Film Review: Supergirl - 40th Anniversary

"Supergirl"

** (out of ****)

She's a (super) girl in a man's world in "Supergirl" (1984), celebrating its 40th anniversary. 

The superhero genre wasn't what it is today back in 1984. There wasn't a multi-billion dollar enterprise consisting of a "Marvel Universe" or a "DC Universe". There were of course big screen adaptions of comic book superheroes going back to the movie serials of the 1940s and 1950s. Which is how characters like the Green Hornet, Batman, and Superman made their screen debuts. By the 1980s the most popular superhero movies were the "Superman" movies starring Christopher Reeves in the title role. The overwhelming majority of characters in this genre were male, with the exception of the television show "Wonder Woman" in the 1970s. Was there more room to add a little estrogen in this male dominated universe?

That had to be some of the thinking and appeal of creating a female led superhero movie. So after three "Superman" movies, now was the time to introduce the world to his cousin, Kara Zor-El - AKA Supergirl. The timing seemed to be right in 1984. "Girl Power" was having a moment. Forty years ago it was also an election year and for the first time ever a woman, Geraldine Ferraro, was going to be on a "major party" ticket. Within this political environment movies like "Sheena: Queen of the Jungle" (1984) and "Supergirl" - the first two female superhero movies - made sense.

Unfortunately, "Supergirl" wasn't the triumph some may have expected it to be. After failing at the box-office, the movie garnered a reputation as one of the worst movies ever made, let alone one of the worst superhero movies made. Is that fair though? I'm not really the person to answer such a question since I'm of the opinion practically all of these movies are inferior. But what makes "Supergirl" stand out? I had more or less an equally bad time watching any number of other superhero movies such as "X-Men" (1999), "Daredevil" (2003), and "Hulk" (2003).

As I began watching "Supergirl" it felt as if the producers and director wanted to do everything they could to invoke the memory of the "Superman" movies from the musical score and overall look of the movie, to name dropping character names like Clark Kent and Superman, Lois Lane, and Jimmy Olsen. Perhaps to tease us that they might make an appearance. We are given an early tip off though that Superman won't appear because we hear on a radio news report that he is in another galaxy on a peacekeeping mission. What this does however is create a kind of Earth 2.0 where we don't have Superman but we have Supergirl. We don't have Lois Lane but we have her kid sister, Lucy (Maureen Teefy). And somehow Jimmy Olsen (Marc McClure) is in both worlds. He has a crush on Lucy.

The movie begins in Argo city, which we learn has been created by Zaltar (Peter O' Toole) he is something of an artist and likes to create things that can be found on Earth, like trees and horses. Although from what we can gather from the movie's dialogue, he has never visited Earth. Nevertheless young Kara (Helen Slater) is fascinated by Zaltar's words and creations. He tells her he will be leaving the city and their planet soon. Perhaps he will go to Earth or Saturn or even Venus. He says he wants to know what is beyond the walls of Argo, which this movie makes look like a 1960s hippie commune. For some reason I didn't believe him. The way O'Toole plays the character I kept thinking he is hiding something. He is almost like a con-man whose fraud as been found out and now the authorities are after him. What we do know however is that he has stolen the omegahedron, a power source for the city. With it, it can give the illusion of creating life.

After Kara creates a dragon fly like creature that cracks their dome-like bubble it allows the omegahedron to escape. Understanding the dire consequences - the city can only last a few days without it - Zaltar plans to go after it, Kara however beats him to the punch, making her way towards Earth.

This origin story shares some similarity with Superman's story. Kara's city may be destroyed, like Superman's planet was, and she is separated from her family. She is a teenager however whereas Superman was a baby. But her story doesn't feel as sacrificial as Superman's. She isn't a "gift" to Earth. 

The movie does try to make much of her age and to me this minimizes the story a bit and speaks to society's view and expectations of women. "Supergirl" isn't just a superhero movie, it also wants to be a coming of age story. Written on the back of the DVD I own it states "Adventure. Danger. A first kiss. What's a Supergirl to do?" Is this how they thought they would get young girls to see the movie? Male superheroes fight to save the world while Supergirl gets feelings from having her first kiss. There is actually a scene where she tries to recreate the moment by kissing her reflection in a mirror!

Kara keeps her identity a secret going by the name Linda Lee. Why she couldn't call herself Kara Lee is another story. She will be disguised as a prep-school student and share a dorm room with Lucy. What a coincidence! She will behave like any other teenager and student by going to her math class and playing sports. While at the same time trying to find the omegahedron.

The omegahedron has fallen into the hands of Selena (Faye Dunaway) a wanna-be witch and her roommate Bianca (Brenda Vaccaro, an Oscar nominated actress who more importantly was Gilbert Gottfried's last guest on his podcast before his death). They have been studying under Nigel (Peter Cook) who claims to know much about black magic. After finding the omegahedron however Selena immediately realizes the potential of its power and decides she doesn't need Nigel any longer. Selena, like any super-villain has her sights set on world domination. How exactly she plans on doing this is not revealed.  

While I do believe Faye Dunaway is a wonderful actress, her part in the plot is one of the aspects that hurts the movie most. Her scenes are played for cheap laughs and come across as camp. The first time we see Bianca she complains to Selena about the high cost of their water bill. How will they pay their utilities living in an abandon amusement park, in what looks like a haunted fun-house ride. Bianca and Selena's banter is reminiscent of 1930s depression era comedy a la Thelma Todd and Patsy Kelly. This shouldn't be in a superhero movie! This leads her to be an unimpressive villain for a superhero. She doesn't pose a real threat. There's no suspense Supergirl won't be able to stop her.

