It's surprising that 'Superman: The Movie' (STM) hasn't already been covered here at the Quirky Muffin, it being the prototype theatrical superhero movie. However, is it quite the prototype that we think? There is the 'Batman' film of 1966 to consider too, 'Superman and The Molemen', and even the Superman and Batman serials and cartoons of the Golden Age of cinema. 'Superman' isn't the first superhero project to take itself seriously, but it is the first complete package to make it to the big screen, complete with origin and internal consistency.
'Superman' is a difficult movie to talk about, due to its storied and layered genesis. It was made simultaneously with the original footage of 'Superman II' as part of the virtuoso performance of director Richard Donner and writing talent of Tom Mankiewicz. The ending is in fact taken and adapted from the original story for 'Superman II', explaining both why it seems to be less organically plotted out than the rest of the first film, and why that ending was what had to be used in the restored version of 'Superman II'. This change adds a sensation of roughness to the finale of an otherwise wonderfully structured and solid movie. The humour is wonderful, the verisimilitude is unprecedented, and the whole movie is so solidly based in the foundation that was forty years of accumulated Superman mythology to that date that it couldn't reasonably fail in retrospect, but was a great concern at the time. Yes, the ending is a problem, but it smells like something that was enforced from much higher up than the director or writer, and the whole makes up for it.
The most fascinating aspect of STM is that it comes from a past era when superhero movies were not established, and were not entirely pre-programmed to be all fighting, all the time. There's not a violent confrontation in the whole two and a half hours, which perfectly suits Superman the character in his native movie environment of the romantic adventure. Why does Superman not function particularly well in any medium in the present? It's almost certainly because the romantic adventure doesn't really exist any more. Brian Singer took a large chance on 'Superman Returns' in trying merge into the defunct genre, but its legacy was abandoned by the studio, and we ended up with punch-fests instead. Yes, this isn't an entirely fair analysis, but it does capture the main problem of Superman in a highly cynical age.
Watching STM is a slightly complicated process, as you effectively move through four distinct and differently toned sub-movies. You have the origin on Krypton, the upbringing in Smallville, the travails of Superman, Lois and Lex Luthor in Metropolis, and then the ending. The first three are all awesome, and star-studded, with the lynch pin trio of Marlon Brando, Glenn Ford and Gene Hackman stealing the movie until Christopher Reeve appears. It must have been a daunting challenge to step under the shadow of that cape after the legendary George Reeves, but Reeve became an instant legend, proving himself in one shot. Oh, and the John Williams music is wonderful too.
It's a comic book come to life, a wonder of the past age of movie making, and not something that will really be matched until a new paradigm takes over in cinema, if it ever does. Would it be slow for today's film-lovers? Yes, but at least it's true to the core of the character and lore of Superman, and if you can just open your mind and heart then it's an awesome experience from start to finish.
O.
No comments:
Post a Comment