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: 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.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #17: Preemption

As previously promised, this is NIED column #17 on Preemption.  It is primarily intended to address preemption in the Law Review context--but truth be told I did not make it onto a Journal at our law school and so my analysis of the preemption concept may not square with the wisdom of such fortunate students.  However, preemption arises in other contexts, and the episode that this column describes is in fact true.  Nevertheless, at this point I have serious doubts that the friend of my friend was telling the truth when he said he was "really tired because he was out partying with Lindsay Lohan the night before."  I have heard stories of people that simply make things up on Facebook and claim they are friends with celebrities.  I have no patience for these types of persons and do not want anyone to consider me as being "on that level."  I like to think I give people the benefit of the doubt, but I do indeed have serious doubts that Ms. Lohan will be interested in a contract (paying perhaps $100) for the lead female role in Batman in Brooklyn.  Regardless, if she happens to come upon this post by some serendipitous act, I would be very interested indeed in discussing the project with her.  While my time and funding are at all-time lows, my creativity, I think, is at an all-time high.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress No. 17: Pre-Emption

                I recently heard that a friend of a friend had been hanging out with Lindsay Lohan all night. A few days later, Lindsay Lohan was on the news, apparently the victim of an assault in a Manhattan hotel room. 

                Before the assault though, I told my friend, “Look.  Hynes is no longer able to be in Batman in Brooklyn.  It would have been exciting to have him, but we can’t.  But.  If we can get Lindsay Lohan. This film will be incredibly important.  It will be her comeback.  And it is made all the more perfect by my Parent Trap Redux (due about November 18, 2016) – which specifically abrogates the Parent Trap remake.  Give me five minutes with her and I guarantee I can get her to sign on.”

                Previously I had been formulating the idea for the opening shots of the film. It opens with a shot of the new World Trade Center and the Brooklyn Bridge, 50/50 in composition. There would be many more shots. Still shots. Landmarks around Brooklyn. There would need to be music in the background. I thought Dum Dum Girls would be appropriate. I thought “Jail La La” would be appropriate.

                A couple days after that, the assault occurred, and a news item on Pitchfork discussed a new film that Lohan will appear in. It is directed by Paul Schrader (screenwriter of Taxi Driver, director of a dozen other vaguely-acclaimed films) and written by Bret Easton Ellis (uber-hipster). The preview consists of still shots taken around Los Angeles while a Dum Dum Girls song plays in the background.

                I weep.

                I get into trouble when I write about journals, but I must comment upon Preemption.  Many students complain about not being able to write about the topic they want to write about. But there are many topics that occur to me.  They occur whenever I observe a phenomenon in real life (say, for example, psychiatrist liability post-Tarasoff with the “Batman in Aurora” incident as the intro).  They occur whenever I do research for an internship (say, for example, establishing a BAC threshold for marijuana DWIs).  They occur whenever I do my reading assignment for the next day (say, for example, that holographic wills should be admitted in more states).  They do not occur when I actively try to think of a good topic to write about (say, for example, the effect of the Affordable Care Act on Medicare spending).

News flash: I did not make a journal. I wrote a 40 page paper with 188 footnotes though. 

I saw one journal article that had 350 footnotes though. 

It wasn’t good enough for the open note competition. So I am revising it.

But I found, when I did my preemption check, that I was, essentially, pre-empted by two articles.  (Briefly, my article was on the Temporary Help Industry. It was extraordinarily ambitious, but the reason stated for its rejection was that its personal elements detracted from its legal analysis. Understandable.) One addressed unemployment benefits for temps, and the other was basically the same as my article except it was longer and didn’t contain the personal element (and I quoted from it liberally).

                And so we cannot write about that topic—or rather, we just have to “tweak” our topic so that it’s “original” but we may have to focus on a tangential issue that we don’t find as intriguing—because somebody else got there first.

                It is almost like in Manhattan when Woody Allen asks Michael Murphy why he deserves to go out with Diane Keaton.  Murphy says, “I liked her first,” to which Allen replies, “What are you, six years old?” It’s almost like the Great Journal Editors in the Sky are saying, “You couldn’t possibly do a better job, so you can’t write about the same thing.”

                The obvious analogue here is copyright law—but I will not purport to know anything about that since (due to my own great fault and misfortune) I have not been able to take that course.  But I know that it is not okay to steal someone else’s idea.

                I suppose that the rationale underlying preemption is that we do not want to encourage law students to write articles that have little hope of being published, because a journal would not want to publish a duplicative article.  But as far as I am concerned, so long as the article updates an old article, it should not be pre-empted (as indeed mine was not, written as it was in 2009, before the real effects of the financial crisis had been more clearly reflected in reality).

                Which leads to my final point: since the past 5 years have involved a significant social upheaval, preemption should not be a problem, because this “Great Depression Part Two” affected almost every sector of the economy and American life in general—to the point that articles taking stock of its aftermath should not be struck down by the Preemption Hammer.

                Unfortunately for me and Ms. Lohan, the film industry doesn’t even pretend to be fair.  If the legal industry at least wants to give the appearance of fairness, it needs to be changed from the bottom up, and that means journal reform—as vague as it may sound.  I may not make the same film I want to make due to pre-emption, but law students should not be pre-empted from writing the articles they want to write. 

                Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law.  He has been told not to be defensive about his failure to obtain journal membership, but he cannot stay quiet in the face of injustice—particularly when it rains down upon him.    

