1978 – 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…

I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978)

Fanboys

***This Review Contains Spoilers***

I Wanna Hold Your Hand follows a group of fanboys and fanboyettes who put all modern day internet fan communities to shame on a journey to meet their idols. There’s a lot of screaming, shouting and overall hyperactivity with its lightning fast, 1930’s-like repertoire and I watched the entire film with the biggest smile on my face. Crazy over the top comedies like these are my forte and I Wanna Hold Your Hand is one of the most energetic I’ve ever seen. The film begins with Ed Sullivan (Played by Ed Sullivan look-a-like Will Jordan) on the set on his own show off air introducing the movie Patton style, setting the stage for just how big The Beatles had become by January 1964. This was only three months after the assassination of JFK but this is never mentioned in the film. The film shows how Beatlemania provided an escape from the real world.

Wendie Jo Sperber and Eddie Deezen (a voice forever implanted into my head from years of childhood exposure on Dexter’s Laboratory) as Rosie and Ringo (as he calls himself) are the two most hyperactive of the cast members. I find it adorable that these two, one a social outcast and the other puppy dog eyed time bomb being brought together through their insane Beatles’ worship; especially when Rosie tells Ringo, “You’re the only boy I feel I can really talk to”. Likewise, Pam Mitchell’s (Nancy Allen) scene in which she invades The Beatles’ hotel room as she strokes and licks Ringo Star’s guitar neck is erotic cinema at its finest (she even takes off her engagement ring and puts t into her shoe beforehand, nice touch). The cinematography really puts a lot of emphases put on that guitar neck only for Ringo himself to later comment that it’s covered in sticky stuff, sexy. I’d do the same thing as well, not with The Beatles but there are other celebrities of whom I was in their hotel room I would be rubbing my face against everything they’ve touched and don’t lie, you would too.

I Wanna Hold Your Hand also features Paul Newman’s daughter Susan Kendall Newman in her second of three film appearances. Her character of Janis is introduced complaining to the manager of a record store that “all I see around the store is Beatle albums. What about Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, don’t they get equal floor space?”; back to the USSR for you Ms. Frankfurt School. It seems every generation has their socially righteous trying to ruin everyone’s fun although the movie does manage to make her into a sympathetic and more likable character as the film progresses. The film even gives significant attention to Beatles’ haters. One of the film’s greasers Tony (Bobby Di Cicco) hates The Beatles so much he abuses Beatles’ fans and even attempts to sabotage their appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show; talk about haters gonna hate.

The other stroke of genius is while we do see The Beatles they are never shown in their entirety. Rather the film takes the Ben-Hur Jesus approach in which only the bodies are seen but never the faces. If they actually did cast actors to play The Beatles in which we see their faces it would take you out of the film. There are even shades of American Graffiti present in I Wanna Hold Your Wand with its early 1960’s setting, young people, rock music and cars.

I Wanna Hold Your Hand marked the directorial debut of Robert Zemeckis. Like in Zemeckis’ Forrest Gump years later, I Wanna Hold Your Hand combines fiction surrounding a historical event. Much of the film’s cast being reunited the following year in the comically less successful 1941 (directed by Steven Spielberg) despite also being written by Zemeckis and Bob Gale. I’ve always considered Zemeckis to be a much better director than Spielberg.

I Wanna Hold Your Hand captures that feeling of having such a strong devotion to something. As you become increasingly attached to these characters you feel that if they really did miss The Beatles performance on The Ed Sullivan Show then their lives really wouldn’t be worth living.

Fedora (1978)

When the Pictures Became Small

Fedora is one of the most bizarre films I’ve ever seen, to say the least. At points I’m almost laughing at the movie’s plot twist yet the more bizarre and highly improbable the movie became the more I found myself getting engaged in the story, waiting in eager anticipation to find out what will happen next with those oh so joyous “I did not see that coming” moments. The film’s highly implausible plot manages to draw the thin line between being completely absurd but never feeling like a parody.

The character of Fedora herself is a reclusive movie star who goes to extreme lengths in order to stay “on top” and retain her eternal youth to the point which even Norma Desmond would consider crazy. Early during the film, I suspected Greta Garbo to be the likely source of inspiration for the character of Fedora (whom Wilder always had great admiration for) but as the plot progressed I thought to myself “ok even Garbo was never this nuts”.

One of Fedora’s other intriguing aspects is the film’s critique of New Hollywood and how times have changed since Hollywood’s golden era came to pass. Fedora is the only film I’ve seen which displays a harsh attitude towards New Hollywood with lines referring to Hollywood being taken over by kids with beards who don’t need a script, just a handheld camera with a zoom lens as well as the demise of glamorous movie stars of the past. This is one of several aspects of Fedora which makes it similar to what you could call its spiritual cousin Sunset Boulevard; which itself commented upon what was lost when the silent era came to an end. I could go on making comparisons between the two films from William Holden playing a Hollywood hack in both films to Michael York’s role the in film being similar to the role Cecil B. Millie played in Sunset Boulevard.

I imagined by 1978 Wilder was far past his directing prime, not to mention after the 1950’s he seemed to become content with only directing comedies; thus I’m surprised to consider Fedora as one of his greatest films and a return to the roots of his earlier work as a director. As soon as William Holden’s narration begins you can instantly tell this is classic, old-school Billy Wilder.

