June 13, 2002
Spiderman Bites: A Disquisition
I'm disturbed by the defense of "Spiderman," in response to my last post, by otherwise intelligent people. A common theme, expressed kindly by most, goes something like: "hey, it's Spiderman for crying out loud; it's supposed to be mindless entertainment."
Unfortunately, it is neither. It's actually not so easy to create mindless entertainment. Something has to serve the function of engaging the viewer, and fostering in him a willingness to forego logic, or explanation, or belief in physical limits. Usually, this something is either the characters (and their interaction), the plot, or the special effects. Since some of you have raised the fair point that "Spiderman" doesn't aspire to be, say, "The Godfather," let's compare it to some other comic-inspired movies.
Characters: "Superman" and "Batman" were both driven by interesting supporting characters. The most memorable are Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, and Jack Nicholson as the Joker, but there were many others -- "Superman" relied on Lex Luthor's bumbling assistant and pampered girlfriend for comic relief, "Batman" featured the seedy, double-crossing police detective, and the wisecracking photographer. "Spiderman's" only interesting character was the newspaper publisher, who inexplicably disappeared too quickly from the film. The others were either constrained by an apparent lack of talent (Tobey Maguire), poor writing (Willem Dafoe), or both (Kirsten Dunst, James Franco).
In fact, to fall back on the excuse that "it's only a comic book" is to insult comic book writers. The villains in the Spiderman comic series were more entertaining than Willem Dafoe's character, while Peter Parker was always more complex than what we get in the movie adaptation. In Tobey Maguire's hands he becomes a librarian on sedatives.
Plot: A good story is like a good dancer; it moves with a purpose. "Spiderman" moved like I dance -- the tasteful viewer is horrified, but strangely unable to look away. Once it begins you hope that it's farce, and once you realize it's not, you just pray that it's over soon. It tried, like all superhero stories, to build a hero-villain conflict, but failed, if not from bad acting, then simply due to the fact that the conflict between Spiderman and the Goblin is incidental: Peter Parker just happens to be at yet another crime scene, and even though he fails to stop the Goblin from achieving his objective, he somehow becomes the latter's mortal enemy. They have one short subsequent conversation, and the remainder is the usual trash talk common to most movie fight scenes these days.
"Superman" and "Batman" do a far better job of building the intensity of hatred between hero and villain. Lex Luthor and Superman have extended conversations to foster the existence of a conflict in the mind of the viewer, while Batman first causes the Joker's crippling injuries, then realizes that the Joker is the murderer of his parents. And because the villains in both movies have interesting personalities, their conflict with the one-dimensional main characters is made all the more engaging.
Special Effects: Different movies use special effects with different ends in mind. Some make a full frontal assault, pulling out every visual and auditory stop in an effort to convince you that something cool just happened, even though you don't quite know what the hell it was, or what it has to do with the story. The most recent "Star Wars" debacle is a prime example. Other movies focus on realism, usually to make you feel as if you are in the middle of the action. Commendable examples include "Saving Private Ryan," the HBO "Band of Brothers" series, and "The Patriot." Still other movies use special effects as an ace in the hole, to push you deep into a frightening or exotic place to which they've brought you largely with dialogue and plot. Two good examples are "The Sixth Sense" and "Stir of Echoes." Finally, there are movies like "The Lord of the Rings," "Willow," "The Matrix," "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", "The Wizard of Oz", and "Legend," which use special effects to create a magical world for their characters, and therefore for the viewer.
"Spiderman" attempts to fit into the first category, and in doing so it subjects itself to a merciless technological arms race. Once you've seen the last two "Star Wars" movies, or even the mediocre "X-Men," "Spiderman" is nothing special. Granted, the effects are necessary to tell the story, but they are at a level where they can only serve as enhancement for a character-driven plot, much as the effects in "Superman" and "Batman" served to do. In the absence of that, they are paint for walls that simply don't exist.
These criticisms aside, "Spiderman" is just plain sloppy. "Superman" could get away with Clark Kent's stilted dialogue because he was surrounded by characters with interesting lines, and because it fostered his nerd/All-American hero image. The "Spiderman" script reads as if it were a collaborative high school drama project; nobody talks like a real human, except the newspaper publisher. Like "Attack of the Clones," it throws out all pretense of tailoring action scenes to the constraints of physics, with the result that many of these scenes end up being distracting and cartoonish. It whipsaws its characters about so that their actions are unpredictable, thereby ruining any character development it manages to scrape together in preceding scenes. In short, rather than serving as mindless entertainment, its gaping flaws distract the viewer from just sitting back and enjoying the flick.
That, in a nutshell, is why I conclude that "Spiderman" fails miserably even within the tight confines of the comic-book movie genre. None of this is to say, of course, that you should feel guilty if you enjoyed it. I'll not be one to hold my friends' handicaps against them.
Posted by Woodlief on June 13, 2002 at 02:19 PM
You're quite right that it does the genre as a whole to write off the flaws in any superhero film with a slapdash, "Hey, it's only a comic book movie." To the extent that my repsonse implied such, I hereby retract it.
But I still think you're being too hard on the film. I agree that the father-figure dynamic between Goblin and Spider was underdeveloped. It always bugs me when a film presents an important theme or subplot purely through exposition, not by showing it to me, and expects me to take it as offered. I forgave that failing because there's just so much they can do in 2 hours and 20 minutes.
This film leaves a lot unsaid, and a lot more hanging, because it's the start of a franchise. Obviously, it's an unsatisfying beginning for you, but I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt on a few things. In one sense, the fact that they've committed to telling this story in installments, rather than cramming everything into one grab-the-money-and-run exploitation is encouraging.
