The Comics Professor

My thoughts on Spider-Man: No Way Home

SPOILERS FOR SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME BELOW! SO MANY SPOILERS!

My son and I saw the new Spider-Man film yesterday afternoon in a large theater with about twenty other people—which was a Christmas miracle, given how most showings sold out over opening weekend and our hesitation to see it amongst a large crowd in the current environment. In anticipation of this event, we rewatched all the earlier Spidey flicks over the last couple months, which really paid off, given how well No Way Home wrapped up the entire franchise to date, while setting an interesting direction for future installments.

Below I share a few of my thoughts about the movie. Before I start, I should warn you: I haven't read any other commentary or reviews yet, so it's quite likely that everything I have to say has already been said. (Still, no refunds!)

1. Generally, everyone involved with this film pulled off an incredible juggling act, balancing the core story of Spider-Man and his amazing friends MJ and Ned with the multiversal spectacle of numerous guest-stars from the pre-MCU films. I had heard the rumors and had seen the set pictures, but I successfully avoided getting confirmation of who showed up in the movie before I saw it. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this was that, with one notable exception (see #5-7 below), none of the invited guests were mere cameos; all of them had meaningful character beats and important roles to play in the story. Specifically, I was expecting the earlier Spideys to show up at the last minute to help out with the final fight, and was pleasantly surprised that they arrived early enough for some great character work between them.
2. Continuing with that thought: The casual interactions between Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and Tom Holland, some touching and others funny, were some of my favorite moments of the movie. Tobey was the chill, elder statesman of the three, a more confident and competent version of Jake Johnson's Spidey from Into the Multiverse. In contrast, Andrew was still tormented by the death of Gwen Stacy in his second movie, now living a self-imposed life of solitude and self-loathing. Tobey sweetly tried to counter this ("You're amazing! Say it! Say you're amazing!"), but it takes the opportunity to save MJ from a similar fall that allows Andrew to start to move past his grief and guilt. And Tom took the leadership role while casually throwing out references to going into space and being an Avenger, which the others hilariously did not understand—but even better was seeing Andrew and Tom marvel at Toby being able to shoot webs out of his wrists instead of relying on homemade webshooters and webbing. (Now that's what I call fan service, given the endless debates about organic vs. mechanical webshooters on message boards.)
3. I was relieved to see that Doctor Strange was not the co-star of the movie, as the trailer suggested. (I get it: After all, they couldn't show much else). I was afraid he'd play the father figure that Tony Stark and Quentin Beck did in Holland's first two movies; instead, there was a great older hero/younger hero dynamic between them that thankfully stopped short of mentor/mentee. (And hey, was that Zelma, from the Jason Aaron and Chris Bachalo run of the comics, cleaning up the snow in the Sanctum Sanctorum?)
4. Holland's dedication to trying to save.help/cure the assorted villains, as opposed to Doctor Strange's plan to return them to their home universes to face their deaths, was perhaps the most positively surprising aspect of the story. This reflected the traditional Spider-Man idealism (especially during the Dan Slott "no one dies" period) and exemplified the less reactive or defensive approach to superheroing we often see these days among the younger set, such as Ms. Marvel or Squirrel Girl. (Although, to be fair, one of Batman's greatest regrets is not being able to help or redeem his worst villains, especially those like Two-Face who were once on the side of good, as I discuss in Batman and Ethics.) It was also nice to see that, other than Norman Osborn, the villains weren't truly evil; rather, each had been "turned" in his own way, which the Spideys were able to reverse, setting them back on the righteous path.
5. MATT MURDOCK!
6. CHARLIE COX AS MATT MURDOCK!
7. "I'm a very good lawyer." Fantastic line at the perfect time. (But I'm sad they missed the chance to have Matt turn in Happy's direction, take a sniff or listen intently for a second, and say "Foggy?")
8. Most important, this movie fixed what I've regarded as the biggest flaw of the first two MCU Spider-Man films: the absence of a motivating tragedy that serves to convince Peter to dedicate himself to helping people and doing what's right, regardless of the personal cost (which is consistently high). In the comics and the last two iterations in the movies, this crucial event has always been the death of Uncle Ben, which Tobey references as his greatest loss, while Andrew understandably focuses on Gwen. But the MCU movies chose for some reason to neglect Uncle Ben altogether (other than occasional suggestions of his past existence in this universe), leaving Peter to be a more carefree, happy-go-lucky wallcrawler, reveling in playing dress-up with Iron Man and the Avengers but not really motivated to be a hero for its own sake. But with this movie, Aunt May takes Uncle Ben's place, and her death becomes the horrible tragedy that Peter feels responsible for and will spend the rest of his life trying to rise up from. To paraphrase a popular political saying, with this movie Peter Parker became Spider-Man...
9. ...and he proves this by making a tremendous sacrifice at the end to save the multiverse, asking Doctor Strange to erase all memory of Peter Parker's existence, including MJ and Ned, the two closest people to him left in the world. (It will be very interesting to see how Peter goes about rebuilding these relationships in the upcoming "college trilogy.") The fact that he did so without hesitation and with full awareness of the incredible personal cost shows that this Peter Parker has become the Spider-Man we know and love.

