The Avengers: Review

Opening night at the movies is always an adventure. I love movies! I think it is a ton of fun to go, relax, and be entertained. And superhero action movies do just that. One thing that you don't expect or even look for in these movies, though, is a deep message. Mostly you expect a ton of action and a villain getting his just desserts. Although you get your fair share of action The Avengers is not a shallow movie.

The question that The Avengers asks is "Can we even have heroes anymore?" That is a valid question on many counts. First, it is fair to ask if our culture rejected the idea of heroism and tried to move past it. Second, when we do try to show heroism in the movies, often it is a conflicted hero who has his own share of problems and doesn't seem very heroic. Can we even have heroes anymore?

In The Avengers, the world is teetering on an edge and needs heroes, but the team of "heroes" is anything but a team. One is flipped and fights for evil, one is a ticking time bomb, one has family issues to work out, one is conflicted by guilt, one is a leader without followers, and one is well... Tony Stark. Further, they are brought together by someone with possible ulterior motives of his own. This is not the makings of a team that can save the world.

They are all super, but are they heroes? And what is heroism? The fact is that everyone who has ever lived has faced the fact that life is hard. We all do things we regret. We are wrapped up in ourselves. We have problems. It is part of being a person.

Loki, the enemy of humanity, knows this. He, like the real Enemy, knows that one of the best ways to conquer us is by turning each of us on ourselves and on each other. Loki preys on Stark's pride in the same way the Devil needles my pride. Loki provokes anger because he knows it is difficult to control. Loki turns friends against each other because he knows a cord of three strands is not easily broken. Loki, like the troubles of our own lives, drives us to embrace the worst in ourselves and drive away those who love us. Why? Because he knows that is how he can win. As Bruce Banner aptly puts it "We're not a team. We're a time bomb." We need to bring that time bomb under control.

The Avengers deals with the themes of what it takes to rise above our own weaknesses and become heroes. Continuing the story arcs of prior films, though, it avoids the common sequel trap of merely repeating the same character developments. Instead, it shows what the various heroes can teach each other. Hulk learns about purpose from Iron Man, Iron Man learns that leadership means self-sacrifice from Captain America. Thor learns he’s not always the biggest and strongest from Captain America, Iron Man, and Hulk (at various times), and tries to pass his lessons of kingship on to Loki. Captain America learns that although cultures change, heroism and patriotism are still needed. Hawkeye and Black Widow learn about forgiveness. And they all learn courage and conviction from someone who isn’t even a superhero. 

The audience is shown that it is only when we rise above our own shortcomings and put others before ourselves that any of us can be heroes.

The movie has the best dialogue I have heard in a movie in a very long time. I knew it was brilliant when Captain America pulled $10 out of his wallet and handed it to someone without saying a word. An important thing about dialogue is not only what you say, it is what you don't. The Avengers mastered both. It also mastered the balancing of many lead characters without single one stealing the show or being neglected.

An example of how Joss Whedon out did himself is his poignant yet hilariousness banter:

Romanov: "I wouldn't do that if I were you, they (Loki and Thor) are not from this world, they're basically gods." Capt America: "There's only one God and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that."

The movie, however, isn’t all fun and games, it is rated PG-13 and earns it with intense action and some sobering deaths. I cannot help but be impressed with a true hero who is willing to die because he knows that his death will make greater things possible.

You don’t need superpowers to be a hero. The bravest action in the whole movie is an old man who alone stands to his feet while Loki is asserting his power over the crowd.

Loki: [to crowd] Kneel before me. I said... KNEEL! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.  

German Old Man: [Standing alone] Not to men like you.

Can there be heroes anymore? The Avengers answers, "yes!" But it doesn't take super powers or special abilities. Anyone who is willing to stand alone is a hero. And when multiple people "stand alone," they can make an incredible team.

Written by Jeremiah Lorrig with Nicholas Bolzman.

________

Related posts:

Other film reviews

Why Superheroes?

The Importance of Orcs

A constitutional rewrite

Concern that the Constitution is being undermined by the party in power is nothing new. Republicans say it about President Obama. Democrats said it about President Bush. And Jefferson and Adams said it about each other.

But my favorite criticism is in the form of a satirical rewrite of the constitution for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt by H. L. Mencken. And, come to think of it, this may be even more applicable today.

Friday miscellaneous (5/4)

There were lots of celebrities at the White House Correspondents' Dinner this week. And then there was Bill. He didn’t get any recognition, he was only the “leader of the Joint Special Operations Command that oversaw the raid to kill Osama bin Laden.”

Researchers don’t seem to be able to decide whether the Millennials are another greatest generation or if they are just narcissistic.

Ever wonder which Congressmen resemble which muppets? Here’s your chance.

My wife majored in literature at PHC. I majored in government. We think that’s the perfect combination. And then I found out that Mitt Romney also majored in literature in college. He must be well balanced.

And speaking of literature, here’s why men should read more fiction (but women would probably benefit too). And here is an interview of Russell Moore on why Christians should also read fiction, even dark fiction:

But just as dangerous as darkness-reveling, I think, are novels that are darkness-avoiding. Flannery O’Connor’s writing is quite dark, but it is so because she believes in the Devil, and in the Fall, and in humanity as it is. Novels that avoid the horror of human existence in this time between Eden and New Jerusalem can reinforce a Christian’s tendency to Pelagianism. The Christian gospel isn’t “clean” and “safe” and “family-friendly.” It comes to its narrative climax at a bloody Place of the Skull and in a borrowed grave.

The Vatican just stood up for homeschooling rights at the United Nations (and co-author Jeremiah got quoted in the article).

The MPAA movie rating system can be helpful. But sometimes it just encourages us to be lazy.

Michele Bachmann is now officially supporting Mitt Romney.

Senator Marco Rubio is looking for support for his immigration reform bill.

Representative Paul Ryan has been called a devout follower of Ayn Rand. He says he’d prefer it if people accused him of following Thomas Aquinas.

President Obama’s reelection campaign just announced the Life of Julia. It’s a rather painful look at government dependency.

And finally, I think I'd rather not have this job.

Family of Love (or Immigration Part 3)

Do you remember your 16th birthday? I do. I don’t remember what I got as a birthday gift. I may have gotten my beach towel, but I don’t know. I assume that my mother made me my favorite cake. I likely even had good friends over.

But all of that is vague. It guess it shows me that those things were not the thing that mattered. There was something else that changed my life.

If you know me, you know that I am involved in politics. I have met Presidents and Prime Ministers. National leaders have asked me for advice, and I love fighting for my beliefs in the political world. But let me tell you about my first political memory. When I was a little child my family would get together with people from church and picket and pray outside of abortion providers’ clinics. I know we did it a lot, but the only memory I have is standing on the curb and watching a woman in a white nurse’s outfit driving by very slowly so we would all see her middle finger.

We were a pro-life family and that meant something to us. Years later we started talking as a family about China and their one-child policy. The more we read the more we felt God calling us to do our part. We contacted an adoption agency to talk about taking in one of the unwanted girls. After a little research it turned out that it would be better for us to try taking an orphan from Guatemala instead. It was a long process and I remember trying to learn Spanish so that I could talk with my new sister if she ever came.

Eventually she did. On my birthday. Yup, I got a sister for my birthday.

She was seven years old and it is hard for me to see what her future would have been like down there. Very likely she would have been on her own in her young teens and vulnerable. Guatemala is not a friendly place for young ladies without families. My sister still speaks with an accent. She loves spicy food. She puts an accent mark on her name. But she is American!

She loves to watch Fox News and see what is going on in the world. She isn’t crazy political like me, but she gets mad at Washington DC and votes loyally. She was adopted not only by my family, but also by our great nation. The United States is richer for her being here, just like my family is richer by her love.

Immigration to the United States is special. When it happens, It is more like an adoption than an economic proposition. My sister is able to live the American Dream because America welcomed her.

America is at her best when we remember that our values are greater than selfishness. We the People are great because the people who make up America are diverse in background, but united in the American Dream. In short, immigration changed my life and makes America better. How exciting is that?


Post by Jeremiah Lorrig
____________
Read the rest:
What Makes America Great (Or Immigration Part 1)
Shelter Those in Need (Or Immigration Part 2)

Why Superheroes?

This weekend The Avengers opens and I, for one, am looking forward to it. Especially after reading this review:

The Avengers is a blast from start to finish, that rare summer film that is both funny and touching, and both tender and thrilling. In shrt, The Avengers is everything we hope our summer blockbusters will be, and know that they can be, but so often find them not to be.

. . .

Let’s not mince words. The Avengers is not only the best comic-book movie ever made (your move, Chris Nolan), it is one of the best action/fantasy/sci-fi movies ever made. It is, in fact, a minor miracle — a blockbuster with both brains and muscles, a popcorn flick that enchants the eye while warming the heart.

But since I haven’t seen it yet (I have tickets for Friday night), this is not a review of The Avengers. Instead, it’s a brief exploration of why superhero stories remain so popular.

In a way, they’re a version of fairy tales; although with super-human strength, technological mastery, invincible shields, unstoppable hammers, and genetic modifications resulting in everything from gained muscle mass to spider abilities, they put the magic of most fairy tales to shame. And, strange as they are, such stories also reveal profound things about ourselves. They abstract real problems into impossible settings, and by doing so are able to examine them better because of the abstraction.

For example, were I looking for an example of justice I would turn to Batman Begins, which addresses justice, mercy, and vigilantism. Were I looking for an exploration of the problem of evil in the soul, I would cite Dark Knight. Spiderman explores power and responsibility. Iron Man address humility (a great man being humbled) and purpose. Captain America also explores humility, but by showing a humble man being made great. X-Men considers our treatment of those different than us. And (not quite in the same genre as the others, although it remains my favorite Pixar movie) The Incredibles teaches the importance of working together.

But under all those themes lie two larger ones. First, is the matter of power. In The Republic, Socrates engages with the story of Gyges, who finds a ring that makes the bearer invisible. Able to get away with anything he wishes with no fear of getting caught, Gyges falls from one vice to another in his lust for greater power. Ultimately, however, Socrates argues that power or no, the best thing is to have a virtuous and just soul.

Superhero stories address this same dilemma. We are told (in politics), that power corrupts. But these characters are heroes precisely because, despite power’s very real corrupting temptations, they resist and overcome.

And they not only overcome, but all (or nearly all) do so in the similar way - through sacrificing their happiness, their safety, and their very lives for the innocents they protect. Bruce Wayne stands between the Joker and Gotham and, at the end of Dark Knight (in a remarkable imagery of substitutionary atonement), even takes upon himself the guilt of Joker’s sins. Thor must sacrifice his own happiness by breaking the link between him and earth. Steve Rogers crashes, putting himself into a decades-long coma, to protect others. And the list goes on.

We’re initially attracted to these heroes because of their strength and power. But they are compelling because they resist the temptation to use that power for themselves, and instead sacrifice themselves for those they protect. Although super-human, they teach us profound things about being human.

So yes, I’m greatly looking forward to this.

 

________

Related posts:

The Avengers: Review
The Importance of Orcs

Natural rights for unnatural beings?

One area of increasing interest for me is the idea of corporate personhood. This is the idea that a legal corporation, recognized as its own entity under the law, has the same (or similar) rights as natural persons under the Constitution. Put another way, do corporate entities have natural (or human) rights?

What’s not to like about this issue? It combines law, politics, justice, metaphysics, and artificial “people.” Because when you stop to think of it, if corporations are people than corporate formation is actually a weird form of reproduction. (What does that do to the marriage debate?) Although sometimes I suspect that the Horcrux is an even better analogy--a splintering of the soul into an immortal artifact so that one's name can live on after one dies.

But I digress. The Supreme Court first recognized corporations as persons protected by the 14th Amendment in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific (1886), and is in the news again after the Citizens United case where the Court determined that the campaign finance laws improperly infringed on a corporation’s free speech protected by the First Amendment.

John Medaille at Front Porch Republic gives some more background:

The Founding Fathers of our Republic were very suspicious of corporations, since the royally-chartered companies had been used as instruments of oppression against the colonies. The Navigation Acts, for example, gave them exclusive shipping rights to the colonies, much to the detriment of American entrepreneurs. And it was East India Company tea that the colonists used to color the waters of Boston harbor in the original tea party. For a jurisprudence that pretends to be interested in “original intent,” the colonial attitude towards corporate power cannot be overlooked.

Corporations prior to Santa Clara were creatures of the state that had no “rights” save those that were granted by their charters, charters that always excluded their participation in politics. Santa Clara extended the protections of the 14th Amendment (no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) to the corporations. The Amendment was originally designed to protect the freed slaves, but since Santa Clara it has been used mainly as a tool to protect big business.

And Mark Mitchell also weighed in.

But corporations are not persons. They are not alive. They are not even dead. They do not have natural life spans. They are not mortal creatures whose essential mortality induces reflection on the ultimate meaning of life and leads the wise to live out that brief existence with an eye to what matters most. A corporation never dies a natural death and therefore lacks the natural incentive to live a life that includes dying well. An immortal person is a god. By calling a corporation a person (whose charter is for perpetuity) have we created a strange new god? A new idol before which we prostrate ourselves? The corporation, rightly conceived, is to serve human beings. Corporate personhood has the effect of  blurring this goal and reversing the relationship.

All this is significant because of the recent introduction of the People’s Rights Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to clarify that only natural persons, and not corporate persons, have protected rights under the Constitution.

The political right is up in arms, decrying government takeover. The National Review has called it a repeal of the First Amendment.

But in a letter to the National Review, the amendment's supporters address many of the concerns and misconceptions about what it would do and would not do.

The Constitution protects certain individual rights that are vital to safeguarding our free society. Only our most sacred rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and thereby afforded the unique authority of that document.

Many other rights also exist, conferred by statute or by case law or common law. These rights are properly subject to legislation, and lack the unique protection of the Constitution.

Corporate law, appropriately, is in this latter category. Corporations are artificial entities, created by people. In order to accomplish important economic goals, we the people grant charters to corporations, conferring various legal rights, including the ability to enter into contracts, and great privileges, such as limited liability and perpetual life.

These corporate rights and privileges are properly guaranteed by law, but are not so sacred as to be protected by the Constitution, because corporations are not people. This critical distinction — between constitutional rights that properly belong only to people, and other, subordinate legal rights that legitimately extend to corporations — is the crux of the People’s Rights Amendment.

Now while I’m not convinced that this amendment, or a constitutional amendment at all, is the proper solution to the issue of granting natural rights to corporations, I do think that the distinction between natural persons and artificial persons should be somehow reintroduced back into our legal structure. I fear that raising up corporate entities to the level of humanity may also actually undermine the natural rights doctrine. If corporate “rights” and natural rights rise and fall together, they’re more likely to fall. And we, the people who the Constitution is designed to protect, actually lose rights in the process.

As a final thought, corporations as originally designed were granted limited powers. The same is true of our federal government. However, they have since evolved to holding plenary powers (and even “rights”); and our conception of government followed suit. Limited and strictly defined powers disappeared from corporate law before disappearing from constitutional law. I think that’s significant.