Top Ten: Friends in Film

Maybe it's the fact that this is my last week of high school, but I'm feeling a bit nostalgic. As much as I joke about Herricks, it's been a pretty good run. The classes have been fun, the work was usually, if not always (looking at you, PiG paper), meaningful, and I'm going to miss all the people I've come to know and love in the district. All the teachers, all the classmates, all the friends. Slightly long story short, I've got friends on the brain. So here they are: my top ten friends in film! And this should be obvious...but spoiler alert.

10) Frederick Frankenstein and others, Young Frankenstein

This film was my introduction to Mel Brooks, and needless to say, I wasn't disappointed. Frederick Frankenstein, Igor, Inga, the monster, and the loony residents of the town are what made me love Mel Brooks - and, indeed, the whole genre of satire - in the first place. The intelligence of the humor, coupled with the bonds between the characters, really roped me in. The chemistry the actors have is undeniable - whether it's Frederick's bonding with his creation, Inga and Igor's antics, or any of the other endearing factors in the film, these are some of the funniest friends in all of film. And they genuinely do care about each other, on top of all the humor. It's a mix of humor and seriousness, darkness and comedy, satire and originality. The monster's articulate remarks at the film's climax really cement the care and compassion within the crazy band.

9) Luke Skywalker and others, Star Wars Trilogy
Some of you may be screaming "Blasphemy!" since the band of rebels are close to the bottom of the list. Let me explain - as much as I love Luke, Han, Leia, Lando, Chewbacca, C-3PO, R2-D2, and the rest of them, I can't put them above any of the others on this list in good conscience. I feel as though there isn't enough time in the films themselves to see the true progression of the relationships between them. It's heavily indicated that Luke really bonds with Han, Leia and Chewie between Episodes IV and V. They bond in IV itself, of course, but it's not enough to show the strength of their bond. It's implied in V that the group has gone through hell and high water together in the space between the two films, and I wish I'd gotten to see some of what happened in the three years separating the timelines in the two films. It's the same with the gap between V and VI - they've spent the past three years with Lando, who was a bit of an antihero in V. He comes around, of course, but it's not really enough to show the development and the solidification of their friendship. The friendships are great, as nobody will argue - I just wish I'd gotten to see more.

8) Atticus Finch and others, To Kill a Mockingbird
As I've mentioned previously, Atticus Finch is just about my favorite character in all of literature, and he's close to the top when it comes to film characters as well. I put Atticus and his host of friends and allies near to the bottom of this list because the friends and allies only figure in here and there. But when they do, they're excellent. It's the few good men and women in the town, including Atticus, who fight for justice in an unjust society. Take Arthur Radley, who risks his neck to save Atticus's children from a murderer. Take Judge Taylor, who does his utmost and puts his reputation on the line to see to it that Tom Robinson, the innocent black man accused of raping a white woman, gets the best defense possible (Atticus, of course). And, of course, there's Atticus himself. And I've gushed about him enough in previous posts.

7) Parry (Henry Sagan) and Jack Lucas, The Fisher King
In The Fisher King, an old cliché feels fresher than ever. That cliché, of course, is the one where fun-loving and wacky Person X meets grouchy and no-nonsense Person Y, befriends Person Y, and makes Person Y fun-loving and wacky him/herself. In The Fisher King, Robin William's vivacious madman Parry is Person X, while Jeff Bridges' cynical ex-radio host Jack Lucas is Person Y. But there's more to the story than the old cliché: Jack is indirectly responsible for events that killed Henry Sagan's wife and drove him mad in the first place. Over the course of the film, Jack comes to love the loony Parry like a brother. In the end, of course, Jack learns to take life a bit less seriously, and holds his loved ones ever closer. It's a happy ending that very nearly doesn't happen, which gives it it's magnitude. The Fisher King is a tale of one man's redemption through another man. If you aren't in STAC and/or you haven't already see it, go find it.

6) Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, X Men Franchise
I watch comic book movies for the same reason anyone else watches comic book movies - just for the action. In many cases, it's more about the effects than it is about the story lines or the plot or the characters themselves. The X-Men films are guilty of this, though perhaps not in the same city-destroying manner as films like Man of Steel or The Avengers. After all, the fight scenes don't occupy too much time in the film, though they do tend to showcase action over all else. And the characters aren't half bad, particularly the characters of Professor X and Magneto. Come on, they're played by Sirs Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, legends of the screen and stage and real-life best friends. The two characters' relationship is probably the most complicated on this list. Like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, they fight for the same cause (mutant rights, in the context of the X-Men world, which heightens the analogy) in different ways, which often puts them at odds with each other. While the scholarly Professor Xavier tries his hardest to coexist with the normal humans, Holocaust-survivor Magneto doesn't trust them and believes that mutants should fight to win their security. The estranged friends' rivalry is complicated further by the brotherly love they feel for each other, which comes to highlight many of the struggles in the franchise.

5) Marty McFly and Doc Brown, Back to the Future Franchise
As with the X-Men movies and other comic book films, I don't watch Back to the Future for its artistic value. The soundtrack and the acting are excellent overall, but the premise and the effects are very '80's - over-the-top and dramatic. But the films still endear themselves to me, primarily due to the father-son bond that exists between Doc Brown and Marty McFly. It's present throughout all the films, and is tangible in virtually all of the scenes the pair share - it's one of the most genuine connections I've ever seen in film. Marty and Doc have one of the most heartwarming bonds on this list, with each risking life and limb for the other's sake on multiple occasions, all in the name of science and adventure. The two characters genuinely care about each other, and that's why I enjoy the films as much as I do.

4) Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, The Producers
Mel Brooks' second appearance on this list, The Producers is one of my favorite films of all time. Two, technically - I can't decide whether I prefer the original 1968 film, with Mostel, Wilder and Mars, or the 2005 adaptation of the Broadway musical with Lane, Broderick and Ferrell. At the center of the convoluted plot are Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, each being the foil to the other. Bialystock is adventurous, fun-loving, and risk-taking, while Bloom is reserved, cautious, meek, and (relatively) straight-laced. The two plan to put on the biggest flop in the history of Broadway, take the vast majority of the money they raise for the show's purposes, and flee to Brazil. The two become fast friends along the ride, staunchly supporting each other to the bitter end, when their scheme blows up in their faces and lands them in jail. Even then, the pair of them are inseparable. Max and Leo's scheme is undoubtedly one of the funniest in the history of film, landing them in close contact with a "former" Nazi who's rather obsessed with der führer, quite a few flamboyantly gay theater people, a drugged-out hippie (in the original), a Swedish bombshell, and others. But Bialystock and Bloom are at the heart of it all, watching each other's backs and growing closer all the time.

3) Forrest Gump and Lt. Dan Taylor, Forrest Gump
As with Bialystock and Bloom, one character in this pair is the foil to the other. But in this case, it's a very different situation. This particular friendship is, in a way, more like Parry and Jack's from The Fisher King, though with Person Y (pardon the repeated analogy) being less thoroughly changed by the friendship. That hardly makes it any less heartwarming. The titular character, a thoroughly naïve Alabamian with a heart of gold, meets the cynical Lt. Dan while serving in Vietnam. Dan's plan to die honorably in the field of battle is thwarted by Forrest, who carries his wounded superior out of the jungle along with a few other members of his company. While Forrest is awarded the Medal of Honor for his bravery and escapes relatively unscathed, Dan loses his legs and sinks into a deep depression. The two meet again, years later, in New York. Dan is initially cynical and scornful towards Forrest, making several jokes at his expense. However, he flies into a rage when a prostitute verbally attacks Forrest. Years after that, when Forrest starts a company in the Gulf, Dan joins him, fulfilling one of the joking promises he made earlier. Through a combination of hard work and sheer dumb luck, the two become wealthy businessmen. Through the process, Dan and Forrest develop an unspoken brotherly love, a bond that helps Dan to come to terms with his situation, break free from his depression, and, as Forrest puts it, "[make] his peace with God."

2) Miller's Company, Saving Private Ryan
Tom Hanks is back, this time in one of the most renowned war movies in history. This is one of the only groups of friends here where most members don't make it through the film alive. In fact, only one member of Miller's original company makes it through the film alive. They aren't necessarily the closest friends on this list - there's a lot of doubt and quite a bit of tension between them, thanks in large part to their situation - they're on a mission in German-held territory after having landed on Omaha Beach in one of the most dramatic opening scenes in the history of cinema. But through it all, they stick with one another and stand by each other, in the face of German soldiers, Panzerfausts, Tiger tanks, machine gun nests, the defenses at Normandy, and a hundred other challenges. The entire division, with the exception of Richard Reiben (Miller's biggest doubter), is killed in their mission to save Private James Ryan. Despite their seeming misgivings, no man among them is willing to leave his brothers behind. Indeed, Reiben is screaming for a medic as Miller lies dying towards the end of the film. Private Ryan goes home to his family, and the film begins - and ends - with him visiting the graves of Miller and his fellow rangers at the American cemetery in Normandy.

1) The Fellowship, Lord of the Rings Trilogy
If you've read my blog in the past, there probably wasn't any doubt in your mind. I've gushed and ranted about the bonds among the members of the Fellowship of the Ring so many times here, there's very little for me to say that I haven't said in months past. To summarize, they are, in my eyes, the closest and truest friends in all of media, be it literature or film. If you thought any of the previous descriptions were long, any description of the Fellowship would be easily twice that. So I won't bore you with another rant in which I praise the Fellowship. After all, if you've read the books or seen the films, you know full well what I mean. And if you don't know the books, why are you reading my blog instead of Tolkien? Go now! There's still time!

Review: Kung Fury

Earlier in the week, the satirical film "Kung Fury" was released on YouTube. A spoof of various action movies from the '80's, the film is the brainchild of a group of Swedish filmmakers, funded on Kickstarter and produced over the course of a year and a half. In short, the film follows the adventures of a Kung Fu master who travels through time to duel his biggest rival, Adolf Hitler. It includes robots, dinosaurs, Norse gods, Nazis, tanks, and more. If you haven't seen it, check it out at the following link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg). It's just about half an hour long - you should have time for that much at some point in your day. This should go without saying, but spoiler alert.

Ultimately, I think the movie could have been quite a bit better. That isn't to say I didn't enjoy it - quite a few things were done very well. The effects, for instance, are phenomenal, considering that the filmmakers were using green screens and the like for most of their shots. The explosions, the deaths, the fight sequences...all are very well done. The acting isn't half-bad, either. The main character is an excellent satire of Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, and others. Heck, he's the archetypal '80's cheesy action movie hero. The story itself is pretty good, considering the fact that it's a highly satirical script. And it's pretty funny, to boot. A lot of the characters have pretty good one-liners, and others (particularly Kung Fury himself) have lines that especially reflect the cheesy '80's style. At the end of the day, my main issue with the film is that it takes itself too seriously.

It doesn't seem logical for a film as satirical as Kung Fury to be taking itself too seriously, so allow me to clarify. The film knows it's a spoof, and it takes the fact that it's a spoof too seriously. Of course, that's my personal opinion, and you're free to disagree. But here's my case: one of my favorite film satirists is Mel Brooks. Watch just about any Mel Brooks film - be it The Producers, or Blazing Sattles, or Spaceballs, or Young Frankenstein, or Men in Tights (and so on and so forth) - and you'll see what I'm talking about it. Mel Brooks knows he's making satirical movies, but he doesn't let that get in the way of comedy. Characters in his film make references to the stereotypes and pop culture that exist in the real world at the time Brooks made the film, not just references to the period they're in. Imagine Young Frankenstein without the "Puttin' on the Ritz" bit, or the brain depository, or the wooden-armed Inspector Kemp. Or imagine Spaceballs, the Star Wars spoof, without the references to other sci-fi shows and movies of the day, to say nothing of the jokes made at the expense of 80's culture. Brooks knows that he's making satire, and he has fun with it. Kung Fury was too rigid, too structured...too '80's. If you're making a satire set in Decade X, but you're in Decade Y, you should have some references to Decade Y in the film. Otherwise, what's the point of releasing the film for audiences in Decade Y?

I can't help but feel that Kung Fury wasn't really flexible enough. It's an excellent spoof of '80's action movies, but it isn't quite an excellent work of satire in my eyes. They could have done so much more. My biggest issue with the film is the focus the main character receives. Probably two-thirds of the film is focused on Kung Fury alone, or on faceless extras. And that's almost a sin in my book, because these side characters are great. Hitler, the profane antagonist, has very few lines. Most of his screen time is spent sitting in the background, watching Kung Fury fight his Kung Fu Nazis. And Hitler's undoubtedly one of the funniest characters in any production that satirizes the Nazis. Look at The Producers - hippie Hitler. Look at Inglorious Bastards - whiny Hitler. And look at Kung Fury - foul-mouthed Kung Fu Hitler. There's so much they could have done with that character, but they did so little. Thor is hilarious in his ridiculousness, and what about the stuffy British Triceratops? The filmmakers could have capitalized on these characters to exponentially increase the hilarity of the film. But they did nothing of the sort. At the end of the day, Kung Fury wasn't half as funny as I'd hoped it would be.

One more issue - the scene with the two Nazi soldiers and the tank. We have ancient Scandinavians speaking English. We have a Norse god speaking English. Hitler's speaking English, both to the main characters and to his Nazi cronies at his rally. The rogue Kung Fu master has perfect, albeit accented, English. Hell, even two dinosaurs are speaking English! So why are these two German soldiers the only two characters speaking another language? It wouldn't bother me, if it weren't for the fact that their dialogue would have contained the film's funniest lines, if only those lines were spoken in English with a heavy German accent (just like Hitler's lines were). Subtitles and foreign dialogue just don't cut it for me in an otherwise-English film. That scene just dragged on and on.

Update on the Campaigns...

Election season comes early in Washington. Heck, it's already beginning. Candidates are announcing their campaigns left and right (pun intended), and the flurry of activity is beginning.

Let's start with the Democrats, since the pool there is significantly smaller than it is on the right. Essentially, the battle for the nomination is a struggle between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders. A few other candidates are also in the mix, but none of them are truly likely to garner much support. Let's take a look at the two declared candidates (something I won't be able to do with the Republicans, given the amount of time that would take - that warrants a separate post of its own). Everybody knows Hillary - former First Lady, former New York State Senator, former Secretary of State under President Obama. Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist," an Independent senator from Vermont who stands alongside Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren as one of Capitol Hill's most outspoken progressives. In a reflection of national trends, Hillary Clinton - who stands easily to the left of President Obama - is the more moderate of the two candidates. In essence, Clinton and Sanders share many of the same views on many of the same topics, with Clinton standing a bit more towards the center than Sanders. Clinton is notably more moderate when it comes to issues such as international trade, domestic surveillance, foreign policy, and others. Both have similar stances on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. Clinton, as it currently stands, is the heavy favorite for the Democratic Nomination - and, indeed, the election in general. Widely adored and admired across the left for her track record in the senate, she draws some criticism from Democrats - namely Sanders' supporters - for changing her views on certain issues, including gay marriage, foreign involvement, and financial reform. And, of course, she draws an exorbitant amount of flak from the right. If you're naïve enough to think the Republicans have forgotten about Benghazi...they haven't, nor will they ever. The right's criticism of Clinton centers around a few key points: they argue that she believes she's above the system and that she would be an ineffective leader with respect to the wider world, using her track record as Secretary of State as their evidence.

Now we get to the Republicans, where things are much less orderly. Whereas the two Democratic frontrunners are relatively similar in their respective ideologies, the Republicans are all over the map. Virtually every single faction within the Republicans has a candidate at this point, and some of the heavy hitters haven't even declared their campaign. The Tea Party and the grassroots conservatives have Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the libertarians have Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, the social conservatives have Dr. Ben Carson and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, the fiscal conservatives have former executive Carly Fiorina, and the moderate Republicans have Marco Rubio. This is without the likes of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, former Texas governor Rick Perry, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal...you get the picture. It seems like the only major Republican who isn't running is Mitt Romney, who managed to unite (more or less) the warring factions so well-represented here in 2012. But the biggest name of all is one who'll probably announce his campaign any day of all. He's the biggest name in the pool, of course, because his last name is the last name of two previous Republican presidents. In case I'm not being painfully obvious enough, it's Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush stands in what is perhaps the best position of the Republican nominees, despite calls from critics claiming that he's - wait for it - too liberal to win the nomination. Jeb is a staunch supporter of immigration reform, it's true, and most would agree that he's slightly more moderate than his elder brother on most issues. But don't for half a second take him for a centrist - Jeb Bush stands for most of the classical conservative values. Small government, gun rights, Christian nuclear family, the whole shebang. He did support environmental conservation while governor, but not in any earth-shattering way. Ultimately, Jeb's biggest obstacle will be his brother's legacy, which is hardly looked favorably upon in today's America. Already, he's been taking some small steps to set him apart from George. And you can expect all the former presidents - be they Clintons or Bushes - to remain fairly quiet on the campaign trail. We all know the reasons why.

A Clinton-Bush matchup would be an interesting one. Not only because it would involve America's two biggest political dynasties - because it would pit friends against each other. Hillary's oft-maligned husband counts Jeb's father as one of his best friends - Bill and George Sr. have worked closely together on a number of humanitarian projects in their post-presidency, including aid efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The former Democratic president is also good friends with his successor, George W. Bush. It's one of those stories that gives me a bit of hope for our overly-partisan nation. Whenever I see Bill Clinton and George Bush joking with each other on social media, or hear about one calling the other to congratulate him on the birth of a grandchild, I can't help but smile. It's one of those cases where I allow myself the liberty of hope. 

The World This Week: Terrorism Update

A lot can happen in one week's time. Take the week of June 28, 1863, when Lee's armies marched into Gettysburg in an invasion of the Union and were repulsed. Take the week of December 7th, 1941, when America entered the Second World War and Japan attacked half the Pacific. And, though it wasn't as significant as either of these weeks, you could make the case for this past week. No, I'm not saying that this past week comes close to being an extremely important week in American history, or that it's even one of the most important weeks of the 21st Century. But I would dare to say that this past week has been among the most significant, in terms of terrorism, since the fateful years that began our current century. This week may even outdo Bin Laden. On the other hand, everything is relative. But I digress.

First and foremost, I should discuss some events that occurred beyond the boundaries of this past week. Two weeks ago today, in Garland, Texas, two gunmen launched an attack on a cartoonists' contest featuring caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, not unlike the ones featured in the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. If you're unaware as to how that instance played out, the would-be killers wounded one man before they were gunned down themselves. ISIS claimed responsibility for the event in the days after the attack, seemingly in an effort to rattle Americans. It's unclear if the men were operating on ISIS's orders (and little evidence supports it), but it appears that the men were in contact with members of ISIS residing in western nations. At any rate, if ISIS hoped to strike fear into the American public's hearts, they failed miserably. All they managed to accomplish was to give us a new Texas joke. The government is taking things more seriously, though - security has been ramped up at military bases across the country. But there are other reasons for that, which I'll discuss later. In another string of events that has been occurring throughout recent weeks, a Saudi-led coalition is continuing to launch strikes against Shia rebels in Yemen, who forced the Yemeni president to flee to Saudi Arabia. The rebels are backed by Iran and are one of a number of factions in the war - among them, Al Qaeda. Yemen warrants several posts of its own, so I won't elaborate much here.

Earlier in the year, I posted about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston bomber, whose trial began months ago. Well, it turns out he may not be surviving much longer - Tsarnaev was sentenced to death this week. He was charged on six counts, including the use of a weapon of mass destruction. To recap -  Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan, religious extremists, wanted to get revenge on America for its actions in the Middle East. They rigged two pressure-cooker bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon - one to kill the runners, the second to kill the rescuers as they rushed to help. Three spectators - a restaurant manager, a graduate student, and an eight-year-old boy - were killed in the blasts, and hundreds were injured. Tamerlan and Dzhokhar would later kill a young MIT police officer while on the run. The defense in the trial will undoubtedly try to get the case before a court of appeals. If the sentence stands, Tsarnaev will be executed by lethal injection in Indiana. One of the great ironies of the case is that the defense wanted Tsarnaev's trial to occur outside of Boston, for fear that the odds would be stacked against him. Recent polls show that only 15% of Bostonians and 19% of Massachusetts residents (I'm not sure what the proper demonym is) feel that Tsarnaev should be executed - compare that with 60% of Americans overall. There's another factor at play here, one that gives it even more weight: if the sentence is carried out, Tsarnaev will be the first terrorist executed in the United States since September 11th. A chilling milestone, no matter how you look at it.

Perhaps the most significant events of this past week, as they relate to the world as a whole, involve the Islamic State. ISIS took Ramadi, the capital of Al-Anbar, Iraq's largest governorate (the equivalent of a province) this weekend. This marks a significant blow to the Coalition's overlying goal of halting the Islamic State's advance through Iraq. But earlier this weekend, the Coalition struck a major blow to ISIS. In one the first American ground operations revealed to the public (only one other has been confirmed so far), soldiers of the First Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, better known as Delta Force, raided an ISIS stronghold in Syria. They killed an ISIS commander known as Abu Sayyif (not his real name, it seems), who managed ISIS's oil funds. In a struggle that involved hand-to-hand combat and intense gun battles, Delta Force killed about a dozen ISIS militants, executed Abu Sayyif, captured the commander's wife, and freed a Yazidi girl being held as a slave. The White House confirmed that the raid was a success, and that the commander was killed. ISIS hardly took the news well. In one of their usual messages, they threatened to execute President Obama and western "cross-worshippers." In a more chilling twist, they released a photoshopped photo of President Obama being beheaded. I'm not going to share a link. I mentioned earlier that the Pentagon is stepping up security on many of its bases...that's among the reasons why. Ultimately, only time will tell if the events of these past days will make the world a safer place, or a more dangerous one. But in the short run, one thing is clear: chaos is gaining ground in the world.

History this Week: The Cold War

May 8th marked the 70th Anniversary of the formal end to hostilities in Europe. The Americans and the Soviets had linked up, the Russians had taken Berlin, Hitler and many other high-ranking Nazis had offed themselves, and the world was getting ready for peace. Of course, I'm kidding about that last part. The Pacific War was still going strong, and the Cold War was just beginning.

By the end of the war, Stalin was the only remaining member of the original Big Three. Churchill had been voted out of office to be replaced by Clement Attlee, and Roosevelt had suffered his tragic brain hemorrhage. This made things difficult for Stalin, who had planned to take all of Western Europe into the Soviet Bloc. Whereas Roosevelt had been soft on communism, Harry Truman was hard. Truman didn't trust Stalin or the Soviets in the slightest. And while Clement Attlee, Churchill's rival from the Labour Party, didn't share his predecessor's (and, incidentally, his successor's) belief that the Wehrmacht could be used to strike the Russians, he wasn't about to accommodate Stalin's dreams of global conquest. And so we got the Cold War, which shaped the world as we know it today. In theory, it shouldn't impact us to the extent that it does today. The Soviet Union fell, America is the sole remaining superpower, and everything in the world should be fine and dandy. But it isn't, and a lot of that is due to the Cold War, with either the Americans or the Russians to blame.

Take the conflicts in the middle east. Not just Iraq or Afghanistan - the entire region. Israel-Palestine, Iran, Syria...the entire region. Let's look at each one, shall we? The whole schism between Israel and the Arab world, while not caused by the Cold War, attracted its attention. The Soviet Union, which initially favored Israel in the long-standing conflict, sided with the Arab states by the early fifties. And America, of course, backed Israel early on, recognizing its statehood from the late forties onward and eventually supporting it wholeheartedly. For the most part, this was a conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs. The same couldn't be said in Iran's case, where the US did its utmost to keep the anti-communist, pro-American shah in power. This led to the Iranian revolution, which produced the Islamic Republic of Iran that we know and can't make up our minds about today. Ironically enough, the Americans backed the Islamic Republic in the Iran-Iraq War (with the infamous Iran-Contras Affair), whereas the Soviets sided with Saddam's Iraq. And then there's Afghanistan, the big one. The Soviet Union invaded to keep the communist puppet-state that existed there in place. The US backed the rebels known as the Mujahideen, providing them with firearms, surface-to-air missiles, and other weapons. The Mujahideen eventually pushed back the Soviet Union. To call Afghanistan the Soviet Union's Vietnam (where a superpower was embarrassingly defeated by supposedly inferior forces) would be a gross understatement - the conflict in Vietnam utterly destroyed the Red Army's prestige. The Soviet military would never be taken seriously again, what with the concessions made in eastern Europe and the fear of American buildup in the eighties. But the Soviet interference left Afghanistan without a legitimate government, paving the way for the Taliban's takeover in the nineties. Some of the Mujahideen fought with the Taliban, while others fought against them. Whatever side they took, the Taliban would remain in power for a few long years, supporting groups such as Al-Qaeda. And I don't think I need to describe what happened next.

Of course, we also need to consider the mess that was made in Europe. Soviet domination was the only thing that kept the different parts of Yugoslavia together. For those in the younger generation who don't know what Yugoslavia is, it was composed of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Macedonia. To put it nicely: once the Soviets were out of the picture, the bull manure hit the rotating blades. This lead to several wars, in which the United Nations and NATO were entangled. And, of course, there's the situation in Ukraine, which is essentially the Cold War reborn. I've discussed it quite a bit - Putin wants Russia to remain relevant, Crimeans and many Ukrainians would like to be part of Russia, the civil war is bloody, and so on. There's more, though. The sentiment towards the rest of the world is different in different parts of Europe - sometimes in different parts of the same country. Take Germany, which was split into east and west after World War Two. The Americans had annihilated much of what became West Germany, while the Russians had obliterated the East. But once the two were split, the Americans rebuilt West Germany under the Marshall Plan, whereas the Russians propped the East back on its feet. As such, the people in western Germany tend to look upon the United States in a more favorable light than their countrymen from the ex-Soviet bloc. Every last foreign policy relation of ours is shaped by the Cold War - our biggest allies are the members of NATO, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and other nations that refused to give into communism. Our rivals (on a national scale) - are Russia, China, North Korea - nations that rested on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Our old enemies, like Saddam Hussein, were on the Soviet payroll. We don't identify nations as our friends and enemies by who they stood with in the great conflicts and battles of the past century - we identify them based on where they stood in the war that wasn't a war. And I'm not sure if that makes me hopeful or concerned.

Top Ten: Literary Characters

Most of you who know me know that I'm a pretty big reader. What's not to love about books? And anyone who loves reading loves certain characters that they read about. So I'm listing my ten favorite characters from literature. Before I begin, I should mention a few qualifications I put in place for characters on this list:
-No characters from plays were included here. Let's face it, Shakespearean characters warrant their own top ten list.
-Characters from classical poems (Greco-Roman, Anglo-Saxon, etc.) won't feature in here, unless they also feature in other works of literary merit (there is one such instance on this list).
-If the characters later appeared in works of film or theater, those adaptations may be discussed.
Now, without further ado, my top ten literary characters!

10) James Bond (Numerous works by Ian Fleming)
Bond. James Bond. Undoubtedly, he's one of the most iconic characters in the modern anglophonic world. Who hasn't seen at least one of the movies? Virtually everybody you may encounter has seen one Bond film or another - they defined the superspy genre. That's part of the reason why I ranked Bond low on this list - almost everyone has seen the movies, but few people have actually read Fleming's works. The Bond of the novels is a more complex, somewhat darker character than many of the Bonds of the film, and there's no direct comparison - it's not as if Connery' Bond or Moore's Bond (and so on) is the Bond of the novels. The Bond of the novels is written a bit crueler and colder than the film Bonds, but many of his traits are similar throughout - he's capable of compassion, he doesn't kill for pleasure, and he's quite suave. Truly, a dark sort of gentleman.

9) Kurtz (Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad)
Kurtz serves as an examination for the lurking darkness within the human soul and psyche. In Heart of Darkness, Kurtz, an ivory trader in a part of 19th-Century Africa heavily hinted to be the Belgian Congo, descends into the madness. But Kurtz only reaches the ninth slot of my list because his literary portrayal pales in comparison to his film portrayal. The adaptation isn't obvious at first - the setting is changed, and so is the title. Instead of reflecting on Europe's colonial actions in Africa, the film comments on America's policy of containment and takes the title Apocalypse Now. It's the reverse of the James Bond situation - in the film, Kurtz (now a rouge colonel in the US Army) is considerably darker and has much more depth. In both cases, the character becomes disgusted with the policies his homeland takes to the region in which he operates, and flees the established chain of command - descending into darkness as he does.

8) Gandalf the Grey/White (The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien)
This one will probably come as a surprise to most of you - not because it's on the list, but because it's relatively close to the bottom. Anyone who's read my blog knows that I'm a huge fan of Tolkien. And Gandalf is undoubtedly my favorite character. To those of you who live and breathe Harry Potter, think Dumbledore squared (Dumbledore is undoubtedly a Gandalf knockoff - a good one, but a knockoff still). Gandalf is thousands of years old, incredibly wise, and incredibly powerful. But he never rubs his strength in his fellows' face - and Tolkien heavily implies that he's capable of much greater magic than he ever performs in the book. Gandalf is a natural leader, kind to those around him, always ready to give counsel to those in need. He takes into account the views of those not quite so wise as he, and is shown throughout the novels to care about his friends above all other things - even himself. To this day, the literary scene that warms my heart the most is the one in The Two Towers where Gandalf reunites with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli months after they believed him dead. So why is Gandalf only number eight? Well, he's a bit too perfect. He's a role model, not the sort of person you encounter very often (if at all). And there's the fact that Tolkien's world, as much as I love it, is not our world. All these other stories take place in our world, or some more magical variation of it, which makes their characters a bit closer to home for us.

7) Captain Nemo (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne)
This was one of the first classical novels I read in its full entirety, back in the fifth grade. And it's still one of my favorite novels. Verne's writing is phenomenal - somehow, I can take in the lists of the fish, cephalopods and algae that occur throughout the novel without getting even remotely put-off by the Latin phrases I only rarely recognize. The imagery is beautiful, the story is well-developped and fascinating, and the characters are well-developped as well. My favorite of these characters is the enigmatic Captain Nemo. Nemo is bizarre in some respects, and relatable in others. He's the ultimate Romantic - his incredible ingenuity and his scorn for society drive him to fantastic ends and adventure. I ranked him fairly low because, compared to most of the other characters on this list, he isn't developed very much - a big part of his significance is the mystique about him. At the same time, though, he's bold, daring, courageous, and he commands respect...a noble captain through and through.

6) Grendel (Grendel by John Gardner)
This is the one I was referring to earlier, of course. In the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf, the creature Grendel is among the creature that the warrior of the Geats faces on his adventures. In the poem, though, he simply attacks because the rowdy Danes disturb him. In John Gardner's 1971 novel, Grendel is given a motivation and a character. Although monstrous in form, he's very near human in his temperament, philosophical and violent in the same instant, and with a love for the spoken word. He's even a bit honorable for a monster, rarely killing in cold blood. Instead, with his cynical worldview, he breaks them down and taunts them - no weapon can kill him, so the Danes are helpless against him. From the shadows, Grendel comments on social structure, the nature of religion, and the futility of man. He's dark, cynical, complex, and quite well-spoken to boot - I can't help but love the character.

5) Abraham Van Helsing (Dracula by Bram Stoker)
Van Helsing is almost a more realistic version of Gandalf the Grey, and I can't help but draw parallels between the two and suspect that Tolkien read Dracula at some point in his youth. Van Helsing and Gandalf share many qualities. Van Helsing comes across as a kindly old gentleman, and a very wise one at that - when he's first introduced, his numerous titles are listed. He's a doctor of philosophy, a doctor of medicine, and a lawyer, among other things. He's also, of course, a vampire hunter, and one of the true heroes of the story - without Van Helsing's considerable knowledge and iron nerve, the characters would have no hope to defeat Dracula. Van Helsing is open-minded, quick on his feet, smarter than most characters on this list, and a worthy rival to the dark Count. His bonds with his friends are virtually unequaled, making his character all the more admirable.

4) Edmond Dantès (The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas)
This is another classical novel I read in the past, and I don't think I understood it until I read it again earlier in high school. Dantès is somewhere between an adventurer and a psychopath. A victim of treason, Dantès decides to take matters into his own hands and seeks an elaborate revenge upon those who wronged him. He goes from a nobody-of-a-sailor to a fabulously wealthy man, who gives himself the title "The Count of Monte Cristo" - how can you not love that title? His somewhat-psychotic devotion is admirable - he spends nine years making himself the Count, invests his funds to help the innocent, and does all he can to expand his mind and his abilities. He does abuse his power and his assets, but it's all in the name of revenge, and he doesn't get the innocent caught in the crossfire. Dantès serves as a warning of the darker elements of obsession, while reminding readers of the power held by perseverance. And, at the end of the day, we can all relate to Dantès in some form or another.

3) The Creature (Frankenstein by Mary Shelley)
While Captain Nemo is the epitome of Romanticism, this character is the epitome of what happens of Romanticism gone wrong - or perhaps, denied Romanticism. Created by Victor Frankenstein and his dark obsession with reversing death (another cautionary tale, much like The Count of Monte Cristo), the unnamed monster is abandoned to roam the countryside. Essentially a child, he acquires a love of nature and learns all he can with great innocence by observing humans in the countryside. All he wants is to be accepted by those humans, but society casts him out, attacking him with all manner of weapons. And when Frankenstein refuses him the one thing he wants more than all else - a companion - he descends into rage and vows revenge. As with Dantès, the monster systematically seeks to annihilate his tormentors - only in his case, he does so by attacking those Frankenstein holds dear. And the worst bit is, he takes no pleasure in doing so. Although the things he does hurt his creator-enemy, they hurt his soul just as much. He takes no pleasure in killing and conflict, and eventually comes to seek his creator out to make amends - but he comes to late. You can't help but pity the creature - all he wants is compassion, and it is the one thing continuously denied to him. It's hardly a wonder that he sinks as low as he does - he's the most human character in the novel.

2) Yossarian (Catch-22 by Joseph Heller)
Oh, Yossarian. Zany Yossarian. Wacky Yossarian. Traumatized Yossarian. Poor Yossarian.
As you're all aware, I'm a bit of a World War II buff. It should come as no surprise that one of my favorite literary characters hails from a novel set in WWII. Captain John Yossarian pilots B-25 bombers in the skies over Italy, where he witnesses many of his friends die in horrendous, gruesome ways that scar him for life. And he's kept in rotation by a cruel irony known as Catch-22. The Catch states that any man who's insane should not have to fly missions, and can be kept out of the air if he only asks to be removed from combat; however, if he asks to be removed from combat, it means he's sane, and must keep flying missions. Yossarian's mind is brutally scarred by the traumatic stress he faces on a daily basis, and the fact that Catch-22 is working to ensure his death hardly helps matters. Through Yossarian, Heller comments on the perverse elements of war, societal institutions, economic policy and all the things we take for granted in society - to say nothing of the things that exist because we take the fact that they exist for granted. There's too much to comment on in a few lines - read the book if you haven't already.

1) Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee)
Was there any doubt?
What makes Atticus my favorite literary character is just how realistic he is. Let's face it, we can't cast spells and kill demonic beasts like Gandalf. We can't be created in laboratories like the creature and seek revenge upon humanity like Dantès. We can't kill vampires, battle Danes, build submarines alone, escape into the jungles to be worshiped as demigods, slaughter the crown's enemies, or row to Sweden to escape death over Italy. But we can stick up for our fellow man in times of trouble. We can be honest with our friends and our family, and do what we can to help them out. And we can stand with what's right. Atticus isn't some superhero, or some radical idealist, or some ridiculous caricature. He's a single father who loves his children and his community - unfortunately, half of his community hates the other half. He's an ordinary, everyday guy you might bump into on the street without even realizing it. Atticus is just a man who believes that all men are created equal, and thinks that such a principle is far more important than his own personal reputation or notoriety. I'd elaborate on the story more, but let's face it - you already know it, and you probably already love it.

American History: The Flip

Everybody living in the United States knows about the partisan divide. There's the big break between the left and the right - liberals and conservatives, in office and out of office, are always at each others' throats. And then the partisan groups are divided into their own partisan group. The left is a loosely-allied coalition of moderate Democrats, socialists, social liberals, and fiscal liberals. The right is split into factions, the three biggest ones being the moderate Republicans, the far-right Tea Party, and the libertarians, who are all over the spectrum. And, of course, everybody knows that America is split into red states and blue states. The Northeast, the contiguous Pacific coast and Hawaii tend to be blue, whereas the South, Midwest and the Last Frontier are red.

And, in recent history, this was almost exactly the opposite.

Before I go on, it's important to note that, for the most part, this post will be referring to the Deep South and the Northeast and the Pacific States, as these regions saw the most stark changes in ideology.

Take the election of 1864. The Union's election, that is. The only states that voted democratic were Kentucky, New Jersey, and Delaware. In the aftermath of the war, when Radical Republicans made life extremely difficult for Southern Democrats (as briefly mentioned in last week's post), the South became deeply democratic. This didn't manifest for several elections, since the Radical Republicans made it extremely difficult for ex-Confederates to do things like vote, but it eventually did. During the early part of the 20th Century, things became more unified. With the fragmentation of the Republicans into Republicans and Progressives in 1912, it's no surprise that the Democrats won most of the electoral votes that year. And in the years of the Depression, the Democrats won big throughout. Even Eisenhower managed to win most of the electoral votes - though the Solid South remained staunchly Democratic. In each of the aforementioned situations where the democrats won big, the only states that cast their votes for Republicans were in the Northeast or on the West Coast. Things start to change with Kennedy. The Irish-Catholic from Massachusetts won a decent chunk of the Northeast while maintaining the Democrats' grip on the south.

Then we get to Johnson in '64, where the situation from Eisenhower's day flips entirely. In '64, only six states voted Republican, and only one of them had done so in '60, that one being New Mexico. The other five were the states of the Solid South: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. And, with the exception of Louisiana casting its vote for Eisenhower in '56, none of those states had voted for a Republican since '76. 1876, that is.

The issue at hand in this matter was race. This is where the "racist republican" stereotype comes in. Because, to their credit, Republican ideology is not in itself racist. The Republican Party, after all, was founded to combat slavery. After that goal was achieved, Republicans (in general) didn't put much effort into racial equality. But the Democrats (in general) of that period from the Civil War to Kennedy were much, much worse. The KKK was founded, among other sinister reasons, to intimidate minorities in the south so they wouldn't for Republicans. FDR himself refused to pass anti-lynching legislation. Jim Crow was, more or less, the Civil Wark-Kennedy Democrats. In 1957, the Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, sent state troops to block efforts to integrate public schools there. In response, the president sent federal paratroopers to enforce the integration efforts. That president, of course, was Ike Eisenhower, a Republican.

This is what went down: the democrats of the five southern states felt so betrayed by Johnson's support of the Civil Rights Act, they voted against him out of spite. The republicans in those states - ironically enough, the liberals - kept voting for their own party. Even though nothing in history or current events (roughly four-fifths of Congressional republicans favored the act, compared with about two-thirds of the democrats) supported the notion that the Republicans were suddenly the party of racism, the South still switched its voting platform. Most of those southerners who'd voted Republican in the past (the liberals of the south, ironically enough), it seems, saw little reason to change their stance. And so the south became thoroughly Republican, with the north beginning to favor the Democrats. The cultural revolution that took place in the '60's also played a role in the partisan divide - the deeply conservative southern states were in no rush to accept counterculture. Since hippies were often associated with democrats (though this was rarely by the democrats' choosing) and had more of a presence in the states that became our modern blue states, many conservative Americans were put-off from voting democratic. And likewise, the liberal culture that was generated in the '60's began to view the Republicans as the figures of the establishment. And all this isn't to say that there weren't exceptions to the rule, and plenty of them. In '72, almost every state voted for Nixon. In '76, almost every state voted for Carter. And in the '80's, with Reagan...do I even have to say it? Clinton received a mixed-bag of votes, mainly due to his southern heritage. But when things finally settled in and around 2000, it was tied to these factors, and still more.

So there it is: a simplified version of how our country reversed its politics and became more partisan than it has been since the days of the Civil War. This is why America is a mess. I miss the days when politicians stood up for what they believed in and actually worked to get things done. I miss the days when we did what was right and compromised with those whose views were different from our own. I miss the days when America and her people came first. And to be quite honest with you, I'd vote for Harry Truman or Dwight David Eisenhower over just about any candidate running in 2016. I don't care that one was a Democrat and one was a Republican, and that their political ideologies contrasted in more ways than they compared. I care that they were honest men who worked their asses off to do right by their nation. And that was most of the American people cared about in days gone by.

The good news is, the last time the nation was as partisan as it is today, it eventually went through a healing process and the partisan divide shrank down to the point that states who voted Republican in one election voted Democrat in the next, and vice versa. The bad news is, it took a civil war for that to happen. But we can hope that our elected officials, as much as we sometimes doubt it, remember the past, and will do anything they can to avoid repeating the horrors of civil war. Because if the worst should happen...well, that's a story for next week. Stay tuned.