Lionheart (1978)

Oh Kate, My Lionheart

Lionheart is the underdog of Kate Bush’s work; usually dismissed as the inferior, rushed follow-up to The Kick Inside. Pfft, what album are the people who say this listening to? Lionheart was released only nine months after The Kick Inside but you would never know it. The album is campy, theatrical and is the kookiest thing Bush has ever recorded but it doesn’t care who knows it. What do you expect from an album which has Kate dressed as a lion on the cover?

There’s not a track I dislike here and choosing a favourite is hard. Ultimately have to go with Kaskha From Baghdad, a song which creates such a visualisation in my head with lyrics such as “Cause when the alley-cats come out, you can hear music from Kashka’s house”. The song is believed to be about a male homosexual couple: “Kashka lives in sin they say, with another man”. Is Kashka the name designated to a man? Lionheart has some of the best representations of Kate’s ability to tell stories through her music. Likewise, the song Fullhouse, a particular favourite of mine, contains lyrics real cinematic scope, describing a scene which could come straight from a film noir.

Lionheart is probably the most English album ever; Oh England, My Lionheart is probably the most English song ever. I’m not an anglophile but when I listen to this song I sure feel like one! An unabashedly romantic song to the highest degree, yearning for an England that no longer exists, or perhaps never existed to begin with. I also notice the lyric notes on the CD and Vinyl for Lionheart have those of Oh England, My Lionheart is in Kate’s own handwriting; odd when you consider that Kate apparently doesn’t even like the song. Likewise, with Symphony In Blue Kate sings from the point of view of a girl who realises the joy of sex is not only what makes life worth living but is essential; “Here we have a purpose in life, good for the blood circulation, good for releasing the tension, the root of our reincarnations”; a liberating mindset from a woman who is only 20.

From Kate’s first three albums, I have decided this is my favourite. Lionheart represents Kate Bush’s musical progression; It’s more varied and thematic than The Kick Inside and feels more complete than Never For Ever (not that I’m putting down those albums, they’re both also amazing), no two songs here sound alike. My advice is to listen to this album on a cold winter’s night, such atmosphere! Grab your tea and crumpets and be whisked away to Kate’s English dreamland.

The Kick Inside (1978)

The Kate Inside

It was in 2012 in which I had my first exposure to Kate Bush when I heard Running Up That Hill on an ITunes radio station. I was immediately hooked on the song and listened to it many times over the next few weeks. However, at this point in my life, I wasn’t actively exploring music. Although, just a few years earlier I had been doing just this but my love of cinema pushed music to the side, thus for a number years I only knew Kate Bush as that Running Up That Hill singer. Although I thought Running Up That Hill was an incredible song, I assumed Kate Bush would have been a personal one-hit-wonder. Otherwise, how come I had never heard of this woman until now?

Fast forward to 2014 and I am hearing news reports of Kate Bush embarking on her first series of concerts in 35 years. With this renewed interest in Kate Bush in the media, I heard Wuthering Heights on the radio. “Holy crap!” was my reaction. This was the beginning of my descent into the weird and wacky world of Kate Bush. I HAD to check out this woman’s work. Which I did, followed by checking out the albums, followed by buying them, followed by listening to every song carefully and deciphering every lyric. Kate Bush reignited my interest in music which I had lost over the past few years. How did this woman bypass me for so many years?! Was it due to her reclusive nature, or not having released an album for 12 years of my life (I was born in 1992). I need answers!

Kate Bush doesn’t fit into any one music genre. She is a genre!

“What’s your favourite music genre?”

“Kate Bush.”

Has there ever been another song in history like Wuthering Heights? Even Kate herself has never made another song like it. How many pop songs base their lyrics on classic literature that makes you want to read the novel it’s based on (listening to Kate makes you feel smarter). Kate’s story-driven songs such as this always create such a visual image in my head. Although Heathcliff and Cathy are not strictly Kate’s creations, her ability to conjure characters in her songs is unparalleled.

Although The Kick Inside doesn’t have a recurring theme like her subsequent albums, being more of a collection of songs, every track stands on its own. Kite is the most bonkers and innocent song on the album, James and the Cold Gun reminds me more of Bruce Springsteen, one of Kate’s least Kate-like songs but a superb rocker. The Saxophone Song has a very sinister sounding final minute which I can’t help but listen to over and over again. Them Heavy People is one of Kate’s most infectious songs, it will never leave your head, especially the uttering of “Rolling the ball”; admittedly this song can get a little annoying if you listen to it enough times but I still like it. Strange Phenomena is (apparently) about having a period; Kate Bush, daring to go lyrically where no one else dares! Feel It, on the other hand, makes no effort to disguise that it is about sex, completely directly and honestly. Wrapping of the album is the title track, which shows how Kate Bush isn’t afraid to experiment with controversial subjects. It’s speculated that the song deals with a brother and sister who have a sexual relationship resulting in her getting pregnant with her baby and the decision to commit suicide rather than bringing shame on her brother (just where does she come up with this stuff?). Although we can’t be sure; it’s fun deciphering these songs which are as mysterious as Kate Bush herself.

All the songs on the album make me want to jump around the room and mime like Kate does in many of her music videos, although I’d probably look like a mad git if I did so. Pop on the album, dim the lights, sit back with your eyes closed and allow The Kick Inside to kick your own insides.