Will’s Unpopular Opinion – Spider-man: Stockholm-coming – 7-7-17
*SPOILERS*
‘Spider-man: Homecoming’ is not about Spiderman. It’s not about Peter Parker either. It’s not even about Tony Stark. It’s about the Vulture. Michael Keaton’s character is the only one that receives the full narrative arc treatment throughout the duration of the film. If you don’t believe me, (and you’ve seen the movie) tell me who’s in the first and last scene of the film. (and no, Captain America doesn’t count). However if I was to tout this film as the first ‘Vulture’ flick instead of the sixth ‘Spider-man’ movie, some reappropriation of the structure should probably be recognized. One being, Peter Parker may be the bad guy.
From the introductory scene, the audience is briefly informed is to why Adrian Toomes (Keaton) is pressured into the life he arranges for himself. He’s not hell bent on revenge. He doesn’t want to rule over the city. He doesn’t even want to be a psycho killer lunatic. He only wants to provide for his family and friends. Cutting to Spider-man, I have no real idea what his motivation is. Is it that he wants a girlfriend? Is it that he wants a dad? Why does he even want to fight crime in the first place? If you’re telling me it’s his need to avenge his dead uncle, this movie never even takes a moment to reference that. All I know about Pete is that he’s awkward at everything and likes building lego spaceships. Now there’s nothing wrong with that character palette, but it’s not strong enough for the main player of a movie. Superhero movies are not comparable to, let’s say, cop movies or spy movies. I don’t need a motivation from James Bond except to know that it’s his job to save the world. When it’s your job the only tacked on trait I need is a backstory (occasionally), but for superhero flicks the premise is based around it’s origin. It has to be. That’s the point of them; of which Spider-man: Homecoming has almost none. Now generally that wouldn’t make or break a movie, and here it doesn’t either, but it does shift focus is to whose movie this really is.
If we then deduce that Vulture is actually the main character of the film, then where does that lead the story? Honestly, it makes him the good guy. Let me spin it like this: “I just watched a movie about a guy who’s given the rub and marginalized by the 1%, after being ridiculed publicly for being an obedient laborer. This guy then looks to advance his career in the exact same field as his neck stomping superiors in hopes of reaping the benefits for his family. He tries to fend off an easy thinking, (world is only full of good and bad choices) soft-brained wannabe, who’s indoctrinated into a sink or swim work ethic perpetrated by the upper-class. This kid’s eagerness to please nature is born out of his meager upbringings, as he sees an expedited ladder to move past due diligence and rise to the top, because his entitled ass thinks he’s too smart to stay in school.” Did I miss something?
Now obviously this is an unpopular opinion. Then again this is the 60th+ article I’ve written, so why would you be here otherwise? But if we take a moment to look at this objectively it starts to raise the question of not only who the true heroes and villains are, but what the true message is by the director/writer/Marvel. Is it that we as a society should keep our heads down and study hard in hopes of a Tony Stark type person looking to extend an olive branch in our direction so we too can be part of his little elitist retreat up in the woods? Maybe it’s that we shouldn’t strive to be more than the sum of our parts because it will lead us to either detention or prison. Or is it just the opposite? Keaton has the typical “I’m not the bad guy, speech” same as every other villain in any other movie. The difference is, this time around, he may actually be right. I wonder is to whether or not the movie should be taken at face value or if it is genuinely deeper than it’s letting on. As ostensibly reassuring it is that his bad deeds don’t go unpunished, his actions don’t paint him into the monster the film tries to depict him as.
And in return, the fan theory of the Joker actually being the good guy in ‘The Dark Knight’ holds more water than ever before, as the class gap widens with every new “Now This” Facebook post.
Propaganda in film is nothing new. Unfortunately the recognition of these publicity-spins by young malleable cinema goers is often difficult to pin point. I’m not saying this was subconsciously deliberate or even intentional, but once you know the pieces, it’s hard not see the puzzle for what it is. Try not to let movies dictate how you think; especially when it keeps you in a box.
In 1986 a movie came out and destroyed box office numbers for the rest of the year. It went on to be the top performing movie of the summer and was the main moving force behind the success of a young actor at the time by the name of, Tom Cruise. That film was ‘Top Gun’, and it brought in over $350 million dollars. It took 6 months to get knocked out of the top spot and even took home an Oscar for best song. There was an adverse affect though, the amount of applicants wanting to enlist in the Navy and Air-Force went up a staggering 500%. It became such and issue that the concept of competitiveness amongst recruits had to be addressed due to the lack of team work propagated by the film. The movie was a great recruiting tool, but enticed thousands of people with all the wrong stuff, looking to join for all the wrong reasons. Now, imagine if that movie came out after 911.
-Will Valle
