I.T. Erudio

Author: Les

  • situational leadership, reciprocity, football?, Hamlet?, random thoughts …

    Random thoughts …
    I find myself wondering this morning if saying “I’m a proud Gen Xer” is an oxymoron. Kind of like saying someone is enthusiastic about apathy. hmmm – I’m usually TRYING to be funny when I say “proud Gen Xer” – a line from “Chinatown” comes to mind

    “’Course I’m respectable. I’m old. Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.” 

    Noah Cross – Chinatown”

    Maybe add – “generations” to that list as well – umm, if you haven’t seen “Chinatown” it isn’t one for the little ones to watch, great example of the “noir” genre though.

    ANYWAY
    I have been find of collecting “quotes” as long as I can remember. I recently stumbled across a “pre 1920’s joke” that went:

    “I just read Hamlet. I don’t know what all the fuss is about – it is just a collection of famous quotes”

    (pre 1920’s joke)

    Which I thought was funny because it reminded me of how I first ended up reading Hamlet – i.e. I had a “famous quotation” book that had numerous quotes from Shakespeare’s play – so in the “pre web” days I actually went to the bookstore and paid $2 for a copy of the play.

    (really random thought: if you watch “old” tv shows occasionally someone will hold up a skull and say “Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well” – when they want to appear to be ‘acting’ or show a knowledge of Shakespeare.

    I won’t bother explaining the quote – but it shows the “intended funny” in the “Hamlet” joke – i.e. the subtext to Hamlet can be “complicated” (extreme understatement), but there aren’t many sections of the play that don’t have a famous quote –

    since I’ve wandered into the subject – the BBC did a very good “traditional” version of Hamlet back in 1980 with Derek Jacobi as Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 version is a beautiful movie – but 4 hours long. Mr Branagh received an Oscar nomination for “adapted screenplay” – he kept all of Mr Shakespeare’s words, but updated the location to the 19th century, and there is a nude scene as I recall (which obviously wasn’t in the “text” as it were).

    Oh, and if you don’t mind black and white movies – Hamlet (1948) with Laurence Olivier is a decent version that covers the story very well (in 2 hours 30 minutes) and showcases Mr Olivier’s acting prowess (he won an Oscar in 1948 for his performance)

    The Team …
    Legendary football coach Bo Schembechler gave a famous speech about The Team

    (*cough*) great speech, of course Illinois won the Big 10 that year, Michigan’s only conference loss was to Illinois (16-6) – I’m sure they were both very good teams – which is why they play the games (and why “sports” is the original “reality tv”).

    The point I’ve been building up to is that “teams” will always consist of individuals with different abilities, motivations, and/or desires. To a certain degree the individual agrees to sacrifice some of that “individual desire” in service to “the team.”

    The beauty of “team sports” is that the ‘scrappy team of less talented individuals’ can beat the ‘big team of skilled competitors’ IF that ‘big team’ doesn’t play as a “team.” (but of course the “smart money” will be on the team with the talent – cliche: “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard”

    Reciprocity
    Sports at all levels illustrate how “team building” tends to be self- fulfilling to a certain degree. We see this when we talk about a school/team as having a “good program” – e.g. “such and such school always has a good X team.”A very important part of that “program” is coaches and administrators. But you also obviously need athletes. SO which is more important “coaches” or “athletes” – well, you need both.

    “Teams” don’t instantly form – I know there are the inspirational stories of “teams coming out of nowhere” and winning a championship going from “worst to first.” BUT those are extremely rare (which is probably why they are “inspirational stories” – i.e. they had most of the coaches and players equation and find the “missing part” needed to succeed).

    Much more common is the story of building a program bit by bit – continual slow improvements, and then suddenly (after 10 years of work) they become an “overnight” success.

    SO where does reciprocity come into play? well, the team members have to all believe that the team IS a team – and not just a collection of cliques.

    e.g. the person with the whip, might think he and the galley slaves are a “team” – but the galley slaves probably don’t (“motivational speech” from ‘guy with whip’: “We keep you alive to serve this vessel, row well and live!”)

    Back to Bo Schembechler – he was well known for his integrity. e.g. “You may not have liked him, but you knew where you stood with him” is a famous quote from a former Michigan player.

    I always like the idea that “you don’t have to like the coach/leader, but you should RESPECT the coach/leader” – and if the coach/leader is routinely lying and/or forming groups of ‘preferred’ players that get “special treatment” (e.g. “the rule is X for everyone except that small group over there that has done nothing special except ingratiate themselves to the coach by kissing his posterior”) then that becomes a recipe for “team destruction.”

    Once again …
    So once more time – all human relationships are based on ‘trust.’ All of the above about ‘sport ball teams’ applies to interpersonal relationships in general. Marriage, ‘work groups’, ‘project teams’ – whatever … all founded on “trust” that the individual is going to be valued for their contributions and not treated like a disposable “cog” in the machine …

    Arguably, in a “healthy society” the first team someone belongs to is the family unit – with “marriage” being the formative act in starting a “family” — but that gets complex fast – so another “football coach” story …

    Good ol’ Woody Hayes (he coached at one of those schools in Columbus, Ohio) wrote a book titled “You Win With People.” (used copies available on Amazon).

    While all the general public saw was Mr Hayes tearing up his hat and acting wild on the sidelines – by (most accounts) Woody Hayes was respected by his players – i.e. they trusted that he was “fighting for them”, and they had the same mission.

    Fwiw: Bo Schembechler retired from coaching when he got tired of begging 19 year olds to come play at Michigan (my words, but he said as much in his 1989 autobiography – still in print). He stayed at Michigan as the Athletic Director for a number of years.

    Saying that Woody Hayes had a “colorful” career is an understatement – but both men are worth a little bit of study from a “leadership” point of view. The end of Mr Hayes career almost falls into the “urban legend” sort of thing. He was fired for APPARENTLY punching an opposing team player on the sideline – the video is out there on the interweb. There are still plenty of “Woody Hayes defenders” but maybe the “big picture” lesson is that nobody is perfect.

    For the most part Mr Hayes is remembered for the 28 years BEFORE the incident – which is probably as much as you can ask/expect …

    Situational Leadership
    Pop quiz: What is the most effective way to lead a group? Answer: it depends on the group.

    This is one of those “incredibly obvious after it is pointed out” concepts – i.e. you can’t lead every group the same, because not every group is the same.

    Just like you can’t treat everyone in the group exactly the same, simply because they aren’t all the same.

    Individual members of the group should expect to be treated with respect, as well as held accountable for their duties within the group. Beyond that nothing is carved in stone.

    To continue my football theme – you can’t “coach” a group of 3rd graders that have never played organized football the same as you might coach a group of high school athletes that have been playing football since the 3rd grade.

    Not only should the high school athletes know more “football” than the 3rd graders, they (should) also be more mature. If you treat those 3rd graders like high school athletes you probably end up with chaos and a lot of unhappy athletes/parents – OR if you treat those high school athletes like they are supposed to be “professional athletes” you aren’t likely to have sustained success …

    If you happen to have the luxury of picking all the members of your team – then you should pick folks that mesh with your preferred leadership style. (which is why successful NFL coaches sometimes end up as both “coach” and “general manager”).

    But if you have to ‘work with the athletes that show up’ – then you need to adjust to the athletes. That doesn’t mean the coach “coddles” the athletes – but trust has to be established AND THEN MAINTAINED.

    Both Bo Schembechler and Woody Hayes were good at “yelling at players” when they needed to be yelled at and “patting them on the back” when they needed encouragement.

    (… and that is “situational leadership” based on the individual athlete – btw I don’t think insults and/or profanity are ever productive leadership tools, what the athlete will remember is that the coach insulted them or cussed and not much else …)

    Mr Hayes was also famous for being a great recruiter – his tactic was to “recruit the family.” Stories were told of Mr Hayes on recruiting trips essentially “recruiting the mother.” The story usually goes that before the visit the mother would say “MY son isn’t going to play for that mad man” – then Woody would come in and charm the mother and afterwards the athlete was committed to Ohio State.

    (I also love the story that Woody Hayes said that the difference between him and the faculty at Ohio State was that HE could THEIR job, but THEY couldn’t do HIS job. The legend is that Woody was “well read” and also a “full professor of physical education” or something – )

    ANYWAY – It can take years to build up a program, but then that program can appear to disintegrate almost overnight. Though (most of the time) the decline from “top program” to “used to be a good program” is a gradual process …

    Did I have a point?
    No, not really – football season is starting, random thoughts 😉

    I will point out that an “average coach” can have “above average success” if they master the “integrity” and “motivation” parts of coaching. i.e. it is easier for a coach to improve their “football knowledge’ than it is for them to change their character.

    Maybe the “least effective coach” is the one that coaches exactly the way they were coached (if/when they played) – without understanding “why” they were coached that way.

    e.g. if the ONLY reason a team does “whatever” is because “that is what my coach used to have us do.” Maybe this explains the scenario where the “star athlete”/high performer isn’t a very good “coach” when they get the opportunity.

    More effective is the coach that consciously chooses a style based on their preferences/coaching strengths. Then the challenge might be finding a “place to coach” that “fits” the coach.

    Then the “superior coach” would be the one that “can beat you with his athletes, or take your athletes and beat his with yours.” Sun Tzu comes to mind – “Know your opponent and know yourself and you need not fear the results of 100 battles”

    (… of course if faced with a “superior force” Sun Tzu would advise “not engaging that force” – so the coaching applications become a little limited – i.e. you gotta beat the “best teams” to win a championship at any level …)

  • What makes a “team” a “team?”

    … Meanwhile back at the ranch …
    SO I wrote 1600 words or so in a rambling post that started out with the intent of answering the “what make a team” question. THAT post desperately needs an edit, and maybe I’ll post it later this week …

    Shorter version
    “Team” is another of those “interesting” words. Merriam-Webster tells me the word has ‘agricultural roots’ – tracing back to an “Old English” word for a “group of draft animals” as well as “offspring, lineage.”

    SO the original meaning of “team” implied a group that was united by a common goal/task.

    Obviously go back 1,000 years and most folks lived/worked on farms. So the family unit was a “team” engaged in running the farm just to survive – this is commonly called “subsistence farming.”

    Even more obvious – a group of draft animals would be able to perform better if they were “equally yoked” – which I assume referred to using the same general size/strength animals as well as how they were connected together for the task at hand.

    “Together”
    Anyway – the team concept is about “working together.” So it is that unity of purpose that makes a “team” – NOT just being in the same place at the same time, NOT just wearing the same uniform, NOT working for the same company.

    If you just have a bunch of people gathered together in the same place at the same time – that is much more likely a “crowd” not a “team.”

    Go to a football game and two “teams” might play each other while a “crowd” watches. I suppose a ‘team’ with an enthusiastic fan base might end up with a particularly passionate group of “fans” that form a de facto “team.”

    That level of fan engagement is (probably) what EVERY sports team (college, pro, whatever) would like to have – you know, those are the people that buy every piece of merchandise that the team releases, and if they can’t get tickets are watching the game at the local “establishment” with a group.

    … but I digress …
    The problem becomes that you can have “strong” and “weak” teams.

    Completely off the top of my head/made up:
    Strong team: common purpose, everyone respects each other, all team members know how their purpose fits into the overall mission as well as appreciate the contributions of other team members, THE MISSION is well defined. “insert motivational slogan here” 🙂 (pick your favorite cliche: “together each achieves more” or how about

    “Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.”

    Henry Ford

    Weak teams:
    not sure there is a “mission”, other team members are “tolerated” because they have no choice, minimal effort given – everyone’s goal appears to be to do as little work as possible, if they have a “mission statement” it is something like this

    Sport ball
    The “organizational behavior” point of view is that all of the above becomes part of “team culture.”

    The problem with “culture” is that it kind of has to grow on its own or it isn’t REALLY “team” culture.

    If you imagine a houseplant – the owner of the plant can put the soil in the pot, put the plant in the soil, and water the plant, provide sunshine – but the “growing” part is out of the owner’s hands.

    Same idea with “team culture” – a coach/manager provides the “environment” in which the culture will grow. Then the players/employees will grow/not grow the culture.

    How do you “provide the environment” to ensure a strong-positive culture – well, that is called “leadership” and is beyond the scope of this post 😉

    Interpersonal relationships
    All of the above applies to “two person teams” as well.

    “Strong relationships” are also “strong teams.” Sure there can be “friendly competition” – but each person understands their contribution, it is “cooperative” (as in “make each other better”) not “competitive” (as in “must win all the time at any cost”)

    I’m fond of saying “If EVERYTHING is a contest of wills” then you are (probably) in a “toxic relationship” – which I wouldn’t describe as ANY type of “team” (this song comes to mind – notice they had ONE thing in common)

  • What makes a game a “game”?

    Movie
    “Free Guy” was “cute” and fun. First thought: they are examining a very old question. Maybe at the root of the movie is that the old “unexamined life is not worth living” thing.

