Was MOS a good introduction to Superman for younger kids?

[KRYPTON INC.]

I have stated that the film has through it's characters, especially Pa Kent, a very nuanced sense of morality. It is not amoral at all. It has a point of view. One that I think says, to be truly moral in this world you have to balance out a lot of things (Pa Kent's love of his son vs his obligation to the state of the wider world vs his need to let his son be who he is and choose his own destiny), take a lot into consideration and try and "thread that needle" more often than not if you believe in doing the right things the right way. I know some will just throw that Elliot S! Maggin quote in my face. Legendary Superman writer or not, I disagree with that outlook. When I was younger the Manichean view of things was comforting and appealing. As I matured I felt that kind of morality just did not take the complexities of this thing called 'life' into account (cue Prince music). As I have aged I am more comfortable with the idea that it is more difficult than not to know what is truly right. And I am not some star child refugee with the power of an atom bomb in my fist, or a simple man doing his best to raise a boy whose destiny is to be a kind of secular messiah. Their choices would be weighted by a gravity none of us will ever know. Those that condemn Pa Kent in MOS with the judgment that he is teaching Clark to "let people die", let me ask you this: Is not the idea that Superman does not get involved with the internal politics of every country, something long standing in the comics, essentially him making a choice to let people die, for something that sounds and aweful lot like the reasoning Pa Kent expresses in the film? Superman does not go cleaning house inside of countries with dictatorial regimes and the like. Why? Because to do so would set himself as the ultimate arbiter of mankind. He would be taking away the human race's freedom and initiative. Even with the best intentions he feels it would be wrong in the long run even if it saved lives in the here and now. So he makes a choice to let people suffer and die all the time. You could argue this stance is an editorial contrivance (It is). But that misses the point. It's been a long established part of Superman's moral outlook for some time. One kids reading the comic have gotten for decades. Is a similar sentiment illustrated in a more personal and gut wrenching way (Pa Kent's waving off of his son) of Clark understanding the inherent responsibility of his god like power now a cause for concern? I would say not. But then again I thought all those themes were clear and they resonated with me. You might think otherwise.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

I have stated that the film has through it's characters, especially Pa Kent, a very nuanced sense of morality. It is not amoral at all. It has a point of view. One that I think says, to be truly moral in this world you have to balance out a lot of things (Pa Kent's love of his son vs his obligation to the state of the wider world vs his need to let his son be who he is and choose his own destiny), take a lot into consideration and try and "thread that needle" more often than not if you believe in doing the right things the right way. I know some will just throw that Elliot S! Maggin quote in my face. Legendary Superman writer or not, I disagree with that outlook. When I was younger the Manichean view of things was comforting and appealing. As I matured I felt that kind of morality just did not take the complexities of this thing called 'life' into account (cue Prince music). As I have aged I am more comfortable with the idea that it is more difficult than not to know what is truly right. And I am not some star child refugee with the power of an atom bomb in my fist, or a simple man doing his best to raise a boy whose destiny is to be a kind of secular messiah. Their choices would be weighted by a gravity none of us will ever know. Those that condemn Pa Kent in MOS with the judgment that he is teaching Clark to "let people die", let me ask you this: Is not the idea that Superman does not get involved with the internal politics of every country, something long standing in the comics, essentially him making a choice to let people die, for something that sounds and aweful lot like the reasoning Pa Kent expresses in the film? Superman does not go cleaning house inside of countries with dictatorial regimes and the like. Why? Because to do so would set himself as the ultimate arbiter of mankind. He would be taking away the human race's freedom and initiative. Even with the best intentions he feels it would be wrong in the long run even if it saved lives in the here and now. So he makes a choice to let people suffer and die all the time. You could argue this stance is an editorial contrivance (It is). But that misses the point. It's been a long established part of Superman's moral outlook for some time. One kids reading the comic have gotten for decades. Is a similar sentiment illustrated in a more personal and gut wrenching way (Pa Kent's waving off of his son) of Clark understanding the inherent responsibility of his god like power now a cause for concern? I would say not. But then again I thought all those themes were clear and they resonated with me. You might think otherwise.

This is something so people who have problems with the film seem to miss. This is something I kept thinking about even after the first viewing and as I thought more and more about it, it grew on me.

