Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Kill Bill’ saga is filled with breathtaking martial arts sequences, operatic violence, and operatic emotion, but some of its most powerful moments happen when the swords are lowered, and the characters speak honestly, or pretend to. Among the most misleadingly significant scenes comes ‘Kill Bill: Vol. 2’, when Bill gives his now-famous Superman monologue.
The monologue is still being deconstructed by many fans who believe that Tarantino intended it to be a deep, philosophical reflection on the Man of Steel. However, the reality is more complex and much more terrifying. This is not a monologue about Superman. It is about Bill and his worldview, control tactics, and failure to comprehend heroism. And most importantly, it is about his final attempt to define Beatrix Kiddo’s identity for her before he loses her forever.
Why Bill’s Superman Theory Falls Apart And That’s The Whole Point
To understand why Bill’s speech doesn’t work as a literal interpretation of Superman, we must examine the origins of his argument. According to Bill, Superman is the real person, and Clark Kent is the disguise. He believes that Clark is what Superman thinks of humans: weak, clumsy, and insecure. It is an impressive concept, and David Carradine delivers it in an immaculate manner. However, the argument collapses under even the lightest comic book scrutiny.
Related: Quentin Tarantino’s First Movie Never Made It To The Theaters. Here’s Why
In almost all of the major Superman canons, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, the reboot of John Byrne, Smallville, Superman: The Animated Series, etc, Clark Kent is not the mask. It is Clark who Kal-El grew up to be. Clark is the character that the Kents made. He is the boy who ran through farmlands in Smallville. He is basically the moral foundation of Smallville. So, the constructed identity is Superman. Superman is the decision to embody hope publicly. Clark Kent is the man.
Even in the Christopher Reeve movies, which Bill makes a point of mentioning, Superman speaks with sincerity. However, Kent’s emotional depth is still the core of his personality. The clumsy reporter character is played up, but the sense of right and wrong, the sympathy, and the desire to lead a normal life are all Clark. Bill totally fails to see this difference. He does not regard Clark Kent as a real person since he cannot perceive people as real unless they are part of his story.
He gives roles to individuals like Beatrix to fit the story he desires to narrate. Moreover, this is not a weakness in Tarantino’s writing. This is a flaw in Bill. And it’s very much deliberate. Tarantino uses Bill’s monologue to show his true self: cynical, controlling, self-justifying, and essentially unable to comprehend vulnerability. Bill perceives Superman in the same light as he perceives Beatrix, a person who is acting more than being their true selves. That’s why the monologue is brilliant in context but useless as actual Superman commentary. It was never meant to be that.
Bill’s Superman Speech Was Never About Superman, It Was About Control
The scene’s emotional weight comes not from the content of Bill’s argument, but from the power dynamic surrounding it. Beatrix has been given a truth serum that Bill refers to as the undisputed truth. It compels her to be truthful in her answers, depriving her of her emotional barriers. Bill is weaponizing philosophy. It is at this point that he uses the Superman analogy. He wants Beatrix to tell him something painful. He wants her to confess that she was not made to live a quiet and peaceful life in El Paso.
In case you missed it: Quentin Tarantino Delivers His Ultimate Vision With ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’
Bill believes her wanting to live a normal life was a deception. Motherhood and domesticity were not her reality, but a fantasy. And like all abusers, he puts this truth in a manner that suits him. He makes Beatrix Superman, born to be a fighter and something special. He suggests she is fundamentally incompatible with normalcy, that she is lying to herself by trying to be happy without him or without the assassin life he shaped her for. However, Beatrix challenges him.
She insisted that she could have been and that she wanted to create a life with her daughter. She insists she was not doomed to Bill’s violent world. Her “performance” wasn’t a lie; it was hope. It’s one of the few instances when Beatrix is able to claim her emotional truth, despite the serum forcing her to face her fear and grief. Tarantino creates the scene in such a way that Bill’s monologue appears to be wise. However, the more you analyze it, the more evil it appears. Bill wants Beatrix to believe she’ll never escape him. The Superman metaphor is just the bait.
Major Antagonists In Some Of The Biggest Films Use This Technique To Berate Heroes
Bill’s perspective mirrors another iconic Superman character: Lex Luthor. Both men are geniuses, charismatic, and obsessed with what Superman stands for. Both bend their interpretation of the hero to their aggression. And both shape narratives because controlling the story is easier than confronting their own insecurity or guilt. Lex Luthor does not despise Superman because he is right about Superman. He despises Superman because he poses a threat to his ego.
Related: Top 25 Horror Movies Without Any Ghosts Or Supernatural Beings
So, Lex creates fake meanings of Superman to explain his bitterness. Bill does the same to Beatrix. And Tarantino deliberately repeats this dynamic. Bill’s monologue is effective since it is his psyche and not what Superman stands for. When a villain interprets a hero, the interpretation tells us more about the villain. It is not that Bill is wrong about Superman. Bill’s mistake is that he believes he is uniquely insightful. He feels that he knows more about identity than Beatrix and that he can dictate her story.
To fully appreciate the scene, it helps to consider a broader cinematic tradition: Villains thinking of themselves as philosophers. Several Legendary villains attempt to define the heroes. In ‘The Dark Knight,’ Joker claims that Batman is a bad day away from anarchy. In ‘Black Panther,’ Killmonger frames T’Challa’s morality as cowardice. ‘Inglourious Basterds’ Hans Landa uses politeness to mask predation. Bill belongs to this lineage. His words are weapons, his charm is disarming. Tarantino often uses pop culture references not as statements of his own philosophy, but as reflections of character psychology.
