Does Superman Have a “Problematic” Message?

by

James Gunn’s “Superman” is an impressive cinematic achievement, breathing new life into the Steel Man legend with a touching tale emphasizing compassion, unity, and personal decision-making. A key aspect of its plot involves a significant alteration to Superman’s traditional origin – a twist intended to portray Superman’s (David Corenswet) heroism as not a predetermined fate due to his Kryptonian lineage, but as a choice shaped by his human experiences. Consequently, the film’s overarching message is optimistic and potent, suggesting that our actions, rather than our heritage, shape our identity. Interestingly, in its pursuit of this empowering theme, the movie presents Superman’s voyage through an immigration lens that is far more intricate and multifaceted than it initially appears.

Warning: The following article contains spoilers for James Gunn’s Superman

In James Gunn’s movie “Superman”, Clark Kent finds solace and motivation from a damaged holographic message sent by his biological parents, Jor-El (played by Bradley Cooper) and Lara (Angela Sarafyan). He interprets this as a command to safeguard Earth and embody hope. However, everything changes when Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) deciphers the last part of the message and broadcasts it globally, exposing that Jor-El’s actual orders to Kal-El were to subdue Earth and rule over its inhabitants, using women to produce numerous offspring and preserve Krypton’s genetic lineage. This shocking revelation immediately alters Clark’s perspective on Kryptonian culture, compelling Superman to grapple with the fact that the legacy he once revered is fundamentally flawed.

How Does Clark Kent Deal With His Kryptonian Heritage?

Revising the given text while preserving its meaning: Superman’s revelation about his Kryptonian roots allows Clark Kent to shape his identity independently. Initially, he chooses heroism due to his genetic makeup and parental destiny. However, the discovery of a cryptic message from Krypton compels Superman to accept his heroic mission despite its origin. To accomplish this, Clark needs to revisit his human upbringing, exemplified by his foster parents. Notably, when Clark feels overwhelmed, it is his adoptive father, Jonathan Kent (Pruitt Taylor Vince), who underscores that the message’s true meaning lies in how Clark interprets and acts upon it. This touching conversation emphasizes that Clark’s moral character stems not from genetic inheritance but from the virtues instilled by his adoptive family.

As a movie reviewer diving into the latest installment of “Superman”, I must commend James Gunn for his ingenious approach to the character’s origin story. For years, writers and filmmakers have grappled with Superman’s seemingly flawless persona, which often left him appearing detached and inaccessible. However, Gunn masterfully addresses this issue by presenting Superman as a hero who actively chooses humanity over destiny.

Unlike Christopher Reeve’s Superman, who derived his strength from a noble Kryptonian legacy, or Zack Snyder’s version, burdened by the weight of being a god among men, Gunn’s Superman is heroic precisely because he elects to walk the human path. This choice makes him relatable and fundamentally more human, bridging the gap between the audience and the iconic figure. It’s a fresh take on an age-old character that breathes new life into the Man of Steel.

In the climactic moment at the Fortress of Solitude, Superman’s moral ideology reaches its peak when he requests his robotic aid to display his “family.” Instead of the hologram of Jor-El and Lara, there are home videos of him as a child with Ma (Neva Howell) and Pa Kent. This scene, in line with the movie’s overarching theme, underscores that Superman’s real self isn’t Kal-El from Krypton, but Clark Kent from Kansas – a hero shaped by love rather than destined for domination.

Why Is Superman‘s Feel-Good Message Potentially Problematic?

In the storyline of ‘Superman’, it’s evident that he champions individual choice; however, the tale awkwardly wades into a delicate argument about cultural identity. By portraying Krypton as an undeniably imperial society, the narrative sets up a stark dichotomy where the only ethical decision appears to be to renounce that alien culture entirely. This depiction mirrors the traditional “melting pot” notion, a term from the early 20th century that painted America as a furnace where diverse immigrant identities were supposed to blend and merge into a single, new, uniform American identity. This perspective suggests that integration necessitates abandoning one’s previous language, customs, and allegiances in favor of those native to your new environment.

Over the last few decades, numerous sociologists and cultural analysts have questioned the adequacy and potential harm of this model. Instead, they propose alternative images to depict a more vibrant multicultural society, such as the “cultural mosaic” or the “salad bowl.” In this perspective, a nation is stronger and more prosperous when its diverse groups contribute to the whole while maintaining their unique traits, like various ingredients that enhance a dish without losing their individual flavors. The immigrant journey often involves the intricate process of moving between different worlds and developing a unique identity, a blend of old and new worlds, truly representative of an individual’s life story. This blending process can be viewed as a source of cultural depth and personal development.

In Gunn’s interpretation of Superman, it appears that he rejects a contemporary viewpoint, as the storyline fails to provide Clark with a chance to explore a more complex balance between his identities. There is no room for him to delve into Kryptonian heritage, possibly uncovering that Jor-El’s extreme views were not representative of all aspects of Kryptonian culture. Instead, he could have used these findings to construct a new identity by blending the best elements from both worlds. The ending scene, where Clark replaces the hologram of his birth parents with his adoptive ones, symbolizes a complete cultural replacement, suggesting that for an outsider to be fully accepted, their original culture must be considered inferior and discarded in favor of total assimilation. In Superman’s case, this means embracing American values as the superior cultural identity.

In essence, it’s important to note that Superman deliberately portrays a world with a variety of ethnicities, reflecting a diverse global population. The movie’s moral lessons are tailored for mass appeal, offering a simple, uplifting experience for viewers regardless of political leanings. This simplicity, however, may come at the cost of nuanced exploration of complex themes.

In today’s world where these ideals echo worldwide, suggesting Superman as an immigrant while also advocating for him to abandon his original identity to embody the quintessential American icon might seem out of touch to international viewers. It’s possible that this underlying theme of cultural superiority is one reason for the film’s initial lackluster performance in foreign box offices.

What’s your take on Clark’s choice to disavow his Kryptonian roots in Superman? Does the movie have issues, or is it problematic in some other ways? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below!

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/david-corenswet-superman-2025-sequel-star-wars-movie-future-comments-response/embed/#

Read More

2025-07-15 22:13