Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Cult Movie Review: Superman II (1981)


Although the film suffered dramatic behind-the-scenes tumults, including a shift in the director’s chair from Richard Donner to Richard Lester, Superman II (released in America in 1981) certainly ranks on my short list of the best movie sequels ever made (along with The Empire Strikes Back [1980], The Road Warrior [1982], Aliens [1986], The Godfather II [1974], and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan [1982]).

To this sequel’s credit, Superman II assiduously continues Superman: The Movie’s (1978) religious underpinnings, comparing the Man of Steel to Jesus Christ himself.  Only here, it is not Superman’s origin that we witness, but rather his great “human” temptation, as well as an Armageddon-styled, End-of-Days-type battle.  As before, the carefully placed religious sub-text underlines many of the film’s key visuals, and layers the story with an additional veneer of meaning.

Additionally, Superman II deepens the Clark Kent/Lois Lane relationship significantly, and adds new shades to Superman’s personality.  There are moments here in which Superman is legitimately angry and even self-loathing. Yet despite his difficult trials, his ultimate goodness still shines through.  Even when things are at their worst -- and he is at his weakest -- this Superman is not a “dark hero” or a “brooder.” 

Finally, and perhaps most viscerally, Superman II delivers fully and explicitly on the action promise of the first film.

Superman: The Movie did a spectacular, even incomparable job of establishing the world of Superman with its epic three-part structure (Krypton/Smallville/Metropolis).  Yet there wasn’t a deep impression in that film that Superman had faced a devastating challenge; one that could ultimately destroy him or imperil all of mankind. Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) was a criminal menace and mastermind, certainly, but one with overt comedic overtones.  Even Lois Lane’s death -- the event that caused Superman to reverse time itself – was an unintentional side-effect rather than a direct result of Luthor’s malice.

Superman II’s creative dynamic is determinedly different, however. Here, we witness a frightening multiplication of on-screen danger as Superman faces three Kryptonian criminals who wreak incredible havoc on Earth.  The film’s climactic “Battle for Metropolis” still looks mighty impressive today, but in 1981 it carried an emotional punch too, a literal special effects wallop.   

Indeed, this sustained battle between Superman and the three super-villains might be described as a sort of Holy Grail for modern superhero movie fans: a city-wide battle scene wherein super foes duke it out, no holds-barred.  The only limits present are those of the imagination, and of the special effects technology. This is, largely, what modern audiences desired (and did not get) out of Singer’s Superman Returns (2006), apparently.

Today -- over thirty years later -- Superman II impresses most significantly as “The Last Temptation of Superman,” as I like to term it.  This is the (stirring) adventure in which Superman learns he will always stand apart from the world, and, in the end, comes to understand why he must embrace that (isolating) destiny.

“Is there no one on this planet to even challenge me?”

Superman (Christopher Reeve) rescues Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) from terrorists at the Eiffel Tower, and detonates a nuclear bomb in outer space (intended for Paris) at the last moment.  

The blast in deep space, however, shatters the Phantom Zone prison and releases three super-powered menaces, General Zod (Terence Stamp), his consort Ursa (Sarah Douglas) and the hulking Non (Jack O’Halloran).

Meanwhile, back on Earth, Lex Luthor (Hackman) escapes from prison, and discovers Superman’s Fortress of Solitude.

At roughly the same time, Lois and Clark visit Niagara Falls to investigate honeymoon rip-offs, and Lane begins to suspect that Kent and Superman are one in the same.  When she learns the truth, Superman takes the love of his life to his icy home in the north, and confers there with the image of his Kryptonian mother, Lara (Susannah York) about taking a human wife.  Lara instructs Superman that he most forsake all of his Kryptonian powers, and become a mere mortal. 

Clark undergoes the process, unaware of the danger the Earth faces from the three Kryptonian criminals.

With nobody to stop them, Zod and his cohorts take total control of the Earth, forcing the President of the U.S. to submit to their will.  After a day or so in charge, however, the criminals grow bored, at least until Lex Luthor shows up and informs Zod that he can deliver Superman -- Jor-El’s son -- to him.

When Superman – now with no powers -- learns what has happened in his absence, he takes a difficult trek back to the Fortress of Solitude in hopes of restoring his powers and reclaiming his heritage.

 “I see you are practiced in worshiping things that fly.”

In Superman: The Movie, we saw a God-like figure (Jor-El) in a Heaven-like setting (Krypton), vanquish evil insurrectionists (like Lucifer) to the Hell of the Phantom Zone.  We also saw that God-like figure deliver his only begotten son, Kal-El, to Earth…as a gift to mankind.

Superman II picks up on this religious aspect of the superhero’s journey and writes new chapters in his tale.  In particular, Superman II focuses on two specific aspects of Christ’s story, namely his temptation by the Devil, and secondly, the battle of Armageddon, the war leading to dawn of a New Age of Peace.

In the first instance, Clark reaches a crossroads in his relationship with Lois Lane. She learns his identity as Superman, and he decides to pursue a relationship with her.  This relationship -- though what Clark desires most deeply -- goes directly against his destiny as the Savior of Mankind. Clark cannot be the world’s savior and Lois’s husband simultaneously, but he chooses to be with her anyway.  In other words, he has given in to the temptations of the flesh and of the heart.   Clark renounces his powers for the love of a mortal soul, and then even lives as a mortal himself for a time. Only after giving up his God-like powers does Clark realize he has abdicated his destiny and his heritage.

At this point, Clark heads back into the Arctic desert to attempt to regain his powers, and these moments in the film function as an allusion to Christ’s forty-days wandering in the desert, as described in the Gospels.  If we count that time as the moment from which Clark becomes human to the time he becomes Superman again, we see that he, like, Jesus, is exposed to terrible dangers during this period, from vicious beatings (at the fist of a nasty trucker) to nearly freezing to death. 

Finally, Clark -- again like Jesus Christ -- is healed and ministered to by an otherworldly power.  Only here it’s the power of the green crystal (the power of Krypton) which he finds still intact in the Fortress of Solitude. In Scripture, it was the Angels who came to Jesus, but as we saw in Superman: The Movie, there is a case to be made that the Kryptonian society represents “Heaven,” so the analogy holds.

When Superman returns to Metropolis to fight the evil-doers from Krypton, the event plays out very much like the Biblical description of the End Times.  It is, in short, the precursor to the “Second Coming of Superman.”  Once Zod and the others are defeated, the victory heralds -- if not a thousand years of peace -- certainly a paradise-like kingdom with no crime or war, as directly promised in Scripture.  In this case, Superman has learned from his temptation and promises the President of the United States that he won’t make the same mistake again. He will be looking over the world – and protecting us – without selfish distraction.  The Son has taken his place as the Messiah, putting aside the desires we associate with the mortal world.


The temptation of mortal life.

The Trials: Wandering in the icy desert.

Restored by a Godly power.

The Second Coming of Superman
Restoration and a New Age of Peace.

In the film’s three Kryptonian villains, we get representations of the Anti-Christ, the Devil, or “false Gods,” but ones who nonetheless boast divine powers.  In fact, the God-like (Devil-like?) abilities of these bad guys are defined in the film in largely Christian terms.  When he comes to Earth, for example, the evil Zod walks on water.  And Ursa, almost immediately upon visiting Planet “Houston,” discovers a serpent in the grass (which she promptly kills).  Finally, all three of the villains are destroyed when they disappear or "fall" into an apparently bottomless pit, a dramatic plummet which mimics the fall of Lucifer.  These actions and symbols are all deliberately religious in nature so that we, as the viewers, can contextualize Superman II as Armageddon and Aftermath.  This is the long-destined battle between Good and Evil on Earth.


Walking on water.

The Serpent in the Garden.

The Fall.
At the heart of Superman II lurks the very question many ask regarding Jesus, actually.  Can the Son of God be both Man and God simultaneously?  And what does the man lose or give up by being divine?  The answer is very clearly stated in this film. Superman must surrender the Earthly love of Lois Lane, and commit to a destiny wherein he will always be alone, always be separated, in some sense, from the rest of humanity.  Outside of the special effects spectacle of the film, I admire Superman II because I feel that Superman’s existential crisis is right there, on the surface, for all of us to see.  He turned back time to bring Lois Lane back to life, but he still can’t actually be with her; can’t love her, can't grow old with her. 

