I am and have been my whole life a Spider fan and a collector of Spider-Man comics. Amazing Spider-Man was the first comic book I ever read and to this day it remains my favorite comic series. When I saw Raimi's Spider-Man it absolutely blew my mind and it captivated me. Like many other's I was just as engrossed with Spider-Man 2 and although some of the sloppy CG effects bothered me, I thought it was an achievement and a wonderful representation of Spider-Man. Then Spider-Man 3 came out. It wasn't just a bad movie, it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I never was comfortable with how Tobey looked as Peter Parker, and it was hard to believe him as Spider-Man, but he really did embody the essance of Peter Parker so I was a big fan. But with Spider-Man 3's terrible everything, Tobey's wonderful performance as Peter went wayward as well along with the hopes of so many fans. So they scrapped Raimi and the cast and decided to reboot.
Flash forward and we now have the Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I was incredibly psyched about this because not only does he look the part, but he seemed to have the smarts, wit, and snark about him that Spider-Man needed. As I watched the movie I noticed so many familiar motifs from the Raimi movie- Peter uses photography to harmlessly stock his love interest, he embarrasses the school bully, he sees flies in slow motion, he catches things that fall in a perfect stack, he unintentionally makes a mess of his room with his powers, he has a blast running on rooftops, he blows off helping his uncle with a household chore, he happens to witness his uncle's death, the villain is a man that Peter trusted who experiments on himself with an untested technology only to drift into power-hungry schizophrenia, he saves people who have been thrown from a bridge by the villain, and ultimately the working class citizens of New York come to Spider-Man's aid to help him overcome the odds. All of these things aren't elements of Spider-Man's origin in the comic books, rather they are elements of Raimi's film. It's hard to say that these are tip of the hats when they happened so frequently, its almost as if the Amazing Spider-Man's source material was Raimi's film and not the comic. The one thing that didn't draw from the Raimi film were the character's and their development. Uncle Ben went from a wise elder concerned about the disconnect with his nephew to a bumbling blue collar simpleton afraid of his nephew's angst and intellect. And although Aunt May is traditionally a frail old woman who is constantly concerned for her nephews well-being, her defining characteristic is her smothering love for Peter. In the Amazing Spider-Man Aunt May was strictly a frantic mess that only exhibited panic and did not display any other emotion. And then there's Peter. Peter went from shy, reserved and mild mannered to a combination of brash, angst filled and narcissistic.
Now these changes are not without their merit, although ASM ripped off all of Raimi's motifs it would be borderline plagiarism if the character's weren't altered as well. But this goes beyond this movie being a reboot, this movie is a representation of characters and a mythos that goes much further back than 2002. Heck the name of the movie is the "Amazing Spider-Man". This is the movie that is supposed to draw even more from the original comics. This is the movie line that prides itself in bringing the webshooters into the mix. But instead I think it in translating the story into modern times and it fails in understanding the essence of the characters. This inherent misunderstanding is apparent all the way from the writers, to the director Marc Webb, and all the way to the man behind the mask, Andrew Garfield. More and more I feel like they don't quite grasp the essence of the Spider-Man storyline, and Andrew Garfield in particular just doesn't understand Peter Parker's character and development.
I think it was apparent when Andrew Garfield started making statements about his character beyond the screen. I don't want this to come off wrong, but when Andrew Garfield stated that he thought Peter Parker could be gay- it communicated a disconnect in his understanding of the character and the character's storyline. Sexual orientation is something that doesn't define a person, so its a valid argument that any one character's orientation could be flexible. But as romance fits into Peter's storyark, it definitely makes an impact on who he is. He was a beta male that was always at odds with alpha males like Flash Thompson, particularly in the pursuit of women. His role as a hero involves him switching from beta male to alpha male in a way that complicates his pursuit of his romantic loves who operate within the norms of traditional hetero-romance. This aspect of his storyline is something that deeply impacts how his character develops and he would not be the same without it. Peter Parker knew that he had the power to impress, he had the power to be the alpha male and pursue his love the same way the alpha males did, but Peter suppressed this for the sake of his dual identity. This duality as it operated within the culture of society's perceptions of romance often was the source of many of Peter's character defining conflicts. Peter Parker's character would not be the same if he had not experienced a struggle with other alpha males in pursuit of his love interests- it really has defined who he was. For Peter to be gay and have the same storyline and character development, he would have to operate in a much more progressive society that had very fluid gender roles, because its these gender roles that dictated much of Peter's actions. I do think that a story similar to Spider-Man's very well could exist in which this were the case and with popular characters like Northstar and Batwoman having openly gay romances, its not far off that an iteration of Spider-Man like this could exist.
