MOVIE REVIEW#1: Spider-Man Homecoming, Introduction, Clips & Points

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Starring Tom Holland
Directed by Jon Watts

U.S. Release: 7 Jul 2017

Preface

Welcome to my inaugural MOVIE Review. The movie is Spider-Man: Homecoming. No surprises there, since it's in the title. As I said in another post, it was during Spider-Man: Homecoming that I was inspired to begin this Series on my blog. For my first MOVIE Review, I will experiment with the following format:

I anticipate that each Review will include at least 2 posts each. The purpose of the first post will be to identify the 'claims' of the film, that is to say, the parts I think are liberal in nature and why. These claims will ultimately be the things which I address in the Review. I will to identify the claims by first, including (whenever I can) in my first post of the Review the clip containing the scene from the film which contains the claim I want to address; second, summarizing the events of the scene; then third, making a list of "Points to Remember." The first post is not necessarily designed to make any argument, only to point out relevant information which I intend to address in the subsequent posts. I think that providing the actual clip whenever possible is important for two reasons: 1) To avoid any accusation that I take any claim out of context, 2) For readers' reference, so that my readers may see the material for themselves rather than solely depending on what I say about it.

The numbers of other posts for each Review I foresee varying in number. The general idea will be that each successive post will address a selection of the claims which fall under a single theme or issue. Some Reviews may address many themes, while others may only address a single theme. In any case, I will try to be as clear as possible so that the utilization of multiple posts to complete a single Review will not be confusing, especially as I tend to work on and post updates on multiple projects at once. To clarify, the list of liberal topics I choose to address in a Review may not be comprehensive.

Introduction

For Spider-Man:Homecoming, the overarching topic I'll be addressing is the subtly skewed portrayal of capitalism in the film, as Leftist misconceptions seem to serve as the source for two specific elements in the film, which I will address in two Discussions.

The first Discussion will address the motivations of the film's villain Vulture (played by Michael Keaton), which have been the source of much praise among Internet critics and reviewers, leading many to agree, as one website put it, that Homecoming's Vulture was "perhaps the best villain in the entirety of comic book movies, up there with Tom Hiddleston's Loki or Heath Ledger's Joker."

One writer writes that "[Vulture is] a complex villain with understandable motivations[.]" 

Another writer offers that he is "a villain with a point worth considering and a motivation you couldn’t really question." 

Another writer writes that "Toomes is compelling and even relatable to a degree because in his mind, he’s the hero of his own story, even though he also understands he’s a criminal." 

Another writer described that Toomes was "[written and performed] to be understood, if not necessarily rooted for."

Another writer observes that "[in] another context, he might have been the lead character in a prestige cable drama about an antihero dabbling in criminal activity."

Yet another writer says "you don’t have to agree with his methods, but you at least understand where he’s coming from."

One other author compares Toomes to Batman, observing that "Keaton knows how to play regular guy, hero and villain all wrapped up in one talented package. As Homecoming shows, he's expertly able to switch between all three on a dime, surely aided by his experience as Bruce Wayne and, more specifically, Batman, a vigilante with a strict moral code who made a choice to fight the darkness when his parents were gunned down. Batman of all people knows how easy it is to give in to the allure of criminality when everything seems lost [...] and yet he uses his own demons — and extensive resources — to fight on the right side of the law."

Now, I do not intend to use the first Discussion of my Spider-Man: Homecoming MOVIE Review to argue Vulture's ranking among the MCU villain catalog, nor whether his motivations are 'understandable.' I intend to argue only that his motivations (and many people's agreement with them) are based on incorrect assumptions, both about capitalism and the nature of its relationship to government.

The second Discussion will discuss the proposed timeline of Spider-Man: Homecoming (particularly the prologue) within the MCU, and how certain aspects of these new events within the timeline of the movies released up until now have retrospective, character-damaging ramifications on the Tony Stark character. This is important because Tony Stark is one of the flagship characters for the MCU, and therefore for Marvel, and therefore for Disney, which is one of the largest media outlets on earth. He is also is only capitalist on the team. Huge numbers of people (especially young people) watch and pay attention to the adventures of Tony Stark through these films. I will cite all of the films in which Tony Stark has starred, paying special attention to the depiction of two types of relationships which Tony has: 1) with the federal government (and federal agencies), and 2) with capitalism and other capitalists. Then I will show how the events of Spider-Man: Homecoming alters the character thus far shown us.

The content of the second Discussion may at first seem merely the hair-splitting musings of a comic-book geek rushing to the defense of one of his favorite childhood characters. This is not the case. On the contrary, I assure you, this analysis will come full circle back to Hollywood's depiction of capitalism as personified in the character of Tony Stark, the only capitalist on the Avengers. And I will make the case that Hollywood, through Spider-Man: Homecoming, actually uses Tony Stark as the sacrificial bull to smear capitalism for the public's liberal programming.

