Throwback Thursday Review: 'Superman' (1978)

It's a bird... It's a plane... It's my long awaited Superman review! Sorry, I just HAD to slip that somewhere in my review... Anyways, I'm reviewing the original 1978 Superman this week since Justice League is fast approaching and I thought I'd go back and review some of the earlier classic DC films. I had originally intended to review this last week, but I didn't get around to watching it, so I'm reviewing the film this week instead. It's also looking like this weekend will be a great opportunity for me to catch up on some of my delayed reviews, so don't be surprised to see any of those surface in the near future. These reviews includes Throwback Thursday Reviews over Inception, Stand By Me, The World's End, The Shining, the It miniseries (1990), Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Risky Business (1983), and a Triple-R over Interstellar. As for my regularly scheduled posts, I plan on doing weekly Star Wars Speculation posts and my next few Throwback Thursday Reviews will be for The Incredible Hulk, Thor: The Dark World, Murder on the Orient Express (1974), and Batman (1989) to tie into the releases of Thor: Ragnarok, Murder on the Orient Express (2017), and Justice League.

'Superman' (1978) Review

Nominated For: Best Film Editing, Best Sound, and Best Original Score.
Won: Special Achievement Award (For Visual Effects).

Superman opens on the faraway planet Krypton as it faces imminent destruction. Kryptonian scientist Jor-El remains unable to convince the Kryptonian elders of a planet-wide evacuation and promises he and his wife will remain on the planet, so he instead sends his infant son to the planet Earth onboard a spaceship to ensure Kal El's survival. Upon arrival, Kal-El is discovered by farmer couple Jonathan and Martha Kent who decide to raise the orphaned child under the name Clark Kent. On Earth, Kal-El must grapple with maintaining the semblance of a normal life as Clark Kent despite exhibiting a set of extraordinary abilities. Once Kal-El matures, he decides he will use these powers to combat evil and fight for truth, justice, and the American way as Superman!

Believe it or not, but prior to yesterday evening, I had never seen Superman in its entirety. I suppose the reason being that I've personally never been too fascinated with the character to begin with (sentiments I have also expressed in my Man Of Steel review)... I watched it with an open mind, expecting copious camp, dated special effects, and simply an entertaining superhero romp. While I feel Superman hasn't aged quite as well as many other classics, I do think Superman has the all makings of a good superhero film.

Directed by Richard Donner, Superman is able to take off into the atmosphere at its greatest moments and fly on autopilot during the drawn-out bits. I realize this film is regarded to be a timeless classic, and perhaps its just my age and delayed first viewing of the film, but Superman just doesn't feel whole to me. It just seemed odd to me that despite how much screen time is dedicated to Kal-El's origin, the character never felt fully fleshed out. I got the gist of things because I'm familiar with his upbringing in the comics and other mediums, but the film never really deconstructs the character in an interesting manner. I'm probably just spoiled by the comic book movie renaissance which we live in today, but I feel there were many missed opportunities to deepen the Man of Steel's legacy.

This is probably most notable in the film's structure. The beginning of the film establishes the idea that the Kents were a surrogate family for Clark, but Jonathan Kent's death didn't really carry any weight for me as a viewer, because I had barely met the guy when he took in Clark as a baby. The film shows you when Kal-El is essentially adopted by the couple, then fast forwards to Clark's adolescence and the man has a heart attack after imparting some wisdom to the lad. I like the idea toyed around with that Clark could do nothing to stop it despite his abilities, but I feel a death that meaningful to the protagonist should always be as equally important to the audience watching. To me, having a few more scenes about Clark growing up with the Kents could have easily made his death more impactful.

Just look at Star Wars or even Spider-Man, where the protagonist's connection to their adoptive parental figures are firmly established in scenes emphasizing their respective dynamics. Superman seemed to just gleam right over that with about one or two shared scenes between the two. The version I watched was the theatrical release, and I'm aware there's a Special Edition that's even longer so perhaps this isn't an issue in that incarnation, but it was something that stood out to me in this version. It's really weird, but watching Superman, has actually made me appreciate Man of Steel's approach to telling Superman's origin even more... I suppose I'll revisit that film and let you know if my opinion has altered at all in the coming weeks preceding Justice League.

Essentially, my biggest grievance with Superman is that the screenplay penned by Mario Puzo, Robert Benton, and David and Leslie Newman seems to only explore the film's ideas on the surface level. I don't need every superhero movie needs to dig too deep beneath the surface, but a reasonably interesting exploration of character is just an expectation I uphold for all film, regardless of genre. I think the reason that I've never latched onto Superman as a character is that he seems invincible, over-powered, and unwaverable. Aside from Kryptonite taking him down a notch, he's rarely in a moment of weakness and you rarely see him struggle with any long-lasting conflict. Clark, on the other-hand, represents Superman's humanity and the human side of him should technically always vulnerable to some sort of crisis of conscience. Yet, Superman never seems to face these moral dilemmas in Superman. He just does.