After Garfield made that statement, although it was an interesting interpretation, I mostly got the feeling that the miscommunication of Peter's character went beyond the writing and directing that Garfield himself just really didn't understand the character of Peter Parker. Peter is the humble weakling who secretly has all the power. Its a familiar archetype that's not that revolutionary. The unique thing about Peter's story is that when he is Spider-Man he slips out of his skin into something different entirely. He is dashing and romantic, he tailors his smarts into wit and sarcasm, he stands up for the little guy and he's not afraid of confrontation. Does Andrew Garfield portray these qualities as Spider-Man? Yes. Maybe better than Tobey. But the problem is that these aren't the qualities that define Spider-Man, they just are part of the flash that comes with the suit. Spider-Man is truly defined by who he is underneath. (sorry Batman, but in this case its who he is underneath that defines him). Peter Parker is the guy that gets picked on and can't pick back, he's the guy who can't get the girl and watches all the other guys get girls, Peter Parker is the guy that shrinks his personality and bites his tongue, he is the guy that takes abuse from his boss, his peers, and the authorities quietly, he is humble and not proud, he is slow to anger but confident and wise. Peter Parker above all puts his family above all else. He lives and dies buy his Aunt May and her interest is always on the top of his priority list.
That's what Garfield gets wrong. The brash wise cracking arrogant alter ego of Peter Parker is what he made Peter Parker. Garfield shows off whenever possible, is never humble, always confrontational and displays characteristics of an alpha male. Above all though, he cares little for his Aunt May. Heck he didn't even really care for his Uncle Ben. Garfield portrayed Peter Parker as a teen tormented by angst, and not by isolation. His character was sometimes shy, but more often he was outspoken. He was very liberal with his powers, and extremely narcissistic. He started fights with bullies (not the other way around), he showed off his powers, he publicly shamed cops, got in dinner conversation arguments with girlfriends parents, frequently lied (to get on the oscorp tour, lied about his father's equation), broke rules, and showed little to no genuine affection for his parent figures. Its an interesting study on a modern teenager with super powers, but its nothing close to anything I've ever seen in the Peter Parker storyline.
Maybe it comes down to the fact that he plays a good Spider-Man, but a bad Peter Parker. The opposite could be argued for Tobey Maguire. I thought that all the things that embodied Peter Parker, Tobey portrayed wonderfully, but at the same time he couldn't channel his "alpha male" into his role as Spider-Man in the suit. But shouldn't the perfect actor for Spider-Man be adequately play both? I feel like audiences were so hungry for a Spider-Man that was cocky and showy that they forgot what really makes Spider-Man...Spider-Man. Which, like any hero, is the man behind the mask.
And Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield is not.
Flash forward and we now have the Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I was incredibly psyched about this because not only does he look the part, but he seemed to have the smarts, wit, and snark about him that Spider-Man needed. As I watched the movie I noticed so many familiar motifs from the Raimi movie- Peter uses photography to harmlessly stock his love interest, he embarrasses the school bully, he sees flies in slow motion, he catches things that fall in a perfect stack, he unintentionally makes a mess of his room with his powers, he has a blast running on rooftops, he blows off helping his uncle with a household chore, he happens to witness his uncle's death, the villain is a man that Peter trusted who experiments on himself with an untested technology only to drift into power-hungry schizophrenia, he saves people who have been thrown from a bridge by the villain, and ultimately the working class citizens of New York come to Spider-Man's aid to help him overcome the odds. All of these things aren't elements of Spider-Man's origin in the comic books, rather they are elements of Raimi's film. It's hard to say that these are tip of the hats when they happened so frequently, its almost as if the Amazing Spider-Man's source material was Raimi's film and not the comic. The one thing that didn't draw from the Raimi film were the character's and their development. Uncle Ben went from a wise elder concerned about the disconnect with his nephew to a bumbling blue collar simpleton afraid of his nephew's angst and intellect. And although Aunt May is traditionally a frail old woman who is constantly concerned for her nephews well-being, her defining characteristic is her smothering love for Peter. In the Amazing Spider-Man Aunt May was strictly a frantic mess that only exhibited panic and did not display any other emotion. And then there's Peter. Peter went from shy, reserved and mild mannered to a combination of brash, angst filled and narcissistic.
