John Kenneth Muir
By Dr. Howard Margolin, host of Destinies: The Voice of Science Fiction
The conversation focused on the best and worst of the superhero genre over the last fifty years. Included below are several selected excerpts from the detailed interview.
Muir: Thank you, Howard, it's great to be with you.
Margolin: Considering the topics of your two new books, I suppose the most appropriate question to start with is, what did you think of Spider-Man 2?
Muir: I thought it was tremendous. It was an incredible film, and it just went beyond all my expectations, and I think it's actually going to make me change my list of top ten superhero films, and Spider-Man 2 will rocket straight to the number 2 position, I would think, for future editions of my encyclopedia...
Margolin: Before reading your book, I'd only seen Evil Dead 2, Darkman, The Gift and Spider-Man. So reading the book gave me a great insight into Raimi's history and style. I watched Army of Darkness while I was reading the book - and now Spider-Man 2 - and because I'd read the Unseen Force, I was able to spot some of Raimi's stylistic moves, such as the inclusion of the Oldsmobile Delta 88 - or as you call it, 'The Classic,' as Uncle Ben's car, which was also in all the Evil Dead films. And the point of view shot of the flying glass that takes out Rosie Octavius. What are some other elements that you found recur in Sam Raimi's work?
Muir: Well he does this really interesting sort of off-kilter zoom. He used that in Army of Darkness in the suit-up scene where the Ash character had been catapulted back to medieval times and was making a hand for himself out of medieval armor. And the camera tilts and moves in, and you see him (Ash) working on various elements of the armor. I saw the same thing in Spider-Man 2, this kind of rocky tilt and zoom. When Peter Parker and MJ were having coffee together at the restaurant and a car barrels through the window - and you think it's going to be a riff on Jurassic Park with the tyrannosaurus coming - but it's Doc Ock out there. You hear his footsteps making horrible noises on the street, and you get these crooked zooms in on the faces of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. So I recognized that right off. Those actually appeared a little bit in Quick and the Dead as well. He does like POV shots a great deal.
I thought that not just visually, but thematically as well, he used a lot of his previous work. For instance, the Otto Octavius character, to me seemed like a very interesting reference to the Darkman story. Here we have a scientist whose work goes wrong, and there's a terrible accident in the lab, and he has to go find a new laboratory for himself, like Darkman. I think he's even wearing a jacket like that, an almost Phantom of the Opera-type jacket. So I saw both thematic and visual touches from earlier Raimi films in Spider-Man 2, so I was thrilled...
Margolin: Your most recent book for McFarland, the 621 page Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television is a tremendous piece of work that is also very entertaining to read, as are your other encyclopedias, like Terror Television. As always, I'm in awe of the dedication you show to your subjects in terms of the time spent watching thousands of hours of programming, summarizing each episode, providing critical and historical overviews of the productions and finding the quotes from the original reviews of the day. This time though, you did something different, and actually solicited new reviews and commentary from author William Latham and some guy who's been hosting a science fiction radio show for twenty years.
Muir: Yes. Howard, you were instrumental in the creation of the Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television. You and my friend, Bill Latham - the author of Space:1999 Resurrection -
were pinch hitters for me, I like to say. Though I have a lot of familiarity with the films and TV series - and have studied them at length, and know a lot about film history, I felt I was not as strong on the comic-book angle and origin as some other folks I knew. I'll just talk to the party and whistle. I want to say thank you for all the help on the book.
Margolin: Okay. Well, you're very welcome. I'm honored. I'm flattered that you would even consider me as opposed to someone who has professional genre credits.
Muir: Well, Howard, anybody who listens to your show knows how much you know about this subject. You have an encyclopedic knowledge of these comic book heroes, and you also have a great way of expressing yourself. Which is really the most important thing about being a writer, or a critic, or talking about these works. So you were perfect. Perfect fit.
