The Ultimate Superpower

You are presented with a predicament. Logistics aside, you are presented with the opportunity to poses one superpower and one superpower alone. It can be any superpower you want it to be, and it has unlimited potential. The rest of you would be completely unchanged, you would simply have your choice of superpower added to your repertoire. What superpower would you choose and why? More importantly how would you use it?

Superhero movies are big right now. The latest two movies to break all box office records have been Spiderman 3 in 2007 and Batman: The Dark Knight in 2008. In the last 6 years we have seen 3 Spiderman films, 2 Batman films, 2 Incredible Hulk films, 2 Superman films, 3 X-Men films, 2 Fantastic Four films, as well as other superhero films including Ironman, Hellboy, Hancock, Ghost Rider, Catwoman, etc. All with varying degrees of success. No matter how you cut it, superheroes are all the rage when it comes to film-making right now. So it begs the question: what power would you want?

I asked Tyler, the 7 year old son of my boss, today what power he would want, and after what I can only describe as a seven year old's version of a dissertation, he eventually concluded that he would want the ability to transform into anything he wanted. I'd say that was a pretty good analysis from a kid who has never seen Terminator II, but I just wonder what kinds of things he would transform into and why he would feel it necessary to transform into them. I would have asked him that follow-up, but there are only so many hours in the day and I'd like to have this essay posted by the end of this week. The great thing about 7 year olds is that for them reason has no place in logic. The main thing he wanted was to be able to emulate various other superpowers that would then be at his disposal without being in violation of the one person/one power ground rule. For example, if he had chosen the power to fly, he would then be stuck with that and only that, but by choosing transformation, he has gained the ability to transform into an airplane which would then give him the ability to fly, but then he would be also be able to transform into a submarine if he were to choose to emulate an Aquaman type character. Pretty smart thinking. I will say that he did try to pull a fast one on me by saying that by choosing transformation, he would be able to transform into "other dudes with other superpowers," but I told him that was against the rules. He disagreed with my boundaries of course, but I feel I won the debate that followed.

I would venture to say that the initial thought of most people would be the ability to fly, have super strength, or super speed, but I find three dominant problems with all of those 1) they are not very versatile 2) they have limited practical applications and 3) I can't imagine how one's life or the well-being of mankind would be significantly impacted either positively or negatively in such circumstances. The obvious joke is that in our current economic climate one wouldn't need to pay for gas to get around with the ability to fly, but I am not much for the obvious joke. Like Tyler's reasoning, if you were to choose flying, have strength, or speed, then that is what you are stuck with. All you would ever be able to do is one of those three. You would either be able to travel through the air with ease, lift or push extraordinarily heavy things, or move really fast. Certainly in one's own life there may be instances where one of those would be all you would ever need to solve all of your problems, but in the greater scheme of life I am not sure I have ever thought to myself that my life would be drastically improved by my ability to move something large.

When I was a younger I felt that the ultimate superpower would be to freeze time. I, of course, blame an episode of DuckTales for brainwashing me into this mentality. From my recollection, Huey, Dewey, Louie, and Webbigail acquired some artifact (probably a watch since there is no such thing as a cliche in children's entertainment) that could freeze time. I remember thinking that this ability could have a world of different applications both in personal and worldly fulfillment. I recall thinking (because I was small picture back then) that I would be able to stop time, go to sleep for as long as I wanted, wake-up and re-start time such that I would always be well rested, but never lose hours of the day in order to get rest. Don't get me wrong, I still think that ability alone would be worth a pound of flesh, but the older I get the more practical applications I think of. I would be able to procrastinate all I want and still never be late on a deadline. I could take as much time as I could ever need or want to work on something. Hell I could take a week long vacation whenever I wanted and never miss a single second of work. Certainly there are numerous applications for the greater good, but I am still thinking small time now. Really when it comes down to it, I'd say that to this day the ability to freeze time is probably the second best superpower imaginable.

So what is the penultimate superpower? If you ask me I say it is mind control. There is an old film from 1977, perhaps you have heard of it, called Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope in which Luke Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi are driving through the streets of Alderaan. When they are stopped by storm troopers who ask for the pairs' credentials, Kenobi, using a mind control technique causes the storm troopers to let them pass unchecked. In the world of popular culture, this use of mind control has come to be known as the "Jedi Mind Trick," and if it is not already, it aught to be the most sought after superpower among nerds and normal people alike. Imagine the limitless possibilities of controlling the minds of others. Don't want to pay rent this month? No problem, your landlord thinks you live rent-free. How about that girl you are afraid to ask out due to fear of rejection? Well she is ready to bear your children now. Want the day off from work? Hell, take the rest of the year off at your bosses urging. It isn't like you need money anyway what with the free rent, free food and merchandise you will acquire by simply making people think it is free for you. You can be famous if you want, you can keep others from being famous, you can do just about ANYTHING you want provided someone with a mind is at the helm.

Now think big picture. Say I wanted to end the war in Iraq right now. I could just tap into the mind of the President and his staff, alter their thinking and suddenly the troops are on their way home. But what about the eruptions of violence and the Iraqi government that will surely crumble at the immediate withdrawal of all of our troops? Fear not, I just tapped into the minds of all of the Iraqi people and their government and ended all desires for violence and corruption. While I am at it, I went ahead and made everyone in the world live in peace, erased the debts of all of the countries, and now the children of the world are gathering in the streets to join hands and sing We Shall Overcome. Oh yeah and there is a pizza on its way to my apartment...And I don't plan on paying for it.

So here is the obvious problem: mind control of this magnitude would be enormously dangerous and dishonest in the wrong hands. I believe it was Peter Parker's uncle Ben in the first Spiderman who taught us all that with great power comes great responsibility, and it turns out he was right. Imagine what would happen to world if this power got into the wrong hands. Imagine Hitler with that power, imagine Ted Kaczynski, Imagine Rush Limbaugh.

There is also this: I have a hard time understanding how to navigate my Tivo let alone the process and worldwide applications of geo-politics as it relates to conflicting regions and ideologies. That isn't to say I wouldn't want to bring and end to war-torn nations, but let's be honest, chaos theory states that a butterfly flapping its wings here can cause a typhoon in Japan, so just imagine what kind of backlash could occur by the everyman playing puppet master to the world even if his intentions are purely good.

Finally, keep this is mind: we are all affected by our own cultures. We unfortunately have a tendency to believe that the way we live is the "right" way and the way others live is sometimes considered humorous and sometimes considered abhorrent, but the truth of the matter is that no matter where someone may be from, each culture is laden with its own imperfections. Yes, even we Americans are far from living in a perfect society. The thing is, we need those imperfections, because in many ways, it is our imperfections that make us great. Sometimes it is our flaws that we love most about our culture. We need certain people to think one way and others to think another way. We need every possible viewpoint represented and given equal weight. We need a world that operates using checks and balances and a world that encourages debate and counterpoints. To alter the minds of the world and make everyone think a certain way about anything is not only the most powerful form of mental slavery, but it is representative of everything we don't want in this world. Having that power would instantly cast us into an Orwellian nightmare where there are no Winstons and there are no proles. Even if it did cause the ability to stop wars and cause the world to live in peace, could mind control really be considered anything but evil under those conditions? I will bet not. Still, it would be nice not paying rent.

***Side Note: In my entire life, I have never felt as much like a nerd as I do right now. I swore to myself that I would never talk about Star Wars in these essays. I am going to have to write about Bob Dylan next just to feel normal again.***

Famous For Being Famous

There comes a time when just about everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that we will not become hugely famous solely based on who we are as people. Who among us has not felt as though we were watching an artificial carbon copy of ourself or someone we know when we watch television or a movie? Who among us hasn't believed that a movie could be made based on our own life or a situation we have been in? This is especially true for younger people who tend to think that their life experiences are vastly more interesting than they really are. Don't believe me? Watch what happens when high schoolers get web cams (I don't recoment watching more than 30 seconds of this clip or your mind might cave in). I am as guilty of this as anyone. There is no footage of my idiotic antics on youtube, but I do maintain that my freshman year roommate is a direct descendant of Wooderson from Dazed and Confused. Certainly I would not even think to suggest that people's real life experiences are not frequently captivating (to be explained later), instead I suggest that in our own minds our stories and personalities have a tendency to be far more fascinating than they are to the outside world. This is proven everyday by two phrases "I guess you had to be there," and "and then I found five dollars." Yet despite the beautiful and universal truth that in our own minds we are fascinating and engaging enough to make millions being ourselves on television, it isn't going to happen. The rules, however, change if you have already been blessed with mild celebrity.

What comes to mind when I say Brett Michaels? How about Flavor Flav? Or Paula Abdul? We are in the middle of a cultural phenomenon in which individuals who were at one time famous have now transcended time, space, and the entertainment industry standards to become equally if not more famous just for being themselves on television. Somehow, someway, someone felt that a slew of former celebrities could breath new life into current popular culture, and somehow they managed to be right. When you think of Brett Michaels, you think of one of two things; the band Poison who achieved arena style stardom with Every Rose Has It's Thorn, or you think of him as the love interest for a bevy of half-crazed 20-somethings on VH1's Rock of Love. Flava Flav for you is either one of the members of Public Enemy, or he is the focal point on Flavor of Love. Paula Abdul? Cold Hearted Snake or 1/3 of the most influential music critics of our time on American Idol. The strange thing is, the latter would not have been possible without the former for any such celebs. In order for the formula to work effectively, one MUST have been famous years ago, been a subject of a Where Are They Now special, and then re-appeared in the spotlight as a tour de force of popular culture influence. It has been said that one can never be as popular as one's predecessor (i.e John Lennon's son Julian, Terry Bowden, or the remake of The Gong Show), but what happens when the predecessor is one's self? Some celebrities have achieved enormous fame by being themselves based on the fact that they had at one time been enormously famous for something else. We shall from here on refer to this as retroactive fame or retroactive celebrity where fame plus 10-20 years begets equal or greater fame. It would be considered a comeback except that they are not retroactively becoming famous again in their original genre. Instead they are becoming retroactively famous for being themselves outside of their original genre. The last 5-10 years have proven to us all that the world of celebrity rotates on a constant axis in which it is possible, dare I say probable, that once one has experienced and wained from celebrity status, it is only a matter of time before the entertainment world makes one full revolution to once again shower them with the light of popularity in equal or greater proportions. Science rules.

There is an age old argument in the psychological world. It stems from the question of whether or our personalities are the result of our (a) bio-genetic make-up, or (b) a reflection of one's own life experiences. You may have heard it referred to as the "nature vs. nurture" debate. The common compromise states that our personalities are the result of a mixture of both our genetic and experiential background. This is why celebrities will always be famous. Confused? And rightly so.

Fame is a peculiar beast. You never quite know when it will happen or who it will happen to, but there is one universal truth about anyone who has ever become famous: at some point, someone saw in them an undefinable quality that sets them apart from anyone and everyone else in the world. Before they formed as a rock group, Paul Hewson and David Evans were school mates. Both played guitar for their peers in the school yard, but David has remarked that Paul always managed to have a bigger gathering than him. David knew he was a better guitar player, so he could never figure out what it was about Paul that drew people's attention, but it did. This is the perfect example of the "it" factor, as it has often been referred to. Later on Paul Hewson became Bono and David Evans became The Edge in the Irish supergroup U2. Every year thousands of hopeful comedians dream of being full-time cast members on Saturday Night Live, yet only a handful of extraordinarily lucky people get the honor. Why? It. American Idol is the highest rated show on television today, and it consists of young adults performing for the nation only to have the nation decide who the winner will be. How do they decide to pick Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, and David Cook from the pack of clearly talented singers? It. How does Kevin Costner keep managing to get work despite is heinous acting? It. There is some quality about who they are that sets them apart from everyone else and which leads them into a life of fame. This is a pretty good sumation of a celebrity's nature.

