Seeing Slavery Through A New Hollywood- Are We Ready?

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry will attempt to decipher a question that will no doubt permeate audiences' minds within the coming months and maybe years- in this modern society, are we ready to see Hollywood depict America's past with slavery? Two upcoming film projects seem to beg the question- the first will be director Quentin Tarantino's spaghetti western/blaxploitation inspired "Django Unchained", and the second, based on the true story of Solomon Northup, is "12 Years A Slave". It is important to note that both films boast A-list casting, with "Django" having the likes of Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio, and "12 Years" lining up Chiwetel Ejiofor and Brad Pitt. As these stars and productions prepare for this gamble and ask their audiences to place their bets upon release, I wonder exactly how films with slavery in the main role will be interpreted by our generation.



Though slavery in America has been depicted in Hollywood before, the sensitivity of the subject has caused its story to be told in between lapses of time. Also keep in mind that historical films, as with other film genres, are perceived not by the era they depict but rather by the era in which they are made. Take for example D.W. Griffith's 1915 Civil War epic "The Birth of A Nation" (a film I have seen clips of, but not yet in its entirety for fear of anger); not only are blacks and slaves portrayed by white actors in blackface, but they are portrayed as stupid, selfish and barbaric in response to their "heroic" white Confederate counterparts. Now let's jump to an American film standard, 1939's "Gone With the Wind"; though it shows a kinder, more modern phase of race relations towards the 1860's South, viewers still see subservience in blacks even after their release from bondage.



Undoubtedly, the biggest production thus far to have its audience see the complete totality of slavery in America is the 1977 television miniseries "Roots". Based from the novel of writer Alex Haley, "Roots" traces an African and his American descendants' journey into slavery, from capture to freedom. As it was made after the Civil Rights era, the main characters' roles- especially that of the African, Kunta Kinte- were portrayed as more dignified, defiant and resourceful towards their situations and aspirations. "Roots" would become a cultural landmark, still remaining one of the highest watched television programs in American history. However, in the time since "Roots", most Hollywood productions involving blacks in antebellum/Civil War era America (i.e "Glory" and "Amistad") have had slavery as a shadowy, looming backdrop against their crusade.



Now with these past narratives in mind, how will Hollywood interpret American slavery in today's post-black, Obama-era society? As "Django" and "12 Years" works toward answering this question, I personally assume that the modern audience will need their protagonist slave to be heroically resistant against their bondage, resulting in their freedom by the end of the film. I also believe that these protagonists will be a more symbolic hero whose journey relates a more one-on-one, intimate correlation with their audience. Essentially, this new model of past American slavery will have to represent a combination of society's past truths with its current ambitions while not relying on the hurtful stereotypes of that past.

For fear of these stereotypes, there are some that believe that these films could regress the psyche of blacks in cinema; that the "angry, violent, black man" has been done and over. These are valid concerns, but from what I understand to know of these films' developments it seems that the protagonists' anger is justifiable and the violence (though expected to be more cartoonish for "Django") is needed when necessary. Also, remember that the top tier casting in these films says something about the material, as I'm sure these actors would not gamble on a project that they felt would totally destroy their credibility or careers. Therefore, I eagerly look forward to the production and release of these films with the thought that this particular new model of black uprising could lead to a new sort of "black superhero" to be seen and identified by our generation specifically. So I myself am ready to see how slavery can depicted in today's Hollywood- but I am one of many, some of that many agreeing with this anticipation while the others do not. Nevertheless, the opinions, debates and possibilities of seeing an American slave liberate himself in our generation's time are infinite and groundbreaking.

Well, I think that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until next time, peace out.

The Daring Audacity of President Obama

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. In the spirit of American patriotism, today's entry will be about our current Commander and Chief, President Barack Obama. With the election year of 2012 on the horizon, Obama's chances of re-election are met with both anticipation by supporters and speculation by critics. We are left to ponder his chances of repeating victory; can he run the immaculate, well-oiled race again amidst the publicized doubts of his tenure in office over the last two and a half years? Right now the answer to that question splits down the middle, as those who believe Obama's best efforts are constantly constrained by "old school, politics as usual" government have as much power in their vote as those who believe his policies have since worsened the situation America was in when he first stepped into office. Nevertheless, most on either aisle can't (legitimately) dispute Obama's commitment to the American people, and in my opinion he is the most hardworking President I have seen thus far.



Barack Obama's race for the presidency in 2008 was nothing short of legendary, as his combination of fabled biography and idealistic vision led voters to view him as a symbolic hero within a matter of months. His was a style I call being so "classic it's original", as he had an grand backstory similar to that of Lincoln, a destiny that is aligned with the dream of King, the youthful optimism reminiscent of Kennedy, and had ahead of him a mountain of tasks to complete as Franklin Roosevelt did. America excitedly welcomed this type of heroic projection while facing the crises of downsized economy, rising gas prices and unemployment rates, and fighting in wars that were deemed unnecessary and unpopular. With the slogan "Yes We Can" as a battle cry, candidate Obama's main appeal to the voters was in rejuvenating their desire to join in the American process, poignantly reminding them that they must cite and enact the change they want seen rather than waiting on others to do so first.

In the two and a half years that Obama has taken office, he has worked towards fixing America's problems both domestic and foreign. However, his proposed plans and policies towards this effort would be met with resistance, mostly by a more conservative faction of Congress that claimed his agendas would be overexpensive and ineffective. This would lead to sparring between these conservatives and the liberals that supported the President's agendas, in turn making Obama become, unintentionally, the most polarizing figure in modern American politics. For the sake of having these policies go into active movement, Obama would go to compromise with Congress, even going as far to keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (that he vowed to eradicate once in office) extended so that unemployment benefits for the middle, working class could be extended longer as well. Even for all his compromising and diligent efforts, the midterm elections of 2010 proved to be against the favor of Obama's Democratic party, as more Republicans were voted to Congressional seats.



After enduring such political defeats, Obama would gain a resurgance of popularity and confidence from the American people beginning in early 2011, its main catalyst being his order of raid and assassination of terrorist Osama bin Laden proving successful. This action would be Obama's crowning achievement in office (thus far); until his fatal capture, bin Laden had been elusive to worldwide law enforcement for the nearly one decade after the 9/11 attacks on America. This career victory would give Obama more clout to respond against critics who had previously questioned his competence and commitment to the presidency, as well as those who repeatedly (and foolishly) questioned his true nationality. I must admit that I enjoyed seeing this President wittingly address these opinions, as his responses were respectful yet defiant.



As the 2012 presidential election will soon be upon us, I beleive that Barack Obama will guide his campaign with two main factors; the first being his trademark, pop-culture styled accessibility to the American people, and the second being a showcase of the positive changes he made in America since being elected in 2008 (new reform on health care, finding services that creates new jobs, the capture of bin Laden). No matter what your opinion is of Obama and his policies, you must admit that he has gotten the American people to pay more attention to our country's problems and intended solutions more than any other President in recent history. One must also admit his bravery in being a "pop culture President", as he could far more easily be booed at public outings by the audience he works for than by the Congress he works with- and the fact that he doesn't get booed while appearing in these outings by the American public must mean that a great percentage of them must recognize his effort to change things for the better. I know Barack Obama can't entirely run the immaculate, well-oiled race again in 2012, but nevertheless I still believe in his chances for reelection due to the sort of idealism, accessibility and dignity he exemplifies.

Well, that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until next time, peace out.

The Visual Legacy of David and Goliath

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry is a fusion of art, history and religion that centers on a principal subject for each genre, King David. As he is mostly remembered and depicted for slaying the behemoth Goliath, David has become a symbol for taking a stand against oppression; for this reason he is my favorite biblical character (not just because he and I share the same name). To me, David's story resonates because of his being the ultimate "underdog" who not only has the courage to face his opposition but stands victorious over it. I see this story as a great parable for life, as we all will have to face Goliath-like enemies or problems within our lifetime and have the courage to fight against them. Thus, in the spirit of this relation, David has become a muse for generations of writers, musicians, and- here in particular- visual artists. What I find striking about artists in their depicting of David is that the timelessness of his story is not lost to them, as they bring him and Goliath into their communities and cultures.

Perhaps the best known artists' depiction of David is the larger than life statue that was sculpted by Michelangelo during the early 16th century, his face shown above. It shows the hero in preparation of battle, ready to defend his community against outsiders who wish to dominate through violence and intimidation. I think that this depiction of David is where artists begin to showcase him more realistically in regards to human emotion; it could be said that Michelangelo's David is representative of a soldier, as this is a figure who is calm and gallant yet wears on his face his worries about the level of opponent he faces as well as how and when this fight will end. This display of internal conflict makes the work more humane to its audience/viewer, as we can relate to the figure's expressiveness by recalling scenarios where we bravely fought through our fears for a greater good. As with its muse, Michelangelo's David has become something of a symbol itself as it has come to represent new vanguards for art and culture.



A little over one hundred years after Michelangelo's depiction of David readying to face Goliath, fellow Italian artist Caravaggio decides to take the more traditional route, as his painting shows the victorious young boy with his brutally slayed enemy. As the background's shrouding darkness provides more intimacy to its subject and storyline, David's wardrobe is a bit analogous, as it could be representative of either biblical times or of early 17th century peasantry. As Caravaggio's David holds the head of Goliath (a self-portrait of the artist himself), his compassion for his victim is evident; the look on David's face is somber, almost as if he is regretful that this altercation had to end in the taking of a life. This display of emotion gives a new element to the story, as we never before thought to imagine that David could be- at least slightly- saddened by the realization that he has caused a casualty through his fighting in war.



Just over a decade after Caravaggio presented a brooding David, the sculptor Bernini gives us an "action hero" inspired interpretation through marble statue. In this depiction Bernini shows us the fierce warrior in the throes of battle, as he is in the mid-swing of throwing the fatal stone. This David is by far the most theatrical, as the figure transcends from the statuesque into being physically human, as if he is an actor in a grand one man performance. Because of this effect, the "actor"'s realistic tension in his hands, body and face could make his audience almost believe they are witnessing the event for themselves. Honestly, it is because of these reasons that I believe Bernini's presentation to be, quite possibly, David's most consistently relevant depiction.

One great aspect that I have noticed about both sculptures (Michelangelo and Bernini) is that by presenting David in a grand manner by himself, they make Goliath's presence known in a more grandiose, mythic way. Supporting evidence of an ominous foe is seen in the hero's defiant and armed stance, as he looks away from from the audience but still in a concentrated stare. I perceive it to quite allegorical in that Goliath's invisibility makes him a giant, as the unseen opponent represents the problems and trepidation that individuals must confront in order to achieve goals.



And now we arrive to a more modern, more culturally diverse David versus Goliath thanks to Kadir Nelson's painting as shown above. I'll be honest with you, folks; it took me a little while to fully appreciate the visual metaphors Nelson added to the story by making it sports related, as David and Goliath go "one on one" in a basketball game as the crowd looks on. These visual metaphors include the court blacktop being the "battleground", as David has the basketball- or rather "the rock"- under his arm. Through this athletic depiction Nelson playfully makes the story more about competition rather than dominance, as they "battle" for bragging rights. However, this David appears more dominantly, courtesy of Nelson using visual perspective to depict distance. I gather that Nelson's intent for David in that perspective was to have the viewer relate to his journey in accomplishing the goals of outlasting and beating Goliath while giving the crowd a dazzling performance in the process.

As we've seen through these four depictions, the story of David and Goliath is both timely and timeless, as its different interpretations bred different perceptions and possibilities. As the hero and story serve as muses for creativity and individualism, it could be argued that David may be the most visually depicted biblical character except for maybe Christ himself. It could be a sort of "rite of passage" for most artists to present a new interpretation of this story given that it gives so much room for opportunity to think, feel and connect to a specifically human brand of heroism. As I stated earlier, David's unexpected victory, making him the symbolic underdog, causes us to believe in our total strength as we strive to be the symbolic underdog claiming victory against our behemoth occurrences. And who doesn't love an underdog?

Well, I think that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until then, peace out.

Why is Batman Better than Superman?

Hello again world, and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry is basically an opinion piece; it revolves around my love for comic books, but has some philosophical and realistic relevancy to it. Ever since I could remember, I've been a Batman fan thanks to the movies, tv shows and comic books; I truly think he is the ultimate superhero in comic book history. But, in terms of strength and cultural relevance, a lot of people cite Superman as the greatest of all time. I can't say I don't see their reasoning, as Superman is the main archetype for every superhero that has followed him since his appearance in 1938- maybe even Batman, who made his first appearance one year later. However, this great reason is not enough for me to give Superman the title of greatest superhero over Batman- I've thought about this for a very long time, and now I'm ready to give my reasons why.

I'll start with the most obvious reason; Batman is much more a media "mogul" than Superman. You see, Batman is the one superhero who is both timeless and timely, as he can be cultivated around the pop culture of different eras. Prime examples of this are Adam West's quasi-comedic Batman of the 1960's, Michael Keaton being the omnipresent yet mysterious Batman of 1989, and the brooding, sorrowful vigilante that Christian Bale's interpretation is of today. Compare these vast interpretations against the Superman interpreted by the late Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh (I cannot include George Reeves's interpretation of the 1950s tv show as I have never seen it); although these are fine performances, they are the same exact interpretation,and save from the time they are made you cannot tell one from the other. Many audiences spend more of their money on Batman merchandising and media; in fact, the current Batman visionary Christopher Nolan was hired by Warner Bros to conceptualize and produce a new vision of Superman because of he and Christian Bale's success with Batman.
Also, be sure to include the animated series of both characters; the animated Batman series of the 1990's is so popular and classic that is rated as one of the best cartoons of all time. Who really can debate that argument? At one time during the height of its popularity,it aired during prime time on Sunday nights. I actually think that Kevin Conroy (the voice of Batman) was so convincing that maybe it influenced the type of Batman that is of today. Superman's animated series was good, but again the character (by himself) is one dimensional and kinda physically weak; I mean, I know he was fighting fellow aliens and metahumans, but it always took the most out of him, then finding the strength to win at the last minute.

This leads into my next reason, being that Batman is the mentally superior of the two; and honestly not just of Superman but of many other superheroes and quite a few supervillains. Albeit, this is truly the most "nature vs. nurture" of my reasons, Superman being simply "anointed" with brute strength as Batman has to work towards many physical and psychological endeavors to become the crimefighter that he is. But it plays into their depths in the most definitive ways, as Batman cannot go into an adventure unprepared, and must be knowledgeable of and ready for the various outcomes; Superman doesn't really have that ability. You may say,'Well, he doesnt NEED that ability', but I think he may need it more than Batman, again because of the physical level of villain he fights. Now I will be fair; there are times that Superman does plan out some details, and it's not necessary for him to be the tactical genius quite like Batman. But what I am saying is for the most part Superman's initial form of attack is basic brawling, leading his villains to know how to at least incapacitate him for a while (i.e. Kryptonite). With Batman, however, there is a lot of range in his fighting and tactical skills, therefore his villains need to find different ways to attack him.

From here we go into the "meat and potatoes" of these heroes' mythology and lore, as we see how each hero shapes their community. Let us start with the villains they face; there is no shadow of a doubt that Batman has the best rouge's gallery of any comic book hero EVER. I mean, unless you're a comic book head or a Superman head, can you really name more of his archenemies than Batman's off the top of your head? I myself can name five or seven of Superman's, then eight to eleven of Batman's. From my perspective, Batman's enemies are more fearsome than Superman's because of- again- of their mental capability, as well as their unequivocal hunger for power and dominance. Look at how their villains go at their opponents; most of Superman's villains go personally at him because they realize he is the top power to either restrain or conquer. Prime examples of this are Darkseid, Bizzaro, and his archvillain Lex Luthor. The villains of Gotham City, however, want power entirely and are interested in generating it not from their hero but from the terror they bring from themselves- they know they would have to defeat Batman in order to further pursue power, not attain it. Also, Batman's villains serve as a "quadratic equation" towards himself considering his own personality and crusade; the Penguin makes him question his elitist inclinations, Catwoman (at her best) makes him question his self-denial of true love, and the Riddler is a dark depiction of his intellectual prowess and superiority. Superman has villains that make him question his discipline and self-restraint (Lex Luthor, Darkseid, Brainiac), but none that challenge his approach towards them. That might serve a point for him, I'll give you that one.



Let us not forget that Batman has not just the greatest rouge's gallery ever, but also the greatest villain ever- The Joker. This is the prime example of what a supervillain should be; he is every step Batman's equal as his competitor. Like Batman, he is calculating, uncompromising, and knows he serves as a symbol of choice. The vendetta between the Joker and Batman is more personal than any other of his enemies, as the Joker not only challenges Batman's true existence but will also fatally and/or gravely injure Batman's allies (Jason Todd/ Robin, Barbara Gordon) in his quest for total dominance of Gotham City. Yes, it is undisputed that the Joker is by no means a physical threat to Superman- and really, not even Batman- but I'm also sure that The Joker would find a way to push Superman's discipline of self-restraint to the maximum as he has Batman's.

So in fighting these villains, you must create, teach, and call upon a great army for assistance, this being where Batman truly shines. The "Batman Family" is unlike anything before it, and its best rival could be Professor Xavier and the X-Men. Batman actually takes people in like himself and trains them to be great warriors, then has them become a part of a great network at which he is the nucleus of. It's a pretty impressive count consisting of various Robins (spawning a Nightwing, Red Robin, and another Batman)and Batgirls, Huntress and even Catwoman among others. Like their primary leader/nucleus, most of these proteges and allies have no superpowers to speak of, so instead they are worked with from the ground up to become just as physical, perceptive and tactical. Not that Superman isn't a great leader himself, but in these regards Batman has this way over on him. Yes, he has allies and somewhat proteges such as Supergirl and Superboy, but as was with his own case, he didn't have to teach them much about using their physical capabilities on Earth. As for Superman leading the Justice League, Superman is more of a main delegate than primary leader; I really don't think you can tell other primary heroes (in a group which includes Batman) how to fight injustice in a way specific and/or similar to your own.



Before I give my last and most important reason why Batman is the best superhero over Superman, let me pose this question; Which city would you rather live in, Superman's Metropolis or Batman's Gotham City? My answer, of course, is Metropolis. I know; right now you're thinking "You spent all this time saying the best superhero is Batman yet you would live in Metropolis?". Let me explain why. In Metropolis I would be protected, no question, but I would be protected from evils that I cannot either foresee or really fight against- the only "person" who could fight that evil is Superman, who, to an ironic degree, is the person (and power) that attracts it. Therefore, I theorize in this sense that Metropolis is the closest realization to a utopia in comic books, as to be a citizen of Gotham City you couldn't be uninvolved in the war between good and evil and must play a part. This main reason bases all the others I've previously cited that Batman is better than Superman- because whereas Superman is a savior, Batman is a symbol. To be a savior is a great attribute, don't get me wrong, but being a savior is an attribute only non-humans- aliens or gods i.e. Superman- can attain. However, humans can be symbols to one another, inspiring works and accomplishments never before imagined. This is Batman's greatness over Superman, I feel; he truly shows that one man can make a difference and inspire a movement towards the best and worst extremes.

Well, that's about it folks. By the way, all the artwork displayed on this entry was completed by the iconic comic book artist Jim Lee. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until next time, peace out.