***This post is based on a conference presentation I gave at the Midwest Popular Culture Association annual conference in the fall of 2016. Because of this, it's got a more academic tone than most of what's likely to come on this blog. Enjoy!***
Since his
introduction in Action Comics’ first
issue in June of 1938, Superman has become almost synonymous with the archetype
of the superhero. The character’s popularity with U.S. audiences in his early
days was one of the driving factors in the creation of similar costumed heroes
in pulp fiction and comic books (e.g., Batman, Captain America, Wonder Woman, etc.)
While Superman’s original characterization by creators Jerry Siegel and Joe
Schuster was more of an anti-authoritarian or pseudo-socialist vigilante
(Saunders, Do the Gods Wear Capes?,
22-23), he has since gone “from being a simple fighter for justice to a godlike
embodiment of the American way” (Garrett, Holy
Superheroes!, 20).
Ben Saunders explores the
philosophical implications of Superman and argues that the character’s
widespread appeal “emerges from out of the gap between the is and the ought,” meaning
that Superman represents the ideal humanity that contrasts against actual humanity
(Saunders, 5). While comparisons are often made between Superman and other heroic
or religious figures, from Hercules to Moses to Jesus, according to Saunders,
“the enduring appeal and significance of Superman derives less from his
resemblance to prior gods and heroes than from his status as one of the most
successful modern mass-media attempts to depict what philosophers since Plato
have called the good” (Do the Gods Wear Capes?, 17-18). This reading
of Superman as a figure of Platonic Goodness is a useful lens through which to
explore the changing place of the character in American culture since his
inception.
In doing so, we can find
evidence of a declining confidence in the alignment of the U.S. with the
Goodness that Superman/Clark Kent has embodied. The sociologist Robert Bellah
referred to the association of Goodness and Americanism as “American Civil
Religion” (“Civil Religion in America,” 1-21). Bellah describes civil religion as
“certain common elements of
religious orientation that the great majority of Americans share [that] have
played a crucial role in the development of American institutions and still
provide a religious dimension for the whole fabric of American life, including
the political sphere” (“Civil
Religion in America”). However, this association between Goodness and
Americanism is not absolute, and has been increasingly undermined in American pop-cultural
narratives.
The increasing skepticism about American
civil religion displayed in Superman narratives exemplifies a process that sociologist
Max Weber termed “disenchantment” (Weber, “The Vocation of Science,” 274).
Weber understood disenchantment as the expansion of systems employing “intellectual
rationalization,” the potential expertise of the individual in any area of
human life, and the loss of belief in “mysterious,
incalculable powers at work” (“The Vocation of Science,” 274). Weber,
highlighting the modern push toward “rationality at every opportunity” (Sica,
“Rationalization and Culture,” 56-57), sought to explain the social impacts of
the rise of the “German factory system and the bureaucratic organization of
clerical work,” as well as “urbanization” and the increasing power of the “constitutional
nation state” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (Whimster,
“Introduction to Max Weber,” 4-5). With the potential exception of the
increasing power of the nation state, these themes can be seen in twentieth
century U.S. history through to the present day. Themes of disenchantment also increasingly
appear across the various iterations of Superman that arose in those contexts.
I will explore three examples.
The Adventures of Superman television show of the 1950’s demonstrates a
confidence in the association of Goodness and America and venerates themes of
American civil religion explicitly. 1978’s Superman:
The Movie manifests a nostalgia regarding the the loss of confidence in civil
religion. And the 2013 film adaptation, Man
of Steel, relies heavily on a presumed tension between the character’s embodiment
of American civil religious values and his flourishing as an individual. Ironically,
Man of Steel is the most explicitly
religious of these three examples, an irony I’ll deal with in detail below.
However, the growing sense of disenchantment with American civil religion is
most clearly seen in Man of Steel,
through the commercialization both of the character and the religious
associations that Superman carries.
The
Adventures of Superman,
a television series starring George Reeves, debuted in 1952. This post-war
rendition of Superman is woven with themes indicating its hero as particularly
American. At the beginning of each episode, we are told that Superman has come
to Earth to fight for “truth, justice, and the American way,” where these
concepts are considered almost synonymous (Saunders, 26). The introduction
closes with Superman standing in a strong pose, hands on hips, with the
American flag waving behind him. This view of what superheroes are and should
be fits snugly in the general conservatism about comic book characters of the
1950’s and the requirement that they be abashedly pro-American-status-quo.
