Spider-Man, Spider-Man, What do I think of the New Spider-Man?

Dear Readers,

So I realize it has been a couple of weeks… my movie schedule was not quite as loaded at the end of November as I thought it might be, and I have been eagerly anticipating watching and reviewing Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse.  Well, the moment is here… this will be a quick review… go see it, it’s awesome!

OK. Now that I have told you everything you really need to know, I will actually jump into some particulars.  Into the Spider-Verse follows the story of lesser known Spider-man, Miles Morales, as he gains his powers, struggles with his own self doubts and his estrangement from his overprotective father, and grows into his own heroic identity.  Oh, and a bunch of different versions of Spider-man from parallel universes pop in to help him fight a number of quirky villains from Spider-man’s rogues gallery.

This film has everything: incredible visual effects, good storytelling, interesting characters (with really stellar voice acting), spectacular action, and heart.  My one warning for this film is sometimes the action can be overwhelming with the constantly shifting colors, pace, camera angles: if you are the type of person that gets nauseous from over-stimulation, maybe skip this one on the big screen.  There is always a lot going on on the screen, and the action sequences are stunning but they tend to throw a lot at you.  The incredible visuals are offset by truly interesting and compelling characters.  While many of these characters are familiar to those who follow Marvel, or particularly those who are already fans of Spider-man, they each come across as unique individuals who have their own interesting back stories and motivations for their actions.  This is especially true of Miles, his father, and his uncle, each of whom are given unique backstories that dramatically impact their character in the present, while never falling into the trap of overdeveloping the past or using lazy flashbacks.  Their story is compelling and rings true as a genuine parent/teenager relationship.

The supporting cast is also excellent.  We see two different versions of Peter Parker; the version from Miles’ world who is Spider-man at his most iconic; based the various film versions of the character over the last 20 years, this version of Spider-man is confident in himself and thoroughly invested in his work as a hero.  We also get to see an older, more jaded version of the character who has been doing the hero thing for so long it has lost its glamour, while the constant battles have obviously taken their toll on his life and relationships.  He becomes a strong mentor for Miles, and their relationship allows him to confront his own failures and overcome them.  It’s a pretty typical reluctant mentor arc, but it is still well done and engaging.  We also get Spider-Gwen, from a universe where Gwen Stacy got bitten by the spider instead of Peter Parker, and becomes motivated to be a hero after Peter Parker is killed.  She is likable, the chemistry between her and Miles is fun but doesn’t overwhelm the story, and her fighting style is beautifully animated.  While not central, the rest of the Spider-cast is fun and well voice cast.  Nicholas Cage hams it up beautifully as Spider-Man Noir, while John Mulaney knocks it out of the park as Spider-Ham.  Although her character seemed a bit more extraneous and has little impact, the inclusion of anime style Peni Parker added a really interesting visual dynamic as the animators had to change visual styles for her scenes and fight sequences.

The villains are also well conceived and executed.  While Kingpin is by no means the scariest or most well known of Spider-man’s villains, the film does an excellent job making him menacing, while also giving him an interesting motivation for his actions beyond just, “I’m doing this because I am a bad person.”  I also loved (spoilers) the inclusion of a female version of Doc Ock: it created a fun visual take on the character, while also playing into the fun growing stereotype of the manic crazy female scientist, which honestly, is a trope I cannot get enough of.

Overall, “Spider-Man: into the Spider-Verse” was an amazingly fun film with incredible visuals, engaging characters, awesome action sequences, good pacing, excellent storytelling, just the right amount of heart.  A must see for the entire family, and a great addition to the “Spider-Man” franchise.

Well, back to reality!

Ralph Breaks the Internet... and the Big Screen

So my movie for this week was Disney’s “Raph Breaks the Internet.”  The long awaited sequel to “Wreck It Ralph,” this film takes everything that was thoroughly enjoyable about the first: quirky characters, compelling story, and easter eggs galore, and makes it bigger… because… the internet.  While marketed as a kids film, many of the jokes hit home for the adult viewer as well, making it an engaging view for the whole family.

“Ralph Breaks the Internet” picks up six years after the events of the first film.  Ralph is content with his life; work in his game by day, hanging out with his best friend Vanellope at night.  Vanellope, however, is bored of driving the same tracks every day and wants something more.  When her game breaks, she and Ralph venture into the world of the internet to purchase the necessary piece on Ebay.  What follows is an entertaining ride though a colorful representation of the online world, replete with viral videos, pop-ups, online gaming, viruses, and every subsidiary company that Disney owns.

While it does not pay to take too close a look at the relationships between the characters in the story (Ralph’s relationship with Vanellope veers wildly between father struggling to let go, overly codependent boyfriend, and super possessive best friend), the emotional heart of the movie is about struggling with change and putting the needs of others ahead of your own, always an excellent message for both kids and adults.  Ralph and Vanellope’s friendship is put at the forefront of the story, meaning that many of the other characters are not given opportunities to grow and develop, and while I would have liked to see more of the subplot with Fix-It-Felix and Calhoun parenting 15 obnoxious teenage children, the fact that the story chose to put quality over quantity in their character development and focus so intently on Vanellope and Ralph is undeniably positive.

What makes “Ralph Breaks the Internet” shine is the abundance of easter eggs.  Disney pulled out all the stops for this film.  The fact that Vanellope is an unacknowledged Disney princess is played well for both feels and laughs.  Many of the original voices of the Disney princesses lent their voice talents to this film, and the inclusion of a brilliant song by Disney composer Alan Menken, both mocks the hype surrounding the Disney princess phenomenon while brilliantly selling everything that is great about the characters.  Disney further pulls out all the stops with characters showing up from Star Wars, the MCU, and other Disney properties including a hilarious interview with Baby Groot and a special cameo that made me slightly teary.

There was actually a surprising amount to analyze in this film, and I may come back to it at a later date, but for today, take the time to check out “Ralph Breaks the Internet.”  This funny, insightful, and energetic film does a lot right, while also miraculously outdoing films like the “The Lego Movie,” for product placement, easter eggs, and self-referential/self-deprecating humor.

Well, back to reality!

Fantastic Beasts: Criminal or Merely Mature?

Dear Readers,

The issue with being a film critic is ultimately you run into that film that you enjoy that most people pan.  For me, right now, that film is Fantastic Beasts: the Crimes of Grindelwald.  Most reviews that I have seen for this film feature complaints about the tone, numerous subplots, and lack of a driving narrative.  And all of those complaints are (somewhat) relevant.  However, I don’t think Crimes of Grindelwald is as bad as people are making it appear.

First, a brief summary: Crimes of Grindelwald is the second film in an ongoing series in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, a series that takes place about 65 years before the events of the beloved children’s series.  The story follows Newt Scamander, an expert on magical beasts, as he navigates the tumultuous magical world overshadowed by the presence of Grindelwald, a pure-blood activist who believes that Wizards should rule over those without magic.  This second story pits Newt directly against Grindelwald at the behest of Albus Dumbledore, with the help of the friends he made in the first film, as well as new faces from the British and French wizarding communities.

