Kindness is the New Punk Rock: the Politics of Using Kindness as a Means of Resistance
Despite the major advancements to our present day film industry, many of Walter Benjamin’s views on the increasing industrialization of art are still applicable even nearly a century later. The idea of the importance of exhibition value along with the relevance of the historical moment of a film’s release, ultimately resulting in political initiative, can be exemplified through James Gunn’s new adaptation to DC’s beloved hero, Superman (2025). Where the intersection between the film’s intentions, consumer evaluations, and criticism ultimately support Benjamin’s main theme that all art is political, and through its impact––shows us why that is valuable.
The relevance of Benjamin’s idea of exhibition value and its political implications have only proved themselves throughout the development of the modern day film. The capitalist drive for major motion pictures to market themselves in ways that promote box office revenue prioritizes a film’s exhibition value in a way that inherently politicizes film. Part of this can be explained through Benjamin’s philosophy that the introduction of technology into art reduces the natural “cult value” of a medium of art by stripping its authenticity (6). Which then feeds into the exhibition value motivated by the capitalistic advantage of producing art which can be widely distributed, and therefore widely consumed, which Benjamin argues, is inherently political (6). In the 21st century this concept has reached its culmination in the battle between movie theater and streaming services, which have become a modern day parallel of the difference in experience when viewing live theater versus a film production. Now, with the ability to release movies on a global scale, there are even greater arguments for the implications of large-scale reproducible messaging and how it causes the function of art to be “based on another practice––politics” (6). The exhibition of Gunn’s Superman was a topic of hot political debate during its marketing and then again after its release. However, in regards to the concept of ‘exhibition value,’ bad press is still press, if anything there could be greater exhibition that comes from controversy. While a certain demographic, such as Kellyanne Conway who stated on Fox News, that people don’t go to theaters to “have somebody throw their ideology onto us,” she and many other conservatives “wonder[ed] if it [would] be successful.” (Baragona). However, compared to its lagging success overseas, according to IndieWire, an overwhelming amount of box office revenue for Gunn’s Superman has been domestic (Bergeson). This concern for American turn out was obviously unfounded as it has been confirmed by Warner Bros that Gunn’s adaptation of Superman is the highest-grossing Superman film in the U.S., reaching more than $331 million in domestic revenue (Yin-Poole). In an interview with the Rolling Stone, Gunn attributed rises in domestic and international success partially to the power of “word of mouth” being “very positive both here and everywhere else” showcasing the impact of different mediums of exhibition (Bergeson).
After the release of the film, an unexpected outcome of the effect on American society was a revitalization of hope, with many fans inspired by Gunn’s execution of Clark’s character, his strong moral compass, and his endless attempt to do the right thing. Unexpectedly, in addition to this inspiration of kindness, many fans had left theaters noticing parallels between the conflict between fictional countries Boravia and Jarhanpur and the very real armed conflict that was being escalated between Israel and Gaza at the time. This appeared as a secondary outcome of Superman’s exhibition, one that was heavily motivated by the moment that it was released, which allowed many Americans to leave the theater reflecting on their role in the war torn reality of many Palestinians losing their lives in a US-enforced and economically funded genocide. Gunn, who had already received enough backlash from the far right for pointing out Superman’s historical roots as an immigrant, denied any intentional reflection of the armed conflict in his adaptation, but the ball was already in motion. Art can evolve past its creator, whether or not it was intentional; the public is going to extract things from media and consume their messages in a way that is meaningfully relevant to their own philosophies. This concept is touched on by Benjamin as, “the adjustment of reality to the masses and of the masses to reality,” (6). Attributions of meaning, in this way, by the public also reinforce the intended political function of Gunn’s adaptation. The audience’s eyes become open to the injustice occurring in reality through binary references in film; the resulting political message has an empathetic response that promotes Gunn’s ideology about reintroducing kindness into American society. Which supports Benjamin’s idea that the exhibition––heavily impacted by the historical moment––has political ramifications (5). It is this malleability of the film’s political function to encompass multiple relevant topics that also adds to the emotional impact of the movie, and allows it to have a greater lasting impact on its viewer––an undeniable value that politics brings to art.
Ironically, criticism deeming Gunn’s Superman, “superwoke,” is a testament to why this movie was needed in this particular moment (Bergeson). It directly affirms Gunn’s belief in saying that America has lost kindness as a national value (Bergeson). Amid outrage––within certain demographics––are confused consumers who questioned the powerful political parallels noticeable within the film and asked themselves ‘when did everything become so political’ while remaining ignorant to the absurdity of that statement. The reality is that Superman was always political. Superman was a hero brought to life by the sons of immigrants, and could serve as an allegory for certain immigrant struggles (Bergeson). In this way, Gunn is not introducing anything new to the Superman narrative, he just made directorial choices that drew attention to the message that was always there. Especially due to immigration’s intersectionality with values of kindness and humanity in our current political climate. In this way, Gunn unknowingly built upon Benjamin’s idea that perception of media is “determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances,” (5). If Gunn’s adaptation wasn’t released at its exact political moment––during a time of American criticism agaisnt the genocide in Gaza–it is likely that this comparison wouldn’t have been additionally drawn, or at least not been such a widely held interpretation of the film.
