Superman II is Superman as seen from the dark side of the moon. It is
a somebrely photographed, noctural film in which evil gives a good account
of itself and good is shown to have blemishes. The film is structured around
two narrative events: Lois Lane's early discovery that Superman and Clark
Kent are one and the same; and hte traitors originally expelled from Krpyton
have invaded Earth. The working out of these two elements is ingenious
and unpredictable, Superman II being distinguished by an emotional and
political maturity that takes it well beyond the usual boundaries of comic-strip.If
all this sounds abit forbidding , it should be added that the film is temendously
stylish and exciting, but in a very diiferent way from the admirable Superman
the Movie. The world the new film inhabits is deliberately darker than
that of the original, and certainly harsher in the view it gives of America,
the lush pastotalism of the former film giving way to dersert aridity.
There is no Brando to exude reassuring authority. The director Richard
Donner had departed for the sequel and to be replaced by one of the most
elusive, talented and misunderstood of modern directors, Richard Lester.
Lester films range from The Knack to the frenzied farce like a Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum to restrained iconoclastic western like Butch and Sundance: The Early Days. It also overlooks the kind of sensitivity and complexity that made Petulia such prophetic vision of the convulsions of late '60's America; Juggernaut such a subversive account of the troubled condition of England in the early 70's. Lester is deeply serious film-maker, one of it's most adventurous stylists as well as one of its most incisive moralists, whose films reveal a preoccupation with social chaos, violence and authoritarianism and the individual's struggle for selfdefinition. Superman II might not be as remarkable a Lesterian vision of life as absurdist battle as, for example, Cuba. But it has all the characteristics one values in Lester: visual attack, crackling wit, and a sharp critical faculty which here punctures the grandiose effusions of the original. Religious awe is not in Lester's nature and it is important that Superman II has a director who is not swept away by his protagonist's mythical potency. Above all, and this is what distinguishes the film from Flash Gordon, Lester does not condescend to thematerial but re-defines it in such a way as to be able to approach it with respect and enthusiasm. The result is remarkable: not simply an exhilarating entertainment, but the most original film satire about American politics since The Wind and the Lion. Superman II is much more evocative of the films of Lester's maturity, particulary those which offer a radical revision of the conventional screen hero's power and prowess or cast an ironic eye at the idols a society revealingly chooses to worship. In Lester's hand's, Superman is a figure not unlike d' Artagnan in The Four Musteteers or the Sean Connery hero of Cuba, heroic men who are often made to look incongruous and foolish in the cynical world in which they operate and whose well- meant actions have an effect which can lurch between the unfortunate and the tragic. Superman is like Lester's other superheroes ( The Beatles in A Hard Day's Night, Robin Hood in Robin and Marian, even Flashman in Royal Flash ) who find that their status is more curse than blessing, forcing them into a role which prevents them from leading a normal life. The emotional consequence of this in Superman II is the gathering of confusion in the hero's mind about whether he wants Superman or Clark Kent, his earthbound desires in conflict with his Superman responsibilities.
It is characteristic of Lester that the film's best jokes are not
diversions from this main theme but serve to intensify it. For example,
rushing to Lois's assistance at one stage Clark Kent tears open his jacket
to reveal his familiar Superman costume lurking incongrously underneath.
The humour is felt, but also the underlying tension the hero's increasing
difficulty in keeping his twin identities seperate and in choosing between
them. It is almost like Dr Jekyll's gradual inability to control the shift
of personality between jekyll and Mr Hyde. Lois's response to the dilemma
is handled very sympathetically. Like a number of Lester heroines, she
finds herself having to choose between to men and between the rival claims
of world ambition and idealistic love. Lester has developed considerably
as a director of actress in recent years as his film become more sensitive
to feminist problems. Lester makes a neat visual contrast between Lois's
health fanaticism over orange juice and the state of her congested ash
tray. In the meantime, the hero( Chris Reeve ) is being compelled to compete
with himself - between the superhero the heroine wants and the ordinary
fellow that is all she can have. Lester had said that this situation of
the hero's competing with himself over the girl was one of the things that
most interested him about the film. The reason for this is probably that
varations of this kind of character have appeared before very powerfully
in Lester's films.
Superman II is a picture of America in a state of near-paralysis. This
paralysis , it is implied, is brought about by declining moral leadership.
The battle in Superman II has to concluded in Superman's domain
