Neither the character nor the symbol that is Superman (or Clark Kent, for that matter) has ever been considered cool, or edgy, or frankly all that interesting. Often referred to as the oldest living Boy Scout, Clark Kent and his alter ego have always meant to crystallize what was pure about humanity as imbued by those on the outside looking in. So, in a world where everyone is believed to have ulterior motives and no one’s intentions come purely from the goodness of their own heart where, and how, does Superman fit in? This seems to be the angle with which writer/director James Gunn - a man mostly known for telling saccharine stories about scumbags - has approached his Man of Steel movie for, while this is the first piece of Gunn’s larger, brand new DC cinematic universe, it is just as importantly a justification for why the
character of Superman matters just as much as the Superman character does in today’s divided climate. Gunn didn’t seem a natural fit for a story anchored by a hero whose facets are limited if not a little one-dimensional but when viewed through the prism of questioning said character - and I mean Superman’s sincere mission of serving humanity in order to make the world a better place, just to be clear - when that character is called into question by those who once believed in him but have been turned mercilessly against him by the billionaires that control the narrative, the story automatically turns from one about fighting for truth, justice, and the American way to one asking and hopefully challenging audiences to investigate what those terms mean based on the source that is spouting them.
It is no secret Gunn knows a thing or two about having ones past dug up in order to smear their name and reputation as Superman is subjected to very much the same treatment here. It is also no secret the current President and Lex Luthor would rather make detractors disappear than actually allow for said truth, justice, and the American way to be upheld, but it is somewhat surprising how overt this text is in the film and how it sustains itself throughout. A throughline involving Dinesh Thyagarajan’s Malik “Mali” Ali is the most visceral and brutal part of the film that now resonates in more ways than Gunn likely even intended when he initially wrote it. Is it a little funny for Gunn to equate his experiences to something on the scale Superman might experience? Sure, but in taking this approach to the character the writer/director finds his way to a hero who is both consistent with what the movies of the past have presented (I was just the right age to prefer Batman to Supes) while making the character, if not necessarily punk rock, at least a little more cool and edgy than we’re accustomed to. Further, Superman’s frustrations here fit the more modern aesthetic and world of the story as opposed to the retro ideals of Americana that seemed of the past even in the 1978 original. Superman, and Gunn’s version (and movie) specifically, still amounts to the belief that if we’re all a little kinder to one another the world will be a better place, but David Corenswet’s portrayal never for one moment makes us think we should mistake his kindness for softness; he is very much determined to do what it takes to keep basic human decency intact regardless of fabricated policies and political decorum.
