(from an email I sent around. Not doing much blogging lately, so I thought I'd put it up here.)
John Lennon died 25 years ago today. There have been numerous articles and memorials about this, but something I heard today on public radio was so remarkable I wanted to share it with a few people.
http://www.hearingvoices.com/special/2005/lennon/
This hour-long program has two segments: one features interviews with Lennon and a rather non-linear recounting of his life in and out of the Beatles, the second is a series of memories from different people about when they first heard that he had died. Both segments are astonishing in different ways. What’s also amazing, to my ears, is the use of demo, live, and home recordings both in the background and as segues. At one point we hear "She Said, She Said" evolve from a primitive home recording to a full band version in about 10 seconds.
I heard this program as I was leaving work for lunch, and I immediately changed my plans, went through a drive-through and sat in my car for an hour so as not to miss anything. Also so I could laugh and cry in peace.
Perhaps the most touching moments (for me) were John and Sean Lennon discussing Beatles songs, or John just talking about how much he enjoyed being a father. (Sean was five when Lennon died at age 40). Or one of his fans talking about how her politics and values were influenced by his words and his work.
For those of you in Milwaukee, there have been some good Lennon articles recently. Dave Tianen at the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel did this one:
http://www.jsonline.com/onwisconsin/music/nov05/374332.asp
My friend Blaine Schultz at the Shepherd Express did a piece on
Milwaukee musicians reflecting on Lennon’s death, and was kind enough to include me as one of the people he interviewed:
http://www.shepherd-express.com/12_8_05/cover.htm
One thing I couldn’t stop wondering when I listened to the radio special was what would John Lennon think of the world today. Would he be discouraged? Would he be speaking out, agitating for peace as he did in the 60s and 70s? It’s hard to say. The world has changed since his death; one of the things that changed it was his death.
That’s too negative a note to end on, so I’ll remember what someone said once, that you’re never really dead as long as there is someone who remembers you.
John Lennon will never die.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Serenity, Now
I saw Serenity last Friday. The final installment in my must-see Science Fiction Summer movie series noted earlier on this blog. I have to say I am surprised I got to see all four movies (Star Wars III, War o’ the Worlds, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and Serenity) in the theater. Considering how few movies we get out to these days, I was pretty much figuring that I’d miss at least one.
But it so happens that we (significant other and I) made it to all four. It helps that she, although not strictly a science fiction fan, had at least a passing interest in all four movies, and is a big fan of Serenity director Josh Wheadon and the TV series that spawned the Serenity movie, Firefly.
The bottom line is that Serenity is the best movie of the bunch. Hitchhiker’s was funny at times and did capture some of the brilliant goofiness of the book (or radio series or TV series, whatever), but too often it strained to translate Doug Adam’s whimsy onto the big screen. Star Wars III was not as awful as the last two, but still, pretty bad as far as dialogue and believable plotlines. War of the Worlds was slick and mindless, and really pretty forgettable, despite some respectable work from Tom Cruise.
Wheadon is still establishing his reputation and is relatively young, and it showed, because he took some chances and broke a few rules. For example, he wasn’t afraid to kill off a few key characters. (Sure, Lucas did too this time but NOT SOON ENOUGH.)
And his take on a futuristic society is relatively unique, although questionable in some places. For example, the movie presents us with a single solar system containing what appears to be dozens of inhabited, earth-like planets. Not possible. No amount of terraforming is going to make planets far away from the sun (star) warm enough for the Earth-like conditions we saw at every stop. And if they’re so great at terraforming, why didn’t they just do that in our own solar system? Huh? Come on, vampire man, let’s hear some answers! You’re on my turf now…
Ahem. Anyhow, the one thing I really liked about the movie was Wheadon’s unusual decision to try to write dialogue that is unique to the situation, that is, it reflected the different culture and times the characters were in. This is rarely attempted in science fiction movies anymore, because it can make the movie even more difficult for the masses to follow, and because it can quickly descend into Nanoo Nanoo land.
But Wheadon wades bravely in, having his characters mouth lines that reflect the weird mix of buckskin and hi-tech that first Firefly and now Serenity features. If at times it sounds like Mormons in orbit, so be it. To my ears, it works pretty well, although more than once the SigO and I turned to each other and said, "What did he say?" That just gives us something to look forward to with the DVD.
I suspect this isn’t going to be a big hit, but I hope I’m wrong. Wheadon is a bit of a specialized taste, his audience tends to be a bit more sophisticated, and literate than, say, the demo that thought WotW looked like a rad movie. ("Rad." Even my attempts at snobbishness are out of date. Sigh.)
What I do know is that the crowd at the theater we were in seemed to be made up almost entirely of Firefly fans. They laughed knowingly at the characters’ lines, applauded at the end, and sat through the entire credits—that is, until the projector was turned off, at which point the crowd loudly voiced its disapproval for the quick hook. When a crowd is angry over not being able to see the complete list of grips and set makers, you know you’re dealing with true fans.
None of the big Science Fiction releases this summer (ok, summer/fall) are going to be remembered as classics of the genre, in my opinion. And the reason why is pretty obvious. None of them are new. WotW, remake. HH's Guide, remake, more or less. SWIII, final instalment in an old and tired franchise. Even Serenity, though it might be new to some, is basically a remake, boiling down a TV season into one movie. Like I said, the best of the bunch, but still, it didn't blow me away.
But it so happens that we (significant other and I) made it to all four. It helps that she, although not strictly a science fiction fan, had at least a passing interest in all four movies, and is a big fan of Serenity director Josh Wheadon and the TV series that spawned the Serenity movie, Firefly.
The bottom line is that Serenity is the best movie of the bunch. Hitchhiker’s was funny at times and did capture some of the brilliant goofiness of the book (or radio series or TV series, whatever), but too often it strained to translate Doug Adam’s whimsy onto the big screen. Star Wars III was not as awful as the last two, but still, pretty bad as far as dialogue and believable plotlines. War of the Worlds was slick and mindless, and really pretty forgettable, despite some respectable work from Tom Cruise.
Wheadon is still establishing his reputation and is relatively young, and it showed, because he took some chances and broke a few rules. For example, he wasn’t afraid to kill off a few key characters. (Sure, Lucas did too this time but NOT SOON ENOUGH.)
And his take on a futuristic society is relatively unique, although questionable in some places. For example, the movie presents us with a single solar system containing what appears to be dozens of inhabited, earth-like planets. Not possible. No amount of terraforming is going to make planets far away from the sun (star) warm enough for the Earth-like conditions we saw at every stop. And if they’re so great at terraforming, why didn’t they just do that in our own solar system? Huh? Come on, vampire man, let’s hear some answers! You’re on my turf now…
Ahem. Anyhow, the one thing I really liked about the movie was Wheadon’s unusual decision to try to write dialogue that is unique to the situation, that is, it reflected the different culture and times the characters were in. This is rarely attempted in science fiction movies anymore, because it can make the movie even more difficult for the masses to follow, and because it can quickly descend into Nanoo Nanoo land.
But Wheadon wades bravely in, having his characters mouth lines that reflect the weird mix of buckskin and hi-tech that first Firefly and now Serenity features. If at times it sounds like Mormons in orbit, so be it. To my ears, it works pretty well, although more than once the SigO and I turned to each other and said, "What did he say?" That just gives us something to look forward to with the DVD.
I suspect this isn’t going to be a big hit, but I hope I’m wrong. Wheadon is a bit of a specialized taste, his audience tends to be a bit more sophisticated, and literate than, say, the demo that thought WotW looked like a rad movie. ("Rad." Even my attempts at snobbishness are out of date. Sigh.)
What I do know is that the crowd at the theater we were in seemed to be made up almost entirely of Firefly fans. They laughed knowingly at the characters’ lines, applauded at the end, and sat through the entire credits—that is, until the projector was turned off, at which point the crowd loudly voiced its disapproval for the quick hook. When a crowd is angry over not being able to see the complete list of grips and set makers, you know you’re dealing with true fans.
None of the big Science Fiction releases this summer (ok, summer/fall) are going to be remembered as classics of the genre, in my opinion. And the reason why is pretty obvious. None of them are new. WotW, remake. HH's Guide, remake, more or less. SWIII, final instalment in an old and tired franchise. Even Serenity, though it might be new to some, is basically a remake, boiling down a TV season into one movie. Like I said, the best of the bunch, but still, it didn't blow me away.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Pay for Play
I don’t know much about the music business. This despite the fact that I’ve been IN the music business for more than 20 years. Now, admittedly, my position in the "biz" has been pretty small potatoes (singer-songwriter, made some CDs, got some airplay, that’s about it). But I’ve been involved in different ways and have paid attention to it closely for all of those years, and it still seems like a closed, black box industry to me.
There’s no transparency. Artists don’t know what’s in their contracts. Radio stations rely on shadowy "consultants" to make their playlists. And now we find that the record companies STILL, 50 years after the first scandals shook the industry, engage in payola.
We know this (officially) only because New York’s crusading Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, took on the industry at a time when the FCC chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on.
What has developed?
"Sony BMG Music Entertainment, one of the top companies in the recording industry, agreed yesterday to pay $10 million to settle allegations that it bribed radio stations," the San Diego Union Tribune reported July 26.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050726-9999-1n26payola.html
"The practice of giving radio stations "payola," or gifts in exchange for playing specific songs, dates to the 1930s and has been prohibited by federal law for the past 45 years. Still, Spitzer said pay-for-play, as it is also called, is "pervasive within the music industry."
"… The findings of Spitzer's 11-month investigation reveal the extent to which Sony BMG would go to get its songs on the air, then to cover up the true nature of the payments. The findings also show how heavily record companies rely on radio stations to play their music and help boost sales of the songs.
"…In another case, Spitzer uncovered an e-mail to a Hartford, Conn., radio station from a promoter for Epic Records, part of Sony BMG, that said: "WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET AUDIOSLAVE ON WKSS THIS WEEK?!!? Whatever you dream up, I can make happen!!!" The promoter was pushing to get the song "Like a Stone" by the rock band Audioslave on the air.
"Spitzer cited examples of radio station personnel getting what he called "bribes" everything from airfare to video game consoles to laptop computers to give airtime to Sony BMG's record labels.
"… According to 59 pages of e-mails and documents Spitzer uncovered, Sony BMG would often demand that a song be played a certain number of times a day, sometimes even specifying the times of day, for the radio station to be eligible for the payout.
"…Spitzer's investigation also found that Sony BMG:
*Hired independent promoters to funnel the money and gifts to radio stations.
*Used interns and others it hired to call in requests for certain songs to trick radio stations into playing them more.
*Bought chunks of advertising time, during which its songs were played to boost ratings in the charts. Such airtime was not differentiated from regular music programs.
*Paid radio stations to cover operational expenses in exchange for playing specific songs."
(LA Times, 7-23)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-payola23jul23,0,4233398.story
This issue of independent consultants (promoters) is another scandal. I remember when we were trying to get a song on the radio we were told we "had" to hire a consultant who would then "work" the song. The problem is, of course, these consultants pay the stations to play songs. And if they don’t have the big pockets of the labels to fall back on—as ours did not—they really aren’t players in the game at all. We did get a few spins, but what chance does any indie band have in a system like this?
"In a practice once widespread, the promoters acted as middlemen paying radio stations annual fees - often exceeding $100,000 - not, they say, to play specific songs, but to obtain advance copies of the stations' playlists. The promoters then bill labels for each new song played; the total tab costs the industry tens of millions of dollars a year. Under the new rules, Sony cannot reimburse promoters for any expense for a radio station or contest winner."
NYTimes, July 26
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/business/26music.html
Notice: they’re paying the stations for advance copies of the playlist (riiiiiiiiiight), but they’re BILLING the labels for each song played. What a scam.
If you ever wondered why music and especially the music on the radio has gotten so bad in the last 20 years, this story explains a lot. The music industry has become a, well, to be polite, a manure factory. They look for marketable product, not talent, and package it to sell. And they have assumed that we will continue to buy the manure and like it, while they get rich. The artificial, disposable artists that have been paraded across TV and radio are often completely forgettable. But with the music industry’s tight control of commercial radio, as shown by this story, consumers have had to wade through a lot of manure to find anything halfway decent.
So all of you fans of unregulated business, I hope you enjoyed your Britney Spears, Good Charlotte, and Celine Dion. It was the best music money could buy. God knows if things will really improve, but this is a step in the right direction.
There’s no transparency. Artists don’t know what’s in their contracts. Radio stations rely on shadowy "consultants" to make their playlists. And now we find that the record companies STILL, 50 years after the first scandals shook the industry, engage in payola.
We know this (officially) only because New York’s crusading Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, took on the industry at a time when the FCC chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on.
What has developed?
"Sony BMG Music Entertainment, one of the top companies in the recording industry, agreed yesterday to pay $10 million to settle allegations that it bribed radio stations," the San Diego Union Tribune reported July 26.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050726-9999-1n26payola.html
"The practice of giving radio stations "payola," or gifts in exchange for playing specific songs, dates to the 1930s and has been prohibited by federal law for the past 45 years. Still, Spitzer said pay-for-play, as it is also called, is "pervasive within the music industry."
"… The findings of Spitzer's 11-month investigation reveal the extent to which Sony BMG would go to get its songs on the air, then to cover up the true nature of the payments. The findings also show how heavily record companies rely on radio stations to play their music and help boost sales of the songs.
"…In another case, Spitzer uncovered an e-mail to a Hartford, Conn., radio station from a promoter for Epic Records, part of Sony BMG, that said: "WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET AUDIOSLAVE ON WKSS THIS WEEK?!!? Whatever you dream up, I can make happen!!!" The promoter was pushing to get the song "Like a Stone" by the rock band Audioslave on the air.
"Spitzer cited examples of radio station personnel getting what he called "bribes" everything from airfare to video game consoles to laptop computers to give airtime to Sony BMG's record labels.
"… According to 59 pages of e-mails and documents Spitzer uncovered, Sony BMG would often demand that a song be played a certain number of times a day, sometimes even specifying the times of day, for the radio station to be eligible for the payout.
"…Spitzer's investigation also found that Sony BMG:
*Hired independent promoters to funnel the money and gifts to radio stations.
*Used interns and others it hired to call in requests for certain songs to trick radio stations into playing them more.
*Bought chunks of advertising time, during which its songs were played to boost ratings in the charts. Such airtime was not differentiated from regular music programs.
*Paid radio stations to cover operational expenses in exchange for playing specific songs."
(LA Times, 7-23)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-payola23jul23,0,4233398.story
This issue of independent consultants (promoters) is another scandal. I remember when we were trying to get a song on the radio we were told we "had" to hire a consultant who would then "work" the song. The problem is, of course, these consultants pay the stations to play songs. And if they don’t have the big pockets of the labels to fall back on—as ours did not—they really aren’t players in the game at all. We did get a few spins, but what chance does any indie band have in a system like this?
"In a practice once widespread, the promoters acted as middlemen paying radio stations annual fees - often exceeding $100,000 - not, they say, to play specific songs, but to obtain advance copies of the stations' playlists. The promoters then bill labels for each new song played; the total tab costs the industry tens of millions of dollars a year. Under the new rules, Sony cannot reimburse promoters for any expense for a radio station or contest winner."
NYTimes, July 26
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/business/26music.html
Notice: they’re paying the stations for advance copies of the playlist (riiiiiiiiiight), but they’re BILLING the labels for each song played. What a scam.
If you ever wondered why music and especially the music on the radio has gotten so bad in the last 20 years, this story explains a lot. The music industry has become a, well, to be polite, a manure factory. They look for marketable product, not talent, and package it to sell. And they have assumed that we will continue to buy the manure and like it, while they get rich. The artificial, disposable artists that have been paraded across TV and radio are often completely forgettable. But with the music industry’s tight control of commercial radio, as shown by this story, consumers have had to wade through a lot of manure to find anything halfway decent.
So all of you fans of unregulated business, I hope you enjoyed your Britney Spears, Good Charlotte, and Celine Dion. It was the best music money could buy. God knows if things will really improve, but this is a step in the right direction.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Justice Goodheart
One of the first things President Bush said about his new Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, was that the judge has "a good heart."
Oh, that’s a relief. Good to know. And good to know that Bush is not relying on stock platitudes in making one of the most important announcements of his presidency.
I mean, what is with this president and cardiovascular systems? During his first campaign for presidency, he repeatedly talked about what was in his heart. And ever since then, for nearly every appointment he has made, he has said the person in question "has a good heart."
Maybe it’s just a quirk, a phrase that he really likes. Maybe it’s code for something. Maybe it’s just salesmanship. That does seem to be a big part of George Bush’s job, selling people things they are not at all sure they want. I guess if you say your product (nominee) has a good heart, people may be less likely to judge it/them harshly.
"Mr. Smith has a long and distinguished record of using child slaves to strip mine environmentally sensitive areas and then dump the toxic rubble on nursing homes … but he has a good heart." Well, he can’t be all bad, then, can he?
Ironic, isn’t it, that the man he chose to be second in power literally has a bum ticker? I wonder, has George Bush ever described Dick Cheney as a man with a good heart? (If so, critics of the president could once again claim that BUSH LIED!)
Anyhow, John Roberts. It’s a good pick. I can’t come to any other conclusion at this point. I fear for the future of this country with the continued tilt of the SC to the right, but really, that was decided in the last election. The Democrats have every right to raise questions and objections and oppose this nomination if they choose to, but it is almost a certainty that he will be confirmed.
And considering the larger picture, we could have done much worse. This is an intelligent man, held in high regard in legal circles, certainly conservative but not radically so. He’s no Bork, and from what I know of him, he’s not a Thomas or Scalia either, which were the two names Bush has always mentioned as models for his first SC pick.
I think Bush, knowing that his administration is in real trouble over the Plame case and the war in Iraq, wanted an iron-clad nominee, one that would at least have some degree of bipartisan support while still having solid conservative credentials. Roberts seems to fit the bill. This nomination is not as likely to create another divisive controversy that could further damage Bush’s standing, and it shouldn’t alienate his base either. Win-win.
He knows Rehnquist will be gone soon enough. Then, presumably after some of the current troubles have passed, he can nominate another Bork, Thomas or Scalia. Win-win.
And I’m sure that the moment he nominates Mr. Darth Sidious, he will declare that the nominee has a good heart.
Oh, that’s a relief. Good to know. And good to know that Bush is not relying on stock platitudes in making one of the most important announcements of his presidency.
I mean, what is with this president and cardiovascular systems? During his first campaign for presidency, he repeatedly talked about what was in his heart. And ever since then, for nearly every appointment he has made, he has said the person in question "has a good heart."
Maybe it’s just a quirk, a phrase that he really likes. Maybe it’s code for something. Maybe it’s just salesmanship. That does seem to be a big part of George Bush’s job, selling people things they are not at all sure they want. I guess if you say your product (nominee) has a good heart, people may be less likely to judge it/them harshly.
"Mr. Smith has a long and distinguished record of using child slaves to strip mine environmentally sensitive areas and then dump the toxic rubble on nursing homes … but he has a good heart." Well, he can’t be all bad, then, can he?
Ironic, isn’t it, that the man he chose to be second in power literally has a bum ticker? I wonder, has George Bush ever described Dick Cheney as a man with a good heart? (If so, critics of the president could once again claim that BUSH LIED!)
Anyhow, John Roberts. It’s a good pick. I can’t come to any other conclusion at this point. I fear for the future of this country with the continued tilt of the SC to the right, but really, that was decided in the last election. The Democrats have every right to raise questions and objections and oppose this nomination if they choose to, but it is almost a certainty that he will be confirmed.
And considering the larger picture, we could have done much worse. This is an intelligent man, held in high regard in legal circles, certainly conservative but not radically so. He’s no Bork, and from what I know of him, he’s not a Thomas or Scalia either, which were the two names Bush has always mentioned as models for his first SC pick.
I think Bush, knowing that his administration is in real trouble over the Plame case and the war in Iraq, wanted an iron-clad nominee, one that would at least have some degree of bipartisan support while still having solid conservative credentials. Roberts seems to fit the bill. This nomination is not as likely to create another divisive controversy that could further damage Bush’s standing, and it shouldn’t alienate his base either. Win-win.
He knows Rehnquist will be gone soon enough. Then, presumably after some of the current troubles have passed, he can nominate another Bork, Thomas or Scalia. Win-win.
And I’m sure that the moment he nominates Mr. Darth Sidious, he will declare that the nominee has a good heart.
Monday, June 27, 2005
The Vision Thing
I was in the waiting room of the Eye Clinic at the University of Minnesota. Turns out I have small optical nerves. But never mind that. It's not the size that matters anyway.
While I was sitting there (with my tiny optical nerves bravely trying to process the signals from my retina) a gentleman in the row of seats behind me began to talk to someone about Sen. Dick Durbin from Illinois. Durbin recently read a speech on the floor of the Senate in which he describes some of the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay. In the speech, after reading from FBI reports on what can only be classified as torture of inmates, Durbin said that if one didn't know better, one might expect such acts to have been done under regimes such as Hitler's, Pol Pot's, or Stalin’s.
This speech has caused a lot of controversy, and the guy in the clinic seemed eager to talk about it. "I normally vote on the Democratic side, but this Senator has gone too far," he said. "To say that about our troops? This guy just hates America."
Ah yes, the old "if you criticize anything Americans do, you hate America" school of thought.
I held my tongue. We were in a public place, and of course the conversation was none of my business.
But if I were the one he had addressed those comments to, I would have said this: "You've got to be kidding. Durbin is a United States Senator. He has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Do you really believe he hates America?
"Did you actually listen to or read Durbin's speech? He didn't say the American troops were the same as the Third Reich, or that Guantanamo Bay's prison camps were the same as the Gulags of Stalin. He said that if you read the reports -- reports that were written by the FBI -- and you didn't know better, you might think the actions were something from one of those regimes. That's a very appropriate comment. There have been some pretty ugly things done in our country's name lately, and we shouldn't be defending them."
Durbin has since apologized for his comments, probably because the talk show hosts and conservative bloggers were all but storming his house with pitchforks. So be it. Like some of the things Howard Dean says from time to time, it could have been phrased better, perhaps, but I personally saw no reason for him to apologize.
Let’s face it. We live in an ugly time. Our leadership has failed our country badly, and they are increasingly on the defense and desperate to change the subject. They also have willing allies in the broadcast media, namely most of the radio bandwidth and Fox News on TV, to help them turn up the volume and drown out dissent.
Things got to a new low, if that’s possible, on June 22 when Karl Rove said that liberals wanted to "offer therapy and understanding to our attackers" after 9/11.
Some White House flacks have said since then that Rove was talking about the Michael Moore and the Moveon.com-types. But I don’t remember any of those people talking about offering therapy and understanding to those who attacked this country. Most of those on the left that I know fully supported Bush’s decision to go after Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But that fact doesn’t seem to matter to the right. Talk about revisionist history.
By now, we know what to expect from this White House. They will never admit a mistake. They will never adjust their policies to fit the reality on the ground, unless the political rewards are right. They will criticize their opponents for being partisan, then turn around make the most outrageously partisan attacks imaginable. And they will lie profusely if it suits their purposes.
The picture that is emerging is that the White House saw an opening for distraction and division with the Durbin controversy. So Rove drove a truck through that opening.
The funny thing is, anyone who could step back and look at this objectively would say that it is Durbin, not Rove, who has the clearer vision.
Later that week, a news report said the U.S. government has admitted that some of its detainees in Guantanamo Bay were in fact tortured. Chalk one up for Mr. Durbin.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050624/pl_afp/unustortureguantanamo_050624132300
Do those of us who criticize the abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay "hate America?" I guess I would say that I hate the idea of Americans torturing other people. But I certainly don’t hate America. And the fact that I would have to even make that reassurance is one of the astonishing things about political discourse today. Those on the right, seemingly, don’t want to talk about the real issue. They want to smear the opposition, to say that those who don’t agree with this administration are somehow un-American. And I expect we’ll hear more of this type of attack in the days ahead.
Would those who make the "hate America" charge really defend the use of torture? The killings of detainees? The sexual abuse we saw at Abu Ghraib? That is what they want to defend? There should be a line drawn when it comes to supporting our troops. I’m all for supporting the troops if they don’t pile people into naked human pyramids and make thumbs-up signs. I fully recognize that it was just a few troops that did this. But we have to be willing to say that wrong is wrong.
I don’t think it is unpatriotic to criticize Americans for resorting to torture. I don’t think it gives aid and comfort to our enemies. I think it could prevent us from becoming our enemies.
While I was sitting there (with my tiny optical nerves bravely trying to process the signals from my retina) a gentleman in the row of seats behind me began to talk to someone about Sen. Dick Durbin from Illinois. Durbin recently read a speech on the floor of the Senate in which he describes some of the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay. In the speech, after reading from FBI reports on what can only be classified as torture of inmates, Durbin said that if one didn't know better, one might expect such acts to have been done under regimes such as Hitler's, Pol Pot's, or Stalin’s.
This speech has caused a lot of controversy, and the guy in the clinic seemed eager to talk about it. "I normally vote on the Democratic side, but this Senator has gone too far," he said. "To say that about our troops? This guy just hates America."
Ah yes, the old "if you criticize anything Americans do, you hate America" school of thought.
I held my tongue. We were in a public place, and of course the conversation was none of my business.
But if I were the one he had addressed those comments to, I would have said this: "You've got to be kidding. Durbin is a United States Senator. He has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Do you really believe he hates America?
"Did you actually listen to or read Durbin's speech? He didn't say the American troops were the same as the Third Reich, or that Guantanamo Bay's prison camps were the same as the Gulags of Stalin. He said that if you read the reports -- reports that were written by the FBI -- and you didn't know better, you might think the actions were something from one of those regimes. That's a very appropriate comment. There have been some pretty ugly things done in our country's name lately, and we shouldn't be defending them."
Durbin has since apologized for his comments, probably because the talk show hosts and conservative bloggers were all but storming his house with pitchforks. So be it. Like some of the things Howard Dean says from time to time, it could have been phrased better, perhaps, but I personally saw no reason for him to apologize.
Let’s face it. We live in an ugly time. Our leadership has failed our country badly, and they are increasingly on the defense and desperate to change the subject. They also have willing allies in the broadcast media, namely most of the radio bandwidth and Fox News on TV, to help them turn up the volume and drown out dissent.
Things got to a new low, if that’s possible, on June 22 when Karl Rove said that liberals wanted to "offer therapy and understanding to our attackers" after 9/11.
Some White House flacks have said since then that Rove was talking about the Michael Moore and the Moveon.com-types. But I don’t remember any of those people talking about offering therapy and understanding to those who attacked this country. Most of those on the left that I know fully supported Bush’s decision to go after Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But that fact doesn’t seem to matter to the right. Talk about revisionist history.
By now, we know what to expect from this White House. They will never admit a mistake. They will never adjust their policies to fit the reality on the ground, unless the political rewards are right. They will criticize their opponents for being partisan, then turn around make the most outrageously partisan attacks imaginable. And they will lie profusely if it suits their purposes.
The picture that is emerging is that the White House saw an opening for distraction and division with the Durbin controversy. So Rove drove a truck through that opening.
The funny thing is, anyone who could step back and look at this objectively would say that it is Durbin, not Rove, who has the clearer vision.
Later that week, a news report said the U.S. government has admitted that some of its detainees in Guantanamo Bay were in fact tortured. Chalk one up for Mr. Durbin.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050624/pl_afp/unustortureguantanamo_050624132300
Do those of us who criticize the abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay "hate America?" I guess I would say that I hate the idea of Americans torturing other people. But I certainly don’t hate America. And the fact that I would have to even make that reassurance is one of the astonishing things about political discourse today. Those on the right, seemingly, don’t want to talk about the real issue. They want to smear the opposition, to say that those who don’t agree with this administration are somehow un-American. And I expect we’ll hear more of this type of attack in the days ahead.
Would those who make the "hate America" charge really defend the use of torture? The killings of detainees? The sexual abuse we saw at Abu Ghraib? That is what they want to defend? There should be a line drawn when it comes to supporting our troops. I’m all for supporting the troops if they don’t pile people into naked human pyramids and make thumbs-up signs. I fully recognize that it was just a few troops that did this. But we have to be willing to say that wrong is wrong.
I don’t think it is unpatriotic to criticize Americans for resorting to torture. I don’t think it gives aid and comfort to our enemies. I think it could prevent us from becoming our enemies.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Melt the guns
There has been a lot of coverage of the mass shooting in Ohio, where a young man went on a rampage and killed 5 others and himself. But I found another story— one that will probably not receive a lot of coverage outside of Minnesota—to be completely heartbreaking.
A four-year old boy, at a family gathering where people were target shooting, somehow got behind one of the targets. He was shot and killed. "Can you print that he was perfect?" asked his grieving father when reporters interviewed him.
It was an accident. Like thousands of other shooting accidents each year, it will never show up in crime statistics. But it is a sad illustration of the high risk, and high cost, of gun owning.
Both stories are tragedies. Both show once again how unsafe this society is, because of its obsession with guns. Perhaps for some, it is easier to write off the random mass shooting because it seems someone has just gone over the edge. But this simple accident in Minnesota brings to mind a question that I have never heard a good answer to. How can it be worth it, considering the risk, to own a gun?
Certainly it’s true that our children face more risk from other things, for example automobiles. But if we weigh risk and benefit, where is the benefit of owning a gun?
I have been reading in political web sites recently that Democratic politicians have begun to drop gun regulation as an issue. Strategists have come to the conclusion that an anti-gun stance simply is political poison in this country. It is another reminder that I live in a society that at times I can only describe as insane.
Ohio:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5041894,00.html
Minnesota:
http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_151103328.html
A four-year old boy, at a family gathering where people were target shooting, somehow got behind one of the targets. He was shot and killed. "Can you print that he was perfect?" asked his grieving father when reporters interviewed him.
It was an accident. Like thousands of other shooting accidents each year, it will never show up in crime statistics. But it is a sad illustration of the high risk, and high cost, of gun owning.
Both stories are tragedies. Both show once again how unsafe this society is, because of its obsession with guns. Perhaps for some, it is easier to write off the random mass shooting because it seems someone has just gone over the edge. But this simple accident in Minnesota brings to mind a question that I have never heard a good answer to. How can it be worth it, considering the risk, to own a gun?
Certainly it’s true that our children face more risk from other things, for example automobiles. But if we weigh risk and benefit, where is the benefit of owning a gun?
I have been reading in political web sites recently that Democratic politicians have begun to drop gun regulation as an issue. Strategists have come to the conclusion that an anti-gun stance simply is political poison in this country. It is another reminder that I live in a society that at times I can only describe as insane.
Ohio:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5041894,00.html
Minnesota:
http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_151103328.html
Monday, May 09, 2005
solongsolongsolongsolongsolongsolong!
Saw the Hitchhiker's GTTG. Feared the worst when it started with a "Life of Brian" - inspired musical number, but as LoB's creators might say, it got better. Still, not as funny as the book. But Ok, really. I thought the casting was above average. Trillian really should be English, but whatshername, the Debra Winger lookalike, was actually pretty convincing in the role. Oh, but Alan Rickman is one of those looks-good-on-paper choices for the robot role. Just not hilariously glum enough. It's a shame, because that was really one of the funniest things in the book... which may explain, partly, why this movie, though enjoyable, just never made me laugh that much.
And now I've got that danged theme song stuck in my head...
And now I've got that danged theme song stuck in my head...
Current Notes, #1
This is the first of what may become an ongoing series of observations on The Current, 89.1 FM. This public radio station has been reminding us of what radio could be, if the industry wasn’t so mucked up.
Anyhow, one thing I’ve been noticing on The Current is a fair number of WannaBeens. A Wannabeen is something like a Wannabe, something like a Hasbeen. It’s the best name I’ve been able to come up with for artists that really sound like they are channeling other, usually dead or nearly-forgotten, artists. You know, soundalikes. And I don’t mean "Bob Dylan singing like Woody Guthrie" soundalikes. I mean Joe Cocker as Ray Charles/Steve Perry as Sam Cooke/Ann Wilson as Robert Plant soundalikes.
For example, Madeleine Peyroux. Hey, she’s a good singer. And I suppose if you’re going to sound EXACTLY like someone else, Billie Holliday is not a bad pick. But it’s annoying. And yet enjoyable at the same time. You see the dilemma; I’m enjoying it a little, I’m hating it a little. I don’t know how to feel.
The other person that reminded me of this was Ben Harper with the Blind Boys of Alabama, and the song "Well, Well, Well." Now, again with the disclaimers: it all sounds great. BBoA, they’re the best. But the song is also wearing its "this is a record that coulda been made 50 years ago" heart on its sleeve. And the lyrical base of the song is taking a throwaway phrase and elevating it to a rather forced significance. I mean, they’re literally singing about a well! I keep expecting them to tell us it’s a deep subject. (Oh, and the co-writer of the song? Bob Dylan. Whatta hack.)
My only fear is that the Current, with its sometimes overeager attempts to feature great old acts as well as cutting-edge new ones will end up just splitting the difference and playing new artists that sound just like the old ones. Is it the best of both worlds? Or the attack of the Wannabeens?
Anyhow, one thing I’ve been noticing on The Current is a fair number of WannaBeens. A Wannabeen is something like a Wannabe, something like a Hasbeen. It’s the best name I’ve been able to come up with for artists that really sound like they are channeling other, usually dead or nearly-forgotten, artists. You know, soundalikes. And I don’t mean "Bob Dylan singing like Woody Guthrie" soundalikes. I mean Joe Cocker as Ray Charles/Steve Perry as Sam Cooke/Ann Wilson as Robert Plant soundalikes.
For example, Madeleine Peyroux. Hey, she’s a good singer. And I suppose if you’re going to sound EXACTLY like someone else, Billie Holliday is not a bad pick. But it’s annoying. And yet enjoyable at the same time. You see the dilemma; I’m enjoying it a little, I’m hating it a little. I don’t know how to feel.
The other person that reminded me of this was Ben Harper with the Blind Boys of Alabama, and the song "Well, Well, Well." Now, again with the disclaimers: it all sounds great. BBoA, they’re the best. But the song is also wearing its "this is a record that coulda been made 50 years ago" heart on its sleeve. And the lyrical base of the song is taking a throwaway phrase and elevating it to a rather forced significance. I mean, they’re literally singing about a well! I keep expecting them to tell us it’s a deep subject. (Oh, and the co-writer of the song? Bob Dylan. Whatta hack.)
My only fear is that the Current, with its sometimes overeager attempts to feature great old acts as well as cutting-edge new ones will end up just splitting the difference and playing new artists that sound just like the old ones. Is it the best of both worlds? Or the attack of the Wannabeens?
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The High Cost of Winning
I was listening to a story on NPR yesterday; a briefing with Sec. Rumsfield and a top general about the war in Iraq. Since this comes from my memory instead of text, my quotes below will be approximate, not literal.
The general was acknowledging that the level of violence in Iraq is basically the same as it was one year ago. There have been ups and downs, but overall, we—the Americans and the new Iraqi government—have failed to improve the security situation in Iraq.
So the general was taking questions, and one reporter asked if we were "winning" the war against the insurgents. The general responded, with some enthusiasm, "Yes, we are winning. And we’ve been winning for some time."
I burst out laughing.
"Sure, we’re winning," I talked back to the radio. "And I bet we’ll still be ‘winning’ in six months, a year from now, five years from now.’" The point is we’ve been talking about how we’re winning since we began this war, from the time Saddam’s statue came down, to Bush’s "Mission Accomplished" moment, to the battle of Fallujah, to the elections, to the current rash of bombings and attacks. We keep on ‘winning,’ and Americans and Iraqis keep dying, every day.
It’s no surprise that military leadership is going to put the best possible spin on the story. And I’m sure there is an argument to be made that we are seeing progress. There was an election, of sorts, and even though the Iraqis haven’t yet (as of this writing) managed to form a working government, it’s likely that they will … although its effectiveness will be an open question. [Oops, events have overtaken me. NPR is reporting that the Iraqis have finally formed a government, although key posts are still not filled. Close enough for horseshoes, I guess.]
There probably is an acute feeling in the Bush Administration that spin control is necessary, now more than ever. After all, earlier this week, the final in a long line of "No WMDs in Iraq" report was filed by the CIA, this one concluding that the last thin reed of hope for pro-war apologists, the theory that Saddam had somehow sent his WMDs to Syria, was not supported by any evidence. In addition, the report warned that those who had been involved in WMDs program in past years (pre-First Iraq War) are now unemployed and probably looking for work. Boy, doesn’t that make you feel safer?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
And then the story came out that an annual report on terrorism had been censored to exclude data on terrorist attacks, perhaps due to the fact that it would have reported that terrorism, worldwide, is up. "The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week," said a story in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
So that whole "fight them there so we don’t have to fight them elsewhere" argument seems not to be working out so well…
I can’t pretend to have any answers to what we should do now in Iraq. Even Howard Dean recently said we should stay there and finish the job, because the alternative would be worse than the current mess.
All I know is, if this is winning, I hope to God we never see what losing looks like.
The general was acknowledging that the level of violence in Iraq is basically the same as it was one year ago. There have been ups and downs, but overall, we—the Americans and the new Iraqi government—have failed to improve the security situation in Iraq.
So the general was taking questions, and one reporter asked if we were "winning" the war against the insurgents. The general responded, with some enthusiasm, "Yes, we are winning. And we’ve been winning for some time."
I burst out laughing.
"Sure, we’re winning," I talked back to the radio. "And I bet we’ll still be ‘winning’ in six months, a year from now, five years from now.’" The point is we’ve been talking about how we’re winning since we began this war, from the time Saddam’s statue came down, to Bush’s "Mission Accomplished" moment, to the battle of Fallujah, to the elections, to the current rash of bombings and attacks. We keep on ‘winning,’ and Americans and Iraqis keep dying, every day.
It’s no surprise that military leadership is going to put the best possible spin on the story. And I’m sure there is an argument to be made that we are seeing progress. There was an election, of sorts, and even though the Iraqis haven’t yet (as of this writing) managed to form a working government, it’s likely that they will … although its effectiveness will be an open question. [Oops, events have overtaken me. NPR is reporting that the Iraqis have finally formed a government, although key posts are still not filled. Close enough for horseshoes, I guess.]
There probably is an acute feeling in the Bush Administration that spin control is necessary, now more than ever. After all, earlier this week, the final in a long line of "No WMDs in Iraq" report was filed by the CIA, this one concluding that the last thin reed of hope for pro-war apologists, the theory that Saddam had somehow sent his WMDs to Syria, was not supported by any evidence. In addition, the report warned that those who had been involved in WMDs program in past years (pre-First Iraq War) are now unemployed and probably looking for work. Boy, doesn’t that make you feel safer?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
And then the story came out that an annual report on terrorism had been censored to exclude data on terrorist attacks, perhaps due to the fact that it would have reported that terrorism, worldwide, is up. "The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week," said a story in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
So that whole "fight them there so we don’t have to fight them elsewhere" argument seems not to be working out so well…
I can’t pretend to have any answers to what we should do now in Iraq. Even Howard Dean recently said we should stay there and finish the job, because the alternative would be worse than the current mess.
All I know is, if this is winning, I hope to God we never see what losing looks like.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Summer Science Fiction Movies
This is shaping up to be quite a summer for blockbuster science fiction movies.
Here are the movies that I'm aware of:
War of the Worlds
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Star Wars Episode III
Serenity
War of the Worlds
This is the new Tom Cruise/Stephen Spielberg collaboration, a reuniting of the team that brought us Minority Report. That was an ok movie, too dependent on special effects and at times hard to follow. Cruise is an actor who rarely connects with this moviegoer anymore, and Spielberg will have to wildly exceed my expectations to make me forget the travesty of A.I.
Still, the trailers have looked kinda cool.
Chances of sucking: 50 percent.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
Based on the beloved Douglas Adams books. The obvious thought comes to mind: how can they possibly not botch this one? It's just too quirky, too unique, too subtle, too brainy to survive a big-budget movie treatment. Right? Plus its British.
But despite my attempts to lower my expectations, I am hoping against hope that this somehow captures the silly, brilliant, and generous spirit of Adams’ whimsical books. I think it's worth noting that Adams himself began the work on this before his death, and that the whole enchilada began as a radio series, then was a book, then a TV series. All were excellent, from what I hear, so maybe they'll pull it off again.
Chances of sucking: 70 percent, but I'm still pulling for this dark horse.
Episode III
"This helmet is chafing my eyebrows. I swear!"
Sorry, now that I've got that out of the way, I can tell you that I actually believe this to be the best bet for a good science fiction movie this summer. George Lucas is bound to pull out all the stops for this one, which I would think will be the last Star Wars movie he will do. Also, the unending and well-deserved criticism he’s received for the last two movies has, I suspect, lit a fire under him. Well, at least I hope so. If he’s approached this one with a chip on his shoulder and a desire to prove his critics wrong, that can only be good for Star Wars fans.
But if he puts another almost unwatchable mess up on the screen again, well, we’ll always have this:
http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html
Chances of being as appealing as a nebulan nerfherder: 30 percent
Serenity
The science fiction movie by Josh Whedon is probably not going to get the mega-media-blitz that these others will, but it’s a pretty big deal among certain circles. The Buffy/Angel fans are out there and they are eager to see Whedon vindicated after his “Firefly” TV series, which this is based on, was canceled after one season. Wheadon is very good at hip ‘n witty teen dialogue and drama with brooding 20somethings, but I’m still not convinced that Firefly really had the spark of the other two shows. The trailer features a girl with wicked kung fu skills. Oh, that again?
Chances of sucking like hellbeast: 60 percent
Here are the movies that I'm aware of:
War of the Worlds
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Star Wars Episode III
Serenity
War of the Worlds
This is the new Tom Cruise/Stephen Spielberg collaboration, a reuniting of the team that brought us Minority Report. That was an ok movie, too dependent on special effects and at times hard to follow. Cruise is an actor who rarely connects with this moviegoer anymore, and Spielberg will have to wildly exceed my expectations to make me forget the travesty of A.I.
Still, the trailers have looked kinda cool.
Chances of sucking: 50 percent.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
Based on the beloved Douglas Adams books. The obvious thought comes to mind: how can they possibly not botch this one? It's just too quirky, too unique, too subtle, too brainy to survive a big-budget movie treatment. Right? Plus its British.
But despite my attempts to lower my expectations, I am hoping against hope that this somehow captures the silly, brilliant, and generous spirit of Adams’ whimsical books. I think it's worth noting that Adams himself began the work on this before his death, and that the whole enchilada began as a radio series, then was a book, then a TV series. All were excellent, from what I hear, so maybe they'll pull it off again.
Chances of sucking: 70 percent, but I'm still pulling for this dark horse.
Episode III
"This helmet is chafing my eyebrows. I swear!"
Sorry, now that I've got that out of the way, I can tell you that I actually believe this to be the best bet for a good science fiction movie this summer. George Lucas is bound to pull out all the stops for this one, which I would think will be the last Star Wars movie he will do. Also, the unending and well-deserved criticism he’s received for the last two movies has, I suspect, lit a fire under him. Well, at least I hope so. If he’s approached this one with a chip on his shoulder and a desire to prove his critics wrong, that can only be good for Star Wars fans.
But if he puts another almost unwatchable mess up on the screen again, well, we’ll always have this:
http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html
Chances of being as appealing as a nebulan nerfherder: 30 percent
Serenity
The science fiction movie by Josh Whedon is probably not going to get the mega-media-blitz that these others will, but it’s a pretty big deal among certain circles. The Buffy/Angel fans are out there and they are eager to see Whedon vindicated after his “Firefly” TV series, which this is based on, was canceled after one season. Wheadon is very good at hip ‘n witty teen dialogue and drama with brooding 20somethings, but I’m still not convinced that Firefly really had the spark of the other two shows. The trailer features a girl with wicked kung fu skills. Oh, that again?
Chances of sucking like hellbeast: 60 percent
Friday, April 22, 2005
Earth Day Post
I recently had an interesting discussion with a couple of my conservative relatives about environmental issues; from global warming to recycling. And since today is Earth Day, I thought I would write a post about it.
The conversation started out being about global warming. My argument was that global warming is overwhelmingly thought of as a real phenomenon among scientists, and a majority of them also think the pollution and emissions caused by human beings are playing a role in this. We can argue about how much, but my position was that it clearly was something that the majority of scientists had a consensus on. And based on that, it might be a good idea for counties like the U.S. to put more efforts into pollution control, etc.
(for more on global warming, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/)
My relatives were skeptical of global warming claims, suggesting that it is just an alarmist theory promoted by environmentalists. They seemed to be drawing a lot on a recent book by Michael Crichton. A review of that book’s footnotes can be found here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/
a key sentence from the article:
"Naomi Oreskes, a science studies scholar at the University of California, San Diego, recently analyzed more than 900 scientific articles listed with the keywords ''global climate change,'' and failed to find a single study that explicitly disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming."
My relatives had various arguments on this, in particular taking a position that I find curious, that is, that scientists can’t always be trusted. I suppose this could be so, but it strikes me as odd that they seem to be arguing that we give more credibility to conservative pundits and best-selling fiction writers rather than the consensus view of the scientific community.
We also talked about recycling. At one point, an argument was put forward that most of what we put in our recycling bins ends up, not being recycled, but instead being dumped into landfills, just like any other trash. I think the point was that the environmental movement had sold consumers on the idea of recycling, but the reality was that it simply isn’t practical.
So I was very interested to see a multi-part series on recycling in Minnesota recently in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. I’ll briefly note some of the main points below and provide a link. What I really find remarkable is that, although the assertion about recycling was mostly wrong, there is a kernel of truth to what was said. In the area of glass recycling, a significant percentage is now being sent to landfills, for a variety of reasons.
That doesn’t mean that recycling efforts aren’t working in general, or that they aren’t worthwhile. But I suspect this is another case where a single fact, pulled out of a complex issue, has been picked up, spun, distorted, and bounced from one person to another, via the Internet and other mass media. As I said to my relatives at the time, we all seem to have different set of "facts" that we’re sure of, yet they often are in stark contradiction.
To me this underscores the value of the basic concept of journalism, an enterprise where the overriding goal is to get as close to the truth as possible, to investigate the different facts and arguments, and reach some reasonable conclusion as to what is true and what is not.
The reality, I believe, is that recycling is a worthwhile and successful endeavor, and where there are problems, they should be fixed, not taken as a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Environmentalism has been made a target by some elements of the conservative movement, but the fact is, it is not inherently liberal or conservative. Nor does it have to be anti-business, as some would argue. The recycling series I note below talks about how this industry makes an impressive contribution to Minnesota’s economy, while at the same time making our world a better place to live.
From the Star Tribune series:
http://www.startribune.com/static/recycling/main.html
"If you recycle, you'll help save enough electricity to power 321,000 homes for a year. That's more households than Minneapolis and St. Paul combined.
Not worth it? You'll also help keep the equivalent of 203,000 tons of coal from burning. That means fresher air and less toxic mercury in our lakes and streams.
There's more. Start recycling and you will help to support jobs -- paying an average of $16 an hour -- for some 19,000 Minnesotans.
And if nothing else grabs you, here's one final thought: Keep recyclable materials out of the landfill, and you'll be contributing to the state's tax revenue without paying a dime. The recycling industry adds $64 million to Minnesota state tax coffers every year.
Recycling … now adds nearly $3 billion to the state's economy yearly. The material it produces has become a valuable commodity.
Local governments often share in the profits. Minneapolis, for example, received $1.5 million from the sale of its recycling last year and is on track to reap even more this year."
The conversation started out being about global warming. My argument was that global warming is overwhelmingly thought of as a real phenomenon among scientists, and a majority of them also think the pollution and emissions caused by human beings are playing a role in this. We can argue about how much, but my position was that it clearly was something that the majority of scientists had a consensus on. And based on that, it might be a good idea for counties like the U.S. to put more efforts into pollution control, etc.
(for more on global warming, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/)
My relatives were skeptical of global warming claims, suggesting that it is just an alarmist theory promoted by environmentalists. They seemed to be drawing a lot on a recent book by Michael Crichton. A review of that book’s footnotes can be found here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/
a key sentence from the article:
"Naomi Oreskes, a science studies scholar at the University of California, San Diego, recently analyzed more than 900 scientific articles listed with the keywords ''global climate change,'' and failed to find a single study that explicitly disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming."
My relatives had various arguments on this, in particular taking a position that I find curious, that is, that scientists can’t always be trusted. I suppose this could be so, but it strikes me as odd that they seem to be arguing that we give more credibility to conservative pundits and best-selling fiction writers rather than the consensus view of the scientific community.
We also talked about recycling. At one point, an argument was put forward that most of what we put in our recycling bins ends up, not being recycled, but instead being dumped into landfills, just like any other trash. I think the point was that the environmental movement had sold consumers on the idea of recycling, but the reality was that it simply isn’t practical.
So I was very interested to see a multi-part series on recycling in Minnesota recently in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. I’ll briefly note some of the main points below and provide a link. What I really find remarkable is that, although the assertion about recycling was mostly wrong, there is a kernel of truth to what was said. In the area of glass recycling, a significant percentage is now being sent to landfills, for a variety of reasons.
That doesn’t mean that recycling efforts aren’t working in general, or that they aren’t worthwhile. But I suspect this is another case where a single fact, pulled out of a complex issue, has been picked up, spun, distorted, and bounced from one person to another, via the Internet and other mass media. As I said to my relatives at the time, we all seem to have different set of "facts" that we’re sure of, yet they often are in stark contradiction.
To me this underscores the value of the basic concept of journalism, an enterprise where the overriding goal is to get as close to the truth as possible, to investigate the different facts and arguments, and reach some reasonable conclusion as to what is true and what is not.
The reality, I believe, is that recycling is a worthwhile and successful endeavor, and where there are problems, they should be fixed, not taken as a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Environmentalism has been made a target by some elements of the conservative movement, but the fact is, it is not inherently liberal or conservative. Nor does it have to be anti-business, as some would argue. The recycling series I note below talks about how this industry makes an impressive contribution to Minnesota’s economy, while at the same time making our world a better place to live.
From the Star Tribune series:
http://www.startribune.com/static/recycling/main.html
"If you recycle, you'll help save enough electricity to power 321,000 homes for a year. That's more households than Minneapolis and St. Paul combined.
Not worth it? You'll also help keep the equivalent of 203,000 tons of coal from burning. That means fresher air and less toxic mercury in our lakes and streams.
There's more. Start recycling and you will help to support jobs -- paying an average of $16 an hour -- for some 19,000 Minnesotans.
And if nothing else grabs you, here's one final thought: Keep recyclable materials out of the landfill, and you'll be contributing to the state's tax revenue without paying a dime. The recycling industry adds $64 million to Minnesota state tax coffers every year.
Recycling … now adds nearly $3 billion to the state's economy yearly. The material it produces has become a valuable commodity.
Local governments often share in the profits. Minneapolis, for example, received $1.5 million from the sale of its recycling last year and is on track to reap even more this year."
Monday, April 11, 2005
Another half-baked idea
How to fix the problem of campaign financing and raise federal poverty level at the same time.
(I'll rely on the more politically astute to shoot this full of holes)
1. Only individuals can donate political money.
2. Individuals can donate a percentage of their annual income. This can be income from a job or from investments or other types of income.
3. Annual limits on donations are set in inverse proportion to income.
a. Anyone at or below FPL can donate up to 100 percent of their annual income.
b. At 125 percent of FPL, an individual can donate 90 percent of annual income
c. At 150 percent of FPL, an individual can donate 80 percent of annual income.
d. At 175 percent of FPL, 70 percent
e. At 200 percent, 60 percent
f. At 250 percent, 50 percent.
g. At 300 percent 40 percent.
h. At 350 percent 35 percent.
i. At 400 percent 30 percent.
j. At 450 percent, 25 percent
k. At 500 percent 20 percent
l. At 550 percent, 15 percent
m. At 600 percent, 10 percent
n. At 650 percent 5 percent.
o. At and above 700 percent of FPL, individuals will be limited to donating 1 percent of their annual income, with a limit of $1million.
All donations must be publicly disclosed.
(I'll rely on the more politically astute to shoot this full of holes)
1. Only individuals can donate political money.
2. Individuals can donate a percentage of their annual income. This can be income from a job or from investments or other types of income.
3. Annual limits on donations are set in inverse proportion to income.
a. Anyone at or below FPL can donate up to 100 percent of their annual income.
b. At 125 percent of FPL, an individual can donate 90 percent of annual income
c. At 150 percent of FPL, an individual can donate 80 percent of annual income.
d. At 175 percent of FPL, 70 percent
e. At 200 percent, 60 percent
f. At 250 percent, 50 percent.
g. At 300 percent 40 percent.
h. At 350 percent 35 percent.
i. At 400 percent 30 percent.
j. At 450 percent, 25 percent
k. At 500 percent 20 percent
l. At 550 percent, 15 percent
m. At 600 percent, 10 percent
n. At 650 percent 5 percent.
o. At and above 700 percent of FPL, individuals will be limited to donating 1 percent of their annual income, with a limit of $1million.
All donations must be publicly disclosed.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Consumer-Driven
In my line of work, I hear a lot about health care and consumers. The new rage, especially in the insurance industry, is "consumer-driven" health care, that is, health care in which the consumer takes on more responsibility for decision-making—as well as more financial responsibility, in many cases.
This sounds good, and I don’t think there are too many people who don’t agree that consumers should be as involved as possible in their health care decision-making.
However, some odd twists come out of this new model. I was recently talking to a Medicare official about a new Web-based quality measurement site that gives consumers information on hospitals and their performance in certain specific areas. The Medicare official was talking about how consumers could use this information to decide what hospital to use. Again, sounds good.
But when I looked at the information being provided, most of it was in the area of heart attack treatment. And this thought occurred to me: If I’m having a heart attack, am I going to crawl over to my computer and do some quick Web surfing to compare hospitals? Probably not.
Now, we could say for the sake of argument that someone could plan ahead for a heart attack, although that doesn’t really sound too realistic to me. Or we could say that overall, this kind of thing should be encouraged because eventually a lot more medical conditions will be covered, and (for example) knee replacement surgery will be more practical to comparison-shop for than a heart attack.
But I still wonder if this approach isn’t a little backwards. Instead of saying to people that health care is a supermarket and you have to figure out the best products, shouldn’t we work on making sure that the system is of a uniformly high quality to start with? And in reality, isn’t it true that the quality of health care we receive in this country often has much to do with our socio-economic status to begin with? How will consumer-directed health care solve that problem?
Health care is the most complicated field I know of when it comes to making decisions. More information is good. But finding time in our busy lives to do the amount of research necessary to make informed decisions about every health care problem that our family encounters, well, I don’t know how we get to that point. Do you?
This sounds good, and I don’t think there are too many people who don’t agree that consumers should be as involved as possible in their health care decision-making.
However, some odd twists come out of this new model. I was recently talking to a Medicare official about a new Web-based quality measurement site that gives consumers information on hospitals and their performance in certain specific areas. The Medicare official was talking about how consumers could use this information to decide what hospital to use. Again, sounds good.
But when I looked at the information being provided, most of it was in the area of heart attack treatment. And this thought occurred to me: If I’m having a heart attack, am I going to crawl over to my computer and do some quick Web surfing to compare hospitals? Probably not.
Now, we could say for the sake of argument that someone could plan ahead for a heart attack, although that doesn’t really sound too realistic to me. Or we could say that overall, this kind of thing should be encouraged because eventually a lot more medical conditions will be covered, and (for example) knee replacement surgery will be more practical to comparison-shop for than a heart attack.
But I still wonder if this approach isn’t a little backwards. Instead of saying to people that health care is a supermarket and you have to figure out the best products, shouldn’t we work on making sure that the system is of a uniformly high quality to start with? And in reality, isn’t it true that the quality of health care we receive in this country often has much to do with our socio-economic status to begin with? How will consumer-directed health care solve that problem?
Health care is the most complicated field I know of when it comes to making decisions. More information is good. But finding time in our busy lives to do the amount of research necessary to make informed decisions about every health care problem that our family encounters, well, I don’t know how we get to that point. Do you?
No, Not San Francisco!
My favorite Science Fiction movies.
I’m a lifelong fan of science fiction (OK, maybe not lifelong. I was probably, like, 7 or 8 before I started reading it seriously), and I have to say, science fiction as a literary genre often has not translated well to film. Happily, there are exceptions, and the possibilities for transforming the ideas of science fiction into visual stories seem to be expanding on an almost daily basis. For example, The Lord of the Rings, which I don’t consider science fiction but which nonetheless poses many of the same visualization problems of science fiction (I can’t bring myself to type "sci-fi". Wait a minute, I just did…) has been re-created magnificently by Peter Jackson and his crew. So the prospects of some of the great science fiction classics being successfully transferred to film is improving. That doesn’t mean that Hollywood won’t completely botch things up, as I, Robot proves. But I prefer to be hopeful.
So, here’s a list of my favorite SF movies. (oooh, that’s better.)
2001, A Space Odyssey
Kubrick and Clarke proved to be one of the most inspired teams in cinema history, even if they only collaborated on this one film. The sweep of the story, from humanity’s first consciousness to its first encounter with a race that is both technologically and spiritually advanced (with Clarke, the one often is paired with the other) is perhaps the most audacious of any movie I've seen. The visuals, matched with an inspired score, are stunning and unforgettable. The sparse dialogue and seemingly detached performances suggest the difficulties of the techno/spiritual balance that I mentioned before. It’s been noted many times that the most human character in the movie is the HAL 9000 computer. (Tangential: if Kubrick were Lucas (and still alive) the HAL 9000 would be changed in future releases to a DELL 9000).
So many of the classic SF themes are rolled into this movie: the impact of technology on the human condition; the evolution of machine intelligence—and the conflicts that may arise from that; the first encounter with an alien species; the difficulties and dangers—as well as the wonder—of space travel.
I personally think the "trip" at the end of the movie goes on a bit long, and the ending is ambiguous, even more so than in the novel. But those two quibbles (and any complaints about the pace of the movie I hereby dismiss with a disdainful look) are very minor. One of the great artistic accomplishments of cinema.
The Andromeda Strain
The best movie based on a Michael Crichton book, decades before he sold his soul and began taking potshots at environmentalists. (You’ll note that Jurassic Park, an amusing monster movie with good special effects, is not on this list.)
This movie, released during the height of the cold war, does a great job of capturing the military/scientific establishment reaction to a possible alien microorganism running amok in the American southwest. Sort of War of the Worlds with germs. The suspense is Hitchcockesque, with an entire town wiped out at the movie’s beginning, and bewildered scientists (looking like aliens themselves in their decontamination suits) trying to piece together some clue as to what has happened. The scientists end up in a high tech bomb shelter with very cool toys and eventually a very uncool ticking bomb at their feet.
A suspenseful plot, great acting, and sharp writing make this a classic. The casting is notable as well. Today they would’ve put a pair of glasses on Selma Hayek or Gwenneth Paltrow and made her The Woman Scientist. Thank goodness they had a little more spine (and probably an older average theater audience) back then.
Blade Runner
You know, for all the debate about the original release with Harrison Ford’s voiceover narration versus the director’s cut (without, plus other minor changes), I’ve never had a strong preference either way. I enjoy the movie when it fills in the blanks, and I enjoy it when it doesn’t.
Either version is a film with perhaps the most thoroughly detailed future ever seen in a movie. The constant rain, the crushing crowds, the flying cars (cool!!!) … it all fits together seamlessly. Oh, and the androids. They’re pretty cool to, with a full share of existential angst thrown in to make them that much more interesting. "Then we’re stupid, and we’ll die," says Pris at one point, and it’s a line I sometimes (in my more cynical moments) think applies to the human race as well.
I don’t know if Harrison Ford’s performance here is as good as, say, in Air Force One, but it’s pretty amusing to see him as the Tuff Detective, getting beaten to a pulp in about every other scene. He must have had fun reading the script… "Ok, here I get strangled, here I get my eyes almost poked out, here’s a scene where my hand is crushed…"
Considering the Hollywood tendency to beat dead horses, kudos to Ridley Scott for not making Blade Runner II.
The Matrix
Toss the two sequels off the list completely (maybe not fair: I haven’t seen part 3, but to put it bluntly, who cares?). The first was enough to cement the directors’ reputations. (A reputation so firmly established that I can’t remember their names … oh yeah, the Wachowski Brothers. Who could remember such a clumsy handle?)
Anyhow, it’s a great movie, based on that classic premise that most 12-year-olds stumble across at some point: What if the world we see is all an elaborate fake? The WBs take this premise and really run with it, stringing some mumbo jumbo about blue and red pills, and a coppertop battery (riiiiiiiight) along with some awesome kung fu … Dude! What more could you ask for???
For me the movie’s greatest character is Agent Smith ("MIST-er Anderson") and his dry-ice monologues, not the least of which is the "you stink" speech he gives to Morpheus, right before Neo drops by with machine gun blazing (and manages to miss Morpheus, who is SITTING RIGHT IN THE WAY!) (Sorry).
Logic and rational plotlines aside, what makes this movie is the really groundbreaking visuals: the frozen slow-mo kicks, the bullets whizzing by a windmilling Neo, the incredible shot of the helicopter crashing into the office building, Neo’s reflection in Morpheus’ shades (what this movie did for Foster Grant I can’t imagine), the desperate escape down the INSIDE wall of a building … People will be imitating this movie for years. Actually, they already have been…
Star Wars
This franchise of course had to be on the list, and for many people it would top the list. There is no denying the impact of the first Star Wars movie, both culturally and on the movie industry itself.
The problem is that this accomplishment, for all its glory, is not aging well. There is no doubt that the revisionism that has crept into our view of the Star Wars series has been largely the result of the mind-crushing awfulness of the second trilogy. (Note: at the time of this writing only Episode I and II are out. As bad as Episode I was, I find it curious that I remember it much better than Episode II, which I thought to be a better movie, though still pretty bad. I wonder why that is. Star Wars Fatigue?)
But it’s not just the Jar Jar Binks era that taints this movie series. You can see the problems coming in the third SW movie, The Return of the Jedi. The re-hashing of old ideas, the safe reliance on special effects (improbable high-speed chase scene through a forest, anyone?), the truly baffling affinity Lucas has for "cute" aliens. I know that these films at heart are action movies for kids, but Lucas at times seems to cross the line into infantile. His visual genius has never faltered, but somewhere along the line, this filmmaker became incapable of telling an interesting story. It’s a shame.
T2
We can’t have a discussion about science fiction movies without mentioning Ahhhnold … or that James Cameron guy, I suppose. I really like the first two Terminator movies; an interesting premise (stolen, apparently, from SF legend Harlan Ellison), even if they do squeeze it for every bit of over-the-top violence they can get. The first movie is good; the second is better, with the most menacing Terminator ever. Linda Hamilton sure got into her role as Spookycrazy Mom, she scared the crap out of me, and I was just watching the movie at home. Good minimalist dialogue, brisk action, efficient and believable special effects. If you put aside the fact that time travel is impossible, you can buy this story and the motivations of its characters. Which for me is the sign of a good escapist movie.
Alien and Aliens
OK, these are monster movies. But they both, especially the second, are monster movies that rely on a futuristic setting to tell their stories. For suspenseful horror, you simply can’t beat the first movie. For a compelling story, you can’t beat the second. "Game over, man! Game over!"
Star Trek II –Wrath of Kahn
I hesitate to put the Star Trek franchise on this list, believe it or not. Of course I’m a huge fan, but I’m just not sure the best parts of Trek, in any of its incarnations, has ever been captured in a feature-length movie.
But there’s no doubt this one comes the closest to getting it right. Just two words: Ricardo Montalban. His Khan is a character for the ages, preposterous pectorals and all. And he has some great lines, delivered with the bombast they deserve. Really, the writing in this movie is exceptionally well done. Kirk bitches about getting old, Kahn quotes Milton, and Spock meets his end with the dignity that you would expect from a green-blooded, pointy-eared Vulcan.
Planet of the Apes
I include this series in the list because my wife LOVES Planet of the Apes. The original, of course. Chuck Heston looks much cooler in a loincloth than Marky Mark. And he emotes so much better. "You MANIACS!"
Starman
A whole range of actors have tried the "alien stranded on earth" role in works as diverse as Man Facing Southwest, K-PAX, and Mork and Mindy. But has anyone done it as well as Jeff Bridges? The guy who’s played a President, a shock jock and the world’s greatest slacker makes the challenge seem easy, and delivers a memorable performance (as usual). (Oh, and doing my Google check I found he was also in K-PAX. How ironic. Sorta like rain on a sunny day…)
Predator
Ok, another monster movie. But what an interesting premise: an alien goes on safari on primitive Earth, hunting man (the best prey of all, according to Predator alum Jesse V.). There are a couple of quibbles: do they all blow themselves up if they are captured? And what about their spaceships? But hey, why spoil the movie over little details?
I think this could be Ahhnold’s best role ever. Yeah, the Terminator will be what he’s remembered for (well, that and possibly the redistricting of California’s electoral precincts. Terminator sounds cooler). But here he matches wits with one extremely badass, technologically superior alien, adapts to a hostile environment, and tries (mostly in vain) to shepherd his little special ops/terrorist platoon through the movie in one piece. You feel for the guy. Which is almost a first in Ahhhnold films.
Contact
I include this one only because of its excellent soundtrack (inside joke). More a commendable failure than a SF classic, this movie builds well right up until Jodie Foster’s character gets that first big phone call from the sky. After that it’s politicians this and NASA that and how in the world they expect us to swallow the idea that the person who ran the radiotelescopes would be the chosen to actually go visit the aliens is beyond me. I mean, we didn’t send Van Braun to the moon. A big budget demonstration of how Hollywood can mess up even a decent story and likable characters.
Science Fiction, sort of:
Brother from Another Planet
Great movie, not really much SF. Alien who is completely compatible with the modern New Yorkers he moves in with, views our culture from his perspective, teaches some Valuable Lessons to those around him (especially the drug dealer, who does not recover) and finally finds some of his own kind. Nicely crafted film from John Sayles, who has a cameo.
Repo Man
"Let’s do some crimes!" There are so many great lines in this movie… LA punk becomes a Repo Man and tracks down a mad scientist with aliens in the trunk of his car. Best cameo by Jimmy Buffet ever!
Brazil
One of Terry Gilliam's great fantasies, this is a wistful, sad film about a small man trying to transcend his totalitarian society. Trust me, it’s more enjoyable than that sounds. But probably not for everyone. Personal trivia: I once dated a girl who really enjoyed the amount of ductwork in this movie. And since I seem to be into cameos: Robert Di Niro pops in as a rebel plumber.
And finally,
Mars is Hell
What is it about Mars that makes filmmakers go stupid? Has there ever been a good movie made about Mars? All I know is that in the past couple of decades the red planet has inspired some of the worst SF movies ever made, Mission to Mars, Ghosts of Mars, Mars Attacks! Perhaps none are sillier than (sing it with me) Total Recall, again with Ahhhnold. But the thing about Total Recall is that it at least has a sense of humor. (Ok, Mars Attacks! was supposed to have a sense of humor. Didn’t work.) TR really is a funny movie, with cartoon villains and cartoonish makeup (the mutants look like they bought cheap masks and melted them in the microwave). And the tracking device in the nose, oh boy … nice touch. It’s strange; some of the best SF books have been about Mars, but the movies have either been jokes or disasters.
(p.s. I see that Spielberg is taking on the Mars curse, along with Tom Cruise, in War of the Worlds. Please, by all that is holy, don’t let it be as bad as A.I.)
I’m a lifelong fan of science fiction (OK, maybe not lifelong. I was probably, like, 7 or 8 before I started reading it seriously), and I have to say, science fiction as a literary genre often has not translated well to film. Happily, there are exceptions, and the possibilities for transforming the ideas of science fiction into visual stories seem to be expanding on an almost daily basis. For example, The Lord of the Rings, which I don’t consider science fiction but which nonetheless poses many of the same visualization problems of science fiction (I can’t bring myself to type "sci-fi". Wait a minute, I just did…) has been re-created magnificently by Peter Jackson and his crew. So the prospects of some of the great science fiction classics being successfully transferred to film is improving. That doesn’t mean that Hollywood won’t completely botch things up, as I, Robot proves. But I prefer to be hopeful.
So, here’s a list of my favorite SF movies. (oooh, that’s better.)
2001, A Space Odyssey
Kubrick and Clarke proved to be one of the most inspired teams in cinema history, even if they only collaborated on this one film. The sweep of the story, from humanity’s first consciousness to its first encounter with a race that is both technologically and spiritually advanced (with Clarke, the one often is paired with the other) is perhaps the most audacious of any movie I've seen. The visuals, matched with an inspired score, are stunning and unforgettable. The sparse dialogue and seemingly detached performances suggest the difficulties of the techno/spiritual balance that I mentioned before. It’s been noted many times that the most human character in the movie is the HAL 9000 computer. (Tangential: if Kubrick were Lucas (and still alive) the HAL 9000 would be changed in future releases to a DELL 9000).
So many of the classic SF themes are rolled into this movie: the impact of technology on the human condition; the evolution of machine intelligence—and the conflicts that may arise from that; the first encounter with an alien species; the difficulties and dangers—as well as the wonder—of space travel.
I personally think the "trip" at the end of the movie goes on a bit long, and the ending is ambiguous, even more so than in the novel. But those two quibbles (and any complaints about the pace of the movie I hereby dismiss with a disdainful look) are very minor. One of the great artistic accomplishments of cinema.
The Andromeda Strain
The best movie based on a Michael Crichton book, decades before he sold his soul and began taking potshots at environmentalists. (You’ll note that Jurassic Park, an amusing monster movie with good special effects, is not on this list.)
This movie, released during the height of the cold war, does a great job of capturing the military/scientific establishment reaction to a possible alien microorganism running amok in the American southwest. Sort of War of the Worlds with germs. The suspense is Hitchcockesque, with an entire town wiped out at the movie’s beginning, and bewildered scientists (looking like aliens themselves in their decontamination suits) trying to piece together some clue as to what has happened. The scientists end up in a high tech bomb shelter with very cool toys and eventually a very uncool ticking bomb at their feet.
A suspenseful plot, great acting, and sharp writing make this a classic. The casting is notable as well. Today they would’ve put a pair of glasses on Selma Hayek or Gwenneth Paltrow and made her The Woman Scientist. Thank goodness they had a little more spine (and probably an older average theater audience) back then.
Blade Runner
You know, for all the debate about the original release with Harrison Ford’s voiceover narration versus the director’s cut (without, plus other minor changes), I’ve never had a strong preference either way. I enjoy the movie when it fills in the blanks, and I enjoy it when it doesn’t.
Either version is a film with perhaps the most thoroughly detailed future ever seen in a movie. The constant rain, the crushing crowds, the flying cars (cool!!!) … it all fits together seamlessly. Oh, and the androids. They’re pretty cool to, with a full share of existential angst thrown in to make them that much more interesting. "Then we’re stupid, and we’ll die," says Pris at one point, and it’s a line I sometimes (in my more cynical moments) think applies to the human race as well.
I don’t know if Harrison Ford’s performance here is as good as, say, in Air Force One, but it’s pretty amusing to see him as the Tuff Detective, getting beaten to a pulp in about every other scene. He must have had fun reading the script… "Ok, here I get strangled, here I get my eyes almost poked out, here’s a scene where my hand is crushed…"
Considering the Hollywood tendency to beat dead horses, kudos to Ridley Scott for not making Blade Runner II.
The Matrix
Toss the two sequels off the list completely (maybe not fair: I haven’t seen part 3, but to put it bluntly, who cares?). The first was enough to cement the directors’ reputations. (A reputation so firmly established that I can’t remember their names … oh yeah, the Wachowski Brothers. Who could remember such a clumsy handle?)
Anyhow, it’s a great movie, based on that classic premise that most 12-year-olds stumble across at some point: What if the world we see is all an elaborate fake? The WBs take this premise and really run with it, stringing some mumbo jumbo about blue and red pills, and a coppertop battery (riiiiiiiight) along with some awesome kung fu … Dude! What more could you ask for???
For me the movie’s greatest character is Agent Smith ("MIST-er Anderson") and his dry-ice monologues, not the least of which is the "you stink" speech he gives to Morpheus, right before Neo drops by with machine gun blazing (and manages to miss Morpheus, who is SITTING RIGHT IN THE WAY!) (Sorry).
Logic and rational plotlines aside, what makes this movie is the really groundbreaking visuals: the frozen slow-mo kicks, the bullets whizzing by a windmilling Neo, the incredible shot of the helicopter crashing into the office building, Neo’s reflection in Morpheus’ shades (what this movie did for Foster Grant I can’t imagine), the desperate escape down the INSIDE wall of a building … People will be imitating this movie for years. Actually, they already have been…
Star Wars
This franchise of course had to be on the list, and for many people it would top the list. There is no denying the impact of the first Star Wars movie, both culturally and on the movie industry itself.
The problem is that this accomplishment, for all its glory, is not aging well. There is no doubt that the revisionism that has crept into our view of the Star Wars series has been largely the result of the mind-crushing awfulness of the second trilogy. (Note: at the time of this writing only Episode I and II are out. As bad as Episode I was, I find it curious that I remember it much better than Episode II, which I thought to be a better movie, though still pretty bad. I wonder why that is. Star Wars Fatigue?)
But it’s not just the Jar Jar Binks era that taints this movie series. You can see the problems coming in the third SW movie, The Return of the Jedi. The re-hashing of old ideas, the safe reliance on special effects (improbable high-speed chase scene through a forest, anyone?), the truly baffling affinity Lucas has for "cute" aliens. I know that these films at heart are action movies for kids, but Lucas at times seems to cross the line into infantile. His visual genius has never faltered, but somewhere along the line, this filmmaker became incapable of telling an interesting story. It’s a shame.
T2
We can’t have a discussion about science fiction movies without mentioning Ahhhnold … or that James Cameron guy, I suppose. I really like the first two Terminator movies; an interesting premise (stolen, apparently, from SF legend Harlan Ellison), even if they do squeeze it for every bit of over-the-top violence they can get. The first movie is good; the second is better, with the most menacing Terminator ever. Linda Hamilton sure got into her role as Spookycrazy Mom, she scared the crap out of me, and I was just watching the movie at home. Good minimalist dialogue, brisk action, efficient and believable special effects. If you put aside the fact that time travel is impossible, you can buy this story and the motivations of its characters. Which for me is the sign of a good escapist movie.
Alien and Aliens
OK, these are monster movies. But they both, especially the second, are monster movies that rely on a futuristic setting to tell their stories. For suspenseful horror, you simply can’t beat the first movie. For a compelling story, you can’t beat the second. "Game over, man! Game over!"
Star Trek II –Wrath of Kahn
I hesitate to put the Star Trek franchise on this list, believe it or not. Of course I’m a huge fan, but I’m just not sure the best parts of Trek, in any of its incarnations, has ever been captured in a feature-length movie.
But there’s no doubt this one comes the closest to getting it right. Just two words: Ricardo Montalban. His Khan is a character for the ages, preposterous pectorals and all. And he has some great lines, delivered with the bombast they deserve. Really, the writing in this movie is exceptionally well done. Kirk bitches about getting old, Kahn quotes Milton, and Spock meets his end with the dignity that you would expect from a green-blooded, pointy-eared Vulcan.
Planet of the Apes
I include this series in the list because my wife LOVES Planet of the Apes. The original, of course. Chuck Heston looks much cooler in a loincloth than Marky Mark. And he emotes so much better. "You MANIACS!"
Starman
A whole range of actors have tried the "alien stranded on earth" role in works as diverse as Man Facing Southwest, K-PAX, and Mork and Mindy. But has anyone done it as well as Jeff Bridges? The guy who’s played a President, a shock jock and the world’s greatest slacker makes the challenge seem easy, and delivers a memorable performance (as usual). (Oh, and doing my Google check I found he was also in K-PAX. How ironic. Sorta like rain on a sunny day…)
Predator
Ok, another monster movie. But what an interesting premise: an alien goes on safari on primitive Earth, hunting man (the best prey of all, according to Predator alum Jesse V.). There are a couple of quibbles: do they all blow themselves up if they are captured? And what about their spaceships? But hey, why spoil the movie over little details?
I think this could be Ahhnold’s best role ever. Yeah, the Terminator will be what he’s remembered for (well, that and possibly the redistricting of California’s electoral precincts. Terminator sounds cooler). But here he matches wits with one extremely badass, technologically superior alien, adapts to a hostile environment, and tries (mostly in vain) to shepherd his little special ops/terrorist platoon through the movie in one piece. You feel for the guy. Which is almost a first in Ahhhnold films.
Contact
I include this one only because of its excellent soundtrack (inside joke). More a commendable failure than a SF classic, this movie builds well right up until Jodie Foster’s character gets that first big phone call from the sky. After that it’s politicians this and NASA that and how in the world they expect us to swallow the idea that the person who ran the radiotelescopes would be the chosen to actually go visit the aliens is beyond me. I mean, we didn’t send Van Braun to the moon. A big budget demonstration of how Hollywood can mess up even a decent story and likable characters.
Science Fiction, sort of:
Brother from Another Planet
Great movie, not really much SF. Alien who is completely compatible with the modern New Yorkers he moves in with, views our culture from his perspective, teaches some Valuable Lessons to those around him (especially the drug dealer, who does not recover) and finally finds some of his own kind. Nicely crafted film from John Sayles, who has a cameo.
Repo Man
"Let’s do some crimes!" There are so many great lines in this movie… LA punk becomes a Repo Man and tracks down a mad scientist with aliens in the trunk of his car. Best cameo by Jimmy Buffet ever!
Brazil
One of Terry Gilliam's great fantasies, this is a wistful, sad film about a small man trying to transcend his totalitarian society. Trust me, it’s more enjoyable than that sounds. But probably not for everyone. Personal trivia: I once dated a girl who really enjoyed the amount of ductwork in this movie. And since I seem to be into cameos: Robert Di Niro pops in as a rebel plumber.
And finally,
Mars is Hell
What is it about Mars that makes filmmakers go stupid? Has there ever been a good movie made about Mars? All I know is that in the past couple of decades the red planet has inspired some of the worst SF movies ever made, Mission to Mars, Ghosts of Mars, Mars Attacks! Perhaps none are sillier than (sing it with me) Total Recall, again with Ahhhnold. But the thing about Total Recall is that it at least has a sense of humor. (Ok, Mars Attacks! was supposed to have a sense of humor. Didn’t work.) TR really is a funny movie, with cartoon villains and cartoonish makeup (the mutants look like they bought cheap masks and melted them in the microwave). And the tracking device in the nose, oh boy … nice touch. It’s strange; some of the best SF books have been about Mars, but the movies have either been jokes or disasters.
(p.s. I see that Spielberg is taking on the Mars curse, along with Tom Cruise, in War of the Worlds. Please, by all that is holy, don’t let it be as bad as A.I.)
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Terry Schiavo
Out of the really terrible tragedy of the Terry Schiavo case, I can see some positives developing. The main thing I am seeing here, I think, is that the conservative movement has over-reached in the past month or so. The first setback was the clear failure of the Bush Administration to convince the American public that we needed to scrap Social Security and replace it with something riskier and more expensive. With the Schiavo case, we are seeing the public rebel against the notion that a "culture of life," whatever that means, should allow government to intrude into our most personal and painful decisions. This whole circus has given some clarity to the concepts and cliches that the media have been trotting out. In addition to illustrating how far the "culture of life" followers will go in their beliefs, it also shows how silly the concept of "activist judges" is. The judges in this case have deliberated for years about the fate of TS, and have come to common sense conclusions that the vast majority of people can understand and agree with. If anything, it is the Republican legislators that look like activists, singling out a particular family to swoop down on and "help" with intrusive and medically ignorant legislation. Now that the far right has labeled these judges "activist," maybe the public will think twice about swallowing that term when it's used for other judges, whose real crime is simply not agreeing with the religious right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)