Tony Stark v/s Bruce Wayne

Iron Man and Batman are at this moment my two favourite super heroes. I watched The Dark Knight Rises yesterday and as epic as Christopher Nolan's interpretation of the comic is, the last installation was a bit of a let down. Boring in parts, too much happening in others and in general a little scattered. But all in all his Batman is a reflection of our times. His dark, thrilling interpretation is more realistic than that of any other superhero.

My favourite thing about both these superheroes is that they are grounded, 'human' so to speak supported and purported by technology. They do not have god given powers like Spiderman or Superman but rise on the basis of the technology they use, their 'suits' and ofcourse staggering wealth. It makes us believe that we could be them if we had all of the above - in short if we were extremely nice looking, fit, tech savvy billionaires.

But as superheroes and their film interpretations go they could not be more different. Their difference lies not in the suits they put on, though they are a reflection of who they are but in the character difference between Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark. They have their similarities - the money, the toys, saving-the-world-phenomena, the parents that they lost when they were young, the companies they run. It plays out like modern man's ruinous dream. But where Wayne is dark and brooding, Stark is known for his quick wit and one-liners. Where Wayne takes himself too seriously, is modest and careful to keep his identity hidden, Stark is almost irritatingly flippant and for lack of a better word, a show-off. And this reflects in the superheroes we love so much.

Batman has the most iconic villians in comic book history while Iron Man is the new kid on the block. One can argue that his villians make him. Batman on his own is not all that we perceive him to be, while Iron Man is very much his own man - he "owns' his suit so to speak. His shiny iron suit reflects his flamboyance while Batman's caped black number reflects his burden to wear the mask. Ironman is a playboy by nature, its never an act, while Wayne makes a conscious decision to project himself as a playboy billionaire. Iron Man makes his own suit, has his secretary as a love interest while Batman relies on Fox and Alfred plays the secretary though thankfully not the love interest.  Both are constant, grounded, voices of reason to these powerful or more correctly power hungry men.

Iron Man leads us to LA but doesn't explore it. His villians are international terrorists and his desire to don the Ironman suit stems from that. Batman leads us into an obviously New York City-based underbelly of Gotham, unveiling and playing with the concept of fear, anarchy and chaos as real ideas and alter egos of ones self. He broods us into boredom but rises to epic proportions. Unlike Iron Man where you can write a text message, eat some popcorn and come back to the movie, Nolan's Batman draws you in, he engages you. Iron Man is a feel good movie, that you go out discussing happily with friends while Batman makes you introspective and serious.

As similar as they are, their differences stand in stark contrast. If you make me choose, i'd be torn. They play out like almost two separate genres. Just maybe Iron Man in Nolan's hands can be what Batman is or vice-versa but where's the fun in that. Each feeds separate parts of our intellect and both are highly enjoyable.

British Royalty - So messed up!

If you know me, actually know me, you know that I have a weird, almost fanatical obsession with the British royal family. This is not just present day royals (as past posts may allude to) but all of British royal history. I havn't yet figured out if this unhealthy preoccupation stems from the romantic notion of 'royalty', 'palaces', 'crowns' etc or from their lives that play out like soap operas but most likely can have begun with Princess Diana. I watch period movies constantly, infact some of them are in my list of go-to comfort movies. I follow numerous blogs on the monarchy, even the newer ones that only follow the present Duchess of Cambridge's fashion (I generally love what she wears, but I cringe when I see just how 'commonly' she's dressed as compared to her husband's ancestors. Definitely unlike a Duchess). I've watched most of the BBC series, read the books, even the fictional crass ones by Catherine Coultier and not so crass ones by Victoria Holt. And as a rule I google stuff when i'm watching/reading period anything to see how much is fictionalized.

Today, I spent the day feeding my obsession. I watched 5 films (Young Victoria, King's Speech, Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown, The Countess and The Duchess), then googled/wiki-ed them all and now I sit down to write this. Not the perfect way for a 24 year old to spend a Saturday! I now know most of what went down since before Victoria became Queen down to  Prince Harry. Infact, I know everything about the cousin's, the Duke's and Duchesses and Lady's and Earl's and Countesses. I can rattle off who married whom and why someone like Louise (all of 7) is not fashioned HRH Princess Louise but just as Lady Louise Windsor. Hell, i might even be able to tell you who her godparents are! 

Obviously I need a new hobby!

But while i'm still on this - Almost everything the royal family owns still and did before Cromwell decided the monarchy is redundant, is stolen from someone. I mean even the 'coronation chair' on which almost every king/queen we can think of ascended the throne was made by King Edward with the stolen Stone of Scone. The Kohinoor they took from us, a million other stones from Africa as well as the crown jewels of the Scottish, Irish and the Welsh! 

What irks me the most however is the British Queen is actually German! Google it! It comes in the drop down suggestions (how german is the queen). Victoria's mother was German (House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), incidentally the same house as her husband Prince Albert which makes her entire line of descendants German. Even her father's ancestors were from a mixed ancestry from Denmark, Prussia and God alone knows where else. King George V changed the name to Windsor during the war because it was too Germanic! The reigning Queen has an ancestry of madness, hemophilia, pedophilia, unnatural longevity, beheading, looting, raiding and a number of other horrific things. (I'm beginning to wonder if Kate made a wise albeit suitably informed decision to marry into this family!)

So her husband, His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, the balding Prince we know simply as Wills is basically German and Greek from his father's side (Prince Philip is Greek and Danish I think). Incidentally, the most amount of British blood this future King of England has is from his mother Diana, Princess of Wales nee The Lady Diana Frances Spencer whose father's and now brother's title, Earl Spencer, was created in 1765, along with the title Viscount Althorp, by King George III. 

It is believed that when Prince Philip told Diana that if she did not behave herself her title would be taken away. She retorted saying her title was older than his. You have to give it to Diana to have the last word.

The Middletons

I am seriously beginning to envy this family. How did they get so lucky?

Kate was lucky enough to go to St. Andrews where the future King of England happened to also be studying. Without any effort she managed to capture his heart albeit via a see-through dress. (I doubt the Queen finds that a funny story!) And now she is Duchess of Cambridge, future Queen and style icon. I'm not complaining. Personally, I think she's affable and adorable and most of the time I love what she wears (especially the Zara, Jenny Packham & Alexander McQueen ensembles). I am well under the spell of what is now called the "Kate Effect".

Pippa may have got into the limelight because of her sister. But she may just be doing it better than Kate. Among her many link ups, (and I fervently pray Harry isn't one of them because he deserves better) is the Earl Percy, future Duke of Northumberland who will get the Duchy of Northumberland valued at £300 mllion, Alnwick Castle (The Harry Potter one, also my favourite, and the 2nd largest lived-in castle after Windsor), Syon Park and land in Scotland & Surrey. Plus he's a catch, not the party types but more adventurous and down-to-earth (again I don't think Pippa deserves him but then I'm biased. I always did like Kate and not Pippa). How and where did she meet him? They both studied in Edinburgh University and even shared the same flat. Earl Percy is apparently besotted with Pippa. And she has it better because she'll have all the trappings of a Royal without any of the troublesome duties that her sister has to perform.

How? How is it possible that the daughters of two flight attendants managed to bag Britains most eligible bachelors? The parents must be sitting at home all smug. I mean for heaven's sake their mother came from a family of miners and now is lady of a chalet in which Viscount Bolingbroke lived, has a royal Coat of Arms and is regularly invited to Windsor Castle for tete-a-tete with the Queen herself.

Talk about fairytales coming true. It seems everyone in this family is suddenly the talk of the town. The only blimp at the moment is brother James, but how bad could it really be for his cake business that his big sister will be Queen someday.

Death March

Waiting on crowded platforms, fighting to get into a train to go to the one place I'd rather not go to.

Clambering, half dead, already waiting for the day to get over.

Packed into tiny compartments like canned meat. More people get on than get out. Each trudging to a different slaughter house, to dictators on power trips that create for us our personal hells.

Lines that lead to trains to take you to "work". Modern day corporate concentration camps. Ultimately marching to our untimely demise. A death march of sorts.