Save the Planet; Save the Earth
July 2nd, 2006
Two theater movies in two successive afternoons: and (in case you don’t know the latter title, it’s the global warming documentary starring Al Gore, who seems to have found his true calling on the big screen). And, believe me, I was much more excited about seeing the latter.
I’ve mentioned my feelings about Superman before. His boy-scoutishness and American-as-apple-pie-ishness annoy me, both in the 1978 original movie and in the current, nostalgic installment (again, I’m not discussing any other Superman media, because I haven’t seen/read them). Because of the aforementioned characteristics, I get particularly miffed when reviewers draw attention to Superman as a Christ figure. Jesus wasn’t a goody-two-shoes: he was perfect, divine, and yet more human than Superman could ever hope to be.
Superman Returns plays up the Christ angle more than the original movie, deliberately posturing star Brandon Routh in positions reminiscent of paintings of Jesus. And, of course, we have the repetition of Jor-El’s (a pompous Marlon Brando’s) pseudo-Johannine words to his Super-son: “They can be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all—their capacity for good—I have sent them you, my only son” and “You will carry me inside you all the days of your life; see my life through your eyes, as yours will be seen through mine. The son becomes the father and the father the son.” Apparently many Christians have (only, um, no Holy Spirit), but to me it just seems to be glorifying a very human sort of father-son (and exclusively father-son, not parent-child) relationship.
Then we have all sorts of lines about saviors. Lois Lane, bitter about Superman’s five-year absence, says “The world doesn’t need a savior. And neither do I.” Supes replies, “But everyday I hear people crying for one.” He hears everything with his super-ears, all the cries of suffering and distress from all around the world, and he goes around and rescues many of them—but what happens when he’s dallying with Ms. Lane? Every minute he spends with her is a minute in which convenience stores are robbed, trains derailed, and people killed. The idea of Superman as a unique savior is pretty untenable. Therefore, in Superman Returns, the screenwriters resort to the ultimate twenty-first century truism: we can all be supermen, if we look deep enough inside ourselves. We’ve got to learn to be our own saviors. Only . . . that’s not very much fun to watch, because most of us don’t have capes. So Superman lives on and on.
Of course, here the notion of a savior is very different from the Christian one. I won’t go into a discussion of soteriology, because I can’t pretend to understand it completely. But one aspect of Christian salvation that Superman does attempt to capture is that, ideally, Christ’s/Superman’s life is infectious. We just don’t really get to see the effects of that in the Superman movies.
Now . . . cut to An Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore’s voice tell us how, if you drop a frog (insert animated frog here) into a pot of boiling water, the frog will immediately jump out. But if you drop a frog into a pot of lukewarm water and slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will just stay there until . . . until . . . someone reaches down and plucks him out. It’s a surprise ending, and one that’s welcome to a person like me who can be extremely upset even by animated-animal death, but, through the laughs, you know that it’s silly—and, I would argue, un-Christian—to wait for God to magically undo all the environmental damage that we humans have wreaked. It’s not saying that we need to become our own saviors—but it is saying that we need to act. As the common proverb (cited in An Inconvenient Truth’s credits) goes, “Pray with your feet.”
In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore (or “Gore-El,” as I’ve been calling him around the house, to the horror of my Superman-fan Porpoise) does connect most powerfully to those who saw him as a savior (or at least as a much preferable alternative) in 2000. Gore introduces himself, with self-deprecating humor, as the man who “used to be the next President of the United States.” Throughout much of the film, he mentions his own failures—particularly failures to get people to hear his message about the environment. Those of us who are still in mourning over the election of 2000 are there with him, feeling we’ve failed, wondering what went wrong. The barrage of alarming—and clearly explained—facts that follow makes the failure seem all the more poignant.
