Gotham ...

The rumors have started! Now that the DVD of Christopher Nolan's masterpiece The Dark Knight is a best-seller, people are scrambling for news about the inevitable third chapter to Nolan's saga. So far, the crazy rumors include Angelina Jolie and Rachel Weisz in talks for the role of Catwoman, Shia LaBeouf as Robin, and Eddie Murphy as the Riddler. These rumors have been rebutted by many of the higher-ups in Warner Bros and Murphy's representatives have stated that the comedic actor denies being offered the role. Nothing has been heard about the other rumors.

The actual idea that Catwoman would be in the movie is silly. First of all, Nolan has created a franchise based on reality. Though far-fetched, nothing he has created is impossible in the "real world." Catwoman, like the Penguin, seems to be a little out of the realm of the Gotham (the working title of the sequel, by the way) created by Nolan. Obviously, fans would like to see Catwoman, but it seems unlikely for Nolan to enter that world.

Christian Bale has made it very clear that if Robin appears in the film, he will not be reprising the role of the Caped Crusader. He is correct in feeling this way. Bruce Wayne is still adjusting to his role as the Batman and is not yet ready to have a young protege. Not to mention Bruce Wayne is not much older than Dick Grayson should be when he dons the Robin mantle.

Now, Eddie Murphy as the Riddler was a rumor worth getting excited about. I was interested a few months ago when I read that Johnny Depp was in talks for the role, but the more and more I thought about it, Depp is an obvious choice. While Nolan would want to move away from the wackiness of Frank Gorshin and Jim Carrey, Depp's darkness might be too dark for his vision of the Riddler. Eddie Murphy, on the other hand, is an actor who can probably handle the combination of evil and cleverness needed for Batman's smartest enemy. Let's also acknowledge something that has not yet been said: it's about time an African American take on a role as one of the Batman villains. Why does Batman only fight the white criminals of Gotham? At the very least, it would make for an interesting interpretation.

As said before, the next movie should focus on the media. How does the media affect Gotham's view of Batman, now being searched for by Gotham's finest? Nolan could easily explore the power of the press, much like he explored the power (or lack thereof) of the politics in Gotham City with The Dark Knight. This would be a terrific way to explore the Riddler, a villain without brawn, but plenty of brains. It would also be a beautiful way to introduce Bruce Wayne's love interest, Vicki Vale. Now that Rachel Dawes is clearly not coming back, Wayne can explore a love/hate relationship with photojournalist Vicki Vale. Who will she love? Batman? Bruce Wayne? Which one will she hate?

Hopefully, Murphy's denial of the rumor is the actual rumor. Murphy would be a nice choice to play Edward Nigma a.k.a. The Riddler. Remember how people doubted the unconventional choice of Heath Ledger? Haven't we learned to trust Christopher Nolan yet?

Our State Fair ...

As a student of musical theater, and a current teacher of theater in a high school, I find myself constantly being reminded that the "old musical" is becoming more and more dated. While I am a fan of the modern musical (started by the great Stephen Sondheim), I cannot help but melt when I am taken away by a classic musical. I recently showed my theater class the film version of Carousel, the musical that I consider Rodger and Hammerstein's greatest achievement. While they understood the fact that the musical is "dated," they were surprisingly receptive to the plot and characters. It was refreshing to see that these musicals were not dead to a group of teenagers.

I had an even greater moment last night when I had the chance to see State Fair at the Walnut Street Theater, located in Philadelphia, and the oldest non-profit theater in the country. Having seen the movie version close to ten years ago, I had no real interest in seeing the production. I do love Rodger and Hammerstein's musicals, but I had a feeling this one was going to be too light and fluffy for my tastes.

I was pleasantly surprised to experience one of the best nights I've had in the theater in a long while. While the productions was stunning with a great set, terrific direction, a spectacular cast, and exciting choreography, it was the work itself that I enjoyed the most. While not one of R&H's most well-known works, the music of State Fair was just as catchy and interesting than that of King and I, Oklahoma, and South Pacific. In fact, it was stronger than the music of Sound Of Music, still argued by some to be the best of their works. It was filled with drama, comedy (still funny in 2008), love, and some of the greatest damn songs heard by this lover of musical theater in a long time.

Of course, "It Might As Well Be Spring" is the most known song. But the show is filled with other terrific songs such as "That's For Me" and the show-stopper "All I Owe Ioway," a number just as good as "June is Bustin' Out All Over," if not stronger.

The musical takes a very interesting turn when one of the females characters reveals to her lover that she is married, and unlike a typical musical from 1945, the lovers don't make up. The exit following her confession is her last one, leaving the audience struggling with emotion. We want the lovers we've seen the whole show together, but we can't help but dislike her for being unfaithful to her husband, and leaving the young lover in tears over her dishonesty. It's inspiring to know that Rodgers and Hammerstein were writing such controversial work, even during the conservative years of the 1940s.

Nothing puts me in a better mood than knowing that the love I have for old musicals is shared by others. The audience obviously loved every minute of it as much as I did. The Walnut has proved that the "old-school musical" is still alive and well, influencing modern writers to work hard at making their works shine as much as the greats of the Golden Age!

The Frienemy

Recently, my honors English class was having a discussion about friendship. We are currently reading A Separate Peace by John Knowles. It is a story of two young men in a prep school in New England in 1942. The narrator, Gene, tells the story of he and his friend, Phineas (Finny), and how their friendship goes through a series of ups and downs. In the story, Gene grows to love and hate Finny all at the same time. In class, we discussed how relevant this book is to high school students in 2008.

My students came up with some very interesting things. I asked, "Does anyone have a friend that, deep down inside, you actually hate?" I used hate, which is a strong word, hoping that my students would go on to explain that hate is the wrong word. Instead, most nodded their heads and completely and openly acknowledged the fact that they all have a friend such as the one that I described. "A frienemy?" one girl asked, "do you mean a frienemy?" I actually knew what the young lady was talking about, but I wanted to hear her definition so I played dumb and asked her to explain.

"A frienemy is a person who we are friends with, but actually keep around in order to get their approval or to be present for their eventually downfall." I was amazed at this incredibly well thought out definition. She and the rest of the class continued to explain that these people are important to us because they make us feel important. Apparently, if there in someone is the world we hate that much, it gives us a goal of what not to be.

The conversation continued and out of curiosity I asked, "Do any of you think you are a friend of someone that actually hates you." The majority of the class - boys and girls - said yes. "How does that make you feel?"

Another girl, usually very quiet, raised her hand quicker than anyone in the class and said, "It makes me feel important. If someone hates me that much, I must be very important to a decent amount of people." I didn't know if I was more impressed or scared with the logic.

Is this what high school students are going through? I often value my age in the classroom because I feel like I still remember what it was like to be a teenager. I can relate to my students on a certain level. I am only ten years older. Could I forget this quickly? Or is it simply that things really have changed that much? I don't remember having friends I hated. I felt life was too short to be with people I wasn't very fond of. It was for this reason that I had a small, close-knit group of friends who I loved and still keep in contact with. I didn't need to prove myself to anyone and, for this reason, I was pretty well-liked. What has changed that fourteen- and fifteen-year-old kids think that they need to be hated to be important?

