an international
and interdisciplinary journal of postmodern cultural sound, text and image
Volume 3, July 2006, ISSN 1552-5112
Spider-Man,
Superman—What’s the difference?
Director Sam Raimi’s 2002 Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker (aka Spider-Man)
is the latest incarnation of “one of the best-known costumed superheroes of the
1960s” (Pringle, 1987, p. 431), and which Leo Partible (2005, p. 244)
considered was “the crown jewel of the [superhero film] genre.” Unlike the
disastrous superhero films Captain
America and Supergirl, this
post-Millennial film survived the transition from comic book icon to Hollywood
hero and became a box office hit in the process. It subsequently spawned an
equally successful sequel Spider-Man 2
(Kovacsics, 2004) that was considered “the quintessential superhero adaptation,
duplicating the first Superman movie by gathering a team of high-caliber
writers with similar award-winning credentials” (Partible, 2005, p. 244). Not
only did this entertaining franchise prompt the forthcoming Spider-Man 3 (in 2007), but it
contributed significantly to a minor cottage industry alongside Batman Begins, Catwoman, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Hellboy, The Hulk, X-Men, X-Men 2 etc. Interestingly, David
Bruce (2002, p. 5) suggested that: “Spider-Man in many ways is a retelling of
the story of Superman,” who is himself the quintessential American superhero
and subtextual Christ-figure par
excellence (Kozloff, 1981; Kozlovic, 2002, 2004; Schenck, 2005). Is Bruce’s
observation true? Especially considering that Superman: The Movie starring Christopher Reeves as Clark Kent (aka Superman/Jor-El)
was a watershed movie that triggered serious Hollywood interest in the genre.
Indeed, it “became the model for the superhero film and elevated the genre from
B-movie to the A-list” (Partible, 2005, p. 237). The following is a detailed exploration
of Bruce’s contention.
The critical literature was reviewed and integrated
into the text to enhance narrative coherence (albeit, with a strong reportage
flavour). Using textually-based, humanist film criticism as the analytical lens
(i.e., examining the textual world inside
the frame, but not the world outside
the frame—Bywater & Sobchack, 1989; Telotte, 2001), a preliminary
inspection of Spider-Man and first
two Superman films strongly supports
Bruce’s claim. It is argued herein that director Sam Raimi took close notice of
Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie
(hereafter S1) and Richard Lester’s Superman II (hereafter S2) to engineer a success-by-association
for his Spider-Man (hereafter S-M). That is, Raimi used these two
famous and proven box office winners located within the same comic book
superhero territory to achieve Hollywood success for his film story. Nor did it
commercially damage him or artistically hurt his movie to uprate Spidey’s
superhero quotient by linking him directly with Superman, fandom’s elder
statesman and much-loved icon of American nationalism, moral integrity and
boy-next-door wholesomeness (Daniels, 1998; Fingeroth, 2004). After all,
Superman is considered: “America’s ultimate
fictional hero” (Petrou, 1978, p. 24), “surely the most omnipotent hero ever
invented…and certainly the most famous character to emerge from American
comic-books” (Pringle, 1987, p. 441). He also “represents the virtues of
established order and authority. One could even argue that he represents the ideal
of America” (Kaw, 2005, p. 10). What better superhero role model could a nerdy
American Earth boy follow?
B. J. Oropeza (2005) offered a seven-item taxonomy of
typical superhero characteristics that incorporated Superman and Spider-Man
into many of its criteria, namely:
1. Most superheroes have super
powers (Batman, Rorschach, and the Punisher are important exceptions).
2. Many superheroes received
their powers by accident or chance, often related to scientific misgivings
(e.g., Spider-Man, Flash, Fantastic Four, Hulk, Daredevil, X-Men, Dr.
Manhattan).
3. Many superheroes wear
costumes and take on a change of identity or transformation when doing so
(e.g., Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, Flash, Captain Marvel, Thor,
Iron Man).
4. Many superheroes either
have no parents or their parents are not present (e.g., Superman, Batman,
Spider-Man, Sub-Mariner, Hulk, Wolverine/X-Men, Daredevil, Rorschach).
5. Many superheroes experience
some greater tragedy, challenge, or responsibility that functions as the
incentive for their commission to become a hero (e.g., Superman, Batman,
Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Iron Man, the Punisher).
6. Many superheroes have an
uneasy relationship with law authorities; they often will uphold justice before
the law (Batman, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Sub-Mariner, Wolverine/X-Men, Silver
Surfer, the Punisher).
7. Many superhero myths mimic
the language of god-man mythology with traits such as noble origins, god-like
powers, and savior capabilities (e.g., Superman, Wonder Woman, Thor, Captain
Marvel, Silver Surfer, Green Lantern, Dr. Manhattan) (p. 5)
Insightful as this is, there are at least twelve
areas in which Superman and Spider-Man can be meaningfully compared that
incorporates and goes beyond Oropeza’s taxonomy. Namely, (1) Prologues and
Epilogues: Contextual, Transitional and Transcendental; (2) The Protagonists:
Designations, Personas and Characteristics; (3) The Superhero’s Family Life:
Alien, Human and Relational; (4) Earth Bound: Foster Parents, Domesticity and
Humble Homeliness; (5) Foster Life: The Up-Lifting, Tragic and Traumatic
Events; (6) Personal Careers: Mundane and Superheroic; (7) The Protagonists:
Professional and Personal Idiosyncracies; (8) The Love Stories: Interests,
Incidents and Alternative Interpretations; (9) On the Job: Newspaper Perks,
Colleagues and Characteristics; (10) Resident Evil: The Superhero Enemies,
Nemeses and Detractors; (11) Supervillain Psychology: From Idiosyncrasies to Modus Operandi; and (12) Raimi’s
Appropriation of the Superman Mythos: Direct Imitation as Success. The
following is a brief explication of each of these twelve areas.
