Somebody Save Me
I've been talking to my friend Gabe today while obsessing over "Smallville." Gabe's something of an expert on WWII-era superhero comics, so I asked him about the propensity of such comics to make social commentary. I knew from my dad that X-Men is a metaphor for racism, but I didn't know that much about Superman. According to Gabe, what makes Superman interesting, aside from the potential Moses/Jesus parallels, is his sense of global idealism rather than nationalistic idealism. Created at the end of the 1930s, while war was brewing in Europe, Superman intended to save the world. In fact, creators Siegel and Shuster show Superman ending World War II in an issue from 1940--before American involvement. You may even recognize a few themes pertinent to today.
Network TV currently has two superhero shows on the air, and both are blockbusters. "Smallville" chronicles Superman/Clark Kent's early life, and "Heroes" is a modern-day X-Men story where genetic mutations endow a few people from around the world with "superpowers." These powers often reflect something in the character of the hero him or herself--an invulnerable teenage cheerleader, a woman whose dueling personalities reflect the cycles of abuse perpetuated on her and her sister by their father, a helpless young woman who develops the ability to make anyone obey her, a young nurse in the shadow of his politician father and brother who can emulate the powers of any nearby hero, and a spacetime bending Japanese office-worker bored with his routine, to name a few. The supervillain of "Heroes" gains his superpowers only by killing other heroes and absorbing their strengths. At first, he seems stable. Once a researcher deems his mutation inferior, however, he embarks on a quest to destroy all the "Heroes." It is envy that leads him to destruction.
Lex Luthor of the Superman comics isn't all that different. Superman's origins are contested in various publications, but the general consensus is that a disaster (war, crazy planetary meltdown) on the planet Krypton forces scientist Jor-El and his wife Lara to send their only child, Kal-El, away. Scholars have speculated about the nature of Superman and his fathers' names in the series. Siegel and Shuster were both Jewish, and Jor-El and Kal-El are similar to Hebrew phrases meaning, respectively, "fear of God" and "voice of God." After he arrives on Earth, Kal-El is adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent of Smallville. The name "Clark" is Martha Kent's maiden name. While Clark is still a teenager, Lex Luthor moves to Smallville. After Lex saves Clark's life by moving a kryptonite meteor out of the danger zone, Clark helps him set up a scientific laboratory. In gratitude, Lex attempts to create an antidote to kryptonite when an accident sets his lab on fire. In the process of saving Lex, Superman (superboy?) destroys his research and renders him bald. Lex becomes convinced that Superman is jealous of his scientific prowess and attempts to first outdo his good deeds through science and then ultimately turns against both Superman and humanity when his experiments go awry.
"Smallville" takes a different approach, but the story is ultimately the same: Lex and Clark are friends until Lex's jealousy takes over and he becomes a vessel for evil. Clark's high school sweetheart Lana Lang is at the center of the rift between Clark and Lex.
The main difference between the superhero comics of yore and today's versions is that the latter are stripped of their social commentary. "Smallville" has episodes that touch on contemporary problems like, say, illegal immigration, but ultimately they say nothing (in the episode in question, a single child in reunited with his mother and labor abuses are stopped, but the rest of the worker-immigrants are returned without amnesty to their countries of origin with virtually no mention). "Smallville" shows Clark taking on individuals entirely in rural Kansas. Problems are localized to the Smallville/Metropolis area, and a larger global view is never presented.
"Heroes" goes global, including Japan and India, but so far the closest it's come to social commentary is that politicians shouldn't take dirty money and cheating on your wife gets you in trouble.
When Gabe and I started talking, our conversation was about apathy, not superheroes, but contemporary representations of heroics (in TV--there are still some new comics that deal with serious issues) show that same postmodern nihilism and disregard for context. Superheroes are still around, so clearly we still like the idea of "being saved" and "good vs. evil"...but who is saving us...and from what?
'Til next time.
Labels: comics, film, race, sexuality, superheroes, television
5 Comments:
Whoa - I disagree.
In my recollection of the "Smallville" episode in question, the workers weren't returned without mention. The fact that his actions resulted in these workers getting deported weighed heavily on Clark. Sure, those characters weren't very fully developed, but Clark's feelings of guilt were, I thought, pretty pronounced at the end. Also, he wasn't just reuniting the boy with his mother - the farmer he got arrested was using immigrant workers as slave labor and killing the ones who refused. Finally, remember that his actions caused his mom to change her thinking on immigration policy, which is significant since she's a congressman (state, I assume).
