UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Super Savior/Destroyer: Superman, Smallville, and the Superhero Genres Spectre of Monstrosity DISSERTATION submitted

in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Visual Studies by Shahriar Fouladi

Dissertation Committee: Professor Ccile Whiting, Chair Associate Professor Victoria E. Johnson Assistant Professor Kristin Hatch

2011

UMI Number: 3457264

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3457264 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Portion of Chapter 2 from The 21st Century Superhero: Essays on Gender, Genre and Globalization in Film 2011 Edited by Richard J. Gray II and Betty Kaklamanidou by permission of McFarland & Company, Inc., Box 611, Jefferson NC 28640. www.mcfarlandpub.com. All other materials 2011 Shahriar Fouladi

DEDICATION To my family in recognition of all your love and support

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CURRICULUM VITAE ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION INTRODUCTION PART 1: CHAPTER 1: PART 2: CHAPTER 2: CHAPTER 3: PART 3: CHAPTER 4: CHAPTER 5: CHAPTER 6: CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY Definitions and Histories: Superman, the Superhero Genre, and Superhero Monstrosity Definitions and Histories: Superman, the Superhero Genre, and Superhero Monstrosity Hero or Destroyer? Super Puberty and Young Supermans Flirtations with Monstrosity on Smallville Finding the Monster Inside: Clark Kents Discovery of his Super (Freakish) Body . . . and the Quest to Hide It Flirting with Your Worst Enemy and the Dark Side: Clark Kent and Lex Luthor as Best Friends The Superhero-Gone-Bad Phenomenon: When Super Saviors Become Immoral Monsters Superman III: Superhero as Sexual Freak, Drunk, and Destructive Force Smallvilles Bad Clark: Rebel without a Moral Compass When Bad Becomes Worse: The Unstable World of the Superhero-Gone-Crazy Other Superheroes Go Bad: The Success, Failure, and Gendered Aspects of Walking on the Dark Side

Page iv vi vii 1 9 10 89 95 139 163 169 179 240 260 309 322

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge many of the people who played a role in helping me complete this dissertation. First of all, I would like to thank my parents, Flora Zelli and Ali Fouladi. Both of them supported my dreams and did everything they could to make sure I made it through this long process in a happy and healthy way. Moreover, my sister Zarnaz Fouladi was invaluable in all the encouragement she gave me. I would also like to express appreciation for my aunts Soudabeh Zelli and Jaleh Zelli, my grandmother Mamani, and Viola Fouladi; they constantly reminded me that they were in my corner and wanted me to succeed. I end my time in graduate school with thoughts of my sister Sarvnaz Fouladi, who never got the chance to finish her studies. I miss her immeasurably, but I also feel like she has been with me every step of the way. There are several faculty members at UCI without whom I would have never finished graduate school. Professor Cecile Whiting helped me hone my ideas back when I was trying to cover over seventy years of superhero history in various media and lacked a clear thesis statement. Her amazing feedback and kindness made this project possible. Furthermore, Professor Victoria E. Johnson was a huge influence on me throughout my time in graduate school; readings I did with her and conversations we shared about my work had an immeasurable effect on me. I would also like to thank Professor Kristen Hatch for her valuable comments and for helping me refine the theoretical framework of this project. Three other professors deserve special mention for the roles they have played in my life. Professor Fatimah Tobing Rony was a big supporter of me and my work and always knew exactly how to push me when I was not working hard enough and how to encourage me when I felt lost. Professor R. Radhakrishnans warm spirit and positive attitude are without match and heartened me whenever graduate school seemed like too much. Finally, I had the pleasure of being Professor Lauren Steimers teaching assistant many times during my time at UCI. I was amazed every day by her wit, enthusiasm, and rigor, and learned so much about being an instructor and a scholar from her. There are many colleagues who have been great friends to me during my time as a graduate student: Vuslat Demirkoparan, Natalie Phillips, Cecilia Joulain, Steven Aldridge, Mary Trent, Erik Watschke, Patrick Boyle, Christina Spiker, Heather Murray, Jaime Brunton, Lee Laskin, Nicole Woods, Kelly Kirshtner, Eva Friedberg, and Sean Rowe, to name just a few of them. And I have had some great non-graduate student friends as well: David Fattal (my very oldest friend), Kathryn Schroeder, Kendra Bean, and Giamaica Zeidler. I would not have been able to do any of this without them. In addition, I would like to recognize the Visual Studies staff members who helped guide and cheer me all these years. In particular, Virak Seng, Peter Chang, and Vicki Duncan have my utmost respect and appreciation for their kindness and professionalism. I thank McFarland Publishing for the permission to include Chapter 2 of my dissertation, portions of which are being published in the book The 21st Century Superhero: Essays on Gender, Genre and Globalization in Film, edited by Richard J. Gray II and Betty Kaklamanidou.

iv

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the two who lived with me throughout the day-to-day grind of researching, writing, and revising this dissertation. Though she cannot read or write, my cat Lola Belle participated by sitting with me for countless hours as I toiled; she gave me a welcome and happy distraction whenever I felt overwhelmed. Last but not least, I must express how much I appreciate Ginger Hill for sharing countless conversations with me and for inspiring me to become a better thinker. Thank you for being a good partner and for dreaming with me. Thank you all.

CURRICULUM VITAE Shahriar Fouladi 2002 2003-09 2005 2011 B.A. in English and Film Studies, University of California, Irvine Teaching Assistant for Department of Film and Media Studies and Department of Art History, University of California, Irvine M.A. in Visual Studies, University of California, Irvine Ph.D. in Visual Studies, University of California, Irvine FIELD OF STUDY Visual Studies, Film Studies, Television Studies, Comics Studies, Cultural Studies, American Studies PUBLICATIONS Smallville: Super Puberty and the Monstrous Superhero. Richard J. Gray II and Betty Kaklamanidou, eds. The 21st Century Superhero: Essays on Gender, Genre and Globalization in Film. Jefferson: McFarland & Co., 2011. Triumph of the Will: Hitler and His Mass of Beautiful Bodies. Peter Rollins, John E. O'Connor, and James Knecht, eds. Proceedings of the Film and History League Conference entitled War in Film, Television, and History. Cleveland, OK: Film & History Center, 2005.

vi

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Super Savior/Destroyer: Superman, Smallville, and the Superhero Genres Spectre of Monstrosity by Shahriar Fouladi Doctor of Philosophy in Visual Studies University of California, Irvine, 2011 Professor Ccile Whiting, Chair This dissertation defines and explores the concept of superhero monstrosity through an analysis of the character Superman, the television series Smallville, and several other post-2000 superhero films and television shows. Monstrosity is my term for the superheros corruption by internal or external forces that overturn his role as a protector and reveal the anxieties at the heart of the genre. The genre foundationally counteracts anxieties regarding the corruption of the powerful and the impotence of the average person by creating superhuman figures who protect the weak, seem incorruptible, and allow the audience to experience power vicariously. However, these anxieties constantly reappear in the form of stories featuring monstrous superheroes. I do a historical overview of the genre to show that, though monstrosity is a component from the beginning, it does not become a central aspect until after 1960 in comic books and 2000 in film and television. Most of the dissertation is focused on the television series Smallville because it embodies the post-2000 shift to monstrous superheroes in mainstream media, as even Superman, the first and most unchanging superhero, struggles with destructive tendencies. Specifically, I look at how the programs pre-Superman Clark Kent goes through a super form of puberty that results in

vii

him repeatedly losing control of his body and exhibiting potential to grow into a villain. Moreover, I analyze cases in which the superhero turns into a completely immoral monster (a superhero-gone-bad) on Smallville and in several superhero films. These totally corrupted superheroes engage the genres anxieties and fantasies in an exaggerated way. In proving my argument, I do close analysis of formal and narrative elements of various episodes of Smallville, as well as several other films, TV shows, and comic books. In addition, I look at fan reactions (primarily on the internet) to gauge what makes monstrous superheroes appealing and frightening, and what a successful depiction demands. In the end, what I hope to show is how changes in cultural sensibilities and the superhero genre result in renditions of protagonists who are both heroes and destroyers on Smallville and in other post-2000 films and TV shows.

viii

Introduction
The appeal of the superhero for most viewers and readers is fairly straightforward: The character has powers beyond those of mortal men, embodies the best of human virtue, and uses his abilities to protect the populace rather than trying to profit for himself. However, with his great power, the superhero contains the anxious possibility that he could transform from a savior into a destroyer, wreaking havoc on the world. In short, he could become a monster. And the superhero often does become one, in countless stories throughout the genres history, from its beginning in 1938. Monstrosity is my term for the superheros corruption, which invariably works to unveil the deep-seated anxieties at the heart of the superhero genre. The genre is built on anxieties (it commences, after all, during the Great Depression): feelings of powerlessness, distrust and fear of the powerful. The superhero combats these uneasy feelings, offering the fantasy of having great power and creating an idealized world in which pure-hearted overseers protect the weak and punish the criminal. However, the initial anxieties are never completely suppressed, as there is a steady stream of stories about the superhero being corrupted in some way, thereby becoming an unstoppable force of destruction and exposing the impotence of humans. The monstrous superhero is nightmarish, revealing the continued discomfort with individuals possessing such disproportionate power; though the superhero echoes the individualism at the core of American culture and upholds democracy, his superhuman abilities and lack of accountability (at odds with American democracy, even though typical of American heroic archetypes) make him a figure of potential threat to the nation. Superhero monstrosity also has wish-fulfilling properties in many cases, as it can provide the fantasy of having superhuman abilities without moral restraints or the duty of acting as a selfless protector. 1

Premiering in 2001, the television program Smallville (The WB/The CW, 2001-2011) frequently depicts a monstrous version of the oldest and most venerable superhero, as the preSuperman Clark Kent struggles with the pubescent emergence of destructive, uncontrollable superpowers and vacillates between being a savior and destroyer. The program is an ideal choice to explore superhero monstrosity in that it reflects the changes in the genre that have progressively made the monstrous a central aspect and taps into the larger history of the Superman character and the superhero genre. The superheros monstrosity can be traced back to the first Superman story from 1933, an evil character created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster five years before the heroic version (i.e., this Superman is not a superhero); in Reign of the Superman, the title character gains telepathic abilities and quickly tries to plunge the world into chaos, showing the dangers of great power. The monstrosity is largely absent in the more heroic Superman that starts the superhero genre in 1938, but there are vestiges of it in some of the superheros occasionally destructive behavior. In addition, there are consistently superhero comics (regardless of character) in which the monstrous suddenly erupts, as the protagonist somehow turns evil, loses control of his powers, and/or becomes a menace in some manner. However, the large-scale shift in superhero comics does not occur until the 1960s, when Marvel Comics characters like the X-Men, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man transform the genre by making the monstrous not just some shadowy spectre but a key component. These darker, often younger superheroes (many are teens) actively struggle to control their bodies and use their abilities morally and are often viewed in the comics as frightening threats as much as saviors. Monstrous superheroes do not become the norm in mainstream (film and TV) incarnations of superheroes until 2000, with the premiere of X-Men. With its mutant protagonists, the film initiates film and TV representations of young superheroes who deal with

monstrous morality and dangerous bodies and have a strained relationship with regular humans. Smallville is a part of this shift in the genre, as Clark Kent displays characteristics of monstrosity throughout the seriess ten-year-run. The development of the superhero genre and its elements of monstrosity across several media over a period of more than seventy years speaks to the genres roots in what film theorist Linda Williams describes as the melodramatic mode. Williams defines melodrama as an evolving mode of storytelling crucial to the establishment of moral good, operating as a broad aesthetic mode existing across many media and in certain interpenetrating narrative cycles.1 As the dominant mode in American popular culture, melodrama exists across numerous genres and media and defines what qualifies as moral good at a certain time and place, offering a sense of clarity in a world that is filled with contradictions and moral questions. What characterizes melodrama, according to Williams, is sensational pathos and actionthe suffering of innocent victims and the exploits of brave heroes or monstrous criminals.2 It is this pathos that often indicates the virtue of characters (anguish is equated with goodness) and suffering subsequently draws characters to action. The melodramatic mode features characters who embody primary psychic roles organized in Manichaean conflicts between good and evil, though the complexity of the good and evil roles can vary widely.3 The superhero genre reflects the melodramatic mode in its tendency to jump between media, present a world where good and evil are largely distinct, and define morality. The genre begins in comic books and quickly expands to film and television, with its general elements largely intact, even as it adapts to the context of each medium. More specifically, Superman

Linda Williams, Playing the Race Card: Melodramas of Black and White from Uncle Tom to O.J. Simpson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) 12. 2 Williams 19. 3 Williams 40, emphasis in the original.

jumps between media and appears in very different cultural contexts; Smallville represents a television incarnation of the superhero that borrows essential elements of melodrama and the Superman character while adapting to the evolutions of the genre and the larger post-2000 context. The superhero genre is clearly based on a melodramatic conflict between good and evil, with the protagonist protecting the populace and challenging the villains who threaten it. The sense of pathos comes from the suffering of the superhero due to traumatic origins, mental and emotional anguish, and (especially) physical pain, as well as from the distress of the innocent victims who need to be saved; this agony suggests the virtue of the superhero and those that he saves. In turn, it is suffering that drives the superhero to action, as he rescues those in peril and defeats his antagonists. From its inception, the genre deals with moral questions that face the United States as a nation, specifically the perceived conflict between power and virtue in a capitalistic, democratic society; the underlying anxiety of the genre is that power leads to greed and corruption that harms others and endangers the nation and its egalitarian principles. As a result, the superhero genre portrays a nation where there are trustworthy overseers who have extensive power but still maintain virtue and dedication to democracy and capitalism. Even better, they punish those who have power and do not use it morally; it does not deny the existence of people who are corrupted by their authority, but presents characters who are stronger than they are and can discipline them. Superheroes are idealized super citizens/patriots, representing the very best of the nation; thus, the core fantasies of the superhero genrehaving superhuman power and being protected by righteous heroesare conflated with America and Americanness. The comforting portrayal of superhuman heroes who stop corrupt villains while maintaining their own virtue reflects melodramas sensationalized presentation of a fundamentally moral world; it is a premise that

jumps easily from medium to medium and is adapted to many contexts throughout the genres history. Although it creates heroes who are akin to villains, superhero monstrosity in the end does not eliminate the melodramatic division between good and evil. First of all, monstrosity is usually episodic, unintentional, or the result of being misjudged; the superhero may act like a villain for a time, lose control of his powers, or be seen as a danger to the world, but he fundamentally still wants to help people and remains a heroic character for the viewer or reader. The superhero is usually able to curtail his monstrosity and return to his role as protector, going on to defeat those who are truly corrupt (i.e., the villains). Significantly, monstrosity can actually work to increase the sense that the superhero is virtuous; the protagonists corruption leads him to feel pain, shame, and guilt, increasing the degree of pathos and suggesting the characters virtue through his suffering. Despite the preponderance of monstrosity, the superhero genres melodramatic mode allows it to evolve through the years in different media with its main aspects preserved: sensational pathos and action, distinctions between good and evil, and the sense that power and virtue can coexist in certain people who watch over everyone. Though it does not change the genres primary elements, superhero monstrosity does undercut the reassurance that comes from the depiction of pure-hearted individuals who protect the nation (and the world), in the process exhibiting the genres evolution and adaptation to different eras and media. The monstrous superhero often threatens the nation and fulfills the function of the villain, straining (but not eliminating) the ideas that power and virtue can coexist and that good and evil are distinct. It recalls the anxieties upon which the superhero genre is built, as even those who seem virtuous can be corrupted by their disproportionate power and harm the impotent masses. Moreover, the increasing monstrosity in the superhero genre over

time displays the shifting view of heroism within the nation, since essentially good characters can frequently turn destructive and be seen as more appealing for doing so; it underlines a move toward more ambiguous, realistically human heroes in popular culture, as protagonists must have moral deficiencies and harmful impulses that make them more like traditional villains. In many cases of monstrosity, immorality is made appealing by representing how pleasurable it is to have superpowers without the restraints of altruism. Finally, the corruption of a superpowered figure who protects and symbolizes the nation points to the anxiety that comes with the U.S.s role as a superpower on the world stage, a role that developed alongside the superhero genre. As a nation with super weapons (e.g., the atomic bomb) and global reach, the danger is that the unchecked power will lead to corruption, the nation dangerously losing sight of its moral values or having its own weapons turn against itself. The corrupted superhero, like the corrupted nation, exposes the perils of power, the powerlessness of the average citizen, and the tenuousness of virtue and feelings of security. Consequently, superhero monstrosity may leave the world of good and bad intact but complicates it considerably and casts some doubt on the viability of the division. In exploring superhero monstrosity, particularly on the program Smallville, this dissertation has three principle parts. Part 1 and Chapter 1 are titled Definitions and Histories: Superman, the Superhero Genre, and Superhero Monstrosity. This is my set-up chapter, where I provide my complete definition of superhero monstrosity, including the three varieties: moral, physical, and original sin. I look at how corrupted renditions of the superhero overturn traditional conventions of the genre. Moreover, I supply histories of the superhero in comic books and mainstream media (film and TV) in order to show the changing role of the monstrous superhero over time. Part 2 is titled Hero or Destroyer? Super Puberty and Young Supermans

Flirtations with Monstrosity on Smallville and explores how Smallville depicts a young protagonist who goes through a kind of super puberty, struggling with the acquisition of superpowers and constantly at risk of transforming into a monster. Chapter 2, Finding the Monster Inside: Clark Kents Discovery of his Super (Freakish) Body . . . and the Quest to Hide It, analyzes how Clarks development of superpowers causes destruction, reveals potential for immorality, and results in an uneasy relationship with regular humans, since his powers endanger them and could (if exposed) cause Clark to be seen as a monster. Chapter 3, Flirting with Your Worst Enemy and the Dark Side: Clark Kent and Lex Luthor as Best Friends investigates Clarks sexually charged pubescent relationship with Lex Luthor, which constantly threatens to derail Clarks growth into a hero. Their relationship underlines the genres shift to making heroes and villains deeply connected and similar, as the hero is increasingly like the villain and vice versa. Part 3, The Superhero-Gone-Bad Phenomenon: When Super Saviors Become Immoral Monsters, studies the most anxiety-provoking and appealing form of the monstrous superhero: when he, for some reason or another, goes bad, becoming a selfish figure who threatens the entire world with his overwhelming superhuman abilities. Chapter 4, Superman III: Superhero as Sexual Freak, Drunk, and Destructive Force, analyzes the evil Superman seen in the third film of the 1970s/1980s Superman film series; it is the first mainstream cinematic version of the superhero-gone-bad and illuminates much of the attractiveness of the character type. Chapter 5, Smallvilles Bad Clark: Rebel without a Moral Compass, breaks down the many instances when Smallvilles protagonist turns bad (embodying various fantasies and anxieties) and how it borrows from popular images of juvenile delinquency and the bad boy. Chapter 6, When Bad Becomes Worse: The Unstable World of the Superhero-Gone-Crazy examines an unusual case in which the bad superhero on Smallville is mentally unstable,

becoming terrifying in his paranoia and skewed experience of the world but lacking the appeal of the more typical bad boy superhero. Finally, Chapter 7, Other Superheroes Go Bad: The Success, Failure, and Gendered Aspects of Walking on the Dark Side evaluates various other evil superheroes in post-2000 films, looking particularly at the reasons X2s version is effectively frightening, X-Men: The Last Stands female superhero-gone-bad is irredeemable and representative of how gender functions in the genre, and Spider-Man 3s rendition is unsuccessful. In examining superhero monstrosity, I do close analysis of several episodes of Smallville, as well as a few other superhero films and TV shows. I break down narrative, dialogue, and formal aspects (mise-en-scne, cinematography, editing, and sound) to establish how the superheros body can signify corruption and danger. In addition, in order to prove that aspects of monstrosity represent trends in the wider genre, I link Smallville to other mainstream superhero media from the same time period. Furthermore, fan reactions are scrutinized to demonstrate that the monstrous superhero reflects real fantasies and anxieties for viewers. Ultimately, this dissertation hopes to unveil the ways that the superhero genre has changed and how and why the monstrous superhero resonates so much after 2000 in film and television, as exemplified by the TV series Smallville.

PART 1 Definitions and Histories: Superman, the Superhero Genre, and Superhero Monstrosity

Chapter 1: Definitions and Histories: Superman, the Superhero Genre, and Superhero Monstrosity
This chapter is the foundation, the building block of my analysis of the monstrous superhero on Smallville and in other superhero media. As such, it has three main purposes and sections. In the first section, I define the key characteristics of the superhero and the genre in order to present how the monstrous superhero subverts many of these conventions; in the process, I provide my definition of the monstrous superhero, including the three main kinds of monstrosity that can be exhibited. Next, in the second section, I supply a history of the superhero genre in comic books in order to prove that anxieties about the corruption of superpowered beings precede the genre, are incompletely suppressed in the first decades of the genre, and become central to superhero comics in the 1960s and afterward. Since monstrous superpowered characters come before the first accepted appearance of a superhero, one can argue that foundationally the superhero actually inverts the monstrous; the subsequent monstrous superheroes, then, represent a kind of reversion, even as they directly overturn many conventions of the superhero (after the genre is established). In this second section, I note some of the specific comic books in which the monstrous superhero is represented throughout the years. My argument is contrasted with other scholars who limit monstrosity (though they rarely use that specific term) to a specific period of the genre or even to particular characters. Finally, the third section offers a history of the superhero genre in film and TV, again focusing on the shifting role of monstrosity that culminates in the larger role of the monstrous superhero after 2000. The reason for the bifurcation of comics and film/TV is that the histories are quite different (though, of course, interrelated), allowing us to see how and why monstrous superheroes take longer to reach mainstream audiences.

10

Throughout all of my analysis, Superman is the focal point because he is the first, prototypical superhero and has the longest, most prolific history. The character is never cancelled in comics and has a mainstream presence in radio, TV, and/or film in nearly every decade since the 1940s. Furthermore, as the oldest and most renowned, he is the most conservative, resisting change more than most other superheroes. Thus, alterations in Superman as a character in whatever media usually represent a shift in the larger genre, making him the ideal superhero to trace and explore in defining and analyzing superhero monstrosity.

Section 1: The House that Superman Built: Generic Conventions and Monstrous Deviations The monstrous superhero represents a corruption of the superhero. As such, in order to define the character type, it is necessary first to establish the key elements of the superhero. In this section, I provide and investigate the key definitions of the superhero genre, largely provided by other scholars who have written on superheroes. With the elements of the superhero determined, I will offer my full definition of the monstrous superhero, exploring the various ways he is a corruption of the superhero and exposes anxieties about impotence (since no one is able to stop him) and the untrustworthiness of the powerful. Generic distinctions are tenuous and never without numerous exceptions, but they allow us to keep in mind what is expected in the superhero genre by the audience and exhibitors/retailers and how superhero texts are formulated by producers. To those ends, Peter Coogan, in his book Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre, fairly exhaustively outlines the parameters and roots of the genre, offering a helpful starting point upon which to build my definition of monstrosity. As explained by Coogan, genre is a system of interaction between the producers and audiences of a medium embodied in privileged story forms in which basic 11

social conflicts are narratively animated and resolved;4 to put it simply, generic stories reflect key cultural concerns and have a set of conventions that are followed (and slightly deviated from5), acting as a blueprint for producers and determining audience expectations. Importantly, producers can shift a genre by introducing variations (whether for artistic or commercial reasons), as can the audience through its consumption or lack thereof, creating the system of interaction between them. The specific evolution of the superhero genre is explored more in the second section. What follows are the key aspects of the genre, the ones that are the most frequently repeated and represent the framework and expectations associated with superhero stories. Most of the transformations of and deviations from the genre, including the monstrous superhero (who signifies the perversion of the superheros role as a reassuring and strong protector of the populace), are defined in relation to these accepted and expected conventions.6 Since the genre is named after its main character, Coogan notes that the central elements of the genre are found within the superhero himself.7 He outlines the key characteristics of the superhero as mission, powers, and identity, all three of which exist in previous dime novels, pulp fiction, radio programs, and films but never coalesce in a distinct way that is then copied widely until the June 1938 arrival of Action Comics #1, the first comic book featuring Superman.8 Since monstrosity is often based on the corruption of the superheros mission, establishing the protagonists customary goals is key to the work I am doing here. As described by Coogan, The superheros mission is prosocial and selfless, which means that his fight against evil must fit in with the existing, professed mores of society and must not be intended to benefit
4 5

Peter Coogan, Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre (Austin: Monkey Brain Books, 2006) 194-195. These small deviationsgiving at least the illusion of something neware precisely how a genre story stands out. 6 Though the character certainly reacts to generic conventions, the monstrous superhero in a loose sense precedes the superhero genre itself, is foundational to how the superhero is initially defined, and is a spectre from the start of the genre. 7 Coogan 24. 8 Coogan 31.

12

or further his own agenda.9 Thus, the superhero does not disrupt or extend the status quo; he uses his superpowers in order to maintain order and stop others (the so-called villains) from changing things. As Scott Bukatman argues in The Boys in the Hoods: A Song of the Urban Superhero, the superhero is a figure of great independence who chooses to serve the laws and moral values of our society; he operates beyond the strict parameters of the law the better to enforce its values and supports the status quo but remains uncorrupted by the constant corruption he encounters.10 He is, in many ways, the modern incarnation of the American cowboy in that he is the protector of civilized peoples, but also remains apart from civilization so that he can maintain an uncorrupted moral compass. The selflessness of the superheros mission is essential to the characters instructive value. Descended from ancient mythological characters like Gilgamesh and Hercules, as well as Biblical figures and stories, superheroes similarly offer lessons to readers and viewers via stories about the impressive feats of superhumans. Though there are lessons on being good to be gleaned from almost all superhero stories, Coogan argues that the origin story that outlines the heros mission is usually the most plainly instructive; he states, Superhero stories like that of Spider-Mans origin explore the conflict between self and society and show the dangers of selfishly withdrawing from the group and refusing to use ones abilities to help others.11 In the case of Spider-Man, as told in various comic books, television shows, and films, his attempt to use his powers selfishly results indirectly in the murder of his beloved uncle, causing the realization that he must use his powers responsibly for the greater good. This nearly instant punishment reflects that, though the superhero world is secular on the surface, there is a sense

Coogan 31. Scott Bukatman, The Boys in the Hoods: A Song of the Urban Superhero, Matters of Gravity: Special Effects and Supermen in the 20th Century (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003) 185. 11 Coogan 25.
10

13

that greater forces are at work, enacting a kind of cosmic justice. If a superhero uses his powers morally (i.e., selflessly), he will generally be rewarded in one (or more) of several ways: a sense of personal accomplishment or righteousness, the appreciation of the masses, or fruitful personal relationships. In contrast, if someone in the superhero world acts for personal glory and/or money, he is usually punished by ending up in jail, dealing with massive shame or guilt, suffering personal loss, or even dying. Whether superpowers are a gift from above or simply a happy accident, they carry the responsibility of the mission and instruct the reader or viewer to act for the good of society. After all, how often does the supervillain really win?12 The second and third key elements of the superhero are more immediately visually identifiable: powers and identity. The fact that superheroes like Superman have superpowers attests to the exaggeration of the human that they represent13 (just look at the number of superlatives in the previous sentence!). The 1938 version of Superman has super strength, super speed, and the ability to leap tall buildings; in subsequent years, these powers increase even further to include near invulnerability, heat vision, X-ray vision, and of course flying. These abilities help make the character a stronger figure of fantasy identification; nothing is outside of his grasp, as he can lift anything, withstand anything, and be anywhere almost immediately.

12

For a more complete discussion of the reasons individuals act morally (in life and superhero narratives), see C. Stephen Layman, Why Be a Superhero? Why Be Moral? Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way, eds. Tom Morris and Matt Morris (Chicago: Open Court, 2005) 194-206. Layman discusses how, in many cases, acting morally is not in ones own interest. He concludes that the best reason to be moral is the belief that it always pays in the long run, where the long run includes life after death; in other words, acting morally ultimately depends on a belief in some greater cosmic force, whether it is God or doctrines of karma and reincarnation (203). Accordingly, superhero narratives promote belief in morality, with the insinuation that the immoral (e.g., supervillains) are punished, either by the superhero or in the long term through some kind of cosmic suffering. Likewise, even if the superhero sees no reward in the short term for his goodness, he will be rewarded in the end, whether it is through his sense of self-worth or more tangible rewards. 13 Coogan 31.

14

The superpowers are also the main source of unease with the superhero; if he has almost no limits, how is he identifiably human?14 Isnt so much power in one person potentially problematic and un-American? As explained by Bukatman, superheroes are authority and order incarnate, innately fascist at their core (especially Superman, our homegrown ubermensch).15 Their fascismtheir extreme nationalism and status as physically superior individuals who control and suppress those who are in some way degenerateis tempered by the reactive nature of superheroes, who usually aim to protect the nation and its people from injury or death16 and commit violence only to stop other violence17. Likewise, superheroes are typically connected with America idealsTruth, Justice, and the American Way, individual rights, democracy, etc.thereby limiting any claims that they are un-American. Finally, the identity component of the superhero includes the codename (usually part of a secret identity) and the costume.18 The codename of the superhero externalizes the inner character or biography of the superhero; thus, as Coogan notes, Superman is a super man, who represents the best of humanity, whereas the name Batman reveals the characters encounter with a bat that resulted in his taking on a bat identity to scare criminals.19 The dual identity of the superhero provides a key means of identification: The superhero is an average-seeming, if in some cases very wealthy or smart, individual who may be dismissed or looked over (resembling many viewers/readers), but who actually possesses incredible power and aims to protect society (reflecting the fantasies of numerous viewers/readers).

14

Much of the popular dissatisfaction with Superman over the years has been based on the sense that he is too powerful and too perfect (i.e., not human enough). This frustration is one reason that monstrous Superman narratives or stories in which his alienation are shown increase in frequency in the 1980s and beyond. 15 Bukatman, The Boys in the Hoods 185. 16 Many of the individuals saved by superheroes are too weak to protect themselves, which would cause them to be treated with much less sympathy in most fascist regimes. 17 Fascist violence is usually more proactive and celebrated. 18 Coogan 32. 19 Coogan 33.

15

The most iconic representations of the superhero identity are, as Coogan explains, the costumes, which usually feature chevrons (e.g., Supermans S) that proclaim the superheroes identities.20 The key element of the costume is its simplification of identity, as it strips away detail for a simplified idea that is represented in the colors and designs of the costume21 This simplicity is why a character like Superman is so easily associated with just his colorsred, blue, and yellowor the chevron on his chest, which is mass-produced on things like T-shirts and DVD boxes. Furthermore, it is important to note the skintight nature of most superhero costumes; similar to circus strongman costumes or tights worn by an acrobat, they cling to their bodies and show off their muscles. In effect, their costumes highlight how powerful and impressive their bodies really are, making them seem even more super. Bukatman does the necessary work of linking the mission, powers, and identity of the superhero22 to the setting of the stories: the modern city. He states that superheroes, especially in the early years, represent the same utopian aspirations of modernity as the cities themselves. He notes, The superhero, in his costumed extravagance, muscular absurdity, and hyperkineticism, superimposes the fantastic on the face of the utilitarian, bringing the city back to the fact of its fantasy.23 The superhero genre adds the fantastic to a world that otherwise seems familiar to the reader/viewer. According to Bukatman, through the superheros motion through the city, the reader gains a sense of liberation: [We] gain a freedom of movement not constrained by the ground-level order imposed by the urban grid. The city becomes legible through signage and captions and the heros panoramic and panoptic gaze. It is at once a site of anonymity and flamboyance. Above all, soaring above all,

20 21

Coogan 33. Coogan 33. 22 He does not explicitly use these categories, which are from Coogan. 23 Bukatman, The Boys in the Hoods 189.

16

the superhero city is a place of weightlessness, a site that exists, at least in part, in playful defiance of the spirit of gravity.24 If the modern city can be seen as an overwhelmingly crowded and busy place that is heavily ordered/restricting and anonymous, the superheros appeal is in his ability to break free of these constraints and soar above and through the city (often literally); he is able to overcome and control the urban landscape through his extraordinary physical abilities and to stand out flamboyantly. The modern city is characterized as a place of unprecedented potential destruction; train and automobile accidents and powerful weapons are among the many technological means of shock, injury, and death. The superhero, as embodied by Superman, could suffer the brutalizing shocks of modernity with neither broken bones nor neurasthenic breakdowns. Superior sense and a body so strong that nothing less than a bursting shell cold penetrate his skin made [Superman] the perfect citizen of the modern Metropolis.25 To further this theme of surviving and dominating modern technology, superhero stories often show the hero fighting modern means of warfare such as machine guns or airplanes or outrunning automobiles or trains. Having summarized the key aspects of the superhero, it is possible now to offer a clear and complex definition of the monstrous superhero. In the first variation, the monstrous superhero is a typically heroic character or some sort of double of the superhero26 (whether they look alike or have similar/linked powers, personas, or origins) who uses his powers for personal gratification rather than protecting others; or he is a superhero who employs excessive, often deadly violence, forgoing virtue for the belief that the ends (e.g., protecting society) justify the
24 25

Bukatman, The Boys in the Hoods 185, 188. Bukatman, The Boys in the Hoods202. 26 For all the subsequent forms of monstrosity described here, it can be a double of the superhero, as well as the superhero himself. However, when labeling such a double, it is usually most accurate to call him a monstrous superhero double and not simply a monstrous superhero because the character is typically never a hero in the first place; the double stands in for the superhero, showing what he would be like if he were monstrous.

17

means. In such cases, the superhero is monstrous morally. In extreme instances of moral monstrosity, the superheros mission is skewed completely, as he self-indulgently (and often violently) utilizes his abilities for lust, authority, and/or riches, becoming what I call a superhero-gone-bad; this character usually proves to be unstoppable until some kind of superhuman, magical, or simply fortuitous intervention, since human means prove insufficient. 27 The second kind of monstrous superhero is a heroic character whose superpowers become destructive unintentionally, his super body turning against him, or a superhero whose body becomes unacceptably abnormal;28 in either iteration, the characters body becomes a source of horror for humans. In such instances, the superhero is monstrous physically.29 Finally, there is a third variation of monstrous superhero in which the superheros origin30his birth as a superpowered individual (i.e., his acquisition of powers) or his place of origin (i.e., the birthplace of his superpowers)leads to humans being harmed or feeling threatened; this will be called original sin monstrosity.31 This kind of monstrosity particularly holds true in the case of Superman, whose home planet Krypton is at the root of his powers but creates many disasters and villains that threaten Earth, especially on the TV series Smallville. It leads to a sense of guilt and personal monstrosity for the superhero, as he unintentionally harms (or has harmed in the
27

In many cases, it is the superhero who stops himself out of some realization. These are counted as superhuman interventions. 28 A hero with an unacceptably abnormal body can include one who looks like a monster (i.e., inhuman) or one who perceptibly uses his powers and is then seen as a freak for what his body can do. In narratives in which superheroes are publically accepted as protectors their powers are rarely seen as freakish, though they can still be monstrous physically if their powers go out of control, are used in excessive ways, or cause destruction. 29 One can compare many instances of superhero physical monstrosity to narratives in which a monster does not necessarily intend harm but is viewed as grotesque or causes destruction while acting out its bodys natural inclinations. 30 When discussing the superhero genre, origin is typically extended to include the superheros entire backstory, even before he had superpowers. In the context of original sin monstrosity, it is being used specifically to talk about the origin of superpowers, meaning the initial acquisition of these powers. 31 If the superhero harms humans with his actions or feels responsible for someones injury/death before he has powers (e.g., in the case of Batman), it is typically not original sin monstrosity. His superpowers must precede or be concurrent with his threat to humans in most cases. However, if the threat comes from something from the superheros place of origin rather than his superpowers, the harm can occur before the superhero has powers or even before his birth and still qualify as original sin monstrosity.

18

past) the very place he has sworn to protect. An alternate, more common form of original sin monstrosity is when the superhero directly births a supervillain through some mistake, oversight, or even heroism, subsequently resulting in his antagonist harming people.32 There is some overlap between these categorizations, of course. For example, since the morally monstrous superheros evil intentions are enacted through the super body, his physical being can be seen as horrifying by characters in many cases and/or he can be seen as a threat because of his superpowers (original sin monstrosity). Likewise, in the case of the physically monstrous superhero who looks deformed or whose body turns violently against him, the character qualifies for original sin monstrosity in instances where humans feel endangered by his superhuman presence. The monstrous superhero reveals the same anxieties the regular superhero submerges: the impotence of most citizens and the dangerous corruption of those with power. As the prosocial mission becomes a selfish one for the morally monstrous superhero, the character often engages in enthusiastic violence and represses those who stand in the way of his authority, frequently attacking or exploiting those weak individuals he would have previously protected. The characters superiority and imperviousness to modernity, a part of the regular heros appeal, help augment the level of fear. As the heros loyalties shift or his body flows out of control, he typically cannot be stopped by the only means the nation has to fight back: modern technology. As part of his corruption, the morally monstrous superhero regularly gives up the humility and secrecy that comes with the dual identity, either choosing one identity and exposing his great power openly or maintaining the charade of both identities while corrupting both into monstrous
32

To qualify, there must be some traumatic or substantial event in which the hero creates the villain or a specific explanation as to how the villain is somehow inspired or pushed into evil by the heros presence and would otherwise have not taken on his dark persona. Moreover, in this kind of original sin monstrosity, the creation of the villain can actually precede the superhero acquiring his powers as long as the future-superhero is directly responsible for the creation of his nemesis.

19

figures. As a visual signifier, the monstrous version of the superhero often wears a darker version of his costume or changes it dramatically, attesting to his supposedly evil intentions. Both visual and narrative elements are essential to my analysis of the monstrous superhero. The appeal of regular and monstrous superheroes depends largely on the visual depiction of superpowers, which help make the characters truly spectacular and/or frightening. This visuality is why superheroes begin in comic books, rather than a text-based medium, and find such success in film and TV. Analysis of plot can provide an outline of a superheros monstrosity but it does not sufficiently show how monstrosity is created. That said, what makes a superheros abilities monstrous rather than heroic often depends as much on narrative context and dialogue as it does visual content. In terms of the three kinds of monstrosity, all are based on the visual depiction of superhuman powers, but also have aspects which make analysis of narrative and/or dialogue a significant part of this project. Physical monstrosity in which powers overflow dangerously is the most purely visual of the kinds of monstrosity as it depends on superhuman abilities escaping control and enacting destruction in a perceptible way.33 In contrast, physical monstrosity in which powers horrify humans may be purely visual (e.g., people running away or looking horrified) or may also depend on dialogue (e.g., characters expressing their shock) or narrative context (e.g., powers being used in a public situation in which they would normally be hidden). Moreover, moral monstrosity relies even more consistently on narrative context and dialogue, as they clarify that the purposes of the superheros actions are wicked. Finally, original sin monstrosity can be primarily visual if the superhero acts destructively or if humans are shown fleeing from the superhero. However, it can be more dependent on dialogue and narrative
33

This focus on visuals is not to say that physical monstrosity cannot be amplified by other means; for example, the use of score and sound effects in film and TV can accentuate the destructiveness of the super body and of course character dialogue can comment on the destruction.

20

context if characters verbally express fear of the superhero or if awareness of the dangerousness of the superheros actions necessitates knowledge of the larger narrative. Likewise, the superheros risk of becoming a monster is often a substantial part of the dialogue and narrative of comic books or film/TV shows (though this risk too can be expressed visually at times). In the end, monstrosity is based on visual depiction of superpowers but what usually creates the sense of corruption (as opposed to heroism) is the context, as expressed via visuals, dialogue, and the narrative, either together or separately. Thus, in this project, there is close analysis of all three in looking at superhero monstrosity. With a definition of monstrosity (including all its variations) in place, we can discuss how the supervillain can, in some cases, be called a monstrous superhero double. Coogan again proves helpful here as he defines five kinds of supervillains: the monster, the enemy commander, the mad scientist, the criminal mastermind, and the inverted-superhero supervillain.34 For my purposes, the most pertinent is the inverted-superhero supervillain (which frequently overlaps with the other types of villains). He explains that this type of antagonist has superpowers, codenames, and costumes, acts as a direct response to the superhero, and can often become a superhero.35 Despite clear similarities to the corrupted superhero, the inverted-superhero supervillain only qualifies for my definition of monstrous superhero double if he specifically inverts the protagonist of the narrative; that is, he would have to share the superheros powers, origins, or appearance in a distinct waybecoming a kind of doubleand then use his abilities for evil purposes.36
34 35

Coogan 61. Coogan 72. 36 Arguably, many supervillains (inverted-superhero variety or not) have origins that are, in general terms, comparable to those of superheroes in that traumatic incidents instigate their new personas and missions. Coogan discusses this mirroring at length on pages 103-109. My interest is in examples where the supervillains origin, appearance, or powers are deeply and explicitly similar to the superheros, qualifying him as a true monstrous double (and not just a psychological mirror of the hero).

21

In instances where the superhero himself is corrupted, the monstrous superhero does not usually qualify as a supervillain, since he only acts destructively for a limited period of time before returning to his true superheroic nature. It must almost always be a temporary transformation, because the monstrous superhero throws off the narrative balance between good and evil. In contrast, the inverted-superhero supervillain who qualifies as a monstrous superhero double can be allowed to appear repeatedly, since he acts as a foil for the hero.

Section 2: The History of Superhero Monstrosity in Comic Books: The Monster Becomes a Superhero and then the Superhero Becomes a Monster Having defined superhero monstrosity, it is now possible to trace its history in comic books. I am not providing an exhaustive history of the genre in comics; Peter Coogan provides a solid history of the comic book superhero in his analysis of the genre, as does Bradford W. Wright in his study of the history and cultural effects of comic books, Comic Book Nation. Instead, this section aims to provide an alternative history, looking specifically at the foundational role of monstrosity in the superhero genre and its continuous, transforming role throughout the genres development. My focus is, whenever possible, primarily on Superman because of the characters centrality to my project, his status as the first superhero, and his influence on and reflection of larger generic trends. Moreover, my utilization of other scholars is to provide historical information and to counter the limits they give to monstrosity (though they almost never use that term), as they typically see it as unique to a time period of the genre or an attribute of particular characters. Finally, there is some formal analysis of comics to show how superhero monstrosity is depicted visually; however, due to the lengthy history being covered, in many cases I simply summarize instances of monstrosity or note dialogue that illuminates why the superheros usage of superpowers is threatening. 22

Overall, what is important is the existence of monstrous superheroes throughout the genres history and how the superhero is rooted in earlier monstrous superpowered characters. The elements of monstrosity are substantial in early superhero comic books, before seeming to disappear almost completely in the World War II period. However, in the postwar period, monstrosity grows apparent again, as there are frequent eruptions of monstrous superhero narratives, usually with a light-hearted tone. Then, in the early 1960s, the genre shifts significantly, as monstrosity becomes central in depictions of darker, more conflicted superheroes. This trend becomes even more pronounced in the 1980s and beyond, as graphic novels like Frank Millers Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moores Watchmen create visions of complex and morally monstrous superheroes.37 Corrupted superheroes frequently are monstrous physically and morally, are viewed as monsters within the narratives, and flirt with what could be termed as evil; they reflect the destructive potential of the superhero. The starting point for my history of superhero monstrosity is 1933s Reign of the Superman, the first Superman story created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.38 It is not a superhero story, since it appears before the genres accepted beginning in 1938 and the main character is not a hero, instead using superpowers monstrously from the moment he attains them. However, he is a direct precursor to the monstrous superhero, resembling him in almost every way except the fact that he is a corrupted regular person rather than a corrupted superhero;39 in addition, the character (and others like him) plays a clear role in the subsequent creation of the
37

Indeed, both Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen emphasize the blurred line between hero and villain and question the morality and righteousness of the so-called heroes. 38 In terms of format, it is a short story with illustrations, not a comic strip or book. 39 Arguably, the evil Superman is also a precursor to many supervillains who have superhuman abilities. However, he functions differently than the superpowered supervillain in that he is the main character of the story and not just a foil to the heroic character, which is typically what limits the anxiety provoked by the supervillain. Thus, in terms of the sense of unease produced, the evil Superman resembles the corrupted superhero more so than the supervillain.

23

(good) superhero, underlining the same anxieties that the superhero combats. In From Menace to Messiah: The History and Historicity of Superman, Thomas Andrae looks at Supermans gradual transformation from this 1933 menace to the messianic superhero of World War II, arguing that that the characters monstrosity (though he does not use that term) is eliminated during this period. In contrast, I see his monstrosity as incompletely suppressed, as the corrupt elements of the first Superman have continued to erupt throughout the superhero genres history. Still, Andrae is helpful in providing a history of monstrous superpowered beings that precede the superhero genre and outlining how the early heroic Superman seems to shed his monstrosity. Andrae argues that the first Superman is part of a literary subgenre that is a key influence on the superhero genre: the science-fiction superman story. The main character in such stories is a social menace who threaten[s] fundamental American values and institutions and is so obsessed with his power and so contemptuous of mankind that he threatens to dominate and enslave the world.40 The science-fiction superman, in its different variations, embodies the aspects of the monstrous that I am looking at: He is monstrous morally, taking advantage of his powers for selfish desires and often with excessive violence; he can be monstrous physically, his body frightening and out-of-control due to its power; and he embodies original sin monstrosity, becoming a threat to humanity by his very existence. Andrae situates these evil (or, to use my term, monstrous) superman figures within a larger tradition in American science fiction that started in the early twentieth century,41 but did

40

Thomas Andrae, From Menace to Messiah: The History and Historicity of Superman, American Media and Mass Culture: Left Perspectives, ed. Donald Lazere (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) 124, 125. 41 Coogan argues that the tradition of the science -fiction Superman began much earlier with Frankenstein in 1818 and continued with characters such as Dracula and the aliens in H.G. Wells The War of the Worlds. In many cases, the supermans superior abilities come from science and he poses the threat of the Replacement of humanity as the dominant form of life on earth with that of the next and more advanced version of the human genus (128). Coogan claims that the theme of inhumanity coming with evolution to the superhuman was influenced by Nietzsches concept of the Ubermensch, an individual who is above the morality of the normal human (130). Though there are

24

not gain wide popularity until the Great Depression when a flood of stories about mental and physical supermen hit the newsstands as either book-length novels or short stories in the gaudy science-fiction pulps.42 He elaborates on the nature of the science-fiction superman characters as follows: whether savior or destroyer the superman cannot be permitted to exist. Most of the stories of mentally and physically superior human beings end tragically and futilely. Whether he becomes an outcast, a pathetically lonely creature who is ostracized or a tyrannical monster so dangerous that he threatens to enslave the world, convention dictates that he either die or be robbed of his power.43 He argues that superman stories and other media of the time (gangster, horror, and fallen woman films, notably) depict the American dream of upward mobility but then condemn such liminal characters as evil and power-mad since that kind of rampant economic individualism [was] perceived as the source of the nations political and economic chaos.44 Such narratives embody the belief that existing institutions need not be abandoned if excessive individualism and mass selfishness could be curtailed.45 If institutions are torn down in revolution or individuals simply take the law into their own hands, nothing good comes out of it. In briefly analyzing the Reign of the Superman story, we can see how the sciencefiction superman conveys the monstrous results of great power in the hands of one citizen. It opens pitifully in the context of the Great Depression: The breadline! Its row of downcast, disillusioned men; unlucky creatures who have found that life holds nothing but bitterness for them. The bread-line! Last resort of the starving vagrant.46 America is portrayed as a gloomy

science-fiction supermen who are saviors, these stories are few and usually take place outside of contemporary America (146). 42 Andrae 125. 43 Andrae 125. 44 Andrae 127, 129. 45 Andrae 129. 46 Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, Reign of the Superman, Science Fiction: The Vanguard of Future Civilization 1.3 (January 1933) 4, Internet Archive, Web, 25 January 2010. <http://www.archive.org/details/ReignOfTheSuperman>

25

nation of men who are unlucky, unable to help themselves and reduced to asking for assistance. As the story unfolds, this impotence of the average American is contrasted with the corruption of the powerful through the initial depiction of the two main characters: Professor Ernest Smalley, a wealthy scientist, and Bill Dunn, a homeless man who eventually becomes the evil Superman. Smalley is introduced as an affluent man with a cruel lack of empathy for the poor: To him, who had come of rich parents and had never been forced to face the rigors of life, the miserableness of these men seemed deserved. It appeared to him that if they had slightest ambition at all they could easily lift themselves from their terrible rut.47 The characters insensitivity to the plight of the average American is blamed on his complete alienation from their material conditions. If wealth is associated with power, one can conclude that Smalley exemplifies the kind of moral deficiencies that come with excessive power imbued in one individual (a typical conclusion during the Great Depression or any other time of economic downturn). The villainizing of the upper class continues as Smalley seduces the homeless, vulnerable Dunn with the promise of a meal and then uses a mysterious rock on him, testing its effects on a human. This act underlines the sense of the wealthy exploiting the lower classes. The result of the experiment on Dunn reinforces the moral dangers of great power. He gains telepathic powers and superhuman hearing and sight, all of which he quickly exploits for evil ends. As Dunn gains all the knowledge that exists in the universe, he declares, I am a veritable God! and the narrator begins referring to him as the thing that had been Bill Dunn and the Superman.48 Thus, Dunn immediately loses his sense of humanity and grows selfish. He learns he can see the future, read the thoughts of others, and most ominously can bend others to his will through sheer thought. Amassing a fortune through manipulation and gambling, Dunn

47 48

Siegel and Shuster, Reign of the Superman 4. Siegel and Shuster, Reign of the Superman 9.

26

becomes an unstoppable force of greed. Reiterating the dark temptations that come with great power, Smalley grows jealous of Dunns success and attempts to gain Superman powers himself, plotting to kill Dunn afterward. This scheme subsequently leads to Dunns murder of Smalley and his attempt to plunge the world into mutual hatred and annihilating war. His evil plan only fails when his powers wear off, Dunn returning to the breadline. Like most science-fiction superman stories, Reign of the Superman plays directly into anxieties that the average citizen is impotent and that the powerfulthe upper class, the superpoweredare untrustworthy, taking advantage of the middle and working classes. In the story, the evil Superman is only stopped through fortuitous circumstances. If there is some wish fulfillment in an individual acquiring superhuman abilities, it gives way to horror in the story rather quickly. The narrative does not encourage change, revolution, or an aspiration to individual super-ness, because gaining power would simply lead to corruption and more exploitation. These anxieties about power leading to monstrosity and the helplessness of the populace are the same ones reflected in the monstrous superhero; accordingly, the evil Supermans corrupt actions can be situated within the three categories of superhero monstrosity described earlier (even though he is not a superhero). The reporter in the story who witnesses Dunns evil asks, Was it simply that his nature demanded he bring evilness and death upon humanity, or more likely, did he hope to gain control of it by first breaking its strength by pitting it against itself?49 Since Dunn is strictly average (and in no way evil) when we meet him in the story, his nature and desires are completely changed by his acquisition of superpowers, corrupting him almost immediately. This transformation qualifies him for original sin monstrosity, in that it is having

49

Siegel and Shuster, Reign of the Superman 13.

27

superpowers that makes him a threat.50 Likewise, he clearly shows moral monstrosity as well, using his powers for self-serving, destructive motives. He does not truly embody physical monstrosity, in that his abilities are not out of his control nor do they make his body appear horrifyingly inhuman. However, there is a sense of the grotesque about him. For example, the image on the first page of the story shows a bald man, his teeth clenched in a growl and his hands making a choking motion;51 his lack of hair connotes physical deterioration and plays into popular images of evil (not coincidentally, the heroic Supermans greatest enemy, Lex Luthor, is also bald), as does his seething anger. The association of evil with ugliness continues as a later image shows him hunched over with a sinister leer on his face52 and, when he uses his evil powers at the end of the story, it is said that his face slowly twisted itself into such a visage of hate and cruelty.53 Therefore, there is a physical manifestation of his immorality, even if it falls short of actual physical monstrosity. However, it must be reiterated that the evil Superman cannot technically be called a monstrous superhero, since he is not a superhero at all; instead, we can accurately describe him as an example of the science-fiction superman type that directly presages the monstrous superhero and helps birth the superhero as a heroic inverse. This character type is, essentially, the spectre that haunts the superhero genre in the form of the monstrous superhero, erupting forth periodically in heroic characters whose powers prove destructive and threatening to humanity. There are, of course, many influences on the superhero genreJudeo-Christian religions, various mythological characters, and popular representations of cowboys and detectives, to name a few

50

Powers are explicitly linked to the idea of monstrosity in the story. Dunn is described as having discovered the monstrous, unbelievable truth that he has been infected by some chemical and now has extraordinary abilities. Later, he is called an inhuman monster (Siegel and Shuster, Reign of the Superman 7). 51 Siegel and Shuster, Reign of the Superman 4. 52 Siegel and Shuster, Reign of the Superman 9. 53 Siegel and Shuster, Reign of the Superman 14.

28

general onesbut the science-fiction superman and the 1933 Superman, in particular, are key to this project because they explicitly embody the anxieties of corruptive power and everyday impotence that are obscured incompletely in the figure of the superhero. At the conclusion of Reign of the Superman, the connection between the heroic and evil potential of superpowers is made, as Dunn states, If I had worked for the good of humanity, my name would have gone done in history with a blessinginstead of a curse.54 Powers are transformative, changing the individual and, according to the anxious message of these science-fiction stories, making him into something monstrous. However, this ending holds out at least the possibility that powers can be used for the purposes of good, offering the potential of a contrary kind of narrative and character. Thus, in several ways, the 1933 Supermans monstrous use of superpowers leads directly (and reactively) to the creation of superhero characters who are not completely corrupt and utilize their abilities to protect the powerless. The virtuous usage of superpowers by the superhero commences in 1938 in the first comic book featuring Superman, Action Comics # 1.55 Once again created by Siegel and Shuster, this Superman is widely seen to have started the superhero genre.56 The opening panels depict Superman arriving from another planet and, due to the fact that his physical structure was millions of years advanced [beyond humans], developing super strength, super speed, and the ability to leap very far.57 The story suppresses the dark potential of superpowers immediately in

54 55

Siegel and Shuster, Reign of the Superman 13. There are, of course, earlier stories that feature characters with superpowers who are good, especially if you stretch superpowers to include abilities given to gods and heroes in different mythologies and religions. The point is that the superhero as a distinct character type is created in comic books in 1938 and is rooted most directly in the preceding tradition of science-fiction characters who gain superpowers and fail to use them for good. 56 There is also a second The Superman character (after the evil Superman, before the superhero Superman) created by Siegel and Shuster but it was never published; importantly, this Superman lacks any superpowers at all, suggesting that Siegel wasnt quite comfortable about presenting uncanny powers as part of a heroic ideal [Les Daniels, Superman: The Complete History (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1998) 17]. 57 Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, Untitled story, Action Comics #1 (June 1938), rpt. in Superman in the forties (New York: DC Comics, 2005) 10.

29

its presentation of Supermans mission: Early, Clark decided he must turn his titanic strength into channels that would benefit mankind. And so was created . . . Superman! Champion of the oppressed, the physical marvel who had sworn to devote his existence to helping those in need.58 Therefore, there are significant changes from the evil Superman character (as well as other science-fiction superman characters) that help reduce any anxieties about the possession of great power by one individual. Foremost, Superman is born with superpowers, so he learns to use them over a long period of time (importantly, it is implied he goes through puberty with these powers), making it quite different from the Bill Dunn story, where a disempowered adult suddenly gains godly powers. The problematically aristocratic suggestion is that those who are born with power are more apt to be trustworthy, whereas those who try to acquire it later are dangerous, thereby indirectly encouraging the status quo.59 Likewise, the fact that Superman represents a further state of evolutionreinforced in the first page with two panels titled A Scientific Explanation of Clark Kents Amazing Strength60creates an image of someone who has achieved superpowers fairly and rightfully and who, being evolved beyond mere mortals, may be able to wield them without turning evil. The use of science lends credibility to his abilities and his morality. In his official history of Superman, Les Daniels notes that Siegel had trouble envisioning a powerful being who was not either a threat or a joke, underlining Siegels consciousness of the anxieties inherent in having

58 59

Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 10. Along the same lines, in these first stories the villains with long-standing wealth and power (though rarely actually politicians) are often punished and reformed by Superman without ever being removed from their positions. They are presented as people who have temporarily lost their way but are generally trustworthy; by reforming them, Superman improves conditions without changing the status quo drastically. In contrast, villains who are members of the criminal classesgangsters, racketeers, etc.have acquired power and wealth through sheer (illegal) force and are punished with much more prejudice and vitriol. 60 These panels compare Superman to the ant, who can lift weights larger than itself, and the grasshopper, which can leap large distances, attempting to provide scientific evidence that Supermans advanced physical structure is possible (Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 10).

30

a character so disproportionately powerful;61 with dangerous corruption seemingly the only believable result of acquiring super abilities, Siegels only other recourse initially appeared to be the creation of a comical hero. One of Siegels eventual solutions to the problem was to make Superman an alien, meaning he had a hero who was not entirely human, and thus might logically be immune to human weaknesses.62 In being otherworldly (an alien from another world), Daniels argues that Superman touches on mythic themes and specifically recalls Moses, set adrift to become his peoples savior, and also Jesus, sent from above to redeem the world, becoming a secular American messiah.63 In his article What Makes Superman So Darned American? Gary Engle asserts that Superman is like nothing so much as an American boys fantasy of a messiah. . . . He protects the weak and defends truth and justice and all the other moral virtues inherent in the Judeo-Christian tradition, remaining ever vigilant and ever chaste. 64 If humans are easily corrupted by power, Superman is notably more-than-human and free of many of their weaknesses, maintaining the kind of pure goodness associated with revered religious figures.65 In calling him the champion of the oppressed, anxiety caused by distrust of the powerful is again quelled; he supports the average citizen, separating himself from the members of the upper

61 62

Daniels 19. Daniels 19. 63 Daniels 19. 64 Gary Engle, What Makes Superman So Darned American? Superman at Fifty: The Persistence of a Legend, eds. Dennis Dooley and Gary Engle (New York: Collier Books, 1988) 87. There are several other works on Supermans religious significance, including Edward Mehoks St. Clark of Krypton [in Superman at Fifty: The Persistence of a Legend, eds. Dennis Dooley and Gary Engle (New York: Collier Books, 1988) 123-129], Stephen Skeltons The Gospel According to the Worlds Greatest Superhero (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers 2006), and several sections in the collection The Gospel According to Superheroes: Religion and Popular Culture [ed. B.J. Oropeza (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2005)]. 65 Despite the reassuring effects of Supermans non-humanness, it is also a source of threat in many Superman narratives , since he is so frighteningly unlike those that he protects.

31

classes, lacking their excessive individualism (while standing out of as an extraordinary individual).66 Belief in the incorruptibility of the superhero is further strengthened by the visual markers of his heroism. Rather than having a grotesque superpowered character, the first page of the comic book shows a muscular man with dark hair and a slight grin perched over the city, wearing a red, blue, and yellow costume. As would become more pronounced in the years after the first Superman comicas the art improved in comics and there were animated and live action versions of the superherothe character is meant to be handsome and healthy (one might say all-American), associating him with goodness; as mentioned, the evil Superman and most villains in comics are coded as evil through physical ugliness. His colorful costume recalls both the muscle-emphasizing outfits of the circus strongman and the futuristic, alien clothing of the humanoid denizens of outer space familiar to Siegel and Shuster.67 By being drawn in such a costume, Supermans difference from the average citizen immediately has positive associations: bright colors, the circus, strength, and heroic sci-fi characters. Also of note is the costumes similarity to the American flag in its colors, connecting him to the nation, notable especially because of the characters patriotic leanings. Moreover, as noted by Daniels, in giving the heroic Superman physical superpowers, the character becomes more visual and less sinister.68 Mental superpowers can, as in the case of the evil Superman, have an invasive quality, as they furtively enter and control others, bending

66

Andrae sees Superman as part of the matrix of cultural forces that prepared the way for the peaceful transition from a collapsed Horatio Alger ethos of individual success to the collectivist ethic of the totally administered society of the corporate welfare state (124). As such, Andrae believes the heroic Superman discourages individualism, in line with the New Deal polices of the 1930s, and also encourages a large degree of passivity. Unlike the evil Superman, he embodies the new collectivist ethic of the New Deal in which the ideal of individual success was transformed into an organizational ideal of success through self-sacrifice and collective effort under the direction of a strong leader, Superman standing in for that strong leader (128). 67 Daniels 19. 68 Daniels 18.

32

them to ones will. They are connected to plotting over time and having insidious motivations, rather than acting impulsively and heroically (e.g., to save a damsel in immediate distress). In addition, mental fortitude has cultural associations with wealth, since it either creates affluence (as in the case of the evil Superman) or is the result of familial prosperity that gives one the leisure time and opportunity to pursue an education; in being linked to the supposedly corrupt and greedy upper classes, mental abilities are easily aligned with evil.69 In making the 1938 Superman a physical superman, he is marked as a man of action, acting quickly and not plotting unhurriedly. His physicality appeals to American ideals of vigorous corporeal labor, linking him squarely with working and middle-class values. More broadly, Supermans titanic strength puts him into the tradition of a wide variety of strong heroes from various cultures, such as Samson, Hercules, Atlas, and Beowulf,70 making his combination of superpowers and heroism more easily accessible. Aside from his costume and physicality, Supermans positive associations with America are foregrounded through his status as an immigrant. As the U.S. is considered a nation of immigrants (and there is heavy immigration in the early twentieth century), Supermans status as an interstellar refugee from Krypton makes him an identifiable figure. Engle argues that the myth of Superman asserts with total confidence and a childlike innocence the value of the immigrant in American culture.71 That is, Supermans arrival from a foreign planet, as shown in the very first page of the first comic, and subsequent assimilation and contribution to the

69

I t is no coincidence that so many supervillains are mad scientists (especially in early comic books) or aristocrats, using their mental and financial means to plot against the more physical superhero. That said, most superheroes have mental abilities, financial wealth, and/or aristocratic origins as well. The difference is that they usually complement these attributes with physical superpowers, identification with the working and middle classes, and willingness to fight both the criminals from the poorer classes and the villainous members of the upper class. Likewise, wealth/aristocracy is typically inherited by superheroes (proving they are not money hungry) and used to augment their superpowers and heroic goals. 70 Daniels 18. 71 Engle 81.

33

American way of life create an image of an ideal immigrant.72 Engle asserts that Supermans powersstrength, mobility, X-ray vision and the likeare the comic-book equivalents of ethnic characteristics, and they protect and preserve the vitality of the foster community.73 The comparison is an interesting one in that his abilities are due to his Kryptonian heritage (he is, purportedly, the last of his kind) and often mark him as different, potentially dangerously so. However, unlike many ethnic characteristics, Supermans abilities can be easily effaced (he does not constantly use his powers and can usually blend in easily) and are widely celebrated; he is rarely derided for his differences, even when he is feared. He is also white and handsome, diminishing the sense that he is out of the ordinary or ethnic; on the surface, he appears blandly American. Supermans dual identity works to augment the characters Americanness and suppress his monstrous potential. In the first page of the premiere Superman comic book, the narration announces that Clark Kent created Superman in order to use his super strength to help mankind. Then, in the ensuing story we witness the disparity between the two identities. Whereas Superman is superpowered and heroic, Clark is painfully average, almost a parody of the typical American middle-class man (associating the character with the nation once again): He works hard at his office job, is physically awkward and deficient (he wears glasses), and struggles to ask a girl on a date.74 Engle argues, Supermans powers make the hero capable of saving

72

Engle also discusses how the American nation possesses a constant state of displacement, a national sense of rootlessness stemming from an identity founded on the experience of immigration (81). Superman, then, is an appealing fantasy since his incredible speed allows him to be as close to everywhere at once as it physically possible to be. Displacement is, therefore, impossible (81). 73 Engle 81. 74 In some versions of Superman, the Clark Kent character is proactive and strong-willed and in others he is exceedingly wimpy, as he is in the early stories. In addition, in some Superman narratives, Clark Kent is closer to the real identity and Superman is the role he plays, whereas in others it is exact ly the opposite. In some incarnations, one can even argue that both identities are equally inauthentic. In the initial stories, Superman is clearly the real character.

34

humanity; Kents total immersion in the American heartland makes him want to do it.75 As Clark, he learns American values from childhood and lives with humility as an unextraordinary human. This split between the two personas lessens the possibilities of corruption because Clark only becomes the god-like Superman when there is immediate heroic activity at hand. Moreover, it is Clark Kent who is most identifiable to the audience, since he is flawed and oh-sohuman, what Engle calls the consummate figure of total cultural assimilation.76 In contrast, Superman is the ego ideal, the embodiment of perfect strength and morality; one can imagine how countless children and adults have fantasized about tearing off the vestiges of the everyday and soaring up, up, and away. If individuals feel impotent in their own lives, Supermans appeal is that he represents the fantasy of being super powerful, having the ability to do whatever one wants without limits.77 And in being such a patriotic, incorruptible character who willingly chooses to live most of his life as the average Clark Kent, he suppresses the anxieties of power leading to moral compromise and selfishness. As summed up by Andrae, the innovation of the heroic Superman is his embodiment of societys noblest ideals, a man of tomorrow who foreshadows mankinds highest potentialities and profoundest aspirations but whose tremendous powers, remarkably, pose no danger to its freedom and safety.78 However, anxieties regarding corruption of the powerful are not completely eliminated in the first Superman comics in 1938. Though heroic, the early version of the character resorts to levels of sadistic violence that engage all three kinds of monstrosity. On the second page of the
75 76

Engle 85. Engle 85. 77 Andrae claims that the Clark Kent-Superman split helps encourage an acceptance of powerlessness in ones daily life for the sake of an ersatz existence beyond it. The split reproduces the consumerist ideology of late capitalism that labor is inherently unsatisfying and only an instrumental means to the freedom obtainable in leisure time (133). Clark Kent is depicted as constantly frustrated and demeaned, reflecting the frustration of the average American employee. The appeal of Kents transformation into Superman is that it exposes the powerlessness of the individual in modern society and simultaneously effaces it by affirming an escape into a realm of fantastic adventure beyond the repressions of daily life (133). 78 Andrae 125.

35

first story, he demands to see the governor for heroic ends (to stop the execution of an innocent woman) and insists Ill see him now! breaking down the door, lifting the butler above his head, and proceeding to break down another, better fortified door.79 This aggressiveness is clearly appealinghe is working for the average man, busting through the chains of bureaucracyand the scene shows the characters dedication and physical toughness; yet, simultaneously, it illustrates a sadistic, impatient willingness for violence. The potential dangerousness of his power is highlighted immediately as the governor (part of official, political power) grouses, Gentleman, I still cant believe my senses! Hes not human! Thank heaven hes apparently on the side of law and order!80 The fact that he has uncanny powers and is (somewhat horrifyingly) not human attests to his physical monstrosity and the threat that he represents, embodying original sin monstrosity in that his superpowers make him potentially dangerous; the fact that he is not evil (i.e., truly morally monstrous) is looked on as fortuitous and tenuous. As if highlighting this last point, most of the people with power in these early stories (social and political power, as well as physical) are villainous. The preponderance of physical monstrosity (Superman viewed as a freak for what his body can do), original sin monstrosity (Supermans status as a threat because he has superpowers), and moral monstrosity are seen throughout the first story. Confronting a wife beater, Superman reacts with extreme violence and throws him across the room with his super strength, causing shards to fly off the wall; he exclaims, Youre not fighting a woman, now!81 With this line and his later threatAnd now youre going to get a lesson youll never forget82Superman exhibits a sadistic desire for violence that goes beyond simply bringing

79 80

Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 11-12. Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 13. 81 Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 14. 82 Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 15.

36

criminals to justice; he is proactive in stopping criminals, then doles out punishment on his own, sometimes eliding the role of official law enforcement completely. In being a vigilante akin to the cowboy (but in the city), the superhero is expected to step outside of legal methods and embodies wish fulfillment for readers (especially children) of being powerful and punishing bullies who abuse their own power. However, in his later form (1942 until the present), the superhero typically only uses enough violence to halt the villain and deliver them to the proper authorities.83 In violating these limits and taking sadistic pleasure in causing pain, the early Superman exhibits moral monstrosity and teeters on the edges of acceptable heroism. Likewise, we can see Supermans physical monstrosity and original sin monstrosity in the wife-beaters reaction after his knife snaps on Supermans skin: He looks terrified, motion lines suggesting he is shaking as he realizes he is fighting someone who is horrifyingly inhuman and represents a threat to his life.84 This combination of heroic wish fulfillment and threatening monstrosity continues in the first story in the depiction of Supermans vengeful response to the bullying of Clark Kent. It starts with Clark finally getting Lois Lane to go out on a date with him. Unfortunately, on their date he is pushed around by a gangster, who then kidnaps Lois. Clarks imageglasses, a buttoned up suit, and over-the-top impotenceis a familiar and identifiable one (to children or adults), so it is an effective moment of fantasy when he is replaced by the powerful image of Superman daringly standing in front of the gangsters car.85 When he hurdles and then chases the car, displaying his superhuman abilities, the gangster and his henchmen are put into a state of intense panic. In one panel, beads of sweat suggest the nervousness of one henchman while the

83 84

The stereotypical superhero caper ends with him disabling the villains and leaving them for the police. Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 15. 85 Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 17.

37

gangsters wide open eyes indicate his utter fear, as he yells, Its the devil himself!86 In the same image, the gangsters hat is depicted above his head (not on it), suggesting it has flown off due to the violent speed at which their car is travelling to get away from Superman. Their terror is justified in the three intense panels that follow on the next page: Superman picks up the car with one hand, shakes the occupants out headfirst with both hands, and finally smashes the car to bits.87 As Superman maliciously enacts his destruction in the middle of the third panel, the criminals are shown running away into the background and foreground, one with his hands in the air as if surrendering and another with his hands on his cheeks in apparent disbelief. Thus, Superman is feared initially only because he possesses superpowers, but then he truly becomes scary due to his lack of moral restraint. There is little logical reason for him to smash the car, other than a cruel desire to frighten the criminals and destroy property. Though superheroes are in later years often feared by criminals in comics, it is rarely this complete sense of terror (the hero mistaken for the devil in his relentless pursuit and excessive violence) until perhaps the more violent heroes of the 1980s. The scene ends with Superman suspending the gangster by a telephone wire and approaching Lois. As he leans closer to her in the center of the panel, she recoils toward the frames right edge with her hand over her mouth;88 this image, filled with shadows, explicitly illustrates Supermans similarity to a Frankensteinian monster as Lois seems confused as to his intentions and humanity. His most over-the-top display of violence may be in a scene in the next issue as he fights a munitions manufacturer and his group of gangsters, who open fire on him. When he is unaffected, they shriek Good Heavens! He wont die! and he sadistically replies, Glad I cant

86 87

Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 17. Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 18. 88 Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 1 19.

38

say the same for you!89 In the next panel, we see an open window and three gangsters flying out, motion lines suggesting the force with which they were thrown. The ones on the left and center of the frame have contorted faces, connoting shock and fear, and something wrapped around their bodies (only the leg of the gangster on the right is visible). The text confirms Supermans apparent murder of these gangsters: A moment later a dozen bodies fly headlong out the window the night, the machine-guns wrapped firmed about their necks!90 His execution of three men is clearly excessive punishment and is typical of this Superman who is heroic but still maintains elements of moral monstrosity and is feared due to his superpowers. The villain appropriately comments that its suicide to resist that inhuman creature,91 summing up Supermans propensity for violence, his freakish physicality, and his threat to humans in having super abilities. Andrae argues that this heroic yet very monstrous hero is transitional: Superman is still not incorporated into the establishment and retains his predecessors demonic qualities. At first he is a lawless individual who is wanted by the police, who freely resorts to violence or threats of violence to extort information or confessions from suspects, and who kills his adversaries whenever the situation demands it.92 His predecessor is the 1933 evil Superman, whose monstrous usage of superpowers colors many of the actions of the early heroic Superman. Despite his darker elements, the early Superman is clearly in line with many of the elements of the New Deal. Superman does not engage in the kind of economic reform and stimulus that was the backbone of the New Deal, but his actions promote what Coogan describes as an activist and interventionist federal government [that works] to regulate business and labor unions, fight the corruption of local political machines, battle organized crime and racketeers,
89

Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, Untitled story, Action Comics #2 (July 1938), rpt. in Superman in the forties (New York: DC Comics, 2005) 24. 90 Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 2 24. 91 Siegel and Shuster, Action Comics # 2 27. 92 Andrae 130.

39

and serve as the defenders and champion of the common American93 In bringing to justice those who are corrupt through forceful intervention from above, Superman represents the new toughness of the federal government, which may have outsider status (as opposed to local government and officials) but also has the ability to stop corruption and help improve material conditions. Thus, distrust of the powerful is a vital part of these stories, but it is placed largely on a local and individual level; trust is placed in outside figures of authority, echoing nicely the messages of the New Deal in which there was supposedly, according to comic book historian Bradford W. Wright, a common interest between public welfare and a strong federal government94 Moreover, since excessive individuality (read: greed) was blamed for many of the nations problems at this time, Supermans vengeful purging of profit-driven deceit can be seen as fantastical wish-fulfillment, part of the drive for a less individualistic nation. His flirtations with moral monstrosity thereby signify an expression of frustration and a desire for quick solutions, as well as suggesting the best way to deal with citizens who are criminally immoral (meet their violence against the nation with more severe violence). The fear of Superman in the stories due to his great power can be read as analogous to the trepidation of the stronger federal government; though they both claim to act for the benefit of the common man and the detriment of the corrupt, there is apprehension and confusion about such powerful intervention from outside.

Monster Suppressed: World War II Superman The transition from monster to wholesome hero is completed during the World War II era, as Superman becomes overtly patriotic and associated with the nation in comics. In the
93 94

Coogan 201. Bradford W. Wright, Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001) 24.

40

November-December 1941 issue of Superman, the superhero runs away from police officers who chase him with exclamations like Stop him! and Dont let him get away!95 However, the next issue, from January-February 1942, is the first issue published after Pearl Harbor and Supermans patriotism is emphasized, along with his closer relationship to the others who protect the country, the police. On the cover, he is shown with a bald eagle as he stands in front of a shield (shaped similarly to Supermans chest shield) containing a partial American flag.96 Inside, he captures a criminal mastermind and is thanked on the phone by a policeman who fumbled the investigation himself, showing Supermans proximity to official authority, which is itself essentially good.97 In the May-June 1942 Superman, his closeness to the police is still more pronounced as he delivers a criminal to the police, who joyously respond, Its Superman! and Gee . . . thanks!98 Superman, at this point, has become a part of the establishment, which is presented as being as incorruptible and wholesome as the hero. Public officials are no longer shown as dishonest or completely inept (though they are still often insufficient), further obfuscating the message that power corrupts. In contrast, in earlier comics, Superman seems to be the only powerful figure who is, at his core, good and trustworthy. Logically, in a time of war, anxieties about the corruption of the powerful are suppressed as the nation unites behind those in charge; likewise, the average citizens sense of impotence is appeased by being drafted into the collective war effort (via combat or on the home front). Thus, Superman comics from the World War II period, like those of other superheroes, establish an image of irreproachable official authority and citizens working together, all supported overtly in
95

Jerry Siegel and Leo Nowak, The Archer, Superman #13 (November-December 1941), rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 4 (New York: DC Comics, 1994) 33. 96 Fred Ray, Cover Image, Superman #14 (January-February 1942), rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 4 (New York: DC Comics, 1994) 67. 97 Jerry Siegel and Leo Nowak, Concerts of Doom (originally untitled), Superman #14 (January-February 1942), rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 4 (New York: DC Comics, 1994) 80. 98 Jerry Siegel and John Sikela, The Worlds Meanest Man, Superman #16 (May-June 1942), rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 4 (New York: DC Comics, 1994) 178.

41

the stories by the superhero. In the early years, the audience for Superman comics was largely young boys, as is perceptible in the colloquial language, simplistic visuals, and depictions of masculine strength. However, during the war period readership grew wider (thought content from this time is not appreciably more complex or adult), thanks largely to the characters patriotism. In fact, according to Ian Gordon, in his exploration of Supermans ties to nostalgia and American ideology, Superman comics were so popular and effective as propaganda for the war that in 1943 the U.S Army started distributing 100,000 copies of the comic book to overseas troops every other month until late 1944, when the practice was discontinued because the comic book was readily available through Post Exchange stores; the momentum carried over to the postwar period, as directly after the end of the war, the Superman line of comic books averaged monthly sales of 8,500,000.99 Inside the comics, Supermans backing of the war effort is displayed through his support of soldiers and public officials, particularly the police. After Superman coerces a criminal to confess at the end of a story in the May-June 1942 Superman, a policeman asks Superman, What would the police force do without you? indicating how justice in the comic book world seems ensured only by Superman.100 He responds that, without him, they would No doubt get along very nicely!101 In the context of the stories, their self-sufficiency seems very unlikely as Superman is the only one shown to be capable of halting major crimes. However, his statement comforts that in the real world, where Superman does not exist, the police can handle issues of justice by themselves. As further approval of official authorities, Superman, though nearly

99

Ian Gordon, Nostalgia, Myth, and Ideology: Visions of Superman at the End of the American Century, Comics and Ideology, eds. Mathew P. McAllister, Edward H Sewell, Jr., and Ian Gordon (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2001) 183. 100 Siegel and Sikela, The Worlds Meanest Man 184. 101 Siegel and Sikela, The Worlds Meanest Man 184.

42

omniscient and omnipotent, starts delivering the criminals to the police, with the connotation that they know how to handle the criminals justly. The decidedly non-monstrous Superman is closely associated with the nation throughout the war, declaring the strength of Americas political leaders and the average citizen. On the cover image of Superman #18, Superman is illustrated directing a missile downward toward a target while flying with American warplanes, the text asserting War Savings Bonds and Stamps Do the Job on the Japanazis!102 The superhero is approximated with the war effort, his red, yellow, and blue costume blending with the red of the American missile and the red, white, and blue adornments on the airplanes. The Superman-approved message on the cover asserts that by investing in the war financially (which also ensures capitalism), one can help fight the Japanese and Naziswho are conflated as one foreign enemyjust as Superman and the military do. Inside the comic, Superman (as Clark Kent) expresses fear that our very existence is imperiled by fascism and yet we are still troubled with petty problems. Everywhere there is a false sense of gaietythe people have got to wake up!103 Bemoaning the lack of awareness of fascism in America, the story attempts to increase dedication to the war cause. The narrative portrays Nazis invading Supermans city of Metropolis, which is saved only by the superheros intervention. The result in the comic book world, according to Clark, is that Everyone is now co-operating beautifully. Its all out to beat the Axis! And thats the way Superman would want it!104 In the context of the 1940s, the story operates as a nightmare of what could happen in America if everyone is not devoted to the war effortcreating anxiety in this case, rather than simply suppressing itespecially since the real America does not have Superman to protect it.
102

Fred Ray, Cover Image, Superman #18 (September-October 1942), rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 5 (New York: DC Comics, 2000) 61. 103 Jerry Siegel and John Sikela, The Conquest of a City, Superman #18 (September-October 1942), rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 5 (New York: DC Comics, 2000) 63. 104 Siegel and Sikela, The Conquest of a City 74.

43

Thus, the pre-World War II monstrous Superman is decidedly replaced by a nationalistic figure who espouses patriotic propaganda, supports official authority, uses his powers only when necessary, and is loved unconditionally by the American public. As Andrae summarizes, by mid-1942, when the war effort demanded unquestioning loyalty to the state and increased collaboration between government and industry, Superman no longer operates outside the law but is made an honorary policeman. . . . In the corporate era, Superman must repress those elements of radical individualism for which he once stood.105 Even though the first Superman comics reflect New Deal policies, the characters extreme lawlessness and independence from official authority are not compatible with the war period, resulting in the suppression of monstrous elements. Consequently, distrust of the powerful largely shifts to those outside the nation, and Superman becomes the emblem of the status quo, which suddenly seems irreproachable. The individuals who are corrupt in these stories are not American political and social leaders; instead, they are foreigners, criminals, masterminds, or supervillains. Moreover, there is no ambiguity between good and evil. These comics feature very few apparently good people who are secretly evil and hardly any flirtations with dark methods on the part of the superhero. Despite Supermans transformation, his monstrosity is never completely eliminated. Andrae suggests that there is a linear progression that starts with the 1933 Supermans total monstrosity, continues with the early Supermans mixture of heroism and monstrosity, and finishes with the World War II Supermans total elimination of monstrosity. 106 Though the description of this evolution is fairly convincing, the fact is that monstrosity is simply suppressed

105 106

Andrae 131. To be fair, Andrae does discuss the increased complexity and self-reflection of the superhero in later comics. However, he does not associate these changes with anything resembling monstrosity, not mentioning the dangers of corruption or the superheros status as potential destroyer in these later comics.

44

(almost completely) during the wars patriotic fervor. Afterwards, the corruption of the superhero reemerges in periodic comic books, leading eventually to large-scale changes to the genre in the 1960s that centralize monstrosity.

Generic Stagnancy: Silly Superman, Reemerging Monstrosity The heroic World War II Superman is considered part of the Golden Age of the superhero genre. As enumerated by Coogan, this age starts with the first Superman comic book in 1938 and lasts until 1956, representing the first evolutionary stage of superhero comics.107 Using the model of generic evolution outlined by Thomas Schatz, Coogan explains that the first stage of a genre is the experimental stage, during which the conventions of the genre are isolated and established.108 Therefore, we can say that the Golden Age is the experimental stage in which monstrous elements are gradually suppressed, creating cheery, patriotic superheroes who uphold the status quo amidst external threats. Coogan argues that generic evolutions take place when the narrative resolution of social conflict no longer holds true for the audience, which responds by not buying the product, which in turn leads the producers to increase the level of complexity and self-consciousness of the story formulas and conventions to satisfy the audience; through this long process, the genre breaks down and is then reconstructed.109 These shifts that alter the themes and sophistication of a genre are the products of both internal factors, such as experimentation in form and content, and external factors, usually involving changes in the larger culture.110 The Golden Age is when the basic parameters

107 108

Coogan 193. Coogan 193-194. 109 Coogan 195. 110 Coogan 195.

45

of the superhero genre are decided in the interaction between reader and producer, before increased complexity and self-consciousness take effect in later evolutions. After the Golden Age comes the Silver Age,111 which is when the conventions of the superhero genre arrive at an equilibrium and are mutually understood by artist and audience, lasting from 1956 to 1971.112 The Silver Age is characterized by the revival of comic book superheroes after they had fallen out of vogue following the war, starting with the new Flash in 1956. The resurgence of superheroes leads to the development of the superhero team the Justice League of America in 1960, which prompts the creation of the Fantastic Four the following year; the latter ushers the emotionalism, moral complexity, and monstrosity that transforms the superhero in the 1960s.113 In the late 1940s and 1950sthe later years of the Golden Age and early years of the Silver Agethe decreasingly popular superhero continues to have his monstrous elements largely suppressed, but there is an emergence of a steady stream of stories in which monstrosity suddenly and briefly erupts. In contrast to the monstrosity from the 1930s or 1960s, the portrayals of superhero corruption in the immediate post-World War II era (i.e., approximately 1945 until 1960) are more episodic and often played mainly for comedy, minimizing much of the anxiety. The lighthearted treatment of monstrosity is part of the larger shift in the genre toward silliness and fantastical stories after the war. Most superhero comic books were cancelled shortly after the war, as the characters had been deeply associated with the New Deal, World War II, and the spirit of change under a powerful federal government; publishers and audiences saw the reform-minded heroes as largely irrelevant following peace and expansion of the

111 112

These Ages were applied later by fans and scholars and were not in use as labels during these earlier eras. Coogan 193. 113 Coogan 206.

46

suburban, middle-class lifestyle.114 In addition, though comic books (most non-superhero related) remained popular after World War II, they were replaced as the dominant medium of youth culture by television.115 Further fueling the superheros lack of purpose and the minimization of anxietyprovoking monstrosity in this era are the nationalism and politics of the Cold War. In his book Secret Identity Crisis, Matthew J. Costello argues that after World War II there was a Cold War consensus in regards to national identity, creating the illusion of a unitary American identity.116 This sense of harmony, in turn, helps limit superhero narratives in which the protagonists question the institutions or officials of the nation or act in threatening, monstrous ways (relegating monstrosity to silliness). The consensus was based on three elements: First, the national mobilizations of the Great Depression and World War II brought a sense of national community that had never before held such sway with mainstream American or among its intellectual elites. Second was the need for the government to channel this sense of community into a mobilization in support of the newly expansive and internationalist American government. Third was the persistent rhetoric of American culture, emphasizing freedom, progress, and providence.117 Building off of the shared sense of national triumph, there was a stronger-than-ever rhetoric that America was a beacon of freedom that was blessed by God and now must expand its values across the globe, before the Soviet Union could spread its supposedly immoral values. This belief in Americas inherent goodness and the power of its values (capitalism, individual freedoms) was presented as a shared national identity; those who resisted it were branded as unAmerican or communists. As Costello concludes, in the 1950s the virtue of the American political system and the unending economic progress of its free-market economy became
114 115

Wright 59. Matthew J. Costello, Secret Identity Crisis: Comics Books and the Unmasking of Cold War America (New York: Continuum, 2009) 4. 116 Costello 45. 117 Costello 45.

47

inextricably linked to the Cold War. Science, free markets, and individual rights had defeated the Nazis and created the conditions for affluence[, and the . . .] forces of totalitarian communism . . . would be defeated by the samepeculiarly Americanstrengths.118 Throughout the 1940s and 1950s this consensus was created by governments, professional, and academic elites and enforced by loyalty oaths, congressional hearings, and public censure and became nearly hegemonic by the start of the 1960s.119 Thus, under the fervor and pressure of this consensus, it was difficult for superhero publishers to depict an America with deep-seated problems or one in which its heroes, who represent the core values of the nation, seriously struggle with their own morality or pose a genuine threat to the nation. The only real danger could come from outside. As a result, depictions of superhero monstrosity in this era frequently defuse anxieties about the corruption of the nations protectors and the threat to the impotent masses by making monstrosity more episodic, saturating it with silliness, and/or displacing it onto doubles. Due to the Cold War consensus and lack of a popular war to support, superheroes like Superman and Batmantwo of the very few who survived cancellationbecome even more conservative, paternalistic, and light-hearted, no longer associated with any social reform.120 Superman stories, in particular, drift into fantasy largely divorced from reality, as the superheros powers increase to ridiculous levels and he partakes in increasingly silly and bizarre narratives (involving space and time travel, for instance). Although one may claim that Superman is never a realistic character, the earlier comics consistently depict actual problems facing the nation, such as corruption and war, and the villains are more plausible in the kinds of threats they pose; in addition, Superman is powerful in the early comics but is not indestructible and is generally
118 119

Costello 45. Costello 45. 120 Wright 60.

48

bound to present-day Earth. After the war, Superman rarely tackles significant national problems. There are, of course, reflections of life in the time periodparticularly domesticity and the nuclear family, manifested in Supermans conflicted relationship with Lois Lanebut there is little attempt to deal directly with serious real world issues. Instead, fantastical stories feature things like Superman traveling back in time to see himself as a baby on Krypton and witness his own arrival on Earth,121 Lois Lane transferring (aided by a Freud-like doctor) her obsession with marrying Superman to Clark Kent,122 and Superman helping insect beings from another planet who are stuck on the ocean floor.123 Building on this absence of reality, there are also numerous imaginary stories (i.e., not part of the larger continuity) depicting things like Superman as president,124 Superman married, Superman with different powers, and Superman dead.125 Though there is little sense of menace in the superhero, monstrosity does appear regularly in this periodalbeit predominantly in comic, gimmicky waysreflecting anxieties of the Cold War period that cannot be completely suppressed. For example, Superman comics frequently depict things like the superheros physical transformation into a grotesque monster and superhero doubles who acquire Supermans powers and employ them in irresponsible ways. The episodic nature, silly tone, and limited meaningful attention to significant issues and anxieties make these renditions of the monstrous superhero distinct from earlier and later ones; the 1930s superheroes and the ones that start appearing in the 1960s (e.g., the Fantastic Four and the Hulk) all make

121

Bill Finger and Al Plastino, Superman Returns to Krypton, Superman # 61 (November-December 1949), rpt. in Superman in the forties (New York: DC Comics, 2005) 56-67. 122 William Woolfolk and Wayne Boring, Lois Lane Loves Clark Kent! Superman #58 (May-June 1949), rpt. in Superman in the forties (New York: DC Comics, 2005) 36-43. 123 The Machines of Crime! Action Comics #167 (April 1952), summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America, by Michael L. Fisher (New York: Warner Books, 1978) 435. 124 Otto Binder and Al Plastino, Superman in the White House! Superman #122 (July 1958), rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman, Vol. 1 (New York: DC Comics, 2005) 28-35. 125 Wright 60.

49

moral, physical, and original sin monstrosity fundamental attributes of the characters, provoking substantial anxieties about the dangerousness of great power. Supermans monstrosity in this period is usually the result of red kryptonite, which is introduced in Adventure Comics #252 (September 1958) for the sake of offering a variety of fantastical stories; unlike the deadly green kryptonite, it is a red meteor rock that affects Superman in totally unpredictable ways, as it may split Superman into two people, drive him insane, let him breathe fire, or give him the head of an ant, among other effects.126 The effect of red kryptonite is often physical monstrosity. For instance, in different stories, it causes Supermans hair and fingernails to grow uncontrollably,127 transforms him into a terrifying Kryptonian monster,128 and makes him a giant but robs him of his superpowers.129 In another comic, red kryptonite creates a fat, tiny, and humongous Superboy,130 each deformed form of the character problematic and destructive in specific ways. Though these stories do represent eruptions of anxieties (the protector is corrupted and humans are too impotent to resist), there is little sense of genuine hazard; instead, Clarks physical monstrosity and the sometimes resulting original sin monstrosity (when his distorted body endangers others) is appealingly funny, reading mainly as an entertaining diversion rather than something unsettling. In addition to creating physically grotesque versions of Superman, red kryptonite often has more directly destructive consequences, triggering Supermans superpowers to escape his

126 127

Daniels 106-107. Otto Binder, Curt Swan, and George Klein, The Untold Story of Red Kryptonite! Superman #139 (August 1960), rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman, Vol. 2 (New York: DC Comics, 2006) 289. 128 The Monster from Krypton! Action Comics #303 (August 1963), summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America, by Michael L. Fisher (New York: Warner Books, 1978) 373. 129 The Skyscraper Superman! Action Comics #325 (June 1965), summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America, by Michael L. Fisher (New York: Warner Books, 1978) 373. 130 Binder, Swan, and Klein, The Untold Story of Red Kryptonite! 286.

50

control. In separate stories, it makes flames shoot out of his mouth,131 causes him to lose command over his X-Ray vision and go blind,132 creates hallucinations, and makes his entire body dangerously go out of control; in the latter instance, bystanders in the comic book yell things like Run! Hes trying to kill us! and Superman really is a menace!133 These narratives featuring physical monstrosity more strongly express anxieties about corruption and the populaces impotence, but there is still little sense of actual peril to the characters in the superhero world (they are rarely even injured); in fact, Supermans haywire powers usually make him comically clumsy, not frightening. Moreover, outside of his brief periods of corruption, the superhero is presented (and treated by other characters) as incorruptibly heroic, limiting any overarching fears of monstrosity. The most anxiety-provoking episodes of red kryptonite are when it splits Superman into two beings, one a hero and the other an evil double.134 Examples of the split superhero include a good-natured, powerless Clark Kent and an irresponsible, power-hungry Superman in several stories135 and a murderous Clark Kent and a typically heroic Superboy in one story.136 On the cover of the issue with the story Superman, King of Earth! Supermans evil double is shown
131

The Red Kryptonite Menace, Action Comics #283 (December 1961), summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America, by Michael L. Fisher (New York: Warner Books, 1978) 373. 132 Binder, Swan, and Klein, The Untold Story of Red Kryptonite! 287. 133 Bill Finger, Wayne Boring, and Stan Kaye, Superman vs. the Futuremen, Superman #128 (April 1959), rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman, Vol. 1 (New York: DC Comics, 2005) 307. 134 In some cases neither the good or bad version of the character is the real Superman, as each reflects different parts of his personality. Regardless, the bad version still qualifies as an evil double of the regular superhero (he can be called a double of the superhero-gone-bad, but not an actual superhero-gone-bad since the real Superman has not become evil). Likewise, the good version is a good double if he has a substantially different personality than the regular good superhero. Moreover, it is possible for the character to split into two (or more) evil doubles or two good doubles (again, if neither double can be called the real Superman). 135 Examples include The Feud Between Superman and Clark Kent in Action Comics # 293 (October 1962), Superman, King of Earth! in Action Comics #311 (April 1964), and King Superman versus Clark Kent, Metallo in Action Comics #312 (May 1964), all summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America, by Michael L. Fisher (New York: Warner Books, 1978) 374. It should be noted that in the latter two comics (which are interconnected, telling one lengthy story) the evil of Supermans double is revealed to be a ruse, meaning he is actually good the entire time. 136 Binder, Swan, and Klein, The Untold Story of Red Kryptonite! 285.

51

wearing a crown with a large S (for Superman) while sitting on a throne with another prominent S, as people from various ethnic backgrounds bow to him and offer him diamonds and other prizes.137 This image signifies the underlying anxieties of Superman as a character: He has the ability to use his powers to take control of the world and become an absolute dictator, embodying the very worst moral monstrosity. All of these evil doubles of Superman show that during the Cold War the (supposed) national consensus cannot eliminate fears about the nations vulnerability to internal corruption; even its greatest protector/weapon can be transformed into a threat to himself (the evil Superman usually endangers the good one) and the people of the United States. The 1950s and 1960s are the heyday of numerous doubles for the superhero who use their powers destructively. Many of these characters have humorous or fantastic attributes that make them less than intimidating. For example, there are several comics in which non-villainous charactersoften Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsenacquire Supermans powers for a short time and use them clumsily or irresponsibly. The cover of a comic book featuring one such story, The Battle Between Super-Lois and Super-Lana, portrays both of Supermans love interests using superpowers to fight for his hand in marriage, a very silly rendition of morally monstrous superhero doubles.138 More frightening are doubles of Superman who are distinctly villainous in their goals. In a comic book that presages the plot of 1980s Superman II film, three Kryptonians placed in suspended animation by Supermans father attempt to rule Earth through abilities that match
137

Cover image, Action Comics # 311 (April 1964), DC Database Project, Web, 24 July 2009. <http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Action_Comics_311.jpg> 138 Curt Swan and Stan Kaye, Cover Image, Supermans Girlfriend, Lois Lane # 21 (November 1960), DC Database Project, Web. 23 July 2009. <http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superman%27s_Girlfriend,_Lois_Lane_Vol_1_21>; Jerry Siegel and Kurt Schaffenberger, The Battle Between Super-Lois and Super-Lana, Supermans Girlfriend, Lois Lane # 21 (November 1960), summarized in DC Database Project, Web, 23 July 2009. <http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superman%27s_Girlfriend,_Lois_Lane_Vol_1_21>

52

Supermans exactly and are only stopped when tricked by the superhero.139 In a different story, Cosmic Man seems to be a superhero with the same powers as Superman but turns out to be a fragile robot made to assassinate political leaders.140 Another comic features a Kryptonian who takes Supermans identity and wreaks havoc on the world.141 In all three cases, the evil doppelgangers display moral and original sin monstrosity, as they act wickedly and become threatening due to their possession of superpowers.142 They serve as illustrations of the dark potential of the hero. A comic book from 1960 appeals even more directly to the fascination with what-ifSuperman-were-evil? narratives. In the story, a fortuitous encounter with an alien spaceship creates a duplicate of Supermans spaceship (as it brings him to Earth) and the baby Superman inside of it.143 This double of Superman is raised by gangsters, trained to hate law and order, and dubbed Super-brat as a baby, Super-Bully as a teen, and Super-Menace as an adult. He defeats Superman but commits suicide when he realizes his parents manipulated him to be evil;144 Superman ends the story by saying, And so vanishes the most dangerous menace to law and order the world has ever known!145 This scenario emphasizes how dangerous Superman himself could be if he ever turned again law and order, thereby reengaging and then resuppressing anxieties about the character. The immoral double stands in for the superhero-gone-

139

Three Supermen from Krypton! in Superman #65 (July/August 1950), reprinted in Superman in the fifties, 10-

22
140

Bill Finger, Wayne Boring, and Stan Kaye, The Menace of Cosmic Man! Action Comics #258 (November 1959), rpt. in Showcase presents Superman, Vol. 2 (New York: DC Comics, 2006) 7-18. 141 Otto Binder, Wayne Boring, and Stan Kaye, The Super-Menace of Metropolis! Superman #134 (January 1960), rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman, Vol. 2 (New York: DC Comics, 2006) 34-59. 142 The Kryptonian villains also exemplify Supermans original sin monstrosity in that something from his origin directly threatens his adoptive home. 143 Jerry Siegel, Curt Swan, and John Forte, The Super -Brat from Krypton! Superman #137 (May 1960), rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman, Vol. 2 (New York: DC Comics, 2006) 169-194. 144 His adoptive parents call him freak! as they are disgusted and frightened by his alien origin and powers, thereby exemplifying Super-Menaces physical and original sin monstrosity (as opposed to Superman, who is widely accepted as an American icon in the story) (Siegel, Swan, and Forte, The Super -Brat from Krypton 194). 145 Siegel, Swan, and Forte, The Super-Brat from Krypton! 194

53

bad, but provokes less anxiety since the superhero (not corrupted himself) is still there to defend the populace from the menace. Nevertheless, in the Cold War era, such doubles fearfully remind readers that there may be enemies out there that can match or exceed the power of U.S. forces. In the 1950s and 1960s, monstrous Superman doubles are found most prominently in the prodigious number of comic books featuring Bizarro, an imperfect clone of Superman who is monstrous physically and has a twisted, inverted morality. Bizarro first appears in Superboy #68 (October 1958) as a variant of the Frankenstein monster and then is reintroduced (as a deformed duplicate and opponent of Superman instead of Superboy) in Action Comics #254 (July 1959) due to popularity with children; the characters humorous stories progressively feature a bride, a son, an entire race of Bizarros (mainly deficient clones of Superman, but also of Lois Lane and other characters), and a square Bizarro planet called Htrae (Earth spelled backwards).146 In his first encounter with Superman, Bizarro is introduced as a creature of steel and Supermans dangerous double; he speaks in a dim-witted fashion and initially bemoans his own existence, whining, Smash ugly face in mirror! . . . Why you bring him back? Me not human . . . me not creature . . . me not even animal!147 He even admits his own skewed morality: Me dont know difference between right and wronggood and evil!148 In the course of the story, Bizarro engages in misguided attempts at heroism that clumsily damage property; in reaction, people yell things like Its a . . . a monster! Run! and the military attacks him.149 Bizarros monstrosity is conveyed most readily by his appearance. Though he is dressed like Superman, his face is chalky white, is covered with lines, and has a boxy, malformed shape (in later comics, his entire body is depicted the same way); in addition, his hair is bristly,
146 147

Daniels 111. Otto Binder and Al Plastino, The Battle with Bizarro, Action Comics #254 (July 1959), rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman, Vol. 1 (New York: DC Comics, 2005) 430, 433. 148 Binder and Plastino, The Battle with Bizarro 434. 149 Binder and Plastino, The Battle with Bizarro 430, 435, 436.

54

resembling hay. His abnormal body is a source of horror for characters who witness it. He is also monstrous physically in his inability to control his abilities properly, harming people unintentionally. Bizarro qualifies for original sin monstrosity as well, since the populace in the stories views superpowers in the hands of a grotesque, visibly handicapped150 character as threatening (even before he does anything destructive).151 Bizarros twisted, humorously monstrous morality is generally determined on opposites. On the Bizarro world, the real Superman is arrested fixing a house, not realizing that it is against Bizarro law to make anything perfect152 Though his crime is ridiculous, Superman is unable to escape the numerous Bizarros who hold him, reflecting the dangerousness of superpowered individuals who are unchecked by rationality and morality.153 This story, like many others featuring Bizarro,154 is played for comedy, as the warped logic of the imperfect clone constantly leads to strange conclusions and comical destruction. As is clearly apparent, there are constant eruptions of monstrous versions of Superman in 1950s and 1960s comics, reflecting the eras anxieties. First of all, these stories can be linked to

150

There are several superheroes and villains with handicaps, including Professor X of the X-Men, who is wheelchair-bound; Daredevil, who is blind; and Tony Stark (alter ego of Iron Man), who has a mechanized heart. It would be interesting to investigate the juxtapositions of physical handicaps and superpowers, exploring the appeal these characters may have both for children (who are not physically developed) and those who are physically handicapped. Bizarros case is fairly unique in that his handicap is mental rather than physical and is a source of humor. 151 Bizarro is also an example of Supermans original sin monstrosity, since Supermans superpowers (indirectly) threaten humanity by making Bizarros destructive existence possible. Likewise, it is an instance of the kind of original sin monstrosity in which the superhero directly births a villain, since Bizarro is a clone of Superman. 152 Otto Binder, Wayne Boring, and Stan Kaye, The World of Bizarros! Action Comics #263 (April 1960), rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman, Vol. 2 (New York: DC Comics, 2006) 161. 153 They voluntarily release him in the second part of the story, once he proves their world is perfect in one way: it is round [Otto Binder, Wayne Boring, and Stan Kaye, The Superman Bizarro! Action Comics #264 (May 1960), rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman, Vol. 2 (New York: DC Comics, 2006) 207]. 154 For example, in one story Bizarro returns to Earth and wreaks havoc just because a television program claims Frankenstein is the scariest monster on Earth; Bizarro is insulted since he believes he is the most famous monster of all [Otto Binder, Wayne Boring, and Stan Kaye, Bizarro meets Frankenstein! Superman #143 (February 1961), rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman, Vol. 2 (New York: DC Comics 2006) 471-479].

55

Cold War nuclear fears,155 especially in regards to the danger of radiation causing mutation (red kryptonite, for example, transforms Superman through its radiation) and the possibility of Americas weapons instigating its own destruction (Superman is, after all, a super weapon). The corrupted versions of Superman also reflect continuing unease about those in power. Moreover, the proliferation of monstrous doubles speaks to widespread worry over communist infiltration at the time. As Costello notes, these fears are prevalent throughout the eras popular culture: The success of Matt Cvetics book I Was a Communist for the FBI, spawning both feature films and a television series, suggests that this fear was extensive. Films such as Big Jim McClain (1952), My Son John (1952), Pick-Up on South Street (1953), and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) all played on it.156 In superhero comic books, villains who pass themselves off as the hero (the ultimate embodiment of America) or qualify in some ways as doubles bring to mind communists/enemies passing as true Americans and taking over the nation from the inside. The concern over infiltration is also arguably present in stories in which something warps the superheros morality, his American values transformed even while he appears the same. Again, anxieties represented in these monstrous renditions of Superman are minimized in several ways: assurances that Supermans corruption is temporary, displacement of monstrosity onto doubles (who are defeated), and comedy. The significance of these monstrous renditions of Superman in comic books is diminished by the fact that they are clearly directed mainly to (male) children, rather than a more diverse demographic that includes teens and adults; that is, they are not intended for a mass audience the way that television and film versions of Superman usually are. Moreover, due to

155

Nuclear anxieties and atomic hopes are a large part of this eras science -fiction stories (in films and other media), which clearly have a significant influence on 1950s and 1960s Superman comics (hence the preponderance of time travel, voyages through space, and strange aliens). 156 Costello 51.

56

their constant stream (multiple Superman comics are released every month, even in the 1950s), comic book stories are necessarily more frivolous and display more variety; there are many more throwaway stories since hardcore readers buy most issues anyway and because narrative ideas understandably run dry. In contrast, a superhero film may take years to produce and a television show generates around twenty episodes a year (for rarely more than a handful of seasons). In these adaptations, superheroes are boiled down to their most resonant elements in order to appeal to audiences large and diverse enough to achieve large-scale ticket sales or advertising revenue (with the exception of superhero cartoons). Thus, superhero monstrosity in films and TV shows more accurately reflects the sensibilities and anxieties of a time period. As a result, my focus in subsequent chapters is on mainstream versions of Superman (as well as some other superheroes), meaning that the monstrous incarnations in 1950s-1960s Superman comic books are not a significant part of the rest of this project. Nevertheless, these monstrous versions of Superman are important because of what they reveal about the nation and superhero comic books in this era and how they highlight that the monstrous superhero is an undeniable element of the genre.

Generic Transformations: The Monster in the Superhero Takes Center Stage Though the pre-World War II Superman is clearly monstrous in many ways and the postWorld War II superhero is briefly monstrous on a frequent basis, the genre does not make monstrosity truly central until the depictions of superheroes in the 1960s.157 It is this periods monstrous protagonists that initiate the possibility of superhero stories that are directed to older audiences, as the industry targets teenagers (and gradually adults) rather than children with comic books that have a more serious tone and feature complex psychological and story
157

The early Supermans monstrosity gradually decreases even before U.S. involvement in World War II, at which time it nearly totally disappears for the duration of the war; thus, monstrosity is not a central, stable element in preWorld War II comics, but a quickly diminishing aspect of the genre.

57

elements. These comics pave the way for most of the superhero films and TV shows in the 1970s and beyond that aim for a wide audienceadults, as well as teens and childrenwith sprawling stories, emotionally wounded heroes and villains, and big-budget, realistic worlds. In particular, the monstrous superheroes that begin in comics during this period have a direct influence on the monstrous superheroes that become the norm in film and TV starting in 2000. The 1960s are nicknamed the Marvel Age of Comics because of the proliferation of superheroes by Marvel Comics. The typical Marvel superhero of the 1960s bickers, has personal problems, is younger (reflecting the teenage and college-age audience), and sometimes hates as much as loves his great/monstrous powers due to the burdens and freakishness they entail: characters as diverse as the Fantastic Four (1961), the Hulk (1962), Spider-Man (1962), and the X-Men (1963).158 These protagonists embody the innovations of the Silver Age, building upon the revival of superheroes in the mid 1950s.159 As Costello explains, Coming between the earlier James Dean and Marlon Brando and the later motorcycle riding Peter Fondanamed Captain America after the Marvel character in Easy Rideryoung adult readers in the early 1960s were receptive to troubled, angst-ridden, and verbose characters whose very existence spoke to the questions of identity that were at the forefront of cultural debates.160 It is the Thing, part of the Fantastic Four superhero team, and the Hulk who literalize the monstrous potential of superheroes. The former is a physically repulsive superhero with orange, rocky skin (it has the appearance and texture of rocks) and super strength; he bemoans his appearance and is often mistaken for a monster. The Thing sometimes acts destructively in his

158 159

Wright 205-215. Coogan argues that revivals of characters like the Flash in 1956 (the start of the Silver Age) directly lead to more revivals, which result in the successful Justice League comic book (featuring a team of superheroes) for DC Comics. The Justice League inspires Marvel Comics to create its own superhero team: the Fantastic Four (205-206). 160 Costello 10.

58

angry outbursts, but usually decides to utilize his powers to aid humankind.161 The Hulk is a green giant who, in shades of Jekyll and Hyde, appears when Dr. Bruce Banner is angered, embodying all of his rage; he is very often more violently dangerous than he is heroic.162 Both the Thing and the Hulk display original sin monstrosity in that their births as superpowered beings mark them as threats to humanity (people are scared of them even when they are not violent) and lead directly to the visibly abnormal bodies (physical monstrosity) and immoral rage that are so frequently destructive. As exemplified by the X-Men, particularly the renditions from the 1970s and 1980s, the superhero body can be the center of deep trauma, monstrous at birth and throughout the lives of characters. These mutant superheroes help transform the simple superhero binary of weak Clark Kent hiding the power and control of Superman into a constant conflict between incredible powers and loss of control. As Scott Bukatman explains in his analysis of the X-Men, The mutant body is explicitly traumatic, armored against the world outside yet racked and torn apart by complex forces within. The mutant body is oxymoronic: rigidly protected but dangerously unstable. In its infinite malleability and overdetermined adolescent iconography, the mutant body is a locus of bodily ritual.163 Bukatman calls these mutant superheroes X-bodies because their unstable super bodies are mysterious, threatening, and non-human.164 Bukatman limits these monstrous bodies to mutant superheroes, but they are characteristic of most of the new superheroes in this time period, as the protector who struggles

161

See Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, The Fantastic Four! Fantastic Four #1 (November 1961), 12-13, rpt. in Essential Fantastic Four, Vol. 1 (New York: Marvel Publishing, Inc., 2005). 162 In the early stories, Banner changes into the Hulk for various reasons (nightfall, a gamma ray machine he uses), but eventually his transformations are tied to adrenaline and anger. For an example of the latter, see Stan Lee and Dick Ayers, Enter: the Hulk, Tales to Astonish #59 (September 1964), 6, rpt. in Essential The Incredible Hulk, Vol. 1 (New York: Marvel Publishing, Inc., 2006). 163 Scott Bukatman, X-Bodies: The Torment of the Mutant Superhero, Matters of Gravity: Special Effects and Supermen in the 20th Century (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003) 51. 164 Bukatman 73-74.

59

with his super abilities and relationship to humans gradually becomes the norm in the genre. In addition to embodying adolescent fantasies of having great power, these physically monstrous superheroes reflect adolescent anxieties of loss of bodily control and freakishness (recalling, particularly, the agonies of puberty). Moreover, in being born with superpowers or acquiring them later in life, these superheroes are often seen as original sin monsters, since the populace fears their loss of control over their abilities and their potential for immorality. The superhero of the 1960s frequently realizes this potential for moral monstrosity, as the protagonist becomes more apt to use his powers for personal profit in this era, often with dangerous results. One example is Spider-Man, who decides to use his new powers to make money. Subsequently, he lets a criminal escape since intervening does not benefit him; the tragic outcome is that this criminal later murders Spider-Mans beloved uncle.165 Thus, Spider-Mans selfish immorality leads indirectly to the death of a human.166 It is the ensuing guilt that creates his superheroic mission, though like many of the superheroes of this age he continues to struggle with darker desires and a wish to profit from his super-ness. The 1960s represent a shift in the genre to conflicted superheroes who battle with their morals, have difficulty controlling their powerful bodies, and threaten or cause violent destruction. The superhero-as-monster becomes a central element, even as the earlier superherogone-bad eruptions (i.e., cases when the superhero becomes like a villain in his extreme moral monstrosity and danger to the world) and evil doubles continue, though these take on a darker edge as well. In Comic Book Nation, Wright argues that these superheroes are responses to changes in the U.S in the late 1950s and 1960s, as American culture struggles amidst the
165 166

Wright 210-211. It is not a case of original sin monstrosity since Spider-Mans superpowers do not have a role in the criminals escape or his crime (Spider-Man specifically decides not to use his abilities on the criminal); if his superpowers somehow aided the criminals escape or helped put his uncle in harms way ( as they do in the 2002 Spider-Man film), then one could call it original sin monstrosity.

60

movement for civil rights, dissent over the Vietnam War, and a youthful rebellion against a variety of authorities and cultural norms; as a result, in order to keep the genre relevant, superheroes appear who struggle with the confusion and ambivalent consequences of their own power.167 By the 1970s, superheroes cease clashing with communists nearly as much, instead fighting against domestic authorities and themselves; this change reflects the breakdown of Cold War consensus and the growing ambiguity surrounding American culture and values, including international interventionism, nuclear weapon proliferation, and the mass consumer culture.168 Comic books react especially to atomic anxieties by giving characters powers through nuclear accidents and by reflecting on the hopes and fears of having super/destructive powers. Likewise, comics attempt to mirror the moral ambivalence of young people, specifically targeting the teen audience with realistic fantasy stories about superheroes who perform impossible feats but evince believable human qualities and failings.169 Rather than presenting paternalistic superheroes for children, the comic book industry starts presenting young, often teenage superheroes with whom teen and college age readers can identify. For my purposes, the other significant evolution in the genre (at least in comic books) is in the 1980s, when the moral ambiguity of superheroes reaches new levels. Looking primarily at the seminal graphic novels170 Watchmen and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, one can see how superheroes are depicted with morality that constantly verges on the monstrous: They pursue political and social power, try to turn a profit, use unnecessary and sadistic violence, and threaten the status quo. Costello states that in the more political comic books of the 1980s,

167 168

Wright 180. Costello 123, 54. 169 Wright 202, 204, 207. 170 Graphic novels are usually either collections of comic books or longer, self-enclosed comic book stories.

61

Heroes became disturbingly vicious and angry, and it became harder to tell the difference between heroes and villains, who increasingly became equated171 Accordingly, in Alan Moores Watchmen, superheroes like Rorschach, the Comedian, and Ozymandias commit murders with alarming regularity, carry out genocide, and frequently use their abilities (though most lack actual superpowers) for personal aggrandizement rather than the greater good.172 The one superpowered character in the story, Dr. Manhattan, grows increasingly detached from humanity, eventually leaving Earth completely173; the superhero dictum that With great power comes great responsibility is forsaken, as Dr. Manhattan (immorally) departs with the knowledge that he is the U.S.s nuclear deterrent, warding off worldwide annihilation with his presence.174 As underscored by the graphic novels refrain Who watches the watchmen? (seen as graffiti in many of the backgrounds) it is dangerous to have so much unchecked power in the hands of vigilantes, who rarely sustain a moral disposition. In Frank Millers Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Batman is opposed to the U.S. government, which is imperialistic and corrupt.175 Batmans usage of extreme force, unwavering belief in his own leadership, and recruitment of a small army (composed of young people who wear and revere his bat symbol as if it represented a new political movement) have echoes of fascism. His actions arguably put him in the camp of the monstrous, because he perverts the mission of the superhero, which is to uphold the status quo (even if it means going outside of
171 172

Costello 29. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, Watchmen (New York: DC Comics, 1987). 173 Watchmen also plays on the potential physical monstrosity of Dr. Manhattan, as the character is (falsely) led to believe that his superpowered body has caused several humans to develop cancer. 174 This departure is followed by a return, as he is convinced that humanity has some redeeming features. However, he ultimately does nothing to stop the mass murder of numerous citizens, reasoning that these deaths will actually prevent nuclear war,. He violates the superhero mission of saving lives no matter what, qualifying him as monstrous. He leaves Earth once again at the end of the graphic novel. 175 Frank Miller, with Klaus Janson and Lynn Varley. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (New York: DC Comics, 1986).

62

legal parameters). Batman sets out to change the government and status quo boldly and employs excessive violence (all examples of moral monstrosity176), going so far as to break the Jokers neck and to come close to killing another superhero. Likewise, one can argue that the graphic novels version of SupermanBatmans climactic opponentis, if not totally monstrous, a twisted and compromised superhero. Rather than protecting citizens, as is the chief function of the superhero, Superman is a puppet of the U.S. government, fighting imperialistic battles at the request of the Ronald Reagan-esque president. If Batman in the story is extreme in his vigilantism, Superman ceases to be a vigilante at all; it is the separation (slight as it is at times) from official government that is a traditional element of the superhero, helping him avoid the bureaucracy and corruption of the political system. While having Superman as a pawn of the president negates some of the anxiety over his potential to turn against the nation,177 the nefarious nature of the government that he follows means that Superman is essentially acting against the key values of the nation (Truth, Justice, and the American Way, as the classic Superman motto goes) and harming its citizens.178 However, in the cases of both of these superheroes the opposite interpretations can be made: Batman is not a monster, because he is upholding the true values of the nation, which have been corrupted (his excessive violence is harder to explain away, except to say that the dire national situation requires it179). Likewise, Superman is not a monster, because he is only maintaining the status quo and supporting the government of the nation he loves; in addition, he

176

His attempted overthrow of the government is (debatably) immoral in that it is an ambitious and somewhat selfish act, as he is forcing his own beliefs onto the nation. Moreover, Batman is an original sin monster because he directly endangers the lives of many with his abilities (which include proficiency in fighting and technology). 177 He does actually join Batman to destroy the government in the sequel [see Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again (New York: DC Comics, 2002)]. 178 He is not morally or physically monstrous, but arguably qualifies for original sin monstrosity because his superpowered actions harm people in the U.S. and other nations by propping up the corrupt U.S. government. 179 It is a stretch but it is also possible to argue that his brutal violence is only to defend himself against vicious enemies.

63

seems to be only helping the corrupt government as a result of a deal to protect his friends and loved ones. This increased complexity and moral ambiguity are precisely what Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, as well as Watchmen, brings to the superhero genre.180 There are certainly other innovations and evolutions for the comic book superhero in general and Superman comics in particular. However, the focus of this overview is limited to the major shifts in the role of the monstrous in the genres history. Monstrosity begins as a foundational and tangible expression of anxieties (and dark fantasies) in the 1930s; becomes a largely suppressed aspect during the patriotic World War II era; reemerges as a somewhat comical, eruptive element in the late 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s; and finally transforms into a core component in the 1960s and beyond, as superheroes routinely struggle with their morality, destructive (and grotesque) bodies, and status as potential threats to humanity. The influence of the superhero who consistently faces his own monstrosity can be seen in mainstream film and television depictions of superheroes, chiefly starting in 2000 (there is, for the most part, a large lag). The monstrous superhero highlights, in a pronounced form, the mix of anxieties and fantasies at the center of the genre: anxieties about the impotence of the average person and the corruption of the powerful versus fantasies of having great power and protecting the populace. The superhero who is unsure of his mission and powers represents the potential savior or destroyer of the citizens of the nation, who in either scenario are too weak to save themselves.

180

As another example, Costello outlines how in 1980s comic books the Hulk becomes a mental disease for Bruce Banner and grows into a darker, more menacing character; this underlines, according to Costello, how the threat is no longer from outside the nation, nor now even from the public authorities. It is much closer, internal to the self, threatening from within; something inside the American self is the major source of insecurity (169). This sense of an internal threat is reflected in the superheros struggles with his own monstrosity.

64

Section 3: The History of Superhero Monstrosity in Film and TV: From Kids Stuff to Big Budget Flirtations with the Dark Side My project is primarily focused on post-2000 film and television renditions of monstrous superheroes. To lay the groundwork, it is necessary to look at how the monstrous superhero has evolved in these media over the years. The history of mainstream (i.e., mass audience)181 superheroes is isolated because the genre has a very different (and much more limited) history in film and TV than it does in comics, with the monstrous elements becoming pivotal more recently. That said, it is important to keep in mind that the superhero in comic books clearly births the superhero in film and television,182 which is why I preceded this section with the history of superhero monstrosity in comic books. In addition, I provide this section because there are no effective scholarly histories of the genre in film/TV at all (most of the histories are centered on comics). In redressing this lack, I offer a broad sketch of the superheros development in live action media, even as my attention is devoted mainly to monstrous superheroes. Overall, my goal is to show that, though film and TV superheroes exhibit brief episodes of monstrosity throughout their history, the monstrous does not become central until around 2000. There are several factors that cause this lag in monstrosity in comparison to comic book superheroes, which foreground monstrosity in the 1960s. First of all, for years superheroes are
181

Comic books have only had sales that qualify them as a mainstream/mass medium during the World War II period and the immediately succeeding years; by December 1943, monthly comic sales were around 25 million copies and it was reported by the New York Times that one of every four magazines shipped to troops overseas was a comic book (Wright 31). Further, it was estimated by the Market Research Company of America that roughly 70 million Americansabout half the populationread comic books (many genres, not only superheroes) in the immediate post-World War II period and that the demographics were not just young boys: the audience comprised approximately 95 percent of all boys and 91 percent of all girls between the ages of six and eleven, 87 percent of boys and 81 percent of girls between twelve and seventeen, 41 percent of men and 28 percent of women aged eighteen to thirty, and 16 percent of men and 12 percent of women over thirty ( Wright 57). The subsequent decline and sales recession in comic book sales (again, involving various genres) were attributed to several factors, including loss of adult readership and relevance after the war, competition from television, controversy about comic books, the 1954 Comics Code (which limited potentially contentious content), and general changes in cultural tastes (Wright 57, 172, 181). 182 Film and TV superheroes are almost always adaptations of comic books.

65

regularly regarded as low culture or kids stuff, minimizing the number of superhero films and TV shows and dissuading complex, dark tales of superhero corruption. Likewise, there has historically been much difficulty in portraying superheroes convincingly on filmlargely due to technological limitsresulting, again, in sparse superhero representations for many years; the small quantity means few superhero portrayals that risk countering the public expectations of simplistically heroic characters prior to 2000. As with many things in the film and TV industry, one successful (i.e., profitable) endeavor results in widespread attempts at replication, creating a trend; accordingly, once the success of 2000s X-Men proves the appeal of monstrous superheroes for a mass audience, there is a flood of similarly complex, unstable superheroes. This section explores some of the changes in audience sensibilities and national context that set the table for the monstrous superhero in 2000 and beyond. Mainstream exposure of superheroes is fairly intermittent until the twenty-first century, making it simpler to outline the earlier developments of the superhero genre in film/television; still, what follows is not a comprehensive survey.183 In the 1940s and early 1950s, there are a few notable superhero film serials, each comprised of multiple short episodes (roughly fifteen minutes an episode): The Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941), Batman (1943), Superman (1948), Batman and Robin (1949), and Atom Man vs. Superman (1950), among others. These serials are crude and somewhat cheap exercises that are directed to young viewers who also read comic books; as such, the characters lack any complexity or internal conflict. Likewise, the 1940-1951 The Adventures of Superman radio show and 1941-1943 Superman cartoons

183

Animated versions of superheroes have appeared fairly consistently, especially in the 1970s and afterwards (e.g., Hanna-Barberas Super Friends). However, the intended audiences have generally been children (until recently), not qualifying as mainstream in the sense of having varied and large demographic s of viewers.

66

(produced by Fleischer Studios and Famous Studios184) keep the superhero a very simplistic character. Comparatively, the 1952-1958 Adventures of Superman television series starring George Reeves adds some nuance; reflecting the post-World War II television world (and the related positive mood of the country), the show presents a benevolent, powerful Superman and an unusually proactive Clark Kent.185 There are some eruptions of the monstrous Superman, notably in the episode Superman in Exile, in which Supermans body becomes radioactive and dangerous.186 The episode The Runaway Robot also arguably displays monstrosity in that a powerful steel robot, loosely interpreted by me as a pseudo-double of Superman,187 commits crimes on behalf of the episodes villains.188 The famously/infamously campy 1966-1968 Batman television show transforms protagonists Batman and Robin into self-parodying caricatures; it ridicules superheroes and villains, offering simplistic characterizations to the point of comedy. The Wonder Woman television series (1975-1979) displays some camp but generally stays true to the feminist roots of the character. Though it is too cheery to deal with monstrous elements of superheroes very often, there are occasional eruptions. The episode Fausta, Nazi Wonder Woman presents a Nazi villainess who is a powerful fighter and tries to thwart the United States, even posing as Wonder Woman in one scene.189 However, this doubling of Wonder Woman is incomplete, as Fausta lacks any real superpowers and is defeated fairly easily.

184

Fleischer Studios produced the first eight cartoons and Famous Studios the next nine, but the cartoons are popularly associated mainly with Fleischer. 185 If Clark Kent embodies the average American man, it is telling (about the 1950s) that Clark is often given more power than Superman over narrative events in the show. 186 Superman in Exile, Adventures of Superman: The Complete Second Season, writ. Jackson Gillis, syndicated, 31 October 1953, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. 187 To be considered a true double, the robot would have to have powers that are actually the same as Supermans, a linked origin, a similar persona, or near-identical physical features. Nevertheless, since the robot does have super strength (considerably less than Supermans) and is made of steela possible play on Supermans status as the man of steelit fulfills some of the functions of a double. 188 The Runaway Robot, Adventures of Superman: The Complete First Season , writ. Dick Hamilton, syndicated, 9 January 1953, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005. 189 Fausta, the Nazi Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman: The Complete First Season, writ. Bruce Shelley and David Ketchum, ABC, 28 April 1976, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004.

67

It is not until The Incredible Hulk television show (1978-1982) that there is a mainstream portrayal of a complex superhero who consistently faces his own monstrous potential. In most episodes, the heroic David Banner struggles to restrain the rage inside of him, invariably transforming into the green Hulk whenever he is angered or in danger; the Hulk often ends up stopping the villains, but in the process destroys property and frightens and endangers civilians as he (seemingly) mindlessly runs around.190 Banner is monstrous physically due to his inability to halt his body from unleashing the Hulk, who is rarely directly controlled by him and thrashes about destructively with his super strength. Moreover, in his Hulk form, Banner is a physical and original sin monster because people are horrified by his body and immediately see him as dangerous, even before he begins destroying things. The television show signifies the first true intersection between the conflicted, often monstrous 1960s superheroes of comic books and a mainstream medium. It exhibits early signs of willingness on the part of the public (and producers) to accept superheroes who are not campy, simplistic, or incorruptible protectors of American values. The first high concept superhero film is 1978s Superman: The Movie, which utilizes a big budget, an epic storyline, and esteemed actors to offer a more complex and respectable representation of a superhero.191 The possibility of such a massive superhero spectacle is created by the context of the late 1970s; according to Costello, As the affluence that had made all things seem possible in 1964 turned into the stagflation of 1976, Americans came to believe in the

190

See The Incredible Hulk: The Complete First Season, Exec. Prod. Kenneth Johnson, CBS, 1978, DVD, Universal Studios, 2006. 191 Superman: The Movie, dir. Richard Donner, 1978, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2001. For discussion of the difficulty in getting a big budget, serious superhero film made, see Jake Rossen, Superman vs. Hollywood: How Fiendish Producers, Devious Directors, and Warring Writers Grounded an American Icon (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2008). The book also looks at the dismissal of superheroes by movie studios as silly men in tights and childrens fare, suited at best for crudely budgeted escapades on television, which is why Warner Bros. sold the film and television rights to Superman to independent producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind in 1973 for only $4 million (60-61).

68

limits to growth and sought to take care of themselves rather than to change the world.192 Thus, in popular cinema and television, there is a move away from the darker, introspective, and personal films of the 1960s and early 1970s (the New Hollywood movement) and a turn toward escapist fare and spectacular blockbusters, often based on pre-existing properties and/or properties that can be easily marketed and merchandised.193 Costello argues that this shift can most clearly be seen in the success of Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977) and the latters film, television, comic book, and book progeny.194 The large budgets, believable special effects, huge profits, and outlandish premises pave the way for the spectacular superhero on the big screen. Though Superman: The Movie is the first superhero blockbuster, it is not until the 1980 sequel that the monstrous side of the superhero begins to emerge in cinema. Superman II showcases three villains from Supermans home world of Krypton who share his exact powers (qualifying them as doubles) and take over the world.195 They display the frightening possibility of Superman turning against the nation, as well as reflecting Supermans original sin monstrosity since something from his origin (Krypton) endangers humanity. This monstrous potential is further seen in Superman IIIs evil Superman, a superhero-gone-bad who emerges after the protagonists exposure to a special kind of kryptonite (explored in depth in Chapter 4).196 In 1987s Superman IV, Nuclear Man shares (and exceeds) most of Supermans powers197 but not

192 193

Costello 126. A high concept film is one that has a concept which can be condensed into one sentence and is highly marketable (due to things like easy recognition of images and taglines, use of pre-existing properties, corporate synergy, and merchandising). It is fully explored in Justin Wyatts book High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994). 194 Costello 126. 195 Superman II, dir. Richard Lester, 1980, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. 196 Superman III, dir. Richard Lester, 1983, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. 197 He is a clone of Superman, making it another case of original sin monstrosity since Nuclear Mans threat is onl y possible because of Supermans powers. It is also the kind of original sin monstrosity in which the superhero directly births the villain.

69

his morality, as he wreaks havoc around the world, even attempting to destroy national monuments (e.g., The Statue of Liberty).198 Thus, there is reliance in each sequel on a plot that exhibits the frightening prospect of the nations protector turning against it. Produced in a time of nuclear proliferation during the waning years of the Cold War, it is telling that the films show opposing forces to Superman who share his status as ultimate weapons199 and fight Superman to a standstill, even defeating him at certain points. The suggestion is that the very weapons that protect the Unites States can be used against it, a common fear during the deadlock with the Soviet Union. Still, reflecting the tendencies of live action superheroes pre-2000, Supermans monstrosity is displaced onto doubles in two of the sequels and when he does actually become villainous in the third film, it is a singular monstrous eruption with few after-effects. When he is not afflicted by the kryptonite, Superman typically appears incorruptible and in total command; in other words, he does not demonstrate the self-doubt, constant fears of loss of control, and unstable relationship with the populace we see in the more anxious superheroes after 2000 in film and TV (and after 1960 in comics). The next significant superhero incarnation in film or TV is 1989s Batman, which is directly influenced by Millers Batman: The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel in presenting a darker hero with an injured psyche and monstrous characteristics.200 Borrowing from German Expressionist film (a clear source of inspiration for most of director Tim Burtons work), there are aspects of horror from films such as Nosferatu (1922) and Metropolis (1927) at play: the overwhelming shadows, Gothic architecture, and gruesome villain. Batman himself resembles,

198 199

Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, dir. Sidney J. Furie, 1987, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. Superman is the greatest American weapon, superseding even the atomic bomb in the superheros world. Therefore, the monstrous doubles are equally powerful weapons opposed to the American nation. In the case of Nuclear Man, the connection to nuclear weaponry is made explicit. 200 Batman, dir. Tim Burton, 1989, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006.

70

particularly in terms of his formal presentation, the monstrous, evil vampire of Nosferatu201: He is seen by others as an inhuman creature, silently appears and disappears into the shadows, does not bleed when shot (thanks to armor), and lives in an enormous cave with bats. Likewise, Batman displays aspects of moral monstrosity in his extreme, at times excessive violence and desire for selfish revenge, going so far as to blow up a factory with people (albeit seemingly all villains) inside and trying to murder the evil Joker on multiple occasions. Throughout the film, the public is unsure of his status as a hero or a threat. This ambiguity fits into the trend in comic books and films in the 1980s and 1990s to present more violent heroes (e.g., Rambo, Dirty Harry) who are less concerned with the constraints of legality than their predecessors, believe in a darker notion of justice, and are often born from the perceived breakdown or order in the 1960s and 1970s.202 Batmans indistinct naturea hero who resembles a villain in his selfishness and viciousnessis solidified by the fact that he and supervillain the Joker are presented as characters who deeply mirror each other, though they fall short of qualifying as doubles.203 As stated before, the supervillain is often the psychological mirror of the superhero, created like the protagonist by a traumatic incident that changes his life forever; in many instances, the superheros trauma is directly caused by the supervillain or the supervillains trauma is the result of the superhero. Batman is unique in that Batman and the Joker reciprocally traumatize each other: The twenty-something Jack Napier (who later becomes the Joker) kills the young Bruce Waynes parents, leading years later to the creation of Batman. Then, the adult Batman fights with Napier and accidentally drops him into a vat of acid, creating the Joker. In Batmans case,
201 202

Nosferatu, dir. F.W. Murnau, 1929, DVD, Kino Video, 2007. Costello 169, 167. 203 They are not doubles, despite their substantial connections, because their traumatic origins are very different in terms of how they unfold, their powers/abilities are distinct (Batman has much more of a physical component), and their personas are too dissimilar (Batman wears a mask, the Joker is disfigured).

71

it is an unmistakable example of original sin monstrosity, since the superheros actions directly birth his greatest enemy, who then kills numerous citizens.204 Each is victimized in the city by the other (who appears in each case as a shadowy figure) and gains psychological scars205 in the process, underlining the proximity between hero and villain. This closeness is furthered within the narrative as both Batman and the Joker pursue the same woman, show an expertise in chemicals, are taken alternately to be heroic and villainous by the public, and exhibit a flair for high society/culture (Bruce Wayne is wealthy and the Joker calls himself an avant-garde artist). Although the Joker cannot be called Batmans monstrous double, the fact that he mirrors the hero so much concretizes the sense that the hero flirts with darkness throughout the film and the villain is not totally without redeeming value.206 Batman does not represent a shift in the genre because its elements of monstrosity are not widely replicated by other superhero films and there is actually a regression to more campy superheroes. In the immediate years after the first Batman, the only major superhero films are sequels to the 1989 blockbuster: Batman Returns (1992), Batman Forever (1995), and the dreadful Batman and Robin (1997). Whereas the first sequel keeps much of the ambiguity of the superhero, the following sequels attempt a lighter tone, with Batman and Robin playing things for camp throughout, ending up as one of the most reviled superhero films ever made. The lack of popularity for a frivolous, campy superhero reveals a yearning for more substantial superhero films that attempt some kind of realism and deal with emotional complexity; in other words, in the late 1990s there is an emerging desire for monstrous superheroes like the one in the first
204

The later Batman film The Dark Knight (dir. Christopher Nolan, 2008, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2008), connects the characters less closely, but also insinuates that Batman may have created the Joker, as it is the appearance of Batman as a hero that seems directly to inspire the Joker to take on his villainy. 205 In addition to psychological scars, the Joker gets physical ones. 206 It is perhaps no mistake that the Joker character is seen as the highlight of the film by many, as he displays humor and passion that the dour hero lacks. Accordingly, Jack Nicholson, who plays the Joker, receives top billing and was/is a bigger star than the actor playing Batman (Michael Keaton).

72

Batman. Thus, Batman, in effect, offers a preview of the direction of the superhero genre after 2000, when superheroes with immoral tendencies, monstrous bodies, and unstable relationships to the public become the norm. There are two Superman television programs in the late 1980s and 1990s that deserve some attention for their limited depictions of monstrosity. First, there is Superboy (syndicated, 1988-1992), which follows the college years of Superman. Though the premise does not put a direct focus on the monstrous superhero, there are several episodes that portray the dark potential of the character: The Beast and the Beauty, in which a Superboy impersonator robs banks;207 Revenge of the Alien (Part 2), featuring a nefarious alien who takes over Superboys body; 208 Bizarro . . . The Thing of Steel, introducing an imperfect Superboy clone with skewed morality and logic;209 Superboys Deadly Touch, showcasing Superboys out-of-control powers after an encounter with Lex Luthors weapons;210 and Roads Not Taken (Parts 1 and 2), in which Superboy travels to alternate universes where he first encounters an antihero Superboy (he wears a black leather jacket, black jeans, and sunglasses) who has murdered Lex Luthor and then a Superboy who is a repressive dictator known as the Sovereign.211 With the fair amount of emotional complexity given to the superhero and the many episodes featuring monstrosity, the program clearly hints at the future direction of the genre. However, due to its minor ratings and

207

The Beast and the Beauty, Superboy: The Complete First Season, writ. Bernard M. Khan and Toby Martin, syndicated , 19 November 19 1988, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. 208 Revenge of the Alien (Part 2), Superboy: The Complete First Season, writ. Mike Carlin and Andrew Helfer, syndicated, 11 February 1988, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. 209 Bizarro . . . The Thing of Steel, The Adventures of Superboy, writ. Mark Jones, syndicated, 11 November 1989, YouTube, Web, 1 February 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd8XXLZGJGs> (first half), <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNOD3R1cnMc&NR=1> (second half) 210 Superboys Deadly Touch, The Adventures of Superboy, writ. Mark Jones, syndicated, 9 December 1989, YouTube, Web, 1 February 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-dBt0aH5TY> (partial episode) 211 Roads Not Taken (Parts 1 and 2), The Adventures of Superboy, writ. Stan Berkowitz, syndicated, 3 November 1989 and 10 November 1989, YouTube, Web, 1 February 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tvri8cafuI> (partial episode), <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9O76d2U6ig> (partial episode)

73

the lack of other monstrous superheroes around the same time, one cannot call Superboy either very influential or reflective of extensive generic changes. The later TV program Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (ABC, 19931997) concentrates on the relationship between Supermans alter ego and his love interest Lois Lane. There are several monstrous eruptions in the show as well, such as in the episodes Requiem for a Superhero, in which a group of cyborg boxers are part of a plan to create an army of Supermen;212 The Man of Steel Bars, in which Supermans body is believed to be causing a heat wave;213 Vatman, which features Lex Luthors creation of a faulty, destructive Superman clone;214 A Bolt from the Blue, where a man gains Supermans powers but uses them to make money;215 Individual Responsibility, in which exposure to red kryptonite makes Superman stop caring about saving people;216 and several episodes from the third and fourth seasons with a villain from Supermans home world. However, as is the case with Superboy, the monstrous elements amount to episodic eruptions, differentiating the program from mainstream superhero films and TV show that centralize the monstrous (i.e., the superhero is constantly at risk of becoming or being seen as a destroyer) and are part of the genres large-scale shift. Still, these episodes speak to the anxieties about superpowered individuals at the heart of the genre and point to the forthcoming changes in depictions of the superhero. The first film that foregrounds the different forms of superhero monstrosity in a sustained manner (i.e., going beyond evil doubles, occasionally questionable morality, and isolated
212

Requiem for a Superhero, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete First Season, writ. Robert Killebrew, ABC, 17 October 1993, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005. 213 The Man of Steel Bars, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete First Season, writ. Paris Qualles, ABC, 21 November 1993, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005. 214 Vatman, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete First Season, writ. H.B. Cobb and Deborah Joy Levine, ABC, 13 March 1994, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005. 215 A Bolt from the Blue, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete Second Season, writ. Kathy McCormick, ABC, 20 November 1994, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005. 216 Individual Responsibility, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete Second Season, writ. Grant Rosenberg and Chris Ruppenthal, ABC, 16 April 16, 1995, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005.

74

episodes of the superhero-gone-bad) and simultaneously affects the entire genre217 is director Bryan Singers 2000 X-Men. Resembling the comic book versions, the characters in X-Men struggle with unstable super bodies, deal with being born as threats to humanity (since they have powers and could potentially eliminate regular humans), and blur the lines between heroism and villainy, as the two categories have significant overlap and characters move between them.218 The film and its sequels are explored further in forthcoming chapters in regards to things like the superhero-gone-bad and the relationship of monstrosity to puberty. Sam Raimis 2002 SpiderMan,219 though celebrated for its bright version of New York City and its representation of exuberant heroism after 9/11, continues the ambiguous depictions of superheroes; in the film, Peter Parker struggles with elements of monstrous morality, causes the death of his uncle in his first costumed outing, is often seen as a public menace, and generally questions being a hero. He also initially has difficulty controlling his super body, loses his abilities completely in the second film in the series, and becomes a superhero-gone-bad in the third film. With success for complex, monstrous superheroes, the genre transforms in film and television. Most subsequent superhero films and TV shows feature protagonists who have difficulty restraining their bodies, are seen as threats by humans, use excessive violence, and/or ponder if they should be heroes at all. For instance, in both Ang Lees 2003 Hulk and Louis

217

Here, I mean only the film/television superhero genre. Although it fits better into the science-fiction genre and is an original story (not a comic book adaptation), The Matrix (dir. Larry and Andy Wachowski, 1999, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2007) is often described as being a superhero or comic book film in key ways, making it debatably influential on the increased number of superhero films. The superhero-y aspects of the film can be found largely in the protagonist, who rises above his mundane everyday existence as Thomas Anderson (his Clark Kent persona) to become Neo, who possesses superhuman abilities, including the ability to fly and stop bullets. Moreover, the film resembles superhero stories in that it is set in a recognizable, realistic-looking world in which special beings exhibit super abilities and engage in superpowered battles. 218 X-Men, dir. Bryan Singer, 2000, DVD, 20th Century Fox, 2006. 219 Spider-Man, dir. Sam Raimi, 2002, DVD, Sony Pictures, 2002.

75

Letteriers 2008 The Incredible Hulk, the superhero220 is feared as a monster, destroys property and harms people, acts predominantly for self-preservation, tries to get rid of his superpowers, and fights a monstrous double at the conclusion of the film.221 Some of the other examples of the post-2000 superhero genre in film and television, including Heroes and of course Smallville, are explored in subsequent chapters.

Post-2000: Why the Superhero Boom? Why Origin Stories and Monstrous Superheroes in Film and TV? In concluding the analysis of the superheros transformation in film and TV, it is important to go over some of the reasons the genre has changedcentralizing the monstrous, giving more importance to origin storiesand boomed in popularity since the release of X-Men in 2000: focus on youthful audiences, nostalgia for earlier comic book and film/TV versions of characters, fandom, technological advancements, emphasis on realism (in regards to depictions of powers, character psychology, and costumes), hiring of respected filmmakers, and shifting national context. The concentration on teen and young adult demographics (instead of kids) begins for comic book superheroes in the early 1960s, but these viewers do not become the main intended audience for film and TV superheroes until 2000. Early superhero film serials and TV shows (including animated versions) are directed primarily to children, who have traditionally been viewed as the core audience for comic books and superheroes; these initial mainstream superheroes provide fantasies of being powerful for kids. High concept superhero films like
220

Coogan, among others, argues that the Hulk in the 2003 film does not qualify as a superhero since he never truly acts in a heroic manner (10-11). In contrast, the comic book version of the character is turned into the Hulk while saving a teenager and then very often uses his monstrous persona heroically. In the 2009 film, the Hulk uses his super strength to help others on several occasions, leaving no doubt that he is a superhero. 221 Hulk, dir. Ang Lee, 2003, DVD, Universal, 2007; The Incredible Hulk, dir. Louis Leterrier, 2008, DVD, Universal, 2008. In the first film, the double is his own father, who is also responsible for the mutated DNA of Bruce Banner (the Hulks alter ago). Though his fathers powers are different, his similar size and shared origins (they are products of the same experiments) qualify him as a double. In the second film, the Hulks double (called the Abomination) is created in part by using Banners blood, replicating his powers as the Hulk.

76

1978s Superman: The Movie and 1989s Batman clearly appeal to teens and young adults through elements such as action, special effects, and merchandising, but arguably the films are not aiming mainly for a youthful audience. Key aspects of the films are clearly meant for adults, such as the casting of respected older actors (e.g., Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, Jack Nicholson, Michael Keaton), the overwhelming nostalgia, and the romantic storylines featuring distinctly grown-up (i.e., not teenage or college-age) characters; in addition, other parts (e.g., buffoonish/funny characters) perhaps are more intended for small children. Thus, there is an attempt to reach a wide but somewhat older demographic through the respectable portrayal of the superhero in these earlier superhero films. That is not to say that superhero films after 2000 have not aspired to a broad demographicthey clearly havebut the difference is that these post-2000 films have a more distinctly youthful sensibility, addressing foremost the teen and young adult audiences, who have extensive purchasing power,222 and those who associate with these demographics, such as certain older viewers and members of fan communities.223 In her work on the TV show Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, Mary Celeste Kearney argues that media with young characters do not exclusively appeal to viewers of the same age; instead, they rely on a multi-aged audience whose members share a youthful sensibility, forming a coalition audience comprised of multiple demographics.224 Kearney declares that all consumers are encouraged to adopt a youthful sensibility in their commercial cultural practices, largely due to the belief that, even if they have less money, teens spend it more

222

Teen consumers were estimated to have spent $153 billion in 1999, the year before the superhero boom really began; the teenage population is expected to keep rising and was estimated to be nearly 34 million by 2010 [Mary Celeste Kearney, The Changing Face of Teen Television, or Why We all Love Buffy, Undead TV: Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, eds. Elana Levine and Lisa Parks (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007) 17]. 223 Again, the attempts at a youthful demographic do not mean that there are not specific efforts to reach other demographics. There are moments in superhero films and TV shows that are clearly meant to appeal to kids. In addition, romance is used to draw a female audience. And, of course, youthful elements such as action appeal to adult audiences as well. 224 Kearney 19, 20.

77

freely.225 She presents the term reading down to indicate adults who identify with teens and adopt a youthful sensibility, thereby consuming TV shows (and by extension films) that are directed to a young audience.226 Factors that cause people to read down include delays to traditional adulthood (e.g., due to higher education or lack of marriage or children), rejection of and alienation from heteronormative rituals and values, and the aforementioned encouragement to identity with youth.227 Adults also might be drawn to youthful programming as a result of nostalgia for their younger years, desire for escapism through fantastic worlds and powers, and identification with narrative themes (e.g., heroism, power, morality).228 There is also the opposite concept, reading up, which refers to younger viewers who consume media that is intended for older audiences, attracted by their aspirations to grow up.229 The consequence of these tendencies to read up and down is an ability to direct superhero films and television programs to teen and young adult viewers, while still appealing to children and older viewers, who identify with youth and therefore draw meaning from superhero texts. As a result of the focus on a youthful audience, an overwhelming number of superhero films and television shows after 2000 present origin stories of younger superheroes, whether they are teens just finishing high school (Spider-Mans Peter Parker), teens and young adults battling their freakishness (numerous characters in X-Men), or young men figuring out their destinies (Batman Beginss Bruce Wayne).230 With some notable exceptions, the actors playing the superheroes also skew younger231: Tobey Maguire is 26 when the first Spider-Man premieres,

225 226

Kearney 21. Kearney 23. 227 As Kearney notes, reading down often has a negative connotation, indicating lack of maturity or intelligence. 228 Kearney 32. 229 Kearney 22. 230 Though the protagonists are technically not superheroes, the Harry Potter and newer Star Wars films certainly are part of this trend to depict origin stories and younger heroes (and do so for largely similar reasons). 231 Attesting to the youthfulness of these actors, they often play superheroes who are even younger than they really are (e.g., Maguire plays a high-schooler at the start of Spider-Man).

