I filled in my absentee ballot the other night and very purposefully, albeit predictably, voted for Mitt Romney. Sadly, I exercised the very tendency I've so vehemently and publicly despised and "blindly" voted "Republican" all the way down, even though I knew little or nothing about some for whom I voted. That, however, isn't what bothers me most about the fact that my choice this time was less a matter of party loyalty and genuine admiration of a candidate and more a feeling of NEEDING to do it.
I remember being a kid and dreaming of meeting celebrities, which included the President. As a kid, of course - at least depending upon the age and environment in which you grow/grew up - you don't really think of Presidents in direct relation to political parties and such. That said, I think the President should be someone that we WANT to meet because he (or she... eventually) is supposed to embody what America stands for at the moment and the direction in which it is going. Unlike many of my fellow Republicans, I DO NOT hate President Obama. In fact, based upon what I've seen, he seems like he'd be a great person to meet some time. As for Romney, I'm, well... indifferent at best.
It's not that I think Romney's wealth separates him out from the "average American" as a person - an argument that I think is piss-poor considering that few if any seem to have felt that way about the filthy-rich Roosevelts or Kennedys, both Democrat. He just seems boring to me, with little imagination and little to offer in terms of personality in a first encounter. That said, maybe someone like that is what we need. The decidedly right-wing Fox News has, this morning, been criticizing the "mainstream media" for acting like the economy is really recovering when, for example, the percentage of jobs growth in the third quarter of this year is actually lower than it was last. The "mainstream media" maintains that any and all growth is because of Obama, though, and cites the stimulus, but if people will stop and think for a moment, they might recall that the stimulus package issued by Obama was actually developed in cooperation with the Bush Administration during its final days - in meetings in which both Obama and McCain participated (and for which McCain took heat when he suspended his campaign to do so). If anything, the only thing Obama may have done was to expand that stimulus, and that wound up controversial because people resented so much money going to the very banks and financial institutions that they blamed for the crisis in the first place.
Obama's policies are why the entire country lost money on Solyndra. They're why many small businesses are about to drop health insurance on their employees fearing the cost and consequences of the Affordable Care Act. They're arguably why the deficit is higher than ever, making this administration as bad as or worse than the last. The divisive and elitist manner in which the Democrats conducted themselves during 2009 and 2010, passing a health care bill that neither side is particularly fond of and generally abusing their "majority" in DC in pretty much the same way they say the Bush Administration and Republicans did for years before. This is why groups like the Tea Party - which only came into existence because of Obama's election and what Obama was saying in 2008 - has grown stronger rather than weaker, further impeding Obama's plans and effectiveness, but unfortunately, filling the House of Representatives with extreme ideologues (mainly from the small business community) that have little or nothing in the way of legislative experience or political capitol. They now make up the "do-nothing Congress" and are really a threat to BOTH parties and major candidates.
Like I said, I don't dislike Obama. What's happened that compels me to vote for a would-be President I wouldn't necessarily care to meet is, I think, a consequence of what I've said all along, which is that Obama is a decent President that was elected and put into office at the wrong time, too early in his political career and without certain private sector experiences - such as running a business or serving in the military - that might have really helped him make better decisions. I think he also started out, more or less, as a puppet of the Democratic Party, which seems to be the weaker party in its current incarnation because when push comes to shove, it's more concerned with image than with impact. Instead of focusing with intensity on what it CAN do - on what NEEDS to be done to confront the necessities of a nation - Democrats and candidates like Obama try to please EVERYONE, lumping the need to fix the economy in with placating those that want government to pay for birth control, or for gay marriage to be legal... none of which are pressing issues right now, but ALL of which are purely political hot-spots and buttons that the Democrats push to get attention and get every little vote they can when they really have little else of substance to offer. Republicans have been guilty of the same thing in past years, putting too much emphasis on potentially repealing or curtailing the Roe Vs. Wade abortion law when most know by now that it will probably never be done and, at this point, shouldn't be done for more logical, common sense reasons. They're still putting too much energy into blocking the legalization of gay marriage, which I think should be done just because it's the Constitutional thing to do - regardless of morality, which a personal matter, not a government one. That said, candidate Romney came to the scene with a specialty in the economy and, in a time in which we need a candidate with that specialty the most, he has made that the lynch pin of his campaign. I used to think as others did and still do - that it limited him too much - but it gives voters a very clear and important reason to vote for him.
Obama can SAY he'll balance the budget and deal with America's debt, but he's never actually DONE it - at least not when it comes to, say... a business or a corporation, which could easily be compared to the government in structure. Like a corporation, the government serves a certain group of people with a President, a Vice President and, in its case, a very big board of directors in the form of the House and Senate, along with smaller groups that operate within the corporation to deal with certain issues and things like public relations and other smaller details. The only significant difference between a government and a corporation is the government's ability to print its own money, which is precisely why we need someone with small business and/or corporate experience to make sure that such economic powers are not abused by the government/corporation at the expense of its customers, the American people. Is Romney's record perfect? Did everything in which Bain Capital invested succeed? No. Nobody is perfect and investments in any business are risky, but to my knowledge, neither Bain nor Romney were directly responsible for those business failures or for those firings and layoff's. Ultimately, though, Romney and Bain GAVE to America and its economy. Obama has only ever really taken, and "taking" from the wealth and hard work of the American people is at the heart of just about everything he proposes, including the ridiculously random 30% tax hike on the rich. Not only is it a bad idea in the short term, at least at that high a percentage, but at some point, the regulation and taxation of the Democrats will, long-term, discourage the creation of private sector wealth while eating up so much that eventually, no tax hike will be sufficient.
In conclusion, I can understand why people would try to vote based upon which candidate might potentially do "what's right" for the most Americans, but sadly, we don't live in a time that affords us that privilege, and realistically, I'm not sure we ever did. Nothing is ever going to satisfy EVERYONE, and sometimes, you have to be willing to endure a little pain in the short term to really be able to accomplish something in the long-term. I grant that both parties ask for certain potential compromises from different segments of the American population, but at least the compromises asked for by the Republicans don't also punish those Americans that have contributed the most, have been the most successful and SHOULD be held up as examples and role models instead of being the targets of knee jerk resentment and put-down as scapegoats for the fact that more aren't just like them. It does bother me that I'm not impressed with Romney as someone I can imagine as a really cool, likable guy, but if he elected, he wouldn't be the first such President with those qualities (or lack of qualities), nor would he be the first of his kind to otherwise be exactly what his country needs when it needs him.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
ROMBAMACARE: A Big Reason This Election Is So Whacked
I've long been interested in history, politics and current events, but this election and its stakes seem to have made me increasingly and disturbingly angry. Despite espousing the virtues behind the choices we have, which form the very definition of a "democratic" republic, in recent conversations, I've found myself provoked into becoming the fiery partisan I've tried (or thought I'd tried) so hard not to be. In my defense, though, I caught a rerun this morning of Frontline about Romney and Obama and where they come from. It clearly illustrated what I already suspected: However similar or different it may be from past election cycles, this one is chaotic, fundamentally hypocritical and almost corrupt. I believe that to be a fact and one best illustrated by the issues of health care and, to some extent, national security, as it has been confronted by both candidates... often IN THE SAME WAYS!