Also, is the rift between Lex and Clark really about Lana? Sure, that's part, but in the last episode I saw they were fighting about the dangers of experimental psycho-therapy and the implications of recovered memories. There also seems to be an undertone of class conflict (rural farmer v. corporate heir) I think it's more complex than a love triangle.
You're right that sticking to the rural locale tones down the globalism, but I think it's often there, just a little more subtle. After all, lots of the 'Luther Corp.' story lines seem to be general allegories/morals about corporate greed and power. Of course, sticking a major corporation in rural Kansas ain't exactly subtle, but you see what I mean. I also wonder if Clark expanding his world view isn't part of the series arch.
Now on to "Heroes." First, keep in mind that the Heroes feel the need to keep their abilities secret and are hunted down not just by one of their own, but by some group (has their identity been established?) bent on stripping them of their powers. I don't see why that doesn't carry many of the same racial/diversity issues you cited in X-men (esp. since it seems to be pulled straight out of X-men).
There's also the neat little twist that the "Save the Cheerleader" tag line (which sounds like something straight out of the '50s) was b/c the cheerleader is so powerful that if the villain got her ability he'd be unstoppable. Her character has some neat comments on gender roles in general - how about those scenes of her repeatedly throwing herself from heights to test her abilities? For another gender role commentary, how about the female character you mention whose power is to make others obey. In the last episode, she tried a little vigilante justice on the villain, and then when that didn't work she blew her own brains out to stop him from getting her abilities. When was the last time you saw something like that on TV?
I also think that it's interesting and socially pertitent that they show these characters from all over the world finding each other in very modern ways (where would Hiro be without his cell phone?). And how about the complex issues raised by the painter-prophet who accessed his abilities through drugs? No social commentary there?
Finally, consider the fact that the storyline thus far seems like it's going to center on the nurse unintentionally blowing himself up in the middle of New York. That, for me at least, seems like a really complex and really controversial statement about terrorism.
So, I don't think TV today is at all apathetic. In fact, I think most shows feel pressure to include social commentary at least on occasion. There's a lot more being said on TV now than when the frist Superman comic came out. Also, I think shows and writers are often a lot more sensitive to the multiple facets that each issue has. Maybe the constant bombardment (esp. when it comes from shows that don't do it well and/or really shouldn't even be trying to include it) makes audiences apathetic. And/or maybe the potential message gets lost in the recognition of the complexity of an issue. Either way, I think today is generally much, much further from simple 'good vs. evil' than it was even 10 years ago.
Separately, why do I know this much about these freakin' TV shows?!? I'll get you back one day, Clara...hmmm, maybe a little fantasybaseball ;).
good points! I got a little tunnel-vision on how the romantic angle is being played up.
While I agree that TV now is better than TV then at discussing important issues, I'm not trying to compare 2006 TV to 1939 TV or 1950s TV, I'm trying to compare it to 1930-1960s comics.
I also don't really think many people are trying to strip "Heroes" heroes (er?) of their power. Sylar tries to steal their powers by killing them, but he's not an outsider. A few characters try to suppress knowledge of their powers (or the powers of others), but that's a bit different. I think the don't-ask-don't-tell factor would make "Heroes" more akin to commentary on sexuality than race.
By the way, "Save the Cheerleeder" providing a positive female role model? She NEEDS TO BE SAVED...and all the heroes involved in saving her are male. On the other hand, after whatsisface tries to rape her, she flirts with him and then exacts revenge via car crash. You could view this as a form of healing, but it's worth remembering that this particular incarnation injures someone else.
I dug up an interesting resource on "Heroes" as social commentary. Check it out:
Heroes Pushes the "WiR" Button Again
Lyle Masaki, who authors the site, has a "Heroes" tag and there are some other great commentaries on things good and bad in the series (bad: stereotypical smart Indian professor and smart Japanese dork, good: going beyond the stereotype and treating the characters like people).
I don't think TV is necessarily apathetic--there's a lot of great stuff out there, and I certainly think "Heroes" qualifies (I'm less certain about "Smallville," but I love it anyway). I do think, however, that most shows reflect more stereotypes than they refute.
I should also add that part of the rift between Clark and Lex also stems from a boost to Lionel Luther's character. Lex and his father are constantly at each other's throats, and Lionel's unscrupulous practices--business and personal--often impact Clark.
Also, the origin of Lex Luthor the villain is different from the early comics to the TV series--comics Lex is a jealous, spiteful teenager, whereas TV Lex (while he has some of those tendencies) is actually a "vessel" for ensoulment by an arch-enemy of Jor-El (Superman's real father).
Corrections, anyone? There's so much history to the comics that it's easy to get lost.
