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.

The 2008 Scott Fairley Writing Challenge

If you've done much writing before, you know that sometimes all it takes to get a really grand story is a name.

Now that the writers have returned from the picket lines, I have that very name for you:

Members of the WGA, I give you the next name in adventure:

Argyle Hughes

The Ten Best Movies of 2007 that I saw in no particular order

The Darjeeling Limited

Zodiac

Superbad

Dan In Real Life

Once

Live Free or Die Hard

Oceans Thirteen

Knocked Up

Across The Universe

Hot Fuzz

An Open Letter to the Academy Awards producers

Hi there.

I've been a fan of your program for quite some time now, and I can't help but be a little concerned that because of the WGA strike, you might not be able to provide the same level of pithy, earnest banter between presenters and the host may have to be without a monologue. Well, fear not! If you're reading this, you know that I have some minimal experience in writing. However, I will have you know that I'm a solid A- playwright. Banter is my specialty.

Take, for example, the introduction to the Best Documentary:
"Websters defines a documentary as a movie, a television or radio program made using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual record or report. The nominees are 4 movies about how bad the Iraq war is and one about cute animals".

Not convinced? Here's some witty banter for the best costume design:
Actor: Wow, hot actress the producers told me to stand next to and read these lines awkwardly to, your dress is ugly this year. I guess it wasn't designed by one of our nominees for best costume design, eh?
Hot Actress: At least I can read my scripts, captain dyslexic
Actor: (runs away crying)
Hot Actress who can spell Tuxedo: The nominees are...


And we all know how much you love montages. No matter how pointless and how self-congratulatory, your love affair with montages will never end. I'm assuming the WGA writes, or at least pitches, the montages, so here's my selection:
- cold body, warm heart: a montage of caring cinematic robots
- A history of language: classic , g-rated movie dialogue that has grown into hilarious double-entendre or horrifically politically incorrect hate speech.
- encore! a montage of sequels from the last year
- The magic of music: key scenes in the best score nominees with the music changed or altered. Preferably Yackety Sax for a particularly tense scene from Zodiac.

Of course, I won't touch the opening monologue, especially since it basically boils down to a movie reference/recognition of Jack Nicholson in the front row/movie reference/potshot at prominent politician and/or actor/movie reference/clever reference to a current event formula anyways. But honestly? I'll do it and on the cheap.