Spider-Man 3: the Perennial Appeal of the Flawed Hero
Since I first read Parzival as a senior at Williams, it has become one of my favorite books. This Middle High German epic tells of how an innocent and naif boy, raised far from the courts and castles of his medieval peers, comes to become the greatest knight of his age — as he fulfills his destiny by becoming Grail King.
On the way to that destiny, Parzival makes many mistakes, wronging several ladies and embarrassing himself before Arthur’s court. Not only that. He fails to accomplish his destined mission when he first comes to the Grail Castle. And has to undergo a series of trials, endure much suffering and learn humility and compassion before he gets a chance to right his wrongs.
So much did I like this story that it inspired my ideas of the life Beowulf-poet for use in my screen adaptation of that classic English tale of the greatest monster-slayer in our language.
And while Sam Raimi may not have had Parzival in mind when he wrote the script for Spider-Man 3 (which he also directed), he did develop a character not too different from his medieval German forebear — the flawed hero. Perhaps he was just being true to the comic book hero created by Stan Lee whose characters resonated with numerous kids (including yours truly who was a huge Spider-Man fan as a kid) because he gave them qualities similar to those of heroes of myth and legend.
That’s why, I believe, Sam Raimi’s Spider-man films have struck a chord with the American people — indeed moviegoers across the globe. He has been true to the comic book legends which themselves develop in their heroes qualities which recur in stories throughout human history — in a variety of diverse cultures.
In this latest film, Raimi shows how Spider-man is (to use borrow the expression I used in my review of Spider-Man 2) a “very human superhero.” This time, instead of developing Peter Parker’s longing for a normal life (as he did in the second Spider-Man flick), he focuses on the eponymous hero’s dark side, his weakness in giving in to his anger and desire for vengeance. In Topher Grace’s Venom/Eddie Brock, Raimi even gives us a shadow character who embodies those unpleasant qualities Peter Parker has difficulty repressing.
The strength of this movie is not only in its script, but also the casting (not to mention the special effects). As in the original Star Wars movies, we believe the relationships between the three principal characters — Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man/Peter Parker, Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane Watson and James Franco’s Harry Osborn. (We even believe the secondary relationships, notably that between Peter Parker and his Aunt May, Rosemary Harris.)
While I found the film thoroughly engaging, I was slightly disappointed by the end. That said, it was the quality of the characters, both as Raimi (and his brother Ivan) wrote them and as the actors played them which made the movie — even more than the special effects. We can see (and understand) the tensions in the relationship between Maguire’s Parker and Dunst’s Mary Jane as he struggles with his dark side and she falls on hard times. And we believe the maternal compassion Harris’s Aunt May shows for her tormented nephew, reminding him that the “hardest person to forgive is yourself.” In many ways, she reminds us of Peggy Wood’s Mother Abbess in The Sound of Music, the wise older woman eager to impart the wisdom of the heart to a younger generation.
And Mary Jane also shows compassion for her boyfriend’s weakness when she tells him that everyone need help sometimes, even Spider-Man. She is flawed as well, not behaving entirely responsibly when her career goes south.
One reason Raimi’s Spider-Man movies have done so well at the box office is that they have stayed true to the themes of the comic books which themselves remained true to an even older tradition, one which has resonated with human beings for as long as we have been telling stories, that of the flawed (or wounded) hero. With this movie as with the others in this franchise, Hollywood once again gets it right.
Let’s hope other filmmakers learn the lesson that Raimi has and rely on themes and develop characters which have recurred in myth, legends and folklore for generations uncounted. They just need find the appropriate modern dress to tell their tales. So they can reach contemporary audiences which stories which both entertain — and enlighten.
- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
21 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Actually, I thought the ending was the best part of the film — in terms of its writing, how it refused to be formulaic, and how it really left you thinking. Sort of like a closing unresolved minor chord at the final of a symphony.
The pacing was bloody awful. The second quarter, if you will, of the movie almost put me to sleep. However, the third part, in which Peter gives in to the feelings the alien symbiote amplifies in him, is incredibly entertaining, and sets you up for the excellent end.
Tobey Maguire, Thomas Haden Church, and Rosemary Harris are both phenomenal. This isn’t Kirsten Dunst’s best, but she does OK with what she has. James Franco and Topher Grace do good jobs, but their roles are way too one-dimensional — and I thought the biggest flaw in the film, bar none, was how the villain Venom was just sort of dashed off as an afterthought. I could easily see people who have never read or really gotten into the comic series being totally clueless, and those of us who have were uniformly disappointed; Venom is far more complex and developed than is portrayed in the movie, and it would have been a fascinating study.
My artistic husbear was fascinated by the effects, and they are indeed quite beautiful, not just spectacular. We weren’t impressed by the IMAX; actually, given the style in which much of it is filmed, a smaller screen might have been easier to focus on and watch.
And there is nothing quite like watching this movie in a theater with about 400 other bears.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - May 11, 2007
Sam Raimi prostituted Venom’s image and destroyed Spiderman franchise, we want a change, we want Guillermo del Toro directing Spiderman 4.
Comment by joserra — May 11, 2007 @ 2:09 pm - May 11, 2007
I find it striking – and ugly – how Aunt May is always guilt-tripping Peter about his duty to constantly serve others.
I hope she stays in character and keeps it up in the new movie.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 2:20 pm - May 11, 2007
I haven’t seen it, but am looking forward to it. I enjoyed Spiderman and really enjoyed Spiderman 2 (one of the few examples where the sequel is better than the original).
I recently rented Fritz Lang’s Metropolis again and was once again struck by the similarities with both Parzifal and Wagner’s Parsifal, which in translation from Farsi is ‘Pure Fool’. There are probably many examples in German literature and art that use this and the Faust redemptive and transformative themes. Like Dan says, these are universal human themes — no wonder the comic books and now the movies are so popular. (Dan might even agree that Lalla Rookh falls into the same category.)
Comment by HardHobbit — May 11, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - May 11, 2007
HH, that’s the first thing I thought of too when I first read Dan’s post. Granted, Wagner took a few liberties with Parsifal, but it still remains one of the best non-Ring operas he’s ever done.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 11, 2007 @ 3:27 pm - May 11, 2007
I loved this movie! The first and the second were great too.
Comment by liana — May 11, 2007 @ 3:28 pm - May 11, 2007
Much as I loved the film and had many of the same thoughts you did, perhaps the most interesting thing for me was observing the reactions of the others in my theatre. I took it in from a theatre in the heart of Westwood, where most of the crowd were probably students… and the motifs you point out, the traditional themes… well, it kills me to say most of the students scoffed. Time and again, the most important scenes were bring contemptuous laughter as these kids, who’ve been trained in how to deconstruct the values of those who came before, acted as they were trained.
So I found that sad, and infuriating… and yet, there were still some moments where the show managed to get past that training, and dredge out the right reactions. (Spoiler Alert) When Spiderman went to the church to fight off his demons, I expected scoffing – I didn’t get it. Reverent quiet. When Eddie prayed that God would kill Parker, the tension at the wrongness of that – Eddie inviting evil into his heart – was palpable. And of course, the shocked reaction when Parker hit MJ – when he hit a woman – was audible and stronger than most any other reaction I’ve seen in a film lately. Maybe that just confirms my theory – the social law that a man should not hit a woman, particularly not a woman he claims to care for, rather than being undermined has largely been emphasized by “feminist” thought… but I don’t think so. I think by that point, the story had done a good enough job sucking people in, so that they stopped overthinking things and went with those gut feelings.
I agree with a prior poster – at some points, the pacing was poor, and that facilitated the “thinking like a critic” pathology I noted… but there’s something else going on here, something in how these kids are being taught (and recall, I’m 23 here) that is aimed at undermining the idea of a hero, however flawed… and that’s concerning.
Comment by Casey — May 11, 2007 @ 5:07 pm - May 11, 2007
Not to go too far off (since I haven’t seen the movie anyhow) but the idea that a man shouldn’t hit a woman he loves might have been part of first wave feminism, which was that women deserved the protection of the law even within a marriage, and even then wasn’t that manly-men thought it was okay to hit women. *Not* hitting women is actually sort of… masculinist, or what ever word might work there. “Man as protector” really doesn’t have much place in modern feminism.
