Jon Kent; The True Tragic Hero of 'Man of Steel'

There are a few problems with the Man of Steel movie. Many that have been hashed and rehashed at ad nauseam. There is one that I feel needs to be looked at a little more closely. That is the adaptation of Jon Kent as a character. Jon is Clark’s adoptive human father and the pillar of morals in Clark’s life. Jon Kent was nothing more than a normal, red blooded, average American man, trying to raise his alien son and help him to become the hero that we all know and love.

This is a character that should be given more respect than I think he receives and definitely more respect then he got in this movie. Ultimately leaving their attempts at a deeper, darker, and more complex Clark hollow, especially when it comes to that sad excuse of a “twist ending.” They completely butchered Jon as a character, which I feel lead to the confusing and poor writing of Superman. Jon Kent is Clark Kent’s foundation and when a house is placed on shaky ground, it sinks.

1) Jesus Symbolism

A complaint about Man of Steel is the overabundance of Jesus symbolism found in the movie. From the scene in the church to the Superman floating through space in a literal Jesus/cross pose, I can't help but think "Okay... we get it." He is supposed to save our planet. That foreshadowing is sooooclever.

The problem that I have with this kind of symbolism is Jon Kent in the movie and how he conducted himself as a very confusing role model for Clark. Throughout most of the movie, Jon keeps talking about a great choice Clark will have to face. How he will be the “savior” of our planet. Putting a huge amount of responsibility on a young kid’s shoulders… for seemingly no reason other than the fact that Clark was an alien from another planet.

Jon Kent of the comic book universe would never… ever put that kind of pressure on his son. He was a farmer, a man of the earth. He never concerned himself with prophecy. He would have always wanted Clark to do the right thing and learn to become his own man, not place this huge responsibility on his shoulders because of some bizarre Jesus complex.

How is Clark supposed to bother saving lowly humans if this idea of being the perfect messiah is being placed inside of his head? No wonder he doesn’t mind destroying an entire city of people for the sake of stopping the bad guy… because he is Superman… if he needs to save the entire planet, why bother with one city?

2) Telling Clark to Let the Kids on the Bus Die

I feel like I would mostly be repeating myself but this is something that needs to be repeated until it is understood.

JOHN IS AN AVERAGE AMERICAN MAN.

Therefore, he would have never told his son to let innocent children die. This is just common sense… Jon as a character was always meant to be the ultimate symbol of good in Clark’s life. Again, salt of the earth, good old boy, and he’s a mid-west farmer. Doing good and being good is in the cultural vocabulary of this man. Yes, he and Martha were always afraid of Clark being taken away from them. But not so afraid they would sacrifice of others. If Clark chose to not save those children and gave the excuse that he didn’t want to get caught, Jon probably would have slapped him across the face. Or probably not… because that isn’t what Jon Kent does.

Again, it is just common sense. An American man who is traditionally shown this way… would never, ever chose to let people die for the sake of comfort… especially if children were involved.

Why would Clark bother saving anyone, again, if he is supposed to only worry about himself? Yes, there could be an argument made when he exposes who he is to the military to free Louis. But this is ultimately a selfish act, not a noble one. He did this because he felt insta-lust for a pretty redhead.

3) The Death of Jon Kent

Jon Kent’s sacrifice in the Man of Steel movie meant nothing, absolutely nothing. Aside from the shaky establishment of Jon as a character up to this point… the fact that he died via tornado is utterly ridiculous. Why? Because Clark could have easily saved his father from a tornado. Making his “sacrifice” for the sake of his son utterly asinine.

Jon Kent has had few different deaths. The one that holds the most impact is Jon’s first death, by a heart attack. Superman is faster than a speeding bullet, stronger than a locomotive, and proclaimed a modern day god by many. The most significant thing that he can face as a character is the moment he must watch a loved one die and be utterly powerless to stop it. It is a pain he must endure, a pain he must learn from. Something that does not happen if Jon decides to die in a situation that can be stopped.

Instead of realizing he is not the perfect savior everyone thinks him to be, he is stuck with this idea that he could have saved his father. Which changes the psychology of the character to a less complex one. Instead of being a man grappling with his own weaknesses, he is a man stuck in a power struggle because the ability to choose was taken from him. Saying “I could have saved him” is a completely different mindset then saying, “I should have saved him.” Could implies an ability to do so, which relies on Clark’s physical abilities. Should implies a desperate feeling of hopelessness and a focus on Clark’s metal state. A hopeless superman fighting with his mental weaknesses is a darker and more complex one then what Man of Steel gave us.

Jon Kent’s death ultimately means nothing because it held no weight to it. Clark couldn’t learn from this experience, he couldn’t understand how weak he truly can be… something that is significant to his morals as a character.

4) The Worst Twist Since 'The Happening'

One of the arguments against the movie is the death of Zod. Fans are outraged at the fact that Superman killed Zod.

"He can’t do that…he’s Superman."

"Superman doesn’t kill. He’s the ultimate good guy!"

"The golden boy of America! The first comic book super hero! He can’t kill someone."

The argument against this way of thinking is, this is a darker, grittier Superman. One who has more character and more anguish. It is more interesting to depict his struggle of character, as a character.

To this I state, I agree. I love having a darker Superman, one who while having the strength of body may not have the strength of mind. But that doesn’t mean the movie did this well and again I blame this on their horrible writing of Jon Kent as a character.

By making Jon Kent a character with shaky morals, you have thus made Clark Kent a man with shaky morals and ultimately Superman a hero with shaky morals. Which sounds like it may go with the dark and gritty vibe that Warner Brothers is attempting, in the end, it doesn’t. Zod’s death, like Jon’s, ends up utterly meaningless because Superman has shaky morals. There is no tension of good vs evil. Not wondering what is the right thing to do. That moment of sitting on the edge of your seat, wondering how Superman is going to get out of this without doing the unthinkable.

In the end when Superman snapped Zod’s neck like a turkey wishbone, not only was I not surprised… I didn’t care. Because the movie set up this ending and I was not happy about it.

1. Jon pushed a messiah-like complex onto his son bringing a huge amount of pressure onto a young man’s shoulders. Of course, he snapped, in more ways than one…
2. Jon had a shaky set of morals. Without teaching his son that lives and safety of others outweighed your own comfort, how could Clark struggle to understand that life is precious and needed to be protected?
3. Jon sacrificed himself instead of having Clark understand the limitations of his own powers. How was he supposed to understand that he is not a god and cannot simply end things with a flex of his pinky? Without the pain of knowing he cannot win, how am I supposed to feel like this choice to kill Zod was made from desperation?

The answer is I don’t… So, in the end, the death of Zod meant absolutely nothing to me as an audience member. I, in turn, believe it meant nothing to Clark. So that scream of pain Clark lets out when he killed Zod, the same one the fans of this movie go on and on about, rang truly hallow to me.

How is anyone supposed to be surprised by a twist that was honestly in the realm of possibility when this whiny, moral-less, god complex-having "Superman" is concerned?

In the end, Jon Kent is the tragic hero of this movie. Because his character was horribly butchered. They gave us a confusing Jon Kent, and thus a confusing Clark Kent. A character with no real morals and there for no real struggle or tension. Man of Steel was four empty walls built upon a pool of quick sand and I am happy to watch it sink to the dark depths below.