Catches thieves just like flies...
Jul. 3rd, 2004 02:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
khaosworksCame back from watching "Spider-Man 2" with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
logam...
Excellent movie - much better than the first, but then, hey, when you get Alvin "Ordinary People" Sargent on scriptwriting chores, you get quality.
Like many people have pointed out already, this movie is really about Peter, not Spidey. Comic book writers have always drawn this dichotomy between alter egos who appear like polar opposites - Clark Kent and Superman, Bruce Wayne and Batman, Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Superman, in particular, I want to draw your attention to because the dynamic of his dichotomy changed very dramatically 18 years ago when John Byrne rebooted the character. Let me ramble for a bit and maybe rant some, and I'll get back to Spider-Man.
Prior to 1986, Clark Kent was the mask to Superman the real person, much like Bruce Wayne was the mask to his true persona, the Batman. The Superman stories, therefore, were about super-heroics at its core, mighty feats, moral stands, and the things that Superman does. Clark served as a counterpoint, the complication - how to hide the fact that he is Superman, and giving him a contrast from which he could face conflicts about the person he is and the person he could be.
Byrne decided in 1986 that this was the wrong way around - Clark Kent was the real person, the one that was brought up by his foster parents, and Superman was the mask. Byrne I'm sure had the best of intentions, trying, as he saw it, to make Superman more interesting, and more human. However, the stories were still about Superman, but now, since Clark was Superman there was no longer any reason to contrast the two. By placing Clark Kent in the exact same foreground space as Superman, the line between the two blurred to the point that there was no real conflict possible between the two personae, and therefore no real story possibilities. "Who Took The Super Out Of Superman", for example, could never really be written in the post-Byrne era, although they did kind of try with Superman losing his powers after "The Final Night" crossover saga. Another consequence was there is now no longer any reason for us to feel empathy for Superman. Clark Kent was a hapless figure, and we could relate to him - however, since Clark no longer can be distinguished emotionally from the powerhouse Superman who is the focus of the stories, we loose that connection. To my mind, this is one of many flaws in the characterization of Superman today, but this is only a side rant, so I won't go much further. Some of you have heard bits of it before anyway. If you ask, I'll go into detail another time.
The only person who has managed to do Clark Kent as Superman well is probably Jeph Loeb, whose definitive (as far as I'm concerned) treatment of the heart of the post-Crisis Superman is in the must-own graphic novel, "A Superman For All Seasons". In that book, Loeb shows us Clark in the context of Smallville - Superman is elevated to some lofty, unknowable plane, and it is Clark who takes center stage. Since we are exposed directly to the human Clark, in human surroundings, an empathy is possible here that the stories, talking about Superman, cannot provide. Now, Jeph Loeb is one of the writers on the television show "Smallville", which show a teenage Clark under the emotional pressure of having these powers and keeping them a secret. So is Alfred Gough, who shares story credit on "Spider-Man 2".
On to Spider-Man. From the get go, Stan Lee envisioned the Spider-Man story as being the story of Peter Parker, and Peter Parker was a born loser, and that does not change even though he becomes Spider-Man. This was a stroke of brilliance, because this approach merges the two personae but still preserves empathy. Especially in the Stan Lee years, every victory Spidey achieves is bittersweet, or has a sting in the tail. Being endowed with super-powers solves very little for Peter, and it is Peter we develop the connection to, and Spider-Man because he is Peter, not the other way around. I am convinced that because Gough works with Loeb, he is able to parse Peter in the same way he and Loeb characterize Clark in "Smallville".
logam is convinced that the elegant touches that are peppered throughout the movie are Sargent's work. I of course could be completely off-base here, but where I believe that Sargent pulled the story together and provided the emotional beats and the dialogue, the thematic beats are from Gough. I don't think it's a coincidence that Peter struggles with the responsibility of his powers in a similar way that Clark does on "Smallville". Raimi's directing is great here, not just in giving Tobey Maguire the opportunity to emote the emotional conflict between his two identities, but also in showing us time and time again that Peter is a born loser - being knocked down, having hors d'oeuvres snatched away, finally getting a drink only to find the glass empty and so on, making us sympathize with him even more. With all this, even the last shot of MJ's worried face seems vaguely ominous, as if telegraphing a future breakup.
