2016 Year in Review

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

For the last month or so, I have seen memes popping up all over Facebook celebrating the fact that 2016 is about to end.  For many, the last year has been a slog through the worst; a horrible election, the death of so many accomplished musical and performing artists, shootings, riots; for these individuals, 2017 and a new start cannot come soon enough.  For me, though, 2016 has been a year like and unlike any other.  Yes, it had its shortfalls, and some of those have been awful, but it has also had its shining moments, its own delights and treasures.  This post is remember what 2016 has been about.  Be warned, this is my list, so I might miss some of the low-lights or highlights simply because I wasn’t interested in them and don’t remember them.  That being said, lets take a look back at 2016.

The Worst
Yes, is some ways, 2016 has been “the worst.”  The presidential election was sssooo long, sssooo full of mudslinging and corruption, that I was just glad it was over.  Except it wasn’t.  Because no matter what your political stripe, social media ensured that everyone had a platform to spew their own political venom at those who disagreed with them.  Overall, the whole process for like watching a badly acted Shakespearean tragedy: fascinating, painful, a bit hard to understand, and ultimately unfulfilling and leaving you wanting something different.

Following hard on the heels of the election came another of the “worsts” of 2016: the riots.  Some people called this events “protests,” but any protest that involves the destruction of private property and physical assault of other people is, in my opinion, not a protest, but a riot.  If the point you are trying to make in your protest is drowned out by the clang of firetrucks, and the cries on injured citizens, it is not an effective protest.  I don’t want to say much more on the subject, but ultimately, I think that these individuals did their cause more harm than good; stifling effective communication about their cause and grievances and alienating those they sought to “inform.”

On a lighter, but no less “the worst” note, the D.C. “cinematic universe,” also took a bit of a beating this year.  It started poorly with Batman V Superman, a film that was almost universally disliked because of its lack of understanding of its source material, poor script, weird casting, and visual un-originality.  While the film had its good moments (Affleck as Batman was actually a very good choice), it simply could not break past the roadblocks it created for itself.  This was followed up by the highly anticipated and hugely disappointing Suicide Squad.  The trailers for this film got everyone really excited; after the success of Deadpool, superhero movie fans were thrilled with the possibility of another antihero movie.  Unfortunately, Suicide Squad took all the wrong lesson s from both Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy, choosing to focus on action over character, and quirkiness over substantial plot.  The film hesitated to embrace the darkness of its characters, and instead tried to turn the antiheroes into true heroes, a step that undercut the very premise of the film.  Suicide Squad turn out to be another “eh” D.C. film in the growing “meh” D.C. cinematic universe.

This year we have also lost a number of celebrities.  Of particular note are the deaths of Muhammed Ali, Alan Rickman, Gene Wilder, Prince, and David Bowie.  Each of these men were giants in their particular fields, and the world will miss their contributions.  Even this late in the year, we are still mourning the continued loss of celebrity lights.  Over the last couple of days we have lost mother and daughter, Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher, whose work in Singing in the Rain and Star Wars respectively have been a major influence on my childhood.  While death is a part of life, and all things come to an end, it has been difficult to see so many amazing talents cut off, many of them “before their time.” 2016 has, in many ways, been a year of mourning.

This last one is a bit of a personal “worst,” but the San Francisco 49ers have been absolutely terrible this year.  With a win/loss record of 2/13, this year for the 49ers has been defined by shoddy defense, poor tackling, and and an utter lack of motivation.  The situation has not been helped by the spotlight on Colin Kaepernick for his refusal to stand for the national anthem.  While I understand and uphold his right as an American to protest, I think his decision to do so has been selfish and shortsighted, and served only to polarize people instead of opening up channels of conversation.  It has also distracted from the team’s poor performance, and I think that as a professional, being paid very good money to play a game, it would behoove the team in the future to focus more on doing their jobs and winning football games and less on making political statements.

The Best
For all the crummy things in 2016, there have been some highlights too.  The Marvel Universe introduced two fantastic installments this year; Captain America: Civil War, and Dr. Strange.  Both of these films were engaging, action packed, with good stories, incredible acting, and awesome visuals.  Not only were these new installments well constructed, but they also gave room for Marvel’s T.V. properties to head some new and interesting directions as well.  Netflix’s Luke Cage, while not quite as brilliant as Netflix’s Daredevil, brought some really interesting dynamics and themes to the street level heroes of New York, along with dealing critically with the complicated nature of gang violence, race and police tensions, and the morality of vigilante “justice.”  Particularly compelling was the portrayal of a bulletproof African American superhero, in light of renewed tensions between people of color and police and new accusations of police brutality.  Also of note in the Marvel Extended Universe is the most recent season of Agents of Shield.  While the show has consistently struggled with maintaining a sense of direction as the various films pull the series in different directions, the most recent season has made excellent use of the latest forays in the M.C.U.; embracing both the complicated morality of Civil War and the Zerkovia Accords, and the addition of magic as a relevant factor in the M.E.U.  Particularly interesting has been the addition of the character of the Ghost Rider, Robbie Reyes to the team, along with Ava, an android that (spoilers) has read the dark magic book “The Darkhold,” and has basically become a “scientific sorceress” if I may coin the term.  It is really cool to see the show dealing with this concept of “magic as science” that has been such a consistent factor in the M.U., in light of the addition of Dr. Strange to the canon.  There is an awesome tension between the strictly rational characters like Fitz, Simmons, and even Ava herself, and the impossible circumstances of the Ghost Rider and the power and nefarious intent of “the Darkhold.”  I am very much looking forward to seeing the series continue in this direction next year, and I am looking forward to the new projects that Marvel has coming up.

While the D.C. cinematic universe made it into the “worsts” of 2016, the D.C. television universe (or “Arrow-verse”) has definitely been a highlight.  As the C.W. has added more and wider ranging shows to their universe, the clever combination of camp, earnestness, and action has been more than enough to win over audiences.  2016 saw the addition of two more shows to the Arrow-verse (previously composed of Arrow and The Flash); Supergirl, which premiered on CBS but moved to the CW at the beginning of the fall season, and Legends of Tomorrow, a Dr. Who? meets Firefly meets The Avengers style time travel romp with equal parts campiness and heart.  Between the four shows, D.C. definitely has something to be proud of.  The Flash is, arguably, the best superhero show on television right now, defined by interesting and likable characters tackling the absurd situations inherent to a comic book universe with compassion and humor.  Although the show waxes melodramatic at times, the tone generally fits with the (rather silly) comic book style, and the way The Flash has totally embraced its own absurdity is one of its great charms.  Arrow maintains a slightly more serious tone in keeping with the show’s darker history, but is also moving toward the more traditional “comic book,” feel.  Introduction of new characters this season has changed up the dynamic on “Team Arrow,” allowing for new developments in the old characters and explorations of more mature themes like how to be a good leader, and the consequences of one’s actions.  Supergirl is, as one would expect, a much more peppy and upbeat show, that emphasizes the importance of negotiation and empathy as tools for saving the world as much as superpowers.  The show has a uniquely feminine quality to it, as it centers around the relationship between Kara Danvers (Supergirl), and her adoptive sister Alex.  Many of the recurring villains have been female as well, which creates a really cool and different dynamic in the testosterone laden realm of super-heroics.  While the show has a slight tendency to get political, particularly in its feminism, the upbeat atmosphere and always hopeful Kara are enough to keep me coming back for more.  Rounding out the Arrow-verse is Legends of Tomorrow, a show about a group of time traveling superheroes galavanting through history, protecting it from the manipulations of “time pirates,” super-villains looking to alter history for their own nefarious purposes.  While the show sometimes gets bogged down by its overly complicated plots and occasionally underwhelming effects, for the most part it is an enjoyable, philosophically interesting, and entertaining show.  Some of the cast struggle in their performances (I personally cannot stand Hawkgirl and Hawkman from season one), but it is more than made up for by the excellent performances of most of the rest of the cast.  Arthur Darvill is brilliant as Captain Rip Hunter, a Time Master who recruits the other heroes on his mission to restore justice to the timeline.  Other standouts are Wentworth Miller and Dominic Purcell as Captain Cold and Heat Wave.  These two have a very obvious chemistry that comes from their previous work together on Prison Break, and they bring a delightfully anti-heroic, disrespectful humor to the otherwise straight-laced ensemble.  Although Miller had to leave the regular cast at the end of the first season, he is scheduled to appear in a number of episodes on all four shows in the Arrow-verse over the course of the season, and I am certainly looking forward to his return.  Despite its flaws, Legends of Tomorrow has quickly become one of my favorite shows, and was one of the highlights of 2016.

Not to nerd out too much, but people also forget we got a new Harry Potter book this year.  Cursed Child came out in July and provided what people have been speculating about for years; canon on what happened to Harry after his 7 years at Hogwarts.  Not only that, we got a new film in the Wizarding World; Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and tons of cool new information about Wizarding in America; history of Ilvermorny school, the houses, new sorting tests, and tons of new world-building information about this story that millions of people have come to know and love.  It may not be a big thing, but learning more about the history, geography, and biology of the Wizarding world of Harry Potter has definitely been a highlight of 2016.

This year has not only been a good year in film and television, but in athletics as well.  This year we watched in awe as men and women from around the world came to Rio to celebrate the ancient tradition of peaceful competition and nationalism at the Olympic games.  We in the United States cheered the amazing performances of the women’s gymnastic team, of various members of our swim team, of our volleyball, basketball, soccer, water polo players, and applauded the efforts and strength of athletes from dozens of countries around the world.  The Olympic games are a celebration of humanity, of the strength and courage that transcends national boundaries, of commitment and discipline that pushes individuals to become the best in the world at a sport.

The Unknown
I saw an interesting post on Facebook the other day, which said, “We do not know when great talent is born, only when it passes.  Let us hope that 2016 has been a year, not only of great deaths, but of births.”  I love this post, because it places life in perspective.  We do not yet know which incredible writers, actors, singers, world leaders, ministers, athletes, and artists of 2016 will be yet, but there is certainly much to look forward too.  Similarly, regardless of how you wanted the election to go, we do not yet know whether the election of Donald Trump will be a best or a worse of 2016.  All we can do as we close the year is look to the future, and hope that it is brighter than the past.  I look into 2017, and I am filled with excitement; new Netflix shows like the second season of Stranger Things or the introduction of Iron Fist and The Defenders.  A new season of Prison Break.  Musical crossover episodes of The Flash and Supergirl.  New properties from the MCU like Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2, Spiderman: Homecoming, and Thor: Ragnarok.  The next Star Wars installment, Wonder Woman, new episodes of Sherlock.  The list goes on, and these are just the things I know about.  What wonderful surprises; new books, songs, athletic events, viral videos, or changes in governments might come with the new year?  As I look back on 2016, I see a year of the anticipated and the unexpected, a year of both great joy and terrible sadness.  But that is life, and as I look into 2017 I see the same; loss and gain, happiness and sorrow, a mixed bag that is made so much more interesting because we don’t know what it will ultimately be like.  So as we come to the end of the year, look back on the good along with the bad.  Remember the highs and the lows, so that we can be prepared to rise and fall again with 2017.

Some Post-Election Thoughts

Dear Readers,

Well, the election is over.  The new president has been showing, and to the astonishment (and chagrin) of many, it is Donald J. Trump who has claimed victory.  I have spent a fair bit of time over the last year writing my thoughts on the election.  Those of you who have been following me consistently know that Mr. Trump was not my first (or even my fifteenth) choice for president, but for all that, the people have spoken.  I wanted to use this first political post after the election to address everyone… the people who are disappointed, the people who are thrilled, the people who are protesting, the pundits proclaiming the peril of the President-Elect’s “chaotic transition team.”  I am going to try to present a balanced alternative to the strident divisiveness that has fragmented my country (and frankly, the world).

DON’T PANIC!
Oftentimes, when the internet seems to be exploding with the next world ending political disaster, Douglas Adam’s comes to me speaking words of wisdom and comfort; “DON’T PANIC!” Anyone who loves science fiction and fantasy knows, to their deeply abiding comfort, that apocalypses come and go, and the world keeps spinning (more or less).  Yeah, things get hard for a time, but hard times end.  To quote Lord of The Rings, “Even darkness must pass, and when the sun shines out, it will shine all the clearer.”  The world is not going to end because one man, even a man as fallen and imperfect as Donald Trump, gets elected.  We have had good presidents and bad presidents, and one thing has remained consistent… America continues.  Each side believes that the election of the candidate they oppose will result in the destruction of our country, and each election they are proven wrong as presidents follow each other in the peaceful transfer of power, resulting in a diversity of governments and perspectives that provides a balance for our nation.

It is on this concept of the peaceful transition of power that I want to focus.  In my experience, the panic that ensues when the candidate of “the wrong party” gets elected has a way of highlighting the fractured values of our country.  Because whenever a liberal is elected, conservatives cry, “Woe is me… how can we stop our country from becoming a socialist dictatorship?” and every time a conservative is elected, liberals cry, “Woe is me! How can we stop our country from becoming a fascist dictatorship?”  What each side fails to recognize is the value that the other has to offer.  Liberalism is defined by a heart for the wellbeing of people; a desire to see people be treated fairly, equally, with respect, especially people who have been marginalized in the past.  As a conservative, I see the value of their perspective.  There needs to be well intentioned radicals pushing against those things in our society that we view as normal, but which are, in fact, oppressive.  BUT.  There is always a “but” here… conservatives have something to offer too.  Not all the institutions that exist need or deserve to be destroyed; indeed, some institutions perpetuate because they are necessary or beneficial.  The conservative’s job is to conserve… to preserve the status quo from total disruption in order to maintain those institutions deserving of continuation.  Both liberalism and conservatism have their function within society; both serve a critical role in maintaining the stability of the nation and allowing it to continue on a path of improvement.

It is this perspective of liberalism and conservatism as balancing forces that informs my perspective on President Elect Trump.  For the last eight years we have had policies informed by a liberal agenda.  As such, we have had radical changes in healthcare, in the legality of gay marriage and of marijuana, and in our foreign and domestic policy.  Those changes have been representative of a little over half the population of America, particularly those of the urban, coastal states.  However, the opinions of the more conservative, rural states (and parts of states) have been underrepresented in the last eight years.  Donald Trump’s election swings the pendulum back toward the other side of the spectrum.  It is a push back against recklessly radical policies that have endangered those institutions that conservatives value and believe are worth saving.  That being said, Donald Trump is, in many ways, a less radical option than many liberals would have people believe.  For many years, Trump was a Democrat.  He has been honored for his work promoting racial equality, and he has demonstrated a businessman’s acumen for choosing employees on the basis of their qualifications, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.  While traditional Republican candidates ascribe to Evangelical Christian values, and have a tendency to promote social and religious conservatism (e.g. pro-life, anti gay marriage), Trump ran on a policy of fiscal and governmental conservatism.  He did not win by saying he would overturn Roe V. Wade, but by claiming he would reform policies that were ineffective, that he would enforce the laws of the land (i.e. illegal immigration- it’s not about racism, its about legality), and that he would fight against the systemic corruption in the government.  In choosing Donald Trump, Americans were not gravitating toward the most radical conservative candidate, but toward the candidate that would not oppose many of the liberal reforms the previous administration made, but who would instead be able to create effective policies that WORK!  Donald Trump’s election is not America backsliding in to racist, misogynist, homophobic hysteria, but instead is America asking for effective policies; healthcare that works, enforcement of the laws of the land in regard to immigration, a tax code that is simple and promotes economic growth, more people working, and more people working full time jobs with benefits instead of working multiple part time jobs to barely stay afloat.  America looked at a successful businessman, a man who was not immersed in the systemic corruption of the established government, a man who was unafraid to promote fiscal and political conservatism, even under the threat of liberal backlash, and the American people decided that this was a healthy, balanced direction for the nation after eight years of liberal policies.

To Summarize
The world is not going to end because the pendulum swings from liberal to conservative and back again.  The new president deserves a chance to implement policy and see the consequences of those policies before we condemn him as incompetent.  In his cabinet, he has made choices that liberals do not like; that is his right as the president elect.  Conservatives were not happy with President Obama’s choices either… get over it! The sky is not falling, the world will continue to spin, and who knows? The choices the president elect has made might end up being brilliant, they might do a good job.  Give them, and the president elect a chance to succeed or fail on their own merits, not on the basis of conjecture, panic, or political self aggrandizing.

Well, back to reality!

A Strange Review (C’mon, you know I had to do it)!

Dear Readers,
Sorry this review was a bit delayed… I was planning on getting it out a couple of weeks ago, but I just kept having ideas that I wanted to cover, so this review is both late and massive.  Enjoy!

Alright, I am going to be completely honest with you; I went and saw Dr. Strange 3 times opening week.  To put that in perspective, the only two movies I have wanted to see twice all year have been Captain America: Civil War, and Star Trek: Beyond.  Of those two, the only one I was able to see a second time was Star Trek.  So that gives you a bit of an idea about how much I liked this movie.  For those of you looking for a review to tell you whether or not to go see it, read on to the end of this paragraph, and then go watch it and come back later.  The movie was highly enjoyable; the characters were likable, the story (while not entirely original) had some really interesting developments, and the visuals were beyond amazing.  Every reviewer I have read or seen talking about this movie has mentioned the fantastic visual spectacle.  Normally, I am not one to be blown away by a cool looking movie (I tend to prefer films with plot and character), but in this case, I can actually say that the visuals alone make this movie worth seeing (although, as I mentioned earlier, the plot and character were very good as well).  Go see it, invite your friends, go see it again, and then come back for the rest of this analysis.

OK.  Now that we have all seen the movie, a second warning about this review.  As the title mentioned, this one is going to be a bit… well… Strange.  I have such a kaleidoscope of thoughts about this movie, and how it relates in my mind to…just about everything, that I have decided to go a bit stream on consciousness with this one.  So forgive me for the tangents, the rabbit trails, the nonsequiters, and the run on thoughts; I just can’t narrow this review down to one thing.  If that sounds like your cup of tea, then, allonsy (Hey, we are taking about magical doctors saving the world… I had to get at least one Dr. Who? reference in!).

The Thick Plottens
OK, so right off the bat, I want to address what I think is the weakest part of the film; the plot.  As I mentioned in my introduction, the plot for this movie is not exactly the most original, even in the Marvel universe.  Most people I have spoken with, watched, or read agree that the plot to this movie is basically the first Iron Man movie, but with magic.  That is a fair assessment; Dr. Stephen Strange is an arrogant, wealthy jerk, who delights in making those around him look foolish, who goes through a traumatic event that changes him from a wisecracking jerk to a hero capable of saving the world. Add to that (SPOILERS) a wise mentor figure who is brutally killed, and a supposed friend turned foe, and Dr. Strange begins to look a lot like his brilliant, arrogant, wealthy, wise-cracking, goatee sporting Marvel counterpart.  That being said, there are some critical differences that I think make this movie more than just “Iron Man Lite.”  The first is Benedict Cumberbatch.  It would be very easy for a lesser actor, given the same lines and the same script to simply come across as an Iron Man counterpart, however, Cumberbatch is able to bring to his delivery a subtlety and charm that are completely lacking in Robert Downey Jr.’s performance.  I didn’t just like him because he was clever and funny (like Iron Man), but because his struggles seemed altogether human.  There is a moment, early in the film where he blows up and says some pretty horrible things to his not-girlfriend, Christine Palmer.  In Tony Stark, this moment would serve merely to highlight his arrogance and utter lack of personal responsibility, but the sheer viciousness Cumberbatch brings in the moment makes him seem like a cornered, wounded animal, not an arrogant ass who has been knocked off his pedestal and wants it back.  Cumberbatch’s portrayal makes Strange much more human than Tony Stark,  because he is much more relatable.  Very few (I would hazard to guess none) of us has ever had the experience of being a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist, or the world’s greatest neurosurgeon, and then losing it all.  But we have all known that it was like to feel useless, to want to make a difference, to be afraid of failing.  This is the subtlety that Cumberbatch brings to the role, and why (in my humble opinion), Dr. Strange, for all its apparent lack of originality, is actually the better story than Iron Man.

There is also something to be said for the way this movie ends.  In most superhero movies, the hero encounters a seemingly unbeatable foe, and one of the delights of the film is figuring out how the weaker character can best their powerful adversary.  We all feel like the underdogs in our own stories, and it is cathartic to see the little guy win.  But Dr. Strange does something a bit different.  Sure, you have a hero taking on a massively powerful opponent, and emerging on the other side victorious, despite all odds, but how that happens is one of the most interesting and compelling parts of the story.  Dr. Strange defeats his enemy, Dormammu, by LOSING! He (spoilers), traps himself in a never ending time loop with Dormammu, where he is killed over and over again by the Lord of the Dark Dimension.  In keeping his foe trapped with him in and endless battle, he also keeps him from destroying the earth.  When Dormammu states in shock “You cannot win!”  Strange replies, in perhaps the most powerful line of the movie, “No, but I can lose forever, and that makes you my prisoner.” (More on the showdown with Dormammu later).  This is a totally different approach to victory than what we have seen in past Marvel movies, and it fits perfectly with the outlook of the movie.  When Strange initially comes to the Ancient One to learn magic, she tells him he has to surrender control to gain control.  Strange shoots back, “That doesn’t make any sense,” to which she replies “Not everything has to.”  The greatest strength of the plot of this movie is the conviction with which it approaches paradox; sometimes the only way to win is to lose, sometimes the only way to control is surrender.

One last word before I move on to other aspects of the film.  As with any science fiction, fantasy, comic book, action, adventure movie, there are a number of small (or slightly larger) plot-holes that can cause a problem for the viewer.  In the case of Dr. Strange, most of these center around the total lack of security the mystical world seems to have.  Powerful spellbooks are guarded by easily removable iron chains and ONE librarian.  Powerful sanctums that protect the world from magical attack are guarded by ONE master.  The all the sorcerers with all the relics fail to stop attackers who are later thwarted by the neophyte, Strange.  It just seems like if the future of the world depends so much upon the safety of these books and sanctums, there would be a greater competence in protecting them.  But, overall, this wasn’t too big an issue, and there are some things you just let slide because… hey, it’s a superhero movie.

Character is Critical
One of the strongest elements of Dr. Strange is the relatable and likable characters.  I already mentioned Benedict Cumberbatch’s strong performance.  While there is no shortage of wise cracking, arrogant geniuses in film and television (Cumberbatch himself has played a few), it was a rare pleasure to have such a character be genuinely likable.  Such characters are often enjoyable to watch, but you wouldn’t want to hang out with them.  Dr. Stephen Strange’s arrogance hides both a great concern for other people which makes him genuinely likable, and a deep seated fear of failure which makes him compelling.  He uses humor as a shield to protect himself from the threats around him, sarcastically wounding others to prevent himself from being wounded.  There is a veracity to this character that is not often seen in superhero film; he seems like a real person, reacting to the impossible situations around him.

The biggest surprise for me character wise was Tilda Swinton’s portrayal of the Ancient One.  Having seen Swinton in a few other movies, I had no concerns about her being able to portray the wisdom mentor figure.  What I was surprised by was the levity that she mixed with gravity in her performance.  In her first encounter with Dr. Strange, the Ancient One matches him quip for quip, throwing his own sarcastic comments back at him with the full force of an ancient master.  There is a depth, and complexity to her portrayal that is often lacking in mentor figures; she is occasionally uncertain, she listens to advice from those around her, and (very rarely) she is wrong.  It was refreshing to see a mentor who struggled, who did not have all the answers, but who was still wise and powerful and integral to the story.

Also a delight was the cast of supporting characters.  Chiwetel Eiiofor was excellent as Mordo; mentor/friend turned eventual nemesis by the end of the story.  While the greater focus of the story was (obviously) on Dr. Strange, we got some interesting development of the relationship between the friends turned enemies.  Mordo is presented as a strong, steady force for natural law.  His lack of flexibility is ultimately his undoing, but it is also what makes him such a powerful force for good in the movie, allowing him to serve as a moral compass for the much more flexible Stephen Strange.  Eiiofor strikes a hard balance in portraying a character who (most of the audience knew) would turn evil, and still keeping him likable and relatable.  The dynamic between Mordo and Strange is, in some ways reminiscent of that between Captain America and Tony Stark; in a pivotal scene between the two, Strange remarks of Mordo, “You lack imagination,” to which Mordo heatedly replies, “No Stephen; you lack a spine!”  This almost directly parallels the confrontation between Stark and Cap in Avengers, “The only thing you really fight for is yourself. You're not the guy to make the sacrifice play, to lay down on a wire and let the other guy crawl over you.” Tony Stark: “I think I would just cut the wire.” Steve Rogers: “Always a way out... You know, you may not be a threat, but you better stop pretending to be a hero.”  This similarity in the dynamic between the characters will be interesting to see play out in future films, where Mordo’s strict view of right and wrong will be greatly contrasted with Strange’s willingness to experiment and play with the grey edges of morality to accomplish his goals.

While less developed, Rachel McAdams as Christine Palmer and Benedict Wong as Wong were also a joy to watch.  McAdams’ Palmer is exactly what one would expect a post Avengers doctor to be.  While Strange is entirely skeptical about the possibility of magic, Christine Palmer goes from shock to business in no time flat.  While her lack of “freaking out” seems a bit boring at first, the no nonsense approach is completely understandable in a New York Doctor who lived through the events of the first Avengers movie.  After seeing aliens coming through a portal in the sky, and a guy with a magic hammer fighting a dude with a magic spear, it is entirely probable that Christine would be more focused on doing her job than worrying about something that she does not currently understand.  Hopefully, this is the kind of reaction that we will see more of in the Marvel Universe.  Instead of characters that immediately freak out or assume the worst about the people who are different or dangerous around them, to have instead characters that look at something outside the scope of their experiences, says, “huh, that’s weird,” and then goes back to doing their job because lives depend on it.  It was refreshing and fun.  Similarly, Benedict Wong’s character, Wong was also highly entertaining.  Mostly there for comic relief, the Master of the Mystic arts also demonstrates a great deal of historical knowledge, and walks the path between Strange and Mordo; demonstrating a desire to uphold the laws of nature, while at the same time recognizing the complicated necessities that might require one to break those laws.  I am definitely looking forward to seeing the character grow into a mentor and friend figure for Strange in future films.

Meh Marvel Villain is Slightly Less Meh Than Usual
One consistent problem with the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been its villains.  Over the course of a dozen films, there has only been one exceptional villain (Loki).  The rest have been a grab bag of interchangeable religious nut jobs (Red Skull, Malekith, Ronin the Destroyer, and Ultron), mad scientists/businessmen (that guy from Ant Man, and all of Tony Stark’s villains), and shadowy entities/organizations (Hydra and Thanos).  While Mads Mikkelsen’s villain Kaecilius, stills fits Marvel’s favorite villain cliche (the religious whacko), Mikkelsen’s performance brings a little bit of subtlety to an otherwise bland and recognizable stereotype.

One of the things that makes or breaks a villain is how he relates to the hero.  The best villains (e.g. the Batman villain of your choice) tend to be interesting in the ways that they are similar to the heroes they oppose.  One of Marvel’s biggest issues with villains is giving us “bad guys” that have absolutely nothing in common with our heroes, who don’t share motivations or perspectives on reality that would complicate the hero’s dilemma.  Kaecilius is different.  He is very similar to Dr. Strange; so similar, in fact, that the Ancient One is at first reluctant to teach Strange because he reminds her of Kaecilius.  In their first real conversation with each other, Kaecilius echoes Strange’s earlier assertion that human beings are nothing more than “insignificant specks in an uncaring universe.”  Kaecilius is seeking what he views as the ultimate good; to banish death, to eliminate difference, and to lead earth into an eternity of peace and “oneness.”  For a hero like Dr. Strange, a man who took an oath to save lives, and whose career consisted of fighting against death on a daily basis, to hear the proclamation, “Death is an insult!” throws into confusion his perspectives on his own beliefs about death, and on the training he has received from the Ancient One.  Mikkelsen’s portrayal also confounds the problem, because unlike many of the “religious” villains we have in Marvel, he brings passion to the character’s belief.  Not just the passion of anger or self righteousness, but grief; Kaecilius’ conversation with Dr. Strange culminates in an impassioned plea for the righteousness of his cause, complete with tears of at the injustice of death.  This is something we do not see in Marvel villains; total, unwavering belief in the rightness of his cause.  Most Marvel villains delight in being evil; they seem to have a really good time being really really bad.  But this is a villain who believes, with all of his mind and all of his emotions, that he cause is just.  He is misguided, yes, but his intentions are not selfish, but selfless.

Of course, except for this single scene between Kaecilius and Dr. Strange, we are really not given enough information about the character for him to truly break out of “meh Marvel villain” mold.  We don’t know anything about the events that have led Kaecilius to the path he is on, the choices he or the Ancient One made that drove him to Dormammu.  In the end, while we get a glimpse of an interesting character, there is simply not enough time devoted to Kaecilius to allow him to develop into a truly interesting villain.

What Am I Looking At?
One of the best parts of this movie were the stunning visuals.  Having seen the trailers, I knew I was in for a couple mind-trippy scenes, but I was in no way prepared for the sheer variety of visual spectacles that I was in for.  The effects range from Inception like reality warping; folding, bending, and breaking a complex city-scape, to Matrix style fight scenes in which mind dominates over mere physical strength, to a more lighthearted astral (ghost) fistfight, an inter-dimensional rollercoaster that is a surrealist’s dream, and fantastic final fight scene that gloriously plays with the time paradoxes the film sets up in two different confrontations.  Every time I thought I had figured out what the film’s creators were trying to do visually, they added another element, another complication, another beautiful layer that kept drawing me deeper and deeper into the visual spectacle.

Normally, as I said earlier, I am not the kind of person to go wild for special effects.  The visuals of Dr. Strange, however, are just so well done, so detailed, so diverse, and so perfect for the story that I was overwhelmed.

It Themes at Times…
One of the most interesting parts of the film was the theme of time and the importance that time plays in human existence.  This is symbolized in the course of the film by the various watches that appear.  The first watch we see comes right at the beginning when Dr. Strange is performing surgery.  He is intensely focused on his patient, and he acerbically demands that a fellow doctor cover his watch so that he will not be distracted by it.  Thematically, this introduces us to Strange’s perspective on time… time, the slow ticking on toward death, is an obstacle on the path to healing or to life.  By covering the watch, Strange is symbolically manipulating time, stopping its progress long enough to halt this particular case of entropy and hold off death a little longer.

The next occasion on which we see the watch symbolism is when Dr. Strange is getting ready to head off to his speaking engagement.  He opens a drawer filled with watches, selects one, and carefully puts it on.  Again, we see the Doctor demonstrating his control over time… he chooses the watch; symbolically, he chooses the moment, the time.  This control is only illusory, however, and is immediately shattered by Strange’s car accident.  this accident takes away Strange’s use of his hands, and consequently, his ability to exercise control over death, life, and time.

This shattering of Strange’s control is echoed by the breaking of his watch, the “only thing he has left” when he arrives at Kamar Taj.  A completely broken man, Strange begins to regain the control he used to have through his study of magic.  The quote on the broken watch becomes important because it establishes a new goal for Strange, and a  new relationship and understanding with time.  The watch, which was given to him by his former lover, Christine Palmer, is inscribed, “Time will tell my love for you.”  In this new perspective, time is not an enemy to be silenced and held back, but the very medium which allows for life to be lived.  As the Ancient One later comments, “Death is what gives life meaning; to know your days are numbered, your time is short.”  Time is not Strange’s enemy anymore, to be controlled and governed, but instead his ally, which is symbolized by him choosing to put on the shattered watch.

When Kaecilius confronts Dr. Strange with the assertion that Time and Death are the enemy of humanity, he is presenting him with his old opinion, the allure of his old sense of control.  By joining with Kaecilius and Dormammu, Strange would effectively be covering the watch for good; breaking the control that time has over humanity.  But Stephen has grown enough to recognize that time is a good thing, that “Time will tell…” what gives life meaning.  Although he is still tempted by the promise of life without death, of a world outside of time, he rejects Kaecilius’ offer, thereby gaining the “control through surrender” that is at the heart of magic in the story.

This is symbolized by his use of the Eye of Agamotto in the final confrontation with Dormammu.  Recognizing the value and power of time, Strange uses the power of the Eye to create a time loop, symbolized by a band around his wrist (like a watch).  In Dormammu’s dark dimension, which exists outside of time, the loop represents time and meaning.  Each time Dr. Strange dies, therefore, the loop resets, time giving death meaning by keeping Dormammu bound in his own dimension, away from Earth.  Not only does Strange’s repeated death give life on earth meaning, but “time tells” how much he loves… enough to die a myriad of painful ways in order to protect the world he cares about (a bit more on repeat dying later).

The theme draws to a conclusion with the film, when we have Strange standing in the New York Sanctum, again putting on the broken wrist watch.  Although his concept of time has been radically redefined, Strange is now able to comfortably incorporate concepts of brokenness, death, and their relationship with time into his perspective.  Having come full circle, he neither shuns nor dreads the role that time will play in his life, which enables him to look out on the world around him with calm and power.


Dying Only to Die Again
Before I wrap up, I want to come back to my favorite part of the film.  Dr. Strange flies into Dormammu’s Dark Dimension, and calls on him to bargain.  Dormammu immediately kills the interloper, only to discover that the Doctor has used the Eye of Agamotto to create a time loop that traps the two of them in a perpetual cycle of death and return.  Strange dies time and again; keeping Dormammu trapped until he is willing to give in to Strange’s demands.

There is something visceral about seeing a character die over and over and over again.  There are generally two types of character death cycles; those that trap the character, and those that the character chooses.  Groundhog Day, and the Supernatural episode "Mystery Spot" are both examples of instances where the character is trapped repeating the same day over again.  In both cases, the endless cycle, the unchanging days result in (at least temporarily) insanity.  There is a madness to being trapped in an endless loop with no indication of how to break out and no way to change their world.  Every action they take is essentially useless, as it is all undone when they wake up again in the morning, the day they just lived once again looming ahead of them. 

The second kind of death cycle is much more interesting and compelling.  These are characters who are caught in some kind of loop, and choose, over and over again, to die for a specific cause.  The two major examples I can think of are “Heaven Sent,” an episode of Doctor Who? (hey, we came back to it!) in which the Doctor is imprisoned in a Time Lord interrogation chamber.  Instead of giving his captors what they want, the Doctor figures out where he is and what is going on.  He is separated from his TARDIS by a wall of impenetrable crystal.  Each time he reaches the wall, he reaches out, punches the wall, and then is shot.  Dying, he drags himself back to a teleportation room, where he reconfigures his molecules, essentially being “reborn” with no memory of the event, and no knowledge of how he got there.  The fascinating thing about this episode is, even though the wall is supposed to be impenetrable, as the days turn to years turn to centuries turn to millennia turn to eons, the wall is gradually ground away, and eventually, billions of lives and years into the future, the Doctor is able to break through.  The other example of a character choosing repeated death is from the episode “The Librarians: and the Point of Salvation” from (obviously), The Librarians.  In this episode, the explosion of a prototype computer merges with a video game, trapping the show’s protagonists in a living zombie escort mission (I know, I know. it’s crazy and corny, and I love it).  Ezekiel Jones, the main protagonist for this episode, is forced to watch himself and his friends die over and over as he tries to find a way to beat the game and escape.  No one else remembers what happens in the previous attempts of the game, so he takes the lead, using hundreds of repetitions to learn physics, engineering, martial arts in an attempt to beat the level and get his friends out alive.  What is so compelling about both examples is that, even though the characters are trapped, they manage to keep their sanity by focusing on something larger than their own pain.  The Doctor knows that people will be hurt if he gives up the information he knows to the Time Lords, and Ezekiel knows that if he fails, he and his friends will be trapped in the game simulation forever.  It is their concern for others that allows them to endure eternities of suffering without giving up.

This is what makes the time look in Dr. Strange so powerful, and so compelling for us as viewers.  In this loop, we have Dormammu, the ultimate self interested.  He wants only to consume the worlds around him, to take possession of each part of the multiverse and subdue it to his will.  He is the antipathy of individuality and personhood (a fact demonstrated by his minions, the “mindless ones”).  His only concern in the time loop is for the inconvenience it causes him.  He has all the power… he can torture Strange, blot him out in an instant, toy with him like a cat with a mouse, but ultimately, there is nothing Dr. Strange can do to save his own life.  Yet, for all his power, his selfishness makes Dormammu vulnerable to madness that unending repetition brings.  While Strange is made to suffer, he is triumphant, treating the pain as “an old friend,” and embracing the consistency, the repetition that protects the world he cares for.  Strange is able to endure constant, repeated torment and death because he is serving a greater good.  I find it believable that Dr. Strange endured much more torment than we are treated to in the film.  Can you imagine how many repetitions it took for Dormammu to realize that nothing he did, no creative way of killing Strange changed the outcome of their fight?  How many of repetitions before he realized that Strange had won the fight by losing?  How many hundreds of deaths Strange would have endured as Dormammu vented his unspent frustration in finding new and creative ways to torture the doctor?  In a line cut from the final version of the film, Strange comments, “We have been over this a thousand times.”  Death and pain are familiar friends to Dr. Strange because they are what give life meaning (in this case, they literally give life to the world he is protecting).

I’m getting philosophical/theological here, but I find it fascinating and beyond cool that for Dr. Strange, “ultimate meaning” comes, not from the pursuit of the self, but from self denial!  When Strange is focused on himself; on how much money he can make, on whether he can heal his hands, on how great a sorcerer he can be, he is at his least powerful.  By caring for others around him, his patients, his friends, the Ancient One, he is able to break through the barriers in his way and accomplish amazing things.  And the movie ends with another sacrifice.  As the victorious Strange is shown standing in the New York sanctum, we see that his hands still shake.  If he channeled his magic into his body, he could steady his hands and go back to being a surgeon.  Instead, however, he chooses to sacrifice his illustrious career, the only thing that used to give his life meaning, and continue down a path of pain and suffering because it is “another way to help people,” a way to truly give significance to his existence.

Wrap it up Already!
So I know that was a really long post.  Seriously… I have written graduate school essays that were shorter.  But I had a number of different ideas I wanted to hit on, and the words kept coming.  Those of you who made it all the way to the end… CONGRATULATIONS!  I don’t know that I would have had your fortitude reading anyone else's post.  Hopefully next month I will keep things a bit shorter, maybe do more of a Rants and Raves style (after all, I am looking forward to seeing Magical Beasts and Where to Find Them, and Star Wars: Rogue One, along with some T.V. shows that I want to review).  I also might do a political post at the start of the month… after all, I have been noticeably silent on politics since the presidential elections, so you might be getting some thoughts on that.  Also, at the end of December, I am going to try for a “2016 Year in Review” post, so keep an eye out for my thoughts on the highs and lows of the last 12 months.  It is crazy to think that the year is almost over!

Anyway, back to reality!

SUPERNATURAL: Concerning the British Men of Letters

Dear Readers,

You are in for a bit of a treat today, because this post is a bit of everything.  I am going to be doing a review of the latest season of a popular T.V. show, but I am also going to incorporate some political, philosophical, and ethical musings as well.  For those of you who don’t like my political or theological reviews, please come back a bit later this month for my review of the latest Marvel superhero film, Dr. Strange (And boy, do I have a lot to say about that one).  For the rest of you, read on, bearing in mind that there will be spoilers for the T.V. show Supernatural.

For those of you who have had your head under a proverbial rock for the last twelve years, who have never been on social media (particularly Tumblr), and who have no idea what Supernatural is, I congratulate you.  It is very very hard to get that far off the grid.  Supernatural follows two brothers, Sam and Dean Winchester, whose father raised them to hunt and kill monsters.  Every week, the boys encounter some sort of supernatural threat; ghosts, vampires, demons, angels, or any of a hundred other monsters.  They proceed to investigate the threat, identifying the creature and its weaknesses, and the episode generally ends when they kill the monster or save the innocent civilians about to be killed by said monster.  Of course, the whole format is complicated with seasonal or multi-seasonal story arcs, reoccurring villains, and the family dynamic between Sam and Dean and various other characters on the show.  Ultimately, Supernatural was summed up by a line in the second episode, “Saving people, hunting things, the family business.”

Over the seasons, the show has dealt with epic themes like the war between heaven and hell, the necessity and ethical questionability of killing, abuse, abandonment, and a plethora of complex moral conundrums by maintaining a solid moral center, but allowing for the shades of gray that consistently define human existence.  This latest season is no different.

Season 12 opens by introducing the main antagonists for the season, the British Men of Letters (hereafter referred to as the BMoL).  The BMoL are a secret society that specializes in learning about the supernatural and defending Britain from these monstrous threats.  They are, essentially, the European counterparts to the American hunters.  As such, they should be allies to the Winchester brothers.  However, the strident differences between the British style of “hunting” and the American hunters have led the BMoL to regard the Winchesters as adversaries to their interests.  Thus, this season kicks off with a bang as Sam is shot and captured by the BMoL and tortured in an attempt to get him to reveal the location of other American hunters.

Right off the bat, the difference between the American and British hunters is highlighted.  In Britain, every port, every entrance, every street corner has been warded to inform hunters if a monster should enter the country.  As soon as a monster is identified, a team is dispatched immediately to kill it, eliminating the potential threat as soon as it becomes known.  In the States, hunters locate monsters by sifting through news stories and looking for unusual incidents or deaths.  Generally the hunters only show up after there has been a fatality.  The BMoL see the haphazard way in which hunting is accomplished in the US as potentially lethal, and have come to impose order and civility upon the wild west of American hunting.

Immediately there are a lot of practical, political, and philosophical questions brought up in this dichotomy.  But before I get to that, I want to address a criticism/concern that I have seen brought up multiple times in relation to the BMoL.  A number of blogs and reviews that I have read have questioned the likelihood of the sheer arrogance of the BMoL.  They think it unrealistic that educated, informed, reasonable people would believe so unequivocally that they could and should impose their own system in the US.  Personally, I not only find this aspect of the BMoL to be possible, but to be probable.  Over the last five years, I have lived in Britain, Ireland, and the US, and, in my experience, this attitude toward American politics is almost universal in non-Americans.  The statement, “If only Americans would do it like (insert European country of your choice),” has been applied to issues as wide ranging as racism, gun control, health care, immigration, and education.  This “one size fits all” approach to the political issues of the United States is wide ranging but hopelessly naive. Looking at the BMoL approach to hunting in a US context provides a microcosm for these other issues.

From a practical perspective, the British Men of Letters are indulging in wishful thinking if they believe that the techniques that they use in Britain will be successfully implemented in the US.  Consider some statistical comparisons.  The population of Great Britain is roughly 64 million people.  The population of the USA is about 320 million.  There are about 5 times as many people living is the US than in Britain.  Over the course of 12 seasons of Supernatural we have been introduced to 35 hunters, more than half of whom are deceased.  That makes the average number of hunters in the US, as far as we know, 17, maybe 20.  In contrast, in three episodes of the end of season 11 and beginning of season 12, we have met at least five members of the BMoL, with the implication being that they have a number of other hunters working for the organization.  Strictly in terms of population, there are not enough American hunters to create a system similar to what they have in Britain.  Looking at the idea of coastline and ports of entry.  Great Britain is an island nation, which means that ports of entry are limited to safe harbors and airports.  As such, it is entirely feasible to put warding and sigils at all points on entrance into the nation.  Even given this fact, the coastline for Great Britain is approximately 7,700 miles long.  In contrast, the coastline for the US is roughly 95,400 miles long.  There is nearly 12 times the amount of coastline to secure in the US as there is in Britain.  Again, given our numbers of British versus American hunters, there would need to be at least 60 American hunters available to control the coastal borders of the US.  This does not even bring into consideration unsecured land borders.  While Britain is an island nation and does not share a land border with any other nations, the US has 7,500 miles of land borders with Mexico and Canada.  Much of this area, especially on the border with Canada is wilderness where the border cannot be secured.  While it is a feasible possibility of securing all the entrances into an island nation that shares no land borders with another nation, it is not possible given the vast border of the US to do the same.

Similarly, consider the size of the US with that of Great Britain.  The US is 3,797,000 square miles.  Of that, nearly 500,000 square miles are considered preservation or wilderness areas.  This is five times the size of the totality of Britain (94,000 square miles).  This is not just uninhabited land, this is land populated by a huge variety of natural predators.  Many of the monster attacks in Supernatural are justified as animal attacks by uninformed local authorities.  This is not a possibility in Britain, where the largest living predators are the badger, the red fox, and the highly endangers Scottish wildcat.  In contrast, the continental United States boasts three different types of bears, crocodiles and alligators, cougars, wolves, as well as an assortment of slightly smaller, but still dangerous hunting cats, coyotes, ROUSs ( look it up;) ), and various poisonous snakes, insects, and arachnids.  Discerning which attacks are legitimately animal attacks, and which are the result of the predations of a supernatural monster is a large part of the job of the American hunters, an aspect that the BMoL never have to deal with.  Many of these monsters are born out of, or have been living in these wilderness areas for decades or centuries, preying on humans sporadically or according to the specific chronology of their lifecycle.  It is simply not feasible given the wide ranging nature of the American supernatural monsters to implement a system like that found in Britain.

Having covered in some detail the practical reasons why it is not feasible to implement the same system in America as is found in Britain, I want to shift gears a bit and look at the ethical issues with the BMoL plan.  At first glance, it seems like the BMoL have the moral high ground; there has not been a monster related death in Britain since 1965.  Fifty years of successful hunting, fifty years of lives saved seems like a strong place to take a stand.  But what has been the cost of those fifty years of apparent peace?  As soon as a monster enters the country, the BMoL know about it.  Within 20 minutes, the monster has been captured, and within 40 minutes that monster is dead.  But in Supernatural the morality is not so black and white as “monster…bad…kill.”  Over 12 seasons we have seen vampires that refuse to hunt humans, werewolves fighting against their predatory nature in order to remain human, deals with demons that have saved lives, and ghosts that were trying to protect innocents from their vengeful counterparts.  We have also seen individuals that fall in the dubious boundaries between human and monster; psychics, angels, zanna, small gods, reapers, or hunters who dabble in magic.  How can the wards and sigils which identify “monsters” entering the country judge the entire complexity of individual experience?  Have the BMoL unwittingly murdered innocent individuals strictly because they are a different species?  This is racial profiling at its darkest extreme; choosing to assume that because a person is different that they will inevitably act in a certain way.  This is why the Winchesters have a very specific criteria in hunting a monster; any creature that is “dropping bodies” has lost its right to life, but creatures that are making a conscious effort to live peacefully with human beings is given the benefit of the doubt.  Instead of assuming that a monster is guilty by virtue of its “not being human,” the Winchesters assume that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.  Yes, this means that over the years there are people who get killed by monsters.  But it also means that there are “monsters” that are living their own, peaceful lives.  Given 12 seasons of monsters, including episodes that are filmed from the perspective of these individuals, it is not a philosophically viable position to privilege human lives over the lives of the supernatural creatures.

From a broader perspective, does it save more lives to kill even morally questionable monsters immediately?  Consider the “villains” of Supernatural.  Often, the Winchesters are forced into uneasy alliances with characters who have previously been enemies.  Consider a fan favorite, the Trickster, the angel Gabriel.  Even by the relaxed Winchester “dropping bodies” criteria, Gabriel deserves to be hunted and killed.  He has, however, also been a useful character, providing the boys with information about the wider plot conflicts, and serving as a catalyst for the brothers to engage with their personal and emotional baggage.  In the context of the show, the Winchesters decide not to execute Gabriel even though he deserves it, a decision allows him to save their lives later on in the season.  In a similar vein, the demon Crowley is certainly deserving of being killed.  He is a conniving, manipulative bastard, who acts out of pure self interest.  Fortunately for humanity, however, sometimes that self interest aligns itself with the interests of the world in general.  Crowley was an irreplaceable figure in the battle to defeat the Leviathans, Abaddon, and the Darkness.  Given his role in stopping multiple apocalypses, one wonders whether the strategy the BMoL employ in killing ever single monster that enters into their realm actually saves lives in the long run, or if it endangers them by creating situations in which humanity has no supernatural allies upon whom to call when situations inevitably escalate beyond human control?

I guess the take away from all of this is: the world is complicated.  The BMoL look at the Supernatural universe and see everything is pure black and white; for or against, monster or human, kill or be killed.  But they fail to take into account the vast complexity of the created world.  What works in one place does not always work in another because people have different experiences, different values different goals or incentives, or different threats or dangers.  It is dangerous to reduce the world to your own perspective and to assume that everyone else is either wrong or evil.  There is value in a diversity of thought because no one is perfect, and no single individual holds the standard on right and wrong.  Viewers of Supernatural can agree that there is value to the way the BMoL have done things in Britain; no monster related deaths in over fifty years?!? That is amazing and cool.  But to assume that they have the authority and moral obligation to impose their will on a different nation and culture is the height of arrogance; an arrogance that, sadly, seems to be based in reality not merely in the convenience of plot.

Well, back to reality!

Magnificent?

Dear Readers

I don’t often spend money to see a western in theater, and if statistics are to be believed, neither do most other people.  However, occasionally an exceptional cast, and interesting trailer are enough to draw me on a five dollar Tuesday.  After a long day at work for me, and a rough day at school for my sister, we decided we needed a way to decompress, so we met up to check out Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt in the remake of The Magnificent 7.  Also, be warned, there will be spoilers later on.

I was pleasantly surprised with how much I enjoyed the film.  All the characters were interesting, with quirks and emotional moments that made them relatable.  The story was nothing special; if you have seen one western, you have kinda seen them all.  In the first ten minutes of the story, the villain is established as money grubbing coward who controls all the industry in the town, is trying to buy out (steal) land from the honest farmers, in a mad rush for gold, who psychologically torments children, threatens women, kills good men, and burns churches.  I felt like I was literally ticking boxes in the western villain cliche category.  The heroes were a little better, but still felt like they were designed to fit the stereotypes; the lone gunslinger who fights for righteousness (Denzel of course), the wisecracking, womanizing gambler (Pratt), the former Confederate officer and sharpshooter, his Chinese sidekick who (somehow successfully) brings a knife and martial arts skills to a shootout, the Mexican desperado, the mountain man, and “the indian.”  Like I mentioned earlier, each of the characters does have some interesting quirks and moments, but overall, the cast seems like a grab-bag of western stereotypes.  However, as I mentioned last month in my analysis of Central Intelligence, that is one of the charms of the film.  We as an audience are greeted by characters we already know and love; seeing them play out or confound their stereotypes is one of the delights of the film.

Really, that is my main criticism but also enjoyment of this film.  It does not really defy the stereotypes, but it plays with them and makes them a little bit more complicated.  It is a subtle difference, but it leaves the audience thinking about people, and how individuals respond to the horrible things that happen in their lives.  The men in this film, despite their many and varied flaws, ultimately choose to put the lives and wellbeing of others ahead of their own, to take up a cause that is not necessarily theirs, and (for some of them) to make the ultimate sacrifice.  The traditional take of the western, and the subtle shifts they make in the portrayal of the characters allows the film to deal with issues of suffering, personal character, and self sacrifice and a complex and rich manner.

One of the subtle shifts that I really appreciated was the sense of humor intrinsic to the characters.  “In the face of certain death” the characters still retain their ability to laugh, to make jokes, to delight in life, a fact that is both heart wrenching and jarring.  At times, the laughs come so fast and hard, it feels like you are watching a comedy, and spoof of the traditional, serious western.  Ultimately, however, the humor provides a stark contrast with the grim reality of the film- no one walks out of a gunfight unscathed, and many people don’t walk out of it, period.  In some ways, the tone was unsettling; it felt like the movie could not decide whether it wanted to be a comedy or a tragedy.  On further consideration, however, the film felt more realistic to life, where the grimmer circumstances would become, the more the characters would laugh, as a form of defiance against the eminent tragedy, determined to find joy, no matter what the world handed them.  This was the theme that I thought was most impactful, the ode to the indomitability of the human spirit. I am going to get up on my soap box for a moment; in my work, I am constantly meeting people who blame circumstances or others for their lack of joy.  They let people who are unkind to them steal their joy, they let circumstances that they don’t like sap their happiness.  The most powerful message of this film was, even when things are dark and grim, you can choose to joke, to crack wise, to laugh.  True joy is not dependent on the ongoing events, it is a conscious choice to smile in the face of adversity, to not let what is happening make you unhappy.

Ok, rant over. 

Overall, I enjoyed The Magnificent 7.  It balanced humor and seriousness, had some intricate character development, but at the same time retained the bones of the classic western.  Denzel Washington’s performance was a tad careful, but well done, Chris Pratt was a bit over the top, but was also the center of much of the humor.  The rest of the cast were perfect in their roles, totally embodying their characters.  There were a couple of technical issues with the film (my sister was endlessly annoyed by the fact that the characters wore anachronistic, rubber soled boots), and the villain was overblown and unoriginal, but overall, the film was very enjoyable and well worth the cost of admission.

Well, back to reality!

Rants and Raves 3

Dear Readers,

I promised you a summer “Rants and Raves” post, so here you go.

Finding Dory
I believe that “Finding Nemo” is one of the best children’s movies ever made.  The story is interesting, the characters compelling, and the animation is beyond glorious.  So when I heard that they were making a sequel in “Finding Dory,” I greeted the news with both excitement and trepidation.  And overall, I was right on both counts.  “Finding Dory” is, in many ways the equal of its predecessor.  The story follows a diverse and interesting group of characters who make the plot engaging and delightful.  Particularly compelling were Hank, the introverted antisocial septapus (an octopus who is missing a limb), and Destiny, a short-sighted whale shark who was also Dory’s best friend.  Both characters are forced to face their limits and push themselves outside of their comfort zones to help their friends, which is what made Marlin’s journey in the first movie so fascinating.  I particularly enjoyed Hank, whose antisocial desire to stay in a tank, away from other people forever was both relatable and humorous.  The story also did a good job in playing with the side characters; replacing the seagulls screeching “MINE?!” in the first movie, we had seals barking “OFF, OFF,” whenever someone tried to intrude on their rock.  What was a bit disappointing for me was the visual spectacle.  There have been marvelous advances in animation since the first film… the Pixar short that played before the movie showed just how far the art has come.  One of the most gripping aspects of the first film was the amazing animation and gorgeous detail in the ocean scenery.  A specific plot choice cut much of that amazing beauty out of this film.  Where before we had gorgeous reefs with a diversity of life and color and constant movement, in this film we were relegated to polluted, sparsely populated waters with a murky feel.  While there were aspects of the plot that necessitated this transition, personally, I found the new visuals significantly less engaging and compelling.  Overall, I thought that “Finding Dory” was a fine film, but did not necessarily live up to either the hype or the benchmark set by the first film.

