An Ode to ‘Magical Thinking’

July 12th, 2007

Quick now– what do Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Bruce Jenner, Jimmy Connors, Arthur Ashe, etc etc have in common??
They visualize.

And not just “Oh I hope I’m gonna win” kinda visualization…
we’re talking systematic, strategic, detailed, intricate, point-by-point visualization. Tiger even admits to visualizing his complete swing, from beginning to end, multiple times before he even lays hands on the club.
Or how about your average church-goer? Praying for what they want, & if the [few] churches I’ve attended are any indicator, there’s often feedback “Please pray for the sick of our parish” & kudos for who’s shown recovery from last week (I prefer Fr. Michael’s joke, “what about the sick of the parish?”).
It’s clear that, if nothing else, belief via visualization &/or prayer is actively done by myriad very successful top performers, if not weekly church-goers. So the question is, how did all this get systematically categorized as ‘myth’, & the term “magical thinking” loosely translate as “bullsh*t”.

Somewhere in the last few years (perhaps synchronized w/ Bush 2′s presidency?) there has been a systematic attack on anything not deemed kosher by churches… eg, evolution, ‘secular humanism’, & that immense whipping-generation of the far right: “the 60′s”.

And yet, ask any down-in-the-trenches scientist, often called ‘technicians’ (because they gain their living actually doing the work rather than publishing papers about it), & they agree– postulates determine the conclusion. An immense number of ‘common sense’ & ‘widely known’ scientific “laws” aren’t so ‘eternal’ & self-evident, you know– not too long ago, “everybody knew” the world was flat & the sun orbited us… & ppl were tortured (or ridiculed, refused publishing, etc) for believing otherwise. Or how about all the “absolutely wrong” claims about meridians in the body, how the blood has ‘tides’ in sync with the moon just as the oceans do, or that open-skull (let-alone open-heart) surgery can be done with only a few accupuncture needles? All these were “hogwash” to scientific journals up to mid 20th Century… and yet are accepted “scientific fact” now.

Now, did the occurrences change? Nope. So why are they suddenly “true”? Actually, they always were true; just the Authorities hadn’t decided to Believe them yet.

So let’s explore what ‘Belief’ means. “Belief”, according to top philosopher W.V. Quine, is knowledge unquestioned, which has attained that status after rigorous testing, a la scientific method (hypothesis, deduction, experiment, etc). Which sounds pretty rigorous, and Quine is careful to show how this works in ‘normal’ people too, not just scientists. And yet, funny how Quine’s ultimate summation in The Web of Belief was this: “knowledge turns into [unquestioned] belief when the grounds of satisfaction are realized”.

So even a master philosopher, whose books are unparalleled in the field, recognizes the point– all of our scientific method, of building & testing hypotheses, still turn on a single, non-objective process: “are we satisfied”.

And so yes, it’s currently fashionable to slam “magical thinking” as thoughts, actions, beliefs about the outcome of an event, which have nothing to do and/or no effect on that outcome.

All I ask are two things:

  • spend an equal amount of time considering the opposite case. Ie, “could all those highly-successful, peak performers be ‘completely wrong’?”
  • try (visualization, positive affirmations, etc) yourself, with an open mind. Ie, don’t do them “knowing that they won’t work”.

    • …b/c if nothing else, you might experience something you haven’t expected, ie something ‘new’, which is always a blast. The thrill of discovery is the hallmark of a mind that is able to learn.
    …& more-importantly, by not “knowing that the outcome will be false”, perhaps you’ll avoid employing some ‘magical thinking’ (ironically enough) of your own :-P .

    Check out every single tennis, golf, etc “how-to” book. They all employ visualization. Scroll-up & re-read that list of top performers… they all swear by visualization. So why not try it, & see if it makes any difference to your own attempts to train behavior.

    Oh & btw– of the many experiences I’ve had with the “power of visualization”, let me list one: after shattering my tibia, I was told in no uncertain terms by two different doctors: “thigh-high cast for 6 weeks, & then ankle cast for another 6 weeks”. I didn’t like this scenario, & visualized up a storm, using techniques from “Zen in the Martial Arts“… & was walking, sans cast, in 5 weeks.

    Call it “magical thinking”, if you will… I like the doctor’s version: “how the heck did you do that?”

    Dunno. It Just Works.

    Tags: ,
    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    SF 2007 48Hr Film Fest!!!

    June 27th, 2007

    Hey– our 7minute film premiered at the San Francisco 48Hour Film Fest last nite, & it rocked!!. We got a ton of applause, laughter (at the right parts), & congrats’ afterwards…

    So while it’s fresh, here’s a bit of hard-won wisdom[sic]:

    Pre-production:
    1) get clear roles assigned, w/ lines-of-command & deliverables
    2. test test test your equipment first to confirm everything works together (computers, mics etc)
    3. try to do a ‘dress rehearsal’, ie “mini fest” of 5hrs or so, from (mini) script to playing it on a tv, to see how everyone does under pressure, & get everyone familiar w/ their roles, tools, & what’s expected of them.
    4. let the writer(s) Do Their Thing… try to not inflict them w/ your ‘good ideas’ until they ask for them, but do step-in & point-out when any of the following get lost in the mix:

  • From the first page, & on each page following, we should always know: “What is Happening -and- Why do I Care?”
  • Start quickly, & End w/ a Bang. There’s no time for ‘Deep Thoughts’ in a short film…
  • Simple & funny is always much better than long & involved… this includes # of characters, subplots, character arcs, anti-climaxes, etc etc.
  • Leave VO (voiceover) as your Method of Last Resort to fix a film which doesn’t make sense. It’s waaay too easy to make crappy VO which “tells you what to think” & completely cheapens your film…

    • Production:
    1) get a ‘set boss’ (AD? Producer?) who manages traffic, & keeps (numbnuts) from walking thru shots, etc.
    2. iron-out workflow (slates? continuity-girl? script-boy? “who can call ‘cut’?” does Director need to watch a monitor or camera LCD screen? does Producer?) *before* the shoot
    3. “the set works best when it is optimized for allowing the actors to *be* their parts. Anything/everything that distracts from the actors giving real moments *must* be ruthlessly pruned if you want to capture anything of value”.

  • This is HELL when *everyone* has ‘great ideas’[sic] & just Has to come running-up & give their $.02 {see #1}
  • OTOH– ignoring everyone’s ideas will definitely lose you out on great in-the-moment inspirations which are the lifeblood of a truly creative set (I typically get 30%+ of my best stuff thru in-the-moment inspiration).
  • also: Tape is Cheap. Keep the camera rolling, thru rehearsals, thru ‘blown takes’, etc. Encourage the actors to just say ‘rhutabega rhutabega’ & keep rolling into a second take– if you don’t call “cut!”, they won’t have to re-find their flow, & you’ll find they give you better stuff, faster. This does mean your Editor needs to look at *everything*… which in a 1-day shoot, shouldn’t be more than 2 tapes anyway.

    • 4. “Shoot for the Edit”. Check-out the “10-Minute Film School” by Robert Rodriguez in the Bonus Features for “El Mariachi” — eg, shoot w/ transitions in mind, get cutaways, & you can grab multiple ‘shots’ in a single take, if you change focal lengths, move the camera, etc. Note: this kind of [compressed] shooting only works if your editor is on board; if the editor isn’t flexible, they’ll just see ‘disjointed shots’ & won’t know what to do w/ them…

    Post-Production:
    1) while editor is doing their thing, let the cast/crew watch the dailies. That keeps morale up
    2. editor: mark/subclip the *great* moments, the ones that make you blink, laugh, or feel… & make sure they stay in the final edit
    3. cut together sequences, starting w/ the easiest and/or most fun. Show this sequence to a few of the above-the-line Team, & it will get everyone amped, & engender some good ideas
    4. let the editor assemble ‘their version’ first, & then let the director give notes. Nobody can create worth a damn w/ someone watching over their shoulder…
    5. edit in ‘passes’: rough assembly, then dialogue intercutting, then soundtrack, special FX, color-correction, etc. Eg don’t waste time on color-correction if your audio has holes in it (guilty! :-0)
    6. make sure not to cut-out the [special line, prompt, dialogue, etc]!!!
    7. leave time for a ‘sanity check’ viewing, w/ (new) viewers… they’ll tell you what you missed

    -and finally-
    8. cut the film you’ve made, *not* the one it “said in the script”. You can’t create shots that don’t exist, but you can cut to heighten performances, or diminish now-unneeded story beats or character moments. Don’t be surprised if the final film only passably matches the script… Doesn’t matter, if the film *works*.

    …Hope that helps, & See you at the Movies!!!

    Tags: , ,
    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Sony V1U Review… it’s DOF…

    April 25th, 2007

    …ROCKS.

    That’s it. Full review.

    Oh, you want some more? Okay then–

    I just got back from Snaders 2007, & yet another ‘heads-up’ between the top HDV cam’s. What are my comparitors?

    • visual quality
    • useability
    • features

    …in that order. Basically, I figure what’s the use of a great lens, if you can’t focus it? (*cough* Canon *cough*). Or if the chips display a ‘messy’ image, etc. We’re comparing ‘complete packages’ here, lens + viewfinder + chips + recording format. The object being, how to get the best looking image out of the camera, suitable for broadcast and/or film-out (cf Billups’ book).

    Another guideline is “utility”, or if you will, “simplicity”. If in order to make a camera work at its best, one needs tons of outboard peripherals, this is not a good thing. Example: if you have a great lens, but the viewfinder’s low quality necessitates using a broadcast monitor in order to focus accurately, you’ve just eliminated ‘run & gun’ type shooting. Correspondingly, if you need an extended “DOF Adapter”, then why use a small-format camera? You might as well shoot with a shoulder-cam, & get the better chips & better recorded format, & when you tally rental fees, might cost nearly the same.

    Beyond all that, here’s the brass tacks:

    Despite all the FUD re. the difficulty of getting short DOF w/ the 1/4″ chips of the V1U, getting short DOF is actually quite easy… due to the length of the lens (20x vs. the normal 12x of the Z1U, HVX200, etc). From 5′ away, I was able to shoot face-size objects, & throw objects 5″ further away, significantly out of focus. This is incredible– usually, one expects needing to sit waaay back, & zoom waaay in to get this kind of short-DOF performance. Nope– instead, at 5′ away, you’re well-within the normal (read: tight) tolerances available to the indie filmmaker, shooting in a borrowed apartment. You can easily shoot a cinematic two-shot in a living-room, from 5′ away, & rack between their faces.
    And the focus was a dream, due to the excellently-executed peaking circuit. Multiple levels, multiple colors (I just chose white / bright), & a very narrow ‘notch’ of range, worked flawlessly together to create a focusing experience that was far closer to the CineAlta than I’d've ever expected.

    Please check out my last review re. my experience focusing the other 3 cams… from the low-res of the XL-H1, to the wide peaking ‘notch’ of the JVC, & the ‘subtle’ peaking of the Z1, I was just not too impressed with the whole idea of peaking on the handicam form-factor. Well, hold the presses– peaking on the V1U reminded me strongly of the brightness, crispness, & tightness displayed by the CineAlta viewfinder standing right next to it… which cost ~3x the price of the entire V1 unit :-D

    I was actually rack-focusing a cheeto, from the front to the back, & then further back to the pretzel, & then out of the bowl to the gambling chips nearby. This is just astonishing… you just don’t get this kind of short DOF with the HVX (or PD150)… & (almost) that much w/ the JVC. This tells me that the lens-length is key here, not the chip-size.

    & let’s not get started w/ CMOS… more contrast-range than CCD, & better: more ‘organic’ response. From skin-colors which are reproduced more believably, to what you can only call an ‘organic knee’ that occurs when you shoot blown-out/specular highlights (try shooting a light-bulb, or a candle, in a dark room)… the image looks smooth, organic, like one of those Kodak adverts… completely missing the ‘crunchyness’ which occurs in CCD-generated footage.

    Plus 24p. Plus a pretty-good cinegama mode. Plus fantastic form-factor & button-layout.

    This is the “PD150 with 24p” we’ve been waiting for all these years… but look–

    • 1080/24p
    • 3x CMOS chips
    • fantastic lens
    • truly best-in-class viewfinder
    • histogram to monitor image density
    • peaking -and- zebras, at the same time

    …simply brilliant. An absolute winner.

    Mortgage something, honey. Me gots to buy…

    Tags:
    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    ‘Activist Judges’, indeed…

    April 20th, 2007

    So have you heard about the US Supreme Court ruling on weds?
    …Exactly as predicted w/ the promotion of Alito & Roberts last year, the first major decision(s) of the new Court are directly targeting abortion. This ruling represents the first major threat against “Roe vs Wade” in 30+ years. And at this rate, with the neocon’s new solid majority on the Court (with current members Scalia & Thomas eagerly stating for the record “we think abortion should be outlawed”)… it’s not inconceivable that within the next few years or so, the USA will gain the distinction of being the only 1st-world nation which outlaws abortion.

    How could this happen? The US Government is not the Taliban, right? We’re a non-radical, educated, informed country… whose women have been equal in ‘the eyes of the law’ for so long, it’s not worth mentioning (or even on the radar of young feminists). So how could 33yr-old precedent-setting “Roe v. Wade” suddenly be under attack?

    Ah, but let’s take a walk back to Jr. High Civics class… Despite the high-visibility of the Presidential role, or the loud brouhaha of the legislative process in Congress… these 9 old, mostly under-the-radar ‘Justices’[sic] are fully equal in power to Congress, or the President himself. It’s right there in the Constitution– Congress makes laws, Pres signs/enforce them (or not, as we’ve been seeing for the last 7yrs), & the Court decides if those laws or enforcings are “Constitutional” or not. That’s Power. But you know what’s even more powerful? These 9 ppl DO NOT EVER LEAVE, UNTIL THEY DIE. The most we can be stuck w/ an awful, misrepresenting Pres is 8yrs, or Congressperson 4yrs. But chances are, like the Pope, we’ll be stuck w/ the current crop of Supremes for the next 20yrs or so… esp. these two new, ‘stealth neocon’ appointments.

    So what’s all the fuss w/ this new Ruling, anyway? Well, they just upheld a state’s right to ban ‘partial-birth abortion’… ie, D&C past the 1st trimester. “And what’s that?” you ask… Well, specific medical techniques aside, ‘partial-birth abortion’[sic] has long been rigged as a ‘wedge-issue’ to start dismantling the basic legality of abortion; specifically, the main rationale, ie. abortion is under a woman’s “right to privacy”. By reframing abortion into “viability of a child” rather than “woman’s right to privacy” (let-alone “viability of partially-developed, non-thinking protoplasm”), the neocons & born-agains are rabble-rousing. Why call a woman “independent” & “maker of a very difficult choice”, when you can call her “baby-killer”?

    To think that this could happen in a Country long self-proclaimed as “The Land of the Free”…. Well, you must remember that this same country has actually been presided-over by Republicans for 19 of the last 27 years(?)… & they’ve finally got their payoff: a solid neocon majority in the Supreme Court.

    The most appalling feature of the neocon movement is its unabashed hypocrisy– they have zero hesitation proscribing moral rulings over ‘the common people’, which they themselves casually ignore. From sending the historically least amount of its sons to war, to eagerly plundering the common reserves, the average neocon acts like Raskolnikov of “Crime & Punishment” (or the ‘bad guys’ in “Knight Rider”): they’re Above the Law, judicially as well as morally.

    Or in other words, when the Bushie girls have their statistically predicable mishap w/ a condom & their lunar cycle, the Bushies will pack them up on Air Force One & fly them over to Dubai or somewhere where they can have world-class medical care, pre & post-op, for their very own abortion(s). Laws, morals, money, service-to-country, abstinence… these are only ‘talking points’ for stump speeches, nicely spun by H-wood writers & pumped-up w/ strongly-framed rhetoric by Rove. Because if you think Bush & cohort truly actually believe the neocon fundamentalism they outwardly espouse, perhaps you haven’t been paying attention.

    PS– Oh, & about that “Activist Judges” tag… funny how, after literally years of whining, ranting, & otherwise dirty politic’ing, labelling each & every Court decision they didn’t like as “Activist Judging”… it’s just friggin’ hilarious how the NeoCons leap at the opportunity to do a little ‘Activist Judging’ themselves. Creating ‘Policy’ from the Bench, hmm? Nothing like THIRTY FULL YEARS OF JUDICIAL PRECEPT to set the “Law of the Land”, you-know? Nah, let’s just toss that out, as soon as we have a Majority. I just hope to see these NeoCons hoist on their own petard… it doesn’t take too much to get them all attacking each other. Picture this: the Supremes pulling the plug on all ‘Right to Privacy’, & so the respective states start pushing mandatory drug screening… for everyone. Quaking now, Pill Poppin’ Rush.L?

    Tags: ,
    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    300 “SPAAAAAAAAR-TAAAAAAA!!!!”‘s… at the IMAX!

    March 27th, 2007

    WHOAAAA!
    “300″ *rocked*!!!
    …they got the martial-stance/worldview *right*
    …they got the training *right*
    …they got the martial arts / fighting *right*
    …they got the battlefield dynamics *right* — even *better* than LOTR
    …they got the politics *right*
    …they got the religion/fight-the-gods *right*
    …they got the existentialism *right*
    …& they even got the relationship [strong-female] *right*

    …basically, they respected the Warriors:
    -what they believed,
    -what they stood for,
    -how they lived, &
    -how they died.

    …iow, it’s not about personal glory; it’s about doing what’s *right*.
    …so, so-what if they were a little silly re. the ‘reason vs. eastern mysticism’ part; i’ll spot them that, & they gave me 3 sex scenes & 3 decapitations. :-D DD

    …as far as the filmmaking itself, I found the following instructive:
    1) the Project started w/ a *great* story: the absolute *Classic* martial story
    2. -then- got some great writing & imagery from Frank Miller
    3. [but] the Director ignored Miller, -&-
    a) pumped-up Gorga, & made her a main character
    b. gave Leonidas a son, which made him human
    c. created several totemic images, including the ‘Villager Tree’ & ‘goodbye in the wheat-field’

    hmmmm.
    so Yes it’s true– a writer who also writes core imagery is an auteur (ie, Miller)
    -but- he still can be (successfully) re-written, & the story taken to the next level.
    …which isn’t usually the case; most times an auteur is re-written, ugliness (& hackdom) ensues.

    So yeah– as a long-time martial artist, I really appreciated the care the filmmaker(s) took to get the martial sensibilities right… from physical fighting-form to the mental philosophy. But even the CGI VFX was superb, very much a ‘character’ in the piece, shifting (styles) from scene to scene to augment the storytelling. And finally the storytelling itself was perfect: sparse, direct, like a gut-punch… but (knew) enough to slow-down occasionally, & ‘ease’ into the character scenes.

    & finally– Re the IMAX experience (or rather, IMAX projection of a 1:1.85 film)– hm. Bright, new print? Great. Lots of loud speakers? Fine. Large projected print at the upper curved screen? Dunno… this wasn’t ‘IMAX’; it was just ‘big’. (Real IMAX films are shot from POV of lower-third of screen, & biased inwards left/right as well, so all the surrounding imagery creates the IMAX ‘immersion effect’.) I’m wondering– my Toshiba widescreen at home has a ‘fake anamorphic’ mode which digitally stretches the farthest left/right to create the surroundings… while leaving the center-cut the same. Maybe if something similar was done here(?)

    …all I know is I saw LOTR in a widescreen theatre at the Metreon, & the experience was v. similar… but cost 1/2 as much. I know that H-wood is trying desperately to get us to come-out to the theatres, but charging $15 for ‘fake-IMAX’ isn’t doing it for me. ‘Real’ IMAX is amazing, & well-worth the cash…

    If they really need more ‘eyeballs’ in the theatre, ‘buying seats & eating sugar’, then maybe they need to provide something a lot more compelling… hot & cold running blondes, perhaps?

    Tags:
    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Oscars ’07 — Ah gee, whoopie! …& land of the living lesbians

    February 26th, 2007

    So the Academy, in its infinite wisdom, decided to ‘finally reward’ Scorsese. Fine… let’s just call this one for “Raging Bull” & “Taxi Driver“, & be done with it. And bonus– maybe he’ll stop whining, stop appearing as “incessant film authority” in all those retrospectives, & start working on an actual film 1/2-way as good as those 2 above. Yeah right.
    And btw, so much for all those elaborate Price-Waterhouse shennigans re. ‘guarded briefcases’ w/ their ‘secret tabulations’… B/c there just ain’t no way you get Coppola, Spielberg, & Lucas all together to hand-out an oscar, if it ain’t going to Scorsese. Sheeeze, why not just get the ladies from “Deal or No Deal” & be done w/ it; at least they’re waaay better to look at, & seem genuinely compassionate when ppl blow huge deals & go-home w/ peanuts…

    But hey– right outta some kind of Howard [no 'K'] Stern’s wet fantasy, we had the parade of those ladies from lesbos:

    • Ellen (of course)
    • Melissa Etheridge, -aaaand-
    • Jody Foster!!!

    Hottt! :-)
    But Oscar ’07′s best moment, has just gotta be when “Departed” took-home the brass ring. Based, as announced, on a 2002 “Japanese”[sic] film, which Scorsese always claimed he “didn’t see” yet somehow imitated so slavishly…

    Um, can we all just agree that, if the “Best Film of 2007″ is just a thinly-disguised remake of a very recent, emminently watchable foreign film… then maybe Hollywood hasn’t just suffered from “runaway production’ (ie. Canada, Romania, New Zealand). They’ve actually outsourced their creativity as well.

    All Hail you auteurs of “Foreign Cinema”– for you’re making the films we’ll be watching tomorrow, & not just subtitled & hidden in grimey art-cinemas & on the waiting list on Netflix. And for all you purveyors of off-shoring, who keep pointing at H-wood saying “the US still provides the entertainment of the world”… well, reality-check, bitches.

    Tags:
    Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

    NYT & “Magical Thinking”

    January 26th, 2007

    I’m confused why NYT countenances such illogic, unless it’s their effort to balance their oft-castigaged ‘leftward-leaning’ Op-Ed pages.
    I deconstructed a similar article here.

    Here we go again. First off, the circular reasoning fallacy is repeatedly evoked. The author presents a scenario of “magical thinking”, then tacitly labels it [ridiculous]. Next they state that there’s ‘brain structures’ which somehow must create MT, but that can’t be evolutionary, can it [ie, denying physical evidence]? Then they show that we can fool ppl into MT-based behavior [a similar test, "can we fool tax experts into giving wrong answers", is done each year by Better Business Bureau; they call IRS & ask 20 Agents the exact same question, & get 20 different, usually wrong answers. Oh wait-- is this MT too??].

    Then they move right into the perfect example of circular reasoning: “The question is why do people create this illusion of magical power?””. Sorry, did we accidentally neglect how Tiger, Jordan, Lance, Jenner, & etc top peak performers all swear by visualization? And that there’s been multiple double-blind tests confirming that visualization not only helps, but is *essential* to peak performance?

    Funny– we all recognize false choice fallacy when Fox News rigs one of their frequent polls (cf. Colbert’s lampooning): “Question: Are you for Supporting the Troops, God, & Country, or Treasonously Retreating from Iraq?”

    So why aren’t suitable options made visible here? Perhaps “Magical Thinking” and/or “Magical Power” do in-fact work, but these psych’s & shrinks aren’t very good at measuring it? Not to mention, that psych’s & shrinks have historically been labeled ‘fuzzy science’, & thus are particularly antagonistic to intuitive paths to knowledge.

    But it’s particularly jarring when these same ‘clinical psychologists’ and/or university researchers pretend to be objectively studying the matter. Fer crying out loud, wouldn’t the very topic they’re studying (ie, how belief affects physical world), be potentially undermined if they’re starting-out w/ the assumption it doesn’t work?

    By the logic they’re using, it’s not implausible to say they’re actually undermining their own experiments. By ‘believing’ MT doesn’t exist, they affect both their test-cases, as well as their logic itself.

    I’m esp. amused that they finish-off the article w/ a list of psychiatric disorders which “MT could lead to”, coupled w/ discounting evidence as “coincidental”. First illogic, then ‘you’re crazy”.

    And note they carefully distinguish MT from religion, ie “These habits have little to do with religious faith, which is much more complex because it involves large questions of morality, community and history”. What silliness; the average fervent church-goer isn’t thinking of any of those things when they pray… they just want their prayers to work (& the lectant usually gives praise the next week if/when they did).

    Hmmm. Closed thinking, hostility, & church-banner waving. Since when did the neo-cons care about ‘magic’? You’d think they were on shaky ground; “faith” in their not being “left behind” sorta sounds like MT to me.

    Tags:
    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Scorsese’s Oscar

    January 18th, 2007

    Man that guy can bitch.

    For such a self-titled scholar, you’d think he’d somehow forgotten this little list of genius auteurs who never got an Oscar… Charlie Chaplin, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles. What true filmmaker wouldn’t kill to be listed in their company?
    Scorsese absolutely, no-question, should have got his Oscar for “Raging Bull”. Or before for “Taxi Driver”. But you know what? That’d never happen– directors never get the gold for their early films, unless they’re an ‘actor-director‘, or writers who had help or had famous fathers). Instead, like some kind of interminable macabre high-school prom/homecoming court, the “most important award”[sic] in filmmaking is really just a popularity contest. With a couple of guidelines: the film(maker) must be popular. The film can’t tank. The film must never cover new territory, but rather (re)do something that was done before, w/ a bit more opulence, and/or a somewhat edgy twist. And oh yeah, killing Jews never hurts; after a lifetime of making popcorn movies, it’s telling to note that when Spielberg decided he wanted that golden statuette of his own, even he pulled-out the ovens.

    So there’s the quandary– Scorsese hasn’t made a decent film in 25yrs. He tries re-make after remake, getting progressively more ostentatious & blood-thirsty. But at least he kept to remaking old films.

    But now comes “Departed”, or its real name: “Infernal Affairs“.

    Remaking an old film is not at all like making an original film… just like adaptation is nothing like working from an original script. The adaptation already has a built-in audience; we already know that the characters ‘work’, that the story is moving, & the ending is solid. And similarly with a re-make, we know the entire film works, from story to casting to the shots & the music(!) Really, all you have to do is “not f*** it up”. So why re-make? (I mean, other than for the $$, which I’ll give Scorsese the benefit of the doubt about). Usually, it’s b/c the film has been forgotten, the actors on screen aren’t familiar, &/or the setting/milieu looks anachronistic on video.

    But “Infernal Affairs” was none of these things.

    The film was made in 2002. It starred a virtual “Who’s Who” of top actors in Southeast Asia. It boasts the talents of Christopher Doyle, one of the best cinematographers working today (consider: “Hero“, “In the Mood for Love“, etc, as well as most of the best of War Kung-Wai’s films). The story is very contemporary, layered in shades-of-grey, while exposing-from-inside facets of asian culture other films promise but never deliver… & for all that is edge-of-your-seat thrilling from start to finish. Like an asian “Heat“, but with even more interesting supporting characters.
    So why remake? Simple- Scorsese was looking for a ‘paint-by-numbers’ win, & he landed it. Yet, there must have been part of his (now slumbering) auteur sensibility, if not pride, leaking thru– when questioned about lenses by Doyle, Scorsese blew him off, saying “I’ve never watched the film you made”. Funny, in the “Departed” trailer alone I counted 5 exact duplicate shots from “Affairs”. Or how about when Andy Lau, star of “Affairs”, asked Scorsese for a bit part? You-know, give him 2 lines for his SAG pass & help him cross-over into the H-wood market? It’s not like he can’t act or something; he only carried the picture head-to-head w/ Tony Leung, one of the best actors working today (in Asia or West). Nope, Scorsese blew-off Lau completely, as well. I guess Mr. S couldn’t fit-in an Asian in his Irish New York gangland drama (boy, that sounds familar; I wonder if there were any butchers or planes involved).

    You know what? Scorsese already got the highest filmmaking award– the Palme d’Or for “Taxi Driver”, & well-deserved it was. Scorsese already has the words “eminent film authority” wallpapered on his forehead, popping-up as he does in every single retrospective for the past 10yrs, like some kind of demented Ebert who actually once made a watchable film (unlike Ebert’s own contribution to filmmaking). So how many more accolades does the guy need?

    All I can say is– for God’s sake, give him the damn thing already. He’s no longer an auteur, no longer has taste, & doesn’t even have originality. I can’t imagine what he’d do if he loses… maybe steal re-make “It’s a Wonderful Life”, in black & white w/ extra blood, a la “Sin City”.

    Fellini once noted “you only get 8″, but he was able to scrape-out an extra “1/2″. Scorsese should quit pretending he cares about ‘film’, & go bask in adulation teach in some hoary film academy which churns-out Sundance-wannabes. Or produce Michael Bay & Bret Ratner explode-a-fests. But for the love of God, quit stealing true auteur’s work… it’s beneath you, Mr. S. Please don’t leave me w/ a bad taste when I pull-out your old work; you really were something, once.

    Tags:
    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    A Thought for the New Year – A pitch for Clear Thinking

    January 14th, 2007

    Hey y’all. Long time no see. I’ve good reason: new house, new job, new teaching assignment(s). But I haven’t been completely buried; I’ve notes a’plenty, so stay tuned for a few words coming up soon.

    In the meantime, I’d like to make a pitch for “clear thinking”.

    Whaddya mean by that? Simple– the mind is so easily trumped[sic] by emotional, if not egoic, behavior, that it becomes very easy to spew illogical nonsense. Which is fine, really… if you’re at a bar with friends, but not if you’re in a leadership position, eg. publishing in an erstwhile ‘Respected Publication’.

    In spiritual pursuits, many disciplines encourage a de-emphasis of the mind, calling it the home of the ego, ie that part of ourselves which believes “everything revolves around me”, & thus makes prettily-turned rationalizations of very self-centered pursuits. The “I meditate so I’m sooo cool” one was termed the ‘golden handcuff’ by Chogyam Trungpa, for example. Similarly, mind-body pursuits such as t’ai ch’i & acting often emphasize “get out of your head”, ie. re-identify yourself with your ‘heart’, if not ‘gut’, rather than ‘mind’. Or my favorite Yogi Berra’ism: “I can’t think & hit at the same time”.

    All this is great if you tend to over-analyze (um, guilty). But! “Going with your gut” 100% of the time has its own issues… Essentially, a complete de-emphasis of Mind can sometimes be ‘throwing the baby out w/ the bathwater’, as it were. If nothing else, the mind is good at ‘making sense’ of things, parsing thru lots of different choices, & is pretty good at choosing the right words when you’re talking. Intuition, otoh, is better at ‘jumping’ to the right solution… but not great at explaining why, or helping explicate patterns, let-alone “how can I do that for myself”. IOW, a teacher who tries to completely de-emphasize their Analyzer will find themselves resorting to “just because” or “that’s the way I learned it”. Which is fine enough for many students, but will be lacking calories to those students who are seeking a deeper understanding of the material. Generalizing the larger case from a single example is the hallmark of inductive logic, & is an analytical endeavor… & one which isn’t very common, or rather– not very common using clear thinking.

    So on to the story– I drifted over from NYT to WeeklyStandard & NationalReviewOnline.
    Ugh! …& i’d thought NYT was ‘pretty liberal’, esp. in their op-ed’s… unabashedly hurling invective w/o rationale. Okay, you think Bush is an idiot. We get it. Now, why not give w/ some hard data to unravel his logic, if not explode that mythos of “My President is Always Right b/c I Am a Patriot!” It’s pretty hard to use logical argument for many neo-conservative stances; add “Texan Oil-Business” mores to Dr. Dobson & you have a refined, completely self-reflexive world-view impervious to outside influence. My philosophy 101 prof. Searle had a great argument against types like these: “you cannot call yourself rational, if there are no grounds under which your [thinking] could be wrong. If you were to say to a Freudian, ‘I’m not sure about Penis Envy’, s/he would reply, ‘You’re just repressing Penis Envy’”.
    So, first step to clear thinking: have you considered the opposite case of what you say/think, & can you describe that perspective w/o resorting to invective or moral judgement?

    Or here’s an easier determinant: Classical Fallacies.

    So there I am at NYT: Op-Ed, Maureen Dowd, etc. And in an effort to see how the ‘others’ think, I slid over to neo-con central. Perhaps they would respect logic more? Egad– I spoke too soon: Inbred, self-aggrandizing, (even-more) over-analytical, & experts all in ‘attacking via irony’; ie. not attacking the character of the proponent, per se, but rather snidely ridiculing their thinking… usually copiously tarred with the ‘liberal’ moniker or its ‘hip variant of the day’ helpfully provided by Fox News.
    Must all Op-Ed pieces (liberal, conservative, or whatnot) be oh so very much more satisfied w/ hearing [writing] the sound of their own words than with making a statement based on clear thinking? Or even– perish the thought, logical thinking?

    It’s almost like both they & their audience, posit [& need] constant reassurance of their own superiority, both moral & intellectual. They have Spoken; you may agree, or else be ‘unthinking’.
    What silliness.

    I recommend:

    • go with your gut, sure;
    • follow your Path with Heart, of-course;

    …but keep every-so-often testing what you hear vs. the standard list of logical fallacies. It’ll expose much more than you’d expected, both in bias, & in willfull ignorance.

    Now excuse me while I go watch Iron Chef. Some things are simply self-evident, & as long as the Chairman picks a suitable Secret Ingredient, Clear Thinking (or at least Stomaching) will be arrayed for all to see. :-)

    Tags:
    Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

    I guess OOB experiences must be Mental Confusion…

    October 5th, 2006

    I’m amused by this NYT article, purporting to be ‘science’.

    Blanke’s research is interesting, but his conclusion (“[mystical/supernatural experiences] are simply the brain’s attempt to make sense of conflicting information”) is fraught with logical fallacies (see below). And Brugger’s examples actually strengthen the idea that ‘mystical/supernatural’ experiences happen all the time, even “occur[ing] without electrical stimulation to the brain”; he only questions if you should call them ‘mystical’ or not. I suppose ‘mystical’ phenomena are only valid if rare?

    If you’re interested in a scientific, very non new-agey exploration of out-of-body experiences, written by an American businessman, try Monroe’s Journey’s Out of the Body.

    Anyway, since I’m a software engineer as well ‘interested’ in all things psychic, I figured I’d give a scientific deconstruction of the article, using classical logic:

    Addressing Blanke first, his research consists of analyzing behavior resulting from selective electric stimulation to electrodes implanted in brain tissue. The female subjects describe out-of-body (OOB) experiences, and/or extra-sensory (ESP) perception (“shadow man who wanted to interfere with her”), when various electrodes are stimulated. These results are repeatable. All of this research is very scientific, very interesting, & in fact very validating to psychics — b/c there is no inherent contradiction to the assertion that ESP or OOB are actually related to various stimulations of parts of the brain. However, Blanke’s conclusion is that ESP and/or OOB do not exist simply b/c he can induce those behaviors via brain stimulation. This is a FALSE DILEMMA logical fallacy, implying that if stimulation can cause ESP or OOB experiences, these experiences must be a priori false. Similar implanted-electrode stimulation experiments by other researchers have demonstrated subjects smelling non-present scents & unconsciously moving limbs due to similar stimulations… but none of these researchers ever attempted to imply that these behaviors invalidated all similar scent-sensation or limb-movement which occurred when [that brain] was not under electrode stimulation. Instead, they simply concluded that these areas stimulated in the brain would ‘normally’ be stimulated when that scent, or limb-movement, was present. Why does Blanke conclude the ESP or OOB behavior differently?

    Next, Blanke then gives an alternate explanation of the event, ignoring the woman’s own, clearly-stated experience (“the shadow man was also sitting and that he was clasping her in his arms”). Blanke instead interprets this as “the patient was experiencing an unusual perception of her own body, as a double. But for reasons that scientists have not been able to explain, he said, she did not recognize that it was her own body she was sensing”. This is ignoring the subject’s own testimony, applying his own analysis, & then willfully ignoring a huge inconsistency in his own analysis– namely the gender of the “shadow” figure. If not quite DENYING DOER fallacy (ie, ignoring contrary evidence to make one’s point), this is definitely a violation of Occam’s Razor– he never gives the option that perhaps she is sensing something actually present, which he cannot measure (& does not report attempting to measure). And by not ever addressing the opposite, ie. “untrue” possibility of his hypothesis (eg. “supernatural/mystical perceptions could be ‘real’”), he is definitely CIRCULARLY REASONING.

    Addressing Brugger next, Merriam-Webster defines “mystical” as:

    1 a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence

    mystical food of the sacrament> b : involving or having the nature of an individual’s direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality.

    Frequency of experience is neither noted here, nor implied. Thus, if, as Brugger states: “The research shows that the self can be detached from the body and can live a phantom existence on its own, as in an out-of-body experience, or it can be felt outside of personal space, as in a sense of a presence”… then “1a” definition of ‘mystical’ is occurring, at the very least. By admitting ESP & OOB experiences exist, but denying these are ‘mystical’, this is TESTIMONIAL FALLACY, if not simple inability to read a dictionary. :-)

    Tags:
    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    « Older Entries
    Newer Entries »