Zwei Freunde werden zu Feinden. Batman-Regisseur Christopher Nolan spielt einmal mehr mit der Zeit und die beiden Hauptpersonen mit ihrem Leben. Mittendrin (wenn auch nur kurz) nicht nur auf dem Cover: Scarlett Johansson.

Das 19. Jahrhundert nähert sich seinem Ende, doch das Londoner Varieté feiert einen Aufschwung. Magier sind die Stars der Stunde. Genau zu solchen wollen Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) und Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) noch werden. Zu Beginn übernehmen die beiden Freunde bloß einen kleinen Part in einer Show. Doch dabei geschieht ein unbeschreibliches Unglück: Roberts Frau und Assistentin des Magiers Julia (Piper Perabo) taucht gefesselt in einen Wassertank ein und soll aus diesem eigentlich entfliehen. Alfred bindet bei der letzten Vorstellung allerdings einen unter Wasser schwierig zu lösenden Knoten, Julia schafft es nicht sich aus den Fesseln zu befreien und auch die Hilfe des Ausstatters Cutter (Michael Caine) kommt zu spät. Robert gibt Alfred die Schuld an Julias Tod und als Alfred Jahre später selbst eine Familie hat und auf der Bühne als Magier auftritt, schwört der verbitterte Zauberlehrling Rache. Er verwundet seinen Rivalen schwer an der Hand. Alfreds Eifer ist dadurch jedoch noch angewachsen und tritt bald mit seinem größten Trick auf: dem “Transported Man”. Robert will das Geheimnis dieses Tricks um alles in der Welt aufdecken, kopiert ihn sogar mit einem Double und reist schließlich um die halbe Welt, um einen anderen Weg zu finden. Seine Besessenheit und die anhaltende Rivalität der beiden Magier, vor der insbesondere Alfred nicht zurückschreckt, entwickelt sich zu einem Katz-und-Maus-Spiel um Leben und Tod.

Alfred Borden: You went half way around the world… you spent a fortune… you did terrible things… really terrible things Robert, and all for nothing.
Robert Angier: For nothing?
Alfred Borden: Yeah
Robert Angier: You never understood, why we did this. The audience knows the truth: the world is simple. It’s miserable, solid all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second, then you can make them wonder, and then you… then you got to see something really special… you really don’t know?… it was… it was the look on their faces…
————————-
Cutter: You’re a magician, not a wizard.
————————-
Julia McCullough: I thought up a name for you: The Great Danton. Do you like it? It’s sophisticated.
Robert Angier: [scoffs] It’s French.
Olivia Wenscombe: It won’t bring your wife back.
Robert Angier: I don’t care about my wife. I care about his secret.
————————-
Olivia Wenscombe: It won’t bring your wife back.
Robert Angier: I don’t care about my wife. I care about his secret.

Quelle: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/quotes

Christopher Nolan beweist immer wieder, dass eine Handlung dem Zuschauer auch ohne einen chronologischen Ablauf nachvollziehbar  begreifbar gemacht werden kann. Ständig wechselt er nicht nur von einer Hauptperson zur nächsten, sondern eben auch von Vergangenheit zur Gegenwart. In jedem Zeitstrang verfolgen beide jedoch immer ein Ziel: das Geheimnis des anderen auszuspionieren. Das ausgewählte Screenplay bietet zudem exzellente Möglichkeiten für geniale Plot-Twists, von denen es in “The Prestige” nur so wimmelt.

Interessant sind nicht nur die beiden Konkurrenten Robert und Alfred, die im Mittelpunkt der Handlung stehen, sondern auch diverse Nebenfiguren. Beide Magier haben ihre eigenen Ausstatter. Fallon, der nicht nur beruflich mit Alfred verbunden ist, sondern auch im privaten Bereich diverse Aufräumarbeiten erledigt. Auf der anderen Seite stattet Cutter Robert Angier mit immer neuen Gerätschaften aus und bildet in gewisser Weise das Gewissen von Robert. Dessen Besessenheit versucht Cutter ohne Erfolg zu beruhigen und kann ihm deshalb auch nur bis zu einem bestimmten Punkt folgen. Neben Julia spielen noch zwei weitere Frauen eine mehr oder weniger wichtige Rolle. Alfreds Frau Sarah (Rebecca Hall) steht ihrem Mann ununterbrochen bei, obwohl er vor ihr viele Geheimnisse hat. Sie weiß selbst, dass Alfreds Liebe nicht nur ihr sondern auch der Magie gilt. Aber auch noch einer anderen Person, nämlich der jungen und hübschen Assistentin Olivia Wenscombe (Scarlett Johansson). Zuerst arbeitet sie noch für Robert. Sie verlieben sich ineinander. Doch Olivias Zuneigung zu ihm erlischt in dem Moment, da er sie als bloßes Werkzeug zur Spionage gegen seinen Rivalen ausnutzt. Olivia spinnt danach ihre Intrigen und muss sich entscheiden, auf wessen Seite sie letztlich stehen will.

Bei all diesen großen Namen, ist es kaum verwunderlich, dass die schauspielerischen Leistungen überragend bis tadellos sind. Ein starkes Ensemble, angeführt von Hugh Jackman und Christian Bale, verleiht dem Film noch den letzten Schuss zu einem echten Meisterwerk. Insbesondere die beiden Hauptdarsteller verzaubern im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes die Zuschauer. Durch das Drehbuch und ihre Darstellung tendiert der Zuschauer ständig von einem zum nächsten Charakter, da beide nach und nach ganz eigene Sympathien entwickeln können. Michael Caine gibt seine gewohnt gute Leistung ab. Überzeugen kann auch Scarlett Johansson. Tatsächlich verkommt sie trotz teils knapper Kostüme nicht zu einem Blickfänger, sondern verkörpert einen vielschichtigen und für die Handlung immens wichtigen Charakter. Besonders ihr ganz eigener britischer Akzent setzt ihrer Leistung noch eine Sahnehäubchen auf.

Christopher Nolan schafft es einmal mehr mit seiner Regiekunst und einem unglaublichen Ensemble ein Meisterwerk aus dem Boden zu stampfen. Schlicht: magisch!

This is why stalking is badd!!!!

Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Dark Knight) writes and directs this odd, claustrophobic neo-noir film about a seedy young Brit (Jeremy Theobald) who’s obsessed with following people — albeit harmlessly at first. After meeting a like-minded bloke (Alex Haw), the twosome graduate to breaking and entering — but meet their match in a tough blonde dame (Lucy Russell) who may have dubious plans of her own.

This is Nolan’s directorial debut, and basically he uses in this film what he has always used, and that is the non-linear plot structure. This is a device that he would later use in films Memento, and Batman Begins.

I think that this device is really used well here cause it reflects the uncerntainty I had about these characters and if they were good, and if they were bad. Random scenes pop up out of nowhere at some points, and you don’t know where they came from, but as the film goes on you see how each and every scene all come together at the end.

However, I think that this film was in ways a lot like Memento. Overall I thought Memento was more polished and seemed better thought out than Following, Christopher Nolan even said that he thought Following was flawed and Memento was the far superior film.

Also, by the end of the film I never really understood what this blonde dame did with her life and how she came into the story to begin with. Yeah, we know she’s being framed, but for what, and why? All so many confusing questions that I feel were never answered.

The acting from this unknown cast is actually quite good. The best out of the cast I think was Alex Haw, who played Bloke. He starts out as a very cool and mellow guy with a set of plans on how to rob, but then by the end he totally changes into a new and mean person. His transition really works out well, and by the end of the film I hated him more than I actually liked him in the beginning.

Consensus: Nolan’s debut isn’t perfect and a bit flawed, but has a great way of story-telling, and some fine performances for this low-budget noir.

7/10=Rental!!!

Um dos maiores atores que já tive a oportunidade de assistir nas telonas. Sem dúvida, o ator britânico de 76 anos nos dias de hoje, o simpático Michael Cane merece todos os elogios e reconhecimento pela sua extensa obra.

A Variety, divulgou uma entrevista concedida pelo ator, que fala do seu passado e presente.

Para começar, Cane afirma não ser uma estrela e sim, um ator:  “Quando uma estrela de cinema lê um script, ele pergunta:” Como eu posso mudar isso para me atender? ” Ele diz: ‘Michael Caine não diria isso, Michael Caine não faria isso. ” Quando você é um ator de cinema, você muda-se para atender o roteiro “, explica o sorridente ator.

Cane também fala que mesmo estrando há 56 anos no ramo de atuação, quando começou mesmo no teatro, até hoje não busca repetir personagens. Uma característica invejável para muitos outros profissionais do ramo. Segundo ele, desde que fez Alfie, nunca mais interpretou outro personagem mulherengo. Realmente, o Sr. Cane é bem versátil.

Sobre não ter voltado mais para o teatro, ele diz: “No teatro, você está ali para se revelar ao homem na parte de trás do balcão, que paga o seu dinheiro para que ele possa ver como você está agindo”, diz ele com uma pitada de desprezo. “Nos filmes, você deve esconder sua qualidade de uma câmera que poderia ser de apenas três metros de distância.” De fato, uma declaração bem coerente. Nada contra o teatro, lembrando.

Sobre seu último trabalho, Harry Brown (Veja o link abaixo), Cane diz que é o personagem que mais se parece com ele. Cane também é um ex-soldado da Elephant & Castle um distrito do Sul de Londres.

. Batman: Alfred também faz justiça

Também enumerou algumas produções da qual possúi imenso carinho: “The Quiet American”, “Educating Rita”, “The Cider House Rules”, “Little Voice”, “Hannah e Suas Irmãs” e duas versões de “Sleuth”. Também completa afirmando que os papéis ficaram muito melhores depois que envelheceu, já que não precisaria ter ligações românticas.

Para encerrar, Cane diz que adora fazer parte da equipe do diretor Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins e TDK). Segundo ele, ficou feliz mesmo com uma pequena participação em Inception, seu novo filme. E declarou: “Eu acho que ele é um dos maiores diretores que existe.”

Também concordo, Cane.

(Especial Batman)

Guilherme Jr.

Truly Wonderful!  Someone has created a mash-up fan-trailer for the next Batman movie.  It features Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Johnny Depp as The Penguin and The Joker, respectively.  Both actors have been tethered to rumors that they are attached to the newest project despite the fact that Nolan himself hasn’t even publically announced his involvement.  Regardless, this trailer is SO good (I still believe there is an art to trailer-makin’) and it makes me PRAY that Nolan goes ahead with a Depp/Hoffman pairing.  It will take these two together to try and accomplish what Ledger and Eckhart pulled off.  So, without further ado, my Bat-dream movie!

P.S.  Also, if you checked out the previous post on Nick’s Commercials and realized that all of the Youtube links were unembeddable, I apologize, I found out too late.  You can still use the links above them or just click the links to their Youtube pages.

P.P.S. Bears With Sparklers

Każdy numer iluzjonisty dzieli się na trzy etapy. Pierwszy nazywa się “Obietnica” (The Pledge). Iluzjonista pokazuje coś zwyczajnego: talię kart, ptaszka bądź człowieka. Pokazuje obiekt, być może poprosi o sprawdzenie, czy naprawdę jest rzeczywisty, nienaruszony, normalny. Ale, oczywiście, zazwyczaj nie jest. Drugi etap nazywa się “Zwrot” (The Turn). Iluzjonista bierze ów zwyczajny obiekt i robi z nim coś nadzwyczajnego. Szukacie sekretu, ale go nie znajdujecie, bo,  rzecz jasna, wcale nie patrzycie. Tak naprawdę to wcale nie chcecie wiedzieć.

Chcecie być… oszukani.

Ale jeszcze nie klaszczecie, bo nie wystarczy spowodować, aby coś zniknęło. Trzeba to sprowadzić z powrotem. I dlatego każda sztuczka ma trzeci etap. Najtrudniejszy. Etap, który nazywa się…

Prestiż (The Prestige)

Na bohatera mojego pierwszego wpisu wybrałem jeden z moich ulubionych filmów. Film niepowtarzalny, bo chociaż w mniej więcej tym samym czasie ukazał się “Iluzjonista” ze skądinąd świetnym Edwardem Nortonem, to jednak i klimat, i jego sposób podejścia do tematu iluzji oraz magii różni się znacznie (a oprócz tego ostatniego i osadzenia akcji pod koniec XIX stulecia, jedyną cechą wspólną było tzw. “twist ending”). Pod względem wykonania “Prestiż” jest typową hollywoodzką produkcją, nominowaną zresztą do Oscara za najlepszą scenografię i zdjęcia w roku 2006. Przy budżecie sięgającym 40 milionów dollarów i gwiazdorskiej obsadzie (Hugh Jackman i Christian Bale w rolach głównych, na dokładkę Scarlett Johansson oraz Sir Michael Caine), tylko w czasie weekendu otwarcia zarobił 14 801 808 $, wg danych podanych przez stronę Box Office Mojo. Tym bardziej dziwi mnie, że obraz ten jest, przynajmniej przez znane mi osoby, praktycznie w ogóle nie rozpoznawany.

Jeśli o mnie chodzi, to natknąłem się na “Prestiż” przeglądając filmografię Brytyjczyka Christophera Nolana, znanego m.in. z niekonwencjonalnego “Memento” oraz dwóch najnowszych części przygód Batmana. Ci, którzy widzieli “Mrocznego rycerza”, wiedzą, że Nolan potrafi nawet nastawione na zysk megaprodukcje kręcić z ambicją. W przypadku “Prestiżu” postawił on nie tylko (jak w “Memento” właśnie) na splecioną niczym węzeł gordyjski linię chronologiczną, ale także ogólny koncept filmu-przedstawienia, który poznawać zaczynamy zresztą już na początku, poczynając od słów przeze mnie przytoczonych na wstępie.

Obsession is a young man’s game

Ale żeby nie uprzedzać faktów, kilka słów o fabule (bez spoilerów). “Prestiż” to historia rywalizacji Alfreda Bordena (Christian Bale) oraz Roberta Angiera (Hugh Jackman), dwóch iluzjonistów. Opowieść, początkowo równie ociężała, jak drukowany pierwowzór o tym samym tytule napisany przez Christophera Priesta, z czasem (i z pierwszą pochowaną ofiarą) nabiera rozpędu i niepostrzeżenie wciąga widza w istny spektakl tajemnic, poświęcenia, zemsty, zatracenia i obsesji, w którym nawet śmierć jest pojęciem względnym. Jestem pełen podziwu dla braci Nolanów i ich tytanicznej pracy, jaką musiało być przekucie interesującej, lecz statycznej powieści epistolarnej w pełen suspensu dramat. Widzowi od początku dawane jest do zrozumienia, że tak intensywna walka dwóch iluzjonistów musi prowadzić do katastrofy.

Are you watching closely?

Siłę tego filmu stanowi zbudowanie go na koncepcie, który w równym stopniu dotyczy zarówno sztuk magicznych, jak i kina. Otóż ludzie przychodzący na przedstawienie wiedzą, że to, co oglądają jest fikcją; że są na własne życzenie wodzeni za nos. Chcą choć przez moment dziwić się temu, co widzą, mieć trudności z wyjaśnieniem zdarzeń. Takie jest credo Nolana, wedłgu niego ukształtował “Prestiż”. Ściśle dopasowane efekty dźwiękowe budują napięcie wespół z bardzo dobrymi zdjęciami (wystarczy tylko wspomnieć scenę z polem żarówek, bądź ostatni pokaz The Real Transported Man), i dynamicznym montażem. Reżyser specjalnie pozostawił w swoim obrazie wiele poszlak pozwalających odgadnąć większość łamigłówek. Niejako efektem ubocznym stało się wypłynięcie na wierzch niedociągnięć scenariusza, które to zauważają swoim wprawnym okiem i wytykają jeszcze wprawniejszym palcem kinomani. Ale czy właśnie o onanizowanie się nad tymi niedociągnięciami chodzi? Polecam nie tyle obejrzenie “Prestiżu”, co zatopienie się w jego niepokojącej magii, którą niewątpliwe rozsiewa. Najlepiej przekonajcie się sami, czy chcecie być choć oszukani

Abracadabra

PS WYŁĄCZNIE dla tych, których nie przekonuje moja rekomendacja, polecam trailer (zawiera pewne spoilery, które mogą ewentualnie popsuć przyjemność płynącą z właściwego seansu):

The following article is about My Batman, the Batman interpretation that to me, is the definitive, ‘proper’ Batman. For this, I not only look specifically to the comics, as they are the source — any other novelizations, television series, or film, is merely an adaptation of that source — but it so happens that my definitive Batman can be found in one, single Batman comic, published in September 1988, Batman #423, also known as You Should Have Seen Him …

Although I am picking one specific comic, that comic is actually part of an era of Batman that I am partial to, and so some history is necessary before I get into my review.