78

Christian Bale is 31 at the time of Batman Beginss release, and Brandon Routh is 26 when Superman Returns is distributed.232 The superhero films and TV shows of this era are usually coming-of-age and origin stories about how these young characters deal with their monstrosity (i.e., their potentially dangerous powers) and then mature and discover how to be superheroes;233 what distinguishes these origin stories is how drawn out and detailed they are in comparison to earlier superhero films, often encompassing the entirety of the films.234 To be a true origin story, several elements have to be present: the protagonist growing up and deciding to act heroically, the creation of the superhero alter ego, and the acquisition and practicing of superpowers. By having origin stories with younger characters/actors and producing them for a youthful intended audience, all three kinds of monstrosity become key parts of the films: The superhero struggles with his morality, body, and relationship to the public at large as he strives to find his identity.235 The film industrys focus on superhero origin stories also represents an appeal to nostalgia and an attempt to appease preexisting fan communities. In light of the existence of superheroes since 1938, almost every film and television incarnation after 2000 invokes
232

The Internet Movie Database, IMDb.com, Inc., 1990-2010, Web, 8 February 2010. <http://www.imdb.com/> 233 This coming-of-age is explored more fully in my analysis of Smallville. 234 Many pre-X-Men and Spider-Man superhero films skip over the protagonists creation of the alter ego and the initial usage of superpowers completely (e.g., Batman). Superman: The Movie can be considered an origin story since it goes through the arrival of baby Superman, his teenage years, his training in the Fortress of Solitude, his discovery of his heroic mission, and his first heroic rescue in the Superman garb. The film, however, severely truncates key parts of his origin: the discovery of superpowers, the practicing of these abilities, and the decision to be a hero (Superman is told he is one, rather than making a clear decision). Most other versions of Superman on TV and film (including the 1940s cartoons, 1948 and 1950 movie serials, and 1950s TV Show) share this tendency to elide the discovery process and complexities of creating a superheros identity. In the 1970s, Wonder Woman and The Incredible Hulk both provide origin stories (perhaps more necessary due to the serialized nature of TV and the fact that these characters are less known in terms of their origins than Superman and Batman), though they still lack much of the complexity of the post-2000 films and TV shows. 235 For those who are reading down, especially in cases of older adults involved in fan communities, this se nse of monstrosity (i.e., feeling out of place, not having control, not always doing the right thing) can continue to be relevant, whether because of remembered younger traumas or because of continued feelings of deficiency. Furthermore, the constant superhero fantasy of standing up to villain/bullies, though perhaps more obviously alluring to children and teens, can appeal to the entire spectrum of potential viewers, from small children bullied by adults or other kids to adults bullied by their superiors or even spouses. Finally, in some senses the morally monstrous superherowho often does whatever he wants, without limits is even more appealing than the restrained superhero.

79

nostalgia for large numbers of viewers, drawing on their memories of earlier comic books as well previous live-action and animated versions.236 In the current era, this nostalgia has been augmented by the existence of rabid fan communities, widespread at conventions and on the internet and possessing real buying power; these fans range from children to adults in their forties and beyond. Starting in the 1970s, superheroes comics are directed mainly to these hardcore fans.237 The origin film endeavors to build a faithful (to the source comic book) superhero world from the ground-up for devoted fans and functions as a reintroduction for former readers/viewers. There is a nostalgic play on knowledge of the character, as the origin film depicts the superheros transformation into the character these audience members fondly remember and, in some cases, still actively follow. Accordingly, there are numerous insider references to the comic book world (and earlier films and TV shows) sprinkled into these films and TV programs in order to assure that, though mainstream superhero media must appeal to a wider audience, producers are catering to casual and hardcore fans. And for those unfamiliar with a superhero entirely, the origin film removes any feelings of being left out, since the story

236

Writing about Superman, Gordon discusses how the first superhero is associated with nostalgia for America itself: since World War II Supermans owners have explicitly tied the character to the American Way, which is an ideological construct that among other things unites two disparate values individualism and consumerismwith democracy and labels it as American. Nostalgia about the character then in inevitably linked to this notion of America, which gives it a particular ideological cast (178). In addition, Gordon argues that nostalgia for Superman is based on the long history of the character as a commodity, as each version of the character (intentionally, on the part of producers) recalls earlier incarnations in comics, film, TV, toys, etc. (179, 184-185) 237 Wright recounts the shifts in comic book distribution that lead to superhero comic books being directed (creatively and in terms of marketing) to hardcore fans in his chapter Direct to the Fans (254 -281). The directmarket distribution of comic books began as publishers started shipping most of their comic books to sm all specialty shops that were both operated and visited by comic book aficionados. These stores held many advantages for publishers: Their owners were familiar with comic books and had a good sense of how to sell them, customers were already very interested and knowledgeable about comic books, stores ordered and stocked all titles by publishers, and, in exchange for discounts from publishers, stores agreed to give up the right to return unsold issues to the publisher for a refund (instead selling them as collectible back issues) (261). Thus, publishers focused directly on the fans who shopped in these stores, creating comics for older readers, formulating more complex narratives due to the higher expectations and prolific reading patterns of readers, and promoting certain authors/artists as stars (261-262). By the late 1980s, surveys indicated the average comic reader was a twenty-yearold male who purchased comics from these specialty shops (280).

80

seems to be just beginning; it allows viewers to grow into being fans or simply spend their money on a ticket or DVD in order to experience an entertaining, self-enclosed story. Significantly, in utilizing nostalgia and trying to appeal to both fans and contemporary viewers who are not fans, the superhero films and TV shows after 2000 practically have to include depictions of monstrosity. Anyone who has grown up reading comic books since the innovations of Marvel Comics in the early 1960s (the oldest such readers are likely in their early sixties now) is likely accustomed to heroes who are morally ambiguous, combat their own bodies, and are frequently viewed as threats. As a result, casual and hardcore fans expect monstrous superheroes, not campy or kid-friendly superheroes, directly influencing the kind of characters created by writers and producers (who likely also grew up with the young adultoriented form of the genre) of superhero films. Moreover, in order for the genre to be seen as cool or at all cutting edge (again, more than just kids stuff) by the general public (i.e., not just fans) there is a need to show protagonists who are emotionally complex and deal with the dangers of possessing superpowers; in other words, there is a need to portray monstrosity. As Michael Uslan, executive producer of all the live action Batman films since 1989, states, For todays generation, unlike the baby boomers, the most important thing about the hero is whats going on inside them, their motivations and characterization. Its not as simple as capes and being faster than a speeding bullet.238 The classical image of Superman as someone purely, almost inherently heroic does not resonate that strongly with audiences today; since the 1960s,

238

Qtd. in Geoff Boucher, Undressed for Success?; For a hip, new generation, the familiar costume of red cape and tights no longer makes the Superman, Los Angeles Times, 28 August 2001, Web, 26 January 2011, 1. <http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/28/entertainment/ca-39127>

81

this kind of image has become increasingly associated with bygone eras, which is precisely why Superman is often viewed as a paternalistic, simplistic superhero who is now outdated.239 Another important factor in the onslaught of superhero films is improved special effects technology that has allowed a new scale of superpowered action that was not feasible before; in the process, it has removed much of the stigma of superhero TV shows and films being campy and unrealistic (even as fantasy). These effects also have created more of an ability to illustrate monstrosity, as producers can more convincingly depict super abilities that are out of control, being used immorally, or enacting massive destruction. Though the Superman and Batman films of the late 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s have a lot of effects work, the front projection, model work, and pyrotechnics are limited and result in some sequences that look less-than-realistic, especially to contemporary eyes. However, with the advent and preponderance of computer-generated imagery (CGI) starting in the 1990s, it has become possible to produce increasingly realistic representations of superpowers and to do so with more manageable budgets. As a point of comparison, one can look at the prominent differences between the 1977-1979 Amazing SpiderMan TV program, which is best remembered for its terrible production values and fake-looking blue-screen work, and the special-effects-heavy 2002 Spider-Man film, which strikingly shows the protagonist swinging through the city thanks to effective CGI.240 Similarly, one can compare The Incredible Hulk TV series from the late 1970s, with its excessive slow-motion, flimsy sets, and green-painted Lou Ferrigno (playing the Hulk) smashing around angrily, to the 2003 Hulk film, with its massive CGI protagonist violently and swiftly fighting the extensive forces of the

239

The classical Superman is outdated in many ways, but the representations of the character in comics, films, and TV have clearly adapted to the changes in the genre. 240 Of course, regardless of period, television shows tend to have lower production values than films, but the point remains that more effective representations of superheroes are possible after the mid-1990s.

82

military.241 Even on a contemporary TV series like Smallville, which has a much more limited budget than superhero films, CGI helps craft impressive footage of Clark Kent running at super speed, jumping through the air, and doing other super things. Ultimately, with the success of superhero films and TV shows with superior special effects, studios have become much more willing to invest in large budgets for superhero projects, further enhancing the production values and realism; in turn, the respectability and popularity of superhero films and TV shows have increased. An additional adjustment that has helped create more realistic, respectable, and successful superhero films and TV shows is the reduction of the campiness of superhero costumes. The tightness and colorfulness of the traditional superhero costume draws attention to the masculine strength of the characters body and, thus, still holds some appeal, particularly in comics (where the costume fits in better with the fantastic hand-drawn worlds). However, the stereotypes that ultra masculine superheroes wear colorful tights, spandex, or underpants on the outside have long led to derisive jokes, usually premised on associations these clothing items have with femininity, the past, and sheer ridiculousness: Tights have historically been worn by circus performers and other flamboyant, freakish figures; abnormal, colorful costumes recall futuristic science-fiction narratives,242 which are often seen as campy themselves; tights are feminine in that they are traditionally worn by ballerina dancers;243 underpants are typically worn under your clothes, not as flashy external clothing; and, finally, spandex is feminine and anachronistic due to its ties to 1980s fashions, especially for women. Furthermore, tights are linked to the often campy TV and film superheroes from the past who look awkward in their
241

All this said, I would not count myself as a fan of excessive CGI in superhero films; CGI often does in fact look fake, even as it increases the range of possibilities and the scale of superpowered action. 242 And these science-fiction narratives are, of course, impactful on the costumes of the first superheroes, as are the fantastic outfits of circus acrobats and strongmen. 243 Yes, male dancers may wear tights as well, but they too are often designated as feminine.

83

costumes, especially when being filmed in otherwise realistic sets with normal-looking people; the 1960s Batman TV show, notably, plays off of the camp value of this juxtaposition. Post-2000 superheroes in film and TV wear less colorful, more realistic costumes in order to counteract the negative, campy associations of superhero outfits (especially for youthful viewers). Geoff Boucher, in his article on superhero costumes in the Los Angeles Times, writes that the problem with traditional superhero tights speaks to the gradual change in the very nature of the American superhero from a square-jawed, all-American crusader that wraps himself, almost literally, in a flag to todays conflicted, gritty avengers who look outfitted by Versace.244 Accordingly, a major subplot in Batman Begins concerns Bruce Waynes creation of his costume using military and other high-end technologies, the Batman suit resembling armor more than spandex. Likewise, rather than having the X-Men characters wear bright costumes like in the comic books, the film has them either in regular, contemporarily cool clothes (e.g., tank tops and leather jackets for Wolverine) or in black leather costumes that appear fashionable and realistic (it is unlikely that real-life mutant superheroes would wear bright yellow). On Smallville, since Clark Kent is not yet Superman, the producers mostly abide by a strict No tights, no flights policy;245 Clark wears regular clothes that approximate the colors of Supermans costume for the first eight seasons, sports a fashionable all-black outfit in the ninth season, and dresses in an ensemble with a red leather jacket for much of the final season. The adjustments to Supermans costume are slight in 2006s Superman Returns, largely because the outfit is so recognized with the character and the film is a pseudo-sequel to the Christopher Reeve Superman films. The main differences are that the colors of the costume are darker, the cape looks like leather, and the S shield is higher up and smaller; these changes may be an
244 245

Boucher 1. No tights, no flights, Smallville Wiki, Web, 17 December 2010, <http://smallville.wikia.com/wiki/No_tights,_no_flights>

84

attempt to decrease the campiness of a man in a colorful costume and contemporize the character somewhat, though the success of either is debatable. Finally, in the case of Spider-Man there is a very faithful recreation of the comic book costume,246 perhaps due to its iconic nature, absence of awkward-looking briefs over pants (unlike Supermans costume), and the exuberant nature of the character; in addition, there is a section of the film devoted to the costumes creation and an early version of it is worn by the character during in a wrestling match, partially explaining its outlandish nature. However, even Spider-Man dresses in a cooler black costume in the darker third film in the series. In the end, contemporary superhero costumes are emphasized for their utilitarian nature, amazing technology (that often seems realistic), and fashionability (e.g., the all-black look is common). They help reinforce the serious tone and believability of stories in which superheroes struggle emotionally and physically to make their way through the world. Further adding luster to the superhero genre has been the involvement of respected directors and writers, some of whom have openly professed to being fans themselves (gaining the admiration of at least the fan community).247 For instance, before directing X-Men, Bryan Singer was a critically-praised filmmaker best known for making the independent film The Usual Suspects (1994), about a gang of criminals and an unsolved massacre. Likewise, previous to directing Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan was most renowned for his influential independent film Memento (2000), a detective story told out of linear order and featuring a brain-damaged protagonist. Sam Raimi, director of the Spider-Man films, was a cult filmmaker (and professed comic book fan) famous for the Evil Dead films (1981, 1987, 1993), which mix horror and

246

Reportedly, before returning to the traditional Spider-Man costume, designers struggled to update the costume; ideas included an all-black outfit with a red emblem that was described as making Spider-Man look like a black widow [David Hughes, Comic Book Movies (London: Virgin Books, 2003). 233]. 247 Fidelity to the source material is usually even more pronounced in cases when the director is a self-professed fan of comic books. The result is more support from fans and more of the elements of monstrosity so prevalent in comic books.

85

comedic elements. Thus, we can see how there has been a real effort by the studiosperhaps due to the much reviled campy Batman and Robin in 1997to hire directors who have clout with fans, are respected by critics as filmmakers, and can produce emotionally rich, complex superhero films. Attesting to their favorable credentials, many of these directors earlier films include lead characters who resemble the monstrous superhero in their ambiguous moral standards and strained dealings with the world (The Usual Suspects, Memento, and the Evil Dead films all qualify248). As a result, it is no surprise that their superhero films feature protagonists who have difficulty with their own morality and blur the line between heroism and villainy, producing a richer, more complicated superhero world that is in line with audience desires and expectations. So, why has there been an overwhelming fascination with superheroes in film and TV specifically at this time, in the year 2000 and afterward? The primary reason is that all the factors discussed previously converge: a larger focus on the youthful audience, prevalent fan communities (especially on the internet), nostalgia for superheroes, improved special effects technology, attention to realism (in terms of character emotions and visual elements, such as the superheros costume), prestigious directors who are also fans and/or see an opportunity to create quality big budget films, and an increased market for darker, morally and physically troubled protagonists. There is also the elapsed time from the last campy mainstream superhero incarnation, 1997s Batman and Robin; though only three years, this time worked both to increase anticipation from fans of a more faithful, better superhero film and diminish any lingering bad taste for moviegoers.

248

In the case of The Usual Suspects and Memento, there is also an aspect of multiplicity to the protagonists, as they possess a kind of dual identity and hidden agendas and pasts, echoing some characteristics of the superhero.

86

Furthermore, in a U.S. beset by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the political turmoil of the 2000 election, fragmentation and conflict over the policies of the Bush and Obama presidencies, and a prolonged economic crisis, among other sources of profound gloom, it is not surprising that there has been an increase in the popularity of superheroes; the genre, after all, first appeared in comic books at a time of national anxiety during which the common man felt powerless and unsure about the direction of the nation. Though very different from the heroes of the 1930s and 1940s, these post-2000 film and TV superheroes fulfill some similar functions: escapism from the everyday and the fantasies of having complete power and being able to use sheer force to stop those who prey on the weak. Even though post-2000 superheroes have been touted by many as representing a return to clear heroes acting morally and powerfully in a time of ambiguity and powerlessness (i.e., a reversion to super patriots who embody American virtue), the fact is that these superheroes are tinged by the uncertainty of the period. The monstrosity of the superheroesbodies that are dangerously out of control, flirtations with dark morality, troubled dealings with the public, evil doppelgangersshows that even if the genre provides heroes to be cheered, these characters are far from the simplistically good superheroes of the 1940s (or even the boy-scout goodness of the superhero in 1978s Superman: The Movie); it is a constant struggle for them to be heroic, to wield their power safely and for the benefit of regular humans. Often the greatest source of danger comes from the very heroes who are supposed to be protecting the nation, reflecting the changes in the genre and the sense of unease throughout the time period. As shown in this chapter, the superhero genre evolves from stories about monstrous superpowered characters (who are not superheroes) and then flirts with its monstrous undercurrent throughout much of its history; however, in the 1960s in comic books and after

87

2000 in film and television, the genre shifts and monstrosity becomes a main component of the superhero. The monstrous superhero represents the anxieties at the core of the genre: the corruption of the powerful and the impotence of the average person. The superhero traditionally combats these anxieties by embodying fantasies of having power, being incorruptible, and protecting the impotent. Nevertheless, the anxieties cannot be fully suppressed and consistently manifest in depictions of corrupted superheroes, who eventually become an expected, regular convention of the genre. In subsequent chapters, the attention of this project is devoted to specific film and TV manifestations of superhero monstrosity, especially after 2000. In particular, my focus is on Superman and the TV series Smallville, which exhibits how even the first, most unchanging superhero can frequently be a destroyer as well as a protector. As a result of his longevity and deep associations with the nation, Superman offers insights into the anxieties and fantasies intrinsic in the superhero genre, the (monstrous) changes in the genre,249 and the shifting national context.

249

Superman does not always immediately follow the major shifts in the superhero genre, such as in the early 1960s when he does not take on the complexity and monstrosity popularized by the Marvel characters right away. He is, as mentioned, the least changing superhero in lots of ways, which is precisely why he is often criticized or praised as an icon of unwavering, uncomplicated American heroism. However, when he does change, it speaks to how prevalent shifts in the genre really are.

88

PART 2 Hero or Destroyer? Super Puberty and Young Supermans Flirtations with Monstrosity on Smallville

89

Premiering in 2001, the television program Smallville depicts a version of the oldest and most venerable superhero who struggles with (actual and potential) monstrosity throughout all ten seasons. As discussed, this monstrosity represents the spectre of 1933s evil Superman, who has continually haunted the genre via narratives about the corruptive effects of great power and the helplessness of the populace to resist. In film and TV, the monstrous is integrated as a key element in the early 21st century in the form of darker character traits for the superhero and increased eruptions of superhero corruption. Smallville is, like much of the film/TV superhero media post-2000, an origin story; however, unlike superhero films in which this origin comprises two hours of screen time (or even just a portion of the running time), the narrative of Clark Kents emergence as a superhero takes up the entire ten-year run of the series, a perpetual tease that is the most intricate, extended superhero origin story yet created in film or television. The program focuses on Clark Kents high school years for the first four seasons and then follows him as he enters adulthood, not taking on the Superman mantle until the very end of the shows run. This pre-Superman version of Clark Kent, like most of the superheroes of this era in film/TV, discovers his great abilities but has difficulty controlling them and contemplates his moral mission and relationship to the world. Appropriately, the show begins on the now-defunct WB network, which is primarily identified with teen audiences due to its numerous programs about beautiful teens and young adults trying to make sense of life, as they balance romance, entry into adulthood, and melodramatic, sometimes fantastic situations. Combining aspects of the teen, horror, and, of course, superhero genres, Smallville creates an anxious young Superman who flirts with monstrosity constantly, asespecially in the early seasonshe undergoes the tribulations of puberty amplified by his possession of superpowers.

90

The Clark Kent of Smallville lacks the certainty about his powers and the sense of purpose that is associated with traditional versions of Superman (i.e., the ones known to the mainstream public), since the show is set before his emergence as a true superhero. As a result, he questions how to use his powers constantly, makes poor decisions with deadly consequences, and turns downright evil on quite a few occasions. Physically, he exhibits elements of the monstrous: his body escapes his control many times and there is a profound sense of bodily freakishness for the young Clark Kent. The typical shame associated with puberty becomes something more frightening, as the super teen fears his own body and moral development, not knowing what his alien heritage will do to him and whether he has any control over it. Rather than something to be shown off, his superpowers are, throughout most of the shows run, something to be hidden, kept in the closet in a way similar to secrets about ones sexuality. In this closeting of superpowers and several other aspects, Smallvilles Clark Kent owes much to other superheroes like the X-Men and Spider-Man, in both comics and film.250 Like the mutant superheroes, he goes through a superhuman form of puberty, has trouble controlling his superpowered body, and fears the revelation of his true, non-human nature.251 Like Spider-Man, he constantly questions how he should use his superpowers, undergoes a process of learning how to use his abilities, works to create an effective heroic identity, and sometimes becomes distinctly immoral. This part of the dissertation explores the depiction of Clarks monstrous puberty on the TV series Smallville, as the character struggles with his threat (perceived and real) to humans, suffers through dangerous physical changes, and flirts with selfish, destructive morality.
250

Smallville premieres one year after the first X-Men film and one year before the first Spider-Man film. Despite being released after Smallville begins, the Spider-Man films conceivably still have a direct influence on the show during its lengthy ten-year run. Regardless, the similarities between various superhero films and TV shows indicate generic trends in this era. 251 The X-Men films draw a strong parallel between mutants and other minorities, especially homosexuals.

91

Specifically, Chapter 2 starts with the premiere episode of the show and explores how it establishes a pubescent superhero who deals with the emerging freakishness of his super body (is he becoming a monster?) and fears the consequences of his super/monstrous body being revealed to the public. It is original sin monstrositythe superheros powers (or his place of origin) harming or threatening humansthat is paramount here as Clarks aberrant puberty marks him as a potential hazard to humanity. In the next section of the chapter, I analyze several of the episodes in which Clark achieves new superpowers, which the show overtly makes analogous to pubescent development. Most of these powers initially have destructive consequences, emphasizing Clarks physical monstrosity. His abilities also highlight the dangerousness of such a powerful individual existing (original sin monstrosity), particularly if Clark does not gain control of these powers or if he decides to use them for evil purposes (moral monstrosity). Furthermore, Chapter 3 explores the close friendship Clark initially has with Lex Luthor and how it represents a prolonged flirtation with monstrous morality during his super puberty, as he engages in a homoerotic relationship with the morally dubious man who will become his worst enemy. The sexual undertones, which seem at least somewhat intentional by the shows creators and actors, are identified by fans of the program, spurring their lively interpretations as well as other productive fan activity. In addition, the friendship of Clark and Lex underlines the inclination in the genreespecially post-2000 in film and TVto parallel and connect hero and villain, making the categorizations less discrete as the monstrous infiltrates the hero and elements of goodness and tragedy characterize the villain. In all the chapters in this part of the dissertation, it is imperative to tie the portrayals of the kinds of monstrosity on Smallville to other superhero media from the post-2000 era, proving how the genre as a whole has shifted and exhibits similar tendencies broadly.

92

The primary focus on Smallville, rather than any of the other post-2000 superhero film and TV shows, is the result of several key factors. First, it is a question of manageability, as indepth research and analysis of Smallville is less unwieldy than looking closely at numerous superhero films and TV shows. More importantly, as the longest-running live-action superhero representation (with over 200 episodes), the program provides multiple examples of all the variations of the monstrous superhero, offering a myriad of narratives and images to analyze. Choosing to concentrate on a program like Heroes (2006-2010) or the X-Men films would not provide nearly the same variety and would result in a lack of attention to certain manifestations of superhero monstrosity. Furthermore, Smallville premieres the year after the genres largescale shift in 2000 and completes its run in 2011, meaning that it is on television throughout the time that film and TV superheroes are at the height of their popularity. As a result, Smallville both heavily borrows from the eras film and TV superheroes and influences them, making it a key text to look at for trends. The choice of Smallville is also due to the fact that it features a rendition of the first superhero, the one who initially sets up most of the anxieties and fantasies of the genre, supplying a connection to the genres origin and history. Like all versions of the character, Smallvilles Clark Kent descends from the evil Superman who precedes the superhero genre and haunts it through superheroes who are corrupted by their power. Moreover, Smallville draws on a rich past in mainstream media, since Superman has the most film and TV representations of any superhero. Finally, as noted earlier, Superman is typically the most conservative superhero in that, as the oldest and most recognizable, he resists many of the genres trends in order to match reader/viewer expectations of the character (which simultaneously results in claims that the character has become outdated and irrelevant). Thus, the overwhelming monstrosity of the

93

teenage and young adult version of the superhero on Smallville shows how significantly the genre has changed. Even Superman suffers through growing pains, as he constantly loses sight of his moral mission, struggles to control his super body, and is often a destroyer as much as a hero.

94

Chapter 2: Finding the Monster Inside: Clark Kents Discovery of his Super (Freakish) Body . . . and the Quest to Hide It
The premiere episode of Smallville establishes the core elements of the show: Clark Kent discovering his potential for moral and physical monstrosity due to his superpowers, fretting about becoming a threat to humanity (original sin monstrosity), and working to control (and hide) his abilities so that they can be used for decidedly un-monstrous ends. The first scene with the teenage Clark Kent illustrates that he is already obsessed with his own physical abnormalities: He eagerly peruses online newspaper stories titled Record Breaking Teen Becomes Fastest Man Alive and Six-year-old Korean Boy Lifts Car Off Injured Father,252 as if looking for confirmation that his own freakish body is not unique and that he will not be marginalized.253 This interest in freakish bodies stands in stark contrast to the preceding shot of an idyllic farmhouse and fenced-in cows (accompanied by gentle acoustic guitar music in the background) and the following scene of an apparently normal (if stunningly attractive) nuclear familyClark, his mom, his dadhaving breakfast on their Midwest farm. The implication is that the surface appearance of a nostalgically normal American family is largely illusory, as Clarks anxiety over his body dominates the lives of the Kents. Clarks hopes for normalcyor, as he expresses it, to go through high school without being a total loserare thwarted by his superpowered body, which prevents him from participating in many school activities. When the familys breakfast conversation turns to the subject of Clarks desire to join the high school football team, his father immediately squelches the idea since Clarks abilities can potentially give him an unfair advantage (moral monstrosity),

252

Significantly, his only known powers at this time (aside from a degree of invulnerability) are superhuman speed and strength. 253 Pilot, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, The WB, 16 October 2001, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003.

95

escape his control (physical monstrosity), and/or hurt others (original sin monstrosity). The immoral possibilities are depicted in a fantasy sequence in which Clark imagines himself as the footballs team quarterback. In a long shot, Clark is shown inhumanly tossing four tacklers into the air, followed by a shot of a faceless, cheering crowd celebrating his super-ness. Subsequently, he hurdles another series of tacklers in a long shot, with a quick slow-motion shot of him afterward to emphasize his amazing feat. As the scoreboard confirms that his team has won, Clark spikes the ball, which hits the grass impossibly hard, chalk flying into the air. Finally, he kisses the girl of his dreams, Lana Lang, in a medium close-up, as triumphant music plays and the crowd chants Clark! repeatedly. His incredible exploits reflect the pleasures of becoming a monstrous superhero: Not bound by rules of selflessness and fairness, the immoral hero can act for his own profit. Moreover, the scene embodies typical teenage fantasies of being a hero, getting the girl, not being seen as a freak, and (especially) being powerful; however, in Clarks case, such daydreams are dangerous since he really is as powerful as he imagines and could easily harm others while indulging his desires. Clark begins learning the extent of his abilities and growing increasingly fearful of being revealed as a monster after Lex Luthor accidentally hits him with his speeding Porsche in the first episode. The aftermath of the impact is shown in a slow-motion long shot (and two subsequent slow-motion shots from different angles that repeat part of the fateful action before unveiling more of it) as Clark is thrown sideways off of a bridge and Lexs car flies straight into the below water. After Clark rips Lex out of his submerged car and rescues him, Lex mouths, I could have sworn I hit you. In a close-up shot with the now-broken bridge in the background, Clark responds in a stunned manner, If you did, Id be . . . Id be dead. He is then shown in a close-up turning to look at the offscreen bridge, followed by a long shot of the bridge (with Clark

96

out of focus in the lower-right foreground) as the camera slowly zooms toward it. The surprise on Clarks face and the emphasis on the accident site underline that Clark did not know the scope of his own strength and did not believe he could survive such a collision. In addition to realizing his own extreme physical freakishness, Clark confronts the possibility that his secret superpowers could be uncovered by Lex. Like most teenagers, he is afraid of being a social outcast and feels vulnerable about his body. Clarks alarm that revelation will lead others to be horrified by his body is compounded by the prospect that he may be seen as a threat to humanity, someone whose powers put the world at risk (in future seasons, he is seen as such a threat many times). Appropriately, the final shot of the pivotal accident scene highlights Lexs growing interest in Clark. It begins with a close-up of Lex looking toward the camera as Clark walks away offscreen. Then, the camera racks focus to the heavily damaged Porsche being lifted out of the water in the background, as Lex turns to look at it. At the conclusion of the shot, the camera switches its focus back to Lex in the foreground, as he turns to look offscreen at Clark again, this time more suspiciously. The implicationwhich is expressed concretely later in the first seasonis that Lex does not believe he could have survived an accident in which the front of his car was ripped off unless something unexplainable happened. This skepticism reinforces Clarks dread at being revealed as superhuman. Rather than depicting Clarks pubescent discovery of his powers as something entirely positive, Smallville falls in line with the custom in post-1960 comic books and post-2000 films of presenting superhuman abilities as both a curse and a blessing. Clark voices his alienation later in the episode when he asks his dad, How about this, is this normal? and proceeds to stick his hand in a wood chipper, remove it unscathed, and say, I didnt dive in after Lexs car, it hit me at sixty miles an hour. Does that sound normal to you? Id give anything to be normal. Thus,

97

superhuman strength is something horrifying to him, as it stops him from having the kind of experiences a typical teenager (or human) would have; he is constantly wary that his body will unintentionally hurt others, give him an unfair advantage, or reveal how threateningly powerful he is. Taking his teenage alienation to literal levels, Clark soon learns that he is from another planet; after revealing the truth about his origin to him, his father tells him he waited so long to tell him in order to protect him. The implication is that until this point his alien origin might have been too difficult for him to conceal and too horrifying. However, now that he is growing up and becoming even more superhuman, he has to know so that he understands that he may be going through a very strange, inhuman puberty. As his powers increase, so do the possibilities of being viewed as a monster and/or actually becoming one. In the early seasons, the show devotes much attention to the danger of Clarks super body escaping his control and openly marking him as a freak. Though most obvious in episodes where Clark discovers new powers (which will be covered shortly), Clarks out-of-control body can also be seen in his encounters with green kryptonite, rocky remnants of his destroyed home planet that are poisonous to him. In the first episode, we are introduced to kryptonite when we meet his love interest, Lana Lang. Following a medium close-up of Clark looking offscreen intently, we see a slow motion shot of a pretty girl (Lana) as non-diegetic romantic music plays. We are subsequently presented a long shot of Clark approaching Lana, while numerous students stand in the foreground and background. Suddenly, Clark (accompanied briefly by comical nondiegetic music) trips and falls down, dropping all his books and inciting the mockery of his schoolmates. One of his best friends even says that he becomes a total freak show whenever he approaches Lana. A close-up of Lanas green necklace indicates it is the cause of Clarks clumsiness; for non-Superman fans who do not immediately recognize the necklaces green rock

98

as kryptonite, it is revealed later in the episode to be a piece of one of the meteors that accompanied Clarks arrival on Earth, suggesting its link to his home planet.254 Attesting to kryptonites ability to harm (or even kill) Clark, he spends the rest of the scene hunched up in a medium close-up, in serious pain and struggling to pick up his books. Adding more shame for Clark, Lanas boyfriend laughingly points out that Clark looks like he is going to hurl. In a similar incident later in the episode, Lanas boyfriend (now wearing her necklace) challenges Clark to a fight, but Clarks body is rendered totally helpless by kryptonite. He collapses to the ground in a high angle close-up, grimacing in pain. Unable to resist, he is tied up in a field as the scarecrow, part of a yearly prank that victimizes an unfortunate freshman student. Green kryptonite has a role throughout the show to make Clark impotent, thwarting his heroism and serving to make him look weak and cowardly. It often exemplifies original sin monstrosity since something from Clarks origin jeopardizes the lives of humans by stopping him from saving people in peril. A few of the numerous examples of kryptonite hurting Clark and indirectly endangering others include the end of the first episode, when Clark needs Lex Luthors help to release the kryptonite necklace around his neck and barely arrives in time to save his fellow high school students from a murderous villain; the first season episode Jitters, when he cannot fight a kryptonite-infected villain who has taken hostages and then has to endure Lana telling him its okay to be scared;255 the fifth season episode Fade, when kryptonite nearly kills Clark and renders him unable to stop an assassin;256 and the ninth season episode Metallo, when a villain with a kryptonite heart nearly murders Clark while he tries to rescue
254

The name kryptonite is not used on the show in the first season, since the planet Krypton is not yet known by name and pieces of kryptonite are not yet identified as being parts of an exploded planet; kryptonite fragments are simply called meteor rocks. 255 Jitters, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Cherie Bennett and Jeff Gottesfeld, The WB, 11 December 2001, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003. 256 Fade, Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season, writ. Turi Meyer and Al Septien, The WB, 27 April 2006, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006.

99

Lois Lane.257 In addition to making Clark look weak and imperiling his life and mission, kryptonite is dangerous in that it can expose that he is an alien (regular humans do not get visibly sick because of green rocks) and/or reveal how to defeat him; villains who learn of kryptonites power over Clark often try to use it to torture Clark, convince him to do morally reprehensible things, or kill him.258 Though clearly examples of his super body failing him (and of original sin monstrosity since he becomes unable to save people), Clarks misadventures with green kryptonite do not qualify as cases of physical monstrosity.259 Clarks powers do not become unintentionally destructive to others (in fact, they are nullified) and, though his body acts abnormally, he is typically not revealed as a horrifying superpowered being. Instead, his reactions to kryptonite often create the illusion of a young man going through regular puberty; his behavior is interpreted by others as social ineptness, excessive anxiety, or wimpiness (typical human freakishness, not shocking superhuman freakishness). So, if he falls short of outing his super body and being labeled a monster when he encounters kryptonite, he ironically marks himself as painfully average (i.e., not super at all). Thus, even when the superhero succeeds in hiding and controlling his powers, the possession of a super body can still have negative effects, fitting in with the shifts of the genre post-2000 in film and TV that regularly make powers as much a curse as a blessing.

257

Metallo, Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season, writ. Don Whitehead and Holly Henderson, The CW, 2 October 2009, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2010. 258 See Extinction, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The WB, 15 October 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 259 A potential exception would be if green kryptonite revealed that Clark was not a regular human and the revelation horrified someone (the person would see him as a physical monster). The only other possible case in which green kryptonite could cause physical monstrosity would be if it caused Clark to lose his powers in the middle of a superpowered action (e.g., a super leap) and his super body then unintentionally caused destruction.

100

Outing the Monster: The (Usually) Horrible Consequences of Revelation Clarks anxiety regarding puberty with superpowers is largely centered on the potentially terrible results of revelation: His powers may be viewed as horrifying due to their abnormality (physical monstrosity) and/or threatening to humanity (original sin monstrosity) because of the possible selfish uses (moral monstrosity). As Scott Bukatman notes about mutant superheroes (who, as will be seen in the discussion of the X-Men films, share many characteristics with Smallvilles Clark Kent), Mutant powers are stigmata that must be kept hidden from the unreasoning mob of mere mortals.260 Because mortals threaten to judge superhuman abilities as a danger to humanity, Clark Kent must closet his powers. My use of terms like closeting and outing in relationship to superpowers speaks to the parallels between having superpowers and being gay,261 which, as will be explored, are made fairly explicit in many recent superhero films and TV shows. One can take this comparison further and argue that possessing superpowers is analogous to any kind of identifiable difference from the dominant norm (e.g., in terms of sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, or gender) that makes one the target of prejudice. Accordingly, fear of revelation for superheroes is usually based on the fear of irrational hatred and persecution, as they may be viewed as monsters just for having powers. In cases when superpowers are actually outed on Smallville, we can locate four levels of severity. The lowest level is revealing powers to heroic persons with superhuman abilities, which happens throughout later seasons as Clark unveils his abilities to characters like

260 261

Bukatman, X-Bodies 66. As Anne Kustritz explains in her article Smallvilles Sexual Symbolism: From Queer Repression to Fans Queered Expressions, Superman presents a prototypical case for why superheroes lives share important parallels with gay culture. His personality rigidly bifurcated between an ordinary public face and a secret identity kept hidden at any cost, Supermans penchant for changing clothes in small enclosed spaces (phone booths, closets) as he changes personas may metaphorically resemble the closeting of gay identity (qtd. in Jes Battis, The Kryptonite closet: Silence and queer secrecy in Smallville, Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media 48 (winter 2006), Web, 25 March 2008, part 2. <http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc48.2006/gaySmallville/gaySmallville2.html>).

101

Aquaman,262 Green Arrow263 (no actual superpowers but in the Batman mold of a highly developed, technologically superior hero), and Black Canary.264 In each case, these characters also do not want their freakish bodies or non-normative tendencies exposed and are primarily concerned with helping other people. Since they share most of the same anxieties and goals as Clark, there is little danger of them revealing his secret or persecuting him. The second level is to reveal powers to a villain in the heat of battle. There are numerous episodes throughout the series in which Clark reveals his powers while fighting a superpowered villain, such as in the early episodes Metamorphosis,265 Hothead,266 and Hourglass,267 all of which include Clark openly using his powers to stop the threat posed by his antagonist. The lack of severity accorded to such revelations is largely due to the fact that these villains often end up in prisons or asylums,268 making any of their potential claims about Clarks superpowers unreliable. Even more effectively, many of these villains die while battling Clark Kent269 or somehow totally forget their confrontations with him, making any public exposure of his secret impossible. As a result, there is not much screen time devoted to Clark fearing these villains will expose him.

262

Aqua, Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season, writ. Todd Slavkin, Darren Swimmer, The WB, 20 October 2005, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. 263 Arrow, Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season, writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson, The CW, 19 October 2006, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. 264 Siren, Smallville: The Complete Seventh Season, writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson, The CW, 7 February 2008, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2008. 265 Metamorphosis, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, The WB, 23 October 2001, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003. 266 Hothead, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Greg Walker, The WB, 30 October 2001, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003. 267 Hourglass, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Doris Egan, The WB, 20 November 2001, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003. 268 Belle Reve is the name of the asylum in which many of the villains subsequently reside to get help. See Asylum, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The WB, 14 January 2004, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 269 The show usually glosses over the legal and ethical consequences of villains dying after engaging in superpowered showdowns with Clark. Even if these deaths are typically accidents, Clark is involved.

102

The third level of revelation is being revealed to friends, who may potentially begin to see Clark as a monster, reveal his secret to the world (which may see him as monstrous), or try to take advantage of his powers for personal gain. In the second season episode Duplicity, Clarks best friend Pete is the first significant recurring character outside of his parents to learn his secret.270 The scenes leading up to Clark outing himself underscore the anxiety of being superhuman. The starting point is when Pete finds a spaceship (which, unbeknownst to Pete, brought Clark to Earth) and takes Clark to see it. In a long shot, we see Pete approach the spaceship and clap excitedly, while Clark looks stunned and stops with his arms held out. Their divergent reactions are then cemented in successive medium close-up shots of the characters: Clark looks worriedly at the spaceship and at Pete and Pete smiles widely and innocently. As he unveils in a subsequent scene, Pete sees it as an opportunity to be famous and make money; in other words, Clarks heritage is set to be exploited as alien and freakish, just as Clark has always feared. Clarks revelation of his alienness to Pete is ultimately more a result of teenage social shame than Pete actually uncovering the truth. When Clark and his father try to steal the spaceship back from Pete (only to find it has already been stolen), Pete blames Clark and threatens to have their friend Chloe write an article for the school newspaper titled The Real Clark Kent Exposed. This Real Clark would be presented as a regular teenager who duplicitously stole a spaceship from his best friend, completely missing the shocking truth that he is the alien who arrived in that spaceship; therefore, Clarks secret would be safe, but he would be shamed socially. As Pete drives away, a close-up of his rearview mirror reveals Clark (exasperated, with his hands in the air) shrinking into the distance amid the dust kicked up by the

270

Duplicity, Smallville: The Complete Second Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The WB, 8 October 2002, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004.

103

cars tires. The connotation is that Pete is leaving Clark behind and is going to ostracize him from the larger community after revealing the truth about him. After a few more shots ratchet up the drama (aided by an appropriately dramatic score), we are presented with a close-up of the front of Petes car as Clark grabs it, followed by a close-up of the back wheel turning but unable to move on the gravelly road. Finally, a long shot of the car and Clark in profile view clarifies that Clark is leaning against the front of the car, his super strength causing the car to bob up and down, incapable of inching forward. With Clark calmly saying Pete, we need to talk, the scene ends with a medium close-up of Pete totally stunned, looking behind the car at where Clark was just moments earlier and then forward again to stare at Clark, whose superpowered body is now revealed. The scene is significant for how it shows the inescapable freakishness of the superpowered body. If Clark does not reveal himself, he seemingly will lose his best friend and forfeit any kind of social standing in high school. If he does reveal his super body to Pete, he risks being treated like a monster and becoming an object of fear for the entire world. Thus, either scenario threatens to mark Clark as deviant. It is telling that Clark chooses the second path, which holds out the opportunity of acceptance while also posing a far larger risk to his life. Since he is a teenager, it is appropriate that feeling like a freak in high school is scarier to him. Clarks fear of being seen as a monster is explored in the next scene, as he and Pete discuss what his revelation means. Starting with an extreme long shot of the lushly green Kent farm, we immediately cut to a long shot of Clark and Pete in the farms dark storm cellar, both heavily in shadow. The contrast between the shots highlights that we have moved underneath Clark Kents faade of normalcy and are now in a spaceaway from prying eyes, literally

104

undergroundin which he can openly discuss his alienness.271 It is also a frightening space, the kind of place a monster may lurk in a childrens story; the spooky cellar underscores how scared both Clark and Pete are, as Clark risks being viewed as a real-life monster and Pete may be harmed by one. The potential that Clark will be treated as inhuman is stressed in Petes first lines, as they both stand in the middle of the basement: So, youre some sort of . . . what, youre not a human. In the next shota medium close-up of ClarkPete is shown inching offscreen, showing that Clark is alone now and on trial. He responds, I dont know what I am. I dont know where that ship brought me from. I just know that I grew up in Smallville and everything that I care about and everyone that I care about is here. Clarks truthful confusion about his origin draws attention to the fact that he cannot have some nefarious alien agenda if he has no direct knowledge of his home planet. Likewise, his emphasis on growing up in Smallville underlines his attempts to seem normal/human; even if he was born on an alien world, his upbringing has been very similar to Petes. The camera positions the viewer to see Clark from Petes perspective. We are given a close-up of the back of Petes head, as the camera subtly pans left to follow him as he starts to circle Clark, seemingly examining him for any physical markers of alienness or monstrosity. A close-up of Clarks face emphasizes his discomfort while he openly expresses his fear of being seen as a monster: Pete, another reason why I didnt say anything is because I knew people would look at me the exact same way that youre looking at me right now. . . . Like a freak! If he were revealed as an alien publically, Clark would forgo any sort of social normalcy. In addition, he may be seen as a threat, a superpowered being whose ever-expanding abilities give him the capability to take over the planet. So, being seen as normaleven averagebecomes
271

Pointedly, this cellar is the same space in which the spaceship was hidden by the Kents for years before it was activated and moved. See Tempest, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, The WB, 21 May 2002, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003.

105

the most desirable thing for an alien trying not to stand out as a monster: Ive tried my whole life just to blend in, to try to be more normal than anyone else. Thus, for Clark, normalcy is an anxiety-filled act that involves him hiding much of his true nature. The scene concludes with Clarks anxieties about being seen as a monster boiling over and Pete finally treating him like one. Having come out, Clark tries to get his best friend to accept him, which would give him hope that he could one day out himself more widely. He pushes Pete to respond: Just say something. Call me an alien, call me a monster! When Clark reaches out for Pete in a medium long shot, Pete recoils in horror, shouting, Back off man! Clark reassures him, Pete, I would never hurt you. Petes reaction seems to confirm that Clark is now seen as the embodiment of at least two kinds of monstrosity: physical in that his abnormal body is horrifying (Pete has seen his super strength) and original sin in that he is seen as a threat for being a superpowered being living among humans. That Clarks process of outing himself as an alien bears a strong resemblance to a key scene in X2, the second X-Men film, illuminates the way in which superpowers have become a source of horror as much as elation. Drawing on its rich history in comic books (the first issue of X-Men appeared in 1963), the X-Men film series prominently features teenagers who, due to their mutated genetics, are going through puberty with strange superpowers. In both Smallville and the second X-Men film, superpowers are closely guarded secrets and, when they are revealed to loved ones willingly, the sequences bear a likeness to outing oneself as a homosexual. In X2, Bobby Drake returns to his idyllic home (a suburban, upper-middle-class house that is, in many ways, just as stereotypically American as the Kent farm on Smallville) and unveils to his family his ability to freeze objects.272 As he reveals his powers, we see a couple of medium close-ups of his little brother sitting sideways and glaring at his brother in a horrified way; his disgust at
272

X2, Dir. Bryan Singer, 2003, DVD, 20th Century Fox, 2005.

106

Bobbys body and his subsequent fear-driven call to the police for help suggest that he sees Bobby as a physical and original sin monster. As a teenager with a super body, Bobby is undergoing a form of super puberty that, like Clarks, is potentially a cause of fear. However, unlike on Smallville, mutants (people with superpowers) are already widely feared in the X-Men film universe and their (closeted) existence is the subject of public hysteria; as a result, revelation is even more risky, as evidenced by the much darker outcome for Bobby.273 With Bobby now out of the mutant closet, his horror-struck momsitting in a medium close-up, with her similarly aghast husband in the backgroundasks if he has tried not being a mutant. The idea that there is a choice in the matter recalls discourses around homosexuality as a lifestyle choice one can un-choose rather than a sexual orientation with which one is born. In the X-Men world the moms request is especially ridiculous because being a mutant is by definition a result of genetic determinants; therefore, the mom wants Bobby to deny his genetic makeup (who he biologically is) in order to pretend he is normal. The monstrosity of mutants is accentuated at the conclusion of the scene as the police attack Bobby and his fellow mutants (who are threats just for being superpowered mutants, indicating original sin monstrosity), damaging the pristine, normal house of the Drakes. The scene concludes with a close-up of Bobby looking sadly at his house and family before running into the fiery battle zone in the background, followed by a medium long shot of his mother, father, and brother hugging and looking down on him from the second floor of the house. The latter shot finishes with a zoom out from the family, formally stressing how Bobbys monstrosity distances him from the normalcy of his familys home.

273

By season 10 of Smallville, superpowered vigilantes are a matter of public knowledge and drum up hysteria in a similar but less extreme way.

107

It is precisely this kind of terrified reactionresulting in public panic and violencethat Clark tries to avoid on Smallville.274 At school following his revelation, Clark tells Pete, I know youre freaked out. Dont you think I freak myself out sometimes? In effect, Clark is distancing himself from his freak-ish body and associating himself with the normal, human reaction to superpowers; by admitting discomfort, Clark attempts to make himself seem less like a potential monster. The shame of his superpowers in underlined in this scene when Clark pauses and Pete looks embarrassed after a female high school student overhears their conversation and looks at Clark strangely. The notion that Clarks body is a secret not to be revealed in public and a potential source of social stigma again recalls portrayals of closeted homosexuality and homophobia. In contrast to Bobbys ill-fated coming out, Clark wins Petes acceptance and forgiveness for years of secret-keeping before the episodes completion. Despite the strengthened friendship seen at the end of the episode (in the final shots, Clark and Pete play basketball joyously in the bright sunshine of the farm as happy pop music plays), Clarks revelation of his potentially monstrous body has largely negative effects for both Pete and Clark. In the same episode, Petes knowledge of Clarks secret causes him to be kidnapped by Dr. Hamilton, a scientist looking for the alien who arrived in the spaceship (i.e. Clark). Subsequently, Pete is abused and nearly poisoned to death. Death hovers over him Hamiltons deadly needle approaches steadily from the foreground in one close-up of Petes faceuntil Clark literally breaks through the front door and tosses the malevolent scientist aside with his superhuman strength. In the process, Clark outs himself as superpowered alien to

274

Unlike Bobby in X2, Clark does not generally have to worry about his parents being horrified by him, since he has a loving mother and father who know about his alien origin and generally celebrate his superpowers as a gift to the world.

108

someone who clearly would not have any qualms about publically revealing him as a monster.275 Moreover, Clark runs into some kryptonite in Hamiltons lab and is forced to tell Pete, Im allergic to the meteor rocks, while Hamilton is within earshot; Hamilton then nearly kills Clark by using kryptonite to interrogate him. Thus, Petes knowledge of Clarks secret nearly results in Clarks death. He is only saved when Hamilton is unintentionally poisoned to death after being hit by Pete.276 In future episodes, Petes awareness of Clarks powers continues to pose a threat to Clark (in addition to aiding him in several cases), as Pete uses green kryptonite to injure Clark, infects him with red kryptonite to cause him to act wickedly,277 and manipulates Clark into using his abilities in illegal car racing.278 Aside from nearly causing Clark to die from kryptonite exposure, the car racing leads Clark to utilize his powers in several immoral ways: stealing a car, cheating to win a race, and (in a horrible accident) causing the death of the episodes villain. Therefore, Petes knowledge of his secret leads Clark to engage in the kind of morally monstrous behavior that he is trying so hard to avoid, lest he actually become a monster. His knowledge of Clarks abilities eventually causes Pete to leave Smallville, after he is kidnapped and beaten by a corrupt FBI agent who wants to know the truth about Clark.279 Pete realizes that he cannot handle the pressure of protecting Clarks secret, especially since it puts his own life in danger. So, revelation of the super body, even to loved ones, has many negative consequences that sometimes outweigh the positives of emotional support, acceptance, and
275

Earlier in the episode, Dr. Hamilton tries desperately to get funding for his research on aliens and reveals that he is dying from meteor rock exposure, making him frantic to gain validation (e.g., by exposing an alien). 276 Pete and Clarks accidental act of manslaughter is diminished by the fact that the scientist is already terminally ill. 277 Both usages of kryptonite happen in Rush, Smallville: The Complete Second Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The WB, 4 February 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 278 Velocity, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The WB, 11 February 2004, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 279 Forsaken, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson, The WB, 12 May 2004, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004.

109

occasional rescue. Though Clark does tell other trusted acquaintances his secret in future seasons, the results are similar in that their knowledge of Clarks powers frequently puts them in peril, causes them try to exploit Clark for selfish ends, and/or endangers Clark. As a result, the anxiety about revelation continues throughout the shows run, as Clark constantly wonders if he should tell people close to him about his abilities. The fourth and most dangerous level of revelation is when Clarks secret is unveiled to villains or unsavory characters who then try to use the information for their own ends, not caring about Clarks welfare. This differs from the second level of revelation in that the villain actively uses knowledge of Clarks powers to hurt him and is given significant screen time to do so, unlike the villain who is killed or captured and never seen again; the fourth level provokes much more anxiety for the protagonist and the viewer. Though Dr. Hamilton is a villain who tries to take advantage of Clarks secret,280 the best example is undoubtedly the character Detective Sam Phelan in the first season episode Rogue.281 Phelan is first depicted in the shadows of the city, using violence to convince a man to steal his file from Internal Affairs; the fact that the police are investigating him suggests he is corrupt and dangerous. After Clark puts his body in front of an oncoming bussaving a homeless bystander and damaging the busPhelan is shown inching furtively from behind the wreckage of the bus; he stares at where Clark was standing, demonstrating that he witnessed Clarks superpowers. Phelans response is to test Clark in the barn of the Kent farm: Low-angle shots of a generator descending from the rafters are speedily alternated with high angle shots of Clarks surprised face to accentuate the weight of the piece of
280

Hamilton may initially seem to fit the second level of revelation, since he dies quickly after learning Clarks secret. However, he fits the fourth level better because he vigorously schemes to uncover Clarks secret throughout the episode and strives to use it for his own benefit when he does find out, even using kryptonite on Clark. He causes more anxiety for Clark and the viewer than villains who simply die or get captured in the process of witnessing Clarks powers for the first time. 281 Rogue, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Mark Verheiden, The WB, 15 January 2002, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003.

110

machinery and the intensity with which it is dropped on Clark. Phelans test is particularly heinous because, if he is wrong and Clark does not have powers, the generator will probably kill Clark. Of course, Clark survives and throws off the generator, confirming to Phelan that Clark has super strength. Targeting Clark and his family, Phelan threatens revelation of his secret and suggests how Clark would be treated: Best case, Clark is under a microscope. Worst case, hes a freak in a jar. Either way, his normal life is over. Revealing Clarks secret may result in him being seen a monster, destroying the illusion that he is normal forever. As a freak in a jar, Clark would be viewed as a threat that must be contained and studied. Phelans threats to divulge his secret lead to Clark flirting with the monstrous side of being a superpowered being. Phelan convinces him to rob from the apartment of an Internal Affairs official investigating Phelan and to steal a breastplate once belonging to Alexander the Great. The first incident features Clark breaking a lock with his super strength, employing his Xray vision to locate the file Phelan wants, and finally using his strength to open the safe. When he is shown in a close-up smiling, it seems he is enjoying his exploration of the dark side, but then we see that he has set Phelan up: He drops the safe on his car and calls the police. But even his attempt to have the corrupt Phelan exposed is a violation of the superheros mission: He acts out of a desire for revenge as much as justice and, though Phelan is guilty of many crimes, Clark plants the evidence that makes it look like Phelan has committed the break-in and robbery (when, technically, it is Clark who has carried out these criminal acts). His actions make him more like Phelan, underscored by the fact that the very next scene shows that Phelan has acted similarly, maliciously placing evidence that frames Clarks dad for murder. The most serious flirtation with monstrosity occurs after Clarks dad is arrested, and Clarkwith the camera panning quickly to stress his rageslams Phelan against a wood beam and furiously demands that his

111

dad be released. As Phelan correctly surmises and Clark later admits, he is thinking of killing Phelan, an act which would clearly make him morally monstrous; as his father reminds him, theres no going back after committing a murder, because it would taint him as a monster permanently. Clarks second robbery for Phelanof the breastplateleads to further immorality by the superhero and even more risks of revelation. Largely following the pattern of the previous theft, Clark unethically uses his superpowers to steal but then sets Phelan up, tossing the stolen item (with Phelans fingerprints on it) to the security guards. His betrayal is, once again, immoral, since it is driven by revenge and it is Clark that has made Phelans thievery possible. As Clark dodges bulletsin slow motion, to emphasize the inhuman speed at which he moves Phelan asks, What are you? again returning to the idea that Clark is a physical monster. Significantly, with the threat of prison hanging over him, Phelan ends his life by opening fire on the security guards, forcing them to kill him. So, again, Clark indirectly causes someones death, but it is justified within the story because Clark does not necessarily want Phelan to die. However, for the shows larger narrative, it is crucial that Phelan does die, so that Clarks anxiety about being outed as a monster can subside from the fever pitch in the episode. Still, his parents note that there are other Phelans out there and the episode ends with Lex Luthorhis future enemy but during the early seasons, his good friendlooking at black-and-white security footage of a blur (in actuality Clark) running away from the scene of Phelans final crime. Thus, there is a new threat of revelation, reminding the viewer of the constant anxiety of Clarks super body being revealed and the danger exposure poses, including the moral compromises it could compel.

112

Revelation to scheming villains is perilous throughout the series, since it risks exposure of Clarks secret on a widespread basis, endangers his life by causing him to be seen as a monstrous freak and threat, and/or results in attempts to turn him into an immoral monster. The first season ends and the second season begins with a reporter named Roger Nixon discovering Clark is an indestructible alien and preparing to reveal it to the world.282 In the third season, an assassin who kills freaks (showing the danger of being outed as one) nearly kills Clark with kryptonite bullets after discovering his weakness and then tries to expose his secret.283 Finally, the fourth season episode Onyx features Lex Luthors evil doppelganger (at this point, the real Lex is morally shifty but not evil), who discovers Clarks secret and his susceptibility to kryptonite.284 Evil Lex tries to coerce Clark into ruling the world with him by threatening to kill Clark and his family; in other words, he tries to make Clark into a monster. Other superpowered characters on Smallville similarly fear revelation because they may be treated as monsters and intimidated to act immorally. For example, in the episode Freak, Lex Luthor discovers one freak who has the power to see other meteor-infected freaks (meteor infections give individuals superpowers on the show); Lex forces him to use his ability to find other freaks so that Lex can catch, experiment on, and even murder them.285 In the most disturbing scene of the episode, Clarks friend Chloe, a meteor freak, is shown in a high-angle long shot as she is strapped to a table in a darkened room, a group of doctors surrounding her; in a close-up, Chloe is depicted with tubes in her mouth and all kinds of metal restraints around her head, indicating the inhuman treatment she is receiving as a monstrous individual. The
282

Tempest and Vortex, Smallville: The Complete Second Season, writ. Philip Levens, The WB, 24 September 2002, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 283 Extinction. 284 Onyx, Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season, writ. Steven S. DeKnight, The WB, 13 April 2005, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005. 285 Freak, Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The CW, 15 February 2007, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2007.

113

presentation of a world where people with super abilities are usually seen as threatening for having excessive power (and are often forced into villainy out of self-preservation) provides another echo of the X-Men films, where mutants are seen as dangerous for even existing and have to fight against their human oppressors. In Clarks case, he grows less secretive in regards to his potentially monstrous body in the shows eight season, as he becomes a more proactive and public hero. However, he continues hiding his true identity by super speeding away (never clearly being seen) and by allowing himself to be given the moniker the Red-Blue Blur (later, just the Blur). For superheroes, the second super identity (e.g., the Red-Blue Blur, Superman) allows the first identity (e.g., Clark Kent) to avoid using superpowers publically and thus live a normal life without constantly being scrutinized as a prospective monster. Likewise, the brief, very heroic appearances of the super identity minimize public concerns about (and the superheros tendencies for) monstrosity, since the hero is not there to be questioned and does not take a constant societal role (which could lead to dictatorship). Therefore, with the genre shifting to make the dangers of the superheros power more central, the secret or dual identity becomes essential to freeing superhero characters from those who see them as monsters, those who may force them into evil roles, and their own dark inclinations.286 Accordingly, contemporary super stories are often filled with anxiety about the public revelation of a superheros non-super identity and the potentially monstrous results.287

286

In earlier superhero stories, the dual identity is presented mainly as a kind of exciting masquerade, something that is complicated with the increased role of monstrosity. As Bukatman remarks, superheroes play a continuous game of deception and duplicity (X-Bodies 211). The dual identities play on the fantasy of an average person (e.g., the reader) suddenly becoming super. Moreover, the secretness of the superhero identity privileges the reader/viewer, who knows the truth, while most of the characters are fooled. 287 In the Iron Man films, we can see how revealing his secret identity drives Tony Stark (Iron Mans alter ego) to inappropriate, dangerous uses of his superpowers (moral monstrosity) and causes him to be recognized and persecuted as a threat to the nation because of his exorbitant power (original sin monstrosity) (Iron Man, dir. Jon Favreau, 2008, DVD, Paramount, 2008, and Iron Man 2, dir. Jon Favreau, 20010, DVD, Paramount, 2010).

114

To illustrate how revelation of secret superpowers288 is equated with being exposed as a monster in many post-2000 superhero films and TV shows (not only Smallville), we can again look at the series of X-Men films. Though Smallville proves how overwhelming the genres changes are (even the oldest, stodgiest hero cannot resist) and exhibits the most cases of monstrosity (having aired more than 200 episodes), it is the X-Men films that commence the era of monstrous superheroes in mainstream media.289 One of the opening scenes of 2000s X-Men illustrates the need for superpowered beings to remain hidden, since they are viewed as threats to humanity just for existing (original sin monstrosity); there are active efforts to control or even eradicate them in the narrative. In the scene, there is a Congressional discussion about mutant registration, which would force mutants (people who have superpowers due to be being born with mutated/evolved genes) to expose their super bodies publically. Jean Grey (a closeted mutant) argues for mutant rights while framed in medium close-ups standing alone in front of an image of the U.S. Capitol Building; in contrast, the politician for mutant registration, Senator Kelly, is shown in extreme long shots, long shots, and close-ups from various angles, always with numerous other senators and attendees visible in the background. The implication is that the mutants have been marginalized, even if they are right (as would be suggested by framing Jean in front of a symbol of America), since the mob is hysterically frightened of them. Underscoring the mob mentality even more is a long shot of a heterogeneous group of people black, white, Asian, female, male, young, old, etc.nodding as Senator Kelly fear-mongers, openly pondering the dangers of mutants who can walk through walls, an ability which enables

288

Even in cases where a character like Superman is a public figure, his superpowers remain, in some ways, a secret: He still fears the public revelation that Clark Kent (his other identity) has superpowers and is in fact Superman. 289 Though it does usher in overwhelmingly monstrous superheroes into the mainstream, X-Men is clearly not the only influence on this eras superhero films. The X -Men and other Marvel Comics characters have been around since the 1960s, making the monstrous central to superhero comics for 40 years before the first X-Men film is released. Thus, there are plenty of monstrous superhero texts from which to borrow.

115

them potentially to steal from banks, attack the White House, or invade any average citizens house, with regular humans powerless to stop them. Writing about mutant superheroes, Bukatman argues that mutants represent monstrous birth[s,] blurring notions of order and hierarchy though an investment with dangerous, disapproved, and uncontrollable powers; marginal beings pose a question and threat to the social body, which must somehow reincorporate this ambiguous species or brand it (with an X?) as taboo.290 They resemble humans (most of the time) but have the potential to displace or destroy them with their powers, creating the hysterical desire for some kind of controlnamely through revelation and containment291; therefore, they are treated as original sin monsters (threats to humanity because of their superpowers) largely because of their potential for moral monstrosity. The perceived monstrosity of those with superpowers is central to superhero narratives of this era, be it the X-Men or Spider-Man films or Smallville; the films/TV programs utilize visuals and dialogue to depict fearful reactions to superhumans and showcase via special effects the amazingbut scarypower of superhero bodies. The broad similarity of superhuman characters being feared as monsters does not mean that the intensity of the panic is the same. The X-Men films present a world with a large and perpetually increasing number of superpowered beings, since their abilities are the result of genetic transformations (due either to evolution or environmentally caused mutations). Their widespread nature insinuates that they could imminently threaten regular humans using their

290 291

Bukatman, X-Bodies 69, 70. The leader of the evil mutants, Magneto, does believe that mutants should rule since they are superior; as Bukatman puts it, Magneto . . . believes that mutants, Homo Superior, must subjugate Home Sapiens once and for all (X-Bodies 73). He exemplifies original sin monstrosity in that he is not only seen as a threat due to being a mutant, he actually is a direct threat. His beliefs put him in conflict with the X-Men, who are more reconciliatory and favor being integrated or left alone.

116

superior abilities.292 The level of threat is much smaller in, for instance, the Spider-Man or Superman films, where there are only a handful of superpowered beings. Likewise, Smallville mainly focuses on Clark Kent, who is an alien, not some harbinger of large-scale changes within the human species. Though Smallville echoes X-Men in that there are numerous mutants (albeit as peripheral characters), the difference is that they are not created by global, unexplained genetic mutations. Instead, the mutants are generally located around the town of Smallville and are produced by the meteor rocks that accompanied Clark from Krypton to Earth. Thus, the mutants are indirectly created by Clark (maintaining his centrality) and are limited enough that they are not seen as a threat to the planet. Their danger is even further reduced by the fact that Clark, out of guilt, eliminates any mutants who use their powers immorally. Smallville also echoes X-Men in later seasons as the growing number of superpowered vigilantes (having acquired their abilities in various ways, none of them representing evolutionary changes) results in the call for a registration act forcing revelation of their identities.293 However, there is again a key difference in that many people do not fear the superpowered beings, choosing instead to celebrate their heroism and protest against the act. The mutants in X-Men appear to receive almost none of that support, making forced revelation terrifying; their perceived monstrosity is so pervasive that that must remain hidden and avoid a public persona even when they save the world. Whereas Clark successfully creates dual identities and takes on a public superhero persona on Smallville, the persecuted mutants of the X-Men films rarely engage in public revelation or dual identities; mutants typically either try to pass as normal or segregate themselves completely from humans.
292

As discussed earlier, mutants (even more so than other superheroes) are analogous to various large groups that are persecuted due to their perceived threat to the social order: immigrants, African-Americans, homosexuals, people with AIDS, etc. 293 Ambush, Smallville: The Complete Tenth Season, writ. Don Whitehead and Holly Henderson, The CW, 5 November 2010, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2011.

117

The panic over the mutant superheros powers is underlined by Senator Kelly in X-Men when he mentions a mutant who can apparently enter human minds and thereby take away our God-given free will. The insinuation is that mutants usurp God with their powers, upsetting the natural and sacred order of things. Claiming to have a list of identified mutants, Senator Kelly concludes with the remark, We must know who they are and above all we must know what they can do. First of all, his statement emphasizes that the mutants embody original sin monstrosity (they are threats because they exist) because of their potential for moral monstrosity (they may act selfishly) and physical monstrosity (their bodies are freakish and may go out of control). Moreover, Kellys language echoes McCarthyismMcCarthy claimed to have a list of communistsin that the mutants are presented as infiltrators of the nation-state, threatening its very foundation if they are not exposed. The discrimination against mutants parallels real-life instances of government-sanctioned prejudice, bringing to mind the treatment of communists during the McCarthy era, Japanese people in the U.S. during World War II, and Jews during the Holocaust.294 The mutants in the film even have their own secret school (though it is far from a ghettoized schoolit is beautiful, technologically advanced, and superior) away from the threats of the humans, who themselves feel endangered.295 As if to hammer our allegiance to the mutants even more, the congressional scene ends with a close-up of Senator Kelly in front of the image the Capitol building but, unlike Jean Grey, he obscures it, suggesting his distance from true American values.

294

The parallel to the Holocaust is made explicit by the fact that Magneto, the chief villain of the film, is a Holocaust survivor who overtly compares the targeting of mutants to the horrors committed against Jews. His trauma and the comparison to the Holocaust help make his character a sympathetic villain. 295 Bukatman describes mutants as first and foremost, subjected and subjugated and colonized figures. If they are victims, however, they are also valuable sources of disruption and challenge transgressive, uncontrollable, and alternative bodies (X-Bodies 73). Their bodies put in doubt what qualifies as human and normal. Moreover, one can argue that mutant characters often reveal emotions and desires that are more human than those who are biologically considered as such; it is human society and government that is often exposed as being small-minded and intolerant.

118

The fear of superpowered beings in the X-Men films,296 Smallville, and other superhero media in this era297 animates anxieties that have become more pronounced in the genre over time. Superheroes have, from the start of the genre, acted as protectors of the powerless masses and punishers of individuals who use their power immorally. They, in a sense, provide a safer vision of the powerful: physically superior, morally virtuous, lacking actual political authority or aspiration. However, as this project interjects, the superhero genre has always contained the anxiety that the benevolent protagonist may be corrupted. This unease has grown more pronounced in the era of the monstrous superhero, as evidenced by narratives about superheroes using their abilities indulgently, losing control of their super bodies, and (as shown in this section) engendering dread by their very existence. The fear of superheroes, in particular, can be connected to the genres increased attempts at realism, especially in terms of character emotions; people in the films and TV shows of this era more credibly express the ambivalence that would come with the existence of superior individuals who could demolish the ever-more-powerless masses and those who were formerly the most powerful (e.g., politicians, military, the wealthy). The X-Men films and Smallville all interestingly put us clearly on the side of the superior individuals who are seen as dangerous, while the politicians (oppressors in X-Men and X-Men: The Last Stand), military (evil in X2 and X-Men Origins: Wolverine), wealthy (the corrupt Luthors on Smallville), and even the average people (often bigots and power-hungry themselves) are actively oppressing and threatening to reveal these heroic individuals.

296

The dangerousness of revelation continues throughout the X-Men film series: X2 features a military force that raids the secret mutant school, imprisoning numerous students as threats to the nation; the third film in the series, XMen: The Last Stand (dir. Brett Ratner , 2006, DVD, 20th Century Fox, 2006), depicts the government searching for mutants and trying to cure them of their powers; and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (dir. Gavin Hood, 2009, DVD, 20th Century Fox, 2009) presents a military group that tracks mutants and exploitatively uses them on topsecret missions, before trying to harness mutant powers in order to kill them all. 297 For example, in the first two Spider-Man films, the protagonist is treated as a hero by much of the public, but newspaper stories call him a menace who endangers the whole city with his powers (Spider-Man 2, dir. Sam Raimi, 2004, DVD, Sony Pictures, 2004).

119

Thus, the monstrosity of superheroes actually has a twofold, contradicting function. First, it makes the superheroes objects of fear by underlining the unease with great power that exists (both inside and outside of the text) and how people are impotent in the face of greater forces. As Bukatman states in regards to mutant heroes, where once superheroes guaranteed social stability, they now threaten to disrupt it.298 Second, the characterization of heroes who are morally dubious, struggle to control their freakish bodies, and are feared by the populace works to make the characters more identifiable; they are fallible and oppressed characters, seemingly less like gods and more like typical humans, and are privileged by the texts (they are, of course, still the heroes). Yes, their powers could pose a threat to society, but the characters themselves are constantly threatenedby their bodies and moral compasses, as well as by society, which wants to scrutinize them. Whether it is Clark Kent on Smallville or one of XMens mutants, the danger of revealing or not properly disciplining the super/monstrous body is a key way the genre both acknowledges the underlying anxieties at its heart (frightening power!) and defuses them substantially (imperfect, vulnerable power!).

Emerging/Overflowing Superpowers: Sexual Awakening, Destruction, and Nearly Being Outed as a Monster Great, so Im maturing into a fire-starter!Clark Kent, in the Smallville episode Heat The most frightening manifestations of Clarks super puberty in the early seasons of Smallville are when he loses control of his body, becoming unintentionally destructive and risking revelation. These cases of physical monstrosity are usually conterminous with the discovery of new powers, as Clark undergoes a puberty which is mysterious since no one else on Earth has experienced it. Again, a comparison with the X-Men films throughout this analysis is
298

Bukatman, X-Bodies 70.

120

fruitful, as Clark Kent embodies many facets of Bukatmans description of mutant characters: Mutant superheroes are not invulnerable; not only are they distinguished by (a frequently maudlin) emotionalism, but their first and most dangerous enemies are their own bodies299 Though he battles with his body in a similar manner, Clark does differ in several significant ways from the mutants Bukatman describes: He is a solitary alien rather than one of many mutated humans (making his bodily changes even more mysterious),300 has multiple powers to master, has a clearer purpose for his powers (helping people), and is essentially invulnerable, resulting in little physical risk to himself when his body loses control. Moreover, whereas the bodies of mutants remain their most dangerous enemies throughout their lives, Clarks struggles with his body are largely transient, as he gains control over each of his abilities quickly and firmly. Each new power commences a short narrative that ends in triumph, with Clark closer to becoming Superman, a supremely powerful, totally-in-control superhero. An analysis of several early season episodes illuminates how Clarks teenage physical monstrosity results in destruction, danger of revelation, and the need to tame his own body, and how all of this coincides with pubescent sexual and social maturation and trauma. The first (brief) instance of emerging superpowers being tied to sexual feelings and leading to unintended damage is in the second episode of the series, Metamorphosis. The episode starts with the camera soaring high above the town of Smallville at night, accompanied by the sound of the wind and a majestic non-diegetic score; the camera then descends gracefully closer to the ground, almost hitting the grass. Since this is too dangerous and quiet of a flight for a plane or a helicopter and Smallville is a show about a character who becomes Superman, the suggestion is that we are witnessing Clarks point of view as he flies through the town. The
299 300

Bukatman, X-Bodies 66. There are in fact numerous mutated humans on Smallville, echoing in some ways the world of the X-Men. However, Clark is not one of them.

121

camera proceeds to travel through the window of a house (odd since the window seems to be closed and does not break), turn left abruptly, and float above Lana Langs bed before descending toward it. Lana is shown sleeping in a high angle medium shot. Confirming the previous conjecture about whose point of view we are seeing, the next shot is a close-up of Clark from a low angle with the ceiling directly behind him. Then, in an overtly sexual image, we see a medium long profile shot of Clark in his pajamas floating over Lanas bed, seemingly about to land on top of her. In a medium shot, Lana announces, Its all your fault, Clark (a reference to Clarks indirect role in her parents death, since his arrival on Earth brought the meteors that killed them) and the fantasy is broken, as another close-up of Clark shows his smile fade. After we hear Clarks mom call him offscreen, we see yet another close-up of Clarks face in the same positionfrom a low angle, with the ceiling behind himwith the difference that it is now clearly daytime, indicating that the previous shots were part of a dream. Finally, there is a medium long shot of Clark momentarily floating above his own empty bed before falling down hard, breaking the bed with his rough landing. The embarrassment and confusion on Clarks face, coupled with the sexually charged dream of hovering above Lanas bed in nighttime clothes, suggest this incident is a super version of a wet dream, a common event during puberty. The difference for Clark is that his powers make his sexual dreams destructive; his emerging flying ability causes him to float in his sleep unknowingly and he collapses the legs of the bed with the sheer force of his super body falling from a height (a case of physical monstrosity). Thus, a typical rite of puberty becomes even more shameful and somewhat violent for the superpowered teen.

