I.T. Erudio

Category: history

  • programming, teams, and the limits of automation

    It is always worth pointing out that (as a general rule) human beings are terrible at predicting the future. This isn’t a harsh condemnation so much as recognition of the human condition.

    It wouldn’t take much effort to fill up a small book of quotes/proverbs/sayings that all boil down to “it is out of our hands – we can’t guarantee what will happen.” A personal favorite:

    “If the good Lord’s willing and the creeks don’t rise”

    –Jerry Reed

    Of course that doesn’t stop folks from making predictions – which is what I’m getting ready to do …

    Career Training

    Historically the entire concept of “career training” is something that most folks didn’t have to worry about. For most of human history “subsistence farming” has been the “career” for most of humanity.

    The entire idea of needing to be specifically trained for a profession probably only goes back a couple hundred years. What often gets called the “oldest profession” didn’t require any “training” at all.

    Even what modern folks would call “professionals” – people like doctors and lawyers – didn’t require a great deal of formal schooling/training until the 20th Century.

    The reasons “why” this is true becomes a lesson in the development of human civilization – so I’ll just say that the AMOUNT of human knowledge has grown at a great rate due in large part to improved technologies.

    Obviously first you need a writing system – then you need materials to write on and create “tomes of knowledge” – then you need a way to reproduce those “tomes”, etc.

    So if we did a poll on the “most influential invention in the history of humanity” – the “moveable type printing press” would easily be near the top – metal working, gun powder, domestication of animals, fishing/boat construction would probably make the list – but being able to record and transmit knowledge over time and space (i.e. what books allow) was obviously kind of a big deal.

    Of course none of these “inventions” developed independently of the others – that isn’t the point. At some point the accumulation of “knowledge”/”skills”/”expertise” made the concept of “job training” a reality.

    Upward mobility/Job satisfaction

    MAYBE in an ideal society individuals would be able to choose the work they perform.

    Of course there aren’t many “ideal societies” – so I’ll just point out that the worker makes the work “honorable.” How a society tends to reward different professions says a great deal about that society not the workers/profession itself.

    In general people can put up with almost any “how” as long as there is a good enough “why.” (I’ll mention/recommend “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Viktor Frankl for the curious).

    ANYWAY – for better or worse, most folks don’t “choose” a profession so much as “wander into one.” Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – e.g. once again, the unexamined life is not worth living. Yes, there is a larger plan being worked out here on earth – but one way or the other:

     Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

    Ecclesiastes 9:10

    ANYWAY – wrong predictions

    I’ve spent a lifetime in “technology” almost by accident. I picked up some “personal computer repair” skills when the ‘personal computer” was a new thing – then moved into “computer networking” partially because it paid more AND an opportunity presented itself.

    During that 20 year period I tended to “buy a book” and read up on the latest technology. While I’m “naturally curious” and enjoy learning – most of the time my motivation for learning was a larger paycheck/$$.

    There was a point in the early 1990’s when the expectation was that “computer programming” would be outsourced to lower cost workers “overseas.” Which did happen – but then those jobs ended up coming back when the “theoretical cost savings” were consumed by “real world communication issues.”

    Now, I don’t think anyone ever officially stood at a podium and said “don’t go into computer programming” – but the trendy concept at the time was “globalization” – and if you wanted a job “safe from globalization/outsourcing” then maybe you should avoid “computer programming” as a career choice.

    The end result? Well, there are a LOT of “coding boot camps” out there trying to fill the the need for trained “computer programmers.” Ok, the “Interweb” kinda happened in the same time period – which changed a lot of things, not just the computer programming field …

    More predictions

    Now (written in 2021) everyone is expecting driverless cars and trucks to make “truck drivers” obsolete.

    Maybe. Maybe not. Either way – the immediate need for “truck drivers” isn’t going away anytime soon.

    Would I suggest “truck driving” to someone looking for a “lifelong career?” Probably not – but that requires context.

    In general I try to stay away from “giving advice” – particularly “career advice.” The problem is that there are just too many variables – e.g. “should someone pursue THIS field or THAT field?” – I have no idea, it depends on the person.

    I tend to say “know yourself” in those situations. HOWEVER – just for fun – “should someone become a truck driver in 2021?”

    Well, relatively short training time, relatively high wages, in demand skill set that isn’t likely to go away anytime soon – might make the job of “truck driver” a good choice for a large number of people.

    If we divide the “supply line” into “long haul”, “medium routes”, and “the last mile” – the sweet spot for HUMAN truck drivers (as in not easily replaceable by automation or crowdsourcing type apps) is the “medium routes.”

    e.g. a “shipment” might come in on a big boat in a large container, get unloaded and placed on a train where “X” miles and then gets “dispatched” to a truck that takes it to a local warehouse, where it gets unloaded and (maybe) delivered to “customers” by someone using “crowdsource delivery app.”

    Automation isn’t free …

    The problem with trying to automate any process is that then the “automation” needs to be maintained.

    Which means the “processes” best suited for “automation” have a few simple steps.

    e.g. if the process is “place a box (that is always the same size) in the same spot (that is also always the same size)” – automate away. BUT if the process is “make hundreds of smaller decisions along the way to an uncertain destination” then automating (and maintaining) the process will probably be extremely expensive and error prone

    … which means that training human drivers is gonna be cheaper than automation for the “foreseeable future.”

    Yes, the technology for “driverless cars” is available in 2021 – the problem is the variability of the deliveries and routes and the cost of constantly updating/maintaining those routes.

    e.g. GPS is great – but if it goes down, then what? Well, the automated system probably completely ceases to function – while the “human driver” might be unaffected or just slowed down.

    I know the “automated workforce” always sounds great to “upper management” types – and I’m not saying that drones/driverless cars aren’t going to change/improve the supply chain EVENTUALLY. Just not in the next couple years …

    Teams

    Imagine that you have “human like devices” that can be trained to play “sports.” Which sport would be easiest to “automate?”

    Well, we would want the sport that has the least amount of interaction between “devices.” Maybe an individual sport like golf? then maybe something like tennis?

    When the “devices” have to work together as a team – then things get complicated. So then the sports with the fewer “players” would be easier to automate – basketball? hockey? Both fast paced, hockey (usually) has a dedicated goalie – I’m not sure if that would make it easier or harder to automate – not important at the moment.

    Both hockey and basketball lack unique “offense” and “defense” players – sure, some players are expected to perform different functions but in theory all of the players are on both “offense” AND “defense”

    Baseball has a kinda complex set of 9 players on defense that we might be able to subdivide into “outfielders”, “infielders”, “pitchers”, and then “catchers.” Maybe the “hitter” and “baserunner” functionality can be 1 generic “offensive player.” still MORE complex in theory (harder to automate) than either basketball or hockey.

    What gets called “soccer” in the U.S. has 11 players on each side (including a goalie) – but from a “theoretical automation” point of view (POV), those 11 players are NOT supposed to run into each other. Coordinating passing of the ball would be a challenge – but from a “team complexity” POV probably somewhere between basketball/hockey and baseball.

    (remember I’m not rating the “sports” – I’m estimating the complexity of automating)

    Then we get to “football” – or more precisely “American football.” We have 11 distinct players on offense AND defense with “collisions” between players/devices on every play. Maybe the players on defense don’t require as much “unified precision” as those on offense but a very high level of “interaction” between all of the devices.

    Obviously the devices on “defense” are working together to try to stop the devices on “offense” which are also working together in a coordinated manner … and don’t forget the “kicking” game … ANYWAY

    SO “in theory” American football would be the hardest sport to “automate” because it requires the most “teamwork.”

    Again, this is about one sport being “superior” to another. In the real world this difference in “required team coordination” is seen in pro-sports on a regular basis.

    Every once in a while some wealthy owner will try to “buy” a championship by spending a lot of money acquiring great individual players.

    This seems to happen in the NBA on a regular basis.

    The NY Yankees have been doing it in MLB since 1923.

    Hockey has had great NHL franchises win a lot of championships in a row – but I don’t know enough about the history of the sport to comment on ownership $$ spend. The Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups – but I don’t know if I would compare them to the “NY Yankees” from a player acquisition POV …

    I’m told that the successful “European football” clubs tend to be the same each year because of $$ spent on players – again, I don’t know the sport well enough to make comparisons.

    HOWEVER – anytime a franchise is extremely successful over a long period of time – they are doing something “right” besides spending a lot of money. I certainly don’t want to imply that just because the owners spend a lot of money, AND win championships that they are “cheating” in some form – and moving on …

    … and then we have the NFL. Forbes estimates the “team value” of the Dallas Cowboys (in 2021) at $5.7 billion. The Cowboys are always near the top of the list – and last I checked EVERY NFL franchise had a $billion+ valuation.

    Then as I was writing this an article on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers ownership came up – they guaranteed Tom Brady $50 million to come to Tampa Bay. Does that constitute “buying a championship?”

    Ok, obviously you need great players to win a Super Bowl – and those players are gonna cost $$ – but then those players need to work together as a team to win. You can’t just go out and spend a lot of money on free agents and expect them to automatically win championships.

    I’m guessing that Tom Brady saw a potential championship in Tampa Bay, or he would have gone somewhere else.

    The Cowboys and the “whatever we call the franchise in Washington DC” (last Super Bowl win 1992) both have owners that are willing to spend a massive amount of cash to win a championship – and are still searching for that right combination of talent and then something that money can’t buy “team chemistry.”

    ANYWAY – What makes football fun to watch is that the team with the “best players” doesn’t always win –

    As always – I’m just making observations – if I actually knew the secret ingredient to “winning” in the NFL/pro sports, I’d be making a lot more money 😉

  • parenting, birth order, destiny

    Recently noticed a “social media post” from a well meaning individual about individual responsibility – that I would tend to agree with, but is still slightly specious …

    Before starting, I feel obligated to point out that no one has “perfect parents” – we are all imperfect human beings. I will argue that MOST parents are trying very hard and doing the best they can with what they have.

    I am NOT talking about anyone in particular. My Bachelors degree is in “Liberal Studies” – e.g. which kind of means I took a lot of psychology and history classes, but not enough of either to get a degree is “psychology” or “history.”

    Umm, so whoever is reading this – I’m not talking about you 😉 Most of what I’ll point out has “research” to back it up and of course the occasional Bible verse will popup.

    Parenting

    The “motivating meme” said something about children raised by the same parents turning out differently – the old one is a Sinner the other a Saint, but both came from the same circumstances/had the same parents.

    This is where the “speciousness” occurs – the assumption is both that “parenting” is a uniform/consistent product and that children are all the same.

    Two individuals can grow up in the same household with the same parents and have very different “parenting experiences.”

    Part of that difference is due to the fact that “parenting” isn’t something you buy in cans from the “parenting” store. Once more – there are no perfect human parents – because there are no “perfect” humans.

    (oh, and this is where if someone says there family is “perfect” – feel free to ask them about their eating disorder. No family is “perfect” but thinking you are supposed to be part of a “perfect” family tends to be a sign of an eating disorder.)

    The point is that “parents” are living life as well – again, most parents are doing the best they can.

    Of course differences in “parenting” between “families” is easy to understand – but my subject today differences in children raised by the same parents.

    I’ve chatted with (some) parents that admit they thought their first child would be a “blank slate” that just needed to be “trained right” and everything would be perfect (this is the old “tabula rasa” theory).

    Well, then it turns out that the child came with a “disposition” and the “blank slate” thinking goes out the window.

    SO this is where the “humans are complex emotional beings” concept comes into play – no two siblings are going to be EXACTLY the same. If the same two parents have multiple children, then each child comes with a “disposition” installed at the factory 😉

    Birth Order

    Back in “the old days” of “landed gentry” the cliche was that in a family with four male children – the first born would inherit the “estate” (and enter politics), the second born would join the military, and the third would go into “law”, and the fourth would join the “church”.

    That tradition sounds “cute” in 2021 – but in an agricultural society “land” equals “wealth.” Obviously if the family divided the land between all the children, eventually the segments of land would be to small to be productive.

    The point for bringing up that tradition is to point out the difference “birth order” would have made on parenting expectations “back then.”

    I’m not sure how much “real research” has been done on “birth order” and the results on the child’s personality/psychology. More responsibility being placed on older children would be normal, but that doesn’t translate into “birth order rules” – again, parents aren’t manufacturing a product, and children are individuals.

    In the course of “getting to know” someone – I tend to ask about siblings and birth order. No, I don’t draw any conclusions about someone based on their birth order – there is (probably) more telling information in how they talk about their family than the size of the family – but that isn’t important now 😉

    In 2021 pointing out that “two parent” households tend to do better, then “single parent” households can get you called names – but there it is.

    We (as in “humanity”) also tend to “parent” the way we were “parented.” Which means that dysfunctional families tend to create MORE dysfunctional families – e.g. children of alcoholics will often marry alcoholics (a therapist might say they are “working on resolving primary relationship issues” – but I ain’t a therapist 😉 )

    In any case there is a BIG difference between “good enough”/”average” parenting and “abusive”/”truly dysfunctional” parenting.

    Medea from Greek mythology comes to mind – did they murder their children? no? then they did SOMETHING right (did I mention I’m not judging anyone?)

    The cliche that the best gift you can give your children is to have a strong marriage – is still true – BUT again, that is a “general statement” not written in stone. Did I mention that parents are people too?

    I’m not judging just pointing out that if you want “better adults” then “stronger families” are probably a good place to start – and I’m moving on …

    Destiny

    The whole “free will” vs “fate”/destiny comes to mind at this point.

    The Judeo Christian tradition has splintered quite a bit on this subject – and I won’t try to summarize 500 years of “Protestantism” here. How about if I just say that a lot of smart people have thought/written a lot about the subject – and it is probably beyond human explanation – and moving on.

    This verse from the Book of Proverbs (22:6) summarizes “parenting 101” expectations – then Deuteronomy 24:16 tells us that “every man shall be put to death for his own sin”

    Taken out of context – this Shakespeare quote (from “Julius Caesar”) “the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves” sounds like a good summary of this almost 1,000 word ramble …

    (but “in context”, well, Brutus was an honorable man, they were ALL honorable men – which probably works even better – i.e. the line is used to convince Brutus that Julius Caesar must be assassinated for the “common good”)

  • Capitalism, unions, THINK

    Capitalism
    “Capital” is simply “money and goods” used to produce more “money and goods.” Merriam-Webster tells me the first known use of the term “capitalism” goes back to 1833.

    It is slightly interesting that “Banking” goes back to 1660. Then the parable of the “minas” also comes to mind (where earning “interest” is mentioned in passing – not as the central message).

    If you want to be slightly cynical you might argue that humans are “economic animals” (the first occurrence of “economic” popping up in 1599 with an archaic meaning of “of or relating to a household or its management” – thank you Merriam-Webster).

    If I have a point – it is simply that human beings are capable of creating goods and services and then exchanging those goods and services for “something else” (“money” is a convenient concept – the word first appeared in English in the 14th Century).

    Behaviorism
    If you are a student of human development – you might recognize the “behaviorist” theory of human motivation that tries to boil down all human actions to “reactions to stimuli” of some form – e.g. incentives, rewards, punishments of various forms.

    This always sounds plausible – i.e. why does anyone do anything? they want “something” in exchange?

    It isn’t as bad as it may sound – the “something” doesn’t have to be “money.” Someone donating their time to help those in need might be receiving a non-tangible benefit – something like “sense of purpose”, “self-worth”, or the REALLY hard to nail down “happiness.”

    Human beings are also complex emotional beings – so saying that someone did something for a SINGLE purpose is always hard. We can get an understanding of someone by observing what they “do” AND how they “do it.” The amount of “character information” in a single action is limited – the more “behavior data” available, the more accurate the “character profile.”

    Fictional Characters
    When you are reading a novel or watching a movie – one of two lines of dialogue or a few actions may be there to “say something important” about the character.

    e.g. In a “cute” movie from 1993 “Amos & Andrew” Nicolas Cage plays a petty thief with a terrible “sense of direction” – which becomes “character information” as well as “running joke” (warning: this movie makes fun of a LOT of “self righteous” authority stereotypes – so it isn’t exactly “politically correct” in 2021 – but it is “fun”)

    I also have a terrible “sense of direction” – which if I was a fictional character might be important – but in the real world doesn’t mean anything in particular except that I shouldn’t be the first choice to drive if “navigation without Google” is required.

    Wait, where are we going?
    Most “-isms” aren’t inherently good or bad. It is always the implementation of the “system” that becomes problematic.