 

[jb007]

I say yes. I think it shows a much deeper backround that STM. Also, It sets the stage for what a person can not only be, but what they can grow into.

I truely believe Superman will grow more in the second film.

It shows that in life sacrifices are at times needed for a greater cause.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

He will be a global superhero. He will be THE Superman.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

This is something so people who have problems with the film seem to miss. This is something I kept thinking about even after the first viewing and as I thought more and more about it, it grew on me.

If this was the "grounded" take on the character then my suspicion is they wanted the audience to see things through Pa Kent's eyes, and how the weight of the world was on his shoulders. And when he allowed that twister to take him that weight was transferred to Clark. His struggle before was of a personal nature. Now the fate of the world would depend on his choices.

 

[KappeiJin]

Of course that the movie is fitting also for kids.
Kids find cool everything adults find cool.
If the story has no much humor that not means it's not for kids. It has a great action and a critic to violence at same time.
We simply are used to the "goomba-loompa" Disn..ehm.. Marvel's movies humor, that i somehow hate.

 

[Da Games Elite]

I'm not a parent, so my opinion might seem a little off, but my plan with introducing my kids to superheroes would be to show them the movies as I saw them: classics first.

By the time I have kids, Man of Steel will probably be a classic, just like Spider-Man is now, but I don't know if Man of Steel really is a great introduction to Superman lore. After all, a lot of it presumes you know the basic idea of Superman. The strength of the ending with the Daily Planet draws from your nostalgia of the Superman character, since we all know that's where he's ending up. The idea that he ends up with Lois Lane is more effective BECAUSE we know he ends up with Lois Lane.

In essence, the film works better because we know Superman from the comics and the Christopher Reeves films.

You may argue that MoS is more complex, but, again, I disagree. It's darker, but not necessarily more nuanced or complicated than the Donner films. It's just different. I feel that, as an introduction to Superman lore, MoS, while good for a new series of films, isn't the type of introduction a kid would need to get Superman.

Now, here comes the next part: would I show it to my kid? Of course. This film is easy to understand, and, though it has dark scenes, it isn't morbid. Let's be fair: Dragonball Z is more violent. However, would I introduce Superman to them by showing them this? No.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah, the big thing is that kids just grow up with more sensory/visual stimulation these days than we who grew up earlier did. But just like with a lot of things, you just hope that that doesn't include more insensitivity to violence and such. I agree that there is more responsibility with the parent these days to watch over that and also teach the child how/where to draw the lines between entertainment and real-life behavior and such.



But aside from the violence, I also wonder if the story is really 'sinking in' the way it did before, or if it is but just at a different rhythm.

I really appreciate this thread. I would say it's the "tone" of the film that might not sit well with younger kids. It's very melancholy. Particularly the young clark parts. There's just nothing in those scenes for a kid to enjoy, at least I don't see how. The violence isn't such an issue if you exclude the neck snap. That just isn't the first impression I'd want a kid to have of Superman. That's again, why I'm against it. I get in story logic but it cements this film was designed to appeal to "mature" audiences. That's just my opinion.

I'd also add in a society in which most people enjoyed the Avengers and Marvel's other films you may want to give your friends with kids a fair warning and some comparisons with other films. I'd put the overall tone of this film with TDKR. Even Batman Begins has a slightly more uplifting tone than the majority of this film. The film ends on a lighter note so it implies that moving forward it won't be as dark but climaxing as it did definitely gives it a darker tone than a lot of the other superhero films.

 

[Daybreak_st]