122

The first episode dedicated to the pubescent changes of Clarks body is X-Ray, which features Clarks discovery and attempted control of his unwieldy X-ray vision.301 He initially experiences the new superpower after a trauma: A character who appears to be his friend Lex Luthor (in reality, a shape-shifting mutant) responds to Clarks greeting by angrily throwing him through a store window with inhuman force. Slow motion is used to emphasize how shocking the action is, as the largely impervious Clark Kent flies through the window like a ragdoll. Seemingly betrayed by his friend, who startlingly appears to have superpowers too, Clarks confused face gives way to a medium shot of Lex from Clarks point-of-view. This shot suddenly (via special effects) transforms into a moving X-ray image of Lex running away, his skeleton appearing to glow with the green of the towns meteor rocks. Therefore, social/emotional distress (betrayal by his friend) and physical pain (being thrown) have triggered another trauma: the initiation of a new superpower, which has appeared without advance warning. The second appearance of this new power in the episode is more explicitly tied to emerging sexuality and teenage awkwardness. While in gym class, Clark glances at Lana, who is shown in a medium close-up wearing sweaty workout clothes and heading to the locker room. After she looks in Clarks general direction, he is framed in medium close-up and then close-up as he scrunches his face in agony and complains that his head hurts. The alluring presence of Lana evidently is what has activated this physical reaction, which, as is clarified a few seconds later, is related to the initiation of his X-ray vision. His sudden pain leads to social shame, since the gym teacher threatens to make him run ten laps for his slowness and forces him to climb the rope. Things get worse when Clark suddenly looks horrified while scaling the rope; as we cut to

301

X-Ray, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Mark Verheiden, The WB, 6 November 2001, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003.

123

a medium close-up shot of his friend Pete on the adjacent rope, Petes image frighteningly turns into an X-ray, exposing his circulatory system with its flowing rivers of blood.302 The sense of humiliation increases when Clark lets go of the rope and falls a long way to the ground, the gym teacher asking, Kent, are you all right? Kent, what happened up there? as Clark lies on the ground. The scene ends with the most sexual use of his new power yet: A close-up of Clark looking offscreen gives way to a point-of-view shot of a wall, the camera zooming toward it and then X-raying through its interiors (aided by special effects) until it reveals the girls locker room, with various half-naked teenage girls. Clarks eyes are then framed in an extreme closeup, as he shakes his head, trying to stop his ability from working (and perhaps wondering if he is dreaming). Next, we see Lana approach her locker while only wearing a towel; another extreme close-up of Clarks eyes as he furrows his brow in shock; a medium shot of Lana turning her back to the camera and dropping her towel; and finally a medium close-up of Clark with a goofy grin on his face, ecstatic about what he is seeing. Therefore, his powers are triggered by sexual arousal and here climax in his access to the naked body of his love interest. This peek into the girls locker room operates as wish fulfillment for both Clark and the audience (what pubescent boy hasnt dreamt of X-ray vision?), but is also a moment of moral monstrosity in that he is (unintentionally) using his powers for personal gain and is violating the privacy of others. Furthermore, despite the pleasurable, sexual moment, the effects of his new ability have been overwhelmingly negative: He embarrasses himself in gym class and nearly reveals his powers by falling from the rope without injury.

302

This X-Ray is less intense than the first, which reveals skeletal structures; the suggestion is that his X-ray ability is variable and will be even more difficult to control properly than first assumed.

124

The very next scene depicts him meeting with his parents in an attempt to tame a pubescent superpower that is potentially monstrous in several ways: It may be used immorally by him, reveal him as an alien threat, and/or go out of control and endanger humans.303 Clark rails against his freakish, unruly body: You guys, I can see through things! How do you control that? His mother calms him down by advising, You gotta practice, Clark. Your eyes have muscles, just like your legs. His body may be strange, but it is similar to the human body in that it must be trained and exercised in order to function properly. As Clark follows his parents advice and practices his new power, it pays off almost immediately: He discovers the identity of the Lex Luthor imposter and, by the end of the episode, stops the villain and saves Lana from certain death using his X-ray vision. The super puberty of characters like Clark clearly has a special draw for teenage boys, who comprise a significant part of the audience for superhero films and TV shows (and of course comics as well). In A Boy for All Planets, Miranda Banks discusses how the changes Clark and other superpowered teens endure parallel those of most teenagers: The development of power and vulnerability can be seen as a metaphor for the experience of every teenager. Max [from Roswell] and Clarks transformations are like alien puberty: they often feel uncomfortable at first with their growing abilities, and sometimes letting people know about how their bodies are changing makes them feel more vulnerable.304 Clarks discovery of new powers is like the discovery of physical changes for teenage viewers, as they change in uncomfortable ways that can be embarrassing and scary. By adding superpowers to the mix, Smallville and other superhero texts ratchet up the drama of puberty to
303

Though X-ray vision is not directly that destructive, its initial uncontrollability is depicted as disorienting Clark, which can potentially cause his super body to slam into objects and people with devastating consequences. Moreover, uncontrolled superpowers qualify as original sin monstrosity when they disrupt Clark from performing his direct heroic objectives (e.g., when his power goes out of control while he is trying to save humans from harm). His inability to act due to his superpowered body endangers humans that would normally be saved by him. 304 Miranda J. Banks, A Boy for All Planets: Roswell, Smallville, and the Teen Male Melodrama, Teen TV, eds. Glyn Davis and Kay Dickinson (London: British Film Institute, 2004) 24.

125

life-or-death proportions, reflecting how some teenagers probably feel as they change. Moreover, superpowered puberty is, in many ways, a fantasy of puberty that appeals to teens as well as adults who underwent a more mundane or disappointing process of growing up. Clark does not just get taller or stronger, but gets super strength, super speed, heat vision, and X-ray vision, abilities that are the stuff of male teenage fantasies. Even when Clarks body flows out of control, there is something impressive about the level of power he displays. In addition, Clark always figures out how to make his pubescent changes work to the benefit of himself and the world. Significantly, not all superhero puberty is so positive; for example, the mutants in the XMen films are deeply traumatized by their changes, as their powers ostracize and constantly overwhelm them. However, even mutants present the fantasy of attainting abilities beyond those of regular people. In Clarks case, none of his anxious bodily transformations can be characterized as negative in the end; the viewer knows that each difficult adjustment brings Clark closer to becoming Superman, an adult superhero characterized by his amazing powers and steadfast morality. The triumphant nature of Clarks (often scary) pubescent development defuses some of the anxieties about puberty, especially for teen male viewers. The episodes in which Clark discovers his bodys changes always follow the same pattern: From something monstrous that could hurt Clark and others, his new powers develop into something useful that he can use in his heroic actions. In other words, the episodes are about growing up, going through puberty on a super scale. Unlike X-Mens mutant superheroes, who are never able to control their overflowing bodies totally, Clark masters his X-ray ability completely and does not struggle with its control again. Despite being tamed, his X-ray vision (like all of Clarks powers) continues to contain monstrous potential: It may still out him as a freak (a physical monster), cause him to be seen as a threat to humanity (he endangers privacy

126

and is a superpowered alien living among humans), escape his control and render him unable to fulfill his role as a protector, and/or be utilized by him for nefarious purposes. The latter use is referenced when Clark asks his mother, Mom, if you could see anything, what would you do? and she responds, Learn to close my eyes. Her advice is to use his X-ray vision morally, instead of for personal gain or pleasure. The next significant new power Clark obtains is heat vision, which is even more explicitly linked to sexuality and more dangerously threatens Clark and others; nevertheless, it is still tamed by the end of the episode in which it is introduced. 305 The power first emerges while Clark struggles to watch a sex education film in class due to being distracted by his attractive new substitute teacher. As the film mentions things like intercourse, Clark looks behind himself and we see a medium shot of his provocatively dressed teacher, the camera tilting down to reveal her bare legs. Following an extreme close-up of her cleavage, a series of shots show Clarks new power erupt (a very appropriate word in this case): first, a close-up of Clarks face as he stares behind himself and begins to blink his eyes rapidly, as if in pain; next, an extreme close-up of Clarks face as he turns to the front of the room, his eyes glowing as the camera moves closer and we hear sound effects meant to resemble fire shooting; and, finally, a long shot of Clark (facing the camera) at his desk shooting short bursts of fire out of his eyes, with streaming motion lines marking their path. As if the sexual nature of his heat vision were not clear enough, there is then a shot of the classrooms film screen while it displays footage of sperm surrounding an egg; Clarks heat bursts (which, in their transparent form, resemble sperm) penetrate the onscreen egg at the same time as the sperm. Underscoring the unprecedented,

305

Heat, Smallville: The Complete Second Season, writ. Mark Verheiden, The WB, 1 October 2002, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004.

127

destructive form of puberty Clark is experiencing, his teenage lust triggers his heat vision, which causes a screen to burst into flames and forces the school to be evacuated. Clarks monstrous eruption illustrates the dangerousness of the super body; in particular, this ability is frightening to Clark himself because, he explains, all my other abilities didnt involve things bursting into flames. Clark starts a minor fire, but he could have easily burned down the entire school or killed a fellow student if he were simply looking in a different direction. His out of control heat vision exemplifies physical monstrosity, but is also an instance of original sin monstrosity because it imperils the people around him. In addition, uncontrolled heat vision holds further possibilities of original sin monstrosity in that it could expose him as a disproportionately powerful alien (a menace just for existing) and/or could render him unable to act heroically in moments of crisis, thereby indirectly endangering people. The more destructive second eruption of his new power occurs while Clark is all alone at a coffee shop with his love interest, Lana. Sitting in close proximity to Clark, Lana is framed in extreme close-up while discussing how Lex has acted on his passion and wondering if she and Clark will ever be able to do the same (hinting at the sexual tension between them). The romantic underpinnings of the scene quickly get to Clark, as he is shown in extreme close-up quickly blinking and looking away. After he gets up and twirls around with his eyes closed in complete panic, Clarks eyes suddenly let forth a long sustained burst of fire, which is depicted burning the expensive equipment in the coffee shop and then causing it to explode. Lana, who does not see Clarks eyes, screams and cowers in close-up at the horror of the raging fire. Rather than protecting her, as he normally would, Clark is portrayed fighting to close his eyes in an unsuccessful attempt to counteract his super hormones. Thus, Clarks body has become a danger to everyone in his life, as it can damage property and kill people with dreadful haste. The

128

monstrousness of his pubescent development is emphasized by Clarks subsequent remark, I was afraid it wasnt gonna stop; since there is no precedent for his bodys changes, there is a sense that each new power controls him (rather than the other way around) and that his body may continue to experience strange, hazardous changes perpetually. It is why Clark somewhat seriously exclaims, Great, so Im maturing into a fire-starter! In both violent eruptions, the super body becomes not only monstrously unstable and dangerous, but a source of embarrassment and near-public exposure; in addition, it brings to mind the morally monstrous potential of superpowers. Even more so than his X-ray vision, Clarks heat vision is a metaphor for the sexual maturation of every teenager. The context and physical appearance of the new ability make it resemble premature ejaculation: Clark gets so excited that he cannot stop his body from bursting forth. After the first incident, in particular, Clark appears ashamedlooking dazed, covering his mouth and lowering his head, and then spinning around in place while everyone else exitsas if he has sexually malfunctioned in the most public, horrible way possible. Furthermore, the look of embarrassment is indicative of how the power threatens to expose him as a physical freak and a menace to humanity. Clark sees his own body as monstrously freakish, dramatically telling his parents in the episode, Hi, Im Clark. Im the kid who can lift up tractors and see through walls. The series of unexplained fires eventually lead to Clark being arrested as an arsonist (aided by a frame job by the episodes villain). Even though his powers are not unveiled, his damming role in the fires is, reiterating the negative social costs of having a super body, especially one that escapes control. Despite Clarks desire to hide his new power, his uncontrolled outbursts of heat (physical monstrosity) endanger humans (original sin monstrosity) and engage the dark potential of immoral usage: With heat vision, an angry or selfish Clark could simply point his eyes at something or someone and

129

destroy it. Thus, each new power initiates unintentional monstrosity (i.e., accidental destructiveness) that suggests the opportunity for intentional monstrosity (i.e., immoral usage of the ability). Destructive powers that overwhelm the superhero and are triggered by sexual development represent a generic trend that is initiated in film and TV by 2000s X-Men. Describing the mutant bodies presented in X-Men texts, Bukatman writes, They are traumatized, eruptive bodies; the energies that are normally unleashed only in battle now continually threaten to overspill their fragile vessels. The mutant superhero is both armored and flowing.306 Much of this description also applies to Clark on Smallville, because he and the X-Men mutants both possess strong bodies that are not always under their control (especially fitting for pubescent characters). The powers of the mutants often wildly flow out of them like Clarks heat vision does in the episode just described. However, as mentioned earlier, Clarks experiences with superpowers are not precisely like those of the mutants, since his body is not at all fragile and is generally much more armored (controlled, protected) than flowing (unrestrained). Clark is traumatized by his eruptive body but he largely overcomes the initial ordeal of each new power and regains command over his body; he does not continually lose control the way mutants usually do. In fact, the frequency of Clarks out-of-control body is largely due to the fact that he achieves multiple new powers, each requiring a process of taming. In contrast, mutants can struggle for a lifetime with one power. In one of the opening scenes of X-Men, teenager Rogue (a.k.a., Marie) exhibits the traumatic overflow of mutant powers when her pubescent sexuality activates her ability to absorb the energy of anyone she touches. Initially, Rogue is alone in her bedroom with her love interest, both of them reclining on her bed. The sexually charged atmosphere gives way to several
306

Bukatman, X-Bodies 68.

130

extreme close-ups of them kissing. With her first manifestation of her power, her love interest suddenly opens his eyes and veins start protruding all over his face. As he has seizures, all she can do is scream and run into the corner of the room, saying that I just touched him and yelling to her parents, Dont touch me! Thus, like several of Clarks abilities, her power appears for the first time when she is sexually aroused. She is immediately cast as monstrous: She has a strange and uncontrollable body, can kill humans simply by touching them, and can potentially decide to use her power for evil purposes. Her experience is similar to Clarks in that she undergoes a kind of super puberty, though there is less hope for her to tame her power and it marks her as more aberrant (how can she ever live as a regular teen if she cannot touch?). Though she gets some control over it, she chooses in the third film of the series to have her ability removed so that she can be with her superpowered boyfriend. The dangerous uncontrollability of her mutant power (even after several years) and the need to remove it are in direct contrast to Clark on Smallville, who usually gains a handle on each new power in a remarkably short amount of time, learning to use it to protect the world. Although the character is not going through puberty, another X-Men character, Cyclops, bears similarities to Clark in his possession of a violent optical power that threaten to erupt out of his body. Cyclopss eyes shoot destructive beams that he cannot control without a specially made visor, meaning that his eyes are always covered. As Bukatman recounts of the comic book version of the character, the struggle of Cyclops involves holding back this energy, containing it within himself; to release it would be to destroy his own sense of being (the woman he loves can never see his eyes, he realizes).307 Likewise, in the film, his sense of beinghe sees himself as a herowill be destroyed if the energy from his body flows out uncontrollably and transforms him into a monster. This potential transformation is glimpsed in one scene of X-Men, as Cyclops
307

Bukatman, X-Bodies 68.

131

has his visor knocked off and is shown in several shots wildly shooting red beams from his eyes, including a close-up that shows his eyes aglow with firing red beams (bringing to mind imagery of the devil). He eventually shoots the roof off of the train station, the rubble injuring and possibly killing some of the nearby people, a clear case of physical monstrosity and original sin monstrosity. Forced to close his eyes or risk hurting more people, Cyclops is left totally helpless and unable to assist his friends.308 The depiction of an overflowing, dangerous power that emanates from the eyes is echoed in Clarks introduction to heat vision on Smallville (the episode airs two years after X-Mens release). However, Clark again differs in that he tames his power by the end of a single episode, regaining his capability to appear normal. Cyclops, in contrast, is never able to gain physical control over his ability. He can only manage his optical power by technological means, usually wearing an oversized visor that marks him as aberrant (e.g., a mother in the same scene recoils upon seeing him). Thus, when he is wearing his visor, he is seen as physically monstrous and a threat (i.e., an original sin monster), even when his abilities are restrained.309 Finally, as Bukatman suggests, Cyclopss power is, if not directly tied to sex, a clear barrier to intimacy. Like Rogues power and Clarks heat vision before he controls it,310 Cyclopss optical ability endangers his romantic partners. If he were ever to let his partner look into his eyes while he looked into hers, he would likely kill her almost instantly. Wolverine in the X-Men films similarly possesses a monstrous body that constantly threatens to overflow and harm nearby people. After having a nightmare in the first X-Men film

308

Cyclops also embodies original sin monstrosity because his superpowers paralyze him and render him unable to save nearby people who need his help, in effect endangering their lives. 309 He also often wears sunglasses that serve to hold back his eye beams without marking him as visibly monstrous; in fact, the sunglasses can be said to make him look cool. However, they do not allow him to direct his beams at targets, making his powers largely useless. 310 Aside from heat vision, Clark struggles to have intimacy because his super body could kill someone during sex. In fact, Clark does not have sex unless he has temporarily lost his powers or has a partner with similar abilities, until the ninth season when extensive training makes him feel more in control of his powe rs (Escape, Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season, writ. Genevieve Sparling, The CW, 2 April 2010, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2010).

132

about how he had adamantium (an indestructible metal) grafted onto his skeleton, he wakes up raging and stabs the nearby Rogue through the chest, a fatal blow for almost anyone but Rogue.311 Though not exactly sexual, the scene has erotic overtones: Wolverines body is being penetrated in his nightmare and he wakes up with his phallic claws extending out of his hand and penetrating through Rogues skin while they are both on his bed. When the camera tracks out from Wolverines face to show how he has impaled Rogue, there is a look of both horror and shame on his face, as he yells Somebody help! Like Rogue, Cyclops, and Clark, Wolverines body is constantly in danger of escaping his control (physical monstrosity), harming others (original sin monstrosity), and causing him shame. In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the characters super body similarly cannot be restrained: He accidentally murders his father as a child when his claws extend for the first time and, as an adult, he unintentionally wounds his girlfriend while he sleeps, demonstrating how even his love does not protect someone from his uncontrollable, dangerous body. Underlining how Smallville and the X-Men films reflect widespread generic trends, overflowing, monstrous bodies pervade many other superhero incarnations after 2000. The TV show Heroes (NBC, 2006-2010) is, especially in its first season, about discovering and learning to control superpowers, all of which have potential for evil usage, can mark a character as a freak or a threat, or can flow out of control. In particular, the heroic character Peter Petrelli struggles with the possibility that one of his powers may escape his command, resulting in the decimation of New York City in a giant explosion.312 In a prophetic dream, Peter (and the audience) sees a series of images depicting this loss of control over his body: First, his friends and loved ones run away from him; then, in a close-up of his face, he watches his hands as they glow a reddish hue;
311

Using her superpower, Rogue is able to touch Wolverine and take his healing ability for a short time; as a result, she survives. 312 Fallout, Heroes: Season 1, writ. Joe Pokaski, NBC, 4 December 2006, DVD, Universal, 2007.

133

and, finally, in a medium close-up, he releases a massive burst of energy from his body while screaming in agony. In the first season finale, his dream largely comes true as Peter is unable to contain his ability to emit radiation and is on the verge of accidentally becoming the villain, as the programs real villain tells him in an interesting turn of events.313 Shouting I cant control it. I cant do anything, Peters body glows with radioactive power, while he shakes and grimaces. Peters monstrous body literally overflows, as radiation pours out of him. The city (with its helpless, non-superpowered citizens) is only saved when his superpowered brother flies him away and Peter explodes in the sky, injuring only his brother. Thus, though his intentions are virtuous, Peter cannot control his body (physical monstrosity) and becomes a threat to the entire city by nature of having superpowers (original sin monstrosity); ironically, he is nearly the source of the very destruction he spends the entire first season trying to prevent. Even after the explosion, Peter remains a threat, as his powers may evade his control again unless he can suppress them.314 In a less tortured portrayal of an overflowing body,315 2002s Spider-Man depicts how Peter Parkers acquisition of superpowers leads to loss of control in several cases. In one instance, Peters newly webbed hands embarrassingly cause a banner on a school bus to become attached to him and rip off of the bus. Subsequently, his first web shooting occurs in the high school cafeteria while a medium long shot shows him dealing with the white, sticky webbing flowing from his wrists; suddenly, it shoots out across the room, literally attaching him to a food tray at the next table. The shock and shame on Peters face again help create the parallel

313

How to Stop an Exploding Man, Heroes: Season 1, writ. Tim Kring, NBC, 21 May 2007, DVD, Universal, 2007. 314 Four Months Ago . . . , Heroes: Season 2, writ. Tim Kring, 12 November 2007, DVD, Universal, 2008. 315 In Spider-Man, Peter visibly enjoys most of the changes to his body, as he no longer needs glasses, has a muscular body, has great reflexes, and can leap and soar above the city using his webs.

134

between an unstable superhero body and sexual malfunction, especially since the webbing bears a resemblance to male sexual fluid in both appearance and consistency. Even more mortifying for Peter is when he unintentionally slings the food tray backwards and hits the school bully, who in a medium long shot is revealed to be sitting right behind Peter. The embarrassment leads Peter to hurry out of the cafeteria, as the camera moves to exhibit that the tray is still attached to him and all the other students are staring and calling him weird. Having accidentally instigated a fight with the bully, Peter unbelievably defeats him using his powers, leaving the other teens variably impressed, scared, or astonished; one of them says, Jesus, Parker, you are a freak. Thus, Peters super body leads to him being seen as physically monstrous (though no one quite believes he is superpowered) and dangerous to the other students because of his frighteningly potent fighting skills;316 in addition, he is nearly outed as having superpowers. Moreover, the fight demonstrates how frightening Peter would be if he ever decided to use his powers for immoral purposes. In a variation of the volatile super body, Spider-Man 2 features a protagonist whose body does not overflow, but totally fails; in the process, it endangers his life, damages property (physical monstrosity), and imperils people by preventing him from rescuing them (original sin monstrosity). In three different scenes, he is shown high above the city as his web-shooting power is unsuccessful and causes him to fall from a great height; he damages pipes in one case and a car in another, and he hurts himself in every case, only surviving due to being super. One image, in particular, strongly suggests sexual malfunction: In a close-up of Spider-Mans outstretched wrist, it fails to release any webbing, leading the superhero to looks at his wrist

316

His perceived dangerousness is a borderline case of original sin monstrosity, since the other students see him as somewhat threatening but do not realize that it is his superpowers that have made him so intimidating. In other words, they just think he is a good fighter, not a superhuman one.

135

confusedly. The implication is impotence rather than the more common over-functioning of the super body.317 All of these monstrously overflowing and impotent super bodies are subsequently put under control to an extent. In terms of the characters discussed here, Rogue learns some control and then removes her power, Cyclops wears a visor that restrains his optical power, Wolverine is able to regulate when his claws are released (unless he is extremely aggravated), Peter on Heroes gains more authority over his body and eventually loses his abilities, Spider-Man masters his abilities in the first film and is able to regain them in the second film, and Clark of course learns to control each of his powers. In order to tame Clarks heat vision and help him let go of his fear of accidentally killing someone, Clarks father takes him out to a field away from buildings and has him practice. By the next scene, Clark is gleefully employing his heat vision to make popcorn and light candles, boasting, Next time I have a date, Ill be able to take her out without setting her on fire (i.e., he can avoid the physical and original sin monstrosity initiated by the out-of-control super body). His power is also instrumental is stopping the villain at the end of the episode. Clarks education on how to utilize his powers properly is shepherded by his adoptive parents the Kents in these early seasons, as they teach him how to restrain his eruptive body and use it to help others. His parents serve a function akin to X-Mens Professor Xavier, whose mutant school brings control to unwieldy, potentially monstrous powers so that they will not be a danger to others; as Bukatman explains, Under the tutelage of Professor X, the mutants are sited both inside and outside society; their powers move from uncontrolled and eruptive to controlled and articulate.318 We do not see many scenes of mutants learning to control their powers in the X-Men films (there is some practicing of already proficient abilities), but it is

317 318

He even says in one case Why is this happening to me? invoking popular language around sexual failure. Bukatman, X-Bodies 70.

136

implied that there is rigorous training in the school to help mutants gain command over their bodies. Likewise, many post-2000 superhero films and TV shows provide sequences in which the superhero works to discipline his body, with or without help the help of others.319 Though training of the super body is common during this era, nearly total control of powers is achieved only by non-mutant superheroes. For the mutants of the X-Men films, their bodies constantly threaten to overflow or fail; the dangers of puberty (or simply development) with superpowers never completely subside as they continue to imperil themselves and everyone around them. In contrast, superheroes like Spider-Man and Superman typically exhibit extreme command over their powers once they train their bodies. This control, however, does not prevent cases in which unusual circumstances cause superpowers to ebb and flow wildly. For instance, extraordinary external forces prompt Clarks heat vision to escape his control in two episodes of Smallville, despite the fact that he typically restrains the ability easily. In the episode Rosetta, Clark is temporarily controlled by Kryptonian technology that compels him to use his heat vision to burn a symbol into the family barn.320 In the episode Perry, Clark lacks authority over any of his powers, as solar flares (he gets his powers from the sun) cause the super energies in his body to fluctuate violently.321 As a result, he fails to restrain his heat vision, setting fire to his familys curtains; loses his super speed in the middle of the street, causing a car accident; suddenly runs at super speed, outing his secret to a reporter; and receives a spike in his super strength that leads him to throw a tractor across town, nearly killing the same reporter and destroying expensive equipment. Although destructive and frightening, these incidents
319

Though his body does not have superpowers, Bruce Wayne/Batman in Batman Begins spends much of the first half of the film training his body and mind to control and use his overwhelming anger. Thus, despite the fact that his body is not out of control or inhumanly destructive, the need to tame his rage makes him resemble the superpowered hero with the overflowing body. 320 Rosetta, Smallville: The Complete Second Season, writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, The WB, 25 February 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 321 Perry, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Mark Verheiden, The WB, 29 October 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004.

137

differentiate Clark from the mutants of the X-Men films, since it seems that only bizarre situations can cause him to lose control over his established abilities. Ultimately, Clark grapples so much with his abilities on Smallville because he acquires his superpowers gradually over a period of time. He is a transitional figure, on the path to being all-powerful as Superman but still going through puberty. As a result, even when he controls one superpower, another one threatens to erupt violently at any time. For example, Clarks acquisition of super hearing corresponds to temporary blindness and initially results in him being crippled by excessive sensitivity to sound, making him unable to save others in several cases.322 Moreover, in the episode in which he achieves super breath, he sneezes explosively numerous times, nearly injuring several characters and almost revealing his superpowers.323 In the end, Clark exemplifies how, in post-2000 superhero films and TV shows, the monstrous side of the superhero is never far from center stage, erupting forth substantially in stories and special effects visuals in which the superheros body overflows uncontrollably and destructively.

322

Whisper, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Ken Horton, The WB, 21 January 2004, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 323 Sneeze, Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The CW, 5 October 2006, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2007.

138

Chapter 3: Flirting with Your Worst Enemy and the Dark Side: Clark Kent and Lex Luthor as Best Friends
We have a future, Clark. And I dont want anything to stand in the way of our friendship. Lex Luthor, in the Smallville episode Pilot

A key aspect of Smallville in the early seasons is Clarks close friendship with his future worst enemy Lex Luthor. Lex may not yet be a monstrous villain at the start of the show, but he is perpetually shady, makes ethically questionable decisions, and gradually grows more villainous. Thus, Clarks closeness with LexLex often trying to act like his big brother or, intentionally or not, his loverthreatens to usurp the influence of the salt-of-the-earth Kents, replacing their values with something more sinister and destructive that Lex has learned from his father, a manipulative big-city businessman. Whereas Clark attempts to bring Lex toward goodness (to save him from the evil future that is familiar to most viewers from other Superman media), Lex threatens to derail Clarks heroic future, influencing his moral development during puberty. In fact, the often homoerotic relationship between the characters can be read as endangering Clarks normal sexual development as a heterosexual male. Readings of a homoerotic or even homosexual relationship between Clark and Lex are a favorite among fans, popular writers, and scholars who analyze the programs early seasons. This kind of decoding of Smallville qualifies, in many cases, as what Stuart Hall calls a negotiated reading, in which there is a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements; this reading position acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations (abstract), while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rulesit operates with exceptions to the rule324 Many of the readings of a romantic

324

Stuart Hall, Encoding/Decoding, Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, eds. Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006) 172.

139

Clark-Lex relationship are negotiated in that they accept the programs themes and larger narrative arcClark Kent will, by the end of the series, become a superhero whose worst enemy is Lex Luthorbut adapt openings within the program to make the interpretation that Clark and Lex have repressed sexual feelings for each other. This reading is clearly not the dominant, preferred reading of the show but it does not completely overturn it either, as an unpursued romantic attraction between the characters does not fundamentally transform either character or change the main narrative. In his article The Kryptonite closet: Silence and queer secrecy in Smallville, Jes Battis describes how the queer and female fans who read homosexual feelings between Clark and Lex simply illuminate the obvious conflation of queerness/secrecy that exists within the cultural metaphor of the closet, linking the characters secrets with their unvoiced sexuality.325 The connection of superpower secrecy to homosexual secrecy is easily made in the superhero genre and is often encouraged, especially after the super body becomes something potentially monstrous that needs to be hidden (as described in my earlier analysis of the similarities between outing superpowers and outing homosexuality);326 the fact that both Clark and the non-superpowered Lex have significant secrets encourages the interpretation that they are both hiding the truth about their homosexuality. Though scholars like Battis interrogate the homosexual underpinnings of the Clark-Lex friendship, they fail to give substantial attention to several subjects that are central to my analysis: the ways that Lex resembles an obsessive predator and evokes homosexuality more than Clark does, the relationship of potential homosexuality to pubescent sexual maturation, and the link between homosexuality and the corruption of the superhero, since intimacy with Lex perilously increases Clarks chances for monstrosity.
325 326

Battis 6. The fear of the monstrous superhero body echoes real-life hysteria over homosexual bodies, which are often similarly viewed as threatening to the social order.

140

The negotiated readings of homosexuality on Smallville exemplify Henry Jenkinss concept of textual poaching (a term borrowed from Michel de Certeau), in which readers (especially fans) playfully partake in a raid on the literary preserve that takes away only those things that seem useful or pleasurable to the reader; it is a type of cultural bricolage through which readers fragment texts and reassemble the broken shards according to their own blueprint, salvaging bits and pieces of found material in making sense of their own social experience.327 The fans of Smallville that see the Clark-Lex relationship as romantic are engaging in textual poaching, as they appropriate the program so that it fits aspects of their social experience and gives them more pleasure.328 Exemplifying poaching that reads same-sex desire between Clark and Lex, one internet fan writes, In still photos, it looks even more like Lex wants to lay a big, wet, sloppy one right on Clark's preternaturally red mouth.329 This statement is, again, a negotiated reading in that it does not overturn or transform the program so much as focus on the potential for desire between Clark and Lex. In another instance of poaching, one fan comments, In Shimmer, when Lex reaches for the door at the top of the stairs, and it flies open, he goes twirling awkwardly and pointedly into Clark's arms. Then they kind of cling together for a moment. I laughed because it looked for all the world like Lex was just using it as an excuse to fling himself at Clark.330 Again, the fan locates potential romantic feelings for the characters but does not fundamentally alter the preferred reading of the scene.

327

Henry Jenkins III, Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching, Television: The Critical View, ed. Horace Newcomb (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 471. 328 Textual poachers who locate same-sex desire in films and TV shows are very often not gay themselves (Jenkins 493). 329 stoutheartedmin, Re: Homoeroticism, Yay! Television Without Pity, 15 January 2004, Web, 23 September 2010. <http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=518801&st=150> 330 Cyb, Re: Unintentionally Funny Show Moments: The Wall Around My Pants, Television Without Pity, 16 August 2005, Web, 23 September 2010. <http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?s=a988c614a13f06af10f9ba61e977aec9&showtopic=3129610 &st=0>

141

Textual poaching that is more oppositional (Stuart Halls term to describe readings that reject the preferred meaning of the text)331 can be seen in the fan fiction and videos that recast Smallville as primarily a text about the same-sex desire between Clark and Lex. These fan texts are part of the slash or slash fiction genre of fan production (stories, art, videos, music) in which two fictional characters of the same sex, usually men, engage in a homoerotic or explicitly homosexual relationship. The term and practice comes from Kirk/Spock (K/S) fiction that posits a relationship between the main protagonists of Star Trek.332 I would argue that the ClarkLex relationship is even more rife than the Kirk-Spock relationship for this kind of fan activity, because of the larger amount of tension between them, as the characters keep huge secrets from each other and are on the path to becoming worst enemies (one a superhero and the other a villain, in total opposition to each other). The relationship between them is exceedingly taboo and, thus, more enticing for fans. Furthermore, because of the internet (which, obviously, does not exist when the original Star Trek is an active TV show), fan reactions and activity, including slash fiction, are easily circulated on websites dedicated to specific genres, films, TV shows, comic books, characters, actors, or writers; in the case of videos, there are several websites (fan and non-fan oriented) that allow easy uploading and viewing, such as YouTube. Since fan interpretations are so quickly and broadly disseminated, there are large audiences for slash fiction texts and, in turn, more fans create them. Because of this widespread popularity, it appears very possible that the producers of Smallville would be aware of slash interpretations and could play into them, thereby encouraging even more of such activities.

331

As defined by Hall, oppositional decoding is when a viewer detotalizes the message in the preferred code in order to retotalize the message within some alternative framework of reference (172 -173). Thus, the text is read in a contrary way. 332 Jenkins 488.

142

One example of Smallville slash fiction is the online short story A Kiss Can be a Question, in which Clark and Lex are paired in an explicitly sexual relationship. The author describes a passionate kiss between the characters and the ensuing reaction: Luckily, Lex didn't seem to mind. On the contrary. Clark could feel Lex's body melt against his. This made him bolder. He was going to make Lex want him as much as he wanted the untouchable, powerful man.333 This fan rewrites the program as a gay romance, creating scenes that cannot be found in the official version of the show. In addition to the myriad of similar slash fiction stories (some much more graphic), there are numerous Clark-Lex (called Clex by fans) online videos that rework Smallville as a samesex romance through the use of an assortment of techniques: editing that suggestively juxtaposes footage of Lex and Clark from different episodes; romantic music that accompanies images of the characters; onscreen text that indicates their homosexuality; and/or manipulation (or even creation) of visuals and sounds to suggest sexual interplay between Clark and Lex. In one such video on YouTube called Brokeback Smallville (Clex), a fan utilizes Smallville footage to construct a parody of the trailer for Brokeback Mountain, a film that is actually about repressed and consummated same-sex desire.334 With gentle guitar music playing for the first half, the video presents numerous shots of Clark and Lex gazing at each other (sometimes created by juxtaposing unrelated shots), slow motion often augmenting the sexual tension; a scene in which Clark tells his mom, What do you want me to do, mom, cut him out of my life?; a scene featuring Clark and Lex in tuxedos, with Lex telling him, At some point, Clark, you just know

333

Henry Jones, Jr. and Titti, A Kiss Can Be A Question, Smallville Fan Fiction, by Henry Jones, Jr., n.d., Web, 23 September 2010. <http://www.sabershadowkat.com/smallville/kisscanbeaquestion.html> 334 Bokin6, Brokeback Smallville (Clex), YouTube, 16 January 2008, Web, 22 September 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvwPfoeQRfk>

143

when something is right; a shot of Clark tearing open Lexs shirt;335 text that says There are lies we have to tell, followed by romantic scenes of Clark and Lex with different women, implying that these relationships are only about keeping up the appearance of heterosexuality; and a scene in which Clarks dad tells Lex, I dont like your friendship with my son, followed closely by a shot of Clark telling his dad, You cant understand that, insinuating that Clark is resisting his dads challenge to his homosexual relationship with Lex. This fans productive act of poaching transforms the program into a story of secret (and consummated) same-sex desire that struggles to be accepted by society, almost completely eliminating depictions of superpowers, which are so central to the official version of the show. In this chapter, I am going to combine an examination of the gay subtext in the Clark-Lex relationship with an investigation of how Lex endangers Clarks development into a hero during puberty. If one interprets that there are romantic feelings between the characters, homosexuality becomes something threatening, since intimacy with Lex increases the chances that Clark will be outed as a monster, transformed into one, or killed. What makes the peril to Clark from this relationship so fascinating is that we know the futures of both characters: Clark will become Superman and Lex will become a supervillain. Thus, there is an element of romantic tragedy to their friendship, since the viewer knows that they will definitively not end up together, as either friends or partners. The tenuous closeness between hero and villain is a key aspect of the post-2000 superhero genre in film and TV, as good and evil are frequently presented as intertwined. If there is a period of friendship, it usually occurs at a stage of transition for the characters, like it does on Smallville. As a prequel to the Superman story, the program allows digressions that
335

This shot was originally part of a scene in which Clark unveils a surveillance device hidden under Lexs shirt (Legacy, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Jeph Loeb, The WB, 14 April 2004, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004).

144

temporarily take characters away from their ultimate fates; a brief friendship between Clark and Lex is acceptable because it does not change the fact that they will become worst enemies one day. Moreover, since the program is set in a time before the characters have solidified their identities, queer storylines and readings become more possible. In her dissertation exploring the relationships of characters on Smallville (and the role of TV characters in the identity formation of viewers), Michaela Meyer explains, Adolescent friendships are a type of interpersonal relationship that culture views as transitoryas youth progress toward adulthood, it is expected that they will leave most, if not all, of their childhood friends behind336 Accordingly, Clark and Lexs friendship is something they must leave behind as they progress into adulthood; however, their profound influence on each other at a pivotal moment speaks to the deep connection between hero and villain. They each could have potentially influenced the other differently (i.e., Clark could have made Lex a hero and Lex could have transformed Clark into a villain). The proximity between hero and villain is prevalent in other superhero films and TV shows in this period, as best friends become enemies and often help create the heroism/villainy of the other, such as in the Spider-Man and X-Men films. In most cases, both friendsthe hero and the villainend up viewing themselves as heroes; this relativism again suggests the newfound closeness between good and evil in the genre, as the hero flirts with monstrosity (and sometimes the villain himself) and his monstrous antagonist makes an argument for his own heroism. In the end, several factors distinguish Smallville as the strongest example of the trend to depict star-crossed friendships between heroes and villains: the amount of screen time devoted to the relationship between hero and villain (the Clark and Lex dynamic is central to the programs first seven seasons), the overriding sense of tragedy since the viewer (even if totally

336

Michaela D. E. Meyer, Examining the representation of relationships on young adult television: A case study of "Smallville" from the integrated rhetorical methodology, Ph.D. Dissertation (Ohio University, 2004) 95.

145

unfamiliar with other Superman media) is made so abundantly aware that they will become worst enemies, and the intensity of the homosexual undertones.

Crashing into Love/Friendship: Clark, Lex, and the (Temporary) Relationships of Young Superheroes and Supervillains The dangerousness of Lexs influence and the homoerotic nature of his friendship with Clark are established in the first episode. Formal elements emphasize Lexs aberrant presence in the wholesome small town. In the previously mentioned sequence where he meets and crashes into Clark, Lex is shown driving a Porsche along a fairly deserted highway; his pretentious car differs from the modest vehicles typically seen in the town of Smallville. He is dressed entirely in black (including his expensive-looking driving gloves), accentuating his pasty skin and completely bald head and reflecting his dark nature. His body is deviant, looking underdeveloped and diseased. Furthermore, his driving is reckless, as he pushes the speed limit and talks on a mobile phone, causing him to strike a metal coil in the road and hit Clark while he stands innocently by the side of the road. Right away, the hazardous nature of Clarks association with Lex is established as they meet in the most violent way possible, a collision that would have killed Clark if he were not super. Horror scholar Harry Benshoff argues that queerness disrupts narrative equilibrium and sets in motion a questioning of the status quo, and in many cases within fantastic literature, the nature of reality itself.337 On Smallville, Lex is the queer338 character who prompts Clarks first onscreen act of heroism and helps him realize the extent of his superpowers, causing him to question his life and (eventually) to dedicate his abilities to saving others. As argued earlier,

337

Harry Benshoff, The Monster and the Homosexual, Horror, the Film Reader, ed. Mark Jancovich (London: Routledge, 2002) 93. 338 He is queer in terms of his deviance from the norms of Smallville, as well as his ambiguous sexual orientation.

146

Clarks collision with Lexs Porsche also increases Clarks sense of monstrosity, since he learns how strange and potentially threatening his body is. Moreover, Clarks immoral usage of superpowers in future episodes is made possible by the knowledge he gains about his body in his first meeting with Lex. Thus, the accident is possibly the seminal moment in his pubescent developmentLex, in effect, helps Clark discover his body (a sexually loaded act)starting him on a path that will feature heroic and monstrous uses of superpowers, speaking to the complicated, shadowy role Lex has in Clarks life. In a precursor to the homosexual subtext that will dominate their relationship, after their accident Clark pulls Lex out of the water and is shown hovering above him, giving him mouthto-mouth resuscitation that (superficially) resembles a kiss. One fan interprets the scene as follows: Contextually, Clark just brought Lex back from the dead, baptized in water, Lex opens his eyes with awe to see a good looking dark haired man dripping wet and panting. It was the scene porns are made of. A connection is instantly made.339 Falling in line with this fans reading, Clarks father seems panicked at the very sight of Lex, calling him a maniac, refusing to shake his hand, and hurrying Clark away from him. The hysterical reaction is the first of many times in which Clarks father warns him that Lex is dangerous, a bad influence who is overly interested in Clark and his extraordinary body (again, numerous homosexual overtones). Lex and his lifestyle are presented as threatening throughout the premiere episode of Smallville. When Clark first enters Lexs homea mansion so massive that the camera has to pan to show its entire castle-like exteriorhe looks around wondrously, impressed with and perhaps slightly seduced by the Luthor standard of living. His arrival is punctuated by Lex, whoin the midst of a fencing lessonthrows his sword across the room, barely missing Clark, who stands awkwardly in a medium shot. Therefore, Clarks second encounter with Lex
339

Meyer 105.

147

resembles the first: It is violent, has a sexual component (there is nothing subtle about the phallic sword nearly piercing Clark), and highlights Lexs recklessness and wealth. A key part of Lexs threat to Clark is his attempted usurpation of the influence of his father. When Lex gives Clark a truck as a present for saving him, Clarks father reminds him that he does not deserve a prize for doing the right thing, instilling a key part of the superhero quest: acting selflessly. After Clark returns the truck, he tells Lex about his fathers concerns that Lex is as selfish and dishonest as Lionel Luthor, his duplicitous father; with a look of amusement, Lex responds, Figures the apple doesnt fall from the tree? Understandable. What about you, Clark? Did you fall far from the tree? In questioning the influence Clarks father has on him (e.g., in terms of his opinion of Lex), Lex pushes Clark to establish an identity away from his father, perhaps to be more like Lex. Lexs ambiguous morality and aberrant relationship to the worldin the same scene, he intensely describes the exhilaration he felt when his heart stopped after his car accidentsuggest the undesirability of Lex succeeding in such attempts to play a role in Clarks moral development. The differences between the values of the wholesome Kents and the corrupt, businessobsessed Luthors are, more than anything, what make Lexs possible influence on Clark so frightening. In the episode Jitters, narrative and formal elements emphasize the disparities between the families. The storyline concentrates on a tense situation that is instigated by Lionel Luthors lies (underscoring his dishonesty) and nearly results in the deaths of both Clark and Lex. After disaster is averted, Jonathan and Martha Kent stand in the foreground with their backs to the camera and hold out their arms welcomingly, as Clark smiles and runs toward them from the background. While Clark, his father, and mother all openly embrace in a medium shot, his mother exclaims Ive never been so happy to see you in my life! In contrast to this

148

unbridled joy, Lex unhurriedly approaches his father (the Kents still visibly hugging in the background, though out of focus) and, in a medium close-up, announces gravely, You lied to me. Though the two men stand closely, there is no sense of intimacy, something reinforced by their restrictive, formal clothing: Lionel is dressed in an expensive-looking black suit and Lex is wearing a fancy dress shirt. In comparison, all three Kents have on clothes that could be worn on the family farm and are casual, seeming to encourage movement and affection: Clark is wearing a red shirt and jeans; his father sports a plaid shirt, jeans, and a jacket; and his mother is dressed in tan pants and a gray jacket. Interrogated by the press about the incident, Lionel finally gives Lex a hug to deflect further questions and to prove that Luthorcorp puts family first, though what we see belies that claim. In a medium close-up of Lionels face, with Lexs back to the camera, he looks out blankly as he awkwardly embraces his son, robotically rubbing his left hand on his back in a forced attempt to signify affection. In the subsequent shot, the camera pans across the Kents in close-up, still embracing and smiling, and then suddenly racks focus to the background, revealing Lex in a medium shot, uncomfortable and staring longingly at the Kents (this loaded look can be read as yearning to be a part of the Kent family or ambiguous desire for Clark). As bolstered by one more shot of each family, the message is clear: The Kents are an ideal, loving nuclear family, whereas the Luthors are cold and calculating, tellingly lacking a maternal figure (Lexs mother has long been dead). Though Lex clearly wants to be like the Kents, the sad fact is that he has been raised by Lionel, turning him into a morally dubious person who endangers Clark. The show makes nurture the largest influence, with characters growing up to reflect the values of their parents. Clark may stray occasionally, but the strong morality instilled by his adoptive father and mother always wins out in the end. Likewise, Lex may fight for years the

149

perception that he is similar to LionelClarks father constantly defines Lex by his last name and characters like the villain in Jitters insist Hes just like his father!but he ultimately cannot overcome his upbringing, becoming even more immoral than his father.340 Due to Lexs soulless upbringing, his sexually charged obsession with Clark is coded as dangerous, potentially leading Clark off his heroic path and outing his super body to someone who is not trustworthy. When Lex expresses his appreciation for being given a new beginning in the programs first episode, he looks at Clark fixedly, saying, We have a future, Clark. And I dont want anything to stand in the way of our friendship. He is determined to have a relationship with Clark, even if it is illicit in the eyes of Clarks father. Framed in a close-up that emphasizes his intensity, Lex has a white towel draped around his neck and is wearing a black shirt, the mixture of light and dark connoting how he is neither distinctly good nor evil. Though he claims he wants a friendship, the strength of his desire for Clark and its forbiddenness suggest something sexual (Clarks reaction is ambiguous, as he is largely silent and unemotional). As Battis suggests, [Considering] the wealth of long pauses, significant looks, intimate spatial positioning, physical contact, and amatory language that exists between these characters. . . [it] seems . . . difficult not to see an erotic potential emerging from their friendship, as it must emerge from any close friendship.341 This strong homosexual subtext helps establish the risk Lex presents to Clarks development, taking him away from the simple small town values with which he has been raised.

340

Though he never becomes totally good, Lionel changes over his seven seasons on the show, becoming more of a protector of Clark and often choosing Clark (and his mother) over Lex. His improved morality ironically only pushes Lex further toward darkness, culminating in Lex murdering Lionel by pushing him through the window of a high-rise building (Descent, Smallville: The Complete Seventh Season, writ. Holly Henderson and Don Whitehead, The CW, 17 April 2008, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2008). 341 Battis 6.

150

In addition to jeopardizing Clarks growth into a moral superhero, Lexs (sexualized) fixation endangers Clark by threatening to out his superpowers, potentially causing Clark to be seen as physically monstrous and/or dangerous to humanity (original sin monstrosity). He spends most of his time on the series directly and indirectly investigating Clark, including their initial car accident, the meteor shower that brought Clark to Earth,342 numerous superpowered beings who gained their abilities from the meteor shower, and several aliens from Clarks home planet of Krypton. An example of Lexs constant questioning of Clarks super body can be seen near the end of Jitters, after Clark pulls Lex and the episodes villain to safety. In an extreme close-up, Lex stares at Clark and suspiciously asks, Clark, how did you pull us up? Likewise, in the episode Leech, Lex does a high-tech investigation of the car accident that led him to meet Clark, confronting Clark with his findings: I think I hit you at 60 miles an hour, then you ripped open my roof, pulled me out and saved my life.343 Though Clark denies it and eventually offers evidence for his denial, Lexs suspicions and investigations largely continue for the first seven seasons of the show. The sexual undertones of Lexs obsession with Clark are intensified when it is revealed that he has a hidden room devoted to Clark in his mansion. Ostensibly the result of Lexs confusion about surviving the initial car accident with Clark, the locked room is unveiled by Lex to his fiance in the second season.344 In effect outing a part of his life that was previously closeted, the scene can be interpreted as Lex coming out or trying to put his illicit desires aside with the help of his heterosexual partner.345 Regardless of whether one follows the non342 343

He does not know that the meteor shower is related to Clarks arrival until the end of the seventh season. Leech, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Tim Schlattmann, The WB, 12 February 2002, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 344 Visitor, Smallville: The Complete Second Season, writ. Philip Levens, The WB, 15 April 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003. 345 Still, there is little sense of him renouncing his obsession with Clark, as he seems to be inviting his fiance to join him in studying Clark.

151

dominant reading of Lex as gay, the room is a curiosity. Introduced in an extreme long shot, it is totally dark, except for a few small lights and the glow from various screens; Lexs dark clothes help associate him with these dark surroundings. Claiming this is my obsession, the room features many alien artifacts (all related to Clark, though Lex is not yet certain of his connection), a computer-generated video of his Porsche hitting Clark that plays repeatedly (allowing Lex to relive their first meeting compulsively), confidential documents and papers about Clark, and, most disturbingly, giant black-and-white images of Clark on various screens; the size and posed quality of these images make them seem like wall posters of a handsome heartthrob.346 Following a close-up of one image of Clark, his fiance suggestively declares, Theres a lot here about the Kents. In her analysis of fan reactions to the Clark-Lex relationship, Meyer describes how this chamber that Lex has literally devoted to Clark serves as a creepy symbol of Lexs repressed emotions for the slash community.347 That is, for the community of fans who read and write slash fiction (pairing Clark and Lex), the hidden room is a striking indicator of Lexs sexual feelings for Clark. Moreover, the room reinforces that Lex is a danger to Clark, obsessed with uncovering his secrets and exhibiting behavior more typical of a stalker or a sexual predator than a best friend. Though the dominant/preferred reading is that Clark and Lex are heterosexual, Smallvilles actors and producers appear to have at least some knowledge that readings of homosexuality are possible. In an article in Rolling Stone magazine published during the programs first season, actor Michael Rosenbaum (who plays Lex Luthor) explicitly evokes the possible homosexuality of the characters as he rehearses a scene with Tom Welling (who plays

346

The similarity of one of these images to one printed on the first disc of the second season DVD setClark is wearing what looks like the same shirt, has identically styled hair, and strikes a similar posesuggests that it is in fact an official publicity photo. 347 Meyer 110.

152

Clark): You sure you dont remember anything [about the accident]? asks Rosenbaum. He pauses. He lifts an eyebrow. Finally, displaying his own intuitive feel for the zeitgeist, he says, My ass was sore afterward. You sure you didnt give me a superfuck?348 Rosenbaums reference to gay sex suggests that he is quite aware of a homosexual subtext to the Clark-Lex relationship, making it conceivable that other members of the cast and crew also see elements of same-sex desire. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some of the performances, lines of dialogue, and storylines on Smallville intentionally play into the subtext by conveying some ambiguity in regards to sexual orientation. Furthermore, the interpretative and creative activities of fans, particularly slash fiction, may have a role in spurring this calculated ambiguity (which, in turn, encourages additional fan readings of homosexuality). Although Lex is more noticeably coded as queer, his sexually loaded relationship with Clark is far from one-sided. Lexs love interests often appear to be a source of jealousy for Clark, who usually exposes them as somehow untrustworthy, allowing Lex to return to obsessing over him. This pattern endangers Clark in that he risks his life and his secret to protect Lex and permits Lex to continue influencing him (as a hero and, arguably, a heterosexual). In the episode Heat, Clarks possessiveness is illustrated in a scene that follows a school fire. As Lex surprisingly appears at the school in his expensive sports car, a medium shot shows Clark smiling, saying Lex, and excitedly approaching his friend. Next, Lex is displayed jumping out of his car in a long shot, the camera tracking toward him as he states, I came as soon as I heard. Seemingly a romantic moment, Clark grins in a medium close-up, appearing to be awaiting an embrace. However, Lex runs by him, causing Clark to do a double take; the camera
348

Erik Hedegaard, Tall Tales from Smallville: Its a New Superman for a New Century: Lana Lang is Barely Legal, Lex Luthor Cant Get Laid, and Clark Kent Was Once a Beefcake, Rolling Stone, 28 March 2002: 42-44, 48, 80, Web, 1 June 2009. <http://iipa.chadwyck.com/journals/displayItemFromId.do?QueryType=journals&BackTo=article&BackToParam= QueryName=articles|Multi=yes|ResultsID=1184DC18948|ItemNumber=2&ItemID=JID0035791X>

153

then tracks past Clark (though we can still see him watching in the left corner of the frame) and centers Lex and his new fiance. Clarks clear confusion leads Lex to tell him, Id like you to meet Desire Atkins, my fiance, as the camera pans to show her in close-up. This shot is then juxtaposed with a close-up of Clark in which his slight smile fades to a frown; with the background totally out of focus, the camera then tracks in to an extreme close-up and tilts up to frame him from a low angle. The suffocating proximity of the camera parallels the sense of bewilderment for Clark. Continuing our reading of homosexual feelings between the two friends, Clarks shock can be interpreted as resulting from the fact that Lex has chosen a woman over him. Tellingly, Clark spends the rest of the episode trying to expose Lexs new wife (he marries her the same day she meets Clark) as evil, in the process getting arrested and nearly having his powers revealed, these events again underscore the hazards of being involved with Lex Luthor. Eventually, Clark saves Lex after his wife (who does turn out to be villainous) tries to shoot him and burn him alive. As Clark puts out the fire, he is presented in a high angle shot jumping on top of Lex with a red table cover and rubbing him vigorously. This image is followed by close-ups of Clark grinning and out of breath and Lex smiling. The sexual connotations (regardless of intentionality) are quite present; unsurprisingly, this footage is used in several slash videos. Lexs continual inability to form a successful, honest romantic relationship with a woman reinforces the ambiguity of his sexual orientation and highlights the psychological issues that make associating with Lex so perilous for Clark. After the aforementioned wife, Lex marries twice more, first to an equally duplicitous woman who tries to have him killed and then to Lana Lang, Clarks longtime love interest. The latter instance is especially intriguing in that he

154

pursues and marries the woman Clark has professed to love throughout much of the series; continuing the reading of repressed feelings between Lex and Clark, one can interpret that, if Lex cannot have sex with Clark, having sex with Clarks former lover may be the next best thing to him. Of course, the relationship with Lana is also fraught with deceit as Lex falsifies a pregnancy and a miscarriage in order to convince Lana to marry him.349 The marriage predictably collapses under the weight of all his lies, allowing Lex to return his attention to Clark; even though he and Clark are enemies instead of friends in later seasons, Lex seems unable to stop obsessing over him. The pinnacle of Lexs danger to Clark is when he outs Clark and nearly succeeds at ending his quest to become a hero at the end of the seventh season. The results of revelation are explored in several earlier episodes, including the previously discussed Onyx, in which Lexs evil double uncovers Clarks secret (and weakness) and tries to blackmail Clark into ruling the world with him. However, this evil Lex is defeated at the end of the episode without the actual Lex discovering the truth about Clark. The real Lex finally learns Clarks secret in the episode Arctic, following a zealous quest to figure out the identity of a mysterious alien on Earth (who turns out to be Clark) in order to stop him.350 In the final scene of the season, Lex arrives at Clarks secret arctic home, The Fortress of Solitude; dressed all in black, once again connoting his dark nature, he stands out from the radiant light emitting from the crystal fortress. Lexs sense of wonder and joy at finally finding out that Clark is an alien (after years of investigations) is conveyed via several slow-paced point-of-view, close-up, and tracking shots of Lex strolling through the fortress and looking around with a slight grin on his face. When the newly outed

349

As revealed in Progeny, Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season, writ. Genevieve Sparling, The CW, 19 April 2007, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2007. 350 Arctic, Smallville: The Complete Seventh Season, writ. Don Whitehead and Holly Henderson, The CW, 15 May 2008, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2008.

155

Clark arrives, his horror is emphasized formally by the use of the Hitchcock zoom (a.k.a., the vertigo effect)351: The camera tracks in toward Clark while simultaneously zooming out, suggesting his disorientation through the way the background seems to move further away all of a sudden. Lex gloats about his awareness of Clarks alien origin, saying, secretly youre a strange visitor from another planet, plotting our demise. Thus, as Clark has feared, Lex sees him as a menace to humanity because of his alien origin and superpowers (original sin monstrosity) and believes Clark is going to use abilities to control the world (moral monstrosity). Reiterating the danger he sees from Clark and his plans to be the hero who stops him, Lex declares, Youll never threaten the world again, Kal-El.352 This encounter is the culmination of the sexual subtext between the characters. After Clarks explains that he is not evil (Ive never done anything to hurt you), Lex responds, You didnt trust me, and adds, With everything you had, with everything you could do, did you ever think about what we could have accomplished together? I would have helped you become a hero. Lexs lamentations that Clark did not trust him, had so many advantages in his life, and refused to work together with Lex make him resemble a spurned, jealous lover, wanting revenge and rewriting history to make himself seem like the good guy (hence, his claim that he would have helped Clark become a hero). Furthermore, Lex speaks of outing Clark and having the power to control Clarkvia an alien orbas the climax in his life: everything led me to this moment. Underlining the sexual aspects of his danger to Clark, he sticks the orb onto a very phallic crystal, causing Clark to yell Lex, dont! as a beam of light pierces Clarks body. As Clark collapses onto the ground, Lex and Clark are juxtaposed in close-ups: Lex dressed all in black as he kneels and holds Clarks head up affectionately and Clark wearing the more
351 352

The effect is famously utilized in Vertigo (dir. Alfred Hitchcock, 1958, DVD, Universal, 1998). Kal-El is Clarks Kryptonian name; Lex appears to relish saying Clarks secret birth name for the first time, since it indicates he finally knows his true identity.

156

traditionally heroic (and patriotic, in the U.S. context) red and blue while he writhes in pain. Lexs final line speaks to the depth of his feelings for Clark and his belief that he must expose and control Clarks super body: I love you like a brother, Clark, but it has to end this way. In the special-effects-laden shot that concludes the episode, the entire fortress (with its many phallic crystal columns) collapses on Clark and Lex, the latter cradling Clark like a lover in a final embrace. All things considered, the scene reads like a rape of Clark. Lex has outed Clark after years of pursuing his secret and believes he has earned the right to access and control his body. When Clark claims, Its my life. You have no right to control it, pleading against the violation of his body (i.e., Lex using the alien technology to gain power over his body), Lex responds, Its my birthright! Over the course of the series, Lexs fixation on Clark goes through several evolutions: Initially, he attempts to be Clarks friend; then, having lost his friendship, he yearns to be like Clark (marrying his girlfriend and seeing himself as a hero); and, finally, having learned his secret, Lex tries to dominate and perhaps become Clark. It is in the last evolution that he poses the largest threat to Clark because he can take Clark off his heroic path completely. Under Lexs rule, Clark would likely become an immoral monster, acting for Lexs selfish desires. The scene cements the dangerousness of a homosexual union with Lex: Having learned Clarks closeted secrets, Lex consummates their relationship by entering Clarks body (using the alien orb), an act that will presumably destroy the superhero and create an unstoppable force of evil. Importantly, the next season reveals that the orb (contrary to what any of the characters believed) controls Clark only by stripping him of his powers.353 Thus, Lex is unable to wield

353

Odyssey, Smallville: The Complete Eighth Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The CW, 18 September 2008, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2009.

157

Clarks powers monstrously but still succeeds in taking Clark away from his heroic destiny, at least temporarily (he does, of course, regain his powers).354 Ultimately, Lexs evil is complicated by the fact that he sees himself as a hero. As he tries to control Clark, he claims, Im doing this for the world. I have to protect the human race, and You hold the future of the entire planet in your hands. Im here to take it back. These statements again reflect that Lex views Clark as an original sin monster, someone who is a danger to humanity just for having superpowers. Lexs solution is to give himself control over Clark, which problematically gives him authority over the future of the planet; Lexs belief that a human is more trustworthy is something the show decidedly portrays as false through its many depictions of humans corrupted by power (whether it is superhuman power or political, economic, or social power). Nevertheless, the fact that Lex believes he is heroically saving the world diminishes the evil of his actions and makes him more sympathetic. The dangerous villain who sees himself as a hero and is sympathetic to viewers is a key recurring element of the superhero genre after 2000. Lex is a likable character in that he is given seven seasons of character development that depict his descent into immorality. Despite his best intentions, he becomes twisted due to his terrible upbringing and inability to find anyone who truly trusts or loves him. Likewise, in the X-Men films archvillain Magneto is sympathetic because of his horrible childhood (he survives the Holocaust while his family is murdered), charming personality, and desire to protect mutants (like himself) from being persecuted by humans, which is the sole motivation for his villainous attempts to dominate and destroy humanity; he does not see himself as a villain, but as a great hero to the mutant cause.
354

Lex disappears and reappears later in the eighth season in severely disfigured form (and played by a different actor). So, in violating Clarks super body, his own b ody is decimated. He does, however, manage to do one more thing to halt Clarks heterosexual development, infecting Lana with kryptonite so that the two lovers can no longer touch (Requiem, Smallville: The Complete Eighth Season, writ. Holly Henderson and Don Whitehead, The CW, 5 February 2009, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2009).

158

Connected to this trend of sympathetic, heroic villains is the preponderance of best friends or loved ones of superheroes who become villains, often as a result of the actions of the superheroes. Therefore, there is again a link and overlap between heroism and villainy in the genre after 2000. In one of Smallvilles most memorable scenes, Clark and Lex stand in his barn as Lex assures him, Trust me, Clark. Our friendship is going to be the stuff of legend, speaking to their intimacy and his belief in the long-range survival of their friendship.355 The irony of Lexs statement is obvious, as avid viewers of the show (and those familiar with other Superman stories) know that Clark and Lex are destined to be legendary enemies, not friends. The extreme long shot that ends the scene accentuates their differing fates: Clark is dressed in a red and blue outfit, connoting his destiny to be a patriotic hero, while Lex is wearing all black, signifying his forthcoming evil. By the shows later seasons the two best friends are clearly against each other as hero and villain, showcasing how good and evil are definitely not discrete, as they have an interlinked past. Furthermore, on the program, Clark is arguably partially responsible for Lexs villainy: He saves him from death, instigates the obsessions with the car crash and aliens that drive Lex further into darkness, and repeatedly deceives Lex. In their climactic encounter (just detailed), Lex openly wonders how their lives may have turned out if Clark had just trusted him from the beginning. If Clark had outed himself to Lex earlier, he would have potentially halted Lexs obsessions and reassured him that one person in the world trusted him. Thus, Lexs villainy is an example of Clarks original sin monstrosity since the hero, though his actions, helps create a villain who subsequently harms others, including the hero himself.

355

Hug, Smallville: The Complete First Season, writ. Doris Egan, The WB, 5 February 2002, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003.

159

Though not superhero tales, the massively popular Star Wars films are an important possible influence on this tendency to have heroes and villains who are initially friends or even family members. In the original Star Wars films (1977, 1980, 1983) it is revealed that the evil Darth Vader is actually the father of the protagonist, Luke Skywalker.356 Similarly, in the three prequels (1999, 2002, 2005), Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker (who transforms into Darth Vader) are best friends who become enemies, with the insinuation that Obi-Wan is at least partially responsible for Anakins descent into evil.357 In the superhero genre, examples of loved ones who become villains, sometimes as a direct result of the superhero, abound in the post-2000 era. In the X-Men films Professor Xavier, leader of the X-Men, is former best friends with archvillain Magneto. Their friendship sours due to different ideological beliefs.358 In addition, the characters Ice-Man and Pyro start as best friends in X2 and are sworn enemies by the third X-Men film. In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Wolverine and Victor Creed (a.k.a., Sabretooth) are brothers who are fiercely loyal, until Wolverine abandons his brother, who becomes increasingly violent and hateful. Since he directly creates a vicious villain, Wolverine is guilty of original sin monstrosity. Similarly, the Spider-Man film trilogy depicts the transformation of Spider-Mans best friend Harry into a villainous character.359 In the first film, Harrys father, who is the villainous Green Goblin, accidentally dies while fighting Spider-Man; when Spider-Man returns his body home, Harry incorrectly believes that Spider-Man has murdered his father. In the subsequent two films, Harry sets out to capture Spider-Man, unmasks him, and tries to kill him in his own villainous get-up.
356 357

Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back, dir. Irvin Kershner, 1982, DVD, 20th Century Fox, 2006. Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith, dir. George Lucas, 2005, DVD, 20th Century Fox, 2005. 358 Though it could be suggested that Xavier is responsible for not being able to keep Magneto on the side of the heroic mutants (where he started), there is no clear sense of Xavier doing something to turn him evil; therefore, I cannot call it original sin monstrosity. Likewise, in the Star Wars prequels, Obi-Wans complicity in Anakins fall is debatable, as he does very little to cause it. 359 Harry redeems himself near the end of the third film.

160

Thus, Spider-Man creates his own worst enemy through his apparent betrayal of his friend. Other examples of villains who are initially friends of the superhero include Batmans mentor Henri Ducard, who becomes his worst enemy in Batman Begins;360 Batmans friend Harvey Dent, who becomes the monstrous Harvey Two-Face in The Dark Knight; and Iron Mans family friend, father figure, and business colleague Obadiah Stane, who becomes a corrupt and villainous threat in Iron Man. Harveys villainy is an example of Batmans original sin monstrosity, since the physical and emotional traumas that drive Harvey insane are a direct result of Batmans failure to act quickly enough.361 In Iron Mans case, he is doubly responsible for Obadiah Stanes evil, since he fuels his malevolence by usurping Obadiahs position in the company and creates the technology Obadiah uses to enact his villainy. In the end, the relationship between Clark and Lex on Smallville is part of a larger trend in the superhero genre of depicting heroes and villains who are deeply connected. The sevenseason development of the Clark-Lex relationship from best friends to worst enemies makes it the best, most complex representation of the trend. Moreover, the intense sexual tension between the friends provides an additional layer that most hero-villain friendships lack. The many close relationships between opposed figures in the superhero genre help show that good and evil share certain characteristics (or else a hero and villain could never be close and a villain could not seem at times heroic or redeemable) and help create each other. The genre has moved away from a black-and-white worldview, as influenced by changes in U.S. culture that have lead audiences to expect some nuance and complexity in their films and TV shows. On Smallville,
360 361

Batman Begins, dir. Christopher Nolan, 2005, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005. One could try to argue that Batman makes his mentor Henri Ducard into a supervillain in Batman Begins, since Ducard seems vengeful after Bruce Wayne destroys his home and nearly gets him killed. However, the fact that Ducards evil plan precedes his first encounter with Bruce Wayne indicates that he was already villainous (meaning Batman does not cause him to act wickedly). Moreover, one could make the case that the Joker in The Dark Knight is a direct result of Batman, as he is described as responding to Batmans theatricality and heroism and seems to focus mainly on confronting the superhero. However, there is not enough evidence about the characters origin to link his birth directly to Batman, so it is a tenuous case of original sin monstrosity.

161

even the most distinctly good superhero, Superman, constantly flirts with monstrosity and spends a large part of his upbringing in a dangerousand arguably sexually chargedrelationship with the man who is destined to become his greatest enemy. And he may in fact be responsible for creating that enemy.

162

PART 3 The Superhero-Gone-Bad Phenomenon: When Super Saviors Become Immoral Monsters

163

In a dramatic scene in Superman III, the titular hero flies through the air in his usual graceful fashion, approaching a large oil tanker in the middle of the ocean. As the viewer waits for him to save the crew from some calamity or simply pass by benevolently, Superman does something shocking: Leading with his fists, he violently pierces the side of the tanker. The force of the blow is emphasized by the stumbling of the previously bored-looking captain, whose stacked golf balls fall over; as emergency alarms ring, the captain and his assistants helplessly try to see what is happening through the window. In a close-up that accentuates his inhuman strength, Superman is presented punching and peeling away the layers of metal as if they were clay, until oil begins to be released. In contrast to this awe-inspiring power, we are presented the crew members comparative impotence, as an extreme close-up shows them picking up a phone to report the emergency and trying to halt the spill via a lever. In the next two shots, Superman stands on the side of the tanker and unleashes a torrent of oil, indicating how ineffective the crews countermeasures are. All that the humans can do in the remaining shots is open their eyes widely in shock, look at each other, and watch Superman through binoculars while alarms continue flashing and sounding. Superman finally flies away in an extreme long shot, the mortally wounded tanker having visibly released massive amounts of oil into the ocean. This unstoppable act of aggression, revealing humans as powerless, represents the most blatant kind of eruption of the monstrous superhero: the superhero transformed into an immoral destroyer, or, as I call it, the superhero-gone-bad. The genre typically counters anxieties of feeling impotent in the face of those with power by offering fantasies of being saved from above or, when identifying with the superhero, of being superhumanly powerful and heroic. Reassuringly, the superhero possesses superhuman abilities while remaining essentially moral.

164

Narratives featuring the destructive superhero-gone-bad are not nearly as comforting. They present human characters who are helpless to stop the superhero, revealing that most people remain essentially powerless and that even special citizens can surrender to corruption and wield their power selfishly and destructively. The unrestrained superhero usually reflects two kinds of monstrosity: moral, in his selfish motivations, which are usually related to the pleasures that can be experienced via sex, money, and/or violence; and original sin, in that he is seen as a threat (and becomes a danger) to mankind due to having superpowers. In some cases, he can also be a physical monster if his body is seen as horrifyingly abnormal while he unleashes his powers, or if his abilities spiral out of control during his misuse of them. The anxieties of impotence are counteracted to an extent by the fact that the superhero-gone-bad embodies the fantasy of having superpowers in a more indulgent way: He uses his abilities without restraint and with more discernible delight.362 In addition, with his exaggerated swagger, the bad superhero often entertainingly parodies the good superheros incorruptibility, as well as popular images of cool. Thus, narratives with the superhero-gone-bad are simultaneously more pleasurable and more untenable (due to the anxieties evoked) than regular superhero narratives. As discussed earlier, renditions of the superhero as a completely monstrous destroyer do not begin in comics with the Marvel Comics characters who exhibit complexity and darkness in the 1960s, nor do they commence in film and television with the Marvel-based superhero films (X-Men, Spider-Man, etc.) that start appearing in 2000. Rather, eruptive appearances of the superhero-gone-badand evil doubles who stand in for the superhero-gone-bad363have always

362

In Superman III, the villains explain that evil Superman is basically Superman with the morali ty of a normal person, meaning he is acting as a regular human would act with superpowers, taking advantage of them for his own benefit and pleasure. 363 These doubles have powers, origins, and/or appearances that are similar to the superhero, but are evil, thereby representing what the superhero would be like if he were a villain. They are different from actual superheroes-gonebad in that are always villainous; there is no process of going bad.

165

existed in the genre. The difference is that starting in the 1960s in comics and after 2000 in film and television they increase in severity and frequency.364 Moreover, the superhero-gone-bad becomes part of a larger, more integral element of monstrosity that fills the genre, as the superhero is constantly questioning his own dark potential, being called a monster, and/or acting corruptly. In film and TV, the superheros turn to evil is often portrayed formally via certain adjustments in costume, lighting, and camera distance. When the superhero goes bad, he frequently starts being associated with the color black, wearing fashionable, darkly hued clothing and appearing in dimly lit scenes, particularly at nighttime; these changes suggest his dark intentions, as well as his similarity to horror movie monsters. Also, there is usually a marked increase in close-range shots that emphasize the frightening force of the superheros abilities, the cruel (or simply uncharacteristic) expressions on his face, and any physical changes; likewise, there are more shots that show the terrorized and helpless victims of the superhero-gone-bad up close. Finally, there are more long shots and extreme long shots in order to accentuate the level of damage he leaves in his wake. This part of the dissertation explores the superhero-gone-bad phenomenon, analyzing its formal and narrative elements and its appeal to viewers. I begin, in Chapter 4, with an analysis of the visual markers and dialogue that characterize the superhero-gone-bad in Superman III, the
364

The increased frequency is when also accounting for the doubles and alternative universe superheroes who stand in for the superhero-gone-bad (without actually qualifying as bad superheroes), though these character types will not be given exhaustive attention in this dissertation. To clarify, an alternative universe version of superhero is usually an evil double, if he is from a parallel Earth but exists in the same comic book, film, or TV series as the good superhero. However, in the rare case that an alternative universe superhero appears in a comic, film, or TV show that does not portray or acknowledge the good version of the superhero, the evil superhero is not a double; nevertheless, he can be said to stand in for the superhero-gone-bad since the reader/viewer is likely aware of the existence of the good version of the character. I can recall only a few fairly recent one-off comic book stories and short series (i.e., ones that are not part of a regular series) that depict an alternate universe with an evil version of a superhero while not acknowledging the main universes good superhero. Since they are so uncommon and are not seen in any superhero films or TV shows with which I am familiar, these alternative universe superheroes who are not doubles will not be mentioned again.

