Batman: Dark Victory - Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale

The cover shows Batman and Robin--Batman with his fist out and Robin carrying a rope.  Dark Victory  is 388 pages long, and the first sign of Robin does not appear until page 235.  Thus the cover of Dark Victory is somewhat misleading: one expects it to be the story of how Robin and Batman met and joined forces, but this is really just a minor tangent of the story.  Dark Victory is best viewed as the sequel to The Long Halloween and, as such, should be compared to it.  For this book does not live up to the standards of The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, Red Son, or Watchmen--the four graphic novels that I have decided represent the pinnacles of the medium.  It is on par with The Long Halloween, and I would state that it is slightly better, because there is only one inconceivable plot twist at the end, rather than several.

The prologue picks up where The Long Halloween left off--essentially retelling the story of the serial killer "Holiday."  We see Holiday in Arkham Asylum being interviewed by the new Gotham District Attorney, Janice Porter.  Porter wants to reopen Holiday's case on the grounds that the police committed a violation of the 8th amendment in their capture of him (he endured "quite a beating").  Commissioner Gordon does not think this is wise but the D.A does not need his approval to reopen the case.  Batman shows up right after and Gordon says, "I miss him."  Batman says, "Don't."

Chapter 1, "War" recreates a scene that is by now, more than familiar: Batman's origin story.  However we also see Carmine "The Roman" Falcone tell a young Bruce Wayne that his father saved his life, and that if he ever needed a favor, he knew who to call.  We then see a major character in Dark Victory, Sofia Falcone Gigante, "The Roman's" daughter.  Members from another crime family, the Maronis, are present in this sort of funereal ceremony.  Batman is watching and Selina Kyle is inside.  The place gets busted up, but nobody "big" is captured by Gordon.  We then see Selina Kyle visit Bruce Wayne while he is swimming in his pool, accompanied by another member of the Falcone family.  We then see Janice Porter visit Gordon again:

"District Attorney Janice Porter.  As a result of Harvey Dent's removal from office, the City Council moved quickly to replace him.  Harvard Law, top of her class.  Six years as D.A. in Boston.  A lot of experience in a short amount of time.  But Boston is not Gotham City." (35)

So at least we know that (it's not Chicago, either, which is where Gordon came from).

We also see the Gotham City Bridge on page 42 and it looks a lot like the Brooklyn Bridge.  Also, remember a key scene from The Dark Knight Rises--Gotham City is unmistakably New York City.  And it is with deep regret that I must take a moment from this review and state that I will not be able to  film Batman in Brooklyn because I will be leaving this place in about a month.  It is with a very heavy heart that I announce this, but instead we will have to move forward with Back to the Future Part 2: Present, which will star my younger brother in Michael J. Fox's multiple roles in that film, and I will play Doc.  If anyone wants to make Batman in Brooklyn, however, I will gladly help to produce the film and help with the screenwriting.  Moving on...

Shortly after this (still on "War") it is Halloween night--the one year anniversary of "The Roman's" death.  Amazingly, we see Batman visit Two-Face in Arkham Asylum, during which mayhem ensues.  Poison Ivy makes an appearance, "Holday" stays in his cell even though the glass has been shattered, and Two-Face escapes.  Then, the scene shifts to a courtroom, where Judge Harkness allows "Holiday" to be kept under house arrest with an electronic monitor kept on his leg at all times.  Then we see that one police officer has been hanged, and many of Harvey Dent's files have been stolen from the D.A.'s office.  Attached to the hanged policeman's chest is a note, with a drawing of the children's game Hangman:

"N_NE _F Y__ _RE S_FE" (64)

The next chapter, "Secrets" involves Batman's attempt to solve the riddle by asking, who else, The Riddler.  We then see what happens to former Commissioner Loeb.  At this point, I am going to stop with the plot retelling because I do not want to spoil the rest.  Suffice to say that The Long Halloween is about a series of unsolved murders of members of crime families, and Dark Victory is about a series of unsolved murders of police officers.  In a sense this makes it like Year One, but that is more about Batman's first forays into crime-fighting and police corruption.  Dark Victory is sort of like all of these books mashed up into one--with Robin as the defining element, as noted on the cover.

All villains in the rogue's gallery make appearances: Poison Ivy, Joker, Catwoman, Riddler, Two-Face, Solomon Grundy, the Calendar Man, Scarecrow and notably, Mr. Freeze.   But this is really about the crime families.  And it is really about The Long Halloween, or a new way to interpret that book.

There is a great scene where Harvey Dent represents himself in court, and when asked if he swears to tell the truth he says, "I can't answer that question...because I'm not Harvey Dent.  The name is Two-Face."  (304)

There is also a nice little tidbit that Janice Porter went to Gotham University Law School while Harvey Dent was a young professor there, and that she transferred to Harvard.  In her Harvard yearbook it reads "Voted most likely to be D.A.  Favorite subject: criminal law."

Brooklyn Law School will not be putting out a yearbook this year, sadly.  I would like to put this under my picture if it did: "Voted most likely to be the first Supreme Court justice with a mediocre performance in law school; favorite subject: bankruptcy."  Of course our school does not take such votes, probably because few people know a majority of their 477 classmates.  Harvard is even bigger, and I would be interested to know if they publish such a yearbook (I have my doubts).

Before we conclude, it is worth noting in passing that Batman "sees himself" in Robin and initially is not really cool with the idea of having a sidekick.  Mostly we see Alfred supervising Dick Grayson (who is about 13--maybe slightly younger than his female version in The Dark Knight Returns), but Batman does offer a few words:

"Dick Grayson has been living in Wayne Manor.  It has been a...difficult transition.  For both of us.  And I cannot help but wonder if I have made a mistake by interceding in the boy's life.  My attention has been splintered.  I will find out who killed Dick's parents.  He needs that closure.  But, tonight is a holiday and I am needed elswhere." (264-265)

Later, Batman reveals his true identity to Dick Grayson and it signals the moment in which their partnership will begin.

That's most of what I wanted to say about this book.  It's a quality read (and as always, the illustration is fantastic) but it's not an example of the height of the genre.  There may be still another sequel to this book (Haunted Knight?) and I would gladly read it, though I would not have high expectations.

As a final note I do not think the Superman franchise was catapulted into the same league as the Batman franchise by its most recent film.  I did not see it, but the popularity at the box office is the barometer by which I measure the popularity of the superheroes.  Red Son should be made into a movie--THAT would be AWESOME.  But I don't think the world is ready for that yet.

The Long Halloween and Dark Victory could be made into movies, but they'd be too complicated.  And  I recently watched an animated film of Batman: Year One which was a very faithful and quality adaptation of the book.  But I don't think there's enough material for a movie--or at least people might not be as interested in it, because I really believe Jim Gordon is the protagonist of that book, and not Batman.  Still (since Batman in Brooklyn is on indefinite hiatus) The Dark Knight Returns could be made and I have very little doubt that it would do every bit as well at the box office as any of the three recent films (if not better).

Batman: Arkham Asylum (A Serious House on a Serious Earth) - Grant Morrison & Dave McKean

Arkham Asylum is a tough nut to crack.  On the one hand, it is a brilliant examination of mental illness and the violence that can flow from insanity.  On the other, it collapses under its own weight and fails to live up to its potential.  This may be so because it tries to cram as many Batman Villains (led by the Joker) as it can into one fairly concise story.  As the Joker explains, Batman is given one hour to escape from Arkham Asylum after he has entered by way of invitation:

"'Time to begin the evening's entertainment, I think.  If you're feeling up to it.'
'Up to what?'
'A nice little game of hide and seek.  You have one hour, sweetheart and there's no way out of the building.  One hour before all your friends come looking for you.  There's the Scarecrow and Clayface and Doctor Destiny, of course.  He seems so frail in that wheelchair but all he has to do is look at you and you stop being real.  He does so want to look at you darling.  Oh, and don't let's forget Croc.  He came up out of that damp, dark cellar this morning, dragging his chains behind him.  They all want to see you, so why don't you just run along now?'" (23-24)

Not mentioned by the Joker but included in this book are Maxie Zeus (who seems like a demented version of Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen), Professor Milo, the Mad Hatter, Black Mask, and Two-Face.  And I must admit that, like The Long Halloween, the best parts of this book involve Harvey Dent.

I count 9 Batman Villains in The Long Halloween, and I thought that book felt was short at 370 pages.  This is even shorter (120 pages), includes 10 villains, and eschews page numbers that make for easy excerpt searching (though there are nice "extras" with the book that includes a black-and-white script of all the text, which will be referred to for this review) and it is necessary to say word or two about the drawing style.

The Long Halloween has fairly typical illustration for a Batman book, and I enjoyed it.  Arkham Asylum, by contrast, is probably the most shocking Batman book for its visual style.  Everything seems blurry and bloody and if the reader is on Amanita Mushrooms or something then they may be tempted to see things in the pictures that aren't really there (or maybe they are really there, and the artist, Dave McKean, has hidden them in such a way that the reader questions themselves).  One could imagine that this renders Arkham Asylum a triumph of the graphic novel form, and while this book is at times brilliant, one simply cannot say that the book is "highly recommended" if the second half of it collapses under the weight of its first half.

