RADULICH: On Spiderman 3, Hollywood Politics And Gender Roles

For months many fans of fantasy and/or comic books looked forward to the third installment of one of Marvel's most beloved and successful comic book movie adaptations Spiderman. What made this movie especially appealing to fans was the inclusion of one of Spiderman's most infamous villains-turned-icon in his own right, the dastardly fiend, Venom. With CGI effects evolving at leaps and bounds and based on the successful representation of previous characters from the comic book, we, as fans, assumed that Venom, in both look and character would be phenomenal and worth the price of admission alone. Couple that aspiration with the general appreciation for all of the characters and unresolved plotlines in the Spiderman movies and you should have had what would make for a stellar movie viewing experience.

However, as the old saying goes, the bigger they are, the harder they fall an in this case, expectations for the fantastic movie fell hard on comic book geeks from Tampa to NY. In short, nearly everyone I've spoken too after seeing Spiderman 3 thought it stunk. On the other hand both my wife and I enjoyed it and for her part, she's not even a fan of the movies or the comic book (I however am a huge fan and even bigger mark for Venom/the alien costume).

I think that this was much like the Hulk movie directed by Ang Lee in that it was a clear case of the director and writers making a compelling movie for the wrong audience. Fantasy fans (Sci-Fi, comic, D&D, etc.) don't particularly want to be bogged down in complex, sympathetic characters and plot lines. The fantasy experience should be fairly straightforward; bad guys are bad, good guys are good, bad guys threaten us, good guys save the day and win the girl. In the middle of all of this there should be lots of fighting, cool effects, and plenty of destruction.

Sam Raimi and company did not do this with Spiderman 3. In fact, one can safely say that Spiderman 3 was not really a fantasy picture, per se. This was a movie about relationships and forgiveness staring characters from the fantasy realm. All of the characters were complex people with multiple motivations, wants and desires capable of being both sympathetic as well as antagonistic. The best example of this that I can think of was the infamous kiss between Mary Jane Watson and Harry Osborn. Under normal circumstances, a woman in film that feels she has been slighted by her love and finds warmth and comfort in another mans arms does not invoke the reaction of the male audience members in the theater shouting, "Whore!" out loud. This kiss did in fact cause at least two instances of this from what my friends have told me.

Sure in films past a man might have thought that to himself but most would not have been moved to hysterics the way this scene did to it's male patrons. The reason is actually fairly simple. Again, under normal circumstances, it is accepted that a conflicted woman on film might have an on-screen indiscretion that leads to an unfortunate act of intimacy. In fact, this kiss was fairly innocuous considering some other movies portrayal of women and their capacity said indiscretions. But Mary Jane Watson is not a character in a movie that examines these types of issues that plague real people. She's simply Spiderman's love interest; an ornament to be worn by the hero as he fights bad guys and rights wrongs thus she's not entitled to perfectly human imperfections. By kissing Harry Osborne she betrayed the beloved hero and of course that can't be tolerated and thus she's labeled a "whore."

What I believe separates my wife and I from those who hated this film are issues that are actually two sides of the same coin. My wife had no fantasy expectations and was then free to enjoy a movie about people and their intertwining relationships. She even elbowed me when Mary Jane validated her belief that the man should always put his woman before himself or anybody else, even if you are Spiderman. While I can comic fans reacting harshly to such an assertion as it has to place in a boy's playground, the women in the audience thought it was perfectly natural for her to say that nor understood why it might just be a bit out of place in a fantasy movie. Fantasy is where boys can be unfettered in their imaginations so it breaks the rules to be told that you can be unchained save you keep yourself tied to your lady first.

I on the other hand did have fantasy expectations of the movie but once I realized where Raimi and company were going I let go of them and just accepted the movie for what it was and not what I wanted it to be. This is the eternal struggle between audience and Hollywood. Ego plays a part. Most professionals in Hollywood don't want to make the same old thing over and over again. With the amount of crap that gets made year after year this might sound funny but many in the movie industry consider themselves to be artists. Artists typically want to find some new frontier to explore or at the very least something fresh to share with an audience that is becoming jaded to movie magic. I'm not Sam Raimi but I can imagine what he might have been thinking when he and the writers put the Spiderman 3 script together. At the very least he was probably thinking that nobody wants to see the same old super hero action movie so let's do something different. Ang Lee I'm sure had the same thought and ran into the same problem with his albatross, the Hulk.

It's the same mentality that explains why people continue to cheer for Hulk Hogan despite the fact that these days he can't put on very good matches unless guys who can have 4 carry him star matches with broomsticks. We like our hero stories to be simple and easily defined-Black and white, not shades of gray. But when someone like Raimi or Lee goes off the reservation and overly complicates our beloved hero stories, people simply get pissed. We paid for a simple hero story and that's what we want. Now as I said earlier I enjoyed Spiderman 3 but that's only because I knew I wasn't watching a fantasy story anymore and thus I could enjoy it on a different level-the level the director intended for me to enjoy it on.

The last complaint I've heard about Spiderman 3 is yet another example of a fantasy coming to life and falling victim to the harsh politics of Hollywood. Now on this complaint I am sympathetic and I felt the same way as the rest of the detractors but since I understood, I got over it fairly quickly. The problem many had with this film is that both the heroes and villains could not keep their masks on to save their life. Every 30 seconds it seemed like the costumed characters needed to show of their familiar Hollywood faces. This is normal fare for Hollywood. Studios pay good money for name/face actors and their not going the throw it all out of the window because said faces need to be covered with masks (for the oh-so-important-to-the-fans character continuity). As much as it pained me to wait for two hours for Venom to show up and when he finally does he spends nearly the entire time out of mask, (don't even get me started on Spiderman's ever-decreasing lack of secret identity) the studios and producers don't give a rat's patoot about Venom or his fans. They do however care a lot about Topher Grace and the belief (by them) that it is not Venom that puts asses in seats but rather that 70's kid Topher Grace that brings them in a million score.

It's the Judge Dredd effect. You can't keep marketable faces covered up because then you'll lose value. Why pay for Sylvester Stallone, Topher Grace, Tobey McGuire, and James Franco when if they are just going to wear a mask you can get Tom, Dick and Harry Nobody for a considerably lower price. Not to mention with the aforementioned use of CGI, it's much cheaper to film mostly the natural faces of the young actors than it is to film the expensive masked heroes. Topher Grace costs less and is more marketable (in Hollywood theory) than is Venom. Once you understand and submit to this that it is reality, one can enjoy the movie for what it is instead of what you think it should be.

Gender roles and Hollywood politics may not have their place in the fantasy realm but the reality is that are here to stay. I think there can be room for both if given a chance and handled properly. Spiderman 3 might have been able to incorporate both elements without stinking (by the fans assessment) but the fans have to be willing to accept both first. At this juncture, until fantasy fans are willing to compromise and deal with reality, I think we are in for some long summers.

On the other hand, there's always Pirates 3 to look forward to.