Mary Jane Watson.

She puts herself forth, at risk of her life, for her love, with the same powers we all have, and nothing more, but love.

This is a question?

Aunt May is a secondary hero, but since she figured out that Peter was Spider-Man, after her rescue, not primary.

Can you cite any evidence for your assertion that Aunt May figured out Peter was Spider-Man? I didn't get that vibe.

What about Doc Ock? He sacrificed his life (I guess) to save the city.

I'm not buying MJ as a hero, since she obviously wouldn't have been happy without Peter.

MJ and Aunt May certainly have heroic qualities, but I'm afraid Spidey still takes the brass ring. Despite his lapse, Peter is ultimately willing to give up everything he loves, and even his life, to defend complete strangers. Sure, he's got abilities the rest of us don't have, but he also faces challenges we don't have to address. (When was the last time you had to stop a subway train from hurtling off a dead end?) It's easy to dismiss Spidey's heroics because, well, he's the hero. But he's the hero for a reason. Under incredibly difficult circumstances, Peter/Spidey does the right thing. What other definition of heroism is there?

"Can you cite any evidence for your assertion that Aunt May figured out Peter was Spider-Man?"

Her hero speech. Speculation, to be sure.

I completely admit I'm asserting, not proving.

And, fully granting that this is inadmissable evidence before this court, putting forth in evidence, knowledge of Amazing Spider-Man #200 and Amazing Spider-Man #400.

And, you know, given that this movie is based, largely, upon Amazing Spider-Man #50. ("Spider-Man No More")

Alas for Betty Brant, and Gwen. And it's a shame there's no Flash Thompson in this film.

Funny, Gary, I said the exact same thing about Aunt May to my girlfriend. He did talk to her as Spider Man during and after the episode with Doc Ock... she might well recognize that voice, and the speech she gave him sure sounded like she knew exactly where it was aimed. I also thought her asking him to carry the desk ("but don't strain yourself") may have been the final quiet test. Parker is rather slightly built to carry a desk alone.

Bearing her problems stoically, acting as a source of strength to others while all around her collapses and her house is repossessed, the way she dealt with the Uncle Ben revelations and then worked to inspire Peter. She's definitely a hero candidate, as a person whose example and grit makes heroes possible.

Doctor Octavius was certainly a well-sketched character with hero qualities. A case could be made for either one of them, and for others as well. Commenters, who is YOUR choice for the #1 hero in the movie - and why?

"(When was the last time you had to stop a subway train from hurtling off a dead end?)"

Hey, at least I didn't have to suddenly move to Chicago when I, er, um, didn't do that.

As a born-and-bred-NYer, I was irritated that suddenly we were seeing Spidy on the Loop, and that the makers thought, apparently, we can't tell NY from Chicago. My reaction to that is: yeah, right. Like, it's rare of us to ride an actual subway, in either city.

Did I mention I love this movie? Please see here, and here, and here, and oh, my, more than I can quote. Use the search on my blog, if you like.

I've always thought voices are as revealing as faces.

But, then, that's why I've always been good friends with major DC and Marvel editors, and never written a comic. It's a feeble excuse, anyway. (OK, utterly feeble, but let's stress the "excuse" word.)

Incidentally, I'd just like to say that I've waited since I was about six years old, in 1964, to see people writing about Spidey.

He moved me, as did The Fantastic Four, and Superman and Batman, and others, then, in the barbershop.

And I'm glad to live to see the day -- forty years later, when I'm no longer a small child -- that these imaginary characters live beyond that, in our imagination, and beyond.

Peter Parker, Spider-Man, is the greatest hero in a parade of heroes.

I put him first, because he's so complete. He struggles on every level. And we know exactly what he's fighting for, because Ben Parker explains it all.

And Peter Parker, Spider-Man, is the one person who absolutely can't fail. Anybody else might hope for a hero, but when he falls short, in anything from fighting crime to delivering pizza on time, the consequences fall due. He shoulders the burden, metaphorically and literally ("This is really heavy."), and that makes him the hero.

I'll still list some of the others though.

• Mary-Jane Watson is a heroine. She takes all the same risks as Peter, especially in the long run, without the powers. She does it for a good reason, love. And at the end, when it should really be her time, she shows the unselfish toughness that will have to be her keynote, as it is May Parker's, for this love to work out. ("Go get 'em, tiger!") What more can you ask?
• May Parker is truly great. Her financial circumstances are even tougher than Peter's, but she's still a rock. She has more pain from the past, but she's still a rock. She fights a supervillain, and probably saves Spider-Man (from the spike). Like Mary-Jane, May has a lot to do with why this story works out mostly for the best. If someone else thinks May is the hero, I have another opinion, but I would not be inclined to argue hard.

• The people on the train show the courage and virtue of common people, which is what the story is based on, and what Spider-Man is about. It's not just that they stand up to Dr. Octopus. That's possible. (Flight 93.) But, it also seems clear they will keep the secret, though in real life most of them would take money and put together a description for J. Jonah Jameson that would lead every ill-wisher straight to Peter and his loved ones. (As we've found out from many shameful scandals, loyalty and silence are obsolete. Once the media offers money and a minute of notoriety, people talk freely on television about things they should never even have said in secret to their best friends.) But this is comics, or comic-book movies. (grin)

• Harry Osborn is a tragic hero. On what he knows, he's right, he should avenge his father. He's determined and persistent (and, ominously, in great shape). But he's also modest, and he has time for his friends. You know at May Parker's place, he's not slumming, he's with his buds. And he tried to do a good thing at work too. It's just that he's only so bright, and he gets led astray.
• Dr. Otto Octavius tries to do all the right things, it just doesn't work out for him. Even his determination not to die a monster will only last till he blacks out, at which point, as we saw in the surgery, those arms will be in charge. That's so sad.

Bush voters?

;)

It is not necessary to be the biggest hero.
I sometimes get sentimental and find myself
making donations online. MAN I love the
internet! ;-)

Tonight I saw a commercial on the USO.

Let's ALL from time to time to something
that makes us small heros who recognise who
the BIG heros really are and DO something
to show it.

The film is full of heroes, big and small- even the villain dies a hero of sorts.
My vote, though, puts a finer point on David Blue's comments regarding the people on the train as the heroes of the film. To my mind, they are heroes, but the biggest hero is that FIRST GUY to make his stand against Doc Ock to save the fallen Spidey.
At that moment, the guy knew that he had no super powers with which he could fight Doc Ock, but he stood anyway. He had just witnessed Spidey getting pummeled, and was well aware of the tremendous power of Ock's robotic arms, which could have crushed him, speared him, or flicked him aside like a gnat. But just the same, he stood against evil, not knowing whether he would do it alone or whether those around him would join him.
At that moment, he had to know he would die. That's the other thing about true heroism- heroes never know how it's going to turn out in the end, and death can often be the most likely outcome. For an example of this on a collosal scale, witness Dwight Eisenhower's June 5, 1944 note in which he accepted full responsibility, in advance, for the defeat of the Allied landing at Normandy. I saw this document at the National Archives when I was about 20, and I realized with a shock that the outcome we all celebrate was not at all certain- but the troops stormed the beach anyway. The train man's prospects were much less positive, but he did what he did anyway.
OK, this comment is too long now (and I'm taking the CA bar exam in just over a day) and I will conclude by reaffirming that it's the first guy to stand up who was the biggest hero of the film.

I'm going to have to vote for Doctor Octavius.

Spiderman is the obvious hero, but he has society's expectations to hold him up. Peer pressure hurts, but it also sustains you in your established behaviour patterns. Spiderman is pushed to his heroics by the (sometimes selfish) expectations of those around him. His deceased uncle. His aunt. His little-kid neighbour. The train conductor ("got any more bright ideas?"). The entire city (See chart A for crime statistics).

