On the Latent Content of Man of Steel

As the superhero cycle thunders forward it is perhaps surprising that the archetypal superhero is only just now receiving the film that will apparently kick start the franchise (The Superman of 2006 did not set the standard financially or critically). This time a super team has been drafted in: a director with graphic novel credentials (Zack Snyder, 300 (2006), Watchman (2009), a writer with the same (David S. Goyer, The Dark Knight Trilogy) and a director acting as a producer to over see the whole thing (Christopher Nolan, The Dark Knight Trilogy). This super team has created a superhero film that, while being aesthetically appealing and providing a slightly more gritty Superman film, is all too familiar. Like many of these Marvel / DC films Man of Steel is, as Jose Arroyo says analogous to theme park rides for the audience experience they elicit. This does not negate their place amongst serious cinema study, but it does mean that the latent content of these films requires a little more digging and Man of Steel is no exception. Slavoj Zizek, who wrote about the politics of Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, exemplifies such a study with great skill.  

The most interesting aspect of Superman has always been his alien status in a country that has a less than exemplary record for illegal immigration. Man of Steel does attempt to tell that story, but it struggles to find its way out of the mass, indecipherable carnage that having too much money encourages (another interesting angle might be to explore the mass casualties that result from Superman and Zod throwing each other around). It is absolutely reasonable to believe that giving these directors less money would result in more imaginative and better film making.

As an illegal alien Superman is accepted as long as he abides by the status quo. For example, living in Middle America with a traditional farming family. Whenever aspects of his Krypton personality emerge, people are frightened and he is told to keep his true self a secret. Even when he chooses Superman as his identity (appeasing the government and highlighting his patriotism with a red, white and blue outfit), he is still feared. The only way Superman can earn some peace is by assuring the military he is as American as they are; the ultimate immigration test. Be one of us, or leave us is the message.

Add to this the metaphor of Superman as a Christ figure and you find some right wing messages lying underneath the bombastic jingoism. Superman’s biological father states early on, when his mother fears his death on Earth that it is impossible, as he’ll be a god to them. He goes onto state to the boy himself, “You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.” And join him they do, as he offers them salvation and protection, if only they trust him. At one point Superman even seeks counsel from a Priest, who gazes on him with awe.

These messages, of the Christian hegemony and expected acquiescence towards American immigration are hard to ignore when creating a Superman story. And even harder is for a filmmaker to bring these issues to the fore rather than bend to the demand for action that summer cinema demands.