Superman Director Kryptonite – James Gunn Is Not Talented

Modern Hollywood is evidently not interested in making Art…or making money…or making audiences want to see films.

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org by Grandmaster Huon, https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Superman

Evidence James Gunn, latest Director of the dulling Superman brand, who claimed "jerks” can stay home. (That's us, Sportsfans.)

At heart is more here than one insufferable moron with a clapboard, but the soul of filmmaking itself.

Let's roll'em!

How To Make A Terrible Movie 101

The most important thing for success in film is not the sets, the Actors, or the Director, but the script.

Roughly one Bazillion good Directors have made bad films due to an unsightly script. Likewise, there are more than a few passible Directors who have made stellar films due to a brilliant script.

A Review With One Misnomer and Two Examples

We shall commence with an oft-cited, always-incorrect instance followed by overlooked specimens:

Cat People (1942) Dir. Jacques Tourneur- This is frequently mentioned as a classic good film with a bad script but that is not accurate. The Director, Tourneur was quite talented and the screenplay itself is immaculately crafted. Rather, the budget was extremely low, making this better suited to an adjunct analysis — the low-budget, high-Art result, which requires a separate discussion entirely.

Still, while there are numerous entries from "Old Hollywood” fitting our needs, to better educate in this instance, modern efforts will be utilized.

L. A. Confidential (1997) Dir. Curtis Hanson — For any unfamiliar, Hanson was essentially a yeoman Director who was commercially successful in a limited sense (Hand that Rocks the Cradle, River Wild).

When Hanson made Confidential very few, if any, believed he was on course to craft one of the best films of all time. While several talents (Guy Pearce, Russell Crowe, Kim Bassinger, Danny DeVito) were involved, in the moment none of them rated above B-List (at best) celebrity; meaning they could not have a movie financed merely by attaching to it. Basically, you had emerging (or waning) names, with a capable-but-not-outstanding Director, as well as attractive-but-not-unique set pieces. So why?

Because the script was as good as any made in the past thirty years. It incorporates several actual "Old Hollywood” tales, coupled with timeless aspects of political corruption, then strives for truth.

Afterward, Curtis had some other hits (8 Mile) but never again came near this as a high achievement.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop (2009) Dir. Steve Carr — I know, I know, I know…but this is storytelling par excellence. (No, actually, NOT kidding.) It has pathos, logos, maturation and, obviously, comedy.

When Carr made Blart he already had more than a dozen films under his belt which were…profitable. That is not a slight, as many Directors can not manage bankability in this day and age. Yet Blart is something truly inimitable. It takes "television talent”, in a principal stationary set (aforementioned shopping mall), yet buttresses these seeming deficiencies with a pristine script. In what way?

Because the screenplay takes essentially ridiculous characters and humanizes them to a degree one almost never witnesses in this genre (or in any category recently), providing a "full circle” of growth.

Notably, Carr got larger assignments but shied away from Blart sequels; wisely, as his was a triumph.

Ridley Scott — The Director as Poseur Auteur

Among the worst Directors working today is Ridley Scott, who continues to ride the coattails of two films he made at the dawn of his career — Alien (1979) and Blade Runner (1982). Of the first, it is alright, but it isn't Art. Of the second, which version? There about twenty of them…and all are interminably boring. The sets are imposing, but the narrative is one long slog of, "Is that it, then?”.

Later, Scott had a hit-and-miss string of pictures, many of which were blink-and-you'll-miss-them at the theater. He won awards for Gladiator (2000), only that is basically a plagiarism of Fall of the Roman Empire (1964); the Scott film strips the original of intelligence and nuance to replace it with sandals and fighting…it is an idiotic movie for an Arnold Schwarzenegger culture. In a word, pathetic.

Other than these, Scott is — on net — a money losing machine. Except his worst offense, probably an indicator of his senility, was "Napoleon” (2023). That is in quotation marks because it bears very little resemblance to the actual life of the historical figure. When assailed by International Academics and French Nationalists the faded faker had the audacity to reply, "How do you know? Were you there?”.

Er, as a matter of fact — DOTARD — if you paused to prepare your script and did your homework you would already know that Napoleon had perhaps the most intricately detailed campaigns until the Internet Age. Bonaparte took along dozens of scribes, historians, philosophers, painters and poets.

So, YES, actually we DO know EXACTLY the history of the Napoleonic Era; particularly if told from the perspective of Bonaparte himself. The Scott comment is like informing a Scientist you've never seen a molecule of Oxygen, therefore they don't exist…which this author would be pleased to demonstrate for Scott by helpful use of a saranwrap bag and his gourd…that snuff film being Scotts best to date.

*Ahem*…Incidentally, if anyone wants to do a proper depiction of Napoleon, allow the following:

1. Partition — No one can do a "film” on Bonaparte given the breadth of his majesty. CORRECTION, Director Abel Gance did it successfully in a 1927 entry…but it is OVER SEVEN HOURS…thus…yeah…
2. Parts — So you must decide between the two monumental aspects of the life of Napoleon to work a decent script. Those are, ONE, his love affairs, or TWO, his military engagements. Take your pick.
3. Pitch — Because Your Humble Correspondent is not a moron like Scott, here are the ways to do it…

— ROMANCE — Title "Le Grand Amour du Napoleon” ("The Great Love of Napoleon”). You base it largely off Desiree (1954) with Marlon Brando. The crux is, "Who or What is the proverbial great love of Bonaparte?” I would focus entirely on the surrender of Napoleon; he returned to Paris where he abdicated, but formally surrendered on the HMS Bellerophon at Rochefort.