I have stated that the film has through it's characters, especially Pa Kent, a very nuanced sense of morality. It is not amoral at all. It has a point of view. One that I think says, to be truly moral in this world you have to balance out a lot of things (Pa Kent's love of his son vs his obligation to the state of the wider world vs his need to let his son be who he is and choose his own destiny), take a lot into consideration and try and "thread that needle" more often than not if you believe in doing the right things the right way. I know some will just throw that Elliot S! Maggin quote in my face. Legendary Superman writer or not, I disagree with that outlook. When I was younger the Manichean view of things was comforting and appealing. As I matured I felt that kind of morality just did not take the complexities of this thing called 'life' into account (cue Prince music). As I have aged I am more comfortable with the idea that it is more difficult than not to know what is truly right. And I am not some star child refugee with the power of an atom bomb in my fist, or a simple man doing his best to raise a boy whose destiny is to be a kind of secular messiah. Their choices would be weighted by a gravity none of us will ever know. Those that condemn Pa Kent in MOS with the judgment that he is teaching Clark to "let people die", let me ask you this: Is not the idea that Superman does not get involved with the internal politics of every country, something long standing in the comics, essentially him making a choice to let people die, for something that sounds and aweful lot like the reasoning Pa Kent expresses in the film? Superman does not go cleaning house inside of countries with dictatorial regimes and the like. Why? Because to do so would set himself as the ultimate arbiter of mankind. He would be taking away the human race's freedom and initiative. Even with the best intentions he feels it would be wrong in the long run even if it saved lives in the here and now. So he makes a choice to let people suffer and die all the time. You could argue this stance is an editorial contrivance (It is). But that misses the point. It's been a long established part of Superman's moral outlook for some time. One kids reading the comic have gotten for decades. Is a similar sentiment illustrated in a more personal and gut wrenching way (Pa Kent's waving off of his son) of Clark understanding the inherent responsibility of his god like power now a cause for concern? I would say not. But then again I thought all those themes were clear and they resonated with me. You might think otherwise.

The difference is he's ON THE BUS WITH THE KIDS! If he saved himself and let the rest die I'd think THAT would've troubled his conscious a whole lot more in the years to come. It's not going out of his way to get involved in EVERYTHING he was already involved it just only a matter of doing the right thing to help those immediately around you if you have the power to do so.

 

[Marvin]

I have stated that the film has through it's characters, especially Pa Kent, a very nuanced sense of morality. It is not amoral at all. It has a point of view. One that I think says, to be truly moral in this world you have to balance out a lot of things (Pa Kent's love of his son vs his obligation to the state of the wider world vs his need to let his son be who he is and choose his own destiny), take a lot into consideration and try and "thread that needle" more often than not if you believe in doing the right things the right way. I know some will just throw that Elliot S! Maggin quote in my face. Legendary Superman writer or not, I disagree with that outlook. When I was younger the Manichean view of things was comforting and appealing. As I matured I felt that kind of morality just did not take the complexities of this thing called 'life' into account (cue Prince music). As I have aged I am more comfortable with the idea that it is more difficult than not to know what is truly right. And I am not some star child refugee with the power of an atom bomb in my fist, or a simple man doing his best to raise a boy whose destiny is to be a kind of secular messiah. Their choices would be weighted by a gravity none of us will ever know. Those that condemn Pa Kent in MOS with the judgment that he is teaching Clark to "let people die", let me ask you this: Is not the idea that Superman does not get involved with the internal politics of every country, something long standing in the comics, essentially him making a choice to let people die, for something that sounds and aweful lot like the reasoning Pa Kent expresses in the film? Superman does not go cleaning house inside of countries with dictatorial regimes and the like. Why? Because to do so would set himself as the ultimate arbiter of mankind. He would be taking away the human race's freedom and initiative. Even with the best intentions he feels it would be wrong in the long run even if it saved lives in the here and now. So he makes a choice to let people suffer and die all the time. You could argue this stance is an editorial contrivance (It is). But that misses the point. It's been a long established part of Superman's moral outlook for some time. One kids reading the comic have gotten for decades. Is a similar sentiment illustrated in a more personal and gut wrenching way (Pa Kent's waving off of his son) of Clark understanding the inherent responsibility of his god like power now a cause for concern? I would say not. But then again I thought all those themes were clear and they resonated with me. You might think otherwise.

I agree with this. However it is in direct conflict with the silver age straight forward mentality where things are simple, clark asks his dad a question and get's a straight forward answer and even ends up taking over the United Nations and throwing all the nukes in the sun having the only consequence be one of Luthors doing.

I see Jon's answer being perhaps the most important answer Superman could ever get. And one very formative of what he is to become. Not every choice is black and white. You have to use real moral discretion. Otherwise killing all your enemies and cleaning house politics would be all the easier.