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #16 - No. 1 Against the Rush

While I have not been as prolific this year, it is not due to any fault of my own.  Whereas last year almost every single one of my columns was posted to BLS Advocate with nary a complaint, there has been a tad bit more scrutiny this year.  NIED #15: Exams/Grades was never posted--though it appeared on this blog (the link is included below if you cannot navigate the archival dates on the right hand side of this blog).  Surprisingly, #16 was considered worthy of publication.  This is a strange piece but it is written to discuss the concept of "rushing around everywhere" as law students tend to do.  Fortunately, columns #17 and #18 were published on BLS Advocate, and they will be posted here shortly (over the next two days).  I have stated that there will be 24 NIED columns in all, and that they will become progressively more esoteric and artistic.  

I may or may not hold myself to that latter adjective, but I will complete 24, and I will state that #19 will appear in January and will be on the topic of post-graduate job applications.  For now enjoy "No. 1 Against the Rush" - free of the edits made for BLS Advocate.

NIED #16: No. 1 Against the Rush

By Christopher J. Knorps

Pitchfork: I suppose I can quiz you on "No. 1 Against the Rush"-- which NFL team held that title last year?

AA: We were talking about the 49ers. They played well last year. Man, fuck. They were contenders.

AH: It's good though because when we titled that song, people thought it was this arty thing against, like, euphoria.*

I

Liars (who put this song out as the first single on their most recent album WIXIW – pronounced “wish you”) are not lawyers, but they are an important band (at least in my opinion) because they constantly challenge the listener’s expectations. With this in mind I dedicate this column to that band and suggest two interpretations gleaned from that song and that football statistic that apply to law school:

1)      Block the rush

2)      Do not mind the rush

In football, if you are number one against the rush, the other team will be forced to pass more often because they will expect you to destroy their running game. So if you are number one against the rush, you may be concerned about pass protection—or even what counts as a catch.

In law school, if you are number one against the rush, it means that you succeed where others fail. “Rush,” in this case, does not mean “euphoria” but rushing around, juggling tasks, and prioritizing (see NIED #7, “Super Administrative Priority Expense,” 3/21/12). With these principles in mind, we may now properly inquire which interpretation of the song is most useful for the average reasonable law student.

II

If you “block the rush,” you may be number one against the rush in football, but you will not be a better law student. Simply put: there is no way to block the rush.

An apt metaphor for “blocking the rush” in the context of law school is difficult to devise. But you will (generally) be forced to rush around, and “blocking” it might simply be saying “no.” 

If you say “no,” it’s still possible to succeed, but with so many other students saying “yes” (and thereby accepting the rush) it will prove more difficult.

III

If you “do not mind the rush,” you will not be number one against the rush in football, but you will be a better law student. Simply put: do not pay attention to what other people are doing.

Some (non-exhaustive) illustrations may be instructive:

·         If you make Moot Court, of course, you may want to participate in the Writing Competition (but it is perfectly acceptable not to do so). 

·         If you do not make Moot Court, it is probably a good idea to at least try your hand at the Writing Competition (but if you are guaranteed a job after graduation by virtue of nepotism, previous professional experience, or the like, then you do not need to do anything except earn C’s—which is quite easy in law school).

·         If you do not make Moot Court or a Journal, you need to be working at an internship every semester, and ideally not “repeating” internships (but I know a few “repeaters”—and I would question this wisdom in the limited circumstances where you are able to meet important people within the organization and they have told you that they like you and offer you the opportunity to stay on through the next semester). 

·         Though it is hardly mandatory that everyone earn some sort of “certificate,” it is generally a good idea to develop an area of focus (but a lot of people say you have to take New York Civil Practice and Criminal Procedure and Corporations and Federal Income Taxation—the result being that you must choose your courses for your last 4 semesters wisely).

IV

If you are on Moot Court, if you are on Journal, if you are working at an internship, if you are taking Securities Regulation, if you are on the e-Board of one or two student organizations, and you work as a research assistant for a professor, then you are probably rushing around.

If you intend to make a film, put a band together for Brookfest, and write seemingly inconsequential columns for the BLS Advocate (among other activities), you are probably rushing around. And the problem with rushing around is that you stand a greater chance of forgetting some important event or appointment you have made. And once you miss an appointment for the first time, you will know how serious an error that is (depending of course on the people involved).

While this syllogism could be criticized as a contradiction (i.e. “you are saying do not ‘say no’ to the rush, but you are also saying do not pay attention to what other students are doing, and your article is a fumbling attempt to make a point where one does not exist”), I feel that it is a subtle piece of advice that students (particularly 1Ls or even “pre-laws”) should take to heart.

V

The principles of law school success do not equate to principles of football success. Law school is not a full contact sport, though there may be poor officiating (see NIED #15, “Exams/Grades,” 9/16/12, available at http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/negligent-infliction-of-emotional_16.html (last visited 9/26/12)). Metaphors in this regard are only devised by means of verbal wizardry, and are hardly worth contemplating.

Music, however, may apply to whatever one desires. And as Liars reflect upon their “breakthrough success” in the neo-no-wave/electroclash “scene” in the Brooklyn music community circa 2002, perhaps BLS alums will offer similar reflections:

Pitchfork: It's been 10 years since you made your first record in New York. Since then, a lot of the bands from that Brooklyn scene have gone away. Do you feel like you had to get away from New York for your own artistic vitality?

AA: In hindsight, it was really a great time, though we definitely didn't want to be part of it then. It's funny, whenever any of those bands from that period puts out a record, I will definitely listen to the whole thing, even though I might not be that interested in the music. I still have that connection. But the thing that bugged us the most was being locked into something. Obviously, it was a journalistic tool to help people. That's fine. Since then, the approach has really been to avoid being part of anything like that as much as possible.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School. He enjoys studying bankruptcy law, is the managing editor of BLS Advocate, is the founder of Monthly Expense Project, serves as a UCD in the SBA, carries 16 credits, is trying to make a film entitled “Batman in Brooklyn,” is trying to put a band together for Brookfest, is trying to get a job that starts in August 2013, is trying to ignore the rush, and has not been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. 

*Interview excerpts courtesy of www.pitchfork.com. The full interview may be found here http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/8826-liars/

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.

Special Comment: Batman in Aurora

While this was intended as Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #14, my co-editors at BLS Advocate did not feel that it was appropriate for the site. They did not know where I was headed with this, and they felt that some of it might be offensive due to the nature of the shootings. This is totally understandable as nobody wants to touch this topic unless they accept "one-dimensional thinking" as an appropriate analytic process. Also, I fully admit this article jumps from idea to idea with little apparent "connection," but believe that within the totality of the piece, a meaning arises. While it is upsetting that BLS Advocate is not interested in the piece (for I believe it is one of the best I have ever written), and my audience will therefore be smaller, I am glad I do not need to edit out all of the seemingly irrelevant details. For BLS Advocate purposes, whatever I write next will be NIED #14, and this will remain simply a "Special Comment":

Batman in Aurora
by Christopher J. Knorps
On July 20, 2008, I went to see The Dark Knight at the movie theater at CityWalk at Universal Studios Hollywood with my two friends Mike and Molly.

On July 21, 2012, I called my friend Emily. I told her that, while Mike and Molly’s wedding was surely going to be a beautiful occasion, I was a tad upset that I would have to miss seeing The Dark Knight Rises during its opening weekend, given that Mike, Molly and I had done it four years previous. Emily responded that I should be happy that I hadn’t gone to a midnight screening in Aurora, Colorado, as a massacre had taken place there the previous night.

This was the first news I heard of it, and the last for a few days. The wedding took place in Big Sur, CA, and the majority of its attendees did not have cell phone reception or internet access. When I got back to Chicago and put the final touches on my ACA Analysis, I saw that far more releases had been posted on the www.whitehouse.gov website in regards to this massacre than in regards to the passage of the ACA. Clearly this is no small matter.

For those of you that do not already know, I am filming a shot-by-shot remake of the 1989 Tim Burton version of Batman, which will be titled Batman in Brooklyn. While I do not care to get into the particulars of my inspiration here, I will note that Charles Hynes has tentatively agreed to play himself (in the analogous role of D.A. Harvey Dent) and we will be needing student volunteers to play extras in one or two of his scenes, so please stay tuned.

Only July 27, 2012, my friend Joe texted me. Joe has recently taken a job in Albany, NY and is leaving Astoria. His text read as follows:

“Jack, i know this is late, but i think this whole shooting Colorado thing just made what you are trying to create all that more incredibly prescient and important. I know i cant be around for your production. Can i shoot some b-roll or secondary stock footage for your movie....”

He went onto describe the cobblestone paths of Albany, but I have since deleted the texts. Regardless, many people doubt my ability to pull this off next year since it will be such an incredibly busy one, but this has become a personal mission. As soon as Hynes became involved, I could not let the project peter out. Now that a mass-murderer (whose name I will not even deign to learn) has taken the “corporate opportunity” provided by a multi-billion dollar franchise to immortalize himself with a heinous act, Batman has undoubtedly become the most notorious comic book superhero of all time. And another Batman remake must be filmed.

Batman’s moral compass is not at issue here, though it is a subject of frequent debate amongst his fans. Superman is essentially a government tool (and probably a Republican if one takes Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns as his “true story”) and Spiderman is a nerdy kid whose morality is rarely, if ever questioned. It is unlikely that this killer was a fan of Batman, but more likely a fan of the Joker (I have seen his hair). 

In The Dark Knight, Heath Ledger cemented his status in the pantheon of American cinema with an iconic performance of that role and led many to write-off Jack Nicholson’s virtuoso accomplishment (which also made him the highest paid actor of his time) as nothing more than a footnote. But Ledger’s performance was seriously dark, the type of thing to spur imitation (in contrast to Nicholson’s--which was much funnier, and more inimitable). He also made it seem “cool” to be criminally insane. He supposedly took inspiration from Sid Vicious in the similar way that Johnny Depp took inspiration from Keith Richards for his role as Captain Jack Sparrow in The Pirates of the Caribbean films. Sid Vicious died young of a heroin overdose; Keith Richards lives on; Heath Ledger died young of an “accidental” overdose; Johnny Depp has been a Hollywood heart-throb for the past thirty years (and worked with Tim Burton more than any other actor); Jack Nicholson lounges in Los Angeles, and goes to far less Lakers games.

Kurt Cobain once said, “Punk rock is freedom.” Sid Vicious is a more popular figure in punk culture than Johnny Rotten because Johnny Rotten lives on, lounging in Los Angeles, collecting on the commodity he helped to create by branding himself an “anarchist.” Kurt Cobain also died young of a heroin overdose.  

It’s no secret that “living fast, dying young, and leaving a good-looking corpse” has been a mantra of the counterculture for the past sixty years, and while it is doubtful that this massacre will prevent similar future acts of self-destruction, it reinforces the “Columbine” issue, raised some thirteen years ago, raised on the campuses of Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech more recently, and now in the national spotlight again.  

Do video games make people more violent?  Do films make people more violent?  Can we blame a film for the deaths of 14 innocent people?  Should Warner Brothers pay for their funerals?  Does Christian Bale have a duty to visit the injured victims in a hospital?  

No. In Video Software Dealer’s Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger, the 9th Circuit held that California did not have a compelling interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm to minors allegedly caused by violent video games and that even if it had a compelling interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm allegedly caused to minors by violent video games, the law was not narrowly tailored to further that interest.  John Hinckley tried to shoot President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster, but no one goes around trying to be like Patrick Bateman (because he is a “dork”). Warner Brothers doesn’t have to pay for the funerals, but the movie theater showing the film offered to do so. And Christian Bale is not required to visit the victims, but he did because he knew it would mean a lot to them, and it probably did. It was the right thing to do.

This murderer was clearly imitating the Joker (the Ledger version) but his regime is over. The murderer will not escape from prison, or a home for the criminally-insane in Colorado (one of which incidentally housed my younger brother’s assailant after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, after being previously tried for attempted murder, and allowed to work in the school cafeteria). The Dark Knight Rises will still be an enormously successful film. Batman will remain as popular a figure as ever, and Batman in Brooklyn will be shot this Fall and Spring.

I will be playing the Joker in Batman in Brooklyn. And to me, there is a fine line between Batman and the Joker. Batman does not hate the Joker, and does not want to kill him, but feels that he must for the good of Gotham City. The Joker kills hundreds of innocent people.  Batman’s fans hate it when Batman kills, but he only kills when he has good reason to do so. Perhaps an analogy can be made to cops who shoot when presented with a threat to bodily injury, but Batman is never overzealous in his defensive measures. The fine line comes in where writers draw psychological parallels, namely, childhood trauma as a cause, and violence as an effect.  

The Joker, this murderer, the Columbine shooters, et. al. have been traumatized (as have many others who alternatively make positive contributions to society). The Joker has been disfigured by Batman. The Columbine shooters were bullied. And I don’t know about this murderer except I think he was getting his PHD in something and that he told his psychiatrist that he was planning some kind of “big event” (while graduate degrees may not be considered traumatizing, I think everyone at BLS knows earning one can drive you at least a little bit insane).

The interesting legal issue that arises to me is not gun control (which will be debated until the end of American history) but tort liability. Nobody had a duty to anyone in this case, except perhaps the psychiatrist. And while Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California held that a psychiatrist has a duty to report to the police if their patient expresses a desire to inflict harm upon a particular person, a potential civil action may arise in this case which may extend that policy to generalized groups of people. This is now certain to be a moral dilemma for psychiatrists: at what point does the patient cross the line that demands notification of the authorities?  

As the Joker states in The Killing Joke, an excellent story by Alan Moore, all it takes is one bad day to cross that line. Whatever it is that drives these people to violence may be one small remark (a stray gay joke, a slight regarding choice of clothing), or something more major (being forced to assist the Mob with an inside job after you’ve just learned of the deaths of your wife and unborn child), but it can be enough decimate hundreds of people’’s lives.  

Very few lessons, if any, can be learned from this tragedy. But I can think of one: we all need to be more sensitive to the needs of others. Hate breeds hate and if these people were happy, if they never had their “one bad day,” then they might have lived to help improve society, rather than harm individuals within it. It is entirely possible that The Dark Knight glorifies criminal violence and insanity, but the attraction towards that glorification is felt most strongly by the disaffected, the outcasts, the losers. This is not to say that any semblance of a glorification of violence should be purged from every film. The catharses that art can provide are every bit as valuable as the laughs derived from a stand-up comedy routine.

The solution is not to stop telling stories with morally ambiguous characters, but to ensure that people treat one another with love and respect. We are all on this bumpy ride together and we are all going to die anyways, and we shouldn’t be mocking people that have problems: we should be looking out for them and trying to improve the conditions for happiness across society as a whole. Once the most disaffected among us have the opportunity to attain happiness, senseless crimes will subside.  

            On August 5, 2012, I went to see The Dark Knight Rises in downtown Chicago at a 9:00 PM showing.  There was no security checkpoint, as I feared, nor any inappropriate jokes shouted near the opening.  There was only applause at the end.  A full review should be posted here in the next couple of days.

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

The Killing Joke - Alan Moore and Brian Bolland

The Killing Joke is not a graphic novel in the same sense as The Dark Knight Returns.  For one, it is about 40 pages long.  It is basically like one-quarter of The Dark Knight Returns.  Having said that, it's arguably better than any one of the four parts of that book.


The story is short and sweet and to the point and while I was afraid of "spoiling" The Dark Knight Returns, and therefore didn't want to even name the villains that Batman faces in that story, I have mentioned it to several people and most of them just admit that they'll never read it anyways, why don't I just tell them?  I do, but I'm doing them a disservice.  They don't know what they're missing.


I was going to buy The Killing Joke until I saw that it was $18 and could be read in one sitting at Barnes & Noble.  One night last week en route to picking up some take-out on a Friday night, I sat down up against the window of second floor B&N in downtown Evanston and ran through the book in about 30-45 minutes. It's brilliantly written, hilarious, very sad, slightly heartwarming, and perverted as hell.  Once again, definitely not a book for little kids.


What is most interesting is that the story is basically the Joker's, and Batman plays more of a supporting role.  Literally!  


The story opens up with Batman saying, "You know, I really, really don't want to, but one of these days, one of us is going to have to kill the other." (Note: I may be conflating this line with The Dark Night Returns, but the idea that Batman sympathizes with the Joker to a certain degree is accurate.)  Batman really doesn't hate the Joker as much as he does in other stories.  What he feels for him is more akin to pity.  And the opening of the story certainly lends a sympathetic air to the Joker.  



This is because it tells his "origin story" and it's so sad.  This is what makes The Killing Joke a real masterpiece (even though Alan Moore later said that he did not think it was very good, and even though most people agree that it does not rise to the level of Moore's other 3 famous graphic novels - Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen--all of which have been turned into movies ranging from mildly disappointing to downright disastrous).  


The Killing Joke is, in a sense, "turned into a movie" if one combines Batman (1989) and The Dark Knight (2008).  There was much talk in The Dark Knight about how you could not be sure of the Joker's true origin--but Batman left nothing to the imagination.  I think the truth is that it's a combination of the two.


First, yes, the Joker was married.  However, he did not cut his wife's face.  (He does disfigure Alicia, in Batman, but that is irrelevant here).  Instead, he works as an engineer at Axis Chemicals, and he decides that he wants to do what he really loves--which is to make people laugh.  So he quits his job and starts trying to work as a stand-up comedian--and is a horrible failure at it.  In one scene, he and his wife (who has recently become pregnant) sit in a restaurant and dwell upon their impoverished life since he quit his job.  Needing money, he decides to accept an offer from the Mob, who want him to help them break into a building next door to Axis Chemicals (note: I am lifting this is off of Wikipedia--my memory is not so sharp and I don't own the book--but apparently it's a "card company"--now one would assume that means credit cards, but it could actually be a card manufacturing facility, which is certainly more appropriate).  


Then, the police informs him that his wife has just died in an accident.  The Mob forces him to go forward with their plan even though he has been traumatized.  They put a Red Hood on him apparently to disguise him (though it seems more like a trope used to reference the real introduction of the Joker in Batman comic books--in 1951 in the issue "The Man Behind the Red Hood.").  Batman comes in to save the day, and the Mob is dispersed, but "Red Hood" is left standing there.  Having just lost his wife and unborn child, having lost out on the money he was going to get from the job, being a failure as a comedian, being trapped in a corner by Batman, he decides to commit suicide into a vat of acid.


Second, yes, the Joker was disfigured in a vat of acid.  While this does not explain his scars in The Dark Knight, this is a story that I like much better, because of how the rest unfolds.  The Joker, now in present day, decides to play a "big joke" on Gotham City.  The set-up for that Joke is to break into Commissioner Gordon's home.


He breaks in, and he kidnaps his daughter (who is perhaps in her late-teens to mid-twenties--it's unclear).  He takes her into a room, strips her naked, cuts her, and takes pictures of her being tortured.  Commissioner Gordon is also kidnapped and brought to a funhouse.  He is also stripped naked and put into a "freakshow" cage and forced to watch a slide-show of the torture of his daughter.  After only a short while, he goes insane.  This is the Joke: if a person is just pushed and pushed and pushed--just hard enough--they can cross the line from sanity to insanity.  


It is here--when Batman arrives--that the real theme of the story emerges: all it takes is "one bad day" to drive someone insane for the rest of their life.  Some people can be redeemed--like Batman.  And some people cannot.  But Batman believes that the Joker has to have a chance.  After Batman arrives and frees Commissioner Gordon and reunites him with his daughter, the Commissioner tells him not to kill the Joker but to bring him in to "show him the way we do things."


At this point the stage is set for the final scene, with the Joker taunting Batman that perhaps his madness is also attributable to "one bad day."  He then claims that there is nothing worth living for and gives a short speech about the virtues of nihilism and tells Batman "the Joke."


"See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum... and one night, one night they decide they don't like living in an asylum any more. They decide they're going to escape! So, like, they get up onto the roof, and there, just across this narrow gap, they see the rooftops of the town, stretching away in the moon light... stretching away to freedom. Now, the first guy, he jumps right across with no problem. But his friend, his friend didn't dare make the leap. Y'see... Y'see, he's afraid of falling. So then, the first guy has an idea... He says 'Hey! I have my flashlight with me! I'll shine it across the gap between the buildings. You can walk along the beam and join me!' B-but the second guy just shakes his head. He suh-says... He says 'Wh-what do you think I am? Crazy? You'd turn it off when I was half way across!"


The ending has been open to speculation, but I think I am reasonably sure of the way it ends.  Note that I would recommend both The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns very highly--but that The Killing Joke should be read first.  Philosophically, I think it is the most interesting story in the bunch, and since the Joker has always been my favorite character (indeed I will play him in Batman in Brooklyn) I am naturally drawn to this book.  As the present-day Joker and the "pre-suicide" Joker are presented alongside one another, one feels sympathy for the character in one instant, where all he cares about is taking care of his wife and making people laugh, and one feels derision (or maybe, catharsis?) as he mutilates and takes pictures and does who-knows-what else to the Commissioner's daughter.  This duality then, compared with Batman, who is psychologically "one" with the Joker, but morally opposed to his view of life--who takes his bitterness out on the world, making it a more miserable place, rather than trying to make it a better place by ridding it of such evils--makes the story something of a meditation on  human existence.


I was not going to pay $18 for the deluxe edition, but I would consider getting Alan Moore's DC Universe compilation, as this is apparently included in it, and it is a story that I would like to revisit some day in the future.  This has also been a very pleasurable "research" experience, as I hope to utilize some elements from both The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke in Batman in Brooklyn.  I may go back to Barnes & Noble today and read some more Batman comic books, actually.  That sounds like a pretty good idea, yeah....

The Dark Knight Returns - Frank Miller with Klaus Janson and Lynn Varley

This is the first graphic novel to be reviewed on Flying Houses, but (pseudo-oeuvre rule.....I mean, genre rule!) I have read Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware, and Horror Hospital Unplugged by Dennis Cooper.  "Horror Hospital Unplugged" was included in short story form in the collection Wrong, and though I did not review that book, I read it shortly before this book http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/04/userlands-new-fiction-writers-from.html, which inspired me to start Flying Houses.  So, it is not unreasonable to assume that Flying Houses will start to offer more reviews of graphic novels, because wow, they can be a lot more fun than straight up fiction.

I couldn't get into Jimmy Corrigan as much as I could Horror Hospital Unplugged.  Both were depressing.  But JC was just kind of boring to me, whereas HHU contained all the insanity of Dennis Cooper's other books.  However, I recognize that JC is a work of art, and that Ware is clearly going for something different than your typical graphic novel (though I cannot really say I am an expert on the genre, by any stretch!): it's not really plot-driven, a lot of it is just extraordinarily elaborate art, content is sort of minimal though there are interesting forays into the history of Chicago--I can't really remember what it's about?  He has a sister, and their father is dying or something?  I can't remember.  Of course, I remember HHU is about a punk band with a singer who is gay and seems largely modeled off of Nirvana--or at least a parody of Nirvana-imitation-bands.

The Dark Knight Returns is my favorite of the three.  I believe I have mentioned on Flying Houses that I am planning on making a shot-by-shot remake of the original Batman, the 1989 version directed by Tim Burton, and I have been studying the film, and the special features on the DVD in order to understand how best to make a low-budget version.  The Dark Knight Returns and Killing Joke are both mentioned as major influences on the "darkness" of the film, which dissociated themselves from "Batman the Comedian," played by Adam West, but not from the original spirit of the comics created by Bob Kane.

Bob Kane said he loved these two books, and Killing Joke will be reviewed shortly (as soon as I buy it).  I devoured The Dark Knight Returns-started it on Monday and finished it on Tuesday.  It's about 200 pages long, but densely packed with action.  Maybe I didn't study the illustrations closely enough to understand what was going on towards the end, which is my chief complaint with the book.

The richness and complexity of the work, however, is what makes it classic.  It was actually assigned to me as required reading for a course I took at NYU called "Writing New York," which, obviously, studied the concept of New York as represented in literature.  And Gotham City is, basically, New York in this.  There are references to the Twin Towers of Gotham, there is a reference to Bay Ridge, and there are a few other obvious signs that Gotham City is New York City.


This book takes place in present-day Gotham City, which was 1986, and Ronald Reagan (or at least a character very similar to him) is President, and plays a somewhat prominent role in the story.  And this book is deeply political, and complex.  It's sort of funny--I asked my older brother last weekend why Superman and Batman hated each other.  He responded that Superman was a Republican and Batman was a Liberal.and a lot of this book suggests that.


I am going to avoid the temptation of spoiling the story for you, except to say that Batman is 55 years old, and 10 years retired, Commissioner Gordon is 70 years old and weeks away from retirement, Harvey Dent/Two Face is about to be released from Arkham Asylum, a gang called The Mutants have overrun Gotham City with crime, and there's a female Robin.  


I won't reveal anymore, because I had such a good time anticipating what might happen in this story.  Let me just say it is action-packed and beautifully written.  It doesn't lend itself easily to excerpting, so I will not attempt any.  Sometimes it is hilarious.  It is also pretty vulgar and gruesome.  It's definitely not for little kids.  


I love Batman more than ever and want to read all the best comics about him.  I loved it, and highly recommend it, except for those that are easily confused or don't have the patience to figure out what order to follow the panels in.  I would only say Book Four is the one that really started to lose me.  It was awesome, but I sort of had no idea what was going on.  

Reflection on 2L Year

It is not easy to sum up a 9 month period in a single blog post.  However, this post will not be as long as last year's (http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2011/05/reflection-on-1l-year.html) because I will not be listing my favorite cases (or, if I do, I will not go off about them, while watching Wheel of Fortune and having a moment of divine coincidence while writing about White v. Samsung and hearing Pat Sajak say, "It's good you make mistakes.  It shows you're human.  Not that there was any doubt about that.").  Regardless, there is still a lot of angst to sort through, and I question the intelligence of writing about "romance" on my blog, but I feel that it has been the aspect of my 2L year that has made it both tolerable and endlessly intriguing.

But first, the classes.  As some of you may know, I started writing a column for BLS Advocate this year.  I wanted to write a column about Exams, and about how students should "Review" exams they have just taken, for the benefit of future students.  Well, THAT, I am going to do.  That may be very boring so I will keep that to the end.

If you have been following this blog for any amount of time, you should probably know that I was on the verge of dropping out last summer.  I was destroyed by the 1L process.  I was destroyed by grades.  I was destroyed by the lack of comfort, the constant sense of unease I felt in not fully understanding the material, going into the exam, and having an internal mental meltdown where everything I learned, all the hours I spent doing the reading assignments, then outlining, then reviewing, then taking practice exams, then sending questions to professors, then annoyingly accosting classmates about "the right answer" resulted in nothing more than a B, B-, or C+.

This year, in the Fall, I did not do worse than a B+.  People told me, "It gets better."  People told me, "It gets easier."  People told me, "They work you to death."  All three statements were true, at least for me.  However, as previously noted, I do not think that necessarily would have held true had I not begun taking medication.

Medication may be controversial, to a degree (psychotropics and amphetamines, at least), but I seriously believe that law students are on way more medication than most people realize.  But that's not what I want to talk about.

"Romance" and law school do not coalesce for several reasons:
1) Dates cost money, and law students generally don't have any income.
2) Dates cost time, and law students generally don't have much of it.
3) When "FWB" comes into play, someone's feelings tend to get hurt at the end of the day.

Annoying personality qualities are revealed.  "True colors" come out.  And the gossip, the gossip of it all at law school is insane.  One friend told me, incredibly, (and perhaps it was incredible that I agreed with her, but I still do) that undergraduate students at NYU are more mature than law students at BLS.  While at first this appears to be an incredible statement, the size of BLS (vs. the size of NYU) makes it a veritable "devil's playground" for gossip.  Most people know a majority of the 1400 students or so here -- at least those that are "lounge lizards" or "library sleepers" or "smokers" -- whether by reputation, appearance, hearsay, or legend.  Most people at NYU do not know a majority of the 18,000 students or so there.  Smaller groups of friends are formed, gossip is not so vituperative, and "incest" (GENERALLY) occurs less often.

Regardless, many people try to make law school and "romance" work together symbiotically, and indeed I have written about "spouse-searching" at law school previously (here http://blsadvocate.org/2012/04/negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-not-in-love-legally/).  While I do not deny that I will continue to seek out a "worthy" or "willing" partner, I wish I didn't have to.  I wish I could stay single forever--but it gets boring--and worse, some people see it as "failure" or a reflection of a generally poor character, which I think is just so sad.  It's one of those judgments that makes life intolerable.

But being in a relationship also gets boring.  At least in my experience.

Moving on.

Here are the classes I took:
FALL
Debtors and Creditors' Rights (Hon. Glenn) - B+
Administrative Law (Prof. Araiza) - B+
Evidence (Prof. Pitler) - A-
Health Law Practicum Clinic (Prof. Porter/Medicare Rights Center) - HP
Interviewing & Counseling (Prof. Schultze) - A-
SPRING
Business Reorganizations (Prof. Gerber) - ?
Corporations (Prof. Baer) - ?
Consumer Counseling and Bankruptcy Clinic (Prof. Eyster) - ?
Employment Law (Prof. Minda) - ?
Trial Advocacy (Prof. Hynes) - ?

I did better in the Fall than I ever did in my 1L year.  My GPA was a 3.5.  It ruled.
However, I am nervous that the Spring will not offer as great rewards.  The exams were difficult, and somehow, I just felt less focused in a way, more rushed.

A brief review:
Debtor and Creditor was a great class, even though many felt that Glenn's lack of teaching experience may have hampered our ability to understand the bankruptcy system.  Whatever the case, I did not do very well on the exam.  I know this because I reviewed it with him.  I screwed almost everything up--though there were a few questions where I did get "parts" of it right.  Regardless, that exam was the hardest exam I have ever taken.  It was clear, when I made it to the final question (worth a relatively significant number of points) and I only had 10 minutes left to read the fact pattern and write an answer, that my timing had been seriously miscalculated.  Fortunately, that was the case for almost everyone, and I somehow managed a B+.  Getting to meet Judge Glenn and being there the day after MF Global filed for Chapter 11 and hearing his excitement that he would be assigned "the 8th largest bankruptcy case in American history" was cool.  He also invited us into a hearing on use of cash collateral, but unfortunately, I had other obligations.

Medicare Rights Center was that obligation, and I spent 168 hours working there.  It was a good experience, but I felt it was the one internship I have done since starting law school that was not a potential place to work after graduation.  They just didn't like me.  Or, maybe they did like me, to an extent, but we didn't work as well together as we might have.  I have no hard feelings though, and I have a deep amount of respect for that organization.  Moreover, it was the only time I had the opportunity to become "deeply involved" in a case, and the experience of winning was totally sweet.  (By the way, I am batting 1,000 when it comes to winning cases).

Administrative Law was a great class, though not always easy.  Prof. Araiza is the #2 professor at BLS in my opinion.  He is utterly fantastic.  I will take any class I can with him next year, whatever the subject matter, though I hope he teaches First Amendment (aka Con Law III, which, I think, Admin Law should be Con Law IV)...However, I did not do very well on the exam, again!  My answers were not very well organized (though I must admit, I was significantly more accurate about "the law" on my Admin exam than on my D&C exam) and Araiza chastised me when we reviewed it together.  He kept saying, "I don't want to be mean....but what were you thinking?"  It was so funny!  I could never be mad at him.  His standards are high, but it can be one of the most fulfilling experiences when you have a Professor with very high expectations and you meet them, and he is satisfied with your performance.  I was pleased to get a B+.

Evidence is one of those "core classes" that most 2L/3L students will take, though it is an elective.  It is a fun class, and Prof. Pitler made it fun, though many did not appreciate his style.  He has great style, in my opinion, and because I did the work all throughout the semester, because I did all of the "problems" that we were supposed to prepare for class (in lieu of casebook reading), because I always volunteered to answer, he told me at the end of the last class that he really appreciated how well prepared I was.  I did not do great on that exam, either!  I reviewed it with him, and he told me I scored a B+, but he bumped me up to an A- because of my in-class participation.  There was no sweeter bump, as that was a 4 credit class (though it is conceivable that I got the same kind of "bump" for Civil Procedure last year, though my participation was anything but comparable).

Interviewing & Counseling is a class taught by Prof. Schultze, who is a legend around this campus.  His Negotiation seminar is more well-known, but the Interviewing & Counseling course was good--only, it seemed to focus a lot on Family Law.  Later, I would take a clinic with Prof. Eyster, which focused almost exclusively on Interviewing & Counseling in Bankruptcy Law.  Now, that was a very difficult thing to do, let me tell you, but it's one of the best skills you can get.  You can interview someone all day about their legal problem involving a breach of contract or a tort, or who was the better parent, or you can take a criminal defense case and dance around your client and hope they don't admit their guilt--but with bankruptcy, you have a client that has to explain how their financial life went to hell.  Sometimes they don't want to talk about -- this is private stuff!  Having been there myself, I think it's the area I'm most suited for.

Business Reorganizations was probably the single best class I took at BLS and Prof. Gerber is the #1 professor (Araiza is only #2 because he intimidates me - I like him, but I'm afraid that whatever I say to him ends up sounding like the words of an idiot, because he is an intellectual powerhouse).  It was fun, he was nice, and what was really great about him was his review session: we reviewed the exam from last year, and he stayed 75 minutes later than he expected the review session to last - and he answered every single question.  I told him, "Thank you for staying so late," and he said, "I don't have a life anyways."  He is hilarious and great and it is rumored that he will be taking a sabbatical next year--so I urge all current 1Ls (becoming 2Ls at this very moment, as the Property exam is ending) to take a class with him in two years.  I will be happy with a B+ in this class, but I am praying I may score as high as an A-.

Corporations is another "core class" like Evidence, and also 4 credits.  Corporations was very hard, but not as hard as Debtor/Creditor.  However, it was 4 credits, and I did not like the way we got all of our most important cases as the very end of the year.  Omnicare, Time, QVC, Revlon, ITT--these cases are huge, both page-number wise and in how important they are in the course.  Prof. Baer has a very good reputation and I generally agree that she taught the class well, but I felt that there was a bit of a disconnect there.  In particular--we were expected to do an incredible amount of "review reading" and "supplemental reading" which was simply impossible (even with a relatively long reading period for me personally).  She warned me not to miss the forest for the trees, so to speak, and that this was a basic, "survey" course.  And yet!  And yet on the exam we are expected to be able to make fine distinctions based upon long, complex fact patterns with little or no explanation of the practical meaning of certain phrases.  This wouldn't be so difficult if the exam was open note, but it was not!  The exam, which I took yesterday, was the third hardest one I have taken (Contracts with Prof. Taylor takes the #2 position),.  I rushed like hell.  I screwed up stuff about Shareholder Rights Plans (which, even though I named my study group "the Poisoned Pills," I could still not really get what the practical effect of "redeeming the pill" meant).  There are really interesting stories behind some of these cases, and some of the opinions were great (my personal favorite #1 case of the year was In re Citigroup Shareholders Derivative Litigation (2009) which basically alleges that Citigroup "should have known better" than to invest in asset-backed mortgage securities--it is basically the greatest opinion of the past 5 years because it encapsulates everything that was rotten about the Great Recession--and yet, Citigroup cannot possibly be held responsible for the shit-storm we've all had to wade through (and indeed, is directly responsible for many of us being in law school now), though Schlensky v. Wrigley is fantastic if you are a Cubs fan).
While I enjoyed the class (indeed, if I were ever to become a Professor, I would want to teach it), I am very scared about what grade I might get.  I will be happy with a B+--and I hope the boost works in my favor in this class.  If I get a B, I will probably shoot myself, though it is certainly conceivable that, my exam answers earned no more than a B, or even a B-.  With a B, and a boost, a B+ will be O.K.  I really wanted to CALI this class, and I thought I could do it, until I looked at the fact pattern.  I was super confident going in, and then everything fell apart.  There is basically NO WAY I could get an A.  If I get an A-, I will be very, very happy.  (And keep in mind, while all this talk about grades might seem obnoxious, I only care so much because my scholarship is dependent on these things).

Employment Law with Prof. Minda was a long, strange trip.  I opted to write the paper, and I hope he likes it.  Personally, I think this paper is brilliant, but it is a big mess too.  It's 14,000 words.  120 footnotes.  I'd try to publish it, but I'd need to edit it significantly, and of course, in that process all the good stuff would get taken out.  Regardless, interesting class, I enjoyed it.  And while writing the paper was sometimes quite hard (my topic was on the staffing industry, which is shrouded in secrecy) it was extremely fulfilling.  I hope to get an A in this class.  It is doubtful that I will get an A+.  I will be happy with an A-, however, I will not be happy with a B+.

Trial Advocacy with Prof. Hynes was great, though I felt he was a "Taylorist" in the sense that he may have felt there was "one best way" to make an opening statement and conduct direct examinations and cross-examinations.  He seemed to give us more leeway on summations, but he did not give much feedback on ours.  He told me I had "great style" which was nice to hear from someone so eminent (he is the D.A. of) Kings County) and he agreed, tentatively, at the last minute to play himself in my upcoming film, Batman in Brooklyn.  I don't know what kind of grade I'll get, but I'd be very pleased with an A-.

The Consumer Counseling and Bankruptcy Seminar, finally, was great.  I loved the office I was placed into, and Prof. Eyster generally made the weekly seminars an interesting detour.  What was strange about this is that, it was 4 credits, and my health law practicum was 3 credits, and I had to work 168 hours at Medicare Rights Center, but only 140 at my bankruptcy firm.  There was a bit more classwork for this, but we had to keep journals just the same of every day.  I think the clinical program should be revised to make it more equal, since I'll be getting a grade for this class (hopefully A-, if not A) and only got a High Pass for the health law clinic.

This has been a very long post about nothing in particular, but it is for BLS students that may want to know a little bit more about the classes they can take and the professors that taught them.  I hope to write a final column soon about the Journal writing competition and Bluebooking.  I am now going to resume my bender. Thank you.