-Daniel Liao, Calgary Was this article intended to help Tom Cruise regain his clean-cut image? He lost so much of it when he left his wife and children. Most alpha males need to control the women in their lives, and since Nicole Kidman has come into her own, it appears that Cruise moved on to a woman he had more control over. Are you going to be doing a cover on Kidman? She is the one who has had to go through the humiliation of being dumped by a famous husband and deal with being a single mom. She is a much more interesting person.

-Susan Trinidad, Spanaway (Wash.) My first reaction to these letters was guttural: "Since when does Time Time publish letters that are written by rival publicists?" However, as I sat there in pain, feeling as though my stomach was being vacuumed through the lower half of my torso and into the bowels of this Illinois hotel, I was struck by the more frightening realization: publish letters that are written by rival publicists?" However, as I sat there in pain, feeling as though my stomach was being vacuumed through the lower half of my torso and into the bowels of this Illinois hotel, I was struck by the more frightening realization: These are These are not not publicists! publicists! They are just everyday people, and they are some of the people I am trying to understand reality alongside. Somehow, there are literate men in Canada who believe Tom Cruise is a respected role model and "different" from all the other actors who contribute nothing but "mere amus.e.m.e.nt." Somehow, there are women in the Pacific Northwest who think Nicole Kidman is interesting and wonderful and an icon of single motherhood, and that little five-foot-seven Cruise is an "alpha male" (even though everyone I know halfway a.s.sumes he's gay). These are the things they feel strongly about, because these are things they know to be true. They are just everyday people, and they are some of the people I am trying to understand reality alongside. Somehow, there are literate men in Canada who believe Tom Cruise is a respected role model and "different" from all the other actors who contribute nothing but "mere amus.e.m.e.nt." Somehow, there are women in the Pacific Northwest who think Nicole Kidman is interesting and wonderful and an icon of single motherhood, and that little five-foot-seven Cruise is an "alpha male" (even though everyone I know halfway a.s.sumes he's gay). These are the things they feel strongly about, because these are things they know to be true.

We don't have a f.u.c.king chance.

1. As opposed to this essay, which tends to be philosophy for shallow people.

2. Unfortunately, this does create the one gaping plot hole the filmmakers chose to ignore entirely, probably out of necessity: If Leonard can't form new memories, there is no way he could comprehend that he even has this specific kind of amnesia, since the specifics of the problem obviously wouldn't have been explained to him until after he already acquired the condition.

3. Holland's #1 memory-destroying vodka!

4. For those of you who've seen Mulholland Drive Mulholland Drive and never came to that conclusion, the key to this realization is when the blonde girl (Naomi Watts) m.a.s.t.u.r.b.a.t.es. and never came to that conclusion, the key to this realization is when the blonde girl (Naomi Watts) m.a.s.t.u.r.b.a.t.es.

How to Disappear Completely and Never Be Found

I'm having a crisis of confidence, and I blame Jesus.

Actually, my crisis is not so much about Jesus as it is about the impending rapture, which I don't necessarily believe will happen. But I don't believe the rapture won't won't happen, either; I really don't see any evidence for (or against) either scenario. It all seems unlikely, but still plausible. Interestingly enough, I don't think there is a word for my particular worldview: "Nihilism" means you don't believe in anything, but I can't find a word that describes partial belief in happen, either; I really don't see any evidence for (or against) either scenario. It all seems unlikely, but still plausible. Interestingly enough, I don't think there is a word for my particular worldview: "Nihilism" means you don't believe in anything, but I can't find a word that describes partial belief in everything everything. "Paganism" is probably the closest candidate, but that seems too Druidesque for the style of philosophy I'm referring to. Some would claim that this is kind of like "agnosticism," but true agnostics always seem too willing to side with the negative; they claim there are no answers, so they live as if those answers don't exist. They're really just nihilists without panache.

Not me, though. I'm p.r.o.ne to believe that just about any religious ideology is potentially accurate, regardless of how ridiculous it might seem (or be). Which is really making it hard for me to comment on Left Behind Left Behind.

According to the blurb on its jacket, the Left Behind Left Behind book series has more than 40 million copies in print, which would normally prompt me to a.s.sume that most of America is vaguely familiar with what these books are about. However, that is not the case. By and large, stuff like book series has more than 40 million copies in print, which would normally prompt me to a.s.sume that most of America is vaguely familiar with what these books are about. However, that is not the case. By and large, stuff like Left Behind Left Behind exists only with that bizarre subculture of "good people," most of whom I've never met and never will. These are the kind of people who are fanatically good-the kind of people who'll tell you that goodness isn't even that much of an accomplishment. exists only with that bizarre subculture of "good people," most of whom I've never met and never will. These are the kind of people who are fanatically good-the kind of people who'll tell you that goodness isn't even that much of an accomplishment.

Left Behind is the first of eleven books about the end of the world. It was conceptualized by Dr. Tim LaHaye, a self-described "prophecy scholar," and written by Jerry B. Jenkins, a dude who has written over a hundred other books (mostly biographies about moral celebrities like Billy Graham and Walter Payton). The novel's premise is that the day of reckoning finally arrives and millions of people just disappear into thin air, leaving behind all their clothes and eyegla.s.ses and Nikes and dental work. All the humans who don't evaporate are forced to come to grips with why this event happened (and specifically why G.o.d did not select them). The answer is that they did not "accept Christ as their personal savior," and now they have seven years to embrace G.o.d and battle the rising Antichrist, a charismatic Romanian named Nicolae Carpathia, who is described by the author as resembling "a young Robert Redford." is the first of eleven books about the end of the world. It was conceptualized by Dr. Tim LaHaye, a self-described "prophecy scholar," and written by Jerry B. Jenkins, a dude who has written over a hundred other books (mostly biographies about moral celebrities like Billy Graham and Walter Payton). The novel's premise is that the day of reckoning finally arrives and millions of people just disappear into thin air, leaving behind all their clothes and eyegla.s.ses and Nikes and dental work. All the humans who don't evaporate are forced to come to grips with why this event happened (and specifically why G.o.d did not select them). The answer is that they did not "accept Christ as their personal savior," and now they have seven years to embrace G.o.d and battle the rising Antichrist, a charismatic Romanian named Nicolae Carpathia, who is described by the author as resembling "a young Robert Redford."

Everything that happens in Left Behind Left Behind is built around interpretations of Paul's letters and the Book of Revelation, unquestionably the most f.u.c.ked-up part of the Bible (except maybe for the Book of Job). It's the epitome of a cautionary tale; every twist of its plot mechanics scream at the reader to realize that the clock is ticking, but it's not too late-there is still time to accept Jesus and exist forever in the kingdom of heaven. And what's especially fascinating about this book is that it's a best-selling piece of entertainment, even though it doesn't offer intellectual flexibility; it's pop art, but it has an amazingly strict perspective on what is right and what is wrong. In is built around interpretations of Paul's letters and the Book of Revelation, unquestionably the most f.u.c.ked-up part of the Bible (except maybe for the Book of Job). It's the epitome of a cautionary tale; every twist of its plot mechanics scream at the reader to realize that the clock is ticking, but it's not too late-there is still time to accept Jesus and exist forever in the kingdom of heaven. And what's especially fascinating about this book is that it's a best-selling piece of entertainment, even though it doesn't offer intellectual flexibility; it's pop art, but it has an amazingly strict perspective on what is right and what is wrong. In Left Behind, Left Behind, the only people who are accepted by G.o.d are those who would be cla.s.sified as fundamentalist wacko Jesus freaks with no intellectual credibility in modern society. Many of the the only people who are accepted by G.o.d are those who would be cla.s.sified as fundamentalist wacko Jesus freaks with no intellectual credibility in modern society. Many of the Left Behind Left Behind characters who aren't taken to heaven-in fact, almost all of them-seem like solid citizens (or-at worst-"normal" Americans). And that creates a weird sensation for the characters who aren't taken to heaven-in fact, almost all of them-seem like solid citizens (or-at worst-"normal" Americans). And that creates a weird sensation for the Left Behind Left Behind reader, because the post-Rapture earth initially seems like a better place to live. Everybody boring would be gone. One could a.s.sume that all the infidels who weren't teleported into G.o.d's kingdom must be pretty cool: All the guys would be drinkers and all the women would be easy, and you could make jokes about homeless people and teen suicide and crack babies without offending anyone. Quite frankly, my response to the opening pages of reader, because the post-Rapture earth initially seems like a better place to live. Everybody boring would be gone. One could a.s.sume that all the infidels who weren't teleported into G.o.d's kingdom must be pretty cool: All the guys would be drinkers and all the women would be easy, and you could make jokes about homeless people and teen suicide and crack babies without offending anyone. Quite frankly, my response to the opening pages of Left Behind Left Behind was "Sounds good to me." was "Sounds good to me."

Things in Left Behind Left Behind get disconcerting pretty rapidly, however, and part of what I found disconcerting was that its main character is a reporter named Buck Williams, which was also the name of a retired NBA power forward regularly described as the league's hardest worker. As a result, I kept imagining this bearded six-foot-nine black guy as the vortex of the story, which really wouldn't have been that much of a stretch, especially since the real Buck Williams was involved with the "Jammin' Against the Darkness" basketball ministry. If the Rapture came down tonight, I'm guessing Buck would be boxing out J.C. by breakfast. get disconcerting pretty rapidly, however, and part of what I found disconcerting was that its main character is a reporter named Buck Williams, which was also the name of a retired NBA power forward regularly described as the league's hardest worker. As a result, I kept imagining this bearded six-foot-nine black guy as the vortex of the story, which really wouldn't have been that much of a stretch, especially since the real Buck Williams was involved with the "Jammin' Against the Darkness" basketball ministry. If the Rapture came down tonight, I'm guessing Buck would be boxing out J.C. by breakfast.

A mind-numbing percentage of pro athletes are obsessed with G.o.d. According to an episode of Bryant Gumbel's Real Sports Real Sports on HBO, some studies suggest that as many as 40 percent of NFL players consider themselves "born again." This trend continues to baffle me, especially since it seems like an equal number of pro football players spend the entire off-season snorting c.o.ke off the thighs of Cuban prost.i.tutes and murdering their ex-girlfriends. on HBO, some studies suggest that as many as 40 percent of NFL players consider themselves "born again." This trend continues to baffle me, especially since it seems like an equal number of pro football players spend the entire off-season snorting c.o.ke off the thighs of Cuban prost.i.tutes and murdering their ex-girlfriends.

That notwithstanding, you can't ignore the relationship between pro sports and end-of-days theology, and its acceleration as an all-or-nothing way of life. In the 1970s, the template for a religious athlete was a player like Roger Staubach of the Dallas Cowboys, someone who was seen as religious simply because everybody knew he was Catholic. The contemporary roster for G.o.d's Squad is far more compet.i.tive; if you're the kind of fellow who'd be "left behind," you don't qualify. These are guys like Kurt Warner of the St. Louis Rams, a person who would consider being called a zealot complimentary.

Warner is an especially interesting case, because his decision to become "born again" appears to have helped his career as a football player. Here was a guy who couldn't make an NFL roster, was working in a grocery store, and was married to a dying woman. And then-inexplicably-his life completely turns around and he becomes the best quarterback in the NFL (and his wife lives!). Warner gives all the credit for this turnaround to his "almighty savior Jesus Christ," and that explanation seems no less plausible than any other explanation. In fact, I find that I sort of want to believe him. In the fourth quarter of Super Bowl x.x.xVI, Warner made a break for the end zone against the New England Patriots; at the time, the Rams were down 173, and it was fourth and goal. Warner was. .h.i.t at the one-yard line and fumbled, and a Patriot returned the ball ninety-nine yards for what seemed to be a gameclinching touchdown. However, this play was erased-quite possibly wiped clean by the hand of G.o.d. For no valid reason, Patriots linebacker Willie McGinest blatantly tackled Ram running back Marshall Faulk on the weak side of the play, forcing the referee to call defensive holding. I remember thinking to myself, "Holy s.h.i.t. That made no sense whatsoever. I guess G.o.d really does care about football." St. Louis retained possession and Warner scored two plays later, eventually tying the game with a touchdown pa.s.s to Ricky Proehl with under two minutes remaining.

I'm not sure why G.o.d would care about a football game, but he certainly seemed interested in this one. It looked like Warner's faith was tangibly affecting the outcome, which is a wonderful notion. However, New England ultimately won Super Bowl x.x.xVI on the final play-a forty-eight-yard field goal, kicked by a guy who grew up in South Dakota and is related to Evel Knievel. You can't question G.o.d, though: The following Monday, I happened to catch a few minutes of The 700 Club, The 700 Club, and a Patriot wide receiver was talking about how G.o.d is awesome. With compet.i.tive spirituality, it's always a push. and a Patriot wide receiver was talking about how G.o.d is awesome. With compet.i.tive spirituality, it's always a push.

Part of the never-ending weirdness surrounding Left Behind Left Behind was the 2000 movie version that starred Kirk Cameron, still best known as Mike Seaver from the ABC sitcom was the 2000 movie version that starred Kirk Cameron, still best known as Mike Seaver from the ABC sitcom Growing Pains Growing Pains. Cameron portrays the aforementioned Buck Williams, a famous broadcast journalist (this is a slight alteration from the book, where Williams is a famous magazine writer). If one views the literary version of Left Behind Left Behind to be mechanical and didactic, the film version would have to be cla.s.sified as boring and pedantic. But-once again-there's something oddly compelling about watching this narrative unfold, and it's mostly because of Kirk's mind-bending presence. to be mechanical and didactic, the film version would have to be cla.s.sified as boring and pedantic. But-once again-there's something oddly compelling about watching this narrative unfold, and it's mostly because of Kirk's mind-bending presence.

It's always peculiar when someone famous becomes ultrareligious (Prince being the most obvious example), but it's especially strange when he or she actively tries to advocate advocate their religiosity. Cameron says he became a "believer" when he was eventeen or eighteen, but n.o.body really cared until he got involved with their religiosity. Cameron says he became a "believer" when he was eventeen or eighteen, but n.o.body really cared until he got involved with Left Behind Left Behind and suddenly became the biggest Christian movie star in America (which-truth be told-is kind of like being the most successful heroin dealer on the campus of Brigham Young University). His wife is also in and suddenly became the biggest Christian movie star in America (which-truth be told-is kind of like being the most successful heroin dealer on the campus of Brigham Young University). His wife is also in Left Behind, Left Behind, and she portrays a (relatively) immoral flight attendant named Hattie Durham. and she portrays a (relatively) immoral flight attendant named Hattie Durham.

When interviewed about Left Behind Left Behind when it was first released, Cameron usually played things pretty close to the vest and always stressed that he wanted the film to deliver a point of view about the Bible, but also to work as a commercially compet.i.tive secular thriller. However, I did find this mildly controversial exchange from an interview Cameron did with some guy named Robin Parrish on a Christian music site operated by about.com: when it was first released, Cameron usually played things pretty close to the vest and always stressed that he wanted the film to deliver a point of view about the Bible, but also to work as a commercially compet.i.tive secular thriller. However, I did find this mildly controversial exchange from an interview Cameron did with some guy named Robin Parrish on a Christian music site operated by about.com: How accurate do you think Left Behind Left Behind is? I mean obviously, there won't be a real-life Buck or Hattie or whoever. But the events that transpire in the story, how accurate do you think they are? is? I mean obviously, there won't be a real-life Buck or Hattie or whoever. But the events that transpire in the story, how accurate do you think they are? The movie or the book? The movie or the book?

Both.

I think one of the most appealing aspects of the Left Behind Left Behind story is that these are events that could be happening today or tomorrow. It's very realistic. The events that happen in the story parallel, I think very realistically, the events depicted in the Bible. And whether you're a pre-Trib Rapture believer, or a mid-Trib, or a post-Trib... story is that these are events that could be happening today or tomorrow. It's very realistic. The events that happen in the story parallel, I think very realistically, the events depicted in the Bible. And whether you're a pre-Trib Rapture believer, or a mid-Trib, or a post-Trib...

Yeah, is there anything that people who don't don't believe in a pre-Tribulation Rapture can take away from this movie? believe in a pre-Tribulation Rapture can take away from this movie?

I'd encourage those people to take a look at the Left Behind Left Behind film project Web site, which has answers to those kinds of questions. You know... I'm not a pre-Trib or post-Trib expert at defending this kind of stuff, but personally I think the movie is very accurate and in line with the Bible. There are some things in prophecy that we're just going to have to wait and see how they happen, that we're not going to really know until they do. The Bible says that Jesus is coming soon though, so I think more important than the pre-Trib or post-Trib debate is all of us being ready before either one happens. film project Web site, which has answers to those kinds of questions. You know... I'm not a pre-Trib or post-Trib expert at defending this kind of stuff, but personally I think the movie is very accurate and in line with the Bible. There are some things in prophecy that we're just going to have to wait and see how they happen, that we're not going to really know until they do. The Bible says that Jesus is coming soon though, so I think more important than the pre-Trib or post-Trib debate is all of us being ready before either one happens.

Now, I have no real understanding of what a "pre-Tribulation Rapture" is supposed to signify symbolically; it refers to a Rapture that happens before the technical apocalypse, but I'm not exactly sure how that would be better or worse than a "mid-Tribulation" or "post-Tribulation" Rapture. Honestly, I don't think it's important. However, this point is is important: Kirk Cameron thinks the idea of 100 million Christians suddenly disappearing is "very realistic." And I don't mention this to mock him; I mention this because it's the kind of realization that significantly changes the experience of watching this movie. In the film, Buck Williams goes from being a normal, successful person to someone who ardently wants the world to realize that there is no future for the unholy and that we must prepare for the political incarnation of Satan; apparently, the exact same thing happened to Cameron important: Kirk Cameron thinks the idea of 100 million Christians suddenly disappearing is "very realistic." And I don't mention this to mock him; I mention this because it's the kind of realization that significantly changes the experience of watching this movie. In the film, Buck Williams goes from being a normal, successful person to someone who ardently wants the world to realize that there is no future for the unholy and that we must prepare for the political incarnation of Satan; apparently, the exact same thing happened to Cameron in in real life real life. In his mind, he has made a docudrama about a historical event that merely hasn't happened yet. This is not a former teen actor forced to star in an amateurish production because he needs the money; this is a former teen actor who consciously pursued an amateurish production with the hope of saving mankind. Relatively speaking, all those years he spent with Alan Thicke and Tracey Gold must seem like total s.h.i.t.

There is something undeniably attractive about becoming a born-again Christian. I hear atheists say that all the time, although they inevitably make that suggestion in the most insulting way possible: Nothing offends me more than those who claim they wish they could become blindly religious because it would "make everything so simple." People who make that argument are trying to convince the world that they're somehow doomed by their own intelligence, and that they'd love to be as stupid as all the thoughtless automatons they condescendingly despise. That is not what I find appealing about the Born-Again Lifestyle. Personally, I think becoming a born-again Christian would be really cool, at least for a while. It would sort of be like joining the Crips or the Mossad or Fugazi.

Every rational person will tell you that all the world's problems ultimately derive from disputes that are perceived by the warring parties as "Us vs. Them." That seems sensible, but I don't know if it's necessarily true; all my problems come from the opposite scenario. I was far more interesting-and probably smarter, in a way-when I refused to recognize the existence of the color gray in my black-and-white universe. When I was twenty-one, I was adamantly anti-abortion and antideath penalty; these were very clear ideas to me. However, things have since happened in my life, and now I have no feelings about either issue. And I'm sincere about that; I really have no opinion about abortion or the death penalty. Somehow, they don't even seem important. But that's what happens whenever you start to understand that most things cannot be emotively understood: You're able to make better conversation over snifters of brandy, but you become an unfeeling idiot. You go from believing believing in objective reality to in objective reality to suspecting suspecting an objective reality exists; eventually, you start trying to make objectivity mesh with situational ethics, since every situation now seems unique. And then someone tells you that situational ethics is actually an oxymoron, since the idea of ethics is that these are things you do an objective reality exists; eventually, you start trying to make objectivity mesh with situational ethics, since every situation now seems unique. And then someone tells you that situational ethics is actually an oxymoron, since the idea of ethics is that these are things you do all the time, all the time, regardless of the situation. And pretty soon you find yourself in a circ.u.mstance where someone asks you if you believe that life begins at conception, and you find yourself changing the subject to NASCAR racing. regardless of the situation. And pretty soon you find yourself in a circ.u.mstance where someone asks you if you believe that life begins at conception, and you find yourself changing the subject to NASCAR racing.

