Today on Big Think, I read this article. And I couldn't disagree with it more:
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/cats-are-just-as-loving-as-dogs-maybe-more-so
The author of this article bases their claim, that cats are more loving than dogs, on the example of a cat that attacked a pair of dogs that were attacking its owner. By that logic, all dogs must be savage, vicious demons, because those two dogs attacked the woman. I'm not saying that cats can't be just as loving as dogs. I am saying that cats who can even approach dogs in their level of attachment to their humans are the exception, not the rule, while the majority of dogs unconditionally love their humans. When's the last time you saw your cat lying on the floor, gazing at the door, waiting for one family member to return? When's the last time your cat sought you out when you were upset, resting its head on your knee to let you know that you were still loved? When's the last time your cat sprang up when you opened the door and sprinted towards you, for any reason other than that it needed to go outside? When's the last time your cat followed you for hours, after you'd fed it its dinner, just because it wanted to be near you? I'd be shocked if any of you can recall something like this, but all three are daily occurrences for almost all the dogs I've encountered in my days (with the exception of the breeds I know as "rat dogs"), including my own boxer-whippet mix. The author passes off these behaviors in dogs as acts of submission. Wolves, the ancestors of dogs, completely disprove this theory. When a low-ranking wolf greets a higher-ranking animal, it will approach cautiously, its tail lowered to show respect, adverting its eyes, maybe giving the other animal a small lick here and there. It certainly won't bound straight up to you, wagging its tail, barking and jumping up on you. Those greeting rituals, common in most domestic dogs who have been treated well, do not indicate a submissive animal. They indicate pure, genuine, unconditional love. I'm not saying that there aren't some cats who love their owners just as much as dogs do, but to the vast majority of the world's felines, the human is just an animal that shares the cat's space, provides it with food, and occasionally gives a friendly stroke. I believe cats like us, but they just don't love us like dogs do. There's a reason felines didn't receive the title of "Man's Best Friend."
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Monday, December 16, 2013
Free Post: Movie Review #1
Yesterday, I saw The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in the movie theater.
I'm sure you're all expecting me to bash the movie, so I'll start off from a candid viewpoint. Objectively, it was a good movie, if not better than simply "good." It is Peter Jackson, after all, and he doesn't disappoint often. Personally, I liked this movie better than the first. There was much more character development here, turning the superficial individuals of the first film into characters with depth, being swayed by a variety of factors and having legitimate arguments. As someone who breathes the books, I wasn't too upset; there was a great deal of foreshadowing I picked up that someone who hasn't read the books would overlook. Thorin Oakenshield's obsession with wealth, specifically a gem known as the Arkenstone, is portrayed as a sickness akin to Bilbo's fascination with the peculiar ring he's found, both of which are acted beautifully. Both of these are hinted at by Tolkien, but as The Hobbit is told from a third-person Bilbo, the author doesn't really go into detail, as the characters themselves don't truly realize what's happening. Perhaps best of all, the effects were spot-on. What had disappointed me about the first film regarding the orcs was the fact that they were mostly C.G.I. In The Desolation of Smaug, there was clearly a great deal more makeup done on the orcs. And Smaug was simply fantastic. The dragon looked like a living, breathing animal, not something done on a computer. The tie-ins to Jackson's take on The Lord of the Rings, in spite of their seeming prominence (Legolas, a character whose appearance in the novel is hinted by Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings), are subtle and well-placed. The Gandalf-Sauron plot line, while not featured in the book, is hinted in the literary Fellowship of the Ring, although Tolkien doesn't go into detail. Jackson ties this into a reference to the Ringwraiths, which does nothing to hinder the plot and actually engaged the audience (including myself) in the Sauron plot line when it came up, even those of us who knew and loved the books. And I'll deny it, but I got a laugh when Legolas finds a locket on the dwarf Gloin containing a sketch of his son Gimli, who became the former's best friend in The Lord of the Rings. The fact that Legolas called his future friend a goblin mutant didn't hurt the effect. So why don't I think the film was excellent? Well, something about some of the scenes struck me as being overdone, whereas every scene in Jackson's first trilogy was perfect. It didn't help that most of these scenes, including one where the dwarves trap Smaug in molten gold, aren't in the books. So while from an objective viewpoint the movie was better than fine, The Hobbit is still straining to reach Jackson's first films, and neither trilogy can even hope to touch Tolkien's masterpieces.
I'm sure you're all expecting me to bash the movie, so I'll start off from a candid viewpoint. Objectively, it was a good movie, if not better than simply "good." It is Peter Jackson, after all, and he doesn't disappoint often. Personally, I liked this movie better than the first. There was much more character development here, turning the superficial individuals of the first film into characters with depth, being swayed by a variety of factors and having legitimate arguments. As someone who breathes the books, I wasn't too upset; there was a great deal of foreshadowing I picked up that someone who hasn't read the books would overlook. Thorin Oakenshield's obsession with wealth, specifically a gem known as the Arkenstone, is portrayed as a sickness akin to Bilbo's fascination with the peculiar ring he's found, both of which are acted beautifully. Both of these are hinted at by Tolkien, but as The Hobbit is told from a third-person Bilbo, the author doesn't really go into detail, as the characters themselves don't truly realize what's happening. Perhaps best of all, the effects were spot-on. What had disappointed me about the first film regarding the orcs was the fact that they were mostly C.G.I. In The Desolation of Smaug, there was clearly a great deal more makeup done on the orcs. And Smaug was simply fantastic. The dragon looked like a living, breathing animal, not something done on a computer. The tie-ins to Jackson's take on The Lord of the Rings, in spite of their seeming prominence (Legolas, a character whose appearance in the novel is hinted by Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings), are subtle and well-placed. The Gandalf-Sauron plot line, while not featured in the book, is hinted in the literary Fellowship of the Ring, although Tolkien doesn't go into detail. Jackson ties this into a reference to the Ringwraiths, which does nothing to hinder the plot and actually engaged the audience (including myself) in the Sauron plot line when it came up, even those of us who knew and loved the books. And I'll deny it, but I got a laugh when Legolas finds a locket on the dwarf Gloin containing a sketch of his son Gimli, who became the former's best friend in The Lord of the Rings. The fact that Legolas called his future friend a goblin mutant didn't hurt the effect. So why don't I think the film was excellent? Well, something about some of the scenes struck me as being overdone, whereas every scene in Jackson's first trilogy was perfect. It didn't help that most of these scenes, including one where the dwarves trap Smaug in molten gold, aren't in the books. So while from an objective viewpoint the movie was better than fine, The Hobbit is still straining to reach Jackson's first films, and neither trilogy can even hope to touch Tolkien's masterpieces.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Big Think: Animal Intelligence.
Today on Big Think, I found this article on the differences between animal and human intelligences:
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/we-profoundly-underestimate-animal-intelligence
This article seems reminiscent of the Einstein quote: "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." Only in this case, the metaphorical fish is a real fish (and any other animal species), with the tree-climbing ability representing the ability to function in human society. Because animals can't. Heck, plenty of people can't. Frankly, to animals, we must seem like idiots. An orca whale would laugh at us because we can't kill walruses. So what if we can calculus? How would that help us in a chimpanzee's world, where the only thing that really matters is the ability to tell plants you can eat from those that can kill you? And there's the fact that we kill each other in droves for what would seem like stupid reasons to animals. Most species are too interested in their own survival to even consider killing each other off. Our cousins the chimps are the only real exception, as clans sometimes go to veritable war with their neighbors. But in any other species, such conflicts rarely end violently. Sure, wolves will fight over territory, or the right to lead the pack. But these fights generally end with the weaker side fleeing with the victors nipping at their heels to reinforce the message. Even among lions, tigers and bears (oh my!), territorial battles, among the most brutal in the animal kingdom, rarely end with anything more serious than a few scratches and bruises. To animals, we must seem like pathetic weaklings with a penchant for self-destruction, who just happen to know the chemical formula of glucose. And they couldn't care less about that.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/we-profoundly-underestimate-animal-intelligence
This article seems reminiscent of the Einstein quote: "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." Only in this case, the metaphorical fish is a real fish (and any other animal species), with the tree-climbing ability representing the ability to function in human society. Because animals can't. Heck, plenty of people can't. Frankly, to animals, we must seem like idiots. An orca whale would laugh at us because we can't kill walruses. So what if we can calculus? How would that help us in a chimpanzee's world, where the only thing that really matters is the ability to tell plants you can eat from those that can kill you? And there's the fact that we kill each other in droves for what would seem like stupid reasons to animals. Most species are too interested in their own survival to even consider killing each other off. Our cousins the chimps are the only real exception, as clans sometimes go to veritable war with their neighbors. But in any other species, such conflicts rarely end violently. Sure, wolves will fight over territory, or the right to lead the pack. But these fights generally end with the weaker side fleeing with the victors nipping at their heels to reinforce the message. Even among lions, tigers and bears (oh my!), territorial battles, among the most brutal in the animal kingdom, rarely end with anything more serious than a few scratches and bruises. To animals, we must seem like pathetic weaklings with a penchant for self-destruction, who just happen to know the chemical formula of glucose. And they couldn't care less about that.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Free Post: The Humor of Idiocy
Today, we filmed an all-guys commercial involving an inept secret agent. Although it was completely idiotic, it was unbelievably fun to make and watch. Sometimes, it's the stupidity of something that makes it so enjoyable. This holds true for my favorite video on YouTube, a two and a half hour long animated version of The Lord of the Rings that's been "dubbed." I don't know of any better way to describe the process, so I'll just say dubbed. Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1x3XkHs-BE
Now, I don't expect any of you to actually have the time to watch this in its entirety, but there's a great deal of stuff we can steal from this. Luke suggested continuing the storyline of the spy commercial, and I think that we could really get somewhere with it. Here's a list, with times in the video when these ideas come up.
General Ideas:
-Incorporation of elements from other renowned comedic sources (1:12-1:20)
-Going back to old commercials, with the guys involved in said commercials making amusingly unnecessary comments in the background (1:09:57-1:15:25 and 2:18:23-End)
-Breaking the fourth wall (Throughout, especially 1:04:40-1:04:50 and 1:59:39-1:59:55)
-Utter Randomness (The entirety of the film, but especially 1:59:56-2:01:21)
More Specific:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1x3XkHs-BE
Now, I don't expect any of you to actually have the time to watch this in its entirety, but there's a great deal of stuff we can steal from this. Luke suggested continuing the storyline of the spy commercial, and I think that we could really get somewhere with it. Here's a list, with times in the video when these ideas come up.
General Ideas:
-Incorporation of elements from other renowned comedic sources (1:12-1:20)
-Going back to old commercials, with the guys involved in said commercials making amusingly unnecessary comments in the background (1:09:57-1:15:25 and 2:18:23-End)
-Breaking the fourth wall (Throughout, especially 1:04:40-1:04:50 and 1:59:39-1:59:55)
-Utter Randomness (The entirety of the film, but especially 1:59:56-2:01:21)
More Specific:
-An attack by Jehovah's Witnesses (1:02:55-1:03:04)
-Random sponsor messages (34:26-34:48)
-An annoying narrator who gets beaten up (20:15-20:33)
-A character who sings all their lines (48:59-51:23)
-Limited racism, preferably done by those of the ethnicity we're being racist against. I could do an Irish stereotype, or Johnson could do a Chinese stereotype, and so on (1:54:16-1:56:33)
-An excessively stupid sidekick (16:08-16:15)
I already have an idea for another commercial just from listing these ideas. We could have a villain (preferably Johnson) awaiting the arrival of the superspy. There would be multiple knocks on his door, but rather than facing the spy, he would be greeted by Singing Ghostbusters, Jehovah's Witnesses, and an unseen jerk of a narrator whom he would proceed to exit the shot and beat up off-camera. It sounds somewhat less idiotic in print than it does in my head, but I think we could go somewhere with this and other ideas we may have.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Free Post: War Scenes
It's a fact; people love war movies. They sell, they soar, they make the big bucks. And no war movie is complete without its battle scene. And as we all can attest, some battle scenes are simply better than others. But to be frank, it's not really so simple. So what really makes a theatrical battle scene stand out? The soundtrack, for starters, or in some cases, the lack thereof. I love movie soundtracks, and they can either make or break a war scene. If the soundtrack is inappropriate, it will destroy the scene's viability and power. If it isn't appropriate, it doesn't belong in the battle scene. For this reason, exceptionally brutal historical battle scenes, especially those pertaining to the two world wars, tend to avoid being scored. Elaborating on that, I feel that historical context can be just as important in making a war scene powerful. Don't get me wrong, I love the colossal space battles in Star Wars and the massive war scenes in The Lord of the Rings, but the fact that nothing like these battles ever happened takes away from the meaning of the scenes themselves. Perhaps there was no intended meaning, something rarely present in historical battle scenes. It doesn't necessarily have to have happened in real life; of the list of my favorite scenes I compiled, one is fictitious and two involve fictional characters. That doesn't change the fact that the fictitious battle mirrors wars that did occur, and the two involving fictional characters did occur. It doesn't require much imagination to picture any historically set, period-accurate battle scene, and all the horrors it contained, to have actually occurred. Perhaps most importantly of all, a powerful war scene can't glorify war.
I've compiled a list of several of my favorite historical battle scenes. For the record, most of these scenes are EXTREMELY graphic. I've placed in them in descending order of brutality and violence.
D-Day Landings (Saving Private Ryan)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UteT8zrIRiQ
The main characters are the only fictitious element in this scene, by far the most graphic of the four. In all honesty, I wouldn't recommend watching this if you've eaten recently. An incredibly powerful scene that paints the picture of the invasion of Normandy with sickening accuracy.
Okinawa (The Pacific)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xwvLe3SlEk
The only truly historical battle here, the series The Pacific was based directly on the notes and books of three marines serving in the pacific theater of the Second World War, in addition to testimony of their comrades. This scene illustrates the atrocities committed against civilians by both sides of the conflict.
The Battle of Stirling (Braveheart)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD5Imb7vWSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJVsS-vIDdc
A semi-accurate interpretation of the real Battle of Stirling, which ended in a major Scottish victory. Don't click the first link if you have a soft spot for horses. Don't click the second one if you're an Anglophile.
Battle with the Germans (Gladiator)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l33Y-3Q-7HE
By far the cleanest scene here, but an excellent one nonetheless. The only purely-fictional scene on my list, it was inspired by battles between the Roman Empire and Germanic tribes that occurred around the same time when the movie is set.
And just to clarify, here's an example of what I would not consider a well-made war scene, contrary to the video's title, from one of the most historically inaccurate movies imaginable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hcv2HiaFYo
I've compiled a list of several of my favorite historical battle scenes. For the record, most of these scenes are EXTREMELY graphic. I've placed in them in descending order of brutality and violence.
D-Day Landings (Saving Private Ryan)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UteT8zrIRiQ
The main characters are the only fictitious element in this scene, by far the most graphic of the four. In all honesty, I wouldn't recommend watching this if you've eaten recently. An incredibly powerful scene that paints the picture of the invasion of Normandy with sickening accuracy.
Okinawa (The Pacific)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xwvLe3SlEk
The only truly historical battle here, the series The Pacific was based directly on the notes and books of three marines serving in the pacific theater of the Second World War, in addition to testimony of their comrades. This scene illustrates the atrocities committed against civilians by both sides of the conflict.
The Battle of Stirling (Braveheart)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD5Imb7vWSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJVsS-vIDdc
A semi-accurate interpretation of the real Battle of Stirling, which ended in a major Scottish victory. Don't click the first link if you have a soft spot for horses. Don't click the second one if you're an Anglophile.
Battle with the Germans (Gladiator)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l33Y-3Q-7HE
By far the cleanest scene here, but an excellent one nonetheless. The only purely-fictional scene on my list, it was inspired by battles between the Roman Empire and Germanic tribes that occurred around the same time when the movie is set.
And just to clarify, here's an example of what I would not consider a well-made war scene, contrary to the video's title, from one of the most historically inaccurate movies imaginable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hcv2HiaFYo
Monday, December 2, 2013
Big Think: Politics and Biology
Please note:
This post marks my first attempt at shortening my blog posts and getting right to the point. Hopefully I didn't over or under-do it. But I digress.
I found this post today on Big Think:
This post marks my first attempt at shortening my blog posts and getting right to the point. Hopefully I didn't over or under-do it. But I digress.
I found this post today on Big Think:
Brief though it is, the article is very thorough. The author effectively conveys two things in the three-paragraph article: we are genetically inclined to side with our family and friends, or those who will help us out; this is also common in the rest of the animal kingdom. The connection to the chimpanzees made the author's point clear right off the bat to me, as I've watched my fair share of nature documentaries, and can corroborate the claims that chimps have a very biased way of choosing their allies and making new friends. The author's last paragraph, however, could use a change in wording. ("But we’re still stuck in that biology. I think all of us recognize that we will behave this way if we’re not forced to, for example, hire somebody with talent rather than our cousin or our brother-in-law.") At first glance, if you aren't reading it carefully, the second sentence seems to contradict the first. The word choice is confusing; the author could do with switching "if we're not forced to" to "unless we're forced to," for the simple purpose of clarifying it for the reader. This article, on the whole, makes a great deal of sense when applied to political parties. Middle/upper class conservatives certainly get a bigger bang for their buck when Republicans hold the Oval Office, whereas Democratic presidents tend to benefit the poorer portion of the population. This doesn't explain the motives for our middle-class liberals, however; there are quite obviously more factors that truly determine an individual's political party than solely our genes.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Big Think: The Evolution of the Human Brain
Today on Big Think, I uncovered an article on the evolution of the human brain, an intriguing subject to me personally:
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/our-brain-didnt-need-to-evolve-so-why-did-it
The author presents their theory on why this happens, establishing their credibility by providing evidence from notable intellectual sources and provides a link to another thorough article on the subject. However, the articles don't really go into just why the evolution occurred in detail, and I have my own theory on why it did, which is very much different to the basic-at-best reasons the articles gave, but supports the same process. What you have to understand is that I am a proponent of the theory that modern humans evolved in what's now the middle east, in modern-day Arabia, several hundred thousand years ago before migrating to Africa. I could spend hours talking about the basis for this theory and my reasons for supporting it, but I'll try to sum it up; Arabia and the Sahara desert were, at the time we first evolved, fertile swamplands. In addition, fish and shellfish are more rich in the lipids and amino acids and other nutrients required for big brains than red meat. But their range overlapped with that of another species of human; the neanderthal. For the record, the common view of neanderthals as slightly shorter humans with bigger noses and eyebrows is incredibly inaccurate; neanderthal skulls more closely resemble those of chimpanzees than they do our own. Don't take my word for it; check out this comparison between a neanderthal skull and a human skull (http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Neanderthals/Neanderthal-and-Cro-Magnon-skulls.jpg) and this example of a neanderthal skull relative to a chimpanzee head (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2012/06/mandus_comparison.jpg). If you're still not convinced, check out this photo of a chimpanzee's skull (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/27/Chimp.jpg). Neanderthals had a smaller jaw, less-pronounced brows, and a larger cranial capacity than chimps, but all in all, the features of their skulls are more similar. So it's safe to say that they would have been more apelike than we are. In addition, since they'd evolved in the harshest environment in the world at the time (Ice Age Europe), they were much stronger than we are, and were likely almost exclusively carnivorous, owing to a lack of edible plants. It's a fact that neanderthals cannibalized one another (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061205-cannibals.html), so it isn't much of a stretch to imagine them viewing their scrawny southern cousins as a food source. Back then, modern humans were in the middle of the food chain. Our early, less complex-brained answers could think up ways to fend off the big cats and wild dogs they would have faced regularly, but neanderthals, as another species of human, would have been a bigger challenge. I believe that the early humans would have had to think of creative ways to deal with the neanderthals, who would have been much stronger and just as smart as we are, and that our shellfish-fuelled brains would have expanded to boost our problem solving techniques to give us a leg up on the neanderthals. Of course, this took time, and I believe that the neanderthals eventually forced us into Africa; however, what occurred in the middle east acted as a catalyst for change in the human brains. Over the next few tens or hundreds of millennia, we would have perfected our problem-solving skills in the African savannas, as suggested by the article, so that by the time we went back into the middle east and entered Eurasia, we were ready for round two with the neanderthals. And we came out on top.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/our-brain-didnt-need-to-evolve-so-why-did-it
The author presents their theory on why this happens, establishing their credibility by providing evidence from notable intellectual sources and provides a link to another thorough article on the subject. However, the articles don't really go into just why the evolution occurred in detail, and I have my own theory on why it did, which is very much different to the basic-at-best reasons the articles gave, but supports the same process. What you have to understand is that I am a proponent of the theory that modern humans evolved in what's now the middle east, in modern-day Arabia, several hundred thousand years ago before migrating to Africa. I could spend hours talking about the basis for this theory and my reasons for supporting it, but I'll try to sum it up; Arabia and the Sahara desert were, at the time we first evolved, fertile swamplands. In addition, fish and shellfish are more rich in the lipids and amino acids and other nutrients required for big brains than red meat. But their range overlapped with that of another species of human; the neanderthal. For the record, the common view of neanderthals as slightly shorter humans with bigger noses and eyebrows is incredibly inaccurate; neanderthal skulls more closely resemble those of chimpanzees than they do our own. Don't take my word for it; check out this comparison between a neanderthal skull and a human skull (http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Neanderthals/Neanderthal-and-Cro-Magnon-skulls.jpg) and this example of a neanderthal skull relative to a chimpanzee head (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2012/06/mandus_comparison.jpg). If you're still not convinced, check out this photo of a chimpanzee's skull (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/27/Chimp.jpg). Neanderthals had a smaller jaw, less-pronounced brows, and a larger cranial capacity than chimps, but all in all, the features of their skulls are more similar. So it's safe to say that they would have been more apelike than we are. In addition, since they'd evolved in the harshest environment in the world at the time (Ice Age Europe), they were much stronger than we are, and were likely almost exclusively carnivorous, owing to a lack of edible plants. It's a fact that neanderthals cannibalized one another (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061205-cannibals.html), so it isn't much of a stretch to imagine them viewing their scrawny southern cousins as a food source. Back then, modern humans were in the middle of the food chain. Our early, less complex-brained answers could think up ways to fend off the big cats and wild dogs they would have faced regularly, but neanderthals, as another species of human, would have been a bigger challenge. I believe that the early humans would have had to think of creative ways to deal with the neanderthals, who would have been much stronger and just as smart as we are, and that our shellfish-fuelled brains would have expanded to boost our problem solving techniques to give us a leg up on the neanderthals. Of course, this took time, and I believe that the neanderthals eventually forced us into Africa; however, what occurred in the middle east acted as a catalyst for change in the human brains. Over the next few tens or hundreds of millennia, we would have perfected our problem-solving skills in the African savannas, as suggested by the article, so that by the time we went back into the middle east and entered Eurasia, we were ready for round two with the neanderthals. And we came out on top.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Free Post: Political Parties: Good or Evil?
This morning, my English class was cancelled. I spent the period in the library, engaging a friend of mine in a nonpartisan political conversation. During that conversation, it occurred to me just how willing we were to agree with each other, and how thoroughly we were able to discuss topics, a trait the American government seems to have lost, thanks to the deep-seated divisions of political parties. That got me thinking: would we be better off without political parties, or do these deep-seated divisions actually help the American people?
Let's start with the easier topic; the downsides of political parties. This is, perhaps, best demonstrated through our conservative Republican Party. Everybody has the stereotype of Republicans as rich old straight white men, completely disregarding others and caring for nothing but the money in their pockets. This stereotype is only reinforced by Republican presidential candidates, namely George W. Bush, John McCain and Willard Mitt Romney, all of whom come across as Tea Party stooges no matter how you look at them, proponents of big business and tax cuts for their wealthy friends. However, the vast majority of American Republicans are simple, hardworking members of the middle class, willing to work with the Democrats and compromise for the common good. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. Though Republican by party affiliation and ideology, Christie has demonstrated time and time again that he is willing to work alongside Democrats and collaborated with Barack Obama for reconstruction efforts after Hurricane Sandy. Christie's bipartisan efforts have allowed him to be elected, and re-elected, as the governor as a heavily Democratic state. Rumors have circulated about a presidential run for Christie in 2016, reinforced by his own statements and recent re-election. And it's quite possible that, if nominated, he would succeed. Republicans, the majority of whom are represented by Christie, would staunchly support their candidate, and a fair number of Democrats sick and tired of partisan bickering would likely throw him their vote as well. Several of my heavily liberal friends and family members have already voiced their willingness to support Christie if he were to run for the nation's top office in two years time. However, thanks to the Tea Party leaders of the Republican Party, it's highly unlikely that Christie would be nominated. And so, political parties will continue to behave as they always have; fighting each other like mad dogs, driven to battle to the death and yet immortal at the same time. They will halt progress, delay change, and dig our nation an even deeper hole. So how could there be any good?
There is one pro to the whole scheme of political parties; that one benefit is the order they instill. Back in the pre-party days when George Washington was first elected, everything worked out dandy. The nation was united under its new constitution, behind its new not-quite-partisan president. In his famous farewell address, Washington warned that political parties would be our nation's downfall. He may very well have been right. However, political parties do exist for a reason, and that is to provide unity and order for individuals who share most of the same beliefs and ideas. And let's face it; without political parties, every individual who ran for president would basically be their own political party. You could have a congressman who supported the right to assault weapons, gay marriage, and world peace, working alongside presidents who supported nuclear arms and feeding the hungry. As staunchly divided as our people are today, at least we're primarily divided into two camps with relatively similar ideals (ignoring our other, less influential political parties). Of course, this is a double-edged sword, as people who identify as Republican are automatically judged by liberals to be racist, sexist homophobes, whereas Democrats are viewed as drug-addicted Communist sympathizers by conservatives. In the vast majority of cases, this is not at all true, but people who associate with specific parties often have to support the darker sides of their party in exchange for those aspects they value. So in the end, political parties are a double-edged sword, as I mentioned, but the edge against them is much sharper, so to speak, than the edge for them.
Let's start with the easier topic; the downsides of political parties. This is, perhaps, best demonstrated through our conservative Republican Party. Everybody has the stereotype of Republicans as rich old straight white men, completely disregarding others and caring for nothing but the money in their pockets. This stereotype is only reinforced by Republican presidential candidates, namely George W. Bush, John McCain and Willard Mitt Romney, all of whom come across as Tea Party stooges no matter how you look at them, proponents of big business and tax cuts for their wealthy friends. However, the vast majority of American Republicans are simple, hardworking members of the middle class, willing to work with the Democrats and compromise for the common good. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. Though Republican by party affiliation and ideology, Christie has demonstrated time and time again that he is willing to work alongside Democrats and collaborated with Barack Obama for reconstruction efforts after Hurricane Sandy. Christie's bipartisan efforts have allowed him to be elected, and re-elected, as the governor as a heavily Democratic state. Rumors have circulated about a presidential run for Christie in 2016, reinforced by his own statements and recent re-election. And it's quite possible that, if nominated, he would succeed. Republicans, the majority of whom are represented by Christie, would staunchly support their candidate, and a fair number of Democrats sick and tired of partisan bickering would likely throw him their vote as well. Several of my heavily liberal friends and family members have already voiced their willingness to support Christie if he were to run for the nation's top office in two years time. However, thanks to the Tea Party leaders of the Republican Party, it's highly unlikely that Christie would be nominated. And so, political parties will continue to behave as they always have; fighting each other like mad dogs, driven to battle to the death and yet immortal at the same time. They will halt progress, delay change, and dig our nation an even deeper hole. So how could there be any good?
There is one pro to the whole scheme of political parties; that one benefit is the order they instill. Back in the pre-party days when George Washington was first elected, everything worked out dandy. The nation was united under its new constitution, behind its new not-quite-partisan president. In his famous farewell address, Washington warned that political parties would be our nation's downfall. He may very well have been right. However, political parties do exist for a reason, and that is to provide unity and order for individuals who share most of the same beliefs and ideas. And let's face it; without political parties, every individual who ran for president would basically be their own political party. You could have a congressman who supported the right to assault weapons, gay marriage, and world peace, working alongside presidents who supported nuclear arms and feeding the hungry. As staunchly divided as our people are today, at least we're primarily divided into two camps with relatively similar ideals (ignoring our other, less influential political parties). Of course, this is a double-edged sword, as people who identify as Republican are automatically judged by liberals to be racist, sexist homophobes, whereas Democrats are viewed as drug-addicted Communist sympathizers by conservatives. In the vast majority of cases, this is not at all true, but people who associate with specific parties often have to support the darker sides of their party in exchange for those aspects they value. So in the end, political parties are a double-edged sword, as I mentioned, but the edge against them is much sharper, so to speak, than the edge for them.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Big Think Post: Beyond Good and Evil
Today's topic on Big Think was Paleolithic morality. While I searched the articles connected to this topic, I found this video, which has a great deal to do with duality.
http://bigthink.com/videos/beyond-good-and-evil-understanding-our-capacity-for-moral-failure
The video starts off strong, establishing the speaker (the Dean of the Harvard Business school) as a credible, intelligent source who is obviously qualified to speak on the subject. The video corroborates one of my principal views on duality; that black and white are very rare in the world, with gray being very common (the colors representing, of course, evil and good and in-between the two). Personally, I feel that there are no people in the world who are completely good, and only a few people who are completely bad. My own opinion, as I believe I may have mentioned previously, is that we all have good sides and bad sides, making us both good and bad at the same time; a shade of gray, if you will. Owing to our own differences in personality, background and mentality, we each are a different shade of gray, some darker than others. (No reference to the literary pornography is intended, of course.) The human ego factors into the reason why we see the world in shades of black and white, as mentioned in the video. Thanks to our big heads, as Nohria mentions, we feel that when somebody does something horrible, or even slips up in a minor way, such a thing would never happen to us, because we feel that we are perfect beings living in an imperfect world, when we are actually flawed beings living in an equally flawed world. For example, it's easy for us to blame the citizens of Nazi Germany for the atrocities their nation committed to many people, and to assume that it would never happen to us. But say the economic crisis took a turn for the worse. Say that more than half the people in the nation lost their jobs. Say inflation was so bad, what could buy a Lamborghini today would be less than the price of a loaf of bread. And say a man brought us back from all that, and laid out a path for us to follow. Would you follow him? That's exactly what happened in Nazi Germany. No matter how you spin it, Hitler saved Germany as a whole from total destruction. And as for the Nazi citizens' guilt when it comes to the Holocaust, most of them were completely unaware. To the majority of the German people, Hitler was their hero, their savior. It's hard for us to view Hitler in any light that could even be remotely viewed as positive, of course, but try and see things from the perspective of the German people of the time, and that changes radically; from the 1930's German Protestant's point of view, it was hard to view Hitler in a light that was anything but positive. This in no way vindicates any of the atrocities that the Nazis committed, but, in all honesty, Americans would have acted the same way as the Germans did if the situation was reversed. So were the citizens of Nazi Germany black or white? We'd say black, thanks to our American egos, but in actuality, they were gray. A very dark gray, in some instances, but gray nonetheless.
http://bigthink.com/videos/beyond-good-and-evil-understanding-our-capacity-for-moral-failure
The video starts off strong, establishing the speaker (the Dean of the Harvard Business school) as a credible, intelligent source who is obviously qualified to speak on the subject. The video corroborates one of my principal views on duality; that black and white are very rare in the world, with gray being very common (the colors representing, of course, evil and good and in-between the two). Personally, I feel that there are no people in the world who are completely good, and only a few people who are completely bad. My own opinion, as I believe I may have mentioned previously, is that we all have good sides and bad sides, making us both good and bad at the same time; a shade of gray, if you will. Owing to our own differences in personality, background and mentality, we each are a different shade of gray, some darker than others. (No reference to the literary pornography is intended, of course.) The human ego factors into the reason why we see the world in shades of black and white, as mentioned in the video. Thanks to our big heads, as Nohria mentions, we feel that when somebody does something horrible, or even slips up in a minor way, such a thing would never happen to us, because we feel that we are perfect beings living in an imperfect world, when we are actually flawed beings living in an equally flawed world. For example, it's easy for us to blame the citizens of Nazi Germany for the atrocities their nation committed to many people, and to assume that it would never happen to us. But say the economic crisis took a turn for the worse. Say that more than half the people in the nation lost their jobs. Say inflation was so bad, what could buy a Lamborghini today would be less than the price of a loaf of bread. And say a man brought us back from all that, and laid out a path for us to follow. Would you follow him? That's exactly what happened in Nazi Germany. No matter how you spin it, Hitler saved Germany as a whole from total destruction. And as for the Nazi citizens' guilt when it comes to the Holocaust, most of them were completely unaware. To the majority of the German people, Hitler was their hero, their savior. It's hard for us to view Hitler in any light that could even be remotely viewed as positive, of course, but try and see things from the perspective of the German people of the time, and that changes radically; from the 1930's German Protestant's point of view, it was hard to view Hitler in a light that was anything but positive. This in no way vindicates any of the atrocities that the Nazis committed, but, in all honesty, Americans would have acted the same way as the Germans did if the situation was reversed. So were the citizens of Nazi Germany black or white? We'd say black, thanks to our American egos, but in actuality, they were gray. A very dark gray, in some instances, but gray nonetheless.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Free Post: What's Wrong With The Hobbit
As I believe you all have likely gathered from previous posts of mine, I'm quite the Tolkien fan. I've read all of Tolkien's novels cover-to-cover, including the extensive indexes on the characters themselves, and I've seen all of the movies they inspired directed by the one and only Peter Jackson. And the three films based on The Lord of the Rings...don't hate me, but I love them as much as I love the original Star Wars trilogy. Maybe even more. But now Peter Jackson's making a new trilogy based on Tolkien's first book, The Hobbit. And I'm not quite so enthralled with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as I was (and arguably still am) with Jackson's first trilogy. Here's a list of the reasons why:
1) Prequel vs. Sequel
When Tolkien wrote the books, there was a great deal of time between them, both in our world and in the characters' world. The Hobbit, published in the nineteen thirties, was the story of a three-foot humanoid name Bilbo Baggins, who went on an adventure with a company of dwarves and the wise wizard Gandalf to recover the home of the dwarves from the dragon Smaug. The Lord of the Rings, released fifteen years later, was set sixty years after the events of The Hobbit. Gandalf explains, in a lecture lasting several pages that somehow manages not to bore the audience out of their skulls (owing to Tolkien's genius in storytelling), how the events of The Hobbit served to catalyze events happening early in The Lord of the Rings. So, The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to The Hobbit; at least, that's how Tolkien intended it. In P.J.'s version, however, The Hobbit is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings. Now, in some ways, I feel this is a positive trait, especially in the scenes with Gollum. However, I feel that the prequel-nature is the cause for more deviations from Tolkien. There are a good fifteen minutes of film making specific references to Mordor and the Dark Lord Sauron, when neither is so much as named in the book, and I feel that it draws away from the storyline as the characters experienced it in the book.
2) Makeup vs. CGI vs. No Makeup at All
All right, let's get to the business of makeup. In P.J.'s original film, the various dwarves and orcs and goblins were created through makeup. And, as those of you who have seen the films can concur, the makeup was masterful. The artists behind it breathed life into the masks of orcs, so that you were seeing a race of malevolent goblins rather than people wearing clay noses, ears and some greenish blush. And the dwarves wore elaborate prostheses to bring them closer to Tolkien's descriptions of their facial features. But in The Hobbit, all that's gone. The orcs and the goblins are completely computer generated. So the audience goes from seeing these beautifully done, realistic orcs that seem like tangible, living creatures to watching a bunch of computer generated, obviously fake humanoids running around the screen. And the dwarves...they aren't even wearing the facial prosthetics that John Rhys-Davies suffered through during his performance as Gimli. So, rather than hardened warriors, they look like a bunch of male models showing off the latest medieval outfits. We were led to expect a certain standard by The Lord of the Rings, and The Hobbit simply doesn't meet those standards.
3) Deviations from the Plot
I briefly mentioned the deviations from the plot earlier. Now it's time to dig deeper, people. The great thing about The Lord of the Rings is that the film version followed Tolkien very closely. Very few elements were cut out, very few were added. And when elements of the plot changed, it had no big impact on the flow of the story. However, this isn't the case in P.J.'s version of The Hobbit. Various elements are added for the sake of the whole prequel-thing, but that's not the point. What's important is that The Hobbit film version is to the literary version what blackberries are to blueberries; elaborating on this metaphor, the film version of The Lord of the Rings would be to the literary version what green apples are to red apples. Many characters from The Lord of the Rings make cameo appearances when they had no place in the book. P.J.'s also invented a few characters, or highly elaborated them, simply for the sake of the plot. Is this - are any of these - really necessary? Well, that's arguable, and you do need to take into account the context. But out of context, I would certainly say no.
1) Prequel vs. Sequel
When Tolkien wrote the books, there was a great deal of time between them, both in our world and in the characters' world. The Hobbit, published in the nineteen thirties, was the story of a three-foot humanoid name Bilbo Baggins, who went on an adventure with a company of dwarves and the wise wizard Gandalf to recover the home of the dwarves from the dragon Smaug. The Lord of the Rings, released fifteen years later, was set sixty years after the events of The Hobbit. Gandalf explains, in a lecture lasting several pages that somehow manages not to bore the audience out of their skulls (owing to Tolkien's genius in storytelling), how the events of The Hobbit served to catalyze events happening early in The Lord of the Rings. So, The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to The Hobbit; at least, that's how Tolkien intended it. In P.J.'s version, however, The Hobbit is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings. Now, in some ways, I feel this is a positive trait, especially in the scenes with Gollum. However, I feel that the prequel-nature is the cause for more deviations from Tolkien. There are a good fifteen minutes of film making specific references to Mordor and the Dark Lord Sauron, when neither is so much as named in the book, and I feel that it draws away from the storyline as the characters experienced it in the book.
2) Makeup vs. CGI vs. No Makeup at All
All right, let's get to the business of makeup. In P.J.'s original film, the various dwarves and orcs and goblins were created through makeup. And, as those of you who have seen the films can concur, the makeup was masterful. The artists behind it breathed life into the masks of orcs, so that you were seeing a race of malevolent goblins rather than people wearing clay noses, ears and some greenish blush. And the dwarves wore elaborate prostheses to bring them closer to Tolkien's descriptions of their facial features. But in The Hobbit, all that's gone. The orcs and the goblins are completely computer generated. So the audience goes from seeing these beautifully done, realistic orcs that seem like tangible, living creatures to watching a bunch of computer generated, obviously fake humanoids running around the screen. And the dwarves...they aren't even wearing the facial prosthetics that John Rhys-Davies suffered through during his performance as Gimli. So, rather than hardened warriors, they look like a bunch of male models showing off the latest medieval outfits. We were led to expect a certain standard by The Lord of the Rings, and The Hobbit simply doesn't meet those standards.
3) Deviations from the Plot
I briefly mentioned the deviations from the plot earlier. Now it's time to dig deeper, people. The great thing about The Lord of the Rings is that the film version followed Tolkien very closely. Very few elements were cut out, very few were added. And when elements of the plot changed, it had no big impact on the flow of the story. However, this isn't the case in P.J.'s version of The Hobbit. Various elements are added for the sake of the whole prequel-thing, but that's not the point. What's important is that The Hobbit film version is to the literary version what blackberries are to blueberries; elaborating on this metaphor, the film version of The Lord of the Rings would be to the literary version what green apples are to red apples. Many characters from The Lord of the Rings make cameo appearances when they had no place in the book. P.J.'s also invented a few characters, or highly elaborated them, simply for the sake of the plot. Is this - are any of these - really necessary? Well, that's arguable, and you do need to take into account the context. But out of context, I would certainly say no.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Myths and Duality: My Outtake
Just as a heads-up: my posts this week will probably be below their usual standards, what with the musical. However, I'll do my best to keep them up to par.
I feel as though The Power of Myth makes the subjects that it deals with far more appealing to people in our society, which, although theoretically secular, is based strongly on Christian ideals. That's a double-edged sword in some ways, but that's an entirely different, highly controversial matter for another time. Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers present Campbell's theory in a way that does not try to discredit religion as a whole; rather, it supports all religions, which makes it appeal to a variety of people with different backgrounds and different beliefs. Among the things that stood out to me were the connections made between Christianity, specifically the Old Testament, and African myth. In both cases, the creator had made man and woman and a variety of animals. In both cases, the creator had forbidden all to eat the fruit of a specific tree. And in both cases, a dastardly talking serpent convinced man and woman to eat said forbidden fruit, and was blamed. The striking similarities of these two stories, which likely developed independently of one another, is another matter entirely. But what made this stand out is that Campbell and Moyer took a well-known Christian story and projected it outside of Christianity in the very beginning, making the largely-Christian-influenced audience more likely to listen to the rest of the documentary.
The other elements of the documentary that stood out to me were those dealing with the Hindu myths and culture. The statue-carving of the "Mask of God" in the cave was particularly intriguing. The shots incorporated helped the audience, or at least me, draw a sense of the scale of the carvings, and their location. The location itself - deep within an underground cave - was enough to grab my attention, although I may not necessarily speak for everyone else. But the whole concept of duality represented by the mask and the two opposite faces - one male, one female - kept the audience listening. The whole concept of good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark, all with humankind smack dab in the middle, is very relevant. Most religions encourage us to do what's right, but we all have darkness in our hearts; some of us more than others. Heck, there are quite a few people that I would kill in painful ways if I thought I could get away with it. And you all thought I was a halfway decent guy...but in all honesty, how many of you haven't wished death upon someone before?
The teachings of the Hindu guru Campbell referred to in the documentary were also highly significant. Campbell asked the guru that, if all the universe was sacred to Hindus, were all the evils of the universe sacred as well? The priest replied that yes, they were all sacred. This is a very different way of thinking than the general western mindset; here in America, we feel that evils should be punished, in accordance to how evil they were. The idea that Hitler's murder of millions of innocents, the horrors of slavery, and the 9-11 attacks are something to be idolized doesn't quite sit well with us. But that's taking things a bit out of proportion; I'm no Hindu (I'm sure you're all shocked by that), but I would guess that these things are relative. Hopefully I'm not offending anyone with my inferences, but I don't think any person in their right mind would be willing or able to vindicate the Nazis, even if they have a respect for all actions. Campbell presented the events in this way, at any rate, saying that it applied to us all, and that our darker sides were just as important to who we are as individuals as our good sides.
The presentation of the myth of Indra and the carpenter god Vishvakarma was particularly notable to me, personally. As religions, Hinduism and Christianity are very similar and very different at the same time. "Like, and yet unalike," as J.R.R. Tolkien put it (although he was referring to a very different topic). Many people here in the U.S. are automatically inclined to be hostile to beliefs that are not their own, and in regards to the deities involved, Hinduism and Christianity are as different as they come. However, the use of the images to portray the myth itself greatly boosted Campbell's telling of the myth; all in all, it simply seemed like storytelling. The gods in the myth simply seemed like regular people, going about their business, trying to get themselves out of fixes. That's an easy story for anybody to relate to, which is why Campbell's choice to utilize it when comparing religions was so affective.
I feel as though The Power of Myth makes the subjects that it deals with far more appealing to people in our society, which, although theoretically secular, is based strongly on Christian ideals. That's a double-edged sword in some ways, but that's an entirely different, highly controversial matter for another time. Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers present Campbell's theory in a way that does not try to discredit religion as a whole; rather, it supports all religions, which makes it appeal to a variety of people with different backgrounds and different beliefs. Among the things that stood out to me were the connections made between Christianity, specifically the Old Testament, and African myth. In both cases, the creator had made man and woman and a variety of animals. In both cases, the creator had forbidden all to eat the fruit of a specific tree. And in both cases, a dastardly talking serpent convinced man and woman to eat said forbidden fruit, and was blamed. The striking similarities of these two stories, which likely developed independently of one another, is another matter entirely. But what made this stand out is that Campbell and Moyer took a well-known Christian story and projected it outside of Christianity in the very beginning, making the largely-Christian-influenced audience more likely to listen to the rest of the documentary.
The other elements of the documentary that stood out to me were those dealing with the Hindu myths and culture. The statue-carving of the "Mask of God" in the cave was particularly intriguing. The shots incorporated helped the audience, or at least me, draw a sense of the scale of the carvings, and their location. The location itself - deep within an underground cave - was enough to grab my attention, although I may not necessarily speak for everyone else. But the whole concept of duality represented by the mask and the two opposite faces - one male, one female - kept the audience listening. The whole concept of good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark, all with humankind smack dab in the middle, is very relevant. Most religions encourage us to do what's right, but we all have darkness in our hearts; some of us more than others. Heck, there are quite a few people that I would kill in painful ways if I thought I could get away with it. And you all thought I was a halfway decent guy...but in all honesty, how many of you haven't wished death upon someone before?
The teachings of the Hindu guru Campbell referred to in the documentary were also highly significant. Campbell asked the guru that, if all the universe was sacred to Hindus, were all the evils of the universe sacred as well? The priest replied that yes, they were all sacred. This is a very different way of thinking than the general western mindset; here in America, we feel that evils should be punished, in accordance to how evil they were. The idea that Hitler's murder of millions of innocents, the horrors of slavery, and the 9-11 attacks are something to be idolized doesn't quite sit well with us. But that's taking things a bit out of proportion; I'm no Hindu (I'm sure you're all shocked by that), but I would guess that these things are relative. Hopefully I'm not offending anyone with my inferences, but I don't think any person in their right mind would be willing or able to vindicate the Nazis, even if they have a respect for all actions. Campbell presented the events in this way, at any rate, saying that it applied to us all, and that our darker sides were just as important to who we are as individuals as our good sides.
The presentation of the myth of Indra and the carpenter god Vishvakarma was particularly notable to me, personally. As religions, Hinduism and Christianity are very similar and very different at the same time. "Like, and yet unalike," as J.R.R. Tolkien put it (although he was referring to a very different topic). Many people here in the U.S. are automatically inclined to be hostile to beliefs that are not their own, and in regards to the deities involved, Hinduism and Christianity are as different as they come. However, the use of the images to portray the myth itself greatly boosted Campbell's telling of the myth; all in all, it simply seemed like storytelling. The gods in the myth simply seemed like regular people, going about their business, trying to get themselves out of fixes. That's an easy story for anybody to relate to, which is why Campbell's choice to utilize it when comparing religions was so affective.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Big Think: T.R. and Journalism
Today on Big Think, I came across this article on one of America's greatest presidents, and the way he influenced a significant element of modern culture.
http://bigthink.com/the-voice-of-big-think/teddy-roosevelts-lessons-in-media-savvy
Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt, the twenty-sixth president of the United States, held the nation's highest office from 1901 to 1909. A moderate Republican by today's standards, he was considered progressive at the time, and campaigned for "Square Deal" reforms throughout many spheres of the nation. What's interesting in this article is the idea that Teddy Roosevelt used the media to his advantage, something I hadn't considered. Previously, I'd thought that Roosevelt had felt nothing but disdain for the journalists he deemed "Muckrakers." As the name Roosevelt coined implies, he felt that journalists were there only to get the metaphorical dirt on him and make a profit out of it. However, the author's claim - that Roosevelt used the journalists of the time to his advantage - makes perfect sense. Roosevelt was a war hero, and one of the best-known men in America at the time. As I mentioned before, he was a Progressive Republican, and appealed to many people as a result of this. And he was, by all accounts, a very intelligent man; he had an extensive military background, both as a strategist and a soldier, and an innate knowledge of human psychology. The latter of these qualities influenced many of his policies, both foreign ("Speak softly and carry a big stick") and domestic. Why wouldn't such a man have used the public's desire for reform, his own desire for reform, and the media's desire for a new scoop to his advantage when pushing through reform. Although the article doesn't specify how, it doesn't take too much imagination to believe that Teddy Roosevelt could have accomplished this with ease.
Another thing the author does well is their refusal to disclose too much information. Generally, that is something I would criticize such a post for; however, this article in particular is trying to promote a book on the subject of Teddy Roosevelt's relationships with some of the muckraking journalists he seemed to despise, and how he used this relationship to boost his reform. If the author were to say, "Oh, and Roosevelt also did this, this and this to use the media to boost his popularity," nobody would buy the book they're promoting; they'd have all they wanted to know there. Rather than make this mistake, the author proposes an idea that makes sense to audience members with a historical background, provides context and information on the subject, but refuses to go into detail in order to actually achieve their purpose. I feel that this post was very well-written, especially with regards to its intent, and the subject matter interests me greatly.
http://bigthink.com/the-voice-of-big-think/teddy-roosevelts-lessons-in-media-savvy
Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt, the twenty-sixth president of the United States, held the nation's highest office from 1901 to 1909. A moderate Republican by today's standards, he was considered progressive at the time, and campaigned for "Square Deal" reforms throughout many spheres of the nation. What's interesting in this article is the idea that Teddy Roosevelt used the media to his advantage, something I hadn't considered. Previously, I'd thought that Roosevelt had felt nothing but disdain for the journalists he deemed "Muckrakers." As the name Roosevelt coined implies, he felt that journalists were there only to get the metaphorical dirt on him and make a profit out of it. However, the author's claim - that Roosevelt used the journalists of the time to his advantage - makes perfect sense. Roosevelt was a war hero, and one of the best-known men in America at the time. As I mentioned before, he was a Progressive Republican, and appealed to many people as a result of this. And he was, by all accounts, a very intelligent man; he had an extensive military background, both as a strategist and a soldier, and an innate knowledge of human psychology. The latter of these qualities influenced many of his policies, both foreign ("Speak softly and carry a big stick") and domestic. Why wouldn't such a man have used the public's desire for reform, his own desire for reform, and the media's desire for a new scoop to his advantage when pushing through reform. Although the article doesn't specify how, it doesn't take too much imagination to believe that Teddy Roosevelt could have accomplished this with ease.
Another thing the author does well is their refusal to disclose too much information. Generally, that is something I would criticize such a post for; however, this article in particular is trying to promote a book on the subject of Teddy Roosevelt's relationships with some of the muckraking journalists he seemed to despise, and how he used this relationship to boost his reform. If the author were to say, "Oh, and Roosevelt also did this, this and this to use the media to boost his popularity," nobody would buy the book they're promoting; they'd have all they wanted to know there. Rather than make this mistake, the author proposes an idea that makes sense to audience members with a historical background, provides context and information on the subject, but refuses to go into detail in order to actually achieve their purpose. I feel that this post was very well-written, especially with regards to its intent, and the subject matter interests me greatly.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Quarter 2 Free Post #1: The Genius of J.R.R. Tolkien
To kick off the second quarter, I've decided to discuss the most iconic writer of the last century. J.R.R. Tolkien, for those of you who have never read his books, is basically the god of literature. Even though he was one of the last English Catholics, he's still the god of literature. Why? Because, quite literally, every fiction writer since Tolkien has taken a leaf (or seven) from his works. For those of you who are saying, "Oh, Brian must be a real Tolkien geek," I have two things to say to you. Number one...yes, you're right. Number two...you must not have read the books. Because the thing about writers (and I don't think I speak for myself) is that they like to read. And people who like to read like to read good books. (This is meant to be sarcastic, but the Internet is new the whole "irony" thing.) I challenge you to find any fiction novel written in the last fifty years that an educated Tolkien geek like me cannot connect to The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. Just for the heck of it, let's list a few well-known young adult books from this time period, shall we?
1) Harry Potter:
For those of you who think that Harry Potter and his gang are unique, I would say something, but I'd be too busy laughing at you. Don't get me wrong; I grew up on and love the Harry Potter books, but half of J.K. Rowling's plot is word-for-word Tolkien. Let's start with this whole "Voldemort" concept. Vanquished long before the start of the series, by the least likely hero imaginable? Check. Brutal, monstrous murderer who betrayed his own people and started a conflict that lead to hundreds upon hundreds of deaths? Check. Reborn for the series? Check. Who does this remind you of? Well, certainly not the Dark Lord of Mordor, Sauron, who had the exact same thing happen to him fifty years before J.K. took out her pen and started writing. And don't get me started on those Horcruxes; enchanted objects, usually jewelry, that contains part of the life force of a villain. So long as the villain's Horcrux (and Voldemort had seven) remains intact, the villain survives. Gosh, where did J.K. get her original ideas from? Certainly not THE ONE RING, the single most famous literary object in history, which is exactly what the Horcruxes are. The list goes on and on, too; the giant spiders, the dragons, the magic. Dumbledore is an obvious spoof of Gandalf, while Harry himself combines elements of the characters of Frodo and Aragorn. Ron is a sort of Sam-Pippin character, a funny guy who turns out to be vital to the plot. I could go on and on about this, but I don't want to bore you all.
2) Percy Jackson and the Olympians
This series, a childhood favorite of mine, contains fewer Tolkien references than the Harry Potter series. However, there is a big one, one that most readers would overlook, as it has become so ingrained in modern literature; the presence of a female character who is smarter and, in many ways, stronger than the male characters. This element is present in numerous films and books from the last century (I'm looking at you, J.K.). But, as we discussed in class, Tolkien did it first, with the character Eowyn. Owing to a poorly-worded prophecy, she is the lone character who can kill the chieftain of the demonic Nazgul, the Witch-King, who spends a great deal of time boasting how "No man can kill [him]." After four pages of an intense literary battle, Eowyn sticks a sword in his face, shutting him up for all eternity.
3) A Song of Ice and Fire
I'm not sure if all of you are familiar with this series, the inspiration for the top-rated HBO series Game of Thrones. What I do know, and I think those who've read the books would agree, is that the author, George R.R. Martin, certainly did not take many plot elements from Tolkien. However, he does use many Tolkienic (I'm actually surprised that isn't a real English word) devices in the construction of his fictional world. The big one is the creation of a complex history for his world. Tolkien did it first, in posthumously released book called The Silmarillion, which his son found in his desk. Tolkien had written a history for Middle-Earth, incredibly detailed and complex to an impossible degree, several hundred pages in length. You just can't compete with that, and what makes Martin's works great (in this regard, even if you ignore all the other elements that make his works genius) is the simple fact that he doesn't try to. Another way in which Martin tips his hat to Tolkien is the fact that he created a language for the Dothraki, a race of horsemen living in the east of his world. He did call on his fans to help him out; to be fair, Tolkien did base one of his languages (Elvish) heavily on Finnish. But that doesn't change the fact Tolkien created a language for every race, every nation, every group in his books; the grand total includes Elvish, Dwarvish, Rohirric, Entish, Gondoran, the Black Tongue of Mordor, and a few scattered words in several dialects of Orc-Speech. And then Tolkien goes and creates poems and songs, many of which last for pages, out of these languages. Once again, to be fair to Martin, Tolkien was the kind of guy who did this in his spare time because he thought it was fun. I think I would have gotten along pretty well with Tolkien.
Side note: Tolkien drew his stories from Norse mythology, Christianity, his own experiences in the first World War, and...Shakespeare! Many elements from his stories are based on Shakespeare, or his improvements of them. Eowyn's ability to kill the Witch-King, based on poor word choice, is a tribute to Macduff's ability to kill Macbeth in the play of the same name. Another Macbeth reference is present, which requires a bit of backstory: supposedly, as a child, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, saw a production of Macbeth, and was disappointed when the forest's arrival at the hill was simply the actors carrying branches. According to Tolkien, he decided at that moment that, some day, he would do that scene the way it was supposed to be done. Lo and behold, in the second volume of The Lord of the Rings (one book published in three volumes, the second of which is The Two Towers), Tolkien devotes an entire chapter to the destruction of the fortress of Isengard at the hands of the Ents, a race of giant tree-men (with their own language and history). So, by extension, everybody making a reference to Tolkien is making a reference to Shakespeare! Oh, Shakespeare, how thou art still in culture!
1) Harry Potter:
For those of you who think that Harry Potter and his gang are unique, I would say something, but I'd be too busy laughing at you. Don't get me wrong; I grew up on and love the Harry Potter books, but half of J.K. Rowling's plot is word-for-word Tolkien. Let's start with this whole "Voldemort" concept. Vanquished long before the start of the series, by the least likely hero imaginable? Check. Brutal, monstrous murderer who betrayed his own people and started a conflict that lead to hundreds upon hundreds of deaths? Check. Reborn for the series? Check. Who does this remind you of? Well, certainly not the Dark Lord of Mordor, Sauron, who had the exact same thing happen to him fifty years before J.K. took out her pen and started writing. And don't get me started on those Horcruxes; enchanted objects, usually jewelry, that contains part of the life force of a villain. So long as the villain's Horcrux (and Voldemort had seven) remains intact, the villain survives. Gosh, where did J.K. get her original ideas from? Certainly not THE ONE RING, the single most famous literary object in history, which is exactly what the Horcruxes are. The list goes on and on, too; the giant spiders, the dragons, the magic. Dumbledore is an obvious spoof of Gandalf, while Harry himself combines elements of the characters of Frodo and Aragorn. Ron is a sort of Sam-Pippin character, a funny guy who turns out to be vital to the plot. I could go on and on about this, but I don't want to bore you all.
2) Percy Jackson and the Olympians
This series, a childhood favorite of mine, contains fewer Tolkien references than the Harry Potter series. However, there is a big one, one that most readers would overlook, as it has become so ingrained in modern literature; the presence of a female character who is smarter and, in many ways, stronger than the male characters. This element is present in numerous films and books from the last century (I'm looking at you, J.K.). But, as we discussed in class, Tolkien did it first, with the character Eowyn. Owing to a poorly-worded prophecy, she is the lone character who can kill the chieftain of the demonic Nazgul, the Witch-King, who spends a great deal of time boasting how "No man can kill [him]." After four pages of an intense literary battle, Eowyn sticks a sword in his face, shutting him up for all eternity.
3) A Song of Ice and Fire
I'm not sure if all of you are familiar with this series, the inspiration for the top-rated HBO series Game of Thrones. What I do know, and I think those who've read the books would agree, is that the author, George R.R. Martin, certainly did not take many plot elements from Tolkien. However, he does use many Tolkienic (I'm actually surprised that isn't a real English word) devices in the construction of his fictional world. The big one is the creation of a complex history for his world. Tolkien did it first, in posthumously released book called The Silmarillion, which his son found in his desk. Tolkien had written a history for Middle-Earth, incredibly detailed and complex to an impossible degree, several hundred pages in length. You just can't compete with that, and what makes Martin's works great (in this regard, even if you ignore all the other elements that make his works genius) is the simple fact that he doesn't try to. Another way in which Martin tips his hat to Tolkien is the fact that he created a language for the Dothraki, a race of horsemen living in the east of his world. He did call on his fans to help him out; to be fair, Tolkien did base one of his languages (Elvish) heavily on Finnish. But that doesn't change the fact Tolkien created a language for every race, every nation, every group in his books; the grand total includes Elvish, Dwarvish, Rohirric, Entish, Gondoran, the Black Tongue of Mordor, and a few scattered words in several dialects of Orc-Speech. And then Tolkien goes and creates poems and songs, many of which last for pages, out of these languages. Once again, to be fair to Martin, Tolkien was the kind of guy who did this in his spare time because he thought it was fun. I think I would have gotten along pretty well with Tolkien.
Side note: Tolkien drew his stories from Norse mythology, Christianity, his own experiences in the first World War, and...Shakespeare! Many elements from his stories are based on Shakespeare, or his improvements of them. Eowyn's ability to kill the Witch-King, based on poor word choice, is a tribute to Macduff's ability to kill Macbeth in the play of the same name. Another Macbeth reference is present, which requires a bit of backstory: supposedly, as a child, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, saw a production of Macbeth, and was disappointed when the forest's arrival at the hill was simply the actors carrying branches. According to Tolkien, he decided at that moment that, some day, he would do that scene the way it was supposed to be done. Lo and behold, in the second volume of The Lord of the Rings (one book published in three volumes, the second of which is The Two Towers), Tolkien devotes an entire chapter to the destruction of the fortress of Isengard at the hands of the Ents, a race of giant tree-men (with their own language and history). So, by extension, everybody making a reference to Tolkien is making a reference to Shakespeare! Oh, Shakespeare, how thou art still in culture!
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Big Think Post: Neuroaesthetics
On Big Think today, I uncovered this particular article. Here's the link:
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/beauty-is-in-the-brain-of-the-beholder
This article only vaguely relevant to STAC, as it deals with something so foreign to us as art. Crazy, right? (In case you're technologically challenged, like me, that's sarcasm.) The article discusses both why and how the human brain is moved by different types of art. Personally, I think that this article is one of the best I've found on Big Think - a bit of a problem for me, as most of my Big Think posts are me finding flaws in the articles; but I digress. The article is well-written and thoroughly explains just how this all occurs. I'm a bit surprised that the article didn't elaborate more on its claim that art was vital to humanity, helping our ancient ancestors outcompete their aesthetically-challenged Neanderthal cousins. Personally, I'd have put in my two cents worth on that point, rather than simply stating, although not directly, "this happened because it happened." If it weren't for the fact that this article is more about how art appeals to us (neurologically speaking) rather than why, I wouldn't think that this is such a strong article, which I do. The article is well-written, to say the least, providing detailed explanations of the numerous scientific processes it discusses and dumbing them down for your everyday average Joe. It discusses why artists use "amplified colors" in their work (I put that in for you, Danny), describes the procedures that scientists used to determine this, and includes an excellent video from a leading authority on the subject. The video, obviously well thought-out, is straightforward and easy for the audience to understand, even if they have no prior knowledge on the subject (which I assume most of us don't, though I could be wrong). Another strength in this article is that it draws the subject outside of art by mentioning its potential applications in the fields of science and medicine. The article further strengthens itself by referring to critics who feel that neuroaesthetics are degrading our appreciation with art, and countering it with the professor's statement that this new science will not impact how we react; it will simply allow us to understand why. And as we all know, understanding why something happens or works doesn't always make it less important.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/beauty-is-in-the-brain-of-the-beholder
This article only vaguely relevant to STAC, as it deals with something so foreign to us as art. Crazy, right? (In case you're technologically challenged, like me, that's sarcasm.) The article discusses both why and how the human brain is moved by different types of art. Personally, I think that this article is one of the best I've found on Big Think - a bit of a problem for me, as most of my Big Think posts are me finding flaws in the articles; but I digress. The article is well-written and thoroughly explains just how this all occurs. I'm a bit surprised that the article didn't elaborate more on its claim that art was vital to humanity, helping our ancient ancestors outcompete their aesthetically-challenged Neanderthal cousins. Personally, I'd have put in my two cents worth on that point, rather than simply stating, although not directly, "this happened because it happened." If it weren't for the fact that this article is more about how art appeals to us (neurologically speaking) rather than why, I wouldn't think that this is such a strong article, which I do. The article is well-written, to say the least, providing detailed explanations of the numerous scientific processes it discusses and dumbing them down for your everyday average Joe. It discusses why artists use "amplified colors" in their work (I put that in for you, Danny), describes the procedures that scientists used to determine this, and includes an excellent video from a leading authority on the subject. The video, obviously well thought-out, is straightforward and easy for the audience to understand, even if they have no prior knowledge on the subject (which I assume most of us don't, though I could be wrong). Another strength in this article is that it draws the subject outside of art by mentioning its potential applications in the fields of science and medicine. The article further strengthens itself by referring to critics who feel that neuroaesthetics are degrading our appreciation with art, and countering it with the professor's statement that this new science will not impact how we react; it will simply allow us to understand why. And as we all know, understanding why something happens or works doesn't always make it less important.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Free Post: My Favorite Soundtracks Part 2 (1970's to Present)
Here we are again; my five favorite movie soundtracks of all time (from the last forty years). The best of the best, the most powerful, meaningful, or downright most amazing soundtracks, all according to yours truly. All of these come from favorite movies of mine, with the exception of number five...
Number Five: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: Main Theme (Michael Kamen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Edkb2Qo9c
I'm not the biggest fan of this film. The plot isn't that bad, the acting (overall) is okay, and it has the man, the myth, the Morgan Freeman. The catch (and it's a big one) - I'm not so sure I dig the whole "American Robin Hood" thing. To put it as Cary Ewes did in Mel Brooks's spoof (Robin Hood: Men in Tights) when asked why the people would follow him: "Because...unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can actually do an English accent." And to be quite honest with you, Kevin Costner lapsed in that regard. A lot. It's even worse than an English Superman; at least Henry Cavill got the accent down. But you can't deny that the theme is amazing. The brassy orchestral piece is just about as heroic as they come. Maybe a bit too heroic for the film's purposes, but not for listening to on a regular basis.
Number Four: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: The Bridge of Khazad-Dum (Howard Shore)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUIZvAe3RBg
Now, you know what they all say when a novel is made into a movie: the book is always better. And, as an individual who has read all of Tolkien's works and seen all of the Peter Jackson-directed films they inspired, I would have to agree. But let's be perfectly honest: Tolkien created entire languages in his spare time. He created an entire history and an entire mythos for his world of Middle-Earth, based predominantly on Norse mythology and Christianity. The characters he created are so complicated and so bound together...the strength of the friendships between all the members of the fellowship still makes me feel warm inside. This is something that nobody will ever be able to capture. And just look at the films - overall, they follow the books very accurately. The plot, although altered in ways, still flows. And the characters are the closest, most tightly-knit, and plain old best group of friends in all the films I've ever seen. Although they didn't quite capture Tolkien, they came closer than anybody could have ever imagined. That's what makes this song so powerful - the chanting you hear in the middle is actually Dwarvish (a real language, created by Tolkien), and the lament at the end is Elvish (again, another Tolkienic language), in a scene where the character's pain is terrible, thanks to some of the greatest acting I've ever seen. And it fits perfectly with the context of the scene. In fact, if you ask me, only one movie soundtrack fits better with an individual scene, and it comes in at number three.
Number Three: Braveheart: Bannockburn (James Horner)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gXApvgxQH0
(For the record, the part of the track to which I refer starts at the 3:30 mark and continues to the end of the video.)
Ah, back before Mel Gibson was completely insane...don't judge the movie by the views of the guy who made it, try to judge it objectively. Everybody had a problem with it; critics complained that the filmmakers used too much artistic license when interpreting historical facts. The English people complained that it portrayed the English people as rapacious, egomaniacal d**kheads (which, in my opinion, is the only fact the movie truly got right). And many more people complained that the scene where the prince of England's (male) lover was defenestrated (thrown out a window to his death) made fun of gay people, when in actuality it was intended to demonstrate the cruelty of the film's main antagonist (and, doubtless, some of Mel's subconscious played a role in it as well). Say what you will about the movie; I think it's pretty good, all things considered. The acting is top-notch; what really draws me in are the nonverbal cues you get from the characters in the film. The relationships between the characters is captured beautifully, and the (albeit inaccurate) plot poses no problems to me. But the ending scene, with this soundtrack...I just think it's perfect. If you haven't seen the movie, I won't spoil it for you...but the acting is just as good as it is in The Lord of the Rings. The character's emotions are tangible, and the scene is tear-jerkingly powerful.
Number Two: King Arthur: Woad to Ruin/Knights March (Hans Zimmer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dJDB1G4z4g
A piece that very nearly made the top spot of my list, from what I feel is one of the most underrated films of all time. IMDB gives it a 6.1 out of ten, and many other sources give it mediocre ratings I feel it does not deserve. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it's a take on the possible historical basis for the mythic figure of King Arthur, who historians agree was based on a Romano-British leader who fought the invading Saxons after the Roman Empire withdrew from the island. In particular, this film focuses on a unit of auxiliary cavalry stationed at Hadrian's Wall, commanded by a descendant of the real Roman leader Lucius Artorius Castus...known to the native Celts as "Arthur."What makes me angry is the argument that critics use to justify their poor ratings. It's not the relationships between the characters, which are impeccable. It's not the quality of the acting, which (with the exception of some minor parts) is up there with the best. And it's not the plot, even though the historical accuracy is subject to debate. No; it's the fact that this film does not follow the Arthurian legend. And that just infuriates me. That's like watching a movie about the American Revolution and complaining that it doesn't involve the Civil War. It's not supposed to follow the Arthurian legend, you dunces. It's a possible demonstration of what a historical basis for King Arthur might look like. But I digress...the song itself, from the genius of Hans Zimmer, is amazing. Zimmer leads the listener on, fooling them with a series of false climaxes. And around the nine minute mark, he gives you the true climax of the work. But don't you dare skip ahead to try to find it; listen to the duration of the track. You won't regret it.
Number One: Star Wars: The Imperial March (John Williams)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8
Need I say anything?
Fine, I'll say something; this soundtrack, intended as a theme for the Galactic Empire, perfectly fits the greatest film villain of all time. And no, American Film Institute, Hannibal Lector is not a better villain than Darth Vader. Ask yourself, how would a meeting between the two of them go?
"I ate his liver with some fava beans and a...gaack..."
"I find you (inhale-exhale) disturbing."
If you can't figure out what action I'm referencing...I'm sorry, but you don't deserve to live in the civilized world.
Number Five: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: Main Theme (Michael Kamen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Edkb2Qo9c
I'm not the biggest fan of this film. The plot isn't that bad, the acting (overall) is okay, and it has the man, the myth, the Morgan Freeman. The catch (and it's a big one) - I'm not so sure I dig the whole "American Robin Hood" thing. To put it as Cary Ewes did in Mel Brooks's spoof (Robin Hood: Men in Tights) when asked why the people would follow him: "Because...unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can actually do an English accent." And to be quite honest with you, Kevin Costner lapsed in that regard. A lot. It's even worse than an English Superman; at least Henry Cavill got the accent down. But you can't deny that the theme is amazing. The brassy orchestral piece is just about as heroic as they come. Maybe a bit too heroic for the film's purposes, but not for listening to on a regular basis.
Number Four: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: The Bridge of Khazad-Dum (Howard Shore)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUIZvAe3RBg
Now, you know what they all say when a novel is made into a movie: the book is always better. And, as an individual who has read all of Tolkien's works and seen all of the Peter Jackson-directed films they inspired, I would have to agree. But let's be perfectly honest: Tolkien created entire languages in his spare time. He created an entire history and an entire mythos for his world of Middle-Earth, based predominantly on Norse mythology and Christianity. The characters he created are so complicated and so bound together...the strength of the friendships between all the members of the fellowship still makes me feel warm inside. This is something that nobody will ever be able to capture. And just look at the films - overall, they follow the books very accurately. The plot, although altered in ways, still flows. And the characters are the closest, most tightly-knit, and plain old best group of friends in all the films I've ever seen. Although they didn't quite capture Tolkien, they came closer than anybody could have ever imagined. That's what makes this song so powerful - the chanting you hear in the middle is actually Dwarvish (a real language, created by Tolkien), and the lament at the end is Elvish (again, another Tolkienic language), in a scene where the character's pain is terrible, thanks to some of the greatest acting I've ever seen. And it fits perfectly with the context of the scene. In fact, if you ask me, only one movie soundtrack fits better with an individual scene, and it comes in at number three.
Number Three: Braveheart: Bannockburn (James Horner)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gXApvgxQH0
(For the record, the part of the track to which I refer starts at the 3:30 mark and continues to the end of the video.)
Ah, back before Mel Gibson was completely insane...don't judge the movie by the views of the guy who made it, try to judge it objectively. Everybody had a problem with it; critics complained that the filmmakers used too much artistic license when interpreting historical facts. The English people complained that it portrayed the English people as rapacious, egomaniacal d**kheads (which, in my opinion, is the only fact the movie truly got right). And many more people complained that the scene where the prince of England's (male) lover was defenestrated (thrown out a window to his death) made fun of gay people, when in actuality it was intended to demonstrate the cruelty of the film's main antagonist (and, doubtless, some of Mel's subconscious played a role in it as well). Say what you will about the movie; I think it's pretty good, all things considered. The acting is top-notch; what really draws me in are the nonverbal cues you get from the characters in the film. The relationships between the characters is captured beautifully, and the (albeit inaccurate) plot poses no problems to me. But the ending scene, with this soundtrack...I just think it's perfect. If you haven't seen the movie, I won't spoil it for you...but the acting is just as good as it is in The Lord of the Rings. The character's emotions are tangible, and the scene is tear-jerkingly powerful.
Number Two: King Arthur: Woad to Ruin/Knights March (Hans Zimmer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dJDB1G4z4g
A piece that very nearly made the top spot of my list, from what I feel is one of the most underrated films of all time. IMDB gives it a 6.1 out of ten, and many other sources give it mediocre ratings I feel it does not deserve. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it's a take on the possible historical basis for the mythic figure of King Arthur, who historians agree was based on a Romano-British leader who fought the invading Saxons after the Roman Empire withdrew from the island. In particular, this film focuses on a unit of auxiliary cavalry stationed at Hadrian's Wall, commanded by a descendant of the real Roman leader Lucius Artorius Castus...known to the native Celts as "Arthur."What makes me angry is the argument that critics use to justify their poor ratings. It's not the relationships between the characters, which are impeccable. It's not the quality of the acting, which (with the exception of some minor parts) is up there with the best. And it's not the plot, even though the historical accuracy is subject to debate. No; it's the fact that this film does not follow the Arthurian legend. And that just infuriates me. That's like watching a movie about the American Revolution and complaining that it doesn't involve the Civil War. It's not supposed to follow the Arthurian legend, you dunces. It's a possible demonstration of what a historical basis for King Arthur might look like. But I digress...the song itself, from the genius of Hans Zimmer, is amazing. Zimmer leads the listener on, fooling them with a series of false climaxes. And around the nine minute mark, he gives you the true climax of the work. But don't you dare skip ahead to try to find it; listen to the duration of the track. You won't regret it.
Number One: Star Wars: The Imperial March (John Williams)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8
Need I say anything?
Fine, I'll say something; this soundtrack, intended as a theme for the Galactic Empire, perfectly fits the greatest film villain of all time. And no, American Film Institute, Hannibal Lector is not a better villain than Darth Vader. Ask yourself, how would a meeting between the two of them go?
"I ate his liver with some fava beans and a...gaack..."
"I find you (inhale-exhale) disturbing."
If you can't figure out what action I'm referencing...I'm sorry, but you don't deserve to live in the civilized world.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Free Post: My Favorite Movie Soundtracks ('70's to Present: Part One)
About a month ago, I did a post about the importance of movie soundtracks. All in all, I feel that a decent soundtrack can make a good movie great or a bad movie acceptable. In honor of the Halloween, I've decided to put together a top-ten list of my favorite movie soundtracks and themes from the 1970's to the present. And before anybody asks, Titanic and Requiem for a Dream did not make the list, as did several others many people would argue for.
Number Ten: Back to the Future: Main Theme (Alan Silvestri)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTGyeGgMpk8
A piece from one of my favorite movies of all. (Most of these are; part of what makes many of these movies my favorites are a combination of acting, character dynamics, story and soundtrack.) This piece is so brazen and brassy, so daring and dapper, it's impossible to think of a better score for the zany adventures of Marty McFly and Doc Brown, regardless of how inaccurate their predictions turned out to be. Although perhaps not so widely recognizable or as celebrated as some of the others on this list, my top ten wouldn't be complete without it.
Number Nine: Batman Begins: Molossus (Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZst_2xJHAI
Although not specifically the movie's theme, Molossus (named after a species of bat, as are all the tracks in this score) incorporates elements of much of the movie's score and heavily influences the soundtrack in all of of Nolan's trilogy. The track corroborates with this trilogy's inherent darkness, as compared to previously made Batman movies. The storyline is far more complicated, the villains far more complex, and even the heroes scarred on the inside from various events. They're certainly great films on their own, but compared with Arnold Schwarzenneger in a Mr. Freeze suit, they're practically Shakespeare.
Number Eight: Pirates of the Caribbean: Drink Up, Me Hearties (Hans Zimmer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkYko5OCnA4
This soundtrack, one of two on this list, does not come from a movie (or a series) I enjoy. Why don't I like Pirates of the Caribbean? It's not the shooting, which is excellent; it's not so much the characters themselves, which receive a great deal of development and grow over the course of the series; and it certainly isn't the brilliant score, written by Hans Zimmer. It's the plot. Oh, trust me, it's the plot. In its basics, the plot is fine. Respectable guy teams up with a ruffian to save his girl. A bit overused, but not bad. But certain devices of the plot are flawed, certain elements of the story don't make sense. Take the ending of the second film: everybody on the ship, which is being attacked by the Kraken, dies - with the exception of six key main characters. You don't really notice it the first time, since Jack Sparrow was among the casualties, but the second time, and all the times after that, it's blatantly obvious. But the score, from the genius of Hans Zimmer, is flawless; an icon in its own time.
Number Seven: Gladiator: Barbarian Horde (Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ5lQev52gk
If you don't feel like listening to nine minutes of music (albeit stunning music) while you wait for the movie's main theme, it starts around the nine-and-a-quarter minute mark (and is conveniently located in the first comment). Gladiator, an acclaimed box-office success story, deserves its notoriety. The characters are beautifully portrayed, their complicated relationships masterfully conveyed to the audience. Although the story may not be historically accurate, you begin to forget that once you get into the film. The plot has only a few insignificant holes that are more often than not overlooked entirely, and I only noticed them after watching the movie at least ten times. If you haven't seen the film, I wholeheartedly recommend it; I challenge you to to find any flaws in the film. And believe you me, you won't notice them if you don't look for them.
Number Six: Indiana Jones: Main Theme (John Williams)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bTpp8PQSog
Few soundtracks are more recognizable than this icon. Perhaps I speak only for myself, but when I think "Indiana Jones," this soundtrack is the first thing that comes to my mind. Composed by the master/father of the modern soundtrack, Indy's theme corresponds perfectly with the brash, outspoken character so convincingly portrayed by Harrison Ford, helping even the average viewer differentiate between Indy the badass adventurer (pardon my French) and Professor Henry Jones. And don't even think about mentioning that abomination with the aliens and Shia LaBoeuf; we're forgetting that that ever happened.
This is taking longer than I had anticipated; to keep from boring all of you, I'll continue my list next week. The final five - the best of the best from these past forty years, in my own humble opinion (although it may be a bit too late for me to call myself "humble"). I would tell you not to get to excited for it...but you should get excited for it.
Number Ten: Back to the Future: Main Theme (Alan Silvestri)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTGyeGgMpk8
A piece from one of my favorite movies of all. (Most of these are; part of what makes many of these movies my favorites are a combination of acting, character dynamics, story and soundtrack.) This piece is so brazen and brassy, so daring and dapper, it's impossible to think of a better score for the zany adventures of Marty McFly and Doc Brown, regardless of how inaccurate their predictions turned out to be. Although perhaps not so widely recognizable or as celebrated as some of the others on this list, my top ten wouldn't be complete without it.
Number Nine: Batman Begins: Molossus (Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZst_2xJHAI
Although not specifically the movie's theme, Molossus (named after a species of bat, as are all the tracks in this score) incorporates elements of much of the movie's score and heavily influences the soundtrack in all of of Nolan's trilogy. The track corroborates with this trilogy's inherent darkness, as compared to previously made Batman movies. The storyline is far more complicated, the villains far more complex, and even the heroes scarred on the inside from various events. They're certainly great films on their own, but compared with Arnold Schwarzenneger in a Mr. Freeze suit, they're practically Shakespeare.
Number Eight: Pirates of the Caribbean: Drink Up, Me Hearties (Hans Zimmer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkYko5OCnA4
This soundtrack, one of two on this list, does not come from a movie (or a series) I enjoy. Why don't I like Pirates of the Caribbean? It's not the shooting, which is excellent; it's not so much the characters themselves, which receive a great deal of development and grow over the course of the series; and it certainly isn't the brilliant score, written by Hans Zimmer. It's the plot. Oh, trust me, it's the plot. In its basics, the plot is fine. Respectable guy teams up with a ruffian to save his girl. A bit overused, but not bad. But certain devices of the plot are flawed, certain elements of the story don't make sense. Take the ending of the second film: everybody on the ship, which is being attacked by the Kraken, dies - with the exception of six key main characters. You don't really notice it the first time, since Jack Sparrow was among the casualties, but the second time, and all the times after that, it's blatantly obvious. But the score, from the genius of Hans Zimmer, is flawless; an icon in its own time.
Number Seven: Gladiator: Barbarian Horde (Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ5lQev52gk
If you don't feel like listening to nine minutes of music (albeit stunning music) while you wait for the movie's main theme, it starts around the nine-and-a-quarter minute mark (and is conveniently located in the first comment). Gladiator, an acclaimed box-office success story, deserves its notoriety. The characters are beautifully portrayed, their complicated relationships masterfully conveyed to the audience. Although the story may not be historically accurate, you begin to forget that once you get into the film. The plot has only a few insignificant holes that are more often than not overlooked entirely, and I only noticed them after watching the movie at least ten times. If you haven't seen the film, I wholeheartedly recommend it; I challenge you to to find any flaws in the film. And believe you me, you won't notice them if you don't look for them.
Number Six: Indiana Jones: Main Theme (John Williams)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bTpp8PQSog
Few soundtracks are more recognizable than this icon. Perhaps I speak only for myself, but when I think "Indiana Jones," this soundtrack is the first thing that comes to my mind. Composed by the master/father of the modern soundtrack, Indy's theme corresponds perfectly with the brash, outspoken character so convincingly portrayed by Harrison Ford, helping even the average viewer differentiate between Indy the badass adventurer (pardon my French) and Professor Henry Jones. And don't even think about mentioning that abomination with the aliens and Shia LaBoeuf; we're forgetting that that ever happened.
This is taking longer than I had anticipated; to keep from boring all of you, I'll continue my list next week. The final five - the best of the best from these past forty years, in my own humble opinion (although it may be a bit too late for me to call myself "humble"). I would tell you not to get to excited for it...but you should get excited for it.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Big Think Post: The Putin Article From May 2012 (And How Very Wrong It Was)
On Big Think today, I was reading an article about economics, when I noticed that the site was suggesting I read an article on a "similar" topic. Clicking the link, this article, from May of 2012, popped up:
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/watch-out-putin-spring-is-coming
The author of this article makes a multitude of predictions for the future of Russia. Let's list them, shall we? The author states that:
1) A "Russian Spring," presumably parallel to the Arab Spring of 2011, will occur if Putin does not increase reform.
2) To prevent such a Russian Spring, Putin will need to reform Russia's economy, infrastructure, industry and hardline political system.
3) Putin must consider human rights, democracy and rule of law when reforming the Russian government.
4) The educated middle class of Russia will become opposed to Putin's iron grip on Russia and call for change, which would catalyze a Russian Spring event.
5) Putin must consider the needs of the international community when he is considering reforms for the Russian government.
Now, let's discuss some of the things Putin has actually done since this article was written:
1) Putin has passed legislation preventing Americans from adopting Russian orphans.
2) Putin has passed legislature denying gays and lesbians virtually all rights. In fact, Putin has made it a crime for teachers and parents to tell their children that homosexuals exist.
3) Putin has cracked down on proponents of free speech and other democratic values we take for granted stateside, including bands and other liberal groups.
4) The educated middle class of Russia doesn't give a f**k.
5) To his credit, Putin diffused the Syrian crisis almost single-handedly. (That doesn't have anything to do with the rest of this post, but I feel it's worth mentioning.)
So, the author of this piece was dead wrong. Frankly, I'm not at all surprised. The main thing to remember here when we discuss why she was so wrong is a simple fact: RUSSIA IS NOT AMERICA. Take the author's prediction that the middle class would protest the hardline right-wing government and encourage liberal reform. The last time there was liberal reform in Russia, it was nineteen seventeen, and the middle class was losing their valuables (and in many cases, their lives) to the Bolsheviks. So under what frame of mind would we assume that the Russian upper class would care if laws and policies, that in many ways benefit them, are made by a government that doesn't meet western standards of democratic? Frankly, compared with the Soviet regime, Russia's modern government is too good to be true. Even the poor like it better than Communism; they brought the Soviet Union into this world, and they took it out just as easily. Nobody in Russia really cares that the government is suppressing human rights for the sake of order. Heck, very few people in the US care that our government does the same thing. The NSA's probably reading this post, as well as all my emails and text messages. Frankly, as long as they keep catching terrorists, they can put up a video feed in my room if they feel like it; I just don't care, and almost two-thirds of the nation agrees with me. We must also remember that, at the time of the article, Occupy Wall Street was still a big thing. More likely than not, this author naively assumed that such a movement would catch on around the world, not just here, and force Putin to reform his government. Just like it worked here, right? Because we have a socialist form of government that cares only about equality for all? While the Tea Party would say that we do, that isn't the point. All in all, I'm starting to think that the woman who wrote this article wasn't thinking straight when she sat down at her keyboard that day last May.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/watch-out-putin-spring-is-coming
The author of this article makes a multitude of predictions for the future of Russia. Let's list them, shall we? The author states that:
1) A "Russian Spring," presumably parallel to the Arab Spring of 2011, will occur if Putin does not increase reform.
2) To prevent such a Russian Spring, Putin will need to reform Russia's economy, infrastructure, industry and hardline political system.
3) Putin must consider human rights, democracy and rule of law when reforming the Russian government.
4) The educated middle class of Russia will become opposed to Putin's iron grip on Russia and call for change, which would catalyze a Russian Spring event.
5) Putin must consider the needs of the international community when he is considering reforms for the Russian government.
Now, let's discuss some of the things Putin has actually done since this article was written:
1) Putin has passed legislation preventing Americans from adopting Russian orphans.
2) Putin has passed legislature denying gays and lesbians virtually all rights. In fact, Putin has made it a crime for teachers and parents to tell their children that homosexuals exist.
3) Putin has cracked down on proponents of free speech and other democratic values we take for granted stateside, including bands and other liberal groups.
4) The educated middle class of Russia doesn't give a f**k.
5) To his credit, Putin diffused the Syrian crisis almost single-handedly. (That doesn't have anything to do with the rest of this post, but I feel it's worth mentioning.)
So, the author of this piece was dead wrong. Frankly, I'm not at all surprised. The main thing to remember here when we discuss why she was so wrong is a simple fact: RUSSIA IS NOT AMERICA. Take the author's prediction that the middle class would protest the hardline right-wing government and encourage liberal reform. The last time there was liberal reform in Russia, it was nineteen seventeen, and the middle class was losing their valuables (and in many cases, their lives) to the Bolsheviks. So under what frame of mind would we assume that the Russian upper class would care if laws and policies, that in many ways benefit them, are made by a government that doesn't meet western standards of democratic? Frankly, compared with the Soviet regime, Russia's modern government is too good to be true. Even the poor like it better than Communism; they brought the Soviet Union into this world, and they took it out just as easily. Nobody in Russia really cares that the government is suppressing human rights for the sake of order. Heck, very few people in the US care that our government does the same thing. The NSA's probably reading this post, as well as all my emails and text messages. Frankly, as long as they keep catching terrorists, they can put up a video feed in my room if they feel like it; I just don't care, and almost two-thirds of the nation agrees with me. We must also remember that, at the time of the article, Occupy Wall Street was still a big thing. More likely than not, this author naively assumed that such a movement would catch on around the world, not just here, and force Putin to reform his government. Just like it worked here, right? Because we have a socialist form of government that cares only about equality for all? While the Tea Party would say that we do, that isn't the point. All in all, I'm starting to think that the woman who wrote this article wasn't thinking straight when she sat down at her keyboard that day last May.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Free Post: Halloween History
Before I forget, I'm just going to mention that I misspelled the title as "Halloweed" rather than "Halloween." There's an idea in there just waiting to be developed. But that's irrelevant to my post. Forgive me.
As I hope you're all aware, a week from tomorrow is Halloween. However, I'm not entirely sure whether all of you are aware of the specifics of the holiday's origins. For those of you unaware, Halloween is perhaps Ireland's biggest export. Most aspects of Halloween we take for granted today came straight out of the island my grandparents called home. So, where does Halloween come from? The holiday itself is the evolved form of a harvest festival known as Samhain, which signified the end of the Celtic year. Samhain, lasting from sundown on October 31st to sundown the next day, was akin to today's Thanksgiving, with the Celts lighting bonfires to frighten away witches and demons. Later, when the Celtic world converted to Christianity, the first night became known as All Hallows' Eve; All Hallows' Day, better known as All Saints' Day (the Latin American Day of the Dead), was November first. Throughout Europe, but particularly in Spain and Ireland, it was believed that the souls of the dead, could return to their old homes. Only trick-or-treating, which was developed in Scotland, inhabited by ethnically Irish individuals (the Scots were a tribe from the north of Ireland who invaded Alba, the land know known as Scotland), originated outside of Ireland.
Perhaps the most intriguing Irish aspect of Halloween is the origin of the jack-o'-lantern. There are several different versions of the story, and nobody who knows of it seems to agree on what the true version is. All of the versions involve a character known as Stingy Jack, who tricks the devil in some way. In one version, Jack is a lazy farmer who tricks Satan into climbing an apple tree, which he proceeds to carve a crucifix on, rendering the devil powerless. In another version, Jack is a thief who tricks the devil into turning into a coin in order to play a prank on hapless churchgoers. The devil proceeds to become a coin and enters Jack's pocket, where he is forced next to a crucifix Jack happened to have. In both tales, in exchange for his freedom, Jack made the devil swear that he would never take his soul to Hell. However, when he died, he was denied access into heaven for his earthly crimes, and refused entry to hell for all eternity owing to his deal with the devil. The devil tossed him a coal of hellfire, which burns forever, to light his way through purgatory. Jack carved a turnip into a lantern, placed a coal inside, and became known as Jack of the Lantern, damned to wander purgatory for eternity.
My Irish grandfather, who spent the first thirty years of his life in the mountains and forests of County Kerry, told me a very different version of the tale. In his version, Jack was a seventeenth century English official living in Ireland. He was sadistic even by Tudor standards, which viewed the butcher of Catholic men, women and children as an acceptable practice, and one to be encouraged. The other English officials turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Irish people, so Jack's crimes only increased in number and severity. He became so ruthless and so vile, Satan himself left hell to bring Jack down to hell. Jack tricked the devil into climbing an apple tree as his last request, claiming he wanted a fruit from the top of the branches, and carved a crucifix into the bark, intending to strike a deal with the devil. However, because he had mocked God, the crucifix's power had no impact on Satan, who dragged Jack down to hell. Jack begged for the Irish citizens to help him, but they stood back and watched as he was pulled into the abyss. The devil tortured Jack long enough to turn him into a demon. Every year, on the anniversary of his death, the devil released Jack into the world to torment his enemies. Jack naturally picked the Irish as his targets, both for his own revenge and because of the Irish people's strong Catholic faith; he dared not cross the devil directly. The Irish used his fear to their advantage. Every year, on the anniversary of Jack's death, they would carve demonic faces into turnips and use them as lanterns outside their door. Jack would mistake these lanterns for the devil, and flee in fear. To this day, the Irish people place a similar lantern outside their door on the anniversary of Jack's death: October thirty-first.
Is this story true? It's probably easy for most of you to dismiss, especially if you don't have Irish blood, or haven't met your Irish ancestors, at which point you can't really consider yourself Irish. As for me, it's far more difficult to disregard. Ireland's wooded hills, which over a quarter of my brain sees as home, are a place where the lines between myth and history, separating faith from fact and distinguishing between science and magic are all very thin and blurred. Sometimes, these lines doesn't exist at all.
Happy week-and-a-day-before Halloween.
As I hope you're all aware, a week from tomorrow is Halloween. However, I'm not entirely sure whether all of you are aware of the specifics of the holiday's origins. For those of you unaware, Halloween is perhaps Ireland's biggest export. Most aspects of Halloween we take for granted today came straight out of the island my grandparents called home. So, where does Halloween come from? The holiday itself is the evolved form of a harvest festival known as Samhain, which signified the end of the Celtic year. Samhain, lasting from sundown on October 31st to sundown the next day, was akin to today's Thanksgiving, with the Celts lighting bonfires to frighten away witches and demons. Later, when the Celtic world converted to Christianity, the first night became known as All Hallows' Eve; All Hallows' Day, better known as All Saints' Day (the Latin American Day of the Dead), was November first. Throughout Europe, but particularly in Spain and Ireland, it was believed that the souls of the dead, could return to their old homes. Only trick-or-treating, which was developed in Scotland, inhabited by ethnically Irish individuals (the Scots were a tribe from the north of Ireland who invaded Alba, the land know known as Scotland), originated outside of Ireland.
Perhaps the most intriguing Irish aspect of Halloween is the origin of the jack-o'-lantern. There are several different versions of the story, and nobody who knows of it seems to agree on what the true version is. All of the versions involve a character known as Stingy Jack, who tricks the devil in some way. In one version, Jack is a lazy farmer who tricks Satan into climbing an apple tree, which he proceeds to carve a crucifix on, rendering the devil powerless. In another version, Jack is a thief who tricks the devil into turning into a coin in order to play a prank on hapless churchgoers. The devil proceeds to become a coin and enters Jack's pocket, where he is forced next to a crucifix Jack happened to have. In both tales, in exchange for his freedom, Jack made the devil swear that he would never take his soul to Hell. However, when he died, he was denied access into heaven for his earthly crimes, and refused entry to hell for all eternity owing to his deal with the devil. The devil tossed him a coal of hellfire, which burns forever, to light his way through purgatory. Jack carved a turnip into a lantern, placed a coal inside, and became known as Jack of the Lantern, damned to wander purgatory for eternity.
My Irish grandfather, who spent the first thirty years of his life in the mountains and forests of County Kerry, told me a very different version of the tale. In his version, Jack was a seventeenth century English official living in Ireland. He was sadistic even by Tudor standards, which viewed the butcher of Catholic men, women and children as an acceptable practice, and one to be encouraged. The other English officials turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Irish people, so Jack's crimes only increased in number and severity. He became so ruthless and so vile, Satan himself left hell to bring Jack down to hell. Jack tricked the devil into climbing an apple tree as his last request, claiming he wanted a fruit from the top of the branches, and carved a crucifix into the bark, intending to strike a deal with the devil. However, because he had mocked God, the crucifix's power had no impact on Satan, who dragged Jack down to hell. Jack begged for the Irish citizens to help him, but they stood back and watched as he was pulled into the abyss. The devil tortured Jack long enough to turn him into a demon. Every year, on the anniversary of his death, the devil released Jack into the world to torment his enemies. Jack naturally picked the Irish as his targets, both for his own revenge and because of the Irish people's strong Catholic faith; he dared not cross the devil directly. The Irish used his fear to their advantage. Every year, on the anniversary of Jack's death, they would carve demonic faces into turnips and use them as lanterns outside their door. Jack would mistake these lanterns for the devil, and flee in fear. To this day, the Irish people place a similar lantern outside their door on the anniversary of Jack's death: October thirty-first.
Is this story true? It's probably easy for most of you to dismiss, especially if you don't have Irish blood, or haven't met your Irish ancestors, at which point you can't really consider yourself Irish. As for me, it's far more difficult to disregard. Ireland's wooded hills, which over a quarter of my brain sees as home, are a place where the lines between myth and history, separating faith from fact and distinguishing between science and magic are all very thin and blurred. Sometimes, these lines doesn't exist at all.
Happy week-and-a-day-before Halloween.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Big Think: Can Nanotechnology Make Us Immortal?
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/ray-kurzweil-the-nanotech-revolution-will-bring-immortality
On Big Think this afternoon, I came across this article. Before you dismiss it as utter fallacy, I'd like to point out that this isn't a new idea; I've seen several documentaries on several networks that have discussed both the possibility and the potential of boosting the human immune system with nanobots. Said documentaries corroborate the claims made in this article. The article itself is extremely credible, quoting the futurist and inventor to whom it refers, a man by the name of Ray Kurzewil. Whether or not Kurzweil himself wholly credible is debatable, and requires more knowledge. However, the article establishes that this is a possibility, not fact, through careful word choice. For instance, the author states, "But IF life expansion becomes available..." rather than, "But WHEN life expansion becomes available...". A limited degree of subtlety establishes the author as a credible source; rather than stating that these claims are a fact, when they are in fact speculation, the author states Kurzweil's opinions and acknowledges their potential possibility. And the potential is there, make no mistake. Top scientists from around the globe have estimated that, within a few decades, we will have nanobots capable of being injected into the human body for an individual's entire life, preventing a specific type of illness without harming the individual. This theory opens up doors we have searched for, such as a cure for cancer; and doors we have barely even considered, such as a cure for rabies, HIV or other seemingly incurable infections. It's an appealing idea, isn't it? Get an injection of nanobots when you're a baby, and you'll never need to get treated for Tetanus? Or maybe even nanobots in the bloodstream to fight blood clots? That would certainly be popular in the US, especially when the future becomes the present. As for me, I could do with a set of nanobots to fight sunburn. I may hate technology in general, but I have to admit, it has potential.
The other question the article poses is whether such technology would become affordable to the masses, or solely to the one percent. The point made in the article is legitimate, that such life-expanding technologies (which would theoretically keep people young for longer periods of time) would initially be less effective, and only available to the extremely wealthy. The article cites the example of cell phones, which were initially extremely expensive and quite faulty by today's standards. The question here, assuming such technology is invented, is not whether it would improve over time; it's how long it would take for it to a) significantly improve, and b) become available to the majority of the population. We don't even know when such technology would come to be, assuming any form comes to be at all. Will any affordable version of such technology come to be in our lifetimes? It's doubtful at best. And even if it does, most of us will probably be on our deathbeds, and not overly interested in extending our lives for a few centuries. Now, if they could get working on a way to reverse aging - that'd be something. Will it happen? I'd say it probably will. Will it happen in time for it to impact us? I have my doubts. At any rate, I'm not getting my hopes up.
On Big Think this afternoon, I came across this article. Before you dismiss it as utter fallacy, I'd like to point out that this isn't a new idea; I've seen several documentaries on several networks that have discussed both the possibility and the potential of boosting the human immune system with nanobots. Said documentaries corroborate the claims made in this article. The article itself is extremely credible, quoting the futurist and inventor to whom it refers, a man by the name of Ray Kurzewil. Whether or not Kurzweil himself wholly credible is debatable, and requires more knowledge. However, the article establishes that this is a possibility, not fact, through careful word choice. For instance, the author states, "But IF life expansion becomes available..." rather than, "But WHEN life expansion becomes available...". A limited degree of subtlety establishes the author as a credible source; rather than stating that these claims are a fact, when they are in fact speculation, the author states Kurzweil's opinions and acknowledges their potential possibility. And the potential is there, make no mistake. Top scientists from around the globe have estimated that, within a few decades, we will have nanobots capable of being injected into the human body for an individual's entire life, preventing a specific type of illness without harming the individual. This theory opens up doors we have searched for, such as a cure for cancer; and doors we have barely even considered, such as a cure for rabies, HIV or other seemingly incurable infections. It's an appealing idea, isn't it? Get an injection of nanobots when you're a baby, and you'll never need to get treated for Tetanus? Or maybe even nanobots in the bloodstream to fight blood clots? That would certainly be popular in the US, especially when the future becomes the present. As for me, I could do with a set of nanobots to fight sunburn. I may hate technology in general, but I have to admit, it has potential.
