I think Reeve is masterful, and this scene is truly astounding, but I have two major reservations about this film. The first is Jor-El’s repeated command that Superman “must not interfere,” which Clark ignores, with no apparent consequence. It feels like the screenplay was setting something up that never pays off.
And the second is the time travel thing, which, suspension of disbelief aside -- why doesn’t Superman use this to solve all his problems from now on?
I think these are both valid complaints. You would assume the "non-interference" rule-breaking would pay off in the sequel, but no. As for the time-travel incident, I can't recall the one-two punch of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and its sequel enough, but the sequel's Donner cut also ends with him turning time back. I think there were some studio hijinks involved. Donner was booted from the sequel, or left, or something. I should know all this by now, having seen and read enough on the subject, but it's been a decade since I went near the info and, poof, it's gone.
If memory serves, the Donner cut only reuses the time travel because it was all he had available by the time he got the chance to re-edit. I don’t think it would have been part of his original plan for the sequel. (I could open another window and google it, but fact checking is against the spirit of comment sections. I *feel* like I’m probably right.)
Update: I opened a new window. I think what happened is Donner had planned the time travel ending for II but ended up using it for I, and then when he did the Donner cut he stole it back. So there’s a Donner cinematic world out there where Superman only breaks reality once, instead of twice in a row.
This makes more sense to me in so many ways because, in the operatic structure of things, Superman changes time and, in doing so, would undo that Lois knows he's Clark. He's lose something, which would be his sacrifice - his chance for mortal happiness. All that's left is the god.
Excellent observations! The scene you mention, with Reeve going back and forth from Kent to Superman is something I noticed the last time I rewatched the movie not too long ago and it is really a great moment and shows just how much the actor brought to the role. It humanizes the character who is god-like powers and makes him relatable - something that is missing from a lot of comic book superhero movies these days.
There is also a similar moment in Tim Burton's first BATMAN movie where Bruce Wayne tries to tell Vicki Vale that he's Batman and the way Michael Keaton acts out this scene is wonderful as he gets all nervous and even rehearses what he's going to say. It too humanizes his character.
It's interesting to compare this film with the superhero films of the 21st century. Whereas they focus so much on action to drive the plot, this one is about the humanity and sympathy behind deeds of heroism.
100% agree. There's this great visual essay on Youtube that talks about how Raimi's SPIDER-MAN movies go to great lengths to show Spider-Man rescuing people and how the city itself is a character, something that was largely missing from the subsequent MCU movies.
Yes, I don't think location and community are especially relevant to most MCU films, but it's part of their DNA and works for *most* of them. Many ways to skin a cat, of course (whatever that saying means).
Christopher Reeve was fantastic in this. Brought the comic books of my childhood to life. And this scene was brilliant from every angle. The bit where Clark says “Let’s push off, shall we?” and makes a flying/taking off gesture with his hand…. which she misses, and he seems to flinch from and want to undo….. masterful.
I’m not going to lie: I’m a huge Superman fan and this article is a DELIGHT
So am I. And yes it is.
Thank you!
I'm glad to hear it, Gary. Thank you for reading!
I think Reeve is masterful, and this scene is truly astounding, but I have two major reservations about this film. The first is Jor-El’s repeated command that Superman “must not interfere,” which Clark ignores, with no apparent consequence. It feels like the screenplay was setting something up that never pays off.
And the second is the time travel thing, which, suspension of disbelief aside -- why doesn’t Superman use this to solve all his problems from now on?
I think these are both valid complaints. You would assume the "non-interference" rule-breaking would pay off in the sequel, but no. As for the time-travel incident, I can't recall the one-two punch of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and its sequel enough, but the sequel's Donner cut also ends with him turning time back. I think there were some studio hijinks involved. Donner was booted from the sequel, or left, or something. I should know all this by now, having seen and read enough on the subject, but it's been a decade since I went near the info and, poof, it's gone.
If memory serves, the Donner cut only reuses the time travel because it was all he had available by the time he got the chance to re-edit. I don’t think it would have been part of his original plan for the sequel. (I could open another window and google it, but fact checking is against the spirit of comment sections. I *feel* like I’m probably right.)
Update: I opened a new window. I think what happened is Donner had planned the time travel ending for II but ended up using it for I, and then when he did the Donner cut he stole it back. So there’s a Donner cinematic world out there where Superman only breaks reality once, instead of twice in a row.
This makes more sense to me in so many ways because, in the operatic structure of things, Superman changes time and, in doing so, would undo that Lois knows he's Clark. He's lose something, which would be his sacrifice - his chance for mortal happiness. All that's left is the god.
Unless...he goes back in time again.
I'm a fan of the movies and am looking forward to "Super/Man" the Christopher Reeve documentary coming out on October 11.
Same re: the SUPER/MAN doc.
Excellent observations! The scene you mention, with Reeve going back and forth from Kent to Superman is something I noticed the last time I rewatched the movie not too long ago and it is really a great moment and shows just how much the actor brought to the role. It humanizes the character who is god-like powers and makes him relatable - something that is missing from a lot of comic book superhero movies these days.
There is also a similar moment in Tim Burton's first BATMAN movie where Bruce Wayne tries to tell Vicki Vale that he's Batman and the way Michael Keaton acts out this scene is wonderful as he gets all nervous and even rehearses what he's going to say. It too humanizes his character.
I like that scene in BATMAN '89, too. Very different take on the character than the ones that followed.
It's interesting to compare this film with the superhero films of the 21st century. Whereas they focus so much on action to drive the plot, this one is about the humanity and sympathy behind deeds of heroism.
Yes, I think the first two SUPERMAN and the first two Sam Raimi SPIDER-MAN films really are in a league of their own.
100% agree. There's this great visual essay on Youtube that talks about how Raimi's SPIDER-MAN movies go to great lengths to show Spider-Man rescuing people and how the city itself is a character, something that was largely missing from the subsequent MCU movies.
Yes, I don't think location and community are especially relevant to most MCU films, but it's part of their DNA and works for *most* of them. Many ways to skin a cat, of course (whatever that saying means).
Christopher Reeve was fantastic in this. Brought the comic books of my childhood to life. And this scene was brilliant from every angle. The bit where Clark says “Let’s push off, shall we?” and makes a flying/taking off gesture with his hand…. which she misses, and he seems to flinch from and want to undo….. masterful.