Man of Steel answers insight commentary episode 13 flashbacks theft maybe I will ask the obvious question start asking questions and answers in this episode we will go over the purpose of the flashbacks and the structure of the film will see what we can learn from the classroom scene will tackle whether Clark is a thief explore some of the themes of the film finally will discuss Jonathan can's parenting in saying maybe we got a time to talk about so let's get right into it 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 the Man of Steel and who love to chew their food please be advised that this episode is going to reference religion and Scripture in an academic context I'm not preaching but using relevant themes as they appear in a recent poll 92% of our new Congress self identify as some sort of Christian you can reasonably question their sincerity adherence or how devout they may be but nonetheless religion is a common cultural touchstone to use in interpreting media coming from an address to said culture moreover as you may glean from the creative section of the website the filmmakers have explicitly attempted to adopt religious elements and it was also a part of Warner Bros. marketing campaign incidentally if any listener has access to the materials disseminated as a part of that campaign please contact me I would love to review a copy again I'm using these elements purely in an academic context so if it appears that I'm misrepresenting or mistaken about a religious tenant I'd ask you to keep an open mind show grace and then feel free to contact me about the issue I think avoiding such discussion would be a disservice considering the film itself invokes these things and I believe that we have stability maturity and open minds to tackle the topic so without further ado let's get into it when we left off Clark had just completed the oil rig rescue note that the flashback is intercut with Clark floating unconsciously under the water to make it clear that these are his memories in this moment and not a complete shift of the story focus to another time or place the classroom is the first flashbacks of the film is structured to make it clear that this is what flashbacks are predominantly meant to be in the film from a creative standpoint the purpose of the flashbacks is twofold one it's necessary exposition and to to show Clark's point of view without inner monologue narration heavy-handed dialogue and the like nearly every single flashback is from Clark's perspective a memory triggered by something in the present there are a few possible exceptions but will tackle them when we come to them it's a way of getting into Superman's inner thoughts without turning him into an uncharacteristically chatty person why though what is wrong with a talkative Superman or spoon feeding the audience Clark's feelings we will touch on this later when we talk about legalism versus principle-based morality but I can understand the filmmakers wanting a little distance from and with Clark's thoughts and words there is a tendency to canonize and indelibly etched into eternity everything and anything Superman says as if it were Scripture inevitably these lines can be used to impeach Superman in the future but about some of these lines I like pink very much Lois Lois I never lie sorry I've been away so long I won't let you down again in a postmodern era where there is last consensus on universally held values even something as seemingly innocuous as truth Justice and the American way can draw ire criticism and complaints some of the filmmakers a Man of Steel seem to be attempting to do is not make a Superman arrest of values or morality but to avoid the pitfalls of legalistic codified simplistic soundbites slogan-based morality which doesn't tend to hold up in the real world or with modern audiences unless you take a more fairytale approach which has its own merits but that's another show and not the approach taken by the filmmakers here the lack of soundbites slogan-based morality means that the audience has to think along with Superman about the issues to wrestle with them and come to their own conclusions rather than to have them prescribed for them in advance and blindly adhered to as absolutes or blindly condemned for when they're not successful in for a fresh and modern take on Superman that isn't necessarily a bad thing for a character that's 75 years old there is a wide spectrum of valid interpretations of Superman it's unfortunate that there are some who are so closed minded that they think that there is one and only one valid interpretation and that everyone who doesn't agree is a fool if you consider that Jesus his ministry was approximately 3 years long and covered roughly and four blocks 2000 years later there is still denominational division on interpretation for something considered sacred it's absolutely absurd to believe that there would be or should be universal consensus on who or what Superman is by comparison or for more secular examples if you consider how bifurcated or polarized political parties tend to be literally debating certain issues for centuries it's kind of crazy to expect unqualified unity on Superman so at least to me I think the better approach to Superman is an open mind tolerance for other views and recognizing as I always say reasonable minds will differ everyone has their own concept of Superman in their own head and everyone is right in a sense the filmmakers adopt a slightly ambiguous style to make Superman a bit of a tabula rasa or blank slate and then allows the viewer to interpret or fill in the blanks with their concept of Superman to their own satisfaction to a degree the filmmakers did not completely abandon having their own vision of Superman but neither do they micromanage you into excluding any room for any personal interpretation thought or preference so based on this understanding of the flashbacks and the purpose that they serve we might anticipate that in Batman be Superman we may still have flashbacks but fewer of them as a minor spoiler regarding Batman we already know that the death of the Wayne's has been filmed and in fact that's exactly the way the Wayne death was used in the dark Knight returns it was a way of wordlessly accessing Batman's thoughts as he broods in the stately manner however in Batman be Superman I expect there to be far more for Superman to deal with in the present that is less likely to be informed by the past he now has Lois as a sounding board and an ally and now gifted with flight he can seek counsel from Martha more regularly there may be others in his corner with answers to help them with as well so there's less cause for reflection and navelgazing when his focus needs to be for the task at hand so while we may still get flashbacks I think they are a little less likely for Superman when we left off Clark had just completed the oil rig rescue note that the flashback is intercut with Clark floating unconsciously under the water to make it clear that these are his memories in this moment and not a complete shift of the story focus to another time or place the classroom is the first flashbacks of the film is structured to make it clear that this is what flashbacks are predominantly meant to be in the film from a creative standpoint the purpose of the flashbacks is twofold one it's necessary exposition and to to show Clark's point of view without inner monologue narration heavy-handed dialogue and the like nearly every single flashback is from Clark's perspective a memory triggered by something in the present there are a few possible exceptions but will tackle them when we come to them it's a way of getting into Superman's inner thoughts without turning him into an uncharacteristically chatty person why though what is wrong with a talkative Superman or spoon feeding the audience Clark's feelings we will touch on this later when we talk about legalism versus principle-based morality but I can understand the filmmakers wanting a little distance from and with Clark's thoughts and words there is a tendency to canonize and indelibly etched into eternity everything and anything Superman says as if it were Scripture inevitably these lines can be used to impeach Superman in the future but about some of these lines I like pink very much Lois Lois I never lie sorry I've been away so long I won't let you down again in a postmodern era where there is last consensus on universally held values even something as seemingly innocuous as truth Justice and the American way can draw ire criticism and complaints some of the filmmakers a Man of Steel seem to be attempting to do is not make a Superman arrest of values or morality but to avoid the pitfalls of legalistic codified simplistic soundbites slogan-based morality which doesn't tend to hold up in the real world or with modern audiences unless you take a more fairytale approach which has its own merits but that's another show and not the approach taken by the filmmakers here the lack of soundbites slogan-based morality means that the audience has to think along with Superman about the issues to wrestle with them and come to their own conclusions rather than to have them prescribed for them in advance and blindly adhered to as absolutes or blindly condemned for when they're not successful in for a fresh and modern take on Superman that isn't necessarily a bad thing for a character that's 75 years old there is a wide spectrum of valid interpretations of Superman it's unfortunate that there are some who are so closed minded that they think that there is one and only one valid interpretation and that everyone who doesn't agree is a fool if you consider that Jesus his ministry was approximately 3 years long and covered roughly and four blocks 2000 years later there is still denominational division on interpretation for something considered sacred it's absolutely absurd to believe that there would be or should be universal consensus on who or what Superman is by comparison or for more secular examples if you consider how bifurcated or polarized political parties tend to be literally debating certain issues for centuries it's kind of crazy to expect unqualified unity on Superman so at least to me I think the better approach to Superman is an open mind tolerance for other views and recognizing as I always say reasonable minds will differ everyone has their own concept of Superman in their own head and everyone is right in a sense the filmmakers adopt a slightly ambiguous style to make Superman a bit of a tabula rasa or blank slate and then allows the viewer to interpret or fill in the blanks with their concept of Superman to their own satisfaction to a degree the filmmakers do not completely abandon having their own vision of Superman but neither do they micromanage you into excluding any room for any personal interpretation thought or preference so based on this understanding of the flashbacks in the purpose that they serve we might anticipate that in Batman be Superman we may still have flashbacks but fewer of them as a minor spoiler regarding Batman we already know that the death of the Wayne's has been filmed and in fact that's exactly the way the Wayne death was used in the dark Knight returns it was a way of wordlessly accessing Batman's thoughts as he broods in the stately manner however in Batman be Superman I expect there to be far more for Superman to deal with in the present that is less likely to be informed by the past he now has Lois as a sounding board and an ally and now gifted with flight he can seek counsel from Martha more regularly there may be others in his corner with answers to help them with as well so there's less cause for reflection and navelgazing when his focus needs to be for the task at hand so while we may still get flashbacks I think they are a little less likely for Superman so if flashbacks or memories triggered by the president why the classroom scene well Clark just experienced a great cacophony of sound and senses only to have them drowned out by the quiet and peace of submersion under the see that parallel of time old to peace may recall his mother's words and the other time to his senses were assaulted then quieted the first line in the scene places us in Kansas is the first time that Clark's given name is said until now the first time viewer would only know the character as Cal Al greenhorn here we see that he is Clark and it is repeated to make sure that we know his name the teachers question are you listening Clark is a subtle joke since it is clear to the audience that Clark's issue isn't the inability to listen but listening to well were given Clark's perspective with his sensory powers and with respect to his visual powers I'm going to briefly digress and correct something I said back in episode three their unlimited his vision to skeletons and wondered whether he could receive color information or read through the backside a playing card however in my analysis of the time I had completely overlooked and forgotten about the interrogation scene in Superman's ability to read Dr. Hamilton's ID badge this seems to be backed up by the making of which goes into the scene a little bit more and some good a playback clip in shape creepy x-ray vision electromagnetic spectral freak out stuff that we only see a couple times in the movie and it has to do with Clark when he's a boy when you first experiences it in a way that Zack talk to us about it was it wasn't just x-ray vision that he was saying he was kind of all frequencies makes it was that's why looks a little weirder than x-ray vision but he does see through things but he also sees glows in our isn't that you probably the entire electromagnetic spectrum we just all in one go and that's why it's so creepy in freaks in a free Dessau to Riverside it is also reminiscent of John Carter were you able to which we looked at many many times to get the teacher little kids do it just that you know John Carpenter scary so from the it's up that they were trying to achieve a quasi-horror sensibility and help the audience empathize with Clark's beer and unease a quick note Clark's classmates aren't all Caucasian so he grew up with some diversity Clark runs into the janitors closet and somehow secures the door you can see that the door swings outward and the lock is on the outside and the janitor is in the hall so it appears that this is a minor continuity But nonetheless within the fiction of the story Clark has locked himself and if you need apologetics perhaps he used his superstrength to torque the knob and Janet closed the teacher fiddles with the knob but draws back because of Clark's heat vision it's unclear whether this is instinctual or intentional but I tend towards the former because the larger context of the scene is that Clark's powers are out of control so it may be slightly dissonant to have him uses heat vision is in such a controlled manner note that whether intentionally or not Clark has harmed another so it is a given that his powers will only be used for good additionally some may say that the teacher getting burned is repayment for her negligence and allowing all the students to gather around the door and further single Clark out who knows the exposition is all elegant and logical the teacher says Clark's mother has been called so we expect the woman to appear to be Clark's mother and indeed she does Diane Lane remarks protected accounts and of course she is coming to her sons rescue one that I didn't realize I shudder living with Rubyis an answer there is training that can be easily defeated a while to hear everything all the other children as we know kids are not notice the critic like heaven help for so you show up to protect him from the potential at the ceiling and on bullied misunderstanding being the matter Clark just start of the always at the ready for such a we hear what the other kids think of him we know that he's not allowed to play with other kids but at the same time do not judge the Kents to harshly as they but allowed him to attend public school and given the Clark has just burned someone in might be as much for everyone else's protection as it is for Clark's Clark's tears revealed that he's not invulnerable to emotional distress and we get this great exchange of dialogue how can I help you if you won't let me in is an incredibly profound in and of itself phrase but moving on Clark says it's too big mom and she replies than make it small focus on my voice so it's the power of mental control and focus to rein in his powers and senses Diane Lane's performance here is great you see the worry and the thought and trying to reach Clark without blowing his secret pretend it's an island can you see it I see it then swim towards of honey the ocean metaphor is obviously a part of why Clark's mind goes here and you see the kind of improvisation the Clark's parents had to go through and we see that Clark has imagination he's able to picture the images that his parents in part on to something vitally important later when Clark exits the closet the first thing he sees is his mother smiling face not judgment or the kid standing around and he is immediately embraced we know immediately that his mother loves and then Clark asks what's wrong with me mom and his mother looks him in the eye and says Clark with an expression that says that there's nothing wrong with you but also not answering his question no one of the reasons we receive this scene as a flashback after the oil rig rather than in chronological order is because with the oil rig scene in the back of our minds were meant to be engaged and asked the question how did Clark returned from somebody who runs away to somebody who runs towards danger if Clark has been suffering isolation and bullying since childhood and even in till adulthood why does he care why does he want to rescue and help people and in this scene we get a glimpse of why his parents his mother's love is so strong and comforting the rest of the world fades away when she embraces him the strength of Martha's love and positive influence on Clark would become less apparent if the story was told chronologically with the oil rig first we can look back at Clark's past trials and tribulations with the hope of the hero that he will become rather than worrying about his torment twisting him into a powerful alien monster were watching his character be forged and refined rather than profiling a future psychopath the flashback concludes and we immediately cut back to Clark underwater to reinforce this was all his present-day memory Clark wakes up to a parent Wales song to its child some speculate that that's Aquaman Easter egg I'm skeptical because were in the extreme north Atlantic in May will be part of his domain but I'd think he tend towards warmer waters simply my opinion though the next interstitial scene really only has two beats Clark emerging from the ocean to find the disguise and then seeing the bus to trigger the flashback regarding the first part if we haven't already figured it out by the oil rig scene this again reinforces the idea that Clark doesn't have superspeed or flight Clark could have avoided detection and preserved his secrets with such powers but it's apparent that he doesn't have that so instead Clark must secure a disguise to blend back in some take issue with Clark stealing the clothing and I think the easiest answer I can give to this is get over it not to be glib but there is no conception or version of Superman that hasn't broken the law whether he constitutes a thief may depend on your personal perception of justice in the law but by its letter no one is a criminal until convicted and not parted and in fact even the Old Testament distinguishes between action and conviction in Proverbs 630 which reads people do not despise a thief if he steals when he is hungry but if he is caught he will pay sevenfold this is a 3000-year-old passage with this value or idea being present of course in general parlance a criminal is somebody who has committed a crime even if not convicted however by this definition literally every version of Superman is a criminal what critics are raising but not stating other than some sort of petulant nitpick or another ding against their perfect paragon is the idea that Superman should commit no crime without excuse or justification however they pick and choose which excuses or justifications they are willing to accept or which crimes are willing to tolerate Superman has always stood for an ideal of justice that goes beyond the letter of the law however even there he's likely defensible here Clark is barefoot shirtless and his pants are in tatters it's unlikely that he has a wallet or cash he's unable to legally purchase clothing unlikely to know where free clothing might be available and unable to answer the questions that would likely a company asking for the clothing granted Clark isn't in imminent bodily danger which is typically the requirement for the defense of necessity in Canada the clock was raised in the United States and the American doctrine for the necessity defense is broader the applicable elements require that a harm to be avoided outweighs the danger of the crime and be he had no reasonable alternative hear the harm is the revelation of his powers and his identity against the value of the clothing and as we discussed he doesn't seem to have a reasonable alternative of course I'm greatly oversimplifying the law check your local jurisdictions before relying on this conception of the necessity defense but anyways the way to remedy the harm is to simply pay back the value of the clothes and for all we know Clark does do that but off-camera ultimately it's not a big deal and is highly unlikely to result in conviction now approaching this scene from a creative perspective it is a fair question to ask why did the filmmakers have Clark steel clothing on camera at all in may simply be purely logistical in other words a