I've never understood the "it's all about Lana" argument. Over the course of six seasons, with an ensemble cast and for the sake of creative viability, I think you're going to have to shift the focus around. It's not going to be all Clark Kent all the time. And personally, while Clark is my favorite character, I'm fine with that. The stories about the people who influence Clark are also, imo, important. The Clark/Lana/Lex story is not, imo, driven by Lana Lang. It's driven by good versus evil which is to say it is driven by Clark versus Lex.
And to that end, I actually agree with Miles Millar, the show does, imo, always focus on Clark. Maybe not directly, but in the end, every story says something about Clark. Oliver may have had a lot of screen time, but ultimately he was a tool used to say something about Clark. Clark doesn't have to be on screen all the time for his presence to be felt. Sometimes, I think, his absence is actually more valuable. In the end Oliver was a catalyst for Clark. He got Clark to think and act bigger, but Clark was nobodies fool. He didn't follow Ollie blindly. He didn't sell out his own values/beliefs. He took what he found useful in the differences between himself and Oliver and added those things to the man he already knows himself to be.
I don't see Lana as The Protagonist in the the Clark/Lana/Lex story because the story isn't really about her, it's about the battle between good and evil and the toll it takes on humanity. Lana, like Oliver, is a tool that is used to say something about Clark and Lex. They both "love" the same girl, yet their approaches are vastly different. It's part of the humanity metaphor.
It's not the journey of Lana Lang because it isn't really a story about a single character, she's a representation of humanity as a whole. Is Death of a Salesman really about one man? No, Willy Loman is a representation, an everyman. If you want to show good versus evil, particularly on a tv show with a budget, I think you're going to have to break it down. They aren't going to show Lex trying to seduce the entire world over to the dark side, the scope is too big. And frankly, I don't think evil makes a sweeping claim on humanity anyway. It's more viral, insideous, like flesh eating bacteria.
Evil, to me, attacks vulnerability. It separates the weakest animals from the flock and continues to do so until there is nothing left. In that sense, Lana is a turning point in the battle. If Lex is able to turn Lana, his evil takes root and starts to spread. Clark Kent doesn't want to lose a single person in this battle so of course he's going to fight on. If he turns his back on Lana, he's turning his back on humanity, he's allowing evil to get that entry point it craves. Good versus evil is a bit of a turf war so of course there's going to be something in the middle being fought over. But the middle isn't what drives the story, it's the opposing world views that push things forward or drag things backward.
In my previous post I told the story from Lana's perspective because I was trying to make a point about Lana. But you could describe this story from the perspective of good (Clark) or evil (Lex). That's part of what makes this one of the better stories Smallville has told - all three leads have a valuable perspective and play a critical role in the story. To me, none of the three of them have been as interesting as they are right now since Seasons 1 and 2, but back then the show was operating on a somewhat different premise because all the characters were more innocent/naive.
One of the interesting aspects of Clark's role in the Clark/Lana/Lex triangle is that the powers he relies on are useless to him. All the heat vision, super strength, super speed, etc can't help Clark prevent Lana from making a mess of her life. There is a fine line in telling the Superman story, where if Superman is invulnerable, you run the risk of the audience being unable to relate to him, losing empathy for him and ultimately losing interest in him. He isn't physically vulnerable, he's emotionally vulnerable. In telling this story with Lana they are able to demonstrate Clark's human side, the influence of his heart and his compassion. It gets him in some trouble, it also makes him a bit more real. But most importantly, I think it shows that there is more to being a hero than having powers. All the powers in the world don't make Clark a hero. It's the heart, the compassion, the integrity, the humility, the commitment to the greater good. Without these things, Clark would basically be Lex.
You mention wanting Clark to represent humanity, but I think that would be a mistake. IMO, that's too common for Superman. Clark has his vulnerable human side, but ultimately Superman should represent something bigger. He's not humanity, he's something for humanity to strive for.
