Robin Hood Country

Robin Hood is probably the world's most famous outlaw, and a beloved one at that (who wouldn't like a guy who robbed from the rich to give to the poor? (only the rich, I'd guess)).  His hideout, like him, is legendary: Sherwood Forest, where he hid from the evil Sheriff of Nottingham.  Sherwood and Nottingham are the two most famous places associated with the legend, so we set out to explore them on a Robin Hood-themed day.

Sherwood forest is nowhere near the size it would have been in Robin's day, but a portion of it still exists about 20 miles north of Nottingham.  Sherwood has a visitor centre- the natural start to any excursion there.  It's free to explore the park (with a nominal parking fee), though you can pick up guides for a small fee.  It is what you'd expect- a forest, with several paths through it.  It features some ancient, some peculiar, and some beautiful trees and scenery.  The most famous tree- the Major Oak- is believed to be 1150 years old.  It's huge, and requires metal supports in its old age.  It's a nice park, and you can enjoy it at a leisurely pace in about two hours.  It is possible for strollers- we had no issues using ours- though parts can be muddy.  The visitor centre has a nice restaurant and gift shop, where (shocker!!) many Robin Hood books and souvenirs are available for purchase.

Nottingham, 20 miles south of the modern forest, is a major town, with plenty of character- but not a lot in the Robin Hood vein.  Almost nothing is left of Nottingham Castle- the gatehouse (pictured here) is all that remains, with a statue to the outlaw nearby.  There's a Robin Hood walk around the city, which we did for a bit, but it was disappointing.  Overall, Nottingham was a decent town, but there are better in England. 

I enjoyed our trip overall, but, in hindsight, would have skipped Nottingham and seen Edwinstowe instead- a town right next to Sherwood Forest, with more character and Robin Hood connections.

Ratings:
Sherwood: A-
Nottingham: B-

The New Jedi Order (multiple authors)

In 1991, Timothy Zahn released the first book of his Hand of Thrawn trilogy, and kicked off an explosion of new additions to the Star Wars Expanded Universe.  As I previously posted, about seven Star Wars books a year have been produced since that time.  Zahn's books and many thereafter followed a typical pattern- a trilogy, set soon after Return of the Jedi, involving former Imperial remnants taking on the newly-founded New Republic.  Generally, a super weapon was involved.  Not great literature, but entertaining.

In 1998, the team at Lucasfilm got together and decided that they needed to break the mold.  Rather than a trilogy, they conceived something that became epic in many ways- a 19-book series (by 13 different authors, released from 1999-2003) collectively called the New Jedi Order, set ~20 years after Return of the Jedi, dealing with an extragalactic invasion by a species called the Yuuzhan Vong.  The Vong were severely organic (flying living ships, firing living weapons, even wearing living armor), viewed technology as blasphemy, and somehow existed outside of the force- so Jedi could not affect them directly (they viewed the Jedi as heretics, too).  The stage was set for something crazy to occur.

Something happened in their galaxy which forced the Vong to look elsewhere, and they managed to land in the outskirts of the Star Wars universe and wreak absolute havoc.  The basic plot follows their invasion into, and domination of, the Star Wars galaxy, and the attempts by the Star Wars regulars (like Han, Leia, Luke, etc, and their children, in some cases, as this is set 20 years after the movies) to repel them.  Even "minor" characters from the movies and previous books feature prominent roles, and Lucas allowed things to happen that were normally off-limits in the Star Wars universe- main characters died, entire planets were destroyed or poisoned, and more.  The series had a truly different feel from the previous book entries.

Without giving too much of the plot away, I'll give my feelings as best I can.  I put off reading this series for years (I didn't start until 2005, after it was written in its entirety), because I didn't think I could commit to a 19-book arc.  I was pleasantly surprised by the first 9 books of the series- the galaxy really did get 'shaken up,' which I thought was refreshing.  New characters were introduced and developed well, the conflict lasted years, which made for some interesting sub-plots.  However, after the first half of the series, the invasion force overextends itself, the odds even out, and things slowed down a bit.  The series had some continuity problems, which you'd expect, given that 13 authors were involved.  Not large problems, but writing style differences, some plot holes, and more starting tarnishing the promise of the epic.  Finally, no matter how good it is, 19 books is a lot, and I found myself wanting to just 'get it over with already' around 75% of the way through the series.  Lucas learned from the experience- two subsequent story arcs have followed a 9-book cycle; a pleasant balance between the original 3-book and this 19-book saga. 

Because the series was set 20 years after Jedi, I thought it would be a suitable finale for the main movie cast- Han, Luke, and the rest were in their 40s, and should be looking to get out of the constant war business.  And, for the first half of the series, it felt as though it really was a finale, complete with cameos and bit parts from beloved minor characters.  But, in the second half, it took a few steps backwards, and it became clear that not as much would be shaken up as I had hoped.  It was like the authors got scared and retreated back to the safety of the standard Star Wars adventure.  In the end, the galaxy was changed forever, but not nearly to the extent that it could have been.

Overall, it was decent but too long, and not enough happened.  Reading novels set soon after New Jedi Order, it confirms my thought that more should have occurred over these 19 books.  In post-New Jedi Order writings, things are getting (more) ridiculous.  Han & co are now in their 50s, 60s, even 70s, and still going strong.  Authors will throw in lines for the main characters like "I'm not what I used to be," acknowledging the age, but they still have an amazing penchant for survival and success on the battlefield.  At this point I've stopped reading novels set in the post-New Jedi Order universe.  As long as people will pay, they'll keep producing stories with Luke Skywalker, but, as they say in The Dark Knight, "you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain."  Retire the main cast, Lucas; they're getting too old for this.

Series Rating: B+

Castle (Marc Morris)

When you come right down to it, my favorite thing about living in Europe are the castles.  Castle is pitched as a book that explores the history of these wonderful buildings.  I picked it up in eager anticipation.

Morris is a gifted author, and his account is well-written.  You do get a decent overview of the rise and fall of castles, and the general types of construction (and how castles evolved) over the centuries.  However, it feels more like a history book with some stories of specific castles thrown in, than a general overview of the structures.  That makes it more readable and lively, but less informative on the subject than I would have liked.  I admit it is hard, though, to be complete on the subject, so overall, I liked it.

Since a few specific castles are discussed in detail, if you're going to any of the following, I'd recommend reading the sections pertaining to them, as it will heighten your enjoyment:

Beaumaris, Conwy, Caernarfon, Harlech (North Wales)
Raglan (South Wales)
Tower of London, Rochester, Bodiam (South England)
Threave, Urquhart, Craigievar (Scotland)

Rating: A-

The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Riseswas an amazing film.  This review has spoilers- no way around it, I’m afraid.  There are a lot of reviews online- I felt the one here was particularly good (and spoiler-free).  If you care about being surprised, do not read past this paragraph.  There are a lot of twists and turns in the movie, which make it really good, but at times confusing.  In that light, I set out below to explain the plot of the movie, interweaving themes and thoughts into it.  Think of this more as a critical analysis of the film- best read after viewing.  There’s a lot of depth in this movie, and I explore that a bit here.

Plot (with explanations)

At the end of the last movie, The Dark Knight, Batman becomes a hunted felon as he takes the fall for Harvey Dent’s crimes, allowing people to continue holding Harvey up as an ideal of what man can be.  That’s where we left off.  Now, for The Dark Knight Rises, fast forward eight years- the city is at peace, the streets have remained relatively clean, and Batman hasn’t been seen since the night of Harvey’s death.   Bruce Wayne was seen, for a time, as he invested heavily in a fusion reactor (promising clean energy to the city), but the project failed, the reactor was mothballed, his company is floundering, and he’s now, like Batman, a recluse- never seen outside of Wayne Manor.  He has health problems (due to his crime-fighting escapades, no doubt), and has given up on life.

Bruce Wayne/Batman’s condition needs more exploring.  He’s hung up the cape, but never moved on.  Why?  Alfred believes it’s because there’s nothing except pain and tragedy for him in Gotham.  His parents, and his love Rachel, died there.  If he’s not channeling his efforts on fighting crime, or fighting for better society, he has nothing.  He tried fighting crime- he succeeded, in a sense, but turned the city against him.  He tried making life better with his reactor- and that failed.  What is left?  He’s just wasting away at home.  Why?  Is he hoping things go bad again, so that he can put the mask back on?  Alfred thinks so, when a new threat arises, is against him coming back as Batman, because Alfred believes Bruce wants to die, and is looking for an opportunity to throw his life away.  Alfred and he have a heated confrontation about this, and it ends with Alfred revealing that he lied to Bruce about Rachel’s love for him- Rachel wanted to marry Dent, but Alfred hid that, allowing Wayne to believe that she never moved on from loving him.  Alfred told the lie to spare Bruce pain, but it’s time to “let truth have its day,” he says.  Bruce & Alfred have a falling out over this, with Alfred leaving.  Alfred is gone, but Batman is back- Bane has brought him out of the shadows.

That’s Batman; what about the city?  Gotham has experienced eight years of relatively clean streets, but “there’s a storm coming.”  Bane, the primary villain, is planning to finish what Ra’s Al Ghul attempted in Batman Begins- to destroy the city.  Why?  Because, as they stated in the first movie, Gotham has fallen into corruption (at every level) and beyond saving.  So, the League of Shadows is back to finish the job- to cleanse the city through destruction.  The obvious question is “I thought the city was clean- the mob was beaten, good has the upper hand- so why destroy it?  What corruption still exists?”  Bane provides the answer- the city was galvanized into action, inspired by Harvey Dent and his stand against crime, but their action is based on a lie.  Harvey Dent wasn’t good, he wasn’t pure- he was fallen.    Bane says the leaders of the city- Commissioner Gordon, Batman, and the rest, “Supplied you [Gotham] with false idol to keep you from tearing down the city.”  They gave the city hope through deception- so, in Bane’s mind, the good that’s come of the last eight years is nullified, and the city deserves destruction every bit as much as it did in Batman Begins.  

Can Bane “finish the job?”  He has several things going for him.  First, his mask- he wears a mask which is constantly medicating him, masking pain from earlier injuries in life (in the comics, this medicine also gives him tremendous strength- and while it isn’t explicitly stated in the movie, it is implied that this is the case here).  He’s the first villain Batman faces who’s more physically imposing than the caped crusader.  Second, being in the League of Shadows, he knows who Batman really is- not only his identity, but his fighting techniques and training.  How does Bane prevent Batman from destroying the plan this time around?  He does two things- he takes his resources and his health.  

First, Bane takes his resources.  He uses Catwoman to break into Wayne Manor and lift Bruce’s fingerprints; he, in turn, uses those prints to break into Wayne’s stock portfolio and drain his resources.  Wayne’s wealth is gone; he is financially neutralized.  Control of Wayne Enterprises passes to Miranda Tate, Wayne’s financial partner in the aforementioned failed reactor attempt.  Batman’s access to wealth is gone.  In the process, Bane also takes Batman’s arsenal- the “Applied Sciences” division of Wayne Enterprises. 

Second, Bane takes his body.  Bane knows how Batman fights, and he knows that Batman is physically weakened by years of fighting followed by years of inactivity and attrition.  He fights Batman to the point where Batman is crippled, and casts him into a prison pit in the middle of the third world.  Why not just kill him?  “Your punishment must be more severe,” Bane says, and adds “When Gotham is in ashes, you have my permission to die.”  The prison pit can be escaped- one person has done it- by making a nearly impossible climb.  Why?  Because Bane says there’s “No true despair without hope.”  That’s an interesting concept.

With Batman neutralized, Bane puts his plan into action.  The police know he’s running things out of the underground system in town, so they send most of their resources underground to find him.  Bane realizes this, and has planned for it- he buries them underground by blowing up the tunnel exits.  He also destroys the bridges leaving the city (save for one).  No cops, no batman, no way in or out- the city is his.  Should the military think of intervening, Bane has a trump card- a nuclear weapon.  If the military intervenes, he blows up the city.  

Where did Bane get the weapon?  Remember, Bruce Wayne had built a fusion generator that failed- supposedly.  In reality, it worked, but before a public revelation of success, a Russian scientist published a paper on how to turn such generators into weapons.  Wayne read the report, realized that the great good he intended to bestow on the city could be used for evil, and so he falsely reports the generator as a failure.  When Bane takes the city, he gets Wayne Enterprises board members to take him to the generator, and brings with him the Russian scientist to weaponize the reactor.  The scientist does, and voila, a nuke.

How does Bane keep control of the city?  This is a city of millions- even with the cops, military, and Batman out of sight, that’s a lot of people to corral.  Bane does so through a lie.  When he takes the city, he reveals the deception city leadership has given to the people.  He reads a letter Commissioner Gordon himself has written, admitting the plot.  The people riot in reaction, and Bane tells them to take the city back- take it back from corruption, take it back and rule.  He thus keeps the city in check, while he plots to kill them all.  A lot of this aspect of the movie is drawn straight out of A Tale of Two Cities.

With Bane in total control, the obvious next step is to use the weapon immediately, but he doesn’t.  why not just blow up the city and be done?  The nuclear weapon he has will only go off when it destabilizes; it destabilizes slowly, when it’s disconnected from its main power source.  It’s disconnected almost immediately after Bane takes control, but will take months to fully wind down.

In those months, Batman is languishing in prison, but is aided by the prisoners to heal and strengthen.  He makes several escape attempts, with a safety rope on should he fail.  He does fail- twice- and is starting to despair.  Advised by a prisoner that success may lie in removing the safety rope so that he fully understands fear (“no fear inhibits success,” he claims), Batman makes a third attempt and succeeds- a concept along the lines of a leap of faith, with failure no option.  Batman escapes and gets back to Gotham- back to his old hideout, and is in the city once more.

Once back in the city, Batman enlists the help of Catwoman, Gordon, and a loyal cop named John Blake to take on Bane, find the bomb, and defuse it.  They accomplish the first two, but there’s no way to defuse it, so Batman flies the bomb out over the water, where it explodes.  The city is saved; Batman/Bruce Wayne is gone.  A statue to Batman is erected in (what I presume is) city hall.  The city has a hero again; just a dark one.  He died a hero . . . or did he?  The answer is both yes and no.

Early in the film, Alfred tells Bruce that he didn’t really want him to return to Gotham- because he knew only pain lied there.  He wanted Bruce to go away somewhere, and start over new.  At the end of this film, he does.  Bruce faked his own death- the aircraft he flew was on autopilot- and left Batman and Gotham behind forever.  He passed the mantle of Batman- which is, after all, a symbol more than a man- to John Blake, leaving him instructions on locating the bat-cave.  So Batman (the symbol) lived, but Batman (as Bruce Wayne) died, in the sense that Bruce Wayne is no longer the Caped Crusader.  That’s the film in a nutshell.

Impressions

This movie has a lot of lying, or discussions about lying, in it.  From the last movie, Batman & Gordon lied to the city to preserve their hero, and Alfred lied to Batman to preserve Wayne’s hope that Rachel loved him.  Both were in the vein of lying to protect others from pain.  This movie, Bane lies to the people to keep them in check while he awaits their destruction, and Batman lies to everyone by faking his death.  So, is it okay to lie, if you’re protecting people?  The subject is touched on but not resolved.  The people riot when they learn the truth of Harvey Dent, but the movie doesn’t discuss how they are calmed down- it implies they settle when Batman saves the city, but why?  Is their hope back in man?  Should it be?  I wish they would have discussed that more.

Another idea explored in the film is “structures become shackles”- several police officers discuss this, and they discuss it in the context of always needing someone like the Batman- someone who can operate outside of society’s rules of conduct to get results.  Just three words, but one can discuss the implications of them at length.  For example, why can’t we get results by following our structures?  Why do they impede us, when they’re meant to bring order?  Does that mean our laws (or their enforcement) are deficient?  Criminals who have clearly violated the spirit of the law can hide behind legal loopholes and other mechanisms that prevent them from being brought to justice.  We should follow the spirit of law, but the spirit is difficult to enforce.  Thus it’s fitting that, in the end, Batman is the city’s hero- the dark knight, the one who operates outside of structure, who operates according to the spirit.  Commissioner Gordon, when confronted with his lie to make Dent look clean, said you “need someone to plunge hands into filth to keep your hands clean.”  That’s the idea here- the city needs police to provide order and structure, but a Batman figure to operate in the spirit of the law, and fully establish justice where the letter of the law fails.

The final main concept was more about Bruce Wayne than the city itself- and his quest to find peace.  The message seemed to be, when touched by tragedy, you need a new start- abandon all you know, and start anew.  I don’t really agree with that- you can’t keep running forever- but perhaps the abandonment they speak of is abandoning the past- of refusing to move on from tragedy.  

This review has been rambling- I fully realize that- but the movie was, too.  There were a lot of messages thrown in- as I touch on in the plot section- that I don't review here, because (in part) the movie didn't really, either.  It presented a lot of questions and thoughts without a lot of answers.  I really enjoyed it- I’ve thought about it through the weekend- and suspect there are layers to peel back here, worthy of much analysis.  But, right now, I’m not quite sure how to peel those layers back.  I need to watch it a few more times.

Rating: A+

The Dark Knight

One of the best movies ever made!  The Dark Knight, like its predecessor, is amazingly well done.  Not just a story about a superhero, or good vs evil, it explores the depth of our hearts- what rules us, and what gives us hope.  There are spoilers here.

The story picks up shortly after the conclusion of Batman Begins.  Batman has given the city hope- criminals are running scared, and people are gaining confidence that good can win.  The new DA, Harvey Dent, is a public manifestation of the growing confidence (whereas Batman is in the shadows)- he's Gotham's White Knight, putting criminals behind bars and standing for justice.  He is the city's hope.  The mob, on the ropes and getting desperate as their hold on the town wanes, hires someone to put a stop to this- the Joker.  The mob thinks Joker will just help them destroy Batman and regain their stranglehold on the city- the Joker has different ideas.

The Joker, as Heath Ledger portrayed him, is the greatest movie villain of all time. I feel he accurately reflects Satan.  Alfred, Bruce Wayne's butler, sums him up best: ". . . some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."  The Joker has no regard for others, or even himself.  He doesn't want power or wealth.  He wants to create chaos, and see others (Batman, society) fall into that chaos.  Or, more accurately, he believes that life is chaos, and societies should reflect that- and stop pretending otherwise.  In his own words (pasted together from different parts of the film): "You think rules will save you.  The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules . . . "[society's] morals are a bad joke- dropped at the first sign of trouble."  His claim: we're not good people, we just make up some rules and live by them as long as it's convenient.  The second we're threatened (he says), we drop all signs of goodness and live for ourselves.  We should put no faith in man, according to him, and abandon our hope in the same.

With that in mind, Joker sets out to incite chaos and destroy Batman by turning the city against him, using terror tactics.  "Turn over Batman, or I'll start killing people."  "Kill so-and-so, or I'll blow up a hospital."  He makes good on his threat to kill- and terror/fear spread through the city.  He makes people decide whether to die themselves or kill others.  As his tactics "cross the line," Batman is faced with a choice- does he cross the line, too?  Eventually, he decides to- more on that later.

In addition to terror tactics, Joker knows the best way to destroy the city's hope in man is to show the city that their hero, Harvey Dent, can't be trusted.  Eventually, Joker takes the life of Dent's girlfriend, and through a concurrent failed assassination attempt, Dent becomes Two-Face.  The Joker succeeds- Two-Face is enraged at the death of his loved one, and admits at the end that hope is lost- "You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time."  He is fallen; hope is lost.  He embraces chaos.  He states, "the world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance."  There's no hope in rules; it all comes down to the flip of a coin, in his mind.  He kills other and dies a broken man.  His crimes, though, have been committed in private, largely out of the eye of witnesses- and this sets up the point of the film.

The city manages to steel itself against the terror.  They flee, they're frightened, but they avoid going completely off the edge and turning on each other (it should be noted, however, that their victory isn't due to goodness- it's because they're selfish, and don't want to be responsible for killing others- sometimes good deeds arise out of selfishness more than anything).  Even so, the Joker seems to have lost- chaos is not winning.  However, he has a wild card- Dent's fall.   This is a way for the Joker to win- the hope is gone.  Unless Two-face's crimes can be pinned on someone else . . .

Batman realized the reality of things.  If Dent's fall becomes public, the Joker wins.  The hero is gone; the city sinks into despair.  So Batman takes those crimes on himself- he becomes the fall guy, to allow Dent to remain a hero, and people to remain hopeful.  He says this:  "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded..."  Gotham needs hope- and Batman deceives them to keep their hope in man.  He becomes an outcast, fleeing from the police, who chase him for crimes he didn't commit.  He takes the fall.

Here's what I love about this movie: the Joker is largely correct, and the hero is the one deceiving people.  There is no hope in man.  We are all fallen and selfish, no matter how good we seem to be.  How do we react to this?  In this movie, without mention of God, there really is no hope without deceiving ourselves into thinking we can make it on our own.  In reality, there is a God, who can be the goodness we could never hope to be- He can be our hope.  But in the film, without that option, we must deceive ourselves to survive.  And, frankly, I believe we do that as a society today.  As we trend away from God (in any form), we embrace humanism, and believe the hope is with us- and it can never be.

Being a Penn State grad, what better example is there than Joe Paterno?  A legendary coach, who has helped thousands over the years- a seemingly good man.  Yet, it's recently been brought to light that he knew of a colleague sexually assaulting young boys, and he didn't do enough to stop it.  Joe, for all the good he did, was fallen.  He was selfish.  He was what we all are.  Where is our hope?  Where do we turn, when even our heroes fail us?  There's only one choice, and when you remove that, you're forced to deceive yourself to press on.

There's even more here that I don't review, because this is already getting long and I doubt anyone's reading, anyway.  Watch the movie, and enjoy.


Rating: A+

A thought for the troubled

This is a poem that I wrote for my daughter shortly after her birth.  I've modified it a bit and present it here specifically for a dear family member, to whom significant health problems cling with continued determination.  Hang in there- we love you.  More importantly, God does, too.

 

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” – Jeremiah 1:5a

As you get older, you’ll find in this life

No end to the things that cause heartache or strife

The future’s uncertain, and can inspire fear

If we’re faced with the loss of things we hold dear

But try to remember that we’re in God’s hands

An integral part of His wonderful plans

He knows us and loves us, even in the womb

He’ll be with us always- from birth to the tomb

So trust and cling to Him, each one of your days

And focus on Him- He’ll direct all your ways

Even when you’re hurting, engulfed by the night

He’ll put you at ease, and surround you with light

Then when you look back on your life you will say

“He’s been faithful thus far, and He’ll be so today!”

Remember- should blessings or troubles befall,

Before the Lord formed you, He planned it all

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Robert Louis Stevenson)

After slogging through Dickens, I wanted a quick read, and this fit the bill.  At only 88 pages, it's an easy one-sitting read.  And a highly worthwhile one, at that.

I would think most are well familiar with the story, so I won't be concerned about spoilers in my review.  Dr. Jekyll has a problem- he lives a double life.  What he wants to do, he feels he must isolate from society; over the years, he develops his public demeanor, while secretly maintaining a very different private one.  He finds, proceeding down this course, the each nature wants to dominate, and despises the other.  He thus sets out to create a drug that will sever the two entirely, and does so- in a sense.  Mr. Hyde is created, and is pure evil.  He can (in the beginning, at least) resort back to Dr. Jekyll easily enough, and so he embarks on an what is, at first, an adventure for him.  He lives a 'free' life as Hyde, doing as he pleases, and unconstrained by society's (or his conscience's) pressures to repress his baser instincts.  After a 'romp', he then reverts to Jekyll and lives his life as an upstanding society man.  He soon realizes, however, that Hyde is taking over and increasingly difficult to turn away, even when no drugs are administered to facilitate the change.  Eventually, it's the death of him.

The last chapter of this book- which, at 22 pages, is a full quarter of the novel- is one of the most amazing discourses regarding the human condition that I've read outside of the Bible.  It's where Jekyll, before he permanently transforms to Hyde one last time, puts down a narrative of his struggle with his natures- his desire for good, and evil- and the war between them.  While I don't wholly agree with all of Stevenson's views, I do agree with the vast majority- that man has two natures in him, that each yearns to be rid of the other, and that nourishing the evil one makes it increasingly difficult to avoid.  He speaks, truly, of the clouded, fading conscience while evil is being committed, and subsequent horror when right senses return.  Of the difficulty of suppressing subsequent sin once initially indulged.  He gets a lot of things right.  This is highly recommended.

Rating: A+

A Tale of Two Cities (Charles Dickens)

With The Dark Knight Rises due in theaters on Friday, and Nolan publicly stating that Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities was a strong influence, this was high on my list.  It deals with the cities of London and Paris, and is set before and during the French Revolution of the late 1700s.  This was my first Dickens work (I have two others on my reading list), and I was not disappointed.

Well, I should say, I was not disappointed at the end.  The novel (originally published serially) is broken into three books.  The first two were quite difficult.  Dickens writes with an occasionally enviable, and occasionally frustrating, eloquence and verbosity.  Each sentence could contain a subtle and well-worded comment on society in addition to advancing the story.  This, I liked- mostly.  If reading is akin to having a meal, many popular authors are like snack food- easily consumed- and Dickens (at least here) was like a heavy meal- one cannot read any great length (and fully digest the meanings) without stopping for a break of significant length.  Thus, for the first two-thirds of the book, I could complete only 30-40 pages a day.  The story didn't seem to advance much, the different characters and story arcs seemed unrelated (or, at best, only marginally connected), and these, combined with the aforementioned prolixity, made me somewhat reluctant to continue.  But, I pressed on, and in the third book, all was rewarded.  I finished this final book (conveniently, 1/3 of the novel), in a day, with anticipation and enjoyment increasing every page.  The pace picked up, and the language, though still eloquent, seemed much easier to digest.  Everything fell into place.  It was great- a worthy story.  But for the deficiencies of the first two books, this would get an A+.  As it stands, it's still very worthwhile- just be prepared to endure the first two-thirds.  I say endure as though it was unbearable- it wasn't- it just took more effort than expected.

There's a lot to this story that I don't review here.  Analysis of how Darnay is treated both in London and Paris would be a worthy contemplation, as would investigating the similarities between the people of the two cities as a whole.  Not to mention the love shown by many individuals to each other throughout the novel, and how it manifests itself.  But, the bed beckons.

Rating: A

Batman Begins

With The Dark Knight Rises upon is in six short days, I take this opportunity to look back on the first two movies.  The first two Christopher Nolan Batman movies, that is.  Before Nolan took the reigns, there were four Batman flicks.  Those were quite different- the first ever, Batman (released in 1989), was a hit, and the follow up (Batman Returns, 1992), wasn't far behind.  They were both decent.  However, in my opinion, anyone involved in the subsequent two (Batman Forever, 1995; Batman and Robin, 1997) should have been banned from the motion picture industry for life.  They were atrocious, and tarnished the Batman image in cinemas; Hollywood stayed away for almost 10 years. 

Enter Nolan.  In 2005, he released Batman Begins, a 'reboot' of the Batman story.  Featuring an all new cast, it began back at the origin of the Dark Knight.  It did well in theaters, in spite of the bad taste lingering from the aforementioned predecessors, and deserved to do so.  It is excellent.

About half of superhero movies (since 2000) are origin stories; i.e. "how did _______ come to be?"  Most of the stories follow the same generic story line; the hero is an 'average' citizen to start (regardless of their station in life, there's nothing particularly extraordinary about them), something happens to alter their lives (death of family, bitten by spider, scientific experiment/mutation, etc), and they take up a mantle of fighting crime and injustice.  In that regard, Batman Begins follows the pattern.  But, it's not the story alone that makes this so good- it's in the execution.

The three most notable things about the movie, in my opinion, are as follows:
1) Bruce Wayne, once his parents are murdered, suffers for years.  He's attracted by the prospect of crime, and descends into that realm to better understand it.  His crime is frequent theft of varying degrees, and he ends up, rightfully, in jail for his crimes.  He would have fallen even farther- and stooped to murder- had a mob boss not coincidentally stepped in and did the job he intended to do himself- killing his parents' murderer.  I liked this aspect of the film, because it shows a man truly lost- truly weak.  He's confused, doesn't know which way to turn, and turns criminal, perhaps in the vain hope of understanding evil by indulging in it himself.  This affliction is something not seen much in this genre, at least to the level explored in the film.

2) Batman's main enemy in the film wants the exact same thing Batman does- a Gotham rid of corruption.  They differ only on the means; Batman believes the city contains some good people, and wants to rid the city only of criminals, in a merciful way (by turning them over to the cops rather than killing them); the enemy is convinced that Gotham is beyond saving, and must be destroyed, to start fresh.  I really like this aspect of the film- think of the Biblical parallel in Sodom & Gomorrah.  It's a shadow of God's exchanges with Abraham, when God wants to destroy the cities, and Abraham asks Him to be merciful if there are even just a handful of righteous remaining.  In that case, God removed the righteous, and then destroyed the city; Batman's foe shows no such compassion.  He wants them all gone.  In the end, it breaks the mold of a typical villain, who is characterized by a desire for more money or power.  He wants good to prevail, too, he just thinks there's a better way of bringing that about.  It's like a political discussion, in a sense- everyone wants the same thing (a better life for all), but people disagree on how to accomplish that.  It encourages reflection on the topic, which is always good.

3) The central theme of the film: it's not just about your beliefs, it's about your actions.  The following quote (or slight variations thereof) is repeated twice in the film: "it's not who you are inside, it's what you do that defines you."  It has echoes of James 2:19 - "you believe there is one God; you do well.  Even the demons believe- and tremble!"  The point of the passage, and the movie, is that belief is one thing, but action is the true revelation of one's character.  How many people (myself included) think themselves good because they believe good things, they say they want justice, etc?  Yet, do we buy clothing made in overseas sweat-shops?  Is that supporting justice?  Does it matter what we believe, if our actions don't support the same message?  Demons believe in God, yet they actively rebel, so who cares what they believe?  Similarly, how many people call themselves Christians because they believe in God, yet their lives show no evidence of His working?  Christians are not saved by what we do (we're saved by grace, not works), but what we do does show whether or not we're saved.  After all, how can we who died to sin live any longer in it (Romans 6:2)?  I digress- the point is, actions matter, and the film makes that point well.  I don't believe Nolan is a Christian, but I feel some very Christian themes come through in his film-making.

For these reasons and more (expert film-making, great acting, etc), this movie is well worth it, even if you don't normally go for the superhero type of movie.

Rating: A+

Punisher- War Zone

In my review of the new Spider-man movie, I noted that 30 superhero movies had been made since 2000.  As I stated that, I realized that I had yet to see a handful of them, so I'm trying to 'correct' that.  The first up was Punisher- War Zone.  It was, by far, the lowest-earning superhero movie of the modern era, taking in only 6 million domestic (vs. a 35 million budget).  In keeping with its earnings, it received horrible reviews, so I wasn't expecting much-  I figured I'd start at the bottom and work my way up.

The Punisher's story in a nutshell: he's an ex-military man whose family is killed by the mob after accidentally witnessing a mob crime.  In retaliation, he becomes the Punisher, and destroys all criminals he comes across.  He has a few cops secretly assisting him, as they envy his ability to fight crime outside the law.

Well, the movie met my incredibly low expectations- it was horrible.  This wasn't an origin story- the 'original' Punisher movie in 2004 covered that ground, though the cast here is all new, so it may have felt like a reboot.  That said, there was no opening character development- we begin with the Punisher walking into a mob dinner and doing what he does best- absolute carnage.  The Punisher character is pretty much an "shoot first, ask questions never" type, so the movie was extremely violent (and R-rated, a rarity for the genre).  The movie kept with his character- few questions asked, little character/plot development, just lots of shooting and death.

As I watched, I oscillated between giving this an F or F--.  However, there were a few redeeming moments.  You do see very fleeting moments of Punisher reflecting on his course of life, and even comparing that in light of the Bible (and quoting scripture).  He wasn't quoting to justify his actions- he was basically saying "yeah, I'm done, but I'm going to make sure the bad guys are done, too".  There was also the odd moment of dark humor, like when the cops are holding a guy for arrest, and the Punisher walks in, nonchalantly shoots the criminal, and walks out.  Grisly but amusing (or perhaps I'm just warped).  Finally, there were a few plot devices that broke the mold- in the final confrontation, the bad guys have both a family and Punisher's friend hostage, and he can save only one.  He chooses- and the other dies.  So there's a degree of 'realism' there that isn't present in most superhero flicks.  These things saved it from a failing grade, but not by much.

Rating: D-

A British Reading List

This post is long overdue.  As we approach six months since I created this blog, and I've reviewed a decent number of books, I realized that I never publicly stated my intent in so doing.  I elaborate here.

As I currently live in the UK, I decided shortly after my arrival last year to read predominantly British authors, and create a list of 'must-reads' during my time here.  My reasons were several:
1) Britain has produced a lot of good authors over the years; there would be no shortage of choice
2) I felt it would enhance my experience in the country
3) It never hurts to have a goal

Last July, I created a list of my "must-read" British works.  To do so, I relied on personal knowledge, friend's recommendations, and the plethora of "best of British literature" lists from around the web.  The list is not static- I've added and dropped a few here and there since the start, and reserve the right to continue to do so.  Right now the list stands at 124, and I suspect the final number will be in that area (I want something realizable, so it can't grow too much more).  In selecting, I tried to be well-rounded, and chose books from many genres: history, literature, Shakespeare, religion, humor, mystery, science, government, graphic novel, fiction, and thriller.  There are both famous works and little known selections.  I 'mixed it up' a bit.  With my list in hand (figuratively, of course- it's on the computer), I set off and began the 'challenge.'

One year in, I'm really enjoying the experience.  I've read 40% of the list, and my average rating is 93, so most of the works are well done (at least in my opinion).  Has it enhanced my experience here?  Yes, no question.  I tailor my reading to both current national interests and my travels- so, as examples, I read a book on the Titanic because 2012 is the 100th anniversary (and was thus in the news), and before I visited Sherwood forest several weeks ago, I read Robin Hood.  Reading before traveling has provided the most noticeable benefit- it heightens the anticipation and, on occasion, gives me ideas for places to visit I wouldn't have otherwise considered.  And, of course, the history selections give me a greater understanding of the country and how things came to be- helpful in many areas, not least of which making sense of the thousands of historical attractions on the island.

Another benefit has been encountering authors I wouldn't normally read.  Some on the list I've meant to read for years- the Sherlock Holmes stories, the Harry Potter novels, etc- but many I hadn't previously considered.  Sometimes I'm disappointed, but most times I'm thankful I chose to read someone new.  In the process, I've encountered several new favorite authors.

The other benefits I've experienced are true of reading in general: it can be informative, enlightening, exciting, and fulfilling.  Nothing against video games or other pursuits, but I really feel as though I'm accomplishing something worthwhile here.  I'm learning, exercising the brain, and enjoying myself.

The most noticeable downside of my quest is the tendency (true of many pursuits) for goals to become  chores.  Even though you enjoy something, when you dedicate yourself to it daily, it can become wearying.  There have been days where I've approached my reading out of a sense of duty more than excitement, but, like a good gym workout, after the fact I've never regretted devoting the time to the page.

Overall, I'd highly recommend a reading list.  At this point, I've even put other (non-British) works on the list, to be read after I'm done my time here.  It gives me a schedule that will probably take me 5 years to fulfill, but it will be worth it.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man

Superhero films have exploded in recent years.  CG technology has enabled directors to create the fantastic scenarios inherent in the genre, so it's no surprise that we've had around 30 such movies since 2000.  Ten years ago, Spider-man, the original movie with Tobey Maguire, made over 400 million in US theaters (only The Dark Knight and The Avengers have done better).  That story arc had two sequels, but Marvel decided to 'reboot' the franchise with the Amazing Spider-man, released this past week.  An all-new cast, and a new origin story, are at the heart of this remake.  While several other superhero movies have done reboots, this attempt was perhaps the riskiest, as only 5 years have passed since the last Spider-man (Spider-man 3 was released in 2007), so the last arc was fresh in the mind of the audience.  And why re-do an origin story last presented only 10 years ago?  Why not continue the existing arc, but with different actors?  Marvel took a chance on this one, knowing the story would come under increased criticism for these reasons.

The Amazing Spider-man is similar to the 2002 Spider-man in many respects.  In both, we see Peter Parker get bitten by the 'special' spider, come to grips with his transformation and subsequent powers, and struggle through the idea that "with great power comes great responsibility."  This new release differs in that it attempts to be more true to the comic, and grittier- it's not as dark as The Dark Knight, but certainly lacks some of the light-hearted comic feeling the first release had.  It also has no mention of Mary Jane Watson, Spidey's love interest in the first three films.  You get to meet Peter's parents at the beginning of the film, before their death, which was interesting (and a first).

The villain, The Lizard, was alluded to in the first 3-movie arc, but never seen, so that was original to this release.  And, pleasingly, I felt the villain was well-done- clearly a person with a plan he thought would bring good to the city, he wasn't pure evil, just short-sighted, out of control (at times), and misguided.  He doesn't kill wantonly (most of the time); he has a specific objective and doesn't hurt unnecessarily.  He even helps Spidey a bit in the end.  In that respect, I thought the movie did well. 

Another area I thought was well-captured was Parker's interaction with his foster parents.  You get a real sense of the struggles of being a teenager on top of dealing with unexpected powers come through in his relationship with Uncle Ben and Aunt May.

Some final good points:  the effects were fantastic (to be expected these days), the humor was well-done and not forced or over-the-top, and all of the characters were good.

The movie wasn't without fault, but it was good.  Marvel did well here.  Coming out of the theater, I thought it probably was better than the 2002 Spidey, though I doubt in this day it will make the kind of money the original did- cracking the 400M barrier is increasingly difficult, as superhero flicks are no longer the new and intriguing genre they were 10 years past.  I'd imagine this performing in the 300M range, good for 6th or 7th place in the ranks for superhero flicks. 

Rating: A

From Russia with Love (Ian Fleming)

Bond!  The famous 007 has inspired 24 movies (with a 25th to be released this fall), which I believe is more than any other fictional hero.  A dozen Bond novels were written by his creator, Ian Fleming, from 1953-1964.  He wrote "only" 12 Bond novels and 9 short stories- meaning the films have gone beyond the scope of his work.  I didn't realize that, but many authors since Fleming passed have picked up the Bond story and run with it.  But I digress.

I chose From Russia with Love as my Fleming/Bond selection because it was the work that made Bond an icon.  It's not the first Bond story- Casino Royale is the origin tale- but From Russia with Love is perhaps the best known.  It's short- just over 250 pages- and a quick read.  But, frankly, a disappointing one.

Perhaps my expectations were too high, or I was distracted by personal matters, but I found the story only average at best.  It was very straightforward and formulaic, with some unconvincing plot devices and underdeveloped characters/situations.  It had moments of greatness- I could see the seeds of modern day thrillers in some of the pages- but in the end, it didn't meet my expectations.  It took me over a week to plow through due to disinterest, which surprised me.  If it's the spy genre you're after, le Carre would be a better choice.  I have a feeling that this was groundbreaking in the 1950s, and could see teenage boys eating these books up, but today, comparing it with similar works written decades later, I feel it deficient.

In hindsight, Bond is one of those few genres that is perhaps better presented on the big screen.  I'll stick to the movies in the future.

Rating: B-