Today is the centennial of John Kennedy's birth. His family has often said the anniversary of his birth was a better time to remember him than the sad anniversary of his murder. It's pretty easy to agree with that.
No matter what you may have heard, the truth is few men have ever been President who were better suited to the office by dint of temperament, intelligence, education and life experience. As a result of those things he rightfully shaped our affairs for the better far beyond his tenure in office. He was a premier member of the greatest generation.
I guess as the result of the darker side of human nature and public debate we've heard a lot of other things as well. Some of that was motivated by a partisan, Nixon like, desire to deprive the other party of any type of hero. The rest is just foolishness.
Here's some things you never hear. By the time of Prohibition Joe Kennedy was a millionaire many times over. He was a Harvard graduate married to the daughter of the mayor of Boston. He, like so many people, realized Prohibition just wasn't going to last. He bought the rights to distribute various brands of liquor into the U S when those rights seemed worthless. That was the extent of his financial involvement with liquor other than his father had been a prominent saloon owner in Boston.
Have you heard this? These people led highly structured lives. In addition to all the documented public attention, for financial reasons and other legitimate considerations every detail of their travel and other social interactions are completely documented. This is true of most public figures, notably movie stars. These dry as dust tax and social records are rarely examined. When they are examined they prove beyond any gossip or doubt no assignation that's ever been reported could have possibly happened.
I don't know that John or Robert Kennedy were pure as the driven snow. I do know that records don't indicate any of the more titillating things that have been said about them ever could have happened as a matter of shear, physical impossibility.
So, Happy Birthday Mr President.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Will Smith Made Obama President.
I read somewhere that when Barry Sonnenfeld told Will Smith he wanted him to play Jim West, Smith said to him, " You do know I'm a black guy, right?" Sonnenfeld didn't think that was an issue. It turned out he was right. It was the flip, smiling attitude that mattered to the character's development.
It wasn't exactly like casting Sidney Poitier as Rhett Butler but it was close. It was the timing in our social progress that made the real difference. I maintain that Will Smith's acceptance as Jim West paved the way for Obama's acceptance as a public figure beyond his racial identity a few years later. It made it possible for Obama to move beyond his racial identiy in the public mind as well as his own.
I think it's an interesting dynamic. Sonnenfeld (about as white as it gets) dismissed Smith's race as an issue. Smith (the black guy) thought at least at first it was an issue. The public as a whole, didn't care. Just remember your lines. There wasn't any backlash and I've seen no mention that black folks made a special effort to see the movie. Black folks did make a special effort to vote for Obama but the idea that they voted in some greater percentage for a Democrat over a Republican doesn't seem to be supported. As near as I know Obama only said one thing about it. He said it was surprising a black guy with a funny name could be elected President. He did use the position to elevate minority members to deserved positions of responsibility. That, most certainly, was an acknowledgment of race and gender. I'm not sure if that was good or bad. Sometimes we don't do well when we try to jump start natural, social evolution. I certainly do understand why Obama knew it was an issue to be addressed and he did jump in with both feet. My concern is that it added to a backlash. I think my concern can be answered with a simple question: If not now, when?
One dynamic that was exposed is interesting. A lot of white folks and black folks saw a black man as President or as Jim West. What I and a lot of people saw was an accomplished, talented man who just happened to be black as President and as Jim West. You could make the case that both Will Smith and David Duke looked at it from the same original position. To me that proves there is more work to do.
I don't think it serves anyone to see a person as minority or a woman; least of all the person so perceived. You have to put the qualifications first. I'm reminded of the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by Thurgood Marshall. The seat was seen as a "black" seat by, well, everybody. The Bush 41 people were at a loss to find a qualified black guy to appoint. They toyed with the idea of an Hispanic candidate. They seemed to be saying, ' Black, brown, what's the difference? We ain't playin golf with any of ya.'
They finally settled on Clarence Thomas . He was completely unqualified but he was black. His qualifications made Abe Fortas look like a world statesman and there is the little fact Anita Hill was given a polygraph by the FBI before she testified. It turns out she wouldn't make a good Jim West either and Thomas has been no more than a cipher. Michael Steele was a major embarrassment and Ben Carson is a bad joke. At least that's my "state of mind."
We've reached a point in our society where opportunity for advancement is truly available to all. That's a major accomplishment. The trick now is to preserve that against the backlash from the wrong side of the dynamic. Maybe someone will cast Halle Bailey as The Little Mermaid.
It wasn't exactly like casting Sidney Poitier as Rhett Butler but it was close. It was the timing in our social progress that made the real difference. I maintain that Will Smith's acceptance as Jim West paved the way for Obama's acceptance as a public figure beyond his racial identity a few years later. It made it possible for Obama to move beyond his racial identiy in the public mind as well as his own.