To me, that dynamic could be so fascinating to explore, but it's just glimpsed over in favor of showing Superman consistently triumph over evil. When Lois "dies," Superman does briefly seem at odds about changing the course of history as the words of his father figures reverberate in his head. However, he just acts. He flies around the Earth quickly enough to turn back time in his one act of selfishness, but there are no consequences for his actions. The stakes feel absent because it's heavily implied that changing the course of history is inherently bad and should be avoided, yet Superman does this and all seems fine and dandy. I still haven't seen Superman II, III, or IV, so maybe I'm blabbering on about nothing and his actions lead to something in those films, but for the time being it bothers me that the idea of altering history is heavily stressed as carrying grave consequences and there are none...

On top of that, the relationship between Superman and Lois itself isn't very convincing. Lois merely seems fascinated by Superman's physical appearance and everything he is capable of doing. In contrast to that, she seems entirely ignorant of Clark. While this can often be the case for superhero romances, this one just seemed to lack the importance emotional connection. It was difficult for me to completely buy into the idea of these characters as a couple because it comes across as a strictly physically attraction with little-to-no depth carrying it.

And let's not forget to mention the hamstrung, convoluted plot by Lex Luthor. I understand this movie is intentionally campy, but his real estate scheme just seems overly complicated and unnecessary. The financial incentive driving his ideas are sound, but the whole thing is ridiculous. Also, I thought it was odd that a billionaire would only have two incompetent stooges running errands on his behalf. Shouldn't he be able to employ literally as many criminals as he'd like to help him carry out his scheme? 

It'll probably be blasphemy to suggest this, but I also found the beginning portion to be really dull at times considering I was already familiar with the origins of the character. The lack of any action sequences or notable character development whatsoever really accentuated this. As an audience member, I rarely felt like I was accompanying Kal-El in his journey to become Superman. Instead, I felt like the casual observer able to see these events since there are portions of Kal-El's origin that are omitted. 

Now I realize all of that may have made it sound like I hated what many hold up as one of the most iconic superhero films, but I felt elaborating on my criticisms would better explain some of my issues with the problematic storytelling. The elements that do work, work exceptionally well. The visual effects, while aged, held up much better than I could have imagined and it's clear how revolutionary these developments were for the time. When Superman's flying, you really believe it. Although, some green screen backgrounds really stood out in contrast to the practical sets (which hefty balance an alien aesthetic with a futuristic facade). John William's exuberant score also amplifies the events, interjecting a sense of wonder and grandiosity as per usual. It's simply always been a delight to listen to his spirited Superman theme as the Man of Steel carries out his acts of heroism.

It's moments like Clark running to a phone booth so he change into his Superman get-up, only to find pay phone in its place that make Superman truly special. The self-awareness and passing nods to things fans of Superman are familiar with that make the film immensely entertaining at times. 

What really holds everything together though is Christopher Reeve's dual-portrayal of Kal-El. Reeve embodies all the exemplary attributes of both Clark Kent and Superman, imbuing dorkish sensibilities to each character. Clark is a little geeky and squeamish, while Superman flies about speaking about truth, justice, and the American way with the upmost confidence. It's really impressive how Reeve was able to authentically deliver on two fronts, considering a mis-step could have easily caused one to come off as a complete caricature. 

All the while, Margot Kidder feels relegated to the damsel-in-distress archetype as Lois Lane, a terrible trend that's only just recently coming undone in the landscape of comic book movies. Kidder plays the role adequately, but the writing behind her character causes Lois to come off as a bit dimwitted. Just look how she's interviewing while failing to watch the road in front of her... There's also the bit where she seems to be inept at spelling... I find it incredibly hard to believe that an accomplished journalist, such as herself, would have difficulty spelling the words "massacre" or "rapist."

The remaining cast members fall in the categories "Take-it" or "Leave it" as they're fairly inconsistent across the board. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor deftly balances the appropriate amounts of menace and Bond-villain-esque absurdity. His henchman and henchwoman, played by Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine, don't ever overcome their character's stilted incompetence and primarily play the roles for laughs. Marlon Brando's monotonous monologues as Jor-El compound the sluggish pacing, and it's apparent he was uninterested in the role and just took it for a nice pay-day. 

Superman eventually gets off the ground, but it takes some time. Thankfully once Superman gets flying, the film is a delight thanks to groundbreaking special effects, an uplifting score, and a convincing performance that ties it all together. Superman may not fly quite as high as some of the more recent comic book adaptations, but it still manages to soar up, up, and away as one of the most influential!

Film Assessment: B