Batman, The Dark Knight

This blog entry is a departure, as I wade into unfamiliar territory with a movie review. First, a disclaimer: I'm not someone who must see a film the minute its name goes up on the movieplex marquee. (Usually, we wait for movies to come out on video, and by then, our curiosity has dulled to the point we're just as likely not to rent them!) Second: I promise, no spoilers here.

In my life, I've witnessed several iterations of Batman dating from the Adam West era — when I was a teenager, Adam West and the futuristic Batmobile appeared in my home town and I attended. (Not having been a Batman fan, I can't explain why I was there, but I well remember being close enough to touch the Batmobile ... here's a drawing of it.)

For the most part though, Batman always bored me. Whether it was Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer or George Clooney, their portrayals of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego failed to draw me in. Keaton was conflicted, yes ... but not credible; Kilmer was insipid ... and unlikeable; Clooney was glib ... and about as one-dimensional as a comic book.

When I viewed Batman Begins, I became a fan at last. With Batman Begins, Christian Bale brought to the role a triumphant pathos, complex and compelling. Since that first viewing, I've watched the film several times. Whether it was just a fine script (along with Christopher Nolan's directorial vision and skill) or Bale's portrayal or a combination of the two, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

When The Dark Knight debuted this past week, I read some reviews (here, here, here) and decided to take my 16 year old grandson to a showing. Whatever expectations I had for the film, they were far exceeded. This sequel is full of action, laden with talented actors and even the holes in the script are easily forgiven because there is so much else to like.

If you watch films just to be entertained, The Dark Knight doesn't disappoint. If, like me, you enjoy films that offer more than transitory entertainment, The Dark Knight provides food for thought and discussion. In addition to a fun ride, Nolan gives us believable characters who are trying to decide what it means to be human. I will be among those eagerly awaiting the next installment.

Fairy Tale World of Obama

President Ronald Reagan was known as The Great Communicator, an apt descriptor on that historic day, June 12, 1987, when he appeared at the Berlin Wall and, speaking from the heart, challenged Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!"

Hence, it was jarring to hear the words of presidential hopeful Barack Obama as he attempted today in Berlin to summon the images of JFK and Ronald Reagan. The text of Obama's speech is available online (here's one site). Additionally, there will be plenty of columns devoted to the speech from commentators across the spectrum.

But I couldn't help reflect what is, to me, the significant difference between Ronald Reagan's 1987 Berlin speech and that of the current Democrat candidate. When Ronald Reagan spoke to the citizens of Berlin, he was there for them, he spoke on their behalf, he championed their liberty. (This wasn't a PR tour for him; he was at the tail end of his presidency.) In challenging Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall, President Reagan exhibited bold courage (audacity) on behalf of every man, woman and child living in the Eastern Bloc.

The contrast of that historic occasion to today's Obama performance is as stark as night to day!

Who would dare deny Obama embarked on his widely-hyped world tour to prop up an embarrassingly thin resumé? Five sentences into the speech, he claimed to be speaking "... not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen ... a fellow citizen of the world." Who does he think he's kidding? He was championing ... himself! He waxed eloquent with the predictable platitudes and puffery, demonstrating an "audacity" some might characterize a full-blown Messiah complex.

If it's a Savior you're looking for, Barack Obama appears eager to step up. He told the assembled Berliners: "Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands."

Floods, famines, destructive weather ... aren't these generally considered acts of God?? Even Wikipedia characterizes such events as "outside of human control." But apparently not in the fairy tale world of Obama.

With such ambition at his disposal, perhaps he'd be willing to tackle the age-old challenge of "spinning straw into gold"? Just a thought.

Goodbye, Tony Snow

I never met Tony Snow, but I always felt as if I knew him. Like Ronaldus Magnus before him, Tony Snow was bright and good-humored and self-effacing and committed to conservative principles and skilled at going toe-to-toe against those who challenged him. Whether it was on the radio or television, Tony communicated a joie de vivre that was refreshing and contagious. Even before he was diagnosed with cancer, he had adopted a pro-active strategy to his health, in light of his mother's early death.

When President Bush announced Tony Snow would fill the position of White House Press Secretary, I took the news as a mixed blessing. On the downside, it meant Tony could no longer host his radio show; the airwaves would be poorer for his absence from the dial. On the upside, it meant this newsman par excellence (unlike doltish Scott McClellan) would credibly articulate the policies of his boss, and energetically push back against the Bush Derangement Syndrome so prevalent among the MSM.

There will be tributes to his memory (here and here), but these are surely an imperfect measure of this man who was husband, father, friend, colleague and (for some) congenial but principled adversary.

In my mind's eye, I envision the moment St. Peter ushers Tony Snow through the Pearly Gates ... while the Great Communicator stands just inside the entrance waiting to offer Tony a welcoming hand.