Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse (4/5 Stars)

Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse war written in part by Phil Lord. This man has been instrumental in bringing to prominence a very 2010s subgenre of movies. Previous examples of his work are 21 Jump Street and the Lego Movie. What these movies have in common is a consciousness of previous source material that goes beyond being meta and continues into a weird quirking of the "suspension of disbelief". These movies are insisting that a fake universe is real to its characters and that the fake reality rules should apply instead of real reality rules. A good example is Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, whereby the characters are sucked into a video game and realize the world they inhabit is not governed by physics or biology but video game rules.

You wouldn't think that should work in a dramatic sense because when anything is possible, there should be no stakes or suspense. But the rules have kind of changed in the last twenty years, in part by gamer culture (which I will speak of later) and in part by a TV show named Community. (Obviously there are a million different threads that produce culture, but I do feel this show must have been instrumental). Community introduced a character named Abed who was so ingrained in the workings of genre storytelling that he could seemingly predict what would happen in the very TV episode he was in. Other characters would chide Abed that reality wasn't like a TV show, but they would generally be proven wrong becuase they were characters in a TV show. Over-time, Community became less a TV show about what characters did in certain situations, and more about how already established characters would react if they found themselves in a completely different TV genre. That is the situations didn't change in Community. The TV show's genre, and thus the cliche genre rules, changed.

This type of storytelling probably wouldn't be possible without something like gamer culture. By that I mean, the ability for an entire audience of people to have spent more time studying the rules of a fake universes to the point where it might make sense for a story to be using different rules of realty. I guess you could trace this back to J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth, the enormity and details of which were so developed that the place became real in the imagination. Nowadays, vast landscapes of fantasy come out every couple of months. Much of this can be crowd-sourced, with different people contributing their own stories. Think of the expansiveness of the Star-Wars Universe. These are not simply movies. There are dozens of novels and several 30-50 hour video games. Wookieepedia, the StarWars encyclopedia has granular descriptions of various races, planets, languages, specifications of different weapons and vehicles. There are historians of these fake universes who curate online encyclopedias and obsess over what is canon, a mind-boggling absurd notion that tries to differentiate the fake-actual events from the fake-fake events of a completely fictional storyline.

But amazingly, if the universe becomes detailed enough, its reality can become something approaching real and drama/pathos/humor can be derived from it. Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse is such an example. Now you know this story as this movie will explain to you at least six separate times. Peter Parker was an unassuming teenager from Queens, New York. He was bitten by a radioactive spider and became Spider-Man, a friendly neighborhood crime-fighter who works as a photographer for the Daily Bugle and falls in love with his highschool sweethear Mary Jane. He has a particularly good origin story that involves a beloved uncle that counsels him the "with great power comes great responsibility" and whose death occurs because of Peter's inaction. The original Spider-Man story has been told three times already in the last twenty years, first with Tobey Maguire, than with Andrew Garfield, and currently with Tom Holland in the main role. (As a NY Times critic pointed out, Spider-Man's defining characteristic is his youth, thus he must remain forever young, and thus the many reboots). Over the last sixty years, there have apparently been many spinoffs and satires of this story. In this movie, all of those universes merge.

The science is hazy but goes something like this: Every version of Spider-Man that has been created in any comic book or movie lives concurrently but in different universes. A bad guy named KingPin is creating a big machine underneath Brooklyn that will meld this multiverse. Spider-Man (the original Peter Parker) tries to stop him but gets sucked into the machine. This sucks the other versions of him into the original universe. Now instead of one Spider-Man, there are at least six.

I had no idea how out-of-hand this universe had become. Apparently, none of these characters are original to this movie. But we've got Miles Morales, teenager from Brooklyn. Gwen Stacey, best friend of Spider-Man who becomes Spider-Girl after Spider-Man's death, Peter B. Parker the middle-aged version of Spider-Man recently divorced and out of shape (voiced by Jake Johnson), Spider-Man Noir a black-and-white private detective Spider-Man from the 1930s (voiced by Nicholas Cage), Penni Parker, an anime japanese school-girl from the year 3100 who utilizes a Spider-Man robot, and finally, the one and only Peter Porker, Spider-Ham, a cartoon spider who was bitten by a radioactive pig, works for the Daily Beagle, and can float through the air while smelling a delicious pie (voiced by John Mulaney).