This is not a problem for the born again. There are no other subjects, really; nothing else-besides being born again-is even marginally important. Every moment of your life is a search-and-rescue mission: Everyone you meet needs to be converted and anyone you don't convert is going to h.e.l.l, and you will be partially at fault for their scorched corpse. Life would become unspeakably important, and every conversation you'd have for the rest of your life (or until the Rapture-whichever comes first) would really, really, really really matter. If you ask me, that's pretty glamorous. And matter. If you ask me, that's pretty glamorous. And Left Behind Left Behind pushes that paradigm relentlessly. Another one of its primary characters-airline pilot Rayford Steele-becomes born again after he loses his wife and twelve-year-old son. However, his skeptical college-aged daughter Chloe doesn't make G.o.d's cut, so much of the text revolves around his attempts to convert Chloe to "The Way." And the main psychological hurdle Steele must overcome is the fact that he's not an obtrusive jacka.s.s, which pushes that paradigm relentlessly. Another one of its primary characters-airline pilot Rayford Steele-becomes born again after he loses his wife and twelve-year-old son. However, his skeptical college-aged daughter Chloe doesn't make G.o.d's cut, so much of the text revolves around his attempts to convert Chloe to "The Way." And the main psychological hurdle Steele must overcome is the fact that he's not an obtrusive jacka.s.s, which Left Behind Left Behind says we all need to become. " says we all need to become. "Here I am, worried about offending people," Rayford thinks to himself at the beginning of chapter 19. "I'm liable to 'not offend' my own daughter right into h.e.l.l." The stakes are too high to concern oneself with manners.

This is ultimately what I like about the Born-Again Lifestyle: Even though I see fundamentalist Christians as wild-eyed maniacs, I respect their verve. They are probably the only people openly fighting against America's insipid Oprah Culture-the pervasive belief system that insists everyone's perspective is valid and that no one can be judged. As far as I can tell, most people I know are like me; most of the people I know are bad people (or they're good people, but they consciously choose to do bad things). We deserve deserve to be judged. to be judged.

I realize that liberals and libertarians and Michael Stipe are always quick to quote the Bible when you say something like that, and they'll tell you, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." And that's a solid retort for just about anything, really. But the thing with born agains is that they want want to be judged. They can't f.u.c.king wait. That's why they're cool. to be judged. They can't f.u.c.king wait. That's why they're cool.

As I just mentioned, Rayford Steele loses his young son in Left Behind Left Behind's Rapture. As it turns out, every young child in this book vanishes, including infants in the process of being born. This is to indicate that they are "innocents" and have done no wrong. And oddly, this was the aspect of Left Behind Left Behind I found most distasteful. I found most distasteful.

First of all, it kind of contradicts the book's premise, since we are constantly told that the ONLY way to get into heaven is to accept Christ, which no four-year-old (much less a four-month-old) could possibly comprehend. Granted, this is mostly a technicality, and I'm sure it's intentional (for most exclusivist born-again groups, the technicalities are everything; the technicalities are what save you). But my larger issue is philosophical: Why do we a.s.sume all children are inherently innocent? Innocent of what? I mean, any grammar school teacher will tell you that "kids can be cruel" on the playground; the average third-grader will gleefully walk up to a six-year-old with hydrocephalus and ask, "What's wrong with you, Big Head?" And that third-grader knows what he's doing is evil. He knows it's hurtful. Little boys torture cats and cute little girls humiliate fat little girls, and they know it's wrong. They do it because because it's wrong. Sometimes I think children are the worst people alive. And even if they're not-even if some smiling toddler is as pure as Evian-it's only a matter of time. He'll eventually become the fifty-year-old car salesman who we'll all a.s.sume is morally bankrupt until he proves otherwise. it's wrong. Sometimes I think children are the worst people alive. And even if they're not-even if some smiling toddler is as pure as Evian-it's only a matter of time. He'll eventually become the fifty-year-old car salesman who we'll all a.s.sume is morally bankrupt until he proves otherwise.

As far as I can tell, the nicest thing you can say about children is that they haven't done anything terrible yet yet.

So let's get to the core question in Left Behind Left Behind: If the Rapture happened tonight, who gets called up to the Big Show? Judging from the text, the answer is "No one I know, and probably no one who would read this essay." Left Behind Left Behind is pretty clear about this, and the authors go to great lengths to ill.u.s.trate how many of the people pa.s.sed over by G.o.d are fair, moral, and-for the most part-more heroic than prototypical humans. This is a direct reflection of the primary audience for hard-core Christian literature; one a.s.sumes those readers would typically possess those same characteristics and simply need a little literary push to become "higher" Christians. is pretty clear about this, and the authors go to great lengths to ill.u.s.trate how many of the people pa.s.sed over by G.o.d are fair, moral, and-for the most part-more heroic than prototypical humans. This is a direct reflection of the primary audience for hard-core Christian literature; one a.s.sumes those readers would typically possess those same characteristics and simply need a little literary push to become "higher" Christians.

The best example in Left Behind Left Behind is Rayford Steele, the person with whom we're evidently supposed to "relate." Buck Williams is the star and the catalyst (especially in the film version), but his main purpose is to move the plot along and provide the conflict. It's through Rayford that we are supposed to understand the novel's theme and experience. The theme is that you're good, but being good is not enough; the experience is that you cannot be saved until you allow yourself to surrender to faith, even though that's not really how it works for Rayford. is Rayford Steele, the person with whom we're evidently supposed to "relate." Buck Williams is the star and the catalyst (especially in the film version), but his main purpose is to move the plot along and provide the conflict. It's through Rayford that we are supposed to understand the novel's theme and experience. The theme is that you're good, but being good is not enough; the experience is that you cannot be saved until you allow yourself to surrender to faith, even though that's not really how it works for Rayford.

