Man of Steel is Ironclad

 When I first saw the preview for the Christopher Nolan produced, Zack Snyder directed version of Superman, it was almost one year ago during the coming attractions before “The Dark Knight Rises.”  Though I was enthralled with the fact that the final entry in Nolan’s superb Batman trilogy was about to begin, I—and the rest of the people in the theater—took a moment to cheer for Superman nonetheless.  The anticipation began that day for the reboot of Superman—dubbed “Man of Steel”—which premiered last night.  It didn’t disappoint.  Man of Steel is not only the best Superman movie ever made, but one of the better superhero films of all time.

The film begins with a rather long, but suitable portrayal of Krypton in its final days.  While we do see Kal-El sent flying off to Earth, we also see much more than that.  We see Krypton nearing a cataclysm caused by the misguided exploitation of its natural resources by its inhabitants—a topical, clever choice by Snyder and co.  This vision of apocalypse and the unerring desire of Kal’s father, Jor-El (expertly portrayed with a stalwart, solemn confidence by Russell Crowe) to preserve the noble legacy of Krypton create a true purpose for his son on earth.  Michael Shannon is wonderful as the ruthless General Zod, whose different vision for the future of Krypton puts him starkly at odds with Jor-El.  His eventual return as the movie’s main villain serves as an effective way of bringing full circle the film’s central storyline: the search by Superman for a way to reconcile his alien heritage with his life on earth.

On Earth, Kal-El is raised to be the force for good Jor-El wanted by his homely, salt-of-the-earth adoptive parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent.  Rather than bore viewers—most of whom already know Superman’s origin story—by forcing them to endure the Krypton story and then Clark Kent's youth in sequential succession, the film wisely cuts straight from the former to Clark's life as a middle-aged man, floating between blue-collar jobs.  Clark’s upbringing is instead revealed during flashbacks which interrupt the film’s modern storyline at relevant moments.  These flashbacks are short, but effective.  Each gives us insight into Clark’s character: his struggle for identity, and his strong bond with Jonathan and Martha.  Both Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are fantastic in these moments, imbuing their scenes with genuine sweetness.  Viewers will truly believe, largely due to the work of those two actors, that Martha and Jonathan love Clark—even if he is not biologically their own; they will also understand the great extent to which Jonathan and Martha’s influence over Clark’s upbringing was responsible for his strong moral compass and love for humanity.   

Adding to the emotional impact of these flashback sequences is Hans Zimmer’s simple, beautiful score, which captures the spirit of the film perfectly—solemn, but ultimately triumphant. 

Amy Adams does a respectable job as Lois Lane.  Lois is a difficult character to do right—she is often insufferably headstrong and constantly in need of saving.  Neither is true here: Lois is simply portrayed as a talented, curious journalist who feels affection for the heroic Clark Kent.  Perhaps the movie’s biggest flaw is the lack of notable chemistry between Lois and Clark.  It is hard to count this against the film too much, however; it has so much on its plate it almost seems to have been a conscious—and smart—choice by Snyder to elevate the Clark-centric story above romance—at least for the first of what will probably be a two or three film saga.  That said, the seeds for the Clark-Lois relationship are sewn well enough. 

Ultimately, it is Zod’s arrival at Earth that spurs Clark forward to embrace his identity as the savior of mankind.  That dynamic gives the film some of its most triumphant moments--the first time Clark smashes into Zod at the speed of sound to rescue Martha, for example.  Even if the “hero emerges to save the world” concept is a tad cliché, it is eminently fitting for Superman, who arguably embodies the savior role better than any other superhero.

The film’s greatest strength is its action sequences, which are superb.  This is the action-packed Superman movie that fans have long awaited.  Unlike the dreadful “Superman Returns,” viewers will not leave the theater feeling cheated out of witnessing the unbridled power of Superman unleashed on his foes—and of his foes back at him.  Picking Zod and his Kryptonian soldiers as Superman’s villains for this first movie, who can match Superman blow for blow, was thus a wise decision.  Viewers have too long been deprived of a Superman movie with the visual and graphical effects necessary to make superhuman sparring believable.   Here—especially in IMAX—every punch is felt, their impacts gritty and visceral.  Zod’s number two, Faora, played by Antje Traue, is also a real standout here.  Her menacing, monotone allegiance to the General is complemented by her involvement in some of the film’s best action sequences.

And how does Henry Cavill fare as Superman?  Not being a huge fan of the original Superman films, I would have to say better than any other actor so far.  Truth be told, there aren’t many moments in the script for Cavill to demonstrate acting chops.  This Clark Kent is a man who keeps his emotions mostly to himself.  There are a few moments where Cavill is terrific—especially when unleashing torrents of anger or anguish.  Mostly, however, he just spends the movie looking impossibly handsome, which one imagines was the point in granting him the role in the first place.

