I.T. Erudio

Author: Les

  • Breathless, Awards, Bogart

    I finally got around to watching “Breathless” (1960) – mostly because the movie has been mentioned from various sources in connection with the death of the actor that stars in the film (Jean-Paul Belmondo – he was 88).

    Now, I enjoy a good “noir” flick – but I tend towards the “hard boiled private eye” brands (e.g. “The Maltese Falcon“) – as opposed to the nihilistic criminals.

    With that said – yes, “Breathless” is a great movie. yes, “Breathless” is an important/milestone movie. BUT I’m still digesting the movie – which is kind of the purpose of this post …

    Of course when I mention that it is in Black and white, primarily in French, AND a “1960’s French new wave” movie – I probably don’t have to try very hard to convince most people they don’t want to bother.

    No happy endings in ‘noir’ movies
    The movie is also very much a “character study” of two “young people” in 1960’s France. The male “protagonist” (Michel) is a sociopathic petty criminal, the female protagonist (Patricia) is a 20 year old American journalism student working in the Paris office of a NY newspaper.

    I had a strong dislike for Michel from the start of the movie – which is probably intentional, but it might just be me.

    The audience watches Michel commit crime after crime – so he is not supposed to be a sympathetic character (which isn’t unusual for the genre).

    Meanwhile Patricia (played by Jean Seberg) qualifies as the “hero” of the story. While Michel has no sense of “right and wrong” – Patricia is simple “lost.”

    Michel has convinced himself that he “loves” Patricia – PROBABLY because she is a little “unavailable.” Patricia is a “Juliet” looking for “Romeo” and isn’t sure how she feels about Michel.

    Bonnie and Clyde
    SO the bulk of the movie is those two characters talking to each other – interspersed with Michel committing crimes and Patricia being a “student journalist.”

    Since the audience is in on the “true” Michel – the conflict is really about whether Patricia will succumb to his seductions and be entangled with his eventual fall.

    IF this was an American production in 1960 – the ending would have been easy to predict. The “production code” in place at the time required that the “bad guys lose and/or get punished for their crimes.” I’m not a fan of “Bonnie and Clyde” (1967) but it illustrates what I’m talking about – i.e. Bonnie and Clyde living “happily ever after” was never an option …

    Psych 101 analysis
    Maybe in 1960 the nihilism the movie pushes was “new” and “edgy” but not so much in 2021. The beauty of the movie is how the two main characters feel “real.”

    Michel might become a little sympathetic if you want to believe that he is just imitating the “tough guys” to which he has been exposed. In his own way he might be as “lost” as Patricia – BUT he made the decision to be a “thug” at some point in his life.

    MAYBE that choice was thrust upon him due to a lack of guidance and harsh circumstances – who knows. The only insight we get into his “true” character are his crimes and the seduction of Patricia. Did I mention I didn’t like the character?

    Meanwhile we get a front row seat to Patricia’s character. We see the art she likes, the music she chooses, her slightly unreliable father is mentions – she is smart and independent. At the end of the movie you might “understand” Michel, but you “care about” Patricia.

    Eventually Patricia realizes that the two aren’t actually “madly in love” – i.e. each has been talking about themselves much more than “seeing”/interacting with each other. Michel isn’t self-aware enough to get to that point – but I won’t give away the ending …

    The lip thing
    MY interpretation of the “lip rub” (if you watch the movie – you will know what I mean) is that it is the character being “unguarded/going internal” to a certain extent. Almost like “thumb sucking” or a fetal posture.

    The gesture comes across as sensual but self-centered. Obviously if the character was talking to someone, and then rubbed their own lips – while maintaining eye contact – that is “flagrant flirting” to the point of sexual proposition.

    HOWEVER – Michel tends to do it in moments of “uncertainty.” The movie ends with Patricia doing the gesture – so WHATEVER it is supposed to mean, it was put there intentionally (or maybe it means nothing and they just thought it looked cool).

    My Man Godfrey
    I also got around to watching “My Man Godfrey” (1936) – which is almost the complete opposite of “Breathless.”

    Made when the end of “Great Depression” was just around the corner (look for the joke in the movie). This is a good example of the type of movie that “modern audiences” might look at and see a “socialist” message. I would disagree – which is another post waiting to be written.

    ANYWAY – it IS a “screwball comedy” – i.e. the characters talk fast and say funny things, but you need to pay attention or you will miss the jokes.

    I watched the newly “colorized” version on hoopladigital. I won’t bother summarizing the plot – there is a “twist” involved so try to watch it without reading about it first.

    It was #44 on the AFI’s 100 Years 100 Laughs list. Almost the entire cast was nominated for Academy Awards, in addition to nominations for direction and screenplay – 6 nominations, 0 wins.

    HOWEVER the film was added to the “National Film Registry” in 1999. I highly recommend it 😉

    Awards
    The whole idea of “acting awards” is a little silly – but I suppose the old “it is better to be deserving of awards and not have them than to have awards and not be deserving of them” concept comes to mind (that is probably a Mark Twain quote).

    In any case with the old “studio system” Academy Awards just being nominated was something. For the most part the modern “Academy” has lost touch with “mainstream America” – BUT the “early” Academy was most concerned with recognizing “excellence” in an effort to help the “movie industry” thrive.

    In 2021 you probably have to be a “film historian” to know what movie won “Best Picture” in 1942 when “Citizen Kane” was nominated.

    As with a lot of “awards” – people voting on the awards don’t always “get it right” from a historical point of view. I’m not saying that the movie that won that year didn’t “deserve” to win – just pointing out that “history” has its own standards.

    John Ford was a well respected “industry insider.” His 1942 “How Green Was My Valley” is a very good movie – about a “turn of the century Welsh mining village.” (for the record: I watched it, I was bored)

    Of course I think John Ford’s best movie was “The Searchers” (1956) but by then he had been relegated to “maverick” outsider status and didn’t win any awards.

    SO if the choice is between “well respected insider” and “obnoxious boy genius new comer” it is obvious who wins – 1942 Best Picture “How Green Was My Valley”, 1942 Best Director – John Ford (and in all fairness the movie was also placed in the “National Film Registry” in 1990).

    Of course my choice would have been “The Maltese Falcon” 😉 starring Humphrey Bogart – one of those “tough guy” influencers on Michel in “Breathless” …

  • roots of happiness

    A study of character
    Just watched “Citizen Kane” again – always near the top of the “best American movies” list, it wasn’t a commercial success when first released.

    PART of the problem is that the movie is very much a “character study.” I suppose the main character getting divorced twice might have been more interesting in 1941 – but there is nothing that would qualify as an “action sequence” which is always kind of the recipe for “low box office” numbers.

    Of course this is the sort of movie that “critics” would describe as an “adult story” – e.g. no fist fights, no car chases, no gunfight in the middle of the street, etc.

    What audiences get is a McGuffin driven mystery and a deep dive into the character of a “wealthy failure.” Don’t get me wrong – it is a great movie – just NOT the type of movie that you would ever expect to set records at the box office.

    Studio System
    Of course it would have done better at the box office if it hadn’t been “blacklisted” by William Randolph Hearst’s media empire. At the time the movie was considered to be “about” Mr Hearst – the movie essentially got a “limited release” because theater owners refused to show the movie in fear of reprisal from the Hearst empire.

    In reality the movie isn’t a “bio pic” about Hearst. It contains references to real life events that 1941 audiences would have associated with various “famous rich folks” – not JUST Hearst.

    Also worth pointing out is that the “studio system” at the time tended to control the entire process of movie production and distribution (i.e. studios could own movie theater chains – a practice that required a Supreme Court ruling to end it in 1948).

    Maybe not surprisingly the reputation of “Citizen Kane” improved in the 1950’s.

    My personal opinion is that Orson Welles would have found much more commercial success if he was 25 years old in 1971 instead of 1941 – kind of like Marty in Back to the Future

    Boy Genius
    Orson Welles had earned his “boy genius” status through radio and stage productions – so what jumped out at me in this viewing is the fact that the movie “feels” like a radio show. A lot of talking heads/interviews – minimal “action.” Yes, the visual style was “groundbreaking”, the cinematography is great – and the visuals obviously enhance the story – still not a “popcorn movie”.

