Singer Likes Him Some Jesus in his Singerman

One of the MANY criticisms of Singerman was the repetitive, over-the-top Christ imagery in the film. We know there are obvious parallels in the tales of Jesus Christ and to a lesser extent Moses, with that of Superman. Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz took this up a notch in Superman: The Movie with how they chose to portray Marlon Brando's Jor-El. It was pretty subtle stuff, put into his dialogue about "sending his only son" and having Kal-El be the "light to show them the way." Nothing really obvious or "eye-roll worthy." You understood where they were going with it, but it didn't offend the senses or overshadow parts of the film.

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.

Singer: "The Pirates Plundered my Booty."

Proving once again that "denial" ain't just a river that flows backwards in Egypt, "Quint" at Ain't It Cool News posted an interview today with "Lord Singer" that was done back at Comic Con. If you can sort through the rear-end kissing, Singer seems to basically be sticking to the same story, although this time he's got some new culprits. (We're guessing the Studio told him to knock off the digs at the marketing department.)

QUINT: So, what'd you think of the overall reaction to the film? I know it's really hard to find anything positive online. People seem to be quick to call anything that's not a record breaker a failure. I saw that happen with KONG.

BRYAN SINGER: Well, there's great affection for the picture and I feel... You know, it comes in all different ways. Sometimes it comes with the domestic box office, sometimes it comes in the international box office. Sometimes it comes in letters from your idols who have never written to you before and from their families. Sometimes it comes from coming down here and having a few people say, "Why didn't you do this?" and a few people who say, "Thank you so much." I can only make a movie I think someone will watch 10 years or 20 years from now and say, "Oh, I'm affected by it!" Or a movie that maybe a woman who doesn't come to these kinds of movies will actually watch and get choked up about. That's kind of the idea here.

Where to start? There's "great affection" for the film because of the domestic box office? Nope. The international box office? No not quite, considering your still tracking $20 million behind Batman Begins internationally (though we're SURE it'll be HUGE in Japan). So that leaves personal letters from Singer's idols and some geeks at the Con who wouldve been happy with any piece of terd they were given so long as it had the "S" on it? If that's not evidence of mass appeal, I dont know what is. We're also glad to hear he made the movie so that some woman who doesnt go to superhero movies can go cry like she's watching Beaches. I mean, why make Superman the blockbuster action-adventure extravaganza he should be, when you can make female stereotypes cry?

QUINT: And it seems that across the board people agree on Brandon Routh as Superman.

BRYAN SINGER: Well, that was the key. That was the key. I had to introduce this guy and if that didn't work... And sometimes it takes a certain kind of movie. And by the way, in terms of people's perceptions on domestic box office, this is going up in the face of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, a sequel, but secondly... the last time a SUPERMAN movie was out was a long time ago and its cumulative domestic gross was $15 million.

First off, the box office questions must be bugging him since he stopped dead in his tracks on a question about Routh and went back to it. Secondly, he turns fanboy and pins the movies issues on POTC2, even though it was flat out of the gate for 9 days before POTC2 debuted. Then, like a drowning man he gets desperate and pulls out the box office gross of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace from 1987??? He basically felt that film was so bad he wrote it out of existence with his "pseudo-sequel" to Superman II, but now he wants to quote it for explaining the box office issues of Singerman???

QUINT: I've also noticed this trend in box office that is pretty different from how things used to work. Back in the day, even great sequels usually didn't match, much less surpass, the box office of the original. Now, I'm noticing that box office on sequels tend to reflect more on the film that came before it. Look at the box office for the MATRIX sequels (RELOADED was huge, REVOLUTIONS was half as big) and LORD OF THE RINGS, with each successive film making more money than the one before it. The box office seems to be genuinely affected by the film that came before it. Look at PIRATES and X2...
BRYAN SINGER: And X3! Look at the opening of X3! Jesus!

In a court of law, they'd call that "leading the witness." Singer seems more than happy to agree. Unfortunately for Quint, he's forgotten about a tiny film franchise called "Spider-man" that flies in the face of his supposed "trend" of sequels grossing more. He also seems to forget that sequels tend to "up the ante" which means bigger budgets, especially in the cases of the films he listed. Has Singerman really warranted a bigger budget sequel like X2 did? What's Singer going to do if WB brings him back (let's hope that's NOT the case) with a $150 million budget? He couldnt put enough action in a film with $204 million at his disposal, what the hell are we gonna get with less?

QUINT: I think that once you have that audience in place you'll hit it big. That why I keep telling people that a SUPERMAN sequel only makes sense for Warner Bros. It's a good time to have franchises right now... SUPERMAN RETURNS will make its money back no matter what...

Christ Quint can you unattach your lips from his rearend long enough to finish the interview? Usually I love your stuff , but c'mon man... "Superman Returns is the bestest in the world! Bryan Singer Rules! YAY!!!"

BRYAN SINGER: It already has!

Uhh no, no it hasn't. It still hasnt made it's money back considering the studio only sees about half the WW box office. It hasnt made it back now, and it surely hadn't done so at Comic Con. Perhaps sometime after DVD release the film will pass the breakeven point. You're living in a dream world, where Studios get 100% of the ticket revenue and Superman movies are for making lonely women cry.