My wife irresponsibly purchased the Spider-Man movie for my son even though it was PG-13. (Way to go, significant other.) But he desperately wanted to see it, so I figured I’d better watch it with him and make sure it wasn’t too frightening or icky or whatever. (It wasn’t — I’m actually not sure why it was PG-13. I guess the violence? Even that didn’t seem too over the top though. Maybe I’m just jaded.)
Anyway, it was pretty good, I thought — William Dafoe isn’t as much fun as a villain as Heath Ledger, but Toby McGuire’s spider-man is so, so much better than the stupid Dark Knight Batman that It more than makes up for it.
But what I wanted to talk about was that — watching the movie reminded me of something I’d often thought of with Spider-Man’s origin story. In both movie and comic, we see Spidey refuse to stop a robber, and then that robber goes on and kills Uncle Ben. And, in both cases, there’s a moment when the cop in pursuit of the robber turns to Spidey after the bad guy has gotten away and cusses him out for not helping. (I think in the comic he asks him why he didn’t trip him.)
So the thing is, that’s completely preposterous. In the comic, the bad guy doesn’t have a visible gun…but we know he has one later on with which to shoot Uncle Ben. So it could be concealed…which is why, if you’re a cop, you don’t expect, or even want, random passers-by to fuck around with fleeing felons. I mean, maybe I’m completely confused, but it seems like, even if (especially if) said random passer-by is wearing a weird red and blue suit, what you’d really want them to do is stay the fuck out of the way. Don’t be a hero, don’t get yourself shot, let the professionals handle the problem, seems like the logical attitude. What happens if he trips the guy and the robber pops up with a gun and shoots him? That’s exactly the sort of thing the police are trying to prevent, right?
The assumption that the man-on-the-street has some sort of moral obligation to attempt to stop a fleeing and possibly armed criminal — I don’t know, it’s a perspective, I guess. Of course, Parker could feel guilty himself, knowing that he’s got super-powers and so on and so forth. But in both comic and movie, it’s not just Parker himself, but the law enforcement officers who think he screwed up — and in reality it’s hard to see why they would.
I know, I know…a plothole in a Stan Lee script! What a surprise! But I think it does speak to the whole super-hero idea, and to the “great power, great responsibility” meme as well. Basically, taking responsibility that isn’t yours is often a stupid idea, and can, not inconceivably, make things a lot worse. Sometimes being responsible involves sitting down and shutting up and figuring out which problems aren’t yours and when it might really be better to leave well enough alone. Lee and Ditko, for narrative and possibly Objectivist reasons, rigged the game against poor Peter. But he really didn’t necessarily do the wrong thing.
Noah – I agree with you in terms of what a “real world” police officer might say/prefer.
However, the important thing is that Peter could have easily stopped the robber and that he didn’t do so for a petty/spiteful reason.
Also – the “With great power…” line has become so ubiquitous in discussions about Spider-Man that it obscures a more nuanced reading of the comics’ theme. (That Stan Lee the is responsilbe for both the nuance and obfuscation shouldn’t be a surprise.) I think, as you suggest, the premise is more like: can you have a satisfying life when you’re always acting out of guilt?
Peter could have easily stopped him…but tackling somebody with a gun while there are other people around is no joke. You do that shit, you could just as easily get somebody else killed as yourself.
Super-hero comics are skewed towards the assumption that violent action always has the best, most moral results. The Spidey origin is a distilled example of this. And it’s just not true — as our own recent history unfortunately attests.
So what’d your son think of the movie?
Well, he loves all things Spider-Man, and he was proud that he wasn’t scared since I told him he might be and we might have to stop. And he was not, in fact, scared, so that’s good.
Overall, I think he was a little bored. Too much melodrama, not nearly enough Spider-Man running around in his “real” costume. And probably just too long overall. I may have liked it better than he did.
The Adam West Batman movie got a better reception overall (from me as well!)
Doesn’t the policeman know that Spidey is a super-duper fighter (from his appearance in the wrestling ring as “Spider-Man”). He’s not just another stander-by, but a studly fighter type. Of course, this doesn’t mean that violent interference is a good thing…just that the comic does set up a “reason” why Spidey might be expected to intervene…
BTW Spider Man 3 is right up there with the worst movies ever made. Superman 4 still holds the title, though.
I don’t think it’s clear what the policeman knows in the comic. In the movie, the shady promoter knows Spidey is a fighter and “could take the guy apart.” But in the movie the villain actually has a gun out. Why there’s a supposition that a fighter of whatever caliber can handle a gun is really unclear.
Yeah, the point is that he feels guilt because he could’ve stopped the guy.
In general though, police can’t intervene all the time.They show up after the crime, really. self defense is the citizens’ obligation, but I think there are certain circumstances where it would be someone’s moral responsibility to stop a crime if it’s in their power to do so. Obviously, if they’re armed and you’re not, it’s not a good move.
I think I’ve asked you this before Uland, but…you have some sympathy for Objectivism, don’t you?
I’ve been thinking about pacifism recently, which is part of where I’m coming from. Obviously not something Ditko would have approved of (and I doubt Stan Lee thought about such issues at all, of course.)
Eric, I think, personally, Superman 4 has been deposed from my personal worst movie ever. There’s something at least slightly charming about such an utter train wreck; not that it’s so-bad-it’s-good, but I think it is so-bad-it’s-not-the-worst-movie-ever. I think I could sit through Superman 4 again, if only to laugh at it. On the other hand, I’ve started a bunch of movies I couldn’t stomach at all — Wanted most recently, but I think King Kong was even worse….
Yeah, King Kong beats Superman IV for me sheerly because of length of time in which I want to die.
I literally couldn’t get past the first fifteen minutes of King Kong. At that point I’d already wanted to kick all the principle actors in the teeth like twenty times, and I figured I’d better stop before I accidentally put my foot through the television.
I saw Superman IV long, long ago…but in memory at least it definitely had some of that Ed Wood magic. The Nuclear Man’s costume design alone….
And, hey…what about Star Trek V?
noah – so did you miss the gratuitous racism? i was actually shocked by how non-human the island natives were, but maybe i expected too much out of this century.
i kept waiting for that movie to get better & it never ever did. by the end, i was just watching for the clothes.
The cop/Peter issue — Yeah, logically this moment is a mess. But in the story it adds up somehow: all these years and I never noticed anything wrong.
To me it’s like there’s something automatic when readers see a guy in a super-costume. The hero is marked out by the costume, you’ve seen his powers, and it just comes naturally to assume he’s the pivot for all action on the page.
In real life it would make no sense for the cop to call to this stranger. But in a superhero story it’s clear he’s calling to a superhero — even if there’s no reason to think the cop, or anybody in the story, has ever heard of superheroes. It’s a bizarre effect, really.
Got to admit I’m very fond of Spider-Man I and II. Saw the first half of III on dvd; didn’t hate it but didn’t stay with it.
MIriam; yes, I missed everything after the first fifteen minutes (maybe even less?) I wanted to see King Kong too, but I couldn’t hack it. Glad I missed the gratuitous racism, actually; I really like Peter Jackson, and was already sufficiently disillusioned.
Tom; I think the moment kind of encapsulates something about super-hero comics and how they function. As you’ve noted before, Stan Lee was…not a genius, exactly, but there was something there.
Yeah, it’s kind of a giveaway about the basic assumptions behind superhero stories. Wonder if there are any other moments like that.
Kong has some good effects in the middle, giant slugs and so forth, but it’s still a lot more work than fun. Not as bad for me as LOTR 2, but long and not rewarding.
Jack Black kind of wears on me, and the first hour is mainly him wearing giant ’30s hats, if I remember.
i know, for sure, that I watched King kong. I remember that I took the actions necessary to watch it on television. but all i can remember happening was a dinosaur fight. i know there was a movie that surrounded that dinosaur fight. i assume it’s about the ape.
I don’t know how relevant this is, but I thought of an interesting difference between the comic and the movie. In the comic, Peter fails to stop the crook out of laziness, or at least a lack of heroic impulse, saying “It’s not my problem” (or did he say that in the original story? I don’t remember). But in the movie he did it out of spite, to get back at the promoter who cheated him out of money. So in the comics, the reason for his superhero career came out of guilt for not doing the right thing when he had the chance. In the movie, it came out of guilt for doing the wrong thing (sort of). I would say that the comic fits the “great power, great responsibility” theme a bit better. Does this mean anything? Probably not; I’m just sounding pretentious, which is probably not a good idea around all these people who are smarter than me.
By the way, I expect the movie was PG13 because of violence, especially Willem Dafoe getting impaled at the end. But PG13 is kind of the default rating for movies these days anyway, and the violence is much tamer than what would have made it into PG movies 20 years ago.
Also, I enjoyed Spidey 3 even though it wasn’t all that great, and I liked King Kong for the most part. It was a bit long, and all the Joseph Campbell talk was pretty pointless, but there were some incredibly enjoyable action scenes involving dinosaurs and bugs, and some really beautiful photography. Plus, Naomi Watts. I can usually tolerate most anything she is in.
Yeah, King Kong is just lifeless.I nearly fell asleep in the theater. A family member bought it for me on DVD and I’ve yet to make it through. I have, however, only watched the Island sequences for the fight scenes. The giant insects swallowing men whole scene is pretty great looking.
I think the “savage natives” thing was meant to harken back to pulp sources. It is an island where dinosaurs and a giant ape live, after all.
And lets not forget that a lot of primitive island cultures were incredibly brutal; cannibalism, child sacrifice, etc.
re: Objectivism. I find it sort of interesting, but I can’t get past the deification of “reason” or rationalism. I do appreciate their opposition to moral relativism , but I often disagree with how that’s expressed. It usually rests in the Objectivists’ vision of the transcendent hero; he can only transcend by disavowing any kind of spiritual connection to anything beyond the self.
I do have some sympathy with Pacifism , but much like Objectivism, I just find it untenable when it comes down to it. I think there is a place for passive resistance, but I guess I just don’t think evil action is something that we’ll somehow “evolve” past.I think if we’ve made any real progress in human terms, it’s more often than not been fought for and its always going to be under threat. So it’s our responsibility to defend against it, even on smaller scales, like stopping crime that involves victimization if you can, even if violence is necessary to stop it.
But yeah, I realize that those things are easier said than done. I don’t know if I’d have the balls in certain cases, but I think it’s far healthier for a culture to have that assumption than not.
Have you read any Nicholson Baker?
I”ve looked at a little Nicholson Baker and haven’t been too into it.
I think there is some pacifism that is based around some idea of progress. I think most Christian pacifism is based more on the idea that God said violence is bad, and, given that, humans aren’t really in a position to determine how or when violence will result in more violence. It’s about putting your faith in God rather than in progress, mostly — and generally assuming that one’s own life is less important than a lot of other things (like salvation.)
That’s a thoughtful critique of Objectivism.
Well, I know Shakers came out of an enlightenment milieu and believed in “progress” in largely secular terms. Unitarians became basically secular and pronounced it more clearly, and lots of pacifist movements came out of that.
But I think you’re pretty much right.
I’m more taken with St. Thomas’ just war concept.
HUMAN SMOKE is pretty interesting. I’ve never read any of Bakers’ fiction. I bring it up cause he’s a pacifist.