Man of Steel: One heck of an unorthodox Superhero movie

Man of Steel,  for me, signifies as one heck of an unorthodox superhero movie

In stereotyped movies, superheroes have been assumed to possess the politically correct ethical behavior. But not this one.

This movie extends to the shaping of Clark Kent’s values and character mostly by his foster father and mentor, Jonathan Kent.

Like the ethics of good old kung fu movie days, the elder and fatherly Kent, impressed upon his son of the importance of self-discipline, in the fear that his adapted son’s supernatural powers would be spurned and rejected by the human society.

Gosh, this fabulous dialogue—between dad Kent and his extra-terrestrial 13-year old son over the latter’s lifesaving of his schoolmates from a drowning school bus—represents a deontological dilemma something which philosophers from different ideological camps would passionately debate on…

All quotes from the IMDb.

Jonathan Kent: You have to keep this side of yourself a secret.

Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Let them die?

[brief pause]

Jonathan Kent: Maybe...

The elder Kent knew that the supernatural powers of son would be put to good use one day, but until then should refrain from exposing himself…

Jonathan Kent: You're not just anyone. One day, you're going to have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it's going to change the world.

The sacrificing of the life of Jonathan Kent in order for Clark to realize the importance of self-discipline, in a tornado disaster, served as the climax of Clark’s moral and character training.

The movie importantly depicts of one of the greatest battles of our time: freedom versus collectivism. 

Superman’s nemesis General Zod wanted to resurrect genetically-engineered (and programmed) Kryptonians in earth via a genocide of the human race. General Zod brought into light Jeremy Bentham’s consequentialist “greatest good for the greatest number” utilitarianism

General Zod: No matter how violent, every action I take is for the greater good of my people.

Sounds familiar?

On the other hand, the reason Clark Kent’s biological Krypton father, Jor-el, sent his son Clark Kent/Kal-El (Kryptonian name) to earth was for the latter to steer his own destiny (freedom).

Jor-El: What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater?

Such ideological conflict between Jor-el and General Zod, which was carried over by son Clark Kent/Kal-El, represents the crux of the movie.

For all the film’s other minor blemishes, the Man of Steel seems as a refreshing entertainment film against the predominant populist pseudo politically correct themes.

P.J. O’Rourke On Atlas Shrugged (Movie): A Hundred Years Spent Proving Classical Liberalism Right

Libertarian author P.J. O’Rourke reviews Atlas Shrugged The Movie (source Wall Street Journal Blog; bold emphasis mine)

But I will not pan “Atlas Shrugged.” I don’t have the guts. If you associate with Randians—and I do—saying anything critical about Ayn Rand is almost as scary as saying anything critical to Ayn Rand. What’s more, given how protective Randians are of Rand, I’m not sure she’s dead.

The woman is a force. But, let us not forget, she’s a force for good. Millions of people have read “Atlas Shrugged” and been brought around to common sense, never mind that the author and her characters don’t exhibit much of it. Ayn Rand, perhaps better than anyone in the 20^thcentury, understood that the individual self-seeking we call an evil actually stands in noble contrast to the real evil of self-seeking collectives. (A rather Randian sentence.) It’s easy to make fun of Rand for being a simplistic philosopher, bombastic writer and—I’m just saying—crazy old bat. But the 20^th century was no joke. A hundred years, from Bolsheviks to Al Qaeda, were spent proving Ayn Rand right.

Then there is the audacity of bringing “Atlas Shrugged” to the screen at all. Rand devotees, starting with Rand herself, have been attempting it for 40 years. The result may be as puzzling as a nude sit-in anti-Gadhafi protest in Tripoli’s Green Square, but you have to give the participants credit for showing up.

In “Atlas Shrugged” Rand set out to prove that self-interest is vital to mankind. This, of course, is the whole point of free-market classical liberalism and has been since Adam Smith invented free-market classical liberalism by proving the same point. Therefore trying to make a movie of “Atlas Shrugged” is like trying to make a movie of “The Wealth of Nations.” But Adam Smith had the good sense to leave us with no plot, characters or melodramatic clashes of will so that we wouldn’t be tempted to try.

Patching it all up, P.J. O’Rourke simply says that a hundred years had been spent proving classical liberalism right.