I think it's an interesting dynamic. Sonnenfeld (about as white as it gets) dismissed Smith's race as an issue. Smith (the black guy) thought at least at first it was an issue. The public as a whole, didn't care. Just remember your lines. There wasn't any backlash and I've seen no mention that black folks made a special effort to see the movie. Black folks did make a special effort to vote for Obama but the idea that they voted in some greater percentage for a Democrat over a Republican doesn't seem to be supported. As near as I know Obama only said one thing about it. He said it was surprising a black guy with a funny name could be elected President. He did use the position to elevate minority members to deserved positions of responsibility. That, most certainly, was an acknowledgment of race and gender. I'm not sure if that was good or bad. Sometimes we don't do well when we try to jump start natural, social evolution. I certainly do understand why Obama knew it was an issue to be addressed and he did jump in with both feet. My concern is that it added to a backlash. I think my concern can be answered with a simple question: If not now, when?
One dynamic that was exposed is interesting. A lot of white folks and black folks saw a black man as President or as Jim West. What I and a lot of people saw was an accomplished, talented man who just happened to be black as President and as Jim West. You could make the case that both Will Smith and David Duke looked at it from the same original position. To me that proves there is more work to do.
I don't think it serves anyone to see a person as minority or a woman; least of all the person so perceived. You have to put the qualifications first. I'm reminded of the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by Thurgood Marshall. The seat was seen as a "black" seat by, well, everybody. The Bush 41 people were at a loss to find a qualified black guy to appoint. They toyed with the idea of an Hispanic candidate. They seemed to be saying, ' Black, brown, what's the difference? We ain't playin golf with any of ya.'
They finally settled on Clarence Thomas . He was completely unqualified but he was black. His qualifications made Abe Fortas look like a world statesman and there is the little fact Anita Hill was given a polygraph by the FBI before she testified. It turns out she wouldn't make a good Jim West either and Thomas has been no more than a cipher. Michael Steele was a major embarrassment and Ben Carson is a bad joke. At least that's my "state of mind."
We've reached a point in our society where opportunity for advancement is truly available to all. That's a major accomplishment. The trick now is to preserve that against the backlash from the wrong side of the dynamic. Maybe someone will cast Halle Bailey as The Little Mermaid.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Damn it! It's Today!
I can remember 1955. I can remember standing by the cellar door and wondering how I got so lucky as to be born in the United States of America. The cellar door was in the dining room where I was regularly told children were starving across the world. I was usually told that when I refused to eat my peas or lima beans. I can distinctly remember thinking they should send those peas or lima beans to those starving children because I effn A wasn't gonna eat them. I coulda been born in Santa's Workshop at the North Pole and I wouldn't have eaten those peas or lima beans. Peas and lima beans have crossed my lips. That's how I know they are disgusting little sacks of sand. I am no gourmand. They put peas in pot pies. I wish they wouldn't. If they didn't pot pies would be perfect. I consider the Combo to be nature's perfect food.
How did we get this lucky? On what planet do we have a right to bitch? There are 7 billion people on this planet and about half of them are starving. Our concerns are morbid obesity. If you're not ashamed, some days I'm ashamed enough for both of us. But not today.
I subscribe to Archaeology, the magazine. By 1955, the city of Gary, Indiana had more monumental architecture than the entire ancient world. It still does but they have torn some of it down. That's true across the developed world. Looked at that way, it's just amazing. What do you think they tore down at Giza? Was there ever a Great Row of Hedges? The Statue of Liberty would make the Colossus of Rhodes look like an undernourished child. Did you know the erection and pedestal for the Statue of Liberty were paid for not by the government but thru private donations? I like it here! Kate Smith and Woody Guthrie were both privately funded. I like it here!
How much of a privilege is it to live in a country where our debates are about how we can become even greater while losing weight? The froth of our endeavors funds a 4 trillion annual enterprise known as the gubermint. We live on a wave of prosperity so great it easily provides for the children of the most despicable among us. That prosperity was created by our parents and grandparents. You know, the ones ladling out peas. Each generation has added to it regardless of our choice of legumes. The young people seem to be even more rigid in their pride. My 40 something daughter, given the right circumstances, would denounce me as a commie.
There is a school of thought that berates us for being such a small percentage of the World's population and consuming such a large percentage of the World's resources. The available evidence is; we are the engine that drives the World. It's more than reasonable to expect that engine to consume fuel at a famous rate. It's certainly nothing to be ashamed of.
