Do Twists of Fate Make A Difference?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In 1969, Diane Keaton auditioned for Woody Allen's play Play It Again, Sam. The problem was, Allen was to be her romantic counterpart, and she was noticeably taller than he is. She did get the part, got a Tony nomination for it, and Hollywood came calling.

What if she didn't get the part? Would the world have changed?

Well, yes and no. Keaton was talented enough that she would have gotten another part in some other play, probably would have received a Tony nomination, and again Hollywood would have come calling. Maybe it would have happened one or two years later, and maybe she would have in other movies than the ones she did. Maybe she wouldn't have done so many Woody Allen films, but maybe she would have been in equally-good or better ones.

Life would have turned out a little different for Diane Keaton, and for Hollywood. But not too different.

Violence as Myth

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

With the loosening of standards in the late 1960's and the introduction of the MPAA system, we began to see more instances of violence, and more graphic violence, in movies and television. Some of it has some merit; some of it makes me cringe. And yet no fictionalized violence compares to the other kind of violence we rarely see live, but often see reported on television. This is Violence as Myth.

Atlas Shrugs, and So Do I

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

You would think that a novel so popular would have the major Hollywood studios bidding up the asking price for the rights. But it didn't happen with Left Behind. And it didn't happen with Atlas Shrugged. If Big Hollywood thought they could make a profit with either, they would have made either movie. Hollywood must have decided that while both novels were popular for niche audiences, neither had mass appeal.

And they aren't shy about making liberty-centered movies. Think about the three most successful franchises:

• Star Wars
• Lord of the Rings
• Harry Potter

Each of them provides a powerful message of liberty. But liberty is not the message the audience receives. Instead, they see "good vs. evil" and, since the audience member thinks of himself as a good guy, he's still willing to use State force to punish anything he thinks is evil.

When people go to movies, they're not hoping to be converted to a religion, let alone an ideology, and they're generally NOT thinking about opening their minds.

Firefly and Artificial Scarcity

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

But we don't have a free market, and the central problem is power. Second-rate minds who crave power go into politics. First-rate minds who crave power go into business and finance. Together, they exact tribute from the people: the politician by collecting taxes, the financier by collecting debts and interest. Then they set up social programs and "philanthropic" foundations to make the people dependent on them. Together, they make laws and regulations that make it nearly impossible for individuals to escape their systems of control.

Together, they have created a world of scarcity on a planet of abundance.

The End of our Culture?

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer, which will now be regularly appearing on Tuesdays.

America's most talented kids

Michael Jackson's death (I'm sorry if you haven't heard about it) brings to mind the dumbest tactical error in the history of contests. And I saw it happen twice.

Some years ago I watched a few episodes of The World's Most Talented Kid with my nieces and nephews. The show had a weekly winner of "most talented" kid.

One of the weeks, a 15 year-old girl came on to sing Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

On another week, a 12 year-old boy came on to sing the Jackson 5's I Want You Back.

Stupid, stupid, stupid! I'm not blaming the kids, but I am blaming their parents/managers for extremely poor advice.

Neither of them won. How could they possibly win?

They were good, and the judges had kind words for them. But the judges couldn't possibly have been comparing them to the other kids performing on the show.

The 15 year-old girl invited comparisons with the 16 year-old Judy Garland.

In the same way, the 12 year-old boy invited comparisons with the 11 year-old Michael Jackson.

Had the two contestants been substantially younger, like seven or eight, the judges wouldn't have compared them with the originals because the comparison would not have been fair. But because they were around the same age as when Garland and Jackson performed those songs, these kids were forcing the comparison, which hurt their chances of winning against the other contestants. Again, the kids were good, but they weren't Garland or Jackson, who were the two most talented kids of all time.

They should have chosen different numbers and provided their own signature.

Speaking of Garland and Jackson, it is interesting that both of them died young - Garland at 47, Jackson at 50. They died 40 years and three days apart. (I looked that up; I am definitely not a "Judy Garland fan" and all that may imply - not that there's anything wrong with it.)

They are also connected by the Wizard of Oz: Garland playing Dorothy in the original, Michael taking the Scarecrow role in The Wiz.

The Next 70's Remakes

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is the latest in a long line of re-makes of 1970's movies: The Poseidon Adventure, The Bad News Bears, The In-Laws, Fun With Dick And Jane, Sleuth, and several more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Considering that Hollywood has run out of ideas, I predict the following movies from the 1970's will be re-made. This isn't intended to be satire; these are fairly serious predictions. Although, now having made the predictions public, there's less of a chance of these movies being made. That's more or less my purpose: I don't want these movies made, but I fear they will be. In no particular order:

20. Sean Penn taking Al Pacino's role in Dog Day Afternoon
19. Will Farrell and Kate Hudson taking the Ryan O'Neal and Barbra Streisand roles in What's Up, Doc?
18. George Clooney in the Paul Newman role for Slapshot. Jon Heder from Napoleon Dynamite and Blades of Glory will probably play one of the Hanson brothers (unless the brothers from 90's boy band Hanson can skate).
17. Will Smith and Matt Damon in the Nick Nolte and Mac Davis roles for North Dallas Forty.
16. Samuel L. Jackson and Morgan Freeman taking over for Walter Matthau and George Burns in an African-American adaptation of The Sunshine Boys.
15. Smokey and the Bandit with Owen Wilson as the Bandit, Vince Vaughn as the truck driver, and Ben Stiller as the sheriff.
14. A Jaws remake with a CGI shark; Nicholas Cage plays Chief Brody, who in this version is a single father, and Halle Berry, or a younger actress, as the scientist Hooper. Brody's oldest child will not be a 12 year-old boy but rather a spoiled-but-hot teenage girl who spends the entire movie in a bikini.
13. Jamie Foxx taking over Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry
12. Russell Crowe, Matthew Fox, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Sean Astin in for Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ronny Cox, and Ned Beatty in Deliverance.
11. John Cusack and Chris Tucker replacing Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor in The Silver Streak
10. Jack Nicholson and Chris Rock taking over for George Burns and John Denver in Oh God!
9. Keanu Reeves in a movie titled Marathon Man with a torture scene and a chase, but otherwise a signficantly revised plot.
8. Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore taking the Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn roles in Foul Play
7. Woody Allen and Abigail Breslin replacing Dudley Moore and Bo Derek in 10 (Okay - that one was a joke, although Allen would probably be interested.)
6. Brad Pitt in the Paul Newman role leading an all-star cast in The Towering Inferno - possibly scratched due to lingering 9/11 sensitivities.
5. Shia Labeouf and Scarlett Johannson taking the roles of Ryan O'Neal and Ali McGraw in Love Story.
4. Cate Blanchett and Julia Roberts in a lesbian-marriage version of Kramer vs. Kramer
3. Jodie Foster in the Faye Dunaway role, David Straithairn in the William Holden role, and Samuel L. Jackson in the Peter Finch role of anchorman in Network. I saw the original just once, on television when I was maybe ten or eleven and remember few details, but I learned more from that movie than an entire year's worth of elementary school.
2. Clint Eastwood and Nick Jonas taking over for John Wayne and Ron Howard in The Shootist, with this one directed by Ron Howard.
1. Morgan Freeman and Charlize Theron in the Art Carney and Lily Tomlin roles for The Late Show. Actually, if they do this right, this could win all the Oscars the original should have won (or at least been nominated for), but it still won't be as good.

Instead of making these movies, I have a suggestion for Hollywood: call me. You seem unable to write an original script. I have a few ideas.

And for readers: instead of watching re-makes, watch the originals! Of the films mentioned above, I have not seen Love Story or 10. Of the films that have already seen remakes, the best originals are The Bad News Bears, The In-Laws, and Sleuth. I was very little when I saw Fun With Dick and Jane and although I remember it's very funny, I can't judge it with adult eyes. The Poseidon Adventure demonstrated the charisma of Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, and Shelley Winters - none of whom were particularly good-looking. They all over-acted with a cheesy script and still kept the movie entertaining and suspenseful. The original The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, is also recommended.

Of the movies I fear will be re-made, I would rank the originals in this order:

1. Jaws
2. Network
3. The Late Show
4. North Dallas Forty
5. Slapshot
6. Kramer vs. Kramer
7. Dog Day Afternoon
8. Marathon Man
9. The Sunshine Boys
10. Deliverance
11. What's Up, Doc?
12. The Shootist
13. Oh, God!
14. The Silver Streak
15. The Towering Inferno
16. Foul Play
17. Dirty Harry
18. Smokey & The Bandit
(Again, I haven't seen Love Story or 10.)

Please let me know in the Comments if any of these remakes are already in the works, or if I missed the boat (considering I didn't do any research for this post) and some of these already have been re-made.

Criticizing Critics, Or, You Get What You Pay For

Let's acknowledge off the bat that nothing on the Internet is actually free. But information and access to a wide range of opinion has a cost of near zero, in the same way that Seinfeld and the Simpsons are available for "free," even though someone, perhaps you, bought the television you watch them on, and you have to sit through the commercials.

In the same way, no Internet service is free, and a lot of free sites, like this blog, include advertising. Ultimately, the systems and services are profitable to those who provide them, even if they provide no direct charges to you (or payment to me).

This is all well and good. It's better find find an obscure piece of information within a few minutes rather than drive to the library and ask if there's a reference librarian on staff.

And everyone who expresses their opinion in this system have a right to do so. I don't criticize their right. I'm reluctant to criticize their content. But when the content itself is dedicated to criticism, and it's from a mainstream site, one might expect informative content.

We all know that some free content is better than others.

If Roger Ebert came out with the "25 most disappointing movies, by Roger Ebert" and this came out on the main page of a leading search engine, we would know we are getting solid, well-written content. But when we click on a link to Hollywood's biggest flops and fiascoes of the last 25 years, we would expect to see some combination of the 25 biggest money-losers and most-panned movies of that period. We wouldn't expect the random choices of people no more qualified than you or me.

Then again, isn't that exactly who we'd expect, considering this "content" is free?

We see,

• one movie that made actually made a profit, but not enough of one for the authors' satisfaction.
• another movie that made lots of money, which the article authors didn't like. What's worse is that this movie was a remake of a movie they had loved growing up, and they anticipated the remake with excitement! How can anyone approach the remake of a beloved movie with anything but dread?
• an actor who supposedly epitomizes flops, Kevin Costner. Costner's career suffered from the backlash of "stealing" the Best Director Oscar from Martin Scorsese, and the Best Picture Oscar from "Goodfellas" with his "Dances With Wolves" (as if the Oscar votes were his fault), and following it up with mediocre but popular movies like Robin Hood and The Bodyguard, and only after that participating in just a couple of over-publicized flops.
  

Some time ago, the same site provided a list of rock bands that should quit already. Among the entries was The Who, which is understandable. But then the author of the list admits that he didn't even like the band's 1971 album Who's Next. One can't help but ask, who are you to tell me which bands should quit, when you yourself didn't like the band even when they were by critical and popular acclaim at the top of their game?

I suppose the next stage for search engines is to build news and opinion pages featuring writers who actually know what they're talking about. But short of that, there's not much to complain about. We get what we pay for. It's just that we expect billion-dollar media companies to hire people who know what they're talking about and respect their audience.

When nobody speaks up

A year ago I saw Disney's Enchanted on DVD. In the battle with the villain near the end, one supporting character, perhaps on the comically dim side but who you would expect to be courageous and honorable, and who you would have expected to help in the fight, is mysteriously absent. Then, in the happy ending, he appears again.

After watching the movie, we watched the deleted scenes. There, we see that this character had been knocked out cold in the melee, which his why he wasn't part of the dramatic fight.