While The Adventures of Superman was intended for an audience of
children, the earnest moralistic tone set by Superman’s commitment to law,
order, and the Americanism of the 1950’s mirrors Bellah’s notion of the God of
American civil religion. Bellah writes, “The God of the civil religion is […]
much more related to order, law, and right than to salvation and love”
(Bellah). The concern with social and institutional order is clear in this
depiction of Superman, as he often works closely with law enforcement
institutions in stopping both organized and street crime.
George Reeves’
Superman trying his best to appease Frederich Wertham.
In one episode, Superman even
speaks to various citizens’ organizations, ensuring them that he is working
against the “enemies of the public.” These speaking engagements include “a mass
meeting in the Metropolis auditorium” and “a breakfast meeting of the Women’s
Federation.” While Superman is the strongest being on Earth, he “[adopts] a
pose of mind-mannered timidity” in his life as Clark Kent. This highlights the focus on Superman as an
important part of the social fabric, as opposed to an individual with goals and
purposes that could potentially be at odds with the American status quo. While
it’s an open question as to whether civil religion utilized the popularity of
Superman or vice versa, the two certainly overlap in this version of the
character.
The most obvious example of this
is a short film that was produced at the request of the U.S. Treasury
Department, entitled “Stamp Day for Superman.” In it, Superman catches a jewel
thief in the act. The burglar laments his decision to turn to crime, citing his
lack of monetary savings as the driving factor. The rest of the film is
dedicated to the promotion of “helping [oneself] and Uncle Sam by buying bonds
and stamps.” Superman ends the episode with a speech to a group of school
children about doing their duty to their country by buying U.S. stamps and
bonds. In a school classroom filled with signs reading “Stamp Day Today,”
Superman encourages the children to “be super citizens and have a super future
by saving regularly with United States savings stamps.” Superman, just like the
God of American civil religion, “is actively interested and involved in
history, with a special concern for America” (Bellah). In this case, Superman’s
active interest in the American future presumes a “duty of the individual toward
the increase of his capital” (Weber, The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 51), which is said to be the
path toward a “super future.”
George Reeve’s post-war Superman
exemplified a high point in the history of American civil religion. Superman represented
the Good found in American civil institutions, with which “Superman’s
ideological leanings were entirely in step” (Saunders, 26). However, between
the end of the final season of The
Adventures of Superman and the next iconic portrayal of the character in
1978, American culture changed dramatically. The shifts of the 1960’s and
1970’s, including the civil rights and women’s movements, the Vietnam War, and
Watergate scandal, undermined the previous confidence in American
exceptionalism and the synonymy of Goodness and the American status quo. So, in
the 1978 film Superman: The Movie, the
character is still an embodiment of the “American way,” but is played as a
nostalgic emblem for better days gone by.
Christopher Reeve’s portrayal of
Superman is inarguably iconic. Under the direction of Richard Donner, Reeve
became the face of Superman for more than a generation. The film hits all the
classic beats of the character, from Superman’s Kryptonian origins to
mild-mannered Clark Kent in Metropolis. In Superman:
The Movie, we can see a depiction of the threat of Weber’s disenchantment
with regard to American civil religion in the contrast that is made between
Clark Kent’s home in rural Kansas and his life in the large city of Metropolis.
Ma Kent, dressed in 50’s era clothing, displays Smallville’s rural Americanism saying,
“I’ve prayed and prayed the Good Lord’d see fit to give us a child.” The values
that Clark Kent brings from Smallville are those of modesty, authenticity, and commitment
to other citizens. Reeve’s Superman is shown to be the last bastion of American
civil religion in the more cynically minded 1970’s urban hub of Metropolis.
