RICHARD VS RICHARD

Claiming Richard Lester back from the fanboys.

It is an occasional hazard of later life: you introduce an old school chum say, to a
more recently acquired friend, and though they both have you as a common
denominator they seem to take an instant dislike to each other and you feel you must
favour one over the other. Just like my !
st
birthday in fact, "hen my best friend John
drunkenly #ushed my visiting $niversity #al to"ards a moving ta%i and refused to
a#ologise, citing the fact that my ne" friend "as &a dick' as (ustification for his
actions. )his story concerns t"o similarly different *icks: one *onner and a Lester.
Richard *onner has directed many of the greatest touchstone films of the #ast +,
years. )he first Superman movie "as a ma(or event in my youth, not to mention The
Goonies -"hich s#arked a #re.teen crush on /artha 0lim#ton1, Lethal Weapon -my
first !2 certificate video rental1 and Scrooged -3um3I didn't hate it as much as
everyone else41. 5e is clearly an ebullient, "arm and kind man. 5is *6*
commentaries on Superman and The Omen -the first film I "as e%#licitly ordered not
to "atch by my #arents1 reveal a "itty, (ocular and good.natured character7 one at
"hose feet any cineast "ould be des#erate to sit and "allo" in his many gravel.
voiced anecdotes.
5o"ever, mention Superman II and a frost descends. 8amously, *onner "as fired
from 9 left the sequel after falling out "ith the #roducers. In the introduction to his
restored ,,: cut, *onner mentions the man "ho re#laced him in the directors' chair
as &;omeone "hose name I forget < on #ur#ose.' =t this #oint, I find myself back
outside )he Cross >eys #ub on my !
st
birthday holding a#art my t"o scra##ing
friends7 for this &someone' is Richard Lester "ho not enough #eo#le realise is one of
the finest and most influential #ost "ar film directors, and "hose catalogue of
master#ieces -some kno"n, some obscure1 "ere as vital an influence on me as
;#ielberg's or ;corsese's.
Lester became a #ersonal hero of mine "hen he called my house to gently turn do"n
my request to direct my first screen#lay. Like most , year old scri#t"riters in !??@ I
had been dazzled by Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and in tribute had ingeniously
restructured my o"n derivative crime thriller so that it no" finished "ith the first act,
started in the middle and broke from the narrative for seven #ages so the t"o
#rotagonists could sit in a cafA talking about obscure comic books. )he very thought
that Richard Lester, the director of A Hard Da!s "ight, one day forced himself to
read this (uvenile drivel makes the blood chill in my veins.
=t that time several noted directors from the si%ties and seventies had re.emerged
from the "ilderness to make #o#ular and acclaimed films again. Robert =ltman had
bounced back "ith The Plaer and Short #uts. Clint Bast"ood had "i#ed from
memory a decade's "orth of third.tier "ork "ith $n%orgiven. Co##ola finally had
another hit "ith &ram Sto'er!s Dracula. Cilliam 8riedkin "as making movies again
< "hy not Richard Lester4 5e chatted "ith me for half an hour, constructively
suggesting im#rovements I could make to the scri#t -he had the good grace not to
recommend that I #ut a match to it1, detailed the #arts that he en(oyed, but more than
anything, I remember the slight tremble in his voice "hen he said finally, &I retired3
hurt.'
Chat #ut Lester in mind in the first #lace "as (uggernaut, an e%traordinary though
little.seen disaster movie -to my mind, the only &ritish disaster movie1 that he made
in !?D+. It is a deliberately Eritish ri#oste to The Poseidon Adventure < a lu%ury liner
is held to ransom by a maniac "ho has #laced several bombs on board and "ill sink it
unless he is #aid F@,,,,,,. Ironically, The Poseidon Adventure!s u#side.do"n soa#
o#era "as directed by an Bnglishman, Ronald Geame. Lester, an =merican "earing
his Eritishness like shee#'s clothing, used his sea.faring disaster#iece to tear, "olf.
like into his ado#ted homeland. )his lu%ury cruise is a miserable vacation in the
"orst kind of bingo.#laying, holiday cam# tradition: the good shi# Eritannic is stuck
in storm conditions and most of the #assengers are sea.sick. )he "eather makes any
outdoor activity im#ossible, and the entertainment co.ordinator -Roy >innear1 is
becoming increasingly demented in his attem#ts to #ut on a ha##y face.
)he backstage shenanigans ashore and the #olice search for the bomber though, have
the documentary veracity of The Da o% The (ac'al and the many bomb.defusing
scenes are as tense as any in cinema. It is a thrilling ride, yet it is shot through "ith a
"ry detachment and this more than anything . more than the zany cutting and (aunty
camera angles in The )nac'*and Ho+ To Get It, or the surreal tomfoolery of )he
Eeatles in Help, . is Lester's trademark. )here is a shar#, sce#tical intelligence
behind all that occurs, yet "hen the film demands that irony be #ut to one side and
that everything is #layed straight, Lester su##lies an earnest sincerity. ;omething like
the blue "ire 9 red "ire denouement in (uggernaut sim#ly "ouldn't "ork if the
director treated it "ith a trademark kno"ing "ink. In fact, it is a knuckle.gna"ing,
almost unbearably tense conclusion. =s a side note, "henever I #icture Richard
5arris, it is in this movie strutting a"ay from a defused bomb cro"ing, &8allon's the
cham#ionH
)he "ord &Iany' is never too far a"ay from the critical consensus of Richard Lester,
and this could be the reason he is so often unfairly dismissed and forgotten. 5is
a##renticeshi# in the com#any of 0eter ;ellers -directing his )6 comedy A Sho+
#alled Fred1 and "ith the other Joons, helming the Kscar.nominated short, The
Running- (umping- Standing Still Film, tarred him "ith the zany.brush from the start.
Lester's love of surreal humour and his Joon ;ho" connection "as "hat #ulled him
into )he Eeatles's clutches.
Just as )he 8ab 8our's "acky, bright, kid.friendly .agical .ster Tour / 0ello+
Su1marine, dressing.u#.as."izards #hase is the least critically adored of their career,
there is broad agreement that there is something rather beneath contem#t about
&;illiness' -much in the same "ay that horror movies rarely if ever find themselves at
mainstream a"ards ceremonies1. &Childish' is an inaccurate but immutable reading of
silly humour. )he Eeatles moved quickly on to the stark, angst.s#attered darkness of
)he Chite =lbum, but Richard Lester never dro##ed silly sight.gags from his arsenal.
Instead, he no" used humour "ith a nefarious t"ist to, as e%.Joon /ichael Eentine
once #ut it, &#rick the balloons of #om#osity.' Critics of silliness al"ays fail to
understand the anarchic and anti.establishment ethos at its heart. =s Lester said in
!?:D, he believed in &using comedy to as serious a #ur#ose as it can be used.'
Cith Ho+ I Won The War in !?:D, Lester made one of the first deliberate 6ietnam
"ar allegories -though he himself described it as &=n anti.anti."ar film'1 and later
u##ed the stakes by tackling the s#ectre of nuclear "ar and its aftermath in his
ada#tation of ;#ike /illigan and John =ntrobus's #lay The &ed2Sitting Room7 a key
Lester "ork. 5ere, his blend of clo"nish humour and savage cynical commentary
finds its most effective balance. 8or all the e%traordinary visual humour and surreal
goings on < =rthur Lo"e turning into a #arrot, 8rank )hornton dressed in half a
dinner.(acket reading the ne"s behind the em#ty shell of a television set < the im#licit
horror of a "orld #ost.bomb courses through the "hole film like arteries of barb "ire.
)he a"k"ard combination of #re.0ythonesque humour and intolerable tragedy "as
#ossibly the reason for its dismal failure at the bo% office. It remains the most eerie
and challenging of all the =fter.)he.Eomb films of the :,s and D,s and as a surrealist
"ork, it's a lot funnier than anything EuLuel ever made.
It ty#ifies Lester's subversive skill: layering satire and criticism through his comedic
"ork like razor blades in a sherry trifle, rather than chaining himself to the rails and
barking at us through a louds#eaker. (uggernaut may be a !?D,s disaster movie
"earing the same clothes as Airport- Rollercoaster and The To+ering In%erno, but
underlying the hectic scenes of #olice #ursuit, and e%#losives e%#erts dro##ing out of
helico#ters into a storm."hi##ed ocean, there are cutting satirical im#lications. )he
&Eritannic' is a rusty, barely functioning "reck, #eo#led "ith lost souls and cre"ed by
a ho#eless com#any "earing meaningless uniforms. =s a -!?D+1 &;tate.of.the.