Why "Spider-Man 2" works as a super-hero movie is, ironically enough, because it's not a super-hero movie. It's a movie about a young man trying to do the right thing... the action is almost superfluous. Even Doctor Octopus isn't the real villain. It is the arms that turn him vicious, being personifications of his own obsessions. The destruction of the inhibitor chip is symbolic of the removal of his own inhibitions, the moral strength that guides his intellect towards what he tells Peter in the beginning is the greater good of mankind. Remove the super-heroics and you still have an emotional core, as well as varying aspects of character development. MJ, choosing between the safety of John Jameson and the risk of Peter; Harry, whose obsession with Spider-Man and inability to reconcile this with his love for Peter drives him into insanity; Octavius, who reasserts control over his id, triumphantly declaring that he will not die a monster as he destroys his own creation. The comic book connection is that, being a comic book universe, the wrong moral choice results in very violent consequences. Contrast this with "Batman", which was emotionally empty despite Michael Keaton's best efforts, or "Daredevil", which was all one-note obsession, with no change in Matt Murdock's character at all by the end of the movie.
But at the same time, the filmmakers know that this is a comic book movie, with comic book dialogue. And they wisely put most of the dialogue where it works best - from the mouths of children, who can be forgiven simplistic views of the universe; from an experienced actor like Rosemary Harris, whom we find convincing in the same way we find our mothers convincing when they talk to us like a child; from J. Jonah Jameson, who is so completely two-dimensional we expect it from him; from Harry and Octavius, who are obsessives. The rest of the dialogue, Raimi keeps naturalistic. However, at times, he gets a little too playful: the rather surreal "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" sequence, for example, with the little freeze-frame at the end. Where the hell did that come from? The other little lull was the elevator scene, but that was funny, so it also worked.
I could mention the fanboy things - everyone knows now about the shot of "Spider-Man No More!" from Amazing Spider-Man #50, but I also noted other touches:
1) John Jameson, JJ's son from the comic, who was the first person Spidey saved, who later became briefly super-powered, then the Man-Wolf, and eventually wound up working as support staff for the Avengers. He never dated MJ, though.
2) Betty Brant's friendliness toward Peter - she was Peter's first girlfriend way back when.
3) Turning in the costume to JJ - that also happened in Amazing Spider-Man #51, and Peter also eventually stole it back from JJ, though not quite in the same way.
4) Robbie Robertson looking at Peter strangely... during the Stan Lee years Peter wondered off and on about whether Robbie knew that he was Spider-Man.
5) Mr Ditkovitch, the landlord. I don't think I need to say anything else. The thing with his daughter was a bit out of place, though. I was waiting for a payoff but it never came.
6) Dr Curt Connors - we see him now after he was mentioned in the first movie - complete with missing arm! But he teaches physics here, not biochemistry... does that mean we don't get the Lizard someday? Aw.
7) Aunt May and Doctor Octopus - but not quite the same relationship they had in the comics, those two crazy kids.
8) "Doctor Strange. Good name. Taken." Bwah.
Also, a tip of the hat with whoever came up with the idea of the four arms being actually intelligent instead of being mentally controlled by Octavius. Nice touch, that. I'm one of those people who no longer understands why comic book fans criticize a movie for not adhering to every bit of minutiae from the book - particularly if it's not vital to the plot. Comic books and movies are very different animals... a straight adaptation, or one that adheres too closely, is doomed to failure - look at "The Punisher", or "Daredevil". The best comic book movies are those that conform to the spirit of the characters, take what works, change or discard what doesn't, and keep the geeky bits in the background. Mark my words, if Colossus speaks in anything but a Russian accent in the next X-Men movie, I know people who will scream bloody murder. Me? Enhh. I really don't care all that much, for example, that Conners teaches physics now. I just mention it because it has implications for the future.
One plot flaw, though, aslogam pointed out - how did Harry know where Octavius was? It wasn't as if he had any reason to tell Harry. Also, as a minor point, how did Octavius pay for the equipment he got? Do shipping houses accept gold coins as payment? If not, you think he could pay with credit cards with the way he looks and as a wanted man? And do these suppliers ship to an abandoned boat in the harbor? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
Bring on the next movie, and the Harry Osborn Green Goblin. I give it an A, missing an A+ by a smidgen. Outstanding work, all around.
logam...Excellent movie - much better than the first, but then, hey, when you get Alvin "Ordinary People" Sargent on scriptwriting chores, you get quality.
