martasfic | Entries tagged with fandom

(x-posted from FB)

I sat down and watched "Thor" for the first time tonight. Parts of it were magnificent. Predictably, I liked Tom Hiddleston's, Anthony Hopkins's, and Rene Russo's acting in it. Idris Elba as Heimdall was particularly magnificent, though we didn't see nearly enough of him for my taste. I've never been a big fan of Chris Hemsworth's acting or Natalie Portman's for some reason, so their work left me a bit cold, but it was mostly well-done. I did enjoy the cameos from the Avengers 'verse, as well (Coulson, Hawkeye, etc.) I wasn't expecting that for some reason.

I think the biggest problem I had with it was mixed expectations between mythology/fantasy and the comic book genre. This is Thor, and I grew up on Norse mythology so I'm probably much more critical than I would be of, say, Zeus and Prometheus. So I'm expecting, well, mythos. Faerie. Modern movies, Hollywood in particular, never come close, but the closest I've been privileged to see of what I was expecting are probably the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter franchises. Of course it's not anything like that because at least half the story is told in modern-day Earth. But that did mean that some of the bits were at odds with my expectations. The feasting scenes felt cheesy. The redneck (for lack of a better word) attempts to pull the Mjolnir out of the earth were overdone. The family dynamic was well-done for what it was --really well done, actually-- but felt personal to the point that it verged on petty, at some level.

That last point is almost ironic, because, while I didn't like all the motivation of father doesn't love me, I only ever wanted to be your equal, etc., I really liked what they did with Loki. I can't say in his situation I wouldn't have reacted exactly the same way, though I hope I wouldn't have acted quite so recklessly! There's a great deal of moral ambiguity, or perhaps I should say nuance: you're never quite sure what side he's on, why he's on that side, just why he's so motivated as he is. Particularly for the genre, he brought a lot of depth to the role.

Plus, it's Tom Hiddleston. Do I really need to say more?

I want to watch it again in a few days, definitely. I suspect once I've gotten over my expectations I'll enjoy even the bits I didn't particularly care for. Even as I type this up, thinking of those bits (Thor throwing down his coffee cup and asking for another!), I find myself smiling. It really is quite good.

ETA: As we're talking about Tom H. as a villain, this needed to be added:

For last Sunday’s BMEM “wildcard” day, we were asked to reread our favorite chapter of Tolkien. I did the Akallabeth, and for some reason started pulling out the most significant quotes and organizing them for a future essay. Is anyone interested in seeing an “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Numenor, But Were Too Afraid to Ask” essay, giving both a general overview and some looking at some particular topics that interested me, like theodicy, the different ways they practiced organized religion and militarism vs. pacifism?

Also, I wrote dark!fic. I’m told it’s good, and it’s off with the beta, but I really do wish my Akallabeth!muse would realize “That’s some truly dark material” as a personal challenge to dig a little deeper. On the other hand, I suppose we shouldn’t spoil with a good thing. I’ll post it tomorrow, but it makes me wonder, is there any interest in a run-down of my Numenor-centric fic, perhaps in chronological order? It’s a growing collection.

I went to see “Oz” tonight. It was okay but not great. It held together as a story, I guess, and was reasonably consistent with the world. But it also seemed to play with various Biblical metaphors in an incredibly non-specific way that just left me feeling confuzzled, and some other parts seemed to almost be mocking pacifism, which just irritated me. On the other hand, the color scheme was fantastic. I think it’s geared to a family/grade school kid audience, and that might explain why I didn’t care for it. Plus, I devoured the Baum books as a teenager and love them which may explain my high standards here. I mean, I loved the Johnny Depp Alice in Wonderland, but then I still have been able to survive my life without reading that book, somehow or other. (I know, I know – that ranks right up there with my never having seen an single episode of Doctor Who or Sherlock which should get my geek card revoked.)

On the other hand, I loved what they did with the color at the entrance into Oz, and various ways they paralleled the Kansas sequences with bits of Oz. That was actually really well done.

The movie was paid for out of my latest ThinkChristian.net honorarium check, which is actually really nice. Even a mediocre (to me) movie is better when it comes out of your “fun” account. I also bought a digital copy of the Hobbit on Amazon (which is already available, and may rewatch it tomorrow. And I picked up some good produce, butcher meat and cheese while I was in Manhattan, and still have about $25 to play with. I’m toying with the idea of getting a good Kindle book, perhaps something about Tolkien. Anyone out there have suggestions?

Also, got to see both Star Trek, Monsters Inc. 2, and Iron Man 3 trailers in 3D today. Star Trek was awesome, but too short. Iron Man 3 made me think this might actually be a movie I will look forward to. (The first two Iron Man flicks left me a bit cold.) And Monsters, Inc.? I love it, but the preview makes it look more Animal House and less that delightful 50s!corporate culture that made the original MI such a pleasure. That would be a shame because I really have been looking forward to this, but I will probably give it a chance. Being the Pixar fan I am.

I went and saw the recent Spider-Man flick tonight. Surprisingly, I really liked it. Or at least I really liked parts of it; some parts, I could have easily done without.

I had started out my day planning to see Dark Knight Rises. This in spite of the fact that I still haven't seen The Dark Knight. I did read a synopsis to get ready), and also skimmed my friend Dan's piece on the trilogy's themes (he promised no plot spoilers and I haven't found any, aside from some really interesting analysis of the themes, although as I said I've only just skimmed it). But after an hour on the shrink's couch and another in the pew, I realized I just wasn't up to dealing with the crowds – the epic themes, the crowd, the long length.

So I started for the subway rather than the cinema, but along the way I passed a newsstand displaying this cover, and that somehow got my courage up a bit. I'll be coming back to that horrific statistic in another post, I hope. Anyway, I got to the cinema and Batman was sold out, but I did get a ticket for the most recent Spider-Man.

Without revealing too much, this Spider-Man gives us a thoroughly teenage superhero. He's the geeky, he has something of a moral compass – but he also has a temper, shows off, and is selfish. He's sixteen, and with a past like his, he's entitled to a bit of acting out. I think the director and script-writers wanted to give him weaknesses. (They took no such pains with Gwen Stacy, Spidey's paramour; she was one of my biggest complaints, along with my usual concerns about gross violations of laws of physics, and struck me as one part damsel-in-distress, one part Mary Sue.) I found Peter Parker's journey from personal vengeance to personal responsibility to having a broader moral conscience quite interesting and well done. I came into it expecting something more along the lines of The Avengers, but I changed my perspective quickly enough (my standards for superhero flicks aren't nearly as high as my standards for fantasy, usually), and I was able to enjoy the ride well enough.

There was one scene, though, that really touched me. Following the standard superhero storyline, our masked hero has to get to the final showdown, but in this case he's been injured, and there's a real question about whether he'll be able to get there. At the time the government was trying to evacuate lower Manhattan, and with good reason. I won't go into why (that would take a major spoiler), but everyone who can is running as far away from Manhattan as they can. But this one man – just a minor character, no one special, a construction worker – organizes some crane-operators to get beams in place. Spider-man is able to get where he needs to without crashing into buildings, and things go on from there.

The man who organized those cranes wasn't doing it because he was some moral saint. Earlier in the movie, Spider-Man had saved his child who was trapped in a car hanging off a bridge. So this man had a debt to pay of sorts, but the movie didn't play it like that was what was going on. There's some ambiguity over whether Spider-man is a "good guy" or whether he's a criminal, and the fact that this man has personal experience with Spider-man certainly motivate him to trust Spider-man, no question. But more than that, the movie seemed to recognize the fact that even those of us not bitten by mutant arachnids have a part to play. It's about normal, human virtue.

This scene struck a deep chord with me, precisely I think because it resonated one of my favorite points from Aristotle's philosophy so well. Perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not in a way that would have jumped out at the average movie-viewer. But for me, this scene encapsulated so much about what made the Doctrine of the Mean work.

Aristotle writes in the Nicomachean Ethics,

Both fear and confidence and appetite and anger and pity and in general pleasure and pain may be felt both too much and too little, and in both cases not well; but to feel them at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way, is what is both intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of virtue.

What Aristotle is saying here (as I understand it!) is that things like fear can influence us both too much and too little. What's appropriate depends on the situation, including the individual's strengths and capacities. "Right" isn't just a matter of personal belief, but it definitely takes in our individual realities when determining how people ought to act. In this situation, that construction-worker didn't have superhuman speed and strength. But he did have the courage necessary to not run from danger but stand firm so the people with those gifts could do what needed doing.

One thing that always irks me about these superhero flicks is the implication they have that we need a superhero. It reaffirms the rugged-individual-as-übermensch and points to a need for quasi-divine intervention to make things right (which in the real world all too often translates into a kind of nihilism that change is even possible if mere mortals like thee and me are the only ones available for the task). But in Spider-Man the police and jailers are competent. The school Peter Parker attends is public and not without its problems but basically clean and competent – and a place where he goes to school with a police chief's daughter despite the fact that his own family seems to be rather working poor. It's also one where a man with little education can die suddenly and his family isn't crushed under debt from lost income. That suggests a better social safety net than you're likely to find anywhere in reality, even a fairly liberal area like NYC.

That construction worker plays into this whole dynamic. He is inadequate to the task at hand. But he is a human, and a member of a community, and by playing out his virtues he's able to first recognize that Spidey is in trouble and then act on it. No superhuman strength of will (or superhuman strength, period) required – just a decent, functioning human character.

Don't get me wrong, there's lot to hate here. The story ultimately relies on Spider-man, not that construction worker. There's also too much high-school banter and too poor of acting all around from the various high school kids. The way Gwen was handled by her father (and the way Peter just bought into that framework) stunk of paternalism through and through. And as much as I love Martin Sheen, there was something about the Uncle Ben character that just fell flat for me. But there were also parts that were strangely un-superheroish. There's the need for a community and the power of the average person to contribute to the common good – just by virtue of being human.

On that point at least I was pleasantly surprised, and in a good way.

I'm teaching an Aristotle reading tomorrow where he talks about what it means to be a good human. Before he can do that, though, he thinks he has to work through what a human is. I'll spare you the details, but basically Aristotle says that what sets us apart is that we can look at a situation and choose to go one way or the other; unlike Buridan's ass, we can move beyond our impulses. The important thing is that Aristotle defines humanity in terms of some characteristic that we actually have – not that we might have, not that we'll develop someday. And certainly not that we have human DNA as opposed to orangutan DNA.

This question has some obvious connections to the whole abortion debate, because a zygote or even a six-week-old fetus has very few qualities. If a human is a choosing thing, can a young fetus do this? Can a newborn baby, for that matter? Aristotle's account of humanity seems to say that a fetus's (or for that matter, a small child's) status as human depends on what it can do. If it can decide whether it wants to play with the red ball or the blue ball, then it's a human and killing it is murder; if not, then it is still alive (and so can be killed), but maybe that killing doesn't rise to the level of murder.

Preparing for class, I wanted to prepare several arguments Aristotle could give for why abortion is wrong without calling it murder, at least in some circumstances. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I thought it might be fun to discuss them anyway.

1. Potential vs. Actual Traits: Aristotle distinguishes between traits we have right now and traits we have the ability to develop. So while a fetus isn't human (since it can't make choices at this point), it has the ability to develop. Aristotle says it's important that we develop character virtues, which he sees as potential traits we should develop. (So basically, the Adrian Monks of the world should build up their courage, so they can face new and challenging situations, but they're not courageous until they've done that.) I think a story could be told here that people who have a duty to protect a particular child have a duty not to squander that potential.

(Caveats: I'm almost certain Aristotle would say actual trumps potential, so a mother has a duty to have an abortion if her life is in danger. You could also ask whether certain parents have a duty to a particular fetus. You might argue that until you accept responsibility for it, its not really your responsibility to nurture a fetus just because it's taken up residence inside you.)

2. The Duty to Care: Aristotle defines humans not just as a rational animal but also as a social animal. We develop our virtue in a community, and friendships – good kinds of friendships built on a love of virtue – are definitely to be sought after. Treating a fetus as just something getting in the way of our desires objectifies us. And to the extent that we think of it as a human or a potential human, it makes it that much harder to form genuine human relationships. This probably is more true of very young children who weren't yet able to choose, or fetuses that were old enough they were known to resemble very young humans – the concern is that by treating fetuses/infants that remind you of mature humans as things, you train yourself to think of real humans the wrong way.

(Caveats: Aristotle's pretty clear that not only can't you have a friendship with a non-human, you can't have a true friendship unless it's between equals – knocking out the parent/child relationship even once the child is born. So this only addresses the way that treating a potential human as a thing damages the mother's ability to foster future friendships with fully-mature humans.)

3. The Practical Harm of Abortion: Aristotle doesn't define right and wrong in terms of how much pleasure or pain they generate, but he does recognize its importance. Any abortion will involve physical pain, either from surgery or from cramps and discomfort as the zygote/fetus passes. There's also the psychological pain, if a woman feels like she has had to kill a human or a potential human; the lost money that went to the abortion; and the social stigma.

(Caveats: The pain a woman suffers through an abortion may be less than the pain she'd suffer by going through a pregnancy, to say nothing of either adoption or motherhood. And Aristotle's not totally averse to some suffering, if it leads you to develop character; he seems to be more against pointless or excessive pain. I'm also not sure how an Aristotelian would count the pain the fetus went through as it died. Since it's not surviving it can't have a bad impact on the fetus's future character.)

So… three ways that an Aristotelian could say abortion is not murder but it's still wrong in most circumstances. Thinking about this, I'm reminded of Bella's pregnancy in Breaking Dawn. It seems to me that an Aristotelian would almost certainly disagree with Bella's initial decision to have a pregnancy that put her life in very real danger (she's told in no uncertain terms that this child is killing her) – but once Edward senses the child's thoughts, I think at that point an Aristotelian would have a harder time insisting on an abortion. The child is increasingly human (I'd say having actual thoughts, certainly actual desires, is a key marker of being human), and at that point the parents had formed a special attachment to it, so killing Renesme then would lead to the problems I pointed out in #2.

What do you guys think? If you think abortion is wrong, would these ideas let you condemn it strongly enough without calling abortion murder? Do these ideas put enough value on the mother's right not to have a fetus take over her body for nine months, maybe even kill her? I'd be interested in peoples' reactions.

Over at FB, a friend came back after several days away and asked if she'd missed anything important. Something about the way she put it reminded me of this great Hitchhiker's clip:

( Read more... )

Two of those questions represent what I do (more or less), one not so much...

Profile

martasfic

My Website

February 2022

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28

Syndicate

Style Credit

Style: Descending Blue for Crossroads by branchandroot
Resources: Blue Heart

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jun. 27th, 2025 01:27 am

Marta's Mathoms

because not all who wander are lost

Entries tagged with fandom - movies

so I saw Thor for the first time tonight

fannish miscellany

Spider-Man and the Power of Showing Up

Aristotle and abortion

HGTTG on deep questions