CLIPS & POINTS FROM THE FILM

No spoilers for Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Clip#1 (containing Scene#1 and Scene#2)

Clip#1, Scene#1: Executive Order
Overview

It is revealed that private companies have been contracted by the City of New York to clean up the destruction caused by the alien invasion and battle depicted in the first Avengers film. Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton's character) owns one of these small operations, which resembles a small construction crew with a couple of heavy trucks, and we see them working to take apart a giant, armored, whale-looking alien creature. Soon into the scene, a woman in a long jacket from the newly formed Department of Damage Control (DODC, abbreviation from Spider-Man: Homecoming's wiki page), accompanied by a small entourage of armed government agents (three by my count -- 2 men, 1 woman -- in suits), escorts a crew of "qualified personnel," including one man in a suit with a hard hat (also armed with a pistol), and several (by my count, seven in total) individuals with hard hats and jumpsuits, into the building where Toomes' crew is working. The woman announces that, acting 'in accordance with Executive Order 496B,' that the DODC will be taking over the clean-up efforts, and announces that the services of the private workers will no longer be necessary. Toomes' protests fail -- they include legal protest, citing the contract which his company has with the city of New York; and attempts to appeal to compassion, relating the fact that he has invested all of his savings into starting this new company and that the company failing would leave him penniless to provide for his family. The woman in the long jacket says "There's nothing I can do." After a snide remark from the man with the suit and hard hat, Toomes punches him. The man draws his gun on Toomes, as does the government agents. The woman signals the men to stand down and tells Toomes, "if you have a grievance, you can take it up with my superiors," to which Toomes replies, "Your superiors? who the h*** are they?" Neither he nor we as the audience receive an answer before the scene ends.

Clip#1, Scene#1: Executive Order

Points to Remember

Main Point#1: It should be unquestionable that it was the involvement of a federal government agency (albeit fictional, the DODC) that allowed for the confiscating of the workload which Toomes' company had already been hired to do, and that therefore led to him to go out of business.

Subpoint#1: Toomes' original contract is with the City of New York, not with another private party.

Clip#1, Scene#2: Big Business, Big Government
Overview

Through Toomes watching the evening news, we learn that the Department of Damage Control (DODC) is "[the] joint venture between Stark Industries and the federal government," and is responsible for "[overseeing] the collection and storage of alien and other exotic materials." His associates observe, "So now the a**holes that made this mess are being paid to clean it up," and "Yeah, it's all rigged." One of his workers finds a truckload of "exotic materials" apparently missed by the DODC during their takeover. Toomes decides to keep it rather than turn it into the DODC as per the Executive Order, claiming the need to evolve along with an evolving world. He begins a new business modifying the alien tech (mostly into weapons), with the help of his associate Phineas, portrayed by Micheal Chernus, then selling the modified alien technology on the black market in order to continue being able to maintain a comfortable lifestyle for his family. Eight years later, as indicated by the film, it is shown that Toomes now runs a thriving black market operation. The one truckload of alien tech has not supplied the business this whole time. It turns out that it is Toomes' new responsibility to keep collecting 'exotic materials' and keep his business supplied. He does this with the aid of a custom suit with mechanical wings and claws (presumably made by Phineas) which he uses to gather/steal more alien tech. He has become "the Vulture."

Following the opening credits, "eight years later" is also revealed to be when Peter Parker to traveling to Leipzig, Germany to help Team Iron Man at the airport during Captain America: Civil War.

Clip#1, Scene#2: Big Business, Big Government
Points to Remember

Main Point #2: It turns out that the "qualified personnel" escorted by the woman in the long coat were actually employees of Stark Industries. The man in the hard hat and suit (who Toomes punched) was likely the foreman of the Stark Industries crew. So it should be clarified that the work contracted to Toomes' outfit was taken over by Stark Industries by wielding DODC (that is, federal) power. 

Subpoint#2: The creation of the DODC and the shutting down of Toomes' enterprise occurred eight years before the events of Captain America: Civil War. This Point is the basis for Part 2 of this Review, and will be explored in depth in its own post.

Clip#2: Correction, Just Big Business and Capitalism

Clip#2: Correction, Just Big Business and Capitalism
Overview

The second segment comes in the third act of the film. Peter Parker has deduced that Adrian Toomes is the Vulture, and goes as Spider-Man to prevent Toomes from executing his big plan. Spider-Man catches up with Toomes in what looks like an abandoned parking garage. At this point, Toomes explains to Peter, and by extension to us the audience members, his rationale for his actions -- He appeals to Peter that he [Peter] is young and doesn't understand how the world works. Peter counters by saying that arms-dealing on the black market is bad, no matter how the world works. Toomes parries that Tony Stark made money for years by selling weapons. He explains that Stark, as well as the rich and powerful, use lower-totem "guys like you and me" to "build their roads" and "fight their wars," only to let "[us] eat their table scraps" as a reward. Toomes' justification for his action is as follows: The rich and powerful do not care about him (Adrian Toomes) or him (Peter Parker) or the working class, that the rich stay where they are and 'we' (everybody else) are stuck where we are. That is the system, Toomes declares, and he tells Peter (and us, again, by extension) that "I know you [all] know what I'm talking about[,]" assuming that his outlook and his struggle with the system is already shared by Peter and, by extension, the audience. Toomes then reveals that his monologuing has been a stall to allow him to warm-up his Vulture wings, which he promptly calls in to attack Peter, thus ending the discussion.

Clip#2: Correction, Just Big Business

Points to Remember

Main Point#3: Toomes is angry at Tony Stark (a.k.a., the rich) and 'the system' that allows the rich to exploit the poor (a.k.a., typical Left description of capitalism). Note the complete absence of Toomes' anger toward the federal government.  

BOOK REVIEW#2: WEALTH OF NATIONS by Smith -- My Intro, Part 2

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
WEALTH OF NATIONS

By Adam Smith

1776

Before starting to review the text, I found two videos which I thought would be a good icebreakers for discussing economics and economic freedom.

Video#1 -- How to Make a $1500 Sandwich in Only 6 Months

A college-age man decided that he would make himself a sandwich. To make it a project, he decided that he would make or produce the different ingredients of the sandwich himself, including the ingredients to make the ingredients (for example, he would grow and grind his own wheat into flour for the bread he would make). He wanted to record the cost of the project, and the time necessary to complete it. The title of the video gives away the results. I hope you enjoy it.

: 

Value of Video#1

I find this a very interesting (and, for me, inspiring) video. In reviewing it, I think that the dissection of this video could be approached from various angles. I will not attempt a comprehensive discussion of Video#1 at this point since it is meant to be simply an icebreaker, but I plan to return to this video from time to time in future posts as we Review Wealth of Nations and learn more about those aforementioned different angles, and see how they might be manifest in this young man's project. I don't know the young man from this video, but may I send a shout-out to him, and thank him for his efforts. 

For this post, I'll focus on this: Video#1 highlights the work necessary to produce a single product, even a simple one like a sandwich, if left to one's own exclusive strength. I acknowledge that the young man did set limits as to what he was willing to do even for this project, as he did not raise the cow that he milked, not did he raise the chicken that he killed, but I think that 6 months and $1500 makes the point clear enough for this post that the project was expensive in time and money. And after all that work, the sandwich was 'not bad,' in which the young man seemed very disappointed. "Six months of my life for ... not bad," he said, head in his arms on the table.

This highlights a certain principle: There are many products and services that many people, if not all people, are capable physically of performing, such as growing grain, making butter, and pickling cucumbers, like this young man demonstrated. But being capable to do something yourself does not always mean that it is either prudential or most productive to do that something yourself. In this case, given the long check list, most people could produce a sandwich in the same way as the young man in Video#1. But knowing that it could take about 6 months and cost $1500, who would be willing to commit the time and money when you can buy a foot-long sandwich of expectedly higher quality at Subway or Togo's or Quizno's or any other similar build-your-own sandwich shop for $7-12, in only about 5 minutes? This idea of seeking the  'most productive' use of something/anything is key when discussing economics -- We'll return to that idea in future posts. In addition, how is it that the cost of the sandwich (a complicated composite of costs to make yourself, as we've seen), let's say originally $1500 (only affordable to some), decreased to the point of affordable to just about everyone at $8-12? This phenomenon is one of the things we'll explore as we discuss the free market. 

Video#2 Milton Friedman -- The Lesson of the Pencil

Milton Friedman (1912-2006) was an American economist and winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics. In additional to his professional achievements, he was one of the most articulate statesman in favor of the free market I have yet encountered. It was while listening to his lecture series (entitled Milton Friedman Speaks on Youtube, I'm not sure if that's the original title) that I first encountered a quality explanation of the intimate relationship of economics and freedom. He frequently quoted or cited Smith's Wealth of Nations in his work, and it was from listening/reading Friedman's work that originally inspired me to read Wealth of Nations in the first place. 

In this video, Dr. Friedman recounts a story from a famous essay by Leonard Reed written in 1958 describing the free market from the point of view of one of its then most common products, the #2 pencil. This was one of the first stories that conveyed to me the beauty that is the free market, highlighting the preservation of human freedom through voluntary exchange, the promotion human cooperation, and the uncoordinated order (with government coordination) on a global scale. I hope you enjoy this one as well.

Value of Video#2

As stated before, Video#1 highlights the work necessary to produce a single product, even a simple one like a sandwich, on one's own. Video#2 looks at what I would call a similarly simple product (the #2 pencil) and explains the dazzling network of people from many different continents necessary to produce it, and how the pencil was ultimately achieved without government coordination, without force or coercion, but solely on the seemingly simple, local, immediate principle of voluntary exchange. Adam Smith has his own #2 pencil type of story in Wealth of Nations, but we will get to that later. 

Expanding on the idea of the pencil, it is amazing how many goods and services are available to us, the vast majority of which we did not produce ourselves. In fact, I daresay that, if anything, only a small percentage of the things we own are things which we produced with our our hands. There are of course exceptions -- Some people bake their own bread, many do not; some people make their own computers, most do not; some people build their own house for their family, most do not; and so on -- but for most people, the majority of what they own was not produced by their own hands, and yet they enjoy a higher standard of living than any one of them could produce on his or her exclusive strength. It is important to note that people will ofttimes buy something for the very reason that they are confident that they themselves could not produce it as good or better, as fast or faster, than the person from who they purchase it -- again, I think of the sandwich.