one thing that i see a lot is that critics can’t seem to distinguish between ironic imagery in the dceu and its actual, textual themes.
when we get a series of pundits talking about the superman as a god, The Superman as an identity-less force of nature, accompanied by shots of The Superman ascending from heaven … none of that is superman’s true nature. none of it. we know it isn’t because the montage ends with clark in casual clothes staring at the television, chewing on his lip with a mix of trepidation and anger.
this normal guy who’s just trying his best is sitting in his girlfriend’s apartment while the world talks about him like he’s a vindictive, uncontainable spirit. they’ve built statues to him. they want him to do everything–and nothing. they say, “we don’t know him. but we’re fitting him into an image we understand.”
and critics don’t get that those accompanying images of clark lensflared and glowing are mere fantasy. The Superman appears defiant and unreachable and all-powerful, but the clark we see and know, the clark we follow when we’re in his POV, is sitting on his girlfriend’s couch, wondering what to do, wondering what people see when they look at him.
to come away from that scene and think, “the film is trying to portray clark as a god” is missing the really obvious point that the film knows clark is so much more than that, that he’s uncomfortable with even the suggestion of being held up as something perfect or unreachable. he hates it. the crucial flaw of every character in the film is their inability to see him as ordinary. lois lane’s ability to see him that way allows her to discover evidence of luthor’s plot and to force batman to rethink his assumptions. luthor and bruce cannot predict clark’s behavior because they don’t think he will react in a human, emotional way. everything about the way the story unfolds tells us that clark is happily earthbound, that all attempts to frame him as divine are inherently flawed and even dangerous.
even the allegorical moment of his sacrifice, which is played straight, is about the divine made human. his mistakes, his sacrifices, his values become our myth, but he is human and flawed and grounded. this is an unmistakable beat that the movies consistently explore. and critics can’t seem to tell that the movie is presenting that view of superman as a flaw, primarily, i think, because they are so used to superhero films being so literal about everything that they can’t even recognize metaphors and ironic imagery when they appear.
and that’s their failure, not the film’s. and certainly not superman’s.
#i feel like the negative response is due to people’s unwillingness to see and explore the deeper meaning and themes of the movie #just because that’s not what they expect out of a film about superheroes #which is two hours of entertainment with cool action and funny scenes #but a philosophical superhero movie based on characterization and literary themes #that doesn’t even follow the blockbuster formula #and asks the viewers to look below the surface and think instead of taking everything literally #it seems such a movie is unacceptable for many #but it exists #and i’m so happy it does #also can we talk about the depiction of superman/clark as an introverted person who doesn’t talk too much #obviously both in bvs and mos #which is so great because you barely see a leading character or a superhero like that #and it makes so much sense in the context of the film #because the intentions and actions of introverts are more likely to be misunderstood #and they don’t really talk about how they feel #which is something people wanted him to do bc apparently it wasn’t clear #which is confusing to me bc even extroverted characters shouldn’t have to to that and rely on dialogue #to be understood #that’s not how films work sorry (via @clarandthecloud)
so the movie constantly compares him to Christ and has him die in a Christlike manner, but it doesn’t count because of reasons?
When you have a Christ figure die because he is pierced by a lance, the message is not REALLY about how we’re the ones who are wrong for thinking the movie is casting him as Christlike.
even the allegorical moment of his sacrifice, which is played straight, is about the divine made human.
Like, e.g., Christ, who was notable for being that exact thing.
I think it’s hard to spin the OP as saying that Superman-in-that-moment is not legitimately Christlike.