On the very first page of Left Behind, Left Behind, we learn that Rayford has a bad marriage, and it's because his wife had developed an "obsession" with religion. We also learn that-twelve years prior-Rayford drunkenly kissed another woman at the company Christmas party and has never really forgiven himself. However, that guilt does not stop him from secretly l.u.s.ting after the aforementioned Hattie Durham, even though he never actually touches her (interestingly enough, Rayford and Hattie do have a physical relationship in the film version of we learn that Rayford has a bad marriage, and it's because his wife had developed an "obsession" with religion. We also learn that-twelve years prior-Rayford drunkenly kissed another woman at the company Christmas party and has never really forgiven himself. However, that guilt does not stop him from secretly l.u.s.ting after the aforementioned Hattie Durham, even though he never actually touches her (interestingly enough, Rayford and Hattie do have a physical relationship in the film version of Left Behind, Left Behind, presumably because director Victor Sarin didn't think moviegoers would buy the whole Jimmy Carter "I've l.u.s.ted in my heart" sentiment). presumably because director Victor Sarin didn't think moviegoers would buy the whole Jimmy Carter "I've l.u.s.ted in my heart" sentiment).

Suffice it to say that Rayford would generally be described as a very decent person in the secular universe, which is how most Left Behind Left Behind readers would likely view themselves. However, he can't see the espoused "larger truth," which is that there is only a future for those who take the Kierkegaardian leap and believe everything the Bible states (and as literally as possible). readers would likely view themselves. However, he can't see the espoused "larger truth," which is that there is only a future for those who take the Kierkegaardian leap and believe everything the Bible states (and as literally as possible).

Rayford can't do this until his life is destroyed, so his conversion isn't all that remarkable (it actually seems like the most reasonable decision, considering the circ.u.mstances). In many ways, this is the book's most glaring flaw: It demands blind faith from the reader, but it ill.u.s.trates faith as a response to terror. And since Left Behind Left Behind isn't a metaphor-it presents itself as a fictionalized account of what isn't a metaphor-it presents itself as a fictionalized account of what will will happen, according to the Book of Revelation-the justification for embracing Jesus mostly seems like a scare tactic. It's not a sophisticated reason for believing in G.o.d. happen, according to the Book of Revelation-the justification for embracing Jesus mostly seems like a scare tactic. It's not a sophisticated reason for believing in G.o.d.

Of course, that's also the point: There is no sophisticated reason for believing in anything supernatural, so it really comes down to believing you're right. This is another example of how born agains are cool-you'd think they'd be humble, but they've got to be amazingly c.o.c.ksure. And once you've crossed over, you don't even have to try to be nice; according to the born-again exemplar, your goodness will be a natural extension of your salvation. Caring about orphans and helping the homeless will come as naturally as having s.e.x with coworkers and stealing office supplies. If you consciously do good works out of obligation, you'll never get into heaven; however, if you make G.o.d your proverbial copilot, doing good works will just become an unconscious part of your life.

I guess that's probably the moment where I just stop accepting all this born-again bulls.h.i.t, no matter how hard I try to remain open-minded. Though I obviously have no proof of this, the one aspect of life that seems clear to me is that good people do whatever they believe is the right thing to do. Being virtuous is hard, not easy. The idea of doing good things simply because you're good seems like a zero-sum game; I'm not even sure if those actions would still qualify as "good," since they'd merely be a function of normal behavior. Regardless of what kind of G.o.d you believe in-a loving G.o.d, a vengeful G.o.d, a capricious G.o.d, a snooty beret-wearing French G.o.d, whatever-one has to a.s.sume that you can't be penalized for doing the things you believe to be truly righteous and just. Certainly, this creates some pretty glaring problems: Hitler may have thought he was serving G.o.d. Stalin may have thought he was serving G.o.d (or something vaguely similar). I'm certain Osama bin Laden was positive positive he was serving G.o.d. It's not hard to fathom that all of those maniacs were certain that what they were doing was right. Meanwhile, I he was serving G.o.d. It's not hard to fathom that all of those maniacs were certain that what they were doing was right. Meanwhile, I constantly constantly do things that I do things that I know know are wrong; they're not on the same scale as incinerating Jews or blowing up skysc.r.a.pers, but my motivations might be worse. I have looked directly into the eyes of a woman I loved and told her lies for no reason, except that those lies would allow me to continue having s.e.x with another woman I cared about less. This act did not kill 20 million Russian peasants, but it might be more "diabolical" in a literal sense. If I died and found out I was going to h.e.l.l and Stalin was in heaven, I would note the irony, but I really couldn't complain. I don't make the f.u.c.king rules. are wrong; they're not on the same scale as incinerating Jews or blowing up skysc.r.a.pers, but my motivations might be worse. I have looked directly into the eyes of a woman I loved and told her lies for no reason, except that those lies would allow me to continue having s.e.x with another woman I cared about less. This act did not kill 20 million Russian peasants, but it might be more "diabolical" in a literal sense. If I died and found out I was going to h.e.l.l and Stalin was in heaven, I would note the irony, but I really couldn't complain. I don't make the f.u.c.king rules.

Just to cover all my doomed bases, I watched a few other apocalyptic movies after Left Behind Left Behind: I rented The Omega Code The Omega Code and revisited and revisited The Rapture The Rapture. The latter film-a 1991 movie starring Mimi Rogers-was a polarizing attempt to make the end of the world into a conventionally entertaining film, and I still think it's among the decade's more interesting movies (at least for its first seventy-five minutes). The Rapture The Rapture opens with Rogers as a bored s.e.x addict, and it ends with her dragging her child into the desert to wait for G.o.d's wrath. Part of the reason so many critics like this film is because writer/director Michael Tolkin "goes all the way" and resists the temptation to end the film with an unclear conclusion. That's commendable, but I wonder what the response would have been if Rogers didn't question G.o.d at the very end; her character essentially wants to know why G.o.d plays with people like p.a.w.ns and created a totally f.u.c.ked world when making a utopia would have been just as easy (and though I realize these are not exactly the most profound of existential questions, it's hard to deny that they're not the most important ones, either). opens with Rogers as a bored s.e.x addict, and it ends with her dragging her child into the desert to wait for G.o.d's wrath. Part of the reason so many critics like this film is because writer/director Michael Tolkin "goes all the way" and resists the temptation to end the film with an unclear conclusion. That's commendable, but I wonder what the response would have been if Rogers didn't question G.o.d at the very end; her character essentially wants to know why G.o.d plays with people like p.a.w.ns and created a totally f.u.c.ked world when making a utopia would have been just as easy (and though I realize these are not exactly the most profound of existential questions, it's hard to deny that they're not the most important ones, either).

Within the scope of mainstream filmmaking-it was released on the same day as the Joe Pesci vehicle The Super The Super-The Rapture clearly seems like a religious movie. But it's really not, because it doesn't have a religious point of view. When push comes to shove, Tolkin's script adopts a staunchly humanistic take: The Mimi Rogers character asks G.o.d why his universe doesn't make sense. Like most people, she thinks life should be a democracy and that G.o.d should behave like an altruistic politician who acts in our best interests. You hear this all the time; critics of organized religion constantly say things like, "There is no way a just G.o.d would send a man like Gandhi to h.e.l.l simply because he's not a Christian." Well, why not? I'm certainly pulling for Gandhi's eternal salvation, but there's no reason to believe there's a logic to the afterlife selection process. It clearly seems like a religious movie. But it's really not, because it doesn't have a religious point of view. When push comes to shove, Tolkin's script adopts a staunchly humanistic take: The Mimi Rogers character asks G.o.d why his universe doesn't make sense. Like most people, she thinks life should be a democracy and that G.o.d should behave like an altruistic politician who acts in our best interests. You hear this all the time; critics of organized religion constantly say things like, "There is no way a just G.o.d would send a man like Gandhi to h.e.l.l simply because he's not a Christian." Well, why not? I'm certainly pulling for Gandhi's eternal salvation, but there's no reason to believe there's a logic to the afterlife selection process. It might might be logical, and it be logical, and it might might be arbitrary; in a way, it would be more logical if it was be arbitrary; in a way, it would be more logical if it was totally totally arbitrary. But the idea of questioning G.o.d's motives will always be a fiercely American thing to do; it's almost patriotic to get in G.o.d's face. I'm pretty sure a lot of my friends would love the opportunity to vote against G.o.d in a run-off election. Even I'd be curious to see who the other candidate might be (probably Harry Browne). arbitrary. But the idea of questioning G.o.d's motives will always be a fiercely American thing to do; it's almost patriotic to get in G.o.d's face. I'm pretty sure a lot of my friends would love the opportunity to vote against G.o.d in a run-off election. Even I'd be curious to see who the other candidate might be (probably Harry Browne).

In contrast, 1999's The Omega Code The Omega Code is much like is much like Left Behind Left Behind in that it doesn't really offer any options besides buying into the whole born-again credit union. Since both stories are so dogged about the Book of Revelation, they share lots of plot points (i.e., two Israeli prophets screaming about the Second Coming, the construction of a church on The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, a miracle agricultural product that will end world hunger, etc.). The main difference is that in that it doesn't really offer any options besides buying into the whole born-again credit union. Since both stories are so dogged about the Book of Revelation, they share lots of plot points (i.e., two Israeli prophets screaming about the Second Coming, the construction of a church on The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, a miracle agricultural product that will end world hunger, etc.). The main difference is that The Omega Code The Omega Code has ties with Michael Drosnin's has ties with Michael Drosnin's The Bible Code, The Bible Code, arguably the goofiest book I've ever purchased in a lesbian bookstore. Drosnin's book claims the Torah is actually a three-dimensional crossword puzzle that predicted (among other things) the a.s.sa.s.sination of Yitzhak Rabin; more importantly, it allows computer specialists to learn just about anything-the date of the coming nuclear war (2006), the coming California earthquake (2010), and the best Rush alb.u.m ( arguably the goofiest book I've ever purchased in a lesbian bookstore. Drosnin's book claims the Torah is actually a three-dimensional crossword puzzle that predicted (among other things) the a.s.sa.s.sination of Yitzhak Rabin; more importantly, it allows computer specialists to learn just about anything-the date of the coming nuclear war (2006), the coming California earthquake (2010), and the best Rush alb.u.m (2112). I have no idea why I bought this book (or why it was a.s.sumed to be of specific interest to lesbians), but it forms the narrative thread for The Omega Code, The Omega Code, a movie that was actually less watchable than a movie that was actually less watchable than Left Behind Left Behind. Surprisingly, The Omega Code The Omega Code earned about three times as much as earned about three times as much as Left Behind Left Behind ($12.6 million to $4.2 million), even though it was made with a much smaller budget ($8 million and $17.4 million, respectively). ($12.6 million to $4.2 million), even though it was made with a much smaller budget ($8 million and $17.4 million, respectively).

I'm not sure why The Omega Code The Omega Code made more at the box office than made more at the box office than Left Behind Left Behind; it's kind of like trying to deduce why Armageddon Armageddon grossed more than grossed more than Deep Impact Deep Impact. But the most plausible explanation is that Left Behind Left Behind tried a marketing gamble that failed: It was released on video before it was released in theaters. At the end of the VHS version of tried a marketing gamble that failed: It was released on video before it was released in theaters. At the end of the VHS version of Left Behind, Left Behind, there is a "special message" from Kirk Cameron. Kirk appears to be standing in the Amazon rain forest while explaining why the movie went to Blockbuster before it went to theaters. "You are part of a very select group," Cameron tells us, "and that group makes up less than one percent of the country... [but] what about the other 99 percent of the country?" The scheme by there is a "special message" from Kirk Cameron. Kirk appears to be standing in the Amazon rain forest while explaining why the movie went to Blockbuster before it went to theaters. "You are part of a very select group," Cameron tells us, "and that group makes up less than one percent of the country... [but] what about the other 99 percent of the country?" The scheme by Left Behind Left Behind's production company (an organization that calls itself Cloud 10) was to have every core reader of Left Behind Left Behind see the film in their living room in the winter of 1999 and then instruct each person to demand it be played theatrically in every city in America when it was officially released on February 2, 2000. "We need you to literally tell everyone you know," Kirk stressed in his video message. see the film in their living room in the winter of 1999 and then instruct each person to demand it be played theatrically in every city in America when it was officially released on February 2, 2000. "We need you to literally tell everyone you know," Kirk stressed in his video message.

I was working as the film critic for the Akron Beacon Journal Akron Beacon Journal in early 2000, and-all during January-I kept getting phone calls from strangers, telling me I needed to write a story about some upcoming movie that I had never heard of; I've now come to realize that these were in early 2000, and-all during January-I kept getting phone calls from strangers, telling me I needed to write a story about some upcoming movie that I had never heard of; I've now come to realize that these were Left Behind Left Behind people. I can't recall if the film ever opened in Akron or not. Regardless, there is a part of me that would like to see this as an example of how people. I can't recall if the film ever opened in Akron or not. Regardless, there is a part of me that would like to see this as an example of how Left Behind Left Behind is different from other kinds of entertainment. Its audience truly felt it had a social and spiritual import that far exceeded everything else that opened that same weekend (such as Freddie Prinze Jr.'s is different from other kinds of entertainment. Its audience truly felt it had a social and spiritual import that far exceeded everything else that opened that same weekend (such as Freddie Prinze Jr.'s Head Over Heels Head Over Heels). And I'm sure that some of the people who called me that January truly did believe that a Kirk Cameron flick could save the world, and that it was their vocation to make sure all the sinners in suburban Ohio became aware of its existence.

However, I can't ignore my sinking suspicion that the makers of this movie merely a.s.sumed their best hope for commercial success was to manipulate the very people who never needed a movie or a book to learn how to love Jesus. They took people who wanted to rescue my soul and turned them into publicists. Which makes me think the people at Cloud 10 are probably a few tiers below Stalin, too.

There are eleven books in the Left Behind Left Behind series, and many have excellent subt.i.tles like series, and many have excellent subt.i.tles like The Destroyer Is Unleashed The Destroyer Is Unleashed and and The Beast Takes Possession, The Beast Takes Possession, both of which may have been Ronnie James Dio records. I am not going to read any more of them, mostly because I know how they're going to end. I mean, doesn't everybody? I went back and read the Book of Revelations, which doesn't make much sense except for the conclusion-that's where it implicitly states that Jesus is "coming soon." Of course, Jesus operates within the idiom of infinity, so "soon" might be 30 billion years. Sometimes I find myself wishing that the world would end in my lifetime, since that would be oddly flattering; we'd all be part of humanity's apex. That's about as great an accomplishment as I can hope for, since I just don't see how I will possibly get into heaven, Rapture or otherwise. both of which may have been Ronnie James Dio records. I am not going to read any more of them, mostly because I know how they're going to end. I mean, doesn't everybody? I went back and read the Book of Revelations, which doesn't make much sense except for the conclusion-that's where it implicitly states that Jesus is "coming soon." Of course, Jesus operates within the idiom of infinity, so "soon" might be 30 billion years. Sometimes I find myself wishing that the world would end in my lifetime, since that would be oddly flattering; we'd all be part of humanity's apex. That's about as great an accomplishment as I can hope for, since I just don't see how I will possibly get into heaven, Rapture or otherwise.

When I was a little boy, I used to be very thankful that I was born Catholic. At the time, my Catholicism seemed like an outrageous bit of good fortune, since I considered every other religion to be fake (I considered Lutherans and Methodists akin to USFL franchises). Over time, my opinions on such things have evolved. But quite suddenly, I once again find myself thankful for Catholicism, or at least thankful for its more dogmatic principles. I'm hoping all those nuns were right: I'm angling for purgatory, and I'm angling hard.

CALL ME "LIZARD KING." NO ... REALLY. I INSIST.

When I was leaving Val Kilmer's ranch house, he gave me a present. He found a two-page poem he had written about a melancholy farmer, and he ripped it out of the book it was in (in 1988, Val apparently published a book of free-verse poetry called My Edens After Burns My Edens After Burns). He taped the two pages of poetry onto a piece of cardboard and autographed it, which I did not ask him to do. "This is my gift to you," he said. I still possess this gift. Whenever I stumble across those two pages, I reread Val Kilmer's poem. Its theme is somewhat murky. In fact, I can't even tell if the writing is decent or terrible; I've asked four other people to a.n.a.lyze its merits, and the jury remain polarized. But this is what I will always wonder: Why did Val Kilmer give me this this poem? Why didn't he just give me the entire book? Was Kilmer trying to tell me something? poem? Why didn't he just give me the entire book? Was Kilmer trying to tell me something?

The man did not lack confidence.

CRAZY THINGS SEEM NORMAL, NORMAL THINGS SEEM CRAZY (JULY 2005)

"I just like looking at them," Val Kilmer tells me as we stare at his bison. "I liked looking at them when I was a kid, and I like looking at them now." The two buffalo are behind a fence, twenty-five feet away. A 1,500-pound bull stares back at us, bored and tired; he stomps his right hoof, turns 180 degrees, and defecates in our general direction. "Obviously, we are not seeing these particular buffalo at their most n.o.ble of moments," Kilmer adds, "but I still like looking at them. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I'm part Cherokee. There was such a relationship between the buffalo and the American Indian-the Indians would eat them, live inside their pelts, use every part of the body. There was almost no separation between the people and the animal."

Val Kilmer tells me he used to own a dozen buffalo, but now he's down to two. Val says he named one of these remaining two ungulates James Brown, because it likes to spin around in circles and looks like the kind of beast who might beat up his wife. I have been talking to Kilmer for approximately three minutes; it's 5:20 P.M. on April Fool's Day. Twenty-four hours ago, I was preparing to fly to Los Angeles to interview Kilmer on the Sunset Strip; this was because Val was supposedly leaving for Switzerland (for four months) on April 3. Late last night, these plans changed entirely: suddenly, Val was not going to be in L.A. Instead, I was instructed to fly to New Mexico, where someone would pick me up at the Albuquerque airport and drive me to his 6,000-acre ranch. However, when I arrived in Albuquerque this afternoon, I received a voicemail on my cell phone; I was now told to rent a car and drive to the ranch myself. Curiously, his ranch is not outside Albuquerque (which I a.s.sumed would be the case, particularly since Val himself suggested I fly into the Albuquerque airport). His ranch is actually outside of Santa Fe, which is seventy-three miles away. He's also no longer going to Switzerland; now he's going to London.

The drive to Santa Fe on I-25 is mildly Zen: there are public road signs that say "Gusty Winds May Exist." This seems more like lazy philosophy than travel advice. When I arrive in New Mexico's capital city, I discover that Kilmer's ranch is still another thirty minutes away, and the directions on how to arrive there are a little confusing; it takes at least forty-five minutes before I find the gate to his estate. The gate is closed. There is no one around for miles, the sky is huge, and my cell phone no longer works; this, I suppose, is where the buffalo roam (and where roaming rates apply). I locate an intercom phone outside the green steel gate, but most of the numbers don't work. When an anonymous male voice finally responds to my desperate pleas for service, he is terse. "Who are you meeting?" the voice mechanically barks. "What is this regarding?" I tell him I am a reporter, and that I am there to find Val Kilmer, and that Mr. Kilmer knows I am coming. There is a pause, and then he says something I don't really understand: "Someone will meet you at the bridge!" The gate swings open automatically, and I drive through its opening. I expect the main residence to be near the entrance, but it is not; I drive at least two miles on a gravel road. Eventually, I cross a wooden bridge and park the vehicle. I see a man driving toward me on a camouflaged ATV four-wheeler. The man looks like a cross between Jeff Bridges and Thomas Haden Church, which means that this is the man I am looking for. He parks next to my rental car; I roll down the window. He is smiling, and his teeth are huge. I find myself staring at them.

"Welcome to the West," the teeth say. "I'm Val Kilmer. Would you like to see the buffalo?"

"I've never been that comfortable talking about myself, or about acting," the forty-five-year-old Kilmer says. It's 7:00 P.M. We are now sitting in his lodge, which is more rustic than I antic.i.p.ated. We are surrounded by unfinished wood and books about trout fishing, and an African kudu head hangs from the wall. There seem to be a lot of hoofed animals on this ranch, and many of them are dead. Kilmer's friendly ranch hand (a fortyish woman named Pam Sawyer) has just given me a plateful of Mexican food I never really wanted, so Val is eating it for me. He is explaining why he almost never gives interviews and why he doesn't like talking about himself, presumably because I am interviewing him and he is about to talk about himself for the next four hours. "For quite a while, I thought that it didn't really matter if I defended myself [to journalists], so a lot of things kind of s...o...b..lled when I didn't rebuke them. And I mainly didn't do a lot of interviews because they're hard, and I was sort of super-concerned. When you're young, you're always concerned about how you're being seen and how you're being criticized."

I have not come to New Mexico to criticize Val Kilmer. However, he seems almost disturbingly certain of that fact, which is partially why he invited me here. Several months ago, I wrote a column where I made a pa.s.sing reference about Kilmer being "Advanced."1 What this means is that I find Kilmer's persona compelling, and that I think he makes choices other actors would never consider, and that he is probably my favorite working actor. This is all true. However, Kilmer took this column to mean that I am his biggest fan on the planet, and that he can trust me entirely, and that I am among his closest friends. From the moment we look at his buffalo, he is completely relaxed and cooperative; he immediately introduces me to his children, Mercedes (age thirteen) and Jack (age ten). They live with their British mother (Kilmer's ex-wife Joanne Whalley, his costar from What this means is that I find Kilmer's persona compelling, and that I think he makes choices other actors would never consider, and that he is probably my favorite working actor. This is all true. However, Kilmer took this column to mean that I am his biggest fan on the planet, and that he can trust me entirely, and that I am among his closest friends. From the moment we look at his buffalo, he is completely relaxed and cooperative; he immediately introduces me to his children, Mercedes (age thirteen) and Jack (age ten). They live with their British mother (Kilmer's ex-wife Joanne Whalley, his costar from Willow Willow) in Los Angeles, but they apparently spend a great chunk of time on this ranch; they love it here, despite the fact that it doesn't have a decent television. Along with the bison, the farmstead includes horses, a dog, two cats, and (as of this afternoon) five baby chickens, one of which will be eaten by a cat before the night is over. The Kilmer clan is animal crazy; the house smells like a veterinarian's office. Jack is predominantly consumed with the chicks in the kitchen and the trampoline in the backyard. Mercedes is an artist and a John Lennon fan; she seems a little too smart to be thirteen. When I ask her what her favorite Val Kilmer movie is, she says, "Oh, probably Batman Forever, Batman Forever, but only because it seems like it was secretly made by Andrew Lloyd Webber." but only because it seems like it was secretly made by Andrew Lloyd Webber."

For the first forty-five minutes I am there, the five of us-Kilmer, his two kids, Pam the ranch hand, and myself-occupy the main room of the ranch house and try to make casual conversation, which is kind of like making conversation with friendly strangers in a wooden airport. Mercedes has a lot of questions about why Kilmer is "Advanced," and Val mentions how much he enjoys repeating the word Advanced Advanced over and over and over again. He tells me about an over and over and over again. He tells me about an Afterschool Special Afterschool Special he made in 1983 called he made in 1983 called One Too Many, One Too Many, where he played a teenage alcoholic alongside Mare Winningham (his first teenage girlfriend) and Mich.e.l.le Pfeiffer (a woman he would later write poetry for). I mention that he seems to play a lot of roles where he's a drug-addled drunk, and he agrees that this is true. In fact, before I got here, I unconsciously a.s.sumed Val would be a drug-addled drunk during this interview, since every story I've ever heard about Kilmer implies that he's completely crazy; he supposedly burned a cameraman with a cigarette on the set of where he played a teenage alcoholic alongside Mare Winningham (his first teenage girlfriend) and Mich.e.l.le Pfeiffer (a woman he would later write poetry for). I mention that he seems to play a lot of roles where he's a drug-addled drunk, and he agrees that this is true. In fact, before I got here, I unconsciously a.s.sumed Val would be a drug-addled drunk during this interview, since every story I've ever heard about Kilmer implies that he's completely crazy; he supposedly burned a cameraman with a cigarette on the set of The Island of Dr. Moreau. The Island of Dr. Moreau. There are a few directors (most notably Joel Schumacher) who continue to paint him as the most egocentric, unreasonable human in Hollywood. As far as I can tell, this cannot possibly be accurate. If I had to describe Kilmer's personality in one word (and if I couldn't use the word There are a few directors (most notably Joel Schumacher) who continue to paint him as the most egocentric, unreasonable human in Hollywood. As far as I can tell, this cannot possibly be accurate. If I had to describe Kilmer's personality in one word (and if I couldn't use the word Advanced Advanced), I would have to employ the least incendiary of all potential modifiers: Val Kilmer is nice. nice. The worst thing I could say about him is that he's kind of a name-dropper; beyond that, he seems like an affable fellow with a good sense of humor, and he is totally not f.u.c.ked up. The worst thing I could say about him is that he's kind of a name-dropper; beyond that, he seems like an affable fellow with a good sense of humor, and he is totally not f.u.c.ked up.

But he is weird. weird.

He's weird in ways that are expected, and he's weird in ways that are not. I antic.i.p.ated that he might seem a little odd when we talked about the art of acting, mostly because (a) Kilmer is a Method actor, and (b) all Method actors are insane. However, I did not realize how much insanity this process truly required. That started to become clear when I asked him about The Doors The Doors and and Wonderland, Wonderland, two movies where Kilmer portrays self-destructive drug addicts with an acute degree of realism; there is a scene late in two movies where Kilmer portrays self-destructive drug addicts with an acute degree of realism; there is a scene late in Wonderland Wonderland where he wordlessly (and desperately) waits for someone to offer him cocaine in a manner that seems painfully authentic. I ask if he ever went through a drug phase for real. He says no. He says he's never freebased cocaine in his life; he was simply interested in "exploring acting," but that he understands the mind-set of addiction. The conversation evolves into a meditation on the emotional toll that acting takes on the artist. To get a more specific example, I ask him about the "toll" that he felt while making the 1993 Western where he wordlessly (and desperately) waits for someone to offer him cocaine in a manner that seems painfully authentic. I ask if he ever went through a drug phase for real. He says no. He says he's never freebased cocaine in his life; he was simply interested in "exploring acting," but that he understands the mind-set of addiction. The conversation evolves into a meditation on the emotional toll that acting takes on the artist. To get a more specific example, I ask him about the "toll" that he felt while making the 1993 Western Tombstone. Tombstone. He begins telling me about things that tangibly