Image by omarbeaz@comcast.net

Twilight of the Idols

[1 February 2007]

When Nietzsche conceived of the superman, he didn't have a musclebound alien in red tights in mind. Rather, the hero of Superman Returns is an affront to human potential.

By Imran Siddiquee

“But if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, then you become something else entirely…” – Ducard/Ra’s Al Ghul, Batman Begins (2005)

When Nietzsche invented the concept of superman, or übermensch, he imagined one who decides for himself what is right and wrong, moving beyond the religious and social standards of good and evil to create new ideals, ones that inspire all of humanity to participate in their own constant process of self-overcoming. By rejecting self-doubt, guilt, and all the pain of standard morality, human beings can reach a state of “great healthiness”, in which they are free to give life their own meaning.

What’s inspiring about Nietzsche’s seeming disregard for human morality is that we are all capable of becoming supermen (and women), able to overcome the doubt and nihilism that plagues modern life. Yet in modern American entertainment, from comic books to films, the word superman has come to represent something else entirely. Rather than the inspiring elements of the übermensch, we are presented with an alien creature whois not human and whose supernatural abilities are thoroughly unattainable: the hero of Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns. This latest incarnation of the Superman comic myth has nothing to do with Nietzsche’s notions, instead, through its Christianity iconography it reinforces the very ideals Nietzsche rejected.

The superhero genre is filled with such awe-inspiring characters, unreal Christ-like beings that use their powers for the good of all people, sacrificing their own happiness in the process. Superman is the epitome: Though he learns to love humanity and recognize human potential, he remains forever above us, which taints his attitude with condescension. Superman is a kind of martyr, sacrificing himself for an alien race; in this he mirrors the ideas behind Jesus and other eternal figures. But a martyr hero runs directly against Nietzsche’s vision of the superman, which hinges on the ability to surpass pity and embrace inspiration. To take Superman, Nietzsche’s vision of the antichrist, this far, to actually reinterpret him as Christ himself, is the ultimate act of appropriation, negating what Superman actually could be.

Though Superman seems the paradigm for every other comic-book creation, Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005) features a hero much closer to the Nietzschean ideal. Disgusted by the corruption around him, Bruce Wayne (Batman) decides to create from inside himself a beacon for his fellow humans. Batman fights crime and corruption in his city not because he hates criminals, but because he believes that people will do good, if shown good. The film inverts religious iconography, placing the hero in shadows and darkness. His cave is beneath the ground, in the traditional realm of the devil, separated from the heavens above. Yet this is not Paradise Lost, and Batman has no satanic desire to spite God or humanity. Instead, his initial vengeful instincts are turned into a desire to rid the world of the fear that limits it and encourage people to reach for inspiration.

While Batman Returns echoes our disgust with society’s limitations and our collective intuition of our own possibilities, Superman Returns reflects a culture of pity and guilt. The villains in each film highlight this stark ideological contrast. Kevin Spacey’s Lex Luthor is a jealous animal, one who aims for control but seems motivated mainly by the destruction of Superman himself. His inability to equal Superman fuels his hatred. Luthor is trapped in a hopeless competition against an infinitely superior being, and we are invited to despise him for it, which makes him a nearer approximation of Milton’s Satan. In contrast Ras Al Gul of Batman Begins aspires to create a perfect world, like Batman himself, only with more drastic and impatient methods: He has no interest in showing anyone the way to a better society and has no compunction about killing all those that oppose or sicken him. Al Gul and fellow villain Dr. Crane operate on fear, and fear is what Bruce Wayne struggles constantly to overcome (his use of the bat image symbolizes his intention to face his own fears). Batman works toward a community where all are capable of achieving something even in the face of great fear rather than be crippled by self-doubt at every moment. When explaining his theatric methods Batman tells his trusted friend Alfred, “People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy.” Indeed, the actions of Batman lead the rather unassuming police commissioner Gordon to slowly believe in himself and the Dark Knight’s cause, leading him to take the reins of the Batmobile and become a hero in his own right.

Superman, on the other hand, simply works to keep people safe. Because of Superman’s indomitable superiority, Lex Luthors will always exist in Metropolis as long as there is a Superman to envy. Celebrating a hero who invokes feelings of pity and envy in us is not a way to motivate people to believe in themselves, but rather it increases our doubt in humanity’s strength. Though we are shown images of a younger more relatable Clark Kent realizing his potential, as he grows older he changes from an unlikely hero into a messiah, a chosen one with no options himself but to help us. Take the scene where Superman floats above the earth, listening to the millions of voices calling for help in his ear. His resulting decision to help us, because we cannot help ourselves, is associated with enormous pity. At the same time Singer invites us to pity Superman himself because of his burden. Thus when he is injured and forced into the hospital, Lois Lane and others feel as though they took him for granted and that they owe Superman for all the times he has saved them. This reinforces humanity’s self-pity and self-doubt instead of showing a path toward its own greatness.

The differences between what each type of hero offers also plays out in how each relates with his father. Superman’s father appears as either a huge floating head or simply as a booming voice assigning responsibilities and duties involving humanity, whereas in Batman Returns Bruce Wayne is inspired by his father’s optimism, forming the foundation of Bruce’s faith in the human race. His father provides an example which directs us toward our own capabilities. Superman only shows us how happy we might be under his protection.

But comparing the two love stories reveals the greatest difference between Batman Begins and Superman Returns. The romance in Singer’s film supplies its heart and soul—it’s the reason we are supposed to stay compelled. In the unrequited love between Lois and Superman, we once again are invited to embrace the condescending pity of self-sacrifice. Superman decides not to reveal himself to Lois, sacrificing his own love for the greater love of all mankind. Superman saves the life of Lois Lane many times, and she returns the favor as well, but does his presence really improve her in any way? Yes, he can save her from burning buildings and fly her around town, but in the end his otherworldly power pushes her into dependency rather than inspiring her to be the best person she can be.

But in Batman Returns Rachel Dawes is only initially transfixed by the mystery and awe-inspiring qualities of the Dark Knight. When Bruce Wayne, who has passed for a lazy sybarite, finally reveals his identity to her, the inspirational quality of the Nietzschean superman takes root. By learning that Batman is simply a man, her love for Bruce is renewed, as is her faith in limitless human potential. That’s the effect a superhero movie should aim to have: Pushing people to reach for their own greatness, rather than worship someone else’s. As an audience member we want to be like Rachel Dawes, inspired to pursue our own ideals of overcoming man’s limitations as we watch the hero create his own myth from the ground up. We certainly need no encouragement to be in dumbstruck awe of another’s power and reduced to servitude of an incomprehensible alien force.

Comments

I’m not sure if Mr.Imran Siddiquee actually understands the Superman mythos.

To quote him: “The difference between what Superman and Batman offer audiences also plays out in how each relates to his father. Superman’s father appears as either a huge floating head or simply as a booming voice assigning him responsibilities and duties involving humanity.”

Supermans’ “father” wasn’t really Jor El but Jonathon Kent who imbibed him with all the qualities of the BEST of what humanity has to offer. Between Superman and Batman, it’s actually Superman who is the MOST “human.” Batman relies on fear and darkness to get his point across, whereas Superman is out there in all his glory in red and blue BEGGING the world to think and act the way HE would think, to trust and be trusted with or without powers. There is no middle ground, no gray (grey?) area with The Man Of Steel; right is right and wrong is wrong. Make no mistake Batman works differently than Superman, but his credo of “not killing” is essentially the same. Superman is the Christ mythos come full circle; a god that doesn’t reign above us, but walks among us, albiet incognito. The way to hurt Superman isn’t to kill his family or friends, but act in a way that his human-taught-values cannot understand. Superman is not here to “save” humanity, but, as he says in his own words, “To help them up when they fall.” The world needs Superman now more than ever, or perhaps needs more human beings acting in the manner of an alien born on Krypton but raised on a loving farm in Smallville Kansas. Make those films Bryan Singer.

Comment by Rick — February 1, 2007 @ 3:26 pm

Superman and his creators owe no obligation to Nietzsche or his works; indeed, many translators insist Nietzsche was saying something closer to “Overman.”

“Batman fights crime and corruption in his city not because he hates criminals, but because he believes that people will do good, if shown good.”

True, but on the other hand, it’s been pointed out that he’s a rich white guy beating the shit out of poverty-stricken minorities on a nightly basis.

Also, regarding “He believes that people will do good, if shown good,” Jor-El’s speech overtly states the same goal for Superman:

“They can be a good people, Kal-El… they lack only a light to show them the way.”

True, Superman shows us something we can never be, but so does Batman; his discipline and instincts and determination are essentially superhuman.

