My schedule is scrambled so instead of my prattling enjoy to tremendously talents Melody Gardot
Not a post
Monthly Archives: March 2018
No Honest Critique…
… Can be wrong.
This is something I say quite often at the writers group that I attend and I fully believe that. Of course one of the key aspects is that it must be an honest critique, but that is neither here nor there for today’s essay. What does it mean when a critique or interpretation seems so very at odds with a common view of the work?
For example that was an on-line dust up some time back over the SF/Horror film They Live. Quite a few Alt-Right types were very adamant that the aliens in the movie were a metaphor for a world wide Jewish conspiracy and that the story in fact validated the alt-right and other anti-Semites terrible worldview. John Carpenter, who wrote the screenplay and directed the film, insisted that the metaphor was for capitalism, conservatism, and specifically Ronald Reagan’s brand of political thought. In the on-line postings we have clear authorial intent but presuming the Alt-Right and other are not lying, how can I suggest that their interpretation is correct?
The key to understanding this is that communication is never as simple as one agent creates a message and transmits it to another agent who then receives that intended message. The process is more like the sending agent encodes a message, transmits it, the receiver decodes the message and then looks to understand it, that encoding/decoding transformation it critical in how a message is interpreted.
In the case of They Live, Carpenter used alien to encode his metaphor but in the decoding process everyone uses their own set of symbols and lived experiences, including everything that they have been taught or believe to be true, as a lens to color the transmission. For the Alt-Right types that can include the anti-Semitic garbage in their own operating system, hence they decoded a message that was anti-capitalist and anti-conservative into a narrative palatable to their own prejudices. Their critique and analysis, if honest, is correct for them but only because their decoding process seriously distorts reality.
So when there is an interpretation of a work that is significantly out of step with both authorial intent, when it is know, and the general interpretation that outliers conclusions says much more about the filters and lens of the critiquing agency than it does about the work itself.
The Need Argument
Often when there is a debate about prohibiting, restricting, or permitting an object or service someone will make what I call the ‘need argument.’ It is very simple, they will point out that the person against the new restriction doesn’t really need whatever it is that the proponent is calling to ban or restrict.
It is an insidious tactic that has as its base assumption that the person proposing the restriction has already determined the ‘need’ and found it wanting. I reject the need argument nearly categorically. It is an argument designed to trap the person debating for access into a box where they must attempt to meet an ill-defined criteria held by the proponent or surrender and since the criteria is not something mutually agreed to but is instead always defined by the proponent it is something that cannot be met.
The call comes over and over, it comes in taxations, ‘they don’t need that money,’ it comes in healthcare ‘they don’t need that transition,’ it comes in legalities ‘they don’t need that marriage,’ it comes in the arts and entertainment, ‘they don’t need that filth or that violent game.’
It does not matter where it raises its head the ‘need argument’ is always an attempt to impose the concept, I don’t want that thing so you do not get it either.
If you are going to push for prohibitions or confiscations get a better argument, and there are always better arguments.
Movie Review: Annihilation
On Saturday after a trying cold and flu season I finally managed to find the time to get out to the theaters and catch Alex Garland’s latest film Annihilation. Based on the novel with the same name Annihilation was written and directed by Garland who also gave us the fascinating SF film Ex Machina. (Garland also penned the scripts for 28 Days Later, and Dredd.) I have not read the originally novel, though I understand significant changes were made in the adaptation process, and so I will not be commenting on the quality of the adaptation.
Annihilation is about an event called the Shimmer that originated with the impact of an extra-terrestrial object. The Shimmer is centered on a lighthouse and since the object’s impact has been expanding, consuming more territory within its borders. All devices and teams sent into the Shimmer lose communication and none have 
returned, leaving the zone a mystery. The lead character is Lena, a biologist who is pulled into the secret of the Shimmer when her husband mysteriously returns. In order to try to determine what has happened to her husband, Lena volunteers to accompany the next team being sent into the zone. This team, unlike all the others, is comprised entirely of women and represents a number of disciplines and skills. Inside the zone the women are confronted with a bizarre and difficult to understand environment as things living in the effect take on radically new forms. Cut off from communication and help, frayed by their own psychological issues, the team pushes deeper in the Shimmer towards the lighthouse and hopefully the answers to the mystery.
The cast of Annihilation is top shelf, Natalie Portman plays the lead Lena and she is supported by Gina Rodriguez, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Tessa Thompson with Oscar Isaac playing Lena’s husband Kane. All of these actors are skilled and have played in some of the biggest films of the last decade. Tessa Thompson took people by storm with her portrayal of Valkyrie in Thor: Ragnarok. Her character here is very removed from the boisterous on top of things Valkyrie demonstrating a range that I think we have only begun to experience.
Annihilation is never going to be a mass-market success. Unlike many films this one requires active interpretation. Ex Machina left its ending open to audience interpretation but Annihilation the entire final act is more akin to something one might see in an art house film. It is more accessible than say a David Lynch movie this is not a movie that spells out for you what it means or what precisely has transpired. As such this is not a movie for everyone. I enjoyed it, I am glad I saw it in the theater, but it is unlikely to find a home in my library. More than most films you mileage may vary and if it works for you or not will depend greatly on your personal tastes.
Movie Review: The Death of Stalin
This is a film my sweetie-wife and I have been looking forward to for a few months. From the creative mind Armando Iannucci, the man behind Britain’s The Thick of It and HBO’s Veep. The Death of Stalin is a 
fictionalized, partially farcical partly horrific account of the power struggle following the death of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin 1953. As with all dramatic films based on historical events one should not aspire to learn history from a movie.
While the film possesses Iannucci’s distinctive farcical characterizations and sense of absurdity when dealing with powerful bureaucratic people it also has sense of totalitarian terror. Often these two disparate elements are separated by only a cut creating a juxtaposition truly worthy of Soviet film montage theory. This clash of the farcical and the terrible has been commented in other reviews and for many reviewers it was off putting. However I think that the effect Iannucci was striving for was an understanding and emotional reality of how the absurd becomes the terrible so easily. The whiplash of the competing tones keeps the viewer off balance and unable to emotionally predict the coming scenes much like how the people brutalized by such a reign of terror live in a constant state of anxiety.
The plot concerns itself with two man who are vying to take Stalin place following his fatal stroke, Nikita Krushchev head of the Communist Party, and Lavrentiy Beria, head of the NKVD, the regime’s dread secret police. Krushchev is presented as the reformed, the man who wants to stop the mass murders, the false imprisonments, the reign of terror, while Beria, in addition to being the man carrying out all the murder and torture, is portrayed as a ruthless figure with depraved sexual appetites. Like all worthy protagonists Khrushchev is fighting beyond his weight class, Beria has prepared for this moment and moves with ruthless efficiency as he consolidates the power into his hands. Given the brutal nature of the struggle this rapidly transforms the contest into one of survival.
Steven Buscemi plays Krushchev. He makes no attempt, nor for the most part does the other actors, to adopt a Russian accent and his portrayal is one filled with the anxiety of a man over his head. There is a passing reference to Krushchev’s service at Stalingrad so it is also clear that this man is no wilting flower. Simon Russell Beale plays Beria and it is about as far from his role of Falstaff in The Hollow Crown as is possible. Despite these powerful performances the scene-stealer in this movie is Jason Isaacs, possibly best know to genre fans as Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter franchise, as Zhukov, head of the army. Zhukov both historically and in the film is a larger than life character and one that dominates every scene in which he appears.
The final casting element I want to discuss is Foreign Minister Molotov. A man who is on the outs and destined to appear on one of Stalin’s dreaded lists, Molotov is played with nervous energy my Python alumni Michael Palin. In addition to a fine bit of casting, this also I think draws a direct connection between The Death of Stalin and it cinematic cousin, Brazil. There is no doubt in my mind that these two absurd dark films are speaking with one voice. Gilliam and Iannucci both seem to be concerned, and rightly so, about the abuses of power, the childish nature of those chasing it, and in the end the terror that promises for everyone under their heels.
The Death of Stalin is not a movie for everyone. The clashing of humor and horror is designed to be jarring but it is a film I thoroughly enjoyed.
It’s Not Just the Person in Charge
I have finished watching the 10 episode documentary Hitler’s Circle of Evil and it was truly a fascinating journey. So interesting in fact that I look forward to seeing every episode again as I re-watch them with friends equally interested in history.
One of the aspects of the entire Nazi Germany history that this series had laid out in a clear manner is how important the people surrounding Hitler were to what happened.
From the very start of the movement through its transformation into a personality cult and onwards into a juggernaut of evil it was more than the hateful evil fuck Hitler responsible. Throughout the process he was surrounded by people who performed critical roles that shaped the ideology, energized the members, and brought the murderous cult to power.
What truly jumped out at me was how few of the people that held these powerful positions had any real competence or qualifications for their posts. To the man each chased individual ambitions, some petty and prosaic such as Goring’s looting of artistic treasures for his homes while others pursued their conspiratorial feats into mass murder. What not one of these men seemed to possess was a sense to duty to the country. Oh, they all professed a great love for their country, but their actions time and time again demonstrated their base, selfish, and evil objectives.
The fish rots from the head and Hitler was the center of the corruption. The inner circle was one of his own making and one that reflected his twisted views and hate filled perspective. For the members of the inner circle power flowed from their direct and personal relationship to Hitler, as those relationships waxed and waned so did their influence. I find it curious that these vicious, scheming, and treacherous men who moved so confidently against one another were simultaneously craven ‘yes men’ unable to tell their adored and feared leader ‘no.’
It is that relationship, cruel men who cower and bootlick; paying the source of their power for false flattery that fascinates me. It is the system that provided a platform for genocide and wars of aggression not simply the product of one madman’s maniacal delusion. Had there been strong institutions staffed by people not driven by personal, petty, purposes the entire Nazi government would have been impossible. Of course the Weimer Republic never had the chance to develop those deep institutional cultures and in the collapse of the German Empire the vacuum was filled with men and parties intent on power and money.
As a writer of fiction and a student of history the lesson that it is never just one man is a terribly important one. When I create worlds for my stories or when I look at governments around the world it will be important to keep it mind it is never just one person it equally vital to know who they surround themselves with, who is in their inner circle.
Sympathy for the Devil
I have seen a few articles recently expressing how the villain of Marvel’s Black Panther is truly not a villain but a victim. These articles often call for Eric ‘Killmonger’ to be regarded with sympathy or even argue that the character may be justified in his objectives and methods.
(Minor spoilers for Black Panther will follow.)
I think in part this point of view is easier to arrive at if you are starting from a life history that echoes may of the ones that Killmonger experienced. (That is not to say you share the regal blood history but rather the one of prejudice and abandonment.) Over all having some sympathy for the antagonist is not a bad thing. An antagonist with a complex and compelling backstory is often relatable leading to a richer enjoyment of any narrative and often illuminating aspect of the human condition. There are also time when a less nuanced villain is required, when the character presenting the threat is more like an invincible force that a person with flaws and motivations. Killmonger is clearly deeply drawn character with very understandable motivations.
The fact that his motivations are understandable is not the same as saying that they are excusable. It is possible to understand with condoning and in fact that difficult balance is critical both as someone experiencing the world and as someone creating a fictional one.
Among the many non-fiction books I have read there have been several on the subject of serial killers. The history, study, and nature of serial killers is something I find fascinating and a subject that is often portrayed quite poorly in cinema. Serial killers do not simply wake up one day and start killing without ‘reason.’ (Reason here is a very loose term because what is compelling to them is often incomprehensible to those removed from their history.)
As the character, and monster Hannibal, said in The Silence of the Lambs, ‘Billy was not born a monster, but made one through years of systematic abuse.’ Is this not exactly the case with Eric Killmonger? Where Buffalo Bill’s abuse was heaped upon him by people close to him, and if you read about actual serial killers there is always a pattern of deep and prolonged abuse in their formative years, Killmonger literally was abused by the systems around him, both American and Wakandan.
I find Killmonger’s motivation fully understandable and I have sympathy for the character, but we must not confuse sympathy with excuse. Murder to sate a psychological wound is not admirable, not when performed serial killers, abused villains like Killmonger, and justifiably terrified ones like Magneto in the X-Men franchise. This to me is one of the defining difference between a hero and a villain; chasing their objectives a hero has lines that they will not cross while the villain is willing to make anyone suffer, no horror is too great, and their ends justify all means.
Killmonger was not wrong in the evils he saw in the world, but he was too blind to see that he himself had become that same evil. The character may not have understood the historical significance of one of his lines but the writer/director Ryan Coogler certainly understood the British Imperial echoes of ‘The sun will never set on the Wakandan Empire.’
The Austin Bombings Appear to be Over
Over the past month Austin Texas has been subject to six bombings, killing and injuring several people. This morning news is reporting that the man responsible has died in an explosion as law enforcement closed in on him.
People in the area are warned to remain vigilant as the last couple of bombs had been sent via delivery companies and it is unknown if there are bombs currently in transit. The investigation is still on going and at this time there is no discernable motive.
Whenever these sort of random murders occur there is usually talk of mental illness but that is a conversation that starts in error and only progresses to greater and greater failures.
It is an understandable error. After all for most people conceiving the motive to lash out and kill strangers is incomprehensible and when we run into an incomprehensible act most people’s first impulse if to label the perpetrators as ‘mad.’
