The Morality of Superheroes - Captain America, Judge Dredd and Batman

In a short space of time I recently watched Dredd, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Dark Knight, a set of superhero films with very different morals. I have never been a huge fan of comic books and graphic novels, but I have read things The Walking Dead, Red Son, The Dark Knight Returns and, of course, Watchmen. Of these Watchmen is the classic graphic novel, a brilliant interpretation of the Superhero world, full of darkness, betrayal and failure. It is a world of extremely complicated morality, my favourite character is Dr. Manhattan, a scientist transformed into an almost godlike being, but with those powers he becomes distant from mankind. Red Son is a very interesting work, the idea being that instead of Superman's spaceship crashing in Kansas he lands in the Soviet Union; he is still a hero, still a good man, but with an entirely different, communist, world view.


CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER
I have never read anything from Captain America, who always seemed one of the least interesting comic book heroes. I've never found patriotism particularly appealing, it seems willing to overlook all manner of crimes and immoral behaviour when committed by your country. So a superhero who seems designed to act as a patriot mascot was a little unsettling. The first Captain America film was a poor film which did nothing to change my opinion and I was disappointed with the Avengers film. As such I had no real desire to see The Winter Soldier, however, upon seeing the trailer I was surprised to see Robert Redford in it. Redford is a classic Hollywood actor and this alone was almost enough for me. Redford's inclusion suggested there was perhaps something a bit more going on in this Captain America film. Indeed, the rest of the trailer did raise my hopes.

While not a fan of Avengers I have been watching Agents of Shield, which can be a bit mixed but overall is a very enjoyable show, but one of my biggest problems with was their power. I don't mean superpowers or firepower but they seem to just do pretty much anything they want, there are no warrants, or evidence, no lawyers, no human rights, they just act. The Winter Soldier addresses this, early in the film Captain America comments on Shield's new hi-tech weapons, saying they are "fear, not freedom" and when Nick Fury states how they will eliminate targets before they become dangerous Captain America is appalled at the lack of due process. This was very refreshing for a superhero, most of whom have little conception of the law and what it means, usually seeing it as something that protects the criminals more than the innocent. Nolan's Batman films portray a justice system infested with corruption, Tony Stark couldn't care less what the government thinks of vast arsenal of weapons and would rather kill warlords than hand them over to Hague.

Most superheroes aren't really fighting for anything, often they are fighting to save the city or world, or save lives, but there are no principles at stake. In The Winter Soldier Captain America is fighting for something he believes in more than just saving lives.


DREDD
Until recently my only real experience of the character Judge Dredd was the Sylvester Stallone film, something which seemingly everyone agrees was a terrible mistake. I had no knowledge of the character and had little to lose, but still I thought it was really poor. Subsequently I have learned more about Judge Dredd; it features in British sci-fi comic anthology 2000AD, in the future most of the world is a nuclear wasteland with only a few "megacities" remaining, overcrowded with millions and millions. In this hard, brutal world law is enforced by Judges, police officers with the power to sentence criminals and execute them if deemed necessary. One of the most notable things about the comic book Dredd is the fact his face is never seen, he always wear his helmet or his face is obscured in some way (this was one of the main criticisms of the Stallone film, as you saw his face for most of the film). Dredd did please fans of the comic book far more than the first film, Karl Urban (a man approaching a singularity for geek acting roles) is an excellent Dredd, tough, brutal but truly believing in justice. The basic plot is Dredd and a rookie are sent into a huge apartment block to investigate a crime, the block is ran by the villain Ma-Ma and worried that the Judges will find out too much seals the block and demands her criminal tenants eliminate the judges. Dredd is a very interesting character that could so easily spill over into a crazed fascist, delighting in his power over life and death, but in Dredd it strikes a more interesting balance. Dredd holds the lives of civilians and bystanders as important factors, to justify the maximum penalty of death he needs to be 100% sure of guilt and has a deep sense of responsibility. While obviously such law enforcement seems appalling to us, in this harder world of the future it is felt that it is only the Judges who manage to maintain order, without them it would be chaos. It is interesting to think of what mankind itself has done when faced with tough times, or unusual circumstances, the Wild West of America seems like a lawless wasteland with pockets of civilisation, relying on a few lawmen, where people could be very distant from other authority figures.

