Super Thoughts

I was thinking about what made the original (well, 1978 version) Superman so much better, in my mind, than the more recent, Superman Returns.

It's not that the original was great, either, but it really sunk its teeth into the origin story. The film starts off on Krypton, an icy planet with icy intellectuals. It simply looks alien. We're also introduced to Jor-El, plus the three villains that will be featured prominently in the second film.

There are a couple of neat special effects in that sequence alone. The spinning hoops that keep the prisoners inside, the flipping mirror which traps them in the Phantom Zone, and simply how huge and empty the entire place is, while Zod tries to maintain dignity as he insults Jor-El.

Then, the action moves to Earth, at which point the Kents are a stereotypical Midwestern family, full of good values, except the inability to have children. Clark becomes their son, and dad tries him to teach the lessons of humility. He deals with a 50s style high school, where he longs for the women, but doesn't seem capable of having them. It's amazing how well-behaved Clark was.

Then, there's the journey to the North Pole where he becomes a man, learns who he is, and then Superman. Eventually, action proceeds to modern times in Metropolis, and we're given a stereotypical view of New Yawkers.

It's to Christopher Reeve's credit that he builds two credible characters. If anything, his Clark Kent is far more interesting than his Superman, whose full of clunky goodness. Clark is clumsy and shy, turning his teenage gawky persona up to 11 for full effect. It's this personality that ultimately makes you believe that no one would think he's Superman, rather than the "take charge" portrayal of Kent by George Reeves (no relation, as the spelling is ever so slight different).

Gene Hackman's portrayal of Lex Luthor is not the kind of evil genius portrayed in the comics. He's like Brain, and Otis is his Pinky. Miss Teschmacher (does she even have a first name?) is the vixen that helps out, for what exactly? His motivation? Real estate. He comes up with a completely wacky plan to sink California in the ocean (or at least, parts of it), leaving him with great ocean front property.

Meanwhile, Clark falls a bit for spunky Lois, who herself falls for Superman, and she gets an interview with him. She's more spunk than actual good reporter, but then this film isn't about accurately describing what happens at a real newspaper.

Fast forward to Superman Returns. The key difference is that the original film is about creating a kind of myth, dorky as it may be. It had a complete story arc, from how Clark came to be Superman, how he meets Lois, and so forth.

If you had to focus on what the second film is about, it's the story that Lois "wrote", why the world doesn't need Superman, and ultimately about why she does need Superman. The reaction between the two is far too muted, in my book, for the film.

Indeed, Superman almost comes across more as an idea than as a person in the film. What is his reaction to discovering his homeworld's been destroyed (wasn't this information given to Clark at some point--explaining why he's on Earth, and not on Krypton?)? What does he seek to return? Presumably, because of Lois. However, for the big reveal at the end, he seems awfully passive at the idea of getting together with Lois.

Where Lex had a pivotal role in the first film, at least enough so that Superman's goal was to deal with Lex, in Superman Returns, he's more of a distraction, someone that reminds Superman what his purpose is. He's meant to be some kind of Gandhi, a hero to the masses, that is never meant to settle down and be happy, and yet, that's not clearly conveyed. Why does Superman give up so easily? Why does Lois decide to give up on Superman?

It's this idea that we all grow up and move on and make "adult" decisions, and sometimes these decisions don't allow us to easily go back to the idealism we had as kids.

For a superhero movie, that's a particularly meta idea, that this story is not about Superman, but about the idea of Superman (and perhaps, by extension, and so many analogies--about the idea of Jesus, and the meaning of religion in one's life). And while that idea is far more sophisticated than anything conveyed in the original Superman, it's also far more distancing to the audience.

Heck, despite Kevin Spacey giving us a deliciously more evil Lex Luthor, he too, can't get past the idea that this jock, this school hero is back, and that everyone loves him, and not Lex. But he's not that well fleshed out as a character either. Although he has new cronies in this film, they seem far more boring than Miss Techmacher, and delightfully dorky Otis.

Sometimes you want to see something more operatic, more melodramatic. At least, I did.