I could never be Superman or Batman, for I am too weak and apathetic and selfish. But I look to them both, geek that I am, not just for entertainment but guidance and inspiration.


...all that said, this was a great piece. I enjoyed it immensely.

Comment by Monte Williams — February 1, 2007 @ 4:20 pm

Yes, but while the German word “über” literally means “over” or “above,” “übermensch” does not literally mean “overman” anymore than “untermensch” - a horrible term the Nazis loved to throw around - mean “underman.”  German words are often not literally translatable and often evoke broader concepts.

I defy you to find a single word English translation for something like gemütlichkeit.

Comment by Brunnhilde — February 1, 2007 @ 6:04 pm

“I defy you to find a single word English translation for something like gemütlichkeit.”

Alas, I cannot rise to your challenge. Note that I said TRANSLATORS insist it means “Overman,” ‘cause all I can say in German is “No.”

Comment by Monte Williams — February 2, 2007 @ 10:24 am

Also, Imran, have you read Steven Seagle’s “It’s A Bird”? It’s a fascinating and powerful celebration/critique/deconstruction of most every aspect of Superman’s mythos (the premise is that Seagle is offered an opportunity to write the Superman comic, and he’s totally against it, but starts begrudgingly taking notes just in case.)

Among other things, he speculates rather cleverly about what the red, blue and yellow of Supes’ costume might symbolize. It’s like reading PROMETHEA’s Kabbalah chapters all over again.

Comment by Monte Williams — February 2, 2007 @ 10:30 am

Haven’t read it but sounds interesting, I’ll check it out. Thanks.

Comment by Imran — February 2, 2007 @ 4:15 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

I think this was a fascinating feature and I enjoyed the comparison between Superman and Batman as their history and mythology have become so intertwined. I think your arguments are interesting and as I’ve learned in my studies, as long as the characters fulfill some basic requirements, their meaning becomes open for interpretation. For instance, I’ve always seen Batman and Superman in the “carrot and stick” paradigm. Superman was the inspiring symbol of hope, whereas Batman was the punitive spirit of vengeance. I think your interpretation is equally valid; the entire back story of Kingdom Come is Superman questioning whether to live above or live amongst the people of Earth.
    I did have one question. You write: “Disgusted by the corruption around him, Bruce Wayne (Batman) decides to create from inside himself a beacon for his fellow humans.” I will completely admit my ignorance of Nietzsche, but I had always been under the impression that the ubermensch would create his or her own morality and would not care about the rest of humanity. Some may attempt to emulate the ubermensch’s ability to live outside societies rules and conventions, but the ubermensch would not care. It seems that if Batman is trying to be a symbol of hope, then he is showing an investment in the welfare of humanity not shared by the Nietzschean archetype.
      Once again, excellent essay.

Comment by Shawn — February 2, 2007 @ 6:25 pm

Thanks for your comments Shawn.
There are a number of different interpretations of Nietzschean thought that are nearly all equally valid. But most would agree that the philosopher went through stages in his life, just like any other human being, and to give a definitive statement on his beliefs would be as meaningless as me or you trying to sum up what we have believed throughout our entire lives in one sentence or book.
That being said, my personal take on the concept of “ubermensch” stems from Nietzsche’s most illuminative description of the concept - his novel Zarathustra. And if you take this character as the archetype of what a great man would be, it seems clear that part of the overall goal of life is to inspire others to pursue their own greatness. While Zarathustra goes through periods of time where he shuns humanity for their corrupt moral system, he must always come back down from his mountain and face society. So Nietzsche, even being a philosopher, was attempting to come up with a practical theory on how we should live our lives. There is not just one way to do that though, some people can save lives like Batman and others can live in dark rooms and write great books like the philosopher himself. All that matters is that you are pushing people to pursue their own individual abilities.
Nietzsche was definitely concerned with the welfare of humanity, he just didn’t think the current state of man was all that hot. So he often spoke of a future age of man where everyone would be pursuing greatness and “ubermensch” status - but the point of that was still to get the most out of human life as possible.
Hope that helps, though I have a feeling it might just confuse more.

Comment by Imran — February 2, 2007 @ 7:54 pm

“Hope that helps, though I have a feeling it might just confuse more.”

- No, that cleared things up. Thanks for the help.

Comment by Shawn — February 3, 2007 @ 2:58 pm

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the sequence of letters and numbers you see in the image above. Do not include any spaces.