Comic Book Movies 101: Spider-man

27th Apr 2011

Probably one of the most iconic superheroes ever, the boy bitten by a radioactive spider was bound to be translated to the big screen with an all-star cast, big budget and well-established director. When it eventually went into production, it was awarded all three, but I’ll be honest. While I was thrilled to hear that Sam Raimi of Evil Dead fame was attached to the project, at first, I thought Pleasantville’s Tobey Maguire was just too drippy to tackle the role of angsty teenager-turned-superhero Peter Parker. And Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane? She looked nothing like my Mary Jane wedding Barbie! Back in 2002, James Franco was just a ‘popular crowd’ face from Never Been Kissed (although so was Jessica Alba) and Willem Dafoe was a rubbery-faced actor I associated with my parents’ generation. (Although JK Simmons as Jameson, the editor Spidey ingeniously sells photographs of himself to, is disarmingly like the original cartoon rendering of the character.)

Thank goodness I wasn’t in charge of casting. Maguire, who has in recent years shown an astounding versatility, is the epitome of awkward teenager as we first encounter him chasing the school bus. It’s not just his baby face (that belies his twenty-something years) that convinces us he’s a teenager out of his depth. It’s his awkward posture as he hides behind his camera, his lingering gazes at Mary Jane but inability to approach her and his tortured expressions as events unravel. When it comes down to it, he can summon maturity and courage, but there’s still a boyishness about his words and reactions. His initial physique is also ideal for Peter Parker pre-spider bite; early in the film he regards his weedy frame in the mirror and is every inch the hapless boy hoping puberty will soon grant him some definition. The physical transition Maguire underwent to make the acquisition of superpowers convincing is impressive and the discovery of these abilities is entertaining. But, how did a teenage boy make THAT suit? Is it because spiders spin webs so a human spider is automatically a skilled cloth maker?

The relationship between Parker and his aunt and uncle is convincingly teenaged too. Peter clashes with Ben just before he takes part in a wrestling tournament (what else would you do with spider-like skills?). The sequence of events that unfolds could be considered contrived, but it’s neatly constructed and sends a warning to us all that you never know when a conversation with somebody you love might be your last. It’s also the incident that inspires Peter to start fighting crime and using his abilities to benefit others; Spider-man is not the kind of hero who simply lives to serve. He’s got his reasons and it gives him an edge.

Spider-man’s nemesis the Green Goblin (not one of Marvel’s most menacing super-villain titles) also has a realistic relationship with his son Harry. Defoe’s alter-ego is genuinely frightening with a cruel leer, ruthless attitude and super-detailed costume (380 pieces apparently. Not ideal for a quick killing spree…). His paternal instincts (ironically) defer to Peter and Franco plays the brooding, overlooked heir with effortless charm and good looks – it’s no wonder the film was a springboard for the glittering career that’s followed. His final vow to avenge his father is as ominous as it is obvious as a lead-in to the sequel.

The duel that leads to the Goblin’s demise is seriously anxiety-inducing. Raimi is the master of ‘home-made’ special effects but combining this creative talent with CGI is responsible for a true blurring of what’s real and what’s not. CGI was always going to be necessary in making this film stand the test of time, but with the effort that’s gone into the costumes and choreography there’s no sense of reliance upon it – it’s used as a necessary tool to best present the action.

And who can forget the chemistry between Maguire and Dunst, captured in the unforgettable upside down kiss in the rain. OK, if you think about trying it for yourself, it’s not that romantic but in the context of the film it’s explosive; it’s the way she peels away just the bottom of his mask in order to share that moment with him, her hair soaked and her vest stuck (a little too revealingly, in my opinion!) to her torso. It’s also a realistic (in the context of a superhero movie, at least) relationship that develops between them – Spider-man knows he can’t risk getting too close to anyone, as his enemies have already victimised those he holds dear.

And, of course, the element that ties the whole film together is the magical musical stylings of Danny Elfman. How are such original, intricate scores simultaneously so unmistakably Elfman?

Fortunately, the first film’s success meant that Spider-man 2 kept all these appealing aspects – top-notch cast, hyper-effective soundtrack and skilled director. The only downside is that it all feels a little bit formulaic… a jaded Spider-man (down and out this time because MJ’s engaged and The Bugle is badmouthing him all over town) comes up against a big bad super-villain and saves the day – oh and there’s a science experiment gone awry to boot. Yes, that’s essentially the premise for all comic book stories, but to please film lovers as well as comic book enthusiasts perhaps these two-hour instalments could do with a little more depth. It’s still gritty and action-packed, and Doctor Ock and his tentacles are downright cool, but the ending really is just a platform for the third instalment, the ingeniously titled Spider-man 3.

Fast-forward three years to 2007. I loved the “bad Spidey” artwork that was plastered everywhere. Finally, the subplot of Harry seeking vengeance comes to the fore, and Topher Grace is thrown into the mix as Venom (who knew the dweeby kid out of That 70s Show could also play a real baddie – and look pretty hot?!). The prosthetics used to create the character are excellent, and the host of villains that Venom is a part of is an exciting new dimension; in fact the line between good and evil becomes more indistinct than ever as Spider-man himself is affected by the symbiote (alien life, not messy science this time) that bonds to his costume. It’s a bit confusing; his costume has such a strong link to his character (we were led to believe he made it himself), but I suppose every hero’s identity lies at least in part in their armour.

This third film also has an injection of comedy. It seems fans were split down the middle on whether Parker’s exaggerated swagger and ego were indeed comedic, or just plain ridiculous. I’m in the first camp; it’s that certain something that brings freshness and breaks the mould enough to make this film work outside the context of the rest of the trilogy it belongs to. Either way – whether it peaked or over-extended the story – it truly begs the question whether the fourth film, due for release in 2012 and starring up-and-comer Andrew Garfield, is necessary. It’s going to have to be pretty groundbreaking to separate itself from the existing films and impress audiences

…

Lauren Felton