What does the term "party like a rock star" mean to you? Long before it was a terrible hip-hop song by the Shop Boys, it was an uncredited phrase referring to the intensity in which musicians have fun. The standard visual is that partying like a rock star includes exorbitant amounts of drugs, alcohol, and easy, uninhibited sex with countless people. This partying usually lasts until everyone either passes out or someone dies (to limit a "rock star party" to a mere night is thinking small time). The end result being that if you are a bona fide rock star, it is automatically assumed that you have made (or destroyed) a living having a wilder time than any of us mere mortals can ever dream of. In our current culture, this type of lifestyle is not limited to musicians. Look at some other actors who have indulged in a life of excess: Drew Barrymore, Corey Feldman, Eddy Murphy, Chris Farley, John Belushi, Lindsay Lohan, and the list certainly goes on and on. For the special few who have managed to indulge this lifestyle and survive, they must certainly come away with some seriously interesting stories and experiences thus reating a well-rounded story of their life experiences.

And there you have it, statistically celebrities have an abnormally high combination of both nature and nurture, moreso than the average person. That is all it is. A single sentence that did not really need to be explained in three long-winded paragraphs.

But how does this relate to the cylindrical world of entertainment. Why do celebrities become retroactively famous once they have fallen from grace? Because fascination with celebrity does not really happen until post-celebrity, or at least until peak-celebrity. Let us examine the celebrity arch: A 16 year old boy, let's call him Dan, from small town New Jersey wants to be an actor. He is gifted and has a clear "it" factor. At age 18, moves to New York, gets an agent, appears in a number of low-budget Indy films first as an extra, then supporting characters. He finds he has a knack for being a character actor and feels he should pursue that living versus that of a leading man. Through his agent he lands a part in a Coen brother's film as Joel and Ethan are known for their portrayal of colorful characters. He is a hit, winning an Emmy nomination for best supporting actor. He is offered roles in numerous high budget films. He begins dating attractive celebrity women, going to Hollywood parties, and buying expensive houses and cars. At this point, he has "made it." The world becomes fascinated with Dan. He is on the covers of a number of supermarket tabloids obsessed with who he is dating and what kind of coffee he drinks. He is now 28. Still young enough to consider himself immortal, yet old enough and wealthy enough to be fully independent. He loves the celebrity lifestyle, but the wild parties all seem the same, and he needs a little "extra boost" to keep having fun. He drinks more than he used to. He starts snorting cocaine, first on a limited basis, then almost daily, then multiple times a day. His wallet starts to shrink, and his bar tab starts to grow. The tabloids are filled with pictures of him looking horribly wasted and distorted. He is no longer interested in being an actor because he is no longer interested in working. Calls from film producers are replaced with calls from creditors. Now he is 35 and he can't beg for a film role, and he can't afford the coke he needs to get out of bed. Right around the time his second wife leaves him he decides it is time to clean himself up. A year later Dan is completely sober and ready to start working again. By this point he has completed the full celebrity arch from discovery, through success, through self-destruction, and finally to rehabilitation. And it is through the stages of success to self-destruction that the public is fascinated with him, and it is through rehabilitation that we become truly interested in the whole of Dan's journey. He is no longer the characters he has portrayed on film, he is instead the Dan that has led a strange and horrifyingly intriguing life, and that is what the public wants to see, thus after being cast out of the public eye once he becomes embarrassing, he re-emerges as a washed up success story. Hence the cycle of celebrity. His nature made him a celebrity, but his nurture made him a retroactive celebrity. Now he is ready for a VH1 reality show. Obviously this is a grossly overly stereotyped arch, and many celebrities who become retroactively famous are not victims of the lifestyle of excess, but in some way they do go through a journey of sorts with their own peaks and valleys.

And here is the bottom line. You can't write this stuff. The true life story of a person is vastly more intriguing than anything someone can write only because when we know something to be true, we can't help but be awe-inspired provided it is actually an interesting story. This is why the film "Remember The Titans" is vastly more interesting than "Major League" or why "All The Presidents Men" is more intense than "Clear and Present Danger." When we know something to be true, we aren't burdened with the need to analyse the probabilities of plot lines. We can't say "that would never happen" during a non-fictional story because, for all we know, it did happen as it is portrayed in front of us. As movie-goers we love this because when we watch movies we desperately want to believe in the legitimacy of a story, but often times we can't help but be taken out of it. This is not an option during non-fiction movies. Despite the fact that producers and directors have a tendency to take "artistic liberties" with story, we blindly believe every moment of the film from start to finish regardless of how ridiculous it may seem. The same is true with people. Ridiculous characters are immediately thought to be complete fabrications while ridiculous people are thought to be intriguing and captivating.

As in the case of how Hollywood works, we can now construct a formula where the goal is to create a reality television program with a high level of public interest. [A(XN+YI)+E-J]/T=P where (A) is an actor, (XN) is the degree of nurtured experience where (N) is constant, (YI) is the degree of one's "It" factor where (I) is constant, (E) is working experience, (J) is current employment, (T) is time since the last employment, and (P) is public interest. Now simply plug in in various celebrities and solve for (P). Once you find someone with a high level of public interest who is desperate enough to accept your offer to be themselves, you have a new television host.

The two biggest success stories in terms of retroactive celebrity in my mind are unequivically Ellen Degeneres and Jon Stewart. Ellen Degeneres is a very funny comedian who had between 1994 and 1998 achieved a reletively high level of fame as the leading character on the sitcom "Ellen." The show is probably most remembered for an episode in 1997 where, at the shows peak, Ellen (both the show's character and Degeneres herself) publicly announced that she is a lesbian. I remember that episode being groundbreaking at the time, but is also, in some circles, considered to be the sitcom's downfall. Following the cancellation of the show, Degeneres faded from the spotlight, but kept her career afloat by appearing in several forgetable films until 2003 when she reemerged with a vengence as the voice of a dimwitted yet loveable fish named Dori in Disney's "Finding Nemo." That same year was the inagural episode of her daytime talkshow "The Ellen Degeneres Show" which has since proved to be one of the most watched talkshows of today. She started as a comedian, became a sitcom star, faded from the spotlight, and then achieved astronomical fame again as herself.

Jon Stewart, on the other hand, has a bit of a different story. Stewart, since the early 90's, had bounced around from television show to television show keeping himself known but not too well known. His career was far from lucritive, but he managed to keep himself from working at McDonalds on the side. My favorite role of his was as the "enhancement smoker" on Dave Chapelle's stoner film "Half Baked." It is tough to say he ever reach a high level of fame, but in the early 90's he was the kind of actor most people had heard of, they just couldn't think of anything noteable he had done. Then Comedy Central came calling. The original host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" was Craig Kilborn, and in 1998 Kilborn and Comedy Central had a bit of a falling out, and "The Daily Show" needed a new host. Stewart took over and achieved the kind of success story that actors dare to dream of. He has since established himself as one of the funniest, startest, and most insightful comics, satirists, and comedy producers in America today. He has since won Emmy's, Critics Circle Awards, and even Peabody Awards, as well as hosted both the 78th and 80th Academy Awards. Again, Stewart had become mildly famous for nothing noteable, disappeared (though it wasn't too tough for him), and reemerged as a powerhouse player in the entertainment world late in his career.

There is another possible reason for retroactive celebrity: Hollywood wants name recognition, but doesn't want to front a lot of money, so they land the name of a washed up celebrity who will work cheap. This is only possible because people are stupid though. No explanation necessary.