Quentin Tarantino's Philosophy on what it means to be Superman.

[Xybernauts]

I'm sure many of you remember Kill Bill Vol. 2. Near the end of the movie, through the character of 'Bill', Quentin Tarantino explains his view on what makes Superman stand out from other superheroes. If you don't remember it I found a quote online. It's posted below. You can also watch it using the Youtube links. i recommend the first link.

Bill: Superman stands alone. Superman did not become Superman, Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he is Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red S is the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears, the glasses the business suit, that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak, unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race, sort of like Beatrix Kiddo and Mrs. Tommy Plumpton.

Really cool alternative version of scene (watch!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvANM0E3izw

Original video excerpt of scene as seen in Kill Bill Vol. 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIpzAeH1QvE

I have to admit it's a really interesting idea, but I really don't buy it. Quentin Tarantino's character Bill suggests that Superman is Kal-El's real identity and Clark Kent is the disguise, but I don't think that's true. Kal-El may be Kryptonian, but he was raised as a human being by human beings since he was a baby. When he becomes Clark Kent he does it because he's a humble person who wants to get back to his 'real' human (i.e. Smallville) roots. The humble farmer in him doesn't want to be consumed by the celebrity of Superman. Kent is just as much a part of him as Superman.

In a way Batman is no different. Which part of Bruce Wayne is the real part and which is the mask? Both parts of Wayne are real. They are both an integral part of his personality. Wayne was born Wayne, but grew into Batman. The same holds true for Kal-El. To say one is real and the other is a mask isn't possible because it forces you to ignore a part of who he is. It's like saying the roots of a tree are less real then the branches. They want to keep the two portions of their lives separate because it allows them to extraordinary things while at the same time living semi-normal lives. You hear that a lot, where people in positions of high acclaim actually envy people with more average lives. Mily Cirus as Hannah Montana is one example. While I don't watch the show, I read an article about the movie that said as much. Another example is Agent Danko on the show Heroes. (If you watch the show you'll know what I'm talking about.)

Based on Bill's version, you'd think Kent was a fiction made up by Superman, but in truth Superman spent the better part of his life being Kent. Yes there are parts of him that are exaggerated, like his clumsiness, but that doesn't make Kent any less genuine. Superman is more like that guy in My Own Worst enemy. Kent and Superman are just different facets of the same body.


Also, I really doubt his portrayal of Kent, clumsy or otherwise, is his personal commentary on the nature human beings. If he sees humans as weaker then him, it's only because he cares and doesn't want to hurt us. Regardless of whether he does it consciously or unconsciously; I don't think he does it as an insult to humanity as the monologue seems to suggest. This idea is interesting, but it also makes Superman seem more sinister. I've never seen any portrayal of Superman that would suggest he has that type of mindset in the mainstream comics. In fact, a lot of the time, it seems that Kal-El is strays from traditional Kryptonian thinking. Where a lot of other Kryptonian might see humans as condescendingly weak; Kal-El sees beyond our weaknesses to our strengths.

[NickGuy]

i do think clark kent is the disguise, but i dont think superman is mocking humanity when he dons it. He wants to be part of us....but he isnt. thats why he has to be our protector.

[CYOTI]

Yes obviously anything that Tarantino has a psychopath like bill espouse on is right and incapable of being disputed.

[Will.S]

I agreed with parts of it but Bill was pretty much putting his own villainous spin on it.

[paulski]

i do think clark kent is the disguise, but i dont think superman is mocking humanity when he dons it. He wants to be part of us....but he isnt. thats why he has to be our protector.

Agree completely. Thanks for saving me having to think of something to type. :wink:

[The Batman]

I always thought that Bill's description of Superman told us more about Bill than it did Superman.

[Hamdinger]

When Tarantino can put together a coherent movie that's actually good the whole way through I will possibly give a rat's ass enough to discuss something the coked-up moron and one of his cardboard characters said in one of his many sucktastic movies.

But Xybernauts, you answered your OP well. Superman is who he, the mild-mannered reproter is just a disguise so he can protect the folks in his personal life from being killed by bad guys when he's not around them. Supes is just one man and physically can't be everywhere at once. Plus I'm sure he must want to talk a day off without being attacked or hassled once in a while.

Huh. I answered the thread anyways despite Tarantino still sucking, I must be a man-whore for post counts.

[pitbull in a skirt]

Hearing his name with 'superman' is quite of odd.

[Gilda Dent]

It works as a deconstruction of the pre-Crisis Superman (not saying I necessarily agree, but it works in that it's internally consistent and logically derived from the source material), but that changes if you look post-Crisis.

Post-Crisis, Clark is the primary identity. He grew to maturity without powers, his psychological development that of a normal Kansas farmboy. He was one of us. It was in his late teens/early 20s when his powers developed. As with Spider-Man or most others, the costume was the disguise, a way of protecting his primary identity from being invaded by the other world he spends much of his time in.

[Spiffy]

Bill suggests that Superman is Kal-El's real identity and Clark Kent is the disguise, but I don't think that's true. Kal-El may be Kryptonian, but he was raised as a human being by human beings since he was a baby. When he becomes Clark Kent he does it because he's a humble person who wants to get back to his 'real' human (i.e. Smallville) roots. The humble farmer in him doesn't want to be consumed by the celebrity of Superman. Kent is just as much a part of him as Superman.

In a way Batman is no different. Which part of Bruce Wayne is the real part and which is the mask? Both parts of Wayne are real. They are both an integral part of his personality. Wayne was born Wayne, but grew into Batman. The same holds true for Kal-El.
Supes is indeed Clark Kent more than Superman. That's true. Or rather, he's mostly Clark Kent, with a dose of Kal-El underneath (although only a moderate one), and Superman is the image projected above those two parts. Kal-El being the part which represents the values and philosophies of his birth planet, which he only learned later in life, Clark being his human upbringing, and Superman being just an image, a projection, of the combination of those, along with an idealized figurehead of moral and physical strength.

But Batsy is definitely more Batman than Bruce Wayne. Sure, he was born as Bruce, but Bruce died that night along with his parents. Batman is what replaced Bruce. The costume, in one sense, is just like Superman's--nothing but a symbol. That's kind of the "theme" that Battle for the Cowl is playing on. But Batman is more than a costume--he's also a philosophy, a mindset. And the man who's been wearing that costume for so many years isn't just playing at being the representation of it. He IS it. Bruce Wayne is the mask over a true persona more than anything else. He was born Bruce, Bruce died, emotionally at least, and now when he plays Bruce its a role, not the reality.

[T Hedge Coke]

Sure, he was born as Bruce, but Bruce died that night along with his parents. Batman is what replaced Bruce.

See, I just don't agree with that. And I don't think all of the creators working with the character believe that. Bats' bit towards the end of Morrison's JLA, where he makes a crack about recent dates and Teh Biggest Evilz? That's Bruce Wayne.

Batman is a technique, as is public Bruce.

[Sean Whitmore]

It was definitely an interesting philosophy, but not so much interesting because it was some thought-provoking take on Superman. It was interesting because it:

told us more about Bill than it did Superman.

In other words, The Batman got it in one.


SEAN