All in all, Spider-Man: No Way Home was a stunning achievement by all involved, and it only heighten my excitement for what director Jon Watts does with the upcoming Fantastic Four film.

New book: A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Thor: If They Be Worthy

I'm very pleased to announce my next book, A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Thor: If They Be Worthy, coming out next year from Ockham Publishing ahead of the highly anticipated film Thor: Love and Thunder. (Information about pricing and pre-ordering are coming soon.) UPDATE: It's now available.

From the publisher website:

We all know the Mighty Thor: Prince of Asgard, son of Odin the All-Father, and God of Thunder. He has long been one of the few in the universe worthy to wield the mystic hammer Mjolnir… until, one day, he is not. Soon, a new Thor emerges, a woman who commands the thunder and the hammer in ways all her own. She is none other than Jane Foster, and as she learns to be her own version of the Mighty Thor, the Odinson can only watch and wonder why he is no longer worthy, while this new Thor clearly is.

This is not just the story of two Thors, though. This is a tale of worthiness: what it means, how it can be lost, and how one can reclaim it. This is the journey of a god-prince, born and raised to be a hero who wields the ultimate weapon, who suddenly finds himself unable to even budge it and has to struggle to relearn who he is and what it means to be a god. This is also the adventure of Dr Jane Foster, battling the scourge of cancer whilst juggling the responsibilities of being a god, before being forced to choose between the two.

In this book, philosopher Mark D. White, author of A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics’ Civil War and The Virtues of Captain America, introduces you to the world of Thor and leads you through the legendary saga of Jane and the Odinson, written by Jason Aaron and drawn by Esad Ribić, Russell Dauterman, and many others. Along the way, White draws on Western and Eastern thought, ethics and existentialism, as he explores the philosophy of self-worth and worthiness, as well as questioning the nature of gods in the Marvel Universe.

Written in his characteristic light style, A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics’ Thor is the perfect mix of superheroes and philosophy, accessible to new fans as well as experienced Asgardian travelers.

This is the long-awaited second entry in the A Philosopher Reads... series, following my book on the Marvel Comics "Civil War." It is a slim volume, about a third as long as the Civil War book (as well as my other books on Captain America and Batman); as the series moves forward, I will alternate between "full-length" books, covering the entire history of a superhero or team, and "novella" length ones, focusing on a specific storyline or period. (The third entry, already in the works, is planned to be full-length, but more of them after that will be novella length.)

As the description above says, A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Thor: If They Be Worthy covers the seven years of Thor comics written by Jason Aaron in collaboration with magnificent artists such as Esad Ribić and Russell Dauterman, starting with Thor: God of Thunder #1 in January 2013 and ending with King Thor #4 in February 2020, covering four volumes of Thor comics plus miniseries such as The Unworthy Thor, War of the Realms, and King Thor. (To provide background for these stories, as well as the characters and concepts in them, I discuss plenty of older Thor comics too—the reference list is quite exhaustive, trust me!)

It is also the first superhero-and-philosophy book of mine that is not based primarily on ethics, focusing instead on different philosophical aspects of the concepts of worth and worthiness as suggested in the adventures of Thor from 1960s to today, plus other concepts relevant to the story, such as godhood, humanity, and mortality, all of which Jane Foster and the Odinson struggle with in their own unique ways.