In her introductory scene, Lois
Lane highlights the social and moral decline of Metropolis when she asks how to
spell “bloodletting” and “massacre” for a news story she is typing. The aspects
of the less-caring and grittier Metropolis are contrasted with an idealized version
of the values of the America of in the 1950’s, which Superman embodies. He moves
seamlessly from societal good deeds (such as, rescuing Air Force One when its
engine fails) to archetypal acts of altruism for individual citizens (such as, rescuing
a cat from a tree). This Superman is a homespun Kansan who the film contrasts
against an environment that is losing faith in its social institutions and the
goodness of its citizens. When Superman tells Lois that he’s come to fight for
the American way, Lois replies, “You’re going to end up fighting every elected
official in this country.” The film clearly intends for the audience to favor
the values represented by Superman, no matter how quaint.
However, Reeve’s Superman is
never framed as a representation of the future.[1]
Nor is he depicted as representing the actual values of America in the late
1970’s. Rather, he clearly represents the American past in which there was a
traditional association of Goodness and Americanism (that is, faith in American
civil religion). Here we see Saunders’ claim that “whatever we collectively
imagine ‘good’ to be at any given time […] Superman must strive to be that too”
(Do the Gods Wear Capes?, 30). In
this iteration, America has lost
touch with its Goodness but could return to it with Superman’s help. Because, “even
when America itself can no longer persuasively evoke moral authority, Superman
must try” (Do the Gods Wear Capes?, 31).
Remember the
fifties when everyone saved cats?
This country is going to hell.
Superman:
The Movie, received
by critics as “a wondrous combination of all the old-fashioned things we never
really get tired of,” narratively recognizes the beginnings of disenchantment in
relation to American civil religion (Ebert, “Reviews-Superman”). The villain,
Lex Luthor, clearly embodies the expansion of the rationalized capitalism and
the corrupted bureaucratic systems[2]
of America in the late seventies.[3]
Luthor’s nefarious plan of using military missiles aimed at fault lines to
reshape California’s coast in his own economic interest shows him to be an
extreme caricature of Weber’s “specialists without spirit, sensualists without
heart” (The Protestant Ethic, 182).
Luthor not only represents the capitalistic
and rationalist tendencies that bring about disenchantment, but also the idea of
rationalization as “progress” in terms of the potential of the individual.[4]
In this film, Luthor is the true man of tomorrow, rather than Superman.
Luther proclaims, “You were great in your day, Superman,” but he understands
himself as a “brilliant” and “charismatic [...] leader of our time.” The
culmination of the theme of nostalgia in Superman:
The Movie can be seen in the film’s climax. When Luthor’s use of the missiles
causes Lois Lane’s fatal plummet into a crevasse, Superman embodies the optimistic
possibility of returning to a better past by flying against the rotation of the
Earth fast enough to literally turn back
the clock.
When Superman eventually saves
the day, he hand delivers Luthor to a prison warden. Superman tells the warden,
whose desk is adorned with an American flag, to hold Luthor until he can get a
“fair trial.” When the warden gives thanks to Superman for making “this country
safe again,” Superman responds, “don’t thank me warden, we’re all part of the
same team.” Donner’s use of Superman as an idealized view of the American past appears
to recognize the perceived threat of Weberian disenchantment and supports the
possibility that America can return to its perceived golden age, when faith in
American civil religion was strong. Donner’s Superman, like most conceptions of
Superman, is “essentially conservative” and is “a defender of traditional
values” (Garrett, 53).
The next reimagined film
iteration of Superman did not appear until 2013, with a reboot of the franchise[5]
entitled Man of Steel. The film
received mixed reviews (“Man of Steel,” Rotten
Tomatoes), with some seeing it as a “return to the superhero’s roots”
(Moss) and others calling it “an exceptionally unpleasant viewing experience.”
(Hornaday) Man of Steel shifts the
focus of the Superman character drastically,[6]
exploring his psychology much more than previous offerings. This Superman is
seen as a tortured individual because of his powers. This film both depicts and
manifests Weber’s notion of disenchantment.
Within the narrative of Man of Steel, Henry Cavill portrays a
Superman whose isolation and alienation from humans lasts into his adulthood. Rather
than acquiring homespun traditional American values from the Kents, Clark is
given distrust for humans and their nature. While Jonathan Kent thinks he was
“sent here for a reason,” he tells Clark that he must “keep this [super
powered] side of yourself a secret” because “people are afraid of what they
don’t understand.” In previous versions, Superman gets his physical power from
his Kryptonian parents and his moral values from his American parents. Man of Steel puts forth a Superman whose
feelings of obligation to humanity come largely from Jor-El, his Kryptonian
father. Jor-El tells Superman that he “will give the people of Earth an ideal
to strive toward.” Within this franchise, humans do not trust themselves or
believe in their own potential anymore. Optimism toward humanity must come from
another world.