Superman is perhaps the most famous superhero in history.  It is odd fans have had to wait so long for a great movie—with suitable special effects—to do the Superman character justice.  Well, the wait is over: Man of Steel is that movie.  If you’re a Superman fan, or someone looking for a high-quality action-adventure piece, don’t hesitate to go and prove me right.

If This Is How He Treats Those Who Do The Things He Praises....

It is nothing new to note the fanaticism with which the Barack Obama administration classifies even the most innocuous pieces of information that might enlighten Americans as to the nature of things it is doing with their money and in their name.  Mr. Obama, once a zealous advocate for openness and transparency in government (when he was not in a position to do anything about it), has proved more sedulous in perpetuating government secrecy than was his predecessor.

The Espionage Act has rarely been used over the years for the scandalous purpose of punishing government "whistleblowers."  The reason is obvious to those who value openness and transparency in government.  Mr. Obama, only a few years ago, was an avowed member of this latter faction.  He once referred to the act of whistleblowing in glowing terms, calling it courageous and patriotic.  But as has often proved the case with this president, there is a great divide between sentiment and action.  Since ascending to office, he has used the Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined.  What was once courageous and patriotic has apparently become so dangerous that it must be combated more aggressively than ever before. 

Barack Obama is no stranger to this kind of prevarication, demagogy, and misrepresentation.  One could accurately say he has made a career of it (more on this in the coming weeks).  But there are few issues with which he has demonstrated so clearly not just insouciant disregard for the truth, but actual scorn for it.  There are those who say one thing and do another.  Then there are those who say one thing and consistently do the exact opposite.  Our president fits nicely in the latter camp.

One of the hapless victims of Obama's whistleblower ambivalence is PFC Bradley Manning.  Motivated by disgust for what he had witnessed during the devastating U.S. occupation of Iraq, Manning aided Wikileaks in publishing the largest ever set of restricted documents to the public.  Among the material Manning dared expose was video footage of a 2007 U.S. airstrike in which U.S. occupation forces casually murdered several innocent Iraqis.  Audio recording of the soldiers carrying out the atrocity reveals a callous indifference to the value of human life as it is being destroyed.

Predictably, the footage was called into question by some dutiful apologist groups.  Fox News, ever the purveyor of jingoistic, authoritarian propaganda, reported that "[t]he problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story."  Just who are these "many who have viewed the video," whose qualms Fox faithfully recounts?  The answer to this question, like the journalistic integrity of the propagandists posing it (who audaciously call themselves a news organization), is nowhere to be found.  I will forgo further elaboration on this topic and instead merely ask that readers view the video for themselves.  That it depicts the casual murder of innocent people is simply beyond question.  If there is another "half of the story" one need not know it.

 Led by our cowardly president, the U.S. government claimed for itself the right to classify and restrict public access to the video, and to other information exposing the many prevarications and misrepresentations which it committed throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  The Pentagon also rejected freedom of information requests by Reuters to gain access to the video footage.  Bradley Manning thought this intolerable, and risked his reputation--maybe even his life--to perpetrate an "act of courage and patriotism" by leaking this information to the American public.

Swift and terrible was President Obama's response.  Manning was apprehended and held in military custody for 917 days, under conditions of confinement which were deplorable in the extreme.  Among other horrors, he was held in a 6 ft 8 inch cell and subjected to daily "shakedowns," in which his guards would terrorize him mercilessly; he was isolated for 23 hours of every day; and he was forced to defecate in view of his guards.  The U.N. special rapporteur on torture accused the U.S. government of "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of Mr. Manning, which is a clear violation of the spirit and purpose of the Convention Against Torture.  The ennui and isolation of his captivity apparently led Manning to suicidal contemplations, culminating in his fashioning a noose for himself.  This is the manner in which President Obama elected to treat a man whose only crime was to commit an act he once lavishly praised.

Manning has already admitted to his crime.  He will likely be convicted of "aiding the enemy,"

which carries the death penalty.  A more fascist-sounding crime could scarcely be conceived.  Manning's only hope now is that the American public will demonstrate sufficient outrage at this injustice that he might mount a successful legal defense or be pardoned.  Advocacy groups have formed which are trying to raise awareness to these ends.  

In conclusion, suffice it to state the obvious: the public should call on Barack Obama to act on his words and defend acts of "courage and patriotism."  Bradley Manning should be freed.

Pledge Not That We Be Not Pledged

Politicians are liars.  Who would dare dispute the essence of this sentiment (excluding those who merely take exception to the specious generality of it)?  This does not bode well for democratic governance, of course, which is predicated on the fealty of public servants to the interests of those who elect them.  And though the democratic formula is generally desirable, the well-established affinity for mendacity common to those who seek elected office can be counted as among its many flaws (democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others which have been tried, as Churchill famously said).  Where does a population, faced with a slew of prevaricating schmoozers jockeying to "represent" it, find a proper leash to keep them in line?