I think this is a great example of some of the short sightedness in some of the criticisms on this matter in particular. Some people just want their Pa Kent back.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Let's be clear here. Do people think the obvious stuggle and unease we see Costner put in to his response, the reticence he puts into that single word, "maybe" was his wholesale endorsment of a morally apathetic code he wished his son to follow? Or does Costner sound like someone trying to teach his son a life lesson without any sugar coating? The need for Clark to keep his existence from the world is for the sake OF the world, and his son's well being also. But anyone who thinks Costner did not sell the gravity of the situation and was instead giving a flipant or selfish answer just saw a very different portrait painted of the man than I did. I ask this again: Is not what Superman does to keep himself from becoming King of Earth substanitavely different than what Pa Kent here said? Proximity is'nt the issue. With his powers every problem on the planet is open to Clark ("The world's too big Mom!"). Yet Superman has accepted he must allow these problems/suffering/deaths go on without intervention because there is more at stake than just those individual lives. And is'nt this something that's been a part of the comics for decades? This moral weight on Clark's shoulders is not something Snyder/Goyer/Nolan just made up out of whole cloth by themselves. Kids have implicitly getting that message for a long time.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^Nailed it.

I think a lot of people, especially when coming to a Superman film, just want it simple and easy. Black and white. Easy questions, easy answers. There is a lot of gray area here with this one. I appreciate that.

 

[StarvingArtist]

This movie was a terrible introduction to Superman for younger kids. It's really simple, half the movie was nothing but epic scale violence capped with the villain getting his neck broken by the one Superhero who's supposed to set the standard for sanctity of life and responsibility with power. It's a downer. I'm not going to argue that he shouldn't have killed Zod. There's precedent for that in the comics. I'm questioning Goyer's choice to put it in at all, the way he handled it, and what kind of message he was trying to send about this new Superman. I think putting Superman in a morally complex world is a great thing. But you still have to resolve the conflicts with the same sense of profound, uplifting hope Superman is meant to inspire. Otherwise, what's the point?

I'm not lauding the first Chris Reeve film as the end-all-be-all Superman movie, I know there are better Superman films to be made. But as far as introducing kids to what Superman is all about, Superman 1978 has Man of Steel beaten in spades.

 

[Marvin]

This movie was a terrible introduction to Superman for younger kids. It's really simple, half the movie was nothing but epic scale violence capped with the villain getting his neck broken by the one Superhero who's supposed to set the standard for sanctity of life and responsibility with power. It's a downer. I'm not going to argue that he shouldn't have killed Zod. There's precedent for that in the comics. I'm questioning Goyer's choice to put it in at all, the way he handled it, and what kind of message he was trying to send about this new Superman. I think putting Superman in a morally complex world is a great thing. But you still have to resolve the conflicts with the same sense of profound, uplifting hope Superman is meant to inspire. Otherwise, what's the point?

I'm not lauding the first Chris Reeve film as the end-all-be-all Superman movie, I know there are better Superman films to be made. But as far as introducing kids to what Superman is all about, Superman 1978 has Man of Steel beaten in spades.

These same kids handled the likes of the Lion King and Beauty&theBeast just fine.

The question should be phrased more specifically. What's a better film for kids today, to:
-Learn from
-Enjoy
-Be inspired by
..etc.

 

[restlessdreams]

I will first say this I'm not the biggest superman fan but I do like what he stand for. He is standard that I judge all other heroes by as well. Now as for your question I don't think MOS was a good introduction to Superman for kids. I would say the best Superman to introduce kids to would be the Justice League animated TV show. That to me is still the best Superman we have gotten to date.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Let's be clear here. Do people think the obvious stuggle and unease we see Costner put in to his response, the reticence he puts into that single word, "maybe" was his wholesale endorsment of a morally apathetic code he wished his son to follow? Or does Costner sound like someone trying to teach his son a life lesson without any sugar coating? The need for Clark to keep his existence from the world is for the sake OF the world, and his son's well being also. But anyone who thinks Costner did not sell the gravity of the situation and was instead giving a flipant or selfish answer just saw a very different portrait painted of the man than I did. I ask this again: Is not what Superman does to keep himself from becoming King of Earth substanitavely different than what Pa Kent here said? Proximity is'nt the issue. With his powers every problem on the planet is open to Clark ("The world's too big Mom!"). Yet Superman has accepted he must allow these problems/suffering/deaths go on without intervention because there is more at stake than just those individual lives. And is'nt this something that's been a part of the comics for decades? This moral weight on Clark's shoulders is not something Snyder/Goyer/Nolan just made up out of whole cloth by themselves. Kids have implicitly getting that message for a long time.

