Batman R.I.P.

Gee whiz, we’re all so impressed by Grant Morrison’s ability to connect everything in Batman’s history. We’re all so impressed that it all turns out to be part of some vast, crazy-ass conspiracy. Please…

I’m (usually) a fan of Morrison’s, and he’s (usually) an amazing writer, but “Batman R.I.P” has been one of the most disappointing great Bat arcs in a long time.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of a conspiracy, and I love to see a superhero get picked apart (Frank Miller and David Mazzuchelli’s “Born Again” is one of the greatest Daredevil stories, if not one of the greatest comic book stories, of all time), so that I can see him rise up from the ashes. However, I don’t like to see what was hyped as one of the greatest Bat-stories of all time actually come out as the barely coherent masturbatory ramblings of a man who fancies himself a “chaos magician”, and has increasingly allowed that to not only inform but dictate his writing to a popular audience.

It’s certainly not the worst Bat-tale told, but if you want to read Morrison’s good Batman stuff, read his old run on JLA. Now, there was a Batman! I can even dig on “Gothic”. While I enjoy “Arkham Asylum”, I don’t think it’s the amazing work of art that many others seem to. And “R.I.P.” is even worse in terms of coherence and rationale.

Perhaps it’s to be blamed on the artist(s), but I’ve consistently found the action to be difficult to follow in Morrison’s run. That much, I can get over easily, as that’s almost to be expected on occasion. Sometimes an artist isn’t right for the title, or the artist and writer don’t work particularly well together. What I can’t get over is Morrison’s crazy plot/style, trying to weave transcendental psychology between kung fu and conspiracy. Save that shit for The Invisibles.

Probably my biggest issue with “R.I.P.” isn’t Morrison’s writing, but the whole “Who will be Batman now?!?” thing that D.C. is pushing. It’s such bullshit. No matter who puts on the cape and cowl in the interim, we all know that within year good ol’ Bruce Wayne will be back and better than ever. This is just another one of D.C.’s yearly ploys to get old readers back, and perhaps draw in a few curious “outsiders”. And it doesn’t hurt that TPB sales are going to be through the roof, not to mention all of the crossover shit (i.e. other Bat-books, “Final Crisis”, etc.).

(Earlier, I wrote "Infinite Crisis". See, there have just been too damn many "great, sweeping, epic" stories put out by D.C. [about once a year now] that use the word "crisis" in the title, attempting to still cash in on the success of that one true crisis [the one that was on infinite earths]).

Reading “R.I.P.” just makes me want to read a GOOD Batman story. So, when the hell is issue 11 of All Star coming out anyways, Frank and Jim?

The Wrestler

Such a great movie. I almost cried at several points. Hell, the trailer almost made me cry.

I’m with Mickey Rourke’s Randy “The Ram” every step of the way. I want nothing but good things to happen to this guy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. This is a cat upon whom life just keeps shitting. But that makes him more likeable, and a far more compelling character.

Aronofsky’s style is simplified and brilliant. The music is perfectly chosen and placed. The writing is superb all the way. But the acting… Man, the acting…

Mickey Rourke is amazing. There’s no better word to describe him. I loved him in “Sin City”, but damn… If he doesn’t walk away with the Oscar, there should be riots.

Marisa Tomei is excellent as well. She should definitely get an Oscar, too.

I hope everyone sees this movie. While I don’t think it’s better than “The Dark Knight”, I do think that it’s the movie that should win Best Picture over all of the other nominees (fuck “Slumdog”!).

Slumdog Millionaire

It’s a good flick. The story’s a nice, kinda classic love story. The visuals and the music match really well, and Danny Boyle certainly knows how to direct (not that he needed to prove it anymore). The acting is surprisingly astonishing. Everyone in this movie acts REALLY well, especially the kids! Child actors tend to not be too good, but some of the kids in this movie are amazing.

That said, I am disappointed. I didn’t see one trailer or TV spot before seeing this movie. All of the hyper I got was word-of-mouth. And there was a hell of a lot of hype. I don’t think the movie lives up. It was sold to me as “the little foreign movie that could”.

1) It’s not that little. Sure, 15 million bucks ain’t a lot of dough in Hollywood terms, but it goes a long fucking way when you’re shooting in India, with Indian actors and Indian crewmembers. This is NOT an indie flick. Fox was involved in its production. Sure, it was Fox Searchlight, but it was Fox nonetheless.
2) It’s not that foreign. It was shot in India and the cast was India and they employed plenty of Indian people in the production, but it was made with American money by a British director. It’s NOT and Indian movie.

I think that this movie has had a lot of success because people are being, for lack of a better term, tricked into thinking that they are seeing a foreign movie. They think because it’s got a bunch of brown people in it, they are being smart and sophisticated by watching a movie outside of their typical purview. But they aren’t. This same story could have been set anywhere there is poverty -- which is mostly everywhere. The details would be different if you set it in the slums of L.A. or Chicago, but the story itself could remain the same.

That said, you should still go see it. It just doesn’t deserve its Oscar nominations.

Daredevil and Punisher (Philosophical) Dialogue

In my junior year of high school, taking IB Philosophy, I had to write a dialogue between two characters (either of my own creation, or previously developed). This dialogue, of course, had to have something to do with philosophy.

I chose to use Daredevil and the Punisher (man, I am obsessed with the funny books). I chose them because they are typically at odds with one another philosophically/ideologically.

Here it is, as it was written something like three years ago. Of course, now I know a little bit more about philosophy.

I believe my point was that Daredevil was arguing for Rule Utilitarianism, while the Punisher is a believer in Act Utilitarianism. Not sure if my aim was all that accurate.

(As you'll be able to tell, this thing is rife with references to specific stories, or has a little humor based on the number of times these two characters have crossed paths and nothing has really gotten done. Not sure if any of this was picked up on by any of the IB Readers/Graders.)

----------------------------------------

DAREDEVIL
You’ve killed almost fifteen hundred murderers, drug dealers, rapists, and Mafioso. What do you call that?

PUNISHER
A work in progress.

DAREDEVIL
You have to let the law handle things, Frank.

PUNISHER
The law is nothing but a bureaucratic system that gives people a false sense of confidence.

DAREDEVIL
The law keeps order in the world.

PUNISHER
Order? You mean like the order imposed by gangs in a ghetto? The order that comes with the mafia’s hierarchy? Order has nothing to do with justice!

DAREDEVIL
Is that what you think you’re doing? Serving justice?

PUNISHER
That’s exactly what I’m doing.

DAREDEVIL
You go about killing people because they’re criminals. That makes you a criminal.

PUNISHER
I know. I know that I’m a criminal. You are, too. We have to be criminals. This world needs vigilantes to pick up the slack.

DAREDEVIL
You and I are nothing alike, Frank.

PUNISHER
Really? We both attack criminals. We don’t even wait for them to attack us, so that it’s self-defense. We go after them, deliberately. The both of us. We hurt them. We punch them, we kick them, we beat them down until they’re black and blue and bleeding. The only difference is that I kill murderers, drug dealers, and rapists, while you let your precious law take care of them. And on those too few occasions when those bastards do get what they deserve, you think your hands are clean because you aren’t directly responsible for their death.

DAREDEVIL
I’m not responsible at all. Those people are punished by the law, not me. They’re responsible for their own deaths.

PUNISHER
Does that mean that I’m not responsible for the deaths of those whom I kill?

DAREDEVIL
That’s… that’s different.

PUNISHER
How so?

DAREDEVIL
There’s an entire system behind the deaths of the convicted capital offenders. A system that represents, serves, and protects two-hundred-and-fifty million people. Yeah, it doesn’t work right away. The system has its flaws; there are some kinks to be worked out. But in the end, it does the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

PUNISHER
My way does the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but in a more immediate fashion.

DAREDEVIL
How can you say that?

PUNISHER
I shouldn’t even have to say it. You can ask the old man who’s not going to be mugged and stabbed while jogging through Central Park. You can ask the kid on the playground who’s not going to be given amphetamines that look like candy by some dealer looking to expand his business. You can ask the little girl who’s not going to be raped. … You can ask the man that doesn’t have to watch his family get gunned down because they accidentally see a Mafia execution while on a family picnic. … I don’t just kill criminals; I prevent innocents from becoming victims.

DAREDEVIL
That’s what the law does, Frank. It protects the innocent.

PUNISHER
But it doesn’t punish the guilty!

DAREDEVIL
It does. It just doesn’t murder them outright.

PUNISHER
So drug dealers and rapist just go to prison, serve their time, and get freed. It’s only a matter of time until they go back to victimizing innocents. Criminals play the system like a fucking violin and you know it.

DAREDEVIL
What about you, Frank?!? You were arrested! You went to Ryker’s! Then, you escaped!

PUNISHER
And?

DAREDEVIL
Three times, Frank! You did it three times!

PUNISHER
Exactly!!! If the people believe that I’m nothing but a murderer, then why have I never been given the death sentence? Why have I always been given the opportunity to escape?

DAREDEVIL
You’re not given the opportunity; you just make it, Frank.

PUNISHER
Wrong, Murdock.

DAREDEVIL
…What?…

PUNISHER
Yeah. I know your “secret” identity.

DAREDEVIL
No, not that. (Everyone knows that). I mean, were you really given the opportunity?

PUNISHER
Yeah. The first time I escaped, I was busted out by some feds. They needed to take down a narcotics run, but they were tied up by the law. They knew the difference between Law and Justice.

DAREDEVIL
I can’t believe it…

PUNISHER
Believe it. The government does plenty of things that you’d consider “extralegal”. Come on, you’ve dealt with S.H.I.E.L.D.

DAREDEVIL
Just because other people do it doesn’t make it okay.

PUNISHER
Don’t you fight so hard for the law because of a bunch of “other people”?

DAREDEVIL
…That’s… Well, what about the two other times? Feds bust you out then?

PUNISHER
No. The second time, I worked with a mob boss and his goons. The--

DAREDEVIL
You worked with a mob boss?!?

PUNISHER
Oh, don’t worry, Murdock. I betrayed them all. They died. Now, the third time, I actually posed as a black convict whose buddies were busting him out (it was his idea).

DAREDEVIL
Black…?

PUNISHER
It’s a funny story involving some big time plastic surgery. I’d tell you, but we aren’t exactly pals and we’re far too busy fighting each other on rooftops and in back alleys.

DAREDEVIL
We wouldn’t have to fight if you’d just see that the law is what’s best. You might see it as a form of mob mentality, but the fewest people get hurt.

PUNISHER
No. A lot of people get hurt. Far too many. It’s on TV, in the papers… it’s right in front of our eyes.

DAREDEVIL
But what makes you think that your alternative produces better results? You take so many lives!

PUNISHER
Only the lives of those who deserve to be killed.

DAREDEVIL
You were once studying to be a priest, Frank. What happened to the man who believed in the judgment of God? Doesn’t taking a life, no matter whose, disobey one of God’s most important laws?

PUNISHER
Ever the good little Catholic, Devil. As far as I’m concerned, God’s too slow. Besides, it’s not exactly like He dishes out the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

DAREDEVIL
You really have lost your faith, haven’t you?

PUNISHER
According to most religions, God only rewards those who serve their interpretation of Him. The rest burn. There are simply too few people who live up to the standards prescribed by any religious text. If God only serves those few, then how does he serve the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

DAREDEVIL
It all depends on how you look at things, I guess.

PUNISHER
The same could be said about our individual M.O.s.

DAREDEVIL
Frank… one day, it’s really all going to come down. Something big will happen. I’ll have to fight you for something bigger than my beliefs. When that day comes, it won’t be pretty, and I might not win, but I’ll die trying.

PUNISHER
Does that mean I live to fight another day?

DAREDEVIL
I’d never kill you, Frank. You’d always live to fight another die.

PUNISHER
That’s too bad, Daredevil. Believe me, if I felt that a vigilante had to go down, I’d kill him. Knowing what I am, I feel like killing myself every day.

DAREDEVIL
Not that I think you should, but why don’t you?

PUNISHER
Because, Matt, there are still people to be protected. And in order to protect them, I’ll always have to punish others. It’s the little bit of good that I do.

A (Philosophical) Critical Analysis of "Johnny the Homicidal Maniac"

In my junior year of high school, I took Philosophy as my IB Sixth Subject. For the grade from IB headquarters, we had to write a couple of things as well as take a test. One of the things I wrote was a "critical analysis" of a quaint little comic book from some years back called Johnny the Homicidal Maniac. Good book.

Now, seeing as how I haven't posted anything for a while, and a blog with the word "Comics" in the title has been lacking any postings about any comics, I've decided to re-hash that old piece of writing of mine.

Since then, I've learned a few more things about philosophy and such, but I'm just gonna let you read something a younger version of me wrote.

-----------------------------------------------

Johnen Vasquez’s “Johnny the Homicidal Maniac” is Vasquez’s way of being both entertaining and thoughtful. While the reader can find joy in the gore, violence, and foul language, he can also find within the dialogue examples of different philosophies.

In Part 4 of “Johnny the Homicidal Maniac”, the title character is shot in the head (by a gun-holding device of his own suicidal design). At the end of Part 5, Nny (the more affectionate name by which our villainous hero is known) dies. When he dies, the entire universe dissolves into nothingness. Can we say “Solipsism”?

Solipsism, of course, is the metaphysical position “that only I exist and that everything else is just a creation of my subjective consciousness.” This stems from Berkeley’s Idealism, and is in opposition to Locke’s Realism.

Solipsism can be considered somewhat abstract in that it goes against the widely shared belief that “the world exists and that’s that”. However, Solipsism is also a very logical position. It is the result of questioning the existence of anything beyond one’s own perception. If you cannot perceive something, then how do you truly know that it exists?

Solipsism is not the metaphysical position of the author, however. The author is not really trying to preach any philosophical beliefs in an imperative fashion; he is merely expressing his thoughts in his own artistic way. These thoughts just so happen to run the gamut from deep thinking (“You know, the idea that a thing exists solely to be the anchor point for all known things. The old thing about what happens to the world when you close your eyes!!”) to fantasies of violence (“Go find a cheerleader and saw her legs off.”). Johnen Vasquez offers us no philosophical imperatives, just questions and some speculative answers to those questions.

