John Kenneth Muir
By Dr. Howard Margolin, host of Destinies: The Voice of Science Fiction
Muir: Here's the deal with Darkman. And this is my thesis about Sam Raimi. He understands and respects comic-books. So he understands what is essentially the primary milieu of the superhero: the comic-book. As a fan of the form, he can see the similarity between comics and film. The similarities - the parallels - between frames of film and panels in comic-book. I mean, what's a storyboard, right, but comic book frames? My assertion about Sam Raimi is that by knowing comic-books and knowing film, he was able to find the perfect film equivalents of comic-book art. Whether it be his dissolves, his fast-motion photography or slow motion photography, his crazy slow-motion shots. Whatever it was, he was able to find the equivalent of that form and translate it onto the screen in a way that was immediately recognizable to comic-book fans that this guy really got it. He did a brilliant job with Darkman. And I believe it is still one of the most stylish and most successful superhero movies ever made.
Margolin: In essence it's a big variation on Swamp Thing, combined with a few other characters. But that's just it. He takes the essence of what makes a good comic-book, and puts it on the screen. And he did it years before CGI was possible.
Muir: If you watch the end of Darkman there's an incredible chase with a helicopter and somebody dangling off. Even though the effects have dated today, it's still exhilarating when you watch it; just watching this catalogue of amazingly creative shots. It's so funny to me because The Matrix virtually re-made that scene in 1999: helicopters flying through the city, people dangling from them, and I don't think it was as good. I think Sam Raimi did it better.
Margolin: The second film - newly inserted into the list - within the last day...is Spider-Man 2.
Muir: Spider-Man 2 is awesome. I really liked it because I felt that Sam Raimi continued to use Spidey's web-slinging abilities as a metaphor for Peter Parker's situation in life. In Spider-Man, his situation was puberty, adolescence, sexual awakening - whatever - we all understood the metaphor. But in Spider-Man 2, it's even more overt. Spider-Man discovers that sometimes his webs don't shoot when he wants them to. And then he finds out the problem is psychological. He's stressed out by school, relationships, money, the job. Hmmm...things that have been known to adversely affect male performance in other areas. I just thought that this was really well-done and very witty and very clever. It carried on a metaphor related to the hero's life. Okay, he's passed puberty now, he knows about responsibility, but now life is crowding in around him. He has too many responsibilities, and he can't do what he used to be able.
I also loved that all the characters in the film were essentially on the very same journey, deciding who they were going to be and then dealing with the ramifications of their decisions. Hatred is obviously driving Harry Osborn at this point. He is going to become who he wants to be because of the dark side. In a way, his descent to that is more interesting than what's happened to Anakin in the last Star Wars movie. But fate and an accident have also driven Doc Ock to become something. And he also comes to reckoning about how he wants to be remembered. He makes a decision at the end of his life - and he is what he chooses to be. Same thing with MJ. And Peter - deciding 'Am I man, or am I Spider-Man..."
Margolin: We spent forty minutes discussing it last week, so I'm going to keep my comments minimal on this. Raimi acknowledges the origins of the character again in the opening credit sequence, because he got Alex Ross to do the flashbacks in the opening. He had Alex Ross paint recreations of key sequences from the first one. So you get the most celebrated artist in current comic-book history, who has a style that is so photo-realistic that it's virtually indistinguishable from photographs. And yet it acknowledges the comic-book origins of the charaacter. That's showing great respect for the material, as well as bringing it to what mainstream audiences would want to see too. They don't really care about line drawings, but how can you not be impressed by Alex Ross?
Muir: That opening montage was beautiful....very stylish, very different than what you see in most blockbusters. And I think one of the people I talked to - Sam Raimi's mentor as a young man, Verne Nobles - said to me, 'Sam Raimi has learned all the rules of film and now he has gone beyond those rules, is breaking them and making his own rules.' And what I saw in Spider-Man 2 was a revolution in what these films can be. He's someone who is redefining the genre.
Margolin: And the number one film in the superhero genre of all time is...Superman: The Movie.
Muir: I have to admit - as I've said many times - I have a bias towards 1970s material. It's when I grew up. I have a very strong nostalgia factor for the Donner film. But I also happen to believe, and think that I can support my argument, that it is the best superhero film ever made. And here's why. It has this brilliant three-part structure. It begins on Krypton, heads to Smallville, and then leaps to modern day Metropolis. These styles encompass (in order): fantasy, nostalgia, and then almost contemporary comedy and romance. By combining these different looks - like the crystalline planet, the wheat fields and open skies of Smallville and then the crowded city - the film truly achieves an epic scope. It's a long film. It's a serious film. It reflects its time to a high degree. Superman is the ultimate fish out of water in this film, but he' s also the only honest guy in town, if you think about it. In the scene with Lois Lane on her balcony there's this almost implicit repudiation of Watergate and politicians in the 1970s, when Superman says 'I'll never lie to you, Lois.' The film just really taps into the zeitgeist of its time, the late 1970s.
There are so many things you can read into this version of the Superman legend. He's pretty obviously a Christ-figure. Jor-El sends his only son from a heavenly white realm (Krypton) to Earth, where he then becomes a savior of mankind and basically performs miracles. You can't get more Biblical than that, which again enhances this feeling of an epic. Christopher Reeve is the ultimate superhero. He was perfectly cast as Superman. He's a strong, physically fit person in these films, but you get a sense of two things. Superman's gentleness. And Superman's strength....Again, I felt the film was so good because it told us the whole origin of this hero and Superman was the center of the film. You didn't even meet the villain until the last third...
Margolin: The tagline for the film was 'you'll believe a man can fly,' and well - based on the special effects even of the day, I didn't believe a man could fly when I was fourteen, because it just didn't look that convincing. It was good. It wasn't what The Matrix Revolutions were. What I think the great strength of Superman was is this: 'you'll believe a man could be two men - and pull it off convincingly.' And that's what Christopher Reeve did. He's the only actor who really distinguished and differentiated on screen - Bud Collyer did it on radio - between Superman and Clark Kent. Not just in voice, but stature, everything that really could make you believe that these were two different people. As opposed to George Reeves' Superman who was like a father figure, he made Superman what he said to Lois, 'a friend.' He didn't go for that booming voice Superman like the radio Superman. "This looks like a job for Superman!" It was there. He knew he had power and he was confident enough in it that he didn't have to flaunt it.
Muir: I just thought his presence in these films was so interesting. He was obviously a superman, but he was also a man. He has presence as both a man and a superhero in the film, which worked so strongly for that character. Even watching some of the lesser Superman films that came later, you still have this residual bank of affection for Christopher Reeve's portrayal because he did it so charmingly. It wasn't camp, it wasn't tongue-in-cheek. It was just very joyful and very natural. And I think Superman: The Movie is the best superhero movie of all time.
Margolin: Aside from the problematic plot of the ending, everything else with that movie is great, and it still stands the test of time.
More to come soon...