Margolin: Thank you. I know that when you initially interviewed me for the book we talked for three hours. We could easily spend an equal amount of time on the subject tonight, but since we don't have unlimited time, let's concentrated as we did on Terror Television, on Appendix D. Basically, we're going to whittle down the entire 621 page book to two pages: the best, worst and most influential productions. Beginning with the ten best superhero movies, you said this list now has to be changed in the wake of Spider-Man 2. What about X-2? Does X-2 break into the list? Or is it still off the top ten?
"* * * * (Four stars out of four). The book opens with a succinct history of the subgenre and notes how various eras have presented comic book figures...author John Kenneth Muir is well-rounded in the lore and minutiae of sci-fi and fantasy adventure." - Tony Lee, THE ZONE
"...John Kenneth Muir's books for McFarland are distinctive because of their authority and effective research. The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television is no different...the detail is mind-boggling." - CLASSIC IMAGES
"John Kenneth Muir must have had one misspent youth. In his Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television he gives superhero fans a good resource to the various movie/TV incarnations of our favorite heroes...His presentation covers comic book and comic book-inspired heroes in an entertaining 'Did you know'/documentary format...Filled with great anecdotal and historical information..." - PENGUIN COMICS,
"..riveting...Where else are readers going to find such depth of detail, not only on such major figures as Superman or Buffy the Vampire Slayer but the likes of Captain Nice Isis and Saturday Night Live's Ambiguously Gay Duo?...this is a browser's delight." SLJ
"For year I have wanted a book on superhero movies and the new 600 + page brick known as The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television by John Kenneth Muir goes one better by including TV shows too...Each title gets an individual discussion and review with the TV shows often accompanied by detailed episode guides. The book's introduction is a terrific history of the genre with Muir demonstrating he knows his stuff." Rodd Lott, HITCH DAILY.
Margolin: That's true. We all said the same thing [on Destinies] actually.
Muir: It was down to the voice-over. It wasn't Spock saying 'to boldly go,' but it was darn close...
Margolin: Do you want to count down or count up [of the ten best superhero films]?
Muir: I like to count up if that's okay...shall I start with number ten, then?
Margolin: Sure.
Muir: I have on my list the film that acquainted us with the superhero noir, and that's Tim Burton's 1989 film, Batman. It's not necessarily a great story, I don't think. But it is - at long last - a relatively faithful vision of what Batman should be. Thematically it deals with a pretty core issue of superheroes, and that's the split identity: Batman/Bruce Wayne and The Joker/Napier. But it also goes further and asks us to look at the Joker and Batman as two sides of the same coin. And I thought that was pretty psychologically interesting. Tim Burton's vision is strong. It's not necessarily my cup of tea, but I recognize it as strong, and I like how his Gotham City was this dystopia equal - and interesting - to the one in Blade Runner. So the visuals were very strong, and it certainly set off a new new trend in superhero cinema.
Margolin: Right. It began the dark era. And at the time, we all were impressed by it because it took the character seriously. Which everyone was afraid -because Michael Keaton was in it -that it was going to be a comedy.
Muir: Right. Nobody wanted it to be camped up like the TV series that Adam West was in..
Margolin: Moving on, next on your list is Blade from 1998.
Muir: Yes. I know some folks wouldn't add the Blade films, but I thought they were interesting because - again - they had a thematic point. They immersed us in an interesting subculture. They weren't goths, but it was the world of vampires and their blood-soaked raves. It was literally the undead as the underworld, underneath our society. I liked the strong mythic qualities with Whistler (Kris Kristofferson's character) as this Obi-Wan Kenobi style wiseman. There was even a hint of some sort of Oedipal thing going on there with Blade's obsession with the death of his mother. And then he found out she was a vampire, and they had this strange, oddly erotic reunion in the finale. I thought Blade was interesting. It was an early film in the digital effects revolution. It actually pre-dates The Matrix by six months. I know a lot of people think it looks like The Matrix, but it was actually out before The Matrix. It combines martial arts, horror and action in a package that revealed to audiences - I felt - a world we really hadn't visited yet. Now we've seen it since. We've seen it in Underworld and Birds of Prety and The Matrix, but at the time I felt it was an original vision.