    Games
    ANYWAY – the movie deals with ‘gaming’ in general so the “secondary thought” becomes just what makes something a “game?”

    Merriam Webster tells me that the word “game” dates back to the 12th century with roots (eventually) in the Old Norse “gamen” which meant “sport, amusement.”

    So there is that feeling of a “game” being both a “contest/competition” but also having a sense of “joy/fun/entertainment.”

    It might sound obvious but IDEALLY “games” should be “fun” for all of the people involved. If one side is “having fun” and the other side isn’t – then (arguably) they aren’t “playing a game” but engaging in some other activity.

    Competition AND Fun
    I’ll point out that the #1 reason young athletes stop participating in “sports” (in general) is because they aren’t having “fun.”

    The same idea probably applies to “games” in general – i.e. if you aren’t having fun, you will probably stop playing.

    Which is why we see online games constantly releasing “new content” to keep players interested. However, if the game is no longer “fun” participation will dwindle.

    Maybe a “game” has to be “competitive” and “fun.” There is a lot of wiggle room in calling something “competitive” – e.g. the game has to be “challenging,” as in not too hard but also not too easy.

    It is a common “game designer” tactic to make the “lower levels” a tutorial on how to play the game. Then as players master those skills, the level of difficulty rises. In essence EVERY game is a “learning experience” – but usually what you are learning is specific to the game.

    Final Answer
    It is PROBABLY accurate to say that “play” is an indicator of intelligence – i.e. the animals that engage in “playful activity” are illustrating the ability to learn and master activities.

    With humans the types of games a person plays PROBABLY tells you something about that person. But that sounds like a two drink discussion for another time …

    SO what makes a “game” a “game”? A combination of competition (remember it is possible to “compete” against yourself), fun, and the potential for “mastery.”

    If one of those three elements is missing – you are probably engaged in “non game” activity.

    Also important to point out is that what is “fun and challenging” for one person may be “boring busywork” for someone else. As I mentioned above – the games we choose to play say something about us as individuals.

    This was something of a plot hole in “Free Guy” – and is what motivated this post. The movie was entertaining – but “playing a game” implies interaction at some level.

    ok, no spoilers BUT If all someone does is “observe” then they aren’t “playing.”

    Imagine if someone tried to make an “aquarium game” (it has probably been done – I haven’t checked) – for it to be a “game” the player should have to select fish/occupants of aquarium, buy food, feed the fish. Maybe have the ability to sell fish and earn money to buy more/different fish, etc. THAT would be a game.

    BUT if all you do is WATCH the aquarium with zero interaction – well, you aren’t “playing a game” you are WATCHING.

    Again, the interaction is essential – and probably illustrates why the video game industry is bigger than the movie industry …

    Sports
    “Games” can also mean “athletic competition” – e.g. the “Olympic Games”, the “Pan American Games”, the “Commonwealth Games.”

    I “cut the cable” a few years back – so it was surprisingly hard to watch much “live” Olympic coverage. HOWEVER it was also very hard to avoid hearing about the Games.

    To compete at an “Olympic” level the athletes have to put in a large amount of work – no one “accidently” becomes an Olympic athlete.

    Just for fun I’ll argue that the most successful competitors still get “joy” out of playing their chosen sport. It may be cliche to say they play “for the love of the game” – but it is true 99% of the time.

    I have an informed opinion on “youth sports” in general – but that is another post 😉


  • “new freedoms”

    new and improved!
    A random headline that caught my attention (I think it was an online post from a Scottish media outlet/newspaper) mentioned the “new freedoms” being permitted due to COVID restrictions being eased.

    That obviously set off my internal geek semantics alarms. “Free” is one of those “understood but hard to define” words. MAYBE “free” is best understood by comparing it to something else – e.g. a “free human being” is not a “slave.”

    Short form: “free” (in English) dates back to the 12th Century with Germanic roots implying “personal ownership” or maybe “self determination” and “lack of external coercion.”

    Then (maybe) “freedom” is the “quality of being free” and (maybe) it started as a shortened form of “free from domination” (it sounds plausible)

    Anarchy
    Arguably if humanity has a “natural state” – then it is without defined law and therefore without a functioning government. Starting with a theoretical individual – if they are living by themselves, then they are completely free to do whatever they want, whenever they want BY THEMSELVES.

    So it would be accurate to say that anarchy is complete “freedom” for the individual. Meaning that right and wrong are decided by the individual as they please.

    Which isn’t inherently bad – until individuals start living together (i.e. “families”). Then those family groups grow into “tribes” and then tribes living close to each other have to deal with interactions between tribes, etc

    First cities/”Primitive war”/Protect us from each other
    Obviously back in “primitive times” the first walled cities were (most likely) created to protect the “extended tribe” from animal attacks.

    (random thought/tangent: Off the top of my head – for the majority of human existence, the major occupation was “subsistence farming” and a cities “walls” served as borders and as protection.

    Then gunpowder happened, and the industrial revolution, and the “modern world” – as experienced in 2021 – really only dates back 100 years of so … but anyway …)

    There is an old line that “God made man free, humanity invented slavery” – which illustrates what happens when those theoretical “tribes” start interacting without some agreed upon form of law – i.e. if there are scarce resources, most likely the stronger will dominate/enslave the weaker – i.e. the “natural order” is that “might makes right.”

    Meanwhile…
    So the earliest forms of conflict between groups (probably) involved stealing women (for obvious reasons), and then capturing slaves either as forced labor or as “sacrifices”/offerings to pagan deities.

    The point is that there are no “new” freedoms – i.e. the history of humanity involves the “restricting of freedom” by various groups for one reason or another.

    It might be accurate to say “restrictions are being removed” but not that “new freedom are being granted.“

    Human gov’ment can’t “grant new freedom” anymore than they can grant more gravity, or make the earth go around the sun faster, or give me the ability to sing in pleasing tones 😉 (umm, if you have heard me sing, then one of us was drinking – and it was probably “The Minstrel Boy” – traditional version – or if I was slightly tipsy something random)

    Freedom within the law …
    Of course what is desired is then “freedom” WITHIN the law.

    Again, if we go back to our theoretical tribe – the “first laws” would be about protecting individuals from each other. Then if folks aren’t killing each other (e.g. murder is bad) and society starts to form/grow – maybe “the tribe” starts worrying about “property laws” (e.g. stealing is bad), then passing on property/inheritance becomes an issue and “marriage” laws both strengthen the family unit and provide a way to legitimize “heirs” – but that is just me guessing.

    If you want to sound pretentious you might say that humans formed the earliest governments to “legitimize the use of force.”

