Wednesday Comics: Justice League #22 - Trinity War Begins

The Trinity War is a story that has been building since before the DC reboot 2 years ago.  At the end of Flashpoint, a mysterious cloaked woman altered the timeline which gave DC a reason to begin all of their books over at issue #1.  We knew this mysterious woman was important because she appeared (often hidden) in every single one of the 52 new first issues (in fact, finding her was like a geeky Where's Waldo activity).

What we have learned is that she is one of the so-called Trinity of Sin.  She and two other great sinners were brought to the Rock of Eternity and judged by a council of wizards, one of whom was the ancient Shazam.  It was revealed there that she was Pandora, and because she opened the forbidden box, the 7 deadly sins entered the world.  Another brought was Judas, who was condemned to wander as a (Phantom) Stranger until he has done one amazingly heroic deed for every piece of silver he took.  The third man is never revealed, though he is the supposedly the worst sinner of all.  His memory and face are removed from him and he becomes the Question.

How does this play into this Justice League story?

Pandora believes that someone with the purest heart can open the box and bring re-capture the sins.  So she seeks out the one superhero she believes capable of such goodness.

Meanwhile, the events at the end of Johns' Shazam story arc find our new hero heading to the fictional nation of Khandaq.  The big 7 Justice League (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), Aquaman, and Cyborg) go to intervene.  But the US government formed Justice League of America (Steve Trevor, Martian Manhunter, Hawkman, Green Lantern (Simon Baz), Catwoman, Green Arrow, Katana, Vibe, Dr. Light, and Stargirl) are sent to intercept the other league to prevent and international incident.  It is on the way that the members of the JLA are informed of their true purpose: each one was recruited specifically to take out a member of the big 7 league.  Not everyone is happy about this.

The confrontation that goes down is shocking and spectacular.  This issue is a lot of build up, but in a good way.  We begin to see strains in Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship, recalling Batman's forbodeing words to Superman from 2 issues previous: "She has no kryptonite."  I also like the hints at the larger thematic question of where does evil come from: outside us or inside us?

One of the things I really like about this issue is how tragic it seems.  No one wants to fight.  Everyone wants to back away.  And yet because of rash choice and accidents, the match is lit and the powder keg goes off.  I am completely invested in the characters on both sides and I'm watching in horror as they go after each other.  It is wasteful and sad, and therein lies the drama.  Johns brilliantly shows you how neither side is in the wrong, making the fight all the more tragic.

Ivan Reis' art is fantastic.  He gets better every time I read him.  There is something particularly about the way he draws Superman's costume that jumps out at me as tangible and dynamic.

This is a great opening issue: there is action, mystery, and someone dies.  Johns teased in a video that one of the members of one of the Justice Leagues was going to go to far and kill someone.  I thought I had it figured out before I began reading.

I didn't.  Oh boy, I didn't.

And there is still a lot more to be revealed.  The 3rd Justice League has yet to jump in.  This would be Justice League Dark (John Constantine, Swamp Thing, Deadman, Frankenstein, and Zatanna), who deal with the supernatural underworld.  I cannot wait to see what new dimension they bring.  Also, I think the end of the issue reveals the identity of the mystery man who was been plaguing the JLA for the past few issues.  And if it is who I think it is, I'm very excited, since I thought he was completely erased from the new continuity.

Unlike Marvel's big events, Johns' DC arcs tend to have very exciting and satisfying conclusions.  I can't wait to see where this all goes.

Trailer Time: The Lifeguard

I am a fan of Kristen Bell, having been addicted to Veronica Mars for all 3 seasons.

Here's what I think looks interesting about this movie: it captures the phenomenon of the non-adult adult.  It seems like when our parent were our age, they were adults and we were the children.  But even though I'm an adult, part of me still feels like a foolish child (of course my giant collection of DC Comics action figures staring down at me while I write this may have something to do with it).

The point being, there are a lot of people out there who have gotten older but still don't feel like they have found their place in this world.  So they regress into immaturity.  She says, "I'm allowed to be lost."  Yes, but then you have a RESPONSIBILITY to find your way, not tread water in life.  To paraphrase CS Lewis, we are called be child-like, not childish.

What I hope this film does is explore that problem, but then come out the other side strongly on the idea that sometimes, you just have to put aside childish things and grow up.

We'll see.

New Evangelizers Post: The Biggest Challenge of Teaching High School Theology

I have a new article up at NewEvangelizers.com

All teachers have their challenges, and religion teachers are no different.  But beyond the usual problems of apathy and lack of diligence there is another all-important obstacle.

Unlike most other subjects, theology classes appeal directly to the life choices of the students.  I in no way minimize the way English, Math, Science, Art, etc, can open up a student’s consciousness and awaken the talents and faculties God gave them.  But in a religion class, we appeal to them to make a choice, to make a leap of faith based on the evidence presented.  That leap of faith affects all of their decisions, both moral and practical, as well as how they perceive the world.  It is all encompassing and can be overwhelming.

We religion teachers ask much of our students.  We ask them for everything.

We do our best to remove all impediments from their encounter with Christ.  But there is something that is beyond much of our control: the culture.

You can read the whole thing here.

Film Review: Much Ado About Nothing

The great thing about Shakespeare is that there are countless versions of his plays.  The bad thing about Shakespeare is that there are countless versions of his plays.

Joss Whedon, the brainchild behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the director of the mega-hit The Avengers, brought all of his talents to a very low budget production of Much Ado About Nothing.  Shakespeare is so rich that no one performance can mine all of its beauty.  So it is a joy to watch other people examine his work from a different point of view.  

But the problem of comparison is almost unavoidable.  

I am a huge fan of Kenneth Bragnagh's 1993 version.  It is pure pageantry and romance.  It has such sweeping humor and majesty that it has left a mark in my mind.  Watching Whedon's players speak the exact same words in the exact same story unfortunately caused me to instantly compare the two.

For those unfamiliar, the story involves a Prince Don Pedro (Reed Diamond) has just returned from wars with his bastard brother John (Sean Maher).  The prince is also accompanied by two of his captains: the lothario Benedick (Alexis Denisoff) and the young Claudio (Fran Kanz).  The group decides to stay at the home of Leonato (Clark Gregg) who has a beautiful daughter Hero (Jillian Morgese) and his niece Beatrice (Amy Acker).  Claudio is in love with Hero.  John wants to hurt Don Pedro.  Benedick and Beatrice are ex-lovers who hate each other.  Don John plans to trick the two into falling in love.

Wackiness ensues.

The movie is set in modern times and is filmed entirely on location in Joss Whedon's beautiful house.  It is also shot in glorious black and white, making the texture of the performances really pop.  For such a limited location, Whedon makes the most out of every angle, every camera movement, to make each scene feel fresh, even if a dozen earlier ones had occurred in the same space.  This is no easy feat.

The biggest negative that the film has going for it is that the first half is overshadowed by Branagh's Much Ado.  And while there are some wonderful laughs to be had in that first half, Branagh was better able to elicit the humor from Shakespeare's ancient diction.  

But what Whedon does better than Branagh is hooking you with the drama of the story.  Much Ado About Nothing actually goes to some fairly dark and tragic places.  Whedon captures exquisitely the anguish and intensity of our heroes.  He shows us well how thin the line is between the agony and ecstasy of love.  And it is during this time that the performances are best.

Acker is fantastic as Beatrice.  She is the heart and the brains of this film.  The first scene in the movie automatically draws our sympathy to her and her quick wit easily win us over.  Acker goes from hilarious to heartbreaking with amazing ease.  Her counterpart, Denisoff, also does a good job, but feels a bit more flat when playing the rogue instead of the gravitas he has when playing dramatic.  But the chemistry between Acker and Denisoff was fantastic and fun.  Gregg's Leonato also shows much more edge and depth than I expected from that character.

But besides Acker, one other actor steals the show: Nathan Fillion.  Here, he plays the character Dogberry as a leader of Leanoto's security.  He is, in short, an idiot.  But he tries to cover his mental shortcomings by using intelligent words.  Sadly, he does not seem to know what those words mean and he comes off as even dumber.  Fillion plays Dogberry with such utter sincerity, that we like him as we laugh at him.  His putting on aires is simply a cover to the child-like vulnerability that we see in Dogberry.  And Fillion delivers his lines with conviction and confusion with perfect comic timing.  I laughed at nearly everything he said.

By the end of the movie, I found myself rooting for the heroes, even though I knew how it was all going to end.  Whedon hooked me.  He made me care because he made Shakespeare's characters come alive.

4 out of 5 stars.

Revenge of the Nerds: Geeks as Bullies

It is a common belief that geeks get picked on by other, more popular people.  And the reason that it is common is that it is true.

But just because someone is part of a bullied group, it does not, therefore, mean that they cannot in turn be bullies.

I bring this up because a group calling themselves Geek OUT is trying to get people to boycott anything related to the upcoming movie Ender's Game.  Why?  Because the author of the book upon which it was based committed the thought crime of supporting traditional marriage.  They said "The queer geek community will not subsidize his fear-mongering and religious bullying. We will not pay him to demean, insult, and oppress us."

A few thoughts:

1.  As I've said before, I have no real dog in this fight.  I'm not a fan of Card, nor am I an opponent.  

2.  Geek OUT is perfectly within their rights to encourage people not to support a piece of art.  As a movie critic, I engage in this activity all the time in order to save people from wasting their time and money.  

3.  I find it interesting that the protest surrounds Card as a person and not the movie itself. From what I understand, homosexuality does not come up in Ender's Game.  I don't believe it there are even symbolic or allegorical attacks, as there were against the Catholic Church in books like The Golden Compass.  No, the attack is against Card himself.  Nevermind the merits or detriments of the art itself.  And, again, if that is their choice, more power to them.  I know people who will never pay money to see another Sean Penn movie because they find his politics so noxious.  I tend not to think in those terms, but that is their choice. But for those who do this, I often wonder what is their sin threshold.  I mean, at what point does an artist become too evil for them to engage in their art?

4.  I found the statement "The queer geek community will not subsidize... fear mongering and religious bullying."  If "religious bullying" means bullying religion (particularly Christianity), then they are out of luck.  Geek pop culture tends to be squarely bullying against religion.  Comic books, in particular, are a bastion of anti-Christian bullying.  There are exceptions, like this year's Man of Steel.  And while sadly many homosexuals are bullied in real life, for the most part homosexuals are not bullied by popular culture.  They are celebrated.  Christians tend to be the ones who are bullied.

5.  Victimization is not immunization.  Just because an injustice has been done to me, I am not immunized from committing that same injustice.  I was bullied in high school by someone on the wrestling team.  But just because I was bullied, it doesn't mean that I couldn't also be a bully to someone else.  Sadly, I believe I was often that to my little sister as I grew up.  Victims of bullying can be just as horrible at bullying others.  

6.  This is where the next wave of attacks on the Catholic Church will come from.  The anti-Catholic bullies will call the Church the biggest bully of all.  And because the Church is a bully, all attacks on it will be seen as justified.

7.  Once again, prayer is need for all involved.  When I was being bullied, God called me to return their hatred with love.  And even if that choice did nothing to change them, it changed me.  Their hatred no longer touched me.  I was free.  For anyone who feels bullied in the pop culture, whether it is this group protesting Card or people like Card himself, let us pray that they all come to a greater love for one another.

So, see Ender's Game, don't see it... I don't care.  But are we really going to start a moral audit of artists before we judge their art?  Or should we let the art speak for itself?

Thoughts?

Monday Poetry: Shakespearean Sonnet #18

I know I am skipping ahead.  My original intention was to go through each of Shakespeare's sonnets in a row.  But sonnets 1-17 are all about trying convince a young man to procreate.  I don't know about you, but 17 sonnets on that subject are a bit much.

He could have convinced me in 12.

Anyway, flash forward to Sonnet #18.  It is one of the most famous.  And it is a notable shift from the previous ones.  In all the preceding sonnets, Shakespeare tries to convince the subject that age and death will destroy his beauty.  This one points to a beauty that death cannot touch.

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed,
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course untrimmed:
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st,
Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st,
   So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
   So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

Sunday Best: Entertainment Weekly's Top 100 TV Shows of All Time

Last week I commented on EW's top 100 movies of all time.   Again, I can't emphasize enough how awful that list is because it includes the atrocious movie The Piano.  Think of the best movie you've seen this year, and that movie is the opposite.

So how did their TV critics do at acknowledge the best of TV.  Let's find out.

1 - The Wire.

I haven't seen it, but some people swear by it.  I am leery, though.

2 - The Simpsons.

A television institution that has been on nearly one quarter of a century.  I know, I know... it isn't as good as it used to be.  That is true.  And yet it is still funnier than most things on TV.

3 - Seinfeld.

This should be ranked high, but not this high.

5 - The Sopranos

I watched this show intensely through Season 2 until I realized that I hated everyone on it.  I began to wonder why I was watching bad people do bad things and then feeling bad the rest of the night.  I then gave up.

6 - All in the Family

This show is preachy and a little dated, but some of the comedy was gold and Carroll O'Connor was perfect.

8 - Buffy the Vampire Slayer

I would place it even higher.  The finale of season 2 is one of the most exquisitely tragic things I have ever seen.

11 - I Love Lucy

Should be much higher.  A lot of 50's sitcoms are fun only in nostalgiac hindsight.  This show is still wildly funny episode after episode.

24 - Lost

I would also place this higher.  People are split on the ending, but it was one of the most profound TV moments I have ever seen.  This show was ambitious and awesome.

31 - MASH

The best show at mixing comedy, drama, and tragedy all at the same time.  One of the best series send offs over.

64 - Modern Family

This show represents the classic problem of television "Jumping the Shark."  The first season was comedic gold.  Season 2 was solid.  But then there was a steady decline in quality to the point where I won't be watching next season.  So if it starts strong but declines horribly, should it still be considered a great show?

70 - Will and Grace

Am I the only one who didn't find a single joke funny on this show.  It was a one-punchline sitcom for 7 years.

71 - Beavis and Butt-head

What in the world is this doing on this list?

72 - Battlestar Galactica

Much better than most of the shows ahead of it on the list.

89 - Mystery Science Theater 3000

photo by Steve

One of the most innovatively funny shows in the medium.  When they hit the right comedic tone, the laughs don't stop

90 - Felicity

This is a fine show, but come on!  It was also kind of boring.

94 - Project Runway

No.


So that's my take on EW's list.  What's yours?