Superman’s Identity Crisis: Truth, Justice, and the Changing American Way

My review of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice got me thinking.  It got me thinking about audience interest in and the overall success of the Dark Knight trilogy versus those of Superman Returns, Man of Steel, and Batman v. Superman (or BS, as I like to think of it).  According to Rotten Tomatoes, these are the box office earnings, critical ratings, and audience ratings for each of the first five films:

Superman’s movies

Superman Returns (2006)
Box office earnings: $200 million
Critical rating: 76%
Audience rating: 61%

Man of Steel (2013)
Box office earnings: $291 million
Critical rating: 56%
Audience rating: 75%

And Batman’s movies:

Batman Begins (2005)
Box office earnings: $205.2 million
Critical rating: 85%
Audience rating: 94%

The Dark Knight (2008)
Box office earnings: $533.3 million
Critical rating: 94%
Audience rating: 94%

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Box office earnings: $448.1 million
Critical rating: 87%
Audience rating: 90%

Batman Begins and Superman Returns, both of which were the first major entries in their respective franchises in several years (almost a decade for Batman and two decades for Superman), earned about the same (around $200 million), with Batman earning slightly more than Superman.  Personally, I attribute this to audiences’ general interest in the two characters but wariness of their film franchises after 1997’s Batman and Robin and 1987’s Superman IV: The Quest For Peace.

The follow-up to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, more than doubled its predecessor’s earnings, raking in $533 million.  Part of the reason why it did so well could be attributed to the highly publicized death of Heath Ledger, who played the Joker in the film. Ledger’s performance itself was highly publicized even before his death; despite landing a number of serious roles, the actor seemed to struggle with shaking the “pretty boy” image that plagues most young actors who play in teen romance/comedy movies, so his casting alone came as a shock to audiences.  Even more shocking was his performance itself, which gained enormous critical and audience praise.  Adding to the tragedy (and, I’m sure, the publicity) of the death of such a young, talented person was the cause thereof: a cocktail of sleeping pills, which he’d reportedly started taking because the research that he did for the role disturbed him to the point of not being able to sleep.  Regardless, of these five films, the Dark Knight performed the best at the box office and with critics and audiences alike.  Its successor, The Dark Knight Returns, did not perform as well neither at the box office nor with audiences or critics, but it still earned a nice chunk of change (almost $450 million) and pleased both sets of viewers.  Again, this film was accompanied by tragedy, this time in the form of a shooting in a Colorado theater during its premiere showing, and again, it was highly publicized.  Whether the media coverage surrounding this tragedy contributed to or hindered the film’s earnings is anyone’s guess.  Additionally, the film was released in 2012 when the worldwide economic crisis was in full swing, thus possibly contributing to the film’s smaller (but no less spectacular) box office performance.  But again: it’s anyone’s guess.

Now let’s take a look at Man of Steel‘s numbers versus Superman Returns‘s.  Despite the fact that Superman Returns gained a mostly favorable critical reception (76%), audiences gave it a significantly smaller approval rating (61%).  Man of Steel, which came out a year after The Dark Knight, earned almost $100 million more than Superman Returns, despite the global economic status in 2013 (which, again, could or could not be a contributing factor to the film’s earnings), and gained an audience rating of 75% (only 1% less than the percentage of favorable reviews that critics gave Superman Returns), in spite of a lukewarm critical reception of 56%.  However, the nearly $300 million that Man of Steel raked in doesn’t come close to touching The Dark Knight or The Dark Knight Returns‘s earnings.

In short: in this instance of “Batman versus Superman,” Batman clearly wins.

Now let’s take a look at the current numbers for the latest entry in both franchises (and presumably the first entry in an up-and-coming Justice League franchise).  As of April 5, 2016, they are:

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Box office earnings (thus far): $260.4 million
Critical rating (thus far): 29%
Audience rating (thus far): 70%

Although the film has yet to surpass Man of Steel‘s earnings, it isn’t too far behind its predecessor.  The chances that it could catch up to Man of Steel during its cinema run are looking good.  And at a 70% audience approval rating, theatergoers seem to like it, despite critics giving it a chilly (and, in my opinion, well-earned) 29%.  But those earnings still pale in comparison to The Dark Knight‘s $500+ million, and as already noted, it has yet to out-earn Man of Steel.  After the Dark Knight trilogy’s success and Batman’s popularity among audiences consequently enjoying a significant boost (as demonstrated by the numerous memes and novelty joke items about him), you’d think the film would be booming if for no other reason than Batman is in it.

So what is it about the film that has made it fall behind its predecessor and Batman’s other more recent films?  Is it the critical response that it’s receiving?  Is it the current economic state (which, though better than the climate in 2012 and 2013, is still not great)?  Is it less media coverage?  Or perhaps it’s the fact that this film’s Batman is a new version of the character and is not at all tied to the Dark Knight trilogy?  Maybe it’s audiences’ gawking response to Ben Affleck being cast in the role of Batman?

Or maybe Superman is just not relevant enough to modern American audiences (which make up a large chunk of cinema ticket sales) to make as big a splash as Batman at the box office?

There was a point in time (or so my elders tell me) that Superman was considered a major American icon.  It makes sense: the character starts off as a homeless, orphaned alien child who seeks refuge in America.  He is taken in by the Kents, a humble couple that lives in the Midwest, a.k.a. America’s heartland.  They instill in him core values for which he would later fight, often summarized as “truth, justice, and the American way.”  As an adult, the character lives in Metropolis, where he works as a reporter while fighting numerous entities that threaten “truth, justice, and the American way,” always flying unmasked and in a colorful suit.  His arch nemesis is Lex Luthor, a rich, psychopathic, corrupt, business tycoon.  He is powerful; he is successful; he is gifted; he is undefeated; he is proud of who he is and what he is.  He represents the idea that America provides unlimited opportunities to become great for anyone who lives in it–an idea that undoubtedly many natural-born Americans and immigrants find inspiring.  Given the character’s set-up and the average American’s financial struggle in the current economic climate (which, in many cases, extends to disdain for the upper class), you’d think he’d be the shoo-in for box office gold, not the millionaire who inherited his wealth from his family and uses it to buy all of the material hallmarks of his superhero persona.

Then again, Batman has many charms of his own.  Although he is rich, he uses his wealth to help others.  He walks outside of the law in order to catch the criminals that law enforcement can’t.  He isn’t held back by social constraints or legal consequences when punishing those who deserve it.  He demonstrates that you don’t have to be super to be a superhero.  Plus, his world–nighttime in Gotham City–is dark and interesting, filled with villains that are kooky, strange, and crazy, but always fun.  Superman’s world is bright and clean, like a polished version of “normal,” and features far less memorable villains than Batman’s.  Superman is a handsome, by-the-books good guy while Batman is a darkly dressed, mysterious bad boy–and for whatever reason, bad boys are almost always the more popular of the two with audiences.

The Dark Knight trilogy added more dimension to Batman, exploring the moody, human side of the character.  The timing of Man of Steel‘s release suggests that the film’s writers were inspired by the trilogy to do the same with Superman.  In a sense, they succeeded (if that was indeed their intended goal with the movie); the tone of Man of Steel is much darker and grittier than that of the previous Superman saga, and a large chunk of the film is spent on establishing Superman’s character, how he came to be the lost, confused individual seen at the beginning, and why he embraces his identity as “the Man of Steel” by the end.  Ironically, it is the film’s focus on character development that is its downfall.  For almost all of its duration, it cuts back and forth between the past and the present, and the first fifteen to twenty minutes of it are spent following Superman’s (Kal El’s) parents as they watch their home planet, Krypton, collapse socially and literally.  Essentially, three films’ worth of material is crammed into one, making the end result feel bloated and unfocused and thus deterring the emotion that the audience is supposed to feel during Superman’s journey from a scared man on the run from himself to shining American hero.

I had high hopes that Batman v. Superman might improve upon Man of Steel’s storytelling since all of the necessary background for the character was covered in that film, but unfortunately, it turned out to be even more bloated, unfocused, and devoid of emotion than its predecessor.  I stand with the critics on the 56% and 29% that they gave both of these movies and cannot for the life of me figure out how either of them received a 70%+ audience approval rating.  But then again, I think people are just excited to see Superman in movies again.  I think they loved Christopher Nolan’s Batman because it added something new to the character, and I think they enjoyed these two movies for the same reason: they added something new to Superman–something we like to see in our heroes nowadays, something that worked for Batman, and something that could work for Superman, too.

Although I am no fan of BS, I very much enjoyed Superman’s struggle to live up to humans’ expectations of heroes and gods.  Due to the superhero’s otherworldly strength and powers, many humans equated him to a god, and because godhood entails perfection, these same humans expected him to be perfect.  Because Superman is not a god and therefore not perfect, some came to view him as a potential menace or perhaps even a demon.  This storyline, I thought, worked very well for the take on the character established in Man of Steel.  But still, something seemed to be missing from the formula to me.  It took me a while–until the scene where Superman arrives for his hearing–to pin it down, but it finally hit me: in a movie about a hero who fights for “truth, justice, and the American way,” there isn’t much about the “American way.”

The trigger for this thought was the “ILLEGAL ALIEN” sign (on the left) that appeared in that scene.  Illegal immigration is a hot-button issue in America as well as an issue relevant to Superman himself because he essentially came to America as an illegal immigrant.  And, as already noted, the film in part covered the typical human perception of perfection, which we often personify as gods around whom we base our religions and, in some cases, our moral compasses.  What these gods and religions say often plays a big part in one side of the argument in topics such as marriage equality and abortion–two more hot-button issues in America.  And then there is the fact that the main villain of this film, who is also Superman’s arch nemesis, is a greedy, rich, corrupt businessman, whose face could easily represent the large chunk (if not most) of major American businesses that export jobs to areas where labor is cheap at the cost of the conditions in which the employees must work, do not pay many of their American employees a living wage, and do not offer them full-time work or adequate benefits; pharmaceutical companies that are allowed to price their products unchecked and thus can charge $700.00 for a single pill of life-extending medication; and universities that charge $60,000.00 on average for a college degree that does not adequately prepare its holder for the current job market, let alone a career.  These are all very real issues that Americans grapple with every day, and many of them suffer because these things (and others) are issues.

The arguments that I hear most often for these things are “that’s America,” “that’s capitalism,” “that’s how things work here,” and “if you don’t like it, then get out.”  Essentially, these things, I hear my fellow Americans say, are products of “the American way,” which is what Superman fights for: “truth, justice, and the American way.”  If “the American way” includes making a hostile environment in which citizenship is difficult to obtain, exploiting workers, and taking advantage of the vulnerable, then what is there to defend about it?  And if this is “the American way,” then how can Superman fight for it and “truth [and] justice” at the same time?

To be fair, every area of the world has its problems, and likely these issues have always been issues in America; our perception has just changed because the economic decline has made us feel them much more sharply.  We have less money; we have fewer sustainable jobs; we have more debt; and we have less to show for our efforts.  We care more about who dies in “The Walking Dead” than we do about who’s leading in the presidential polls because, to us, the death of our favorite fictional character is less of a joke than the campaign forerunners, most of whom seem clueless about the struggles that the average American endures.  It’s cynical; it’s hopeless; and it’s a very prevalent attitude in America today.  Despite the fact that the new Superman is darker and wrestles with his own physical and emotional struggles, none of these struggles truly represent those of the modern American, and neither of his movies ever touch on them except as a period reference.

At one point in time, Superman represented the spirit of American citizens: he was a strong, patriotic figure who assimilated into our culture, worked hard, succeeded, fought for our values (by our values), and was proud to call himself a citizen of the good ol’ U.S. of A..  He represented the idea that, with enough hard work, optimism, and drive, anyone could become successful in America, the Land of Opportunity.  That is likely why he was as big of an American icon as he was.  Whether or not a time in which this was true is irrelevant; the fact remains that today, a very large portion of Americans are much less sunny about the opportunities available to them and the future that awaits them.  Because of it, Superman of the past–the major American icon–is no longer relevant to the modern American.  The writers of the new Superman’s two films seem aware of this since they forewent the patriotic aspect of the character (although this could’ve been an effort to make him appeal more to global audiences, not just American ones).  And while I enjoy what they have done with the character, that patriotic aspect is key to what made him such a huge national icon.  He needs that patriotism–he needs to fight for “truth, justice, and the American way”–or else he isn’t Superman.

But how can Superman continue to fight for “the American way” when it seemingly no longer exists or never existed to begin with?  My answer to this is “have him fight for it anyways.”  Regardless of whether or not “the American way” existed as we idealize it or even existed at all, many of its emphasized values–working hard, keeping your chin up when things get rough, continuously pushing yourself to succeed–are still values worth representing.  In a market full of superheroes that are already doing relatable, human things such as fighting their personal demons, learning about how their identities have changed, dealing with people hating them for being different, and trying to do the right thing regardless of how hard it may be, instilling hope for the future of a currently pessimistic country sounds like a pretty nice angle to play.  And anyway, isn’t that what Superman of the old days did: show us an America full of possibilities?

But Superman’s new “American way” needs to reflect the times.  For many Americans, especially the younger ones, living the dream of going to college, obtaining a job with adequate pay and benefits (e.g., health insurance), and planning for retirement feels like a relic of a day whose sun has set forever.  The future ahead is unsure at best and bleak at worst.  Superman’s story needs to change to reflect this change in Americans’ general disposition.  It needs to touch on the issues happening in America now.  If it doesn’t, it’ll completely skip out on the “American way” part of Superman’s values system and any chance that this new Superman has of touching his audience in the same way that the X-Men’s struggle for equality, Batman’s struggle with himself, and Spider-Man’s struggle growing up have.  The doubt and confusion that the new Superman faces in Man of Steel and humans’ view of him as a godly (or demonic) being in BS provide a great set-up for him to face these issues in a follow-up film in which he can acknowledge the hardships facing today’s Americans and present a reassuring message that the country will survive and go on–a film in which he can stand as an icon of American endurance and perseverance like he did in the past.

I’d go see a movie like that, anyway.