So, take heart! You're an American and this is today. You don't need to wear a silly hat or denigrate your fellow citizens even if they do wear silly hats. You needn't wear a flag. You needn't wave a flag. The wave of progress is so powerful it can't be stopped or even slowed much.
How did we get this lucky? On what planet do we have a right to bitch? There are 7 billion people on this planet and about half of them are starving. Our concerns are morbid obesity. If you're not ashamed, some days I'm ashamed enough for both of us. But not today.
I subscribe to Archaeology, the magazine. By 1955, the city of Gary, Indiana had more monumental architecture than the entire ancient world. It still does but they have torn some of it down. That's true across the developed world. Looked at that way, it's just amazing. What do you think they tore down at Giza? Was there ever a Great Row of Hedges? The Statue of Liberty would make the Colossus of Rhodes look like an undernourished child. Did you know the erection and pedestal for the Statue of Liberty were paid for not by the government but thru private donations? I like it here! Kate Smith and Woody Guthrie were both privately funded. I like it here!
How much of a privilege is it to live in a country where our debates are about how we can become even greater while losing weight? The froth of our endeavors funds a 4 trillion annual enterprise known as the gubermint. We live on a wave of prosperity so great it easily provides for the children of the most despicable among us. That prosperity was created by our parents and grandparents. You know, the ones ladling out peas. Each generation has added to it regardless of our choice of legumes. The young people seem to be even more rigid in their pride. My 40 something daughter, given the right circumstances, would denounce me as a commie.
There is a school of thought that berates us for being such a small percentage of the World's population and consuming such a large percentage of the World's resources. The available evidence is; we are the engine that drives the World. It's more than reasonable to expect that engine to consume fuel at a famous rate. It's certainly nothing to be ashamed of.
So, take heart! You're an American and this is today. You don't need to wear a silly hat or denigrate your fellow citizens even if they do wear silly hats. You needn't wear a flag. You needn't wave a flag. The wave of progress is so powerful it can't be stopped or even slowed much.
Monday, May 22, 2017
9/11 and Some More
I think we can all remember where we were and what we were doing when New York City was attacked. I was assembling cabinets in Tampa for a low stinking, thieving bastard who lucked out I didn't kick his ass when I quit a few weeks later. But I digress. I'm going to continue with the digression for a few moments because to this day he gives me a kind of Tourette's.
I've never applied for a job as a foreman or superintendent. I have been promoted to both positions. I've always applied as a carpenter or a cabinet maker. I guess I was playing my own little game: "How honest are you?" Maybe: "How smart are you?" A bad workman can cost you thousands. An honest man can make you rich. Until just now I never thought of it that way but it is true. It is a game I played. In its own way also dishonest.
This ripe little prick was playing another, more common game. I asked for a certain rate of pay to which his response was to say, " Sure, we'll pay you that if you can do what you say you can do but right now we'll pay you two dollars less an hour until you prove yourself." I guess this dick thought I didn't know that worked out to 4 grand a year in his pocket instead of mine. It was a production shop and I, having been responsible for such a shop in the past, kept records of my production and that of my co-workers. I was pleased and confident to find my figures were comparable.
A week before my pay was to be increased per our agreement I was pulled aside and told my production numbers were bad and I would have to step things up. I said, " That's not right. I have these records." and produced them.
His plan was to demean any question I might have about pay so I would quit thinking about my impending raise. His response was to say, " I'm not going to argue with you kid." and walk away in his imitation of some sort of huff. I was ten years older than this slime. He was very lucky I wasn't 10 years younger. I was so angry I couldn't see straight. I literally had to sit down. At the end I merely walked into the office and asked for my check. Apparently, my demeanor was such as no more was needed. I was paid to the minute.
A few weeks earlier I was working on a kitchen order when we heard over the radio a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Being me, I pointed out that a B25 bomber had crashed into the Empire State Building in the 40's. But we went into the office to watch the news.
Until that point, I thought the most shocking thing I'd ever seen was Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. Even my Dad said, " Holy Fuck!" and he never swore. My Mother echoed his sentiments but she always swore. As we watched the second plane hit the second Tower I thought to myself, 'My God, we're at war. I don't think these guys are up to it.' They weren't.
About 30 seconds later we were told to punch out. This was the thing that was in these people's minds. Gawd!!! I should have kicked his ass! I should have known who the true enemy was. Had I been ten years older I would have. I would have known who the true enemy was and I would have kicked his ass. Life is timing. See, I told you. Definitely a form of Tourette's.
