A Less Wordy Venue

To those watching/reading, I've decided to move shop to http://logicshouldcountformore.blogspot.com. I think that rolls off the tongue (and mind) a little easier. I'd be grateful if you'd follow me there.

The Movies That Never Were

Some say that the advent of DVD and the mainstreaming of "special features" has changed the way we watch movies. This is both accurate and unfortunate. Before DVD, when Laserdisc was the aficionados' format of choice, commentaries and other features were similarly aimed at aficionados. Moreover, because the movies that got this kind of enhanced treatment tended to be acknowledged classics, the additional material was often of scholarly interest presented by film historians as often as lead actors.

DVD changed that dynamic very quickly. Not only did prices start relatively low on the software, with just a $5-10 premium over the same title on VHS being commonplace, the hardware also dropped rapidly in price. From the mainstream introduction of the format in 1997 to 2000, players went from costing hundreds of dollars to under $100 for a decent quality machine. Crossing that $100 threshold seemed to break a psychological barrier with consumers as well, because within a few years VHS would be all but extinct.

Certainly, a big part of that shift was the simple fact that the sound and picture were much better than VHS (though not as good as Laserdisc, according to many), but the special features were also a key selling point. Sometimes they seemed to be only selling point, something I saw firsthand as a video buyer for Borders when movies (e.g. 1998's Lost in Space) often would be solicited to us more on the basis of the bonus features than the sub-par movies whose names were on the case.

Which brings us back to the question of whether special features are really a good thing for movie watchers. I've always had mixed feelings about special features. The behind-the-scenes programs are generally self-congratulatory puff-pieces, the deleted scenes reveal themselves to be deleted for a reason and then there are the Death Star of bonus features, director (and/or writer/producer/actor) commentaries. It takes a lot of work to make a movie, even a bad one, but the fact is that for all their hard work most of these people just aren't very interesting in this context.

To the extent that commentaries are interesting, it's usually when the participants talk about how the movie as produced differed from the original intention. It's here that we find the most vexing aspect of DVD special features, rather than adding dimension to the movie on the DVD, they tend to focus attention more on some alternate version of the movie that never was. If it's not deleted scenes showing us things whose removal typically make the movie better, it's a writer telling us in an interview or (worse yet) a commentary about changes that were made to their original vision. Whether or not those changes made the movie better or worse, the bottom line is that they're still talking about a movie that doesn't exist.

This wouldn't be so bad if DVD special special features weren't the focus of so much of what passes for film criticism these days. Even in major newspapers, which should know better, it's not uncommon for "reviews" to spend 90% of their text assessing the DVD features and barely 10% addressing why the film is worth talking about in the first place (as in the Washington Post's recent review of Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times).

One of the silver linings of the current shift to viewing movies online is that special features seem to be less of a focus. While I'm not sure that computer screens or Internet-enabled TVs are the best way to to get a film to a viewer, a process that puts the focus back on the work itself feels like a step in the right direction.

How's That For a "Government Takeover"?

What I'd really like for Christmas is for the shameless and unsubstantiated right-wing lies about "government takeovers" of seemingly everything will start falling on deaf ears. Seriously, it's stunning how oblivious a large chunk of the public is about the reality of these things. As the "tea party" crowd heaps lie upon lie about nationalizing GM or banks, it stuns me how few people realize that these government loans are being paid back with interest. I certainly agree that he government taking ownership stakes in private companies is less than ideal, but surely any sensible person can see these were exceptional (i.e. exceptionally bad) circumstances. More to the point, what was the preferable alternative to the government bail-out of GM? The Obama administration has taken so much flack for not paying enough attention to the dire employment situation, that it's beyond offensive that hose same critics turn around and criticize a measure that clearly saved jobs - ascribing political motives because many of those jobs were in a union that tends to lean Democratic. On reflection, the driving force behind this is actually quite simple. If the right wing pundits actually had an honest debate on the facts, they'd lose. Merry Christmas, America!

A Christmas Story for Recovering Cynics

Here's a Christmas trifle that involves no actual eating of trifle. I love the idea of Santa Claus and what he represents. At the same time, Christmas is still a day of sadness for so many. I wanted to see if I could split the difference in script form.

That You, Santa? (DPK 2010)

SAM stumbles into her living room with an unwieldy box, which she sets it down before sitting down herself.

SAM: Why didn’t I buy this pre-assembled?

Something, or rather someone, drops down the chimney. Some call him Santa but tonight he goes by NICK.

NICK: Oh, oh, oh!

Nick dusts himself off then looks around and sees Sam.

NICK: What are you doing here?

SAM: It’s my house!

NICK: Well, it’s Christmas Eve, and I have work to do.

SAM: As you can see, so do I.

NICK: Yes, but…you’re not supposed to be here right now. It’s against the tradition.

SAM: So is spending all of Christmas day putting toys together. I need to do this tonight.

Neither of them says anything for a moment.

NICK: Very well, just please stay out of my way.

SAM: That’s not so jolly.

NICK: I’m sure I can find another home for these presents. Your son wasn’t at the top of the “nice” list.

SAM: All right, all right, I was just trying to spread some cheer.

NICK: That’s my department.

SAM: Yeah, I guess it is. Pardon me a minute.

Sam opens the box and takes out the contents, while Nick goes back over to the chimney.

NICK: Donner, 825-Alpha-Two-X-Minus-1.

Something new drops down, which Nick catches.

NICK: Prancer, 297-Delta-Three-Stroke-Seven.

Another item drops, into Nick’s hands.

Nick: Vixen, 621-Omega-Four-Slash-Two.

The process repeats and nick takes the items over to the tree.

SAM: Damn it!

NICK: Something wrong?

SAM: There’s a part missing.

NICK: Which one?

SAM: There’s supposed to be a curved part that’s supposed to go here.

NICK: Oh yes, hold on a moment.

Nick walks back over to the chimney.

NICK: Blitzen, 536-Charlie-Four-Oblique-Dash-Zeta.

A smaller item drops into Nick’s hand.

NICK: This should do it.

SAM: Thanks.

NICK: You’re welcome, spare parts are essential in my line of work.

SAM: I guess they would be.

NICK: Make sure you put a tag on that so he’ll know it’s from you not me.

SAM: It’ll be fine, really.

NICK: You don’t care for the season, do you?

SAM: What does that matter?

NICK: It matters to me. It’s what I do, Sam.

SAM: It isn’t about a present, in case you’re wondering.

NICK: I know.

Sam gets up and doesn’t say anything for a moment.

SAM: The funny thing is that it was easier when she first left. They’d told me the
year before that there wasn’t any…well, you. So, I knew there was no magic in Christmas. It was just another day, just as likely to bring disappointment as any other, so I didn’t have a reason to be angry - or even care. Then, after Martin was born, you did that sponsorship deal so we knew you were real, and the day was magic, just not for me. I don’t want to be angry at you. You always gave me great stuff.

NICK: You always deserved it.

SAM: Thank you. I just…the loss was easier when there was no you, and no Martin, and no need for the day to be special. But there is now, and I want the day to be magic for him, but I still feel like I’m lying to him.

NICK: The day is always magic, Sam. But some things are beyond that, no matter how hard we wish it otherwise.

SAM: Easy for you to say.

NICK: It’s not just talk. I get to bring joy to so many, but I see a lot of hurt as well. I see the hurt that the eyes overlook. I saw it in her too.

SAM: What do you mean?

Nick pauses for a moment, thinking he may have said too much.

NICK: I saw it in your mother. I saw her Christmas Eve when she was leaving. I talked to her.

Sam is surprised.

NICK: I tried to talk her out of it, but she was going.

SAM: Why?

NICK: I really don’t know. Sometimes there is no why. When people are damaged on this inside, what they do on the outside doesn’t always make sense. What I do know is that there was nothing to be done. Neither you or I was going to change what was broken inside her.

Sam thinks this over for a moment.

SAM: I need to finish putting this together.

NICK: Are you alright?

SAM: I guess we’ll see.

NICK: I have to go. I’m a bit behind schedule.

SAM: Yeah, of course, thank you for the part.

NICK: You’re most welcome. Make sure you put a tag on it, so he knows it’s from you.

SAM: Having him think it’s from you wouldn’t be a bad thing; add a bit to the magic of the day.

NICK: Merry Christmas, Sam.

SAM: Merry Christmas.

Human Excrement

While the fact that he has served in the military keeps me from calling Lt. Colonel Lakin a coward or an outright disgrace to our country, I am thoroughly disgusted by his actions. Not wanting to go back to a war-zone is understandable, however, no true patriot would hide behind the racially motivated excrement of the birthers to get out of his commitment to serve America (and his fellow soldiers).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101214/ap_on_re_us/us_army_birther_4

Beyond the Palin?

At times it seems like there really are no other stories in American politics beyond President Obama attempting to govern amid a political climate dominated equally by the inflexible and the imbecilic, John McCain abandoning the principled stands that once made him one of the few politician's worthy of genuine admiration and Sarah Palin. Some would argue that those three items are really just different facets of the same narrative. There's a case to be made for that view but even if it's true Sarah Palin screams out for attention, literally and figuratively.

In particular, it's fascinating to see the burgeoning war of words between the former governor and the so-called Republican elites who question whether she's really a good candidate for the presidency in 2012. The comments from Republican establishment figures, mainly in the Reagan/Bush axis, are hardly surprising considering how many people seem to blame her for the loss of the 2008 election. To some extent, Palin's instinct to return fire is equally unsurprising, as she never seems to have met a petty dispute she didn't like, but it's also very revealing about why she is and is likely to remain a deeply flawed candidate.

Put simply, Palin just doesn't know when (or maybe even how) to take the high road. After all, why would she want to do that when it's so much easier to dismiss Barbara Bush and family as "blue bloods" instead of taking a step back to understand why so many in the party have a problem with her? The reason, of course, is that her itchy-trigger-finger responses do nothing to address the concerns about her experience but rather serve to emphasize two troubling aspects of her mindset.

One of these points really concerns just the Republican party itself, while the other should concern the electorate at large. Looking at reactions to Palin from within the GOP circles, there are times when it seems like Palin's lack of policy knowledge/experience is almost a secondary offense next to her lack of respect for Ronald Reagan's legacy. Whatever one thinks of Reagan's presidency, when Palin equates her TV celebrity and experience as a state governor to Reagan's pre-White House experience, it isn't hard to see why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Reagan's film career may not have been the stuff of legend, but he put in the work and was clearly respected by his peers. Similarly, Palin's partial term as Alaska's governor and resignation from that office don't stack up to two terms as governor of a state that in itself would rank as one of the world's largest economies. In short, whatever comparisons she herself might like to draw, all but get fiercest partisans (and, alas, John McCain) seem to respond, "you're no Ronald Reagan." Positioning herself as Reagan's equal rather than his heir shows a lack of proper respect that doesn't sit well for a large cohort of a very tradition-oriented party.

On a more general level, the part that should trouble everyone with a vote in the 2012 elections, regardless of party affiliation, is Palin's shoot-first-think-later mentality. As much as Palin may want to argue that a leader needs to respond decisively, this proud hunter seemingly doesn't appreciate the value of not going off half-cocked. If she can't keep her cool when a fellow Republican offers a critique, it's fair to wonder if she has the capacity to deal calmly with a real crisis.

Sadly, though, Palin seems happier to paint herself as a victim of elites within her own party than consider whether they might gave a valid point. In the short term, this doubtless will play well with her followers but, when it becomes time to move beyond that power-base and woo the party at-large, I suspect that approach will leave many unconvinced.

Interestingly, the model course of action to prove her GOP naysayers wrong has already been road-tested by the man who job Palin hopes to take in 2012. With President Obama unlikely to be challenged for re-election, the 2008 primaries seem awfully distant now. Lost in the haze of hindsight is the wariness many in the party establishment felt toward the upstart Senator's prospect's in the general election. Though nearly all acknowledged his charisma, many raised questions about whether he was qualified to be President (sound familiar?). Rather than complain about the party establishment trying to keep him out, he did what all good politicians need to do (indeed something he arguably needs to do more these days), he fought his way through to victory. 

The sometimes bitter fight doubtless led to many bruised feelings. It also led to an administration with a mixed but tangible record of accomplishment that includes two of the current President's former opponents. It's a model the former governor would be smart to emulate, but I doubt she has either the intellect or temperament to do so.

Is John McCain a Bigot?

OK, maybe McCain's not a bigot in the great American cross-burning tradition, but sometimes he makes you wonder. The latest case is some comments related to the proposed repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay members reported via Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/john-mccain-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal_n_791040.html).

McCain's commented, "We send these young people into combat...We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness." Reading that, I couldn't help but think that the same sorts of things were being said in relation to African-American soldiers in the years before President Truman desegregated America's military. Much has been made about the differences between the John McCain who ran for president in 2000 and this year's model. I'd like to think the pre-2000 McCain would have appreciated the short-sightedness of his older self's remarks.