Spider-Man: No Way Home - is this Cinema?
- Srinjoy Majumdar
- Jul 6, 2022
- 8 min read
Ah, Kino: can't live with it, can't live without it. I remember recently watching a TED interview featuring Ethan Hawke about his views on creativity and art, and in a weirdly unironic, poignant manner with no pretension in his voice he said, "Art's not a luxury, it's actually sustenance". Even though a cynic like me would usually dismiss ideas that sound too mature to be of any real substance, those words stuck with me. The implicit naïveté that I had latched on to those words at first glance became a real topic of discussion in my head, and I have been searching for the true meaning of that idea ever since.
There has been a lot of public discourse lately about cinema and movies, my preferred form of art. Different film auteurs and members of the film community have publicly stated their opinions on what they believe is or, more importantly, isn't cinema. From Sam Elliot's comments on 'The Power of The Dog' to discussions on what aspects of filmmaking should constitute a film award ceremony - this debate is dynamic and virtuous, but by no means, new; rather it is a philosophical battle that has raged as long as art has existed: what is art and what is its purpose? Is art meant to provoke, challenge, entertain, humour, attack, reflect or bring about any range of emotional reactions, or does art exist for art's sake?
Trust me, the answer isn't here and I doubt it's what you're looking for. What I can and will say, is that the latest object of everyone's interest and investigation into the meaning of art is the comic-book movie genre, and due to its commercial success, the most widely examined content under the unforgiving microscope of critics, is the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
"That's not cinema" - those were the words that sparked this culture war. Box office records, interviews, articles and journal pieces about artistic value, testimonial of filmmakers, and memes - these were just a few weapons subsequently used to justify either side's opinion. Martin Scorsese is a filmmaker who's worth his salt, few will disagree and those were his choice words about the MCU back in October 2019. Since then, Marvel Studios, under the ownership of Disney and the executive wisdom of Kevin Feige, its president, has released five major motion pictures, inclusive of the subject of this review (which has gone on to become one of the top grossing films of the world below two of its prior compatriots by Marvel) as well as seven equally successful TV series, all based on characters from Marvel comics. The MCU is on track to release at least seven more of each by 2024.
A monologue's worth of prelude later, where does that leave us, seekers of a deeper truth; in service of that question and all others that preceded it, I present to you, Spider-Man: No Way Home, a film no human is a stranger to and I thereby ask - is this cinema?
Now you'd had to have spent your entire life under a rock without ever once hearing about Spider-Man (also, there is definitely a hyphen and I am keeping it). Peter Parker is the everyman science nerd who struggles with his potential, his priorities and his humanity before being bitten by a radioactive spider and becomes a crimefighting vigilante by the moniker of Spider-Man, as one does. He then struggles with an enormous rogues gallery intent on ravaging New York and Spider-Man, his personal life, his powers and responsibilities and pretty much all the same things from before. The current iteration of the live-action Spider-Man is played by Tom Holland, an MCU fan favourite currently ascending Hollywood stardom.
No Way Home is the third part of the Homecoming trilogy, the MCU's take on Spider-Man existing in a live-action comic book universe alongside distinguished peers such as Iron Man and Howard The Duck (real ones know). And if I'm asked to be brutally honest, the first two parts of the Homecoming trilogy were as visually appealing or meaningful to me as a pile of wet dirt. Essentially, they weren't. I thought they were weaker films than the rest of the MCU repertoire and especially in comparison to the other two iterations of the wall-crawler. Yes, they had cool set-pieces and sweet cameos but as far as it came to substance, they were for most part, a mediocre and middling issue of some offshoot comic brand making its best effort impersonating Spider-Man. (Except for that one hilarious Ferris Bueller parody/reference in Homecoming)
Hot Take time - I actually loved Andrew Garfield's iteration of the Spider-Man from the very beginning. I realise it's fairly on-brand to say this right now, given how much deserved love he's finally getting but I've been Team Andrew since day 1. Be it putting Til Kingdom Come as a background track for skaterboi-Peter scenes or the indie sensibilities that defined the characterisation of Peter Parker, the witty and awkward teenager trying to woo a girl he likes or the immensely chaotic and lanky action sequences against a pretty funny looking Lizard, I was a fan. Perhaps sentiment biased me, since it was the first time I saw Spidey on the big screen, but hey, I'm all for bias.
Un-digressing (there probably is a better word for that), Homecoming hadn't really left a mark on me, and I didn't even bother with the theatre for Far From Home. So why is No Way Home cinema? Is it just hype that's gotten to me? And as I write this, I realise there's a strong argument for that. But I stand firmly counter to that, and write that I do not believe that is the case. No Way Home is a good movie and here's why:
What does a story always do? That's not rhetorical, the answer being it shows an audience a journey. Regardless of the type of journey, good, bad, boring, ugly, absolutely bonkers, or hilarious - that there is a journey is not in dispute. The journey more often than not involves a character or a set of characters, living or inanimate as they may be, experiencing a sequence of events that takes them from where they started to a different set of circumstances, one way or another. While that is characteristically vague and incoherent, I may be more specific to say the journey in the context of living characters is usually metaphorical and implied through emotional subtext (or not, really; authors kind of have a whole universe worth of ideas and techniques to play with). My point being that a story's value is defined by the audience's interpretation of the journey - a narrative with a weak journey is uninteresting and a narrative with a strong journey is almost always worth the time.
