I challenge anyone to read Manohla Dargis’ review of Superman and find out more about the movie than about the critic’s psychotherapy.
Dargis paints a simple cartoon sequel as a homoerotic, misogynist passion play. But, as they say in therapy, it seems she’s projecting.
There’s always been a hint of Jesus (and Moses) to the character, from the omnipotence of his father to a costume that, with its swaths of red and blue, evokes the colors worn by the Virgin Mary in numerous Renaissance paintings. It’s a hint that proves impossible not to take.
Oh, I think I could resistIntentionally or not, the Jesus angle also helps deflect speculation about just how straight this Superman flies. Given how securely Lois remains out of the romantic picture in “Superman Returns,” now saddled with both a kid and a fiancé (James Marsden), it’s no surprise that some have speculated that Superman is gay. The speculation speaks more to our social panic than anything in the film, which, much like the overwhelming majority of American action movies produced since the 1980’s, mostly involves what academics call homosocial relations. In other words, when it comes to Hollywood, boys will be boys and play with their toys, whether they’re sleeping with one another or not, leaving women to weep, worry and wait to be rescued.
Every era gets the superhero it deserves, or at least the one filmmakers think we want. For Mr. Singer that means a Superman who fights his foes in a scene that visually echoes the garden betrayal in “The Passion of the Christ” and even hangs in the air much as Jesus did on the cross. It’s hard to see what the point is beyond the usual grandiosity that comes whenever B-movie material is pumped up with ambition and money.
Maybe because the director’s point isn’t your point.
I read the whole thing and have no answer to the obvious questions: Should I take my kids to see the movie? Would I enjoy it? What’s it about? Is it exciting? Boring? Fun? Nothing. None of that. All I learn is a convuluted answer to the question, ‘And how does this make you feel?’
Hilarious review of the review, Jeff. Superman is of course gay if you don’t want to take the kids. But if you have this deep urge to go see a superhero, he’s gender challenged? What happened to ‘truth, justice, and the American way’?
Gayists would like the whole world to be gay–that’s their agenda.
The whole gay thing has been completely misintreperted.
The initial rumours were that the actor playing Superman was gay.
The rumour mongers put 2 and 2 together and got a 3 dollar bill. They had a gay Director(confirmed) casting his allegdley gay star Kevin Spacey and gay newcomer Brandon Routh.
BTW, the filmmakers intentionally left out Truth, Justice, and the American Way. They said that the words “American Way” don’t mean something good the way they used to. Superman, they said, is now a global hero.
[...] Jeff Jarvis smacks around the NY Times’ Mahnola Dargis’s “review” of Superman Returns, which over the course of 1200 or so words doesn’t actually say damn near anything about the movie itself. [...]
Well, according to interviews, Donner and screenwriter Tom Mankowicz, were working a Jesus subtext in the original film. Witness Brando’s line “I give them my only son.” Donner was planning on exploring it a bit more in the sequel, but that got lost after the producers fired Donner (for wanting to be paid, silly man) and brought in Richard Lester to water things down with bad jokes and mis-motivated action. Having seen SR last night, I can say that the Jesus/Savior teme is something that Singer touches on, but doesn’t really pursue.
Kat, What are you on about?
That’s not the only review like that.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=4177
I have no idea what movie that person saw, but it wasn’t the movie I saw last night. If anyone finds any gay agenda in that film they are beyond projecting…they really need to consider professional help for their phobia.
The film is an entertaining, well executed film with beautiful effects. The director et al clearly love the character and especially hold the orginial film to their hearts and the film is just chocked full of blatent and not so blatent nods to the first superman. There are two quick violent scenes that may not be great for the little kids but the film and one scene other scene that will become a little tense for wee wee ones, but 10 and up will probably be just fine.
I could rant on for pages about the film but really all that matters is the film does what any film should do at minimium – it entertains. I recommend highly and can’t wait for the sequel. Also as a side note, make sure to get in there in time for the previews.
Oh forgot to add a little tidbit all these Jesus projecting folks don’t seem to know about: the creators of Superman where Jews. Seems to negate the Jesus aspect to me.
Once upon a time critics were read for their literary style and wit (Brooks Atkinson and John Simon, for example). The NY Review of Books still has some of this.
In the movie business, if its not a product review I guess it isn’t serving its purpose. I guess this confirms that movies are a product which needs to be evaluated a la Consumer Reports. Any art which slips in the product is just incidental.
I’m usually annoyed by Dargis’s reviews, because they tend to be less about the movie in question than about what a fascinating person Dargis thinks she is.
Then again, so was He!
I read Pajiba and The Onion for movie reviews. Pajiba’s review of Superman is here.
Hope that helps.
Lol! Good point about Superman review. But i also read this writer’s review of the new x-men movie and thought two things: too much of these reviews is about what the writer wishes had been said instead of what was said. And this is a person who doesn’t like comic book movies.
And why in the world would you send somebody who doesn’t like comic book characters to review a comic book movie?
Eric-
A news outlet can’t have a staff of reviewers on hand to review only movies that meet their personal tastes. It’s a reviewers duty to detatch his or her selves’ personal preferences from the job at hand and review the film based on its own merits. When I freelanced for a Wilkes-Barre, PA daily, I often got stuck reviewing concerts by artists I had no interest in seeing if I weren’t getting paid to be there (Michael Bolton, Natalie Merchant, DreamTheater). I had to put aside the fact that their music didn’t do anything for me and judge the show on its technical presentation and musicianship.
Same goes for movie reviewing. It doesn’t matter of a reviewer hates comic book adaptations or westerns or only like Holocaust documentaries. It is incumbant on the review to set aside their preferences when entering the cinema.
Besides to be completely dismissive of comic book adaptations means to dismiss films like MEN IN BLACK, ROAD TO PERDITION and GHOST WORLD, all of which received very positive critical notices.
This reviewer’s name reminds me of some gal who took on some oddball name when she entered a hippy commune then ended up with a nickname that approximated her usefulness to the “dudes.”