slight fanboy rant here...
I just read an article in the latest issue of Southwest Airline's Spirit magazine while I was flying this weekend, titled "Hero Worship," talking about the different incarnations and interpretations Superman has gone through. It's a good read, and I'd link to it, but it doesn't appear to be available online.
Anyway, towards the end of the article, the author has a few words with Bryan Singer regarding the cliched question of "Who's the real person: Superman or Clark Kent?"
A while back, I remember seeing a video where this same question was posed to Singer during some convention, at which point he quickly gave "Superman" as the answer. Which always irked me. Mainly because the question itself is flawed: there's more than two personalities to consider. The character of Superman is wholly different from Clark the reporter, who is wholly seperate from the Clark raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent on a farm in Smallville. And there may arguably be more, when you consider his Kryptonian origins as Kal-El...
As far as I'm concerned, it's the Clark on the farm that's the "true" personality. It's the one that isn't a guise serving some purpose. I guess I've taken this notion for granted through my experiences with the story of Superman, so I was a bit taken aback when Singer gave the simple answer as Superman being the real personality.
Anyway, back to the article: as Singer was giving his answer this time to the author of the article, he stopped himself. In midsentence he seemed to come to the realization that, indeed, it
is the Clark Kent we see on the farm who embodies the real personality. I'd quote what he says exactly, but I can't find the article online.
I just find it frustrating that Singer came upon this too late. He's a great director, and I wish he had a chance to make the movie with this idea in mind. This won't ruin the movie or anything, but reading his quote here made me realize how close we might have been to a more interesting (in my opinion, at least) portrayal of the character. Hopefully the interpretation he presents is still enjoyable, so we'll see.
All right, just some thoughts that have been floating in my head since I read the article. This seemed like an appropriate place to get it out.