Visually, the movie is very impressive as it utlizes all of the different animation styles from the various Spidermen in the same movie. Animation, especially computer animation, makes for great action sequences, and this movie is very impressive in that capacity too. The heart of the story belongs to Miles Morales who we see gaining his powers, going through the tribulations of high school, and losing his beloved uncle. Certain stories are special to us. "If it was never new, and it never gets old, it's a folk song" says Llewyn Davis in Inside Llewyn Davis. This too applies to Spider-Man.

Green Book (4/5 Stars)

There alot of interracial buddy movies out there. The genre was essentially born with In the Heat of the Night in 1968, the first interracial buddy cop movie, which seemed to spawn a different iteration every couple of years (a few examples 48 Hours, Lethal Weapon, Rush Hour). Green Book belongs with the best of them and in a way is more than that. Other interracial buddy movies focus only on the race aspect of the buddy relationship. Green Book does more than that. The characters here are also separated by class and just as importantly, if not more so, their ideas about individualism.

The plot is disarmingly simple. It is based on a true story that took place within the space of a few months in the early 1960s. The Dr. Don Shirley, the celebrated concern pianist, is embarking on a cross-country tour, including the deep south, and has hired Tony "Lip" Vallalonga as his driver/bodyguard. Dr. Don Shirley is black and Tony "Lip" is white. But as I said, there's more. Dr. Don Shirley is upper class. Tony "Lip" is working class. And most importantly Dr. Shirley is an individual. He has eclectic tastes, has no family or close friends, and is not simply a good piano player but one of the best. Tony "Lip" on the other hand, is Italian. He's from the Bronx.

They mostly get along. Tony "Lip" may harbor basic 1960s prejudice against black people, but does not seem to apply them to Dr. Shirley, who has obvious class and money and will pay him a good wage for his work. Dr. Shirley appreciates the usefulness of Tony's skills and personality attributes even though he clearly does not want them for himself. They travel through the segregated south, but the hardships that prevail upon them there are never more interesting than how these two interact with each other. Most of it pretty funny in an odd couple kind of way, Tony "Lip" being the sloppy easy-going guy and Dr. Shirley being the neat uptight man. Tony "Lip" introduces Dr. Shirley to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Dr. Shirley helps Tony "Lip" with the letters he writes to his wife. By the time the movie was ending and Tony "Lip" was hurrying back to make Christmas dinner with his family, I was happily being reminded of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. This is an enjoyable movie. Is it one of the best of the year? (It has been nominated for Best Picture). I don't think so. I think it lacks the sort of ambition a Best Picture nominee should have. But I'm not unhappy with its presence.

What is a racial stereotype? It is a belief about the typical attributes of a type of people. If you would agree that there is such a thing as a type of people, than it follows that there exist racial stereotypes about them that are true. At one point in this movie, Tony "Lip" offers some fried chicken to Dr. Shirley. Dr. Shirley refuses it. What's the problem, says Tony, you people are suppposed to like fried chicken. Dr. Shirely takes offense. What's the problem, says Tony, if someone told me all guineas like spaghetti and meatballs, I wouldn't get offended. Now, we all know why Dr. Shirley would get offended. Perhaps a better question then is why Tony "Lip" wouldn't get offended. The answer is not a question of race, it is a question of individualism. Let's put it this way: The racial stereotype that black people like fried chicken is not offensive to Dr. Shirley because he believes a liking of fried chicken is inherently bad. It isn't. Nobody thinks that. Dr. Shirley is offended because he is being automatically placed into a group based on his race, when he, as an individual, does not share those characteristics. Tony "Lipp" on the other hand does not identify as an individual, or not nearly as much. He is an Italian. He grew up and lived his entire life in one neighborhood in the Bronx. He is not offended by the idea of a person telling him Italians like spaghetti and meatballs because he does not have a problem with being grouped with Italians and having others assume Italian characterisitics about him. When told a group of stuck rich guys won't like his last name, he says, if they don't like it, they can shove it, I'll wait outside. It's only a problem to Dr. Shirley to not be accepted or allowed to be something different from Black. Tony "Lip" is content with being Italian and does not want to be anything else.

