Language

Advertising byAdpathway

‘Superman’: a hero in a time of villains

3 weeks ago 16

PROTECT YOUR DNA WITH QUANTUM TECHNOLOGY

Advertising by Adpathway

Interpretation is a fascinating thing. From religion and mythology to art and entertainment, and, in our modern time, science and fact, how one chooses to interpret an event, item, or idea speaks volumes about that person, their values, and their view of the world. On some occasions interpretation is a completely innocuous thing, like debating on the color of a dress or the sound of a word. On other occasions, interpretation can have shattering consequences.

In his 1883 book Also sprach Zarathustra¸ German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche introduces the concept of the Übermensch as an ideal for humanity, a figure which has shifted away from the supernatural aspects of Christianity and become the perfect, grounded human. Nietzsche, according to some interpretations, intended this as a rejection of the post-life focus of religion and an embrace of our world, our lives, and our humanity. Unfortunately, Nietzsche died in 1900, three decades before Adolph Hitler re-interpreted the Übermensch to symbolize a master race, which was of course his own. He then used this interpretation as justification for the systematic detainment and slaughter of Jewish and ethnic minorities throughout Germany. Meanwhile, in New York, writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, children of Jewish immigrants, altered a character from their earlier collaborations into a hero they called Superman.

Thus, it has always been my interpretation that Superman, in the form we have all come to know, was created as a response to the rise of Nazism. Perhaps this is an ill-informed idea built on coincidences of timing and poor translation, but one thing that should be beyond all debate is that Superman, a hero born on the planet Krypton and sent as the last survivor of his race to inspire and protect the people of Earth, has always been an alien. Jewish or not, Superman is an immigrant. There is no other way to interpret this character.

As the first theatrical release in the revitalization of the DC Universe, Superman makes this fact as prominent as the “S” on Kal-El’s chest. Throughout the film, both allies and enemies refer to him as “The Kryptonian.” The robots which maintain his Fortress of Solitude comfort him by playing the last video sent from his parents in their native language, which they translate for audience convenience. His outsider status is a major justification in the main conflict. Even the film’s opening seconds are devoted to a remarkably creative text crawl ending with Superman defying American alliances to prevent a war between two countries. If there is one idea writer-director James Gunn wants to impart it’s that Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman is not American. If there is one other idea Gunn wants everyone to know it’s that Superman is a good person.

For the last twenty years pop culture has been obsessed with the idea of an evil Superman. Superman: Red Son, DCeased, the entire Injustice universe, and countless other comics are built around evil Superman. Homelander, Omni-Man, the James Gunn-produced Brightburn were based upon evil Superman. Even the DC Universe’s previous incarnation as the DCEU was planned to culminate in a grand conflict between Batman and a handful of other characters against evil Superman. At this point the concept of “What if Superman was evil” is so cliché that the most refreshing take on the character has become: What if Superman was good? Thus, whether accurate or not, it’s my interpretation that Superman was created as a response to the Snyderverse.

In contrast to Henry Cavill’s stoic, unflinching, callous, at times wooden interpretation, David Corenswet (who, coincidently or not, is also Jewish) is sensitive, affable, empathetic, at times overly sentimental. Cavill killed his enemies and wouldn’t save his own father. Corenswet bemoans the death of a monster and spares a moment to save a squirrel. The very opening scene shows his vulnerability in a way that Snyder would never have allowed. Where Snyder’s version of Superman was hyper-masculine – all anger and confidence and hairy chest and tossing himself at Lois as though Snyder’s entire pitch was “What if Superman f**ked?” – Gunn’s version presents a quieter, more modern, and, in my opinion, stronger form of masculinity, one that considers his impact on others, admits his mistakes, actually cares about saving people, and offers to cook a meal to celebrate three months of a first date. Where the Snyderverse was, in my opinion, built on a fundamental misinterpretation of the character, dismissing everything that Siegel and Shuster meant for him to embody, even overburdening his films with constant Christ imagery, this new DC Universe wants us to remember that Superman is just that: a super man. He was never meant to be a god. He was meant to be the best of humanity, flaws and all. Where Snyder showed no reverence whatsoever for Superman’s establish mythos and character, Gunn displays so much respect that it becomes almost burdensome.

As a filmmaker that started in the tradition of Troma, James Gunn has an exceptionally sharp, at times almost cruel, sense of humor. This humor is on full display in his earliest films Slither and Super and peeks out at times in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 before roaring back in Suicide Squad and Peacemaker, his previous two entries in the DC Universe. Superman, however, finds him in an emotional state more equivalent to that of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and Holiday Special, where his humor wrapped itself around an emotional core. Trouble is that what gave Vol. 3 such an emotional impact was the hours we spent watching these characters come together. It was the connections they had to each other and we had toward them. As a first film, and a solo character, we simply don’t have that same connection to Superman. Sure, we have come to know the character through the decades, but we’ve just met this interpretation of him.

Further, beyond not really being in his character, Superman doesn’t have anyone to riff with nor is there any darkness in his humor. Corsenswet and Rachel Brosnahan (Lois Lane) do an excellent job portraying the awkwardness of not yet being a couple, but few of the many other side characters offer much. The Justice Gang of Guy Gardner (Nathan Fillion), Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced), and Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi) don’t have the team dynamic to make their scenes come together, while the Daily Planet crew is either too thinly drawn (Mikaela Hoover’s Cat Grant), too little used (Wendell Pierce’s Perry White), or bafflingly miscast (Skylar Gisondo’s Jimmy Olsen). Of these, the easy standout is Gathegi, who lives up to the name of Mr. Terrific, but even he is secondary to the film’s main breakout character in Kyrpto, a dog so super that he serves as Superman’s cavalry. It doesn’t help that the dialog is very direct and basic, with none of the playfulness that made Guardians or Peacemaker fun to watch. It’s earnest and old-fashioned, but also bland.

In this sense, Gunn hamstrings himself by taking on a property that doesn’t allow him to shine as a filmmaker. There is an innocence and goofy fun to it all. It’s understandable that Gunn wants us to revere Superman the way he does. He wants us to feel the same joy he does. He wants us to see Superman with the same wonder that the character deserves. He wants us to love the character. We’re very fond, but not quite there yet. While he’s fully committed to this relationship, we still need more time to figure out if this is what we want.

For all their flaws, the Snyderverse films had an undeniable intensity to them. Part of this was due to their misunderstanding of the characters, an edginess that made them feel unsafe. Superman never has that same feeling. Every new action scene feels like a delay before Clark inevitably saves the day. He should. That’s his character. Yet that also makes for a less engaging story. We know that no matter the stakes nothing big or permanent is going to happen and we don’t yet have the emotional connection needed care if it does. It doesn’t help that Nicholas Hoult, talented as he may be, doesn’t have the gravitas to make Lex Luther feel like more than a rich kid throwing a hissy fit. His plan does allow Gunn to make some nice commentary on both social and traditional media, and the fragility of billionaire narcissists jealous that other people get more attention than them (sound familiar?), but a second act twist that should fundamentally alter Superman’s relationship with both the world and himself doesn’t actually result in any such change. Several elements that feel like they should be major plot points end up being dropped when they should have been developed.

As different as they are, both Man of Steel and Superman share the same ultimate flaw of numbing the audience. For Man of Steel, it was the relentlessness of a forty-minute adrenaline surge. For Superman, it’s having so many things happening at the same time that it becomes overwhelming. The effects are gorgeous, as realistic as anything done before, and yet something about the various action sequences doesn’t feel as inspired as those in Gunn’s previous films. After decades of superhero movies, a fight scene set to an incongruously upbeat song is as cliché as an evil Superman. The film looks amazing, and this is the version of Clark that we need, it’s just too bad that we don’t connect with the film itself as much as we should. For all its efforts¸ Superman is actually kind of boring. Where Superman does succeed, perhaps more than any in the franchise before it, is in capturing what is truly great about the character. Superman’s great strength is in being good.

Thus, it is my interpretation that Superman, in this form, was created as a response to the rise of Tr*mpism.

In a scene partway through, Jonathan Kent expresses the opinion that children should not be held responsible for the actions of their parents. He says the role of a parent is to allow children to grow and learn and make their own mistakes. This, to me, is the heart of the film, the idea that where we come from, the location and the circumstances of our birth, does not dictate who we are. We can be great regardless of where we come from or how we got here. In the same month that a fragile, billionaire narcissist is attempting to detain American citizens based on the birth of their parents, we need a film and a character like Superman to remind us that immigrants are not something to fear. That we are not defined by where we were born but by who we become.

Let’s face it, we are living in a time of villains. Donald Tr*mp, Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, Robert Kennedy Jr., Sean Combs, Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, Logan Paul, everywhere we look the bad guys are winning. They are robbing us of our health, our safety, our money, our humanity, our future, and they aren’t punished for any of it. What we all used to agree is evil – fraud, sexual assault, dictatorship, fascism – is being twisted and misinterpreted into something to celebrate. Right wingers are using modern forms of the Übermensch to become exactly like those of Siegel and Shuster’s time, once again justifying the systematic detainment and likely slaughter of those who, of course, don’t look like them, It’s even reached the point where stating that Superman is and always has been an immigrant is enough to outrage their followers. Interpretation is a fascinating thing. Misinterpretation is a dangerous one.

In Superman, writer-director James Gunn may not have given the DC Universe, or some filmgoers, the movie that we wanted, but he has given us Superman as he was always meant to be, the best of humanity, flaws and all.

We don’t need another evil Superman.
We need more super men.

(And women. And non-binary. But, you know, I was going for thematic rhyme over inclusion.)