'The Amazing Spider Man 2'

The Tragic Arc In Spiderman

I've been delayed in watching this thing because people have been telling me how awful this film is, and how it fails to reach the heights of the original Spiderman films directed by Sam Raimi and tarring Tobey Maguire. While I'm hardly one to dispute the rhapsodic heights reached by the original three Spiderman films, I'm reluctant to dump on the Andrew Garfield Spiderman. On some level, each film should be taken on their own merits and not relationship to how it fits into an imaginary canon of comic book movies.

Still, all I had heard was that it was underwhelming and that it didn't deliver on the big thematic promise of facing off against Electro, The Green Goblin and The Rhino. Some have said that the film just doesn't do the story line derived from the comic justice.
If it's all the same, I can report that it's a fine enough film with lots of thought-provoking moments.

Here's the usual spoiler alert.

What's Good About It

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are a real life item. It shows up in this film as an amazing chemistry. The intimate and the subtle shifts in perception of each other gets a trough working out on screen and they really nail those scenes. Whereas in the original trilogy, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and ames Franco had a great dynamic going, it was always played on an extrinsic romantic conflict of a three way. It hung on Mary Jane's almost whimsical inability to commit to Peter, while both Peter and Harry desired MJ. In the Garfield Spiderman movies, it is not MJ but Gwen Stacey who gets the romantic attention, and we see a very convoluted attraction and pas de deux between Garfield's Peter and Emma Stone, Gwen, where the third complicating figure is Spiderman himself as separate to Peter Parker.

Andrew Garfield's Spiderman is as different to Tobey Maguire's Spiderman as any James Bond is different from Sean Connery. Just as with Bond where Connery seethe standard against all the following actors, Garfield's performance is being measured against Maguire's. It has to be said, that Garfield's Spiderman is being given more interesting personal areas to negotiate, which at once stretches our understanding of the character.

In turn, these films are about Peter and Gwen, without a hint of Mary Jane. What's truly great is that Peter and Gwen have a much better dynamic than Peter and Mary Jane from the original trilogy, most likely owing to Garfield and Stone's real life relationship. These actors probably won't stay together forever,but they will always have this film as a record of this chemistry.

What's Bad About It

There are so many special effects shots and they're all a mixed bag in quality. It's hard to imagine what a swinging Spiderman is supposed to look like but some of the shots are not as photo real as others - they look like actions from a computer game, just enough to rob you of the wilful suspension of disbelief.

Some of the action is spectacular but gratuitous. I don't know that Electro need be so strange before he becomes Electro; he comes across as OCD and more than a little Asperger's. The respective arcs of the villains in this film are so underdeveloped it is hard to get involved with their project. All of them seem monsters of science than villainous, which takes away from the drama more than it adds to it. Villains are on the whole better if they have a choice to exercise in becoming the villain. Being born that way or made that way is actually not that interesting.

What's Interesting About It

All of the Spiderman films are critiques of New York and its denizens. Superman toils in Metropolis,  Batman works in Gotham, but Spiderman is a New Yorker from Queens no less. The particular-ness of that makes the Spiderman films much more grounded in a location than the abstracted sense of location we get from Superman and Batman movies. It also means Spiderman is enmeshed in the misc en scene of New York, and New Yorkers passing by are often part of the story in some subtle way.

Missing from the mayhem are J.Jonah Jameson and the Daily Bugle, with the whole newspaper business storyline. This is an interesting departure as it opens up the scope of the story in other ways.

Gwen Stacey & Mary Jane

One gets the suspicion the reason why this film was not received well, has to do with Gwen Stacey and how she dies. There is no doubt about it, it's a major downer. The original comic book death of Gwen Stacey was a monumental turning point in the history of comic books so it is understandable that on screen, it has the power to shock the audience. It's just not done to kill the love interest like we see in this film. The awkwardness of a superhero movie where he fails to save the girl is the same awkwardness at the end of the Daniel Craig 'Casino Royale' where Vesper Lind dies, or the great 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' where Tracy di Vicenzo is shot to death at the end. It's startling and refreshing to see in a comic book movie.