X Men Apocalypse
As the third major superhero team-up movie of this year, “X Men: Apocalypse” ranked solidly between “Batman v. Superman” and “Captain America: Civil War.”  The creators of the new X Men franchise know their material very well, and always do justice to the amazing characters they present.  Unlike the less than stellar “B.v.S.” “X Men” was able to balance the large number of personalities and present a story that allowed each character being showcased to have moments of development and interest.  What kept the film from reaching the same level as “Civil War,” however, was the generic and rather uninteresting and underdeveloped villain.  In “Civil War” we were engaged in the fight between the two sides because both had a point, and both had characters with whom we could identify.  Apocalypse, however, is at once too powerful to be relatable to the human viewership, and too self absorbed and pretentious to actually be interesting.  He monologues, soliloquizes, and self aggrandizes without actually allowing the viewer to engage with any sort of personality.  He is, ultimately, a force, with loud opinions that he tries to impose on everyone around him.  The lack of a relatable villain does not stop with him, however.  Of the “four horsemen;” powerful mutants who have pledged their alleigence to Apocalypse, two are nothing more than pretty faces that get set up as cardboard cutouts to be knocked over by our main characters.  Of the two remaining horsemen (Storm and Magneto), only Magneto is given any sympathetic motivation and time for development.  His story arc is, perhaps, the most compelling in the film, however, the depth of time spent with Magneto in some ways detracts from the background stories of other interesting mutants like Storm (or the other two horsemen, who were so innocuous I can’t remember their names).

While I would have liked more developed villains in the story, overall, “X Men: Apocalypse” was very enjoyable.  The film was also able to play with some very interesting themes, particularly the role of the divine in a film where people can have powers previously associated with deity.  The question of a higher power was dealt with very subtly and tastefully, but as a person of faith, I appreciated the care that was taken in including a thematic religious element in a story that so heavily depended upon biblical imagery.  The other major aspect of the film that I enjoyed was the magnificent use of the character of Quicksilver.  After seeing the character so casually killed off in the M.C.U.’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” I was curious to see how Fox would respond in their portrayal.  Quicksilver was every bit as enjoyable in “Apocalypse” as his brief cameo in “Days of Future Past” hinted he could be.  The film makes excellent use of his speedster abilities, showcasing him in a scene where he rescues the occupants of a large building from a massive explosion.  Where Marvel seemed nervous about exploring the potential of this hugely powerful character, Fox jumped in headfirst, playing with the possibilities and using him to great advantage.

Overall, “X-Men: Apocalypse” was a good see over the summer, engaging and fun like a superhero movie should be (if not quite up to Marvel standards).

Zootopia
During a summer in which the tension between police officers and the African American community has been high, “Zootopia” was a surprisingly thoughtful and refreshingly creative examination of the issue.  A thoroughly enjoyable and well paced romp through a world run by animals, “Zootopia” uses the dichotomy of predator and prey in this new, “ideal world” to explore concepts of cultural identity, stereotypes, and the way in which assumptions about people can color the perceptions of even the most well intentioned.  Because this is a children’s movie, ultimately the issues are worked out with far more efficiency and grace than we ever see in the real world, however, many of the principles, of taking a step back and treating other people with the same concern and trust with which we would like to be treated ring true and provide at least a stepping stone in the conversation about police and racial tensions.  “Zootopia” was a surprisingly thoughtful and engaging children’s film that used cliched elements (underdog makes good in a buddy cop film) to ask interesting and pertinent questions without oversimplifying or vilifying either side of the argument.

Central Intelligence
I will be the first to admit that I am not a comedy person.  While I love comedic moments in a film, I can’t stand the outlandish scenarios, predictable dialog, and obvious plot “twists” that accompany the average comedy (both of the romantic and action varieties).  So I was a bit hesitant to see “Central Intelligence”.  I finally saw this film on a girl’s day with my sisters, both of whom love to watch comedies, and while the film was not necessarily my cup of tea, I had a good time, and was able to engage with the film through my sisters’ enjoyment.

“Central Intelligence” plays with both the “buddy cop” comedy, and spoofs the “James Bond” action flick.  As such, it does fall into some of the traps of predictability and poor script writing that accompany both genres.  There is nothing particularly surprising about the story; it follows the well trod lines of its genre.  To some extent, that was the charm of the film.  There were no surprises, but as an audience, there was delight in anticipating exactly the way in which the story would unfold.  The script might have lacked originality, but you could see every punch line coming and say it with the character, which brought its own joy.  The familiarity of the story was the essence of the film, and what made this B rate action movie a delight all its own.

Ghost Busters
Critics were universally split on the new “Ghostbusters” movie.  To some, even the idea of a remake was an offense to the sanctity of the original.  For most, the divide came with the choice to gender swap the cast, bringing in a number of well known female comedians for the leads.  I thoroughly enjoyed the film.  Don’t get me wrong; nothing will ever replace the original in my heart, however, the new film does a good job of updating the material, bringing the concept to a new generation, and providing a different take on the characters.  While I found some of the scenarios a bit predictable and over the top, I thought the cast did a good job of walking the line between the nostalgia of the old and the expectations of a new viewership.   Particularly enjoyable was Kate McKinnon as Jillian Holtzman, a quirky, mildly disturbed physicist and engineer who basically creates all the team’s tools and weapons.  While the other ladies are enjoyable, McKinnon steals the show for me.  Chris Hemsworth is also hilarious as Kevin, the pretty but idiotic receptionist for the Ghostbusters (insert obligatory social commentary quip here).  Although sometimes he is a bit over the top in his performance, overall the character is enjoyable, and in my opinion, one of the highlights of the movie.  The other great selling point for this movie for me was the gadgets and STUFF! that the team create to restrain and capture ghosts.  The film goes full on action movie with it, creating weapons that enable characters to punch ghosts, shoot them, restrain them with laser whips, and blow them up from a distance, which allows for a pretty badass action sequence at the climax of the film.  Where the original was pretty tame in their solution to the ghost problems (I mean, really, how crazy an idea is it to “cross the streams”), this film delights in being over the top and dramatic in how it handles the paranormal.

That being said, one of the major problems of the film is with how much it relies on its intrinsic social commentary.  Instead of character development, we sometimes get on the nose references to the fact that it is a gender swapped cast, continually pointing out that our leads are (GASP!) women who (GASP!) are intelligent and (GASP!) interested in science.  The fact that the film is constantly pointing out how liberal it is in allowing women to be funny and play interesting, intelligent characters undercuts the idea that it shouldn’t be surprising that women can play interesting and intelligent characters.  It talks down to the audience by constantly reminding them that these ladies are capable badasses instead of just allowing the ladies to be capable badasses.  I am not saying that the film should not have had social commentary, or even that the amount of commentary that we got was hugely damaging to the film, it was just a bit much and a bit annoying in places.  But overall, Ghostbuster was still a hugely enjoyable film, well worth seeing.

Star Trek: Beyond
I was totally unprepared for how good this film actually was.  Looking at the list of movies over the summer, I was expecting either Suicide Squad or X Men to be my favorite summer movie.  Star Trek: Beyond blew me away with its great balance of character, story, humor, action, and all around quirky genius, and looking back I can say without qualm that this was definitely the best movie I saw this summer. 

I know that was a bold statement, so I am going to hit on some of the sections I mentioned were excellent about the film.  First, the characters.  As the third film in the series, we have had an opportunity to get to know the basics of most of the characters.  All the actors have had the chance to adjust to the roles, and now the creative interpretation has begun.  While it sometimes felt in the first two films like the characters were playing the actors from the original playing the characters, in Beyond, the actors brought their own takes on the characters.  This gave us a chance to get some real development and insight into what makes the crew of the Enterprise so special.  Particularly endearing were performances from Karl Urban as Doctor “Bones” McCoy, and Simon Pegg as Scotty.  Both characters are intrinsically difficult to portray, as they are so iconic and have such unique voices, they could easily become caricatures of themselves.  Both actors, however, brought a great deal of thoughtfulness, heart, and humor to their performances, and both ended up being standouts in the film.  Chris Pine and Zachary Quintos also brought fantastic performances as the dynamic duo of Captain Kirk and Mister Spock.  The more these two work together, the better they become, bringing a great deal of subtlety and insight to the classic bromance.  If I have one criticism about the characters in this film, it was because so many of the performances were so good, I actually wanted more time with certain characters than was feasible, having to balance such a large ensemble cast; I wanted to see more of Chekov, Sulu, and Uhura, which simply wasn’t possible while keeping the movie a reasonable length.

Next, story.  OK, I will admit, of the things I loved about this film, this is probably the one with the most issues.  While I was always entertained by the plot, occasionally the set-ups were a bit obvious, so the pay-offs were a bit underwhelming.  There was nothing really surprising about the twists if you are familiar with the genre and type of story they were telling.  That being said, to some extent, the very predictability of the plot was helpful for the storytelling.  As I mentioned in my discussion of Central Intelligence, one of the great things about genre is the joy of guessing the ending and being proven right.  And Star Trek: Beyond did this incredibly well.  Even though the set ups were a bit obvious, many of the premises were so outlandish that when they payed off it was fun just to see how the writers made them work.  Many of the best, funniest or most dramatic turns were accomplished in this way, which made the story a hodgepodge of constant guessing, justification, and satisfaction.