I'm sure I will have much more to say about this book in coming months, possibly including podcasts and videos (!), but for now I'll just say this: A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Thor: If They Be Worthy is a love letter to the concept and legacy of Thor, including both the Odinson and Jane Foster, and especially the incredible storytelling of Aaron, Ribić, Dauterman, and others. It is an honor to write about these characters and concepts, for which we all owe an Asgardian-sized debt to Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, and I can only hope I have done them, and everyone involved, justice with my words.

Putting law, corruption, and power into context in Devil's Reign #1

SPOILERS FOR DEVIL'S REIGN #1 BELOW!

In last week's Devil's Reign #1, the first installment in the Daredevil-centered Marvel Comics event by writer Chip Zdarsky, artist Marco Checchetto, and colorist Marcio Menyz, Wilson Fisk—better known as the Kingpin, and currently the Mayor of New York—has enacted a citywide ban on superheroes to get revenge on Daredevil for erasing his secret identity from Fisk's files (as explained in Daredevil, vol. 5, #20, July 2017).

In effect, it's Civil War and the Superhero Registration Act (SHRA) all over again, but with less nuance. There's no pretense this time toward registering heroes and holding them accountable, although Fisk does argue for his law on the basis of public safety and respecting public servants. Also, no heroes are supporting it this time around (otherwise than a few, such as USAgent, who are working for him as an enforcer). Hence, there's no juicy ideological conflict here—just an example of the nakedly corrupt exercise of power and the imperative of good people to stand up and resist it.

And, knowing Fisk as they do, the (real) heroes are resisting. As detailed in my books on him as well as Civil War, Captain America opposed the SHRA, even though it was legitimately passed by Congress in response to a series of disasters related to superhero activity, because he felt it violated the liberty and privacy of people trying to save lives. So naturally, he finds the current law, with the same effects, even less acceptable, given the source.

We see just how unacceptable he finds it after Spider-Man (Miles Morales) saves a child from a burning building and Fisk's shock troops try to arrest him... until a higher authority steps in (while also saving lives).

When Fisk's officer asserts that the heroes are actually criminals now, Cap explains (with undue respect) that if he has to make a choice between following the law and saving lives, he will always choose the latter.

This doesn't mean that Cap is dismissing the importance of law in general, much less placing himself above it. He's merely recognizing that law is not an intrinsic good in and of itself, but rather a means to the end of ensuring social order, at the least, as well as protecting lives and promoting broader well-being. Heroes pursue those same ends, as do public servants and first responders, all of whom are justified in making judgment calls in emergency situations to set the law aside for the greater good (such as saving lives). Ideally, they will be held accountable for those choices after the fact if there is any doubt to their propriety, and sometimes those choices will be found improper (if not egregiously wrong). But it does not serve society's interest to set the law above the goals the law is meant to promote.

Of course, this is all the more apparent when a particular law is the expression of the vendetta of a corrupt public official rather than a response to valid democratic concerns. Cap makes this clear to several fellow heroes afterwards when Daredevil claims responsibility for Fisk's actions, explaining how Fisk lost the knowledge of his secret identity. Knowing all too well what it means to take on too much responsibility, Cap tries to tell Matt that it's not his fault, and then reasserts his commitment to doing what's right, regardless of any counterproductive law that Fisk chooses to put in his way.

In the end, though, it's Luke Cage who gets to the heart of Fisk's actions, as he explains to a group of gawking New Yorkers assembled around him and his family what the mayor's true plan is: to manufacture a crisis and then claim to be the only one who can prevent it from getting worse (like a mobster selling "protection" against his own threats of violence).

Even Tony Stark, poster boy and point man for the SHRA during the Civil War, sees through Fisk, suggesting a novel way to work the system against him: He's running for mayor. (Can Luke run instead?)

Before I sign off, I have to share this fantastic scene (sorry) featuring the ever-lovin' Thing as Fisk's stormtroopers break into the Fantastic Four's home:

If there's one thing that will get gentle Ben mad, it's someone threatening children, especially his family—just look at his face in the bottom panel.

Needless to say, it is clobberin' time indeed.

Daredevil nails a crucial difference between utilitarianism and deontology in Daredevil #36

SPOILERS FOR THE CURRENT RUN OF DAREDEVIL BELOW!

