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-