A Physical Transformation becomes a Psychological One

You ever go to exercise and think, "What the hell am I doing?" I started working out seriously about seven years ago, after I was assaulted in Gulf Coast Town Center. I had the idea that I wasn't going to be a victim again. I was angry. After a while, I realized the chances of something like that happening again were pretty slim. The anger faded and I started missing the gym, mixing into almost a cocktail of laziness and frustration. For years, I fluctuated between serious training and barely keeping in shape. I decided I had to make a commitment to myself, and possibly Herakles, god of strength. I emerged from the winter (of 2012) with a newfound focus. Still, I found myself thinking, "Why do I use my leisure time to repeatedly lift heavy objects?"

You know what? I didn't have an answer. I was working out with no purpose. The best I could muster was, "I've got to be better." That of course led to more questions, "For what reason?" and "What am I trying to achieve?" What do you do with fitness? Buy a rocket car and fight crime? My physical journey became a philosophical one. So, I started asking people. Conversations with my girlfriend and sessions with a counselor helped to integrate physical activity into my life. It was no longer something I did, but a part of who I am. My vague goals of "run farther" and "lift more" became more attuned to my strengths and weaknesses (or rather, my jack-of-all-trades lack of either). I stayed motivated to run by scheduling fun run races. I lifted by focusing on percentage of body weight.

I workout to stay sharp, stay positive, and hopefully, inspire others to do the same. These same goals won't motivate everybody. All workouts, marathons, sprints, and even weightlifting, are about resolve, endurance, and willpower. However, don't worry if you're slipping or haven't even started, yet. You are the one in control. Make new goals, reach them, beat them, be greater.

Horror in the 'Quarter: Eagle News' weird experiences in New Orleans

         "Balfazaar ran to Radio Shack real quick. He’ll be right back." This is the response I received from the young man working the check-in table at Cirque du Nuit, a gathering of vampires in the New Orleans Vampire Association (ironically dubbed "NOVA"). This unplanned encounter was but one of many brushes with the supernatural-infused culture of New Orleans the other editors of Eagle News and I had on our recent odyssey through the city.

         The first night began with the normal wanderings, getting our bearings on the local scene, when we ran across Bottom of the Cup Tea Room, a sizable shop (for the area) specializing in psychic dealings.

         "We sell readings, books, and crystals," the elderly, unnamed shopkeeper told me. "We've been doing so since 1929."

         While I know these things to be placebos at best, I was compelled to nod my head. It wasn't my place to burst in, ask questions, and then tell the man he's a fool. Besides, between the tiny thrift shops and candy stores, the idea of amulets and palm readings just seemed to fit.

         Next up was the aforementioned Cirque du Nuit. When we were traipsing down Bourbon Street, one of our number stopped to use the restroom at the Four Points Hotel. When he came back out, he mentioned seeing signs for a vampire conference. Obviously, it was my duty as a journalist to investigate. Inside, hotel staff directed us to a far-back room, where I hesitated. How was I going to interview them? What do you ask a vampire, and how do you avoid offending them? What are the consequences of doing so? Luckily, someone came out to assist us. We explained what we were doing, but he claimed he was "just working the desk." He invited us in and to stay for Balfazaar Ashantison, head of the vampire houses in New Orleans. Ashantison is a legitimate, blood-drinking vampire. However, we had places to go, so I declined and we departed.

         I was out walking alone the next day, when I stumbled upon Maskarade, something of a costume shop for your face. "Shop" is actually a little misleading. With hundreds and hundreds of different masks, "operation" is more appropriate.

         "We're the only store that has actual, hand-made masks," store owner Mary Behler said. "I have 45 artists that make masks for me, and they're all U.S. artists. That's the difference."

         Opened in 2001, the store was spawned from Behler's perfume shop around the corner.

         "A friend gave me a beautiful, hand-made mask as a gift, and I put by my register," she explained. "Everyday, someone wanted to know where they could find [one]. After hearing that about ten times a day, I decided I'd give them a place where they could.

“I can tell you that these artists use every medium possible, we have leather, paper mâché, fabric, feather," she continued.

         I became curious about the store's involvement with Halloween.

         "We actually do more in sales for Halloween than we do Mardi Gras, which is kind of amazing," Behler said.

         That night, it was time for the pièce de résistance: St. Louis Cemetery Number 1. The famous graveyard had been featured in an array of media, and named by Yahoo! as one of the scariest places in the world. After dinner, I led EN through the French Quarter, getting distracted at a crucial moment and missing a turn. As we left the lights of Bourbon Street, the team began to doubt both my navigation skills and my sanity. Google maps was consulted and after passing numerous houses decorated with gargoyles and tombstones and crossing a highway, we got to St. Louis. It was closed. At that time of night, in the darkness and quiet, I'm glad it was. Peering through the gate and in the spaces between the vaults is chilling. The fact that the neighborhood around you is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina further removes you from any sort of solace. Afterward, we all went for frogurt.

         While I expected all of these small businesses to be kind of irritated by some kid from a school they've never heard of asking inane questions, everyone I spoke to was very accommodating and friendly. Sure, maybe it's savvy to put on a kindly front to a member of the press, but maybe it's just that Southern Hospitality even lurks in those shadows of the scary and supernatural.

All photos taken by Kelli Krebs

Harley Quinn is Stupid and You're Stupid for Liking Her

Recently, there's been some... Offense taken to the handling of Harley Quinn by DC Comics. On top of the two years of outcry regarding the New 52, there's the now infamous fan contest. Long story short, DC was having a competition for a fan's art to be featured in Quinn's series. The page they were to draw featured a variety of suicide attempts by the villainess, with the last panel depicting her naked in the classic "toaster in the tub" scenario.

While the signs point to it being part of a gag (as per the character's morbid humor), the page's script was released out of context, inciting accusations of character derailment and "sexualizing suicide." All of this was exacerbated by bad timing: it fell just after the controversial decision to ban marriage in the comics and just before National Suicide Prevention Week.

As far as Suicide Prevention Week goes, it's hard to blame the company. This writer is someone with a history of depression, and even put on a short suicide watch, but had only the vaguest idea something like that existed, let alone when it was. Every week is "something" awareness, so it can be hard to keep track. However, that's no doubt of little comfort to those who have been affected by the tragedy of suicide. Plus, DC is a big enough company that they should maybe have someone in PR who knows this stuff.

The tragedy of suicide is another point, here. When the defense of the contest is "It's a joke," the counter is often "Suicide's not funny." Now, since comedy is so subjective, that's really an individual point of view problem, rather than a company-wide belittlement issue. Also, given that Harley is a bit of a dark prankster, the joke falls under her purview rather well. Quite a few bloggers have leapt up and essentially said "DC should have thought about how groups of people might have taken this out of context," which fanslates to "I should have been personally consulted about this idea." Look, if DC needs to think about how each and every person is going to be offended by something, maybe they shouldn't have given Batwoman her own series. Embracing gays sets quite a few people off, that doesn't mean they're right.

Then, of course, there is the alleged sexualization/exploitation of the offending panel script. I'm not quite sure what anyone means by this, but "sexualization" is a broad term, so it could mean a couple things:

1. The fact that she's naked. Proclaiming that the female (or male) body is sexualized just because it's bare is an idea so stupid, that it doesn't even deserve a response. It's not like they're slimming her already tiny waist or upping her already impressive (especially for a girl who's supposed to be a gymnast) bust size, so it's just the same body with fewer clothes. Considering the outfit Harley's been strutting around in recently, the fact that she'll be in the water means you'll likely see less skin.
2. It's degrading to the character (like a submission fantasy). Isn't sexuality, like humor, subjective? This writer finds nothing arousing about a woman trying to kill herself. Probably 99% of men (and women and so forth) feel the same way. Suicide attempts don't particularly indicate anyone getting blood flow to their nether regions, but they do indicate mental illness, of which, holy shit, Harley Quinn has a shit ton.

 So, if pretty much everyone's in agreement that there's nothing inherently exploitive about nudity or anything sexual about suicide, where's the problem? Yes, it's easy to point at Batwoman's marriage debacle and throw out accusations of DC being sexist, but you have to look at the events individually. The Batwoman thing is part of a larger initiative against all marriage, according to Dan Didio. Is it wrong-headed? Yeah, it's pretty stupid. But really, aren't there just as many stories to tell about single heroes as married ones? It's just that broad generalization that's wrong, which is exactly what fans are doing. They're ignoring great stories that DC is publishing about and by females, like "Wonder Woman," "Batgirl," and "

Furthermore, this is kind of an issue Harley Quinn fans in particular are ranting about. They're holding her up as this empowering character that's an innocent trickster in the DCU. This thought process disregards most of her history. On "Batman: The Animated Series," her debut, she often made innuendo towards the Joker ("Rev your Harley"), and in her pre-52 comic, she was a flat out murderer. Some authors have stated that she doesn't know what she's doing, and thus not culpable for her actions, but given that she was not-too-long-ago an accomplished psychiatrist, this demonstrates a profound lack of insight as to how mental illness works. That said, even if she's not aware of her crimes, what she's doing is still wrong. Harley Quinn is a dangerous psychotic. So much for empowering. This is still overlooking her origin: a naïve therapist corrupted by a madman. Her entire existence is defined by a relationship to a man. This isn't like Batgirl, where she was just inspired to action and used her own inherent qualities to motivate her. No, she was molded into a villain by the Joker. So much for independent.

This is why it's so baffling that this contest incident is getting this kind of attention. Fans of Harley claimed she was relatable: she's peppy, she's got some man troubles, but her friends (Poison Ivy and sometimes Catwoman) are there for her. Now they're mad she's got a more revealing costume and is meaner. What they seem to forget is that her peppiness comes from being not in touch with reality, her man troubles are actually a physically and psychologically abusive relationship, and her friends are an equally disturbed eco-terrorist and and thief who basically gets off on danger (though to be fair is one of the saner inhabitants of Gotham City). Most of all, they seem to forget that she's a fucking supervillain. She's a bad guy and hurts people. Is that someone who's relatable? Someone to whom you aspire?

Also, real quick, I want to weigh in on the Batwoman controversy. First of all, of all the Bat-family, Kate Kane seems the best fit to a married life, certainly more so than Bruce Wayne (who in my opinion should never be married, being the father role of a man, as opposed to Superman's husband role). However, the New 52 has been going on for only two years. Translating that into comic book time means it's even shorter. That seems like not a long dating period before an engagement.

Of course, you can throw out the old joke about how quickly lesbian relationships move, but if DC did let Batwoman marry, wouldn't that possibly invite accusations of stereotyping? I don't know, I can't remember off the top of my head how advanced Maggie Sawyer and Kate Kane's romance was before the 52, so I could be wrong about how long they've been dating.

Also, RE: the title of this post. I personally think Harley Quinn is an awful character, but you're not actually stupid for liking her. OK, a little bit.

Review: The Man with the Iron Fists

The RZA Strikes with His "Iron Fists"

Just a preface: when it says, "Quentin Tarantino Presents," they mean "he helped get this thing on screen, because there's no way a rapper-turned-first-time-director would be allowed to make something this crazy." Other than that, he has no influence (not even a producer credit.

"The Man with the Iron Fists" follows an epic story of intertwining assassins, prostitutes, gang members, and government officials as they fight each other over a bunch of gold. The gold is sent to a military operation by edict of the governor. However, when it passes through Jungle Village, it is set upon by multiple factions, who seek the riches for themselves.

The best way to describe the movie is probably "grindhouse meets kung fu meets western meets comic books." The level of care and devotion that went into making this movie is pretty fantastic. The RZA spent two years developing the script with Eli Roth, down to the look of the weapons and armor. It shows. Even the acting is a little wooden in some places, or a little much in others, similar to how martial arts movies from the 70s are. Unfortunately, RZA himself is not a great actor, although he may have known this himself, considering he's barely in the first half of the film, despite the fact that it's named after his character. Lucy Liu and Russell Crowe, really the only big name actors, are definitely the most over the top.

The action is really the main draw, and it doesn't disappoint. It's gory, fast, and insane. Every character has a different fighting style and weapon (or lack thereof), leading to some pretty varied combat. Once the supernatural powers kick in, things get more awesome.

If the movie has a flaw (and it does), it's that there's too much going on. The story moves super-fast, and there are sizable actors in parts that are only a minute or two. Apparently, the script was originally conceived as a four hour epic, to be split into two parts. Slimming it down to an hour and a half may be more audience friendly (after all, investing only 90 minutes into a bizarre movie is an easier sell than getting people to plop down for 150), but that doesn't make it a better movie. There's at least a dozen characters, many of whom give off the vibe of a backstory without ever being fleshed out. Also, the acting gets annoying sometimes, even if it is purposeful.

If you're a fan of Eastern action movies, this is the movie for you. Some twists and quirks of the film would also interest people with less passion for kung fu flicks, so that might be something to consider. If you're not into Wuxia, though, you'll find nothing of interest here.

Cultural Study: Batman

Why do we love Batman? "He's awesome" is a common answer. While true, it's a bit juvenile. "He can beat anybody" is another often heard. That one's a bit more defined, but only touches the tip of the iceberg. "He's dark and troubled and mysterious" also has merit, but not in the way you might think.

Being dark and gritty doesn't actually make something good. At least, not by itself. The Dark Knight is an interesting case, because no one actually wants to be him. Spider-Man is just a normal guy with powers, so being him just gives a regular person superstrength and the ability to save on gas money, via webslinging. Iron Man is a smart, witty, charming, and has all kinds of hi-tech toys. Being him is basically like being a celebrity James Bond. Superman comes from a loving home, is incorruptibly pure, and has a truckload of superpowers. Obviously, that's a pretty sweet deal. But Batman? He has no stable relationships in his life, possible obsessive-compulsive disorder, and lives life in fluctuating states of anger, guilt, and depression. People really mean to say they want Batman's resources, making them a fit billionaire with cool gadgets, at which point you're back to Iron Man.

The other thing someone might mean when they say "I want to be Batman," is that they want his drive. Bruce Wayne has the work ethic of a madman, being a master of forensic science, engineering, strategy & tactics, as well as a dozen martial arts disciplines. That's without superpowers, obviously, meaning each and every person could become a version of Batman, if they just tried hard enough. The comics even reinforce this idea with the Batmen of Many Nations and Oracle, a wheelchair-bound cyber vigilante. Once again, that drive comes from tragedy and loss, things no one wishes on themselves.

All of that is just Bruce Wayne as the Man, though. What about Batman as the Hero? The Dark Knight is fear. To criminals, he's a movie monster, like Jason or Michael Meyers; a creature from the bowels of the shadows, come to punish their wrongdoings. To those criminals' victims, however, he is an unrelenting spirit of Justice. He stalks the thugs, rapists, and murderers, a third party bringing order back to the streets. Politically, the Detective is very attractive on both sides of the spectrum. Conservatives laud him for his harsh stance on crime and self-reliance, while liberals take heart in the fact that he understands some crime is born of necessity or social issues and that he never steps over the final line to take a life.

Batman's refusal to kill is probably the biggest complaint his detractors have towards him. Such complaints are easy to make when you've never held a life in your hands or felt the pain of someone being taken from you. Aside from that though, Batman just doesn't kill. It's a choice he makes, just like billions of people who make different choices from each other. A story is not about what the reader/viewer/listener would do in a certain situation, it's what the character in said situation does. Obviously, that doesn't excuse huge gaps in logic, but the main concern is internal consistency.

Something else usually mentioned in some way, but normally glossed over, is Batman's intelligence. Now, you might be saying "How is that glossed over? It's his defining characteristic as a superhero!" However, this isn't about his ridiculous problem-solving abilities or his insanely customized gear (shark repellent, guidable boomerangs, the Bat-motif on literally every piece of hardware, et cetera), it's about his wit. Batman is what's called a guile hero, using quick-thinking, know-how, and a little luck to get out of perilous situations. As a detective or builder, he can spend time working things out, but here, it's all instinct. In most stories, he's halfway done with some huge plan, with a brilliant masterstroke right when there looks to be nowhere out. It's a trait audiences love, across cultures. Spider-Man's powers might not be at awesome levels, but he's always getting into foes' heads and using his gut to MacGuyver his way to defeating stronger opponents; and sure, it's awesome to see Superman throw down with Doomsday or Zod, but boy, is it ever great when he gets to outsmart Lex Luthor or Brainiac.

No one of these things is what makes Batman legendary, it's everything working in tandem. Batman's the guy without powers (the underdog), he's flawed, but he's the ideal Man. It's been said that Marvel superheroes are right there with you, but DC characters are who you want to be. Maybe you don't really want to be Batman, no one really can be, but he fits right there in the middle. To close out, a line from "What Ever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" by Neil Gaiman. Batman and Superman are in the Arctic, at the Fortress of Solitude. Gotham's villains have gathered in a pact and vowed to kill the Dark Knight, when next they seem him. Superman has told Batman he's as good as dead if the Man of Steel takes him back. Batman's response:

"Every minute they're trying to kill me is a minute they aren't killing innocent people."

The Dark Knight Rises: A Retrospective and Review

Seven years ago, little-known director Christopher Nolan did what many thought impossible after the catastrophe that was "Batman & Robin": He made the Caped Crusader awesome again. The film kicked off a reboot craze and paved the way for gritty, realistic portrayals of previously "silly" or "childish" franchises ("Transformers," "Superman"). The series as a whole proved another thing: You can make a serious, insightful, awards-contender from a comicbook movie.

"Batman Begins" started with a basic idea. The thought was to use a director of smaller, more arthouse films to remove the campy elements of Batman and return him to his pulp-based, crimefighter roots. Indeed, Bruce Wayne's journey through Asia and education of quasi-mystical techniques that comprises the first quarter of "Begins" is reminiscent of old radio favorites, like the Shadow or Doc Savage. In order to accomplish this, a list of directors was gone through, including Darren Aronofsky, before Warner Brothers decided on Christopher Nolan. Little did anyone realize that the film series itself would become a cultural phenomenon, or that Nolan had only begun to lay the groundwork for the epic story of Bruce Wayne, hero.

"Batman Begins" was relatively unique at the time of its premiere, due to the fact that it was first and foremost the story of the hero. Up until that point, most comicbook adaptations had given equal weight to, or even focused on, the villains or love interests; doubly so if a big name actor/actress was in one of those roles. "Begins," on the other hand, had probably 90% of its scenes feature Bruce Wayne, with a further 5% of scenes devoted to other characters' reactions to him.

"The Dark Knight" rattled things up again when it focused on an interconnecting mesh of gangsters, cops, lawyers, ordinary citizens, and of course, superheroes and villains. The narrative revolved around the progress the Caped Crusader had made in his war on crime, and the cost that comes with it. "TDK" is obviously notable for several things, chief among them being Heath Ledger's lauded performance and untimely death. Much was made of Ledger's stand-out portrayal of the notorious terrorist/serial killer/prankster, but with "The Dark Knight Rises" ignoring the Joker and following up on Harvey Dent's legacy and Batman's fate after taking the rap for murders and losing the woman he loved, "TDK" is viewable in a different light. It's no longer the story of the Joker's attack on Gotham, but rather about a few men waging their own war on the evils of the city and the price they must pay.

Of course, Ledger's Oscar grab wasn't the only run-in "TDK" had with the Academy Awards. The film was snubbed for a "Best Picture" nomination over more traditional fare (read: not comicbooks). This was despite unanimous critical acclaim, and many feel the outrage over the incident led to the expansion of the "Best Picture" category to 10 nominees. Some also believe the Oscar is being "saved" for "The Dark Knight Rises," to be awarded for the Dark Knight Trilogy as a whole, a la Lord of the Rings. Thus, we are brought to "The Dark Knight Rises."

