First, I should note that the film was better on second viewing than on first viewing. I think that's because I actually went in the second time with less baggage: the first time I saw it, my head was filled with reviewer comments, so I spent a lot more time judging the film against the reviewer opinions than enjoying it. Yesterday I just sat back and enjoyed it. That helped me to realize that Jim is absolutely right in his observation that the movie deserves better than just to be called a great superhero movie; this is a good movie, period. Is it necessarily one of the best five movies of the year? It's too early to say, but I think that any film of this quality that didn't involve a guy bitten by a radioactive spider would be mentioned at the end of the year as an Oscar contender.

Matt Yglesias complains that the second film destroys its own premise by ending with Mary Jane Watson arriving at Peter Parker's doorstep. After all, isn't sacrifice the theme of "Spider-Man?" If Parker can have it all, his life as Spider-Man and the woman he loves, where's the sacrifice? This hypothesis is right in line with Parker's thinking, but it touches on the line that annoyed me most in the film. As Peter and MJ are sitting in a web of spider silk towards the end, MJ having learned that Peter is Spider-Man, he tells her that his enemies will always be out that, and that he cannot allow her to take the risk of placing herself in harm's way by being someone he cares so deeply about. I heard that and immediately wondered, why does he have the right to make that decision for her? In the first film, he had an argument, because she didn't know that he was Spider-Man and therefore couldn't assess the real risks of being involved with him. With her discovery of his secret identity, however, MJ knows precisely what she's getting into (particularly since the only two times we've seen Spidey's enemies use someone he loves against him, it's MJ). For Peter to arbitrarily decide that MJ can't be allowed to make that decision is to make her a child. And if I may be permitted a little amateur psychoanalysis, I suspect that's why Matt comes at the situation as he does; he's a liberal who believes that government can do things for people better than they can do for themselves. For him, it makes sense that Peter make the decisions and MJ just has to live with them. But for me, the best part of MJ's arrival at Peter's doorstep on her wedding day was that she made her own decision, with her eyes open. And as for the notion that it's a happy ending, I think anyone who sees the expression on MJ's face as Spidey swings into the sunset can see that their love isn't going to be easy. (Which is another theme of the film; note that when Otto and Rosie are discussing love, one of the first things Rosie points out is that love is hard. This is from a couple that clearly loves each other dearly, which makes the observation all the more relevant: love is great, but it doesn't go far without hard work on either side of the equation.) (See also here and here for further discussion of Matt's points.)

On to the question of supervillains and movies. As anyone who has read comic books knows, heroes and villains die very rarely in the comics. Spidey may defeat the Green Goblin and Doc Ock, but you can bet they'll be back again sooner or later to bedevil him again. Batman has been fighting the Joker for over half a century, and there's little sign of him letting up in the near future. And how many times has Superman faced off with Lex Luthor? In the movies, on the other hand, villains die at the end of damn near every movie. Batman has seen the Joker and the Penguin shuffle off this mortal coil (maybe more, too...I haven't seen any of the other films), and Spider-Man is two-for-two in his movies: the Goblin dies at the end of the first film, and we last see Doc Ock drowning in the East River in the second. While I can understand the desire of the filmmakers to close out the movie with some finality, part of what makes the superhero-supervillain dynamic so interesting in the comics is that they generally have a history. When Spider-Man fights the Green Goblin or Doctor Octopus in the comics, they share a relationship (granted, a highly adversarial one) that adds depth to the story. By killing off the villains as they appear, the films eliminate that possibility. If they're really planning on running the franchise out through some nine movies, they've got the opportunity to build some real depth into the storyline (which they are promising with Dr. Connors and John Jameson, of course), and I think they lose a little something if Spidey's old foes all end up dead. Besides, it takes away from Peter's argument against keeping MJ away from him: all his enemies end up dead, so what real threat does she face?

Posted at July 6, 2004 08:56 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://andrewolmsted.com/cgi-bin/MoveableType/mt-tb.cgi/762

Comments

Posted by: Gary Farber at July 6, 2004 06:36 PM

Posted by: Andrew at July 6, 2004 07:11 PM

Posted by: mom at July 7, 2004 06:08 AM

Posted by: Moe Lane at July 8, 2004 08:00 AM

Posted by: Shem at July 9, 2004 04:32 PM

Posted by: Gary Farber at July 12, 2004 02:51 PM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)