Crossed Wires

On Batman

Another one of those times when I'm thinking way too much about something totally trivial.  Maybe it's good to let my mind wander on silly things for a minute.

Batman is seventy five years old.  That means most living Americans have spent their whole lives with him as a character.  After all that time, he is still insanely popular, even though he's becoming more and more antiquated as a character.  Everyone knows the story about how his parents were murdered and from that day forward he vowed to fight against crime.  Depending on the story, his parents' murderer may or may not be found, leaving even the greatest detective a mystery that cannot be solved.  I actually kind of prefer the time when it's not part of some greater conspiracy and is instead a random act of senseless violence that shook the city to its core.  The murderer was some sad, desperate person who resorted to murder more out of fear than anything else.  Then they were gone into the night, not realizing the thing they unleashed.

Gotham is supposed to be a stand in for the city of New York, although it's apparently a darker version of it, whereas Metropolis is the shining beacon of hope that shows what the world could be.  Never mind that they have Superman, who can solve most problems before they become problems.  The basic idea about Gotham is that the city has become so corrupt that its rotten to the core.  Every story talks about how organized crime really runs things and the police are all on the take.  If it's really a stand in for New York, that's basically saying that in a city of eight million people there are only two kinds of people; criminals and victims.  Somehow criminals have taken over ever facet of the city and anyone who opposes them is corrupted or destroyed.  Even before Batman arrives there is really only one police officer who is willing to stand up to the corruption and do the right thing.  So in what would likely be the biggest police force in America, out of over thirty thousand police officers, there is only one guy attempting to stem the tide of evil?

So Bruce Wayne dedicates his life to becoming the perfect instrument to fight against crime.  He does this by traveling the world and learning to become a ninja, because that's the most reasonable way to counter corruption in your home.  After a decade away, learning untold secrets that will help him on his crusade against injustice, he comes back to Gotham and teams up with his butler to start his one-man attack against the concept of crime.  Using the icon of something that scared him as a child, he dresses up as a bat and calls himself Batman, which may be a little on the nose if you think about it.

His real power comes from his willingness to do whatever it takes to fight against crime, except for using a gun or committing murder himself.  I get that if your parents were murdered by a gun, then you'll probably have an aversion to them, however, throwing razorbladed metal bats at people's faces, using explosives, and breaking bones with your bare hands probably isn't much better than shooting a small piece of metal at high velocity into someone in order to stop them.  Regardless of his method of choice, he's still one man fighting a fight, he knows he'll never win.  The stories keep making sure to point out that Bruce Wayne is a billionaire and uses his vast fortune to supplement his war on crime.  It seems like a drastic misuse of resources to have an armored car outfitted to look like a bat, a super computer that only he gets to use, and various pieces of tech that are necessary as the story requires.  He has the money and influence of Elon Musk and uses that to put on a cape, drop down into alleyways and punch out bad guys.  That's his war on crime.  It's like fighting cancer with aspirin.  Bruce Wayne could probably do more good with his money as a humanitarian than as a crime fighter.  At the very least he could use the money to make organized crime irrelevant by buying them out or creating opportunities for people that would mean crime would seem like the more risky option than the legitimate one.

Most of the time Batman is defined by his villains.  He lives in a city that has been driven so insane that it creates literal monsters.  It could be that his very existence helped create them.  It's almost as though he showed Gotham that it's OK to dress up like a lunatic and do whatever you wanted.  If you don't want to be just another widget in the system of criminals and victims then dust off that purple suit and name yourself after a playing card.  At least that way you'll stand out from the crowd.  Those crazies aren't even the real threat, they're just the most colorful.  The Joker is going to release a hot air balloon of poisonous gas on the city and only Batman can stop him?  What about the Gotham police force, the National Guard, the FBI, or the NSA?  That would be an act of terrorism and they're able to stop a lot of those plots long before they start filling up the balloon.  Try checking the abandoned fairgrounds on the edge of town.  That would leave Batman the ability to fight actual corruption.

I get that he's a fictional comic book character.  After seventy five years though, you'd think there would be a way to make him relevant to today's world, instead of constantly rehashing the same story over and over again.  What would someone with his willpower and resources really be able to do if he stopped and rethought his strategy on fighting crime.  That's probably where most people get lost and realize that it's a lot more complicated of an issue.  There isn't some evil Court of Owls that secretly controls the whole city.  Instead it's just people doing whatever they think they can get away with.  Since that would require a lot more nuance, we go back to the well of having a man dressed as a bat showing how bad ass he is by breaking the face of that would-be rapist.

On Object Permanence

Throughout most of my life the decisions I've made have been fairly reversible.  That's not to say that they weren't big or even life-altering decisions, but the vast majority of them have been decisions I could ultimately change my mind about later.  Sure it could cost me a large some of money or time or even a bit of humiliation.  There could be a cost and if I wanted to pay it, then I could potentially undo what I just did.  Part of this has been because my decisions have only had an effect on just my own life.  If I wanted to move from Colorado to Arizona or from Arizona back to Colorado with only a couple of weeks lead time, then it wasn't really a problem for anyone except me.

Some could argue that there is a sense of freedom to being able to pick up and go at a moment's notice.  The whole world has opportunities just around the next corner, it's just up to you to go off and find them.  While I was young that was both amazing and terrible.  It was great being able to throw everything I owned into a truck, toss the stuff that didn't, and then drive off into the sunset and onto the next adventure.  If I thought about it too much, I'd start to realize that my life was so temporary that I could leave it behind with very little notice.  It felt like I was always just getting started.  The real problem was always my inability to see what I was leaving because I was so focused on where I was going, with hopes that just over the next hill would be the thing I thought I was looking for.  Every place I left, I left people and a life, even if that life wasn't exactly what I thought I wanted.  I think it was easier to leave because I knew that if things didn't work out, then I could easily return.

It's only been very recently in my life that my decisions have started becoming more permanent.  It's not always easy for me to recognize that because my old mindset creeps back in and I think the person I'm being introduced to is just another face in the crowd.  Nope, that's a future family member.  The house I'm moving into isn't just some random apartment that I'll ditch in a year or so when the lease is up.  Even my career is changing.  It used to be a string of unrelated jobs, where as long as it paid well and they didn't treat me like garbage, then I'd stick around for a year or so.  It's been difficult for me at times because living a momentary life meant that while you wouldn't have to deal with anything terrible for too long, it also meant that I wouldn't really feel attached to anything in a meaningful way.  It's only after I had left something/someone behind that I'd realize how good it was for me.

I'm about to have what could be considered the most permanent life event.  I woke up one day and realized that when my child is born, I'll forever be her father.  No matter what else happens in my life, that will always be true.  My life and the choices in it will stop being so fleeting and start becoming more permanent aspects of my world.  It's almost as though all those one-off decisions and events have been leading to this.  The one that matters most.  It's a little intimidating to think about.  It's something I've wanted for a long time, but it's always been an abstract.  Very soon it will be a reality and it makes me want to be better than I currently am.  

On How It Could Be

There are many times in my life when I wonder how things could be.  Maybe not so much a perfect world, but maybe a slightly better one.  I don't know if we could ever achieve perfection.  It's something of a fool's errand to think you could reach it.  It shouldn't stop us from trying though.  Plus I don't know how we would react if we found ourselves in a perfect world.  No, I sometimes think about what would it be like if things were just a little bit different.  Sometimes it's seemingly small changes that could have a huge impact.  Like what if our internet was cheaper and faster?  What if it was free?  I try to imagine what life could be like if everyone across the country was connected by incredibly fast connections to each other.  Could we create true virtual experience that brought us together, even though we're miles apart?  I know that technology isn't always the answer to bringing people together.  When used right though, it can bridge some of those gaps.

What could the world be like if our teachers were some of the best paid, best educated, most respected people in our society?  I have nothing against athletes, movie stars, or pop singers.  I enjoy a lot of what they do.  Honestly though aren't they a bit like junk food?  Watching someone excel at sports is a great experience.  It probably encourages young people to see what they can accomplish with their own bodies either alone or within a team.  That part is great and should be applauded.  To an outside observer it must seem strange that we give the most money to someone who can put a ball through a net better than anyone else.  When you go home after seeing that you're life isn't changed all that much.  Sure it may have been exciting in the moment, but that wasn't your moment.  That was someone else's fabricated moment.  With movies and music there can be a story being told.  Someone can transport you to an imaginary place and time.  They can make you think about things in a different way.  Even with that we're essentially saying that the guy who grew out a beard and pretended to be a fur trapper this year is one of the most important people, at least from a financial perspective.  Meanwhile the person who gets up early every day so they can sit with a student to help them learn the fundamentals of life makes enough money to live, but still has to worry about money when it comes summer time.  Imagine if the salary of the athlete and the teacher were reversed?

I wonder what it could be like if our political system were just a little bit better.  If you felt like the people elected to represent you were not only someone you could trust, but someone you respected.  And not because you paid them or promised them a favor in return, but because as your representative they wanted not just the best for you, but for all of us.  I'm not a politician and I know that the world is complicated.  It's just a little sad to me that in order to get anywhere in the professional world of politics you have to be something of a shark already.  Or at least keep yourself surrounded by sharks for protection.  How can you hope to accomplish anything if you're spending so much of your time trying to not get eaten by the system?  I try to imagine a world where you know in your heart that the government is an institute for good and that they are working hard at making the world better for everyone.

It's mostly a dream.  It's not much different than fantasizing about what you'd do if you won the lottery.  It seems like the trick is to accept that the world may not be anywhere close to perfect, but it has the potential to be better.  And if that's not always possible, we always have the choice to be a little bit better ourselves.  Maybe that's enough.

On Halloween II

It occurred to me that this Halloween will be the last of its kind.  For the past several years there has been a constant question mark about what to do for Halloween.  Should we dress up and go to a party?  Should we stay home and hand out candy to hapless children brave enough to venture towards our house?  Maybe instead we should just scamper off into the darkness and be devils.  That's this year.  Next year though we will have a built-in reason to celebrate holidays in a different way.  Granted the tiny little person we bring with us won't be capable of saying 'Trick or Treat', but I'm hoping that her inevitable cuteness dressed as something easily recognizable and yet vaguely ironic will prompt people to dish out candy with abandon.

Halloween is one of the few American holidays that really attempts to twist reality a bit.  It's meant to be fun and feel just a little bit dangerous.  For a kid it's a bit like a scary movie coming to life.  Dress up as something else and go out in the world and ask for sugar door to door.  Who knows if you're going to make it back in one piece or more importantly, who knows how many boxes of raisins you're going to get stuck with.  I thought my days of dressing up and asking for candy were behind me, but now there is a chance to make a comeback!  As an adult if you dress up and go trick or treating it's very likely that you're going to get yourself arrested or at least not given a full share of candy because everyone knows you have the ability to just go out and buy the candy yourself.  As an adult if you dress up and go trick or treating in a combined costume with your child then at the very least you'll be entitled to 25% of said candy earnings throughout the evening in question.

I think the part that will be most interesting to me is trying to see the world through the eyes of someone who doesn't have my level of experience.  I don't pretend to understand all the various aspects of this world and probably know only enough to be dangerous.  I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm also not the dumbest.  That said, I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on some of the basics about what can exist and what can't.  A child doesn't know that the goblin attempting to ensnare that hot girl in a bikini (what on Earth are they watching?) isn't real and is based on someone's imagination.  The lines of reality and fiction are still being formed.  What was a normal street in the morning is now something sinister in the evening because Halloween blurs the lines of reality ever so slightly.  Someone changed the rules for one night.  Never mind the fact that as parents we constantly try and warn our children about the dangers of strangers.  Then on one night we say it's OK to not only interact with strangers, but to go house to house asking people we don't know for candy.  It's the only holiday we celebrate where it's expected that you wander through your neighborhood relying on the good nature of your neighbors.  The other major holidays are more focused on turning towards the people you already know and celebrating the season.  For a child it's probably a strange paradigm that really speaks to the way we as a society has separated ourselves from each other.  Or it's about the candy.  Yeah it's probably about the candy.

On the Unreliable Narration of Our Minds

Where do our memories go when we're not remembering them?  Somewhere within our minds are all these experiences and feelings that have occurred throughout our lives.  We don't know how they get put there or how we get them out when we want them.  Our very perception of reality is being monitored by a system we don't fully understand and have very little control over.

There have been several times in the last few years where someone I grew up with would reminisce with me about our shared past and I have no memory of the event.  I have to take their word for it that it happened.  And even more important, that it happened the way they remember it.  It's a strange thing to have pieces of my own past that others remember and I don't.  Granted there are whole chunks of my early childhood that I can't remember because I was way too young to retain those memories.  Both of my parents may not remember those events either.  Logically, I know that the event must have happened, but if something happens and no one can remember it, how do you know what is real?  Maybe it falls into that same category as the soundless tree in the woods.  What if I remember something one way and someone else remembers it differently?  What is the truth?  Is there a singular truth when it comes to memory?  If I can't remember something then I have to rely on someone else's memory to tell me what happened and that's a tricky thing when we already know that memory can't be trusted, even when it bothers to show up.

Have you ever been reminded of something you hadn't thought of in a very long time?  It could have been years since you heard a song or saw a person or thought of that birthday party where the clown caught on fire.  Suddenly the memory comes flooding back to the forefront of your mind.  Where did it come from?  How do I know what I'm remembering is the 'real' event and not some cobbled together amalgamation of memory and imagination?  It's very weird to think that today may not be remembered very well a year from now.  Even though this moment now is so clear in your mind, we seem to have very little control over what items make it into our long term memory.  How much of our experience just fades away into nothing?

Today's world may be different because we as a society are so much more focused on capturing the moment, even if the moment is us eating a bacon taco with our friends on a random Tuesday evening.  I'm not saying selfies and other forms of self-narration are bad.  It's just that I've already covered how things like Facebook are a highlight reel of your life events.  It's not the real record of truth, even though the outside world may think you lead an amazing life because you spent three months traveling the world and have all these great pictures standing next to things you see in movies.  No one else gets to remember all the non-picture-worthy moments except us.

When I lived alone it became easy to assume that my narration was the right one.  There wasn't anyone around to tell me differently.  You start to believe everything you think, which may not always be what really happened.  Now that I live with someone, there is a constant second observer to the events.  Granted there are many times where we both experience something and immediately disagree on what actually happened, which really causes one to question if the person they're talking to is in fact crazy.  The even scary part is, what if they're not and it's you who just went through something and perceived it completely out of whack with reality?  Having a partner with you is both a blessing and a curse because you're often forced to immediately look back at something that happened, but through different eyes.  Does this second person change the memory that would have been formed?  Are you both now remembering variations on single event?  Given enough time how will you know if your version is even close to what happened?

On Groundhog Day

One of my first real jobs in high school was working at a video store.  I was the runner, which meant that I would take the newly returned movies and place them back on the shelves.  I ended up having a lot of downtime while still technically being at work.  One of the perks of working there was that we were able to watch movies the whole time.  Well not so much watch them as exist in the same general area as they were playing.  Still given a long enough timeline you were bound to see one of the movies in its entirety.  It could just happen over the course of a week.  Since this was a family place there were only so many movies you could really play without offending someone.  One of these movies was Groundhog Day, which may be close to a perfect movie and one of the last Bill Murray movies where he was still in 'original' Murray mode, like he was in Ghostbusters and Scrooged.

This is a movie that is a bit surreal to watch in bits and pieces because you may not always know where he is at any given point since so many of the repeated scenes have only slight differences.  Over the years though I've seen this movie countless times and it's one that if it comes on I'll probably be fine watching it, even if I catch it somewhere in the middle.  Being the movie nerd that I am I started to really think about some of the implications of what's going on in this movie.  Sure I could take the movie at face value, but that'd make for a really short post and that's now how I think so let's get started.

First off, either Phil Connors is an incredibly slow learner or the universe is mercilessly cruel.  It took him several years to make it through that one day.  Years to learn all the things that needed to be done right so that he'd be the kind of man that Rita would want.  There has been a lot of speculation on exactly how much time passed since he started repeating the day, but a safe assumption is that it's more than ten years and likely less than fifty.  Think about all the things that happen in a single day and he was somehow required to do them in a specific way.  Plus he's still just a person so he may not remember what happened three and a half years ago when he tried this one thing.  He had no way of knowing which combination of deeds and actions would lead him out of the maze that had become February 2nd.  It was a lot of trial and error, which we saw as he kept behaving as his old self.

That brings me to the next thing.  It's implied at the end that Phil has finally become a better person and saw people as being generally good if you give them a chance.  He realizes that maybe Punskatanee isn't such a bad place.  We assume that he's escaped the repetition that was Groundhog Day and will live the rest of his non-repeating days with Rita.  This is all very wonderful for the sake of a two hour movie.  What if though the next morning when he wakes up he's now trapped in February 3rd and has to go through that day over and over until he figures out how to move onto the next day.  Wouldn't this be the equivalent of being trapped in Hell?

Speaking of which, if it happened to Phil, could it happen to other people?  I mean are they living in a universe where bad people (or at least people who behave like jerks) are punished by having to relive a day over and over again until they become a better person?  What's the criteria for this?  Is it just mean weathermen or would say the African warlord, who is slaughtering children be on the list as well?  Maybe it's just happening in that tiny town, but would that mean Phil is the only one to experience it, or just the first?  Plus there doesn't seem to be any real rules as to what's the 'correct' way to proceed through a day.  We saw at the end Phil helped a ton of people in a single day and was loved by anyone who came across him.  That would mean though before the last day he saved the guy from choking and changed the tire of the old ladies.  Alone those things weren't enough for him to escape, but together they added up to enough through some invisible tally system that Phil didn't know about until he woke up.

And while we're on the subject of him waking up, what's is happening to all those other realities that Phil keeps resetting?  Those are people with lives and souls and with only one exception, that world seems to cease to exist once Phil kills himself.  Are those worlds continuing on with all the mistakes that Phil made?  Is the world where Phil stole the groundhog and drove it and himself off a cliff into a fiery explosion still going on, trying to make sense of what just happened?  What are those people's lives like in the aftermath of that?  It seems either several lives were traumatized for the sake of teaching one jerk a lesson on humanity or they were snuffed out once Phil died.  Either one is kind of terrible.  If those realities continue on, what happened to the countless ones where Phil didn't kill himself?  Are they just floating out there, wondering what happened to him now that he's vanished after going to sleep?

Finally, in this world or worlds, are there any people with free will?  Phil had to do everything right to progress to the next day.  He was beaten down until he finally submitted to how the Universe told him that a day was supposed to happen.  If this is happening to other people then it's likely that you have people who aren't like Phil, in that they learned something, but rather they finally figured out what was necessary to get to the next day or were broke to the point that they just gave in to whatever the whims of the Universe dictated at that moment.  Never mind the poor souls who just couldn't get their day right, no matter how many times they tried.  They're off living the same day over and over for all of eternity.

In the end Phil may have been forced to become a better person.  It was a valuable lesson I'm sure.  One that took him possibly decades to learn.  He's now like someone who was just released from prison.  He only knows the routine of Groundhog Day.  How is he going to cope with living in a reality where he doesn't know exactly what's going to happen next?  Plus he's mentally aged by at least ten years, maybe more.  That will likely have shifted his perspective quite a lot.  Granted the new and improved Phil Connors may now see the world entirely differently and be thankful for his extended time trapped in a single day.  Betterment through attrition is still betterment right?