A Quick Appraisal of Glass

I really really liked Glass. In fact, I’ve become surprised by how much I keep liking it. I found myself pondering its meaning all the following day. Granted, it’s not your typical superhero film. It’s more of a psychological thriller that uses the comic book/superhero genre as a vehicle to mostly talk about other things. On a first viewing, I think the film is doing three things:

1)      The film explores the idea that childhood traumatic suffering can manifest itself in heightened abilities.

2)      “Super powers” have a rational, scientific basis and real-world explanation … but that doesn’t make them less amazing.

Interestingly, in combining these two, the film is odd in how it weds Freudian concepts of childhood trauma with Jungian concepts of heroic archetypes.

3)      And while there is only some overt criticism of the contemporary superhero genre, a subtle critique manifests itself suggesting that the psychological origins of "heroes" is more real and substantive than its popular conception.

On top of this are the verbal and plot clues to the meaning, including the cinematic shots. These are what I liked about Unbreakable. Of course, James McAvoy’s performance was once again sublime. I believe it was even better than that in Split. He seems to effortlessly jump between 20 different personalities, changing his facial expressions, posture, and mannerisms with each character.

Now I understand why critics may not like Glass. 1) It’s doesn’t neatly fit into the superhero genre, 2) it’s more of a psychological think piece than an action film, 3) it inevitably points out the shallowness of most other films. But these are the very reasons why I really liked Glass.