Lost in Lost

I've recently gotten myself started watching Lost, a show I've avoided till now. I started watching it on the utterly arbitrary reasoning that Brian K. Vaughn is now on the writing team for it. It's vastly more entertaining than I would have expected, although I have been pretty good at guessing some of the twists and turns, even entire lines of dialogue before they're said. Then again, the show often slips in what would, in any other context, be cliches, while somehow getting away with it.

The show, I think, would be ridiculous if not for the acting and the backflashes to the characters lives prior to the show. The backflashes do a fantastic job of fleshing out the characters' motivations. In particular, I was impressed by Jin's flashback. They did a great job of misdirecting us with his wife's flashbacks previously, and used callbacks and repeated scenes to great effect in that episode.

What I was especially impressed with was the light it shed on Jin's motivation. I had noticed in previous episodes that he and his wife had gotten more chummy in the background - that episode explained it for me. Without the guilt of knowing her father's secrets, (because they were stuck on an island and it didn't matter) he was able to relax and be himself with her. What was especially impressive to me - they didn't hammer this home with dialogue. It was mentioned by his wife they were getting along better, but even that revelation was quick and occurred well after we'd already seen it in the background. Even the aforementioned reason was never once stated outright - but it's their for you to piece together. That's the kind of television I like best, same thing I love about BBC's The Office - it tells you the story without beating it into you; it allows you to make connections. All this is enhanced, of course, by the quality of the acting, which, for the most part, is excellent.

Speaking of the Office - I especially loved the quickie reference to the British version of the show during Charlie's second flashback episode. Anyone else catch it? I rewound and forced my girlfriend to sit through it a second time because I was so excited.

Ah, Wedn... uh, Sunday

Got my comics a bit late this week...

Civil War 7: Paul O'Brien over at the X-Axis (http://www.thexaxis.com) pretty much summed up my feelings on this comic at his site already, so I just direct you there. There's really nothing in his review that I disagree with; the possible exception is that he seems to have enjoyed the series more than I did. Each issue felt like a chore to read, each becoming more idiotic than the last. It sounds ridiculous, yes: I'm a grown man, I could have stopped reading it. Combination of car-crash mentality and blind fanboyism.

Granted, this issue does take care of a few small details, like the naming of the prison (and here I thought it was a Hitchhiker's guide reference); redeeming Reed & Toy's actions a bit by revealing their long term plans; and ... um... I can't actually think of anything else. Well, at least it got Spiderman back in my favorite Spidey costume. Although, I don't actually give a rat's ass about Spiderman so... eh.

Joe Q's attitudes towards the derision of this series is mindboggling to me. Is he joking, deluded, or nuts? When people speculate that the ending would reveal that Tony and Reed are being mind-controlled, he claimed they would never do something that obvious. No, Joe, the point isn't that it's too obvious. The point is that the characters are behaving so ridiculously out of character that it seems like the only reasonable explanation. That's not good.

For christ's sake, Captain Marvel shows up, which was supposed to be a big deal. So they show him in ONE PAGE, as part of a GROUP SHOT, and none of the heroes (many of them his friends who have believed him to be dead for many years) has even the slightest comment or reaction? What the hell? This entire series was amateur quality, Millar. You can do far better.

52 Week 42: Ah, more comics I buy out of fanboy obligation. I have noone but myself to blame here, as well. Even Darick Robertson, a normally good artist, seems to be phoning it in on this one. Yet another annoying, pointless issue. If I still cared about any of these characters, it wouldn't feel so pointless. The writing team have stretched out everyone's plotlines for so damn long without actually doing anything, only to seemingly have everything happen in the last 2 or 3 months. The hamfisted pacing has completely drained my enthusiasm. At this point, all I genuinely care about is what's happening with Animal Man. I can't believe Morrison is involved in something so banal.

Thumbs way down this week...at least X-Factor is out next week.

at last... Flex Mentallo

I got the first issue of this series about a month ago, and just got issues 2 & 3 in the mail yesterday after winning them on ebay. And today, I won the last issue for only $7.50. I've been missing the days of Grant Morrison comics that make your head explode, since his output has been getting pretty straightforward, so I'm giddy as a schoolgirl for this. Plus it has Frank "the best artist of any genre, ever" Quitely on art. Once I understand it I'll post about it.

Tarnation

Tarnation is a film by an independent/amateur filmmaker named Jonathan Cauoette. The film was made using a combination of old photographs & home videos made by the director starting in his childhood all the way through to his mid thirties, spliced together (I believe) on an iMac, edited very creatively, with captions and music providing the story.

The film is amazing. He uses some extremely powerful imagery in overwhelming combinatons to great effect, portraying a horrifingly vivid yet surreal account of an extremely troubled young man, struggling to cope with the traumas inflicted upon him by his world. For someone like me, who works with abused kids, the film is an insightful look inside the mind of a guy who could easily have been one of those kids, who heroically managed to rise above it. For anyone else, I'd still recommend it, because it's an incredible (true) tale of humanity, of how low we can fall and how wonderful we can be, all at once.

My words don't do the man and his struggles justice - what's fascinating to me is how remarkable it is for him to have instinctively found such an incredible coping mechanism. He began filming his life & everyone around him from a very young age, and began making home movies of himself portraying disturbed female characters. Many would see this by itself as a sign of serious instability (and indeed, he goes on to reveal subsequent psychiatric hospitalizations). But it's an incredible coping mechanism - without any other outlet, he spontaneously found his own form of release & therapy. He was ultimately able, through this movie, to take his pain, and the pain of his family, and transform it into something wonderful and positive to share with the world. Now that is heroism.

Another fascinating aspect of the film is his family. It's made very clear, especially by the end, that his grandparents seriously abused his mother even prior to the tragedies that would later befall her and her son. Seeing his grandmother, even when he was little, the woman clearly was suffering from a serious & undiagnosed mental condition (schizophrenia, alzheimers, or dementia). It's indicated that his mother was simpy the product of generations of serious abuse. And yet... she tried to save him from it. She may have failed, and ended up putting him in some awful situations anyway, but dammit, she tried. She wanted to end that cycle. She didn't know how; people with histories like that generally haven't developed the proper survival and defense mechanisms to protect themselves adequately. But she tried to push herself past her own limits, for the love of her son. That is heroism.

Even his grandparents, for all their horrible flaws, were loving of him, in their way. Everyone around him tolerated and supported his constantly filming them, even though it had to become awkward. I saw no indication that his being openly gay was in any way an issue for his family; his mother even refers to his boyfriend as "her child". They may have been seriously disturbed people, but, they managed to love him. And he loved them regardless of their flaws. That love allowed him the freedom to do what was necessary to cope with his pain, and grow into a well-adjusted individual. Jonathan Caouette, you have my utmost respect.

Go rent it today; Blockbuster keeps it in the "special interest" section (at least mine does).

Batman 663 - Part 2 - but, Where are the Pictures?

The format of Batman #663 has sparked a lot of discussion. It's basically an illustrated short story, 22 pages of solid text & prose with accompanying digital artwork. A comic book, of course, is a narrative told through the usage of sequential art. This comic doesn't (technically) use sequential art to tell its story, so really, this isn't actually a comic book.

Complaints first. Is the new issue of a Batman comic the best place, in my mind, for such an exercise? Of course not. Most readers, picking this up because of the typical comic book art cover (which looks like it could have leaped straight out of 1994), will be utterly shocked by the contents. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who bought this comic, didn't even read it. They flipped through it and tossed it aside. And they'd really be entirely justified in doing so.

I love books. I read lots of books. Fiction, non-fiction, sci-fi, horror, sociology, history, science, whatever. I love books. I also love comic books. I read lots of those, too. Here's the thing: if I want a book, I read a book. When I want a comic, I open a comic. I can see how opening a comic book, wanting & expecting a comic book, only to find a Book, could be pretty annoying. It also marks a huge departure, stylistically, from the rest of Morrison's run. He started on this book promising lighthearted superheroics, and his first arc delivered that - suddenly we have this. It is a pretty jarring contrast, although I think in this day & age of quick creator turnover and fill-in artwork, readers are prepared for that sort of thing. Many series can drastically change tone from issue to issue.

That's all I've got for complaints. I want to say this is a bad idea for the aforementioned reasons. But, y'know... I really enjoyed reading it, so it's hard to complain. A lot of people are complaining that it's "overwritten". I think I see where they're coming from, but I totally disagree. I can see how some people might get annoyed at Morrison's constant, slightly corny language and phrasing. I love it. He was obviously going for a very pulpy, noir-ish feel in his scene descriptions, and for my money it works beautifully. I love his turns of phrase and immensely colorful and vivid language - it makes the book all the more engrossing. I felt sucked into the world of Gotham & Arkham, even without the use of pretty pictures - I could see it all so vividly. I was so sucked into the story, so engrossed, I didn't even think of my complaints till the third reading. That's some good storytelling.

My head wants me to call this issue a bad idea, because it's so utterly out of place and innapropriate for this format to show up in the monthly Batman comic. It would have been better served as a special edition, or even a backup in a regular comic (double sized issue). But my heart just keeps telling me what a fun read it was, and how absoring it was. The atmosphere was brilliant. Frankly, seeing this same story as drawn by Andy Kubert would probably have frustrated me - I don't think he's capable of the atmosphere Morrison is shooting for here (sorry, Andy, if you ever read this).

As Tim Callahan mentioned, (at his blog - http://geniusboyfiremelon.blogspot.com/), this issue is also the opposite of decompressed stoytelling. By telling his story this way, Grant gets through in one issue what would otherwise have been a 4 or 5 part story if told traditional sequential storytelling. That's a worthwhile accomplishment by itself, I suppose, even though he essentially shirked his chosen format to do so. It makes the Joker's transformation, which is supposed to be sudden & violent, feel sudden & violent, so it does suit the story.

Basically, my head tells me this issue shouldn;t work, but my heart just wants to love it.

Batman 663 - Part 1 - Morrison's Joker

I'm reviewing this comic in two parts for two reasons. One: Talking about the plot & purpose of this comic is a vastly different proposition than the actual style and format, and I don't feel like struggling with balancing one with the other. Two: I'm a pretentious asshole and I want you to feel like I'm making some sort of detailed meta-analysis of an Important Work of Art.

This issue follows up on the Joker, whom Morrison shot in the face in his first issue. We find the Joker in Arkham Asylum, following multiple reconstructive surgeries to restore his face, as well as having received shock-therapy treatments and "speech therapy" due to his reconstructed mouth. The comic follows on an idea Morrison used way, way back in Arkham Asylum: the Joker has no core sense of self, no actual Ego - just Id and Superego. His mind, every so often, spontaneously cycles through another persona. This issue follows the Joker's metamorphosis into his latest persona.

It's certainly an ambitious concept. Does it succeed? Well, yes and no. In terms of execution & style (of which I'll speak more in Part two), it does the job. It's colorful, it's an interesting idea, and the prose is engaging & engrossing enough (to me) that I wanted to believe it. Really, it's an excuse for explaining the enormous shifts in the Joker's portayal over the years by different writers: his methods, attitudes, and even speech patterns have changed because his core self has changed. It's the sort of metatextual thing Morrison loves, and usually does very well. Not so much here.

First problem: he's refered to both as having a "superpersona" and "no persona". Well, which is it? These sound like two entirely opposing concepts to me. Explain. Second problem: The Joker is already insane. Do we really need an explanation as to why his behavior is so unpredictable? He's insane. Unpredictable behavior would seem to go hand in hand with insanity. Sure, it's a fun idea, and what the hell, why not run with it. But it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that most writers, frankly, either won't be able to follow through on, or won't bother. Not to mention: if his mind is undergoing these huge, radical shifts, than why do his basic methods, motivations, & interests never actually change? This would seem to indicate the presence of some sort of "self" that we're told the Joker lacks. It's not very clear how this is meant to work, and Morrison seems to be contradicting himself left & right.

The other problems are a little more minor, but still noteworthy. The Joker is supposed to have a new, grimmer, visage, as evidenced by facial scarring due to the surgeries. His mouth is now also permanently transfixed in a smile. I'm pretty sure many artists already chose to draw him this way; even with the cheesy CGI artwork in this issue, he still didn't look that radical. Pretty much like the normal Joker with a couple of scars on his cheeks and one on his chin. Nothing special. If we're expecting the regular series artist to follow through on this with a new, creepy, subtly horrific look (which seems to be what the script is aiming for), good luck. Frankly, Andy Kubert is by no stretch of the imagination an artist I associate with subtlty or character. He will, bluntly, not be able to follow through on this. It will be dissapointing.

The Joker also now, apparently, speaks in garbled, muffled speech because his mouth doesn't move properly. No. I just think that's dumb - no pseudo-intellectual explanation here, I just think it's dumb, and it will almost certainly be dropped by the next writer who uses the character.

There's a few points I like about the issue - I enjoyed a moment towards the end, where Batman says "'You're going nowhere', the type of all-purpose phrase he uses to draw costumed fetishists into familiar patterns of behavior". That was a nice, intelligent idea, the type I'd expect of Morrison. The issue is full of little things I liked - but the overall thrust of the issue was in its examination and re-invention of the Joker, so that's what I'm focusing on. Sorry, Grant.

Part two will focus on the actual format and writing style of the book.

Ghost Rider

Saw Ghost Rider last night. Surpisingly... not that bad. Pretty good, actually. It was, of course, extremely silly, but that's fine. GR isn't one of those superhero movies where I'm going to get all enraged at the squandered potential (like Hulk & Daredevil; two superhero mvoies with tons of potential for character which failed utterly). GR's appeal is limited almost entirely to his appearance: he's a biker with a big flaming skull who rides a demonic flaming motorcycle and has flaming chains. Flames, skull, bike, chains, flames, flames, flames. Long as these elements are in place, you've got 95% of the character down, frankly. The other 5% is Johnny Blaze himself, and he's played by Nicolas Cage, who can make the character entertaining by just hamming it up and getting really into the role. He makes you believe in Johnny as a basically good but messed up, almost nihilistic, hopeless guy. More than I was expecting, so great job.

The challenge here is in making the movie hold my attention. Luckily, since it's a movie about demons and all sorts of metaphysical nonsense, the rules only need to remain internally consistent. You can ignore the laws of physics & even common sense, to a limited degree, by just saying "well, heaven & hell have certain rules they need to abide by". OK, whatever. Sounds good. Long as everyone sticks to the rules they've laid out, you're doing fine. Now show me some really cool action scenes of GR being all on fire and whipping a fiery chain and fire fire fire YEAH YEAH (insert Beavis voice & laugh)!!!

The action scenes are reasonably cool, most especially Blaze's initial transformation into GR, which is nice and visceral; the man's clearly in agony as his flesh & eyes are burnt away horribly. Cool scene. The villains, of course, are morons: why attack all at once when you can do it one at a time over four nights? Whatever. As for being internally consistent, well... OK, so they can't go on consecrated ground (like Caretaker's cemetery), but they can go into Churches, which you would think would fit the bill (for that matter, they can go into other cemeteries - guess that one's special). But they do stick to the rules regarding devil's contracts and so forth (more detail than is required here), so we'll call that one 50/50, better than I'd expected. It has a cheesy power of hope ending, which kinda soured it for me. Otherwise though, i dunno, I was entertained.

My girlfriend thought it was completely retarded. She's actually right, but I'm a dork, so I liked it. GR had lack of expectations on its side: I expected a stinking pile of garbage, so when the garbage actually smelled all right, I was pleasantly surprised.

Atheist or Agnostic?

My brother posed the following question to me in an e-mail (he is Captain Atheist; I am a self-proclaimed Agnostic):

"Are you on the fence about Zeus as well? How about Thor? Or Vishnu or Brahma or Ra or Osiris? "

Actually, yes. Seems as reasonable as the judeochristian god.

It's not so much that I'm uncertain; I didnt really realize till I wrote that stuff about JB, but I genuinely am somewhat fearful of the concept of God. I don't want their to be a god because my mind can't handle the thought of an all-knowing benevolent being who allows shit to happen to people. The options, to me, are:

a) that god is real, takes an active role in human existence, and allows/does horrible shit like allow children to be molested and murdered.
b) there is nothing, no god.
c) there is a god, but he is evil and horrible (for practical purposes, the same as a).
d) he exists but does nothing, either watches passively or isn't even looking.

In the case of (a), I don't even want to consider it. To me, it is the equivalent of having an antisocial maniac running the universe. If it's (b), I can handle that. It's better than (c), which I likewise couldnt handle, because it produces basically the same result as (a). The idea of (d), I could also deal with, because it makes god irrelevant.

I call myself Agnostic rather than Atheist because honestly, I'm unsure how much my beliefs are being influenced by my fear and revulsion at the concept of a god that is watching and influencing, actively taking part in the world, but allowing awful things happen.

I'm not sure if this is making sense to anyone but me. I dont know if I truly dont believe in god, of if I dont want to. Certainly, I've never felt an "inner light" or transcendent joy or whatever shit religious folks always say they have. Never had visions, never felt his holy touch, never seen evidence of his miracles. It remains a purely intellectual and speculative issue.

If god exists, I find the idea that he's not looking to be the most reasonable. The universe is a big place, with lots of interesting shit happening. Certainly our ugly, petty race wouldn't hold his attention very long.

Oh, wonderful Wednesdays

Comics I purchased yesterday:

Godland #16, Batman #663; neither of which I have yet read. I want to read Batman, since I love Morrison, but I am strangely avoiding it. I am fearful of it.

52 Weeks 40 & 41: This continues to be an immensely frustrating comic to me. I'm still kicking myself for giving into the hype and continuing to buy this after every instinct told me to give up around week 13. There's so much potential involved, and none of it coming to fruition. Week 40 has some minor qualities I can approve of, such as finally giving Steel his big monent after nearly a year of buildup, but frankly his storyline has felt unnecessarily padded out, which deflates it a bit. Otherwise, the space heroes get their token page or two per issue, which seemed exactly the same as their token pages in 90% of the series thus far (and yes, I include the Mogo twist: many of their token apparances and with "surprise random DC guest stars"). As for Montoya's arc, I flat out don't care. Sorry, but the writers have failed to interest me in her arc or what's happening with her. Just not interested. I like Black Adam's arc, but there's almost never enough of it to make me happy.

Whats' really drained my enthusiasm for this project is the recent announcement of the "WW3" specials, as well as several comics having "what happened in the missing year" stoylines. 52 issues, and you still couldn't fit all that into the comic, despite filling in the missing year being the entire point? Did I miss something? Are my expectations simply completely wrong?

Casanova 7: Matt Fraction, where have you been all this time? I freakin' love this comic. It balances just the right amount of characterization, silliness, comic book love, and just huge Morrisonian concepts. Zephyr's ending I almost didn't like, until I read the postscript. Everything about this comic is wonderful. At some point, I may try and post a longer section on Casanova as a series; reviewing is just too hard because there's so much I feel like saying. Great comic.

Justice Society of America 3: You know, I used to find Johns' writing very irritating due to his obvious love for certain pet characters. His overwhelming man-love for Hal Jordan and Barry Allen still grates on me. So you would think that this series, which is pretty much full of characters and ideas hand-picked by Johns, would make me nauseaus. But for whatever reason, I love every issue thus far of this relaunch. Maybe it's all the Kingdom Come references & shadowing being tossed in there, maybe it's the artwork (which is excellent), or maybe I'm just geeking on the sheer love of comic books & continuity this thing is dripping with. Whatever it is, thus far every issue has been interesting & most satisfying.

Weird aside on the JSA: shortly after last issues unmasking of Starman, I was at a comiccon in NYC. At random, I pulled an old Legion of Superheroes comic out of a quarter bin, flipped through it, and saw Starboy. I didn't understand the significance of that last page till I saw that. Truly, the fates have guided my hand.

I'll review Batman and Godland later on.

Hail to the King

This is the previously mentioned myspace post, inspired by the poor kid at my job who suffered & died for absolutely no goddamn reason at all:

King James is how I referred to the kid who passed away recently at my job. I don't have much to add to the situation that various co-workers haven't already stated. I just have this: why do people all turn to god at times like this? If a god exists, and he is in some way directing or influencing our lives, why did he do this to this poor child? This child, who when he was on could be such a good, sweet kid, lived 9 years of suffering and misery which ultimately killed him. What was the point? Why would a loving, caring, god do this?

I don't want there to be a god who would do this. I don't want to turn to an imaginary being when people who feel the same way I do are right here with me, feeling the same way I do (at least on the subject of King JB). I work with kids like JB because I know, deep down inside, that we need to look out for and help each other: no invisible miracle worker is going to do it. Times like this only remind me of that, and of the necessity to draw together. Not to thank some invisible being for making our lives shitty.

I don't write this to offend, or for any other reason than to send my thoughts into the ether and off of my mind. I remember spending all day at camp with JB, and what a great time he had and how much fun we had. And spending the day at Waterworld with him while he had an awesome time. Or walking him through the Haunted House on Halloween, thinking he'd be scared, and laughing with him while he shouted "Cool!" the whole time. I'm rambling now. I liked JB. He was a good kid, despite what people, imaginary or real, did to him. His true nature shined through regardless of all the pain. I hope I can be like that too, actually.

The beginning of ...

Welcome. This is my first "official" blog. I posted a blog on my Myspace page a while back, inspired by my reactions to my co-workers' God-loving reactions to the death of a kid at my job. I'm an agnostic who generally thinks very poorly of religion and the need for it in one's life (plus I really cared about the kid in question and was horrified by the abuses he'd suffered), so you can imagine the hostilty contained in that posting.

I have no idea what sort of postings to expect of myself here. In truth, I may not post again for another 6 months, knowing me. I may introduce a flurry of material in short, fevered bursts of pseduo-creativity that last a month or so, then forget I have this thing. I may have movie reviews, comic book reviews, or CD reviews; I may just produce some dumb nonsense and call it "stream of consciousness". Who the hell knows. It is a certainty that noone but myself and one or two other people will read this thing. If any of those people (or that one person) would care to specualte as to why I feel the need for a blog, feel free to do so in the comments.