Source: Superman, Superman II, Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
Type: Film
When we think of Superman in live action terms, it's Christopher Reeve we think about. Brandon Routh may have done a more than passable imitation, or we might endeared to the various television actors we've followed over the years, but Reeve remains THE Superman in our mind's eye. He springs right off the page and into our world.
Not to say it's not something of a camp performance. Clark Kent is a real doofus, but he's still believable. It's Superman that's SUCH a boyscout that it takes into the same kind of unreal territory of the 60s Batman series. But in the same way that "Clark Kent" is a performance for the Daily Planet's sake (and Lois' in particular), Superman is also one, this time for the public (and again, for Lois). The real man (let's call him Kal-El) may only be glimpsed when the masks come off in Superman II, after Kal gives up his super-powers and marries Lois. He need not pretend one way or another with her, and there we get a sense of a more rounded character.
I'm not a fan of the films, but if there is something wrong with Reeve's film cycle, it's not his performance. It's Donner's vision (and what followed it). The movie Superman has the kind of power unseen even in the craziest of Silver Age stories. He reverses time by spinning the Earth backwards. He wipes your memory with a kiss. He has Great Wall of China-rebuilding vision. He basically has any power the writers/directors come up with, even if he could often achieve the same effects with his actual powers (fly back in time to before the earthquake, or rebuild the wall with super-speed, etc.). And the world around him is just as silly/indulgent, whether that's Richard Pryor's hacking animating crosswalk symbols or Lana Lang [edit: actually, it's Stacy Warfield - I've been scolded in the comments section - amending memories now] breathing in space. Nonsense to the point of rubbish.
But Christopher Reeve... Christopher Reeve is flawless.
Type: Film
When we think of Superman in live action terms, it's Christopher Reeve we think about. Brandon Routh may have done a more than passable imitation, or we might endeared to the various television actors we've followed over the years, but Reeve remains THE Superman in our mind's eye. He springs right off the page and into our world.Not to say it's not something of a camp performance. Clark Kent is a real doofus, but he's still believable. It's Superman that's SUCH a boyscout that it takes into the same kind of unreal territory of the 60s Batman series. But in the same way that "Clark Kent" is a performance for the Daily Planet's sake (and Lois' in particular), Superman is also one, this time for the public (and again, for Lois). The real man (let's call him Kal-El) may only be glimpsed when the masks come off in Superman II, after Kal gives up his super-powers and marries Lois. He need not pretend one way or another with her, and there we get a sense of a more rounded character.
I'm not a fan of the films, but if there is something wrong with Reeve's film cycle, it's not his performance. It's Donner's vision (and what followed it). The movie Superman has the kind of power unseen even in the craziest of Silver Age stories. He reverses time by spinning the Earth backwards. He wipes your memory with a kiss. He has Great Wall of China-rebuilding vision. He basically has any power the writers/directors come up with, even if he could often achieve the same effects with his actual powers (fly back in time to before the earthquake, or rebuild the wall with super-speed, etc.). And the world around him is just as silly/indulgent, whether that's Richard Pryor's hacking animating crosswalk symbols or Lana Lang [edit: actually, it's Stacy Warfield - I've been scolded in the comments section - amending memories now] breathing in space. Nonsense to the point of rubbish.
But Christopher Reeve... Christopher Reeve is flawless.
Comments
1) A believable Clark Kent who is mild-mannered in the best sense of the phrase: calm but not given to shows of physical force. His friends enjoy his company and respect him, but they also know they can't count on him in a fist fight. That's just how Clark is.
2) A Superman who is so down-to-earth that he wouldn't scare the pee out of you if, say, he landed in front of you and started questioning you about a crime.
As a kid, I was disappointed that George Reeves never fought any giant monsters or superpowered foes (with the exception of the occasional cardboard box "robot"). That doesn't disappoint me nearly as much in my dotage.
And of course, next to Ned Beatty and Gene Hackman chewing the scenery, licking the crumbs off their fingers and looking for seconds, any camp of Reeve's looks positively restrained.
So what should the special effect have been? How about ... close-up of Superman with intense look on his wind-swept face as he approaches peak speed, and he disappears in a flash of light. Cut to a ground-level scene on earth from an hour or so earlier (could be just about any scene already shown in the film); everything is calm, when there's a big BOOM and a streak of light in the sky, which a close-up reveals to be Superman having busted through time.
I remember really loving the Donner/Mankiewicz commentary on the DVD, but I don't remember what they say during that scene. I may have to rewatch that bit with the commentary on sometime soon.
Reversing the Earth's rotation reversing time as well is perfectly legitimate by the rules of the Silver Age the film is apparently using. Think of the Super-Friends cartoon show which also aired in the 70s. The "comic book science" used there is just about as bad.
In both cases, at least 10-15 years out of date when it came to reproducing the Superman comic for the screen (give or take).
Of course, as has been said that's a Silver-Age thing in general, not just limited to this film.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to defend Donner when his original plan was to have Superman undo the entirety of Superman II by time travel, and that was after the villains were defeated.
So the Superman in Superman Returns is the Donner Superman, even if the part was recast, in the same way that Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney all play the same Batman.
I appreciated the movies for what they did at the time, but was never captivated enough to embrace them.
That said, back then and now, I agree that Reeve nailed it, and did a hell of a job.
Think of the Super-Friends cartoon show which also aired in the 70s. The "comic book science" used there is just about as bad.
Are you suggesting that Green Lantern couldn't just shove Earth out of the path of a missile, with no repercussions? ;)
So yes, that's exactly what I mean.
16 comments and no one notes this? What, there are no Superman IV fans here?! ;-)
Routh was ok, but...