"Muir's gift for recognizing and interpreting film grammar serves him well once again and while most of us could immediately (and correctly) identify Raimi trademarks like camera gymanstics and Three Stooges references, Muir digs even deeper to analyze themse and visual hooks that have evolved throughout films as diverse as Army of Darkness, The Gift and Spider-Man...Muir continues to prove himself as one of horror film's more gifted and passionate commentators." - John Bowen, RUE MORGUE.
"...he's interviewed assorted cast and crew and makes excellent use of their recollections. And he writes splendidly...Chapter by chapter, the book builds a case for Raimi as one of our most accomplished filmmakers. GRADE: A-." Lawrence Tucker, SCI FI MAGAZINE
"...a welcome and greatly appreciated contribution to the annals of filmmaking and filmmaker histories..." - MIDWEST BOOK REVIEW.
"...overall an excellent book..." WITHIN THE WOODS.
Muir: I'm a real Wesley Snipes fan. So maybe I'm biased. But I felt he was a strong central character.
Margolin: Okay, in this case we'll agree to disagree. But it was it was certainly stylish and looked good. And you obviously loved it.
Muir: I don't know if you'll like the next film on my list. It's a sequel. It's Blade 2, which I felt was superior to the original in every way, which alone gives it a point of credit in the world of superhero films. But like most superhero films, Blade 2 remembered the ultimate recipe for a successful movie of any kind of this genre, which is they had a great villain. Here we met these creatures called the Reapers, who were these disgusting, sickening things with - I think I said in the book - had jaws that would make Aliens and Predators green with envy. The story had unexpected twists, and Blade's alliance with the vampire nation. And I felt that with Guillermo Del Toro directing, this was one of the few superhero films that legitimately crossed genre and became scary and suspenseful. Blade 2 was a legitimately scary movie. It hit its notes in the genre, and then was so strong that it reached out of the genre, so I put it on the list.
Margolin: Well, obviously it wasn't the only superhero sequel that was superior to its sequel because the next one on the list - 8 if we're counting down from 11 - is Batman Returns.
Muir: This was again directed by Burton and I have to admit, I do prefer Batman Returns. It looks like a Dickens story, I always think. It's set at Christmas time, and there's snow everywhere, and the seasonal touches give it this kind of strange umbrella of unity - and a sense of melancholy. There's something very interesting about setting a superhero movie in that season - especially such a sad and twisted superhero movie. I think some of the most startling images I've ever seen in a superhero film appear in Batman Returns. An army of penguins with missiles strapped to their backs marching on Gotham City. Or the funeral of Cobblepot (Danny DeVito), or even Selina Kyle's own personal Hell, signified by that neon sign that was battered to read 'Hell Here.' I just thought there was some really brilliant and original touches. And of course, Michelle Pfeiffer was just fantastic as Catwoman. And she had great chemistry with Michael Keaton. I know a lot of people think Batman was sort of invisible in this movie because he was facing down three villains if you counted Christopher Walken's character, Shreck, but I thought he was very present for those scenes with Catwoman. She brought out the best of Michael Keaton's Batman.
Margolin: I agree. To me that was the best part of the movie. And I know this is my quote in the book too, but I wanted to see more of Bruce and Selina, and Batman and Catwoman. They meshed so well together, that had the movie just been about them, you could have left out the Shreck stuff and the Penguin stuff - they were just a waste. To me those parts were just inferior to the Catwoman storyline. And yes, it was a visually striking movie, as was the first Batman movie, and it began that series - that trend where Batman is going to destroy the Batmobile in every movie. It's like a James Bond thing.
Muir: I thought that was interesting about Batman Returns was that it was really Tim Burton taking back the Batman saga for himself. He said that the original Batman had less of him in it, or was less successful for him than any of the other films he had done. He was disappointed with it, and I think he really reclaimed Batman for himself with Batman Returns by making it a film all about outsiders. That's the perennial theme of Tim Burton, whether it be about a man on the Planet of the Apes, or the filmmaker who wore angora and directed Plan Nine From Outer Space or Edward Scissorhands. And what he did here was...he was able to cast the superheroes and the villains into his mold of the outsider film. So we had Batman the outsider, and Catwoman, and the ultimate outsider, the Penguin. So I thought Penguin's subplot - while perhaps not particularly faithful to any comic interpretation, any comic book origins - was really interesting thematically, just considering the director's body of work.