The current storyline of The Amazing Spiderman thus seems willing to tread where angels fear to tread, to tell more daring stories.

The other notable thing about the choice to go with the Gwen Stacey story line is that Gwen is a scientist with aspirations to go to Oxford and study higher. This contrasts with the  original three movies where MJ wants to be an actress and even then isn't terribly good that, so she settles into being a trophy girlfriend for either Spiderman or the immensely rich and handsome Harry Osborne. You sense the in roads and strides feminism has made in bringing the comic book universe up to date, and this is a good development. The death is made even more tragic because it will probably lead back to the MJ story in the next instalment.

The Amazing Spiderman Is A Bildungsroman

Peter Parker finds himself in a particular moment of youth, where his first true love is in many ways his equal and mirror. Gwen Stacey is not the object of his teenage puppy love. She is a woman who is confronting him with difficult life choices. The only reason the life choices become redundant is because Gwen dies.

It's actually hard to see how this Spiderman story moves forward into introducing Mary Jane Watson. By the end of the film, Peter comes to understand that being Spiderman is not some vocation or some random calling. It is a social necessity, and that he has obligations to these dead characters - uncle Ben and Gwen- the compels him to be out there protecting the people from the likes of The Rhino.

To go back to the kind of Mary Jane story from the Tobey Maguire Spiderman movies would in fact be a retreat of sorts from the hard won emotional maturity established in this film.

New York City Skyline As Character

Spiderman took a very long time to bring to screen. The saga of who had rights and how so many people were attached at one point or another is well documented lore. Then came 9/11 which forced the original film to re-imagine its climactic battle. Integral to the imagery of Spiderman is the character swinging on his web, swinging from building to building. Because of this element Spiderman movies have demanded a great degree of architectural interest - from the Osborne residence in the first series through to various bridges that hang between Manhattan and Queens featuring in the background.

Spiderman's relationship to New York is more visceral and immediate than say Batman's relationship to Gotham. Spiderman in all the film incarnations is a denizen of the city who is an active participant in the socio-political discourse of the city. Batman is connected to the socio-political discourse of Gotham through Wayne Industries and therefore sits with the corporate elite when not donning his suit. Peter Parker is quintessentially *of* New York in such a way that the citizens are willing to step up for him and with him. There is a greater democratic impulse in Spiderman movies than there is in most comic book movies.

News That's Fit To Punt - 23/Jun/2011

Champion climate change denier Lord Monckton likened Professor Ross Garnaut to the Nazis over night.

The climate sceptic Christopher Monckton has accused Ross Garnaut of having a ''fascist point of view'' because the adviser to the government on climate change said he accepted that on ''the balance of probabilities'' mainstream global warming scientists were right. In an address to the American Freedom Alliance aired on Seven News last night, Lord Monckton used PowerPoint slides decorated with swastikas and put on a mock German accent as he quoted experts from around the world who he claimed ''accepted the authority'' of climate scientists without question. After quoting Professor Garnaut, who he said was an ''eco-fascist'', Lord Monckton said ''Heil Hitler''.

Well, there's Godwin's law in action for you. I guess Lord Monckton is finding it harder to convince his listening public that he is on the right side of the argument against overwhelming evidence. All the cherry picking of his stats and facts isn't enough, he has to call his opponents fascist Nazis.

Last I looked, I notice that he's some kind of lord with peerage with a distinct laissez faire view on the changing environment and its impact on the economy. I told you he was an idiot. Of course Tony Abbott denounced the statement but he's still willing to share the stage with this man because deep down (in whatever shallow depth he can call depth) Tony's a climate change denier as well. I guess it's a good sign that at least he can make the proper distinction to see likening Professor Ross Garnaut to Nazis is beyond the pail.

Here's another article on the matter:

Liberal MP and climate-change supporter Malcolm Turnbull said Lord Monckton was a "sensationalist" and he didn't think Professor Garnaut would lose any sleep over the matter.

"He is increasingly a rather sick, vaudeville character who makes more and more outlandish charges in order to get attention for himself," Mr Turnbull told Sky News.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the comments were "offensive and grossly inappropriate" but the decision to attend the conference lay with Mr Abbott.

Labor backbencher Michelle Rowland was less reserved. "The fact that Tony Abbott aligns himself so closely with Lord Monckton is absolutely repugnant," she said.

Greens leader Bob Brown said he believed in free speech but there were limits. He said Mr Abbott should ‘‘reconsider’’ his attendance and called on AMEC to take action. "I think the mining hosts of Mr Monckton should demand an apology before their sponsorship of his trip continues," Senator Brown said.

And so it goes. Anyway, I think this just about disqualifies Monckton from being taken seriously but Andrew Forest seems to think he's worth inviting. Why is it that it's always these super rich fat cats that have the money to throw around who get behind these kinds of crackpots? As for Tony Abbott, even if he decided not to go, he's not convincing anybody that he *isn't* a climate change denier, so he may as well go and we'd all be secure in the knowledge that he has head firmly in the sand on this issue.

Out Of Afghanistan

No, that's not a new Meryl Streep movie. It's President Obama laying down a plan for a draw down from Afghanistan.

The US will pull 33,000 troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the next northern summer, sooner than previously anticipated.

The first 10,000 troops will leave this year, starting next month.

The drawdown was announced today by US President Barack Obama, 18 months after he ordered the so-called “surge” in troop numbers in a bid to defeat al-Qaeda and Taliban forces and hasten an end to the conflict.

I guess discretion really is the better part of valor. Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, it is arguable that the main mission to Afghanistan has been fulfilled. The rest of worrying about how the polity of Afghanistan survives - or not as the case may be- can be decoupled from the cipher that started at 9/11.

Doubtless it's going to leave everything in the lurch over in Kabul but in many ways it's probably for the best if the Allies  pull out. Maybe Afghanis will be able to put together a proper government for once. I doubt it, but it's worth trying after 10 years of war.

Peter Parker Dies

Spidey's dead, long live Spiderman, apparently.

In the comic, Parker is killed by his nemesis the Green Goblin, dying in the arms of Mary Jane following a valiant battle.

Writer Brian Michael Bendis told USA Today that he wrote the story "with tears in my eyes like a big baby".

"I went upstairs to my wife, and I go, 'I am so embarrassed. I think I've literally been crying for 45 minutes.' I've had real things happen in my life I didn't cry about, and yet I'm crying about this," said the author.

According to Marvel.com, the death of Peter Parker sets the stage for the upcoming debut of an all-new Spider-Man.

"We've never seen a world without Spider-Man, a world without Peter Parker, so his death is a significant event for the Ultimate Comics Universe and we're going to see how quickly it changes everything," said Marvel Entertainment editor-in-chief Axel Alonso.

“But Peter’s death doesn’t signal the end .... it’s the start of one of the most ambitious stories you’ve ever read in comics.”

I note this with interest because when the writers of 'Star Trek Generations' reported a similar lancunae of emotion after they wrote the death of Captain Kirk. I remember thinking, if you're going to cry about it and get all emotional about it, why do it? I guess some of these beloved characters need to find an end, much as Robin Hood or King Arthur in 'Le Morte  d'Arthur'; the dying bit is all part of the tapestry of life-likeness of the fiction. Otherwise the fiction is one long denial of death and that''s never really going to be a mature kind of fiction. It may even be why comic books are seen to be such low level fiction.

In which case it makes sense to kill off these characters. A good death is always better than a bad life in fiction. Sequels suck because authorial voices invariably get sentimentally attached to their characters and so they become impervious to the risks and obstacles. This is typified by the ennui of Bond movies after successfully changing actors. I'm not sure I'm comfortable that Peter Parker dies, but within that discomfort is a sense that maybe, just maybe, the spiderman comic book can rise to art. It would be interesting to see.