Emma Stone discusses the importance of her character, Gwen Stacy, in 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'

'[Gwen saves Peter] more than he saves her,' Emma Stone said of her comic book character. Emma Stone is also starring in the upcoming Woody Allen film 'Magic in the Moonlight.'

Niko Tavernise/Columbia Pictures – Sony Pictures/AP
Emma Stone stars in 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2.'

The role of women in the comic book movie industry is continually evolving, and that holds true for the Spider-Man franchise. Whereas Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man 3 (then played by Bryce Dallas Howard) was downgraded from Peter Parker’s first love (in the comic books) to a third wheel on the Pete/Mary Jane train, Emma Stone’s version of the character in the current Amazing Spider-Man continuity is a proper foil for the pre-collegiate webslinger.

Gwen’s fate in this year’s Amazing Spider-Man 2 remains up in the air, as both she and director Marc Webb have been careful to dance around questions about whether or not the character’s infamous death from the Spider-Man comics will play out onscreen in the film. Speculation on that subject has been fueled by Gwen’s wardrobe in the sequel, in addition to rumors about why scenes featuring Shailene Woodley (Divergent) as Mary Jane were dropped to the cutting room floor early in post-production.

Moving to a less morbid topic of discussion – in an interview with Total Film, Stone talked about how often Gwen’s time in Amazing Spider-Man 2 involves her being rescued by her onscreen (and offscreen) boyfriend Andrew Garfield’s costumed alter ego. In terms of an exact number of instances, she said:

“Not many. I can think of one important instance. [Gwen saves Peter] more than he saves her. She’s incredibly helpful to Spider-Man… He’s the muscle, she’s the brains.”

In Amazing Spider-Man, Gwen was neither a typical damsel in distress (a la Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane), nor did it feel as though she was written to (over-)compensate for years of wishy-washy representation of ladies in superhero comics – the ‘strong female character’, in other words.

Gwen was academically intelligent, could think on her feet, had a real personality and proved quite willing to lend her boyfriend a helping hand while he worked, but like Peter she was still just a teenager in over her head. That made her all the more of an interesting (and important) addition to the coming of age story at the film’s core, with the dynamic between she and Pete feeling all the more authentic for it.

Of course Gwen will be at a disadvantage in Amazing Spider-Man 2, seeing how she’s apparently one of the rare main characters who doesn’t get superpowers (or special armor to compensate) – making her something of a vulnerability during battle. Stone commented on just that in her Total Film interview:

“I don’t get to do too many crazy stunts. She gets herself in the middle of stuff, that’s for sure! I do get webbed to a car."

The moment Stone references here was shown in the film’s international trailer, and it seems like a winner – a funny moment in the heat of battle (with Gwen inadvertently blurting out Spidey’s true identity) and meaningful character development, in terms of the Peter/Gwen relationship. If Amazing Spider-Man 2 manages to provide enough of that, then maybe the sequel will be able to tell a compelling story – in addition to blowing the doors wide open for even bigger developments in Amazing Spider-Man 3, as well as both Venom and Sinister Six movies.

Screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci (Star Trek Into Darkness) and Jeff Pinkner (Fringe) are generally reliable in that department, and it helps that Stone and Garfield have great chemistry onscreen together to help sell the Peter/Gwen connection. If all goes well, Amazing Spider-Man 2 will have a nice mix of superhero fun and poignance; the script pitch apparently made Garfield cry after first hearing it – hopefully, fans will also shed tears once the proceedings draw to a close.

… For the right reasons, that is.

Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.