I'm glad I saw it as a DVD rental; had I seen it in the theater I would have been frustrated. By deleting the scene with no explanation as to what happened to this character, the movie was made much worse. And only about 15 seconds were deleted; it's not as if the movie would would have run too long by including it.

It makes me wonder - who decided to cut this scene? I can't imagine the final edit of any film is the editor's call alone. Didn't the producers and executive producers wonder about this? Or am I the only one in the world?

I came upon an even more frustrating experience with a recent theatrical release. Early in the movie, a little girl disappears on the grounds of the school in daylight hours. Once the teacher notices she's gone, the movie cuts to the next scene, where the teacher along with several cops are in the darkened school building with flashlights. The movie doesn't explain a)why they don't turn on the lights, or b) why they think the girl, who disappeared on the grounds, was in the building. Where I was, a member of the audience couldn't help but burst out, "why don't they turn on the lights?"

I wonder if a) this was originally a far longer sequence, which included explanations why the lights were out and why they thought the girl might be in the building -- all this to be shown when the DVD comes out, or b) the director just thought it would be more suspenseful if the building was dark during the search.

As far as the plot of the movie goes, it doesn't seem to make any difference whether the lights were on or off.

If a), why didn't anyone involved in the editing or final production raise this obvious question about the lights? Why couldn't this film have been edited better? And if b), and this was totally the director's call, why didn't anyone on the set raise questions about the darkened school building? The actress who played the teacher, the assistant director, the cinematographer, anyone? "Mr. Director, won't the audience wonder why the lights are out?"

On the other hand, there've been times while working for others that I've gone ahead and just did what I was told. Whereas, other times, I thought about what I was doing and spoke up to ask questions about how or why we were doing things in a particular way. After all, some days the mood is that we're doing it for the paycheck, and other days and in other moods we step back and question.

And sometimes we do raise questions or objections, and are told the equivalent of "shut up and do what you're told" or "the decision's already been made."

The more often an employer says this to employees, the less likely they will speak up again and will indeed just view their work as a means to a paycheck. And that's when mistakes big and small are made.

And this is why a gang of yes-men is the last thing anyone in power needs. Indeed, it is the last thing any of us need.

The Battle of the Sexes Was Mental

The death of actor Ron Silver last week reminded me of a movie I stumbled upon last fall. It was a 2001 tv movie: When Billie Beat Bobby starring Holly Hunter as Billie Jean King and Silver as Bobby Riggs. The movie is a light-hearted comedy about the Battle of the Sexes tennis match in 1973.

Perhaps if this was a big-budget theatrical drama, other actors would have been chosen. Riggs and King were both Californians, but Hunter (Southern) and Silver (New York) don't completely eradicate their native accents. And despite the glasses and different hairstyles, they still look like Hunter and Silver. But this made the movie all the more charming; it seemed that the actors were having fun.

And was this "Battle of the Sexes" ever a drama? Riggs did it for the publicity, and the reason for the publicity was to cash in. Although he had physical gifts that, decades before, made him the best tennis player on the planet, he was at this stage in life a hustler who was expert at playing mental games.

That was the key. Whether or not a 30 year-old woman could beat a 55 year-old man in an athletic contest is beside the point. If he was 60, 65, 70, 75, of course she'd be favored. Why not at 55?

Because Riggs already had whipped Margaret Court, the #1-ranked female tennis player. And he won by taking Court out of her mental game, by charming her and then intimidating her. This was the key to the movie: King prepared for the match by scrimmaging with much younger male players. She was capable of beating him at the athletic game of tennis. But could Riggs take her out of her mental game?

I think that was what the movie subtly suggested was the issue. That a woman could beat a much-older man in an athletic contest does not prove that a "woman can do anything a man can do." That's why most sports are segregated by gender, and rightfully so. But can a woman overcome the mix of charm and sexism that can simultaneously disarm and discourage her?

It seems to me this was the key to the match, and the key to a genuine feminism, not the bogus kind where women run crying to the civil rights division of the Justice Department. King had to see through Riggs's charm, and his bluster, and realize that he was only doing it for the publicity, i.e., the money.

The lesson learned is that if women are to compete with men in any field, the biggest obstacle to overcome is not physical, but mental. And the key to success is not in beating the men at their own mental games - in being bigger jerks - but refusing to play those games in the first place. Refuse to be manipulated.

I think this was at the heart of the movie and to the Battle of the Sexes, and why it was a victory for feminism. Women don't have to be discouraged by the crap they take from men. They can beat them just the same. And they can insist they be paid their equal share.

Just as Jackie Robinson and Dodgers executive Branch Rickey did more for race relations than Congress and the Supreme Court ever could, so it is that the Battle of the Sexes was a significant, if symbolic, step for feminism. And no government had to mandate it or subsidize it. Riggs and King were in it for the money.

It's the invisible hand of Adam Smith: self-seeking individuals generate social progress.

End of Days

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The story is about Arnold's determination prevent Tunney from a) being kidnapped and raped by one group (Satan and his followers) and b) being murdered or "sacrificed for the greater good" by another group of seemingly "well-intentioned" people.

And Arnold goes to great lengths, suffering physical and psychological torment along the way. Although Tunney is very pretty, Arnold is much older and there's no romantic interest. Arnold protects her because he is at heart a cop in the best sense, committed to protecting the innocent from aggression. This helps him see through the illusions and temptations Satan presents him with.

Arnold doesn't try to save the world. Indeed, "the world" would be more certainly "saved" from Satan's offspring if he pulls out his gun and kills the trusting Tunney himself. But a world that must be "saved" through the sacrifice of the unknowing innocent is already a world already lost. It's a world where evil has already triumphed, even if Satan himself must wait another thousand years. Better to protect Tunney and fight to the very end.

The Joker's Virtues

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[W]hat struck me about Ledger's Joker is that he has at least three very admirable traits that help explain why he is such an effective force for evil. They don't justify his philosophy or excuse the violence or mayhem he inflicts, but they are nice traits to have:

1. Fearlessness. . . .

2. Always has fun. . . .

3. Keeps his wits about him.

The Golden Rule and the Three Laws

I recently saw the 2004 film I Robot. It's set in 2035 with human-shaped robots filling various service roles for humans. Although apparently not given a"soul," they are given judgment, which means they have to be able to learn and grow, or "evolve." They are also programmed with the The Three Laws of Robotics, which figure prominently in the plot:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

A robot, then, is probably better able to protect human life than humans themselves can, because doing so is literally hard-wired in their nature. Humans, being organic life, must overcome the survival instinct. And, being social creatures, humans inherit religious beliefs that inspire an existential fear of death as well. So, saving others at the cost of one's own life is harder for us. But the Laws apply in a servant-master relationship, whereas in a relationship of equals, that is, among human beings, the Golden Rule would be sufficient.

The State likes the Golden Rule - when private citizens deal with each other. But its view of humans viz-a-viz The State is similar to the Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A human being may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm - except on orders of the State.
2. A human being ought to obey orders given to it by people in positions of authority except where such orders would conflict with the First Law, and no order by authority figures in civil society can supercede orders given by the State.
3. A human being must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

For example, Humans will agree that a youth should obey his father, but not obey orders to rob a bank. And that he should obey his coach, but disregard orders to deliberately injure someone on the opposing team.

But we also think a human being must obey orders given by the government, even where such orders conflict with the Golden Rule and inflict harm. Indeed, if you fail to support the deliberate infliction of harm on fellow human beings to achieve certain governmental ends, then you deserve to be vilified if not arrested.

Why do we think this way?

Perhaps it is because we, like the central computer in I, Robot, have "evolved" to see the "meaning" or intent of the laws, to see the "big picture" that examines the ends of humanity in general rather than the rights of individuals. In order to keep human beings physically safe and economically secure, we must tax them, regulate their property, and provide them with "services" they supposedly can't provide for themselves. And to preserve the lives of the many, we must spy on people, control their movements, and even sacrifice the lives of some.

But that's putting the cart before the horse. Laws emanating from the Golden Rule will protect our lives as individuals. And that is the point. Not saving the greatest number of humans. Not to make some suffer for others to prosper, not to make some die that others live. Not pre-]emptive attacks or restrictions to rid us of some perceived threat. Indeed, this is the opposite of the Golden Rule: if it is permissible for the State to harm one innocent person, why is it not permissible for the State to harm you?

It is no wonder that the State we rely on to "protect" us kills many times more people than criminals do. We rely on the State to fight poverty, when it has, through tax, land, and labor policies, inflicted more poverty and misery than any other institution throughout history. We rely on the government to fight pollution, but it is the biggest polluter. Without considering the individual as the primary unit in society, the State has literally no sense of proportion.

Extras

A few weeks ago I saw Cloverfield on DVD, and then last night I saw the 2002 movie Signs, which I believe is an indirect inspiration for Cloverfield. Both are movies about "extras" in other people's movies. One is a monster movie and the other is an alien movie (or both are both) and the audience is never told how or why these creatures came upon the northeastern states. Cloverfield is more to the point, that this is about the "extras" running in a seeming panic in a bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie. Signs is about another story, and the monsters are but an occasion to bring it to light. But in neither one do we involve the White House, the Pentagon, a maverick cop or scientist, his estranged wife, a heroic military unit, or anybody else on the supposed "front lines." It is about people who by their location or status are on the periphery of cataclysmic events, people who have no power and can make no judgments for anyone other than themselves - individually or as families.

Often such movies provide, at most, a mix between the "average" people and the heroes. Perhaps 9/11 and empathy for its victims helped change this equation, although Signs must have been scripted, if not filmed, by the time 9/11 happened. Or perhaps both are prophesying some other, other-worldly event that will sweep up a lot of innocent life in the future. More probably, they're both just movies, but movies in an age that gives some semblance of respect for the audience.

How many other movies have their been about Extras, that is, about people trapped in some cataclysmic time that is not about the heroes who brought the ultimate victory? I know there must be more movies like this than just Cloverfield and Signs, but I'm drawing a blank. Any thoughts?

Gone Baby Gone

I saw the movie Gone Baby Gone on DVD tonight. It has one, and only one, amazing stunt - and it lands the character who did it in the hospital. A good guy kills a bad guy and feels terrible about it afterward. Just about all the characters look like real people instead of Beautiful People - including the two good-looking young leads; their hairstyles and wardrobe make them One Of Us. These small tokens of respect to the intelligence of the audience by themselves make the movie worth watching.

The most interesting thing about Gone Baby Gone, however, is the moral dimension, but to even come close to describing what it is, means giving some of the key plot developments away to those who haven't seen the movie. I will just say that I came away impressed - more impressed than with several films that garnered even more acclaim in 2007.

Congratulations to Ben Affleck for his debut as a director.

Who Are the Bad Guys?

I saw The Bourne Ultimatum last night.

Often in a movie like this, when the bad guy is a government official, he is usually a) a twit, or b) someone who knows he's evil and is proud of it. David Straithairn, however, is the kind of actor who doesn't let his character become a caricature. I've said it before, but the great actors in supporting roles are the ones whose characters don't know they're a supporting character in somebody else's movie. Straithairn acts as if he's the hero and good guy trying to chase down a national security threat.

And that's probably more true-to-life. When someone is a) given near-absolute power; b) actually believes absolute power is necessary, then c) he will justify "extreme measures" to himself and will break the law. The "rogue" and "black-ops" portions of the U.S. "national security" apparatus think they're the good guys. If the JFK assassination and 9/11 were inside jobs, the guilty parties believe what they did "had to be done."

It's really the same mentality that, in the 2000 election, seemingly drove Democratic election judges to count spoiled ballots, and Republican election judges to dis-enfranchise eligible voters. It's what drives legislators to attack free speech and abolish third parties.

The ends justify the means, especially if they can be sanctimoniously decorated with phrases like "national security" or "clean politics." The bad guys persuade themselves that they're the good guys while they persecute the innocent.

A similar racket goes on with economic protectionism. Lobbyists for the American Society of Interior Designers, for instance, probably don't realize they're the bad guys when they try to impose regulations and licensing in their industry. They've probably persuaded themselves that what is good for themselves is good for America. And that's true of everyone who seeks legislation to drive out economic competitors. They'll use phrases like "public health" and "safety." They'll accuse opponents of regulation as greedy. They'll claim that without regulations, people will buy snake oil. But the real reason marijuana and industrial hemp are illegal is that, if legal, the price of countless drugs and other products would fall drastically. Real greed is using the force of law to drive out your competition, allowing you to raise prices. And the most effective snake-oil salesmen are the ones who persuade the government to purchase and mandate their snake oil - such as ethanol.

A "bad guy" is one who cheers when the State knowingly harms the innocent. But they will forever persuade themselves that the innocent are not really innocent, or they're not really harmed, or it's necessary for the overall good.

I don't think it's paranoid to say that there are bad guys all around us.

Hooray for Hollywood!

I don't know if this has happened before, but I see it as a sign of progress: of the weekend's top five movies, exactly one had a white male lead. The rest starred Asians and females, with only one sequel.

Established white male stars like Hugh Jackman and Ewan McGregor can't even blame reverse discrimination or affirmative action for getting their asses handed to them. The film industry is just about the freest of markets, in the sense that, more than anywhere else, the customer is supreme. Who says that the free market leaves women and minorities behind?

Is Hollywood corrupting society, or is it a model society should emulate? Just like when they go to movies or rent or buy DVDs, people should be free to buy a product at their own risk, and if the product sucks, it will quickly tank through word-of-mouth. No regulations, prohibitions, or price supports to limit customer choice. This would give female and minority entrepreneurs the best chance to succeed.

The profitability of a movie is voted on by the people, not determined by the government. Every other industry should be like that.

Juno

I saw the acclaimed movie Juno last night, and agree that it should be acclaimed. After seeing the movie, I was able to think it through and connect some dots that weren't obvious to me while watching, and appreciate some choices this movie didn't make. Just one example: too often, movies about teenagers put them into cliques they can not break out from, but here we have a smart girl who's into slasher flicks and whose best friend is a pretty cheerleader, and a "nerd" who's into science and distance running - who also plays guitar and is into punk rock! Wow! Who knew that people - even teenagers - have diversified interests!

Of course, the movie is dominated by the outstanding performance of Ellen Page in the title role. But there's something else I hadn't thought of about great supporting performances, until I saw them in this movie, particularly in the scenes involving either Jennifer Garner or Allison Janney. To me, they acted as if their characters didn't know that they were merely supporting characters in another character's movie, they thought they were the "lead" in their own life story. This is related to a statement I once heard or read from Dustin Hoffman: he acts as if the character doesn't know he's in a comedy or a drama. Likewise, supporting characters shouldn't know that they're supporting characters, but rather think are their own individuals living their own lives. Whenever Garner was in a scene, I saw a character with her own life story that made her desperately want to be a mother. When Janney was in a scene, I saw a movie in which a woman with a tense-but-loving relationship with her stepdaughter finds out that the girl is pregnant. I think the reason great lead actors are also great in supporting roles is that they play them as if they are the lead - the character they play wouldn't know any better.

I have heard that Juno supposedly glorifies teen pregnancy. Well, thirty years ago a movie was released called The Eagle Has Landed in which Michael Caine, Donald Sutherland, and Robert Duvall are involved in a German plot to kill Winston Churchill in World War II. Does the movie therefore glorify Hitler and Nazism? Far from it - but we do come to empathize with non-Nazis who just want to bring the war to an end, and the audience hopes the conclusion is satisfactory for them. Likewise, to pull for the best possible outcome for an unwed pregnant teen does not mean one promotes teen pregnancy, only to hope that the best possible outcome unfolds in this fictional story.

