‘Fanning Out’: For fanboys and fangirls of all stripes

Nerds, geeks, countrymen: we live in a very fortunate time. For years, we were looked down on, bullied, and made fun of. Not anymore. Now we are part of mainstream pop culture.

Television shows like Doctor Who, The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones are extremely popular. Chris Hardwick, Zachary Levi, and Nathan Fillion are beloved by fans everywhere because they’re nerds. Also? Nerds now look like Chris Hardwick, Zachary Levi, and Nathan Fillion. (And for the guys, Mila Kunis used to be a big World of Warcraft gamer until too many people started figuring out her screen name.)

One of the best parts of nerd culture is the ability to be fangirls and fanboys. Not to be mistaken with a mere fan, these fanboys and fangirls — I’ll call them fan*s — go above and beyond in their excitement over the things they love. I’m an unabashed fangirl myself, and I’d like to welcome all my fellow fan*s to this space, where we are Fanning Out all we want.

But just what is a fan*? The world’s authority on all things slang defines a “fanboy” as “a passionate fan of various elements of geek culture (e.g. sci-fi, comics, Star Wars, video games, anime, hobbits, Magic: the Gathering, etc.), but who lets his passion override social graces.” Not the most flattering portrayal, but probably not wrong either.

The definition for “fangirl” is similar, but with a more judgmental tone: “Fangirls congregate at anime conventions and livejournal. Have been known to glomp, grope, and tackle when encountering said obesessions.” [sic]

Considering the author of this entry can’t even spell “obsessions” correctly, I’m going to try not to be too offended by his or her suggestion that, for some reason, being a fangirl is obsessive while being a fanboy is just passion. Boys are just as capable of being obsessive as girls. But I digress.

The truth is, we all have a little fan* in us. You can deny it all you want, but we are all passionate about something, whether it’s television, movies, music, art, books — there’s always something. Not sure whether you’re just a normal fan or a full-fledged fan*? See if you can sympathize with any of the statements below.

You might be a fan* if …

You’re still disappointed you didn’t receive an owl with your acceptance to Hogwarts when you turned 11 (even if you turned 11 years before Harry Potter existed). It’s similar to the disappointment you felt when you realized that old wardrobe at your grandparents’ didn’t lead to another world, or that police box isn’t really bigger on the inside (but you keep checking both just in case).
You have a definite opinion on who is the best captain: Kirk, Picard, Reynolds, Harkness, or Sparrow. And are prepared to debate your opinion at any given time. The same goes for which ship is better: the Enterprise, Serenity, Moya, the Millennium Falcon … Let’s not even get into the argument about which Enterprise is better.
The mere thought of not getting your tickets to Comic-Con makes you hyperventilate. No joke: that episode of The Big Bang Theory a couple weeks ago? I know several people who have admitted that is their worst nightmare; one friend even said she turned the show off and couldn’t watch until after the real Comic-Con badges went on sale and she knew she was going.
You’ve ever designed your own shirt/sign/poster for an event, hoping your favorite celebrity in attendance will notice you. This may sound like a shameless call for attention to some, but take it from me: it works. Also, if you meet this celebrity more than once with similarly designed shirts, they just might remember you.
You’ve waited more than an hour for an autograph/photo/handshake/hug/brief sighting. I’ve done this numerous times and don’t regret it at all. Except maybe that one time when we could have been watching Vanilla Ice and instead stood outside praying for a glimpse of Donnie Wahlberg (and all we got was Nick Lachey).
You have dreamed about the exact conversation you would have upon meeting your favorite celebrity … but, when that day arrives, all you can manage is a breathless, “Hi.”
You’re completely comfortable with your sexuality and aren’t afraid to admit you have crushes on celebs of both sexes. I mean, who doesn’t love Jennifer Lawrence? And Daryl Dixon, Agent Melinda May, or the Winchesters?
You’ve been honing your paintball and/or chair-walking skills just in case you need them when least expected — like in the middle of study hall.
You know that a “ship” is so much more than a vessel that floats on water. And they have names like Caskett and Klaine. And you spend half your time wondering if these ships will ever sail. And desperately hope they will.
Tumblr.
The word “Reichenbach” reduces you to the fetal position with your thumb in your mouth.
You own or have read/seen/listened to everything your favorite celebrity has ever done. This includes sitting in front of your computer for several hours, watching episode after episode of the British sitcom Suburban Shootout on YouTube because Tom Hiddleston. And who else has downloaded the soundtrack for August: Osage County solely for Benedict Cumberbatch? (You’re really dedicated if you watched Breaking Dawn — Part 2 just for Lee Pace.)
“Carry On Wayward Son” will always hold a special place in your heart.
You’ve ever attended the midnight screening/release of a movie, book, DVD, video game, or anything else. Bonus points if you’ve actually dressed up in costume for one of these events. Sports fans, don’t think you’re exempt here. Showing up early to a game to tailgate, with faces and chests painted, wearing every item of clothing in your team’s colors you can possibly find — that’s the equivalent of going to the midnight premiere of The Hobbit dressed as a hobbit.
You understand the meaning of terms like “squee,” “feels,” “OTP,” and the aforementioned “ship.”

If you’ve reached the end of this list and you’ve been nodding along with any or all of these points, then you’re probably a fan* whether you like it or not. And this list just scratches the surface.

If you’ve discovered that perhaps you are one of us, keep in mind there’s nothing to be ashamed of. As one of the characters from the show Leverage used to say, it’s “the age of the geek.” So embrace your inner nerd and enjoy the ride. Trust me, it’s a lot more fun once you give into it.

And don’t forget to come back here weekly as I’ll be discussing TV, books, movies — all the things that are worth Fanning Out for. Until next time, “May the odds be ever in your favor.”

Suit up! First step to looking part of gentleman

For many men, a lack of fashion sense is a point of pride. Relegating clothing decisions to an afterthought is ostensibly equated with a demonstration of manliness. The Modern Urban Gentleman knows better.

The world of fashion is a foreign land to many men. And traveling to an unknown place introduces insecurities. The easiest way to deal with an insecurity is to pretend the underlying subject just doesn’t matter. But fashion does matter. Fashion is confidence, and confidence breeds success.

The Modern Urban Gentleman does not hide from his insecurities, he eliminates them. The gentleman does not ignore his points of weakness, he strengthens them. And the best starting point to strengthen the gentleman’s knowledge of men’s fashion is to discuss the suit.

The story of the suit

The suit is the backbone of the gentleman’s wardrobe. It is such a vital element to the Modern Urban Gentleman that it cannot be sufficiently dealt with in just one column; come back next week for the second installment.

Unfortunately, the wearing of a suit has come to be viewed as a necessity rather than an opportunity. As a result, the suit is treated the same as a t-shirt and jeans: purchased haphazardly and worn without pride. The suit demands the opposite.

The suit is a work of art, coaxed into existence by a craftsman out of hundreds of years of tradition and innovation. The suit is a set of garments cut from a single piece of cloth, most commonly wool. It consists of two pieces, a jacket and pants — or three, by adding a vest, also called a waistcoat. The suit, worn effectively, is complemented by a collection of clothes and accessories to express differing degrees of formality and expressions of style.

The suit has evolved through the centuries from the embroidered and jeweled formalwear of post-Renaissance Europe to the common “lounge” suit of the modern American workplace. As history demonstrates, the suit has been repeatedly redesigned for comfort, making today’s suits a pleasure to wear.

In bygone ages, a man would choose a piece of fabric and his tailor would cut and sew each suit to the customer’s measurements. Today, a suit crafted through that method is called a “bespoke” suit, and the price tag runs in the thousands of dollars. Instead, most men purchase suits “off the rack.”

This development is lamentable, because it creates a disconnect from the craft and the majesty of suit-making. Consequently, the off-the-rack revolution has moved suits from tailor’s shops to department stores, altering the man’s psychological connection to the garment. Now, the suit can be treated as a disposable commodity instead of a revered investment.

But in practical terms, the off-the-rack suit makes dressing well accessible to those who are willing to make an effort to wear it right. By understanding the basics of choosing a style and finding the right fit, the gentleman, with the help of his tailor (a topic for another column), can dress to impress any time he dons the suit.

The elements of the suit

The most common suit style in contemporary America is the single-breasted, as contrasted with the double-breasted that has historically been common in England. This terminology refers to the rows of buttons that fasten the jacket: single-breasted has one row, close to the edges of the jacket; double-breasted has two rows that cause the faces of the jacket to overlap when closed.

Suit jackets also feature a turned-over piece of fabric around the color and along the breast of the jacket, called the lapel. There are three main styles of lapel: the notch, the peak, and the shawl. The notch is the least formal, and the shawl the most, usually only appearing on tuxedo or dinner jackets. Lapel widths have shrunk since the 1970s, and must be matched to the width of the necktie (stay tuned for more on this subject).

Suit pants can be cuffed or uncuffed, a matter of personal taste. The pants also can be pleated or not pleated. I say “can be,” but they never should be pleated; this universally looks bad.

When to wear a suit

The suit has been the standard uniform for men in white-collar careers for decades. Recent years have seen the rise of “business casual,” “blue jeans Fridays,” and even “tech casual.” It is tempting to lament how loosening dress codes are ruining America, but the Modern Urban Gentleman lives in today’s world and understands it is unseemly to be a premature curmudgeon.

Instead, the gentleman applies a simple principle: dress five percent better than those around you. This calls for subtlety — do not wear a three-piece to a Super Bowl party, but do wear a suit to a dinner party, and wear it better than anyone else.

There are other times when the gentleman invariably wears a suit. He does wear a suit (or a tuxedo) to a wedding. He does wear a suit to a cocktail party. If the gentleman goes out for drinks after work, he does not go home and change “into something more comfortable”; the suit will improve his chances at both free drinks and proffered phone numbers. The gentleman absolutely does wear a suit to a funeral — and it is the only time to wear a solid black suit.

Choosing the suit

There are many styles and colors of suits, from the stuffy to the outlandish. Because of the cost associated with a suit, a gentleman’s suit closet must be filled over time. The charcoal suit is the most versatile and is a great first purchase for the new professional.

“Unfortunately, the wearing of a suit has come to be viewed as a necessity rather than an opportunity.”

From there, the gentleman can branch out to the pinstripe and the navy-with-gold-buttons. Several years in, he explores new fabrics to fit the seasons: tweed in fall and winter, khaki in spring and summer. As mentioned above, save the solid black suit for end-of-life memorials.

Once the gentleman has five or six reliable suits in his rotation, he can move to novelty pieces: first, the tuxedo, then seersucker. The Modern Urban Gentleman will give tips on these items in the future.

J.Crew has set the standard for the suit of Modern Urban Gentlemen everywhere. The Ludlow suit is effortlessly stylish, worth purchasing one at the upper end of the Modern Urban Gentleman’s budget at $546 to serve as the go-to showstopper. Banana Republic offers a variably priced line that will turn heads as well.

With suits as low as $399, Suitsupply is changing the online suit-purchasing game. They offer a wide selection, including smart double-breasteds for the well-established gentleman.

If none of these options appeal to the gentleman in you, don’t discount a purchase from the menswear department at the mall. As long as the gentleman understands the principles of cut and fit, to be discussed in this space next week, he can find the diamonds in the rough of any suit rack.

The gentleman who follows these rules immediately sets himself up for success. He will look good. He will feel good. He will project a swagger that attracts the attention of potential romantic partners and impresses potential business assets. He will be well on his way to becoming a Modern Urban Gentleman.

Her puts twist, new lens on love

Valentine’s Day has relationships on everyone’s mind, and it leaves some asking themselves, “Just what is love?” The film Her attempts to answer that fundamental question from a unique perspective by asking a question of its own: Can a man and a machine be in love?

Her, written and directed by Spike Jonze in his first feature film since 2009, tells a complex and unusual love story that’s surprisingly poignant and relevant. Jonze has created a world where computer operating systems are self-aware artificial intelligences. In this setting, a reclusive man named Theodore develops a relationship with the “woman” in his computer, Samantha.

Joaquin Phoenix brings sincerity and heart to a character that could easily have been seen as pathetic or creepy. Instead, the audience can’t help but feel for the lonely, anti-social Theodore Twombly. As his relationship with Samantha, voiced by Scarlett Johansson, progresses, it’s evident he has genuine feelings for her, despite the fact she isn’t human.

Early in the film, it becomes clear Theodore spends much of his time alone. However, as his relationship with Samantha grows, so does his confidence. He begins interacting with the world again, spending more time with friends and even going on a double date with his coworker.

Theodore’s evolution over the course of the film makes a case for the authenticity of his love. If one of the signs of a healthy relationship is that it helps one grow and become a better person, then Theodore’s relationship with Samantha, however bizarre it may seem, is more productive than the toxic ones many humans endure. For Theodore and Samantha, this relationship is completely real.

Her is the only film nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards that takes place in an imagined future, incorporating some elements of science fiction and fantasy. As many of the best science fiction stories do, Her shines a light on certain aspects of our current society. By changing elements of the reality we are familiar with, Her frees us from so many of the constraints we have when evaluating the nature of love.

Many people today turn to the Internet to find friends and significant others. Granted, there is another person, made of flesh and blood, sitting at the computer on the other side of those relationships. But by altering the present just slightly, Jonze introduces a near future that isn’t so far-fetched and that has relevance to relationships of any era.

In fact, the film draws attention to the lack of authenticity that plagues many traditional human relationships. Theodore works for a company that produces handwritten letters for clients who want to send a “genuine” message to relatives, lovers, or anyone else. Theodore mentions one couple he has worked with for eight years; he likely knows them better than they know each other — or even better than they know themselves. This scenario calls to mind the current state of our society, where people often spend more time texting and staring at their smartphones than having face-to-face conversations with those right in front of them.

The sci-fi elements of the movie blend seamlessly into the film in a subtle and understated way. In this world, computers are completely integrated with cell phones and obey voice commands spoken into a Bluetooth-like device. There’s just enough advancement in technology to tell that this film takes place at some point in the future, but the audience is not being hit over the head with shiny distractions. This environment creates a rich backdrop for an intriguing film.

Amy Adams is delightful as Theodore’s neighbor and friend. She adds a much needed lightness and humor to the film. Plus, her rapport with Theodore demonstrates one of the few positive human relationships he maintains. Their interactions provide some added insight into Theodore’s character; he’s not incapable of maintaining a human connection, he just needs someone who understands him.

Her is sweet and sincere, but sometimes feels a little too saccharine. Its soft focus and pastel color palette create a jarring contrast during the heavier moments of the film. Compared to much larger-scale films like The Wolf of Wall Street or Captain Phillips, one wonders how it made it into the Best Picture category. This is a much more subtle and nuanced film than any of the others in the category with the possible exception of Nebraska.

This isn’t the type of film that appeals to a wide audience. The viewer has to be willing to think about the story beyond what’s on the surface; otherwise, it may just seem depressing or awkward. Unlike the aforementioned films, Her didn’t provoke an immediate reaction as I walked out of the theater, but I soon found it had gotten in my head and stayed with me for days after viewing.

Fans of Jonze’s previous works will likely know what to expect and will enjoy the film more than those who are just looking for a simple love story. But if you let yourself reflect on the film, you just might find yourself reevaluating your real-life and online interactions, and perhaps the definition of love itself.

Are you ready for some cuju?

Ah, American football. The roar of the crowds. The crunching of bones. The instinctual dopamine rush of identifying with an in-group against a common “enemy.” The blinding splatter of advertisements on everything in sight. Oh, and there’s also the skill and athleticism of professional sportsmen on display, which I guess is appealing.

It’s no wonder that you can’t spit without hitting a football fan in this country and that nothing else on television can compete in the ratings. But we didn’t always have football. The National Football League has only been around since 1920. And in fact, if you pay careful attention to the weird letters that come after the word “Super Bowl,” you’ll notice there have only been 48 of them so far. This isn’t news for the elders among us, but come along with me and let’s explore where this crazy game came from.

First, let’s go to China. What? I’m serious. It’s likely that the ancient Greeks and Romans played games involving the kicking around of balls as well, but there are actual records of rules (well, instructions anyway) in a Chinese military manual from around the second century BC. The Chinese called the “game” cuju, Chinese for “kick ball,” and it consisted of kicking leather balls through silk hoops placed 9 meters off the ground.

Cuju may not have a national tournament these days, but the Japanese offshoot, called kemari (means the same thing, “kick ball”) still gets played today at Shinto festivals. Kemari is a cooperative sport that looks more like Hacky Sack than anything, where you kick the ball around a circle of players, trying to keep it in the air without using your hands.

Different ball games were played all across the world, from Mesoamerica (we’ll get to the Mayans next week) to Greenland to Australia, but our version’s most distant traceable ancestor comes from England in the ninth century. Back then, whole villages would compete with each other, throwing around balls made of inflated animal bladders, including pig’s bladders (hence the phrase “pigskin”), trying to get them to some landmark or other, like a church or a well. No limits to the number of people playing, and you could use hands, feet, sticks, whatever to get the ball around. They usually played during festivals.

(Some towns still do play on Mardi Gras, called Shrove Tuesday across the pond. The County of Derbyshire holds such matches).

Because every now and again somebody got knifed in the back, say, or perhaps on account of the drunken and disorderly conduct surrounding these outings, several attempts were made to outlaw the sport of football in its early years, though these efforts never seemed to stick. Typically, the penalty for breaking the law would be a fine. I expect if someone tried to ban football today, the NFL could afford to continue playing while paying the fine each week. Heck, that would be a great new source of government revenue! (Note: The author of this article does not advocate or endorse the banning of football in this country, mostly because he does not want to be stabbed with a knife.)

Fast-forward to a school in the town of Rugby (“Rook Fort,” whether referring to the bird or a man’s name) in Warwickshire, England, in 1823. By this time, the game of football had evolved into something a little more organized, with loosely defined rules and a set number of players on the field at a time. Inflated pig bladders were still used, though. The game resembled soccer (itself abbreviated from “association football“), with each side trying to kick the ball into the opponents’ goal. At the Rugby School, a boy named William Webb Ellis was alleged to have received a kick, catching it. The normal response would have been to back up into controlled territory, drop the ball, and try to kick it further downfield. Instead, Ellis said (to himself, I’m sure — and I’m guessing here), “F- this,” and ran forward, ball in hand, thus inventing the game of rugby.

If you’ve ever seen the game of rugby played, it is frantic and violent. I mean, so is American football. But in rugby, each play starts out with the ball in neither team’s control as the opposing teams huddle around it. When the whistle blows, they try to hook the ball with their legs to get possession, and end up creating a terrible mess of potential injury in the process. They call this a “scrum,” short for “scrummage,” which is a form of the word “skirmish,” a military term, which itself derives from an old French word meaning “defend.” More military analogues! Yay!

In the late 19th century, rugby came to North America. For the most part, colleges would compete with each other using eclectic rules that changed from game to game. A coach named Walter Camp was the one who came up with the idea of a line of scrimmage and one team having possession of the ball at the start of plays, along with the need to advance 10 yards within four downs.

Between the start of these new rules and the year 1905, some 300 odd college kids died at football, prompting President Teddy Roosevelt to authorize the agency which would become the NCAA to take charge of streamlining the rules and making play safer. They made forward passing legal, which ultimately changed the game into what we now know as American football.

So what about the Super Bowl? When the American Football League came into the picture in 1960, in direct competition with the NFL, both leagues knew they couldn’t coexist independently. They drained away too much of each other’s audience. So they decided to merge together, and after the 1966 season, they held a grand tournament. But what to call it? The officially designated name, “AFL-NFL World Championship Game,” lacked a certain … kick?

Well, the biggest after-season college football game in those days was held at the Pasadena Rose Bowl Stadium (named after the bowl shape of its stands, which itself took cue from the Yale Bowl stadium), and the name of the game officially became the “Rose Bowl Game” after about 1923. Eventually, all postseason college games became known as bowls. The principal founder of the AFL and coach of its champion Kansas City Chiefs, Lamar Hunt, said he jokingly referred to the game as a “Super Bowl,” because his kids were playing with the bouncy balls called super balls. You know the ones.

So there you have it. The most-watched sporting event in the United States, with all its humble origins. I, for one, think it would have been more fun if everyone from Denver had lined up against everyone from Seattle, trying to get a football to the Seattle Space Needle, last weekend, but maybe that’s just me.

Russian skater in red calls out Olympics, Putin

Russian figure skater Yulia Lipnitskaia is taking the 2014 Winter Olympics by storm. At 15 years of age, she has positioned herself as a favorite for the gold medal in this year’s ladies’ singles free skate competition, and she seems poised to be the greatest female figure skater in the world through at least the 2018 Games.

Today, in the ladies’ free portion of the team event, making its debut in Sochi, Russia, Lipnitskaia took the ice in a brave and provocative performance. As Russian president Vladimir Putin settled into his seat in the Iceberg Skating Palace, Lipnitskaia stood at center ice, clad in a red leotard while the strains of John Williams‘ score to Schindler’s List came to life.

Steven Spielberg’s 1993 historical drama tells the story of Oskar Schindler, a German man who saved more than 1,000 Polish Jews from execution in the Holocaust. The film is presented nearly entirely in black-and-white, and one splash of color creates a stark image: the red coat of a young girl as she tries to hide from the Nazis who are “liquidating” the Jews of the Kraków ghetto. Later, Schindler sees a body clad in a red coat among a wagon of dead bodies being carted off for disposal.

Not everyone is impressed with Lipnitskaia’s performance choice. Critics pan the idea that the suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust should be “trivialized” in a figure skating routine. That is the wrong perspective.

Lipnitskaia’s choice to portray that girl on the ice today is a bold statement that echoes the fundamental principles of the Olympic Games, namely that “[t]he goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” The girl in red also challenges the leader of her country, directly to his face, to reconcile the Russian president’s desire to host these Games with his disregard for human rights.

It is true that the Soviet Union fought against Nazi Germany in World War II; the USSR was not complicit in the Holocaust. Nonetheless, the hands of the Russian Empire are not free of the blood of genocide.

The policies of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin created a famine that killed millions in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. Today, Ukraine is still fighting to exorcise the ghost of the long Soviet presence in its borders as the nation determines its identity in a new Europe.

In fact, Sochi itself may have been the site of the first modern European genocide: beginning in 1859, Russian emperor Alexander II engaged in a campaign to relocate the Circassians by massacring the North Caucasians in their native villages.

While the act was not perpetrated by the Russian government, the Caucasus Mountains were also the setting for the mass killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915. Even today, the Caucasus is a hotbed of separatist movement and brutal government crackdowns. The terror threat at the 2014 Games is directly connected to the unrest in this region, including Chechnya, at the edges of Moscow’s grasp. The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing suspects had ties to radical Islam in the Russian republic of Dagestan. This unrest underlines the sense throughout the region that oppression has been a way of life for centuries.

The socio-cultural focus of these Games from the American perspective has been on Russia’s ban on “homosexual propaganda.” Putin himself has said the nation must be “cleansed” of homosexuality. That language is chilling, and one can only hope this is a subpar translation of Putin’s Russian. If it is not, the global community must be on alert and be ready to take action.

All of these elements make the decision of the International Olympic Committee to award the 2014 Olympics to Russia difficult to understand. The IOC seems to pay lip service to the supremacy of human rights while granting financial reward and international prestige to a government that has not valued those very same rights.

The Olympics judges at the Iceberg are equipped to struggle with assessing the technical skill and artistic beauty of Lipnitskaia’s skating. And at 15, Lipnitskaia may not even comprehend the full weight of her performance. But it is the duty of the rest of us, the viewers of these Games, to recognize the moment of reflection that has been created by Lipnitskaia and her team to portray such a stark moment in such a vital film.

Kraków, Poland, is one of five applicant cities to host the 2022 Winter Games. If Kraków, a city that has overcome such a terrible chapter in human history, should be awarded the Games, the IOC will have presented an opportunity to showcase the triumph of the human spirit instead of shilling for a regime that does not demonstrate a concern for the very principles on which the Games were founded.

Here’s hoping the IOC has the wisdom to make as powerful a statement then as Lipnitskaia did today.

Batman has endured, evolved for 75 years

When it comes to iconic American characters, there can be no doubt that Batman is among the best. Created in 1939, “the Batman” has endured across seven and a half decades of vast social change, surviving innumerable reboots and interpretations to become a fascinating, well-crafted character who is both relatable and legendary.

Fans of Batman have always appreciated the character for being remarkably unique. The Dark Knight, however, began as a ripoff of every character his creator had ever heard of.

Origins of the Bat-Man

The idea for a the vigilante hero came about as a money-making scheme. Bob Kane, a comic book artist at the time, was looking to make the same kind of money as Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Kane promised to bring National Periodicals, today’s DC Comics, a new superhero to publish alongside the Man of Tomorrow.

Kane began sketching his ideas for a Bat-Man, drawing a character similar to Superman, in a bright red suit, but with wings like a bat. Kane took his proposal to his writer friend, Bill Finger, who offered ideas to modify the outfit for the bat-themed hero. Finger proposed getting rid of the domino mask and replacing it with Batman’s signature cowl to give the hero the appearance of his namesake mammal. Instead of large wings, Batman would wear a cape that could be made to simulate the appearance of wings. Finger also suggested that Kane replace the red suit that was too similar to Superman’s bright colors with darker shades befitting a nighttime vigilante.

Despite his contributions, Finger never received much recognition in his lifetime, and is largely viewed as the uncredited co-creator of Batman.

Under Kane and Finger’s direction, Batman began to take on traits of several popular characters. Kane often cited being inspired by The Scarlet Pimpernel, the swashbuckling Zorro, and Leonardo da Vinci’s flying machine. Kane and Finger have also acknowledged the heavy influences of The Phantom, Doc Savage, The Shadow, and Sherlock Holmes. The Bat-Man made his debut in Detective Comics #27 in “The Case of the Chemical Syndicate.”

Developing the Story

To explain why a millionaire like Bruce Wayne would dress in a bat costume to fight crime in dark alleys, the writers concocted a tragic story that would traumatize any young boy. The story has remained almost exactly the same across numerous genres and retellings.

As presented in Detective Comics #33, young Bruce Wayne witnessed the cold-blooded murder of both his mother and father after a trip to the theater. The shock of this senseless crime caused the boy to make a vow. He would not only swear vengeance against the criminal who killed his parents, but against crime itself. It is this vow, even more than the death of his parents, that is the central tragedy of the Batman mythology.

Robin joins the team in Detective Comics #38

Almost immediately, the Caped Crusader’s supporting cast filled out. Commissioner Gordon, Batman’s liaison in the Gotham City Police Department, was introduced in the same issue as the Dark Knight himself. The character has endured across the ages as another Gotham hero, including his most recent portrayal on film by Gary Oldman.

Only a year into his run as a hero, Batman took on a sidekick, sparking a new trend in comics of underage boys fighting monsters and dangerous criminals. Robin was introduced as a writing device, decreasing the number of thought balloons on a given page by giving Bruce a friend with whom to discuss his plans.

The Boy Wonder became an adopted son to the chronically lonely Bruce Wayne, adding a new layer to Batman’s character. Dick Grayson, the original Robin, evolved over the years into a hero in his own right, called Nightwing, creating a second iconic character out of the Bat mythos.

The Dark Side of the Dark Knight

In the early years, Batman was not opposed to killing or simply letting his opponents die. Longtime fans of the Bat would be aghast to see their hero breaking necks of bad guys and firing a gun when necessary.

In Batman #1, which saw the introduction of perennial villains The Joker and Catwoman, Wayne used guns to slay monstrous giants. The violent imagery led the editor to decree the end of guns and killing in the Bat comics. Bruce Wayne’s aversion to firearms and killing was retconned, explained as stemming from the loss of his parents. Batman’s refusal to kill has become one of his most defining traits.

The Comics Code Authority stemmed from a political backlash against violence marketed to children.

The desire to make money and gain notoriety almost killed Batman in the same way that led to his creation. In 1954, Seduction of the Innocent by Fredric Wertham linked teenage delinquency to comic books, usually citing the violent and gruesome nature and imagery of horror comics.

As expected, the sensational book, which offered little in the way of verifiable science, sparked an outcry exaggerated by a politician looking for an issue to get his name in the news. Estes Kefauver was a Democrat with his eye on the Presidential nomination. Seduction of the Innocent would give him his issue and his media attention.

While Kefauver never became President of the United States, he did force the comic book industry to create a self-censoring body known as the Comics Code Authority. The CCA established numerous rules which led to the death of innumerable superhero properties and forced change upon those that survived.

Batman became a deputy of the Gotham Police Force who fought crime in the daytime. His stories took on elements of the fanciful and the science fiction genre. DC introduced new characters into the Bat mythos, Batwoman and an early version of Batgirl, likely to curb Wertham’s charges of homosexuality in the Bat world.

Entering a new medium

Adam West as Batman in the 1960s television series

By 1966, Batman comics were close to cancelation. Swooping in at the last second to save the day, the ABC television network picked up the Batman character for a new TV series. Batman, starring Adam West and Burt Ward, became a national sensation, offering a campy take on the character that was actually quite faithful to the comics of the time. The show employed a brilliant tactic: appeal to audiences of all ages. For the kids, Batman was a serious adventure story about the Caped Crusader. To adults, it was a humorous take on the absurdist nature of the superhero genre.

Unfortunately for Bat-fans, the show only lasted three years before being canceled due to declining ratings. Still, the show has had an enduring impact, being referenced to this day: Adam West regularly makes appearances to parody his most famous role in shows such as Family Guy and The Fairly Oddparents.

Batman on TV created a new generation of fans, but for some dedicated to the franchise, the hero portrayed on ABC was no Dark Knight. Comic book writers and artists did not want to see another generation of fans grow up believing that Batman was the goofy master of onomatopoeia.

Ra's al Ghul comes on the scene in Batman #233

Artist Neal Adams and writer Denny O’Neil led the charge, taking over the Batman comics in 1969. Looking to add real-world issues into the formerly extravagant comic, Adams and O’Neil introduced the terrorist character Ra’s al Ghul. Ra’s represented a change in Batman stories from exclusively flamboyant supervillains with increasingly convoluted evil plots, to more realistic stories and more relatable villains. Unlike the numerous Bat-villains that preceded him, Ra’s aimed for a seemingly noble goal. He wished to save the world’s environment. The only problem: it would require the death of humanity.

Despite these changes, Batman comics continued to decrease in sales until 1986, when a bold new writer, known for his dark work on Marvel’s Daredevil, was given the opportunity to write the definitive Batman story.

The Bleak Reality

The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller tells the story of a 55-year-old Batman, 10 years after retiring, returning to his crusade against crime in a Reagan-Era Gotham City. Miller’s Batman is, in several ways, a departure from the Batman of mercy, born of his parents’ tragic murder. Instead, Batman is a terrifying brute, certain of what is right and willing to permanently injure those in the wrong.

“I want you to remember Clark, in all the years to come, in your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat, I want you to remember the one man who beat you.”
Batman, in The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller

This Dark Knight appears to have a death wish, constantly challenging himself to greater fights, until finally the Batman takes on a stand-in for God himself: Superman. In Miller’s bleak reality, Ronald Reagan nearly sparks nuclear war. With Superman by his side, the president believes the United States to be invincible, and he is willing to use its power belligerently, knowing that the Man of Steel is fast enough to stop a nuclear strike from the Soviet Union. As Reagan’s stooge, Superman is brought in to take down Batman. The Dark Knight, always prepared, welcomes Clark Kent’s arrival and enacts a plan to bring the Man of Tomorrow down.

Alan Moore's lasting contribution to the Batman canon

Miller’s Batman defined the hero for a generation as a brutal, unforgiving, genius man, capable of striking fear into the gods themselves.

Following the success of Dark Knight Returns, Miller was asked to rewrite the origin story of the Caped Crusader. Setting his story in a Gotham City controlled by organized crime, Batman: Year One follows the early years of Gordon in the GCPD and Wayne’s attempts to become greater than just a man. Year One asks a question later addressed in the Christopher Nolan film trilogy: Is Batman to blame for the rise in theatrical supervillains?

Adding a new dimension to the Batman character was Alan Moore and his classic work The Killing Joke. That installment follows the Joker’s attempts to corrupt Batman and Gordon. Joker is meant to act as the mirror image of the Dark Knight, a man who was changed by only “one bad day.” In an attempt to prove that one bad day is the only difference between men like Gordon and himself, the Joker sets out to ruin the Commissioner’s life by shooting and torturing his daughter, Barbara Gordon.

Jason Todd meets his demise in 'Batman: A Death in the Family.'

The Killing Joke is one of the most philosophically challenging Batman stories ever written. Is Batman, by not killing the Joker, responsible for the deaths the Joker causes? Since the editorial decision following Batman #1, the Gotham City hero has been known for his deontological stance on killing. Moore had the Joker challenge Bruce Wayne’s convictions, and some fans believe the Joker was actually successful in breaking Batman’s will.

Batman stories continued through the realm of darkness, culminating in a showcase of the danger of kids fighting crime. In A Death in the Family, the second man to don the Robin costume, Jason Todd, is beaten to the point of death by the Joker. The decision about Todd’s fate was left up to fans of the Batman comics, and they chose to allow Todd to die.

On to the Silver Screen

Jack Nicholson (The Joker) and Michael Keaton (Batman) brought the Caped Crusader to Hollywood

In 1989, the Bat achieved new levels of popularity with the release of Tim Burton’s Batman movie. Inspired by The Killing Joke, Burton’s Batman is a single-minded crusader who is often aloof when not seeking out Gotham’s criminals. Burton and actor Michael Keaton returned to Gotham City with Batman Returns. This second installment in the series saw a much more absurdist city, perhaps changed by the appearance of the Batman and the Joker. After Burton left the series, Warner Brothers continued the franchise by handing over the reins to Joel Schumacher. These movies are so universally panned that it’s better just to say nothing.

In 2005, Batman returned to the big screen under the direction of Christopher Nolan. Batman Begins drew its inspiration from Year One, retelling the famous origin story of the Caped Crusader while adding chapters about his time spent traveling the globe to acquire the skills necessary for an urban war.

Following the success of Batman Begins, Warner Brothers released The Dark Knight, starring a returning Christian Bale as the title character, with Heath Ledger redefining the Joker. Ledger’s portrayal of the maniacal clown earned universal praise and a posthumous Academy Award. The Dark Knight and its sequel are currently among the highest grossing films of all time.

“Oh, you. You just couldn’t let me go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren’t you? Huh? You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won’t kill you because you’re just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”
The Joker, in The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller

Batman can be found in dozens of ongoing DC comics and is returning to theaters in 2016’s tentatively titled Batman vs. Superman.

An Enduring Legacy

Batman has become a cornerstone of American culture. With successful movies and comics, an upcoming television show based on Gotham City, and 75 years of mythology to draw from and build on, the Dark Knight will likely be with us for a long time.

Bruce Wayne, as a man among gods, inspires us to achieve greatness. Despite being only human, Batman has faced down the likes of alien demigods Superman and Darkseid and has always come out on top. Batman reminds us of the strength of one person to do tremendous good.

And if you ever doubt the inspiring nature of Gotham’s greatest hero, just remember the Batkid.

All Batman comics are the property of DC Comics. Thank you to comicvine.com for archiving these images.

The author recommends the following resources for more information on Batman:

Batman and Psychology
Batman and Philosophy
Batman: Year One
The Long Halloween
Death in the Family
The Killing Joke
Hush
The Dark Knight Returns

Despite reputation, rosé not a bad word

Poor rosé. Recent decades have not been kind to the pale wine, due in large part to that dreaded enemy of serious winos everywhere, White Zinfandel. But rosé has a long history in the wine world, from its heights as the premier wine of the Western world to its lamentable current position as merely an afterthought.

Rosé wines are, for the most part, actually red wines. In all red winemaking, grapes are crushed and the juice is allowed to rest in a tank with the broken skins; this mixture of juice and skins is called “must.” The juice pulls flavors and colors from the broken skins during maceration. After a period of time determined by the winemaker, the must is pressed, and the skins discarded. Here’s the key: how long the juice is in contact with the skins determines whether the wine will be red or rosé: The less time, the paler the rosé; the more time, the deeper the red.

(The solid parts of the must, called “pomace,” are sometimes reused in certain brandies, including grappa.)

Believe it or not, rosé was actually the preferred style of wine for centuries. The Greeks and Romans both allowed minimal grape skin contact time. Winemaking technology was primitive, and when red wines were attempted, they were often harsh or bitter. Instead, grapes were crushed by hand (or rather, by foot) and juice was drained off the skins almost immediately, creating a pale pink wine. This practice continued for centuries, well into the Middle Ages. During England’s Elizabethan Era, pale “clarets” (the British term for Bordeaux vintages) were the preferred wine.

As techniques advanced, rosé was forced to share the limelight with powerful reds. The tipping point for rosés came after World War II. Two Portuguese wineries began producing popular, sweet, sparkling rosés. At the same time, white wine was surging in demand, and California wineries found themselves flush with red wine grapes. California vintners began making sweeter “white” wines from red wine grapes, using minimal skin contact time. This gave birth to the generic term “blush” in the 1970s, as well as to Sutter Home’s infamous White Zinfandel.

Americans who didn’t normally drink wine gravitated toward the sweet White Zinfandels, so some wineries began to copy that style in their rosé offerings. Wines labeled rosé became confusing — was the bottle going to be sweet or dry? Eventually, “serious” wine drinkers gave up on rosé, especially in America, assuming that most would be too sweet, and they stuck to dry reds and whites.

During the last decade, however, high quality rosé has seen a resurgence. Perhaps those novice wine drinkers of the 70s and 80s have finally grown up, or perhaps more adventurous drinkers are willing to take a chance on the pale wine. Whatever the reason, in 2010 alone, U.S. retail sales of imported rosés of $12 or more increased by almost 20 percent in volume, a rate of growth well ahead of total table wines.

So where should you start exploring this reinvigorated segment of the wine industry? France, naturally, and Provence in particular. Provence, on the southeast Mediterranean coast, has been, and continues to be, the standard-bearer of rosé wine worldwide. It is one of the few regions on Earth that produces more rosé than red or white. And why not? The traditional cuisine of the region, full of fish and fresh vegetables, is a perfect match for light bodied, fruit-forward, acidic, dry and off-dry rosés.

Chateau Montaud is a fantastic example. At $10 to $12, the wine is inexpensive and has terrific strawberry, cherry, and herbal flavors, with hints of melon and tart apple. The zingy acidity makes it food-friendly, especially with light appetizers or cheeses, salmon, and shellfish. It’s really refreshing and is my go-to rosé.

Elsewhere in France, the Tavel appellation along the Rhône River (in the Côtes du Rhône) is another prominent rosé region. Tavel wines are 100 percent rosé: no reds or whites are allowed to be produced. Some wineries here drain part of the must off the skins early, after only 12 to 24 hours, while the rest is left to macerate longer, imparting more powerful flavors. These two batches are then blended together to create rosés with higher alcohol content (up to 13.5 percent), darker coloring, and more intense flavors. (Contrast the light bodied rosés from Provence with these full-bodied offerings.)

Check out the Domaine des Carteresses Rosé, for around $12 or $13. The color is a far deeper pink than the Chateau Montaud, with a level of intensity more like a light-bodied red wine. On the palate, you’ll find watermelon, red berries, grapefruit, and tart apple characteristics and a clean mineral finish. (Try it with chicken barbecue.)

Most French wines are blends of multiple grape varieties, and French rosés are no exception. Both Provence and Tavel winemakers primarily blend Grenache, Mouvedre, Syrah, and Cinsault grapes in their rosés.

There are, of course, plenty of other options when purchasing rosé from elsewhere in Europe and in the United States. Outside of France, the regions of Navarra and Rioja in Northern Spain make delicious rosados — though rosé is not the big focus there as it is in Provence and Tavel. In my earlier column about Finger Lakes wine, for example, I mentioned that wineries in that region make rosés, and I have purchased quite a few — though I did have the chance to taste them first, which I recommend.

Be warned that rosé is sometimes an afterthought for wineries. The best red wine grapes go to the red wines, leaving lesser quality grapes for rosés. Some other wine regions in France use the saignée method: draining some juice off the skins after limited contact and bottling it as a rosé, while leaving the rest of the juice on the skins to make a more powerful red wine. And let’s be clear with this method: the red wine is the true focus; the rosé is bottled quick and cheap for short-term income, while the red ages in barrels for months or years before bottling.

Personally, I’d rather drink a rosé that was the focus of the winemaker, which is why I mentioned Provence and Tavel. Bottom line: unless you have a chance to taste before you buy, try a rosé from a region known for the style — and dump that White Zinfandel bottle. For a picnic or hot summer day, a dry rosé is tough to beat.

I got 99 protagonists, but a woman ain’t one

I’m a white man. I should probably get that out of the way up front. Now, then:

Women and non-white folk get short shrift in all manner of media. Time after time, they are relegated to support characters and trophies. When, after all, was the last time you watched a feature film in which the primary protagonist was a black female? There’s Precious … uhhh, Catwoman … oh, and that Disney frog movie. (She’s a frog for half of it, but that still counts.) I am having a lot of trouble thinking of others.

In video games, though, the problem is even worse. Most games don’t have playable female characters. Of those that do, the females are usually one or two choices out of a dozen characters (see fighting games), and/or their only real purpose is to feature in one or another state of undress on the cover of the game box. There are, of course, notable exceptions. I could talk about Mirror’s Edge, Metroid Prime, or Ittle Dew, but they are diamonds in the rough. And make no mistake, there’s a lot of rough.

I get ads on Facebook for online games that warn, “Males only allowed,” and show CGI girls thrusting their hoo-has at me in improbable poses. In video games, female armor seems to cover up, on average, about one-fifth as much of their torsos as male armor does. Women in games are constantly getting kidnapped (to spur a man’s rescue quest), murdered (to spur a man’s revenge quest), or just bartered around between male characters like a used lawn chair at a yard sale.

Make a game starring a woman, “they” say, and you’re shooting yourself in the foot financially. (“They” say the same thing about women in movies.) Males play video games, and they won’t buy a game that forces them to play as a woman.

Never mind that women did 45 percent of the gaming in 2013. Never mind that women gamers over age 18 outnumber male gamers under 18 by a factor of 3-to-2 (even if many of those women are, in fact, your mom, who likes to play Words With Friends with people from her high school graduating class … or from your high school graduating class, for that matter).

What “they” say creates a self-perpetuating cycle in which certain kinds of games turn away women because they aren’t represented, and then the game developers are told not to cater their games to women because women don’t buy them.

Marketing zooms in on specific demographics, I get that. The pink aisle is for girls and the black/blue/white/brown/grey/red/green/yellow aisles are for boys. If you can sell more units by indulging your target demographic’s prejudiced and misogynistic tendencies, then gods bless you, you big damn hero of the free market.

OK, now that I’m done ranting, I want to bring up another point that’s sort of been missing from this particular conversation. Even if women made up 0 percent of the gaming population — if something about that mysterious “woman gene” inured them to the sweet, sweet lure of pixelated, interactive media — even then: Why shouldn’t games be made by women, featuring actual female protagonists, with actual feminine perspectives, solely for the sake of the male gamers who would play them?

Perhaps it is because there is a stigma about male gamers playing games as female characters. In many recent games, particularly in MMOs like World of Warcraft and western RPGs such as Mass Effect, where players are permitted to choose dialog options in social situations, it’s become common practice to allow gamers to choose their own gender. Sometimes women play these games with the male option. Sometimes men play them with the female option. Many reasons are cited, ranging from, “If I have to stare at someone’s butt for hours on end, I might as well stare at one I find attractive,” to, “I like the female voice actor better,” but not many of us male gamers are very comfortable telling non-gamers (and sometimes even other gamers) that we enjoy playing as female characters.

For example, I played a game relatively recently called Fortune Summoners: Secret of the Elemental Stones, a game in which the protagonist is a tomboyish 12-year-old who kills monsters with her sword and makes friends with her schoolmates. I absolutely adored the game, but almost everyone I talk to about it looks at me funny. You, dear reader, are quite possibly looking at me funny right now, I shouldn’t wonder.

I’m no pervy old man who gets off on watching underage girls swing “swords” around, all right? The truth is, there’s not much difference between playing a game with a certain protagonist and watching a movie or reading a book about one. Why should I be ashamed of playing Fortune Summoners, but not of watching Pan’s Labyrinth, or reading A Tree Grows in Brooklyn?

I shouldn’t be.

I can watch Pan’s Labyrinth and strongly empathize with the plight of a brave, creative young girl trying to survive the harsh reality of living in a household surrounded by violence. I can read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn and cheer along young Francie Nolan as she struggles to thrive in a society that’s determined to push her down into “her place.” I love these stories. I love that they come from a fresh perspective, one that happens to be so different from my own. Both of them have contributed to my personal and moral growth as a human being.

So in sum, I absolutely want games with well-fleshed-out, interesting female characters for women gamers (who deserve them greatly, though I will let them speak for themselves on the matter), but I also want those games for me. And, for that matter, for my fellow male gamers, who on the whole (and especially among the 12-17-year-old demographic) could probably use the education.

The final paragraph of this article has been modified since its original publication.

Introducing the ‘Modern Urban Gentleman’

“A gentleman is one who puts more into the world than he takes out.”

These words of George Bernard Shaw, the Irish playwright, give voice to the purpose of my life.

That is not the sort of statement a person makes without serious reflection. It has taken me 30 years of introspection to reach the point where I can make such a declaration. In those 30 years, I’ve learned a lot about myself and about what really matters.

I’ve learned that sorting out our lives is a process. We spend our teen years answering the question, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” by talking about our imagined future careers. In our 20s, we meet the hard realities of those careers and have existential breakdowns about “where I should be by now.”

As I enter my 30s, I’ve realized the question we’ve wrestled with all along — what do you want to be? — isn’t about a career at all. Careers don’t define us. We are defined by something more. We are defined by the impression we leave on the people and places we encounter.

I know now that I want to improve the lives of those I meet. I want to better the world, not just occupy it. I want to leave a legacy. I want to put more in than I take out. I want to be a gentleman.

Of course, the status of “gentleman” was once only attainable by noble birth. That would certainly disqualify me from the moniker right at the start. Fortunately, the word has come to represent something more, something achievable, something honorable.

Today, a gentleman is, by the book, a man who treats other people in a proper and polite way. The definition also touches on the notions of chivalry and courtesy. But for me, “gentleman” in the modern context encompasses a broader concept.

I would like to explore that concept in this space. To that end, this is the first entry in a new column on Curiata.com about what it means to be a gentleman in the modern-day, global city we all inhabit.

Today, I introduce to you the “Modern Urban Gentleman.”

The Modern Urban Gentleman is a men’s lifestyle column that celebrates the qualities of 21st-century manliness. The modern urban gentleman understands that being a man takes more than anatomy: it takes cultivation. A gentleman of today is rooted in tradition, embraces the here and now, and leads the way boldly into the future. He is a complete man, inside and out, always striving to better himself in every way.

The modern urban gentleman makes and leaves an impression on everyone he meets. His fashion is classic with a contemporary twist. He is impeccably groomed and tastefully accessorized. He understands that the way he presents himself reflects the respect he has for himself and for those he entertains.

His aura of confidence is backed up when he opens his mouth to speak because he is well-read, engaged in the community and the world, and true to his word. He develops an interest in as many diverse areas as he can in order to provide stimulating conversation to each person he encounters. He learns and practices useful skills that improve the world around him, connect him with other people, and perpetuate our rich cultural history. He respects the earth and understands his instinctual connection to and dependence upon it. He is self-assured but always humble.

The modern urban gentleman is not restricted by location or by antiquated expectations of what it is to be a “man.” Instead, he is the one who defines his own identity. The modern urban gentleman is, at heart, a man on a journey of self-improvement.

Self-improvement is, by its nature, always aspirational, never attainable. It is littered with many failures and much perseverance. I fail in meeting the standards of the modern urban gentleman every day. But that’s the whole point of “improvement” — we can always be better.

I want to invite you to join me on my journey. I hope I can motivate you, and I expect writing to you will motivate me. My wish is that the Modern Urban Gentleman will provide a spark and prove a resource to create and support my fellow gentlemen.

Being a gentleman is a lost art. Maybe it is one that never really existed at all; nostalgia can be a tricky thing. But that’s no reason not to strive to be one today and every day.

Captain Phillips illustrates humanity on all sides

If you asked three people to tell the same story, chances are you would hear three different versions of the same event. Each would be tinted a different shade by the assumptions and preconceptions of the narrator.

The director of a movie based on real-life events is handicapped by those same storytelling challenges. By being on a worldwide stage, though, the director has a responsibility to expand the camera’s perspective beyond individual biases, to tell as complete a story as possible.

Captain Phillips is director Paul Greengrass’s recounting of the MV Maersk Alabama hijacking. Greengrass, with the help of extraordinary acting, deftly weaves a narrative from the viewpoint of the American crew of the freighter, while honoring the story of the Somali pirates who took over the ship, and he does it in a way that reminds us even the “bad guys” are the heroes of their own stories.

In April 2009, the Maersk Alabama was supposed to be on a simple business trip passing around the Horn of Africa. The vessel, which contained tons of valuable cargo, was targeted by a group of young Somali pirates. The story of what transpired was told from Captain Richard Phillips’s perspective in his 2010 book A Captain’s Duty, and was adapted for the silver screen by Billy Ray.

In the film, which is nominated for Best Picture at the 86th Academy Awards, Phillips is portrayed by Tom Hanks and is shown as a man prepared for this harrowing situation. Using experience acquired over 30 years, the captain does whatever is necessary to keep his crew safe from harm.

The inclination for American audiences is, of course, to root for the safe passage of the American crew. A lesser movie would demonize the pirates, stripping them of all humanity and denying the viewer any reason to empathize with their plight. Instead, the backstory and motives of the Somalis are brought to life by some excellent actors, new to Hollywood, and with incredible stories of their own.

Acting across from Hanks is Barkhad Abdi, playing the role of Muse. Muse is a young man who aspires for more than Somalia can offer. With the Maersk Alabama in the pirates’ possession, Muse stood to gain much. He believed he would be able to ransom the ship for enough money to allow him to move away to America and begin a new life.

Abdi brings much to the character of Muse. A Somali himself, Abdi left his native country at seven years old, eventually reaching the United States. His is an all-too-rare success story from that troubled nation, having now been nominated for an Academy Award in his first major film role.

Abdi rises to the unenviable task of holding his own on-screen with Hanks. Their characters engage in an intriguing game of chess. The captain offers Muse and his crew thousands of dollars in cash to leave the ship alone. Muse sees through the play, knowing that the a ship the size of the Maersk Alabama can yield a much higher payout, and counters by refusing the deal. Phillips sets a plan in motion that puts his side in control, but the Somalis soon trick the crew and take the captain hostage on a lifeboat.

As the U.S. Navy mobilizes to free Phillips, the captain continues to negotiate with his captors on the lifeboat. He learns much about his captors and even seems hopeful he can change their minds before any blood is shed. This is where the director and actors truly excel at giving voice to the pirates’ story.

No one is going to argue the virtues of piracy, even if Johnny Depp makes it look so drunkenly hilarious. But what Captain Phillips does so well is portray the pirates as men on a mission — and for them, it is a righteous mission. The movie shows that the pirates themselves were victims of the horrid situation in Somalia. One pirate in particular has been swept up in the tide of a hopeless life that has led him here, where his innocence and kindness lead him to the verge of forging a friendship with the American captain.

The problem with the cinematic successes of the movie up to this point is that it makes the viewer wish for a peaceful resolution. A part of me hoped to see the pirates make it home with their ransom, raising the standard of living of their native land and saving Somalia from the pits of post-colonial hell. Of course, that didn’t happen, and Somalia is still considered among the most failed states in the world.

That reality made the conclusion of the film difficult to watch. The United States was right, of course, to pursue the safe return of its citizens. But the juxtaposition of the overwhelming firepower of the U.S. Navy with the desperation of four men armed with guns brings into relief the imbalance of power and wealth across the globe. The outcome of the conflict also raises important questions about what constitutes a proportional response in such a situation.

Captain Phillips is a beautiful tale from the perspective of Phillips himself. Hanks’s acting ability alone elevates the movie into Best Picture territory. He portrays Phillips as a crafty sea veteran who was prepared to handle an impossible situation. At the end of the movie, Hanks gives another career-defining performance in a scene wrought with pain. Hanks, even without an Oscar nomination this time, again establishes why he is one of the great actors of all-time.

Phillips’s thoughts are also never far from his family, which is a poignant reminder of the flip side of the story. The movie is a tragedy for the four pirates involved. If you are like me, you may find yourself questioning the decisions of the U.S. Navy and lamenting the way the real-life events played out for the Somali men.

Ultimately, this is a film with a rich depth of perspective, challenging the viewer to consider his or her own unconscious biases. Captain Phillips artfully demonstrates the principle that both sides can simultaneously be fighting the good fight, even while employing tactics that may betray those principles.

curiata

provoke your curiosity