Settling for smaller heroes.

I saw The Man of Steel a while back.  Since then, whenever I have mentioned in conversation that I saw the movie, I am inevitably asked if I liked it, and my answer has been "Yeah, mostly, but..."  I have even asked myself: was it a good movie or not, and I draw a blank. Was it good?  Was he as good as any Superman of yore?

Spoiler alert:  I make no attempt to hide the plot.  I waited until pretty much everyone who planned to see the movie saw it, so here goes.

Bringing a comic book movie to life on the screen is not like making a movie from a novel.  Many comic book characters have been around for decades, with hundreds upon hundreds of issues and stories that could be told.  The writers and directors of a movie adaptation are not bringing to the screen any particular story, but are rather bringing a character to the screen.  So the issue is not whether the movie was true to the story, but whether or not the movie was true to the character.  For superheroes, the character issue is usually twofold: there is the superhero character, but also the character of the human side of the hero- his or her secret identity.

In broadest terms, the two main companies that produce comics in North America- DC and Marvel- have chosen two different paths when it comes to the balance of the super vs the normal.  In DC, generally speaking, it is the heroic identity that is the primary identity.  Those of you who are old enough to remember the old Superman TV shows and serials may remember the old introduction.  It began it "Faster than a speeding bullet!...." but it included "Disguised as mild mannered reporter Clark Kent..."  Clark Kent was Superman's disguise, and not the other way around, because he really was Superman, and really wasn't Clark Kent.  In Marvel, on the other hand, we have characters like the Fantastic Four, who have made no attempt to hide their identity and have blended the super and the mundane.  There is also, far more popularly, Spiderman.  Peter Parker is not Spiderman's disguise- Spiderman is Peter Parker's disguise, because he really is Peter Parker, a boy who is driven by guilt to occasionally put on a suit and stop the bad guys.

Part of this balance, for Marvel, is that the Marvel characters tend to pay a high price for being super.  Peter Parker deeply  wishes that he could stop being Spiderman and go back to being a normal guy.  Bruce Banner's power of turning into a seven foot tall green rage monster has ruined his life completely.  In the classic Superman, or Batman, or pretty much any DC comic I can think of, the heroes do not have to pay that price or suffer the angst that the Marvel characters do.  "Is this the price I must pay for being Spiderman?" is a question Peter Parker often asks himself.  The equivalent question would never cross Superman's mind.

That is, until fairly recently.  Recent television shows- by "recent" I mean within the last twenty or so years- based on the character have tended to focus on Superman's more human persona, rather than the man in the blue tights. "Lois and Clark" was a show mainly about the romance between the two.  In Smallwille, Clark only takes on the suit at the very end of the show, in a brief glance at what he has become.  These shows reverse the usual balance and take a more Marvelesque approach to the character.

Oddly, though, in the movie adaptations Marvel tends to be lighter fare, the comic book roots still readily apparent in the movies.  It is broad cast to the audience at the beginning of every Marvel movie, where we see comic book pages flipping until the Marvel logo appears on the screen.  The character angst that fills Marvel's comics is present in their movies, but it doesn't often darken the movie.  Their finest movie, in my opinion, Spiderman 2, played on this angst greatly, and then ultimately resolved it.  Peter didn't want to be Spiderman and even stopped for a time, but then he took back the mantle of Spiderman to help others, even though he knew it would cost him his dream of a normal life.  And then, his dream reappears in his doorway, for Mary Jane has come, and has decided it was time someone saved him.

DC, on the other hand, has been making far, far darker movies. The directors have sought- successfully, I would say- to create the most unlikely creation of all: plausible superhero movies.   What would happen, these movies seem to ask, if these characters existed in our world?  The Batman saga leaves Batman with the question of whether or not he was actually doing any good.  In the name of law and order he takes down many mob bosses only to find himself damned by his own success, for he has created a power vacuum, into which steps chaos incarnate in the form of the Joker.

The Batman movies, particularly the third, were some of the most frustrating creations I have ever seen on screen.  I still do not, even now, more than a year later, know what I think of the third movie.  There was much that was right, and much that was wrong.  Batman was good, as was Gordon and Alfred.  Bane made a good villain, who worthily defeated the Batman early in the movie, until we learn that Bane was really a nobody, a flunky.  Nothing special.  This weakened the character of Batman immensely, as a hero is only as strong as his enemies.  Jack the Giant Killer is impressive because Giants are impressive.  George the Dragon Slayer is awe inspiring because dragons are awe inspiring.  Tim the Fly Swatter is not worth talking about.  So having Batman defeated by No One Particular was frustrating.  And there was also the character of Catwoman.  I believe Anne Hathaway did a good job with what she had, but what she had was completely wrong.  Catwoman is supposed to be both playful and dangerous.  The movie had her bored and sullen.

So I was curious to see what they would do with Superman.  Would they make the Big Blue Boy Scout a darker character, and would it work?  Or would they betray the character?  How would they make it plausible?

First thing to think about is the balance of character- is he Superman, who sometimes cunningly disguises himself with glasses, or is he Clark Kent in a circus strongman's outfit?  The answer is neither.  They haven't really dealt with that issue.  He is basically both in this movie.  He is both Clark and the guy in the suit, and there is little difference between the two.  The end of the movie sets up the idea that he will play at being a mild mannered reporter, but by then one of the basic elements of the canonical Superman story has already been removed: the love triangle  The Clark Loves Lois Who Loves Superman Who Is Really Clark But Can't Say So is missing from this movie.  In fact, Lois, being the crack reporter she is, figures out who Superman is in a five minute montage.  So that's gone and it won't be present in the next movie either.  At least we won't have a repeat of Christopher Reeve erasing her memory, and then giving it back, then erasing it again... I hope.

Zod is a suitably impressive villain, and one of the best things in this movie.  He makes a worthy adversary for Superman- sort of.  Zod is supposed to be a bred and trained warrior, with every fibre of his being deidcated to the art of battle, yet on Krypton he is soundly beaten by the born and bred scientist, Jor El, Clark's father, and onlyt manages to beat Jor El when Jor El is distracted.  So one wonders how good and worthwhile all that training was.  It certainly doesn not keep him from being defeated and killed at the hands of Superman, who, the movie points out, had neither the breeding nor the training.

Many of the commentators have already stated their opinion that the climax of the movie betrayed the character.  Superman does not kill, and killing Zod went against everything the character believes in.  Having him scream in frustration after doing the deed doesn't really help.  In my opinion, however, the character was betrayed earlier in the movie, by the character that was the most wrong in the movie: Johnathan Kent, Clark's human father.

That something was wrong was apparent immediately when Johnathan confronts Clark after Clark saves his schoolmates from drowning. He is furious Clark may have revealed himself and what he is.   "Should I have just let them die?" demands Clark.  "Maybe," mumbles Johnathan.  Let's translate and expand on that: "Yes Clark, your secret is so important that you should have let your friends die a horrible death, thus giving you years of guilt and self hatred. And probably years of therapy a farmer like me can't afford as you have to dealt with PTSD."

In the old movies, there is exactly one scene where Clark speaks to his father.  Clark is frustrated that he has to try and act normal and not stand out, and sit on the sidelines while his schoolmates play, when he could be a star.  "I could score a touchdown every time I got the ball," he said.

"I don' know why you have this gift, son," says Johnathan. "But I am pretty sure it isn't so you can score some touchdowns."  That single line of homespun wisdom tells you everything and every value that Johnathan instilled on his boy.  No wonder he grew up to be the hero he was.

That lesson was carried through to the end moments later in that movie, when Johnathan keels over and dis from a heart attack.  Clark fights back tears at the funeral.  "All my power, and I couldn't save him."  Clark has learnt that even with power as great as his, there are limits to what he can do, and he understands that life is precious, and not his to give.  Therefore, it is also not his to take.

Not so in this movie.  In what had to be the dumbest scene in the movie, Johnathan Kent rushes to save the family dog from a car in the path of a tornado.  Clark, standing with a crowd of people watching, sees that his father will not have time to escape the tornadoes path.  He moves to go to his father, but his father holds up his hand to tell him to stop, his face calm and peaceful.  "It's okay son," he seems to say.  "I don't mind dying to keep your secret.  Remember to keep your secret always."  So Clark does not learn that there are limits to his power.  He can make life and death decisions.   

The sacrifice of Johnathan is pointless, and laughably so, because it seems everyone knows who Superman is before long.  He hugs his mother in full suit and cape as a town cop arrives.  He is recognised by a schoolmate from the bus he saved who now works at the local Ihop.  If the guy at the local Ihop knows who you are, your cover is blown.  Johnathan died in vain, teaching his son the wrong lesson which he ignores before long.

You see it in some little things.  Yes, Clark does go out and save people, but there is also the scene where he steals some clothes because his were mostly destroyed in one of his rescues.  Understandable, perhaps, but I can't help but think that most other incarnations of Superman would have shown him flying back one day to drop off some money for the clothes he took.

And then there is the fight scene.  Of all the scenes, this is both the most awesome- sorry, I mean AWESOME!!!!!- and the most troubling, and it was made doubly so by the hyperreality of the special effects.  The clash between Zod and Superman levels whole buildings around Metropolis, as such a clash of titans must.  And here the plausibility distrubs and terrifies even as we watch the most awesome superfight ever put to screen.  There were people in those buildings.  There had to be.  The death toll must have been in the thousands.  In most versions of such a fight, Superman tries to get the fight to a place where fewer people will be killed.  Here. the fight carries Superman and Zod into space at one point, yet Superman drags it back down to Metropolis.  And where other incarnations of the character show him rushing out of battle to save people- "you'll be safe here, ma'am"- only to get blindsided by the bad guy, this Superman makes no effort to save anyone.  In a lull in the battle, when there must be hundreds trapped in the rubble, whom only Superman can see, hear or save in time, he stops to have a kiss with Lois.  Snapping Zod's neck is almost incidental in comparison.  He has already taken upon himself to decide who lives, who dies, and collateral damage is a regrettable fact of life.  Actively taking a life is merely the final step on curve.

This Superman is a Superman for our age, regrettably.  He is in someways like, and someways unlike the hero of old.  This Superman is strong enough to kill.  The old Superman was strong enough not to.  And that is why that Superman was immeasurably greater than this one.

Summer movie reviews: Better Late Than Never edition.

There are two points of note about my experiences with watching movies.  The first is:  I don't gett o choose what movies I go and see.  Others decide for me what moviees I will see, and I am expected to pay for my own ticket, and theirs as well.  In fact, I frequently find myself paying for others to go and see movies without me entirely, bt that is another matter.  The second point is:  While I often find it difficult to say what it is I like about a movie, (or a book or any other art form), I find it very easy to say what I do not like, and therefore my critiques tend to be negative.

The movies I have seen thus far this summer are Pixar's Brave and somebody or other's Spiderman.  I liked both, but it was a kind of "I liked it, but..." sort of thing.

I probably would have been more charitable towards Brave had it been made by anybody other than Pixar.  I have seen and loved almost every Pixar movie so far, and thus my expectations may have been entirely too high.  Perhaps, at this point, no movie from them will satisfy me, for my expectations upon Pixar had been placed entirely too high.  Thus, a movie that was okay, or even ....good, sort of... seems to be a failure of high proportions.

Without giving away spoilers, I will say that all my complaints boil down to the plot: it is a hodgepodge, a melange of ideas, possibly due to the film having four(!) directors, or due to the use of communal writing.  Pixar writers regularly present their ideas to other writers, as is the common practice these days, as a way of bouncing ideas off each other, spotting weaknesses, gauging reactions and improving stories. The stories are thus often a communal effort. Pixar has used this method with tremendous success in the past. however, this time, the plot does not seem like a plot at all, but just a collection of tenuously connected and implausible events, strung together with "and then... and then... and then" clauses, rather than each even organically growing into the next event.  The exposition in particular, where the heroine explains the history of the kingdom, comes from nowhere it seems, and serves no purpose.  The story just does not work, and in fact, it feels as though the movie is trying to tell several stories at the same time, or be several things all at the same time, perhaps one for each director.

And yet, it also had its strength.  The movie was visually gorgeous as are all Pixar movies.  The young Heroine's hair was a miracle in and of itself, and deserves an Oscar as a phenomenal achievement in the field of animation.  I liked the movie, but I may have liked it more had the movie tried to do less.

Less than what I hoped is also the theme for Spiderman.  I liked the movie, yet at the moment I cannot say exactly why.  I can explain in copious detail what I did not like, beginning with that casting.  Everyone, it seems to me, was miscast in this movie, beginning with Spiderman.  The guy who played Spiderman received many accolades for his work in the Social Network.  I am glad to hear it, but he deserves none for this.  He in no way captured Peter Parker.  With his constant head bobbing thing, I found myself wanting to reach out to the screen and hold it still for a moment.  Nor did I like Emma Stone in her Gwen Stacy role.  Nor did I care for their romance.  The sudden and abrupt "hey! we're dating now!" was too much for me.  I am willing to suspend disbelief, but, as someone once said, suspension of disbelief does not mean hanging disbelief by the neck until it is quite dead.  I did not believe it.  They had the least chemistry in any on screen couple I have witnessed since Anikin and Amidala.

(Similarly, I just don't believe Peter's reconciliation with Flash.  It simply did not work on any level.  Two enemies becoming friends was handled brilliantly in the teen superhero movie Sky High.  In this one, it is handled ham handedly.  Nothing is gained from the reconciliation, and it is unbelelievable.  The writers put in a bad point for no reason whatsoever.)

The movie has tried to update Uncle Ban and Aunt May, perhaps following the Ultimate Spiderman comic pattern.  The original Spiderman's Aunt and Uncle were members of the Greatest Generation, people who lived through the Depression, served, and made lives for themselves as best they could.  That would be far, far too old for any movie now, so they updated them a bit, which is completely understandable, only now what you get is people from the sixties.  Thus, this movie did not contain the creed of Spiderman: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.  How could it? How could such words come from the mouths of members of the generation that fled responsibility more than any other in human history, using psychology to blame their parents for their own faults, but using genetics to exonerate themselves of any responsibility in the problems of their children?  The closest the movie comes to that mantra is when Ben tells Peter that if he has the chance to do good, he has the responsibility to do it.    Doesn't have the same ring.  Coming from that generation, "do good" may mean making a sign and marching in protest.  That'll show them.  So Aunt May and Uncle Ben are quite different than the books or previous movie.  I'll reserve judgement on this one for now.

The movie also introduces Peter's parents, only to get rid of them quickly.  The makers of the movie seem to want to do something with them in a later movie.  This is most likely a mistake.  Peter's past, how he was orphaned, or from whom he was cloned- seriously, that was a storyline- has only been invoked in the very worst Spiderman stories.  Stan Lee never mentioned what happened to Peter's parents.  He seemed to think it was irrelevant.  Peter was an orphan to make him more awkward, more of an outcast, and more sympathetic to the reader.  In the old comic books, Peter had no scene wherein he sat down with his aunt and Uncle and asked them about his parents.  The implication was that he either knew already (which is what I believed) or didn't care.  I believe they are best left dead, but I am willing to wait and see where this goes before pronouncing judgement.

There are several noticeable elements missing from this movie.  Mary Jane is not in it.  J. Jonah Jameson is also absent, and the movie suffers.  He was one of the best characters in the book.  Filling in the kind of role played by triple J is Dennis Leary as Gwen's father, the chief of police.  Unfortunately, I personally dislike Leary, and every time I saw him I thought "Leary, UGH!" Also missing is the explanation of his Spider Powers.  He is bit by a spider in a lab.  It is later revealed that his father bred the spiders.  It is not said why they would confer powers upon Peter, nor why, in the last fifteen years or so, no one else was accidentally bitten and given way cool spider powers.

Perhaps that was due to the "double mumbo jumbo" rule of sci fi writing.  The reader of a science fiction work will swallow exactly one lie, or so we are told.  That lie, in this case, is that someone like Spiderman could exist.  After that lie is swallowed, a certain kind of realism takes over: given that someone like this does exist, would they act this way? is how they are portrayed and what they are doing realistic?   In double mumbo jumbo, we are given two lies to swallow.  For example, in the earlier Spiderman incarnation, We are given an explanation for Peter's powers, then another, different explanation for Green Goblins- hence, double the  mumbo jumbo.  The third movie, the worst of the three, ups the ante by giving an explanation for the new Green Goblin's Powers, (same way the original got his, but only it doesn't drive Harry insane, but no reason is given for that) then the Sandman's, then Venom's. Double, no, triple mumbo jumbo.  The second movie, easily the best of the three, takes Spiderman's powers, and the lie that made them, as already established, and concentrates solely on how Doctor Octopus comes into being, and what comes from that.  Simple, and better.

This movie skips over Peter's powers, and concentrates on the Lizard's creation.  Fine, in that the movie thereby avoids double mumbo jumbo, except it leaves a huge gaping hole.  The movie is retelling the origin of Spiderman, but without telling us the actual origin of Spiderman.  Perhaps we will learn more in the next movie, but that will be in addition to telling the origin of that movie's villain. In other words, double mumbo jumbo. 

All this and more is wrong with these movies, And yet, I did enjoy the movies. Funny, no?

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!

I may be a little late to this news, but while googling around, I discovered that the new rebooted Star Trek series by is producing another movie.  I was also curious to discover that Benedict Cumberbatch, star of the modernized Sherlock series, has been cast in it- as Khan.

My reaction is as follows:



It is not that Cumberbatch is a bad actor.  He is in fact an excellent actor.  No, the problem is that he's playing Khan, for crying out loud.



Why would they touch that story line and redo it?  That was the best of the Star Trek movies.   Khan was Ricardo Montalban,.  Cumberbatch is an excellent actor, as I said, and he does brilliant quirky, or quirky brilliant, very well.  But Khan was not merely brilliant, he was an enhanced human being who could lift McCoy and Kirk together with only one hand.  Cumberbatch is a string bean.

They could have redone any of the story lines form the original series,.  I would have loved them to have redone the Doomsday machine episode.  That was great, and they could have done a smokin' job on it.  But they chose Khan instead.  Do they think they can improve upon it?  Do they think their movie will look good in comparison?  This is up there when that director decided to reshoot Psycho.  Rule number one of doing a remake or a reboot:  don't do anything great, you will only look bad in comparison.  Don't remake Gone with the Wind.  Don't remake Casablanca.  Don't remake anything by Hitchcock.  Don't start a land war in Russia during winter.  And above all, DONT' REMAKE KHAN.

Sigh.  It had better be worth the price of admission.

Is anyone else out there bothered that, with this new alternative timeline series, the only Star Trek series that is certifiably canon is Enterprise?

When condemnation is free advertising.

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing.  -Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

I was thinking of this quotation the other day when I read this post of LarryD's in which he discussed two movies coming out this summer, one of which, entitled The Perfect Family, gives a view of the Church which would qualify as a parody, except the producers seem to mean it to be straight up.

The plot of “The Perfect Family” is predictable and formulaic. A “devout Catholic” woman, played by Kathleen Turner, is nominated for the “Catholic Woman of the Year” award by her parish. But her “non-traditional”family – a husband who is a recovering alcoholic, a lesbian daughter about to get married to another woman, and a son having an affair – hinders her from attaining that award, which she covets.

Throughout the movie, Turner’s character attempts to “clean up” her family in order to win that award and undercut a rival at the parish. At the end of the movie, she comes to “accept” her family for who they are.

The implication of the movie is obvious: Catholics who dare to follow the teachings of the Church are brainwashed fools who care nothing for the happiness of others.

Sounds remarkably like my family, actually.  Has anyone ever had a parish in which they nominated and awarded someone the title "Catholic Woman of the Year"?  I mean, I've been going to church forty plus years, and I don't recall any parish I've ever heard of coming up with such a thing.  But apparently, this is what Hollywood thinks of us.

(Incidentally, if there were such an award, a woman in circumstances such as Turner's would have been more likely to win, not less, as a woman who is sticking to and living the Faith in trying circumstances.  Their picture of "a perfect family" owes more to Martha Stewart than to the Catholic Church.)

So, when confronted with nonsense such as this, what should we do?  If we were to go off half cocked and launch a series of tirades against this movie, or take out ads in newspapers condemning the movie, like Bill Donohue of the Catholic League does routinely, and will probably do for this movie, that would amount to giving the movie a ton of free advertising.  In my opinion, the movie sounds like a preaching movie, one where telling a story is abandoned in favour of spreading a message, and those almost always bomb at the box office, unless someone wastes time and money condemning it and giving it a boost in the arm with a ton of free advertising.  For myself, I would say answer any questions, address any lies.  But, on the whole, the only people who will like this movie are those who are inclined to agree with it already, and their minds are already made up.  Let the movie go in silence, as much as possible, give it little notice, and let it die the death it deserves at the box office.

3.5 timeouts, i am hard up for ideas edition.

I have tried to write a few posts these last couple of days, and burned the lot.  I almost completely struck out on a 3.5 Tuesdays post, but then a random conversation with my kids gave me a flicker of an idea for a cheap and easy post, when combined with a rundown on the posts I burned.   So, without further ado, here is something you have long awaited- my top three Disney villains, plus something else.

3.

 The Wicked Queen from Snow White.  Here's someone who gave kids nightmares for decades.  One of Disney's best villains ever, and also their first.  Some people think the scene of her transformation, or the scene where Snow White races, lost, through the woods, are the scariest scenes in the movie.  Me, I think here in front of the mirror is her at her villainous worst.


Strange what you find in a kids' movie, no?

2.

Maleficent. 

Magnificent voice acting, with one of the most chilling laughs in movie history.  Apparently, there is a movie in the works called Maleficent, which tells the story of the Sleeping Beauty from Maleficent's point of view.  Big mistake on two counts. First, as Coleridge noted with Iago, the best villains have "motiveless malignity".  They are just bad.  Giving them a motive, like Hannibal Lector in some of the sequels, or the Joker in the Killing Joke, or the Grinch in the awful live action movie, is most often a  mistake.  (cough star wars prequel cough) Their evil is disproportionate, trying to give it an origins, a sympathy for the devil, if you will, just doesn't work.  There is just no mathematical formula to balance the equation to explain why they went so deep into evil.  Second, the movie is set to star Angelina Jolie.  I don't think she is a match for this cartoon.  I can't picture her uttering the lines: "Now you face me, oh Prince, and all the power of Hell!"


This was a children's movie, right?

1.

Speaking of the powers of hell: Chernabog.



Were they even pretending this was for kids?


.5

I was going to post on the Dan Savage thing, but quickly got verbose and rambling, so I deleted it. Short version: not a fan, when I finally found an actual quotation, I thought his comments were tame for him, though still not good.  Was he acting as a bully when he called the kids names? Yes.  Is this ironic? Also yes.

My reflection:  Sadly, for years I have been saying that bullying is not simply a matter that there are bullies and there are the bullied. The picture I see painted in anti bullying campaigns is too simple and too wrong for what is a complicated situation. Anyone who has been to school should know better than that.  there are circles and cycles, pecking orders and food chains.  Someone who is bullied by a social superior will, in turn, bully someone below.    The fact that they were bullied does not stop them from passing it on.  There have been a few times where I have witnessed someone who was once a victim suddenly finding themselves in a position of power or prestige.  We want to believe that such a person would say:  I was bullied when I was at the bottom, I did not like it, I will not do the same to others.  Perhaps that happens, somewhere, but I never saw it.  Every time I saw someone move up the ladder, their response to the new situation was; "My turn."

Savage's comments were his own version of "My turn."  Having been a victim of hate, he now gleefully passes it on.  The reaction of the audience was the most damning thing of all.  hundreds left, but thousands cheered.  Their anti-bullying campaign is a lie, and a farce, and they are enacting the oldest rules of the playground, even though they seem to be blissfully ignorant of it, and would probably protest if they were accused;  It's okay to be a bully, as long as you bully the right people.

Right now, Christians are the right people, the fair target.  Savage was correct, in one thing: not long ago, gays were the right people, the fair target, and now the tide has turned.  It may turn again, so let this be a lesson.  Remember your catechism, and know that when it comes to spreading hate, it is never your turn.

Love stories and happily ever afters.

I saw this over at Mark Shea's the other day.

(For the love story of UP, go here.  For my previous thoughts on Twilight, go here and here.)

I have often heard this sentiment echoed, particularly among people who are... more mature, shall we say?... than the average reader of Twilight.  But what is it about this love story of Up, told with no words, that sets it apart from the best selling romance novel of our time?  To answer that, let's begin by looking at Twilight.

In terms of overall plot, Twilight is a standard romance, or fairy tale, in that it begins, in fact if not in actual words, with: "Once upon a time..." and it ends "...and they lived happily ever after."  In the case of Twilight "ever after" is literally that:  they will live forever, together.

I do not call it a standard romance or a fairy tale as a criticism.  Quite the opposite. Meyer has recognized a truth in story telling:  people love reading the same story, or the same kind of story, over and over again. It was very popular in the Renaissance, for example, to write and perform plays that told the story of the ghost of a murder victim, who visits their closest male relative and demand revenge.  The male relative would put on a disguise (sometimes feigning insanity) and often put on a play within the play, in order to lull the intended target into a false sense of security, all the while furthering their plans of vengeance.   In the end, the vengeance is achieved but, the revenger is swept up in his own revenge, and destroyed.  Many plays of this type were written, including The Spanish Tragedy, The Revenger's Tragedy, The Atheist's Tragedy, and some other play set in the rotten state of Denmark, whose name escapes me at this time.

This tendency is not merely limited to the past.  I think of the story of an orphan boy, who is bullied and downtrodden, who turns out to have The Power To Save Us All From Evil!!!! The boy suffers many trials, is tempted to do evil, but resists, and, in the end triumphs and saves everyone.  I am, of course, speaking of Star Wars (the real one.)  Or is it Harry Potter?  Perhaps I meant King Arthur.  Or Spiderman.  Maybe I even meant Star Wars (the fake one).   We tell that story because it appeals to us.  We like it so much we tell it over and over again, creating new characters and new trials, but always maintaining the same shape. 

So 8it is with Romance stories, Twilight included.  The couple meet, and tension develops between them.  Sometimes it is love at first sight, as Edward loves Bella almost from the first time he sees, or rather smells, her.  Sometimes it is hate at first sight, which can lead to terrific tension between the future lovers.  There is a reason why Pride and Prejudice follows the story of Lizzie and her tempestuous relationship with Darcy rather than the tame love match between Jane and Bingley.  The love/hate  relationship is better suited to creating tension, frustration, and thereby, plot and a story.  The problems are resolved by the two recognizing their love for each other, recognizing that they were made for each other, and then they marry and live happily ever after.

Since there is very little tension between Bella and Edward, and they admit they were made for each other very early on in the story, the tension that fuels the story must come from outside the lovers.  Complications with other vampires, or with werewolves, or still more vampires, and more, are what drives their story.  In the end, all the complications are overcome.  Bella becomes the vampire she was always meant to be, she has her daughter, her husband- even more so that they are now equals- and her best friend.  They will all live throughout eternity. loving each other so simply and purely that it isn't worth the effort to tell the story, and if that story is ever told, it will be because some new threat, some new vampire shows up and interrupts their little Eden.

That is the way with the fairy tale and love story.  Tension fuels the story, resolving the tension ends it.  Happily ever after is left unspoken and unwritten because it is undramatic.    They love each other.  They have each other, now and forever.  They expect the feeling to last throughout their immortal lives.  The end.  As is the case with almost every other fairy tale and romance story, happily ever after is hinted at and alluded to.  It is never written.  Two people leading a happy life would be a very boring story.

Except in the hands of Pixar, for the story of Carl and Ellie is exactly what is missing from Twilight and virtually every other romance story, for this is the story of Happily Ever After.

We get just a few vignettes from their life, with only a few words spoken when they first meet, as children:  After Ellie leaves Carl on their first meeting, the next we see of them is their wedding day, years later.  In between, and what is missing, is exactly the part of the story that a Romance novel would tell, and their story really begins when a Romance ends.  It is not an easy time, by any means.  It is a story of hopes and dreams, some met, others not, and life interfering with their plans.  And through it all we see how they love each other, in joy and in sadness, finding joy in each other and taking comfort in each other in the small things that make up married life:  cleaning the house, picnics, unexpected troubles. 

Carl and Ellie have an ending which is problematic, an real.  They know real pain, real heartache and loss. But through it all, they have each other.  Until, of course, the happily ever after comes to an end with the death of Ellie.  But Ellie reminds Carl, from  beyond the grave as it were, with her adventure book, that her death is not the end of everything for him, and UP becomes the story of how Carl learns to live again without Ellie. Happily ever after goes on, as Carl becomes a friend to the boy, Russell, and the Dog, Dug.  He shares Ellie and their love of adventure with Russell, helps the boy find his own happiness, and the happiness that was in their lives spreads out and moves on, touching lives.  His happily ever after becomes a happiness that is shared, as it was with Ellie, and will move one, even after he is gone. 

What Twilight offers, instead, is euphoria. It is the heady, brief feeling of falling in love, which Bella and Edward believe will last, literally, forever. I suspect that, were there a real Bella and a real Edward, they would eventually get bored with each other, and those long eternal years would become an eternal prison sentence. I think of the final scene of the Twilight series, where Bella discovers that she can let Edward, who is a telepath, read her mind, She has just removed the one thing Edward found so enticing about her: her mystery, the fact that she was the only one in all the world whose mind he could not read. I imagine he would be greatly disillusioned to discover that, in the end, she was simply an average teenage girl. But that is simply my take on the matter. For her part, she has sacrificed family and friends to be with Edward. All they have is each other. Stephanie Meyers has no qualms about this: The ending is represented as a fulfillment and unproblematic.  Their happiness is theirs and theirs alone.  They wanted each other, and now, that is all they will ever have.

There are those- a great many, judging from the sales of the books and box office at the movies- that Twilight offers an ideal vision of love and Romance: eternal teenagers forever enraptured with each other to the exclusion of all others.  But there are those of us who prefer the vision of Up instead, the love that lets others in, grows and changes with the years, ever new and ever the same.  The happily ever after envisioned in Twilight is a fantasy and a deception, and it is not something I would wish upon my worst enemy.  The story of UP, its happily ever after, is what many of us crave in our lives: rather than fleeing from death, we recognize that our end will come in its time, and we seek to give our happiness to others, to share and pass on in their time. 

Married Life

I had meant to publish this a long time ago, but forgot.  Then Mark Shea mentioned an article that spoke of  movie and this scene. Most movies these days feature broken and/or dysfunctional families.  It is rare to see a movie which celebrates marriage.  Then there's this one from Pixar.  This is the most loving and heartfelt tribute I have ever seen to lifelong love and marriage in any movie.




And then, just to up the ante, they have a second scene later in the movie.  In this scene, Carl is looking through Ellie's adventure book, when he comes to the part she was going to fill with her thrilling adventures in far off lands and undiscovered countries.  He begins to close the book, thinking it to be empty, regretting that they never did have that adventure together, when he notices something.




I really should stop chopping onions when watching these videos.

Arghh! When will they listen?

I, Bear, have learned that someone is making a movie about whether or not Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.  But I have already addressed this question!  Twice! Ursa locuta est, causa finita est.  Why don't they listen?  Ever?

An answer to yet another of the most pressing questions of our time.

I freely admit that I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire do not often go out, but on the rare occasion I do, the question I am asked more often than any other is: "Can you explain your whereabouts on the night of X?"  To which I reply :  "Why yes I can, as a matter of fact O GOOD LORD, WHAT IS THAT THING COMING UP BEHIND YOU?" I then move to another country post haste and live under yet another identity.

The question I am asked next most often is: "How do you decide what movies to go and see?"  To which I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometime historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire, reply: "Rarely."  If the questioner pushes for a more elaborate answer, I say I read the reviews, like this one from the Toronto Star, wherein the critic reviews the soon to be classic "Conan the Barbarian".  I will quote at some length in order to explain, my comments in blue.

Conan the Barbarian: He slices, he dices


One and a half stars rating 

The rating is actually a good thing to me.  Back in the days when I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire was just Bear, non world famous blogger (as blogs had not yet been invented) current academic, dabbler in things historical, bon vivant, and raconteur extraordinaire, I went to every art house and repertory film that ever made the rounds. I avoided anything that remotely smelt of Hollywood, as I thought Hollywood to be crass and commercial, and I wanted Depth and Art and all that jazz.  I saw many, many foreign movies, particularly French.  I saw some good movies, to be sure, O gentle reader, but I also saw a monumental pile of crap.  And here was the rub:  Many of the worst movies, movies so bad they should have left skid marks on the screen, I ever saw were given four stars by critics enamoured with the auteur director and his 'vision' his 'style', his iconoclasm, daring and audacity.  The phrase 'You must see this movie before you die!' became reversed for me.:  I hope I die before I see another Gallic meditation on dysfunctional families, the Pointlessness of Life and meaningless sex.

“I live. I love. I slay. I am content.”

That line is great! I would pay money just to hear that line.  It may be the new "Crush your enemies.  See them driven before you.  Hear the lamentation of the women."

The character that made Arnold Schwarzenegger a star in the 1982 movie based on Robert E. Howard’s pulp fiction hero, Conan the Barbarian returns in the reboot that is the very definition of the dumb summer flick, designed to squeeze a few last bucks out of the kids before school starts up again.

So it’s puzzling why this version, starring Jason Momoa of TV’s Stargate: Atlantis and Game of Thrones as the title muscle-bound savage in the sword and sorcery fantasy, is so relentlessly bloody it nets an 18A rating. The very audience of young fellows who would enjoy this turkey can’t get in the door.

In her efforts to pour contempt on this cinematic masterpiece, the reviewer inadvertently uses several of the words that I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire, take as prime indicators of a truly great movie.  Words like  "Muscle bound",  "savage", "sword and sorcery fantasy."  Clearly, this is not about a bunch of middle class nobodies who spend their lives annoying people, or whatever it is that passes for 'art' or entertainment these days, and I, bear, etc, deeply appreciate that fact.

Skipping over where the writer complains about a lack of plot, we get to:

Blood arcs up in great sprays thanks to 3-D trickery, as heads are smashed and limbs separated from bodies. Baby Conan is literally born in blood on the CGI-spawned battlefield, leading him to be a natural warrior as a kid. Why bring home good marks when a trio of hacked-off heads will please pops more?

Why hasn't this film been nominated for an Oscar?  George Carlin said in his Seven Words routine that he would rather see a movie with two people making love than two people trying to kill each other.  After years of seeing people fornicating on screen, I have decided against Carlin, and, as a matter of fact, I would rather watch two people trying to kill each other.

But, lest you think this is just a kill movie, there's more!

The gore gets a rest when the girls arrive. In fact, the credits list seven “topless wench” roles.

Ahem,  er, moving on...

Rachel Nichols, who is as exciting as a dish of rice pudding, plays monk-nun (are you kidding me?) Tamara, who has some kind of unique “pure” blood that will help Zym and Marique fulfill their evil destinies. She also makes a tasty diversion for Conan with some PG sexy time. “Woman, come here,” he growls. Who could resist?

So, here we have a movie where the men are men and the women are women, who are also hot.  I, Bear etc fail to see a downside to this.  The only complaint I see here is that the writer is unhappy that Conan the Barbarian is not a metrosexual. If he was, this movie would be called Conan the Metrosexual, it would have been shot in France, and it would have sucked.

It’s hard to figure out just who this movie is for. Its boneheaded earnestness and wretched script means it’s not going to achieve a so-bad-it’s-good fan following and the level of violence is disturbing. I’ve seen horror movies with less gore. Pick up your sword and go home, Conan, and don’t you dare think about a sequel.

Ah, to be damned by the devil is truly to be blessed!  Do think about a sequel. Conan, pick up thy sword and write it in the blood of your enemies and a few film critics. If I may be so bold as to make a request, do an adaptation of one of the original Robert E Howard stories.  It would be awesome.

And now, I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire, am back in black.  To give a succinct answer to the question of how I choose a movie, I answer: If a trained academic professional reviewer pans it, it must be worth viewing.  If they praise it, save your money for a better movie.  Herein, gentle readers, endeth the lesson.

Farewell, Harry.

I took Elder and Younger to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2, today.  It was good, with reservations.

One of the things that has always irked me about the movies is how the books are chopped up and altered, with many passages missing, and something not in the books inserted instead.  Many important dialogues are cut from the movies, but this is to be expected.  Books as a medium favour words, are made of words, whereas movies favour action. Dumbledore explaining to Harry the meaning of what has happened may make for good reading, but boring cinema.  Or so the directors and producers seem to think.   But this problem has plagued the movies as whole, so nothing special here.  I have said before:  I believe the books would have been better served as a television series, than a movie series.

There were many good scenes, and on the whole it flowed better than many of the other movies.  It had many good scenes.  (Spoiler alert)  The action sequences are well done.  Snape's memory sequence was touchingly rendered, finally giving Rickman a little something to sink his teeth into. The scene could not convey all the information given in the book, but it did a fine job of getting the most important bits across.  On the other hand, Harry's dialogue with Dumbledore was so thoroughly butchered it served no purpose whatsoever.  Harry's final fight with Voldemort is more complicated than in the book, with none of the explanations.  I saw the movie in 3D, and I don't believe it added anything to the movie, beyond a "gee whiz, look what we can do" factor.  The final scene, where the actor's are grown up with children of their own, was, sadly, unconvincing.  They appeared to be playing dress up more than anything.

This, then, is the farewell to Harry Potter and his world, for now.  I am a fan of the books, though not a raving one.  I owe the books a debt of gratitude.  I was introduced to the books around the time I realized I had to abandon my PhD studies.  Studying English at my university in many ways killed my old joy of reading.  I had been stuck reading books about books, or books about books about books, or books proposing a hypothetical approach for the study of other books, and so on.  Dead dull, dry. Nihilist, or written to justify a political perspective and maintain a narrative.  Puff, who worked at a daycare at the time, came home with a book the daycare had asked her to read to see if it was offensive, as some places were banning it.  She asked me to read the book in her stead.  "It has come to this," I thought.  "I, whose work was once hailed as interesting and important, I, who am referred to on my record as an intellectual maverick, am now reduced to vetting children's books for daycare centres."  I reluctantly opened the book, the first of the Harry Potter novels, expecting to reach a new low.

Instead, I found myself doing something I hadn't done for a very long time:  I was enjoying myself, reading.  I had almost forgotten the feeling.  I went out and bought the second book, and then the third.  I was among those awaiting the other books as they came out, and though I thought the books never quite had the same magic as the first three, I still enjoyed them.  I will always fondly remember this series, for it reminded me that I love reading. 

The final movie, for its flaws, does connect the dots, cross the t's and dot the i's.  Harry, Ron and Hermione have lived their great adventure, and go off into their happily ever after.  I bid them adieu and wish them well as I would an old friend.

Newsflash: Moron says something stupid. Millions shocked.

And here comes another variation of the silly season. Dan Brown's Angels and Demons is about to be released in movie form. Some, such as Bill Donohoe have expressed their outrage. Others, such as here and here have gone to work debunking his lies. Personally, while I support those who spend time and effort showing how Dan Brown is either A. a moron; B. a liar; or C. a moronic liar. I don't know how much success they are going to have. First, the people dumb enough to believe a moron, (thus giving a huge and depressing example of the 'there's always a bigger idiot' theory) aren't reading these pages. The lies are fairly palpable to anyone with any sense of history, which, thanks to our educational systems, is virtually no one. Pointing out the lies and errors to these people is tough, because they don't have sufficient background to be able to choose between a lie and a truth. In addition to this, the people who believe this nonsense want to believe this nonsense. It's the first rule of the conman or seducer- find someone who wants to be conned or seduced, or is at least dumb enough to buy that bridge in Brooklyn. Second, we're giving the movie free advertising, and possibly sending more people to see the thing.

