The Four Color Media Monitor

Wouldn't you know it, a newspaper from the United Arab Emirates, The National, is asking if overrated filmmaker James Gunn's new silver screen take on Superman is hostile to Israel, and gives vital clues to how it could sadly be so, and also explain why the movie isn't exactly an allusion to the Jewish roots of Superman's creation:

In James Gunn's new Superman film, a sophisticated military attacks innocent civilians from across a border fence, with children's lives hanging in the balance.

If that imagery evokes the Israel-Gaza war in your mind, you're not alone.

Social media posts have claimed the film is a critical response to Israel's actions in Gaza.

The film is “very anti-Israel”, said a five-star review on the Letterboxd app, which has garnered nearly nine million views across platforms. Another post, with 11 million views on X, claimed the film's criticism is “very explicit and in your face”.

The film’s perceived political message has already been the subject of controversy. Gunn told The Times that the film is “about politics” and “morality”, and the film is an “immigrant” story, which sparked backlash among supporters of US President Donald Trump’s sweeping anti-immigration policies.

Neither Gunn, nor any of the cast and crew, have publicly claimed the story is about Israel or Palestine, but early audiences have pointed to one of the film’s main story threads as an allegory for the conflict.

Regrettably, it's entirely possible it is, and as noted before, may not be all that different from the metaphors seen in Black Adam. A description of the visuals and dialogue in the film is as follows:

The film opens three weeks after Superman (David Corenswet) has prevented the fictional nation of Boravia – an ally of the US, we’re told – from invading the fictional nation of Jarhanpur.

Boravia has a sophisticated and heavily armed military through US support, while Jarhanpur is a poor nation that can do little to defend itself.

[...] The film's trailer shows a scene from the Boravia-Jarhanpur conflict – the Boravian side full of tanks, military vehicles and soldiers with assault rifles, the Jarhanpurian side with unarmed civilians fleeing for their lives.

While there have been other real-life conflicts that mirror this dynamic, there is one reason in particular it feels more influenced by Israel-Palestine than it does, say, Ukraine-Russia. The Boravians are portrayed as ethnically white, while the Jarhanpurians are non-white.

Boravia’s plan, we’re told, is a settler-colonial project that aims to displace the indigenous Jarhanpurians and expand the Boravian state. The imagery also evokes scenes from the Gaza conflict, set in an arid environment with women wearing modest clothing.

[...] The timeline of the film aligns with the Israel-Gaza war, too. Gunn was writing the film at the time of the October 2023 attacks by Hamas, saying he was 99 per cent done in December of that year. Filming began on February 29, 2024, and wrapped in July.

Okay, I think I've read enough. So we're even supposed to believe a woman who dressed in the kind of modest clothing an Islamist woman would is the one who's in the right (which they likely wouldn't do with Catholic nuns and ultra-Orthodox Judaists), and we're even supposed to believe Arabs aren't white/caucasian? (A big problem is that Islamists, as this item hints, don't want to be identified that way for political reasons.) And it's entirely possible special modifications could've been made to the screenplay just prior to the filming as well, to further reflect the repellent vision this film appears to embody. Ugh. Now I understand why I grew increasingly disillusioned with comics adaptations over the past decade or so. This is disgusting, and the article doesn't exactly view it as a negative, the Abraham Accords notwithstanding, which just goes to make clear that antisemitism is still prevalent in the UAE. Surely the worst thing is how the film takes the creations of Jewish artists and writers, and basically turns them against their Jewish brethren. That's got to be one of the worst possible insults one could find in the entertainment medium. And lest we forget, even Wonder Woman 1984 contained propaganda similar to what this film's got.

Also for pondering, there's the following opinion from National Review, which tells some odd stuff about Zack Snyder's Man of Steel film from over a decade ago:

We may never know Zack Snyder’s master plan for advancing the Superman saga since his Man of Steel opus (The Godfather of superhero movies) was disrupted by studio executives at Warner Bros. who insisted on a comic book series that emulated Christopher Nolan’s nihilistic but more profitable Batman franchise. They wanted darkness, not Snyder’s seriousness. But “dark” means trivial in Millennial film culture, and now, with James Gunn’s new Superman, Warner has gotten the inconsequential movie it always desired.

Is this really on the level? IIRC, Nolan was one of the producers for Man of Steel, and in none of the press reports to date did it ever sound like Snyder actually wanted to make a movie with a tone similar to what Gunn ostensibly employs. And whether WB got the kind of film they wanted here, would be more in terms of political views. Let's also consider Batman v. Superman featured allusions to the kind of issues that've since become more prevalent, like illegal immigration, with demonstrators carrying picket signs that made Supes out to sound literally like the kind of interlopers seen on earth. Even if that was mandated by WB's upper echelons, it still doesn't look good coming from Snyder.