It starts, in earnest, between 2002 and 2006, when Republican governor Mitt Romney has been almost totally, politically impotent in and amongst what is otherwise an almost totally Democrat state legislature. Desperate for a political and legislative victory upon which he can build a legacy, he chooses health care and fixates upon the idea of the individual mandate requiring all to buy health insurance as a way to lure Democrats - including the lion of the Senate, himself, Ted Kennedy - to his side. It works, the bill is passed and dubbed Romneycare. What a majority of working class, grassroots conservative Republicans and future-voters-for-President don't know - besides Romney, himself - is that the lynch pin of this state's version of "universal health care" is predicated upon the mandate as first put forth by the Heritage Foundation, A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK!
Flash forward to now, beyond Romney's failed run for the candidacy in 2008, and not only has he become more socially conservative to appeal to the base, but he's running, in part, on the promise to overturn the biggest and most controversial piece of legislation that Obama has passed - the Affordable Care Act - even though it was not only inspired by Romney's prior bill, but devised in an advisory capacity by some of the same consultants! Somehow, as seems to happen way too often, partisanship on the right has become so extreme that in their opposition to Obama and, I guess by default, the Affordable Care Act (an opposition I nevertheless join, regardless of where it came from), that it seems to have blinded them to the fact that what they and their candidate-of-choice is now opposing was born on their side! That Romney passed a similar bill is what they know and why Romney has a rough time coming up in the ranks, but the rest... it's the equivalent of white noise on the right.
Of course, as I said, this seems to happen often nowadays, and it's happened on the left, as well. Seemingly unable to run on his domestic record and failed to realize his great goal to bridge the political gap in Washington, Obama has shifted to a more adversarial standpoint that sharply delineates the choice everyone has in this campaign season. In the meantime, he's also deviated from his party in his treatment of national security, ending the war in Iraq (albeit forced to do so by the Iraqi government's refusal to grant troops legal immunity), but approving and even reinforcing covert and other military, ground operations around the world. After a decade of his party calling Bush and the Republicans war hawks and imperialists, he slams the brakes on any effort to shutdown Gitmo and then intervenes militarily in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi, aiding suspected Al-Qaeda members in the resistance and justifying it later with basically the same excuse that Bush had for going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq after no nukes were found - that America had/has a moral responsibility to intervene where people are oppressed by tyrants!
Yesterday, I read a comment from a very liberal associate that despite his dismay at what he called Obama's war policies, he was going to stick with Obama because the Republicans HAVE NOT challenged that policy (even though they have, to some extent and for better or worse), which indicates to him that the Republicans would be as bad or worse. Maybe, maybe not, but this is like the Republicans with what I now call ROMBAMACARE: Whether consciously or unconsciously, it is the refusal to acknowledge the roots of what they oppose on the other side because it might threaten their comfortable partisanship.
I filled out my absentee ballot early and voted for Romney - but NOT because of anything said here. Though I don't much like or trust Romney much more than I do Obama, the fact remains that Romney - coming into the Presidency - would not only be older and more fundamentally experienced, but have more substantive knowledge and experience in BOTH the private and public sectors. In confronting an issue such as the economy and any reasons for repealing the Affordable Care Act (although I doubt it can or will ever be totally repealed), Romney will confront it having actually managed a corporation - which is structured much like the government, itself, and thus faces similar fiscal issues. He will confront the promise to balance and adhere to a more realistic and responsible national budget having actually created, balanced and adhered to similarly BIG budgets in both the private and public sector. Obama, on the other hand, is a law professor that basically forfeited his chance at significant, real-world experience in the legal world to become an author, then a Senator and, then - because of his performance at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I think, as well as his race - to run for and become President. This all leads into my next blog, in which I feel compelled to explain why I'd rather meet Obama instead of vote for him and vote for Romney instead of meet him, as well as why that might a necessary, if unfortunate conclusion at which to arrive.
It starts, in earnest, between 2002 and 2006, when Republican governor Mitt Romney has been almost totally, politically impotent in and amongst what is otherwise an almost totally Democrat state legislature. Desperate for a political and legislative victory upon which he can build a legacy, he chooses health care and fixates upon the idea of the individual mandate requiring all to buy health insurance as a way to lure Democrats - including the lion of the Senate, himself, Ted Kennedy - to his side. It works, the bill is passed and dubbed Romneycare. What a majority of working class, grassroots conservative Republicans and future-voters-for-President don't know - besides Romney, himself - is that the lynch pin of this state's version of "universal health care" is predicated upon the mandate as first put forth by the Heritage Foundation, A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK!
Flash forward to now, beyond Romney's failed run for the candidacy in 2008, and not only has he become more socially conservative to appeal to the base, but he's running, in part, on the promise to overturn the biggest and most controversial piece of legislation that Obama has passed - the Affordable Care Act - even though it was not only inspired by Romney's prior bill, but devised in an advisory capacity by some of the same consultants! Somehow, as seems to happen way too often, partisanship on the right has become so extreme that in their opposition to Obama and, I guess by default, the Affordable Care Act (an opposition I nevertheless join, regardless of where it came from), that it seems to have blinded them to the fact that what they and their candidate-of-choice is now opposing was born on their side! That Romney passed a similar bill is what they know and why Romney has a rough time coming up in the ranks, but the rest... it's the equivalent of white noise on the right.
Of course, as I said, this seems to happen often nowadays, and it's happened on the left, as well. Seemingly unable to run on his domestic record and failed to realize his great goal to bridge the political gap in Washington, Obama has shifted to a more adversarial standpoint that sharply delineates the choice everyone has in this campaign season. In the meantime, he's also deviated from his party in his treatment of national security, ending the war in Iraq (albeit forced to do so by the Iraqi government's refusal to grant troops legal immunity), but approving and even reinforcing covert and other military, ground operations around the world. After a decade of his party calling Bush and the Republicans war hawks and imperialists, he slams the brakes on any effort to shutdown Gitmo and then intervenes militarily in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi, aiding suspected Al-Qaeda members in the resistance and justifying it later with basically the same excuse that Bush had for going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq after no nukes were found - that America had/has a moral responsibility to intervene where people are oppressed by tyrants!
Yesterday, I read a comment from a very liberal associate that despite his dismay at what he called Obama's war policies, he was going to stick with Obama because the Republicans HAVE NOT challenged that policy (even though they have, to some extent and for better or worse), which indicates to him that the Republicans would be as bad or worse. Maybe, maybe not, but this is like the Republicans with what I now call ROMBAMACARE: Whether consciously or unconsciously, it is the refusal to acknowledge the roots of what they oppose on the other side because it might threaten their comfortable partisanship.
I filled out my absentee ballot early and voted for Romney - but NOT because of anything said here. Though I don't much like or trust Romney much more than I do Obama, the fact remains that Romney - coming into the Presidency - would not only be older and more fundamentally experienced, but have more substantive knowledge and experience in BOTH the private and public sectors. In confronting an issue such as the economy and any reasons for repealing the Affordable Care Act (although I doubt it can or will ever be totally repealed), Romney will confront it having actually managed a corporation - which is structured much like the government, itself, and thus faces similar fiscal issues. He will confront the promise to balance and adhere to a more realistic and responsible national budget having actually created, balanced and adhered to similarly BIG budgets in both the private and public sector. Obama, on the other hand, is a law professor that basically forfeited his chance at significant, real-world experience in the legal world to become an author, then a Senator and, then - because of his performance at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I think, as well as his race - to run for and become President. This all leads into my next blog, in which I feel compelled to explain why I'd rather meet Obama instead of vote for him and vote for Romney instead of meet him, as well as why that might a necessary, if unfortunate conclusion at which to arrive.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Talks with Iran = NO MORE RESPECT FOR OBAMA!
SEE RELATED LINK: White Hosue Prepared To Meet One-on-One With Iran
Even as a registered Republican, I've tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on some things and credit where due - even going so far as to (rightfully) criticize Romney and the Republicans - but this is too much. Even though I think a military confrontation with Iran would inevitably lead us into yet another costly, prolonged and, this time, much more dangerous conflict in the Middle East, just Obama's willingness to "negotiate" with the leader of a nation like Iran that denies the Holocaust and essentially wishes extinction on the entire Jewish race is going too far. If Obama's treatment of Israel so far doesn't make this bad enough, these supposed talks would be bilateral and likely overseen by the European Union, which has been borderline disastrous in helping to govern its own nations and has all but encouraged the pre-existing and growing anti-U.S. sentiment in places like England and France, among other nations - "ally" or not. Even Obama's own people apparently have little confidence in this and, if I read the article right, haven't even owned up to the talks actually happening. The article says:
"...the direct talks with North Korea have yet to bear fruit and U.S. officials warned that talks with Iran may not yield anything either."
I'm not going to call Obama a Communist or a closet anti-American, but something is seriously wrong with this picture. The article says that the intended strategy originated with the Bush Administration, but it was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now that is made worse by what appears to be Obama's sympathetic attitude towards the Muslim World, in general.
First, I think it's important to remember that a European nation - France, I think, if not the European Union, itself - was the one that successfully urged Obama's intervention in Libya last year. The U.S. military went in, conducted a few strikes, then left right before the uprising eventually succeeded in the death of Ghadaffi; yet a year later, Libya is still violently unstable and at the time, the Administration knew so little about the "freedom fighters" they helped that those fighters could well have also been members of Al-Qaeda! In response to criticism, Obama's stance now is that America has a moral duty to intervene on behalf of a nation oppressed so violently by such a tyrant, but how does that NOT justify Bush's war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam... the one that Democrats and Obama, himself, so vehemently opposed and still criticizes?
Secondly, Ahmadinejad is evil, but he's not an idiot - nor is he now or in the future even a potential ally of the U.S.. This is clearly a stall tactic, probably to ease sanctions. If so, it's bad enough that such sanctions probably need the U.S. to have even the impact they're having, but if push comes to shove, it's pretty clear that Iran could easily call-in Russia - again ruled by Putin, who has not been a big fan of the U.S. recently - to not only ease the effects of the sanctions but, theoretically, to help Iran to finally FINISH their development of nuclear power and/or arms. This could have any number of outcomes, all bad for the region and for the U.S., including a premeditative strike on Iran by Israel - igniting a war - and/or the final fulfillment of Ahmadinejad's wish to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth... permanently.
Last, but not least, Obama's alleged openness to these "talks" does, in my opinion, prove not only the President's decidedly pro-Islam/Muslim sympathies, but further illustrates how Iran, like other parts of the Middle East, continue to successfully manipulate the U.S. and its lukewarm allies by using our ideals of tolerance and diversity against us and to ultimately blind us to the fact that ALL of this has, at its core, to do with Islam and the way it practically defines that region of the world. If Washington isn't blinded, then it's either in denial or outright lying when it says that the West is not at war with Islam, because if you remove Islam and its place in Middle Eastern governing from the equation, you remove the source of a lot of suffering. You remove much, if not all, of the motivations of any number of Middle Eastern factions, tribes and nations to fight. Take Islam away, and Ahmadinejad has almost no reason to hate Israel, and Israel has little or no reason not to share with Palestine. Take away what has been Islam's almost 2,000 year reign in that region, and you're left with practically no reason why those people could not only be (on the whole) more advanced technologically, but civilly, with tolerance for other ideas, cultures and religions and actual respect for women and their rights. I've not read the Quran, so I don't know the true tenets of Islam, but even my older half-sister - a converted Muslim since the late 80's - would admit that as often manifested in extremes in the Middle East, Islam justifies or is used to justify a LOT of violence and death and conflict and all manner of atrocities. It's also why the U.S. and Europe can help overthrow one oppressive, Islamist regime, giving the region's people their choice of leadership, only to watch a more benign and maybe less oppressive, yet still Islamist regime take over. More specifically, from my standpoint, it's why an otherwise legal exercising of free speech in the form of that infamous video, "The Innocence of Muslims," finally gave the U.S. government the justification it needed to actually look into and eventually arrest a known criminal. This was a man still engaging in criminal activity, separate from this video, but who probably (it seems) would not have been investigated, let alone caught, if not for his video and its alleged motivation of the attack on a U.S. Embassy that killed an ambassador.
In conclusion, I don't claim to have the ultimate solution to the U.S.'s problems in the Middle East, but I do believe that the less presence in the region and the less direct involvement that the U.S. has in Middle Eastern affairs, the better. Until some drastic, radical and, frankly, unlikely changes occur, the U.S. relationship with Iran and pretty much every other Islamic nation in the Middle East should be economically-driven - ONLY - and immediately, mutually beneficial, period. Since 9/11, Al-Qaeda has been weakened and its foremost leaders killed, including Bin Laden, himself. The only thing that could possibly make any nation in the Middle East a serious, direct and physical threat to the United States is the policy of the United States - its naive willingness to "negotiate" with implacable enemies and, sadly, its unwillingness to strengthen and enforce its immigration policy, including the more stringent vetting of everyone from the Middle East either visiting or requesting citizenship in America.
Even as a registered Republican, I've tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on some things and credit where due - even going so far as to (rightfully) criticize Romney and the Republicans - but this is too much. Even though I think a military confrontation with Iran would inevitably lead us into yet another costly, prolonged and, this time, much more dangerous conflict in the Middle East, just Obama's willingness to "negotiate" with the leader of a nation like Iran that denies the Holocaust and essentially wishes extinction on the entire Jewish race is going too far. If Obama's treatment of Israel so far doesn't make this bad enough, these supposed talks would be bilateral and likely overseen by the European Union, which has been borderline disastrous in helping to govern its own nations and has all but encouraged the pre-existing and growing anti-U.S. sentiment in places like England and France, among other nations - "ally" or not. Even Obama's own people apparently have little confidence in this and, if I read the article right, haven't even owned up to the talks actually happening. The article says:
"...the direct talks with North Korea have yet to bear fruit and U.S. officials warned that talks with Iran may not yield anything either."
I'm not going to call Obama a Communist or a closet anti-American, but something is seriously wrong with this picture. The article says that the intended strategy originated with the Bush Administration, but it was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now that is made worse by what appears to be Obama's sympathetic attitude towards the Muslim World, in general.
First, I think it's important to remember that a European nation - France, I think, if not the European Union, itself - was the one that successfully urged Obama's intervention in Libya last year. The U.S. military went in, conducted a few strikes, then left right before the uprising eventually succeeded in the death of Ghadaffi; yet a year later, Libya is still violently unstable and at the time, the Administration knew so little about the "freedom fighters" they helped that those fighters could well have also been members of Al-Qaeda! In response to criticism, Obama's stance now is that America has a moral duty to intervene on behalf of a nation oppressed so violently by such a tyrant, but how does that NOT justify Bush's war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam... the one that Democrats and Obama, himself, so vehemently opposed and still criticizes?
Secondly, Ahmadinejad is evil, but he's not an idiot - nor is he now or in the future even a potential ally of the U.S.. This is clearly a stall tactic, probably to ease sanctions. If so, it's bad enough that such sanctions probably need the U.S. to have even the impact they're having, but if push comes to shove, it's pretty clear that Iran could easily call-in Russia - again ruled by Putin, who has not been a big fan of the U.S. recently - to not only ease the effects of the sanctions but, theoretically, to help Iran to finally FINISH their development of nuclear power and/or arms. This could have any number of outcomes, all bad for the region and for the U.S., including a premeditative strike on Iran by Israel - igniting a war - and/or the final fulfillment of Ahmadinejad's wish to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth... permanently.
Last, but not least, Obama's alleged openness to these "talks" does, in my opinion, prove not only the President's decidedly pro-Islam/Muslim sympathies, but further illustrates how Iran, like other parts of the Middle East, continue to successfully manipulate the U.S. and its lukewarm allies by using our ideals of tolerance and diversity against us and to ultimately blind us to the fact that ALL of this has, at its core, to do with Islam and the way it practically defines that region of the world. If Washington isn't blinded, then it's either in denial or outright lying when it says that the West is not at war with Islam, because if you remove Islam and its place in Middle Eastern governing from the equation, you remove the source of a lot of suffering. You remove much, if not all, of the motivations of any number of Middle Eastern factions, tribes and nations to fight. Take Islam away, and Ahmadinejad has almost no reason to hate Israel, and Israel has little or no reason not to share with Palestine. Take away what has been Islam's almost 2,000 year reign in that region, and you're left with practically no reason why those people could not only be (on the whole) more advanced technologically, but civilly, with tolerance for other ideas, cultures and religions and actual respect for women and their rights. I've not read the Quran, so I don't know the true tenets of Islam, but even my older half-sister - a converted Muslim since the late 80's - would admit that as often manifested in extremes in the Middle East, Islam justifies or is used to justify a LOT of violence and death and conflict and all manner of atrocities. It's also why the U.S. and Europe can help overthrow one oppressive, Islamist regime, giving the region's people their choice of leadership, only to watch a more benign and maybe less oppressive, yet still Islamist regime take over. More specifically, from my standpoint, it's why an otherwise legal exercising of free speech in the form of that infamous video, "The Innocence of Muslims," finally gave the U.S. government the justification it needed to actually look into and eventually arrest a known criminal. This was a man still engaging in criminal activity, separate from this video, but who probably (it seems) would not have been investigated, let alone caught, if not for his video and its alleged motivation of the attack on a U.S. Embassy that killed an ambassador.
In conclusion, I don't claim to have the ultimate solution to the U.S.'s problems in the Middle East, but I do believe that the less presence in the region and the less direct involvement that the U.S. has in Middle Eastern affairs, the better. Until some drastic, radical and, frankly, unlikely changes occur, the U.S. relationship with Iran and pretty much every other Islamic nation in the Middle East should be economically-driven - ONLY - and immediately, mutually beneficial, period. Since 9/11, Al-Qaeda has been weakened and its foremost leaders killed, including Bin Laden, himself. The only thing that could possibly make any nation in the Middle East a serious, direct and physical threat to the United States is the policy of the United States - its naive willingness to "negotiate" with implacable enemies and, sadly, its unwillingness to strengthen and enforce its immigration policy, including the more stringent vetting of everyone from the Middle East either visiting or requesting citizenship in America.
Friday, October 19, 2012
This Election's Sad Revelation(s)
There's a poll on Facebook about how most think that Mitt Romney is "unlikeable" and asks who agrees. Frannkly, I'm disgusted at just how well this election depicts the sort of viciously petty jealousy that the country has fallen into. MOST people, regardless of economic class, seem to have screwed up in the last ten years or so and their financial lives are in shambles. They bought what they couldn't afford and fell for the risky, too-good-to-be-true deals of the corporations, banks and other financial institutions, but instead of taking responsibility for their part and picking themselves up, they turn on anyone that didn't make the same mistakes and advocate their punishment via everything from taxes to actual litigation for being too "greedy" and self-serving. I'm not particularly fond of Mitt Romney. Frankly, I think he makes a boring candidate and I worry about some of his attitudes towards potential war with Iran and/or North Korea. However, beyond party differences and whether or not one thinks he'd make a good president, most of his critics, it seems, would be critical of him SOLELY because of his wealth or because people think he hasn't given away enough. Has he made mistakes? Sure, we all have. Has he been or seemed to be dishonest and inconsistent? Show me a successful politician that hasn't. Did some of the companies he invested in shipped jobs to China or folded at the expense of a lot of American' jobs? Yeah, probably, but who can prove that this was PERSONALLY Romney's fault? Who can prove that any more than, say, Solyndra's collapse was the "fault" of Obama, whose investment wasn't even his own money, but YOURS?
Even if there is a solution to this economic crisis - whether in the private or public sector, or both - I fear it's pointless because as long as we, "the people," are neither encouraged nor made to take more responsibility for our own parts in this catastrophe (given that this is a country "for the people, BY the people"), we'll just muck it up again and see either a perpetual cycle or a total collapse of our economic system (which wouldn't be as great as someo f you probably think) and freedoms. Why? Because freedom comes with responsibilities, and if those responsibilities are not taken, then that freedom either turns on us or is lost for good.
Even if there is a solution to this economic crisis - whether in the private or public sector, or both - I fear it's pointless because as long as we, "the people," are neither encouraged nor made to take more responsibility for our own parts in this catastrophe (given that this is a country "for the people, BY the people"), we'll just muck it up again and see either a perpetual cycle or a total collapse of our economic system (which wouldn't be as great as someo f you probably think) and freedoms. Why? Because freedom comes with responsibilities, and if those responsibilities are not taken, then that freedom either turns on us or is lost for good.
Batman, Then and Now - Part 2
Last time, I extolled the virtues of the first two Batman films by Tim Burton and why they should never be forgotten and always respected. Now, I'd like to expound upon the ultimate gift to Batman fans, one that is very different from Burton's Batman films in many ways, but in the end, probably not possible without those Burton movies having been made first. I'm speaking, of course, about Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy.
Though Batman Begins had to grow on me a little after its release in 2005 (I found it mildly depressing upon first viewing), I quickly came around and, like the rest of the world, let the geek in me spasm over the greatness of The Dark Knight three years later. Batman Begins is a great start, but its innovation is basically taking a so-called superhero and applying him to a fairly straightforward, thinking-man's action movie. If not for the fact that it's about Batman and his alter ego, Bruce Wayne, the film would probably be kind of forgettable.
The Dark Knight, though, seemed to more comfortably embrace the comic book origins of the character, both textually and visually. For example, I think it's great that Nolan got over his reticence at the thought of using Joker's signature purple suit and green hair. It has its problems, of course - what movie doesn't? The editing of the first 20 minutes or so of The Dark Knight is a little choppy after the rousing prologue, it's a bit longer than it needs to be and although I can understand the approach and actually love Aaron Eckhart's performance, I feel like their development of Harvey Dent, as a normal (for lack of a better word) character, is ultimately wasted when the payoff of him becoming Two-Face ultimately amounts to about 10-15 minutes of screen time in the film's last hour. It assumes that audiences can and should be super-invested in Harvey Dent, the man, just as they should be with Bruce Wayne, but it's a faulty assumption because one has been consistently built-up in comics, TV and film while the other hasn't. Bruce Wayne is who he is - including Batman. The basics of that have never changed and neither readers nor TV or film audiences have followed the exploits of Batman without also following the out-of-costume Bruce Wayne. Not only did Harve Dent start out as Harvey Kent (changed later for obvious reasons), but he was Two-Face from the second or third panel of his first-appearance on. His Two-Face persona is the ENTIRE reason that most audiences want to see the character in the first place, and even those that enjoyed Frank Miller and Jeph Loeb's insular development of Harvey Dent's pre-villain persona as an ally of Batman in graphic novels STILL only appreciate it because it adds to the tragedy of... TWO-FACE. Some of this is probably a side-effect of Nolan's obsession with "keeping it real," which has worked overall but, of course, no approach is perfect. Nowadays, audiences want that, and ironically, perhaps, they seem to want it even MORE when it comes to these movies based upon inherently unrealistic characters and circumstances. What I see is that both audiences and filmmakers, alike, have a ways to go before full reconciliation can be had with the differences between realism and believability, what they are, what they offer, why they're needed and why, sometimes, they're not.
Despite this, I believe that the Nolans and their collaborators have so far come the closest to that reconciliation in their completion of The Dark Knight Trilogy. The culmination of all of their efforts is The Dark Knight Rises, which is just now closing out its run in theaters before its DVD/Blu-Ray release December 4th. It's been controversial, no doubt due to the tragic Colorado shooting that coincided with its midnight debut in July, but also because of the way it's been received by audiences. The biggest fans have embraced it unconditionally (although they haven't seemed to talk as much about it) while more casual fans and those that admire Nolan but are indifferent to the Batman franchise have been more forthcoming and direct in both their praise and criticism.
While it's not my absolute favorite of the trilogy, I think that The Dark Knight Rises is Nolan's ultimate lesson in the difference between reality and believability. It suffers from the fact that it doesn't quite have the same iconic imagery and feel that The Dark Knight has - but, then again, the case can be made that it never could and that Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker single-handedly made that film impossible to top. It's also been controversial for actually ENDING Batman and his crimefighting career once and for all, albeit in a way that seems to satisfy even the more vocal critics. I like the movie, though, because I can finally see its comic book roots not only respected, but actually used. A LOT of the fine print of the film, so to speak, comes almost directly from the panels of comics ranging from Dennis O'Neil's 70's stuff (always a big influence) and both the Knightfall series of the early 90's and the No Man's Land series of early in the last decade or so. Although I don't think it's very believable given the actual, physical traits of the two actors, the shot of (SPOILER!) Tom Hardy as Bane breaking Batman's back is, though quick, quite satisfying - even in such low lighting. If there is anything I'd insist be changed about the film, if it could be, it's that I'd want Ra's daughter Talia to be a known presence throughout the film. The way she's handled instead, going by another name and not revealing herself until the end, is only tolerable because it's the way her father was handled in Batman Begins - first presented as Ducard before being revealed as the big baddie. Of course, several of Marion Cotillard's lines beforehand do echo some of Liam Neeson's lines in Batman Begins about restoring balance and justice to the world. That, though, only makes it a bit more frustrating to those truly in-the-know in that we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop - and in this case, we've been made to wait a good 2 hours or more before, as with Bane, being subjected to a terribly unsatisfying conclusion to her character's arc.
Again, though, The Dark Knight Rises is a really good movie in my opinion and better than most of its critics would have you believe. It's not Nolan's best, but it was never going to be - which might not be fair, but still true. I just FELT a lot more from the characters and what goes on in The Dark Knight Rises than I did from the events of Batman Begins or even The Dark Knight, in totality. Now that it's over, though, I hope that whoever takes up the cinematic mantle of the Bat tries something different without trying to top his (or her) predecessor. I think it's possible to explore some of Batman's more science fiction elements without sacrificing the BELIEVABILITY that has worked so well for that character. I say BELIEVABILITY because even if someone CAN, technically, become Batman, there are far more feasible and efficient methods of exacting vigilante justice upon the criminals of a single city than by lugging around a hundred or more pounds of military-grade gear on top of wearing a costume which, in reality, would kill even the healthiest man (from dehydration and/or heat stroke) if he tried to wear it AND do all those things over the course of a single evening. Clayface, for example, is best known as this big mud monster, but in 1941, he started out as just this disgruntled horror film actor that wore a rather nondescript mask to hide some facial scarring - a sort of Joker/Two-Face blend with the Phantom of the Opera. Mr. Freeze's origins from the Animated Series could still be done respectfully and effectively on film, with alternate reasons given as to why a man would need to maintain lower body temperatures and need special clothing to do so. Even the design is more feasible since many clothes and uniforms for sports and space exploration include built-in cooling mechanisms interwoven into the overall construct.
In any case, I look forward to what comes next while still respecting and valuing what has come before.
Though Batman Begins had to grow on me a little after its release in 2005 (I found it mildly depressing upon first viewing), I quickly came around and, like the rest of the world, let the geek in me spasm over the greatness of The Dark Knight three years later. Batman Begins is a great start, but its innovation is basically taking a so-called superhero and applying him to a fairly straightforward, thinking-man's action movie. If not for the fact that it's about Batman and his alter ego, Bruce Wayne, the film would probably be kind of forgettable.
The Dark Knight, though, seemed to more comfortably embrace the comic book origins of the character, both textually and visually. For example, I think it's great that Nolan got over his reticence at the thought of using Joker's signature purple suit and green hair. It has its problems, of course - what movie doesn't? The editing of the first 20 minutes or so of The Dark Knight is a little choppy after the rousing prologue, it's a bit longer than it needs to be and although I can understand the approach and actually love Aaron Eckhart's performance, I feel like their development of Harvey Dent, as a normal (for lack of a better word) character, is ultimately wasted when the payoff of him becoming Two-Face ultimately amounts to about 10-15 minutes of screen time in the film's last hour. It assumes that audiences can and should be super-invested in Harvey Dent, the man, just as they should be with Bruce Wayne, but it's a faulty assumption because one has been consistently built-up in comics, TV and film while the other hasn't. Bruce Wayne is who he is - including Batman. The basics of that have never changed and neither readers nor TV or film audiences have followed the exploits of Batman without also following the out-of-costume Bruce Wayne. Not only did Harve Dent start out as Harvey Kent (changed later for obvious reasons), but he was Two-Face from the second or third panel of his first-appearance on. His Two-Face persona is the ENTIRE reason that most audiences want to see the character in the first place, and even those that enjoyed Frank Miller and Jeph Loeb's insular development of Harvey Dent's pre-villain persona as an ally of Batman in graphic novels STILL only appreciate it because it adds to the tragedy of... TWO-FACE. Some of this is probably a side-effect of Nolan's obsession with "keeping it real," which has worked overall but, of course, no approach is perfect. Nowadays, audiences want that, and ironically, perhaps, they seem to want it even MORE when it comes to these movies based upon inherently unrealistic characters and circumstances. What I see is that both audiences and filmmakers, alike, have a ways to go before full reconciliation can be had with the differences between realism and believability, what they are, what they offer, why they're needed and why, sometimes, they're not.
Despite this, I believe that the Nolans and their collaborators have so far come the closest to that reconciliation in their completion of The Dark Knight Trilogy. The culmination of all of their efforts is The Dark Knight Rises, which is just now closing out its run in theaters before its DVD/Blu-Ray release December 4th. It's been controversial, no doubt due to the tragic Colorado shooting that coincided with its midnight debut in July, but also because of the way it's been received by audiences. The biggest fans have embraced it unconditionally (although they haven't seemed to talk as much about it) while more casual fans and those that admire Nolan but are indifferent to the Batman franchise have been more forthcoming and direct in both their praise and criticism.
While it's not my absolute favorite of the trilogy, I think that The Dark Knight Rises is Nolan's ultimate lesson in the difference between reality and believability. It suffers from the fact that it doesn't quite have the same iconic imagery and feel that The Dark Knight has - but, then again, the case can be made that it never could and that Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker single-handedly made that film impossible to top. It's also been controversial for actually ENDING Batman and his crimefighting career once and for all, albeit in a way that seems to satisfy even the more vocal critics. I like the movie, though, because I can finally see its comic book roots not only respected, but actually used. A LOT of the fine print of the film, so to speak, comes almost directly from the panels of comics ranging from Dennis O'Neil's 70's stuff (always a big influence) and both the Knightfall series of the early 90's and the No Man's Land series of early in the last decade or so. Although I don't think it's very believable given the actual, physical traits of the two actors, the shot of (SPOILER!) Tom Hardy as Bane breaking Batman's back is, though quick, quite satisfying - even in such low lighting. If there is anything I'd insist be changed about the film, if it could be, it's that I'd want Ra's daughter Talia to be a known presence throughout the film. The way she's handled instead, going by another name and not revealing herself until the end, is only tolerable because it's the way her father was handled in Batman Begins - first presented as Ducard before being revealed as the big baddie. Of course, several of Marion Cotillard's lines beforehand do echo some of Liam Neeson's lines in Batman Begins about restoring balance and justice to the world. That, though, only makes it a bit more frustrating to those truly in-the-know in that we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop - and in this case, we've been made to wait a good 2 hours or more before, as with Bane, being subjected to a terribly unsatisfying conclusion to her character's arc.
Again, though, The Dark Knight Rises is a really good movie in my opinion and better than most of its critics would have you believe. It's not Nolan's best, but it was never going to be - which might not be fair, but still true. I just FELT a lot more from the characters and what goes on in The Dark Knight Rises than I did from the events of Batman Begins or even The Dark Knight, in totality. Now that it's over, though, I hope that whoever takes up the cinematic mantle of the Bat tries something different without trying to top his (or her) predecessor. I think it's possible to explore some of Batman's more science fiction elements without sacrificing the BELIEVABILITY that has worked so well for that character. I say BELIEVABILITY because even if someone CAN, technically, become Batman, there are far more feasible and efficient methods of exacting vigilante justice upon the criminals of a single city than by lugging around a hundred or more pounds of military-grade gear on top of wearing a costume which, in reality, would kill even the healthiest man (from dehydration and/or heat stroke) if he tried to wear it AND do all those things over the course of a single evening. Clayface, for example, is best known as this big mud monster, but in 1941, he started out as just this disgruntled horror film actor that wore a rather nondescript mask to hide some facial scarring - a sort of Joker/Two-Face blend with the Phantom of the Opera. Mr. Freeze's origins from the Animated Series could still be done respectfully and effectively on film, with alternate reasons given as to why a man would need to maintain lower body temperatures and need special clothing to do so. Even the design is more feasible since many clothes and uniforms for sports and space exploration include built-in cooling mechanisms interwoven into the overall construct.
In any case, I look forward to what comes next while still respecting and valuing what has come before.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Batman, Then And Now - Part 1
I promised a blog about the film franchise revolving around my favorite hero/superhero, Batman, and here it is... in two parts! This part will be about the older Batman films and why I think they're so important. The next one will deal with the recently-concluded Dark Knight Trilogy from Chris Nolan. The point of all this is that I'm torn between joining the rest of the fan world in celebrating the greatness of the Nolan films as they come to a close and wanting to shout about how so many seem to have forgotten exactly how important Tim Burton's first two Batman movies were 20 years ago and still are today.
Simply entitled BATMAN, Tim Burton's movie opened in 1989 when I was 10 years old and not yet a Batman fan. I wanted to see the Ghostbusters sequel again, but my father insisted that we see BATMAN - and for reasons that, as I recall them, still don't make any sense. At first, I was confused. I knew who Batman was from a visual standpoint and that he was a superhero, but I'd never read a comic, didn't know the actors except by name and didn't even know who played who. Accustomed to superheroes being light and colorful and to most of the movies I see being comedies and kids films, I was totally in the dark - literally and figuratively. I couldn't even tell when Batman was onscreen half the time because I was in a dark theater watching a Batman clad all-in-black and roaming around a city at night that had a lot of black elements to it. It was originally a frustrating experience, but as it did others, it eventually drew me in and from that movie, alone, I became a Batman fan, expanding my knowledge to the comics and other iterations - including the 60's TV show, which took a long time to reconcile with the feature as something totally
different.
In hindsight, I see the flaws. In hindsight, Nicholson was perfect for that role... in 1974. The only thing that makes sense about why that movie ever worked at all besides the late Anton Furst's great production design is the one thing that apparently made most fans the angriest, and that was the casting of Michael Keaton in the lead role. Even when he's playing good guys, he doesn't strike someone as the hero type, let alone the superhero type, but learning later how that was precisely Tim Burton's point, it all clicked. Keaton makes up for his physical inappropriateness (barely 5'9" and a bit stocky) in the movie with a believable characterization of someone compelled to do something he's not otherwise cut-out to do and, thus, adopting extreme measures in order to at least convince himself that he's being at all successful. Interestingly enough, I think Keaton inhabited the suit more effectively in the sequel BATMAN RETURNS, but that might be because he's contrasted in that film with a borderline-petite woman and an already chubby actor standing just under 5 feet, buried not only in make-up and prosthetics, but also what was probably the most hideous fat-suit ever in existence. Batman fans like myself are now sober when it comes to both of Burton's films and divided about which is the best, many either eschewing BATMAN RETURNS completely for abandoning so many of the characters' comic book traits or putting it on a pedestal for being (in my opinion) the most creatively-made Batman or superhero movie ever made... for better or worse. The debt that fans of any of the Batman films (and, arguably, any superhero movies thereafter) owes to Burton, however, can neither be ignored nor denied, nor can it be justifiably understimated. Burton wasn't the one that got that first movie's ball rolling in 1979 (the year I was born, ironically), but I doubt it would have made the impact that it did without him. Moreover, whether good or bad, neither Joel Schumacher nor Chris Nolan ever tried to argue with the logic of having Batman's costume be all-black. Frankly, I'd like to see someone try a real-life depiction closer to, say... the suit of the late-70's and 80's comics, but that's just me (and a topic for another blog!).
I, for one, loved BATMAN RETURNS and still do, even though it is sometimes difficult to watch and, interestingly enough, only got that way as I got older. I was 13 at the time, though, so I did get the sense that it was very, very different - even compared with its predecessor - and so much so that perhaps it would be the last of its kind... and it was. The news of Joel Schumacher's takeover were, even to my teenage ears, not altogether unexpected, but still disappointing. Disappointing still was the eventual BATMAN FOREVER, which might have entertained me more had I not been so devoted to the Burton aesthetic and tone (which the film didn't even abandon entirel given Burton retains producer credit). Jim Carrey was the draw for me on that film. Though I only really liked him in THE MASK, I knew he was right for the role of the Riddler, especially if they were making a lighter Batman movie, and as rendered, he was perfectly cast. Then again, while not the darkest of Batman's villains, the Riddler could have been handled with a bit more care and given a bit more weight and menace instead of just being a Frank Gorshin homage on steroids and, well... in VERY living color.
Rounding out this blog, all I can say is that BATMAN FOREVER made a ton of money and, BAM, two years later, we got a new Batman in George Clooney and the mostly abominable BATMAN & ROBIN. I saw that movie in theaters twice, but I think I was just desperate to find something good about it. Maybe if it hadn't been a Batman movie, but... no. BATMAN FOREVER had frustrated me in that, by the time I saw it, I knew about Two-Face AND I knew that Tommy Lee Jones was a great actor, and it just remains painful to me how BOTH the fictional character and real-life actor were simultaneously wasted. BATMAN & ROBIN was worse because it took some really great actors and elements and just... defecated on them.
Sorry to be so disgusting here, but really... Arnold Schwarzenegger is an entertaining presence, but he's never been a good actor and he was NOT a good choice to play Mr. Freeze, certainly not the version from Bruce Timm's incredible Batman: The Animated Series, whose origin was basically stolen beat-for-beat for the feature film. Strength-enhancing freeze suit notwithstanding, I never even pictured Mr. Freeze as being that physically imposing except, maybe, that he might be tall. At the time, I pictured someone like hristopher Lloyd in the part, someone that could be both a credible comic book character, but still bring something more to the part. All Schwarzenegger brought was his annoying accent (annoying here, anyway) and ill-timed dialogue delivery. Uma Thurman might have been tolerable as Poison Ivy except that she must have been given the same directive as everyone else, which was to play it as over-the-top and shallow as possible. Interestingly enough, I'd seen an interview with George Clooney on TV not long after ER debuted and it occurred to me then that he might could play Batman, but only in the sense that he'd make a decent Bruce Wayne and had the physical traits. I was thinking a live-action television series, at best, but not a feature. To his credit, he does make a good Bruce Wayne, but only one version of him - which is to say that George Clooney does what is supposed to be the phony billionaire playboy persona very well, but brings no pathos or depth otherwise. Without that, Batman is little more than an image, and if you reduce him to that, you take away much of what makes him so great. That's what Schumacher did wrong in both films, but certainly in BATMAN & ROBIN.
In conclusion, most agree that about the only good thing that came from BATMAN & ROBIN was the termination of that Batman franchise - which was about to head into a movie called BATMAN TRIUMPHANT about the Scarecrow before Schumacher bailed - and gave Warner Brothers either the balls or the desperation to let Christopher Nolan take it down a completely different path eight years later. Indeed, Nolan's take is almost completely different when you compare it to what came before - though we still have the all-black batsuit. That said, it's also the most appropriate given Batman's comic book origins without being slaves to its source material. Tune in next time for my rant on the Dark Knight Trilogy... "same bat-time, same bat-channel."
Simply entitled BATMAN, Tim Burton's movie opened in 1989 when I was 10 years old and not yet a Batman fan. I wanted to see the Ghostbusters sequel again, but my father insisted that we see BATMAN - and for reasons that, as I recall them, still don't make any sense. At first, I was confused. I knew who Batman was from a visual standpoint and that he was a superhero, but I'd never read a comic, didn't know the actors except by name and didn't even know who played who. Accustomed to superheroes being light and colorful and to most of the movies I see being comedies and kids films, I was totally in the dark - literally and figuratively. I couldn't even tell when Batman was onscreen half the time because I was in a dark theater watching a Batman clad all-in-black and roaming around a city at night that had a lot of black elements to it. It was originally a frustrating experience, but as it did others, it eventually drew me in and from that movie, alone, I became a Batman fan, expanding my knowledge to the comics and other iterations - including the 60's TV show, which took a long time to reconcile with the feature as something totally
different.
In hindsight, I see the flaws. In hindsight, Nicholson was perfect for that role... in 1974. The only thing that makes sense about why that movie ever worked at all besides the late Anton Furst's great production design is the one thing that apparently made most fans the angriest, and that was the casting of Michael Keaton in the lead role. Even when he's playing good guys, he doesn't strike someone as the hero type, let alone the superhero type, but learning later how that was precisely Tim Burton's point, it all clicked. Keaton makes up for his physical inappropriateness (barely 5'9" and a bit stocky) in the movie with a believable characterization of someone compelled to do something he's not otherwise cut-out to do and, thus, adopting extreme measures in order to at least convince himself that he's being at all successful. Interestingly enough, I think Keaton inhabited the suit more effectively in the sequel BATMAN RETURNS, but that might be because he's contrasted in that film with a borderline-petite woman and an already chubby actor standing just under 5 feet, buried not only in make-up and prosthetics, but also what was probably the most hideous fat-suit ever in existence. Batman fans like myself are now sober when it comes to both of Burton's films and divided about which is the best, many either eschewing BATMAN RETURNS completely for abandoning so many of the characters' comic book traits or putting it on a pedestal for being (in my opinion) the most creatively-made Batman or superhero movie ever made... for better or worse. The debt that fans of any of the Batman films (and, arguably, any superhero movies thereafter) owes to Burton, however, can neither be ignored nor denied, nor can it be justifiably understimated. Burton wasn't the one that got that first movie's ball rolling in 1979 (the year I was born, ironically), but I doubt it would have made the impact that it did without him. Moreover, whether good or bad, neither Joel Schumacher nor Chris Nolan ever tried to argue with the logic of having Batman's costume be all-black. Frankly, I'd like to see someone try a real-life depiction closer to, say... the suit of the late-70's and 80's comics, but that's just me (and a topic for another blog!).
I, for one, loved BATMAN RETURNS and still do, even though it is sometimes difficult to watch and, interestingly enough, only got that way as I got older. I was 13 at the time, though, so I did get the sense that it was very, very different - even compared with its predecessor - and so much so that perhaps it would be the last of its kind... and it was. The news of Joel Schumacher's takeover were, even to my teenage ears, not altogether unexpected, but still disappointing. Disappointing still was the eventual BATMAN FOREVER, which might have entertained me more had I not been so devoted to the Burton aesthetic and tone (which the film didn't even abandon entirel given Burton retains producer credit). Jim Carrey was the draw for me on that film. Though I only really liked him in THE MASK, I knew he was right for the role of the Riddler, especially if they were making a lighter Batman movie, and as rendered, he was perfectly cast. Then again, while not the darkest of Batman's villains, the Riddler could have been handled with a bit more care and given a bit more weight and menace instead of just being a Frank Gorshin homage on steroids and, well... in VERY living color.
Rounding out this blog, all I can say is that BATMAN FOREVER made a ton of money and, BAM, two years later, we got a new Batman in George Clooney and the mostly abominable BATMAN & ROBIN. I saw that movie in theaters twice, but I think I was just desperate to find something good about it. Maybe if it hadn't been a Batman movie, but... no. BATMAN FOREVER had frustrated me in that, by the time I saw it, I knew about Two-Face AND I knew that Tommy Lee Jones was a great actor, and it just remains painful to me how BOTH the fictional character and real-life actor were simultaneously wasted. BATMAN & ROBIN was worse because it took some really great actors and elements and just... defecated on them.
Sorry to be so disgusting here, but really... Arnold Schwarzenegger is an entertaining presence, but he's never been a good actor and he was NOT a good choice to play Mr. Freeze, certainly not the version from Bruce Timm's incredible Batman: The Animated Series, whose origin was basically stolen beat-for-beat for the feature film. Strength-enhancing freeze suit notwithstanding, I never even pictured Mr. Freeze as being that physically imposing except, maybe, that he might be tall. At the time, I pictured someone like hristopher Lloyd in the part, someone that could be both a credible comic book character, but still bring something more to the part. All Schwarzenegger brought was his annoying accent (annoying here, anyway) and ill-timed dialogue delivery. Uma Thurman might have been tolerable as Poison Ivy except that she must have been given the same directive as everyone else, which was to play it as over-the-top and shallow as possible. Interestingly enough, I'd seen an interview with George Clooney on TV not long after ER debuted and it occurred to me then that he might could play Batman, but only in the sense that he'd make a decent Bruce Wayne and had the physical traits. I was thinking a live-action television series, at best, but not a feature. To his credit, he does make a good Bruce Wayne, but only one version of him - which is to say that George Clooney does what is supposed to be the phony billionaire playboy persona very well, but brings no pathos or depth otherwise. Without that, Batman is little more than an image, and if you reduce him to that, you take away much of what makes him so great. That's what Schumacher did wrong in both films, but certainly in BATMAN & ROBIN.
In conclusion, most agree that about the only good thing that came from BATMAN & ROBIN was the termination of that Batman franchise - which was about to head into a movie called BATMAN TRIUMPHANT about the Scarecrow before Schumacher bailed - and gave Warner Brothers either the balls or the desperation to let Christopher Nolan take it down a completely different path eight years later. Indeed, Nolan's take is almost completely different when you compare it to what came before - though we still have the all-black batsuit. That said, it's also the most appropriate given Batman's comic book origins without being slaves to its source material. Tune in next time for my rant on the Dark Knight Trilogy... "same bat-time, same bat-channel."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)