To my credit, I did have the sense to get out of there. We didn't go far. We went to the nearest television which was in the nearest bar. I've always maintained that in any well-ordered community bars should open no later than 8 am. I was a construction worker for years. That way when we got rained out we had somewhere to go. I also think bars should close by 11 pm. Nothing good happens after midnight but those are different stories.
We saw all the reports everyone saw. The policemen, the firefighters, the EMTs all acting heroically. The dribble of information, the endless speculation. Then the sickening collapse of the buildings.
We also saw this but really only briefly and just, it seemed once and there was then and has been since, very little comment. From all over Manhattan a stream of hundreds of guys in jeans, tee shirts, tool belts and work boots carrying five-gallon buckets with hammers and pry bars and other assorted hand tools walking to the scene. I imagine a lot of them had lottery tickets in their pockets. No one summoned them. No one dispatched them. They weren't going there to sightsee or report back to anyone. Just a bunch of guys whose day to day job involved seeing something needing done and just doing it. Just do it.
The day was spent in individual acts of heroism. I've always been disappointed these particular acts of heroism have been so little mentioned. In so many ways these guys are the backbone and sinew of America. You can deal in high concept and design. You can survey and draft all you want. Sooner or later somebody has to drive the nail, mix the concrete or lay the brick. Hell, someone has to kiln the brick then stack it and deliver it where it's needed. For every designer, architect or engineer there are a thousand highly skilled people who have to do their job properly to keep those designers, architects and engineers employed. An architect will say, " I employ a thousand people." Not really. A thousand people keep the architect employed. It's an unfair image but I'm always reminded of Governor LePetomane shuffling papers and saying, " We have to protect our phoney-baloney jobs gentlemen." (Blazing Saddles)
I guess my point is there are seen and unseen strata in our society more than we notice. We notice uniforms and other trappings but we don't notice ubiquitous tool belts or work boots. They are seen as a dismissable label or badge. The commentators that morning while looking for heroism didn't recognize that heroism because it wasn't properly dressed. That's a shame and a mistake. These guys were heroes because they knew what to do and when to do it. They turned to.
At the seventh inning of ballgames, they perform "God Bless America". I certainly would prefer a country that knew if they were going to pick a song they should be performing " This Land is Your Land". We made this land for you and me.
I've never applied for a job as a foreman or superintendent. I have been promoted to both positions. I've always applied as a carpenter or a cabinet maker. I guess I was playing my own little game: "How honest are you?" Maybe: "How smart are you?" A bad workman can cost you thousands. An honest man can make you rich. Until just now I never thought of it that way but it is true. It is a game I played. In its own way also dishonest.
This ripe little prick was playing another, more common game. I asked for a certain rate of pay to which his response was to say, " Sure, we'll pay you that if you can do what you say you can do but right now we'll pay you two dollars less an hour until you prove yourself." I guess this dick thought I didn't know that worked out to 4 grand a year in his pocket instead of mine. It was a production shop and I, having been responsible for such a shop in the past, kept records of my production and that of my co-workers. I was pleased and confident to find my figures were comparable.
A week before my pay was to be increased per our agreement I was pulled aside and told my production numbers were bad and I would have to step things up. I said, " That's not right. I have these records." and produced them.
His plan was to demean any question I might have about pay so I would quit thinking about my impending raise. His response was to say, " I'm not going to argue with you kid." and walk away in his imitation of some sort of huff. I was ten years older than this slime. He was very lucky I wasn't 10 years younger. I was so angry I couldn't see straight. I literally had to sit down. At the end I merely walked into the office and asked for my check. Apparently, my demeanor was such as no more was needed. I was paid to the minute.
A few weeks earlier I was working on a kitchen order when we heard over the radio a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Being me, I pointed out that a B25 bomber had crashed into the Empire State Building in the 40's. But we went into the office to watch the news.
Until that point, I thought the most shocking thing I'd ever seen was Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. Even my Dad said, " Holy Fuck!" and he never swore. My Mother echoed his sentiments but she always swore. As we watched the second plane hit the second Tower I thought to myself, 'My God, we're at war. I don't think these guys are up to it.' They weren't.
About 30 seconds later we were told to punch out. This was the thing that was in these people's minds. Gawd!!! I should have kicked his ass! I should have known who the true enemy was. Had I been ten years older I would have. I would have known who the true enemy was and I would have kicked his ass. Life is timing. See, I told you. Definitely a form of Tourette's.
To my credit, I did have the sense to get out of there. We didn't go far. We went to the nearest television which was in the nearest bar. I've always maintained that in any well-ordered community bars should open no later than 8 am. I was a construction worker for years. That way when we got rained out we had somewhere to go. I also think bars should close by 11 pm. Nothing good happens after midnight but those are different stories.
