A Challenge to History
5/5 - 5/5
Spoilers
Alongside the usual warning of 'spoilers', I should probably put a disclaimer that this review contains at least two controversial statements. Many of you may be shocked, nay, outraged by these statements. But it would be a poor reviewer who did not speak the truth of the matter, as he or she knows it, when the time came.
The end of 2021 at the cinema has been fast approaching and two worrying films had appeared on the horizon. First up was the remake of a cinematic classic, Spielberg's potentially pointless take on the musical West Side Story. Was he wasting our time? Would it be an old man's folly? Why did he bother? Shortly following up the rear, was potentially the most over-hyped film ever. A Spider-Man film that was promising fan-service. A Spider-Man film promising cross overs from other franchises. A Spider-Man film whose publicity campaign had completely run out of control. Surely it could only disappoint?
Let's begin with the former, West Side Story. I am a big fan of the musical itself. The Broadway show was one of the first to tackle a tragedy and become a huge success. There are moments in South Pacific and Carousel of pain, but you still walk out of the theatre with a bit of Rodgers and Hammerstein glow and a smile. Arthur Laurents' story, accompanied by the legendary Jerome Robbins' direction / choreography, is ground-breaking in showing a musical can be more than some songs and a happy ending. And then there is the score, written by American genius Leonard Bernstein. The level of craft and depth surpasses much else that came before it. And, of course, it would be remiss not to mention the lyrics of the man who went on to redefine the musical: Stephen Sondheim. It is a masterpiece.
The 1961 film has become something of a cinematic classic too. Although its direction was troubled, with Robbins starting the work before being sacked and fully replaced by co-director Robert Wise, the final product is considered one of the last of the Great Hollywood Movie Musicals. But, and here comes controversial statement number 1, I thought Spielberg's presentation was better. Don't get me wrong, the original is good, a truly great movie-musical. This version, though, was a great movie. No hyphen. No appendage. No justification for changing your expectations. It was an excellent movie.
Spielberg has had a long career with many distinguished entries. Often, he is most at home with the blockbuster or action adventure (think of E.T., Jurassic Park, or Indiana Jones). With those sorts of movies he has always used his immense talent to turn out hits again and again; not an easy feat. Here, though, he takes the same skills and focuses them into creating something more nuanced, heart-breaking, and intricate. Take, for instance, his use of light. Shards of light appear upon the characters. They step out of the shadows into light coming from unnatural sources; flood-lights, neon signs, lamps. This is a world of darkness and its characters playing out their micro-drama in an artificial setting. Only after the death of Tony and the ending of the street wars does natural light wash the darkness away from New York over the ending credits.
Small changes are made to the story and script too. I was sceptical initially - Laurents' script has always served well so why change it? What Tony Kushner gives us is the same sense of the original in many ways, but delivered in a more realistic patter. The Puerto Ricans' pepper their lines with Spanish. It is un-subtitled, bringing all to a place of equal understanding. You can follow the sense but not always the specifics. A powerful tool for the piece. There were also many points where I recognised lines from the original. But what is good for the stage, a space where dialogue, actions, and performances often need to be 'big' to convey meaning, is not good for the intimacy of the screen. This loving recrafting of the script brings us the realism needed.
The most important, and well-handled, alteration was the story's central argument. West Side Story has always been about race, how could it not? But the original used race as a way of modernising Romeo and Juliet. It was not quite a story about race and discrimination, but a story with race and discrimination. The white Jets were also treated as young, misbegotten, louts. Instead, Spielberg presents the action against the backdrop of 'progress'. Their neighbourhood is being torn down, in part to be replaced by the artistic hub of New York, the Lincoln Centre (where the film premiered, in a ironic nod). Why are these young people angry and fighting? Because they're the same - at the bottom of the pile, the forgotten poor, the rejects of society. Although their actions, the fighting, the abuse, the racism, isn't acceptable, there are sociological causes. 'Gee, Officer Krupke' moves from being a yobbish song mocking the ineffectual police, to a cry of despair against the system that keeps them at the bottom. It is hard not to come out with some sympathy for both Bernardo and Riff, characters I have always had a distaste for in previous versions.
It would be criminal to purely focus on the technical aspects of film making and forget the other strength in the film. Whilst Spielberg pulls together a technical tour de force, it is the cast who sell it. Ansel Elgort is a fine actor who really excels as Tony. The emotional highs and lows he travels are well handled, along with an excellent cinematic tenor voice; light and well suited to the movies. Rachel Zegler's Maria is likewise very good and definitely an improvement on the white, non-singer Natalie Wood. David Alvarez as Bernardo and Mike Faist as Riff steal many of their scenes, but the knockout performance comes from the legendary Rita Moreno. The character of Doc is transformed into a deceased druggist who has left his Puerto Rican widow, Valentina, to act as the balance between the gangs. Her rendition of 'Somewhere', representing not only the plight of migrants trying to find home but also anyone displaced and forgotten by society, is powerful.
The trailer set me up with great fear for the music. As I said previously, Bernstein's score is perfection. In the trailers, modern effects of overdubbed strings and rhythmically augmented phrases promised a ruination of the work. Fortunately, musical supervisor David Newman's arrangements mostly just beef up the score to work for a larger orchestra. Changes, when made, are tasteful and well considered. The music for the credits are a testament to the respect with which Spielberg, Newman, and team have handled such a precious property, as a fifteen minute suite takes us through the music we love.
Following our visit to West Side Story, we managed a final cinema trip of the year to see Spider-Man: No Way Home. When I said at the top of the article that the film was over-hyped in advance, I did not exaggerate. Rumours, initially concerning the appearance of previous Spider-Man villains from previous franchises, had grown to suggest that the film may also feature everyone from Daredevil, through Deadpool, to the X-Men, Batman, and Godzilla. One post I saw speculated on how Stephen King's Pennywise may make an appearance. In a rarely seen move from a major studio, Kevin Feige himself had to speak out and tell everyone to lower their expectations. The second trailer was designed to focus on the core 'villains' leak and detract from these, frankly, silly ideas.
What all of that nonsense did was to undervalue the true excitement at the prospect of seeing these previous villains crop up. Marvel have already broken ground with their interconnected universe, with characters moving freely between films (and now TV). It was frankly unthinkable to expect this intricate web to begin to include movies from beyond its own universe. And this was where the worry came from: surely this level of fan-service could only lead to a messy, underwhelming film, possibly a bit like Sam Raimi's over-stuffed Spider-Man 3 or Marc Webb's over-stuffed Amazing Spider-Man 2. Surely, the franchise killing curse of 'go big or go home' was going to undermine one of Marvel's crowning jewels.
Think again.
Jon Watts has concluded his Spider-Man trilogy in spectacular fashion. The development of Peter Parker in the MCU, from wannabe teenage Avenger in Homecoming to hero facing the realities of responsibility in Far From Home to this version, facing up to the concept of sacrifice, is a character arc most superhero films would kill for. The interweaving of these themes throughout the film is well handled and scripted, and led by a very proficient Tom Holland. Alongside Zendaya's M.J. and Jacob Batalon's Ned, the three leads provide a very strong conclusion to this three film story of growing up.
But Watts does not stop there. Both Raimi's trilogy and Webb's duology are well known for their endings - they tanked the last film and were subsequently canned. They were, as this film explores, also incredibly cavalier with the lives of the super-villains. In each film, Raimi and Webb try to build a bad-guy with depth before having them unceremoniously die. There is no redemption for the criminally misguided in cinema. Whilst busily tidying up his own loose ends, Watts takes the reins of the other franchises and decides to give them the send off they deserve.
