The big guy is more complicated – and more interesting – than you might think

By JOAQUIN WATERS — jwat@ucdavis.edu

It’s a new year! And you know what that means: it’s officially time to pack up all the Christmas decorations and stop being festive for the next 11 months. Even though winter has technically just begun, the holiday that the season is most associated with has come and gone, so it’s time to pack up all the trimmings. Everything must go: the wreaths, the nutcrackers and especially the eighty-something Santa Claus figurines that your grandmother has covered every square inch of her house with, turning the living space into an anxiety-inducing porcelain labyrinth from which there is no escape. So, in honor of the end of the season (and because I committed to write this piece weeks before Christmas), I figured now is as good a time as any to explore the ubiquitous question: who is Santa Claus? 

Now, I know what you’re thinking: what a dumb question! Everyone knows who Santa Claus is. He’s a functionally immortal jolly old man in a red suit who lives in an industrial factory located at the northernmost point of the planet, and who travels around the globe once every year in a sled pulled by reindeer at what must surely be supersonic speeds, delivering moral judgment upon the children of earth and rewarding the worthy with LEGO sets and T-shirts that are two sizes too big. But these are merely the basics. Have you ever actually thought to ask the question of where the big guy comes from? What is his origin story? Is he an alien exiled from Planet Christmas? Was he bitten by a radioactive reindeer? Well my friends, the answer is actually far more complicated – and interesting – than you might think.

The modern version of Santa Claus originates from the famous children’s poem “Twas the Night Before Christmas,” supposedly written in 1823 by the American writer Clement Clarke Moore. It was this poem that popularized the image of a jolly, bearded old man delivering presents on Christmas Eve through the aid of a sled pulled by eight reindeer. From practically the instant the poem hit shelves, its version of Santa Claus became the symbol of Christmas in the United States. The American version of Santa Claus was further solidified (but not created, as is commonly thought) by a series of Coca-Cola ads that ran in the 1920s which featured Santa in a bright red coat (possibly to draw a visual connection to the bright red color of Coca-Cola cans). So there you have it; the modern origin of Santa. But still the question arises: where did these ideas come from?

The most commonly accepted origin posits that the “secret identity” of Mr. Claus is none other than the legendary figure of Saint Nicholas. Very little is known about the historical Saint Nick. Traditional accounts claim that he was born in the third century in the Greek port city of Myra, to wealthy parents who raised him as a devout Christian. In later years, he came to be worshiped in Greece as the patron saint of sailors – sort of a Christian substitute for the pagan god Poseidon – but as his popularity grew, his role was soon eclipsed. Among many other things, Saint Nicholas came to be known as the patron saint of children. As is wont to happen to legendary figures, the singular image of Saint Nick eventually fragmented into several variations all across Europe. The Dutch variation, Sinterklaas, who is garbed in a long red robe and rides a white horse, is usually cited as the most direct source of inspiration for the American vision of Santa Claus. 

But while Saint Nicholas may have been a source for the jolly old man we know and love, he was certainly not the only one. In fact, Santa’s roots run far deeper than many would have you believe. Before Christmas, the most common winter holiday in Europe was Yule, a ritualistic celebration which has its roots in Germanic and Norse Mythology. Yule was meant to honor the coming of the god Odin as he rode across the sky on his eight-legged horse Sleipnir chasing animals – an event known as the Wild Hunt. Odin, father of Thor and king of the Aesir, was frequently depicted in art as a bearded old man who wandered the Earth, often entering the houses of mortals through the chimney to pass moral judgments on his subjects. It is also from Norse Mythology that the concept of elves and dwarves as master craftsmen originates. As Christianity spread, Christmas was transposed onto Yule and the association with Odin and the Wild Hunt dissipated. But the holiday never quite lost its pagan elements. The image of the bearded man surrounded by elves and animals persisted, morphing into the folkloric figure of Father Christmas (immortalized by Charles Dickens as the Ghost of Christmas Present) before finally being melded onto Saint Nicholas to become Santa Claus. 

So there you have it. Santa Claus has alternately been an ancient Norse god, a Christian saint of sailors and children, a soda mascot and many other things that I didn’t have time to get into. Santa Claus is the sum total of all of these things: pagan rituals, Christian globalization, American consumerism. What’s the moral of this story? I suppose that every culture hero and iconic character we take for granted today has its roots in ten thousand other figures that have all evolved or been changed to suit modern agendas. Oh, and they should totally make a movie where Santa Claus is literally Odin. That would be super sick.

Written by: Joaquin Waters — jwat@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

A film as necessary as cotton candy to a healthy diet

By MALCOLM LANGE —- mslange@ucdavis.edu

Apart from being potentially the weakest Batman with the lamest car chase, Matt Reeves’ “The Batman” is a great movie. It was written intelligently, performed excellently and, overall, an exciting movie to watch. This is not a very “hot take,” as many people have been raving about the film since its release in 2022. The “hot take” I would like to introduce is that it was unnecessary to the Batman universe and overhyped. 

It gets a lot of praise, and for the most part, it should. It was a very well-directed film; it was cinematic and thrust you into the city of Gotham. However, the Batman story that was displayed was very familiar. It is hard to find completely new stories and themes for a character as old as Batman. There have been so many versions of Batman that it would be impressive if they came up with a new and exciting take on the vigilante. 

Yes, I am aware that they did certain things differently in this adaptation of Batman than in past ones. The main one that people like to point out is the darkness and grittiness of Gotham —- it is probably the darkest Gotham seen in live-action. However, a relatively dark and grimm version of Gotham City is already seen in the TV show “Gotham.” In that version of Gotham, we see more of the gangs and power struggles in Gotham and how awful the city really is. The only thing it is missing is it isn’t as grotesque as the movie makes it out to be. However, I believe that to be only because TV and movie ratings allow different amounts of violence. So, there is already a Gotham that showcases the mob bosses, gangs, corruption and politics that “The Batman” has. There is nothing new or unique to attribute only to this version. 

The most interesting part of this movie was the antagonist, Riddler. The Riddler was a great character, not only because he challenged Batman’s belief in himself but also because he was more effective than Batman in fighting corruption. The Riddler was murdering the corrupt leaders of Gotham in an attempt to make it a better place, a very similar motive to Batman. In the movie’s final act, the Riddler even admits he believed they were on the same side, that they were helping each other, and that it was Batman who inspired him to do everything that he did. Batman is faced with an unintentional consequence of his own existence. In contrast, looking at “The Dark Knight,” the Joker’s origins are unknown. Still, it can be assumed that his obsession with Batman motivates him for most of the movie.

The final aspect of the story that receives high praise is that it doesn’t feel like a full superhero movie but is more of a detective film. This is true to a certain degree. Yes, Batman has a lot more “detective” work cut out for him in this movie, but besides the little riddles that the Riddler leaves for him, there is not much else that Batman figures out on his own. The Riddler has to hold his hand through each step of the puzzle so that Batman can finally see the kind of corruption that has a hold of Gotham. While the Riddler is spelling everything out for Batman, we see a couple of clever solves from Batman with the cipher puzzles or recognizing certain people’s broken noses and how to pull up a carpet. Apart from those specific successes, Batman relies on the Riddler to give him all the answers, which the Riddler is inclined to do as he believes they are on the same team.

Neither Batman nor the police had any background or what feels like standard detective work. The strange gimp mask worn by the Riddler cannot be a commonly bought item, and probably not purchased by the Riddler until he decided to commit those crimes, meaning a relatively simple store and purchase history search should have helped find the Riddler’s identity, which would make it easier to find him. It also would have helped because then, when 50 or so other men are buying the same model from potentially the same store, that should probably raise some red flags and alert the police or Batman that the Riddler is growing a fan base, which is very dangerous. 

Batman also should have tried to trace back the photos of the mayor coming out of the club owned by the Penguin. The Riddler had these photos on a thumb drive, taken across the street from the club’s entrance, and it turns out that is where the Riddler was living. The apartment across the street from the club. If Batman tried to go to where the pictures were taken and find out who stayed there to figure out who took the picture, he might be able to find out to whom the pictures were given. At least that could have been Batman’s thought process; in actuality, it would have led him straight to the Riddler because he took the pictures. This is all to say that Batman did not do fantastic detective work throughout the film. When the Riddler was not giving him the answer, he only solved a couple of riddles. 

“The Batman” is not as perfect of a Batman film as many people claim. We already had a dark Gotham, with villains who challenged Batman’s faith in himself and, to top it all off, he was not even that good of a detective. Again, I did enjoy the movie; it was executed incredibly. It is also a very unnecessary Batman movie. We have seen so many different Bruce Wayne variations in the past decade alone that we should focus on a new hero, like getting a good Robin or Knightwing movie. Even though “The Batman” is a good film, it would have been more interesting to see a movie about a new character instead of rebooting the same vigilante repeatedly. 

Written by: Malcolm Lange — mslange@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.