Spider-Man 2: analysis with spoilers

I'm going to go out on a limb with this one, but I would put forward the idea that, just as Spider-Man was a reflection of America's spirit immediately post-9/11, Spider-Man 2 serves as a pretty good reflection of the national mood a few years further on. To explain:

The theme of the first film was outright heroism. Oh, to be sure, it was repeatedly pointed out that there are certain prices to pay; "with great power comes great responsibility" and so forth. But the essential nobility of it, the worthiness and worthwhileness of Peter's choice to become a superhero was never really questioned.

The second film does question those assumptions. We're asked to consider whether running around acting as a hero might be futile at best, and actually harmful at worst. Many scenes play out as darker echoes of the first film; Peter rescues a child from a burning building (without using his powers, even) and returns her to her grateful parents. Yet he learns later that, unbeknownst to him, another man burned to death a few floors further up. It becomes increasingly clear to him that he cannot hope to save everyone.

There's another section of the film where Peter, for a while, rejects herodom entirely. Much like the first film, he witnesses a robbery and chooses not to intervene. And this time, no tragedy results. The world keeps on spinning. We are asked to consider whether an opportunity to act heroically requires us to do so, or merely gives us the option.

Yet another scene depicts an exhausted Spider-Man, having just stopped a runaway train, about to fall into the harbor below. He is caught by the passengers, who pass him along like honorary pallbearers, and later, choose not to reveal his identity. I swear I heard someone in the theatre shout, "Go New York!". Trite, perhaps, but also a valid and oft overlooked point: under the right conditions, mobs of people can act with incredible nobility instead of ignorance and hate. New York really did remind the world of that, and though the first film gave short shrift to the heroism of the ordinary individual, the second reminds us of it often.

The film's strongest argument in favor of the hero comes from Aunt May (speaking, I maintain, the words of Stan Lee). Interestingly, she says very little about the things Spider-Man has actually done. Rather, she's most concerned with the way in which he has inspired others, like their young neighbor boy. This, she claims, is Spider-Man's greatest importance. The film could even be commenting upon itself: do all the whiz-bang action sequences pale into insignificance besides the ideals, and the nature of humanity itself, that the film projects?

The point of all this is that I think Spider-Man 2 will resonate strongly with a nation that has, perhaps, become a bit weary with playing the hero. We've become very aware, not only of the responsibilities that come with the role, but of all the violence and pain and missed opportunities and unintended consequences that come with it. That's not to say (and the film doesn't say) that it's not worth it to be a hero; rather, it's that you must think very carefully about what you are doing, how you are doing it, and most importantly, why.

It's quite clear at the end that Peter is acting for just as many selfish motives as selfless ones. This does not invalidate his actions; but when he tries to forget the personal side, his powers seem to vanish. I think that there might be a little lesson there for all of us.