1970's – Sat In Your Lap

Superman: The Movie (1978)

It’s Free Real Estate

***This Review Contains Spoilers***

During the opening credits of Superman: The Movie, in gigantic blue neon letters which dramatically zoom out towards the screen is the name of screen legend Marlon Brando, whereas the name of the man who actually plays Superman doesn’t appear until after the main title. Brando is only in the movie for less than 20 minutes in the theatrical cut (more in the extended cut and TV version). This foreshadows the imperfect and flawed nature of the Christopher Reeve Superman films however I think of them along the lines of the Japanese concept of Wabi-sabi – beauty within imperfection. With the internal disagreements that occurred with the making of these films behind the scenes, this saga ended up becoming a “choose your own adventure” anthology. Regardless, it all goes back to the year zero of 1978 and Superman: The Movie.

Christopher Reeve will forever be the GOAT live-action representation of the all-American icon that is Superman. But Superman is a boring, overpowered superhero I hear a bunch of edgy, Zack Synder-worshipping 12-year-olds say – nonsense! Superman is a tragic figure, one who saves the lives of others but is unable to enjoy his own life or be with the woman he loves. In Superman: The Movie this tragedy is showcased right off the bat as the young Clark Kent in Smallville is forced to be a lowly waterboy rather than an all-star college athlete as he is upstaged by a group of jocks and denied his childhood sweetheart Lana Lang. Unlike the creatives of today in both film and print who are embarrassed by the Superman of the past, this is the Superman who unashamedly represents truth, justice and the American way. The aspirational hero, the loveable dork, the pure-of-heart-do-gooder who saves a cat from a tree, will pull back his shirt to reveal the iconic S and dawns the bright, popping, contrasting colours of the famous suit (complete with the trunks) and all conveyed with such un-ironic sincerity (I just wish they could have held off on the Cheerios product placement during such a poignant moment). With the lighthearted nature of these films and their lack of irony, they can get away with a certain degree with their suspension of disbelief, hence on Superman’s first night, he just happens to save Lois Lane and none other than The President Of The United States from near-certain death. You know, like you do in a normal night’s work.

The transformation between Superman and his alter-ego Clark Kent really showcases just what a superb actor the late Christopher Reeve was. The infamous glasses Clark uses as a disguise which no one is able to see through is easy fodder for satirists, but there is so much more to the illusion from his complete change in attitude, posture, voice and mannerisms. Clark wears tailored baggy clothes, parts his hair to a different side, looks frail, slouches, talks in a higher octave, acts clumsy and submissive (while pretending he has no street smarts). Likewise, assuming the film is set in its contemporary period of the 1970s, this Cary Grant-like Clark still dresses as if it is 1938. It is a fantastic sight to observe Reeve playing both personas in the same uncut shot inside Lois’ apartment in which he removes the glasses and speaks in a different voice, as right in front of the viewer’s very eyes, he turns into an entirely different man. Just as impressive is the chemistry Reeve shares with a very quirky and in many ways clumsy Lois Lane played by Margot Kidder, in which the two of them turn the lengthy flying scene with Superman and Lois into pure cinema magic. The sequence and the dreamlike music by John Williams has the beauty and sensuality of an Astaire-Rodgers dance number as it perfectly capturing the intimacy between mortal and immortal (I’m sure with this scene alone the film bagged the female demographic).

Gene Hackman as real-estate madman Lex Luthor provides much of the film’s comic relief with his many flattering comments about himself (“Doesn’t it give you kind of a shudder of electricity through you to be in the same room with me?”) as well as his witty insults against the comic foil that is Otis (even Luthor’s underground layer of an abandoned subway acts like a character in itself). The film’s other great source of comedy is the scenes in The Daily Planet which have that screwball comedy, His Girl Friday vibe. There is a specific electric energy that comes from that click-clack of typewriters and phones ringing (the age before PCs and laptops) to the fast and snappy dialogue from actors who share exceptional chemistry as they walk and talk (“Remember my expose on the sex and drug orgies in the senior citizens home”). Clark himself provides an entertaining contrast as the avatar of Middle America who uses phrases like “swell” against the backdrop of his city slicker urbanites. As far as the film’s other callbacks to vintage Americana, the film plays into the 50’s nostalgia craze of the ’70s (alongside American Graffiti, Happy Days, Grease and The Lords Of The Flatbush) but the film still remains a product of the 1970s (“Say Jim, that’s a bad OUTFIT!”) tapping into the 70’s disaster movie craze with the destruction of the Hollywood sign and the inclusion of several obvious but charming miniatures (complete with scores of tiny boulders). Even the film’s iconic tagline “You’ll Believe A Man Can Fly”, speaks to its era as nothing special effects-wise had ever been accomplished in prior ages.

