I saw W the other day with Emily. Although the reviews called it a fair portrayal of Bush the Younger, I could not believe the Oliver Stone would not be a bit more... negative in his depiction. Instead, I witnessed a very well written, performed pseudo-biography. I have had a particular animosity towards Bush these last few years (really since the beginning of 2005, after I had re-elected the fellow). Watching this film gave me a compassion towards him that would make Anne Lamott cringe.

Stone suggests that the really motivational force behind W is trying to please his father, whose approval he was never able to get to a satisfactory level. I do not know how accurate the portrayal of their relationship is, but it is an understandable conclusion. Stone suggests that W blamed his father’s refusal to take out Saddam Hussein when he had the chance as a show of weakness which subsequently lost the election. Interestingly, just prior W had become an evangelical Christian. I wonder

Tags: Politics, George W Bush, Film

“Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.”
-Frank Herbert, Dune

Tags: Literature, Frank Herbert, Rationality, Philosophy

t is a rare case when a film, play or other media form is ‘better than the book’ - at least in my humble opinion. Having just finished the book of Wicked, I find the broadway version much more impressive. The book was well written, though far more adult oriented than I had expected. I suppose there are two reasons why I liked the play more. The first reason is that it was more focused on resolution. This a pro and a con, I know, but the lack of resolution at the end of the book, particularly in conjunction with the animal rights issues drove me crazy! I suppose this is a pretty important lack of resolution, with implications in politics and civil rights, but it seems to have lost all hope of justice! That is a dangerous place to be. But then, maybe that lost hope is what created the psychotic self-centeredness of Elphaba.
The other part, which I found much more important, was what had hit me so hard in the play was lacking in the book. The play was a brilliant, even if not perfect, retelling of the Wizard of Oz story from another perspective that subverted who the good and evil characters were. That subversion was present in the book, but not as well developed (in my opinion). Instead of redefining good and evil, the book points out that everyone is completely focused on their own selfish gain and there is no one truly trying to be good - there is no one who is not selfish.
I do not mean to lessen that truth: it is true that none of us are ‘good’ in and of ourselves. We do have basic needs and selfish tendencies whereupon we demand our own satisfaction before justice or even mercy and compassion. HOWEVER, and this is a large however, the story never ends with our self-centered egos. That is just the beginning of the story. The telos of the story is that we grow from our starting selfishness into the other-focused mission of Genesis 12:2: “...I will bless you... so that you may be a blessing...”

Tags: Oz, Wicked, Literature

My birthday and the opening of Dark Knight were the same day. Ergo, it was inevitable that I hsould see the newest Batman movie on my birthday. The day before I saw Batman Begins as a prep and refresher with some friends. As good as Batman Begins was, Dark Knight not only did not disappoint, but even exceeded the high expectations I put on it. There are three main reasons why to movie was phenomenal.
The first reason is Heath Ledger. Ledger’s acting was almost literally otherworldly. He was unrecognizable for most of the movie. The cute Australian accent was gone, the boyish good looks wrapped up in disturbing makeup, and any friendly gestures swallowed in diabolical Nietzchean will-to-power. In short, there was nothing about the Joker that resembled Heath Ledger. I was not able to connect the person of Ledger with the personage of the Joker until a scene an hour and half into the movie where, riding in a cop car, he is leaning out the window and runs his fingers through his hair. In the midst of the tragedy of death surrounding Ledger, this was a brilliant last performance. And, though I do not like to draw such connections, I would not be surprised to find out that his death was connected to the twisted role that he not only played, but took on in this movie. There was power in his acting because he believed he was the Joker.
(This article is just a minor sketch of my thoughts on the movie: a very good thematic sketch which I also resonate with can be found here.)
The second reason is the writing and directing of the story. I do not mean the actual lines, but the real emotions that were drawn out. One of the base themes of this movie is the maturing of Bruce Wayne as he comes to realize the price of being Batman: the price of fighting such twisted evil; namely, the inability to save all lives. The torment was real, and it was devastating - the point clear: we are unable to do everything, we are unable to heal the world completely. In essence, this movie can be used to connect to the idea of why bad things happen to good people: within the confines of life, those who work for evil are able to cause more chaos than those who work for good can solve. And though the temptation in the midst of the massive destruction, pain and meaningless violence is capitulation, the only real solution is having the courage to take the pain.
In this, we come to the most powerful part of the movie, which is the Christological nature of Batman. This comes to the fore in two primary modes: first is the rejection of Batman. Though his work is as much for good as he can do, he is still shunned. The second, more powerful mode, is a line at the very end of the movie by Gordon and his son. Batman has saved them, and is taking the blame for wrongs he did not commit (sound familiar?). As he flees the approaching police, Gordon’s son asks why. Why is it this way? He has done nothing wrong. Gordon answers: He is taking the blame, because he is the only one who can. It was at this point that I lost it: the reality was too crushing. Jesus is the one who can take it. The only one who can take it.

Tags: Dark Knight, Batman, Theology, Christianity, Atonement

Today I finished Gabriel Garcia Marquez’ One Hundred Years of Solitude. I’m still hesistant about the book. I enjoyed a great many parts of it, but I’m not sure I really understood it. There are a few interesting tidbits I noticed:
First, there is a theme in the book about the cyclic nature of history - or, we are doomed to repeat forgotten mistakes. Many of the characters are very similar to prior characters (the book follows 7 generations of the Buendia family), and repeat the same mistakes of their ancestors. These mistakes are repeated because no one has a relationship with each other where they reflect upon their mistakes and instruct children and grandchildren how to move past those issues. Implied is the idea that we will have similar characters as a our parents and grandparents and should glean what wisdom we can from them in order to live better lives.
Second, there is also a theme running though the book about the lack of trustworthiness of government. The point is not just the obvious truth that the government is not fully trustworthy, but that the government inherently requistions events and truth for its own gain. This is brought up in two significant ways. In the first half of the book, Col. Aureliano Buendia is a rebel general, who fights many battles but is eventually defeated. He is honored by the government and awarded medals, in order to innoculate him and create him into a puppet of the state. In the second half, one of the Buendias tries to organize a labor strike. The government kills all the dissenters and dumps them in the ocean, and manages to cover up the whole situation through the media. The larger point is that what people believe is the reality of a situation can be changed. Or, as it is said in Braveheart, “History is written by those who have hanged heroes” - or, history is written by those who survive.
Third, and this is what I found most compelling, is that the whole family line ends after 100 years (thus the title). It leaves on with a great many questions. The family leaves nothing behind - no heirlooms, no memories. There is even a scene towards the end where the famous Col. Aureliano Buendia is not remembered by anyone. So, Marquez is bringing questions to the floor: What constitutes a lasting change? What impact do we make, what impact can we make, what impact should we want to make in the world?

Tags: Marquez, Literature, Latin America, Politics