Spider-Man 2

By James C. Hess

One of the more disturbing and concerning conversations I have ever overheard took place recently while I waited in line to see the premiere of a much anticipated film.

As a rule I do not eavesdrop simply because it is rude and ill-mannered, but this conversation was just inches from me and basically insulted my values and beliefs, morals and ethics.

Allow me to place all of this in context: Less than ten miles from where I live there is a multi-plex. When this effort was first announced there was a great outcry from the Unwashed Masses, who feared the worst if this plan were executed: At least two local theaters would close in its wake.

Their concerns were not unfounded: The owners of the then-proposed multi-plex had to admit that in order for this new site to operate successfully certain sacrifices would have to be made: At least four local theaters, one of which was an 'art house', would be closed and sold off to willing buyers.

After much public discussion and debate both sides of this concern came to an agreement, put into writing: The multi-plex, which would have fourteen screens, would dedicate at least two screens to films and movies otherwise relegated to the art house or independent venue. A few years after the multi-plex opened the owners and operators of it have kept their word: Each and every week two of the fourteen screens have been given over to films and movies that is fare well off the beaten path.

That is, until recently: I was standing in line for the midnight showing of the much anticipated "Spider-Man 2", waiting with about six hundred other people to be let in to one of the three theaters scheduled to show this flick when a representative of theater management came out and said there would be a slight delay with regards to entry because 'a decision had to be made'.

Everyone in the "Spider-Man 2" line looked around and knew with what could have been spider-sense what that pending decision was: Because of the size of the crowd waiting it was likely the theater would have to displace another film or movie on the marquee to make room for another screen to show "Spider-Man 2".

Everyone in the "Spider-Man 2" line looked around and found the shortest line for another film and movie scheduled to show at midnight.

The shortest line, without hesitation, was the line for Michael Moore's latest production. (The title of which I refuse to let pass my lips because I respect Ray Bradbury too much, and have too much admiration for his work, which Moore unapologetically stole from.) There were exactly four people in that line. Four.

A few minutes later the representative for the theater management came out again and announced that in order to accommodate interested parties the scheduled showing of Moore's flick would be cancelled and those holding tickets for it could either have a refund, have a ticket exchange for "Spider-Man 2", or come back another time.

Based on the individual and collective response of the four Mooreons (What would you call them?) you would have thought the worst possible thing ever inflicted on humanity had just transpired: They swore, they cursed, they yelled, they came up with new obscenities and profanities, and hurled them at the theater management representative and anyone waiting to see "Spider-Man 2". Had it been possible the four of them would have launched a riot and burned the multi-plex. The fact they were so out-numbered may have been the prime reason for why they did not launch a riot and why they took refunds and slunk away into the night.

Or so it was assumed. Shortly after they left, still cursing and yelling at their fate, shortly after people holding tickets for "Spider-Man 2" were let into the lobby and appropriate theaters, a disruption took place, conveniently, in the theater I was in: Two of the four Mooreons had come back, had managed to buy tickets for the midnight screening of "Spider-Man 2", and had promptly got into a yelling match with two otherwise unsuspecting movie-goers whose only interest and desire at the time was to see the sequel to "Spider-Man". Not sure how to deal with these crazed individuals they vaulted over the backs of the seats they had chosen and made for the rear exit with the intent of getting aid and defense from theater management. The "Spider-Man" fans had barely reached the rear exit of the theater when they were met by a very large and imposing man dressed in a white dress shirt and dark slacks. They turned, pointed at the guilty parties in question, and waited as the great man, in long-legged strides, descended on the troublemakers.

Who, interestingly enough, were being detained by other "Spider-Man 2" fans, who had had enough of their antics.

To make a long story short the Mooreons were physically removed from the theater and delivered to the back seat of a police car, which had just arrived to make sure there was no trouble by way of the aforementioned Moore production.

Then the lights went down, the theater went dark, the film clattered through the gate on the projector, and a good time was had by all, with an interesting lesson a bonus, qualified by way of a line in the movie: There is a hero in each of us.

Which, I hold, is what a superhero movie should be at its basics, its foundation. What I believe, interestingly enough, is what "Spider-Man 2" believes. It believes this because it believes what the serious comic book reader--the graphic novel reader--believes. And inherent in this belief is a certain truth: Being a hero can be a burden one is not entirely willing or prepared to bear, especially under extreme circumstances.

It is a truth that frightens a great many. Which may go to explain why so many are so quick, nowadays, to hide in a work of fiction that pretends to be fact and truth, instead of confronting and meeting truth and fact as they really are. Of course, in order for one to confront and meet truth and fact as they are one must first have a code by which they live.

A code which includes values and beliefs, morals and ethics, standards and principles.

Which, long-way-around, brings me back to those remarks I overheard while standing in line waiting to see "Spider-Man 2", a movie which is the certain embodiment of the code by which all should live their respective lives:

"Conservatives love Censorship because it is political."

It is not my intention to make this review a political statement, but I find the timing of these remarks against the theatrical release and certain financial success of "Spider-Man 2" to be too much to be coincidential. Join to all of this the basis of what makes Spider-Man, and truths tend to be manifested: Almost everyone can relate to Spider-Man and his alter ego, Peter Parker. Everyone can relate to this dynamic duo because we tend to believe our lives, as compared to others, are boring and dull, much like at least two superheroes who moonlight as average Joes--Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne.

