Film Review: James Gunn’s Superman cements Israel’s
villain status in the American imagination
James Gunn’s new Superman movie, which draws an
analogy between Israel and the villainous country of Boravia, demonstrates how
Israel's idealized image in American culture has been shattered by the
widespread acknowledgment of Palestinian oppression.
By Mitchell Plitnick July 18, 2025
https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/film-review-james-gunns-superman-cements-israels-villain-status-in-the-american-imagination/
SUPERMAN
Directed by James Gunn
129 minutes, DC Studios, 2025
Editor’s Note: This article contains very
mild spoilers.
“Truth, justice, and the American way.”
Those words are the long-time tagline of the DC comics
character, Superman. They are not as prominent today as they have been in the
past, but for those us, like me, who were great fans of DC comics in the 1970s
and 1980s, they still defined Superman.
They were also one of several reasons why, although my
youthful passion for comic books leaned much more toward DC than its rival
Marvel in those days, I didn’t care much for Superman. I liked the idealism he
was supposed to represent, but his simplistic presentation and, more than
anything, his deference to authority was a message my young and rebellious self
was profoundly uncomfortable with.
So how is it that in 2025, James Gunn’s new
movie, Superman, has delighted me and many others by striking the
biggest cultural blow to date against the United States’ mindless support of
Israel, even as it commits war crimes and guns down innocent Palestinians on a
daily basis?
The dynamics of this movie are fascinating to watch,
but the responses are much more important.
‘Boravia’ is Israel, and is the bad guy
Since Superman premiered, there has
been a lot of chatter about it. The film broadly tells the story of Superman
intervening against Boravia—which, both in the movie and in the comic book lore
it is drawn from is presented as an Eastern European country—conquering its neighbor
Jarhanpur—clearly depicted as an economically and physically ravaged country
populated by people of color, many of whom are visibly Muslim. The scenario is
inescapably evocative of Palestine.
“Superman has gone woke” is one extremely popular
attack on the film. That one is rooted in Superman’s clear message
supporting the rights of immigrants, but it also goes hand-in-hand with the
complaint that the character has been warped by the “liberal media” to condemn
Israel.
Even leaving aside the notion that Superman, as a
character, ever represented anything other than kindness and caring for all,
even if in a highly pro-American way, the arguments are silly. Anyone who is
familiar with the character would recognize Superman’s simple argument when he
is criticized for stopping the surrogate for Israel in this film, Boravia, from
slaughtering innocent and helpless civilians: “People were going to die!”
Superman’s strength as a character is his idealism,
which often spills over into extreme naivete, and his determination to treat
all life as precious and equal. That’s what the crowd whining that “Superman
has gone woke” just can’t grasp.
Since Israel, Palestine, or any other country—save the
United States, of course—is not mentioned in Superman, the metaphor
of Boravia can be interpreted, or denied, at the viewer’s whim. But to do so,
one has to ignore the unambiguous evidence in the film.
James Gunn, who wrote and directed Superman,
insists that Boravia and its neighboring country Jarhanpur, are not direct references to Israel
and Palestine, but
his explanation is very telling.
“When I wrote this the Middle Eastern conflict wasn’t
happening. So I tried to do little things to move it away from that, but it
doesn’t have anything to do with the Middle East… [the movie depicts an]
invasion by a much more powerful country run by a despot into a country that’s
problematic in terms of its political history, but has totally no defense
against the other country,” which he said “really is fictional.”
Just from the statement that “the Middle Eastern
conflict wasn’t happening,” we can tell that Gunn is not deeply learned in
Israel and Palestine, although what he probably meant was that October 7 had
not yet happened (he started writing the film in late 2022) and neither had the
overt genocide in Gaza. As such, it may be fair to take him at his word that he
was referencing a broader idea.
But it’s an inescapable reality that the powerful
country vs a helpless people describes Israel and the Palestinians, especially
in Gaza.
Sure, in addition to Israel and Palestine there are a
few parallels with Russia and Ukraine. But that allegory doesn’t really fit
since Boravia was said to be a close U.S. ally. Plus Ukraine, while certainly
not the military power Russia is, is clearly far from helpless in the face of
Russian aggression.
The deep relationship between the Boravian dictator
(who speaks with a thick Russian or Eastern European accent and looks like a
caricature mix of Benjamin Netanyahu and David Ben-Gurion) and the American
corporate sector resembles Netanyahu, even while his alienation from the
American political sector might evoke Putin a bit more.
But the Israel-Palestine metaphor is clearly there. It
may have been one among several examples of the political dynamic in Gunn’s
head, but what emerges on film is unmistakably influenced by Israel, even if
not solely so.
Gunn likely did not want to be too on the nose with
his allegory, although he pretty clearly failed at that effort. More
importantly, this movie is the foundation for what he and his backers at Warner
Bros./Discovery hope will be a multi-billion-dollar franchise to rival that of
the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He wants the political debate to enhance the
film and its legacy, not to overwhelm it, so some degree of space to be evasive
about politics is prudent.