In a digital age where a majority of media serves to prompt passive consumption of media, this movie was provoking due to forcing critics to come to terms with adverse parallels to reality that align certain groups with this same deeply-rooted ordinary evil that is usurped in the film. One viewer of the film, Celeste Masis, argues that part of the appeal of Gunn’s adaptation in comparison to the well worn narratives of the past, is the overwhelming simplicity of Clark and Lex’s motivational factors (Masis). To Masis, this allows for there to be a clear representation of good––which is not to be perfect, but to choose to be human, i.e. kind––and a clear representation of evil––hurting others out of selfish jealousy and greed. The reimagining of kindness into a world-saving trait, “in a time marked by fear, division and cynicism,” when shown by an iconic hero to American culture is meaningful (Masis). Superman is a figure that adults and children alike respect and look up too; transferring these messages to a larger audience. The inspiration of hope that was produced as a result of Clark’s success over the frightening power of everyday evil on screen, also produced waves of hope in the real world.
Additionally, Benjamin argues, the fixed nature of film allows for all who watch it to have a certain collective experience, which lends itself to the inevitable development of political discussion (14). Art, especially film, to some extent can always be perceived at face value, but it is not made in a vacuum, and therefore lends itself to societal and personal attribution. Benjamin argues, part of this practice is the effect of psychological analysis (15). The prevalence of psychology allows people to assign complicated implications to objectively simple character interactions. This is especially salient with the ability to rewatch media––there is undoubtedly going to be directorial or acting choices that could be interpreted differently upon rewatching a film, making it susceptible “to analysis because it can be isolated more easily” (Benjamin 15). In the 21st century, it is arguable that is an added value to this form of breaking down film, because as references and franchises build upon each other, depending on the director, there can truly be meaning hidden behind the smallest details. To the engaged viewer, this can have an extremely important effect on the experience of the movie, the overall message that is received, and the personal emotional effect it has on the veiwer––despite the collective nature of the media. This is especially apparent regarding political parallels. There is an undeniable value that is added when an audience member––or community––can feel personally represented by a struggle that is overcome in film. Therefore, considering its domestic success, the charged issue of immigration added value to the message of Gunn’s Superman, which was primarily the positive impact of kindness, and contrasted it with America’s current reality––allowing for the facilitation of progressive political discussion.
Ultimately, Gunn’s Superman represents a culmination of Benjamin’s predictions for the development of film, including his fears around the dangers of film being a passive medium (18). This is because the nature of film simultaneously “put[s] [all of] the public in the position of a critic” and yet “requires no attention,” to consume as an audience member (Benjamin 19). As in, a film will by nature continue to move forward and advance its plot whether or not the audience understood the nuanced message of a particular scene. Furthermore, when only consumed on a semi-cognitive level, this can result in the complete misattribution of a movie’s message, or worse, the perception of a lack of an author’s message at all. This was a large point of contention for Benjamin surrounding film as an art medium, where he once again accurately uncovered an issue that is particularly relevant today. We as a society are so constantly stimulated in today’s digital age, our attention spans are at an all time low, the amount of attention required to actively consume media, not just ‘doom scroll,’ is frightening. If society loses this ability to be an active participant in media such as film––which requires a much less conscious thinking to confidence in interpretation ratio––then the same exhibition value that allows for the promotion of the ‘everyday critic’ will result in less meaningful political initiative derived from film. Political parallels, both intended and especially not intended, can only be interpreted by taking it upon yourself to ‘read’ into art as the cultural and political text that it is.
There is still a lot of relevance in Walter Benjamin’s argument within “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. By using James Gunn’s recent blockbuster success, Superman (2025) as a comparison, it is apparent how many aspects of the film align with Benjamin’s takes on film as a medium of art; of course it’s political. The film’s domestic box office revenue and success in America’s current geopolitical climate, speaks to the importance of exhibition value in the impact of a film. Superman’s narrative, reinforced by Gunn’s directing, allowed for the audience to perceive political messages inherent to the hero’s origin, ultimately bringing to light the political importance of actively interpreting passive mediums, such as film.
Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.”
Illuminations. Translated by Harry Zohn, edited by Hannah Arendt, Schocken
Books, 1969, pp. 1-26.
Baragona, Justin. “‘Superwoke’: Fox News Rages That New Superman Film Has ‘pro-Immigrant Themes.’” AOL, AOL, 8 July 2025, www.aol.com/superwoke-fox-news-rages-superman-153217644.html.
Bergeson, Samantha. “James Gunn Says ‘Superman’ International Box Office Success Is Surprising Due to the ‘Anti-American Sentiment around the World Right Now.’” IndieWire, IndieWire, 21 July 2025, www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/james-gunn-superman-international-success-surprising-1235139813/#:~:text=July%2021%2C%202025%201:00,matter%20of%20letting%20something%20grow.
Masis, Celeste. “How James Gunn’s Superman Made Me Believe in Superheroes Again.” Threefold Advocate – JBU Student Newspaper, John Brown University, 21 Jan. 2026, advocate.jbu.edu/how-james-gunns-superman-made-me-believe-in-superheroes-again. Yin-Poole, Wesley. “James Gunn’s Superman Inches towards $600m at the Box Office, Unlikely to Surpass Man of Steel’s $670M.” IGN, IGN, 18 Aug. 2025, www.ign.com/articles/james-gunns-superman-inches-towards-600m-at-the-box-office-unlikely-to-surpass-man-of-steels-670m.