On why Obama is right not to realease the photos of Bin Laden's corpse

Obama's argument is that releasing the photos of bin Laden would incite our enemies. I heard a Republican response that most of our enemies are already incited, so what's the difference.

Obama's right and the other folks are wrong.

We are in the middle of an ideological shift in the Middle East -- a wonderful one. The ideas of fundamentalism are somewhat waning, the ideas of democratic rule are somewhat waxing. This is a very delicate process. At a point of balance like this, there is a relatively small but absolutely critical population of people who could go either way. And what will make all the difference? Narrative, and imagery.

And there are few images as powerful and lasting as that of a religious leader violently killed by the enemies of that religion.

The stories themselves are powerful, and lasting. We Jews STILL haven't forgiven the Romans for killing Rabbi Akiva, for instance, and have ceremonies in which we recite the stories of how he and other rabbis -- who were executed for leading violent revolts against the Romans. Got that? The Roman Empire has been gone for fifteen centuries, and we STILL hold a grudge and would fight against them. Same with the Christians, who still revere THEIR Christian martyrs. Fifteen centuries, and the empire is GONE, but the image of these religious leaders violently killed still persists and influences our actions.

And visual depictions are even more powerful. What percentage of lasting Medieval art consists of images of the martyrdom of saints? I don't know who the heck Saint Sebastian was at ALL -- except that he apparently was the patron saint of pincushions. And that I'm supposed to be pissed off at whatever archery club he crossed.

But anybody who's a Christian should be aware of the epitome of the power of the visual representation of the enemies of a religious movement violently killing their leader. Many of you probably wear one.

Let's not give that to the fundamentalist Islamic-Dominionists right now, okay? The image WILL get out eventually, and it should at some point. But if it gets out NOW, it has the ability to transform into an icon of vast destructive power. The longer we wait, the less powerful the image becomes.

ESPECIALLY if the pro-democratic forces through the Middle East, and throughout the world, gain momentum.

THOR, not a review, but some thoughts, especially about the actors.

I quite liked it. I think, had I seen it in 3D, I would not have liked it anywhere near as much -- but Lis and I saw it in 2D, like God -- well, gods of Asgard, anyway -- intended.

What made it work? Kenneth Brannaugh. Not his direction directly, although it didn't hurt. No, the thing that he brought to the movie was his friends. I'm going to talk specifically about Tom Hiddleton, because Lis and I saw him on stage years ago. And I just love him.

I blogged about this at the time. We saw his performance in CYMBELINE in 2007, where he doubled as Posthumus and Cloten -- and his body language was so different as the two characters that I didn't realize that the same actor was playing both roles -- until the fourth time that he changed characters, by changing his clothes -- ON STAGE IN FRONT OF US. So, yeah. The master of deception, trickery, and lies is played by an actor who can become unrecognizable on stage by changing his body language.

I also want to mention Idris Elba as Heimdall, the Guardian of the Rainbow Bridge. Not because of the whole, "OMG! HOW CAN A BLACK MAN PLAY A NORSE GOD" crap, but rather because he's darned good. The fact that his casting happens to piss off racists is a nice bonus, but I actually like him in the role because I like him in the role.

Lis notes that the movie actually OPENS with a scene in which two women are talking to each other about something other than a man -- Natalie Portman plays an astrophysicist, and Kat Dennings plays, apparently, an undergrad who's assisting her. Stellan Starsgaard is there, too, as an older astrophysicist who's Portman's mentor, but most of the conversation is between Portman and Dennings, about the fact that they are in the process of driving into the middle of what looks like it's going to be a tornado, in order to take readings of a potential time-space anomaly, about which Dennings is dubious. "I'm NOT dying for six lousy undergrad credits!"

Anyway, I do see one potential conflict coming up. Idris Elba mentioned in an interview that, having gotten to play a Marvel superhero, he now thinks it'd be hella fun to play Luke Cage. What's the problem with that? Isiah Mustafa (the Old Spice guy) has ALSO expressed interest.

And they'd BOTH be awesome in the role.

Here's how I'd solve the problem: anthology movie. See, the whole point of Luke Cage is that he protects the little guy. He's on the streets; he handles problems that go under the radar of people like the Avengers, or the Guardians of Oa, or whoever. They're off dealing with world-shaking or universe-threatening problems -- but that doesn't mean that the street-level problems go away.

So what I'd love to see would be to get a few different directors -- Tarantino and Rodriguez come to mind, of course, but they're almost too expected -- and a few different actors who want to play Cage, and probably some who want to play Iron Fist, and get an anthology of a half-dozen different twenty-minute or so stories. I think THAT could be fun. And that would let both Mustafa and Elba play the role.