[REVIEW] Re-evaluating the Richard Donner SUPERMAN films

[christopherl bennett]

For a long time, I’ve had a fairly negative opinion of the Christopher Reeve
Superman movies, including the first two that everybody loves. Don’t get me
wrong, I’ve always thought Reeve did a superb job in the role; but over the
years, I came to find the stories of the first two films too cartoony, too
corny, too conceptually ludicrous. They’re full of nonsensical ideas like
Superman making time run backward by making the Earth spin backward, or the
powerless Clark somehow being able to walk to the Fortress of Solitude in his
street clothes without freezing to death in the Arctic. Their portrayal of
Lex Luthor as a comical character who can’t manage to assemble more of a
criminal organization than one moron and one sexpot was underwhelming
compared to the Lex of the modern comics or Superman: The Animated Series. I
found their depiction of Krypton to be unpleasantly barren and bland, not a
place anyone could actually live or work. And I wasn’t crazy about Margot
Kidder as Lois.

But recently, out of curiosity, I decided I’d rent the Richard Donner cut of
Superman 2, the film he shot 70 percent of before producers Alexander and
Ilya Salkind fired him and brought in Richard Lester to reshoot much of it as
a more goofy and comical film. And to put that in context, I figured I
should re-watch the original film first. I rented the extended edition,
which comes with plenty of good bonus features.

And this time, I decided I’d look at it less from a modern perspective, one
where we expect more sophistication from our superhero comics and movies, and
judge it more from the point of view of its time. In the late 1970s, comics
were getting more sophisticated and plausible than they’d been in the ’50s or
’60s, but DC’s universe at the time, Superman’s universe, still had a lot of
very broad, fanciful elements underlying it. Maybe it’s because I’ve read
All-Star Superman now, but I found I was able to have a greater tolerance and
appreciation for the corny, Silver-Agey elements of the Donner films. Sure,
they have a lot of fanciful stuff in them that doesn’t even remotely hold up
to analysis, but the comics had plenty of the same kind of unapologetic
absurdity, and it’s just a question of taking it in the spirit intended.
It’s easy enough to imagine a Curt Swan-drawn Superman making the Earth spin
backward to reverse time with wildly inconsistent aftereffects, or a Silver
Age comic having a computer simulation of Jor-El say in one scene that he’s
been dead for thousands of years and in another that if Krypton hadn’t
exploded he could be holding his son right that minute (not to mention having
Lex say Krypton blew up in 1948). Or Silver Age Lex Luthor somehow
miraculously deducing the existence of Kryptonite and its effects on Superman
with absolutely no evidentiary basis (after Superman is foolhardy enough to
broadcast his weaknesses in the big interview). And Kryptonians being able
to breathe and talk in the vacuum of space, as in the second film, is
completely consistent with the rules of the DC Universe before Crisis on
Infinite Earths rebooted things.

So by setting my suspension of disbelief firmly on Silver-Age levels, I was
able to look past the silliness and evaluate the first film more on its other
attributes. And it does hold up extremely well. It’s a very impressive
production, and a pioneering one in superhero cinema. It does bring a level
of sophistication and verisimilitude to the material despite the conceptual
fancies. Krypton may not be an inviting environment, but it is conceptually
striking and original; I think what annoys me about it now is its constant
reuse in things like Superman Returns and Smallville, but one has to respect
the innovation in its original use. And its coldness and barrenness was
probably intentional, to underline the harshness of the Kryptonian state that
dismisses Jor-El’s warnings and damns itself to annihilation.

The Smallville section is fine, effectively bucolic, but I can’t help
noticing that Clark kinda kills his own father, since it’s right after he
goads Jonathan into racing him that the heart attack strikes. Still, I guess
that underlines the “All my powers and I couldn’t save him” thing. That’s a
good line, because it helps anchor Clark’s character arc, providing a reason
why he chooses to dedicate himself to saving people. (Shades of Stan Lee. I
wonder if Jonathan ever told him that with great power comes great
responsibility. Well, “you are here for a reason” is in the same ballpark.)

