Spider-Man: Homecoming

(Warning: contains spoilers for Spider-Man: Homecoming, and other Marvel films)

There are many things that the world really doesn't need right now, and another Spider-Man reboot is arguably on that list.  This is the 6th Spidey film in 15 years (without counting the cameo in Civil War) and the whole idea was starting to feel more than a little hackneyed.

Is this the poster layout for all blockbuster films now?

Kudos, then, to Marvel for reintroducing us to the webbed wonder in the form of 21-year old Tom Holland (less Holland-y than Tom Holland-er, maybe?), and not restarting the entire backstory again (surely there's only so many times that poor Uncle Ben can be killed off?).  Double kudos for managing to create a film that fits into the Marvel universe as seen thus far, whilst making a film about the teen angst of being at high school, and also adding in a reasonable villain premise and backstory.  Triple kudos for not making that film feel like an absolute grind - 2 hours 15 minutes flew by.

Marvel Cinematic Universe films have form for luring audiences in to superhero films, getting us to like them, and then bogging us down in a mire of politics and tortured conflicts, and in so doing sucking all the joy out of the character that brought us to the film in the first place (see: Thor: The Dark World, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: Civil War).  The MCU does well when it scales back, which is what it’s done here.

Spiderman: Homecoming picks up Peter Parker where we left off with him in Civil War.  There's been a clash between the various factions of Avengers (nicely referenced at the start of the film by Peter's vlog, and also quickly outlining the relationship between Peter, Happy and Tony Stark).  Peter is left vague instructions to check in with Stark via Happy, "...and y'know...we'll call you".  An excitable Peter misses that this is probably a brush-off, and drops everything he loves in his life just in case he gets a crucial Avengers call, leading to double-life conflicts with his friends (including the scene-stealing Jacob Batalon), his school, his love interest (Laura Harrier) and his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). On the constant look-out for anything suspicious that gets his Spidey-senses tingling, he happens upon a number of unusual events and, in the absence of being able to get Happy’s attention, sets about trying to save the day himself, with varying consequences. 

The triangle between Peter, Happy and Tony is an interesting one, and it’s clear to audiences that there is a real sense that Peter is not being taken seriously.  I’m a bit confused in this because I’m not sure what else Peter was supposed to do.  He was given his hi-tech costume, and told to be patient, but there was no real sense of progression for him.  Obviously things weren’t going to end well when he found he could disable the training programmes in the suit (and there was a lot of comedic value in the various settings that had been added, as well as Peter’s chats with June, Jennifer Connelly’s Siri-like voice in his suit.  A nice real-world touch, given that Paul Bettany - Connelly’s husband - voices Jarvis in Stark’s own suits).  But what was Peter supposed to do to advance in his training, and how was he meant to graduate to the main programming?  Continuing to be patient (as instructed) would not have helped, and there was no sense that Tony intended to come back at a later stage and help out.  This is somewhat rectified by the ending where Tony offers proper mentoring at the new Stark building in recognition that the “just be patient” advice hadn’t worked for Peter, but given that it could never have worked, I’m not sure what Tony’s actual plan was.  This was subtly symbolised on the two suits Tony offered Peter.  In his first suit, the legs of the spider aren’t attached to its body, essentially rendering the creature useless.  This is rectified in the second version of the suit that Tony offers – the spider’s legs are attached, as he is offered fuller integration with the Avengers group.  I digress.

The high school plot feels well-written, and Peter’s action in his high school life has very real and very important consequences for him (think Mean Girls if Cady was also a superhero).  In fact, Peter’s high school feels real.  An ethnically and racially diverse group of students who have some great teachers (the Decathlon coach, for example) and some jaded ones (the ones who point out that Captain America is “probably a war criminal now or whatever”, but direct the students to watch the schlocky Governmentally produced films anyways).   Peter’s constant attempts to impress Tony and Happy also land well.  It’s the same issue – Peter just wants to be part of the cool gang (in his school world as well as his superhero world).  His Spiderman set pieces (the elevator in the Washington monument, the Staten Island Ferry) also feel in keeping with his Peter Parker persona – of course Spider-Man would think to look for points of strength to shoot webs to.  Peter Parker is the kind of kid who would know that stuff).

Separately from this, Michael Keaton is playing Adrian Toomes, who is making a living as the head of a salvage company clearing up the city (and finding the work to be plentiful after the Avengers have been in town).  Mercilessly driven out of business by a bigger company (contracted in part by Tony Stark), Toomes finds himself out of work and being picked on by the bigger company (in a nice, if depressing, reflection that bullies don’t just go away when you leave school).  He hits back by scavenging whatever alien technology he can find, using it to create his own alter-ego (Vulture) and selling on whatever he can’t use.  In a world where the recession is still felt, Toomes’ anger is understandable and realistic and a far cry from the pantomime versions of villains previously seen in other superhero films.  There is no “wrong” here – Tony Stark is right to want to tidy up the mess that he makes of a city in his Ironman guise, and Toomes is right to want to make a living doing what he believes he was being contracted to do.  Both opinions are morally ambiguous.  That said, did Vulture have a plan beyond “take Tony Stark’s stuff”?  I do wonder what the younger audience members made of this particular plotline. 

Michael Keaton = giant bird.  Check.

The bringing together of these two strands (the Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Adrian Toomes/Vulture strands) gets a little wobbly.  While the reveal of these two characters to each other is very well done, the showdown between them circles back to the ongoing downfall of superhero finales: no consequences unless the script says so.  Meaning that all superheroes can get beaten stupid with no real impact or effect.  And this showdown was riven with so much CGI that a lot of tension was stripped away.  A plane falls out of the sky (and it took me a moment to realise that was what had actually happened) and the biggest consequence seemed to be that Tony Stark’s stuff might have been damaged?  There was no peril, there was no danger, because at no point did I believe either Parker or Toomes would come to any harm.  That’s a sad result for what must be a multi-million dollar set-piece that will have taken hours of work from a very skilled cast and crew.    

There’s a further sinister note that isn’t commented upon – all characters at (presumably) all times are under surveillance.  From drones, from phones, from CCTV, from gadgetty doodahs in Stark suits.  Nothing is private.  This seems to be generally accepted, and perhaps in the real-world too.  There is an ethical question that has yet to be asked in the MCU – should superheroes be able to track anyone at any time without their permission, or is this just a plot device that I’m overthinking?

But these are quibbles in an otherwise entirely enjoyable romp through one part of the MCU.  Holland’s take on Spider-Man is endearing and enthusiastic and entirely likeable.  In a household where spiders are routinely trapped under cups and flung out the nearest window, I look forward to seeing more of watching this guy do whatever a spider can. 

Legitimate question

Additional thoughts, comments, questions:

1.  I particularly enjoyed the new BBFC warning: “contains concealed bad language”.  That’s right up there with “mild peril”. 

2.  Whoever thought we’d be rooting for Iron Man and Aunt May to get together? 

3.  How come high schoolers can always fit so many people in their houses at illicit parent-free parties? 

Wonder Woman

(warning: contains spoilers for Wonder Woman, and the films of the DC and Marvel universes)

Marvel seems to have captured the mood for the superhero genre of late.  They've played a long game of drip feeding audiences with minor-character superhero movies (Iron Man, Thor) over a number of years, and then capitalising on their success by bringing them all together for ensemble extravaganzas (Avengers Assemble).  These films have balanced action, humour and pathos in roughly equal measures, and audiences have lapped it up (Avengers Assemble is the 5th highest grossing film worldwide as I write this*).  But where Marvel have been repeatedly called into question is over their portrayal of women in films.  They do well with female characters on television (Jessica Jones, Agent Carter), but the same doesn't seem to be happening for women in Marvel films.
(Exhibit A: there have been 15 films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) with a further 9 in the pipeline over the next 2 years.  None of them have a female lead. 
Exhibit B: There has been repeated criticism of a lack of female merchandising, with Gamora and Black Widow repeatedly being missed off merchandising lines, despite demand.)

The DC Extended Universe have also had their criticisms.  They have had Batman and Superman in their arsenal, but have yet to make a film that hasn't been onerous, bloated, uber-serious and - at times - nonsensical (>cough< Suicide Squad >cough<).  To compare the two universes critically, Rotten Tomatoes aggregate the MCU range as between 66%-94%.  DC...don't fair as well.  Their scores range between 25%-55%.

But!  Here we have their new line of attack.  DC have brought us Wonder Woman - the first of the female led superhero films.  So if they get this right, DC have upped their game and done something to make them critically and commercially relevant again. 

So no pressure then...

So how did they do...

It's worth noting from the outset that DC have taken up quite the gauntlet.  It's not just the comic book universe that wavers in its portrayal of women - it's Hollywood in general.  There are so few films which are led by powerful females that, when one comes along, the weight of feminism is dumped upon its shoulders and judged accordingly.  Which is unfair - no one looks at Thor and critiques the themes of 21st century masculinity.  But Wonder Woman is the first female led superhero film, and so it sets the bar.

