In Defense Of Henry Cavill’s Superman
When it comes to Superman, everyone has their personal favorite flesh and blood iteration of the world’s first superhero. Many people still regard Chris Reeve’s classic, clean cut portrayal to be the enduring example of how the Man of Steel should look, talk and act. Additionally, many other fans also count Tom Welling’s portrayal of Superman in training from the ten season superhero juggernaut Smallville among their favorites, especially given that it was heavily inspired by and built off of the mythos established by the Reeve films.
Fans have generally been less accepting of Henry Cavill’s portrayal of the Last Son of Krypton in the DCEU, starting with 2013’s Man of Steel. In what was seen as a major departure from how he’s depicted in the aforementioned versions, Man of Steel gave fans a much more grounded and dour take on the character, one who grapples painfully with serious doubts and initially comes across as anything but the optimistic and inspiring hero of the Reeve era and subsequent versions. Given that Cavill’s future as the Man of Steel looks highly doubtful at best right now, I felt compelled to explore the reasons why I personally believe that if you pull back the layers a bit, Cavill’s Superman, while certainly different from the mainstream concept of the Last Son of Krypton, is the definitive film version of the world’s first superhero.
No doubt the two biggest gripes against Cavill’s Superman as seen in Man of Steel and its follow-up, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, is the fact that he comes across as depressed and uninspiring and, more importantly, violated Superman’s traditional “no-kill” code when he snapped Zod’s neck at the end of Man of Steel. Addressing the uninspiring gripe first, many complaints leveled against Cavill’s Superman is that he doesn’t come across as an inspiring beacon of hope, especially compared to Reeve’s version.
This argument seems to rely heavily on the notion that what makes Superman heroic and inspiring is not that he does the right thing no matter what, but simply that he looks happy and confident doing it, which completely misses the point of a true hero. Additionally, it’s easy to always be smiling and easy going when the whole world loves you, as it does in the Reeve films. From the moment he reveals himself to the world, he’s unanimously beloved and praised despite the fact that he’s an alien with godlike powers who could destroy us all if he so chooses. Superman: The Movie glosses right over the essential truth that humanity would be ambivalent, to say the least, about having an alien being with that much power in their midst.
In Man of Steel, Clark’s been raised with the awareness that human beings have a terrible track record dealing with foreign and unfamiliar things. His father Jonathan feared that when the world found out what he was and what he could do, it’d change everything and not necessarily for the better. Therefore, young Clark was encouraged to keep his abilities a secret, which kept him isolated from others and got him repeatedly bullied and mocked, yet despite this legitimate fear of being exposed, he still goes out of his way to help people right up until he puts on the suit.
In Batman v Superman, we see the reality of Jonathan Kent’s fears play out as the world debates Superman’s abilities and intentions even as he strives to help as many people as he can all around the world. Despite his best efforts, much of the world fears and mistrusts him while others see him as a savior, an equally difficult pressure given that even he can’t save everyone all the time. Anyone with a sensitive heart like Superman would naturally feel bummed out that many of the people he’s helping see him as a potential threat. The truth is that he’s really just a guy trying to do the right thing by everyone, but he learns that in a world as complex and messy as ours, his best still isn’t good enough for some and, more importantly, what’s right for some isn’t what’s right for others.
The next big gripe is Superman’s decision to kill Zod. Although characters like Superman and Batman generally abide by a strict “no-kill” rule in the comics, this wasn’t the first time Superman has killed Zod. He once executed an alternate version of Zod and his two minions with Kryptonite in the comics. More importantly, there’s plenty of evidence showing that he also left Zod and his two compatriots to die at the Fortress of Solitude in Superman II. Although there exists a deleted scene where the three villainous Kryptonians are seemingly arrested by some weird kind of Arctic Police Force, the original theatrical version shows Superman gleefully crushing the hand of a powerless and mortal Zod, picking him up and, with a smile on his face, throwing him against a wall where he plummets down a fog shrouded pit. We get no actual confirmation that Zod’s dead or alive, but the confident ease with which Superman disposes of the mortal Zod when he could’ve just as easily flown him and his soliders back to civilization and prison seems like definite overkill.
In comparison, when Superman kills Zod in Man of Steel he only does so after desperately pleading with Zod not to slaughter a family with his heat vision, to which Zod resolutely refuses. Seeing no other option which would keep more innocent people from dying in a continued battle, Superman reluctantly snaps his neck in one swift motion, then falls to his knees and lets out an anguished yell of despair. Despite the fact that Zod stated his intention to kill every last human on Earth unless Superman kills him first, the act of killing even a monster like Zod emotionally wrecks Clark. In the end, Clark shoulders the guilt of killing Zod for the greater good of humanity, despite the fact that he knows humanity may very well reject him anyway. In this way, Superman goes from being an untouchable fantasy character to being more like the real life heroes of our world who are often forced to take lives in the service of the greater good.
Another point of contention among critics of Cavill’s Superman is his perceived indifference to the destruction and casualties during his battle with Zod. Anyone who really paid attention to the film will see that the majority of the destruction and loss of life is a direct result of the World Engine which Superman destroys despite the risk to himself. Furthermore, during his awesome brawl with Zod throughout Metropolis, most of the damage is caused by Zod, usually in throwing Superman through buildings. Superman does try to get Zod up into space, but anyone who’s ever been in a fight knows that you usually don’t have an overabundance of control. Add to this the fact that Cavill’s Superman never had to fight anyone prior to this and only learned to fly at most only a few days earlier, and there’s no argument that he did exceptionally well for his first real day on the job.
