In the last film, we briefly seen the trial of General Zod and his cohorts before they were squished into a polaroid -- I mean sentenced to the Phantom Zone.
That film didn't really follow up on that thread, instead focusing entirely on Kal-El's origin story.It always seemed a bit odd they included it at all.
Here, we're once again treated do a truncated version of the trial, the destruction of Kypton, and the arrival of Superman. We're watching the Richard Donner Cut tonight, so I'm guessing there will be minor differences from my recollections.
One of those differences is Zod's line of "And one day...your heirs!" In the first film, we get an uncomfortably tight closeup of his mouth yelling this line. Here, we're spared with a more distant shoulder-level shot, possibly a B-roll from the original film. The different shot is more reserved, and as such, it feels like it lacks the emotional punch of the original by leveraging our discomfort.
We also revisit Superman disposing of one of the warheads in the previous film. Sent off into space it sputters as the fuel runs out, then explodes in near proximity to our film's foes. This frees them from the Phantom Zone, allowing the movie to finally begin.
The setup takes almost 9 minutes before we get to the opening credits. It feels rather odd for an 1980 film to have such a lengthy set up like this, giving it an episodic feel rather than a standalone film. Granted, this was before pervasive home video, so the lengthy cold open was important for its time and place.
Let's watch!
A particular treat of this film is improved sense of pacing over the first film. The following three scenes introduce us to the three concurrent plotlines which make up the film.
The first is Lois and Clark. Clark needing to maintain his secret identity.The next is Lex Luthor and his continuing machinations. And finally, General Zod. Three plots is a lot for a television episode, but perfect for a film. My intercutting between each plot, the film maintains a great sense of pacing and keeps your interest.
Once again, it's delightful to see Hackman again as Luthor. That gruff, self-assured swagger walks the knife edge of being over the top, which is an excellent match for the film.
"Houston"!? "To Rule"!?
Well....no, you'd probably be an improvement at this point.
Actually, the lengthy space sequence with our trio of antagonists greatly suggests why I found this film much more interesting as a little kid. I did -- and still do -- love spacy shit. The intersection of the 1980's space program with Apollo era moon missions must have felt like predicting the future.
Then Regan happened.
I know, I know... We keep coming back to this. Regan and the beginning of the Greed is Good era of USian politics continues to be a running theme in so many of the films we've watched here. It stands as an inflection point, one that we're very much seeing the continence today. In that light, Luthor's arrival at the Fortress of Solitude and examining the education crystals almost feels like a crossroads of cultural metaphors. Luthor, representing that new spirit of the 80s. Jo-El and his moral prognostications feeling like dying relics of kinder era. I doubt this was intentional, and I'm likely over reading here given current political anxieties. Still, we see again and again that fascism is *not* new.
Sups, do yourself a favor. Stay in Canada. They'll be less likely to deport you there.
Damn. Lois is *dangerous*.
Breaking the stalemate of Clark trying to enforce his identity she pulls....a snubnose revolver on him.
And fires.
The game lost, Kal-El gives up and reveals everything to Lane. And then she admits she used a blank.
One thing I find myself thinking about repeatedly watching both this film and the last is, "Who is the real person?" In the Batman mythos, many have written how it's Wayne which is the fiction, and Batman the real person. With Superman, the distinction doesn't feel so clear cut. Both Clark and Superman feel genuine, but not separate. If anything, they feel like different facets of the same person. Clark being the aspiration, the desire to be just another mundane person. Superman, on the other hand, feels like the weight of responsibility.
We see this in how the Clark and Lane subplot plays out. Having revealed his identity, he wishes to renounce his powers and indeed, his responsibility. There's a part of this which feels selfish, almost whiny.
"After all I've done for them?"
This line falls a bit flat for me, given the previous film felt like all the acts of saviorism were so small. Yes, yes, the bit about California falling into the sea, but it's hard to take that bit as real.
@socketwench - There werw two scenes Rochard Donner considered the most important. Lois' terrace interview in Superman I and the gun-pull of Superman II. So important he made them part of the film test for both Reeves and Kidder (which is what you see in the Richard Donner Cut). The gun pull works so much better than Clark tripping into the fire and not being hurt in the released version.
And the look Jor-El gives Lois. That was worth whatever they were paying him for the role.