However they are not usually suffering from a mental illness, at least as defined by the current standard of the profession.
Motive is usually there but its incomprehensibility is usually a factor of the acts being several stages removed from the reasons. Like the mass shootings ultimately I think these things are reflections of a societal issues and how some individuals are finding it impossible to cope with our rapidly changing society.
That is not to say we should stop the changes in our society, even if such a thing were in out power. Standing athwart history and shouting stop doesn’t halt history it only gets you run over by it.
We may never understand the why and we do need to come to term with the limits of our understanding.
Waiting on UPS
So more than ten years ago one of my favorite purchases was a region free DVD player. As you are probably aware DVDs are generally coded to play only in certain regions, this is so the rights for publication can be managed worldwide, but it does lead to the issue where thing you really really want to watch are not available in your region. My sweetie-wife is an anglophile and so buying a player that could playback DVD from around the world was a plus.
Over the last few years the region free player has been slowly failing. Sometime not playing, sometime playing but with the colors shifted. Thing came to a head when I purchased my new television. The new set has no component connections and attempting to connect the region free DVD player through other methods has failed.
This past weekend I researched and ordered a new region free player, but this time it is a capable of Blu-rays as well as DVDs. After all if you’re going to buy a new product, buy one that’s going to do more and last.
I have also already ordered my first international Blu-Ray, Quatermass and the Pit, one of my favorite SF films and not available in the US on Blu-ray. The disc should arrive today, sadly the player, coming by UPS ground, is scheduled for Saturday.
Oh well, I think I know my Sunday Night movie feature this week.
Further Thoughts on Mass Shootings
This will not go too deeply into the weeds but I wanted to commit to a post a least a surface level analysis of what I have been thinking.
A basic assumption I am working with is that the mass shootings are a sociological phenomena reflecting a deeper and more troubling issues with how come people, primarily young males, are unable to cope with a culture that is changing. Going forward I see four major paths that can be taken.
1) Resolve the root cause, sociologically, that is producing people so hurt, so angry, that they lash out to kill indiscriminately often at the cost of their own lives.
2) Remove the implements by which they commit these acts.
3) Remove access to these implements by those likely to commit these acts.
4) Do nothing.
Route 1
In my opinion this is the best course but may simply be impossible. We may not have enough knowledge and skill to identify and repair the maladjustment. In addition there are an unknown number of persons for whom the damage has already been done and simply have yet to act upon this reasonless hate and anger.
Route 2
There are several problems with this course. The principal ones being that at heart prohibition is about punishing everyone for the misdeeds of a few. What are the criminal penalties for owning the banned items? How aggressively are these prohibitions enforced? If you are enforcing them then the millions that already in circulation remain, illegally, with in the population and undoubtedly some will find their way into the wrong hands. If you push to hunt down all of the banned items, then that requires a massive escalation of policing powers and activity and we already have serious issue with police powers. Some will point to countries like Australia but Americans are not Aussies and our population has already shown a rebellious streak when it comes to enforced prohibition. With million in circulation even discounting the afore mentioned issues more mass murder will occur as some will slip through the system.
Route 3
Again we run into practical application issues. To be as through as possible would require a massive amount of data on every person be at the government’s fingertips. This would probably best be achieved through a strong form of government ID, which would have all sorts of benefits beyond this issue, but used to track people’s purchases within the regulated sphere. This could be cross-referenced with now indicators, such as violence, spousal abuse, and psychological aberrations to deny access to these implements. The system would not work perfectly. There are those who would be false positives, denied access when they are no threat and there will be those who are not identified before their mass murder.
Route 4
This is the one we are following now. We do nothing of substance and the murders continue. There are some who feel ‘optimistic’ that nothing is the best course and that access to firearms will because easier over time. I do not agree. I feel, but cannot prove, that eventually there will come a breaking point and then something will happen.
There are no magic spells that will prevent these terrible murders. We are deep into a sociological sickness but that does not mean there is nothing we can do to lessen the trouble. What is important is that no matter what course you think is best remember that it is a first step not a solution and you must always ask, ‘what happens next?’ If you pass a law you must enforce it that means police must investigate, courts must prosecute, and prisons must be filled. And that’s for those who have not yet committed mass murder. There is no easy cost free solution to the troubles. If you want to ban thing, then you will have to chase down those items, enforce the ban, and punished those who refuse to obey. If you restrict access you have to track people, define the conditions that make them prohibited, and understand this will inflict upon the guilty and the innocent.
In both cases no process will be perfect and these terrible events will continue, but perhaps not as often.