Octavius, in his incarnation as Doc Ock, is a monster. A recluse living apart from society, shunned by it, feared by it. There are no expectations of him, no rewards (measured in glory or reputation) for the sacrifice he ultimately makes. Octavius sacrifices his life for a city that would never recognize his heroism, and he knows it.

There's an old saying in Hebrew, "Who is the hero? He who conquers his /yetzer/" - a hard-to-translate term meaning, roughly, undisciplined instinct or dark passion. Lust is also a good approximation of the term, but not in the narrow sense of sexual lust.

Spiderman does not have much of a yetzer. The passion he conquers is self-pity, an emotion we can all empathize with, and by no means a weak instinct. Still, he was brought up well, and was in a strong position vis-a-vis that yetzer to begin with.

Octavius' yetzer is the driver of the story, given physical manifestation as his robotic arms. (Remember how they connect to the "primitive" parts of his brain?). THIS is lust! Lust for power, for glory, for immortality - these are the yetzers that have fuelled wars and laid waste to continents in human history. In Octavius the monster, these lusts have taken over - but they were present in Octavius the scientist as well, despite his false modesty ("Oh, it's not for the Nobel prize").

And Octavius faces down his darker nature, armed with nothing more than his own morality. No prodding by society (just by Peter), no anticipation of even symbolic recognition by the public.

Facing a tougher foe with fewer weapons - I'd say Octavius wins the heroism contest.

Without a doubt, the hero of Spiderman is Aunt May. Spiderman uses his abilities for good because of her influence, and she continues to be the moral rock of his life. She is Americana at its best.

i still have to say Peter Parker, but as so many have pointed out, the movie is full of heroes. That is essential to its integrity, and its charm.

Gary Faber (the hero is Mary Jane Watson):

I don't agree that what Mary Jane did for love was more heroic than what Peter Parker did in the burning building for strangers he might never see again. Mary Jane is still way cool though.

ATM: "What about Doc Ock? He sacrificed his life (I guess) to save the city."

I disagree. The city was saved once Spider-Man knew what to do. He was going to do and die. Dr. Otto Octavius died to save him, one man, and so that he, Doctor Octopus, would not die a monster. One man or half a city, it's still a heroic act. I'm just being exact.

Andrew (who I agree with): "Sure, he's got abilities the rest of us don't have ..."

Not in the burning building.

Joe Katzman ... Gary Farber: "I've always thought voices are as revealing as faces."

There's more than the voice to give Peter away. May Parker is not a stupid woman. She knows Peter in some ways better than he knows himself. He ran away when the fight started. What? Her Peter?? Then, Spider-Man showed up and acted like Peter. Having seen off the villain despite the huge distraction of protecting May, his first response is to share credit, and when she tells him "What do you mean: 'we'?", he does not answer her back. For all his power and fighting spirit, the alleged masked menace is as gentle as a lamb, even a pushover. Surely there's something familiar about the well-brought-up young man in that costume?

Andy Schoppe (who makes a great case for his choice): "The film is full of heroes, big and small- even the villain dies a hero of sorts."

In my view the clearest villain in the movie (maybe after the ghost of Norman Osborn or rather the Green Goblin) is J. Jonah Jameson. We let him get away with it because he's a comical character and it's a sensationally great comic turn. But when you look at what he does square-on, it's wrong, and it's serious. He's a lousy employer, unlike the pizza shop guy who fires Peter got good reason. But of course his real fault is spreading the evil word. He attacks a good man's reputation. And sooner or later, someone is likely to die, simply because someone thought that Spider-Man was evil, when he isn't. Either they won't call for help from Spider-Man when they should, or they'll take a shot at the masked menace and kill him or somehow get killed, or they'll misinterpret what they see because they "know" he's a monstrous menace ... All it takes is one gullible chump who thinks the media tells the truth, and this comical game is going to end in tears.

Michael: I'll argue with you too, another time. :)

Tell me who's the biggest hero in the movie. Then, tell me why.