We saw all the reports everyone saw. The policemen, the firefighters, the EMTs all acting heroically. The dribble of information, the endless speculation. Then the sickening collapse of the buildings.
We also saw this but really only briefly and just, it seemed once and there was then and has been since, very little comment. From all over Manhattan a stream of hundreds of guys in jeans, tee shirts, tool belts and work boots carrying five-gallon buckets with hammers and pry bars and other assorted hand tools walking to the scene. I imagine a lot of them had lottery tickets in their pockets. No one summoned them. No one dispatched them. They weren't going there to sightsee or report back to anyone. Just a bunch of guys whose day to day job involved seeing something needing done and just doing it. Just do it.
The day was spent in individual acts of heroism. I've always been disappointed these particular acts of heroism have been so little mentioned. In so many ways these guys are the backbone and sinew of America. You can deal in high concept and design. You can survey and draft all you want. Sooner or later somebody has to drive the nail, mix the concrete or lay the brick. Hell, someone has to kiln the brick then stack it and deliver it where it's needed. For every designer, architect or engineer there are a thousand highly skilled people who have to do their job properly to keep those designers, architects and engineers employed. An architect will say, " I employ a thousand people." Not really. A thousand people keep the architect employed. It's an unfair image but I'm always reminded of Governor LePetomane shuffling papers and saying, " We have to protect our phoney-baloney jobs gentlemen." (Blazing Saddles)
I guess my point is there are seen and unseen strata in our society more than we notice. We notice uniforms and other trappings but we don't notice ubiquitous tool belts or work boots. They are seen as a dismissable label or badge. The commentators that morning while looking for heroism didn't recognize that heroism because it wasn't properly dressed. That's a shame and a mistake. These guys were heroes because they knew what to do and when to do it. They turned to.
At the seventh inning of ballgames, they perform "God Bless America". I certainly would prefer a country that knew if they were going to pick a song they should be performing " This Land is Your Land". We made this land for you and me.
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Self Made Men
Since 1988 we sure have seen the difference between self made men and legacy students with their gentlemen's Cs. The contrast is so stark it's hard not to notice. It's hard to imagine an origin less advantaged than a bastard born in a trailer park in Arkansas. It could only be worse if you were the product of an interracial marriage at a time when such a thing was illegal in most of the country.
It's hard to imagine an origin more advantaged than the scion of a staid New England family. The son of a one term Senator and former head of the PGA who grows up and marries the heiress to the McCalls publishing fortune. It could only be better if that scion had become President and you were his son. There seems to be a difference in performance based in origins.
How do we explain this? I'm not sure we do using this paradigm. For every Obama you can point to a Roosevelt. For every Clinton you can point to a Nixon. Nixon was a self made man. For every Truman you can point to a Kennedy. The comparison does really fall apart. But still, there it is.
Why this disparity in performance in the last 20 years? Has privilege become that corrosive? It's been said the corrosive effects of privilege contributed to the end of the British Empire and the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The feelings of infallibility associated with unearned rank became a disability in and of themselves. That's the argument anyway. It is said the Bush Senior people were fond of saying, " If you're so smart, why aren't you President?" Events certainly undermined that query. The Bush the Younger people walked with a kind of crude swagger while they failed miserably at nearly everything they touched. There has been no claim of any success from that camp. There has been a persistent chorus of "blame Bush" as a sort of defense but no one has claimed Bush has ever been blamed for anything he didn't actually, spectacularly screw up. It's informative and hilarious, really, that Obama was given a Peace Prize for the simple reason he was not G W Bush.
It has been said no one ever saw Clinton do anything stupid with his pants zipped. There is a difference between "stupid" and actually "useful" but that's a different debate. He seems to have remembered his lines but he did bump into the furniture a bit.
Obama? The guy never seems to have struck a false note but the partisan nonsense is no where near settling. He did keep us out of war. You can say what you want about the ACA and the AHCA but it's a furtherance of a debate we should be having.
So, overall, I would have to say the self made men have far exceeded expectations and the legacy people are falling very short.
I think we should always ignore the rhetoric. As flawed as this measurement might be it certainly deserves consideration.
It's hard to imagine an origin more advantaged than the scion of a staid New England family. The son of a one term Senator and former head of the PGA who grows up and marries the heiress to the McCalls publishing fortune. It could only be better if that scion had become President and you were his son. There seems to be a difference in performance based in origins.
How do we explain this? I'm not sure we do using this paradigm. For every Obama you can point to a Roosevelt. For every Clinton you can point to a Nixon. Nixon was a self made man. For every Truman you can point to a Kennedy. The comparison does really fall apart. But still, there it is.