In contrast, when Superman battles Zod and his minions in Superman II, he causes some damage to the city, at one point kicking Non into a building and causing the spike at the top to fall towards the citizens. Of course, Superman grabs it before it does any damage, but he did still cause it. Later he swings Zod around and deliberately throws him into a giant Coca Cola billboard. With Cavill, any damage caused by him is much more inadvertent. At the end of the fight in Superman II, Superman flies away from Metropolis, leaving the three villains to use their super-breath to blow people and cars around. Yes, I realize that Superman left in the hope of luring them to the Fortress, but he still left the citizens of Metropolis completely defenseless against Zod’s onslaught of destruction and mayhem, which had to have caused some deaths.
Having said all that, one of the other great aspects of Cavill’s Superman is that we see him grow and learn from his experiences, something that never really happened in the Reeve films. Even though most of the damage to Metropolis wasn’t directly his fault, in BvS we see a Superman still grappling with the guilt of all the people he couldn’t save (illustrated beautifully in the scene where he rescues a girl from a fire during the Day of the Dead). Therefore, when Lex Luthor creates Doomsday and he begins tearing up the city, Superman quickly launches Doomsday into space to get him away from the population. It’s clear he’s determined not to let more innocent people die in the resulting battle. Furthermore, the very fact that Superman is willing to lay down his life for a world which by the end of BvS has violently turned against him just shows just what kind of hero he is.
On the surface, Chris Reeve’s portrayal may still seem like the shining example of Superman heroics, but it’s worth pointing out that there are instances in those films where he acts in very un-Superman ways. For instance, in Superman II, Clark chooses to give up his powers and his commitment to helping people in order to be with Lois, allowing Zod and his minions to conquer Earth, at least for a while. While this action does make Superman seem more human and therefore more relatable, him giving up his powers (especially after being led to believe he can never get them back), just to be with Lois doesn’t seem like something the inspiring figure of goodness and hope would do. At the end of the same film, his powers restored and Zod defeated(possibly dead), Clark goes back to a diner where earlier he was beaten up by an asshole trucker.
Much like the similar scene in Man of Steel, the trucker is a real asshole, but whereas Cavill’s Superman resists the urge to hurt the trucker and instead shish-kabobs his truck with telephone poles, Reeve’s Superman lets the trucker punch him full force in the stomach, effectively shattering every bone in his hand, then sits him down on a tray of food and slides him down the length of the counter to crash into a pinball machine. There’s no doubt it’s a funny revenge scene and Clark does pay the diner owners for the damage afterwards, but the cockiness with which he does it, again, seems to clash with the image of Superman as a beacon of moral goodness. Shouldn’t Superman be above revenge, at least any involving bodily harm of a human? What about taking the high road or turning the other cheek? In light of this, Cavill’s restraint against physically hurting his asshole trucker is even more remarkable.
When it comes to the portrayal of the Kents in these respective films, many fans point to Man of Steel’s version of a more morally ambiguous Jonathan Kent as a reason why Cavill’s Superman isn’t as inspiring and heroic as past versions. It’s true; compared to previous iterations who were shown to be morally unfaltering and completely encouraging of Clark’s destiny, Man of Steel’s Jonathan Kent is much more conflicted and fearful of his son going out into the world. However, I see these not as moral shortcomings but rather the real fears of a loving father just trying to protect his child from the realities of human nature. Jonathan knows humanity’s terrible track record with those different from them and his top priority is to protect his son’s secret until the day when Clark’s ready to choose his own path. Despite these valid fears, Clark continues to help people anyway, despite the risk of exposure.
It would be much easier for Clark to save people if his parents openly encouraged it from the start, but the fact that his parents prioritize their son’s well being over other things (which just makes them good parents, not bad people), and yet he still feels compelled to save people shows how good he truly is. When Jonathan sacrifices himself to protect Clark’s secret, there’s no question that Clark could’ve saved Jonathan and probably not be seen (although it seems likely that someone would’ve seen him standing there one second and disappear the next), but the point of the scene is that Jonathan didn’t even want to risk it; his love for his son trumped everything else.
For Clark, on the other hand, that tragedy serves an important purpose; up until that point he fully trusted his father’s concerns regarding the magnitude of his secret, especially given that he had no one else advising him, but watching his father sacrifice his life to help others and protect his secret convinces Clark that he can’t allow his father’s fears to keep him from helping anyone else. In that moment, Clark decides to never stand by and let anyone else die, despite the risk to his secret. He continues helping people throughout the following years and taking no credit for it. In contrast, we don’t actually see Reeve’s Superman save anyone until he puts on the suit. Instead, we see him kick a football into space, race alongside a train (nearly colliding with it), and show off in front of his classmates to impress Lana. In Man of Steel, he saved his classmates (including his then bully Pete Ross), when he pushed the bus out of the river.
Regardless of all these arguments, people are still going to hold onto their favorite version of Superman and that’s of course the greatest aspect of a beloved icon like that; the essence of the character and what he stands for is so universal and fundamental that there can be versions to suit all seasons and attitudes without losing the core of what makes him who he is. For some, the Chris Reeve Superman will always embody that perfect vision of a shining beacon of hope, one who always triumphs no matter how improbable the odds. For others, the fact that the character stumbles and even makes some honest mistakes, yet always strives to do what he truly feels is right for everyone makes his ultimate triumphs that much more inspiring. The bottom line is that in all these versions of Superman, beneath the superficial outer layers, he remains at his core, a man just trying to use his special abilities to make the world a better place and that’s something that will never be outdated.