    If you want to argue that “more laws” don’t make folks righteous – well, I’ll agree with that – and then quickly point out that the “truth” is somewhere in the middle. i.e. “no law” is just as bad as “slavery by regulation” – both extremes put the individual at the mercy of potentially malicious external forces: e.g. either “other folks” or a tyrannical indifferent bureaucracy …

  • sequels, spin-offs, remakes, nothing new under the sun

    Ecclesiastes and existentialism
    The book of “Ecclesiastes” is one of the “wisdom” books in the Judeo-Christian Bible. In a Christian Bible it is typically found in the “Old Testament” between “Proverbs” and “Song of Solomon.” In a Hebrew Bible the books are arranged differently and might be called Qohelet (Preacher)- but it is the same “Ecclesiastes.”

    We get the title “Ecclesiastes” in English from a Latin translation of the Hebrew title (i.e. Qohelet). I’ll point out that the titles “preacher” and “priest” are not automatically synonymous – e.g. a “priest” in ancient Israel worked in the Temple making offerings to the Eternal and were from a specific tribe (i.e. the Levites), as opposed to a “preacher” who is one who “proclaims, makes known” but not automatically a priest.

    I’ve also heard Ecclesiastes translated as “leader of the assembly” which again illustrates translation differences.

    Traditionally the author is assumed to be King Solomon (a son of and successor to King David). If “Song of Solomon” is a love poem written in his youth, and “Proverbs” is in the middle period, then “Ecclesiastes” was written in his “end days.” (random thought: we aren’t told how old Solomon is when he dies, but he is “young” when he becomes King and rules 40 years – so he might have only been in his late 50’s when he died. Compare that to King David who was 70 when he died “old and full of days“)

    ANYWAY – the author of Ecclesiastes is looking back on a lifetime of accomplishments and arguing that it was all pointless – “Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” Which sounds a little like the central concept of existentialism – i.e. that there is only what we can touch and feel (yes, that is greatly simplified).

    However there is obviously a very big difference between “human effort/action is pointless because there is a greater plan going on” and “human effort/action is temporal, there is no great purpose to anything but don’t be a jerk.”

    Nothing new under the sun …
    Ecclesiastes also contains the well known “nothing new under the sun” verse. The book is short, depending on your translation the wording may be different – the basic idea being that humanity keeps repeating the same general stories.

    Yes, we have increased the amount of recorded “knowledge” — as in amount of “factual information” – e.g. in Solomon’s times how and why the “wind” blew was something mysterious, in 2021 we would say that the “wind” blows because of the changes in heating and cooling of the earth’s atmosphere as we travel around the sun – BUT we still can’t accurately predict the weather past a day or two, which is probably what they could do in Solomon’s times.

    Quick, name 5 “famous businessmen” from a hundred years ago – if you are a historian, maybe you came up with Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, JP Morgan – all of whom left their names on numerous buildings, universities, libraries, various businesses.

    All of those names would have been “world famous” in their day, and now they are dead and mostly forgotten – except as names on buildings. THAT is always my intent when I point out that there is “nothing new under the sun” – and moving on …

    Sequels
    A few years back while reading “Proverbs” it occurred to me that King Hezekiah (13th successor to King David as King of Judah at Jerusalem) probably engaged in the 8th Century BC version of a “remake” of “Proverbs” – i.e. no printing press back then, books were expensive, most folks couldn’t read, so Hezekiah had a “best of compilation” of 130 sayings compiled (and presumably “distributed” in some form).

    Of course even in the 8th Century BC “sequels/remakes” had probably been around for hundreds of years. Experts date The Iliad and its sequel The Odyssey to the early 8th Century (oh, and the actual existence of a single author named “Homer” is debatable, but almost everything that happened “BC” is “debatable” – I like to think there was a “Homer” but that is just me).

    Back in 2007 J.J. Abrams did a TED talk titled “The Mystery Box” – which I always enjoy showing students. Part of the talk concerns the “right way” to do a sequel. First you have to really understand what was “best” about the original, then make sure you keep what was “best” when making a sequel/re-make/re-boot/spin off/whatever.

    Mr. Abrams uses Jaws as an example – the short form is that “the big shark eating people” was NOT what was best about Jaws, so all of the sequels were terrible because they center around “big shark eating people.”

    In 2007 Mr Abrams had taken over the “Mission Impossible” franchise – and (my opinion) he REALLY understood what was best about “Mission Impossible.”

    In 2009 Mr Abrams “re-booted” the “Star Trek” franchise – and again (my opinion) he understood the source material and the “J.J. Abrams Star Trek trilogy” is very good.

    As for J.J. Abrams’ “Star Wars” sequels – well, I’m trying to block the last two from memory. Yes, they made a lot of money, but damaged the franchise.

    So what went wrong for J.J. Abrams and “Star Wars?” – well, (again my opinion) Mr Abrams flagrantly violated his own “rules for sequels” – e.g. “the Death Star blowing up is NOT what is best about Star Wars”

    The Star Wars sequels become exercises in “ticking off items on a list” – and just get too “cluttered” and bogged down trying to pay homage to the original trilogy while at the same time trying to tell a new story.

    Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
    SO all of this was brought on because I went to see the new version of “The Green Knight” – calling it uneven, unpleasant, and pretentious is probably enough but “sack full of excrement” keeps popping into my head …

    I imagine the folks at A24 (the company that released the movie) talking about retelling a very old story …

    Person 1: “ok, ok, so how about we do Gawain and the Green knight – and instead of having Gawain being a virtuous knight, how about we make him a cowardly, lecherous drunk?”

    Person 2: “interesting, then he grows and becomes a virtuous knight and is redeemed at the end? that might work”

    Person 1: “no, no, no, – I want to make the movie seem like a 2 hour and 10 minute crawl through pig feces. I want Gawain to be an unlikeable jerk whose big development is existential despair!”

    Person 2: “umm, do you think that is a good idea – I mean people will come in expecting a ‘tale of courage and redemption’ at some level”

    Person 1: “right, right – so then we figuratively shove their heads in the mud and make them suffer! We aren’t making movies to entertain, we are making art!”

    A24 Decision maker: “Sounds like a great idea – we here at A24 don’t make movies for people to enjoy. We make movies because we are smarter than the audience. This is just the sort of project we want. Critics will love it, we will probably win an Oscar because the Academy hates the audience as well”

    Obviously I didn’t enjoy the movie. I will say it was very well crafted, and I think they made the movie they WANTED to make – i.e. they understood “Gawain and the Green Knight” and intentionally went “against the grain” (as it were, to coin a phrase, cliche alert).