166

first mainstream superhero film to portray the trope. The fact that the film precedes the shifts in the genre proves the long-standing allure of the corrupted superhero. Next, in Chapter 5, I start with an in-depth analysis of the first appearance of Bad Clark, the version of the superherogone-bad on Smallville. Visually, I look at how the depiction of Bad Clark continues to highlight the pubescent status of the protagonist, as it borrows from popular images of juvenile delinquency and the bad boy, as well as representations of villains. Then, I examine several other manifestations of Bad Clark on Smallville in order to prove that it is an important recurring aspect of the program, exhibiting to various degrees the fear and thrill of unstoppable superpowered violence. Furthermore, throughout Chapters 5 I look at fan reactions from websites such as YouTube and Kryptonsite, the former being frequented by a mixture of fans and more casual viewers,365 while the latter features more hardcore fans; in gravitating towards the darker renditions of the superhero, these fans help reveal the ways that the superhero-gone-bad is both pleasurable and anxiety-provoking. Chapter 6 scrutinizes an unusual type of the superhero-gone-bad on Smallville that I am calling the superhero-gone-crazy, since the protagonist becomes dangerous due to mental instability; the crazy superhero more intensely engages anxieties and strongly resembles a horror movie monster. Moreover, I analyze fan reactions to prove how this type of bad superhero is generally less appealing due to his mental issues. In the process, I investigate the disgust and delight of fans in response to Clarks physical abuse of his own mother in one scene, their online postings revealing much about how gender functions in the superhero genre. Finally, in Chapter 7 I explore other mainstream representations of the superhero-gone-bad, looking at the key similarities and differences between the versions of the unleashed, immoral superhero. I highlight, in particular, the

365

However, the fact that these viewers are on the internet searching for and watching videos of Smallville indicates the likelihood of at least a moderate level of fandom.

167

elements of action and horror that make an effectively bad superhero in X2, the gendered aspects of the genre that create an irredeemably corrupted and crazy female superhero in the third X-Men film, and the campiness and insufficient indulgence in superpowers that results in the failure of the superhero-gone-bad in Spider-Man 3. In addition, I conclude the chapter with a short analysis of the Hulk (mainly looking at film and TV incarnations), who shows how some extremely monstrous superheroes can embody many of the same anxieties and fantasies as the bad superhero without actually going bad. Ultimately, though the superhero-gone-bad unleashes many of the anxieties (of impotence and corrupted power) and fantasies (of having superhuman power) of the genre, the strength of the anxieties is minimized because these eruptions of extreme monstrosity are episodic,366 the character soon reverting to being a hero. After all, the fun of being villainous eventually wears off and morality/guilt sets in for the viewer, especially when innocent people are depicted getting hurt by the self-indulgent superhero. Thus, temporariness may finally be what makes these narratives much more entertaining than upsetting for viewers, as the superheros extreme monstrosity is quickly overcome or simply disappears, reduced to a spectre.

366

In the case of a superhero-gone-bad double, there is no reversion to good possible since the character is essentially evil. As a result, anxiety is reduced in these stories not through the limited time of the doubles evil, but through the presence of the superhero, who is there to stop his villainous double.

168

Chapter 4: Superman III: Superhero as Sexual Freak, Drunk, and Destructive Force
Superman III features Superman being infected by a synthetic kind of kryptonite367 that alters his personality and unleashes the superhero-gone-bad. The morally monstrous effects are first glimpsed in a scene in the living room of his love interest, Lana Lang. In a medium closeup, his eyes tighten and he looks visibly nauseous and sleepy, far from the permanently smiling, bright-eyed persona he has earlier in the film. When Lana receives news that a truck is hanging off of a bridge with the driver inside, Superman reacts robotically, remarking, Theres no rush, and Its okay, I always get there on time. His lack of concern reveals the loss of the selflessness typical of the superhero, as well as an uncharacteristic level of conceitedness. His more immediate focus is sex, as he asks Lana to relax a little. Lanas comparative innocence and sexual conservativeness is reflected in a long shot, as she sits in a white blouse (connoting purity), blending in with her similarly hued living room; in contrast, Supermans colorful costume is a visual blot. He sits uncomfortably close to her, stares at her (causing her to avert her eyes), and creepily states, Its unusual to find a good-looking girl like you alone like this. A series of extreme close-ups of Lana and Superman portray her growing distress and his unflinching focus on her. When she asks again about the truck on the bridge, he asks, What bridge? before seeming to come to his senses and leaving, accompanied by foreboding nondiegetic music. Supermans aggressive sexuality in the scene plays against the superheros traditionally non-existent or ambivalence-filled sexual life; further, though superheroes almost

367

Though it is not real kryptonite, it is concocted based on studies of kryptonite. Thus, one can argue that Superman is guilty of original sin monstrosity since something from his origin (kryptonite) endangers humanity by allowing the creation of the synthetic kryptonite that transforms him into an unstoppable superhero-gone-bad.

169

always have love interests, the heroes are often the ones who are pursued.368 The superhero typically struggles to engage in romantic relationships due to his need to put his service to the world first, whereas here Superman completely forgets about his duty while pursuing his lust object. Serving to parody the usually restrained behavior of the superhero, Bad Superman continues to indulge his over-the-top sexuality. When Lorelei, who works for the villain, sits on top of the Statue of Liberty (feigning a suicide attempt to get the superheros attention), Superman flies in and says, I hope you dont expect me to save you, because I dont do that anymore. His vocal selfishness is combined with a swaggering attempt at cool, as he places his hands loosely on his hips and appears briefly to be chewing gum while he scoffs at the idea of rescuing the damsel (as the hero stereotypically does). Thus, his arrogant, over-sexed persona is so inflated that it operates not just as a parody of superheroes but of mainstream images of cool. When he assures Lorelei that he is not in a rush, he speaks with an affected accent (perhaps an attempt to sound like a New Yorker) and struts suggestively toward where she sits; after walking around her, he places his crotch right next to her face. Adding to the sexual imagery, there is a medium close-up showing Loreleis sultry facial expression on the right and Supermans body from the waist down on the left; the focus on his red underwear (that Superman always wears on the outside of his blue tights) and his salacious comment, What did you have in mind? all draw attention to his sexual intentions. His out-of-character lust is cemented as he pulls Lorelei up and holds her against his body. His desire for someone like Lorelei is in itself telling, since she is a nostalgic throwback to images of hyper sexual women from the 1940s-1950s, an amalgam of the ditziness of Marilyn
368

One reason for this tendency is probably the original audience for comic book superheroes: prepubescent boys. These young boys likely did not want their superheroes in relationships and gained pleasure from the rejection of the pesky girls in the stories.

170

Monroe and the dangerousness of the femme fatale. Lorelei has an affectedly high voice, fluffy blonde hair, and heavy makeup on her face; in addition, her fiery red dress matches her heels, lips, and fingernails, while exposing her legs and substantial cleavage. She speaks in innuendo, claiming that she is long past saving and has lots of things she wants to do with Superman; having seduced him, she stops Supermans advances until he does her one little favor first. In contrast to Lorelei, the regular (i.e., good) Supermans main love interest in the film, Lana, is extremely demure and his other love interest, Lois Lane (who has a minor role in the film), dresses conservatively and is charmingly nervous around Superman. When kissed by a woman comparable to Lorelei in the first filmthe physically provocative Miss Teschmacher, who also works for a villainous character (Lex Luthor)Supermans response is to stammer, Why did you kiss me? The superhero, therefore, is traditionally fairly chaste and involves himself only with the so-called good girl, staying away from women who are sexually forward. However, with his broken moral compass, Bad Superman grows overly amorous and pursues aggressively seductive women who are potentially dangerous to him. In a later scene, Superman (after doing the favor she requested) wordlessly walks into Loreleis cabin as romantic music plays, pulling her hand off of a champagne bottle and aggressively grabbing her neck; he smiles and descends onto her body in a medium shot, the insinuation being that they have sex.369 This exchange of sex for doing an evil task for Lorelei reveals the complete corruption of his heroic values; rather than putting the nation first, he prioritizes his own lustful desires, willingly allowing himself to be manipulated in the process. In most of these evil Superman scenes, the characters patriotic costumewith its red, yellow, and blueis visibly darker, connoting his darkened mood and the distortion of his regular persona. It also suggests that he has allowed his suit to get dirty since he no longer cares
369

Conveniently, Superman does not seem to remember this sexual escapade once he disposes of his evil side.

171

about his appearance. Moreover, Bad Superman sports a prominent stubble, apparently not bothering to shave regularly. These changes, along with his general arrogance and lack of hurry, speak again to his resemblance to (and parody of) the stereotypical movie cool guy or bad boy, who forgoes a conservative appearance, seems aimless, and has a sexually aggressive yet nonchalant attitude. The extent of Bad Supermans evil is further suggested by the way his lustful actions tarnish various symbols of America. The scene with Lorelei takes place on top of the Statue of Liberty, the hero lewdly pursuing a femme fatale on a monument that stands for the nation. Significantly, the nighttime skyline of New York City, Americas most iconic city, is clearly visible in the background. Additionally, in a medium close-up at the close of the scene, Superman allows the S on his chesta symbol frequently associated with the United States because of the characters patriotismto be caressed sensually by Lorelei, indicating his complete seduction. Attesting to the fact that his moral monstrosity threatens the lives of humans (original sin monstrosity), Supermans aggressive sexuality has destructive consequences. While he is preoccupied with having sex with Lana, the truck hanging off of the bridge falls, evidently killing the driver. One officer tells him, If only youd got here a minute sooner, reminding the viewer once again why the superhero must typically put his duty first; after all, the police have no hope of stopping many of the disasters characters like Superman are able to halt. Lorelei uses sex to manipulate him into enacting destruction that is more directly his fault, as she has him cause the oil spill that is described at the beginning of Part 3 of this dissertation. The preoccupation with sex is a prime indicator of the superhero-gone-bad, as he chooses his own gratification and lust over the rest of the world, endangering it in the process.

172

There are several other examples of the menacing nature of the superhero-gone-bad in the film, all of which highlight the helplessness of the populace to stop Superman. In one mischievous scene, foreboding music plays as Superman flies to the Leaning Tower of Pisa with a sneer on his face; in a medium long shot, he pushes the tower using his super strength, straightening it out completely. As he flies away in a long shot that exhibits the defacement of the large building, he waves to a vendor selling Leaning Tower of Pisa memorabilia; he appears to be mocking the fact that the mans livelihood has been destroyed now that the tower no longer leans. The vendor, standing in front of the now-straightened tower while wearing a T-shirt depicting the leaning tower, can only impotently break one of his models of the tower, make an obscene gesture, and swear at Superman in Italian. The scene reads as a parody of the superhero, defying our expectations comically by having Superman maliciously alter a landmark using his super strength and then having the superhero jeered by a bystander rather than celebrated as he usually is. Bad Supermans wicked nature and the comparative helplessness of humans can also be observed in a scene set at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics (which seem to be taking place in the United States, judging by the disproportionate number of American flags). As the scene unfolds, shots of marching delegations and flag-waving crowds from various nations are interspersed with shots of a runner bringing the Olympic torch into the stadium, culminating a seven-day marathon over 970 miles. As the runner prepares to light the Olympic flame, Superman is presented in a medium close-up yawning from behind some light fixtures before, two shots later, utilizing his super breath to blow out the torch; a close-up of the torch accentuates the suddenness with which it is extinguished. The runner looks at the torch with confusion and then sees Superman, who smirks prior to leaving the stunned, confused throngs.

173

Again, the superheros usual bland goodness is parodied by turning him into a bully. Though not overly violent, this incident shows the superhero-gone-bads ability to disrupt world events, ruining a ceremony that is about fostering peace. Furthermore, the fact that he can do so with such slight effort indicates how much more powerful he is than the humans, who can only react with disappointment. In another scene, a close-up of a Time magazine cover underlines the impotence of humans and the alarm caused by Bad Superman: The headline reads Superman: Goodness at the Crossroads and is accompanied by an image of his iconic S transformed into a question mark. The story inside (as read out loud by one of the films villains) reveals, At a special session of the General Assembly, 178 countries voted to censure Superman, with only Columbia abstaining. Therefore, as a morally monstrous superhero, he is recognized as a frightening threat to the world (original sin monstrosity). However, regular humans are clearly powerless to do anything about this threat, since they are only able to censure Superman and write magazine stories about him. Supermans selfish use of his physical gifts taps back into the (interrelated) anxieties that haunt the genre: the corruption of the powerful and the helplessness of most citizens. The panic engendered by Bad Superman reaches a fever pitch in a scene that features him getting drunk at a bar. The scene begins with a long shot of a large crowd outside of a bar. Several of the people point at the front window, where Superman can be seen drinking compulsively inside the bar while in full costume. Usually, the superhero is pointed at only as a marvel, since people watch him move through the city to rescue people and are amazed by his super body and steadfast morality. The superhero is rarely seen in costume outside of these heroic quests, almost never engaging in mundane activities (like eating or drinking) in his outfit.

174

As a result, in this scene people are mesmerized by the sheer strangeness of seeing the costumed Superman sitting in a bar. In addition, they seem perturbed by his heavy drinking, an act of selfindulgent pleasure that makes his possession of superpowers extra dangerous (intoxication and superpowers is a scary combination). Finally, there is definitely an element of gazing at a freak and a threat in this scene; his powers, previously accepted since they were used heroically, now mark him as visibly abnormal (physical monstrosity) and make him seem dangerous (original sin monstrosity). Inside the bar, we see a medium shot of Superman in full regalia pouring himself bourbon and drinking it in one gulp, as several other patrons sit on nearby chairs. Again, the scenario can be interpreted as a parody of the superheros typical perfection, as Superman has become an overblown drunk with superpowers. As ominous music plays, Superman in turn dumps some nuts onto the bar, rudely tosses the bowl, and flicks the nuts using his super strength; various close-range shots accentuate the inhuman force with which the nuts strike and break bottles of alcohol. Meanwhile, the bartender yells, Hey, hey, hey, come on, before joining the rest of the customers in moving to the corner of the bar, reflecting the fear and helplessness they all feel; he is an unstoppable force, frighteningly nonhuman and a threat to them all due to his immorality (he embodies all three kinds of monstrosity). Next, in a medium shot, Superman uses his heat vision to melt a mirror; by warping his own reflection, he signifies how warped his entire personality is. As Superman lumbers outside drunkenly, people gasp and say things like, Supermans drunk, Its a disgrace, thats what it is, and Ill tell you, nobodys ever gonna trust that creep again. The comments go beyond celebrity gawking to genuine revulsion. For a superpowered being to avoid being seen as a freak or a threat, he must display nearly perfect morality, always acting under control and for the greater good and never indulging himself. As a

175

result, Supermans evident depression and drunkenness (which causes more immoral uses of superpowers) and destruction of private property are read as betrayals and unleash the anxieties that exist (both inside and outside of the text) in regards to people with power. Standing outside, Superman snaps, What are you looking at? Huh? as he lumbers in the right side of the frame, causing the people in the left side of the frame and background to cower in fear. Their stares and obvious fear suggest his status not just as a physical freak, but as a hazard to them; his abilities mark him as monstrously inhuman, as he could easily kill all of the bystanders. Ultimately, Bad Superman represents the monstrous eruption of the dark undercurrent of the good Superman (and of the genre itself) and the film illustrates this duality via an epic battle between the two parts of Supermans personality: the heroic, selfless side, as portrayed by Clark Kent, and the selfish, violent side, as represented by Bad Superman (in his darker costume). Demonstrating the frightening volatility of the latter one more time, the fight scene is immediately preceded by Bad Superman seeming to lose control of his powers as he awkwardly spins while flying (physical monstrosity). Then, he has another outburst that startles a group of helpless humans: In a medium close-up he unleashes a massive anguished yell in a junkyard, causing one man to bellow, Hes gone nuts! as several shots portray the workers running away in utter fear. Without doing anything with his abilities, his scream indicates he has foregone selfrestraint and maybe has lost control of his body and his mind. Supermans psychological issues are illuminated via a special effects shot that shows Clark Kent (the good side of the superhero) emerging from Bad Supermans body. Clark is visually marked as different from the superhero: He sports thick glasses; wears a dull, restrictively tight gray suit; and has severely parted, flat hair. He looks like a painfully average individual. Importantly, it is the masquerade as Clark Kent that allows Superman to live most of his life like a non-superpowered individual, helping

176

him avoid being corrupted by his power and teaching him to appreciate regular humans. Thus, it is appropriate that Bad Superman, who lacks a sense of morality, is never presented out of his costume (i.e., he never dresses up as Clark) and that the good, moral part of Superman is embodied as Clark Kent. As Superman III reminds the viewer, Supermans formative years are spent in Smallville, that hamlet of old-time American values, as Clark Kent. Bad Supermans monstrous morality is represented by his disdain for Clark Kent, the paragon of self-control and affection for the average citizen; in hating Clark, he signals the hatred for humanity that makes him such a monster. In a medium close-up, Superman sneers at his alter ego and then violently punches him repeatedly, while the seemingly overmatched Clark keeps clumsily getting up to face his monstrous other.370 Clarks persistencebravely taking many of the blows and defiantly stating I can give as good as I getdisplay his dignity and willingness to fight for his beliefs (protecting the world), quite different from the self-indulgent Bad Superman. As he continues abusing his good side, Superman tells him, Youve been on my nerves for a long time, confirming how the two sides of Supermans personality have long been at war; underlining the genres persistent anxieties of corruption, Supermans goodness (as represented by Clark) struggles to keep his dark side in check. Furthermore, Bad Supermans unstable personality is suggested by the way he rolls his eyes back into his head, abruptly grunts and screams, and suddenly starts moving in a robotic manner (lurching almost Frankensteinlike); it is as if his evil is making him physically grotesque or even killing him.371 Bad Superman

370

Though there is definitely a sense of doubling in this scene, as actor Christopher Reeve plays both the evil Superman and the good Clark Kent, there is never an actual Superman double in the film. The physical battle between Clark Kent and Superman appears to be simply a manifestation of Supermans internal psychological battle; accordingly, when he dies, the evil Superman simply vanishes (an actual double would leave behind a body). 371 Though these movements are bizarre and somewhat horrifying, they are not examples of physical monstrosity since they do not prove that he is non-human in any way.

177

literally tries to destroy Clark using a heavy wrecking implement and two different kinds of trash compactors, epitomizing his lack of mercy and unheroic violence toward the average American. The scene concludes with the resilient Clark breaking through the trash compactor and choking Bad Superman to death until he literally disappears, indicating the end of the split personality and the corrupted superhero. With his immorality, physical freakishness (e.g., when he horrifies people with his powers at the bar), and status as a threat to humanity, the malevolent Superman functions as an intense embodiment of all three kinds of monstrosity.372 However, the virtuous, patriotic side wins out, signifying how good, even though it lacks the fun of evil and may seem weaker, is always superior in the superhero world. As the famous John Williams Superman theme music plays at last, Clark Kent tears open his shirt to reveal his Superman costume (now with the correct colors), indicating that goodness and superpowers are finally reintegrated. Thus, as with all instances of the superhero-gone-bad, the superhero becomes morally upright again; the anxieties of the superhero being totally corrupted by his power (and revealing the impotence of the populace) erupt and then, once they are faced, his evil side is suppressed once again. Of course, the anxieties at the heart of the genre never completely disappear, meaning that each appearance of the superhero-gone-bad simply promises another one in the future.

372

As noted earlier, the entire Bad Superman eruption in the film is an example of original sin monstrosity, since kryptonite (something from Supermans home world) helps create the synthetic kryptonite that turns him destructively evil.

178

Chapter 5: Smallvilles Bad Clark: Rebel without a Moral Compass

In post-2000 superhero films and TV shows, the tendency to depict superheroes with degrees of darknessconstantly struggling with their morality, super bodies, and relationship to humans (are they destroyers rather than/as well as saviors?)results in more portrayals of their potential for monstrosity boiling over. On Smallville, much as in Superman III, we see the consequences of the superhero, the unselfish and honorable defender of the powerless, deciding to put his own desires first. The show adds some wrinkles to the superhero-gone-bad by providing multiple episodic eruptions of Clarks dark persona, enabling a more complex exploration of it. In initially conflating Clarks bad side with pubescent teenage rebellion, Smallville borrows from popular representations of juvenile delinquency and the bad boy, particularly evoking iconography that originates in numerous 1950s films.373 Bad Clark also reflects the increased seriousness of contemporary juvenile delinquency, with the escalations in violence, sex, and drug use. Finally, most representations of Bad Clark share the recent tendency of films to depict delinquency that is caused by alien or supernatural forces, meaning that neither the teen nor society is responsible for the criminal behavior. When he is corrupted, Clark goes from being a model teenageralbeit with superpowers and constant anxiety over his super, changing bodyto the embodiment of the juvenile delinquent, defined by genre scholar Timothy Shary as a young person who engages in swearing, stealing, vandalism, and fighting, the sophistication and extremity of these activities

373

Clark is not a teenager in all the superhero-gone-bad episodes on Smallville, since he graduates from high school at the end of the fourth season. Nevertheless, he exhibits aspects of the bad boyeven if he is no longer a juvenile delinquentevery time he goes bad.

179

varying by social context.374 Accordingly, Bad Clark (as the persona is called by me) exhibits a smart mouth (broadcasting regulations limits any actual swearing), steals from his family, tries to rob others, destroys and defaces property, and gets into several fights, most of them short-lived due to his powers. Furthermore, Shary observes that youth movie delinquency usually deals with class, as working-class characters . . .struggl[e] to rise above their lowly status while wealthy brats turn to delinquency out of boredom;375 as a character from a lowermiddle-class background (his dad is a farmer and Clark helps out on the farm), Clarks delinquent behavior is heavily motivated by a desire to improve his social standing and (especially in the first episode in which he goes bad) to become more like his wealthy best friend, Lex Luthor. In the end, Bad Clark resembles the juvenile delinquent but is much more dangerous, since he becomes an unhinged teenager with unlimited power. His typical fear of becoming a monster turns into calm confidence as he finally becomes one, which is part of the reason these episodes have proven to be so popular. The prototypical (and first) appearance of Bad Clark on Smallville is in the season two episode Red. In the episode, Clark is infected by red kryptonite, causing him to indulge his deepest desires;376 he demonstrates a state of mind that is antithetical to the superheros selfless mission and is the very definition of a morally monstrous superhero. Notably, the infection is caused by an indulgent, rebellious decision on Clarks part: He decides to buy a $350 class ring despite the objections of his father, who acts as his moral instructor in the early seasons of the

374

Timothy Shary, Bad Boys and Hollywood Hype: Gendered Conflict in Juvenile Delinquency Films, Where the Boys Are: Cinemas of Masculinity and Youth, eds. Murray Pomerance and Frances Gateward (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2005) 21. 375 Shary 21. 376 Red, Smallville: The Complete Second Season, writ. Jeph Loeb, The WB, 15 October 2002, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2003.

180

show. Though seemingly a minor act of teenage defiance, it has serious consequences due to Clarks alien body, which is perpetually on the verge of turning him into a monster. The effects are illustrated in the kind of close-range shot that often illustrates the physical and emotional transformations of the superhero-gone-bad. We start with an extreme close-up of Clarks hand as he slips on the red ring (made from red kryptonite, we later learn). After the ring momentarily flashes, the camera pans slightly left and tilts up to display (via special effects) how the red poison from the ring protrudes from Clarks skin as it moves through his veins; a whooshing sound effect emphasizes the speed and intensity of the corruption caused by the poison. Finally, the camera tilts up and pans right to an extreme close-up of Clarks face, as he opens his eyes and they flash red and an excited smile overwhelms his mouth. Since the color red typically has associations with danger and evil (e.g., hellfire, the devil), the connotations of the red eyes and veins are obvious: Clark has become monstrous, his entire personality transformed. Also, the scene emphasizes the strangeness of Clarks body, since it is decidedly not human for ones eyes to turn red or ones veins to project out grotesquely. Moreover, the injection of the red poison into Clarks veins brings to mind imagery commonly associated with drug abuse. The implication, supported by the uncharacteristic smile from the typically nervous, unsure Clark Kent, is that he is now high on red kryptonite, akin to a regular teenager getting hooked on drugs (something that can sometimes lead directly to juvenile delinquency). However, unlike most teenagers, Clarks pubescent experimentation carries widespread destructive potential because of his powers. It is an example of Clarks original sin monstrosity since his drug, red kryptonite, comes from his birth planet and creates

181

a threat to the world (i.e., Bad Clark);377 we soon learn that it rids Clark of his inhibitions, warping his morality and causing him to abuse humans with his powers.378 Clark even states, I feel great, after putting on the ring, suggesting the monstrosity with which he constantly struggles is no longer troubling him, since it is unleashed. Subsequently, Clarks bad side manifests itself in five interrelated ways: overt sexuality, rejection of authority, bad boy clothing, violence, and greed. Clarks transformation is made most immediately apparent through his increased sexuality and rebuffing of authority figures. After Jessie, a new student, is admonished by a teacher for her skimpy clothing, Clark approaches the teacher while lustfully staring at Lana and says, I think she looks really hot. And I think that your dress code sucks. He rudely adds, Besides, I dont think youre the one that should be giving fashion tips. This overt declaration of a girls attractiveness and his insult of an authority figure are both out of character; superheroes traditionally put their sexuality on the backburner (duty comes first) and their potential monstrosity is kept in check by their deference to official authorities. Clark, here, starts to take on aspects of the bad boy and appropriately Jessie, the girl he is impressing, is decidedly a bad girl, as evidenced by her dialogue: She openly voices her lust for Clark, insults the school and Lana, and talks back to the teacher. Her appearance similarly signifies her defiance: dyed blonde hair, heavy eye makeup, collar-like necklace, see-through shirt that prominently exposes her red bra, exposed midriff, belly-button ring, tight black pants, and leather boots. In contrast, in the same scene Clarks usual love interest Lana has little makeup,
377

There are actually two interrelated instances of Clarks original sin monstrosity here: red kryptonite, something from Clarks original planet, endangers the world (by transforming Clark) and Clark, having turned evil, becomes a threat to humans everywhere due to having superpowers. 378 One could try to argue that red kryptonite causes physical monstrosity, but the fact is that Clark appears to be in total control of his superpowers, intending all the violence that ensues; it is his morality that is skewed (moral monstrosity), which makes his superpowered body a danger to humans (original sin monstrosity). Physical monstrosity is present in episodes with red kryptonite only when people are horrified by the freakishness of Bad Clarks super body.

182

keeps her brown hair tied back, and wears a white top, jeans and non-descript light-colored shoes; she is decidedly not sexual, her appearance connoting that she is an innocent and conservative young woman. The scene ends with Clark objectifying women one more time as a shot of Lana and Jessie walking away is followed by a shot of Clark leering and commenting, I think I liked it, about his more sexual, antiauthoritarian attitude; he epitomizes the sense of pleasure that comes with being a superhero-gone-bad. Clarks transformation into a bad boy continues as he suggests illegal activities and becomes increasingly sexual toward women, even abusing his powers in the process. In two separate scenes, he proposes to his friends that they go to a bar where they dont check IDs instead of studying for an important test, since high school is supposed to be fun. His preference for funespecially illegal funand his rejection of grades signify his gradual move away from societys regulations, dangerous because, without some restrictions, Clark could become unstoppable. Likewise, his actions imply that he no longer wishes to appear normal; usually, Clark tries to seem as average as possible in order to avoid drawing attention to himself and his superpowered body, which may be seen as monstrous by others. Living as an unextraordinary person is also an effective way for a superhero to keep his ego in check, preventing him from becoming dangerously immoral. Forgoing any modesty, the newly unrestrained Clark flirts with Jessie, getting her number, and then immediately flirts with Lana too, promising, I havent taken my eye off you all day. In another scene, he sits backwards in a chair (a sure sign of a bad boy) and asks his friend Pete, Did you know that Chloe had a birthmark on her cheek? followed closely by a shot of the camera tilting down to Chloes backside. The suggestion is that Clark is using his X-ray vision to look through Chloes clothes. When Pete seems to object, Clark alarmingly alerts that

183

it is not just Chloe that he is X-raying, as he looks toward Lana. These invasive uses of his powers for sexual gratification are clear instances of moral monstrosity, as he forgoes the selflessness typical of the superhero. Significantly, it is by being selfish that the superhero-gone-bad pleasurably parodies the superhero and embodies the fantasy of having superpowers without moral restraints. Clark caricatures his typical strait-laced persona as he does things we would never anticipate the superhero to do with his abilities; the unexpectedness makes many of the Bad Clark scenes comical. In addition, Bad Clark offers a kind of wish fulfillment for viewers who identify with the temptation to use powers for personal gratification; Bad Clarks pleasure-seeking makes him more recognizably human and surely more fun, even though he is also frightening and morally objectionable. Providing evidence of the pleasure found in the superhero-gone-bad, one respondent on YouTube writes, clark is funny as hell in this episode! I cant wait till i get my 1-6 season box set, then i can finally watch this episode again (sic).379 Thus, the out-of-character, funny behavior for Clark makes Red a highlight of the series; this viewer is spurred to purchase DVDs of Smallville and repeatedly watch the episode. Clarks immorality manifests itself even more clearly in the materialism that accompanies his rejection of his middle-class rural lifestyle and values. After learning of a series of credit card purchases, Clarks parents enter the family barn and, as the camera moves through the space in a crane shot, we see a jet ski, silk shirt, big screen television, giant speaker set, video game system, canoe, and electric guitar, among other expensive items. The piercing rock music (i.e., music a parent stereotypically would hate) makes the resemblance to regular teenage rebellion abundantly clear. After his father calls Clarks new commodities junk (exhibiting

379

mitsuninja, in response to haftdet07, Smallville Red Jessie Scene 3, YouTube, 7 February 2008, Web, 3 May 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmtpG9LacnI>

184

how he does not value material things) and claims Clark stole by using their credit cards, Clark argues, I figured it was time I had all the same cool stuff everyone else has. Clarks willingness to steal from his own family and his overwhelming focus on stuff confirm how far he has come from being a superhero who believes material possessions are insignificant compared to the welfare of the world. Juvenile delinquency films typically peg as the source of rebellion unsatisfying domestic surroundings fostered by inadequate parents and/or the more complex operations of social conditions, such as class status.;380 accordingly, the red kryptonite-infected Clark Kent blames his parents (who run the family farm for a living) for not being able to offer him anything better than a lower-middle-class lifestyle.381 His rebellion against his inadequate parents is demonstrated when he responds to his fathers criticisms by saying, Yeah, right, and You can talk all you want, Im outta here. Putting on a leather jacketthe quintessential item of clothing for the bad boy and juvenile delinquentClark uses his super speed to jump out of the barn and escape his parents. Then, framed in a canted angle that reflects how this is an off balance, atypical Clark Kent, he hops onto his fathers motorcycle. Following a cut, we see a close-up of his face that draws attention to his transformed persona, as he puts on expensivelooking sunglasses and grins. Finally, he rides away while his father futilely yells for him to come back, exhibiting the impossibility of stopping the superhero-gone-bad by any human means. The sunglasses, leather jacket, and motorcycle operate are key signifiers of the bad boy, recalling many filmic rebels and juvenile delinquents. It is no coincidence that, in three of the X380 381

Shary 26. It must be said that, despite their constant money problems, the Kents have a pristine home, wear nice (if plain) clothing, drive expensive-looking trucks, do not need to pay for extensive labor (since Clarks superpowers allow him to work faster and better than even a group of workers), and display potential for upward mobility (Clarks best friend is the rich Lex Luthor, Martha is hired by Lionel Luthor for a time, and Jonathan wins a state Senate seat, only to be replaced by Martha when he dies). In other words, they live better than their financial woes would have one believe.

185

Men films, Wolverine (not a superhero-gone-bad, but definitely one struggling with his monstrosity and assuredly a bad boy) wears a leather jacket while riding a motorcycle.382 One fan discusses the appeal of Clark as this kind of rebel: I thought it was hilarious seeing Clark's bad side. And . . . wearing something other than the superman colours and plaid was totally cool, gotta love the leather jacket.383 The fact that Bad Clark is hilarious again reflects the fact that his dark side operates as a parody of his usual morally upright, stiff personality; his attempts to act cool are so over-the-top in some scenes that he parodies the bad boy as well. Clarks costuming aids in this parodying, while offering a degree of cool that makes Clark more attractive to viewers and somebody many of them would want to be. Clarks bad boy personality is further solidified by the first thing he does after leaving the farm in his rebellious leather jacket: He picks up a girl. Pulling up in his motorcycle in a medium shot, Clark does not make eye contact while asking Jessie, his bad girl love interest, Need a ride? Continuing his attempts to act cool, he removes his sunglasses, looks around, and puts them back on, allowing Jessie time to jump on his motorcycle so that they can defiantly get away from her father. In his persona, Clark resembles motorcycle-riding bad boys in films such as 1954s The Wild One, in which Marlon Brando famously portrays a juvenile delinquent who dons a leather jacket, wears sunglasses, rides a motorcycle, and picks up women with his taciturn attitude;384 his character memorably responds to the question, what are you rebelling against? with the bad boy remark, What do you got? Bad Clark at this point is similarly a

382

X-Men and X-Men Origins: Wolverine show him wearing a leather jacket while on a motorcycle. X2 depicts Wolverine in a leather jacket and we hear him riding a motorcycle offscreen, the implication being that he wears the jacket while on the motorcycle. 383 AverageJoe, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 6 February 2006, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834> 384 The Wild One, dir. Laslo Benedek, 1954, DVD, Sony Pictures, 1998.

186

rebel without a real cause, putting on the pose of coolness and rebelling against any and all authority. Though Bad Clark's persona may seem mainly like a nostalgic reference to the 1950s, the fact remains that the image of the bad boy has remained resonant since then, while ceasing to be strictly associated with juveniles. Films, TV shows, advertisements, and of course real people still use the leather jacket, sunglasses, motorcycle, and nonchalant attitude as shorthand to connote coolness and defiance of authority. It does have some elements of nostalgia, but the persona has been so frequently recycled that it is minimally associated with any specific time period; it continually operates as a (mainly) contemporary indicator of cool.385 There are countless films that have featured bad boy characters since the 1950s: Easy Rider (1969),386 Top Gun (1986), and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), just to name a few. The bad boy characters are the heroes of these films but, fittingly, lack much of the moral certainty and goodness we typically associate with heroes. The enduring allure of the motorcycle-riding bad boy can be seen in online reactions to Bad Clark, one fan writing, clark is sooo sooo sooo smoking HOT!!!! on that bike i like that hole bad boy look!! awesome eps (sic).387 As part of his changed public personafrom barely noticeable outsider to hyper-visible bad boyClark makes a big entrance when he arrives at school. In a medium long shot, we see a group of predominantly female high school students in the foreground moving aside as Clark approaches from the background, apparently driving his motorcycle on the sidewalk (a reckless act). Several shots then present students staring and smiling at Clark, seeming to be impressed

385

That said, the bad boy persona has been so overused that it easily becomes parodic; people replicating it are often seen as trying too hard to be cool. If they are older or do not adapt the persona well enough to a contemporary setting, people taking on characteristics of the bad boy can also be seen as old-fashioned. 386 Interestingly, the leather-jacket-wearing motorcycle rider in Easy Rider is nicknamed Captain America, seemingly a reference to the superhero. 387 dandoon12345, in response to haftdet07, Smallville Red Jessie Scene 3.

187

by his new attitude and fashion sense (Pete calls him, Clark Kent, chick magnet). As always, the danger of so much attention is that his alien origin may be revealed, resulting in him being seen as a monster; however, Bad Clark seems unconcerned by such a possibility. Moreover, he quickly reaffirms his over-the-top sexuality, telling Lana (with Jessie out of earshot) that he wants to save [her] the return trip. Importantly, though Clarks materialism and bad boy persona do not make much use of his superhuman abilities up to this point in the episode, the threat of his superpowers is what makes his rebellion so anxiety-provoking for viewers (and the characters on the show who know about his abilities); for regular people, there is little hope of halting him if he decides to use his abilities in his immoral conquests. The unstoppable, evil use of his superpowers is first glimpsed when his father tries to reprimand him. After Clark ignores his attempts to talk to him, his father roughly grabs Clarks arm, causing Clark to respond coldly, Youre not my father. You never were. The denial of the man who has raised him implies a total rejection of his strong moral values, highlighting the increasing dangerousness of Bad Clark. Accordingly, Clark proceeds to push his father using his super strength, the incredible force of the shove emphasized with a whooshing sound effect and three very brief shots: a medium close-up of his fathers face as he flies backward, a long shot showing him hit his open truck door, and a medium close-up of him crumpling toward the ground in obvious pain. The act of physically abusing his own father takes Clark beyond regular teenage rebelliousness (his mother even confirms in the next scene, This is more than teenage rebellion) and shows that his monstrosity has become truly frightening, since he is now willing to use his superpowers to hurt others. Drawing attention to his cruelty as he glares at his injured father, the camera tracks closer to Clark from a slightly low angle, making him appear larger and more threatening; subsequently, he is presented in a medium long shot smiling, revealing that he

188

enjoyed the violence. Furthermore, in using his powers publically, he recklessly risks exposing himself as an alien, seemingly not bothered if he is seen as an immoral monster, a physical freak, and/or a serious threat to humanity. The swift, brutal violence on school grounds recalls, in a limited sense, various school rampages, namely the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. The inability of Clarks father to stop his son mirrors the failure of parents to halt their childrens anger or prevent their access to weapons used to kill various teachers and students. However, the similarities to school shootings are tempered by the fact that Clarks violence is in the school parking lot rather than inside the school (or in gathering areas on school grounds) and is directed at his father instead of a large group of school officials and students. Likewise, at the school Clark does not wear the stereotypical costume of many of the young shooters: the black trench coat. In contrast, in the first season episode Leech, a high schooler who steals Clarks powers is strongly linked to school shooters due to his costuming, feelings of being oppressed (by his parents and classmates), and desire to gain revenge using his newfound power (he utilizes super abilities rather than guns). Eric, the student, starts wearing predominantly black clothes (except a devilishly red T-shirt), including a long leather trench coat. He carries a boom box that plays angry rap music while he vengefully tries to redress how he has been treated by other students. When a football player tries to stop Erics attempts to steal his girlfriend, he maliciously uses his abilities in front of a panicked throng of students: He chases and nearly murders the football player, destroys property, and almost kills Clark by throwing him an inhuman distance. Publically using his powers so reprehensibly (moral monstrosity), he is called a freak (physical monstrosity) and treated as a monster (original sin monstrosity); subsequently, even his parents are frightened of him. It is clear that the producers of the program

189

found it more tenable to associate Eric (a double of Clark since he has his powers) with school violence rather than Clark, the hero. Accordingly, Bad Clark never too closely resembles the infamous school shooters. The fun of the superhero-gone-bad would be seriously hampered if viewers were reminded too much of real-world violence. In addition, his father (as will shortly be discussed) eventually helps him escape his darker impulses, allowing a kind of rescripting of the Columbine massacre where the murderous teen is redeemed before hurting his fellow students. Although it does not strongly evoke real-life teen violence, Bad Clarks behavior still succeeds at being terrifying, since it appears that there is no way to stop the superpowered teenager. His mom discusses the impotence she feels: If he doesnt want to do something, were not strong enough to force him. Unlike most parents, who retain an advantage in physical strength over their children and have other methods to restrain them (including calling the police), Clarks parents have no real way to force him to obey. Returning to the subject of his often monstrous puberty, his parents even wonder if his new attitude is part of his development. They comment that its Clark, suggesting that any sort of freakishness is possible, even his sudden change into an immoral monster with uncontrollable urges. Bad Clarks original sin monstrosity (his superpowers make him a threat to humankind) is summed up by his mother after she learns about the red kryptonite: The longer hes exposed to the green meteors the worse he gets. If the same is true with the red rock, God help us all. The fact that only God could help underlines the powerlessness of humans in the face of a super being who has, with his moral restraints removed, becomes the potential bane of the entire planet. Fittingly, Clarks evil transformation involves him increasingly mirroring Lex Luthor in his values and costuming, leading to an intensification of the sexual subtext between the two

190

friends. The first time he enters Lexs mansion in his altered state, Clark wears a black T-shirt and a long black coat (slightly shorter than a typical trench coat); notably, the coat only appears after his final appearance at school in the episode, minimizing associations with high school shootings like the one at Columbine. The dark fashion not only connotes Clarks unleashed evil side (he usually wears red and blue), but it bears a strong resemblance to the dark shirts and flowing long black coats Lex frequently wears on the show.388 When he first notices Clarks changed fashion sense, Lex is framed in close-up as he visibly pauses in mid-sentence, his mouth agape in wonder. Then, we see a medium shot of Clark from Lexs point of view, as the camera tilts up from Clarks feet to his head, taking in his entire outfit (and body). The homosexual undertones of their relationship, as discussed earlier, are not unusual, but with Bad Clark they seem to go into overdrive: Lex overtly checks out Clark here and the two characters seem closer than ever, despite the fact that the rest of Bad Clarks relationships deteriorate. Accentuating their newfound connection, when Clark comments that they should both get their fathers out of their lives, Lex grins and says, I wasnt aware a two-thousand dollar coat came with a backbone. First of all, his statement confirms that Lex approves of Clarks new attitude, a backbone being a sign of strength. Moreover, it displays that Lex is aware of Clarks expensive fashion, seeming to endorse Clarks newfound focus on flashy clothing; Lex, who is rich, wears similarly costly coats, explaining his familiarity with their prices. Lex seems flattered that Clark has taken his materialistic values as his own, going so far as to dress like Lex. The pleasure that Bad Clark takes in being looked at and praised by Lex is evident in a medium shot that frames Lex on the left, smirking at Clark, and Clark on the right, starting to smile after Lexs comment about his coat. The similarity of Bad Clarks morals to the skewed ones of Lex
388

The all-black look for Lex starts in the very first episode of the show. Though he does often wear non-black shirts (perhaps connoting that he is not totally evil yet), flowing and more traditionally cut black jackets are fairly constant parts of the characters wardrobe.

191

is further exhibited as Clark asks to borrow Lexs car in order to rock the world of his date, commenting that fast cars, fancy home, and a ton of money never hurt you, did it? Lex is duly impressed, as displayed in a close-up of him staring into Clarks eyes while smiling. Finally, the scene ends with Clark speeding down the highway in Lexs Ferrari; the license plate reads Lex XIV, underscoring that Clark has become more a Luthor than a Kent.389 The sexually charged closeness of Bad Clark and Lex is even more obvious in their only other scene together in the episode. Clark saunters into Lexs office wearing an expensivelooking black suit and a dark red shirt, again resembling Lex in his fashion and now looking more adult.390 Displaying a new level of intimacy, he reclines on the couch while Lex sits in the background on another couch watching him. Clark claims he has left home because My parents dont understand me; this typical teenage lament reminds that Bad Clark embodies a super version of a rebellious teenager. If his parents are the ones usually guiding Clark and keeping Lex at arms length, the loss of their role in his life makes Lex the largest influence and the person with whom the materialistic Bad Clark has the most in common. Clark even goodnaturedly blames Lex for his leaving home: Youre the one always telling me I need to find my destiny. In their most suggestive exchange, Clark, framed in an intimate close-up, tells Lex, You have no idea what Im capable of, seemingly teasing Lex with the possibility of unveiling the many secrets he clearly possesses (i.e., coming out at last). Lex is visibly excited by this potential, looking fixedly at Clark in a close-up and asking flirtatiously, Really? Why dont you fill me in? Lexs thrill is explained by the fact that he has been obsessed with Clark and his

389

In the first episode of the series, Clark is pushed by his father not to accept a car as a present from Lex. But here, unrestrained by his fathers moral code, he charms Lex into giving up his car. 390 His more adult appearance and shedding of the trench-coat-like coat distance him even more from the alienated teens usually responsible for school shootings.

192

super body ever since their initial car crash and has spent the series until this point trying to get Clark to tell him the truth (i.e., to come out to him). The sexual overtones are clear: If Clark comes out, he and Lex can become closer to each other. Further teasing, Clark walks away from Lex (who is seen staring in the background) and says, Lets just say that when Im through showing the world what I can do, Ill have everything Ive ever wanted. I may even be richer than you. Without fully coming out, Clark is suggesting the enormity of his secret and his ability to monetize it, undoubtedly something the business-minded Lex would find tantalizing. The fact that he may become richer than Lexand wants to beextends the sense that he has become a mirror of Lex and has become more compatible with him. Even more indicative of the Luthor mindset is that, when he leaves his parents in the previous scene, Clark explains, With my abilities, I can make millions. Sports, TV, its all waiting for me. Youre the ones who force me to hide who I really am. No longer caring if he is seen as a threat to humanity or if he uses his powers selfishly, he seeks to exploit his unprecedented physical gifts to make himself an entertainment star. Bad Clarks (planned) greedy usage of his abilities exemplifies viewer fantasies of having superpowers without the limits of moral codes and parodies the superheros usually stringent selflessness. Of course, his superficiality also engenders horror due to the endless abuse his abilities make possible. Stimulated by Clarks sudden ambitiousness, Lex vows to leave his own father behind and move away too, causing Clark to note excitedly, You can come with me. When Lex suggests they use the unused penthouse his family has in Metropolis, Clark declares Clark Kent and Lex Luthor. I like the sound of that, looking right at Lex and grinning while uttering the second sentence. On one level, Clarks pronouncement of their intimacy and plans to live together serves as irony, since Clark and Lex are destined to be enemies. On another level, it is

193

one of the moments on the show that best fits the interpretation, popular with fans, that Clark and Lex have homosexual feelings for one another. One fan even writes, I aint one of them people who looks for the 'Clex' moments but dang that one had me going 'hoyay!;391 Clex, as explained earlier, refers to the relationship between Clark and Lex and HoYay! is short hand for Homoeroticism, Yay! and is used on internet fan communities to note homoerotic or homoromantic392 subtext.393 Clarks desire to move in with Lex and his comment that he likes the sound of their names being publically connected to each other suggest that Bad Clark, free of his moralizing parents, can now openly engage in a close relationship with the man his parents have resisted for so long; he is, in effect, ready to come out and Lex is willing to share his life with him.394 Therefore, their illicit relationship is equated with Clarks moral monstrosity, making homosexuality (if one reads it in these scenes) by association deviant and perhaps even villainous in the context of the show. Unsurprisingly, Clark returns to more of a careful distance from Lex when he returns to his normal self. Even if one rejects the reading of homosexual feelings between the characters, this scene plays on the established dangers of Clarks relationship with Lex, as Clarks closeness to his future enemy puts him at risk of having his powers revealed,

391

OutlawAngel, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 6 February 2006, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834> 392 Interestingly, Homoromantic is defined as, Attracted to the sa me sex in a romantic way, but not necessarily in a sexual way. Often used by asexuals (theflying_clubcup, homoromantic, Urban Dictionary, 24 January 2009, Web, 3 October 2010. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homoromantic>). Thus, two characters who arouse reactions of HoYay! may be seen as having romantic feelings for each other that are not se xual. However, most fans do not appear to be nuanced enough to make this distinction, seeming to take examples of HoYay! as moments of homoeroticism that reveal homosexual feelings. These fans usually present their acts of textual poaching with a good degree of humor and excitement, seeming to find pleasure in having an interpretation of the show that so resists the intended/dominant meaning. 393 Culumacilinte, HoYay, Urban Dictionary, 10 October 2007, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoyay> 394 It should be noted that Lexs behavior seems to be a ruse, as he subsequently visits Clarks dad and tries to help them resolve their relationship.

194

being seen as a threat by Lex (original sin monstrosity), and/or being unduly influenced by a character who is destined to be evil. Clarks sexuality also marks his transformed personality in his lustful interactions with Lana. Typically reticent to tell her about his feelings or any of his secrets (for fear of being seen as a monster and putting her in danger from his enemies), Clark straightforwardly tells her, Ive decidedly to tell you the truth, Lana, and proceeds to convey his romantic feelings for her and promises to explain his deeper secrets as well; he follows with an uncharacteristic series of racy kisses in public. The openness of Bad Clark may be read as a positive thingClark typically tortures himself about his feelingsand serves as wish fulfillment for viewers who may have followed the romance in the first two seasons or who may simply wish they could be as upfront with their emotions as Clark is here. The online reactions to this scene largely focus on the attractiveness of Bad Clarks persona, numerous female viewers seeming to be overwhelmed by his magnetism and several male viewers expressing that they would like to be Clark. On YouTube, respondents write, Can someone please fan me over? I'm sweating and hiperventilating [sic] here,,395 and god, i love the bad boy clark, he's so smooth and confident and its so damn sexy and my goodness is black his color or what, he looks good in any color but he's like super hot in black (sic).396 Both viewers profess that Bad Clarks persona is more attractive to them than the regular Clark. Significantly, judging by their screen names, both viewers seem to be female, as do many of the other fans celebrating the scenes in which Bad Clark comes on to women.397 The reactions

395

Lannyc, in response to kalel587, smallville red Clark kisses Lana, YouTube, 9 February 2008, Web, 4 May 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wlSztfaYKs&feature=related> 396 lovelydiva06, in response to kalel587, smallville red Clark kisses Lana. 397 Of course, since they are so anonymous, we can be certain of very little about these online respondents, including whether they are really male or female. It is also possible that they have multiple online identities (thus posting under more than one screen name) and/or have some vested interest in leaving certain kinds of comments.

195

indicate that such scenes operate strongly as wish fulfillment for female viewers; that is, the women put themselves in the role of the female character (Lana, in this case) and wish they could have the attention of a bad boy like Clark, who dresses stylishly, is physically strong (he has superpowers!), does not fear authority or social conventions, and has a mysterious, darker side to be discovered and tamed. The desire to be Lana is confirmed by another female fan who comments, You kidding me? I'd like to Be Lana lol lucky girl kissing on Clark, oh well you can always dream I don't like Clana398 but I love Red K Clark he's just awesome!!! I hope my video on Clark on red kryptonite turns out okay I can't wait to make it... (sic)399 The appeal of Red K Clark (i.e., Clark on red kryptonite) is so intense that this fan is inspired to make a video showing some of the appearances of Bad Clark, going beyond just consuming. A different female fan seems uncertain of how appropriate it is for her to enjoy watching Bad Clark: lol seeing him act like that feels so wrong haha he's such a nice looking guy (sic).400 Her claim that it feels so wrong and her use of lol (laughing out loud) and haha suggest how it can be uncomfortable to find a monstrous character so attractive; the typically nice Clark is clearly superior morally, but lacks the cool persona and openness of the Clark who threatens the world. Incidentally, the attraction to Bad Clark, who is supposed to be sixteen or seventeen, does not appear to be limited to teenagers or to viewers in the U.S.: The three female fans who list their age (of the four discussed here) are 33, 27, and 21 years old and one is Brazilian while the other two are from the United States, exhibiting the widespread appeal of the bad boy persona. Intriguingly, the female fans who discuss the magnetism of Bad Clark rarely directly mention his more violent behavior and his eventual humiliation of Lana, apparently separating the bad boy behavior that is sexy from the behavior that is harmful to other characters.
398 399

Clana is shorthand for Clark and Lana, indicating their romantic relationship. LadyAliyssa, in response to kalel587, smallville red Clark kisses Lana. 400 delanieglukhoy, in response to kalel587, smallville red Clark kisses Lana.

196

Though male fans are less boisterous in their commentary when it comes to the romantic scene with Lana, a few do describe their desire to be Bad Clark. Two male viewers on YouTube comment, In that scene, i like to be Clark... oh my good Lana is so sexy XD (sic),401 and Love it, it's pretty sexy. / I'm so gonna kiss my gf like that tonight, but more sexier... (sic).402 Bad Clarks attitude and confident sexuality create strong identification, both viewers yearning to be more like Clark in their real-world lives; affinity for Bad Clark is aided by the desire of heterosexual male viewers to be with the beautiful women he seduces, like Lana in this scene. Although regular Clark is a strong figure of fantasy identification because of his superpowers, Bad Clark is even more attractive in some ways (for both male and female viewers) because of his freedom from morality and self-doubt. Fans are often impressed by regular Clarks super deeds and noble motives, but his character is complex and conflicted, having much more screen time over the life of the series than Bad Clark. It is impossible to offer many generalizations about what online fans say about the good Clark, because they celebrate and criticize the character in so many ways, sometimes offering in-depth opinions. In contrast, like most villainous characters, Bad Clark is more straightforward and striking, doing things viewers (and most heroes) merely dream of doing and appearing only periodically; he elicits stronger, more immediate reactions from fans. Nonetheless, it is still difficult to say viewers find him preferable overall, since they presumably watch the program to follow the adventures of the good (albeit often monstrous) Clark, not the occasional appearances of his bad side Returning to the episode, the charming personality of Bad Clark takes a severe dark turn when he takes Lana to a seedy bar on their date. The bar is filled with people drinking and dancing, features a dark interior heavily accented by reddish lighting (danger!), and has loud

401 402

arcanain, in response to kalel587, smallville red Clark kisses Lana. YooryYoory, in response to kalel587, smallville red Clark kisses Lana.

197

rock music playing in the background (again, the music of teenage rebellion). Clarks descent into immorality is stressed by his black, sleeveless shirt, which reveals his bare arms and accentuates his physical strength and sexuality (things he usually hides). As Clark enters the crowded bar, he smiles broadly, exclaiming This place is great! while keeping his hands on Lanas shoulders, this physical forwardnesss atypical of a teen who usually fears his body monstrously harming others. Lana, in contrast, grimaces and wears a light-blue blouse that, in its suggestion of innocence, clashes with Clarks aggressive outfit. Clarks combativeness is first glimpsed when two men stare at Lana and appear to be sizing up her body; in reaction, Clark threateningly approaches them in a medium shot, asking, What are you looking at? Lana is forced to restrain him, as he exhibits a newfound propensity for violence that is especially frightening (to the viewer) because of his superpowers. Momentarily calmed, he continues acting immorally by first expressing a desire for beer though he is underage and then dismissing Lanas request to go somewhere else and talk since this place isnt us (i.e., conservative and morally upright). Even more egregious is when Clark leaves Lana behind to dance with Jessie, the bad girl who is (predictably) hanging out at the seedy bar in a punky red dress that matches the surroundings. Before dancing with Jessie, Clark overtly checks her out, as shown in a point-ofview shot in which the camera tilts up from her feet to her head; Clark proceeds to blurt whoa directly in front of Lana. In a medium long shot, Clark stands in the center of the frame with the demure Lana on the left and the rebellious Jessie on the right, representing the two paths he can choose. And he selects to go with Jessie, choosing her over the girl he has been pining over for years and even kissing Jessie right in front of Lana. Furthermore, when Lana objects to Clarks actions, he suggests that she joins them in having fun (insinuating they should have a threesome)

198

and hands her a one-hundred-dollar bill to get them all some drinks. His liberal sexual attitude (Theres enough of me to go around) is not only out of character for someone who usually puts societys needs over his own desires, but is potentially dangerous as well since at this point in the series it is not clear if Clarks super body can engage in sex with humans at all; he may kill Lana or Jessie if he has sex with either of them and seems not to care. Due to Clarks over-top sexual attitude and choice of Jessie, the scene operates as a parody of the usually conservative sexuality of the superhero, who typically strongly limits his lust and chooses the good girl, not the bad one. As Clarks dark side increasingly takes hold, the level of physical violence escalates and he starts to qualify for all three kinds of monstrosity, as well as exemplifying the more dangerous side of juvenile delinquency. The violence begins when he grabs Lanas arm as she leaves the bar, forcing two men (the same two who Clark threatened earlier) to stop him. In reaction, Bad Clark forgoes all caution and begins to use his powers publically. First, in a medium shot he grabs the two men by their shirts; following a couple of quick cuts, another medium shot of Clark shows him throwing them further than any human could, as they fly headfirst into the background. The close-range framing of Clark emphasizes his demented personality, as he smiles crazily while other people in the bar look visibly concerned and confused. When the bartender attacks Clark with a baseball bat, Clark declares, I dont think so, and, in a close-up that draws attention to his monstrous use of superpowers, activates his heat vision; in the next shot, the bat bursts into flames, visibly horrifying the bartender. Next, there is a medium closeup of a random girl in the crowd, looking down at the bat and clearly scared as she moves away from Clark. When the bartender tries to punch Clark, Clark grabs him around the neck and pushes him to the ground, nearly killing him. Another man breaks a chair over Clarks head, which does not harm his super body at all; however, with his new cruelty, Clark still reacts

199

harshly, tossing the man into the crowd, knocking over three people in the process. Finally, Clark smiles again and, in a close-up of his crazed face, asks gleefully, Anybody else? The action is interspersed with and followed by several shots of random faces in the heterogeneous crowd, many of the individuals looking horrified or moving away. Voices can be heard saying things like Oh, god! and Help him! (meaning the bartender). The final shots of the scene display Clark with a pile of bodies in the background and the crowd stepping away as Clark and Jessie walk out of the bar. Despite being parodic (Clarks behavior comically does not match expectations one has of the superhero) and presenting an attractive fantasy of having physical supremacy over others, the scene overwhelmingly increases the sense that Bad Clark is terrifying. The looks of horror and total fear demonstrate how Clarks moral monstrosity has lead to two other kinds of monstrosity: physical monstrosity, since his body is freakish to the onlookers, and original sin monstrosity, because he is a threat to the comparatively impotent humans in the bar. Moreover, in its extremity, this sequence displays how Clark fits into the darker reality of contemporary juvenile delinquency, as outlined by Shary: In recent years juvenile delinquency has taken on more life-and-death consequences, with youth gaining greater access to guns (which allow them to be more cowardly in their attacks by enacting violence at a distance), engaging in more recreational drug use (which may distort their sense of reason), and being more sexualized by capitalist culture (which objectifies their bodies and thereby makes them easier targets for abuse).403 Clarks superpowers are even more frightening than firearms, since they allow him to commit violence in proximity, at a distance (as exhibited in his use of heat vision), with inhuman speed, and with shocking degrees of injury, death, and destruction. His recreational drug use is demonstrated through the role of the drug-like red kryptonite in his delinquent
403

Shary 22.

200

behavior; it gets him high, making him increasingly wicked and dangerously distorting his sense of what is reasonable. Finally, being sexualized endangers the young women (Lana and Jessie) in the episode, as the delinquent Clark chases after them, encourages them to act rebelliously, and treats them abusively, although he does stop short of actual sexual or physical violence against them. In addition, Bad Clark sexualizes himself more, flaunting his body in more revealing and stylish clothing; however, in his case it does not make him the target of abuse. Clarks near-murder of several people in the bar scene (and later scenes) reflects the life-and-death consequences of contemporary delinquency. However, by having Clark physically harm adults much more so than high school students in this and other scenes, the episode does distance itself from one modern-day manifestation of juvenile delinquency: school shootings. The juvenile delinquent superheros immoral use of his powers reaches its selfish, violent zenith in his encounters with Lionel Luthor and a federal marshal and his subsequent endeavor to make himself rich. First, he cruelly plays with Lionels blindness, taking his sunglasses and dancing around him, proceeding to rudely tell him that no one wants him around. Ironically, his cruelty leads to Lionels approval: Youve got a lot to learn about tact, young man, but you speak your mind. Thats good. Itll take you far. Lionels appreciation is noteworthy in that he is, in the early seasons of the program, distinctly the darkest character, the one responsible for Lexs psychological scars that will lead him to become evil; thus, it is fitting that he would be impressed with Bad Clarks personality. When a corrupt federal marshal interrupts their conversation and pulls out a gun, Clark arrogantly smiles in a close-up and asks, Is that supposed to scare me? Suddenly vanishing with a whooshing sound (indicating the use of his super speed), Clark reappears on the left side of the frame with the gun in his hand, while the

201

marshal stands helplessly on the right side. Shameless in his use of superpowers, Bad Clark adds to his shocking use of super speed by firing the gun into his left hand multiple times. The camera moves closer, ending up in an extreme close-up of Clarks hand that displays his frightening invulnerability: His hand is totally uninjured, as it holds the three bullets and is only slightly blackened by the gunpowder. Emphasizing his fearful imperviousness even more, the fired bullets (each able to kill a regular person) fall to the ground in a slow-motion extreme close-up. Confirming his superhuman nature to the marshal (and suggesting it to Lionel, who, though blind, seems to deduce what is happening and takes an active interest in Clark in ensuing episodes), he announces, Youve got no idea who youre dealing with. This intimidating statement and his inhuman physical abilities show that he qualifies for all three kinds of monstrosity: moral, in his selfish, arrogant use of powers; physical, in his visibly freakish and frightening body; and original sin, in his status as a threat to humans due to his powers. The comparative impotence of even a federal authority is exhibited as the terrified marshal tries to run from Clark. His escape is quickly foiled: In a long shot that draws attention to how amazingly fast he moves across the entire room, Clark grabs a pool table and uses it to smash the marshal against a wall and extract information from him. Clark learns that Jessies father has evidence that may make Clark a million dollars, but will get Jessies dad killed if he divulges it; not caring about the deadly consequences for a someone else, Clark is excited by the idea. At the conclusion of the scene, Clark responds to the marshals suggestion that they split the money by lightly touching his head with the palm of his hand, knocking him out with minimal effort due to his super strength. Totally self-centered, he proclaims, But who needs you?

202

The frightening truth that no one can stop Clark in his lust for money (or for anything else) is further demonstrated when he arrives at Jessies house. Declaring, Were not going anywhere until I have [the disks with the information,] Clark gazes confidently at Jessie, knowing full well (as does the viewer) that nothing can harm him and Jessie is at his complete mercy. When Jessie asks for his motivations, Clark crazed eyes are framed in close-up as he announces, The money. Unlike the regular Clark, who constantly must weigh the morality of what he does with his super body and wonders how to help people, Bad Clarks mindset is simple: money, sex, power. As the encounter unfolds, Jessies dad pulls a gun on Clark, the weapon giving him the illusion of having the upper hand. In a medium close-up, Clark looks fearlessly at the gun in the foreground and reiterates the rejection of authority that started with his denunciation of his father: Just like my dad: always telling me what to do. I dont listen to him. What makes you think Im gonna listen to you? In contrast to Clarks inhuman calm and bravado, Jessies dad is portrayed as average: In a close-up, we see his glasses, yellow shirt, and tan jacket, none of which look expensive or out of the ordinary. Likewise, the gun in the foreground is noticeably shaking, as he is clearly afraid of harming Clark or getting hurt himself. Clarks fearlessness and Jessies dads panic is confirmed in two quick shots: a medium close-up accentuating how quickly and easily Clark snatches the gun, followed by a close-up of Jessies dad anxiously jumping backward. The fact that Clark takes the weapon (even though it cannot hurt him anyway) shows that he is trying to take away any sense of power from his human adversary. Bad Clark proceeds to make terrifying use of his superpowers to discover the location of the disks. Though it is unclear whether he employs his X-Ray vision, the power gives him the ability to see through things to search for the disks; in effect, Clark is capable of near total

203

surveillance (he can see and hear almost anything), making him a threat to privacy and giving him the ability to ascertain confidential information. Not seeing the disks, Clark uses his superhuman strength in order to intimidate Jessies dad into giving up their location. First, he punches directly though a set of drawers, a medium close-up showcasing his frightening physical fortitude in close proximity. Then, he picks up and throws a television, a long shot displaying Clark in the foreground as the TV flies into the background and forces Jessies dad to jump out of the way. A medium close-up of the television highlights the intensity of Clarks strength, as sparks fly and a crashing sound is heard. Finally, Clark easily lifts Jessies dad against a wall, a close-up stressing his terror as Clark ominously wonders, Why dont you save yourself a lot of pain? Having revealed his superhuman nature (the level of his brute strength is impossible for someone of his size and build), Clark has again allowed himself to be seen as a physical monster, a horrifying freak due to his inhuman abilities. Moreover, his immoral use of super strength makes him a threat to Jessies dad, who is helpless to stop him and may be murdered at any moment. In the episodes final scene of red kryptonite-induced monstrosity, we see the strongest evidence of the sheer terror engendered by Bad Clarks corrupt use of superpowers. In a series of shots that would not be out of place in a horror movie were it not for the daytime setting, we start with Jessie running frantically in a medium long shot; the camera tracks quickly behind her to keep up, as she slows only to look behind herself and check if anyone is following her. While fast, loud music suggests imminent danger, we cut to Jessie running in profile as viewed through the dense crops, the camera tracking her again to suggest the speed and panic of her movements. The subsequent shot features Jessie running toward the camera as it tracks backward, the fear on her face distinctly visible as she moves. This dread-filled series of shots underlines how Clark

204

has become as terrifying as a horror movie monster, since he is similarly an unstoppable, inhuman force that cannot be killed.404 Although there is still some thrill for viewers in the impressive power he wields and some comedy in the complete upheaval of the superheros personality, Clark has, by this point in the episode, become mainly a figure of fear. It is easier to want to be Bad Clark (or laugh at him) when he acts cool, seduces women, defeats imposing men, and tries to take advantage of his abilities to get rich and gratify his sexual desires. However, when the bad boy superhero starts terrorizing innocent people using his powers (particularly women), identification with him clearly lessens and viewers are invited to sympathize with the people who are being terrorized, since they are, after all, more like the viewers in their lack of powers.405 As the defenseless Jessie continues to run from the superhero monster, we momentarily cut to a startling close-up shot of Clarks face from Jessies point of view, as he stares directly into the camera with a look of intimidation. This shot quickly gives way to a medium long shot that shows, in profile, Jessie running into Clark, who just stands there as she bounces off of him with a thud. This sequence again exhibits Clarks ability to find anyone or anything with his super senses and super speed and his imperviousness to any resistance; as he sums up, You know no one can get away from me. Taking the disks from the helpless human, Clark encapsulates his monstrous morality: I never realized how easy it would be to get everything Ive ever wanted. It is easy because of his superpowers, which make it so that he cannot be stopped by any human measures.

404

Though they cannot be called monstrous superheroes (since they are not heroes and are part of a different genre), horror monsters exhibit all three kinds of monstrosity: They lack morality, are physically freakish, and are seen as threatening due to their supernatural/superhuman existence. 405 It is when Jessie, previously so attracted to Bad Clark, begins to fear Clark that he is made more blatantly villainous.

205

Accordingly, when Clarks father and Pete halt his reign of terror, they utilize something as alien to Earth as Clark is. Pete uses green kryptonite to weaken Clark while his father pulverizes the red kryptonite ring with a sledgehammer, returning Clark to his regular personality. In effect, he is stopped by his own Kryptonian past, one of the few times green kryptonite has positive effects on the program; it is, as Pete states, the only one way to stop the unstoppable, underlining that nothing human has any chance. The helplessness of regular humans throughout the episode returns us to the central structural elements of the genre: Super strong, uncorrupted heroes protect the powerless from dishonest individuals in positions of authority, appeasing anxieties of impotence and enabling wish-fulfilling identification. However, anxieties always persist that these heroes can, in fact, be corrupted and (again) reveal the powerlessness of the average citizen. Narratives in which the superhero turns completely selfish and immoral are the most commanding eruptions of the genres anxieties of corruption and impotence. They rock the foundations of the superhero narrative (moral heroes saving people) more so than when the superhero loses control of his body, makes a few immoral decisions, or is unfairly viewed as a threat by humans; likewise, when a superheros double attacks the populace, anxieties are less severe since it is not the protector himself who is corrupted. When the superhero actively turns his back on heroism and becomes a villain in superhero-gone-bad narratives, it is revealed how vulnerable people, including the viewer, are to greater forces. Still, as noted, there are elements of wish fulfillment and parody in these stories of morally monstrous superheroes, because the protagonists are able to let go of the heavy responsibilities that come with being honorable heroes and simply enjoy the advantages of having powers, often to comic effect.

206

As such, it is especially appropriate to have renditions of the superhero-gone-bad on Smallville, since they allow a character heavily burdened by the anxieties of his super puberty struggling to control his new superpowers, figure out his moral purpose, and deal with the dramas of high schoolto take pleasure in his superpowers (and the viewer to enjoy them, by proxy). The show augments the wish fulfillment of indulging in superpowers by having Clark become cool, improving his social standing (in and out of high school) and getting the attention of the opposite sex. Furthermore, Smallville complicates the monstrous superhero narrative by adding the analogy of a teenager on drugs; Clark is, in essence, addicted to red kryptonite and the rush it gives him. Additionally, he feels social pressure to get the red kryptonite ring (again, it is a high school class ring), akin to peer pressure to do drugs or to attain status symbols at whatever cost. Drug abuse and peer pressure have been presented as common causes of teenage delinquency since the 1950s. In fact, as suggested earlier, the entire episode recalls aspects of a popular subgenre of the teenpic in the 1950s: the delinquent movie.406 The subgenre was the result of (and a cause of) the perception that white male delinquents (in urban and suburban settings) posed an authentic threat to the social order; many of these films espouse the belief that, much to the detriment of society, an urban backdrop of bars, poolhalls, and low companions is more formative than mom and pop.407 Like the image of the bad boy delinquent, these ideas about delinquency that formed over fifty years ago have continued to resonate in many ways. The level of hysteria and the number of films produced about delinquency are not nearly the same as in the 1950s (even with incidents like the Columbine shooting), but contemporary media coverage of school shooters, gangs, drug abusers, and other delinquents similarly blames the threatening behavior of
406

Thomas Doherty, Teenagers and Teenpics: The Juvenilization of American Movies in the 1950s (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002) 93. 407 Doherty 93, 98.

207

juveniles on bad or absent parents and various non-parental influences: bad friends, the city, poverty, drugs, music (especially rap), television, and film. Accordingly, in Red, Clark visits a seedy bar outside of the small town, plays pool, and feels most closely connected to his potentially evil friend and a decidedly bad girl. He gleefully engages in verbal altercations, thievery, destruction of property, and fighting, most of which are the result of a desire to improve his class standing. His well-intentioned parents are not held responsible, presented instead as victims of Clarks delinquent behavior; as one fan states, i felt really sorry for Jonathan and Martha having to deal with their on drugs rebelious son (sic).408 What really separates Clarks delinquency from that of other teens is the greater scale of Clarks danger to society: He is one superpowered person who can threaten the entire social order. Though Clarks bad behavior clearly escalates due to various environmental factors, the episode ultimately follows a recent trend in films to displace the blame for delinquency. Whereas most 1950s juvenile delinquency films (and contemporary media coverage of delinquency) reproach both the social environment and parents (e.g., in 1955s Rebel without a Cause) for the protagonists bad behavior, Shary argues that in films there has been a shift: [a] sense of repression and/or displacement has been evident for the past few years, both in terms of Hollywoods output of JD films and their reception by audiences. In 1999, two films went so far as to explain their boys delinquency with hokey supernatural gagsDeal of a Lifetime, with its Faustian tale of a kid selling his soul for a hot date, and Idle Hands, wherein the demon force is focused on the fingers of the wayward teen.409 Similarly, Clark and most other superheroes-gone-bad are affected by alien, superhuman, or scientific gags; these influences are not necessarily supernatural but are similarly out-of-theordinary, unrealistic, and random. Clarks immorality in Red is the result of his original sin

408

AverageJoe, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 6 February 2006, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834> 409 Shary 36.

208

monstrosity, since something from his alien home (Krypton) turns him into an unstoppable monster; the role of red kryptonite seemingly removes any possibility of criticizing the social order (or Clark) for his actions. Moreover, as is suggested by the word gags, there is often an element of comedy in the corruption of the protagonist in recent delinquency movies, something clearly seen in Bad Clarks parodying of the superhero; on Smallville, this jokiness is one way to minimize how much viewers are reminded of real-life delinquent behavior and its serious consequences. Likewise, comedy counteracts the anxieties of impotence and corruption evoked by Clarks at times extreme violence. The superheros eruptions of extreme monstrosity are usually resolved in the same way: The superhero reverts to his senses, returning to a heroic, moral mission in which he puts his desires second to the greater good. Importantly, if the superhero were not to return to heroism, he would cease being a superhero at all and it would be a narrative of a superhero permanently turning into a villain, the most unusual kind of superhero-gone-bad story.410 The conclusion of the Smallville episode features Clark inside the familys humble home (heavily wood-accented to give it a rustic look), preparing to eat dinner with his mother and father, his wholesome nuclear family reunited. Rather than the flashy clothes of Bad Clark, he now wears his more typical blue-hued flannel shirt, with a white T-shirt underneath (suggesting his goodness) and wornlooking blue jeans. This unassuming costuming reminds us that he does not value material things; in addition, it is very similar to his fathers outfit in the scene, indicating the reinstatement of his moral upbringing. Clarks dialogue turns to his temporary rebelliousness: I remember whats really important. . . . No matter how crazy I got, you two stood by me. Thats something all the money in the world cant buy. His rejection of money indicates he has
410

In such cases, the end of the narrative reassures readers/viewers in one of several ways: The one-time hero is killed, a hero takes the now-villainous heros place, or a number of heroes band together to maintain the dominance of good over evil (despite the defection of one hero).

