Sony's reboot of the Spider-Man series to appeal to the Twilight crowd--by putting Peter Parker back in high school (as well as in 3D of course)--has justly been met with criticism. Not necessarily because of the changes to the character, or his setting, but because of the motivations behind the decision. There was really no reason to reboot the series as Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi were ready to come back and do a fourth film. What was obvious to most was that the studio was far more worried about making as much money as possible, rather than a high-quality movie. Someone at Sony saw the numbers that an extremely low-quality film such as Twilight and New Moon were earning and reasoned this could be replicated with an established fan base of their own; Spider-Man became the target. Of course in many ways this is natural, movie executives are businessmen first and foremost, but movies are also valued for their art. Unfortunately for people who appreciate this latter value, Sony's decision was nothing but unwelcome news. The Twilight books and films are some of the worst fiction I've ever read or seen, and turning a beloved franchise into nothing more than the latest 3D cash grab from one of the most superficial markets, is sure to result in a largely inferior film, than say Spider-Man 3.

But nevertheless it is going to happen, whether people like it or not. Much of the talk over the new franchise has been who will play Peter Parker? The usual suspects were Jamie Bell, Alden Ehrenreich, Frank Dillane, Andrew Garfield and Josh Hutcherson. That was until a twitter campaign and Facebook page garnered thousands of fans suggesting Donald Glover land the role. For those unfamiliar with the actor, he is a comedian best known for his work on the television show Community, oh and he just happens to be black. Now it seems to me that the only criteria for someone playing Peter Parker/Spider-Man should be their ability to act. There is nothing about the character that requires he be white. Look beyond the colour of Peter Parker's skin and what you have is a complex character, weighted down by the responsibility of his power, inspired by the words of his dead uncle, protective of his old aunt, the love of his life Mary Jane, and to his community of New York, one of the most multicultural cities in the world. As Batman once said "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." Our characters are judged by our actions, all of which are built upon choices. The choices of Spider-Man are largely ones of self-sacrifice. This is what makes Spider-Man an honourable character, regardless of whether or not the face underneath the mask is white, black, Hispanic or Asian.

While I expected to see the odd troll emerge demanding Spider-Man stay white, I was surprised and deeply disturbed with how many people spoke out against this possible decision. What was even more unsettling were the arguments being trumpeted. One of the most common was that this is a double standard--in the sense that it would not be okay to change historically black characters (Blade for example) into white, but it‘s okay to change white into black--or will escalate into changing every superhero's ethnicity to be more politically correct or multicultural. First I repeat, if the actor can play the role it shouldn't matter their background. The producers should not be looking for specifically white actors anymore than they should be a Hispanic, or Asian. The casting isn't based on multiculturalism or strict adherence to the source material (more of that to come) but the ability of the actor to play the role. Second, this is not a double standard. At least two people likened this to having white actors portray Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. in their respected bio-pics. Of course this would not be acceptable because these two individuals (who were real people by the way, not characters) were largely defined by their race. If someone could point me in the direction of a comic where Spider-Man defines himself through the oppression of the white race under segregation laws and a racist society, then there might be something wrong with changing his character's image (although such a premise would be outlandish and disrespectful anyway because the white race has enjoyed nothing but glory and good fortune in North America). Or, in what comic is Spider-Man arrested for standing up against the persecution of a majority for which he belongs by the minority in power, only to become the president of a nation and a symbol of the abolition of Apartheid? The ignorance of such an argument is astounding. As for Blade, I will not claim to be an expert, but as far as I know what's been part of Blade's inner character struggle was that his life as a vampire, is an allegory to his race. Like any minority, Blade felt like an outsider and constantly faced rejection, isolation, and discrimination for being different. If this is the case it may be inappropriate to change Blade's race from black to white, but not from black to Hispanic or Asian. If not however, then by all means, cast a white actor, so long as he is able to play the role, it should not matter.

The second most popular response was to claim this was an abomination to the source material; Peter Parker has always been white, to change this fact would be to go against the culture of Spider-Man which has been set and followed without waver for over four-decades. This argument has a limited and superficial understanding of history and the creative process. The only reason why Peter Parker is white is because he was designed and created by two white men from a white culture. Spider-Man was created in 1962, America was very different then. If he was created by a black person, he may have been black all these years, if he was created in India he would have been of Indian descent. But this doesn't tie him to a stationary image. Things change. We no longer depict Spider-Man in a 1960s setting. His ability to shoot webs has changed from being inherent in his new found biology, a cartridge, to back to biology. He was portrayed as a small geeky nerd and a beefed up photographer. Adaptations should be encouraged to waver from the source material, it keeps a fifty year old story fresh, interesting, and relevant to the times its being presented in. What is more representative of our day and age than a multi-ethnic super-hero, or at least one that is not dictated by the colour of his or her skin? There's nothing racial about a science nerd who becomes a radioactive Spider-Man.

Then there are those who subscribe for tradition. It's traditional to see Spider-Man as white, it's traditional to see Blade as Black, and so on. I am against tradition as an argument against change. If we were held back by our traditions we may never have progressed the way we have. As a student of history, I largely stress understanding the context of any word, image or creation of man. When, where, and by whom did this source come from? For years Major League Baseball resisted introducing certain rules, concepts or technologies because of tradition, but just because baseball was invented in the mid 19th century does not mean it has to remain in the past. Inter-league play is more sensible in today's marketplace, and video review is possible with today's technology. If baseball was invented in today's context these things would not be an issue. Spider-Man was created by two white men from 1960s America, it is no surprise that he is therefore white. But just like Spider-Man is no longer reproduced using 1960s technology, or shown living in 1960s America, he does not need to be the stereotypical Post World War II white-American hero. As others have demonstrated, portraying Spider-Man in a whole new light by a young and talented non-white actor just might give this franchise what it needs, a reason to exist.

Article originally published at http://herrbesserwisser.blogspot.com/2010/06/it-doesnt-matter-if-spideys-black-or.html