Man of Steel answers insight commentary episode 12 oil rig virtues and heroism will ask the obvious question start asking questions and answers welcome to Man of Steel answers insight commentary on your Man of Steel apologist Dr. awkward I cover a mosaic of topics for fans who love discussing the Man of Steel and the DC cinematic universe together will endeavor to answer the questions criticisms and controversies raised by Man of Steel and those excited by the anticipated DC cinematic universe in this episode we unpack the purpose of the oil rig rescue and what it says about Clark we look at the virtues of the scene in the context of the film and the virtues exhibited by Clark we go over the definition of hero and we tackle that tired criticism that Superman's not a hero because he's invulnerable then we'll wrap up the mailbag this podcast dives deep into Man of Steel to answer the critics and the confused the show is not meant to convert anybody but the celebrate a film that will lead us into the DC cinematic universe reasonable minds will differ but this is a show for fans who love Man of Steel and who love to chew their food welcome to Man of Steel answers insight commentary and I hope you had a wonderful holiday and a happy new year this is expected to be a fantastic year for genre film and we can now say that Batman be Superman Donna justice is coming out next year so I tried to think of different ways to explain the difficulties of tackling criticisms of creative choices and addressing subjective attitudes by think it's all sort of encapsulated in the disclaimer that I gave at the beginning of every shelf so let's just quickly and packet I'm not looking to convert anybody so if you're not a fan of Man of Steel thank you for listening to the show and I'm open to your feedback and thoughts but I'm not telling you to accept my point of view and if you've got an open mind and are willing to listen to another point of view I commend you for that but my show is it intended to convince you of anything when I say reasonable minds will differ that means that I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they can be reasonable yet still come to a different opinion view or position than myself and I give everyone that courtesy even if it turns out that you're not reasonable thank you for listening I've got nothing against you but the show is it for you and finally the show is for fans who love Man of Steel and who love to chew their food if you didn't love Man of Steel then doubtless an ongoing show is going to be confusing but if you step back and think about anything that you love it's only natural that you want to discuss it praise it and share the enjoyment with others who might like it to of course you can enjoy something but only want to enjoy it superficially or viscerally and if you're content with a thumbs-up I'm glad you enjoyed it but the show is intended for those who get enjoyment out of really looking into something turning it over examining it thinking about it and so on I completely get that that is not everyone and it definitely isn't the typical blockbuster tentpole filmgoer but somehow this is a film that still spurs intense discussion two years after its release and so it seems capable of sustaining that level of commentary so now that of impact that disclaimer were going to start to tackle more subjective topics in this episode we were talking about something as though a soft vocal or deeply held or potentially subjective as a virtue or ethics or inspiration there's absolutely no way that I can accurately or fairly discuss virtue in a lifetime say nothing of just one episode additionally with a wide range of beliefs and tenets out there doubtless somebody's toes are going to be stepped on well with all my disclaimers in place less just call this a commentary episode rather than one that professes to provide any answers and so what were called to comment on in this episode is whether Man of Steel provides any virtues they could inspire humanity to aspire to sort of a start with a now ruler question and it's actually posed by listener Daniel who wonders what the purpose and the placement of the oil rig scene was basically he's asking why we needed another action set piece after all the action on krypton why the film then just continue chronologically with young Clark's story rather than start us into his adulthood whelp since the scene is only 2 1/2 minutes I'm going to play the audio just to refresh your memory on everything that happens in the scene in the will get right back into discussing it I and why only five you you are we just got a call from a regular West is secure and will what about the inside over Reno my binoculars radar will well that was a great action set piece and it establishes the primary timeframe for our story and imprints on to us who are main protagonists is and what his core traits in character maybe there is a strong justification for the flashback mechanic as a means of wordlessly accessing Clark's inner thoughts but that's another show of the reason I wanted to start off with this oil rig scene is because it shows how much characterization is densely packed into this scene which is only 2 1/2 minutes long so we talk about virtue or traits are characterization this scene is filled with them and to start off first he's humble