When Enemies Agree: A Review of a Review
Superman 2025
The original version of this contained a monumentally sarcastic paragraph ridiculing antisemitic conspiracy theories (by parroting them), but since sarcasm doesn’t work on the internet, I took it out. Yes, it was self-censorship, but Substack has loonies that would—actually have—quoted me out of context, so out it went.
When Drew Pavlou, a fervent supporter of Israel, agrees in substance with Shaun King, an Israel-loather, something’s goin’ on.1
In his blistering review of the new Superman movie, Pavlou doesn’t imply the film is agitprop. He charges it outright. The imagery, the symbolism, the names, the racial coding: all of it, he claims, points directly to Israel and Palestine.
My first reaction was: this is inflammatory, obsessive, and cathartic. I can recognize this because I empathize 100%. I’ve done the same thing. When passion overwhelms rationality believing becomes seeing. I’ve written many a review that distorted what was on the screen and then torn it up after a cooling period. I’ve come out of a theater with a friend and it was as if we didn’t see the same movie. And we didn’t. Two different people can see two different movies. Believing is seeing.
But near the end of the review came this gut punch, allegedly a direct quote from the movie:
“I’m not controlled by Israel, I actually made the conflict to distract everyone.”
Drew: you should have put this in the intro paragraph, because it would have set the tone for the rest, and the review’s passion would have been justified. You have to earn the reader’s tolerance, not bludgeon them over the head. This causes them to recoil. Ask me how I know.
When I read that quote, I did a double take. Did I trust Pavlou? Of course not. When it comes to something like that, I wouldn’t trust my own grandmother.
I used AI, in this case, Microsoft’s Co-Pilot, which confirmed Drew.
Did I trust Co-Pilot? Of course not. AI gets plenty of things wrong. It’s your first line of defense, not your last.
So I looked mainstream film quote aggregators (IMDb, Screen Rant, several others.) It’s not there. But this actually tends to confirm Drew’s memory. These aggregators are all part of the business. They sanitize politically sensitive lines and something like this is, well, kryptonite, so until I see the movie myself2, I’m trusting Drew Pavlou’s transcription and Co-Pilot. If the quote proves apocryphal, I’ll revise. But until then, the absence of citation is damning, and I’m going with Drew.
Let’s return to that quote and repeat it:
“I’m not controlled by Israel, I actually made the conflict to distract everyone.”
Lex Luthor says this. On screen. In a movie financed by Warner Bros. and distributed globally. This is not subtext, guys, it’s text. And it's stunning. Has anything like this ever been said in a major Hollywood movie, not about Israel, but about any country? I can’t think of it. Can you?
This quote cannot be contextualized away. If the line were meant to distinguish the fictional aggressor nation Boravia from Israel, it sure is a clumsy way to do it. Why even mention Israel? Why not say, “I’m not controlled by Boravia”? That would be coherent within the fictional world. Everyone would have gotten the point.
But the writers broke the fourth wall, and in doing so, they showed their cards.
They couldn’t control themselves. This was Hollywood’s id, bursting its boundaries.
Based solely on Pavlou’s review, it’s the United States that comes off as not really villanous, but a patsy. Yes, the U.S. defense establishment collaborates with Luthor, backs Boravia militarily, and joins the smear campaign against Superman. Except…. it’s a United States corrupted by Boravia/Israel. Superman represents the pure America, the real America, the one that would exist without Boravian/Israel corruption. By the end of the film, the heat lands squarely on Boravia’s president (who’s assassinated), while the U.S. and even Luthor get some version of redemption or restraint.
Because the hapless innocent empire wouldn’t have done all these nasty things if it hadn’t been compromised and manipulated by the shitty little country.
I don’t know how that works in real life, but in movies, whatever. I mean, the Global American Empire killed anywhere from 200 thousand to 250 thousand people in the Philippine-American war, which took place from 1899 to 1902. Israel didn’t exist then.
Jewish money? Nope, guess again. Guys like Kuhn, Loeb & Co. or Jacob Schiff were influential in railroads and domestic industry. Imperialism wasn’t their thing—that was Morgan, Rockefeller, and gang.
Pavlou’s tone may be frantic but I think he’s describing the movie accurately. And when people from diametrically opposed ideological poles draw the same map it’s worth investigating the terrain.
I’ve written several posts critical of mindless pro-Israel cheerleading.
I think I’ve earned the right to call Superman an abomination.
It’s a bellwether of bad times, and worse to come.
I’ll see it when it comes out on DVD.
This: "When passion overwhelms rationality believing becomes seeing."
I've made the same mistake meself.
The movie isn't really about the war. And I don't remember any use of the word "Israel".
The movie does have other political subtext but I didn't see it as related to Israel or Gaza.