WW84, Superman 3 and Movies About Movies – Part 2: Characters

In my first installment, I talked about the visual similarities in Patty Jenkins’ WW84 with 80s superhero films in general and Richard Lester’s SUPERMAN 3 specifically. I talked about how they became a vector for Patty Jenkins to create a movie about 1980s superhero movies – as both a tribute and a means to address other topics within and without of that superhero film genre.

Part 1 available by CLICKING HERE: https://noscoopsclub.com/2021/01/04/ww84vsuperman3-p1/

PART 2 – CHARACTERS

Extrapolating from visuals and because WW84 is a movie about movies, there are character similarities in both films as well. But like in visuals as I dive deeper you will hopefully be able to see how the characters from WW84 have some startling differences beneath the surface from those of their 80s counterparts and specifically SUPERMAN 3.

2A.) The 80s “Bad Guy” – Robert Vaughn’s Ross Webster vs. Pedro Pascal’s Maxwell Lord

The prototypical 80s bad guy is really an essay unto itself. But I am using the term here to refer to that particular type of bad guy that is both self-aspirational and also completely evil. To clarify, I am referring especially to the megalomaniacs – completely obsessed with their own power and who want to look good while acquiring it. There are many examples: (see below – clockwise) from Steven Berkoff’s Victor Maitland in BEVERLY HILLS COP to Gene Hackman’s Lex Luthor in SUPERMAN 1 and 2 to from Michael Douglas’ Gordon Gekko in WALL STREET to Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber in DIE HARD to Dabney Coleman’s Franklin Heart Jr. in 9 TO 5 to Jack Palance as Carl Grissom in BATMAN (1989).

And they all looked great sitting in a leather chair. Gotta admit there is something familiar (albeit purposefully) about our Maxwell Lord in WW84.

This is a man who is motivated by insecurity, the compensation of which is greed and they are willing go to the greatest lengths to obtain more. But unlike some more traditional comic book villains like Zod or even Thanos, these villains are less about brutality and more about efficiency – they will hurt you only as much as they have to. In some ways, their bad actions are fueled by the external reasoning that they are “really doing good” for people – either within their group (DIE HARD and 9 TO 5) or within the larger world (WALL STREET) – and even if they are harming them while they better themselves. They want to be bad, be the best at it, but also want to look good – literally and figuratively, while doing it. The end result matters almost as much as how they get there.

In SUPERMAN 3 we have Ross Webster, played brilliantly by Robert Vaughn. Although Vaughn’s performance was in the wake of Lex Luthor and presaged some of the other 80s villains, Vaughn uses Hackman’s performance and amps it up. He’s even more composed and yet also less compassionate. His evil is borderline humorous, and would probably be even funnier if not for the current political state. Now a lot of people have made the comparison of the aforementioned Hackman version of Lex Luthor to Maxwell Lord in #WW84. And yes – Lex does go to the white house in Superman 2 – but that comparison is only superficial. It is Ross Webster that Lord is more in the mold of – both in terms of superficial looks and psychological operation. Like Webster, Lord cares about the means of control just as much as the control itself. He wants to win but he wants to look good doing it. Like Lord who runs an infomercial Ponzi scheme as a front to raise money for more nefarious purposes, Webster operates a computer school as a front to find and use the best hackers for his own nefarious gains. When Superman 3’s Gus Gorman is refused a benefits extension at the unemployment office, he is enchanted on the way out by a matchbook advertising Webster’s computer school. The figure on the matchbook looks a lot like a guy we know from WW84.

Ross Webster finds Gus Gorman after he softly embezzles over $85K by taking the cents rounded down each week from their checks. Although this is memorably referred to as “the Superman 3” plot in OFFICE SPACE, it is far from Webster’s actual plot. Webster wants to gain control of the world’s coffee supply using Gus Gorman’s hacking skills to take control of a weather machine. When Superman thwarts their effort, Webster turns to taking over the world’s oil supply – a very 80s thing as the decade was in the wake of the true gas crisis in the 1970s – and one that echoes Maxwell Lord’s own ambitions after taking over control of the dreamstone.

Like Ross Webster, #WW84’s Maxwell Lord operates a business that is essentially a front for a con. Lord has created a vast infomercial business (think Sham-wow meets Donald J. Trump) offering people investments in oil fields they could never invest in on their own by giving him their money to invest for them. The problem is the oil fields are worthless. The business IS the infomercials. And his con is running out of time in addition to money. One of his primary investors, (and DC Comics easter egg) Simon Stagg is onto Lord’s con and is ready to expose him. But ultimately Lord has a bigger plan, he is going to use the money cultivated from those conned investors to find the dreamstone, a rare artifact that will grant anyone whatever they want – at a price. The stone always takes as much as it gives. But Lord’s twist is becoming “the dreamstone itself” ultimately allowing him to grant people’s wishes while taking the stone’s price and using it to better himself.

The thing is Lord is so delusional that he thinks he is actually helping people – even though he is taking from them and ultimately paving the way for a complete downfall of society. This is what the stone’s creator (another DC Comics easter egg), the god of lies or Duke of Deception wanted. Max is so vain that he cannot see how badly he is hurting those around him until Diana uses her lasso to show Max the world’s downfall and specifically the danger in which he has placed his own son.

