Monday at the Movies - June 2, 2014

Welcome to another edition of “Monday at the Movies.” This week, two takes on Tennessee Williams!

Blue Jasmine (2013) – Woody Allen is nothing if not prolific, but the sheer volume of his work often means that every film can’t be a success.  Blue Jasmine – Allen’s post-recession take on A Streetcar Named Desire – is, however, a triumph; in fact, it’s probably his best in at least a decade.  In a powerhouse performance, Cate Blanchett stars as the eponymous Jasmine, at wit’s end after the imprisonment and death of her too-big-to-fail husband (Alec Baldwin).  To cope with her fall from grace, Jasmine lives part-time in a fantasy world while moving in with her sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins) and her boyfriend Chili (Bobby Cannavale).  As this iteration’s Blanche Dubois, Blanchett puts the “pathos” back into “pathetic” and more than earns her Oscar; her Jasmine is scattered and schizophrenic, slipping between realities while never failing to tell the audience which version of the world she’s actually experiencing – her own or the real one.  The supporting cast, too, is very potent in this one; Louis CK turns up for a bumbling note of levity, Baldwin as Jasmine’s husband is more important to the story than Blanche’s ever was, and the decision to split the Stanley figure in two – Cannavale’s Chili and Andrew Dice Clay’s Augie.  This gives us a fuller sense of Ginger, liberated from a reductionist “Stanley bad” approach that might be encouraged by Brando’s thuggish performance.  For those who think the filmmaker has lost his touch, this is a fine example of Allen’s late style, contemplative and sobered.

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) – Look, every now and again, I review a movie where all I can do is point to the decades of preexisting critical consensus and add little more to the discussion than to say, “Yeah, what they said.”  Case in point:  Elia Kazan’s adaptation of the Tennessee Williams play is nothing short of iconic.  While watching this tour de force rendition of the fall of Blanche Dubois (Vivien Leigh) in the home of her sister Stella (Kim Hunter) and Stella’s husband Stanley Kowalski (Marlon Brando), one feels distinctly that one is in the presence of a greatness which more than lives up to its reputation.  Every note-perfect beat in the film strikes a resonant chord with the audience, be it Leigh’s fragile beauty or the frankly inspired decision to film in black-and-white.  And when it comes to Brando’s mumbling hulk Stanley, you’re talking nothing short of definitive; he performs as though Williams’s pen had literally given birth to Stanley, fully formed like Athena from the foamy scalp of Zeus.  Readers of the playscript will be forgiven for thinking this is anyone’s show but Stanley’s, for he is everything you could want from a Stanley.  Kazan’s direction cements the place of the film in cinema history; his directorial sensibility lends a tragic inevitability to the proceedings, such that Stanley’s line “We’ve had this date with each other from the beginning” becomes the distressing centerpiece to the play.  But the film, subject to the Hays Code, contains a slightly tweaked ending, a nuanced gesture toward a moral universe, which makes the film a distinctly unique experience when compared to the play.  It’s not Williams’s ending, that’s for sure – but it does make the film, in the final analysis, a masterpiece by Kazan.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week, but come back on Saturday for the Double-Oh-Seventh of the month!

Monday at the Movies - April 16, 2012

Welcome to Week Sixteen of “Monday at the Movies.” Only one film this week, one that makes me think I really ought to put up a “Top 10 Movies” list.

The Godfather (1972) – Forty years and one month ago, a film widely regarded the best of all time opened in American cinemas. Based on the brutally popular Mario Puzo novel, The Godfather has achieved iconic status in global pop culture, rendering any comments I might add as mere kindling to the inferno. Everyone knows the story – Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) runs one of New York’s top mob families, and as the film progresses we witness his son Michael (Al Pacino) move from war hero to father’s son. What struck me about this most recent rewatch was the way that every scene is memorable, with no moments of dry disinterest. We move from the wedding to the backroom deals to assassination plots, through a tour of Italy to rises and falls in the Corleone family, concluding with the often-imitated baptism montage and the film’s final moments, which imbue as much gravitas on a closing door as possible. The dialogue is snappy and eminently quotable, the performances are riveting, Nino Rota’s soundtrack is the ultimate in mafia music, and director Francis Ford Coppola set the standard for what every other mob movie now has to live up to. There's so much more that I could say about the film, so much that deserves mention - James Caan's hotheaded Sonny, Robert Duvall's perfectly collected Tom Hagen, Richard S. Castellano's lovable heavy Clemenza (who wouldn't want this guy at a wedding?), and even Abe Vigoda's work as Tessio, proving that he hasn't aged a day since 1972 because he's been 90 all his life. And in an era where we’re texting and multitasking to our brain’s fullest capacity, I was flabbergasted that the film’s three-hour runtime never bored me or forced me to grab my iPad to check e-mails or Facebook. So strong is the allure of this film after more than forty years that it’s as close to Italian wine as film has captured – improving with age and making us look forward to the next installment. My only regret is that I didn’t have time this week to return for the sequel, but reviewing the next films in the series is an offer I cannot refuse.

Stay tuned for more reviews of The Godfather franchise, but for now that does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980/2006)

The vote is in: I like Richard Donner's version better.

In several important ways, this will be less review and more analysis, comparative in a way that most every review on this blog is not. The film under inspection is Superman II, originally released in 1980 as directed by Richard Lester but re-released in 2006 as directed by Richard Donner. Having been fired from Superman II, Donner had already filmed most of his rendition of Superman II, initially intending both the first and the second films be shot simultaneously; after the studios vetoed this idea, Donner - with 75% or so of the sequel in the can already - halted his Superman II until 2006, when he finally edited his cut together.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is, in broad strokes, very similar to Lester's Superman II. The overall plot is the same: Superman (Christopher Reeve) fends off a Kryptonian criminal invasion led by General Zod (Terence Stamp) in alliance with Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) while dodging the suspicions of Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) that Clark Kent and Superman are one and the same. It's in the details that the two versions differ, and as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. I'm most pleased to say that all the things to which I objected in the Lester version are excised from Donner's cut, although Donner's version isn't entirely polished, leading to some distracting problems with the ending (which, inevitably, I'll have to spoil).

My aim here isn't to simply compare and contrast, to pick apart what's new and different between versions. Better reviewers than myself have had four years to do just that; for one, see DVD Verdict, who did a pretty good comparison job. Instead, my aim here is to look at the (in my eyes) most significant changes and whether or not they enrich the film. For starters, my favorite line - "Superman, thank God" - is untouched (and indeed plays out funnier, for reasons to be discussed below), so score one for Donner.

The Donner cut opens with Jor-El (Marlon Brando) sentencing Zod, Ursa, and Non to the Phantom Zone. This scene was added into the DVD version of Superman: The Movie, so it's nothing new in this reviewer's eyes; indeed, it's even a little distracting to see the same scene replayed again. But I fully understand and appreciate the Donner cut's aims in reinstating this scene: it clearly and finely restores Jor-El to the plot of Superman II, making more apparent the "son becomes the father" parallel I noted in the Lester cut. It also underscores a larger role for Jor-El to play, a role fulfilled by Superman's mother Lara (Susannah York) in the Lester cut in order to avoid paying Brando the exorbitant fees he commanded; bringing Jor-El back into the story creates a deeper connection with the first film and introduces a more compelling dynamic than the one with Lara. Donner leading Lester, 2-0.

I praised Lester's treatment of the growing dynamic between Clark and Lois, but Donner takes the advantage here for doing a better job with it. Donner's cut more subtly highlights Lois's growing suspicions, replacing the Parisian terrorist scene with a more successful scene at the Daily Planet, which introduces both Lois's cause for suspicion and the honeymoon racket expose; instead of throwing herself into Niagara Falls, Lois instead leaps from the Daily Planet offices. And instead of Clark clumsily tripping into the fireplace, Lois takes a more proactive approach, which would be criminal to spoil since it's undoubtedly the best "new" scene in the Donner cut. 3-0 now.

Donner's cut explains a lot of problematic plot holes in Lester's rendition, chief among them the connection between Lex Luthor and the Kryptonians, as well as the restoration of Superman's powers (which I thought was more a problem of audience members not interpreting correctly, but oh well). Here, when Lex breaks into the Fortress of Solitude with Miss Teschmacher, he's treated to a crystal projection of Jor-El explaining his role in Zod's imprisonment. By explaining the plot to Lex and by Hackman's perfect portrayal, it's apparent why Luthor feels he can reason with Zod & Co.; more importantly, this new scene explains how Lex knows that Superman is Kal-El, a fact that's not apparent in the Lester cut. Later, the restoration of Superman's powers is accomplished through a great scene between Brando and Reeve, who play off each other very well. It's a scene that cements Jor-El's compassion for his son, and the sad resignation on Brando's face is evidence enough for why Brando was considered one of the best actors of his generation. Donner's 4-love, for those playing the home game.

The greatest thing Richard Donner did for Superman II, however, is his judicious exorcism of all things slapstick from Lester's version of the story. Gone are the silly wind jokes during the battle for Metropolis; left by the wayside is the silly characterization of Non as an inept dullard with no grasp of his powers. Consequently the villains are entirely - finally - threatening, surrounded by only menace and dread, not the lurking suspicion that a gag is just around the corner. In Lester's cut, I got the idea that Zod was exasperated with the fact that he was the only particularly daunting figure in the trio, but in Donner's version I now feel - as Superman must - that all three Kryptonians present a viable threat. That isn't to say that Donner's cut is entirely humorless; rather, the laughs come from all the right places: Luthor's sly attitude, the Clark/Lois relationship, and Reeve's easygoing personality. 5-0 now.

But in the last quarter, Lester scores a point for a better ending. "Hang on," you say, "this is the guy who used cellophane super-shields and multiple Supermen to end his movie?" Well, yeah, and thank God those are gone. Donner's Fortress scenes are overall cleaner and truer to the spirit of Superman, but the actual ending of Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is unpolished in very distracting ways. This newer version leaves entirely unanswered the fate of Lex Luthor, stranding him in the Fortress of Solitude - which, seconds later, is destroyed by Superman. Huh? And while Donner earns high marks for better handling Lois's conflicted feelings about knowing Clark's secret identity, he loses points for unoriginality. As much as I hated the amnesia kiss, I was even more let down by the way in which the Donner cut handles the problem of Lois knowing: reversing the rotation of the earth and going back in time. This ending worked in the first movie, but here it just feels like Donner ran out of ideas. For a film that feels so much fresher in the new cut, the ending doesn't do the rest of the film justice; as an added detriment, this time-traveling ending problematizes the last scene of the Donner cut, in which Clark returns to a diner to even the score with a burly trucker - which, if time had been undone, shouldn't need to be done if it didn't happen. So in that regard, Lester has the advantage, especially for his patriotic ending in which Superman restores the American flag to the White House. For a man who allegedly didn't understand the character, he sure hit the nail on the head with that one. Final score? 5-1.

So while the Donner cut isn't perfect, it's still leaps and bounds (over a tall building, most likely) better than the more pronounced-ly flawed Lester version. Some are complaining about the rough cut nature of the film; some effects shots are unfinished, and other scenes are drawn from screen tests plagued with continuity issues. But this is an iconic character whose very nature is based on the power of imagination. In the words of DC Comics marketing, "Just imagine." This is the version in which a man truly flies, the version I'll be watching again and again.
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is rated PG "for sequences of action violence, some language and brief mild sensuality." In terms of objectionable content, it's exactly identical to the original film, although the removal of comic relief may make the violence seem a little more unrelenting - which isn't a bad thing in my opinion. I doubt that Kryptonian criminals hot out of exile would stop to arm-wrestle a few yokels.

Superman: The Movie (1978)

After hearing word that Christopher Nolan is godfathering a reboot of the Superman franchise, it occurred to me that I'd never actually seen the original Superman beginning to end in one sitting. I'd seen Superman II and knew most of the major twists in the first film, but watching it all in one go was a wild experience for me, an avowed comic book fan. Though Batman is still #1 for me, Superman: The Movie (redundant title aside; it's as though I titled this review "Superman: The Movie: The Review," which maybe I should have) is a movie that reminds us all what's iconic about the character - and faithfully and lovingly represents that on the screen.

Summary seems ridiculous here, since everyone knows the origin of Superman, and the origin story is the focal point of Superman: The Movie. The best retelling of Superman's origin came in Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman #1 (Jan. 2006), which I'll reprint here by way of summarizing the first half of Richard Donner's Superman film: "Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple." Here, Marlon Brando and Susannah York open the film as Jor-El and Lara, the aforementioned scientists who place their young son Kal-El in a rocketship to escape the dying planet Krypton; Kal-El lands on earth and is adopted by Ma & Pa Kent of Smallville, who name the boy Clark Kent. After Pa dies, Clark (Christopher Reeve) moves to Metropolis, where he becomes a journalist at The Daily Planet under editor Perry White's (Jackie Cooper) wing before falling in love with Lois Lane (Margot Kidder). After making his debut as costumed superhero Superman - replete with flying, invulnerability, and super-strength - he finds himself tousling with his soon-to-be nemesis Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman).

Superman: The Movie is essentially the gold standard for any superhero movie to follow; it establishes solidly the "formula" of the genre, and it does so with fresh-faced aplomb. The film follows Clark Kent through the important phases of his growth as a hero without feeling that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory feeling of "These are the story beats we need to hit, so let's keep moving. Though there's no underlying motivation for heroics - i.e., guilt (Iron Man), vengeance (Batman), thrills (Kick-Ass) - the movie aptly demonstrates that Superman is a hero simply because it's in his nature; he never lies, he believes in the innate goodness of humanity, and he has an unprecedented capacity for compassion. On this count, it's not difficult to see why Reeve is so closely associated with this role, and why artists like Gary Frank still draw the character in Reeve's likeness more than 30 years later (seriously, it's uncanny); Reeve does a first-rate job of embodying the unequivocal good nature of the character, but he also succeeds by leaps and bounds as the klutzy but similarly kind-hearted alter ego Clark Kent, who is in many ways the harder of the two to play. Anyone can don the spandex and be a hero, but any actor who tackles Superman has to also pull off an intentionally putzy performance as Clark Kent; Reeve does both, admirably.

The other performers are in good form, and they deserve mention because several of them (as bigger stars in the day, and perhaps still now) got billing over Reeve (crazy, right?). Surprisingly, Brando doesn't phone it in here, though I was expecting him to since his lines were written on baby Kal-El's diaper as he refused to memorize them; he's surprisingly convincing as Jor-El, with genuine affection for his son and lethargic disdain for the stubborn councilmen of Krypton. Kidder is fantastically funny as Lois Lane, capturing all of the character's comedic sensibilities from her pronounced problems with spelling to her flirtatious interview style. And Hackman is unique here because his Lex Luthor is entirely unlike the source material; he's not quite the bald super-scientist, nor is he the portly capitalist (who, admittedly, appeared in the comics nearly a decade after this film), nor the Superman's-buddy-gone-bad (which, if you ask me, is the only worthwhile contribution Smallville has made to the canon in nine years of television airtime, though even that appeared in comics as early as the 50s). Instead, sporting a bevy of outlandish wigs, he's something else altogether, a cocky would-be super-criminal surrounded by nincompoops (Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine); he knows that what he's doing is wrong, but he enjoys it too much to develop a conscience - the measure of all good villains. It's not necessarily how evil they are that matters; the ultimate mark is whether or not they care about being evil.

Director Richard Donner is regarded as something of a god in the world of comic book films, probably because of the mistreatment he suffered surrounding Superman II (a review of his cut of that film, as well as the original, will forthcoming). But with Superman: The Movie, Donner cemented himself as a top-notch filmmaker at least of the genre (his version of The Omen was also first-rate). What's downright divine about Superman: The Movie is the way that Donner handles scenes of slapstick comedy, romantic tension, and heartrending drama - all with the same level of dexterity. One of my favorite sequences is Superman's first night on the job, in which he tackles several different crimes of unequal stature with the same dignified composure - an apt metaphor, I think, for Donner's abilities. I was also intrigued by Christological parallels: a father casts out an evildoer to a hellish dimension, then sends his son to earth to save us. Throw in Miss Teschmacher as Mary Magdalene, and we're looking at a pretty compelling allegory.

Overall I was impressed by this film. It's well-rounded, balancing low comedy and high action with some fantastically loyal performances grounding the whole affair in verisimilitude and dynamite fidelity to the source material. I'm looking forward to reviewing the others to see if they'll shake my faith that yes, a man really can fly. Statistically speaking, of course, it's still the safest way.
Superman: The Movie is rated PG "for peril, some mild sensuality and language." There's nothing the kiddies haven't seen on a Saturday morning cartoon here, although some of Miss Teschmacher's clothing is a titch revealing - but then again, it is a comic book movie.