We finally come to this, what is easily Summer's most anticipated movie, maybe the year's. Over the past seven years, Christopher Nolan has developed his modern-day take on the Hero's Journey. An epic poem for our times, if you will. It's a brazen move, to be sure. In this era of opposing pop entertainment and abstract art, one man and his team became Hellbent on telling a classical story; and of course, "The Dark Knight Rises" is the payoff.

Eight years ago, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) lost the love of his life, took the blame for a series of heinous crimes, and hung up his cape and cowl for good. Commissioner James Gordon (Gary Oldman) cleaned up the streets and paved the way for an unprecedented peace in Gotham City. Now, a new villain has raised an army to destroy the city once and for all for its crimes of opulence and corruption, the tactically genius, physically dominating Bane (Tom Hardy). Bruce Wayne must once again don his crimefighting persona and form a shaky alliance with master thief Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) to combat the evil that descends on Gotham.

First off, there is a lot of stuff in this film; it's very dense. It's a lot to digest in a review. The best way to start would probably say that a few characters are actually cut out of the movie, relatively speaking. Gordon and Alfred (Michael Caine) seem to have greatly-reduced screentime in favor of Selina Kyle and John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). This isn't a horrible thing, though because those characters are pretty engaging, and learning about their backstories is interesting. However, first and foremost, this is Bruce Wayne's story.

The Dark Knight Trilogy now feels much like Beowulf, where at first Grendel (Ra's al Ghul) had to be vanquished, then the worse Mother (Joker), and now finally the Dragon (Bane). The heroes' ages correspond to their foes, as well. The first villain was faced by a hero that had to prove himself; the second defeated by an established, well-regard hero; and the last adversary was challenged by an older, wearier hero. Of course, the endings to both deal with the symbol and legacy of the hero, and how their "kingdoms" view them after everything.

Christian Bale knocks it out of the park in this one (not that he didn't in previous installments), portraying a broken man, in every sense of the word. He has to deal with a body in less-than-ideal shape and a spirit that lacks true conviction. Many times, Wayne must consider why he fights. Thrill? Death-seeking? Fear? Anger? Which emotions are personal, and which ones are belief? Liam Neeson's character has a line in "Batman Begins," which really sums up the theme of this film: "A vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification." Bruce Wayne has become lost in the scramble, and now faces an opponent with undying faith, a man who truly believes that he is doing what must be done.

Speaking of his opponent, most reviews will probably skip over Tom Hardy's performance, but it deserves a mention. He is evil incarnate. If the Joker was unbridled chaos, Bane is pure tyranny. Hardy's presence onscreen is sizable (and not just because of his physique, which is massive when he takes off that vest), making the viewer wonder how Batman will make it out of Bane's grasp.

The film has a very somber, depressing tone for most of its runtime. There's a sense of hopelessness, throughout. Then the third act comes, and you remember what a hero is, including the closest thing to a middle finger Batman can give his enemies. In fact, it's even better.

One other thing that should be mentioned before closing, is the supposed Occupy Movement connection. It's very easy to see both sides of this issue. On one hand, Bane and others in the film are urging lower-class Gothamites to rise up and take control of the city's spoils, and condemning a police force that would protect the ignorant and elite. On the other hand, the guy demanding that is a murderous despot. JRR Tolkien once said that there's a difference between allegory and applicability. An allegory is in direct reference to something else, whereas applicability means the work can be compared to any number of things that recur. There will always be those with nothing, and fat thieves who hide behind the law, it's as true today as it will be tomorrow. A theme of the movie is that suffering builds character. So while Christopher Nolan may not be commenting on Occupy or the Tea Party, he seems to believe no one should be sheltered in their castle immune to pain, but that also the less fortunate need to drive harder. As Commissioner Gordon points out "The system became shackles."

The film is long, like any epic. Aside from that, there are only singular words that come to mind about the movie. Bold. Layered. Grand. "The Dark Knight Rises" takes the superhero genre to a whole new level, commenting on the power of belief, symbols, and the loss. It's almost a religious film, in many ways (not as explicitly as "Batman is Jesus"), requiring multiple re-watches to catch all the nuances of what also works as a blockbuster.