James Gunn’s “Superman” is almost bulletproof
James Gunn’s “Superman” released on streaming this past Friday following an impactful and somewhat controversial run in theaters. While many enjoyed the film’s portrayal of the titular hero as someone who takes care to preserve life (in contrast to superhero movies whose protagonists seem to ignore all the people in those buildings they knock over), some drew parallels between the movie’s fictional international conflict and the current war in Gaza.
“Superman” (the movie) begins on a rare low note for Superman (the guy): He’s just lost a fight for the very first time. He takes it fairly well, but the worst is yet to come. What really shakes him is the information his nemesis, Lex Luthor, had staged the battle to obtain: a message from his Kryptonian parents instructing him to rule over planet Earth rather than protect it. In the wake of his preventing a war between the fictional countries of Boravia and Jarhanpur, the publication of the message causes the public to question his motivations for doing so. Now, Superman has to grapple with his public image, his self image and the combined forces of Luthor and the United States government.
David Corenswet plays Superman and Clark Kent with a desperate earnestness, trying his best whether he’s preventing a kaiju from crushing a building or defending the quality of his copy. When Superman takes the time to save a single child, a single dog, a single squirrel from a rampaging monster, all while hoping to humanely remove that monster to an intergalactic zoo, we understand why he means so much to the people of Metropolis– to the people of Earth.
Although it engages with heavy subject matter at times, “Superman” seems committed to avoiding the “gritty” image of superherodom present in Zach Snyder’s “Man of Steel,” with even the (literally and figuratively) darkest scenes featuring creative costuming and set design adding pops of green, blue or purple.
Although Superman comes under fire for preventing Boravia, an ally of the United States, from invading Jarhanpur, he maintains that he was not unilaterally dictating US foreign policy, he was simply saving people’s lives. Through this fictional conflict, Gunn emphasizes that Superman is not just a hero for Metropolis, or for America, but for the world.
It’s easy to see why this conflict is compared to the war in Gaza, despite Gunn saying he began writing the script before the war broke out. From a pro-Palestinian, American perspective, the idea of a person who could cut through America’s political relationship to Israel, fly across the globe and end the war in a single action is pure wish fulfillment. The idea that someone who had this kind of power would use it to prevent mass death is massively appealing in itself.
So it frustrates me that a movie so fun, so optimistic and so committed to extending empathy to everyone and everything possible just sort of… stops for a second.
Near the end of the film, the big, armored villain that Luthor has been using to absolutely trounce Superman in combat, Ultraman, is revealed to be an imperfect clone of Superman himself. Superman throws Ultraman into a black hole. He doesn’t seem very upset about it.
What happened to Superman’s no killing rule? Why is Ultraman suddenly disposable? He clearly hasn’t been attacking Superman of his own free will: Luthor literally gives him instructions for how to move!
I really, really enjoyed this movie, but Ultraman’s death was lazy and undermined the film’s premise. Unfortunately, Gunn’s “Superman” will be engrained in my memory as almost perfect.
