What is Superman? Everyone knows that Batman is a fascist, a jackbooted Il Duce-style thug who defaces the night sky with his symbol and tries to forge a society of class collaborationism between the haute bourgeoisie and the ‘law-abiding’ sectors of the proletariat. Similarly, it doesn’t take much critical discernment to see shades of postmodern neoliberalism in Iron Man – his world is one of panoptic openness, in which he’s not afraid to let the world know that he is the industrialist Tony Stark and Iron Man is just one of his trademarked brands; meanwhile his deadpan pseudowitticisms bear the mark of contemporary pastiche, what Jameson calls a ‘blank irony’ without referent, ‘amputated of the satiric impulse, devoid of laughter.’ Aquaman, of course, has unwittingly represented since the 1940s the uselessness of our 21st-century corporate environmentalism. Green Lantern is a Posadist, Thor still speaks for reactionary monarchism; Avocado Woman is the heroine of the recent body-oriented (bio)politics; Fatty Lux symbolises Enlightenment rationality, the Bauxite Band anarcho-syndicalism (although Kaolinite Kid displays some Tuckerite tendencies), PenguinDude3000 a kind of Saint-Simonian utopian communitarianism. But then there’s Superman. What is Superman?
Superman’s mantra of ‘Truth, Justice, and the American Way’ recalls a more honest era, one in which deconstruction was still something you did with hammers and explosives, but all the same there’s a sinister note in there, a faint whiff of something very different from the image of the wholesome all-American hero in his mythos. He carries the mark of the Other. Clark Kent might be from Kansas, but his birthplace is Krypton – a place with four consonants next to each other in its name, a foreign planet that somehow manages to sound just a little Mitteleuropean. The other names that surround him are similarly un-WASP-y: Superman, or in German Übermensch, with its connotations of Nazi-tinged Nietzschean amoralism; the Man of Steel, or in Russian Stalin, who named weakness, idleness and stupidity as the only things that could be called vices; Clark Kent, or in Serbian Slobodan (lit. a low-level office worker) Milošević (a flat, grassy province near Belgrade, analogous to the English county). Whether of the left or the right, there’s something totalitarian about him; we recollect, with a rising nausea, that democracy is not among his tripartite principles. Of course, as Superman’s defenders continually remind us, he was created by two liberal-left Jewish high school kids, the children of immigrants. Hence all the Europeanisms: with their hero Siegel and Shuster packaged up all the neuroses of the shtetl and gave them a red-white-and-blue sheen. He’s not an expression of an all-encompassing class-State complex, but the fantasy of its disenfranchised underlings. Superman is a hero by the nerds, of the nerds, for the nerds. He’s weaponised nebbishness, and that’s exactly what makes him so dangerous. He can’t even be subsumed into the paradigm of healthy American libidinality; with Superman, Bataille’s connection between eroticism and death assumes horrifying proportions. As I watched Zack Snyder’s new Superman film, this year’s Man of Steel, it all started to make sense. Superman isn’t a man at all. His otherness is that of the inhuman. He’s a Predator drone.
...
http://samkriss.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/superman-man-of-steel-or-hot-xxx-drone-on-drone-action/
Edited by deadken ()
discipline posted:what did you think of connor kilpatrick's review
Before they’re even born, it’s already decided which Kryptonians will be “a soldier, a worker, a scientist.” Kal-El’s parents conceived au naturel as a way of liberating their son from this genetically-induced class destiny. When Superman destroys the birthing matrix, he’s really demolishing the whole rigid class structure of Krypton.
....
In the lefty blogosphere, I’ve seen a few complaints about Man of Steel’s tie-in campaign with the National Guard. The movie is certainly far from critical about US militarism. Sure, it ends with Superman punting a drone, but like most Hollywood drone-cameos, it’s just a half-baked stab at social relevance. Here, like in the Silver Age Superman, Kal-El enters into an alliance (albeit an uneasy one) with the US military.
But I’d have to ask: what do you expect? This is Hollywood. This is bourgeois art. Are we shocked and surprised by the over-the-top Stalinist jingoism of Eisenstein’s glorious Alexander Nevsky (certainly the Man of Steel of its day)? I’m reminded of what Michael Rogin said about the premiere of Independence Day at the Clinton White House: “Hollywood and Washington, twin capitals of the American empire and seats of its international political economy, collaborated to promote the movie that filmed their destruction.”
But to be honest, this kind of thing has never bothered me. I just expect it. What was Richard Donner’s cornball late 70s Superman but the liberal wing of the same great tide of whitebread normalcy that ushered in Ronald Reagan two years later? (ED: ?!?!?!?!?!?!!?)
ya this is really good
AmericanNazbro posted:did you watch the film or did you write this based upon 90 second ads
yea i went to see it with my Dad
Dusz posted:i still cant tell whether the article is some witty parody or expects to be taken seriously
mine or connor kilpatrick's
deadken posted:Clark Kent, or in Serbian Slobodan (lit. a low-level office worker) Milošević (a flat, grassy province near Belgrade, analogous to the English county).
lol good stuff
babyfinland posted:im going to write yelp reviews for restaurants in my area in this style
i dont think that would work because by definition critical theory has to be a little bit critical
babyfinland posted:every single marxotheory movie review is the exact same thing
hollywood makes like five movies total
daddyholes posted:didnt MIM really like The Matrix
who doesn't like the matrix
getfiscal posted:i liked inception. cool shit.
eXistenZ is better
Superabound posted:
well thats impractical