Like so many this summer, I was captivated by the mythology of Superman. With the release of James Gunn’s 2025 film, it felt as though there was a shift in the perception of not just the character but of heroism in general.
What was perhaps most refreshing was the response to the film’s criticism of imperialism backed by the US and corrupt billionaires. The thesis of the film seems to be highlighting just how crucial hope and kindness are, and the public response to this was largely positive. In a moment where it seems as though we are shifting to the right and see compassion as cringe, this fervour feels like yet another cultural shift.
Why are we so captivated by Superman, and what exactly does this say about our culture?
Superman has existed since the 1930s, when he was created by Jewish comic book writers Jerry Siegel and Joseph Shuster. The character became a symbol of hope in a time of uncertainty. He came to be towards the end of the Great Depression when dissatisfaction and weariness had settled over America. Thus, Superman became the ultimate fantasy; an all powerful being raised in an ordinary environment who devoted his life to spreading joy and protecting the masses.
Unlike other superheroes created in the golden age of comics, Superman retained his optimism in the decades following. While other characters were altered to be grittier and more realistic, the desire to keep him as a symbol of ultimate power hope managed to remain even as the comic industry changed. In nearly every iteration, Superman is optimistic, kind and deeply human.
In the 21st century, however, we saw a new cultural shift. It was at this point in time that public perceptions of Superman altered significantly. Following events like gamergate and the rise of right-wing views though social media platforms like YouTube, the notion that men should be motivated by altruism began to be viewed as cringeworthy.
Superman is one of the most popular characters of all time, often viewed as a masculine ideal, which meant men began to change these aspects fundamental to his character. It was in this climate that Zack Snyder’s Superman was conceived.
In 2013’s Man of Steel, Superman is primarily characterised not through his humanity and kindness but through his inconceivable power. As both Superman and Clark Kent, he is domineering and impressive, as well as completely inaccessible. There is no indication that this Superman is motivated by hope, and the character’s political roots seem entirely discarded. He became an alien blank slate and as a result a large portion of audiences felt disconnected from the character. The character turns to violence more often than necessary and relies more on his powers than the character ever had before.
Gone was the flawed, clumsy and naïve Kansas farm boy. In his stead was a warrior entirely detached from the character’s rich history. Changing the source material isn’t necessarily a bad decision, especially when said source material is as vast as DC comics’, but Man of Steel demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what drew audiences to the character in the first place.
When it was announced that James Gunn was set to direct 2025’s Superman, I was cautiously optimistic. Gunn is known for his beloved adaptations of long-standing characters, from Scooby Doo to Guardians of the Galaxy, so it seemed fitting that someone experienced in wading through the mythos of iconic franchises would be responsible for Superman.
I expected to love the film, but I didn’t expect just how much I would love the political messaging present. From the production team openly acknowledging that the character is an immigrant in a time where immigrants are facing an unprecedented level of vitriol, to the fact that the main villain of the film is a billionaire attempting to colonise a less powerful country, it becomes increasingly obvious that this is the most outwardly political a superhero film has been in recent memory.
While Gunn has confirmed that he didn’t base the plot on the invasion of Palestine, there are certainly strong parallels to be drawn. This is furthered by some of the other production choices. The Jarhanpurian people in the film are predominantly portrayed by brown actors,and the country’s leader is played by Fahim Fazli, who thanked the filmmakers for allowing him to play a character who wasn’t a terrorist after being typecast for decades. So when he joins the chant at the climax of the movie for Superman to save him and his people, it feels deeply emotional.
Here is an actor who for decades has almost exclusively played a cunning and dangerous terrorist in one of the biggest movies of the year showing emotional complexity often not afforded to brown men in cinema. The film confronts audiences about any potential biases they may have towards immigrants and people of colour before subverting them in moving ways.
Perhaps the most affecting moment in the film is when a Jarhanpurian child is clinging to Superman’s flag in terror when a soldier turns a gun at him. It is an image audiences are likely depressingly familiar with. When we watch the news or open social media how often are we confronted with children begging for their lives? How often are we seeing just how far governments are willing to go for land,money, or power? Suffering children do not have an alien superhero ready to save them at a moment’s notice.
But, interestingly, Superman didn’t need to save him. The Jarhanpurians are protected by other formerly disaffected superheroes who join the fight after seeing the interconnected hope and terror in their chant. In another way they are protected by the Daily Planet press, led by Lois Lane, who expose the full story of the occupation of Jarhanpur.
The characters surrounding Superman are hardened and cynical,they doubt his kindness and idealism as effective, in many ways mirroring the recent public perception towards the character. So it feels triumphant seeing them show compassion and realising the power choosing kindness has.
I left the film with a fire lit in me. The response to the film was nothing short of joyous, which seemed a huge achievement for a film with such left wing messaging in the midst of a right wing culture. It is for this reason I believe the response is a sign of what is to come.
By creating a positive masculine role model, young boys have a figure they can aspire to because of his compassion, rather than his wealth or following. The film was a huge success, grossing $16.6 million globally, suggesting that the impossible power Snyder’s Superman was characterised through is not a necessity for the character to be beloved. The weeks following left people optimistic and craving social change.
Gunn knows Superman well enough to know he is a personification of hope. The ultimate message of the film, in the words of Fahim Fazli, is “do not lose hope.”
Leave a Reply