Why this disparity in performance in the last 20 years? Has privilege become that corrosive? It's been said the corrosive effects of privilege contributed to the end of the British Empire and the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The feelings of infallibility associated with unearned rank became a disability in and of themselves. That's the argument anyway. It is said the Bush Senior people were fond of saying, " If you're so smart, why aren't you President?" Events certainly undermined that query. The Bush the Younger people walked with a kind of crude swagger while they failed miserably at nearly everything they touched. There has been no claim of any success from that camp. There has been a persistent chorus of "blame Bush" as a sort of defense but no one has claimed Bush has ever been blamed for anything he didn't actually, spectacularly screw up. It's informative and hilarious, really, that Obama was given a Peace Prize for the simple reason he was not G W Bush.
It has been said no one ever saw Clinton do anything stupid with his pants zipped. There is a difference between "stupid" and actually "useful" but that's a different debate. He seems to have remembered his lines but he did bump into the furniture a bit.
Obama? The guy never seems to have struck a false note but the partisan nonsense is no where near settling. He did keep us out of war. You can say what you want about the ACA and the AHCA but it's a furtherance of a debate we should be having.
So, overall, I would have to say the self made men have far exceeded expectations and the legacy people are falling very short.
I think we should always ignore the rhetoric. As flawed as this measurement might be it certainly deserves consideration.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Now You See Em. Now You Don't. Now You See Em.
Since, as near as I know, I've never had an original thought I looked this up. Yeah, that's still right. I was thinking about computer generated images and movies. I love old movies and old television shows and sometimes I'm struck by the fact that everyone involved with whatever movie or episode I'm watching has been dead for years. I'm also struck sometimes by the crispness and wit and apt commentary of something from 70 years ago. Watch "Bringing Up Baby". It's as funny now as it was 79 years ago when it was made. Grant is engaging and Hepburn is beautiful. The "willful suspension of disbelief" is easily realized. ( Oh, look it up. I can't do everything for you. There'll be a quiz later.)
About the time "Toy Story" came out there was also a commercial that featured a superimposition of Louis Armstrong in a modern setting. Coca Cola, I think. It was cool. That got me to thinking that eventually it would be possible to create completely realistic appearing movies starring any personality from the past. Just imagine. There could be new Bogart movies or Cagney or Becall and so on. Shortly after that there was a movie I can't find the name of that was about a VR/CGI creation of a movie starlet/ sex symbol which made me think, 'Oh, someone had that idea.' That kind of thing never discourages me. It means I'm on the right track, just a later train. It could also mean; a day late and a dollar short but my glass is always half full. How's that for stringing together metaphors? But I digress.
Now, Lucasfilm has taken the first step in that direction. In the "Rogue One" entry in the Star Wars franchise they have Peter Cushing in his original role as Grand Moff Tarkin and Carrie Fisher makes a brief appearance. Cushing has been dead since 1994 and, of course, Carrie Fisher passed away last year.
That kicked off a critical debate centering on morality, the ghoulish nature of the appearances and the preservation of the performer's integrity to craft. I take that to mean the thousands of choices an actor makes in bringing a character to life from the written page: facial expression, intonation and body language. I don't know how germaine this is but when I read Dashiell Hammett. I was impressed the mannerism and speech patterns that are quintessentially Bogart are actually Bogart's faithful rendition of Hammett's description of Sam Spade. The same is true of W C Fields. He spent his entire career portraying Mr Micawber from David Copperfield.
Now, what of morality? In this case the estates of Cushing and Fisher were brought on board and compensated. A: You'd never get away with just highjacking a person's likeness. There are a lot of performers who make far more dead they they ever did alive and management of their estates is a legitimate business enterprise. The sale of a portion of Elvis Presley's estate certainly comes to mind. In other words, it's been addressed and settled. There doesn't seem to be a "B:".
What about the ghoulish nature? It isn't any different than watching first "Charade" made in 1963 and then watching "Bringing Up Baby" made in 1938. Grant is obviously 25 years older, just as entertaining and the guy has been dead, at present, for over 30 years. What, exactly is the difference between the two Grant characters and a Grand Moff ( whatever the hell that is) in a galaxy long ago and far away? The key similarity all these examples share is the "wilful suspension of disbelief. ( Told ya to look it up.) They are all works of art and totally dependent on the emotional response of the viewer. All entertainment is just the manipulation and juxtaposition of symbols. The performing arts are all dependent on the collaboration of several artists and craft people working together. The success or failure of an artist's performance is totally dependent on every one of those collaborators doing a good job. How the CGI performance of a well known person comes off will still be dependent on the performance of the collaborators. The artificial creation has no control but exactly how much control does a film performer have any way?