The Metropolis section works pretty well but is still broader at times than
I’d prefer; also it bugs me that they just blatantly show off New York
landmarks like Grand Central and the Statue of Liberty and call it
“Metropolis.” Still, I no longer feel that Reeve’s Clark is too broad or
comical, at least not under Donner’s direction. And he did do an amazing job
differentiating the characters and just plain embodying Superman. As for
Kidder, she’s more appealing than I remember, particularly in her screen test
footage that was incorporated into the Donner cut of S2, where she’s kind of
adorable (and reminds me of Kate Jackson, whom I’ve always found charming).
She’s not my favorite Lois, but after seeing the other screen test candidates
on the DVD, I recognize that she did have a quirky energy the others lacked
and brought the role to life better than they did (though I bet Stockard
Channing would’ve done a great Hepburnesque Lois).

The one thing that still disappoints me the most in S1 is the villainry.
Hackman’s Luthor may be a rather more menacing figure than the Lex of the
Silver and Bronze Age comics (who was basically just out to get Superman and
generally wasn’t violent toward anyone else, and would even have been a good
guy if he hadn’t felt compelled to war with Superman), but even he remarks at
the beginning of his tenure in the film how incongruous it is that he
surrounds himself with idiots rather than putting together a more credible
criminal organization. I just find Otis too broad and goofy and I have a
hard time believing Luthor would put up with him. As for Miss Teschmacher .
. . well, let’s just say they said on the commentary that Goldie Hawn and
Ann-Margret were the other leading candidates, and I would’ve loved to have
either of them in the role instead of Valerie Perrine, who filled out her
plunging necklines nicely but didn’t have much else going for her.

Still, none of the great superhero films are perfect. Even with its
weaknesses and silliness, it’s still superbly executed, directed, performed,
designed, shot, scored, and — uhh — special-effected. I’ve been too hard on
it in the past; it does deserve its status as the seminal work of superhero
cinema. And Christopher Reeve was amazingly important in making it work so
well, embodying Superman better than anyone else ever has.

(That said, I’m still not happy with the way Superman Returns and Smallville
have tried to slavishly imitate elements of the Donner films. You don’t
honor an innovative achievement by copying it, you do so by being innovative
yourself. Taking something innovative and just rehashing it over and over
diminishes it.)

—

Now, as for Superman 2: The Richard Donner Cut (which is a bit of a misnomer,
since it’s technically the Michael Thau cut in consultation with Donner): I
don’t remember the final Richard Lester version too well, but from what I do
remember, I’d have to say that TRDC is, for the most part, a far superior
movie and a much better companion piece to S1. The arc with Superman and
Jor-El across the two movies is very strong and emotional and gives the story
an effective core. The Clark-Lois material is stronger and more unified than
what replaced it in Lester’s version. The Kryptonian villains are very
effective, especially with Lester’s comedy beats trimmed out in this version.
Terence Stamp is effectively menacing and regal as Zod, though for some
reason his voice is electronically lowered in much of the film, which is
distracting. And Sarah Douglas… ohh my, I’ve always loved looking at Sarah
Douglas in this film. It came out during the years when I was first becoming
intrigued by the opposite sex, and her stunning eyes and sultry voice (and
increasingly less intact costume) left quite an impression.

Even the Lester material deserves some credit. Lester was responsible for
the Metropolis battle between Superman and Zod’s trio, and it remains the
first really successful cinematic depiction of a comic book-style superbrawl
— though, again, it’s stronger and more focused in the Donner/Thau version
with the comedy beats removed. It even features the kind of thing I love to
see — a scene where the common people believe that Superman has been killed
(for some reason, since he’s obviously survived much worse than a bus
crashing into him) and they band together en masse to charge the superpowered
villains. That kind of scene, of ordinary people discovering their own
heroism through their affection for the superhero, was better developed in
the first two Spider-Man films, but this was a significant precedent.

