The Joker's Night

After seeing Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight twice (and on my way to a third viewing), I have a few thoughts to share.

First, in the way of a review, I found that it was an incredibly gripping movie that took the Batman story to a new level of realism. The images and sequencing were expertly crafted and delivered with a fine mixture of gritty survival and attractive charm.
Let me just say, though, that the central achievement of this movie was undeniably the Joker. To say that it was a great performance by Heath Ledger does not explain it well enough, since through most of the movie all you can see is a wonderfully strange and yet vile reinterpretation of the Joker. I thought it was a particularly good combination of writing and performance as the complexities of Joker's character wove twisted evil together with very identifiable humanness. The things he was doing were despicable, but his expressions and mannerisms were incredibly winsome. Actually, as I write this I can see a comparison to a totally opposite character--Wall-E. Totally opposite spectrum but Wall-E takes what would be a boring robot drone and transforms it into a him through wonderful little expressions and mannerisms that reflect endearing human idiosyncrasies.

I digress, but it is enough to say that what keeps me wanting to watch the movie was the rich performance by the late Heath Ledger. And I have to say, I did experience an added little tingle in my spine as I watched the second time and thought about his death. I know many look down on his death as another example of the consequences due the heathen Hollywood crowd, but it really saddened me. I was a big Heath fan. I didn't like that he played a gay guy, but he was a darn good actor-- an actor who took risks and poured himself into his roles. I am proud that he will certainly be well rewarded for this masterful role, but at the same time, I am also disturbed by the fact that all he will be remembered for is portraying a gay guy and a sick villain.

Beyond all that, the rest of the movie was barely above average. Take away the Joker and what's left is little enough time to fill out this valiantly attempted (yet underdeveloped) theme of ethical boundaries and how the Dark Knight owns his title while staying true to his values. In my opinion it got a little jumbled and thrown in at the end. I think the reason why is simply that most of the plot was "hogged" by the Joker and his story line. Someone once said that the character with whom the audience most identifies with is the hero. Nolan (the director) focused much more on fleshing out the Joker's character and thus the themes associated with him. I came away much more affected by the theme of chaos vs. order, and the illusionary virtue of arbitrary authority.

There was just not enough screen time to parse out the concept behind the title The Dark Knight. Some point out the parallels between Batman and President Bush with the heroic sense of doing what is right at all costs even in the light of public scorn (see Andew Klavan's article in The Wall Street Journal, July 08; Page A15). But really, there was so little attention given to Bruce Wayne and Batman that the subtleties of the Joker's themes color the overall message in a way that relays something other than a Republican (or even liberal) message.

There was also a third factor presented by a third character that will not be discussed due to the fact that I have spoiled enough of the movie already. But let it be said that the theme driven by that character had substance, while at the same time it was directly tied to Batman's underdeveloped theme. I thought the whole last sequence was a valiant attempt at bringing the movie back to being about the Dark Knight. However, I felt like it was cobbled on without the support of substantial threads leading the audience to that point.

All and all, it was an amazing movie--four solid stars. Imagine Spider-man 3 except take away all the silly bits, make most the movie about Venom, and imagine him played by an actor that makes Topher Grace look like a little whiny baby.

That's my muttering, but see it for your self-- its worth the $10.

Turning Point for TV: The Internet Devoureth

Though he last two entries have been primarily political, I originally intended my hunch-muttering to weave more pop culture into our thread here. Today I hope to get to that.
I thought about writing about Heath Ledger's passing since it really did affect a lot of people, including me, he was a beloved actor. However, I think I'll wait till the final results are in about the cause of death.

Instead, I want to talk today about TV going digital. Let me point out that we very well may be at the cusp of the major revolution in television broadcast. Now wait, even for those of you who are anti-TV. I am talking about the demise of TV as we know it.

Our parents watched as TV was brought forth into the world replacing radio as the major media experience. We all can look back and see the evolution from silent films, to color, to cable, to HD TV. For those of you who don't know (apparently those who don't are in the majority so don't feel out of it), Starting Feb. 18, 2009, full-power television stations in the U.S. will turn off their old-technology analog signals and broadcast only in a digital format.-- as per kansascity.com/news/consumer news

For those of you who already know about this skip down a paragraph.

So, it turns out that an FCC/congress team-up has passed into law that all TV will be beamed out to everybody on lasers rather than radio waves. Ok, probably not lasers, probably through wires or some new fangled thing not unlike digital cable companies use already. But lasers are next. Congress got together with the FCC to bump TV off the overcrowded air waves. Turns out fireman and 911 people are getting reruns of the Simpsons on their radio. For more go to http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=78530.

Here is the thing: on one hand, the suits are trying to mitigate for expected consumer outrage at turning on their TVs and getting nothing but static (can you imagine the hours of fiddling with wires and antennas all over the country); on the other hand, we have what could be a half of year of no new shows due to the wonderful writer's strike. I don't know about anyone else, but for me, this strike situation is reminiscent of the great baseball strike of '94. That year baseball died as the national sport. It was especially painful for me and my family as we were huge Expose fans-- they were set to win that year--cursed strike. But in any case, televised baseball lost out that year. American sports fans discovered the NBA. The point is, strikes don't work well in the entertainment world. UPS goes on strike and you don't get your dang packages. TV goes on strike, and you pick up a book or put in a movie.

Put together going to digital, with the writer's strike, with a new generation turning to their laptops for more youtube sort of entertainment, and you get what is going to be the death of TV as we know it. It's really the whole reason for the writer's strike in the first place. If I were them, I would fight tooth and nail. Their last contract was written back in 1988 when there was no such thing as DVDs, cell phones, or internet. Time to update, especially since what we are talking about here is less commercial money since broadcast television is going digital a year from now. I believe that regular shows on television are going the way of cassette tapes. Gone are the days when you have to wait until primetime to tune in to "your regularly scheduled program." As it is you can basically stream any of your favorite episodes through the television network's web site.

TVs, CDs, and probably even DVDs are going to be a big joke to our kids. Like we laugh about big cell phones and clunky records and tapes, our kids will laugh about having a physical hard copy of anything. Hold on to your hard copies though, they will be worth money some day...maybe.

The bottom line is that the next generation of serial programing entertainment will come to the masses through streaming internet. What does that mean for people who don't watch TV? Well it will be easier not to group around the household idol, but, be on guard, the idolatry is taking on new and more accessible form as internet can be streamed at work, home...anywhere if you have a new cell phone. It won't be as easy as unplugging the TV.

Of course this is coming from a guy writing his thoughts on a web log. For those of us who are already engaged into the so called new media, it is important to discuss and develop more intentionality, liturgical structure, and limits to the way we enter into this vast economy of information, entertainment, and communication. They are all weaving together into a tighter and tighter network that can consume hours and hours of time as American life becomes the stuff of futuristic sci-fi.













Time to go outside [closing laptop...







(Image credit Flickr user anthonyimages)

Two Presidents

I have been saying for a while that the scariest thing about Hillary winning is the aspect of having two presidents in power--Hillary and Bill. People have said, "oh but he would not be president, he would just be married to the president. They wont let him have power." Really? Here's the thing, we have never had a male "First Lady," and to have a male in that position that happens to be one of the most influential presidents of our time, and who continues to bask in a high level of popularity (while his successor has the lowest popularity ever). Bill won't have power as the "First Lady?" Come on.

I have to say that this thought didn't come to me in a moment of pure spontaneous revelation. I actually heard this notion first from the author of For the Love of Politics--Sally Bedell Smith. She was on the radio talking to Medved, and she, after much time and research devoted to getting to know the Clintons, explained that she believed that with these two it would be like having two presidents.

And now, finally, thanks to Bill's racist shenanigans, in their hurry to abandon the Clinton Titanic, democrats are uncovering this liable option. Before, it was utterly ignored, well maybe hoped for. Until today, when I was reading some of the digital rant rags-- low-and-behold Michael Tomasky of the Guardian puts into words what I have been putting into muttering.
Oh, and he quotes Garry Wills.

