SUPERMAN II
Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, Gene Hackman. Dir. Richard Lester, Warner Brothers, 1980
Upon first seeing Richard Lester's 1980 SUPERMAN II, the followup to 1978's SUPERMAN:THE MOVIE, I would have fought anyone who said it wasn't one of the best movie sequels. Though I last saw it around the same time I last saw its predecessor, 20ish years ago, I could not remember last night if I held the same opinion in my 30s as I did in my teens. Today, in my mid-50s, I think it's good, enjoyable fun, but not great, not quite the equal of Donner's film.
In my writeup of SUPERMAN '78 I argue that its ending, sometimes criticized as being ludicrous, is no more ludicrous than the idea that being from a planet with a different center of gravity would give Kal El special powers on earth, or than Jor El's ban on influencing human history when Superman's very existence on Earth does just that, is even possible. SUPERMAN II compounds the ludicrousness, requiring Kal El to give up his superpowers and become mortal Clark Kent if he chooses to marry Lois Lane.
Why? While the idea increases the desperation of Superman's battle with Terence Stamp's General Zod, Sarah Douglas's Ursa, & Jack O'Halloran's Non, there is almost no way not to view it as absurd. In SUPERMAN '78 we learn that Earth's single yellow sun grants Kal El his powers, and yet now his holographic Kryptonian parents can take those powers away with a "molecule chamber"? Is he powered by natural law or by his people's ethical code? Why does he have to give up power?
We already know that Superman interferes in the course of human history repeatedly, without consequence, so why is getting married the deal breaker? I'm supposed to believe the Fortress of Solitude's tech can render Kal El mortal but not sterile so he & Lois can't have kids? For that matter, Superman & Lois can't just take a vow to adopt?
The answer is that it ups the ante if a weakened Superman, powers not fully restored, battles three Kryptonians whose power waxes full. That's mostly it. SUPERMAN II spends around 30 minutes taking Kal's powers away then restoring them for little reason other than ensuring the picture's central set piece doesn't end before it starts, with powerless Kal El killed off at one blow. To me, it feels belabored, a long, largely pointless way to go to up the ante, as if Earth's subjugation & enslavement weren't equal to that goal. I'm not saying I have a solution, but there ought to be a way of doubling the drama without such elaborate machinations. If SUPERMAN '78 is the template for most future superhero movies, its successor is an early case of sequel-itis, wherein producers, writers & directors worry less about making sense than topping themselves.
All this said, SUPERMAN II transcends its flawed, somewhat silly story and lackluster visual effects to be a good, solid sequel, if not a great one, like 1980's THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. It succeeds, as much/even more than '78, on the strength of its performances. Terence Stamp, the onetime Mod icon, plays not so much an evil adversary as one indifferent to lives other than his & his companions'. It's an understated performance in which even his rage derives from the worst case of ennui in the galaxy. Sarah Douglas's Ursa lightens quite a bit from '78, where it was implied she's a pedophile. She & Jack O'Halloran's Non serve as superpowered comic foils for Zod, as Valerie Perrine & Ned Beatty, both sadly absent from most of this movie, do for Hackman. While Hackman, himself, is fine, Lex Luthor's shtik loses much of its punch playing fourth banana to Stamp.
Gene Siskel argued on an Academy Awards-themed episode of SNEAK PREVIEWS that Christopher Reeve had been snubbed by not receiving a Best Actor nomination for SUPERMAN II. At the time, 13 year-old Russ sneered. As of today, middle aged Russ agrees. Over two movies Reeve plays two men, polar opposites in many ways, who share the same body. It's a performance evocative of clowning, in which Clark Kent's body & mind betray and disappoint him to an exaggerated extent, whereas Reeve defines Kal by the precision and purposefulness of his movement and thought. The sequence in which Kal El has to NOT become Superman, saving Lois as Clark, instead, is comedy gold, one of the film's high points.
If giving up his power for love serves any better purpose than pumping up the conflict, it's that it gives Reeve a chance to add a new, more earthy dimension to Kal & Clark. Superman wouldn't drink in the first movie. In II he pops the cork on the champagne and has a sip. He gets horny, willing to strike a Faustian bargain to get with Lois. At the film's end, he even gets revenge on a trucker who beat Clark senseless. Reeve plays three characters, in a sense, and with all the assurance he already plays two. I won't go so far as saying Reeve ought to have won Best Actor, but the absence of even a nomination is one of Oscar's classic oversights.
Kidder once again proves Reeve's equal, making her arc's conclusion, exiting stage left in a case of kiss-induced amnesia, especially sad. Puzo's screenplay leaves her nowhere to go, but I know I'll miss her when I watch SUPERMAN III today. Though she went on to star in a few films, particularly Michael Pressman's SOME KIND OF HERO, I don't think she ever got a role as good - never mind better - as Lois.
I guess almost counts in movie sequels as well as horseshoes, hand grenades & thermonuclear war. Sometimes. SUPERMAN II doesn't quite reach the heights of first film, but it almost gets there. In this case that ain't bad, either.
Comments
Post a Comment