One of the major criticisms of the film is that it has too unnecessary detours and subplots, and, in my opinion this criticism holds the most validity.  While the main story follows Grindelwald’s rise to power, we are also confronted by various subplots involving Lita Lestrange and Credence Barebone.  Neither of these side narratives has any bearing on the ultimate outcome of this film, and so both end up feeling superfluous.  The only defense I have for these plots is that they might be necessary introductions to later narratives as this film series is supposed to continue for another three films.  It is (often) possible to rationalize seemly unnecessary subplots with the claim that they may be useful in the future, but that does not necessarily cover the sin that they become in the film as a standalone.

Other major criticisms of the film I find less substantial, in particular the question of tone.  To delve further into this topic, I must first admit a personal perspective.  I did not grow up watching the Harry Potter films.  As such, I do not approach them with anywhere near the same level of nostalgia and fondness that many other have.  Therefore, when I consider Crimes of Grindelwald, I am considering it as an entity to itself without drawing as many comparisons to the original series.  While it is true the beauty of Harry Potter is the whimsical exploration of the magical world through a child’s eyes, I believe that the Fantastic Beasts series has a different aspect of that world to explore.  Notably: this is a series that focuses mainly on the actions and difficulties of adults.  While Harry did have to confront Voldemort each year, the driving force of the narrative was still that of a child learning and exploring at a unique school.  As such, the characters tended to focus on juvenile problems, act in an immature manner, and justify poor behavior with “good” outcomes.  In contrast, actions have dire consequences in the adult world of Fantastic Beasts.  Laws that are broken result in actual punishments, not cheerful pats on the head and undeserved house points.  History and society have a profound impact on the lives of the characters: a muggle and a witch are not allowed to marry in the American wizarding community because wizards have been deep underground since the Salem witch trials; both Newt and his brother have seen action in the wizarding world’s side of World War 1, and the entire series is overshadowed by the looming threat of both Grindelwald, and the Great Depression and World War 2.  Obviously, the tone of this series is going to be darker than that which follows the story of a school child.  In fact, I thought this film remarkably well balanced considering the dark elements.  While the story takes itself seriously, it also allows itself moments of levity and whimsy.  The moments when the story pauses to enjoy the titular magical beasts are heartwarming, as are a few nostalgic flashes of life at Hogwarts before and during the events of the story.  Despite the narrative and structural issues with the story, the interspersed moments of levity help keep the story’s pacing solid and do a lot to keep the viewer interested until the end.

Having reviewed the criticisms, I want to also take a quick moment to talk about what the movie does well.  This film has some really stellar visuals.  The final fight, where Grindelwald singlehandedly takes on a large number of Aurors, and in which the main characters barely escape with their lives, is visually stunning, as are all of the interactions with the magical menagerie.  More than the visuals, however, it is the acting that truly brings this film into its own.  While I am not a big fan of Johnny Depp, he does an excellent job bringing to life the charismatic, silver-tongued Grindelwald, making it easy to see how a large portion of the wizarding world would be lured by his message of “freedom,” and “compassion.”  Eddie Redmayne is again fantastic as Newt Scamander, and the supporting cast is solidly sympathetic.  It is Jude Law’s performance of Albus Dumbledore that is standout, however.  Law manages to keep the “fatherly mentor” aspects of the character, while also delving deeper into Dumbledore’s immense power, the complexity of his friendship with Grindelwald, and his hidden machinations as a manipulative schemer.  His scenes are, without a doubt, the highlight of the movie, and I look forward to seeing more of his interpretation of the character in future films.

In all, while I understand many of the criticisms for Fantastic Beasts: the Crimes of Grindelwald, I personally found the film well worth seeing.  The characters are dynamic and interesting, the visuals and magical beasts are stunningly conceived, and while the film struggles narratively, the good pacing helps make up for some of those deficiencies.  However, for fans of the original Harry Potter series, who are looking for the whimsy and “magic” of the original, Crimes of Grindelwald is likely to disappoint as it fails to live up to nostalgic expectations.

Well, back to reality

"The Grinch" Steals the Holiday Show

Dear Readers,

It has been a while. I have no excuse... I just haven't been writing, however, I would like to get back into practice. I am going to try for a weekly blog over the holiday season with a short movie review based on what I saw that week. As such, these may not be as detailed as my previous posts, so be compassionate and keep that in mind as you read.


Dr. Seuss' The Grinch
I am starting off my weekly reviews for the holiday season with a film that I believe will become a holiday tradition, Dr. Seuss' The Grinch. Retelling the story of How the Grinch Stole Christmas, this film is a typical, schmaltz filled holiday flick that brings warm fuzzies to the entire family.


While following the outline of the classic story is the same, the film gives enough background about the characters to make them interesting without overwhelming the audience with "tragic backstory," which helps keep the environment of the film light and playful. For example; when we meet Donna Who (Cindy Lou Who's mother) we learn that she is working nights and is a single mom caring for her daughter and twin boys by day. We don't know what happened to the father; he is never mentioned because he is not relevant to the story. Instead of forcing in needless exposition about who he was and what happened to him, we instead get to focus on Donna's struggle to keep up her busy life, and the impact that has on her relationship with Cindy Lou. Similarly, the Grinch's backstory is not given as an excuse for his actions, but rather as an explanation for them, and the lack of details given allows the audience to focus on the Grinch as a character now rather than the "tragedy" of his past.


It is this focus on the present moment for all the characters that makes them so uniquely enjoyable. Cindy Lou isn't worrying about the past or wishing for a time that used to be... she is taking her future in her own hands and working to make her wish come true. The Grinch might be wallowing in his loneliness, but his life is also has some surprisingly positive elements. His relationship with his dog Max is the highlight of the film as you see Max's unconditional love for his master and the Grinch's fondness for the dog and growing awareness of how much Max does. Even when the Grinch's heart is 2 sizes too small, he still has room for affection Max (and later for the reindeer, Fred), which makes him a much more relatable character. Sure he may be a surly, crotchety loner who never learned good social skills, but ultimately, the seeds of his final transformation are already present.


While the character development is solid, and the pacing of the story is good, where this story really shines is in the visuals.  Seuss' works are always a challenge to present because he created such unique and dynamic worlds. This film, however, takes full advantage of the oddity of those worlds without letting the setting overwhelm the story. Whoville is a fantastically constructed Christmas wonderland, the action scenes of the Grinch going in to town and grocery shopping and of Cindy Lou trying to mail her letter to Santa are brilliantly done, and the story's climax, where the Grinch steals Christmas is an extravaganza of well balanced tension and eclectic invention that is pure Suess. The great visuals are also enhanced by well chosen music that is used emphasize the humor, tension, or drama of particular scenes to great effect.


All in all, Dr. Seuss' The Grinch is a well crafted film that pays homage to the three different versions that came before while also bringing a delightful Christmas spirit that entertains all ages. While not exceptional or profound, this film embodies the positive outlook and homely comforts of the season while also presenting a whimsical world full of imagination and creativity.


