So, the other day, I saw The Dark Knight in IMAX format.
I'm not gonna waste my time writing a review. There are millions out there, pretty much all saying the same thing.
Just go see it.
7.20.2008
7.17.2008
On the trickster
It has been a while since my last post, I know, but I had places to be, and places to be drunk, so without further ado, for which I hope more than nothing comes, some thoughts I had on the trickster in modern comics.
The trickster is commonly thought of, in a simplistic sense, as one who simply plays tricks. This is a misconception. The trickster is more than that. The trickster is a character/persona who is usually at some sort of disadvantage or discomfort by the system of rules/order which they reside, and seeks to escape this by creating their own set of rules or simply forcing those in power to abide by a separate set of rules.
The two most common tricksters I can think of are villains in the DC world -- The Flash villain - the Trickster, and the Batman villain - the Joker. There are others such as Superman's Mr. Mxysptlk and Thor's Loki, and the X-men's Arcade, but I know less about these characters. There are also villains who seem to be superficially goofy or tricksterish, but are not really tricksters at all, such as Batman's Riddler.
The Trickster
-The Flash
-Sees the line (rules) of morality and chooses to cross it in order to attain self and group (rogues) gain. Seeing the line both enables him to choose his own side, as he does reform for a bit of his career to not do evil, and it enables him to see how far he crosses it. He creates devices which force the Flash to rethink how he can stop him, as speed alone cannot usually accomplish the feat.
The Joker
-Batman
-Refuses to acknowledge any rule of law or morals and therefore cannot cross it. Furthermore he commits no wrongdoing by this logic. The anti-absurdist hero in a way. If Sisyphus's boulder always falls back down, there is no reason to keep pushing it back up the hill -- if within order there is always an element of chaos, then why is order pursued? The Joker is revolution in motion, but also without direction.
But why have only villains been tricksters in recent times? Traditionally this role was reserved for folk heroes and creators -- such as Renard the fox and Robin Hood. They represented the struggles of the lower classes. The rule of law heavily favored the upper classes. These characters circumvented or created their own rules in order to create their own sense of justice, not chaos or self-gratification.
America of the last 50 years has been on top of the world, controlling its industries. Even if you are poor in America, you have a better life than most of the rest of the world. So therefore villains have been the tricksters, not the heroes.
As the world is changing slowly, there may soon be a shift.
Candidates for future hero trickster treatment:
Deadpool, Cable, Silver Surfer, Green Arrow, Namor, Magneto (as future hero), the Flash, Ghost Rider, The Punisher, among others.
A shame I couldn't think of more DC, but that shows their general lack of depth. Note I included the Green Arrow, but not Batman. This is because of the manner in which they go about their work. The Green Arrow works independently and distrusts all higher organizations, even the Justice League occasionally. Batman tries to reclaim the system, working alongside commissioner Gordon and, until he became two-face, DA Harvey Dent.
But the main reason I picked those is because their sense of laws and morality differs from those who are in power, not just the villains they fight.
--Knuttel
The trickster is commonly thought of, in a simplistic sense, as one who simply plays tricks. This is a misconception. The trickster is more than that. The trickster is a character/persona who is usually at some sort of disadvantage or discomfort by the system of rules/order which they reside, and seeks to escape this by creating their own set of rules or simply forcing those in power to abide by a separate set of rules.
The two most common tricksters I can think of are villains in the DC world -- The Flash villain - the Trickster, and the Batman villain - the Joker. There are others such as Superman's Mr. Mxysptlk and Thor's Loki, and the X-men's Arcade, but I know less about these characters. There are also villains who seem to be superficially goofy or tricksterish, but are not really tricksters at all, such as Batman's Riddler.
The Trickster
-The Flash
-Sees the line (rules) of morality and chooses to cross it in order to attain self and group (rogues) gain. Seeing the line both enables him to choose his own side, as he does reform for a bit of his career to not do evil, and it enables him to see how far he crosses it. He creates devices which force the Flash to rethink how he can stop him, as speed alone cannot usually accomplish the feat.
The Joker
-Batman
-Refuses to acknowledge any rule of law or morals and therefore cannot cross it. Furthermore he commits no wrongdoing by this logic. The anti-absurdist hero in a way. If Sisyphus's boulder always falls back down, there is no reason to keep pushing it back up the hill -- if within order there is always an element of chaos, then why is order pursued? The Joker is revolution in motion, but also without direction.
But why have only villains been tricksters in recent times? Traditionally this role was reserved for folk heroes and creators -- such as Renard the fox and Robin Hood. They represented the struggles of the lower classes. The rule of law heavily favored the upper classes. These characters circumvented or created their own rules in order to create their own sense of justice, not chaos or self-gratification.
America of the last 50 years has been on top of the world, controlling its industries. Even if you are poor in America, you have a better life than most of the rest of the world. So therefore villains have been the tricksters, not the heroes.
As the world is changing slowly, there may soon be a shift.
Candidates for future hero trickster treatment:
Deadpool, Cable, Silver Surfer, Green Arrow, Namor, Magneto (as future hero), the Flash, Ghost Rider, The Punisher, among others.
A shame I couldn't think of more DC, but that shows their general lack of depth. Note I included the Green Arrow, but not Batman. This is because of the manner in which they go about their work. The Green Arrow works independently and distrusts all higher organizations, even the Justice League occasionally. Batman tries to reclaim the system, working alongside commissioner Gordon and, until he became two-face, DA Harvey Dent.
But the main reason I picked those is because their sense of laws and morality differs from those who are in power, not just the villains they fight.
--Knuttel
7.08.2008
Foreclosure of a literary classic
Or Arsenic killed Emma, the economy revived her.
Having recently finished reading Madame Bovary finally after starting it two years ago, I was semi-inspired to write an article about it. Sadly, I suppose I wasn't inspired enough, and I deleted it. Sentimental Education is better in my opinion. I dunno, just something I liked better I suppose. Though the end, with the debt collecting, and the downward spiral, it piqued my interest. And that was going to be the target of the article. I was reminded of the spiraling out of control of debt in our nation (with the federal gov't leading the way with a huge debt and deficit). People buying things they can't afford because they want them, using credit, and unable to pay once credit comes to collect. Perhaps it's just to say people should be more wise about their purchases. Or I suppose, we could make Emma a hero, and say the way to solve this problem is to take arsenic, and leave the debt to the rest of the family to take care of.
Well, the original article just fell apart, and I sense this one doing that too. Not being in school, therefore not writing this as a scholarly paper, and not even writing this itself seriously, I'm just not gonna invest time into organizing a paper, which I'm sensing will be very long.
So, I'll just leave you with those thoughts.
-- Knuttel
Remembering the day we floated away.
Having recently finished reading Madame Bovary finally after starting it two years ago, I was semi-inspired to write an article about it. Sadly, I suppose I wasn't inspired enough, and I deleted it. Sentimental Education is better in my opinion. I dunno, just something I liked better I suppose. Though the end, with the debt collecting, and the downward spiral, it piqued my interest. And that was going to be the target of the article. I was reminded of the spiraling out of control of debt in our nation (with the federal gov't leading the way with a huge debt and deficit). People buying things they can't afford because they want them, using credit, and unable to pay once credit comes to collect. Perhaps it's just to say people should be more wise about their purchases. Or I suppose, we could make Emma a hero, and say the way to solve this problem is to take arsenic, and leave the debt to the rest of the family to take care of.
Well, the original article just fell apart, and I sense this one doing that too. Not being in school, therefore not writing this as a scholarly paper, and not even writing this itself seriously, I'm just not gonna invest time into organizing a paper, which I'm sensing will be very long.
So, I'll just leave you with those thoughts.
-- Knuttel
Remembering the day we floated away.
7.04.2008
On Counter-culture, and the importance thereof
I find it fitting to write about this subject today; being the fourth of July, the American independence day. Indeed, the whole month celebrates this. The first of July (sometimes celebrated on the second) is Canada's version of independence day, called Canada day since the late 1970s, when some of the last vestiges of English influence were shed (now it is simply tied to the British Royal Crown, nothing connects it to Parliament or the like), but since the 1800s, it marked the day that this process was started. The fourteenth of July is France's Bastille day. While the revolution neither began nor ended on that day (I suppose much like America's Independence day), it is a pivotal moment in Frances, and Europe's, first transition from monarchical to constitutional/republican rule.
But what does this have to do with counter-culture?
Well, they all represented a time that a group of people forced their version of culture to replace the dominating version of culture -- to put it in terribly simple terms. It represents what was then the counter-culture taking over and becoming just culture. A revolution cannot happen without counter-culture. How can the system be replaced if there is nothing with which to replace it.
It is important to note that oftentimes, in fact most of the time, the counter-culture must make compromises if it wishes to become dominant. The minority must reach out and attempt to change itself in order to accept more followers. A radical force must be made to see the limits, and to push the limits, establish the limits, but the majority should never come close.
