Question of Whether to Kill, Which Superman and the Rest of Us Face
~ An essay on justifiable murder, droning, data-mining, and the Human Condition ~
Much is being made over the newest Superman film, 'Man of Steel', ending with the Kryptonian killing a fellow Kryptonian, the villain. Perhaps people forget: in the 1970s Superman-II film, Superman throws Zod and his male Lieutenant into the Arctic crevasse, then Lois follows suit with the female Lieutenant. The three villains have lost their powers so they suffer off-screen death at the hand of the heroes.
That being said, comic purists could argue the Heroic Mythos requires Superman never to kill. I can understand that point of view but don't share it. Having begun my membership in Super-fandom in the late-1950s, via comics, I feel we are a more openly blood-thirsty culture at this point in time. Long-overused is the trope of Superman being bedeviled by the villain for a prolonged period due to the rule not to kill, the relief of which is provided by the villain dying on his own. This is a moral cheat and has been a cheap resolution throughout all hero films and TV shows employing it during the 20th century. Even my child-brain wondered, what would they do if the villain HADN'T conveniently, say, fallen off a skyscraper?
The real moral dilemma facing our world now is WHEN killing a bad guy is justified, and it is appropriate our era's films should chew on that. Even the recent excellent Star Trek-II hinted Spock might have killed the villain after catching him, whaling on him down on Earth. Spock's rage was stopped short and redirected by Uhura saying they need the villain to resurrect Kirk. In fact, that entire film's meta is the question 'When should we break rules, and when should we not, and why?" All permutations of rule-keeping and rule-breaking are on display during the film with the coda of Spock saying to Kirk, "I will leave it to your good judgment" -- meaning there is no black/white rule "Never Break Rules" -- one must develop good judgment, which is our Human Condition.
Right now there is fierce public debate whether it is right to drone terrorists to prevent them the chance of raining down their terror. Also controversial is whether extensive monitoring of the public should be employed to avoid terrorism. Personally, I think both droning and data-mining are appropriate in our world today, where bad guys don't face each other on the field of battle; instead, they melt into the multitudinous crowd, then strike via anonymity. Terror plots don't foil themselves, and think of how we'd be clamoring for MORE protection if those fifty or so foiled plots referred to by the NSA hadn't been successfully stopped.
In 'Man of Steel', Zod eluded being sucked back into 'The Phantom Zone'/Singularity. After that, there could be no resolution for him other than death, no cage to hold him. And, as others have pointed out, a Superman who suffers the anguish of killing Zod, will have internalized the proscription against killing, and will go to great lengths in the future to avoid killing again. In future films, we will understand why he does so, and we will relate to his struggle to find non-murderous resolution. After all, the question of Capital Punishment is another debate our world is having. 'Man of Steel' offers a truly 21st century Superman...embroiled in the profound moral dilemmas of our time.
Much is being made over the newest Superman film, 'Man of Steel', ending with the Kryptonian killing a fellow Kryptonian, the villain. Perhaps people forget: in the 1970s Superman-II film, Superman throws Zod and his male Lieutenant into the Arctic crevasse, then Lois follows suit with the female Lieutenant. The three villains have lost their powers so they suffer off-screen death at the hand of the heroes.
That being said, comic purists could argue the Heroic Mythos requires Superman never to kill. I can understand that point of view but don't share it. Having begun my membership in Super-fandom in the late-1950s, via comics, I feel we are a more openly blood-thirsty culture at this point in time. Long-overused is the trope of Superman being bedeviled by the villain for a prolonged period due to the rule not to kill, the relief of which is provided by the villain dying on his own. This is a moral cheat and has been a cheap resolution throughout all hero films and TV shows employing it during the 20th century. Even my child-brain wondered, what would they do if the villain HADN'T conveniently, say, fallen off a skyscraper?
The real moral dilemma facing our world now is WHEN killing a bad guy is justified, and it is appropriate our era's films should chew on that. Even the recent excellent Star Trek-II hinted Spock might have killed the villain after catching him, whaling on him down on Earth. Spock's rage was stopped short and redirected by Uhura saying they need the villain to resurrect Kirk. In fact, that entire film's meta is the question 'When should we break rules, and when should we not, and why?" All permutations of rule-keeping and rule-breaking are on display during the film with the coda of Spock saying to Kirk, "I will leave it to your good judgment" -- meaning there is no black/white rule "Never Break Rules" -- one must develop good judgment, which is our Human Condition.
Right now there is fierce public debate whether it is right to drone terrorists to prevent them the chance of raining down their terror. Also controversial is whether extensive monitoring of the public should be employed to avoid terrorism. Personally, I think both droning and data-mining are appropriate in our world today, where bad guys don't face each other on the field of battle; instead, they melt into the multitudinous crowd, then strike via anonymity. Terror plots don't foil themselves, and think of how we'd be clamoring for MORE protection if those fifty or so foiled plots referred to by the NSA hadn't been successfully stopped.
In 'Man of Steel', Zod eluded being sucked back into 'The Phantom Zone'/Singularity. After that, there could be no resolution for him other than death, no cage to hold him. And, as others have pointed out, a Superman who suffers the anguish of killing Zod, will have internalized the proscription against killing, and will go to great lengths in the future to avoid killing again. In future films, we will understand why he does so, and we will relate to his struggle to find non-murderous resolution. After all, the question of Capital Punishment is another debate our world is having. 'Man of Steel' offers a truly 21st century Superman...embroiled in the profound moral dilemmas of our time.