John Mark Butterworth reviews the new "Superman Returns" movie for Spero News in a review entitled "The Passion of the Superman", which begins:
"I read a number of disturbing things prior to seeing this movie which
prepared me to dislike it. I am very pleased to report after having
seen it for myself, that I do not dislike Superman Returns, I loathe it."
In the course of his review, Butterworth remarks upon the sensitive character portrayed as Superman in the new movie:
"There's some weird, creepy stuff in this movie, too. Superman is a
hypersensitive guy who uses his super hearing to eavesdrop not on bad
guys and their plots, but to hear what other people might be saying
about him! Then he plays Peeping Tom and uses hearing and x-ray vision
to spy on Lois at home while she goes about her life with her kid and
co-habiting common law husband."
But that is not all that Butterworth has to say about that side of the character's new portrayal. In a comment to an article about the movie on Open Book, "Mark B" links to his review and says:
"I reviewed it for Spero News here.
It is a terrible movie and the use of Christian iconography and themes
is shameless in the sense of being badly and so baldly used.
"Oh yes, Superman has also become quite the immoralist lacking in manly virtues."
Butterworth has seen the movie; I have not seen it. As such, I will limit my comments to a discussion of the discussions, and bring to light a concern that is raised by the buzz itself. Amy Welborn's post on the movie originated with Christianity Today's article titled "The Savior Returns", based upon an interview with Bryan Singer, who directed the movie. The Christianity Today article's focus was the way the movie makes Superman a Christ figure, a Messiah sent as someone's only son to save the world, who now returns. Butterworth described the use of Christian themes as "shameless." Add to that the portrayal of a Christ figure as, in his words, "lacking in manly virtues", and you have yourself a subliminal message about an effeminate Christ.
That is not to say, by the way, that the actor who portrays Superman is deserving of that reputation or that the movie (which I have not seen) is offensively overt in that respect (which I would not know). In fact, the Salt Lake Tribune said, quite the opposite, that the new Superman "is every inch the all-American icon he ever was - which is both a joy and a problem." The Salt Lake review, titled "Superman Doesn't Take Off", may get to the heart of the problem: It lacks "emotional resonance." The Christian Science Monitor calls it a "mild disappointment" and "a reverent, sincere movie that lacks great characters."
Kenneth Turan, reviewing the movie for the L.A. Times, says the movie "only sporadically gets off the ground." As for the actor who portrays Superman, Turan says Brandon Routh was perfectly cast:
"Routh brings the right note of appealing earnestness to a man who
stands for what the film calls "truth, justice, all that stuff." (It's
probably best not to ask what happened to "the American way.")"
What is wrong with the movie? Turan says:
"It's not that "Superman Returns" doesn't have any ideas, it's got too
many; this is a film that tries too hard and wants too much. Absent the
acting or the script resources to do all it would like, the picture's
multiple agendas conflict with each other instead of cohering. And a
rolling series of miscalculations cripple even its best intentions."
However, the pre-release publicity and buzz has perhaps stirred up just enough controversy to make a profit by drawing people to see the film who are not the run of the mill Superman fans. The internet buzz has stirred up talk about whether the actor, or the character, is gay. As reported in Fox News, director Singer took the step of denying the internet buzz after the gay publication, The Advocate, ran a cover story with the caption "How Gay Is Superman?" Taking Singer's denial seriously (as most of the reviews suggest the movie is wholesome but boring), gay activists may have read more into it and may want to make more of it than Singer intended. Bob Strauss, staff writer for the L.A. Daily News yesterday wrote, "Gay? Christ? Who Is This Guy?"
Did the denial draw more attention to the gay Superman buzz, thereby creating controversy, increasing ticket sales? That is not to suggest that Singer would have denied the article for that reason, since what might help ticket sales then would still potentially damage the director's reputation for having so portrayed the man of steel. And the fans' reaction over the week-end may tell whether the controversy helped or hurt the film.
But be prepared to answer the secular culture that will see a movie suggesting, in certain publications and in certain segments of the internet buzz, a picture of a gay Christ as superhero and will ask, "What's wrong with that?" What's wrong with it is the mischaracterization of our faith to further a secular social cause actually considered immoral in Scripture and in the teaching of the Church. And if, as it appears, the movie itself does not intend any such effect, it makes the director look bad too.
Did some enterprising Hollywood publicist somewhere decide to improve the movie's box office draw by furthering some such rumors, perhaps imitating the buzz that may have helped to sell "The Da Vinci Code"? Who knows. Does it really matter, when the movie-going public has got to eventually figure out that it is just a new form of sales pitch anyway? You don't have to see the movie to know how to answer these sorts of questions. So my advice is: Maybe pass on this one. There are better things to do July 4 week-end.
Photo: That's not my dog, by the way. Or me. It is one of a series of photos from an e-mail joke someone sent to me with the caption "Why dogs bite people." (After I first posted it, something went wrong with the photo. Not sure what, but if it disappears again I might conclude that it is copyright protected and drop the photo. Hopefully not.)
