Migrant Worker Gets Caught Up in Intergalactic 9/11

Critics overly maligned this one methinks. The reboot of the Superman saga, "Man of Steel" updates the Metropolis Marvel as an allegory of America in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Sure, it's flawed, if not crass. The depiction of Krypton, in particular, seems to be the consequence of some artists being too carried away in imitating other fantasies such as, say, "Avatar" (2009) or "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Still, I'll take it over the desolate 1978 iteration of Kal-El's birthplace. The depiction of the United States military, too, is rather placid, which was surely a demand of the real army in assisting the movie's production. Although the troops here are quite busy in their active spectatorship of Superman, their involvement doesn't lend much of interest to the extended 9/11 allegory. Similarly, Lois Lane is partly her usual constant damsel in distress, but at least she's not an idiot this outing, and she even assists Superman, while also providing the meta-narrative context of her being the reporter of the very story we see. She's the surrogate author within the movie. Being portrayed by Amy Adams doesn't hurt, either. Indeed, the cast in general is good and well balanced between up-and-coming stars and veteran talents who lend their celebrity of past projects to the proceedings here.

To bemoan loud explosions or to debate the salience of whether Superman punches and kills or not misses the point. Professional entertainment criticism of superhero flicks, if not in general, often confounds me. Besides a couple blatant masterpieces ("The Dark Knight" (2008), "Logan" (2017)), darker or seemingly-more-realistic superhero movies are largely panned. They appear to want cartoons, as though one can't take comic-book characters seriously and, thus, neither should the superhero genre treat itself in earnest. Much of the movie-going public must agree, too. Hence the dominance of the MCU, I suppose. But movies in general and superhero ones, too, are always ideological; they're a product of the real world. It's just that the smarter ones tend to be more coherent about it. Don't pretend, for instance, that Tony Stark doesn't reflect our society's infatuation with tech CEOs, or that "Black Panther" (2018) and "Captain Marvel" (2019) aren't about overcoming historical racial and sexual misrepresentations. So, too, Superman has long been claimed a symbol of American virtues, as well as a reflection of Christianity by the association of the Man of Steel with Christ.

Clark Kent is the most vital fictional character to come from America's middle state, Kansas, since Dorothy Gale. I think it would be interesting merely to compare these two works of genres, children fairy tales and comic books, that are often frowned upon, and to trace their influence in shaping how the United States is seen--especially through the wildly-popular film adaptations, but I digress. Expanding upon "Truth, Justice and the American Way" and the messiah metaphor, "Man of Steel" reimagines young Clark as a refugee and migrant worker--an illegal alien or "dreamer" (note all the fatherly talk of dreams) taken to the "nation of immigrants" when he was but a baby and who has since been nurtured in the idyllic settings of America's heartland, upon the farm and by Ma and Pa Kent. He's something of an ideal immigrant.

General Zod and his gang, on the other hand, realize the country's most xenophobic fears. They don't share the values of our world; indeed, Zod preaches about purity of bloodlines and submitting to his rule. Social Darwinism, eugenics and genocide--Nazi pseudoscience, basically. Inadvertently, Kal-El (and since christened Clark Kent) brings about this intergalactic chain migration, whereupon Zod and his crew insist upon remaking our world as their own rather than conforming to our ways--and atmosphere--as Clark had. This results in the famous destruction sequence of Metropolis that, none too subtly, recalls the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. Of course, there's also a clumsy environmental message of destroying one planet and setting out do so to another one.

There is one more important thing to note here, however, which is that Clark is only able to become our savior by embracing his roots and bringing his culture into the light of our and his own American one. His race is literally encoded in his blood (via that codex thing). He's of two worlds, two sets of parents, two remembered fathers, two identities. This is an apt addition not only because it finally makes sense of the Superman costume, CGI cape and all, but also because it celebrates contemporary notions of diversity. It's not the melting-pot narrative of Kent the Daily Planet reporter; it's the story of the good immigrant who embraces the best of two cultures and, thus, enriches the lives of those around him. Whether or not one finds the city destruction gratuitous, the writing stupid (that bit about the first kiss is my most hated piece of dialogue here, and don't hide below an underpass from a tornado!), or is fond of Zack Snyder and company's snap-zoom style, and regardless of one's political and cultural views, that's a coherent ideology for a blockbuster superhero movie, and it's a change of pace from the credo of DC's other most famous vigilante, the plutocratic billionaire who likes to punch the poors and mentally deranged, Batman.