Superman II (1980) (Theatrical Version)
I was pretty sure that I had seen this at some point in the distant past, but upon watching it this past week I realized I had no tangible memory of the film. So I'll assume this was my very first viewing
There appears to be a general consensus among fans that this is a very problematic film, and having watched it I can definitely sympathize with those concerns. The main culprit seems to be the treatment and depiction of Lois. Legend has it that Margot Kidder was so outraged over her character's portrayal that she was essentially benched for
Superman III, and who am I to contradict her? Indeed, this version of Lois comes across as more reckless and kooky than intrepid; the steely intelligence she displayed in the first film has been replaced with a much more shrill caricature in the first sequel. Exhibit A seems to be the infamous Niagara Falls sequence where Lois throws herself into the water to force Clark to reveal his secret. However, I can't say this really bothered me because it's a classic example of comic book logic. Hell, Lois jumps off a building in
My Adventures with Superman to prove the same point!
I do agree however that the constant gaslighting of Lois on Clark's behalf to protect his secret identity is much more troublesome. Jor-El specifically tells Clark in the first film to protect his secret at any cost, but Superman's deception in the second film borders on sociopathic. This is what cheaters do: they deny their affairs so vehemently that their partners start to question their own sanity. I've dealt with people in the past so adept at the art of deception it's almost scary, so this aspect of Clark's behaviour personally put a bad taste in my mouth. I've read anecdotal reports online of readers who clashed with Marvel over Peter Parker's similar deceptive efforts to protect his secret in old Spider-Man comics, where they felt the constant lying set a bad example for kids who actually read the books. It's a slippery slope, isn't it?
One criticism of
Superman II I 100% agree with is the controversy surrounding the 'super kiss' at the end of the film. After Lois goes on a shrill tirade about how she's so in love with Superman that she selfishly objects to "sharing him with the rest of the world" (ugh), Clark magically kisses away all memories of their affair. Never mind that, if Lois questioned her sanity before, the fact that she remembers nothing of the global cataclysmic events of the rest of the film probably had her running to her neurologist. The main issue here is that taking someone to bed and then wiping their memory of the event is so troublesome, I don't even know where to start unpacking it. Apparently this was a non-canonical power invented for the sequel because the original planned ending was used for the first film's conclusion. Ostensibly an attempt on Clark's part to spare her the painful memory of their affair, the implication of course is that Superman still remembers the event, so he gets to savour every juicy aspect of his wild night of PG-rated sex with Lois without having to deal with any of the inevitably messy aftermath. Even weirder is that Zod calls Superman a "coward" in the sequel, and then the film itself makes an attempt to prove him correct...
And don't even get me started on Superman's rash decision to forsake his Kryptonian heritage to become mortal, just so he can sleep with Lois. Are we to assume that he can only have sex with a human if he exposes himself to red sun radiation? Does this mean that the poor guy will now be forced to live a life of complete celibacy on Earth? Speaking of which, my roommate and I laughed at Clark's little love nest in The Fortress of Solitude, complete with silver bed! He explicitly states that he doesn't actually live there, so why the need for a celestial bed? Did he set it up in the hopes that he might one day have an opportunity to get it on with an Earthling?? And how did Clark and Lois get from the Arctic back to Niagara Falls after Supes had been depowered? And, we're also to assume that Clark just walked back after being beaten up in the diner?? I swear this is one of the most deliriously ridiculous CBMs I've ever seen...
Which brings us to that infamous diner scene, where Clark returns after being repowered to give some comeuppance to a local bully. I read that audiences cheered this sequence when the film was first released - perhaps things really did land differently in 1980 - but viewed through a modern lens the entire scene is deeply problematic. Remember when Uncle Ben told Peter in the first Spider-Man film that just because you
can beat someone up doesn't mean you
should? Bullying of any kind is reprehensible and should never be portrayed as just or heroic. However, I do appreciate the scene on one level, simply because it demonstrates some cracks in Superman's armour. Clearly this version of the character isn't above some Old Testament ass-whooping when the opportunity presents itself, which begs the question of
who exactly this version of Superman truly is. The whole nature/nurture thing comes into play, because this sequence strongly suggests that the only thing holding Clark's base instincts at bay is the moral education provided by his upbringing. However, what happens when Clark wakes up one day and decides he's tired of towing the line? Apparently
Superman III directly addresses this question, but that's a viewing for another day. One other sequence fascinated me as well. During the final confrontation between Supes and the Kryptonian criminals in The Fortress of Solitude, Superman gets Zod in a choke hold. Ursa and Non threaten to kill Lois if Clark doesn't release their general, and Clark complies. However, Clark looks pretty serious in this scene. Were Lois not part of the equation, would Superman have gone ahead and murdered Zod like Snyder's version did in
Man of Steel? Interesting stuff...
It's a shame about the film's problematic elements because there's lots of good stuff here. Of all the major CBMs I've seen - and at this point I've seen most of the modern ones - this one felt as close to a live-action comic book as possible. Plus it's delightfully nasty! From the way the Kryptonians casually slaughter the astronauts on the moon, to the way Lex callously betrays poor Otis, to the way Superman and Lois dispatch the criminals after they've been depowered (seriously, are we supposed to assume that Zod, Ursa, and Non are dead at the end?? We see Superman flying Lex back to jail but not those three!), the film harkens back to an era when family entertainments didn't feel compelled to shield kids from the general harshness of life. The battle between Supes and the criminals in Metropolis was a technical marvel for its time and still packs a wallop today (look closely and you'll notice that Superman spends most of his time in battle protecting the citizens from collateral damage. A shame Zack Snyder learned nothing from this sequence...). As for Reeve himself, he comes across here less like a good-looking guy than the next step in human evolution: to say he was beautiful would be an understatement. When he stares intently at Lois during their dinner at The Fortress of Solitude and she announces breathlessly that she's going to change into something more comfortable, my roommate turned to me with a smile and said, "do you blame her?"
I can't honestly say that I do...
All in all I'm giving
Superman II a tentative recommendation. As a CBM the film is fabulous. It's the movie's politics I don't have much respect for unfortunately...