And I think that "issue" would've better been addressed under different circumstances. Argue the point as you might but proximity does have a heck of alot to do with it. Making the decision to fly off and interfer in a war torn country in Africa is not the same as saving a group of kids ridding on a bus THAT YOU ARE ALREADY ON. No one said Johnathan was "evil" but his advice is dubious at best regarding that situation which is what Clark was asking about. Bus load full of his classmates and he's suppose to just walk away, save himself, watch them, die...is that even an option for a supposedly "good" person?

 

[StarvingArtist]

These same kids handled the likes of the Lion King and Beauty&theBeast just fine.

The question should be phrased more specifically. What's a better film for kids today, to:
-Learn from
-Enjoy
-Be inspired by
..etc.

Did/Do they? I could write a thesis on how even Lion King and Beauty&theBeast aren't the best movies for kids either for various reasons, but in the context of our argument, I'll say that they are at least beautifully crafted movies whose violent moments are proportional to the stories they're telling and points they're making. The violence underlines key emotional moments in those stories. There's a point to it.

I'm not arguing that violence itself is an untouchable subject for kids films. But the way it's handled in Man of Steel flies in the face of the message Superman is supposed to be send. It's wanton violent spectacle at the cost of soul, in reality really no different then any fight from shows like Power Rangers.

The effects were just better.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

And I think that "issue" would've better been addressed under different circumstances. Argue the point as you might but proximity does have a heck of alot to do with it. Making the decision to fly off and interfer in a war torn country in Africa is not the same as saving a group of kid ridding on a bus THAT YOU ARE ALREADY ON. No one said Johnathan was "evil" but his advice is dubious at best regarding that situation which is what Clark was asking about. Bus load full of his classmates and he's suppose to just walk away, save himself, watch them, die...is that even an option for a supposedly "good" person?

You're saying this as if Jonathan Kent answered yes, when Clark asked should he have let them die? Jonathan was unsure how the situation should have been handled, he wants to make sure Clark keeps his powers a secret but he also knew that the bus of kids should have been saved. But how do you save those kids without revealing your powers? It's a catch 22 and not an easy situation hence why Jonathan couldn't give a straight answer.

 

[StarvingArtist]

You're saying this as if Jonathan Kent answered yes, when Clark asked should he have let them die? Jonathan was unsure how the situation should have been handled, he wants to make sure Clark keeps his powers a secret but he also knew that the bus of kids should have been saved. But how do you save those kids without revealing your powers? It's a catch 22 and not an easy situation hence why Jonathan couldn't give a straight answer.

Well, you could start by taking more care to not reveal yourself by not standing there for 30 seconds at the back of the bus after having just pushed it out of a river.

 

[Daybreak_st]

You're saying this as if Jonathan Kent answered yes, when Clark asked should he have let them die? Jonathan was unsure how the situation should have been handled, he wants to make sure Clark keeps his powers a secret but he also knew that the bus of kids should have been saved. But how do you save those kids without revealing your powers? It's a catch 22 and not an easy situation hence why Jonathan couldn't give a straight answer.

Yeah I can even see what you're getting at but something in the exchange like "if you can help people you should" etc, equivalent to the uncle ben "great power = great responsibility". Something. I was expecting something like that to follow his "maybe" based on the previews but the scene played out worst for me b/c it wasn't just some random kid, but a whole bus load and clark was already there in the middle of it through no choice of his own. So even implying "well you didn't have to help" doesn't ring true for Johnathan or Clark. I get the need to "scold" Clark to some degree, maybe scold isn't the right word, and maybe I just need to watch the whole scene over again to get the full impact but first time through it just seemed off.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I am as shocked as anyone that they way Superman was done on film here is something I am ok with. Really surprised at myself. I hold the '78 film as a gold standard. I'm lukewarm at best to Timm's version, unless it's those incredible JLU season's version. I hold his moral code and uplifting nature to be a major part of why I love the character so much. He has been a guiding ideal for me, and a great lens to use to analyze the world at large. Yet the more somber approach tto the mythos and the scifi action adventure scale of this film worked like gangbusters to me. More so than even what was done in BATMAN BEGINS, it presented a complex portrait of the Legrnd that is SUPERMAN. It was bound to cause disappointment in some. As much as I love it though, I can't say the film is for the under 12 set anymore than TDKT is. Just like those films the very young won't appreciate the nuances and themes until they are older. But it's agreat film to have a really great discussion with those 12 and older with (maybe even a mature 10yr old). BTW, to thosde paying attention have you noticed I have been defending this film without implicitly insulting laguage and tone? I am not being dismissive of "purists" and fans of the Donner films, nor have I fetl the need to tear down the '78 film to extol MOS' quality. Some fictional character taught me about manners and tact. His name just escapes me now... What was it again? He came from another planet... Really strong... It's on the tip of my tongue.

