EP Review: Spiderman 3
Reviewed by Jonathon Sullivan.
The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine. Each week Escape Pod delivers science fiction short stories from today's best authors. Listen today, and hear the new sound of science fiction!
-
Subscribe
Our main feed:
Or pick your app:
Or by e-mail:
Other Escape Artists Sites
Sully, I work in Hollywood, so I frequently come into contact with the mentally ill (and the actually evil) pretty often in my day job too.
Also, for the purposes of full discloser, I occasionally work for the promotions departments (there are more than one) at Sony Pictures. I have in fact, produced promotional videos for the last two Spider-Man movies. I enjoy those jobs, so I can’t say too much more than, that was a damn fine analysis of some of what fell short in this film.
The other point one might make is this: Story telling matters more than eye candy. There is nothing wrong with imagery and effects in support of the narrative, but when the best thing about a movie is it’s look, then it is not a successful movie.
Did you say Gotham?
I did. Why do you ask?
Gotham is a nickname for New York city, not just the fictional city in Batman.
I enjoyed Spiderman 3 a great deal, personally. I liked its story as well as the visuals, but I understand that I’m in the minority on that. I agree with most of the points of your review, though I took the suit to not have created the strife and angst that Peter was dealing with. Rather it was already there, the suit just amplified it and gave him greater power and strength do do something about it. he was already having most of the issues in the film before the suit joined with him. I figured the suit was a metaphor for his anger. It was powerful and seductive, but in the end he had to let go of it or be consumed by it. Venom was destroyed because he literally couldn’t let go of his anger, completing the metaphor.
Of course, that’s also what the Venom suit did in the comics, so a lot of that was also staying true to the source material.
In any case, yet another thoughtful and well considered review, even if I didn’t agree with it 100% (thankfully I had an epi-stick handy, so it’s all good).
Your analysis of the movie is very good, Jonathan! Though I disagree with you – I think that the movie is a very good one with good symbolics – I can see your points in arguing that Parker did pay the lowest price. But isn’t it how it works? The one causing the problems or the one who struggles is often not the one who’s paying the steepest price? I am thinking about countries waging war, for instance. It’s the general population who suffers, not the Generals or the Heads of State.
@Johan: agreed that’s how it works in reality. But as SK has said “the difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense.” Or words to that effect.
Thanks for the posts, everybody!
Loved the intro! Renewed my faith in the U.S. as a nation of thinking beings! Sullydog for Prez!
I greatly enjoyed Jonathon Sullivan’s review, and it got me thinking about why the Spiderman movies are among my favourite superhero movies. I wrote about this on my blog
I saw Spiderman 3 recently and enjoyed it greatly for the special effects and for the new bad guys it introduces.
Most of all I empathised with and cheered for Thomas Haden Church’s Sandman. His creation scene was sad and poignant: a poor man battling so much bad luck. He couldn’t keep his family together and now cannot even keep himself together! I found Sandman’s creation scene emotionally resonant with the sand blown scene in Altered States – which I imagined to be an allegory for two people who loved each other but were growing apart so slowly they didn’t notice it any more.
An aspect of the first and second Spiderman movies that I most enjoyed was the emotional wrangling Peter Parker went through with his love for MJ. He loves her, but he feels as though he should reject that love, because he cannot protect her from the evil in his life. Ironically, he has brought the evil into his own life by choosing to “fight crime”, to be a hero.
By implication, he is choosing the life of a hero over the life of a lover, a partner.
Why does he make this choice? What can make Spiderman reject the love of a good woman? Does he find the draw of being a hero, of having power and glory to be greater than the joy and satisfaction of having a partner? I won’t mention the sex. Or does the emotional and moral imperative to help people form an irresistible urge that draws him to the inevitable conclusion that since he can’t both help people and have a lover whom he can protect, helping people is what must win out.
I think the first and third movies present different answers to this question. In the first movie I felt that Peter Parker was irresistibly drawn to helping people. But in the third movie, he was after the glory! He fights so hard to make sure Spiderman gets good news paper coverage. Sure, he was under the influence of the black gunk – but it just exaggerates what is already there, so Peter loves the power and glory too.
Sullivan questions how easily Peter Parker rids himself of evil. He can strip off the black gunk and is immediately absolved of the evil he has committed (at least in the eyes of the audience). “We always have a choice”, Peter says, yet in the words of the reviewer Jonathon Sullivan, Peter Parker paid the smallest price for his own evil.
The problem, Sullivan says, is that true evil comes from humans, not from external objects like black gunk from the sky. By relegating the source of Peter Parker’s evil actions to the black gunk, we don’t get to examine the true source of evil – the dark thoughts and desires in our hearts.
I find this to be a valid and important point. I was thrilled when Spidey managed to wipe the gunk off himself and “gong it to death”, and I enjoyed the resolution he found with Sandman at the end.
However, as I was walking out I wondered “how many people died in the scenes they portrayed?” The movie showed lots of buildings and property getting destroyed – but surely all that damage would have taken quite a few people out as well. The aspect of “Collateral Damage” wasn’t addressed – did Peter Parker have nightmares about the innocents who died while he was wearing the black suit? Perhaps this is common enough for all superheroes (or police, or soldiers..): in trying to do good deeds, sometimes innocent people get hurt.
Something I really wanted from Spiderman 3 was a bit more acknowledgment that tearing off the black suit doesn’t mean Spiderman has torn all evil thoughts from his heart. It just means they aren’t being amplified anymore. Some people will say that was reflected by his statement that “we always have a choice” – the choice to follow through with our dark desires or not. That is true, but I still wanted something more: something I see in shows like Law & Order. That final look on the face of the main character, a lawyer, cop, DA, coffee boy etc: thoughtful but uncomfortable. They are thinking: “something bad has happened, unavoidable, necessary perhaps, but bad – and it can never be taken back.. I hope I can live with myself.”
Rob
I also couldn’t help wondering about the probably hundreds of innocent bystanders dying in the background. After Spidey swoops in to save Gwen Stacy, he just swings off… HELLO, what about the collapsing building in the background?? Heck, he didn’t even save the crane operator guy! I guess it pays to be hot if you’re going to be a victim in Spidey’s world, eh?
I was mostly disappointed that Harry died. I really liked the new Goblin and wanted to see him in the next movie, good or evil.
And since when can Sandman FLY?? Sand, as far as I know, can only go whatever way the wind is blowing. Even animate sand can’t defy gravity. I did think it was cool how the only way he could reclaim his shape was by concentrating on his daughter, and “remembering” how to be human, so to speak. He’s still a crook, though. With his powers, he’d have no trouble making enough money to help her by doing honest work.
Anyway. It was exciting, if ultimately unmoving. Thanks for the review (which was both)!