It’s still not a perfect film. I still think there’s too quick a turnaround
from Clark/Superman giving up his powers to getting them back, but it’s the
nature of feature films to be compressed, I guess. I’m still not crazy about
the wacky, comic-relief Luthor; at least in S1 he had his moments of menace
amid the comedy, but here he comes off more as a smarmy con man than an
aspiring mass murderer. No fault to Gene Hackman, who gave a memorable comic
performance, but the conception of the character was just too comic to be
credible as Superman’s greatest enemy.

Also, though Zod’s trio are effective overall, they’re totally unconvincing
in the flying scenes. As has been often remarked, Reeve really made
Superman’s flying scenes come to life, using his training as a glider pilot
to shift his weight as though he were really flying. But Stamp, Douglas, and
Jack O’Halloran look like they’re just passively dangling from wires. It’s
the weakest element of the effects work. What they should’ve done was gotten
Reeve to give the other actors some movement coaching.

And, sad to say, I think The Richard Donner Cut falls apart completely after
the climax in the Fortress. I don’t agree with the editorial choices made
here. First off, they cut out the scene where Luthor and the defeated
villains are taken away by the Arctic patrol or whatever, so it seems as if
Superman destroys the Fortress with the four villains still inside, killing
them. That’s completely out of character.

And the decision to restore the “turn back time” ending to S2 just plain
doesn’t work. The original plan, I believe, was to have Lois die in the
climax of the second film, motivating Superman to this extreme action. But
they decided, even before they finished making S2, that they’d move that
ending to the first film so that it would end with their biggest bang. And
they planned to come up with a different ending for S2. That’s what they
would’ve done even if Donner hadn’t been replaced with Lester. And that’s
what they should’ve done here. They should’ve accepted that S1 ended the way
it did and constructed this film to work as a companion piece to its final
form, not to some hypothetical original version that never existed. Because,
given that Superman already turned back time to save Lois’s life in the last
movie, it’s not only repetitive but silly to have him do it again merely to
erase her memory. It’s like it’s become casual to him, his go-to solution
for any inconvenience. “Oops, I spilled my coffee! I’ll just rewind the
planet a few minutes so that never happened.”

What I would’ve preferred, given the available material, would be for the
film to end right after Lois says, “There he goes, kiddo — up, up, and away,”
with the pullback from her balcony. Or maybe cut from that to the scene in
the original S2 where Superman puts the flag back up at the White House.
Sure, it’s an ambiguous ending, Lois still knows his secret, but so what?
The next two films in the series were no good, and Superman Returns can’t
really work as a followup to this continuity no matter how much it pretends
to be, so I see no need to be beholden to their version of events. And the
goal of this project was to make this film as true to Richard Donner’s vision
as possible, and Donner never made any subsequent Superman films, so why
worry about followups? There’s really nothing to be gained as far as this
film is concerned by arbitrarily erasing Lois’s knowledge of Superman’s
identity. Ending it with her wistful “up, up, and away” would be a great,
bittersweet conclusion, and an emotionally honest one, with no super-powered
cheats to restore the status quo ante.

Sure, we’d lose the scene where Clark goes back to get revenge on the bully
from the diner, but I would consider that a major plus. Superman just
wouldn’t be that petty, period. (Well, the Superman of the ’50s and ’60s
comics might, given that he was always playing mean tricks on Lois and Jimmy
for convoluted and nebulously benevolent reasons, but it seems totally wrong
for the wholesome, iconic Superman Reeve created.) Not to mention that if he
turned back time as in this version, then the initial diner incident should
never have happened anyway so he’s just beating a guy up for no reason.

So if I watch this movie again in the future, I’m going to stop it as the
camera pulls away from Lois’s balcony at around 1:45. That’s a perfect
ending to the Donner duology. The rest is just a mishmash I can do without.
TRDC is a good movie up until that point, so there’s no need to ruin it by
going further.

—

Bottom line, I’ve gained a much greater appreciation for the Richard Donner
incarnation of Superman than I’ve had for a long time. There are still
things about them I don’t care for, but on the whole I now recognize they
have a lot more going for them than I’d thought. They simply have to be
looked at as a product of their time, evaluated by the standards of their
era. And their historical significance to the genre of superhero cinema
cannot be overstated. They were pioneering films, and an admirable
achievement.