Discuss the use of hammers in Thor as critique of 21st century masculinity

There's a lot to be said for it.  Gal Gadot is tremendous in the title role, as Diana the Amazonian warrior princess who leaves the hidden paradise of Themyscira to take on Ares, god of war, on the frontlines of World War 1.  Powerful, beautiful and driven to pursue peace and a better world, Gadot is easily the best thing in this film.  She is complimented by Patty Jenkins (most notable for writing and directing 2003s Monster) under whose direction the camera focusses on our heroine, but never gratuitously.  Yes, there's still a lot of skin on display but the camera doesn't ogle or leer.  The clothes she chooses in "this world" have deliberate agency and importance to her character: "I can't fight in this", "it's choking me", "it itches".

She rescues Steve Trevor (a strong, non-Kirk performance by Chris Pine), she fights in the war, she crosses No Man's Land, she is enhanced by - not limited to - her weapons.  All her fighting has meaning and purpose and isn't just for the sake of it.  Her use of her sword is limited by choice to the person that she intended to kill with it.  Her lasso of truth is not relied upon - it's a back up to what she can already do.  She literally does what no man can do - and that is a huge tick in the box of feminism. 

This is underlined by the women of Themyscira.  Connie Nielsen, Robin Wright and the rest of their clan are gladiatorial women, fierce, real and marked with the scars of their previous battles, always preparing for a war that they hope doesn't come again.  It's an interesting contrast that the world full of women is paradise, and the world full of men is war.

Love them.  Fear them.  Don't mess with them.

For me, it's when the men appear that this film falters.  I'm not sure how people manage to find their way to Themyscira (could they always find it, but just hadn't yet?  Or is it because Diana managed to do some kind of sonic boom with her bracelets that weakened the invisibility around the island?), but they do, and Diana learns of the war and leaves paradise with Steve to go and end the fighting.  Steve has seen Diana fight, has seen her home and knows of her power, but in the "real world" wastes no time in telling her where to go, who to speak to and what to wear.  And Diana, for her part, mainly just obeys this guy she's just met who has no discernible strengths other than perhaps being a bit "above average" in the genital department.  After heading into battle, seeing Diana succeed in everything she decides to do in true superhero fashion, and being awed every time, Steve then...continues to rob her of her agency consistently until the credits roll.  He also unnecessarily gets his own "hero-arc".  I would argue that Diana brings nothing of her Themysciran self to "this world".  Her world is paradise, and ours is hell, but she doesn't appear to teach anyone anything to try to help rectify that, which feels like a real failing.

What of the other women in the "real world"?  There are two, maybe.  Lucy Davis (as Etta Candy) who is supposed to be comic relief but does little more than hold Diana's sword for a bit.  When describing her secretarial role, Diana confuses her for Steve's slave.  Then she disappears off screen and isn't seen again.
The other is Elena Anaya's Doctor Poison, a more complex and interesting character.  She's a scientist hellbent on creating a more toxic form of mustard gas (a sort of Mengele-figure), and missing half her face.  The film takes great pains to point out that Steve Trevor can't talk to her for more than 5 seconds before being distracted by someone prettier (to her justifiable outrage), but doesn't seem to do anything with that information.  It portrays her as intelligent, determined, and superior to most of the men in the film and sets her up to be the most dangerous villain of the film, and then undoes it all by revealing that all her ideas were given to her by Ares (a male god).  Gah!

It wasn't until the end of the day that Doctor Poison realised
she had forgotten to blend her foundation...

Then again, the men don't fare much better.  The band of rogues (Ewan Bremmer, Eugene Brave Rock, and Said Taghmaoui) tick the box for casting diversity but aren't particularly fleshed out as characters.  I couldn't tell you much about them other than one has some form of PTSD.
And the requisite Big Bad?  Wants to destroy the world...fights the title character in a no-stakes fight until the fighting stops and the villain is defeated for no reason other than the script says so.  Sigh.

This all sounds very damning.  It comes down to this: 

Pros:

• Gal Gadot is the best thing in the film. 
• Diana does what no man can do.  And that's very empowering for women.
• It is intermittently a very entertaining film.
• Gal Gadot and Chris Pine are very compelling to watch.
• The film makes some decent attempts to be light-hearted in places to counteract the solemnity of the other DC films. 
• Generally good direction, and some excellent action sequences.

Cons:

• It would have been a much shorter film if there hadn't been such a reliance on slow-motion throughout.  Seriously.  Cut that out and we could have had a sub-2 hour film.                  
• Some good themes which are set up but unexplored: for example - the relationship between Steve and Diana, or challenging the patriarchal society (there were so many bits where women were belittled and subjugated that I assumed it was a build up for some kind of smackdown that didn't happen).
• Patty Jenkins was brought in when the first choice for director (male) left.  Eight of the ten producers are male.  All of the writers are male.  Would it have been better if it was more female led?  This woman wonders.

* not adjusted for inflation