Gation' #asquinade, it's far more effective than, say &rittania Hospital, made by the
far more res#ected #olitical agitator Lindsay =nderson.
)he commercial failure of The &ed Sitting Room and the cold res#onse to the
e%traordinary Petunia < his first =merican movie: a resolutely cynical look at the
hi##ie scene in !?:D ;an 8rancisco < sent Lester into hiding for a fe" years. 5is
return in !?DM "ith The Three .us'eteers, sa" his t"inned skills as circus.master and
disa##roving college #rofessor #erfectly ent"ine. Bverything "onderful about
Richard Lester is here in this #icture7 still the definitive film version of the *umas
classic. )he knockabout buffonery is ingeniously choreogra#hed -as "hen the
/usketeers, in a "ell.rehearsed combination #erformance, rob an unsus#ecting
innkee#er of a lunchtime feast1 and the comedy is #erfectly (udged. ;#ike /illigan's
cuckolded idiot husband is a standout, but "ho else but Lester "ould cast the =thena.
beautiful Raquel Celch as /illigan's "ife . *'=rtagnan's love interest Constance .
and make her an adorably clumsy butterfingers4
Chat elevates the film above the ;aturday morning esca#ade is the (u%ta#osition of
broad comedy and immaculate #eriod detail. Lester researched the !D
th
century and
the oeuvre of =le%andre *umas religiously, and combining laughs and action
adventure "ith authentic #eriod dirt and grime < as "ell as the #am#ered e%cess of the
#re.Revolution 8rench royalty < "as something that had rarely been attem#ted before.
.ont Pthon 3 The Hol Grail, released the follo"ing year, borro"ed heavily from
Lester's /usketeers style
)here "as a sequel, The Four .us'eteers, that carried on the #eriod tomfoolery but
stirred in e%tra darkness and cruelty. Ey the clima%, the hero Euckingham has been
assassinated, =thos's former lover beheaded on his o"n orders, and the charmingly
ine#t Constance has been murdered. =ll true to *umas's source novel but it's still an
e%traordinarily brave "ay to conclude a (aunty adventure film7 and ho" very Richard
Lester too. Kff screen, there "as acrimony7 both films "ere shot as one long e#ic
and then later cut into t"o movies, but the actors "ere only #aid for the one film until
they took the #roducers to court. ;aid #roducers "ere =le%ander and Ilya ;alkind and
des#ite the litigation, "ere so keen on their little t"o.for.one scam that they tried in
again four years later "ith Superman and its sequel.
=longside the /usketeers films and a fla"ed if en(oyable crack at Jeorge
/ac*onald 8raser's Roal Flash, Lester's &5eroes of Nore' deconstruction saga
closed "ith his master#iece, Ro1in 3 .arian. 5ere, the comic carousing and all
round silliness is tem#ered not by cynicism but by #ure romance. &I'm not anti.
romantic,' Lester once stated. &Chat I am is des#erately anti.sentimental, anti.
nostalgic for the #ast.' )he central romance bet"een ;ean Connery's Robin and
=udrey 5e#burn's /arian is as #ure and glorious a love as has ever been seen in
cinema. Robin comes alive in her #resence7 #uffed u# "ith thoughts of deeds to "oo
and im#ress her, or sulking like a teenager "hen he has dis#leased her. 8urthermore,
the clima% < #oisoned and dying alongside /arian, Robin fires an arro" into the sky
and asks they both be buried "here it lands . add unbearably elegiac John Earry score
< is one of the !?D,'s most romantic cinematic moments. 5o"ever in his remoulding
of the Robin 5ood characters as ancient relics, living on #ast glories of dubious
authenticity, Lester is steadfast in his refusal to treat these legends "ith the earnest
reverence they "ould normally receive.
