Given that people often embrace their culture and ancestry more when they get older, I can also buy him seeing himself as Kal-El.
Which is the main identity?
- Thread starter Vanyel
- Start date
As others have said, it depends on the individual writer and story.
But for me both Superman and "Clark Kent, Reporter" (the classic, bumbling one that is) are costumes he wears. They are both facets of his true identity, the one who grew up on a small farm in Kansas, raised by his loving adopted parents to be a good and noble person.
Also, as the years have gone on the divide between the Superhero and the Reporter has shrunk. There have been many versions now where the only difference between them is appearance. The idea that Clark could disguise himself effectively with a pair of glasses has become so silly that they just embrace it as a fait accompli instead of trying to justify it.
But for me both Superman and "Clark Kent, Reporter" (the classic, bumbling one that is) are costumes he wears. They are both facets of his true identity, the one who grew up on a small farm in Kansas, raised by his loving adopted parents to be a good and noble person.
Also, as the years have gone on the divide between the Superhero and the Reporter has shrunk. There have been many versions now where the only difference between them is appearance. The idea that Clark could disguise himself effectively with a pair of glasses has become so silly that they just embrace it as a fait accompli instead of trying to justify it.
Well, sure, and the same goes for the radio version. Heck, the first season of the TV series was essentially a continuation of the radio series, and a lot of its episodes were remakes of radio storylines. Radio Clark was generally perceived by Lois and the others as a weak, timid person, but that was more an informed attribute than a justified one, since he was routinely portrayed as a fearless, crusading reporter and constantly flung himself into danger in his Clark persona. Lois's persistent failure to notice his bravery was as implausible as her failure to recognize his face.
Still, I think that goes to show that the radio character did instinctively think and act like Superman. Clark was a mere facade that he often allowed to slip when he got distracted -- for instance, on countless occasions he would warn someone of a danger on the other side of a closed door and then have to stumble over an excuse for how he'd known about it, and on countless other occasions he would talk to someone in another city on the phone, then fly there in seconds, and have to fumble for an explanation for how he got there impossibly fast. Using his superpowers was so reflexive for him that he routinely forgot how to pass as human. Not only was Clark a flimsy facade for Superman, but it was one that he was incredibly incompetent at maintaining convincingly, and the only reason he was able to keep his cover is because the characters around him were even dumber about it than he was. Whenever I heard narrator Jackson Beck intone that Clark Kent's identity as Superman was his most carefully guarded secret, I had to laugh. (To be fair, this was a show written for children, so it tended to be unsubtle.)
George Reeves's Clark was much the same way -- he was basically just Superman in a suit. He didn't even change his voice the way Collyer did, and he didn't bother with the milquetoast persona of the comics.
Right. It's like asking whether Batman is really a dark, loner vigilante in a crime-infested dystopia or an optimistic, avuncular authority figure in a colorful, comedic world. He's been both those things and more, and they were all the "true" Batman to their respective generations and audiences.
If you disagree with me, state why. Comments that are just negations with no explanation are useless and stupid.
And yeah, it depends on era. But Bill's analysis from the movie is the only one that makes the character interesting.
I'd hardly say it's the only one. It is interesting, but in a very unflattering way. Many people find Clark more interesting as a relatable person who thinks like a human and adopts Superman as a facade. Elliot S! Maggin's two Superman novels in 1978 and 1980 offered a very interesting portrayal of a version who was Superman first but whose Clark was nowhere near as cynical a construct as Tarantino's script suggested.
I just watched the KB scene on YouTube to see what everyone was talking about. What Bill describes fits perfectly well with the pre-Crisis Silver/Bronze-Age Superman of the comics, as well as the Donner film version. It doesn't describe the post-Crisis comics version of the character, nor other media versions of the character that followed its lead in their portrayal of Clark, such as Lois & Clark. Notice in particular the detail about his costume being made from Kryptonian blankets--A longstanding part of the mythos, but not the case in the post-Crisis comics (unless they brought back that detail in a more recent comics reboot).