The Dark Knight
I have watched this film quite a few times and think it is brilliant from start to finish. Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy has been an amazing achievement and seemed to entirely reinvent the superhero genre and I certainly think of his work as the true cinematic Batman rather than Tim Burton's (the other Batman films aren't worth talking about). Having used the lesser known villains of Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins in The Dark Knight he moves onto the most recognisable one; The Joker. Jack Nicholson's performance as the Joker in The Batman is fantastic, and it would be understandable if actors were reluctant to compete, or were overshadowed by him. Heath Ledger's Joker is better.

The plot of The Dark Knight is that after saving the city in Batman Begins, Batman is actually quite a well-liked figure, the police secretly cooperate with him, vigilantes dress up as him in cheap costumes to fight crime and the criminal underworld lives in fear of him. The organised criminals of Gotham are on the run and becoming desperate. Out of this seemingly improving world comes two people, first Heath Ledger's Joker, a mysterious man in a garish purple suit, over the top makeup with rather brutal scars around his mouth (the Joker gives various explanations of the origins of his scars throughout the film). The second is Harvey Dent, the crusading new District Attorney, a seemingly incorruptible lawyer fearlessly taking on criminals and approving of the Batman for taking on the crime that they had let take over. Interestingly Harvey Dent in the comics is an established villain, Two Face, but the vast majority of this film is a good guy, so good that Bruce Wayne thinks Dent is the man who can take on Batman's mantle of fighting for the people of Gotham. There are so many brilliant things about this film, the amazing attack the Joker launches on the police convoy, the taut stretched out sound that accompanies the Joker's crazier moments, the discussion of Roman history between some of the characters (a particular love of mine). I think it is the high point of Nolan's trilogy, a man who is yet to make a bad film. The morality shown in this film is complicated, first there is the Joker, a man who claims to believe in chaos, who thinks the criminals of Gotham have let their city down by their half-hearted evilness, culminating in the bizarre social experiment the Joker designs for the end of the film. As for Batman/Wayne - the Joker starts killing people, stating that he will continue to kill people until Batman reveals who he really is, so what does he do? Should he give in the Joker to save people, and if does, what then? Would the Joker stop killing people? Throughout the film it is discussed how the Joker is a reaction to Batman, how his actions, his success, has thrown up someone as bad as the Joker.

Finally there is Dent, a man willing to risk his life in pursuit of justice, a man who seems to most despise the corrupt police officers of the city, a man who is willing to sacrifice himself.  Returning to my ultra-liberalism I am of course interested in a brave lawyer, fighting for justice through the legal system, in many ways it is more impressive than Batman's heroics. Dent accepts that as District Attorney people will try and kill him, but he continues to do his job as normal, no weapons, no armour, no gadgets.

Looking at the three films there does seem to be a recurring theme; chaos and order. In Captain America [spoiler alert] the plan of villain will create a much more ordered world at the cost of freedom and the deaths of those people would fight back, Dredd and the other judges are given tremendous authority to stop their cities sliding into chaos and, of course, the Joker is all about chaos.

Musicals - The Worst Genre of Cinema

I typically hate musicals. They are nearly always terrible. I saw the recent film version of Les Miserables and it was perhaps the most boring and annoying time I've ever spent in a cinema, although Rent is definitely the most arduous musical experience I have sat through, in fact it might be the worst thing have ever happened to me and what made it worse was that most of the audience seemed to love it. Les Miserables is especially taxing as there is absolutely no dialogue, everything is sung, from trials to explaining political revolutions (and as someone who has read about and is very interested in French revolutionary history I have no idea what the revolutionaries were complaining about in that film), everything is sung. I find The Rocky Horror Picture Show tedious and thought it tried a bit too hard to be weird and can't imagine the circumstances that would force me to see We Will Rock You. The jukebox musical is a recent and awful addition to musicals, the worst part being few bands have the back-catalogue to justify a musical - ABBA, The Beatles, Bob Dylan are a few that do, and few bands have the lyrical complexity to hang a story on. Even worse now there seems to be constant musicals based on non-musical films, Ghost, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and with Back To The Future apparently in production.

However, not all musicals are terrible. Indeed, some are very good.

Hedwig And The Angry Inch - This is a truly brilliant film (originally a stage musical, which I have seen, but I am more familiar with and prefer the film), and surprisingly for a musical it has both an interesting story and excellent, original songs. It is an exceptionally odd film but I shall sum up the story, Hansel grows up in East Berlin, his greatest joy is listening to rock and pop music he can pick up on his radio via the West Berlin radio stations. In peculiar circumstances he comes across an American soldier and the two fall in love, the soldier wants to take Hansel back to America, and this would only be possible if they were married, and at this time, two men can't get married. Hansel's mother gives him her passport, he has a sex change operation and becomes Hedwig. Unfortunately their relationship doesn't lastand Hedwig is stuck in America with no money.

One of the best things about HATAI is that Hedwig forms a band (Hedwig And The Angry Inch) and that explains why they are singing, something I struggle with in musicals. The absolute best song is The Origin of Love, a heartbreaking six minute long song about where love came from, but the entire soundtrack is amazing, taking in various different styles of music. The film becomes increasingly emotional and touching and seems to speak to all the weirdos, freaks, and people who don't fit in, celebrating their differences.

Gutted: A Revenger's Musical - This is an unconventional musical written by Danielle Ward and Martin White. Danielle Ward is a stand up comedian, actor and writer who previously played in several bands and Martin White, well, plays the accordion and writes and performs songs with The Mystery Fax Machine Orchestra. The cast is mainly made up of brilliant stand up comedians, Sara Pascoe, Michael Legge, The Penny Dreadfuls and is a bizarre and hilarious story. Sorrow is the central character, orphaned at early age, she spends her entire life planning revenge - she will marry the man who killed her family, Mr. Bewlay, and then murder his family, so he knows her pain (all the characters in the musical are named after people mentioned in David Bowie songs, Sorrow, the Bewlays, Jean, Mrs. Station, Kook). As Sorrow goes through her rampage she is assisted by "three men of varying height", invisible to everyone else, who offer advice on how to murder, and is also visited her dead parents urging her on for revenge and perhaps to become a lesbian. The songs are all original and are as mad and psychotic as the rest of the musical, and the jokes are brilliant.
I think the best song is the song performed by The Penny Dreadfuls (Thom Tuck, David Reid, Humphrey Kerr), In We You Should Trust, explaining who they are and why Sorrow should listen to them. The whole musical is funny, with songs that fit the dark subject matter and is very enjoyable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bKVrg-uQjw&list=UUXDmHG7nbjtSE5G2Ay-DsFQ

The whole thing is free to download on soundcloud:

https://soundcloud.com/danielleward


Matt Stone & Trey Parker - Cannibal The Musical - Matt Stone and Trey Parker have made quite a few musicals in their time, and what's more, they don't really make parodies, they aren't laughing at musicals, they make real musicals. Currently in the West End The Book of Mormon is having an extremely successful run and I would love to see it. Obviously in the South Park film there a number of songs, I would say enough to call it a musical, and likewise Team America: World Police had a lot of songs in it, but my favourite is Cannibal The Musical. This is virtually unknown, you can't buy in the UK and was made before they even started South Park.

The musical is set in American frontier days and is about a small group setting out to Colorado to stake their claim to land, Alfred Packer (Trey Parker) having come from Colorado is chosen as the guide. The film is as ludicrous and over the stop as the rest of their work, the stand out moments for me being the Let's Build a Snowman song and the peculiar tribe of Native Americans who seem suspiciously like Japanese people posing as Native Americans.

Looking at these three different musicals the thing they have in common is that they are quite odd musicals, two of them are all about death and murder and the other about quite unconventional people. Although in fairness looking at some of the biggest musicals of all time Grease, Chicago and Les Miserables are all on very different topics including murder and revolution. Maybe the people involved in the musicals I like are simply better, or more on my wavelength, certainly with Matt Stone and Trey Parker I've loved virtually everything they've ever made.

This blog is named after the idea that ninety per cent of everything is awful but I think that percentage is a lot higher for musicals, or maybe it's just more awful.

The Man In Black, Lawrence of Arabia and M. Gustave - Examples Of How I Should Be

The Princess Bride I don't remember when I first watched The Princess Bride but the film had a profound effect on me. Not only was it very, very funny (I didn't appreciate a lot of it's other qualities until I was older) but it showed me how I was supposed to be. Basically, I should be The Man In Black. I say The Man In Black, rather than Westley or the Dread Pirates Roberts (the other names he goes by) because that is how I remember him and until he is revealed as Westley, how he is typically described, The Man In Black. For those of you who don't know The Princess Bride is a film from the 1980s directed by Rob Reiner and written by William Goldman. On a side note this is a list of films Reiner directed around that time, This Is Spinal Tap, 1984, Stand By Me, 1986, The Princess Bride, 1987, When Harry Met Sally, 1989, Misery, 1990, A Few Good Men, 1992, and that is not a bad few years. Amazingly, William Goldman's IMDB page for his screenplays is even more impressive, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969, The Stepford Wives 1975, All the President's Men, 1976, Marathon Man, 1976, A Bridge Too Far, 1977, The Princess Bride 1987, Misery, 1990, Chaplin 1992.  From this excellent mix of director and writer a truly diverse cast was found, including Wallace Shawn, Peter Cook, Billy Crystal and even Andre the Giant, all in quite minor roles. The story is of the love between Buttercup, a young beautiful woman and Westley, a man who works for her family and is absolutely in love with Buttercup, who eventually returns his love. Westley sets out to make his fortune so he can return and marry her but unfortunately is killed by the Dread Pirate Roberts. Buttercup falls into a deep despair on news of this but legend of her beauty has spread far and she becomes engaged to Prince Humperdinck. As their wedding approaches Buttercup is kidnapped by a trio of criminals, the wily Vizzini (played by Wallace Shawn), the expert swordsman Inigo Montoya (a name hammered into my consciousness by his repeated elaborate introduction) and a giant named Fezzik (not surprisingly played by Andre the Giant). As the criminals make their escape they are pursued by a man dressed in black, The Man In Black.

The Man In Black is a true champion, defeating Inigo in a duel, beating Fezzik in a fight, and outwitting Vizzini. He climbs the Cliffs of Insanity, he dares to enter the Fire Swamps and battles the Rodents of Unusual Size. The Man In Black is revealed to be Westley, who the Dread Pirate Roberts decided not to kill and bequeathed his name and reputation to upon his retirement. The Man In Black was not only brave but honourable, sparing the lives of Inigo and Fezzik, each of whom had displayed similar fairness to him and aren't really villains. He is seemingly unstoppable in his pursuit of true love, not even letting little things like dying get in the way. For many years I think I really did hold up The Man In Black to be the best cinematic example of a man.

Lawrence of Arabia - Sadly, this film is not as good as The Princess Bride, or at least I prefer The Princess Bride. It is certainly in that category of They Don't Make Them Like This Anymore. An epic film detailing the true story of T.E. Lawrence to unite the Arabs against the Ottoman Empire. The film is set during World War I, Lawrence is an officer in the British army in Egypt, it is felt by most of the British in Egypt that the real war is being fought on the western front and the war around Egypt, the British fighting the Ottoman Empire, is a very minor part of the war. Lawrence concocts a plan to unite the various Arab tribes, nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, to rise up and fight the Ottomans. Lawrence is indeed successful in this plan but it is not an easy task and it takes a great deal out of him, and challenges his ideas. He saves an Arab soldier's life, only later to execute him for a crime he committed to ensure the uneasy union between the Arabs remains. He is mocked by some of the British for taking on Arab dress and questions are asked over his true loyalties.

I should point out that T. E. Lawrence was a real person but my discussion of Lawrence is only for the character portrayed in the film, not the real man. In the film Lawrence is essentially a nice man, in love with the desert with a grand plan, he is determined and resolute. In one early scene of the film Lawrence puts out a lit match with his fingers, his friend tries to do this and gets hurt, Lawrence explains the trick is to not mind that it hurts, again, that is a scene that has stuck with me for years, more so than the famous scene of Omar Sherif's character approaching Lawrence. When Prometheus was released a little while back it received quite bad reviews on the whole, but it suckered me in with David watching Lawrence of Arabia and being impressed as I was, changing his hair style and taking on some of Lawrence's affectations. How could I dislike a film which contained a character who was only doing what I wanted to do? Peter O'Toole's Lawrence overtook The Man In Black. Lawrence wasn't only brave and intelligent, he was philosophical, he wanted to achieve the impossible, he was an example of English manners and reserve, a way of presenting yourself.

The Grand Budapest Hotel -If this blog continues I am sure my deep and and abiding love of all things Wes Anderson will become apparent. People say that Anderson is a bit pretentious, but I like that, as I am a bit pretentious. When a lot of people accuse something of being pretentious what I usually hear is that is has attempted, and perhaps failed, to be something more than just funny, or entertaining, it has tried to mean something. Wes Anderons's films, Six Feet Under, The Smiths, The Singing Detective, Brian in Spaced have all been called pretentious and all of them are brilliant. Still, this isn't about Wes Anderson, it about M. Gustave, the conceriege at The Grand Budapest Hotel. TGBH takes place in a fictional east European country on the verge of war, the hotel itself is an expensive, decadent affair famed for it's concierge, Gustave.

 I shall try not to go into too much of the plot of TGBH as unlike the other two films it is very recent, only being released a matter of weeks ago. Gustave is a charming and eloquent man, whose dedication to providing excellent service, in fact, to something beyond service, is absolute. Gustave is incredibly eccentric, his dalliances with much, much older women, his way of talking and expressing himself are elaborate and bizarre and his utterances to corpses are rather touching. Watching the film he seems the type of man who would thrive virtually anywhere, he is implacable when faced with brutish behaviour even when that behaviour is backed up with guns and he has nothing but his wit. Gustave's defence of his lobby boy Zero, from whose perspective the film is told, is wonderful. Zero is a refugee/immigrant whose legal status in the country is murky at best but, dammit, Gustave will not have uniformed thugs not show appropriate manners when dealing with Zero.  Loyalty seems to matter a great deal to Gustave, Zero is loyal to him and he returns that loyalty. I think I am perhaps too old to be as effected by Gustave as I was by The Man In Black or Lawrence but something has definitely stayed with me about Gustave, perhaps when I am older I can be as an eccentric and charming, perhaps with less seducing old women though.

Looking back at these three characters they have certain things in common. First of all, they all have great hair. If there was ever proof that there is no God it must surely come from the fact that Ralph Fiennes has lost his hair, the poster of Quiz Show clearly demonstrates how amazing his hair was and it is a crime that it has been so cruelly snatched away. But also, they are charming, witty people, people who are perhaps a bit too eccentric and obsessed with things. The Man In Black faces countless dangers for the love of a woman who starts by being cruel to him and seemingly abandons him for another, Lawrence takes on a task that he is assured is impossible due is convince that only he can do it, and Gustave puts supreme faith in his manners and civilization, and that these things are worth standing up for, even if any sort of fight you would be destroyed. They are men who have decided on how they want to face the world and will not let anything get in the way. I also think they represent different ages for me, The Man In Black is a hero, Lawrence a man with a great purpose, Gustave is a sophisticated and well-mannered gentleman, and this maybe reflects what I wanted to be at particular times.


Footnote - William Goldman wrote screenplays, novels and plays and I recommend everyone reads the novel of The Princess Bride. The book is fantastic but as interesting is the bizarre fiction Goldman created around it, claiming he was merely writing an abridged version of a classic novel written by S. Morgenstern. The book is full of references to Mogernstern, to the supposed history of Florin and Guilder and he even invents a son for himself for whom he buys the Morgenstern "original". Goldman even writes how he cannot write certain parts of the book as the Morgenstern Estate will not allow it.

House of Cards - Netflix, Too Nice Politicians and Underwood vs Tucker

25th March

House of Cards (contains minor spoilers for Season 1 of House of Cards)

House of Cards has become the most watched tv show in our house over the past couple of weeks and it keeps getting better and better. Perhaps the most notable thing about House of Cards is that it is a production of Netflix, not something they have bought but made themselves. This goes alongside Orange is the New Black, the relaunched Arrested Development (probably the best American sitcom ever) and others, giving Netflix a very respectable stable. Being the product of an online streaming and DVD rental service would probably be a source of suspicion, I would imagine it to be cheap and without much merit. But House of Cards has Kevin Spacey, which is instantly and immensely reassuring. Spacey is a great actor and makes for a great politician.

House of Cards was a British television show in the early 90s, focusing on Francis Urquhart, the Tory party chief whip, the American version has Kevin Spacey playing Francis Underwood, chief whip of the Democrats. In Britain such a story would almost definitely require a Tory, while each party has it's heroes and villains sinister double-dealing and grabs for power feels very Tory (I feel with the left it would be more broken promises and hypocrisy). Underwood is played brilliantly by Spacey, talking to camera (or even just knowing looks to camera) and explaining his plans and what he thinks power means. after not getting what he wants from the new President (a man he helped get elected) he seemingly begins to turn on him and Frank Underwood is not someone you want as an enemy. It is a gripping show but not without problems. It does sometimes feel that Underwood's enemies compliantly line up to be destroyed by him, men and women who are intelligent, sharp people easily defeated.

House of Cards isn't entirely dominated by Francis Underwood, his wife, Claire Underwood, is also a very interesting character and their relationship is fascinating. Played by Robin Wright (Princess Buttercup from The Princess Bride) she is the perfect partner for Underwood, so far matching her husband in drive and ruthlessness  but I suspect the distance between them and what they are prepared to do will go. She works for a charity but as far as I can see cares little for the work of the charity and merely loves the job and would be equally suited to running an arms manufacturer. For a politician's wife she is neither meek and deferring to her husband or a Lady MacBeth character, usually the two roles such fictional women fall into. The other main female character is Zoe Barnes, at the start of the show she is a journalist working at the Washington Herald and is an exceptionally annoying character. She wants to cultivate a relationship with Underwood wheres she can get information and stories and in return will run stories that help him. She is annoying for many reasons but it starts early in the show, she works for the presitigious Washington Herald and being young is at the bottom of the pile, yet this seems to her a terrible and injustice and is outraged that everyone else in the paper doesn't recognise her greatness. She is a little unconvincing as an expert journalist and does not compare well with Claire Underwood and certainly is no match for Francis Underwood.

Something we've discussed in our house has been a comparison of House of Cards with The West Wing. The West Wing is a brilliant television show, discussing complicated ideas and topics in an intelligent way. However, one problem I had with The West Wing was that they were too nice, too good, too principled. It seemed an unrealistic portrayal of American politics, or indeed the politics of any country. The president in The West Wing, is Jed Bartlett, like Underwood a Democrat. Bartlett is a Noble Prize winning economist, a man of intelligence, intellect and principles and watching this while Bush Jnr was president was like watching a documentary from bizarro-world, every negative quality Bush had reversed for bizarro-world President Bartlett. The team around Bartlett The White House staff, are very similar in their wonderfulness. I can't help but think if there was a West Wing - House of Cards crossover Underwood would devour each and every one of them.

In my mind the most entertaining portrayal of British politics in recent years, maybe ever, is The Thick Of It, with Malcolm Tucker perhaps being an appropriate opponent for Francis Underwood, he certainly swears a lot more. Tucker isn't an elective representative, he is the chief spin doctor of his party,a very angry, very loud Scottish terror. A man whose skin gets increasingly grey as the show goes on Tucker does have a certain way with words, delivering probably the best insults ever heard on television, (for example "Feet off the furniture you Oxbridge twat, you're not on a punt now.").  An out and out satirical comedy it does make astute points about modern politics; the abandonment of beliefs, chasing what is popular over what is right or sensible, style over substance. It is apparently popular amongst those who work in politics who say it closely resembles their jobs, bear in mind this is a programme where the Leader of the Opposition has to practice walking and someone creates a bank by accident.

Neither Tucker or Underwood seem to have a concern about doing what is right or have any political beliefs at all really, Tucker does seem to be doing what he thinks is best for his party (not just what is best for himself) and Underwood is more Machiavellian but does seem to respect competence. In a political battle between the two in the end I would have to back Underwood mainly because Tucker spends most of his time dealing with the problems others have created, Underwood is advancing his own agenda. It would be a sad state of affairs if politics resembled the worlds represented in The Thick of It or House of Cards, it would be more entertaining.

Other Interesting things -Books - Mary Queen of Scots by Antonia Fraser. A book that has entirely changed my opinion on Queen Mary and is very enjoyable to read, in this version of history Queen Mary was an intelligent and charismatic woman who ended up leading a very tragic life. As bad as Francis Underwood is in House of Cards he doesn't compare to the Earl of Bothwell who orchestrated the murder of Mary's husband, abducted her and forced her to marry him in a bid to become king.

March 22nd - Jason and The Argonauts - Hollywood, Ancient Greece, The Power of Childhood Memories and The Creative Talent of The Killers

March 22nd

A largely uneventful day of bits of housework and relaxing but in the evening my girlfriend and I watched the 1963 film Jason and the Argonauts, directed by Don Chaffey and starring Todd Armstrong (I’ve never heard of them either), but it is definitely most famous not for their involvement but for the involvement of Ray Harryhausen and his, for the time, amazing and ground-breaking special effects.

Warning - the below does contain spoilers for a film release in 1963, based on a legend thousands of years old.

As well as founding the basis of much of Western culture, Ancient Greece has also done a lot for Hollywood, with films based on their myths and their history (with Troy falling neatly in the middle). I do think that Ancient Greece has been ill-served by Hollywood, especially in recent years, in terms of failing to capture how interesting and amazing their civilization was. I enjoyed Troy and Oliver Stone’s Alexander which I thought captured something of the epic and sweeping nature of Alexander the Great’s victories and didn’t conveniently forget about Alexander’s relationships with men (Achilles wasn’t upset with Hector because he killed his cousin, he was a bit more than that). The story of the Greeks fighting back against the seemingly unstoppable Persians and the heroic actions of the Spartans was wasted in 300, although in fairness they were adapting Mark Millar’s graphic novel rather than looking to what actually happened, but to me that could be a brilliant film that would have so much, huge battles,  great heroes and villains, people fighting for a cause, idealism, sacrifice and more. Ancient Rome has had far more attention than Ancient Greece but in many ways the latter is far more interesting with a diverse number of competing and drastically different city-states, some offering drastically different views of the world.  Someone really needs to make a Game of Thrones style series of the titanic Athens versus Sparta showdown that was the Penelopesian War. The warring Houses in Game of Thrones have different colour hair; whereas Sparta left babies to die on the sides of mountains and the Athenians wrote philosophy, that's real difference   

Jason and the Argonauts is definitely in the myth part of  Hollywood’s  Ancient Greece canon. Basically Jason is the son of the King of Thessaly, his father’s throne was stolen by Pelias and Jason is spirited away as a baby to safety. As an adult he returns to claim his throne but is tricked by Pelias into first hunting for the legendary Golden Fleece. Jason assembles a crew for his ship, a best-of-the-best athletes from around Greece, bearing in mind that most athletic competition was geared towards warfare and sets off to find the Fleece . One of the good things about using Ancient Greek stories is that so much is familiar to the audience, the harpies, the hydra, etc, Hercules appears in the film and it is never explained who is he or why he is so important.

I must have watched this when I was quite young and it has really stuck with me since, with two particular scenes sticking in my mind. First, the Argonauts find an island where they can get food and water but are warned by the goddess Hera not to take anything but the provisions they need, but of course they do, with  Hercules-strong-but-dim stealing treasure. In Greek myths and stories the gods are always getting involved and giving advice, sending plagues, saving people and so on, and often people ignore their advice and that gets them into trouble. The film Troy took an unusual perspective with this, what is known of the Trojan War came from the epic poem The Iliad by Homer, which features many gods and impossible events. Historians had long argued whether there was any historical truth in Homer's poem with most thinking not, but eventually evidence was found that suggests something similar to the war Homer describes actually happened. The film Troy however takes the story from the poem and cuts out the gods and impossible things, trying to make a "realistic" film, in one scene Hector argues with other prominent Trojans who thinks Apollo will protect them, basically saying the Trojans need to protect themselves. To our 21st Century selves this makes perfect sense, but in the poem, when the Greeks anger Apollo he sends a plague to ravage them, showing the power of the gods. Anyway, as Hercules steals the treasure, the giant bronze statue of the titan Talos that stands watch over the island suddenly comes to life and attacks the Argonauts.

The second, and perhaps more famous scene, comes near the end of the film. After having stolen the fleece and killed the hydra, Jason and some of his comrades are making their way back to their ship. King Aeetes, not surprisingly isn’t too happy about the Argonauts taking his the Golden Fleece, and after all, it is his Golden Fleece, uses the teeth of the hydra to raise an army of skeletons which attack Jason (tragically this is perhaps best known to be people for clips featuring in The Killers video for Bones, tragically because it means some people may think The Killers possess that much creative talent).

When I first watched this the film would have been at least twenty-five years old and special effects had come on a long, long way and watching it recently only made this more apparent but there is still something wonderful in the special effects. The skeleton army are actually quite sinister and charge with an evil shriek (yet have no tongues, vocal chords or anything else needed for this) and despite getting totally outclassed in their ability to fight by Jason and the others will always just keep coming, their is no way to kill them. Watching the film did make me nostalgic for my childhood and had a sense of amazement that I think it would be impossible to replicate now as an adult. Other films that have this effect on me are The Princess Bride (which I still think is an entirely brilliant film), the Indiana Jones films (for some reason particularly The Temple of Doom which I think is the worst of three films (there isn’t a fourth, there just isn’t)) and Back To The Future.

Overall the film was a little dated, the structure was odd in that they seemed to just kept hopping from one fantastic scenario to the next and was nothing like a modern film and ends in a bizarrely abrupt way with Jason back on the ship with Golden Fleece and a woman he is now in love with having met her two days previously but having not resolved the central issue of will he get back home and be King of Thessaly. The last scene of the film goes to Zeus and the other gods with Zeus suggesting that he has Jason in mind for other adventures which perhaps meant they were hoping for some kind of film franchise. Still, it was very enjoyable and I was slightly worried it would be a complete disappointment, returning to important things from your childhood can be crushing.

Other Interesting Things

Podcast – Welcome To Night Vale – I'm intrigued by this sort of dark comedy podcast, released as if it is the genuine output of a small town community radio station inhabited by ghosts, angels, suspicious hooded figures and more. It's creepy, sort of funny,and interesting, although I think they shouldn't have credits where it is made clear it is a work of fiction.

Ninety Per Cent of Everything: An Introduction

This is a blog I have started just to let me write about stuff I am interested in. I am most definitely a geek, I love films, television, books, plays, all kinds of interesting things, and will probably write mainly about that but also things in my life, politics, science, news, anything really. I have become obsessed with history in recent years and so this will feature as well. 

The name of this blog, Ninety Per Cent of Everything, comes from what is sometimes called Sturgeon's Law or Revelation, made up by the science-fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon, the below is a quote from Phillip Klass regarding the Law: -

"I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud.

Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms."

I fundamentally agree with this, I'm a huge sci-fi fan the worst of the worst is brought out to show how it is terrible, and anything good ignore or forced into other categories, but in terms of this blog it is that yes, for a lot of stuff, 90% of it is terrible but the remaining 10% is more than enough and can be spectactular. While I may talk about the 90% I will try to focus on the 10%.

R