Well, Back to Reality

Sequels, Satires, and Remakes, Oh my!... or "Why All Fiction is Fan Fiction"

Dear Readers,

Every summer we are inundated with a wide variety of new blockbuster films; superhero, action, heist, family, drama, comedy, romance, and the inevitable criticism arises, “such and such film is just a remake, just a knock-off of this or that good film from the past.”  And in some ways, this criticism is fair; if one looks at the early summer lineup for this year, there are four different superhero sequel films, a fifth Jurassic Park film, and a reboot of the “Ocean’s 11” franchise.  But when one also considers the storytelling quality of a number of these reboots, sequels, and retellings, it calls into question the value of originality and highlights the derivative nature of all fiction.  In this post, I want to look at a couple of the films that have premiered over the summer, and talk about story-telling as an art form, and why ultimately, fiction should not be evaluated purely on the basis or “originality.”  Unlike many of my film reviews, this analysis is dependent on a viewing of the films, and contains spoilers, so please go see these films before reading further.

Infinity War
One of the first films of the summer season was “Avengers: Infinity War.”  As the 20(ish) film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the third “Avengers” film, the characters, situations, and even much of the story was determined by the previous installments in the series.  This did not, however, lessen the emotional impact of the losses experienced by those characters as the anticipated events played out, nor does the reality of a number of planned sequels diminish the sacrifices experienced by the characters in the story.  The hardest deaths in the story are those of characters that we know are coming back because we see and experience those losses through the emotions of the characters left behind.  Thus, even though the deaths are “meaningless” in the grand scope of the universe, they are given meaning by the immediacy of the grief experienced by the survivors.  The look on Captain America’s face when Bucky vanishes, the anguish of Thor as he talks about the loss of his mother, father, and (possibly) his brother, the fear in Rocket Raccoon when he comments “I have a lot to lose,” and the devastation in Tony Stark as Peter Parker gasps, “I don’t want to go” before disappearing in his arms are all wrenching because we know these characters.  In this case, the derivative and cyclical nature of MCU superhero films has allowed the audience to develop a relationship of sorts with the characters that allows for greater empathy with them, which heightens the emotional impact of the story.

Deadpool 2
The Deadpool movies both thrived off of their derivative nature.  The role of satire is to copy and exaggerate the tropes of a particular genre to make them humorous, and Deadpool does this like nobody else.  Because the character is aware that he is a “comic book character,” he is able to comment on the ongoing action of the film and point out its conformity with the genre while simultaneously undercutting its tropes.  “Deadpool 2” does this by deliberately paralleling “Logan,” the previous year’s hit X-Men film, by modeling the (dysfunctional) relationship between the older, jaded hero and a younger individual in need of mentoring and training, by emphasizing the “family” element in an R rated celebration of gore and language, and having the hero sacrifice himself to secure the future of the new generation of heroes.  Because “Deadpool 2” isn’t “original” it is able to comment on the absurdity of marketing “family” in films designed to alienate the family market.  It also more widely mocks the superhero genre, with post credit scenes that emphasize the ephemeral nature of death in superhero films, and their tendency to rely on a Macguffin deus ex machina to “fix” everything so there are no permanent consequences of the film’s action, thus maintaining the status quo of the heroic universe. “Deadpool 2” shows the creative power of derivative fiction to deconstruct classic narratives and ways in which a non-original work can thoughtfully entertain.

Ocean’s 8
Outside of the superhero genre, there is a growing category of non-original films which includes remakes, revivals, and re-interpretations of fan favorites.  One such film this summer is “Ocean’s 8,” an all female reinterpretation of fan favorite heist movie “Ocean’s 11.”  Following Diane Ocean (Danny Ocean’s sister) as she enlists the help of seven other women to pull off a dramatic heist, “Ocean’s 8” follows the classic heist pattern beat for beat, showing the planning and execution of “the job” before revealing the big twist at the end.  The charm of the film lies in the interaction between the quirky members of the team, the thought and preparation that go into the job, and the dramatic reveal which neatly brings together the disparate elements that were sprinkled throughout the film.  “Ocean’s 8,” is not original; the job they pull has been done before (if you watched the T.V. show “Leverage,” you will definitely see the final twist coming), however, knowing the twist is coming does not make the film any less enjoyable, the characters any less interesting, or the execution of the plan any less enjoyable.

Fan Fiction
All these derivative works got me thinking about fan fiction, and the role of non-originality in fiction.  It is tempting within an academic context to glorify originality as the defining feature in “good” fiction.  One sees this with such critical responses as “This highly original masterpiece,” or “in this groundbreaking work,” where “good” is linked to “new” or “different.”  Human beings do not exist in a vacuum, however, and a closer examination of even the most groundbreaking work reveals its derivative nature.  Yes, genres evolve, style changes, and storytelling morphs with the introduction of new techniques and tropes, however, ultimately, all fiction is fan fiction because human beings are not inspired to tell stories without first having been exposed to stories themselves.

To provide a case study example: I recently began reading a book series called “The Invisible Library.”  Upon reading the the story blurb on the back of the book, I was immediately reminded of a T.V. show called “The Librarians,” which has aired on TNT over the last five years.  Both feature an inter-dimensional library, with librarians who who use magic and science to collect dangerous artifacts (and books), utilizing an fantasy adventure format.  While “The Invisible Library” adapts a large number of fantasy tropes, including the incorporation of the Faerie realm, dragons, and multidimensional travel, its roots in the the show seem very evident.  But “The Librarians,” T.V. show is itself derivative, as it is an extended sequel to a series of T.V. movies made in the early 2000s.  This movies are themselves derivative from the Indiana Jones films (I often joke that “The Librarian” is Indiana Jones if he was actually an academic).  “Indiana Jones,” in turn, is inspired by a number of classic silver age action adventure films, which in turn are derivative of the adventure genre of literature pioneered by H. Rider Haggard in such stories as “She” and “King Solomon’s Mines.”  Stories do not exist in a vacuum.  They are the constant retelling and regeneration of old stories in different contexts, or with a different style.  If one pauses to consider the influences of other literature, it is often easy to trace the influential stories that have merged and collected to become a “new” work of fiction.

So what then is the role of the “original” and of derivation in fiction?  Where does one draw the line between copying a story and “regenerating” it into a new work?  What is the relationship between “good” fiction and the way in which it incorporates the new and old?

First, originality must always be seen as a tool, not a goal.  The purpose of the “new” should be to provide a different perspective on the old.  Thus, when James Joyce retells the story of “The Odyssey” in “Ulysses” he used a new stylistic method (stream of consciousness) to create a different insight into the minds and actions of the characters than had previously been seem.  Similarly, “House of Leaves,” uses a deconstructive style to transform a traditional horror story into a philosophical examination of the futility of existence and the postmodern battle between nihilism and existentialism.  In both these cases, originality of style serves to transform a derivative work into a work that thoughtfully provokes new insights from a  more traditional story.