Solipsism cannot be represented without conversely representing Realism. While none of the characters in “Johnny the Homicidal Maniac” ever express anything resembling the metaphysical position of Realism, the position is brought to one’s mind simply because Solipsism is represented. Realism is also represented (and Solipsism possibly challenged) when, at the end of Part 6, Nny, after having literally gone through Hell, returns to Earth. Surprisingly, there is an Earth to return to. This can be seen as a challenge to Solipsism and an affirmation of Realism in that the universe did not really disappear when Nny died; it was there the whole time. One might think to argue that the world could have disappeared but simply returned when Nny did. This argument is not apt, however, because, shortly after he dies, he is the only person in line to enter either Heaven or Hell. Then again, it might be possible that Nny simply did not imagine (after his death) that any other people might have died. On the other hand (one hand of many, it seems), it’s likely that the universe did disappear; Nny’s universe, that is. The last panel of Part 5 shows a dying Nny lying on what’s left of his floor, surrounded by the darkness of a void. As far as Nny knows, the universe has indeed disappeared. After his excursions in Heaven and Hell, however, he no longer brings up the idea of Solipsism. The comic book ceases to hold any philosophical thought that regards the world or perception and only asks questions that hold merit on a personal level.

Since the book deals a lot with philosophy on the personal level, it must be filled at times with something resembling Existentialism. Nny is murderer; there’s no getting around it, that’s just what he is. However, he blames the deaths of his victims on their own actions. (“As for protecting the people, well that’s a bit of a paradox – at least from what I know. I’m sure that if you searched into the lives of some of these victims, you would find out that they, themselves, were the cause of their very deaths. In those cases, the so-called ‘victim’, at some earlier, played some part in the creation of their ‘killer’. I believe that the life ended was ended for the fact that it was wasted on something that would never evolve beyond the childish cruelty so many never cast off.”) He goes about the entire book complaining about people and the wrongs the commit on other people. Whenever he is made fun of by someone on the street or in a store because he dresses funny or has a weird haircut (he looks like someone who spends half of his time at Hot Topic and the other half reading “Sandman” comics and writing in his journal), he kidnaps the opinionated individual and proceeds to inflict upon him a gruesome death (i.e. running a scythe through a cheerleader’s throat because she and some friends giggled at him).

Nny’s Existentialist-like views are not limited to just other people -- Nny hates himself as much as anyone else. He hates the fact that he is human and subject to emotions, needs, and even the basest of bodily functions. If he hates his life so much, why does he simply not kill himself? He actually does “attempt” suicide several times within the first half of the books, he just fails because he is (1) distracted by a funny TV commercial, (2) there are no more bullets in the gun, or (3) he has forgotten to charge the battery of the taser. However, he does “succeed” in Part 4, when his device shoots him in the face, and he dies. His “second chance” is also displeasing to him, but now he does more than just gripe about it. At the end of the book, Nny decides to leave his current life, and eventually checks himself into a mental institution. While things don’t work out perfectly, the reader sees a man who recognizes that he is responsible for his own life, and he does his best to consciously take hold of the reins and better himself. Let it not be said, though, that Vasquez is preaching existentialism here. It must be remembered that Nny still remains a murderer, and his life, as far as the reader can see, is far from perfect.

In the end, Vasquez shows the reader a peek into the world of philosophy, but also remains faithful to the notion that he is more of an artist/entertainer than a philosopher. The reader is not supposed to take from this book a personal philosophy or set of beliefs, he is only supposed to think a little more about things, and, more importantly, laugh.

Yes Man

Not as stupid as I had assumed, but also not quite as funny as I'd hoped. Very entertaining, despite being riddled with holes of various sorts.

Jim Carrey is as enjoyable as ever, and this movie definitely has a lot of heart. While I've become a bigger fan of him as a dramatic actor (amazing in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), he does make me laugh, and even care, in this return to comedy.

The supporting cast definitely helps pull the whole thing off. Terrence Stamp is a genius and it's great that he's getting more and greater roles lately (also look for him in Valkyrie). It was good to see Danny Masterson (Hyde from "That 70s Show") doing some acting again.

Valkyrie

Pretty good. Not as visually stunning as the last trailer led me to believe (last trailer made it seem a lot like a Kubrick movie). Even though you know how it ends, it still manages to be quite suspenseful, and that's just good filmmaking.

Tom Cruise was Tom Cruise, and that always works just fine.

It was A-list cast as far as talent goes, even if most moviegoers won't think of those actors as big names.

Bryan Singer's directing was for the most part impeccable, as usual. He went over the top more than once, but some of the shots near the end are so beautiful that his few errors are entirely forgiven.

I recommend seeing it once, but I doubt I'll give it a repeat viewing.