It seems very unlikely that Nolan will direct at this point — particularly as writing has begun on a third “Batman” movie — but it seems like he’ll produce or exec produce, taking a role in shaping the direction, storyline, and hiring the key creative personnel for the project. So what direction will a Nolan-shepherded “Superman” take? And who are the likely candidates to actually call the shots on the project?
We’re certain that any thoughts of a “darker,” realistic, Nolan-esque Clark Kent are way off the mark; the director is clearly a very smart man, and he’ll be the first to realize that a different approach is required for Superman, whose alien origins and superpowers rule out any idea of a similarly grounded approach. Before “Batman Begins,” Batman had been, at best, a negligible presence in his own film franchise — each of the Burton/Schumacher films had focused on the villains, leaving a bland, blank lead character that any semi-good looking actor could inhibit (and in fact, did, three different actors in four films).
Nolan changed this, making for the first time a Batman movie where the title character was the most important, and it’s the psychological realism that we can see being translated here. The genius of Nolan’s take on super hero films, as flawed as they are sometimes, are that they provide a credible, contemporary explanation for why a grown man would dress up as a bat and fight crime, and taking a similar approach for Superman seems the right approach for a character who, like his D.C. stablemate, often seems dull. At the same time, though, the (relatively) angsty approach has been shown to be unpopular in “Superman Returns,” and it seems vital that Nolan hire a director with a sense for the mythic, archetypal qualities of the character, the hero of Americana, to balance this out. Few characters, Mickey Mouse aside, have such an iconic presence around the world, and at the same time the iconic American symbolic quality is the baggage that weighs Superman down as a character. That notion is largely antiquated for most sophisticated modern movies (though Bruce Willis would have been perfect in the ’80s), so Nolan, a foreigner, is ideal to not become overwhelmed with his likeness, and can instead center on the character’s psychological alienation as a stranger and foreigner on another planet (Earth).
It’s also likely, looking at the recent history of successful superhero movies (Bryan Singer on “X-Men,” Sam Raimi on “Spider-Man,” Jon Favreau on “Iron Man” and now Marc Webb on “(500) Days of Spider-Man”) that the chosen helmer will be at a similar point in their career to Nolan when he was hired for “Batman Begins” — someone who was starting to show real chops, and an affinity for fantastic or FX-driven material, but not necessarily one who’d handled a film at a similar budget level. It’ll also, we imagine, be someone with similar sensibilities to Nolan (and in that respect, perhaps British like him which might translate easier), but one that both the studio and the producer can agree on. So, we reckon, five decent candidates for the job of directing “Superman Begins”…
Alfonso Cuaron
Why He Might Do It/Why He Might Be Great For It: The Mexican-born director has already proven franchise/sfx chops on the third, and arguably still best, Harry Potter film, and then went on to make one of the best action/sci-fi movies of recent times with “Children of Men.” His work often blends a lightness of touch with big, heavy themes, and quite frankly, he’s been away from screens for too long at this point. The fact that he came close to directing the fairly-pedestrian sounding “The Tourist” suggests that he’s keen to return to directing, with his planned adaptations of Roald Dahl’s “The Witches” and Nicole Krauss’ “The History of Love” going nowhere.
What Might Prevent Him: “Children of Men” flopped at the box-office, due to mainstream audiences being stupid, and it shows in the difficulty that Cuaron’s had in getting another project going. He’s also a real auteur, and might bristle at being caught between a big studio, and another director with a clear vision for the series.
David Yates
Why He Might Do It/Why He Might Be Great For It: Like Cuaron, Yates graduated to the big time on Warner Bros’ Harry Potter series, and despite having only made TV work beforehand, has proven a remarkably steady hand, with “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince” proving the best installment since Cuaron’s. By the time the final film is released in 2011, he’ll have directed half of the entries in the biggest-grossing franchise of all time, so clearly wouldn’t be afraid of taking on another icon like Superman. Those who don’t take him seriously because of the associations with a kid’s franchise clearly haven’t seen his outstanding TV work on “State of Play” or “Sex Traffic” either.
What Might Prevent Him: Having given something like seven years of his life to a boy wizard, Yates might be keen to take on some more serious material, rather than jumping straight into another mega-franchise. Plus, while his work on the Harry Potter films is very strong so far, it also errs on the side of being workmanlike — does Nolan want someone who’ll translate the “Batman” director’s vision for the character on screen, or, as we suspect, would he rather hire another auteur, and protect their vision?
Kevin Macdonald
Why He Might Do It/Why He Might Be Great For It: Macdonald’s increased his scope with every entry in his filmography, from the gripping docu-drama “Touching the Void,” through “The Last King of Scotland” and “State of Play,” to the upcoming period actioner “The Eagle of the Ninth” (the best example of his canvass widening) and it seems like he’s ready to step up to blockbusters. His sensibilities aren’t a million miles away from Nolan’s, and he showed a good grasp of American iconography in the Washington-set thriller “State of Play.”
What Might Prevent Him: Like almost all of the directors on our list, Macdonald isn’t American, and some would argue that, to take on a true American icon such as Superman, you need a domestic director. Though like Nolan (not American), we feel the the counter-argument is that many of the best looks at Americana, from Milos Forman to Sam Mendes, have been by foreign-born helmers. Aside from that, Macdonald’s background in documentaries doesn’t quite fit the broad, mythic level storytelling needed for the character, and his fiction films, while generally pretty good, have never been outstanding. But, ‘Eagle Of The Ninth’ could change all that.
