Digital Joe #17

---

Tools:
Recommend this news to a friend »

---

It should be no shock that the topic on nearly everyone´s lips is "Superman". "Superman" this, "Superman" that. It seems as though on rock has been left unturned in trying to pick this icon apart. It´s not even limited to the new "Superman Returns" movie. People who should know better have begun to pick apart the first two movies in the "franchise"…and, to my astonishment/chagrin/outrage/disbelief/bewilderment, it´s also been suggested that the third and fourth entries into the Christopher Reeve movies are better than the first and second.

I kid you not. Someone stated, unequivocally, that "Superman: The Quest for Peace" was on par with "Superman: The Movie". Why? I have no idea. There were no supporting arguments for this viewpoint except that the first two movies are "cheesy" with their "cheesy" dialogue and their "cheesy" effects.

I will definitely grant that the effects on any of the four Christopher Reeve films is less than what can be expected in the Bryan Singer iteration. That´s called evolution, a concept we covered quite a few weeks ago now. At the time, though, seeing Superman fly through the air, use his heat vision and to go back in time to save the world was cutting edge technology. Just like, back in the 1960s, the original "Star Trek" had revolutionary effects that are outdated today.

"Superman" has always been about a man, pure of heart and intentions, risking himself to save the human race as well as trying to protect his secret identity of Clark Kent. My knowledge of comic books is rather limited; the only "Superman" title I really read was the trade paperback of "The Death of Superman". In that story, if you´ll remember, the Man of Steel died defending Metropolis and, to a larger extent the world, from a monster called Doomsday.

Really, he didn´t have to, now did he? He could have flown away to another planet and started a new life. Hell, he could have even taken his friends Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen with him. But he didn´t tuck tail and run. He gave everything he had to put an end to the rampage of Doomsday. If my memory isn´t failing me, several other superhero groups tried-and failed-to do what Superman eventually did. In doing so, he paid the ultimate price. His love, Lois Lane, held him in her arms as he died.

Since the very beginning as a comic character, Superman stood for truth and justice (the whole "American way" stuff came into play in the 1950s and has been jettisoned from the new movie, if trailers are to be believed). He didn´t lie, he didn´t cheat, he didn´t use his superpowers for personal gain. Let´s face it: he obviously could have.

But we´re getting far away from the point. The ideas behind a good movie don´t go out of style. The effects might be dated, the acting could be less-than-stellar…but the story, the meat, of the movie is the most important thing. Does the story tell us something? Does it help us to learn more about ourselves and our society? Does it teach us something?

In reference to Superman, the answer to all those questions is "yes". Even from my experience with this character, I know that he puts himself on the line for his adopted planet and people on a near daily basis. I know with Doomsday he battled until he couldn´t battle anymore. I know he did what no one had been able to do in pulling together the universe´s greatest heroes (called the Justice League or the Superfriends). I know he´s an icon for everything that is right with the human race.

We can learn something about ourselves from the character. He loves us and would do anything for us. If an alien who doesn´t have human blood can do this, why can´t those of us born and bred on this world do the same? Who cares how the flying effects look? Give me a couple dozen wires if it means we get inspired to do something positive for the world.

In that respect, I whole-heartedly agree that "The Quest for Peace" is better than "The Movie". In the fourth installment, Superman wants to do something to better the entire world: get rid of nuclear weapons. It´s an admirable-and lofty-goal. Know what, it even shows signs of working. The first film is a story between two people: Superman and Lex Luthor. They fight a bit but you know there´s really no way the human can compete with a Kryptonian. It´s a personal struggle and, in the end, it becomes even more personal: Superman using his powers to save one person. Lois Lane.

Superman doesn´t throw nuclear weapons into the sun in the much-lamented "Quest for Peace" at the behest of a country of single politician. He does it for the kids who are scared about what could happen to their world. He does it for American kids, Russian kids and all the kids in between. So we can all have a future in which weapons of mass destruction aren´t a constant threat over our heads.

Yes, I know this is just a movie and I´m taking all of this too personally. You´re right, I definitely could be. The thing is I see movies differently than a lot of people out there. I rarely watch a movie for the "ooh" and "aah" factor. Special effects should serve to supplement the action; the effects shouldn´t be the reason for the film.

There´s a Shakespearean quote that serves as the title of one of my favorite episode of the original "Star Trek" series. "The play is the thing in which we will find the conscience of the king." People can be all talk and all bluster. It´s their actions that define who they are. Superman and all the superheroes of his ilk will always be heroes for what they do in the pages of comics and on the screen. It doesn´t matter that they´re not real and that their feats are superhuman. What matters is that their actions serve to inspire us, the normal folk in the real world, to strive to be better than we are.

---