There's absolutely no question on this one and nobody's mentioned him: Sam Raimi. Starting more than 20 years ago while still a student at Michigan State Raimi has been on an upward trajectory. He has harnessed strong camera skills and technical effects to character-driven story-telling as well as any director working today.

He makes movies that you want to go the theater and see.

Michael: I will vote with you, for Doc Ock. I loved your discussion of yetzer. In Greek mythos also heroism is directly proportionate to the obstacles to be overcome.

"Dr. Otto Octavius died to save him, one man, and so that he, Doctor Octopus, would not die a monster."

Having said I was being exact, I was promptly inexact. It's like shouting "watch me do a fancy dive!" What I already said was, I do not think it's at all clear he did die. However, he made the decision to die for worthy reasons, and still gets full credit for it.

Michael, later in now. :)

First, I have a different ethical view from you on how you weigh up a hero. I don't think it's about the "undisciplined instinct or dark passion", and I don't think having less of such things makes you a person or a lesser hero. This is not an argument, it's no indication that you're wrong, I'm just signalling a different view.

I think what you said about Doctor Octopus was excellent. Maybe (maybe!) it can be made even more exact. Dr. Otto Octavius has two doubtful passions, and two control chips: the one he made, and the one he married. (You can reach this guy if he knows and likes you, and respects your mind.) He loses both at once. His first passion is his project - for the good of all, but it's still "the power of the sun in the palm of my hand!" The other is: "Before we start, did anyone lose a bunch of twenties rolled up in a rubber band? Because we found the rubber band." He would never give in to the impulse to steal, but it's there in his joke. Of course, when his self-control (chip) is gone, his arms get him what he wants, not what his better and previously dominant self would insist on, just as you said.

I don't agree that Peter Parker conquers a passion of self-pity. I just don't recognise that as being what he is doing in that movie.

(Can you tell I liked this movie and saw it more than once?)

Hi, jinnderella!

OK, as a classical Greek hero ...

Self-control is a key virtue. Peter has lots of it.
Filial duty is very important. Harry has lots of it, but so does Peter.
What else?

David Blue,

I agree with your analogy of Mrs. Octavius to the arms' control chip. That's a keen observation, and points out something I should have touched on in my original post.

To use your analogy, I would argue that Aunt May, the ghost of Uncle Ben, and perhaps a few other figures in Peter's life serve as control chips too.

Peter made his decision - and let's side aside for the moment whether his inner obstacle was self-pity or something else - with the aid and benefit of those societal control chips. Dr. Octavius managed to make his decision without them, overcoming not only his own passions but also those foisted on him by the mechanical arms.

So, your point about Mrs. Octavius fits in well with my narrative of what it means to be a hero, and why Dr. Octavius is that hero.

But I'm interested in hearing more about your definition of heroism, which is pretty clearly different from mine. You cite "struggle", and "burden" - but these words don't differentiate you from me. Could you please articulate how you measure Peter Parker's heroism, what models you use?

After all, the movie itself presents us with a number of possible hero models, alluding to them quite graphically.

Spiderman as Atlas, for instance, keeping the metal sheeting from crushing MJ ("this is heavy"). Or would that be Hercules?

Spiderman as Christ, on the train with his arms stretched to either side; and later, taken down from the de facto crucifix, to be grieved over in a scene that could have been inspired by Michelangelo's Pieta. (I thought the gash over the right side of his ribcage was a bit over the top, though...)

Spiderman as Perseus, rescuing the damsel chained by the monster near the dark waters. (I'm pretty fond of Greek mythology as well, jinnderella :))

so many heroes...such bad science

Mary Jane? Nope. She left the guy at the altar with no explanation...I don't care what her reasons were.

The El guy who first stood up to Doc Ock: absolutely

Spidey: he breathes "hero"

Aunt May: Yep she raised Spidey to think like a "hero" and saved his ass when he faltered even after being crushed by his admission of being at fault for Ben's death (she even had the strength to transcend her own faltering in order to do that). Aunt May gets my vote for multiple layers of heroics.

Well, for my money, Doc Ock looks like he outweighs the other hero candidates by a goodly portion. Maybe the wide screen adds a few pounds?

