Sunday September 16th, 2007 saw the unveiling on BBC4 of the "Searching For Steve Ditko" documentary (Ditko being the co-creator and original artist of Spider-Man) written and produced by U.K. Radio and Television personality, Jonathan Ross.

Ross himself wrote a piece for a major U.K. newspaper, The Guardian, and we did a live blog of the documentary while it was being broadcast.

Ross, himself a life-long comic-book fan, considers Ditko the finest artist of the medium, as well as being the man with the most intriguing professional and personal history in comic-book's 70-year history.

As the title suggest, this is the scope of Ross's film, for he not only literally searches for Ditko at the end of the piece, but also searches for the "whys" of what makes Ditko's work so brilliant, what formed the philosophical underpinnings of his work, and why a man so deserving of recognition and reward (for co-creating a money-making franchise like Spider-Man) doesn't receive the credit or compensation owing.

Ross's challenge is a difficult one: with the private Ditko not consenting to interviews, with so little of his professional and personal life on display at the key times in the history of comics, how does one approach such a subject without stepping on virtually everyone's toes, and still pull off a documentary worthy of its subject and intent?

Rightfully so, Ross parlays his credibility as the "folksy," "nice guy/man of the people" host to lay a foundation that he's not a threat to Ditko's personal privacy. This allows the documentary to unfold, as if we are discovering along with Ross the question and (some of the) answers that every Ditko fan has on his mind.

What we get along the way is a real humanity to the tone of the documentary (without sacrificing journalistic intent), fabulous commentary about Ditko's actual work, some excellent technical devices that went into the making of the show, and an interview with Stan Lee that, on its own, makes this documentary an important document for the ages.

The documentary only deviates from its focus when it veers away from the criticism of Ditko's work and into some unfounded/already debunked speculation about Ditko's career motivations and choices, as well as with a couple of minor factual concerns (would that all documentaries/articles on comics, or history in general, have but one or two of its facts misplaced).

Ross has also created somewhat of a firestorm this past weekend amongst some ardent fans who viewed what happens at the end, when Ross comes to New York City, as a sign of disrespecting the subject in question.

Concerning the documentary's strengths, as mentioned, one is the adherence to Ross's chosen scope, and his sincere delivery. The viewer doesn't have to quiver, thinking that Ross feels he has to get full credit for Ditko as a co-creator (which would only be for Ross's personal gratification as a "hero" to Ditko), or that Ross has to play Storm Trooper and rip apart Ditko's personal life, or hunt him down with a camera. The scene of a good-looking boy reading Amazing Fantasy #15 (Spider-Man's first appearance) being replaced by how Ross envisioned himself (as Peter Parker) is also a nice human touch.

One of the shining features of the documentary is the commentary on Ditko's actual work, led by Alan Moore (who normally has many negative things to say about Ditko's chosen philosophy, Objectivism, learned from his readings of Ayn Rand), and including broadcaster Paul Gambaccini, and writers Mark Millar and Neil Gaiman.

Moore makes many salient points about not only Ditko's work on Spider-Man, but his Objectivist material too. Speaking to what made Ditko such an original, Moore says, "Characters always looked highly strung, always on the verge of some kind of revelation or breakdown." When referring to Ditko's innovative use of urban landscapes, he rightly points out the failings of the genre prior to Ditko and Jack Kirby's arrival: "“In Superman and Batman, buildings were just to be flown past.”

Gambaccini underlines well how Spider-Man "was really the first soap opera for ‘us’…these were the problems we had.” And Millar points out the comparison between styles prior to Ditko, and even today, commenting on how it was the "ugliness and ordinariness" that made it so unique.

Ross and his production crew should receive credit for how they handled the comic-related visuals; always difficult to manage when making static images "move" for film. The opening shot of the documentary suggests the grandeur of the subject that Ross wants to convey: huge (taller than Ross) replicas of Ditko's covers and work surround him while he sits at a desk on a completely white stage. When filming pages of comic-book art, Ross also knows when to hold on an image for the audience to see, and when to move the camera around to create a frenetic sense of energy when the subject matter dictates.

We also see a lot of Spider-Man artwork, but Ross doesn't ignore Ditko's earlier work and especially delves in deep about his post-Marvel work, without drowning us in fannish details. Gaiman's objection to Ditko's Randian didactic rants stand juxtaposed against his sheer admiration for the imagery itself, noting the stories are "closer to classic American outside art…they move to the realm of just sheer beautiful wonderful straight from the heart American barking madness, and that’s the level of which I appreciate them.”

Where the documentary really shines - given the "open wound" that is the lack of creator/co-creator status, and financial compensation from the big corporations, afforded to people like Bill Finger, Siegel and Shuster, and Ditko and Kirby - is when Ross is granted an interview with Stan Lee to clarify his stance on exactly what Stan believes is a "creator."