Other things are matters of taste. I thought the Goblin was great and that DaFoe did a fantastic job where a lesser actor would have produced unbearable and ill-fitting camp. You didn't buy it. No-one's right or wrong on that. Other casting decisions, and how they played out, are equally subjective.
So, I liked Spiderman - enough to see it twice the first week and, most likely, more times in the future - and am entirely willing to defend it. You didn't and you've said so both cogently and amusingly. I don't have to agree with your opinion to enjoy your expression of it.
Posted by: The Dodd at June 13, 2002 4:31 PM
I'm afraid you're wrong. You MUST agree with me. Everyone must agree with me.
It's all that Spiderman's fault. I'll fix him, and his pretty little girlfriend too.
Muhahahaha!!!
Posted by: Tony at June 13, 2002 4:43 PM
hi tony...just interloping.
i must must must chime in on spiderman, however. awful. absolutely and horrifically. now, if you were to cut all the slow zooming mushy close-ups of dunst and maguire, i think i could deal with it. you'd be left with a half hour of that freaky goblin and swinging special effects--and that'd be okay, maybe even enjoyable.
my 4-year old (he's not seen the film, but the spiderman meme has taken over his brain nonetheless) watched the original cartoon (which bears a striking resemblance to the film) and 10 minutes into it asked to watch star wars instead...
Posted by: paul at June 13, 2002 4:51 PM
What I really liked about Spiderman, a lot, is that they made him so human. He didn't just get his superpowers and know just what to do. He isn't a moral paragon. He screws up. The only part I really hated was the lame what he rejected his potential gf.
The acting could have been better. The special effects could have been more realistic. But I didn't care. The emotional ties could have been stonger. But I didn't care about any of that.
I also thought they did a great job of building up the bitterness and potential hatred between Spiderman and Parker's best friend.
I hated Superman. Every minute of it. I liked Batman quite a bit, but I thought the Bruce Wayne character was beyond flat. Like he was just there so they could put someone in that really cool Batman suit.
No, wait, I mean, yes Tony. I bow to you. You are right. Spiderman sucked.
Now can I keep my daughter?
Posted by: Alley Writer at June 13, 2002 4:56 PM
Tony,
Very nice. _That_ convinces me that you've got a real opinion. Particularly enjoyed the breakdown on the uses of effects.
Posted by: hd at June 13, 2002 6:47 PM
"That, in a nutshell..." Boy they must have some pretty big nuts where you come from. (badum ching)
You forgot to mention Harry Potter in the Special Effects paragraph. Otherwise a throughly well rounded argument. Except of course for the fact that Spiderman did not suck this much. I don't know who was applauding it so loudly to you that you reacted this strongly to it. But you should definitely never talk to them about movies again. They ruined this movie for you.
Posted by: Cis at June 13, 2002 11:14 PM
Well written Tony, very well written.
Posted by: annessa at June 14, 2002 12:14 AM
Dear Tony: Well-written argument. It didn't convince me that Spiderman didn't deserve a 3-star rating out of 4, which is what I gave it, but you're certainly correct that the movie is not destined for designation as among the classics.
Among the things I liked about the movie was the fairly faithful recreation of familiar renditions from the comic book, such as the first time we see Spider-man hanging upside down, legs folded and outward at about a 45 degree angle, in the background.
BTW, I also like the fact that you run the full text of your post at the top of the comment section. That's a real convenience to your readers, and I haven't seen that format choice used by many others who provide comment options.
BR, Fritz Schranck
sneakingsuspicions.com
/f
Posted by: fritz schranck at June 14, 2002 6:44 AM
From what I've seen in the previews, the special effects in Mr. Deeds are going to be awesome. In one scene, he is drinking Hawaiian Punch from a water fountain! Incredible! And hilarious!
Posted by: hbchrist at June 14, 2002 9:18 AM
Hey, I've decided to start a parablog right here. What's a parablog? It's a parasitical blog living within someone else's blog. So, anyway, do you ever think about Grape Nuts? I mean, no grapes, no nuts, what's the deal? And how come they call it taking someone out? When I go out with my girlfriend, we're IN - in a restaurant, in a movie theater, whatever. IN, not out. I'd say I was taking her in, but then she sounds like she's a pair of pants! Thank you, goodnight!
Posted by: Fred Garvin at June 14, 2002 9:27 AM
You mean you didn't like Spderman?
Posted by: Joshua at June 17, 2002 3:16 PM
Blasphemy!
Spiderman had all the makings of a classic movie (with the exception of nudity). It had more depth than one might think of. Here is this picked on boy, our hero, a rather mediocre kid with dreams, but is obviously not brave enough to do what he wants in life. Then comes power. With this he is transformed into someone with confidence. He then quickly learns a univeral moral -- the golden rule of sorts -- when his granfather is killed because of something he could have prevented.
Then fighting his best friend's dad and keeping a promise not to tell his friend what really happened. [foolish but honorable]
Not to mention 3+ Evil Dead/Army of Darkness references! (And Bruce Campbell as the ring announcer)
Spiderman is the story of the American Dream, universal morality, responsibility, growing up, having goals, gaining confidence, falling in love, and kicking ass.
This movie was fun, at face value it might just be another adventure film -- but deep down it says to have confidence, follow your dreams and come back for two more sequels.
Derek
Posted by: Derek del Barrio at June 26, 2002 12:08 PM
Post a comment
