I.T. Erudio

Category: movies

  • geeks, nerds, and reboots

    memes

    Merriam-Webster tells me that the word “meme” dates all the way back to 1976 (coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene) with the meaning of “unit of cultural transmission.”

    Apparently the “-eme” suffix “indicates a distinctive unit of language structure.” Dr Dawkins combined the Greek root “mim-” (meaning “mime” or “mimic”) with “-eme” to create “meme.”

    Then this interweb thing hit full stride and minimally edited images with captions with (maybe) humorous intent became a “meme.”

    Humor is always subjective, and with brevity (still) being the soul of wit – most “memes” work on a form of “revelatory” humor. The humor comes in “discovering” the connection between the original image, and then the edited/altered image.

    We aren’t dealing in high level moral reasoning or intense logic – just “Picture A”, “Picture B”, brain makes connection – grin/groan and then move on. By definition “memes” are short/trivial.

    Which makes commenting on “memes” even more trivial. Recently on “social media platform” I made an off the cuff comment about a meme that amounted to (in my head) “A=B”, “B=C”, “A+B+C<D.”

    Now, I readily admit that my comment was not logical – but from a certain perspective “true” – if not directly provable from the supplied evidence. It was a trivial response meant to be humorous – not a “grand unifying theory of everything.”

    … and of course I (apparently) offended someone to the point that they commented on my comment – accusing me of “not understanding the meme.”

    Notice the “apparently” qualifier – it is POSSIBLE that they were trying to be funny. My first reaction was to explain by comment (because obviously no one would intentionally be mean or rude on the interweb – i.e. the commenter on my comment must have simply misunderstood my comment 😉 ) – BUT that would have been a fourth-level of trivialness …

    HOWEVER the incident got me thinking …

    geeks and nerds

    Another doctor gets credit for creating the term “nerd” (Dr Suess – If I Ran the Zoo, 1950). It didn’t take on the modern meaning implying “enthusiasm or expertise” about a subject until later years. The term “dork” came about in the 1960’s (… probably as a variation on “dick” – and quickly moving on …) – meaning “odd, socially awkward, unstylish person.”

    “Geek” as a carnival performer biting the heads of chickens/snakes, eating weird things, and generally “grossing out” the audience goes back to 1912. Combined with another term it becomes synonymous with “nerd” – e.g. “computer geek” and “computer nerd.”

    random thought: if you remember Harry Anderson – or have seen re-runs of Night Court – his standup act consisted of “magic” and some “carnival geek” bits, he didn’t bite the heads of any live animals though (which would have gotten him in trouble – even in the 1980’s). Of course youtube has some video that I won’t link to – search for “Harry Anderson geek” if curious …


    I think a nerd is a person who uses the telephone to talk to other people about telephones. And a computer nerd therefore is somebody who uses a computer in order to use a computer.

    Douglas Adams

    ANYWAY – to extend the Douglas Adams quote – a “nerd” might think that arguing about a meme is a good use of their time …

    Which brings up the difference between “geeks” and “nerds” – I have (occasionally) used Sheldon and Leonard from the Big Bang Theory to illustrate the difference – with Sheldon being the “geek” and Leonard the “nerd”. Both of their lives revolve around technology/intellectual pursuits but they “feel” differently about that fact – i.e. Sheldon embraces the concept and is happily eccentric (“geek”) while Leonard feels self-conscious and awkward (“nerd”).

    SO when I call myself a “computer geek” it is meant as a positive descriptive statement 😉 – yes, I am aware that the terms aren’t AS negative as they once were, I’m just pointing out that my life has ended up revolving around “computers” (using them/repairing them) and it doesn’t bother me …

    Though I suppose “not being able to use a computer” in 2022 is in the same category that “not able to ride a horse” or “can’t shoot a rifle” would have been a couple hundred years ago … in a time when being “adorkable” is an accepted concept – calling yourself a “geek” or “nerd” isn’t as bad as it used to be — umm, in any case when I say “geek” I’ve never bitten the head off anything (alive or dead), I did perfect biting into and tearing off a part of an aluminum can back in high school – but that is another story …

    reboots

    While I did NOT comment on the comment about my comment – I did use the criticism of my comment as an opportunity for self-examination.

    Background material: The meme in question revolved around “movie franchise reboots.” (again, trivial trivialness)

    In 2022 when we talk about “movie franchise reboots” the first thing that is required is a “movie franchise.”

    e.g. very obviously “Star Trek” got a JJ Abrams reboot. Those “Star Wars” movies were “sequels” not “reboots” but the less said about JJ Abrams and that franchise the better

    the big “super hero” franchises have also obviously been rebooted –

    • Batman in the 1990’s played itself out – then we got the “Batman reboot” trilogy directed by Christopher Nolan,
    • Superman in the 1970’s/80’s didn’t get a movie franchise reboot until after Christopher Reeves died
    • Spider-Man BECAME a movie franchise in the 2000’s, then got a reboot in 2012, and another in 2016/2017

    SO the issue becomes counting the reboots – i.e. Batman in the 1990’s (well, “Batman” was released in 1989) had a four movie run with three different actors as Batman. I’m not a fan of those movies – so I admit my negative bias – but they did get progressively worse …

    Oh, and if we are counting “reboots” do you count Batman (1966) with Adam West? Probably not – it exists as a completely separate entity – but if you want to count it I won’t argue – the relevant point is that just “changing actors” doesn’t equal a “reboot” – restarting/retelling the story from a set point makes a “reboot.”

    However, counting Superman “reboots” is just a matter of counting actor changes – e.g. Christopher Reed made 4 Superman movies (which also got progressively worse) – “Superman Returns” (2006) isn’t a terrible movie – but it exists in its own little space because it stomped all over the Lois Lane/Superman relationship – then we have the Henry Cavill movies that were central to DC comics attempt at a “cinematic universe.”

    We can also determine “reboots” by counting actors with Spider-Man. Of course the Spider-Man franchise very much illustrates that the purpose of the “movie industry” is to make money – not tell inspiring stories, raise awareness, or educate the masses – make money. If an actor becomes a liability – they can be replaced – it doesn’t matter if you setup another movie or not 😉

    There are other not so recent franchises – “Tarzan” was a franchise, maybe we are stretching to call Wyatt Earp a franchise, how about Sherlock Holmes?

    The Wyatt Earp/OK corral story is an example of a “recurring story/theme” that isn’t a franchise. Consider that “McDonald’s” is a franchise but “hamburger joint” is not …

    Then we have the James Bond franchise.

    The problem with the “Bond franchise” is that we have multiple “actor changes” and multiple “reboots.” i.e. Assuming we don’t count Peter Seller’s 1967 “Casino Royale” there have been 6 “James Bond” actors. Each actor change wasn’t a “reboot” but just because they kept making sequels doesn’t mean they had continuity.

    The “Sean Connery” movies tell a longform story of sorts – with Blofeld as the leader of Spectre. The “James Bond” novels were very much products of the post WWII/Cold War environment – but the USSR was never directly the villain in any of the movies, the role of villain was usually Spectre in some form.

    The easy part: The “Daniel Craig” Bond movies were very obviously a reboot of the Blofeld/Spectre storyline.

    The problem is all of those movies between “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” (1969) and “Casino Royale” (2006).

    “Diamonds are Forever” (1971) was intended to finish the story started in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” – i.e. Bond gets married (and retires?), then Blofeld kills Bond’s wife as they leave the wedding – then bad guys drive away – Bond holds his dead wife while saying “We have all the time in the world.” – roll credits.

    (fwiw: Except for the obviously depressing ending “On her Majesty’s Secret Service” is actually one of the better Bond movies)

    Then George Lazenby (who had replaced Sean Connery as Bond) asked for more money than the studio was willing to pay – and they brought back Sean Connery for a much more light hearted/cartoonish Bond in “Diamonds are Forever.” (did I mention the profit making motive?)

    Of course “Diamonds are Forever” starts out with Bond hunting down and killing Blofeld – but that is really the only reference we get to the previous movie – SO reboot? this particular movie maybe, maybe not – but it did signify a “formula change” if nothing else.

    Any attempt at “long form storytelling” was abandoned in preference for a much more “cartoony” James Bond. MOST of the “Roger Moore” Bond movies have a tongue-in cheek feeling to them.

    The “70’s Bond movies” became progressively more cartoonish – relying more on gadgets, girls, violence than storytelling (e.g. two of the movies “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “Moonraker” are basically the same plot). There are a few references to Bond having been married but nothing that would be recognized as “character development” or continuity – it could be argued that each movie did a “soft reboot” to the time after “Diamonds are Forever”, but simply saying that the “continuity” was that there was no “continuity” is more accurate.

    Then we got the “80’s Bond” – “For Your Eyes Only” intentionally backed off the gadgets and promiscuity – Bond visits his wife’s grave and Blofeld makes a (comic) appearance in the “Bond intro action sequence” – so I would call this one a “soft reboot” but not a complete relaunch.

    The same goes for Timothy Dalton’s Bond movies – not a full blown restart, but a continuation of the “upgrading” process – still no memorable continuity between movies – (he only did two Bond movies).

    Pierce Brosnan as Bond in “GoldenEye” (1995) qualifies as another actor change and “soft reboot” – Bond is promiscuous and self-destructive but it is supposed to be as a reaction to his job, not because being promiscuous and self-destructive is cool – but we were back to the tongue in cheek – gadget fueled Bond (two words: “invisible car”).

    The Daniel Craig Bond movies certainly fit ANY definition of a reboot. “No Time to Die” (2021) was the last Bond movie for Mr Craig – but what direction the “franchise” is going is all just speculation at the moment …

    ANYWAY – comparing 27 Bond movies over 58ish years to the modern “Super hero” reboots – was the gist of my trivial answer to a trivial meme (which only took 1,700+ words to explain 😉 )

  • 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 …)

  • What makes a game a “game”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • 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 …

  • “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”