I appreciate the fact that we get to see “the man” inside Superman in this sequel.  The one who gets angry when Lois discovers his secret.  The one who tastes his own blood for the first time, after forgetting he is no longer invincible.  The one who executes a perfect deception against Lex, Zod and the other criminals.  Even the one who -- just for once -- would like to be a little selfish.  

There’s a sense in this film of Superman as a much more well-developed character than we have seen previously.  In particular, Superman II's conclusion always impresses me.  After Superman realizes he cannot defeat the villains with brute force in the Battle of Metropolis, he defeats them with his mind – out-thinking and outmaneuvering them – in the Fortress of Solitude.  

This is, in some way, a comment to the audience that brute force – even on a super scale -- can be beaten by intelligence and ingenuity.  I must admit, watching Superman crush (the mortal) Zod’s hand is one of the great joys of this film. Being physically strong and being clever are two very different things.  Superman is both, but Zod is only the former.  We might intuit that Superman has learned from his time with human beings how to be clever, and I like that lesson.

I have very distinct memories of seeing this film in the theater in 1981, and being overwhelmed and highly-entertained by the Battle of Metropolis, a fifteen minute set-piece that involves the Empire State Building, a flying bus, heat vision, super “breath,” and other powers we associate with the Superman myth  It all comes together beautifully in this sustained set-piece, and I’ll never forget the rush of adrenaline I felt (and the cheers of the audience...) when Superman picks up Zod, spins him around, and hurls him away.  The bastard had it coming.

I attribute the thrill of that small (but delightful...) moment to the believable special effects, the strong audience investment in the Superman character at that point in the narrative (helped immensely by Reeve’s portrayal), and Stamp’s cold, ruthless screen presence as General Zod.  

In short, every element came together absolutely perfectly in the Battle of Metropolis, and Superman II had the audience right where it wanted it.  Great villains, a great sense of humor, a touching romance and a meaningful journey for its hero...what's not to love here?  I believe it says something about the quality of the writing, the acting, the directing and the hero himself that Superman faces three villains in this film, but is never overshadowed or sidelined.  Superman II never becomes a freak show (as some Batman films have become).

Alas, this would be the last time in the Superman movie franchise all the elements gelled perfectly.  After Superman II, it was all downhill…

12 comments:

  1. Excellent review, John. Tell me, did you look at just the theatrical version or the Donner's director's cut? Thanks, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Le0pard13:

      For this particular review, I did look at the theatrical version, but I have seen the Donner's cut. I tend to prefer this cut, although I'm a huge Donner fan. It's not that there's anything wrong with what's in the Donner cut, only that there isn't enough footage, in my opinion, to make the film quite feel complete.

      I actually like the blend of Donner and Lester here. Despite all the behind-the-scenes problems, the film emerges as remarkably coherent and cohesive...

      Best,
      John

      Delete
  2. Anonymous11:54 AM

    John extremely well thought out review. I agree with you that Superman:The Movie(1978) and Superman II(1981) are still two of the greatest superhero movies ever made, the first to ever be successfully made. They made a believable man that could fly. I think that director Richard Donner delivered two brilliant films, even though Superman II was taken away from him before he finished you can still see he directed it. I consider the SUPERMAN II Director’s cut Richard Donner dvd release to be simply brilliant. Richard Donner was the triumphant director of these Superman films.

    SGB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SGB:

      We are totally on the same page. These two movies are the greatest Superhero movies ever made, in my opinion. I agree with you very much about the skill of Richard Donner. I wish he had not been fired from Superman II, and that the film was entirely his.

      I prefer the Lester/Donner cut only because the Donner cut doesn't seem complete enough to me, somehow. I love everything he shot, however...

      Great comment!

      best,
      John

      Delete
  3. I guess I was too young at the time, but I never noticed the Christ parallels until I read reviews of the movies many years later. I still loved the movies, so maybe I was picking up on it on a subconscious level.

    I was eager to see the Richard Donner director's cut of Superman II because I thought for sure it would be better. I was shocked to discover that I actually like Richard Lester's version better. Lester was the master of sight gags, and the humor he added to the film balanced out the stark seriousness of Superman's ordeal. I can understand why Donner would tie the nuclear explosions from the first film directly to the Kryptonians being freed in the second movie, but the Eiffel Tower sequence is a much better opening to the movie.

    It's a shame the third movie looked like an expensive episode of the Batman TV show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Neal,

      I thought the Richard Donner cut had some fantastic stuff in it, but that it just didn't feel like a complete film, in some way. The Eiffel Tower opening does open the film up a bit, and make it seem more epic and world-spanning, for certain.

      The third film has great highs and terrible, terrible lows. I'll be looking at it here in two weeks, and watching it in the next few nights again. Such a disappointment after two great films...

      Thank you for the comment!

      best,
      John

      Delete
  4. I recently watched the Richard Donner cut and I have to say, I was quite impressed by the vastly darker tone and how well the film held together with the originally filmed footage, even with a few placeholder shots for scenes that were written but never filmed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Tonyt2000,

      I agree with you that the Richard Donner material was incredibly impressive and suggested a darker tone for the film. I loved much of the cut, but like I've said above, still find that somehow his cut feels incomplete to me, like 85 percent of a movie, or something. I wish the Salkinds had let him pursue his vision for the second film, and that we had it today...

      best,
      John

      Delete
  5. Something that totally amazed and actually shocked me the first time I saw it. The absolute cruelty of the Kryptonian villains really took me aback. We certainly have not had comic book films baddies since who were totally uncaring and downright evil in what they do. The murder of the astronauts still gives me chills. I find the beating of Clark in the diner to likewise be very unsettling, so it goes without saying that Clark's revenge was a stand up and cheer moment for me. Also shocking was seeing Clark/Superman and Lois in bed together. Something you would never see in the comics at the time. And what an awesome pre digital battle we have in metropolis. Sadly downhill for the Superman franchise after this, but an all time classic and a damn good one are okay for me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have fond memories of seeing this film at an impressionable age when it first came out and feeling genuine fear for Superman when Zod and his cronies show up. They were a real threat and not a slightly cartoonish one like Luther in the first film as you rightly point out. You never felt that Superman was in any real danger but that all changed with SUPERMAN II. Some of the scenes where he's human and at the mercy of every day threats was slightly traumatizing to see as I didn't expect to see Superman so vulnerable. But then that's what makes his resurgence later on, besting Zod and the others so satisfying.

    This is a great look back at one of THE best comic book adaptations ever put on film.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi JAJAC,

    I'm glad you enjoyed the review. There will be reviews of Superman III, IV and Superman Returns in the upcoming weeks, intermingled with reviews of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. I'm doing Superman every other week; Star Wars every other week for a while.

    I agree with you that there are some really great aspects of Superman III. The battle between Clarks is prime among these, and Annette O'Toole is beautiful and delightful. I also loved her in Smallville.

    Thank you for the comment, my friend.

    best,
    John

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'll go a step further on the Richard Donner cut of Superman II and say it was a major disappointment. Yes, the extended opening scene on Krypton with Zod & Co.'s sentencing was an improvement from the Donner/Lester version, but everything else about Donner's cut felt just plain wrong: Deleting the "Hooston" gag and the trio's takedown of the small-town yokels, swapping the defacement of Mount Rushmore with the Washington Monument...even Lois' discovery that Clark is Superman is reduced to a "Welp, ya got me!" moment. (If you're so inclined, you can read my full review of the Donner cut here.)

    On the flip side, I will always love the Donner/Lester version of Superman II. I watched it countless times on HBO as a kid, and it introduced me to the fantastic Terence Stamp, who couldn't get arrested for eight years leading up to the Superman films. What a way to come back. I'm also catching up on his series of autobiographies -- currently reading Coming Attractions (about his early acting days with Michael Caine), then on to Double Feature (his career in the '60s) and hopefully to his brand-new book, Rare Stamps.

    New at FilmFather: Win a massive ParaNorman prize pack!
    Follow me on Twitter

    ReplyDelete

30 Years Ago: Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

The tenth birthday of cinematic boogeyman Freddy Krueger should have been a big deal to start with, that's for sure.  Why? Well, in the ...