It is this central Lesterian tenet7 an icy, critical detachment "hich forbids craven
deference to any sub(ect, be they Cuban revolutionaries or even Eeatles, "hich has
landed him in the bad books of the ;u#erman fan base. Richard *onner bought the
myth "holesale and "ith admirable sincerity created a ne" =merican fable. It "as a
remarkable achievement. Superman -!?D21 "ith its note.#erfect blend of iconic
intergalactic mythology, innocent =mericana and urbane Ge" Nork sass, no" seems
to be an unre#eatable miracle. Eryan ;inger couldn't get the same cake to rise in
Superman Returns and Iack ;nyder buried himself under the "eight of trying to
#retend that *onner's film had never ha##ened "ith last year's .an o% Steel debacle.
Lester, "hose Superman II is a mish.mash of both his o"n "ork and *onner's, "as
sim#ly unable to treat this children's comic book character as anything other than
that: he didn't believe in ;u#erman. Net the 8rankenstein cut of *onner and Lester's
resulted in the most #urely en(oyable ;u#erman movie. Irreverent "hen it ti##ed
to"ards the #onderous7 mythic, "hen it started to become too absurd and genuinely,
heartbreakingly romantic < a #erfect mi%ture of e%citement and comedy. Net the
online fraternity of ;u#erman fans, "ith the blinkered intractability of an anti.tobacco
lobby grou#, have been burning Lester in effigy since Richard *onner's cut of
Superman II "as released in ,,: and Lester's finger#rints "ere "i#ed clean.
Chen Lester had >ry#ton's finest all to himself in Superman III, the irreverence "as
too much. 5ere, the "orld had got used to the fact that ;u#erman "as amongst them
and he "as held is about as much esteem as an environmental health ins#ector. =t
one #oint "hen he arrives, a #olice officer even groans, &Kh, it's you.' )here "ere
ins#ired moments amid the dullness and chea# laughs < the brilliant sla#stick titles
sequence for one . but as a "hole, the film is almost #erversely unen(oyable. Eut then
again, "ho cares4 = comic.book movie for kids4 Eig "hoo#.
=ctually, these days it seems that all an1od cares about is comic book movies.
;ince the billion dollar successes of The Dar' )night and Avengers Assem1le, /arvel
and *C ada#tations have become the only game in to"n and alongside them have
risen the s#lenetic denizens of the internet forum, incalculable in number. )o them,
sincerity is everything7 loyal adherence to the mythology of "hichever comic book
character they cherish. In street.terms, Lester didn't &res#ect' ;u#erman and so his
name has become as dirty as Daredevil director /ark ;teven Johnson.
Lester himself seems unconcerned. In a recent intervie", he admitted that he kne"
nothing about *onner's ne" version and didn't seem to care less. )he Comic.Con
cro"d may s#it on his name, but try telling that to /artin ;corsese, a long.time fan
and Lester cham#ion. ;teven ;oderbergh too "ould have #lenty to say to any
disgruntled ;u#erman fan. 5is !??? book, Getting A+a With It4 or The Further
Adventures o% The Luc'iest &astard 0ou 5ver Sa+ is essentially a mammoth
conversation bet"een himself and Richard Lester, "hose "ork he clearly adores.
Richard Lester retired in !??!, follo"ing the accidental death of his great friend Roy
>innear on the set of the "retched and accursed Return o% The .us'eteers -!?2?1. 5e
has become a familiar face since, in countless documentaries about )he Joons and
)he Eeatles and last year he received a E8I fello"shi#. I sus#ect that his name is so
often left off the gold roster of great directors because there "as no easily identifiable
focus to his satire. 5e didn't have the mouth.frothing anti.establishment rage of ;am
0eckin#ah or Robert =ltman -"hose use of background dialogue as a soundtrack "as
a"fully similar to Lester's1, nor the fiery ;ocialist manifesto of Lindsay =nderson or
>en Loach. Instead, Lester quietly and "ithout fanfare, takes an a#olitical back seat
and sees madness every"here, but not enough to smother his great ca#acity for
delight. =s Kmar ;harif's Ca#tain says in (uggernaut, &5ere's to the insanity of
governments, and the insanity of #eo#le "ho o##ose them.' Lester, as Richard
5arris res#onds, is one of &the #oor sim#le sods "ho have to #ick u# the #ieces.'
I love the man, and I love Richard *onner too, rather like a child of divorce torn
bet"een t"o #arents. 5o"ever, as much as I love Richard *onner, he never called
me at my house to tell me ho" much he liked the really terrible story I'd "ritten for
him. *idn't even send me a birthday card.