I have long held that Harry Potter really isn’t about magic.

Yes, of course the trilogy spins yarns about child wizards and witches, casting spells and boiling cauldrons. But that’s really not what makes the books so enjoyable—it’s the mystery/thriller element that keeps the books moving. The magical factor is really a vehicle for some mind-bending capers and twisted, multi-thread plots.

And at a deeper level, what keeps us locked into the books is watching Harry. Something J.K. Rowling has openly talked about is Harry’s humanity. He’s quite the hothead, he’s not the best student, and he’s not a big fan of following the rules. We watch him as he stumbles through life, making mistakes, hurting others and being hurt himself.

But what fascinates us most about Harry is the choice he is forced to make—what he would like his life to be like versus what he is given to do. For a time, he tries to balance the desires of his heart against doing his duty. And eventually, it’s a choice that is no longer his to make.

That is the ethos captured masterfully in “Spider-Man 2”.

Sam Raimi and Co. could have merely shot some sock-‘em-up fight scenes, spliced in some slick CG effects, tossed in an onscreen kiss, and laughed all the way to the bank. Instead they flexed some artistic muscle to assemble a thoroughly meaningful story line, and the result is a rich jewel in Sony’s crown.

Follow your heart, or do your duty. That's what makes Spidey the true hero. He was willing to walk away from what he wanted (love, happiness, Mary-Jane) to fulfill his responsibility.

My Review...

Michael, you ask a good question, but I don't have anything like a clear answer, and the answer I do have you've pretty much guessed already, by picking different models of the hero from art and myth (and so history).

Actually, this post is more like one long caveat than an answer.

I thought about this long and long, over the related issue of: what makes a saint? What should the investigation process be? Was it right that it should be judicial: essentially you have set lists to conform to ( such as justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude) and you have an adversarial process, one side arguing for conformity to the eternal mould and the other side looking for flaws and non-conformity, which would demonstrate non-sainthood? (If so, too bad, because the Catholic Church no longer does it that way.) Or - what is the right way to understand the specially meritorious person and thus to test for him or her? And how does this relate to one's picture of the universe as a whole - what is there in one's world picture to account for or justify this idea?

(The relationship between a world picture dominated by the Judge of all the Earth and a judicial model seems pretty clear.)

Obviously that got to be a big topic (which I'll spare you), and I got to thinking about how different people (like Homer) have understood heroes. And to cut to the chase, I think it's historical. I have a picture of divine generosity as endlessly manifesting and sustaining good stuff, therefore the picture of the hero is in a sense never complete, because the fresh emergence (Egyptian - kheper) abides with us continually. And I look for that ever-fresh revelation in history and art. (And around me.)

And I think there's bad stuff out there too. The sun always has its enemies. But that's another topic, and sufficient unto each day the confusion thereof.

A real civilisation (using civilisation in something like Huntington's sense, a real broad canvas with a religious core) ultimately demonstrates its worth by producing a distinctive type of hero or specially good human being. Without the saint, or the righteous one, or whatever it is, or if that concept is not valid (you can't define a suicide bomber and say "that's our martyr, our special hero") everything else is trash. You can conquer prodigiously and build faboulous technology, and unless you can show a remarkably virtuous kind of person that's distinctively yours, I'm not impressed. I think the aim of the good life is righteousness, in some sense, and if a civilisation doesn't produce any distinctive hero, there's no reason for that particular civilisation to exist.

That is, the nature of the righteous one can't be fully specified in advance. If I gave you a list and said: that's it, no new hero can arise other than conformity to this, that would be like trying to close the gate, um, dam an eternal river (well you can dam a river - I'm getting very confused here) ... anway ...

(In passing: a valid hero doesn't have to be fancy or flashy. The noble Roman at his best was deliberately plain, and "the noblest Roman of them all", like the American General George Marshall, quietly organising American forces in World War Two, is still like that in our day.)