    12 years old
    Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, an early “silent movie” star, believed that the “average mental age” of the movie going audience was 12 years old. Of course “the flickers” were still a “new thing” back in 1910-20 when he was one of the most popular/highest paid stars in early Hollywood – so the audience probably did actually “skew” younger.

    As the “film industry” grew – the audience also matured. Eventually the industry got to the point where “movies” would be made with a “target audience” in mind.

    The best movies encourage you to suspend disbelief without being intellectually insulting OR morally repulsive. e.g. “we are going to tell you a story, now imagine that dragons exist …” etc.

    However, when a movie is “well made” it is enjoyable by all age groups. Remember a definition of a real “classic movie” is that you can watch it at different points in your live, and get different things from the movie.

    “Casablanca“, “Gone with the Wind”, “The Wizard of Oz“, “Star Wars” are all “classic” movies that I would say had different “target audiences” – e.g. the average 5-7 year old will understand “The Wizard of Oz”, then maybe “Star Wars” targeted the “average teenager”,

    both “Gone with the Wind” and “Casablanca” are combination love/war stories targeting a “more mature” audience – but you can watch either and just see a “war story” and then the complex character interactions become clearer with age/repeated viewings

    Industry awards …
    The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was founded in 1927. The expressed intent of “The Academy” was to benefit the film industry.

    The “Academy Awards” then became a measure of excellence for a number of years – though the “viewing public” has always voted on their favorites by “buying tickets.”

    The perceived importance of “Academy Awards” among the general public has (probably) declined – simply because they have become “industry insiders” giving awards to each other. Of course that is what they have ALWAYS been.

    The problem is that “the Academy” seems to think it is their job to tell people what is “good” and/or “important” as well as recognize accomplishments within the field of cinema.

    ANWAY I was irritated enough by this recent version of “The Green Knight” that I’m hunting up a translation (yes, it was written in “middle English” which requires translation into “modern English”) – and will either record my own version or use one freely available for a video project …

  • fidelity, wisdom, and virtue

    First principles:
    As a first principle we can say that “conscious thought” always precedes “intentional action.”

    Volumes have been written on that concept – and it makes for an interesting “two drink discussion” – i.e. what exactly is “consciousness?” is a “reflex” action “thought?”

    We then wander into the concept of “mind vs body” – i.e. if a small child puts their hand on a hot stove, they will automatically pull their hand back illustrating a “reflex” action (the autonomic nervous system). BUT “reflexes” can be controlled by “higher brain” functions in humans (completely irrelevant tangent from Ancient Rome here).

    Sure in “animals” it is possible to condition/desensitize individuals to certain stimuli – but that is “learned helplessness” not “conscious thought.”

    The fidelity thing …
    Fidelity comes into the English language via the Latin fidere (“to trust”). What is slightly interesting is that “fidelity” always seems to have been in short supply, and therefore is always highly valued as a concept if not in practice.

    Working from the idea that “conscious thought proceeds intentional action” – then I will point out another truism: the “unexamined life” is not worth living.

    I usually trot that one out when people are asking for “career advice” (e.g. Q. “What should I do for a career?” A. “I have no idea what you should do – what do you enjoy doing? can you make a living doing that?” etc).

    As a clarifier for “the unexamined life isn’t worth living” I’ll point out that we will “react” to situations how we have been “trained” to react.

    Which is the whole idea of “military training exercises” – i.e. the extreme example: “How will soldiers react in combat?” well, no one really knows for sure how individuals will act – but we do know with 100% certainty that “untrained troops” tend to panic and run – i.e. the “natural response” is some form of “run away.” So “you will react as you have been trained” becomes truism 2a.

    Meanwhile back at the ranch …
    Now we run into the idea that “infidelity” might be the “natural response.”

    Ok, calling someone an “old dog” might be a complement – of course context matters. The “old dog” might not easily learn “new tricks” but has been tested and remained faithful.

    However, saying that someone has the “morals of a dog” is most certainly NOT a complement – it implies that someone acts on impulse for pleasure.

    The (hopefully) obvious example is that “thou shalt not commit adultery” is one of the 10 commandments because infidelity has always been a problem AND we react the way we have been trained.

    SO (in general) if you have been trained that “infidelity is wrong” then you are much less likely to engage in “faithless behavior” of any kind.

    But (just as obvious) if you have been trained that “if it feels good do it” then “cheating” is going to appear natural/ok/acceptable.

    Final thoughts/Wisdom/Virtue/I’m rambling again …
    Umm, all of which means that “infidelity” might be “natural” but has never been “acceptable.” Obviously “great societies” tend to suffer from an internal moral decay before they “fall” – but that is probably like saying that if you pile rocks on top of each (without any mortar to keep them together) they will eventually topple.

    Remove the “moral mortar” from any society and it is in danger of collapse. Just for fun – I’ll point out the Augustus Caesar was worried about the state of the “Roman family” way back when – so this is a “human nature” type of thing …

    ANYWAY – the issue becomes that “societal norms” will be “taught” from one generation to the next MOST EFFECTIVELY by what the “little ones” see at home – which is another post some other time …

    There is a difference between “knowing things” (maybe call that “knowledge”), “knowing what is ‘right/good/correct/moral’” (maybe call that “wisdom”), and “the practice of doing what is ‘right’” (maybe that is “virtue”).

    SO “virtue” must be taught/learned – which brings a quote to mind

    Experience is the hardest kind of teacher. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterward.

    Oscar Wilde.

  • Visibility, connections, purpose, “happiness”

    Quick shout-out to the Merriam-Webster word of the day for August 1, 2021 – pulchritude.

    English has a large number of words – for any number of reasons that I won’t go on about here. “Pulchritude” comes into the language via the Latin adjective “pulcher” which means “beautiful.”

    The “ch” is pronounced as a “k”/”hard c” – so it was both a new word for me, and kind of a “harsh” sounding word for “beautiful”/comeliness

    Visibility … and beauty
    If we want to pick some nits – then “beauty” and/or “comeliness” don’t always equal “attraction” (especially “sexual attraction” in human beings)

    e.g. imagine a set of portraits/pictures of people of varying “beauty.” Then imagine that the pictures fall into three general categories – at one end are “extremely physically beautiful” people at the other end the “extremely physically ugly” – and in the middle something “in between” (whatever you want to call that group – “average”/”normal”/whatever).

    Then imagine we ask a sufficiently large group of people to arrange the pictures from one extreme to the other. There would be some variance within the categories, but IN GENERAL people would arrange the pictures into the same three general categories.

