Christopher Reeve as Superman
Saturday, January 13, 2007
On Donner, On Lester--Flying Superman II
The DVD is called Superman II: The Director's Cut, but of course it isn't. When director Richard Donner was filming the 1978 Superman, he was also filming scenes meant to be used in a sequel. But after the first movie was a huge hit, there was discord. Marlon Brando apparently wanted more money for the scenes he'd already shot, and the producers wouldn't pay him. Richard Donner was either fired from completing the sequel, or quit. Apparently some other actors, notably Gene Hackman, wouldn't work with another director, although he allowed (or had to allow) the scenes he'd shot to be used.
In any case, Richard Lester took over as director of the 1980 release version of Superman II. He also directed III, released in 1983. But fans remained curious about the scenes Donner shot that weren't used, and his vision for the sequel. When the Brando estate allowed his scenes to be used, it was possible for an approximation of the movie Donner would have made to be assembled.
So this isn't the "Director's cut," since Richard Lester is the director of record, and especially since Donner didn't shoot the rest of the film, and also didn't himself assemble this footage, or choose the shots used. He did however approve it, and he appears in a bonus track to introduce it, and to talk about it.
With a script by Mario Puzo, Donner created an American classic in the 1978 Superman. It was first of all a highly innovative movie in many ways. It was technically advanced. It was bigger than movies had been in a long time. And in the self-consciously hip, sophisticated 70s, it dared to be a kind of throwback, to an epic with a quality of innocence, leavened with humor that was ironic without being cynical. Gently ironic, perhaps--a movie that commented on the brittle and sometimes empty sophistication of modern life, and wasn't afraid to say that some old bedrock values could still soar. (It also played to the New York frustration with the city's crime in the late 70s.)
I attended one of the first screenings of Superman in New York for media and special guests. Everyone connected with movies wanted to see it. As I was on my way in to the second screening of the evening, I met director Brian DePalma coming out of the first, with someone I knew. Everybody talked about it for months. When I interviewed director Francois Truffaut later in the year, he talked about it. From those long, swooping big opening credits--the first time that had been done--to the film's lush photography and the scope of the production, everyone knew it had raised the bar on a certain kind of Hollywood film. Together with Star Wars and Close Encounters the year before, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture the year after, this movie and Superman II started the high adventure blockbusters that have become a staple of Hollywood ever since.
Superman remains a great movie. The mythic quality begins with the Krypton origins, and then becomes deeply American in the heartland vistas of the Smallville section, all setting up the 1930s American superhero confronting the modern Metropolis for the rest of the movie. The brittle, cynical, superficial city yearns for a hero, but instead of Dirty Harry or Rambo they get a guy with an open face, an innocent grin, who stands for truth, justice and the American Way in the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam 70s.
So I was interested to get the Donner version of Superman II from Netflix, which I did, and then took another look at the Lester version on DVD. There's no comparison.
[continued after photo]
The DVD is called Superman II: The Director's Cut, but of course it isn't. When director Richard Donner was filming the 1978 Superman, he was also filming scenes meant to be used in a sequel. But after the first movie was a huge hit, there was discord. Marlon Brando apparently wanted more money for the scenes he'd already shot, and the producers wouldn't pay him. Richard Donner was either fired from completing the sequel, or quit. Apparently some other actors, notably Gene Hackman, wouldn't work with another director, although he allowed (or had to allow) the scenes he'd shot to be used.
In any case, Richard Lester took over as director of the 1980 release version of Superman II. He also directed III, released in 1983. But fans remained curious about the scenes Donner shot that weren't used, and his vision for the sequel. When the Brando estate allowed his scenes to be used, it was possible for an approximation of the movie Donner would have made to be assembled.
So this isn't the "Director's cut," since Richard Lester is the director of record, and especially since Donner didn't shoot the rest of the film, and also didn't himself assemble this footage, or choose the shots used. He did however approve it, and he appears in a bonus track to introduce it, and to talk about it.
With a script by Mario Puzo, Donner created an American classic in the 1978 Superman. It was first of all a highly innovative movie in many ways. It was technically advanced. It was bigger than movies had been in a long time. And in the self-consciously hip, sophisticated 70s, it dared to be a kind of throwback, to an epic with a quality of innocence, leavened with humor that was ironic without being cynical. Gently ironic, perhaps--a movie that commented on the brittle and sometimes empty sophistication of modern life, and wasn't afraid to say that some old bedrock values could still soar. (It also played to the New York frustration with the city's crime in the late 70s.)
I attended one of the first screenings of Superman in New York for media and special guests. Everyone connected with movies wanted to see it. As I was on my way in to the second screening of the evening, I met director Brian DePalma coming out of the first, with someone I knew. Everybody talked about it for months. When I interviewed director Francois Truffaut later in the year, he talked about it. From those long, swooping big opening credits--the first time that had been done--to the film's lush photography and the scope of the production, everyone knew it had raised the bar on a certain kind of Hollywood film. Together with Star Wars and Close Encounters the year before, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture the year after, this movie and Superman II started the high adventure blockbusters that have become a staple of Hollywood ever since.
Superman remains a great movie. The mythic quality begins with the Krypton origins, and then becomes deeply American in the heartland vistas of the Smallville section, all setting up the 1930s American superhero confronting the modern Metropolis for the rest of the movie. The brittle, cynical, superficial city yearns for a hero, but instead of Dirty Harry or Rambo they get a guy with an open face, an innocent grin, who stands for truth, justice and the American Way in the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam 70s.
So I was interested to get the Donner version of Superman II from Netflix, which I did, and then took another look at the Lester version on DVD. There's no comparison.
[continued after photo]
For my money, the Lester version is better, in almost every way.
The Lester version is better paced--it's more exciting, and it's funnier. (The humor may be a generational thing. Some people hate it in this film, as they hate it in Star Trek movies. But it flows naturally from lots of films in the 60s and 70s, and before that from the 40s and 30s, which we didn't think were at all "cheesy." Or maybe it's that some don't like any ironic distance in their adventure fantasies.) The story moves along faster, yet the characterizations and situations are better. The plot is more carefully developed, though the scenes are longer in the Donner version. There's real emotion in the relationship of Clark and Lois that I didn't feel in the Donner version. And while the Brando footage was interesting, it doesn't add much.
In fact, I liked the scenes with Susannah York as Superman's mother better. Somehow, Superman telling her about Lois--that he loves her--was more poignant, and played better than telling his authoritarian dad, with the furrowed Brando brow and the voice (or accent) of Claude Rains, the Invisible Man. The Fortress scenes themselves made more sense in Lester, especially when Clark explained how he built the place with the one crystal. This sets up the creative power of that crystal to restore his powers later.
Of course, Donner didn't really make his version. The people who assembled his footage--using what seems like just about everything he shot---then added the Lester footage they needed to make the story complete. They also substituted a nonsensical ending, taken from the first movie. (If Superman could reverse time every time he wanted, what else would he have to do when something bad happened? In the first film it was an emotional outburst that led him to violate his father's "prime directive," so it made sense. Also, the time reversal didn't apparently work in the Arctic, where Clark returned to repay the bully for something he hadn't done.)
It looks more like a rough cut than a finished film, which in some ways is appropriate, since the whole idea was to show what Donner shot. But that doesn't make it a better movie. The guys who put it together boast that they changed a lot of Lester's shots--doing closeups instead of long shots, etc. But in every case I could compare, I liked the original shot--the Lester shot--better.
Finally, there were Donner's comments on the DVD, which really put me off. He pretended not to remember Lester's name. A certain amount of payback may be warranted--the release version doesn't mention Donner in the credits either--but Donner ought to let go of this childish petulance almost 30 years later. Why insult Lester? Richard Lester is a distinguished director--I'd say he made more good films, and more important films that Donner has: both Beatles films, the Three Musketeer films, and such classics as Petulia, How I Won the War, The Knack and The Bed-Sitting Room. Donner made the Lethal Weapon films, which I admire. But not much else.
I'm glad I saw the Donner DVD, and we'll never know if he would have made a better Superman II than Lester did. But Lester made a great one--a different kind of film from the first one, but a landmark film of its kind--and it remains the definitive Superman II.
The Lester version is better paced--it's more exciting, and it's funnier. (The humor may be a generational thing. Some people hate it in this film, as they hate it in Star Trek movies. But it flows naturally from lots of films in the 60s and 70s, and before that from the 40s and 30s, which we didn't think were at all "cheesy." Or maybe it's that some don't like any ironic distance in their adventure fantasies.) The story moves along faster, yet the characterizations and situations are better. The plot is more carefully developed, though the scenes are longer in the Donner version. There's real emotion in the relationship of Clark and Lois that I didn't feel in the Donner version. And while the Brando footage was interesting, it doesn't add much.
In fact, I liked the scenes with Susannah York as Superman's mother better. Somehow, Superman telling her about Lois--that he loves her--was more poignant, and played better than telling his authoritarian dad, with the furrowed Brando brow and the voice (or accent) of Claude Rains, the Invisible Man. The Fortress scenes themselves made more sense in Lester, especially when Clark explained how he built the place with the one crystal. This sets up the creative power of that crystal to restore his powers later.
Of course, Donner didn't really make his version. The people who assembled his footage--using what seems like just about everything he shot---then added the Lester footage they needed to make the story complete. They also substituted a nonsensical ending, taken from the first movie. (If Superman could reverse time every time he wanted, what else would he have to do when something bad happened? In the first film it was an emotional outburst that led him to violate his father's "prime directive," so it made sense. Also, the time reversal didn't apparently work in the Arctic, where Clark returned to repay the bully for something he hadn't done.)
It looks more like a rough cut than a finished film, which in some ways is appropriate, since the whole idea was to show what Donner shot. But that doesn't make it a better movie. The guys who put it together boast that they changed a lot of Lester's shots--doing closeups instead of long shots, etc. But in every case I could compare, I liked the original shot--the Lester shot--better.
Finally, there were Donner's comments on the DVD, which really put me off. He pretended not to remember Lester's name. A certain amount of payback may be warranted--the release version doesn't mention Donner in the credits either--but Donner ought to let go of this childish petulance almost 30 years later. Why insult Lester? Richard Lester is a distinguished director--I'd say he made more good films, and more important films that Donner has: both Beatles films, the Three Musketeer films, and such classics as Petulia, How I Won the War, The Knack and The Bed-Sitting Room. Donner made the Lethal Weapon films, which I admire. But not much else.
I'm glad I saw the Donner DVD, and we'll never know if he would have made a better Superman II than Lester did. But Lester made a great one--a different kind of film from the first one, but a landmark film of its kind--and it remains the definitive Superman II.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)