Thursday, May 31, 2007
Opinion

Saying something important

As you read, keep in mind: I liked “Spider-Man 1” and “Spider-Man 2.”

Actor Tobey Maguire appears onstage as the cast of “Spider-Man 3” visits NBC’s “The Today Show” on April 30 in New York City. CREDIT:Scott Gries/Getty Images

By Mark Douglas

Until the day before I wrote this, I had intended to write something important about American culture or politics. Then I saw “Spider-Man 3.” The film may not have the gravitas of other topics, but I figure a movie with the highest grossing opening weekend ever probably deserves some attention on the cultural front. As you read, keep in mind: I liked “Spider-Man 1” and “Spider-Man 2.” As for “3,” it can be summarized in three words: soppy, sloppy and schlocky. To whit:

Soppy.
There are more misty eyes and tearful moments in this movie—for the characters; not so much for the audience—than any three chick-flicks combined. And they aren’t brief moments. They’re long, drawn-out, “camera gazing soulfully into the eyes of soulfully gazing characters” moments. Even a man made of sand cries. I didn’t put a stopwatch to it, but I’d guess the amount of time we spend looking at eyes swelling with tears may be greater than the amount of time we spend watching CGI action sequences. All movies are manipulative; this one is embarrassingly so. In Harry Osborn, the filmmakers actually give us a character we’re supposed to feel a bit of sympathy for, then think of as evil, then like, then dislike again, then like and then—again, only with more fervor—feel sympathy for. Likewise—and without any reason so substantive as Harry’s nasty bump on the head—we’re supposed to go back and forth about Sandman/Flint Marko.

Sloppy.
Setting aside the character miscues—like the fact that Spidey has apparently traded in his spider sense (which never kicks in, no matter the danger) for the ability to play a mean piano, or the sword that’s supposed to be really significant for Harry-the-Goblin (only he almost never uses it)—the movie, though it wants us to think, itself thinks, in sloppy ways. “Spider-Man 3,” like its predecessors, is about identity: good side/ bad side, success/failure, ego/alter-ego. To make sure we don’t miss this point, just about everybody in the movie gets doubled here: good Peter Parker/bad Peter Parker, good Harry/bad Harry, Peter Parker/Eddie Brock, Spider-Man/Venom, Mary Jane Watson/Gwen Stacy. What’s the point of all this reflection on identity? Are we supposed to think about our own darker and lighter angels? About the dangers of power? About the fluidity of identity in a postmodern world? Beats me. No thoughts are developed in a sufficiently substantial way to warrant our reflection. They’re replaced by special effects and a story line (though not a plotline) that pushes us from emotional moment to emotional moment. As a result, ideas about identity that are intended to be provocative end up diffused.

Schlocky.
The moral of the story—and it does have one, in the most obvious and not-especially-thoughtful of ways—is that we need to judge less and forgive more because things are more morally complex than they sometimes seem. Now, I’m all for emphasizing forgiveness. I think forgiveness is necessary for healthy internal and interpersonal relationships and perhaps even more important for sustaining social and political relations. And it’s certainly central to Christian ethics. But the movie treats forgiveness in morally simplistic ways and such moral simplicity—especially when it comes packaged in emotional soppiness—isn’t a virtue; it’s a vice wearing a smiley-face button. When Peter forgives Marko for one of the more blatantly contrived parts of the storyline and then lets him go—ignoring the fact that Marko has done tremendous damage to the city—we shouldn’t be morally gratified. We should be disturbed at such a self-absorbed vision of forgiveness and its benefits. If superheroes fight for justice, shouldn’t we at least be encouraged to wonder what justice looks like?

There’s no reason to expect much from summer blockbusters beyond a chance to escape. But “Spider-Man 3” seems to want to say something important about feelings and ideas and morality—at least until its CGI-enhanced version of ADHD kicks in and, instead, anesthetizes us. Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like what is going on in American culture and politics. SP

Mark Douglas is a professor of Christian ethics at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur.