Will "Losers" be a Box Office Winner

Peter Berg, director of the Rundown and Friday Night Lights, has signed on to write and produce a film version of the "Losers." According to the Reuters article the movie will apparently deal with the original, rather than the modern Vertigo, version of the characters. The modern version is a pretty good "update," and I understand why they updated the narrative according to current Vertigo writerAndy Diggle:

Our initial plan was to reuinite the original Losers for a story set in the 1950s; but we decided that American Century and Garth Ennis' War Stories were too similar in style and subject matter, so we reinvented it for the present day.

Plus the original guys all died, and nobody wants to get caught up in a continuity minefield.

Given that they orignal Losers died in Zero Hour and again in DC's New Frontier mini-series, I wouldn't have seen any real continuity problems with having them live again, but I can understand the hesitation.

The original Losers, along with Haunted Tank, were a regular feature in G.I. Combat magazine. Those of you who are Roy Lichtenstein fans will note that the images in his painting "Okay, Hot-Shot" are reminiscent of Russ Heath's work in G.I. Combat #94 (a Haunted Tank story) and All-American Men of War #89. Irv Novick, who drew the All-American #89 image "was Lichtenstein's superior officer in 1947 in an army unit assigned to create posters of military life" (Daniels, DC Comics 60 Years of the World's Favorite Comic Book Heroes page 149).


Lichtenstein's "Okay Hot-Shot"


Russ Heath G.I Combat # 94 (Original in Color, this image B/W)


Irv Novick All-American Men of War #89 (Original in Color, this image B/W)

If you look carefully you can see that the line art in the comic book versions is very sophisticated.

Directing Great Passes Away

This week my wife and I received one of my favorite movies in the mail from Netflix. With great joy I opened the envelope and pulled out The Haunting, one of the greatest classic ghost stories in the history of film, and discussed plans with my wife about when we would view the film.



Let me make an aside here for a moment. My wife and I like to play a "fantasy game" that can only be called "write a letter to a celebrity." When we were getting married we fantasized about writing William Shatner a letter inviting him to our festive wedding day. We laughed about the puzzled look Mr. Shatner's assistant, or possibly even he, would have upon reading the invitation. "Just who are these people?" he might say. "Should I send them a gift, or should I attend in person?" We had a great deal of fun with this and other such imaginings. There are a number of celebrities I have imagined writing letters to, thanking them for the ways in which they had entertained me. But I never actually send the letters, or even write them, because I know that people value their privacy.

But I wish that I had written Robert Wise, who died of heart failure Wednesday, to tell him of how much he has entertained me as a film viewer (a very good obit can be found here). I love the Sound of Music and The Day the Earth Stood Still is one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. I was even stunned recently at how well the special effects in Star Trek: The Motion Picture hold up even by modern standards. I may jokingly, and half seriously, refer to the movie as Star Trek: The Slo-motion Picture, but the visuals are stunning and his use of effects remarkable. The model of the Enterprise looks better in this movie than the space ships in the most recent Star Wars films, now that is saying something.

My favorite of his uses of special effects is in the movie The Haunting, when Russ Tamblyn (Riff of West Side Story, another Wise masterpiece) breath crystallizes in a hallway. The localized special effect is remarkable, you see him blow out his breath in one part of the frame, but no "fog" in any other part of the frame.

So...Thank you Robert Wise for a wonderful collection of films. May people be entertained by them for decades to come.

Ordnung! Ordnung! Ordnung! You must look efficient, rooselessly and coldly efficient.

According to the Associated Press:

Germans were ordered Thursday to stay serious when having their photographs taken for new passports, wiping away any grins, smirks or smiles so that biometric scanners can pick up their facial features.

You read that correctly, Germans are prohibited from smiling in Driver's License photos to make it so security devices can correctly identify them. You may think that this is bizarre, or even restrictive. You would be wrong.

Anyone who has seen Aquirre: The Wrath of God or Schultze Gets the Blues knows that the natural emotional state of the German people is dour and humorless. Since Germans don't smile, except when they emigrate to America, the sophisticated biometric scanners would be baffled and unable to identify the features of any smiling Goths.

Oh, and don't let that silhouette with a "jump in his step" on the cover of Schultze fool you, only a German could consider that film a light-hearted, fast-paced, comedy.

Hit Me Baby One More Time...Britney Has Baby.

I feel guilty for posting this, but can we really be a pop-culture blog without mentioning that Britney Spears/Federline has given birth to a baby boy.

I wonder if Federline, in some bizarre desire to create and Oedipal monster, will make the boy watch reruns of the Britney era Mickey Mouse Club followed by Britney Videos and Crossroads and finally show the kid Kaotic just to demonstrate how much his parents love one another?

On second thought, that would just make the kid suicidal. They had better stick to Madonna's kids book.

A Professor Discusses How and Why to Blog.

Dr. Stephen Taylor at Poliblog has an excellent resource on the purpose of blogs, how to blog, how to measure blog traffic, and how to use blogs. Professor Taylor's website is the host-site for the Web-based "The Academy" community of bloggers and a Professor of Political Science at Troy University in Alabama.

His column is a cornucopia of links covering the subject and a great introduction for all of us.

One of the featured quotes in his outline is:

Mostly that, like “media,” “blogging” is not just one thing. A weblog is merely one medium for conveying information to readers. InstaPundit, Wonkette, Captains Quarters, Daily Kos, and Boing Boing all do very different things in different ways. To simply lump them all together as “blogs” borders on meaningless.

I think the distinction of "types" of blogs highlighted in the above quote is a good one, but what about a site like ours where we talk about RPGs, comic books, movies, tv shows, and the obligatory politics (not to mention forays into the athletic world)? Are we too broad? Too unfocused? To wierd?

All I know is that we have been linking to the good Professor for sometime and are still not a feature in his blogroll. In my opinion, this is because Professor Taylor, like all professors, is a tyrant and we all know that a tyrant's (thank you Xenophon and Plato) primary motivation is to "be loved and respected." Nevermind quoting Machiavelli on whether it is better to be feared or loved, Xenophon already pre-empted that argument in Heiro. It is the very nature of the tyrant to desire not merely power, but respect and love as well.

A Charity to Think About.

In times of crisis it is always a blessing to watch the charitable nature of the American people shine, and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is no different. People are giving to the Red Cross in droves, and it is right that they do so, but sometimes in looking at the big picture (and giving to the big charities) some in need are overlooked.

The Red Cross does great work, but the focus of their work is on helping people. Katrina affected more than people, it also affected people's pets. That is why I would ask you to give to the North Shore Animal League of America in addition to the Red Cross. A lot of animals have been displaced by Katrina and are in need of rescuing.

Cinerati's Canon -- Our Most Important Books

Professor Nokes over at Unlocked Wordhoard recently posted his experience with his students regarding their thoughts about whether a book was "literary" or not.

I remember an experience similar to the one he describes when one of my Undergraduate professors, in an American novel class, asked if the book Shane was literature or not. My knee jerk reaction was, "No way! Absolom, Absolom...yes! But Shane! No!" I have since changed my mind, having reread Shane seven or eight times, and find Shane to be the quintessential story of the West. It rightly encapsulates the central conflict in American expansion westward, as discussed by Frederick Jackson Turner in The Frontier in American History, and the book contains a darkness/realism in the title character totally lacking in the movie. In the film, Shane is Davy Crockett, but in the book he is more reminiscent of Doc Holliday, a mysterious Southern gambler/shootist.

Regardless of my thoughts at the time regarding the literary nature, or lack there of, of Shane my external reaction (and that of my classmates) was exactly that described by Professor Nokes.

To quote:

In fact, what happened was a single student took a position, and the rest dodged the question. I pressed them, and soon I came to understand that they did not believe they have a role in Canon formation.

None of us thought we had a role in Canon formation. Why? I credit it to humility more than a failure of education (Nokes' hypothesis). We hadn't been exposed to enough literature, broadly speaking, to trust our own judgements. Nor had we experience in discussing the value of a book. This second is a failure on the part of education. In high school and before, we were asked to tell what "happens" in a book to verify that we have in fact read what the teacher assigned us. We were given tests about places, people, and events. And we were given lectures about the symbolism of the Green Light in The Great Gatsby. But we were never asked whether we thought the book had value, or what was valuable about it. We weren't asked if it was "well written" with proper grammar, or played with existing conventions effectively and proficiently. I imagine the experience for the modern high school student is similar.

My comments on Professor Nokes site addressed a commentor who was critical of "Canon advocates" like Bloom. To which I responded:

I have to agree with you regarding the foundational Canon (KJV, Homer, Aristotle). I would naturally add Plato, actually The Republic is probably number one on my list of non-religious texts.

As to Frank's comments regarding Bloom (don't know if he is referring to Allan or Harold Bloom, not that it matters for his point which is poignant), I think he overestimates how much Bloom (either one) thinks the Canon is etched in stone. Allan would argue that a canon should be something that challenges young people to question the assumptions of the day rather than one that feeds them. Harold believes in an evolving Canon which is affected by the zeitgeist and continues to grow and change. Rarely are books dropped completely from the Canon, but new is added all the time.
I personally prefer Eliot's view (T.S.) that the Canon is a dialogue. The new is always in discussion with the old, either as addition to or reaction against. Some of the best poetry/art is a rejection of things past, but even rejections are improved when grounded in an understanding of the thing they reject. Thus for me the Canon is dynamic, rather than static, and additive. Some books may wane in importance for a time (Jane Austen's Persuasion or Cooper's Deerslayer), but they are a part of the dialogue.
The "literary" quality of a book matters to me, but so does the role the work played in its time or how well it represents that age.

So...what are 10 books I would demand be included in the Canon? Well, let me begin by saying that I largely think that limited lists are next to useless, especially when said lists imply an order of priority. Remember the "Top 100" lists by the American Film Institute recently? Remember how they left out half the movies you thought should be included? Me too. I think that any given list should be qualified with a "I think these are important, but that doesn't mean I think hundreds, even thousands, of others aren't." Given that caveat, here are 10 books I think everyone should read (in no particular order).

• The King James Version of the Bible -- If you want to understand the development and normalization of the written English language, let alone understand the culture, this is a must read.
• The Republic of Plato -- Philosophy begins with Socrates.
• The Complete Works of Shakespeare -- His ability to write for multiple audiences simultaneously amazes me.
• Biographia Literaria by Coleridge -- I always wondered who would write a great companion to Aristotle's Poetics.
• Aristotle's Poetics -- (speaking of which) I have rarely met a screenwriter I respected who didn't have a copy of this dog-eared.
• Hegel's Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics -- As good a beginning place for the philosophy of Hegel as any, and far more accessible.
• Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen -- I just love this book.
• Time Enough for Love by Robert Heinlein -- Because some of these books should be just for fun.
• King of Elfland's Daughter by Dunsany -- No Elfland, no Tolkien or Lewis. They both heard the horns of Elfland blow when they were younger.
• Lost in Place by Mark Salzman -- Something a little more modern and "non-genre."

What would you add to this list? Please comment.