I think back to the earlier movie. I remember how people were offended with the da Vinci Code, along with all the numerous books and television specials debunking the book. Personally, I hope this has a halo effect. Brown's name was a laughingstock for some time. Hopefully some people may remember that. But at the time, I never saw much point in it. sadly, I had read the Code. It was one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I have ever read, it was that stupid. Never mind the little quibbles over whether the Templars were here or there, or how Brown's 'expert' forgot that the Pope was actually in Avignon at the time, the whole premise was risible. Brown claimed that it was virtually impossible for a Jesus, a Jewish man of the first century, to say the things he is said to have said. For argument's sake, let's say for a moment that this is true. What would Jesus have said that would make more sense for a Jewish man of that time and place to say? Why, for Brown that is obvious. Obviously this Jewish Rabbi wanted people to forego the whole 'God' thingamabub and return to the worship of the earth mother, or the universal feminine principal as Brown was fond of calling it, as expressed through the practice of pagan sex rituals. How could we be so foolish as not to see that?

Alas, if only it were so. Particularly the part about the pagan sex rituals. Attendance at Mass would be up, way up, especially among the men.

Now, given the book's huge readership, and the large number of people who actually swallowed that camel, I can only wonder: Is there anything we can say to these people that will make any difference? Which proverb applies: Answer not the fool according to his folly, or Answer the fool according to his folly?

watchmen

The movie is coming out tomorrow. It'll be huge. A lot of people I know are excited. I am not one of them.

I find the original author, Alan Moore, (even though he has distanced himself from the movie) to be unlikable. He has on occasion re imagined the works of others to create his own works and worlds. there is, for example, From Hell, in which he re imagines the Victorian world around the Jack the Ripper murders, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, in which the main characters of several Victorian era novels- Captain Nemo, Quartermain, Hyde, and so on- form a quasi superhero team, and Lost Girls, in which Alice, Dorothy and Wendy get together and reminisce about their sexual awakenings, and proceed to have sexual experiences with each other and anyone else. Sex plays a role in much of Moore's writing, but Lost Girls is the only work of his of which I am aware which is focused on sex. Without touching upon sex at the moment- I'll get to that in a minute- I must say, I never cared much for this kind of pastiche writing, or re-imaginings, or whatever catch-phrase an author likes to dress up his work.

Years ago when I was a kid I discovered the Conan stories. I thought they were great. (Did I mention I was kid?) I then discovered the original stories by Robert E Howard, and I was overjoyed. These were the real thing. Finding the original stories ruined the later pastiches, but that was an acceptable price. The pastiches, I discovered, used the name "Conan", but the character resembles the original, the real character about as much as I do. Why, then, didn't the pastiche authors simply take Conan as an inspiration and then write their own stories about a barbarian swordsman? Because the stories would never have sold. But put the name on it, and there is an established audience waiting. It's a dishonest trick to grab some cash, but at least it's an honestly dishonest trick. I have seen this trick applied to other characters down through the ages- Sherlock Holmes, for example, or the various Draculas and Frankenstein monsters.

Moore, on the other hand, gives interviews in which he claims to be a/ releasing the original subtexts submerged within the works- which is a way of saying that Wizard of Oz, Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland are really about sex, and Moore is working to liberate us from our Victorian shackles. Dealing with the second one first, I must admit I find it amusing to still find people claiming to be fighting a war of liberation against our Victorian ideals. I have an announcement: The war is over. Has been for a long time. The Victorians lost. The battles were fought by people other than the current crop. Moore and his ilk are neither warriors nor thinkers. They are more like Miles Gloriosi- the bragging soldiers- who show up on the battlefield when the fighting is done, and start killing the wounded. If they had a symbol it would be the vulture, feeding off a corpse, claiming victory.

As for the first claim.... In a world of relativity, where books are texts of no determinate value or finalized meaning, interpretation becomes unstable, and any book can become anything anyone wants it to be. But this raises a question: Why write about Alice, Dorothy and Wendy? Why not leave them and their fans in peace, and create three characters, give them new names, and go tell the story that way? Because no one would care. Because no one would bother to read or ban the books, as they did when Lost Girls came out. Moore is dishonestly dishonest.

There once was a time when the artist sought to enlighten humanity, and to lift humankind up from its animal nature. The modern and post-modern artists feels s/he has struck a blow for freedom and liberty if they say the word 'f*ck' often enough.

So, there was a time I liked and even admired the works of Alan Moore. However, now I find the man so pathetically unlikable, I want nothing to do with him. The movie can be huge without me.

Movie review

So I took Elder to see Twilight. Here's a review.

I bought our tickets and went into the theatre. I sat down. We watched ads. Then the lights went down. They played more ads. The movie started. Some people pretended they were some people they weren't. They did so for two hours. Then the lights came up and we went home. Oh, and I ate some popcorn.

This has been part of the Spirit's Sword intermittent Entertainment feature.

Thank you.

...And Now I'm Cold Again.

I posted a week or so back that I was growing to like the idea of the movie Passchendaele. I had seen a documentary on the making of the movie, and in it the star/writer/director was making some good noise about what he hoped to achieve. I was looking forward to see it, and now I have.

It was a disappointment, to put it mildly. The movie should have been called "Calgary", because the majority of the flick takes place there. I had said before I was afraid the love story element of the movie would weaken the focus of the movie, which should have been the battle. As it turns out, the love story didn't weaken the movie, it eviscerated it. The titular battle of the movie is reduced to a skirmish at the end. The whole story is about a fictional Canadian soldier and his fictional love, of two scarred and broken people finding each other against all odds. Of how they loved as no one has loved before or since and how they impossibly get together and etc etc etc.

What should have been the climax of the movie was the capture of the desolate moonscape that was all that was left of the village of Passchendaele, with soldier perhaps reflecting bitterly that it was not worth the price. The movie should have had its villain in General Douglas Haig, Commander of the Forces of the British Empire and all round incompetant. It was he who decided to continue the battle long after there was no point because he knew he would be sacked if he could not claim to have captured at least one objective. It was for this that the Canadians were sent in to capture the village, despite the Canadian general's warning that it would cost 16,000 casualties and it was not worth one drop of blood. The story should have included the eyewitness accounts of the battle, encompassed the experience of many units, told the story of the Canadian Corps and the horror and the futility our men had to bear time and again throughout the war focused on this one nightmare of mud. That movie would have been a horror, but it could have awakened in people a sense of the horror our men faced time and again.

Instead we have a love story, and Passchendaele is in the background. Instead of learning about the real sacrifices of our men, we learn of the non existent sacrifices of a fiction. The director even twice denies a historical event that has been documented in favour of his own fiction.

Our people deserve better. Our men deserved better. Gross, the director, said he was bringing history to the screen. He didn't.

