As James Gunn’s Superman hits the big screen this summer, some viewers are seeing in its fictional conflict a radical critique of real-world occupations, from Gaza to Ukraine. The film opens with Superman thwarting an invasion: The fictional Eastern European country of Boravia is shown attempting to occupy the poor, vaguely Middle Eastern civilians of Jarhanpur.
The allegory seems obvious. Boravia stands in for Israel, or perhaps Russia; Jarhanpur, for Palestine or Ukraine. Superman’s archnemesis, Lex Luthor, is cast as a power-hungry CEO of an arms company with ambitions to rule part of post-occupation Jarhanpur. On the surface, it feels like Hollywood is taking a clear stance against imperial violence.
But beneath the thin veneer of resistance, the film is ultimately an act of rehabilitation. Superman conspicuously dodges the deeper critique: the United States’ own complicity in global violence. Watch carefully, and you’ll instead find yet another example of American war propaganda masked by Hollywood’s blockbuster production.
Changing the narrative
Any good lie needs a hint of truth. Though it’s tempting to view the new Superman as pro-Palestine, any effective propaganda needs to be somewhat self-critical to be believable. That is not to say we can’t appreciate the elements that seem to represent Palestinians — but we must contextualize the movie within a broader history of American superhero films.
While many are calling the film “brave,” “woke” and “anti-occupation,” the truth is that there are no real criticisms of the structures of violence in governmental bodies that have shaped such conflicts for decades. From intelligence agencies to political rhetoric, the film’s criticisms were either misplaced or insufficient in addressing Washington’s leading role in the forever wars in the Middle East and beyond.
While many are calling the Superman film “brave,” “woke” and “anti-occupation,” the truth is that there are no real criticisms of the structures of violence in governmental bodies that have shaped such conflicts for decades.
Consider where Superman places the blame for Boravia’s violence. James Gunn sets archnemesis Lex Luthor’s character as an arms dealer, offering a clear critique of the arms industry, which has prolonged both the war in Ukraine and Israel to fatten its executives’ and shareholders’ wallets. In doing so, the film places the blame on profit-driven corporate elites, rather than the governmental institutions that enable them and the politicians who profit.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government is portrayed as an innocent entity, forced against its will to enter the conflict. It proudly considers Boravia its closest ally but is reluctant to support its invasion of Jarhanpur — until supervillain Lex Luthor manipulates the government and the populace, in getting rid of the only thing that stands in the way of Bovaria’s aggression — Superman.
Under the influence of Lex Luthor, the U.S. government has no choice but to support the invasion. This subtle piece of propaganda tells the world that whenever the United States is dragged into any unjust war, it is done with solely good intentions and with no ulterior motives of its own. Governmental officials are the victims of warmongering lies, rather than perpetrators.
It’s not unlike the excuses we see coming from Western leaders regarding the illegal war in Iraq, and their lies about its possession of weapons of mass destruction. In an absurd attempt to rehabilitate what is one of the biggest foreign policy crimes of the 21st century, former U.S. President George W. Bush told NBC in 2010: “No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. No question it was a mistake.”
The tide has long been shifting against America’s ‘forever wars’ and toward American accountability. The promise of no such wars in the future was a key driving force behind Trump’s reelection. Could it be that Washington’s political, military and intelligence systems are now trying to use Hollywood to wash their hands of the blood of such wars? Its history certainly suggests so.
The military-entertainment complex
Many are familiar with the military-industrial complex, a term coined by former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961 to describe the various facets that prop up the U.S. military. Fewer know about Hollywood’s major role in advancing war propaganda.
The White House clearly knows the value of superhero imagery. It recently posted an AI-generated image of Trump as Superman on social media, with the caption: “The Symbol of Hope. Truth. Justice. The American Way. Superman Trump.” The post reveals something much more sinister about the relationship between Hollywood, the U.S. military and American foreign policy.
The U.S. Department of Defense admits that it works with Hollywood to support film and television productions, primarily through its Entertainment Liaison Office. This collaboration allows filmmakers to access military resources such as equipment and locations in exchange for Defense Department oversight on certain aspects of the production, particularly those involving sensitive information or military portrayal.
