Source: https://theflaneursturtle.com/2016/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:02:43+00:00

Document:
By Scarlett DeRousse, RMU Student.
America: land of the hot dog, apple pie, and the nation’s favorite pastime: baseball. As April rolls in, all is normal and well as the first pitches are thrown, and American cities can begin to hate each other once more. A wave of excitement and hope sweeps across the nation as fans root for their currently flawless team. But this excitement is not as strong anywhere as it is in Chicago with the Chicago Cubs. Writing for the Tribune, David Haugh saw that”the enthusiasm of Cubs fans made its presence felt in the first outing of 2016″. Of course, a “blank slate” is nothing new for the Cubs, but it is April so their hearts are in October. I guess Nelson Algren was speaking the truth when he said that “Chicago is an October sort of city even in spring”. This time, though, it is not just fans who are living on hopes of the future: According to Haugh, “On day one, the Cubs already were thinking as if it will be a long one”. Last years near success, changed the team’s focus to “staying fresh for September and October”. It is a long time until October’s playoffs, but all eyes will be watching the Cubs, especially in Chicago and St. Louis.
during game four of the National League Division Series at Wrigley Field on October 13, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois.
“In baseball, as in life, all important things happen at home,” and so my heart is with my home team in St. Louis. I was raised on the bleachers outside those dusty fields, so naturally I have a love of the game. Unfortunately, I ended up in the city of my home team’s rival. My presence in Chicago for everything else grew and intertwined myself deeper with the city, but my love of the game has never made me feel more like an outfielder. As the season takes it opening, I become a little less Chicagoan. I love this city, but I hate it’s team.This part of myself, however, is at risk with the potential success of the Cubs. This side of my identity is built on the confidence against my new town, and the win of a World Series would crush my St. Louis pride. Would I be a Cubs fan? Absolutely not! It would, however, take away the superiority and confidence I receive as being a Cardinals fan.
However, with a history like the Cubs, it is unlikely they will make history.
While the Cubs may have been caught up in their fantasies last season, reality hit like a fastball. Apparently, that reality wasn’t hard enough to crush the hopes for next season; that hope is over 100 years old, so its doubtful anything can. Even I, a Cardinals fan, cannot deny their potential. But I am no Cubs fan, so I live in reality; that potential is nothing more than potential. The Cubs may be able to get close this season to winning it all, but close doesn’t make dreams come true. The Cubs will lose, I will stay rooted in my Cardinal identity, and I will always root root root for my home team.
Yesterday, my dear colleague Michael Stelzer Jocks wrote about how superhero movies are rarely super, and I feel compelled to respond. I am a lover of superhero films (the only thing I want for my birthday on May 5 is to see Captain America: Civil War that night), and I am familiar with the genre both as a fan and as a writer/teacher of Science Fiction (SF) & Fantasy. However, I am not an apologist for the genre. So, allow me to respond to some of the points made by MSJ.
First, the desire for SF & Fantasy films (of which superhero films are a subgenre) is not restricted to the United States. Of the top ten films with the highest worldwide grosses of all-time, eight are SF/Fantasy films. The highest grossing superhero movie is Marvel’s The Avengers, which earned $1.5 billion dollars. Of that total, 41% was domestic, which means it grossed nearly $900 million outside of the United States.
Also, while we are in a golden age of superhero films, cinematic adaptations of comics are certainly not new. Just to name a few, there is the classic Adam West Batman TV series of the 60s, Richard Donner’s Superman film in the 70s, and Tim Burton’s Batman film in the 80s.
The success of superhero films, like all films, has been dictated by the quality of the film’s writing, direction, and acting. Countless comic book adaptations have been financial and/or critical disasters, such as last year’s Fantastic Four, Halle Berry’s Catwoman, Ben Affleck’s Daredevil, and the infamous Joel Schumacher Batman films of the 90s. So, you are correct: not all superhero movies are super.
However, what has driven this golden age of superhero films is not a blind interest in comic book stories, but rather studios finally treating these stories with care.
A great example is Deadpool, 2016’s surprise hit. The Deadpool character was, prior to the film, virtually unknown to the general population. Even to comic book fans, Deadpool would classify as a C or D-level character in the Marvel universe. For iconic characters that all people know, like Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man, audiences will flock just based on the name value of the character. Deadpool’s success was not due to a craving for comics; it has a sharp, hilarious script that is well-paced and well-acted. Positive word of mouth drove that film’s success, not opening weekend name value (like Batman v. Superman).
The same can be said of Marvel’s Iron Man. Now, in 2016, Iron Man is well-known to all moviegoers, but when the first Iron Man film was released in 2008, Iron Man was a character known largely only to comic fans. There was plenty of skepticism even among comic fans about how a “lesser” character could carry a film; yet, director Jon Favreau and star Robert Downey Jr. made a wonderful movie that caught fire and led to the current Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Superman and Batman sharing a film is not at all like Indiana Jones and James Bond appearing in the same film. The general movie-going audience has become accustomed to superheroes being segregated into their own films, but that is a product of film studios and business, not the source material.
Superheroes have always shared the same “universe” and regularly interact in all mediums (comics, cartoons, video games) except films, where dollar signs and film rights had kept characters separate until Marvel Studios started their cinematic universe in 2008 with Iron Man, which paved the path to The Avengers in 2012. The first time “Earth’s Mightiest Heroes” combined in the comics was 1963, nearly 50 years before it finally happened on screen.
Batman and Superman appeared together for the first time in a comic book in 1952, a whole 64 years before the Batman v. Superman film.
Indiana Jones and James Bond were written by different authors for different mediums and never had a connection. They were never meant to share a story or screen, unlike comic book characters.
A better analogy would be to take the process in the opposite direction. Imagine if George Lucas had written Star Wars initially as a book, but Warner Bros. purchased the film rights to Luke Skywalker and 20th Century Fox had purchased Han Solo. Then, for 50 years, the studios made films independent of one another in which Luke and Han could never share the screen, because it would result in endless legal battles. After 50 years, casual moviegoers who weren’t familiar with the source material would find it perfectly normal that Luke and Han aren’t sharing the screen; they’d be their own, independent SF/Fantasy space opera franchises. Meanwhile, fans of the source material would be left daydreaming about seeing Luke and Han together in the Millennium Falcon up on the big screen just as was always intended.
Let me make something clear: Batman v. Superman is a terrible film. I saw it twice in the theater, and was not biased against it. I love the Batman character and wanted the film to work. However, the writing, direction, and editing are all terrible. The acting has some horrible failings, as well. In total, the film failed miserably to properly represent why Batman and Superman would ever come to blows.
However, let’s look to other superhero films that have tackled this concept successfully.
Whether in superhero films, other storytelling genres, or just real life, it is very possible for “good guys” to have ideological differences that put them in different camps, if not outright conflict. This has been well-depicted in a number of superhero films, particularly both Avengers films and Captain America: Winter Soldier. Throughout these films, the heroes all mean well, but they do not see eye-to-eye at all times about what is right. The growing tensions of what’s right and wrong are what precipitate the conflicts in the upcoming Captain America: Civil War.
Thus, heroes being in conflict is not absurd – it’s good storytelling. It is actually a sign that the characters are well-rounded, that they have personalities and beliefs that make them much deeper than just their SF/Fantasy superpowers.
They’re all around you. You cited two wonderful examples in Netflix’s Daredevil and Nolan’s Batman series, but those just scratch the surface.
Peter Parker is dealing with his love life and regrets over how he failed his family. Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 is a love story about Peter struggling with how his life and responsibilities always seem to prevent him from being with the woman he loves.
Tony Stark is tormented by his consciousness after the death and destruction that resulted from his actions (which is somewhat Dostoyevskian, Michael, which you should appreciate). Tony even deals with PTSD in Iron Man 3. A famous story-arc in the comics, Demon in the Bottle, deals with Tony struggling with alcoholism.
Scott Lang in Ant-Man is an ex-con trying to regain the life he lost due to his troubled past, and all of his “heroic” actions are prompted by wanting to be a good father to his daughter, who lives with his ex-wife and stepfather.
Peter Quill in Guardians of the Galaxy struggles to hold onto the memory of his mother who died of cancer when he was a child.
Bruce Banner in The Hulk is struggling with his own isolation from others.
In the popular TV series The Walking Dead, which is also a comic book property, fans understand that the the real danger is not the zombies; the zombies are sort of peripheral, especially since they’re slow-moving and easily dispatched. The real danger is other humans, and how some people and societies can fall to pieces when pushed into a corner.
Captain America is a kind-hearted, scrawny guy who feels powerless to help others when that’s all he wants to do. Michael, as a History Professor, you should love a tale about a guy who wants nothing more than to serve his country in WW2 as he watches everyone, including his best friend, get shipped off to war.
I even like to use Captain America as an example of leadership in my classes. In The Avengers, there is genius Tony Stark, Norse god Thor, the monster Hulk; yet, it is Steve Rogers, the guy who was born scrawny but with a big heart, who is the leader. Even with his superpowers, Cap isn’t the smartest, fastest, or strongest of the group. He is sort of the Average Joe of the team, but he is the one who commands the respect of the group, because he does what any real person can: be a good person, have conviction, and fight for what you believe in.
Moviegoers will never have real superpowers, but we understand these human moments, and the better comic book films/TV shows are packed full of them. Superhero movies are no longer just mindless action set pieces with empty scripts and ample explosions…they’ll let Michael Bay corner that market.
I am biased in favor of superhero movies only in that that I will often give films in the genre a chance before casting judgement, but then I judge them on their own merit. This year, Deadpool was outstanding; Batman v. Superman was terrible. I am thrilled for Captain America: Civial War; I am extremely skeptical about X-Men: Age of Apocalypse. The best superhero films are funny, heartfelt, emotional, resonant, and exciting. They are no longer just “good” genre films; they’re great films, period.
Give some of the better properties a chance, Michael. If you need a viewing list for homework, let me know.
Superhero Movies Are Rarely Super.
The other day our illustrious Editor-in-Chief of RMU’s student newspaper, Kevin Morales, asked me if I would like to write a quick word regarding why I don’t particularly enjoy superhero movies. I thought, ‘sure, I’ll play the contrarian’. And evidently, not liking superhero movies is a pretty rare stance these days. Marvel and DC Comics have taken over Hollywood, and there seems to be no end in sight to our nation’s endless desire for new tales taken from comic books.
Before I get into why I generally ignore most of these movies, I feel I must make one thing clear. I am not necessarily a movie snob. I like a good number of movies that have been critically panned. Every movie I see doesn’t need to be an art-house flick. Also, I am not one who despises or mocks ‘nerd culture’. Sure, I really can do without Lord of the Rings, but I like Harry Potter. I don’t go for Star Trek, but I love Star Wars. Avatar? Oh goodness no! The Matrix? Oh, heck yeah! So, you see, I don’t reject sci-fi and fantasy out of hand. I like some, I loathe some.
Which brings us back to the spate of ‘superhero’ movies that just keep racking up box office records. I think Kevin assumes I hate all within the genre, but that is not true. In fact, I love some superhero stories. Hey, I saw Tim Burton’s Batman on opening night in 1989! I even bought and proudly wore a Batman t-shirt after seeing that seminal film. But, that love doesn’t automatically extend to all Batman stories. I most definitely do not have any desire to see this new Batman v. Superman flick. I’m avoiding that one like the plague. There are a couple reasons why.
First, it just looks like a ridiculously asinine concept. Why are Batman and Superman fighting? Scratch that; I really don’t care. Any explication of the plot will be absurd. Putting these two characters in the same film would be like plopping Indiana Jones down in a James Bond movie. What is the point? It reminds me of when Scooby Doo would inexplicably team up with Sonny & Cher or the Harlem Globetrotters. Come on! Why are these people hanging out with meddling kids and helping solve mysteries? I say again, ‘ridiculously asinine’.
But my real problem with most superhero movies, and this includes Zack Snyder’s new Man of Steel vehicles, is the fact that they center around boring, lifeless characters. Action movies must be more than just action. Adventure movies must have interesting, complex protagonists that face and overcome challenges. In other words, human beings need to run the show. Superman? The Hulk? Thor? An all powerful alien, a freakish monster, and a god? There is no complexity here. There are no challenges these beings can’t easily overcome. They are superhuman, and hence, you get a snowball effect of absurdity. Since humans would be squashed like a bug by these characters, you are forced to provide them with superhuman enemies. Evil geniuses, other aliens, or, yes, fellow deities. One Norse god fighting another; one alien fighting another. Why should I care again?
Give me a ‘superhero’ movie in which the hero is more human than super! No films have accomplished this better than Christopher Nolan’s adaption of Frank Miller’s ‘Dark Knight’ series. The Batman/Bruce Wayne in Nolan’s films is emotionally and mentally fragile. He is complex. Sure, you know Batman will win in the end. But Nolan creates realistically troubling adversity for his hero. He wants you, the viewer, to ask questions. Are you sure Batman’s vigilantism is a positive thing? Is he obsessed with justice so much that it will destroy him and all he loves? And, what about Batman’s relationship with his arch-nemesis, The Joker? Perhaps Batman should have killed The Joker? The Joker, like Batman, is mortal. He is not some demigod or alien. These films then illustrate the struggle of man v. man, not monster v. monster. For goodness sakes, by the third installment of the series, Bruce Wayne needs to get a knee brace if he wants to keep fighting villains! Can’t get much more human than that.
In this same vein, Netflix’s Daredevil series is similarly successful. Of course, Daredevil has some ‘superpowers’; a never quite defined sixth sense that allows him to predict movements and foresee actions. But, the show illustrates the challenges of these ‘powers’. The character must train himself to use this power, and prepare himself physically to fight the evil all around him. He does not have super-strength, super-speed or the ability to shoot lasers out of any orifices. Since he is just a man with some unlikely mental abilities, Daredevil doesn’t automatically win all his fights. Out on the streets of NYC, he usually gives worse than he takes, but he takes quite a bit. He comes home with scratches, bruises, sprains and breaks. Daredevil could lose. The tension is real.
See, I like some superhero movies/shows; I just don’t care much for most superheroes.
Are You Really Happy? Start Looking for the Flow.
By Sean O’Hara, RMU Student.
As I drove to class this evening I started to ponder the things that make me happy. More so, the things that make me feel personally satisfied, e.g. money, family, that “A” I received on the management paper, etc. But, I really don’t think these things satisfied me personally. I mean, I love my family, I make decent money, and grades come and go. I thought to myself, what was this thing that creates true happiness? And then it came to m: ‘Flow’. ‘Flow’ you ask? You see, I learned this concept while taking a psychology class at Harper College in my freshman year. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi is the former head of the psychology department at the University of Chicago and the department of sociology and anthropology at Lake Forest College. The idea of ‘Flow’ was introduced by Csikszentmihalyi as a tool to measure genuine satisfaction and true happiness.
1) Set the alarm on your smart phone to go off four times a day, every day, for a week. Make sure the times are random, twice in the A.M and twice in the P.M.
2) Each time you receive the alert write down what you are doing and the level you being challenged and skill level you possess. Rate each of these, level of challenge and level of skill required, on a scale of 1-5, one being the lowest.
3) At the end of the week take a look at your results and determine when you were being the most challenged and when you possessed the skill level needed to accomplish the task.
Yeah, you are probably thinking, so how is this information useful? Well, the data offers a kind of road map for you to identify your strengths and improve your weaknesses. For instance, if you are finding yourself in the area on the chart in apathy, boredom, or relaxation levels, you probably need to increase the challenge of the tasks. If you have apathy, worry, or anxiety, you may want to increase your skill level when completing those tasks.
Now, I realize that we not always going to be in ‘Flow’. But wouldn’t it be great if we could load the dice and set ourselves up for the highest possible payout? What would you give to be happy and content in life? Believe it or not the happiest people on this planet are not the wealthiest, with the best families, and the best jobs. So find your ‘Flow’ and make yourself happy. It’s worth it.
The other day I zoomed through Arthur Koestler’s classic prison memoir, Dialogue With Death. Koestler was an important 1930s journalist/novelist/intellectual. As with many of his generation, he was a leftist who flirted with Communism before becoming disenchanted by Stalin, Stalinism and the horrendous crimes perpetuated by the regime during that era.
solitary confinement for the weeks leading up to his expected execution. In the hands of Franco’s fascists, death was the common punishment for ‘Reds’. However, after a couple weeks his solitary slowly became less solitary. He began to clandestinely speak to other prisoners outside his cell; eventually, he was even given the opportunity to pick a book out of the prison ‘library’.
‘was shaped by scarcity rather than abundance, and by the sway of powerful institutions – the Church, universities- that oriented reading in a conservative, stabilizing manner. To read intensively was to focus on a small set of works, rereading each one over and over, not….new information, or surprising amusements, but as part of a ritualistic re-affirmation of faith, understanding, or inclusion in a recognized community.
Though troubling in many ways (ie, not informational or original), intensive reading meant that the reader was supremely focused upon what he/she was studying.
In comparison, the modern world is marked by extensiveness. We are more likely to be inundated under an avalanche of reading materials than to be facing a scarcity. Thus, reading as a skill is most valued by speed and efficiency. Just think of the millions spent by those who take speed-reading courses in hopes of plowing through a 500 page novel in 2 hours. In our education system, efficiency is as important as speed. When some of my fellow students in grad school complained about the reading load for one professor’s class, he informed us that we needed to learn what to read, and what to ignore in the books he assigned. A strange request, for a strange culture.
Of course, extensive reading and ubiquitous texts have led to a great many goods. The average human today has knowledge that the pre-printing intensive readers could only dream of. I mean, who really wants to return to a world of medieval monks chanting and repeating memorized liturgies? Needless to say I am also not romanticizing solitary confinement in a right-wing secret prison with only a handful of books. Personally though, I sometimes think I don’t enjoy what I read enough; I find that I have the habit of thinking about my next book during the reading of my current book. This is extensive reading absurdity.
In our world of extensive readings, Koestler’s rediscovery of books in a dark fascist prison cell is always good to keep in mind.
The expression “I’m a mess” may still, to some degree, describe my emotional state, but I hope it will never be associated with my living space.
Thus, I spent this past chilly weekend in Chicago cleaning and rearranging my apartment. An intense seasonal cleaning accompanies the need for renewal. There is no better time than spring to shake off the dust, to purge, to take an accounting and decide what is worth keeping and what, at last, must ultimately be let go.
My new lease begins in June, so I will remain in my current place until May 30, 2017, on that much I can rely. This small certainty feeds my willingness to invest time and energy and money to ensure that my home is as comfortable, efficient, and harmonious as possible.
In my act of decluttering, I have reintroduced myself to some of the principles of Feng Sui, proactively clearing and organizing for utmost efficiency and advantage. I am willing to believe that a clean, well-organized space can have a positive impact, no matter how measurable the outcomes might be.
Ultimately, the energy that moves through a space can be purposefully impacted by thoughtful design, a practice studied and applied according to a variety of formal disciplines, including environmental psychology.
Several recent books discuss the benefits of intentional clearing of space; the most widely read perhaps being The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up by Marie Kondo. The principles are well outlined here. Meanwhile, I utilized the Feng Sui diagram that corresponds with the physical space according to the orientation of the floor plan.
I moved three large and heavy pieces of furniture, providing a better path for energy (Chi or Qi) to flow freely through my bedroom, as I anticipate someday welcoming a new man to fill the space left vacant by the previous one.
area also sent the wrong message. I looked around my apartment, only to discover that I own little artwork that evokes positive emotions, surely an important detail. Only one piece was thematically suitable, a framed photo or graffiti reading “I Love You,” which I optimistically moved to the appropriate corner.
Conversely, the center of my creative endeavors aligns with my well-loved kitchen, a room in which I am perfectly at ease. My brilliant friend Kris encouraged me to make the most of this knowledge and start writing in my kitchen, too!
For added comfort, I ordered a lamp for the dining room, which has wanted a better lighting scheme for three years. My beloved dinner guests will no doubt be more relaxed and linger longer in low lamp light.
Along with my spring cleaning comes the changing of the wardrobe. Relegating coats and sweaters to the back of my one over-used closet and bringing out piles of summer dresses, shaking them out, hanging them to free the wrinkles trapped all winter represents the height of optimism.
With the best intentions, I have cleaned my place, polished my possessions to make them shine. Nothing more to be done, I gladly bid farewell to a winter dominated by the dark and cold, and move on to a new season, ideally one that will bring both warmth and light.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.