Superman - The Populist Hero We Needed (Audio)
0:00
/901.093878

Apologies to readers :: This post has been updated both in terms of Superman history and a far more accurate understanding of the film Man of Steel. The update was inspired by an excellent video essay of Zach Snyder's entire filmography(including good things about his work which I agree with) by Patrick Willems which made clear the mythological aspects of the film that I'd neglected.

Superman was the first ever comic book superhero. Looking to communicate moral concerns beyond religion, the comic combined ancient myths and modern moral issues. Ever since then superhero comics - and their cartoon and live action adaptations - have provided readers and viewers moral guides for navigating the world; something mostly neglected by our current amoral metaphysics.

The comic was created towards the end of the Great Depression and with the tides of Fascism and Communism in the air. Superman was created as a democratic symbol of hope, anti-elitism, and a champion of the oppressed. He defended the poor from greedy landlords, workers from abusive employers, victims of domestic violence from the violent, and the wrongfully accused from their accusers. And he didn’t stop with cases where there were always clear victims; he also tackled systemic injustice by going after corrupt politicians and war profiteers.

The protagonist wasn’t just Superman either, he was Clark Kent, a newspaper reporter who, in true populist style, wholly appreciated the importance of intellectual values. Finding the truth and acting on it in the name of his version of justice and fairness - these were the values of Superman.

In a world full of corruption and desperation, Superman gave hope to the poor who had been on the bad end of the s%$t stick for too long. They could look to him as an example of someone demonstrating how to live in the less-than-fair world around them. They might not be able to do all that he could, breaking laws to get his way, but Superman's brand of justice and protecting the weak were values worth living. This Golden Age Superman - rebellious, morally driven, and politically charged - quickly became a pop culture icon.

Then, after American success in World War 2 and the beginning of the Cold War - a new Silver Age Superman morphed into something different. He became the flying, super-intelligent, super-powerful Superman we see today. This transformation occurred not as a result of a drop in popularity, as throughout the 40s and 50s he was one of the most popular comic characters, but due to a post-war conservative cultural movement. A movement of change that was driven by the post war Red Scare and the anti-subversion atmosphere that came with it.

Where Superman was previously populist, rebellious and carried out his own version of vigilante justice - he now needed to appear safe, loyal and patriotic. So by order of a newly created Comics Code he was reshaped. Moral ambiguity and law-breaking were out - American values of lawfulness, restraint and a perfect morality where he vowed against killing were in.

This shift in Superman’s moral character wasn’t limited to his behaviour either - it extended to the nature of the threats he faced too. They became far more fantastical rather than represent any kind of systemic injustice. Aliens, robots, and science fiction villains were the new while the problems of elitism and class based injustice were the old and no longer used.

After this second Silver Age version of Superman - the comic has waxed and waned between being the vigilante populist hero he once was and the picture of moral perfection fighting aliens and science fiction villains he was forced into being. Bronze Age Superman from around the 70s to the mid 80s, for example, appeared to be a somewhat harmonious amalgamation of the two where writers re-incorporated some populist elements but kept his style of justice on the side of the Law.

Bringing us back to the version of Superman in popular consciousness today - with Lex Luthor as his arch enemy - Lex no longer fully embodies those same Golden Era populist concerns of systemic injustice. But the populist parallels, even with the single Billionaire Lex, are clear.

So in amongst this conflict between the era's of the different versions of Superman and what he is to represent we've had the backdrop of rising inequality over the last four decades and the increasing elite control that goes with it. Indeed while things aren’t quite as desperate as they were when Golden Age Superman was created, America now has the highest levels of inequality and the elites more power than ever before.

As if matching that inequality, a sense of cynical and overly-intellectual hopelessness has infected modern culture for decades. And who can blame folks? Elites have cynically used our modern ‘amoral’ Subject-Object Metaphysics to hide all sorts of immoral behaviour under the language of objectivity. From immoral wars, to economic exploitation, to the corruption and millions of lives taken in healthcare, to the gutting of news laws and the resulting media manipulation, to the weakening of environmental protections and the delay of further action on climate change - the list just goes on and on.

And right there all along, helping them along the way, has been our current metaphysics, which encourages individualistic, ‘scientific’, subject-object thinking and denies and undermines the existence of morality at every turn. Indeed, science has been so successful - who can question the importance of this amoral objectivity?

Embraced by folks who see the power of science; this amoral yet individualistic intellectual attitude has become an increasingly large part of our shared culture. An attitude which views concerns about right and wrong with great intellectual skepticism at best, or naive and foolhardy at worst.

With this background - this brings us to the 2013 film Man of Steel. Following the lukewarm reception of 2006’s Superman Returns - the first Superman film since the Christopher Reeve era - the creators of Man of Steel saw an opportunity for change. Screenwriters David Goyer and Christopher Nolan aimed to ground Superman in realism, while Goyer and director Zack Snyder specifically hoped to emphasise moral ambiguity. Snyder further contributed to this grounded vision with his gritty yet stylised cinematography, marked by bold, powerful imagery.

To achieve this look Snyder used an aforementioned "Heightened Realism" film technique which makes every shot appear dull, overexposed, and cold. If someone were looking for a cold, calculated, and intellectual style of filming - away from the emotions and warmth that colour brings - then this would likely be it. Indeed, the intellectualism demonstrated in this film isn’t the warm, pragmatic style shown by Superman in the first comics. Instead it’s an intellectualism far more in line with our current individualistic Subject-Object Metaphysics - one which views doing good with great hesitation and skepticism and then requires reasons for doing so.