There are numerous examples in the documentary where Ditko comes across as "the good guy," but even with Ross's attempts to not paint Stan as the villain of the piece, Ross is unrelenting when he questions Stan about whether he truly believes Ditko is the co-creator, or is just saying it to salve Steve, and the fans. Lee's one chance on film to do right by Ditko leaves Lee flailing around, explicitly wishing he had not committed himself to digging himself such a hole on film.

Lee is entitled to believe that someone who dreams up an idea is the actual creator - a terribly patronizing notion in a visual so driven by the visuals and sequential storytelling - but his attempts to extinguish the fire he has lit makes him appear as if he thinks of Ditko as a child who needs placating. A sad moment for a proud man who, 40+ years on, just isn't willing to budge (and people generally accuse Ditko of such recalcitrance) on his myopic view of the collaborative process between writer and artist in comics.

The show could have really reached the apex of comic-book related histories had it stayed on message and lessened the time spent on speculations that were filled with factual holes by people who rely on the regurgitation of myths.

There's no doubt that Ross - given the scope of the documentary - should have addressed such concerns that drove Ditko from Marvel, like the "Green Goblin Identity" myth, but deeper research into how those myths have seen many debunked. Especially regarding one as old as the Green Goblin's identity, the documentary serves to strength the myth. when it had the power to bring them forth, and then dispel them. Current senior editor at Marvel, Ralph Macchio, really goes over the top many times his time on film, spinning fiction into facts about the "Goblin as a face in the crowd," and Peter Parker's graduation from high school, that can very easily be, and have been, shot down.

Even Gaiman dares to tread into the "Steve/Stan politics" myth as being a cause of their undoing. He speaks to the myth that Ditko would draw scenes of protesters, and Stan would change the dialogue to show Spider-Man supporting the young ruffians. The facts, however, suggest that the only scene Ditko drew with protesters in it was his last, and Lee barely seemed to water down Parker's contempt in that story. As the artist John Romita told me, for my upcoming Ditko book, about Stan's politics: "Ditko probably thought Stan was a flaming liberal and he was not; he was middle of the road all the way."

Factually, the only time the documentary slips up is in stating that Ditko came to New York City to enroll in the Cartoonists & Illustrators School in 1953. Ditko is on record, as far back as 1965, as saying he came to New York City in 1950. Ditko's first published work was in 1953.

The documentary also makes it sound like Ditko was given his first work in 1956 because his teacher, Batman artist Jerry Robinson, put Stan Lee and Ditko together. Robinson, in an interview with me, could only confirm that he would bring people like Lee to his class to speak on the business of comics, and not that he remembered hooking Lee up with Ditko.

Robinson did get other students a lot of work, ghosting for him too, but Lee couldn't have thought much of Ditko's work if he waited three years - from 1953 to 1956 - to give it to him. Aside from the above two questionable dates being bandied about, the documentary stands up as a well researched one.

What has some fans in such a tizzy is the end of the film. Ross goes with Neil Gaiman to Ditko's studio, in an office building, in the heart of Times Square, and the fun begins.

Much of the fans' disapproval with Ross came before they even saw his documentary, but much of the focus is on Ross's call to Ditko outside the building, where Ditko (not heard) tells Ross over the phone he'd rather not see him.

Ross, without camera and with only Gaiman, goes up anyway. This has been viewed as everything from rude, to a celebrity ego trip, to poor journalism, by ardent Ditko and comic fans.

However, it is diffused in the documentary by the fact that Ditko warmed up enough to the duo to spend 25 minutes talking to them and giving them an impressive bounty of his Objectivist-leaning work to take back to England.

Ross doesn't get the on-camera interview, or a current picture, but this is a perfectly fitting end to a documentary that is searching for what Ditko really represents: a private man who prefers to let his work take center stage.

Ditko continues to have to live with the idea that maybe all his attempts to retain his privacy over the years has had the opposite effect - people more interested in the "mystery" of Ditko, rather than focusing on the work - but at least Ditko can say it is his burden to bear, and Ditko is a nice enough person to let Ross and Gaiman off the hook (Ross having spoken to Steve since about his thoughts on the copy of the documentary that Ross sent him).

As with all things Ditko, it's never perfect, but the documentary will stand the test of time for having provided some excellent discussion on what made Ditko's work so original, groundbreaking and unique; for Ross being the first person to (in as polite a fashion as possible) put Stan Lee's contentious beliefs about creator status on film; and for Ross's ability to convince the BBC to deliver on a documentary about a living figure that wouldn't even be interviewed for the piece.

Aside from the Kirby documentary on the two-disc edition of the Fantastic Four movie, or the recent Eisner film by the Cooke brothers, time and money poured into documentaries that have "reach" outside the comic-book industry is sadly lacking, and Ross has opened up the work of Ditko to an audience like few have achieved.