so Clark is being disrespected he's the lowest crewmate on the job he's asked to do go for tasks but he accepts it and he's working an itinerant seasonal job while I've never watched deadliest catch I did watch the perfect storm in 2000 and we recognize that these are inherently dangerous jobs are unlikely to draw the privileged to it so simply put Clark isn't above doing this kind of hands-on job than job also illustrates a little bit more about Clark second it shows that he's adventurous irrespective of whether he can be physically harmed the danger of the work is more active than a desk job however the job is more benign than say cage fighting for his funds so in just the first few seconds of film if we assume that this is more than say a temporary job we could start to believe that as a literal fisherman there may be moral or religious or character parallels that could be drawn between the character and this iconic profession which many of Jesus his disciples and miracles revolved around now if he is a fisherman he can cope with a more austere lifestyle to a degree we can implied that he isn't wealthy since the danger of the job doesn't attract those who are well off but in addition while one is at see they don't have the wealth of choices for activities or distraction this is in the hustle and bustle of the city with a constant flurry of social media or the Internet this is a typical long voyage that he must be sufficiently socialized to endure the trip can find in quarters without succumbing to cabin fever so that implies a degree of patience and Grayson tolerance for others if only to survive that situation that's all in the first few split seconds where we see Clark and have an inkling of who he might possibly be but even if we don't believe that Clark is a fisherman the scene continues to characterize him for us so third he's a beginner the fisherman to quote unquote saves Clark also chides him for his inexperience Clark is never named in the scene and is called greenhorn three times in under a minute the screenplay is practically screaming at the audience to acknowledge that this is a rookie when the first name on earth that we know him by his greenhorn this is in a veteran he isn't seasoned he isn't experienced he is new at this now fourth we see that he is not omniscient if you came into Man of Steel expecting Superman to be all-knowing the filmmakers disabuse you of this with his first on-screen interaction with another person unless you have the unlikely position that Clark was intentionally jeopardizing burn it seems much more likely that Clark was genuinely surprised and that burn actually pushed him out of the way the view that Clark isn't hundred percent aware and all-knowing is supported a number of times throughout the film including Lois sneaking onto the scout ship and Zide being able to surprise him in combat this is a vital limitation towards maintaining a believable psychology and not writing yourself into a corner in the future to a degree Superman with complete auditory omniscience has to exist only on some kind of fairytale level because of the scope of evil that exists in this world which he can intervene and saving cats and trees and having secret identity hijinks is harder to make work in a reality where there is a sexual assault roughly once every two minutes and seven shootings a minute in the United States alone by some reckonings if you dial back the reality that it isn't an issue but if you dial back Superman's senses an awareness it also isn't an issue so here they wisely chose the latter and made the audience aware of it immediately now as an aside we discussed in the past but burn pushing him down indicates that Clark's mass is normal and that superstrength and invulnerability do not make you in movable if it did the ship could move him either so the film is already queuing the audience that Clark made have to follow the rules of physics more closely than Superman ever has before more on that in a bit so burn scolds Clark he calls him greenhorn and then with subtlety Clark cracks the slightest hint of a smile and so we get that next piece of character which is fifth humor we don't know whether Clark is smiling at the irony of burn quote unquote rescuing him or if he simply delighted at seeing humanity's capacity are good in such a rough and unlikely package but that amusement or joy means that Clark isn't completely stoic rather he is moved both literally and figuratively in this rescue and for our next rate to six Clark is a do-gooder he volunteers on his own initiative without prompting as a smaller thing he picks up the loose courted on the deck without being commanded to do so but of course as a greater demonstration of valor irrespective of having to show his face and his powers Clark immediately leaps and action to rescue the men trapped on the rig that is his character and his inclination towards rescue and do Gooding the seventh we see that Clark is optimistic and hopeful despite the radio declaring forget them there dead he still endeavors to help them despite the consequences to his job or his identity people die every day no one would blame the Debbie sue for not helping and Clark doesn't know that he can help but he hopes that he can do something to save the men that everyone else has given up on eighth we see that Clark