Revisiting Superman
Aug. 7th, 2006 03:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatAs you may have already gathered by now, I have a weakness for films about "superheroes" or people with special powers. Also have a weakness for books about them. Don't know why. Maybe because in the films and books the people are often treated as outcasts and come across socially awkward, or maybe it's because they are written by people who feel this way. Not sure.
At any rate, amongst my favorite superhero films or films based on comic books, is, and this may surprise some people, Superman the Movie. Which in some respects is better than anything that has come before or after it in that it focused on the core of the story and less on the visuals or special effects. I mentioned in my review of Superman Returns, which is several posts back, that I'm not sure you can fully appreciate the film Returns without first seeing Superman the Movie and its sequel Superman II - since Returns is both a homage and a direct result of the prior two films. Returns would not exist without them and is meant as the sequel to Superman II. It is also demonstrative of a certain filmmaking technigue known as the "homage". Like it or not, Bryan Singer's Superman Returns is an important film because of how it frames itself around what had come before. And note, not films done by the Singer or containing Singer's cast, or even created in the same decade as Singer's film. The homage Singer creates - also comments on a style of filmmaking and special effects that has changed.
If you've seen the first two films recently, you know Bryan Singer directly pays homage to both in Returns to the extent of borrowing and reworking the musical composition, credit sequence, dialogue and plot directly from the original films. The inital scenes in Returns - with the rescue of Lois from the airplane and Lex's explaination regarding why he wants land - are modern and stylistic re-workings of similar scenes in the original movie. In fact, in the rescue sequence in Returns, Superman tells the passengers not to worry about flying and to call him a "friend" - and Lois faints. The exact same dialogue is in Superman the Movie, with just a few minor variations in inflection and pacing, and Lois' reaction after Superman saves her - the same - she faints. Just for a different reason. Plus the shot used when she faints is in both films from above, we are looking down on her. And in both films an aircraft is involved - the first a helicopter, the second a huge jet - Singer's way of stating that special effects have changed in scope since the original aired. In another sequence - Lex states he wants land because of what his father said - and he's interrupted by his sidekick who states, you mean when he said "Get out?" No, before that, states Lex, "he said, son, if you want to get ahead, get land." The dialogue is exactly the same as the dialogue uttered in Superman the Movie, again with a few tweaks and inflection changes. Lex's purpose is also the same - he wants to kill people to get land and destroy an entire seaboard to do it. Yet, in the first film - the scope is smaller, just the state of California and the land, would already exist, also only millions would die. In the second, it is billions, and the entire continent of the US in jeopardy - the seaboard effected? The East Coast. Much like the plane sequence, the scope has been expanded, the special effects are bigger, glossier, yet the dialogue and initial plotting more or less the same. In Returns - Singer not only references the first films, much in the same way the Rodriquez paid homage to Sergio Leon in Once Upon A Time in Mexico, he also adds to them, treats them as the building blocks or foundation for the third or his own film. It's a homage not a parody or a satire. A way that one director has of appreciating another's prior effort and complimenting it, even paying tribute to it by showing what that director presented to a modern audience in a way that the modern audience can appreciate. Like when your friend recommends a film or book he or she adored and tells you what happened, often embellishing the bits and pieces. When you see the film, you don't see what your friend saw and may wonder at his description. Singer is that friend except he's showing you what he saw in the first two films - in his own work. Superman Returns is in a way a cinemagraphic fanfic continuation of Superman II
This is hard to pull off well and I've seldom seen anyone attempt it. I think the director of Van Helsing tried and failed miserably. Singer is meticulous in his effort, he even takes the credits sequence and John Williams award winning score and reimagines it, reworking bits and pieces. The music doesn't quite work out, but the credits subtly do as do the visuals - mediums that Singer is clearly more comfortable in.
As you may have gathered from the above, I just finished re-watching Superman The Movie and Superman II this weekend, two films that I hadn't seen since the 1990s when they last aired on tv. So in a way it was bit like seeing them for the first time, since my memories of them were muddled a bit. The reason I rented them has a lot to do with what is stated in the paragraphs above. I saw both in the theater originally. At a very young age and was wowed by them. Superman the Movie came out in 1978, shortly after Star Wars, and was amongst the few films at that time suitable for adults and children. Often movies fell into two categories - adult films and kid films. Superman was a film that appealed to everyone.
It was also a landmark film - because it managed to bring a comic book character to a main stream audience and do it in such a way as to endear non-comic fans to the genre. Prior to Superman, movies based on comic books or superheroes tended to be campy or cartoonish. Also Superman featured special effects that hadn't been seen before - it was amongst the first films to present effects in a way that were believable. We look at it today and yes, some of the effects may seem hokey or manipulated in comparison to what we've become accustomed to, but most are still realistic. It really does look like Superman can fly. And Christopher Reeves manages to make the idea of wearing a blue and red spandex suit quite sexy and believable.
The first two films had a stellar cast - Glenn Ford played Clark's Earth father, a well-known actor of the screen, who by the time he appeared in that brief role had appeared in over 100 films. Marlon Brando plays his real father, with Susannah York in the supporting role of Superman's birth mother - her part is larger in the second film due to the fact that they could not convince Brando to come back or afford him. Jackie Cooper plays Perry White. Gene Hackman is Lex (who wears a skull-cap as Lex and his own hair as the toupee), with Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine as his comical associates. Terence Stamp (who I believe currently voices Superman's father in Smallville, although I could be wrong about that. There's another Terence out there that I often confuse with Stamp) plays General Zhod, with Sarah Douglas as his sidekick. But Reeves and Margot Kidder in the leads hold the piece together - both unknown to movie audiences at the time the films premiered. They are written by Mario Puzo who had recently won kudos for the Godfather films, and the music is composed by John Williams, which in turn was nominated and possibly won an award. The cinematography - particularly in the first film is beautiful - the camera rolls across the dry brown and greens of Clark's farm in Smallville, and scans the icey peaks of his fortress of solitude. The second isn't quite as breathtaking, focusing more on the fight sequences.
Re-watching them, I realized how much I'd forgotten. For instance there's an early scene with Clark racing a train and he waves to a little girl inside, the little girl turns out to be Lois Lane. And a later sequence with Marlon Brando explaining the rules of living on this planet to his son. Some of the things Brando says in the film are reminiscent of Judeo-Christian myth - "I love this planet so much, I am trusting them with my only son." And, "watch out for vanity, it is what destroyed our culture." A re-occurring theme in the movies.
The first film starts in 1948 and ends in 1978. Watching it, I forgot briefly that film came out in the 70s, for some reason I remembered mid-80's so was confused with all the 70's clothing choices. Then looked at the DVD box and realized, damn, it was released in 1978 - that's why. Clark Kent spends 12 years in his Fortress of Solitude before coming to Metropolis and getting a job at the Daily Planet - the 12 year gap explains his social awkwardness and unawareness of cultural changes in slang. The first film starts with a black and white comic book entitled "Action Comics" and states how all the news fit to print came from "The Daily Planet". And the Planet is shown as a window filled open and busy newsroom, much like the newsroom in All The Presidents Men which came out in the early 70's. Demonstrating how out of it he's been, Clark responds to something Lois says, at one point, with the word - "Swell". A word that was "in" when he left 12 years before. Watching Reeves negotiate the acting challenges of the role after seeing lesser actors attempt it, Tom Welling and Sam Routh, I found myself missing the actor - who died a year or so ago due to complications with an irreparable spinal injury. Reeves manages with very little dialogue to convey the following: that Clark is Superman's alter-ego, yet not completely, he is socially awkward and has very little experience relating to women, he is also a fish out of water so to speak - he's not comfortable in the big city or even on earth - constantly aware of his differences and the need to cover them or down-play them, while getting across a sense of humor, the mischeivousness (something neither Welling in Smallville nor Routh in Superman Returns seem to know how to play) and that dark wit and the vanity - I am brighter than I look, stronger than you, and I am playing with you, just a wee bit - he seems to say, but goodnaturedly so. I fell a bit in love with Reeves "Superman", who manages to convey vulnerable little boy, mischeivous flirt, and worldweary hero at the same time. Kidder portrays Lois as spunky and defensive, the girl reporter who was never quite that successful with men. She's as awkward as he is. Aggressive, bold, take no prisoners kind of gal. Yet also comical.