209

returned to eschewing the selfish use of his powers. And his realization that family is more important confirms that his loved ones and their values will once again guide the manner in which he utilizes his superpowers. In tidying up the monstrous eruption so neatly, superhero stories like this one on Smallville form a complicated relationship to the genres underlying anxiety of the superpowered protector being corrupted. On the one hand, by depicting the superhero-gone-bad and then returning things to the status quo, the anxiety can be more effectively submerged since it appears that the issue has been dealt with and resolved (the superheros bad side has been appeased/indulged and now he can return to heroism). On the other hand, by openly acknowledging that the superhero can become totally monstrous and portraying how unstoppable he is, the fear that he may go bad again is made palpable, as is the sense that the average citizen is impotent in a world of more powerful forces. Regardless of these eruptions of anxiety, there is still much pleasure contained within superhero-gone-bad narratives because of the way the protagonist indulges in the pleasures and profitability of having superpowers. They are potent wish-fulfillment narratives, in many ways more powerful than regular superhero stories.411 In this sense, appearances of the superherogone-bad (especially when dealing with teen heroes, like on Smallville) again have much in common with juvenile delinquency films. Shary argues that delinquency films from the 1950s through the mid-1980s have protagonists who are either good but misunderstood teenagers or totally morally revolting bad teenagers; whereas the good teen allows moral idealization, the

411

On Smallville, even the superhero protagonist explains that his actions as Bad Clark are him living and using his powers the way he wishes he could: I think it was some sort of wish-fulfillment thing for me (Upgrade, Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season, writ. Drew Landis and Julia Swift, The CW, 16 April 2010, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2010).

210

bad teen encourages fanciful indulgence in deviant thrills.412 Bad Clark clearly fits the mold of the morally repulsive bad delinquent, since the viewer is encouraged to find pleasure in the deviant thrills experienced by the wicked young protagonist; the thrills are made even greater due to his extra-human abilities. The superhero-gone-bad phenomenons episodic nature is a key part of its appeal. Since the superhero is usually afflicted by something outside of himself (e.g., red kryptonite) and does not actively choose to be evil, the viewer is reassured that the superheros bad side is not permanent; he will, at some point, revert to his true, moral self. As such, it is okay for the viewer to enjoy his brief pleasure-seeking.413 This sense of temporariness is strengthened on Smallville by the fact that Clark is destined to become Superman in the future, negating even a remote possibility that his bad side may win out or be retained for long. Further underlining their episodic nature, superhero-gone-bad stories rarely have much effect on the larger narrative of a TV show, film, or comic book series; it is telling that Clark is not held accountable or punished at the end of Red for his deviant, often illegal behavior, except for being criticized by Lana. In contrast, many juvenile delinquents in films, television, and real life face a daunting process to overcome their criminal pasts (and do not always succeed).414 Before concluding analysis of the episode, it is important to look again at reactions to Red on the fan website Kryptonsite to see the overwhelming allure of the superhero-gone-bad.

412 413

Shary 23. A similar delight is found in villains (including monstrous doubles) who indulge in their selfish desires, a significant reason viewers often claim to find the villains more interesting and fun. The villain must be stopped because, like the superhero-gone-bad, his desires eventually take dark turns and endanger the average citizen, anxiety matching or exceeding pleasure. In the traditional superhero narrative, the excess of the villain is limited and balanced by the upright morality of the hero; the existence of the superhero ensures that the villain will be kept in check, allowing pleasurable reception of the mayhem of the villain. The superhero-gone-bad upsets this balance since the hero becomes the villain, with nothing to keep him under control, resulting in more anxiety than is experienced with immoral villains (and arguably more pleasure as well). 414 Shary 31.

211

Fans gushingly write things like red is my all time favorite episode,415 Definitely one of my all time favorite episodes. . . . I enjoyed seeing the various stages of Clark's fall from grace (sic),416 One of the best ever - love the Red K!417 this was one of my favorite episodes in the series it was very interesting to see clark act bad I loved all the episodes when he puts on red kryptonite (sic),418 'Red' was such an awsome episode. I loved everything about it. The way he acted was different, funny and refreshing. IMO it brought out a side of Clark that he could never bring out when he was normal i.e making his move on Lan (sic),419 ohh clark, red k makes you hotter (if it's even possible),420 and I thought it was great seeing clark the villan and it was kool that he finally expresed his feelings and emotions (sic).421 This tremendously positive fan reaction (in fact, there are zero negative responses to the episode on the Kryptonsite message board) reflects the pleasure found in the superhero-gone-bad narrative: The hero breaks the genres typical narrative structure (superhero stops criminals and rescues people) and indulges in superpowers just as viewers fantasize about doing. Even the more anxiety-revealing elements of the episode (e.g., when Clark shows that humans are powerless to stop his immoral pursuits) are experienced as enjoyable in that Clarks bad behavior is so atypicalparodying his regular heros codeand is only episodic in nature; again, if Clark were always villainous, the reactions would likely be quite different. Numerous

415

gloria, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 6 February 2006, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834> 416 Vyperman7, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 8 February 2006, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834> 417 LexLuv180, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 21 March 2006, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=2> 418 fresh prince, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 29 June 2006, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=2> 419 Detorio, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 18 July 2006, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=2> 420 kal-el Girl, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 19 July 2006, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=3> 421 Nimkong, Re: Ep 2.04 Red, Kryptonsite, 25 February 2010, Web, 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=5>

212

fans comment on how funny and refreshing the episode is because of Clarks badness. The lack of commentary on the anxieties exposed by the episode or the moral message at the end (about valuing family and selflessness) reflects what Shary learns from his study of teen delinquency in 1990s films: the ramifications of Hollywoods ambivalent tendency to hype JD violence [. . . are] that youth may be too influenced by the dramatically thrilling aspects of delinquency films to appreciate their moral messages. Thus, even when positive and negative options are presented, the lingering impact on youth remains the excitement of delinquency itself.422 Bad Clarks violence is similarly hyped in that it is presented as part of his cool persona, allowing the negativity of his violent behavior to be consumed by the pleasure of his attractive personality and body. Furthermore, the violence is made more stimulating in that Clark utilizes superhuman abilities, offering wish fulfillment for viewers (the wish to be superpowered, unhindered by human limitations). The exhilaration of superpowers, especially when unencumbered by constant rationalizing and ethical quandaries, overtakes the moral reprehensibility of Clarks actions.423 As a result, the indulgent, immoral Clark, the embodiment of the superhero-gone-bad and the juvenile delinquent, becomes a highly pleasurable alternative to the moral Clark of most episodes.

Repetition, Variation, and Escalation: The Thrill and Terror of Bad Clark in Later Episodes Though there is a high degree of repetition in Smallvilles superhero-gone-bad episodes, it is still valuable to look fairly exhaustively at other Bad Clark appearances to prove the consistent narrative and formal elements. Moreover, some of the sequences in these later
422 423

Shary 24. According to Shary, onscreen teenage rebellion usually operates as a kind of wish fulfillment: In depicting delinquency onscreen in dynamic and dramatic ways, most teens films are artificially providing rebellion for youth who are told that what they do outside the theater will be of little consequence (25). Similarly, viewers can watch Bad Clark and vicariously enjoy his dynamic, superpowered rebellion without actually rebelling in their own lives.

213

episodes escalate and/or elaborate on the thrilling and terrifying aspects of the evil superhero; in particular, the level of violence often intensifies, as Clarks superpowers are utilized in spectacular and frightening ways. Humans, even those who seem to have some kind of power or authority (parents, criminal overlords, police), are continually shown to be impotent in comparison to Clark. Moving away from his small town values, Bad Clark is (in some episodes) associated with the big city, which offers more corruptive influences and more opportunities to act wickedly. Finally, the superhero-gone-bad on Smallville, despite still being blamed on alien influences, has more lasting consequences for Clark in some cases, as monstrosity is not always something that can be so easily escaped. Going chronologically, airing just a few months after the first Bad Clark episode (Red), the episode Rush features a brief appearance of Bad Clark following another encounter with red kryptonite.424 Mirroring the first superhero-gone-bad episode, Clark becomes immoral, rude, and very sexual. In addition, he exposes his powers to his friend Chloe (though she forgets by the end of the episode), not caring if he is seen as a physical monster or a threat to humans. He is stopped only when the red kryptonite is fortuitously thrown clear of his body. Confirming the popularity of the superhero-gone-bad and offering the longest, darkest representation of it in the entire series, the last episode of the second season and the first two episodes of the third season portray Clarks delinquent, morally monstrous persona.425 In the first of these three episodes (Exodus), Clark is responsible for an explosion that ends up

424

Rush, Smallville: The Complete Second Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The WB, 4 February 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. Interestingly, this episode also depicts Clarks friends Chloe and Pete getting infected, but by an alien insect instead of red kryptonite. They similarly lose all inhibitions, the difference being that they endanger themselves more so than others (being human), while Clarks wild side puts the world in jeopardy. 425 Thus, there are four episodes with Bad Clark in less than a year.

214

injuring his parents and causing his mother to have a miscarriage.426 The disastrous results of his actions again reflect the status of the pubescent Clark as both a potential savior and destroyer; here, he causes harm not by his powers going out of control but by his poor decision-making.427 The miscarriage leads to his adoptive fathers disgust with Clark. He later recounts, You shouldve seen the way my dad looked at me. It was like I was an alien. His fathers reaction qualifies Clark for both physical and original monstrosity, since his father seems horrified by his inhuman body428 and treats Clark like he is a threat.429 The result is that Clark sees himself as even more of a monster and is overcome by the kind of guilt that is experienced by many superheroes of this era. To alleviate his emotional trauma, Clark seeks red kryptonite to feel better (i.e., to become Bad Clark), furthering the rocks analogy to a drug that artificially gets Clark high. The fact that Clark intentionally exposes himself to red kryptonite insinuates that his previous accidental introduction to it was addictive. A close-up again emphasizes the effects of his drug: First, we see his hands as he puts on the red ring; then, the red pulses through his veins (with attendant sound effects); and finally, the camera tilts up to show his eyes flashing a crimson color and a delighted grin replacing his sad pout. Reengaging the image of the bad boy delinquent, he almost immediately puts on his leather jacket and sunglasses and is shown

426

Exodus, Smallville: The Complete Second Season, writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, The WB, 20 May 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 427 His poor decisions fall short of moral monstrosity because Clark does not use his abilities for personal gratification. Instead, he utilizes his powers in order to survive his intentional destruction of the alien spaceship that brought him to Earth; his desire is to stay with his parents and friends in Smallville and avoid potentially being turned into some sort of alien tyrant by the spaceship (which possesses the will of Clarks Kryptonian father). Despite his good intentions and non-monstrous use of superpowers, he puts his parents in harms wa y by not telling them about his plans to destroy the spaceship (a very poor and costly decision). 428 Though Clark is not doing anything inhuman in this scene, his father has seen him use his superpowers enough times to be familiar with how out of the ordinary Clarks body is. 429 Regardless of his fathers reaction, it is a case of original sin monstrosity because Clarks spaceship, something from his home planet, is responsible for his mothers miscarriage.

215

defiantly riding a motorcycle toward the camera, while his girlfriend Lana sobs in the background. The episode (and the entire second season) ends with an extreme long shot of Bad Clark journeying away from the farms of Smallville to the big city of Metropolis, which is visible in the background as his destination. It is an altogether threatening image because, if Bad Clark can be dangerously corrupted in the idyllic town of Smallville, it is alarming how much more monstrous he may become when influenced by the seedy elements of the city. Along the same lines, the city gives him a bigger canvas to enact his monstrous morality, with more ways to indulge himself and more people to harm. Set three months later, the opening episode of the third season (Exile) exhibits the dark consequences of the superhero going bad for a lengthy period of time in the city. The first shot of Clark highlights his external changes: He is wearing all black (except his jeans), has noticeably longer hair, and struts confidently with a large grin through the nighttime streets of the city.430 Complementing his new attitude, non-diegetic rock music loudly plays in the background. In contrast, many of the episodes with the regular Clark start quietly in the glorious morning sunshine of his familys farm, with Clark dressed in plaid while working or spending time with his mom and dad. Reinforcing the superficiality of the superhero-gone-bad, Bad Clark stops strutting to stare at a brightly lit luxury car showroom. As he stands in the background staring through the glass, a long shot frames an expensive car spinning enticingly in the foreground. The non-diegetic song in the background431 espouses the importance of materiality, especially for romance: Girls dont like boys, girls like cars and money. Seemingly taking a cue from the song, a close-up of Clarks mischievously smiling face quickly gives way to a
430

Exile, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, The WB, 1 October 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 431 Good Charlottes Boys and Girls.

216

close-up of an ATM machine, as Clarks fist suddenly rams through it with superhuman force. We then see a long shot that draw attention to the extent of Clarks thievery: While he takes cash out of one machine, we see three more ATM machines in the foreground that have been similarly ravaged for cash. Morally bereft and not impeded by human physical limitations, Clark simply steals whatever he wants. Though the scale is relatively small, the implication is that Clark could rob anyone or anything, with humans again impotent in the face of his dominance. The resulting anxiety is counterbalanced by the wish-fulfilling fantasy of easily taking money without working for it. In addition, Clarks behavior is an entertaining parody of the superhero, since he utilizes his abilities in extremely base ways rather than for moral purposes (e.g., protecting the people). Clark uses the money to purchase the car, which costs $240,000, and proceeds to exhibit his libidinal excess and superficial lifestyle. He suggests to the saleswoman, Why dont we take it for a test drive? Arriving outside a crowded club, Clark easily moves through the throngs with the revealingly dressed saleswoman. She is clearly much older than he is, demonstrating how in the big city Bad Clark has prematurely put adolescence behind himself (before finishing his development) and is accepted as an adult. He gives the expensive car to an acquaintance who likes it, displaying his cultivation of an image of wealth (he can just give fancy cars away), as well as the ease with which he procures money and things with his superpowers. Again, there is much that is pleasing about Clarks persona, as he clearly lives a rich lifestyle and is adored by both men and women; it is comically unlike his usual life as a principled teenage superhero who resides on a farm with his parents. However, the dangerousness of Bad Clark is never submerged for long. Kissing his date in the dark club, he suddenly turns angry and roughly grabs her arm, verifying his fluctuating moods and constant threats of physical violence.

217

The bank robbery scene in this episode is the programs most violent representation of the superhero-gone-bad, underlining the terrifying danger posed by him and the hopelessness of stopping him. Playing with viewer expectations, the scene opens with the kind of criminal activity that superheroes often thwart: Several men in clown masks use machine guns to commence a well-orchestrated heist. While these robbers hold employees and customers at the bank hostage, we constantly cut back and forth to shots of police helicopters hovering above and police cars and officers arriving outside of the building. When one robber guns down a hostage who attempts to interfere, this seems like the usual moment for the superhero to arrive and save the day. Accordingly, we are presented a slow-motion long shot of a motorcycle-riding man in a black mask and a black jacket who approaches from the background; a subsequent close-up shot of his red ring indicates to the viewer that this man is Clark. Breaking through the banks glass exterior, Clark hastily rides toward a robber in the foreground. When another robber begins shooting at him, a slow motion medium shot puts on view Clarks impressive and fear-inducing powers, as he easily blocks and catches the bullets. Displaying the ego and penchant for acting cool of Bad Clark, he suddenly appears behind this robber to announce slyly, Stick to balloon animals. In a medium close-up that again parades his frightening superhuman abilities, he dramatically drops the bullets onto the ground and throws the criminal through the air like a ragdoll, seemingly not caring if he dies. The taunting, self-gratifying utilization of powers reveals that he has lost much of his trepidation about being seen as a physical monster or a threat to humanity (original sin monstrosity). Though he does not expose his true identity (wearing a mask), he revels in being feared by the criminals.

218

Clarks seemingly heroic, if excessively brutal,432 disarming of the thieves is quickly revealed to be misleading. After a medium close-up of Clarks torso accentuates his invulnerability to another series of bullets, he grabs a robber in an extreme close-up and states, Sorry, Krusty, I saw the bank first. Thus, Clarks violence is really motivated by his greed and his annoyance that the clown-mask-wearing men had similar criminal plans. The proximity of the camera during his announcement increases the sense of shock and actually makes the viewer fear for the robbers well-being, since Bad Clark is clearly about to hurt or kill him. Predictably, Clark chokes and throws him to the ground before taking the money. Therefore, instead of heroically stopping the robbers, Bad Clark ends up sadistically stealing from them. Clarks ensuing showdown with the police is the climax of the superhero-gone-bads display of near invincibility. Following several shots of police forces gathering, Clark nonchalantly strolls outside and, in a medium close-up that draws attention to his fearlessness, spins around to gaze at the officers (many of whom are visible in the background) as the camera spins around him. The lack of hurry indicates the conceitedness of the superhero-gone-bad, since he knows he cannot be hurt regardless of how many officers amass. Clark has the option to use his super speed to leave quickly and furtively without encountering the police, as the heroic Clark typically does to avoid attention; however, he actively chooses to confront and showcase his powers, seemingly enjoying being seen as a monster. As the drama escalates, a police officer calls for the masked Clark to drop the bag of money. Bad Clarks response is to put his hand into his jacket pocket, deliberately acting as if he were pulling out a gun. By doing so, Bad Clark instigates a barrage of gunfire on his super body, not caring if other people get hurt in the process and confident that he will be unharmed. The camera slowly tracks by Clark (with cops seen in

432

His excessive violence is morally monstrous regardless of whether he ends up acting heroically or villainously in the rest of the scene.

219

the background) in a medium shot that shows how easily the bullets bounce off of his body. The impotence of humans in the face of the monstrous superhero is stressed with several shots of police officers intently firing over and over again without any effect on Clark. Bad Clarks cruel reaction to the gunshots is to enact massive destruction that showcases his supremacy. First, in a close-up we see Clarks slight grin, suggesting his sinister amusement at the helplessness of the police. Next, an extreme close-up emphasizes Clarks comparative power, as heat vision bursts forth from his eyes. Finally, a long shot unveils the scale of the destruction caused by Clarks, as a police car explodes and an officer hits the ground in the foreground. The force of the blast knocks several other cops down and results in the gunfire totally stopping. After Clark leaves, an officer picks up his discarded mask and, in a medium close-up, looks confusedly at the holes created by the bullets; though his identity is still hidden, Clark has intentionally revealed to the police the existence of a terrifying, greedy monster who is totally unstoppable (bullets bounce off of him!). In the concluding shot of the sequence, Clark is shown in the midst of using his super speed (displayed via special effects), indicating how he disappeared so suddenly. Looking down at the stolen bag of money, Bad Clark is framed in a close-up that highlights his exhilarated smile, which is so unlike the reserved facial expressions of his regular persona. The robbery sequence demonstrates the way that the bad superhero, transformed completely from savior to destroyer, provokes both anxieties and various pleasures. Bad Clark creates unease by exposing the populace and official authorities (the police) as impotent, unable to protect even themselves. At the same time, Clarks physical dominance of everyone operates as a compelling fantasy for viewers. Further adding to the enjoyment of the scene is the fact that his actions entertainingly parody the superhero, since expectations are foiled by having the

220

protagonist stop a robbery only to take the money himself. What makes the superhero-gone-bad such a strong figure of anxiety, fantasy, and parody is his self-indulgent usage of superpowers. Clark gleefully uses his abilities to defeat and escape the criminals and police, exhibiting no concern about others seeing him as a freak or a threat to humanity. In fact, as stated earlier, he could have used his super speed to rob the bank without ever being glimpsed;433 instead, he makes sure that everyone sees his impressive physical abilities, choosing to confront the robbers, lumber in front of the cops, and take bullets in a dramatically cinematic way (very reminiscent of a scene from the second Terminator film434). In his flashy invincibility and selfish ways, Bad Clark is simultaneously frightening, wish-fulfilling, and satiric, embodying all the key aspects of the superhero-gone-bad. Having thrillingly outed himself as an immoral, physically freakish, dangerous-to-theworld monster, it remains somewhat perplexing that Clark chooses to wear a mask during the robbery. The easy answer is that it is a plot contrivance: If Clark reveals his face, the show cannot return to the regular adventures of the teenage Clark Kent, since the protagonist would be arrested for his delinquent behavior. Likewise, since Bad Clark still retains some aspects of the original Clarkalbeit in extremely warped formit stands to reason that the character does not want to forestall all possibilities of returning to his old life. Furthermore, unlike previous incarnations of Bad Clark, this one has a distinct motivation for going bad: He is consciously using red kryptonite to run away from his past. Thus, it is somewhat rational that he wants to stay hidden from his family and friends. In contrast, the first red-kryptonite-fueled Bad Clark
433

Along the same lines, the use of the motorcycle is strange since he can run faster than any vehicle. He appears to be interested in action movie theatrics, part of the superficiality of Bad Clark. 434 In one of the climactic scenes of Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Dir. James Cameron, 1991, DVD, Live/Artisan, 2000), Arnold Schwarzeneggers Terminator character faces down a group of cops, taking extensive fire from their guns (exhibiting that he is bulletproof) before disabling them. In an interrelated scene slightly earlier in the film, the Terminator shoots at and destroys cop cars, as officers leap for cover. The similarities of Smallvilles robbery scene are clearly not coincidental as several scenes and visuals on the show (not just this episode) are borrowed from the first three Terminator films.

221

appears more at ease with the potential of revealing his identity, since his ambition is to exploit his abilities for fame. Continuing the sense of powerless authority figures, the episode displays how city officials and Clarks parents are equally incapable of stopping the corrupted superhero. While Clark acts monstrously, his parents are shown at home reading a newspaper with the headline, Masked Man Continues to Rampage Metropolis, and the subheadline, Extensive damage to public and private property! Mayor asks for an official inquiry. The story and the accompanying blurry photo of Clark in his mask prove to his parents how public his misuse of superpowers has become. Moreover, the text confirms the inability of anybody to stop Bad Clark as his Rampage and damage to property are apt to keep continuing (his friend Pete notes that his crimes keep getting bigger and bigger); at any point, he could decide to kill all of mankind or rule it violently. The mayor (the person ostensibly in command of the city) is only able to request an official inquiry, an impotent response to Clarks serious crimes that does nothing to stop them. The similar inability of Clarks parents, who are aware of his abilities and weaknesses, to do anything is confirmed when Pete asks, What are we going to do? and Clarks mom can only answer, There isnt anything. His father tries to go find him but is stopped by his wife, since Clark is nearly impossible to find and can kill his father with a flick of his finger (his father later admits, Hes too powerful). Unlike most delinquents, Clark is plainly too strong to be physically corralled by his parents. This version of Bad Clark operates as a worst case scenario of delinquency, as he has completely disappeared, is addicted to drugs (red kryptonite), engages in excessive violence, and is a criminal. Still, he is less linked than the first Bad Clark (who is only tenuously linked) to the most frightening contemporary explosions of teenage violence: school shootings. In fact, his status as

222

a teen is hardly represented at all, except for his few interactions with his parents. This rendition of Bad Clark is never seen on school grounds, cuts his parents out of his life, spends time with adults who appear to consider him an adult, and lives alone in an apartment. If the superherogone-bad tends to reject most aspects of his heroic life (including friends and family), Clark goes as far to repudiate his remaining adolescence. Like Clarks parents and the city government, the criminal overlords of Metropolis (the citys unofficial authorities) are shown to be powerless to stop Bad Clark, despite their considerable wealth and weaponry. In one scene, Clark sleeps in silk sheets in his penthouse apartment (all these riches acquired through his thievery) when two criminals working for crime lord Morgan Edge open fire on him. Filmed like a bloody assassination in a gangster film, the guns are framed in the foreground while we see Clarks bed, with the superhero asleep under the sheets, riddled with bullets. The violence is emphasized by several close-range shots of the bed, the guns, and the criminals. As the gunmen hover over the superheros limp body, Clark startlingly jumps out of bed in a medium shot that reveals his uninjured body and angry countenance; his imperviousness and evident cruelty both highlight the fearful qualities of the superhero-gone-had. Predictably, he grabs the shocked criminals by the throat in the next shot and tosses them easily through the air, injuring them both. Clark soon learns that Morgan Edge is both annoyed and impressed that Clark has been stealing his criminal activity, telling Clark, Youve made quite a reputation for yourself. Having seen Clark survive gunfire, Edge realizes that he is a physical freak and a threat to mankind; however, as a criminal he sees Clarks monstrous nature as potentially profitable. Consequently, Edge hires Clark as his ultimate thief, promising him a massive payday, which the greedy superhero cannot resist. It is telling that Bad Clark easily aligns himself with criminals, as opposed to the regular Clark, who catches them;

223

the corrupted Clark shares their motivations, using his abilities for profit just as they would if they were superpowered. Still, the criminals have no real authority over Clark, as displayed in this scene, since they cannot harm him in any way. In the final sequence featuring this incarnation of Bad Clark (spread out over the end of Exile and the beginning of the next episode, Phoenix435), we again see that only otherworldly or superhuman forces can hope to stop Clark. Desperate to halt his sons rampage, Clarks adoptive father turns to Clarks Kryptonian birth father (dead, but present as a disembodied form of artificial intelligence), who gives him temporary superpowers. In his subsequent encounter with his son, Clarks father interrupts him before he can commit the robbery for Edge. Clark then exhibits the kind of vicious behavior often attributed to juvenile delinquents: He physically abuses his own father. In a long shot, Clark shoves him across the room, causing him to hit the wall with such force that he leaves a large dent. The impact might have killed or seriously maimed him, if not for his temporary superpowers (of which Clark is not yet aware). Bolstered by his own physical strength, his father is able to order Clark, Son, youre coming home with me. Now! He no longer possesses the fear of Clark now that he is not a regular human himself. Their costuming echoes their opposition: His father wears a light blue shirt, flannel overshirt, and green jacket, all of which he regularly wears while doing physical labor on the family farm. In contrast, Clark wears a bad-boy leather jacket and a devilishly red shirt, before going topless to reveal the Kryptonian symbol on his chest;436 Clarks exposed flesh and alien emblem suggest his savagery and inhumanity. They engage in a

435

Phoenix, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, The WB, 8 October 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 436 Clarks birth father (or at least the disembodied version of him) burns the symbol into Clarks chest to remind him of his heritage and punish him for resisting his calling as a Kryptonian.

224

destructive fight437 with each other, his father trying to reassert authority physically. When his father reminds him that the red kryptonite ring makes him dangerous, Clark retorts, I was born that way, underlining his belief that he is always (even without the ring) a threat to mankind because of his superpowers (original sin monstrosity). Despite the superpowers from Clarks Kryptonian father, his adoptive father still loses the battle to Clark, reinforcing the idea that the bad superhero is nearly unstoppable. Clarks two fathers, human and alien, in effect working together, are unable to tame the delinquent son. As Clark prepares to deliver the deathblow, his father goads him by saying, If I could raise a son that could kill, then kill! Clarks screaming reaction is to punch right past his fathers head, shattering the ring, the dramatic decision accentuated by an extreme close-up of the ring shattering in slow motion. Thus, Clark is only stopped by his own will, not quite monstrous enough to murder his own father in cold blood; still, the fact that he comes so close makes it easy to imagine him becoming totally evil in the future, perhaps due to longer red kryptonite exposure. The helplessness of humans, even those with authority of some sort, to halt Clark shows, once again, that the superhero-gone-bad eruptively exposes the same anxieties the regular superhero assuages: the impotence of the average person and the corruption of the powerful. The severity of these exposed anxieties is reduced (to varying degrees) by the superhero-gone-bads amusing parody of the superhero and embodiment of fantasies of being supremely powerful and living without moral restrictions. Unlike the earlier appearances of Bad Clark, the incarnation from the episodes Exodus, Exile, and Phoenix suffers some repercussions for his delinquent behavior. At the end of

437

Again, there is a resemblance to the Terminator films since the fight takes place in an industrial area (the climaxes of the first two Terminator films are set in industrial zones). Likewise, the battle between two superhuman figures is similar to the one between the two Terminators in Terminator 2. Even the music sounds vaguely similar with its percussive clanging.

225

their fight, Clarks father collapses straight to the ground in a medium close-up, his body ravaged by the brief possession of superhuman powers. Aside from this immediate pain, his father subsequently has a heart attack,438 struggles with health issues, and dies from a second heart attack a few years later,439 all because he acquired superpowers to stop Bad Clark. As a result, Clark is indirectly responsible for his adoptive fathers death, increasing his own sense of original sin monstrosity; if Clark did not have superpowers, his father would likely have lived a much longer life. His death is also a case of original monstrosity in that something from Clarks origin (the planet Krypton) harms a human: Clarks Kryptonian father is the one who gives his adoptive father the alien superpowers that eventually kill him. Clarks bout with his dark side has other negative ramifications, as his criminal past leads to danger for Clark and his loved ones. Moreover, when he encounters people from his life as a criminal, we see a reemergence of his villainous personas moral monstrosity and willingness to use superpowers for intimidation (physical and original sin monstrosity). In the episode Phoenix, Clarks attempts to return to his normal life are interrupted by crime lord Morgan Edge. Dressed ominously in a black shirt and black suit, Edge invades Clarks struggling middle-class life in Smallville, pulling up in his limousine amid the farmhouses, bales of hay, and foreclosure notices. Edge threatens to call the police and reveal Bad Clarks morally dubious actions, likely causing Clark to be sent to prison440; in addition, Edge knows about Clarks superpowers, so he is capable of outing his secret to the whole world. Clarks reaction to this person from his criminal past strongly evokes Bad Clark: In a close-up shot from inside

438

Hereafter, Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Mark Verheiden and Drew J. Greenberg, The WB, 4 February 2004, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004. 439 Reckoning, Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season, writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson, The WB, 26 January 2006, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. 440 With his superpowers, he would be able to escape prison easily, but such an act would be counter to his moral code and would probably reveal his secret.

226

Edges limousine, we see Clarks calm demeanor suddenly turn into rage, as he moves violentl y toward the camera and, in a extreme close-up (with the left side of his face in total shadow, hinting at his darker mindset), roars, I dont think you heard me! His excessive proximity to the camera emphasizes his overwhelming rage, a characteristic the good Clark almost never has. Clark proceeds to rip off the door of the limousine and throw it aside in a medium close-up, attempting to horrify Edge with his freakish abilities (physical monstrosity) and intimidate Edge with his capacity to harm others with his powers (original sin monstrosity). He continues his abuse of Edge by picking him up and slamming him against his limousine in a medium-close-up; Clark yells at him to forget about it! and to take your sorry ass down the road back to Metropolis. I dont want to see you in Smallville again. Ever. First of all, Clark reiterates the dichotomy (especially in the early seasons) between Smallville as a small town of strong values and good people (numerous farmers) and Metropolis as a large-scale den of corruption and immorality; as such, the program falls into long-standing stereotypes regarding the differences between rural and urban areas. Most of the corruption we do see in Smallville either comes from the city (e.g., Lex and Lionel Luthor) or from Krypton (e.g., the alien rocks that give people strange powers), suggesting the town itself is intrinsically good.441 It is the reason Bad Clark runs off to Metropolis to indulge in his superpowers and why Clark suggests Edge return to Metropolis rather than pollute Smallville with his values. Edges reappearance forces Clark to reactivate his bad persona, as he forgoes the simplistic return to being good that we see after most eruptions of the superhero-gone-bad on the show. His interactions with Edge show once again that Clark is unstoppableEdge waves off his bodyguard when he holds a gun to Clarks head, since bullets are futileand that he is

441

Part of Clarks mission is to return Smallville to its Edenic past, before the meteor shower created all sorts of dangerous individuals and the Luthors arrived.

227

willing to use superpowers immorally to get what he wants. Clark ends the scene in a medium close-up that draws attention to his menacing smile, as he seems enthralled by his ability to frighten Edge with his superpowers; it is the same sort of sadistic pleasure in violence that most versions of Bad Clark exhibit. One fan notes the lingering wicked behavior: I noticed Clark seemed happy when he used his intimidation tactics on Morgan in the car. A little left over from the Red K maybe?442 Despite Clarks attempts at instilling fear, the repercussions of Bad Clarks morally dubious adventures persist. Edge reappears to take Clarks mother and father hostage, threatening to kill them if Clark does not fulfill the illegal mission for which he originally hired him. This threat leadsthrough some convoluted plot machinations, which are unimportant hereto Clarks use of green kryptonite to release blood from his unbreakable skin, in the process revealing to Edge his sole weakness. After a high-angle, extreme close-up displays Clark writhing in pain, we see a low-angle shot from Clarks point of view of Edge hovering above him, signifying the change in their power dynamic. Importantly, Edge is only able to gain control over the superhero through Clark choosing to hurt himself and unveil his weakness. Clarks vulnerability to kryptonite is, as always, an example of original sin monstrosity, since something from his birthplace hurts him and puts his mission to protect humans at risk. The consequences of Clarks bad boy past get worse when Edge uses kryptonite on Clark and tries to deliver him to Lionel Luthor, Clarks worst enemy at the time and a man very interested in exploiting alien and superhuman beings. In a medium shot that emphasizes Clarks vulnerability, Edges men strap kryptonite to his bare chest, while Clarks parents are still held hostage as collateral; his parents are rescued only when his girlfriend Lana fights the criminals

442

LexLuv180, Re: Ep 3.2 Phoenix, Kryptonsite, 20 March 2006, Web, 18 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50830>

228

and accidentally kills one of them. The risk to his parents and Lana is an instance of Clarks original sin monstrosity, since Edges men are only endangering his loved ones because of the value of Clarks superhuman body. The biggest danger to Clark in this scene is that Lionel will learn he is a superpowered alien; given Lionels past actions, it is likely he would view Clark as a threat (original sin monstrosity, again) and try to contain or kill him. Luckily, Clark does escape before being exposed. However, in the process, he starts a gunfight between Lionel and Edge, causing the deaths of at least one henchman and the apparent death of Edge as well;443 thus, again, Clarks superpowered nature leads to humans being harmed, strengthening his status as a destroyer. Ultimately, the episode demonstrates that the superhero-gone-bad cannot always be so easily left behind, as his monstrous personality and actions sometimes continue to have an effect on the superheros life. In their reactions to the first red kryptonite episode, Red, fans mainly describe the pleasures of seeing Clark act like a bad boy, while ignoring much of the violence. Though there are numerous fan reactions and videos celebrating the Bad Clark whose appearance spans three episodes (Exodus, Exile, and Phoenix), the serious repercussions make it much harder to ignore the negative parts of his behavior. One fan writes, red k clark is always cool to see. the only thing that sucks about those episodes is that clarks life is always ruined when he is on red-k, and he hurts his parents fellings, etc. (sic).444 Although his life is far from ruined, Clark and his loved ones do suffer short-term and long-term effects due to his wicked acts. Like viewers, Clark seems to be conflicted about his dark side. Throughout the

443

Edge survives and reappears in the episode Shattered ( Smallville: The Complete Third Season, writ. Kenneth Biller, The WB, 19 November 2003, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2004). Afraid of Clark seeing him as a monstrous threat to his lifehe carries around kryptonite beads and proceeds to beat up Clark. So, his life as Bad Clark and his Kryptonian origin both come back to haunt Clark yet again. 444 red-K glory, Re: Ep 3.1 Exile, Kryptonsite, 5 February 2006, Web, 18 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50828>

229

episode Phoenix, he mentions a desire to put his life in Metropolis (i.e., Bad Clark) behind himself; however, he repeatedly ponders leaving Smallville (and the moral tutelage of his parents) again, coming close to imitating the impetuous departure of his bad persona. He even waxes nostalgic about his red kryptonite days: I could just do whatever I wanted. It was like this huge weight had been lifted off me. Feeling guilty for his monstrous actions, Clark pines for his life as Bad Clark, when he was shameless about how he used his superpowers; therefore, he continues flirting with his darker persona. Clark eventually decides to stay in Smallville because, he says, You cant run away from the problem when the real problem is in your blood. This statement seems contrary to the shows tendency to make environment a more important factor than biology in deciding a persons development; for example, it is repeatedly emphasized that the disparate values of Clark and Lex are a direct result of their dissimilar upbringings. However, in Clarks case, his superpowers (a result of his biological status as an alien) actually do make him dangerous to humans, regardless of his strong morality. Despite his good intentions, Clark loses control of his body, is infected by all kinds of kryptonite, must deal with various destructive forces from Krypton, and repeatedly goes bad (usually involuntarily). Clarks belief that his blood is the problem means that he sees himself as an original sin monster; he deems himself a constant threat to humanity because he has superpowers, his bad side potentially resurfacing at any time. He even tells Lana, I chose to let that part of me out, and it's always gonna be there. His upbringing makes Clark predominantly a savior (underscoring that environment is the largest influence), but his alien origin and abilities constantly hold out the possibility that he could become a destroyer (stipulating that nature, especially when it so inhuman, cannot totally be ignored).

230

At the conclusion of Phoenix, Clark tries to put the eruption of his wicked side behind himself by returning to his family and telling the police the location of the money he stole. Still, he does not turn himself in to the police or pay reparations to those he may have harmed, limiting his self-punishment. Although there are some significant long-term effects of his bad-boy behaviorhis father dying and Edge reappearing to abuse Clark with kryptoniteClark deals with most of the immediate consequences in this episode, the program returning to its regular story flow in the next episode. In the end, these episodes of Smallville show that the superheros evil and heroic sides can no longer be so easily bifurcated. Though the superhero-gone-bad is still decidedly an episodic phenomenon that rarely fundamentally changes the heros main narrative arc, there is an increase in guilt and negative consequences due to the bad behavior, which cannot always be cleanly expunged. The chief function of the wicked superhero does not change with these repercussions: He expresses (and then submerges to an extent) the anxieties of powerlessness and corruption that underline a genre about superpowered saviors. Moreover, the superherogone-bad offers a strong degree of pleasure in that he parodies heroic characters and embodies fantasies of having limitless power without moral restrictions. The lingering effects of the superheros wicked behavior serve to continue evoking the genres anxieties even after the pleasures of the superhero-gone-bad have ceased. In subsequent episodes and seasons, Smallville continues utilizing superhero-gone-bad narratives in order to show the monstrous potential of the superhero, with red kryptonite again instigating Clarks turn to darkness in several cases. For example, Clark is unknowingly affected by the rock in a fourth season episode, becoming so sex-crazed and irrational that he impetuously

231

marries his girlfriend in Las Vegas;445 the effects of his delinquency are minor (a jealous man shoots at Clark, nearly revealing his secret), the brevity forestalling any explosions of violence on Clarks part. In the sixth season, Clark goes bad again when he is kissed by Lois Lane, who is wearing red kryptonite lipstick.446 As is typical of the superheros dark side, he becomes lustful, violent, rude, and unafraid of outing himself. After making out with Lois at their workplace, he reveals his powers to her by jumping from one building to another with her in his arms.447 Next, he interrupts Lex Luthor and Lana Langs engagement party by insulting everyone (including his mother, who is present), divulging Lanas secret pregnancy, throwing Lex roughly to the ground, and kidnapping Lana with extreme force. For viewers, this scene allows a chance to indulge in a revenge fantasy, as Clark cruelly embarrasses the former best friend and onetime girlfriend who have left him behind. Finally, in a later scene, he nearly chokes Lex to death (his strength at least suggesting that he is superpowered) and Lana sees a chisel damaged after Lex stabs Clark with it, revealing to her that he has superhuman abilities. In the ninth season episode Upgrade, Clark is transformed into a superhero-gone-bad by red kryptonite for the last time. Clarks altered personality causes him to align himself with Zod, who is Clarks monstrous double, sharing his powers but lacking his (usual) morality. If Zod already represents what would happen if Clark went bad,448 it becomes twice as fearsome when Clark himself goes bad, resulting in essentially two evil versions of the superhero threatening Earth, with nobody to stop them. Clark proceeds to turn on his friends (physically abusing Chloe), engage in violent destruction and defacement of property with Zod, and entertain himself
445

Unsafe, Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season, writ. Steven S. DeKnight and Jeph Loeb, The WB, 26 January 2005, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005. 446 Crimson, Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season, writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson, The CW, 1 February 2007, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2007. 447 Interestingly, he actually reveals the identity of another superhero (Green Arrow) as well in this scene, demonstrating his loose lips. Conveniently, Lois forgets all of these unveiled secrets by episodes end. 448 In this episode and several others, Zod actually pretends to be Clarks pre -Superman alter ego, the Blur, underscoring his status as Clarks monstrous double.

232

by affecting the weather of Seattle using his super breath, causing snow to fall on the unsuspecting citizens. All three of these episodes feature a protagonist who is unhinged from his moral codes, finding pleasure in his superpowers and using them to exact violence on humanity, which is largely helpless. Moreover, in these episodes, Bad Clark has no issues with revealing his abilities and enjoys being seen as a horrifying threat due to his body (physical and original sin monstrosity). He is only stopped by having the red kryptonite willingly removed in the first episode449 and being in the presence of green kryptonite in the other two episodes (the green rock cures red kryptonite infections450); again, there are no human methods to stopping Bad Clark, necessitating the removal or use of alien rocks to revert Clark to his heroic self. There are few real consequences to his monstrous behavior in the three episodes outside of Clarks overwhelming guilt, Lanas discovery of his secret (something that ends up helping him), and Clarks realization that he is not that different from Zod. Perhaps as a way to avoid overusing red kryptonite and to create the illusion of more plot variation, Smallville features many renditions of the superhero-gone-bad in which Clark is transformed by other means, though the end resulta violent and unstoppable monstrous superherois usually quite similar. One example is the fourth season episode Transference, in which Clark Kent and Lionel Luthor switch bodies due to a Kryptonian crystal, again linking Clarks transformation into a dangerous villain to his home planet (original sin monstrosity).451

449

He is about to have sex with his girlfriend and allows her to remove the red kryptonite necklace, not realizing that it has been affecting his behavior. 450 To clarify, it destroys the effects of red kryptonite only in cases when the red rock has infected Clark (getting into his system somehow) but is not actually worn on his body. In cases when he is wearing a red kryptonite ring or has the rock somewhere on his body the green kryptonite only weakens Clark; he does not become himself again until the red ring is destroyed or thrown away from his body. 451 Transference, Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The WB, 27 October 2004, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005.

233

The bad version of Clark (i.e., Lionels mind in Clarks body)452 alienates Clarks friends, cruelly manipulates Lana, injures Clarks father, and tries to exploit his abilities to make himself rich and powerful. As usual, the superhero-gone-bad provokes anxieties while simultaneously parodying the superheros conservative personality and embodying fantasies of indulging in superpowers without being restricted by moral codes. In the episodes climax, Clark attempts to murder Lionel (Clark in Lionels body), attesting to his dangerousness. In a slow-motion medium close-up that emphasizes the malicious look on his face and his darkly hued clothed, Clark appears from behind a crowd of people, stalking Lionel in a predatory manner. As he employs his super speed to approach Lionel, a long shot shows the large number of people in close proximity; by not caring if they see him, Clark displays how he is shameless in his use of superpowers. True to form, only something alien is able to stop the superhero-gone-bad: When Clark begins choking him, Lionel takes out the Kryptonian crystal and reverses the transference. The long-term consequences of Clark going bad in this episode are actually positive: Lionels liver disease is cured and he gradually starts acting as an ally of Clark, rather than as an enemy. An even more striking variation of Bad Clark can be seen in the fourth season premiere, Crusade. In the episode, Clark is reprogrammed as Kal-El (his Kryptonian name) by his birth father453 and becomes a robotic, unfeeling character who endangers humans without remorse. This version of the superhero-gone-bad first appears completely naked in the middle of a cornfield, lightning sparking as he rises from a crouching position. This entrance,

452

Though this version of Bad Clark is, in some ways, actually Lionel, he is not a monstrous double. To qualify as a double, Lionel would have to control superpowers like Clarks with his own body; instead, he enters Clarks body, in effect becoming him. Thus, like other renditions of Bad Clark, the superheros body in Transference stays the same while his mind changes. 453 Crusade, Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season, writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, The WB, 22 September 2004, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005.

234

appropriately, replicates the arrivals of the cyborgs in the first three Terminator films: As sparks fly, each naked, human-like machine materializes out of thin air in a rural or urban area and proceeds to stand up from a crouch. Like these robotic killing machines, this version of Bad Clark displays no shame about his body, has no emotions, speaks in a monotone, and moves stiffly. Predictably, he is soon seen wearing a black button down shirt, replicating the moody fashion sense of the other appearances of Bad Clark.454 Underscoring his totally changed personality, Clark eventually tell his mother, I am KalEl of Krypton, and Clark Kent is dead. His proclamations are particularly frightening because things from Krypton, Clarks home planet, usually endanger Earth. By forgoing his humanity (Clark is his human name) for his Kryptonian heritage, Clark embraces his monstrosity. Like most renditions of Bad Clark, he relinquishes any human notions of morality that restrain him, accepting that he is a threat to humanity (original sin monstrosity) and has potentially frightening powers (physical monstrosity). Subsequently, in one of the most stunning visual sequences of the entire series, a high angle crane shot shows Clark violently tossing his mother aside in slow motion while simultaneously coiling his body like a spring (special effects motion lines accentuate the energy he is gathering in his body). Following a few shots that showcase the action from different angles, Clark flies for the first time in the series. A low-angle shot from ground level exhibits how he disappears in the skies above; then, other shots display Clark flying through the clouds and in the Earths upper atmosphere. This sublime usage of superpowers illustrates how god-like he is: He literally soars above humans, who he can easily just toss aside. Later, Clark describes flying as amazing . . . and scary because it means he might be capable of anything, suggesting both positive and negative possibilities (i.e., hero or monster). Interestingly, it is only Bad Clark who can fly at this point in the series, the
454

The robots from the Terminator films usually don black garb as well.

235

explanation being that Clark sees himself as human and has not fully embraced his Kryptonian heritage. Thus, the superhero-gone-bad is made even more frightening by the fact that he has expanded powers, something that can also be seen in other bad superheroes that will be discussed later. Though this rendition of Bad Clark is not exactly a bad boy (he has a distinct lack of personality) and is not being entirely selfish (he is searching for alien crystals that could be dangerous in the hands of humans), he still parades the comparative impotence of humans, as displayed in his midair attack on a jet. The scene begins with shots of a jet flying above the clouds at a high speed, followed by an interior view of Lex Luthor holding an alien crystal. Immediately, we cut to the pilots who look questioningly at a blip on the radar that is moving toward them at a shocking velocity. Then, in a long shot that draws attention to his superhuman flying, Clark can be seen moving through the clouds. An extreme long shot accentuates his aweinspiring aerial maneuvers, as Clark descends from his great height and approaches the plane, easily honing in on his prey. After he rips off the planes door and enters, we see Lex and another passenger violently bounce around the interior of the aircraft. Conveying his god-like power, Clark simply holds out his hand and the crystal leaves Lexs side, floating directly to Clark. Finally, he uses his super speed to exit the plane before Lex can see him; underlining his lack of heroism, Clark leaves the damaged and unstable aircraft, even though alarms are blaring and humans are in mortal danger. Signifying their reversal of roles, Lex wears all-white while Clark is dressed in black. On this occasion, Lex is the innocent one, not knowing what the crystal is and being a victim of the superpowered alien who stealthily steals from him and nearly kills everyone on the aircraft. Moreover, if the crystal potentially offers access to great power, it is significant that Clarks mission is to take the crystal away from humans, who cannot be trusted

236

with it.455 While working to maintain the impotence of humans, Clark exhibits his own dominance, as he flies through the air, takes what he wants from the jet, and disappears without any human eyes seeing him; Lex, supposedly one of the most powerful men in the world, is totally incapable of resisting. Echoing previous versions of Bad Clark, this one exhibits all three kinds of monstrosity and can only be stopped by utilizing something from his Kryptonian origin. Foremost, he embodies moral and original sin monstrosity, since he uses his powers recklessly and selfishly (he only cares about his quest to collect Kryptonian crystals), endangering humans rather than protecting them.456 Clark arguably demonstrates physical monstrosity since his mother looks horrified when she first sees him fly. Since there is no human way to halt Bad Clark, his mother uses black kryptonite on him, which (somehow) splits his regular Clark persona from his robotic Kal-El persona.457 In an echo of the fight between Clark Kent and Bad Superman in Superman III, Clark and Kal-El/Bad Clark are shown battling each other,458 the only visual difference between the two of them being the Kryptonian symbol on Kal-Els chest. Kal-El tells Clark that his humanity has made [him] weak, reflecting the fact that Bad Clarks monstrosity is rooted in his lack of attachment to humans. Eventually, Clark wins and everything in his life is basically

455

Although Smallville goes to great lengths to depict that Clark is one of the only characters who can be trusted with superpowers (mainly since humans are so easily corrupted), the fact remains that Clark frequently uses superpowers monstrously (e.g., in this scene). 456 The scene on the jet also displays original sin monstrosity, because the crystal from Clarks home planet imperils Lexs life (by causing Bad Clark to target him). 457 Clarks splitting is yet another visual connection to the Terminator films: In Terminator 2, the evil T-1000 cyborg similarly thrashes about while its body distorts and splits apart (though he is dying and not simply having personality issues). Borrowing even more from Terminator 2, the villain in the next episode has the same ability as the T-1000 to morph his body parts into different objects. Likewise, the villain dies in nearly same way as the T1000 at a very similar-looking location, turning into molten metal at an industrial site filled with gurgling molten liquid (Gone, Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season, writ. Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders, The WB, 29 September 2004, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005). 458 Like the similar scene in Superman III, there is, in a way, doubling here, but it is not an actual case of a superhero double since both personas are part of the same person and are fighting for dominance; in other words, there is no chance of the bad persona and good persona existing independently in either Superman III or this episode, as one will gain control of the single super body by the end of the scene.

237

reset, with no real repercussions. The lack of long-terms effects or guilt makes some sense since, unlike the red kryptonite versions of Bad Clark, this one does not have Clarks memories and is more like a robot on a mission; though he still represents Clarks monstrous potential, he never identifies himself as Clark Kent. The version of Bad Clark in Crusade ultimately offers less pleasure and different anxieties for viewers than the red kryptonite incarnations. The character is enjoyable to watch in his confident use of superpowers and his impressive ability to fly, the latter alone creating strong fantasy identification with the character. However, this amusement is tempered by the fact that the bad superhero does not selfishly exploit his superpowers in many ways that viewers are likely to find appealing (for instance, he does not use them to get rich, beat up bullies, or seduce women) and does not appear to take pleasure in his abilities at all, acting like a robot. In addition, he is in some ways not the character viewers have watched for years (he is totally reprogrammed), resulting in a lack of scenes where he entertainingly unveils desires and thoughts that he has suppressed as a hero. There is a degree of parody in that Clark shows a dangerous disregard for humanity, inverting expectations of the superhero; however, Bad Clarks lack of personality and infrequent actions again limit the amount of pleasure. In having no attachment to humanity, this incarnation of the superhero-gone-bad is arguably much more frightening; if it were part of his mission, it seems he would not have any reservations about annihilating all humans. However, one could contend that he is actually less anxiety-provoking, because he does not set out actively to hurt humans or gain power or money, the way Bad Clark usually does; instead, this Bad Clark wants to capture all the crystals from his home world, not exhibiting any clear desire to take over the planet or profit from his powers.

238

The numerous appearances and variations of Bad Clark on Smallville are fitting in a genre (post-2000 in films and TV) that is more consistently anxious about its savior figures. Contemporary superheroes battle with their monstrosity: They wrestle with their morality, grapple with their bodies, and have a vexed, tense relationship with regular humans, who increasingly express unease with having (dangerously) powerful protectors. On Smallville, Clark Kent embodies the savior-destroyer superhero (i.e., monstrous superhero), as he comes of age with superpowers, struggling to establish a clear heroic identity. The many superhero-gone-bad episodes explore what would happen if Clark were to become exclusively a destroyer, engaging all the forms of monstrosity in an explicit way. The superhero-gone-bad exposes the genres main anxieties: the impotence of the average person and the corruption of the powerful. However, as argued, there is a large degree of pleasure to be found in these stories as well, as the protagonists parody their heroic personas and offer fantasies of self-indulgently utilizing nearly limitless abilities. Thus, Bad Clark and other superheroes-gone-bad represent an explosion of the genres strongest pleasures and most powerful anxieties, the intensity limiting the length of time the bad superhero can be the focal point and necessitating a fairly swift return to the regular (albeit still monstrous) superhero.

239

Chapter 6: When Bad Becomes Worse: The Unstable World of the Superhero-Gone-Crazy The final Bad Clark appearance to be discussed is in the unique fifth season episode Splinter, which depicts the distortion of Clarks sense of reality. Clarks delusions result in a variation of the superhero-gone-bad, one in which the superhero is bad because of his crippled relationship to reality, becoming a kind of superhero-gone-crazy. What makes this episode unusual is that it is the only one of the entire series with a truly mentally unstable Clark and is one of only three mainstream renditions of dangerously crazy superheroes that I have located. 459 His skewed relationship to the world is caused by silver kryptonite, which is a form of the rock manufactured by the alien villain Brainiac to make Clark paranoid, delusional, and distrustful of humans.460 Like his experiences with red kryptonite, there is a clear analogy to drug use but, instead of receiving a pleasurable high, Clark suffers hallucinations and is distraught throughout the episode. In many of the scenes, it is not entirely apparent whether onscreen events really happen, are part of Clarks hallucinations, or are elaborate manipulations by Brainiac to take advantage of Clarks paranoia (in which case they actually happen but are cunningly contrived to create the illusion that multiple human characters know Clarks secret and are going to kill him). In other words, the viewer is often nearly as confused as Clark is as to the nature of his reality.

459

There are several comic books and animated TV episodes in which superheroes have their minds hazardously warped, such as the animated Justice League episode, Paradise Lost: Part 1 (Justice League: Season One, writ. Joseph Kuhr, The Cartoon Network, 21 January 2002, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006). But, as is explored in the next chapter, the only other live action renditions of a crazy superhero-gone-bad that I can find are the characters Jean Grey in the third X-Men film (2006) and Niki Sanders on the TV show Heroes, both of whom have fragmented and unstable minds that bring about horrifying superpowered violence. The Hulk, of course, almost always (including in the live-action TV show and several films) exemplifies a superhero whose relationship to reality is strained, as Bruce Banner constantly blacks out and has his violent alter ego (the Hulk) take over and enact destruction; however, due to complex reasons discussed later, he does not usually qualify as a superhero-gone-bad. The closest thing to another delusional superhero-gone-bad in a live-action film (that I have found) is the protagonist in Batman Begins. In the film, Batman is doused with a chemical that makes him hallucinate and see his worst fears; however, he does not imperil anyone except himself prior to regaining his mental faculties, meaning he does not actually become a superhero-gone-bad. 460 Splinter, Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season, writ. Steven S. DeKnight, The WB, 10 November 2005, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006.

240

The mentally unstable Clarks paranoia is rooted in his persistent fear of being viewed as a monster. After getting a splinter from the silver kryptonite rock, Clark is run off the road and receives a phone call that says I know who you are; as a result, he begins suspecting that Lexat this point no longer his friendknows his secret. Subsequently, he is delivered deadly green kryptonite and receives a message that says I know how to kill you. As a result of these two events, Clark starts to believe that he has been discovered as a monstrous threat to humanity (original sin monstrosity) and is going to be killed by a human using a rock from his home world.461 Clarks paranoia quickly extends to delusions, as he starts believing that his friend Chloe has revealed his secret and, even more shatteringly, that his father has made a deal with Lionel Luthor. His fathers conversation with Lionel is represented mainly via point-of-view shots from Clarks perspective, emphasizing that this is the paranoid protagonists experience of reality, not an objective portrayal. In Clarks hallucination, Lionel knows about Clarks superpowers, plans to reveal his secret to the world, and wants to do tests on his alien body, reflecting Clarks fear of being treated like a freak because of his abilities (physical monstrosity). Moreover, the fact that his father appears to take cash from Lionel (to help his political campaign and for the weak promise that they will treat Clark well during the experiments) is significant because his father epitomizes moral virtue while Lionel symbolizes immorality and corruption; thus, his fathers dishonesty suggests the corruption of Clarks own moral backbone, destabilizing his entire moral mission as a superhero and explaining some of the ensuing wicked behavior. Clarks bout as a mentally unstable superhero is dangerous because of his skewed morality, the unpredictability of his superpowered violence, and his belief that everyone sees him

461

If something from Clarks planet (his origin) were to kill him, it would be another case of original sin monstrosity, since humanity would be put in danger by his absence.

241

as a monster. Reacting to the imagined deal with Lionel, Clark roughly rifles through his fathers pockets in a congested medium close-up, his father clearly helpless to hinder his superpowered son. In a close-up accentuating the stressed look on his face, Clark waves around what he claims is money that Lionel has given his father; however, it is plainly visible to the viewer that he has documents in his hand, not the cash that he thinks he sees. Clarks parents can only look at each other with confusion. Next, Clark angrily asks, Why you doing this? while a close-up reveals his fist violently hitting a table, causing a plate and cup to fly upward. His father jumps back, clearly frightened by his superpowered adoptive son (momentarily seeing him as a physical and original sin monster, as he is horrified by his abnormal body and threatened by his powers) as he impotently shouts, Hey! When his mother tries to give him an order (Clark, stop it!) Clarks reaction is to smack her with a closed fist, a loud fleshy noise elucidating the force of the blow; after his mother lets out a scream, the next three shots portray her flying across the room, roughly hitting the furniture in the next room, and being knocked unconscious. The defensive reaction by Clarks father is to grab Clark from behind to try to force his submission; unsurprisingly, Clark quickly gains the upper hand, choking his father against the wall while he gasps for air. In his delusional paranoia, he believes that his father acknowledges that he sees Clark as a monster: You were never really my son. You were the thing I found in the cornfield. The use of the word thing suggests Clarks physically monstrosity, as his body is too horrifyingly strange to be described as human. Since his father is the foundation of Clarks belief in himself and his moral values, having him tell Clark that he is an inhuman monster is nightmarish and disorienting for Clark. One fan on the internet admits to being similarly disturbed: For some reason that really upset me. This ep was confusing enough, and everyone's wondering whats [sic]

242

real and what was all in Clark's head. I know he didn't say/mean that, but it got me wondering what clark is thinking...does he really think that's how Jonathan feels?462 Even though it is a hallucination and therefore not real, the fan is perturbed by the imagined behavior of Clarks father, whose love and faith in his sons heroic destiny typically help curtail the anxiety of Clark being irrevocably corrupted. The idea that Clark really think[s] his father sees him as a monster provokes much unease: If Clark does not really trust his strongest bond to humanity, then what is to stop him from transforming into the kind of monster he so fears becoming? Of course, the program is about Clark becoming Superman, so the end point, as usual, reassures. Still, monstrous eruptions like this one effectively draw out anxieties about the fragility of the heros commitment to protecting humanity. In addition, as the fan points out, the confusing narrative structure of the episode, which differs so much from the traditional structure of the show (repetition can be reassuring in its familiarity), helps amplify the discomfort evoked by this version of the superhero-gone-bad. In falling prey to the influence of silver kryptonite, the crazy version of Clark both imagines others view him as a monster and actually becomes one, embodying all three forms of monstrosity. Though he does not become self-indulgent (typically, the superhero-gone-bads moral turpitude is manifested in lust for power, money, and sex), his distorted sense of reality leads to immoral, violent uses of his abilities, which he justifies by his believed persecution. Furthermore, in Clarks hallucinations, his father and Lionel both distinctly invoke his freakish body; as a result of this imagined horror, Clark ends up doing things with his body that are actually horrifying. Finally, in his paranoia, Clark believes others have discovered his abilities and see him as an original sin monster, since his disproportionate power threatens their lives.

462

Miss Sullivan, You were never my son, Kryptonsite, 12 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45442>

243

His delusions of being persecuted as a monster ironically result in Clark actually endangering humans with his superpowers. Moreover, the cause of his paranoia is silver kryptonite, which is a hazard that comes from his origin (Krypton), making it another example of Clarks original sin monstrosity; at the end of the episode, the perils of Krypton are made even more substantial by the revelation that the silver kryptonite is actually produced by Brainiac, a villainous Kryptonian supercomputer.463 Adding to the anxiety is the fact that Clarks appears to be unaware of many of the things from his home planet that can transform him into a destroyer.464 As the episode progresses, Clarks increasing paranoia about being seen as a monster and being betrayed by loved ones strengthens both the analogy to drug use and his status as an actual monster. At the midpoint of the episode, Clark has a conversation during which his appearance and movements make evident the parallels to substance abuse: His hair is disheveled, his face is sweaty, his mouth is agape, and his eyes are surrounded by dark circles and vacillate between blinking rapidly and opening widely. He also darts his body around awkwardly, slurs his words, and moves his hands nervously. All of this mirrors typical cinematic depictions of drug abuse in which a character exhibits physical deterioration and acts strangely due to illicit drugs. Moreover, it speaks to persistent cultural anxieties about the dangerous repercussions of drug use by teens and young adults (Clark is, at this point in the program, in his first year of college); Clark is very much the good boy who is driven to erratic, self-destructive behavior by his drug (silver kryptonite). Accordingly, one fan on the Kryptonsite message board writes, He looked like a crackhead lol! It was almost like a anti-drug point in the story with the Silver kryptonite rock (hmmm kind of like crack rock lol) and the physical after effects, like bursts of energy,

463

Brainiac feigns being Clarks human professor until the end of this episode, when he claims to be a fellow Kryptonian who wants to help Clark. His complex machinations and ability to transform Clark into a crazed monster attest to his threat to the world. 464 Similarly, Clark does not know what red kryptonite is during most of his first infection in Red.

244

paranoia, etc.465 Unlike Clarks other experiences with drug-like forms of kryptonite, silver kryptonite does not turn Clark into an beguiling bad boy who gets high and uses his powers indulgently; instead, he turns into a depressed, paranoid character who uses his abilities unpredictably and delusionally. As he descends deeper into paranoia, Clark is tortured by the (false) belief that Lex Luthor has discovered his secret and sees Clark as a danger to humanity that must be eradicated. Visibly disoriented, Clark stands listening to Lexs offscreen voice: The investigation into Clark Kent has yielded a surprising revelation. Clark Kent is not of this earth. He is an alien, an intruder from a distant galaxy, the first vanguard of an invasion. In this paranoid delusion,466 the revelation of Clarks secret confirms his worst fears about being outed, as Lex calls him an intruder and part of an invasion (Clark frantically reacts, No! Thats not what I am!); in addition, Lex seems to be making a speech to a group of offscreen people, meaning numerous people may now see him as a menace. Lexs statement blatantly invokes original sin monstrosity: the idea that the superhero is a danger due to the disproportionate power he wields. This fear is exacerbated in cases where the superpowered character is also an alien, since the motivations of a complete outsider to Earth are especially suspect. Things get even worse when Lex announces, But I know his weakness. I know how to stop this strange visitor from another planet. Thus, the scene illustrates the worst case scenario of original sin monstrosity for Clark: being seen as a threat that must be stopped and then having his one weakness discovered. The delusion that he is being hunted concludes with Lex standing there bragging, Im the one thats

465

UDStyle, Clark looking strung out, LOL! Kryptonsite, 18 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45813> 466 Actually, this is a case in which the episode is slightly ambiguous: It may be a hallucination of Lex speaking or it may actually be Brainiac imitating Lex. Brainiac (who is responsible for Clarks delusions in the first place) appears in the immediately preceding scene (meaning that he is close by) and displays in later episodes the ability to look and sound like other people.

245

going to kill you, Clark, as green kryptonite gases Clark from above. Clark escapes, but the scene creates the paranoid belief that humans irrevocably see him as a monster and want to kill him, increasing his desperation and making him progressively more dangerous. Clarks paranoia, increasingly manifested as morally monstrous violence, reaches its zenith after he imagines (in a partial hallucination) that Lex kisses Lana, who reacts by smiling duplicitously, seemingly right at Clark (her boyfriend). The superhero-gone-bad is in full force in this scene, as Clark becomes an unstoppable force of irrepressible rage out to seek revenge on Lex and Lana. The ambience of terror is established as the lights suddenly go out while Lana and Lex walk together in a medium shot; the camera then tracks swiftly a full 180 degrees around the characters and moves closer to them, as they spin around apprehensively. The sense of disorientation reflects the dread of the characters, as well as the impending danger of a superhero who has lost his moral compass. In a sequence undoubtedly inspired by countless horror movies, Lex walks alone through the dark halls of his mansion, while foreboding music plays in the background. After he abruptly stops and looks down, we cut to a point-of-view shot from Lexs perspective that reveals (as the camera tilts down) a security guard with a large head contusion. The implication is that Clark is now akin to a horror movie monster and Lex is about to be his next victim. The sense of terror increases as Lex nervously holds a gun while entering a hallway, where we see that one of the mansions walls is heavily damaged (presumably by Clark), exposing wires and causing sparks to shoot treacherously (and loudly) everywhere. The camera then moves into an extreme close-up of Lexs shadow-filled face. In the moment of terrifying revelation, the camera pans left and racks focus to reveal Clark standing in front of the damaged wall, the monster finally visible. After Clark rants about Lex stealing Lana from him and wanting to experiment on him, Lex holds his gun to Clarks heart and announces, I dont

246

want to hurt you; since he is bulletproof, Clark breaks out into a cruel smile. Utilizing his frightening superpowers, Clark quickly bats the gun away, slams Lex into a wall, forces him to shoot the gun in a random direction, and appears to break Lexs wrist. He declares calmly in a sinister, shadowy extreme close-up, But I wanna hurt you. Embracing his status as a threat to humans (original sin monstrosity) and as a moral and physical monster, Clark horrifyingly unleashes his powers upon his enemies. First, he is shown throwing a yelling Lex head-first down the corridor, the camera panning left to keep up with Lexs hurtling body; a high angle shot depicts the intensity with which Lex hits the table at the end of the hallway, as he breaks a window and knocks over the items on the table. Reflecting Bad Clarks skewed morality and acceptance of being seen as a monster, the force could have easily killed Lex and reveals that Clark has superpowers, since it is beyond human means to throw someone that hard. The sequence ends with an extreme close-up of Clark that suggests his fearful monstrosity by various means: Clarks sweaty, bewildered, and shadow-filled face; his unsteady, rocking movement; the suffocating proximity of the camera; the flashes from the sparks in the otherwise dark hallway; and the ominous music. The sheer terror caused by the superhero-gone-bad can be further seen as Clark utilizes his abilities to track down Lana, who is powerless to resist him. As she hides, he appears frantic, the camera rotating around him as he turbulently spins around looking for her; the disorienting movement of the camera and the character reflect the mindset of Clark. After the camera moves to an extreme close-up of his right earthe programs sign that he is employing his super hearingClark proceeds to use his superpowers to alarming effect. From Clarks aural perspective, we immediately hear Lana panting (clearly terrified) and the sound of her opening a door. Subsequently, we see an extreme close-up of Clarks left ear, which coincides with the

247

viewer (and Clark) hearing Lana walking down some stairs. Thus, we witness Clarks frightening potential for nearly total surveillance, as he can exploit his abilities to locate and spy on people with ease. After he discovers Lanas location, we cut to a low-angle shot of Clark standing ominously at the top of a shadow-filled staircase and frantically yelling, Lana! His powerful body and the obvious instability of his mind create an image of overwhelming horror, as he appears ready to pounce on Lana violently. This terror is accentuated by a low-angle shot of the stairs as Clark employs his super speed to move down them in an instant, underlining the impossibility of escaping him. As he approaches Lana, Clarks volatile dialogue and use of superpowers for surveillance continue to reflect his monstrosity. He tells her, Lana, I know youre down here! Come on, I wanna . . . I wanna talk. His desire to talk clearly appears to be just a weak ruse to find her more quickly. Various shots display Lanas unrelenting fear as she crawls behind boxes in the dark, her eyes wide open in alarm. While Clark searches for her, we cut to a point-of-view shot that reveals he is using his X-ray vision to see through various obstructions; the shot ends with a high angle close-up of Lana gasping when Clark finds her, the framing highlighting how comparatively diminutive and child-like she is. When Clark says he stopped Lex, Lana asks, What did you do? Did you hurt him? Her fear for Lex reiterates the nature of the superherogone-bads menace: His skewed morality makes him a danger to any human he encounters. Finally, when Lana denies her duplicitous romantic relationship with Lex (which Clark has imagined), we see a close-up of Lanas face as Clark puts his hand around her neck and lifts her up easily, exhibiting his fearsome strength. In an extreme close-up of his distraught face, Clark says, I loved you, and you betrayed me like everyone else; his use of past tense suggests the possibility that he is about to kill her.

248

Clarks delusional terrorizing of Lex and Lana represents the culmination of the monstrosity we see throughout Splinter. In the episode, Clarks paranoia about being seen as a threat to humans (due to his status as an alien and superpowered being) results in him actually becoming dangerous (original sin monstrosity). What makes him so threatening is that, with his reality so distorted, he no longer trusts the values with which he was raised or the people in his life; as a result, he immorally exploits his superpowers for petty revenge. His moral monstrosity begets his physical monstrosity, as he unveils his abnormal strength to the horror of multiple characters, who try to escape him.467 By the last scene with Lana, the superhero-gone-bad is cast unmistakably as a monster, crazed and unstoppably strong as he terrorizes a human who has no chance of saving herself from his wrath. Even after he returns to normal at the end of this scene, monster imagery is once again evoked in a heavily shadowed long shot that shows Clark turns around to face Lex with Lana resting lifelessly in his arms. Lana wears a white shirt to connote her innocence, while Clarks dark pants can hardly be distinguished from the large shadow he casts, creating the illusion that the shadow is a grotesque extension of his lower body; the suggestion is that he has been consumed by his darker inclinations. The shot resembles the kind stereotypically seen in monster movies, with Clark standing in for Frankenstein or a similar creature who has, in his confusion, harmed his love object. Lex even asks, What have you done? as if Clark (the monster) does not quite understand his actions or that he is a danger to humans. As usual, Clarks monstrous rampage can only be halted by turning to things from his alien home planet, since human means are insufficient. When he is attacking his parents, green kryptonite is used to stop his violence, though he still manages to get away. Likewise, his

467

At the end of the episode, Lana and others are made to believe that the rock (silver kryptonite) gave Clark temporary superpowers, thereby allowing him to keep his superpowered nature in the closet.

249

attempted murder of Lana is only terminated when the Kryptonian supercomputer Brainiac employs his superhuman powers to immobilize Clark and extract the silver kryptonite. If not for this alien intervention, the implication is that Clark could have gone on abusing humans indefinitely. Rather than expunging anxiety about the potential corruption of the superhero (as most superhero-gone-bad eruptions do by depicting and resolving the heros corruption), the episodes conclusion creates more unease when it is revealed that Brainiac produced the silver kryptonite. First of all, this revelation extends Clarks original sin monstrosity since Brainiac is from Clarks home planet and clearly intends to harm humans. More threateningly, it displays how easily Brainiac can manipulate Clarks sense of reality and have him turn on humanity; there is nothing in the episode that suggests Brainiac could not easily corrupt him again. His insidious mission appears to be to make Clark distrust humans and utilize his powers to declare his own superiority,468 turning him a immoral monster (without the aid of kryptonite) and a true threat to humans, who would be seen as inferior and deserving domination. Accordingly, Brainiac constantly lectures Clark on the folly of trusting humans, both when he is acting as Clarks supposedly human professor and after he reveals his own Kryptonian origins. Because Clark begins to confide in Brainiac (he believes the villain saved him from the silver kryptonite), the ending of the episode elevates the fear that the superhero will be influenced into becoming a complete monster again. Unlike the appearances of the superhero-gone-bad in which the protagonist takes on the costume and persona of the cool bad boy (e.g., when Clark is infected by red kryptonite), the crazy rendition of the superhero-gone-bad is more frightening than wish-fulfilling. The bad-boy
468

It is later revealed to be more complicated, as Brainiac wants Clark to distrust humans so that he trusts him instead. After that, Brainiac would be able to manipulate Clark into helping him revive Zod, a villainous character he serves.

