Posts tagged with: superman

Blog author: jcarter
posted by on Thursday, June 27, 2013

Man-of-Steel-General-Zod-HelmetIn the new movie Man of Steel, Superman engages in a fight with his fellow aliens from Krypton that causes significant damage to Metropolis. Disaster expert Charles Watson estimates the costs of the physical damage done to the city to be about $2 trillion. To put that in context, 9/11’s physical damage cost $55 billion, with a further economic impact of $123 billion.

What would be the impact of Superman’s fight on the economy? According to some liberal economists, it would lead to a economic boom. In defending President Obama’s stimulus proposal in 2011, Paul Krugman proposed a peculiar solution for economic recovery that mimics the one in Man of Steel: prepare for an alien invasion.

“If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months,” he declared, arguing in favor of the president’s stimulus package. “And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better [off].”

Man of Steel must be Krugman’s favorite movie: you not only get an alien invasion (Kal-El, General Zod and his soldiers) but you get alien destruction on a massive scale. Just think of all the economic benefit Metropolis gained!
(more…)

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Atheist SupermanLast time the Superman franchise was rebooted, I reacted pretty negatively to the messiah-lite qualities of Clark Kent’s alter ego. In this fine piece over at Big Think, Peter Lawler analyzes the nature of this tension in the context of the new film quite aptly:

The film also has all kinds of Christian New-Agey imagery that you can grab onto if you’re not much of a reader. Superman is compared in some ways to Jesus; he begins his mission at age 33, for example. But that kind of comparison doesn’t really hold up that well. Superman is only here to help us, not redeem us, certainly not to save us from our sins or from death. And he doesn’t have any deep insight into the meaning of life or love. His life, like each of ours, is shaped by choice and chance. He has extraordinary power that falls way short of omnipotence. He’s a man born to love and die—not a god. Superman’s Kryptonian father predicts that the people of our planet would regard his only begotten son as a god, but that we did not do. We’ve never become so Nietzschean or whatever that we’ve come to think a merely Superman can replace our need for God himself.

I haven’t yet seen Man of Steel, but Lawler’s examination has roused my hopes for the reboot. The imperial dynamics of Kryptonian technocracy look to be a fruitful vehicle for examining salient dimensions of our own experience today.

As Lawler concludes, “Krypton’s inevitable decline and fall is a victory of natural evolution over the effort to provide a conscious and volitional replacement for it. It’s not true that human liberty is defeated by evolution; the truth is that we are ‘hardwired’ for choice and chance and can’t flourish without them” (emphasis added; HT: Prufock).

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Friday, May 22, 2009

Would the fact that Superman is the “longest running fictional character ever” support or undermine my claim that he typically functions as an anti-Christ figure?

I should observe that God himself was considered and rejected for the appellation: “It should be noted, however, that those who would proffer the cheeky suggestion that Our Father Who Art in Heaven is a fictional character are godless heathens and/or Theology majors. Anyway: Troublemakers. Let us pay them no heed.”

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The latest take on the “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) phenomenon is passed along by Allen Galbraith of Life is a Journal (HT: Lifehacker).

Allen’s advice: “When dealing with difficult people imagine how one of your role models or heroes would deal with them.” Allen notes the possibilities of using Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, or Jesus as part of this thought experiment. But he also notes, “You could even use fictional characters as role models. In my case I would use Jean Luc Picard or Palmer Joss (from Contact) or Shepherd Book (from Firefly).” Lifehacker includes the example of Batman, who “would probably choose to either A)distract the perp with a new gadget or B)walk away and hide in his Bat Cave.”

Now clearly choosing Gandhi or Superman would be better than say, Hitler or Lex Luthor. This is why Allen also includes the caveat, “At this stage I am hoping you have positive role models!” This raises the ancillary question of how people in North Korea are being influenced, as they are taught to revere the self-proclaimed “Guardian Deity of the Planet” Kim Jong-Il.

For more on substituting super heroes for Jesus, see my “Anti-Christ Superman: The Superhero and the Suffering Servant” (and related PowerBlog commentary).

I’m reading John W. de Gruchy’s Confessions of a Christian Humanist, and despite some rather disagreeable elements to his theology, he does have quite a few valuable insights.

Here’s what he says in the context of Nietzsche’s derision of Jesus Christ contained in The Anti-Christ:

Christians should not disparage the body, human strength and bravery, or the aesthetic dimensions of life. But Nietzsche is right, if not wholly so. The Christian God is the ‘poor people’s God, the sinner’s God’. The Christian icon of the truly human is not primarily embodied in the bronzed athletes of the ancient Greek or modern Olympics, nor in the lives of the rich, the powerful and famous, and the beautiful people that grace the catwalk, nor typified by the humanist ‘man of letters’; it is embodied in Jesus the crucified Jew who gave his life for others.

These observations get at the heart of my critique of the Jesus/Superman parallels that many are drawing. I do think, by the way, that my argument has been at least partly misunderstood by many of those who read the piece. I don’t claim any direct genetic link between Nietzsche’s philosophy and the genesis of Superman. I do, however, think that the quote from Superman’s father Jor-El sounds a lot more like the prologue to Thus Spake Zarathustra than anything in the Bible.

It’s also clear that the movie itself, Superman Returns, attempts to draw the Christ/Superman parallel, rather crudely and ineffectively at times. But the Superman legend is not restricted to the movie, and while the film is an occasion to talk about these issues, I don’t think it is the only relevant datum.

One reader contends, by contrast, that “Superman in this film is not a figure who exemplifies worldly power, but one who exemplifies self-sacrifice.” He also states: “I honestly believe this is the most ‘Christian’ film since Narnia and before that Mel Gibson’s Passion.” (The author of the letter blogs here.)

That sort of language makes me pretty uncomfortable.

Blog author: kschmiesing
posted by on Friday, June 30, 2006

Christian reviewers take the new take on the Man of Steel many different ways:

Steven Greydanus likes it.

Thomas Hibbs doesn’t.

Keith Howland likes it.

Peter Chattaway doesn’t (very much).

None of these has anything on Acton’s own Jordan Ballor, however, who analyzes the film with penetrating insight (or X-ray vision, as one is tempted to say…).

A host of Christian and secular commentators have trumpeted the similarities between Superman and Jesus Christ in light of the forthcoming movie, Superman Returns.

Many Christians embraced the Superman hero when a trailer for the new movie was released using the words of Superman’s father Jor-El, voiced by Marlon Brando: “Even though you’ve been raised as a human being you’re not one of them. They can be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I sent them you… my only son.”

In this week’s Acton Commentary, I point instead to the fundamental differences between the two. I am concerned that Christians are being unwittingly exploited by Hollywood spin doctors: “Christians risk undermining our own influence when we simply latch on to the pop icon of the moment in undiscerning and uncritical ways.”

In an interview with CT Movies this week, Superman Returns director Bryan Singer acknowledges the intentionality of the spiritual allegories for Superman, “Christ being a natural one, because Superman’s a savior. And even more so in my film, because he’s gone for a period of time, and then he returns. For me to say that those messianic images don’t exist in the movie would be absurd.”

Read the full commentary here (cross-posted to Blogcritics.org).