Singerman on the other hand took this to unprecedented levels and had all the subtlety of sledgehammer to the groin. We seemingly got beat over the head with Stations of the Cross visuals at every turn. Half the time I was expecting Routh to say 'See! Just like Jesus!" which is a bit odd considering Singer is ya know, Jewish and all. For all those who think we were reading too much in to the film, Singer himself has basically just copped to the whole thing, and doesn't seem one damn bit ashamed about it either. Superhero Hype has up an interview Singer did with some guy named Stephen Skelton, who recently authored a book about the religous parallels in Superman lore called The Gospel According to the World's Greatest Superhero. If you can make it through him sucking up to Singer more and more with each passing moment, there's actually some pretty revealing stuff in the interview.
Skelton: Time magazine said, "Earlier versions of Superman stressed the hero's humanity…The Singer version emphasizes his divinity…He is Earth's savior: Jesus Christ Superman." However, I take a little bit of an issue with that. Certainly Donner's "Superman: The Movie" stressed the parallels to Christ, as you were touching on before we started the interview. Now, I think I know the answer to this. But do you see your version as different or similar in that regard? Doesn't it pick up from what Donner was doing and kick it up a notch?
Singer: It celebrates that notion. These stories are told in so many different ways. From Sunday School to pop culture. You're not saying that Superman is Jesus Christ. He's not. He's Superman. He's the last son of the planet Krypton; he's in love with Lois Lane; he has a human side. There's a lot of things going on here that are a product of comic fantasy. But if you're going to have lines like Marlon Brando saying, "I send them you—my only son." And there being spoken with absolute seriousness, then when you carry it forward and you have him return after five years, face an immeasurable conflict and then… I mean, it's all... I mean, if you're going to tell that story, you've got to tell it all the way. You've got scouring at the pillar, the spear of destiny, death, resurrection,
it's all there. And I remember sitting with one of my writers and we were
watching the visual effects of him [Superman] falling to Earth. And his hands
are extended and he falls to Earth in that very…
Umm Christ was put to death and accepted his fate for the good of mankind. Singerman ignored what his infinitely intelligent father told him about his home world, left on a whim not caring about the good of mankind, and then returned only to ruin the relationship of the person he allegedley loved but left without telling, and then fight a giant island. I don't see how telling THAT story evokes the need to beat us over the head "all the way" with all of the savior allegories he lists out? Superman wouldn't refer to himself as a "savior" either. He has the utmost humility, not a God complex. Singerman wasn't a savior, he was a jerkoff.
Skelton: It's the crucifixion pose; it's beautiful; it's fantastic.At this point in the interview, you pretty much lose any respect for the interviewer.
Singer: "We're going to tell the story. If we're going to tell this story, some parts are going to be subtle. But this one is not." And we were in the theater, he was visiting the effects session, just looking what I was doing, and I just said, "Either we're going to tell it or we're not." Either we're going to have him float down kind of in [the position of the crucifixion]or not. And it's entirely plausible the way we left him in the scene, in the moment, that he falls in that position and then he falls out of it. But if there was ever a time to hammer it home, this is it. Visually, this is it. And what's wonderful is when you see it with an audience. And I worried, that there could be a snicker. But instead you could hear a pin drop.
Why? Why is it all or nothing? I dont get this. Far greater talents like Donner and Mankiewicz were content with leaving it to a few lines of expository dialogue and letting the audience draw their own inferences. Why must anything like this be "hammered home" anyway? Donner's Superman was given the type of characterization to do this type of thing and didn't even take it that far. Singerman on the other hand acts anything BUT Christ-like over the course of the film. So the imagery sticks out like a sore thumb. It's like the guy who acts like an idiot 6 days a week but then suddenly becomes pious at church on Sunday. You don't buy it. As for the "pin dropping," was this the infamous "friends and family" screening?
It's a rather long interview, and the rest of it is more of the same. The interviewer gushing and telling Singer how smart he is (we know he LOVES that), and then Singer explaining how all of his different scenes have some kind of religous subtext, when in fact most of them are pretty damn overt. It becomes all the more comical being that had he actually written Singerman to act like the actual Superman, some of it might have had some actual depth to it. But since his main characterization didn't reflect the one from the source material that spawned the religous comparisons in the first place, most of it is lost and is basically just hollow imagery that winds up annoying the audience and insulting their intelligence.