I think there's a distinctive and valid self-sacrificing hero that Christianity does well (as there dam well ought to be). And Spider-Man conforms to that, he participates in that, in a good way. (I do not think the train scene was overdone.) But, and mainly, there's of a kind of heroism we're all familiar with in the modern West, I mean "the battler" (that's Australian, I don't know the American term). And it's trying to sustain itself (which is a good thing: no valid kind of righteousness has a use-by date) under quite a lot of pressure now (as seen in the widespread destruction of family life. And taking final responsibility for results, and being a willing Atlas is core with that kind of hero. And I think Peter Parker is more the upright, enduring "battler" than anyone else in Spider-Man 2, with the possible exception of May Parker. And I think this movie is about that kind of "working class" heroism, so that makes Peter the hero of this movie.

I should stop here before this post gets even longer and more confusing. Feel free to ask anything, raise objections etcetera.

Oh! In describing my model (or lack of a final model), from a gesture at the ultimate justification of it to Sam Rami's movie, I forgot to put in my answer to this: "You cite "struggle", and "burden" - but these words don't differentiate you from me."

I agree with the ideas of struggle and burden. What I don't agree with is the " /yetzer/" - a hard-to-translate term meaning, roughly, undisciplined instinct or dark passion" thing. I'm concerned: as a measure of the hero (if you have less of it, you're less of a hero) it can get Rasputin-like. You know: Raputin argued, let's have great repentances - and first great sins to repent! The greater the better, beat mine if you can! Do we need to cultivate the mighty yetzer, the mightier the better, to overcome it, to be greater heroes? I don't think so. Even for the virtuous activity of inner struggle, that's not needed.

In real life, the one thing Joan of Arc had that really hammered her was her special fear of burning. She was ready to face any death (and proved it constantly), but not that! She had to struggle with that - but the desire not to be roasted alive is not evil or dark in any way. In the movie we all saw, Peter has huge struggles with his life: with his passionate desire to help people, his need to deal with guilt in the proper way, love, loyalty to family and honouring the dead, and so on. That was already a full dance card of inner struggle - I see no need for (say) an appetite for addictive drugs as well, to make him a greater hero by denying the impulse.

Stepping right away from the faux Joseph Campbell thing, I should also make the very obvious point that Spider-Man 2 is a superhero movie, and there is a good chance that if a superhero story is done right the character with the fancy costume and the funny name will be the biggest hero.

The arguments for both Doctor Octopus redeeming himself, and for the folks on the train, are excellent. I find the note that the ordinary people on the train are the heros extremely persuasive, I admit.

We all lack superpowers, to be sure, and so any of us real people who step up to being heros, well, recognizing that is entirely sound, correct, and appropriate. I move my nomination to First Train Guy, than Aunt May (I'm getting a heck of a lot more sympathetic with aged heros every day and every ailment), than MJ.

"Then Aunt May."

Sorry.

Obviously, it's Stan Lee, in his cameo as "Man Dodging Debris." He gets to save a bystander from said debris.

It really depends how you define a 'hero'.
Is it someone who suffers the greatest loss? (That would be Doc Ock, who lost his true love, his humanity, and control of his own mind)
Is it he who overcomes the greatest obstacles? (That is probably Spiderman who overcomes his own emotions, his financial desperation, and his fear of the truth)
Or is it someone who provides the greatest benefit to others at his own expense? (Again, Spiderman)

The real heros of the movie to me are on the train. The regualr citizens, who know they will die if they face Doc Ock, but still stand in his way.

To me Spiderman, as far as superheros go, is the noblest hero in the comics. But what's so great about him is that through his self sacrifice, he inspires the same in others.

When people say they want to be Superman, usually they say "Oh I'd do it just to be able to fly", or when Batman is brought up I usually get a response about how cool it would be to have all those gadgets. But, when Spiderman is thrown into the whole "what superhero do you want to be and why" question, usually people say they would like to be Spiderman so they can help others.

But I digress, as far as the original question, I think the citizens that were going to selflessly throw away their lives to save their hero were the true heros of the movie.