Yes, I recall that with The Graduate. The choice to go Jewish neurotic was what led the movie to be seen as heralding in a new era of leading man.
And yeah, that split-persona model does seem to be a version of passing as someone else.
The anti-establishment, snarky smartassedness tilt of early comics was hardly an exclusively Jewish theme and you saw a similar irreverance in many newspaper comics. There was a Jewish conversational tone to some superheros in urban settings like Spiderman and Ben Grimm (who in fast is Jewish in the comics) but saying Marvel is Jewish tilted or memed across the board today is a bit a of a stretch IMO.
.
I don’t know enough about the comics world to really engage in this conversation, but I do find it fascinating. Spider-Man is by far my favorite superhero, the only one who really interests me, while Superman and Batman have always left me cold. Seeing their stories framed up in the Jewish vs. WASP context gives me a plausible explanation. I also really like the idea that Peter Parker is the real character, while Spider-Man is the faux persona, whereas Superman is the real persona and Clark Kent is the false one.
Similarly, I could never understand why I felt so uncomfortable with the Chronicles of Narnia, until I learned about C.S. Lewis and the Christian framework of the stories, and then it made sense to me that I couldn’t grasp that particular mythology.
Well I can’t say anything about today and again strongly suspect that there have been evolutions and diversity emergent in both brands, but what is being referenced is a bit different than just an “anti-establishment, snarky smartassedness tilt” … it included the taste of insecurity to the heroes, very much the sense of not fully belonging or not being accepted, an outsiderness, and some self-depreciation.
That sense was likely present in many other immigrant groups of the time who in America found themselves to be in the same outsider position that Jews had more historical practice at, and broadly resonated.
IMHO.
The other piece of the puzzle, of course, is that Jews could pass. Oh, sure, some blacks could, and some Jews couldn’t – but the Jewish experience in America was, often, the idea that if you combed your hair just right and put on a business suit and said you had an English-sounding name and put on or took off a pair of glasses, then people might well blandly accept you as a fellow WASP.
I dunno. It’s certainly true that comics evolved out of American jewish creators - including Will Eisner! (I’ve got one of his original cartoons on my wall. Fear me.) - and that may have brought some sensibility to them…
The Superman figure - the lead figure and prime example of comic books - is so soaked in Christ and Christian imagery it’s practically dripping blood off the cross. Last son of another world, absolutely committed to saving everyone, pure of thought and spirit, and so forth.
There’s simply no way around that fact - and it’s a fact that we’re bludgeoned with in the movies - that even if the DC universe’s creators were jewish, Siegel and Shuster’s imagery and character fell pretty simply into the Christian milieu.
Eh, take the story of Moses as a baby escaping certain doom in his little craft before getting adopted, and add just a touch of Samson as he becomes a champion of the oppressed, and – well, compared to someone who advocates turning the other cheek as a preacher of nonviolence, note that he sure punches a lot of folks.
Yeah, I’ve seen that work up before. But it’s been so adapted over the years - keep an eye peeled for Supe’s arms-on-the-cross motif - that I think there’s been some serious transference.
I suppose the real issue is, regardless of the origination, how have they landed today? Both the Marvel and DC universe are, indeed, fairly secular spaces with a generic christian protestant environ.
Heck, you could just as soon say that the dividing line isn’t religion but class. Look at DC’s big movers. They’re all wealthy or professional class. Superman’s a journalist, Hawkman’s an archeologist, Wonder Woman and Aquaman are royalty, Green Arrow and Batman are rich beyond words. None of that spells ‘street’ or ‘working class’. Maybe a stretch for Green Lantern (test pilot) and Flash (police scientist).
Contrast that with Marvel’s big players and there’s some top-level talent, sure. Reed Richards is a top inventor, Dr Strange a brilliant surgeon and so forth. Spider-man’s a kid from Queens. Captain America’s just a working guy who became a soldier. Ben Grimm is a clear working class pilot - with REALLY good friends, apparently. The rest of the Fantastic Four are Reed’s wife and her brother. Banner and Blake - Hulk and Thor, originally - were both educated men, sure, but there’s always an offsetting working class vice. Even the X-Men, one could argue that - even though the school is wealthy - only Xavier and Angel were initially presented as anything other than everyday people.
Or like my Dad - of Italian descent, when it served his interests.
Agree with The Other Waldo Pepper that the themes predate the Christ story. And more like Moses than Christ as his sacrifice was not required to save his people, just his being willing to accept that it was his job to do it. Not Christ but IMHO Superman was a paean to the America mythos as interpreted by eager immigrants than it was a metaphor for the immigrant, let alone Jewish-American experience. Superman has no self-doubt, no insecurities, no fear associated with not belonging, with being different. He is confidence through and through. He is Truth and Justice and The American Way!
Spiderman? Driven by guilt that his initially using his powers trivially and selfishly may have contributed to Uncle Ben’s death. He’ll never be good enough to make up for that.
I do like the class observation. And Marvel has more affection for the underdog hero as well as the ethnic working class one. The blind guy who overcompensates for his deficit, the mutants feared by society at large … DC is more of noblesse oblige.
In my opinion, Superman is not intended as a metaphor for Judaism or immigration or Moses or Jesus Christ. He’s a metaphor for the United States.
Obviously, he’s an idealized vision of the United States; America the way Americans want to believe we are. He has almost unlimited power but he only uses those powers for good. He has no dark aspects like Batman or Spiderman. He doesn’t even have Captain America’s open partisanship. Superman is 100% American but he’s the kind of America the entire world loves.