Something needs to be done for these students to make them realize that what defines them will not be who hated them or who they hated. What will define the students of this generation will be what they achieve and how they achieve it. While I love that my students are relating to the novel, it scares me to think that this extreme case in the story seems to be the regular in 2008 high schools. As teachers, we need to teach more lessons about life. We have experienced it. We've made the mistakes and it is our duty to inform students that these "frienemies" will not help them get into college and grad school. They will not help them find work in a suffering economy. They will not help their credit score or get them the mortgage approval they will need in a short nine to ten years. This conversation, that started as a simple book discussion, really opened my eyes to what is going on inside the heads of my students. We need to pay more attention to what they are exposed to. Furthermore, we need to make our volume louder than the volume of the society that is telling them to "love thy frienemy!"

Summer Friendships

For a teacher, summers are very interesting. Summer is the escape from the normal routine that we follow everyday for ten months of the year. There are no weekends. Everyday is a weekend. Even when you have a summer job, it's still not school. Because of this, the summers of a teacher tend to be their own entity. We enter not knowing what will happen and then we leave with the assumption that it will be forgotten, at least until the following June. However, what happens when a special summer approaches and we don't want to forget? Is it just inevitable? Are we supposed to simply place it in the file called "summer" and move on with our lives? It's ironic that teachers are seen as the leaders of children, yet when it comes to summer, our lives and attitudes are very similar to the ones we teach.

This summer, for me, has gone beyond that. I met four people this summer. We work together at a camp, a very popular place for teachers to work over the summer. Our ages range from 18 to 25. I am the second oldest and the only male of the group. My relationship with each is different. Each of us bring a unique quality to the group, which is why I think we work so well as a team.

As I enter the last week of camp, I find myself very sad. I'm fine with camp ending. It was a stressful summer where I realized more than ever that the camp environment is not one for me. Though at the same time, I feel a sadness coming over me. Does the bond that I have formed with these people end when the job ends? We say we will keep in touch, but is it true? Just how strong does the friendship have to be in order to surpass the label "summer"?

This summer has reminded me how important our relationships really are. We can't take people for granted because each person that comes into our lives is there to teach us something - about life, about ourselves, and about the world. These four girls will forever be in my heart and I will cherish the relationship I have with each one of them. They've reminded me that the old cliche is true: "everything happens for a reason."

What's Next?

One of the many interesting things about Christopher Nolan’s two “Batman” films is how he ends them. Each has such amazing closure, yet leaves you anticipating the next chapter of the story. Batman Begins ends with the question of escalation and the famous Joker card, and The Dark Knight leaves you with Commissioner Gordon having to hunt Batman in order to save the face – no pun intended – of Harvey Dent. But is this all that lies ahead for the Caped Crusader? What is next? Who is next? What villain will be the next to test Batman’s limits?

First, let’s look at the possible plot line. My prediction is that it will have something to do with the media. I think there is more to see from Anthony Michael Hall’s character, Michael Engel. It was underplayed and left with a lot of question. How desperate is Engel to get the story of the Batman? What is he willing to do? This seems like a perfect opportunity for Nolan to ask how far is too far when the media is concerned. This also seems like an ideal time to introduce Bruce Wayne’s next love interest, photojournalist Vicki Vale (previous portrayed by Kim Bassinger in Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman). But how would a Vicki Vale created by Chris Nolan react towards Batman. Would she be a fan or a cynic?

While love interests are wonderful, the important news would be who would be the next villain for Batman to fight. Rumors are flying all around the internet as to who could take over for Heath Ledger. It seems Johnny Depp is the number one contender. My answer: NO ONE! Leave the Joker in Arkham Asylum where he belongs. An actor trying to continue what Mr. Ledger began would be criticized and would take the attention away from the movie. While Johnny Depp is a very talented actor, he is not right for the Joker (at least not the Joker created by Ledger). However, I do think Mr. Depp could portray another Batman villain terrifically – and one that I feel would be great in the Gotham that Nolan has set up for us: The Riddler.

Batman has spent the last two movies testing out his physical strength, it is about time someone tested his intellect. Depp’s Riddler would be funny and hideous at the same time, stepping away from the Riddler created by the brilliant Frank Gorshin (and continued by the talented, but not-as-talented Jim Carrey). The Riddler of this world needs to be someone who has spent their whole life being teased for not being strong and ignored despite his intelligence. Batman will be the perfect opponent for the Riddler and the Riddler needs to feel right now as the right time to attack!

The Dark Knight actually set up a good character to continue on as the Riddler. The Wayne employee known as Mr. Eeyes – get it? Mysteries? – seemed like a great character to become the Riddler. There are only two problems with that. First, would Nolan upset the comic book fans by changing the Riddler’s real name from Edward Nygma? Secondly, would Nolan cast a no-name actor in an important role such as the Riddler? It would be risky, but the type of chance that Nolan would probably take. He took a similar chance casting Heath Ledger as the Joker. Though Ledger was a name, he was not the type of actor anyone expected to play the Joker. Look how that paid off!

A few web sites have already predicted Catwoman as the next villain. I did enjoy the clever moment in the movie when Lucius Fox remarks that Batman’s new costumes would protect him against cats. Oh, Mr. Nolan, you are so clever! Is this line enough to make Catwoman the next villain for Batman to deal with? Probably not. Further, the criminals that Nolan chooses seem to be big players. Joker, Scarecrow, and RaJa Ghoul all have goals of destroying Gotham and its inhabitants. Catwoman is a cat burglar. That’s all. Granted, she is dangerous enough that Commissioner Gordon does call on Batman to foil her plots, but she would be a letdown compared to the Joker. Perhaps having her team up with another criminal would help, but it has not really worked in the past.

There are villains we have seen in any franchise yet. The Mad Hatter is a subtle villain, but a treacherous one. The question is whether or not the public would enjoy a criminal based on a literary character. Would they get the literary jokes? I think they may. In 2008, one of the hottest shows on television is LOST, which constantly makes literary references. This may be the perfect time for Nolan to introduce this character. Plus, Gotham City is constantly having their minds played with. Mad Hatter would be able to take that a step further and literally control their minds.

Many have argued that the Penguin is too “fictional” for the world that Nolan has set up and I would agree. However, Nolan has brought back the mob aspect of Gotham very well. In Christopher Nolan’s world, Oswald Cobblepot could be a wannabe gangster who tries to infiltrate the mob. When that fails, he becomes the Penguin. Just a thought, but I still think the Riddler would be a better villain.

Of course, Two-Face had a short reign and he still could come back to get revenge on Commissioner Gordon and Gotham City for turning their backs on him. Nolan could also play more on the tension between one man fighting good against evil. It would be a great correlation with Batman, who is trying to prove he is good when Gotham thinks he is bad.

By now, it doesn’t really matter what is in store for the next villain. If Batman Begins did not earn Nolan the trust of the fans, The Dark Knight clinched it! But it is fun to predict. Who do you think is the next Batman villain?

The Dark Knight Review

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, the second installment of the resurrected Batman franchise, has taken its position as history's greatest comic book film of all time with full force! Between Ledger's Oscar-worthy performance, Nolan's skillful directing and screenwriting, and the hype, this movie is bound to break every record in the books.

If Christian Bale had not already proved himself to be the best Batman on screen with Batman Begins, he definitely proved it here. Though while his Batman is so interesting and horrifying, it is his Bruce Wayne that really comes alive. The struggle we see Wayne go through as he tries to save a city that does not want him to save it is so captivating, you actually find yourself pulled between wanting Batman is stop and wanting him to prove himself again and again.

Bale was supported by terrific actors, giving amazing performances. Gary Oldman takes his role of Jim Gordon further in The Dark Knight. He does a beautiful job of showing how it’s not easy for Gordon to trust the Batman at all times. He juggles his secret bond with Batman and his job perfectly, making the character's transition into Commissioner seem obvious, yet surprising.

