Seeing as I'm a big Spider-Man fan, I figured a look at the
latest telling of this origin story was the perfect way to start this blog...
I have to admit, despite or perhaps because of the last
Spider-Man movie, I had some reservations about The Amazing Spider-Man.
The last one left a sour taste in my mouth, partly wanting a reinvention,
partly wanting to focus on the brilliance that has been Christopher Nolan's Dark
Knight trilogy and on the Marvel films that culminated in The Avengers.
That said, I was excited to see Andrew Garfield step into the role of Peter
Parker/Spider-Man, I was excited that Marc Webb, director of the awesome indie (500)
Days of Summer, was stepping into the director's chair, and I was eager for
an edgier take on the character. Plus, after the release of Spider-Man 2,
I had concocted my own story for a film that focused on the themes of family
and responsibility and featured Dr. Connors/the Lizard as the villain - so I
was curious to see how this movie would play out.
Overall, I really liked the film. I thought the acting was
excellent. It was a great cast giving great performances: Garfield, Emma Stone,
Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans (yes, of Notting Hill fame), the
underrated Campbell Scott (The Spanish Prisoner? amazing) - and, while I
don't always like his stand-up, I love Denis Leary in movies (also see: The
Thomas Crown Affair). I thought there was a good amount of action mixed in
among the relationship scenes, though the fight scenes were so truly awesome (did
you see some of the things Spidey did with his webbing?) that I would have
liked some more.
Of course, this is a blog about storytelling, so let's take
a look from that angle.
WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
At the heart of any good story is the protagonist - a
character that the audience can connect with in some way, who is likeable but
flawed, and whose journey forces him to change and grow to overcome those
flaws. In The Amazing Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield adds a complexity and
authenticity to the character of Peter Parker that makes him empathetic and
charmingly awkward. But the story didn't set up his journey (known as the
character's arc) very clearly. Traditionally, this is a story in which the
character learns about responsibility - about doing what's right because you
can and should. (Side note: Why couldn't they have Uncle Ben say the classic
line, "With great power comes great responsibility"? What's wrong
with that?) If that's the case, then the character should go from irresponsible
to responsible - and, in Peter's case, from insecure weakling to bold
superhero. But even in the beginning, Peter is defending kids who get bullied
by Flash. So he already seems to be brave and responsible, even if he is an
insecure weakling. I would have like to have seen a Peter who maybe is angry at
Flash but doesn't do anything out of fear or weakness, and a Peter who is a bit
less considerate of others - maybe not out of rudeness but because he gets
distracted or lost in his own thoughts. Then, his character would have
somewhere to go and grow, becoming more responsible and thoughtful of others as
the story progresses.
The story does show Peter abusing his powers a bit at first,
in the basketball scene with Flash, but personally I would have liked to have
seen more of that shift - the Peter who, as a result of his newfound powers,
becomes more reckless and inconsiderate. I liked the sequence where Peter goes
after Uncle Ben's killer, though I was a bit remiss that the story point was
never resolved. The resolution of that plot point in Raimi's Spider-Man
was a critical moment when the angry, reckless, vengeful Peter realized how
great his powers were and it taught him a little humility. That was missing
here, and Peter just became more and more brash, taunting criminals and the
police. Eventually he realizes that he has to stop the Lizard because he helped
create him (by giving the doctor his father's formula) but I felt like we never
saw that transition from irresponsible to responsible. It just sort of...
happened, without any obvious triggers. What spurred him to go after the Lizard
in the first place? And what changed him from that original mysterious
objective to a greater sense of responsibility?
The changes a character goes through are internal, but they
play out externally in the way the character interacts with others. There are
several relationships at play in this story, and the "relationship"
scenes are really well done. They are emotional, authentic, intimate, dynamic.
Attribute this to the quality of acting and to the directing that makes you
feel during these scenes like you're watching an indie and not some big
blockbuster. Unfortunately, while I thought each individual scene was really
well done (the best of which for me was the fight between Peter and his aunt
and uncle), I didn't feel like the scenes added up to form whole relationships.
For instance, each scene between Peter and Gwen was great - great chemistry,
great dialogue, lots of fun. But after an introduction, a scolding at Oscorp,
and an awkward flirtation in the hallway, she asks him over for dinner... with
her parents. Who suggests going on a first date by having dinner with the
parents? Anyway, circumstances aside, by that point they have yet to have any
sort of personal conversation, one in which we see a deeper connection that
signals a deeper level of trust and commitment. So when he decided to tell her
he was Spider-Man, all I could think was, "Really?? You barely know her,
her father wants you put in jail, and you don't know that you can trust her, so
why are you telling her this?" I suppose they were going for the impetuous
teenager thing, overcome by his emotions, wanting to vent or impress or what
have you, but I didn't buy it. At that moment, I became detached from the
story.
On a different note, a character grows and changes because
they have to: the obstacles placed before him are so challenging he must
stretch himself in order to achieve his goals. In The Amazing Spider-Man, I felt like a lot of Peter’s obstacles were
too easy – getting into Oscorp, learning to swing/web-sling, learning how to
make webbing, applying his Dad’s formula (what the heck was that computer
simulation with the mouse?), even saving people on the bridge. The result was
that I felt like we only skimmed the surface of this character’s journey from
scrawny loser to superhero. In fact, I felt as though the filmmakers thought, “Well,
everyone knows how he becomes Spider-Man, right? So we can just throw in a few
scenes that get at that idea and people will know what we mean.” The problem
is, a good story is grounded in a character’s transformation, and not just
advancing the plot. Did we see how Peter became Spider-Man? Sure, but it left
me somewhat dissatisfied, and at times I detached from the story as a result.
Finally, as I suggested above, a good story has a message.
This message is usually identified as the theme or motif, and it is the unifying
idea that is conveyed to the audience through the character’s journey. Part of
my dissatisfaction with this movie was that I didn’t feel like there was any
unifying idea. The movie felt to me like a patchwork of individual scenes. So
while many of the individual scenes were really good (again, relationship
scenes and action scenes), I frequently felt like I didn’t know where we were
going, or why things were happening. What was Peter’s journey – not his journey
to become Spider-Man and defeat the Lizard, but his transformation as a person?
What was the purpose of the Lizard as the antagonist in bringing about that
transformation? How is he different at the end than the beginning and why
should we care? Without a theme to bring cohesion to the plot, I was left
feeling like the film was just a hodgepodge of different vignettes.
There are other points I could discuss – Gwen Stacy’s
unbelievable involvement in Oscorp and in the finale; how I wish they showed
more of the Lizard’s schizophrenia; the absurdity of turning people into
lizard-men; the suggestion at the end that Aunt May knows he’s Spider-Man?? –
but I’ll save those thoughts for another time and place.
What did you think? Was this a good story? What elements of
good storytelling did it have? Did you become detached from the story at any
point, and if so, where?
No comments:
Post a Comment