The second film is not quite as good as the first, although at times more enjoyable. The romance has it's moments - Lois realizing Clark is Superman and Clark almost dissuading of her the realization. The part that does not quite work - is the villains, which come across as a tad stupid, Zhod's ability was not his brain, and how the world handles them, which is also stupid. Watching it I kept asking myself questions like - why aren't they using Kryptonite to fight the super-powered bad guys? Why hasn't Lex located some? Or are these people just stupid? Hello, if four superheros are having a battle, I would not stick around and watch. I would run or find a safe place to hide. Outside of those minor problems, the movie more or less works. And it is a true sequel - taking scenes from the first film and expanding on them - such as an opening sequence where Superman's father has sentenced General Zhod and his cronies to the Phantom Zone. We also get a quick snapshot of the events in the first film in the opening credits of the second, just in case you forgot about them. Which you probably have, since it came out at least two years later. The first film is close to flawless. You can't really criticize the special effects or the funky set design in the openings scenes - since both are the result of that time period. The design for Superman's planet is reminiscent of the set design for Logan's Run, Star Wars, and other sci-fi films of that decade. Applying today's standards is unfair. You have to appreciate the films in the context of the period in which they were made.
Neither film is very long - they made shorter films in the 1970's and 80's than they do now, I think.
About an hour and a half if that. And both emphasize comedy over drama, yet I still cry towards the end of the first film on the strength of Reeves's acting, and still get a romantic lump in my throat in the second.
Both also hit upon similar themes - how if you aren't careful vanity can destroy you. That putting your own needs above others does have a price. And changing yourself for someone else or to be with someone else can't work. Finally, being stronger and mightier than everyone on the planet, to the extent that you can make them do whatever you please - can get old really quickly. But principal amongst all these themes - is the theme that Singer reflects in his homage - Superman Returns - as a counter-theme. Superman is needed by the world but the power he has - contains it's drawbacks. He has the ability with his crystals, superstrength, etc to destroy the planet. He can choose to be vain like Lex Luthor and General Zhod. He can choose to do away with his powers and live a normal life with Lois. Or he can choose to be a hero and attempt to use what has been given to him for good, even if it feels at times futile. The idea of having a purpose, of feeling useful, even when the world is not telling you how great you are or seeing you - in Superman, they see the image he's created not the man, Clark Kent, who is invisible at the Planet - is a difficult challenge and one that is universal whether or not we have super powers.
At any rate, amongst my favorite superhero films or films based on comic books, is, and this may surprise some people, Superman the Movie. Which in some respects is better than anything that has come before or after it in that it focused on the core of the story and less on the visuals or special effects. I mentioned in my review of Superman Returns, which is several posts back, that I'm not sure you can fully appreciate the film Returns without first seeing Superman the Movie and its sequel Superman II - since Returns is both a homage and a direct result of the prior two films. Returns would not exist without them and is meant as the sequel to Superman II. It is also demonstrative of a certain filmmaking technigue known as the "homage". Like it or not, Bryan Singer's Superman Returns is an important film because of how it frames itself around what had come before. And note, not films done by the Singer or containing Singer's cast, or even created in the same decade as Singer's film. The homage Singer creates - also comments on a style of filmmaking and special effects that has changed.
If you've seen the first two films recently, you know Bryan Singer directly pays homage to both in Returns to the extent of borrowing and reworking the musical composition, credit sequence, dialogue and plot directly from the original films. The inital scenes in Returns - with the rescue of Lois from the airplane and Lex's explaination regarding why he wants land - are modern and stylistic re-workings of similar scenes in the original movie. In fact, in the rescue sequence in Returns, Superman tells the passengers not to worry about flying and to call him a "friend" - and Lois faints. The exact same dialogue is in Superman the Movie, with just a few minor variations in inflection and pacing, and Lois' reaction after Superman saves her - the same - she faints. Just for a different reason. Plus the shot used when she faints is in both films from above, we are looking down on her. And in both films an aircraft is involved - the first a helicopter, the second a huge jet - Singer's way of stating that special effects have changed in scope since the original aired. In another sequence - Lex states he wants land because of what his father said - and he's interrupted by his sidekick who states, you mean when he said "Get out?" No, before that, states Lex, "he said, son, if you want to get ahead, get land." The dialogue is exactly the same as the dialogue uttered in Superman the Movie, again with a few tweaks and inflection changes. Lex's purpose is also the same - he wants to kill people to get land and destroy an entire seaboard to do it. Yet, in the first film - the scope is smaller, just the state of California and the land, would already exist, also only millions would die. In the second, it is billions, and the entire continent of the US in jeopardy - the seaboard effected? The East Coast. Much like the plane sequence, the scope has been expanded, the special effects are bigger, glossier, yet the dialogue and initial plotting more or less the same. In Returns - Singer not only references the first films, much in the same way the Rodriquez paid homage to Sergio Leon in Once Upon A Time in Mexico, he also adds to them, treats them as the building blocks or foundation for the third or his own film. It's a homage not a parody or a satire. A way that one director has of appreciating another's prior effort and complimenting it, even paying tribute to it by showing what that director presented to a modern audience in a way that the modern audience can appreciate. Like when your friend recommends a film or book he or she adored and tells you what happened, often embellishing the bits and pieces. When you see the film, you don't see what your friend saw and may wonder at his description. Singer is that friend except he's showing you what he saw in the first two films - in his own work. Superman Returns is in a way a cinemagraphic fanfic continuation of Superman II
This is hard to pull off well and I've seldom seen anyone attempt it. I think the director of Van Helsing tried and failed miserably. Singer is meticulous in his effort, he even takes the credits sequence and John Williams award winning score and reimagines it, reworking bits and pieces. The music doesn't quite work out, but the credits subtly do as do the visuals - mediums that Singer is clearly more comfortable in.
As you may have gathered from the above, I just finished re-watching Superman The Movie and Superman II this weekend, two films that I hadn't seen since the 1990s when they last aired on tv. So in a way it was bit like seeing them for the first time, since my memories of them were muddled a bit. The reason I rented them has a lot to do with what is stated in the paragraphs above. I saw both in the theater originally. At a very young age and was wowed by them. Superman the Movie came out in 1978, shortly after Star Wars, and was amongst the few films at that time suitable for adults and children. Often movies fell into two categories - adult films and kid films. Superman was a film that appealed to everyone.
It was also a landmark film - because it managed to bring a comic book character to a main stream audience and do it in such a way as to endear non-comic fans to the genre. Prior to Superman, movies based on comic books or superheroes tended to be campy or cartoonish. Also Superman featured special effects that hadn't been seen before - it was amongst the first films to present effects in a way that were believable. We look at it today and yes, some of the effects may seem hokey or manipulated in comparison to what we've become accustomed to, but most are still realistic. It really does look like Superman can fly. And Christopher Reeves manages to make the idea of wearing a blue and red spandex suit quite sexy and believable.
The first two films had a stellar cast - Glenn Ford played Clark's Earth father, a well-known actor of the screen, who by the time he appeared in that brief role had appeared in over 100 films. Marlon Brando plays his real father, with Susannah York in the supporting role of Superman's birth mother - her part is larger in the second film due to the fact that they could not convince Brando to come back or afford him. Jackie Cooper plays Perry White. Gene Hackman is Lex (who wears a skull-cap as Lex and his own hair as the toupee), with Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine as his comical associates. Terence Stamp (who I believe currently voices Superman's father in Smallville, although I could be wrong about that. There's another Terence out there that I often confuse with Stamp) plays General Zhod, with Sarah Douglas as his sidekick. But Reeves and Margot Kidder in the leads hold the piece together - both unknown to movie audiences at the time the films premiered. They are written by Mario Puzo who had recently won kudos for the Godfather films, and the music is composed by John Williams, which in turn was nominated and possibly won an award. The cinematography - particularly in the first film is beautiful - the camera rolls across the dry brown and greens of Clark's farm in Smallville, and scans the icey peaks of his fortress of solitude. The second isn't quite as breathtaking, focusing more on the fight sequences.
Re-watching them, I realized how much I'd forgotten. For instance there's an early scene with Clark racing a train and he waves to a little girl inside, the little girl turns out to be Lois Lane. And a later sequence with Marlon Brando explaining the rules of living on this planet to his son. Some of the things Brando says in the film are reminiscent of Judeo-Christian myth - "I love this planet so much, I am trusting them with my only son." And, "watch out for vanity, it is what destroyed our culture." A re-occurring theme in the movies.