In the 1978 TV special on the making of Superman: The Movie, behind-the-scenes footage shows Marlon Brando reading off cue cards when filming as well as reading from the script when he is not on screen. It’s a rather sad and sorry sight (this was into the era when Brando had lost his marbles), but in the finished product, Brando delivers the goods as Superman’s/Kal-El’s father Jor-El. Brando commands the scenes on Superman’s home planet Krypton with his every word and line being delivered with such commitment and integrity. Brando proves to be a comforting presence during the scenes in the Fortress Of Solitude as well as amid his narration throughout the sequence in which the audience is treated to an assortment of galactic images. With its Shakespearean tone and grand opening fanfare music, the scenes on Krypton really provide Superman: The Movie the aura of a Hollywood epic. Well, that and one of the greatest opening credits sequences in cinema, as each member of the cast and crew has their name appear in the form of those aforementioned giant blue neon letters in space accompanied by a hair-raising “swoosh” sound effect as their credit come across the screen (even with director Richard Donner’s name at the very end, the audio gets that extra oomph). Just how did they achieve that effect without the aid of CGI, tell you what, I’m happy not knowing. Above all, what completes the opening credits is none other than the music by cinema’s greatest composer, John Williams. For the first time in the character’s history, Superman has a musical representation, in which such hope and optimism are conveyed in musical form and a theme in which the main three-note musical motif actually speaks the name of the titular superhero.

The opening scenes on Krypton also set up the big bad for the sequel Superman II, General Zod (Terrence Stamp) and his two accomplices, Non (Jack O’Halloran) and Ursa (Sarah Douglas). This opening offers a taster of the greatness which is offered in the sequel with Terrence Stamp’s legendary, scenery-chewing performance as the Kryptonian traitor (“You will bow down before me! Both you, and then one day, your heirs!”). The giant faces in the high court and their pronouncements of “guilty!” as well as that floating square known as The Phantom Zone (often spoofed in pop culture) makes for unforgettable imagery. So what exactly are the trio being tried for? It’s not explained in any depth, but the film states Zod was attempting to start a revolution on Krypton to form a new order with himself as leader. Was there any justification for their goal? Krypton does appear to be a stale, conformist, authoritarian dystopia in which everyone dresses the same and Jor-El is even instructed not to leave Krypton with his family when he believes the planet will imminently self-destruct (hmmm, #ZodWasRight).

For a film series which is full of silly, bizarre or just downright dumb moments, it’s surprising that it’s the first and most grounded of these films which contains the most controversial moment in the entire Superman film franchise. I am indeed speaking of the infamous climax of Superman: The Movie in which Supes turns back time by altering the rotation of the Earth in order to prevent the death of Lois Lane (after he was only able to stop one of the two missiles Lex Luthor had rerouted), or at least this is what is commonly perceived. Is Superman actually flying faster than the speed of light to go back in time thus the reversed rotation of the Earth is a result of Superman going back in time rather than being the method of which he goes back in time? Superman is also subsequently shown to fly in the direction of the Earth’s rotation as if he is re-correcting the direction in which the planet should rotate, or did he simply overshoot by going too far into the past and had to go slightly correct himself time-wise? But then again, how does flying anti-clockwise make him go into the past and clockwise go into the future? Putting the obvious implications of real-world science to one side, the Back To The Future: Part II levels of paradox will not only make your head spin, the movie ultimately fails to make clear what Superman is actually doing.

Other questions raised by this deus ex-machina climax include:

-Why hasn’t he used this power before or since? If Superman can use time travel to fix any problem, then it makes any conflicts in subsequent movies irrelevant.

-If he can fly that fast then why couldn’t he stop both of the missiles?

-If he went to get the other missile and then save Lois after turning back time, that means there’s another Superman somewhere stopping the one other missile from before.

-If Superman is knowingly breaking Jor-El’s command that he doesn’t interfere with human history (“It is forbidden for you to interfere with human history”) and instead taking his Earth father’s advice (“One thing I know, son, and that is you are here for a reason”), then I can understand that this is a sign that he has chosen Earth over Krypton, why does he continue to consult the elders of Krypton in subsequent movies?

That said, I by no means dislike this ending as it’s not only fun discussing the merits of such a conclusion, it still works on an emotional level as you can feel Superman’s anger, heartache and pain over his failure to save Lois as he lets out a mighty scream and ascends towards a billow of storm clouds as the booming voice of Jor-El instructs him not to interfere with human history.

