The upcoming “Superman” movie isn’t a critique of Donald Trump’s immigration policies; rather, it reflects the feeling of many liberals who feel sidelined in America. The timeless values of “truth, justice, and the American way” were once the essence of Superman, especially in the iconic 1978 film starring Christopher Reeve.
James Gunn, the director of this latest iteration, has his own perspective. He notes that “Superman” represents an American narrative, highlighting the kindness immigrants bring to the country. He mentioned to The Times in London that while the story may be about immigrants, it fundamentally emphasizes the importance of basic human kindness—a value we seem to be losing.
Conservatives have expressed concern that Gunn’s vision might portray Superman as opposing Trump’s strict immigration measures. The director’s depiction of Superman as a being shaped more by sentiment than by traditional American values seems to diverge from the character’s roots. The argument arises that America isn’t fundamentally unique in these new interpretations of the hero.
This perspective reflects broader trends in liberal politics today. Gunn has previously tweeted about the national crisis and compared political figures to dictators, suggesting a deep concern about the current state of affairs. This political lens may be influencing the way he approaches comic book narratives.
In the film, it seems Luthor operates with Russian ties—albeit under the fictional name “Boravia.” The social media schemes aimed at undermining Superman hint at governmental failures to protect him. Still, it’s important to note that any parallels between Luthor and recent political figures like Trump or Bush don’t hold up too strongly. The film’s focus isn’t strictly on immigration, even if that theme plays a part.
Superman, who lands on Earth in a rocket from Krypton, is raised with Midwestern values. His moral compass, influenced by his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent, becomes a matter of debate. The film portrays them in a somewhat clichéd way, and their advice to “become yourself” raises questions about identity. It feels like Superman’s struggle with his origins ultimately leaves him without a clear self-identity. In fact, he seems more like an outsider than part of the American fabric.
Moreover, this Superman appears disconnected from the concept of the “American Method,” suggesting that his humanity might be defined by failure rather than achievement. Is it really failure that characterizes us, or is there something deeper?
These themes in the film might reflect some subconscious beliefs prevalent among many liberals today. First, the notion that no one is remarkable is reinforced; Superman is just one among a crowd of “super” characters, including, quite oddly, a dog version of him. Second, the film leans more on sentiment than patriotism, showing Superman as assimilating into ideals of kindness rather than the American spirit. Lastly, there’s a certain pessimism in the depiction of liberal ideals, especially when Superman’s refusal to kill is shown as a liability rather than a strength.
There’s a sense of helplessness as Superman faces challenges, and even when he overcomes obstacles, it often leads to more chaos. The contrast between his ideals and the gritty reality around him poses a stark question about his effectiveness as a hero. Viewers might desire a Superman who possesses the strength to symbolize America rather than one who embodies weakness.
Even President Trump seemingly captures a more profound understanding of Superman, jokingly illustrating this point by putting his face on a movie poster. This film, through its narrative choices, makes one wonder just what direction the character—and perhaps, the values he embodies—are headed.
