CITATION(Rinaldo @ 17 2 2005 - 04:43)
Ah oui il est terrible ce film. Je l'avais vu quelques jours apres spiderman II et je lui avait trouvé un petit air de ressemblance pour certains plans de la ville et également pour le boss de peter...
Mais la comparaison (anecdotique) s'arrete là.
Oui et non. parce que Ayn Rand , l'auteur du livre à la base de
The Fountainhead (et accessoirement du scénar) a nettement influencé l'un des co-créateurs de
Spider-Man , Steve Ditko
CITATION
Rand went from appearing in movies to writing them with THE FOUNTAINHEAD (1943 ), the story of architect Howard Roark's heroic individual battle against the forces of collective mediocrity. This novel, originally titled "Second-hand Lives," was made into a remarkably faithful movie starring Gary Cooper and Particia Neal .
Here are two key excerpts, spoken by Howard Roark : "Here are my rules: What can be done with one substance must never be done with another. No two materials are alike. No two sites on earth are alike. No two buildings have the same purpose. The purpose, the site, the material determine the shape.
Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless its made by one central idea, and the idea sets every detail. A building is alive, like a man. We are poisoned by the superstition of the ego. We must destroy the ego first."Collectivism... isn't that the god of our century? To act together. To think -- together. To f eel -- together. To unite, to agree, to obey. To obey, to serve, to sacrifice. Divide and conquer -- first. But then -- unite and rule."
et
CITATION
It was apparently during his run on Spider-Man that Steve Ditko first became exposed to the writings of Ayn Rand, and her philosophy of Objectivism, perhaps by reading Atlas Shrugged, which was a popular bestseller at the time, particularly on college campuses.
But there was a problem: an Objectivist Superhero would almost have to be portrayed as infallible or even somewhat godlike, and magical, supernatural powers had no place in Objectivist philosophy. Unfortunately, this put Ditko's new ideas at odds with Stan Lee's "superheroes with feet of clay" approach -- an approach that would soon make Marvel the top publisher in comics. Stan was not about to give it up, particularly on one of the company's flagship titles.
Things got worse when Marvel publisher Martin Goodman suggested that more pretty girls be inserted into Peter Parker's life, and Stan Lee decided that the villainous Green Goblin would be revealed to be the father of Peter Parker's friend, Harry Osborn. Ditko saw Parker as a shy nerd, not a lady-killer. And he had wanted the Goblin to be revealed as a previously unseen character, "a nobody," for realism's sake.
(extraits tirés de
http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/296/ qui retrace la carrière de Steve Ditko et l'influence de 'l'objectivisme' de Ayn Rand sur son travail et l'évolution de ses créations de plus en plus intransigeantes)
Raimi étant loin d'être con et loin de comprendre le matériau de base de ses films y aura surement songé pour leur réalisation (ce qui confirme la théorie selon laquelle ils content non seulment l'histoire de Spidey mais aussi y apporte en sous-texte une critique de celle-ci) :
CITATION("Chuck Dixon")
Sam Raimi may be the first filmmaker ever to fully understand and appreciate the comics medium and all of its nuances.
The movie itself is crowd-pleasing entertainment raised to high art. It anticipates, and stays just in front of, its audience's expectations.
It's grounded in a good story first and foremost. The Peter and Mary Jane romance is classic stuff. The sturdy "love rack" that writers of films in the 30s and 40s used to great effect. Raimi knows that audiences then were as hip (or hipper) to being manipulated and taking joy in that manipulation as we are today. The push and pull of the background love story was tremendous fun.
Doc Ock's origin got a makeover that did not alter his motivations or personality. Adding the affecting tragedy of his possession by his own creation added a wonderful new darkness to him. And his fusion experiment scenes were done as Ditko might have imagined them. That incandescent ball of light with great arcs of energy exploding from it was pure Ditko SF effect. Even the appearance of the technology owed more to Steve Ditko than Kirby or more recent Matrix imaginings.
And the many nods to my man and comic idol were good to see and hear. The Ukrainian Ditkovichs living across the hall from Peter. The fleeting mention of Dr Strange. There's an obvious appreciation and love of "Sturdy Steve" in evidence here. And more than a touch of letting folks in the know into the heads of the filmmakers in their acknowledgements to the man who created Spider-man.
The action was brilliant. The fight on the train was beautifully staged and one of the most thrilling scenes of its kind in a long time.
The climatic fight on the rotting pier (again it was Ditko in every frame) was amazingly blocked out and, for once, we don't end an action movie atop a tall building. Ock's end was ambiguous enough that I can only hope he'll return. There's no WAY Raimi could resist recreating the comic where the Doc's arms bust him out of jail on their own.
The most daring thing about this movie (and you have to be REALLY daring to go out on a creative limb under the pressure of a franchise this mammoth) is how it tries to translate comic idioms to the screen.
The soliloquies of Peter that faithfully reproduce the sound and feel of a comic book thought balloon. The whole grand opera feel of nearly every scene. The endless sight gags re-enforcing the perpetual loser status of Parker. The acting that goes to the very brink of parody and stops just short.
It was a great movie experience and especially enhanced by seeing it with an audience of newbies having a great, and vocal, time with material brand new to them.
The challenge of making a movie based on as ludicrous a basic idea as Spider-man is nearly insurmountable. Raimi does it handily and he and Alvin Sargent (the uncredited scripter for the first Spidey movie) were wise enough and dedicated enough to stick to what worked so well in those early Lee-Ditko stories.
My only regret is that the deservedly curmudgeonly Steve Ditko can never have all those decades of heartbreak made up to him. No amount of cash in the world (and he has turned back millions from what I am lead to understand) can ease the pain he had to have felt at watching his creation bowdlerized and dumbed down and sold like so many heads of lettuce for so many years.
This movie series is a vindication of his original vision of the character. It’s an homage and a honor to him. But it comes too late.
source : dixonverse.net
bon c'est un peu HS mais je trouve la remarque de Rinaldo intéressante
Je suis peu familier du travail de King Vidor donc je ne suis absolument pas à même de situer ce film dans la carrière de son auteur. Sorry. Par contre je peux vous dire que le film s'est fait défoncer par la critique à sa sortie quelque chose de bien violent et s'est grave bidé.
