Objectivity (Mini-essay)

In the 1978 film Superman: The Movie by Richard Donner, almost nobody flies. Lois Lane, Jimmy Olson, Lex Luthor, Perry White and a whole host of other characters do not fly. For the first act of the film, nobody flies at all, not even on Krypton, the planet Superman is from. Then, in the second act, something absolutely shocking happens. Superman, having learned about the full extent of his powers, lifts off the ground and flies.
This is, overwhelmingly, not remembered as poor writing, despite the fact that nobody in the film flies before this, nobody else flies throughout the film, and nothing really indicates that Superman will be able to fly before this point.
There is a textual reason why Superman can fly, of course. He’s really light. Or maybe he has anti-gravity organs. Or maybe he can will himself in different directions with Psionic energy.
It doesn’t really matter textually why Superman can fly. The much more important reason nobody is surprised when Superman flies is the meta-textual one. This is a Superman movie, and you don’t want to see a Superman movie where Superman doesn’t fly. It’s an essential part of the character.
In fact, it’s so essential that the tagline of the movie is “You’ll believe a man can fly.”

A culture has evolved online of trying to push for “objective” discussion in art criticism. This culture came about first as people trying to assert that their opinions about media were objectively right, and then shifting to the stance that it was fine for other people to have their subjective opinions, but that a piece of art’s value could be measured in some objective terms, which were the criteria these people valued more.
For example, when a fictional world establishes rules, but then breaks those rules, that is objectively bad writing.
Now, even putting aside the fundamental fact that stories and art in general can be absolutely whatever they want, even putting aside the fact that some of the most successful and powerful storytelling has been done without firmly established rules (think David Lynch, or Annihilation), even ignoring that this point of view throws out everything subtextual and thematic in art in favour of a “there is no meaning, only lore” approach, even looking at this critical lens on its own home territory - mass media blockbuster comic book movies - I think we run into problems pretty fast.
For example if we were to look at Superman: The Movie with this lens of supposed objectivity, the rules set down by the world, for the first part of the film are that nobody can fly, including people from Krypton. Then, in the second act, when Superman flies, the rules change from nobody can fly to nobody except Superman can fly.
The movie doesn’t break objective rules about screenwriting and art, the understood rules of the world change when new information is provided. As I said, this isn’t surprising, because the audience expects this when going to see to see a Superman film. These are things that are supposed to happen, because doing incredible things like flying are essential to the character, and moreover the meaning of any art about that character.
In the case of Superman: The Movie, what is the meaning that they use the character of Superman to convey? For me, it’s contained within two key moments. The first one is when Clark Kent, at Jonathan Kent’s funeral, stricken with grief, says “All these things I can do - these powers - and I couldn’t even save him.” This is the point at which Superman learns there are going to be challenges he can’t overcome, such as his father having a heart attack. This sets up a theme that will later be resolved when Lois Lane dies and Superman has to turn back time to save her. The second moment is when Superman brings Lex Luthor and his goon Otis to jail, and the prison warden thanks him, and Superman responds “don’t thank me warden, we’re all on the same side” which establishes the theme that Superman is a fucking cop which cements the message of the film that while you may not be able to solve every problem, it’s better to try to solve every problem, and if we work together toward that goal, a better world is possible. Kum-ba-yah etc etc.
Marvel movies, which are really the bread and butter of this objectivist criticism movement, by-and-large trade in a message of empowerment. This message of empowerment has some undertones of neoliberal individual responsibility which are quite unpleasant, but mostly they’re feel-good blockbusters for the whole family with a common theme between these films in which when people try hard enough they can succeed at whatever they set their mind to. At first they can’t do the thing, and then with no material change but having learned some lessons they try again and can do the thing.
Strangely, these films tend to draw the ire of the objective criticism crowd when the protagonist of the movie is a person of colour or a woman, and not when it’s a white man. This accusation will pretty much switch off anyone from this group from my arguments because I’ve shown my agenda and accused them of being bigots.
Nonetheless, a common example of their reasoning is that characters like Black Widow, who has no powers, shouldn’t be able to beat large men in a fight because she’s just a woman, and objectively women are statistically weaker, right?
The obvious understanding the audience has when they see Black Widow beat up a big man is that she is really good at fighting. The rules of the world shift from the assumption she can’t beat larger more powerful opponents in a fight to the assumption that she can. After all, she may not have powers, but she is a hero in a superhero movie.
The fundamental difference here is that Black Widow winning a fight that seems unlikely stretches their suspension of disbelief beyond levels they can maintain, and suspension of disbelief is just about the most subjective thing I can imagine.
They won’t believe a woman could win a fight, but they’ll believe a man can fly.