Hunter S Thompson is, to me, a good example of this. He pushed the limits of what American freedom is. No normal person would come close. He almost became sheriff of Aspen with his freak power party. But there was always an intent. He served to show what was really underlying in society; what was underlying both politically and culturally. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas begins as a sports article (as it in fact did, commissioned by Sports Illustrated to cover a motor cycle race), but becomes the search for the American dream. Raoul Duke never finds it, he's simply too drugged out to realize anything. And I think that's the point. The hippies at the time had recently failed. They were close to changing from counter-culture to culture, and just couldn't do it -- doomed to permanently be on the fringes of society. Why? They had ideals, but were satisfied to get high and drop acid while talking about them. The few that practiced them simply became too few.
But what does this have to do with it? He showed by example. By being a member of the counter-culture himself, we could see through his eyes the inabilities of the movement itself to take over, to move on and progress. And you know what, the 60s counter-culture has not moved very far in 40 years. Politically they were unable to make compromises, and thus were unable to court older voters. Their political ideals were never realized.
PETA (and many other groups of the ilk) will encounter the same problem if they are unwilling to compromise. The total and complete separation from involvement with animals? Absurd. Without animals the human civilization could never have taken its first steps forward. Cattle became valuable as both a food source and a worker. Dogs became useful originally in hunting, and in many other things later. I mean, to take all of this away would simply be absurd. PETA doesn't even want blind people to have seeing eye dogs; its slavery apparently. You know what, yes, factory farming is awful and could potentially put us all in poorer health, but that's what's called a start. Start with that, and maybe see where that goes. Fur hunting, try and fix that too why not, just don't call anyone who opposed you a murderer.
If anything is to be accomplished non-violently in the political/social/cultural realm, and have lasting effects, it must be done slowly. It must be done in steps.
-Knuttel
But what does this have to do with counter-culture?
Well, they all represented a time that a group of people forced their version of culture to replace the dominating version of culture -- to put it in terribly simple terms. It represents what was then the counter-culture taking over and becoming just culture. A revolution cannot happen without counter-culture. How can the system be replaced if there is nothing with which to replace it.
It is important to note that oftentimes, in fact most of the time, the counter-culture must make compromises if it wishes to become dominant. The minority must reach out and attempt to change itself in order to accept more followers. A radical force must be made to see the limits, and to push the limits, establish the limits, but the majority should never come close.
Hunter S Thompson is, to me, a good example of this. He pushed the limits of what American freedom is. No normal person would come close. He almost became sheriff of Aspen with his freak power party. But there was always an intent. He served to show what was really underlying in society; what was underlying both politically and culturally. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas begins as a sports article (as it in fact did, commissioned by Sports Illustrated to cover a motor cycle race), but becomes the search for the American dream. Raoul Duke never finds it, he's simply too drugged out to realize anything. And I think that's the point. The hippies at the time had recently failed. They were close to changing from counter-culture to culture, and just couldn't do it -- doomed to permanently be on the fringes of society. Why? They had ideals, but were satisfied to get high and drop acid while talking about them. The few that practiced them simply became too few.
But what does this have to do with it? He showed by example. By being a member of the counter-culture himself, we could see through his eyes the inabilities of the movement itself to take over, to move on and progress. And you know what, the 60s counter-culture has not moved very far in 40 years. Politically they were unable to make compromises, and thus were unable to court older voters. Their political ideals were never realized.
PETA (and many other groups of the ilk) will encounter the same problem if they are unwilling to compromise. The total and complete separation from involvement with animals? Absurd. Without animals the human civilization could never have taken its first steps forward. Cattle became valuable as both a food source and a worker. Dogs became useful originally in hunting, and in many other things later. I mean, to take all of this away would simply be absurd. PETA doesn't even want blind people to have seeing eye dogs; its slavery apparently. You know what, yes, factory farming is awful and could potentially put us all in poorer health, but that's what's called a start. Start with that, and maybe see where that goes. Fur hunting, try and fix that too why not, just don't call anyone who opposed you a murderer.
If anything is to be accomplished non-violently in the political/social/cultural realm, and have lasting effects, it must be done slowly. It must be done in steps.
-Knuttel
7.02.2008
On the hatred of talking heads
I've recently come to hate talking heads quite a bit. Yes, I realize being a news anchor can be a thankless job -- receiving credit for bad news, while none for good -- but the manner in which the current television news media is run is simply deplorable.
No, I am not talking about small production local newscasts. Being part of a large market, I'm not used to seeing smaller budgeted local productions with an even smaller resource of news.
I'm talking about the national markets. Seriously, this is the "big leagues" of news. These are supposed to be the best. I'm not gonna even touch on ESPN, that's simply way too easy (unless you want your daily fill of arena football with sub-par presentations of soccer and hockey). This is about the bigguys -- CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews.