Like many people have pointed out already, this movie is really about Peter, not Spidey. Comic book writers have always drawn this dichotomy between alter egos who appear like polar opposites - Clark Kent and Superman, Bruce Wayne and Batman, Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Superman, in particular, I want to draw your attention to because the dynamic of his dichotomy changed very dramatically 18 years ago when John Byrne rebooted the character. Let me ramble for a bit and maybe rant some, and I'll get back to Spider-Man.
Prior to 1986, Clark Kent was the mask to Superman the real person, much like Bruce Wayne was the mask to his true persona, the Batman. The Superman stories, therefore, were about super-heroics at its core, mighty feats, moral stands, and the things that Superman does. Clark served as a counterpoint, the complication - how to hide the fact that he is Superman, and giving him a contrast from which he could face conflicts about the person he is and the person he could be.
Byrne decided in 1986 that this was the wrong way around - Clark Kent was the real person, the one that was brought up by his foster parents, and Superman was the mask. Byrne I'm sure had the best of intentions, trying, as he saw it, to make Superman more interesting, and more human. However, the stories were still about Superman, but now, since Clark was Superman there was no longer any reason to contrast the two. By placing Clark Kent in the exact same foreground space as Superman, the line between the two blurred to the point that there was no real conflict possible between the two personae, and therefore no real story possibilities. "Who Took The Super Out Of Superman", for example, could never really be written in the post-Byrne era, although they did kind of try with Superman losing his powers after "The Final Night" crossover saga. Another consequence was there is now no longer any reason for us to feel empathy for Superman. Clark Kent was a hapless figure, and we could relate to him - however, since Clark no longer can be distinguished emotionally from the powerhouse Superman who is the focus of the stories, we loose that connection. To my mind, this is one of many flaws in the characterization of Superman today, but this is only a side rant, so I won't go much further. Some of you have heard bits of it before anyway. If you ask, I'll go into detail another time.
The only person who has managed to do Clark Kent as Superman well is probably Jeph Loeb, whose definitive (as far as I'm concerned) treatment of the heart of the post-Crisis Superman is in the must-own graphic novel, "A Superman For All Seasons". In that book, Loeb shows us Clark in the context of Smallville - Superman is elevated to some lofty, unknowable plane, and it is Clark who takes center stage. Since we are exposed directly to the human Clark, in human surroundings, an empathy is possible here that the stories, talking about Superman, cannot provide. Now, Jeph Loeb is one of the writers on the television show "Smallville", which show a teenage Clark under the emotional pressure of having these powers and keeping them a secret. So is Alfred Gough, who shares story credit on "Spider-Man 2".
On to Spider-Man. From the get go, Stan Lee envisioned the Spider-Man story as being the story of Peter Parker, and Peter Parker was a born loser, and that does not change even though he becomes Spider-Man. This was a stroke of brilliance, because this approach merges the two personae but still preserves empathy. Especially in the Stan Lee years, every victory Spidey achieves is bittersweet, or has a sting in the tail. Being endowed with super-powers solves very little for Peter, and it is Peter we develop the connection to, and Spider-Man because he is Peter, not the other way around. I am convinced that because Gough works with Loeb, he is able to parse Peter in the same way he and Loeb characterize Clark in "Smallville".
logam is convinced that the elegant touches that are peppered throughout the movie are Sargent's work. I of course could be completely off-base here, but where I believe that Sargent pulled the story together and provided the emotional beats and the dialogue, the thematic beats are from Gough. I don't think it's a coincidence that Peter struggles with the responsibility of his powers in a similar way that Clark does on "Smallville". Raimi's directing is great here, not just in giving Tobey Maguire the opportunity to emote the emotional conflict between his two identities, but also in showing us time and time again that Peter is a born loser - being knocked down, having hors d'oeuvres snatched away, finally getting a drink only to find the glass empty and so on, making us sympathize with him even more. With all this, even the last shot of MJ's worried face seems vaguely ominous, as if telegraphing a future breakup. Why "Spider-Man 2" works as a super-hero movie is, ironically enough, because it's not a super-hero movie. It's a movie about a young man trying to do the right thing... the action is almost superfluous. Even Doctor Octopus isn't the real villain. It is the arms that turn him vicious, being personifications of his own obsessions. The destruction of the inhibitor chip is symbolic of the removal of his own inhibitions, the moral strength that guides his intellect towards what he tells Peter in the beginning is the greater good of mankind. Remove the super-heroics and you still have an emotional core, as well as varying aspects of character development. MJ, choosing between the safety of John Jameson and the risk of Peter; Harry, whose obsession with Spider-Man and inability to reconcile this with his love for Peter drives him into insanity; Octavius, who reasserts control over his id, triumphantly declaring that he will not die a monster as he destroys his own creation. The comic book connection is that, being a comic book universe, the wrong moral choice results in very violent consequences. Contrast this with "Batman", which was emotionally empty despite Michael Keaton's best efforts, or "Daredevil", which was all one-note obsession, with no change in Matt Murdock's character at all by the end of the movie.