And then, towards the end of the film, just after Gore has shown that the U.S. alone is responsible for over 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions, he shows how the cumulative impact of apparently small progress—greater fuel efficiency standards, more alterative energy sources, more electricity-saving devices, etc.—could bring our carbon emissions even lower than they were in 1970. We already have all the technology. “We have everything we need,” Gore says. “Except the political will.” He pauses, then delivers the best line of the whole movie: “But in America, political will is a renewable resource.”
Oh. You mean that those of us who, since 2000, have been wearing black and muttering about immigrating to Canada could actually do something?
An Inconvenient Truth is so well targeted to get well-meaning wimpy environmentalists off their chairs and bike, not drive, to their nearest representative’s office. Unfortunately, this does mean that the movie is mostly preaching to the choir. But unlike, say, Michael Moore’s films, An Inconvenient Truth doesn’t just amuse us and make us mad: it motivates us to do something. The credits are filled with practical suggestions for ways to reduce your own environmental impact, as well as a prominently displayed web address directs you to a .
I do wish, however, that the film had greater crossover appeal. For example, I know that there are many well-meaning religious people out there who are concerned about the environment, but who believe that combating global warming would consume resources that could otherwise be devoted to the immediate needs of the poor and hungry. Gore does a good job of illustrating how the environment and world poverty—even world violence—are not separate causes, and how global warming will have the greatest impact on the poor. I just wish he would have deliberately tried to reach out to this slightly-outside-the-choir group by using language more reflective of religious and/or humanitarian motives. It’s language that could bridge the supposed red-blue divide.
To me, Gore-El, because we see and identify with his struggles and failures, has more power to inspire others to good action than Superman does. He can’t save us, and he’s telling us not to depend on him. Nor, he says, should we depend on our elected representatives to keep an issue on the agendas if it’s not on the tips of their constituents’ tongues (and typing fingers). We have to act and let them know that it’s important to us.
And I know that I, who have a tendency to curl up in a little overwhelmed ball rather than take action (I mean, beyond private actions of recycling and biking and so forth) against big bad problems, need the strength of Christ to go beyond myself. And that’s part of how Christ-as-savior works, part of how he answers prayers to save the earth.
SPOILER ALERT—Further Superman Returns Details Below!
I know there are people out there just waiting to argue that Superman displays more vulnerability than ever in Superman Returns, both physical and emotional. I agree. But it’s still not enough for me. Yes, you can see that he experiences emotional pain over the fact that Lois has a fiancé. But, because he’s good old boy-scout Superman, and he’s programmed to do the right thing, it doesn’t seem like it’s even a struggle for him to be noble and leave Lois and Richard to their life together. Superman may temporarily fail physically sometimes in the presence of Kryptonite, but, if he really struggles morally, we don’t see it. Maybe his stoicism would be more interesting if it were better acted.
There are also a number of plot holes in Superman Returns—for a summary of them, I refer you to .
Entry Filed under: Movies
7 Comments Add your own
1. Dormouse | July 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
To me, Gore-El, because we see and identify with his struggles and failures, has more power to inspire others to good action than Superman does.
But is Superman supposed to inspire good action? Really?
Some superheroes clearly are. I’d argue that the entire X-Men franchise has a clear, underlying message that is meant to inspire people to do good. Actually, this may apply to Spiderman as well–”With great power comes great responsibility.”
But I don’t know about DC. And certainly not Superman. Inspiration in that universe maybe comes from different sources–from people who teeter on the edge of the abyss and don’t fall in (Batman), from people who are completely ordinary and without any kind of power who still choose to fight and do the right thing (sidekicks and support staff and bystanders, oh my)–but I don’t think it comes from Superman. We’re not meant to emulate him, I don’t think.
Superman is just…pure entertainment, I suppose, the dullness of the recent movie notwithstanding.
2. theotter | July 2nd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Well, the movies say Superman is supposed to inspire good action (“They can be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all—their capacity for good—I have sent them you, my only son”)–but again, the movie gives a message with one hand and takes it away with the other, because it’s more fun to watch Superman swoop in and save people. I mean, yeah, Lois and Richard go back to save Superman, but they can’t fly and therefore “normal-folks” nobility looks a lot less appealing than superhero intervention (at least it’s supposed to–I, however, think Superman looks stupid, and I’m not attracted to his physique, so the spectacle doesn’t work for me). Yay, double messages.
3. Jillian | July 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
and, I would argue, un-Christian—to wait for God to magically undo all the environmental damage that we humans have wreaked. It’s not saying that we need to become our own saviors—but it is saying that we need to act.
See, I’m a closet environmentalist and it’s this sort of things that inspires me. I say ‘closet’ because I’ll make use of what I’m provided, but don’t really step out to make more things available. I wasn’t voting for Gore in 2000, but I do appreciate his environmental concerns and I like them. I share them. I’m glad he made his film, but that doesn’t exactly change the fact that the public transportation in my city is completely inadequate in my neighborhood. Even though I did take full advantage of the trains when I was on vacation.
This reminds me, have you watched I ?
AND! Have you read anything by Martin Dugard? He is my literary hero for the past three years and has singlehandedly turned me into a leisure historian and fan of adventure racing. I’m starting to adore the home-spun heroes, in light of your Superman observations, and well:
Recommended reading: Surviving the Toughest Race on Earth… yeah, by Martin Dugard. It’s about the Raid Gauloises.
Best quote: “That’s the addictive thing about seeing dreams come true: you begin to dream on a much bigger canvas.“
4. Jillian | July 2nd, 2006 at 3:24 pm
That should be: I Heart Huckabees… but apparently my ‘less than three’ heart doesn’t get past the html. :O
5. theotter | July 2nd, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Yeah, public transportation isn’t so good here, either. And the number of rainy days is high enough that biking isn’t always practical.
But, having just two months ago conquered my fear of bicycles and begun biking to work and back, maybe Dugard is the sort of read I need to inspire me further! I’m sure he wouldn’t let a little rain stop him.
As far as I Heart Huckabees, well, we tried to watch it. . . . and we hated it.
Sorry. I have to admit that it’s one of the few movies I’ve abandoned halfway through. So many people I know love it, but we just didn’t get it. Sigh.
6. Possum | July 3rd, 2006 at 12:52 am
Inconvenient Truth was great, and I’m thinking of teaching it this fall, but I have the same concerns you have about the cross-over appeal. Is it possible for a Republican to watch this movie? Even a Republican who already agrees with everything Gore says about global warming might be turned off by Gore-el’s flash-backs to the 2000 election and his gratuitous (though deserved) jabs at the Bush administration. Mostly, they’d just be turned off before even turning it on because Gore is the one speaking. But Gore-el’s presentation of the facts is beautifully clear and to the point. So, I’m on the fence — to teach or not to teach? What would you do?
The other issue that pertains to my teaching is that Gore-el’’s idea of what to do is to write to your congressman. Since my class is about civil society, Gore-el’s political advice is a let-down. The notion that “democracy” means voting for the right candidate and writing to your congressmen is a bit simpy. Gore scarcely mentions the role that civil society organizations play. On the one hand, I really like how he shows this gap between academic knowledge and popular knowledge (100% of scientists know global warming is a problem but the popular media presents it as a 50/50 issue, and hence, only 47% of the public recognize global warming as a fact.) But on the other hand, where in the film are groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists? And what do they do? Furthermore, he mentions that most insurance companies are worried about the rising cost of property insurance (because the weather is getting more violent), but there’s no sense that perhaps environmentalists and insurance companies could collaborate to pressure the government to pass the reasonable policies Gore-el advises.
That said, I agree with you that this is a movie about how to fix the problem rather than a movie about feeling self-righteous and enraged (as you say about Michael Moore’s stuff).
But my own problem about Inconvenient Truth’s practical yet not practical enough advice leads me to a question about genre. Superman is a story. Inconvenient Truth is a documentary. Both are about saving the world. Your blog implies that Gore-el’s documentary is, not surprisingly, far better at this than Superman. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that both movies want the audience to think about how they themselves can act to save the world. Setting aside all the other things that documentaries and sci-fi movies can do for their audiences, and focusing just on how well they inspire the audience to act ethically and positively to save the world, I have two questions. What can a sci-fi story do that a documentary can’t? What can a documentary do that a sci-fi story can’t?
7. theotter | July 3rd, 2006 at 10:31 am
Possum: Good point about the whole civil society angle being left out. The official movie web site does link to a number of civil society groups, but it is left out of the film.
As far as genre, that’s also a good question. My point–that failure and weakness can be more inspiring than super-strength and invincibility–transcends genre to some degree, I think. I wondered after posting my blog entry if some people would misinterpret it (which I don’t think you did) and assume that I’m saying that realism is more inspiring than fantasy. Which would be a pretty odd thing for me to say, considering that my favorite book of all time is The Lord of the Rings.
I would also say that nothing inspires me to go about my daily life more than The Lord of the Rings, but before I elaborate on that, let me rant about the word “inspiring,” which annoys me, but for which I can’t think of a good substitute. Even worse is “inspirational.” What does that even mean? Have you seen the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 most “inspirational” films ever? If not, check it out:
Now there’s an odd conglomeration here of movies that make me gag (It’s a Wonderful Life), movies I love (Chariots of Fire), and movies that just make you say “huh?” (Gone with the Wind? Pinocchio?). As far as the AFI’s criteria for “inspirational” movies, here’s what they say: “Movies that inspire with characters of vision and conviction who face adversity and often make a personal sacrifice for the greater good. Whether these movies end happily or not, they are ultimately triumphant–both filling audiences with hope and empowering them with the spirit of human potential.”
Well, Superman Returns and An Inconvenient Truth could both fit there, I suppose. Many people have pointed out that no “Jesus” movies are on the list, which, considering the Jesus movies I’ve seen, is fine with me. They certainly didn’t inspire me.
I’m not satisfied with this definition of inspirational, nor am I satisfied with the word, but again, I have trouble pinning down what I mean when I say something inspires me.
Back to The Lord of the Rings. So there you’ve got at least four Christ figures (which is part of why Lord of the Rings is far better than any allegory): Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, and Sam. They all make sacrifices. Gandalf’s got the resurrection thing going on. Aragorn is a healer servant-king (”The hands of the king are the hands of a healer!”). Frodo’s got a handle on suffering. And then there’s Sam. Ordinary, tater-lovin’ Sam, whose loyalty and simple strength save the day more than once. I love them all, see Christ in them all, want to be them all. Gandalf, though, is so “other” that you can’t really emulate him. Aragorn you fall in love with (well, I’ve been in love with him since age six, anyway). Frodo’s suffering is so extreme that it can be hard to relate to (unless you’re in a difficult spot when you read it). But Sam? He’s the Christ-suit for everyday wear. Definitely more identifiable than the others. Sometimes you want loftiness, sometimes you just want breakfast.
And it’s Sam who, on the stairs of Cirith Ungol, has the wonderful speech about the tales that used to inspire him, the grand adventure songs and tales, like the one of Beren and Luthien stealing the Silmaril from the Iron Crown. Sam wonders what sort of tale he and Frodo have fallen into, then he realizes that Frodo has some of the light from the Silmaril right there with them, in the star-glass Galadriel gave him. “Why to think of it,” says Sam, “we’re in the same tale still! It’s going on. Don’t the great tales never end?”
Now I know metanarratives aren’t popular anymore and all, but I’m with Sam. There’s nothing more “inspiring” (or whatever you want to call it) than finding out you’re part of a story that you already love. Whether that’s fiction or nonfiction.
I’m not sure that’s actually a genre meditation, but it gave me a chance to go on about The Lord of the Rings. (I know you’re not a fan, so thanks for indulging me.)
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed