Critical Essay about Spider - man 2
In first half of the twentieth century, the most prominent science fiction writers such as Asimov, Serling, Clarke, Roddenberry, etc., had to use speculative fiction to write about social issues of the day. The conservative Establishment controlled the mainstream media and would rarely allow a TV program or movie to highlight social problems. If, for example, a writer wanted to elevate racism to 
popular discourse they had to mask their true intent and use a story involving aliens or some other substitute. Because of societal norms, we viewers got to see Frank Gorshin running around the Enterprise in half-white, half-black makeup to point out the absurdity of judging a man by the color of his skin.
Now, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, this trend has completely reversed. Currently, the mainstream media is very liberal and overtly disdains traditional values. Political-correctness has all but made the notion of traditional values heresy. It is now considered subversive to believe in God, hetero-sexual marriage, self-sacrifice, and avoiding various sins of the flesh
. The media-driven pop culture does not promote these values and rejects artists that do. We saw what happened when Mel Gibson made an overtly religious movie about Jesus Christ. The media-machine went into overdrive condemning his film. Fortunately, Gibson had the clout, power and money to pull it off. Writers without such influence would have a nearly impossible task of getting their pro-traditional values message out. As a result, speculative fiction is now used to promote them. These messages are presented covertly using the time-tested strategy of having aliens and superheroes standing in for religious figures. This is particularly obvious in Spider-Man 2.
In Spider-man 2, we see a hero struggling with his destiny. He spends his nights saving the citizens of New York, even though it is affecting his job, college studies and relationships with his friends and family. And to top it off, the press daily prints headlines making him out to be a villain, even a "terrorist". He has all these amazing powers and has saved countless lives, but receives no compensation
for his efforts. What makes this incredible is that most of us, given Spider-man's powers, would try and figure out a way to make a buck off of it. Envy doesn't even come into the picture when Peter Parker's closest friends have achieved the heights of fame and fortune while he lives in a crummy, run-down apartment in the bad part of town. As products of an individualistic society, which one of us wouldn't say, "heck with that, I deserve better than this. I am Spider-man, after all. I am entitled to the finer things in life."
Thankfully, Spider-man does not suffer from the sin of Pride. He remains a humble servant of humanity who must take on a life of celibacy in order to continue to serve mankind. If he were to marry, then a family would interfere with or even end his career. These are all hidden messages that seem to promote arguments for priesthood, but it is unlikely a filmmaker could overtly espouse these beliefs on the big screen. The media would likely respond that the filmmaker was promoting pedophilia and the subservience of women. In fact, it is highly unlikely that a movie about a heroic priest would be allowed. Severely flawed, diabolic, or even vampiric priest movies get the green light while movies favorably depicting priests are shunned. But it is OK for Spider-man, the avatar of traditional values, to live a monastic life of sacrifice and humility. Hopefully, the audience will make the connection before the media bleats the message right out of it.
We also find in Spider-man 2, Dr. Octopus. He is presented as a very good, noble man who is completely, utterly, hopelessly in love with his wife who, in turn, adores him. They have a happy, loving marriage, so we all know she is just minutes away from a grisly death. Doc Ock attempts to create the first, cold-fusion reaction which promises limitless, free and clean energy for mankind. His goals are truly humanitarian, but he fails to see how his creation could be turned into a great evil (as usual). He must use 4 artificially intelligent "arms" to help him manipulate the fusion fuel. These arms have consciousness and wills of their own and are attached to the good doctor's spinal column. He is foolishly confident that his "inhibitor" which he has placed on the device, will keep their wills from overtaking his own. Sadly, a freak accident occurs, the "inhibitor", which is made out of glass and is dangerously fragile, is shattered. The arms, resembling four vile serpents, then proceed to lead him into temptation. He constantly struggles against their corrupting influence, but ultimately he is too weak. Like most of us, he is a conflicted character who wants to do good, but easily succumbs to evil.
The writers and directors skillfully makes these points without being unctuous or "preachy". It isn't just some authority figure saying "thou shalt not!". It is subversive, deep and captivating. It says much about a culture when traditional values are considered "subversive." The box office takes of both Spider-man 2 and The Passion of the Christ were enormous, both taking in nearly a billion dollars apiece worldwide. Such successes demonstrate a public hungry for real heroes so why hasn't Hollywood responded with a flood of similar films? Surely, the potential profits would motivate studios to make more movies espousing traditional values. It seems, however, that profit is not the ultimate motive at play. What is the real motive of the Hollywood elite? I personally do not have an answer, but I do have an observation. Hollywood tends to "reward" actors that play flawed men and shun actors that play strong, confident men. Academy Awards are the highest honor Hollywood bestows on an actor. In the period of 1930-1982, Best Actor Awards were frequently given to actors portraying heroic, noble or saintly men--Spencer Tracy, Gary Cooper, Charlton Heston, Gregory Peck, John Wayne and George C. Scott, took home many statuettes for their portrayals of fictional or historic heroes. Between the period of 1975 through our present time, we see fewer and fewer awards going to heroic portrayals. More often, the award went to portrayals of deeply flawed, homicidal or even demonic men. With the exception of the 2000 award to Russel Crowe for Gladiator, we see top honors mostly going to weak or monstrous men who are morally ambiguous at best. We celebrate villains like Gordon Gekko, Hannibal Lector, Klaus Von Bulow and Salieri. We pathetically condescend and celebrate the diseased, despondent, mentally unstable and disabled (Rainman, As Good As It Gets, Philadelphia, My Left Foot, Scent of a Woman, Forrest Gump, Leaving Las Vegas, Shine, American Beauty and Mystic River). We can't award Denzel Washington the statue for portraying a hero (Malcolm X) so it takes it home for his wretched, villainous turn in Training Day. In our politically correct world, celebrating heroes is a sin against society, while admiring serial killers has become a virtue.
http://www.inchoatus.com/Critical%20Essays/Essay--Disguising%20Decency.htm
popular discourse they had to mask their true intent and use a story involving aliens or some other substitute. Because of societal norms, we viewers got to see Frank Gorshin running around the Enterprise in half-white, half-black makeup to point out the absurdity of judging a man by the color of his skin. Now, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, this trend has completely reversed. Currently, the mainstream media is very liberal and overtly disdains traditional values. Political-correctness has all but made the notion of traditional values heresy. It is now considered subversive to believe in God, hetero-sexual marriage, self-sacrifice, and avoiding various sins of the flesh
. The media-driven pop culture does not promote these values and rejects artists that do. We saw what happened when Mel Gibson made an overtly religious movie about Jesus Christ. The media-machine went into overdrive condemning his film. Fortunately, Gibson had the clout, power and money to pull it off. Writers without such influence would have a nearly impossible task of getting their pro-traditional values message out. As a result, speculative fiction is now used to promote them. These messages are presented covertly using the time-tested strategy of having aliens and superheroes standing in for religious figures. This is particularly obvious in Spider-Man 2.In Spider-man 2, we see a hero struggling with his destiny. He spends his nights saving the citizens of New York, even though it is affecting his job, college studies and relationships with his friends and family. And to top it off, the press daily prints headlines making him out to be a villain, even a "terrorist". He has all these amazing powers and has saved countless lives, but receives no compensation
for his efforts. What makes this incredible is that most of us, given Spider-man's powers, would try and figure out a way to make a buck off of it. Envy doesn't even come into the picture when Peter Parker's closest friends have achieved the heights of fame and fortune while he lives in a crummy, run-down apartment in the bad part of town. As products of an individualistic society, which one of us wouldn't say, "heck with that, I deserve better than this. I am Spider-man, after all. I am entitled to the finer things in life."Thankfully, Spider-man does not suffer from the sin of Pride. He remains a humble servant of humanity who must take on a life of celibacy in order to continue to serve mankind. If he were to marry, then a family would interfere with or even end his career. These are all hidden messages that seem to promote arguments for priesthood, but it is unlikely a filmmaker could overtly espouse these beliefs on the big screen. The media would likely respond that the filmmaker was promoting pedophilia and the subservience of women. In fact, it is highly unlikely that a movie about a heroic priest would be allowed. Severely flawed, diabolic, or even vampiric priest movies get the green light while movies favorably depicting priests are shunned. But it is OK for Spider-man, the avatar of traditional values, to live a monastic life of sacrifice and humility. Hopefully, the audience will make the connection before the media bleats the message right out of it.