The boldest step is to bring in Andrew Garfield and Toby Maguire. Their appearances caused a cheer in the screening, something I'm sure was replicated across screenings. But they were brought in for more than fan-service. They are given time on screen, they are integral to the plot's resolution, and they are given the fitting ending they were both cheated out of having in their own films. For Garfield's Peter Parker, he is given the chance to save MJ where he failed Gwen, a scene that surprised me when tears came to my eyes. For Maguire's Peter Parker, it is his chance to show growth, maturity, and to help save his mentors - Dr. Otto Octavious and Dr. Norman Osborn.
The villains themselves, though ultimately drawn back to villainy through the course of the film, are given redemptive chances and are then saved regardless of their crimes. A great character like Doc Ock, whose character arc is cut short in Spider-Man 2, is given the chance to repent and change his ways. A moment where he saves all of the Spider-Men from Jamie Fox's fairly comical Electro before tackling the Green Goblin by himself is more powerful than his sacrificial drowning in Spider-Man 2. And then there is the Green Goblin, given a more vivid chance to display his madness, his pure crazed evil, and his ultimately goal-less desire to destroy Peter Parker. In the comics, Norman Osborn is the ultimate Spider-Man villain. His stint in Spider-Man hinted at that but never gave him the full weight he deserved, focusing too much on the Green Goblin costume. Here though, Norman was given the crown in Spider-Man's gallery of rogues and, still, redemption. His return was, simply, thrilling.
Ultimately, Watts shows us all what a truly amazing Spider-Man film looks like. Many people hold up Raimi's trilogy as the crème-de-la-crème. Yet, and here is unpopular opinion number 2, I don't think they're as good as everyone remembers. In 2001, superhero films were generally terrible, with Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, and 2000's X-Men, as notable exceptions. Against that backdrop, Raimi's noughties angst-driven trilogy with characters given a veneer of development and lots of time given to Maguire's gurning, looks quite good. But watching them again recently, against the backdrop of the MCU, they're average with good moments. Obviously, without them the concepts of the modern MCU and, especially, this Spider-Man film wouldn't have been conceived. The fact is though that they, along with Webb's pair, miss the central theme of Spider-Man.
At the start of the third act, a broken Tom Holland meets with Garfield and Maguire for the first time. Aunt May is dead and, in her final words, delivers the key Spider-Man mantra: "With great power, comes great responsibility." That phrase is perhaps the greatest phrase Stan Lee ever wrote. In the the previous franchises, Uncle Ben delivered the lines but their power extended as far a mere plot point. Raimi pushed it a bit in Spider-Man 2, but the line remained but words used to push Spider-Man on. They are almost just lip-service to the Spider-Man story. Here is the difference. In Watt's version, as Holland rails against the world, crushed by May's death, he begins to tell them what she said. Maguire finishes the line. In a flash the three Spider-Men know there is more to those words, something universal, multi-universal, something fundamental to their beings. "With great power, comes great responsibility" has never been just a spur for Spider-Man. For the first time in cinema, the director gets it. Thanos mistakenly thought he was inevitable - Watt's makes sure you know that Spider-Man doing everything he can to help and save people is inevitable. Spider-Man is that phrase. In a film as busy as this, however well-handled and crafted, the greatest asset Watts has is this true understanding of the character. With it, he not only concluded his run but Raimi's and Webb's as well.
West Side Story, 2021 / Spider-Man: No Way Home, 2021
Director: Steven Spielberg / Jon Watts
Writer: Tony Kushner, based on West Side Story by Arthur Laurents / Chris McKenna & Erik Sommers
Composer: Leonard Bernstein / Michael Giacchino
Starring: Ansel Elgort, Rachel Zegler, Ariana DeBose, David Alvarez, Mike Faist, & Rita Moreno / Tom Holland, Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, Benedict Cumberbatch, Marisa Tomei, Jon Favreau, Toby Maguire, Andrew Garfield, Willem Defoe, Alfred Molina, Thomas Haden-Church, Rhys Ifans, & Jamie Foxx
Both films are currently showing at major cinemas across the U.K.
Comments