Superman: James Gunn's idea of an India-coded country is regressive and riddled with stereotypes; the Man of Steel wouldn't stand for it

Indian Express

17-07-2025

By now, Quentin Tarantino's hot take on Superman has resurfaced online enough times for it to have seeped into the cultural consciousness. Via one of his onscreen mouthpieces, Tarantino theorised that Superman truly was an alien living among us. The blue suit with the large 'S' wasn't a costume for him; it was the attire of his people. The real costume was the suit and tie he wore as Clark Kent. 'Clark Kent is how Superman views us,' Tarantino said. 'And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak… he's unsure of himself… he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race.' The same theory, funnily enough, could be applied to James Gunn. In his new Superman movie, the filmmaker offers a similar outsider's perspective on earthly matters.
Positioned as a quasi-apology for Zack Snyder's Man of Steel — the most expensive emo music video ever filmed — Gunn's Superman harkens back to the goofy cartoons of the 1980s. It's bright, kid-friendly, and energetically performed. It's also surprisingly contemporary. Not only does this Superman live in the DC Universe's equivalent of 2025, he also finds himself at the centre of a divided world. The film's opening titles inform us that 'metahumans' like him first arrived on Earth 3,000 years ago. Three years ago, Kal-El 'came out' as Superman, and three minutes ago, he suffered his first loss on the battlefield.
Also read – F1: Brad Pitt takes a page out of Shah Rukh Khan's Pathaan playbook, and tears it to shreds
Played by David Corenswet, Superman was already attracting heat for his unilateral decision to intervene in a clash between the Eastern European-inspired country of Boravia, and the very India-coded Jahranpur. It is unclear where exactly these fictional nations are located on the planet, although the third act appears to suggest that they are separated only by a fence of some kind. While the Boravians are fair-skinned and blue-eyed, their adversaries look like they're from the Subcontinent. It seems as if Gunn is commenting on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine conflicts; it could only have been more obvious had Vladimir Putin himself sauntered into frame and pointed fingers at Benjamin Netanyahu.
This isn't the first time that Gunn has offered simplistic commentary through his colourful superhero movies. The Suicide Squad was a pretty bold critique of American foreign policy, particularly the Iraq War. Superman alludes to this in its finest scene. The 10-minute scene involves zero action and no visual effects; no monsters are being slayed, no dimensions are being hopped. The scene is as much about the rigours of journalism as it is about a new couple having their first argument. It's framed around a simple conversation between Clark and his girlfriend, the intrepid reporter Lois Lane, played by Rachel Brosnahan. They agree to put their personal equation to the side for a few minutes, during which Lois interviews 'Superman' about his interference in the Boravia-Jahranpur crisis. Superman tells her that the Boravians were about to annihilate the less-resourceful Jahranpurians; he simply couldn't wait for the American government to give him the green light.
Plus, he tells her, he doesn't represent America. 'I represent me!' But Lois grills him about the repercussions of his actions; Boravia is an ally, whereas Jahranpur has a rocky history with America. 'People were going to die,' Clark yells, losing his patience. It is the only time in the movie that he views human beings as inferior to himself. He cannot understand why random protocols should be followed when innocent lives are at stake. Armed to the teeth, the Boravians are the clear aggressors, while the Jahranpurians are shown to be rag-wearing cave-dwellers of some sort. Even by superhero movie standards, which aren't as low as you'd think, this is a rather racist view of the third-world. Gunn's intentions might be pure, but his expression is flawed.
There is also the rather unfortunate parallel that one can draw between Superman and Donald Trump, especially the Nobel-hungry version of POTUS that we've been seeing recently, the same version that intervened to de-escalate tensions between India and Pakistan earlier this year. Gunn couldn't have predicted this, of course. But perhaps this is the universe's way of reminding him that he shares a similar outlook to that of the POTUS about this part of the world. 'They've been fighting for thousands of years,' Trump remarked (incorrectly and ignorantly) on more than one occasion.
Read more – Sinners: Ryan Coogler compares Marvel to vampires as he delivers one of the best movies of the year
Superman is a fun movie, but was it necessary to portray the Jahranpurians as so stereotypically backward? Was it necessary to shoot those scenes with a yellow tint, as if we're in a Tony Scott movie from 2004? The white saviour trope doesn't really apply here, though, seeing as that's Superman's thing. He's still quite young in the movie, around 33. He grew up listening to Dashboard Confessional probably, witnessing the evolution of technology before his eyes. He probably witnessed Lux Luthor's rise from an ambitious start-up bro to a full-blown technocrat villain. Superman has always been an empath, but perhaps being a millennial made him a bigger one.
And he's right; he doesn't represent America. He doesn't discriminate. Superman's greatest challenge — Gunn isn't interested in exploring this, by the way — isn't who to save, but who not to. Even he can't be everywhere at once. But every nation, not just America, can learn something from him. After all, we used to be a country that welcomed the Dalai Lama in the 1950s and granted him refuge; now, we're a country that lets a fleeing mass murderer onto our land when her countryfolk kick her out.
Post Credits Scene is a column in which we dissect new releases every week, with particular focus on context, craft, and characters. Because there's always something to fixate about once the dust has settled.
Rohan Naahar is an assistant editor at Indian Express online. He covers pop-culture across formats and mediums. He is a 'Rotten Tomatoes-approved' critic and a member of the Film Critics Guild of India. He previously worked with the Hindustan Times, where he wrote hundreds of film and television reviews, produced videos, and interviewed the biggest names in Indian and international cinema. At the Express, he writes a column titled Post Credits Scene, and has hosted a podcast called Movie Police.
You can find him on X at @RohanNaahar, and write to him at [e-mail]. He is also on LinkedIn and Instagram. ... Read More