1. Prologues and Epilogues: Contextual,
Transitional and Transcendental
Both Superman and Spider-Man were comic book
creations before their projection onto the silver screen. The former caped
wonder is from the Action comic book stable, created by Jerry Siegel (writer)
and Joe Shuster (artist), while the latter web wonder is from the Marvel comic
book stable, created by Stan Lee (writer/editor) and Steve Ditko (artist). Both
S1 and S-M prefaced their film narratives with comic book images to forge
this text-to-screen progression (i.e., to overtly signal the popular film
adaptation of popular print). To firmly establish their quintessential
Americana heritage, both S1 and S-M have their superheroes linked with
the American flag near film’s end (i.e., symbolic of patriotic nationalism and
God’s own country). Semiotically speaking, “the superhero” equals “good” equals
“God” equals “America” and therefore both films are subtextually saying that
under this political arrangement, “all is right with the world.” Both Superman
and Spider-Man in all three nominated films are associated with the skies, metaphorically
heaven (i.e., the iconic domain of angels, Jesus, God, heaven and the home of
the Good), thus, subtly implying that these superheroes resonate with divinity,
Superman more so than Spider-Man. As Ken Schenck (2005, p. 40) put it:
“Superman is not God, but he reflects God’s power and goodness. He is not the
Christ, but he represents a kind of ideal humanity as Christ does. Superman did
not die for our sins, but he would die to save us. Arguably the greatest
parable of Superman’s Christ-likeness comes in Superman II when Superman is willing to give up his powers because
of his love for Lois Lane [Margot Kidder].”
2. The Protagonists: Designations, Personas and
Characteristics
Both Superman and Spider-Man were “accidentally” given
their superhero names by others, namely, Lois Lane and the anonymous fight ring
announcer, respectively. Both protagonists also have alternative names and
descriptions. For example, Superman is widely known as the “Man of Steel”
(Petrou, 1978, p. 100), although newspapers in S1 called him the “caped wonder” and “blue bomb” while in S2 Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) called him
“the blue boy.” Spider-Man is affectionately known as “Spidey” (Greydanus,
2002, p. 2) and throughout the film, he was variously tagged: “the
web-slinger,” “web-head,” “web-crawler,” “the amazing Spider-Man,” “your
friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man” and even “The Human Spider” during Peter
Parker’s short but abortive wrestling career.
Both superheroes have nerdy, mundane, non-superhero
personas contrasted against their charismatic superhero personas as they lived
their parallel lives and serviced their respective dual identities. Superman is
a “goody-two shoes” (Schenck, 2005, p. 39) who hides behind the shy, bumbling
Clark Kent, the “mild-mannered reporter…with just the right balance of
sincerity and “klutziness”” (Petrou, 1978, p. 42). However, as Bill/Snake
Charmer (David Carradine) explained to The Bride/Beatrix Kiddo/Black Mamba (Uma
Thurman) in Kill Bill: Vol. 2, it is
essentially an act designed to protect his superhero nature and identity that
he has possessed since birth. In addition, from a Superman-as-Christ-figure
perspective (see below), the Clark Kent persona conformed to Bible
specifications, namely: “Wherefore in all things it behoved him [Jesus] to be
made like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17 KJV). “Who [Jesus], being in the form
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no
reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and
became obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:6-8 KJV).
On the other hand, Spider-Man hides behind the shy,
wimpy Peter Parker, who displayed “the right blend of earnest awkwardness, slightly
self-absorbed introspectiveness, and basic decency” (Greydanus, 2002, p. 2),
but which he possessed before his
superhero transformation and sometimes after
it. Indeed, “Spider-Man was a teen-age geek with a guilt complex” (Partible,
2005, p. 232), or he was more kindly described elsewhere as an “existentialist
super-hero” (Palumbo, 1983, p. 67), but in essence, “Spidey is just a kid”
(Kovacsics, 2004, p. 3).
Superman is a profound Christ-figure superhero while
Spider-Man is essentially just an Everyman superhero. The parallels between
Superman and Jesus (the ultimate biblical superhero) are astounding, extensive
and profound (Kozloff, 1981; Kozlovic, 2002, 2004, Schenck, 2005), whereas the
parallels between Spider-Man and Jesus are interesting, but ultimately
strained, superficial and inconsequential, despite some attempts to suggest
otherwise (Bruce, 2002; Groff, 2004; Richardson, 2004). Particularly, the
linking of Uncle Ben’s sage statement: “Remember, with great power comes great
responsibility” to Luke 12:48 (KJV): “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him
shall be much required” (Fields & James, 2004, p. 153). In addition to
basic survival reasons, noble and quasi-religious motivations underpinned
Superman’s insertion into human society by a caring third party. As his
heavenly father, Jor-El (Marlon Brando) put it: “They can be a great people,
Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this
reason, above all, their capacity for good…I have sent them you…my only son” (just
like God sending Jesus to Earth for the good of humanity). Whereas, the only
reason behind Spider-Man’s genesis was rooted in a laboratory accident (i.e.,
nothing to do with self-preservation, nobility, the Divine or quasi-Divine
intentions by any third party, let alone a caring one).
3. The Superhero’s Family Life: Alien, Human and
Relational
In S1,
Superman’s biological parents were spectacularly killed when the planet Krypton
was destroyed, whereas the death of Spider-Man’s biological parents was
indicated but not revealed within S-M,
whether spectacular or otherwise, but certainly not at the level of planetary
extinction. Interestingly, Peter Parker spoke to Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten
Dunst) and jokingly referred to “a little place I like to call Earth.” This
comment faintly resonated with Superman’s alien origins on Krypton and his
galactic parent’s choice of the far-off planet Earth for the new home of their
refugee son. Both superheroes are orphans, raised by, and lived intimately
with, foster parents. Superman had Martha Kent (Phyllis Thaxter) and Jonathan
Kent (Glenn Ford), while Spider-Man had Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and Uncle
Ben Parker (Cliff Robertson). However, Superman’s foster parents knew about his
alien origins and superhero status whereas Spider-Man’s foster parents were not
aware of his superhero secret. All else around them were wisely kept in the
proverbial dark for safety reasons, including the deliberate erasing of Lois
Lane’s memory by Superman in S2 and
the crushing of Mary Jane Watson’s romantic desires in S-M. According to Leo Pringle (2005):
The superhero
story asks for the missing ideal partner or mentor; one who is morally strong
and can instill solid values in a world that pressures a person to make immoral
choices in the name of survival The archetypes are many: Jor-El and Lara, who
sacrifice their lives for their only son Kal-El; Jonathan and Martha Kent, who
possess a nurturing wisdom and humility that helps Clark fulfil his destiny;
Uncle Ben Parker and Aunt May who are longsuffering, standing with a silent
strength that gives Peter a reason to live (p. 249).
It is these caring family ties and their upright
moral guidance that made Superman and Spider-Man the positive superheroes that
they eventually became.
4. Earth Bound: Foster Parents, Domesticity and
Humble Homeliness
Both foster mothers (i.e., Martha and Aunt May) were
loving, domestic homemakers with greying hair, whilst both foster fathers
(i.e., Jonathan and Uncle Ben) were humble, responsible tradesmen, the former a
rural farmer and the latter a retrenched senior electrician. All foster parents
had solid, domestic but unglamorous occupations with little influence on world
events, unlike their super heroic charges (and associated nemeses). Both
domestic families lived in humble circumstances. Superman was raised in rural
Smallville (i.e., representative of “the country” and its values) while
Spider-Man lived in urban Queens (i.e., representative of “the city” and its
values). Given the contemporary romanticism surrounding the alleged benefits of
country life and the supposedly corrupting effects of city life, Superman’s
upbringing was the more wholesome of the two hero characters.
5. Foster Life: The Up-Lifting, Tragic and
Traumatic Events
Both protagonists were told that they were special
beings. In S1, Pa Kent told the
frustrated teenager Clark: “You are here for a reason,” while in S-M, Aunt May told the frustrated
teenager Peter: “You were meant for great things.” Both these comforting comments
were soul soothers and turned out to be profoundly true. Similarly, both foster
fathers died early in the lives of the superheroes. Jonathan Kent suffered an
unexpected heart attack and perished, which Superman-as-teenager could do
nothing practical about at the time, albeit, he had a time-reversing skill that
could have made all the difference if
he knew about it then. Moreover, when he did know about it later, and he
deliberately committed a Superman sin (i.e., violating Jor-El’s repeated
command: “It is forbidden for you to interfere with human history”), Superman
did not have to stop with just Lois
Lane’s resurrection. He could have gone back further in time to stop everything
bad happening, but he did not do so for unknown (but understandable plot)
reasons.
Uncle Ben was unexpectedly murdered during a
car-jacking incident, which the teenage neophyte Spider-Man could do nothing
practical about at the time. Albeit, there was a fateful moment that could have made all the difference if he
stopped the thief-cum-car jacker-cum-murder rather than purposely let him get
away for essentially revenge reasons against the fight organiser who ripped him
off financially. Since both foster fathers were good men, the good boys Clark
and Peter were emotionally affected by their respective deaths, including a
number of deep personal regrets, which triggered their intense soul-searching
and profound maturational transformations that helped make them the honourable
men that they finally became.
While Superman might be confused and anguished at
times, he is not psychologically disturbed or seeking anything else other than
to be a nice professional do-gooder. On the other hand, Spider-Man wore his
neurosis on his sleeve, almost as a badge of honour. He appeared to hunger for
redemption for letting Uncle Ben die because of his smartass decision not to stop the robber-cum-car
jacker-cum-murderer when he could have. Spidey’s weakness is further
underscored because Superman’s powers, problems and responsibilities are literally
of world class importance (e.g., turning back time; bringing Lois Lane back
from the dead), whereas, Spider-Man’s affect on the world are important, but
not on the same spectacular world shattering scale or effect (e.g., stopping
villains; preventing Mary Jane from being mugged and raped).
6. Personal Careers: Mundane and Superheroic
Both Clark Kent and Peter Parker were high school
students who later embarked upon professional careers in the newspaper
business. The former as a reporter for the Daily Planet, and the latter as a
freelance photographer for the Daily Bugle, the “news with an attitude” as
their advertising slogan boldly proclaimed. Both Superman and Spider-Man got
their incredible powers because of unique accidents, one awesome and cosmic in
scope, the other unspectacular and mundane (albeit, unusual). Superman was
empowered by Earth’s yellow sun following the destruction of Krypton and its
red sun, which forced his interplanetary migration as an alien refugee.
Moreover, despite the warning efforts of Superman’s father Jor-El, Krypton’s
leading scientist, to convince the Krypton High Council of their sloppy science
and unfounded faith in inaction. Whereas, Spider-Man, without any warnings, was
empowered by a combination of pedagogic faith in the educational value of
science field trips, sloppy laboratory management, and a rogue arachnid that
had escaped from Columbia University’s genetic research facility.
Spider-Man’s extraordinary biological powers resulted
directly from the (accidental) bite of a genetically engineered super spider
(not the radioactive spider bite of Cold War paranoia, 1960s science and comic
book fandom). Similarly, Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe), the ambitious
scientist-businessman turned into the psychotic, schizophrenic villain, the
Green Goblin, after rashly ingesting an experimental performance enhancer
serum, code name CX00009. This was a designer drug capable of turning him into
a super soldier (originally designed for the American military), and which he
felt compelled to consume as the project was on the verge of being cancelled.
Superman is a supercharged version of humanity (i.e., a “Super” “man”), while
Spidey is a mutated admixture of humanity (i.e., a human-spider hybrid; as
indicated by his appropriately hyphenated name: “Spider” “-” “Man”). Superman
had super-enemies from Krypton, the unholy triumvirate released from the
phantom zone, namely, General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas) and Non
(Jack O’Halloran), whereas, Spidey’s archenemy is the Green Goblin, the secular
equivalent of Satan (Fields & James, 2004, p. 153). He is in effect a
supercharged drug addict; itself an echo of Harry Osborn’s drug addiction in
comic book fandom (Partible, 2005, p. 235), and as also indicated by his horribly
distorted facemask, yellow eyes, psychotic cackle, malevolent name, mischievous
nature and unnatural strength (as if on Angel Dust).
Both superheroes decided on careers as crimefighters
whilst working behind the veil of journalism (print and photo, respectively)
that ostensibly supported truth, justice and the American way. Their work was
frequently conducted in city environments, presumably because of the greater
number of people and opportunities for crime, and to reinforce the idea that
cities are intrinsically corrupting places. Both Superman and Spider-Man are
professional saviours. It is their superhero modus operandi to rescue people and help the poor, the weak and the
oppressed. Superman focused on America, Europe and the world, while Spider-Man
focused upon the concrete canyons of Manhattan. Superman’s reach is global, as
indicated by his around-the-world trips and outerspace escapades, while
Spider-Man’s reach is local (i.e., New York), as verified by his classic retort
to the question of his identity, namely, I am “your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man” [my emphasis].
7. The Protagonists: Professional and Personal
Idiosyncracies
Both superheroes did not want to kill anyone and so
they desperately tried to avoid it if possible (i.e., the tactics of Good), but
they were not above giving their enemies a severe thrashing if need be. Indeed,
both Superman and Spider-Man went from mild-mannered teenagers to butt-kicking
superheroes on many occasions. Tellingly, Spider-Man lost almost as many fights
as he won, whereas, Superman in S2 only
lost temporarily. First, to the unholy Kryptonian triumvirate, and second, to
the bullying trucker Rocky (Pepper Martin) in Don’s Diner after Superman
abdicated his powers and was weakened to the level of mortal human (as also
indicated by his civilian street clothes; not his office suit or crime fighter
costume). This event had followed Superman’s radical choice to de-power his
super-self and give up his superhero career because of his love for Lois Lane.
Plot-wise, only God knows why “love” required the loss of his super powers,
unless attempting to make the traditional associations between sex and physical
weakness, love and emotional weakness, submission and psychological weakness
(thus, subtextually turning Superman into a biblical Samson-figure). In
imitative fashion within Spider-Man 2,
Peter Parker/Spider-Man also temporarily lost his super powers and decided to
give up his superhero career whilst working through his own personal crises
involving love, work, duty, study and destiny (and as indicated by the similar
rejection of his crime fighter costume). Indeed, Superman’s costume is bright
and indestructible whilst Spider-Man’s costume is distressed and easily
discoloured in the washing machine, even if a stranger did consider it a “cool”
outfit.
Both superheroes like to save children. In S1, the Man of Steel saved a dangerously
tottering commuter bus full of kids from going over the Golden Gate Bridge, and
he helped a little girl rescue her cat stuck up a tree. Indeed, Superman also
saved a Girl Scout troop from the missile-causing earthquake, but this scene
was scrubbed from the released movie (Petrou, 1978, p. 156). Whereas, Spidey
rescued a lone child from a giant collapsing balloon during the Times Square
festivities-cum-Green Goblin chaos, he also retrieved a small baby from a
devastating building fire, and he saved a crashing cable car full of kids. It
appears that superheroes need to save children just as much as politicians need
to kiss babies. As Marlon Brando noted: “Superman is a heroic symbol to
children” (Petrou, 1978, p. 76), whereas, Spider-Man is yet to earn that
exalted status despite his legion of fans and troubled adolescents—his teenage
peers.
Throughout S1
and S2, Superman saved cities from
nuclear missiles, towns from bursting dams, train commuters from disaster,
tourists from terrorists in the Eiffel Tower, cats from trees etc. Whereas, in S-M, the audience is verbally advised
that Spider-Man pulled six people from a wrecked subway, in addition to
visually showing him help the threatened cable car victims, the unsuspecting
couple about to be crushed by falling masonry, assorted burglar victims and the
rescue of Mary Jane Watson from assault and potential rape. Obviously, Superman
has a greater intrinsic capacity for do-gooder deeds than Spidey is physically
capable of performing, even under full superhero power.
Both superheroes wore gaudy coloured costumes,
namely, blue, red and yellow for Superman (but without the need of a mask), and blue, red and black for Spider-Man
(but with the need of a mask). The
former design was intimately linked to Krypton and Superman’s family house
(i.e., noble origins), whereas the latter design was inspired by money-hungry
desires and wrestling showmanship passions (i.e., less noble origins), but at
least tangentially linked to his Terran spider biology. Both superheroes did a
lot of running around and other vigorous physical activities. For example, baby
Clark (Aaron Sholinski) easily lifted up a truck’s rear end all by himself, and
young Clark (Jeff East) easily raced home a swift car and a speeding train in S1, thereby, demonstrating that he was
more powerful than a locomotive; that much touted signature claim from the
1953-1957 Superman TV series (Gerani
& Schulman, 1977). The adult Clark (Christopher Reeve) in S2 went on interesting story assignments
(e.g., Niagara Falls), while in both S1
and S2 his alter ego Superman flew
around America, the world and into outerspace. Similarly, Peter Parker ran
after school buses followed by Spider-Man’s Manhattan street patrols and car
chasing episodes using his running, jumping, crawling and other web-slinging
abilities. These were great Spidey abilities, but still only a pale reflection
of the incredible physical capacities of Superman.
Both Superman and Spider-Man defied earthly gravity,
Superman by miraculously flying, “You’ll believe a man can fly” was the
advertising promise of S1, and the
audience did. While Spider-Man did so through amazing web-slinging feats
(albeit, smashing into a billboard, and almost smashing into the side of a
building whilst initially learning to navigate). Both superheroes engaged in
destructive battles and ultimately defeated their respective enemies after
suffering a few setbacks, which included being threatened, deceived and
physically beaten (frequently involving crushed masonry). Both Superman and
Spider-Man bring peace, justice and moral order to their respective universes,
which frequently involved thwarting burglars and handing bad-guys over to the
police. Admittedly, Superman hand delivered them while Spider-Man left them to
be collected, but the result was the same – the criminal garbage was dutifully
collected and processed.
8. The Love Stories: Interests, Incidents and Alternative
Interpretations
S1 and S2 is
a two-part, partial back-to-back superhero story with a love story encompassing
Lois Lane subsumed into it. Whereas, S-M
is a love story with a superhero story subsumed into it, as also suggested by
the film’s introductory voice-over narration: “This...[story] is all about a
girl...” (i.e., Mary Jane Watson). Indeed, when Peter (as a six-year-old) first
met Mary Jane when she moved into his neighbourhood (literally the house next
door), he fell instantly in love with her and had considered her an “angel.”
Just like Clark Kent who instantly fell in love with the spunky Lois Lane the
first time he met her when he moved into her neighbourhood (i.e., their office
desks at the Daily Planet building). Later, it included an angel-like flying
session with Superman starting from her other home territory (i.e., Lois’
high-rise apartment; not far from Clark Kent’s abode). Indeed, both Clark and
Lois are professional equals (i.e., newspaper reporters) just like Peter and
Mary Jane are equals (i.e., high school students-cum-struggling neophyte
workers). Furthermore, as Spidey is less than Superman and Peter Parker is less
than Clark Kent in maturity, accomplishments and symbolic value, Mary Jane is
less than Lois Lane as a women or professional. She comes nowhere near the
social status of Lois who “generally mirrors the assertive female, a symbol of
woman’s liberation. She represents the woman who is fully equal to men—and
better than most” (Schenck, 2005, p. 42).
However, having super abilities does not enhance the
superheroes’ social lives, and so any romantic moments they experience are a
comparative rarity to be savoured. For example, S1 had a tender and extended handholding scene between Superman and
the object of his love, Lois Lane, during their miraculous flying trip.
Likewise, S-M had tender handholding
scenes with Peter and his loved ones, in fact, three loved ones. Firstly,
between a grieving Peter and the dying Uncle Ben after the hijacking-cum-murder
incident. Secondly, between a concerned Peter and a sick but sleeping Aunt May
in the Queens General Hospital. And thirdly, between a romantic Peter and a
tentatively romantic Mary Jane in the same Queens hospital room before being
interrupted by Harry Osborn (James Franco), her current boyfriend, the best
friend of Peter Parker, and Spider-Man’s subsequent enemy.
Both superheroes had female, heterosexual love
interests (i.e., no major gay themes). Clark Kent/Superman loved Lois Lane in S1, and in S2 it included intimate physical contact (i.e., sex with dry, hot
bodies) when Clark finally came out of the superhero closet and revealed
himself as Superman to Lois (truthfully, emotionally, physically, sexually).
Similarly, Peter Parker/Spider-Man had an intense romantic longing for Mary
Jane Watson that included physical (but not intimate sexual) contact. For
example, Peter held her in his arms after she accidentally slipped in the
school cafeteria. He held her hand in the hospital room, and as Spider-Man, he
romantically kissed her wet, hot body with inviting bosom and prominent nipples
in the raining streetscape scene where Spidey was literally hanging around in
the tradition of the Tarot’s hangman card. The S1 and S2 correlates of
these sexualised scenes were the pronounced breasts of the voluptuous
villainess Miss Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine); especially in a wet shirt
romantically kissing Superman in Lex Luthor’s drowning pool. In real life, her
bouncing boobs and too-prominent display of nipples was eventually controlled
by “the wardrobe mistresses [who] inserted elastoplast to round the breasts
off” (Petrou, 1978, p. 158).
However, there are also five faint, potential gay
subtexts in S-M if one is inclined to
see them. Firstly, regarding Peter’s curiously inappropriate statement: “Heck,
I’d even take him” concerning the fat, burger-eating teenager watching Peter
run after the school bus. Secondly, Norman Osborn’s neo-infatuation with Peter,
particularly wanting to be his surrogate “father” (sugar daddy?). Thirdly,
Spider-Man’s statement to J. Jonah Jameson (J. K. Simmons) regarding the Green
Goblin, namely: “let mum and dad talk for a minute” (however, which one
Spider-Man is remains unclear). Fourthly, when Peter had matured into an adult
superhero, he rejected women after experiencing heterosexual delights with Mary
Jane. Fifthly, the anonymous woman-with-dog who mused about Spider-Man: “I
think he’s a man,” despite his body-hugging superhero outfit. This suspicion of
physical inadequacy certainly did not plague Christopher Reeve’s Superman
because:
The supertight red
tank-suit pants he wore over the blue leotard revealed some obvious
protuberances–and not always in exactly the same place…light-hearted members of
the unit asked…“Was Superman ‘dressed’ to the left or the right when we wrapped
yesterday, dear?” This problem, too, was easily solved…a large swimmer’s cup to
be worn under the pants…it would enhance the supermacho image of Superman
(Petrou, 1978, p. 100).
Both Superman and Spider-Man discovered true love
with their respective female love interests only to consciously, painfully and
actively reject them to pursue their committed superhero careers. They
sacrificed personal happiness with Lois Lane and Mary Jane Watson respectively
for noble causes (i.e., service to their communities). Therefore, this act
automatically earmarked them as true superheroes (i.e., they were in the world but not of the world, just like that celebrated
biblical hero—Jesus).
9. On the Job: Newspaper Perks, Colleagues and
Characteristics
Both Clark Kent and Peter Parker had a special knack
of contacting the much-sort-after superheroes for rescue services, exclusive
stories and unique photo opportunities when needed (i.e., contacting
themselves). Not surprisingly, both S1
and S-M used newspaper headlines to
make statements about their respective superheroes, with some of Spider-Man’s
pictures being captured by Peter’s own strategically placed, web-fastened
camera.
Both Clark Kent and Peter Parker, while in “normal”
disguise at work, have their fingers on the pulse of the world as if from on
high. Thus, implying that newspapermen are God-like and suggesting that within
every reporter is a potential Superman or Spider-Man waiting to burst out
(i.e., from the mundane to the extraordinary). Indeed, for Ken Schenck (2005,
p. 40), “Maybe the attraction of the Peter Parkers, the Harry Potters, and the
Clark Kents of fiction has always been the idea that lurking somewhere within
the unnoticed, “mild-mannered reporter” in us is something super and extraordinary.
We are just waiting for the crisis when our true, secret identity will come
out, and the world will hail us as savior of the day.” This is the very mythic
stuff of heroic daydreams.
Both Clark Kent and Peter Parker had aggressive
newspaper bosses who are colourful characters in their own right. Clark had the
Daily Planet’s talkative, assertive, cigar-chomping Perry White (Jackie Cooper)
who wore a short-back-and-sides haircut, while Peter had the Daily Bugle’s
talkative, heartless, cigar-chomping J. Jonah Jameson who wore a slide-rule
haircut. Both bosses were unapologetic graduates of the go-getter,
rough-and-tumble school of journalism, and they frequently displayed their
dictatorial management styles to their employees, including their incognito
superhero employees.
10. Resident Evil: The Superhero Enemies, Nemeses
and Detractors
The alien Superman and his Kryptonian enemies were
profoundly transformed by Earth’s yellow sun, whereas Spider-Man and his
archnemesis, the Green Goblin, were profoundly transformed by human
biotechnology (i.e., the paranoia of the post-Millennial period). Therefore,
the relationship between Superman and his enemies, and Spider-Man and his
enemies, is the same difference between (alien) Nature versus (Terran) science.
Superman’s archenemy is General Zod and his evil cohorts Ursa and Non, all of
whom are Superman’s biophysical equal (e.g., Kryptonian nature, flying ability,
ray-gun eyes, other super normal powers, comparable fighting skills). Whereas,
Spider-Man’s archenemy is the Green Goblin who was similar in biophysical
nature to Spidey (e.g., Earth human, scientist temperament, biochemically
altered, comparable fighting skills). That is, the sources of the forces of
Good and Evil are matched respectively within both films, if biased
significantly against Good before Good’s eventual heart-stopping victory over
Evil and the restoration of the moral equilibrium (in true Hollywood fashion).
Both superheroes also had other “normal” enemies to
contend with. For example, Superman had the power mad Lex Luther, the sexy Miss
Eve Teschmacher and the bumbling Otis (Ned Beattie) in addition to General Zod,
Ursa and Non, their alien correlates. Whereas, Spider-Man had the metropolitan
police force pursuing him, and J. Jonah Jameson editorially character
assassinating him, in addition to the Green Goblin aggressively targeting
Spidey for either criminal recruitment as an evil colleague or immanent
destruction as a troublesome rival. Not surprisingly, both Superman and
Spider-Man had public detractors. In S2,
people-on-the-street considered that Superman had “chickened out” and was a
“phony” when he fled from the evil Kryptonian triumvirate (actually, a
stratagem to lure them to the Fortress of Solitude to defeat them using
Kryptonian technology).
In S1,
Perry White was annoyed about Clark’s excessive humility and lack of
aggressiveness, and told him so, whereas, in S-M, Peter-as-high-school-kid was called a “freak” by a school
rival. As “The Human-Spider” wrestler, Peter was variously referred to as
“small fry” (by the fight ring administrator), a “moron” (by the fight ring
announcer), “little man” (by the fight ring showgirl) and “web-head” (by the
fight organiser). Similarly, in his Spider-Man persona, he was variously called
“some kind of freaky lou or somethin’ wakadoo” (by a street cop), “he stinks
and I don’t like him” (by a man-on-the-street) and sarcastically as “little
spider” (by the Green Goblin). J. Jonah Jameson also had a professional grudge
against Spider-Man, and so he variously called him a “criminal,” a “vigilante,”
“a public menace,” a “weirdo, a “creepy crawler” and a “newspaper selling
clown.” Clearly, Peter Parker/Spider-Man attracted less public respect than
Clark Kent/Superman.
11. Supervillain Psychology: From Idiosyncrasies
to Modus Operandi
All the films’ arch-villains suffered serious
psychopathologies. In S1 and S2, the seditious General Zod
demonstrated megalomania. He wanted to be the supreme power on Krypton and have
people bow down to him, which he subsequently desired whilst living on Earth.
Just like Lex Luthor who wanted to be the world’s richest real estate owner in S1 and in S2, to be the King of Australia and presumably to have people bow
before him. Whereas, in S-M, Norman Osborn/the
Green Goblin was professionally driven and suffered from a split personality,
especially evidenced when he told his “normal” Norman half that he/they wanted
“power beyond your wildest dreams.” The Green Goblin certainly wanted to be the
king of his world, just as his alter ego Norman Osborn was a corporate “king”
of OSCORP (a military weapons provider). This was dramatically evidenced after
the company’s Board was murdered with a spectacular body-disintegrating
Goblin-bomb after they had sold the company, and sold out Norman in the
process. This bomb was presumably manufactured by OSCORP, and thus a form of
corporate karma when the Board members devastatingly reaped what they had
politically sown.
The evil Kryptonian triumvirate in S1 plus S2 and the Green Goblin in S-M
had no qualms in dealing severely with anyone who got in their respective ways
(i.e., the tactics of Evil). For example, the brutish Non killed a guard on
Krypton without a second thought, as graphically recalled in S2, whereas, the newly-created Green
Goblin had no compunction in killing his formerly non-supportive work colleague
who had actually saved his life. Nor did he have any qualms about the
disintegrated OSCORP board members who had double-crossed him, or the innocent
citizens blown up at the Quest test range to neutralise a rival weapons
company. Both evil nemeses in S1 plus
S2 and S-M were of comparable force and created from equivalent power
sources. Superman’s enemies were just as powerful as he was because they were
fellow Kryptonians who had also escaped death (unexpectedly via the Phantom
Zone) and they subsequently excelled on Earth under a yellow sun, as did
Superman. Whereas, Spider-Man’s major enemy was a fellow human being who was
similarly amplified in abilities following a botched laboratory experiment
(i.e., unexpected biophysical enhancement with worrying side effects). The
Green Goblin was in effect the evil shadow-figure of Spider-Man, as General Zod
and company were the evil shadow-figure of Superman.
12. Raimi’s Appropriation of the Superman Mythos:
Direct Imitation as Success
While Peter Parker-as-neophyte-Spider-Man was
learning to shoot his organic wrist webs on command, he tried to evoke a
response by saying: “up, up and away” in the classic Superman fashion. One
argues that mythic appropriation rather than coincidence was involved here. In S1, the ghostly, disembodied voice of
the physically dead Jor-El (Superman’s biological father) advised Kal-El/Clark
Kent/Superman about his duty and responsibilities to Earth and humanity.
Similarly, the ghostly, disembodied voice of the physically dead Uncle Ben
(Spider-Man’s foster father) reminded Peter Parker about personal power and his
responsibilities to humanity and his mundane local society.
In S1, Lois
Lane was abruptly dislodged out of a dangerously dangling helicopter, which was
stuck on top of the Daily Planet building, and she rapidly fell towards her
certain death upon the hard cement pavement below. Just in the nick of time,
Superman flew straight up to catch her (and the rapidly falling wayward
helicopter). This heroic act was paralleled in S-M when Mary Jane Watson was falling to her certain death upon the
hard cement pavement below after being abruptly dislodged from a crumbling
balcony in Times Square. Just in the nick of time, Spider-Man heroically dived
straight down to catch her. Consequently, Lois Lane hugged Superman and Mary
Jane Watson hugged Spider-Man, both relieved damsels were returned safely to
the tops of buildings, and both asked who their gallant rescuers were. The
superheroes respectively replied: “A friend” and “your friendly neighbourhood
Spider-Man.”
In S2, Lois
Lane was turned from an intimate lover back into a friend again via a
Kryptonian form of hypnotism lovingly deployed by Clark. While in S-M, the emotionally charged word
“friend” was used by Peter Parker as a feeling form of coitus interruptus as he turned the wannabe lover Mary Jane Watson
back into a neighbourhood friend (much to her chagrin). S-M had repeatedly mimicked S1
and S2 here. Indeed, Spider-Man had no need to take Mary Jane to the roof
top resting place since he was already going downwards and was only a few feet
away from safely depositing her onto solid ground. Snatching her away from the
footpath at the last second was an unnecessary and inefficient Spidey act given
the plot trajectory and circumstances, and was purely imitative of S1.
An anonymous woman-on-the-street referred to
Spider-Man by crying out: “look up there.” This sort of response often happens to
Superman who is identified with the iconic tag line made famous by the TV
series: “Look!...up in the sky...it’s a bird...it’s a plane... it’s Superman!”
During a street-based emergency in S1,
Clark Kent raced from the left to the right hand side of screen to help his
loved one, Lois Lane. He started tearing open his shirt to reveal his Superman
costume bearing his iconic “S” logo beneath it. Similarly, during a
street-based emergency in S-M, Peter
Parker raced from the left to the right hand side of screen to help his loved
one, Mary Jane Watson. He subsequently started tearing open his shirt to reveal
his Spider-Man costume bearing his iconic “spider” logo beneath it. Raimi had
directly copied that defining Superman event and made it an iconic moment for
Spider-Man as well.
Raimi even paralleled minor incidents between Clark
Kent and Peter Parker. For example, J. Jonah Jameson gave work orders to Peter
only to find that Peter had left before he had finished talking to him. This
scene directly mirrored an incident in S1
when Perry White ordered Clark to get a professional move on, but Clark had
left before he had finished talking to him. Within S-M, a Quest company employee located at the weapons test range
looked and dressed very much like George Reeves in his traditional Clark Kent
persona from the 1953-1957 Superman
TV series (Gerani & Schulman, 1977). This celluloid reincarnation visually
dredged up echoes of the small screen Superman, possibly for subliminal mythic
effect for the knowing audience members (whether consciously or unconsciously).
Spider-Man referred to the arresting police officer
at the building fire as “Chief.” This was an iconic term for Clark Kent’s
assertive newspaper boss, Perry White, and which was particularly annoying to
his TV incarnation played by John Hamilton. One argues that this was also
designed to dredge up echoes of the TV Superman. The enemies of the respective
superheroes deliberately targeted both newspaper bosses. Superman had the
flying Kryptonian triumvirate comprising of the power mad General Zod, the
sadistic Ursa and the mindless Non, who unnecessarily wrecked Perry White’s
newspaper office in S2. Whereas, S-M had the flying, power mad, Green
Goblin literally wreck J. Jonah Jameson’s newspaper office in a similar mindless
fashion. This was an unnecessary act given the plot trajectory and
circumstances, and was purely imitative of S2.
Of course, many more parallels could be discovered by a sustained comparison of
all the Superman and Spider-Man films, TV series, comic books, novels, games,
multimedia equivalents and comparison with other superheroes (Morris &
Morris, 2005), however, it is beyond the scope of this work.
As Aunt May aptly told Peter
Parker: “You’re not Superman you know” and it was true (in addition to being a
Spider-Man, Superman link intertextually packaged)! Spider-Man is a cut down
version of Superman, that is, Spidey is just Superman-lite. Just as the
teenager Peter Parker is man-lite, his superhero accident was incident-lite,
his earthly enemies are evil-lite, his abilities are power-lite, his love life
is romantic-lite (i.e., not erotic), his professional domain is local not
global, and his heroic feats are only amazing but not miraculous. Spider-Man is
an Everyman superhero not a cosmic superhero, and certainly no Christ-figure
superstar like Superman. Raimi’s film had bathed in the reflected glory of the
first two Superman films, and he reaped huge box office rewards for doing so.
