TGSD - Superman (1978)

Directed by: Richard Donner

Screenplay by: Mario Puzo

Starring: Christopher Reeves, Margot Kidder

Based on: Superman by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster

Distributed by : Warner Bros.

Release date: December 15, 1978

Logline: After someone left the stove on, the alien planet Krypton explodes. But not before Jor-El, a leader of the planet who uses far too much bleach in his laundry, sends his only begotten son to Earth. Somehow, the kid turns out alright.

Bone Ranking: A Hug in Cinematic Form

A charming film that somehow manages to overcome cynicism and make you not only believe a man can fly, but hope for it.

Cynicism Isn't Always Cool - Sometimes A Goddang Ice Fortress Is.

Admission time. I’ve been terribly wrong about Superman. He’s not some pretentious goody-two-shoes with a god complex and farm boy gee-whiz attitude - he’s actually a pretty charming guy. I’ll admit that Superman is just not a character I’ve ever had an ounce of fondness for in my life - I remember finding his design ridiculous as a child and tended to think of him as the vanilla of superheroes as an adult. The basic archetype from which the foundations of the genre were built, but who, as a result, ended up the least interesting, if most fundamental. But goddang it, vanilla is actually a pretty great flavour and sometimes it’s good to get back to basics. Because Superman (1978) actually has a lot that many other films in this genre lack; namely, heart. It radiates warmth and good human feeling in all the right ways. It achieves a sense of grandeur with its awesome matte paintings, but tempers it with a prologue that affects a 1950s Rockwell wholesomeness. Christopher Reeves manages to bring those two tones together in his dual performance as Clark Kent and Superman. The legends are true - it’s a terrific turn filled with careful mannerisms that make the two characters entirely separate performances, convincing you that Lois Lane really wouldn’t recognize one in the other.

But honestly, for me the stand-out was Lois Lane. Margot Kidder turns in a female lead that I wish had been replicated more in other films - she’s got a passion for her job, but to a point where sometimes she makes careless and humorous mistakes - such as spelling ‘brassiere’ with a Z or not recognizing Kent as Superman. She has a modern working woman’s cynicism that hides away a still hopelessly romantic fourteen-year-old who composes bad poetry as she floats in the sky with a flirty Superman. She’s just plain endearing, and at our watch party she ignited cheers and laughter both. When so many other female leads (lookin’ at you, MCU) are portrayed as ultra-competent to the point of being sticks in the mud, den-mothers and all-around everyone’s least favourite character, Lois proves that being the love interest doesn’t have to be a thankless role. Too often such a character becomes a faceless entity - because she is the main or only female role, she must be all women, everywhere, at once - and therefore she is no-one. I saw the Batman films recently (write-up incoming), but could not name a single love interest for you, or recall a single trait outside of ‘blonde’ or ‘brunette’. Lois Lane is far from perfect, but her drive and determination make her incredibly cheer-worthy and give insight as to what Papa Jor-El saw on Earth that was worth protecting. I can’t get enough of her spelling mistakes and occasional freudian-slip flirting, nor her distinct attitudes towards Clark and Kal-El. She really is the audience stand-in - we want to believe that someone as wholesome as Superman exists, but we need that front of cynicism so no one will think us naive. And yet there’s still that childish desire to want to believe in something so wholesome and comforting as a pure-of-heart hero. Lois Lane is as much a double role as Kent and Kal-El in that respect. She may be a damsel in distress, but she also inspires real distress in the audience when she is in danger. I usually have only eyerolls for such hapless love interests, but when Superman turns back time to save Lois from a surprisingly grim fate, I couldn’t help but feel I’d do the same. This is a movie that is unashamed of feelings, so much so that being jaded takes more effort than anyone could want to expend.

The cinematography of Geoffrey Unsworth is a real treat, showcasing both real and surreal vistas and matte painting to create comic-booky angles whose accentuated reality reminds me slightly of German Expressionism, though it depicts the reverse of that movement’s typical emotions - namely wonder and hope instead of dread. It’s mostly confined to the first half of the film, but it is nonetheless stunning - aside from a truly hilarious and dated effect involving the imprisonment of Zod and his accomplices at the start, which interrupted a compliment of how well the SFX had held up. The laughter was worth it, though. While it’s hard to imagine that such a straightforwardly-earnest film as this could be made today - even as this film attempts to address cynicism to its premise and incorporate it - I think the good feeling at its core is something worth remembering and not ridiculing. Earnestness would appear to be my kryptonite - while I can’t stand cheesiness or syrupy, forced sentimentality, there’s something about a film being unafraid to be about feelings, to show emotion and celebrate it that has always been able to win me over.

Stand-out scene: Lois Lane composes bad poetry while pulling off a Peter Pan and Wendy routine with Superman.

This is one of the films that makes this whole Superhero Drowning experience worth it, especially as it was experienced as a double feature with Hercules (1983) amongst friends. That it ended up being the second favourite to that film is no sleight against it, since Hercules may be the best bad movie I’ve ever seen. Stay tuned to hear about children with man hands strangling eels, bears being thrown into space, giant clockwork bumblebees and a villain who refuses to wear pants or give explanations as to why.