For the last year, Daredevil has been in prison, where he was sentenced in Daredevil #24 for second-degree manslaughter, resulting from the eventual death of a burglar he beat up in the first issue of the current run. Since he's been incarcerated—as Daredevil, mind you, avec mask but sans costume—Elektra has been protecting Hell's Kitchen as the new Daredevil (as seen on the cover to the right), and his twin brother Mike has been posing as Matt Murdock to preserve his secret identity. (If you think Mike Murdock was simply a farcical disguise Matt used in the past to do this, you obviously haven't read 2020's Daredevil Annual #1.)

In Daredevil #36 (released December 1, 2021), by writer Chip Zdarsky, penciller Manuel Garcia, inkers Cam Smith, Scott Hanna, and Victor Nava, and colorists Marcio Menyz and Bryan Valenza, the Man without Fear is once again a free man, although he was preoccupied the last few weeks of his sentence with battling against both corruption inside the prison and clones of Bullseye outside of it. After wrapping up both matters in the previous issue, the authorities tried to arrest Daredevil for being a fugitive from justice; several of his fellow superheroes argued the necessity of his breakout and the good he did, and a video recording of their argument with the police soon went viral. In the end, Matt turned himself in, presumably to show, as he did when he submitted to his initial trial and accepted the prosecution's plea offer, that superheroes must be accountable to the same laws they help enforce—although, over Zdarsky's run of the book, he has become more and more skeptical of the criminal justice system that ultimately carries that responsibility.

After reconnecting with both his brother and Elektra, Matt—now very furry of face, which I hope is not a permanent state of affairs—returns to patrolling Hell's Kitchen, and comes across two young men who had just knocked over a bodega. More concerned with helping them turn their lives around then sending them to prison, especially given his recent experiences, Matt lets them go and gives the bag of stolen loot back to the store owner... which comes as a surprise to Reed Richards, who by then had also arrived on the scene.

Reed shares Matt's concerns about reassuring a worried public that they can trust superheroes, but they differ on how much deference they should show "the system" in order to do this. As he did during the fight over superhuman registration that he references—and despite the fact that his support of registration almost ended his marriage—Reed stands by the legal system, despite its flaws, and wants to devise an optimal strategy in accordance with it, as well as optics of the current situation.

In contrast, Matt asks a simple question—"What's right?"—and then draws out the difference between what philosopher W.D. Ross characterized as "the right and the good" (in his book of the same title). Effectively, Matt is contrasting Reed's utilitarianism, in which he calculates the myriad contributing factors to an issue to arrive at a conclusion regarding the best course of action to take, with Matt's own deontological approach, which dismisses empirical contingencies in favor of using principle to determine the right thing to do.

Matt drives the point home when he acknowledges Reed's brilliance, but suggests that it's distracting him from the simple moral truth.

To be fair, determining what's right is not necessarily simpler than determining what's good or best; both require the use of judgment to weigh the various moral factors that are relevant to a problematic situation. (I discuss this reference to Captain America and Iron Man's conflicting moral perspectives, very similar to Matt's and Reed's, and the different use of judgment they each require, in my book A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War.) But Matt obviously feels, at least in this case, that he has identified the right thing to do—showing mercy to the two young men and sparing them the "justice" of the system that Matt feels is broken—and he has decided that no other factors, including the effect of his actions on public opinion, are relevant to that decision, amounting to mere "noise" that's "drowning out what's right."

This is not to say Reed doesn't have a point as well. As we saw above, Reed recognizes the flaws in the system, which we can safely assume he has included in his determination of what is the best thing to do overall; it simply wasn't the conclusive factor in the end. For his part, Matt also showed he realizes the importance of optics when he turned himself in again after putting down the prison riot and helping to defeat the Bullseyes; nonetheless, he didn't find it relevant to his conclusion (which is a different moral logic than Reed's considering the flaws of the system but finding other factors more significant). Both heroes weighed the same options, but in different ways and with different conclusions, which shows how equally moral persons can nonetheless disagree, in good faith, on ethical problems based on their unique ethical perspectives.

Don't believe for a minute that this issue is settled, especially for Matt Murdock. After all, he has seen the criminal justice system from many sides—defense attorney, prosecutor, defendant, and incarcerated felon—and he has long had to deal with the conflict between the law he is dedicated to upholding and the ideal of justice to which the law is only an approximation, as well the conflict between the law, ideally based on justice, and the imperfections of the criminal justice system, designed and implemented by human beings to enforce that law in the real world. (And we didn't even mention the conflict presented by the dual roles he has chosen to play in this drama!)