|
I grew up watching Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson onscreen getting revenge for horrible wrongs done to innocent people,
and it all seemed ok. It was ok to hurt people who hurt people, people who actually deserved it. There was judgment and wrath
and revenge, and that's how the universe worked.
Khan hated Kirk and I suspect that Kirk hated him just as much. It was supposed to be different the way Kirk hated, somehow,
because Khan was the bad guy, and when Khan died it was a moment of triumph. No one mourned him; we were glad he was dead.
Just like the rapists in Death Wish and the murderers in Magnum Force, Khan represented the worst in all
of us, the worst that we could ever become, the worst things we could ever want, the worst things we could ever do to each
other.
There was no mercy.
There was no redemption.
There was no forgiveness.
No one even asked for these things. Khan spit his last breath at Kirk, never asking for forgiveness or mercy, and died
boiling in his own hatred and bile. Just like all those movies I saw, just like all the superheroes and cops and vigilantes.
Instant solutions. Black and white. Good wins, bad loses.
And it was good, because we knew what to believe in, and we knew who to trust. We knew who the bad guys were. It takes
a lot of courage, I'm sure, to look a man in the eye and kill him.
But there's something that takes more courage.
(Note: If you haven't seen Spider-Man 3 and you want to see it and don't want to know how it
ends, stop reading)
In the Spider-Man movies, Harry hates Peter because he blames him for his father's death. And as it happens so often
in life and even more often in movies, the worst enemies we ever have are also the best friends. I don't know why that is,
but then I never could figure out why so many marriages, which are supposed to be lifetimes based in love and commitment,
end in so much acrimony and hatred. I guess it has to do with expecting things of people, the way we expect a best friend
or a spouse to be, and having to deal with the reality of our own flaws. But whatever the reason, Peter and Harry became enemies.
Harry threatens and manipulates Peter and Mary Jane. Peter disfigures Harry by throwing an explosive at his face.
But Peter also hates Flint Marco, the Sandman. The Sandman is motivated only by the desire to help his sick daughter,
and turns to petty crime. And he kills Peter's uncle during the course of a robbery.
Peter uses Gwen Stacy to piss of Mary Jane.
In the end, though, there's a twist. Harry forgives Peter, and helps him fight Venom and the Sandman. I didn't see it
coming, because it's not how Harry died in the comic books. It was a nice twist.
When Peter faces down Flint Marko for the last time, the Sandman tells him that this isn't what he wanted at all: He
just wanted to help his little girl. He didn't mean to kill Peter's uncle. And as Peter faced him down, he dropped his arms
and said "I forgive you."
Wow.
Not what I expected from a superhero movie. And I thought about all that had happened to him and the ones he'd already
hurt, and the ones he'd lost, and everything in his life that had led him to this point and how, like Clint Eastwood and even
Captain Kirk, Peter could easily have chosen the path of revenge. It would have been such an easy way to end the film,
and wrapped everything up in a neat little bow.
Peter's act of forgiveness didn't free the Sandman. It freed Peter. He can move on now, have a life, and not spend his
time and energy looking backward at the tragedies and pain. The way of anger just adds to the suffering in the world.
I heard two guys leaving the theater talking about it, and they seemed to think it was somehow emasculating, and
that our culture has somehow lost something, when a big action flick ends with an act of forgiveness. I don't know. It's easy
for Bruce Willis to drop a guy out a window, and I suppose there are people who have to be dealt with that way, but I was
thinking how nice it is to live in a world where it's acceptable to show an act of kindness as not being that unusual.
I struggle sometimes in dealing with my ex-wife. I don't know how she is with other people, but with me she's all venom
and fire. This weekend I offered to give her more time with the boys, and she responded by screaming at me, that things would
be her way, that the court order says this and not that, that she would take me back to court and
blah blah blah.
Black and white. Good and bad. No forgiveness, no mercy.
I wasn't a perfect husband, but I can't live that way. I don't look backwards. I forgive her, and don't let the person
that she is affect the person that I choose to be. If I have any regrets at all, it's just that it took me forty years to
understand this.
Anyway, go see Spider-Man 3.
(From The Mailbag May 13, 2007)
I was wondering if you have ever read Patrick Walsh's blog at cinematical? Because he seems to disagree with everything you said about Spider-Man 3!!!
I had read that, actually, and thought it was really interesting, even though, like you said,
his opinion was very different than mine. Everyone is entitled to their, opinion, of course, and I think this guy makes some
good points. I guess if you go in expecting to see one thing, it can be pretty disappointing to see something else. But let
me address a couple things that this guy has to say:
By the end of Act One, you better be damn sure your audience
knows who the antagonist is, and what your hero is up against. Nobody seems to have clear motives here. All the characters
are confused and conflicted and don't really know who they want to kill and why or if they even want to.
This seems kind of random, but ok. Why the end of Act One? Why do we absolutely have to know?
Life is not always that way. And what's this about "clear motives"? I suppose it would be nice, in a perfect world, to know
what everyone's motives are, but people aren't always that way. Life is not that way. I think the whole point of the movie
is that there are always possibilities and there are always choices, and no one is good and no one is bad: Peter had to choose
to be good, every hour of every day, just like we all do. The difference is, with his power, the consequences of those choices
are magnified. Harry was conflicted and tormented and so, it turns out, was Sandman.
Harry Osborn/Goblin Jr. is desperately trying to kill Peter for about ten minutes
before he gets amnesia and becomes a total cotton-candy eating sweetheart. Later, he's a jerk again for 10 minutes and then
he's teaming up with Peter to fight the bad guys. Pick a side!
I don't know, I could sympathize with Harry a bit. I think anyone who has ever struggled
with themself against anything, particularly an addiction or emotional issue. You don't just choose not to drink, one time,
and move on from there. The same way you don't choose to be a Christian, or to be a hero....those are choices you have to
keep on making, over and over, every day.
And this is not an oppressive thing. I mean, it doesn't mean that choosing to do the right
thing is always a burden and a struggle. Because, in that same sense, it makes us free. If no one is all good, and
no one is all bad, then that means that we always have a choice. No matter how low we've sunk, we always have a choice to
do better. There's no heroes or villians: There's just people who have the same choices day after day.
And so, who is the greater hero: Peter, who was known as a hero and who had the easier choice
because it's already what he was used to and what everyone had come to expect of him, or Harry, who could easily have justified
his sitting on the sidelines or even joining Venom against Peter? Peter's choice almost seemed a foregone conclusion; Harry's
much less so.
Flint Marko/Sandman is the worst of the lot. He killed
Peter's uncle? Sweet, there's a reason to kill him! Oh, but wait – it was an accident. He's just misunderstood. And
sad. Oh, and he loves his daughter! He was doing it all for money to save her life. So...should we be cheering against Peter
trying to kill him? And if so, why is he in this movie? So Marko and Peter can put their differences aside and build Sandman
castles somewhere? Lame!
Why do people have to want to kill each other? Why does someone have to die at the end of
the movie, and why does someone have to be responsible for their death? I thought Sandman's redemption at the end was better
than anyone could have expected. It doesn't matter what he did: Peter even recognized that he himself had done terrible things,
and both Harry and Mary Jane had forgiven him. Even Aunt May had tacitly forgiven him (with a wink to his "secret") but more
than that, had taught him to forgive himself. Forget that Sandman was impossible to kill at that point anyway: How can you
not forgive someone who's standing in front of you asking for forgiveness?
I just think this guy missed the point of the movie.
|
