The school year opened with my booting our TV and accompanying entertainment center—unaffectionally called “the shrine”—from the living room. In its place, there is a Windows XP Media Center 2005 PC. The dual TV tuner offers more recording capability than TiVo, which I put to good use. The timing meant I could start recording “Smallville,” which, for the new TV season, started running from episode one on the ABC Family channel.
Before I diss “Smallville,” I should say that I generally really like the show. It’s not exceptional TV the way, say, “Alias” or “Sopranos” might be. But “Smallville” moves along, even if watching requires some serious reality suspension.
My problem: The depiction of Superman as pretty much no brighter than a dim-bulb jock. Sorry, Clark, but I would have expected more superior brains to go with your brawn. The more traditional Superman is smart and tough. He only plays dumb and clumsy to hide his real identity. But the “Smallville” Clark Kent gives new meaning to naive.
You’d think now that Clark practically is an adult he’d be a bit more grown up, have more common sense. The “Smallville” character still needs mommy and daddy Kent to tell him what to think and do. Given all the weird stuff that happens in Smallville, Kansas, it’s hard to argue that Clark has lived a sheltered life. But he’s none too swift on the uptake yet.
Maybe the character is intentionally drawn with the flaw: Seeing the good in people. That’s admirable. But recall the Christopher Reeve Superman movies or series “Lois and Clark”, Clark Kent wasn’t dumb, he just acted that way.
Is this the brash, bold savior of Metropolis? I don’t think so. And the “Smallville” Superman doesn’t need Lex Luther as foible; dimwittedness is flaw enough.