Comment by Synova — May 11, 2007 @ 6:00 pm - May 11, 2007
I liked Dan’s analysis of Spider Man 3 but I think the first two were much better in terms of story and getting to know the characters. There was too much going on in this 3rd installment and I would rather see Raimi further develope the characters so the audience can more intimately identifiy with them. No doubt this is an action-packed movie with top notch special effects. Definitely worth seeing on the big screen but after 2 plus hours, I didn’t leave the movie with much. B+
Comment by Russell K — May 11, 2007 @ 8:08 pm - May 11, 2007
For the record, I saw the movie with Russell K (#9 above) and another friend. I too preferred Spider-Man 2–which I think is the best of the franchise. I didn’t expect to write on the flick, but the movie stuck with me. And this morning, nearly a week after seeing it, the post just sort of came to me.
The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. And that’s rare for contemporary flicks which seem to entertain us (when we watch them) and fade from our memories (as time passes). This one remains as something to ponder and which helps enlighten. I may well have to see it again — and may come to appreciate the ending better after a second viewing.
I really do appreciate how Raimi portrayed the flaws in the hero. Really humanizes him. And helps relate him to heroes of myth and legend.
And maybe it is those heroes’ flaws which make them resonate in their cultures — and across generations.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 11, 2007 @ 9:17 pm - May 11, 2007
I think it isn’t just the flaws in the hero that make this one interesting – it’s also the… innocence? something like that… of the villains. Other than the black goop from outer space, none of the bad guys in this one even approached pure evil. Eddie was a stupid kid, Goblin/Harry’s decent nature was made clear for his amnesiac period and he eventually redeemed himself, Marko was weak-willed but just wanted to care for his daughter – lots of weak human beings doing Very Bad Things, but not evil – and Venom provided a very useful contrast to show that. Very 3-dimensional that way.
Comment by Casey — May 11, 2007 @ 9:59 pm - May 11, 2007
Excellent point, Casey. And how the Raimi brothers (in their script) used the black goop to indicate what happens when we let evil into us — and what it does to our feelings, especially our hurts (and perceive pains).
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 11, 2007 @ 10:05 pm - May 11, 2007
Spiderman’s a douche. Batman could kick his arse any day.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2007 @ 12:54 am - May 12, 2007
Please.. they’re both emotional basketcases.
Superman easily surpasses both of them and has a better build.
Comment by Vince P — May 12, 2007 @ 1:00 am - May 12, 2007
#14
Think your home planet blowing up won’t have any effect on you?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2007 @ 1:36 am - May 12, 2007
the makers of this movie should have watched “batman and robin” before they made it. Too many characters, too much cutting back and forth between characters, etc. Humor was used badly to cover up for bad writing (please, let’s never see Bruce Campbell in another Spiderman movie). Dunno how it ended; after 105 minutes, I decided I had wasted enough of my $9.75 on this stinker.
Comment by Kevin — May 12, 2007 @ 2:52 am - May 12, 2007
The following is Off-Topic in terms of Spiderman (sorry Dan) – but still on the general topic of film, and of good and evil in the hearts of men – and I hope will be of interest to patriots.
Roger L. Simon reviews a film – a well-made and interesting film, he says – about terrorist vs. non-terrorist Muslims:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/05/film_review_islam_vs_islamism.php
PBS, an arm of government, commissioned it but is now censoring it because it’s not politically correct enough (says Simon). You can sign a petition against their censorship here:
http://www.freethefilm.net/signourpetition.html
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2007 @ 1:18 pm - May 12, 2007
BTW, Dan, I think you ought to rename this post How To Tell You’re Over-educated.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 14, 2007 @ 1:49 am - May 14, 2007
hmmmmmmmmmmm, reminds me of some “world” leader.
Comment by samuel — May 14, 2007 @ 4:13 am - May 14, 2007
True. Can’t get more flawed than lord BJ or Kofi Annan.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 14, 2007 @ 7:55 am - May 14, 2007
I’m not going to see any of these recent Spidey movies, but your points speak to the force and importance of American culture, however diluted or inconsistent or imperfect it may be. In other words, you make me want to read Parzifal more than see Spider Man 3. And that’s ok with me!
Comment by Jeremayakovka — May 16, 2007 @ 1:32 am - May 16, 2007