I.T. Erudio

Category: history

  • 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.

  • 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 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 …

  • The business of motion pictures …

    First principles

    In the category of “first principles” put “healthy competition is good for everyone.”

    To be clear – saying “HEALTHY COMPETITION is good” implies that there is such a thing as “unhealthy competition.”

    “Healthy competition” – is a version of the classic “win-win” scenario. Ok, obviously in many/most “competitions” someone “wins” and someone else “loses” – so we have to expand the “concept” of winning to include “short term winning” and “long term winning”.

    Storytime – short term win vs long term success

    Examples from the “world of sport” should be obvious – e.g. that “young talented team” that gets blown out by the “experienced champion team” obviously didn’t win THAT GAME. If that “young team” learned that they need to put in the practice time/effort to improve themselves – then THEY might be a championship team down the road.

    When/if that happens players/coaches might look back and say, “it all really started when we got blown out by ‘so and so’ and learned how much we needed to improve to be a championship team” — again, short term win vs long term win/success.

    Disruption

    Of course, our hypothetical “young talented team” isn’t going to enjoy getting taught the lesson. If that team responds by saying “the game isn’t fair” or “we stink and will never be as good as those guys” – then the result of the hypothetical sport-game above was truly win/lose.

    Sports cliches aside – switching to a “business industry competition” point of view. Competition is usually good for the consumer but always “disruptive” for companies.

    If that “disruption” causes companies to improve their products and services – then we end up with a true “win/win” scenario.

    Motion picture industry disruption

    SO the “motion picture” industry has survived multiple “major disruptive events” in its 120+ year history.

    The first “motion pictures” were short novelty films sold via nickelodeons – i.e. an individual put a nickel in the machine, then watched the short film through a viewing port.

    Thomas Edison is said to have opposed the development of a “projector” (where an audience could all watch the same film at the same time) because it would “kill the motion picture industry.”

    Mr Edison was probably correct – the projector “killed” the nickelodeon film market. The disruption in the market spurred demand for longer narrative features – i.e. “motion pictures” moved from “novelty” to “story telling.”

    Then in the late 1920’s the motion picture industry was disrupted by “sound.” If you were a silent movie star – you probably thought that “sound” killed the motion picture industry.

    Then in the 1950’s “television” came along and disrupted the motion picture industry again.

    Easy to forget in 2021 is that the old “studio system” ended in 1948 (United States v. Paramount) – which much more than television “disrupted” the motion picture industry.

    HOWEVER, you can make a good argument that “television” wouldn’t have had the actors/directors/writers/other technical talent to create that “golden age of American television” if the old “studio system” was still in place.

    The “small screen” didn’t have the prestige of “the movies.” If given the choice between being a “movie star” or a “television star” – my guess is that most “talent” would choose “movie star.” BUT if the choice was between “starving” and “working in television” – well, that choice is obvious as well …

    Television also didn’t have the big production and DISTRIBUTION costs of “the movies.” Which illustrates how “competition” was good for the average consumer (more “entertainment” choices), good for a great number of talented individuals, but bad for the “big movie business studio status quo.”

    Off the top of my head – other disruptors:

    • the “production code” ended in the late 1960’s. In 1968-ish the age based “ratings” system was introduced.
    • “cable tv”/”pay tv” in general – HBO started in 1972
    • disruption can come from “within” the industry as well – e.g. the “summer blockbuster” was accidently created in 1975 when “Jaws” ran into production problems and couldn’t be released until “summer”

    Streaming

    Once again the history of the “internet” is a story that can be told many ways.

    With the caveat that putting an exact date on any “disruption” is problematic:

    This time around I’ll point out that the “internet as industry changing disruption” first hit the financial markets (mid 1990s) with the availability of “stock” information and then the “online brokerages.” THEN the music industry was disrupted (late 1990s) by a combination of Napster/peer to peer file sharing and the DMCA.

    In 2006 Google acquired YouTube (a story for another time) – but as I remember it “video streaming” was on everybody’s radar as the “next big thing.”

    SO in 2007 when Netflix offered a “streaming movies” option it was really just the “other shoe dropping“.

    In 2007 the streaming options were about being “on demand.” i.e. “streaming” in 2007 was a disruptor to “television” NOT to “the movies.”

    the cinema experience
    Then 2020 happened and COVID-19 lockdowns forced movie theaters to shutdown.

    To be honest I don’t think it has ever been “easy” to be in the “movie theater” business. Technology disrupting the “theater business” is another post – but again for the most part the disruptions have been “win/win.”

    From a THEATER point of view – the movies are almost a “loss leader.” The typical theater makes much more money off of selling popcorn/concessions than they do from ticket sales.

    SO (again in general) what the theater is selling is the “movie going experience” – i.e. Something that you can’t replicate at home – whether that is from renting a DVD or paying for a “streaming option.”

    … me thinking out loud …

    From a profit and loss/return on investment point of view – the folks doing best are probably the “second run” theaters.

    Once upon a time – in the “pre digital” world – the “second run” theaters got the “movie film canisters” AFTER the “first run theaters” had shown the movie for several weeks.

    Since the physical film degrades slightly each time the film is run through the projector – the “second run theater” was also a “second class” viewing experience – and so the ticket prices were also much lower BUT the price of concessions were not much lower.

    Remember video tape and then DVDs were only a minor disruptor for “theaters.” For the “movie industry” video tapes and DVDs became another lucrative market – to the point where it became rare for “big Hollywood movies” to lose money (subject for another post 😉 )

    My point is that the primary demographics for “second run theaters” is (probably) “younger folks looking to go out.” The movie is almost a secondary concern, spending time with friends/socializing the goal.

    Back in days of “video rental chains” it was common for a movie to be available to rent for home viewing while the movie was being shown in “second run” theaters.

    Whatever the demographic differences between the two market segments – there were people that would rent the movie and watch it at home, and there were also people that would pay to see it in the “second run theater.”

    (btw: if you want to “watch/examine/interpret” the movie – then home viewing is always better. if you want the movie “experience” – that is better in a theater)

    td;dr

    If someone want to say that “streaming” killed Blockbuster/Hollywood video – I’ll agree with that.

    HOWEVER – “streaming” is good for the motion picture industry in general. Disruptive, yes – but still “good.”