That is how I feel about this book in a nutshell.  The first half is wonderful, and the second half is a crazy collection of action, Tales of the Black Freighter-esque literature-within-literature, and a tidy ending that renders everything that came before almost meaningless.

There are good moments in the second half, such as the Clayface/Scarecrow/Mad Hatter triple threat that bombards Batman one-by-one at the height of the action, or the ending that involves a decision made by Two-Face, but Arkham Asylum would have benefited by extrapolating more background information on the "Rogue's Gallery."  Clayface and Destiny, for example, are quite interesting, but they are left behind shortly after their introduction, as are most of the other villains.  The result is a story that would be a perfect template for a theme park ride (much better than say, "The Dark Knight" at Six Flags) in a sort of reverse-Pirates-of-the-Carribean situation, but fails as a work of literature.  As a "comic book," it is all well and good, but the story is not unsettling in quite the same way as The Dark Knight Returns (or Red Son or Watchmen, for that matter).

I also don't think I am exaggerating the level of sophistication that went into its production:

"The subtitle was taken from Philip Larkin's poem 'Church Going.'  The story's themes were inspired by Lewis Carroll, quantum physics, Jung and Crowley, its visual style by surrealism, Eastern European creepiness, Cocteau, Artaud, Svankmajer, the Brothers Quay, etc.  The intention was to create something that was more like a piece of music or an experimental film than a typical comic adventure book.  I wanted to approach Batman from the point of view of the dreamlike, emotional and irrational hemisphere, as a response to the very literal, 'realistic' 'left brain' treatment of superheroes which was in vogue at the time, in the wake of The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, and others." (preface to script)

Will you enjoy Arkham Asylum if you like Batman comic books in general?  Probably.  Is it as good as The Killing Joke?  Not by a long-shot.  That was a shorter story, dense and concisely-packed into a neat package.  However, I wouldn't buy The Killing Joke (in hardcover at least) because of its length.  You can read it in one sitting at Barnes & Noble.  The same goes for Arkham Asylum and I bought it off Amazon.

If you are interested in horror or the macabre, this actually might be your favorite Batman book.  But I am personally more interested in comedy and drama and imaginative excess.  This book has moments of dark humor and a dramatic moment or two--and it certainly shows some imagination in the telling of Dr. Arkham's back story--which is probably the strongest element of the book.  And it even pays reference to Batman's often debated homosexuality, when the Joker squeezes Batman's butt and then says, "What's the matter?  Have I touched a nerve?  How is the Boy Wonder?  Started shaving yet?" (14)

But unfortunately it is just not enough.  In short, it opens up like a bat out of a hell (terrible cliche and pun, I know, but accurate) and then whimpers its way through its second half.  Just when all the fun is supposed to begin, the reader might ask themselves what all of the fuss is about this book.

Regardless, I didn't consider reading this book a waste of time--I would just not want to drum up any unrealistic expectations of its greatness.

Batman: Year One - Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli with Richmond Lewis

The opening page has something very titillating:

THE CRIME BLOTTER
by Slam Bradley
OOPS!  SHE DID IT AGAIN!
Gossip diva Vicki Vale got her legendary, notoriously firm, shapely fanny tossed into the hoosegow yet again after trying to lift an estimated $11,320.00 worth of merchandise from the Sprang.  The cutie klepto pled guilty.  After paying for the loot and promising on a whole big heap of bibles to seek counseling, she got off with a wink and nod to the judge.
Leave us say the dame knows how to wink.
One juror says she even blew a kiss to the horny old fart.
You can't make this crap up!

It is with something of a heavy heart that I cannot recommend Batman: Year One as highly as some of the previous comic books reviewed here.  Make no mistake--Year One is a good read--but I came into it expecting The Long Halloween to get blown out of the water.  Now, Year One may be a "more perfect" and "concise" work than The Long Halloween (and indeed lacks the "triple-twist" which perhaps undermines the rest of the story of Halloween) but it is not as creative or imaginative as Red Son, Watchmen, or The Dark Knight Returns.  In short, the last review (of The Long Halloween) included a statement by Jeph Loeb that Year One was the true masterpiece in the Batman graphic novel world (even though The Dark Knight Returns possessed the greater cultural cache).  I cannot agree with him.

There is really very little to complain about here, and so this review will likely be short.  The story opens and closes with Lieutenant Jim Gordon.  He and Batman share equal billing in this volume--Gordon may even get higher billing.  This could be a flaw of the book--that Batman's character is not as well-developed as you would expect for his "origin" story.  Bruce Wayne does appear, on the second page, returning to Gotham City after 12 years "abroad."  He has not yet become Batman, and (while I do seem to be dismissing the praise this book has received) there are a few excellent scenes where he takes his first stabs at crime-fighting.

Bruce Wayne appears in public as a "playboy" who is given to drunken excess and womanizing.  This is all a ploy to detract attention from his new role.  In his first "fighting scene" he walks through Gotham's red-light district and gets solicited by a very young looking prostitute, who is also not very experienced.  Her pimp explains that she is doing it all wrong, and that she is picking out the "wrong" type of client--that Wayne in his disguise (which is really just a scar he makes across his face) could be "vice."  Selina watches from a window above, making catty comments: "Oh.  Geez...Can't be Vice.  We're Paid up.  Just some idiot out to get himself killed....You know what I hate most about men, skunk?  Never met one."  (11)

Selina (or Catwoman) makes a couple appearances and, as usual, establishes herself as neither an ally or enemy of Batman--though certainly leaning towards the former.

This book is not really about Batman so much as it is about Gordon and the corruption of the Gotham City Police Department.  D.A. Harvey Dent does not get a much bigger role than a few choice scenes.  The Mayor of Gotham and the Commissioner are corrupt.  Many police officers are just as bad as the criminals, and are in fact in cahoots with the criminals (Carmine "The Roman" Falcone--who is a major character in The Long Halloween, makes a brief appearance towards the end of this story).

It is mainly about Gordon fighting corruption within the Department, but also about Batman's fumbling first attempts, which are quite entertaining:
"The costume works--better than I'd hoped.  They freeze and stare and give me all the time in the world...I come in close on the one who looks the strongest--throw him a growl I've brought all the way from Africa----and suddenly everything falls to pieces.  The one to my left calls for his mother----to my right the other collects his senses and leaps to position--he'll be trouble----the strong one gets scared--too scared--No----I'm no killer----he screams like a girl----can't be older than fifteen----a child--just a child----the one I was worried about takes his shot----he's trained--kick's got power--" (31)

Probably the strongest part of the book is Chapter Three: Black Dawn, in which Batman is trapped in an enclosed area and surrounded by cops who are intent on killing him.  He uses a device that he has not yet tested out on these conditions.  This is probably the best scene in the entire book, in terms of Batman action. And that is a lot of what this book is about--action and fighting sequences.  I would have liked to see more character development.

Lieutenant Gordon, as noted, gets the majority of that.  In fact, there are a few nice panels that certainly bring the paintings of Edward Hopper to mind (and are referenced accordingly) and show that Gordon is certainly not perfect, either.  This is the first time (maybe the only time) that he takes a somewhat immoral tack, and for that alone it is significant.  By the end of the story, Gordon has made a few strides in his war on crime, and has befriended Batman (at something of an arm's length) and is waiting for help because someone named the Joker has poisoned the Gotham reservoir.

So, the opening page, which seems to identify this book as The Dark Knight Returns Pt. 2 sadly does not come to pass.  Vicki Vale is just a name, not a journalist as in the Tim Burton film.  We don't get to see her, or her apparent fall from grace.  There is no Robin, male or female.  There are no bad guys who are trying to hide their identity.  There is just police corruption.  So in one sense this book is the "most realistic" of the Batman comic books, but that quality also makes it the most mundane.  It is well-done on the whole, but lacks the sort of excitement and imaginative excess that the other pieces boast.  It is not long and it is probably worth reading--many others seem to view it as the epitome of the "Batman renaissance" in the comic book world, so I suggest you check it out before buying into my view.  But I can't help the way I feel--for my money, The Dark Knight Returns is the book that will really "knock your socks off"--Year One will just serve as a nice ottoman as you relax by your fire.

Batman: The Long Halloween - Jeph Loeb & Tim Sale

The Long Halloween will be the first comic book/graphic novel that I review here that gets less than a perfect review.  This is not to say that it is a bad book, but it cannot touch any of the four previously reviewed works (which all very well may be nearly impossible to equal).  At the very least the introduction (by Jeph Loeb) states that Batman: Year One is actually the "preferred" classic in both his and Tim Sale's opinion, "while not as much the pop culture icon" as Frank Miller's other highly-acclaimed Batman book (reviewed here - it all seems so long ago....).  Ultimately, this "failure" is understandable, as The Long Halloween is a collection of a 13-issue series.  So it is more like a regular comic book than any of those previous four.  And that tends to show.

Now we cannot fault Loeb & Sale for filling in the "latecomers" to the series and repeating information previously reported in earlier issues, but this is the primary defect I can state.  This book is 370 pages long and I read it in one day.  That may sound impressive but it's really not.  Red Son is 151 pages long and took me two days to read.  Watchmen took me a very long time to read (mainly because I wanted to savor the experience).  The Dark Knight Returns took me a good four days or so to read.  The only one I read faster was The Killing Joke and that is only a single-issue "one-off" (and it was also much more dense than The Long Halloween).

And yet this book is definitely worth reading, even if it goes down too fast.  It seems like finally here, we have the closest influence on the new Batman trilogy.  This is a story about Carmine "The Roman" Falcone--who is a mob boss--and his competitor Maroni--both of which appeared in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (The Dark Knight Rises did not have the "mafia element" in it, from what I recall) respectively.  That I cannot recall their "subplots" in those films with any confidence is perhaps a sign that when Batman tries to weave into "Mafia territory," general interest seems to dip.  Still, this is a good story.  It is, however, a little bit cheap in the way three or four twists are introduced in the final 30-40 pages (and especially the epilogue, which, while not terrible, stands in deep contrast to the peerless ending to Red Son).

The story concerns Batman, Commissioner Gordon, and D.A. Harvey Dent (it is worth noting that this book was especially useful for me as I continue to visualize Batman in Brooklyn) and their efforts to bring down Falcone, whose family is the "evil" that is terrorizing Gotham City.  There is nothing particularly strange about this Batman or this Gordon--but this Dent is perhaps the strongest element of the book and probably the most compelling portrayal of the character thus far.  I will not reveal the manner in which Dent "becomes" Two-Face in this, but it does happen, and while The Dark Knight certainly gave a better treatment to Two-Face/Dent than Batman or Batman Forever, it seems modeled off of this book, and dressed up for greater dramatic effect.

However, Falcone is not the main focus of the book--that would have to be Holiday--which is the name of the serial killer that drives the plot of the book, killing another person (generally from Falcone's extended family) on each holiday.  The identity of Holiday becomes the major question in the book and as mentioned above, is ultimately somewhat unsatisfying.

Yet along the way there are an insane number of other villains: Catwoman (?), the Calendar Man, the Joker, "Solomon Grundy (?)," Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, The Mad Hatter, The Riddler, and even the Penguin (though I must say his appearance is abbreviated).  There is no Robin, and there is no Batgirl (no Superman either, though Metropolis is referenced once).  They may be getting used to add "padding" to an otherwise thin plot, but I really don't want to be too uncharitable to this book, because it really is a fine effort.  I would give it four out of five stars (if I am using a 5 star system for books instead of a 4 star one) and all previously reviewed comics five stars.

Again, it is not very easy to transcribe passages from the work, but there is one part that stands out:

"My father had an old Dictaphone.  He kept it in his study.  He would make recordings.  I can still hear his voice...'When faced with a seemingly insurmountable problem...your only option is to act swiftly, some might even say irrationally.  Removing the most dangerous elements first....and methodically attacking each subsequent challenge in a separate, but deliberate manner.'  He was referring...to surgery." (347-349)

I hope this review has not come off too harshly, because the book itself is drawn extremely well, and it is never boring (if it were boring I would not have read it in a day).  So I recommend it--but not ahead of the other two Batman books previously reviewed.

Superman: Red Son - Mark Millar, Dave Johnson, Killian Plunkett, Andrew Robinson, and Walden Wong

Superman: Red Son is a three-part graphic novel/comic book that is on par with The Dark Knight Returns or The Killing Joke, and nearly rises to the heights of Watchmen.  In short, while I hasten to note that my education in comics is still pretty elementary, this must stand among the best comics ever done.  It may be that I am more obsessed with Batman at the moment and so have not given Superman my fair attention--but it seems to me that Red Son is not as highly-touted as either of the above-two mentioned Batman comics.  This is a mistake and more people need to know that this is out there (of course I may be extremely ignorant and this may be common knowledge to even the most casual reader of comics--but I have to believe I am more objective than that and have a realistic understanding of the common knowledge of mass culture: if this story was part of it, then it boggles the mind that it had not been turned into a movie--there were rave reviews of the new Man of Steel trailer and one hopes the film will incorporate elements of this book's tone).

Where Watchmen has an alternate version of 1985 with Richard Nixon still President, Red Son has an alternate version of 1978 with John F. Kennedy still President (and with Nixon assassinated in 1963).  Batman, Wonder Woman, and Green Lantern all show up, and Lex Luthor becomes basically the greatest American hero of all time.  The creativity in the book is summed up nicely in a quick conversation between Superman and Wonder Woman as they are flying through the air:

"'So, how was America?'
'Disgusting, Superman.  Absolutely disgusting.  It's Nineteen Seventy-Eight and children are still sleeping in the streets over there.  Why does Kennedy cling to this capitalist dogma when it's quite clearly tearing his country apart?'
'Pride, I suppose.  He'll come around eventually.'
'I told him he should devote more time to his crumbling economy and less to those painted movie stars he seems to pursue with such vigor.  That country has never been the same since Nixon was assassinated in Nineteen Sixty-Three.  I still maintain that was the beginning of the end for them.'" (75)

In the introduction to the book, Tom Desanto writes that Red Son is "a sharp social commentary on capitalism vs. communism and current American foreign policy."  That gets it about right.  It is really amazing what insights can be made when a classic comic book is re-imagined from the perspective of the Other.  Superman basically becomes a totalitarian leader, and Batman symbolizes the underground rebellion.  Lex Luthor saves America from economic ruin and re-establishes capitalism as the global norm, but all in an effort just to destroy Superman, and with the irony that his end goal of perfectionism of the human race is basically the same as Superman's vision but under a different name.

There is much more I could say about this book in terms of plot, but like the review for Watchmen, that would spoil much of the fun of reading it.  It is just worth reiterating that the entire DC Universe is perfectly accommodated by the story.  It is hilarious at times and profound at others, and the ending is masterfully done.  Perhaps one day in the future this will be made into a movie, but I am afraid that it would require enormous resources and be difficult for a studio head to get behind--even though this subject matter is not really "controversial" anymore, it may be regarded as an extremely subversive plot line.  Regardless, like Watchmen it is hard to imagine that a movie could match up to the experience of reading the book itself.  I read it in about two days and it was nice to be reminded that I can still be blown away by something that hasn't been hyped to death.

Skyfall - Dir. Sam Mendes (The Bond Project #23 - JM)

Skyfall (2012)

Dir: Sam Mendes

Mendes Aims a Walther at Oscar
by
Jay Maronde

                50 years after Dr. No was first released, and six James Bonds later, the James Bond Franchise is now going stronger than ever with the release of BOND 23 aka Skyfall. While this film featured an almost interminable wait while MGM reorganized under Chapter 11, director Sam Mendes, who was signed onto the project during the filming of Quantum of Solace, hung on quietly through the corporate bankruptcy process and did everything possible to make the film more than worth the wait. And it shows with beautiful colours.

His vision of a big money blockbuster action movie with a plot and story worthy of a real film was directly inspired by Christopher Nolan’s exciting work with the new Batman trilogy, and much as the that new trilogy has delighted audiences worldwide, Mendes work has been just as successful, managing to stand tall against other epic holiday releases such as the conclusion of the Twilight saga. The movie has something for everyone. I’ve seen it three times so it’s easily worth it for you, dear reader, to see once.

                Let me start with the two biggest features of this film: Dench and Bardem. First off this is Dame Judi Dench’s 7^th appearance as the staunch old grey lady at the head of Britain’s MI6. This is easily her (or any M’s) biggest role in the entire James Bond Franchise and she is glorious! Let me say right here, if nothing else, she deserves an Oscar for this this performance. As the only woman who Bond can relate to or respect, her role in his life and Bond’s role in hers is profoundly explored in beautiful twisted ways throughout the film. Such character development is almost rare in a Bond Movie, but as I’ve already mentioned this isn’t a movie, this is a film.  Mendes directs her so well and explores her character so deeply and thoroughly it almost brings to mind the levels of stunning character development within his Oscar-winning American Beauty (of note: Skyfall is the first Bond ever to be directed by an Academy Award winning Director, and the Eon Productions staff should stick to hiring very good directors because—in truth—when you give a very good director a very large budget, there is a relatively high chance of them producing a film as enjoyable as Skyfall).

                While there had been much speculation that BOND 23 would complete the Craig/Bond trilogy, and finally have Bond take down the evil organization known as Quantum, the producers announced during press conferences that in true Bond fashion the franchise would go new places, leaving this evil organization to be slain by Bond at a later date. As such there is no reference to Quantum and a new villain is brought to the silver screen and most certainly the history books in Raoul Silva.

Mendes had originally spoken with Kevin Spacey (who I have long thought would make a fantastic Bond villain) about taking the role of Silva, but after he refused talks turned to Javier Bardem. Bardem is only the second Oscar winner (having won for No Country For Old Men) ever to play a Bond villain (the first was Christopher Walken, fresh off of The Deer Hunter, in A View to a Kill ) and if I were part of the Academy I would make him the first Bond Villain to win an Oscar. He is outrageously good—sickeningly and scarily good! Bardem had the whole script translated into his native Spanish so as to be able to better understand the film and he worked extensively with Mendes on his character’s development. All of this sets the bar incredibly high for whoever accepts the role as the next Bond villain.  I’ve seen all the Bond Films, and there have been a few weirder villains, but Bardem can easily stand toe-to-toe with the bests (worsts). I don’t want to give away any spoilers but Silva definitely made the audience collectively gasp at all of the screenings I attended.

                 As always this film features certain Bond staples such as beautiful women. And yes, women, as Skyfall is the first Bond ever in which all of the Bond Girls are referred to as Bond Women. First off there is Bond’s associate Eve (played magically by the inordinately beautiful Naomie Harris) who provides great assistance to Bond in the opening scene before things take an ugly turn. She returns later in the film to provide a few gasps of her own, but her beauty is stunning and her onscreen rapport with Craig is unmatched. Also of note is Silva’s henchwoman Severine, who is played by the stunning Berenice Lim Marlohe. I’ve always felt that the Bond franchise has chosen more “typically Asian” actresses, often to the detriment of the film, but Marlohe is radiant, effluent, and magical. She has also commented that she was surprised at Daniel Craig’s modesty when filming their shower scene, and that she demanded he lose his shorts and that she offered to do ANYTHING to make him more comfortable. Clearly, being James Bond has some perks even in real life.

                Another Bond staple that returns in this film is Q and the Quartermaster Branch of MI6, which have both been revamped for the modern era. Instead of an armorer, Q is more of a super nerd, and is played excellently by the very believable Ben Whishaw, who I am told by numerous women is easily as “hunk-able” as Daniel Craig. Q plays one of his larger roles in the Canon, providing much assistance to Bond throughout the film even while the Franchise eschews more of the sillier Bond gadgets, in lieu of more realism. Q and Bond’s interactions throughout the film also always serve to enlighten the audience even more to the dark icy role of Craig’s (again marvelous performance as) Bond by using Whishaw’s delightful nerd as the perfect foil.

                I couldn’t write this review without paying at least some mention to the action in this film. While the Bond Canon has always been known for its stupendous action sequences, Skyfall takes the franchise to an entirely new plateau. There are car chases, fist fights, assassinations, helicopters (which by the way, the helicopter featured in the film is the same exact helicopter from which Bond and Her Majesty the Queen jumped to open the 2012 London Olympics) train chases, scorpions, automatic weapons, motorcycle chases, and even an all-out gun battle in the middle of Parliament. Again I can’t stress how great of a plan it is to give a really good director a really big budget. The movies have always been about making “unreality” happen for the viewer and this Bond is heart-stopping (though hopefully it will not end your life).

                Now that I’ve raved on for some time about what makes this film so delightful I would like to take a brief moment and discuss what I did not like, which luckily is extremely minor and should not detract  very much at all from what is a great film. First off, the Adele theme song sucks. It has done well on the pop charts, and I know Adele is all the rage and probably the closest that the production staff could come in finding a new age Shirley Bassey, but the song is boring. It kind of gets stuck in your head in a way that I don’t like. To be honest, they should have had Adele record the song, and then let Kanye remix it a-la “Diamonds Are Forever.” This is obviously minor in the scope of the film, but I couldn’t let her off unscathed. The other factor I didn’t like about this movie (which is entirely personal) is that this film is really, really, really, really long. Like seriously, go to the bathroom before you sit down in the theater and only get the medium squishy because otherwise you are going to need a pee break. This is the second longest Bond film ever, only one minute shorter than Casino Royale and only one minute longer than On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. It’s long, I feel like it drags at points, but I doubt most critics would complain about this fact. Even though this film is long, it is very good, so as I said initially these two complaints are relatively minor.

                Skyfall is an excellent film and Mendes definitely deserves a pat on the back. I doubt the Academy will even consider giving the film, Mendes, or Craig a nomination, let alone the prize, as they have always been notoriously unkind to franchise films. But it will be a crime against the art if Dench doesn’t at least get a nomination for her exquisite performance. Bardem also deserves an Oscar for his performance as he is quickly turning out to be one of the great evil genius actors in a generation or more. This film is wonderful, and I suggest seeing it more than once just to be able to appreciate the way the entire audience gasps and applauds at various moments. 

On Her Majesty's Secret Service - Dir. Peter R. Hunt (The Bond Project #6)

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)

Dir: Peter R. Hunt
GEORGE F***ING LAZENBY!!!

By Jay Maronde

                A long time ago, in a London Towne far, far away, two men had a problem. These two men were Bond producers Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli, and their problem was that they had built one of the most successful film franchises of all time around a tremendous actor, who didn’t want to make any more movies for the franchise. The world was clamoring for another Bond, but there was no one to play the role. The next movie had already been promised, scouted, and financed. Thus, production of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service began.

Luckily for history, Peter R. Hunt had already been promised to direct the next James Bond film as part of his deal for editing You Only Live Twice. Hunt had said from the beginning that he wanted this “to be his Bond, and no one else’s” and this dedication towards creating a masterpiece served OHMSS so well that despite all of its flaw and foibles, this film is absolutely radiant and possibly saved one of cinematography’s finest franchises from an unnecessarily early demise.

                Around the same time as the aforementioned two men had their problem, there was a strapping young (only 29 years old at the time, making him by far the youngest Bond) pseudo-unemployed Australian (making him the only Bond not born and raised under Her Majesty’s Flag) actor named George Lazenby, and he also had a problem. Lazenby’s problem was that he was tired of being a used car dealer and magazine model, and that shooting television commercials wasn’t making him a rich and famous actor fast enough.

Now our first two men were auditioning all sorts of famous and or important and or talented actors for this most iconic of roles, at one point the position was even offered to Adam West, who declined, feeling that the role was best left to a Brit. Now, George Lazenby felt that he could do it, and concluded rationally that if he could be Bond, it would be the role of a lifetime. But he had almost no acting experience, so he set a little plan in motion: he would act like Bond. He bought himself a Savile Row suit, always dressed dapperly, and, on the day before his audition, even went to Sean Connery’s London barber to get the correct haircut. It was at this location where the fates took over, for also having his hair cut that very same day, was one of our two men with a problem, Albert Broccoli. Broccoli was impressed by Lazenby’s devotion to the cause and felt the he fit the part. During the audition, Lazenby accidentally punched a stuntman in the face and broke his nose, and this pretty much sealed the deal for the producers: the world had its new James Bond.

George Lazenby isn’t a bad Bond. He was, however, an incredibly inexperienced actor, and in general he was a silly young dude. He said in interviews that he had no idea how to be an actor, and was doing his best to “act” like Sean Connery. He also complained that the director Peter Hunt instructed everyone on set to leave him alone and not talk to him, because Hunt felt that it would make him a better Bond. There is a story that Telly Savalas (who is amazingly well-cast as Ernst Stavro Blofeld), once invited Lazenby to a poker game with the Teamsters and promptly cleaned him out of all his per diem money (producer Saltzman is said to have come back to the same poker game the next night, won Lazenby back all his money, and instructed Savalas “not to mess with my guy”). Lazenby also attempted to do some of his own stunts, which resulted in a broken arm, tremendously upsetting the studio and insurance folk, and setting back production for some time.

Despite all this, Lazenby overcomes. He looks the role, and any viewer can tell that he loves what he’s doing and that at all times he is giving “110%.” Lazenby may not be the greatest actor, but he certainly is not a bad Bond by any means, and his performance has so much heart that even though he may have had one of the toughest roles in history—replacing an iconic character who had been built around another iconic actor—he comes off with a shining performance and manages to continue the franchise’s success with what became one of the most popular films that year.

                Opposite this new unknown Bond, the producers knew they needed not just a big star, but a huge star. Numerous starlets from the world over were auditioned, including, but not limited to such beauties as Brigitte Bardot, Jacqueline Bisset, and Catherine Deneuve. Finally, the producers chose Dame Diana Rigg as the Countessa Teresa (Tracy) di Vincenzo, the one and only woman that Bond would ever marry.

It’s worth mentioning that Rigg has since been voted the Sexiest TV star ever by the readers of TV guide magazine (Rigg appeared prominently as Emma Peel in “The Avengers” from 1965 through 1968), and you can easily see why from this film. She oozes a very particular type of sex appeal—a skin-crawling allure that almost leaves one breathless. She stacks up as a character foil to Bond, and she even looks great showing off her “Avengers” moves, fighting it out in several scenes. Rigg’s failing is that she doesn’t sell the role as well as Lazenby.

Rumors from the set filled the British tabloids during shooting: the established Rigg loathed the newcomer Lazenby. All of the rumors, stories, etc., have since been denied by all parties involved, but if you really watch the film you can almost taste her disgust for Lazenby. She seems almost more comfortable in her scenes with Blofeld (possibly because there were extra writers brought in to jazz up those dialogues and perhaps because she just felt that much more comfortable with the old pro actor Telly Savalas). Now for an ordinary Bond girl, none of this would have been a problem: a one-night-only conquest for the Queen doesn’t need to sell her role, she needs to smile and look good. For me, however, Bond’s one and only wife should not only be somehow more beautiful, but should also seem to be truly in love with the man.

SPOILER ALERT:

She gets murdered by Blofeld & Bunt (also a delightful casting decisision—Ilse Steppat in her last film, as she died four days after the premiere). This whole love story is what makes the movie run as long as it does (the only Bond film that has a longer running time is 2006’s Casino Royale, which also has a huge love plot that consumes a lot of time). I hate this, the entire schemata of a Bond wedding seems completely cuckoo to me. The only thing I can say is that this whole thing is somewhat redeemed by the lovely scene in which she dies. According to legend, Hunt had Lazenby perform the scene twice. The first time, Lazenby came to tears, at which point Hunt promptly yelled “CUT” and informed Lazenby that “Bond does not cry.” This, however, wasn’t the only obstacle that Hunt had to overcome in his directorial debut. The whole “George Lazenby as the new Bond” thing was problematic in so many ways. Initially the producers wanted some sort of rewrite to include Bond having a plastic surgery to make himself look different and thereby elude his enemies.  Eventually that idea was scrapped, and the plan became just to run with this new Bond as though there had been no change, and to have cast regulars such as M, Q, and Moneypenny treat him just a little more special. Tie-ins to other Bond films were included. The decision was also made to make the best possible film that could be rendered; as in You Only Live Twice, no expense was spared on locations or effects.

Hunt was quoted as saying that he wanted every shot and every angle to be as interesting and as perfect as possible. The Alps give much cinematic beauty to this film as there are many sweeping shots of the resplendent scenery throughout the film. Also noteworthy is the fantastic “fast-cut”* work that really livens up the action sequences, a technique which had been developed extensively for the franchise by Hunt himself during his time as editor of the early Bond Films, but used to its fullest extent in this film.

Additionally, one of the most fantastic sets ever was acquired as the location for Blofeld’s mountaintop fortress/allergy clinic: The Piz Gloria. The Piz Gloria is a real place, the world’s first revolving restaurant on top of a mountain; it is really on top of a Swiss Alp, and really is only accessible by helicopter or cable car. In real life the place is still called Piz Gloria, not just because of the fame brought to it by this film, but also because without the film, it is questionable as to whether the building would have been completed. When the director and producers were scouting locations, they came upon the Piz Gloria (at that time only partially completed), and financing for the project had dried up. In exchange for exclusive shooting rights, the film’s producers agreed to a large cash payment and assistance in the completion of its construction.

                Peter R. Hunt could be called the real hero of this James Bond film, not just because he saw through to completion what had to be one of the most difficult Bonds to produce, not because he had to work with a completely unknown and untrained actor as his Bond, but because he clearly took the time and effort necessary to turn what would could have been the whimpering finale of the Bond series into a majestic classic which stands up against all of the other films in this classic franchise.** As for George Lazenby, he tried hard, and put in a very good performance as Bond, but alas—much like Val Kilmer in his one-time turn as Batman—he will always be remembered as the “new guy.”

*Credit must potentially be given to Jean-Luc Godard as well, for he pioneered the use of “jump cuts” in his classic 1959 debut, Breathless.

**It is perhaps worth noting that there is no title song in this Bond, ostensibly because the producers felt it would be too much like a "Gilbert and Sullivan" opera if such a long title were turned into a song lyric.  Instead, there is a musical love montage, featuring "We Have All the Time in the World" by Louis Armstrong, which would turn out to be his last recorded song. 

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Exams/Grades

This is labeled NIED #15 on my computer, but this is the second NIED column to be rejected (and it may be the shortest--but the notes I have added in this post may make it the longest).  The first was "Batman in Aurora" which became a "Special Comment" on Flying Houses rather than an Op-Ed for the BLS Advocate.  That decision I could understand.  There, I was not writing precisely about law school, but there was only a tangential issue discussing a potential expansion of tort liability (on which I am, unfortunately, not an expert).  As may be clear from this blog I am pretty much incurably obsessed with Batman due to my film project and I mainly wanted to write about Batman*. 

This column, however, is very much about law school, but was rejected because the editorial board of BLS Advocate agreed that the point I was trying to make wasn't clear.  I will let you decide for yourself and comment.  This is unedited.  

The next NIED column for BLS Advocate will be #16.  #15 will not appear on BLS Advocate unless by way of reference.  

NIED #15: Exams/Grades             

By this point probably no one who finds this article does not realize that law school grades are derived almost entirely from an anonymously-graded exam given once at the end of a semester. Perhaps there are a couple readers stumbling upon this piece that do not realize profs may boost your grade up to 1/3 of a letter based on your in-class participation.  Those are the two single-most-acknowledged elements of law school grading – at least for 1Ls. 2Ls, 3Ls (and 4Ls, now, as they have apparently become recognized as a class) have a possible third element: write a paper.  Obviously, if you want to have control over your grade, and there is a paper option for the course (“in lieu of an exam”), write the f***ing paper**. Those courses are few and far between, though, and many are 2 credits.  And Legal Writing, I think most will agree, is not exactly a walk in the park, though the past elements of control are present. 

***Grade school, high school, and college grades were comprised of a mix of quizzes, tests, exams, papers, homework assignments, and class participation. Taking out quizzes, tests, and papers seems like a relief from the student’s perspective, but there are still “homework assignments.” However, while some profs will threaten to lower your grade by 1/3 of a letter, my guess is that this is a rare occurrence that only happens to the student who completely does not give a f***(****), does not read, barely makes it to 50% of classes, gets high in the morning, and feels as if they can magically intuit the rules of the law for the course. Thus, there is a distinct possibility that the majority of students occupy some region in between super-smart-nerd and super-dumb-jock, and that no matter how strong your understanding of the course, no matter how many trenchant comments you make or questions you ask, there is always a risk that your mind will explode when the proctor yells, “BEGIN!” and you hear a hundred booklets being flipped over, and you know the professor has said no cheating, no study aids, this is a closed book exam—but maybe they say “limited open book”—just bring your Code—and they tell you “no writing in your Code” but you know, you know that students are writing in their Code. Or else they have a crib*****.

There is just as much (if not more) cheating going on at law school as there was in grade school, high school, or college. And this time—we’re expected to believe—our grades actually matter. Sometimes profs themselves are just flat-out negligent when writing their exams******. Last year I took an open book exam and I brought in one of my “practice answers” from a previous exam given by the same professor. The same question, verbatim, appeared.  I looked at my answer and thought to myself, “Well, this will be a nice way to make up some time.”

But then doubt seeped in—what if I hadn’t written a great practice answer? Sure, I had reviewed that answer with other students previously, but did I take all of their comments properly into account? Whatever, I needed the time, and it was a decent answer.  I started transcribing from my three-ring binder that held all of my study materials and I looked up at a proctor for a moment. He seemed to be looking right at me—like I was turning my head from page to screen, page to screen, page to screen, in a clear act of cheating. I didn’t want to cause any commotion, so I stopped, thought to myself, “Even if I can’t transcribe this, I know this, and I know it better now than I did then.”

But then again, I am an open book. Most students—I recall—at least those that had their practice answers with them—did just transcribe. Some people in another exam cried or else threw-up; others wrote more in their Codes than (ambiguously) permitted. Most of the time there is no great surprise and everyone seems remarkably sure of themselves and it is in those instances where I know that I just f***ed up*******.

All the mystery, stress, paranoia, cheating, and loneliness of exam-taking should be thrown out of the law school curriculum********.  Unfortunately we live in a world governed by the ABA, and though most people will agree that there could be better alternatives, we’re not permitted to consider them.  Keep teaching Property as a core first year course.  Keep grading anonymous.  Keep exams in the same basic format, even though you could get way more creative and actually test practical skills.  Keep the OCI system in place.  I must admit, it feels mighty good to be this helpless in a system purportedly teaching us to help.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law. 

NOTES

*See http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/batman-in-brooklyn-mission-statement.html (a very long piece on the Batman film I will make), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-dark-knight-rises-dir-christopher.html (a review of the newest film, qualified immediately below in this note), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/special-comment-batman-in-aurora.html (the piece referenced), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/07/killing-joke-alan-moore-and-brian.html (a review of a famous Batman comic), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/06/dark-knight-returns-frank-miller-with.html (a review of a famous Batman graphic novel). As a side note, I saw The Dark Knight Rises again last weekend, and after a second viewing I will fully admit that it is a flawed film, and suffers from an extremely "non-creative" script.  The first half of the film is excellent, but I might go so far as to say the second half of the film is laughable (sample line: 1: So, you came back to die with your city? 2: No, I came back to stop you.  --Should be changed to-- 1: So, you came back to die with your city?  2: No, I just wanted a rematch.).  Regardless, my rankings stand (still feel Dark Knight Rises eclipses Batman Returns) and I still believe everyone should see it.  (Though--other side note--I am very much looking forward to the forthcoming review of License to Kill for The Bond Project....)

Notes below represent edits/comments related to the "unpublishability" of "Exams/Grades."  

**Some might consider this to be an uncouth sentence and the use of the (expurgated) f-bomb to be entirely unprofessional.  However, I use this language to underscore the force of my advice.  I took one class with this option, and while the paper sounded like a huge pain in the butt to juggle with everything else, in retrospect several students told me they wished they wrote the paper.  Not only was it my highest grade, but it was as close to getting the "journal experience" (by which I mean, concentrating the utmost care upon every single word and citation, and organizing one's thoughts and research into a coherent and readable article) as possible for a non-member.  Bottom line: if you have the option, DO NOT take the exam.  You obtain a more robust educational experience, and you will be able to better control your GPA.

***Those past elements of control were present during the earlier stages of our academic upbringings.  

****Language used to underscore the degree to which a student must fail to participate to enable grade-lowering.  I do not like sitting in the back row of law school classrooms because I get distracted by all of the other students being distracted by facebook, news sites, gmail, or, most odious to the poor student, online shopping.  These students may still give a f*** despite their rank indifference to the professor speaking in front of them.  The students that stay up all night doing blow, sleep through class, and attend exactly 40% of classes (or fails to attend because attendance is not actually taken in many classes) and who manage to ace the exam--even they can slip from the professor's memory as being a "poor participant" due to their excellent exam performance.  This is one of the vaguer forms of "cheating" that occurs with surprising regularity.  However, this is an apparent contradiction of my point, and this type of student generally is not going to ace the exam--and if they do, then it is a sign that they must "give a f***" to a certain degree.  Bottom line: students inevitably brag about how little work they do to score incredibly high, and that may cause frustration in the listener if they cannot compete with them.

*****This is an "inside joke"/reference to the most difficult exam I have ever taken (and which I understand, was also considered the most difficult exam any student in that class had ever taken).  If the point here was unclear, it is understandable, but further specificity could be interpreted as slander, which I do my best to avoid in NIED columns.

******I would remove this line if published by BLS Advocate in accordance with the note directly above. I do not believe this professor is negligent--and indeed repeating a question from an earlier exam may not be considered negligence--but rather a gift to the students that made the effort to tackle every practice exam.  However, other professors are certainly negligent in the exams they give students:
They owe us a duty (to foster our understanding of an area of law)
They breach that duty (by testing a concept that they gave short shrift in class)
They cause an injury (to the student's grade because the student could not prepare to answer a question which the professor did not indicate would be tested on the exam)

They cause damages (which are extraordinarily difficult to monetize).

This could be the topic of a long rhetorical essay (and would need to proceed on a case-by-case basis, as some students are just whiners, and some professors will actually spend 5 minutes talking about something, actually put it on the exam, and actually expect students to appropriately focus their efforts on the most time-consuming topics, and quickly note the "5 minute topic") and I will stop here.

*******Language used to underscore the extraordinary sensation of failure and impending sadness caused by such an event.

********This final paragraph could be another major reason for "unpublishability."  Here I come out with guns blazing so my words may be taken poorly.  The point is that "law school reform" is a joke, and there must be real reform if we want to produce an environment where students will be encouraged by their experience and accordingly "be fair" in their practice of law and not discouraged by some of the rank inequalities (potentially causing "ruthless" and/or "morally bankrupt" legal careers) that arise in an "imperfect, though best possible" system.  Bottom line, and basic point to the article: exams are probably the #1 claim students may have against law schools for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and devising a better system where this is no longer the case is definitely possible.  But schools fear the wrath of the ABA.  They fear that "experimental" procedures will reflect poorly on the academic ability of their students.  It's perfectly understandable.  This does not mean however, that people should refrain my imagining alternatives, or writing about their feelings on the matter, even when they concede an important point.  Such passivity allows a totalitarian regime to continue to dominate its subjects and no person who claims to believe that the free exchange of ideas leads to positive societal developments can argue otherwise.

James Bond 007: Goldfinger - Dir. Guy Hamilton

James Bond 007: Goldfinger (1964)

Bond Goes Blockbuster

by Jay Maronde

The third cinema installment of the 007 franchise takes Bond to a fantastic new level, a level which manages to raise the bar for the films of the franchise in so many new ways that its initial release not only changed the world of Bond, but the whole world’s perception on not only the secret agent film genre but the entire concept of James Bond. That’s right, I said it, Goldfinger redefines not only the world of “Bond” but redefines and elucidates the essence of Bond to the world. Pray tell how one film could do so much?..... Well that’s what this article is about! 

First and Foremost let us start with the “firsts.” Goldfinger is the first film in which Commander Bond steps foot in America. It’s also the first film with a completely tangential opening scene, in which Bond uses a fantastic duck snorkel to perform some unplanned demolition of a drug lab.  Now, obviously after your favorite secret agent blows up a South American cartel headquarters, he’s going to need to get out of town, pretty quickly, and obviously he’ll need to go to Fontainebleau* in Miami Beach for some well-deserved R&R.  Before Bond gets to MIA however, the movies cuts away to its fantastic opening sequence complete with the first Shirley Bassey theme song of the series. Bassey would go on to record several more uber-classic theme songs for the franchise, but “Goldfinger” (the song) was the first, and I’ve had its classic hook stuck in my head for more than a few days now.  While the music plays, the title credits roll and scenes from the film are shown projected on gold painted body parts of a beautiful woman.

 This is where the story really begins after the opening credits: Here we find our AMERICAN friend Felix Leiter, tracking down Bond to give him a new assignment, and as Bond and Leiter meet for the first time, the fantastic misogyny begins to ooze, and the metamorphosis of  Bond’s pop cultural definition as the ultimate ladies’ man begins.  Don’t get me wrong, the first two movies contain numerous references to Bond’s proclivities as a lush, but here in this first Miami scene he quickly dispatches his (second (in the film)) lady friend with a smack on the ass and the comment that he and his friend need to have “man talk.” Now personally I love misogynistic Bond. He’s the man, and he’s acting like it in a way that would make a Barnard girl’s skin crawl.  This attitude/swagger/charisma/skew is what makes Bond EPIC, but it does come with its pitfalls: if Bond is more extreme in his character then certainly much more extreme things must happen. And they do. As such the now long-standing Bond tradition of “Sex for dinner, death for breakfast” begins in earnest. Bond’s first move in Miami Beach (after donning an enviable post swimming baby blue terry-cloth onesie) is to not only steal the main villain’s “girlfriend” but to cause Mr. Auric Goldfinger to lose a $15,000 game of cards. (That’s 1960’s money remember, gold is roughly $30/oz in the film, and current prices are well over $1500/oz, you can do the math if you are stickler type**.) Clearly the Villain is displeased, and Jill Masterson (who bears a striking resemblance to one of my favorite bartenders) has to die. Her death scene is not only one of the most referenced Bond lady deaths, but also has inspired its own “Mythbusters” episode, was highlighted with a huge spread in LIFE magazine, and was even referenced in JB007:#22 Quantum Of Solace by way of Strawberry Fields's death. Sadly for the fictional Masterson parents, Jill’s sister also dies in a 007 exploit later in the film.

Another area of "firsts" comes from Q branch. Having realized the popularity of the Quartermaster Corps and the average film-goers fascination with Bond’s gadgets, the producers chose to include a full scene where Bond travels to the Q-branch offices. Herein Bond gets his now standard tour of the new “tools” in development, and is assigned his new car: The Aston Martin DB5. Bond’s car might be the only thing more famous than himself (possibly because its non-fictional) and in an ironic footnote of history, the Aston Martin Company almost didn’t go for it. I’m certainly sure that now they are quite glad they did as Bond’s Classic DB5 is one of the most recognizable cars in global popular culture, and now as they are currently in production as of BOND23, Bond is once again driving an Aston. Further, the producers licensed an “official” JB:DB5 toy car, which later became the bestselling toy of 1964. All these "firsts" are dwarfed in comparison to the big first: THE MONEY.

The Guinness Book Of World Records lists Goldfinger as the fastest grossing movie EVER. In fact, Goldfinger was produced with a budget of the two other Bond films combined. That three milllion dollars of 1964 money (approx. $22M in 2012) yielded a movie that would become the first blockbuster in the franchise. Goldfinger’s producers’ recouped their money in roughly a week, the movie then went on  to gross over $124 million dollars (again, 1964 money, inflation calculators figure that amount would be roughly equal to $850 million in today dollars) in fact the movie was so popular that some cinemas were compelled to stay open 24 hours a day and continuously show Goldfinger just to keep up with popular demand.     

Shockingly, the box office figures only comprised a fraction of the film franchise's profits in other arenas. The producers also “struck Gold,” as it were, by licensing everything they could think of--from lunch boxes, to menswear, to albums. This remarkable amount of money directly correlates to how Goldfinger changed the game even for Bond. Director Guy Hamilton’s new "Uber-Bond" was such a smashing success that spy movies became so popular that in 1965 came the release of no less than 20 other Spy Genre films. The whole world had gone Bonkers for Bond.

The new James Bond of Goldfinger is amazing, in no small part due to the man playing him. This film was Sean Connery’s third appearance as Bond, and the actor seems to fill out the role like never before. Maybe it was just the standard cultural misogyny of the 1960’s or what have you, (I couldn’t tell you, I’m too young to remember) but Connery seems even more perfect as Bond as soon as the first well-gaffed ass smack comes during the scene in Miami. He then proceeds to evoke even more Bond perfection as the movie goes on. During the course of this film, James Bond not only talks his way out of a laser death machine (and by the way, lasers weren’t even invented yet, making that another Bond First), but winks his way out of jail cell, and literally saves the world with his “Mojo.” In all of these scenarios Sean Connery’s gratuitous personal swag comes across the silver screen as clear as an azure summer afternoon and completely “sells” each scene. Only an actor reprising a role which he has already worked extensively on could possibly exude such confidence of character***. Connery and Bond merge forever into the pop culture collective. Connery was great and he knew it; but this led to some very interesting complications, most of which had to do with money. 

As the movie was being filmed and the popularity was growing, Connery realized he should get more money. As such, and due to an injury he suffered during filming, Connery negotiated a 5% cut from the take of all the Bond Films he would star in. (Again, in case math isn’t your forte: 5% of $850 million, is $42.5 Million.) Connery had redefined Bond and movie stardom as a whole.               

All these fantastic gizmos, and lasers, and Gold would be for naught if Connery had been cast beside losers, or nobodies, or even just plain crap actors, so I personally feel that one of Director Guy Hamilton’s most outstanding contributions to whole world of Bond, was to be able to cast wonderful, memorable, important actors to the other roles. The real standout in history is the casting of Honor Blackman as “Pussy Galore,” Goldfinger’s personal pilot, and boss of her very own “Flying Circus.”  First off let us note that this is another Bond Film "first": the blatant hyper-sexualizing of a female name. This (one of my favorite) Bond traditions, has been “flirted” with many times throughout the course of the rest of the franchise, but I really don’t think anything can come close to “Pussy Galore.” Blackman was already famous from “The Avengers” and this played no small part in her being cast. In fact, part of the script was re-written to highlight her judo skills. Further, Pussy’s role as the leader of an all-female cadre of pilots has served to highlight the middle century views of women’s empowerment, and establish Pussy as a feminist foil to Bond’s rampant misogyny. Without the yin there can be no yang, so inasmuch as Bond needed a feminist to offset his sexism, Connery also needed exquisite actors to star as his villains, and here Hamilton shines again.

Many, Many actors were considered and auditioned for the role of Auric Goldfinger. It was the title character of the next film in an already incredibly successful cinematic franchise. Eventually, with Orson Welles demanding an outrageous amount of money, the producers chose the German actor Gert Fröbe. The title character is wonderful. He acts exactly like one would imagine a super villain would: he cheats at everything, pays beautiful women to stay in his company, and always seems to have yet another killing machine for disposing of his enemies. He even has a golden gun! The super-secret about Fröbe was that (much like Ursula Andress in Dr. No) his English was atrocious. Hamilton had him phonetically deliver all his lines (at double speed, so his face looks right in the film) and then dubbed him using the voice of American actor Michael Collins.  Fröbe does such a fantastic job with the acting, and Hamilton with the editing that I never even would have guessed, had I not read it in Wikipedia.

If you were the world’s biggest super villain, clearly you are much too cool and important and busy to do your own bidding, plus you obviously need security. In Auric Goldfinger’s case, you already have a small army of Asian goonies at your beck and call, so your number one assistant obviously should be a Korean Manservant. And here, for our viewing pleasure, we come upon one of most famous cinematic villains ever in Oddjob. Hamilton’s casting skills were beyond reproach again as he cast the Olympic silver medal winning weight lifter Harold Sakata. Previous to GoldFinger Mr. Sakata had been a television wrestler. Hamilton saw him and immediately knew he had his villain. The fact that Mr. Sakata could also barely speak English was also no problem as the role had no words, merely a few well-placed grunts. It’s a tribute to both Sakata and Hamilton that the character of Oddjob still shines throughout all this, and to this day is referenced in many different areas of popular culture.

When the viewer considers the multiplicity of Bond "firsts," it is apparent that Goldfinger, like Dr. No and From Russia, With Love before it, made great strides**** in honing the "Bond formula" that has allowed it to stand the test of time and remain a viable franchise for 50 years.  No other character can lay claim to such a feat.  

 *The Fontainebleau Hotel was embroiled in litigation before Goldfinger was made.  This case (decided in 1959) has not been referenced on Flying Houses before, but was one of the more memorable topics in Property.  The Fontainebleau's owner did not like the neighboring hotel's owner, so he decided to construct an addition which would block the sunlight from the other hotel's pool and tanning area.  The court referenced the "ancient lights" doctrine and noted that it had been universally repudiated in the United States, even though it had been recognized in England (perhaps the producers of Goldfinger were enraged by such a notion, and used the location as a political statement--but it is highly doubtful).  The court ruled that the addition could be constructed, even though it was quite clear that the idea arose out of a personal dispute.  I could not stop writing about this case on my Property exam because I felt it had been so badly decided.  Of course, the neighboring hotel will suffer economic loss because people are not going to Miami Beach to tan in the shade.  -JK

**By my math, Goldfinger would have lost $750,000 in 2012 dollars.-JK

***Which leads me to wonder what Batman Forever would have been like had Michael Keaton retained the role.-JK

****One hopes that the writer of these reviews will be able to deliver a ranking of all Bond films after Skyfall is released.  It is difficult to tell whether he prefers Goldfinger to From Russia, With Love, though it seems clear that while he has great admiration for Dr. No, he does not consider it as strong a film as its two immediate sequels.-JK

Batman in Brooklyn: Mission Statement

Why is Batman in Brooklyn Important?

Because it is a Batman movie.  All Batman movies are important at the time of their release (though opinions may differ, mine is that two of the films--or three--or four--are mostly forgotten to history, but five films endure).  Batman in Brooklyn will be important when it is released.  We are aiming for a release date of December 20, 2013.  The premiere must take place, of course, in Brooklyn.  Preferably at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.

But aside from the excitement that each new Batman movie generates upon its release, Batman movies are important in general because they reflect society via metaphor (as all films should aspire to do).  This metaphor has been written about here previously (see "Batman in Aurora" post) but is essentially the struggle between good and evil--that is, the choice to be good or evil.

It is essential that Batman in Brooklyn be made because Brooklyn is Batman's true home.  Yes, I know Gotham City is his true home, and most people associate Manhattan with Gotham--but there are plenty of signs that Brooklyn is a more realistic setting for Batman than Manhattan (See The Dark Knight Rises denouement. See also Bloomberg's decision to divert all traffic in Manhattan so that a "g**d*** Batman movie" could be shot, in the words of Keith Olbermann).

I think it practically goes without saying that Batman is the most commercially successful comic book character film franchise--and will never be topped.  Not by Superman.  Not by Spiderman.  Not by Iron Man.  Not by The Avengers.  No.  (Not by Twilight.  Not by Hunger Games.  Not by Harry Potter.  And not by Fifty Shades of Grey either, or the Lord of the Rings for that matter.)

Those movies do not get nominated for Oscars.

Lord of the Rings did, but I challenge anyone to argue that that Trilogy is better than the new Batman Trilogy.  I do not think there is any better Trilogy except for the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones films.  I would rank one other Trilogy in the same class:

1) Star Wars (excluding the 3 new movies)
2) Indiana Jones (excluding the 4th)
3) "The Dark Knight" Trilogy
4) Back to the Future

The difference is that those films (ALL OF THEM!) are unrealistic action-adventure fantasy epics.  Batman is very much the story of modern society and all of its attendant psychological uncertainties.  (There may be some dispute as to whether BTTF is unrealistic, but most scientists agree that time travel into the past is impossible.)

Batman in Brooklyn is essentially a remake of the original Batman (1988) but elements have been added to the make this film entirely something new.  Here are the key differences:

1) Budget.

Batman had a massive budget, and was the most successful film in box office history (by opening weekend receipts) at the time of its release.  Jack Nicholson became the highest paid actor in film history (until Leonardo DiCaprio copied his idea for--surprise,surprise--Christopher Nolan's one-non-Batman movie amidst his trilogy--another highly-acclaimed film). But it took about ten years to make, numerous script revisions were made, and a last minute horse-riding accident necessitated re-casting the female lead (Kim Basinger subbing for Sean Young).  Roger Ebert's review (which gave the film 2 stars) said that it was beautiful to look at, but did not appear as if anyone had any fun while making it.

Batman in Brooklyn will be filmed on the most meager of budgets.  The special effects will be a joke.  But it will be fun to make.  And while it will exist in a metaphorical world where Marc Drier is not in jail in 2012, it will be directly situated in real world events.  While the make-up and costumes and art direction may suffer from some aesthetic deficiencies, it will be the quality of the performances that take the film out of the "remake genre" and into the "update genre."

Some films need to be updated, and some do not.  Superman was definitely in need of an update, and we will see how Man of Steel stacks up next summer, but Superman Returns was certainly a disappointment.  The original Superman is not bad at all - from what I understand (I've only seen most of Superman 2 - which I think most people consider comparable to the first) - but it is certainly a relic of its time.  Batman Returns is more of a relic of the early 1990s than is Batman, and so in a sense might be the better film to remake.  However, Batman Returns is a significantly more complex film.  Ebert also gave it 2 stars.

2) Not directed by Tim Burton.

Let me make this clear: I do like Batman Returns--a lot.  But, as Ebert I think correctly points out, the film is very episodic and lacks a coherent plot.  There are wonderful scenes--the opening scene is probably the most heartbreaking scene in any Batman film, period.  Danny DeVito does what he can with the role of The Penguin--but I believe the film suffers from "Burton-vision."

Let's delve even deeper into Burton and Ebert.  Interestingly, Ebert gave Beetlejuice 2 stars.  Beetlejuice may not be a 4 star film (which I would give it), but at least deserves 3.  Ebert concedes that it is a "fairly original" plot (understatement!) but then goes on to denounce Michael Keaton's performance!  He claims that every scene with Keaton is a misstep.  I believe this is patently false and time has shown that performance to be a stroke of comic genius.

(Note: I have not yet read the review of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure but I suspect it got 4 stars...)

It is interesting to note that Burton made Edward Scissorhands in between Batman and Batman Returns.  Ebert also gave Edward Scissorhands 2 stars (he may have given it 2.5, I can't recall).  Again, Ebert is wrong.  Note here that most of the time, I totally agree with Ebert.  I do not LOVE Edward Scissorhands, but it is better than 2 stars.  Deserves 3.  Many people would say it deserves 4.  Some consider it a classic film.

And then look at what Burton went on to do (everything?).  He directed Batman at age 29 (another reason I am meant to make Batman in Brooklyn).  He took Johnny Depp as his de-facto star, and in the 20 years since Batman Returns, became a Hollywood icon of the most unlikely sort, creating a visual style completely his own.

Also interesting to note: Tim Burton's first film was Frankenweenie--a live action film judged to be unsuitable for children.  Tim Burton's upcoming film is Frankenweenie.  Not live action, but "Nightmare Before Christmas-style" live action.  I do think it is important to remember that Tim Burton has made these films since 1992: Ed Wood (excellent), Mars Attacks! (underrated/misunderstood), Sleepy Hollow (boring), Planet of the Apes (a remake worse than the original, as they usually are--See The Parent Trap), Big Fish (excellent), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (a remake worse than the original--but not without its certain charm and visual originality that Apes lacked), Corpse Bride (excellent--and though I may be in the minority here, an improvement upon Nightmare Before Christmas), Sweeney Todd (a film I could not watch for more than five minutes - boring), Alice in Wonderland (a remake worse than the original, and lacking a certain charm despite supposed visual originality--too weird), and Dark Shadows earlier this summer (never saw it, heard it was not good).  Frankenweenie will be out before the end of the year and looks to be a very emotionally compelling film. (Trivia: Johnny Depp is in 8 of these films and has appeared with alarming regularity since Charlie.)

 With Frankenweenie coming out, and Tim Burton's career coming "full circle" in some sort of sense, which includes more than its fair share of remakes, this is the perfect time to make Batman in Brooklyn.

3) Bloomberg.

The Mayor of Brooklyn is not Mayor Borg - but Mayor Bloomberg.  He is undoubtedly one of the most ridiculous mayors in American history, and his time will soon be up in New York.  Batman in Brooklyn is, on a sub-textual level, a critique of New York City Post-9/11.  It is a critique of capitalism and the fraud that it necessitates.  It is a critique of politics and media coverage.  Finally it is a critique of humanity--or rather, inhumanity.  That is, "silent/helpless observation," or "apathetic one-dimensional thought."  Whoever is next elected Mayor of New York has a great task ahead--but it will be their leadership that determines whether this city sinks (like in the 1980s) or is restored to another period of glory (2001-2002, late 1990s, mid-1960s, etc.).  Batman in Brooklyn will be the cinematic equivalent of The Prince - a text that informs the powerful how to best govern the citizenry.

4) No famous actors.

Batman in Brooklyn was going to be very important if D.A. Hynes of Brooklyn were to play himself, but word has recently leaked out that he is no longer interested in the project.  While this rumor has yet to be substantiated (I call statements made by press secretaries "rumors"), if it proves true, the project must go on regardless.

While Jay-Z might be a very good celebrity to get involved (or Brooks Lopez, who is apparently a big fan of Batman), we simply lack the personal connections to make such a business arrangement feasible.  But the project continues to evolve, and new forms of serendipity seem to affect it on a weekly, if not daily basis.  Anything is possible--until the scenes are shot.

5) New sub-plot.

The new sub-plot will make the film much more coherent than the original Batman because it will bring in more "macro" concerns that the "Dark Knight" Trilogy has been so good at incorporating.  I am being purposefully vague so I do not ruin the surprise.

However, I must state that some discussion of including Superman as a villain has taken place.  The final decision on this matter has not been made, but while there is a strong presumption in favor of including Superman, adding said element could be the proverbial straw to break the camel's back, given the apparent extraordinary difficulty of making Batman in Brooklyn in the first place.  Everybody wants to see Superman in a Batman movie, but we run the risk of turning the project into more of an absurdity than it already may be considered.

Why Would Batman in Brooklyn Fail?

Because I am not a professional director.  I did not go to film school.  While I will concede that this film is likely to be a failure, it will be completed, even if it gets to the point that I need to play (almost) every single role there is in it.  Batman in Brooklyn is a personal statement for me, and my love for film, and my love for Batman.

When I was about 6, I wrote a screenplay for "Star Wars Part 4" (which probably would have been better than The Phantom Menace proved to be about ten years later).  When I was 18, I opted into Blockbuster's 30 rentals for 30 dollars for 30 days deal - and I went to the store every single day to get a new film (most of them were Woody Allen movies).  I went to NYU, ostensibly for film school, but decided against it at the time.  I did not like the rigid structures that those students had to adhere to, and I did not see how I would make any money straight out of it.  So I focused on writing first.

And I tried to work in the real world.  And I wrote novels, short stories, memoirs, essays, and book reviews.

And I went to law school.  This is the real turning point in my life.  My writing dreams have been dashed due to my own personal belief that the book industry has died due to mass-ADHD-outbreak, where the only books that get read are those that are turned into massively successful film trilogies. And because I have gotten mired in the rigidity that is an education in legal doctrine, I rediscovered my love of film and the freedom such expression entails.

I do believe that law school has improved my writing (this post excepted--for various reasons, primary amongst them its personal nature) and Batman in Brooklyn is my attempt to show the world that just because I did not go to film school, just because it is not made with even "adequate" equipment, just because the players are not actors--but mostly law students (which requires a certain measure of acting skills, to be sure), just because there is no financing, just because it's probably a minefield of copyright and trademark infringements, just because I'm incredibly busy as a 3L looking for a post-grad job, along with balancing my coursework and all the other extracurricular commitments I've foolishly bought into, and just because nobody knows who I am, I can make a film that is truly different and great.

And I do believe, that while Batman in Brooklyn is likely to be a failure, it is a necessary failure--for it is only the first step in a planned set of four films (Back to the Future Part 2: Present to be released October 21, 2015; The Parent Trap Redux to be released November 18, 2016; and Older Wayne's World to be released October 27, 2017).  I know from my experience with writing novels that the first, at least for me, was primarily a learning experience.  I only hope that my experience with film will not cause me to abandon all future projects because of the extreme difficulty of it all.

I know that making a film is not an easy thing, but Batman in Brooklyn is not supposed to be easy.  However, it is supposed to be fun and if we have fun making it, even if it fails to find an audience, then it will bring me much happiness and personal satisfaction.