“Superman” on Strength in Numbers
by Violeta Gonzalez
I’m not by any means what one might consider a “superhero person”, but I wound up enjoying James Gunn’s Superman so much that I watched it no less than three times in the theater this summer. The film seems to have that effect on people.
It’s difficult to not fall in love with David Corenswet’s effortlessly charming portrayal of the Man of Tomorrow. Nicholas Hoult is positively electrifying as Lex Luthor, delivering the perfect breakdown in the film’s final act, and Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois Lane—from her steadfast devotion to her craft to her not-so-subtle anxieties over her relationship with Clark—is endlessly entertaining. Nathan Fillion, Edi Gathegi, and Isabela Merced, meanwhile, are hilarious as Green Lantern, Mr. Terrific, and Hawkgirl, the hardheaded members of the still-developing “Justice Gang.” The visuals are fantastic. Chiefly, it’s funny; the jokes still land after multiple watches. But the thing that stuck out to me the most about this film was its politics.
Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, two Jewish men born into families who’d fled widespread antisemitism in Europe in the early 1900s. Their lives, in many ways, are reflected in that of the character they created; Kal-el, never able to return home, struggles to fit into a society that he is—literally and figuratively—too alien for. Superman, then—despite his reputation as the straightforward, all-American hero—has always been a politically charged figure.
Gunn’s film hones in on the strife between the fictitious countries of Jarhanpur and Boravia. Though he maintains that no real-world conflict inspired this storyline and Superman’s script was finalized prior to October of 2023, it’s difficult to not draw any connections in the current political climate. Regardless of intent, Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza makes it difficult to not notice resemblances—even subconsciously—while watching a predominately-white government ruthlessly attack a defenseless group of brown citizens as the former’s leader declares that the streets will “run red with their blood.”
After Superman prevents an initial invasion, Clark and Lois have a lengthy conversation on this topic. While he maintains that he did the right thing by preventing the immediate deaths of any Janhanpurians, Lois—concerned about political repercussions of his actions on the United States—believes that he should not have done what he did. Lois, in a way, represents the media conglomerate a whole. She is hesitant about critiquing Boravia given that there is “no way to know their true intentions,” refusing to take a firm stance one way or the other before something actually punishable is done—Boravia never actually got to cross into Janhanpur, after all. But by the time that happens, as Clark points out, it will simply be too late for many people.
Everybody is terrified of what stopping the conflict in Boravia and Janhanpur could mean for the United States. In that regard, Lois’s concerns are initially vindicated; Boravia does use Ultraman to attack Metropolis. Lois, like many others in the city, believes that preventing the conflict only leads to the direct suffering of American people. However, after the initial incident, Boravia leaves Metropolis alone. People are able to get back on their feet. If there are any casualties, they are few and far between; just days after the attack, the Metropolitans are unconcerned enough about their safety to be able to direct their attention to the scandal about Superman that Luthor orchestrates.
My friend pointed out how perhaps it isn’t the most positive message for “Janhanpur’s” only savior to be in the form of a superhero, something completely fantastical in our world. And though Gunn is saying that there is nobody but Superman—not most people, nor the government or press—willing to take direct action to help Janhanpur, he’s also criticizing that apprehension. He’s directly demonstrating that there’s nothing “Boravia”—funded by the United States government and its billionaire(s)—could ever do to America that could possibly be as bad as what they could do to “Janhanpur.”
Superman isn’t a perfect film. Though the main cast excelled, many side actors’ performances oftentimes felt awkward (notably Anthony Carrigan as Metamorpho, who does a very poor job convincing the audience of his emotional plight during his time on-screen); the dialogue and one-liners were often too campy to be enjoyable; it told rather than showed almost egregiously. But the good nature of this movie made it difficult for me to place too much emphasis on those faults.
In the end, it’s not Superman that saves the people of Janhanpur. Green Lantern, Hawkgirl, and Metamorpho are the ones who visit the border to ward off the Boravian invasion, and it’s the Daily Planet workers that expose Luthor and the Boravian president’s underlying scheme. Gunn makes it known that Superman is powerless alone; every single one of the story’s characters is elemental in achieving success. Eve’s bravery in the face of Luthor’s abuse meant that the Daily Planet secured the evidence that it needed; the Justice Gang save hundreds of Janhanpurian lives while Superman is preoccupied in Metropolis; Lois’s desperation to get Clark back is the only reason he ever escapes Luthor’s clutches.
All Superman does, through his kindness and strength, is bring these people together. It only takes one person, Gunn seems to say, to catalyze real change—and that sentiment, I feel, is what makes this movie so special.
“This Superman does seem to come at a particular time when people are feeling a loss of hope in other people’s goodness,” Gunn said to The Times. “I’m telling a story about a guy who is uniquely good, and that feels needed now.”
In the end, we don’t live in the DCU; superheroes won’t magically materialize to solve our problems and unabashedly kill fascists. But finding that reliable community—taking the plunge to do the right thing, even against all odds—is something that any one of us is capable of. And maybe that’s the real punk-rock.