    Mr Welles always said that he didn’t get a lot of money to make “Citizen Kane” – what he got was “control.” Back in 1941 the movie had a $1 million budget – which I’m told was typical for the time.

    The 2021 comparison – “independent” movies tend to have budgets in the $400,000 to $2 million range. My guess is that the LEAST a “studio” will budget for a project is $5 to $10 million – but then we get into “creative Hollywood accounting practices.”

    When “Citizen Kane” received great reviews from the “critics” but bombed at the box office – the blue print for Welles’ relationship with “Hollywood” was probably set – Orson Welles never got the amount of “artistic freedom” he desired from that point on.

    Of course the “movie business” is a “business” – so I’m not sure anyone is to “blame.” For his part Welles’ never appeared angry or bitter but it had to be frustrating.

    The “cost” problems in 2021 usually involve “post production labor” – as in the team of “digital artists” required to produce all those CGI effects the big budget blockbusters tend to be full of.

    Oh, and in 2021 the process of “self funding” for an “Orson Welles” type artist is much easier with this modern technology stuff — but once again I digress …

    Happiness
    As for the character of “Charles Foster Kane” – Luke 12:15 comes to mind followed closely by Ecclesiastes 5:10 BUT the movie isn’t condemning greed so much as pointing out that “buying more stuff won’t make you happy.”

    If the Charles Foster Kane character had been “greedy” then he wouldn’t have made the business decisions he made. He would have worked with the shady politicians, not try to joust with windmills as a “political reformer”.

    A “McGuffin” is any plot device that is used to advance the plot/story – but isn’t ‘valuable’ in and if itself – e.g. the black bird statuette in “The Maltese Falcon”, the Dude’s carpet in “The Big Lebowski” and then probably the most famous McGuffin in movie history – “Rosebud” in “Citizen Kane.”

    While the “Citizen Kane” plot is driven by the search for “Rosebud” – the point is made that human beings are complex emotional beings, and “one object” can never sum up anyone’s “total character” (well, they don’t put it that way – we get a little speech before the big reveal)

    Psycho 101
    The “psych 101” character analysis would start with his parents (implied) bad marriage, followed by the fact that his mother “sends him away to school” – i.e. the cliche of abusive father and emotionally distance mother is easy to imagine (and notice the sled he is playing with when his mother tells him he is “going on a trip”).

    Then Mr Kane gets kicked out of multiple colleges before deciding that running a newspaper sounds like “fun” (i.e. he has been aimless, waiting to come of age to inherit/control his family fortune).

    The newspaper becomes a way to “win the love” of “the public” – i.e. his addiction is “newspaper circulation” not “hedonistic alcohol abuse” (like Arthur Bach in “Arthur”) – but both characters are looking for people to “play along with them”

    TWO divorces!
    The cliche used to be that only the wealthy could afford to get divorced – that obviously doesn’t mean that “poor people” had happier marriages, just that getting a divorce used to be much harder in the “pre no fault divorce” days (1969 California passed first ‘no-fault’ divorce bill).

    I’m not throwing any stones at anyone – just pointing out that in true “production code censorship” style Mr Kane has an extramarital affair (which ends his first marriage and any political ambitions) but I don’t think we see a “bed” in the entire movie (well, there is a scene when he takes over the newspaper and they bring a “bed” into the office because he plans on sleeping there – but no men and women in the same room with a bed).

    Modern audiences will probably infer that Mr Kane wasn’t just being nice paying for the singing lessons – i.e. if an older wealthy man is paying for a young beautiful woman’s apartment and “singing lessons” he PROBABLY isn’t just listening to her sing.

    Sure, I can imagine a scenario where he just wants to help the young lady – BUT IF it was a “mentor” type relationship then he would have informed his wife in some form.

    Hubris
    A common trait of many “tragic figures” is arrogance/excessive pride/hubris. SO if we once again consider Charles Kane and Arthur Bach – Mr Kane “wants to be loved,” but then is full of pride and wants “more” – If Mr Kane isn’t a narcissist, then he is a type of “emotional black whole” that can’t be satisfied. Meanwhile Arthur Bach “wants to be loved,” but is humble to the point of being meek

    e.g. Mr Kane shouts “I’m Charles Foster Kane” at the shady politician that has exposed (Mr. Kane’s) adultery – while Arthur tells the wedding guests that his fiancee has decided not to marry him (after he has been beaten up by her father after telling her that the wedding is off).

    ANYWAY if there are lessons to be learned from “Citizen Kane” one of those lessons is NOT a condemnation of capitalism as a system. Arrogance and greed are never good – but “money” is just a tool and isn’t “good” or “bad” – 1 Timothy 6:10 comes to mind

    fwiw: I’ve heard enough people try to cram this “capitalism is evil” interpretation into a number of classic movies – enough that it might become its own post … maybe next week 😉

  • fugitives, vagabonds, and vagrants

    Fun with words…
    A recent Merriam-Webster “word of the day” was “fugitive.” Being a “fugitive” implies actively fleeing something — as opposed to being a vagabond which implies “wandering” (as in aimless movement).

    Then there is vagrancy – which implies “marginal” legal status at best. Laws against vagrancy used to common in the U.S. – I’m told many have been struck down because they were “unconstitutional” in some form.

    “First Blood” came to mind – it has been a few years since I watched the movie, but as I recall it starts with John Rambo “wandering” and getting arrested for “vagrancy” by the “unethical Sherriff” of a small town (who maintains order in his tiny kingdom by “encouraging” vagrants to “move on”).

    That concept of “arrest them because they are poor and MIGHT engage in criminal activity” certainly sounds “Unconstitutional.”

    Kind of like the old if you have a lot of money and act weird, you are “eccentric” – but if you are poor and act weird, you are “crazy.” i.e. if you are visiting a town and have money to spend – you are a “tourist” – but if you are poor and visit a town you are a “vagrant.”

    … and if you are a renegade (which implies active rejection of “polite society” as it were), well, you are probably in fear for your life from the longarm of the law

    Pop culture
    Of course stories of “wanderers” have (probably) been told for as long as folks have been telling stories.

    In the Odyssey Homer tells the story of Odysseus’ 10 years of wandering trying to get home from the Trojan War. As an adventure story it holds up very well today. There aren’t any great versions I can recommend – but there are a lot of “not bad” versions. Modern audiences won’t automatically understand much of the underlying motivation for various characters, but the story itself isn’t overly complicated (college classes get taught on the subject – e.g. HarvardX is offering a class on the “Ancient Greek Hero” – I haven’t taken this particular class, I’m guessing you will get a lot on Achilles from the “Iliad” and then Odysseus free to “audit”).

    I’ll point out that for MOST of human history being “banished” from the larger society wasn’t just “inconvenient” – it could amount to a death sentence. If nothing else “exile” meant (involuntary) picking up and moving somewhere new.

    I suppose the “can’t go to Texas because all his ex-wives live there” is a (humorous) modern example of a “modern fugitive.” Maybe Mr. Shakespeare’s “King Lear” becomes a “fugitive” story at some level – but that is just the gratuitous “Shakespeare” example.

    Certainly Les Misérables sets the pattern for the “modern fugitive story” – with similar plot elements in “The Fugitive” (tv show from 1963-1967) and then “The Incredible Hulk” (tv show 1977-1982) as well as many others (i.e. “accused of a crime they didn’t commit, pursued by the powers that be”).

    (though didn’t Jean Val Jean steal bread to feed starving children or something – so he may have committed the crime, but the sentence was ridiculously harsh).

    The “wanderer” story can also take on a much different form – rather than “fleeing persecution”, there is the “divine intervention” wanderer. “Mythological stories” abound – stories of “pagan gods” taking human form and/or interacting with humans in the form of a “old wanderer” cross the centuries.

    In the western world, Knights going out “questing” always has that implication of “the hand of God” directing events. Here in the U.S. most “B westerns” or stories like “Hopalong Cassidy” and/or the “Lone Ranger” series also fit the “general” form with the major exception being that the “hero” is “wandering” with a side-kick/help in some form.

    SO in the second form the hero isn’t a “fugitive” as much as “on a mission” (but “if you have a problem, no one else can help, and you can find them, maybe you can hire” …. and/or “The Equalizer” is on, what, its third incarnation?)

    Anyway, there is still nothing new under the sun. Just for fun we can consider the book of “Genesis” – where we have fugitives and wanderers aplenty. Just a quick flyby – starting with that snake and apple, then Cain kills Abel and becomes a restless wanderer (4:12), Abram is told to “go” so he “went” (12:4), Jacob’s trials and tribulations rival Odysseus. Then the story of Joseph’s time as a “wanderer” finishes up the book.

    Always fun to point out is that the most important “person” in the Bible makes an appearance in Genesis 37 – the chapter begins with “Joseph’s dreams” and ends with him being sold into slavery.

    Notice in verses 14-18 that Joseph is sent to find his brothers. When he arrives at where he thought he would find his brothers, they have moved on. In verse 15, an unnamed man finds his “wandering in the fields” and tells Joseph where his brothers went.

    SO (arguably, with tongue in cheek) the most important “person” in the Bible is that unnamed individual – BECAUSE he represents God intervening in human events. i.e. The story could easily be told without the brief interlude in Shechem, but the “unnamed stranger” giving guidance when needed (probably) illustrates how God chooses to work though human beings (most of the time).

    Just in the nick of time …
    Of course it is just good story telling to “start with the conflict” in some form – so first we find out that the poor widow is gonna lose her farm because someone lost/stole the deed THEN Hopalong Cassidy rides into town (for some contrived reason), sorts things out and then has to leave again (for some equally contrived reason – remember if Hoppy marries the poor widow woman, settles down and raises a family it is harder for him to run around having adventures – hey, sometimes they are just stories with no deeper meaning – maybe entertaining, but no hidden meaning 😉 )

    Samurai Jack (cable tv show, originally 2001-2004) is another great example of the “wanderer as divine agent” – umm, of course the start of out each show reminds viewers that the Samurai is fighting a great evil, so they weren’t being subtle – but if you are writing episodic programming, you can’t assume the audience knows the backstory. Telling them the backstory in the intro is usually a good idea

    ANWAY Samurai Jack (episode 27 season 3 maybe – I had to check) was on during my “exercise time.” Ok, time travelling Samurai, no problem. “shape-shifting Master of Darkness, unleashed an unspeakable evil”, got it. Then Jack gets turned into a chicken by a disgruntled wandering wizard – still, ok. BUT I found myself wondering what happened to Jack’s sword/clothes when he was changed into a chicken. At the end of the episode they reappear when Jack is restored to human form – I mean c’mon man 😉

    No, that wasn’t the first episode of Samurai Jack I’d seen – but it did indirectly lead me to this rant …

    Woody Allen/Citizen Kane/Arthur/MOVIES
    I listened to the “Woody Allen” stand-up years recording – worth pointing out that “Woody Allen” human being isn’t the same as “Woody Allen” writer/entertainer. Most of the material was directed at his personal foibles – at the time his style was “new” but it has become a standard “stand-up” approach.

    Mr. Allen admits that he never intended to do stand-up for a long time. He didn’t like the long hours and travelling – so he (probably) ended his stand-up “career” as soon as possible.

    His time doing stand-up certainly made him a better writer, but he just didn’t enjoy the “process of stand-up.” Obviously there are comedians that love performing in front of a crowd, love the life style etc., and do it for years and years. So his career is another good example of “know yourself”

    It is the 80th anniversary of “Citizen Kane” – the powers that be are giving it one of those “special release limited engagement” showings in movie theaters near the end of September – I think it is a Sunday, I might go – deciding factor will be what NFL games are on 😉

    I don’t think Citizen Kane is one of those “must see on the big screen” movies – but I’ve never seen it on the big screen. I’ve watched it on the ‘small screen’ multiple times. Once you get past the hoopla generated by English majors and film critiques that think it is the greatest movie ever made – it is a very good movie.

    yes, it is a roman a clef of sorts about William Randolph Hearst (who was a extremely wealthy newspaper/businessman/politician – world famous at the time) – but after 80 years the scandal aspect might finally be of “minimal importance.”

