Superman
1978
D: Richard Donner
**********
Pros: Distinctive visuals, Solid first act, Good acting,
Charismatic villain, Excellent score
Cons: Badly executed protagonists, Flawed villainous
plan, Awful ending
I know it’s fashionable to say that Batman is a much
better character than Superman. The
logic behind this belief is that Batman relies on his intelligence and
ingenuity rather than superpowers, and that Superman is allegedly dumb because
of this. Of course, this ignores the
fact that Batman also has the ultimate superpower (a bottomless bank account,
which his parents left him) and a traumatic childhood experience. Don’t get me wrong, I love Batman, but I find
Superman a perfectly identifiable character himself when he’s handled right
(like he is in Superman: The Animated
Series). While Batman fights crime
partially to deal with his own personal demons, Superman does so because it’s
the right thing to do and because he has the power to do it. He’s essentially just a normal guy who’s been
given extraordinary powers and he’s trying to do the best he can with them. Granted, many writers, influenced by
quasi-Nietzchian philosophy, have ignored this dynamic (Frank Miller, I’m
looking at you). I think the true reason
that Batman is more popular is that he’s just had better luck in being adapted
onto TV and film.
Superman: The Movie
illustrates my point, even though it starts out quite promising. The movie’s memorable opening has an excellent
theme song composed by John Williams. It
pretty much goes without saying that the score is one of the most iconic and
enjoyable movie themes out there, and the opening credits really gets the
viewer excited for what’s to come. The
first scene takes place on Krypton, where Jor-El (Marlon Brando) sentences
General Zod (Terence Stamp) to the Phantom Zone. Zod foreshadows the upcoming
sequel by threatening Jor-El and his family.
What’s interesting about this scene is how it was shot from different
angles and then shown from those angles in the sequel, which was filmed about
the same time. I love the scenes on
Krypton for their distinctive visual style.
The monochromatic theme, ethereal lighting and practical sets give it an
otherworldly feel. I will mention that I
love practical effects from the 70’s and 80’s.
Others may find them dated, but I really appreciate how much they did
without CGI, and each effect has its own look that sets it apart. I wish I’d see more of this today, since most
of the modern CGI effects look the same to me.
 |
| Although one wonders where Kal-El's red cape/blanket comes into this. |
Everyone knows the story from here. Jor-El, unable to convince the authorities
that Krypton will explode, sends his son Kal-El to Earth, where he is raised as
Clark Kent and becomes Superman. The first
act, which deals with Clark’s time in Smallville, is well executed. While he is a young man, we see him yearning
for something more, and he is confused by some of the powers he displays. He is driven to find a new life for himself
after his adoptive father dies of a heart attack, and soon after this he
discovers the truth about his heritage.
This is where the movie starts to go south. There is a disconnect between the Clark Kent
at the beginning of the movie and the Superman of its second half. Much better interpretations of this franchise
have found a way to balance both sides of the character. For example in The Animated Series, Kent
reacts with disbelief and initial aversion to discovering that he is an
alien. Once he comes to terms with the
revelation, he embraces his status as the last Kryptonian while still
remembering that he was raised on Earth and brought up with its values. In the movie, he hears Jor-El’s “you’re
better than those silly Earthlings” nonsense and just completely accepts it
without question. It’s not very
believable, and I always believe that much of Superman’s values come just as
much from his adoptive parents as they did from Jor-El. Henceforth, Superman acts subtly smug and
arrogant toward the humans under his protection. Quentin Tarantino may get a lot of flak for
Bill’s interpretation of Superman in Kill
Bill: Vol. 2, but in the context of this movie, it’s not a bad assessment.
The problem isn’t the late Christopher Reeve, who does an
amazing job as Superman. He’s great at
playing three aspects of the same character: the young Clark Kent, the dashing
Superman, and the nerdy adult Clark Kent.
He was particularly good at the last one, where he carries himself in
such a way that you could really believe that he was able to pass himself off
as a completely different person with just a pair of glasses. That’s good acting. In fact, every member of the cast does a
great job with what they’re given.