Desiree Clary was his first fiancée, before he chose Josephine de Beauharnais, and the participation of Clary in the end is apocryphal. Yet, I would use a similar, more accurate, final depiction in which Bonaparte interacts with someone (likely a female) who asks of him, "Who then, is your Great Love, Bonaparte? Desiree, Josephine, France, or Yourself?”

No reply is given, the audience must infer from the preceding two hours. Cut to Black.

— MILITARY — Title "The Retreat”. Here, we begin in Moscow immediately following the Bonaparte "victory”. The first shot is inside a French tent, raucous celebration of soldiers with drinking, revelry, maybe a gratuitous nude female who is willingly engaging with conquerors.

The scene tracks reverse to a wide-shot (likely AI) outdoors that shows hundreds of tents in the city where, presumably, similar festivity is occurring, panning backward, up and up above, until the camera does a retreat back into a room in a tower high over everything, in which the precise opposite emotions are in evidence; Napoleon and his Generals are quarreling angrily with factions attempting to convince him Moscow is, in fact, lost due coming winter.

Eventually, Bonaparte concedes. Logistically, there is no way to hold the city nor feed the army. Russian counterattacks are already beginning that will only increase in frequency.

The remainder of the two-hour film is cut into twenty-minute sections. An initial scene of the horror of Retreat juxtaposed by fifteen-minutes of joyous March to Russia, in countervailing present vs. past montages. By midway, the positivity of the march has been replaced by the negativity of the retreat, and so on. All the while, life vs. death is in contrast by diminution.

Final shot, after hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen have either been killed or frozen, is again the inverse of the first, this time virtually no soldiers remaining, Napoleon solitary in his tent, plaintively staring into space, "retreating” into himself, the camera pulls back, this time ground level, away and out of the tent as a brutal wind of the steppes blows that flap of his tent open, then closed, open, then closed, so we catch only glimpses of the man himself.

Thus, a mythic titan of History is humanized to the universal of inexplicable failure. Fade out.

There, Scott. That is how a real filmmaker does things.

Superman Redux or Reflux?

So finally we come to the "Man of Steel Mesh”. There has been so much already said, or more accurately, claimed, about the latest Superman film that a brief clearing of the air is in order.

Yes, Superman is an "Immigrant Story”…of Jewish Immigrants. The two principal writers were Jewish. His origin story is clearly a reminiscence of that experience and the feeling of "otherness”.

At the same time, not all immigrant stories are the same. Being an invitee and being an invader are distinctly separate things. To falsely claim, as Director James Gunn, that Superman is the story of America is so far away from the truth it might as well still be on Krypton.

Speaking of James Gunn, he was largely put in charge of DC Studios on strength of being Director of Guardians of the Galaxy franchise…except Gunn did NOT write those scripts; he was barely involved.

Additionally, Guardians of the Galaxy had a wealth of comic book lore on which to draw, then coupled with quality filmscripts, it is no surprise these pictures made money — I EXPECT THEM TO SUCCEED. For Gunn to warrant a pat on the head is like a secretary cashing a winning lottery ticket SOMEONE ELSE gave him to take to the Prize Office. You aren't special because you're not inept,

Worse, aside from fundamentally misunderstanding the character, Jimmie went on to blatantly insult anyone who disagrees with him, saying "we need kindness”…and if you dissent then "you're a "jerk'” and also "not a real American”. That's swell promotion there, you encephalitic imbecile.

Is The New Superman Woke? — It Doesn't Matter

Whether something is "woke” or not will always depend on the bias of the viewer. The more drastic offense is that Superman, whatever else, was intended as a figure of UNITY — "The American Way”.

In those terms alone, Gunn fails to appreciate the persona, which means the script will be equally obtuse, so no matter how technically impressive the special effects may be the movie will fail.

Moreover, in aggressively confronting those who do not share his vision Gunn turned away HALF the country, with many of the OTHER HALF so exhausted from fighting they will stay home anyway.

Had Gunn not been a Midwit, his reply to "traditionalist” concerns should have been, "We might have a slightly different take on his motivations, but this is still Superman and still a fun Summer film”.

Most folks would see that movie. The problem with modern Hollywood is NOT that people refuse to see challenging pictures, but that people recoil to watch themselves being ridiculed on the screen.

One of my favorite movies of all time is the little-known Love and Death on Long Island (1997) with…alternative themes. (Don't worry, nothing salacious.) Reason? It is an astutely well-written gem.

The Golden Rule From The Golden Age (Of Tinsel Town)

Included in the all-time heroes from Hollywood is Irving Thalberg. No, he wasn't a Director, but a Producer.

Yet Thalberg was among the most erudite men ever to come out to the West Coast. He chose literary works, antiquated and contemporary, and tasked the best writers he could find with adapting them.

Some of his retinue of scribes? William Faulkner. F. Scott Fitzgerald. Billy Wilder. Those types.

Irving also joked, "If it isn't for the writing, we've got nothing. Writers are the most important people in Hollywood. And we must never let them know it.”

Alas, the Directors often ignore it. Except, the Audiences understand it. With the Box Office always showing it.

Guy Somerset writes from somewhere in America