The truth, the reality, often is otherwise: We can rise to the moment, the crisis of the moment, should we be called to do so. All we need is reason. Which, when you get right down to it, is Spider-Man, and why the first film and this one will, prove successful.

To suggest "Spider-Man 2" is a good movie is an understatement, and undeniably insulting to those who committed time, energy, and resources to its making. "Spider-Man 2" quite possibly is the best superhero movie to be made since the theatrical version of "Superman" in 1978. The basic reason for this is because Spider-Man is presented not so much as godlike or beyond human but as human: All the special effects, all the superpowers, all the trappings of superherodom are secondary: Spider-Man is the central character, yes, but what makes Spider-Man Spider-Man is Peter Parker, who when last we saw him he was an insecure high school student, facing failure grade-wise in several subjects, uncertain about matters Love, unready to assume the mantel of responsibilities that came from being Spider-Man, and was not yet a man.

This time around Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is in college, at Columbia, where he is studying, but of course, physics, more in love than ever before with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), and is faced with an ever-growing mountain of human problems and concerns: He has just lost his job as a pizza deliveryman, Aunt May faces foreclosure on her mortgage, he is missing classes because of his duties as Spider-Man, when he washes his Spidey outfit at the laundromat the colors run together, he seems to be losing his touch to spin webs, and he actually tosses away his identity as the crimefighter, only to have it recovered by a homeless bum who attempts to strong-arm the editor of the "Daily Bugle", Jonah Jameson, for fifty dollars. When Jameson balks the bum threatens to sell it on Ebay.

Has our hero come to this? Have we all?

Oh, what a slippery slope one travels when they try to resolve the woes and worries of the world all at once instead of one at a time. But not to worry: Director Sam Raimi, who directed the first "Spider-Man" as well as this sequel, is sure-footed in knowing what needs to be done to keep the film moving and acceptable: With talent that is true and honest he makes a film with a story equal in humanity and effects, he moves parallel plots forward and keeps them from stagnating or tangling unnecessarily. But credit is not his alone. Credit and a nod of thanks must be made to novelist Michael Chabon, who worked on the screenplay, and screenwriter Alvin Sargent, who brought it to final written form.

I was once asked bluntly why it is I favor, of all traditional superheroes, Spider-Man. The explanation is rather simple and forthwith: Spider-Man, as a superhero, is realistic, as are the supervillains he faces off against. Reality. That's it, in a nutshell.

Now I know there are those who are quick to challenge this because, well, come on: When was the last time you actually saw someone with the ability to spin a web and ride it, high above the creations of Man? Okay. Set that element aside, even though it goes to make Spider-Man much of what he is. Look at what Spider-Man does: He does good, and even though he succeeds in his efforts to fight and battle down evildoers he remains conflicted and confused.

Isn't that the average Joe, simply? We strive to do good. We do good. But, still, we remain unfinished, conflicted within: Is what we did enough? Good enough? Or was there more we should have, could have done? Of course. That's an ideal, that we forever pursue.

And when we find a kindred spirit in another, even if he is given to donning a mask and red tights, we rally around him and cheer him on, hoping, believing his pursuits will help us in our pursuits to make a better world for all.

Were it so simple. Remember those supervillains I mentioned a moment ago? This time Spider-Man faces off against another such creation: Peter Parker, studying physics, admires the famous and good-natured Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), whose work includes an experiment that will either prove fusion can work as a cheap source of energy, or lay waste to Manhattan. To handle the material makes fusion Octavius creates four tentacles that are attached to him at the spine and have an Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) that provide for their intelligence. But the A.I. is destroyed and the good doctor becomes the mad scientist Doc Ock: Man and machine that can climb skyscrapers by driving these powerful tentacles through concrete and brick.

Now battling and overtaking Doc Ock would be one thing, but Peter Parker, the other side of Spider-Man, has decided he cannot allow himself to love Mary Jane as he would, because to do so would be to put her in harm's way from Spider-Man's enemies. Of course, Mary Jane does not see things this way because she does not actually know who Spider-Man is; she assumes that Peter is just being a jerk because he always stands her up. Finally, she announces her engagmement to another.

Peter talks with her and with Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) about matters of the heart, and also has to contend with his friend Harry Osborn (James Franco), who holds that Spider-Man killed his father, whose alter ego is the Green Goblin.

No one ever said being a hero, and having the courage of convictions, is easy.

A few words, thoughts, and opinions on the overall production: Director Raimi and his collaborators have created in "Spider-Man 2" a work that many should aspire to: The film does not cheat the various elements that go to make it the success it is, narratively, artistically, and certainly commercially. The reasons for this owe much to the many talents that were involved, but at the most basic the reason for why all of this works is because Raimi recognizes that real heroes are not made.

They are born.

It is because Raimi recognizes and knows, perhaps, that there are those who embrace Life and those who fear it. Those who fear it, I suspect, are those who are given to making certain remarks about others they do not know, and will never know.

Embrace Life, then. Embrace those who would embrace Life.

About the Author:

James C. Hess graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature, with an emphasis on Editorial Journalism and Film Studies.

Hess currently makes his home along the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies.

Article courtesy of http://www.suite101.com.