    I ended up watching “Arthur” (1981) for the first time in “forever” (certainly the first time this millennium – so maybe 25-30 years between viewings). The movie is still “cute” – a great example of 1980’s movie making.

    For the record: I did notice some different aspects of the movie – John Gielgud’s performance is even better than I remember (he won an Oscar for best supporting actor for his role as Hobson). The theme song also won an Oscar – and yes, that song has been in my “music library” forever.

    What jumped out at me watching it this time is how much “Arthur” and “Linda” work together. Yes it is in the script, but it comes across as Arthur is always looking for people to “play along” with him, and no one does – UNTIL he meets Linda (well, Hobson ‘plays along’ as well but very much in a parent/child kind of way).

    fwiw: We can compare/contrast Citizen Kane and Arthur – Charles Foster Kane inherits a huge fortune and tries to use it to force other people into roles/situations those people don’t really want, while Arthur Bach has been manipulated into a position where he has to do something he doesn’t really want to inherit a fortune.

    MEANWHILE – both characters are motivated by loneliness. It is MUCH easier to like Arthur Bach than Charles Kane, but they both end up as sympathetic characters (and “Rosebud” is his sled – representing his “lost childhood” or something)

    Since I’ve been doing a little ‘study of movie comedy’ I’ll also point out that ‘Arthur’ borrows from Charlie Chaplin and the Marx Brothers in spirit if not directly stealing material. It is hard to imagine another actor playing Arthur Bach. Dudley Moore received a “Best Actor” Oscar Nomination – it is VERY rare for a comedian to get nominated for Best Actor – Henry Fonda won for “On Golden Pond.”

    I didn’t see the 2011 remake – so I won’t voice any opinion on that movie. The 1981 original was #53 on the AFI’s 100 years 100 laughs list (which is 10+ years old in 2021).

    My personal list of “favorite comedies” (no particular order) would have a lot of Mel Brooks movies – Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, The Producers (1967). Steve Martin – The Jerk, Roxanne, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid. Coen Brothers movies – Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, Hail Ceasar, and then Airplane! (1980) and (after watching it again) Arthur …

  • Eternity is a long time …

    Woody Allen started out “doing stand-up” in the 1960’s. (e.g. Spotify has “Woody Allen – The Stand Up Years Years 1964-1968”). I would have to re-listen to some of his stuff to give any sort of critique – BUT the fact that the “The Stand Up Years” was released in 2015 implies SOMETHING positive.

    ANYWAY – one of Mr Allen’s famous lines was:

    Eternity is a long time, especially near the end.

    Woody Allen

    Humor rarely translates well between generation. Artist/art/audience are all shaped by the times in which they live – and therefore the “generic societal sense of humor” obviously shifts over time.

    Is Woody Allen’s stand up act still “funny” today – yes. Was it (probably) considered MUCH funnier in the 1960 – also yes. (btw: hoopladigital has the album – I’ll listen to it later 😉 )

    It isn’t just that the material is “older” as much as “it was written at a specific point in time to be delivered at a certain point in time to an audience”

    Humor
    “Humor” may be eternal – BUT audience tastes change. What was commercially successful “back then” might not be successful “now” – but of course there is still nothing new under the sun (observed from a distance, over a long enough period of time – there are probably “cycles of humor” – but that is a different post)

    Obviously what we think is “funny” tends to fall into the “can’t argue with taste” category – but is also influenced by time/place/audience.

    Meanwhile back at the ranch …
    Is there a “universal” sense of humor? Well, maybe. We would probably have to venture into abstractions and pointless generalities but something that EVERYONE would think is “equally funny” is gonna be hard to find – simply because we aren’t all the same.

    Marvel has a new movie coming out (in November 2021) called “The Eternals.” I’m sure it will be entertaining, but the story is VERY old. Of course it should be remembered that the purpose of the movie is to entertain and “make $$” – and it will probably do both.

    Anyway – the “very old” part touches on issues worthy of profound thought and/or deep analysis – which I won’t go into now.

    HOWEVER – from a “storytelling” point of view, if you have “all powerful eternal beings” in the “Marvel Cinematic Universe” (MCU) the question they have to address is “why they let bad things happen.” From the trailer it looks like they are going for the generic “we are not allowed to interfere with mortal history” thing – which again, is a storytelling tool as much as anything.

    If you are going to have “supremely strong” heroes then to tell an interesting story, you also need “supremely strong” villains. e.g. if the “hero” is all powerful, then the outcome is never in question and there is no real “conflict” which means there is no real “story.”

    This is why “Greek heroes” tended to have “tragic flaws.” If memory serves the ancient Greek concept of “gods” was that they were just like humans, but they lived forever. Then if you live forever, you have no real motivation to seek “glory” or accomplishments – i.e. who cares if anyone “mortal” remembers you, they are gonna die while you continue on …

    So in the MCU – Thanos snapping his fingers and wiping out half of existence is pointless – eventually the population would recover, and if you are “eternal”, well even Thanos would eventually die (in the MCU) and you would continue – so “no problem”.

    Again, from a “storytelling” point of view – stories about “happy people never having any problems” simply aren’t interesting.

    fwiw This is a big reason why “Superman” has been hard for DC to “do right” in recent years.

    Golden Age Comics
    The “golden age Superman” (in comics) from 1938 to 1986 illustrates all of the above storytelling problems. Of course at the start “Superman” wasn’t really “Superman.” Then as his powers grew, they also needed to introduce “weaknesses” in the form of the many flavors of Kryptonite.

    To be clear I’m not criticizing “Superman” – just pointing out the problem. If you have seen the old “Super Friends” from 1973 – sure, the intended audience was “8 to 10 year olds” – but when Superman shows up, it tends to end the episode (in a very deus ex machina kind of way).

    From a pop-culture point of view. Part of the problem with Superman and Batman was that the “audience” grew-up. If you read those comics from the 1950’s and 60’s there are a lot of classic stories – but they don’t spend a lot of time dealing with “real world problems.”

    Contrast that with Marvel’s “Spider-Man” (first issue 1962) – where poor Aunt May seemed to always be on the verge of death, and the bills were piling up, so Peter Parker had to get a job, and deal with going to school, and worry about his girlfriend, etc.

    (of course in true “over reaction” fashion – DC has almost jumped into the other ditch in recent years – but that isn’t important now)

    SO they either have to settle on telling almost exactly the same story over and over – or they need to invent weaknesses for Superman, and introduce “worthy opponents” (and a discussion on how “Lex Luthor” has changed from “mad scientist” to “evil businessman” to “Machiavellian politician” is another subject)

    By 1986 the problem facing DC was declining comic sales and so the “future of Superman” meeting (probably) went something like “well, we can invent another form of kyptonite or we can reboot the franchise and make Superman less powerful.” (fwiw: I thought the “reboot” went well – but then they “killed” Superman in 1992 … it must be a tough job 😉 )

    I’ll also point out that “golden age Superman” was basically a (very) secularized version of a protestant Christianity concept of the Divine.

    King David the psalmist
    Yes, I could spend some time supporting that last statement – but it is one of those things that “once you’ve been told” tends to be obvious. Of course if you passionately disagree with me on the subject – I could always be wrong … (and to be clear I’m NOT saying “Superman” is allegorical in a larger sense)

    My point (if I had one) is that one of the things that distinguishes “humanity” from other mammals is the ability to conceive of “eternity” in some limited fashion. King David and Psalm 8 comes to mind.

    Particularly the “What is man that You are mindful of him,” part (first half of Psalm 8:4). Which is the same question “The Eternals” has to deal with at the beginning …

    (btw: yes, of course your dog/cat/beloved pet loves you and probably has a sense of humor, as well as intelligence – but also isn’t terribly worried about what will happen when they die. The fact that animals can be completely in “the present” and love unconditionally is part of the appeal of having a “pet”)

    SO “The Eternals” will be asking the same question in the form of a “modern CGI movie.” (which I will probably see on the first weekend it is out – as always, I go to the movies primarily to be entertained – if the movie makes me “think” a little without being pretentious, that is fine …)

  • 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.