Skip to main content

A Half-Baked Supergirl Film Resists Setting Itself Apart

Supergirl has always been essentially just a female derivation of Superman. From back in the days when just a bland gender-swap was deemed enough in the comics industry to make up for a lack of female characters -Batgirl is just the same. There is something inherently condescending about the character’s existence, and it does feel especially so when she is the subject of the sophomore feature for a new cinematic universe. It is weird that James Gunn and Peter Safran at DC would jump to her this quickly as opposed to someone like Wonder Woman. Supergirl has evolved of course into more of a distinct character over the years but that is not known to general audiences who see the name and iconography as merely piggy-backing off of a more successful entity.
This movie, Supergirl, acknowledges that throughout, whether by ham-fistedly commenting on the laziness of such a designation as mere counterpart to a man (and referring to Kara Zor-El as a ‘girl’ despite being an adult in this universe and barely a decade younger than Superman) or by frequently being compared to that man in her style and actions -she even at one point has to vocalize them out loud in case the audience hasn’t picked up on it. It is something that does bog down this movie that otherwise has some curious things going for it where it can get away from its associations.
One mild effort to do that is in the film's setting which is almost exclusively off-Earth, though a very mundane universe that resembles the less inspired corners of Star Wars or Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy. Milly Alcock plays Kara, Superman's cousin and in a convoluted way a fellow survivor of Krypton. Whilst celebrating a birthday bender across a series of worlds she encounters a girl called Ruthye (Eve Ridley) seeking help on a quest of vengeance against Krem (Matthias Schoenaerts) the leader of a sect called the Brigands engaged in intergalactic sex trafficking after he murdered her family. Kara is reluctant to lend a hand until her dog Krypto is shot with a lethal dart by these same villains and the only antidote is in his possession. As they embark on this vendetta, Kara reflects on her past and the traumas that have made her cynical in contrast to her cousin's optimism.
The film is based on a very specific comic story called Woman of Tomorrow, one of the more critically acclaimed outings featuring the character, and the movie gives you a clue as to why. It does solidly contrast both the story and perspective of Supergirl to her better-known analogue, framing it against a very involved plot that both gives Supergirl a surrogate character to impress upon (potentially not in a good way) and a context that makes for a harsh mirror on the under-discussed horrors of modern sexual slavery and exploitation. And it is a credit to DC and this film's producers that they are willing to confront that head-on.
But the movie barely ever relates the weight of any of that, and a part of that starts with Supergirl's characterization. The intent clearly is to cast her as a devil-may-care punk -the polar opposite of the ‘girlboss’ archetype, just the epitome of that one Anna shot from Frozen -what a real impulsive, irresponsible girl in her twenties might be like if she happened to have superhuman powers and the ability to go to other sophisticated planets. It’s not a bad concept and there is a way that it could work, but as drawn here she is almost just a flat stereotype. The movie goes to the well of her apathy and attitude so frequently and with an air of desperation in conveying its supposed coolness it becomes vapid and disengaging very quickly. Alcock plays it as best she can, on paper she is very good fit -and that sense of cute spunkiness she brings breaks through in ways that are effective every now and again. But the movie struggles to define her dimensions, much as flashbacks that detail her origin story endeavour to cast her in a more nuanced light. The same is true of her ethics, which are meant to be a little bit more questionable -and this complexity when focused on is more interesting. But it still feels insufficiently earned. And though comparisons to Superman are indeed not helpful, it’s worth noting that while his sincerity was a breath of fresh air, her sometimes quippy cynicism doesn’t feel very distinct from the old Marvel formula.
Kara is written by a woman screenwriter -Ana Nogueira- but the film’s director is a man, Craig Gillespie, last seen failing in similar ways to bring depth to a female Disney villain. A feminine voice running the show isn’t necessarily vital in this case -the comic was written by Tom King- but Gillespie not having a grasp on who this character is, unable to tap into her personality beyond a kind of superficial youthful nonchalance is part of the problem. It is true also for Ruthye, one of the most dully written comic book characters in a while -a middling Arya Stark clone and mere device of a character for Kara played with a void of charisma by Ridley.
Following the pair of them chasing down another extraordinarily mediocre villain can make for an exhausting time, each of their personal motivations somewhat cheap plays at audience sympathy as though the subject of sexual slavery itself is not enough of a factor -for the less cynical character, Ruthye, it ought to be. Yet the movie is a little fearful of engaging with that head-on, determined to keep to safer contours of revenge. It is still quite broadly a risk-averse movie, in structure and in subject. Kara's arc unfolds exactly as expected, the action beats and one-liners are wielded as cudgels when an idea or set-piece runs out of steam, and even the effort to make a proposed action morally grey feels very tepid -the hypocritical ethical high horse the movie gives Kara was never one with much stock in it to begin with.
However, those action scenes are sometimes fun, utilizing well the geography of the space and some of the more inventive aspects or characters around it. Kara spends most of the movie outside of the Supergirl suit too so that its iconography isn’t made into a crutch (it’s also not a particularly interesting design, she looks better in her more comfortable clothes). Alcock holds her own comfortably as well -the script and characterization may not suit her but leading a movie certainly does; and on the occasions where she is asked to be a bit more serious and vulnerable she delivers well. The momentum of the narrative pauses at one point for Kara to reflect on her origin story, allowing this DC iteration its version of the death of Krypton while squaring that a little awkwardly with some of the related worldbuilding Superman had set up (notably around the attitudes of his own parents). The story itself is tiresome -all an excuse to explain how she too survived but in a different way than Superman, yet without the segment giving her much material she conveys well those emotions of innocence, skepticism, and wariness, truly a different person to who she is in the bulk of the film. Origin stories are way too common in superhero media, this might have been one though that we should have seen. Lastly, it bears acknowledging that Jason Momoa plays an almost entirely meaningless bounty hunter character called Lomo who is a lot of cheesy fun -really, a highlight of the last act of the movie.
Supergirl is a very wobbly second entry into this new regime at DC, and though it is bold and colourful in its own ways it does nothing to indicate a very versatile direction for this universe. Its association with and deliberate references to Superman hamstring it a little, which also only emphasizes more its lacklustre handling of the characters and their story. A lot of the ideas at play here were good, but they needed a sharper, less blunt script and a more rounded personality leading the story -if not in the titular character then in her junior audience avatar. Supergirl, in her first movie in forty-two years, might have been able to outshine her affable cousin -instead she remains in his shadow more than ever before.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more