Cavill’s Superman plainly
manifests what Weber terms, a “calling” (Weber, The Protestant Ethic, 180). For Weber, the calling is felt in
individual terms and “the idea of duty in one’s calling prowls about in our
lives […] and the individual generally abandons the attempt to justify it at
all” (Weber, The Protestant Ethic,
182). For Superman, the calling is to help and lead humanity. This calling is laborious
for Superman and is portrayed as being in tension with his potential to
flourish as an individual (that is, it is framed in terms of ascetic self-sacrifice).[7]
Where George Reeves’ Superman was depicted as happy to help maintain the human social
order, Henry Cavill’s Superman is not sure that the sacrifice is worth it. This
use of the calling of the individual makes sense given the heavy-handed
Christian symbolism the film uses to portray Superman as a Christ figure.
While all versions of the
character have had some religious sensibility, often drawing from the figures
of either Moses or Jesus, Man of Steel’s
Superman is unambiguously an analogy for Jesus. Jor-El, before sending his son
to Earth, says that he “will be a god to them.” Superman floats in a cruciform
position twice, is 33 years old, and defeats a female alien who threatens that
Superman’s “sense of morality” puts him at an evolutionary disadvantage. She smirks and concludes that, “if
history has proven anything it is that evolution always wins.” The counterfactual
(and frankly... silly) claim that morality and evolutionary processes are at
odds is a clear nod to the creationist movements in the U.S. (“About the
Museum,” The Creation Museum). The
most obvious equivalence between Jesus and Superman transpires when he visits a
priest to ask for advice about how to respond to the alien threat that has
appeared on Earth, demanding his surrender.
Superman sits on a pew in a
church and speaks to the priest. He asks, “If there’s a chance I can save Earth
by turning myself in, shouldn’t I take it?” Cavill’s face foregrounds a stained
glass window depicting Jesus praying at the garden of Gethsemane. Superman
mirror’s the narrative of Jesus’ struggle with his own death, saying, “Zod [the
alien threat] can’t be trusted, but the problem is, I’m not sure the people of
Earth can be either.” The priest advises Superman to “take a leap of faith.” However,
the explicit and “abundant” Christian references throughout the film (Marrapodi,
“Superman: Flying to a Church Near You”) are less an outcome of the religiosity
of the filmmakers and are more an outcome of fully realized Weberian disenchantment,
as they are the result of explicit marketing decisions.
Very subtle
Christian themes appear in Man of Steel.
Man of Steel was marketed extensively prior to its release. The film's studio, Warner Bros., utilized "more than 100 global promotional partners and [invested] $160 million in collective promotional support" (Morrison, "Superman Reboot"). Commodities from Clark Kent glasses to a Man of Steel themed pickup truck were available for purchase (Suddath, "Warner Bros. is a 'Man of Steel' Marketing Machine). In addition to the commodification of Superman outside of the film, Man of Steel itself contains many scenes featuring corporate logos including IHop, Sears, Seven Eleven, UHaul, and Nokia. This extreme commodification exemplifies Weber's analysis that, "material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history" (The Protestant Ethic, 181). While Weber was referring to the initial mechanization of the German social order, this principle holds true for in twenty-first century American consumer culture.
The “inexorable power” of commodification is not only in relation to the individual, but also in relation to cultural ideals and values. Weber writes, “The modern man is in general, even with the best will, unable to give religious ideas a significance for culture and national character which they deserve” (The Protestant Ethic, 183). Man of Steel manifests this aspect of disenchantment in a particularly stark way, because even the unambiguous Christian symbolism in the film was also heavily utilized for purposes of marketing. The symbols of American religiosity in Man of Steel represent an example of the relatively common strategy of converting (primarily evangelical) Christian language, narratives, and symbols into dollars and cents.