Nonetheless, Spider-Man is a warmly welcomed addition to the pantheon of
cinematic superheroes that are increasing gracing our screens, even if
Spider-Man is in the final analysis ultimately a filmic meditation on nerdy
heroism.
Raimi’s filmmaking
skill was in turning the comic book Spider-Man who “became a symbol of the
uncertainties of the youths of the 1960’s” (Brancatelli, 1976, p. 630) into a
symbol of the uncertainties of the youths of the 1990s and beyond. No doubt,
future Spider-Man sequels with their anticipated greater correspondences to the
Superman movies will entrench the parallels further. Especially regarding the
rogue gallery of fantastic supervillains and even more evil archenemies than
The Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus (aka Doc Oc; Otto Octavius) starring Alfred
Molina in Spider-Man 2, all of which are worthy targets of the web-slingers’
crimefighter prowess. Further research into the exciting area of comic book
culture, superheroes and their filmic adaptations is useful, relevant and
warmly recommended, especially considering that for our youth today,
“superheroes have become an artistic vehicle that conveys the collective hopes
and dreams of humankind” (Partible, 2005, p. 247).
an international
and interdisciplinary journal of postmodern cultural sound, text and image
Volume 3, July 2006, ISSN 1552-5112
Brancatelli,
J. (1976). Spider-Man (U.S.). In M. Horn (Ed.), The world encyclopedia of comics (p. 630). London: New English
Library.
Bruce,
D. (2002, October 8). Spider-Man (2002).
<http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/spiderman.htm>, pp. 1-12.
Bywater, T., & Sobchack, T. (1989). An introduction to film criticism: Major critical approaches to narrative film.
New York: Longman.
Daniels,
L. (1998). Superman: The complete
history, the life and times of the man of steel. San Francisco, CA:
Chronicle Books.
Fields, D., & James, E. (2004). Videos
that teach 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Fingeroth,
D. (2004). Superman on the couch: What
superheroes really tell us about ourselves and our society. New York:
Continuum Press.
Gerani,
G., & Schulman, P. H. (1977). Fantastic
television. New York: Harmony Books.
Greydanus,
S. D. (2002, December 12). Spider-Man.
<http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/spiderman.html>, pp. 1-5.
Groff,
K. I. (2004). What would you believe if I
didn’t believe anything? A handbook for spiritual orphans. A spiritual compass
to point you home. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kaw,
N. (2005). The comicbook superhero: Myth for our time. Refractory: A Journal of Entertainment Media, 8, 1-18.
[http://www.refractory.unimelb.edu.au/journalissues/vol8/kaw.html].
Kozloff,
S. R. (1981). Superman as saviour: Christian allegory in the Superman movies. Journal of Popular Film and Television,
9(2), 78-82.
Kozlovic, A. K. (2002). Superman as Jesus
Christ. 24 Frames Per Second, 4, 1-5.
[http://www.24framespersecond.com/writings/writings/supermanjesus.html].
Kozlovic, A. K. (2004). Superman: The
alien Messiah. Dialogue Australasia: A
Journal for Teachers of Religious and Values Education, 11, 28-31.
Kovacsics, V. (2004). The three faces of
Spidey: Spiderman 2. Senses of Cinema,
33, 1-4. [http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/33/spiderman2.html].
Morris, T., & Morris, M. (2005).
(Eds.). Superheroes and philosophy:
Truth, justice and the Socratic way. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Oropeza, B. J. (2005). Introduction:
Superhero myth and the restoration of paradise. In B. J. Oropeza (Ed.), The Gospel according to superheroes:
Religion and popular culture (pp. 1-24). New York: Peter Lang.
Palumbo, D. (1983). The Marvel comics
group’s Spider-Man is an existentialist super-hero; or “life has no meaning
without my latest marvels!” Journal of
Popular Culture, 17(2), 67-82.
Partible, L. (2005). Superheroes in film
and pop culture: Silhouettes of redemption on the screen. In B. J. Oropeza
(Ed.), The Gospel according to
superheroes: Religion and popular culture (pp. 229-254). New York: Peter
Lang.
Petrou, D. M. (1978). The making of Superman: The movie.
London: Universal/W. H. Allen & Co.
Pringle, D. (1987). Imaginary people: A who’s who of modern fictional characters.
London: Grafton Books.
Richardson, N. (2004). The gospel
according to Spider-Man. The Journal of Popular
Culture, 37(4), 694-703.
Schenck, K. (2005). Superman: A popular
culture messiah. In B. J. Oropeza (Ed.), The
Gospel according to superheroes: Religion and popular culture (pp. 33-48).
New York: Peter Lang.
Telotte, J. P. (2001). Science fiction film. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Filmography
Batman
Begins (2005, dir. Christopher
Nolan)
Captain
America (1990, dir. Albert Pyun)
Catwoman (2004, dir. Pitof)
Daredevil (2003, dir. Mark Steven Johnson)
Fantastic
Four (2005, dir. Tim Story)
Hellboy (2004, dir. Guillermo del Toro)
The Hulk (2003, dir. Ang Lee)
Kill Bill:
Vol. 2 (2004, dir. Quentin
Tarantino)
Spider-Man (2002, dir. Sam Raimi)
Spider-Man 2
(2004, dir. Sam Raimi)
Spider-Man 3
(scheduled for 2007, dir. Sam Raimi)
Supergirl (1984, dir. Jeannot Szwarc)
Superman:
The Movie (aka Superman) (1978, dir. Richard Donner)
Superman II (1981, dir. Richard Lester)
X-Men (2000, dir. Bryan Singer)
X-Men 2 (2003, dir. Bryan Singer)