Works that utilize an “original” style tend to receive great critical acclaim, however, it is very difficult to conceive of and utilize an entirely knew style of writing.  Most writers will never be able to create a groundbreaking new method of writing fiction.  How can these writers, who are eternally consigned to be derivative in the style of their writing still create compelling, “good” fiction?  If one cannot be original, one must strive to be regenerative.  By taking old stories and altering fundamental elements, by mixing and recombining the best parts of old stories, a storyteller can create a compelling tale that is entertaining, thought provoking, or heart-wrenching in its own right.  The films I mentioned at the beginning of this post do just that.  “Infinity War” builds an emotional rapport with the audience and then capitalizes on that investment to provoke an empathetic response to its characters.  “Deadpool” utilizes a radical style in order to provoke a thoughtful response to the overused tropes of a genre.  “Ocean’s 8” re-conceives the tropes of a its genre by flipping the gender of the protagonists and allowing the story to play out differently according to the new qualities of its characters.  Each film achieves its goals in entertaining and in telling an interesting or compelling story, despite, or perhaps because of their derivative nature.

Ultimately, creating fiction is re-mixing the stories, styles, elements, and (sometimes) characters of other stories in such a way that new elements can be discovered in the old story or new facets of the story can come to light.  All fiction may be fan fiction, but good fan fiction is all about taking a known story and giving the reader more: more to think about, more to feel, more to details; more experience.  Because that is what story is; story is about vicariously engaging in experiences, either an experience that we have had before and want to have again, or a new experience that transforms our world in some small way.

Well, back to reality!

The Real "Hero" of Infinity War

Dear Readers,

It has been a while since I did a film review, but inspiration has combined with extra time, and Infinity War is well worth examining.  So I will do a quick review up front, then move on to a more spoilers rich analysis.  So fair warning, if you have not yet seen Infinity War, read the first paragraph or so, go out and see it, then come back.

Infinity War is the culmination of the Marvel Cinematic Universe so far.  It brings together most of the heroes we have grown to know and love over nearly twenty films.  While one can watch Infinity War without having seen all the previous Marvel films, one should at least be familiar with both previous Avengers films, Captain America: Civil War, and Black Panther.  The story follows the Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and a number of independent heroes as they battle “the Mad Titan, Thanos,” as he attempts to collect all six Infinity Stones so he can instantly destroy half the population of the universe.  The film is defined by fast paced action sequences broken up by short, but deeply compelling character development moments.  Infinity War, is ultimately, a film about the hard choices that heroes have to make; choices between loved ones, friends, and companions, and the “fate of the universe.”  This is what makes the story so compelling: seeing each of these characters grapple with the hard choices, of dealing with “no win” scenarios.  Ultimately, Infinity War was an excellent movie, with great action, an amazing balance of the myriad characters, and an emotional gut-punch that is well worth seeing.  That being said; if you are a Marvel fan, odds are you have already seen it, and if you are not a Marvel fan, you might not understand what is going on without going back and watching some of the previous films, so keep that in mind when booking tickets.

Alright, now into the analysis and spoilers section.  This will be divided into two sections: first, I am going to do an analysis of the epic (or hero’s) journey as explored in Infinity War, and then a speculative section about what might happen next in the MCU.

The Hero? of Infinity War

The concept of the hero’s journey has informed fiction for centuries.  From early poems like The Epic of Gilgamesh or The Odyssey, to more recent contributions like Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, and (in the MCU), Captain America: the First Avenger.  These stories are defined by heroes who set out of a journey to accomplish a specific goal, encounter trials, opponents, and new allies on the way, descend (either literally or symbolically) into the Underworld, followed by a “resurrection,” and return home at the end, only to find that home is not the welcome he sought, but has been changed during his journey.  What is interesting about Infinity War is that it does present a hero’s journey, however, it is not the journey of any of the protagonists, but rather, that undertaken by the villain Thanos.

Infinity War starts out on the space-ship that holds half the population of Asgard, including Thor, his brother Loki, and Bruce Banner, the Incredible Hulk.  Thanos’ soldiers have almost completely wiped out the the citizens, Thor is down, and Thanos is demanding the Tesseract from Loki, having previously acquired the power stone from Xandar.  While Thor, Loki, and the Hulk all try to stop Thanos, ultimately, Loki sacrifices the stone to save the life of his brother, and is killed, the Hulk is beaten so badly he is afraid to appear for the rest of the film, and Thor is left for dead.  This is the beginning of Thanos’ journey, as he sets out with a specific goal: to unite the Infinity Stones and “balance the universe.”  Along the way, he encounters obstacles in the “heroes” of the story, as they try to keep him from obtaining the reality, mind, and time stones.

Thanos’ quest could not truly be called a “hero’s journey,” however, without a descent into the underworld.  There is, however, an event in the story that almost perfectly matches this description.  In his quest for the soul stone (the one stone that no one knew the location of going into the film), Thanos and Gamorra travel to the planet Vormir.  There, they are greeted by Red Skull (one of the most interesting cameos, as he has not been seen since Captain America: the First Avenger, and was thought to have been killed in his attempt to wield the Tesseract).  Red Skull takes the symbolic form of Death: possessing preternatural knowledge of the soul stone, hovering, wraith-like, and guiding Thanos to his destination.  The acquisition of the soul stone itself is also linked with death: it is only by sacrificing what he loves (Gamorra) that Thanos is deemed worthy of obtaining the soul stone.  And after pushing her off the high cliffs of Vormir, Thanos is shown lying in the water at the base of the mountain, raising up out of the water in a symbolic reference to baptism; to death and resurrection, having succeeded in obtaining the most difficult item for his quest.  Everything after this is falling action for Thanos’ story; his return to the world of the living includes battle with the Guardians of the Galaxy on Titan and with the Avengers in Wakanda to obtain the last two stones, two more minor trials that have to be passed, before his “triumph.”  This success is bittersweet, however, as the process of achieving his victory has come at the cost of everything: his beloved daughter, his other children, his soldiers, his own health and almost, his life.  He is shown at the end of the film living in a hut in what appears to be a reconstructed Titan; a homecoming to a home that is no longer hospitable, that no longer holds anything to make it homelike.

Infinity Wars is not the hero’s journey of any of the traditional heroes that we have come to cheer, but rather the epic journey of Thanos as he sets about balancing the universe.  This is further reinforced by the final post credits tag line, “Thanos will return.”  This tag emphasizes the fact that this story belongs to Thanos, that he is the main character who grew, developed, struggled and triumphed, no matter how much we, as the audience choose to cheer for our “heroes.”  The fact that Thanos completes a hero’s journey demonstrates a new step forward for the MCU.  Thus far, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been defined by strong and interesting heroes, but lackluster villains who often blend together.  While there have been exceptions (Loki being the most obvious), for the most part, Marvel villains have fallen into either the category of “religious extremist,” “power-hungry maniac,” or “person Tony Stark offended,” with some overlap between the three categories.  But with Thanos, we are given a complicated villain who views himself as the hero of his own story, who is capable of empathy and love, who is following strong principles that he believes in to the best of his ability (much like both Captain America).  This is why he is so easy to understand, but also why Thanos is such an easy villain to hate.  Because the audience sees the principles he is following, and his fidelity to those principles, and we see the shadow that could fall over our beloved heroes, the trap that is waiting as the universe becomes more and more complicated.  Thanos is an interesting villain because he is a hero, the hero of Infinity War, undergoing the trials of his journey, his death, his resurrection, his victory, just like so many heroes have before him.  This time, however, we do not agree with the hero, and it is our antipathy toward his principles (instead of the lack of them) turns him into the villain.

Idle Speculation

So what happens next?  This is where spoilers start coming fast and hard, so if you haven’t seen it, or don’t want to know what the next movie might be like, click away now.  These are speculations about who is really dead, who might still be alive, who is coming back, and who will probably die in the future.

First, although Thanos successfully completed his journey, the final events of the film are not a defeat for the heroes.  When Dr. Strange looked into the future and saw 14,000,605 possible futures, and only one where they win, it is safe to assume that every action he takes afterward is to lead events toward that one possible victory.  This includes, giving the time stone to Thanos, failing to stop Starlord from punching Thanos and awakening him from Mantis’ trance, and allowing himself to and the vast majority of the heroes to disappear.  Thus, we can assume that at the end, when Strange comments to Ironman “It was the only way, Tony,” he is reassuring the other man that there is still a path to victory, that they are, in fact, on the only path to victory, and that he has sacrificed his own life, and that of all the heroes who disappear, in order to achieve that victory.  This is not out of the question for Dr. Strange; we know from his stand alone movie that he is a character who achieves victory by playing a losing hand to his advantage.  This leads one to believe that no one who disappeared at the end is going to stay disappeared. Both Spiderman and Black Panther have solo movies planned in the immediate future, and Dr. Strange was also set up for a sequel.  The next question then becomes; who is coming back, and how, and who will die in the process.

First, everyone who vanished is coming back; as mentioned previously, most of them are contracted and confirmed for future films.  There are a couple of ways that this can be accomplished.  It is safe to assume that Dr. Strange successfully oriented the characters towards the one possible successful future where they beat Thanos… and that having the remaining characters is going to be essential to that; most people believe that Tony Stark is going to be central in this.  Dr. Strange made no bones at the beginning of the film that he would sacrifice Tony or Peter Parker in an instant to save the universe, however, later, he gives up the time stone to save Tony.  This indicates that Tony will be very important to the next film and to successfully beating Thanos.  Both he and Nubula are still on Titan, and it seems very likely that Thanos is also on Titan.  In the comics, Nebula steals the gauntlet and uses the time stone to rewind back before Thanos’ snap, then Adam Warlock uses to gauntlet as an incentive to negotiate with Thanos.  Since Nebula is still alive, and still on Titan, it seems very possible that she will steal the Infinity Gauntlet from Thanos, however, although Adam Warlock has been hinted at in the MCU, he is not confirmed to appear in any upcoming films.  Instead, it will probably be Captain Marvel who will wield the stolen gauntlet against Thanos.  Whatever part Tony Stark will play in that is battle is less certain, however, it is probable that he will die in the process.  Many of the original Avengers are reaching the end of their contracts, including Robert Downey Jr., and the powerful death of at least one of the original Avergers will provide a good transition into Marvel’s phase 4 projects.  The most obvious options at this point would be to kill Iron Man and Captain America.  Both Downey and Evans are reaching the end of their contracts, both characters have been hugely developed over the three films, and both have become iconic to the MCU, so their deaths would have a great impact but also serve as a catalyst for transition to the newer (and younger) heroes coming up.  I think odds are good that Thor survives (honestly, I think Chris Hemsworth is having such a good time playing Thor, he isn’t going to give that up any time soon), and I don’t think killing Hulk, Black Widow or Hawkeye would have the same emotional impact.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the next Avengers movie.  Either way, I am excited to see what the future holds for the MCU as we wrap up phase 3 and move forward.

Well, back to reality.

The Essence of Karate in Modern Times

Dear Readers,

Over the last four months, I have been training to test for my black belt.  I have been studying Koden Kan Combined Martial Arts for nearly twelve years now, and as a part of the test, I had to write an essay about "the essence of karate."  I wanted to make that essay more widely available, and I have received permission to post it here.  Without further ado...

The Essence of Karate in Modern Times
    In order to adequately answer the question, “what is the essence of karate in modern times?” one must first consider how essence of karate has been traditionally defined, then consider that answer from a modern perspective.  Karate was originally developed from Chinese martial arts styles in Okinawa as a form of weaponless self-defense.  As such, the essence of traditional karate can be summed up in two quotes, “karate ni sente nashi,” or “there is no first strike in karate,” (Krupa, Ronald, pg. 2), which is inscribed on a monument to Gichin Funakoshi, the founder of Shoto Kan Karate.  The second quote is from author and martial artist Shoshin Nagamine, who wrote, “Karate must be a defensive art from beginning to end.”  Therefore, karate is traditionally a fighting style dedicated to self defense; it is a style that seeks to protect the life and safety of the practitioner and those around her.  The question then becomes: does the essence of karate remain unchanged in modern times?  The short answer is yes.  Karate started out as, and remains, a weaponless style designed to be used for self defense.  However, such a definition also reduces the complexity of what karate has become.  While self defense is an important aspect of the study of martial arts, the truth is that many practitioners may never have the need to use their martial arts in a self defense situation.  Thus, while the function of karate remains defensive, the essence may also be accurately defined as “the art of constructive violence.”

    Webster’s Dictionary provides several definitions of violence, however, only the first two are import in the discussion of martial arts.  The first definition is, “swift and intense force,” while the second more elaborately terms violence, “rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment.”  In simplest terms, karate is violent.  It is a method of dispensing “rough and injurious force,” on an attacking opponent.  It is important to remember, however, that violence is not necessarily negative.  A surgeon conducting a knee replacement must violently saw through bone and muscle in order to effect a repair upon the damaged area.  A contractor building a house must violently pound nails into boards in order to erect a solid structure.  The key mediating term in this definition is that the violence being practiced must be “constructive.”  It must be a “swift and intense force” dedicated to building up the practitioner and those around her.  The essence of karate is using the human tendency toward violence in such a way as to edify the martial artist in her individual development, in her relationship with the people around her, and in her relationship with society as a whole.
    One way karate demonstrates the constructive capacity of violence is through the development of the practitioner.  The violence the martial artist practices is firstly against herself.  Anyone who has trained in karate for a sustained period learns that rough and injurious force is part of the training.  This force, also allows the martial artist to grow physically stronger.  Forearms and shins that were bruised and battered become capable of taking greater impacts and blocking stronger attacks.  The conditioning violence karate provides is not merely physical.  The practice of pushing past temporary pains in order to achieve a specific result allows the martial artist to develop strong mental discipline; as Higaonna Sensei stated, “Karate is difficult, but its purpose is to train both body and mind.” ("The Philosophy of Higonna Sensei," pg. 172-173).  Conditioning body and mind to accept pain as a necessary part of training allows the practitioner of martial arts to confront painful situations with rationality and pragmatism, persevering through discomfort to the benefits beyond.  The martial artist is more likely to be successful at other endeavors because, where other participants are likely to give up, the perseverance the martial artist has built up through training allows her to successfully navigate trials.  This strength of body and mind allows for the cultivation of other virtues; honor (choosing to do the right thing), truthfulness (knowing and correctly evaluating yourself), and respect (correctly valuing others)( Shaw, Scott, pg. 32).  Thus, the violence that the martial artist does to herself in training is constructive, promoting a strong physical, mental, and moral state.
    The constructive benefits of karate are not just for the individual, but permeate the wider social aspects of the practitioner’s life.  Relationships established in training at the dojo inculcate a wide variety of social skills and responsibilities.  Every dojo is founded upon the respectful relationship between all practitioners training therein.  Many dojos include wall placards detailing expected behavior such as, “karate begins and ends with courtesy” or “empty the mind of egocentric thoughts during practice…” (Reid, Howard, pg. 161).  Both these statements emphasize the importance of correct relationship in the dojo.  The primary relationship is established between the instructor and the student.  This relationship is grounded with a deep respect for authority that recognizes the instructor is superior in his knowledge, and understands the value of that knowledge.  With respect comes trust that the instructor is trying, to the best of his ability, to impart his knowledge and experience to the student.  This trust and respect is amplified when the student begins instructing others.  The new instructor learns responsibility; she must provide an example to her students, and show them how to move forward.  This process is at once inspiring and humbling.  It is inspiring for the instructor to see how far she has come, how much she has learned and understands, however, it is also humbling because teaching always brings with it failure.  The failure of the students becomes the failure of the instructor, and thus, the instructor must always try to push forward, constantly training and learning so that she can better teach those who are coming after.  This struggle to constantly move forward is aided by the efforts of a third relational component to dojo training; that of the student with her fellow students and training partners.  Mutual exposure to the violence of training allows training partners to develop close friendships and a unique trust.  Those who train together learn to react to each others actions; to move with the attacks and defenses.  These reactions lead to an abiding trust.  The friendship and trust that develops between training partners creates a home-like atmosphere where students can leave for years, return, and immediately feel welcome and comfortable.  This environment, built on respect for authority, responsibility toward students, and camaraderie toward training partners provides a healthy social foundation and a unique place of belonging for the practitioner of karate.
    The ultimate expression of “constructive violence” in karate is found in the traditional essence of karate; self-defense.  Reid and Croucher sum up the important role of self-defense: “In karate training, the aim of the master is to develop in his students an understanding of how practically any part of the body can be used as a vital or lethal weapon.” (pg. 165).  This one sentence epitomizes the violence inherent to martial arts, however, this sentence is qualified with a constructive purpose to that violence, “…mental training, which continues at the same time, teaches a student the absolute importance of not fighting…”  The violence of karate is designed to protect both the attacked and the attacker; the practitioner of karate uses violence, not to inflate her ego or make herself feel better at the expense of others, but to safe-guard her life and the safety of those around her.  This includes, as much as is possible, the life and safety of a would be attacker.  Martial arts teaches, not only how to destroy another person, but when, and how much such destruction might be necessary.  An attacker who is merely verbally belligerent is not a threat worthy of physical violence.  A drunk who takes a wild swing in a bar does not require the use of lethal force.  The violence of the martial arts is funneled into constructive channels by repeated training in the appropriate use of that violence.

    To summarize the essence of karate in modern times is not easy.  One must consider the traditional definition, namely, self-defense, and examine whether that tradition bears weight in the modern context.  While self-defense is an integral part of karate, defining the essence of the art, particularly in a modern context where it may not be used defensively, requires a broad explanation that retains the potency of the original.  The term “constructive violence” at once emphasizes the “rough or injurious physical force” associated with the fighting arts, while demonstrating the need for that violence to be purposely limited.  In many ways, the essence of martial arts in modern times is defined by the perspective of the practitioner.  For me the essence of martial arts is tied to the Fruits of the Spirit.  It is about showing love to those around me, taking joy in the physical exertion, finding peace in the confidence I have in my abilities.  It is learning to be patient in repetitive training, showing kindness to my students, demonstrating goodness by responding appropriately to those who would attack me, practicing faithfulness in my commitment to my training, embodying gentleness by adjusting my strength to those around me, and productively channeling the sinful tendency toward violence into something edifying by showing self control, (New American Standard Bible, Galatians 5:22-23).  In Colossians 3:17, Paul writes, “Whatever you do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks, through Him to God our Father.”  Whatever you do includes karate; karate can be practiced in the name of Jesus in order to praise God.  The essence of my karate is to take an art that has such a potential to be destructive, and practice it in such a way that it is edifying and creative as a sacrifice of praise to the ultimate Artist and Creator.

Resources
Krupa, Ronald. Shorin-Ryu: A Lineage of Masters. United States Karate Systems. January 2008. Accessed April 4, 2018. http://www.usksmartialarts.com/history.html.
New American Standard Bible: Reference Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1973.
Reid, Howard, and Michael Croucher. The Fighting Arts: Great Masters of the Martial Arts. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1983.
Shaw, Scott. The Warrior Is Silent: Martial Arts and the Spiritual Path. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1998.
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. 1996 ed. New York, NY: Gramercy Books, 1996.

A "Super" Quick Catch-up

Dear Readers,
I admit, I am a failure as a blogger.  Over the last six months I have started four new posts and completed none of them.  I have no real justification; work, school, life... just because things are busy does not mean I shouldn't take time to update.  So today, I want to do a few paragraph film reviews and a bit of a status update.

Kingsmen: The Golden Circle
So yeah... these reviews go all the way back to last summer.  I enjoyed this film as much as I did the first.  It brought a vibrant, satirical voice to the typically "gritty" and "realistic" genre that spy movies have become.  The plot was mustache twirling-ly convoluted, the action scenes over the top in the best possible way.  The movie was also able to invoke a few heart wrenching and tragic moments, and the main villain is an interesting combination of total psychopath and "well, she kinda has a point."  All in all, a fun romp through spy action flicks reminiscent of 007.

Thor: Ragnarok
One of my favorite superhero movies of 2017.  This film had everything: well constructed action sequences, humor, introspection, and feels.  Ragnarok continues building the relationship between Thor and Loki (which really is the heart of all the Thor movies), while acknowledging the messed up family life that brought them to their present state.  Jeff Goldblum is stellar as mild antagonist the Gamemaster, and the arena battle and subsequent "bonding time" between Thor and the Hulk is very good.  As with many Marvel movies, however, I have a bit of a problem with the villain.  Cate Blanchett is a fantastic actress, and it feels like her character of Hela was underdeveloped and under-utilized.  I understand that there were really two movies packed into Thor: Ragnarok, with the "planet Hulk-esque" arena sections, but it remains that Hela is grossly underdeveloped, her motivations are a bit unclear, her powers and limitations are undefined, and overall, the character simply felt lacking.  This is a shame, because if there is anyone who can pull off the terrible, beautiful goddess of death, it is definitely Blanchett.  But overall, the film was thoroughly enjoyable; an excellent addition to the MCU and to Thor's character mythology in particular.

 Justice League
If Thor: Ragnarok got almost everything right, D.C.'s Justice League got just enough right to keep the struggling franchise afloat, while managing to mess up an almost ideal casting with a mess of a script, plot, and effects.  Justice League changed hands partway through production, and the changes show.  Many of the special effects come across as unfinished and fragmented, the obvious story changed undercut some of the main characters's big moments, and the overall product is piecemeal.  For all its struggles, however, Justice League is a step in the right direction for D.C.  The film shows the beginning of a transition from the monochromatic filming that haunted Man of Steel and Batman vs. Superman to a lighter, more color filled film (which honestly, is what we want from a SUPERHERO movie).  Gone is the doubting, brooding Superman, buried and the end of BvsS, and resurrected in his place is a more accurate version of the character, a man who helps people because it is the right thing to do, the hero who "saves the world, makes out with Lois, flies into space, and smiles for the camera."  Even with all the fallout from the stupid mustache fiasco, I was just so happy to see Superman smiling again, I was willing to forgive the weird CGI across Henry Cavill's upper lip.  The excellent casting for the other characters also indicates good things in the future for the DC universe.  Gal Gadot embodies the hope, power, and kindness that make Wonder Woman such a dynamic and interesting character.  Ezra Miller shines as young genius Barry Allen, an enthusiastic ball of sunshine who I could easily see maturing into the emotional and moral heart of the Justice League.  Both Ray Fisher's Cyborg and Jason Mamoa's Aquaman were done the greatest disservice by the films production foibles, with an apparent arc for Aquaman being sacrificed to plot changes and Cyborg's CG falling well short of industry standards for today.  However, both actors brought a unique flavor to their characters, and I look forward to seeing more of them in the future.  Particularly for Mamoa's Aquaman, he was able to walk the razor thin line of being a "surfer bro" and also being a total bad-ass well worthy of ruling over a domain that covers 70% of the globe.  In short, Justice League fell short in many ways, but the steps it took toward improving make me very hopeful for future D.C. properties.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi
If there was one major polarizing film amid the Christmas releases, it was the eighth installment in the Star Wars universe, The Last Jedi.  Personally, I was of two minds about the film.  Honestly, there was some really really stupid moments.  The whole dilemma with the rebel fleet about to be destroyed, the field trip to a casino planet where two supporting characters free space horses and inspire the child slaves to rebel is entirely useless to the plot of the story.  The whole chain of events was unfortunately set in motion by the lack of communication/miscommunication more common in Disney channel original movies or B grade rom-coms than in serious science fiction films.  Seriously; if Vice Admiral Holdo had been more concerned with maintaining the safety and stability of her crew than with mothering Po Dameron, the entire rebel escape might have been efficiently accomplished; no field-trips, betrayals, mutinies, or grand gesture sacrifices necessary.  All that aside, however, when The Last Jedi is focusing on Rey, Luke, and Kylo Ren, with film is incredible.  It does a fantastic job of deepening the mythology of the force, while undercutting our expectations of how the story will play out.  While many criticized the final battle between Luke and Kylo Ren, I love the way it defied our expectations and deepened the possibilities of the force while still remaining consistent with many of the possibilities we know the force to have.  Untrained force users are able to sense each other's thoughts and emotions across exceptional distances.  In the original trilogy, we see Darth Vader force choke someone through a holographic connection, across light-speed distances.  It makes sense that Luke, one of the most powerful Jedi, who has spent years in mediation and contemplation, might be able to extend those possibilities to sending a visual image of himself across such a distance.  All this to say, The Last Jedi was a great addition to the Star Wars universe; it had its struggles and stupid parts, but the main story was interesting and thoroughly enjoyable, and the additions the story made to our understanding of the force deepened the already fascinating mythology of the series.

The Greatest Showman
Movie musicals can be pretty hit or miss.  The film version of Les Miserables caught the heart and emotionality of the original musical, but the attempts to capture the live singing of the actors undercut the quality of the music, minimizing some of the power of the show.  Lala Land contained beautiful music, and an original story, but again, the singing was mediocre, and the dancing was lack-luster, especially compared to the "golden age" stories the film was supposedly imitating.  But The Greatest Showman manages to hit all the targets to make a good movie musical.  Like its subject matter, the film focuses of spectacle and showmanship more than on facts, portraying an idealized interpretation of the life of P.T. Barnum and the inception of the circus.  The story is enjoyable, if a bit predictable in places, but the film more than makes up for it with spectacular cinematography, gorgeous costumes, incredible dancing, and catchy, upbeat songs performed with an emphasis on both quality and character.  If you are a fan of movie musicals, The Greatest Showman is a breath of fresh air, embracing the traditions of the genre while also incorporating a contemporary flare in the story telling, music, and dance performances.

Jumanji: Into the Jungle
Of all the films to premier around Christmas 2017, Jumanji was one of the most anticipated, if not for the reasons one might think.  I never saw the original Jumanji, however, I am a big fan of the "trapped in a video game" genre.  The idea of four teenagers getting trapped in a game and having to play as their chosen avatars was immediately appealing, and was made all the more so by the excellent casting of Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black, and Kevin Hart, with the added bonus of having Nick Jonas in a supporting role.  Jack Black was, hands down, one of the best parts of the movie.  Playing "Tiffany," a spoiled teenage diva with a phone and selfie obsession, Black uses his amazing physicality to hilariously embody the struggles and quirks of being a teenage girl in a middle aged man's body.  Honestly, I think the portrayal deserved an Oscar.  Dwayne Johnson was also a delight as the nerdy and neurotic Spencer thrust into the body of the heroic Dr. Smolder Bravestone.  Johnson has a great sense of humor, and is particularly adept at mocking himself to get laughs.  His performance is a joy to watch, and the fun chemistry between him and Karen Gillan lends a sweetness to the film.  If there is one weak link in the cast, it is probably Kevin Hart.  Hart has one character that he plays, and although he plays that character well, it is easy to get distracted by the lack of originality.  Overall, however, Jumanji is a fast paced, fun romp through the jungle, mixing a love of the stereotypical and the absurd with a great deal of sweetness and heart to create a family movie that is a true delight.

Alright, that brings us mostly up to date.  Hopefully over the next couple of days I will get a Black Panther review up, and that will get me all caught up.  Thanks for reading, and please leave comments for me.

Well, back to reality!

Is There a Solution to School Shootings?

Dear Readers.

My apologies for not posting in a while.  Things have been busy, but that is really no excuse.  What brings me back is Wednesday's tragedy in Florida, and the myriad of responses I have seen to it online and in the media.

I have expressed my opinions on gun control and the issues surrounding that debate before, so I will not be re-covering that ground here.  Instead, I want to take a brief look at what I believe is a deeper issue with these shootings.

It is has become commonplace after one of these mass shootings for critics on both sides of the political isle to stand up and use the event as a forum to express their opinion on a "hot button" issue providing verbal lip service to whichever institution pays best to get them re-elected.  Note, both sides are guilty of this pandering, just as both sides are guilty of using tragedy as a talking point and then neglecting to promote possible solutions (note, I say "possible" solutions: the hysteria on both sides tends to make their proposed solutions extreme thus impossible to implement).

Before I look into possible solutions, however, I want to talk about what I see as the true root of these crimes.  The issue here is not one that has a political solution.  Imagine for a moment the complete banning of guns in the United States (leaving aside for a minute the impossibility of such a ban).  There are still thousands of ways for a student to come to school and kill 17 people.  He could drive a car through the crowd of students as they are leaving school.  He could build a bomb in a crock pot and place it in a classroom.  He could steal construction equipment and swing a wrecking ball into the side of a building.  The list goes on (with some ideas being more probable than others, certainly), but the truth is if the student decides he is going to kill a bunch of people at his school, he will find a way to do so.  I am not saying that the government should not take investigative steps, or restrict easy access to high power weapons to those known to be mentally unfit to carry them, but restriction and investigation can only go so far.  The issue is not with the means to carry out such an attack, but with the motive behind such an attack.

