The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol. 1 **1/2

Written by Alan Moore.
Drawn by Kevin O'Neil.
Color by Benedict Dimagmaliw.
Lettering by William Oakley.
Published by America's Best Comics, 2000.

Alan Moore is known for such well known comics such as "The Watchmen" and "V is for Vengeance" (or is it Vigilante?). I read in an interview, in the magazine "Under the Radar", that though he's now retired from comics, he still likes to keep involved with this book and continues work on it. So he holds a special place in his heart for this one.

So the story goes is that some mysterious government man in turn of the century recruits a bunch of misfits and washed ups for some operation that is never clear. These misfits include some infamous chracters such as Alan Quartermain, Captian Nemo, Miss Mina Murray, Dr. Harry Jeckyll/Edward Hyde and Hawley Griffin (AKA The Invisible Man). What is interesting about these characters is that while Moore keeps the legends intact, he makes them incredibly human anf flawed. Flawed in an almost epic manner. Quartemain is an opium addict, Edward Hyde is particularly gruesome in his monstrousness, and Griffin (The Invisible Man) is a particularly untrustworthy character, what with his power of invisiblity and all. He uses that power to gain an advantage for himself, let's say on an all girls school in which some of the young ladies think that they have acheived Immaculate Conception.

There's a lot of mistrust and bickering within the group, yet they manage to acheive and come through for each other when necessary.

After the group is finally assembled (this is an origin story after all) they set off on a mission to recapture a substance which will allow anyone the power to fly. Being still in the 19th century, this power seems too incredible and dangerous if it were to get in the wrong hands, which the league is told has happened. But there are double crosses and backstabbing and the government man does not appear to be who he says he is. An airiel attack is emminent over London, and the League does their best to stop it.

Apparantly, he also did a traditional serial adventure story starring Alan Quartermain, which I liked less becasue it involves other worlds and different realms of existence. I've never been one for that transcendental other/alternate world stuff. It always involves the invention of a new mythology which has to be understood with in the limited time and space of the text. It's too much for me to keep up with. And the language can be silly in those kinds of stories.

I liked better the grittier and violent main story of the book. It's more realistic (well as realistic as a story with ape monsters and invisible men can be).

So whats interesting is the blend of modern and old. The language of the book is old fashioned. Moore's clearly having fun with it. On the title page of the book which is set up like an advertisement in an old fashioned newpaper, the creators are introduced with interesting language and not just listed. For example, "At tremendous expense we are proud to present M. Alan Moore. The World famous Northamptonshire Nightingale famed for his verbal recitations and comical narratives."

So there's this old fashioned language paired and contrasted with a fairly violent and bloody narrative. The monster Hyde, tears people apart, limb from limb in a type of demon rage.

And as any one who follows comics know, Moore is know for his writing and this narrative is well written. The characters are developed and complex.

I look forward to volume 2 and 3.

A trailer of the movie.



And an excellent interview with Alan Moore with examples of drawings.

Rear Window ***1/2

Directed by Alfred Hithcock.
Released 1954.
Based on short story by Cornell Woolrich - "It Had to be Murder".
Screenplay by John Michael Harps.
With James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter and Raymund Burr.
Seen in theater.


I haven't seen this film for over 20 years, and when I did, I believe I saw it on video. It was nice to see the camera work on the big screen with its vivid colors of the bulildings and gardens, etc.

Most people already know this film, but this might provide a reminder about what a great film this was. For that reason, I 'll keep the summary short.

A photographer and adventurer, James Stewart, is stuck in his apartmant all day becasue he has a broken leg. He spends all day watching his neighbors through the rear window of his apertment. Meanwhile Grace Kelly's character, an upscale high falutin' fashion executive, is trying to convince him to marry. The photographer is not so sure since he's a rough and ready adventurer after all.

While looking at his neighbors, he starts to invent narratives for them and watches them to see if his invented narratives come true. Eventiually, he begins to think that in one of the house holds something very fishy is going on. He's convinced that the husband, played by Raymond Burr, has killed his invalid wife and disposed of her in a particularly gruesome way. He becomes an amateur sleuth to get to the bottom of the mystery.

One minor complaint I have with the film is that it is kind of slow moving. It almost has to be becasue the narrative and the character development of the neighbors is almost played out in pantomime, like a silent film. So things take a while to develope. It's quite an inventive film technique that Hitchcock uses and there is no way that a film, with this pacing, could be made comercailly in these days. It's both intrigueing and a little slow at the same time. I admired it for this, but I was simultaneously getting antsy, and like i've said in a recent past blog entry, I feel my patience for films is way above the average film goer of today.

There are also some inetersting moral themes being discussed and presented. The whole concept of privacy is an issue. It's funny to me that it seems that the characters don't think that it's bad to spy on their neighbors. Stewart's character makes no bones about his spying, though he doesn't want to get caught, and is quite obvious about it. Grace kelly's character only seems bothered by it, becasue it makes her boyfriend distracted. The characters do discuss th eissue of privacy briefly, but seem to laugh it off.

But... this spying on the neighbors leads Stewart to make some judgements and conclusions about his neighbors based on sparse and imcomplete evidence that he has garnered from his watching. The privacy of the neighbors is being invaded and they are being judged on how they behave in certain contexts. I think that this is the moral of the story. Remember, this was also around the time of Jospeph McCarthy. I don't know if privacy was one of the issues at the time, there might have ben more immediate threats to people's civil rights, but i I would bet that the accused communists were not too thrilled to have their private lives and values exposed to the nation.

Death at a Funeral **1/2

Directed by Frank Oz.
With Mathew McFayden, Keeley Hawes, Andy Nyman, Ewen Bremmer, Daisy Donovan, Jane Asher and Peter Dinklage.
Released 2007.
Seen on DVD.

Vulgar but with some very funny bits. As the title says, there is a funeral which is set at the house/mansion of the the dead man's son's home/mansion. At this funeral a variety of unfortunate and embarrassing disasters happen. And that's the plot.

It's an ensemble effort. There are at least 6 or 7 characters that share time on the screen. Some of the better characters and bits include the young fiance of woman who's father is brother of the deceased. The father hates him and the fiance is a bit of a neurotic wussy. They pick up her brother who is an aspiring pharmacist and deals with illicit drugs too. The woman gives the fiance a little Valium to calm his nerves, but it's actually a powerful hallucinogenic. So this wimpy guy is totally stoned at the funeral. He is very funny, and his eyes actually look like he's stoned.

There is another character who is hypochondriac and is totally annoying at first, which of course is the point. But he starts becoming really funny when the events of the funeral start overwhelming him. He starts to have this glazed eyed look of resignation.

The movies not a life changing event nor is it important or art, but it is fun.

Balkan Ghosts - A Journey Through History **1/2

By Robert D. Kaplan.

Published by First Vintage Departures 1994.

Hard Cover - St Martin's Press 1993.

287 pages.

From the title, it's easy enough to surmise the content of this book. It's the history of the Balkans. But it does have a slightly weird premise. It's not only history but it's a travel book. Now, when I think of travel books I think of tour guides. The ones that tell you which places you need to see and visit, so I was confused when the author called this a travel book, because he definitely is not recommending places to visit, though you could certainly visit some of these places if you wished.

I guess there is a difference between a travel book and a tour guide. In this book anyway, the author does travel, but he writes about the history and the politics of each place he visits as he visits those places. So it's a historical book.

I like a book, especially non-fiction, that is highly readable. Not too dry, or confusing. I like a well written, well told story when it comes to non-fiction. This book partially succeeds. There are some pockets of very interesting passages in the book, but it does get a little hard to follow at times too. This may not be completely the fault of the writer, since the task he takes on is so huge.

He write about all the Balkan countries. They include Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and the former Yugoslavia territories (which include Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia). He does not include Hungary which is included in his map, perhaps because , as he briefly mentions, it's culture is too European, though it is geographically part of the Balkans (I make that assumption since he includes Hungary on his map). He also spends the most time on Romania and Bulgaria.

It's no wonder the text can be so confusing. There are multitudes of characters, organizations, political parties etc., in each country. He does try to focus on one or two characters in each chapter (The chapters are divided by countries) and on the more recent events of the 1970's, 80's and 90's. That is helpful for the flow of the narrative, but he needs to give background, so he has to go further into that long and almost ancient past and to discuss a multitude of characters and events. All these places and characters are what makes the book confusing. He could have written about any of the countries during a specific time and have enough detail in information to fill a whole book. But he covers (almost) all the countries and several hundred years of history. Maybe a more specific thesis for the book might have been helpful.

So here's what I got out of the reading. Only the most basic concepts are what stick with me during this writing.

There are three religious groups all mixed together in these lands, especially in the former Yugoslavia. Closer to Europe (Austria borders Croatia) are the Catholic Christians - hence Croatia has more European feeling. As one goes further south-East , there are more Orthodox Christians - the ancestors of the Byzantine Empire. And the areas furthest East (Albania for example) are of course mostly Muslim - ancestors of the Turkish Empire. And these three Empires, throughout history have been constantly at war with each other and the hostilities continue until contemporary times. Especially in the East where Turkish and Byzantine groups were constantly at war. The details are different in each country, but the basic idea is the same. The Balkans, because of their location, was and still is the original battleground between the East and the West. This is of course all a generalization.

To be more specific, his travels through Romania, especially the Eastern part are particularly grim with tales of poverty , corruption and prostitution. He was constantly approached by prostitutes when he was there.

Everyone knows about Greece and their classic Hellenic background, but the author makes the case that their many years under Byzantine domination make that country more culturally Byzantine and hence, more Balkan than European.

I requested this book through the Chicago Public Library and I requested an older edition since there were more copies available. Again, this book was written when many of the crises in the Balkans still had not been resolved. I would have liked to have seen a later edition, in which I am sure there would have been updates. I wonder what's going on there now?

The following videos are neither exciting nor well produced and the narrator is almost incomprehensible. Who chose the music! But there are some pictures and maps which are based directly on the book.





P.S. I noted something interesting while looking for appropriate videos. There were lots of videos showing future maps where some countries disappeared and and others grew at their expense. In the comments were lots of cursing and racial name calling. The hate is still there even today.