I.T. Erudio

Author: Les

  • 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 …

  • “Movies”, “Records”, and me – part 2

    Records
    Notice that the word “movie” is not bound to a specific technology. e.g. “Movies” used to be synonymous with “films” – then the film went away, but the pictures remain …

    The same is true of “records” as a noun. Remember, gool ol’ Mr Edison made the first sound recordings on wax cylinders. So “records” is (probably) traced back to “phonograph recording” in some form or other – BUT “wax cylinders” were obviously fragile …

    I’m guessing the “disk shaped vinyl record” that was common for most of the 20th Century came about for practical commercial reasons – that it hit the sweet spot between “cost of production”, “shipping cost/convenience”, and then “sound quality”

    SO “pressed vinyl disks” became synonymous with “records”
    (pop quiz: how many “grooves” does a “vinyl record” have? A: only 1 continuous “groove” – otherwise the recording would “skip”)

    Tapes
    When “tape recordings” became popular they were referred to by the technology (e.g. 8-track, cassette tapes) PROBABLY for simple marketing reasons.

    “Tapes” were obviously more durable than “vinyl records” – i.e. step on the vinyl record that you threw on the floor of your car and it is probably going to break, the cassette might break, while the 8-track would bruise your foot and twist your ankle.

    HOWEVER – the “sound aficionados” out there would probably argue that “vinyl records” always provided superior “sound quality” to both tape technologies.

    “Cassette tape” probably won the technological fight with “8-track” for the same reason “VHS” beat “Betamax.” i.e. The AVERAGE consumer had the ability to “create” recordings with cassette tapes (the dreaded “mixtape”) and then VHS tapes – which made those particular technologies more attractive to the average consumer.

    btw: it seems like I’ve been hearing about how much money “media piracy” costs the “big multinational conglomerate media companies” my entire life – i.e. “that new technology is gonna kill the industry” is something “chicken little executives” have been saying on a regular basis for years

    Don’t get me wrong – “piracy is bad” – but in general the folks pirating content aren’t gonna buy it in the first place (so they aren’t in the “customer” category). The WORST thing a “media company” can do is make it harder for their paying customers to consume media they have purchased – and we are moving on …

    CDs
    then the “compact disk” (CD) was more durable than cassettes AND held more music AND had a better sound quality – so (for the most part) cassettes are no more.

    Ultimately the problem with CDs is lossy compression during digitization – short version: you end up with a “tinny” sound as opposed to the full spectrum preserved with “vinyl record pressings.”

    Speakers
    I always loved the “marketing speak” behind “Hi-Fi” sound systems (i.e. does anyone sell “lo-fi” systems?).

    The term “high fidelity” in regards to “sound recordings” goes back at least to 1938.

    The fact that the recording was supposed to “sound just as good as live” was the whole point of the famous “RCA dog” logo – oh, and then there was “it is live, or is it memorex” back in 1981.

    BUT what gets overlooked is that the sound is coming out of a set of speakers. it doesn’t matter how “hi-fi” your recording medium may be, if you are playing sound out of low quality speakers.

    Well, that is probably why in 2021 we talk about “sound systems” and not necessarily about individual components.

    Cinema Experience
    The obvious advantages that “the cinema” has is (obviously) the “big screen” as well as “theater quality sound.”

    My memory of seeing “Star Wars” (when there was only 1 “Star Wars” movie) “way back when” in a “first run” theater VIVIDLY includes the opening scene with the Star Destroyer coming in from off screen.

    In a “good sound” theater setup you hear and FEEL (through the “bass rumble“) the vessel before it appears on screen (giving the illusion that it is flying overhead and immersing the “younger me” in the movie)

    Obviously I’m a little harder to impress now than “back then” – but “Avatar” in the theater with the 3D-experience was a similar experience. To be clear, I’m not comparing “Star Wars” and “Avatar” as “motion pictures” but as “cinematic experiences.”

    Silent movies
    Since I’ve kind of stumbled into a study of “public domain silent movies” (I’m going to put together a documentary, so I can say I’ve made a “movie”) – I’ll point out that “silent movies” were always accompanied by live music.

    We have come to expect sound and pictures engineered/designed together to create a “cinema experience.” From a practical point of view – that means that any music soundtrack that is included with a “silent” movie was done “after the fact.”

    Kind of like my editing exercise with Home on the Range

  • “Movies”, “Records”, and me – part 1

    All the cool kids are doing it…
    I imagine that most people exist on a sort of “sliding scale” of “fashionableness.” At one extreme end is “hip/cool/fashionable/in style/trendy” near the middle is “not as young – but capable of understanding ‘what the kids are saying’” then the other extreme end is “What is everyone talking about? Get off my lawn!”

    Obviously “chronological age” is NOT directly tied to your position on the imaginary “trendiness” scale (just called TS from here on)- but in general “young folks” as a group will be clustered near one end, the parents of those “younger folks” will cluster near the middle, and then the parents of the parents will tend to be near the other extreme.

    There is still “nothing new under the sun” so we see “fashions” repeating. Of course the “fashion” industry is built on the idea that styles will come and go – so I’m not talking about “physical clothes” so much as “styles” — and the difference between “clothes” and “style” probably deserves its own post —

    Now, a handful of things NEVER go out of style – e.g. “good manners” come immediately to mind, but what you think will never go out of style is probably determined by your current location on the TS.

    Wannabes/Posers/Pretenders
    The tricky concept becomes the fact that having “style” and “BEING in style” at not dependent variables – i.e. you can have one, without the other …

    I will quickly say that I am NOT passing judgement on anyone – I am being very “theoretical” – talking about “forms” as it were.

    With that said – we all know (or have been) the person that “tries too hard” and “just doesn’t get it.” I suppose this is where the concept of “coolness” come into play – i.e. if you are TRYING to be “cool” then by definition you aren’t.

    … and of course being worried about how “cool” you are is another sure sign that you aren’t cool – but then being certain that you “cool” also probably means you aren’t. AND we are moving on …

    Vocabulary/Jargon
    ANYWAY – not to sound like a “self-help book” but a person’s vocabulary advertises who they are. In and of itself this isn’t good or bad – i.e. most professions have some “profession specific vocabulary” and if you can “talk the talk” (in general) people will give you the benefit of the doubt that you can “walk the walk.”

    Examples abound – there is even a word for it -however this diatribe (intended in the archaic “prolonged discourse” sense – as I feel myself sliding further to one side of the TS scale) was motivated by the word “movies.”

    Movie
    The word “movie” in English dates back to 1909 as a shortened/slang version of “motion picture.” In 2021 common usage “movie” has almost completely replaced “motion picture.”

    e.g. no one says “I watched a motion picture last night”

    The same can be said for the word “cinema” which is a shortened version of cinematograph – which came to us through the French “cinématographe” which was from the Greek for “motion” and “writing” (though “cinema” is still more popular than “motion picture”)

    Cinema
    then “cinematography” probably falls into the “movie industry jargon” category – the person in charge of a movies “cinematography” may or may not be operating a camera.

    As any amateur photographer will tell you, getting consistently good “pictures” doesn’t happen by accident – there are multiple factors involved. Being able to manipulate those factors to achieve a desired “look” is (probably) what distinguishes the “professional” from the “amateur” photographer/cinematographer.

    btw: The additional problem for cinematography is that people are moving around (both in front of and behind the camera).

    for what it is worth: I’m not going to do a blanket recommendation for ANY directors “body of work” – but in general Stanley Kubrick, John Ford, David Lean, Steven Spielberg, and Ridley Scott always tend to have great “cinematography” in their movies (which didn’t happen by accident).

    Of course George Lucas always had a “good eye” – but not always the biggest budget. Comments by Mr Lucas led me to watch a lot of Akira Kurosawa movies – most of which hold up very well (if you don’t mind subtitles). I’ll just mention that the movie that Kurosawa-san is most known for in the U.S. (Seven Samurai – known as the inspiration for “The Magnificent Seven”) – is my least favorite (it bogs down in the middle)

    … I’m still in full “ramblin’ mode” but also well into TL;DR space – more tomorrow on “records”

  • An experiment and/or learning opportunity …

    I’ve tried a little of this in the past – It is always weird “talking to myself.” Scratching my head, saying “uh” a lot – I’ll give myself a “6 out of 10” with a LOT of room to improve …

    Just me talking for 20 minutes – mostly about Buster Keaton’s “One Week” silent movie.

    When the “projector” came out – movies increased in length. There were probably obvious “increments” – e.g. from 30 second novelty shorts to 5-7 minutes longer form, then 20 minute features were very popular, eventually the “2 hour runtime” became “normal”.

    There does seem to be something “magical” about the 25-30 minute length, you can get a lot of story into 25 minutes without having to introduce plot complications.

    Modern “sit-coms” tend towards that shorter length (since the goal is “comedy” not “pathos”) while “modern drama” tends to be in the 45-60 minute length.

    Still add a few plot complications and you could easily make that 40 minute “sit-com” into an hour, or strip out the secondary plot and that “hour long drama” could fit into 25 minutes …

    Something about “human attention span length” also applies – but you tend to see a “three act structure” in most modern storytelling forms – that might be a subject for a phd dissertation (requiring some real research to back it up) or just a random observation after spending some time commenting on a silent film from 1920 …

    https://rumble.com/vjuw3d-commentary-on-buster-keatons-one-week.html

  • A rose by any other name …

    The Bard reference:
    An optimistic young singer named Sara Niemietz responded to a fan question by saying something like “she never met a flower she didn’t like” (or maybe it was she “never saw an ugly flower” – it was on her Instagram feed – the exact quote isn’t important)

    Which brought to mind Mr Shakespeare’s line about roses from that Romeo and Juliet thing – which I will resist the temptation to explain.

    Aren’t familiar with the play? I recommend watching one of the MANY versions out there. If you want “stage authenticity” then the BBC version from 1976 is a good choice. If you want the “cinema experience” – the 1968 theatrical version won Oscars for cinematography and costume design.

    Both versions (and a few more) are available for free (streaming) online if you have access to kanopy.com through your local library (the first step in creating an account on their site is checking if your public/college library gives you access).

    Weeds …
    In all fairness Ms Niemietz has been performing a long time – as I write this, Google tells me she is in her late 20’s. BUT anyone born after I graduated high school I tend to call “young.”

    Young doesn’t mean “immature” or even “inexperienced” – just a relative descriptive term for trips around the sun.

    Again, what is in a name?

    My other response to the “never met a flower I didn’t like” concept is that we tend to call “undesirable flowers” by another term – weeds.

    Maybe I’m going for a concept like “If dandelions were hard to grow, people would call them flowers” … the concept has been in my head long enough that I don’t remember where it came from …

    Google tells me Andrew Mason (founder of groupon) gets credit for saying: “If dandelions were hard to grow, they would be most welcome on any lawn” – but I had to Google “Andrew Mason” so the idea pre-dates his quote …

    Will Rogers …
    Then anyone born before me, I tend to call “good ol’ whatever” – SO good ol’ Will Rogers once noted that “He never met a man he didn’t like.”

    Now, ol’ Will was what we call a “humorist” – that died in a plane crash in 1935. He had a kind of easy-going, “affable “, nature – but also “poked fun” at a lot of folks, while talking about the politics of the day.

    To put the quote in context: “I joked about every prominent man of my time, but I never met a man I didn’t like.”

    I guess Will Rogers never met you …
    Now, “liking” someone doesn’t mean that you agree with them or that you approve of their opinions. My personal interpretation is that Will Rogers was able to disagree with folks, while not being disagreeable.

    The same concept is found in the “love your neighbor as yourself” concept – i.e. you don’t have to “approve of them” so much as accept their right to their worldview.

    Ben Franklin …
    I’m doing some “light editing” on a “Story of Ben Franklin” book – that was written for “children” 100 years ago (but the demographic/target audience would be called “young adults” in 2021).

    Good ol’ Mr Franklin loved to argue but the author of the book highlights Franklin’s “Socratic” approach to argument. An approach that reminds me of Will Rogers 😉

    Franklin could also add “inventor/scientist/statesman” to his list of titles. Yes, obviously Ben Franklin has a much deserved place in American history – maybe both men could be considered “entertainer diplomats” – with Franklin also being a “philosopher scientist.”

    The Junto
    I remember reading books about Ben Franklin as a youth – back in the day when if you asked for books on “super heroes” you were led to the “American History” section (seriously, that is one of my early “childhood” memories – I wanted “Spider-Man” comics, they gave me “Ben Franklin”).

    I slogged though a massive modern biography of Franklin a few years back (there have been a couple very good ones – not “bad” just “massive”). What jumped out at me THEN was that Ben Franklin was kind of a “hell-raiser” in his youth – which obviously gets glossed over in the “young adult” books.

    Proof reading the “children’s book” from 100+ years ago – the author is emphasizing Franklin’s “gift for organization” and how he was able to influence public opinion BECAUSE he was trusted by the public.

    Just like Walter Cronkite was once the “most trusted man on television” – Ben Franklin was the “most trusted man in print” back in his day.

    From a “leadership” perspective – Franklin understood his limitations (which is rare) and then also managed to stay within his limits most of the time (even more rare). SO we find Franklin refusing military leadership, because he didn’t have those skills – while also serving as a “regular soldier” in the militia …

    TL;DR
    If you have read this far – hey, how you doin’. One of Franklin’s first “organizations” was named the Junto – in 2021 it would probably be called a “think tank.” Individuals got together and shared discoveries/inventions – with the price of admission basically being “willingness to contribute.”

    Interested? I’ve got a handful of “project ideas” that require “other people” much more than “additional cash” – though if you need a tech/geek/expert for a project, I’m available for that as well like/comment/share/message me and we might get something good going …