Margolin: He's definitely a Tim Burton-esque character for sure. And another sequel makes the list here. Superman II.
Muir: I loved this film as a kid. I thought Superman II absolutely delivered the money shots. It had what every superhero fan really wanted to see - and thought they would never see - which was super-powered Kryptonians fighting it out in this epic battle over Metropolis. I think that's part of the reason why that film is so successful. It has huge scope, and the special effects for the time didn't disappoint at all. It had a fantastic battle. Also, you have to look at the equation, the recipe for what makes a good superhero movie. You had three great villains in Zod, Non and Ursa, and huge things happened in the love story with Lois and Superman. Superman had to renounce his powers for love, but it ended up being at exactly the wrong time, so it is really heartbreaking and emotional to watch him give up the person he loves to do his duty. And of course, Christopher Reeve was brilliant as Superman in every film he was in, so to me this was just a winner all around. It was a real special effects showcase at the time.
Margolin: At the time it was. And Christopher Reeeve's acting is always without flaw. The problems I had with Superman II are that the plot has a lot of holes in it. How did he get his powers back? Even worse, where did the car come from that they drove back from the North Pole? And then he walks back to the North Pole wearing a windbreaker with no super powers?! Okay! I think there's a lot of problems with the plot of that movie, which to me ruins it. Yes, the battles are great. Yes, the dialogue is great - Lex Luthor's lines - "All this combined knowledge and have these dummies ever learned to use a doorknob..." There's some great stuff. There's some great emotion, but the story is a little weak in Superman II as far as I'm concerned.
Muir: I understand your point. I think that brings us to an interesting point about this list, and the superhero films. I'm listing these as the best of the genre, but these are by no means perfect films. I think - sadly - what I came to realize watching them - even though these films are very good - the superhero genre is very difficult to do well in. Even some of the best films have some real flaws.
Margolin: Oh yeah, moving on to the next film on the list is an original superhero, not adapted from a comic-book. RoboCop!
Muir: I felt that RoboCop was just a brilliant, forward-looking film. It was the first big-screen film to adapt the tenets of Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns-style world. It was two years before Batman, but it was very much like that world. It predicted accurately the coarsening of the mainstream new media - news as entertainment so-to-speak. It prophesized the corporatization of America. It ridiculed the idea of SUVs with vehicles called SUX. It predicted the Republican push towards the privatization of Federal programs. And there were even hints of the Enron scandal there, since the villains were corporate. All of these facets made it a great and truly wicked film, but like Batman I felt it really focused on what the core dilemma of the superhero is - and I believe that is identity. RoboCop is this man, Murphy. He has two identities: one public and programmed, mechanical, and one submerged and human and organic. I just thought this was an incredible dichotomy to explore. Especially too, if you look at it as a metaphor for home life versus career. And the career was kind of mechanical and the home life suffered in a sense...so I thought it was a really interesting theme. And the film had these over-the-top action sequences which were incredible, and powerful villains like the malfunctioning robot ED-209. I just though it dealt with the core issue of superheros. Who am I? Who do I choose to be? Which one of these beings am I? So I loved it.
Margolin: I agree. RoboCop was a terrific film. Very influential for its time. It was one of the first superhero films to incorporate some political satire and social satire. And you're right, it adopted that Dark Knight storytelling because Miller in Dark Knight had a lot of the story told in the narration of TV newscasts, and so did RoboCop. And RoboCop also incorporated those satirical commercials into it.
Muir: Absolutely. There was a commercial for Nuke-Em - a nuclear variation on Battleship. Very funny.
Margolin: It's one of the few roles that Peter Weller could do very well.
