Spider-Man 3

Many of you already know that I am a comic fan. From time I was 6, I have been enamored of the comics medium. I have witnessed the development of the medium from the children’s stories of my childhood to the more grown-up graphic novels of today. I think that a well written and executed comic really succeeds on dual artistic levels: that of excellent literature and that of art. The archetypes that most people enjoy in other artistic works are there, but the comics creators and the ever changing creative teams on the different books all allow multiple versions and storylines of these archetypes. Imagine, if you will, Homer’s Odysseus as written by Shakespeare or even Bernard Cornwell’s Richard Sharpe as written by Ian Fleming. Although the underlying archetype is the same, the artists and writers through the years have successfully placed their own indelible imprints upon the collected adventures of comic book mainstays. I daresay that anyone reading Bob Kane/Bill Finger/Jerry Robinson Batman stories from the 1940s would recognize the treatment of Batman and the Joker in Alan Moore’s and Brian Bolland’s graphic novel masterpiece “The Killing Joker,” but this is a good thing. The constant changes in the storylines and status quo of so many heroes has proven to be quite necessary in contributing to the longevity of pop culture icons like Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man. At the same time, the consistency of various story elements (the characters’ secret identities, supporting cast members, and continuity histories) allows even the most casual of comic fans to pick up a few issues and read an adventure or two of his or her favorite heroes.

This extension and development of stories is not just limited solely to the comic book medium. The motion picture world has been responsible for some of the best (Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2) and some of the worst (Superman Returns, Batman and Robin, the Shadow, Ghost Rider) stories involving comic book heroes. I do not envy the task of filmmakers, for theirs is more difficult that that of comic creators. Filmmakers are trying to serve everyone (casual fans, non-fans, and hard core fans alike) by incorporating enough different elements to please everyone. The movie story has to be faithful enough to drive the die hard fans to the theaters yet accessible that it not turn off the casual fan. The story needs to contribute to the overall cannon of stories for the character, yet it cannot deviate too much from the established “safe” norms of comic book films. In trying to please so many parties, filmmakers often try the “kitchen sink approach”, throwing everything into a film and hoping that it will please everyone. The best of the films have directors who recognize the importance of verisimilitude to the source material These directors change those things which are tangential to those aspects that are material to the character in question, yet they respect the source material enough to understand why it has sustained its readership audience for so long. This is why Ghost Rider failed and why Batman Begins succeeded. Verisimilitude. Respect for the source material.

Yesterday, I saw Spider-Man 3 at the Navy Pier IMAX. I had been cooped up all week in my apartment studying for law school finals, and I figured that this would be the perfect study break to maintain me through the next 2 long weeks. My friend Jeff and I arrived right on time (with me having spent the morning studying with my friend Elese at the library for 3.5 hours). We had great seats and were treated to the trailer for the next Harry Potter film (3-D IMAX…gotta get tickets). At this point, the film started, and the opening credits began. Now, the opening credits themselves were very creative, with scenes from the previous 2 films playing within the web spaces of the screen. At the same time, we are treated to our first glimpses of the “alien costume” (more on this later). What really intrigued me was the obvious change to the musical score. I knew instantly that there was another composer involved in the film, and this was another good thing. I have always found Danny Elfman’s scores to be (with the notable exception of the original Batman film) rather pedestrian. Christopher Young did a great job of adapting the score set down by Elfman and making it his own. For me, music is an extremely important part of the movie going experience, so my expectations started to rise. The film then started.

What worked in the film? First of all, the action sequences. If there is any film that demands to be seen on IMAX, it would be Spider-Man 3. Raimi did a great job early on of interspersing the action with the drama and the comedy, and the action sequences were exhilarating to watch. The first sequence alone (with the new Goblin) was worth the price of admission. Thomas Hayden Church was also a wonderful Flint Marko/Sandman. Raimi faithfully transferred the tragic character from the comics and gave him a new life on the screen. One of my major problems with the film (discussed in more detail later) was the fact that we did not get to see more of him. The realization of the character of Venom was successful enough to surprise me. I wondered how Raimi would be able to pull off the “living slime” look of the alien symbiote and the irreverent nature of such an evil villain. For once, there was a Spider-Man villain that was completely unsympathetic. The character of Eddie Brock, played by Topher Grace, oozed insouciance as he made with the false charm to get ahead. The CGI has improved leaps and bounds beyond the first film, as Venom looks REAL. Awesome.

What did not work in the film? The overall story and the pacing. Early on in the film, Raimi was firing on all cylinders. We had the introduction of the symbiote (via an acceptable twist on the established “Secret Wars” origin of the costume from the comics history), the introduction of Harry Osborne as the new Green Goblin, and Peter’s excitement over proposing to Mary Jane and New York’s love of Spider-Man. As we see Peter’s star rise, we see Mary Jane’s fall, and this was where Raimi was at his best: the juxtaposition of amazing action sequences with character development. We also get the introduction of Flint Marko/Sandman and the origin therein. Flint Marko is a sympathetic villain in the same way as Otto Octavius in the second film. Everything was going according to script. About halfway through the film, however, it appeared that Raimi handed off the directing chores to someone else. Trust me, you will understand it when you see it. After that sequence (when the symbiote has bonded to Peter and we see “bad Peter” and “bad Spider-Man”), the film is in a mad rush to the finish. The second film lacked the character development and careful crafting of Raimi’s earlier efforts, and I can only attribute this to the writing. Remember the kitchen sink approach to sequels and writing that I alluded to earlier? Here it was, in all of its splendor. Raimi, in the second half of the film, committed a common crime in many comic book films: he tried to listen to everyone with regard to what they wanted to see in a Spider-Man film, and in the end, he sacrificed story in favor of action. A better story would include the introduction of the alien costume within the backdrop of the Sandman story. Perhaps the film would end with the climactic confrontation between Harry and Peter; a cliffhanger ending such as this would have dovetailed quite nicely with the beginning of a 4^th film, where the focus would be on the development of Venom. Perhaps because Raimi thought this to be his swan song on the series, he felt the need to put in as much as possible. What the audience is left with is a series of questions beginning with the interrogative “If only…”.

Let me stress that this is not a bad film (as was Ghost Rider and Superman Returns). In a way, this film is more frustrating because I know of the capabilities Sam Raimi and the cast and crew. They made an almost perfect superhero film their last time out. By setting the bar so high, perhaps they were doomed to failure. Don’t get me wrong-I still enjoyed the film (except for the weird 5 minutes in the middle of the film), but it was thisclose to being great as opposed to being merely good. Maybe Sony should have allowed Raimi to cut the film in half. All I know is that if there is another Spider-Man film, I hope that the final act does not involve the now-cliched “Mary Jane in mortal danger” hook that has heretofore been present in all 3 films. The next director in the series (if not Raimi) should return to the character focus that marks other more successful comic films. In the end, the fact that we care about the characters is what makes a successful superhero film.

NOTE: if you chose to see the film, see it in IMAX. The picture was so clear that I could see Toby Maguire’s contact lenses!