So much has been made of Kal-El as a Christ figure that little attention is ever paid to the kind of Christ figure that he is. You often hear people argue that Superman raises Lois Lane from the dead in the first movie (though one could also argue that he merely goes back in time to a point before her death and does not actually raise her from the dead, per se).
But what people often don’t point out is that Superman brings Lois back to life as a very specific act of disobedience against his father. At several points in the story, Jor-El tells his son that it is forbidden to interfere with the past, and when Superman prepares to do just that, Jor-El’s face looms large in the clouds, sternly warning him not to disobey.
This theme — Superman’s almost adolescent rebellion against the demands of his father — was going to be developed a little further in Superman II, parts of which were shot at the same time as the first movie. But the director was fired and replaced, and the remaining Brando footage was shelved, and the sequel had to be partly rewritten as a result.
Even so, when you look at the first two films together, an interesting pattern emerges — one that does not necessarily lend itself to orthodox Christian interpretation.
Jeffery: Just a question, not trying bait you. Why does it bother you so much if people find parralells to Christ in pop-culture mythologies? If mthys are manifestations of eternal longings, why should it be so annoying if someone emotionally draws connections between the savior-nature of Superman and the ultimate Savior?
Of course Superman isn’t an allegory of Christ. Anyone who says that doesn’t understand the definition of the word. But he is best viewed as modern result of humanity’s need for a pure savior from above. Like any mythology it falls apart in the details (Superman fornicated w/ Lois apparently – there goes the Christ allegory) but if the image of Superman floating above the earth waiting to help people who are in need reminds some people of Jesus – what’s the harm in that?
Levi,
I have no trouble with acknowledging that there are echoes of Christ in the Superman story.
What really bothers me is the way that many Christians are rushing to simplify things… as if the film is a blatant, simple allegory, and Superman gives us a clear picture of the savior.
I am receiving emails from people furious… and I mean REALLY upset… that I would even *suggest* that Superman is a fallible character. They’re arguing that, just like Jesus, Superman always does the right thing, was sent by a godly father to save the world, always serves that father, and gives his life to save the world. This reflects an unnerving blindness to the complexity of the story.
Moreover, some take this even farther: One said that Superman, like Christ, reminds us of the role of America in the world… that no one will ever defeat us, because we are always on the right side, even when other nations object to having us interfere in their affairs. Yikes. That is scary stuff.
So I feel compelled to highlight features of the Superman myth that should give us pause, before we venerate him as an icon of the Savior.
Further… and this is what bothers me most… it seems that Christians become very excited about films where there is a clear portrayal of a superhuman character sacrificially saving the world, and there is great enthusiam that, at last, here is a movie worth talking about. Whether it’s Narnia or Superman or The Passion of the Christ, there’s a sense in which the church suddenly says, “Finally, Hollywood got it right.”
In the meantime, meaningful echoes of the gospel happen every month, in movies of all kinds… even those that are rated R. Even those that are not marketed to Christians. Even those made by unbelievers. Even those that suggest that we might be called to follow Christ’s example, instead of just sitting back and waiting for Christ to rescue us.
We tend to grab onto movies that we can hold up and say, “See? This is what I believe! You should believe it too!” And yet we’re so reluctant to get involved in films that have something to show *us* instead of those we wish to change. We stand back from films about other cultures, immediate needs, and the demands of Christlike love in the messiness of everyday life.
So it’s kind of embarrassing when there is a sudden explosion of enthusiasm for “Christ-figure movies” as if everything else has just been “secular” and disposable, and we finally have something worth talking about.
I believe there are echoes of Christ everywhere in art. And when we ignore that and then sound the trumpets for Superman, we’re on the verge of making fools of ourselves.
I’m not saying that’s YOU, Levi. I’m making a generalization. But it’s a fair generalization, drawn from my emails and my scans of religious coverage of these films.
That’s what bothers me.
Jeffery,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I guess it does come off as strange to me when I’m not one who’s getting emails like that. There’s a lot of silly people out there w/ email accounts. (Including myself, on occasion.)
It is odd how people want to take simple mythology and squeeze it into allegory. That’s a suffocating way to parse a story. I think Superman falls prey to this sort of Christ-type-hype because he’s easier to draw a parallel to than a Jean Valjean or Paul Rusesabagina.
Honestly this entire thing just exposes our need for Christ. Why on earth should a silly comic book character wearing blue tights make us think of Jesus? Probably the same way every woman that a soldier sees remindes him of the one back home. And that’s enough melodrama for the day.
The reason I side with Jeffrey on this one is artistic: it seems that the question with Christians is whether the film gets its symbolism right, not whether the film gets its artistic integrity right.
A good work of art, regardless of its subject matter or symbolism, always honors the Creator. And THAT’s what Christians should get excited about in art. Alas! we are just too utilitarian, the trap of evangelicalism.
I think Peter has struck on the source of Kal-El’s angst: he isn’t a messiah figure, not even when he fights for the “American Way”… or, as it has been adjusted for the current episode, “truth, justice… and all that.”
This alien hero is meant to show humans the way to be better humans; he is not installing rituals and institutions to carry on his work (though that might be an interesting storyline), in fact he does not purport to be a savior of any kind.