The year is 1987. Beside the Indian Grocery store that my mom frequented, was a comic book store called Target Comics, run by, what appeared to be to my 7 year old eyes, a biker gang, although they were likely just stoners who liked rock ‘n’ roll and read a lot of comics in between perfecting Motorhead riffs. And it was amidst this rock ‘n’ roll troupe that I began my first foray into the world of comics, and to their credit, they never kicked me out or scolded me when 90% of the time, I never had enough pocket change to buy anything.

My first comic book that I think I ever bought was the first issue of the relaunch Aquaman title at the time. Although I never had enough pocket change or meager allowance money to buy subsequent issues of that particular series, I did, on one particular day, see a ‘value pack’ of Batman comics. The 3-pack was such a cool deal that I had just enough to get it, and so I did. Contained in that 3-pack were Batman #414, Batman #415, and Batman #416. While Batman #415 was part of the larger ‘Millenium’ storyline that told its story among various titles across the DC universe, Batman #414 and Batman #416 were self-contained stories about Bruce Wayne written by Jim Starlin, a fascinating and by all accounts, grossly underrated comic book writer of the 80s. While Batman #414 dealt with Bruce Wayne’s relationship to a woman whom he is unable as Batman to save from a serial killer due to a bad hunch, and the grief that follows, Batman #416 deals with the schism between the first Robin turned Nightwing, Dick Grayson, and Bruce Wayne/Batman. More broadly, the issue deals with the challenge set by father and son in expressing their need for one another, even if the son must go his own way. Both stories are remarkably nuanced and emotional, with action either being secondary or existing purely to further the emotional journey of the characters.

It was the memory of this ‘forgotten Batman’ of my youth that inspired me to dig through a back issue bin at my last comic book convention and seek out more forgotten Starlin issues, where I came across an issue that captures, in my mind, everything Batman is to me: Batman #423: You Should Have Seen Him ….

Told in the words of three different police officers sitting in a diner after their shift, each with their own ‘Batman encounter’ to tell of, the issue bears conceptual and structural similarity to Batman #250: The Batman Nobody Knows! (1973), written by Frank Robbins, in which a group of kids trade wildly imaginative (and inaccurate) campfire stories of their witnessing of Batman (the concept was later adapted to the animated show The New Adventures of Batman to pay tribute to both the Golden Age Batman and the Batman of The Dark Knight Returns, and then again in the animated film Gotham Knight). However, instead of colorful reimaginings, what we get from the resting officers of the law are accounts of three different men in one, of a hero as complex as any one of us, whom we both admire and relate to.

In the first story, a young, poor, black man named Kenny is about to throw himself off of a bridge, gaining the attention of the police and a crowd of onlookers. He explains that as a junkie, he is incapable of recovering his life from the mess it has become. Arriving on the scene is Batman, whose presence only seems to provoke the man further. After some back and forth, Kenny says, “Listen man, I’m poor, I’m black … I got a jones I can’t shake … got no family, no job … no future … ain’t no better life waiting for me.” The junkie then jumps, and Batman leaps after and catches the man in mid-air while suspending both of them from his Bat-rope.

Batman: “That was real stupid, Kenny. You threw your life away! Wasted it! By all rights, you should be dead now! But you’re not! You got another chance. It’s time to start over Kenny, get on a drug rehab program. Clean up your body and your life. Quit looking for excuses to fail! You’ve got as good a shot at life as anyone …”

While we live in the kind of sad society that thinks of dialogue as this as over the top, or conjuring elements of an ‘after school special,’ I can’t think of many moments in comics as awesome as this. Here’s Batman saying to a very troubled, angry, self-hating young man, with very little to live for, to get his life together. It’s not a deep or complex sentiment, nor is it ‘badass’, but it’s to the point and it is, in a sense, what Batman is saying to all of us who’ve been in Kenny’s situation, if even slightly. Who among us is so foolish and arrogant, and, well, darn crazy enough not to listen to Batman when he lays it down like that? The significance of this entire episode is not only its ability to motivate anyone from shaking the excuses they make for themselves, but that during this time in the 80s, drugs were becoming an ever increasing problem in America, as were racial tensions. Whether or not many of the comic’s target audience were even reading it at the time, it is essentially Batman saying to the nation’s youth, ‘Quit making excuses and get your shit together!’

Here, Batman is speaking in a tone which could be considered self-righteous, but the fact that Batman not only stops the man from committing suicide, but stays behind to lecture him, conveys that he’s not simply a hardened vigilante who goes after murderers and robbers, out for vengeance or to maintain some abstract sense of order, but rather, that he genuinely cares about this person. He wants this man, this junkie, to make something of himself, to rectify his mistakes, and very unlike the sullen, stoic Batman of later comics, he speaks his mind to him in broad daylight. Sure, there’s a time for lurking in the shadows, but sometimes, you just need to come out with it.

As a segway into the second story, the cop who’s just been told this tale replies, “the Batman I saw was a totally different person.”

He tells of a Batman not unlike the dark, violent character of Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, or Christian Bale’s Batman interrogating Detective Flask in Batman Begins (“SWEAR TO ME!”). A young punk threatens to kill an old lady inside a held up convenience store. Batman swears that if the gang member pulls the trigger, he’d inflict endless pain upon him … endless because Batman would not let him die, no matter how he suffered by his hand. The scene ends with Batman hurling the young man through the window.

This Batman is true to familiar form, but I will not discuss it in great depth here, as it has been the aspect of the character most seized upon and popularized by comics and film. I will say that it’s cool when Batman ‘gets all badass’ like he does here, but it doesn’t reach sublime depths of storytelling or characterization on its own. It is, however, a necessary incident within the larger fabric of the comic, for its plain acknowledgement of violence, juxtaposing one extreme of the character with the contradicting gentility of the third and final story.

As the second cop concludes his story with the line, “That Batman is one tough ol’ mother. Mean and cold as ice,” a third cop, Officer Kirby Jackson, approaches the two and states, “No, he’s not.”

Kirby Jackson tells how he cornered two, very young homeless children in an alley, Batman showed up, and the kids threatened Batman and the police officer with a baseball bat. While the police officer was scared for the kids, knowing Batman only as a dark, violent character of the night, Batman says unexpectedly, “Can we talk about this?” The children, coaxed by his understanding and ease with them, tell their story. Their mother had died in a car crash, and their father had lost his job soon after. In an attempt to make ends meet by cheating in a poker match, he was killed, leaving the orphaned brother and sister in the hands of the foster care system. The two siblings, having been told that they would be placed in different homes,  ran away and chose to live on the street, out of a shipping crate underneath an underpass, eating scraps. They couldn’t bear to go on without the only family they had left: each other.

The following moment the cop describes is gut wrenching:

“That’s when I saw it. He turned his face away from the fire, hoping the shadows would hide it, but I saw it anyhow.”

A single tear falls down Batman’s cowled cheek, and Batman promises that Bruce Wayne will find a home in which the children can live together.

This is the moment that makes the comic for me, because it’s not only unusual for the character in terms of what is most often written, it addresses what kind of a man Batman is. In the first story, he is direct and firm, the voice of sanity and divine purpose to a soul that’s lost its way. In the second, we see the anger and the hatred contained within him at a person who would hurt another for personal gain He is the vengeful angel we’ve always known … but in this final story, Batman is simply a man of unbridled compassion and sympathy. He’s a human being.

I remember after reading those first Starlin Batman comics, #414 and #416, I was introduced to such graphic novels as Arkham Asylum, Batman: Year One, and The Dark Knight Returns, by my uncle. The darkness and violence and psychology of those elaborate and by now famous titles captivated me as I moved into adolescence, but years later, as an adult male, they barely scratch the surface of what Batman really means to me. While they delivered the necessary ‘push’ for Batman to remerge into the mainstream as a dark and brooding figure of the night, they also began a trend that, by the time the late ‘90s came around, had turned Batman into a shallow, callous jerk. Another unfortunate result is that from the standpoint of the non-comic reading mainstream, Batman was most defined by the 1960s show, a respectable and historic pop culture product, but still campy, superficial, and comedic. Just about everyone who doesn’t know the legacy of the character well enough, but ‘just kinda’ knows it, thinks that it was Frank Miller who was most responsible for the rehauled and grown up Batman, responsible for Batman being a serious, mature character from the pulps, as opposed to the Adam West incarnation of the 1960s. The truth is, the ‘darker than dark’ Batman of Frank Miller, later co-opted by Tim Burton and popularized through subsequent writers, is to the campy 1960s Batman what a 14-year old’s perception of the world is to an 8-year old’s perception of the world. It’s grown, but not ‘grown-up’.

Actually, as my review of Batman #423, proves, Batman had been grown-up and smart for some time , thanks to writers like Jim Starlin who were carrying on the tradition of Dennis O’Neil, the real deal when it came to the intelligent design of Batman’s evolution (it is debatable what influence Frank Miller had on Starlin, as some of Frank Miller’s work came slightly before or during it, although it is inarguable that #423’s Batman is a much different hero than Frank Miller’s in terms of TDKR or Year One.). Batman was not campy in those early 70s-80s comics and he wasn’t a super-dark sociopath either. Batman, for all his tragedy, was a smart, committed, responsible man who cared for the well being of others, and who used every means at his disposal to help those people he could still save. His life experience had predisposed him to a hatred of criminals, commitment to his objectives, and a slightly rigid, if ontological sense of right and wrong. As abnormal a man as he may be, Batman’s sanity, rarely, if ever, escapes him. Most importantly, Batman had sympathy for the weak, and it was out of this sympathy that he sought to protect and help them.

Based on that acceptence of the character, Batman #423 is my definitive Batman comic … not Year One, not TDKR, or anything which has come after. The reason being that through contradiction and extremes, we find the man caught within, and it not only makes us understand him, but care about him. In the 22 pages of this monthly issue published over 20 years ago, more is covered and established about the character than in most trades or graphic novels, or for that matter, Batman films.

Anyways, that’s ‘My Batman.’ What’s yours?

IMDB: 8.4 / #74 on Top 250
Rotten Tomatoes: 75 / 55 / 93
Production Budget: $40 Million, Worldwide Gross: $109 Million

The Prestige, in my opinion, is one of the most underrated films of our times.

Directed by Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) and staring Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Scarlett Johansson and Michael Caine, it contains all the elements which make a film — a truly great one!

The story revolves around two rival magicians (Bale and Jackman) set in England at the end of the nineteenth century.

With a back and forth narration, the film becomes slightly difficult to follow – but is extremely intense and gripping throughout with a setting and ending which most directors would kill for.
(Nolan gets the timing perfect)

The sets and the lighting are remarkable and take you to that place in time. The music director for the film, Hans Zimmer (Gladiator, Batman Begins) does a brilliant job matching the intensity of the drama being played out on the screen.

The Prestige

Though the narration of the film may seem confusing to a few, it is apt and Nolan – brings his experience from Memento and keeps it engrossing as the events fold out in the film.

The acting is definitely one of the strong points — with everyone playing their parts out to perfection. Hugh Jackman stays true to the showman and celebrated magician image, Bale to the very talented underdog, Scarlett Johansson to the ravishing stage assistant and Michael Caine as the wise old engineer.

Like all good movies, this film is actually made up of many different layers which unfold as the film progresses leaving you lots to think about when it finally gets over. Definitely a movie to watch if you haven’t done so already.

My Recommendation:
Watch it with someone who really appreciates and understands films. Not a film to watch with more than 3 – 4 people at a house party. You will require to pay attention to really enjoy this one. (Watch in a single sitting).
Not really a family film.

My Rating: 5 stars definitely!

Nell’annuncio ufficiale, la Mattel giustifica le nuove scelte a proposito della serie Movie Masters di “The Dark Knight” dicendo che sono dettate da vendite particolarmente soddisfacenti. Difficile crederci. Basti pensare che la prima delle action figures uscita in esclusiva sul sito Mattycollector.com cioè Joker versione rapina in banca (Joker as Gotham City thug, foto a sinistra) oggi, a più di un mese dal lancio, è ancora disponibile e non sold out (i personaggi di altre serie, come ad esempio i MOTU Classics di He-Man & company, vanno sold out in pochi giorni, spesso anche in un solo giorno)! Le notizie sono due:

- le prossime action figures saranno vendute a 15 dollari e non a 20 dollari;

- a partire dalla primavera 2010 le action figures, una volta uscite su Mattycollector.com, saranno disponibili anche nei negozi americani della catena Toys “R” Us!

Perciò, Joker versione rapina in banca rimarrà l’unica esclusiva di Matty. Il fatto che le action figures avranno un mercato alternativo al sito Mattycollector.com rende auspicabile e molto possibile un calo dei prezzi e un fiorire delle occasioni su ebay. Le action figures usciranno su Mattycollector con cadenza mensile a partire dal 15 Dicembre. Ecco il calendario (suscettibile di modificazioni):

- 15 Dicembre: Survival Suit Bruce Wayne
- 15 Gennaio: Harvey Dent
- 15 Febbraio: The Joker with Missile Launcher
- 15 Marzo: Scarecrow
- April 15: Batman (Night Vision)
- 17 Maggio: Two-Face

[Fonte ToyNewsInternational]

Contrario a todas las versiones que han estado circulando últimamente, parece ser que la tercera parte de Batman estará comenzando a filmarse el próximo año, muy probablemente en el primer trimestre. Sin embargo, de acuerdo a lo que los mismos estudios mencionan, mientras más tiempo tarde la cinta en iniciarse, menos probable es que Nolan esté dirigiéndola. Esto se debe a que el director se ha comprometido con diversos proyectos, y mientras ésto aumente, tendrá menor ocasión para poder realizar el proyecto. Por lo pronto, tendremos que esperar alguna confirmación para el mes de febrero, si es que se da.

De acordo com Batman-on-film, em  janeiro a Warner  e o diretor  Christopher Nolan ( Batman Begins e Batman – O Cavaleiro das Trevas), se reunirão para começar a pensar no terceiro filme da franquia encabeçada pelo diretor britânico.

A informação foi publicada, no Brasil,  pelo Omelete que completa:

“O site diz ter recebido a informação de uma fonte confiável, mas sempre é bom desconfiar”.

Leia o especial: Batman

Essa fonte teria dito que a reunião não haverá um imediato anúncio oficial logo após a reunião. Uma das razões seria porque o novo filme de Nolan, A Origem (Inception), chega às telas em julho de 2010. As notícias sobre Batman 3 ainda devem ser escritas com o verbo no condicional até metade do ano.

Leia Mais:

• Um Coringa diferente!
• Espantalho comenta sobre 3° Batman
• Christopher Nolan: Um novo gênio?
• DeVitto comenta Batman
• Christian Bale é eleito o melhor Batman de todos os tempos

Adriana Chaves

Tidigare skall Michael Caine, som spelar Butlern Alfred i Christopher Nolans Batmanfilmer, ingivit fansen hopp om en Batman 3. Han har sagt att Johnny Depp och Philip Seymour Hoffman var castade som gåtan och Jokern i en kommande Batman 3. Men nu tar han ner fansen till jorden igen. Det finns ingen Johnny Depp, inget manus, ingenting. 

Christian Bale är pga av avtalsmässiga skäl tvingad att spela Batman om det kommer en tredje installation. Men Christopher Nolan kan göra som han vill och han avgör om han vill göra en tredje film eller inte. 

Michael Caine säger att det i nuläget inte är troligt att Nolan gör en Batman 3. Men om det sker någon gång i framtiden så vill han definitivt spela butlern Alfred igen.

Källa: Reelz Channel

FilmMedia-FilmBlogg

De acuerdo al actor Michael Caine, es muy posible que no llegue a haber secuela de Dark Knight, o en caso de que ocurra, no será en un plazo breve. Según lo que afirmó en una entrevista, él está confirmado en el papel de Alfred, pero no ha tenido ni siquiera llamados, sino cuando menos un aviso de avance, por lo que a menos que en un plazo breve le informen sobre cualquier indicio, se puede considerar que el filme tardará mucho en dejarse ver. Si bien son únicamente especulaciones por parte de Caine, este hombre tiene una enorme experiencia en Hollywood, así que sus conjeturas tienen que tomarse muy en serio.

“Following” de Christopher Nolan, de 1998.

El protagonista (Jeremy Theobald) es un perseguidor. Lo hace por curiosidad, porque le interesa “lo humano” dice él. Un día conoce a Cobb (Alex Haw), uno de sus perseguidos, quien resulta ser un ladrón de casas también interesado por “lo humano”. El perseguidor se verá de a poco perseguido y acorralado.

Una película corta y concisa. Excelentemente lograda en todo. Pero sobre todo destaca ese montaje que juega con el tiempo y que nos va anticipando cosas de la trama a las que todavía no hemos llegado en la historia y que provocan un gran suspenso.

Nolan hace un laberinto que nos presenta con toda naturalidad para de a poco ir mostrándonos el nudo, lo enredado que está todo para que en un giro final nos sobrevenga esa sensación de sorpresa, de aquello que no estábamos viendo.

Le película por otro lado, maneja un tono sereno y oscuro, casi parco que junto al blanco y negro crean una atmósfera ideal para recrear esta ingeniosa historia.

Una película sumamente interesante para ver.

To syrefilmer, én oppfølger, én villbassversjon av en klassiker & filmer fra to av tidenes mest suksessfulle regissører — slutten av 2009/første halvår 2010 later til å være høysesong for fete kinofilmer. Jeg for min del er i alle fall gira på disse seks filmene:

AVATAR

Vi snakker James Cameron — mannen som gav oss The Terminator, Terminator II & tidenes highest-grossing film, nemlig Titanic. Den 18. desember settes hans seneste verk, Avatar, opp på norske kinoer — og alle nerdehjerter gleder seg maksimalt. Produksjonsarbeidet har vart i 4(!) år, og skriptet ble liggende i over et tiår før Cameron følte teknologien var kommet langt nok til at filmen kunne lages. Avatar ser i grunn ut som et dataspill — et fantastisk dataspill, & bare tanken på at jeg kommer til å kunne se denne filmen i 3-D på Ringen, gjør meg virkelig ør. Jeg tror faktisk det er første gang i mitt liv jeg ikke har blitt sur for at de slipper ut en trailer i hvor de røper nesten hele plottet. Jeg mistenker at vi her har én av tidenes feteste filmer — og jeg vil bare ha mer…

SHERLOCK HOLMES

Vi nærmer oss 2010 med stormskritt, men før vi ser nyttårskonserten, veiver med stjerneskudd & ligger i en grøftekant & spyr, har en finurlighet premiere på norske kinoer. 26. desember slippes nemlig Sherlock Holmes, regissert av ingen ringere enn Guy Ritchie (elsk!). Det er nok en del mennesker som kommer til å bli jævlig furt for ut i fra traileren å dømme, er ikke dette akkurat noen klassisk Sherlock Holmes-fortelling. Nei, vi snakker eksplosjoner, pistoler, nevekamper & generell billig underholdning. Dét faktum at Robert Downey jr. spiller Sherlock er både positivt & negativt for min del — han er en genial skuespiller, men han er også så jævlig sexy at hele kinoopplevelsen kommer til å gå med til sikling i setet. Sherlock Holmes på ekte Guy Ritchie-vis 2. juledag! Jiha!

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

Jeg skal ærlig talt innrømme at jeg ikke gadd å se mer enn 45 minutter av tegnefilmversjonen av Alice in Wonderland fra 1951, men Disney prøver igjen — i mars kommer nemlig Tim Burtons filmversjon av dette småsære eventyret. Selv har jeg faktisk bare sett Batman, Mars Attacks! & den grusomme nyinnspillingen hans av Planet of the Apes så noe videre peiling på Burton som regissør skal jeg ikke påberope meg å ha. Men de to førstnevnte filmene digger jeg — og jeg har da hørt mye pent om denne Burton, så en syrefortelling med blant andre Johnny Depp, Stephen Fry, Michael Sheen & Alan Rickman på rollelisten, ja, dét må da bli bra?

IRON MAN 2

Nok en Downey-film, men jeg klager ikke — mannen er heit som faen. Iron Man 2 blir neppe stående som noen milepæl i historien, men at filmen nok er jævlig underholdende, både håper og tror jeg. I april kommer altså oppfølgeren til den relativt artige 2008-filmen Iron Man, og denne gangen er kvalitetsskuespillere som blant andre Don Cheadle, Samuel L. Jackson & Scarlett Johansson med på laget.  Men det beste av alt er selvsagt at Mickey Rourke spiller rollen som Whiplash! Hurra for action!

THE RUM DIARY

Atter en gang skal Johnny Depp spille Hunter S. Thompson på film — denne gang i The Rum Diary, & alle hjerter gleder seg! Bruce Robinson (Withnail & I) er mannen som har planer om å sette denne fantastiske boken ut i live — da med blant annet Giovanni Ribisi & Aaron Eckhart på rollelisten. Me likey!

INCEPTION

Så kommer vi til kronen på verket — filmen nesten ingen vet en dritt om, nemlig Inception av Christopher Nolan. Mannen har i løpet av de siste årene seilt opp til å bli én av mine desiderte favorittregissører & jeg tror jeg trygt kan si at Nolan var den som fikk meg til å innse at det ikke er noen vits i å dyrke indie-filmer bare for å være kul når blockbuster-regissører kan gjøre en vel så god jobb med å formidle noe. Når Nolan teamer opp med Hans Zimmer vet en at det blir bra — & med én av tidenes mest undervurderte skuespillere i hovedrollen (ja, Leonardo DiCaprio er pen & alt sånn – men FAEN så dyktig han er på lerretet) kan det umulig slå feil. Sammen med Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Caine & ikke minst Cillian Murphy spiller altså DiCaprio i en film jeg ikke aner møkk om engang, men som jeg gleder meg mer til enn noe annet jeg kan komme på i farten. Det eneste jeg foreløpig vet om filmen er det lille som står skrevet på imdb.com:

Corporations have developed a technology to enter dreams to extract information from certain peoples’ heads. A CEO (Leonardo DiCaprio) enters dreams and things begin to escalate, taking a turn for the worst.

Vi snakker med andre ord en slags the Matrix møter Brave New World eller noe. FY FAEN SOM JEG GLEDER MEG!

It is late afternoon on Wednesday, and I have somehow managed to accomplish everything I needed to accomplish by this time. On Friday, this seemed like a goal that was unattainable, so I am reasonably pleased.

Somebody mentioned to me this last Saturday, “I occasionally read your rants against post-structuralism.” It had not been explicitly discussed in class that Foucault and company actually constitute an “-ism”, so I’m sure I was a deer in the headlights for a second while I figured out what my friend meant. Flesh of My Flesh has been explicitly exposed to more theory than I have, so I’ve been hearing about the supposed difference between signifier and signified for some time, but again, that this movement had a name was new information for me. A couple of things clicked once I understood the label; this is the same friend who a few years ago overheard me saying that it made no sense to me to read modern ideas of sexual equality and identity into texts for which those ideas would be anachronistic, and consequently chided me for “not believing in gender theory,” adding, “Applying theory is not ‘reading something into’ anything. That’s just you having an ideological problem.”

For all I know, maybe he’s right. He’s in the English department, and maybe there’s a way these things actually make sense from the standpoint of literature. Maybe, too, this is the difference between a “scholar” and an “intellectual” — I do not give a fat, furry, flying rat’s hindquarters about theory. I have not entered an academic discipline because I am interested in the “isms” which seem to plague the humanities right now. (I am told that “thing theory” was rather well-represented at last week’s Byzantine Studies Association of North America conference, which makes me want to tear out my own teeth with a rusty screwdriver.) I have entered an academic discipline, because, funny and naïve and idealistic as it may sound, I am actually interested in, and even like, my subject of study.

What does that make me? A paleostructuralist? If so, then so be it. (“Paleostructuralist” sounds cooler and more dignified than “anti-post-structuralist” anyway.)

I still have more to write on Foucault in this space, but it’s going to have to wait a bit yet while I finish some other things. In the meantime, my most recent (and last) response paper for my “Introduction to the Professional Study of History” course starts to sketch out some of the thoughts that will show up there. Certain elements will be no surprise to those who visit here somewhat regularly, there are a couple of moments where it will be evident that I just got through watching all of Christopher Nolan’s movies in chronological order (which merits its own post), and the couple of somewhat coy suggestions that certain things should be discussed elsewhere will be developed in my final paper for this course.

–

The Safe Retreat into Omniscient Third-Person:

The Problem of Historicizing Oneself

Or

A Response to Kate Brown’s “A Place in Biography for Oneself”

(As Well as a Number of Other Bits and Pieces from the Fall 2009 H601 Course)

“Historians,” writes Kate Brown in her essay “A Place in Biography for Oneself,” “expose other people’s biographies, not their own.”[1] How can this be, however, when according to Marx, “[m]en make their own history” [2]? How, ultimately, may historians be their own agents of history while being true to their own profession? How might historians assume the first person voice in their own work, that is to say, our own work, or still more to the point, my own work – honestly?

To expand Marx’s quote, men make their own history, “but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past.” Brown certainly did not choose her circumstances. She is from a small Midwestern town whose economic history could have stepped out of the pages of The Marx-Engels Reader; in her home town of Elgin, Illinois, as she tells it, the beginning of her life intersected with a narrative of Western expansion, labor strife, industry flight, economic redevelopment, and gentrification.[3] Her own retelling of the story gives significant credibility to Marx’s claim that “[t]he tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living”[4]:

From Elgin… I came to understand how closely one’s biography is linked to one’s place… I recognized the impulse to bulldoze and start over, to push on toward a brighter, cleaned-up destiny, which meant abandoning some places and people and losers of an unannounced contest.[5]

The past – that is to say, one’s history – and its relationship to location are a weight that one must learn to carry or learn to jettison. Perhaps this can be understood as an inversion of the opening line of Pat Conroy’s novel The Prince of Tides – rather than the wound being geography, the anchorage, the port of call, it is geography, and the confluence of circumstances that one encounters in that geography, that is the wound.

All well and good — but how real is this confluence of circumstances? How objectively may its existence be assumed? Per Benedict Anderson and his analysis of how seemingly disconnected events make up the front page of a newspaper, perhaps not much:

Why are these events so juxtaposed? What connects them to each other? Not sheer caprice. Yet obviously most of them happen independently, without the actors being aware of each other or of what the others are up to. The arbitrariness of their inclusion and juxtaposition… shows that the linkage between them is imagined.[6]

What, then, is the difference between one’s life and the front page of a newspaper? Do they both represent a constructed – that is to say, not objectively real – and affected way of arranging events? For the historian, how does that construction and that affectation influence how they read history, view history, and write history? How does understanding how one’s life interacts with one’s work impact either, for better or for worse?

As a scholar, I have been carefully trained to avoid using the first person in my work. “Don’t ever say things like ‘We can see the following…’ in your research,” I remember being told in one undergraduate course. “This is not a journey ‘we’re’ going on together. It’s a research paper.” My training in languages also tends to inform how I view texts – “Read what it says, not what you think it means,” my first Greek instructor repeatedly told our class. My research goal, therefore, is typically to state a clear, impersonal thesis and then get the hell out of the way of my own argument, simply letting the facts and the observations speak for themselves as much as possible. If I present it as something that “I” think, then I will have fundamentally devalued and undermined my argument – why should anybody care what I think?

Naturally, there is far more to it than a hope to rest comfortably on objectivity. Why should anybody care what I think, indeed. I’m a nobody, a college dropout from nowhere, a first generation college graduate at the age of 29, having taken eleven years to finish a four year degree (a B. Mus. at that, not a liberal arts degree), who then, even with good grades and test scores, still had to do three years of coursework as an unmatriculated student before there was any way to be competitive for graduate schools, all the while hearing from a chorus of professors, “I’m more than happy to write you a letter of recommendation, but I’m not sure you’re going to be able to get there from here.” Why should anybody care what I think? Good heavens, I will need to make sure I publish under a pseudonym just to be taken at all seriously. Better yet, I should somehow indicate on my C. V. that I simply sprang forth fully-grown from the head of Zeus with my PhD already in hand.

But there is still more to it than that, surely. I’ve been at Indiana University in one capacity or another since 2003, somewhat ironically making it the longest I’ve ever lived anywhere. My family bounced around a lot for reasons best recounted elsewhere, and even now, they live, quite dispersed, in places I have never lived, in houses I never called home, in zip codes I never visited until they moved there. Brown can rely on her connection with the place of Elgin, Illinois as an anchor for where she is now, but I am literally from nowhere, in the sense that I have had to construct my notion of “home” from different raw materials than place and family, and I find it very difficult to relate to concepts of home that do center around place and family. If my family moved around for reasons having to do with the military or career development, than I might be able to legitimately claim – as a friend of mine, the son of a prominent Russian History scholar, does – to be a “citizen of the world,” to be from everywhere. Alas, I can claim nothing quite so romantic or interesting. Robert Frost once said that home is where, if you have to go there, they have to take you, but the places where that is even marginally true are places that have never actually been a part of my life. If Brown is correct that one’s biography is closely linked to place, than I truly am the Nowhere Man – so again, why should anybody care what I think?

But, of course, there is still more to it than that.

“In my quest to explore the human condition,” writes Brown, “I have hidden behind my subjects, using them as a scrim to project my own sentiments and feelings.”[7] There is an undeniable connection between who somebody is and what interests them; for her own part, Brown describes this connection by saying, “I believe that I was able to see stories that had not yet taken shape for other historians because of the sensitivities I acquired in my past.”[8] My advisor, Professor Edward Watts, is potentially an example; he is an academic raised in a family of academics. His parents are both academics, and his sister is an academic. What was the subject of his dissertation? Rhetorical education in Late Antique Alexandria and Athens. As I told him after I read the book, it is difficult to not see his work as having an aspect of meta-commentary on the academic life. He chuckled and said, “You wouldn’t necessarily be wrong.”

Beyond that example, I saw with my own eyes how the personal connection between historian and subject might manifest with my colleagues during orientation and initial class meetings:

“Hi, I’m Roberto Arroyo, and I’m interested in Latin American history.”

“My name is Isaac Rosenbaum, and I do Holocaust history.”

“I’m Lakshmi Patel, and I’m studying the history of relations between India and Pakistan.”

The Late Antique Byzantinist whose last name is not “Ioannides” or “Sotiriou” is left at something of a disadvantage in such company. Yes, there is, in fact, a personal reason that connects me to my subject of inquiry, a personal reason that should not be too hard to surmise for the careful observer (but one that is best discussed in another setting), but a personal reason that is nonetheless internal, abstract, and conceptual rather than immediately and concretely constructed by place or family – that is to say, by the circumstances which I did not choose. I have personal stakes that led me to my areas of interest, but because they are of my own choosing I must be circumspect in how I speak in terms of “I”, “we”, and “our” if I am to be seen as having sufficient distance from my subject to be credible as a scholar. Edward Said and Dipesh Chakrabarty appear adamant that cultures and societies must define themselves, that to not allow such self-definition is cultural imperialism,[9] and yet this mandate of courtesy with respect to communal identity does not appear to extend to those who have embraced certain communities voluntarily.

Of course, I also have the problem that I am not interested in my subject from a critical point of view; I find it anachronistic to explicitly read whatever my own political beliefs and values may be – and, for today’s purposes, we may broadly describe them as uncomfortably conservative as Russell Kirk defined the word, which according to contemporary definitions probably makes me liberal – into my historical subject, but per Elizabeth Blackmar as quoted by Ted Steinberg, we historians are not supposed to evade the question of politics.[10] According to Steinberg, the role of the historian in the present day is evidently to explore “the history of oppression,”[11] and this attitude is one I see largely borne out in my cohort. Nonetheless, the reality is that such a history is not the history of the Late Antique Eastern Roman Empire I have any desire to write. I have better things to do than study something with the express purpose of tearing it down. I fundamentally believe it is possible to be more productive and constructive – but do I only believe that because of my other beliefs in the first place? Is my choice of the word “constructive” itself telling, possibly signifying that I would rather buy into the social constructions that historians are supposed to deconstruct? The 3^rd person voice of objectivity keeps me from having to mess with such potentially treacherous questions.

If men make their own history, but not under circumstances they choose for themselves, and history is supposed to be the history of oppression, then must a historian writing their own history engage in self-hatred by definition? Brown does not appear to write a piece of self-hatred, but it is clear that she is uncomfortable with the implications of her own essay – “My palms sweat as I write this… The intimacy of the first person takes down borders between author and subject, borders that are considered by many to be healthy in a profession situated between the social sciences and the humanities.”[12] Chakrabarty suggests one possible way out, explicitly referencing autobiography and history as two separate and distinct genres[13] – so not only is autobiography, the history of oneself, not history, but history isn’t a discipline anyway, it’s a genre. But here is the rub – if history is a genre somewhere “between” the social sciences and the humanities, and a historian writing their own history must find a methodologically honest way to not engage themselves at the level of self-hatred, which then in fact moves the work into a different genre altogether, then the historian can never actually engage in a real work of self-historicization that is not self-mutilatory.

At any rate, can we claim objectivity anyway by avoiding biographical detail or the first person? In a post-structuralist world where we must assume a fundamental disconnect between signifier and signified, does it really matter to begin with? Or is a research paper written in the omniscient third person much like Bruno Latour’s depiction of the laboratory[14] or Bonnie Smith’s history seminar and archive[15] – a socially constructed, that is to say false, space of knowledge-based privilege that can assert authority it does not actually have simply because a particular group of people have become convinced that it does?

I do not have answers to my own questions, posed at the outset of this musing. I am not certain where to go with them. My inclination is to say the various circumstances of my own life may appear as arbitrary as Anderson insists the front page of the newspaper actually is, but by virtue of the very fact that I in fact experience those circumstances in chronological order, I nonetheless perceive them as my own narrative. My inclination is to say that I cannot be forced to historicize my own life as a history of oppression any more than I can legally be required to self-incriminate in a court of law. My inclination is to say that nonetheless, I am better off keeping my arguments in the third person and keeping my “self” out of the voice of my own work, that regardless of what I think, we all know what a coffee table will feel like if we rap it with our knuckles, and that in saying that I am not privileging people who have hands or who do not have nerve damage. My inclination is to say that there must be a world outside of our own minds, and that there must be a way we can discuss it, even if our own minds tell us how we’re going to organize our perceptions of that world. Are these words and ideas too strong, too dangerous, too naïve, too uninformed? I do not know, but I do not know where else to start.

And perhaps that is why it is good I work in a period many people find irrelevant. It keeps me from becoming a danger to myself or to others.

Works Cited

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. 2 ed. New York: Verso, 2006.

Blackmar, Elizabeth. “Contemplating the Force of Nature.” Radical Historians Newsletter no. 70 (1994).

Brown, Kate. “A Place in Biography for Oneself.” American Historical Review no. 114 (2009): 596-605.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks For “Indian” Pasts?” Representations no. 37 (1992): 1-26.

Latour, Bruno. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.” In Science Observed: Perpsectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, 141-70. London: Sage, 1983.

Marx, Karl. “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 594-617. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1978.

Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1994. Reprint, 2003.

Smith, Bonnie. “Gender and the Practices of Scientific History: The Seminar and Archival Research.” American Historical Review 100, no. 4 (1998): 1150-76.

Steinberg, Ted. “Down to Earth: Nature, Agency, and Power in History.” American Historical Review 107, no. 3 (2002): 798-820.

[2] Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1978), 595.

[3] Brown, “A Place in Biography for Oneself,” 600-3.

[4] Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” 595.

[5] Brown, “A Place in Biography for Oneself,” 604.

[6] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 2 ed. (New York: Verso, 2006), 33.

[7] Brown, “A Place in Biography for Oneself,” 603.

[8] Ibid., 605.

[9] Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1994; reprint, 2003). Dipesh Chakrabarty, “Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks For “Indian” Pasts?,” Representations, no. 37 (1992).

[10] Elizabeth Blackmar, “Contemplating the Force of Nature,” Radical Historians Newsletter, no. 70 (1994)., 4. Quoted in Ted Steinberg, “Down to Earth: Nature, Agency, and Power in History,” American Historical Review 107, no. 3 (2002), 804.

[11] Steinberg, “Down to Earth: Nature, Agency, and Power in History,” 802.

[12] Brown, “A Place in Biography for Oneself,” 603.

[13] Chakrabarty, “Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks For “Indian” Pasts?”, 8.

[14] Bruno Latour, “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World,” in Science Observed: Perpsectives on the Social Study of Science, ed. Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (London: Sage, 1983). Accessed online at http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Latour_GiveMeALab.html on 9 November 2009.

[15] Bonnie Smith, “Gender and the Practices of Scientific History: The Seminar and Archival Research,” American Historical Review 100, no. 4 (1998).

MOTION PICTURES: Fred Vidal Acting’s Great Memories With INCEPTION And THE GREEN HORNET September Sets!

Extra as usual, Fred Vidal was Actor, Downtown LA in September, for several weekends of Shooting Action Scenes, On 2 prestigious sets directed by Christopher NOLAN (INCEPTION with Facebook friend Leo DI CAPRIO) and the French Michel GONDRY (THE GREEN HORNET with Cameron DIAZ, friend last year on Myspace). GREAT MEMORIES, he wants to share with you because professionals tell him, most of the time, that he doesn’t manage his Filmography well enough (great feature scene on THE GREEN HORNET). The shooting with Christopher Nolan was one of Fred VIDAL’s Best Experiences With SPIELBERG’s THE TERMINAL.

Go Watch That Movies When Released!!

If THE GREEN HORNET is a Super Hero, Cameron DIAZ is a Super Woman too, on the Sets and Everywhere!

Visit The BLOG of SASSY QARLA, it’s very interesting:
http://www.sassyqarla.com

LEO DI CAPRIO on the Action Scene Set of Christopher NOLAN's INCEPTION, September 12, 2 days after Fred VIDAL's Birthday. There were a lot of paparazzi Downtown LA to follow the Star. Pic credit: Fame pictures.

What started out as a simple, single-camera Youtube production has rapidly turned into my favorite series to follow…on any format. The Joker Blogs is a masterfully constructed web series put together by a group of film-savvy batfans COMPLETELY dedicated to the story that all us bat-nerds know and love. Starting up where The Dark Knight left off, this group has created a captivating series chronicaling the Joker’s time in Arkham. Having only glimpsed the main bat-character’s of The Joker, Jeremiah Arkham, Harleen Quinzel (who we still haven’t ACTUALLY ever seen on camera), and Scarecrow (for a single episode), the group has proven that they know how to create so much with so little. Twelve episodes deep and with multiple shorts that coincided with the holidays, The Joker Blogs is currently in the midst of the Joker’s escape from Arkham.

As I mentioned before, many episodes are straight-on shots of the Joker in a confessional/documentary-esque style. What began as Harleen Quinzel’s attempt to document one of her most alluring patients, has turned into a hobby of the Joker’s; he sees the Youtube phenomenon as a cheap, easy, and intriguing way to broadcast his endeavors to the masses at large. The series has almost no budget, however, and is putting together episodes in literally two to three takes at times, yet it still manages to be an amazing stylistic achievement. The simple fact is that talent abounds in this group. From the exquisite scripts to the beautifully constructed web site and marketing scheme, everything about The Joker Blogs screams quality. The MOST amazing and important part of the equation of awesome, however, are the performances. The portrayal of the Joker is spot-on to Ledger’s iteration, with even a few added touches of genius to the character that help it flourish on its own. From the laugh to the cracked voice to the constant quiver that made Ledger’s clearly-unstable machination of the character stand out, The Joker Blog’s interpretation has nailed every facet of the character in the world that they are painting. While it is a bit awkward to not know who is behind the character himself (I couldn’t find the actor’s name anywhere, if anyone else can provide the info, by all means comment or just message me) it’s simply wonderful to see an actor bold enough and talented enough to take the initiative and succeed in recrafting a role that many critics whined “could never be done successfully again.” For the longest time, I was afraid that after Ledger’s death the mainstream would never ever touch my favorite villain again. With efforts like this, however, I feel safe assuming that the most absurd villain of all time will not forever be equated with the late, great Ledger. It simply wouldn’t be fair. These shorts DEMAND to be watched, though. Become immersed (it doesn’t take too long to catch up, most episodes come in at under 3 minutes), and help these guys garner some recognition for the sensational work that they are putting out! Below are some direct links. I have posted the first ever vid, a link to their home site, a link to their Youtube page, and a link to a radio interview the filmmaker did explaining a bit of how the whole process was started. Enjoy!

TheJokerblogs.com

Youtube!

Radio Interview.

Il Cavaliere Oscuro è un film del 2008 diretto e co-scritto da Christopher Nolan. Basato sul personaggio della DC Comics Batman, il film fa parte della serie di film Batman e un sequel di Batman Begins del 2005. Christian Bale riprende il ruolo di protagonista mentre il suon nemico Joker è interpretato da Heath Ledger.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Azione | Avventura | Supereroi | Christopher Nolan | Christian Bale | Heath Ledger | Michael Caine | Gary Oldman

♥ “Mammoth”

In this indie movie, Gael Garcia Bernal (“Y Tu Mama Tambien”) and Michelle Williams (“Brokeback Mountain”) play a couple whose lives start unraveling when Bernal flirts with infidelity on a business trip in Thailand.

The story also focuses on their live-in Filipino nanny, which is exciting since very few Filipino actors breakthrough in Hollywood. “Mammoth” even features subtitles for the actors speaking the Tagalog language. With more than 1,000 votes on IMDb.com, the film has received a 7 out of 10 rating.

♥ “Salt”

This espionage thriller was originally set to have a male lead, but when Tom Cruise (“Collateral”) dropped out of the project, the role was re-written for Angelina Jolie (“Girl, Interrupted”), naturally. Jolie is Evelyn Salt, a CIA agent, who is framed for a plot to murder the president. She must prove her innocence while on the run from authorities. Leaps unto buses ensue.

♥ “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”

Jake Gyllenhaal (“Jarhead”) stars in this adaptation of a video game where he, along with a princess (Gemma Arterton from “Quantum of Solace”), must stop a villain from unleashing a sandstorm that could destroy the world.

It sounds lame when you put it like that, but from the trailers, it looks like the film has a good dose of comedy. It’s even produced by powerhouse Jerry Bruckheimer (“Pirates of the Carribean”). Sir Ben Kingsley (“Gandhi”) and Alfred Molina (“Spider-man 2″) also star. Catch the domestic and international trailers after the jump:

♥ “Brothers”

Lionsgate and Relativity Media previously released a trailer for “Brothers,” which I posted here. This is the second trailer of the drama, which stars Tobey Maguire (“Spider-man”), Natalie Portman (“Closer”) and Gyllenhaal.  It’s better if you view it without reading a synopsis first, so take a look:

♥ “The Road”

It’s based on Cormac McCarthy’s novel which tells of the end of the world. Hardly anyone is left but Viggo Mortensen (“A History of Violence”), Charlize Theron (“North Country”) and their son, newcomer Kodi Smit-McPhee. Guy Pearce (“Memento”) and Robert Duvall co-star. Dimension Films has also released two trailers for this Oscar contender. They are distinctly different as one is more dreary than the other. See for yourself:

♥ “The Princess and the Frog”

Disney is going back to its roots with this animated movie. Beating the likes of singers Jennifer Hudson and Alicia Keys, Anika Rose (“Dreamgirls”) as well as Terrence Howard (“Hustle and Flow”) and John Goodman (“Coyote Ugly”) voice the characters. A teaser trailer and full trailer below:

♥ ”The Wolfman”

Check out a horror film that boasts of Emily Blunt (“The Devil Wears Prada”), Benicio del Toro (“Traffic”), Anthony Hopkins (“Silence of the Lambs”) and Hugo Weaving (“Lord of the Rings”):

♥ “Inception”

Here’s a film that’s been kept under wraps so much so that all IMDb.com states is this: “Corporations have developed a technology to enter dreams to extract information from certain people’s heads. A CEO (Leonardo DiCaprio) enters dreams and things begin to escalate, taking a turn for the worst.”

The buzz surrounding “Inception” is mostly due to its director, Christopher Nolan, who also did “The Dark Knight” and “Memento.” However, I’m watching it for one of my favorite actresses, Ellen Page (“Juno”). Marion Cotillard (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”), Michael Caine (Miss Congeniality”), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“Brick”) and Cillian Murphy (“Batman Begins”) are in it as well.

♥ “Green Zone”

Although it’s by the same people who brought us “The Bourne” movies, I think some would hesitate to watch it since it’s another war movie. Still, Matt Damon gives it some star power.

♥ “Invictus”

Damon is one hot commodity as he also stars in this Clint Eastwood film, otherwise known as an Oscar contender. Based on a true story, Damon plays the captain of a rugby team who is enlisted by Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) to win, thus, uniting the country. Prepare to hear Damon speak with a South African accent …

♥ “Gentlemen Broncos”

Some have have predicted that “Broncos” will be a cult hit, perhaps in the same vein as “Napoleon Dynamite.” (They have the same director.) “Broncos” is a comedy about a science fiction author who steals the idea of a student (Michael Angarano from “Will and Grace”) for his next book. Jennifer Coolidge (“Legally Blonde”) is also in the movie, playing Angarano’s mom.

♥ “A Single Man”

Colin Firth (“Bridget Jones’s Diary”) plays a gay man who tries to carry on after the death of his partner. Julianne Moore (“Children of Men”) joins Firth, who is a potential Oscar nominee. Based on Christopher Isherwood’s novel, I must say the trailer is pretty original. It eerily plays on with no words the entire time. The film itself received an 8.6 rating on IMDb.com.

♥ “New Moon”

As the second part in the “Twilight” saga, we find  Bella (Kristen Stewart) left to gather the pieces with Jacob (Taylor Lautner) since the vampire Edward (Robert Pattinson) left her. This time around, Stewart finds herself among werewolves and vampire royalty, the Volturi.

♥ “The Book of Eli”

Denzel Washington (“Man on Fire”) stars in this action movie set in yet another future depicting the end of the world. To salvage what’s left, Washington has to protect a sacred book. Mila Kunis (“That ’70s Show”) co-stars.

♥ “Nowhere Boy”

I don’t know why, but this feels like the most refreshing trailer out of the bunch. ”Nowhere Boy” is John Lennon (newcomer Aaron Johnson) of The Beatles. It chronicles the band’s beginnings and Lennon’s life. Kristin Scott Thomas (“Life as a House”) is part of the supporting cast.

♥ “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus”

Perhaps better known as Heath Ledger’s (“The Dark Knight”) last film, Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) strikes a deal with the devil, trading in his daughter at the age of 16. Parnassus tries to rectify his mistake by offering his daughter’s hand in marriage to whoever can help him. Jude Law (“Closer”), Colin Farrell (“Minority Report”) and Johnny Depp (“Blow”) all stepped in to finish Ledger’s role.

♥ “When in Rome”

In this romantic comedy, Kristen Bell (“Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) takes some coins out of a fountain only to have the men who threw them in fall for her. The lovesick puppies include Josh Duhamel (“Transformers”), Will Arnett (“Blades of Glory”), Jon Heder (“Napoleon Dynamite”) and Bell’s real-life beau, Dax Shepard (“Baby Mama”).

♥ “Dear John”

Another Nicholas Sparks’s book, another movie adaptation. By now, I should know better than to fall for Sparks’s sap, but the trailer was enchanting. Channing Tatum (“Stop Loss”) and Amanda Seyfried (“Nine Lives”) fall in love, but Tatum, a soldier, has to return to war. *Tear*

♥ “Pirate Radio” (aka “The Boat that Rocked”)

Richard Curtis, the man behind the darling “Love Actually,” brings a new movie to the big screen. The film already has more than 11,000 voters rating it 7.6 out of 10 stars. “Radio” is a comedy about DJs who air their show on the high seas. Oscar winner Philip Seymour Hoffman (“Doubt”) joins the ensemble cast.

♥ “The Messenger”

IMDb users give this movie 8.6 stars. “Messenger” centers on the soldiers, Woody Harrelson (“Zombieland”) and Ben Foster (“Alpha Dog”), who are tasked with notifying the loved ones of their fallen comrades. Things are complicated when Foster gets involved with a soldier’s widow. Acclaimed actresses, Samantha Morton (“Minority Report”) and Jena Malone (“Stepmom”), round out the cast.

♥ “Alice in Wonderland”

This Tim Burton film hasn’t been released yet, but it’s already won an award. “Alice” was proclaimed the Most Anticipated Fantasy Film at the 2009 Scream Awards. If that still doesn’t convince you to see it, Oscar nominees Anne Hathaway (“Rachel Getting Married”) and Depp are in the movie.