superman represents all the classic American values while Zod represents the exact opposite.
Agreed.
Superman in the film represents hope and the ability to make your own choices and shape your own destiny, as well as the belief that we are all individuals. On the other hand, Zod comes from a hopeless world, which is something he plans to bring to Earth as well. He not only believes there is no such thing as the freedom to make your own choices but also believes that everyone must be stripped of their individuality and just be whatever they were genetically engineered to be in order for the Kryptonian race as a whole survive. This was the same mentality one can find in the Soviet Union or in books like 1984.
Decades of Cold War propaganda created this false dichotomy where you're either an arch-individualist or a faceless cog in the totalitarian machine. It's a great way to discredit the entire idea of collective action.
Even the symbol of Zod's chest somewhat resembles the Communist flag.
Interesting interpretation. I'd like to hear from one of the actual costume designers though.
MOS vs STM: It's hard to compare the two because, as people have said, both offer the perfect Superman for their respective eras (I'll come back to that later). At the moment I have to say my personal preference is for MOS.
The new movie gave me the Superman and the Lois Lane I always wanted to see. Christopher Reeve remains the standard, but that's why I think Henry Cavill's performance was so strong - unlike Routh, he was able to step out of Reeve's shadow. But Amy Adams blows Margot Kidder out of the water. Part of that is the writing - she acts more like an actual journalist - but she's also smarter, funnier and more beautiful.
Where villains are concerned, MOS stomps all over STM. Gene Hackman's campy take on Lex simply cannot compare to Shannon's complex take on Zod. And what about the henchmen - Faora vs. Otis and Miss Tessmacher? I think that question answers itself.
Russell Crowe completely upstaged Marlon Brando as Jor-El. Rather than just showing up to the set for a glorified cameo and reading his lines off cue cards, he actually put effort into the role and the result is a much more dynamic, charismatic Jor-El.
As much as I love Kevin Costner, I have to say that one scene in STM with Glenn Ford's Jonathan Kent - "son ... you were sent here for a reason" - well, it just brilliant reduces Clark's all-American upbringing to one brief, beautiful speech. Still, I tend to prefer a younger Jonathan.
Where Clark's mothers are concerned, it's MOS for both - no question.
The special effects were better in MOS, as was the action. I liked the romance a lot more. And finally, the ending of MOS was incomparably better. Rather than a jaw-droppingly dumb
deus ex machina that creates countless plot holes, the ending of MOS hinges on one of the most basic moral quandaries faced by Superman, and dares to make a controversial choice. I applaud the movie for its boldness in that regard.
So yeah, you put this all together and it looks like MOS is the clear favourite, with Christopher Reeve's performance the strongest and most enduring element of STM. I think STM is a more subtle, tasteful and better constructed film overall, but MOS delivers up an action-packed Superman in glorious excess and I don't have a problem with that. Basically, after years in which STM and SII were IMO the only real choices available for good Superman movies, it's great to see a new one with a different take.
One thing I'd like to return to, though, is how both STM and MOS seemed to perfectly encapsulate their eras. In fact, if you compare the two films, you'll learn an awful lot about how American society has changed since 1978.
Donner's film captured that post-Vietnam, post-Watergate malaise and the yearning for a return to conservative '50s values. Chris Reeve's Superman embodied that perfectly. He was pure goodness, but also the ultimate square. I think Lois' response to his claim that he fights for "truth, justice and the American way" encapsulated the widespread cynicism of that time: "You're going to have to fight every elected official in the country!"
Similarly, MOS reflects the state of American society in the early 21st century. Some critics have mentioned the 9/11 overtones of the mass destruction in the movie's climax, which is debatable. I did appreciate the sight of Superman knocking down a drone.
t: But the thing that really stuck out in my mind was Superman's close relationship to the military.
Throughout the film, Superman's main link with humanity was through the U.S. military. Aside from Lois, they were the only human beings that "Superman" had much contact with after donning the suit, and at the end, General Swanwick is the one who essentially represents humanity in setting the scene of how we will deal with Superman going forward.
You can argue that the Pentagon's considerable support for this movie contributed to this. But I think it's really just an issue of the much greater prominence of the military in U.S. society today than in 1978. Polls consistently show that the military is by far the most trusted institution in the United States today - and judging by his last line to Swanwick ("I guess I'll just to trust you"), Cavill's Superman seems to reflect those sentiments.
I personally enjoyed MOS more than STM but that doesn't change my love for STM at all.