On the other hand Helen Slater's approach is the opposite of Dunaway. Where Dunaway is worldly, Slater's Supergirl is young and naive. She has the innocence of a child. Which would make sense since she is from another planet. She would have a wide-eye fascination for all things around her. And where Dunaway's performance can be campy, Slater doesn't wink at the audience. She plays the material as straight as she could.

Since this is a female superhero movie it is interesting everything is supposed to be female centered and the males are the secondary characters. However the movie diminishes this by having Selena and Supergirl fight over a boy. Selena creates a love potion that will make Ethan (Hart Bochner) fall in love with the first person he sees. After he drinks the potion, Ethan escapes the fun-house and lays his eyes upon Supergirl, as she is dressed as Linda Lee, and falls in love with her. She is unaware of the potion but turns into the school girl that she is and becomes flattered by his expressions of love. At one moment when she is about to fight Selena, Ethan appears with flowers and candy and wouldn't you know it, it distracts her as she becomes giddy over the flowers. This transforms the story into a high school comedy with the mean girl (Selena) fighting with the nerd (Supergirl) over the captain of the football team (Ethan). The story of world domination takes a back seat.

And that's what ultimately is wrong with "Supergirl". It sees its characters as stereotype girls instead of superheroes and villains. This could be because it was written by a man, David Odell. It also explains a level of sexuality in this material. Notice how short Supergirl's skirt is. And how do you explain an uncomfortable scene between Supergirl and two male truckers who make a very aggressive pass at her. At one point she asks one of the men why are you doing this, to which he replies it's just the way we are. What message does this send?

Whatever the message it sends, it isn't one that impowers women and creates a sense of "Girl Power". Yes, it is somewhat cute in its role reversal with the female as the superhero and the male as the damsel in distress but it uses that for laughs not equality. Even putting aside a social message on gender the movie still doesn't believe enough in its story to tell it seriously. In movie critic Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times  review he made a similar point writing "it trivializes itself with an almost suicidal glee." He goes on to end his review stating, "We do not go to "Superman" and "Supergirl" movies to laugh condescendingly at the characters. We go to recapture some of the lost innocence of the whole notion of superheroes."

"Supergirl" was made in a different era when comic book movies weren't perceived to be great art but instead escapist popcorn entertainment. I'm fine with taking that approach with this material and I could have enjoyed "Supergirl" as a light and exciting action movie but it becomes a bit boring and goes on way too long. The version I own is the "European" one which runs a little over two hours. The original U.S. theatrical version was one hour forty-five minutes. This story can't sustain a two hour running time.

Directed by Jeannot Szwarc it's easy to see how "Supergirl" created the path for other female superhero movies that have followed over the past 40 years such as "Catwoman" (2004), "Elektra" (2005), "Wonder Woman" (2017) and "Captain Marvel" (2019). The "Supergirl" origins have been introduced to a new generation thanks to the television show which aired from 2015 - 2021. It's conceivable there are more people that are familiar with the modern version of "Supergirl" than from this 1984 movie.

While the overall reputation of "Supergirl" is negative, there were those that did offer lukewarm praise. In Janet Maslin's New York Times review she accurately points out "Supergirl" "is more or less up to the series standards." The "series" being the previous three "Superman" movies and she continues to muse, "If "Superman" fans liked all these things the first three times around, why shouldn't they like them now?" And even though Ebert didn't like the movie, he did like Slater writing of her she "has the kind of freshness, good health, high spirits, and pluck that would be just right for the character."

A part of me understands how "Supergirl" could have worked. It could have been comparable to the superhero movie serials of the past with a child like innocence, a level of camp, amateur acting, cheap special effects, and a stoic hero which could be interpreted as "wooden acting". Lets face it, that's exactly what movie serials like "Buck Rogers" (1939) and "Flash Gordon" (1936) were. But then you have to commit yourself to that. "Supergirl" walks a line between campy and big Hollywood production. The combination of the two doesn't work for me although I do prefer this movie over the 1980 adaptation of "Flash Gordon", which for some reason lives on as a cult classic, and does blend campy with Hollywood production.   

Could it simply be a case of men not knowing how to properly create a female superhero? Was the movie ahead of its time? It seems a lot of things fell apart in the early production stage after Christopher Reeves decided not to participate in the movie. That hurt the movie's chances of capturing a bigger audience and setting up "Supergirl" as a legitimate and worthy successor to "Superman". However I wonder if "Supergirl" was released today, and not a single frame of it was change, if it would gross more than the $14 million it did in 1984. I think it would. Even the lackluster "The Marvels" (2023), which featured a trio of female superheroes, grossed more than $200 million despite being universally panned and leading some to wonder if the genre as a whole was doomed.

Not being a fan of superhero movies, I sincerely don't see what makes this worst than any other superhero movie. I do however see how Hollywood learned from "Supergirl" and its failure. Hollywood treats the new female heroes as more than novelties. Modern female superheroes fight just as aggressively as the male ones. They have widened the scope of these movies. "Supergirl" feels small. The existence of Earth isn't on the line. A lot of characters don't interact with "Supergirl". She doesn't become a hero on the same level with "Superman" in the movie's world. Today that isn't the case. It is still interesting to watch "Supergirl" all these years later as a curiosity piece even though it doesn't work.