The first film starts in 1948 and ends in 1978. Watching it, I forgot briefly that film came out in the 70s, for some reason I remembered mid-80's so was confused with all the 70's clothing choices. Then looked at the DVD box and realized, damn, it was released in 1978 - that's why. Clark Kent spends 12 years in his Fortress of Solitude before coming to Metropolis and getting a job at the Daily Planet - the 12 year gap explains his social awkwardness and unawareness of cultural changes in slang. The first film starts with a black and white comic book entitled "Action Comics" and states how all the news fit to print came from "The Daily Planet". And the Planet is shown as a window filled open and busy newsroom, much like the newsroom in All The Presidents Men which came out in the early 70's. Demonstrating how out of it he's been, Clark responds to something Lois says, at one point, with the word - "Swell". A word that was "in" when he left 12 years before. Watching Reeves negotiate the acting challenges of the role after seeing lesser actors attempt it, Tom Welling and Sam Routh, I found myself missing the actor - who died a year or so ago due to complications with an irreparable spinal injury. Reeves manages with very little dialogue to convey the following: that Clark is Superman's alter-ego, yet not completely, he is socially awkward and has very little experience relating to women, he is also a fish out of water so to speak - he's not comfortable in the big city or even on earth - constantly aware of his differences and the need to cover them or down-play them, while getting across a sense of humor, the mischeivousness (something neither Welling in Smallville nor Routh in Superman Returns seem to know how to play) and that dark wit and the vanity - I am brighter than I look, stronger than you, and I am playing with you, just a wee bit - he seems to say, but goodnaturedly so. I fell a bit in love with Reeves "Superman", who manages to convey vulnerable little boy, mischeivous flirt, and worldweary hero at the same time. Kidder portrays Lois as spunky and defensive, the girl reporter who was never quite that successful with men. She's as awkward as he is. Aggressive, bold, take no prisoners kind of gal. Yet also comical.
The second film is not quite as good as the first, although at times more enjoyable. The romance has it's moments - Lois realizing Clark is Superman and Clark almost dissuading of her the realization. The part that does not quite work - is the villains, which come across as a tad stupid, Zhod's ability was not his brain, and how the world handles them, which is also stupid. Watching it I kept asking myself questions like - why aren't they using Kryptonite to fight the super-powered bad guys? Why hasn't Lex located some? Or are these people just stupid? Hello, if four superheros are having a battle, I would not stick around and watch. I would run or find a safe place to hide. Outside of those minor problems, the movie more or less works. And it is a true sequel - taking scenes from the first film and expanding on them - such as an opening sequence where Superman's father has sentenced General Zhod and his cronies to the Phantom Zone. We also get a quick snapshot of the events in the first film in the opening credits of the second, just in case you forgot about them. Which you probably have, since it came out at least two years later. The first film is close to flawless. You can't really criticize the special effects or the funky set design in the openings scenes - since both are the result of that time period. The design for Superman's planet is reminiscent of the set design for Logan's Run, Star Wars, and other sci-fi films of that decade. Applying today's standards is unfair. You have to appreciate the films in the context of the period in which they were made.
Neither film is very long - they made shorter films in the 1970's and 80's than they do now, I think.
About an hour and a half if that. And both emphasize comedy over drama, yet I still cry towards the end of the first film on the strength of Reeves's acting, and still get a romantic lump in my throat in the second.
Both also hit upon similar themes - how if you aren't careful vanity can destroy you. That putting your own needs above others does have a price. And changing yourself for someone else or to be with someone else can't work. Finally, being stronger and mightier than everyone on the planet, to the extent that you can make them do whatever you please - can get old really quickly. But principal amongst all these themes - is the theme that Singer reflects in his homage - Superman Returns - as a counter-theme. Superman is needed by the world but the power he has - contains it's drawbacks. He has the ability with his crystals, superstrength, etc to destroy the planet. He can choose to be vain like Lex Luthor and General Zhod. He can choose to do away with his powers and live a normal life with Lois. Or he can choose to be a hero and attempt to use what has been given to him for good, even if it feels at times futile. The idea of having a purpose, of feeling useful, even when the world is not telling you how great you are or seeing you - in Superman, they see the image he's created not the man, Clark Kent, who is invisible at the Planet - is a difficult challenge and one that is universal whether or not we have super powers.
