Film Review: James Gunn’s Superman cements Israel’s villain status in the American imagination
James Gunn’s new Superman movie, which draws an analogy between Israel and the villainous country of Boravia, demonstrates how Israel's idealized image in American culture has been shattered by the widespread acknowledgment of Palestinian oppression.
SUPERMAN
Directed by James Gunn
129 minutes, DC Studios, 2025
Editor’s Note: This article contains very mild spoilers.
“Truth, justice, and the American way.”
Those words are the long-time tagline of the DC comics character, Superman. They are not as prominent today as they have been in the past, but for those us, like me, who were great fans of DC comics in the 1970s and 1980s, they still defined Superman.
They were also one of several reasons why, although my youthful passion for comic books leaned much more toward DC than its rival Marvel in those days, I didn’t care much for Superman. I liked the idealism he was supposed to represent, but his simplistic presentation and, more than anything, his deference to authority was a message my young and rebellious self was profoundly uncomfortable with.
So how is it that in 2025, James Gunn’s new movie, Superman, has delighted me and many others by striking the biggest cultural blow to date against the United States’ mindless support of Israel, even as it commits war crimes and guns down innocent Palestinians on a daily basis?
The dynamics of this movie are fascinating to watch, but the responses are much more important.
‘Boravia’ is Israel, and is the bad guy
Since Superman premiered, there has been a lot of chatter about it. The film broadly tells the story of Superman intervening against Boravia—which, both in the movie and in the comic book lore it is drawn from is presented as an Eastern European country—conquering its neighbor Jarhanpur—clearly depicted as an economically and physically ravaged country populated by people of color, many of whom are visibly Muslim. The scenario is inescapably evocative of Palestine.
“Superman has gone woke” is one extremely popular attack on the film. That one is rooted in Superman’s clear message supporting the rights of immigrants, but it also goes hand-in-hand with the complaint that the character has been warped by the “liberal media” to condemn Israel.
Even leaving aside the notion that Superman, as a character, ever represented anything other than kindness and caring for all, even if in a highly pro-American way, the arguments are silly. Anyone who is familiar with the character would recognize Superman’s simple argument when he is criticized for stopping the surrogate for Israel in this film, Boravia, from slaughtering innocent and helpless civilians: “People were going to die!”
Superman’s strength as a character is his idealism, which often spills over into extreme naivete, and his determination to treat all life as precious and equal. That’s what the crowd whining that “Superman has gone woke” just can’t grasp.
Since Israel, Palestine, or any other country—save the United States, of course—is not mentioned in Superman, the metaphor of Boravia can be interpreted, or denied, at the viewer’s whim. But to do so, one has to ignore the unambiguous evidence in the film.
James Gunn, who wrote and directed Superman, insists that Boravia and its neighboring country Jarhanpur, are not direct references to Israel and Palestine, but his explanation is very telling.
“When I wrote this the Middle Eastern conflict wasn’t happening. So I tried to do little things to move it away from that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the Middle East… [the movie depicts an] invasion by a much more powerful country run by a despot into a country that’s problematic in terms of its political history, but has totally no defense against the other country,” which he said “really is fictional.”
Just from the statement that “the Middle Eastern conflict wasn’t happening,” we can tell that Gunn is not deeply learned in Israel and Palestine, although what he probably meant was that October 7 had not yet happened (he started writing the film in late 2022) and neither had the overt genocide in Gaza. As such, it may be fair to take him at his word that he was referencing a broader idea.
But it’s an inescapable reality that the powerful country vs a helpless people describes Israel and the Palestinians, especially in Gaza.
Sure, in addition to Israel and Palestine there are a few parallels with Russia and Ukraine. But that allegory doesn’t really fit since Boravia was said to be a close U.S. ally. Plus Ukraine, while certainly not the military power Russia is, is clearly far from helpless in the face of Russian aggression.
The deep relationship between the Boravian dictator (who speaks with a thick Russian or Eastern European accent and looks like a caricature mix of Benjamin Netanyahu and David Ben-Gurion) and the American corporate sector resembles Netanyahu, even while his alienation from the American political sector might evoke Putin a bit more.