And like I said, authors and writers really do have a universe of ideas to play with and no rulebook, so if they do end up going absolutely crazy with it, you won't find me criticising because 1), crazy's relative to context and 2), writers recognise that its a gamble with some serious consequences. And that's exactly what No Way Home does: it takes the perfectly reasonable premise that the world finds out who Spider-Man really is, and just straight-up loses it. All notions of what can, could or should happen are expelled in exchange for what is happening. And the best part is despite the utter chaos and hotchpotch that ensues, the narrative has a journey that means something.
Peter Parker's sole reason to adopt this persona of the Web-Head, is to do good in the world and protect the ones he loves from those that wish to hurt him. When that is taken away from him, emotional turmoil and serial villainy is abound, that is for sure, with the only constant being that Peter Parker is a good man who strives to make his world just a little better place to live in. How Peter chooses to deal with this crisis, is inevitably a unique Marvel Comics Parker-ian tale, unlike an offshoot comic book brand settling for cheap thrills and boring storylines. The MCU has finally found its roots with Spider-Man. The question, is how does the story proceed? Well, with real consequences.
Peter and his dearest friends are subject to harassment from their peers and the general public, not to mention rejection of their ambitions and passions, and absolute violations of their basic civil rights. But does Peter moan and whine? Okay, well yes, a little; the expected amount but not more. But he takes the pain directed at his friends as yet another chip on his shoulder, objecting to them suffering for his actions. Most of us wouldn't aspire to be that good but Peter Parker does, and that is the essence of his character that the MCU had still to emulate in a meaningful manner. But Peter Parker, intelligent as he may be, is an utter idiot and creates a perfect storm with menacing consequences. In efforts to help those he cares for at his own expense, well, he pays. And the serial villainy ensues and the bonkers, unbelievable segment of the journey officially begins. Let's just say the multiverse is weird.
And with equal deference, let's not forget Peter is Spider-Man. So he does actually end up fixing things quite reasonably quickly. However, yet again in ultimate Parker-ian fashion, he realises he'll be dooming those that tormented him over the last few days to their death. And some part of him can't live with that. There it is, those (annoying) heroic ideals, aspiring to be the bestest mensch that does anything to make their world just a little better and the worst part is, he even starts to succeed. But that's when the bonkers goes to batshit crazy and the writers unfurl yet another emotionally significant set-piece, only this time from the perspective of an outright psychopath, Norman Osborn, played by the brilliant Willem Dafoe. And after facing tremendous loss as a consequence of his good heart, Peter's journey hits a crossroad.
What would you do then? When faced with a choice to do good at a cost, or give up, pack it in, and call it a day? The odds stacked so unbelievably against you, the world abandoning you en masse, and with the fear and pain that comes with losing ones you love. It may come as no surprise from a cynic like me but I'd quit. I'm willing to bet most of us would. That's what life has felt like for the last few years: a constant state of fight-or-flight where with each passing second, the shit only hits the fan harder, and one begins to feel the inevitability of the struggle to keep it all from blowing to bits. And in those trying times, all we need is hope.
People look to comic-books with derision in their simplicity and mired by an overwhelming defeatism characteristic of a bitter nihilist. But sometimes it's those simple words and ideas that propel you when all else fails, that reassure and steady you, naive as they may be, to try again, even when you can't, especially when you can't. That's what Spider-Man is to so many of us that grew with him: the light at the end of the tunnel. Thus, in No Way Home when he faces that choice yet again, he chooses that annoyingly inspiring path which only Peter Parker could do (albeit with a little convincing from himself). And even though he pays the ultimate price for it yet again, the good fight never strays.
I could talk about the rest of the cast and crew who worked through tough months and circumstances to bring us this much awaited film, filled to the brim with beautiful frames, great performances, agreeable story choices, noteworthy music and a smattering of nostalgia. But though it may be hard to believe with all that's going on, NWH is in its essence a Tom Holland show through and through, something that fans of the character have been craving since the start and deservedly so, because he does deliver.
Is No Way Home cinema? Are you kidding me? They took absolute narrative chaos and made audiences cheer and cry and laugh and mourn and hope. If that isn't cinema, then Bollywood might be out of a job. A story is only as good as the interpretation of the audience that devours it, and if this be your audience, then that be your template. But the question rises of course, is it Best Picture cinema? Debatably not (much as I may think it would be cool if it was. But if all it takes is a slap to win an award, then they might be in luck)
So I ask again, resolute in my convictions, spirited and defiant in the face of doubt, with the banner of power and responsibility hanging over my head, is Spider-Man: No Way Home cinema? - and I answer resoundingly, yes, this is cinema.
Comments