Marvel and Disney have long collaborated with both the FBI and Department of Defense, with Marvel’s Wandavision even giving a ‘special thanks’ to the latter in its end credits.
The Captain America and Wonder Woman comics, which were later turned into films, were created in the 1940s to encourage Americans to contribute to the war effort during World War II. The very first edition of the Captain America comic book, published in March 1941, depicts its hero punching Adolf Hitler squarely in the face. It was used to project pro-war propaganda to American youth to prepare them for service and to make the case for American involvement in the war. Later the same year, the U.S. entered World War II after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. For decades since, Captain America has been used to glorify war and promote memories of fighting “the good war,” which pro-war hawks in Washington like to apply to current wars.
When Captain America: Brave New World was released in February, Palestinian advocacy groups called for its boycott for including Sabra, the “first Israeli superhero” who had a backstory of being a Mossad agent in the original comics. “By reviving this racist character in any form, Marvel is promoting Israel’s brutal oppression of Palestinians,” signatories of the joint letter pointed out. At the Hollywood premiere earlier this year, pro-Palestine activists held up signs saying “Disney supports genocide.”
It’s another reminder that we must view the entire Hollywood industry with skepticism, rather than celebrating supposed “anti-occupation” and “woke” narratives.
Phil Strub, the Pentagon’s former deputy director of entertainment media, has openly said his role was to encourage entertainment media producers to “create or increase positive and reasonably accurate U.S. military portrayals in their projects while remaining mindful of their creative process.” When Hollywood subtly tells you the U.S. military is a “force for good,” you’re not going to question its reasons for going to war.
Why would the Department of Defense concern itself with superhero films? Simple: In doing so, violence is sanitized, villains are forged as enemies with no chance for redemption, and there is always the assurance that the American hero will defeat the villain — an end that justifies all means.
Why would the U.S. Department of Defense concern itself with films about adult men running around in capes and preaching the absolute and unfailing triumph of good over evil? Simple: In doing so, violence is sanitized, villains are forged as enemies with no chance for redemption, and there is always the assurance that the American hero (read: American military machine) will defeat the villain — an end that justifies all means.
After all, how else can we justify the massive death toll from decades of American wars and the expenditure of a staggering $2.4 trillion between 2020 and 2024 to arms companies by the Pentagon? How else can we explain the U.S.government funding the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian children and babies?
If watched without a critical eye, the messages can be internalized without much critical thought. Villains, often portrayed as Russian, Chinese or Arab — or at least coded as from these cultures — have long been cast as enemies of the United States.
The 2012 film Batman: The Dark Knight Rises portrays the society that the ruthless Bane hails from as inhabitants of a desert, with the filming of India’s iconic Mehrangarh Fort as the exterior of the prison where Bane was brought up. With the prisoners dressed in robes similar to Arabian attire, there is no mistaking the villain as being Arab-coded. Essentially, Bane is a terrorist from the Middle East — nothing new for Western media.
In these superhero films, we are accustomed to seeing the ‘hero’ inflict collateral damage in his pursuit of the villain. An obvious example of the justification used to destroy civilian infrastructure in the name of targeting one terrorist. In Batman films, Batman destroys many streets of Gotham in his pursuit of the Joker. And this is replicated in almost all superhero films.
No one holds the superhero accountable for millions of dollars of damage to public buildings and infrastructure. And no one holds the military-industrial complex or the U.S. government accountable for even worse destruction in other countries.
The effect this intends to have is that when we see something like this in real life, as we are witnessing today, we can’t be so critical. ‘Collateral damage’ is inevitable in the pursuit of terrorists. And if we, as the ‘good guys,’ are ever in the wrong, it is despite our best intentions.
Poor excuses for invading countries under the guise of defeating villains, killing civilians under the pretext of neutralizing terrorists and waging wars while later claiming to be hoodwinked. Once you’ve seen it like this, you won’t be able to look at American superhero films the same way ever again.
