Caped Crusaders

And the winner is. . . .  Well, it's actually a tie.  With two votes apiece (The Solipsist really needs more readers, folks), the best Batman award is split between Michael Keaton and Adam West.  This tells us two things: One, a good 50% of Solipsistics are ironists.  And two, all the readers exhibit discernment.  The fact is, there has not yet been a perfect Batman.  Oh, undoubtedly, The Dark Knight is a superb movie--the best of the franchise, and a tremendous film in its own right--but this does not make Christian Bale the best Batman ('tho perhaps we can stipulate Christopher Nolan the best "bat"-rector?  The Solipsist is open to discussion on Tim Burton).  The trick is, any actor has to embody not just the menacing hero but also has to be convincing as Bruce Wayne.  Christian Bale had a clear persona as Wayne the bored playboy, but it was almost TOO clearly a persona.  Michael Keaton (the Solipsist's personal choice) presented the best combination of a believable Wayne and a threatening Batman--but even he didn't quite pull off "playboy" (and his weak chin looked disturbing poking through the cowl). In fact, on paper, George Clooney was perfect.  Too bad the movie was made.

But anyone playing a comic book character has the deck stacked against him (or her):  (A) They have to be good enough actors to pull off the dual personalities described above.  Who was the best?  Probably Tobey Maguire: For the Solipsist's money, he WAS Peter Parker, and, since Spidey's personality is not too drastic an opposition to Peter's, he worked well in the costume as well.  (B) Even when they ARE good actors, they are overshadowed--first by the high-tech moviemaking, and second--and more significantly--by the villains.  Michael Keaton was fine; Jack Nicholson was memorable.  Christian Bale was probably about the best one could hope for; Heath Ledger was scary.  The filmmakers know this, too.  Just think about how many times the villain has been a bigger star than the hero: Gene Hackman and, later, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor opposite a then unknown Christopher Reeve and a still unknown whatshisface (no, he doesn't even merit a Google lookup) as Superman.  Sir Ian McKellen as Magneto vs. a then-unknown Hugh Jackman as Wolverine.  (Yes, yes, Patrick Stewart was Professor X, but that's more like the Brando role, not the superhero.  And the fact that a mega-star like Halle Berry was relegated to the second fiddle of Storm says more about racism and sexism in Hollywood than any number of Academy Award snubs).  Eric Bana as the Hulk vs. Nick Nolte as. . . well, whatever his name was in the movie.  Need we go on?

And why shouldn't this be the case?  Let's face it, villains are more interesting.  Be honest with yourselves, folks: If YOU had super powers, would you use them for good or evil?  Maybe a little bit of both, but none of us would likely be as pure of heart as Superman.  In an escapist medium, we identify more with villains, and filmmakers and movie stars know this.  Maybe (MAYBE) deep down we want the hero to win, but while those two hours pass in the darkened theater, a tiny part of us wants to see the bad guy come out on top.  And having the villain played by the name-above-the-title gives that tiny part something to cling to.

(PS: The single most terrifying comic book ever written, "Miracleman" by Alan Moore, is basically a disquisition on what would happen if Superman walked the earth--not for the faint of heart.  For a cinematic taste of what this would be like, keep your fingers crossed that the upcoming "Watchmen" (another Moore project) is worth seeing.)

Addendum to "Khaaaaaannnnn!!!" (January 14)

So, the Solipsist has a friend (yes, really!) who helps keep Your-Not-So-Humble Correspondent honest.  He pointed out some errors in the other day's tribute to the late Ricardo Montalban, which YNSHC would like to take this time to correct.

First, apparently the correct spelling of "Cardassian" is, well, "Cardassian" and not "Kardassian" as was previously reported.  We regret the error.

The second mistake is a bit more troubling.  You will recall that the Solipsist opened his post with a quote from "The Wrath of Khan" (or "TWOK" as it is apparently known to afficionados).  The quote that appeared was:

"I'll chase him 'round the Outer Nebula and 'round Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!"

Now, the aforementioned Friend of Solipsist (FOS) e-mailed the following:

I'm glad you opened your post with that quote about "perdition's flames", though will pick the nit that they were "the moons of Nibia" not "the Outer Nebula". . .to which Khan referred. 

Well, the Solipsist must throw himself upon the mercy of his readers here.  He would like to state in his own defense that the quote was taken verbatim from a website located on Google under the heading "Khan Noonien Singh Quotes."  The complete URL is:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_Khan.

So perhaps something needs to be edited.  At any rate, since the Solipsist wants to be YOUR first source for news and information, rest assured that no stone will go unturned, no source will go unconsulted, no DVD will go unwatched until we can establish the truth once and for all.

What makes this situation truly disturbing are two facts:  One, apparently we cannot 100% trust everything we read on the Internet.  Who knew?

And two: Apparently this FOS was able to just pull the correct quote out of his own, um, stores of knowledge.

The Solipsist is sad.

Irony Watch (A Brief Entry)

Observed on the freeway: A billboard.  An electronic billboard.  And not some little digital display, either, but a full-on, high-def, LCD monstrosity that one cannot help but imagine has caused many a distracted driver to swerve into oncoming traffic.

And what's on this billboard?  An ad from Chevron.

And what is the message of this ad?

"Use less energy."

Seriously.

Discuss.

KHAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

"I'll chase him 'round the Outer Nebula and 'round Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!"

--Ricardo Montalban as Khan in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan."

While most eulogies will likely lead with references to Mr. Rourke, Montalban (who died today) should properly be remembered for his star turn as the eponymous villain of that Star Trek sequel.  Yes, "Fantasy Island" had a longer run than the original "Trek."  And yes, Ricardo Montalban was the star of the former and appeared in only one episode of the latter.  And yes, one would hardly argue that his performance in either the show or the movie was red-carpet-worthy.  But the fact remains, Ricardo Montalban was Khan.  And Khan was important.

Think back to the original "Star Trek" series.  Remember?  Now, imagine yourself a screenwriter in, say, 1980.  "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" had hit theaters the previous year.  And it was bad.  Most Trekkers have probably tried to erase the memory of that ponderous, two-plus-hour aircraft carrier of a movie.  Now you, our screenwriter, are tasked with producing a more satisfying Trek feature: something with, say, a plot, some humor, and, above all, a villain!  You think back some 12 years to your experiences watching the show.  Who can you use as a villain?  For the simple fact is, the original "Star Trek" really didn't have any!  Klingons?  Well, they were a warlike race and they were at war with the Federation.  Same holds basically true for the Romulans.  The Gorn?  He was just fighting for his own survival.  Harry Mudd?  Comic relief.

But wait!  What's this episode?  "Space Seed"?  Who's this handsome, swaggering, menacing fellow with the Crow Indian hair, Latin accent, and South Asian name?  Khan Noonien Singh.  He's so cool he makes Kirk look like McCoy.  And his background--a genetic Superman exiled to space along with his followers after a failed insurrection on earth--was positively Hitlerian.  Sure, in the end he and Kirk seemed to achieve an amicable parting, but that was easily dealt with in the first ten minutes of "The Wrath of Khan."  And in his heart, Khan never abandoned his dreams of conquest.  And when he returned in 1982, his was not the only surprise resurrection: It also marked the resurrection of "Star Trek."  Now, twenty-seven years, four series, and ten movies (and counting) later, can anyone argue otherwise?

And herein lies Khan's relevance.  He was the first, true VILLAIN in the Star Trek franchise.  Aside from him, the villains in the original series were largely sociological symbols.  But by showing us true villainy, Khan allowed the series to expand its boundaries.  Of course, the show never completely abandoned its multiculti ideals.  But in terms of the overall aethetic, you can easily divide the franchise into before (BK) and after (AK) Khan  AK, in the movies and the subsequent Trek series, you got villains with an edge, even when they had sufficiently PC back stories.  BK, you had the Squire of Gothos, a petulant manchild with omnipotent powers; after Khan, you got Q.  BK, you had Klingons, as mentioned above, a warlike race without much back story; AK, you had Kardassians (not to be confused with Kardashians, who are a whole 'nother kind of evil), a warlike race with flair, malevolence, and Gul Dukat, possibly the single greatest badguy in the whole franchise.

BK, you had tribbles; AK, you had the Borg.

So rest in peace, Mr. Montalban.  And rest assured, your place in culture is secure.

Addendum

Mr. Bush said he was not certain why he had become so divisive. “I don’t know why they get angry,” he replied to a question about those who disagreed with his policies so vehemently that it became personal. “I don’t know why they get hostile.” He added that he had learned not to pay attention.
--The New York Times, January 13, 2009

So, just for clarification's sake, does this mean at some point he WAS paying attention?

Office Politics

The self-employed do not have to deal with office politics. Nor, generally, do people who work with only one other person--the practically self-employed. In those situations, generally one person is the acknowledged superior and the other the acknowledged inferior. This is how marriages work. But once a workplace has three or more people, it has become a de facto society. And politics are society's fuel.

And the more members of a society, the more politics there are. This is not a comment on the TYPE of politics (vicious, collegial, etc.), merely on the amount. That is, if we define politics as the "use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc." (http://www.dictionary.com/), then the number of strategies occurring at any given time rises directly (if not exponentially) with the number of people in a given society.

Case in point, the Solipsist has the opportunity to observe politcal interactions firsthand on a day-t0-day basis. The industry is not relevant, merely that it meets our definition of a workplace society. For simplicity's sake, let's just say the Solipsist is intimately familiar with the goings on at a widget factory. In the last hour alone, the following acts of politics occurred:

--At a meeting of the Basic-Widget Department, the head of the division reported that the parent company--Amalgamated Widgets, Cogs, and Gizmos--was demanding a rigorous accounting of the exact times at which each widget's thingamabob was installed on the whatsis. No matter that there had been no major complaints on the finished widgets' performance.

--At this same meeting, the issue was raised that the Deluxe Widget Department was upset at the Basic Widget staff, who were taking it upon themselves to assist in the polishing of Deluxe Widgets. It should go without saying that widget-polishing is a skill that all widget artisans possess, and that a well-polished widget will shine no matter who does the polishing.

--Finally, the heads of the Basic, Deluxe, and International-Standard Widgets Departments are wrestling with the Facilities Manager, who is concerned that each department's widget-manufacturing activities occur at slightly different and not always overlapping times. This creates issues around securing the factory at the end of the day.

When looked at from a global perspective, what is striking is the utter simplicity of the possible solutions. If each widget-making department simply worked on producing widgets, cooperating when necessary, concentrating on achieving the best results when not, then no problems would exist and fine widgets would pour forth consistently. Instead, efficiency suffers because of each individual department's political concerns.

Can anything be done? Yes and no. Man is a political animal. But it helps to remember that politics is always means, never an end.

Move on?

Should we just move on? This is one of the central questions lingering as we approach the end of the long national nightmare known as the Bush administration. Should our elected representatives investigate and, where necessary, prosecute the abuses of the outgoing administration? Or should everyone just be thankful that it's all over (if it is) and focus on the future?

Both sides have reasonable arguments. On the one hand, justice must be done. For all those who died because of false information about WMDs and terrorist ties. For those who have been held in detention camps. For those who have been "rendered" to other countries. For those who have been tortured. And this is only looking at the crimes and misdemeanors associated with the "war" on terror. This doesn't take into account the destruction of the economy, the incompetence around Hurricane Katrina, the cronyism in the Vice-President's office and any number of other possibly prosecutable offenses.

On the other hand, there are those (and not just those who have a personal stake in it) who say that it would be better for our government to save its energy to focus on more pressing concerns--namely, all those issues mentioned above, which are still wreaking havoc with the national well-being. Leaving aside for the moment the question of why our representatives can't do both, which is the more pressing concern?

The temptation to move on is great. So many people are exhausted. But there would be a certain satisfaction in seeing Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others hauled into the dock. And for their apologists, many of whom are crying loudly that now is not the time--that the nation has bigger worries--it is tempting to ask how these critics felt back in the halcyon days of the Clinton impeachment. Did the nation have nothing better to do then? True, this was pre-9/11, and the country was in a comparatively better place, but there must have been SOMETHING else going on.

The basic mistake that the "move on"-ers make is conflating investigation with stagnation. They don't see that asking questions about what happened, and prosecuting those actions that need to be prosecuted, IS moving forward. If it weren't, why conduct trials at all? Crimes that are being prosecuted are necessarily "past"--we don't yet have the technology or clairvoyance to prosecute people for things they are going to do in the future. But we don't often see a defense attorney arguing for acquittal on the grounds that something is "done": "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is true that my client killed Mrs. McGillicuddy, but since she's dead anyway, you might as well just let him go."

Society's interests are served by maintaining the rule of law. Society needs to move on from the sins of the past, but it is not up to the sinners to determine when.

Slow News Day

So the Republican party is looking for a new Chairman, and two of the finalists, J. Kenneth Blackwell and Michael Steele, are black.  One wonders if these are, in fact, THE two black Republicans in the country.  A cliche, perhaps, but, still.  And if so, more power to them.  It's probably a good career move for a black politician.  When Michael Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat, ran for mayor of New York, he ran as a Republican, assuming, presumably, that the Democratic field was far too crowded with qualified politicians to for a neophyte, even a ridiculously wealthy one, to break through.  So he ran as a Republican, won, and, not too long ago, switched his party allegiance to Independent (presumably going back to Democrat would be tacky).  So maybe Mssrs. Blackwell and Steele are actually soft-hearted liberals, too, biding their time, working their way up the Republican hierarchy.  It worked out reasonably well, for New York.

No, huh?

Otherwise, a fairly uneventful news day for a Sunday.  Troubles in the Mideast, of course.  Detroit's getting ready to start a major push for an electric car.  And, as of this writing, depending on what happens in Pittsburgh, three of the top four seeds in the NFL are out of the playoffs, including the Giants.  As the only New York area team left in the playoffs, they were the Solipsist's sole real rooting interest.  Now what is he supposed to distract himself with for the next few months?

Well, only about a month 'til pitchers and catchers.  Stay strong, America!