Suicide Squad
If there was one movie that was a disappointment this summer, it was Suicide Squad.  After the success of Deadpool, many people were really looking forward to another anti-hero superhero film.  The cast looked good, the costumes looked interesting, and the trailers for the movie were excellent.  Unfortunately, the inability of the D.C. universe to make an exceptional superhero film continues.  There is nothing particularly wrong with Suicide Squad, it just isn’t special. The cast of characters are simply not compelling and interesting enough to keep the audience fully engaged.  Deadpool was a larger than life personality.  He overwhelmed the film with charisma, and kept the audience engaged by sheer force of will.  Because Suicide Squad is an ensemble film, however, none of the individual characters are given enough attention to keep that level of fascination for the whole film.  Instead, we get flashes of the brilliance; Harley Quinn is generally enjoyable, and Deadshot has some brilliant moments, but they are flashes in an otherwise tedious film.  The rest of the characters are too shallow to be memorable.  The film further struggled with its inability to simply let the villains be villains.  The whole premise of the Suicide Squad is that they are the force sent in when there is no other option than to do something morally reprehensible.  They are bad guys, sent to do bad things, to prevent worse things.  There is nothing particularly bad about the mission for this Squad, however.  Their role could easily have been filled by any number of heroes in the D.C. pantheon; the Flash, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, the Green Arrow, the Green Lantern, any one of these heroes could have faced the Sorceress successfully.  There was nothing morally reprehensible about the Squad’s actions.  In fact, the film went out of tis way to make them seem redeemable, characters that were a bit screwed up, but who mostly wanted to change and to be heroes.  That is entirely out of character for both the characters, and for the tone the film claimed to be trying for; the unashamed “we’re the bad guys” panache.  Instead, we got a film where the characters couldn’t commit to either being unadulterated evil or uncompromising good. Thus, the whole team comes across as wishy washy and inconsistent.  While Suicide Squad is by no means a bad film, it simply did not live up to the potential of the concept or characters.

Why I am Non-Ironically Supporting Donald Trump

Dear Readers,

It is time to come out of the closet; I am a Donald Trump supporter.  This is not an easy thing to say.  I worry that when I tell my friends that they will make fun of me, or worse, that they will hate me because of what I am.  I go on social media, and I see the way people everywhere treat those who have supported Donald Trump, responses that range from dismissive; “oh, that is just an ignorant, uneducated white person; they can’t be expected to know any better,” to outright hostile: “shut the f… up, you racist, islamaphobic b….”  I fully expect to receive both kinds of comments, from people on both sides of the political isle, when I post this blog to my social media pages.

But here it is… I will vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 election.  And it is not because I am a racist; a person’s color says nothing more about them than the amount of melanin they happen to have in their skin.  And it is not because I hate Mexicans or Muslims; hating entire people groups seems to me to be a waste of time and energy.  It is not because I am uneducated; I have an MPhil from one of the most prestigious English literature programs in Europe.  So why would I, a slightly right of center, libertarian, millennial woman choose to vote for Donald Trump?

The answer can be broken down into two broad categories that I enjoy calling “Change” and “Hope.”  I think that a lot of Americans can agree, looking at this political cycle, looking at the status quo in D.C., and looking at the issues facing us as a nation, that something needs to change.  No matter what side of the political isle you belong to, the riots, the protests, the shootings, the attacks, the scandals, the rhetoric, have to stop somewhere.  Something needs to give in our political system.  Not only does there need to be change however, there needs to be a positive change, and my personal beliefs about what makes the world a better place, have directed me to Trump.

Change
Dissatisfaction seems to be a pressing factor in this year’s election.  Whether exemplified in support for Bernie Sanders or for Donald Trump, Americans are expressing their frustration with a corrupt government that serves the interest of a political or personal agenda instead of the interests of the citizens.  And it is here that I believe Trump rises above his opponent.  Mrs. Clinton has been a Washington insider for over twenty years.  As first lady, as senator, as secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton how to manipulate and game the Washington system.  Her supporters view this as a good thing, seeing her as the kind of candidate who can actually accomplish something in the convoluted Washington system.  But remember, Americans are tired of the political gamesmanship and the assumed corruption of the Washington political environment.  Mrs. Clinton is not just familiar with the Washington scene, she is an active participant in the very manipulation of the government for political and personal agenda that has outraged Americans.  She lied to citizens, and personally to the families of fallen soldiers about the events in Benghazi to preserve her own power and the power of her party.  The recent email scandal at the DNC shows the boundless reach of her ambition and corruption.  If Washington D.C. is a house aflame with corruption and self interest, then Hilary Clinton is sitting in the kitchen, roasting marshmallows over the flames.

The fire cannot be extinguished from inside the house, and you don’t get much more outside than Donald Trump.  While Washington bloats itself on inefficiency and compromise, Trump’s work in the building and business world are built upon efficiency and ruthless dealmaking.  Where Washington elite believe “they know what is best for the people” and manipulate districts, elections, and legislation to push their agenda, Trump’s success in marketing comes from learning and understanding what people need, then giving them exactly what they want.  While I may not agree with Trump’s entire platform, he still stands outside the conflagration that is establishment Washington D.C., and in a position to make a drastic change to the way things work there.

Hope
My support of Donald Trump, however, is not built simply of the desire to tear down the status quo in Washington D.C., but also on my belief that he can actually build something better in its place.  This hope is not necessarily built upon his platform or his policy (as I mentioned before, I agree with some and disagree with other parts of his running platform), but on him as a person.  This might seem an odd place to take a stand, but hear me out.  I was a big supporter of Dr. Ben Carson during the Republican presidential primary, and when he dropped out and endorsed Donald Trump, I was devastated.  But Dr. Carson said some really interesting things about Trump that forced me to re-evaluate my opinion.  Particularly compelling where his comments about the Donald Trump he got to meet behind closed doors, the man, not the showman.  That man, he said, was cool, collected, and highly intelligent, a man who was willing to listen to reasonable ideas and alter his course to to reach a better solution.  Trump is a figure who will present a strong face for America, a powerful, aggressive, staunch figure, who will stand up for our nation on the international stage, but who will also be able to switch modes and talk in a reasonable, intellectual manner behind the scenes.

It was not only Dr. Ben Carson’s endorsement that has changed my mind on Trump, but also the responses of people who have worked with him.  In scrolling through a list of celebrities who have endorsed Trump, I was surprised at the number that had worked with him on the Celebrity Apprentice.  Not just winners, but contestant who had been fired along the way endorsed Trump.  Similarly, another quarter of the celebrity endorsements came from well known business people who have worked with Trump.  The confidence that people who know and have worked with Trump place in him is staggering, especially considering his abrasive public persona, and the vehemence with which those who support Trump tend to be greeted.

It was seeing Trump’s family that finally brought me to fully support him.  While I am not a parent, I have a great relationship with my own parents, and a number of friends who are parents, and I believe that being a parent is the hardest, most telling job in the world.  You are given responsibility for shaping and directing a mind; you are given an unformed entity and asked to shape it into a human person.  No one who talks about Trump’s children has anything bad to say about them, they are universally acknowledged to be wonderful people; intelligent, well spoken, hard working, and kind.  That is not an easy thing to accomplish, especially for children in the position of extreme wealth and privilege like the Trumps.  Their eloquence and elegance, their respect for their father, and their testimony have convinced me that Donald Trump is a good man, a man who genuinely wants to help the country that he loves, and who thinks he is capable of doing so.

My respect for Trump’s intentions and desires is in direct contrast with my disgust with Mrs. Clinton’s.  Trump’s passion for his country had led him to make some uninformed and less than tactful statements, but Hillary Clinton’s gross self interest led her to compromise national security by having work related (classified) emails on her personal server instead of the secure state department server, merely for her own convenience.  Trump might have to walk back passionate statements made in the heat of the moment, but he has not chosen to put political expediency ahead of the needs of the American people.

Of course I understand the vitriol against Donald Trump.  He is loud, abrasive, tactless, and politically incorrect.  He is also a man respected by his colleagues, by a number of his former rivals, by his family and his friends, who is well intentioned and passionate about this country.  After years of cynicism and passionless political expediency, I am prepared to take a risk on Donald Trump, to change the status quo in the hope that the change will renew and regenerate the nation that I love.  To bastardize a quote from the amazing Broadway musical Hamilton; when all is said, and all is done, Trump has beliefs, Clinton has none.

I know this was really political, and probably a bit depressing to read. I promise next month to do a rants and raves of summer movies post to lighten things up a bit.  On that note; if you are in New York and can get to a show, go see Hamilton.  I haven’t been able to see the show myself, but everyone who has says it is amazing, the clips I have seen are fantastic, and the music is incredible (if you can, purchase the soundtrack and give it a listen).  If you

Anyway, back to reality.

think politics right now are crazy, check out the political climate in the election of 1800… it makes 2016 look tame!  It is really nice to get a bit of historical perspective on current events; even though things may feel like they are falling apart, America has a way of bouncing back.