They simply have no shame in being objective. While I do understand that it is virtually impossible to be objective in one's reporting (even the manner in which facts are presented can skew one way or the other), at least try. I recently heard a newscaster sign off by saying how many days it has been since Bush declared victory in Iraq. Oberman signs off by trying (and I really do emphasize trying, cos it's just that bad) to channel Edward R Murrowes by saying "good night and good luck." FOXNews almost never addresses both sides of any single issue. Lou Dobbs is (or was, not entirely sure if its over) obsessed with the recent food poisoning outbreak with tomatoes. I mean, you watch the news to try and watch the news to become more informed about general happenings around the world, and there's always someone there trying to shove an agenda down your throat.
Yes, I know Bush is a failure as a president, but he's probably not as dumb as everyone thinks of him, I mean, it's hard to explain how a full fledged man idiot could win two terms of office without calling half the country stupid. And no, that's not a red/blue state issue, look at an election result map, I mean a real one. If you can find one that does percents, by county or state is fine, you'll see that half of all of the country voted for him, maybe a little bit more than half in the "red" states, and a little bit less than half in the "blue" states, but half the country voted for him -- twice.
Yes, I know when Edward R Murrowes was saying "good night and good luck" it meant something. But you know what, all of the media outlets, in particular Hollywood, were under attack by McCarthy at the time. His freedom of speech was very much in jeopardy. When Olberman does it, never is there a second his ability to say what he does (and he often continues without thinking) in danger of being hindered. He only is in jeopardy of losing his job from his employer. And I kinda hope he does, but I know if he does, he's gonna blame it on Bush and the Republicans somehow.
And FOXNews, seriously, when you guys are having a debate on an issue, it usually helps to have people of differing opinions and/or backgrounds to discuss the issue. I know the "conservative" view (if you actually believe in the liberal/conservative split) is underrepresented by the other networks usually, but compensating doesn't help. It actually just makes it seem ameteurish. And when separate views are shown, it usually quickly escalates to a shouting match. Can't this be solved through logical discourse? I think it just shows neither side knows what the hell they're talking about so they mask it by being loud.
Being the loudest does not make you the rightest. And sometimes the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease; sometimes the squeaky wheel gets chucked and replaced by a shiny new one.
-Knuttel
No, I am not talking about small production local newscasts. Being part of a large market, I'm not used to seeing smaller budgeted local productions with an even smaller resource of news.
I'm talking about the national markets. Seriously, this is the "big leagues" of news. These are supposed to be the best. I'm not gonna even touch on ESPN, that's simply way too easy (unless you want your daily fill of arena football with sub-par presentations of soccer and hockey). This is about the bigguys -- CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews.
They simply have no shame in being objective. While I do understand that it is virtually impossible to be objective in one's reporting (even the manner in which facts are presented can skew one way or the other), at least try. I recently heard a newscaster sign off by saying how many days it has been since Bush declared victory in Iraq. Oberman signs off by trying (and I really do emphasize trying, cos it's just that bad) to channel Edward R Murrowes by saying "good night and good luck." FOXNews almost never addresses both sides of any single issue. Lou Dobbs is (or was, not entirely sure if its over) obsessed with the recent food poisoning outbreak with tomatoes. I mean, you watch the news to try and watch the news to become more informed about general happenings around the world, and there's always someone there trying to shove an agenda down your throat.
Yes, I know Bush is a failure as a president, but he's probably not as dumb as everyone thinks of him, I mean, it's hard to explain how a full fledged man idiot could win two terms of office without calling half the country stupid. And no, that's not a red/blue state issue, look at an election result map, I mean a real one. If you can find one that does percents, by county or state is fine, you'll see that half of all of the country voted for him, maybe a little bit more than half in the "red" states, and a little bit less than half in the "blue" states, but half the country voted for him -- twice.
Yes, I know when Edward R Murrowes was saying "good night and good luck" it meant something. But you know what, all of the media outlets, in particular Hollywood, were under attack by McCarthy at the time. His freedom of speech was very much in jeopardy. When Olberman does it, never is there a second his ability to say what he does (and he often continues without thinking) in danger of being hindered. He only is in jeopardy of losing his job from his employer. And I kinda hope he does, but I know if he does, he's gonna blame it on Bush and the Republicans somehow.
And FOXNews, seriously, when you guys are having a debate on an issue, it usually helps to have people of differing opinions and/or backgrounds to discuss the issue. I know the "conservative" view (if you actually believe in the liberal/conservative split) is underrepresented by the other networks usually, but compensating doesn't help. It actually just makes it seem ameteurish. And when separate views are shown, it usually quickly escalates to a shouting match. Can't this be solved through logical discourse? I think it just shows neither side knows what the hell they're talking about so they mask it by being loud.
Being the loudest does not make you the rightest. And sometimes the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease; sometimes the squeaky wheel gets chucked and replaced by a shiny new one.
-Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)