Because, no matter how bad these shootings get, no matter how the rate has increased over the last ten years, the focus continues to be on guns, not on a society that is creating the monsters who perpetuate these violent acts.  I am a substitute teacher, and in some ways, I see the best and the worst of what this generation has to offer.  I go into classrooms day after day, and I am faced with students who are disrespectful to authority, unkind to each other, and who believe that life should be handed to them, regardless of the effort they put in.  I was homeschooled, so my experience was a bit different than that of others in my generation, but I would never have dreamed of talking back to a teacher the way many students talk back to me when I give an instruction.  The lack of respect for authority means that rules, school guidelines, and even morality mean nothing to these students; they are just lines drawn in the sand by "the adults" to "keep them down."  It is a short, dangerous step from there to crossing those lines and disobeying the school, crossing those lines and breaking the law, crossing those lines and committing the morally reprehensible.  The lack of respect for authority is further compounded by teacher's inability to effectively discipline students and parents apparent choice not to.  As a teacher, the greatest disciplinary actions I can take are verbal warnings, separating students from the main group (time-out), and sending the student to the principle.  In two out of three of these, the student is effectively getting what they want (to not be working on school), with no greater consequence than a verbal reprimand.  The issue is compounded by parents who undermine the teacher through their lack of investment in their children's future or their unwillingness to discipline their children.  As a substitute, I do not make calls to children's parents, but I have spoken to numerous teachers who complain that parents are unwilling to take their children's bad behavior seriously, even going to far as to cuss out and blame the teacher for their child's poor behavior.  This lax attitude toward discipline and the tendency to shift the blame away from the individual students has created an atmosphere that is very difficult to teach in, an atmosphere that promotes the breakdown of all authority, including moral authority, which in turn leads to greater infractions from students, eventually evolving into the climate we have now, where school shootings are beginning to become "common."

The breakdown caused by the lack of respect for authority is further exacerbated by the students lack of kindness toward each other.  Kids have always been cruel toward each other, I will grant that, but the lack of consequences for actions, and parental encouragement to shift blame away from the individual has resulted in a culture of verbal and physical abuse between children at increasingly young ages.  I expect Jr. High girls to be catty toward each other.  Hormones, changing perspectives on boys, beginning to view each other as potential rivals, I get the breakdown in jr. high.  What frightens me is seeing third graders, eight year old girls gossiping about each other, making snide comments behind each others backs or to each others faces, bickering and backstabbing with a ferocity that used to be limited to pubescence.  What frightens me is preschool and kindergarten children hitting each other repeatedly, and then responding with "he deserved it because he took my toy," rationalizing their violent behavior and shifting the blame to everyone but themselves.

Is it any wonder we keep seeing "mentally ill" young people commit violent acts against their peers?  They have been treated as less than human by the very group of people that is supposed to be their "support" and their "friends."  They have been subject to snide comments, sneers, and snickers.  And to compound the issue, they have been reassured for years that their situation is "not their fault," that their inability to cope in class, or their tendency to respond with violent behavior is a perfectly natural response to the horrible actions of those around them.  When personal responsibility becomes "a trick teachers use to get students to do what they want," and when the individuals around a student become nothing more than a faceless mob whispering behind their back, it almost becomes an inevitability that students will respond violently, without regard for others.

The issue isn't one that government can fix because you cannot legislate the condition of a person's heart.  You can place restrictions, you can try to create programs, or sift through data, but in the long run, government can only punish bad behavior, it cannot promote good, and by the time the behavior has gotten bad enough to warrant government intervention, the character of the individual has already been shaped.

So is there, can there ever be a solution?  Well, yes and no.  There are a few steps that can be taken to try to offset the shaping of poor character in students.  First, if parents are not going to take responsibility for their children, if the blame for the child's bad behavior is going to be placed on the students, then teacher's should be allowed to discipline students effectively.  A light slap of the ruler on the hand of a five year old would go a long way toward making sure he doesn't punch another student again, regardless of what that other student did to him.  In life actions have consequences, and if the role of the teacher is going to be to teach students everything they will need, then this should be an included part of education.  Now, I am not talking about physical abuse.  There are ways to cause a student discomfort that are not damaging to the student psychologically or physically.  But teacher's having the training and the option to employ such techniques would go a long way toward making sure that students knew that rules cannot be broken without serious consequences, and that they are responsible for their own choices.  If you are going to force teachers to parent their students, then let them do so.

Of course, this option is inherently limited.  Teachers are not parents; they do not have time to build the type of emotional connection with every student in the classroom that a real parent would have with their own child.  A wider solution would be for parents to act like parents again.  It is not the responsibility of the parent to be friends with their child.  It is not necessary for a child to always like their parent.  In fact, it is the role of the parent to force their child to do things that they do not like; eat their vegetables even if they don't like them, go to bed on time so they are not tired the next day.  A parent who truly loves their child disciplines them because it is only through learning to say no to their own selfish desires that children learn to be functioning members of society, to be truly human, and not slightly cleverer animals.

Again, however, good parenting cannot be legislated.  It is again, a condition of the heart, not something that the government can force.  Thus, the only true solution is to find a way of transforming the hearts of adults so that they desire to be good parents, and transforming the characters of children so that they learn how to be good human beings.  I only know of one solution like that, and it is the belief in God.  I will not even say a belief in Jesus Christ, although as a Christian, I believe that He is the only ultimate answer to this problem, but at the very least, the belief in some form of authority higher than the individual.  If you believe that there is a moral compass that is greater than yourself, if you believe that there is something after death, and that, ultimately, actions have consequences. then you are more likely to chose a life of correct action.  The Buddhist, who believes that if he treats others poorly he will be reincarnated as something horrible, or worse, sentenced to the void, will be more likely to treat others well than an individual who believes that this life is all there is, and that his own pleasure is the ultimate truth.  The Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, or Jew who believes that she must follow God's law or be damned to hell will behave differently than the woman who believes that morality is a socially constructed framework to promote the survival of the species.  One of these frameworks of morality may not be violated without dire consequences to the individual, the other is simply a institution that may be circumvented should it prove inconvenient to the individual.

Whether or not you agree with my solution, I hope, dear Readers, that you will at least use this opportunity to recognize that the issue of gun violence, particularly of school shootings, is more than just a question of a legislative solution, but goes back to a deeper issue within the hearts and minds of students today.  Such an issue cannot be solved merely by government intervention, but instead requires a major re-evaluation of the character of students and how to create a solid moral and ethical foundation in these children.  Let us take a step back from the party lines, from the politicizing and melodrama, and contemplate the states of our own hearts, and the steps we can take to build up the our own characters and the character of those around us so that we can help diminish the likely-hood of future tragedies.

I hope this post at least gets you thinking, and I promise it will not be as long until my next post.  Next time should be something a bit lighter, hopefully a movie review, and I am going to try to get back to posting monthly again, so look forward to that.

Well, back to reality.