Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Superman Week: Superman Returns (2006)



Back in the years 2000-2001, I occasionally jobbed as a contributor for a prominent genre magazine. While submitting article ideas for this publication, I was informed that all prospective articles in the magazine had to target sixteen year-olds.

Which means that I couldn't write about Space: 1999 or the original Battlestar Galactica, or anything, for that matter, pre-mid-1980s. 

This edict was a shock to my system; I couldn't accept that popular mainstream magazines would focus only on the "new" and pretend that genre history didn't exist. Indeed, part of the reason that this blog exists today is to serve as a response to that policy. Here I write about whatever the hell I want to write about...old or new.

But that hard lesson about "business" was not so tremendous a shock to the system as Superman Returns, Bryan Singer's cinematic superhero event of 2006. 

Why?

Well, this movie serves as a genuine anomaly in terms of modern Hollywood business-planning. Bryan Singer forged a Superman movie for me...a guy who remembers and adores the Christopher Reeve films of the late 1970s and early 1980s.  

And you know what?  

Today, by-and-large, fans hate, hate, hate the film.  It is described often as being too reverential, or even "boring."

I find it a pretty satisfactory follow-up to the original films of the 1970s and 1980s, and feel that, in some way, this movie proved that there is no sure-fire approach to reviving a classic film series.  If you re-boot with faith, like Superman Returns, people complain.  If you change everything up, well...people complain.

Catch-22, right?

I hasten to add in regards to this film that there are no sixteen year-olds walking around on this planet who remember these old films from their theatrical runs. Yet despite that fact, Singer loyally re-used John Williams' stirring Superman theme, and marshaled archival footage of the late Marlon Brando as Jor-El, Superman's father. Furthermore, Singer has crafted his 2006 film as a direct sequel to Superman (1978) and Superman II (1981).

This is a revolutionary notion in corporate Hollywood, make no mistake. Bryan Singer's approach flies in the face of conventional wisdom, and the tack other films and TV shows have steadfastly adopted. Tim Burton's re-imagining of Planet of the Apes (2001) was not the continuation long-time fans desired or prayed for, but rather a bizarre dead-end, a pocket universe that today nobody even remembers (or likes).

But give Bryan Singer his due for his central conceit here. He has adopted a more respectful, more faithful stance than many of his peers might have taken, and consequently given all those "old" Superman fans like me the movie we wanted back in 1983...when we got Richard Pryor in Superman III instead.  So, this modern sequel is faithful to the cinematic legacy of this character; not necessarily the comic-book.

Considering his creative decisions to honor the past, Bryan Singer had me hook, line and sinker at "it's a bird, it's a plane, it's..." because he actually took my generation's hopes and dreams into account...something that almost never happens with blockbuster movies anymore. 

Singer made a movie he thought Generation X would like and cherish, and overall, I believe he succeeded in that endeavor. He also made a good movie that audiences of all ages can enjoy together; one about fatherhood and the passage of generations.

On the eve of The Man of Steel’s release (2013), I am glad to have a close-out film to the Donner Age, and also ready to experience a new vision.  But I don’t know that I would have felt ready to accept and embrace the new vision without Superman Returns as a kind of chapter ending. 



Thematically, Singer's Superman Returns picks up all the important strands left dangling by the collapse of the franchise in 1983.

More than any version of the Man of Steel legend, Donner's film captured the religious nature of the Superman tale. Jor-El, a wise, God-like representative of a distant, highly-advanced planet, sends his only son (Jesus Christ) to Earth to live among humanity.

The fact that Krypton is almost totally and immaculately white (without dirt, grays, or other discoloration) suggests that the world is some sort of utopia or Heaven. That the Kryptonians in that film wear reflective, glowing uniforms (and in many cases boast white manes of hair...) further develops the Heaven metaphor.

But the Christ analogy goes further. Immediately before sending away the child messiah, Jor-El and his "angelic" people have proven themselves victorious in a war against an insurrectionist named Zod (representing Lucifer). Before being "cast out" to a Hell dimension (the Phantom Zone), this villain threatens to one day return to battle Jor-El and his heirs, an Armageddon that is highlighted in Superman II.

Once on Earth, Kal El is adopted by kindly, bewildered parents (the Kents), regular humans (like Mary's devoted husband, Joseph) and both of them are at a loss to explain his miraculous arrival. Not quite immaculate conception, but close enough. Then of course, a mature Superman becomes nothing less than mankind's savior as he performs miracles (like saving Air Force One).

