Under the Red Hood

This is easily the most mature of the three movies we’re reviewing as it deals heavily with the death of Jason Todd, the second Robin, Batman’s feelings of guilt, and the difference between revenge and justice.

As before, the animation is very good, this time slightly influenced by the old series but for the most part is something all its own.  The voice actors are largely unfamiliar to the world of animated Batman movies but everyone does a good job, especially Jensen Ackles, who plays the Red Hood.  There are also small parts by Neil Patrick Harris as Nightwing, and Jason Isaacs as Ra’s al Ghul.  John Di Maggio plays the Joker particularly well, showing influence of both Mark Hamill’s definitive animated portrayal and Heath Ledgers equally definitive live action rendition of the character.

Fair warning, it is pretty much impossible to talk about this without spoiling anything so I won’t bother trying.  Of course the movie doesn’t really try to hide anything either.  This isn’t about the mystery, it’s about the character conflict.

The movie gets going with the famous beating to near death of Jason Todd by the Joker and the subsequent explosion that finishes him off, an event that haunts Batman for the rest of his life.  We then jump to Gotham where we meet the Red Hood, an outsider who comes in and rapidly starts to take control of the criminal underworld in Gotham, igniting a war with Black Mask and attracting the attention of Batman, which of course is part of the plan.  You see, the Red Hood is none other than Jason Todd, back from the dead courtesy of Ra’s al Ghul and his handy-dandy Lazarus Pit.  Incidentally, this is just about the only thing that really bothers me about this story; it continues the long established comic book trend of brining people back from the dead.  Until recently, DC didn’t do it very often, but they have definitely jumped on that bandwagon with Marvel by now. 

I digress.  Jason’s primary purpose through the whole movie was simply to stage a showdown with Batman and the Joker.  You see, he isn’t blaming Batman for his death or anything like that, he’s too smart.  But what he does want to know is why, “Why on God’s earth is he (pointing at the Joker) still alive!”  Why wasn’t his death the final straw, the one that finally made the Batman break his one rule and rid the world of “this piece of death worshiping filth?”  A fair question, one that comic nerds have been debating for decades.  Why not kill the Joker?  After all, it seems no prison can really hold him and all he does when he gets out is to kill as many people as he can.  Batman’s answer is simply that it would take him to a place that he wouldn’t come back from.  Once he kills the Joker, why not Two-Face?  The Riddler?  The next random mugger?  I admit, it isn’t really satisfying on a visceral level but the right answer rarely is.  Not that there couldn’t be better answers but a long dissertation on the value of the rule of law and the inherent dignity of even the worst bastards probably would not have fit.  In any case, Todd is also less than satisfied and tries to force Batman to kill either him or the Joker, which of course doesn’t work.  The Joker goes back to Arkham in the end and it looks as though Todd is dead, but we all no better don’t we?

Near the beginning of the movie there is also a great fight scene, featuring Batman and Nightwing vs. Amazo, a super-powered android.  This version possesses a number of the Justice League’s powers, leading to the original Dynamic Duo having to be pretty creative in their tactics.  My personal favorite is when Batman puts some plastic explosives over his eyes, which Amazo obligingly detonates with his heat vision.  That scene alone is worth the entire runtime. 

Anyway, like I said, this is not for the kiddies.  It is awesome and for older teen Bat-fans it is a very worth while viewing experience. 

Batman/Superman - Apocalypse

As you can already see, this one is not only a Batman story.  Nor is it an original tale but is based on the Supergirl storyline of the Superman/Batman comic and functions as a sequel of sorts to Enemies of the State animated feature  (also based on a story from the same comic) of a couple of years ago.  This brings up of  the cooler aspects of this particular series of animated features, the animation.  If you were to watch the movies back to back you would be surprised at how different the animation styles are.  However, if you were to compare the animation to the art in the comics, you would see that they basically chose to adapt the art styles of Ed McGuiness and Michael Turner to an animated format.  Whether this really makes any real difference to the story, I don’t know, but it is kind of a neat thing for nerds like myself. 

As for voice talent, this movie brings back many animated series favorites, Kevin Conroy again, Tim Daly as Superman, even Wonder Woman is done by the same actress who portrayed her in the Justice League series.  Suffice to say that the voice acting is competent to excellent. 