Michael Caine returns again as Alfred, Wayne’s butler. Though he always makes the best out of his moments, the character seems to only serve the purpose of giving philosophical advice to his master, unlike in Batman Begins when we saw how he was also affected as a second father to Bruce. It is actually not until the end of the film where he again becomes a father and emotional protector to Wayne, perhaps a little too late for the film.

Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius Fox, one of the people that know Batman’s secrets and the man who creates Batman’s unending plethora of gear. He does this while also running Wayne Enterprises. Freeman’s dialogue is so well written and has a great balance of comedy and seriousness. Freeman handles the role perfectly, making what should be a small cameo into a highlight, even more than he did in Batman Begins.

Aaron Eckhart takes his role of Harvey Dent to a new level. Nolan gives him a very meaty role that some have suggested is more important in the movie than the Joker and Batman. As Gotham’s “White Knight,” Harvey Dent gives an example of why the city might not need Batman. Eckhart does a great job of showing the struggle that Dent goes through before becoming his alter ego, causing the metamorphosis to make more sense. We feel pity for Dent, which is the key ingredient to making the villain Two-Face work. It should also be mentioned that the size of Eckhart’s role in the film was the best-kept secret of the year!

Maggie Gyllenhaal, brother to Heath Ledger’s best friend, Jake, takes over the role of Rachel Dawes beautifully, wiping out any memory of Katie Holmes from audiences’ heads. Her quick-wit and no-nonsense approach to the role is exactly what is needed when up against Bale’s tragic Bruce Wayne / Batman. Her storyline takes an unbelievable twist that becomes a sad moment that would not be so sad had if it been performed by the previous actress in the role. The next question that lies ahead is what is in store in the love arena for Mr. Wayne?

Last, but certainly not least, is Heath Ledger’s Joker. Between the amazing script and magnificent acting, the Joker becomes much more than any person thought possible. He is not just the villain of the story, but the nucleus. Between all of Gordon’s nervousness, Alfred’s advice, and Fox’s warnings, no character has us thinking more than the Joker. He has an entire audience questioning themselves, making them wonder if their own lives are merely jokes for others to laugh at. What is it to be a human being in a post-9/11 world? When everything we know is taken away from us, do we simply fall apart? How many times can we “pick ourselves up again”? It is hard to believe that a comic book villain could get someone thinking that hard, but it is Ledger’s performance that makes it so believable. The trick is the youthfulness that he brings to the role. As oppose to being completely separated from Batman in story and age, Ledger brings out the connections between the two, almost as if they are brothers separated by good and evil. They need each other. Ledger even tells Batman in a comical – but serious – moment “you complete me.”

As previously said, the movie definitely has some 9/11 allusions, but does not beat us over the head with them. It’s there for those of us that want it to be there. As we watch Gotham fall apart at the hands of a madman, we are reminded of how our country fell apart for a short time, but fought together to bring back justice and social norms. The Joker spends most of the movie questioning how many times we can fall before we lie down and die. Batman works on the opposite end to show us we should never give up, even when he is at his closest to quitting.

As did Batman Begins, this film brings great closure, while at the same time leaving itself wide open for another story. What is next for the Batman? In the first film, we saw Batman’s reaction to his own tragedy and to Gotham City. In The Dark Knight, we see Gotham’s reaction to the Batman and how Batman’s “taste for the theatrical” will bring out villains who will try to top him! While this movie tends to focus on politics and “higher-ups” of Gotham, Nolan might want to show us how the media world affects the views of Batman. Will the media be behind him or try to destroy him? This would also open up a nice window for a new love interest – photojournalist Vicki Vale – to enter the scene as either Batman’s biggest fan, or biggest critic. This might also open a door for a new Batman villain – and the only one that seems to make sense in the world that Nolan has built for us – The Riddler.

The Knight is Getting Darker ...

It is now Wednesday and I am sitting at my boss's computer (I'm supposed to be looking at something for a play I'm directing), but I felt an urge to say a few things about the research I've done on the upcoming film The Dark Knight.

By now, I have read all the articles and watched all of the trailers and seen all of the Comcast ONDEMAND specials titled "Gotham Tonight." These specials star Anthony Michael Hall (The Breakfast Club) as Gotham news anchor Mike Engel. He's quite convincing and has actually set an interesting tone for the movie. I think we will be seeing a movie that focuses much more on corruption than anything else. How will the bureaucrats of Gotham City be affected by Batman? Good move by Nolan, the director. We always get how the villains are affected, but we never get to see the political arena. Perhaps Nolan's idea is to have each film focus on how Batman affects different areas of Gotham, sort of how HBO's The Wire focuses on different areas of Baltimore and how they are affected by the drug rings.

Based on HBO's Inside Look of The Dark Knight, Nolan is focusing a lot on how Gotham will blame Batman for The Joker's appearance. This was nicely set up at the end of Batman Begins when Gordon questioned Batman about escalation. While most audiences focused on the appearance of the Joker's playing card, the real preview lied in how Gordon warned Batman that when a man in a mask jumps off rooftops, he's only asking to bring about enemies who will escalate their arsenal of tricks. It seems that this will be Harvey Dent's big argument in The Dark Knight.

While this is an excellence plot line for the film and raises a very interesting question not asked by a film before, I worry about something. Will there be a period in the movie where Bruce Wayne decides the only way to save Gotham is to let it go without Batman? We've seen this before too many times. In Superman II, we see Metropolis without Superman and in Spiderman II, Peter Parker decides he can be Spiderman no longer. Is this the cliche of the superhero sequel now? The plot is getting a little too predictable. Bruce Wayne will spend a half hour of the film watching Gotham City destroy itself and then come back to save his city from The Joker. Hopefully Nolan will take a different route, or, if he doesn't, he'll make it more interesting. I have a lot of hope!

I will be seeing the film on Friday, July 18th at 12:01 am. I'm sure I'll have plenty to say on Friday!

The Dark Knight is Coming ...

It's almost here ...

The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan's second installment of the "Batman" epic, will premier in theaters in one week. Not only is this one of the most anticipated movies of 2008, but it is the last time people will be able to see the work of Mr. Heath Ledger, a very gifted actor who left us too soon. While the death of Heath Ledger is very tragic, sometimes I feel bad for Christian Bale, the other star of the film, who is getting practically no press or acknowledgement for the role. Shouldn't we give credit to the man who finally brought a real darkness to the Dark Knight? You don't really think Keaton was better, do you?

In preparation for The Dark Knight, I've been reading even more than usual about the Caped Crusader. I recently picked up a new book entitled Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul. A very corny title, granted, but a very interesting read thus far. One particular essay inside by Mark D. White entitled "Why Doesn't Batman Kill the Joker?" struck me. In the essay, White argues that if Batman would simply off the Clown Prince of Crime, Gotham City would be a better place. It should also be noted that it was just recently released that no comic book villain is responsible for more deaths than the Joker. Some of this most potent deaths include Jason Todd, the second Robin, and Sarah Essen, Commissioner Gordon's second wife (is there a theme here? Did Nolan put Two-Face and the Joker in the same film for a reason?).

White raises a very interesting philosophical question: If a train was out of control and was about to hit five people, but you had the power to shift the tracks, causing it to only hit one person, would you do it? White goes further to explain that there are two types of people in the world: utilitarians and deontologist. Utilitarianism is a system of ethics that would encourage the person to shift the tracks and kill the one person, saving the five others. Since more people survived, the one person was worth sacrificing. Deontology states that we should judge the morality of an act based on features intrinsic to the act itself. The fact that five people were saved does not excuse the act of killing the one person. If it's God's plan to kill those five people, it is not up to us the murder the one.

