Spider-Man: On-This-Day Thursday
Written by Andreas Babiolakis
Every Thursday, an older film released on this opening weekend years ago will be reviewed. They can be classics, or simply popular films that happened to be released to the world on the same date.
For May 3rd, we are going to have a look at Spider-Man.
It’s incredibly easy to take Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man film for granted. It has aged a little poorly, especially with its cheesiness , and it is much sillier than the more serious comic book films we’ve become accustomed to; even the more fun Marvel films now still feel like a stronger balance between comedy and action. However, I think Spider-Man was very important not just for the evolution of Marvel films, but for them even existing at all. Round one with comic book films was around the time Tim Burton released Batman and showed what cinema was missing. This opportunity was squandered by some genre-killing duds like Steel, The Phantom, and Batman and Robin (which basically brought the caped crusader’s franchise back around, from birth to death: in this case, Batman did live long enough to become the villain). Well, these films almost succeeded in bring comic book films to their close, just ten or so years in.
Then came Spider-Man in 2002; it was slated for 2001, but it was one of the numerous works postponed after the terrorist attacks on September 11th. Either way, the genre was rejuvenated, with the film being one of the top earners of the year, and even a critical success in ways. If you look at comic films now, they’re on top of the world in a way that most genres or themes aren’t (or any at all). I guess one could imply that Spider-Man was the superhero of superhero films. This success comes from the fantastic CGI that brought Marvel superheroes to a whole new echelon, the costume creation that made these outfits even better than ever (I feel like the original suit that Peter Parker wears in the wrestling ring is almost a comment on the cheap, ugly outfits of old), and the action that was so bold and dynamic. I also feel the teen element was important, here: juvenile comedies like American Pie and Austin Powers were the rage, but so were the young romances like A Walk to Remember, which came out around the same time. What Raimi does with Spider-Man, outside of channelling the fun that spills out of the comic book version of the hero, is have a haven for goofy comedy and enriching high school romance. That, to me, are the secret ingredients that made Spider-Man borderline universal; Marvel films now have their fanbases and their casual viewers, but Spider-Man was an event for all.
One of the things Spider-Man has in its favour is the romantic storyline that is basically comparable to those of high school films of the same time period.
Again, I do find that Spider-Man has aged a little poorly, but that’s because it is so deeply rooted in the images, sounds, jokes, songs, and trends of its time. There is still a lot of good stuff going on. Selecting Willem DaFoe as Norman Osborn (or the Green Goblin) was a great chance to have a brilliant character actor really become the highly set bar for comic book film villains (at least for a little while). J.K. Simmons was cast against type as comedic relief as publisher J. Jameson, which worked so well that no one else can cut it. James Franco was caught in the nick of time — before he was opting to be more eccentric with his acting — right after Freaks and Geeks to be Parker’s best friend Harry Osborn. Otherwise, we have the two stars, Tobey Maguire (who is relatively underrated as an actor, and matches the awkwardness of the film) and Kirsten Dunst (who, as Mary Jane Watson, leapt from her younger years into the rest of her illustrious career).
Maguire’s Parker is perfect for Raimi’s intentions: to turn Spider-Man and the titular character’s origin story into a coming-of-age discovery. Parker hits sexual discovery around the time that he discovers his powers (no further comment), but he is also searching for his identity as a person right when he is figuring out how he wants to represent himself as a vigilante. The film is as much about Parker’s domestic tragedies (the deaths in his family), his teenage crush, the severance of his relationship with his best friend, and his issues with working his first jobs, as it is about him being a superhero. This is why it hasn’t aged as well, but also why Spider-Man was so popular in the first place: it is a high school film disguised as a comic book epic. It was likely the only way the world would watch another one of these with trust, after the string of duds that tarnished the reputation of the genre; it was like disguising spinach in a chicken nugget for a child to get their greens for the day. Nonetheless, Spider-Man, as it stands, is still well put together (the poor CGI is only time’s fault; everything looked great upon release), strongly cast, and enough fun that the film is still worth a shot; besides, its awkwardness only matches the unusual experience that is being a teenager. Sam Raimi’s vision is a peculiar one, but I have to admit that it works well enough now (but exceptionally well twenty years ago).
Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Ryerson University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.