250

superhero typically embodies wish-fulfilling fantasies of having superpowers without moral restrictions; these fantasies balance (and often overwhelms) the anxieties of impotence and corrupted power that are revealed in superhero-gone-bad stories. In contrast, the crazy version of Bad Clark described here is largely devoid of aspects of wish fulfillment; obviously, most viewers are not going to want to be driven mad with delusional paranoia and then use superpowers to endanger their loved ones. Instead, the crazy superhero mainly represents anxieties, as he illuminates the impotence of humans and the possibility that those in power will be corrupted, potentially even losing their sense of reality. A thread on the Kryptonsite message board devoted to which is more entertaining red kryptonite or silver kryptonite underscores the differences between the bad boy and crazy renditions of the superhero-gone-bad. A poll in the thread displays an unmistakable favoring of red kryptonite: 101 votes versus 49 for silver kryptonite.469 The reasons given for the preference for red kryptonite are generally very similar: Definitely Red! Silver was just scary to see and Red is sooo fun!!470 Clark on silver K makes me really nervous -- loose canon [sic]. On red, he's that no consequences guy,471 I'd say red K-it represents a dark part of us that we all wish we could let out472 Love the red K, silver sorta scares me!473 and It's definetely [sic] Red K. With that, you'd never know what Clark was going to do next, or who he was going to do it with. With Silver K, it was pretty clear that Clark was going to hurt anyone he came in contact with so

469

HotRodTE, online poll results, Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252> 470 SmvilleTeacher, Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252> 471 Watching Smallville, Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> 472 LuthorRequiem2, Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252> 473 katt12, Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2>

251

it wasn't that exciting474 The bad boy Clarks sense of fun is cited by most of the responders who prefer red kryptonite, as they are intrigued and excited by his cool personality and indulgence in extraordinary powers; many fans express a desire to be more like him in their real lives, underlining how the bad boy Clark personifies viewer fantasies. In addition, as discussed earlier, the bad boy version of Clark is, to many viewers, more romantically appealing than regular Clark due to his no-nonsense hypermasculine persona, fashionable clothes, and ability to do almost anything imaginable (using his powers) to please his romantic interest. Moreover, the unpredictability of the bad boy Clark provides pleasure in that it breaks up the narrative monotony of having a superpowered savior rescue humans in every episode. In this respect, the silver kryptonite episode is similar since it too breaks up the programs repetitiveness.475 However, one of the fans above argues that it actually does so in a predictable way, since Clark simply hurts everyone he encounters (whereas with red kryptonite he will do things like make sexual advances, steal things, say cruel things, and so on). The most common reason for not liking silver kryptonite is that it makes Clark scary. First of all, his lack of sanity, paranoia, and resemblance to a strung-out drug abuser are all frightening if a viewer places himself in the position of Clark (as he is asked to do); particularly, it is chilling to imagine oneself nearly killing friends and family. It is also scary if a viewer places himself in the position of the non-superpowered characters in the episode, who are terrorized and too impotent to challenge Clark. Enjoyment is further minimized by the fact that Clark still seems like himself in many waysjust painfully struggling with his notions of

474

UpandAtom, Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 30 March 2006, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> 475 One fan discusses how he enjoys both red and silver kryptonite precisely because he is [t]ired of the goody Clark most of the time (superman 115, Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2>).

252

realitywhereas bad boy Clark represents an exciting persona quite different from regular Clark (the fact that he seems like a different character helps makes his violent impulses more palatable). Additionally, silver kryptonite Clark provokes fear because he is not after riches or glory, meaning there is no way to appease him and bring to a close his unstoppable attacks on humans. Finally, as mentioned, the crazy version of Bad Clark draws mainly on anxieties of corrupted power and impotent citizens, thereby not strongly playing on the desire to have superhuman abilities (abilities here are horrifying because they make Clarks delusions dangerous). Thus, it is less pleasurable and more scary for many viewers than other versions of Bad Clark, which offer a larger degree of appealing fantasy. Significantly, many of the criticisms of the silver kryptonite Clark center on his violence toward womenin particular, his abuse of his mothera breach of the superheros moral code that is extremely unpleasurable for many viewers. One viewer expresses his unease: I couldn't believe that Clark b#$#*slapped his mama and choked his girlfriend. I know it's the silverkryptonite [sic] but that is just...I don't know.476 Despite the fact that Clark is not totally responsible for his actions, there is clear discomfort for the viewer in having a superhero physically harm women, especially when his abilities make the violence even more brutal. Though this kind of aggression against women often occurs in slasher horror movies without many protestations, the difference is that superhero represents moral virtue and old-fashioned chivalry in ways the horror movie monster never does; likewise, viewers identify with the superhero in ways they rarely do with the horror monster. As a result, for many viewers, abuse of women is fundamentally incompatible with the superhero (even if he has gone bad).

476

ma200, Re: Splinter: Post your reviews, Kryptonsite, 10 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45182>

253

Other fans echo the distress over violence against women, many of them more noticeably outraged: I thought throttling Pa Kent was okay. But Ma Kent didn't do anything wrong! Clark was waaay out of line, it was just wrong!477 I always thought it was okay if he attacked Pa Kent since he was a guy and he'd be okay with it but I wasn't okay with him attacking his mother, 478 paranoid Clark is a seriously dangerous Clark--didn't like the way he backhanded Martha,479 and So I was watching the ep last night with my folks and [when my father] saw Clark throwing Martha and then throttling Pa Kent, he was aghast. / During the commercial break he was like Noone [sic] should ever do that to their parents, especially their mom!480 Tellingly, many of the fans find Clark abusing his father fairly acceptable, even though his father is nearly as likely as his mother to be badly injured or killed by Clarks super strength. Moreover, he is just as innocent of wrongdoing as Clarks mother is, despite the first fans claim that his mother is the one who didnt do anything wrong. These reactions can be attributed partially to cultural norms in the United States (and many other cultures) that permit and in some cases encourage men to fight other men. Furthermore, men are generally expected to protect women because of associations women have with things like purity, maternal love, fragility, and property.481 The superhero genre (like many other genres that feature hero figures) foundationally borrows the hegemonic masculine ideal that men should defend women and (at times) engage in combat with other men; consequently, countless superhero stories center on the protagonist defeating male antagonists and saving helpless women. There are, of course,
477

Lana Lang #1, Re: Did Clark pushing his mom like that seem over the top to anyone? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45279> 478 UpandAtom, Re: Did Clark pushing his mom like that seem over the top to anyone? Kryptonsite, 31 March 2006, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45279&page=2> 479 enamored Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> 480 Jephael, Did Clark pushing his mom like that seem over the top to anyone? Kryptonsite, 10 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45279> 481 That said, there are many culturesincluding, to a degree, the U.S.in which physical abuse of women is tolerated, though it is in many instances something that occurs behind closed doors.

254

exceptions to this narrative structure, such as female superheroes, female villains, and male characters who need to be protected or saved (such male victims are fairly common). As a result of these cultural and generic norms, the objections to Clark hitting his mother are unsurprising. She is physically petite and offers unconditional maternal love to him, whereas his father is, true to gender roles, a pillar of moral and bodily strength; he is involved in physical labor and thus more able to withstand corporeal trauma. Even silver kryptonite is not accepted as an excuse for Clarks behavior toward his mother. Of the five fans quoted above objecting to the abuse against female characters, three identify themselves as female, one as male, and another is unknown, though other online postings suggest that the fan is most likely male. Therefore, despite the small sampling, it appears that female fans are more sensitive to the abuse of women, which is not unexpected. Their intense objections may be as a result of their own experiences with gendered violence, fears of being abused by men, identification with female characters on the show, and/or adherence to the various cultural norms described earlier. What appears strangely inconsistent in terms of fan reactions is that many have a problem with Clark hitting his mother but comparatively few take issue with his physical abuse of Lana. There are several possible reasons for this seeming contradiction: The abuse of Clarks mother is more jarring and sensational in its depiction of violence and superpowers (he punches her with no notice and she flies across the screen, whereas he slowly chokes Lana); his mother is much older than Lana, so she seems more vulnerable to violence; mother figures are generally considered more irreproachable than girlfriends or wives (due to blood ties and the imagined purity of a mothers love); Lana is actually guilty of lying to Clark about some things in the episode while his mother rarely lies at all; and Lana is not liked by numerous fans on the message boards, suggesting they may gain sadistic pleasure from her suffering (or at least may

255

not be as troubled by it). Despite the lack of attention given to Lanas abuse, the violence against women is one of the reasons the crazed version of Bad Clark is less liked by fans than the versions who use superpowers for personal gain and pleasure; few viewers are excited by or want to identify with someone who is delusional and hits women. Perhaps not coincidently, we never see the crazy, paranoid Clark again in the series. Unlikely as it may seem, there are a small number of viewers who articulate a preference for the crazy rendition of Clark expressly for his insanity, terrorizing ways, and inappropriate and unpredictable violence. Three fans on the Kryptonsite message board write about how pleasurable Clarks actions are for them: Silver was disturbing, the whole episode was awesomely erie [sic], Silver is more interesting and entertaining,482 I also loved how Clark just went off the deep end, imagine being stuck with a psychotic superman,483 and I had to choose silver because seeing Clark so sweaty and gross-looking and paranoid was VERY entertaining.484 The first two fans here, especially, express enjoyment in being frightened by Clarks behavior, experiencing the episode as if it were a (short) horror movie and seeing it as an entertaining respite from the typical hero-saves-the-day structure of the show. Identifying with the victims in the episode, the second fan asks others to imagine how alarming a psychotic supermantotally unstoppable and inescapable, very much like a horror movie monster would be in real life; he is clearly thrilled to see this scary situation depicted on the show. Thus, the pleasure for these fans is largely based on the excitement of being scared without facing any real danger (the viewer obviously is not going to be hurt by Clark). In addition, the viewer is

482

wickedgirl23, Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 27 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> 483 Emerald Dragen, Re: Splinter: Post your reviews, Kryptonsite, 10 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45182&page=2> 484 thmallville, Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite, 11 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252>

256

reassured by the knowledge that Clark will probably not end up killing any of the other characters, since Smallville is still a superhero show and superheroes are rarely murderers. Further speaking to the entertainment some find in the actions of the crazy superhero, a minority of viewers admit to being delighted that Clark hits his mother. One fan writes, I was so shocked when I saw that scene. Never in a million years would I have expected Martha Kent being hit by Clark, granted it wasn't normal Clark, but still. Nevertheless, I was thoroughly pleased with the fact that the writers were willing to go there.485 Another fan finds the violence against Clarks mother hilarious: I barely ever laugh out loud during new episodes of Smallville . . . but I was laughing sooooo hard my mom thought I was dying or something. HAHAHAHHA *I mean* *clears throat* Clark, how could you do that?486 There are a palpable number of fans who find comedy in the scene, many making jokes about the power and swiftness of Clarks aggression. Even the title of the message board thread devoted to the scene suggests glee: Momma gotJACKED UP! The capitalization of the letters in the latter two words and the use of slang, ellipsis marks, and an exclamation point connote the suddenness of the violence and the frenzied enjoyment found in it for many of these viewers. Surprisingly, both fans quoted here are female and, judging by the screen names and public profile information of people who participated in the thread, it appears that approximately half of those who liked the abuse of Clarks mother are female Much of the pleasure for male and female viewers is clearly based on how startlingly unexpected the abuse is on various levels: The individual hitting his defenseless mother is a teenager on a family-friendly television series, a superhero who usually protects people, and a

485

smallvillerocks45, Re: Momma gotJACKED UP! Kryptonsite, 10 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45173> 486 thmallville, Re: Momma gotJACKED UP! Kryptonsite, 10 November 2005, Web, 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45173&page=2>

257

character who is typically respectful. Some of these viewersparticularly the first noted fan of Clarks abuse of his motherapplaud the programs writers for their willingness to go there, meaning their daring to portray images so taboo and politically incorrect. Aside from perhaps divulging some misogyny and mother issues, the laughter and jokes elicited by the incident reveal both discomfort with the abuse of Clarks mother (some viewers are so uncomfortable that they can only laugh) and pleasure in being so surprised and, in a way, scared. Like many of the other admirers of the delusional version of Clark, fans of the episodes gendered violence enjoy the superhero-gone-crazy as if he were a horror movie monster: Their anxieties are pleasurably engaged by his unstoppability and lack of morality. His attack on his own mother gives them extra enjoyment because it indicates that there are no boundaries to his terror. Regardless of affection or distaste for the superhero-gone-crazy, the character type exposes the anxieties of powerlessness that undergird the genre, as most superhero-gone-bad narratives do. However, like other superheroes-gone-bad, the crazy superhero simultaneously works to minimize unease: In wreaking havoc on regular humans, who are revealed to be spectacularly impotent, the delusional superhero allows viewers to face their anxieties in an exaggerated, fictional form that many find entertaining or cathartic. Moreover, the superhero eventually returns to his role as protector, reassuringly suggesting that powerlessness has been overcome, despite the fact the people in the narratives (and perhaps outside of them) are still impotent. Still, as in most horror stories, the monster may be defeated, but the fear (and thrill, since it is fictional) remains at the conclusion of the story that he could return at any time; in the very anxious superhero genre, the monster most certainly does reappear. In the case of Smallville, kryptonite and other methods of affecting Clarks morality are a constant threat to both the hero and the populace.

258

What ultimately differentiates the bad boy and crazy renditions of the superhero-gonebad (at least on Smallville) is that the bad boy version balances wish fulfillment and anxiety in a way that favors the former for the most part but increasingly turns to the latter as the story moves along (necessitating the protagonists eventual return to his heroic role). In contrast, the crazy version only has elements of wish fulfillment insofar as Clark uses superpowers without moral limits and is unstoppable (which are indeed both significantly appealing); however, this pleasure is overwhelmed by the disagreeable, fearful mental instability he exhibits, which constantly engages anxieties regarding the impotence of the average citizen and the dangerous corruption of the powerful. Nevertheless, as the reactions of some fans illustrate, the crazy superheros anxiety-provoking actions can actually make such narratives more satisfying for some, as certain viewers delight in the fictional representation of their own susceptibility, as well as the final defeat of the monstrous tormentor. In the end, what almost all superhero-gone-bad narratives share are the pleasures to be found in the breakup of narrative monotony, the superheros use of superpowers without restraint, and the anxieties of corruption and impotence being centralized only to be suppressed once again.

259

Chapter 7: Other Superheroes Go Bad: The Success, Failure, and Gendered Aspects of Walking on the Dark Side
The Christopher Reeve Superman films and the TV series Smallville depict versions of the superhero-gone-bad after spending a large amount of screen time establishing the heroism of the protagonists. Bad Superman does not emerge until Superman III and the first incarnation of Bad Clark does not materialize until the second season of Smallville, appearing on the twentyfifth episode of the series. The threatening, evil rendition of the superhero breaks up narrative monotony, interrupting the apparent stability of the superheros mission. What differentiates Superman III and Smallville is that the latter appears in an era in which anxieties about the superpowered saviors corruption are central, leading post-2000 film and TV superheroes to struggle constantly with different degrees and forms of monstrosity. Being released in 1983, Superman III presents a (usually) non-monstrous superhero who is self-assured about his mission, super body, and relationship to mankind; consequently, when he goes bad, it signifies a total transformation for the character. In contrast, on Smallville Clarks evil side is the culmination of his monstrosity throughout the series, as he constantly questions his mission, has difficulty controlling his body, and regularly becomes a danger to humanity. Like Smallville, other post-2000 superhero films and TV shows feature protagonists who struggle with their monstrosity from the start, increasingly leading to sequels and episodes in which this monstrosity culminates in the form of destructive and unstoppable superheroes-gonebad. Prime examples of this trend are the second and third X-Men films and Spider-Man 3, which are the focus of the bulk of this chapter. These films represent three very different variations of the superhero-gone-bad. The version in 2003s X2 is successful in that it presents a bad superhero who is visibly both horrifying and impressive and whose use of powers underlines

260

the impotence of humans. The bad superhero in 2006s X-Men: The Last Stand reflects the functioning of gender in the masculinist superhero genre, as the female superhero is driven insane with power and becomes an irredeemable superhero-gone-crazy. Finally, 2007s SpiderMan 3 provides a portrayal of a superhero-gone-bad that largely fails because of excessive campiness and the characters lack of an engaging dark side. In discussing each film, Clark on Smallville is a key point of comparison, as I sketch out how these superheroes-gone-bad exhibit similar immoral tendencies and are presented in comparable ways formally (e.g., in terms of clothing and shots highlighting the frightening power of their bodies). However, these bad superheroes are also different in key ways that help us determine the parameters of how the superhero can be monstrous; elements like the gender of the superhero and the nature of the characters powers help determine how bad the superhero can be and whether or not it is possible for the character to be reformed at the end of the narrative. Furthermore, these renditions all reflect how the superhero-gone-bad portrays wish-fulfilling fantasies of having great power and anxieties about the corruption of the powerful and the impotence of the average person. The success of the depictions depends on how effectively these fantasies and anxieties are represented. Finally, the chapter ends with a brief discussion of the Hulk, who, as the most consistently and pervasively monstrous superhero, functions relatively similarly to the superhero-gone-bad, even when the Hulk has not actually gone bad; the characters various mainstream renditions illuminate the broad appeal of the elements that exemplify the (successfully) bad superhero.

261

X2: The Bad Superheros Intoxicating Power and Threat to the Nation The opening scene of X2 offers a potent rendition of the superhero-gone-bad by representing the corrupted superheros physical monstrosity, awe-inspiring power, and threat to the nation and underscoring the comparative impotence of humans. In the harrowing scene, the superpowered Nightcrawler attacks the White House and the President of the United States. Since this is the characters first appearance in the X-Men film series (he is not in the first film), it is not initially obvious that he is a hero who is acting out of character.487 However, because it is later revealed that he is a highly moral superhero who commits criminal acts only when under the control of a villain, Nightcrawler qualifies as a superhero-gone-bad during his siege on the Presidents home. The scene begins by emphasizing Nightcrawlers monstrous body, as he is horrifying not just in his usage of powers but in his actual appearance. Passing as a regular human in a White House tour group at first, Nightcrawler reveals himself when he is confronted by a Secret Service agent. In a close-up, we see Nightcrawler raise his head to unveil that, underneath his blue baseball cap and large sunglasses, he has strange tattoos all over his face and appears to be wearing flesh-colored makeup to look human. Following a cut, the camera tracks closer to the agent, as his look of alarm is emphasized in an extreme close-up. Another close-up of Nightcrawlers face displays his tail gradually rising behind him, confirming that he is not human. We then immediately cut to the agent grimacing and pulling out his gun. Thus, the freakish appearance of Nightcrawler causes horror, showing his physical monstrosity, and leads to him being seen as an inhuman (and likely superpowered) threat, underlining his original sin monstrosity. Unlike many superhero narratives in which the disgusted, fearful reaction to the

487

Actually, it is obvious that he is normally a hero if one has read X-Men comics with Nightcrawler, watched XMen cartoons with the character, or followed press coverage of the movie.

262

protagonist is unfair and is swiftly counteracted by the heroic activities of the character, here Nightcrawler justifies the frightened reaction with his subsequent immoral use of superpowers. Moreover, his grotesque physical appearance differentiates him from bad superheroes like Clark on Smallville, who appears human when he is not utilizing his abilities and is overwhelmingly attractive in the eyes of several of the characters on the show and many of the viewers at home (mainly due to his visible confidence and fashionable clothes); Nightcrawler is more of a horrifying, abject monster. As a superhero-gone-bad, Nightcrawler proves to be an impressively and frighteningly unstoppable force, too much even for a cavalcade of highly trained Secret Service agents. In a low-angle shot, he jumps onto the initial agent, knocking him over, and seizes the agents gun with his tail; as Nightcrawler begins running, the defeated human can only call ahead to warn others about the monstrous intruder. Next, the camera tracks behind another agent, who points his gun down the hallway where Nightcrawler was just glimpsed. The camera then quickly moves around the agent to reveal that Nightcrawler is now in the hallway behind him, exhibiting the superheros inhuman speed and teleporting ability; he literally disappears in one hallway and reappears in another (the agent even mistakenly announces multiple subjects). Cutting to the President at his desk in the Oval Office, we see the supposedly most powerful man in the world grabbed by the Secret Service because of the security breach, as the agents attempt to get him out of the White House. We return to Nightcrawler, who acrobatically kicks and incapacitates several more security personnel. Cutting again to the President, he is now held tight and surrounded by five Secret Service agents who cannot leave with the President since they have no idea how many intruders there are and cannot even definitively locate the threat. As the film cuts to a guard claiming his post is secure, Nightcrawler materializes out of thin air (via special

263

effects) to kick this guard in the head. Another guard is shown from behind in a medium closeup as he fires down the hall at the superhero-gone-bad, who easily avoids each bullet before teleporting himself close enough to knock the guard unconscious. In a close-up, Nightcrawler peers from behind a door, his blue skin and tattoos now totally visible as he growls and bares his teeth; his physical appearance and mannerisms suggest an animal hunting his prey, drawing attention to his physical monstrosity, as well as his lack of human morality. In the climax of the scene, the most renowned security team in the world masses around the President, but still proves to be incapable of stopping the rampaging superhero-gone-bad. As the President cowers below his guards, offscreen sounds of gunfire and men yelling in agony can be heard, suggesting the proximity of Nightcrawler; like many of the versions of Bad Clark, he has become the equivalent of a horror movie monster. Increasing the amount of tension, the dramatic choral music stops and the film shows close-ups of multiple security agents around the President, while they wait nervously for the superhero predator. In addition, the camera quickly pans and tilts several times to accentuate the jumpiness of all the men, as well as the sense that Nightcrawler may appear anywhere at any moment. Following several shots of the door, insinuating the danger lurking behind it, the tension breaks as the door opens and the score begins bombastically playing once again. As one agent apprehensively walks through the doorbeyond which there is total darkness, mirroring again the ambience of a horror filmhe is quickly pulled in and heard screaming. The camera then quickly pans right and tilts up to display the same agent teleported to the ceiling and dropped from a great height. The Presidents reactionbellowing, My God!reflects his impotence, as well as the god-like power and monstrosity of his antagonist; Nightcrawler is immoral, physically freakish, and a clear danger to the lives of all the humans in the room. What follows are several slow-motion, special effects-

264

laden shots of Nightcrawler teleporting numerous times and lithely debilitating the agents, most of them unable even to fire their guns. His teleporting ability again differentiates him from the versions of Bad Clark, whose most abundantly used abilities are super strength and speed, which are embellishments of what regular humans can do; teleportation is something more unusual and less identifiably human, making Nightcrawler even scarier. Likewise, his ferocious, animal-like violence makes him more intimidating than most renditions of Bad Clark, who typically is more calculating and lustful in his misuse of his abilities. His total abandon and strange ability to teleport himself make him more anxiety-provoking and, in some ways, more impressive. Finally, in a charged image of superpowered superiority and threat to the nation, a high angle long shot shows Nightcrawler on top of the President, who is helplessly pinned on his desk. The symbolism is clear, as the superhero-gone-bad has defeated the so-called leader of the free world and prepares to deliver the deathblow while on top of the very desk where the President usually signs official documents (i.e., wields his power); furthermore, they are in the interior of the office where he meets privately with his staff to make decisions that affect the world. The sense of usurpation is cemented by the unconscious agent lying on the Presidential seal on the floor, the other lifeless agent next to the desk, the disparate placement of figures (the three defeated bodies are strewn in varying directions and areas of the frame), and the disorienting camera framing (the abrupt high angle shot). Accentuating his physical and moral monstrosity, Nightcrawler hisses at the President in an extreme close-up, then orgasmically lifts his head and closes his eyes in another tightly framed shot. After he uses his tail (a marker of his animality) to place a knife in his hands, a series of extreme close-ups juxtapose the sadistic power of the superhero-gone-bad with the helplessness of his human prey: first, Nightcrawlers half-closed, satisfied-looking eyes; next, the Presidents helpless and scared face; and, lastly,

265

Nightcrawlers mouth breaking into a smile. Fortuitously, before the final blow can be delivered, he is shot by a barely conscious Secret Service agent on the floor. In reaction, Nightcrawler teleports away before he can be killed or captured. Nightcrawlers near-murder of the head of the nation anxiously illustrates the danger of the bad superhero and the powerlessness of humans. For all his dark ambitions, violent outbursts, and potential to rule the world, Bad Clark on Smallville never comes close to attacking the nation so directly. Nightcrawlers violence explicitly shows that even the most powerful person in the United States and his massive, highly trained security forces are overmatched in the face of the villainous superhero. The might of the Presidentwho operates as a symbol of the power of the nationis unveiled as largely illusory, as he cowers and can neither defend himself nor be defended. In fact, his murder is only averted due to the superheros excessive pausing before stabbing him and the luck that one agent is still conscious. The weakness of the humans reengages a central aspect of the genre: The necessity of saviors to protect the helpless humans from each other and from those who wield their power corruptly. Thus, in his frightening rampages, the superhero-gone-bad feeds the desire for more stories that feature superpowered saviors, who can help assuage fears of being powerless. Although they may appear overwhelming in this scene from X2, the anxieties brought out by the superhero-gone-bad are, as usual, minimized and balanced in several ways. First of all, films like X2 are clearly fictional as there are no superpowered beings (good or evil) in the real world, suggesting that the President and nation really are secure and that those in power can in fact protect the people. Also, concern over the suffering and weakness of the humans in the White House scene is reduced by the fact that the protagonists of the X-Men films are the superheroes and not the humans, who tend to be unsympathetic. Most effectively, the anxieties

266

of the superhero-gone-bad are offset by elements of fantasy identification. Any character with superpowers offers the fantasy of having great power, but the wish-fulfilling aspects are augmented in the superhero who, having submitted to his dark side, employs his powers without moral restraint. Accordingly, though Nightcrawlers attempted assassination of the President may be reprehensible morally, it is impressive that he has the might to dominate the Secret Service and put the most powerful man in the world (politically speaking) in a subservient position; viewers can only dream of being so powerful. Still, due to his unattractive physical appearance and lack of an engaging bad boy persona, Nightcrawler does not encourage viewer identification as strongly as Bad Clark does. Likewise, since Nightcrawlers mind is being controlled by someone else, he is not indulging his deepest desires the way Bad Clark typically is, diminishing the sense of fun for viewers. Nevertheless, the way he attacks the White House is striking, as he utilizes superpowers to teleport himself at will and uses remarkable acrobatic abilities, all portrayed exhaustively via state-of-the-art special effects and slow motion cinematography. By making Nightcrawlers objectionable violence so incredible the filmmakers accentuate the wish fulfilling aspects of having superpowers, particularly the nearly limitless possibilities.488

488

The ending of the film also emphasizes the impressive/frightening power of superheroes, as the good mutants including Nightcrawler, no longer under the control of outside forcesarrive at the White House to meet the President en masse. They even manage to stop time in order to do so, completely avoiding facing the security team this time. Their intentions are moral (to foster better relations between humans and mutants) but the implications are, again, that they are much more powerful than even the President; their presence acts as a subtle threat that they could reenter the White House and punish the President if he does not do what they want. Even more worrisome, another one of them could go bad and easily kill the President in the future even if he does do their bidding. Thus, the films ending mixes wish fulfillment (super strong superheroes) and anxiety (humans utterly overmatched).

267

X-Men: The Last Stand: Gender and the Crazy, Irredeemable Superhero-Gone-Bad X-Men: The Last Stand presents a very different superhero-gone-bad, as the female character Jean Grey, who dies at the end of X2, is resurrected as a mentally unstable, immeasurably powerful character. Reflecting how gender functions in the genre, the female superhero is driven crazy and becomes villainous as soon as she becomes more formidable than her male counterparts; therefore, rather than encouraging male and (especially) female viewers to identify with such an impressively powerful female character, the film makes her overwhelmingly abject. The superhero genre is heavily masculinist, as male characters are typically the saviors and are consistently shown rescuing helpless women (the so-called damsels in distress). As will be explored, female superheroes are typically less powerful than male ones and often fall into feminine stereotypes (e.g., excessively emotional, overly obsessed with romance, nurturing, defensive instead of offensive). Thus, Jean Greys dominant power immediately makes her much more threatening than a similarly potent male character would be; the fact that the character loses her sense of reality and endangers the entire world indicates the untenability of having a female hero with so much power in the genre. She seduces, injures, and kills male characters with her unbalanced mind and emotions, embodying her danger to the masculine. As a result, Jean Grey is the rare superhero-gone-bad who cannot be reformed, as killing her becomes the only way to stop her. In order to understand the reasons for Jeans portrayal as a crazy, irredeemable superhero-gone-bad, it is necessary to scrutinize how female superheroes are usually represented in the genre. The following categorizations and generalities about female superheroes by and large hold true for the entire genre, but are more consistently applicable to film and TV superhero texts since they exhibit less variation in terms of representations of gender. The lack

268

of variety is largely due to the conservative nature of gender roles in films and TV shows and the limited number of film/TV incarnations of female superheroes.489 In the superhero genre, female superheroes are often reworkings of male superheroes (e.g., Wonder Woman is basically a slightly weaker version of Superman) or are less powerful offshoots/doubles of male superheroes (e.g., Supergirl, Batgirl); the frequency of the girl suffix is telling in that male superheroes, even when the same age, usually have the suffix man, suggesting the subordination of female superheroes. Moreover, female superheroes are often produced expressly to gain a female audience and to lure men with scantily-clad powerful women. In terms of superpowers, female superheroes frequently have abilities that are defensive or mental; as such, they usually avoid or struggle with physical combat. For example, Sue Storm of the Fantastic Four can become invisible, thereby avoiding physical confrontations; Claire on the TV series Heroes has the ability to heal but is constantly captured and beat up; and Storm in the X-Men films controls the weather psychically (affirming her femininity by associating her with mother nature) but is similarly abused by more physical characters. Female superheroes who have offensive powers often get dangerously overwhelmed by their abilities (physical and original sin monstrosity), go crazy, and/or become immoral. The first case can be seen in X-Men, as Rogues ability to absorb the energies of others proves to be a largely useless power (she almost never employs it offensively) that results in her becoming hazardous to anyone she touches. In the third X-Men film, she actually finds a way to get rid of her superpower, in contrast to male superheroes who learn to control their monstrous bodies and use their powers heroically. Echoing Rogue, on Heroes Tracy Strausss power to turn things into

489

Comic books are conservative and even repressive in terms of gender roles, but because of the smaller audiences, lower production costs, and prolific nature of publishing, comics exhibit more variety and aim for more specialized audiences. As a result, there are many more narratives featuring female superheroes, some of whom may be seen as more progressive than (or at least different from) some of the ones described here.

269

ice results in her unintentionally murdering a reporter just by touching him.490 Even worse, she becomes a superhero-gone-bad who uses her powers to kill out of revenge;491 she is reformed eventually, but appears never to gain complete control over her abilities. Niki on Heroes is an example of a female superhero who is crazy, suffering from multiple personality disorder. The characters evil second personality uses her super strength to injure and murder numerous men.492 In effect, Niki constantly vacillates between being a superhero and a superhero-gonebad, as she switches between her personalities.493 The kind of physical power she has is so dangerous in the hands of a mentally unstable character that she eventually injects herself with a virus to lose her powers494 and later dies in a fire; thus, again, a female superhero is not able to overcome her monstrosity and dedicate her powers to heroic ends. Jean Grey embodies most of the typical characteristics of female superheroes. In the first two X-Men films, Jean displays abilities that are generally defensive: Her telekinesis pushes away a villain and enables Cyclops and Wolverine to act heroically (using their more physically direct and violent powers) in the first film and protects a plane filled with mutants from onrushing water in the second film. In the latter instance, she seemingly sacrifices her own life, in effect acting as a maternal figure who puts the needs of her mutant family above her own wellbeing. Reflecting her role as a woman, throughout the first two films she is repeatedly rescued by her male teammates, who objectify her and squabble over her romantic feelings for them. In addition, due to their similar telepathic powers, she is in many ways a weaker version of her
490 491

The Butterfly Effect, Heroes: Season 3, writ. Tim Kring, NBC, 22 September 2008, DVD, Universal, 2009. An Invisible Thread, Heroes: Season 3, writ. Tim Kring, NBC, 27 April 2009, DVD, Universal, 2009. 492 Genesis, Heroes: Season 1, writ. Tim Kring, NBC, 25 September 2006, DVD, Universal, 2007. 493 She does not really become a superhero until the end of the first season, when she finally learns how to use her superpowers without calling on her evil personality and then uses her powers heroically. (How to Stop an Exploding Man). Up until that point, Nikis absence of heroism, lack of access to her abilities, and inability to use her monstrous alternate personality for heroic ends (like Bruce Banner uses the Hulk) make her essentially a regular person who houses a supervillain within her. However, once she qualifies as a superhero, the supervillain within her can be recategorized as a superhero-gone-bad (a dark, immoral version of a superhero). 494 Out of Time, Heroes: Season 2, writ. Aron Eli Coleite, NBC, 5 November 2007, DVD, Universal, 2008.

270

father figure, Professor Xavier (patriarch of the heroic X-Men); this weakness is emphasized via dialogue characterizing her inability to use her powers effectively (both her telepathy and telekinesis are often insufficient) and her collapse after utilizing the machine Xavier routinely employs to amplify his telepathic abilities. Further exhibiting the patriarchal nature of the XMen films (and the superhero genre), we discover in the third film that Jean has been psychically manipulated by Xavier since childhood to limit her access to her substantial powers, which he has paternalistically decided make her too dangerous. X-Men: The Last Stand sets up Jeans inability to handle her powers in the opening flashback scene, as Professor Xavier warns about the misuse of power and discusses how power corrupts. Thus, we immediately have the anxieties of the genre clearly expressed: Power is dangerous in that the potent individual can be corrupted and become a threat to the world. Xavier then meets a pubescent Jean Grey, who displays shocking telepathic and telekinetic abilities, as she is able to lift cars with her mind and read peoples minds. Her abilities are much more invasive and effortless than Clarks are on Smallville, making immoral usage more frightening and in many ways more likely (all it would take would be a wicked thought). Her impressive talents lead Xavier to ask her, Will you control that power or let it control you? The fear is that her super body will escape her control, encourage her to act immorally, and/or cause her to become a threat to the world; in other words, she can potentially embody all three kinds of monstrosity, since great power inherently contains the potential for heroism and its inverse. It is the inevitability of her dangerous corruption that reflects the gendered aspects of the genre, as Xavier subsequently decides that Jeans powers need to be kept in check for the good of the world. In contrast, there is no doubt on Smallville that Clark will eventually learn to command his abilities and employ them for heroic ends.

271

Anxieties regarding the corruption of the powerful are manifested in the film in the form of Jeans alternate personality, which is called the Phoenix and is described as a purely instinctual creature, all desire and rage; it is a personality that threatens most of the male characters she encounters and justifies the belief that a female character like Jean cannot handle having extreme power. As the Phoenix, Jean qualifies as a superhero-gone-bad because of the ways she embraces her own monstrosity: She uses her powers without moral restraint, has little shame about her superpowered body, and is unafraid of being a danger to all of humanity. It is also a profoundly mentally unstable personality (just the fact that she has two personalities suggests her craziness), reiterating the dangerousness of such power in the hands of a female character.495 Significantly, this darker personality is also more powerful than her heroic persona,496 with the explanation that Jean has been freed from the mental blocks imposed on her by Professor Xavier; these blocks were meant to limit her powers and, therefore, the extent of her potential monstrosity, but have ironically created the even more monstrous (and angry) suppressed personality of the Phoenix. The exponential increase in power augments levels of anxiety and fantasy found in the superhero-gone-bad, as superhuman abilities are used without restriction in terrifying and wish-fulfilling ways. Once corrupted, Jeans danger to male superheroes is exhibited via her over-the-top sexuality, impressive/horrifying powers, and wild swings in emotions. Foreshadowing her perilous nature, her first appearance in the film (as an adult) is accompanied by a giant whirlpool in a lake and an energy blast that knocks Cyclops (her love interest) violently to the ground, causing him to writhe in pain in a medium long shot. Jean is depicted wearing a black leather

495

In contrast, Bad Clark maintains his sanity (except for in the episode Splinter), underscoring the ability of the male superhero to handle great power. 496 The superior power of the bad persona is echoed on Smallville in the episode Crusade: The reprogrammed, immoral Clark has the power to fly, despite the fact that the regular Clark does not yet have access to that ability.

272

outfit very similar to her clothes at the end of the previous film, but her hair is noticeably longer and seemingly a darker red, reflecting the fiery, hazardous persona she now has. She immediately asks Cyclops to remove his sunglasses, which function to halt his physical monstrosity (powerful beams uncontrollably shoot from his eyes without them), telling him you cant hurt me. In an extreme close-up, his eyes transform until they look normal, displaying her extensive powers; she can even cancel out the powers of other mutants, making her nearly godlike in her abilities. The scene ends with a kiss between them, the camera rotating around them as Jeans eyes suddenly open, her skin grows darker, and her veins protrude; in the middle of the kiss, Cyclopss eyes open in horrified surprise as his face starts to ripple grotesquely. Though we do not actually see it onscreen, the implication (supported later by evidence other characters find and Jeans own confession) is that Jean murders Cyclops. The heinous act signifies her substantial monstrosity: She lacks morality, killing the man she loves for no reason other than whim; is physically frightening due to her remarkable power and its visible effects on her flesh; and is a threat to everyone, not restrained by loyalty, love, or rational thought. Jeans split personality, excessive sexuality, and extreme powers result in dangerously unstable behavior (again, men are usually her targets), as she is a superhero-gone-bad who is also a superhero-gone-crazy. Her changed behavior is demonstrated in a scene in which she actively tries to seduce Wolverine after repeatedly rejecting his advances in the first two films. In an intimate medium shot, she wraps her legs around him and kisses him while wearing a revealing tank-top and very small shorts. During this charged scene, the background shows multiple screens and other electronics experiencing extreme interference, suggesting that Jeans unrestrained sexuality causes her powers to escape her immediate control and affect the area around her body (physical monstrosity). Underscoring her newfound propensity for violence,

273

she digs her nails into Wolverines body hungrily. In addition, when she is reminded of Cyclopss death, she responds, Where are we? indicating the confusion that accompanies her fluid movement between two personalities. After she becomes upset at what her evil personality has done, we see the frightening power she possesses: The sunglasses in Wolverines hands disintegrate and items throughout the room shake and fly through the air, including screens, screws, tables, plastic containers, and assorted medical equipment. She is only stopped when Wolverine forces her to focus, illustrating her physical monstrosity once again, since she cannot control her abilities when she gets emotional. Moreover, she openly admits her own original sin monstrosity, telling Wolverine, Kill me, before I kill someone else; the suggestion is that she will definitely kill others with her incredible abilities and unbalanced mind. The scene ends with her evil personality taking over once more, as she slams Wolverine into a metal wallthe force likely killing him if he did not have a superhuman ability to healand proceeds to tear open a door with her mind. Jeans unstable mental state, destructive abilities, and danger to powerful masculine figures are further viewed in the scene where she murders her mentor, Professor Xavier. In a long shot, Jean sits in a chair looking confused, while the furniture and other objects in the house float as a result of her unsteady emotions and incredible power. When she gets agitated and begins to cry, items fly around, doors start slamming, and Xavier is thrown backwards. He tells her, youre a danger to everyone and yourself, reminding that, as a superhero-gone-bad, she perilously embodies all three kinds of monstrosity (she lacks morality, loses control of her abilities, and is a threat to the entire world). Her physical appearance becomes overtly monstrous as she uses her powers on Xavier: Her eyes turn black, her veins bulge, her skin turns an unnatural shade, and her hair flies wildly. Objects all around her crash and are destroyed in a

274

demonstration of her horrifying body. The frightening extent of her abilities is shown in an extreme long shot of the entire house being lifted up into the air, leaving behind its foundation. Furthermore, various shots display the other superpowered beings in the house unable to move, held down by her overwhelming telekinetic powers. Several shots exhibit Xaviers clothes and skin being torn away by Jean until he is finally split into millions of pieces, disintegrated by Jean despite the fact that he is one of the most powerful mutants. Jeans great power operates as a threat to masculine dominance in the superhero genre, making her irrevocable corruption and death nearly inevitable. Though her abilities lack a direct physical component (maintaining some of her femininity), her offensive mental powers make her god-like and effectively make one-on-one physical combat superfluous, as she can just obliterate the masculine superheroes who try to strike her. Moreover, by becoming more powerful than Professor Xavier, the patriarch who has controlled her, Jean usurps the supremacy of the male superhero.497 Her subsequent murder of Xavier marks the severity of her threat to masculinity and the larger social order. Her dangerous amount of power is reiterated in her final scene when she disintegrates groups of human soldiers and mutants who try to stop her, destroys property, and threatens to annihilate the entire world. Jean is portrayed as too mentally unstable and powerful to persist as a villain; at the same time, there is no return to heroism possible since she kills so many people.498 Thus, it is clear that Jean will have to be killed in order to end her threat.

497

Professor Xavier appears to be the most powerful mutant (aside from the evil version of Jean) and is decidedly the patriarch, but he exhibits some femininity in his extreme lack of physical prowess, requiring a wheelchair and possessing abilities that are entirely mental. However, like the bad version of Jean, almost all the negative connotations of this lack of physicality are offset by the fact that he is god-like in his capabilities, making bodily combat pointless since he can kill and dominate through his mind; he is, in effect, beyond the body, a characteristic that is generally associated with masculinity (e.g., great male thinkers and scholars). 498 In contrast, most male superheroes-gone-bad, like Bad Clark on Smallville, are never depicted killing anyone, allowing them to leave behind their monstrous eruptions and return to being heroes.

275

Significantly, Jean is ultimately defeated because of stereotypically feminine romance, allowing herself to be killed by Wolverine after his stirring declaration of love. Therefore, despite her nearly infinite power, she is still vanquished by a male character, who violently punctures her with his claws (displaying his more masculine superpowers) in a very sexual and dominating image. Jean is punished for her monstrosity in a way that male superheroes almost never are, as her potent, unpredictable body (physical monstrosity), erratic mind (moral monstrosity), and aggressive sexuality combine to make her a threat (original sin monstrosity) that is too dangerous to exist. In such a masculinist genre, it is unsurprising that a woman serves as one of the darkest, most anxiety-provoking representations of the superhero-gone-bad. The superhero genre primarily stars male characters, is about masculine power overcoming feelings of emasculation/powerlessness, and is directed mainly toward male or masculinist viewers. Therefore, it is to be expected that a female character would be depicted as incapable of handling so much power and would become a threat in the narrative, reflecting the threat she represents to masculine dominance in the larger genre.499 Though Jean embodies the fantasy of having nearly limitless influence over the world, viewer enjoyment of her power is minimized by the fact that she does not actively use her abilities to attain riches, social popularity, or other personal glories.500 Instead, as a superhero-gone-crazy, she utilizes her powers in volatile ways that lead to deliberate and unintentional harm of heroes, villains, and innocent humans; she serves as an
499

The film My Super Ex-Girlfriend (dir. Ivan Reitman, 2006, DVD, 20th Century Fox, 2006) also engages the fear of female superheroes having more power than men. In the film, G-girl is (in her powers and weaknesses) essentially a female version of Superman, reflecting the fact that female superheroes are often just reworkings or offshoots of male superheroes, especially when their abilities involve physical strength. More significantly, she is emotionally unstable, turning into a violent, murderous menace to her ex-boyfriend and the world after she is rejected. The implication is, again, that women cannot be trusted with great power. In fact, she is only deemed safe at the end of the film when she is in a relationship with the films supervillain, the one character who has shown the ability to take away her abilities, affirming the need for powerful women to be under male control in superhero texts. 500 Though she does use her powers to seduce two characters, she kills one and injures the other (after he rejects her), thereby again failing to be very pleasurable for viewers.

276

anxious reminder of the dangers of corrupted authority and the inability of most individuals to resist. As a supremely powerful female (someone very unlike the damsel in distress), she could be a strong figure of identification for female viewers, but the film makes her so crazy and threatening that it is difficult for anyone to identify with her.501 In the end, her instability only reaffirms the need for great power to be wielded by men, who are more trustworthy and physically and emotionally capable in superhero narratives. Even when male superheroes (like Clark on Smallville) go bad, they rarely kill and are almost always rehabilitated. In contrast, XMen: The Last Stand does not give Jean the chance to be reformed or even depowered, as destroying her becomes necessary to reassert masculinity and halt the threat that the dominant superpowered woman represents.

Spider-Man 3: Failing to Be Bad Enough A more traditional incarnation of the superhero-gone-badmeaning one who can be rehabilitated and is malecan be seen in 2007s Spider-Man 3, a film that centralizes the evil superhero in its visuals, story, and marketing more than any other film or TV program in the genres history.502 The film has a few scenes that strikingly exhibit the monstrosity of the corrupted superhero and his potential for terrifying villainy. However, the portrayal is ultimately a failure due to the lack of an effectively attractive or consistently scary dark side for the protagonist, as evidenced by the reactions of critics and fans.503 Thus, the bad superhero in Spider-Man 3 helps define the parameters of the character types appeal. The totally monstrous
501

A more resistant feminist reading of the film could take Jean as the hero, viewing her as someone who challenges patriarchal authority and is killed for it. 502 There are, of course, single episodes of TV shows that centralize the superhero-gone-bad as much, if not more. But no superhero TV series taken as a whole or film puts more focus on the bad superhero. 503 The film itself was a financial success, but it was the least successful of the three Spider-Man films (monetarily and in terms of the responses from critics, fans, and the general public) and marked the end of the series. The studio is currently rebooting the Spider-Man franchise with a new cast and creative team.

277

superhero is ideally supposed to embody fantasies of having superpowers without moral restrictions and anxieties regarding the corruption of the powerful and the impotence of the average person. The balance of fantasies and anxieties varies fairly widely; for example, most of the renditions of Bad Clark on Smallville are slightly more wish-fulfilling than anxietyprovoking (he is a cool, fun-loving bad boy, as well as a scary figure), while both Nightcrawler in X2 and Jean Grey in X-Men: The Last Stand elicit more in the way of anxiety due to their severe violence and lack of charismatic personalities. The superhero-gone-bad in Spider-Man 3 fits into the typical Bad Clark mold, as the film attempts to present a bad superhero with a cool persona who entertainingly indulges in the use of superpowers and spirals frighteningly out of control. But a large part of the problem is that, despite a few stirring moments, the film fails to engage fantasies of having superpowers and being cool sufficiently: The bad version of Spider-Man does not do many impressive things with his abilities and is often comical in his attempts to be seductive. Moreover, he does not utilize his abilities in enough ways that are truly frightening, never evoking the sense that he is an overwhelming threat to the world. The film progressively descends into camp and excessive parody, never showing a superhero who is quite bad enough. In contrast to the film itself, promotional materials for Spider-Man 3 strongly make use of the superhero-gone-bad, playing into the appeal of monstrosity and pledging that the film portrays both the frightening and wish-fulfilling behavior of a corrupted superhero. For example, the cover of the films DVD efficiently shows Spider-Mans struggle with his evil side. Positioned in the center of the frame, Spider-Man wears his traditional red, blue, white, and black suit504 and holds onto one of the strands of webbing he typically uses to swing through the

504

The red and blue are dominant, as the black is only seen on his chest chevron and web motifs and the white is only present on the part of the costume that covers his eyes.

278

city (which is visible beneath him). He stares to the left at his reflection on the glass exterior of a building, looking at an image that mirrors him in every way except the costume, which is all black save for white web patterns. The implication is that the character is looking at his evil side (hence the black outfit) and figuratively reflecting on it. The battle between good and evil sides is reinforced by the background, which juxtaposes glare from a very yellow and bright setting sun (suggesting the end of his bright, heroic personality) with dark clouds that ominously appear to be causing rain near the top of the background (insinuating oncoming evil). The text reiterates the superheros struggle between good and evil: EVERY HERO HAS A CHOICE. The choice is between staying heroic or going bad, suggesting that the film portrays both versions of the superhero. Thus, his battle with monstrosity, particularly in the form of the superhero-gone-bad, is employed as the films main selling point, promising a film that falls in line with the genres post-2000 focus on protagonists who strain to maintain their heroism. The cover image provokes anxiety (a savior pondering becoming a destroyer), but it is pleasurable, exciting anxiety, as one cannot help wondering what kinds of dangers a bad Spider-Man may pose to people in the movie. The image also taps into the wish-fulfilling elements of the superhero-gone-bad, as it promises a protagonist who indulges in superpowers while untethered from restrictive moral codes. Finally, the dark-suited Spider-Man has a degree of a cool factor, lacking the hokiness associated with wearing bright tights and patriotic colors since he wears a more fashionable and contemporary-looking costume. A series of posters similarly represent the encroaching dark side of the superhero in Spider-Man 3. The image seen on the DVD cover described above is also used in the international (meaning non-U.S.) poster for the film,505 with the difference being that the black-

505

Spider-Man 3, Poster, firstshowing.net, 2007, Web, 10 June 2010. <http://www.firstshowing.net/img/sm3-intposter.jpg>

279

suited Spider-Man is the one in the center of the frame, while the traditionally costumed version is reflected in the building. The general effect is the same, though the connotation is that the bad Spider-Man takes over and it is the good Spider-Man who haunts him and threatens to reemerge. Another poster illustrates the battle between good and evil sides, as Spider-Man is depicted above the city in his traditional costume, staring at his left hand since that part of his costume (from the hand to the left shoulder) has turned black506; the suggestion is that, like a spreading virus, the blackness is going to overtake his whole costume. Figuratively, the blackness again intimates that Spider-Man goes bad in the film, inviting viewers to come see the mysterious evil version of the character. Another common poster (reproduced on the back of the DVD case) features the dark-suited Spider-Man hunched over on the ledge of a building, resembling a gargoyle.507 He looks straight down, indicating a degree of despondency, as rain hits him and dark clouds fill the background. It is a decidedly moody image, evoking the characters moral descent, as well as perhaps an element of sadness in the film. Thus, in selling the superhero sequel, the poster highlights the cool factor of the black suit, the appeal of an evil Spider-Man, and the mysterious reasons he might look so downcast (Does the evil Spider-Man harm someone close to him? Has he gone crazy? Does his dark side cause him physical pain?). Though the films representation of a superhero-gone-bad ultimately fails in many ways, Spider-Man 3 does effectively commence the protagonists descent into darkness in the early parts of the film. We glimpse Spider-Mans encroaching monstrosity even before he is infected by the alien substance that transforms him.508 Several early scenes showcase his yearning for fame, which is antithetical to the superheros need to refrain from selfish pursuits and avoid
506

Spider-Man 3, Poster, Premiere.com, 2007, Web, 10 June 2010. <http://forums.premiere.com/showthread.php?t=214116> 507 Spider-Man 3, Poster, fantom comics, 2007, Web, 10 June 2010. <http://www.fantomcomics.com/spider3.jpg> 508 Like on Smallville, the alien material is described as amplifying feelings and characteristics the superhero already has by increasing his aggressiveness and warping his personality.

280

being corrupted by his power.509 When Peter Parker (Spider-Mans alter ego) is taking photographs of his girlfriend, Mary Jane, a point-of-view shot reveals that (after the first photo) she is out of focus and only marginally on the left side of the frame, as he narcissistically centralizes the banner in the background that says Spidey the Mighty! His desire to receive recognition for his good deeds and his willingness to deceive Mary Jane (by claiming to be taking a photograph of her) underline the characters gradual moral corruption. Likewise, in another scene Peter tries to get a group of children to watch a video of Spider-Man on a bigscreen in New York City, so that they see him as cool. Later, at an event where he is to receive the key to the city, Spider-Man is framed from a high angle watching the crowd below celebrate him and announcing to himself, They love me. Subsequently, in a long shot, he does a onehanded handstand on top of a structure, jumps in the air, and utilizes his webbing to descend upside down. Though pleasure in superpowers is not monstrous, the use of them for his personal aggrandizement implies excessive selfishness that could endanger his mission to protect others. When he is transformed into a superhero-gone-bad, Spider-Mans indulgent usage of superpowers grows more extreme, continuing to build up anticipation that the superhero will eventually become totally evil and endanger the world. His metamorphosis is initiated by contact with a mysterious alien symbiote, which, like the alien red kryptonite on Smallville, has effects that are analogous to being on drugs and places the blame for the superheros badness on a mystifying outside source (less frightening than if the superhero actively decided to become villainous). After being infected, Spider-Man is shown in a long shot in front of a reflective building (an image that strongly resembles the poster described earlier), unveiling his all-black suit, which is more fashionable (as discussed, the color black is frequently associated with being cool in renditions of the superhero-gone-bad) and connotes his darker inclinations. He
509

Spider-Man 3, dir. Sam Raimi, 2007, DVD, Sony Pictures, 2004.

281

immediately begins admiring his mirror image vainly; in a close-up, he asks What is this? and proceeds almost to kiss his reflection. Furthermore, in a medium shot he clenches his fist, showing off what seems to be a slightly more muscular physique, and declares, This feels good, indicating the similarity to being on drugs (uppers, as well as steroids since the alien symbiote makes him stronger). Although, again, pleasure in superpowers is not monstrous, the excessive narcissism suggests that the increased power will have a corrupting effect and lead to future monstrosity. As we have seen via Jean Grey in X-Men: The Last Stand, augmentations in superpowers and moral monstrosity are frequently interconnected.510 Despite the anxiety created by a (more) powerful superhero who exhibits such self-love, the scene also draws attention to what makes superhuman abilities such an appealing fantasy for viewers: the feeling of power. His first mission in the black suit exhibits the scariness of a corrupted Spider-Man, one of the few parts of the film that effectively does so. After rival photographer Eddie Brock takes a photograph of Spider-Man, the bad superhero reacts violently: In a medium shot, he faces the camera and unexpectedly shoots his webbing. The next shot displays a close-up of Eddies shocked face as his camera is grabbed by the webbing and snatched away. Finally, in a medium shot Spider-Man slings the camera, a close-up emphasizing how forcibly it is smashed. This destruction of property represents the first truly immoral use of his abilities, as the superhero is meant to protect the people (and their property), not harm their possessions maliciously. Moreover, the reason for smashing the camera is that Eddie is a competitor for a job at the Daily Bugle newspaper, meaning he is decidedly using his superpowers in a selfish way. He even taunts Eddie by saying, See you, chump.

510

Likewise, the version of Bad Clark in the Smallville episode Crusade can fly, something the regular Clark cannot do.

282

As the sequence continues, Spider-Mans frightening monstrosity is displayed as he tries to kill rather than apprehend Flint Marko, the man he blames for the death of his uncle. In one medium shot, he grabs Marko from behind and shoves his head toward an oncoming subway train. The camera moves to a close-up of Markos head as he yells in agony. The attempted murder only fails because Marko possesses superpowers (he is known as Sandman, since he can turn into and manipulate sand). Spider-Mans excessive violence and thirst for revenge mark him as an immoral monster and indicate his danger to humans. Further showing his cruelty, after he discovers that Markos weakness is water, we see of close-up of Spider-Mans hands as he rips open a conveniently located water container. The consequence is that Marko is overcome by water, a high angle extreme long shot exhibiting how massive the onrushing water is in relation to the comparatively diminutive Marko. After a medium shot depicts Marko dissolving in the water, we cut to Spider-Man in an extreme close-up staring and sadistically stating, Good riddance, after presumably killing his opponent. In this harrowing sequence, the superhero-gone-bad successfully embodies various anxieties and fantasies, creating strong expectations for the rest of the portrayal of Bad SpiderMan. He causes unease in his vengeful, murderous use of superpowers; avoidance of any and all legal channels (he is judge, jury, and executioner); and ability to overcome even other superpowered characters (leaving little hope for regular humans). However, anxiety is balanced by the exhilarating fantasy represented by his impressive use of superpowers throughout the scene. Several special effects shots display the evil Spider-Man soaring through the air to hit Marko with inhuman force. In particular, one high angle shot of Spider-Man and Marko falling down an underground shaft employs computer generated imagery to demonstrate how SpiderMan spins acrobatically in midair as he strikes Marko repeatedly. His amazing, unrestrained

283

powers and ability to singlehandedly get justice reflect viewer fantasies and invite identification with the corrupted protagonist. Despite the promising start, the portrayal of the superhero-gone-bad in the film begins to go awry when the character takes on the persona of an emo youth, failing to exhibit the elements of cool or danger that make bad superheroes appealing. When superheroes go bad, they tend to wear more fashionable clothes and take on a tougher and/or more charismatic attitude. For instance, many of the versions of Bad Clark on Smallville borrow from the iconography of the bad boy delinquent, which (as discussed in Chapter 5) has been a popular shorthand for cool in every decade since the 1950s. The costume of Bad Spider-Man is appropriately cool, but it is the attitude and sense of style of his Peter Parker identity (a.k.a., Bad Peter) that largely fails. Rather than replicating a timeless (or recent) image of cool or danger, Peter predominantly takes on aspects of the contemporary emo subculture, which is much more limited in its allure, is not associated with physical strength or danger, and is frequently viewed as uncool. Emo (derived from the word emotional) is defined on the website Urban Dictionary (in the tongue-in-cheek style characteristic of the website): Genre of softcore punk music that integrates unenthusiastic melodramatic 17 year olds who dont smile, high pitched overwrought lyrics and inaudible guitar rifts with tight wool sweaters, tighter jeans, itchy scarfs (even in the summer), ripped chucks with favorite bands signature, black square rimmed glasses, and ebony greasy unwashed hair that is required to cover at least 3/5 ths of the face at an angle (sic).511 Another definition on the website adds a few bits of information: A group of white, mostly middle-class well-off kids who find imperfections in there [sic] life and create a ridiculous,

511

7ThisIsWudie7, Emo, Urban Dictionary, 8 June 2003, Web, 16 June 2010. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=emo>

284

depressing melodrama around each one.512 The tone of the descriptions suggests the derision that is directed at the subculture for being overly dramatic. By taking on such a persona, Peter does not embody fantasies of a broad range of viewers, as his overly emotional attitude comes off as more whiney than cool for much of the film. Likewise, it is not the kind of persona associated with being a threat, thereby not strongly engaging anxieties about the corruption of the powerful and the helplessness of the populace. The problematic characterization of Bad Spider-Man/Peter borrows the image and attitude of the emo teen (and adult) in several ways: the distinctive hairstyle, lack of cheer, and dramatic outbursts. The latter can be seen, for example, when he repeatedly grunts and yells loudly for no reason during his battle with Marko. After Markos apparent death, a medium close-up reveals Peters reflection in a mirror as he stares at himself (exhibiting vanity once again). Grimacing and barely blinking (seemingly annoyed by his good guy appearance), he reaches for his hair and pulls it down over his face, giving him a swoop of hair that nearly covers his left eye; thus, he takes on the stereotypical hairstyle of the emo subculture. Furthermore, Peters emotional nature (going from depressed to angry at a moments notice) is displayed in the next scene when he runs into his landlord. Peter is moodily framed in a profile shot that highlights the hair covering one side of his face and his black jacket. He flatly states, Leave me alone, when his landlord asks for the rent, behavior uncharacteristic of the usually cheery Peter and typical of the perpetually in pain emo teenager. Subsequently, Peter abruptly turns his head to face the camera and explodes, Youll get your rent when you fix this damn door! This histrionic eruption recalls that of an emo teenager melodramatically overreacting to his parents. Underlining his changed personality, his landlord comments, He is a good boy. He must be in

512

JT, Emo, Urban Dictionary, 23 March 2005, Web, 16 June 2010. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=emo>

285

some kind of trouble. Though he is not his usual good self, Peter is neither cool nor scary; instead, he comes off mainly as petulant. Before the characters ineffectively evil persona completely derails the portrayal of Bad Spider-Man/Peter, there is one last scene that successful depicts his potential dangerousness, as Peter violently scars his former best friend Harry. Peter arrives in the scene with his emo hair and a dark sweater that is opened to reveal the black Spider-Man suit underneath, visually accentuating the source of his evil personality. After some provocation, he starts attacking Harry, a medium close-up showing how he winds up to hit him with all of his superpowered strength. Highlighting his moral monstrosity, Peters violent use of superpowers is driven by petty revenge (Harry has stolen his girlfriend). At the end of the protracted fight scene, Peter is shown in a medium close-up walking toward the foreground, while Harry sits defeated in the background. When Harry throws an explosive at his head, Peter utilizes his abilities (he has extra-human perception and agility) to dodge the weapon, a defensive and entirely appropriate use of his abilities. However, revealing his sadistic side, in the same shot we see him shoot his webbing at the now offscreen weapon, which would no longer pose a danger to anyone if it were left alone. The following medium close-up displays Peter from the opposite side as he turns to face the camera and, with a sinister grin on his face, slings the explosive back toward Harry. In a long shot, the camera tracks the explosive flying through the air toward Harry in the background, emphasizing how defenseless he is (he lacks any superhuman abilities513); his helplessness is further exhibited in a medium close-up of Harry turning to his right as the explosive flies past him and detonates. The scene ends with a medium shot of Peter walking toward the camera, as

513

Harrys possession of superpowers is actually somewhat ambiguous as he is following in the footsteps of his father Norman Osborn (a.k.a., the Green Goblin, the villain in the first Spider-Man film), who does acquire superhuman physical abilities, which he uses in tandem with advanced technology. Harry certainly uses his fathers technology but there is nothing onscreen that clearly indicates he gains superpowers too.

286

the explosion continues exacting destruction in the background, possibly killing or burying Harry. Rather than helping, Peter walks offscreen, another grin seemingly washing over his face. Peters actions are truly monstrous and embody various anxieties and fantasies, making the scene one of the films only successful representations of the superheros bad side. Peter displays moral and original sin monstrosity, since he selfishly uses his abilities to harm a human, in the process becoming a threat to everyone. In the next scene, a woman sees a newspaper article about Spider-Mans moral descent and responds, Spider-Man used to make me feel safe. Now Im afraid to walk home from work. It is unclear if she is afraid to walk home because the immoral Spider-Man is now on the prowl or because there is no longer anybody to protect her from the various depraved individuals in the city. In either case, her statement boils down how the monstrous superhero (especially the superhero-gone-bad) reveals the same anxieties that the good superhero works to suppress: Power corrupts those who have it, leading to the exploitation and harm of those who lack it (i.e., most people). In addition, Peters assault of Harry has some wish-fulfilling elements in that it provides a violent revenge fantasy and shows off Peters impressive strength. Following Peters revenge, Spider-Man 3s depiction of the superhero-gone-bad is quickly overwhelmed by elements of camp and parody, as Bad Peter grows comically lustful and engages in very little truly bad behavior. The film follows the trend of making the corrupted superhero more overtly sexual and more attractive to the opposite sex; accordingly, there are several scenes featuring Peters over-the-top attempts at seduction (using his new emo persona and, in one case, superpowers) and the reactions of women. The problem with these scenes is that Peters behavior and the responses are so over-the-top as to be campy. The scenes play as excessive parody, ridiculing the usual invisibility of the superheros alter ego and exaggerating

287

the changes in Peters personality and its effects on women. Peters dangerousness almost completely disappears and the elements of wish-fulfillment also dissipate, as the character becomes, intentionally or not, funny. The first seduction scene introduces the comically disproportionate responses to Bad Peters emo persona. The scene starts with an extreme close-up of the chest area of the black costume, the camera pulling back to reveal Peter buttoning up an unusually (for him) fancy black shirt over it. Framing his head and emo hairstyle in a close-up, the camera continues tracking backward to keep pace as Peter moves toward it. With his persona in place, the subsequent shot is from Peters point of view, showing a blonde woman in a revealing red top staring at the camera (i.e., Peter) lustfully. The camera then continues tracking forward (emulating Peter walking) and pans to the right to show a brunette in another provocative top turning to look at the camera and flirtatiously brushing her hair away from her face. Cutting again to a close-up of Peters face as he walks, we can see two other attractive women gazing at him in the background. The suggestion is that the emo Peter, with his more stylish hair and clothes, is irresistible to the opposite sex. In contrast, the regular Peter struggles throughout the first film to get his love interest to notice him due to his nerdy persona and nice guy demeanor, and barely seems to be noticed by the women walking the streets of New York. Thus, the womens reactions parody how people typically treat Peter and most superheroes when they are not in costume (i.e., they are usually largely invisible). Furthermore, the scene reads as a parody of being cool, since women are suddenly throwing themselves at Peter after very minor and, frankly, unimpressive changes to his appearance. The severity of their lust and the artificiality of the scenario gives the entire scene a degree of camp, undercutting any sense that Peter has actually become an irresistible bad boy (and limiting any wish-fulfillment).

288

The campiness continues in a lengthy montage sequence that demonstrates that Peters bad side is insufficiently wicked, failing to evoke strong anxieties or fantasies.514 In one of the first scenes, we see a medium shot of his gawky young neighbor Ursula smiling awkwardly and holding a tray of cookies in the direction of Peter, who is completely in shadow in the foreground. As Peter talks to his professor on the phone, he is shown in a close-up dropping his head suddenly and closing his eyes, insinuating that the professor is so boring that he is falling asleep. In playing to Ursula by mocking an older authority figure, Peter takes on aspects of the rebellious bad boy to entice her. In a few medium shots that frame Peter on the left and Ursula on the right, we see her catering to Peter with cookies, while he tersely orders, Get me some milk, and points with his fingers toward her apartment. Later, he commands her to make him more cookies since he wants some with nuts. This rude ordering around of Ursula is indeed exploitative as he takes advantage of her feelings for his own gratification. However, given the scale of what he could do with his superpowers, demanding cookies, flirting, and making fun of his professor are so minor that it is laughable; the scene parodies the bad boy by rendering his wickedness in such a silly way. In addition, the fact that Bad Peter is attractive to Ursula seems to have little to do with his new persona, since she likes him just as much when he is nerdy. Thus, the scene fails to elicit any anxiety about the bad superhero (i.e., he does nothing monstrous or frightening) or any significant wish fulfillment. In the next scene of the montage, Bad Peters over-the-top attempts at seduction grow more comical and reactions become more varied, as some of the female characters insinuate the failure of his bad boy persona. The scene commences with a medium shot of Peters torso (the camera tracking backward to stay ahead of him), as he gyrates his hips and swings his hands while strutting down the street, seemingly in rhythm with the jazzy non-diegetic score. This strut
514

Emphasizing its focus on the superhero-gone-bad, the montage is titled Bad Peter on the DVD of the film.

289

parodies Peters regular shyness and popular images of being cool; in fact, the scene resembles a heightened version of the famous sequences in 1977s Saturday Night Fever in which the protagonist rhythmically swaggers down the street and seduces women.515 A series of women, most of them wearing short skirts, can be seen in the background (although out of focus) stopping to stare at Peter. The camera then tilts up to unveil that he is making flirtatious faces at the women who pass him, in direct contrast to the earlier sequence in which he looks surprised that anyone would glance at him. As we move to a shot from Peters point of view, the first woman appears to roll her eyes in annoyance at his overt lustfulness. The camera then pans right to display another attractive young woman who grimaces, moves away from Peter, and smiles mockingly. Positive reactions can seen in the next shota medium shot of Peter snapping his fingers and strutting while the camera tracks backward to stay in front of himas one woman in the background freezes and amorously looks at him (perhaps peering at his backside), another opens her mouth and turns to stare at him longingly, and two others gaze at him sensuously. Though the second set of responses suggests that many women find his bad persona attractive, his behavior and the responses are again so exaggerated as to be parodic. The serious performances of the actors and the sense of excess and artificiality make the scene overwhelmingly campy. The comic qualities minimize any feeling that Peter has actually become more attractive or that he is truly bad. Furthermore, the two incredulous reactions to Peter imply that his behavior, essentially dancing down the street to a tune that no one else can hear, is borderline crazy (though his sense of reality is too strong to call him a superhero-gonecrazy). More importantly, their reactions suggest that Peters attempts to be cool may actually be unsuccessful, as the women appear to be mocking Peter and how silly he is (foreshadowing many of the negative responses by viewers). Though a degree of parody and camp and some
515

Saturday Night Fever, dir. John Badham, 1977, DVD, Paramount, 2007.

290

aversion to the superheros bad persona are not uncommon, the problem is that these aspects are so prevalent here; there is no awe-inspiring display of superpowers or sense of danger to ground the portrayal and engage anxieties and fantasies about the bad superhero. The only somewhat effective scene in the montage depicts Peter suggestively flirting with a coworker and demanding a raise from his boss; in contrast to the other scenes, his actions are less outlandish and have more tangible results. In an intimate medium close-up shot, Peter stands on the right side of the frame in dark clothing while Betty Brant, a secretary at the newspaper, stands inches away on the left side with her mouth agape. When Peter says Id love to shoot you sometime (in response to her admiration of his photography), Betty blushes and nearly kisses him before being interrupted. Subsequently, he demands a raise from his boss and, in a medium shot, sits inappropriately at his bosss desk, taking a piece of candy and rudely putting his feet on the desk. His boss can be seen confusedly looking at Peters feet, while another employee looks at Peter like he is crazy. This resistance to authority (the marker of the bad boy) makes him even more attractive to Betty, who can seen outside of the office opening her mouth and smiling broadly, clearly impressed by Peters boldness. It is a successful parody of Peters typical reticence, because his bad boy behavior is not ridiculously over-the-top and has results that are desirable (money, the affection of a woman); it encourages fantasy identification with Bad Peter. Still, the scene does not show any immoral usage of superpowersthe prime manifestation of the corrupted superheros threat and the most appealing part of the fantasy of being a bad superheromaking it only a moderate success. The montage concludes with perhaps the campiest, least anxiety-provoking scene of all, as Bad Peters strutting grows more extreme and the reactions to him become more comically

291

negative,516 underlining the characters lack of a successfully frightening or cool dark side. In one medium long shot (the camera tracking backwards at a diagonal to keep up with his fast gait), Peter suddenly points at an attractive woman and spins around to look at her intensely. In response, she turns to stare at him, taking her mobile phone away from her ear and looking visibly annoyed at his forwardness. Later, in a medium close-up of Peters chest area, we see him self-assuredly point in different directions, presumably at different women. Then, in a medium long shot, Peter snaps his fingers (still seeming to hear the sequences non-diegetic music), slides gracefully, looks at two women, and twirls. The two women stop, one of them recoiling, and proceed to look at each other confusedly. After the women exchange a few words, one of them shrugs at his strange behavior. Their reactions insinuate that they are perplexed by this man dancing in the middle of the street, who may be crazy or simply failing miserably in his attempts to be cool. In the same shot, Peter enters a clothing store while continuing to swagger, causing a woman exiting the store to throw up her hands in confusion as she passes him. Moments later, Peter faces the camera as he walks back out of the store, now wearing an expensive-looking black suit and a dark button-up shirt. Much like Bad Clark on Smallville, Bad Peters darker and more expensive clothes attest to his superficiality. The montage finishes with Peter doing several dance moves in front of the store, including multiple sexual thrusts. In reaction, two women leaving the store quickly squirm away, one of them looking at Peter in disbelief. Peters dancing and flirting are so campily over-the-top that his bad persona becomes a joke, even to the female objects of his affection in the film. In contrast to Bad Clark, who utilizes his powers to indulge his selfish desiresconnecting him to viewer fantasies and anxietiesPeter does not use his abilities at all in the entire montage. There is almost nothing

516

There are still some women who are visibly impressed by Bad Peter.