The 3-hour TV version of Superman: The Movie (first broadcast in 1982 on ABC) contains an extra 37 minutes than the extended cut, which was released by Warner Bros for the first time on home video and in the film’s original aspect ratio for the film’s 40^th anniversary in 2018. I did have some scepticism going into this version suspecting it would make the film too long and bloated, however, I am pleased to report this version is my definitive cut of Superman: The Movie. Please forgive me Mr. Donner that I keep preferring the unapproved versions of your Superman films (the Blu-ray contains an opening prologue stating this version does not represent the director’s vision).

So what goodies does this 3-hour long cut offer? Firstly, it offers another moment with the Phantom Zone as it whizzes past baby Superman’s pod. A nice reminder that these guys from the start of the film will come back later not to mention, any more footage of Terrence Stamp as Zod is much appreciated. In this cut, it is also revealed the little girl on the train who saw Clark running in Smallville was none-other than Lois Lane herself, to which I had the reaction of “say what?!”. The scene itself is nonsensical as since when do parents refer to their children by their full name in casual conversation? It is also a bit of a cheap shot to illicit a reaction from the audience but it did work on me so I’ll let them away with this one. It would however have been a more clever move to imply the character was Lois rather than outright stating it, creating a bit of mystery for the viewer. One fantastic addition however is that of Superman speaking to Jor-El in the Fortress Of Solitude after his first night of crime-fighting and speaking of his guilty feelings for having enjoyed the experience (“do not punish yourself you your feelings of vanity, simply learn to control them”). This scene further highlights Superman’s vulnerability and makes this characterization more human – powerful stuff!

Correspondingly, the sequence in which Superman attempts to enter Luthor’s layer but has to make his way through hoards of gun bullets and sub-zero temperatures doesn’t make sense as Luthor is aware that kryptonite is his only weakness but does prove to be a fun sequence despite this obvious plot hole. However speaking of extra scenes involving Lex, my favourite addition to the TV version would have to be that of Luthor’s babies, a collection of big cats which are never seen on screen but only heard with an amalgamation of various big cat growls. These cats strike fear into the heart of Otis as Luthor in a very sinister manner asks him “Otis, did you feed the babies?”. This scene makes Lex all the more sinister and explores the mad-scientist aspect of his character, as well as tying into an additional scene at the film’s end in which we actually discover the fate of Luthor’s accomplice Miss Teschmacher. My only complaint with this version of Superman: The Movie is the dial downed sound effects in the audio mix for the opening credits. That said, I am now waiting for restored versions TV versions of Superman II and III (and an extended cut of IV). Come on Warner Bros, chop chop!

I get that people are very sentimental towards director Richard Donner although I’ve never been a huge fan of his work. Lethal Weapon was never my scene and I don’t like The Goonies. I also really dislike The Richard Donner cut of Superman II (but more on that for another day). Regardless, personally for me Superman: The Movie is by far his best film in my estimation. However, my biggest complaint with Superman: The Movie (as solid as it is) is Superman II. The sequel does everything the first movie did but better. One thing which is lacking from the first movie is an adversary for Superman to engage in combat with (which Superman II has in plentiful supply) not to mention the sequel has much more internal character-driven conflict. With that said, the adventure continues…

House [Hausu] (1977)

A Method To The Madness

***This Review Contains Spoilers***

What struck me most on my first viewing of House (or Hausu)was that alongside the film’s sheer over-the-top, phantasmagoric madness, I found the whole thing to be weirdly endearing. Initially, I was concerned I was getting into something awfully pretentious but I was able to surrender myself to the fact that I was watching a film which employees a different filmmaking technique in just about every scene. House has one of themost cliché of horror movie premises, yet it gives way to one of the most unique and weirdest viewing experiences with descriptions ranging from “Evil Dead on steroids” to “a Scooby-Doo episode directed by Mario Bava” – perhaps no other film holds a better claim to the title of being “one wild and crazy ride”.

