reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (11/23/84)
The Salkinds seem intent on becoming the most seasonal of
movie producers. They're bring us "Santa Claus" for the Christmas
of 85, and they're offering us a turkey for this Thanksgiving.
(It's an old joke, but I couldn't resist.) "Supergirl" isn't a
very good movie. I think the Salkinds realized this, because
they haven't spent much money on building it up. Maybe it will
make its money back, but probably "Supergirl" signals the end of
the Superman movies. If this film and "Superman III" are the
best ideas anyone can come up with, it's just as well.
Supergirl (Helen Slater) lives in a city saved from the des-
truction of Krypton. The filmmakers don't bother explaining how
this happened, and it's been a long time since I read comics, so
you'll have to go to net.comics to find out. (If you must,
please do. I have absolutely no interest in finding out, my-
self.) At any rate, the city is kept going by a couple of power
sources known as octahedrons. Due to carelessness, Kara (that's
Supergirl's Kryptonian name) loses one. It lands on earth, in
the hands of Faye Dunaway, a witch with dreams of world domina-
tion which the octahedron can fulfill. Kara goes to Earth to re-
trieve the octahedron, as the city cannot long survive without
it.
For obscure reasons, she disguises herself as Linda Lee, a
student at a girls' academy in the Midwest. The long arm of
coincidence makes Lois Lane's cousin her roommate. The only
point of this seems to be to introduce Jimmy Olsen as Lana Lane's
boyfriend, but, since he has nothing to do other than represent
the otherwise absent cast of the "Superman" movies, this point
seems pointless. Rather than bustle about looking for the oc-
tahedron, Supergirl wastes her time attending classes. There's
another worthless subplot involving Dunaway's and Slater's rival-
ry over Hart Bochner, a gardener who attracts their attention.
The screenplay of "Supergirl" is very arbitrary and makes
little sense. Would two idiots really try to rape a woman in a
Superman costume, particularly when she had already blown one of
them through a wall and heated up the knife the other one pulls?
Why does the octahedron make its container grow? Why does the
voodoo wand Dunaway lays her hands on suddenly give her complete
control over the octahedron's power? Why, when a love spell goes
awry, doesn't Dunaway immediately break it? Again, don't bother
sending me justifications, I really don't care. There's no point
plugging holes in a Swiss cheese. David Odell deserves the blame
for the screenplay. A few good lines do not make up for the
overall dreadfulness of this script.
Some people protested when, earlier this year, I predicted
that "Supergirl" would be a disaster due to the choice of Jeannot
Szwarc as director. They said that my assessment of Szwarc as a
hack was too harsh. Well, I was right and they were wrong.
Szwarc, in fact, gives a bad name to hacks. He has absolutely no
visible talent. The man just cannot direct. Since Alexander
Salkind has chosen him to direct "Santa Claus", too, that film
also is doomed to disaster. No great matter, it was a rotten
idea anyway, and by keeping Szwarc busy on it, Salkind may have
kept him from ruining a film with some potential. I am quite
sure that Szwarc's main attraction for Salkind is that he works
quickly and cheaply. Rapid shooting is OK, but not if it shows,
and "Supergirl" displays telltale signs of shoddy, careless
direction, probably due in part to cutting corners.
One of the few good things about "Supergirl" is the produc-
tion design, which is superb. The sets are beautifully dressed
and are quite original. The special effects are of variable
quality and sometimes detract from the otherwise excellent sur-
roundings. Many of the flying effects are unconvincing. To
paraphrase the advertising slogan of the first "Superman" film, I
do not believe that a girl can fly. There are also some overly
obvious mattes and composite shots. On the other hand, some of
the effects do work, particularly the carnage of an invisible
monster sent to destroy Supergirl.
The acting is also variable. Helen Slater starts out very
badly, but eventually turns out all right. She is much better as
Linda Lee than as Kara, and she is certainly not the find Chris-
topher Reeve was. Hart Bochner has such a rotten part that it's
hard to say whether he's unbearable through his own fault or not.
Brenda Vaccaro, on leave from tampon commercials, is pretty good
as Dunaway's sidekick. Peter Cook is largely wasted as Dunaway's
ex-mentor, though he does have a good moment teaching the girls
of Linda Lee's academy, reminiscent of some of the great skits he
used to do with Dudley Moore in reviews like "Good Evening",
classics like "The Frog and Peach", "One Leg Too Few", and "Down
the Mine". But I digress. Mia Farrow and Simon Ward share only
one scene as Kara's parents.
Acting is a mystery to me, despite the fact that I have seen
thousands of performances in films and have even done some acting
on stage myself. Why is it that when Peter O'Toole, a very
talented actor, lets out all the stops he is utterly delightful,
whereas Faye Dunaway, also quite talented, is merely embarrassing
when she uses the same tactic? Perhaps O'Toole would have been
equally annoying if he had more scenes, but I don't think so.
His eventual reappearance is one of the highlights of the film,
even though his duties are just as silly as everyone else's.
Faye Dunaway, on the other hand, overacts so outrageously that
her perpetual presence is very hard to take. Some people may
view her performance as high camp, and I suppose that that is
what she was trying for, but I found her only intermittently
amusing.
The careless nature of "Supergirl" makes it completely unen-
gaging. Only the less discriminating fans of special effects ex-
travaganzas and those with a taste for surfeits of camp will get
much out of it. "Supergirl" isn't really much fun, and, for this
kind of film, that is the ultimate indictment.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher