Monthly Archives: August 2019

The Missing Parallel

Often my mind will wander down counter examples when I hear a familiar phrase or explanation. For example many years ago during a conversation when a friend who had been in the US Navy with me discussed a bit of debauchery ashore during liberty in a foreign port he excused his behavior by saying ‘I’m only human.’ It occurred to me that no one ever says that when doing good actions even though altruism is also a very human thing to do.

Recently my mind has tripped over a familiar construction and the missing parallel to it, Judeo-Christian.

The phrase Judeo-Christian is often used as a stand in for Western European, though both elements of the phrase originate from the Middle East. Judeo naturally relates to Judaism, that ancient religion tracing its history back through Genesis and Adam and Eve. Christian of course refers to the religion that sprang up around Jesus, a Jewish holy man from the early Common Era and whose life and teachings represent the fundamental break between the two religions. The two religions have had a quite contentious and violent history as over the centuries followers of the Christian faith have engaged in pogroms, Inquisitions, conspiratorial slander, and murderous hate against the Jewish minority. This recent and mostly fictional welding of the two philosophies in a single Judeo-Christian tradition is really at odds with their history and is primarily propaganda. A propaganda that for the most part the Jewish people are not participants in. Consider this counter construction, Judeo-Islamic.

Islam, just as with Christianity, traces its history and origins through the Jewish faith and traditions. Where Christians believe Jesus was the final prophet from a long line of Jewish holy men and the living god made flesh the Islamic faith views Mohammed as the final Prophet that culminate the linage begat in the Old Testament. Where the Jewish faith traces its origins to Abraham’s son Isaac, the Islamic tradition is to trace their heritage Abraham’s other son, Ishmael. All three religions site Abraham as the man God selected to give birth to a chosen people and the followers of these major religions are often referred to as ‘The people of the Book’ because of their common origin and yet I have never heard any speak of a Judeo-Islam culture or tradition.

Share

When You Stare Into The Art The Art Stares Back Into You

Obviously this post’s title is a play on the famous statement about staring into the void and how that changes you what I am speaking about is not so much about change as revelation.

With the release of Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time In Hollywood his largest box-office opening to date, there have been a slew of reviews with interesting takes on what the themes and cultural significance of this cinematic fairytale. Given the subject matter, 1969, the Manson Murders, the transition from ‘Old Hollywood’ to a new star system, and the failure of the ‘Hippie’ movement as the idealistic 60s gave way to the cynical and dark 70s Once  quickly became a mirror that reflected the philosophies, politics, and morals of those critiquing the film.

It is an interesting and I think often forgotten aspect of critique that what once comments upon, compliments, or derides in any work of art but particularly with narrative pieces, says as much about the reviewer as it does about the art itself.

In my writers circle I often say ‘No honest review can be wrong,’ as a truthful critique, one that if reflected of the person’s sincere thoughts and reactions, paints the art as it impacted and moved, or failed to move, that person.

It has been fascinating watching the political chatterers liberal and conservative react to Once  revealing their internal biases, talking past each other, and illuminating the very real differences between those world-views. It could be an interesting experiment for some writers to write phony reviews in their characters’ voices.

Share

The Strangely Enduring Relevance of Shock Treatment

This week I re-watched 1981’s curious film Shock Treatment. Originally conceived as a sequel to the cult hit The Rocky Horror Picture Show  Shock Treatment  evolved into something darker, deeper, and more serious that that beloved rock musical. On one level the story is a simple straight forward sort of musical faire, Brad and Janet’s marriage is tested by temptation, fame, and manipulation by romantic rival for Janet’s affections until they ultimately triumph and literally ride off into the sunset. yet the film is also a biting commentary on television, the slippery nature of truth, and the power audience surrender to performers and content creators. Shock Treatment  is a deeply symbolic film with an approach that has more in common with David Lynch than most conventional filmmakers and it asks audiences to accept a level of unreality that transcends conventional narrative construction. Released long before the plague that is ‘reality’ programming this film speaks to the inherent deceptive quality of television and the dangers of accepting as ‘real’ anything that is presented in that flicking tube. And even though cathode ray tube and raster scans have vanished from out living rooms the film’s themes resonate stronger then they ever did in 1981.

Corporate control of mass culture, celebrity invasion of politics, and the deadly siren lure of instant fame, dangers we grapple with today are all major elements in Shock Treatment’ssly satire. The sinister similarity between Farley Flavors and Donald Trump feel more real to me than that other cinematic creation his inspired, Back to the Future’s  Biff Tannen. Lies are the beating heart of Shock Treatment,  the lies that seduces us, the lies we tell ourselves, and the lies we endure to simply ‘get along’ and in that theme I can’t help be feel that Shock Treatment’s  cinematic cousin is Craig Mazin’s outstanding series Chernobyl.

Nearly forgotten it is shocking just how relevant Shock Treatment  remains in 2019.

Share

It’s Not About Being Mentally Ill

Three mass murder shootings in seven day. It’s utterly horrifying to contemplate but today I am not going to discuss the pros or cons of firearm regulation but rather the tired cliché of describing the cowards behind the trigger as ‘mentally ill.’

It has been said before and will be said again that people suffering from mental illnesses are far more likely to be victims of violent crimes and assault than perpetrators and yet every single time this happens there are those who rush forward to blithely pronounce the murderers as mentally deranged and ill. If the facts so clearly support the concept that the mentally ill are victims of violence why are people always placing the blame on them? I think it comes down to three major reasons. I am not presenting the three reason in any order of importance, each one’s weight varies upon who is making the argument and why but I do think that all three broadly and culturally apply.

It’s a Dodge.

In the context of mass shooting when someone with a firearm starts killing as many people as they are able politically for those on the right it’s vitally important to shift the conversation as fast as possible. This is not to say that either side of the control argument has the stronger case but rather an observation that the political payoff for the right and conservative is to move the topic away from the gun itself. I call it a dodge rather than a reason because if this were a sincerely held belief, that these events are a result of seriously mentally disturbed people then those making that argument would be at least attempting to mitigate the effect with some action but that is almost never the case. No serious attempts are made to strengthen or enhance our deplorable mental health facilities in this nation and hence this argument is a dodge.

Popular Entertainment

For literally decades lazy incompetent screenwriters, and creators of all sorts, have waved away the haphazard and inconsistent motivations of their antagonists with the proclamation that the characters are ‘mad.’ The insane violent psychopath became an easy tired trope of bad writing and burrowed itself into a collection consciousness until for far too many people the blurry line between flawed artistic creation and reality faded into nothingness leaving us with the actually belief that murderous violent people are in fact psychopaths and that psychopaths are murderous and violent.

Rationality has Destroyed Evil.

The Enlightenment and Modernists thought insists that the world is a rational construction and that everything within it can be understood with the power reason. For so many aspects of reality this has held up extraordinarily well modern scientific thought has given us a world of abundance, long life, and unparalleled health even if those benefits are not yet even distributed but one thing we have loss in the calm logical model of the world is the concept of genuine evil. When these evil cowards appear and begin their indiscriminate slaughtering logic and reason fail to comfort us and in a desperate attempt to ‘explain’ people reach for madness as the answer. Because believing in actual evil has fallen out of favor insanity, a vastly misunderstood aspect of human health with much more to learn than is known provides a rational if utterly wrong answer to the question Why.

Share

Movie Review: Fast Furious & Presents: Hobbs and Shaw

I have never watched, in whole or in part, any installment in the Fast & Furious franchise, so why did my Sweetie-wife and I go see this spin off from that popular series? The simple answer is we enjoyed the trailer. The joyous, funny, and decidedly over the top tone of the this movie’s preview promised the sort of ‘don’t take this seriously’ fun that can make for great escapist entertainment and that it is exactly what was delivered. We got what was listed on the tin. Now, the best frame of mind to enjoy this movie is not to go in thinking of it as an action film but to rather think of it as a super heromovie. The action, the stunts, the stakes, and the plotting are all much more in line with the lighter comedic styles of many modern comic book movies than anything as mundane as super spy James Bond. Approach Hobbs and Shawfrom that perspective and I think you’ll be ready to appreciate this enterprise.

The set-up of the movie is simple. Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) an elite member of the Diplomatic Security Service and Shaw (Jason Statham) a outcast outlaw are forced to work together when Shaw’s sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) an MI6 operative is framed for stealing a super virus capable of wiping out humanity when in fact she secured the sample to protect it from Brixton (Idris Elba) a cybernetic enhanced mercenary worked for the shadowy organization Eteon which has the goal of saving humanity by eliminating ‘the weak’ and taking control of the planet. On the run and pursued by this ‘black superman’ Hobbs and Shaw must work together and learn the meaning of family.

Directed by David Leitch who also helmed John Wick  and Atomic Blonde this movie is naturally heavy on fights, stunts, and action with an emphasis on comedic turns.  Both of the leads, Johnson and Statham, have shown the comedic chops and timing to carry the movie and joined by Kirby the trio is a powerhouse of charisma that carries the audience over and through the movie’s incredible story and sequences. Personally I am quite happy to see that Kirby is getting a wide variety of roles. She first came to my notice as Princess Margaret in Netflix’s terrific historical drama series The Crown and in everything else I have seen her in she has never disappointed. Idris Elba is much better served by this role than he was in the forgettable Star Trek: Beyond.

Over all if you can suspend disbelief and simply accept the wild premises and action Hobbs and Shaw  is an excellent entry into escapist fun.

Share

Story Construction in Two Rules

There are a lot of factors in good stories and good writing so it goes without saying that you need more than two ‘rules’ but I do think that keeping this pair of elements in mind you will be well set on a path for making tighter stronger stories.

Rule 1: The character must want something that is difficult to obtain.

This is the rule that will drive the plot. What the character wants can change as the plot evolve and situations force the character onto new paths, but there must be something that the characters wants so badly that it becomes a need.

Rule 2: The character wants the wrong thing.

This is the rule that drives the character arc, the emotional heart of the transformation that will force the character into new growth or their final destruction. What I mean by ‘the wrong thing’ is that the character at the start of the story has a worldview that is going to be challenged and found false or wanting and by the end of the story the character will have transformed by taking on a new world view. What the character wanted at the start of the story is driven by that old worldview and what they achieve at the end is a synthesis of their growth and new worldview at the story’s end.

Share

Is ‘Moscow Mitch’ Unfair?

Recently Mitch McConnell GOP Senate Majority Leader blocked from coming to a vote via unanimous consent two Democratic bills aimed at tightening US Election security from foreign manipulation. Broadly one would have required paper records of each vote and the other would have required campaign reports attempts by foreign nationals and power to influence the election. For blocking these bills, and because the Russian interference in the 2016 that sought to assist Donald Trump in both the primary and the general election is ongoing many on the left gave McConnell the nickname ‘Moscow Mitch.’

Granted it did not look good but that may have been the point, in politics it is a common tactic to advance a proposition simply to force the opposition to vote it down or block because on the face it looks terrible when in fact there may be legitimate reason to defat any particular bill. Given that all of the recent foreign interference has benefits or sought to benefit the Republican Party it can’t be dismissed that at this time election security cuts against the GOP’s self-interest.

I poked around on general news, liberal, and conservative sites looking for various perspectives on these bills and McConnell’s action blocking them. Over at National Review I found a piece defending McConnell and that it very illuminating.

Rich Lowry’s defense of Leader McConnell falls into three major premises.

1) The American system localizes election and it is wrong for the Federal government to dictate to local officials how to conduct elections.

2) Broad legislation, law, and regulation are ‘more likely’ to capture minor and innocent transactions and incidents.

3) McConnell has already passed 380 million dollars of election security assistance.

In our federal system our election system is highly localized, so on that point Lowry is correct. Our decentralized election system has even been touted as a safeguard against electoral tampering because manipulating 8000 individual election authorities is vastly more difficult than attacking a single national system. And that would be argument for the safety and security of a decentralized system IFwe elected our president with the popular vote but the Electoral College turns that strength into a weakness. A bad actor seeking to manipulate our presidential contest doesn’t need to attack every election district in every state but rather merely a handful of districts in perhaps as few as one or two states to change the results of the election. Insisting on localism in this context means we are pitting the Cleveland Registrar of Voters against the combined might of the Russian Federation’s Security apparatus. This requiresfederal intervention.

To Lowry’s second element there is even less supporting his position. It is certainly a good ‘rule of thumb’ to consider how vast sweeping regulations and generalities interact with reality but when the focus is on a particular piece of law or proposed law then it becomes a requirement to showwhere it is overly broad and how that is counter-effective and Lowry’s doesn’t even attempt to do that. He spouts a platitude as though it is an argument and moves one.

Lowry’s third defense is also quite weak. 380 million dollars may sound like a lot of money to average people dealing with rent, utilities, and the minutia of life but in terms of large-scale projects it is a pittance. The reported budget for Avengers: Endgame  is 350 million dollars and certainly securing out elections if vastly more critical than even a very entertaining Hollywood feature. Remember there are about 8000 election authorities in the United States and 380 million dollars works out to each one getting less than $5000.  McConnell’s ‘assistance’ is barely more than lifting a finger.

Still, calling him ‘Moscow Mitch’ fair?

No, because his slavish devotion is to GOP power and not Moscow. If the Russians suddenly switched to helping the Democratic Party McConnell would become consumed with stopping them.

What we can say is that McConnell with his devotion to his party’s power at all costs and an utter disregard for all our political norms history and his willingness to advance our enemies cause if it helps his is that he is no patriot.

Share