Man of Steel was marketed extensively prior to its release. The film's studio, Warner Bros., utilized "more than 100 global promotional partners and [invested] $160 million in collective promotional support" (Morrison, "Superman Reboot"). Commodities from Clark Kent glasses to a Man of Steel themed pickup truck were available for purchase (Suddath, "Warner Bros. is a 'Man of Steel' Marketing Machine). In addition to the commodification of Superman outside of the film, Man of Steel itself contains many scenes featuring corporate logos including IHop, Sears, Seven Eleven, UHaul, and Nokia. This extreme commodification exemplifies Weber's analysis that, "material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history" (The Protestant Ethic, 181). While Weber was referring to the initial mechanization of the German social order, this principle holds true for in twenty-first century American consumer culture.
The “inexorable power” of commodification is not only in relation to the individual, but also in relation to cultural ideals and values. Weber writes, “The modern man is in general, even with the best will, unable to give religious ideas a significance for culture and national character which they deserve” (The Protestant Ethic, 183). Man of Steel manifests this aspect of disenchantment in a particularly stark way, because even the unambiguous Christian symbolism in the film was also heavily utilized for purposes of marketing. The symbols of American religiosity in Man of Steel represent an example of the relatively common strategy of converting (primarily evangelical) Christian language, narratives, and symbols into dollars and cents.
Man of Steel was marketed extensively prior to its release. The film's studio, Warner Bros., utilized "more than 100 global promotional partners and [invested] $160 million in collective promotional support" (Morrison, "Superman Reboot"). Commodities from Clark Kent glasses to a Man of Steel themed pickup truck were available for purchase (Suddath, "Warner Bros. is a 'Man of Steel' Marketing Machine). In addition to the commodification of Superman outside of the film, Man of Steel itself contains many scenes featuring corporate logos including IHop, Sears, Seven Eleven, UHaul, and Nokia. This extreme commodification exemplifies Weber's analysis that, "material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history" (The Protestant Ethic, 181). While Weber was referring to the initial mechanization of the German social order, this principle holds true for in twenty-first century American consumer culture.
This strategy wasn’t only
attempted through the use of Christian symbols in the film, however. Warner
Brothers hired a theologian to develop sermon notes revolving around the
Christian themes in Man of Steel
(Marrapodi). The proposed sermon is entitled “Jesus: The Original Superhero,”
and the accompanying notes suggest that pastors wrap up their services by viewing
the film’s trailer with their congregations. So, the film’s Christian symbolism
functions identically to any of its other corporate tie-ins. Man of Steel, then, clearly manifests Weberian
disenchantment through its narrative themes of the lack of faith in the
idealized values of American civil religion and in the film’s explicit use of
both corporate and religious symbols for the ultimate purpose of wealth accumulation
“as an end in itself” (Weber, The
Protestant Ethic, 53).
Superman
may be viewed philosophically as an attempt to represent America’s ideal
version of Goodness at any given time since his creation. In these three
examples of live action interpretations of the character, we can clearly see
that the U.S. popular consciousness has become disenchanted with American civil
religion. The association of Goodness and America no longer holds the sway that
it once did. This disenchantment is “driven by a process of cultural
rationalization, one in which ultimate values […] are replaced increasingly by
the pursuit of materialistic, mundane ends” (Gane, “Max Weber and
Postmodernism,” 15).
The Adventures of Superman represented a
post-war confidence with America as the world’s leader “both militarily and
morally” (Saunders, 26). Superman: The
Movie recognizes America’s crisis of confidence in its own relation to
Goodness and Superman offers a nostalgic return to better days. Finally, Man of Steel downplays any particularly
American ideals in favor of corporate logos and marketing in the form of overt Christian
symbolism. So, while Superman once fought for “truth, justice, and the American
way,” confidence in the association of those terms has been replaced by the use
of Superman for “the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical
meaning” (Weber, The Protestant Ethic,
182). This transition is what Max Weber called “disenchantment."
Works Cited
“About The Museum.” The Creation Museum. Accessed July 20,
2015, http://creationmuseum.org/about.
The
Adventures of Superman: Season 1. 1952.
Warner Home Video, 2006. DVD.
The
Adventures of Superman: Season 2. 1953.
Warner Home Video, 2006. DVD.
Bellah, Robert. “Civil Religion in America.” Journal of
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 96, no. 1 (1967): 1-21.
Carter, Jimmy. “Crisis of Confidence.” PBS. July 15, 1979, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-crisis.
