E. Magill's Open Salon Blog

On Entitlement, Austerity, and Julia

Tue, 29 May 2012 12:05:40 -0400

If you're not a parent, don't be a jackass

In front of my favorite grocery store, beside the handicapped parking spaces, are a handful of spots labelled "Customer with Child." These spots are great for parents, and over the last few years, I've grown accustomed to parking in them. However, not long ago, I witnessed a man in a big SUV using one of these spaces, even though he had no kids in tow, and I drove away repressing a certain amount of rage. What reason, though, did I have to get so furious? Before I first went to the grocery store in question, I never even knew such a convenience as parents-only parking existed. In addition, there are no laws being broken when someone without children uses one of these spots, and a pedant might argue that "Customer with Child" does not preclude people who have children but haven't brought them along to the store. What if the guy in the SUV is dyslexic or unable to read English? How can I feel that a wrong has been done when someone takes advantage of a free convenience that is neither necessary nor terribly important?

America is about to receive a serious wake-up call--one that is all too familiar in Europe at the moment--and my little experience at the grocery store is a perfect example of the societal problem we face. In Europe, it's called "austerity," an innocent-sounding word for severe cuts to social programs. Here in the states, we call it "entitlement." Throughout the second half of the Twentieth Century, the government has granted its people more and more perks--Social Security, unemployment compensation, Medicare, etc.--using the idea of a "social safety net" as justification. I'm not here to debate the value of these programs, but there is an undeniable fact we have to accept immediately: they are, in their current form, completely unsustainable.

I have no interest in rehashing the numbers or going over the extreme size and scope of the problem--there are plenty of other places you can go for that sort of thing--so I'll just say that, no matter how bad you think it is, it is much worse. In the next twenty to thirty years, probably even sooner, we will face a monumental financial crisis that is likely to cripple our country. Social programs are by far the most expensive things our government is doing, and they are inevitably going to grow in proportion to all other government spending. In other words, dealing with the coming financial storm by freezing discretionary spending, cutting the defense budget, raising taxes, and downsizing federal departments--rather than by addressing the social programs driving our debt--is, if I may overuse an already tired metaphor, like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I'm not the first person to make this connection

However, whenever any politician from either political party proposes a solution to the problem, no matter how modest or tentative, that politician is immediately demonized, demagogoued, and defeated. You need look no further than the recent proposals of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee. Ryan has put out several budget proposals with "tackling entitlements" as a key goal. Even fellow Republicans have criticized Ryan's efforts--Newt Gingrich, for example, while still in the running for president, called them "right-wing social engineering"--and Democrats have predictably accused him of trying to "throw granny off the cliff" (there's even an ad featuring the political cliché). Granted, Ryan's budgets have included provisions that have no hope of passing bipartisan muster, such as a wholesale repeal of PPACA ("Obamacare"), so some critics may have a point. Regardless, no one doubts that, if Ryan were to put a bill in front of Congress that did nothing except attempt to deal with unsustainable spending in just one program (say, Social Security, the "third rail" of American politics) without resorting to the slaughter of any sacred cows, the bill would never reach the president's desk and the president would no doubt use it on his bully pulpit as an example of Republican cruelty to the disadvantaged.

This is because political power can best be found in reinforcing the entitlement mentality rather than fighting it. It is much easier to be seen as a good politician and get votes when you are handing out money. I can think of no greater illustration of this point than "Julia," the fictional, creepy, and faceless woman who lives her whole life receiving constant benefits from the government. Lest you think Julia is some right-wing charicature of left-wing propaganda, which would be easy to assume, know that "The Life of Julia" is designed as a campaign piece for President Obama's re-election, found on Barack Obama's own website. There is no question that the president wants people to think that government intervention is an important aspect of American life; it's the main thrust of his argument against Republican fiscal policy.

The problem is more sociological than social. Just as I had to repress rage when I saw a non-parent park in a "Customer with Child" space, the collective blood pressure of the citizenry tends to go up if there's even a hint that some social perk is in danger of being downsized. But we have to keep things in perspective: Social Security checks are a modern convenience, not a keystone of civilized existence without which we could not possibly survive. If we are forced by financial necessity to reduce the size of our entitlement programs--an inevitability as certain as tomorrow's sunrise--it would not, by itself, cause the fall of mankind. You'd better believe, however, that people will react as negatively as possible, just as they are currently reacting to austerity measures in certain parts of Europe. Whichever political party is deemed responsible will be immediately voted into oblivion, there will be demonstrations that turn to riots, and it will be a dark chapter in the history of the West.

Julia's website wouldn't exist without taxpayer dollars either

Look at the Occupy Wall Street movement, for instance. Though the movement isn't clearly defined or organized, the general consensus is that it exists to address apparent economic disparity. Unemployment and the cost of living are high, while the banks that are blamed for it have been bailed out by taxpayer dollars and the fat cats in charge of them have given themselves cushy and self-congratulatory bonuses. In other words, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, and the Occupy Wall Street movement is angry. However, when you get down and dirty with the actual protesters, you find college kids demanding that the government wipe away student loan debt, liberal arts graduates demanding that they be given a good job and free housing, and elitist academics who complain that rich people are out of touch and should pay more taxes. It doesn't take much imagination to contemplate how these masses would react if Congress passed a reduction in unemployment compensation.

But as fiscally conservative as I am--I have never collected a dime of unemployment, even when I desperately needed it--I cannot ignore what I felt when I saw that parking SUV. I can sympathize with the sentiment of those who feel entitled to government money. Though I know it's not how Social Security works, I know that people feel like they've invested in it their whole lives and deserve to get paid back when they retire. I can appreciate why Medicare and Medicaid are popular, and I understand that people feel like they own these programs, that any attempt to shrink them is tantamount to theft.

But austerity is not theft; it is merely the unavoidable result of having too much faith in government. I am neither heartless nor lacking in compassion, but people who believe that the government can grant them happiness from cradle to grave need a good splash of cold water. If you are planning your life on the backs of promises made to you by politicians--if you are planning on relying on those Social Security checks to have a happy retirement--you are a fool. The government does not grant you prosperity, and you do not deserve it simply because you are alive. Once this mentality of being entitled to convenience kicks in, the clock starts ticking toward societal Armageddon. By my watch, we don't have a lot of time left.

Rethinking AGW, Part 7: Questioning Authority

Tue, 22 May 2012 13:05:42 -0400

At least we can all agree that Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich

"Consensus" is defined as "majority of opinion" by Dictionary.com. Though the truth is beholden to nothing, science operates by consensus, by a majority of scientists coming to a general agreement. There is nearly always a minority opinion, but when it comes to scientific theories, the consensus that emerges from careful consideration, experimentation, and peer review is a rightfully difficult thing to change. People who have problems with or misunderstand the scientific method--for example, evolution deniers--like to argue that science is always changing, that today's consensus could easily be tomorrow's luminiferous aether. However, this is a flawed argument, because science progresses by gradual modification and clarification, not by fickle paradigm shifts. Whenever a scientific theory, such as the theory of relativity, reaches a strong consensus after years of vetting, it would take a ludicrous amount of evidence to tear that theory down and replace it with something entirely different. There may be subtle flaws in the details of any given theory, but theories are usually tweaked by better understanding, not switched out wholesale.

Many proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are quick to give the theory as much prestige as some of science's oldest, most embedded, and most universally accepted theories, to argue that those who are skeptical of AGW should be equated with HIV denialists, young Earth creationists, anti-vaccination advocates, and even Holocaust deniers. Three of the biggest sources of scientific data on AGW--as cited by the IPCC, the subject of a future installment--are the NOAA, NASA, and the CRU, all of which appear to be united in the conclusion that manmade climate change is real, that it's a serious problem with catastrophic consequences, and that something needs to be done immediately to counteract it. If these three bodies are operating in good faith and with adequate transparency, it would be beyond arrogant for a layman like myself to question their consensus on the sole basis of gut feelings, political leanings, and paranoid suspicions. In other words, if these entities are worthy of our trust, only a fool would bet against them. This raises the obvious question, which I shall tackle carefully and systematically: are the NOAA, NASA, and the CRU worthy of our trust?

Let's start with the NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The NOAA is an arm of the U.S. Department of Commerce with a reach that "goes from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor." Its mission is "to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources." For the most part, the NOAA's reputation is beyond reproach and its research should be trusted, especially when it tells you that you should evacuate your area immediately.

Senator Inhofe wants YOU to doubt global warming

However, noted climate change skeptic and Republican United States Senator James Inhofe has suggested that "NOAA employees potentially violated federal contract law and engaged in data manipulation," as revealed by an investigation he requested by the Commerce Department's Inspector General. In the report, the OIG recommends further investigation into some problematic e-mails between the NOAA and the CRU concerning climate change data. The NOAA, in response, apparently misrepresented the facts. The report was issued following "Climategate" (more on that further down), but as of this writing, no additional follow-up has occurred.

Setting aside the possible conflict of political interest that results from the NOAA being entirely government-run and currently headed by Obama appointees, I'd still be willing to give the NOAA the benefit of the doubt, as long as the other two sources are immune from criticism. Suspicious e-mails that call for "further investigation" are pretty far from bullet-proof evidence of irreparably damning bias. After all, I don't consider Inhofe--who has for years been swamping every government agency he can with requests for investigations into anything that can raise AGW skepticism--even remotely unbiased.

That brings us to NASA, specifically the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA's component research laboratory devoted to global climate change. As with the NOAA, the GISS receives almost all of its funding from the U.S. government, but it wouldn't be helpful to rehash the problem of publication bias. Let's make the admittedly ridiculous assumption that the U.S. government has no bias when it comes to AGW and that all its funding is given in good faith. That funding, in the case of the GISS, fell into the hands of its director, a man by the name of James E. Hansen. Hansen is a multiple award-winning scientist who was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996. When it comes to AGW activism, he was ahead of the curve in the early eighties, publishing his first paper on the subject in 1981 and ultimately appearing before Congress to testify that greenhouse gases are a serious problem in 1988.

Hansen's Congressional testimony is often credited with launching the modern AGW movement

He has also called for putting oil company CEOs on trial on the grounds of "high crimes against humanity and nature," has testified on behalf of eco-terrorists, and was arrested three times for participating in illegal and disruptive demonstrations against mountaintop removal mining and the proposed Keystone pipeline. He is "increasingly isolated among climate activists" for his shrill, catastrophic, and combative take on the issue. Even famed physicist Freeman Dyson, a friend of Hansen, has said, "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology." In other words, nobody in their right mind should call James Hansen a dispassionate, objective scientific observer of reality, and as a result, it is impossible to conclude that all data coming from the GISS is inherently trustworthy.

As for NASA itself, it was recently and very publically critiqued by nearly 50 former NASA scientists and astronauts for "including unproven remarks in public releases and websites." The critique goes on to say that "with hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements." Indeed, NASA would probably recapture some of its damaged reputation by distancing itself from the incendiary James Hansen.

This brings me, at long last, to the CRU, the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The CRU, compared to the NOAA and NASA, is a very small organization, but it--and especially its director, Phil Jones--is highly respected in climate science circles. It also has the benefit of not being run or funded by the U.S. government. However, if you've heard of the CRU, you've undoubtably heard about "Climategate" (and maybe its recent sequel, "Climategate 2.0"), an illegal release of private e-mails and internal documents that purport to demonstrate scientists behaving poorly, manipulating data to achieve political goals, and attempting to smear AGW skeptics rather than refute them.

The CRU: clearly not winning the PR battle

The most remarkable thing about the Climategate scandal is that it doesn't seem to have changed much. AGW alarmists are shockingly dismissive of the e-mails, whereas denialists greatly overstate what they mean. I can't claim to have gone through every single released document and e-mail, but from what I've seen, there isn't enough to completely condemn the CRU or throw out all of its science. There is enough to raise eyebrows, and I find the multiple "independent" inquiries into the matter to be largely unconvincing. If the CRU and UEA are truly innocent of manipulating the data, they are still and unquestionably guilty of a lack of proper transparency and an unprofessional and unscientific disregard for fellow scientists who disagree with them.

Therefore, I am left with two conspiracy theories. On one hand, I have the possibility that a cabal of powerful scientists have been tainted by ideology and confirmation bias and have used their prestige to blow this whole issue completely out of proportion, with the help of governments that are all too willing to find new ways of exerting power over private enterprise. On the other hand, I have the possibility that a determined clique of greedy capitalists and oil barons has come together to spread disinformation wherever they can and to wreck the reputations of innocent and honest scientific research organizations. Both of these conspiracy theories are, in my eyes, hard to accept, and the best way to determine which theory a person is more likely to believe is to check their political party affiliation, hardly a measure of scientific evidence.

So, when looking at the NOAA, NASA, and the CRU, I am left unconvinced as to whether or not they deserve my trust. Whether it's because of hints of behind-the-scenes wrongdoing, because of political and financial conflicts of interest, because of untamed personalities with an abundance of power, or because of vocal and professional skeptics who can't be easily ignored, I find the "consensus" of these bodies potentially dubious. Again, I am left with an infuriating uncertainty. I want to have faith in the scientific data, but all the evidence available to me, as a non-scientist, is not enough to overcome my doubts. If "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," I'm going to need more than the words of these three entities to go on.

Rethinking AGW, Part 6: Publication Bias

Tue, 15 May 2012 12:05:13 -0400

Perhaps, someday, the file drawer effect will be a thing of the past

Publication bias is a potentially vexing problem for modern science that is rarely ever talked about, outside of scientific circles, due to the bad PR. Put simply, the problem is that experimental results that demonstrate something new, sensational, or unusual are more likely to be published in peer-reviewed journals than results that are replicative, supporting of the null hypothesis, or commonplace. It happens in all scientific disciplines, and most scientists are trained to be vigilant against it. For example, a study that shows a slight but statistically significant benefit to taking a certain vitamin supplement is far more likely to get published (and publicized) than a study that shows no benefit whatsoever, but a careful doctor knows to take the study with a huge grain of salt before recommending that vitamin supplement to his or her patients. If a hundred experiments are done and only five show a positive result, those five might get published while the ninety-five others are left in the file drawer, because there isn't a lot of money to be made in boring, predictable results.

Where AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is concerned, publication bias might have resulted in an over-sensationalized sense within the scientific literature that AGW is not only real but extremely important and alarming. A paper that highlights doomsday computer models is more likely to be published than a paper that concludes that AGW isn't a very big deal. However, if this were going on strictly behind the scenes of climate science and weren't such a politically-charged issue, the scientific community would be able to compensate for the bias and correct it, as they do in most other modalities.

The problem with AGW bias, then, is a largely political one. When the United States government alone is spending "over $2,000,000,000 in resources to address the reality of global warming climate change and its effect on Earth's environments" in a single year (House Report 111-149), and many European governments are spending proportionally even more, not to mention all the taxpayer dollars being funneled into "green energy," there are enormous incentives for researchers to chase the money and produce results that are dramatic enough to be a political talking point. Scientists don't want to talk about it in public, because they never want to talk about it. Even the emphatically advocative Skeptical Science website, which does a good job debunking most AGW denialist arguments, has nothing at all to say on the subject of "publication bias."

When Charles Koch spends money, it's evil, but when Al Gore does it, it's altruism

Of course, to be fair, this political and financial bias doesn't go in just one direction. There is money to be found in denial. Alarmists are quick to point to ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and the Heartland Institute as the three biggest contributers to the "Global Warming Denial Machine." These businesses have set up websites filled with skepticism and questionable, cherry-picked science and have used their financial influence to block cap and trade legislation and raise money for scientists who are in the vocal minority of climate change research. There have been attempts by these groups to kick-start journals that only publish data that goes against the alarmist AGW narrative.

Using a very liberal accounting (for example, counting all money contributed to the Cato Institute and other conservative think tanks), Greenpeace has levelled their best case against ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, and is outraged that they have spent, in the span of eleven years, a total of $72.5 million. As for the Heartland Institute, there was a recent scandal concerning the roughly $6.5 million it has spent since its inception in the mid-80s on funding AGW skepticism and denial. At worst, these three big corporate entities--the three worst offenders, according to the alarmists--have spent upwards of $100,000,000 in the last decade or so. I have no doubt that a good portion of this money has been abused in the name of politics and bad science, but it is a far cry from the $2,000,000,000 the U.S. government spends every single year in support of "the reality of global warming climate change and its effect on Earth's environments," which doesn't include all the money being spent by liberal think tanks, Hollywood celebrities, and green energy companies. If the alarmists want to play a game of "follow the money," they will surely lose.

Incidentally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the BEST study I talked about a few months ago, since it was funded in large part by the Charles G. Koch Foundation. Charles G. Koch is not only the CEO of Koch Industries, but he has also donated a significant amount of money to Heartland. If the alarmists want to say that every dollar being spent by the Koch brothers in the name of AGW research is tainted, they have to throw out the results of the BEST study, which are the most convincing results pointing to a recent and dramatic increase in global surface temperatures. Similarly, I would be willing to believe that at least a small portion of the $2 billion annually spent by the U.S. government has found its way into the hands of AGW denialists or has funded research that supports the null hypothesis, though I doubt that portion is very large.

Just a little perspective

All this really does is highlight the dangers of mixing politics with science. No matter which side of the debate you favor, you have to acknowledge that there are rabid ideologues behind the scenes spending as much money as they can to subvert the scientific process. Unfortunately, you can't do good scientific research without money, so the truth is lost somewhere in the purse strings. When a debate becomes as heated and partisan as the AGW debate, the truth is hopelessly lost in a sea of political posturing, fundraising dinners, and grant applications.

It is also important to note that there are other reasons for publication bias in the AGW debate. For example, vocal climate skeptics tend to be older, because tenure protects them from political backlash and they tend to have more tempered expectations when it comes to the benefits of computer modeling. There could also be editorial bias, as the editors of scientific journals--the guys who choose which papers to publish--are not immune to political influences both subtle and gross, as well as the eagerness to pad one's resumé by authoring or co-authoring a slew of popularly cited sensationalistic papers.

In the end, I find it very difficult to believe that a scientifically skeptical person would completely dismiss the effects of publication bias and the file-drawer effect when it comes to AGW. There are very real consequences to the politics that have absolutely nothing to do with a scientific reality. The most alarmist position may indeed be correct, but it is impossible to know because the science has become hopelessly tainted by the financial process. I want to be a reasonable skeptic, but I find myself unable to believe any paper, no matter how many names, letters, and universities are on the byline, that takes a strong position on AGW either way. I simply cannot write off the billions of dollars being thrown around or the unfortunate tendency for even the most careful people to be swept up by political considerations. The longer this exercize of mine goes on, the less certain I am that anybody in this debate can honestly claim to know the truth.

Movie Review: The Avengers

Tue, 8 May 2012 14:05:32 -0400

Geeks everywhere should have an extra pair of shorts on hand

Four years ago, I was sitting in the movie theater with my cadre of geek friends as the credits to Iron Man rolled. One of my friends turned to me and asked whether we'd just seen the greatest comic book movie ever (this was, I should point out, a couple of months before The Dark Knight was released) and another of my friends--who happened to work at the theater at the time--popped his head out and said simply, "Don't leave." We dutifully complied and saw, as the credits came to a close, an eye-patched Samuel Jackson approach Tony Stark about "The Avengers Initiative." For geeks like us, nothing would ever be the same again.

I'll freely admit my skepticism. I loved Iron Man (and would later come to love The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor), but I had a hard time believing a film version of The Avengers could work. First of all, you have all these egos--not just the characters, but the actors too--and it would be difficult to put them all in the same movie, give them each adequate screen time, and make it good enough to make the fanboys happy. Secondly, putting the likes of Iron Man and the Hulk in a semi-realistic universe is one thing, but putting any Avengers plotline on the silver screen would require a completely different level of suspension of disbelief. When I eventually learned that the main baddies of the film are the Chitauri, a shapeshifting race of terrorist aliens from the lower fourth dimension, I couldn't imagine how The Avengers would be anything but ridiculous.

Despite my cynicism, I allowed myself to get swept up in the hype. Marvel had amazing success with their various franchises (with Captain America: The First Avenger being the sole exception, in my opinion), so maybe they deserved the benefit of my doubt. I wanted to be fair and I wanted to be excited, so I went into The Avengers (aka Avengers Assemble in the UK) with high hopes, buoyed by all the early, gushingly positive reviews.

I'm pretty sure it was in Whedon's contract to include at least one shot like this one

The opening scene of the film lets you know, right away, how it's going to approach the more ludicrous aspects of its story. You meet the Chitauri before you meet the Avengers themselves, and the tone is serious without failing to acknowledge its own absurdity. Whereas a dark, gritty, and severe tone works for Batman, writer/director Joss Whedon wisely takes this film in a different direction. The movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and even manages to have some great laugh-out-loud moments. As such, it invites viewers to sit back and just have fun, which is ultimately what it's all about. Whedon doesn't get caught up in semi-relavent subtexts or heavy-handed moralizing; he simply plays with the characters and the universe in a way that can't help but be entertaining. There are one or two scenes that get carried away into silly land, such as the reveal of the flying, cloaking aircraft carrier, but they aren't nearly as frequent as one might expect.

This is not to say Whedon isn't careful. Instead of just throwing the Avengers together and unleashing them, the story introduces them methodically, one at a time. There is time to see where each character is and how he or she interacts with the other superheroes before they are tasked with working together. Without spoiling too much, there are even a few fights between them that will satisfy geeks who frequently ask the good old "who would win" questions. Instead of making you believe that these characters would unite in the face of adversity, their idiosyncratic differences and inability to work together are put front and center as the driving force of the narrative. The story's central problem is how you can possibly get such over-the-top egos to cooperate, and the film solves it perfectly.

Loki is just as awesome as our heroes

More than that, Whedon does the impossible by giving each main character a logical, story-driven reason for being on the team and giving each one a relatively equal amount of deserved screentime. You get the sense that you are in the middle of each character's individual arc--Stark is working on expanding his arc reactor energy, Thor is still pining over Jane, and Captain America is still trying to adjust to the modern world--and there is development that should have lasting impact into future movie installments. The film also does plenty to keep each character feeling unique, by including musical themes from their various franchises and subtle references to individual storylines both past and future.

The dialogue between the characters is delightfully clever, with Whedon-esque banter that helps sell the various personalities without resorting to tired clichés or hand-holding exposition. Tony Stark comes across as the volatile playboy who doesn't "work well with others," Captain America comes across as the honorable, out-of-time patriot who puts the mission first, and Thor displays his newfound respect for humanity even as he shows his physical superiority. Though there are no real references to The Incredible Hulk (and Edward Norton has been replaced by Mark Ruffalo, who does well playing Bruce Banner his own way), the Hulk still manages to shine as well. He even steals the show a couple of times, which bodes well for fans hoping to see The Incredible Hulk 2 (Marvel Studios has gone on record saying that its plans for the Hulk depend on audience reaction to The Avengers).

Even though he's got a face that you just can't help but want to punch, I can't imagine any director doing a better job with this property than Joss Whedon--maybe it's time I finally forgive him for Alien: Resurrection

Of course, I should also mention Loki, the primary antagonist. Tom Hiddleson takes his reprised role very seriously and puts out a marvelous performance. Though his motivation is pretty standard supervillainy, Loki manages to come across as devious and unpredictable, at times frighteningly intelligent and at others blindly arrogant. I can't stress enough how perfect a villain he is, and it will be interesting to see how events from The Avengers play into the upcoming Thor 2.

But since this is a Joss Whedon movie, there has to be an ass-kicking hot chick, which is where Black Widow comes in. Black Widow and Hawkeye, the two Avengers who don't yet have their own film franchises, are by far the most Whedon-esque characters in the movie, coming across as a doll from Dollhouse and Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly, respectively. This isn't a bad thing. Both have their share of good scenes; one of the best scenes in the entire movie involves an exchange between Loki and Black Widow, and Jeremy Renner injects just enough nuance into Hawkeye to keep him interesting.

The effects are also incredibly well-done. The climactic orgy of comic book violence wouldn't work otherwise, and so the film never fails to deliver on spectacle. There is plenty of build-up to the ultimate battle, not just in this movie but in all of Marvel's previous installments since Iron Man, and the result does not disappoint. Somehow, against all odds, Marvel Studios pulled it off. I couldn't be happier to be proved wrong.

FINAL SCORE:

You'll never have a better time at the theater than the time you'll have with The Avengers. Go see it.

Top 10 Comic Book Movies

Tue, 1 May 2012 14:05:36 -0400

In anticipation of this week's release of Marvel's The Avengers, I thought I'd compile my list of greatest comic book movies ever made. We are currently living in a golden age of films based on comics, which started in the early seventies when Ilya Salkind had the insane idea to make a serious adaptation of DC's iconic Superman. It has taken some time, but comic book films are finally starting to get recognized as an artistic medium for storytelling, as exemplified by Tom Hiddleson's recent defense of them in The Guardian. The archetypal potential for this kind of popular narrative is getting tapped more heavily than ever before, but only a handful of the dozens made every year are worth your time. These ten are the ones everyone should be familiar with.

A few rules, as always. 1) The movie has to have been a theatrical release; no direct-to-video or television miniseries. 2) No animated movies--I'll save those for a future list which will no doubt be populated by a lot of manga--but movies with animated scenes are okay. 3) I have to have seen the movie. 4) Only one film per series; reboots count as separate series.

#10. Tank Girl

This is probably the silliest film on the list, but it's endearing. I don't claim to know what it feels like to be a teenage girl, but I imagine Tank Girl captures some of that manic energy. The movie embraces the absurdity of its story and universe, tones down some of the seedier elements, and unleashes itself at you in a relentless stream of consciousness that doesn't try too hard to make sense or be more than what it is. Granted, the filmmakers look at their final product as a total failure, it bombed at the box office, and much of the film's crazy editing and handful of animated scenes only exist because of a sloppy, unfinished production schedule. However, the film has developed a huge cult following, has inspired dozens of successful people, and stands as a mid-nineties manifesto for geeky girl rockers the world over. (Full disclosure: I may be a bit biased here, as Tank Girl is one of my wife's favorite movies--I've only seen it because she made me.)

#9. Batman (1989)

Nowadays, if you were to ask the average geek who is the grittiest mainstream comic book superhero, you'd get "Batman" about 90% of the time. However, before Tim Burton took a crack at the dark knight, Batman was, to the non-comic-reading public at large, the schlockiest, campiest, and most ridiculous comic book superhero of all time. This is largely due to the Adam West television show, of course, but Burton made the wise decision to ignore that in favor of his own vision. Batman manages to bridge the gap between the goofy Batman of the sixties and the intense Batman of today by being both serious and quirky. It's difficult to overstate this accomplishment, and it's impossible to imagine anybody but Tim Burton in his prime pulling it off.

#8. The Crow

Like Tank Girl, Alex Proyas' The Crow is a mid-nineties adaptation of a relatively obscure comic book. That's where the similarities end, though, as The Crow is incredibly dark, brutal, and violent. Whereas Tank Girl is the template for the manic teenage girl of the time, The Crow is a magnet for angsty goth kiddies, teenage boys who wore dark clothes and listened to Nine Inch Nails. Yeah, back then, I kinda fit that description, so it goes without saying that I couldn't get enough of the movie. Though it has spawned several terrible sequels and has a reboot in the works, The Crow is a confluence of unique factors--such as Brandon Lee's unfortunate death while making a film in which his character is dead--that are unlikely to manifest in quite the same way again.

#7. Watchmen

For years, many comic book snobs told us that Watchmen is the greatest comic book (though they of course prefered to call it a "graphic novel") ever written and that it would never make a good film. Even Terry Gilliam, the man who succeeded in adapting the chaotic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, called Watchmen "unfilmable" after trying for years to make it work. That didn't stop Hollywood from pushing it, and after many failed attempts and false starts, Watchmen finally reached the silver screen in 2009. While the film, by necessity, omits a great deal of detail from the book and changes around some major plot points, it manages to capture the unique feel of the story, which is simultaneously gritty, psychologically dense, surreal, and absurd. Zack Snyder, fresh off his success with 300, managed to solve the problems that Gilliam could not, and though the film isn't considered a critical or box office success, he has been propelled as Hollywood's latest comic book adapting wünderkind and is currently working on a new Superman.

#6. Men in Black

I bet you didn't know Barry Sonnenfeld's Men in Black is a comic book adaptation, but it is. The comic, The Men in Black, is indeed about a secret organization of agents--most notably Zed, Jay, and Kay--that work behind the scenes to deal with the paranormal. The movie does make some significant alterations, however, the most notable being a dramatic shift in tone. In the comic, for example, the agents heartlessly murder witnesses rather than simply erasing their memories. Still, Sonnenfeld's film is a wild success, a fun ride that manages to have some surprising subtexts between all the goofy one-liners and Will Smith antics. Sonnenfeld is a master of satire that is somehow subtle despite being right in your face, and Men in Black is arguably his magnum opus.

#5. Iron Man

The verdict is still out about what Marvel Studios has accomplished with The Avengers, but when its ambitious plan was kicked off with Iron Man, moviegoers were put on notice: Marvel was about to attempt something truly unprecedented. Iron Man wasn't obscure the same way The Crow or Tank Girl were, but it also wasn't as iconic as Batman or Superman. For this reason, Iron Man was already a gamble, a big-budget adaptation that didn't have a guaranteed fanbase and rested largely on the performance of an aging, quirky Robert Downey, Jr. Needless to say, Iron Man succeeded in every way possible, and even on its own, it stands as an amazing comic book film that manages to be relevant, slyly poignant, and a whole lot of fun. The only people who didn't seem surprised by this were the masterminds at Marvel, whose confidence only made fans more excited for what would come next.

#4. Spider-Man

If there's a big budget adaptation that feels more like a comic book than Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, I haven't seen it. The movie doesn't just adapt the story or tone of the comics, but it actually adapts the sensation of reading a comic unlike any other movie on this list. The music, the editing, the effects, and the acting all coalesce on the screen like frames of a Spider-Man serial, and its thematic focus on Peter Parker's coming of age speaks to the adolescent part of many fans' psyches that made them love comic books in the first place. It's not a perfect movie--the Power Ranger look of the Green Goblin alone keeps it from being in the top three--but it does something special that deserves recognition and is certain to be missing from the upcoming franchise reboot.

#3. X2

Bryan Singer is one of the greatest directors alive today, and when he moved from doing dark, artsy masterpieces like The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil to doing The X-Men, a lot of film critics were worried. The X-Men is an important evolution in comic book movies, because it is the first film to succeed in bringing multiple beloved superheroes and supervillains to the screen at once. With well-respected Shakespearean acting talent like Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, along with the heavyweight talent behind the camera, the movie demands to be taken seriously and, in many ways, it proves that it should be. As a story, The X-Men is a timeless Rorschach test, with multiple interpretations out there that are all valid and important. As entertainment, it is full of thrills, action, and adventure. While The X-Men paved the way, its sequel X2 is unquestionably a better movie, which is why it makes this list.

#2. Superman II

Superman II is an almost perfect superhero movie. It has everything you could want: a moral and awesome hero, iconic villains, a quest for humanity, a big love story, epic battles, a good twist, high stakes, and a clever narrative that never falls victim to pretentiousness or ludicrousness. Indeed, combined with the original Superman, this film is the standard by which all other comic book movies are judged. It is a template that has become an indelible part of our collective unconscious, and I don't believe anybody can ever do Superman better. If it weren't for Superman and Superman II, we probably wouldn't have as many comic book movies today.

#1. The Dark Knight

I'm sure some of you are rolling your eyes seeing The Dark Knight at the number one spot, but I don't care. As I predicted, the immense popularity of the film has caused something of a snobbish backlash among fans, but just because it is predictable to call The Dark Knight the greatest comic book movie ever made doesn't make it any less true. I never thought a comic book movie could be as relevant, as important, or as well-made as Christopher Nolan's film, and I never thought anybody could make a better Joker than Jack Nicholson. This movie taps into current events and asks all sorts of uncomfortable questions, but it does it through giant action set-pieces, larger-than-life characters, amazing cinematography, and a respect for the source material that is unmatched. If it weren't based on a comic book, I have no doubt that The Dark Knight would have won Academy Awards. Still, it has set a new standard, dethroning Superman as the superhero template, and it is a direct rebuttal to anyone who argues that comic books can't be taken seriously. When the aging elitists who currently run the Oscars are finally replaced by a new generation of film critics, I have no doubt movies like The Dark Knight will get the critical respect they deserve.