Sigh! Do I need to see James Gunn's "Superman"?

Maybe I'll just grab some popcorn and watch a right-wing classic, "The Incredibles"

Let’s face it. I’m old.

Thus, I have absolutely zero desire to open my wallet and see James Gunn’s “Superman” in a theater. I’m pretty sure that I will have no desire to see it when it shows up for free on Amazon Prime in a few months or even chopped into pieces someday on basic-cable channels.

Based on the many reviews that I have read and the YouTube commentaries I have watched, it sounds like this movie was “written” — scare quotes are intentional — for folks much, much younger and more video-game oriented than me. One critic, somewhere, suggested that this is basically TikTok “Superman,” with editing and a frantic pace that would make music-video-era MTV seem like the Turner Classic Movies Channel.

By the way, is the name of this movie “Superman” or “James Gunn’s Superman”? I had trouble telling during a weekend of research.

If there is an overarching theme in this reluctant post, this is it: Even when dealing with super-flicks, I care about the quality of the screenplay and the basic plot, as opposed to the endless digital blitz of whiz-bang special effects.

At the same time, let me stress that — while I love the 1978 “Superman,” with Christopher Reeve’s iconic performance — I am perfectly willing to see writers make changes in the “Superman” canon. We are not dealing with holy writ, with page after page of revealed truths that cannot be tweaked.

However, I prefer to see comic-book material deepened, in some way, but in a way that is consistent with the original characters. Why make stories of his kind even more shallow?

For example, I thought that the 2013 “Man of Steel,” starring ultra-serious Henry Cavill, eventually devolved into video-game territory with an endless series of fights between Superman and every other character in the movie (other than Amy Adams’ Lois Lane). That said, if I was going to name my favorite scene in a Superman movie, it would probably be that film’s tornado scene in which Kevin Costner’s Jonathan sacrifices his life, rather than have young Clark Kent reveal his superpowers and his identity. That was an effective change, in my humble opinion.

My second favorite Superman scene on the big screen? That would be Reeve’s ironically deadpan Superman looking for a phone booth at the start of the epic helicopter-rescue reveal scene.

Now, concerning the new movie — a flick on which, apparently, the future of super-hero Hollywood rests.

If James Gunn is the Hollywood superhero at the center of James Gunn’s “Superman,” then he certainly didn’t help his cause by launching into MAGA-baiting territory with some blunt one-liners about immigration doctrines in the movie. Apparently, the pseudo-Ukraine and Gaza references are also easy to recognize. And the Man of Steel’s revised slogan is now “Truth, Justice, and the Human Way.” Maybe the super-suit could have been updated to match the flag of the European Union.

If you missed the key quote, Gunn told the Times of London: “I mean, Superman is the story of America. An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country. But for me, it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.”

Let’s see, a guy from California is talking about lost kindness and immigration. Hmmmmmm, is the “we” in that quote the American public? (I guess that, as a #NeverTrump voter, I am required to say that I oppose open borders, but I support major immigration-policy reforms, especially those that would draw support from American labor leaders.)

One of my favorite film writers, Joseph Holmes of Religion Unplugged, told me — via email — that he thought Gunn’s movie was “depressingly fine.” I hope he unpacks that when he posts his own review.

However, in an essay on religious issues in the superheroes genre, Holmes noted:

… It’s fitting that in these eras of Superman films, the connection between America losing faith in this particular superhero and people losing faith in God would become explicit. In 2006’s “Superman Returns,” Lois challenges Superman by saying, “The world doesn’t need a savior. And neither do I.” In 2016’s “Batman v. Superman,” Lex Luthor tries to prove Superman is a fraud because, “If God is all good, he cannot be all-powerful. And if he’s all-powerful, he cannot be all good. And neither can you.”

There are, of course, layers of the Superman myth that transcend mere patriotism. Case in point: The “El” in “Jor-El” — the name of Superman’s biological father — is one of the biblical words for God or for a Deity.

At this point, it seems obvious that James Gunn’s “Superman” is a mixed bag. I have friends and colleagues that love the film, while other media folks that I follow have filed it under “woke.”

This really is a debate about the director, who led the trio that wrote the screenplay. Writing at the 100 Movies Every Catholic Should See website, Alejandro Uribe noted (in a mostly positive review):

I’ll first start by saying, this is undeniably a James Gunn film, for better or worse. His witty writing and creative quips work tremendously in the Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy and The Suicide Squad. And even though it’s significantly toned down in Superman, I did feel there were a couple of jokes that didn’t quite land, or took the wind out of an otherwise emotionally gripping scene. Aside from this, my only other qualm is that an additional 10-15 minutes in the runtime would have helped to flesh out some key plot points that I felt were rushed.

Yes, there are screenplay issues and, if viewers are not in Gunn’s target audience, that will be a problem.

Apparently, there were even studio executives who felt that Gunn tried to jam too many characters, battles and plot points into the cornerstone flick of what is supposed to be yet another sprawling, world without end, money-printing superhero cinematic universe (#OyVeh).

Somewhere in the midst of all of my reading and video-clicking, I ran into an interesting analysis of the challenges faced in James Gunn’s “Superman.”

What kind of challenges? Well, he had to introduce an entire world of superheroes and their superpowers in a way that was quick, concise and entertaining — but this backstory material could not get in the way of establishing the main character and the plot of the movie.