I used to be all for the Byrne reboot version of the character, but more recently I've found faults in it. Clark being the "real" personality and that's that now strikes me as a little too pat and simplistic. Byrne was obsessed with the idea that Superman had to be a model of psychological perfection. Superman Returns and Man of Steel both have plenty of faults, but they helped me to waver more towards the idea that whatever his upbringing, and however late in life he learned of his Kryptonian origins, Superman would never be able to see himself as a regular human being...he was always different, and whether or not he knew where he came from, he'd always be an alien among humans. You can't grow up hiding the fact that you've got developing godlike powers and still just be one of the guys...and if you think you are, that's denial and an issue of its own.
I used to be all for the Byrne reboot version of the character, but more recently I've found faults in it. Clark being the "real" personality and that's that now strikes me as a little too pat and simplistic. Byrne was obsessed with the idea that Superman had to be a model of psychological perfection. Superman Returns and Man of Steel both have plenty of faults, but they helped me to waver more towards the idea that whatever his upbringing, and however late in life he learned of his Kryptonian origins, Superman would never be able to see himself as a regular human being...he was always different, and whether or not he knew where he came from, he'd always be an alien among humans. You can't grow up hiding the fact that you've got developing godlike powers and still just be one of the guys...and if you think you are, that's denial and an issue of its own.
To me, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of who Superman is and the events that shaped him.
But that's just it -- there have been multiple versions of who Superman is and what events shaped him. The Kill Bill analysis applies to the pre-Crisis Superman, but that version of Superman had been replaced some 17 years before that movie came out (it was in the second part, right?). So it's not exactly wrong, just behind the times. Kinda like how Batman and Robin in 1997 was more in the vein of the campy '60s series than the more serious '90s comics version of the character. Mass-media adaptations have a way of lagging behind the times, and apparently so do discussions of superheroes in mass-media entertainment.
I have to admit that Superman didn't really click with me until the Byrne reboot. But I don't think the Pre-Crisis version was quite as cynical as Tarantino portrays. Nor do I think "Clark Kent" is a troll on humans.
No, but I don't think the scene is really about Superman so much as it's about what Bill's perception of Superman says about Bill. Although I've only seen the speech out of context, because I don't care for Tarantino's work.
This is an interesting thread to read through because there have been so many interpretations of the character. It is also something that is truly subjective to the readers as well as the writers.
For me, the relationship that Superman has with his three identities has always been a complicated one. In many ways they are all part of him and the characters has always tried to embrace both his Kryptonian and Terran heritage. Even in versions where the writers have tried to make one side of the character more dominant, Clark/Kal has always expressed genuine attachment to his other identities as well. In many ways it is a metaphor for the real world where we all have our public and private personalities.
For me, the relationship that Superman has with his three identities has always been a complicated one. In many ways they are all part of him and the characters has always tried to embrace both his Kryptonian and Terran heritage. Even in versions where the writers have tried to make one side of the character more dominant, Clark/Kal has always expressed genuine attachment to his other identities as well. In many ways it is a metaphor for the real world where we all have our public and private personalities.
Interesting question on a similar topic, when you see the words "Clark Kent" written down, which actor's face do you immediately think? And the same question for "Superman"?
I think for me with Clark Kent it has to be Tom Welling I think of, with 200+ episodes as the guy you can't really blame me, and also because I binge watched seasons 6-10 last year over about two months.
Superman I know I should really say Christopher Reeve, but maybe because of all the DoJ news and because I watched MoS not long ago, Henry Cavill keeps springing to mind.
I think for me with Clark Kent it has to be Tom Welling I think of, with 200+ episodes as the guy you can't really blame me, and also because I binge watched seasons 6-10 last year over about two months.
Superman I know I should really say Christopher Reeve, but maybe because of all the DoJ news and because I watched MoS not long ago, Henry Cavill keeps springing to mind.
^Interestingly enough, Swan's Clark was the first thing to pop into my head.
(If you see the words "Clark Kent" and an actor's face pops into your head, then you haven't read enough comics.)
(If you see the words "Clark Kent" and an actor's face pops into your head, then you haven't read enough comics.)
Clark is Clark. That's who he was raised as and that's who is is at the core. He's also an adoptee who, as an adult, has become familiar with his birth family and their culture and has embraced that as part of himself. Superman is an identity he has adopted because there are things that only he can do, and he wants to keep that separate from his real life. I don't think that's just part of the post-Crisis reboot, either. It's how I always saw the character when I was a kid (in the 60s). If he really saw himself as Superman, he would have no need of a secret identity or a Fortress of Solitude.
I also agree with the poster who noted that Batman is the opposite. Batman is the primary identity, the entire focus of his life being his war on crime. Bruce Wayne is an identity he adopts because he is a rich, influential individual and that's something Batman can use to further his ends. Where Clark had a solid, stable childhood, Batman never recovered from the traumatic experience of seeing his parents killed.
I also agree with the poster who noted that Batman is the opposite. Batman is the primary identity, the entire focus of his life being his war on crime. Bruce Wayne is an identity he adopts because he is a rich, influential individual and that's something Batman can use to further his ends. Where Clark had a solid, stable childhood, Batman never recovered from the traumatic experience of seeing his parents killed.
Best version of Clark Kent by an actor? The very first one -- Bud Collyer, on radio. One of the best Superman portrayers as well. Certainly nobody's ever done a better job of giving the characters distinct voices. The only one who even came close was Beau Weaver in the 1988 Ruby-Spears animated series, but his Clark voice was too obviously a deep-voiced man trying to sound high-pitched. Even aside from the voice change, Collyer was a pretty solid actor who played the emotional beats, such as they were, very well. (He also played the role over the longest span of time -- on radio from 1940-50, then in animation from 1966-69. Second-longest, I believe, is Tim Daly, who first played the role in 1996 and most recently reprised it in 2012, though his longest continuous stretch in the role was much less than Collyer's decade-long stint on radio. Third is George Newbern, 2001-13. Then comes Tom Welling from 2001-11, the longest continuous stint since Collyer's, except Collyer was on nearly 52 weeks a year, not just 22. Christopher Reeve played the role four times over 9 years, 1978-87, and George Reeves more continuously from 1951-58.)
In live action, Christopher Reeve was the best at differentiating Clark from Superman, but the only time his Clark really got to emerge as a character in his own right rather than just a bumbling caricature was in Superman III, which is one of the reasons that film is underrated. George Reeves was fairly good at first, aside from playing both characters exactly the same way, but for most of the series, he just seemed to be phoning it in. Dean Cain made a better Clark than he did a Superman, but I was never really that fond of his acting style in either role (and he barely differentiated them). I don't remember either actor from the '88 Superboy syndicated series well enough to judge. I never liked Tom Welling that much. And though Henry Cavill makes a terrific Superman (or would if the script actually allowed him to act like Superman), he's barely had a chance to portray the "mild-mannered reporter" version of Clark, so it's too early to say.
In live action, Christopher Reeve was the best at differentiating Clark from Superman, but the only time his Clark really got to emerge as a character in his own right rather than just a bumbling caricature was in Superman III, which is one of the reasons that film is underrated. George Reeves was fairly good at first, aside from playing both characters exactly the same way, but for most of the series, he just seemed to be phoning it in. Dean Cain made a better Clark than he did a Superman, but I was never really that fond of his acting style in either role (and he barely differentiated them). I don't remember either actor from the '88 Superboy syndicated series well enough to judge. I never liked Tom Welling that much. And though Henry Cavill makes a terrific Superman (or would if the script actually allowed him to act like Superman), he's barely had a chance to portray the "mild-mannered reporter" version of Clark, so it's too early to say.
If you see the words "Clark Kent" and a comic book artist's face pops into your head, you may have read too many.Curt Swan
You've no idea
Similar threads
