Superman (1978)
Starring: Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman & Margot Kidder
Directed by: Richard Donner
Rating: ★★★½
In anticipation of the newest Superman movie Man of Steel being released this week, I thought it would be a fitting tribute to travel 35 years into the past and re-watch one of the most iconic movies of all time: Superman.
 |
| Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No... it's a man in a leotard! |
As a child, I must have watched all of the Superman films on television before I could properly process and correctly store such large pieces of information, because, in my mind, they are all compounded together. Before re-watching the original a few days ago, I wracked my brain to try to remember exactly what happens in each movie. I knew that in one of them Superman spins the world backwards, in another there is some sort of cyborg computer monster, and in another there’s a fun fair.
And yes, I am well aware that the fun fair one is Supergirl, the movie that seemed to be replayed on television more than any other in the series, because I remember it best. Or perhaps I just watched it the most because Helen Slater is hot.
It’s always strange to re-watch movies that you know you’ve seen repeatedly, but can’t conscious remember much about. They’re ingrained in your psyche: a part of you and your childhood that will never be forgotten.
Superman may have begun as an icon of literature, but it is in the medium of film that he literally took off. The ground-breaking special effects, which now may look awfully dated but have a distinct charm about them, allowed Superman to grace the silver screen in a hugely captivating way. But it isn’t the special effects that hold the film together; it’s the character himself, and the wonderful actor who plays him.
 |
| Christopher Reeve is excellent as Superman |
Superman begins, rather strangely, with the image of a comic book being projected onto a cinema screen and a small child reading it aloud. This meta-reference would instantly take the vast majority of the then contemporary audience back to a time when they themselves read Superman, before the advent of any moving incarnation of the man of steel. I liked this opening, because it takes the audience back to the era Superman was first published, and then propels us directly into the Technicolor world of cinema. So long, reading: this is a MOVIE bitches!
One thing I definitely do remember about Superman is the introduction: one that spends a vast amount of time on the planet Krypton. Marlon Brando gets to ham up his incredibly melodramatic but pertinent dialogue with theatrical aplomb, and the stupid mirror that traps people is still a ridiculous narrative device that even as a child I remember as looking rubbish.
 |
| Marlon Brando gets to chew the scenery as Jor-El |
Jor-El (Brando) knows that his world will explode, and yet makes a promise to stay on the planet and die, which he holds to out of honour. His honesty and bravery may be admirable, but to be honest it’s pretty stupid. He should have just saved himself, his wife and his son instead of being ‘the bigger man’ and dying a pointless death. But without this I guess we wouldn’t have a hugely dramatic opening that sees a planet explode and Superman fly through the galaxy in a crystal spaceship.
Superman is an incredibly slow burning movie, and with a running time of two and half hours, it really asks a lot from the audience. Luckily, the script and the directing is good enough to pace the plot properly, and the only parts of the movie I felt were lagging were the bits with Lex Luthor (Hackman) and his incompetent, inane, childish and just plain annoying sidekicks. Of course we need a villain: this is a superhero movie! But we don’t need him to be so… irritating. Or at least be surrounded by people who are so infuriating. Lex’s underground palace may be the set designer’s masterpiece, but every moment we spend in there makes you feel as if you really are languishing in hell, and that’s because it is so damn boring.
 |
| Who knew a supervillian played by Gene Hackman could be so... boring? |
As an aside, I think that it is a good point to mention that Gene Hackman was paid $2 million and Marlon Brando $3.7 million for this movie, while the then unknown Christopher Reeve was paid $250,000 for both Superman and its sequel. They needed star power and they paid big money for it (especially when Brando sued Warner Bros. for $50 million for being ‘cheated’ out of his share of the box office profits), but it’s pretty ironic that even though two Academy Award winning actors get top billing and higher pay over the main star, Christopher Reeve still manages to out act them both.
 |
| Reeve was perfectly cast... |
Reeve really is Superman. And not only does he play that part to perfection, he is also brilliant at the nerdy Clark Kent. Reeve plays wholesome, funny, strong and dashing all down to a tee. And the sequence in which he is interviewed by Lois Lane (Kidder) on her balcony oozes with witty banter and sexual chemistry, making both characters incredibly likeable.
 |
| Superman loves Lois... |
There are so many visually memorable moments about Superman. Who can forget the young Clark Kent running as fast as a speeding locomotive? And what about when he catches a bullet, which is a hugely funny and a very important piece of character development? And how about the romantic rendezvous when Superman and Lois fly around New York City Metropolis?
There are also some more dated and cringe-worthy moments. The part when the army sergeant sexually assaults Lex Luthor’s main squeeze (when she pretends to be unconscious) is a joke that definitely does not sit well now. Also, the part when the film turns into a full blown 1970s Disaster Movie really doesn’t work very well - it just looks so dated- and it goes on for much longer than it should. At one point I was expecting Gene Hackman to appear in a soaking wet turtleneck screaming at God.
 |
| Lois and Superman hit it off... |
And we can’t quite forget the ‘Deux Ex Machina’ ending of epic proportions: the part when Superman somehow manages to interfere with human history by spinning the world backwards, which turns time back so he can save Lois from dying. I’m sure that even a 70s audience must have questioned this incredibly silly concept.
But, strange and abrupt ending aside, Superman still on the whole manages to hold up. It continues to be a wholesome, feel good superhero movie that has it all: action, intrigue, romance and our hero saving the world. Its strength is in the casting of Christopher Reeve, as well as the strong direction, excellent script, brilliant comic moments and innocence that is largely stripped out of modern superhero films.
 |
| Clark Kent may be a loser but at least he can catch bullets... |
Superman may be coated in a thick layer of cheese, but isn’t that what Superman is essentially about? He’s the archetypal American hero. He represents a different time, a different era, but although his values of truth and justice may seem archaic to us now, wouldn’t it be nice to see more characters that are naïvely wholesome and honest?
Deep down, we all love Superman. It’s a part of our childhood- the era when you still believed that people were innately good and that you yourself could single handedly save the world.
Man of Steel has a lot to live up to, and Henry Cavil has huge red boots to fill. We all saw what a disaster Superman Returns was, but now Warner Bros and their team (that includes Christopher Nolan) have tried their hardest to make Superman appeal to a whole new generation.
 |
| Will the future be bright for Superman? Only time will tell... |
I already have my reservations about this, but the main issue I have is that Superman is supposed to be naïve, innocent and blandly moralistic. Take that away from him, and you no longer have Superman. You have Batman.
Maybe it’s time to leave Superman alone, at least for the time being. Superman is such a strong movie, and pretty much does exactly what it needs to with the comic character’s mythos. It will always be regarded as one of the most iconic and influential movies of all time- is there any point trying to recreate its enormous success?
0 Yorumlar