First and foremost if you werent aware the full length trailer for the new Superman movie [Superman Returns] just dropped on apple's site.check the technique. Bryan Singer [Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil, Xmen 1 & 2] is behind the lense on this new movie and frankly from this trailer it looks like itll be exceptional. From the shots shown in the trailer it seems as though hes really embraced the grandiosity and epic scope of the Superman mythology (peep the opening shot as the camera pulls into the ice of the north pole or the amazing interiors of the fortress of Solitude. This aspect was missing from the earlier 70's/80's incarnation of Superman, one would imagine because of budget/FX limitations. But it looks oh so pretty on film here. Like Alicia Keys pretty, you know "i keep fallliinnn innnn love..." type o' shit. The scenes of the daily planet reveal what seems to be a 40's inspired decorating scheme on that art deco tip. that with some of the clothing choices and the lighting in some of these Lois/Superman scenes seems to indicate a film noir feel for this movie which is very exciting. "why so exciting?" you ask?
Well, upon first hearing about an update/sequel to the Superman franchise the obvious question is "how do you update Superman?". hes always been a bit of a one note character. stongest dude ever/impenetrable/truth, justice and the american way. giant boy scout blah blah blah. how does that fit into the world now? the character feels extremely dated and irrelevant. You have the X-men movies which serve as perfect allegory to discrimination and alienation [racial, age, sexual preference etc] you have Batman Begins and V for Vendetta with their thoughts on revenge, hedgemony and despotism [which taking into account our current political/foreign policy/war status is very interesting] and you have Spiderman which incorporates the problems of the everyman into the world of a superhero. all very relatable ideas masked in well...masks and capes. But with superman you have a much harder concept to deliver, how many of us deal with the problems of being invulnerable and the burden of essentially being a God amongst men? not many. However judging from the trailer and materials floating around on the production/story it seems that Singer may have found a way to humanize and make relevant an extremely dated and foreign character. the movie deals with Superman returning to earth after an unspecified absence to find a world that may or may not need him and a Lois Lane whose got a kid and is married.
The idea of a lover whose moved on and/or blowing a chance with said lover is definetly a relatable concept. It allows us to see Superman as a human for the first time as he is truly and completely fallable in a way we have all experienced. If we look back to the events of the classic Superman II [in which Superman relenquishes his powers so that he can have a romantic life with Lois Lane] and connect those with the idea of Superman being weakened [at least emotionally and id imagine to some extent physically threatened or endangered] by the new relationship of Lois Lane, one could make an argument [albeit a tenuous one] that suggest Lois is the greatest threat to the life of Superman sans kryptonite. And if we accept Superman as a representation of the superego* and Lois as a representation of women in general, could we extrapolate that women are the great danger to the idealized man????
i dunno, maybe i have too much time on my hands/think too much. either way im stoked to see this movie.
*i'm referencing the superego in the sense of holding social norms and idealized behaviors/morals NOT in the Oedipal sense.