But the Israel-Palestine metaphor is clearly there. It may have been one among several examples of the political dynamic in Gunn’s head, but what emerges on film is unmistakably influenced by Israel, even if not solely so.
Gunn likely did not want to be too on the nose with his allegory, although he pretty clearly failed at that effort. More importantly, this movie is the foundation for what he and his backers at Warner Bros./Discovery hope will be a multi-billion-dollar franchise to rival that of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He wants the political debate to enhance the film and its legacy, not to overwhelm it, so some degree of space to be evasive about politics is prudent.
More important than the writer’s intentions, though, is that the political conflict depicted was so quickly seen for what it is.
Profound culture shift
In the past, even the very recent past, it would have been unfathomable for an American summer blockbuster film to show Israel, even a metaphorical Israel, as an invading, corrupt country whose neighbors were in such terror they had to pray for a superhero to save them, or all hope would be lost.
A writer would have come to the studio with a script like that, even one where the allusion to Israel was obscured to a much greater degree, and it would have been tossed out. There might be fear of backlash, or it simply might be that this concept would be seen as too challenging for Americans who still hold on to the mythical image of Israel as either the poor victim of the ravenous Arab and Muslim hordes or the plucky little state that rose to become a military power and key American ally. But that didn’t happen here.
A movie painting Israel in a villainous light reflects a generational shift in how Israel is viewed. Warner Bros. clearly didn’t see it as a risk.
The fact that Gunn wrote this movie is notable enough. But Warner/Discovery spent $225 million to make it and anticipates another $125 million in advertising. That’s a significant investment. Moreover, they have two more high-budget films in the works, eight more in development, as well as two more television series in production and five more in pre-production.
If Superman failed at the box office or caused a backlash that might lead to boycotts of DC media, it would be a disaster. But there hasn’t been a hint of trepidation or pressure on Gunn to soften this message. Warner Bros./Discovery CEO David Zaslav is known for his frugality, his willingness to scrap projects just for tax breaks, and for a relatively conservative approach. He obviously didn’t see this as much of a risk.
A movie painting Israel in a villainous light reflects the change in generations as well. After all, the older audience, the folks still denying the real nature of Israel, is not the target of this film. Nor am I, as a man in his late 50s. It’s younger people, and they see Israel differently.
No going back to an idealized Israel
More than just reflecting that shift, a movie like Superman entrenches it culturally in a way that all the political activism, analysis, protests, and even exposure of the truth can’t. It normalizes the view of Israel as an aggressor state. That’s why it provokes denial from the likes of far-right Israel backer pundit Ben Shapiro and hysteria from other pro-Israel zealots who don’t deny the reality of the movie.
Consider the words of the far-right, racist Israeli rapper known as Hatzel (The Shadow):
“Instead of presenting a character who defends the weak and fights for justice, they turned it into a disgusting political caricature, where Israel (under a different name) is portrayed as a fascist state, a warmonger, and a close ally of the U.S., which supplies advanced weaponry to fight ‘poor and miserable farmers (the good Palestinians) with pitchforks and stones.’ And Superman? He comes to save them from bloodthirsty Israel. This is literally a film of incitement against us… And I will tell you here, clearly: The liberal Jews in America are the main contributors to anti-Semitism in the U.S…There is no greater enemy to an Israeli than the progressive American Jew.”
The bile and hate of this racist activist are typical of the responses from the pro-Israel and Israeli far-right. But as much as they might rant, they can’t avoid the fact that the world now sees what Israel does every day, and that a more realistic understanding of Israel is becoming not just a debating point or a political issue but a part of the cultural zeitgeist.
It’s not just about Israel. Superman goes to great lengths to present the hero as an independent actor, following only his own ethical code. The other superheroes in the film are sponsored by a huge corporation. They eventually come around and help Superman, but it takes a while.
Superman doesn’t only challenge the long-held, false image of innocent Israel, it also challenges Americans’ fecklessness, the ease with which its government is manipulated, and its blind, greedy, self-serving arrogance.
This might have been what pleased me most. The second blockbuster movie about Superman, back in 1980, ended with Superman flying through space carrying an American flag. But the U.S. comes off very badly in this movie.
Superman is betrayed by the U.S. and handed over to his nemesis, Lex Luthor, who imprisons him. He is told he has no rights since he is an alien (i.e., immigrant). The U.S. also continues to back Boravia throughout the movie, and Superman is criticized for interfering in the murderous Boravian operation without American authorization. As more of the nefarious plot is uncovered, the U.S. government stands by doing nothing and never taking responsibility for its actions. Only the superheroes are working to save the day.
Superman doesn’t only challenge the long-held, false image of innocent Israel, it also challenges Americans’ fecklessness, the ease with which its government is manipulated, and its blind, greedy, self-serving arrogance. Of course, it treads lightly on this point; again, there is only so much Gunn wanted to dive into political issues. It is, after all, a light-hearted fantasy movie that is expected to launch a series that will bring in a ton of money.
But Superman proves there is no going back to the idealization of Israel that was kick-started back in 1960 when Paul Newman romanticized Israel’s creation in the film Exodus, and boomed after the 1967 war. The delusion about Israel’s colonialist birth and apartheid life has been shattered by the exposure of its genocidal present. And a movie like Superman ingrains that shattered image into our culture. This, like Superman himself, might just provide a bit of hope in these dark times.
Mitchell Plitnick
Mitchell Plitnick is the president of ReThinking Foreign Policy. He is the co-author of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics and maintains the Cutting Through newsletter on Substack at mitchellplitnick.substack.com/.
I Went to See Superman As an Escape from Reality – Reality Was Still There
Warner Bros. Pictures.
I am not going to pretend I know exactly what Director James Gunn’s intentions were with his recent adaptation of Superman, which was released in theaters last week. But I didn’t need the 72 feet wide and 50 feet tall IMAX screen to see clear connections to the hate directed towards immigrants here in the United States, as well as the horrific genocide in Gaza.
To take a small break from the emotionally draining work I do, and to celebrate my son’s recent graduation from high school, we drove the hour and forty minutes from our home in Mississippi to an early screening of Superman in New Orleans last week. As an avid fan of superheroes and comics, the release of Superman was the highlight of the summer for my son. For me, it was just a chance to unplug and disconnect from the harrowing news for a bit and spend some time with him doing what he loves the most. So you can imagine my surprise when what I thought was going to be 2 hours of mindless fun ended up feeling so familiar and so important.
[I guess this is the part where I should announce spoilers. So SPOILERS!]
The Immigrant Justice Message
Even though I do not have the vast knowledge of superheroes and comics that my son has, I did grow up with the old Christopher Reeve Superman movies, so that is my frame of reference. At the core of those earlier movies was the idea that Superman was an “illegal alien” in our world – something he felt he always had to hide for his protection. Superman has always been billed as an alien orphan, but somehow this reference in Gunn’s latest, where he is vilified as “alien,” has some of the worst people trying to swallow massive amounts of cope. The idea that the person deemed “illegal,” the person who is “not from here,” could be the good guy, contradicts everything bigots are trying to peddle these days, but that underlying message has always been there. What critics don’t like about the storyline this go-around is that it rightfully pegs them as the “evil” Lex Luthor. Hit dogs do hollar, I guess.
In the latest film, another very obvious reference to the current authoritarianism and inhuman treatment of immigrants is the establishment of the character Ultraman, who was tasked with bringing down the world’s most famous “illegal alien.” Ultraman is part of a masked security force that operates outside of normal law enforcement with no public accountability. It is not hard to draw the line between the evil, masked, lawless security force and ICE, which now has a budget larger than most countries’ militaries and is given a free pass to reign down terror without due process on the migrant community, or people they simply don’t consider “one of us.” Then came the ironic and very telling reveal that Ultraman shared DNA with Superman – a nod at the idea that we have more in common with those we deem “different,” with those we are told we are supposed to oppose, than with the people who are playing us against each other in the first place.