So, what does this mean? It means: I think because a thing can be done it usually is done and I'm looking forward to it being done and the continuation of the debate it will create. And a new Bogart movie could be pretty cool.
About the time "Toy Story" came out there was also a commercial that featured a superimposition of Louis Armstrong in a modern setting. Coca Cola, I think. It was cool. That got me to thinking that eventually it would be possible to create completely realistic appearing movies starring any personality from the past. Just imagine. There could be new Bogart movies or Cagney or Becall and so on. Shortly after that there was a movie I can't find the name of that was about a VR/CGI creation of a movie starlet/ sex symbol which made me think, 'Oh, someone had that idea.' That kind of thing never discourages me. It means I'm on the right track, just a later train. It could also mean; a day late and a dollar short but my glass is always half full. How's that for stringing together metaphors? But I digress.
Now, Lucasfilm has taken the first step in that direction. In the "Rogue One" entry in the Star Wars franchise they have Peter Cushing in his original role as Grand Moff Tarkin and Carrie Fisher makes a brief appearance. Cushing has been dead since 1994 and, of course, Carrie Fisher passed away last year.
That kicked off a critical debate centering on morality, the ghoulish nature of the appearances and the preservation of the performer's integrity to craft. I take that to mean the thousands of choices an actor makes in bringing a character to life from the written page: facial expression, intonation and body language. I don't know how germaine this is but when I read Dashiell Hammett. I was impressed the mannerism and speech patterns that are quintessentially Bogart are actually Bogart's faithful rendition of Hammett's description of Sam Spade. The same is true of W C Fields. He spent his entire career portraying Mr Micawber from David Copperfield.
Now, what of morality? In this case the estates of Cushing and Fisher were brought on board and compensated. A: You'd never get away with just highjacking a person's likeness. There are a lot of performers who make far more dead they they ever did alive and management of their estates is a legitimate business enterprise. The sale of a portion of Elvis Presley's estate certainly comes to mind. In other words, it's been addressed and settled. There doesn't seem to be a "B:".
What about the ghoulish nature? It isn't any different than watching first "Charade" made in 1963 and then watching "Bringing Up Baby" made in 1938. Grant is obviously 25 years older, just as entertaining and the guy has been dead, at present, for over 30 years. What, exactly is the difference between the two Grant characters and a Grand Moff ( whatever the hell that is) in a galaxy long ago and far away? The key similarity all these examples share is the "wilful suspension of disbelief. ( Told ya to look it up.) They are all works of art and totally dependent on the emotional response of the viewer. All entertainment is just the manipulation and juxtaposition of symbols. The performing arts are all dependent on the collaboration of several artists and craft people working together. The success or failure of an artist's performance is totally dependent on every one of those collaborators doing a good job. How the CGI performance of a well known person comes off will still be dependent on the performance of the collaborators. The artificial creation has no control but exactly how much control does a film performer have any way?
So, what does this mean? It means: I think because a thing can be done it usually is done and I'm looking forward to it being done and the continuation of the debate it will create. And a new Bogart movie could be pretty cool.
Saturday, May 6, 2017
The Perfect Man. The Perfect Life.
Those are the basic concepts of the world's religions. We have Zarathustra, Lao-tzu, the Buddhas (if I got that right), certainly Christ and Mohammed.
A philosophy professor of mine called these examples of perfect beings leading perfect lives tathagata. That's actually a concept of Buddhism but it remains the same when expanded. That professor, Mr Pendle, was probably the most intelligent man I have ever met. In the same room with him, in discussion, his intellect was literally palpable. He was not intimidating in any way. His mind was just there in an almost physical sense. He certainly wasn't imposing physically. Five-eight maybe, thin almost delicate. I guess, interestingly enough, he was a black guy. I only mention it here because in another context that might be interesting. That's a shame. It's a false context.
His point was; these men's thoughts, words, ideas became the basis of our great religions. They became our pathways to understanding, to paradise. They came to inform our relations with others.
These ideas took hold slowly over centuries, even millennia. It's a roadmap of the growth of good ideas and concepts whether spiritual or secular. The idea of accretion. It's so important in human history. These ideas are separate from creation myths and such.
Are you bored yet? I noticed in my philosophy class the subject was very soothing. It seemed to put some people to sleep. I never tried reading philosophy to my children as fussy infants but I did notice any discussion seemed to make their eyes roll-up as teen agers. That may have meant something else.