Throughout his childhood, Clark is told by his father to hide his powers - his full goodness - from the world for fear of the repercussions of folks knowing his power. It is only after witnessing an abundance of suffering, including the death of his own father, that Clark finally breaks free from this parentally imposed limitation and begins to act in line with what is right.

When Superman finally and openly confronts the villains, they are portrayed in a highly thematic and mythic way, reminiscent of the grand, otherworldly antagonists of the Silver Age comics. This Superman ultimately does the right thing - but this version is far from the idealised, unwaveringly noble hero of the Silver Age.

The culmination of the film is a choice Superman must make between the lives of innocent bystanders and his fellow Kryptonian who is threatening those bystanders - General Zod. In the end Superman takes the life of Zod and saves the bystanders but the film highlights that this choice isn't without great suffering. It is this choice that the creators wanted to highlight as a reason for Superman doing the right thing and having his 'no killing' clause.

This version of Superman isn't interested in Golden Era concerns of shining a light on moral injustice and standing up for the right things in populist fashion. Nor is it the Silver Age Superman of moral purity who is always on the right side of justice against science fiction style villains. Instead this version of Superman is morally unsure of himself and is overburdened by the consequences of the enormous power he holds. Indeed on a metaphysical level this Superman is struggling with goodness and morality so much that he even requires reasons to do it.

But Creator/director Zach Snyder was never interested in telling those old Silver Age stories and his knowledge of the Golden Era appears mostly lacking - instead by his own admission he was interested in the mythology and depicting larger, deeper mythological conflicts on screen. Particularly the physical consequences of Gods living among men and the awesome power they hold. As Snyder says:

"Yeah, I feel like a lot of people didn't want Superman to grow up. They want him to remain a simpler man from a simpler time. My philosophy is that these characters are cathartic, they're our mythology and they speak to modern problems - when we don't know how to deal with an issue we can superimpose those feelings of impotence on to them and let them solve unsolvable problems."

So in this Snyder version, the attention shifted away from the moral conflicts Superman was resolving, to existential moral uncertainty within Superman himself. While Snyder leans into the virtuous and mythological aspects of Superman, placing the character in a contemporary political and metaphysical framework - this resulted in a very different perhaps unintended message. Instead of affirming the existence of goodness, the film questions it mirroring a growing sense of moral despondency found throughout the world. And it does this all while entirely neglecting the elite concentrations of social level power that cause much of it.

Golden and Bronze Age Superman by contrast, knew what goodness was and is and acted on it in the name of Intellectual and Dynamic Morality as with the populists before them. These versions of Superman, supported by the Metaphysics of Quality, morally highlighted important moral conflicts within modern culture that were unaddressed by existing power structures and neglected by our current metaphysics.

Enter 2025’s Superman film and the reason why I’m writing this. Rather than simply call out a misguided film, I think it’s worthwhile if we also point to one that’s good. If Snyder’s Superman was cold and overly skeptical of doing good, this new James Gunn version is way more in line with Golden Age Superman and open and direct about doing good. Indeed in one scene Superman goes so far as to proudly declare that all he is doing is serving 'Good'. This is a colourful, warm, and pragmatic Superman who doesn’t lament the decisions he makes and is almost too self-assured that he always does the right thing.

But before I go into the detail of that quality, let me get five minor issues with the film out of the way.

Because it would have been better if:

  1. Lex Luthor had manipulated the people and divided them against each other - distracting them while he carried out his evil plan (more accurately reflecting real life).
  2. Clark’s real concerns were more about elite manipulation rather than his own identity (although both were rightly included).
  3. It further highlighted the intelligence of the reporters at the Daily Planet.
  4. The focus was more 'Golden Age' Superman style on the abuse of the common folk by many different elites (not just Lex) in many different ways.
  5. The other 'Silver Age' style superheroes were not included - I'm not hopeful for any sequels to highlight the right things from this point forward.

 

Now the good.

Since Man of Steel we have witnessed the rise of Marvel and superhero films taking over global consciousness. It can be hard to underestimate the impact these films have on our shared culture. So in these times of overt elite injustice, we have been crying out for a film of similar popularity which didn’t just shine a light on some of that injustice but also pointed to a better way.

Where Man of Steel‘s father told Clark to be cautious and skeptical about doing and being good, the 2025’s Jonathan Kent has no such hesitations. The fearful parenting style is gone and something quite different and better has taken its place. As his father says to him:

“Parents aren’t for telling their children who they’re supposed to be. We are here to give y’all tools to help you make fools of yourselves all on your own. Your choices, Clark, your actions… that’s what makes who you are.”

Which is about as strong a statement in favour of pragmatism and goodness, and away from the nihilistic mythology of Man of Steel as you could find.

Indeed, this film is ‘the Superman we needed’. This film:

  1. Rightly and proudly points out, in our modern often overly ‘individualistic’ culture, that caring is punk rock and people and things are beautiful and worth caring about.
  2. Quite directly calls out a few major villains in today’s world - something we haven’t seen in a blockbuster of this scale since Chaplin’s brilliant The Great Dictator.
  3. Provides a positive role model for young men to look up to - something that has been lacking on the screen for a long time. It provides something the rise of the ‘crisis of masculinity’ has been calling out for
  4. Demonstrates, through an excellent performance of Mr Terrific by Edi Gathegi, how it’s cool to use your intelligence for good - far better than for bad, as Lex does.
  5. Joins a growing trend of eschewing the Heightened Realism cinematographic style made popular by Christopher Nolan. Colours are finally coming back to blockbuster cinema films.

It's not often a piece of art that's culture changing is also popular. But that appears to be the case here - and for the better. So with Superman 2025's box office success - I say Rock On. 🤘

_video cultural-values intellectual-values social-values the-law