big-eyes-01

Lies, Deception, and Seriously “Big Eyes”

big-eyes-01Tim Burton’s latest film, “Big Eyes”, was released on Christmas day this year without much of a marketing push or fanfare, and while I had originally planned to write about the Sony hack this week, that’s all pretty well-traversed territory at this point, and since “Big Eyes” is a film that I suspect few people have even really heard about and aren’t already planning to see, I thought I would take this opportunity to encourage others to check it out.

“Big Eyes” is set in early 1960s San Francisco, and is based on the fascinating (mostly) true life story of artist Margaret Keane (played by Amy Adams), a divorced, single mom and painter of children with anime-proportioned eyes, and  her swindling husband Walter (Christoph Waltz) who fraudulently claimed credit for her work for over a decade. The film relies heavily on the dynamic between Margaret , who is shy and submissive, unsure of herself and her talents; and Walter Keane, a gregarious man whose charm and con artistry helped make the pair millions of dollars selling Margaret’s ultimately kitchy pop-art to the beat generation’s hoi polloi.

It opens with a fittingly vacuous quote from the king of all pop-art hucksters, Andy Warhol:

“I think what Keane has done is terrific! If it were bad, so many people wouldn’t like it.”

Indeed.

For Tim Burton fans, some of the themes in “Big Eyes” will be familiar. His work regularly blurs the lines of fantasy and reality, big-eyes-03 fact and fiction; and it often centers around the contradiction of outsiders struggling to find their place in more conservative societies. Margaret Keane is a woman who bravely left a controlling husband and moved to San Francisco with her young daughter to become a painter in an era when women simply didn’t do that kind of thing, yet she ended up producing hundreds of pieces of art under another man’s name because “nobody would buy art painted by a woman”. Also a man of jarring contradictions, Walter seemed to have no talent as an artist, yet presented himself as a trained and successful painter to San Francisco’s rising fine art scene. Perhaps ironically, his lies and guile ended up selling countless originals and prints of his wife’s work when few galleries even wanted it by passing it off as his own. In a way, the pair was perfect for each other, and had it not been for the fraud it’s likely that no one would ever have heard of Margaret Keane.

But over time the deception also ate away at Margaret’s self-worth, Walter’s desire for fame and money couldn’t be satiated, and the whole enterprise couldn’t survive forever.

The film itself is tightly-paced at just 105 minutes, and the production design is actually subdued by Tim Burton’s usual standards, even given the brightly colored vibe of California in the 1960s. “Big Eyes” is one of Burton’s most mature films to date, more “Big Fish” than “Alice in Wonderland”, and that’s a very good thing. Burton is a director who can sometimes be a victim of his own artistic excess, but this is a film that reserves his trademark surrealism for just a few really effective scenes as Margaret slowly loses her sense of self, consumed by her husband’s ego and the secret she’s unable even to share with her own daughter.

Danny Elfman’s score is similarly subdued, and as somewhat of a sidenote, the soundtrack also features some incredible Latin jazz by one of my favorite vibraphone players, Cal Tjader. If you’re not aware of his work, allow me to suggest “” and perhaps ““.

There’s obviously a lot of competition for your movie-going dollar this time of year, but “Big Eyes” features a truly interesting story, a couple of incredibly strong performances from some extremely gifted actors, and a lightness of directorial touch that we so rarely get to see from Tim Burton.

And let’s be honest, none of that can be said of Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit”.

Watch the trailer for “Big Eyes”:

THE REAR VIEW: The Empire Strikes Back

empire_strikes_back_ver6This week on The Rear View podcast I had the pleasure of sitting down with film composer Ryan Rapsys to talk about one of his favorite movie scores – John Williams’ The Empire Strikes Back. It was this score that Williams first introduced the “Imperial March” to his canon of iconic and unmistakable film themes. The film itself is often held up as the superior of all the Star Wars film, and it can be argued that film score may be what helped elevate its standing.

Ryan and I discuss the importance of collaboration with the director early in the filmmaking process and why a strong melody is vital in tapping into the emotions of an audience. The power of sense memory is unmatched when it comes to music and film. Filmmakers wishing to make an impact on the culture should always be looking to connect with their audiences and a simple and memorable melody can by just the ticket. You can also checkout Ryan Rapsys’ work on Soundcloud. 

 

The Great Capitulator

interviewIn the wake of Sony’s decision to shelve (for now) the Seth Rogan and James Franco comedy , which follows the two stars as they attempt to assassinate Kim Jong-Un, dear leader of North Korea, I am reminded of another comedy in Hollywood’s history that ridiculed a tyrant – Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator

This picture would mark the legend’s first foray into “talkies.” The film would also lampoon Adolf Hitler (the man who stole The Little Tramp’s signature facial hair) and would most assuredly offend the Nazi dictator and his followers. This film would draw a lot of attention, Under pressure by Hollywood studios and the press not to make a picture for fear most countries wouldn’t allow it’s screening. Chaplin rejected the obvious appeasement of Hitler, bucked the naysayers and funded the film himself. The silent movie star would be, silent no longer. Upon it’s release it became Chaplin’s high grossing film.

There is a wonderful short documentary about the making of The Great Dictatorgreat_dictator (embedded below)It describes Chaplin’s foresight into the future that Hitler would impose on the world. Chaplin had admitted afterwards, that if he knew the extent of Hitler’s barbarism, he couldn’t have made fun of the Nazi insanity. But this was before the world would fully know the horrors. Still, Charlie Chaplin forged ahead and fought for what he believed in, Liberty. The film’s final scene, a 4 min speech that speaks truth to power is a daring climax for any filmmaker – but to do so in the face of pure evil, the kind of evil I need not describe as “since Hitler” but, actually Hitler – is what lovers of liberty and human freedom should strive to champion.

Based on most early accounts (50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes), The Interview was not going to be as effective as The Great Dictator , or as daring as Citizen Kane, or hell, even as funny as Team America: World Police. It’s just a buddy comedy with an easy target for it’s antagonist. Adolf Hitler, while powerful, ruthless, and evil was an easy target for ridicule during his rise to power and has been parodied ever since (Google, “Hitler Reacts…” for proof). I fear with Sony’s capitulation, they have now crowned Kim Jong-Un “The Untouchable.” A title that even Hitler never enjoyed.

Hollywood needs more Charlie Chaplins.

 

 

narnia

Literature You Should Know: Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

e30802d90755e019fd179e3452475a6bae0676c9We’ve all had our share of hard winters, and with the latest polar vortex causing record lows as far south as Hawaii, we may be in for another doozy this year.  And even when the weather isn’t cold, shorter days and overcast skies can still take their toll on a person’s spirits, even with holiday cheer to provide light in the darkness.  Imagine, though, a winter so severe that it lasts a full century—and a government so evil as to forbid holidays altogether, on pain of a fate worse than death.  That’s the nightmarish situation in the land of Narnia when Lucy Pevensie stumbles into it from war-ravaged England through a magic wardrobe in C. S. Lewis’ classic The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

Jadis, the White Witch, has usurped the Narnian throne and plunged the country into a magical ice age, in which it’s “always winter, but never Christmas.”  And preventing Father Christmas himself from entering the country isn’t enough.  While Lewis doesn’t reveal much about the laws Jadis has passed (wisely, considering that it’s a children’s book), she does maintain a vast network of spies that includes even trees, and her reaction to stumbling upon a celebration is telling:

“What is the meaning of this?” asked the Witch Queen.  Nobody answered.

“Speak, vermin!” she said again.  “Or do you want my dwarf to find you a tongue with his whip?  What is the meaning of all this gluttony, this waste, this self-indulgence?  Where did you get all these things?”

“Please, your Majesty,” said the Fox, “we were given them.  And if I might make so bold as to drink your Majesty’s very good health—”

“Who gave them to you?” said the Witch.

“F-F-F-Father Christmas,” stammered the Fox.

After a squirrel corroborates the story, the Witch turns the entire party into stone.

But the return of Father Christmas has already proven the prophesied arrival of Lucy and her siblings to be enough to begin destroying the Witch’s power.  And it also heralds the arrival of another visitor long absent from Narnia:  the great Lion, Aslan, Son of the Emperor-over-Sea and King of all Narnia’s creatures.  The Hundred Years of Winter ends with a dramatic shift toward spring as three of the four Pevensie children make their way to the Stone Table to meet Aslan and take their rightful place as the joint human rulers of Narnia.

Still, the end of winter doesn’t mean the end of the Witch.  And she already has a hostage:  Lucy’s brother Edmund, who now regrets having betrayed his siblings to the Witch.  Repentance alone isn’t enough to save him, though, because the Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time, which underlies the very fabric of Narnia, requires that every traitor be slain.  If Edmund goes free, the Deep Magic, like a self-destruct mechanism, will trigger a cataclysm that will completely destroy Narnia.  Yet if Edmund dies, the prophecies regarding the Witch’s death can’t be fulfilled—and the threat of eternal winter and renewed oppression becomes very real.

UnknownNow, if The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe has any emphasis aside from the Pevensies’ adventures and growth as characters, it’s on the spiritual elements.  Lewis’ supposal about Aslan’s identity, on which the book and the whole Chronicles of Narnia series hinge, has been both loved and reviled since the book’s publication in 1950.  (Aslan’s not a Christ figure, as would be the case in allegory; he answers the question of what incarnate form Christ would take in a world full of mythical creatures and talking beasts.)  But given the state in which we currently find our society, with hysteria over global warming and efforts to eject Christianity from the public sphere, it’s not hard to imagine certain groups on the Left taking “always winter, never Christmas” as their creed.  Maybe this Christmas is a good time for us to step through the wardrobe ourselves… and take heart at the idea that even when we can’t see spring’s approach, Aslan’s still on the move.

The_last_of_us_04

If You Could Sacrifice Yourself And Save Humanity, Would You?

Would it change your mind if you weren’t given a choice?

I recently finished The Last of Us, one of the most immersive, incredibly well written games I’ve ever played.   Like , I was also speechless and then WHAAAAA?!!!! at game’s end.

This is one of those stories that leaves your mind untwisting an emotional, moral knot for days after playing through it.  You pull carefully at threads at first, then start yanking them, cuss, throw it down in frustration, cuss some more, then feel lonely without it and start pulling again.

What follows is an exploration of the ideas in the narrative, not a review.  So after a brief intro, I’ll be pretending you are familiar with story and unconcerned about spoilers.

Warning: Zombies! 

This is a post apocalyptic world in which humanity is decimated by a bizarre fungal ant disease. 20 years later, the world looks like Discovery’s Life after People, only a handful of people are hanging on by a thin, frayed thread in a bleak existence that lives up to Hobbes’ billing as “nasty, brutish, and short.”

Meet Joel, the smuggler, only not the affable Han Solo type.  Think Liam Neeson in Taken only with a dirt-grown Texan accent and disposition.  If that’s sounding a little too wholesome for you, you’ll be pleased to know that his moral qualms are basically on par with those of a season five Walter White.

Early in the game, Joel meets Ellie, a young teenage girl who has been bitten, but possesses a special immunity to the disease.  Joel is tasked with smuggling her out of the city to a group of scientists who can reverse engineer her immunity in order to save humanity.  Their journey is the story of the game.

They must fight through a police state gang, a city of local thugs, cannibals, and variously,  “Clickers,” the zombie-like former humans who have been transformed by a species crossover version of Cordyceps, a fungal disease that grows into the brains of ants and takes over their motor skills (a real thing).  In The Last of Us, this happens to humans, but with Ellie, it doesn’t evolve instantly, remaining in a kind of stasis in her body.  A group of freedom fighters, the Fireflies, fight against the military zones and the clickers to try to preserve liberty for people and to find a cure.  This is the group Joel is trying to find for Ellie.

What makes the characters and narrative so rich in The Last of Us is the emotional relationships and the conflicts that test these relationships.

I’d like to focus on the most morally significant decision: to kill another human being.  This is something Joel does a lot of throughout the adventure.

Many of Joel’s kills are not so black and white.  In questionable situations, what moral compass is to be used?  At what point does killing someone in the game alter your moral identity of your playable character from good guy to ok guy to questionable guy to bad guy?

In The Last of Us, the military authority is at war with the freedom fighter Fireflies.  Joel isn’t party to either side.  One seems to be corrupt and self-serving and the other a fool’s errand in a world where nothing is left except subsistence survival.  Joel doesn’t kill because he believes in the cause of order (military), nor because he believes in the cause of liberty (Fireflies).  For the most part, Joel kills for survival and for the lives of his companions.

In the beginning, Joel and Tess, his lover and companion, are smuggling Ellie to the Fireflies in return for a stash of guns and ultimately money or resources to help them survive.  But after this plan falls flat, he is asked to fulfill an obligation by a dying Tess to protect Ellie and get to her to the scientists to help save humanity.

On his own, Joel is ready to take the girl back to the military and return to surviving day to day, yet he is willing to honor the last wishes of Tess.  He must kill for survival and to fulfill a promise for a cause he doesn’t believe in.  Naturally, you keep thinking eventually, he will come around just like crusty ole Han Solo.

Through the journey, he becomes attached to Ellie, as she fills in his heart a place left empty by the death of his daughter in the first onslaught of the zombies 20 years ago.  He even tries to protect her from killing, refusing her a gun until finally he all but has to give her one for their mutual survival.  The weight of killing is made apparent through a choked, hold-back-the-tears moment from Ellie after her first round of killing. Thereafter she becomes a full participating party to Joel’s violence.

When Joel is incapacitated for a section of the game, you play as Ellie and kill many people in an effort to shield and protect him. She kills to protect Joel and herself in the immediacy, while her ultimate goal hangs in the air legitimizing anything she must do.

This is where my opening question comes in to play:

If you could sacrifice your life and save humanity from a plague, would you?  Would it change your mind if you weren’t given a choice?

To flip it: is someone morally justified in killing you if they have a noble cause?

After some twists and turns, Joel makes it to the Firefly compound in desperate straights.  Ellie is unconscious after being swept underwater during an escape from Clickers.  Joel is pumping on her chest with the Fireflies arrive.  When he refuses to stop resuscitating Ellie, the Firefly promptly gives him a rifle butt to the head.  Darkness.

You wake up as Joel to learn that Ellie is upstairs being prepped for surgery so that the doctors can remove the fungal growth in her and use it to develop a vaccine.  The trick is, the Fireflies know that she is going to die from the surgery AND it is fairly clear she was never asked about her preferences on it.

Throughout the game, Joel has butchered people with pipes, shives, guns, and even a flamethrower, all to get Ellie to this surgery to save humanity.  Now, he decides that what they are doing to Ellie is wrong.  Why?

Ultimately, it lies with choice.  Choice is fundamental to moral action; without it, you are not free and so cannot be moral. A decision forced on you by others naturally smells, to the individualist soul, of moral repugnance – even if the end achieved is a good one in terms of benefits to others.  By individualist soul, I mean that part of the soul that everyone possesses, and so if you can’t smell the moral repugnance, it may be because you’ve dealt some moral repugnance lately and are unwilling to cop to it.

Knowing Ellie, I have to believe that if she were awake and could understand what was happening, she would decide to accept death to help others.  But the fact that she didn’t know and that she was not allowed to make the decision transformed the freedom fighters into authoritarians.  What does Joel do to authoritarians?  He bashes their skulls with pipes.

So now as Joel, we kill the nominal good guys, the only ones left, in an effort to save Ellie.  The problem is you have this creeping wonder all the while that this is not for Ellie, but for Joel.  He loves her, as he loved his daughter, and he is unwilling to let her die period.

In a final confrontation with the leader for the Fireflies, Joel says of Ellie’s fate:

“That aint for you to decide.”

The Firefly replies:

“Its what she would want.”

Joel has no reply.  Certainly, in forcing Ellie to make the humanity saving choice, the Fireflies have abandoned their total commitment to freedom.  But Joel, knowing Ellie as he does, has abandoned her character and is also taking her decision from her.  He is disloyal through his loyalty.

“You can still do the right thing here,” says the Firefly,  “She won’t feel anything.”

That earns a bullet in reply.  After rescuing Ellie, he escapes and when she wakes tells Ellie that the Firelies were not longer looking for a cure, that others like her have been no help.  He then brings her to a safe village they’d been told of earlier in the narrative, a place where, “people do the best they can.”  As they sight the town and prepare to enter it, Ellie asks Joel to tell her the truth about what happened with the Fireflies.  Joel lies to her again by confirming what he’d said before as true.

We can tell that Ellie doesn’t believe him, that her trust is shaken.  Annnnd, cut to black.

I walked away feeling that Joel was put in an impossible position and he erred on the side of loyalty to a loved one instead of loyalty to a cause.  But the amount of people that had to be killed to save Ellie was stunning.  You felt that each one was a misguided soul who was just trying to save humanity and by shooting them, you were a murderer.  In the emergency room when you grab Ellie, you have to kill the surgeon and you have the option of killing the other two medical assistants.  I didn’t, but I certainly thought about it.

The individualist in me wants to believe that Joel was heroic because he held choice sacrosanct above all causes.  I can’t believe he would have done what he did if Ellie had been conscious and agreed to the surgery.  Her lack of choice is what makes it necessary to act to kill for her – to preserve her ability to choose.

Our two meta-causes being used to justify killing are saving humanity and the primacy of choice.  My kneejerk reaction is that any sacrifice is worth preserving choice as the fundamental value to moral and just society.  But what if preserving choice destroys that society.  Let’s say Ellie dies and with her the rest of humanity.  Better to die a noble death or preserve life so that others can make moral achievements?

THE REAR VIEW PODCAST – Sex, Lies, and Videotape

Filmmakers get into filmmaking for one reason. In short, they love movies. Specifically, they love this medium of storytelling. They love the reaction and emotion films generate in us.  They love to study a director’s technique or the way writers get themselves out of the corner they wrote themselves into. They love to make an audience laugh, cry or think. They love how a vast landscape looks on screen or the way a beam of light cuts across their actor’s face. Perhaps I’m speaking just for myself, but those reasons are why I am a filmmaker.

One of the best perks of the work is talking about movies with other filmmakers and really diving into all aspects of the craft and business. Over the years, I’ve been enlightened by some of the perspectives that my friends and colleagues have offered in conversation. And I hope I’ve been able to contribute in kind. Which is why I created this new podcast.

5Dpy8fNsThe Rear View is a chance for filmmakers to take a glance back at film history while driving forward into the future of cinema and television. Each episode, or reel as we’ll be calling them, I sit down with a filmmaker – be it writer, director, cinematographer, visual effect artists or composer – to discuss a film that influenced them in their craft. Or one they simply can’t talk about enough. Whether they liked the film or not, there is always something to learn about it.

(more…)

Literature You Should Know: Tolkien’s Father Christmas Letters

tolkien4Writing to Santa is a time-honored tradition among English and American families who celebrate Christmas.  But did Santa ever write you back?  If so, I hope his letters were as entertaining as the correspondence “Father Christmas” carried on for over twenty years with J. R. R. Tolkien’s children, preserved with as much love as shone through their writing and published after Tolkien’s death as The Father Christmas Letters (later revised as ).  Tolkien’s humor, inventiveness, and artistic talent made these letters a wonderful family tradition well worth sharing.

Beginning in 1920, when Tolkien’s eldest son John was only three years old, Tolkien wrote his children a letter from Father Christmas at least once a year—more often in later years, acknowledging receipt of the children’s messages and promising a longer letter at Christmas.  Each letter is itself a work of art, written in a shaky hand to indicate Father Christmas’ great age and usually decorated somewhat in the style of medieval manuscripts.  But more often than not the letter is also accompanied by a drawing or watercolor that illustrated Father Christmas’ adventures at the North Pole, which are described in greater detail in the letters.

7331And such adventures Father Christmas has!  Most involve his friend and helper Karhu, the Great North Polar Bear, who causes all manner of mischief and often adds marginal peanut-gallery comments in a runic-looking hand, with spelling errors that would be completely at home on I Can Has Cheezburger.  Later letters also include continuations by Ilbereth, the Red Elf who becomes Father Christmas’ secretary, and the cast of characters grows to include Snowpeople, other Elves, and the Cave Bear, along with Cave Bear and Polar Bear’s nephews and distant relations.  Usually, the stories are pure slapstick comedy, like Polar Bear falling through the roof or down the stairs or testing the tap for the Rory Bory Aylis and setting off two years’ worth of Northern Lights all at once.  And then there are instances of the characters snarking at each other in the margins, such as when Ilbereth has been talking smack about what Polar Bear eats and Polar Bear calls him “you thinuous elf.

“He means fatuous,” Ilbereth remarks.

No I don’t,” Polar Bear returns, “you are not fat, but thin and silly.

tolkien-letterOccasionally, however, Father Christmas has to deal with a more serious threat:  goblins who live in caves under the North Pole and steal presents.  Cave Bear, Polar Bear, and Father Christmas stumble upon a nest in 1932 quite by accident, and though they drive the goblins out that time, other years see the goblins return in force to try to conquer the North Pole.  One attempt, not coincidentally, comes during 1941; Father Christmas tells Tolkien’s daughter Priscilla, “I expect the Goblins thought that with so much war going on this was a fine chance to recapture the North.”  Other real-life concerns intrude during the Depression and the war, with Father Christmas explaining a shortage of presents several times by saying that he needs more room in his sleigh to deliver food and clothes to families that have none.  On a lighter note, however, after Oxford’s hosting of a flood of evacuees during the Battle of Britain in 1940, Father Christmas writes that the North Pole has also had evacuees—penguins!

These letters provide a fun glimpse at the state of the Tolkien household through the years—changes of address, new additions to the family, children going off to school and considering themselves too old to hang up stockings.  There’s even a brief reference to The Hobbit in 1937!  But more than that, they showcase just how much Tolkien loved his children and used his talents to bring them joy, especially around the holidays.  The smiles they bring the rest of us are merely an added bonus.

Super Comics: Flash #73-79 (1993)

Barry Allen, like many comic book characters, used to be dead. But unlike most others, he stayed dead for over twenty years. Oh, he’s alive and well now—more so than ever, thanks to The Flash television series on the CW. Nevertheless, DC Comics once killed him off, giving him a heroic death in 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths miniseries, and he didn’t return until 2009’s Flash: Rebirth.

unnamed-15During that time, Wally West, the former sidekick Kid Flash, took over as the Flash. Wally was introduced in the late 1950s as the young nephew of Barry’s girlfriend Iris. (Unlike their TV counterparts, Barry and Iris were together from the Flash’s first appearance, and they did not grow up together.) When Barry and Iris eventually married, Barry became not only Wally’s mentor and idol, but his uncle as well.

Wally’s series ran for about 250 issues from 1987 to 2009, and his time as the Flash can be read as a coming-of-age story. He progressed from a self-centered, twenty-year-old kid to a family man and stalwart member of the Justice League of America.

A pivotal chapter in his growth occurred in a storyline called in 1993, which spanned issues #73 to #79 written by Mark Waid and drawn by Greg La Rocque. The story isn’t some good vs. evil struggle, but one with very personal stakes. It’s about the balance between idolizing your hero and becoming your own person, the importance of protecting a legacy, and the dreaded possibility that your role model might not live up to your expectations.

unnamed-2Just as Wally is starting to feel comfortable as the Flash, the man he always saw as “the” Flash seemingly returns from the dead. Barry Allen shows up on his doorstep, alive and well, if a bit disoriented. At first, Wally loves having his uncle back. Sure, he starts to feel a little redundant as the Flash, but that’s a small price to pay. But then Barry’s behavior becomes…erratic. He soon snaps, leaves Wally to die in a hi-tech trap set by a new criminal organization, and announces himself as the one, true Flash. Wally escapes, of course, but he has to process the fact that the man he’s dedicated his life to has turned out to be anything but heroic.

Barry’s super-speed rampage brings him into conflict with former allies. The storyline crosses over into Green Lantern #40 for a Flash vs. GL battle royale. (Whereas the TV series show a friendship between Flash and Arrow, in the comics, Barry had become best friends with a different green super-hero, the Hal Jordan incarnation of Green Lantern—yes, the one we saw in that terrible movie, but Hal’s a much better character in the comics.)

Wally eventually learns it’s not Barry, but an old foe who has gone to extraordinary lengths to emulate him—even convincing himself he was Barry for a time. And now this villain is determined to ruin Barry Allen’s heroic reputation for all time, and only Wally can stop him—provided the younger Flash can get over his subconscious fear of replacing his mentor.

unnamed-16It’s great stuff, one of the best comic book storylines of the early 1990s (which, admittedly, is not saying a lot. Those were dark, dark times for comic readers.)

For fans of the TV show, “The Return of Barry Allen” shows of a glimpse of the hero Barry Allen is destined to become—someone who’s willing to sacrifice himself to save lives, and someone capable of inspiring others to greatness. The “real” Barry may not actually appear in these issues, but his heroic nature defines the story.

Also of note, this storyline features DC Comics’ first Flash in a prominent supporting role. No, Barry wasn’t the first—he’s just the most famous incarnation. Back in 1940, Jay Garrick inhaled some vapors and gained super-speed. He’s an old man in this story, though in excellent shape for his age, and he’s just recently returned to duty. So in one story, you get three generations of Flashes.