is strong he's able to swim to the rig climate without issue he is invulnerable to fire it can tear a door off its hinges and then he can hold up a section of the oil rig he can even survived the collapse and the explosion of the rig however despite being strong we see that ninth he's not all-powerful he has limits and he needs help despite his powers Clark could not have accomplished the rescue all on his own if the helicopter wasn't there additionally as we covered in episode for his strength doesn't prevent the metal under his feet from giving way this reinforces the points that we've highlighted above that this isn't a Superman with omniscience and that while his powers defy physics the physics of the world around him hard suspended and so this being of incredible power is still limited he isn't going to be able to turn back time or turn a tornado upside down or carry the frozen surface of the lake from its edge like in reads more fairytale like stories now that we've left the fantastical alien world of krypton the filmmakers are trying to convey the veracity of this setting now knowing that Clark needs help in this scene where shown that humanity has good within it Clark was rescued by burn on the boat even if rough around the edges he still risks himself to help Clark the Debbie sue is a private vessel nonetheless they responded to a distress call in the ask about the welfare of those inside and the Coast Guard helicopter pilot puts himself in jeopardy to rescue the oil rig workers these are all individuals that may help to instill hope into Clark about humanity's worthiness so 10th Clark is selfless and this active altruism comes at a cost Clark has burned his identity he has literally lost the shirt on his back he lost the job and the paycheck that he would've collected there's a bitter sweetness to every rescue because the very ties that connect into humanity and that inspire him to help they must be severed every time he does help it is in the aftermath of this rescue that he's reminded of the consequences of another rescue and in an introspective flashback sequence but that's another show despite the cost Clark pays it without hesitation he has everyone aboard the helicopter first and then he leaps to hold the rig in place and so we come to our final trait 11th Clark is a man of action and not words the entire scene occurs without Clark speaking once the filmmakers are showing us that Clark is a doer and not a talker prone to quips or monologues Clark does everything in that scene thankless Lee and with humility as we discussed above he doesn't have any particular connection to these individuals he is in saving Jimmy from a chemical plant fire Lois from an Eiffel Tower terrorist he simply helping because he can not to preserve a relationship receive accolades or her Raws or even thanks these characterizations and themes continue to be echoed and revisited throughout the rest of the film and through flashback were able to see Clark's progression and we better understand the oil rig scene after the flashbacks despite being a set piece it's still less intense than krypton and so it provides a bit of a break while still giving us action that builds towards bigger and bigger set pieces later in the film to the scene does at heart of work and I think the scene is meant to be in the back of your mind when we go through the flashbacks when Jonathan challenges Clark to think about what is at stake when he exhibits his powers were meant to remember that Clark ultimately does choose to use them will deftly cover all of this more thoroughly but that is another show and so just in these 2 1/2 minutes we see a lot of potential virtue in Clark which to quickly review our humility and adventurousness a novice who doesn't let his inexperience stop them from trying and a limited non-omniscient being who leads into action for things there within his perception is a hero that's realistically affected by physics who has a slight sense of humor and is a do-gooder whose optimistic and hopeful he strong even if he's not all-powerful he works with others he selfless and he lets his actions do the talking so from the moment we meet Clark he exhibits courage and a number of noble qualities and he accomplishes a great feet which is the very definition of heroism while speaking about heroism that brings us to the second topic of this episode of course few detractors take issue with the oil rig and instead they argue that Clark's lack of rescue with Jonathan or that the stopping of sod or the scope of collateral damage irreparably damage Clark's heroism what we've got apologetics for those scenes and those actions but those are all their own episodes for now let's proceed under the assumption that those are failings or sins and the question is whether Superman is or can be her heroic even if he has failings and I think it's obvious that Superman is heroic in Man of Steel heroism basically has three definitions you have classical heroism literary heroism and modern heroism in classical heroism it comes down to extraordinary feats you can be morally abhorrent but so long as you bring more victory to your tribe or score more touchdowns for your team or secure more clients for your firm your hero it doesn't matter if you're a bully or a braggart or a boozer so long as your accomplishments or your feats are great is Superman can do more than any mortal human can he fits the classical definition of hero now we talk about literary heroism it's about story focus that you can be weak or strong incredible or a failure but so long as you are the focus of the story your it's hero now Clark is undoubtedly the central character of Man of Steel and so he is the literal literary titular hero modern heroism is basically about character and virtue and whereas classical heroism's roots come from ancient mythology and and folklore modern heroism spun up as a way of describing the romantic and chivalrous heroes character and virtues unlike classical heroism where success matters in that you are accomplishing a feet under modern heroism you can actually fail at your given task and still be deemed to hero for example individuals who fall in battle die attempting a rescue or who fight for social change even if they never see it in their lifetime they can all be deemed heroes because they exhibit the virtues that include but are not limited to self-sacrifice perseverance honesty courage loyalty etc. so as we discussed above and will discuss later Clark exhibits all of these virtues which make him a modern hero and so he fits the very definition and meaning of hero now has a collateral topic when talking about the Superman mythos in general and not Man of Steel specifically Superman critics may try to argue that Superman is in a hero or heroic because his feats are effortless and his invincibility means he's never in jeopardy they may hold up a fireman or Batman of examples of court unquote real heroes who put their lives on the line and left work hard to say people will first you can argue that their supposition is counterfactual there are certainly examples of Superman being in jeopardy and requiring great effort to say people but second you have to remember that using our three definitions of heroism you might see that there is a problem with what they're doing essentially the critics are equal the catering and confusing classical and modern heroism and the requirements and then misapplying them to literary heroism they're just mashing up all three improperly so let me give you an example the critic confuses classical feats of heroism with modern character heroism causing them to conflate the two and a spouse illogical statements like well since Superman stopping that avalanche took no effort it is in heroic and therefore Superman is a terrible hero of the story but remember that classical heroism isn't concerned with the effort so long as the feed itself was incredible that's why God's and demigods are classical heroes and so the effort taken is irrelevant now likewise modern heroism isn't concerned with feats so actually stopping the avalanche has nothing to do with the effort or virtue needed to do so and then neither necessarily impact how compelling Superman would be as the focus of the story in literary heroism so likely what the critics are attempting to cope in the dark at and say comes from the belief that Superman's physical advantages translate into character disadvantages and this relies on the just world fallacy where to put it kind of trite Lee ugly people must have good personalities and beautiful people must be mean spirits in essence that and invulnerable person has no cause to be brave or to show courage and that a superhuman needs to sacrifice nothing and so now obviously this is a narrow and fallacious view of the character Superman routinely demonstrates his virtues and his character which are exemplary when compared to deconstructed versions of himself like Hyperion or the Plutonian etc. which cynically and perhaps accurately exhibit what a super being without Superman's character would be like the tests are simply different and on a different scale now aside from intentionally malicious criticism the main reason I believe that this criticism process is simply because the most popular form of modern heroism is the self sacrificing risk amongst dangerous professions like fireman police soldiers and so on what happening is that the critics lack the imagination to come up with risks of greater scope than those faced by fireman police soldiers and so on and so they equivocate those dangers with all dangers and thus Superman can never be tested in their minds now interestingly enough many other cultures perceive heroism differently and in those cases the fireman isn't necessarily exalted above say the school teacher or the housewife or even the pacifist who has to sacrifice to test their character in other matters Superman tends to exhibit those virtues more routinely like mentoring paternalism diplomacy and so on but because those virtues don't involve a man laying down his life to die can be dismissed by narrowminded critics now despite the cultural bias towards glorification and fatalism of self-sacrifice on to death many times living is harder than dying and Superman over the years has managed to capture that in many of his more baroque stories but back to Man of Steel you'll notice that none of the definitions of heroism call for perfection and indeed the vast majority of our heroes real and imagined are flawed and even intentionally so in the case of fictional heroes in fact the flaws are often vaunted as a strength with respect to many fictional heroes so it seems absurd to claim that even if we presume that Clark has failed or send that he ceases to be a hero with the critic really means to say is that Superman isn't a paragon of heroism or virtue and that means a perfect example or model of excellence with an emphasis on perfect now to be fair to them Jor-El charges Clark with the task he says will give the people of an ideal strived will always live you will stumble and fall time you join you time it will help them now note that Jor-El says that you will future tense give them an idea and not that you are presently the ideal and arguably he also says given an ideal not be the ideal but that's another topic for another time also know that he's talking about success and wonders which is more line with classical heroism then modern heroism in this context and for these lines although in other dialogue it's implicit that he is concerned about callow's character certainly however perfection is problematic and that is another show let's just say for now there are few to no renditions of Superman which can be universally deemed as morally perfect and such a position tends to paint Superman into a corner which causes the writers to have to draft Scripture rather than stories and if you canonize one definition of perfection that starts to become utterly predictable and devoid of vitality and that can be what kills the relevance of a character whose meant to live and breathe on screen or in the stories so in a more realistic setting where we show the toll in the consequences of danger we take away the safety net trope where everyone is rescued or at least no one is visibly harmed it humble Superman in a brings them into the real world rather than making him and on writable God who makes arbitrary decisions on turning back time for avoid addressing domestic violence or other issues like that the film is not deconstructing Superman for the sake of tearing him down or the shock value of slaying sacred cows rather every decision has a storytelling or character development reason which lays a strong foundation for future arcs moreover Superman is still a hero he's self-sacrificing saving strong brave determined patient and virtuous while also being real right of the wrapup that part of this discussion will certainly come back to Clark as an aspirational figure in the future for now let's just get to the mail back of answers so of the break I have received wonderful feedback from a number of listeners and reviewers and I really appreciate the encouragement thank you so much please keep sending it and let's start with our first question today again we have loyal listener Maggie who had a Lotta feedback on the lowest episode and I've hash that out with her over email Maggie writes in the with a lot of comments about wonder woman as a contender Maggie happens to back Lois as the one true pair and expresses a number of reasons for why wonder woman is perhaps a bad match I just wanted to highlight something amusing she mentions that I didn't talk about Lois measuring decks and thinking scotch up straight and I didn't mention it because I didn't really have much to say the military often uses blue language I'll never forget reading Black Hawk down and learning what a combat Jack was so Lois's language may have been a way of getting around the formalities and just showing that she's one of the boys regarding this scotch of the only comment I have is that it was served to her without ice but don't despair if you order scotch straight up as she did and it arrives with ice just so you know straight up is unfortunately an ambiguous term and it is interpreted differently by different bartenders and patrons so if you want to avoid any confusion and your bartender doesn't pay you the courtesy of clarifying your order just say meet for no ice or on the rocks for ice and if you wanted shaken and stirred and/or filtered just ask your paying good money and if James Bond isn't afraid to ask for what he wants neither should you for our next question how did Clark get his job at the planet well according to Lois his first article she says a background check revealed that his work history and identity had been falsified so it's possible that Clark just did that again in order to obtain his position at the daily planet however I don't think so when Clark falsified his work history he also falsified his identity but when Perry introduces him to Lois and Lombard it is as Clark Kent meaning that Clark hasn't falsified his identity this time so that it becomes a question of credentials and work history and while Clark is unlikely to have a traditional degree or work experience you have to remember that Perry introduces him as a stringer so in journalism a stringer is essentially an un-salaried freelancer who gets paid on a piece by piece based's as there is little risk involved in bringing a freelancer on board employers are more willing to accept nontraditional backgrounds so long as the work products good and it proves itself as an itinerant nomad for what Clark lacks on paper he more than makes up in interesting life experiences which could be the source of interesting stories so that's at least enough to get his foot in the door as a freelancer Jonathan asks how did Lois survived being left in the Arctic cold and the assumption there is that it was really cold and that she was out there for a long time and that combined she would have died so we can tackle any three of these assumptions assuming that it was cold and somewhat lengthy it would necessarily be a bad thing following surgery probably too long to get into here but cold therapy is something that they are starting to use as a way of speeding up recovery so perhaps that's what happened there alternatively we don't know how warm her coat was or if Clark left any superheated rocks for her to bed upon lastly we don't know how long she was actually there Clark may have only just dropped her off and at the end the day it's basically a inconsequential piece of uninteresting logistics that was properly excluded from the film we know the Clark wanted Lois to live which is why he saved her in the first place and so is completely reasonable that her disembarking was only allowed under conditions where she would live we assume that the military had to find her but for all we know they were actually directed to her location again all that is uninteresting offscreen logistics so unless there is no possible way the matter could be reconciled which I've just given you the about four different reasons we don't have to presume that it's an issue or a plot hole I have time for about one more question is talking ice Jonathan asks how was Clark able to find the scout ship and the easiest answer is to take the one in the film at face value and simply say coincidence luck or chance he was in the right place at the right time to overhear the soldiers speaking about Ellesmere island and it was fortunate that it planned out and if you want you can infuse destiny into that aspect of it however I think there's also room for more rigorous apologetics here if you picked up the Man of Steel our book there is a mine in their indicating that the ship may have called out Clark for that Clark was unconsciously drawn to the ship and there's a couple different ways you can reconcile that if you take into account that it's implicit that kryptonian technology has a degree of mental interface note that even before Zide entered our solar system Jor-El was speaking English to Clark so it's possible that the ship was broadcasting something which could subliminally draw Clark to it however why would a kryptonian scout ship need such a subtle feature so I think a better explanation comes from one of the more esoteric things that sets Clark apart from others as we discussed in episode three was it right genetic memory note that many animals have migration patterns and they have veritable homing beacons built into their biology Jor-El is implied to have known that the scout ship was on earth and Clark's command key would not have produced a hologram when combined with this capsule and so it required the scout ship for Jor-El to speak with Clark and from their conversation it is apparent the Jor-El always intended to speak with Clark but only after Clark had been raised human as we said before many animals have migration patterns and these are often tied to maturity so Jor-El may have exploited Clark's genetic memory and included a preprogrammed impulse to move him towards the location of the ship once Clark reached 17 this would explain a bit of his restlessness at that age and Clark gradually working his way towards the scout ship it would be something that gives him an inclination but doesn't completely override his free well aren't I think I've rambled on long enough Man of Steel answers insight commentary is a proud member of the Superman podcast network so here are some promos for the network shows that I suggest you check out if you want to extend your enjoyment of the Superman mythos got it together from the far reaches of beings that are assembled and that's what got dedicated to the bust greatest superhero is a Superman like featuring Superman: the DC comics crisis Superman podcast is Superman this you will podcast is Superman forever and about the you you you you are you will podcast KL from Superman homepage.com is John Wilson really help you are leaving my present bat your retailer Michael they start to Sam result is the first Mario is given by an highlighted I gave Younis and how has Gotti they because that what thanks so much soliciting I just love discussing the stuff been sticking with me hopefully you do genuinely grateful for each and every listener and hope you join us@ManofSteelofSteelanswers.com that way got a question you want answered insights you want to share commentary to make you can post in the comments for all your like-minded apologist to see you can email me@mosaicofManofSteelofSteelanswers.com like what you heard please review the show in iTunes and drive this is Dr. awkward your DC cinematic universe apologist signing off CNX if you're still around for Christmas I was gifted the album for it's a bird it's a plane it Superman from the 1966 Broadway musical it was a lighthearted satire that wasn't terribly successful or well received however there is one particular song on it that I enjoyed in it needs a little set up the sun was performed by Linda Lavin who is playing Sidney an assistant at the daily planet who recognizes Clark Kent as a catch as appreciation for this gift attacking this on at the end of the podcast so please enjoy your answers and will him will is there he of answers