Think about it. A former president, who knows the inner workings of government intimately, would be back in the White House. He may have no official title or role. Yet he would, it's fair to assume, be deeply enmeshed in both politics and policy.

To what extent would this constitute a co-presidency? Writing in the New York Times on Saturday, Garry Wills noted that America's founders had wrestled with just this question and decided executive power had to be invested in one person for the sake of holding that person accountable. Wills - who has written glowingly about Hillary in the past - directly compared Bill's possible role to the one being played now by Dick Cheney and concluded that "it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House".

Its a weird, ultimately dangerous thing having Bill and Hillary running the nation. I just got the shivers thinking about it. I don't understand why more people haven't been woe crying about it.
But then again, this is the election year of weirdness.

It makes me think about the position of Vice President. Who wants to be the third fiddle, or even third wheel, at the White House. On the other hand in the republican camp, the position of VP could be a much more prominent position. The way the primaries are shaping up, with no clear front runner, an alliance could really shift the momentum. Rudy might drop out after tomorrow, but if he comes in strong in Florida, if he and Huckabee join forces, they could rock Super Tuesday. The problem would be deciding who top dog is. Together they cover the gambit with Rudy strong on foreign policy and fiscal conservatism, and Huck the leader on social conservatism--they could run away with it. But who would be president in that case. I am just talking la la land here, but it could happen. This is a strange time in politics. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Rudy/Huck team-up, or even a McCain/Lieberman team-up--yikes that would be crazy.

I like it when it gets shook up like this, its good for our national politics. Not just business as usual.

We shall see...


(Image credit by Flickr user starrgazr)

The Female Protagonist

In the last couple of years I have come to appreciate fantasy and Sci-Fi. LoTR has always been a favorite, but lately I have expanded my horizons in especially the fantasy genre of literature. My wife is the primary culprit for my increased exposure to such stories, and it is conversations with her that has me thinking about Hilary Clinton.

It is already disturbing that the political institution has engorged itself to a high society that increasingly resembles a modern day version of the medieval royal court. Participating in politics is supposed to be a privilege and a duty that community leaders participate in for a short time. As my good friend Tackett pointed out to me, it was never supposed to be its own career that only the elite participate in and are groomed for. My frustrations aside, what is interesting is that our little world of political celebrity not to different from the web of stratagem in these fantasy novels I am reading. Many analogies can be drawn between the leading male political leaders.

However, to me, the most obvious of the similarities has to do with the leading women. The reoccurring depiction of the main villainous female in most fantasy series, paints the picture of a woman of higher status who is devious and two-faced, there are no means too cruel as long as they further her primary objective-- the rapid accrual of power and position. It is difficult to find anyone who really believes Hillary Clinton is anything other than this vision of the conniving lady of scheming ambition. She is not unlike the classic female Disney villains, and I don't simply mean the wicked witches, however. She more closely resembles the ruthless wives who used their husband's prestige for their own rise to power.

On the other side, there are guys who bring real contrast to this villainous elitism. I can't help but love the every-man ethos that Mike Huckabee brings to this race. He is the clever protagonist who comes from nowhere-- the underdog who overcomes adversity to win the hearts of the common people and slay the evil witch. He is more of the mysterious gleeman or bard who uses his humor to disarm and maneuver. He has his problems, but two things stick out to me: He had the fortitude of mind to lose over 100lbs, and he graduated from a small Christian college ( Ouachita Baptist University)--not a Harvard or Yale artifact. Plus, Chuck freekin Norris is supporting him, come on.

Another guy who fits into this vague unfleshed-out fantasy analogy, John McCain, a warrior, the battle-torn military man who speaks his mind. The scarred hedge knight who takes over when all others are losing their heads. This guy has less of what I like in the way of personalty, he is kinda dull, but he was a P.O.W., nothing dull about that.
There are other connections to fantasy literature, I am sure, but...not that interest me right now.



(Image credit by Flickr user originalunoriginal)