completely natural rational and logical consequence of his heroic part in the oil rig rescue combined with an explicit motive to show cavil's physique under the costume and seed in the audience's mind that his strength and his physicality is genuine and not only a suit however I think another possibility is that up until this moment I believe that to our knowledge Clark has been completely noble and law-abiding without much compromise however just as the oil rig scene helps disabuse the audience of the belief that this is an all powerful Superman as we discussed in our last episode the practical necessity of stealing disabuse is the audience of expecting absolute moral purity from Clark it's possible that the filmmakers may be telling the audience were not going to write Clark at a situations like these were not going to have him simply come across abandoned clothing or running into a crazy homeless person or a generous little kid who gives Clark clothing without questions instead it seems to me that this Clark will have to balance and way interests realistically to arrived at realistic choices making his decision-making meaningful and relevant to the real world in J Benz thesis on Man of Steel he posits that the house number is an intentional biblical reference to Luke 536 which in most translations refers to tell her garments right as Clark is in tattered garments whether the number is intentional or mere coincidence the actual underlying lesson from that first actually ties to the overall themes of Man of Steel and perhaps to this scene under the lens that I've just described about the verse is a parable saying or illustration by Jesus where he says no one cuts up a new garment to use as a patch on an old torn garment otherwise you will have ruined the new garment and the patch from the new cloth won't match the old garment the illustration is a 2000-year-old piece of wisdom and common sense and in context Jesus was saying that his teachings couldn't simply be used as a patch for the Judaism of the time which within the narrative of Christianity was heavily codified and law-based tending to be absolute what will call legalism but that adherence would have to start a new with his teachings which were principle-based and tending to require judgment and grace very broadly speaking the narrative is that Jesus proposed and intent-based system over absolute legalistic rule keeping for example whereas traditionally they may keep the Sabbath by publicly fasting and praying aloud Jesus might say is all right to honor the Sabbath in your heart without public display whereas traditionally one might say that you send only once you've actually committed adultery Jesus would say that you've already send if you've lusted after your neighbor's wife in your heart whereas conversion to Judaism demanded circumcision and ceremony juices can be implied to have accepted conversions of the heart for example the thief on the cross as a reformer to figure some of his teachings tended to show the paradoxes hypocrisies counterintuitive nature of strictly adhering to the law his essential message was that no human can adhere to all the law perfectly and thus divine grace was a necessary gap filler to achieve perfection of course legalism is more deterministic and tends to be more clear-cut whereas principal and intent-based systems are unpredictable and arise on a case to case basis applied to Man of Steel you see this theme reoccur again and again both in story and out in story consider how Zide wanted to preserve the old ways with a new planet having strict absolute and inflexible rules such as considering natural birth and wanting a preprogrammed populace this is the legalistic old garment under this system what krypton will be is clear-cut Jor-El on the other hand was so cognizant of needing a new way he wanted callow to be natural born to introduce chance and free well he knew he couldn't a company Cal Al without corrupting him with the old garments ways and he wanted Cal Al raised human before meeting and speaking with callow Jor-El's vision of this completely new thing the bridging of two people allowances for chance and choice means that the outcome is unpredictable and uncertain but relies on principles and intentions so we had the clash of the rigid legalistic old and the organic principled new if we look at this from a external perspective in many ways Superman returns which has its own virtues and problems represents an attempt to patch an old garment with pieces of a new garment you run into continuity issues you run out of ways to challenge the hero without making him completely impotent relationally and your film ultimately may be out of step when trying to patch modern sensibilities onto an old concept so rather than trying to patch the Superman franchise as existing Man of Steel is a new garment and it should be appreciated as such applied to the scene that were discussing if you somehow believe in a morally perfect Superman despite the vast majority of continuity not really supporting that view then you will tend towards absolute codification's of who Superman is Superman would never steel. However when you try to patch Superman in order to make a modern or relevant inevitably he's going to run afoul these absolutes and the stand out like a sore thumb as an Jesus his parable so even if Bryan singer is trying to convey Superman's inner struggle or pesos what the audience comes away with is that Superman is a stalker and invades privacy because he's being held to that old absolute standard Man of Steel stops trying to patch that version of Superman and instead starts from the ground up with a Superman who doesn't follow absolute rules but has to balance principles and so this tiny scene could be a profound statement by the filmmakers to confront stale legalistic absolutes like Superman would never ever steel instead Clark has to way protecting his identity with the disguise against stealing nothing indicates that Clark enjoys or is comfortable with stealing in fact his discomfort may be indicated the very next scene now remember how I described flashbacks is insights into his head well even as Clark is adjusting the coat his brow is furrowed and you can imagine him subconsciously thinking about the compromise in his own values that he just had to make in order to preserve his identity and with that in mind and having just underwent a rescue the cost of his job worldly possessions identity and so on is it any wonder that his mind goes to the bus incident when he sees a bus the bus scene also has two beats leading up to the accident and then the accident and rescue leading up to it Clark is again insult this time as ass wipe and Dick splash I have a short blog addressing those insults but so far Clark has been called heresy greenhorn freak crybaby weirdo ass white and explore – so he's beset with insults but nonetheless he doesn't react and he even has others coming to his defense so Clark knows that there is good in people another quick note is that Lana is sitting next to someone of Asian descent so again he doesn't grow up and in all Caucasian community and since I mentioned Lana obviously P and Lana are nods to the Superman tradition and an Easter egg for longtime fans but not necessary for the casual or first time you were to know if you didn't notice it happens to be a small school bus typically with a capacity of around 12 passengers here there are six kids including Lana and Pete and the driver these are six kids who've known Clark and his family his entire life who owe him their lives and who will continue to live with him for the next four years in this small devout rule town compare that against the 20+ adult strangers under the overpass and surrounding highways and cars in the tornado scene of course were not tackling that now but food for thought when we get there eventually Clark basically doesn't hesitate to rescue everyone he looks back for a moment but we don't know what he's thinking after pushing the bust the land he locks eyes with Lana Clark been saves his bully again showing to his parents raised him to care above and beyond any slights he may have suffered and that saving people is in Clark's nature as a small creative note the film does a decent job of maintaining the language of its edits the audio from pizza mom is already starting even as were watching the bus scene rescue this overlap cut it has already been used on krypton with Jor-El speaking to the Council's out on trial in the crashing of the waves with the Debbie sue and so on and so forth and it will be continued to be used throughout the film's of the film is helping you to know when there's been a passage of time and this may give us insights later for now some time has gone by in the next scene is at the farmhouse which has three beats beat one is the farmhouse interior speaking with Pete's mom beat to is the farmhouse exterior in the may be seen in the beat three the barn interior for the ship reveal we entered the Kent Homestead and lest there be any ambiguity pizza mom is credited as Helen Ross again this film is sparse on dialogue but the actors all bring a lot to their performances if you watch carefully when Mrs. Ross says that it's an act of God and divine providence you see Jonathan's eyes go back and forth considering his remarks and then smiling as if a wave of relief has just come over him he knows that for now Clark is safe because of how the incident was perceived this is the first time that we see Jonathan Kent and he's called by name we don't actually hear Martha's name until just before the tornado scene so again the filmmakers are deft at densely providing information Ross sitting there is a little funny because he was clearly forced by his mother to be there but completely silent and with hands folded so he goes from bully to rescue we to somebody powerless with his mom and simile Pete is instantly more sympathetic Mrs. Ross provides necessary exposition to let us know that this is not an isolated incident but something really interesting to think about is the fact that Mrs. Ross is even having this conversation in the first place if you think about it Mrs. Ross is talking about with the rest the town is saying about Clark however rather than gossiping behind Clark's back this good Christian woman brings it right into their living room and is discussing it to their face that degree of transparency honesty and forthrightness may help account for the Kents ability to mitigate any suspicion of Clark over the next intervening years again we get to it contrast that against the tornado scene small bill actually gives you an opportunity to explain yourself in person or talk rather than acting behind your back to Jonathan recognize that the threat has been averted and heads out to speak to his son so the farmhouse exterior scene makes it clear that Clark has been eavesdropping which means that now he has control of his super hearing powers the first words out of Clark's mouth are both defense and motive I just wanted to help so we know explicitly why Clark did what he did not out of obligation not out of guilt or pesos but genuine altruism however we also know that he knows the Jonathan may disapprove of some aspect of the rescue will Jonathan doesn't doubt Clark's motives he says I know you did and then he affirms that they talked about Clark keeping it a secret and then we get those two lines what was I supposed to do just let them die maybe to me it's a bit incredible how much criticism this short exchange has resulted in an it appears to be driven predominantly by three things one people who stop thinking or listening after the maybe two people who are rationally believe that Jonathan is saying Clark should have let the kids die and three people who consider this an uncomfortable departure from tradition let's unpack and address each of these for people who stop thinking and listening after the maybe I think this view might be excusable if you've only watch the film once but if you've watched it multiple times and are still stuck on this I suspect your subsequent viewings were colored by prejudgment rather than the open mind required to interpret the scene from a creative perspective I believe the intention of the scene was to shock the audience and cause them to perk up sit on the edge of their seats attentively and carefully listen to the rest the scene to figure out what Jonathan meant Jesus often use this tactic in his sermons to shock the audience and make them search for his actual meaning for example whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life or I come not to bring peace but to bring a sword or whomever does not hate his father mother wife children siblings and even their own life cannot be my disciple taken literally out of context and without analysis these would all be crazy confrontational and out of character unfortunately I think the filmmakers may have given general audiences a little too much credit in having faith that we'd be able to digest challenging material instead many viewers approach the scene purely viscerally without processing the larger context and what is actually said structurally this is problematic because this is our first impression of Jonathan and viewed completely superficially all you get is a stern parent scolding Clark for doing a heroic thing this is our first shocking impression some of the audience is unable to overcome their shock and they make a stupid snap judgment which they stubbornly lock into place and then refuse to listen to or imagine any other view or how come from then on in that moment they decide to Jonathan is a monster an enemy in a paranoid sociopaths and ignore all evidence to the contrary if we had some preceding seems to characterize Jonathan's obvious affection for Clark perhaps there would be less outcry they can't fold the filmmakers for not catering to those of us who make snap judgments instead the shock is that continual theme of the filmmakers making sure that you understand the world that were dealing with that Jonathan confronts Clark with the possibility shows that this is a world where that question can even be asked when Superman traditionally tends to be written out of such quandaries will talk about the difference between this world and more idyllic Superman traditions a little later know on repeat viewing with the full context of the film is there any question the Jonathan loves his son and the Clark loves them back is there any question the Jonathan values the lives of others and values saving people in the tornado scene he puts his family first he rescues a strangers child and he directs complete strangers to safety is there any question that Jonathan is honest patient and believes in Clark of course we don't have the benefit of those subsequent scenes when viewing the movie for the first time however rather than passing judgment and turning off our brains I wish more would keep an open mind and put on their thinking caps as the filmmakers intended to be engaged in figure out why Jonathan would even suggest such a controversy opening if people would keep an open mind engage and listen they would hear 10 seconds and two lines of a gentle rebuke and in the next 240 seconds and 30 lines of a father comforting his son giving him purpose a promise a hope sun ship and love consistent with the parenting we saw in Martha in the previous flashback sadly instead you have people trying to forward our second issue and that is people who are rationally believe the Jonathan Kent is saying that Clark should have let the kids die now I tend to be a little frustrated by this position because that's not what Jonathan said he said may be in the word may be literally means perhaps possibly a mere probability in that it is a possibility which in actual fact it is it is literally a possible outcome in the word may be doesn't mean should yet somehow this position is often repeated and when a position is purely counterfactual and explicitly contrary to what is actually said in the film I almost believe that there's no point in answering such criticism because you can't fight that nonexistent movie that they've made up in their own heads with facts however since this gets raised so much I will take a crack at it so unsurprisingly people who pretend like Jonathan said that the kids should have died haven't thought through their position so let's do that for them right now consider what it means if Jonathan is saying that the kids should've died he isn't a psychopath that just wants those kids dead for no reason under this theory he's saying that it would be better for them to be dead them for Clark's secret to be exposed why because the risks dangers and fears of what might happen if Clark secret was exposed is so great high and real that it is worth the lives of six innocent children and the driver to avoid well the kids didn't die so that means that those risks dangers and fears are now imminent if the danger was so real and Clark's secret was that important do you think that it is more important than their farm then staying in small bill Martha says it's only stuff Clark do they stick around waiting for this horrible outcome for quote unquote only stuff of course not the very fact that they are still in small bill still at home still having this conversation means that Jonathan's fears whatever they may be aren't necessarily worth the lives of six kids and that those fears aren't imminent in the situation it means a Jonathan never meant that those kids should have died if he meant that he would have packed up his family in the middle of the night and disappeared to avoid those consequences worth the lives of six innocent kids Jonathan didn't mean should he meant and he said may be as a way of illustrating the gravity of the choices that Clark would have to make I wish I could explain this more elegantly but I'm a little hot under the collar about this particular belief were still those prone to this illogical belief are unlikely to be able to follow the logic of this argument and proof so if this helps you argue I'm glad but don't be surprised if it goes right over their heads and in back case just don't sweat it so moving on to our third category of complaints about that scene people who consider this an uncomfortable departure from tradition here it isn't so much a lack of comprehension but more a clash of expectations typically the person raising these kinds of complaints knows that Jonathan loves Clark and probably interprets Jonathan as paranoid and overprotective but feels that Jonathan isn't completely justified in his fears and rejects the idea that pod can't is anything but an ideal father their conception of ideal is one that is completely supportive optimistic and encouraging they don't want Jonathan sharing his fears with Clark and perhaps they don't want him scolding Clark they might want some midwestern bravado and naïve optimism over pragmatism personally I love the Jonathan that we got with hopes fears and flaws but who love to Clark absolutely I'd suggest that Jonathan's approach is informed by an distinguishable from other Pok hence because of Clark's powers as we've illustrated with the oil rig episode an earlier during the disguise discussion it is apparent that Clark doesn't have flight or superspeed at least flash like superspeed growing up consider what that means for keeping his secret those powers are an essential lubricant towards making traditional superhero in work because they allow Clark to do his heroics and then disappear without sacrificing his secret from day one the Clark in TV small bill had superspeed and eventually was known as the red blue blur able to intervene while essentially invisible most versions of Superman developed flight early on which means every one of those Clark's always had an escape route the matter what he did by simply flying straight up contrast that against Man of Steel's Clark who can't move faster than the eye can see or swoop in from nowhere when he's done he's he's still there for everyone to witness so of course Jonathan Kent under these circumstances puts a higher premium on secrecy because Clark has to be far more deliberate about the protection of his secret without superspeed or flight powers additionally obviously this is a more realistic world and not the typical trope suspended stylized realities or secrets are conveniently And maintained under Superman homepage Neil Bailey has a wonderful compilation of small bill TV stats tracking all sorts of things and affectionately titled the small bill KO count Lois Lane who wasn't even in most of the first four years of the show has been knocked unconscious 52 times on several occasions allowing the convenient preservation of Clark's secret don't get me wrong I'm not condemning small bill for that you adopt the tropes that are appropriate for the type of world that you set your story and I'm simply highlighting the fact that it should be plainly apparent that Man of Steel doesn't take place in that world and although the delivery and the tone is different you might be surprised to know that the content of the Superman 78 scene with Pok Kent is remarkably similar it actually opens with Jonathan scolding Clark for showing off the Clark immediately attempting to justify and defend himself Pok Kent empathizes with Clark's motives just as Jonathan does with Clark in Man of Steel 78 Clark then poses a counter argument just as Man of Steel Clark does an Pok Kent responds by expressing his fears he says we thought people would come and take you away because when they found out the things you could do and it worried us a lot Jonathan can does the same by helping Clark to understand the scope of his secret then both fathers proceed to comfort their sons and instill a sense of purpose into both the main visceral difference is that Man of Steel Clark is visibly upset his voice is cracking he's pained and on the