Author Archives: Kevin Hillman

About Kevin Hillman

Kevin Hillman works in television and is equally capable of discussing 19th century tax law and Pokemon battle tactics. He lives on Planet Coruscant with an Ewok named Moo.

Season 7, Episode 4: ‘The Monolith,’ part 3

There are about a dozen things that the previous posts mentioned that I had not even thought of for a second. The allusions to the Mets’ World Series run and to 2001 had not hit me at all. Kudos.

To me, this episode was about war. Lou, for no reason other than a competitive killer instinct, has decided to bring down Don Draper. With the partners agreeing to put Don to work on the new Burger Chef pitch, Lou decides to use the opportunity to embarrass Don and prepare for inevitable war. What do good leaders do when they’re about to start a fight? They draft the best fighters for their own side.

Peggy was possibly as much of a threat to Lou’s dominance as even Don. It’s been made apparent from the beginning of the season that Miss Olson finds Lou infuriating, as well as a roadblock to her success. With Don back in the building, however, Lou realizes he must make amends to limit his opposition — and make a soldier out of a rival.

Peggy, despite her incredible creative talent, falls into the trap, reveling in the power that she now wields while also continuing as the “woe is me” character she has become. Do the work. Peggy has, and now she has something to show for it, even if her latest step up is as a pawn in a giant chess game.

Bert Cooper’s resentment toward Don is definitely jarring, but it leads me to wonder about another potential evolution in the series. Despite the perpetual reminders about Lane’s suicide, I am no longer sold on the idea that Don will off himself to end the series. The cut-throat world of SC&P seems to finally be developing into a Civil War of sorts. Don’s constant statements to the partners about having founded the agency seem to point to Don’s next move. Do the work. Start a new agency.

Don has already made an ally in Freddy Rumsen and seems to have the support of Dawn and most of the creative team. With Harry Crane’s heel turn, along with Cooper’s, and Cutler’s infatuation with the new computer that has led to a literal displacement of the creative team, the line in the sand is obvious. It even points to an inevitable split between lifetime partners Sterling and Cooper.

The potential divorce with Megan now appears to be another case of foreshadowing — this time, of the divorce between Sterling and Cooper and the creation of a new agency. Don, Roger, and the creative team will start anew, with Cooper, Cutler, Lou, and Crane leading the opposition and likely maintaining control of the current firm. Campbell appears to be siding with Don more often than longtime fans of the show would expect, but the move makes sense after we remember that Don is at least the devil Campbell knows, and Don seems to have developed at least a grudging respect for Pete.

If this situation comes to pass, the real winner will be Peggy Olson. She can’t stand Lou or Don, so where would her allegiance lie? I can see Lou offering her head of creative to side with their agency, while Don would finally have to give in and offer Peggy a position as a full partner.

Perhaps I’m reaching, but this story could come to pass. Sure, the “new agency” plot has happened already, but this is their second chance — which is something every one of the new agency employees needs or has needed. Freddy is a recovering alcoholic; Peggy has a young child whom she ignores; so does Campbell. And Roger and Don have too many moral failings to count. Perhaps this final season truly is about redemption.

Nostalgia, allegory, and the Star Wars prequels

A friend of mine once stated that if he had a DeLorean time machine, he would travel back to 1997 to stop George Lucas from creating the Star Wars prequels. Conversely, when people ask me about my favorite movie, I always declare Star Wars, as a whole, as the greatest cinematic tale ever told. All six episodes (so far) of the space opera combine to be my favorite movie. My friend and I have a lot of shared interests and are only a few years apart in age. So why is it that we have such different opinions about the prequel trilogy?

The answer was offered, though indirectly, in an episode of How I Met Your Mother. In the episode, Barney Stinson explains the “Ewok line” — the line which determines whether you liked or hated the Ewoks. The Ewoks were the most controversial part of the original Star Wars trilogy, appearing in Return of the Jedi to help bring down the Empire, despite their complete lack of technology and laughably small numbers. As Barney explained, people born after 1973 love the Ewoks — they were under 10 years old at Jedi’s release — while those born before then find the Endorians infuriating. This line, though created to explain disillusionment with Return of the Jedi, works perfectly as an explanation for the problems some fans have with the Star Wars prequels.

I was nine years old when The Phantom Menace was released; my friend was 12. Every single person I’ve ever argued with about the prequels was older than me by at least a year, placing them on the opposite side of this updated “Ewok line.” Most fans of the prequels I’ve met are my age or younger — or didn’t see the originals before The Phantom Menace. The phenomenon is uncanny.

So what is it about turning 10 that changes our perspective about the movies?

To begin with, Star Wars movies are made for the entire family. Each episode can be seen through entirely different lenses, depending on your age when watching. To a child, the Ewoks are adorable and relatable. They’re the biggest underdogs imaginable in a fight with a Galactic Empire, yet they survive. They exist to show us that there is always hope, and even the weakest among us have strength.

The Phantom Menace’s largest controversy was over Jar Jar Binks. To this day, I cannot understand the visceral hatred of the Gungan. Of course, I also watched him when I was a child. To me, Jar Jar was hilarious. There was nothing infuriating about his antics. Sure, Jar Jar was a bumbling fool, but so were the Three Stooges, and everybody loved them.

If you’re older, yes, Jar Jar can be annoying, but then you aren’t the target audience for the character. Jar Jar, even with his diminished role, matures in the films, as does his audience: the fans who were under 10 when The Phantom Menace was released. As one of those fans, I remember finding Jar Jar’s growth into the role of leader to be inspiring. The older audience, however, just can’t get over the problems they had with him when first watching Episode I.

A much larger roadblock to enjoying the prequels, however, is simple nostalgia. Fans who were over the age of 10 when The Phantom Menace was released already had fond memories of the original Star Wars trilogy. Those who saw the movies during the 70s and 80s were especially prejudiced by this fact, as the original movies were part of their childhoods. To them, the original movies were perfect, and the announcement of Episode I was akin to hearing that your dead father was returning from the grave to toss the ball around in the yard once more. It was a chance for these fans to return to a simpler time of life that they’d all grown to miss. To true Star Wars fans, the idea of returning to a galaxy far, far away, was overwhelming.

That kind of nostalgia creates unrealistic expectations. Fans of the original trilogy anticipated a film that would recreate the magic of their youth. That is an impossible standard. Whereas I watched the pod race scene and was left in awe and wonder, older fans saw a long scene about an annoying child. When I watched Darth Maul and Obi-Wan Kenobi duel to the death, it was a struggle between good and evil masters of a mystic martial art, whereas older fans saw an overly choreographed dance with a villain who could never be Darth Vader.

Nostalgia made sure The Phantom Menace didn’t stand a chance, and that resentment carried over to the following movies. Perhaps nostalgia has had the same effect on me, causing me to argue unapologetically for a movie from my own youth. This idea was present in my mind when Episode I was rereleased in 3D a few years ago, causing me to watch the film with a skeptical eye. I re-viewed The Phantom Menace and its two sequels, looking out for those parts of the movie that received the most audible criticism, and I found those arguments to be strongly lacking. In fact, I found even more about the movies to love.

Possibly the biggest criticism of The Phantom Menace is the introduction of midi-chlorians. OK, the idea that the Force was relegated to microscopic bacteria is infuriating — but it’s also not what happened. Midi-chlorians are microscopic lifeforms that exist within all living beings, allowing them to hear the will of the Force. They are not, themselves, the Force but a bridge from more complex forms of life to the simple. They exist more prominently in Force wielders and allow the host to more easily connect with the energy field. They are used only to measure Force-sensitive potential, not actual power. Anakin Skywalker was said to have a higher midi-chlorian count than even Master Yoda, yet at no time in the entire series is Darth Vader shown to be stronger in the Force than the Jedi legend.

Another bogus criticism is that The Phantom Menace lacks a lead character. So does The Avengers, but that doesn’t make it a bad movie. Star Wars movies always have featured ensemble casts. While it’s easy to point at Luke Skywalker as the protagonist of the original trilogy, the movies were just as much about Han Solo and Leia Organa — and the droids probably get more screen time than even Luke. Episode I, like Episode IV, has four primary characters: Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Qui-Gon Jinn, and Padme Amidala.

Jinn is the mentor of the movie, taking the role Kenobi filled in A New Hope, guiding the other three characters toward their goals. He helps to teach Amidala to listen to others when making decisions, teaches Anakin about the Force and its potential within him, and pushes Kenobi toward critical thinking, even when dealing with the revered Jedi Order. At the end of the movie, all three young characters fulfill their potential. When Master Qui-Gon meets his untimely demise, Kenobi must quickly rise to the occasion, just as Luke must in Episode IV. Meanwhile, Anakin and Amidala also mirror the actions of their future children, using their wits and luck to bring down the Trade Federation.

Another complaint about the Star Wars prequels is also linked to expectation. Old Star Wars fans remembered a story about a ragtag group of rebels fighting impossible odds and expected to see the same thing in the newer trilogy. However, the prequels were never going to be able to recreate that atmosphere. Instead, these movies are about the downfall of an advanced society and the spiral of a democracy toward tyranny. The entire point of these movies was that evil isn’t always as easy to spot as Darth Vader or the Emperor. Sometimes, the most evil men hide in plain sight.

The brilliance of the prequels is in the rise to power of Emperor Palpatine. Every scene with Palpatine shows his conniving and manipulating on full display, his every move perfectly planned out to push him closer to his goals of domination. When viewed in this light, the prequels become stronger tragic tales about how tenuous our own republic is. They tell the story of how even the mightiest governments can fall when the leaders succumb to the influence of outside power and promises of grandeur.

Anakin’s fall is a great story to tell, even if Hayden Christensen was not the greatest actor to tell it. I will concede that Christensen’s performance in Attack of the Clones took me out of the movie at times, but I can’t say that he didn’t nail the whiny teenager bit. Still, Ewan McGregor’s performance on Kamino is brilliant. The eerie questions surrounding the cloners further pushed the brilliant plan of Palpatine and his minions while leading to the beginning of a war, completely manufactured by a Chancellor striving for power.

The Clone Wars, as shown in the eponymous series as well as Revenge of the Sith, completely change the mentality of the Jedi Order, pushing them into the position of war generals. Palpatine’s genius is shown here as the war acts to distract the Jedi while creating a generation of young adults, like Anakin, who are sick of fighting and are more beholden to the concept of an authoritarian government willing to punish enemies of peace.

Anakin’s behavior and seemingly abrupt shift to the Dark Side makes sense in this context, as we remember that Anakin expressed a belief that even strong-arm tactics are justifiable as long as they lead to a greater good. He sees during the Clone Wars that the Jedi’s pacifistic tactics have only led to continuing battles and death. The Separatists are like petulant children in Anakin’s eyes. They are the minority who must be repressed to make the majority of the galaxy better. And when Anakin is put into the position to choose between the Jedi, who kept the war going, and the Chancellor, who mentored him and helped him to bring an abrupt end to the fighting, he chooses the Chancellor.

Palpatine acts as the snake in the Garden of Eden. He offers Anakin a Faustian bargain, promising to save Anakin’s wife in exchange for his apprenticeship. The Jedi, in Anakin’s view, are limited by their dogma from doing what is right. In this sense, Anakin is a bit of a utilitarian, willing to make questionable decisions for a greater good. He also acts as a reflection on post-9/11 America and its use of questionable tactics in the name of security.

If you are a fan of science fiction, you should watch the Star Wars prequels fairly, without the prejudice in your mind of what a Star Wars movie should be. Lucas created a universe. He gave us a sandbox in which stories old and new could be expressed in a unique way. There is no singular formula to create a Star Wars movie. Therefore, Lucas can make a movie about space pirates and rebels, or he can write an allegory about how easily democracy can crumble.

Now that the reins have been passed on to J.J. Abrams, I look forward to seeing how the Star Trek director plays with Lucas’ sandbox. I, however, will not hold him to impossible expectations about what a Star Wars movie should be. I will not be angry if an old sage proves to be a tremendous swordsman, or if a collection of tribal bears brings down a war machine. I will be happy with the story that is being told to me, and I will be thankful that Lucas was willing to hand over his creation to a new generation of artists to continue his work.

I look forward to every story that can be told in the galaxy far, far away, and I hope you will join me in theaters in December 2015 for the next chapter in the Star Wars saga.

Season 7, Episode 3: ‘Field Trip,’ part 1

A panel of viewers here at Curiata.com will engage in a roundtable discussion following each episode of Mad Men’s seventh and final season. Check back throughout the week for new entries in the series.

Sometimes, analyzing an episode of Mad Men is, well, maddening. The show can be furiously uneventful at times — or, at least, hard to understand. The third episode of the final season was one in which a few things happened, but a lot of things were hard to make sense of. For example, what was the point of the entire Betty Francis story arc?

Betty has been a strange character since her divorce from Don. There’s really no reason to follow her outside of her interactions with her ex-husband. So after spending the day trying to figure out the thought process of the writers, I’ve come to the conclusion that the episode was meant to be an illustration of Don’s history and future, using his two wives to show how he has grown as man.

“Field Trip” followed Don’s struggles with Megan and his ex-wife’s problems with Bobby Draper. Bobby can be seen as a stand-in for a young Dick Whitman, as Don has shown several times throughout the show how much he sees himself in his son. The interactions between Bobby and Betty make more sense in this context.

Bobby is a good kid dealing with a parent who is petty and childish. He tries his best to show his mom how much he loves her, only to receive a severe response to a youthful mistake. In fact, Betty wasn’t simply mad about his error, but she viewed it as a personal attack, as though Bobby was going out of his way to hurt her.

This attitude was also on full display recently from Peggy Olson, who attacked her secretary for attempting to be kind. Peggy saw it as a personal attack, rather than an honest attempt by Shirley to do right. And where did Peggy learn to think this way? From her old boss, Don Draper, who learned it from his abusive father and stepmother.

Despite Don running from everything in his previous life as Dick Whitman, it seems he still found comfort in a woman like Betty, who is cold and emotionally abusive, like his own parents — though admittedly not as extreme. Betty’s behavior serves as a reminder of the man Don used to be, when he would berate those who dared to challenge him. Conversely, in his storyline with Megan, we see how much Don’s attitude has changed.

Megan’s behavior dealing with a Hollywood director seems as childish as Betty’s sentiments toward Bobby. Don, who would slam the behavior of Betty or Peggy in the past when they did something to disagree with him, treated Megan with respect, trying tactfully to address her actions and finally being honest with her about the mistakes he’s made. It seems as though Don’s evolution into a more honest man is continuing, even if it hurts the people he loves. But now that Don is back at work, we are left to wonder if Don will revert to his old attitudes. Does habitat truly play a role in our behavior?

The questions going forward are numerous. Are Don and Megan going to get a divorce? Will this lead to Don finally finding happiness with a more mature woman? Or perhaps Don moving into Lane Pryce’s office is foreshadowing the finale of the series, and Don’s second divorce will lead him to finally hit rock bottom, both figuratively and literally.

Spider-Man’s origin story defines the hero

Amazing Spider-Man received a lot of criticism upon its release in 2012 for being a reboot of a movie franchise that had only began 10 years before. Tobey Maguire’s portrayal of the lovable geek, Peter Parker, was still fresh in everyone’s mind when Andrew Garfield donned the costume. The newer movie was criticized even more for telling essentially the same story as the first: the origin of Spider-Man.

However, both movies were telling a tale from decades before, originated by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in Amazing Fantasy #15. Rehashing this particular narrative is only appropriate, because Spider-Man’s debut story captures everything that makes him the hero he is.

Spider-Man’s origin story is essential to establishing the character. Without his tragic background, Spidey is just another faceless comic book hero. The moment Parker became a hero was not when he was bitten by a radioactive or genetically-enhanced arachnid, but was when his Uncle Ben died a tragic and unexpected death.

Parker was raised by his Aunt May and Uncle Ben, and their influence on him remains essential to the character to this day. The Parker introduced in 1962 was only a teenager and was still learning how to be a good person when his world was changed. Peter Parker gained amazing, bug-like powers from a spider bite — and quickly went on to make a lot of mistakes.

Parker’s growth reads like an evolution between two worldviews — not coincidentally, worldviews held by his co-creators. Spider-Man changes from a man looking out for himself to a man using his unique situation to help everyone else.

Lee, the author of Spider-Man, often used his comics as a soapbox for his worldview. Stan used The X-Men to discuss civil rights and race issues, employing Professor X as a stand-in for Martin Luther King. He also introduced the first black heroes in a major comic publication. And, despite being over 90 years old, Lee was recently tied to a project that was to unveil a gay superhero in a one-hour television special. Like Parker, Lee saw he had great power, and used it responsibly.

Ditko, the artist that first rendered Spider-Man, was different. Ditko was an advocate for objectivism and loved the works of Ayn Rand. Rand put forth the idea that selfishness is not a negative trait, and in fact, self-interest is a strong motivating force and a positive good. Following that philosophy led Parker into many problems he had to face head on.

As told in Amazing Fantasy #15, Parker gains the powers of Spider-Man from a radioactive spider bite. What did he do with these powers? Parker did just what Rand — and therefore Ditko — would want. Parker used the powers he received to better his own life by becoming a professional wrestler and television star to make money. Parker, used to being picked on and labeled a geek, was quick to use his new powers to flip the script and proved himself to be just as selfish as those who would mock him. During a robbery, Parker decided not to stop the thief, saying that from then on, he would look out for Number 1.

This objectivist trait of Parker did not last long. Parker’s Uncle Ben was killed by a burglar, causing Spider-Man to seek him out for revenge. However, when the thief is captured, Parker realizes that the killer was the same man he refused to stop earlier. This guilty realization, portrayed beautifully in both Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man, is the defining moment of the superhero.

For the rest of his life, Parker will have to live with the guilt of this murder. By refusing to stop the robber, he allowed the man to run free. While we know that Parker can’t be blamed for the death of his uncle in the strictest sense, we are also able to understand how the guilt could be crippling to the young man.

Parker learns from this mistake that, as a man with great power, he must accept great responsibility. It is in this moment that Spider-Man changes from an objectivist celebrity to a selfless hero.

It was important to include this entire story in both Spider-Man reboot movies because it is essential to who he is, just as it is essential that Batman’s parents die and Captain America is the iconic moral center of the Marvel Universe. Spider-Man is driven by a debt that he can never repay. His guilt at the loss of his surrogate father will never dissipate, but he can continue to fight for good in a way that would make Ben proud. In a sense, Parker is redeeming his failure by living for others, just as his uncle lived for him.

Garfield and Marc Webb did an incredible job creating a new but familiar story for Amazing Spider-Man. In doing this, Sony, which owns the rights to produce Spider-Man movies, opened up new possibilities for sequels. Sony had to continue making movies or risk losing the franchise. Without Maguire on board, the most sensible move was to start fresh, and thus Amazing Spider-Man was put into production.

The most important of the potential stories for future sequels involves Gwen Stacy, who was essentially a non-factor in the Sam Raimi movies. The Gwen story, which will have to be addressed at a later date, is as essential to Parker’s growth as his origin story, and looks like it will be fleshed out in Marc Webb’s sequel.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 hits theaters May 2. If you want to be prepared for the new movie by reading a heart-wrenching Spidey tale, check out Spider-Man: Blue by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale. You won’t regret it.

It’s easy to understand why people bemoan the abundance of sequels and reboots Hollywood pumps out every year. But Sony was close to losing a lucrative franchise and had to act. In the process, we were given a strong, character-driven story that fully captured the life of a teenage superhero in a way that made his struggles relatable. And now we will be treated to a series of cohesive movies that give us both the emotional struggle, and the physical spectacle, that made Spider-Man comics so popular.

“And a lean, silent figure slowly fades into the gathering darkness, aware at last in this world, with great power there must also come great responsibility.”

Season 7, Episode 2: ‘A Day’s Work,’ part 1

As Mad Men enters the first half of its seventh and final season, a panel of viewers here at Curiata.com will engage in a roundtable discussion following each episode. Check back throughout the week for new entries in the series.

The relationship between Don and Sally Draper has been adversarial for almost the entire run of the show. Don’s mistakes always seem to be revealed to Sally before anyone else, and she, understandably, never handles them well. The second episode of Mad Men’s final season continues the momentum of the season’s first by showing how Don is finally growing into a man more accepting of his flaws.

Don is still addicted to lying. Megan and others are completely unaware that Don is on forced leave. However, Sally is finally making a dent in Don’s heart and becoming the conscience that he’s sorely been missing. Last week’s decision by Don not to sleep with Neve Campbell now makes more sense after being reminded of Sally’s scarring vision of her father and his mistress.

It appears as though Don is finally learning from his mistakes. He decides against lying to Sally as he would in the past, instead telling his daughter the truth and letting her react appropriately. This is no longer the Don Draper who would degrade people into submission — a role which Peggy Olson appears to be moving into — but a man who realizes his mistakes and is looking to fix them.

This leads to the simplest, yet most incredible scene of the episode. When saying good bye to her father, Sally tells Don that she loves him. It’s surprising how jarring this moment is, considering it is just a teenage girl saying this to her dad, but then we remember all of the times when Sally’s hatred of her father was very evident. Don’s reaction mirrors that which he had last season with Bobby, in which he makes his father so proud that Don is unable to keep himself from crying. It’s a moment in which we realize that Don is finally coming to terms with his role as a father and the unbelievable love he has for them.

Whereas early seasons show Don Draper as a man going through the motions, constantly remembering his own childhood, the final season of Mad Men shows a man who is finally happy with the people in his life, even if he’s embarrassed by his professional mistakes.

Up, up, and away! A history of Superman

“Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.”

Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s Superman!

“Yes, it’s Superman, strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands. And who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way.”

No hero has penetrated the American mainstream more than Superman. Yet despite this status, Superman does not share the same level of financial success in 21st century cinema as his counterpart heroes. Superman is too boring and too powerful, many will argue. He’s the corporate hero, clean-cut and idealistic, fighting for an arbitrary ideal of the American dream: “Truth, justice, and the American way.”

But Superman wasn’t always the stringent representative of American corporate culture. Kal-El of Krypton was once the representative of the underdog, the immigrant, and social justice. The Man of Tomorrow has long been a representative of the ideals of today, changing with the times to act as a reflection of our own perception of society.

Superman, like many of the heroes who followed in his footsteps, was born of tragedy, both on the page and in real life. Brad Meltzer, author of The Book of Lies, theorizes that Superman’s creation is directly linked to his creator’s most tragic moment.

In 1932, a robbery led to the death of Mitchell Siegel. Whether his death was caused by a murder or a heart attack has never been fully clarified, but Meltzer believes this event led Mitchell’s son, Jerry, to dream of a man impervious to bullets and fearless of crime.

Jerry Siegel and his artist friend, Joe Shuster, were two poor Jewish boys from Cleveland. They first conceived of a “Superman” as a bald, telepathic villain, who more closely resembles today’s Lex Luthor than the Man of Steel. This quickly changed, however, and by the time the boys sold the first Superman story to National Periodicals, today’s DC Comics, Superman had become a hero, with traits taken from mythology, science fiction, and the immigrant experience.

Action Comics #1 introduced Superman to the world in 1938. From the beginning, the traits that define the Man of Tomorrow were on display. The world’s first superhero fought off criminals, showcased his fantastic powers, and, as the lowly Clark Kent, fumbled his way with Lois Lane to begin a 75-year love triangle. This strange relationship between Kent, Lane, and Superman has been the focus of many stories across the decades.

The tragic relationship among these characters is representative of an idea that certainly must have existed in Siegel’s mind. As something of a geek, Siegel certainly believed he was more capable than anyone would give him credit for. If only the beautiful girls could see the real Jerry, perhaps they would like him. It’s a story that every kid who’s been called a loser can understand.

It was very much the man of Superman that appealed to fans. Comic readers have always been marginalized by society. The readers of Action Comics were primarily young boys, many of whom had been bullied in their lifetimes and could relate to the character of Clark Kent.

Borrowing from his father’s immigrant experience, Siegel wrote Superman as a visitor from a formerly great society, sent to a new world to live a better life. The planet Krypton was written as the old country, like the Siegels’ home of Lithuania. Upon arriving in the new land, Superman, like the immigrants of the day, changed his name from the Hebrew sounding Kal-El to the very Anglican, WASPish name, Clark Kent.

Superman’s origin story has often led to comparisons with the story of Moses, as both were sent away from their mothers to survive inevitable death and become a hero to the people. In time, the story has also been seen with many Christian connotations, most famously in the 1978 Superman film, with Marlon Brando’s Jor-El sending his only son from the cosmos to save the people of Earth from their own mistakes.

Christian stories were not the original inspiration for the creators’ work. Rather, Siegel and Shuster took inspiration from mythological heroes Hercules and Samson and from pulp heroes Flash Gordon and Doc Savage, while naming their hero’s base of operations, Metropolis, after the classic Fritz Lang movie.

Superman began life as a voice for Siegel and Shuster’s politics. Their hero fought against evil in all its forms, whether on the streets, in boardrooms, or in the nation’s capital. Siegel and Shuster’s Superman, years before becoming the representative of Eisenhower’s America, was the champion of social justice, unafraid to bend some rules to right terrible wrongs. Action Comics #1, in fact, sees Superman take on a corrupt U.S. senator, prompting the official’s confession by terrifying the man with a display of Kryptonian powers.

These powers were, at first, comparatively limited. In this first appearance, it was said only that Superman could leap one-eighth of a mile, hurdle 20-story buildings, outrun a train, with “nothing less than a bursting shell [able to] penetrate his skin.” It would be several more years before the Man of Tomorrow would take to the sky.

Action Comics #1 launched a phenomenon. Soon, everyone was releasing superhero comics. These comics remained popular throughout the War years, appealing to kids and soldiers alike. Symbiotically, the comics were also heavily influenced by World War II. With the existential threat of Nazis and Imperial Japan, the Man of Tomorrow became a patriotic hero to inspire American servicemen fighting overseas.

Unfortunately for the comics industry, popularity waned for the superhero genre in the years following the fight with the Axis. Superman, along with his eternal counterparts Batman and Wonder Woman, became the anchors of National Periodicals, pulling the company through the industry’s post-World War slump.

Superman did his part by dispersing his supporting cast across numerous titles. Superboy, which told the story of Clark’s teenage superheroic exploits, was launched in 1949. Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane followed suit by starring in their own titles in the 1950s.

The superhero of the mid-century was different from the early Siegel and Shuster hero in more than just attitude. This Superman had been changed across several adaptations in different media to become the hero we recognize today. Some of the hero’s most enduring traits were actually just practical responses to real-world problems.

Kryptonite, debris from Kal-El’s home planet, was introduced in the Adventures of Superman radio program as a way to allow the actor portraying the hero to take some time off. Animators for the Fleicher Studios Superman shorts were the first to make the man fly, believing that a leaping hero looked poor in animation and that flying would simply be easier.

George Reeves brought Superman to life in the televised Adventures of Superman. To avoid the difficult question of how to make a man fly on camera, the producers decided to shoot Reeves either leaving or entering a building through windows to create the illusion of flight.

In 1978, Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve took the Man of Steel to the silver screen. Using new production techniques, the crew was able to simulate flight on film, allowing the movie to adhere more closely to the source material.

The movie was a huge success, with Reeve stunning audiences in his convincing portrayal of both the confident Superman and the perpetually terrified Kent. This success spawned three sequels and the 2006 homage, Superman Returns, directed by Bryan Singer and starring Brandon Routh.

While movie audiences were enamored by the high-flying hero, comic fans were demanding more realism out of their heroes. In a daring move, DC rebooted its entire multiverse in the crossover comic Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1986. A “last” Superman story, based in the original continuity, was offered to his original creator, Siegel, but had to be turned down due to legal disputes over ownership of the character. Instead, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow was written by Alan Moore, and told the story of Superman’s final adventure as a hero.

This “final” story was followed by a new “first” story. Man of Steel, written by John Byrne, retold the origin of the hero. Kent became the primary identity, with Superman being the secret. Krypton was explored further, extraneous elements to the mythos were dropped, and all of the hero’s adventures as Superboy were erased. Clark was now a young man coming into his own, trying to understand his supernatural powers and dedicating his life to helping the people of Earth.

Kent soon returned to television in the hit show Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. The eponymous couple were the focus of the show, with superheroics as just an added element. The success was short-lived after a jump the shark moment when Lois and Clark decided to get married, killing the sexual tension that made the show popular.

The launching of Lois and Clark foiled plans to have the couple marry in the comics, and the writers were forced to delay the nuptials. Plans for the following year of comics had to be thrown out, and the writers decided on a bold new plan: kill the unkillable man.

Death of Superman is considered a landmark of comic book history. The book was wildly popular. Collectors bought issues with the expectation of an eventual return on their investment. That will likely never come to pass, of course. This being comic books, Superman remained dead for a mere eight months before returning, with a mullet, to fight the forces of evil yet again.

In the 21st century, the Man of Tomorrow has proven to be the Man of Today, finding success across several media. Smallville, launched on the teen-centric WB Network in 2001, told the tale of young Clark Kent in his decade-long journey to become Superman. The show was a success and humanized the hero in the eyes of fans new and old.

While Kent was finding success on the small screen, Superman was having a tough time on the big one. Superman Returns was financially successful but disappointed the brass at Warner Brothers who expected higher returns. In response, a sequel was aborted in favor of a reboot helmed by Watchmen director Zack Snyder. Man of Steel, released in 2013, again retold the story of Superman’s origin as an alien from a phallic-inspired space society who landed in the middle of Kansas — where human lives are apparently not as important as an explosive action scene.

Criticisms of Man of Steel aside, the movie was again successful at the box office and proved that Superman is still as marketable as ever. Superman will return to the big screen in 2016’s tentatively titled Batman vs. Superman.

Superman may be boring to some, but he sells comics and sells tickets. The Man of Tomorrow has endured across generations because he inspires us to strive for more. Sure, his level of perfection is unattainable, but the humility of this all-powerful alien warrior offers us an example to live by.

Superman may not bring in as much capital as Batman or Iron Man, but the hero from Krypton has always been about more than that. Superman is a reflection of our society. He reminds us that in our darkest hours, we can always look to the sky.

Season 7, Episode 1: ‘Time Zones,’ part 6

I hate Sally Draper. Every episode revolving around the girl is so painfully awkward. I suppose that is the point, however, and I’m sure that the final season will continue the trend. My best guess is that Sally will get pregnant from that weird boy who wanted Betty’s hair.

No matter how the show ends, it will never change the fact that Don Draper was the character we followed for seven years as the lead. I’ve always viewed it as Peggy’s show to some degree, especially as she was the character introduced as the audience stand-in in the first episode. Where her arc ends up is up is a mystery, and I definitely look forward to seeing it through.

Bert Cooper dying would have to happen fairly early in the season, as his death wouldn’t pack the same kind of punch as the death of Roger or Don. I could easily see the death of Roger Sterling and Sally’s impregnation finally making Don realize what he has to do to regain control of his life.

As far as Linda Cardellini is concerned, she is a beautiful lady, but she broke up Cory and Topanga, and I can never forgive her for that.

Will Megan die? One can only hope. Would that finally push Don over the edge and through a window? I’ve never believed them to be truly in love, but I also seriously doubt Don wants to end up with Betty again.

Don’s journey has been about the clash of his past and his present. At times, he seemed to live two lives, being Don Draper to some and Dick Whitman to others. It appears, however, as though he is coming to terms with himself as both Don and Dick: one man whose history is not something to be ashamed of, but something to learn from.

Season 7, Episode 1: ‘Time Zones,’ part 3

Addiction. Addiction plays a major role in Mad Men. Whether it’s the addiction to cigarettes shared by almost every character in the show, or a less traditionally recognized type of addiction, like Don’s to sex. Season 7 looks like it will be building upon this theme and finally expanding it to its logical conclusion.

Don is near rock bottom due to his alcoholism and egotism. The last season saw Don reach a strange new point in his life in which he’s finally coming to terms with his past. This is important as part of the addiction theme because his perpetual lying to keep up the Don Draper character appears to be another type of addiction. Once he started lying, he just couldn’t stop, especially after it earned him a powerful career. Interestingly, season 6 ended with Don apparently conquering his addiction to falsehoods as he finally showed his children the home in which he grew up, only a few episodes after a touching moment in which he finally realizes how much he loves his son.

Don again seems to be past his addiction to women that drove so much of the plot for six years. After marrying Megan, Don stayed faithful for a good length of time before falling off the wagon with the girl from Freaks and Geeks. I can’t say I blame him. But Don’s choice to forego the easy hookup speaks to his new development as a character. While his alcoholism is still prevalent, it’s clear that Don is trying to change and trying to become better. Will he succeed in time? Or is the suicide in the opening video ominous foreshadowing?

The most interesting development in the episode is the realization that Don is feeding ideas to Freddy Rumsen in order to keep working in secret. This is interesting because it’s never made clear that Don actually loves his job. It’s always assumed that he loves the money, the lifestyle, and the adulation. But his actions in this episode imply that perhaps Don’s work is another addiction, one that will likely bring him down in the end when it is taken away from him.

The rest of the cast appears to be at different points in their addiction cycles as well. Peggy and Pete seem to be on opposite ends of their quests for power. Pete seems finally to be happy, though that could be just a faÃ§ade, while Peggy is dealing with another man standing in her way in a position that she certainly believes should be hers. Roger Sterling is caught up in perhaps the most obvious addictions, as he is likely doing drugs while partaking in nightly orgies. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

The remainder of the show looks like it will be built on the characters’ vices and if they can be conquered, or if the vices will inevitably conquer them. I can say with near certitude, however, that someone won’t make it out of this season alive.

No, Founding Fathers wouldn’t agree with you

Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist. Political pundits of all philosophies like to argue they are on the side of the Founding Fathers of the United States. This idea, no matter the purveyor’s political persuasion, is a myth.

The Founding Fathers were not a monolith. They were a collection of incredible — but flawed — men of varying degrees of intellect and a wide range of philosophical, theological, and political beliefs. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson rarely agreed. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were of the same political party and could almost never get along. Benjamin Franklin’s views of the world contrasted sharply with those of the Founding Fathers from Virginia. These men were people with opinions as wide-ranging as our own.

Saying you agree with the Founding Fathers is bold, since even deciding who counts as a Founder can be difficult. For the sake of our discussion, the Founding Fathers will be defined as the men who helped to spark the American Revolution and worked to establish the new government formed in 1787. This includes the men who argued against the Declaration of Independence, like John Dickinson, and who opposed the Constitution, such as Patrick Henry. In my view, the Founding Generation ended with the deaths of Adams and Jefferson on July 4, 1826, only a year after the conclusion of the presidency of the last Founding Father, James Monroe, and 50 years after the date of Independence.

Using this formula, we see that there are 60 years’ worth of leaders included in the Founding Generation. These were men who identified with 13 different colonies, were born across the span of the 18th century, and had very different stories that defined who they were.

Washington, Jefferson, Henry, James Madison, and others were born into the Virginia planter aristocracy. These bastions of liberty were actually men of almost noble birth who expected men of the underclass to defer to their judgement. This view caused some strong personality clashes when Washington led the Continental Army, which was full of Massachusetts men, who were raised in a world of comparable equality and were filled with the “leveling spirit.”

These Tidewater gentlemen evolved over time, especially through the Revolution and the Washington administration, but much of their Virginia breeding was hard to shake. Jefferson, despite being the strongest advocate for the people among the planter class, was still a slave owner after all.

Even during the time of the Revolution, “democracy” was a dirty word and shorthand for what could go wrong without proper leadership. Madison, the so-called “Father of the Constitution,” feared that unfettered democracy would create anarchy. He argued for a grand republic, full of conflicting interests, that would force compromise since a majority would never be attainable.

Adams, who spent his presidency opposing Madison’s new political party, shared a similar view about democracy. He was perhaps the best representative of the Bostonian view of America, which was opposed at the same time to aristocracy and the rabble. It was Adams who pushed heavily for a government of checks and balances to thwart the power of the minority or the majority to oppress their natural opponents.

Adams was perhaps the most devoutly religious Founding Father. Despite this, he is often associated with the Treaty of Tripoli, which he signed in 1797, that stated his belief that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion. Yet Adams was a strong Christian. Other founders were Deists, meaning they believed in a god, but also that this god was not a part of everyday human affairs. Thomas Paine was perhaps Deism’s strongest advocate, but the philosophy also heavily influenced Jefferson and Franklin.

Paine and Jefferson often found themselves in agreement, but Adams and Franklin certainly did not. While there was a strong respect between them, the two personalities clashed greatly when they were together in Europe to negotiate deals for the former colonies. The two giants of the American Revolution were just too different.

Franklin was a unique animal in world history. Historian H. W. Brands has dubbed Franklin the First American; he lived a life that is much more familiar to the modern American. Unlike the Virginia planters, Franklin was not born into privilege, but into the strict, Puritanical society of Boston. Being raised in the Calvinist tradition, Franklin maintained a strong sense of morality in terms of the treatment of others, but harbored a rebellious opinion against entrenched power, whether it be the Penn family, established churches, or, eventually, the British government.

But Franklin did not always oppose the Brits and is a perfect example of how Revolutionary leaders were actually fairly conservative compared to later revolutionaries, like the French. Franklin was, for most of his life, an advocate for a stronger British Empire. He believed that a king and a populist government were not mutually exclusive. Franklin only accepted independence when all other options seemed hopeless. Certainly, this is hard for modern Americans to understand, which is true of many aspects of the Founding Fathers due to the intervention of some 250 years.

Indeed, it is impossible to define the philosophies of the Founding Generation using modern terminology. Alexander Hamilton, who was considered a conservative at the time, supported a strong federal government, advocated for a controlling monetary policy, and pushed his financial system as a way to spawn economic growth for the young nation. Jefferson, considered a liberal, favored an agrarian society of small farmers, free of government intervention wherever possible, and argued that the Constitution granted the federal government almost no powers whatsoever. Yet, on the opposite side of the same coin, Hamilton was considered too pro-business and literally lived on Wall Street, while Jefferson hated big business and supported the struggle of the so-called average man. If you define yourself on either side of the Democrat/Republican divide, you would find it impossible to agree with either Jefferson or Hamilton completely.

Jefferson and Hamilton led the first opposing political parties in American history. It was their philosophies that created the disputing views we hold of the bedrock of our government, the U.S. Constitution. We hold the Constitution to be a sacred document, as though it is the perfect creation of a divine being. Many judges and Supreme Court justices believe that the Founders had an original intent for each word of the document; therefore, the Constitution is a rigid document with specific rules, rather than the vague, evolving document that liberal justices see.

But there can be no “original intent” as there were so many originators of the document. No part of the Constitution can be attributed to a single brain. The Founders were of very different minds with regards to the government they wished to create and run. Henry and Samuel Adams outright refused to be involved with the Constitution-making process. They favored the Articles of Confederation, which held the government together from the time of the Revolutionary War.

The Constitutional Convention, which took place in Philadelphia in 1787, brought together a large group of diverse men with different goals. Some wanted only to adjust the Articles. Others wanted to start from scratch. Madison offered the Virginia Plan, a proposal for a bicameral legislature with a House and a Senate given representation proportionate to population. Others pushed for the New Jersey Plan, which gave representation by state, meaning small states and large states would have equal power in the federal government. Hamilton pushed for an elected monarch-for-life. Every side of this argument combined to give us the mixed Congressional system, balanced by a strong executive, that we have today.

And when the Constitution was completed, almost no one was completely satisfied. So when you say you are “pro-Constitution, like the Founders,” remember that some of them weren’t even in favor of creating the Constitution.

Hamilton and Madison did more than anyone to define what the Constitution would accomplish through their collaboration on the Federalist Papers. Yet for years afterward, these two titans argued with each other over the meaning of the ratified document. How is it that the two men who are arguably most responsible for our Constitution and the way it has been interpreted couldn’t even agree on it, yet men like Justice Antonin Scalia claim to know the original intent of the document?

Our Constitution was created as a compromise and we should govern in that spirit, not claim to know the exact meaning of the text, trampling over others who disagree. The Constitutional arguments we have today have been around since 1787 and were themselves extensions of debates that have raged for centuries about the role of government in general.

If the Founders were alive today, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the Adams cousins would not be able to agree on how to define a pizza, let alone what toppings to put on it. That’s not to say we shouldn’t look to these iconic men for inspiration and guidance. The Revolution and the government they created are magnificent works of human endeavor and compromise. We cannot, however, be bound by their words to a point of paralysis.

And we cannot accept the idea that the Founding Fathers as a whole would agree or disagree with a certain viewpoint. They were men of their times, bound by context and situation. We can say that Jefferson would be a libertarian, Hamilton a neoconservative, Franklin a Democrat, but would those definitions be fair to the complex men we exalt? Absolutely not.

These men (and let’s not forget the contributions of Abigail Adams) spent their lives reading, writing, studying, and thinking, and came to very different conclusions about what America could and should be. We should be inspired by that spirit and begin our own journeys of philosophical discovery to determine what works best for our time and our problems. Otherwise, our minds will continue to live in a generational tyranny, blindly following the precedents set by men who have been gone for 200 years and have no sense of our world. Follow their examples, learn from their wisdom, but don’t be constrained by their works.

Comics: Modern medium of art, literature

Is art limited to paintings? Is literature limited to books? Can a comic book or a graphic novel be considered both art and literature? Or are they the medium of choice for the classless and the ignorant?

People often have one medium they most enjoy. For some, it’s a book; for others, it’s a movie or live-action television. Comic books and graphic novels are nothing more than another medium. These are media with dedicated writers and artists equally as capable — or incapable — in their areas as anyone who works in television, cinema, or the printed word is in those fields. Then why is there such a stigma when an adult expresses enjoyment for comics?

Comic books and graphic novels as literature

The comic book is derived from the most basic form of storytelling, yet it can tell stories as complicated as any other medium can. The word “comic” emerged from the comedic subject matter that was originally prevalent in the serials. The content has evolved over the years to become a format primarily dedicated to the superhero, but the name has never changed. The term “graphic novel” may fit the more disparate focuses of the modern comic, but it only applies to longer story arcs, not the 30-page serial fiction released every month by DC Comics and Marvel.

If you define the comic book and the graphic novel as sequential pictures that tell a story, you see that the medium is open to much more than just superheroes. Last year, Rep. John Lewis released a graphic novel, March, recounting the story of the Civil Rights movement from his own experience. The novel utilizes photorealistic art to recreate the story of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights crusaders in a way that can appeal to younger readers without the costs of a feature film.

“It’s another way for somebody to understand what it was like and what we tried to do,” Lewis told the Washington Post. “And I want young children to feel it. Almost taste it. To make it real. … It’s not just the words but the action and the drama and the movement that bring it alive.”

In fact, it was a comic book that inspired Lewis to join the fight for Civil Rights. Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Story was published in 1957 as a way to tell the story of the movement in a unique way. It worked, giving us a long-serving Civil Rights icon and contributing to the overall cause.

March and The Montgomery Story are not the only serious comic books out there. For some, the horrors of the Holocaust first became real thanks to the works of Art Spiegelman. Printed in 1991, Maus informs the reader about the 20th century’s greatest atrocity in an unprecedented way. Using mice to represent the Jewish people and portraying Nazis as cats allows the reader to continue reading through the brutality without flinching while still bringing attention to the horrible actions of the Third Reich.

Serious subject matter makes for some powerful stories, but the comic book also allows writers to create some of the most fantastic tales ever told. An empty page offers unlimited creative potential that the right artists and writers can bring to life. Again, superhero tales are the backbone of the comic book oeuvre, but the medium has produced many more stories that would be difficult or impossible to tell in any other format.

Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman is the story of Morpheus, one of the seven Endless, as he tries to rebuild his kingdom after being held prisoner for 70 years. The story is one-of-a-kind and intelligent and is still talked about among fans of the medium nearly 20 years after its original run. The series is so singular that Hollywood has been unsuccessful in its attempts to adapt it to the big screen for two decades — though they are still trying, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt recently signing on to work on the adaptation for Warner Brothers.

Saga is an ongoing comic book serial that is unafraid to take remarkable risks, creating imaginative worlds hosting very realistic characters. Alien creatures, ghosts, and soldiers with television monitors for heads are all commonplace in this story of star-crossed lovers. The bizarre originality and vast universe created by Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples could not make it onto film or be told appropriately in a novel, but comes to life with only paper and ink.

Comic books and graphic novels as art

It is easy to ignore the amazing artists who give these characters form. Stan Lee is a rock star and a god to fans of superheroes. Yet, while he has a genius creative mind, Lee still needed the steady hands of Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko to create his most famous heroes. After all, it’s the art that differentiates the medium from text-based books.

There is no single comic book style of art either. Often, the artist chooses what look is best for the project at hand and illustrates accordingly. March uses a stark, realistic tone to recreate the world we know in a powerful new way, rendered beautifully by Nate Powell. When drawing Watchmen and V for Vendetta, Dave Gibbons, David Lloyd, and others also opted for an ultra-realistic style of art to create a world painfully similar to our own, allowing them to drive home Alan Moore’s themes of real tragedy and pain.

The tact is different when illustrating for a Superman or Green Lantern comic. These heroes are larger than life and are often illustrated as such. Many Lantern stories, especially those drawn by artists such as Jim Lee or Ivan Reis, are spectacles of chaos and wonder that match any summer blockbuster movie. In contrast, the more psychological books, such as Arkham Asylum or Gaiman’s Sandman, are often drawn in a distorted way, more closely resembling an acid trip that anything perceivable in the real world.

Is a full-page spread of galactic warfare or a somber panel showing a young boy reacting to the murder of his parents any less valuable as art than the works of modern painters? Certainly, the inferiority associated with comic book artists has faded within the profession in recent years, but quizzical looks still follow whenever a consumer asserts the artistic capacity of a comic book illustrator.

In the past several decades, comic book stories have become the basis of many Hollywood movies. As a result, the source medium has become popular again in its own right. But a stigma still exists. It is still commonplace that a person enjoys The Dark Knight or V for Vendetta movies and yet asserts that comics are for kids.

That idea is no longer valid. Comic books and graphic novels are just a medium. They can be for kids or adults, can tell stories of superheroes like Spider-Man, or real heroes like John Lewis. The only thing holding you back from enjoying a comic book is finding the one that is right for you.

curiata

provoke your curiosity