To quote Houseman, " Listen lads. It's our turn now." (Look it up. It's funny. Honest)
That slow building of momentum of transcendent ideas interested me. It also made me curious of why Islam spread so quickly; literally in Mohammed's lifetime. That's unique in the stories of the various Tathagatas. Christ was the only one to attract enough notice to get himself killed for his trouble.
It wasn't until years later I read a very good history of the Arab people by Albert Hourani that I found the explanation. It's a very good book and I understand, for some, an excellent sleep aid. ( A History of the Arab Peoples.) I get bored so you don't have to.
In those days the Middle East was divided into city-states. Those cities were theocracies. The head of the government was the head of the local religion and to greater or lesser degree shaped that religion.
Simply put, Mohammed shaped Islam into a religion based on conquest and the attendant exploitation of neighboring people. It's actually a model remarkably similar to the development of the Roman Empire except with a rigid religious component. For its time it was remarkably successful.
As an observer, what seems unfortunate to me is the underlying tradition of hostility to neighbors and the idiosyncrasies of a single author. There seems to be a healthy dose of clinical, male hysteria unrefined by later writing or writers. I think the Quran suffers from an absence of a New Testament.
The Judeo-Christian Bible benefits greatly by the softening of the Old Testament's exhortations to violence and conquest and literal contempt of women by the New Testament presented as Holy Writ. We know you shouldn't stone women because Christ said so. We know conquest of our neighbors is wrong because the Bible tells us so. The Quran? Not so much.
In the current day it sure does make a quandary. Is there a solution? I dunno. That's not part of this assignment. I do know we'll never affect a positive change by applying violent, external pressure. It never has and never will work on us. I'm not sure what would make us think it would work on others no matter what their Good Book says or why it says it. We ought to know, no matter how people pray or how many times they pray, when that's done they are still just people.
A philosophy professor of mine called these examples of perfect beings leading perfect lives tathagata. That's actually a concept of Buddhism but it remains the same when expanded. That professor, Mr Pendle, was probably the most intelligent man I have ever met. In the same room with him, in discussion, his intellect was literally palpable. He was not intimidating in any way. His mind was just there in an almost physical sense. He certainly wasn't imposing physically. Five-eight maybe, thin almost delicate. I guess, interestingly enough, he was a black guy. I only mention it here because in another context that might be interesting. That's a shame. It's a false context.
His point was; these men's thoughts, words, ideas became the basis of our great religions. They became our pathways to understanding, to paradise. They came to inform our relations with others.
These ideas took hold slowly over centuries, even millennia. It's a roadmap of the growth of good ideas and concepts whether spiritual or secular. The idea of accretion. It's so important in human history. These ideas are separate from creation myths and such.
Are you bored yet? I noticed in my philosophy class the subject was very soothing. It seemed to put some people to sleep. I never tried reading philosophy to my children as fussy infants but I did notice any discussion seemed to make their eyes roll-up as teen agers. That may have meant something else.
To quote Houseman, " Listen lads. It's our turn now." (Look it up. It's funny. Honest)
That slow building of momentum of transcendent ideas interested me. It also made me curious of why Islam spread so quickly; literally in Mohammed's lifetime. That's unique in the stories of the various Tathagatas. Christ was the only one to attract enough notice to get himself killed for his trouble.
It wasn't until years later I read a very good history of the Arab people by Albert Hourani that I found the explanation. It's a very good book and I understand, for some, an excellent sleep aid. ( A History of the Arab Peoples.) I get bored so you don't have to.
In those days the Middle East was divided into city-states. Those cities were theocracies. The head of the government was the head of the local religion and to greater or lesser degree shaped that religion.
Simply put, Mohammed shaped Islam into a religion based on conquest and the attendant exploitation of neighboring people. It's actually a model remarkably similar to the development of the Roman Empire except with a rigid religious component. For its time it was remarkably successful.
As an observer, what seems unfortunate to me is the underlying tradition of hostility to neighbors and the idiosyncrasies of a single author. There seems to be a healthy dose of clinical, male hysteria unrefined by later writing or writers. I think the Quran suffers from an absence of a New Testament.
The Judeo-Christian Bible benefits greatly by the softening of the Old Testament's exhortations to violence and conquest and literal contempt of women by the New Testament presented as Holy Writ. We know you shouldn't stone women because Christ said so. We know conquest of our neighbors is wrong because the Bible tells us so. The Quran? Not so much.
In the current day it sure does make a quandary. Is there a solution? I dunno. That's not part of this assignment. I do know we'll never affect a positive change by applying violent, external pressure. It never has and never will work on us. I'm not sure what would make us think it would work on others no matter what their Good Book says or why it says it. We ought to know, no matter how people pray or how many times they pray, when that's done they are still just people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)