Enter the "pledge."  A growing movement in US democracy favors binding politicians to various commitments before they win office, often by means of a written pledge to do, or not to do specified things.  The hapless candidate-signatory voluntarily dons a "straitjacket," to use the term applied by Time magazine's Alex Altman (which not so subtly conveys the crooked image of American politicians).  Of late, political pledges are the subject of much partisan fulmination.  As the Nation approaches the "fiscal cliff," we hear thunderous condemnation of the "narrow-minded" conservative pledge not to raise taxes, and calumnious attacks against Grover Norquist, the conservative figure behind the decades-old anti-tax pledge, which has been adopted by the majority of Republicans in the House and Senate.

Such ire is misplaced.  Today, American democracy is built upon pledges.  American political campaigns are, in fact, little more than a series of pledges in which candidates advertise immodest promises to potential voters.  The voter is an ideological entrepreneur who makes a political investment in the candidate whose promises most closely align with the voter's personal preferences.  The voter-investor model does face a serious problem, however: what sort of cretinous investor bequeaths his trust to a chameleonic politician whose first--and sometimes only--allegiance is to his own quest for power?  Politicians "will say anything to get elected," as the saying goes. 

Think of the pledge in this context.  Nettled by the consistent misrepresentations of elected office, the voting public--or, if you prefer the Orwellian pejorative, "special interest groups"--devised the pledge as a means of reprimanding mendacious politicians, thus ensuring that the process of voting more closely resembles that of making sensible investments, where some safeguard is in place against the malfeasance of the chosen vehicle  The pledge is the voters' method of ensuring that the lofty guarantees of candidates are effectuated once in office. 

If we ask Time's Alex Altman, the problem with this is self-evident.  The "straitjacket" in which the pledge binds the politician militates against good governance.  The purchase price of fidelity is flexibility.  This sentiment is echoed by many others, who feel that there is an element of myopia in "tying the hands" of a politician before election.  These metaphors--"tying the hands," "straitjacket"--are merely cacophonistic representations of methods aimed at ensuring political accountability.  If voters don't want higher taxes, and they invest their votes in a candidate who pledges not to raise taxes, from what scorn for democracy is criticism of this pledge borne?  It seems this kind of pledge is merely the democratic process operating effectively.  Hostility for democracy is thus embedded in criticisms of the pledge itself.  More justifiable acrimony must target the root of the problem.

As STRATFOR's George Friedman wrote earlier this year, "[t]he American presidency is designed to disappoint."  Friedman was remarking on the wide gulf between the quixotic promises of candidates and what it is possible to achieve within the constraints of elected office.  Friedman's observation is true of American politics generally.  Candidates insist on promising the world to voters in order to secure office, knowing they can find lubricious ways to justify themselves when they inevitably fail to deliver.  President Obama's lamentation of the mess he "inherited" when confronted about his broken promises is a typical example of this.  In short: the root of the problem, out of which the pledge is borne, is a serious lack of accountability in American democracy. 

As voters, we partially inflict this problem on ourselves.  We appear unduly credulous when we receive, with great frisson, the lofty and unrealistic promises of political candidates.  We know, or we should know, that firm promises are stupid.  Ultimately, only circumstance will--and should--decide whether a politician can abide by his promises or not.  In some cases, it may be disastrous for a politician to rigidly adhere to his promises or pledges--the "fiscal cliff," for example.  If voters refused to tolerate heedless promise-making on the campaign trail, and repudiated candidates who engaged in it, we might attract more accountable, more responsible candidates.  We also might not see so many of the promises we place our faith in broken before our eyes.

Candidates, of course, also play their role in this sordid game of nonsense-peddling.  In order to reduce instances of pledge-making, and free their own hands, candidates should refuse to condescend to voters by offering firm commitments that may be unachievable.  Candidates should treat voters like adults by framing promises as goals, and by honestly informing them of the variables at play in determining whether those goals will be met.  Candidates should avoid empty slogans like "change we can believe in," which might win marketing awards but which do not amount to responsible democratic conduct.  If the problem is a race to the bottom, in which candidates fear their opponents will engage in this behavior if they opt-out, thus securing an advantage, the candidate should respond not by stooping to the level of prevarication and demagogy, but by illustrating the folly of the opponent's tactic.  In other words, treating voters like adults.

Criticizing the pledge in and of itself is anti-democratic and absurd.  What possible reason could there be, if one accepts the logic of democracy, to scorn measures aimed at ensuring the accountability of politicians to the voting public?  But pledges are dangerous when they produce inflexibility and rigid obstinacy.  The dangers of pledge-making should be confronted by reducing the influence of the root cause of it: a condescending electoral process.  If this shift occurs, fewer promises will be broken and voters will less often feel betrayed.  This is the proper way to root out "pledges" in politics.