The Best Movie of 1983
"Superman Returns" officially opens today.
If you have any interest in the movie at all, you've likely been reading the reviews -- including mine, I should hope -- and perhaps you've noticed something interesting. A disconnect, shall we say, between the film's intentions and its reception.
In the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert finds it dour and unimaginative. Over at the New York Times, where registration is required, Manohla Dargis contends the movie reeks of self-seriousness. Anthony Lane at the New Yorker goes a long, long way for a tired old punchline. And David Poland at Movie City News dismisses it as an unambitious mediocrity.
I respectfully disagree.
"Superman Returns" is a work of pure joy. It's Bryan Singer's love letter to the childhood experience of losing yourself in the spectacle of Richard Donner's "Superman", and to a lesser extent, Richard Lester's "Superman II".
Okay, so Singer wasn't quite a child when he saw the films -- if I've got the math right, he was 12 and 15 when they opened -- but those movies, particularly the first film, provide an emotional conduit right back to the childhood capacity for awe. Singer's goal this time around is to replicate that experience, and dazzle the viewer with the sheer scale of the adventure unfolding on the screen. Which, frankly, I'd have said was impossible ... until I saw the movie.
Singer's goal was to make a "Superman" movie that takes place in the same universe as the films that inspired him. As far as he's concerned, this movie is "Superman III" -- that misconceived Richard Pryor vehicle never happened, and neither did that quest for peace.
It's been five years since the events of "Superman II", and although the action has been updated into the present day for our convenience, the form of the film is still firmly rooted in 1978. John Williams' music, obviously, is old-school, and so is the editing of certain sequences, like the one involving Parker Posey's speeding car and pretty much all of the crystal stuff. And there's a buzzy edge to Newton Thomas Siegel's cinematography that recalls the diffusion filters of Geoffrey Unsworth's work for Donner's film.
(Geek question: How much of this film was shot in high-definition video? The print screened for the Toronto press showed some serious video noise in a few sequences, but the end-credit roll had an unfinished quality that suggests we were shown a less than finished print.)
There's also the deliberate replication of certain visual-effects strategies -- shots where an airborne Superman is dwarfed by whatever he's speeding towards, or flying effects that depend more on canny camera placement and acting than rigs and pulleys -- and a sure, slow pace that's almost unthinkable in present-day blockbusters.
More than any other movie out there, "Superman Returns" takes its time between action sequences; it understands that the real conflict isn't between Superman and Lex Luthor, or even between Superman and Lois, but between Superman and Clark Kent, each version of the man separately trying to find his place in a world that's changed quite radically in the time he's been gone.
Does the world need a hero? Does Lois stil have feelings for him? Would someone as decent as Superman or Clark even try to get between her and her current beau? And what about her kid?
The movie takes its time to work through these issues, and it's to Singer's credit -- as well as his screenwriters, with whom he developed the story -- that we become as invested in the philosophical tangles of the characters as we are in the action stuff, which is pretty freaking spectacular.
"Superman Returns" is the first movie in at least a decade that's made me feel like a kid again. Maybe you have to be in a very narrow age bracket to get that response -- I'm three years younger than Singer, and we definitely have similar taste in film -- but I can't deny that it hit me square in the heart. I loved this movie on an entirely primal level.
Come to think of it, if you have any interest in the movie at all, you probably caught one of the 10 pm sneaks last night. What did you think?
Technorati tags: Superman, Movies, Bryan Singer
2 Comments:
Geek answer, Norm: the whole thing was shot with Sony and Panavision's Genesis DSC, currently the most sophisticated HD camera available. It's basically a Super35 camera in every way except that it records on a hard drive--which is even modelled on the celluloid "magazines" of old. This enabled Singer to use the same lenses he's had since The Usual Suspects.
Hard to know what the deal with the video noise was. I still think HD isn't ready for primetime (I just remember the pixellated smoke surrounding Darth Vader in Episode III, and I seem to be the only one who thought Collateral looked awful) but supposedly stuff shot with the Genesis makes the smoothest transition to film yet. Will be interesting to see it in 3-D IMAX, as the polarity glasses might help obscure any deficiencies that result from blowing the image up to 70mm.
I understand you're argument, and it's a valid one, but the problem for me with the flick is that it's TOO MUCH like the first two flicks.
Every generation deserves its own Superman. From the opening credits, to the constant recycling of John Williams' score, this film was using our emotional connection to the earlier films to generate emotion for this one. For me, that's lazy filmmaking, homage or not. Even the final shot of the film is, note for note, the same as the previous four films. Do I want to see Superman circling the planet, smiling into the camera, with John Williams' score as the backdrop? Yes, sure, but I've SEEN that before; give me something new, different, and fresh, and generate the emotinal effects honestly, not by simply referencing our childhood nostalgia. And by tying the story so closely into the first two films, we can't help but consciously and unconsciously compare the three lead performers to their seventies counterparts.
I have to agree with Ebert a bit; where's the sense of joy here, of awe, of, I don't know, FUN? All the Christ imagery and father/son themes may play intellectually well, but the whole thing seemed to drag when it needed to soar.
Post a Comment
<< Home