The other question the article poses is whether such technology would become affordable to the masses, or solely to the one percent. The point made in the article is legitimate, that such life-expanding technologies (which would theoretically keep people young for longer periods of time) would initially be less effective, and only available to the extremely wealthy. The article cites the example of cell phones, which were initially extremely expensive and quite faulty by today's standards. The question here, assuming such technology is invented, is not whether it would improve over time; it's how long it would take for it to a) significantly improve, and b) become available to the majority of the population. We don't even know when such technology would come to be, assuming any form comes to be at all. Will any affordable version of such technology come to be in our lifetimes? It's doubtful at best. And even if it does, most of us will probably be on our deathbeds, and not overly interested in extending our lives for a few centuries. Now, if they could get working on a way to reverse aging - that'd be something. Will it happen? I'd say it probably will. Will it happen in time for it to impact us? I have my doubts. At any rate, I'm not getting my hopes up.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Library Post: Plant Plastics From Big Think
Today, on the Big Think website, I came across this article.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/a-durable-plastic-made-from-cellulose-and-water
Essentially, an Australian company has invented a plastic-type material they call Zeoform. What makes it unique? It's made almost entirely out of plant matter and water. The article explains the process, which entails the compressing of the plant matter, derived from fibrous plants, recycled paper or clothing scraps, and drying the material into pliable plastic-type sheets. The article goes onto explain the potential uses of such a material, and the beneficial impact it could possibly have, both environmentally and economically. They are also taking part in a crowdfunding campaign on the site Indiegogo rather than going corporate.
So, why is this important? Well, obviously, the implications of a biodegradable plastic-type material are astounding. If this material should become commonplace, we would no longer need to be wasting oil to make plastic. (For those of you who were unaware, plastics are processed from oil, and not the kind you cook Italian food with.) Sure, recycling goes on, and many companies are trying to lessen their environmental footprint...but that doesn't mean the footprint is gone. Take the Poland Spring bottles that claim that they use 35% less plastic than they used to (which they most likely do). That's great - their footprint is now 65% what it was. It's better than nothing, of course, and it's nice to know that they're making the effort; nevertheless, their environmental footprint is enormous, especially when you consider the number of people who buy Poland Spring water bottles. I have a huge case of them in my basement now, as do many Americans. And even though many Americans today recycle their plastic bottles, just as many do not. A significant minority go so far as to abandon their water bottles, and other such pollutants, in the middle of the natural world, a fact that downright disgusts me. If a plastic Poland Spring gets into the environment, it doesn't matter if it's 35% of what it used to be. Depending on the number of bottles and the location, the impact can be anywhere from nonexistent to devastating. Given the article's statement that the company producing the material Zeoform wishes to license itself to other companies rather than, shall we say, go commercial, it's quite possible that companies such as Poland Spring would adopt this eco-friendly alternative to plastic. This would create new jobs, which our debt-ridden economy desperately needs. Given that many people today wish to be more environmentally conscious, this would provide more revenue for Poland Spring, and allow them to pay for such careers. A win-win situation, don't you think? Of course, testing would need to be done, to ensure that such a product is safe for people, but in the end, I think that we may be onto something here.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/a-durable-plastic-made-from-cellulose-and-water
Essentially, an Australian company has invented a plastic-type material they call Zeoform. What makes it unique? It's made almost entirely out of plant matter and water. The article explains the process, which entails the compressing of the plant matter, derived from fibrous plants, recycled paper or clothing scraps, and drying the material into pliable plastic-type sheets. The article goes onto explain the potential uses of such a material, and the beneficial impact it could possibly have, both environmentally and economically. They are also taking part in a crowdfunding campaign on the site Indiegogo rather than going corporate.
So, why is this important? Well, obviously, the implications of a biodegradable plastic-type material are astounding. If this material should become commonplace, we would no longer need to be wasting oil to make plastic. (For those of you who were unaware, plastics are processed from oil, and not the kind you cook Italian food with.) Sure, recycling goes on, and many companies are trying to lessen their environmental footprint...but that doesn't mean the footprint is gone. Take the Poland Spring bottles that claim that they use 35% less plastic than they used to (which they most likely do). That's great - their footprint is now 65% what it was. It's better than nothing, of course, and it's nice to know that they're making the effort; nevertheless, their environmental footprint is enormous, especially when you consider the number of people who buy Poland Spring water bottles. I have a huge case of them in my basement now, as do many Americans. And even though many Americans today recycle their plastic bottles, just as many do not. A significant minority go so far as to abandon their water bottles, and other such pollutants, in the middle of the natural world, a fact that downright disgusts me. If a plastic Poland Spring gets into the environment, it doesn't matter if it's 35% of what it used to be. Depending on the number of bottles and the location, the impact can be anywhere from nonexistent to devastating. Given the article's statement that the company producing the material Zeoform wishes to license itself to other companies rather than, shall we say, go commercial, it's quite possible that companies such as Poland Spring would adopt this eco-friendly alternative to plastic. This would create new jobs, which our debt-ridden economy desperately needs. Given that many people today wish to be more environmentally conscious, this would provide more revenue for Poland Spring, and allow them to pay for such careers. A win-win situation, don't you think? Of course, testing would need to be done, to ensure that such a product is safe for people, but in the end, I think that we may be onto something here.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Free Post: Why Do We Find Things Funny?
Last night, I was watching one of my favorite movies of all time, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. If you haven't seen it, it's all on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOfI88NKRzY. Stop whatever you happen to be doing and watch the whole thing from start to finish. It's one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, but last night, it occurred to me that I have absolutely no idea why I find it, or anything else, funny. Just a heads-up - this post will be composed primarily of spoilers from the movie.
So why do we find things funny? Seems like a simple question at first, but think about it a bit. I dare you to come up with one good reason that could not possibly be contested. For example, the first thing I would have come up with is that the things we find funny are ridiculous or idiotic. This isn't necessarily true, though. If I came into school tomorrow with a swastika painted on my face, it would be completely ridiculous and just about as stupid as you could get. But nobody would find it funny, would they? (If you disagree with that statement, do yourself a favor and seek counseling.) And things don't necessarily have to be ridiculous to be funny, do they? For example, when somebody trips in an embarrassing way (usually me), people generally laugh. At the same time, this is something completely reasonable that I'd bet has happened to just about everybody out there. Of course, that's not to say that ridiculous things can't be funny. Take the scenes in Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the tenacious, invincible Black Knight, the trial of the purported witch, and the Knights Who Say Ni. But the reason these ridiculous scenes are so funny are that all the actors involved stay in character. Graham Chapman's (Arthur's) reactions when the armless Black Knight attacks are completely natural, which is, to me, what makes the scene as funny as it is. And the stupidity of the peasants accusing the woman of witchcraft is done just enough, not in excess. Would it be funny if they overdid it?...yes, it would be. But would it be as funny? I don't think so. And of course, the Knights Who Say Ni...who say ridiculous words that cause people pain (thanks to the ingenious acting of Graham Chapman and Terry Jones), who demand ridiculous sacrifices to horror movie sound cues (two shrubberies and a tree cut down by a herring), and who are weakened by common everyday words such as "it." As with the witch scene, the amount of ridiculousness is just right, not over- or underdone.
I feel as though another one of the most significant factors in humor is context. Going back to my example of the swastika, if such an event occurred in our daily life, it would definitely not be seen as amusing. But in a Mel Brooks-style scenario, which would likely involve a clearly fictional Nazi blundering around and trying to fit in, it would most likely be seen as funny. In the right context, you can make anything funny, as evidenced by Tim the Enchanter and his warnings. When Tim warns the knights that death awaits them, it wouldn't be funny save for two things; the fact that Tim is spitting in Arthur's face half the time, and the fact that his mannerisms are completely ridiculous. (For more on mannerisms, see the next paragraph.) When we see the context (a small furry rabbit), Tim's warnings become all the more humorous. When we see that Tim was actually telling the truth, the whole thing becomes even funnier (aided by Arthur's delicately placed line, "JESUS CHRIST!").
To an arguably greater extent, I feel as though an actor's mannerisms and tone, and even appearance, can be used to an unbelievable effect in humor. Perhaps the best example I can think of is the French taunting that the knights endure on their quest. John Cleese's character is so ridiculously over-the-top and worked up, it's almost amazing that the character isn't viewed (at least by me) as overdone. I feel the reason I find the French Taunter so funny is that his mannerisms corroborate his over-the-top nature. Couple that with lines like, "I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper," and, "Silly King! You tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms," and finally, my personal favorite, "I'll wave my private parts at your undies, you cheesy lot of second-hand electric donkey bottom batterers," all delivered in one of the most ridiculously stereotypical nasal French accents imaginable. I doubt that anyone who's ever seen this movie (and doesn't hail directly from France) hasn't laughed at this scene.
Are these the only things that make the things we find funny funny? Not by a long shot, no. These are just the three I personally feel have the greatest impact on what we view as funny. You could argue for or against any of these, or any others. But frankly, it's not as important to the audience why we find things in comedies funny; what's important is that we do.
So why do we find things funny? Seems like a simple question at first, but think about it a bit. I dare you to come up with one good reason that could not possibly be contested. For example, the first thing I would have come up with is that the things we find funny are ridiculous or idiotic. This isn't necessarily true, though. If I came into school tomorrow with a swastika painted on my face, it would be completely ridiculous and just about as stupid as you could get. But nobody would find it funny, would they? (If you disagree with that statement, do yourself a favor and seek counseling.) And things don't necessarily have to be ridiculous to be funny, do they? For example, when somebody trips in an embarrassing way (usually me), people generally laugh. At the same time, this is something completely reasonable that I'd bet has happened to just about everybody out there. Of course, that's not to say that ridiculous things can't be funny. Take the scenes in Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the tenacious, invincible Black Knight, the trial of the purported witch, and the Knights Who Say Ni. But the reason these ridiculous scenes are so funny are that all the actors involved stay in character. Graham Chapman's (Arthur's) reactions when the armless Black Knight attacks are completely natural, which is, to me, what makes the scene as funny as it is. And the stupidity of the peasants accusing the woman of witchcraft is done just enough, not in excess. Would it be funny if they overdid it?...yes, it would be. But would it be as funny? I don't think so. And of course, the Knights Who Say Ni...who say ridiculous words that cause people pain (thanks to the ingenious acting of Graham Chapman and Terry Jones), who demand ridiculous sacrifices to horror movie sound cues (two shrubberies and a tree cut down by a herring), and who are weakened by common everyday words such as "it." As with the witch scene, the amount of ridiculousness is just right, not over- or underdone.
I feel as though another one of the most significant factors in humor is context. Going back to my example of the swastika, if such an event occurred in our daily life, it would definitely not be seen as amusing. But in a Mel Brooks-style scenario, which would likely involve a clearly fictional Nazi blundering around and trying to fit in, it would most likely be seen as funny. In the right context, you can make anything funny, as evidenced by Tim the Enchanter and his warnings. When Tim warns the knights that death awaits them, it wouldn't be funny save for two things; the fact that Tim is spitting in Arthur's face half the time, and the fact that his mannerisms are completely ridiculous. (For more on mannerisms, see the next paragraph.) When we see the context (a small furry rabbit), Tim's warnings become all the more humorous. When we see that Tim was actually telling the truth, the whole thing becomes even funnier (aided by Arthur's delicately placed line, "JESUS CHRIST!").
To an arguably greater extent, I feel as though an actor's mannerisms and tone, and even appearance, can be used to an unbelievable effect in humor. Perhaps the best example I can think of is the French taunting that the knights endure on their quest. John Cleese's character is so ridiculously over-the-top and worked up, it's almost amazing that the character isn't viewed (at least by me) as overdone. I feel the reason I find the French Taunter so funny is that his mannerisms corroborate his over-the-top nature. Couple that with lines like, "I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper," and, "Silly King! You tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms," and finally, my personal favorite, "I'll wave my private parts at your undies, you cheesy lot of second-hand electric donkey bottom batterers," all delivered in one of the most ridiculously stereotypical nasal French accents imaginable. I doubt that anyone who's ever seen this movie (and doesn't hail directly from France) hasn't laughed at this scene.
Are these the only things that make the things we find funny funny? Not by a long shot, no. These are just the three I personally feel have the greatest impact on what we view as funny. You could argue for or against any of these, or any others. But frankly, it's not as important to the audience why we find things in comedies funny; what's important is that we do.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Library Post: Big Think: Do Politics Impact Mathematical Ability
http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/do-political-beliefs-affect-mathematical-ability
This is perhaps, one of the more interesting articles I've ever found on the internet. While the article itself isn't very long, it is certainly very credible. Discussing the ways in which political controversy affects an individual's skills in regards to everyday life, the article establishes itself as credible right off the bat, providing a link to a thirty-six page article on the experiment performed. In addition, it provides a video discussing the topic in great detail, which I highly recommend that you watch. It's an English guy in a seemingly professional setting, so it comes across as a legitimate source right off the bat. The guy explains the research, done at Yale University, in a straightforward, concise manner. Essentially, this test aimed to determine the ways in which a person's political views can impact their ability to solve math problems. The participants were first given an impartial math problem, relating to the use of skin cream and how it could impact rashes. The participants were given a pair of charts with values and asked to explain whether the use of a hypothetical cream helped people with rashes. For one of the charts, the cream would be more helpful; in another chart, the cream would be less helpful. This first problem assessed the participant's overall math skills. The second question, which mirrored the first, was about gun control. Of the two charts given to the participants, the first suggested that increased gun control lowered crime rate, and the second suggested that an increase in gun control raised the crime rate. People performed worse on the second question than the first question, as a result of their political views; participants who had identified themselves as conservative got results that suggested that increasing gun control raised crime rates for both charts, while those liberal participants arrived at answers suggesting that increasing gun control lowered crime rates for both charts. This scenario demonstrates the true power of human tenacity - when we are strongly opinionated or biased in favor (or against) a particular thing, we are less likely to listen to reason and more likely to take actions that reflect our support of our views. This is certainly very applicable for us today, what with the government shutdown and the threat of chaos knocking on our door. Maybe it's time we reconsidered what we're willing to negotiate.
This is perhaps, one of the more interesting articles I've ever found on the internet. While the article itself isn't very long, it is certainly very credible. Discussing the ways in which political controversy affects an individual's skills in regards to everyday life, the article establishes itself as credible right off the bat, providing a link to a thirty-six page article on the experiment performed. In addition, it provides a video discussing the topic in great detail, which I highly recommend that you watch. It's an English guy in a seemingly professional setting, so it comes across as a legitimate source right off the bat. The guy explains the research, done at Yale University, in a straightforward, concise manner. Essentially, this test aimed to determine the ways in which a person's political views can impact their ability to solve math problems. The participants were first given an impartial math problem, relating to the use of skin cream and how it could impact rashes. The participants were given a pair of charts with values and asked to explain whether the use of a hypothetical cream helped people with rashes. For one of the charts, the cream would be more helpful; in another chart, the cream would be less helpful. This first problem assessed the participant's overall math skills. The second question, which mirrored the first, was about gun control. Of the two charts given to the participants, the first suggested that increased gun control lowered crime rate, and the second suggested that an increase in gun control raised the crime rate. People performed worse on the second question than the first question, as a result of their political views; participants who had identified themselves as conservative got results that suggested that increasing gun control raised crime rates for both charts, while those liberal participants arrived at answers suggesting that increasing gun control lowered crime rates for both charts. This scenario demonstrates the true power of human tenacity - when we are strongly opinionated or biased in favor (or against) a particular thing, we are less likely to listen to reason and more likely to take actions that reflect our support of our views. This is certainly very applicable for us today, what with the government shutdown and the threat of chaos knocking on our door. Maybe it's time we reconsidered what we're willing to negotiate.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Free Post: Young Frankenstein, The Producers, and other Mel Brooks-y Goodness
Am I the only one who didn't know there was a Young Frankenstein musical?
In case I'm not, there is. What's more, the music and lyrics, as well as the book, were all written by the living legend himself, Mel Brooks. If you don't know who he is...I'm sorry, you do not deserve to call yourself human. Mel Brooks is the ultimate jack-of-all-trades, and the master of several, including theater and film. Well known for both original pieces and satirical parodies, Mel's works include films such as History of the World, Part One (there was never a part two), High Anxiety (a hilarious spoof of multiple Hitchcock films), Spaceballs (a Star Wars satire with an all-star cast), and a silent movie called Silent Movie, with a single spoken line. Many of Mel's movies, including Robin Hood: Men in Tights and History of the World, Part One, include a musical aspect, primarily for comedic relief. However, these short musical numbers clearly involved a great deal of planning, and more than a bit of musical skill on Mel's part. Mel even manages to make a subject as distinctly un-funny as the Spanish Inquisition into something anybody can laugh at. (Mel is Jewish, so that makes it all okay, right?) See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg
Part of Mel's brilliance is that he can make things go from macabre to absurdly funny with the greatest of ease, which he shows in his most famous musical, The Producers. Virtually everybody who knows theater knows this show, and many think fondly of it. Few people know it for the Nazi characters and ideas throughout, namely because Mel twists these elements of the plot to his own advantage and gets plenty of laughs from the audience. Take this example, of the song "Springtime for Hitler" and the scene that follows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo. Once again, Mel's brilliance is that he can make the play-within-the-play switch from Nazi propaganda to a mockery of the Third Reich and all it stood for. Gene Wilder, one of the stars of the original version of The Producers, also starred as Victor Frankenstein's grandson in Young Frankenstein, arguably one of Mel's best movies and one of my personal favorite films of all time. It is, in its loosest sense, based upon the Frankenstein movies we've seen in class. However, it is much different, in the plot, the relationships between the characters, and, of course, the humor. Now that there's a musical version of it, penned by Mel himself, which has apparently been compared to The Producers, this is certainly something that I'd like to see. Maybe there's a version on YouTube...
In case I'm not, there is. What's more, the music and lyrics, as well as the book, were all written by the living legend himself, Mel Brooks. If you don't know who he is...I'm sorry, you do not deserve to call yourself human. Mel Brooks is the ultimate jack-of-all-trades, and the master of several, including theater and film. Well known for both original pieces and satirical parodies, Mel's works include films such as History of the World, Part One (there was never a part two), High Anxiety (a hilarious spoof of multiple Hitchcock films), Spaceballs (a Star Wars satire with an all-star cast), and a silent movie called Silent Movie, with a single spoken line. Many of Mel's movies, including Robin Hood: Men in Tights and History of the World, Part One, include a musical aspect, primarily for comedic relief. However, these short musical numbers clearly involved a great deal of planning, and more than a bit of musical skill on Mel's part. Mel even manages to make a subject as distinctly un-funny as the Spanish Inquisition into something anybody can laugh at. (Mel is Jewish, so that makes it all okay, right?) See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg
Part of Mel's brilliance is that he can make things go from macabre to absurdly funny with the greatest of ease, which he shows in his most famous musical, The Producers. Virtually everybody who knows theater knows this show, and many think fondly of it. Few people know it for the Nazi characters and ideas throughout, namely because Mel twists these elements of the plot to his own advantage and gets plenty of laughs from the audience. Take this example, of the song "Springtime for Hitler" and the scene that follows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo. Once again, Mel's brilliance is that he can make the play-within-the-play switch from Nazi propaganda to a mockery of the Third Reich and all it stood for. Gene Wilder, one of the stars of the original version of The Producers, also starred as Victor Frankenstein's grandson in Young Frankenstein, arguably one of Mel's best movies and one of my personal favorite films of all time. It is, in its loosest sense, based upon the Frankenstein movies we've seen in class. However, it is much different, in the plot, the relationships between the characters, and, of course, the humor. Now that there's a musical version of it, penned by Mel himself, which has apparently been compared to The Producers, this is certainly something that I'd like to see. Maybe there's a version on YouTube...
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Free Post: "Remakes" of Classics (Spoiler Alert)
In class, we've been watching Frankenstein movies lately. Before we watched the original film, Luke forewarned us that it was made for a different audience, and that we would have to make our judgements with this in mind. That got me thinking about how Frankenstein would be presented if it were remade today. Conveniently enough, an ideal example of just such an instance exists today, in the classic horror flick The Wolf Man.
Released in 1941, this film was the start of the modern movie legend of the werewolf. In this film, the titular character, portrayed by Lon Chaney, Jr., is Larry Talbot, a successful businessman returning to his home in Wales after the death of his brother, who reconciles with his estranged father. Larry becomes romantically interested in a local girl named Gwen as he grows closer to his hometown. However, after a night visiting local gypsies, Gwen's friend is mauled by a wolf and dies. Larry kills the wolf, but is bitten first. Returning to the gypsy camp, he learns that the wolf was a gypsy named Bela, whose body was found in place of the wolf's, and he is suspected of murder. An old gypsy woman warns Larry that he will become a werewolf (which he does) when next the moon is full. In the end, after forty minutes of lycanthropic mischief, Larry (as the Wolf Man) is bludgeoned to death with a silver cane by his father. This classic was remade in 2010, and retitled The Wolfman. The title is the first of many changes in the movie to make it appealing to a modern audience. In this version of the film, Larry Talbot, played by Benicio del Toro, is returning home after the death of his brother, but that's where most of the similarities stop. In this version, Larry's brother was torn to death by an unknown animal, which Larry proceeds to hunt (and is bitten by). Gwen is his brother's widow, and the two become romantically involved. Larry's father, as opposed to being a kindhearted old gentleman, is a sadistic sociopath (later revealed to be the werewolf who killed Larry's brother and mother). Not surprisingly, Anthony Hopkins was chosen to play this role. Larry transforms, is accused of murder (rightly so), and is taken to a mental hospital in London, where he transforms and massacres a room full of doctors and slaughters quite a few civilians. Larry returns home, kills his father in a werewolf fight while their manor burns, and chases Gwen through the forest, where he temporarily regains control of himself before Gwen shoots him with a silver bullet.
The differences between the two versions of the film are astonishing. In the original, none of the characters are truly evil, and most of them try to help each other out. Larry's father and neighbors do all that they can to help him through what they see as a time of illness. The special effects, for the time, were cutting-edge, and even today, they don't look half-bad. Lon Chaney, Jr. portrays the madness of the beast extraordinarily. Benicio del Toro, on the other hand, lends a bloodthirsty, savage malice to the character, who spends less time tromping through the forest with a bemused expression on his face and more time ripping out throats and tearing off heads. In addition, whereas Chaney's transformation is quick and painless, del Toro's Talbot has to suffer through a full minute of agony and pain while he transforms. The reason for this, in addition to some of the other ways the remake is changed, is the fact that the werewolf legend has evolved since The Wolf Man. Today's werewolves are more animalistic, more violent, and more destructive than Chaney's wolf man, all three of which are traits of del Toro's werewolf, which spends half its screen time roaring at its next victim, blood dripping from its maw. Also, as in other werewolf movies from more recent times, del Toro's monster is able to temporarily recall snippets from his human life, like familiar faces and those he loves. Chaney's creature, more of a madman than a beast, lacks this capacity entirely.
How would Frankenstein be different if it were made today? Well, I think that the monster's torment at Fritz/Igor's hands would have been much longer and much more graphic. I don't doubt that we would have gotten more than one scene of Frankenstein and his flunky hacking up dead bodies for their experiments. The monster's accidental murder of the little girl probably would be much more graphic, and quite possibly would involve some other character. In all honesty, Fritz/Igor's death would have been much bloodier and much rougher, and the doctor probably would have fought for quite some time before he succumbed. And, as with The Wolf Man and its remake, the relationships between the characters, as well as their own personal traits, would likely be very different from the original's. Especially the monster.
If you're not convinced, here's a trailer for the original film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsrFMBWRC1M
And here's a trailer for the 2010 remake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPieOzIA7NM
Released in 1941, this film was the start of the modern movie legend of the werewolf. In this film, the titular character, portrayed by Lon Chaney, Jr., is Larry Talbot, a successful businessman returning to his home in Wales after the death of his brother, who reconciles with his estranged father. Larry becomes romantically interested in a local girl named Gwen as he grows closer to his hometown. However, after a night visiting local gypsies, Gwen's friend is mauled by a wolf and dies. Larry kills the wolf, but is bitten first. Returning to the gypsy camp, he learns that the wolf was a gypsy named Bela, whose body was found in place of the wolf's, and he is suspected of murder. An old gypsy woman warns Larry that he will become a werewolf (which he does) when next the moon is full. In the end, after forty minutes of lycanthropic mischief, Larry (as the Wolf Man) is bludgeoned to death with a silver cane by his father. This classic was remade in 2010, and retitled The Wolfman. The title is the first of many changes in the movie to make it appealing to a modern audience. In this version of the film, Larry Talbot, played by Benicio del Toro, is returning home after the death of his brother, but that's where most of the similarities stop. In this version, Larry's brother was torn to death by an unknown animal, which Larry proceeds to hunt (and is bitten by). Gwen is his brother's widow, and the two become romantically involved. Larry's father, as opposed to being a kindhearted old gentleman, is a sadistic sociopath (later revealed to be the werewolf who killed Larry's brother and mother). Not surprisingly, Anthony Hopkins was chosen to play this role. Larry transforms, is accused of murder (rightly so), and is taken to a mental hospital in London, where he transforms and massacres a room full of doctors and slaughters quite a few civilians. Larry returns home, kills his father in a werewolf fight while their manor burns, and chases Gwen through the forest, where he temporarily regains control of himself before Gwen shoots him with a silver bullet.
The differences between the two versions of the film are astonishing. In the original, none of the characters are truly evil, and most of them try to help each other out. Larry's father and neighbors do all that they can to help him through what they see as a time of illness. The special effects, for the time, were cutting-edge, and even today, they don't look half-bad. Lon Chaney, Jr. portrays the madness of the beast extraordinarily. Benicio del Toro, on the other hand, lends a bloodthirsty, savage malice to the character, who spends less time tromping through the forest with a bemused expression on his face and more time ripping out throats and tearing off heads. In addition, whereas Chaney's transformation is quick and painless, del Toro's Talbot has to suffer through a full minute of agony and pain while he transforms. The reason for this, in addition to some of the other ways the remake is changed, is the fact that the werewolf legend has evolved since The Wolf Man. Today's werewolves are more animalistic, more violent, and more destructive than Chaney's wolf man, all three of which are traits of del Toro's werewolf, which spends half its screen time roaring at its next victim, blood dripping from its maw. Also, as in other werewolf movies from more recent times, del Toro's monster is able to temporarily recall snippets from his human life, like familiar faces and those he loves. Chaney's creature, more of a madman than a beast, lacks this capacity entirely.
How would Frankenstein be different if it were made today? Well, I think that the monster's torment at Fritz/Igor's hands would have been much longer and much more graphic. I don't doubt that we would have gotten more than one scene of Frankenstein and his flunky hacking up dead bodies for their experiments. The monster's accidental murder of the little girl probably would be much more graphic, and quite possibly would involve some other character. In all honesty, Fritz/Igor's death would have been much bloodier and much rougher, and the doctor probably would have fought for quite some time before he succumbed. And, as with The Wolf Man and its remake, the relationships between the characters, as well as their own personal traits, would likely be very different from the original's. Especially the monster.
If you're not convinced, here's a trailer for the original film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsrFMBWRC1M
And here's a trailer for the 2010 remake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPieOzIA7NM
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Library Post: Big Think: Modern Marketing Concepts
http://bigthink.com/amped/struggling-to-stay-relevant-incorporate-these-cultural-marketing-concepts
This article automatically appealed to me because of the marketing project that we've been doing; I thought perhaps this article would have some degree of relevance to our project, and perhaps give us some ideas as to how to proceed on this topic. While I can't say that this site would be overly helpful to us, although perhaps another individual could come up with a convincing argument in its favor, it is certainly a very interesting piece. The article itself entails four strategies that modern corporations use to capture the attention of today's internet-addicted consumers.
The first strategy, which deals with timing, strikes me as being extremely important for any company aiming its products at teenagers (which we are not, hence my previous statements). The article states that when to state something is more important than where or how. I do not necessarily believe that this is the case now; however, I do believe that sooner rather than later, this will become the case, based on the way our society is progressing, with our ever-increasing demands for instant gratification and lack of patience in virtually every sphere. A problem I have with this section of the article is that it mentions only how timing influences the way companies react in lieu of a tragedy, rather than how timing influences our opinions in our everyday lives; which I feel is more than slightly unhelpful.
The second strategy, the use of symbols, is more applicable to our society today than the importance of timing. The symbols, in this case, are the popular captioned pictures known as Memes, which have been circulating around the Internet for the last few years. The idea that the Memes that a person enjoys speaks volumes about their personality is fantastical, and yet incredibly simple. And I personally have no doubt that it is actually true. If you think that marijuana should be legalized, you won't enjoy a Meme about how people who share your views are idiots. Perhaps this isn't the best example, but the point is the same. Thanks to Facebook, anyone in the world, including marketing agents at big-name companies, can see what Memes you like, and derive conclusions about your personality from that. No doubt, as the article suggests, there are marketing agents working round the clock at corporations across the globes, trying to analyze what a person's taste in Memes says about their personality.
I personally have multiple problems with the third section of the article, entitled "Hunch Farming." In this section, the author claims that "Science is confirming the power of the collective conscious and intuition. For example, social chatter spiked globally in the period leading up to the 2011 tsunami and before 9/11, like birds instinctively warning the forest of a predator." That's nice, author. Would you mind telling us where you got this information of yours? If a scientist told you that your head would explode if you didn't pour molten lead down your shirt, would you believe them? The lack of credibility in this section astounds me. Beyond this, the author fails to explain what "hunches" are. Does she mean in the "I have a hunch," sense, or the "I'm hunched over" sense? The author fails miserably in conveying whatever point she was trying to make in this section.
The author's fourth section, on the importance of a target audience's mood, is much more credible, largely owing to the fact that the author acknowledges that this technology is only in its infancy and very expensive so far. She cites Toyota's use of mood reading technology to keep drivers in a better mood. In this case, the author doesn't act as though she has a comprehensive knowledge of the topic without presenting evidence necessary to prove this point. She explains how this will most likely become an important factor in determining consumer choices at some point in the future, and I'd be inclined to believe her.
Well, I doubt that this article would be any help to us in our marketing campaign. However, it's certainly a tribute to the importance of credibility in anything publicly published.
This article automatically appealed to me because of the marketing project that we've been doing; I thought perhaps this article would have some degree of relevance to our project, and perhaps give us some ideas as to how to proceed on this topic. While I can't say that this site would be overly helpful to us, although perhaps another individual could come up with a convincing argument in its favor, it is certainly a very interesting piece. The article itself entails four strategies that modern corporations use to capture the attention of today's internet-addicted consumers.
The first strategy, which deals with timing, strikes me as being extremely important for any company aiming its products at teenagers (which we are not, hence my previous statements). The article states that when to state something is more important than where or how. I do not necessarily believe that this is the case now; however, I do believe that sooner rather than later, this will become the case, based on the way our society is progressing, with our ever-increasing demands for instant gratification and lack of patience in virtually every sphere. A problem I have with this section of the article is that it mentions only how timing influences the way companies react in lieu of a tragedy, rather than how timing influences our opinions in our everyday lives; which I feel is more than slightly unhelpful.
The second strategy, the use of symbols, is more applicable to our society today than the importance of timing. The symbols, in this case, are the popular captioned pictures known as Memes, which have been circulating around the Internet for the last few years. The idea that the Memes that a person enjoys speaks volumes about their personality is fantastical, and yet incredibly simple. And I personally have no doubt that it is actually true. If you think that marijuana should be legalized, you won't enjoy a Meme about how people who share your views are idiots. Perhaps this isn't the best example, but the point is the same. Thanks to Facebook, anyone in the world, including marketing agents at big-name companies, can see what Memes you like, and derive conclusions about your personality from that. No doubt, as the article suggests, there are marketing agents working round the clock at corporations across the globes, trying to analyze what a person's taste in Memes says about their personality.
I personally have multiple problems with the third section of the article, entitled "Hunch Farming." In this section, the author claims that "Science is confirming the power of the collective conscious and intuition. For example, social chatter spiked globally in the period leading up to the 2011 tsunami and before 9/11, like birds instinctively warning the forest of a predator." That's nice, author. Would you mind telling us where you got this information of yours? If a scientist told you that your head would explode if you didn't pour molten lead down your shirt, would you believe them? The lack of credibility in this section astounds me. Beyond this, the author fails to explain what "hunches" are. Does she mean in the "I have a hunch," sense, or the "I'm hunched over" sense? The author fails miserably in conveying whatever point she was trying to make in this section.
The author's fourth section, on the importance of a target audience's mood, is much more credible, largely owing to the fact that the author acknowledges that this technology is only in its infancy and very expensive so far. She cites Toyota's use of mood reading technology to keep drivers in a better mood. In this case, the author doesn't act as though she has a comprehensive knowledge of the topic without presenting evidence necessary to prove this point. She explains how this will most likely become an important factor in determining consumer choices at some point in the future, and I'd be inclined to believe her.
Well, I doubt that this article would be any help to us in our marketing campaign. However, it's certainly a tribute to the importance of credibility in anything publicly published.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Free Post: Prepositions Vidcast
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)