Margot Kidder is good as Lois Lane, even though I dislike her character
in this movie. The movie goes a bit far
in its homage to the classic era of Superman by including the patronizing view
toward women. I know that in the
original comics, Lois Lane was often depicted as often trying to fail at
exposing Superman for laughs, but this movie was made in the Late 70’s. There’s no excuse for not trying to depict
the relation between Kent/Superman and Lane in a more mature light. When you make an adaptation, you stay
faithful to what worked, and you improve the inferior aspects of the
original. It gets even worse when they
depict Lois as not even being able to spell basic words like “rapist.” It’s not like you need that to be a
journalist. While the characterizations
of Superman and Lois Lane are off-putting, they are not quite bad enough to
ruin the movie. After all, the former is
fighting the good fight, and the latter…well…she doesn’t murder anyone.
The villainy in this movie comes from Lex Luthor (Gene
Hackman), who is very witty and extra memorable with his tacky coiffure. He’s especially amusing when he’s chiding his
dim-witted sidekick Otis (Ned Beatty, who’s just as good at playing buffoons as
he is at corrupt authority figures). His
plan involves nuking California off the planet after buying cheap desert land
which will become the new West Coast. Of
course, how he expects this to become a popular real estate destination after
he’s murdered most of the potential customers is a mystery, especially
considering the fact that this land is now directly east of a nuclear fallout
zone. Yeah, it’s a pretty stupid plan. Just as silly is the ghetto way he executes
it: by sneaking a bug onto a nuke in plain sight on the road. I prefer powerful corporate authority
Lex. Still, even this logistical
plothole isn’t enough to ruin the movie for me.
 |
| THIS FUCKING SCENE, HOWEVER... |
Yes, the iconic turning-back-the-world scene. Long story short, Luthor diverts a missile
and Superman rescues a whole bunch of people from a resultant earthquake. During this time, Lois is smothered in her
car after being too dumb to get out of it, causing Superman some grief. He then flies around the world, somehow
reversing time and rescuing Lois. Admittedly, the visuals for this scene look great, but I still hate it. For
many people the ultimate moment of failure in a comic book movie is the
infamous Bat Credit Card from Batman
& Robin. But then again, that
was just a stupid throwaway joke in a movie that sucked anyway, not a painfully
atrocious deus ex machina that ruined what otherwise would have been a decent
movie. That’s right. I just said this is worse than the Bat Credit Card. It’s funny how I often hear people writing
off movies with fun action scenes for having “invincible heroes,” but I never
hear anyone complaining about this scene.
This doesn’t just show a lack of vulnerability or suspense, it removes
any conceivable possibility of it. It
destroys anything that even remotely resembles a serious stake in the movie. How am I supposed to be invested in a movie
when the protagonist can just turn back time whenever things don’t go his way
and is therefore unable to experience any potential loss?
Not only that, it makes no sense. Yes, I know this is a comic book movie, and I
can suspend my belief enough to accept that a man can fly. I can even believe that he can fly fast
enough around the Earth to reverse its rotation, but you cannot make me believe
that you can reverse time itself just by
moving a physical object backward.
Hell, even when Calvin &
Hobbes made a reference to it, Stupendous Man merely made it Saturday
again, which if he had reversed Earths position, technically would have
happened, even without reversing the passage of time itself. The scene also has the mother of all time
paradoxes. If Superman went back to save
Lois, did he retroactively unsave all those people because he cared more about
his sweetheart than them? Are there two
Supermen during that time? However, by
removing himself from the planet, did he remove himself from the time reversal,
allowing all of his heroic actions to occur unencumbered? If the time reversal affected everything on
the planet, except Superman, who was in orbit, how did his rescue of that city
even get reversed in the first place?
That would have caused quite a paradox.
I must note that I never really liked this idea of giving
Superman truly god-like powers over space and time. Superman has his powers as a result of the
way his alien body reacts to its environment (i.e. yellow sunlight). In other words, he’s subject to his
surroundings. I do believe in the
classic Superman powers (flight, strength, near invulnerability, cold breath,
heat vision), but punching reality is too much for me. One might say that I can’t just hate a movie
for its ending, but that’s hogwash. I
single scene can destroy a movie, especially if it’s something as crucial as
the ending.
EDIT
I know that The Nostalgia Critic made the same complaint years ago, but this is still my opinion.
EDIT
I know that The Nostalgia Critic made the same complaint years ago, but this is still my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment