Socratman 1

Or, Bacrates. Really, it's Socrates vs. Batman in a classic rumble to determine who is better.

Why do we care? Because we can. And, because next week this org is reading this text and watching this movie. Hence: Who is better, Socrates or Batman?

The Cave: Batman protects a city from his cave. Socrates says human experience is a cave. Batman retreats to the cave. Socrates wants to escape the cave. Batman gots super technology in his cave. Socrates is chained to the wall in his cave watching shadow puppets. No advantage to either competitor as B is cooler but more selfish and S is depressing yet profound.

Poisons: Socrates dies of hemlock with a smile on his face. Batman isolates an antidote to that Scarecrow poison stuff. Advantage Batman.

Physical Ability: Socrates stands unaffected in freezing cold. Batman falls through ice and shivers. Batman beats up prison thugs bare handed. Socrates is exemplary in military campaings. Batman goes on a bender and has Alfred to put him back together. Socrates goes on a bender and goes straight about his day. Batman has outrageously technical super suit. Socrates doesn't even have an outer cloak. Batman is twenty-something. Socrates is 70. Advantage Socrates.

Appearance: Batman is the flower of manhood in skin-tight kevlar played by Christian Bale. Socrates is ugly. Advantage Batman.

Discernment: Batman duped by Ras Al Ghul. Socrates makes anyone say whatever he wants. Advantage Socrates.

The Girl: Batman dates the brunette who ends up Scientologist. Socrates learns Love from Diotima. Advantage Socrates.

Final score after first round: Socrates 3, Batman 2, Draws 1.

Stay tuned for further deep reflection on this subject.

Dude, go see Potter, 4 hedons

Drop everything and go see Potter V. 4 hedons, which is as high as I go unless you rate with Kurosawa and Dreyer.

Best Potter film yet by at least 3 lengths: the juggernaut ensemble cast rules (maybe best ensemble ever?) including the kids who either have better direction than ever or have been taking a lot of acting lessons. Or both. This film is much more drama than action, slower but no less tense.

Only two omissions that I would have liked to see, no contra-text moments that I recall.

My prediction that the Dumble-mort duel would be inadequately cool was true but not so true as I feared. Effects-based gonzo was great but not over the top, martial elements not prevalent.

Best lines:
"You don't have to like him, but you do have to admit Dumbledore has style."

"You will never know love or friendship, and I pity you."

Doppelgang-banger, defined

Actually, not very defined.

I don't know what a doppelgang-banger is but I'm pretty sure that if one approaches you you're for it.

Doppelganger is one of those awesome German words that I like but never can quite understand.

A gang-banger is more comprehensible.

Whatever it is, and yes I did invent it, a doppelgang-banger would probably haunt you just long enough to bust a cap in your too too solid flesh instead of mere heebie-jeebieing.

Some polite booing is in order, and a cheer for Arctic Monkeys

Apparently Billy Jack the character has been co-opted into a campaign against all things present-administration.

Which is too bad, because in general I'm a staunch proponent of campy martial arts (Billy Jack is the muse of crescent kicks!) but an opponent of co-opting entertainment to discredit political entities even if they are discreditable. Alas: http://www.billyjack.com/

As my friend Phil says, support the band Arctic Monkeys just their opinion: "There's more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we're in a band?"

I don't even know who they are and I like them for admitting that musicians are excessive carbonators. Article here.

Can global warming be stopped by an out-of-breath, middle-aged, super-rich narcissist in a leotard and high heels?

Abstaining from judgment about the subject, I love the subtitle on this article.

Actually, I tried to think of something to say about Live Earth and failed.

Prejudiced against

I'm doing my best to watch A&E's Pride and Prejudice (AEPP). I haven't seen it before, and frankly it's not off to a screaming start.

Right off, my bias is in favor of Joe Wright's 2005 feature (WPP), which I consider perhaps the best film of the 3rd millennium, and AEPP has a lot of bias to overcome. And so far it's not going the distance.

For AEPP, the performers are plainer, the characters more obtuse, the acting inferior, the plotting too direct, and the settings and costumes too vanilla period BBC. To be fair, were it not for WPP I'd probably like this film.

The apologia I consistently hear for AEPP run thusly:
a) Colin Firth is hot.
b) This film is a meticulous adaptation of Austen.
c) Besides, Colin Firth is really hot.

My response runs thusly:
a) Regarding the Hotness of Firth, I am utterly indifferent.
b) Nobody has me utterly convinced that source fealty is no indicator of the end product's quality. The genius of adaptation is taking a brilliant source and crossing mediums to produce a genius film. AEPP is not a genius film.
c) WPP is genius. There isn't a single character that is better developed or delivered in AEPP. WPP's plot, though truncated, is wondrous screenplay.
d) Keira Knightley and Rosamund Pike are Hotter than Firth. So there.

Here is a perfect parallel comparison: In 1990 Zeffirelli did celluloid Hamlet. Fanatics of a prominent ilk panned the movie as taking too much license with the plot and overreaching some Freudian ickiness. Both critiques are legitimate. In 2006 Kenny B adapted, directed, and starred in his own production that was meticulous and long, for which he won much accolation. I like the Zeffirelli much better; it was smart, it was punchy, and it was subtle interpretation of Shakespeare. Branagh was chiefly loud.

Lastly, Joe Wright's camera direction and steadicam shots are what dramas should be made of. And the party scenes are superb. And the sets and locations. It may be shorter but we lose out on nothing.

We shall see if I make it through AEPP. It does grow on me as it progresses.

Why Opera Rules

And I don't mean the web browser, which I know nothing about. Nor do I mean Oprah, who I understand is even more popular than the web browser.

Currently I am listening to Lakme, which is awesome. But.

It's an opera written in French. Apparently this is not so usual as Italian. Apparently Italian is best for anything loud; this has been verified by every experience I've had hearing Italians, and that's just when they're talking, but I digress.

Lakme is written in French, but Leo Delibes was an avowed Frenchman. I presume. I haven't actually checked. But it is pronounced "d'leeb" so I presume.

Ok, fair enough, why not have an opera in French?

Well, I did just find out the setting is India and prominently features covert Hindus, British imperialists, and an interracial, interreligious love tragedy betwixt representatives of each party, none of which, I again presume, speak French.

But, again just presuming, Operators (hyuck, I don't know another term for them so I made that up) might not train much in Hindi or even English for that matter, so idealism collides with pragmatics and authorial determinism, and we have a French opera about Pommies and Hindoos.

Beyond the is-ness of this, I can't do too much more explaining. I just like that opera can be like this, and truthfully it's harder to find an opera without a wacky premise.

The Kumars at #42, somewhere in the first season, do a rather brilliant expose to prove that all opera is ripped off from Bollywood but is not as long, exuberant, or absurd. It's a tense argument with a controversial conclusion but I found the case for Bollywood strong.

So, the circle comes, um, full circle as we finally have an opera, surely ripped off from Bollywood somewhere, that actually has an Indian story but is written and scored in some Frankish place which is almost surely not Vietnam.

If this kind of commingling doesn't contribute to Global Warming I don't know what would, and this is why I am a proponent of Global Warming.