America has a long history of promoting individuals and individualism like that of Dr. Shirley. Our culture say far less about the merits of being part of a group. The pitfalls of being part of a group are well known: less room for vanity, less chance of fame, and you have to suppress certain aspects of yourself that the majority believe are not beneficial or simply don't like. But what about the benefits? Everyone in Tony "Lip" neighborhood knows and respects him. His Christmas dinners are attended by a large amount of family and friends. Whether or not he needs it, his relatives show up to provide support. Contrast this with the situation of Dr. Shirley. He receives lots of applause for being an outstanding pianist, but he has no close family, he lives alone, his best friend might be his butler. This is not a result of his race. He has chosen to put himself on a pedestal apart from other people. His concerns about racial stereotypes are not always a blow against racial prejudice, sometimes they are an exercise in vanity. He wants other people to believe he is exceptional. To the extent that he is exceptional, he deserves that consideration. But this is unrelated to whether it is okay to assume a black person likes fried chicken. If most black people like fried chicken, and liking fried chicken is not a bad thing, it isn't offensive to say or assume so. It is at least not racially offensive. Individuals may be offended for being lumped in with a group and a lot of what seems to pass as racism nowadays can fit squarely within the latter category. Not being able to vote or sit in a restaurant. That's racism. Microagressions, I'm afraid not.

This movie was directed Peter Farrelly without his brother Bobby Farrelly. There is probably a story there. The Farrelly brothers were responsible for some of the best comedies of the 1990s (Dumb and Dumber, Kingpin, There's Something About Mary), but have not been doing that great since. This is a good change of pace. 

Moonlight (4/5 Stars)

 “Moonlight” is the type of movie that provokes an IMDB search after watching it. I was vaguely familiar with some of the actors. Mahershala Ali I know from ‘House of Cards’ and Andre Holland I know from ‘The Knick.’ Naomie Harris is the latest Moneypenny in the James Bond Franchise. But I hadn’t heard of Barry Jenkins who wrote and directed this movie. Turns out the last time he made a movie was six years ago. And that’s too bad, because from watching this movie it is plain that he is a storyteller who excels at not only writing words and coaching actors but also for visual framing and sound design. In other words, he is a complete writer/director. Such a person should be making a new movie every one or two years, not six. We are missing out by not keeping him continuously employed.

“Moonlight” is one of the small intimate pictures that is done to perfection. The story is split into three chapters all named after the various incarnations of the main character. The first story is called ‘Little’ and takes place when the boy is a child. The second is called ‘Chiron’ and takes place in high school. The third is called ‘Black’ and takes place in adulthood. The elements of the story are not particularly new: A bad childhood and awkward adolescence with bullies. Two other elements, themselves not particularly new, become novel when put together: 1) an African American boy with an absentee father and a drug-addicted mother and 2) the boy happens to be a homosexual in a community that has way too many other problems to be progressive in that respect. But the movies strength comes not from the fact it checks off these boxes in the world of identity politics (it could have and a lesser and lazier movie would have been all about it), it is a great movie because this is a story about the identity of this one particular person, and the movie in no way excludes portions of the audience from empathizing with this one particular person’s search for identity. He ultimately defines himself from the inside-out, as opposed to say from the outside-in in contrast with some exterior societal force.

A movie that focuses so much on the interior development of a character will focus as much on the good times as well as the bad, and though this character has dark forces around him, the movie’s memorable scenes are moments of kindness. “Little” escapes into a crack-house to escape bullies and is found by a drug dealer (Mahershala Ali). This man turns into a kind of mentor through time and at one point teaches ‘Little’ how to swim. (To give a sense of how completely the Director uses the artform, this tiny sounding scene is one of the best parts in a great movie complete with poetic exchanges and a striking orchestral score). “Chiron” dealing with a deteriorating home life finds solace in the home of Theresa, the surviving spouse of the drug dealer. And in all three timelines Little/Chiron/Black starts, continues, and reignites a friendship with Kevin (Old Kevin is played by Andre Holland).

I feel like I’m doing a disservice to the movie by trying to describe it. All I’m going to say more is that this movie will likely be high on my made up Oscar category Best Use of a Song. It’s ‘Hello Stranger’ by Barbara Lewis. It occupies a moment that makes the picture worth a thousand words. And my main criticism of the movie is that it wasn’t long enough.