    So pick you favorite “-ism” – on paper it probably looks perfect/pure/”good.” Implement it with human beings, and things get messy.

    Consider “capitalism” – how can anyone object to the idea of people using “money and goods” to make MORE “money and goods.” In an efficient “market economy” we would see natural division of labor – e.g. not everyone needs to make their own bread every day, the baker can specialize in “baking bread” – the butcher can specialize in “meat production” – and the candlestick maker can specialize in whatever candlestick makers did 😉

    The baker/butcher/candlestick maker will probably produce better quality products at a lower price – so even when they add a small amount to the price of their product to make a “profit”, the consumer is better off than if they had to do it all themselves.

    Then the wise craftsman would set aside part of their profits and invest it in expanding/improving their craft, or hiring/training workers to produce more quality goods and services.

    Assuming everything goes well, eventually the craftsman has “money and goods” to invest in other enterprises – so our baker/butcher/candlestick maker has suddenly become a “capitalist.”

    Historically I can say that “community ovens” where common 1500 years ago, then folks would bring there bread to the baker and pay to have it baked, eventually got to the point where (in the U.S. at least) we have “walls of bread” at the supermarket – all due to individuals acting in their own best interest and providing a needed service.

    A modern version of that story is told in “The Donut King” – and also the negative side of human nature. i.e. Ted Ngoy built a “donut empire” by helping others and then greed and lust destroyed that empire.

    Banking
    Explaining the modern “banking system” probably requires its own class – but at a basic level it is still just a “business” that holds peoples money and lends out that money to other people in exchange for “interest.”

    That “money” stuff also has a “time-value” – which is really not important at the moment.

    ANYWAY – when our wise baker wants to “invest” his profits he would start by putting some of his money in a bank/financial institution of some kind.

    If the bank pays our baker “2% interest” on deposits and then is able to lend that money at 4% to the butcher (who wants to expand his business) – then once again, everyone wins.

    Once again, “banking” isn’t good or bad – just a business. Once again the real problem becomes “greed” not financial institutions/capitalism.

    Our imaginary banker might be making a living off of that 2% difference between loans and deposits. Even if our banker is completely honest – there is always the risk of “moral hazard” – e.g. what happens if the Donut King takes out a big loan to “expand the business” and then runs off to Las Vegas and loses it all on blackjack?

    Well, in the real world financial institutions are heavily regulated and have to keep a certain amount of “reserve capital” for “bad loans.”

    Again, once normal people get involved and not “theoretical models on paper” – things get messy.

    Frank Capra
    Frank Capra was one of the great movie makers of early Hollywood. Many of his movies get interpreted as “communist sympathizing” by biased modern audiences.

    Since it tends to get shown every Christmas season “It’s a Wonderful Life” is probably Mr Capra’s most familiar movie to “modern audiences.”

    If you watch the movie – it is a small – and easy to miss – plot point that Mr Potter (the movie’s villain) buys the local bank during an economic downturn. Mr Potter is guilty of both bitterness and greed – and uses the bank for those purposes.

    The “true capitalist” in the movie is George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart). Mr Bailey runs the “Building and Loan” – which in 2021 terms would probably be considered a “credit union.”

    I suppose there is someone that hasn’t seen the movie – so I won’t give away the ending. I’ll just point out that “people working together for common benefit” is not unique to ANY “-ism” –

    George Bailey is (probably) exceptionally generous, while Mr Potter is exceptionally greedy – so if anything the movie is a morality tale about the superiority of generosity over greed – BUT certainly not an endorsement of communism.

    Looking at Frank Capra’s movies as a whole – you see a common thread of “individual liberty over authoritarianism.” Of course he was making movies in and around the Great Depression – but if his movies are concerned with a particular “-ism” then it is “individualism.”

    Remember the command is to “love your neighbor as yourself” – so individuals within a society have obligations to other members of that society as well as privileges within that society. BUT society does not “own” the individual and society does not “owe” the individual anything – we are all free moral and economic agents with responsibilities

    Have I mentioned these things get “real world” messy very fast …

    Who makes the decisions
    Look at all of the “-isms” from 10,000 feet and they kind of look the same. The key differentiator in “real world economic systems” usually centers around who makes the decisions.

    SO should you bake bread or make candlesticks? Maybe one, maybe the other, probably you want to do something completely different – should you make that decision or should someone else tell you what you are going to do?

    Well, almost everyone is going opt for “let me make my own decision.” Which is the fantasy that “true communism” tries to sell – maybe in an truly efficient optimal society where “everyone VOLUNTARILY contributes as required” AND “everything required for living is freely available” that might be possible.

    Meanwhile in the real world – “real work” tends to get neglected simply because, well, it is “work.”

    The oversimplified history lesson
    HISTORICALLY – most folks have been subsistence farmers. i.e. “choosing a career” (for the average person) was never really an option for MOST of human history.

    Then, well, “capitalism” happened – ok, from a “western civilization” point of few the “Black Death” wiped out enough people in Europe that “economic mobility” increased. Labor became scarce – and therefore more valuable.

    The old “middle school world history textbook” explanation of the divisions of Medieval Europe was that there were three groups – 1. those that “fought” (the upper class/nobility), 2. those that “prayed” (the Church), and 3. those that “worked” (everyone else – again, a lot of subsistence farmers).

    The rise of a skilled middle class/merchants kind of disrupted the status quo. Then the wealth accumulated by that skilled middle class/merchants combined with the “body count” from the Black Death allowed for “social mobility.”

    SO as a rule of thumb – we see “economic liberty” always precedes “civil liberty.”

    Unions
    Squeezed into that mess somewhere are “trade unions.” Once upon a time these were formal agreements between a “master” and an “apprentice” intended to provide labor for the “master” and training for the “apprentice.”

    In a world without “accreditations”/”licenses”/”certifications” the apprenticeship was a way to pass on skills and give some guarantee of “quality” to the consumer. e.g. paying for the “trade union approved” work might cost a little more – but you could expect quality work.

    The “modern labor union” probably dates back to the industrial revolution and the creation of “factories” and then the “assembly line.” The “union job” might still be skilled labor, but the trend was towards “unskilled commodity labor.”

    The “assembly line” broke the creation/assembly process into smaller processes – i.e. a single worker was easily replaced because the skills to perform the task could be easily taught/learned (no long drawn out master/apprentice process required).

    Unions Good
    There were a LOT of “abuses of labor” early in the industrial revolution. Child labor, long work days, no “job security” or “workman’s compensation” – early “labor unions” helped bring about needed reform.

    The real motivation for “management” to change how they treated “labor” probably revolved around productivity and worker efficiency.

    Henry Ford famously offered a $5 a day wage in 1914 (when the average daily wage was around $2). The improved wages cut down on employee turnover and improved Ford’s profitability – i.e. paying workers more made them stick around longer and the company actually made more money.

    In “modern times” organized labor is on the decline for any number of reasons – part of the problem is that “the Unions” got big and corrupt at worst/inefficient at best.

    Unions not so good
    Yes, the modern workplace owes “unions” a great deal – but the old “Animal Farm” story applies – i.e. if/when the “new masters” start acting like the “old masters” the ordinary worker pays the price.

    The decline of the American auto-industry serves as a good example – with the Unions illustrating that “greed” is a problem for “labor” as well as “management.”

    Yes, it is a complicated issue – but ideally the “union” should be a partner with “management.” If the relationship is adversarial then no one “wins.”

    e.g. For years “Southwest Airlines” treated their labor union as a partner – and had a long run of profitability (and appear to be coming out of the pandemic fueled downturn).

    ANYWAY – unions aren’t “good” or “bad.” If they serve their members by providing a common communication platform, then they are doing a great job. If all the “union” does is collect dues, make political contributions, and bitch about how management doesn’t want to pay more, then they are probably NOT doing a great job.

    Unions and Communism
    Another pet peeve is the idea that somehow “unions” and “communism” are dependent on each other when they are completely unrelated.

    Unions are not “communism”, communism is not “unions” – unions are about organization, “communism” (as it exists in the real world and not some academic fantasy) is about gov’ment control of the economy.

    I suppose a communist regime might require all workers join a union – but again, that is “management” (i.e. the gov’ment) communicating with “labor” (i.e. individual workers) en masse.

    Meanwhile in a “free market capitalist” system the decision to form a union or not would be left up to the workers – not coerced from above.

  • 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 …)

  • 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.