Japan’s reputation for “WTFness” could make House a film easy to dismiss, however, there is a method to the madness. Director Nobuhiko Obayashi was a director of commercials before taking on the mantle of House, and the artifice of commercials is all over the film alongside (pre-MTV) music video style editing, of which I’m sure it’s no coincidence that House was shot using the 4:3 aspect ratio – the aesthetics of House are all about the embrace of artifice. A film of contradictions, House is an art-house film (or art-hausu film one could say, ba-tum-tiss!) and one which was reportedly a huge success with the youth demographic in Japan upon its release (with the film’s extraction of sex appeal from its young female stars as well as nudity in several scenes may have got many young men into the theatres). In this regard it’s also worth mentioning House stands out as it is uncommon for Japanese films to have an English language title. Yet at the same time House symbolizes a return to tradition, a rejection of realism in 1970’s cinema. Right from the opening prologue, the movie proclaims in the vintage Broadway font what you are about to see is “A Movie Presentation”. This is part of the reason why beyond its scenes with killer futons, man-eating pianos and decapitated heads biting girls on the derrière, House is as I previously mentioned, weirdly endearing – the director’s love for cinema comes through and feels like a celebration of the medium. If I were to compare House to another film it would have to be Buster Keaton’s Sherlock Jr. Both films celebrate the art form with their use of special effects which blur the line between reality and fantasy with both also featuring a movie within a movie. House has a Technicolor-look reminiscent of the work of Jack Cardiff with its use of deep, saturated colour with the film’s colour scheme remains largely consistent throughout with its use of oranges, reds and blues and being a horror picture, it does have that autumnal/Halloween vibe (even though it is set during the summer). Speaking of, as a horror film is House actually scary? Well, this measure is subjective of course but I did personally jump at the reveal of severed head of the character Mac as well as Gorgeous’ giant profile suddenly entering to the screen from the right.

House is like a feature-length dream with its mad array of images. The images from the film were conjured from the mind of a child, Obayashi’s pre-teen daughter Chigumi Obayashi (who does receive a conceptual credit and even has a cameo in the film as a shoemaker). I am dubious of having a child being a film’s creative consultant since the last movie I saw to do so was those dreadful Robert Rodriguez Spy Kids films but in House, this influence works and another aspect which makes the film endearing. To anyone who has never seen House, it’s difficult to put into words just how insane a film this is without sounding melodramatic. This encyclopedia of movie storytelling and its array of practical special effects wizardry is a joy to behold from primitive blue screen to the use of stop motion – there are a few films in which an obscene amount of effort is put into every shot. On the other hand, there are sections of House which do have a chilled-out nature to them and the cheesy vibes of Beach Party film. Just a warning that several sequences in the film do contain strobe lighting effects (as if the Japanese weren’t content enough with giving people seizures through Pokémon episodes). Upon my third viewing of House, I did find myself becoming more desensitized to its bizarre nature and more understanding the filmmakers’ mindset on how they could have created something like this. That said, where Mr. Togo’s transformation into a pile of bananas and the bear wearing the chef outfit fit into the grander scheme of things I can’t explain. I guess you got to have some randomness for randomness’ sake.

House follows seven girls each named after a single personality trait- Gorgeous, Kung Fu, Prof, Fantasy, Mac, Sweet and Melody. At the beginning of their summer break, they decide to spend some time at the country house of Gorgeous’ aunt, where all is not what it seems. The story does play as an inverse of Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs, seven girls each defined by a single personality trait, show up at a house in the middle of nowhere which is in need of cleaning, owned by an old woman who lives alone. Of the ensemble, Gorgeous is the closet to the film having a protagonist as she has a clearly defined arc, beginning with a subplot involving her father attempting to bring a stepmother into the family and freeing his daughter from domestic chores such as ironing his shirts in a story right out of a Yasujirō Ozu film. Even in the film’s opening scene, a teacher mentions how she is having an arranged marriage during the summer, a topic often explored in Ozu’s work. The only girl in the group named after a purely negative trait (and of course, she dies first) is the gluttonous Mac (derived from the English word “stomach”), although fantasy itself holds its negative aspects, My favourite of the group however has to be alpha in the form of Kung Fu, whose speciality skill leads to several very humorous (whether intentional or not) fight scenes against an array of moving objects.

