new site

scottfairley.com is now up (or should be soon).

As such, Curses and Prayers will no longer be updated. Thanks to all.

Cheers,

Scott William Fairley

The Dark Knight is cursed!

In October, 2007, tragedy struck the production of The Dark Knight. A stunt technician by the name of Conway Wickliffe was killed during production. And naturally, everyone knows that Heath Ledger died of an accidental overdose in January 2008. Apparently, this coupled with an unrelated (but ill-timed) accusation of assault towards Christian Bale and a presumably unrelated car accident involving actor Morgan Freeman earlier this week is enough to have people asking if The Dark Knight is cursed. The corresponding article from The Daily Telegraph begins as follows:

FIRST Heath Ledger.Then a film crew member dies. Batman Christian Bale is arrested on assault charges, Mary-Kate Olsen refuses to be interviewed by US investigators over Ledger's death and overnight, Morgan Freeman is seriously injured in a car smash.

Stop right there. The article begins with a mistake. Heath Ledger died three months after Conway Wickliffe. Second, what the hell does Mary-Kate Olsen have to do with this movie at all? I suppose it's implied that she knew Heath Ledger, and I'm going to go on a limb and say she saw the movie. But does she have a more tangible link to the movie than that? I doubt that very much. Heath Ledger's death, tragic as it was, didn't have anything to do with the movie. I suppose it's debatable that he took too much of his character home with him, but that's all idle speculation. Besides, his overdose was from a combination of six different medications, not just ambien, and was also suffering from pneumonia at the time of his death. Not to mention it was long enough after The Dark Knight and I'm Not Here's filming that he had begun work on a new project. I don't know what Mary-Kate Olsen's link to his overdose was, but it has absolutely nothing to do with The Dark Knight, unless Mary-Kate Olsen has a time machine. And if she does, she's clearly hoarding it for selfish purposes.

Secondly, Morgan Freeman's car accident. It's not proof of a curse, it's one of over 6 million car accidents that happen in the United States each year. These things happen.

Here's my issue with all this hoopla. Nobody seems to care enough about the one person who actually did die making the movie. Yes, he was a stuntman, and that profession carries with it an extreme risk, but he knew that and decided that making movies more exciting was worth the risk. He likely wasn't taking that risk because of the financial payoff. Actors make obscene amounts of money for what is ultimately not a lot of work. They're rarely at risk, and if the script requests that of them, they have a much lesser paid stuntman to do it, some of whom have died in filming. It's unfair.

I'm not trying to make it seem like Ledger's death, Bale's arrest, and Freeman's car accident are peanuts, but let's keep our priorities straight. Only one person died for the movie, and he'll never be a household name. I hope I'm not the only person who thinks that's not quite right.

The Dark Knight review

It’s not very often that a film is able to live up to it’s hype. Countless people will tell you how disappointed they were with movies like Star Wars: The Phantom Menace or Spider-man 3. Both films saw a prolonged period of media hype, cast and crew interviews, and a seemingly endless barrage of trailers and posters. When the hype is that intense, it’s difficult for the final product to live up to it.
So the odds were stacked against The Dark Knight. Buzz surrounding he long-anticipated follow-up to 2005’s Batman Begins began to build steam from the final scene of the film. When Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) hands Batman (Christian Bale) a Joker card, the question of who would play The Joker began being asked, and being asked loudly. When it was eventually announced that Australian Heath Ledger, fresh off an Oscar nomination for Brokeback Mountain, would play The Joker, buzz only increased. And it kept increasing, particularly with cast members commenting on the intensity that Ledger brought to the set. An internet viral campaign earned a fairly steady following, with The Dark Knight rarely out of sight and even more seldom, out of mind.
Then tragedy struck. In early 2008, Heath Ledger died of a drug overdose. Now anticipation of what Nolan and Bale were calling a show-stealing performance was coupled with the knowledge that it was his final completed performance. By the time the film was actually released, the hype was nearly unbearable. I certainly can’t remember a movie that was more intensely talked about, debated, and on the radar of both the general public and geek culture. Then came the advanced reviews.
Somehow, The Dark Knight was able to be every bit as good as the hype indicated. While it’s hyperbolic to suggest that it’s the best movie ever made (as the IMDB would have you believe), or even to call it on par with The Godfather: Part II, but it’s success is not limited to just being better than Batman Begins. It’s not even limited to being the best comic book adaptation to date. It’s one of the best crime films in recent years, plain and simple.
Christopher Nolan’s first triumph in The Dark Knight is the cast. The cast is nearly exclusively A-listers. Christian Bale’s performance is just as strong as it was in Batman Begins, with Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman reprising their roles as Butler Alfred Pennyworth and Wayne Enterprised CEO Lucius Fox in fine form. Similarly strong turns by Aaron Eckhart (Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent) and Maggie Gyllenhaal (replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes) are also of note. While the Rachel Dawes character still feels underdeveloped, Gyllenhaal’s more confident portrayal a strong step forward and a performance that can compete with the heavyweight male actors she shares the screen with.
How much of my impression of his performance was influenced by my subconsciously knowing he would never be seen onscreen again, I couldn’t say, but Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker was absolutely devastating in it’s power to command the screen. It’s not just the definitive portrayal of The Joker; it’s one of the most intense portrayals of a villain put on screen since Anthony Hopkins Oscar winning performance as Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. Ledger is impossible to ignore onscreen, and the level of tension in every scene he’s in is enormous. It’s just an incredible performance, and yes, I will join the ranks of those pushing for a posthumous Oscar for Ledger.
But the actors are only part of what makes The Dark Knight work as well as it does. The music by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard only assists the performances, and adds a layer of intensity. While the score isn’t as memorable as, say, a John Williams score, it adds a significant amount to the final product. Take it away or change it, and something’s lacking.
Ultimately, the bulk of the credit for The Dark Knight belongs to Christopher Nolan. The film is so well paced, so consistent, and so cohesive, that it transcends the Superhero genre. I do disagree with comparisons to The Godfather, but I would suggest that it shares a great deal with Michael Mann’s Heat, a similarly well-executed and intense crime drama. The Dark Knight runs two and a half hours, but it never drags or feels as long as it is. The pacing is tight, editing is seamless, and the visual effects are either in service of the story or completely incognito. It’s an improvement on Batman Begins in every way.
It’s also impressive in how well it tackles larger themes of justice, vengeance, guilt, responsibility, and hope without becoming a “meditation on madness” or a modern morality tale. All characters offer a different response to the chaos of the world. While it’s not a perfect film, it’s incredibly strong, and is worth multiple viewings. It’s strength, the intensity of the performances and depth of the story, are all proof that comics are more than just mainstream now. They’re setting the standards, and if the first week totals for The Dark Knight are any indication, breaking the records.

A-

Batman vs. Shakespeare

Today, I came across this interview with 60's TV Batman Adam West.

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2008/06/tv-batman-adam-west-not-excite.html

While I certainly won't fault him for not being game for The Dark Knight (I couldn't have a more dissimilar opinion on the matter, but he's entitled to his opinion), he mentioned something that irked me to my very core.

West claims "With the villains, especially, it was almost Shakespearean because of the bizarre costuming and makeup".  I've studied Shakespeare.  Bizarre costumes are, by and large, not really a major part of it.  Same with makeup.  Don't get me wrong, I love the 60's Batman, but it has very, very little to do with Shakespeare.  I'm sure that The Bard would love the puns and wordplay (he was very much a proponent of such things), but I doubt he'd see too many echoes of his own work in Adam West and Burt Ward's adaptation.

Here's where I think Adam West doesn't know a damn thing about what he's talking about.  The Batman film franchise has been moving steading more towards Shakespearean tragedy.  Much of this is due to comic artists recognizing the agonizing darkness of Batman's birth as a character, but Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan have been, likely unconsciously, taking Batman in a Shakespearean direction.

The most obvious parallel would be to Hamlet.  Hamlet has served as the template for the tragic hero for centuries, and Batman isn't even the only comic book superhero who has been drawn from him in some way.  Batman and Spider-man both draw significantly from Hamlet.  Both saw a parental figure (in Batman's case, both parents) killed in the most unjust ways imaginable, and both turn to seeking justice as a grieving process.

Granted, Hamlet had a great deal of Oedipal influences, but my feeling has always been that that aspect of Hamlet has always been greatly over-emphasized.  The man standing in the way of Hamlet and Justice is neither here nor there

Take yet another example.  Horatio in Hamlet is possibly the only other person in the play aware of his deep turmoil.  While Spider-man is, by and large, a hero without a confidant (Spider-man doesn't always have Mary Jane in the know), Batman has Alfred as his Horatio.  This role was emphasized much, much more in Batman Begins than in the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher arc (and this is despite Alfred's illness being a fairly large plot point in the horrific mess that was Batman and Robin).

Another major area where Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale get their hero mythology absolutely in-line with Shakespeare is the fact that there really is no happy ending for Bruce Wayne.  It's entirely possible that Batman might die in the final act of Nolan's trilogy, and I for one hope he's bold enough to consider it.  If the audience is unsure that Batman will be able to survive, it increases the drama and makes for an entirely thrilling movie experience.  Batman simply has to be Hamlet.  Batman's suave Bruce Wayne is equivalent to Hamlet's "antic disposition".

Another Shapeskearean element that The Dark Knight might be flirting with is a possible descent into the realm of the anti-hero.  Rumour has it that Batman's key conflict in The Dark Knight is whether or not he's able to sacrifice an innocent life to save countless more.  This is something of a subversion from Shakespeare, as his most memorable Anti-hero is Macbeth, who killed the innocent for his own gain, not for a safer world (this could vary depending on your interpretation of both Macbeth and Lady Mac, but I never got the impression that Macbeth saw his ascent to King as a philanthropic goal).  But Macbeth had to question if he was willing to take a life, and when he did, he slipped from ambition to megalomania.  Could Batman's first kill lead him down the same road?  Who knows.

And finally, The Joker.  Played by the late Heath Ledger, his performance absolutely drips of Richard III.  He's disfigured, bold, shameless, and cocky.  He's bold enough to crash a party at gunpoint and try to pick up in the same scene.

I think at this point, it's pretty clear that I'm absurdly excited for The Dark Knight.  And Shakespeare.  Why so serious?

The Olympic Question

Yes.  We did.

My understanding is that this is the point of the Olympics.  The brother/sisterhood of sport.  

Something to unite a global culture that is defined by lines of division.  Jew and Arab.  Black and White.  Christian and Muslim.  Socialist and Libertarian.  And yes, Tibetan and Chinese.

It's a naive goal, however.  Politics cannot be put aside from the Olympics, regardless of intent.  The interesting thing is that we seem to think that political tensions aren't present on smaller scales.  The drama of China's brutality towards dissent (which cannot be denied) is the main event here, but what's to say that other tensions aren't present?

Take, for example, the American Olympic team.  This is an election year, and political tensions in the US always run high.  The likelihood of the US relay team being made up of supporters of Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Nader is rather high.  That's huge tension.  Canadian teams could be made up of NDPers and Tories.  Tensions in Canadian politics are pretty high at the moment.  There could be a meltdown among the Canadian basketball team and members of the team who vote Liberal refuse to take orders from the coach who campaigned for Stephen Harper.

It's easy to rule that out as a possibility.  Which makes perfect sense, because it's unlikely.  Or perhaps it is simply understood that political tensions are to be discarded during the Olympics.  Maybe that naiveté is necessary for the Olympics to function at all.  North and South Korean athletes frequently compete as a unified Korea, despite one being democratic and the other authoritarian.

I'm generally not one for political optimism, but sometimes it's necessary to at least think that the possibility of peace among people who would normally be at each other's throats is within reach.  So cheers to you, IOC, for giving us a chance to dream that dream.

But let's look at the Olympics objectively.  They're about competition.  Pure and simple.  And teams are national.  So we have a nationalistic bent to competition now.  This is the brilliance of the Olympics.  They accomplish the goal of making us forget about geo-political strife by presenting us with a competition between nations.  Basically, the result is "Yeah, you think you're all that with your freedom and liberty, America, but we just kicked your ass in basketball!" instead of "American policies are dangerously close to imperialism, and their moral high-ground wanes more with every threat to invade another sovereign nation".

The Olympics unite us, that's for sure.  They unite us by making us regress.  Sports have a strange way of doing this.  They divert any political anguish into the shouts and screams of Maple Leafs fans.  It's actually kind of brilliant.

The issue of China's human rights violations remains.  They need to be addressed, but the issue of the Olympics is neither here nor there.  It won't go away, and it's present whether there's Olympics in Beijing or not.  If anything, holding the Olympics there shines a light on a problem that has been ignored for ages.  This outrage over the human rights crimes in China is justified, but it should have been present ages ago.  Turning a blind eye to China's human rights issues for the two or so weeks of the Olympics is wrong, no doubt.  But letting China off the hook for those same crimes permanently because it's good for the economy?  It's fairly obvious which is more worthy of protest and outrage.

Maybe this new surge of outrage towards China could be the straw that breaks the camel's back though.  One can only hope.

Hotel Cascade

I have started work on a new play.  Both new to me and new in general.

It's called Hotel Cascade, and my good friend Ryan wrote it.  When it will be performed, I can't say.  But it will be.  And it will be fantastic.

warning signs

I believe the following is a paraphrase of George Carlin.  "The best thing for humanity would be to remove all warning labels and let natural selection take it from there".

Funny?  You bet.  True?  Hardly.  Let's be honest.  Is this not in violation of the default setting of human beings?  Are we not, by nature (or design, if you believe in such things like I do), curious?

Obviously, some things are stupid ideas.  It takes a special brand of stupid for someone to engage in the sort of behaviour that requires RV manufacturers to print a warning not to leave the drivers seat while cruise control is engaged.  But it's a special brand of stupid that we need.

It's a definition by negation.  Francis Bacon was a big fan of this.  One of the best ways to define something is to establish what it isn't.  How do I define proper electrical outlet etiquette?  Well, it sure ain't jamming a fork into it.  Now we're getting somewhere.  The same goes for defining good RV driving.  It absolutely does not include napping.  Definition by negation is often much easier than definition by example.  Nuances of how to properly blow-dry hair can often come down to personal preference.  There can be no clear right way.  But establishing that doing it underwater is an improper method makes proper methods exponentially easier to discover with plenty of room for personal creativity remaining.

These brave souls - nay, muses - who inspire the corporate literary giants to spin tales of not using hairspray near open flames and the dangers inherent in operating heavy machinery when drunk, are a societal necessity.  These selfless men and women have probably saved countless lives with their acts of bravery and sacrifice.  This, friends, is the sort of courageous citizenship that we need.  If nobody tries to stop chainsaw chains with their hands or genitals, how will we know it is dangerous?  This is the very basis of science!  To demonstrate a theory with empirical research.

So next time you read a disclaimer telling you not to use that food processor for any other use, remember that someone probably lost a limb to warn you of that danger.  They are the real heroes of the 21st century.  The true heroes of science.  And examples to us all.