But at the same time, the filmmakers know that this is a comic book movie, with comic book dialogue. And they wisely put most of the dialogue where it works best - from the mouths of children, who can be forgiven simplistic views of the universe; from an experienced actor like Rosemary Harris, whom we find convincing in the same way we find our mothers convincing when they talk to us like a child; from J. Jonah Jameson, who is so completely two-dimensional we expect it from him; from Harry and Octavius, who are obsessives. The rest of the dialogue, Raimi keeps naturalistic. However, at times, he gets a little too playful: the rather surreal "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" sequence, for example, with the little freeze-frame at the end. Where the hell did that come from? The other little lull was the elevator scene, but that was funny, so it also worked.
I could mention the fanboy things - everyone knows now about the shot of "Spider-Man No More!" from Amazing Spider-Man #50, but I also noted other touches:
1) John Jameson, JJ's son from the comic, who was the first person Spidey saved, who later became briefly super-powered, then the Man-Wolf, and eventually wound up working as support staff for the Avengers. He never dated MJ, though.
2) Betty Brant's friendliness toward Peter - she was Peter's first girlfriend way back when.
3) Turning in the costume to JJ - that also happened in Amazing Spider-Man #51, and Peter also eventually stole it back from JJ, though not quite in the same way.
4) Robbie Robertson looking at Peter strangely... during the Stan Lee years Peter wondered off and on about whether Robbie knew that he was Spider-Man.
5) Mr Ditkovitch, the landlord. I don't think I need to say anything else. The thing with his daughter was a bit out of place, though. I was waiting for a payoff but it never came.
6) Dr Curt Connors - we see him now after he was mentioned in the first movie - complete with missing arm! But he teaches physics here, not biochemistry... does that mean we don't get the Lizard someday? Aw.
7) Aunt May and Doctor Octopus - but not quite the same relationship they had in the comics, those two crazy kids.
8) "Doctor Strange. Good name. Taken." Bwah.
Also, a tip of the hat with whoever came up with the idea of the four arms being actually intelligent instead of being mentally controlled by Octavius. Nice touch, that. I'm one of those people who no longer understands why comic book fans criticize a movie for not adhering to every bit of minutiae from the book - particularly if it's not vital to the plot. Comic books and movies are very different animals... a straight adaptation, or one that adheres too closely, is doomed to failure - look at "The Punisher", or "Daredevil". The best comic book movies are those that conform to the spirit of the characters, take what works, change or discard what doesn't, and keep the geeky bits in the background. Mark my words, if Colossus speaks in anything but a Russian accent in the next X-Men movie, I know people who will scream bloody murder. Me? Enhh. I really don't care all that much, for example, that Conners teaches physics now. I just mention it because it has implications for the future.
One plot flaw, though, as
logam pointed out - how did Harry know where Octavius was? It wasn't as if he had any reason to tell Harry. Also, as a minor point, how did Octavius pay for the equipment he got? Do shipping houses accept gold coins as payment? If not, you think he could pay with credit cards with the way he looks and as a wanted man? And do these suppliers ship to an abandoned boat in the harbor? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...Bring on the next movie, and the Harry Osborn Green Goblin. I give it an A, missing an A+ by a smidgen. Outstanding work, all around.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-02 12:14 pm (UTC)I don't see why not. Another prof at the university is doing the research Dr. Conners did in the books. Conners (a) is offered a chance to test or (b) steals the formula; enter the Lizard.
As you say, it's the spirit of the book, not the literal translation, and it would work fine.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-02 01:28 pm (UTC)Good review, and love 'the critic' usericon.
Harry Osborne
Date: 2004-07-02 05:02 pm (UTC)Harry is the kid born with everything, but empty inside; Peter is the kid with nothing, but with a great big heart inside. Perhaps MJ's final decision to pick Peter renders Harry superflous, but it would still be a pity to see him go...
My bet is on a two-villain Spiderman 3, with Harry ultimately redeeming himself, sacrificing himself to save Peter and MJ from the other villain...
no subject
Date: 2004-07-02 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-02 11:24 pm (UTC)