June 29, 2006
Superman Returns-Second Impression
OK, make fun of me. I have already seen Superman Returns a second time. And my thoughts about the film have changed significantly, almost all for the better.
Almost without fail, the second viewing of a good film is always the best for me. This is the viewing where I get to take a film on its own terms, without misguided expectations, and without constantly wondering how and when I am going to be surprised. Because I know where the film is going, and I can grasp the whole picture from start to finish, I can begin to pay more attention to the details of the film. I can take the film's pulse so to speak. I become more aware of the pace, the flow, and the different beats in each scene. I can also let go more and just allow myself to enjoy the film and to take it in for what it is.
In this particular case, it also helped that I got to see the film from farther back the second time. I saw it on opening night from the third row, and so the big action scenes became a little irritating because I couldnt fully absorb them. But on my second viewing, this was not a problem at all.
So what is my second impression? In short, I think my only substantial criticism of the film that still remains is that it is too short. I think that Bryan Singer made an unwarranted decision to cut out several key scenes from the beginning of the film, including a 5 minute sequence that shows his return to Krypton and several scenes from his time in Smallville. I think we crucially needed these scenes to A) understand more about Krypton and its crystal technology, thus gaining a deeper appreciation for the rebirth of New Krypton later in the film and B) give the audience more time to identify emotionally with Superman's return in Smallville before he moves back into the bustle of big city Metropolis. I am desperately hoping that Singer will decide to reincorporate these scenes into the film, even though he has suggested that they will only be offered as deleted scenes.
But other than that very frustrating criticism, I have learned after my second viewing that this movie surpasses every other film in its genre besides its original predecessor, that I have no qualms about calling this film a gorgeously executed masterpiece, and that this film deserves a second chance from anybody who didnt get it the first time, because there is a lot more to this film than meets the eye! There are obvious reasons and then not so obvious reasons for making such a bold declaration. One obvious reason for this, that nobody seems to be challenging, is that the film is simply stunning visually and delivers more epic spectacle than we have ever seen in this kind of film. This film is image upon image upon image of cinematic delight to a moviegoer. I challenge anyone who disagrees to go back and dissect this film frame by frame. Singer did not drop the ball here. In fact, he knocked it out of the park.
But films are more than just visuals. The characters and the story have to hold up as well. On my first viewing, I was skeptical about how well Singer developed his characters and told his story. But on the second viewing, most of my doubts about this disappeared. The fact is, the story that Singer and his screenwriters Dougherty and Harris tell is incredibly bold and brave. Its the kind of story that I feel ridiculously lucky to have gotten because it never should have happened. The demands of a major studio and of populist appetites should have made it so that Singer would have never been able to shoot this script. I mean think about it! Rather than reinvent an exciting new franchise like Batman Begins or Spiderman, Singer wanted to bank hundreds of millions of dollars on reinventing a franchise from 1978 and give the public a story in which Superman is an illegitimate father and cant even have a relationship with Lois Lane because shes taken, not by a jerk mind you, but by a pretty great guy. Im sorry, but on paper, this must have looked like a terrible idea for a 2006 blockbuster movie. But Singer pulled it off. And even though his unorthodox choices have angered many fans, I have to put myself solidly in the camp of those who think Singer delivered one of the greatest developments to Superman's character to ever carve a way into his variegated mythology. And he did this not in a cheap and corny and poorly executed way. No, upon my second viewing, I am convinced that he did it in a nearly perfect way. It all boils down to those final scenes of the film, in the hospital and in the boy's bedroom. Those scenes were MUCH more emotional for me the second time around. Maybe its because I identify so strongly with fatherless characters, but watching this orphaned man whisper to his estranged son while he sleeps, and regaining that long lost father/son connection, just moved me in huge ways. And to have the father be Superman just made it all the more compelling. Perhaps I feel in my own life that restoring the father/son relationship is the great conflict of my life, and so I am fascinated that Singer chose to make it Superman's greatest conflict, even though he is a character who was once known to the American public as a man without flaws.
So why does this film truly rise above all of the others in its genre (except perhaps the original)? The emotional story is far bolder and more compelling for me than anything in the Spiderman, X-Men, or Batman universe. I mean this movie sends Superman from the very farthest reachest of outer space to the lowest depths of the ocean and even into the core of the earth itself, and yet the film ends in a small boy's bedroom. That to me is how this movie, for all its epic grandeur, captures the rare emotional intimacy needed for any truly great film.
Posted by todd at June 29, 2006 07:53 PM