Now these changes are not without their merit, although ASM ripped off all of Raimi's motifs it would be borderline plagiarism if the character's weren't altered as well. But this goes beyond this movie being a reboot, this movie is a representation of characters and a mythos that goes much further back than 2002. Heck the name of the movie is the "Amazing Spider-Man". This is the movie that is supposed to draw even more from the original comics. This is the movie line that prides itself in bringing the webshooters into the mix. But instead I think it in translating the story into modern times and it fails in understanding the essence of the characters. This inherent misunderstanding is apparent all the way from the writers, to the director Marc Webb, and all the way to the man behind the mask, Andrew Garfield. More and more I feel like they don't quite grasp the essence of the Spider-Man storyline, and Andrew Garfield in particular just doesn't understand Peter Parker's character and development.
I think it was apparent when Andrew Garfield started making statements about his character beyond the screen. I don't want this to come off wrong, but when Andrew Garfield stated that he thought Peter Parker could be gay- it communicated a disconnect in his understanding of the character and the character's storyline. Sexual orientation is something that doesn't define a person, so its a valid argument that any one character's orientation could be flexible. But as romance fits into Peter's storyark, it definitely makes an impact on who he is. He was a beta male that was always at odds with alpha males like Flash Thompson, particularly in the pursuit of women. His role as a hero involves him switching from beta male to alpha male in a way that complicates his pursuit of his romantic loves who operate within the norms of traditional hetero-romance. This aspect of his storyline is something that deeply impacts how his character develops and he would not be the same without it. Peter Parker knew that he had the power to impress, he had the power to be the alpha male and pursue his love the same way the alpha males did, but Peter suppressed this for the sake of his dual identity. This duality as it operated within the culture of society's perceptions of romance often was the source of many of Peter's character defining conflicts. Peter Parker's character would not be the same if he had not experienced a struggle with other alpha males in pursuit of his love interests- it really has defined who he was. For Peter to be gay and have the same storyline and character development, he would have to operate in a much more progressive society that had very fluid gender roles, because its these gender roles that dictated much of Peter's actions. I do think that a story similar to Spider-Man's very well could exist in which this were the case and with popular characters like Northstar and Batwoman having openly gay romances, its not far off that an iteration of Spider-Man like this could exist.
After Garfield made that statement, although it was an interesting interpretation, I mostly got the feeling that the miscommunication of Peter's character went beyond the writing and directing that Garfield himself just really didn't understand the character of Peter Parker. Peter is the humble weakling who secretly has all the power. Its a familiar archetype that's not that revolutionary. The unique thing about Peter's story is that when he is Spider-Man he slips out of his skin into something different entirely. He is dashing and romantic, he tailors his smarts into wit and sarcasm, he stands up for the little guy and he's not afraid of confrontation. Does Andrew Garfield portray these qualities as Spider-Man? Yes. Maybe better than Tobey. But the problem is that these aren't the qualities that define Spider-Man, they just are part of the flash that comes with the suit. Spider-Man is truly defined by who he is underneath. (sorry Batman, but in this case its who he is underneath that defines him). Peter Parker is the guy that gets picked on and can't pick back, he's the guy who can't get the girl and watches all the other guys get girls, Peter Parker is the guy that shrinks his personality and bites his tongue, he is the guy that takes abuse from his boss, his peers, and the authorities quietly, he is humble and not proud, he is slow to anger but confident and wise. Peter Parker above all puts his family above all else. He lives and dies buy his Aunt May and her interest is always on the top of his priority list.
That's what Garfield gets wrong. The brash wise cracking arrogant alter ego of Peter Parker is what he made Peter Parker. Garfield shows off whenever possible, is never humble, always confrontational and displays characteristics of an alpha male. Above all though, he cares little for his Aunt May. Heck he didn't even really care for his Uncle Ben. Garfield portrayed Peter Parker as a teen tormented by angst, and not by isolation. His character was sometimes shy, but more often he was outspoken. He was very liberal with his powers, and extremely narcissistic. He started fights with bullies (not the other way around), he showed off his powers, he publicly shamed cops, got in dinner conversation arguments with girlfriends parents, frequently lied (to get on the oscorp tour, lied about his father's equation), broke rules, and showed little to no genuine affection for his parent figures. Its an interesting study on a modern teenager with super powers, but its nothing close to anything I've ever seen in the Peter Parker storyline.
Maybe it comes down to the fact that he plays a good Spider-Man, but a bad Peter Parker. The opposite could be argued for Tobey Maguire. I thought that all the things that embodied Peter Parker, Tobey portrayed wonderfully, but at the same time he couldn't channel his "alpha male" into his role as Spider-Man in the suit. But shouldn't the perfect actor for Spider-Man be adequately play both? I feel like audiences were so hungry for a Spider-Man that was cocky and showy that they forgot what really makes Spider-Man...Spider-Man. Which, like any hero, is the man behind the mask.
And Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield is not.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire