Comic-book Showdown 2012: The Avengers vs TDKR

I used to love comic books and the escape they provided when I was younger. So at the beginning of 2012, I was psyched to anticipate the release of the 3^rd of a revolutionary trilogy of Batman, and for the epic concurrent sequel to 5 films, The Avengers. At that stage, I had my expectations of either movie laid out: I was going to enjoy the shit out of Avengers, but ultimately admit that TDKR would be the superior film....

As a teen, X-men was the first real live action incarnation of the characters I had grown accustom to. When Spiderman came out, that was the second comic book milestone movie for me. Not only was the webslinger my favourite of Marvel’s flawed heroes, but also, unlike the X-men incarnations with their black leather suits, Spidey was swinging through New York in all his blue and red glory, faithful to the source material. That film showed me that this was the real deal. The earthbound heroes are finally becoming a possibility for the live action treatment. CGI had reached a stage where not only did it make comic book films possible, it made them popular as scripts. It provided that perfect blend between romance, drama and crazy spectacle actions scenes that come with a legion of fans before the film is ever written. 

  Watching Avengers earlier this year blew both the previous milestones I mentioned out of the water. My favourite part of the Marvel universe was finally realised: The fact they all live in one world. Before delving into Avengers, let’s just make sure we all understand that every single Marvel Studios film thus far are science fiction films, whether it is science fiction levels of energy powered robotic suits, chemical reaction of transforming man into monster, a serum to turn a dweeb into the ultimate soldier or straight up aliens of Asgard. So let’s not go into this expecting something too grounded in reality. The more important aspect is that it sticks to the universe they set up and realities within that. It has to be as realistic as it could be within the constraints of the universe and the characters of the story. Yes it is not some deep layered analysis of the human psyche or society but hopefully, as I will prove later, neither is Batman. Joss Whedon has also cleverly set-up the introduction of cosmic level plots, which is the final frontier for the big comic companies.

   The more casually viewer of the Averngers will watch it and find it comparable to films like Transformers or Michael Bay’s ExplosionFest 7. But the skill required to make all those characters inhabit the same universe, to bring the egomaniacs together to fight as one, to make a film grounded, to make each character likeable and relatable, to set up not only the next one, but also leave the characters so they can go off on their solo films, and make it coherent is very high. Luckily Joss is the king of ensemble casts and dysfunction. It also helps to have a true comic book fan at the helms, as much as I respect Nolan. The Avengers was for me the most enjoyable film of all time so far.

I’ll preface this paragraph with the fact that Christopher Nolan is one of my favourite directors if not my favourite. And this from back in the days of Memento which has been in my top 5 films since first viewing. The reason Nolan has been so successful with Batman, I feel is a meeting point between the most grounded, dark and realistic hero in a world with no supernatural or science fiction, an inspiring director and the fact the trilogy is a crime/action film than a comic book film. Let’s not exaggerate the level of skill Nolan has. A Nolan Superman film, or a Nolan Thor film or a Nolan Green Lantern would not have achieved anywhere near the greatness of TDK. Batman Begins is a straight up crime story. TDK is a crime story with a crazy villain. TDKR is a crime story with terrorist elements. Relatively easy topics to keep gritty and realistic. Try doing the same with aliens and energy cubes and Hyde-mutations in.

I’m sure hundreds of thousands of people watched TDKR, and were impressed enough to call it a good end to the trilogy. However, I, maybe because I analyse it too much, was left very disappointed. When a film tries to achieve the levels of high-browness that TDKR was attempting, it helps to have a coherent plot and themes and ideas that are not merely introduced, but explored. My largest gripe with the film: Bane’s plan makes no sense. So Bane has a nuke in the city, he gives triggers to people, he warns people not to leave or he’ll blow it, but secretly, it’s going to blow anyway by itself. WHAT THE HELL? Are we to believe this genius who wants to destroy Gotham wouldn’t have just activated the thing when he got it and blown it up immediately, or if he wants to live, as soon as he got away from the area? What exactly was the point of the delay?? So you could have a plot. Batman has enough time to heal from a broken back, jump out of a hole and come back and stop the nuke. Other things that made little sense: sending ALL the cops into the sewers (WTF??), Batman doesn’t want to use any projectiles against someone insanely physically superior to him, fact if Bruce has listened to Alfred and left it alone, Gotham would have been nuked, Bruce and Batman die at the same time to the world, pointless sex between Talia and Bruce, why he dons the suit so quickly after a 8 year absence, a reactor that can be converted to a nuke in 20 mins, fact that the previous two films are ingrained in the idea that Batman doesn’t kill people, yet in this, he is cool with Catwoman doing it for him, etc. The fact that Robin clocked the world’s greatest detective from one smile is very silly, but I was actually quite pleased with the set up of Robin. Yeah they had to force him to get angry at cops at the end for silly reasons, so he could go down the route of a vigilante.

My point about ideas and themes that are introduced but not explored is the main reason I can’t describe this film in one sentence like the previous fims (BB – fear and the creation of a symbol, TDK – chaos and what the symbol must represent). They introduce elements of class warfare and terrorism, but ultimately pussyfoot around making any points on either topic. The theme of this is something like Alfred doesn’t want Bruce to be Batman. Nolan set this trilogyas a level above the rest, which he proved in the first two films. In TDKR, he doesn’t come close to living up to the level he had set up. A muddled story and incoherent themes are saved by stellar performances and direction so even though this was a huge disappointment for me, it is still probably 7/10 when compared to most films. All in all, comic book films are still just getting started, stay tuned!

Stuttgart: Points of View

This final architecture video was shot in Stuttgart, Germany. The idea was to show the how two different people, namely a tourist and a local view the city. This was done with perspective shots, periodic photos for the jittery excited tourist and a video for the more relaxed local. The style was that of a video game, with a map showing the paths on the side. There's a scene you may miss if you're not paying attention where the tourist falls over and the contents of his bag litter the floor. That is the only point where the two characters cross.

Agadir Intervention

This video also takes place in Agadir. The task was to do an "intervention" in the town. If you saw the last video, you would have gained some knowledge about the history of Agadir. Long story short, earthquake, city was relocated below the hills using more modern styles of construction. So our idea was to recreate the old city which still exists on the hill, onto the beaches of the new city, using sand to portray the more primitive dark materials of the old contrasting against the plush whiteness of the new. The tide messed us up twice, during one of which you may be able to hear me let of a curse. Some people may say this was just a way to make sand castles instead of working.... some people might be correct...

Architectural Analysis: Jean-Francois Zevaco's Hotel de Ville, Agadir, Morocco

Now for some architecture related posts. These videos were made in groups, almost consistent members for all the videos.

So this first video is study of the Agadir town hall in Morocco. The video starts with some history of Agadir which is relevant to the next video I'll post. We made a 3D model of the building to create a CGI video which explores it which can be seen at the end. The camera was hard to control hence the awkward turnings. We also got an interview with the Mayor of Agadir who was more than happy to see a group of young foreign students. 

The Greek Tyrant Cleisthenes

30-11-2006

How elitist were the reforms of Cleisthenes?

Cleisthenes came from the Alcmaeonoid family of Athenian Greeks. Previously, Pisitratus had set up a tyranny in Athens which Pisistratus’s son Hippias had inherited. With the help of the Alcmaeonid family, Cleisthenes was able to overthrow Hippias, but lost power to Isagoras, another Athenian seeking power, who began another tyranny with none being able to match his power in Athens. He was not a popular ruler and was eventually banished by the council backed up by the people of Athens. Cleisthenes returned and took over as ruler of Athens. Cleisthenes was a revolutionary in that he brought about radical forms of democracy to Athens for the first time through his reforms.

    “Now Cleisthenes of Athens, following the lead of his grandfather and namesake Cleisthenes of Sicyon, decided, out of contempt, I imagine, for the Ionians, that his tribes should not be the same as theirs, so as soon as he had won the support of the common people of Athens, previously held in contempt, he renamed the tribes and increased their number…” [1] Cleisthenes abolished the traditional four tribes that existed (who were chosen on family and descent) and instead organised the people into ten tribes based on where they lived. The new tribes were named mostly after Athenian heroes. The way the tribes were organised now meant that a more political and fair system was in placed compared to the former social division where the heads of the most important families would rule. Every tribe had members from the three regions of Athens (city, coast and inlands). This was so that all the interest groups possible were being represented. It did bring unity of Attica because all the three areas were being equally represented and each could voice their opinions better. The assembly of the council where they vote on issues and discuss various aspects of economic and politic interest, was opened to any registered citizen which allows them to see and feel closer to the workings of their economy. As well as serving to be a more fair representation of the people, the new tribe system served to weaken the power of the aristocracy who had in fact been the cause of tyrannies of the past. [2]The other aristocrats had their regions split into different tribes which served to reduce their influence. Cleisthenes however did maintain his own family and tribe stay a lot more powerful than the others. Their strongholds were not split up between the other tribes.

    Cleisthenes also changed Solon’s (the previous law-giver over fifty years before Cleisthenes’ rule) council structure from the four hundred four tribe based council to five hundred ten tribe council. Each tribe contributed fifty people each who were chosen by the people to represent them. The fifty people chosen had to be from the top three economic classes as well as be over thirty years old. In this way, although power has been diluted past the oligarchy of past, the reform is fairly elitist in that you still had to be rich to have a chance of leading. Another point to note is that although all male citizens could vote, some of them in the more rural areas of Attica chose not to as it would mean going on a trip to Athens. In these areas, aristocrats had a better chance as they could afford the journeys.

    Cleisthenes also introduced local councils (demes) which consisted of hamlets, villages or even cities. This is the predecessor or mayors. Cleisthenes sought to take the focus away from being a member of the tribes to being a member of the state.  New citizens would be judged on ancestry, but Cleisthenes changed it so being a member of a deme was enough to qualify for citizenship. This again was weakening the hold of the elite aristocrats. Religion was left untouched by Cleisthenes. He was aware of the importance of religion and so he left the older social structures than had strong religious ties.

      Ostracism is often credited to Cleisthenes[3]. This is the process of voting to exile a citizen of Athens for a period of ten years. This was often used to exile people that seemed to be gaining too much power so a tyranny can be prevented in the future. Strictly, ostracism is not the same as exile as property is retuned to the ostracised person when they return. A possible reason for the invention of ostracism is that as the aristocratic system was undermined and Pisistratus, the previous tyrant, had powerful, wealthy relatives that remained in Athens, Cleisthenes hoped to avert the danger of tyranny.

    Cleisthenes ignored foreign policy and relations with Sparta and the rest of Greece deteriorates into war. He also made it a requirement that each tribe contribute a general who commanded a hoplite regiment and horsemen. Herodotus remarks on how effective the military of Athens was in its democratic infancy, especially in successfully dealing with the Boeotian and Euboean invasions. [4]

    Cleisthenes named his reforms ‘isonomia’ which translates to “equality under the law”. When looking at the reforms of Cleisthenes outlines, we can see that there are elements of elitism in some of them, the vast majority of the reforms were quite the opposite. They served to break down the elite and give the people more power over their leaders. The reforms led to a more active participation by the people of Attica, especially those that were not represented in the past. The re-shaping of the Athenian society was definitely a positive one which led to a more efficient way of governing. So in conclusion, I would say that the reforms were not very elitist at all but quite the opposite.

Bibliography

Herodotus – The Histories

Encyclopaedia Britannica – Cleisthenes

Aristotle – Athenian Constitution and Politics

J.B. Bury – A History of Greece

www.wikipedia.org

---

[1] Herodotus – The Histories Book 5, 69

[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica - Cleisthenes

[3] Aristotle – Athenian Constitution and Politics

[4] Herodotus – The Histories

The Greek "polis"

26-10-2006

What aspects of Greek religion were significant in the development of the Greek polis?

The Greeks were a polytheistic society who were deeply religious. Different areas over Greece often concentrated on different gods whom they thought to be their local or more important deity. They had a god for pretty much every aspect of everyday life. Before the polis, the Greek religion was probably a simplistic pagan one where each area praying to their own god alone.[1] I would think that basic pagan gods were worshipped and throughout time a myth grew around their stories, and eventually connected the god’s up to family trees that now exist. The evidence for this in my view is that all the gods are in their physical prime (even though some are fathers and sisters and mothers to each other) although this maybe a show of perfection for the worshippers. Although one god is usually favoured amongst others in regions, there is a hierarchy that exists when the basis of the “religion” (the Greeks did not see it as such) is better established. The twelve main gods (Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Ares, Hephaestus, Athena, Hermes, Dionysus and Demeter) are recognised by all Greeks, but there is no universal truth about too much else The basis of Greek religion revolved around a few things; building grand temples, animal sacrifice, offerings, honouring and prayer.

     Before the polis in the early Dark Age, all that existed were small settlements with no society as such except very basic trade. The polis which just means city-states (cities that governed themselves) is the ancestor of today’s cities and even countries. By definition, a polis is not a geographical or territorial unity, but a religious, social and political one. Religion gave a story for the identity, past and geography of the polis. [2]A sizeable polis is usually centred around an acropolis, which were basically the core of the cities where they grow around. One of the better known examples is the Acropolis of Athens. They are usually situated higher up mountains for initial defence purposes. A typical polis had at least one temple and we can already see religion coming into play. Since worship before a temple or common place of worship was at home where gods could not be so easily publicised to each other, the significance of religion would have been weaker. As soon as temples came into play, a social network and moral code was made. In ancient Greece, temples were more about the gods and we can see that Greeks took great pride in their work as temples were often extremely lavish and even rebuilt to increase the aesthetics. Sacrifices and other social events at a temple set goals and helped to integrate people into the community allow it to flourish into a more social and eventually political power. Rituals help to solidify the society’s social basis.

     A big part of the Greek society is athletics and art. The basis of both these acts is in pleasing the gods. Every grand festival and games held were to tribute the gods. For example, the Olympian Games are to honour Zeus and Pelops (mythical king of Olympia).

         "One aspect of increasing solidarity was a stronger cohesion among those who bore arms.... But despite its general implications, warfare, as well as the exercise of power that went with it, was the business of only a small fraction of society....The creation of political organs that institutionalized new modes of exercising public authority could in itself achieve nothing unless it was backed up by a social body whose motives and desire for unity were inspired by something other than war....religion was the only agent to effect the entire social body....It signalled the emergence of a society that seemed to acquire self-awareness as it retook possession of the past by endowing it with a sacred character....It was thus through religious life that a new kind of social body was gradually to take shape...."[3]  As Francois de Polignac says, religion can be seen as the vehicle for a thriving new society to grow around. The creation of a polis was helped strongly by the worship of the same god in a region. A society is more likely to spring up between people with the same beliefs and this is what happened. The tribes of Athens came to join together as they shared religious ceremonies, and so the regional loyalty was reduced.[4] It was also probably a political advantage as you can be united under your god (e.g. Athens under Athena) and “laws” can be passed for what the gods desired. For example, the Pisitratide regime used to promote cults in the common people to weaken the power of the aristocrats. The fact that each polis had their own deities for protection, their own unique customs and festivals, means that they were differentiated from other any other polis, but also united within their own polis.

    Despite all these points for religion being significant in the development of the polis, we must not forget all the other reasons for a city state, like the social and political. A polis is far more efficient than a spread of isolated settlements, or even, for the time, a country. A polis was a manageable size in which political and other experimentation could take place.

    We come to what particular aspects of religion may have been particularly important in the creation and maintaining of the polis. The Oracle at Delphi (Pyhthia) probably provided a basis for leaders to come to for guidance. This source was obviously infallible, so it connected people under the leader in this way. Lycurgus of Sparta sought the oracle for help was told to write the constitutional laws which the people were behind since it came from the word of the oracle. If the oracle were to say a god was angry and a city would be under their wrath unless they performed a certain task, again the people would be united. The oracle certainly helped to bring the people of Greece together.

    The priests of temples had a lot of power in Ancient Greece. As a priest was ‘an assistant to a divinity’[5], they had a lot of say and could override government laws if they so wished to.

    The basis of a polis is that a relatively small number of people are united under a rule. To do this, you need patriotism and a common cause. This was provided by the many aspects of the Greek religion in pleasing gods. The Olympic Games are a perfect example. They have the people of a polis united in rivalry, but not with another polis which would hold off the thought of empires and countries.