Snyder took up the Superman comic book myth then enhanced its meaning as American cultural heritage with classical, spiritual roots. This grand vision opposes fanboy frivolity, which is the basis of Gunn’s commercialized version. His Superman (portrayed by David Corenswet) is introduced as a humiliated, known quantity. He has already lost a battle, slammed into the pavement of Metropolis, and is bloody, wounded, and wheezing.

What's so grand about a film with a downbeat vision, any more than a film with divisive political metaphors that're hurtful even to Siegel and Shuster? That's something this review isn't clear upon. One of the most irritating things about films like the newer movie is that they supposedly offer a brighter vision, but with strings attached. So in other words, if the audience wants something respecting that the older Superman comics even had a sense of humor, the studio's only willing to deliver it with crude catches. So, they're not willing to steer clear of an obsession with far-left ideologies, even if they end up doing more harm than good to women's status, as the aforementioned modest clothing suggests. The reviewer continues:

Gunn’s point is to replace myth and destroy all faith. This Superman movie is the most cynical imaginable. It doesn’t just go against the original Joe Shuster–Jerry Siegel comic book ubermensch that Snyder understood; it reworks a figure for the dystopian millennium and Hollywood resistance.

Somehow, I don't think the reviewer understands that Snyder's take had a huge flaw in its approach - making it all so downbeat. Does even the alleged respect for "faith" excuse that? Of course not. Gunn's take may be cynical, but let's not think Snyder's wasn't. Let's also consider that even during the Golden Age, it's not like Siegel and Shuster made everything the dark and gloom the 2013 film was noted for. Even in its early years, there was a sense of appreciation for optimism, which these modern movies don't exactly honor, no matter their angle.

There’s no denying that Guardians of the Galaxy director Gunn knows the market he panders to when he emasculates Corenswet’s average all-American masculinity — the essence of the Superman concept — then extracts any romance from Superman’s relationship with reporter Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan is grating throughout their meant-to-be-flirty spats). Lacking Snyder’s erotic pairing of Henry Cavill and Amy Adams, Gunn degrades the humanity of these characters. He victimizes Superman (horribly so in a poorly judged “Pocket Universe” prison sequence featuring nightmarish degradation) and then triggers audience revulsion through evil genius Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult), whose key-punch video game tropes remotely attack a man of virtual invulnerability rather than a man of steel. Luthor combats Superman through a combination of science and technology — injecting nanobot GPS trackers into Superman’s bloodstream — using methods that recall the hideous Covid manipulation.

Gunn’s objective is to banalize the very concept that Snyder sought to elevate. He demeans Superman’s virtue, making him a figure of public distrust vilified in the press, yet gives him goofy boyishness through a mischievous terrier-schnauzer mutt named Krypto. Snyder eliminated the pet, but Gunn uses the dog for dragging Superman’s rumpled body to the icy Fortress of Solitude. The sequence lacks surprise as well as delight. Inane dialogue and jokey asides constitute Gunn’s half-Nolan and half-Marvel hackery.

Well sorry to say, but I don't think Snyder tried to "elevate" the aforementioned concepts, though I can believe Gunn sought to emasculate Supes. And lest we forget that any presence Tom King had in this production, along with the planned Supergirl movie, is also problematic. One can wonder if the idea Luthor could actually inject nano-technology into Superman despite his skin meant to be impervious to measures conflicts with how the Man of Steel came to be established as largely bulletproof. But, if accusations that Gunn emasculated Supes make sense, that's hardly a surprise at this point.

Now, here's another review at the NY Post, by somebody giving a positive take, completely oblivious to the political metaphors that undermine the story, yet what's interesting is that he blames the darker angles of previous DC adaptations on Christopher Nolan's Batman films:

The shift was stark. Because DC Comics films, and really most movies in the superhero genre for more than a decade, have been as enjoyable as algebra.

They warped into interminable Debbie Downers after — oh, the nerds are gonna protest at my apartment for this one — Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy.

Sorry, dweebs. The gloom-and-doom comic book reinvention is entirely the fault of the director of “Inception.” He did it.

Remember “Batman Begins,” “The Dark Knight” and “The Dark Knight Rises”? The 2008-2012 series in which Gotham looked like a down-and-out Chicago and the villains were reconceived as a series of evil terrorists?

Where Heath Ledger murdered a man in cold blood on a grainy video feed and, on the rare occasions daylight was shown, it was always cloudy outside?

The ones in which Christian Bale put his body through hell? Well, I suppose that’s every Christian Bale movie.

That trio made so much money and received so much acclaim, everybody had no choice but to rip them off.

Nolan’s movies, which are very good when taken on their own, undeniably had a rotten effect on what came next.

Think back. Superheroes used to be quirky and inspiring.

Be that as it may, they weren't as politically hammering as more recent fare has become. But while there may be something to the point about what downside Nolan's trilogy could've had, it can easily be argued that over 35 years ago, Tim Burton's Batman movie had a similar effect, recalling the short-lived Flash TV show from 1990 came pretty close to being built on darkness as well (not to mention economy character casting, if we take how its version of Barry Allen had a brother named Jay). So it's not really new that Nolan's films could set a precedent when it was already put in motion by Burton back in the day. I think this NY Post article is one of a number that run the risk of being too tabloid, and while the paper does have its pluses, they've also got their share of minuses. This could be one of them. Besides, though I can't say I've ever thought of myself as a "nerd", I can say that even if I were, I don't have an issue with somebody making a point how too much darkness has ruined not just superhero films, but much of cinema in general.

And then, Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart points to how LGBT propagandists are trying to hijack Superman as a "gay allegory" yet again. The report also makes a point how the "immigrant" propaganda is hugely blown out of proportion:

Superman, though, has never necessarily been portrayed as an “immigrant” per se. In the comics, the character has always identified himself more as a citizen of earth — and in past years, a citizen of the United States. After all, he left his alien home planet as an infant, grew up in Smallville in the U.S.A., and only knew about his home from the computer files his parents sent with him to earth. He has far more affinity for humans than for Kryptonians.

But given Krypton was destroyed by an interior explosion, that's why Superman still counts as a refugee, even in infancy, and a similar point can be made about Starfire in New Teen Titans.

But on top of Gunn’s re-imagining of Superman’s ethos as an “immigrant story,” now Out magazine is taking even more of the masculine stuffing out of the Man of Steel and proclaiming that he is a “gay icon.”

For Out, self-identified lesbian writer Mey Rude claimed that the Superman character “has always been a queer allegory” — a fact that would have been news to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the men who created the Man of Steel in 1934.

The magazine also insists that “being an outsider” and the “hypermasculinity” of the character also touch on gay subtexts.

Then there is the costume. The article claims that Superman’s spandex is gay all the way, saying, “Spandex, a bright cape, and the underwear on the outside? Did I describe Superman’s costume or an outfit you’d see at any Pride festival?”

In conclusion Out claims that Superman is gay and straight people need to look somewhere else for a hero.

“No matter how much conservatives complain, Superman’s story is an immigrant story, and it is a queer story. Queer people have always seen themselves in superheroes, and will continue to do so. If conservatives want heroes that don’t represent the queer community, they need to look elsewhere,” the magazine proudly bloviates.

This sounds like another "psychological warfare" attempt to discourage fans from continuing their support for the Man of Steel. Truly disgusting. No, the only thing LGBT adherents see in superheroes is something to hijack out of ideological greed. Stuff they never created themselves. And the writer tops it all off by perpetuating the immigration distortion. Huston makes the following point:

This historical revisionism is an absurd reach. It is patently obvious that Superman is an example of an “outsider,” granted. But for Shuster and Siegel, that did not mean to denote anything about homosexuality. With both creators being Jewish, it was the outsider status of Jews they were commenting upon, not that of gays.

The LGBTQ community can glom onto superheroes all they want, of course. That is what art and entertainment is all about, the idea that patrons might find their own meaning in the art. But that does not excuse Out for attempting to take possession of the Superman character and to exclude those who don’t see anything gay at all in the superhero story.

Well spoken. A most terrible thing about "cultural hijacking" is that even Islamists can do that, and already have too. Worse, if the National's article says something, Gunn's practically pandered to them, even in stealth format. So far, the film may have taken a bundle at the box office, but that doesn't mean it's not troubling and dismaying in its own way. It's a real shame how only so many pop culture icons have been hijacked and appropriated every which way but loose, by ideologues who have no respect for the original developers, and this has to stop. We certainly can't stand by idly while our admired icons and their creators are abused by bad ideologues, that's for sure.

Labels: dc comics, Europe and Asia, golden calf of LGBT, history, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman, terrorism, violence