Superman is the quintessential American superhero. His name is a byword for exceptional performance in a way that is almost hyperbolic, and his red cape and blue suit with the iconic red “S” is a symbol that is recognized around the world. From his creation in the 1930s, Superman has had a special place in American culture, and throughout the many decades of his existence, the character of Superman has remained pretty consistent. He has always been faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, all while fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. This perception is what people imagine when they think of Superman. In fact, this idea is so well-known and commonly accepted that you might say it is the only image of Superman that Americans are comfortable with.
This past summer saw the release of Man of Steel, the long-awaited reboot of the Superman franchise after 2006’s mediocre Superman Returns failed to take off with audiences. It was also one of the year’s most anticipated films partly because it featured one of fiction’s most popular characters. A more important reason, however, was the production team behind it. Man of Steel was directed by Zack Snyder, director of groundbreaking films such as 300 and Watchmen, and produced by Christopher Nolan, the visionary titan in the comic book movie genre. With such talented filmmakers, expectations for Man of Steel were understandably high.
While the film performed well at the box office, critical response to it was mixed. The action sequences received both praise and criticism, and some reviewers felt the plot was plodding or overdone. Of greatest interest however, was the reaction to the movie’s portrayal of the Superman character. At its core, Man of Steel is still an origin story similar to the one that has been told many times over the decades, but Snyder and Nolan have provided us with a novel interpretation of Superman that challenges some of our most entrenched ideas about the character. The Superman we were introduced to in Man of Steel brooded and harbored doubts that no previous Superman was prone to. In the realm of changes made in movie reboots, character mood swings and differences in tone wouldn’t be groundbreaking, but Man of Steel featured an event that shook the foundations that the character of Superman was built on.
The villain in the film is General Zod, a fellow Kryptonian who pursues Superman to Earth in order to recover information that would help him resurrect the deceased population of Krypton. General Zod possesses the same abilities as Superman, making him nearly invincible, but this merely exposes a fundamental problem with portraying a Superman that audiences can invest themselves in, namely how do you threaten and create dramatic tension for an invincible protagonist?
A Difficult Choice
The filmmakers’ solution to this conundrum is abrupt and unexpected, and seemed to elicit quite the surprise from the audience when I saw the movie during its opening weekend. During Superman’s final battle with General Zod, the two superhuman foes wreak massive habit and destruction to the city of Metropolis as they seek to defeat one another. Superman eventually gains the upper hand and captures General Zod in a headlock in an attempt to force him to submit peacefully. Zod instead uses his laser vision to trap a family into the corner of a building, and Superman is barely able to keep Zod from incinerating them. Just when it looks like General Zod will succeed in killing the innocent bystanders, Superman does something to save them that was hitherto unimaginable for his character: he snaps General Zod’s neck, killing him instantly.
From a storytelling standpoint, Snyder and Nolan’s decision to put Superman in a situation where he had to make such a terrible choice was one of the few ways to truly threaten him. Objectively, I understood this, but I still found myself wondering if there may have been a deeper reason for creating such a fundamental shift in the Superman character.
An Ideal to Strive Towards
To find an answer, one only needs to look at the American people as well as the United States itself after 9/11. We were profoundly changed as a people by becoming more cynical and less trusting, and our country was repeatedly forced to confront difficult moral issues as it responded to shifting world events. We also seemed to change our attitude towards Superman because courageous and morally pure heroes no longer seemed “realistic” to us. This is regrettable because for most of his history, Superman has represented an idealized version of the American values that help make the United States the world’s strongest force for good. He represented what we wanted our country to be, not necessarily what it actually was. This was especially true of the earlier Superman films starring Christopher Reeve. Compared to Man of Steel, these films were downright innocent and cheerful. Superman was strong, confident, and able to save everyone no matter the perils he faced. In Man of Steel, by instilling Superman with doubts about his purpose and having him kill General Zod in order to save innocent lives, I think the filmmakers were trying to show us a Superman that reflects the United States as it is today, a country that is confused and a little uncertain about itself.
Think about it. Haven’t recent events made us doubt our country’s place in the world? You only have to look at the government’s never-ending political deadlock, the crisis in Syria, or the inability to resolve the Iranian or North Korean nuclear issues to see that. Throughout the past decade, we have tried repeatedly to do what we thought was right to promote democracy and save lives, but along the way decisions were made that are at odds with our core American values. Are covert drone strikes and special operations raids targeting suspected terrorists really all that different from Superman’s decision to kill General Zod in order to save the threatened family? In both cases, weren’t bad guys killed through extralegal means in order to save innocent lives?
To rephrase Commissioner Gordon in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, the Superman we got in Man of Steel was perhaps not the hero we wanted, but he may have been the one we deserve right now. In the midst of his doubts, Superman’s father tells him “You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. And in time, they will join you in the sun. And in time, you will help them accomplish wonders.” The American people are tired, uncertain, and harbor doubts about the future role of their country in the world. They should look to the example set by Superman and in time hopefully they can, like Superman, overcome their uncertainties and rediscover their faith in themselves and in their country.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.