Needless to say, no one should have been shocked or caught off guard that a movie about a child from another world who was sent to the United States by his parents because their indigenous land was being destroyed and their civilization was dying, who ended up being the ultimate good guy (questionable journalistic ethics aside), had a pro-immigrant message. That was always the story. However, what was a little surprising, at least in this current political environment, was Gunn’s portrayal of the fictional countries of Boravia and Jarhanpur.
The Palestine-Israel Message
As I already mentioned, I cannot speak to James Gunn’s intentions with his new take on Superman. There is a lot of debate going on right now about that. But you really can’t deny the similarities between Gunn’s fictional Boravia and Jarhanpur, which are central to the story, to Israel and Palestine. While the drama in the United States between the falsely accused and vilified Superman was playing out, across the globe was the story of a very powerful, heavily militarized country of Boravia who was working behind the scenes with evil fascist Lex Luthor to manufacture consent for the invasion and occupation of the very unarmed, Middle Eastern brown-skinned population of Jarhanpur.
Some will tell you Boravia was supposed to characterize Russia, I guess, somehow implying that Jarhanpur is Ukraine. However, that comparison falls short when you finally get to the scene where Boravai’s military, with every weapon of war available to them, knocks down the border fence separating the Jarhapurans from them. On the other side of the fence is the Jarhapuran population, who very much look like Palestinians and are only armed with nothing but their fists, a few handheld objects, and a lot of hope and resistance. While watching the movie, and this scene in particular, I couldn’t help but conjure up images of slingshot-wielding Palestinian children defending their homes and lands against the deadly, militarized tanks of Israel.
Even without X-ray vision, the visual representation in this climactic scene, intentionally or unintentionally, very clearly captures the decades-long struggle of the Palestinians against Israel. And what is that struggle and the fictional battle between Boravia and Jarhhanpur about? -At the center is land, or the desire to take someone’s land through military force.
Just like the immigrant justice messaging, this mirroring of Israel as the evil army of Boraiva and Palestine as the innocent, disarmed population of Jarhapur has a lot of folks crashing out. In my opinion, that says more about them than the movie. It tells me that their whole ideology relies on lies and disinformation, on distortion and projection, and when a movie, whose message has been obvious for years, exposes their contradictions, they sulk and coward, as Lex Luther’s character did at the end of Gunn’s Superman.
The Most Important Message
When I took off work last Tuesday to go see Superman, I thought I was leaving behind the reality of all the injustices that, through our work, we’re forced to confront every day. But what I realized is that we are surrounded by a world of injustice, and no matter how hard we try, no matter how hard we may want to sometimes, we cannot look away. I can escape into a dark theatre for a couple of hours, but that doesn’t stop the fact that thousands upon thousands of people are currently being hunted, illegally detained, and often beaten by rogue pseudo-police forces. It doesn’t stop the bombs and bullets that are constantly raining down on innocent children who are only left to defend themselves with a small rock. James Gunn may not have intended to make a pro-Palestinian film, but I believe that, since we live in a world where a genocide is impossible to ignore, he subconsciously made one. Because at the end of the day, through all the millions of dollars worth of propaganda created to obscure truth and reality, our psyche cannot deny the obvious.
I could end this piece reaffirming the very obvious connections to immigration justice and the genocide in Gaza and occupation of Palestine (two issues that are very deeply connected in real life as well), but I would be remiss not to include another take on the film – one that I value a lot and one that everyone should walk away with.
When I told my son I was writing this, he asked if he could give me just a couple of notes. First, he asked that I try to stay away from the stupid argument over whether the film was “woke” or not because, as he explained, that word “woke” just gets thrown around without any meaning and distracts from the real message. That message, he said, is that at the end of the day, Superman is a story about hope – even when it feels like the world is against you.
Thinking about the immigrants trying to survive in a country that wants to vilify and imprison them, or the children in Gaza with nothing but innocence and heart facing down an army of hate, it is hope in the collectivity of goodness that gets us through, even in the face of all that insurmountable despair. Because, as history (and the Superman series) has proven time and time again, bad people do get exposed, evil empires do eventually fall, concentration camps can be freed, and defenseless populations, filled with hope and resilience, do find a way to protect the people and the planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment