Look! Up on the screen!

I had the chance - well, actually, I had two chances - to see Superman Returns this weekend. The movie doesn't officially open until the 28th of June, but I begged and pleaded with the kind folks in my office for premiere passes and lo and behold, I got two sets. Two! So I woke up early this Saturday to make it to the Paramount for 9am, and then went to the Cinesphere at Ontario Place for a 5pm screening. Double Yay!

In case you've been living under the only rock that the people at Warner Brothers' marketing department haven't been able to project the "S" shield logo onto, this is the fifth Superman movie, but we're asked to forget that Superman III and Superman IV ever took place. If only. The story picks up five years after the end of Superman II. Supes has disappeared for half a decade, and he returns to Metropolis. Which means, of course, that Lex Luthor won't be far behind.

In many ways, I am the wrong person to be writing about Superman - or at least the wrong person to pretend to write about him objectively. Superman is my favourite hero of fiction; the central conceit of a man who is so much more powerful than humanity but wishes to be one of us is a terrific lesson in heroism, I think. And the idea of an orphan who learns to construct his own identity is a big theme in children's literature - whether it's Harry Potter, Oliver Twist, Anne Shirley, Frodo Baggins, or Batman. It's a neat device, in that orphaned children are often more free from the usual prosaic constraints, but it sets up themes of identity and belonging, as well. Who are we modelled after, if not our parents, and how do we fit in where we are if we don't even know where we're from? For a guy who can do everything we can't, Superman is bereft of some of the simplest things humans cherish the most.

I remember seeing the first and second movies in theatres (I was given a super-kiss that made me forget III and IV, thank God); I remember owning action figures, Superman Underoos, hundreds of comic books, and all sorts of other merchandise; and I also remember running down the street as fast as I could with my arms stretched out in front of me, a makeshift cape tied around my neck. Um, in case I haven't made this part clear, all of that occurred was when I was a kid. With the possible exception of the underoos, but what I do in my own time is none of your damn business.

So, the movie: contain your shock when I tell you that it's really good. It's a little long, in my mind, which makes the last twenty or so minutes feel kind of draggy, but there is an awful lot of business going on. There are a few other flaws, too. I feel like Parker Posey's whole character was taken out of another film and spliced into this one, and we could have used another bravura action sequence somewhere along the way.

But what we do get more than makes up for all of that. There is a great, beating heart (shaped like a big, red S) in the middle of this movie. What the director, Bryan Singer, does here (and as he did with his previous two X-Men movies) is find the core of the icon and build a theme around it. This is a movie about one amazing man's quest to find out where he belongs, I think. Bruce Wayne sinks into the role of Batman to accomplish something his human side can't (a common enough theme in comics - especially DC Comics) and Spider-Man spends his time learning to deal with the demands his super-heroing places on his regular life (a common enough theme in Marvel comics), but Superman chooses to be human. He wants to be one of us.

At the same time, Singer understands that characters as renowned as Superman have dedicated fans, and he plays to the mythology that we have all grown up with. There are the small touches: Superman assumes the exact pose that was on the cover of Action Comics #1 (his first appearance); he literally outraces a speeding bullet; and there are references aplenty to the first two Superman films, like Lois' continued inability to spell or the style of the opening credits. And, of course, John Williams' original music, which still makes my heart swell, is sprinkled throughout the film.

So, yeah, the story makes the film, but the other great thing about watching a big-budget super-hero film in the year 2006 is that fact that the effects freaking rock. You. Will. Believe. A. Man. Can. Fly. There is an airplane rescue scene that is so flawlessly executed it's tempting to think that an actual Krytonian was brought in to do all of the heavy lifting. And Superman racing through the city of Metropolis, catching falling people, falling signs, and falling planets is a terrific thrill.

I think that we need Superman. Detractors complain that he is without flaws, or fascist, but I don't think so. He hears cries for help, and knowing that he is in a unique position to do so, he answers them. And while his abilities make him different from everyone else, his feelings - his confusion over his place in the world, his inability to show those closest to him who he really is, his desire to fit in - these mark him as one of us. And while this is the most spectacular of the Superman movies, it's also the most human.

Passion over Reason

That's the triumph of Wikipedia. As the Internet democratizes everything, it has a massive impact on information. Not simply in who gets to read what, but who gets to write it. And as blogging revolutionized our ability to get our own opinions into public consciousness, so has Wikipedia had a great impact on where information comes from.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, for those of you that don't know, which differs from other encyclopedias in that the content is all user-generated and user-corrected. It's quite amazing - wiki is now the third-most popular news and information source on the web, beating sites like cnn.com and yahoo news.

There have been problems with Wikipedia - notably, the idea that it was so open (which is also its greatest strength). Its mission of "free information for everyone" is actually a two-way street: anyone can publish or edit a Wikipedia article (well, most articles, anyway - some are now protected or semi-protected, and the entirety of the site has always been open to corrections and revisions). So this has led to inaccuracies, and sometimes outright lies, throughout Wikipedia. The organization behind it uses a small army of volunteers to correct this information, and some articles get "closed," often because rabid fans or detractors try to add too much unobjective information.

But most "official" sources actually had a problem with the very notion of non-experts creating encyclopedia entries. I don't. I like the way we're starting to look at knowledge, as something that shouldn't necessarily be disseminated from on high. I'm really not certain why the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica, say, is more qualified to put together an article on a particular musician than a bunch of ardent, amateur music fans writing on Wikipedia. That sort of spirit has already created ardent, amateur non-wiki sites devoted to all areas of popular culture, to no one's surprise. The same people who are responsible for those sites are now just getting together and creating something more official under the Wikipedia banner.

But it's no longer just "light" knowledge. Now, people who feel just as passionately about "higher" knowledge (hate to use the term, even with air quotes) can come together as well, and share what they know with the rest of the world. Fans - fans of music, or movies, as well as fans of science and medicine and architecture and even youth marketing - are sharing what they love. And, famously, the accuracy that one would expect to disappear in more complicated matters of knowledge same seems to be holding true in all areas of Wikipedia: Nature magazine published a comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica that found that Britannia was only slightly more accurate when it came to matters of science.

But as the dust settles on all of this, what is most significant about a volunteer-based system is that people are writing because they really, really care. That's what I think makes Wikipedia so interesting - people are sharing information that they feel passionate about sharing. And that's as it should be - why should passionate "amateurs" have any less right to publish something official than an expert? As Wikipedia grows - there are 1.2 Million English-language articles alone right now, with millions of others in dozens and dozens of other languages - I'm hoping that it will continue to be motivated by that spirit of passion and collectivism. I'm hoping that it keeps knowledge in the hands of the many, rather than the few.

We all love Vice Magazine...

...and there's no reason not to. It's actually more of an empire than a magazine these days. Rather than start a magazine that connects with one particular kind of person (in Vice's case it's urban hipsters, or people who want to be urban hipsters) and then create a bunch of other magazines - that's the a more typical model for a communications company - they've taken their understanding of that consumer and branched out into music, retail, events and advertising. It's a smart idea - and it's the same thing we do at Youthography, really: we've created a multi-disciplined communications company that offers a lot of services, catering to one particular demographic. This sort of model places more importance on the end user than on the particular service being provided to them - meaning, in Vice's case, that because they get who this person is (and because they are this person) they will have an easier time putting together a party for the Vice customer than would an experienced party planner who doesn't get them at all. It's all about authenticity, and in this age of post-marketing where consumers see the strings as they are being pulled, that's not a bad way to go about it.

So why this, then? Vice's marketing arm, addVice, sent out this e-mail last week, trashing the North by Northeast music festival:

"So its' NXNE time again, for those of you who don't know, NXNE is the crippled little sister of the SXSW Music Festival in Austin. NXNE pretty much sucks except for Dan Burke's nights and like maybe 2 shows. This year, VICE is putting on another unofficial "showcase" with some of our favourite bands, its' FREE. No guestlist, no wristbands, no bullshit, just come if you like checking out music, we've got rockabilly, rock n' roll, electro, punk, thrash and MORE!!!!!"

Misplaced apostrophes aside, this is the kind of thing that Vice does, and I think it's why they are as appreciated as they are. This is an authentic sentiment - maybe not one that the people involved in NXNE (including a whole bunch of musicians, entertainment types, and sponsors that Vice has worked with in the past and will have to work with in the future) want to hear, but still.

The result? This week we got a retraction e-mail from Vice that read like this:

"Oooops. We accidentally sent out this email which we should have censored, but didn't (happens when you get your interns wasted). We saw it and we were like "uhhhh, hope no one read that one!". Well, lots did and the truth is we go to a lot of NXNE shows and to the free booze parties, so it was a lame move. Plus a bunch of friends (like a lot) who we love are playing the festival so, SORRY, our mistake! So once again....its' NXNE time and we're doing a NotByNorthEast party. It's free, no guestlist, no wristbands; we've got rockabilly, rock n' roll, electro, punk, thrash and MORE!!!!"

I'm not sure which I think is the bigger mistake. The first e-mail could have some serious ramifications. A lot of Vice's customers like NXNE, and will be at a bunch of the events. A lot of the corporations Vice works with will sponsor or somehow be involved in NXNE, too. And, frankly, it's not that big an industry here in Canada. It may not make sense for Vice to piss these people off: at some point, someone involved in NXNE is going to make a decision that will have an impact on Vice's bottom line.

But maybe that doesn't matter: maybe the whole thing about being Vice is that you hold to your opinions, no matter who it pisses off. Which makes the second e-mail more problematic: the last thing anyone wants out of a brand with a don't-give-a-shit attitude is that it suddenly starts caring that someone's feelings may hae gotten hurt. Will people appreciate the fact that Vice recognized that they were wrong about something, or will people be pissed off that they did an about-face? This might be a lose-lose situation for Vice, and that's the bad news. The good news? After a week of relentless music industry partying, the likelihood is that no one will really remember anyway.

We'll always have Paris...

...actually, my guess is that a lot of guys have had Paris. Nevertheless, she'll always be able to have a recording career because her dad has a bunch of cash. Here's her first single, something called "Stars are Blind". You may remember this song when Ace of Base recorded it and it was called "The Sign," but my recommendation is to just go listen to Blondie's Greatest Hits and not skip over "The Tide is High" if you want to hear white girls sing faux-reggae.

Has any one person ever been at 14:59 and counting for so long? This song is nowhere near as skank-tastic as I thought it would be, but I'm warning you: the inevitable duet with K-Fed isn't too far off.