Since the Batman does not kill villains (unless he has no other choice), Batman would be considered a deontologist. The inconsistency in Batman's character is that he risks his life (and that of a young boy) every night in order to prevent what happened to his parents from ever happening again. He does one action to prevent others. Yet, he won't kill the man who has killed so many in order to stop other killings from happening.

Still thinking about whether or not you are a utilitarian or a deontologist? Take this scenario into account. This is White's second situation. If you were a doctor, and you had five patients on operating tables in front of you (rarely happens, but go with it), and each one needed a different organ, and another doctor was in the room, would you kill the other doctor and use his organs to save the five patients? Probably not. Why was that decision so much easier than the situation on the train tracks? It's still one life for five. The character of the Batman would never let either of these situations occur. Like most heroes, Batman would find a way to fix the situation without anyone being killed. Batman would sooner allow himself to die than to let an innocent person be killed.

But the Joker is NOT innocent. Why should this human life be treated with the respect that he does not have for the rest of the human race? As a deontologist, is Batman in the right state of mind to actually think that there is a chance that the Joker might not kill again? That he might actually turn over a new leaf this time? It is also worth noting that a deontologist would consider self-defense an appropriate reason to take another life. Is it reasonable to say that Batman has never been in a situation where killing the Joker would be considered self-defense?

Throughout the entire essay, I could not help but ask myself a few questions. How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Would the Joker be missed? Is there a Batman without a Joker?

How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Like the deaths of so many comic book characters (Superman, Jason Todd, the Flash to name a few), publishers would have to find a way to bring him back. The Joker is the model for all other villains, yet no one has ever been able to recreate him. Why? It's quite simple. Look at other famous villains. Lex Luthor wants to make money, Mr. Freeze wants to save his wife, and the Riddler wants to show off his intelligence. But the Joker has no motive. This is what makes him so diabolical. There is no point to his wrath other than to make a joke of life. He finds his crimes funny. The public loves him so much because they can't relate to him. He can understand the need for money, revenge, and to show off. The Joker is an untouchable villain because no one can understand him. So he attracts us more.

Would the Joker be missed? Yes! Not only would the public miss him, but Batman would not be able to continue without him. Throughout his career as Batman, Bruce Wayne has never come up with a reason for the death of his parents. Since the Joker has never given a reason for his insanity, he attracts Batman to crime fighting. Like Batman, the Joker is attracted to the Batman's motiveless (the Joker does not know about Batman's parents) need to protect a city that is completely ungrateful to him. They keep each other in the game and without the other, one would fall.

Is there a Batman without the Joker? Again, no. The air that Batman breathes is the knowledge that there is someone out there who will kill for no reason and laugh at his triumph as well as his defeat. This brazen disregard for human life reminds Batman that he is not the only person to lose his family and suffer for no reason. In this sense, the Joker makes Batman feel better. The Joker gives Batman a purpose in life. Without him, Batman has no purpose. As a human -- which is what Batman simply is -- Batman needs a purpose in life or else his life need not continue.

Why doesn't Batman simply kill the Joker, Mr. White? While we can argue about whether or not it is morally right until we are blue in the face, it's not a question of morals. In fact, if Batman is keeping the Joker alive to give himself a reason to keep going, than the Batman is neither utilitarian nor deontologist. He is, in fact, just as sick and twisted as his greatest archenemy. Actually ... maybe sicker!

Everything's Coming Up Patti!

The month of July is a very busy one for me. Unfortunately, after the Tony's are over, I am going to see the two shows in the biggest race of the year: the Musical Revivals. At the end of the month, I will be seeing South Pacific, thanks to a terrific friend who happens to be in the cast (I know big people in high places ... I feel so cool). Last night, I started the month of theater seeing Gypsy starring Patti LuPone.

Now, I am going to sound hypocritical after I wrote some harsh things about Ms. LuPone in my Tony review, but I have to say her performance sincerely changed my attitude. Though I still think everyone else would agree she's a total bitch. I had a comical moment yesterday when I went up to the House Manager around 6 pm just to confirm that "Ms. LuPone would be going on tonight." The man simply replied dryly, "Yes, the queen will be going on." Obviously, he enjoys his working relationship with Patti.

Her reputation for missing performances was bigger than I thought. The final announcement after turning cell phones off and unwrapping candy was, "Ms. Lupone has injured her foot ..." The crowd gasped! "...and will be performing tonight with isotoners." That was Patti's first roaring applause of the night. It was followed by many others.

Anyway, I can honestly say that Patti's performance (though filled with her consonantless and warbled singing) was superb! It was possibly the greatest musical theater performance I have ever seen in my life. She found a balance to Mama Rose that I have never seen before. She was horrifying, yet so nurturing and loving. She was overbearing, yet found moments to be passive. She was huge, yet found moments to be small. Never has a role been played so perfectly on the stage in front of my eyes.

You almost feel bad the cast members of Gypsy who appear in the opening minutes. While a group of children (Baby June and Baby Louise included) and Uncle Jocko hold an audition, you could feel the audience's tension. Where is Patti? When is she going to enter? Then the roar came! "Sing it out, Louise!" What a beautiful foreshadowing moment that is! It's only the first of so many beautiful moments that writer Arthur Laurents creates in what I would argue is the best book of any musical ever written. This moment for Patti was the first of many loud and long applauses. I timed this one at around 40 seconds.

Mr. Laurents should be given a lot of credit for helping find Patti's vulnerable side, a side not found in many productions, including her last stint on Broadway, John Doyle's Sweeney Todd. Mr. Laurents is a director that is not only unafraid of silence on stage, but cherishes it. Ms. Benanti, as the title character, especially thrives off of Mr. Laurents' quiet moments as we see her entire struggle in her body language. The most memorable moment of this would probably be when she watches her mother reveal her newest dream in "Everything's Coming Up Roses." The look on her face truly supporting Ms. LuPone's acting. We were all terrified by the lyrics and not simply bopping our heads to the old familiar tune.

Mr. Boyd Gaines also gave a terrific performance as the lovable agent Herbie. While there were plenty of opportunities for him to show his talents, he truly gave his all to making Ms. LuPone look better! His struggle between love and show business was apparent throughout, only making Ms. LuPone’s performance more appealing. It was a lesson in how to make your star look better.

Mr. Gaines and Ms. Benanti has a particularly comical moment during “Wherever We Go” when instead of singing the notes of the song in their natural, beautiful voices, they followed the lead of Patti LuPone and trumpeted their way through it. They even mimicked some of her famous facial expressions. It was unclear whether or not it was Mama Rose or Patti LuPone they were having fun with, but either way, it made this simple number a highlight in a practically flawless production.

While the final number, “Rose’s Turn,” is usually a big discovery for the audience, Ms. LuPone foreshadowed it the whole show. It was clear that Mama Rose was not just a stage-mother, but also one that had a “dream” of her own. Her mental breakdown at the end was not sudden but was being built up the entire show, making the number even more brilliant! At the conclusion of the final note, half the audience sprang to their feet and to give her a rousing ovation. The rest of the audience soon followed. During the two-minute standing ovation, Mama Rose (and I’m sure a little Patti) blew kisses and waved at the audience during her proud moment! Patti truly stopped the show!

It was a terrific night of theater and one that will be hard to top! I am curious to see if Lincoln Center’s South Pacific will earn their Tony over this amazing production. I can’t imagine anything being better, but I am eager to see for myself.

Next week will be a trip to see City Center's Encore’s Damn Yankees starring Sean Hayes of Will & Grace fame as the Devil himself and Jane Krakowski of 30 Rock as Lola. I am also eager to see Xanadu’s Cheyenne Jackson as Shoeless Joe Hardy. Who knows? Maybe I’ll be seeing next year’s big Broadway Revival!

Those Who Teach ... Do!

It is not often in a person's life that they get to watch their mentors work in the field in which they teach. In my life, I have had many people that supported me and guided me through my life. Two people high on the list are Ed Bara, my voice instructor, and Charles Richter, my directing teacher. Both of these men spent four years teaching me the skills I needed to enter the field of musical theater performance and direction. Fortunately, neither one was upset when I entered teaching. In fact, I knew they were both (reluctantly) proud.

This weekend, I had the pleasure of seeing Muhlenberg College's production of Kiss Me Kate starring Ed Bara and directed by Charles Richter. Throughout college, I often had opportunities to see Charles' work. I even got to work at his side for many productions. Never did I leave a project without feeling like I had learned something important about theater, directing, performance, or life. Because Charles taught me how to speak my opinions about theater, I always have things to say about his productions. Some good, some bad. Whatever they are, he always listens (and argues). These arguments have always taught me even more than the exordinary about I learned in a classroom. It was this attention he gave to me that makes him such a special teacher and person in my eyes.

Mr. Ed Bara is someone that I can't just call a mentor or a teacher. He is my friend. Seeing him perform on stage in a musical was a collision of all my worlds. Ed was no longer the opera singer who enjoyed working on musical theater material with me. He is now apart of my musical theater world. I will no longer be able to listen to Cole Porter's score without hearing Ed's voice.

The strangest thing about the experience was the sense of reversal I was feeling. It wasn't, "Wow, that's my teacher!" It was almost as if I was the adult watching my child perform. That is not exactly it, but it's the closest I can come to explaining it. It was the overwhelming sense of pride I had watching him share a gift with the audience that I honestly never knew he had. Whenever I would watch him sing in the past, he was a singer. He stood with one foot in front of the other, diaphragm expanded, vowels formed correctly, and sang the songs, giving it just enough emotion that we knew what the song was about, but not distracting us from the gorgeous operatic voice. This time, I was watching the world of acting and singing truly being put into one package.

I have stayed strong in my contention that I do not miss performing. I do love teaching and look forward to directing high school shows for the rest of my life. When I graduated from Muhlenberg, Ed warned me that I would miss it someday. "One day, my friend, you and I will get together at a bar and catch up. You will say to me, 'I want to go back' and I will say, 'Told you so.'" I didn't believe him. Who would have guessed that it would be his performance three years later that would be the cause for my hesitation from moving forward, away from performing? Damn him! I wonder if he knew ...

"Those who can't do teach." Ha! Thank you, Ed. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity to see a teacher do and do it at a level that went beyond professional. Though I have been gone for three years, you continue to be an inspiration to me. I hope that one day, my students will feel the same emotions that I felt on Saturday night!

Tony Award Recap

The big question of the night is "How long has it been since Patti LuPone has won a Tony?" I can't remember! The announcement said 1980 (for Evita), and then Patti went on to say 28 years, - which mathematically makes sense - then went on to say 29 years! It's amazing how time flies! Time also flew last night! Three hours went by pretty fast as we got to watch the best (mostly ...) of this year's Broadway season.

The night opened with a scene from The Lion King. This was the first of many Disney references of the night. Why does Disney give us so many oportunties to remember that their show was not nominated? To quote one of the nominated shows, "move on!" Not only was the performance inappropriate, but it was really bad! When did the score change notes to screams?

While Best Musical is usually the big race of the year, it seemed as if the Best Revival of a Musical category was the one most anticipated of the year. Though the Best Musical category seemed to be the biggest upset. Was anyone really surprised that South Pacific won (other than Patti LuPone)? In the words of my friend, Jeff Simno, everyone is just "gaga" over South Pacific. As said before, the upset of the night was In The Heights beating Passing Strange. Though I have not seen either show, the performances seemed interesting. I was more entertained by In the Heights performance, though I saw great potential in Passing Strange.

Acting categories had few surprises. In fact, I don't think there was the typical shocker of the evening. Patti got her glory (can she quit now?), newcomer Paulo Szot won for his performance in South Pacific (his performance was one of the nicest), and, as predicted, Deanna Dunegan and Mark Rylance won for their respective roles in August: Osage County and Boeing-Boeing.

Best Featured Actor and Actress in a Musical also went to Boyd Gaines and Laura Benanti, both from the revival of Gypsy, giving actor awards to the three stars of the Musical, but still not helping it win the overall award for Best Revival.

Now for the performances ... My vote for the best performance of the night would have to go to Jenna Russell and Daniel Evans for their rendition of "Move On" from the Revival of Stephen Sondheim's Sunday in the Park with George. It was so nice to hear the female part sung and not screamed (sorry to any of you Bernadette Peters fans out there). However, I do think the only thing that might have made the performance stronger would have been ending it with a bit of "Sunday," one of Mr. Sondheim's greatest achievements. Since we were awarding him with a Lifetime Achievement, which he reluctantly accepted through Mandy Patankin, the least we could have done was show off his most beautiful combination of music and lyrics.

Also on the top of my list was Xanadu, which surprised me. I felt Cheyenne Jackson gave a hell of a performance, causing me to wonder why he was not amongst the other Best Actor nominees. Kerry Butler, who rarely impresses me, did well, though it was obvious she was trying a bit too hard.

Though I do not like her, Patti LuPone did not do a terrible job. I only counted four flat notes throughout the entire performance, which is still a considerable amount less than Ms. Peters' "Roses' Turn" in the 2003 Tony Ceremony. I did like seeing the scene before the number. It built up the momentum and helped her get through it - though I did get a little nervous towards the end. Would she make, would she not?

While on Ms. LuPone, did she really need to remind us three (or four?) times that she has not won since 1980? Let's face it! She hasn't deserved it since 1980. Her constant reminder of the time span only welcomes invitations for us to laugh and remind ourselves that she has not been worthy since Evita. No, Patti, your Mrs. Lovett was good, but not worth a Tony.

The night took an awkward turn when the non-nominated musicals (one more bitter than the next) performed in a window of two minutes (not each - all in two minutes). Poor Sierra Boggess had about 30 seconds to get to her favorite moment of the show (and ours, let's face it) the end of "Part of Your World: Reprise." The editing of the song was very rushed and quite transparent to the main goal. Poor Faith Prince had to tell a whole story of a wedding in about 40 seconds. Couldn't we give the veteran (not to mention Tony-Award nominated) actress a little more time? Then the finale was Megan Mullally's "Deep Love" from - let me get this whole title right - The New Mel Brooks Musical Young Frankenstein. First of all, if the point of this segment was to advertise these shows, this was a terrible number to pick. Its a one-joke song (where the joke is not that funny) and shows off the actress who is in the show the least. Now, Mel, by now you should know exactly what America wants to see: "Putin' on the Ritz." Would the make-up and work be worth the 30-second slot? Hell, Yeah!

One of my favorite moments of the entire night was the Rent performance. I was one of those high school students who had memorized every lyric and fell in love with every character. It was a very nice (and short) tribute to a terrific, groundbreaking show and to its writer. I must compliment the original cast for their performance. They truly put the latest cast to shame. It was pretty evident as to why the show is closing. It has nothing to do with being dated, but more with the fact that a cast that can live up to the original just has not been found.

Finally, let's talk about Whoopi Goldberg. If we needed a reminder that Disney owns ABC, our newest "View" host reminded us last night. Disney's shameless plugs were endless throughout the night. At least the costumes she wore in those segments saved us from having to see her in her puffy, clown/pirate shirt. Ms. Goldberg, I understand if Barbara Walters does not require you to look nice on "The View," but you should have enough respect to wear a gown to the Tony Awards. At the risk of disagreeing with one of my favorite theater columnists, Michael Riedel, Whoopi should never be allowed to go near the Tony Awards again. I would rather see David Letterman host!

Overall, it was a nice night to finish out an interesting year! I am looking forward to next year when a whole new group of shows enters the arena. Anyone else excited about Billy Elliot?

LOST Theories

So a week has gone by ... There have been many theories out there about what did happen and what will happen on the ABC Drama LOST. There are a few ridiculous ones and a few interesting ones. Either way, they start great conversations. Here are a few I have loved.

Locke is not dead, but has been bitten by the same bugs that paralyzed Nicki and Paulo. If you remember back in Season 3, there was a "random episode" where two characters who we had never seen before were bitten by two spiders and eventually buried alive by the main characters who thought Nicki and Paulo were dead. This was the only way for Locke to grab the attention of the Oceanic 6, whom he is trying to get back to the island. He learns about the bugs from Juliet, the doctor on the island.

This theory definitely grabbed my attention. As I thought further, it does make some sense. Locke is a character that was once paralyzed from the waste down. The character has now taken the next time and paralyzed his whole body, keeping with one of the themes of the character. It would also make sense that Juliet, the doctor on the island, would know about these bugs. In fact, I would not be surprised if she was responsible for the bugs because of a medical experiment she was running in her secret medical facility.

I also like this theory because it would finally explain the origin of Juliet's name. As a literature teacher, I cannot help but think that Juliet is so named for a reason. It's not your average, everyday name. The female half of the tragic lovers Romeo & Juliet did in fact take a potion in the play that made her seem to be asleep. It would make sense to name the character Juliet if helping Locke fake suicide is going to be her main action during Season Five.

Christian Shephard used to work for DHARMA and was the first person to ever move the island. After becoming a doctor, Christian Shephard was recruited by DHARMA to work on the island, probably on the medical station. In the season Three finale Ben says, "I was one of the people that were smart enough to make sure that I didn't end up in that ditch." One of these other smart people was Christian Shephard. He joined the others early on and learned some of the island's secrets.

After the purge Christian was the one who turned the donkey wheel, so that the DHARMA people couldn't find the island. When he moved the island, he teleported somewhere. He eventually got back to civilization, got married and had a child (Jack). He continued working for the island until he died.

Ben says in the season 4 finale, "whoever moves the island can never come back." This only means coming back alive. After Christian's body ends up back to the island Jacob somehow "resurrected" him. He's not really alive but he still works for the island in this "spiritual sense." The same thing is going to happen to Locke. He has to get off the island because "some very bad things" will happen, so he moves the island. He knows he can't get back alive, but he's willing to make the sacrifice. When the Oceanic 6 finally bring him back he will experience the same kind of resurrection as Christian Shephard did.

I like the theory of the "Spiritual World" because it may finally explain those damn whispers we are always hearing. Perhaps there are spirits on the island (and not just in Hurley's head). I also think it makes sense that Christian Shephard would know Ben. It would explain Ben's attempt to capture Jack, Kate, and Sawyer. The only problem is that Kate has no connection to Christian ... yet! It also may have been the fact that Ben could see Jack's feelings for Kate. The main reason that Ben wanted Jack was for him to perform surgery, but why not Juliet? Wouldn't be more interesting for Ben to have the son of his enemy (who refused to perform the surgery) do it instead?

I would it if this were true because it would mean that Christian Shephard was truly not dead. This event would concur with my previous theory that Christian Shephard's name comes from the idea that he can resurrect like Jesus Christ did in the Bible (Christian + Shepherd).

It's not Locke; It's his twin, Jeremy Bentham. DHARMA experiments with cloning (there is a mention of numbered rabbits being cloned in Season Two) and Locke clones himself. This other self witnesses something bad happening. The clone gets off the island and tries to get the Oceanic 6 to come back and stop the bad thing from happening.

Are we laughing yet? This is a ridiculous theory, but one I have heard more than once. I do remember the rabbit that Ben kills. It had the number 8 on it's back -- surprising that the number on it's back happens to be one of Hurley's lottery numbers.

The biggest loophole in the whole theory is why Jack and Kate wouldn't mention this. Why wouldn't they say, "Locke's clone" or "Locke's twin"? The writers of the show are much smarter than to ever allow cloning to come into play. Why wouldn't Locke just get the Oceanic 6? Why a twin?

More theories will come and more theories will be forgotten. No matter what, there will be people who will say, "I knew it!" when the series finale finally occurs. I always love to hear LOST theories, so please feel free to share. Please give my essay on Biblical References a read as well.

Numbers as Biblical References in LOST

"Oh my God! It was John in the coffin!" I have heard these words constantly all weekend. Ironically, people that know I worship LOST think that I need to be reminded of the most obvious things in the show. I also feel the need to hide my intelligence by not telling everyone that I knew that as soon as I heard the name "Jeremy Bentham," the man in the coffin, -- a discovery we've been waiting for since the season three finale -- I knew it was John Locke. Though I did not know much about Jeremy Bentham, I did know that he was the name of a philosopher. Since John Locke is our only character named after a philosopher, I just assumed it was John Locke.

While there is so much to discuss about the season four finale (or finales), I want to concentrate on something in this blog. I want to explore the use of Biblical references -- as subtle as they are -- in the show LOST. Perhaps some theories can be explored by looking at the names and, of course, the numbers used in LOST.

First, let's look at the flight number: Oceanic 815. The word Oceanic refers to anything having to do with the ocean or water. If we look at the books of the Bible, the first"Chapter 8, verse 15" that refers to water would be in the very first book: Genesis. Quoting from the New American Standard Bible, Genesis 8:15 says, "Then God spoke to Noah, saying." That's it! It is not until chapter 16 when God directs Noah to give his well-known mission to build an ark and save chosen ones from the flood. Could it be that the choice to call the flight "815" refers to the idea of the god of the island, Jacob, speaking to Noah (Locke or Ben?)? Was the disappearance of the island actually a flood? Are they travelling through time? To the center of the Earth? Or simply under water, destroying those who are worthy to get off the island? My guess would be that the island is an ark itself, saving those who stay on it. Though without the Oceanic 6, the ark is not complete, causing "bad things to happen."

Furthermore, according to 1 Peter 3:20, "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." A number of times in Season four, Jack and other characters have made references of "eight survivors." Though the question still remains as to who they are. Since the lie they are all telling has Kate pregnant when the plane went down, that would make the Oceanic 6 only the Oceanic 5 at the time of the crash, making three other people alive with the Oceanic 6. Supposedly, these people died before they were saved.

While we are on the numbers, let's look at the reappearing numbers that constantly haunt our friend, Hurley. 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42. When added together, we get the number 108. This number also has been seen repeatedly in the show. First, it was the number of the minutes that the islanders had to punch in the numbers into the Swan before something bad happened. It also happens to be the number of days that the Oceanic 6 were on the island before they were "rescued."

4 - The fourth verse of the Bible refers to God seeing the light and knowing it was good and dividing the light from the darkness. Could this be a reference to the division between the enlightened John Locke and the blinded Jack Shepherd (and do I really have to go into the word "Shepherd" and the idea of Jesus as our shepherd?)? It could, but I would see it more as the division between John Locke and Ben Linus and the choice that Jacob has made to use Locke as his true prophet. This line of the Bible is also the first time God claims that what he did was "good." Locke, Jack, Ben, and other characters consistently challenge each other on what is "good" for themselves and, in Ben and Locke's case, for the island.

Check out the fourth book of the Bible. Ironically, it's the book of Numbers. Whatever the numbers mean, one cannot argue that they are a major theme of the show -- though we don't know why yet. The name of this book in the Hebrew text is "Bemidbar," which means "the wilderness." This is the first place the characters find themselves, until they discover other areas of the island. Hence, the first number in the list represents the first place the characters find themselves.

8 - As already discussed, the number 8 is used in the show as the number of survivors and the Bible refers to eight souls that are saved from the flood, even though they are not represented on Noah's Ark. We also see the number 8 in the Bible as the beginning of a new cycle (since the world was created in seven days). Number eight is also the number day when the Hebrews performed a circumcisn, which is believed to represent the Covenant between God and the chosen people. It is clear that certain people feel "chosen" by Jacob.

The number 8 also refers to resurrections in the Bible. Other than Jesus Christ, there are eight resurrections that occur in the Bible, one of them being Lazarus, Jesus' dear friend. Though we've never seen anyone come back from the dead (yet), we have seen many figures appear on the island, though they are dead. Perhaps the one that has raised the most questions, Christian Shepherd, would be the ninth resurrection, that of Jesus Christ himself. Christian refers to the group that follow the word of Jesus Christ and we've already looked at the word Shepherd. So who is the Shepherd? Is it Jack? Is it Christian? Is it both? Who are the other resurrections that we should be paying attention to? Mr. Echo (one of the most spiritual characters on the series -- and one who apparently likes to come back from the dead to play chess)? Claire (by now you all agree with me that she's dead, right?)? Charlie? Of course, to follow the thought that Charlie and Echo have come back from the dead, one would also have to agree with me when I make the claim that Hurley is in no way insane. Right? Right? I have a suspicion that another resurrection will occur when they get Locke's corpse back on that island (as Ben said they would have to). It would be interesting if Locke was brought back to the island and woke up exactly 40 days after his death.

15 -

18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and
the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed exceedingly
upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were
covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and
the mountains were covered. Genesis 7:18-20

Fifteen refers to the number of "cubits upward" that the waters rose to cover the land when the Flood occurred. Yes, once again, we see Noah. Wouldn't it be something if one of the new characters next season (because let's face it, there will be new characters) was named Noah. Though that would ruin my theory of John Locke being Noah. By now, are you wondering what the hell a cubit is? It is a form of measurement used mainly in the Bible. Think of it as about half a yard, give or take. I would argue that the large swallowing of the island that we saw was much more than your standard 15 cubits, but "the mountains" were covered. They were covered so much that there was no island to be found.

16 - You know when you are watching a baseball game on TV or perhaps another sporting event and someone in the stands is holding a sign that says, "John 3:16"? This is referring to the mostly widely referenced line in the Bible: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Ironically, the man who believes in the "god of the island," Jacob, seems to be dead in the future. But let's remember that John Locke is alive and well on the island. For some reason, when he becomes Jeremy Bentham (a philosopher with exactly the opposite ideas of those spoken by John Locke), he perishes. What will John Locke do to tick the almighty Jacob off? I'm sure that is something we will have to wait a while to find out (perhaps the finale of season five?).

23 - The number 23 appears in the Bible often when the discussion of prosperity, abundance or wealth comes into play. It was just recently that he found out that two very rich men, Charles Widmore and Ben Linus, are fighting over the island. Ben would probably argue that Widmore is using his prosperity for evil, while Ben is trying to save the island and put it to good use (though we still don't know what that is).

The most famous reference to the number 23 would have to be Psalm 23:

"1The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2He maketh me to lie down in
green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3He restoreth my soul: he
leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. 4Yea, though I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou
art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5Thou preparest a table
before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my
cup runneth over. 6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my
life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever." Psalm 23:1-6

This passage can easily stir up images of the island in it's most beautiful form: "green pastures" and "still waters" bring out images of nature. The question is, who would this passage refer to? Jack, the "shepherd" whose main goal has been to be the savior of those on the island? Or Locke, who believes that the island has restored his soul -- or at least his legs -- and who will do anything to save the island before saving the people on it? If and when the final showdown between these two characters occurs, the answer to this question will most likely be answered. Either way, it is clear that for now, John Locke feels the need to "dwell in the house" of Jacob forever. Who wouldn't if a group of people would worship you like that? Will Locke eventually start fearing evil as he walks through the valley of his own death? Will he start doubting Jacob?

42 - Genesis 42 is an entire chapter dedicated to the sons of a very popular Old Testament figure: Jacob. Jacob's children were eventually divided into the 12 tribes of Israel. It is in these chapters that Jacob sends his sons to Egypt because there is a famine in Canaan, their home. While in Egypt, the brothers come across their brother, Joseph, whom they sold to slavery many years ago. In an attempt to see if his brothers have changed their evil ways, Joseph frames Jacob's newest favorite son ... BENJAMIN to see if the brother's will stand up for him and sacrifice themselves to make Jacob happy. So does this mean that it will actually tick Jacob off that Locke sacrificed Ben to move the island. It seems pretty clear that Locke cared very little for whatever happened to Ben. I loved Locke's creepy smile when it became obvious to him that the Others wanted to follow him now. Does this mean that Ben is the true son of Jacob or Son of God? Then who is Locke? Christian Shepherd seems to have a nice relationship with Jacob. Is "Christian Shepherd" literally what his name sounds like, the Son of the island god: Jacob? Is there a Joseph in the group -- someone who is the favorite son of Jacob? My guess would be Hurley, the character who has seen the most dead people. Joseph could not see dead people, but he was able to see things that his brothers could not.

There are so many questions still left to be answered, but I hope that my rant here brought up some new ideas. I want to hear what LOST fans out there think. Am I crazy? My students often ask me, "Did the author really think of that symbolism when he was writing this book?" Many times, the answer is probably no. But I always find it extraordinary how an author's words can be interpreted so many ways. LOST never fails to bring out the critical thinker in me. Here's looking forward to season 5 ... hopefully, we won't have to wait long.

Sex and the City: The Movie

BEWARE: There are major plot details discussed in this blog. DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE!

Sex and the City: The Movie. Long-awaited. Long-anticipated. Long movie. Though it didn't seem long at all. In fact, I could have easily sat and watched another hour (possibly more).

Before I continue, I should probably make something clear. I am a straight male who loves Sex and the City. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I actually know plenty of men like me. I may be more open to admitting it, but other guys will come around. Like most men, I tried to avoid the show. I remember the first time I saw it. I was in college. My roommate at the time, Phil, was away for a weekend and I was in the dorm sick as a dog. He had the third season sitting on his shelf. I figured, let's see what this is all about. It was the season where the main story line consisted of Carrie cheating on Aiden with Big. Right away, I knew I liked this Mr. Big character. It was obvious there was something more to this guy. Further, there was something more to all these characters. This wasn't just HBOs attempt at a sit-com. This was something bigger and better. Anyway, this is how my roommate, Phil Haas, got me into Sex and the City.

Back to the movie ...