And even if Juno does glamorize teen pregnancy, I'm still more concerned about the unprovoked wars, torture and other attacks on human rights, property theft, and inflation coming from Washington than any "immorality" produced in Hollywood.

Against Black-and-White Movies

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

It isn't the language, sex, and violence of today's films that make them generally superior to the old. It is rather, the freedom of movies today to provide morally ambiguous situations, and characters "on the wrong side" we can empathize with. It's too bad Hollywood doesn't take advantage of this freedom more often, but it did so with In the Valley of Elah and Michael Clayton.

Four Movies

I just saw Gone With the Wind tonight. It seems that Rhett Butler was the only man with a lick of sense in the movie, as he knew from the beginning that the war was futile: (to paraphrase: "They have coal mines, factories, and a navy; the South has slaves, cotton, and arrogance.") Butler spends much of the war as a blockade runner.

The women, on the other hand, seem to have a grasp on the benefits of love and life, plus peaceful, honest commerce, such as in these two scenes (the lines are inexact but close):

Scene 1: Outside of Atlanta army hospital, receiving a donation from a madam:

Melanie: Ten, twenty, fifty dollars! And not our paper money, but GOLD!

Scene 2: The front hall of Tara, Scarlett's father comes through the door with news:

Scarlett's father: The Confederacy has surrendered.

Scarlett's sisters: Why did we ever fight?

Melanie, brightening: Ashley's coming back!

Scarlett, also brightening: Ashley's coming back, and we can grow cotton!

Both scenes cracked me up.

* * * *

The previous night, I saw The Fugitive again, though I've seen it lots of times. What makes the movie great is, of course, Tommy Lee Jones's Detective Gerard and the rest of the U.S. Marshals. Yes, it feeds into nationalist propaganda that federal law enforcement must come in to save the day from incompetent local cops. However, there are worse things for the federal government to be doing than finding fugitives wanted for violent crimes who may cross state lines.

* * * *

The night before, I saw, for the second time, most of Miracle, about the 1980 U.S. Hockey team. Coach Herb Brooks, as played by Kurt Russell, almost comes across as an Objectivist hero, without the philosophical pronouncements. He seems indifferent to the political and economic problems in Cold War America, and seems focused on beating the Soviets simply because it is a tremendous challenge, he's convinced he knows how it could be done, and he insists on doing it his way. As a result, he and his team probably did more to win the Cold War than hundreds of politicians, generals, and economists did the time, because Team USA helped change the cultural dynamics in America, restoring the country's self-confidence.

* * * *

Finally, the night before that, I saw Little Big Man for the first time in a long time. Perhaps the most thoroughly negative portrait of the U.S Cavalry ever caught on film, it showed what warriors are capable of when they don't recognize the humanity in the women and children they slaughter.

Another interesting realization came to me from how Chief Dan George refers to his Cheyenne tribe as "the human beings." He did not mean that others, whether Pawnee, white, or "black white men" were of another species, but rather, perhaps, less-than-fully-developed morally and ethically. Don't most tribes and nations have a word describing themselves the same way, saying "we are the real humans" or "the true race" or something like that?

So anyway, this reminds me of the Book of Genesis. I think it's ridiculous that people these days believe that when it says "God made the heavens and the earth" that the writer meant "the galaxies and the planet earth" rather than merely something along the lines of "the sky and the ground." The creation story may begin at the end of the last Ice Age, in which the "waters" - ice, covered the ground and the sky may have been dark from volcanic ash before "light" finally breaks through. Likewise, what was meant by God making the first man, Adam, was probably not that Adam was the first of the biological species homo sapiens and the father of all, leading to questions like "Did Cain marry his sister?" Rather, my guess is that a biological history was the furthest thing from the writer's mind; of course there were others of the same species around, but not possessing the same spiritual inheritance that made Adam the first "human being" in the sense Chief Dan George uses the term.

This is not to say that Genesis is true or false, but its factualness is more convincing if we don't translate the words literally into today's meanings.