Acting as a mascot for House with its prominence in promotional material is the white ragdoll cat that joins the girls on their adventure (good kitty!). Cats hold a supernatural significance in Japan and it’s evident the cat in House is doing the bidding of a witch, even preventing Mr. Togo from joining the girls at the house to potentially rescue them. This witch in question is the aunt (Yōko Minamida) herself who proves to be an interesting figure. She has an ominous ghostly look to her and is portrayed in the mould of the classic Yurei, a ghost from Japanese folklore that cannot pass onto the afterlife. She is also vampiric in nature, wearing tinted glasses when going outside, and feeling unwell after being in the sun not to mention the interior of her house is very dark. Oddest of all, she feels revitalized by the presence of the girls which allows herself to not require the use of her wheelchair. The aunt is a Willy Wonka-like figure and the house is her factory as the girls are taken out one by one by the house itself, much of this done through the watchful eye of Gorgeous assuming the mantle of her aunt, becoming possessed by her in act of metamorphosis. Like the kids in Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory, it’s not made clear if the girls are actually killed literally or just in a metaphorical sense. Usually, in slasher films, the young people are killed as a comeuppance for their promiscuous actions, but do the girls in House deserve what they receive? One of the film’s themes and one which is confirmed by the director is how the trauma of World War II still affects the aunt whose finance never returned from the war and correspondingly how the seven girls take their peacetime living for granted. To quote Obayashi; “These girls born after the war and therefore unaware of how precious peace is, come to the house on summer vacation. The old woman’s bitterness about the war turns into an evil spirit and devours the girls”. This taking of peace for granted is showcased during the movie within a movie, in which a flash from a camera cuts to an atomic cloud, to which one of the girls makes the trite comment, “That looks like cotton candy”. This is at least the case with the subtitles on the US Criterion Collection release. On the UK Masters Of Cinema release, there are no subtitles on this shot even though giddy chatter from the girls can be heard. Speaking of subtitle differences between these two aforementioned releases, in the scene introducing Gorgeous’ father, a film composer who has just returned from Italy after working with Sergio Leone, his line of dialogue in the Criterion release states the rather unbelievable comment “Leone said my music was better than Morricone’s”. However, in the Masters Of Cinema release, the line is the less dramatic “Both Leone and Morricone liked it very much”. Is someone taking liberties in the translation process?

Of the various interpretations of House, that which strikes me the most is the film being a coming-of-age tale of Gorgeous’ urge to stay a young woman and refusal to enter womanhood. As the house eats the young girls, blood erupts from it, the blood of menstruation – a symbol of womanhood triumphing over youth. It’s also worth noting the blood in question comes from the cat, an alternative name for a cat is a…, ok you know what I mean. Likewise, when people are young they will have certain friends and as they become older they may move on from these friends as a result of maturity. Gorgeous’ dying friends can be seen to represent this while her stepmother going up in flames in the film’s final scene could be viewed as her lack of need for a mother figure in adulthood. I have read theories bringing this theory to greater extremes of analyses, in particular, an extensive write-up on the now defunct (but thankfully archived) IMDB boards in which a user by the name of nemuro8 proposes the seven girls all represent aspects of puberty (I’m not sure if I buy into it but it’s food for thought); “Fantasy represents naivety and the fear of the change. Mac represents hormonal changes with her increased appetite. Sweet represents the desire to fill expectations and the role of domestic life. Melody represents creativity and the desire to have fun. Kung-Fu represents courage and brashness. Prof represents logic and leadership. Gorgeous represents vanity and beauty.”

The soundtrack to House (which was released before the film had even entered production) deserves a review in its own regard as it works as a cohesive album rather than just a collection of songs (with most but not all of the tracks you wouldn’t guess are from a horror film). The jovial main theme of the film has a section with a superb synthesized rendition of the melody, which is only heard briefly in the film itself. Hungry House Blues on the other hand is a delta blues style track that only appears very briefly in the picture, however, this version on the soundtrack is a whooping 6 minutes long complete with plenty of slide guitar action and even has vocals in the style of a 1930’s Mississippian black man (who provided these vocals?). Buggy Boogie is a piece of early ’60s, rockabilly cheese while The Beach Boys style Cherries Were Made For Eating is a real uplifting, banger of a choon, provided by the band Godiego (whom makes a cameo in the film as the song is being played). Eat is in a way the defacto theme of Kung Fu, as the piece is played every time she gets involved in her trademark skill – a good piece if you need a quick dose of adrenaline and the one track which has an undeniably funky, 70’s sound. In The Evening Midst is the most profound track and the real centrepiece of both the film and album, an instrumental played by Melody several times throughout the film which acts as a relief to the horror surrounding it. The track feels similar to the piano melodies from David Bowie’s Hunky Dory and ends on a beautiful crescendo (it’s also worth noting, this piano melody does bear a striking resemblance to the piano riff on the song Welcome to the Black Parade by My Chemical Romance). The final track of both the album and film is titled House Love Theme, this Beatles-like calm after the storm which feels reminiscent of Abbey Road side B. This is the only song in House which actually features Japanese lyrics of which I am unable to find a translation of thus I can’t comment if the lyrics actually hold any thematic relevance to the film.

House is the kind of film to be watched on the big screen at a midnight showing alongside the likes of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It does feel like was designed and destined to become one of the ultimate cult films. I do find myself fascinated by films such as this which remained unknown in the west for decades before obtaining a mass following. Of the film’s 149 reviews on IMDB, only 14 were written prior to the film’s first North American release in 2009. It makes you wonder what’s still out there…