That Superman is gentle, loving, kind, powerful, and honest also harks back to the stories regarding Jesus.

Superman Returns develops this idea about as far as it can be taken without beginning The Church of Superman.

Superman (Brandon Routh) is referred to throughout the film as a "savior" and Lois Lane has won a Pulitzer Prize for an article "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." It could have been titled, "Why the World Doesn't Need Christ.”  

And then, of course, Superman is stabbed in the side by Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey), reflecting the Gospel of John, which reports how a Roman soldier stabbed Jesus Christ in his side. More immediately obvious as a Christ parallel is Superman's telltale pose after saving the world from the emerging Kryptonian continent.

He hovers in space, his arms outstretched horizontally, as if he is pinned to a cross. Christ metaphors are a dime a dozen in horror and science fiction films (see: Alien 3 and The Omega Man), but in the case of Superman, the comparison has been earned since Superman: The Movie, Superman II and now Superman Returns all rigorously develop the notion.


Visually, Bryan Singer has come a long way since X-Men (2000). I didn't like that film as much as many fans did, in part because of the astoundingly weak visuals. The final mutant battle atop the Statue of Liberty was a mishmash of incoherent perspectives and was so corrupted by incongruous cuts of close-ups that it looked like a bad television show (Mutant X, anybody?) I liked X-2 much better and Singer appeared there to develop an understanding of the full breadth of the cinema frame, and how to use scope and composition to vet his storyline. I'd say that arc is just about complete with Superman Returns.

Although it lacks the lyricism of Superman: The Movie (just compare Lois's flight with Superman in that film with Singer's anemic, less-effectively scored version here...) Superman Returns does boast a few shots that are downright beautiful....and touching.

For instance, this is the first time in film history I can remember that Superman's x-ray vision has been utilized to such stunning - and emotional - impact. That's a development of technology as much as anything perhaps, but that's not the point. Singer is finally proving adept at using his filmmaker's quiver in all senses, from CGI to shot composition.

All niggling quibbles aside, Superman Returns is an encore that honors tradition, and speaks to my generation…perhaps too much.   

One of the film's finest conceits, and one rarely mentioned, involves the climax. Superman doesn't catch the crook in the end. Instead, the film ends on an emotional note, not a plot point, and perhaps I sensed in that tiny development a new direction for the superhero genre. One where CGI wonders can finally be eclipsed by the wonders of the human heart. 

We've seen Superman fly, Spider-man vault from building to building, and even the Hulk go green. The only world left to conquer is inner space; the domain where the super must countenance the human and reckon with that. For Superman his greatest feat could be fatherhood, at least according to this movie.  I like that metaphor. This Superman legend is about the son becoming a father and as a father myself I understand the emotionality of that transition.  This was the last movie I saw before I became a father, in fact.  My son was in my wife’s womb as we watched Superman Returns, and I so I sympathized with the Man of Steel’s journey.


I confess that I am sad not to see Brandon Routh return for an encore Superman film.  I would have liked a continuation of his Superman’s journey into parenthood, to dovetail with my own personal journey.  But today, I feel lucky to have gotten Superman Returns.  It is the Superman sequel I wanted to see as a young boy…and I finally got to see it at age 37.  I thank Bryan Singer for giving me a strong close to a cinematic series that I possess great affection for, and which ended in 1987 with embarrassment and shame.


At the same time, I now feel ready to see Superman rise again, in a new shape and form, and I absolutely know I wouldn’t have felt that way without Superman Returns in 2006.

7 comments:

  1. Well, I don't hate this film. It has its problems as you and others have noted (and boy, oh boy did TED's ‎Seth MacFarlane rag on it some in his film). I'm pretty much in agreement with J.D. in his recent assessment for the production. The Superman as stalker element overplayed by Singer and offered an ick-factor I'm sure the filmmaker didn't intend. That said, this one easily lands behind Donner's stellar films (the original and his director's cut of the sequel) and Richard Lester's theatrical cut for Superman II. And it's certainly miles ahead of III and IV. Fine look at this, John.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John, brilliant review of Bryan Singer's Superman Returns(2006). You have stated exactly how I feel about this film, that it continues what Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve established with Superman The Movie(1978) and Superman II(1981)-Richard Donner Cut. John your words "Singer has crafted his 2006 film as a direct sequel to Superman (1978) and Superman II (1981)" are absolutely true. That is why it is the 'real' third film in that trilogy.

    Tim Burton did fail creatively with Planet Of The Apes(2001). It could have been a continuation of the original Apes films or a worthy reboot as is going on now with the new films. However, Burton just lost his way in the script preparation.

    SGB

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm always surprised by the hatred of this movie. I thought it was pretty good, not great, but a worthy successor to "Superman" and "Superman II". I did think that Singer could have created more of a sequel and less of a retelling of "Superman". I think Luthor could have had a different scheme (aside from his land grab) and that some of the repeated sequences weren't needed.

    But I though Routh was really great in the role. I loved that Luthor was actually a menacing figure in this film. It always bugged me that he was really played for laughs in the first two films. Here, Spacey actually makes him much more intimidating, and the script paints him as much darker. So all in all a good conclusion, and one that I revisit when I run through the "Superman Trilogy" as we call it at our home. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm glad there's someone else out there that thought X-Men was a weak film. I always felt that Singer didn't have the proper set of skills to make an exciting action film, and I was dubious about Superman Returns. Largely, my reservations were confirmed, although I think the airplane sequence was pretty breathtaking. If this had come out in 1983, I would've been wholly satisfied. By 2006,however, I was looking for something stronger. The Superman I read in comics during the 70s and 80s had a tougher edge to him than the Donner/Singer take. I'm actually looking forward to seeing Man of Steel because I always felt Superman had a darker side to him than many would think. He's not just Mr. Nice Guy; he struggles with strong emotions like everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi John. I have not seen this film, but I loved the context with which you place the film within the Superman legacy. That is a terrific way of placing it in perspective and I suspect I would feel much the same way. But I imagine you're right. It's great that it exists within the pantheon of Superman films as a bridge. I suspect there a few other franchises that have a potentially similar film if given a little thought.

    It is in my watch list.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Btw, I agree with you regarding Singer's growth from X-Men to X2. That is a great little paragraph. I like X-Men but I find it difficult to revisit for many of the reasons you mention. There are some good scenes, but it does feel slightly amateur. It may not have when it was released immediately, but shortly thereafter, and especially with the release of X2 it felt smaller and less coherent. All true.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Largely I agree with your review -- SUPERMAN RETURNS is a pretty good movie. But, for me at least, the "fatherhood" element introduces an issue that really, really complicates my response to it. Namely the fact that, if Superman is the father of Lois Lane's son and he gave Lois amnesia so that she doesn't even know that she ever had... um, relations... with Superman, doesn't that make Superman a retroactive rapist? The filmmakers bring up this issue and then treat it as if it's nothing more than a bummer for... Superman.

    What about Lois? She's been horribly violated by having her very memories -- of what is, unquestionably, one of the defining moments of her life -- callously destroyed for Superman's own selfish reasons. Even if she suspects (as, unless she's truly dense, she must) that her child is Superman's, what is she to make of that knowledge since she has no recollection of ever having engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with The Man? The only logical conclusion for her would be that she was impregnated without her knowledge or consent -- that she was, actually or effectively, raped.

    The fact that anyone who's seen SUPERMAN II knows that's not how it went down makes no difference -- or shouldn't in a movie that's playing fair and treating its characters like actual human beings with remotely realistic intelligence, emotions and motivations. But SUPERMAN RETURNS just refuses to deal with the issue. In fact, it plays almost like this obvious "problem" didn't even occur to the filmmakers at all. And it gives the movie a really, really creepy vibe.

    Every time I watch it all I can think about afterward is "Why the @#&*%! isn't Lois more freaked out by this?" Is she Somehow okay with the idea that an alien superbeing has clearly been having his way with her while she was asleep? As my teenage neice would say: "Eeeeewwwwww."

    This is not the sort of stuff you introduce into a story and then blithely wave away. You can get away with small plot contrivances now and again but this kind of icky psychosexual weirdness is too potentially horrifying and in-your-face to simply ignore. The filmmakers should never have backed themselves into this kind of corner in the first place if they weren't willing to deal with it honestly or come up with some way of explaining things that didn't make Superman seem like a callous pervert and Lois like a sad, ignorant victim.

    Other than that, I really liked SUPERMAN RETURNS! How's that for a thumbs-up?

    ReplyDelete

My Father's Journal, Epilogue: "My Cancer"

My friends, we have reached the final entry in my father’s journal of his battle with cancer.     I want to thank all the readers who have c...