One question - what is the agenda of the cheerleader's dad? I got the impression that he wants to make these people 'normal' again. Also remember that he goes around with the guy who can supress other people's powers (at least that's the impression I got from his effect on the mind reader guy). I should really learn characters' names, huh?
You're right about the potentially closer parallel to sexuality than race. But I was thinking more generally along 'assimilation' lines. Also, how is the relationship to powers different in X-men, since you see that as being more clearly about race?
And we talked about this in person, but yes, I realized the cheerleader needs to be saved. But I do think that the reason she has to be saved is a neat tweak, and (as we discussed) this story line probably hasn't played out fully.
I wasn't a huge fan of the post you linked. Particularly this part:
"[T]he show lacks a female character who has some well of strength, like Hiro’s does with his powers, Nate does with his charisma or how Peter’s belief in his powers. Neither Claire or Nikki were confident or assertive women before they discovered their powers and both are troubled by their powers."
The guy's clearly paid more attention to the show than I have, but from my limited viewings, this doesn't hold water. Other than the politician, none of the people given powers seem to have been 'confindent or assertive.' And many of the male characters do seem troubled by their power - most prominently the politician, but also his brother and the mind-reading cop. That said, the show does seem to be pretty male dominated. The female characters haven't really assumed major roles in the larger plot yet, but I think that might change. Keep in mind that most of them haven't been fully integrated into the Heroes network yet - they've been largely leading their own subplots.
Also (IIRC), the waitress was doomed to die when she did. Hiro's attempts to change the past just caused her to die in different ways (some of which, I believe, were not exactly shocking). So is that really a WIR moment?
Regarding the WIR site in general, I have a few thoughts. First, since comics are such a male-dominated genre on both the consumption and the production side, I think what she points out isn't a big surprise. As we discussed, since the audience and creators are mostly male, it's likely that the female characters are most often peripheral characters driving the plot. If this is true, than it makes sense that they're more likely to wind up as plot devices. I'd be curious to see the comparison between male and female peripheral characters. I also think that in general the 'woman-in-distress' line is such a cliche b/c it's powerful - there's something biological that the image taps into (at least/especially for men). Sure, comics need to be presenting women in empowered, non-sexualized roles, but if they're doing that, then I think going for the archetypal plot isn't a big problem.
Second, the WIR site has this to say:
"Not every woman in comics has been killed, raped, depowered, crippled, turned evil, maimed, tortured, contracted a disease or had other life-derailing tragedies befall her, but given the following list (originally compiled by Gail, with later additions and changes), it's hard to think up exceptions."
My thought is that with the notable exception of the second item in that list, those are the freakin' plots of comic books! Almost every superhero has something along those lines in his or her past and most of the time, the threat of one or more of those options is used to create the most powerful, overarching storylines.
Here's a response from her site by a female editor at DC that hones the point of the woman who compiled the list:
Link
However, the end of that response bugs me a little too. We're living in a world that's increasing moving toward niche audiences, not away from them.
That leads nicely into my next point. How about a little study of the fate of male characters in Oxygen network programming? Sure, they're not likely to meet violent deaths, but I bet it's easy to seem them similarly neglected, undeveloped, devalued. In short, audience is a big, big factor.
To what extent this is a problem, I'm not sure. To borrow a line of thinking for Dan Savage, these sorts of presentations of the opposite gender are, to some degree, probably a natural method of dealing with that fact that there's a whole half the population out there that is fundamentally different from you, but with whom you're expected to have intense, involved, mutually rewarding relationships (particularly if you're straight). It's scary, so we use entertainment to reduce the threat. Of course, if you only get your images of the other gender from comics or from Oxygen, that's not a very fully picture.
'll leave the rest of what you said to stand on its own except re: Claire's (the cheerleader's) dad. First, "the Haitian" as he's called (the man her father consorts with) doesn't, in my opinion, suppress powers generally. I think his power involves some kind of mind control. So far, the only people whose powers he's "turned off" have been the girl who (SPOILER!!!!) killed herself and the cop who can read minds.
Secondly, I don't KNOW what Claire's father is up to. The one episode that yielded anything about his past involvement basically showed him as looking out for his daughter. He wanted to get her name off the "list" of heroes so she could continue to lead an anonymous, normal life. I think he asked the Haitian to erase the memories of her friends and family (and her, though here he refused) for the same reason. And when he kidnapped the artist (whose name is escaping me right now), he did so in order to find out Claire's future. I don't think he's trying to strip heroes of their powers--I think he's just trying to protect his daughter, and he'll do literally anything to succeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home