This is, first and foremost, a super-sized challenge for the screenwriters. The screenplay has to answer essential questions or find some way to zip past them without leaving the audience confused or unsatisfied.

On his YouTube channel, the prototypical vlogging nerd Stuart Barron found an interesting way to respond to the whirlwind surrounding James Gunn’s “Superman.” He started by looking for another movie that faced the same core issues and managed to rise to the challenge.

In other words, he dug into the screenplay of the Pixar classic, “The Incredibles.”

Create the framework for a superhero universe? Check.

Explain how this imaginary world works at the practical level, without getting hung up on practical details? Check.

A cornerstone story that features lots and lots of super characters? Check.

One essential character arc and a compelling story that holds it all together? Check.

Do all of this in under two hours? Check.

While watching the Barron video, I recalled that — once upon a time — the content of the “The Incredibles” even ignited culture wars heat that, in some ways, resembled what is happening with James Gunn’s “Superman.”

No, honest. That happened. Only in this earlier case, the media influencers who were upset were on the cultural LEFT.

In this case, it helps to remember that “The Incredibles” was released in 2004. Some scribes in greater Hollywood were concerned that a single-minded, stupid, dangerously simplistic Republican in the White House — that would be George W. Bush — would use the emotions found in post-9/11 America to justify unkind, nasty, attacks on newcomers in America and around the world (Muslims, in that case).

With that in mind, please dig into this 2004 GetReligion post focusing on the concerns that the left raised about what many old-school Pixar fans consider one of the best flicks produced by that now-struggling studio. I didn’t do any editing to update this piece.

---

OK, do the math. Let's say that a president wins a second ticket to the White House with the help of a "values vote" coalition built, in part, on people that have very old-fashioned beliefs on issues of morality, family, marriage and the existence of eternal, transcendent moral truths.

Then, before you can say KAPOW!, WHAM! and NEOCON!, there is a movie in multiplexes in which characters are heard claiming that the demise of a marriage is a fate worse than death and that "doubt is a luxury that we cannot afford anymore."

The Bush army praises strength, marriage and family values. This hit movie praises strength, marriage and family values. Oh my. Could it be?

That's right. There are people out there in medialand that are quietly worried that "The Incredibles" is a right-wing recruiting device. I mean, the folks at Focus on the Family even like this movie.

Pixar can't seem to make even a single mistake when it comes to elevating the artistry of animation. Likewise, while illustrating the value of an intact family or the beauty of individuality or the negative results of pride, The Incredibles is, well, incredible.

Needless to say, this is not going to fly over in the pages of The Nation, where Stuart Klawans is not amused by the political – theological? – implications of the Parr family. Part of the problem is that, according to writer-director Brad Bird:

... (The) Parrs' strange talents are rooted in normal family traits. Fathers are supposed to be strong, so Bob can bench-press a freight engine. Mothers are always being pulled ten ways at once, so Helen is elastic. Young Violet can become invisible, as teenage girls sometimes want to do, and Dash is just a wonderfully energetic little boy, ratcheted up to 200 mph.

Bird's biggest achievement in The Incredibles is to have inflated family stereotypes to parade-balloon size. His failing is that, in so doing, he also confirmed these stereotypes, and worse. Helen mouths one or two semi-feminist wisecracks but readily gives up her career for a house and kids; women are like that. Bob's buddy Frozone, the main nonwhite character in the movie, can instantly create ice; black people are cool. The superheroes are in hiding because greedy trial lawyers sued them into retirement; and, while concealed, they chafe at their confinement, like Ayn Rand railing against enforced mediocrity.

The family is the foundation of our society. Freedom is on the march.

And that just cannot be good for America and the world, now can it? Things get even more complex over at the New York Observer, where writers Suzy Hansen and Sheelah Kolhatkar let loose under the cheerfully paranoid headline, "It's Super Bush!" While it's clear that they like the film quite a bit and believe that it might even cheer up gloomy blue-zone liberals, they conclude:

While The Incredibles' battle against conformity and mediocrity screams anti-oppression to some, it's obviously Randian to others. In that sense, the film is being touted as the latest proof that, on top of everything else, the right wing has even wit and creativity on its side these days: This is a world turned upside-down!

And even as James Carville threw in the white towel in The New York Times on Nov. 9, admitting that he'd finally got the message that the Democrats were nothing but an opposition party, the conservatives were raking in millions of potential philosophical converts at the movies, the way the liberals used to during the Easy Rider-Graduate days of the 1960s, when the right wing couldn't catch a break in the culture. ... It's very much in the eye of the beholder, but at the moment, to the butt-kicked, discouraged liberal team, the Pixar-built shiny, muscle-bound cartoon characters seem to come very much from the other team.

Ah, but as we like to note from time to time here at GetReligion.org, not all political conservatives are moral and cultural conservatives and, for sure, the tensions between the Libertarians and the religious right are only going to increase in the months ahead.

So, is there a "religion" ghost in this blockbuster hit or not? Is the mere fact that a film promotes a traditional view of marriage and family now evidence that its creators are in-the-closet Christian neo-fundamentalists?

---

Does any of that sound familiar, at this tense moment in time? And can anyone imagine Pixar releasing a movie like “The Incredibles” these days?

That reminds me: Didn’t Pixar just release a new movie called “Elio”? I am sure that it’s doing a great job of appealing to mainstream moviegoers. Right?