Category Archives: Culture

Does Gemini Man Herald the End of Acting?

In a recent article over at VOX an author expressed the fear that the near perfect digital recreation of an actor’s younger version is merely the camel’s nose in the tent that will lead to the replacement of actors with entirely digital creations. This is not a new concern and formed the one central question in Connie Willis’ novel Remake and then as now I do not foresee that as a concern for the near future.

Acting is not just walking from mark to mark and parroting the words from the script. If it were there would be a far large number of great actors entertaining us and it would not b so plainly evident when a talented actor was simply ‘phoning in’ their performance. Acting is an art and like all art is requires a conscious creative act. There are numerous choices an actor makes in their performance that go far beyond simply repeating the words.  There will not fully digital actors entire there are self-aware computers capable of making those emotional choices.

A second often expressed fear is that there will be endless films using recreations of stars that have passed and while there will the occasional use of a dead actor to recreate a famous role, for example Peter Cushing’s double in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story  it will never become a vehicle for a star powered film. Firstly there is still the creative aspect that will fail to double the original actor’s unique vision but more importantly is that younger generations will never simply adopt their parent’s stars. Even an eternally young John Wayne would not have continued to be the massive star of his earlier days as the country and culture changed around him.

Change is coming but actors are not about be wholly replaced by bits and bytes.

Share

The Terror of Impeachment Blowback

As the nation hurtles towards Trump’s impeachment, and yes it still may not happen but everyday the odds grow, people look back at impeachment of Clinton and the Democratic gains in the following mid-term elections. People on the left fear impeaching Trump will do the same with GOP gains following the likely failure of removing Trump from office. I think such fears are generally misplaced.

The investigation Bill Clinton started a real estate deal that to many smelled of fraud. Eventually the investigation spun off into his extramarital affairs and the civil suits that followed. When the Starr learned that not only that there was physical evidence of Clinton’s affair and after failing to convince Monica to ‘flip’ on her lover, he set a perjury trap for the president. A trap that Clinton proved willing to leap into when he perjured himself and lied under oath, which produced the charge of obstructing justice that powered the impeachment charges. Clinton’s defender tend to frame the entire thing as ‘lying about a blow-job’ but the facts is that it was perjury, it was under oath, and Clinton was disbarred as a lawyer. However despite the actual violation of his oath the emotional reaction from the general population was one that empathized with Clinton. Many people could see just how easily they would react the same way. There’s a reason why there is a common saying that ‘everyone lies about sex.’ In the end the Republicans came off looking puritanical, petty, and prudish.

What is threatening Trump is wholly different in its emotional tenor. It is not sexual in nature; it does not endear empathic feelings but rather is a direct abuse of his position as president. Even setting aside the heightened partisan culture this scandal is not one where people see themselves in the actions. That is not to say the Senate would remove him from office. No, the GOP base is enthusiastically in Trump’s corner and they will hold their representatives feet to the fire. What I think will not happen is that persuadable people will turn against the Democrats for impeachment. Not on the facts as we currently know them. Such fears should not dissuade officials from doing their duty. Right now around the world US Armed forces personnel are putting their lives on the line for this country and for what it stands for, it is not too much to demand that politicians be willing to risk an office.

Share

I’m Shocked, Shocked to Find Corruption in This Administration

And just like Captain Renault in Casablanca  the state of surprise is entirely contrived. Donald Trump strikes me as a person who has never ever been held accountable for any single action or misdeed in his entire life. Credibly accused of draft dodging, tax evading, charity abusing, sexual assaulting, and who knows what else he has escape any serious consequence which has fed his ego, inflated his sense of entitlement, and made this non-drinker drunk with power so it is wholly unsurprising that he has abused the office of president and attempted to get foreign powers to interfere in our elections. I do believe that we are now on the fast track to impeachment, though I seriously doubt that the Republican Senators would cut their own electoral throats and remove him from office. Power and position are far more important than any oath of office and even a pretense of honor.

For about 23 years I was a registered Republican but the growing unhinged base and the party’s embrace of torture while clutching their pearls over equality for LGBTQ persons drove me from the party and every day that Trump remains in power and with better than 85% of the base enthusiastically supporting him I only grow prouder of my decision. I hope that the disaster that results from this administration burns the GOP to the foundation because only then is there any hope of a rational opposition party.

Share

The Candidates Three?

Odds are, but it is not certain, that the Democratic nominee for next year’s presidential contest will be one of the leading three candidates currently leading in the primary. While it is possible one of them will suddenly self-destruct and be replaced with a lower tier candidate, with each passing debate and fund raising quarter it grows increasingly unlikely. So we’re looking at the nominee being Biden, Warren, or Sanders and each represents a fundamentally different approach to the current political situation.

Biden is the conventional wisdom and ‘return to normalcy’ candidate. His approach is to treat the environment as an aberration and that a return to the past is not only preferable but also possible. Bi-partisanship and norm following would be the focus of his potential administration making him popular with risk adverse and older Democratic voters.

Sanders’ position that that the system itself is corrupt and must be swept aside to make room for the improved and golden future. It’s fitting that Sanders holds that position as he is not even a Democrat but rather officially is a Democratic-Socialist. Sanders is a revolutionary and promises a revolt making him popular among the disaffected, and the young.

Warren stands between these two extremes. The reformer Warren’s position is that the system is broken but that it can be repaired, that the old ways are flawed and that revolution is too extreme. It’s noteworthy that Warren isn’t afraid to label herself a ‘capitalist’ nor does she run from the fact that she was once a Republican. She appeals to those desperate for change but unwilling to commit to revolution.

Three candidates, three very different viewpoints on the troubles and the solutions it will be interesting to see which one prevails.

Share

Spider-Man, Macbeth, & Responsibilities

It is interesting to think about how characters are or are not responsible for the ills of their fictional world.

Central to Spider-Man’s character is the guilt he feels over the death of his beloved Uncle Ben. After Peter Parker had gained his powers that allow him to become a super hero but before he accepted to corresponding responsibilities, he sought enrichment and glory by using those magical abilities in entertainment. And when he stood by refusing to become involved in a robbery allowing the culprit to escape, he set into motion a chain of events that resulted in the same culprit robbing, shooting, and murdering Peter’s Uncle’s Ben. In the second motion picture directed by Sam Rami Peter confesses to his aunt that he, Peter, is responsible for Ben murder and that is something that has always rankled me.

Yes, Peter should have done something. Yes, Peter’s inaction set up the conditions that allowed the criminal to escape and thus the conditions that eventually allowed the criminal to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong motivations that resulted in Ben murder.

However, Peter is not responsible for that murder. Peter did not pull that trigger; Peter did not make the decision to shoot. Only the gunman is responsible  for shooting. My feelings on the matter have always been settled ground to me.

Yet, things feel different when I contemplate my favorite play Macbeth.

It is Macbeth’s hand to wields the dagger, it is Macbeth’s choice to murder his King and Kin, it is Macbeth uses the throne of Scotland to ignite a reign of terror that sparks open rebellion and invasion and still I can’t shake the sensation that responsibility somehow lies with the unnamed witches.

Without the supernatural meddling by the witches, making pronouncement of the future that are accurate of ultimately misleading, would have Macbeth ever taken any action against his royal cousin? If the witches can know which grain will grow and which will not then must they also know that speaking that future to Macbeth that place him on the path that ultimately leads to his doom? Are they the inversion of Avengers: Endgame knowing that if they speak the future to Macbeth that unlike Strange certain that his prediction will destroy its possibilities their will ensure it? If that is the case how do you divide responsibility between the Witches and their future meddling and Macbeth free will to choice his destructive path?

Share

Nonsense Nomenclature

Recently the San Francisco Board of Supervisors officially proclaimed something that has been a common cry for Gun Control activists that the National Rifle Association is a ‘Domestic Terrorist Organization.’ This is absurd when shouted by protesters and idiotic when made as an official statement from supposedly cooler heads.

Terrorism is the use of force with the principle intent of utilizing fear to affect a political process. Certainly some of the cowardly mass murderers were terrorists, slaughtering helpless people at worship, while shopping because of racist and bigoted ideologies, particularly to ignite a ‘race war’ is terrorism. It is also true that the ideology behind it is a terroristic one, without hopeless odds to induce their twisted bigoted beliefs through the political process, no matter the recent successes of blatantly racist politicians and candidates, the ‘radicalization’ of angry young men continue to generate these cowardly murders.

However, that is a long way from the NRA being itself a terrorist organization.

A player, though its powerhouse days may be behind it, in the American political process, the NRA has never sanctioned, endorsed, or encouraged any of the mass murders. The NRA, its endorsements, and its financial contributions have serous impact on the political landscape seriously undercutting any reasonable attempt to define it as a ‘terrorist’ organization.

Labeling the NRA a terrorist organization is not reasonable but it is understandable.

While the NRA has not in any way encouraged or endorsed these murderous attacks it has displayed a callous indifference. Offering nothing more than the empty phrase ‘thoughts and prayers’ while pointing accusing fingers at video games the NRA stubbornly refuses to take any action to prevent these evil acts giving the impression that no amount of bloodshed or pain can ever matter more than their own narrowly defined self interest.

This heartless inaction, in my opinion, will, in the end, cause greater harm to the organization’s goal and objectives than any minor or modest legislative compromise. As I have argued before eventually a cultural tipping point will be reached, a like a dam bursting, the flood that follows will wash away everything that came before. I think it is instructive that in the 2018 election cycle the Democratic Party did not run and hide from a solid stance in favor of more gun control. The old collations have passed away and in this delicate time new ones are forming. Trump harms the Republican’s ability to reach beyond their core base with the college educated and far less devoted suburbs already fleeing to the Democratic party just new cycle of re-districting is about to be begin. The 2020 election will impact the next decade and the dam may already be bursting.

Share

It is Probably a Bad Movie Anyway

Some weeks ago I first saw the trailer for the thriller The Hunt and I was unmoved and uninterested. If you are familiar with the classic story The Most Dangerous Game, a piece of literary fiction that has been adapted into film several time or the Ozploitation movie Turkey Shoot  then you are aware of the basic set-up for The Hunt, a group of people are forced to the objects of a big game hunt and must fight and use their wits to survive. When I saw the trailer my thoughts went to Turkey Shoot  and frankly seeing that again prompted more interest.

Last weekend a conservative friend of mine brought up the film because of controversy that was apparently bubbling over at conservative websites. The movie grand satire was that gun-toting liberal elites were the hunters and that they had selected ‘deplorables’ Trump supporters and the like as their game. Under fire for this set-up, with Trump taking part in condemning the movie, and the horrific tragedy of three mass shooting events, one certainly politically motivated, within seven days, Universal pulled the movie indefinitely from their release schedule.

Ruben Baron at the website CBR reports having read the script by Damon Lindelof and Nick Cuse and compares it to an episode of South Park  where both the liberal hunters and conservative prey are presented in a bad light. In an attempt to be even handed apparently the script treats the liberal hunters as stereotypes and the people selected for the hunt are guilt of more than simple right-wing political positions but are also spousal abusers and such. (Though that itself ignore that domestic violence spans the political spectrum and reveals more about the screenwriters than perhaps they intended.) The central hero is a Red Stater who was selected by mistake when her name is confused for the hunt’s actual target.

I find it amusing that before Fox News, Trump, and PJ media jumped into the fray certain that this was nothing more than a liberal hit job on ‘real’ America that the most sympathetic characters were likely to be the conservatives being hunted. Narrative fiction, at least in the European tradition, is about character struggling to overcome adversity to achieve a goal and in that mold the characters an audience is most likely to root for are the ones fighting to survive. They have with the highest stakes in the conflict, are the ones suffering at a disadvantage, and the ones more likely to fail. I am reminded of a WWII training film about enemy interrogation where an allied aircrew is captured by the German and subject to various tricks, threats, and subtle techniques to divulge classified information. When I watched the film it was very difficult not to root for the Germans. They had the objective, they were facing the clock, and to win all the Americans had to do was shut up and say nothing. I suspect this script, in addition to being bad satire, would have placed the audience sympathies with the hunted.


 

Share

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