Duncan Jones
Why He Might Do It/Why He Might Be Great For It: Coming off a fantastic debut, the underrated, but beloved sci-film, “Moon,” starring Sam Rockwell, the inventive and resourceful Duncan Jones proved two incredibly vital cinematic elements that need to apply to “Superman”: 1) He created amazingly realistic effects for the price of a song — and using no CGI to boot, “Moon” was made for less than $10 million and looked phenomenal (imagine what he can do with a real budget). 2) It’s a contemporary sci-fi fan favorite, but “Moon” wouldn’t be the picture it is if it had just simply nailed the aesthetics. Rich in mood, tenor, emotion, Jones demonstrated he is more than capable balancing effects, atmosphere and character and knows how to work with actors (Rockwell’s performance is exemplary and the one actor carries the entire film).
What Might Prevent Him: Like Neill Blomkamp (see further below), Jones looks like he’s much more interested in original works than tent-poles. His next picture is a sci-fi film called, “Source Code” — the script of which is its best kind in years — and he also penned another screenplay on his own for a sci-fi mystery film called, “Mute” (honestly, this script is d.o.a dull and we love him, but he should move on). But the chance to work with an icon character from an outsider perspective with a fellow Englishman (and directing superstar) like Christopher Nolan? How could he refuse if the opportunity arose?
Andrew Niccol
Why He Might Do It/Why He Might Be Great For It: Simply put, Niccol could use a hit and some work. While he may be considered “cold” right now in terms of being in demand, he’s still an immensely talented stylist who could be cheap to bring on board. If “Superman” heads down the darker path like Nolan’s Batman films, Niccol certainly has the visual and tonal sensibility as evidenced in both “Gattaca” and “Lord Of War” to bring a unique stamp to this reboot. Moreover, of all the directors listed here, the one with the most to prove and who will be least likely to butt heads with Nolan, who will be shaping the project.
What Might Prevent Him: With three films in the last fourteen years — each directed from his own scripts — Niccol doesn’t seem to be in any hurry and may prefer to march to the beat of his own drum. He’s also untested handling franchise material and has never helmed a picture even close to the size of “Superman” which may prove to be a roadblock with the studio who might want to go with someone who at least has been in a similar ballpark before.
Honorable Mentions: The Playlist staff came up with a pretty broad list of names initially, and while we narrowed it down to the five above, there’s a few others that should be addressed. Plenty of people are mentioning Neill Blomkamp’s name, as tends to happen with any genre project in search of a director these days, but, to reiterate what we said in our “Spider-Man” piece; the man is keen to get his own pet projects out there, and we don’t see him taking a franchise on at this stage. There were a few directors that we think would be absolutely perfect, but probably are too well-established, and would be unlikely to defer to Nolan – Brad Bird and Peter Weir being among them. Doug Liman’s name also came up, however his reputation for chaotic shoots is likely to precede him. Francis Lawrence (“Constantine,” “I Am Legend”) would make sense from Warners’ perspective, as he’s handled some big effects movies, which weren’t totally awful, but we’re not sure it’s a choice that Nolan would get behind — as one staff member here put it: “He’s too far up Joel Silver’s ass. And both those two aforementioned movies suck.”
In terms of more left-field picks, Mark Romanek is another director who seems ready to jump up to the big leagues, but his bailing on “The Wolfman” (smart, smart guy…) suggests a certain lack of will to play ball with interfering studios/producers. Some of us advocated for “Assassination of Jesse James” helmer Andrew Dominik, and he’d nail the lyrical quality of the character beautifully (particularly, if many have advocated, the reboot takes hints from Grant Morrison’s excellent “All-Star Superman,” the first take on the character in years that’s aroused any interest in us), but we severely doubt the current Warners regime would hire him, considering the bad blood that followed the Brad Pitt western. The guy that doesn’t have a chance in hell of getting the gig, but we’d throw all our weight behind? James Marsh. Like Macdonald, Marsh has a background in documentary, but has made strong inroads into fiction with “Red Riding” and “The King.” But the real proof in the pudding is “Man on Wire,” which works with the exact same kind of sense of awe and wonder, and American iconography, we feel that a Superman movie should have.
But ultimately, WB haven proven for some time now they don’t know what they want here. Nolan’s films are generally dark, all of them. He probably knows better than to give Superman a dark treatment, but we wouldn’t be surprised in a year from now, when things come together, if he and WB don’t see eye to eye. Just see the past history of all the iterations of Superman overseen by Tim Burton, Kevin Smith and J.J. Abrams. WB has flirted with out there takes on the mythos, but ultimately always played it pretty safe. Superman is a deceptively difficult character to adapt and make interesting. Unlike most other contemporary super heroes with angst and existential problems, he doesn’t have the psychological issues that Batman or Wolverine does. And if he does, well it was pretty well explored with “Superman Returns,” at least on some level (we like that film, even though it’s not perfect).
In that Bryan Singer film, Superman, in a way, is pretty aloof, and you don’t get to the heart of that character, other than that he loves Lois Lane and left the planet to figure out his identity and who he was, but that aspect is only briefly explored. WB doesn’t want an emo Superman, but the psychology behind superheroes, what makes them put on masks and identities, is what makes them interesting, not their powers. And Superman, as Tarantino noted in “Kill Bill 2,” has a reverse mask. Clark Kent is his affectation. It’s a lot harder to adapt this character in today’s sophisticated super hero world than it is with someone like Batman, who in a way is a raving lunatic with serious issues. Superman on the other hand was always one of the most well-adjusted, sensible super heroes around, who’s biggest issue was how to properly portray himself as a total, forgettable nerd so he’d blend in with the rest of this alien society he’s in. This won’t be easy from an emotional point of view to make for a compelling story, unless WB is really willing to let Nolan leave his mark and dig a little deeper. — Oliver Lyttelton with contributions by Kevin Jagernauth & RP