verge of tears and he's actually played by a 13-year-old boy in Superman 78 Clark is frustrated and practically angry but he's composed and it is a 21-year-old man playing 17 the pain and the pathos of Man of Steel may leave the audience uncomfortable if they don't bother to listen to the words or think about what they've seen as we discussed earlier the reason that we open with the oil rig rescue is because it's meant to be in the back of our minds even as we empathize with young Clark we are meant to remember the hope and the nobility demonstrated by Clark at the oil rig so we know the Clark finds a way to reconcile his dad's wishes and his own inclination to help were meant to view this scene knowing that Clark gets passed and through it to become a hero organically and that the pain is laced with the future hope that we know is coming we are not meant to disengage our intellect and our memories and be so empathic that all we get from the scene is Clark's pain were not to arrive at the missed placed belief that with a perfect father there should be no pain that hardly seems to be the case I won't go down the rabbit hole of God the father in the passion of the Christ but I will bring up another principle which causes some to recoil at Jonathan's initial comments and which is often summarized with the biblical phrase hiding one's light under a bushel the antiquated phraseology comes from an obsolete translation of all in the light may metaphorically represent a number of things but at least one interpretation is that one's gifts and talents are meant to be shared and displayed to impact the world not hidden or suppressed which would be like lighting a lamp and then covering it with a bowl although this is a parable of Jesus this goes back to my earlier comments about simplifying down morality to absolute slogans rather than appreciating the nuance of any given situation were not called to show off our gifts under any and all circumstances as Pok hence says in Superman 78 it's not to score touchdowns if confronted by detractors alleging that Jonathan is trying to stifle Clark's promised based on some version of this parable making it allegedly antithetical to Christian values of the Superman tradition I think the retort is that Jonathan clearly believes in Clark's promise more on that later and that he is primarily addressing timing this concept of waiting is a common biblical and secular theme on the biblical front of just a quickly rattle off some examples that the familiar might recognize and for the unfamiliar to research on their own if so inclined we have Sarah and Abraham awaiting children Joseph awaiting the fulfillment of his prophetic dreams David awaiting the fulfillment of his anointing Jesus beginning his ministry at 30 and so on and so forth many anointed or nominated must wait before coming into their appointment just because you can do something and are meant to do something doesn't mean that now is the moment to do it a simple secular example is procreating and raising a family while one becomes physically capable of reproduction at a certain age feel would suggest that the soonest possible age that one can procreate is the optimal age to start raising a family that doesn't mean that they aren't capable of sex that sex isn't good that having a family isn't good for that they shouldn't have either of those things ever it just means that now is not the best time for a variety of reasons be ready in capability doesn't mean that one is ready in all regards even though Clark has powers which can help people it doesn't mean that he's ready to tackle that responsibility or to make the heart calls to juggle his secret and to deal with potential exposure or failure yet and a whole litany of other issues there are a ton of other secular examples but sex is a useful metaphor to illustrate what the may be seen means without the abstract stakes of the world learning extraterrestrials walk among us like any allegory it becomes imperfect if you try to draw parallels to closely but I think this might help some wrap their heads around why Jonathan would say maybe if you'll indulge me imagine the following and age 13 Clark begins to have unprotected sex there is a pregnancy scare with Petra Ross she could be pregnant this is happened with Lana and the Fordham girl to Clark tells Petra that he'll do the right thing by her and raise the baby and marry her if need be however thank goodness it turns out that she wasn't pregnant and he doesn't have to Jonathan confronts Clark who asks what was I supposed to do drive her to the clinic when Jonathan then says it may be he is simply confronting Clark with the seriousness and the gravity of the choices that he'll have to make if he continues on this path while he isn't ready Jonathan isn't staking out a position he is in saying that Clark must or should have driven Petra to the clinic Jonathan is using the recent scare fresh in Clark's mind to illustrate that if Clark continues as he is he may have to make these tough kinds of decisions and Jonathan would rather Clark not have to face these decisions until he's ready like we said above Jonathan is in saying that Clark is incapable of procreating that sex is bad or the having a wife or a family his best Jonathan is saying that having a family now implicates much more than just taking responsibility for the child and that those implications are important enough and frightening enough the Clark would have to consider the alternative in Jonathan's hypothetical choice now note that the choice only serves as an instructive illustration if Clark had been raised to find that these interests are in conflict if Clark was never raised to take responsibility for any child of his that he wouldn't care if Petra decided to keep the child and if Clark was never raised to consider going to the clinic a grave choice than that option would be effortless so the fact that the illustration is difficult demonstrates Clark's values the illustration is so effective and profound the Clark actually plays it safe for the next four years before he's confronted with the issue again so there insights that we can find in this illustration in Man of Steel as we know Jonathan is in saying that Clark can never uses gifts or never stand before the human race he's saying that if you choose to use her gifts now you may have to decide between saving someone and your secret identity before you're ready to tackle that decision like in the above illustration the gravity of that possibility only has meaning to Clark he was raised correctly by his parents to value life if Clark doesn't care about other people than letting six kids drown is no big deal it also indicates that the Kents properly raised Clark to be responsible with his secret if Clark doesn't value keeping his secret then discarding it for the rescue of people would be equally effortless at the beginning of the tornado scene Clark is sharing his frustration at playing it safe which means that they have been safe for the past four years and what that means is that Clark took Jonathan can's illustration to heart and he was spared such decisions until that no to that just as a teenage pregnancy can be multifaceted the sea help with a child as he married the mother does he start a family so too is Clark's secret there's