Ebert, Roger. “Reviews - Superman.”
RogerEbert.com. December 15, 1978, http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/superman.
Gane, Nicholas. Max Weber and Postmodernism: Rationalization
versus Re-Enchantment. New York: Palgrave, 2002.
Garrett, Greg. Holy
Superheroes! Louisville: West Minster John Knox Press. 2008.
Hornaday, Ann, “‘Man of Steel’:
Henry Cavil Stars as Superman in This Bombastic Reboot.” The Washington Post. June 13, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/man-of-steel-henry-cavill-stars-as-superman-in-this-bombastic-reboot/2013/06/12/6d77d5d0-d36c-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html.
Kripal, Jeffrey J. Mutants
and Mystics: Science Fiction, Superhero Comics, and the Paranormal. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Man
of Steel. Directed by Zack Snyder (USA: Warner Brothers, 2013).
“Man of Steel,” Rotten Tomatoes, accessed July 20, 2015,
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel.
Eric Marrapodi, “Superman: Flying
to a Church Near You.” CNNblog. June
14, 2013, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/14/superman-coming-to-a-church-near-you.
Morisson, Maureen. “Superman Reboot
‘Man of Steel’ Snares $160 Million in Promotions.” Advertising Age. June 3, 2013, http://adage.com/article/news/superman-reboot-man-steel-snares-160m-promotions/241822.
Moss, Charlie. “Superman’s Dark
Past,” The Atlantic, May 24, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/05/supermans-dark-days/393998/.
Saunders, Ben. Do the
Gods Wear Capes? Spirituality, Fantasy, and Superheroes. New York: Continuum
International Publishing Group. 2011.
Sica, Alan. “Rationalization and
Culture.” In The Cambridge Companion to
Weber, edited by Stephen Turner, 42-58. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
Suddath, Claire. “Warner Bros. Is a
‘Man of Steel’ Marketing Machine.” Bloomberg
Business. June 21, 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-06-21/warner-bros-dot-is-a-man-of-steel-marketing-machine.
Superman
Returns. Directed by Brian Singer. 2006. USA: Warner Home Video, DVD.
Superman:
The Movie. Directed by Richard Donner, 1978 (2006); USA: Warner Home Video,
DVD.
Vary, Adam “How Successful is ‘Man
of Steel’ When Compared with Other Superman Movies?” BuzzFeed, June 16, 2013. http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/how-successful-is-man-of-steel-when-compared-with-other-supe.
Weber, Max. “The Vocation of Science,” in The Essential
Weber: A Reader, edited by Sam Whimster, 270-287. New York: Taylor &
Francis Group, 2004.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958.
Whimster, Sam. “Introduction to Max
Weber,” in The
Essential Weber: A Reader,
edited by Sam Whimster. 1-10. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.
[1]
Early in his comic book days, Superman was “a model for the future evolution of
human nature: basically, Superman is from the future” (Kripal, Mutants and Mystics, 75).
[2]
Both expanded rationality and commitment to bureaucratic systems are included
in Weber’s notion of disenchantment (Max Weber, “The Vocation of Science,” in The Essential Weber: A Reader, 274,
287).
[3]
Just a year after Superman: The Movie’s
theatrical release, President Jimmy Carter spoke of this “crisis of confidence” in American political institutions and the
American way of life (Jimmy Carter “Crisis of Confidence,” PBS, July 15, 1979,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-crisis).
[4]
The potential of the individual is seen in “the belief that, if one only wanted to, one […] could in
principle master everything through calculation.”
(Max Weber, “The Vocation of Science,” in The
Essential Weber: A Reader, 274).
[5]
Brian Singer’s 2006 film Superman Returns
was pitched as reviving Donner’s franchise, rather than as a reboot.
[6]
Some felt the shifts were too drastic, which caused the film’s financial
success to be somewhat lower than Donner’s film when adjusted for inflation
(Adam Vary, “How Successful is ‘Man of Steel’ When Compared with Other Superman
Movies?” BuzzFeed, June 16, 2013, http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/how-successful-is-man-of-steel-when-compared-with-other-supe.)
[7]
For Weber, ascetic sacrifice is the origin of the later non-religious economic
sense of “calling” (The Protestant Ethic,
178).