    Since the development of the polis was in the earlier archaic period, all evidence is questionable. There are often myths surrounding the creation of a polis involving oracles and the gods, used by the cities to glorify their ancestry. This while making the evidence unreliable does prove the point that religion was an important enough factor to base the grand beginnings of the city.

         As well as religion helping with the founding of the polis, the eventuality is that the polis provides a basis for the religion to operate. Three outlines on how the polis provides a framework for religion is outlines by Carrie Dobbs; 1. the polis interacted with other poleis and with the Panhellenic religious dimension/ usually done in Amphictionies or Leagues. 2. Religious participation was only for the citizens of the community which articulated the religion. 3. If you visited the sacra of another polis you could only participate as a xenos (foreigner). [6] Essentially because the specifics of the religion was for a certain polis only, you find identity within your polis, which is not necessarily a point of how religion developed the polis, but more a point of how religion continues to develop a polis.

    To conclude, Greek religion played a big part in the creation of the Greek polis. The main aspects of the religion that brought about the change concerned things that united people, whether under a common cause, under fear or under similar beliefs and practices. This helped to unite people, but only within a smaller area and therefore create a polis. Only a polytheistic religion than concerned areas with their own favourite gods could have created a city-state. A monotheistic religion would have edged towards a larger scale unity such as a country.

Bibliography

Carrie Dobbs on Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood's Chapter in OXFORD READINGS IN GREEK RELIGION, 2/28/02

Francois de Polignac, Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City State  (trans. Janet Lloyd, Chicago, 1995). 151-152

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis

www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/edelciv1.htm

www.fjkluth.com/religion.html

---

[1] www.wikipedia.org/ancient_greek_religion

[2] Carrie Dobbs on Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood's Chapter in OXFORD READINGS IN GREEK RELIGION, 2/28/02

[3] Francois de Polignac, Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City State (trans. Janet Lloyd, Chicago, 1995). 151-152

[4] www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/edelciv1.htm

[5] www.fjkluth.com/religion.html

[6] Carrie Dobbs on Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood's Chapter in OXFORD READINGS IN GREEK RELIGION, 2/28/02

Religious Imagery During the Reformation

15-12-2006

Why did religious images attract so much controversy during the reformation?

In the 16^th century, reformers of Christianity split from the Catholic Church in Western Europe. It all started with the Augustinian monk Martin Luther (1483 – 1546). He gave 95 arguments for against the use of indulgences as a pardon for sins allowing the rich to guarantee a place in heaven. His theses were highly controversial at the time. Despite this, Luther was not burnt for being a heretic but allowed to present his arguments in front of a court. The printing press brought on the media who made Luther the centre of religious controversy and sent his message all over Europe. He questioned the Roman Church and their right to grant salvation. Martin Luther himself was not against the idea of using religious images so long as it was still the god they represent that was being worshipped. In England, the reformation was quite different to the rest of Europe. It was driven by Henry VIII who created the Act of Supremacy so that he became the Head of the Church of England. Religious imagery was destroyed as Protestant reformers such as John Calvin and Andreas Karlstadt supported the removal of images of god or Jesus. The reformers claimed that the Church had fallen into idolatry. The destruction of religious icons is known as iconoclasm. In the words of T.S. Elliot, the reformation left ‘ a heap of broken images, where the sun beats / and the dead tree gives no shelter’. [1]

    “Lord what work was here! What clattering of glasses! What beating down of walls! What tearing up of monuments! …etc... And what a hideous triumph in the market-place before all the country, when all the mangled organ pipes, vestments, both copes and surplices, together with the leaden cross which had newly been sawn down from the Green-yard pulpit and the service-books and singing books that could be carried to the fire in the public market-place were heaped together'.” Bishop Joseph Hall of Norwich.

   As Henry VIII’s son Edward VI came into power in 1547, the iconoclastic reformers were more influential and a royal injunction was issued were reformers were told to destroy all shrines, pictures, paintings and all other monuments of miracles so no memory remains within the walls of the churches or houses.

    Although the roots of iconoclasm go further back than Christianity, within the religion, it is stimulated by the Ten Commandments. One of the commandments entails the following “Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:” [2]If the words are interpreted literally, they are the main justification for iconoclasm. God by his very nature was beyond representation. Reliquaries which had veneration powers empowering saints as supernatural beings was also rejected by the reformers. Another reason was that some of the art was extravagant not to flaunt the splendour of God but to show the power of the owner or donor. At the time of the reformation, saint worship and pilgrimages were especially important as the superstition associated with them was especially popular. This was strongly opposed by the reformers who destroyed shrines and any other form of art depicting saints with any superhuman powers. Instead of worshipping god, reformers claimed that worship was directed towards the material world.

     There was opposition to the movement as the opposition argued that since God had been incarnated as Jesus, it was possible to represent him. Another reason they argued for was that the images were beneficial to the illiterate as they told stories and helped them understand the religion.The reformers all agreed that the images of saints should not be worshipped, but they were not so united on what to do with the existing pieces. This difference of opinion within the reformers would lead to divisions within Protestantism. While Martin Luther would rather have had the images removed, Andreas Karlstadt was more extreme in that he issued an order to the town of Wittenburg to remove all religious images from churches. Three days after the order was issued, he complained that the order was not followed and the first iconoclastic riot began. Karlstadt argued that God was a spirit so attacks on the external being were pointless. [3] ‘It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail’ John 6.63.[4] In early 1522, Karlstadt wrote “On the Abolition of Images” to justify the destruction of images. He outlines three things in the document. Firstly that the images present in houses and churches goes against the first commandment, idols on altars are worse and that it is therefore right to ban them. [5] Karlstadt’s main source is the Old Testament, so he denies the viewpoint that Christ came to abolish the primitive laws of the Old Testament. Karlstadt provided a very extreme view in that he claimed religious images were as bad as any of the other commandments such as murder and adultery. He concentrated more on the Word of God as he believed only the Word could transcend the flesh. As for the arguments that images provided a gateway for the illiterate (the argument was called the libri pauperum ictum of Pope Gregory), Karlstadt said images kept the illiterate ignorant and dependant on clergy.

   There is more to the iconoclasm of the reformation that simply ridding the religion of images. There are social and political reasons for the move. The images were a gateway to the Pope. By attacking the images, the reformers were directly attacking the pope. The idols did not merely represent false gods, but gods of the Catholic Church of Rome, and therefore to get rid of the idols was to get rid of the influence of Rome.

   John Calvin was another big name in the iconoclastic attack on Christianity. He outlines his theory of worship as – ‘to acknowledge God to be, as He is, the only source of all virtue, justice, holiness, wisdom, truth, power, goodness, mercy, life and salvation; in accordance with this, and to ascribe and render to Him the glory of all that is good, to seek all things in Him alone in every need’. [6]Our purpose in Calvin’s view was to glorify god through worship and obedience. [7] Calvin maintains that the only way of worshipping God is through spiritual worship and this is what justifies his iconoclasm. This is worship without props and other such human aides. Calvin also maintains that there is a ‘loss of glory’[8] associated with mixing the spiritual and material in worship.

     To conclude, the iconoclasts were concentrating on the images more than what they represented during the reformation. For the reformers, abolishing the images meant more than just ridding the places of worship of pictures, it represented the break from the traditional bureaucracy of the traditional Church which had been exploiting the masses. It was a strong force to drive Rome out of the reformed religion. The legacy of which is every branch of Christianity today that is not a form of Rome-centric Catholicism.

Bibliography

E. J. Martin, A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (1930, repr. 1978)

The Reformation of Images: Destruction of Art in England, 1535-1660, John Phillips

War Against the Idols: the reformation of worship from Erasmus to Calvin By Carlos M. N. Eire

De Necessitate, CR 6.460

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm

---

[1] The Reformation of Images: Destruction of Art in England, 1535-1660, John Phillips

[2] E. J. Martin, A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (1930, repr. 1978)

[3] War against the Idols, Carlos M. N. Eire, 1986

[4] Holy Bible

[5] War against the Idols, Carlos M. N. Eire, 1986

[6] De Necessitate, CR 6.460

[7] War against the Idols, Carlos M. N. Eire, 1986

[8] War against the Idols, Carlos M. N. Eire, 1986