Kal-El, taken at his word, is a “friend” who is here to help, not save, humanity. As Greg Wright has pointed out, it is humans in the US that seem to enjoy the privilege of Superman’s power, but then again that is not so far off from his original concept: Superman was meant to inspire Americans during a time of war against great and present evil. He was never intended to be anything but our favorite Kryptonian. To put any more lofty purpose on him than that is a distortion of the character.
Fortunately neither Richard Donner nor Bryan Singer seem to hold him in any higher esteem than his original creators (who were Jewish, incidentally, and perhaps acting out of nationalism when they invented their hero) did.
Well said, wngl.
(When I say your name, I choke.)
So, I’m curious. All of this “light the way” stuff, this “savior” language, was that introduced by Singer, or Donner, or was it in the original comics? Because that seems to incline us toward viewing him as more than just a “friend.”
And you know what happens when we become more than just friends…
Where wngl goes wrong for me is when he says “in fact he does not purport to be a savior of any kind.” But in Superman Returns we have that whole flight scene with Lois in which Big Blue says that he hears people calling for a savior every day.
In the comics, Supes is presented as a savior frequently because of what he does but one of the strongest themes, especially in the last 10 years or so, has been that he’s more human than many humans because of his dedication & self-sacrifice for earth. (The comparison between Lex Luthor’s superior intellect & Clark’s brawn is a long-standing theme in the comics. But it’s Clark’s heart that always wins out.) Clark loves this planet, & he should ‘cos it’s the only one he’s ever known. He & Lois married a while back & that only adds to his humanity – to see Supes as a husband & potential father. (I never in a 1,000,000 years thought Singer’d go there! I’m so glad I didn’t read any spoiler reveiws.) The distinction between Supes & Batman being 2 sides of the same coin has been very effective in recent years, too. Not to mention that Superman is stridently pro-life – all life. (As is Batman, who refused to kill or condone killing for any reason.)
But the savior aspect of the Superman character has been around before Singer or Donner. Siegel & Shuster apparently admitted the Mosaic aspects of Superman at one point. Since Moses was an Old Testament type of Christ, comparisons are natural. Not that they’re always effective. Supes even had his big death & resurrection in the early/mid 1990s.
For me, Big Blue isn’t so much a “Chist figure” as some would have us believe, as he is the person we all should be, Christ-like, self-sacrificing, truthful, etc. That’s the more meaningful veiw of Superman, IMO. As Levi said, to makd Superman into a savior at some point falls apart. But to make him what we all should be striving to be is far more powerful & interesting.
Focusing on the films, yes, Supes made a mistake in disobeying Jor-El in Superman I by reversing time to save Lois. And in Superman II he made a mistake to give up his Kryptonian abilities for Lois. But in Superman Returns, he’s realized all that & knows that he’s to be a model for humans of what they could be, something to strive for, a bringer of the light of hope in a world full of Lex Luthors. It’s in that way that, for the reader or viewer, Superman is Christ-like. To make him a direct, Aslan-like allegory, or Savior icon (as Jeffrey stated) is foolish & untenable, given his history. In being more human than some humans, like Lex, he also makes mistakes. He’s never been portrayed as perfect in the comics, as far as I know. But it’s those mistakes juxtaposed with his power that makes him an icon of humanity striving to be the best we can be that give Superman his lasting meaning. At least for me. (Contrast this with the very real, almost hyper real, Captain America, who has no desire to be anything better than the best soldier he can be for his country & to beat the tar outta the bad guy. And to get the girl. Superman most definitely has higher aspirations than that. He’s called to it by his father.)
And, yes, it points to humanity’s need for Jesus. I don’t think Singer was aiming at that any more than Jackson was with LOTR. But it’s there, just the same. I think it’s there in most any super-hero. Even Batman. Maybe especially Batman.
If memory serves, Jor-El’s lines about “light the way” and sending his “only son” are remnants of Mario Puzo’s screenplay. As far as I remember, Puzo wrote the initial treatment and script, which was then revised a thousand times, by the Salkinds (the original producers), Robert Benton and Tom Manciewicz.
Can we *please* point some of these obsessed-w/-cinematic-Christ-figure fanatics in the direction of “Death Rides a Horse”? Spaghetti western kind of inspired by Few Dollars More, subverts the whole vengeance quest thing, features a sympathetic ex-criminal basically offering to die in order to expiate the sins of his more evil comrades? MGM put out a decent R2 release but leaves us R1 fans languishing with ugly, fullframe pseudo-public-domain versions, and any publicity that could get us a release would be nice ;P
More seriously, I have a lot of sympathy for Peter’s and Jeffrey’s takes on this. There are echoes of Christ in the comics/Salkind Superman, but not particularly interesting or important ones, and based on the reviews, I’d be frankly surprised if Singer succeeded any better at it.
I wanted to comment on this earlier but Mr. Overstreet said I could not add comments until I had finished writing: “I will not post snarky comments.” 100 times on the metaphorical blackboard. I’m up to 79 now so I’ll check back in a little bit ; )
(For those of you who live in Seattle that was a joke.)
Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net
http://WWW.IVChristianCenter.com
I’ve always been interested in discussion about Superman’s actions in the first movie, when he disobeyed Jor-El. I recall my parents being VERY upset about it – that it portrayed Superman as disobeying (“sinning” I guess) and receiving NO negative consequences for his actions. On the other hand, I have people who have argued that Superman was choosing NOT to be the “savior” that Jor-El wanted him to be, but choosing instead to be human, complete with human frailties and love. I’m not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be.