Confronting the Fact of War

I just watched, over the course of a couple days, both "Farenheit 9/11" and "FarenHype 9/11". I don't really want to delve too deeply into the issue of who is right and who is wrong; obviously excellent points are made on both sides, and by the same token, both films carry with them their share of distortion and prejudice. I'd love to comment on the merits and demerits of both films, but that's not what spurred me to write today. What did motivate me is a kind of obvious revelation that only a moron couldn't experience while watching these films, yet it seems like a conclusion that is escaping all of us on a daily basis.

And that conclusion is this; we are at war.

Forget all the handwringing and finger pointing. Forget for a moment at least, about whose watch 9/11 was on, what poor decisions left us vulnerable to attack, what could have and should have been done to prevent it. Forget about whether or not overthrowing Hussein was a good or bad idea, forget about what Rumsfeld thought would happen versus what did, forget about Halliburton and uranium rods and Abu Gharaib and Gitmo and Johnny Walker and forget about losing Osama at Tora Bora. I care about all those things, of course, but let's just really take a moment and appreciate the enormity of the overall picture.

People are trying to kill Americans, on a daily basis. American soldiers are trying to kill those people, on a daily basis. People are dying from car bombs, roadside attacks, sniper bullets, rocket propelled grenades. Families are losing husbands, wives, and children. And it's going to keep happening, probably for a long time.

Stating the obvious? Well, sure. But think honestly about how often the topic of war comes up in your life. I don't care whether you agree or disagree with how it's being prosecuted or even if it should have been waged. We're at war. It's a reality and it's not going to end soon. How many of us have really got our heads around that concept? How many of us put that in the forefront of our minds? Oh of course, your job and your family and your health comes first...but after that? How important is your yard to you? Your boat? Your home? Your "stuff"? Do you think about that more than the fact that we are at war?

My mom was a news junkie and she watched a lot of cable news, including of course, a lot of war coverage. Sometimes she would say to me, "I like the news and I'm interested in it, but sometimes you have to watch something funny, something other than war." And she was right. Too much war and you'll end up with an ulcer and a worldview that is depressed and fatalistic. Violent death is ALWAYS happening at some point on the globe, and always has been. But the nature of the 24 hour news networks kind of demands a certain emphasis on violence and negativity. I'm certainly not suggesting here that we all wallow, single mindedly on the war on terror or the Iraq war or the permutation of the two. That's a road to psychological ruin.

But I kind of worry that a lot of us have, if not exactly FORGOTTEN, well, at least put the war on the backburner in our minds. Shoved it off to a corner with all the other yucky things we don't like thinking about like getting old, and maybe losing our health and our job, or that pesky mole that keeps coming back time after time. And I certainly understand the impulse. Who the hell WANTS to think about war and all its implications? Most of us work hard every day and at the end of it don't want much more than a good meal and some time with family and a little relaxation. A steady diet of war coverage (and contemplation) is hardly conducive to relaxation, and most of us I think feel powerless to effect any real change anyway.

But see that's the scary part. We can effect change. This war does matter, whatever side you are on. There ARE people who want to kill us, who would kill us in an instant if they could, thousands of us, MILLIONS of us. Are we doing the right thing to stop them? That's another question, but I guess I just wish that more people would at least TALK about the fact. You don't have to agree with Bush or Kerry or me or anyone...just think and TALK about it. Remember that there are young men and women out there, thousands of miles away, living in terrible circumstances, their lives in constant danger, all in the service of protecting you. Remember how much money we are all spending for these efforts, how many lives we have lost. Think of how different the world would be today had there been no 9/11.

Don't worry so much about Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise and who wins "Survivor" and what Orpah thinks about things. Stop fretting about minivans and leaf blowers and your neighbor's cat that keeps messing in your garden. You don't really need another cell phone, or DVD recorder or whatever the next "hot" thing is supposed to be. Just sit and think for a few moments about the fact that the country you live in is under attack. Breathe that in for a moment. Think about the names you see on TV as more than statistics; think of them as people with families who love them, people whose dreams are gone now, people who could very well be your own family or even you. Think about the people who have killed them. Think about why they do and feel the way they do, and how you feel about that.

We live in a culture with little or no attention span. We move from one thing to the next, we get bored so easily. Well, we had better not get bored with this. We had better pay close attention to this and do the hard work of hanging in there this time. We don't have the luxury of treating a war as a fad like mood rings or pet rocks or boom boxes or hackey sack. This is serious business and its significance will ripple out as far as the eye can see.

I don't know for sure if our inattention comes from our not wanting to face the ugly realities of war, or if it's that the ugly realities aren't "interesting" enough, that somehow we aren't relating these events to our daily lives. Maybe it's that we feel powerless against the flow of history, and would rather just "dance in the ruins" than bother to try and change what we feel is unchangeable.

That, again, is a blueprint for disaster. You can change just about anything you want to, given time, effort and will. But in order to change something, you had better be able to identify it and how you want it to change. You've got to be able to discriminate between what is truly important in life and what is not. And you've got to have the staying power to navigate through all the dichotomies of the situation, the places where things aren't so easily cut and dried.

Right now, I don't think we as a country are doing that. I have no doubt that we can, but the first step towards doing so involves some serious introspection and the willingness to change.

We are at war.

Think about it.

Review of "Batman Begins"

Batman is one of those iconic heroes that I have always thought must be hard to write for. He's been around for over 65 years now, and in that time he's been featured in literally thousands of stories in a dizzying variety of settings. Add that to the fact that you can't change "too" much about his story because of copyright restrictions and you really have a character that presents quite a challenge to a prospective writer.

Fortunately, the writer of "Batman Begins" was equal to this task.

"Batman Begins" really is the story of how Batman BECAME Batman, and a great deal of the movie takes place before Bruce Wayne ever puts on the batsuit. It shares this origin concept with Tim Burton's Batman, except that this film takes it's time to develop the tragic backstory of Bruce Wayne and really fills in a lot of narrative and psychological holes in what was essentially a very basic story. And while I don't want to spend a lot of time comparing this film to Burton's, I will say that while Burton seemed to spend on inordinate amount of effort into how his film LOOKED, director Chris Nolan concentrates more on motivation and character interaction. In "Begins" we see Wayne's journey from a young boy orphaned by violence to a disenchanted, haunted young man who seeks a means to enforce justice on the world. We follow his trail from the Far East, where he lands in jail fighting a horde of criminals, to the mountain top fortress of Ra's Al Ghul, a ninja master who has his own ideas about justice and the world.

This portion of the film is emotionally gruelling as Wayne must really decide for himself what he is truly seeking, apart from his original nebulous goals and the harsh pitiless goals of Al Ghul. Through trials of violence and self-discovery, Wayne becomes his own man at the fortress and returns to Gotham City with a strongly renewed sense of purpose. The acting by Christian Bale and Liam Neeson (as Wayne's tutor) is superb; both convey a true sense of loss and rage as they come to know each other and sympathize with each other's tragic past. It's a relationship that changes and evolves as the film progresses and it is a credit to the two actors that it comes across as so believable.

As satisfying as this portion of the film is, I like everyone else was anxiously awaiting Wayne's return to Gotham and our first glimpse at all the Bat trappings; the costume, the Batmobile, the gadgets, the Bat signal. Nolan doesn't disappoint here either. In fact, I thought the way Batman's appearances were handled was particularly effective. Much more so than in previous films, Batman here is portrayed mysteriously, hidden in the shadows and only glimpsed in quick flashes, briefly. This plays up Wayne's ninja training, almost supernatural swiftness and his ability to almost become invisible. Such a portrayal also helps convey the notion of Batman as a fearsome character that makes hardened criminals quiver in their boots. We see this various time in the film where the bad guys are truly spooked by the presence of this new dangerous element in Gotham, one that won't roll over and play dead like the cops and the lawyers; one that wants to make them pay for what they do.

The transition from the FarEast to Gotham is a pretty smooth one, chiefly due to the addition of what turns out to be Wayne's new surrogate "family". Michael Caine plays Alfred, Wayne's (and his father's before him) loyal butler and moral guide, and dispense valuable advice throughout the picture. Morgan Freeman plays Fox, a Wayne employee who specializes in applied science and supplies most of the Bat gadgets, including the Batmobile. The scenes where he quizzes Wayne about what he is doing with all of these toys are true gems; we never know for sure what Fox knows, and neither does Wayne, but he sure has a good time making Wayne squirm. Katie Holmes plays Rachel Dawes, a childhood friend of Wayne's, now a grown woman and assistant DA, perhaps the only lawyer left in Gotham who cares more about justice than covering her own behind. This is a character not drawn from the comics, but it's one that largely works, as she continues to hammer away at Wayne's frustration with the justice system and forces him to remember the kind of man his father was, and would want him to be. Their relationship doesn't really get a lot of time to develop past this stage, and I have to admit I wasn't completely clear about the implications of their final scene together, but I think the character was a very good choice, ultimately. Last but not least is Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, an incorruptible Gotham cop who is enlisted by Batman in his war on Falconi. Oldman, great as always, plays Gordon as a man not entirely trustful of Batman but who is willing, at this point, to try anything to undo the corruption of his city. There's always room to quibble and in a film like this you have so much to do in only so much time,but I wish there had been more time to develop Gordon and Batman's relationship. Ah, perhaps in the sequel...

No "Batman" film would be successful without effective villains. This time we have killer Joe Chill, mob boss Falconi, diabolical mad scientist Dr. Jonathon Crane (alias the Scarecrow) and Ra's Al Ghul. All are effective, though I do think the Scarecrow could have worked better in full costume but perhaps that's just the nerd in me coming out. As is the case with all great villains, these all have a particular point of view and really challenge the hero on both a physical and metaphorical level. Crane challenges Wayne to face his inner fears, while Falconi, Chill and Al Ghul make him consider his entire definition of justice and how best to achieve it.

This film works on just about every level. As an action film it really delivers the goods. There are some terrific chase scenes and what feels like a dozen truly realistic and well crafted fight scenes. The film is ABOUT something; what to do in the wake of tragedy, how to redeem yourself in the face of utter desolation, about identity and the masks we all wear to achieve different goals in our lives and the resiliency of hope. On an emotional level, there are some terrifically effective scenes involving the aftermath of Wayne's parents deaths. Wayne literally boils with rage and grief in Chill's courtroom scene. His initial confrontation with Falconi is chilling and really establishes the battle lines of the film; corruption vs. decency, with Wayne trying to balance his father's gentle sense of moral justice with his own need for a more harsh brand, and Falconi supremely confident of his power and position and dismissively of Wayne's bravado.

All the actors are very good but it's Bale that carries the film. His intensity is real but not overdone, his guilt and doubt and feelings of inner conflict understated but powerful and his presence as Batman, the frightening dark knight who punishes evildoers, is formidable. Let's hope when they make the inevitable sequel, he is willing and available for the role because I think he just defined it.

Review of "Team America"

I have to say right off the top that I am not a huge fan of "South Park". It has grown on me a little in the past couple of years, but for the most part I've found it overrated and crass. Parker and Stone do take chances and they tend to be equal opportunity satirists (if that's a term that can really be applied to what they do). They offend all political, racial and cultural stripes and that's probably a good thing. There's lots of satire to go around. But sometimes I think the crudity of their drawings and scripts undercuts their points a little TOO much and the vulgarity BECOMES the point, which I'm pretty sure is not what they intend.

So I went into "Team America" with an open mind but limited expectations. These guys are smart, no doubt. But I worried that their more juvenile impulses would dominate and drown out whatever point they were trying to make in a river of grossness. What I found was something very unexpected; their grossness helped DEFINE the point they were trying to make, and it worked, on all levels.

"Team America" is of course, made with puppets, more specifically, marionettes. It is done in the style of what used to be known as "Supermarionation" a term and technique perfected by Gerry Anderson, who was responsible for kids' shows like "Thunderbirds", "Stingray", "Fireball X-L5" and others. It was popular in the 60's but seems hopelessly hokey now, with it's visible wires and awkward puppet movements, not to mention their oversized heads. Stone and Parker have chosen this method, probably just because they thought it would be cool to do so, but partly because it fed into their theme of a "team" of American anti-terrorists who would be dispatched to deal with threats around the globe. "Thunderbirds" and the other shows also featured teams of young adventurers. Stone and Parker have paid perfect tribute to this form, and left all the hokiness in rather than polish it up for modern audiences. You laugh at the ridiculous dancing and hand and facial gestures, but you also know that these guys love the form and are just having some good fun with it. Of course, being the creators of "South Park" they do have to include some tasteless scenes of puppet sex and incredible violence, but even those come across as so ridiculous they can't really offend. In material like this, tone is everything and this time they set it just right.

The plot concerns Gary Johnson, an actor who is recruited by Team America to infiltrate a terrorist squadron and stop it's plans. Along the way he tangles with such "real life" figures as Kim Jong Il, Hans Blix, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin and Tim Robbins. The whole "Team America" concept is played to the hilt, complete with secret headquarters located behind Mount Rushmore, an enormous amount of vehicles, weapons and firepower, and a computer named "Intelligence". Political mindsets of all stripes are thoroughly ripped here, from the gung-ho American cowboy attitude (the team always seems to destroy as many cultural artifacts as they do terrorists, and routinely just bulldoze their way into every situation employing a huge amount of overkill) to the pacifist attitude of the Hollywood elite (Michael Moore becomes a suicide bomber to destroy Team America headquarters, and the other celebs eventually are taken in by Kim Jong Il). Perhaps the most effective (and unexpected) satirical point comes wrapped in a scatalogical metaphor for the whole "war on terror" that Gary hears in the bar from a drunk. While admittedly gross and offputting, it is nonetheless (don't faint on me, now) the most accurate description of the need for BOTH action and thought in the battle against terror. I have never heard it said quite so grossly, or succinctly.

I always hate it when reviewers reveal a film's laugh out loud moments, so I won't do it here. Suffice it to say that there were several points in the film where I was doing so, and that is rare for me. There are a lot of musical numbers in the film and they are all gut busting, particularly Kim Jong Il's solo (!). Again, I won't go into detail, but I dare you to remain straight faced throughout this one.

There are, of course, excesses. I thought the gay jokes were a little overdone. I didn't find them offensive particularly, just unecessary. And there is one scene outside a bar that went on WAY too long, just kind of wallowing in its own grossness. Did I mention that I didn't really need to see graphic sex between puppets?

I have to highly recommend this film, though. It's obviously a labor of love, it makes you laugh and there's a thoughtful subtext to it if you let yourself be open to it. I guess the best compliment I can give it is to say that while I was watching it, I was thinking of other forms of animation that Parker and Stone might be able to mine for good effect; perhaps the Sid and Marty Krofft style puppets, or maybe the old "dynamation" technique of Ray Harryhausen...

May God forgive me!