Suicide Squad

WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW

Somewhere there's an alternate universe where alternate me didn't previously know about Suicide Squad's last minute re-shoots. Or that, for a time, there were two competing cuts of the film that stemmed from WB's anxiety over the critical response to BvS. One cut was of director David Ayer's grimmer original vision, the other was a lighter and more colorful ode to the well-received (and outstanding) trailers from earlier this year. But once I knew about them, it was hard not to see it. A victim of the struggle between the grimdark that WB had initially embraced for the DCCU and the lighter fun that moviegoers turned out to actually want, Suicide Squad is a confused and conflicted offering whose back-and-forth tonal disparities hurt an otherwise engaging flick.

The final cut is a mix of the two that were screened for test audiences, plus bits from the re-shoots, and that shows in choices that might not have been so odd if not for their placement together. In one moment, Enchantress is darkly conjuring her doomsday weapon while ominous music swells, in another she's shimmying her shoulders while monologuing for Amanda Waller. Meanwhile, El Diablo, a metahuman with pyrokinesis, states at various points that his powers came "from the Devil," but it's still jarring when he turns into an enormous literal fire demon in the climax. And a few members of the Squad get two different introductions, one loving and indulgent with lots of neon highlights, the other grimmer and stingier on time.

I don't know which cut deserves credit for the soundtrack. We should probably just thank Guardians of the Galaxy.

Despite the tonal problems, Squad soars with some excellent character work. Ayer and the actors push through limited screen time to outline some decent motivations and the film allows just enough space to showcase some strong personalities (it's almost like they're out of a comic book). Please excuse the bullet points.

• Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn was a worry for me going in because Harley is one of my favorite characters in comics and I recommend Amanda Conner's run on her book to anyone who will listen, but Robbie brings all of Harley's charm to the screen without making us sick of her. Actually, Squad could've used more of her. I had also worried, based on the marketing (and Hollywood's preoccupations) that Harley's ass would be at least as prominent a character as the rest of her. Her ass is certainly present, but not as much as I had anticipated. Still, it could take a backseat (I see what I did there) in her solo movie... or her team-up movie with Poison Ivy.
• I have personal problems with Jared Leto. I might explain those problems in writing one day. Until then, I will remember that he had the fearlessness to follow Ledger. And that the Joker's aesthetic probably wasn't entirely up to him (I don't see Joker sitting still long enough to get tattoos, do you?). And though he seemed to try too hard to put his own spin on the character, somewhere around the Ace Chemicals flashback, he had me buying in. The Joker-Harley relationship is horrifying and tragic. The romanticization of it is creepy and a bad-read and diminishes Harley. The spirit of that weirdly engrossing relationship is here, poking up through the rushed backstory. It's a highlight of the film. But then I recall Leto's moronic pranks during filming and I'm back to rolling my eyes. People will like you more if you stop trying so hard, Jared Leto. 
• Will Smith is impressive as Deadshot. 
• I didn't know much about Jay Hernandez or El Diablo going in, but his emotional trauma provided a nice touchstone, while also grounding a character that would've been crazy overpowered for this team. 
• Joel Kinnaman had a tough act following Tom Hardy's departure, but he holds up well in a role that could've been little more than hard-ass military dude trying to boss around a bunch of comic book villains. However, I wonder if either cut of the film had June Moone stay dead following Rick Flag's killing of Enchantress, adding meaning to that sacrifice. Still, I'll look on the bright side: Moone wasn't fridged. 
• Finally, holy shit Viola Davis. A movie that's not trying would depict Amanda Waller as a stoic government agent with access to a lot of important secrets. But Waller requires presence. She requires unspoken authority. She requires awe-inspiring dread and a Machiavellian will to play anyone and everyone like a fiddle until she doesn't need them to play anymore. Batman should be a little afraid of Waller. So I shouldn't need to tell you how gratifying it is to see that Davis nails the Wall. I know that Bruce Wayne/Batman is supposed to be the connective tissue for the DCCU, but that role could just as easily fall to Waller. And I kind of want it to.

Not all characters get the lingering lamp shade treatment. It's a very large cast. And I'd like to spend more time with each of them. The ones who are still alive, anyway.

I liked this movie. But I wanted to really, really, really like this movie. And that, I believe, is the DCCU's primary hurdle right now. The bulk of the audience for these movies was given grandiose adventures by the DCAU of the 90's and early 00's. Add in what Marvel's done with their properties in recent years and it's easy to see how an underwhelming movie becomes OMG TEH WORST MOVIE EVAR!!!1!!

If this sounds a lot like my thoughts following BvS, it's because I feel the same now as I did then: this is going to be a process and I'm willing to stomach some growing pains if the larger universe can grow in the right direction. There are some great elements here. In addition to Batman and Wonder Woman, we now have Harley, Waller, Deadshot, and the Flash. Meanwhile, Squad largely ditches BvS's cynicism. And while the tonal problems keep the movie from achieving more, the fact that WB is shifting its direction so openly, if also awkwardly, is a good sign.

Grade: B-

Infomocracy

"You would think, with all the access to Information, that people would pay more attention to what their governments do in other centenals, but you know what they say: you can give a voter Information, but you can't make him think."
--Malka Older, Infomocracy

In a semi-distant future, a social mega-network named Information provides the infrastructure for people to do seemingly everything, from business to play to politics. Using one of the global micro-democracy's decennial elections as a stage, author Malka Older follows a handful of political operatives and social network bureaucrats to examine the intersections of information and democracy and what humanity does at those intersections.

As a guy who loves information and people having access to that information, I find Information (a kind of Facebook-Wikipedia hybrid for everyone and everything) to be bloody fantastic. As a guy who loves privacy and the scrupulous use of information, I find Information to be bloody scary. That dichotomy is something that Older explores in Infomocracy's better touches. In an early scene, one of our lead characters, Ken, a political operative whose principles appear to be flagging, checks the personal Information of a flight attendant who has allowed some of her Information to be public. While he doesn't pick up much beyond what is public, another lead character, Mishima, an agent for Information, frequently uses her considerable skill and access to peruse Information in a way that someone like Ken would never think to. In a smaller, more personal story, where the stakes didn't have to be--literally--worldwide, there would be room for Older to explore this tension between the usefulness and creepiness of near-unlimited Information.

Such a story might also give us more time with Mishima, a fantastically drawn character who, in less-skilled hands, might've become a competence porn figure. Her hyper-competence and workaholic nature are balanced by her mistrust and paranoia, faults that she not only possesses but acknowledges (if only to herself and, later, to Ken) in a refreshing take on an old trope.

Information, like information, is neither good nor bad but can and is used for both. Its indispensability makes it both revered and distrusted, depending on which character Older is working with. It doesn't matter so much what types of information one makes available, it's who's using it. And why. With a tool so big and necessary, the micro-democracy, and therefore the world, is ripe for hi-jacking.

In an election year, you'd think--or at least I had thought--that the micro-democracy and election-hacking would be the most intriguing items. Curiously, this wasn't the case. The idea and execution of the elections were interesting, but the shadowy machinations were a bit too shadowy. It would help to know what the stakes are: who the political parties are (policies, like some characters, are sometimes only briefly outlined) and what the characters behind the conspiracies stand to gain or lose. The techno-thriller that takes up the last act of the book loses momentum because I know that I should be outraged by the scheming (and in theory, I am--election-hacking is bad) but my level of investment was not what it might have been.

Still, Older has constructed a wonderfully flawed and detailed society. And there were clearly a lot of details left on the cutting room floor, such as how the world gave itself over to the micro-democracy and how Information managed to become the conduit for that democracy (the theme of "who's really in charge here" is a nicely subtle one throughout the book). Having had experience rendering too much exposition, I appreciate Older's wisdom in not bothering to explain everything.

Indeed, she seems to want to share a lot more. By giving us a world-spanning, high-stakes, high-concept sci-fi thriller, she leaves us with the broad strokes, sacrificing some of the juicy detail that might be better provided from an on-the-ground viewpoint of someone living in the micro-democracy, under Information. More time with someone like Doumaine, an under-utilized character who is working to undermine the micro-democracy until he mostly disappears for the second half, would give us a new take on Older's society, fleshing it out. If Infomocracy has one flaw, it's that there's too much to show and too little space to do it in. But maybe that's what the sequel will be for.

Grade: A-

Anchor Argonaut Collection: Flying Cloud

Lot of beers lay claim to flight. Fish. Dogs. And I guess that's about it. But now Anchor has unveiled Flying Cloud, the first of its Argonaut Collection that I've had the pleasure of drinking. Now, I love beer, as all good-hearted people do. But if I were going to assign flight to an alcoholic beverage, beer would not be first up. Beer is heavy. Even the light ones are basically alcoholic bread. So "flying" is not what I feel like doing after having a beer or two or seven. And yet so many aspire to flight. I admire the ambition. As to what alcohol would fly? I don't know. Champagne? It's light, it's fluffy. It's an overrated experience that seems to get more expensive every year. The cork achieves liftoff. So, yeah, champagne gets to have flight.

Flying Cloud pours deep black, with a head that's a bit closer to brown. Not sure how these colors make for a "cloud," but... it's named for a boat? Huh.

It comes at you with a very malty nose, but it also includes a syrupy-chocolate smell that's very enticing.

The Cloud is very dry, with just a little coffee coming through. The beer also puts every bit of its 7.4% ABV on the tongue. That's not a complaint.

It's surprisingly light-bodied for a stout, with a hint of carbonation. I was initially worried that I had found this one at the wrong time of year, but the lightness balances the rest in a way I don't usually expect of a stout.

Despite the body, this is still one to hold onto until late fall, when it will be more welcome. Dark and dry with a slightly-above-average ABV, Flying Cloud already feels to me like a solid go-to, at least it would if not for Argonaut's limited nature. Craft beer can be such a tease sometimes.

Grade: B+

It's Only July

Remember a few weeks back when, despite seemingly everything going my way as a Cubs fan, my neuroses and insecurity still managed to bubble up, thoroughly ruining any enjoyment I fully deserved to enjoy?

Dammit, do I hate being right.

As of this writing, the Cubs are going into the All-Star break having just narrowly avoided a sweep in Pittsburgh, which happened to end a five-game losing streak (which would've been a nine-gamer if the Reds had started last Monday's rally a bit sooner). That caps off a 10-17 record dating back to June 13th, a month that includes getting swept by the Cardinals at home and a particularly humiliating four-game sweep at New York. And, yeah, they're still seven games up in the division, with the second best record in baseball. But this is where they're sitting after a 43-18 start. And yet... maybe we're just spoiled following that historically notable start. Is this little more than an extended slump? Or something more horrifying?

A lot of this is nothing more than the natural neurosis of being a Cubs fan. But precisely because this year was supposed to be the Season of Destiny, it needs to be broken down, if only to explore and understand the demons we're currently dealing with. I usually like to start with the bad news, and then see how if the good balances it out.

The bad news:

• The pitching staff, Arrieta included, turned mortal sometime after Memorial Day. Remember last year, when Arrieta's Cy Young season was being lauded in particular because he had never pitched that many innings before? 229 innings in 2015 after never having pitched more than 156, only breaking 100 four times in seven seasons. And then, free to let fly all year, he turned into a beast. At this point, you obviously worry about how that workload affects him going forward. So when he starts to show a little wear midway into his post-Cy Young year, it feels as though his arm has literally fallen off. All because his ERA isn't below 2.00 anymore (count a vote for us being spoiled).
• The break that the All-Star Game is supposed to provide is lost because the Cubs have seven guys going to San Diego (yes, I share some responsibility for that, you're welcome) and if the National League gets slaughtered, everyone in baseball will know how vulnerable this once indomitable Cubs team is. 
• The spate of injuries (and injury scares) starting with Schwarber's ACL has been... troubling? That's probably a strong word. The DL seems a lot longer than it actually is, at least it did to me. But when a team is already struggling and you get yet another mobile update saying that Zobrist or Bryant (or both) have been taken out of the game, it doesn't engender a lot of confidence. Which leads me to my final negative... 
• Us. You don't have to travel too far to find Cubs fans bitching about this skid. Maybe it feels like we've deserved the chance to moan, but recall that we've created needlessly oppressive atmospheres before. Too many Cubs fans aren't reflective enough to understand how much harder we make an already difficult task. 

In point of fact, each of these bad news bullet points comes back to how we as fans interpret them. Taken one by one, they're really not too bad (and several will be rebutted in the good news section below), but when they add up and impact a team that we all thought was headed for '27 Yankees status, it's hard to see through the resulting fog. So let's turn to...

The good news:

• As stated, the Cubs are still seven games up in the division. Sure, it was more fun to be fifteen games up, but apparently neither the Pirates nor the Cardinals have been interested in taking advantage of the opportunity that's been dropped in their laps. And if that gap narrows further, you know what's more fun than throttling the rest of the division all season long? A year-end divisional race that keeps your team loose and ready for October. 
• The trade deadline looms and the Cubs have some very recent and painful experience with teams that explode after making the right deals. If we're really good, maybe Baseball Santa will leave us with a whole new bullpen. Except for Rondon. Leave Rondon alone, he's fine. 
• Hector Rondon. 
• A chunk of this fall-off is the result of injuries (and injury scares), Fowler most notably. Those guys will come back. Too many late season collapses happen because guys are tired and, as it stands now, a lot of guys will be well-rested. 
• Meanwhile, Maddon is a guy who knows how to adjust. And his teams historically do better in the second half.
• Relatedly, this is the kind of time that a great start is supposed to buy--a chance to see what's on the horizon. Simultaneously, it offers a couple of months for slumping starters to work through whatever's causing them to blow games in innovative and interesting ways. What else is July for?
• After all, this slump could've happened in September. Then we'd be right to panic. There's a lot--perhaps too much--baseball left to play. 

So repeat after me: It's only July. 

Fremdschämen

You're probably familiar with the concept of schadenfreude, a German word meaning to take pleasure in someone else's misfortune. It's a common enough feeling and it never takes much for a person to drop the word whenever it's remotely relevant; it's kind of like "irony" was before we ruined that word. But there's another German word, similar but with a different spin and at least as relevant, that I think we're going to want to be familiar with.

Fremdschämen (first recognized in German dictionaries in 2009) is the feeling one gets from being crushingly embarrassed for someone else. The state of experiencing fremdschämen is simply "fremdscham," without the cool yet mildly annoying umlaut.

Fremdschämen, I hope you'll agree, is at least as useful a concept as schadenfreude. Whole friendships are built on navigating through and around fremdscham-wracked moments. A chunk of modern day child-rearing is geared toward avoiding fremdscham. Fremdscham is the reason The Office worked. To feel fremdscham is to be embarrassed not by someone else, but for them, indicating that some degree of empathy is necessary. Fremdschämen, then, is a perfect complement to schadenfreude because experiencing it tells us that we are not sociopaths.

Having mentioned embarrassment and sociopathy, it may finally be time for me to turn to Donald Trump. Alright, here's the deal: I don't want to talk about Trump. One of the benefits of my semi-voluntary hiatus was not having to think about the campaign this deeply. I had plans to do some other things with this blog in the next few months--pleasant things. But there's a short-fingered gorilla in the room and, with him addressed, I'll be able to move on. So hold your nose with me, reader, we're going in.

Trump, a poorly-carved Jack o' Lantern that's been left to rot since October, gets most of his press these days for remarks that have been construed as offensive. And racist. And misogynistic. And incoherent. And untethered from reality. And these are all valid observations worth examining. But there's another aspect of the way he expresses himself that I would like to address.

You may have seen the great video about Trump's use of language that first made the rounds a few months back, although that had more to do with his sentence construction. What I'd like to explore isn't new for Trump. Consider his longstanding nickname: "The Donald." It's just his name with "the" in front of it. It's simple, it demonstrates way too much self-regard, and it's profoundly stupid if you spend any time thinking about it. And he was just allowed to do it. Anyway, I fear that his stranger communicative habits have been lost in the more recent (and, again, valid) concerns over the substance of his campaign rhetoric. This is worth exploring because I believe that these tendencies are indicative of a deeply-troubled mind and we need to dissect it before we unleash it on the world in a presidential capacity.

Tweets, short as they are, are not be the best metric for a person's perspicacity. However, this is Trump's most prolific medium (never mind that a real billionaire shouldn't spend so much time on Twitter) and provides a more direct path to his brainwaves than anything else available to us. So let's dive in.

Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure,it's not your fault

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 9, 2013

A little weird, right? Now, I don't know a lot about IQ tests (I refuse to take them because no result I could get would ever make me happy). But I do know that Trump's IQ does not appear to be a matter of public record. Here's The Mirror speculating on Trump's IQ based on where he went to school (weak, I know, but it's the best we have) and coming out to a decent estimated score. But even they hedge their bets and conclude that his IQ is "far from genius level."

So unless Trump wants to release his IQ test results (along with his school records and his tax returns while we're at it), we're just going to have to infer his intelligence based on his actions. Like his 2006 assertion that the mid-aughts were a "great time to start a mortgage company." Or the time that he brought his mistress along on a family vacation. Or the time that he addressed the fact that his campaign is a tire fire, hemorrhaging staff:

I am getting bad marks from certain pundits because I have a small campaign staff. But small is good, flexible, save money and number one!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2016

We must allow that Trump is at least addressing his hilarious campaign problems. That's refreshing in its own way, right? Hillary Clinton would certainly never acknowledge such problems (she'd never have to). It takes a brave man to acknowledge his short-comings. Not that Trump has any of course. Just ask him--he can do anything.

So many people have told me that I should host Meet the Press and replace the moron who is on now. Just too busy, especially next 10 years!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2015

No they didn't. Okay, maybe a couple of people on his payroll told him that. After he asked them. What could even prompt this very specific ambition that he'll never pursue? Why would Agent Orange even want to host Meet the Press? One possible answer: Trump-coverage would generally become more positive. After all, by November, he'll probably be out of credentialed media to tail him, so Donald Trump's Meet the Trump, Presented by Donald J. Trump, Classy™would be a good way to keep the free publicity train on the tracks. By the way, we all understand that what Trump really wants is his own media empire, right? It's pretty clear when you think about it.

Lambasting the media, in addition to providing red meat for the marks, helps bolster Trump's insistence that the media is hostile toward him. Truth is, the media hates Trump like a fat kid hates cake. I could say that he's just too easily offended, but somebody already put that criticism to him and Trump replied in Strong Bad-esque fashion: "I don't have thin skin... I have very strong and thick skin."

Weird boasts. Questionable claims to money/strength/power/good taste. A connection to professional wrestling. Okay, look, I worked really hard on a "Trump is Strong Bad" post and it didn't pan out. Let me have this analogy.

This assertion from a man who still occasionally mails photographic evidence of the adequateness of his finger-length to Graydon Carter, original coiner of "short-fingered vulgarian." Twenty-five years after Carter first anointed him with the title! Short-fingered or not (he is), that's a damn long time to hold a damn weird grudge. And this guy may possess nuclear codes come January. The lack of both self-awareness and of the very meaning of the words he tosses about so cavalierly (whether orally or digitally) should be enough to prompt fremdscham in any decent person with a bare minimum of compassion.

I know some of you may think l'm tough and harsh but actually I'm a very compassionate person (with a very high IQ) with strong common sense

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 21, 2013

Who the hell talks like this?! Apparently, no superlative cannot be applied to him (by himself), however irrelevant to the conversation at hand. I truly don't know if this is about burnishing his brand--the brash, self-aggrandizing patter that I find gross but, to his credit, has probably made him what he is today (alternate take: maybe all of his successful business deals are a result of the other party getting sick of listening to him and just giving him whatever he wants to make him go away). And maybe that's just been translated in to the what we're seeing now: this ham-fisted (small hams, obvs) manner of selling himself and his campaign.

Or maybe this is just the way he talks to people in every day situations: "I didn't fart in the elevator, okay? But if I had, you would have loved it. I have the best farts, the best-smelling farts. People tell me I do and I believe them."

In the proper spirit of fremdschämen, maybe you aren't able to feel embarrassment for Trump. I don't blame you. But whatever happens in November, Trump is a reflection of a part of us now. A considerable chunk of America has voted for him. Many more will do so in November, if only to avoid voting for Clinton. Even if he loses, history will forever record that he won electoral votes. And that "if" is necessary because, in a two-party system, events beyond the control of either candidate could easily slip Trump past Clinton just in time for a horrifying election night.

I know it was funny at first. We had all gleefully anticipated the schadenfreude we'd experience when he had to tuck and run before the primaries were even over. But now we're looking down the barrel of a self-fremdscham. And I'm not even sure if there's a word for that. Get to work, Germans.