We also find in Spider-man 2, Dr. Octopus. He is presented as a very good, noble man who is completely, utterly, hopelessly in love with his wife who, in turn, adores him. They have a happy, loving marriage, so we all know she is just minutes away from a grisly death. Doc Ock attempts to create the first, cold-fusion reaction which promises limitless, free and clean energy for mankind. His goals are truly humanitarian, but he fails to see how his creation could be turned into a great evil (as usual). He must use 4 artificially intelligent "arms" to help him manipulate the fusion fuel. These arms have consciousness and wills of their own and are attached to the good doctor's spinal column. He is foolishly confident that his "inhibitor" which he has placed on the device, will keep their wills from overtaking his own. Sadly, a freak accident occurs, the "inhibitor", which is made out of glass and is dangerously fragile, is shattered. The arms, resembling four vile serpents, then proceed to lead him into temptation. He constantly struggles against their corrupting influence, but ultimately he is too weak. Like most of us, he is a conflicted character who wants to do good, but easily succumbs to evil.
The writers and directors skillfully makes these points without being unctuous or "preachy". It isn't just some authority figure saying "thou shalt not!". It is subversive, deep and captivating. It says much about a culture when traditional values are considered "subversive." The box office takes of both Spider-man 2 and The Passion of the Christ were enormous, both taking in nearly a billion dollars apiece worldwide. Such successes demonstrate a public hungry for real heroes so why hasn't Hollywood responded with a flood of similar films? Surely, the potential profits would motivate studios to make more movies espousing traditional values. It seems, however, that profit is not the ultimate motive at play. What is the real motive of the Hollywood elite? I personally do not have an answer, but I do have an observation. Hollywood tends to "reward" actors that play flawed men and shun actors that play strong, confident men. Academy Awards are the highest honor Hollywood bestows on an actor. In the period of 1930-1982, Best Actor Awards were frequently given to actors portraying heroic, noble or saintly men--Spencer Tracy, Gary Cooper, Charlton Heston, Gregory Peck, John Wayne and George C. Scott, took home many statuettes for their portrayals of fictional or historic heroes. Between the period of 1975 through our present time, we see fewer and fewer awards going to heroic portrayals. More often, the award went to portrayals of deeply flawed, homicidal or even demonic men. With the exception of the 2000 award to Russel Crowe for Gladiator, we see top honors mostly going to weak or monstrous men who are morally ambiguous at best. We celebrate villains like Gordon Gekko, Hannibal Lector, Klaus Von Bulow and Salieri. We pathetically condescend and celebrate the diseased, despondent, mentally unstable and disabled (Rainman, As Good As It Gets, Philadelphia, My Left Foot, Scent of a Woman, Forrest Gump, Leaving Las Vegas, Shine, American Beauty and Mystic River). We can't award Denzel Washington the statue for portraying a hero (Malcolm X) so it takes it home for his wretched, villainous turn in Training Day. In our politically correct world, celebrating heroes is a sin against society, while admiring serial killers has become a virtue.
http://www.inchoatus.com/Critical%20Essays/Essay--Disguising%20Decency.htm
posted by ~Kiran. A~ at 9:30 pm
0 comments