Muir: I thought he was very good in that part, I thought he was a great hero. What's funny is that RoboCop has probably had more incarnations now than many other superheroes. There have been three films, a TV series, a miniseries and two cartoon series.
Margolin: And several comic-book series.
Muir: Not to mention all the ancillary products like action figures and such. He's a recent superhero not from a comic but who still resonates with audiences.
Margolin: Moving up on the list again to the number five position is another original story. And this is not even a superhero story so much, in that the hero is not code-named, there is no costume, really to speak of. Unbreakable.
Muir: I think this film is like a thesis about superheroes. The topic is superheroes. It's a deconstruction of the concept of superheroes. What do they mean in our society? Why are they popular? Who could be a superhero? Could one exist? If one could exist, then what else could exist? Super villains? This film is so brilliant to me because I think it finds the real-world equivalents for things like super-strength and weaknesses like Kryptonite, and it goes back into mythology. I just loved how the film led us to this inevitable conclusion and yet it was still surprising, even though it made perfect sense the whole way. It was brilliantly done from a design standpoint. If you ever watch Unbreakable, look for the color scheme of the film. With the hero - David Dunn - notice the alliteration right? Notice him with his olive greens. And then his opponent, Mr. Glass is always in purple. I just thought it was a fascinating and deep film that worked as design, as thesis, as a surprise-ending movie. I thought it was great.
Margolin: The surprise-ending is the problem I did have the film. I liked it up until the end. Just like I said Blade had had elements I'd seen before, Unbreakable took the ending from Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol comic where it was revealed that the Chief had orchestrated all of the accidents and disasters that befell his team that turned them into freaks in the first place. And he was the ultimate villain.
Muir: That's something that your knowledge of comic books helped you to see, which I did not realize. That's interesting.
Margolin: That's a really obscure one. Because The Doom Patrol is obviously a far more obscure comic book than your average one. But when I saw the ending, I thought 'Oh no, I've seen this before.' The other thing that bugged me about that movie from the beginning is the opening title card which has these alleged facts about comic books and the comic industry, and I remember seeing the film with Bob Rozakis, who is the former executive director of production for DC Comics and each time one of those lines flashed on the screen, we looked at each other and said 'No that's wrong.'
Muir: I understand some of those statistics are wrong, but I just felt the film was really strong because it was a bold and artistic move to do a movie about the meaning of superheroes rather than just echoing the form of superheros. If that makes sense...
Margolin: Yeah. If I hadn't been aware of that ending from the comic, I probably would have liked it more. Now, moving on to the number four position is the original Spider-Man....
Muir: Spider-Man from 2002 - a film by Sam Raimi - is a great and important film for the genre because it "restores balance to the force." It shows that a superhero can exist plausibly in sunlight, in daytime. That a superhero film doesn't need to be about ugliness. It doesn't need to be about crime or despair or hatred or some freak's plan for world domination. It doesn't have to be about any of those things. Instead, Raimi went back to basics and told us a story about a relatable hero. About a kid growing up who happens to love a girl, and in the process, he learns about the responsibility of adulthood. The great thing about Spider-Man - and the metaphor is carried on in an interesting way in Spider-Man 2 - his spider powers equal puberty in this film; the changes we undergo in adolescence as we mature. I thought this was a beautiful and efficient metaphor. Peter Parker in his bedroom - by himself - practicing shooting his webs. Hmmm, what could that be a metaphor for? That's so great. It's also faithful to its source material probably to 80 -85 percent, which is a record for Hollywood...Raimi gave us a film where the human being was the core and the film didn't focus on the villains. It focused on the hero and I loved it.
Margolin: I can't agree with you more. I think we have almost the same feelings about this movie. Which is why it went on to be so successful, and restored, I think, the idea that you can do a successful superhero movie and have a traditionally costumed superhero in it. You don't have to go with black leather. You don't have to make the hero unrecognizable. I wish other people would take heart and learn this lesson that if you are faithful to the source material, you will have much greater success than if you ignore the material. I think Spider-Man proves that and Spider-Man 2 proves it even more. And we'll get into that a second.