2B.) The 80s Best Friend Archetype – Richard Pryor’s August “Gus” Gorman and Kristin Wiig’s Barbara Ann Minerva aka The Cheetah

The 80s Best Friend is a trope that lives on in films today – mostly in romantic comedies. This is the friend that is usually smarter, nicer, funnier than the main character but they are painted as slightly off – either emotionally or physically – to allow for the main character to essentially play the straight man or perhaps more wisely titled the “every man”. But this best friend, though flawed, is subconsciously relatable to the viewer. So we can relate to the friend, and we can relate to the main character through the friend. We can also see internal conflict that might ultimately occur in a more dramatic or tragic main character through the best friend character. We’ve seen them as men and women in 80s films from (clockwise below): Annie Potts as Janine in GHOSTBUSTERS 1 and 2, Jon Cryer as Duckie in PRETTY IN PINK, Laura San Giacomo as Kit in PRETTY WOMAN, Anthony Michael Hall as Farmer Ted in SIXTEEN CANDLES, Liane Curtis as Randy in SIXTEEN CANDLES, and Barbara Hershey as Hillary in BEACHES.

Now these characters came in all shapes and sizes and had all sorts of eccentricities. But what is the commonality. They were too quirky, or weird, or not homogenized enough – to be main characters. They could be the friends of the main characters. And if Ross Webster and Maxwell Lord are similar in their attempt to be perfect, so too are their apprentice/assistant/best friend characters in their roles as being quirky. These are good people, if slightly eccentric (and in many ways far more relatable than either Webster, Lord or many main characters). These are people like Gus Gorman and Barbara Minerva, who have found themselves turned to the side of evil through choices of both their own and those made in the wake of their associated megalomaniac’s paths of destruction.

• 

• 

Richard Lester created the character of Gus Gorman to be that best friend – ultimately a guy who is funnier, quicker, and smarter than either Ross Webster or Clark Kent but is also morally compromised. He is flawed. And he is conflicted. In fact he initially uses his powers for less than the highest moral ambitions – getting rich and gaining power – but ultimately comes to realize that he is helping Ross Webster in these morally reprehensible goals, including corrupting Superman and possibly killing him.

• 

• 

One superficially interesting point is that both Richard Pryor and Kristin Wiig are comedians, one a stand-up, the other grounded in improv and the world of SNL. I do think the reasoning here is not just something done as an intentional wink or a tribute But rather a comedian is a great person to set opposite actors like Christopher Reeve and Gal Gadot, so wonderfully cut out of granite, if you will, true mega-humans, larger than life and perfect in every sense to play their comic book characters. Oftentimes we see ourselves in these best friends which make their interactions with the alpha lead a way to make the alpha more relatable by association. This is a practice that goes as far back as Shakespeare when the bard used Falstaff to humanize characters that were meant to carry the burden of heavy themes. 

Now it is important to note here that both characters, are making their own choices, but especially Barbara. Jenkins empowers Minerva and gives her agency. Yes she is the best friend but here Jenkins puts a modern spin on the trope. Jenkins gives the best friend agency and does not just make her a vessel for the supervillain but makes her a more dangerous version of that villain.

Although Maxwell Lord takes advantage of Kristin Wiig’s Barbara Minerva, using her as both his guard and assassin, it is Minerva’s choice to do so – and if anything Lord is happy and surprised that Minerva is along for the ride. In fact, after Diana suggests earlier in the film, at Steve’s prompting, that perhaps they need to give back their wishes to reset this now tainted world, Barbara refuses. The stone is in essence a “monkey’s paw” and it takes things far more important than what it gives. In exchange for Steve, the stone has taken Diana’s Amazonian powers, in the case of Barbara, it has taken her optimism and humanity. But Barbara scoffs at the suggestion – “what could be more important than what we wish for” in one of my favorite lines of the film.

And this leads to one of the places where WW84 again diverges from SUPERMAN 3 most strongly. At the end of Superman 3, Richard Pryor’s Gus Gorman realizes that he is doing the wrong thing and changes. He helps Superman defeat both the supercomputer and Ross Webster.

But in WW84, Barbara Minerva doubles down on her choices, becoming Cheetah, and taking on Diana, both characters at the height of their power. Although some have criticized that we only get about 7 minutes of screentime with the Cheetah, an iconic DC and Wonder Woman villain, I think Jenkins is doing this deliberately. She is trying to use the final transformation as a way to show that Barbara has truly taken the dark path – she is not being manipulated by Maxwell Lord OR Diana. And although at the end of the film we see a moment when Barbara returned to her human form – we still never hear her renounce her wish. One could reason that she is only a human again because Maxwell Lord renounced his wish. And her becoming the Cheetah was tied to Lord – whereas her desire to be like Diana was tied to the rock prior to Lord taking its powers. Perhaps Diana will again find Barbara down the road, ageless, and still powerful – having very much made choices that are her own unlike most best friend characters in the 80s or present day.

The conclusion to my three part series: “PART 3 – THEMES”, arrives Friday. Prepare for STEVE TREVOR, LANA LANG, and WORLD DOMINATION!!