Now for the story.  I won’t belabor differences between the movie and the comic, suffice to say that there are several but all the differences seem to have been based on time considerations more than anything. 

Things kick off with the arrival in Gotham a very powerful young lady who seems to be the long lost cousin of Superman, Kara.  Batman of course is highly suspicious, assuming that she might be part of some elaborate trap.  He’s wrong, at least for a while because many people naturally take notice of her and her talent, including Darkseid who is basically the ultimate physical evil in the DC universe.  To make a long story short, he kidnaps Kara and brainwashes her (doesn’t say how), turning her against Superman when he, Batman, Wonder Woman and Big Barda come to rescue her.  This leads to a confrontation, not just of muscle vs. muscle but of philosophy, how do we know what is right and good?  What is the role of the parent or guardian in guiding the development of those in his care?  I won’t pretend that there is an in depth discussion of these issues in between punches, but it is there.

Another issue worth considering is how Batman keeps Darkseid out of the fight, allowing them all to escape.  Again, keeping the long story short, he rigs the whole planet to go boom unless Darkseid lets them leave and promises to leave Kara alone.  Now, is it morally permissible to threaten to blow up a planet of slaves to rescue one girl?  And not just threaten, but to actually do it?  After all, Darkseid relents because he knows Batman will actually do it.  Altruistic or not, he is also a ruthless bastard.  Now, many of the slaves are no doubt unwilling and wanting to escape, making them innocent victims.  However, many (perhaps a majority) worship Darkseid as a god.  This was seen in an episode of the Superman animated series where Supes kicked the crap out of him, only to see him carried away by his slaves, not to be drawn and quartered but to be nursed back to health.  It is also a military target.  Darkseid, being a comic book villain wants to take over the entire universe.  Actually, he wants to destroy all life.  Really.  For you Marvel fans out there, he is like an amped up version of Thanos.  Darkseid would use Kara, who is arguably more powerful that Superman to further his ends.  In this case, I would say that this is a Death Star scenario; there are innocent prisoners but the entire purpose of everything and everyone else on the planetoid in questions is to spread fear and terror making the action justified, if not still tragic.  \

Conclusion, well animated, acted, and written.  Not suitable for the little ones but perhaps mature pre-teens and above.

Mystery of the Batwoman

This one is pretty old, dating from the heyday of the 1990’s Batman Animated Series (one of the greatest series ever by the way).  In fact, it was produced by the same team, featuring the familiar voice of Kevin Conroy as Batman and the trademark minimalist animation that has become the standard for almost all of DC’s animated projects.  As always, the technical side of the production is handled very well. 

Moving onto the story, it begins with our introduction to the Batwoman, who is decidedly different, at least in appearance from earlier bearers of the same name.  There is no bright yellow spandex and crazy red masque here.  Instead, they went with a light gray spandex and red bat logo, fitting more with the general tone of the series.  As bat-fans will not find surprising, she quickly runs afoul of Batman.  However, it is not just because he doesn’t much care for other vigilantes operating in his city but also because she is a lot more violent than he is, having no regard at all for the lives of the criminals she fights.

We are also introduced to a number of new female characters who are of course potential Batwomen.  We get to walk along with Bruce as he thinks he figures out who the female caped crusader is and then is quickly proven wrong, a couple of times.  They do a good job with the mystery but by the time the pay off comes you aren’t exactly surprised.  Along the way, you find out that there are personal reasons for the Batwoman’s violence, helping to understand the character a bit but I still think that she should have suffered some sort of real consequence for her actions, which is ultimately the biggest problem with the movie.  Still, all in all a fun, entertaining little adventure that I would recommend for the pre-teen and older crowd. 

The Batman Reviews

At last!  I’m going to review those Batman movies I mentioned a long time ago now.  In case you need  a reminder,   those movies were Mystery of the Batwoman, Apocalypse, and Under the Red Hood.  These will be short and sweet since everyone knows the basic Batman story, so I won’t spend a whole lot of time dwelling on that.

One quick note though.  I think I mentioned before how there are numerous interpretations of Batman’s personality and motivations.  These range for arrogant bastard, terrorist, anger-driven sociopath, to altruistic crusader.  I also mentioned that the latter is definitely my preference.  Perhaps sometime I’ll go into the reasons for that and why the other interpretations, often presented as attempts to humanize the character tend to exasperate me.  Actually, the whole trend of making characters more “human” and “identifiable” drives me batty ( no pun intended). Suffice to say (for the moment) that I think it is grounded in a corrupt interpretation of the Calvinistic idea that we area largely defined by our sin married to modern relativism.  Anyway, on with the reviews.

Barnes and Noble

Maybe it's just me or my local store but Barnes and Noble has been bugging the heck out of me for a while.  Largely the titles they display have been at times inappropriate.  But a couple of days ago, I went in and saw that they had completely gutted their philosophy section as well.  Details in the letter below.

I am writing to express some frustration and disappointment with your store.  For many years now, I have enjoyed browsing through, hanging out in and spending money in the Holland Barnes and Noble.  But over the last year or so, there have been a number of things that have made me less than enthusiastic about continuing to do so. 

Most of these instances have consisted of the sexually suggestive covers various prominently displayed books, including the Vargas pinups, Good Girl’s Guide to Bad girl Sex, and most egregious, What Happens in Vegas.  The latter featured a cover with two people engaged in sex, displayed cover out right next to the children’s section.  I think most people would agree that whatever the book’s merits as literature may be, this is not necessarily an example of intelligent product placement.  Another example featured nothing more than bust of a woman wearing something with a zipper being unzipped, displayed on a cart just as one walks in.  I’m sure you can imagine the discomfort of many parents walking around the store with small children. 

As much as these things bother me, they are not the primary reason for writing today.  The main reason is that I recently was in the store looking to spend a gift card and decided to swing by the philosophy section.  I have generally found this portion of your store to be fairly well stocked considering its size.  Imagine my surprise when I found that not only was it reduced in size by at least half but the content and taken a turn for worse.  It almost exclusively featured works of pop-culture (30 Rock and Philosophy, Zombies and Philosophy, etc) and militantly atheistic works such as Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian, The Christian Delusion and other such things prominently displayed.  A closer look did reveal some works by Immanuel Kant and others which while I have my problems with them, at least have the merit of being important to the history of philosophy (to be fair, so does Russell’s work).  My point is not that you shouldn’t have these sorts of things in your philosophy section but rather that it seems to almost entirely consist of these sorts of books.  I’m sure had I the patience I would have found Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics in there but these clearly are not the works you are most interested in promoting.  Rather, you seem focused on promoting pop-culture fads that no one will remember in ten years and works that openly attack traditional and orthodox faith and philosophy.  Not only does this reflect an unfortunate attitude towards the very foundations of our civilization, it is also poor business sense given that the Holland area is well known for being a strongly traditional Protestant community.  I grant that this has shifted in recent years but it still represents the largest portion of your potential patrons. 

Now, I can imagine that you are simply carrying what you believe will sell, and perhaps some other things such as the classics already mentioned and other authors I’ve seen in your store such as Alistair MacIntyre, Roger Scruton, and E.F. Schumacher may not sell as well (incidentally, I’ve bought one each by MacIntyre and Schumacher from the Holland store).  Perhaps you could place those books cover out?  Or to appeal to the Christian community, move some of the works of Thomas More, Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine (all Catholic saints) from the Christianity section to the philosophy section?  They are all prominent in that field as well as others.  Or why not the Protestant philosophy Dietrich von Bonhoeffer? 

I have always enjoyed Barnes and Noble and respected not only the presentation of the stores, but also the variety and general tastefulness of the titles carried.  I hope that the trends away from this standard are corrected such I will not have find ways to avoid your store rather than finding ways to get there.

Living off the land

Follow this link to read the story of an old man getting kicked off his land for the crime of living without modern conveniences.  Then, if you care, email some people in the county by starting here.  For those with free time, here's the email I sent:

To whom it may concern,

I recently heard of the plight of a certain gentleman in you county, one Dick Thompson.  I understand from the media reports that you are essentially forcing him off of his own land, for the apparent crime of living without modern conveniences.  I understand that there are certain rules and regulations that he is charged with violating.  However, do they really apply in his circumstance?  I don’t mean in a strict letter of the law sense, but rather in terms of common sense.  It seems the rules I am aware of Mr. Thompson violating; rules concerning sanitation and living permanently in an RV were likely designed for urban and suburban settings.  But this gentleman lives on his own thirty-two acre plot.  It seems to me that he is not likely to generate any more biological waste that many of the animals that inhabit his property.  Nor is the presence of his RV doing anything to lower the property value of the neighbors he doesn’t have. 

Aside from this, there is of course the whole issue of the state forcing a man from his own property.  Are there times when such an action is appropriate?  Yes, when the person involved has committed actual crimes.  For example, if Mr. Thompson were running a meth lab out of his trailer, then jailing Mr. Thompson and seizing his property would be appropriate.  But this is not the case; he is in violation of regulations that as argued above do not apply based on a common sense analysis.  Even if, the rules did have true relevance, would not a fine and a warning be more appropriate?

Please, especially as it is Christmas, reconsider this action and offer an apology to Mr. Thompson for the anguish that this ordeal has caused him.

The Nanny State Across the Pond...

...fulfills its self-imposed obligation to make life Hell for a man and his autistic son.  Check it out:  http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/the-orwellian-present-–-never-mind-the-future/

Read it and then go sign the petition.

Arkham Asylum

My wife got me Batman:  Arkham Asylum for my birthday.  I've only played it a couple of hours but I'm enjoying it so far, especially the graphics and the combat.  Lots of fun.

Natural Law - Ten Commandments Part 1

Natural Law – The Commandments (Part 1)

            When I first began to be acquainted with the natural law, I found myself frustrated by the lack of concrete contend and definitions associated with it.   Almost everything simply mentioned it as being the basis of some teaching or other but without going into what this law is or it related to the particular teaching at hand.  In short, the natural law seemed to be taken for granted.

            I expressed this frustration to my priest who replied simply that the Ten Commandments provided a good guide to the content and application of the natural law.  This in turn raised other questions.  “How are the Ten Commandments related to the natural law?”  “Why did we need to receive them via revelation if they are knowable by reason alone?”  “How is that the first three commandments, ‘Honor the Lord thy God, Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain,’ and ‘Keep holy the Sabbath’ can be considered part of the natural law at all?

            During the next portion of this series of essays, we’ll attempt to resolve these questions.  We’ll begin with the theistic commandments which directly concern man’s relationship to God.  Then we will move onto the other seven, or the social commandments which deal most directly with man’s relationship to his fellow men.

The First Three Commandments

As there are three commandments there are at least three ways of looking at them in a natural law light.  We’ll call them the subjective, the philosophical objective and the Judeo-Christian objective. 

The subjective is simply based on the experience of all men and focuses on certain qualities and patterns of behavior that we cannot get away from.

The philosophical objective is the outlook of the intelligent and seeking agnostic, or that of the ancient Greek philosophers.  These are men who through their reason come to realize that there is some sort of ultimate god-being and who also are genuinely trying to learn more about him.

The Judeo-Christian objective of course is that which sees the Decalogue as it really is, a catalogue of the most basic behaviors needed to maintain a good life, handed down by God to direct our lives toward Himself, and because we so frequently need to be reminded of the basics.

            The First Commandment:  “I am the Lord thy God,  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

            How do we understand this commandment in the subjective sense?  The clearest answer is that we all have some sort of god in our lives.  Whether that be the God, or Brahman, CNN, Glen Beck, Barak Obama, football, or a prize music collection, we all have something or someone in our lives that we consider to be the most important thing in the world, something that our lives revolve around.  This is true even if the center of your universe is yourself.  It is logical that whatever this subjective god is, that we treat it as such.  If a person says that football is the most important thing in his life then one would expect that he would build his schedule around the game on Sunday, even that he would save money every year to go see at least one game in person, a sort of pilgrimage.  You would not expect this person to decide to go shopping instead of watching the big game, all the while maintaining that football is more important to him.  Anyone would accuse such a person of hypocrisy. 

            It is important to point out that a person could violate this principle and actually be right in the objective sense.  For example, if a workaholic were to refuse overtime to spend time with his aging parents.  The job may be important to him, but objectively he is doing right by spending time with his parents. 

            The second, or philosophical objective sense was articulated by St. Paul.  St. Paul, in one if his letters noted that all creation points to the existence of God, leaving pagans, who worship many gods without a valid excuse for their idolatry. 

            St. Thomas elaborated on this in his proofs for the existence of God, most of which can be boiled down to the simple fact that matter does not move by itself.  A rock will not suddenly fly through the air unless someone picks it up and throws it.  It would fall again except for the forces of friction caused by the surrounding air and the gravity caused by the mass of the earth.  Follow this chain of cause and effect back far enough and one finds the first bit of matter, hanging motionless in the void, or rather the primordial universe, just sitting there waiting for the Big Bang.  But what made it go bang?  If there was no matter outside of the embryonic universe, what acted on it?  Or if there were other matter, what caused it start moving and so come into contact with our little universe?  For that matter, where did this tiny universe come from?  After all, matter does not create itself. 

  The only answer is that there must have been some sort of immaterial being outside of the universe to bring it into being, or as Peter Kreeft puts it, “someone had to bang out the Big Bang.”  Incidentally, this happy correlation of scientific theory and Thomistic philosophy is why the Church enthusiastically embraced the Big Bang and di so unusually quickly.

  It is also important to recognize here that others, long before Christ figured this out.  Aristotle (whom Aquinas draws on heavily) called this first being the Prime Mover and before him Plato called it the Form of the Good, that form from which all other things proceed.  And they both regarded the contemplation of this first and highest Being as the greatest good that men could aspire too.  It is true that they certainly were not proto-Christians, but they were certainly on the right track.

  This brings us to the Judeo-Christian objective sense.  Naturally, this is to be considered the true sense of the Commandment, that the one true personal God is to be worshiped and Him alone.  Not football, not sex, not some abstract philosophical ideal but God the Father (for the Jews), the Son and the Holy Spirit (for Christians).  But how does this relate to the natural law?  As Charles Rice points out in his book, 50 Questions on the Natural Law, it matters where the natural law comes from because this affects how we interpret both the content and authority of this law.  For example, if it is simply the natural emanation, or rather how material beings best respond to the far off existence of a prime mover there is little reason that we should care to trust of follow it.  After all, is this unmovable being does not care about us, why should we care about contemplating it?  However, if the law is the result of a personal God who loves us, there is a much greater incentive to respond with love in return. 

The Second and Third Commandments – “Thou shalt not use the Lord’ name in vain,” and “Keep Holy the Sabbath.’

  Following the same pattern, it should be easy to see how these two commandments can be applied in a strictly natural sense.  Concerning the second commandment, it is logical that one does not speak of that which is most important in a flippant or disrespectful manner.  This holds true if you look at things subjectively or in either of our two objective senses.  That is, if you worship your iPad, the Form of the Good, or the Triune God.

  For the third commandment, it is again logical that a person should set aside time for the gaining of wisdom concerning that which is of greatest importance.  So, following the sports analogy, the devoted basketball fan makes time to watch his favorite team on the court.  He will also follow the players’ careers, who the team is likely to pick during the draft, what are coach’s favorite plays, etc.  The philosopher will in turn ensure that he has time every week for the contemplation of the nature of the universe, hoping to arrive at a deeper knowledge of the first being.  The Jew will hear the Scripture and pray in a community on Saturday to draw closer to God and the Christian do the same on Sunday.

  An interesting and perplexing fact is brought out by this discussion.  For the subjective applications of these first three commandments, there would seem to be little difficulty in following them.  Yet, as we move up the ladder to their true end, that is to direct us towards the one true God, obedience becomes far more difficult.  Why is this?  After all, isn’t God real?  Hasn’t He created us?  Hasn’t he placed a desire on our hearts that only He can satisfy?  Why then is it so difficult for so many to make to Mass for an hour on Sunday morning but so easy to watch the Lions lose for three hours on Sunday afternoon?

  The ultimate answer of course has its roots in original sin.  As such, similar temptations have always existed but this does not answer why such things are so much more prevalent today. 

  These are all weighty questions and we shall do our best to answer them soon.  Next time however, we will continue our survey of the Ten Commandments as guides in understanding the natural law.

Coming Soon

Soon, I'm going to get those reviews of the Batman movies up.  I'll probably do them all at once since there is no real need to be going over the character and what he's all about.  Especially since none of them really go too deep into Batman's motivations or personality beyond his relentless commitment to justice.  Although, different interpretations of his motivations and personality are certainly worth discussing.  All I'll say for the moment is that I very much like Chris Nolan/Christian Bale's take on the character.
Other than that, and likely before, I'll post another essay on natural law.  Also, after the first of the year, look for other developments in the book reviewing department.