I am disappointed.

I think I'm warming to the movie...

...in spite of what I wrote about the movie Passchendaele a while back. And also in spite of a review of the film which says the movie has exactly the weakness I thought it might: namely, that the love story detracts from the war story.





A while back, a cousin of mine and I were discussing what Canadian battle would make a great movie, and we tossed around a few, among them Passchendaele. We hashed out a theoretical movie treatment, which was similar to movies like "The Longest Day" or "A Bridge too Far." Essentially, we would take a few eyewitness accounts and try and give an overview of the battle as a whole. There are several Canadians who wrote of their experiences at the battle, William Bird, Agar Adamson, Canon Scott to name three just off the top of my head. We would have began with General Currie arguing with General Haig: "Passhendaele? Let the Germans keep it! It's not worth one drop of blood!" and go from there. It would have been one horrible, depressing nightmare of a movie.

Still, there are other things that draw me to this movie. I am so happy to finally see a Canadian movie about our history that isn't an apology. I am happy to see a Canadian movie that isn't some artistic nonsense about dysfunctional families and meaningless sex. There are some surface details about the movie that I rather like. It is- apparently- the most expensive Canadian movie ever made- at 20 million dollars. Yes, for the price of lunch for a Hollywood star, we made our most expensive movie ever. Which is why so many of our stars go south. Incidentally, lunch appears to have been a major way of raising funds for this movie. Writer/Director/Actor Paul Gross said in an interview he raised money for the film using a process he called "dinner with millionaires." Secondly, it appears poised to be the most successful Canadian movie yet. After the critically acclaimed commercial flops of crud like "Young People F*cking" (yes, that indeed was a movie title) I would hope someone might wake up and say, "Hey, Canadians want to see this stuff, not that pseudo-European slop!" and perhaps make one or two more. However, I won't hold my breath.

So I hope to see it soon. I hope it's good. I know Gross went to great pains to make the battlefield look authentic, which alone should give people some inkling of how bad the fight was. I've heard some schools are taking classes out to see the flick. I hope it kindles an interest in some of them about history, about the sacrifices our people made in the name of a better future. I don't want school kids learning their history solely from the movies, but if it gets them started, great.

My biggest regret is that it took so long to make a movie about the war. Growing up I heard about WWII from my father. I read all his books about that war, I read other books about that war, I saw movies about that war, but WWI was nebulous to me, just the war that came before the really big show. All this attention paid to the second war, while the vets of the first sat back, ignored, forgotten, dying. Lately there has been a spate of really excellent documentaries about the war, but by the time they started in the 90's there were only a few vets left. Now there is only one Canadian vet of the Great War still alive- and he lives in America- and he was one of those who lied about their age and got caught on the way over, and never actually fought. It would have been good to have seen this movie while a few were still alive to appreciate it. Maybe even see an old guy in the theatre, turn to him, ask him "Was that what it was like?" and hear his words, and thank him.

At any rate, I'll give a review when I see it, but for now, I approve that it simply exists. I hope, in spite of everything, this movie may inspire others to follow, make more movies. And hey, if they need any help coming up with an idea for a movie, send them my way. I've got a few.

Prince Caspian

I've been seeing some interviews and trailers to the movie, and it seems that several changes have been made to the story in order to bring it to the big screen, as could only be expected. In particular, more attention is paid to the climactic battle. It seems the writers of the movie are beefing up the story at the expense of the message.

Now, what do I mean by that? Author John C. Wright gave a review of Philip Pullman's books in which he explained how Pullman sacrificed his story to spread his message. C.S. Lewis (whom Pullman detests) shares a similar problem: He is writing stories bearing messages, and if there comes a time when the story and the message are in conflict, the story will lose.

If you look at the general plot of Prince Caspian- the book, I mean- you see it sets up at least superficially an expectation which it then denies in favour of its message. The story begins with the children, the kings and queens of Narnia's golden age, being summoned back to Narnia in Narnia's time of crisis. Such an extraordinary act must mean the crisis is extraordinary- it demands a Sauron, or a Satan, or even the White Witch returned from her grave to trouble the land of Narnia again. It demands sacrifice and struggle, a great battle whose outcome is balanced upon a razor's edge, and desperate acts of courage. Instead, we have a Prince who has lost his rightful throne to a usurping and foolish uncle. The battle, when it comes, is anticlimactic in the extreme, and the uncle's end is presented almost as an afterthought. In fact, the battle is nearly irrelevant, because for Lewis's message, Narnia's true crisis lay elsewhere.

The message is that Narnia's true crisis is a lack of faith. The Narnians no longer believe in great lions or long-ago kings, and that is far worse than usurping non-entities. As such, because the kings have returned, and because Aslan himself has returned, the crisis is already over. Whereas in the first book and movie Aslan leads the reinforcements into the battle and thus brings the victory, in Caspian he doesn't even bother going to battle. Instead he leads the girls on a party and celebration. As the people of Narnia realize the old stories are true and Aslan exists, the crisis ends. Faith- or rather, knowledge- is restored to the people.

So, from everything I have read thus far, the movie contains a great battle that the book did not. I can't say for certain, but if they are beefing up the story, it may very well be at the expense of the message.

I have often thought the conflict between Lewis' story and his message was a weak part of his writing. On the other hand, the reason why these books are so popular among the conservative Christian crowd is because of the message. If the message is pulled, Lewis' books are just another story.

In spite of all this, I am looking forward to seeing the movie.

The world seems a bit smaller, somehow.

Paul Scofield, who won an Oscar for his portrayal of Thomas More in my favourite movie, A Man for All Seasons, has died.

According to the article, he seems to have been a decent fellow.

Schadenfreude, Vatican style

One of the fishwraps I found on the subway this morning contained the following headline: "Vatican slams Compass." The story contained what appears to be a few quotations from the Vatican: the movie "promotes a cold and hopeless world without God." It was "The most anti-Christmas film possible," was "devoid of any particular emotion apart from a great chill." The article concludes that the that the films low gross was something the Vatican found "comforting." The article quotes Kidman and the director defending the movie's stance.

Here's a question: The movie was supposed to have been toned down so not to offend people, and it flopped. Will that inspire them to tone down the sequel, or will they deliberately go for broke, since they have nothing to lose? Think of the free publicity if this statement had been released before the movie was released.

The Hobbit- the Movie.

Curt Jester reports that the Hobbit is going to be made into a movie. Peter Jackson, the director of the Lord of the Ring movies will be the executive producer, but not the director. Apparently there will be two Hobbit movies, the first to be released in 2010 and the sequel in 2011.

I know that many of the Catholic bloggers loved the LOTR movies greatly. I wonder sometimes if I am the only one who wasn't particularly blown away by them. I loved the books- they are high among my favourites- so I suppose I was bound to be disappointed by the movies.