 

[KalMart]

i am as shocked as anyone that they way superman was done on film here is something i am ok with. Really surprised at myself. I hold the '78 film as a gold standard. I'm lukewarm at best to timm's version, unless it's those incredible jlu season's version. I hold his moral code and uplifting nature to be a major part of why i love the character so much. He has been a guiding ideal for me, and a great lens to use to analyze the world at large. Yet the more somber approach tto the mythos and the scifi action adventure scale of this film worked like gangbusters to me. More so than even what was done in batman begins, it presented a complex portrait of the legrnd that is superman. It was bound to cause disappointment in some. As much as i love it though, i can't say the film is for the under 12 set anymore than tdkt is. Just like those films the very young won't appreciate the nuances and themes until they are older. But it's agreat film to have a really great discussion with those 12 and older with (maybe even a mature 10yr old). Btw, to thosde paying attention have you noticed i have been defending this film without implicitly insulting laguage and tone? I am not being dismissive of "purists" and fans of the donner films, nor have i fetl the need to tear down the '78 film to extol mos' quality. Some fictional character taught me about manners and tact. His name just escapes me now... What was it again? He came from another planet... Really strong... It's on the tip of my tongue.

e.t.?

 

[robot]

Yeah I can even see what you're getting at but something in the exchange like "if you can help people you should" etc, equivalent to the uncle ben "great power = great responsibility". Something. I was expecting something like that to follow his "maybe" based on the previews but the scene played out worst for me b/c it wasn't just some random kid, but a whole bus load and clark was already there in the middle of it through no choice of his own. So even implying "well you didn't have to help" doesn't ring true for Johnathan or Clark. I get the need to "scold" Clark to some degree, maybe scold isn't the right word, and maybe I just need to watch the whole scene over again to get the full impact but first time through it just seemed off.

Agreed... I think bad morality is taught in this movie... first the bus scene, where Clark is told that it's ok to let a schoolbus full of kids to die... then, he lets his father die?????????

I just don't buy the 'reality of it'.... Goyer wanted a Superman that's based on reality.. and those two scenarios are just simply not real, unless one is a psychopath...

 

[StarvingArtist]

Agreed... I think bad morality is taught in this movie... first the bus scene, where Clark is told that it's ok to let a schoolbus full of kids to die... then, he lets his father die?????????

I just don't buy the 'reality of it'.... Goyer wanted a Superman that's based on reality.. and those two scenarios are just simply not real, unless one is a psychopath...

There was nothing realistic about this Superman movie.

edit: which is a shame because I would have loved to have seen that.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I really appreciate this thread. I would say it's the "tone" of the film that might not sit well with younger kids. It's very melancholy. Particularly the young clark parts. There's just nothing in those scenes for a kid to enjoy, at least I don't see how.

This is something kids go through every single day. When I was a kid, which wasn't that long ago I loved films that spoke to me and not down to me. That didn't show kids as being happy, happy, happy. But actually delved into things I myself was going through. And I am more than positive that kids still would like a film that talks to them rather than down to them today.

But the way it's handled in Man of Steel flies in the face of the message Superman is supposed to be send. It's wanton violent spectacle at the cost of soul, in reality really no different then any fight from shows like Power Rangers.

MOS had more heart and gravity than any other film with action in it. This wasn't a man going, "cool lets fight!" "cool I've killed you, let me make out with my girlfriend now!" It was seeing Superman even having the difficulty of stopping the bad guy. Something no other film has ever really done. It is one of the few films that portrays the devastation of violence over how "cool" it is.

Well, you could start by taking more care to not reveal yourself by not standing there for 30 seconds at the back of the bus after having just pushed it out of a river.

He was a KID who was shocked that he was able to do it. And when he sees he's spotted he immediately realizes that he's still there and high-tails it out. He's not smiling for the cameras.