292

awe-inspiring or threatening about him; more than anything, he is ridiculous, limiting viewer enjoyment of the character. After the montage, there is one last scene that exhibits the problematic campiness of Peters bad persona, though he does at least engage in a few moments of immoral violence. The scene actually begins somewhat encouragingly, as Peter walks toward a jazz club with Gwen Stacy, the daughter of the police captain. Her superior social status, pretty makeup, and platinum blonde hair attest to the superficiality of Bad Peter, who is deeply invested in impressing others. In contrast, his old girlfriend, Mary Jane, comes from a broken home, has red hair, and is a struggling actress. His attempts to be cool are evident as he tells Gwen, Youre looking fine, babe, a romantically forward, slangy utterance that is atypical of the nerdy Peter. While Peter flirts with Gwen in a long shot, in the foreground we can see Eddie Brock, who is Gwens former love interest, Peters competitor (they are both photographers), and the man who Bad Peter has just gotten fired. Thus, we can assume that Peter is sadistically trying to harm Eddie by dating Gwen. Inside the club, Peter keeps exhibiting his roguish persona: In a medium close-up, he whistles at the hostess in the foreground, the camera moving closer as Peter presses his face against hers and whispers, Find us some shade. The camera tilts down to show Peter slipping her some money and then tilts back up as he softly says, Thanks, hot legs. His attitude and use of slang and sexual language to get a table at a crowded club mark him as decidedly different from the typically nerdy superhero, who cares more about saving people than his public persona or indulging in pleasure. Although his personality remains somewhat unconvincingly cool, Bad Peter is restrained for a change, not engaging in strange, exaggerated behavior that renders him ridiculous. Moreover, his presence at a crowded club creates anxious anticipation that he is about to utilize his superpowers to commit frightening/impressive public violence, much like

293

Bad Clark does when he takes his love interest Lana to a bar in the Smallville episode Red (see Chapter 5). However, Bad Peter almost immediately begins dancing and the film grows campy once again; rather than threatening the world with his abilities (as superheroes-gone-bad typically do), Peter ridiculously tries to make his ex-girlfriend jealous with his remarkable dance moves. Initially, Peter appears at the clubs piano, playing jazz impressively. Then, in a long shot, he uses his superhuman physical abilities to jump onto the piano while spinning his body like a top (the first time in the film that his strutting/dancing involves superpowers). After a closer shot of his graceful feet (and fancy shoes), another long shot shows Peter acrobatically jumping to the bar and dancing on top of it. In a subsequent long shot, he swigs a martini while using a chandelier to swing over the crowd, who cheers his impressive exploits. Employing his incredible dance moves, Peter seduces Gwen, who is portrayed in a close-up with her mouth wide open as a gust of wind (evidently, from his forceful dancing) blows through her hair. In a medium close-up, the camera starts at his gyrating hips and tilts up to unveil his snapping fingers and mischievous smile; several women in the background are visibly entranced, one of them yelling, That is hot! The dancing finally ends with a medium shot of Peter dipping Gwen while staring offscreen at Mary Jane, confirming to Gwen, Mary Jane, and the audience the immoral reason for his superhuman dancing: He wants to make Mary Jane jealous. Clearly, the superpowered, vengeful dancing is a violation of the moral code of the superhero, as he selfishly utilizes his abilities to win public adulation, risks revelation as Spider-Man, and maliciously uses Gwen to hurt Mary Jane, emotionally devastating both women. Nevertheless, given the scale of what he could do with his superpowers, his actions are quite minor and do not endanger anyone; there is no sense that he has revealed the comparative impotence of regular humans or

294

demonstrated that the corruption of the powerful is scary. In addition, dancing is simply not behavior associated with being a bad boy. The over-the-top nature of Peters moves and the audiences reactions make the depiction of the superhero comically campy, instead of threatening or cool. There is arguably some wish-fulfillment in dancing so well, but it is certainly not the violent, unstoppable misuse of superpowers expected in a film featuring a superhero-gone-bad. The superhero-gone-bads explosive violence is finally glimpsed at the end of the scene, in a jarring transition from campy dancing to fierce fighting. After a bouncer grabs Peters arm, the camera abruptly tilts up and pans right to display Peters sullen face in extreme close-up, as he warns, Take your hand off of me. Peters foreboding words remind that the superherogone-bads physical superiority usually encourages moral and original sin monstrosity, since the protagonist knows that no regular human can possibly match him in a fight; the violence that results from the corrupted superheros frightening confidence is missing from most of SpiderMan 3s portrayal of Bad Peter/Spider-Man, but it can clearly be seen as this fight sequence unfolds. First, when the bouncer tries to grab Peters other arm, he fearlessly snaps the bouncers arm away. Then, in a medium close-up, he grabs the bouncer by his shirt and pushes him aside with ease, despite the fact that he is approximately a head taller than Peter and much larger. Following a cut, a medium close-up depicts Peter pushing the bouncer to the right, the camera quickly panning right to follow his swift attack. Finally, Peter slams the bouncer against the wall, leading him to yell wildly, Hey, get off! Showcasing Peters raw violence, we are presented with a medium close-up of Peter, his rage-filled face visible as he throttles the bodyguard. The handheld camera shakes and moves wildly as Peter easily knocks out a man

295

who appears on the left side of the frame (perhaps another bouncer), shoves aside a man who approaches from the background, and knocks the first bouncer to the ground. In one of his most monstrous moments in the film (only perhaps his attempted murder of Marko and his scarring of his best friend are worse), Bad Peter frighteningly attacks Mary Jane. In the same shot where he is assaulting the various men, she approaches from behind yelling, Peter, stop it! Then, in a medium close-up that lasts less than one second, we see Peter turn toward the camera while unfurling a massive punch and bellowing loudly. The brevity of the shot mimics the suddenness of his violence against Mary Jane. In the following shot, the camera tilts down to display a medium long shot of Mary Jane falling to the ground in stunned horror. In addition to his moral monstrosity, his display of super strength marks him as a physical monster, as Mary Jane looks at him with disgust and the bouncers and other bar patrons are clearly horrified at what his body can do. Likewise, his brutal actions qualify him as an original sin monster, because his abilities have made him a threat to humans. Furthermore, the short sequence exposes anxieties about the dangers of corruption and the impotence of humans, as the superhero-gone-bad cannot be stopped by anyone in the club. There is also a degree of wishfulfillment in his impressive strength, since he is able to defeat a group of men singlehandedly. Though Peters attack on the bouncers and Mary Jane successfully embodies the dangers and fantasies of the superhero-gone-bad, it does not fit in with the rest of the campy portrayal and still fails to create the sense that Bad Peter is an overwhelming danger to the world. The violent end of the scene mirrors the bar scene in the Smallville episode Red, as Clark similarly attacks multiple people with his abilities (even his entanglement with his two love interests at the bar resembles Peters situation with Mary Jane and Gwen). However, there is no lengthy sequence on Smallville in which Clark utilizes his abilities to dance feverishly or do anything

296

else that is comically ridiculous. The depiction of Bad Peter, in contrast, moves between nearly total camp and scary violence in a manner that is incongruous, to say the least. Furthermore, Bad Clarks dark desires grow following his assaults on others, leading him to spiral dangerously out of control; he ambitiously yearns for money and power and distinctly threatens the entire world with his abilities. In contrast, Bad Peters explosions of violence are constantly counteracted by the numerous silly sequences and there is never any sense that he has substantial ambition to take over the world, gain real power, or attain riches. Bad Peters violent incidents are isolated, with no real increase in severity or scale over the course of the film, minimizing the impression that he imperils the world. Like several of the episodes of Smallville, it is the violence (or threat of violence) against women that marks the culmination of the superhero-gone-bads turn to darkness, as the chivalry that is a key part of the genre (the superhero stereotypically rescues the damsel in distress) is viciously violated. But the problem in Spider-Man 3 is that there is very little darkness preceding the violence against Mary Jane and his bad side ceases almost immediately afterward, as he frees himself of the alien symbiote in the next scene.517 As a result, despite the few glimpses of Peters wicked side, we never see a complete exploration of the superhero-gone-bads monstrosity; instead, the character is mired in numerous campy sequences and infrequently engages the wish-fulfilling characteristics of the bad superhero (superhuman power without moral restraint) or the anxieties (the corruption of the powerful, the helplessness of most humans). The failure of Spider-Man 3s depiction of the superhero-gone-bad is confirmed by critics and viewers, who deride the film for its campy, insufficiently dark presentation of the superheros bad side. As the one film in which the superhero-gone-bad is the focal point
517

On Smallville, the violence against women also commonly results in Clarks imminent move away from his dark side. But there is usually much in the way of monstrous activity in the preceding parts of the episode, leaving viewers satisfied that they have seen the scary/fantastic aspects of the superhero-gone-bad.

297

appearing for a large portion of the screen time518 and being central to most of the marketing the criticisms of Spider-Man 3 might suggest that the totally corrupted superhero is not as alluring to audiences as one might assume, despite the popularity of monstrous superheroes. Likewise, it might imply that Spider-Man is simply too sunny of a character to be acceptable in a darker persona.519 However, reviews of the film and online fan reactions illuminate a strong desire to see the superheros bad side; the disappointment stems from the specific way that Spider-Mans evil side is rendered in the film. In the Entertainment Weekly review of Spider-Man 3, critic Owen Gleiberman largely blames the films shortcomings on the overwhelmingly silly representation of Spider-Mans dark persona: As he saunters down the sidewalk in a black suit, doing snappy Rat Pack things with his fingers, [actor Tobey] Maguire seems to be enjoying himself, even if it isn't clear whether the girls are giggling at him because Peter is suddenly sexy or because he seems to have lost his mind. When he wanders into a jazz bar, where M.J., now estranged from him, is singing a set, he looks tough, talks tough, and finally takes over the floor of the club. At last, we see the secret that lies in Spider-Man's heart: It's Peter Parker's desire to dance as if he were in a revival of Cabaret. / Okay, I kid, but it's only because Raimi sets up the whole dark-side-of-a-hero business and then treats it like a Jim Carrey joke.520 Gleiberman speaks of the (previously described) odd reactions of women, as some find Peter sexy while others find him comical, the film not clearly indicating how the scene should be read. Thus, tone is an issue: Is Peter supposed to be a parodic, comically campy superhero-gone-bad or a dark and sexy one? Regardless of intentionality, the consensus is that Bad Peter/Spider-Man

518

More than 35 minutes of screen time elapse from when Spider-Man is infected by the alien symbiote to when he is free of it. 519 Prior to the films release, one online article comments on the darker subject matter promised in Spider-Man 3s advertisements: This downbeat tone is an odd one for a superhero who has long been distinguished by his total lack of a dark side (Dan Kois, Spider-Man Gets All Emo: Does the sunny superhero really need a dark side? Slate, 2 May 2007, Web, 1 November 2010. <http://www.slate.com/id/2165545/>). 520 Owen Gleiberman, Movie Review: Spider-Man 3, Entertainment Weekly, 2 May 2007, Web, 16 June 2010. <http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037366,00.html>

298

is, disappointingly, the former. The films dark-side-of-a-hero setup falsely insinuates that Peter will take on aspects of the bad boy in ways similar to Clark on Smallville, becoming unstable, frightening, and the embodiment of confident cool. The comparison of Bad Peter to the members of the 1960s Rat Pack implies just how out of touch the character is with contemporary constructions of masculine cool. Furthermore, the advertisements for the film and the initial murderous confrontation with Marko suggest real darkness, not the emo persona and numerous dance sequences. Therefore, as Gleiberman points out, the film does not follow through on its promise of revealing what a truly morally monstrous Spider-Man would do with his powers. Most fans agree that it is problematic to have a corrupted superhero who possesses an emo persona and dances flamboyantly, finding such attributes inconsistent with the superherogone-bad and the character of Spider-Man. On SuperHeroHype, a popular online gathering place for fans of superheroes, there is a message board thread titled The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread, featuring 676 posts (predominantly written around the time of the films theatrical release in 2007), most of which are by self-professed Spider-Man fans. Many of these fans read comics and are heavily invested in superheroes, meaning they are not always representative of the general audience for superhero films. However, in the case of Spider-Man 3 their assessments are fairly similar to those of respected critics and the larger viewing audience, though the fans are far more detailed in their evaluations and utilize language that is more vitriolic due to their affection for the character. Fan responses to Spider-Man 3 often cite other superhero films to illustrate how the representation of Bad Peter/Spider-Man lacks the necessary darkness; in the process, they reveal the canon of good and bad superhero films that exists, particularly within the fan community.

299

For instance, one fan references other films in the genre as he points out the widespread accord on the problems with the third Spider-Man film: Is it just me or were the critics right? Everyone was saying screw the critics, but they were freaking right, particularly [film critic Richard] Roeper. He was right about the villains and dark Spidey. The villains were the least menacing since Batman & Robin and dark Peter/Spidey was cheesy emo crap. Raimi could learn a thing or two from Batman Begins about creating brooding, dark characters.521 Another fan mentions the third Superman film as he criticizes the comical tone of the Bad Peter/Spider-Man scenes: The black suit Spider-man. It was just done too campy for me, and reminded me of Superman 3 when he gets exposed to red kryptonite and becomes a bad guy. Parker going emo and strutting just isn't enough. I wanted [him] to go over the edge, and not just with Harry.522 For these fans, the campiness and humor of Peters emo strutting make it unfulfilling, as they want some severity to his actions (again, the advertisements for the film promise a dark rendition of a superhero-gone-bad). In discussing other superhero adaptations as points of comparison, these fans demonstrate that there are superhero films that are widely considered to be good and others that are seen as bad, depending on whether they have the desired serious tone and faithfulness to the comic book source material; these designations are shared by most fans and even, to a degree, critics and casual viewers. Underscoring the canon of good and bad superhero films, the second fan negatively alludes to the campiness of Superman III, a film widely viewed as an artistic and commercial failure. Despite its comparison to the third Spider-Man film, Superman III differs from Spider-Man 3 in that the superhero-gone-bad section is viewed by most fans as the only salvageable part of the film (though many share this fans belief that it is campier than it should be); in particular, the evil Superman vs. good Clark
521

redfirebird2008, Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype, 4 May 2007, Web, 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=3> 522 samsnee, Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype, 4 May 2007, Web, 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=2>

300

Kent scene is commonly viewed as a high-water mark for Superman portrayals in film.523 Nevertheless, comparing Spider-Man 3 to the predominantly lackluster Superman III (one good section does not constitute a quality film) is a method to connote its lack of quality, as is the first fans invocation of the much reviled Batman & Robin (a film that, like Spider-Man 3, led to the rebooting of a superhero film franchise). In contrast, the first fan mentions Batman Begins because it is widely viewed (by fans, critics, and casual viewers) as a quality superhero adaptation, effectively creating brooding, dark characters (unlike Spider-Man 3). The begrudging agreement with the critics, with whom fans often have an antagonistic relationship (since they do not know the characters as well as fans), indicates the consensus as to the failings of the film, as most find fault with the superhero-gone-bads lack of wickedness. Going beyond general critiques, many fans offer concrete reasons as to how the superhero-gone-bad in Spider-Man 3 is insufficiently dark and too comedic. One fan thoughtfully writes, They needed to emphasize the black-suit's power under Spider-Man's use. I wanted to see him perform some superhuman feats he couldn't have done otherwise. The potential was there and it was wasted.524 Part of the fantasy appeal of the superhero-gone-bad is the unrestrained use of powers, especially since the corrupted superhero is frequently more potent than the regular version of the character. The few superpowered things Spider-Man does do while he is bad (fighting Marko, beating up Harry, dancing acrobatically, abusing the

523

A fan who posted the Superman vs. Clark Kent fight from Superman III online describes it as follows: This is an awesome scene from a silly film (wckedmnkey, Superman Vs. Clark Kent, YouTube, 24 June 2006, Web, 5 November 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY3dxb5OpIw>). Multiple respondents to the video concur with this take: Always thought,and still do,that Superman III was the absolute worst f ilm to feature Superman,but I do love this scene, It was truly a bad movie, but this scene alone is truly briliant. It is, essentially, a fight between your two sides: a good and a bad one. Everyone can relate, i think, and Yeah, while the entire movie wasn't really any good, I'll always love this scene. Besides, it has my favorite moment in any of the Superman films, when the music kicks in right after he overcomes his evil self (NeoConnor1, ryszard9, and kalonthar, in response to wckedmnkey, Superman Vs. Clark Kent). 524 VoiceofReason, Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype, 4 May 2007, Web, 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=2>

301

bouncers) are really things he could do before his increased power, a shortcoming of the film. Another fan adds, Black spiderman didnt even exist. It was emo funny parker embarrassing himself.525 Despite the fact that advertisements focus almost entirely on Spider-Man in his black costume, the film has notably few scenes with Bad Spider-Man using his powers or wearing his full costume (hence, the claim that he didnt even exist); there is much more screen time devoted to Bad Peters comical swaggering. Another fan lists his grievances: The entire section where Peter has gone [to the] dark side was handled terribly. From the corny dialogue, to the irritating music, to the painful dance number at the Jazz club. Some how Sam Raimi seems to think that being a bad boy is acting like Jim Carrey from The Mask. . . . This should have been a dark moment in the film, not a joke, 526 Other respondents bemoan that Peter's emo hair style [is what shows] that he's now turning evil527 and that Peter's idea about being bad is ordering chocolate cake girl to get him more cookies, dancing in public, trying to be a creepy swinger, acting like he doesn't care about anyone or anything, and basically acting more like a jackass then a bad ass....528 The belief that the superhero-gone-bad should be treated seriously (not as a joke) speaks to the history of campy, simplistic adaptations of superheroes in mainstream media (e.g., the 1960s Batman TV show) and the fact that superhero texts are, in the first decades of the genre, intended mainly for children. The result has been the general publics condescending attitude toward superheroes as childish and unsophisticated, a mind-set that only starts to change in recent years. The comical presentation of the superheros dark side

525

marketmichael11, Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype, 4 May 2007, Web, 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=10> 526 thefilmguy7, Painful Dance, The Internet Movie Database, 6 April 2010, Web, 4 November 2010. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/board/thread/160483517> 527 FallenAngel666, Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype, 4 May 2007, Web, 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=8> 528 POWdER-man, Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype, 5 May 2007, Web, 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=12>

302

in Spider-Man 3 appears to bring up this emotional baggage, leading to intense anger529 and renewed claims that superheroes must be depicted seriously, especially when they battle their own monstrosity. For these fans (and many others) the portrayal fails in its promise to reveal a superhero who is an unstoppable force of true vice. The indicators of Peters badnessan emo hairstyle, ordering a girl to make cookies, and dancing on the street and in a clubare simply too campy and silly. Ultimately, the failure of the depiction of Bad Peter/Spider-Man is due to the fact that the character does not sufficiently engage the anxieties and fantasies that are an essential part of the superhero-gone-bad. In several episodes of Smallville, Bad Clark takes on a persona that is widely considered as cool (the leather-jacket-wearing bad boy) and indulges in his powers in order to assert his dominance, attain money, and seduce women; therefore, he balances the wishfulfilling fantasies of being cool and having unlimited power with the anxieties that come with having an unstoppable, dangerous superpowered monster on the loose. However, Bad Peter/Spider-Man fails in both respects: His emo persona and use of powers to dance are campy, not embodying fantasies for most viewers (he is decidedly not seen as cool). Likewise, he rarely utilizes his abilities to commit sadistic violence or to fulfill selfish ambitions that endanger humanity, making the character minimally anxiety-provoking.530 As the intense reactions show, there is a great degree of interest in the superhero-gone-bad, but Spider-Man 3 simply does not represent the most monstrous form of the superhero effectively.
529

The extreme investment of fans and the angry sense of betrayal is hard to miss online. For example, one fan (on The Internet Movie Database, a website dedicated to movies in general, not just superheroes) writes, I'd spit in [Director Sam] Raimi's face if I saw him, for just how much he *beep* up 'Dark' Peter (sic) (JupiterStorm, Re: Painful Dance, The Internet Movie Database, 10 May 2010, Web, 4 November 2010. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/board/thread/160483517?d=162682367&p=1#162682367>). 530 One of his few truly bad actions is hitting a woman (Mary Jane). However, this too leads to scorn from fans, as it does when Clark hits his mother on Smallville. Summing up his criticism of Bad Spider-Man, one fan writes, Spider-Man = Woman beater / Nuff said (sic) (DACMAN, Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype, 5 May 2007, Web, 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=11>).

303

The Hulk: Bad without Having to Go Bad Before concluding this chapter on the appeal of the superhero-gone-bad and the various versions that succeed, fail, and are colored by gendered aspects of the genre, it is productive to look at the superhero the Hulk. The character is an unusual case because he is so monstrous that he consistently fulfills most of the anxieties and fantasies expected of the totally corrupted superhero, even when the Hulk has not gone bad. He illuminates how deeply monstrosity pervades the genre, as even a regular (i.e., non-bad) superhero can take on many of the extreme, attractive elements of the superhero-gone-bad, the most monstrous incarnation of the superhero possible. The Hulk resembles the superhero-gone-bad, especially the crazy variety, foremost because of the way his lack of rationality and self-control cause him to personify all three forms of monstrosity. Looking at the similar renditions of the Hulk in the early comics, the 1970s TV show, and the two unrelated post-2000 films, one can see the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde formula given to the character by creator Stan Lee: Bruce (or David, depending on the version) Banner is a mild-mannered scientist who is pelted by gamma rays that subsequently cause him to transform into the angry, destructive superpowered Hulk whenever he has a rush of adrenaline (usually when he is angry). The Hulk is most obviously monstrous physically, viewed as horrifying by humans that encounter him due to his large size and green skin. He is also guilty of original sin monstrosity, since his appearance results in him being seen as a threat to humanity (the military is constantly trying to capture or destroy him); in addition, he often actually does endanger humans due to his rage. His morality is frequently monstrous as well, since his unstable mind causes him to give in to his fury and use his super strength to attack those who get in his way.

304

Due to his intense monstrosity, the Hulk embodies pleasures and anxieties that are similar to those elicited by the superhero-gone-bad. First of all, he conveys fantasies of being allpowerful and free from all social and moral restraints, as he unreservedly expresses his anger and smashes everything in his path. Furthermore, like the evil superhero, the Hulk engenders unease since he is an indestructible force who, as shown in the films and comics, cannot even be stopped by the full might of the American military, which supposedly has the worlds most advanced weaponry; as such, the Hulk reveals the impotence of humans.531 Because of the Hulks nightmarish appearance and rage, he is treated much like the superhero-gone-bad by other characters, resulting in the anxious sight of people running and screaming in terror. He is also similar to the bad superhero in that he represents the anxiety of corrupted power: Every time Banner gains access to his super strength he is, in effect, instantly corrupted, transforming into a rampaging monster. Finally, the Hulks frequent violent confusion and status as Banners alternate personality make the character a lot like a superhero-gone-crazy, augmenting the scariness even more. Despite the characters impressive/scary uses of superpowers and overwhelming monstrosity, the Hulk is not a superhero-gone-bad for several reasons. First of all, the Hulks status as a bad superhero is hard to argue because there is (usually) no good version of the Hulk who is rationally moral and distinctly heroic. Thus, he cannot be said to have gone bad when he typically has both good and bad moments, often fluidly moving between the two. One can attempt to define Banner as the good superhero and the Hulk as the superhero-gone-bad, but Bannerin spite of his heroismdoes not have any superpowers until he transforms into the Hulk; Banners status as a superhero (as opposed to just a hero) is tied up in being able to turn

531

Though not necessarily a similarity to the superhero-gone-bad, the Hulk strongly reflects nuclear anxieties, since gamma radiation creates the Hulk, who in turn endangers humans.

305

into the Hulk to complete his valiant missions. In contrast, the Hulk-like character Niki on Heroes, described earlier, has distinct good (superhero) and bad (superhero-gone-bad) personalities by the end of the first season, both of whom have equal access to superpowers and look identical. Moreover, the wish-fulfilling fantasies represented by the Hulk are less intense, because, unlike the superhero-gone-bad, the character is not ambitious for power, money, or sex and does not have an attractively cool persona. Likewise, anxieties are less severe because the Hulks appearances are temporary; he always turns back into Banner, who is extremely moral and does not have superpowers. In addition, unease is limited by the frequently heroic reasons for the Hulks violence, as he is often protecting others (in most cases Banner) and/or carrying out Banners noble objectives; therefore, he commonly displays a crude sense of morality, 532 similar to that exhibited by monstrous figures like Frankenstein and the giant gorilla in any of the King Kong films. Ultimately, the Hulks lack of qualification as a superhero-gone-bad is cemented by the fact that he can go bad, as illustrated by several film and TV incarnations of the Hulk in which he becomes evil or battles evil doubles of himself.533 For example, in an episode of The Incredible Hulk TV series fittingly titled Dark Side, Banner accidentally unleashes the malicious, primitive side of his brain, resulting subsequently in his transformation into a bad version of the Hulk who is, frighteningly, willing to kill.534 In the 2008 The Incredible Hulk film, the villain the Abomination is an evil double of the Hulk, and there is an evil double on the TV series as

532

For example, in 2008s film The Incredible Hulk, the Hulk actively sets out to stop the out-of-control villain who threatens humanity. 533 Of course, there are also comic books with evil versions of the Hulk and evil doubles, but mainstream renditions of the character are my main concern. 534 Dark Side, The Incredible Hulk: The Complete Fourth Season, writ. Nicholas Corea, CBS, 5 December 1980, DVD, Universal, 2008.

306

well.535 In both cases, the Hulk must heroically stop the villain, who is a de facto evil Hulk, showing what the Hulk might be like if he went bad. Speaking to the ambiguity of a hero who is overwhelmingly monstrous, the Hulk may function as a villain in the forthcoming superhero team-up film The Avengers (to be released in 2012). According to Louis Letterier (director of 2008s The Incredible Hulk), it is unclear if the character is a good guy or bad guy, meaning he could operate as an uncontrollable beast that [the other superheroes] need to team up to stop536 However, Letterier adds that the Hulk should only be a villain in the film if he is mistakenly identified as one (due to his extreme monstrosity) or if his mind is controlled by the actual antagonist, who forces him to act evilly.537 In the latter case, the Hulk would be transformed into a superhero-gone-bad, underlining once again that he is normally not one, despite his substantial monstrosity. Even when he does not qualify as a superhero-gone-bad, the Hulk still reflects the powerful anxieties and fantasies that make the phenomenon such an integral and frequent part of the superhero genre. When effectively depicted, the bad superhero represents the worst case scenario, the most nakedly monstrous portrayal possible in a genre that features superpowered protagonists who deal with their own monstrosity. The character type eruptively reveals the anxieties at the heart of the genre: the corruption of the powerful and the impotence of everyone else. The malevolent superhero can rarely be halted by regular humans, requiring the involvement of other superheroes, the superheros decision to become good again, or some alien/magical intervention. The anxieties elicited by the dark superhero are balanced by the fact
535

The First: Part 1 and Part 2, The Incredible Hulk: The Complete Fourth Season , writ. Andrew Schneider, CBS, 6 March 1981 and 13 March 198, DVD, Universal, 2008. 536 Shawn Adler, Should Hulk Be the Villain in The Avengers? You Decide, Says Hulk Director, MTV Movies Blog, 13 June 2008, Web, 8 June 2010. <http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/06/13/should-hulk-be-the-villain-in-theavengers-you-decide-says-hulk-director> 537 Rick Marshall, EXCLUSIVE: Incredible Hulk Director Says Making Hulk The Avengers Villain Is Too Simplistic, 21 January 2010, Web, 8 November 2010. < http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/01/21/incredible-hulkdirector-addresses-avengers-villain-rumors/>

307

that he indulges his vices and takes advantage of his powers in ways that embody viewer fantasies. The success of the superhero-gone-bad for audiences depends on this intense, exhilarating mixture of the fantasies and anxieties of the superhero genre. The totally corrupted superhero offers a temporary high, allowing fears to be faced (and seemingly overcome), wishes to be fulfilled (by proxy), and the superhero narrative to return to its more moderate form.

308

Conclusion
As this dissertation has elucidated, the superhero genre is built on anxieties regarding the impotence of the average person and the corruption of the powerful, as well as the more readily apparent fantasies of having great power and being protected by savior figures. The superhero combats these anxieties and fulfills these fantasies by seeming (in many ways) incorruptible and by utilizing his impressive superhuman abilities to defend the powerless. However, the foundational anxieties are incompletely suppressed even in the early years of the genre, as numerous comics depict how superpowered protectors can easily become destroyers and reveal the impotence of most people. As the genre transforms over time, these monstrous superheroes increase in frequency, as unease about the dangers of corruption grows more overt within the nation and there is increasing interest in complex and darker heroes. The monstrous superhero becomes the dominant form of protagonist in comics starting in the 1960s and in film and TV after 2000. As established in this dissertation, the recent flood of superhero films and TV shows has overwhelmingly featured protagonists struggling to come of age while dealing with superpowers. These superheroes are monstrous in many ways: They struggle with their morality, have difficulty controlling their bodies, and are often (real or perceived) threats to the populace. Superman, particularly the version of the superhero seen on the TV series Smallville, is an ideal choice to analyze superhero monstrosity because the character taps into the genres history and transformations. The 1933 evil Superman presages the superhero and the monstrous superhero, since his corrupt, unstoppable use of superpowers reflects the anxieties that the superhero typically counters and the monstrous superhero embodies. The subsequent 1938 good Superman sets up the parameters of the superhero genre, presenting a superpowered protector who defends the people and the values of the United States. This Superman and the many 309

renditions of the character that follow in comics, film, and TV frequently demonstrate the spectre of monstrosity that haunts the genre, as numerous stories depict the superhero being corrupted and becoming a danger to the world; these stories represent a return to the kind of monstrous use of superpowers seen in the 1933 Superman. For example, in Superman III, Superman goes bad and wreaks havoc on a comparatively impotent populace using his superhuman abilities (see Chapter 4). Since he is the most unchanging superhero, incarnations of Superman often indicate large-scale trends and changes in the genre. Accordingly, the version of the superhero on Smallville is part of the shift to monstrous superheroes in film and TV after 2000 (previously, superheroes are only occasionally monstrous), as the young, pre-Superman Clark Kent struggles with his body and morality and vacillates between being a hero and a destroyer who threatens humanity. Since the program is the longest-running live-action rendering of any superhero (ten seasons and over 200 episodes), it covers most of the variations of the monstrous superhero that can be seen in the various superhero films and TV shows of this period. As studied in Chapter 2, Smallville, like much of the other post-2000 superhero media, depicts a protagonist who is going through a superpowered form of puberty: His body is constantly dangerous in that it may flow out of control (physical monstrosity), out him as a freak (physical monstrosity), allow him to indulge selfish whims that harm those around him (moral monstrosity), and/or mark him as a threat to humanity (original sin monstrosity). In addition, the program follows the genre-wide trend to connect the monstrous superhero and the supervillain, illuminating how heroism and evil are not so easily separated and often have a shared origin. Smallville illustrates this connection with more complexity and screen time than any other live action rendition, portraying a sexually charged relationship between Clark Kent and his future worst enemy Lex Luthor; Lex endangers Clarks development

310

into a superhero (and possibly a heterosexual) through his obsession and Clark helps turn Lex into a villain (see Chapter 3). Moreover, Smallville presents numerous versions of the superherogone-bad, a superpowered character who turns away from heroism and (often violently) prioritizes his own desires. Representing the pinnacle of monstrosity, the bad superhero brings the anxieties and fantasies of the genre to a fever pitch: The character type unveils the peril of powerful individuals being corrupted and the impotence of most humans while offering the pleasure of identifying with a hero who is indulging in superpowers without moral restrictions. Like most other totally corrupted superheroes in this era, the versions of Bad Clark take on a cool persona, several of them borrowing the bad boy look and personality popularized by depictions of juvenile delinquents in 1950s films: Bad Clark frequently wears leather jackets, rides motorcycles, and has a no-nonsense, tough-guy attitude (see Chapter 5). As analyzed in Chapter 6, Smallville also provides a crazy rendition of the superhero-gone-bad that amps up the anxiety and reduces the fantasy, as the superheros skewed relationship to reality causes him to endanger everyone around him. The incarnations of Bad Clark on Smallville usually effectively balance anxieties and fantasies and offer a strong point of comparison for other bad superheroes in films like X2, X-Men: The Last Stand, and Spider-Man 3; as explored in Chapter 7, the first film shows a successfully frightening/impressive corrupted superhero, the second suggests how gender functions in the genre by making the powerful female superhero crazy and irredeemably corrupt, and the third fails to make the bad superhero either sufficiently scary or self-indulgent in his usage of superpowers. Smallville embraces the monstrosity of the superheroa savior and a destroyerfrom the first episode, as Clarks arrival bring a meteor shower that devastates the programs small town; it is quite different from the superheros relatively peaceful landing on Earth in 1978s

311

Superman: The Movie. Clarks corruptive influence can be traced in contrasting the utopian rendering of Smallville at the start of the premiere with the increasingly weird town that can be seen after his arrival. The episode opens with a shot of meteors and a lone spaceship approaching Earth from deep in space, ominously portending Clarks introduction. We then cut to a shot of the town of Smallville that reveals endless cornfields and a billboard that reads, Welcome to Smallville, Kansas / Pop. 25,001 / Creamed Corn Capital of the World! The focus on corn production attests to the agricultural nature of the town; the people are (literally) close to their roots and free of pretension in this nostalgic, idealized portrayal of the American small town. Inside one of Smallvilles stores, we are shown Jonathan and Martha Kent, who lovingly pick out flowers together and lament their inability to have a child, the one thing missing from what otherwise seems to be the perfect American nuclear family. As they head home, the streets are flooded by people (practically the entire town) who have just returned from a football game, celebrating the latest victory of their hometown team. The focus on high school football implies how close-knit the community is and how romantically simple it is (they have few other diversions). When Clarks alien body and spaceship invade, the idyllic normalcy of the town is interrupted: The accompanying meteors injure and kill citizens and set fire to buildings and crops. Even the town billboard is destroyed. Though largely coincidentalthe first episode of Smallville was filmed months before its October 2001 premierethe fiery attacks from the sky, the exploding buildings, and the running men and women cannot help but recall media images of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Notably, meteors kill the parents of his future love interest, Lana Lang, and cause his future enemy Lex Luthor to go bald, affecting the course of his entire life; therefore, Clarks destructive arrival is responsible for the

312

key traumas in several characters lives. Even the Kents suffer, as an errant meteor causes them to have a car accident. During the devastation, the Kents find Clark, deciding to adopt him and raise him according to their American heartland values; this instruction can be read as a way to restrain the destructive potential of Clark, which is exemplified by his violent, uncontrolled invasion of Smallville. When the first episode jumps ahead twelve years to reveal a teenage Clark Kent, the tranquil town seems to have been restored; however, there are prevalent signs that something strange and monstrous dwells below the surface. For instance, the new town billboard announces Smallville as The Meteor Capital of the World! Underscoring Clarks effect on the town, it is now famed for something alien (meteors), rather than something natural (corn). Furthermore, in the premiere episode, Clarks friend Chloe shows him what she calls The Wall of Weird: a wall filled with different newspaper clippings about the aftereffects of the meteor shower, including images of strange occurrences and mutated and injured people. After staring at these images and noticing one of a young Lana crying in reaction to her parents death, Clark whispers, My fault. Its all my fault. It is the moment when Clark realizes his monstrous influence over the once utopian town, the arrival of his alien body resulting in countless traumas. It is his guilt that drives him to police the town and try to return it to normalcy in subsequent episodes, as he fights people who have become physically and morally monstrous in the wake of meteor exposure. The meteors are an example of Clarks original sin monstrosity, since something from his origin has a destructive influence on humanity, first killing individuals and then corrupting their bodies and minds dangerously. Looking through the main plotlines of the ten seasons of Smallville, we can see how Clarks overwhelming monstrosity and status as a possible harbinger of destruction are key

313

components of each season. Throughout the series, he frequently acts immorally (especially when he goes bad), loses control of his abilities, and/or is responsible for threats to Earth (many of them from his home planet, Krypton), underlining the constant sense that he may have a role in destroying the very planet that he is trying to protect. Season 1 is centered largely on Clarks destructive body and his guilt over the numerous immoral mutants produced by the meteor shower. Season 2 deals with similar issues but pays much more attention to Clarks potential to rule the world with his powers. Season 3 begins with a prolonged instance of Clark as a superhero-gone-bad who frighteningly wreaks havoc in the big city, leading to negative repercussions for his family, friends, and himself throughout the season. Season 3 also presents the perils of Clarks Kryptonian origin (original sin monstrosity), as his birth father nearly kills Clarks adoptive father and forces Clark to be reprogrammed, losing the humanity that makes him a hero. Season 4 focuses on Kryptonian stones that could be dangerous in the hands of humans; ambition for them leads to death and violence and culminates in another traumatic meteor shower (caused by Clarks failure to act quickly enough) that decimates the town of Smallville once again.538 Clark qualifies for original sin monstrosity, since things from his origin (stones, meteors) lead to human suffering. In the final six seasons, Clark is responsible for various villains and superhero doubles who threaten Earth and/or reflect Clarks potential for evil. Season 5 brings a cavalcade of monstrous doublesZod (in Lex Luthors body), Nam-Ek, Aethyr, and, most prominently, Brainiacwho possess the same powers as Clark and stand in for the superhero-gone-bad, suggesting how frightening it would be if Clark ever decided to rule the world; these dangerous doubles signify Clarks original sin monstrosity, because they are from Krypton, his place of

538

Commencement, Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The WB, 18 May 2005, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2005.

314

origin. Adding to Clarks culpability, he has a role in unleashing most of them. Season 6 starts with Clarks defeat of Zod and then features a series of phantoms from the Phantom Zone (a Kryptonian prison) who endanger Earth and kill numerous humans. Since the Phantom Zone is linked to Clarks home planet, each of these violent phantoms is an example of Clarks original sin monstrosity. Furthermore, Clark is directly responsible for releasing them from the Phantom Zone, adding more guilt and recapitulating his role as a hero who simultaneously causes destruction.539 Though most of the phantoms are not definitively doubles (they are released from a Kryptonian prison, but they may not be Kryptonians and often have very different powers), the final one transforms into an identical double of Clark,540 standing in for the superhero-gone-bad (he represents Clarks evil potential) and acting as a key villain at the end of Season 6 and in Season 7. The latter season also features numerous other evil doubles (all cases of original sin monstrosity due to their links to Krypton): Brainiac; Zor-El, Clarks evil Kryptonian uncle; and Lana, who gains Clarks powers through exposure to kryptonite and uses them for revenge.541 Much of Season 7 concentrates on Clarks potential to become a destroyer, especially if Lex Luthor (a character whose villainy is in part triggered by Clark542) succeeds in his plan to control Clark. Season 8s main storyline is about Doomsday, a murderous, frighteningly powerful Kryptonian monster who endangers the world and Clarks life; he is another example of Clarks original sin monstrosity since he is from Krypton and qualifies as a double due to some similarity in his powers and his deeply connected origins (he is from the same planet and arrived hidden

539

Zod, Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season, writ. Steven S. DeKnight, The CW, 28 September 2006, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2006. 540 Phantom, Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season, writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, The CW, 17 May 2007, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2007. 541 Wrath, Smallville: The Complete Seventh Season, writ. Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders, The CW, 8 November 2007, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2008. 542 As discussed, it is Lexs obsession with Clark and things from Clarks home planet that cause him to grow increasingly villainous. Likewise, it is implied that Lexs evil could have been avoided if Clark had trusted him.

315

away on Clarks spaceship).543 Season 9 similarly focuses on evil doubles, as the entire season is about a group of Kryptonian clones led by a clone of Zod; after some complications, they attain the same powers as Clark and threaten to rule the entire world. Clark is indirectly responsible for the arrival of the Kryptonians544 and their attainment of powers545 and repeatedly fails to stop them due to his sense of connection to them; thus, he again is the cause of much death and violence and is an original sin monster (since the threat is from his home world), reflecting his role as a destroyer on the program. Finally, Season 10 is centered on a mysterious darkness (Smallvilles version of the comic book villain Darkseid) that infects people and potentially makes Clark the most dangerous individual on Earth, because he would be transformed into an unstoppable force of evil if infected; Clarks actions are responsible for the darkness finding its way to Earth546 and the risk is that Clark will become a superhero-gone-bad.547 In the end, every season is largely about the ways that Clark imperils the world due to his superpowers and Kryptonian origins. He is directly or indirectly responsible for most of the evil on the program, resulting in the characters overwhelming sense of guilt throughout the series. The pre-Superman Clark Kent is a superhero, but he is also clearly a destroyer; in other words, he is the epitome of the post-2000 conflicted, monstrous superhero. Clarks status as savior-destroyer is exemplified in particular by two of the most resonant images from the later seasons (both from Season 9): Clark dressed in a black superhero costume
543

Eternal, Smallville: The Complete Eighth Season, writ. Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders, The CW, 2 April 2009, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2009. 544 Doomsday, Smallville: The Complete Eighth Season, writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson, The CW, 2 April 2009, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2009. 545 Conspiracy, Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season, writ. Al Septien and Turi Meyer, The CW, 26 February 2010, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2010. 546 The release of the darkness is an example of original sin monstrosity because it is th e banishment of the Kryptoniansusing the Kryptonian artifact the Book of Raoin Season 9 that allows the dark force to arrive on Earth. Thus, the threat to Earth is again created by things (the Kryptonians, the Book of Rao) connected to Clarks origin. 547 Supergirl, Smallville: The Complete Tenth Season, writ. Anne Cofell Saunders, The CW, 8 October 2010, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2011.

316

and Clark destroying twin skyscrapers. When Clark gains a costume with an S symbol, it is not the traditional red, yellow, and blue Superman tights and cape (that outfit is reserved for the end of the program). Instead, he wears black jeans, black shoes, a black trench coat, and a black T-shirt with a white S symbol on it.548 His fashionable, moody outfit looks like the clothes worn by Lex and the various versions of Bad Clark on the show; additionally, Neo, the protagonist of The Matrix films, dresses in a very similar outfit. By dressing like characters who are morally ambiguous or evil, Clark highlights that heroism and villainy are increasingly difficult to differentiate. Likewise, Clarks decimation of the fictional Rao Towers in the episode Persuasion reflects the blurring of the line between heroes and villains. The buildings fiery eradication resembles the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City on 9/11, with Clarks role uncomfortably recalling that of the terrorists.549 In a medium close-up, Clark faces the camera in his black costume, hesitates for a moment, and then shoots intense bursts of heat from his eyes. After a shot of reporters running away, a low angle, ground level shot exhibits the towers beginning to collapse explosively. Following a shot of Clark looking ambivalent about his actions, the episode ends with a long shot of Clark standing in the foreground (his back to the camera) as the towers burn in the background, smoke emanating as they crumble. His motivations are not evil: He destroys the buildings because they are key to giving Zod and his followers superpowers, which would risk the safety of the entire world. However, the image of a superheroespecially one as traditionally patriotic and rigid in his heroism as Superman destroying two buildings is disconcerting, particularly due to the 9/11 parallels. The imagery is

548

Savior, Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season, writ. Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders, The CW, 25 September 2009, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2010. 549 Persuasion, Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season, writ. Anne Cofell Saunders, The CW, 19 February 2010, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2010.

317

controversial for numerous online fans, one commenting, I was really confused by it, I mean Metropolis is supposed to be Smallville World's Big City The towers were TWIN TOWERS! Clark burned them and they collapsed! Reporters ran away screaming. I understood why he had to do it, but why did they have to set it up to be 9/11 imagery.550 Several fans express anger that Clark would be put in the role of a terrorist, regardless of his benevolent goals. Furthermore, the program unconvincingly insinuates that the massive buildings are empty and that nobody outside gets injured from their destruction; in light of the size of the buildings, their location in the heart of the city, and the explosive way they collapse, it seems unrealistic that there would not be some casualties. Ultimately, Clarks annihilation of the towers speaks to the changes in the superhero genre, as even Superman551 is morally ambiguous and acts in ways that many viewers find difficult to accept as heroic; his actions embody the contemporary superheros frequent status as a monstrous destroyer. Unlike Smallvilles version of Superman, the rendition of the superhero seen in the most recent Superman film, 2006s Superman Returns, exhibits minimal monstrosity, failing to fulfill viewer expectations of the genre in the post-2000 era. First of all, the protagonist is morally upright and never appears to be on the verge of using his powers ambitiously or truly selfishly (the closest he comes is spying on Lois Lane in her home, but his intentions are not sexual or distinctly perverse). Moreover, Supermans body never flows out of control or is seen as freakish by humans. In addition, there is no sense that the populace views him as a threat (to the contrary, he seems beloved) or that he directly endangers humans with his actions. Finally, there are no monstrous doubles that threaten the world and demonstrate what a bad Superman could

550

Terrific T, Was the 9/11 imagery gimmick necessary? Kryptonsite, 23 February 2010, Web, 24 January 2011. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139747> 551 At this point in the series he is known as the Blur, not wearing the Superman costume or taking on the name Superman yet.

318

do. The only real form of superhero monstrosity in the film comes from Lex Luthors creation of a continent using Kryptonian technology and kryptonite; this continent creates destructive rises in sea levels and nearly kills Superman due to the high concentration of poisonous kryptonite. It is an example of Supermans original sin monstrosity, since items from his origin harm humanity and imperil his ability to protect the world. Still, there is no sense that the superhero has an overwhelming sense of guilt or inner conflict over his monstrosity. Part of the trouble with the film is that it nostalgically harkens back to the 1970s and 1980s Christopher Reeve Superman films, which problematically results in a more simplistic portrayal of the superhero552 and supervillain Lex Luthor; it is far from the nuanced, overlapping characterization of good and evil seen on Smallville. Accordingly, the film was only a moderate critical and financial success and there will be no sequel, as the studio has chosen to reboot the franchise instead. In contrast to Superman Returns, Smallville presents a version of the oldest superhero that effectively integrates and centralizes the elements of monstrosity that are a key part of the film/TV superhero genre after 2000. Like Smallville, superheroes films in this era, such as the Iron Man, Spider-Man, and X-Men series of films, present deeply flawed protagonists who are heroes and destroyers. The characters constantly face their own monstrosity: They exhibit bouts of immorality, have difficulty controlling their powers, and are seen as (or actually become) threats to the humans they claim to be protecting. The 2008 film Hancock offers an extreme example of monstrosity,553 as it portrays an immoral superhero who routinely damages property and sadistically injures and scares people with his superpowers.554 Because of his habitual
552

The one way that Superman seems conflicted is in his romantic feelings for Lois Lane, who has moved on with another man; Superman appears to want to reignite their relationship but is torn about displacing her current boyfriend. 553 Hancock is nearly as monstrous as a superpowered character can be without qualifying as a supervillain or a superhero-gone-bad; since his main goal is still to save people, he cannot be called a villain or be said to have gone bad. 554 Hancock, dir. Peter Berg, 2008, DVD, Sony Pictures, 2008.

319

intoxication (another act of self-indulgence atypical of the superhero) and bad attitude, he is frequently (correctly) viewed as a threat to the populace, making him an original sin monster. Likewise, he perilously loses control of his abilities at times (largely due to his drunkenness and recklessness) and is often a source of horror because of his freakish body, qualifying him for physical monstrosity. The films depiction of Hancocks monstrosity largely functions as a parody of superheroes like Superman (Hancock possesses very similar abilities), since the character displays behavior that is ridiculously over-the-top and comically uncharacteristic of the superhero. Despite its comedic bent, the film is similar to other recent film/TV superheroes in that it is largely about curtailing monstrosity, as the superhero progressively gains a clearer sense of morality and better control over his abilities and embraces his role as protector. However, total elimination of monstrosity is not possible for any superhero, since the risk of corruption never completely subsides. The contemporary (post-2000 in film/TV, post-1960 in comics) superhero, in particular, battles his own monstrosity on a regular basis; he is almost always a savior who overtly possesses characteristics of a destroyer. In the case of Clark Kent on Smallville, the oldest, most unchanging superhero is transformed into this kind of deeply conflicted protagonist. The version of Superman on the program embodies the fantasies of possessing great power and having a selfless protector who defends the weak. However, he is also a profoundly monstrous figure, frequently having bouts of immorality, losing control of his body, and/or becoming a threat to humanity. As such, he constantly reflects the anxieties at the heart of the superhero genre: the corruption of the powerful and the impotence of the populace. In addition to indicating the shifts in the larger genre, the characters monstrosity signals the changes in cultural sensibilities and sense of unease in this era, as even Superman must be habitually corrupted and unsure of himself in order to be

320

relevant. A character so patriotic in certain historical periods that he is still often conflated with the United States and nationalism, Superman can no longer be so easily trusted on Smallville: He is, decidedly, a super savior and destroyer, constantly at risk of harming the same nation that he protects.

321

Bibliography
7ThisIsWudie7. Emo. Urban Dictionary. 8 June 2003. Web. 16 June 2010. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=emo > Adler, Shawn. Should Hulk Be the Villain in The Avengers? You Decide, Says Hulk Director. MTV Movies Blog. 13 June 2008. Web. 8 June 2010. <http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/06/13/should-hulk-be-the-villain-in-the-avengers-youdecide-says-hulk-director> Ambush. Smallville: The Complete Tenth Season. Writ. Don Whitehead and Holly Henderson. The CW. 5 November 2010. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2011 Andrae, Thomas. From Menace to Messiah: The History and Historicity of Superman. American Media and Mass Culture: Left Perspectives. Ed. Donald Lazere. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Aqua. Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The WB. 20 October 2005. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Arctic. Smallville: The Complete Seventh Season. Writ. Don Whitehead and Holly Henderson. The CW. 15 May 2008. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2008. Arrow. Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season. Writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson. The CW. 19 October 2006. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Asylum. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The WB. 14 January 2004. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. AverageJoe. Re: Ep 2.04 Red. Kryptonsite. 6 February 2006. Web. 6 May 2010. < http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834> Banks, Miranda J. A Boy for All Planets: Roswell, Smallville, and the Teen Male Melodrama. Teen TV. Eds. Glyn Davis and Kay Dickinson. London: British Film Institute, 2004. 17-28. Battis, Jes. The Kryptonite closet: Silence and queer secrecy in Smallville. Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media 48. Winter 2006. Web. 25 March 2008. <http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc48.2006/gaySmallville/index.html> (part 1) <http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc48.2006/gaySmallville/gaySmallville2.html> (part 2) Batman. Dir. Tim Burton. 1989. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Batman Begins. Dir. Christopher Nolan. 2005. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. 322

The Beast and the Beauty. Superboy: The Complete First Season. Writ. Bernard M. Khan and Toby Martin. Syndicated. 19 November 19 1988. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Benshoff, Harry M. The Monster and the Homosexual. Horror, the Film Reader. Ed. Mark Jancovich. London: Routledge, 2002. 91-102 Binder, Otto, Wayne Boring, and Stan Kaye. Bizarro meets Frankenstein! Superman #143. February 1961. Rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman. Vol. 2. New York: DC Comics, 2006. 471-479. ---. The Superman Bizarro! Action Comics #264. May 1960. Rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman. Vol. 2. New York: DC Comics, 2006. 196-209. ---. The Super-Menace of Metropolis! Superman #134. January 1960. Rpt. in Showcase Presents: Superman. Vol. 2. New York: DC Comics, 2006. 34-59. ---. The World of Bizarros! Action Comics #263. April 1960. Rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman. Vol. 2. New York: DC Comics, 2006. 155-167. Binder, Otto and Al Plastino. Superman in the White House! Superman #122. July 1958. Rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman. Vol. 1. New York: DC Comics, 2005. 28-35. ---. The Battle with Bizarro. Action Comics #254. July 1959. Rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman. Vol. 1. New York: DC Comics, 2005. 429-441. Binder, Otto, Curt Swan, and George Klein. The Untold Story of Red Kryptonite! Superman # 139. August 1960. Rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman. Vol. 2. New York: DC Comics, 2006. 282-290. Bizarro . . . The Thing of Steel. The Adventures of Superboy. Writ. Mark Jones. Syndicated. 11 November 1989. YouTube. Web. 1 February 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd8XXLZGJGs> (first half), <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNOD3R1cnMc&NR=1> (second half) Bokin6. Brokeback Smallville (Clex). YouTube. 16 January 2008. Web. 22 September 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvwPfoeQRfk> A Bolt from the Blue. Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Kathy McCormick. ABC. 20 November 1994. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. Boucher, Geoff. Undressed for Success?; For a hip, new generation, the familiar costume of red cape and tights no longer makes the Superman. Los Angeles Times. 28 August 2001. Web. 26 January 2011. 1-5. <http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/28/entertainment/ca-39127>

323

Bukatman, Scott. The Boys in the Hoods: A Song of the Urban Superhero. Matters of Gravity: Special Effects and Supermen in the 20th Century. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003. 184-223. ---. X-Bodies: The Torment of the Mutant Superhero. Matters of Gravity: Special Effects and Supermen in the 20th Century. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003. 48-78. The Butterfly Effect. Heroes: Season 3. Writ. Tim Kring. NBC. 22 September 2008. DVD. Universal, 2009. Commencement. Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The WB. 18 May 2005. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. Conspiracy. Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season. Writ. Al Septien and Turi Meyer. The CW. 26 February 2010. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2010. Coogan, Peter. Superhero: the Secret Origin of a Genre. Austin: Monkey Brain Books, 2006. Costello, Matthew J. Secret Identity Crisis: Comics Books and the Unmasking of Cold War America. New York: Continuum, 2009. Cover image. Action Comics # 311. April 1964. DC Database Project. Web. 24 July 2009. <http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Action_Comics_311.jpg> Crimson. Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season. Writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson. The CW. 1 February 2007. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2007. Crusade. Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season. Writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. The WB. 22 September 2004. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. Culumacilinte. HoYay. Urban Dictionary. 10 October 2007. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoyay> Cyb. Re: Unintentionally Funny Show Moments: The Wall Around My Pants. Television Without Pity. 16 August 2005. Web. 23 September 2010. <http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?s=a988c614a13f06af10f9ba61e977a ec9&showtopic=3129610&st=0> DACMAN. Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype. 5 May 2007. Web. 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=11> Daniels, Les. Superman: The Complete History. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1998 The Dark Knight. Dir. Christopher Nolan. 2008. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2008.

324

Dark Side. The Incredible Hulk: The Complete Fourth Season. Writ. Nicholas Corea. CBS. 5 December 1980. DVD. Universal, 2008. Descent. Smallville: The Complete Seventh Season. Writ. Holly Henderson and Don Whitehead. The CW. 17 April 2008. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2008. Detorio. Re: Ep 2.04 Red. Kryptonsite. 18 July 2006. Web. 6 May 2010. < http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=2> Doherty, Thomas. Teenagers and Teenpics: The Juvenilization of American Movies in the 1950s. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002. Doomsday. Smallville: The Complete Eighth Season. Writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson. The CW. 2 April 2009. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2009. Duplicity. Smallville: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The WB. 8 October 2002. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Emerald Dragen. Re: Splinter: Post your reviews. Kryptonsite. 10 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45182&page=2> enamored. Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> Engle, Gary. What Makes Superman So Darned American? Superman at Fifty: The Persistence of a Legend. Eds. Dennis Dooley and Gary Engle. New York: Collier Books, 1988. 79-87 Escape. Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season. Writ. Genevieve Sparling. The CW. 2 April 2010. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2010. Eternal. Smallville: The Complete Eighth Season. Writ. Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders. The CW. 2 April 2009. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2009. Exile. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. The WB. 1 October 2003. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Exodus. Smallville: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. The WB. 20 May 2003. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Extinction. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The WB. 15 October 2003. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Fade. Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season. Writ. Turi Meyer and Al Septien. The WB. 27 April 2006. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. 325

FallenAngel666. Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype. 4 May 2007. Web. 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=8> Fallout. Heroes: Season 1. Writ. Joe Pokaski. NBC. 4 December 2006. DVD. Universal, 2007. Fausta, the Nazi Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman: The Complete First Season. Writ. Bruce Shelley and David Ketchum. ABC. 28 April 1976. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. The Feud Between Superman and Clark Kent. Action Comics # 293. October 1962. Summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America. By Michael L. Fisher. New York: Warner Books, 1978. 374. Finger, Bill and Al Plastino. Superman Returns to Krypton. Superman # 1. NovemberDecember 1949. Rpt. in Superman in the forties. New York: DC Comics, 2005. 56-67. thefilmguy7. Painful Dance. The Internet Movie Database. 6 April 2010. Web. 4 November 2010. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/board/thread/160483517> Finger, Bill, Wayne Boring, and Stan Kaye. Superman vs. the Futuremen, Superman #128. April 1959. Rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman. Vol. 1. New York: DC Comics, 2005. 300-317. ---. The Menace of Cosmic Man! Action Comics #258. November 1959. Rpt. in Superman. Vol. 2. New York: DC Comics, 2006. 7-18. The First: Part 1 and Part 2. The Incredible Hulk: The Complete Fourth Season. Writ. Andrew Schneider. CBS. 6 March 1981 and 13 March 198. DVD. Universal, 2008. theflying_clubcup. homoromantic. Urban Dictionary. 24 January 2009. Web. 3 October 2010. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homoromantic> Forsaken. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson. The WB. 12 May 2004. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Four Months Ago . . . . Heroes: Season 2. Writ. Tim Kring. 12 November 2007. DVD. Universal, 2008. Freak. Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The CW. 15 February 2007. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2007. fresh prince. Re: Ep 2.04 Red. Kryptonsite. 29 June 2006. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=2>

326

Genesis. Heroes: Season 1. Writ. Tim Kring. NBC 25 September 2006. DVD. Universal, 2007. Gleiberman, Owen. Movie Review: Spider-Man 3. Entertainment Weekly. 2 May 2007. Web. 16 June 2010. <http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037366,00.html> gloria. Re: Ep 2.04 Red. Kryptonsite. 6 February 2006. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834 > Gone. Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season. Writ. Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders. The WB. 29 September 2004. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. Gordon, Ian. Nostalgia, Myth, and Ideology: Visions of Superman at the End of the American Century. Comics and Ideology. Eds. Mathew P. McAllister, Edward H Sewell, Jr., and Ian Gordon. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2001. 177-193. haftdet07. Smallville Red Jessie Scene 3. YouTube. 7 February 2008. Web. 3 May 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmtpG9LacnI> Hall, Stuart. Encoding/Decoding. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Eds. Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 163-173. Hancock. Dir. Peter Berg. 2008. DVD. Sony Pictures, 2008. Heat. Smallville: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Mark Verheiden. The WB. 1 October 2002. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Hedegaard, Erik. Tall Tales from Smallville: Its a New Superman for a New Century: Lana Lang is Barely Legal, Lex Luthor Cant Get Laid, and Clark Kent Was Once a Beefcake. Rolling Stone. 28 March 2002: 42-44, 48, 80. Web. 1 June 2010. <http://iipa.chadwyck.com/journals/displayItemFromId.do?QueryType=journals&BackT o=article&BackToParam=QueryName=articles|Multi=yes|ResultsID=1184DC18948|Item Number=2&ItemID=JID0035791X> Hereafter. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Mark Verheiden and Drew J. Greenberg. The WB. 4 February 2004. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Hothead. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Greg Walker. The WB. 30 October 2001. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. HotRodTE. Online poll results. Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252> Hourglass. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Doris Egan. The WB. 20 November 2001. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. 327

How to Stop an Exploding Man. Heroes: Season 1. Writ. Tim Kring. NBC. 21 May 2007. DVD. Universal, 2007. Hug. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Doris Egan. The WB. 5 February 2002. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. Hughes, David. Comic Book Movies. London: Virgin Books, 2003. Hulk. Dir. Ang Lee. 2003. DVD. Universal, 2007 The Incredible Hulk. Dir. Louis Leterrier. 2008. DVD. Universal, 2008. The Incredible Hulk: The Complete First Season. Exec. Prod. Kenneth Johnson. CBS, 1978. DVD. Universal Studios, 2006. Individual Responsibility. Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Grant Rosenberg and Chris Ruppenthal. ABC. 16 April 16, 1995. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. The Internet Movie Database. IMDb.com, Inc., 1990-2010. Web. 8 February 2010. <http://www.imdb.com/> An Invisible Thread. Heroes: Season 3. Writ. Tim Kring. NBC. 27 April 2009. DVD. Universal, 2009. Iron Man. Dir. Jon Favreau. 2008. DVD. Paramount, 2008. Iron Man 2. Dir. Jon Favreau. 20010. DVD. Paramount, 2010. Jenkins, Henry III. Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching. Television: The Critical View. Ed. Horace Newcomb. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 470-494. Jephael. Did Clark pushing his mom like that seem over the top to anyone? Kryptonsite. 10 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45279> Jitters. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Cherie Bennett and Jeff Gottesfeld. The WB. 11 December 2001. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. Jones, Henry Jr. and Titti. A Kiss Can Be A Question. Smallville Fan Fiction, by Henry Jones, Jr. n.d. Web. 23 September 2010. <http://www.sabershadowkat.com/smallville/kisscanbeaquestion.html> JT. Emo. Urban Dictionary. 23 March 2005. Web. 16 June 2010. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=emo> 328

JupiterStorm. Re: Painful Dance. The Internet Movie Database. 10 May 2010. Web. 4 November 2010. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/board/thread/160483517?d=162682367&p=1#16 2682367> kalel587. smallville red Clark kisses Lana. YouTube. 9 February 2008. Web. 4 May 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wlSztfaYKs&feature=related kal-el Girl. Re: Ep 2.04 Red. Kryptonsite. 19 July 2006. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=3> katt12. Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> Kearney, Mary Celeste. The Changing Face of Teen Television, or Why We all Love Buffy. Undead TV: Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Eds. Elana Levine and Lisa Parks. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. 17-41. King Superman versus Clark Kent, Metallo. Action Comics #312. May 1964. Summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America. By Michael L. Fisher. New York: Warner Books, 1978. 374. Kois, Dan. Spider-Man Gets All Emo: Does the sunny superhero really need a dark side? Slate. 2 May 2007. Web. 1 November 2010. <http://www.slate.com/id/2165545/>) Lana Lang #1. Re: Did Clark pushing his mom like that seem over the top to anyone? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45279> Layman, C. Stephen. Why Be a Superhero? Why Be Moral? Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way. Eds. Tom Morris and Matt Morris. Chicago: Open Court, 2005. 194-206. Lee, Stan and Dick Ayers. Enter: the Hulk. Tales to Astonish #59. September 1964. 1-18. Rpt. in Essential The Incredible Hulk. Vol. 1. New York: Marvel Publishing, Inc., 2006. Lee, Stan and Jack Kirby. The Fantastic Four! Fantastic Four #1. November 1961. 12-13. Rpt. in Essential Fantastic Four. Vol. 1. New York: Marvel Publishing, Inc., 2005. Leech. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Tim Schlattmann. The WB. 12 February 2002. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Legacy. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Jeph Loeb. The WB. 14 April 2004. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. 329

LexLuv180. Re: Ep 2.04 Red. Kryptonsite. 21 March 2006. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=2> LexLuv180. Re: Ep 3.2 Phoenix. Kryptonsite. 20 March 2006. Web. 18 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50830> LuthorRequiem2. Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252> ma200. Re: Splinter: Post your reviews. Kryptonsite. 10 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45182> The Machines of Crime! Action Comics #167. April 1952. Summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America. By Michael L. Fisher. New York: Warner Books, 1978. 435. The Man of Steel Bars. Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete First Season. Writ. Paris Qualles. ABC. 21 November 1993. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. marketmichael11. Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype. 4 May 2007. Web. 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=10> Marshall, Rick. EXCLUSIVE: Incredible Hulk Director Says Making Hulk The Avengers Villain Is Too Simplistic. 21 January 2010. Web. 8 November 2010. <http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/01/21/incredible-hulk-director-addresses-avengersvillain-rumors/> The Matrix. Dir. Larry and Andy Wachowski. DVD. 1999. Warner Home Video, 2007. Mehok, Edward. St. Clark of Krypton. Superman at Fifty: The Persistence of a Legend. Eds. Dennis Dooley and Gary Engle. New York: Collier Books, 1988. 123-129. Metallo. Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season. Writ. Don Whitehead and Holly Henderson. The CW. 2 October 2009. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2010. Metamorphosis. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. The WB. 23 October 2001. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. Meyer, Michaela D. E. Examining the representation of relationships on young adult television: A case study of "Smallville" from the integrated rhetorical methodology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio University, 2004.

330

Miller, Frank, with Klaus Janson and Lynn Varley. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. New York: DC Comics, 1986. Miller, Frank and Lynn Varley. Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again. New York: DC Comics, 2002. Miss Sullivan, You were never my son. Kryptonsite. 12 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45442> The Monster from Krypton! Action Comics #303. August 1963. Summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America. By Michael L. Fisher. New York: Warner Books, 1978. 373. Moore, Alan and Dave Gibbons. Watchmen. New York: DC Comics, 1987. My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Dir. Ivan Reitman. 2006. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2006. Nimkong. Re: Ep 2.04 Red. Kryptonsite. 25 February 2010. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834&page=5 Nosferatu. Dir. F.W. Murnau. 1929. DVD. Kino Video, 2007. No tights, no flights. Smallville Wiki. Web. 17 December 2010. <http://smallville.wikia.com/wiki/No_tights,_no_flights> Odyssey. Smallville: The Complete Eighth Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The CW. 18 September 2008. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2009. Onyx. Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season. Writ. Steven S. DeKnight. The WB. 13 April 2005. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. Oropeza, B.J, ed. The Gospel According to Superheroes: Religion and Popular Culture. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2005. OutlawAngel. Re: Ep 2.04 Red. Kryptonsite. 6 February 2006. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834 > Out of Time. Heroes: Season 2. Writ. Aron Eli Coleite. NBC. 5 November 2007. DVD. Universal, 2008. Paradise Lost: Part 1. Justice League: Season One. Writ. Joseph Kuhr. The Cartoon Network. 21 January 2002. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Perry. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Mark Verheiden. The WB. 29 October 2003. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004.

331

Persuasion. Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season. Writ. Anne Cofell Saunders. The CW. 19 February 2010. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2010. Phantom. Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The CW. 17 May 2007. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2007. Phoenix. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. The WB. 8 October 2003. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Pilot. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. The WB. 16 October 2001. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. POWdER-man. Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype. 5 May 2007. Web, 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=12> Ray, Fred. Cover Image. Superman #14. January-February 1942. Rpt. in Superman Archives. Vol. 4. New York: DC Comics, 1994. 67. ---. Cover Image, Superman #18. September-October 1942. Rpt. in Superman Archives. Vol. 5. New York: DC Comics, 2000. 61. Reckoning. Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season. Writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson. The WB. 26 January 2006. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Red. Smallville: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Jeph Loeb. The WB. 15 October 2002. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. redfirebird2008. Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype. 4 May 2007. Web. 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=3> red-K glory. Re: Ep 3.1 Exile. Kryptonsite. 5 February 2006. Web. 18 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50828> The Red Kryptonite Menace. Action Comics #283. December 1961. Summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America. By Michael L. Fisher. New York: Warner Books, 1978. 373. Requiem. Smallville: The Complete Eighth Season. Writ. Holly Henderson and Don Whitehead. The CW. 5 February 2009. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2009. Requiem for a Superhero. Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete First Season. Writ. Robert Killebrew. ABC. 17 October 1993. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005.

332

Revenge of the Alien (Part 2). Superboy: The Complete First Season. Writ. Mike Carlin and Andrew Helfer. Syndicated. 11 February 1988. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Roads Not Taken (Parts 1 and 2), The Adventures of Superboy, writ. Stan Berkowitz. Syndicated. 3 November 1989 and 10 November 1989. YouTube. Web. 1 February 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tvri8cafuI> (partial episode) <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9O76d2U6ig> (partial episode) Rogue. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Mark Verheiden. The WB. 15 January 2002. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. Rosetta. Smallville: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. The WB. 25 February 2003. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Rossen, Jake. Superman vs. Hollywood: How Fiendish Producers, Devious Directors, and Warring Writers Grounded an American Icon. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2008. The Runaway Robot. Adventures of Superman: The Complete First Season. Writ. Dick Hamilton. Syndicated. 9 January 1953. DVD. Warner Home Video. 2005. Rush. Smallville: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The WB. 4 February 2003. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. samsnee. Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype. 4 May 2007. Web. 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=2> Saturday Night Fever. Dir. John Badham. 1977. DVD. Paramount, 2007. Savior. Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season. Writ. Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders. The CW. 25 September 2009. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2010. Shary, Timothy. Bad Boys and Hollywood Hype: Gendered Conflict in Juvenile Delinquency Films. Where the Boys Are: Cinemas of Masculinity and Youth. Eds. Murray Pomerance and Frances Gateward. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2005) 21-40. Shattered. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Kenneth Biller. The WB. 19 November 2003. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Siegel, Jerry and Leo Nowak. The Archer, Superman #13. November-December 1941. Rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 4. New York: DC Comics, 1994. 28-40. ---. Concerts of Doom (originally untitled), Superman #14. January-February 1942. Rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 4. New York: DC Comics, 1994. 80.

333

Siegel, Jerry and Kurt Schaffenberger. The Battle Between Super-Lois and Super-Lana. Supermans Girlfriend, Lois Lane # 21. November 1960. Summarized in DC Database Project. 23 July 2009. <http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superman%27s_Girlfriend,_Lois_Lane_Vol_1_21> Siegel, Jerry and Joe Shuster. Reign of the Superman. Science Fiction: The Vanguard of Future Civilization 1.3 (January 1933): 4-14. Internet Archive. Web. 25 January 2010. <http://www.archive.org/details/ReignOfTheSuperman> ---. Untitled story. Action Comics #1. June 1938. Rpt. in Superman in the forties. New York: DC Comics, 2005. 10-22. ---. Untitled story. Action Comics #2. July 1938. Rpt. in Superman in the forties. New York: DC Comics, 2005. 23-35. Siegel, Jerry and John Sikela. The Worlds Meanest Man. Superman #16. May-June 1942. Rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 4. New York: DC Comics, 1994. 172-184. ---. The Conquest of a City. Superman #18. September-October 1942. Rpt. in Superman Archives, Vol. 5. New York: DC Comics, 2000. 62-74. Siegel Jerry, Curt Swan, and John Forte. The Super-Brat from Krypton! Superman #137. May 1960. Rpt. in Showcase Presents Superman. Vol. 2. New York: DC Comics, 2006. 169-194. Siren. Smallville: The Complete Seventh Season. Writ. Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson, the CW, 7 February 2008, DVD, Warner Home Video, 2008. Skelton, Stephen. The Gospel According to the Worlds Greatest Superhero. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2006. The Skyscraper Superman! Action Comics #325. June 1965. Summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America. By Michael L. Fisher. New York: Warner Books, 1978. 373. SmvilleTeacher. Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005 Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252> Sneeze. Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The CW. 5 October 2006. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2007. Spider-Man. Dir. Sam Raimi. 2002. DVD. Sony Pictures, 2002. Spider-Man 2. Dir. Sam Raimi. 2004. DVD. Sony Pictures, 2004. Spider-Man 3. Dir. Sam Raimi. 2007. DVD. Sony Pictures, 2004.

334

Spider-Man 3. Poster. fantom comics. 2007. Web. 10 June 2010. <http://www.fantomcomics.com/spider3.jpg> Spider-Man 3. Poster. firstshowing.net. 2007. Web. 10 June 2010. <http://www.firstshowing.net/img/sm3-int-poster.jpg> Spider-Man 3. Poster. Premiere.com. 2007. Web. 10 June 2010. < http://forums.premiere.com/showthread.php?t=214116 > Spider-Man Movies at the Box Office. Box Office Mojo. Web. 16 June 2010. <http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=spiderman.htm> Splinter. Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season. Writ. Steven S. DeKnight. The WB. 10 November 2005. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith. Dir. George Lucas. 2005. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2005. Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back. Dir. Irvin Kershner. 1982. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2006. stoutheartedmin. Re: Homoeroticism, Yay! Television Without Pity. 15 January 2004. Web. 23 September 2010. < http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=518801&st=150> Superboys Deadly Touch. The Adventures of Superboy. Writ. Mark Jones. Syndicated. 9 December 1989. YouTube. Web. 1 February 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-dBt0aH5TY> (partial episode). Supergirl. Smallville: The Complete Tenth Season. Writ. Anne Cofell Saunders. The CW. 8 October 2010. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2011. Superman II. Dir. Richard Lester. 1980. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Superman III. Dir. Richard Lester. 1983. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. Dir. Sidney J. Furie. 1987. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. superman 115. Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> Superman in Exile. Adventures of Superman: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Jackson Gillis. Syndicated. 31 October 1953. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006.

335

Superman, King of Earth! Action Comics #311. April 1964. Summarized in The Great Superman Book: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Folk Hero of America. By Michael L. Fisher. New York: Warner Books, 1978. 374. Superman: The Movie. Dir. Richard Donner. 1978. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2001. Swan, Curt and Stan Kaye. Cover Image. Supermans Girlfriend, Lois Lane # 21. November 1960. DC Database Project. Web. 23 July 2009. <http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superman%27s_Girlfriend,_Lois_Lane_Vol_1_21>. sylabdul. Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype. 4 May 2007. Web. 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=5> Tempest. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. The WB. 21 May 2002. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Dir. James Cameron. 1991. DVD. Live/Artisan, 2000. Terrific T. Was the 9/11 imagery gimmick necessary? Kryptonsite. 23 February 2010. Web. 24 January 2011. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139747> thmallville. Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252> Transference. Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The WB. 27 October 2004. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. UDStyle, Clark looking strung out, LOL! Kryptonsite. 18 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. < http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45813> Unsafe. Smallville: The Complete Fourth Season. Writ. Steven S. DeKnight and Jeph Loeb. The WB. 26 January 2005. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. UpandAtom. Re: Did Clark pushing his mom like that seem over the top to anyone? Kryptonsite. 31 March 2006. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45279&page=2> UpandAtom. Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 30 March 2006. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> Upgrade. Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season. Writ. Drew Landis and Julia Swift. The CW. 16 April 2010. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2010.

336

Vatman. Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman: The Complete First Season. Writ. H.B. Cobb and Deborah Joy Levine. ABC. 13 March 1994. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005. Velocity. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer. The WB. 11 February 2004. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Vessel. Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season. Writ. Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders. The WB. 11 May 2006. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006. Vertigo. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. 1958. DVD. Universal, 1998. Visitor. Smallville: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Philip Levens. The WB. 15 April 2003. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. VoiceofReason. Re: The I hated Spider-Man 3 Thread! SuperHeroHype. 4 May 2007. Web. 4 November 2010. <http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=271897&page=2 > Vortex. Smallville: The Complete Second Season. Writ. Philip Levens. The WB. 24 September 2002. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. Vyperman7. Re: Ep 2.04 Red. Kryptonsite. 8 February 2006. Web. 6 May 2010. < http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50834> Watching Smallville. Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005. Web. 25 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> wckedmnkey. Superman Vs. Clark Kent. YouTube. 24 June 2006. Web. 5 November 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY3dxb5OpIw>. Whisper. Smallville: The Complete Third Season. Writ. Ken Horton. The WB. 21 January 2004. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004. wickedgirl23. Re: Which is more entertaining Sliver [sic] Clark or Red Clark? Kryptonsite. 11 November 2005. Web. 27 May 2010. <http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45252&page=2> The Wild One. Dir. Laslo Benedek. 1954. DVD. Sony Pictures, 1998. Williams, Linda. Playing the Race Card: Melodramas of Black and White from Uncle Tom to O.J. Simpson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Woolfolk, William and Wayne Boring. Lois Lane Loves Clark Kent! Superman # 58. MayJune 1949. Rpt. in Superman in the forties. New York: DC Comics, 2005. 36-43. 337

Wrath. Smallville: The Complete Seventh Season. Writ. Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders. The CW. 8 November 2007. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2008. Wright, Bradford W. Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Wyatt, Justin. High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994. X2. Dir. Bryan Singer. 2003. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2005 X-Men. Dir. Bryan Singer. 2000. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2005. X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Dir. Gavin Hood. 2009. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2009. X-Men: The Last Stand. Dir. Brett Ratner. 2006. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2006. X-Ray. Smallville: The Complete First Season. Writ. Mark Verheiden. The WB. 6 November 2001. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003. Zod. Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season. Writ. Steven S. DeKnight. The CW. 28 September 2006. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006.

338