Superman Is a Bad Reporter, But Superman Is a Pretty Good Journalism Movie

by

In the beginning of the film ‘Superman’, Clark Kent (David Corenswet) consents to have an interview as his superhero persona with Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan). This scene is particularly captivating due to the charisma both actors bring, showcasing the intriguing dynamic between two individuals who have recently become physically intimate. At this stage of their relationship, which spans three months, they have been working together at the ‘Daily Planet’ for a longer period. They are familiar with each other, and most importantly, Lois is aware of Clark’s dual identities. When their friendly banter transitions into a spontaneous interrogation, it takes Clark a moment to comprehend that Lois is being serious. Starting off playfully, he uses a few notes in his Superman voice without recognizing that Lois has switched roles, no longer his potential partner but an investigative journalist questioning a mysterious metahuman who intervenes in global affairs.

He disagrees with her description that he faced heavy criticism for preventing Boravia from attacking Jarhanpur, showing displeasure when she talks about his “actions” instead of acknowledging he stopped a war. He feels what he did was not just an accomplishment, but something that had positive results, and becomes upset when she implies she might question her own actions in the same situation. In response, he storms out of the apartment in anger.

Clark Kent, it seemed, wasn’t prepared for a rigorous interview; after all, he’s famed as the Daily Planet’s primary Superman correspondent due to his knack for extracting gentle responses from himself. There are other media figures who employ methods in their journalistic roles that might raise eyebrows. (Take Peter Parker at the Daily Bugle, who wouldn’t be there without his talent for capturing images of Spider-Man.) Journalism, at its best, is intended to scrutinize the narratives of those in power.

In the latest film by James Gunn, a scene between Clark and Lois showcases Clark’s discomfort when faced with being treated as one of the powerful, rather than receiving the usual accommodations that such individuals expect. Even though he was fully aware of the interview being recorded, he persisted in attempting to alter the conversation on the fly. (“That part was just a aside!”) If he believed the interview would be friendly, given his relationship with Lois (who, as George Gene Gustines noted in the New York Times, should arguably have stepped aside as well), he was instead presented with one that delicately yet firmly challenged his convictions.

It’s undeniable that he is correct due to his identity as Superman, the protector of the downtrodden. Portraying him as a wrongdoer is merely the cunning machinations of the malevolent billionaire Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult). On the other hand, Lois employs tactics commonly used in interviews with subjects who may eventually become angry: asking confrontational questions, framing some based on personal experiences, and delegating others to the anonymous internet populace (“You’ve faced a lot of criticism on social media”). This detached perspective can be frustrating, particularly when it comes to an artificial conflict that echoes both Ukraine and Gaza. Lois’s attempts to expose the intricacies of the situation might overshadow the devastation and pain Superman prevented. However, her inquiries are not entirely misplaced. Indeed, Luthor, like Superman, believes he stands for righteousness, tearing apart the cosmos in pursuit of a greater good that coincidentally aligns with his own desires. True journalism should never side with anyone, which is why Lois ponders if she can maintain a relationship with a super-idealist.

Today, it’s undeniable that traditional journalism is struggling. Watching Clark Kent in the bustling newsroom of the Daily Planet now feels both nostalgic and sad, considering Superman’s former occupation may soon join roles like milkmen and switchboard operators on the list of obsolete professions. Yet, surprisingly, the movie “Superman” stands strong as a tribute to journalism. Lois Lane’s sharp questions in her interview and the third act, which is as thrilling as reporting can be, are testament to this. It’s almost like watching “All the President’s Men,” tailored for comic-book fans, with Jimmy Olsen obtaining damning evidence from a high-ranking whistleblower and typing a bombshell exposé about LuthorCorp straight into the Daily Planet’s CMS. The copy desk would presumably have to verify it from their hidden shelter.

The most extraordinary part isn’t that the brave team managed to conduct the investigation, but that the public still cares about it. This exposé plays a crucial role in defeating the film’s antagonist just as effectively as any superheroics. As soon as the article is published, sentiment against Luthor swiftly turns, leading to immediate legal repercussions for him. The most touching dream that “Superman” offers isn’t the idea of a righteous alien savior but the belief that modern journalism, in an era where truth is often a matter of tribalism, can still bring down a powerful oligarch. It seems more plausible to believe a man can fly.

Read More

2025-07-17 21:54