Sex and the City: The Movie has an ironic title. Why the movie? It seemed more to me like a group of episodes. It felt as if I had put the next DVD in and had a "mini-marathon." The first episode: The Proposal. This may seem like a bad thing, but it wasn't. It actually made the show easier to watch.

What I admired so much about the movie was how familiar it was. This was not a movie for someone who had just seen a few episodes. This was for the true fan. There was no wasting time with silly exposition such as, "Big and Carrie dated, then broke up, then cheated on their significant others with each other, yada yada yada, got back together in Paris." This movie was for those who had memorized their favorite lines and knew every character by heart. This was risky, I feel, but worth the risk!

As soon as the little tease of the theme song started, you could feel the energy of the room. Women of all ages began to applaud loudly for their four favorite ladies, who were in their 40s (and still wonderful on so many levels).

Within two minutes of the movie, I felt comfortable, as if I was sitting in my own den watching a show that I have watched for many years (ONDEMAND, because I try to avoid the TBS edited versions). The characters were the same, yet so incredibly different. There was a maturity about them that made it obvious the city and the characters were four years older. The perfect example of this was the scene when Big calls Carrie while he is writing his vows (with the adorable moment of Lily picking up the phone and saying, "sex"). Big expresses his hesitation in getting married and Carrie calmly steps out of the room and speaks to him rationally. The Carrie Bradshaw we knew four years ago would have freaked out. I was so happy that the writers and Sarah Jessica Parker realized that being in this relationship (and being in her 40s) would cause a metamorphosis, no matter how large or how small.

Carrie and Big

The relationship between Carrie and Big has clearly developed into what it was always meant to be: a best friendship. Though her girls will always be here true soul mates, it is obvious that Big has taken the fifth slot. Their storyline is dealt with very quickly. It obviously continues throughout, but as far as the on screen love, it suffers a drastic change within the first "episode" of the movie. Though we have seen Carrie suffer numerous times as she tries to get over Big, this time seemed oddly different. Perhaps it was that maturity I was talking about, or perhaps it was the fact that we just missed this damn show so much, but Carrie was now suffering because of their mistakes and not just Big's.

Carrie is probably the most flawed character is television history; one of her greatest flaws is the fact that she thinks she is flawless. But now we get a true sense that she did something wrong, too. What drove him away this time? As she realizes it was the hoopla of the big wedding, Miranda searches for a way to tell Carrie that she had a hand in it, too. Miranda's cynicism has now affected someone else other than Steve.

Miranda and Steve

This was a true example of brilliant marketing. Every magazine and newspaper said the exact same sentence about Miranda's storyline: "She deals with feeling betrayed by Steve." What's the first thing that comes to mind? "No, Steve would never cheat on Miranda." This was one time where thinking the obvious paid off. Thanks to Steve's lovable character making us think he is flawless all those years, the audience was literally shocked when he quickly and coldly says, "I had sex with someone else." It was possibly the biggest shocker of the whole film. Brilliantly acted by David Eigenberg, Steve finally showed flaws that made us understand why Miranda and he are a perfect match.

Charlotte and Harry

Like always, Kristen Davis proved why she rarely got nominated for Emmy's while the other three got nominated every year. Her performance was fine (and she stood out as the prettiest -- like always), but she lacked the three-dimensional performance that drives the story of these women along. Harry, one of the cutest characters ever to be introduced, was not in the movie nearly enough. There is not really much to say about these two, other than their beautiful moment where their dream came true. However, I did notice that once Rose came along, Lily was nowhere to be seen ... favorite child? That's sad!

Samantha and Samantha

Samantha Jones finally accepts that she is her one true love. Mirroring the Carrie and Aiden relationship, we discover that Smith is just too good for Samantha. I think it's very noble of a show (and a movie) to admit their characters have problems, which is exactly what this show does. It was beautifully done as we watch Samantha go back to her promiscuous life while lovingly letting go of Smith (possibly the greatest man she'll ever know). This was a smart move on the movie's part because, though I didn't realize it the numerous times I watched the final episode, having the four girls each find love and equating it with happiness was very risky. You have a large demographic of single women who watch the show. Most of them enjoy the wonderful ending where everyone eventually finds love, but this show prides itself on honesty. What about the single girl who will never find a man? Was she written out of the final episode? The movie fixes this by showing single women that it is okay to live your life without a man. It's obvious Samantha is truly happy with her decision.

Louise

What a beautiful performance by Jennifer Hudson. It was big enough to remember, yet never stole the spotlight from the movie's four leads. As a character that was meant to emphasize the age gap between the girls, Jennifer reminded us what it was like to be a single, working woman looking for love in the big city (sound familiar?). It also gave us something to compare Carrie to towards the end of the movie. This once again emphasized the difference between old and new Carrie. I will say that Michael Patrick King (Writer and Director) dropped the ball when he had Louise marry her Mr. Big so quickly. Have things changed since 2004? Is it actually easier for women now? I would have much rather seen Big and Carrie find their love, making it hopeful for Louise, but not giving it away so easily. It would have been nicer to see Louise give up (as Carrie so often did) and then have the main relationship in the movie act as an inspiration for Louise not to simply move back home, but to keep trying here in New York City. This does not, however, lessen the terrific performance by Jennifer Hudson. See, she can do more than play Effie White (and how about those pipes at the end?).

Finally ...

Before seeing the movie, I couldn't help but wonder: what is the point of making Sex and the City: The Movie? It was to show what these women were up to now that they have found what they've been looking for. There were some ups and downs, but never did the girls forget the most important thing: they had each other. The movie beautifully balanced the old, familiar show with fresh, moving, (and surprising) moments that will now simply be added to the "remember whens" that friends will share at parties and dinners. When someone says, "Remember when Steve cheated on Miranda?" no one will ever respond with, "Well, that was in the movie." The two will forever go hand-in-hand. This was the challenge of making this movie and Parker, King, and the others never looked back. They created a terrific extra-long episode that will now be remembered (at least by me) as the true series finale.

Why I have this ...

Tonight, Friday, May 30th, my fiancee and I went to see Sex and the City: The Movie. No I am not gay, though my opinion of the movie would definitely give someone that impression, as would my love for musical theater. These are all things we can discuss later. The point is, after the movie was over, as we were driving home with her best friend in the back seat, I realized that I wanted to write about this. This is not unusual. When I was in college, I wrote a lot. I was a theater major and an English minor. Shortly after graduation, I earned my degree in English and became a certified high school English teacher. I have always hated the idea that "those who can't do, teach." For that reason, and the constant urge, I decided to write every now and then. Usually, the topic of my writing is about television or theater. The problem was I never had anywhere to put this stuff. I thought about writing a book, but what would the topic be? I have so many things I like to write about. Would people care? Maybe not ... But should I only write for people who care? Shouldn't I just be able to express my ideas. Furthermore, what right do I have teaching fourteen-year-olds how to write when I don't do it myself?

So I told Bonnie that I felt an urge to write and she said, "You know what? You need a blog." I went home (well, her house) and got on the computer and immediately Googled "blog" and found this web site. I've heard of this blog site (thanks to my fellow English teacher, Cara Restaino -- who also has a true love of the written word) and so here I am!

I figure "Joe's Spot" can just be a place for me to write about things that interest me. Sometimes I can write about topics that are bothering me, exciting me, or just keeping my mind going. Often, I will talk about plays, movies, or television shows I've seen. I will also give my opinion, which is something I love to do.

Anyway, this is "Joe's Spot" and this is the first Blog. Now what next? Oh ... Sex and the City: The Movie.