    Everyone (well, a theoretical “statistical everybody” – but not 100%) would agree that one group is “extremely good looking” that another group was “extremely bad looking” and then there is a group in between.

    SO there can be said to be an societally accepted objective perception of beauty (there is a classic Twilight Zone episode that illustrates what I’m on about).

    Obviously those standards tend to change over time – but it has tended to be mostly in the “body” that the perception of beauty has changed. e.g. a “pretty face” back in 1800 would still be considered a “pretty face” today, but the “beautiful body” in 1800 would probably be considered “plump” today.

    Same idea with modern cultural differences – with the “western world” having a different (thinner, more athletic) perception of “female body beauty” than the “eastern world” – but that isn’t the point I’m going for today.

    Visibility … and Attractiveness
    Ok, so we have our sorted group of pictures. Now we might ask participants which group they would place themselves. Which would (probably) give us a clue as to what that person finds “physically attractive.”

    BUT human beings are complex emotional beings – so asking our imaginary participants to arrange the groups according to “dating/relationship” potential becomes interesting.

    That is “interesting” as in “not predictable” – this is where individual life experience becomes a factor. To cut to the chase – “fidelity” becomes a lurking variable.

    Make eye contact, smile …
    I could comment further on the “fidelity” thing – but it is probably a “two drink” discussion 😉 – so we are moving on

    Imagine you walk into a “social gathering of people” and don’t recognize anyone. If you want to meet new people and/or “network” then try to make eye contact with folks, and then smile. If they smile back – then head in their direction.

    Of course if you don’t want to be there in the first place, and want to avoid meeting anyone, then avoid eye contact at all cost, and if you accidently make eye contact – frown and look away quickly.

    Oh, and if you make eye contact and smile – and the other person runs away screaming (and then they gather the townsfolk with pitchforks and torches and start yelling “kill the monster!”) – you might be at the wrong “social gathering” — c’est la vie

    Connections …
    The underlying “non verbal communication” with the “eye contact THEN smile” is simply that “eye contact” means they “see” you and the “smile” means they “accept you” in some form.

    Obviously the “smile” needs to be interpreted as well – i.e. a short smile, and quick head turn is also a “leave me alone” gesture (but not an outright “go away”).

    A larger smile and holding eye contact for a short time might be the equivalent of “Hi, we don’t know each other but come on ever and join the conversation.”

    A big smile, laugh, and a head-nod might equal “the party is over here – everyone is welcome.”

    Then you have that rom com/musical/mythical “Some Enchanted Evening” moment – where two people “find each other” – umm, which works best if the two happen to share the same value system, but moving on …

    All of these are examples of the basic human need/desire to be “truly visible” to some extent. i.e. the idea that “we ‘see’ each other and ‘approve’/’enjoy’/’appreciate’/value what we ‘see’”

    Note that this doesn’t have to be a “sexual”/romantic concept – imagine the feeling of relief when you are at that gathering (where you don’t recognize anyone) and you see an “old friend” who is happy to see you and eagerly greets you …

    Purpose …
    I am a long time “amateur photographer” – I get the urge to “go take pictures” every once in a while. I have noticed that as I’ve become “more experienced” that urge to “go take pics” comes less and less often. Which is probably normal with any “hobby”

    ANYWAY, in an online forum the question came up about the “need” to publicly post photographs. For me the answer is “it depends” on “why” you took the pics.

    Did you take the pics to share an experience? then posting them online is an easy way to accomplish that purpose.

    Maybe it is like asking a “chef” if they NEED someone to eat the meal they just prepared. At one level, it doesn’t matter to the “chef” one way or the other, but still there is a need to be “appreciated” (“visible”) and have a “productive purpose.”

    I imagine there is someone out there that might spend all day preparing a meal – and then throw the meal away, untasted, untouched, unappreciated – but I also imagine that person as being profoundly unhappy

    Back to the online photos – IF the photographer is proud of the work they have done, then publicly posting thee pics shouldn’t negatively impact the photographer.

    Maybe the concept I’m going for is in Kipling’s “If”

    If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   
        If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
        And treat those two impostors just the same;   
    If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
        Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
        And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if—

    i.e. “external approval” is always nice but never “necessary” to your “happiness”

    Those wacky Greeks
    To the “ancient Greeks” the ultimate “ironic punishment” probably included a sense of “pointlessness” – Sisyphus comes to mind, and I tend to agree – e.g. the Japanese proverb:


    “Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare”

    … but I could always be wrong

    I really need a signature block. Also need to take a “self portrait” this week —

    — Les Cameron
    contact me: les@clancameron.us

  • Measuring “greatness”

    Just what do you mean “great?”
    Random thought time: What makes something/someone “great”?

    Merriam-Webster offers us definitions for “great” as adjective, verb, and noun. The earliest form of the English word (as an adjective) boil down to “large” – so a “great person” in the 12th century would have just been “exceptionally large.”

    Of course saying something is “large” or “small” is always going to be a little subjective – i.e. “large” or “small” compared to what?

    Is it then in the act of comparison that we can find “greatness?” Even if we are objectively measuring something (like height or weight) we still need more data – first a time and/or place – e.g. “that is the largest/greatest watermelon ever grown in such and such location and place” – and then someone to actually perform/verify the measurement (in 2021 “Guinness World Records” still settle a lot of bets – btw HEAVIEST watermelon measured is 159 kilograms).

    Of all time …
    Of course, something like weight or height is measured easily enough – and can then be compared across spans of time with little argument.

    Calling something “great” implies “superiority” of some kind. e.g. “That one is GREATER/SUPERIOR than the others.”

    However, problems creep in when you try to compare “human performance” and/or “different eras” – i.e. we are no longer able to make “objective” arguments because we aren’t really comparing the same things.

    A little pretentious Latin …
    Allowances must also be made for individual tastes/preferences (De gustibus non est disputandum). e.g. Arguing over the “greatest ice cream flavor” is pointless – MY favorite flavor is simply my preference, and is completely subjective/personal.

    You might be able to find copious data about the volume of ice cream sold/consumed in specific geographic areas but that still isn’t a measure of “greatness/superiority.”

    The human drama of athletic competition …
    Full disclosure – I have watched a lot of televised sports in my lifetime. This becomes relevant simply because “watching sports” almost always means “listening to sports announcers.”

    A “good announcer” enhances the game – while a “not so good announcer” becomes an annoyance. This is another great example of not being able to argue about personal taste. No matter what an announcer does, they can’t please EVERYBODY – so I’ll just say that I sympathize with the announcers plight, and point out one of pet peeves …

    Hasty generalizations/bias/filling dead air
    The reality is that I don’t listen to “sports announcers” when I understand the sport in question.

    First: I don’t need someone to tell me what I am seeing. In this scenario the announcer becomes “irritating noise” rather than “useful information.”

    Second: There tends to be a lot of “fill time” in most broadcasts. The challenge (for the announcers) becomes finding something interesting to talk about – when nothing interesting is happening. Again, tastes differ – but I probably have the volume turned down, simply because I have a low tolerance for “inane chatter.”

    One of those forms of “inane chatter” is to talk endlessly about how great the athletes are performing, and/or how an athlete is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME (G.O.A.T.).

    Examples abound. I understand the announcers need to talk about SOMETHING – but simply telling us that “so and so” is the “greatest such and such” isn’t interesting/entertaining.

    Statistics
    Yes, we can compare statistics as well as wins and loses – but unless it is an individual sport, arguing that an athlete is the G.O.A.T. is probably just inane chatter (of course, that doesn’t mean that the athlete in question isn’t “great” – but constantly talking about how great they are is a little pointless).

    We also have to make room for significant rule changes within the sport in question. Consider “major league baseball” the lowest ERA ever recorded by a starting pitcher happened in 1968 – then in 1969 the pitching mound was lowered 5 inches.

    Just to be clear – the rule change in itself isn’t important. However comparing “historic” pitcher ERA’s becomes two data sets – “before the mound was lowered” and “after the mound was lowered.”

    Sports I watch every four years …
    The Olympics are in full swing at the moment. Women’s gymnastics is one of those sports I hear about (or pay attention to) when the Olympics roll around.

    I freely admit I am not an expert in “women’s gymnastics” so (if I had watched any of the event) I would have been compelled to listen to the announcers.

    I’m not looking to criticize anyone – athlete or announcer. HOWEVER the G.O.A.T. term keep popping up. Again, I am not an expert on Olympic gymnastics – but I’ll point out that there have been some significant rule changes that (probably) create “multiple datasets” for the sport.

    Nadia Comăneci was 14 years old when she became the first gymnast to score a “perfect 10” (1976). In 1981 the minimum age for gymnastics competitors was raised to 15 years old, then to 16 years old in 1993.

    The point is that in “women’s gymnastics” the “younger” girls (14-15 year olds) tend to have a competitive advantage over the “older” girls (18+) – just biology at work.

    Again, to be clear – the rule change in and of itself isn’t the issue. I’ve never heard anyone argue that the minimum age rule change was a bad idea (the linked article argues the limit should be raised to 18 – I don’t honestly have an opinion, but with the “other issues” facing the sport it makes perfect sense).

    The “greatness” question
    All together now: “Sports should not be the most important thing in an athlete’s life.”

    It may be apocryphal – but the story goes that Vince Lombardi used to tell his Green Bay Packer teams that he wanted them to put football “third.” First and second should be their religion and family, but after those top two priorities, Mr Lombardi wanted players to put “pro football” ahead of everything else.

    I mention this because “keeping things in perspective” tends to be a challenge for elite athletes. On one hand they have to be willing to “put in the work” just to BE an elite athlete, but then the very nature of “sports” means things will happen outside of their control.

    SO with that in mind “true greatness” is not just about “performance in the arena.”

    Perseverance
    True, all “elite athletes” have “endured the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” to some extent – just for fun I’ll argue that the “truly great” have also persevered.

    This becomes the difference between someone “having a great year” and “being a great competitor.” Then (again, thought experiment, just for fun) “being truly great” is when great physical ability/talent combines with endurance/perseverance and just enough good fortune (not a household name in 2021 – but Dan Jansen comes to mind.)

    ANYWAY
    Injuries happen, bad performances happen – good days/bad days happen – which is probably what makes “sports” fun to watch in the first place.

    The NFL used to claim that “any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday” – i.e. all of the teams competing consist of great athletes and coaches. Another way to say the same concept might be that the “margin for error” between the best and worst teams is extremely small.

    SO arguably in ANY “professional sport” there are never any true “upsets.” The true “Cinderella story” requires amateur athletes … but THAT is another post …

  • Honor, Eye for an Eye, Greed, Living Well …

    According to Yahoo! Finance – “Coursera, Inc. operates an online educational content platform that connects learners, educators, and institutions”

    Coursera
    With a lot of the “history” classes – the instructor/presenter is an expert of the subject, teaches at a prestigious university, and has probably written a book.

    SO the online coursera class becomes “marketing” for the university and professor. Which isn’t egregious – just pointing out that they aren’t engaged in 100% altruism.

    No, I don’t get anything for mentioning them (edX is good as well, and Hillsdale College offers a lot of fine/free online classes for history enthusiasts).

    The “Patrick Henry” class kept getting pushed aside for “other things.” I had actually forgotten about it, but when I logged in the other day – I received a gentle reminder that I hadn’t completed the course. SO after a “deadline reset” finishing the last week of the course was fun.

    Honor
    The “Patrick Henry” course was subtitled “forgotten founder.” “Spoiler alert” – the professor argues that Patrick Henry has been “forgotten” (as in “not held in as high regard as he deserves”) because Thomas Jefferson had a deep personal animosity towards Henry.

    That thesis is easy to accept – considering that Thomas Jefferson seemed to “have issues” with most of the other founders – i.e. he had a long personal “feud” with John Adams (which was resolved before they died). The early history of the U.S. is often described as a contest between “Hamiltonian” and “Jeffersonian” philosophies (saying Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were “rivals” is an understatement).

    What exactly Jefferson’s problem was with Patrick Henry is debatable – the Professor argues that Jefferson admired Henry early in his career (Henry was the “senior man” in Virginia politics). There was an investigation into Jefferson’s time as governor of Virginia – an investigation which Jefferson blamed on Henry –

    So, (again the Professor argues) Jefferson probably took the investigation as an attack on his “honor” – and if you are a “Virginia gentleman” attacks on your honor are simply not acceptable.

    My guess is that Henry was less concerned with Jefferson’s personal opinion than Jefferson was with Henry’s – but that isn’t my point today.

    What struck me was that “personal slights” can have far reaching implications. Or maybe, it is easier to “love your neighbor” when that “neighbor” is a theoretical construct and not someone that you perceive as having “insulted your honor.”

    I suppose we get thoughts like “normal is what people are, until you get to know them” and/or “you always hurt the ones you love” (not always intentionally – but that is probably another post) …

    eye for an eye
    I was ready to go on for a couple hundred words – but wikipedia summed up my thoughts ‘”An eye for an eye” is a commandment found in Exodus 21:23–27 expressing the principle of reciprocal justice measure for measure.’

    “reciprocal justice” implies “The intent behind the principle was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss.” (also wikipedia).

    Of course the key concept becomes “justice” as opposed to “vengeance” – which is really what gets glorified in the “modern world.”

    greed
    I’m fond of arguing that “greed” is always bad.

    Of course “doing what is in your best interest” isn’t “greed.” Greed implies that you are depriving others of something, while you have more than you need.

    SO seeking “justice” (as in fair compensation for injury) becomes “vengeance” when “greed” enters the equation.

    e.g. the classic “he stepped on my shoe, so I shot him” example comes to mind. Obviously shooting someone because they stepped on your shoe is overreacting – “greed” comes into play when you consider “honor” the currency in the altercation – but if your honor is all important, the reaction becomes “understandable” if not “acceptable.”

    Living well …
    Saying “living well is the best revenge” always sounds profound – but may still short of the ideal reaction.

    “living well” as a response falls short if it implies an indifferent/neutral response. e.g. in the “shoe stepping” incident – if the response boils down to “you are beneath my notice so I do not care what you do one way or the other” …

    Meanwhile the ideal response is “outgoing concern” for the other person (in some appropriate form) – e.g. “why” did they step on your shoe in the first place? did they trip? was it an accident? were they shoved? do they need assistance?

    Ok, obviously within reason and within your means – the story of the “good Samaritan” comes to mind …

    ANYWAY
    My guess is that Patrick Henry “lived well” overall – but I also get the impression that he PROBABLY could have “handled” Thomas Jefferson better.

    Of course those were different times and values – so I don’t really intend negative criticism of either Henry or Jefferson – just making observations …

  • “The Immigrant” – Charlie Chaplin 1917

    disfluencies
    My “amateur hour” production of commentary while watching “The Immigrant” fell victim to volume mixing.

    The “learning curve” lesson is that “while I’m streaming/recording” I don’t hear the sound that is going to the stream – so the music volume on the movie was too high making the recording of my commentary unusable.

    File this one under “learning experience” – not a big deal. I could have easily re-recorded the commentary, and it would PROBABLY have been better the second time around.

    I continue to work on curbing my “filler words.” Occasionally I’ll hear someone point out that too many “filler words” makes you sound unintelligent (or, they probably say “stupid” – and I just realized how successfully I have weaned myself from using THAT word).

    ANYWAY, having been “paid to talk to a captive audience about a subject I have extensive knowledge” (some call it “teaching”) – I always point out that MY filler word usage is directly related to how prepared I am for the lecture/talk.

    Still it is something I need to work on …

    The Immigrant
    Random thoughts/Interesting elements from “The Immigrant”:

    • the “short feature” (20ish minutes) is considered an example of Chaplin at his best
    • the criticism of the short centers around the fact that it feels like two 10-minute stories, rather than one 20 minute story (on the boat, then in the restaurant)
    • the female lead (Edna Purviance) was Chaplin’s “discovery” – and became his most frequent lead actress
    • yes, they were romantically linked at one point – Charlie Chaplin was married 4 times, and some have pointed out that maybe if Chaplin had married Edna he wouldn’t have had all the problems associated with “4 wives” – well, at least it is pretty to think so
    • Chaplin did keep Ms Purviance on the “payroll” after she retired – so it gets pointed out that Chaplin treated Edna better than he did his ex-wives
    • if there was a “dominant trait” for comedy in the first half of the 20th century – it would (probably) be “physical deformity” – not “handicaps” as much as limbs out of proportion/twisted. Think “Popeye” – so “The Tramp” character taps into that
    • once you get past the “Tramp’s” funny walk, facial ticks, feet a little too large – Chaplin tends to be the “little guy testing authority figures” – which we see in the restaurant scene
    • the “head waiter” is played by Eric Campbell – who played to “evil heavy” in 11 Chaplin shorts
    • obviously Chaplin and Campbell were friends in the “real world”
    • Campbell was 6′ 5″ tall which Chaplin (all of 5′ 5″ tall) expertly plays for comedic effect.
    • Campbell had something of a short and tragic life – he died in a traffic accident in 1917
    • the ending is interesting in a “formula” kind of way
    • formula 1 = deus ex machina, Chaplin and Edna are painted into the proverbial corner, and suddenly the “wealthy artist” character appears – and provides the solution to their problems – this kind of “then a miracle occurs” plot resolution goes way back to the ancient Greek theater, so I’m not criticizing as much as point out the formula
    • formula 2 = Chaplin and Edna get married at the end. This “pairing up” formula tends to be part of “comedy endings” in general – in 2021 maybe everybody doesn’t get married, but they still ‘pair up’
    • Shakespeare is always the example I use to illustrate the second formula – e.g. in his “comedies” people get married at the end, in his “tragedies” people die at the end

    done
    from a “making movies” point of view – Charlie Chaplin was breaking fresh ground. “Acting” on stage is a different craft than “acting” in movies, but remember “movie acting” had to be invented by the early actors and directors – which is kinda what we see in The Immigrant.

    – i.e. the Immigrant probably illustrates the development from “stage acting” (done with the body) to “movie acting” (done primarily with the eyes/face).

    The film industry was also quickly disrupted by “sound.” For better or worse — With “talkies” you might have characters engage in dialogue to advance the plot (but too much “exposition” is ALWAYS being bad) – however “silent movies” force “visual storytelling.”

    Of course “show don’t tell” is still good “storytelling” advice – with “modern movies” the best practice is (probably) some form of “show WHILE telling”

    almost completely unrelated random thought
    John Ford (the legendary director) started out directing silent movies – and sometimes his movies tend toward “melodrama” BUT they are always great examples of “visual storytelling.”

    (random thought: John Ford deserves some of the credit for John Wayne’s success. How much is debatable – but I like to point out that the “John Wayne school of acting” involves “don’t say too much, just look and let the audience put in the emotion” – which I can easily imagine John Ford giving the Duke that advice while making Stagecoach 😉 )

    legendary
    “Motion pictures” helped speed the death of vaudeville – by syphoning off both talent and audiences, but it is always tough to say that “X” is the reason “Y” became unprofitable.

    With the popularity of “reality television” – which to me looks a lot like the old “talent shows” – which looked a lot like vaudeville – which stole a lot from the “stage” and “minstrel shows” – it is easy to say that there is still nothing new under the sun.

    However, reshaping and renewing “old classic” into “new classic” requires considerable talent – and that was Charlie Chaplin …