More important than the writer’s intentions, though,
is that the political conflict depicted was so quickly seen for what it is.
Profound culture shift
In the past, even the very recent past, it would have
been unfathomable for an American summer blockbuster film to show Israel, even
a metaphorical Israel, as an invading, corrupt country whose neighbors were in
such terror they had to pray for a superhero to save them, or all hope would be
lost.
A writer would have come to the studio with a script
like that, even one where the allusion to Israel was obscured to a much greater
degree, and it would have been tossed out. There might be fear of backlash, or
it simply might be that this concept would be seen as too challenging for
Americans who still hold on to the mythical image of Israel as either the poor
victim of the ravenous Arab and Muslim hordes or the plucky little state that
rose to become a military power and key American ally. But that didn’t happen
here.
The fact that Gunn wrote this movie is notable enough.
But Warner/Discovery spent $225 million to make it and anticipates another $125
million in advertising. That’s a significant investment. Moreover, they have
two more high-budget films in the works, eight more in development, as well as
two more television series in production and five more in pre-production.
If Superman failed at the box office
or caused a backlash that might lead to boycotts of DC media, it would be a
disaster. But there hasn’t been a hint of trepidation or pressure on Gunn to
soften this message. Warner Bros./Discovery CEO David Zaslav is known for his
frugality, his willingness to scrap projects just for tax breaks, and for a
relatively conservative approach. He obviously didn’t see this as much of a
risk.
A movie painting Israel in a villainous light reflects
the change in generations as well. After all, the older audience, the folks
still denying the real nature of Israel, is not the target of this film. Nor am
I, as a man in his late 50s. It’s younger people, and they see Israel
differently.
No going back to an idealized Israel
More than just reflecting that shift, a movie
like Superman entrenches it culturally in a way that all the
political activism, analysis, protests, and even exposure of the truth can’t.
It normalizes the view of Israel as an aggressor state. That’s why it provokes
denial from the likes of far-right Israel backer pundit Ben Shapiro and hysteria from other pro-Israel zealots who
don’t deny the reality of the movie.
Consider the words of the far-right, racist Israeli
rapper known as Hatzel (The
Shadow):
“Instead of presenting a character who defends the
weak and fights for justice, they turned it into a disgusting political
caricature, where Israel (under a different name) is portrayed as a fascist
state, a warmonger, and a close ally of the U.S., which supplies advanced
weaponry to fight ‘poor and miserable farmers (the good Palestinians) with
pitchforks and stones.’ And Superman? He comes to save them from bloodthirsty
Israel. This is literally a film of incitement against us… And I will tell you
here, clearly: The liberal Jews in America are the main contributors to
anti-Semitism in the U.S…There is no greater enemy to an Israeli than the
progressive American Jew.”
The bile and hate of this racist activist are typical
of the responses from the pro-Israel and Israeli far-right. But as much as they
might rant, they can’t avoid the fact that the world now sees what Israel does
every day, and that a more realistic understanding of Israel is becoming not
just a debating point or a political issue but a part of the cultural
zeitgeist.
It’s not just about Israel. Superman goes
to great lengths to present the hero as an independent actor, following only
his own ethical code. The other superheroes in the film are sponsored by a huge
corporation. They eventually come around and help Superman, but it takes a
while.
This might have been what pleased me most. The second
blockbuster movie about Superman, back in 1980, ended with Superman flying
through space carrying an American flag. But the U.S. comes off very badly in
this movie.
Superman is betrayed by the U.S. and handed over to
his nemesis, Lex Luthor, who imprisons him. He is told he has no rights since
he is an alien (i.e., immigrant). The U.S. also continues to back Boravia
throughout the movie, and Superman is criticized for interfering in the
murderous Boravian operation without American authorization. As more of the
nefarious plot is uncovered, the U.S. government stands by doing nothing and
never taking responsibility for its actions. Only the superheroes are working to
save the day.
Superman doesn’t
only challenge the long-held, false image of innocent Israel, it also
challenges Americans’ fecklessness, the ease with which its government is
manipulated, and its blind, greedy, self-serving arrogance. Of course, it
treads lightly on this point; again, there is only so much Gunn wanted to dive
into political issues. It is, after all, a light-hearted fantasy movie that is
expected to launch a series that will bring in a ton of money.
But Superman proves there is no going
back to the idealization of Israel that was kick-started back in 1960 when Paul
Newman romanticized Israel’s creation in the film Exodus, and
boomed after the 1967 war. The delusion about Israel’s colonialist birth and
apartheid life has been shattered by the exposure of its genocidal present. And
a movie like Superman ingrains that shattered image into our
culture. This, like Superman himself, might just provide a bit of hope in these
dark times.