the revelation of his powers the revelation of his extraterrestrial origin and the revelation of his identity in this context Jonathan's tornado scene sacrifice was buying Clark more time to be ready and in our metaphor that might be like raising Clark's baby while he continued to have a normal teenage life and until he is ready to be a dad himself so if we boil it all down maybe doesn't mean should should would have meant fleeing small bill and maybe was an illustration rather than an actual position it was an illustration so powerful that Clark cooperated with Jonathan in keeping his secret for the next four years while all of that was to get to and past maybe so let's quickly break down some more this dialogue Jonathan says there's more here at stake than just our lives Clark or the lives of those around us when the world find out what can do it's going to change everything our beliefs are notions of what it means to be human everything people are afraid of what they don't understand and so what we get here is a glimpse into Jonathan's concerns which as we mentioned before are the same as Pok hence fears in Superman 78 we can really dig into this but maybe another time when I want you to take away from this right now more than anything else is a Jonathan says when the world find out when not if this reinforces the point that Jonathan is concerned with timing he's and shaming Clark and he is in saying the Clark must hide forever he's saying keep the secret for now until you're ready because one day the world will find out in the next few lines Clark says is she right did God do this to me tell me and implicit in this is that Clark was raised to believe in God and again we can speculate on the degree of adherence devoutness sincerity etc. but more importantly again what I want you to take away from this is how incredibly honest and forthright Jonathan is Mrs. Ross and Clark just gave Jonathan an easy out if he was a weaker and dishonest man all he would have to say is yes it was God and God moves in mysterious and unknowable ways scapegoating the God the Clark was raised to know however instead he sees Clark's pain and then he seeks to answer it with the truth so with that we finally come to the ship review and so with an episode filled with religious parallels and citations in this moment if you'll allow me again it could be interpreted very much as a confirmation and if you're not familiar with religious practices a confirmation to my understanding is a subsequent ceremony either to a baptism or bar mitzvah later in life to affirm or confirm therefore the name confirmation many of the same principles adopted in the first ceremony confirmation means that you are accepting responsibility for your faith and your destiny so for a child who was baptized as a baby with little or no free will or for a 13-year-old boy with a limited conception of adulthood the confirmation comes later in life to affirm the values of those past ceremonies under this lens you can imagine that Clark's transport to earth is either has baptism into earth's atmosphere and that this talk is a confirmation alternatively you can view this talk as his bar mitzvah and in the later scene at age 17 as his confirmation a once again a confirmation means accepting responsibility for your faith and your destiny and as David Coyer is Jewish on his mother's side and he attended Hebrew school I'm inclined to go with the bar mitzvah interpretation here a common misconception is that the bar mitzvah means that the child is fully a man but it's not being a full adult in every sense of the word for example procreating going out into the world of one's own earning a living or raising a family and this is made abundantly clear by the tell mode which sets those milestones later rather it simply the age where a person is held responsible for their actions and here Jonathan is being honest with Clark out of love but he's also putting a burden and responsibility onto Clark the knowledge of what he is in the quest to understand why this information and burden was carried by Jonathan and Martha alone to this point they did the best that they could in an era before the Internet and with limited resources and access Dylan spray Barry the actor who played Clark highlights the research that they've done for Clark when Jonathan goes to get the command key out of his little desk area that is really sprinkled look at because you notice the casinos by a lot quicker but this is actually where he does all of his research about Clark and about alien sightings in Angels ancient city busting through the years that he had Clark in my own head Ken and I imagine Jonathan can buying time life's mysteries of the unknown book series to try and get a handle on how humanity views aliens and is not favorable let me tell you I also imagine Jonathan taking the command key to Kansas State and running away terrified a discovery like that can you imagine any scientist stopping at just one question and as those unanswerable questions begin to mount Jonathan would get an idea of what Clark might be confronted with if his secret ever got answer Jonathan resolves doubly to protect Clark after that encounter so now the Clark is old enough and he has undergone a talk and a ceremony to understand the gravity of his choices and decisions he may not fully understand it at this point but he has been invited to the table to participate in the discussion and Clark is true to his parents wishes as mentioned before Clark was so impacted by the ceremony this moment that he plays it safe for the next four years and this moment continues to ring in his memory even 20 years later is funny that there is so much good stuff heart and motion virtue promise hope and love in this scene which vindicates and justifies Jonathan Kent and completely requires a line by line analysis but I've already gone way over my time so I'm just a have to cut it off here but don't worry will obviously revisit Clark's parenting in the future and in the full context of the film 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 covered 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 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 where 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 you you will is going to suddenly is really just been an accident is from go to their feelings through a always usually this is you describing to me from space to restrictions richer almost exactly how he was doing this as he is delighted is a growing number you you you you you you you you you are remarkable is you are you you you you are rely on our ordinary you explain this is you are a corner you you are a is your place is a 3.80 374 Trinity and they just 12 I you like what you a only one is the time you 231-8300 is about the you you are suddenly is why is one way to violate of the plane goes down in flames is is is is is is is is is is is very him avalanche of cold/this is going to is is is is like a with you you you you you you you you you you world engine is was it all in his mind was as much more than that is is is is is is is what you have a 3.2 2700 eczematous for day-to-day David Abeyta form I did I was to 90 a shipping and handling of follow what about every other month keep only the ones you on cavil anytime home 1-800-342-2700 and answers