Sure he wasn’t born in America but being an immigrant who made good and assimilated just makes him fit in better with the American ideal.
I would argue that this evolved as Superman became popular and co-opted into the American Mythology. I have never thought os Superman as JC, definitely Moses. The special baby found in the rushes is the core.
Interesting stuff. I feel like my OP has been answered to an extent with the Woody Allen / Don Draper analogy. Lots more good stuff being discussed. All of the related dimensions: approach to class, ethnicity, use of secret identities, etc feel like they are worth considering through those contrasting approaches.
I realize that anyone who speaks in generalities is wrong 
This high-level thinking would break down in the detail - the companies and characters have gone through endless changes since the 1930’s. But the main idea feels reasonable.
There are the obvious New York City parallels for the DC universe (Metropolis is NYC by day; Gotham City is NYC by night).
Surely the mutant phobia background plot which Marvel has been pushing since the creation of the X-Men is an examination of anti-Semitism? Magneto is both Jewish and a mutant, and is spurned (or was, anyway) but his desire to prevent another Holocaust but this time upon mutants. “Days of Future Past” examines the fascist consequences of being unsuccessful in that.
DC had its super hero-phobia with its Legends story in the 1990s, albeit one pushed by a minion of Darkseid, and I vaguely recall a brief stint at alien-phobia too. But nothing as pronounced as Marvel’s mutant phobia.
I’ve sometimes thought of DC as embracing the ideal of America as super-power (Superman and the Justice League), while Marvel seems to push the idea of America as first amongst equals (Captain America). But I’ve never fully thought it through.
That’s an interesting take on the era. Do you have specific references to back it up? I wasn’t around for most of the '70s, but your description (as others have noted) runs directly counter to most of the criticism I’ve read on the era, as well as my own (somewhat limited) readings from the time.
The idea that DC was specifically catering to college students is a new one to me, for example. DC was just coming out of the Silver Age, when their output was very specifically directed at children. They started a tonal shift at the end of the '60s/early '70s, but it took some time to fully shake off the goofy high-concept/dream logic of stories like this, and it wasn’t an entirely clean break until, arguably, Crisis on Infinite Earths in the mid-80s. Marvel, having gotten out of the superhero business entirely following the collapse of the post-war market, was better able to start from a blank slate, and its focus on “realism” (which, in this context, refers to the “bad soap opera” elements you mentioned - money troubles, relationship issues, references to real world political issue, etc. It’s still a universe where “radioactive spider blood” gives you superpowers, and not leukemia) is generally credited with pulling the larger, more established DC in that direction, as it chased the market share it was suddenly hemorrhaging to Marvel. In any case, both companies were ardently chasing the new teen demographic - the idea that one company was deliberately aiming older, and the other younger, does not seem supported by anything I’ve read from - or about - the era.
The idea that DC heroes were less apt to solve their problems through smarts instead of punching is not entirely without basis, but was largely a Silver Age artifact. (And, as Trinopus pointed out, relies on a very generous interpretation of “smart.”) One of the demarcations for the beginning of the Bronze Age is Denny O’Neal’s run on Batman, where he went from solving crimes by making preposterous “deductions,” and started straight up wrecking dudes with car batteries.
I’d also push back on the idea that DC comics are “aspirational” in a way that Marvel is not. Being powerful isn’t an aspiration, it’s a fantasy. Being a better person than you are now is aspirational, and Marvel and DC heroes both are, well - heroes. Peter Parker isn’t less aspirational because he’s weaker than Superman, or poorer than Bruce Wayne. All three are people who, given extraordinary gifts, have decided to use those gifts to help people. That’s the part that people should aspire to, not having a pile of money or being able to punch people really hard.
All of this is interesting - I especially like the noodling on “superpower vs first among equals” - but that feels like it focuses on later/current sensibilities of each brand, after the initial feels they have when both thrived in the Silver Age.
Having said that, “America as Superpower” does have a Don Draper feel to it - ?? His Hero Mad Man persona works to brand and win business based on American Exceptionalism, even while all of the subplots show the toxic foundation it is built upon.
Again, literal Jewish history or faith is not part of the OP. The X-Men’s use of the Holocaust just points out the usefulness of the Mutant = Outsider metaphor. They also use it for LGBTQ, for teen angst, for MLK vs Malcolm X.
I am more focused on the snarky feel of Marvel vs the heroic feel of DC. In the movie universes, it is interesting how MCU defined its brand with Jon Favreau and Joss Whedon, both of whom are defined by strong narrative craft peppered with snark, vs Zack Snyder for DC, who seeks to take the Heroic and blow it up past the point of bombast.
Both choices feel like they have been at least somewhat influenced by their brand legacy. Hmm, it could jut be confirmation bias on my part, but I wonder if they each have a basic feel deep in the bones of their brand that led to the way the movies have come out?
When I described DC as aspirational, I was referring specifically to Silver Age DC, where all the background characters dressed sharply and lived comfortably in a distinctly postwar way, in contrast to Peter Parker’s borderline poverty, or the thrift shop stylings of Steve Ditko’s lowlife background characters.
Differences between the two companies blurred a lot in the following decade, as most artists and writers freelanced openly for both companies, but each company had a pretty rigid house style up until then.
That’s fair. I was responding more to RealityChuck’s use of the term, which he directly ties to heroics:
I’m not sure what he thinks was happening in Marvel comics in the '70s.
Did Denny write that scene? That looks like it might be from when Denny was editor, maybe a Jim Starlin script.
You’re right, my mistake: it’s a Starlin script.
If you’re interested, I know the Rabbi who wrote this book and it’s an excellent read.