Spider-Man 3
I saw Spider-Man 3 this past weekend with Kara and despite all the nay-sayers I loved it. Well maybe I'd like to watch it again without being surrounded by movie talkers. I am an avid "non-movie-talker" and we were surrounded by moviegoers who did not share my convictions. No matter though, this was a fun summer blockbuster. I grew up reading Spider-Man and this chapter was just another example of those comic book stories coming to life. Sure Venom wasn't the HUGE bulking dude he was in the comics. But then again the films seem to take the story one tiny step back towards realism and Topher Grace was a good choice for the journalist with a victim-complex, Eddie Brock.
Of the many criticisms I've heard of the film a few stand out as odd to me. 1) It was too long. I disagree, I couldn't get enough and wished they would have spent even more time with Venom. Folks, good movies are never long enough. 2) It was cheesy. HELLOOO! It's a comic book movie, directed by Sam Rami (Evil Dead). It's cheesy on purpose! Don't be surprised when Peter Parker's "dark side" is still a bit nerdy. But alas, some people just love to hate. I thought it was funnier and more reflective than the previous two installments. Although I'm enjoying it for what it was, a fun spider-man movie, not a hip metaphor for Christian forgiveness. If you want to watch a film about how revenge will consume you and forgiveness is freedom check out the Count of Monte Cristo. There's no need to turn spider-man 3 into a sermon to get something from it. Sometimes movies are just plain fun!
Labels: Film
posted by Charlie at 4:35 PM
17 Comments:
Sorry Chuck, I am going to have to disagree, my wife and I are extreme movie goers and critics, and both love spider man stories and were highly disappointed. I too think film should have spent more time unraveling venom and could have used a bit more darker side to the story...it seemed too 'bubble gum' for my taste...I was hoping something more like batman begins, more darkness to it, especially with venom as it turned out neither he or sandman were developed enough and just glazed over really...i am going to give it thumbs down.
I agree, there's just so much to the Venom story that it's just a tad disappointing to not get more of that story, or not to have Venom span the scope of several films (as they did with the Goblin/Osborns). But I'm sure they had their reasons, I didn't let my expectations keep me from enjoying the film.
Sure Spider-Man tended towards "bubble-gum" fun more than it did towards gothic Batman... but that's always been Spider-Man. While Peter always has "issues" and deals seriously with his identity as the webslinger or with the temptation that came with the Venom symbiote, he never did so without humor and sarcasm. Peter Parker, is not "haunted" by Uncle Ben's death in the same way that Bruce Wayne is haunted by the death of his parents.
So while we might want to see a really goth dark side of Peter Parker it's just not true to his character. So again, while this installment was reflective and dealt with Peter's dark side, I'm glad that the Spider-Man creators didn't rewrite his character to make him fit the supposedly more relevant gothic persona of Batman.
"There's no need to turn spider-man 3 into a sermon to get something from it. Sometimes movies are just plain fun!"
I wonder how this philosophy fits in with your approach to and review of 300 where you said, "I kept trying to see where Christians would fit into this whole story." You specifically critique the glorification of "redemptive violence" by way of Yoder and Hauerwas, while applauding the way in which the story lives up to its "campfire" legacy. So, what's the problem? Why couldn't 300 just be fun like Spiderman 3? Why does the latter get the benefit of the doubt from you in this case but not the former? Why is 300's violence condemned by some extra-narrative ethical norm (that of Christian nonviolence) while Spiderman 3 gets to live comfortably and securely within its own world, free from "real world" criticism over the cultural norms its narrative embodies?
I suspect you might appeal to the clearly more violent nature of 300 and Spiderman's somewhat more "family-friendly" themes. But despite any "forgiveness" overtones to the recent Spiderman film, the basic underlying premise of American comic book storylines are that there are good guys and bad guys--and the good guys (like Superman) stand for "truth, justice, and the American way". And in this battle for justice and making the world turn out right these superheroes (which are more than just heroes--they are "super"--nearly gods!) must use appropriate violence. "Appropriate" usually means commensurate with established patters of American law--the punishment must fit the crime (sometimes Superman just flies the petty criminals to jail), never hurting "innocent" bystanders, etc. Nevertheless, these characters remain superheroes, not supermartyrs, and Christians know the difference.
So is your favorable review of Spiderman 3 the result of a heightened ability to suspend belief for a childhood favorite whereas you only encounter 300 with the critical eye of a first-time viewer, and as an adult?
Hey Kaz,
Good questions. I think the difference for me between 300 and Spider-Man 3 was in my posture towards the films. Being a Christian brought up so many barriers to enjoying 300, but Spider-Man 3 doesn't make my Christian "spider-sense" tingle. It's a fun movie about a fun comic-book story.
I threw that little bit in at the end about not turning Spider-Man 3 into a sermon because it was such a small (and somewhat cheesy) part of the movie. Spider-Man 3 is not about revenge and forgiveness from beginning to end like Count of Monte Cristo is. Some movies are worth mining for their spiritual depth, and I didn't see Spider-Man 3 as really being incredibly deep, but I can just see people starting to write the Spider-Man 3 bible studies. Pat Robertson was just on the 700 club talking about the biblical themes in Spider-Man 3. So I just wanted to say, hey it's a fun movie, it's not meant to be a morality play about revenge/forgiveness, even though that is a subplot.
For a film that gives us a glimpse of what Christian forgiveness looks like even better than the Count of Monte Cristo would be The Edge with Sir Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin. The last 15 minutes of this film are amazing.
Fair enough. But again, why do you gloss over Spidey with this faith in the cominc book fun of it all, but decline to do so with 300? Pat Robertson's "spider sense" tingled for Spiderman 3, albeit in a "positive" sense and you even want him to get over himself!
Under this philosophy I cannot understand why your "spider sense" is then going off at the sight of 300, though this time in a negative way.
One movie is approached fundamentally as a Christian and the other as a mere fan of comic book fun. If I shouldn't be mining Spiderman 3 for Christian themes, but appreciating it for what it is, then why should I be mining for Christian themes in 300--coming up empty handed--instead of appreciating it for what IT is, another (more violent) "comic book" movie?
(Oddly enough your praised the artistic sense of 300 and its adaptive faithfulness. It is what it is and yet that's not enough apparently.)
At what point in the movie going process do you decide to leave Jesus at the door or save him a seat? Or is Jesus just a fan of Spidey, willing to "enter into the world of a film" along with you (as you said about 300) while dissing Frank Miller because he was never that much of a fan. I suppose Jesus would then be looking for every way not to "enter the world of a film" but instead bring his world (the Kingdom) into the theater with him--there to find an incompatibility between the two worlds. But what's the difference between the two movies before you walk into the theate, before you walk (or don't walk) into their "worlds"?
Kaz I think you misunderstand me and I certainly don't understand you. What's more is I'm feeling an incredibly hostile tone in your comments. Is this a dialog or is a chance to beat me over the head with philosophy without really trying to listen to me? Just wondering.
Again, I was appalled by what I thought was an anti-Kingdom of God message in 300.
I didn't perceive there to be an anti-Kingdom of God message in Spider-Man 3 and the one scene about forgiveness I think people are blowing out of proportion because they know they can get good press, not because the movie is about forgiveness. I just thought the movie was 90% fun and 2% morality play about forgiveness. And as "forgiveness" movies go, Spider-Man 3 doesn't measure up to films like The Count of Monte Cristo or The Edge.
That's all I'm saying.
No, no, no; no such hostility. Just attempting to think through this stuff myself while trying to figure out one Charlie Pardue--blogger, avid movie goer, and Kingdom citizen. Not to mention your keen interest in finding relationships between faith and film. So, it's the medium I suppose--the perils of electronic communication make "tones" hard to read.
I know you love to take movies for what they are--hence the longstanding joke some of us have about you liking EVERYTHING. But when I read your initial review of 300 I thought it was interesting that you were reading into it a specifically "anti-kingdom message." I didn't ezpect that from you but then again, perhaps after Blood Diamond and some other films you had seen recently you were beginning to weigh movies solely on their "usefulness" to Christian narrative formation . And then Spiderman 3 came long and I was confused why chastized others for reading too much into it (good or bad) intead of enjoying it for what it was; a different approach than you took with 300.
This seeming disparity is what I have been trying to figure out. My initial hunch was that your biases are more easily suspended for childhood favorites--like Spiderman--whose narrative you've already entered into, and perhaps never left. Whereas 300 met a more critical (read adult) eye.
Now I understand you dislike movies with stories that run counter to the Gospel. I also get that you LOVE movies (as evidenced elsewhere) that are both fun movies and good reflections of Christian themes. Apparently, however, Spiderman is neither and occupies a middle ground for you--something to be enjoyed and not overanalyzed in either direction (good or bad).
Without sounding "hostile" but thinking I understand now, I find this all logically consistent, though I think your analysis of Spiderman 3 flawed. I think it is guilty of much the same thing you claim 300 is guilty of. But that matter is more easily contested. Nevertheless, if I were to apply the same filter you used on 300, I would be much less charitable than you with Spiderman 3. In fact, I would find it difficult to watch most mainstream films since last I checked following Jesus (or his message) wasn't very popular to the wider culture. This is perhaps the reason why you allow for a middle ground, a gray area for movies like Spiderman 3--so you can still enjoy movies without getting all preachy!
I love movies, as you know, and I am more than willing to leave Jesus at the door of some of them--sort of. Perhaps I'll have to explain over on my blog. But first, I want to make sure I have now understood you correctly.
Peacably, Kaz
Chuck,
I will say that in a sense I agree with Kaz. I wondered a bit at your methodology in film critique as it relates to faith. Perhaps a post of your "method of critique" would be helpful.
That said, I am not willing to say that I didn't like Spiderman 3 but it was definitely the weakest! I am all about the comic book movies, and do hold them in different standards. I agree with you that the "bubble gum" critique was not quite accurate (it's Spiderman ... like a good bottle of wine, cheeze is preferred). Katie hates when I make this argument. However, I did think that they over dramatized everything. Or better said, they just tried too hard. Also, there were too many bad guys with undeveloped stories. The Eddie Brock character was lame (I kept waiting for Eric Foreman to announce that he was taking the year off!). Lastly, too many lame "wisdom" quotes (e.g. I guess one person can make a difference after all. Enough same." - ridiculous). Aunt May was bit much as well. All in all, you have to go see it because it's Spidey, but it is a disappointment.
Kaz's original comments are in bold
I know you love to take movies for what they are--hence the longstanding joke some of us have about you liking EVERYTHING.
And my longstanding response that I choose movies more carefully than most people, thus weeding out trips to "Bad Santa" and "Rock Star"
But when I read your initial review of 300 I thought it was interesting that you were reading into it a specifically "anti-kingdom message."
Whether or not the writers of 300 meant to write an anti-kingdom message, they did so. I was just calling it like it is.
I didn't expect that from you but then again, perhaps after Blood Diamond and some other films you had seen recently you were beginning to weigh movies solely on their "usefulness" to Christian narrative formation.
I love it when a movie serves the gospel, or when a movie illustrates something true or beautiful, but this is not the only thing I look for in movies, nor is it even the most important thing for me a in movie. I just like good movies. I don't just go to movies that I think will be "useful for Christian narrative formation."
And then Spiderman 3 came long and I was confused why [you] chastised others for reading too much into it (good or bad) instead of enjoying it for what it was; a different approach than you took with 300.
You're reading way too much into one sentence I wrote. I didn't "chastise" people like Pat Robertson for reading a gospel message into Spider-Man 3, I just thought that what they're claiming is there ISN'T there, or at the very least can be found better elsewhere. I questioned their motives for trying to squeeze a gospel nugget out of the summer's biggest movie. I think they did so not because they consistently go to movies looking for signs of Jesus, but because it would draw a lot of attention.
This seeming disparity is what I have been trying to figure out.
I don't see a disparity.
My initial hunch was that your biases are more easily suspended for childhood favorites--like Spiderman--whose narrative you've already entered into, and perhaps never left. Whereas 300 met a more critical (read adult) eye.
Perhaps that's true, but if you know me you know that when I go to movies I get INTO THEM. I'm the king of suspending my disbelief, and if you'll go back and read my post on 300 I explain why I just couldn't do it for that film.
Now I understand you dislike movies with stories that run counter to the Gospel.
That's not necessarily true. I don't have a "rulebook" for what I can and cannot like.
I also get that you LOVE movies (as evidenced elsewhere) that are both fun movies and good reflections of Christian themes.
True, although few are both "fun" and carry a "Christian theme."
Apparently, however, Spiderman is neither and occupies a middle ground for you--something to be enjoyed and not over analyzed in either direction (good or bad).
Wrong. Spider-man was fun. I just think the "Christian themes" people are drawing from it are overblown (for the sake of publicity) and better found elsewhere.
...I think your analysis of Spiderman 3 flawed. I think it is guilty of much the same thing you claim 300 is guilty of. But that matter is more easily contested.
If you're going to say that Spider-Man 3 promotes a vicious warrior culture I must disagree, if you're going to say that Spider-Man has elements of "redemptive violence" in it, I would see your point, but still contest it.
Nevertheless, if I were to apply the same filter you used on 300, I would be much less charitable than you with Spiderman 3. In fact, I would find it difficult to watch most mainstream films since last I checked following Jesus (or his message) wasn't very popular to the wider culture. This is perhaps the reason why you allow for a middle ground, a gray area for movies like Spiderman 3--so you can still enjoy movies without getting all preachy!
Maybe so. I don't draw a line that a film must be 100% gospel for me to enjoy it or even get something out of it, what frustrates me is when there is NOTHING redemptive and the entire film from start to finish is anti-Kingdom of God.
Scott's original comments are in bold.
I wondered a bit at your methodology in film critique as it relates to faith. Perhaps a post of your "method of critique" would be helpful.
There is no real method. I don't want a rulebook (even if I write it) to tell me when I can and cannot enjoy a movie. Sometimes I see the gospel, literally "good news" in films. Sometimes I don't. There is no system for this.
That said, I am not willing to say that I didn't like Spiderman 3 but it was definitely the weakest!
Okay, that's fine. I really enjoyed it. I'm not a huge fan of ranking movies because I think it encourages us to think of movies "competitively" against one another when they may all just be great movies. Lord of the Rings? All great films. My favorite? I don't know, if it means I haves to start ranking them in a competitive way then I'll end up disliking one in favor of another when I really just enjoyed them all.
I am all about the comic book movies, and do hold them in different standards. I agree with you that the "bubble gum" critique was not quite accurate (it's Spiderman ... like a good bottle of wine, cheeze is preferred). Katie hates when I make this argument.
Is there no room for cheese in Katie's world?
Thanks for responding Charlie. I haven't meant to be over critical, but like I said, I consider your (non-)method of choosing movies over that, say, of Chad (who doesn't like everything but certainly likes a lot of crap) to be thoughtful--and thus worthy of discussion. And since I know you've taken courses and read books on the intersection of faith and film your voice is especially welcome, and appreciated, in this conversation as Christians.
Your most recent post help explained some and apparently I have been systematizing your thought too much. It was surely not ouf of an attempt merely to systematize for order's sake, but rather to find a Christian hermeneutical approach to film, that by being truly Christocentric will necessarily be normative for all films--the proverbial "What would Jesus watch?" Again, my apologies if you've felt "on the defense"--perhaps this conversation (like so many others) is better suited to in-person conversations. Humbly, I hope, I go on...
***
I love it when a movie serves the gospel, or when a movie illustrates something true or beautiful, but this is not the only thing I look for in movies, nor is it even the most important thing for me a in movie. I just like good movies. I don't just go to movies that I think will be "useful for Christian narrative formation."
The question is clearer now. What makes a "good" movie, since it apparently does not mean the same as, the "Gospel--literally 'good news'"? The answer to that question would be too lengthy to expect someone you answer it, but my point is to draw out the distinction you make between a "good" movie (and its narrative) and the "good news" made known to us in Jesus.
As in the case of 300 the two cannot coexist, while in Spiderman 3 they can (though not because of Robertson's argument). So what's the difference?
Is Spiderman 3 a good film, in your estimation? Yes, chiefly because it was "fun"--you entered the world as you've been wont to do since you were a kid. Is it good because it harkens the Christian narrative (as Pat Robertson and others may be trying to do)? Maybe, but as you pointed out in your initial post, that's unimportant: "There's no need to turn spider-man 3 into a sermon to get something from it. Sometimes movies are just plain fun!"
And what of 300 ? Was it a good (fun) movie? According to you, 300 "lacks nothing" and does "exceedingly well" in creating a world "real" enough for you, the ever-willing world-enterer, to enter. And yet you don't (!) because of the second question: Does it evoke in some way the Christian narrative? Yes! and in a purely negative and paradoxical way--by inverting the ethic and life embodied in the crucified Christ as it "gloried" not this crucified Lord but the "redemptive violence." So, "all these themes kept [you] from truly entering the movie. Instead [you] held it at arms length..." The final paragraph of your review, which entirely pits the Christian narrative against that of 300--is indicative of the problem--as a Christian you had trouble entering (and enjoying) the story because it was in "direct conflict" with following Jesus.
So, finally then, we come to the (non-)method. If I am to understand you, you are more than willing to enjoy "fun" movies at face value. And "fun" movies that actually reflect the Christian narrative, rare as they are, are even better. Still a movie doesn't have to say anything about Christ (explicitly or implicitly) for it to be "fun" or "good"--as is the case with Spidey.
But, if a movie is clearly, and sufficiently, so counter to the Gospel, it makes it difficult for Christians to "enter it" and find it "fun." Ergo, it's not a good movie, as is the case with 300.
Since Spiderman 3 does not really say anything substantive about the Good News (again, with Charlie, despite what Robertson wants to do with it) and because 300 as "good" as it is, says something horrible about the Good News (namely, that it is not true else violence and death would be defeated) but the first remains fun/good and the latter does not, I conclude that this method" is dependent upon a threshold .
At some point some films go from saying something about the Good News (rare), to nothing of it (usual), to something opposed to it (rare, but less rare). And somewhere along that line a movie ceases to be fun and gets you quoting Yoder and Hauerwas in your blog's review of the film.
I am sure Charlie does not know where this threshold lies (redemptive violence, exploitation of the poor, premarital sex, debauchery and hedonism, greed?) and each film, for Charlie isn't, held against such a checklist ("rulebook"), but is judged on a case by case basis--"there is no real method...tell[ing] me when I can and cannot enjoy a movie."
So, does that characterize your (non-)method and thereby the difference between the two films in question? And to a lesser degree, the question "What would Jesus watch?"
If so, I ultimately submit that Spiderman 3 similarly (though not quite so much) glorifies redemptive violence--a point, Charlie, you admitted to being able to see, though not agree with. But that is for another time and place. That's my two cents on the film--five dollars on movie critiques and two cents on the actual movie that is!
***
As a postscript of sorts, I offer a few questions raised by this discussion to further consider for those interested (Scott?):
1. Can we ever not say anything about God? If the answer is "no," then what of things (movies, art, books, etc.) that ask to have their value judged by some internal logic--"fun" or "beautiful" perhaps--rather than the Christo-logic that is inescapable? If "yes," then how do those things that do not speak of God, that are theologically "neutral," come under God's judgement? Are they valued for their "usefulness" to a grander theological discourse--thereby given moral (non-neutral) intelligibility?
2. In a "simpler" sense, how are we (Christians) to respond to "simple" violence in films like that of Spiderman 3? Are they mere reductions (and thus poor characterizations) of films like Saving Private Ryan and Full Metal Jacket? What of sex, etc.--how much of anything do we look past (or look at) as part of our responsibility as Christian moviegoers, even for more "harmless" movies like Pirates of the Caribbean--surely we do not wish our children to grow up to be pirates!
Charlie,
Thanks for your dedication to this topic. I believe that we have made it more than it necessarily was supposed to be, but then perhaps that is the basis of a good conversation.
To start with, there is room in Katie’s world for cheese (i.e. romantic comedies). Her cheese-o-meter alters for these movies. Also, she’s just not as much of a fan as comic book movies as I am.
That said …
Because of my interest and love of comic book movies I hold them, to a certain extent, to the standards of their original creation … as comic books. In the case of Spiderman 3, I thought they didn’t do the comic book justice. Although, I am quite aware that the intent was to make a movie and not a comic book, I still thought it was weak because they tried too hard to top the last two movies instead of staying faithful to the original creation, which I thought they did in the first two movies.
As far as critiquing movies in general, I think this conversation is important. Perhaps because the nationalistic/redemptive violence themes of 300 were more explicit you were unable to sustain belief. That might be so because of your Christian commitment to nonviolence. Perhaps because this commitment is so close to your heart you were unable to suspend belief. Because you were unable to suspend your disbelief you asked where Christians might fit into the story. On the other hand, Spiderman takes you back to fond memories as child. Maybe you are able to suspend belief because of this. Perhaps you are able to avoid the more implicit nationalism/redemptive violence in Spiderman because of this. Because you were able to suspend your disbelief you were not worried about where Christians fit into this story.
Please note that at this point I am using you as an example for us all. I am not picking on you!! I think we all have these tendencies.
Kaz raises an interesting question concerning whether or not we can ever have a conversation that is not about God. That’s so RO of you (laugh, laugh). Perhaps the case is not where Christians fit into this story but where the story fits into us, that is, where the story fits into God’s story! If that is the case then we can praise nationalistic/redemptive violence movies because they help us call the world for what it is … the world. Because we never look past anything we are able to suspend belief to enjoy a story like 300, like Spiderman 3. In the long run, we are never able to comment of films outside of our Christian convictions.
Peace ya’ll,
Scott
ON a lighter side Charlie I think this is first movie you and I agree that we like. Shocking isn't?
-Ryland
Are we still talking about Spidey3? Dude! Alright Chuck, here's my beef: it WAS too long! Harry 'died' like, THREE times! So did the Sandman! How many times can we vanquish a villian, only to have said villian just, show up again?! And Sandman is trying to find money for his daughter one second, then totally derailed onto hating Spidey?? Not buying it. i get that there's a cheese factor in comic book movies, but A DANCE NUMBER???? Good grief. Since when do evil superheroes channel musicals? And Harry's butler waits THAT long to say 'oh by the way' when he could've done so in the 2nd movie? Deus ex machina, if you ask me. And i agree with Scott, too many forced pearls of wisdom: 'everyone needs to ask for help sometimes, even Spiderman.' All in all, WAY too much going on. They tried to give ample plot time to MaryJane, Aunt May, Gwen, Harry, Eddie, Sandman, the Uncle Ben thing.... and it was a mess worthy of the 'quality before quantity' cliche. Coreographically, it was fun, i liked the swooping and Raimi does well with the action, but it was lost the garbled plot.
Are we still talking about Spidey3? Dude! Alright Chuck, here's my beef: it WAS too long! Harry 'died' like, THREE times! So did the Sandman! How many times can we vanquish a villian, only to have said villian just, show up again?! And Sandman is trying to find money for his daughter one second, then totally derailed onto hating Spidey?? Not buying it. i get that there's a cheese factor in comic book movies, but A DANCE NUMBER???? Good grief. Since when do evil superheroes channel musicals? And Harry's butler waits THAT long to say 'oh by the way' when he could've done so in the 2nd movie? Deus ex machina, if you ask me. And i agree with Scott, too many forced pearls of wisdom: 'everyone needs to ask for help sometimes, even Spiderman.' All in all, WAY too much going on. They tried to give ample plot time to MaryJane, Aunt May, Gwen, Harry, Eddie, Sandman, the Uncle Ben thing.... and it was a mess worthy of the 'quality before quantity' cliche. Coreographically, it was fun, i liked the swooping and Raimi does well with the action, but it was lost the garbled plot.
Thanks for the conversation, y'all. I didn't find out about it until today because I had neglected to even read this post until I had seen the movie myself. Tiana and I watched it last night, so I have now entered the world of this blog post, haha.
Okay, after all that has been said, here is about the only thing that came to my mind that hadn't been said already:
Granted that any sort of praise of Spider-Man 3 has been primarily agreed upon as needing to come from one's commitment to the Christian narrative -- as only that which is Good is Good because of Christ -- what about the initial critiques to which Charlie was responding, which we find Kallie repeating in the comment thread above? Should not these critiques too be subject to such a mega-narrative of the Christian story?
1. Too long?
2. Lots of supposed deaths of Harry
3. Sandman can't make up his mind?
4. OMGEES a dance number!
5. God-in-the-machine butler
6. Forced pearls of wisdom
7. WAY too much going on
Thus,
8. Garbled plot
See, I think one of the problems that needs to first be recognized, in a 'Whose Justice, Which Rationality?' fashion, is first figuring out the story in which these initial (and Kallie's concluding) critiques are actually a part.
See, I, like Charlie, had no problem with the length of the movie, and like Charlie, thought the movie was 'fun' (for lack of a better term), but unlike Charlie, I would not carve out any kind of neutral movie space.
So, as for the rest of the critiques, I do not know if one can actually go through these systematically, but I think the emerging problem is not so much dance numbers as it is this neutral, movie-specific plateau of conversation. People can bring up 'deus ex machina' all they want, but you could, on those very same terms, level something like this: "oh, and SURE, God inserts God's own self into the human story just in the nick of time to save the world from its sin. That's a convenient number. OMGEES deus ex machina! God can't actually be a part of the story!" Thus, in this extreme example, the Christian story is made to be in service of pure literary theory.
I think once one starts conceding space to movie critics on their own terms, any kind of reaction against criticisms that one finds inadequate will ultimately make just as much (non)sense as those original claims, and then it will just devolve into opinions.
Now, some of this might be able to be worked out, and some might not. I would argue that for a movie with "WAY too much going on," that a long run time would be quite necessary to try and work all of the plot points out without leaving people quite annoyed. The Colin Firth version of Pride and Prejudice, for instance, is not usually panned as "too long" by most of its appreciators. But this, I would argue, is because of one's pre-disposition toward the story and its faithfulness to Jane Austen's narrative which makes one realize that even though there is "way too much going on" in that story as well, one is willing to endure the 300-minute run time.
So, then, the criteria thus becomes "faithfulness to pre-existing narrative," which for some, like me who does not read comic books (outside of Watchmen and Y: the last man), does not really matter; on the other hand, those already interested in staying 'faithful' to the extant Spider-Man story line laid down in the comic books will always be comparing what they see on the screen to its original text/imagery, no matter how much they may even be conceding to "director's artistic liberty."
But then, to take even a step back further, one must ask, "Where does one get this 'faithful to a narrative' thing from?" Is it merely a contentless faithfulness? Or is there always going to be a specific content or story to which one appeals for any degree of faithfulness? Or, for that matter, what even the meaning of 'faithfulness' actually means? (i.e. is 'faithfulness' to anything that isn't cruciform actually faithfulness, just like one distinctly learns what love is by the confession that God is love and that love is distinctly revealed as cruciform in Christ on the cross.)
I could see, for example, pissing a lot of people off by proposing a re-write of the story of 300 which has no degree of 'faithfulness' to Frank Miller's original story, but has all sorts of faithfulness to what a real City of God may look like. It wouldn't have to be perfect, or even blatant (let's hear it for Kierkegaardian indirect communication!), or even devoid of the messiness of life. The critics would absolutely hate it, as would most Christians, I would imagine.
If one is going to criticize or praise something, it would make much more sense to always lay one's assumptions out on the table. That way, we always know to what or to whom one is appealing for their claims of whether or not a plot element (or the entire plot itself) has any merit. I can understand Charlie's original contrarian spirit to many of the critics remarks about Spider-Man 3, but I would want to argue towards something that doesn't concede any neutral space in a debate where none exists anyway.
Peace,
Eric
Post a Comment
<< Home