As I mentioned before, I'm watching the Netflix show, House of Cards. So far, I've really enjoyed it. The plots are interesting, it's got a great antihero, and the dialog is crisp, with everyone talking in ways that are way more clever than real people talk. But something really irritated me in Season 3, episode 6.
Claire's performance above struck me as wrong. Not wrong in the sense that she's doing the wrong thing, but wrong in terms of that's not something the character would do.
Through two and a half seasons, we have learned that Claire is clod and calculating the way Frank is. Maybe not not quite as bad, but bad nonetheless. And yet here she is, blowing an international peace deal (and possibly her husband's shot at reelection) in order to honor the memory of an activist who committed suicide. It just doesn't add up. The Claire Underwood I know would have said the words she had prepared, and never looked back.
I'm guessing the writers were setting up some big conflict between Claire and Frank -- I assume I'll see that soon. But there had to be a better way to set up the conflict. Maybe have his negotiations with Petrov fall apart (without it being due to Claire's sudden lack of cynicism) and have Frank blame Claire for it. That would be more believable.
Oh, and the word is "hanged." Pictures are hung. People are hanged.
I was watching House of Cards (good show, by the by -- I love antiheroes), and came upon this scene.
Frank discusses the concept of justice with a priest, and they discuss the ten commandments. After the priest says that the ten commandments can be read a million different ways, Frank says that "Thou shalt not kill" seems pretty clear.
The unintended irony of that line was not lost on me, since it hit on one of my pet peeves. I have heard people criticize the Bible for since it seems to contradict that commandment frequently. Despite the commandment, there is a lot of killing in the bible -- both in warfare and as capital punishment. And it all seems to have God's approval. This, some argue is contradiction.
But the problem is in the translation. The commandment is לא תרצח, "lo teer'tsach." Though it's commonly translated as "Thou shalt not kill," a more accurate translation would be "Thou shalt not murder." The difference is that killing in warfare, or as the penalty for a crime (as carried out by a an organized and fair justice system as part of an organized system of laws within society) is not the same as murder.
It seems to me the priest should have known this, and pointed out that important distinction to Frank.
I'm a couple weeks late on this, but this year, for the first time, I went on the LIDS garden tours.
Each year, several members agree to open up their gardens for visits by members. There were five participating gardens this year, with each open for an hour or two. It's a two day affair for those who want to see it all, and you're largely seeing the same faces visiting each garden. I'm not going to name any of the people who opened their gardens -- I didn't get permission to use their names, and I don't know if they would object.
I've done a lot of work in the garden over the last several years. And, while it shows in many ways, no one would call our yard well-manicured. But these gardens are works of art. Seeing these I realize that, as much as I like my garden, I can't put it on the display tour unless I really up my game. Which ain't gonna happen. Then again, if you had told me, five years ago, that I would devote this much thought and energy on my flowers, I'd have laughed at you.
Four of the five gardens were heavy on the daylilies, which kind of makes sense since LIDS is a club of daylily enthusiasts. The last garden had fewer daylilies and more hostas -- probably because hostas are easier to care for, and the woman whose garden it was is getting up in years.
I will admit to a certain thrill when I noticed that people had the same cultivars in their display gardens that I have at home -- Spider Man, Becky Lynn and Spindazzle are a couple of examples. It should come as no surprise that I have some of the same cultivars as these people, since I got most of my daylilies at LIDS meetings and sales.
One member, Frank, spent some time discussing with me how to go about pollenating daylilies, which is coming in handy, since now I'm trying my hand at hybridizing. I'll write another blog post about that some other time. If I get around to it. What was also nice was that the lady with the hosta-heavy yard was handing out sheets of paper with the names of mail-order houses she orders plants from. Blair and I have already placed two (hosta-heavy) orders with places on that sheet. The first one came late last week, and we spent a lot of time this weekend planting. The second order should be shipping tomorrow.
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, week 3 Movie: Vampyes (1974) Directed by Jose Ramon Larraz As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL Plot: Two lesbian vampires (or are they bisexual? it's hard to say for sure) roam the English countryside in search of victims, whom they lure back to their castle for orgies and death. Hilarity ensues. Background: Ethan and I first heard of this movie last summer when we saw it at the Cinema Arts Centre's Pay To Get Out Horror Film Festival, and he chose to bring this as his entry for BYOM month. He said he likes it because it feels like one of the later Hammer films, which it does. It's also noteworthy as one of the more-famous examples of the lesbian vampire subgenre. You know, I never thought I'd type a phrase like that into my blog. Reaction: It's easy to dismiss this film as nothing more than exploitative trash, especially since it's somewhat weak on plot. But seeing this again (and not in the middle of an all-night festival), I can appreciate the plot better. Of course, the it is somewhat muddled. In an interview with the stars (which we watched after the film) one of them explained that the director,Jose Larraz, kept changing the script. So the first and last scenes seem very out of place and puzzling. I suspect that, as written, the two women are murdered at the beginning (maybe a husband who doesn't approve of their lesbian affair?), and then, in death, haunt the castle and its surroundings looking for blood. That would have made the disconnected beginning and end make sense. And it would have made this a weird cross between a ghost story and a vampire film. As the film came out, it was hard to figure out exactly what the backstory was supposed to be, and we did spend some time debating it. Keith did point out that this is a film about addiction. The vampyres are addicted to blood and sex. Their victims display addiction-like behavior to the women, which explains why the stay for their deaths. I mean, seriously. If, after a wild night, I wake up with deep gashes in my arms, I'm hitting the exit. I don't care how great the sex was. But there's no getting around the exploitative -- both sexual and violent -- nature of this film. There's blood everywhere, and the scenes of the women drinking their victims' blood are quite graphic. Similarly, the sex and nudity are graphic enough and frequent enough that Vampyres often seems like a softcore porn film. That said, I have to admit that, as much as there were things to enjoy in this film, I came away from it feeling like I needed a shower. Ratings: Me: 8 Scott: 8 Sean: 2 (out of 4) Dave: 9 Joe 9.8 Keith: 9
Bechdel: It's debatable whether Vampyres passes the Bechdel Test. I don't recall the two leads actually having a conversation with each other. They interacted with each other in various nonverbal ways, but no conversation. If you ask me the movie fails. Joe argues that it passes. Bonus: Ethan decided to bring an episode of Happy Tree Friends. For the uninitiated, HTF is a series of cartoons that juxtapose cute animals with graphic violence. Ethan chose an episode, "Tongue in Cheek" in which the anteater character tries to hunt down and eat ants (with disastrous results. I didn't really see a connection (and told Ethan that I thought he shouldn;t bring it). But Keith found a connection -- noting that the extreme gore was in keeping with the movie we had just seen, and that the anteater's obsessive pursuit of the ants was of a theme with the obsession-based plot of the film. It went over better than I thouight it would.
A week and a half ago, I wrote this post about Klingons and their portrayal in the vaious incarnations of Star Trek.The point of my post was that I thought it was unnecessary for the folks behind Star Trek wrote an elaborate retcon explaining the change in the Klingons' look. I figure they could have explained it away as a matter of different races of Klingons.
So, this week, a friend sent me a link to this article about Star Trek: Discovery, the new show that's being developed. Apparently the Klingons will look different from all the older versions. Apparently the explanation is essentially that the look has never been consistent, so who cares?
In actuality, I don't really care. Much. As I explained here, the new incarnation of Star Trek doesn't feel like Star Trek anymore. Based on the trailer for the new series, I have little hope for it. Which means I won't bother watching any of it until I can see it for free. And even then, well, who knows?
But I just want to note that they could have saved themselves all this trouble if they had adopted my explanation.
Keith is gonna kill me for this. Hell, he may even kick me out of his cinema history class. But Ethan and I have come to the conclusion that we're just not into Mario Bava.
I don't say that lightly. I really want to like him. But I just don't.
This came up because the Quad Cinema in Manhattan is having a Bava retrospective this month. Twenty-one of his films. Now, we'd seen a couple of them in Keith's class, and we liked them fine -- particularly A Bay of Blood, so we were eager to see what we could. Well, we saw six of them. Five sucked. The other, A Bay of Blood -- yes, we decided to see it again in this venue, despite having seen it at Keith's -- was good.
Bava was really good at the visuals. There's a lushness, a luxurious fullness, to his films -- especially those set in mysterious castles. Castles -- haunted or otherwise -- are beautiful in his movies. But I couldn't help finding myself bored watching them. I was looking at my watch, wondering when, by God, it'll be over. That's not good.
We had a particular interest in Bava because he was among the leading directors of giallos, a genre that we -- Ethan in particular -- find interesting. We discovered that in Keith's class. But a lot of what we saw at this festival had supernatural elements, which we just weren't into. Of course, I could forgive all that if the story were compelling and the action moved. But it wasn't and it didn't.
As of last night we were still planning to see another one -- A Hatchet for the Honeymoon -- this evening. But Ethan came into my office when I was working, and said that it's really disappointing to head into Manhattan looking forward to a movie, only to find that it isn't to his liking. He used saltier language. So we discussed it for a minute or two and decided not to bother.
For what it's worth, the following are the six films we did see:
1) Kill, Baby...Kill! (1966)
In a small village in the mountains, people are dying violent deaths -- apparently at the hands of a girl who died and wants her revenge.
2) Lisa and the Devil (1973)
A tourist gets separated from her tour group, and finds herself in the past. She takes refuge in a castle with strange reclusive aristocrats, one of whom might be Satan.
3) A Bay of Blood (1971)
Countess Federica is dead, and everyone wants her property. Of course, they're all willing to kill to get it.
4) Planet of the Vampires (1965)
Astronauts, having crashed on an alien planet, are trying to figure out what happened to the crew of their sister ship. And to survive.
5) The Whip and the Body (1963)
Kurt, the elder son of Count Menliff, had been cast out for indiscretions. But now he's back, wanting to reclaim his birthright. Will he succeed? Or will thos who hate him have their revenge?
6) 5 Dolls for an August Moon (1970)
Business associates meet on a remote Mediterranean island getaway to haggle over money and the formula for an industrial resin. Oh, and it appears that one of them is killing the rest.
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, week 2 Movie: The Most Dangerous Game (1932) Directed by Irving Pichel and Ernest B. Schoedsack As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL Plot: Shipwrecked, Joel and Eve are lucky to find a castle and a welcoming host. But he wants to go hunting. Them. Hilarity ensues. Background: I'd never heard of this film before -- though apparently it's a well-regarded classic, based on a 1924 short story. When Joe explained the premise, I immediately recognized it from an adaptation from Fantasy Island. And then I remembered that it was the premise of an episode of Gilligan's Island. And in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. And many other shows. But more on that later.
This was Joe's pick, and he indicated that, part of why he showed it was that he knew Ethan would find it interesting. Joe also noted that, in addition to the many TV and radio adaptations, there have been several motion picture remakes. But this was apparently the definitive version. Reaction: Leslie Banks was incredible as Count Zaroff, the crazy hunter. Joe had explained that Banks had been injured in World War I, resulting in paralysis on one side of his face. Instead of interfering with the performance, though, the injury seemed to enhance it; the asymmetry made him look that much more haunting. Since the movie was filmed for RKO at the same time and location as King Kong, there were places -- and Joe pointed this out -- where the sets were recognizable from that better-known classic. This is a movie that holds up remarkably well, given how old it is. What a gem! I feel bad about this, but I seem to have lost the sheet of paper on which I wrote the ratings. Suffice to say everyone gave high grades -- to both this and the entire presentation.
The Most Dangerous Game fails the Bechdel Test. I mean, seriously, there was only one female character. Bonus: As in prior years, Joe took pride in going beyond just showing us a movie. He curated a full presentation of a theme. In addition to showing us this movie -- which, just over an hour long, is short by today's standards -- he added three more items that come from his wheelhouse and fit the theme. The first extra piece was "Hunter's Moon," a third-season episode of Lost in Space. In this, Professor Robinson is hunted by an alien who needs to prove his valor in order to become ruler of his world. Or some shit like that. I have to preface my comments here by noting that I'm not a fan of LiS. I never have been. But I can enjoy an episode here or there with the right people. I would never watch this at home by myself for entertainment. But with this cinema class, as part of a larger presentation, it was perfect. Which is not to say that it wasn't stupid. Next came "Island of the Darned," which was a second-season episode of Get Smart. Now, we're talking about a show that's near and dear to my heart, although I admit it had been quite a while since I'd watched it. There was plenty of the usual schtick, though I think Don Adams went to the well one time too many in his "would you believe..." routine. And it was clear that the show could not be made today without some major differences in characterization and dialogue. But, I loved watching it. Too bad Ethan -- who had never seen the show before -- wasn't swayed. Finally, we had "Rabbit Fire," a cartoon short in which Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck try to avoid Elmer Fudd's aim. This is a classic, which I remembered quite well from many Saturday mornings when I should have been in shul. I even remember referencing it in a letter of mine that was published by The Ann Arbor News decades ago. I don't remember the setup, but I do recall the punchline -- that it was Elmer season. Anyway, Major Kudos to Joe for once again going outside the box. Here, with Joe's permission, are his prepared remarks.
I’d wager it’s a safe bet that none of us in this room are hunters… unless our quarry is good pizza, shortcuts with no traffic, or great movies.
But, tonight, prepare to experience the thrill of the hunt (at least for that movie option) as we present “The Most Dangerous Game”, followed by not one but two TV tributes to this great film – done by two iconic TV series directly from my Sixties Wheelhouse, of course – and ending with one short cartoon, as we often do. No one can say I don’t give you lots of (rifle) bang for your buck!
“The Most Dangerous Game”, an RKO Pre-Code film from 1932 with a running time of only one hour and two minutes, is, as I’m sure most people know, an adventure / horror film about a madman who hunts human beings for sport, on his mysterious island. Apologies if I spoiled this for anyone, but it would become quickly apparent, even if I hadn’t.
But, there are many other interesting aspects to this film beyond its plot. Who can name another, and far more famous, RKO film from that period? Hint: We’ve seen it in this class, though that doesn’t help Sean… Yes, “The Most Dangerous Game” was the product of “King Kong’s” producers Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack. And, it was made CONCURRENTLY with “King Kong” – using many of “Kong’s” jungle sets (you’ll recognize them) – and even its two human stars, Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong!
You’ll recognize them, too! Wray and Armstrong are said to have worked on both films simultaneously – alternatingly filming one, while set-ups and effects were being prepared for the other.
And, after “King Kong”, “Son of Kong”, and “Mighty Joe Young”, it’s almost uncharacteristic to see Robert Armstrong in a film without a gorilla! “The Most Dangerous Game” starred Joel McCrea as our hero Robert Rainsford, perhaps best known for starring in Alfred Hitchcock’s “Foreign Correspondent”, and the amazing Leslie Banks as the hunter Count Zaroff. A true movie madman, Banks’ Zaroff is made all the more convincing by a trademark forehead scar (the product of make-up) and a real-life paralysis of the left side of his face as a result of injuries suffered in World War I. Look for it.
A charming, yet sinister figure, Leslie Banks also later worked with Hitchcock in his 1934 version of “The Man Who Knew Too Much” – the Peter Lorre version (in a non-sinister role) and 1939’s “Jamaica Inn” – as the rough and tumble pirate leader “Joss”. Great as he was, Banks was very much upstaged by Charles Laughton in that film – which, according to its credits, “introduced” John Wayne’s frequent leading lady, Maureen O’Hara. Banks continued in fiendish form, starring in 1940’s “Chamber of Horrors”, based on a story by Edgar Wallace. …And there’s lots more, but that’s just the stuff I know!
There’s also another “King Kong” alum on Count Zaroff’s island… Noble Johnson, who was Chief of “Kong’s” Skull Islanders (and also in Universal’s original “The Mummy” and “Murders in the Rue Morgue”) – now as Zaroff’s Cossack servant… oddly in whiteface!
As for those Pre-Code delights – beyond the occasional act of violence (seen or implied), note Robert Armstrong’s character’s overt and unrepentant drunkenness – a no-no during the time of Prohibition and the Production Codes to follow, and the film’s pervasive undercurrent of twisted sexuality that would never have flown shortly thereafter.
SHOW “THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME”…
How ‘bout that gruesome Trophy Room, folks? The original cut of “The Most Dangerous Game” was close to ten minutes longer – but a greater and more explicit look into the Trophy Room (among other aspects), caused preview audiences to become SO UPSET that they walked out!
So impactful was “The Most Dangerous Game” that it spawned its share of cinematic remakes – the most significant being 1945’s “A Game of Death”, also produced by RKO and directed by Robert Wise.
“A Game of Death” had a lesser known cast and the notable difference of Russian Count Zaroff now becoming German Erich Krieger. I guess that, in 1945, Germans made more frightening villains than Russians. …Though, according to today’s news, that’s reversed itself once again!
I’ve watched these back-to-back and, in many cases, dialogue is often duplicated almost line-for-line, taking into consideration the restrictions of the now-in-force Production Codes. For instance, the drunk is ONLY PRETENDING so that Krieger will underestimate him. It doesn’t work. He gets killed anyway.
Another, more amazing aspect of this remake is that Noble Johnson appears in BOTH films – this time as Krieger’s Caribbean servant. And, much footage from “The Most Dangerous Game” is edited into “A Game of Death”! The shipwreck, any scenes involving the vicious dogs, and more. Johnson actually appears as TWO characters in “A Game of Death”, as stock footage of his 1932 character handling the dogs – and getting impaled – is repeated here, as well as occasional long shots of Joel McCrea, Fay Wray, and what is clearly Leslie Banks and not the beardless actor playing Krieger! …Anyone thinking of my presentation of “The Lost World”, and its footage reuse in VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, about now?
One more remake of quick note would be “Bloodlust”, filmed in 1959 but released in 1961. Giving credit where it’s definitely due, I’d never heard of this film but, some time ago, Keith put me wise to it as a result of a casual discussion of the similarities between “The Most Dangerous Game” and “A Game of Death”.
To make a long story short, I call it “The Scooby-Doo Version of The Most Dangerous Game”, in that prototypes for the four “meddling kids” (minus the dog) visit the mysterious island… and, well, you know… Robert Reed, of THE BRADY BUNCH (looking just a tad too old to convincingly play a “meddling kid”), takes the “Freddy” role, and the corresponding “Shaggy” role is more of a brainy, bespectacled nerd (rather than a “hippie stoner with a terminal case of the munchies”), likely because a ‘50s beatnik type wouldn’t have been much good in a life-and-death situation. Poetry and bongo-drums just don’t cut it in the jungle, man! Though the hunt itself isn’t nearly as fast-paced and exciting as in “The Most Dangerous Game” or “A Game of Death”, this version has a better “trophy room sequence”, and a slightly different ending – both of which exhibit more violence than I would expect from a black and white, late-fifties / early-sixties era, drive-in type movie. Speaking of my sainted sixties, let’s now take a look at two television interpretations of “The Most Dangerous Game” as seen through the “In-Color” lens of my 1960s Wheelhouse… The core concept of “The Most Dangerous Game” became universal. “Universal”, in so literal a sense, that it was transported to ANOTHER PLANET for the 1967 LOST IN SPACE episode “Hunter’s Moon”. Our “Guest Hunter” was played by Vincent Beck, who made the typical rounds of ‘60s TV with appearances on MR. ED, GILLIGAN’S ISLAND, GET SMART, GUNSMOKE, BONANZA, HONEY WEST, MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E., GIRL FROM U.N.C.L.E., DANIEL BOONE, THE WILD WILD WEST, THE TIME TUNNEL, and THE MONKEES. Oh, and “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians”! For a series with the overt sense of humor that LOST IN SPACE routinely displayed (you all remember the “space-a-delic go-go dancing”, much less the talking carrot and other bizarre moments), “Hunter’s Moon” is played fairly straight by comparison – perhaps in response to the gravitas of “The Most Dangerous Game” model.
SHOW “HUNTER’S MOON”…
Now, the hunt returns to Earth, leaving me with a difficult choice. Originally, I thought to go with the GILLIGAN’S ISLAND take on “The Most Dangerous Game”, which has a better guest cast than what we are about to see – Rory Calhoun as the hunter with Harold Sakata, the guy who played “Odd Job” in James Bond, as his assistant. …Maybe I’ll do a follow-up “home session” that will have “A Game of Death”, “Bloodlust”, and the GILLIGAN’S ISLAND version. …Anyone interested?
In the end I HAD to go with GET SMART’s “Island of the Darned” (1966) – and you’ll see why! For a zany pop-sixties sit-com, it hews REMARKABLY CLOSE to “The Most Dangerous Game” in its story – and there is something of a sense of danger that is uncharacteristic of typical GET SMART episodes. I guess there’s just something about “The Most Dangerous Game” concept that brings this out.
Our “Guest Hunter” is Harold Gould, whose credits begin in the fifties and consistently continue, literally until his death in 2010.
SHOW “ISLAND OF THE DARNED”…
Okay, hunters… How many of you can do SEVEN MINUTES MORE? I always like to end with a CARTOON and, when you see how this one ends, you’ll know why I picked it to conclude the hunt!
SHOW “RABBIT FIRE”…
…And so we end with Bugs and Daffy playing… “The Most Dangerous Game”!
I shouldn't have to write this, but apparently people don;t remember. If you see a horrific car accident (or the fresh aftermath), call 911. Don;t take picures; call 911.
Blair and I had just gotten into the car to go pick someone up at Kennedy Airport. It was early ona Sunday morning. As we were getting onto the highway, I saw a car stopped in the entrance ramp. Then a row of them. Then I looked to the left. It appears that someone crossed the median and hit someone else head on. Both cars looked totaled, and one had flipped over. I'm not sure if there were other vehicles involved. It was clear that this was a new accident -- the cars were still smoking, and there were no emergency responders. I should point out that the highway near us can be dangerous during hours when it's largely empty. People often use it as a race course.
At least a dozen cars had pulled over (on both sides) and we could see people taking pictures with their phones. Blair called 911. They took the information, told her that no one had reported the accident yet, and thanked her.
I understand the morbid curiosity that leads people to take pictures of a wreck. I don't endorse it, but I understand it. But, please, folks, call 911 first. In a serious accident, time is of the essence, and an extra few minutes' delay can cost lives. If someone else has called already they'll thank you and say that they already have it. No negative repercussions. So call. Please.
The question: Can I go to a film festival without getting an earworm?
A bunch of years ago, the Film Forum had a festival of Spaghetti Westerns. Ethan and I went and saw a bunch of them. I'm not sure how many -- maybe ten. Between screenings, the theatre played "A Gringo Like Me," which was the theme from Gunfight at red sands. I heard it enough that it worked its way into my head, and I love it to this day.
Now the Quad Cinema is having a Mario Bava film festival. "Mondo Bava," they call it. Ethan and I have seen six films there so far. Honestly, we're both kind of disappointed. But that's another issue. Before each film, they show a trailer for La Chinoise, a film by Jean-Luc Godard. But the audio for the trailer is of the song, "Mao Mao" from the movie. Another catchy song that I can;t get out of my head.
And, while we're on the subject of Star Trek, let's talk about Klingons.
Original series Klingons with bronzed skin and upswept eyebrows
Specifically, I want to talk about the Klingon appearance, and the way Star Trek's powers that be (STPtB) retconned an explanation.
By way of background, in the original TV series, with its limited budget, Klingons looked more or less human.TV of the time being what it was, there was some inconsistency.
In some cases they had bronzed skin and bushy upswept eyebrows. In other cases, the makeup was very minimal, and they looked like ordinary guys in stupid costumes.
Original series Klingons -- ordinary guys in stupid costumes
Klingon Captain in the first movie
WHen the first movie came out in 1979, the Klingons were redesigned. They had prominent bony ridges going up and over their heads, ending in the nose. Of course, we all know that the change can be wholly attributed to the fact that the movie had a budget that allowed for the elaborate makeup. I recall reading at the time in some geeky publication that the ridge covered the Klingon spine, which extended up and over the head. By the time they made ST:TNG, that whole spine thing had been rethought. Now Klingons had bony plates in their forehead. It wasn't the same kind of pronounced ridge as in the early movies. In subsequent movies, they split the difference; the Klingon foreheads were generally some mix of ridge and plate.
I never really thought much about it -- it was just a TV show. OK, a bunch of TV shows and movies. But still. But the Geekerati were unhappy. The inconsistent look of the Klingons was...well...inconsistent. And how could that be!
Worf, with his bony plates
The STPtB left it pretty much unexplained (which was fine by me). That lasted until the DS9 episode, "Trials and Tribble-ations." That was one of the major geekfest episodes. In it, Sisko and a few of his crew go back in time and (through the magic of computer hoo-hah-ery) interact with the TOS cast in the original "The Trouble with Tribbles" episode.
It was beautifully done (as you can see from the clips below). ANd the second clip shows the first instance in the Star Trek universe where the inconsistency is explicitly addressed. But Worf refuses to discuss it. It's a long story that they don't discuss with outsiders.
For a real explanation, fans would have to wait until Star Trek Enterprise, the prequel series. A whole explanation is provided, involving genetic engineering, and an attempt by the Klingons to develop a breed of super-warriors. That is summed up here.
I acknowledge that the whole retcon was done reasonably well, and the explanation sounds as plausible as any other fantastical techno/bio-babble that you hear in the series. But it has always seemed unnecessary to me. Assuming the STPtB really had to address it (a questionable assumption in my book, but...whatever) it would have made more sense (and been simpler) to simply say that there are various races of Klingons. Some look more like humans than others.
There are various races of humans. Some have dark skin and some have light. Some have straight black hair, and eyes with epicanthic folds. Others don't. One could go on and on. It's true that the differences between the original Klingons and the redesigned ones are lager than the differences between Blacks and Whites and Asians. But so what? Think about dogs. Irish Wolfhounds, Schnauzers and Labrador Retrievers are all part of the same species, but look vastly different. There are various breeds of housecats, and they look different than each other, though the differences aren't as pronounced as the differences between dog breeds. And don't get me started on daylilies and hostas. Is it really so hard to believe that there are bigger differences between races of Klingons? I don't think so.
Now, there's one problem with this. "Blood Oath," a second season episode of DS9, featured Kang, Kor and Koloth -- the main Klingon antagonists from TOS. In TOS they appeared human-like. But in DS9 they had all the new Klingon makeup and prosthetic ridges. Of course, that was before the "Trials and Tribble-ations" episode, so it was before the writers had thought to acknowledge the issue. But that change in how these specific individuals look doesn;t jibe with the race explanation. Of course, it doesn't jibe with the genetic engineering retcon either. Maybe something about how, sometimes a Klingon transforms from one to to another? They are an alien species, afterall, with biology different than ours.
Either way, the whole genetic engineering angle was unnecesarilly complicated and didn;t really contribute anything useful.
A year after Star Trek Beyond (the latest entry from the Star Trek franchise) was released, I finally saw it. Before it was released, I wrote here about how I wasn't going to bother seeing it -- at least not until I could see it for free. As I said I would, I waited until it was free with Amazon Prime.
Beyond really solidified my view -- which I kind of got at in the item linked above-- that Star Trek is np longer really Star Trek. At this point, these movies are action movies. The Fast and The Furious, The Expendables, whatever other new action franchises are out there, now there's Star Trek too. The thing is, I don't like these new action movies. It seems that they consist of a bunch of adrenaline sequences loosely linked together by an incoherent plot. At any point, it's clear what the characters are trying to do -- at the moment. But if you pause to think about the story, it's really hard to see how it all hangs together.
With the first two Trek reboots, it was easy to overlook this element because they purposely had all sorts of nods to the original series. The first reboot was an origin story with a lot to let the hardcore Trekkies geek out. The second one was a retelling of the whole Khan thing, so again there was stuff for old-time Trekkies. But this time around, forget it. As I mentioned to a friend, this is now effectively just an action movie for which they paid licensing to use the names of Star Trek characters.
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month, week 1 Movie: I Am a Ghost (2012) Directed by H.P. Mendoza As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL Plot: Emily is dead and endlessly wandering the house she haunts. Until a medium comes along to help her figure out what comes next. Hilarity ensues. Background: Ghost was my choice to kick off BYOM month. Blair and I were friends with director (and writer) HP Mendoza when this came out in 2012. I first saw it at an Asian film festival that year, and at that festival HP gave me a copy on DVD. Our friendship went by the wayside, so it may seem odd that I chose this movie. But the fact is I was thrilled when it came out, and I still associate that feeling with this movie. It is also one of two feature films that list me in the credits. Reaction: This was the third annual BYOM month. For the first two, I showed The Rocky Horror Picture Show and its sequel, Shock Treatment. Neither of those went over particularly well (and the second one was really a bit of a cheat on the genre), and expectations weren't very high for this. But this got good reactions. There was general agreement that this was a compelling little story and that, once the action picked up it was quite riveting. Keith noted that HP did a good job handling some pretty unsettling material, and Sean appreciatively noticed some influences from Asian horror movies. Some of the flaws in the film were noted and commented on. For example, it does seem to be interminably slow at the beginning. Another issue that was annoying is that Emily's time period is not well defined; the props and language are from a variety of time periods and don't fit together coherently. I suspect that's a result of the limited budget -- this movie was made for $10,000. But it is possible that that was a purposeful directorial choice. Or sloppiness. I'll never know for sure. There are other flaws, but I won't catalog them here. There were alspo some strong elements. The scene where Emily opens the door into nothingness was well done, and the sequence where she sees a variety of images of herself in the house is truly haunting. I was a bit apprehensive about showing this film, but it all worked out in the end.
I find myself a member of the aggrieved class in a class-action lawsuit. For a variety of reasons I don't want to discuss the specifics of this suit. Who the defendant is, and what it is accused of doing are not important for my blogging purposes.
What I am addressing is one aspect of the proposed settlement, and something that I find unclear. The fact is that the answer to my question won't make a material difference to me, but it's just a matter of curiosity.
According to the proposed settlement, the settlement fund will be divided among eligible class members, pro-rata, based on a certain well-defined measure (which I will call "M"). But, presumably to avoid administrative costs, no one will get a payout of less than ten dollars. Any class member whose share is calculated as less than ten dollars will forfeit his or her share, which will then be redistributed among the members of the class who are getting ten dollars or more.
But there is a subtlety to how this is to be accomplished that has me puzzled. Will they:
Make one pass at calculating shares. Then redistribute the settlements amounts of all class members receiving less than ten dollars; or
Make successive passes, each time taking the smallest shares and (if they are less than ten dollars) redistribute them to the members receiving more than ten dollars.
The second method will result in more people getting payouts.
To illustrate, I've created a very simple illustrative. Suppose there are three members of the class, Anna, Bertha and Claire. Their "M" values are, respectively, 90, 10 and 1 (for a total of 101). The total settlement fund is $100.
Under method 1:
Each class member's initial share of the payout is calculated as:
Settlement Fund × Individual "M" / Total "M"
Bertha and Claire each have shares that are less than $10, so they both get nothing. The $10.89 that was their initial share gets redistributed back to Anna, who ends up with the whole $100.
Under method 2:
Each class member's initial share of the payout is calculated as:
Settlement Fund × Individual "M" / Total "M"
Claire has the smallest share, and it's under $10. So she loses hers, which is redistributed to Anna and Bertha. Their preliminary shares are now recalculated as:
Settlement Fund × Individual "M" / Total "M" (among those remaining)
Anna: 100 × 90 / 100 = $90.00
Bertha: 100 × 10 / 100 = $10.00
Bertha has the smallest share, but it's at least $10. So she keeps it and there is no more redistributing.
Now, of course, these numbers are artificial, and constructed to make the point. The actual lawsuit has a settlement fund of several million dollars, and the class has several thousand members. I am reasonably sure that my share will be higher than the ten dollar minimum, so I am better off if they follow method 1. Whether the difference (to me) is material, I can't say. But somehow I doubt it.
Tomorrow begins BYOM (bring your own movie) month in Keith's cinema history class. That's the month where the tables are turned, and each person in the class takes the reins for a week and presents a movie that matters to him. Technically, it's two months; there are six people in the class now, and there will be a couple of down weeks.
Dave is showing Psycho, a classic Hitchcock thriller which I have somehow never seen. Sounds like a good choice, and I am looking forward to finally seeing a movie that has become such a cultural touchstone. Scott will be showing Cannibal Holocaust, which I understand was influential in pioneering the "found footage" style of moviemaking. I also understand that the background of the movie is more interesting than the movie is good, and that some of the scenes are truly revolting. "Don't eat before class," is the advice we were given. I am tempted to bring a veal parm hero to class. Just to be a jerk. Ethan picked Vampyres, which is kind of a modern-day vampre story with lesbian vampires and erotic overtones. He and I saw this last year at the "Pay to Get Out" Horror Movie Marathon at the Cinema Arts Center in Huntington. I wrote about that here. Joe and Sean aren't telling us in advance what they're showing. This will be Sean's first time, and I have no idea what he will show. Joe, for his part, likes to think outside the box and turn his turn into a presentation. The first year, instead of showing a movie, he picked two episodes of iconic 1960s TV shows that had horror movie icons as guest stars. Last year he showed a short movie and then a TV show based on the same work. The key was that both were owned by the same company, and in fact the TV episode recycled footage from the movie.
For my presentation -- and I am going first -- I will be presenting I Am a Ghost, a 2012 ghost story written and directed by HP Mendoza. This was an independant film which didn't get a wide release. I wouldn't have heard of it myself if not for the fact that HP and I were friends when he made it. That friendship has since ended, but the movie still matters to me for two reasons.
It is one of two movies that list me in the credits. This lists me because Blair and I contributed to his Kickstarter campaign. The other movie to list me was a 1999 independant film called Auditions. In that, I am listed as "Man in Bar." If you know when to look, and you squint you can kind of make me out in the background of one scene.
I was very excited for this movie's release when it came out, and I guess that excitement has stayed with me.
This past Saturday was perhaps the longest day of work on behalf of Stack-Up that we have had yet.
It started with Macy's in Herald Square -- the brand's flagship store. Macy's, as a corporation, is a big
supporter of the military, and an active recruiter of military veterans for employment. As in past years, Macy's has partnered with Got Your Six to raise money for a variety of military charities. Customers could donate three dollars to Got Your Six, and in exchange get a coupon for 25% off storewide. During the week or so that this program was ongoing, several military charities had tables at various departments at Macy's,
So we -- Ethan, Blair and I -- had a table set up in Macy's (by women's shoes -- I don't know why) where we handed out information about Stack-Up and tried to sell the coupons. We're not exactly expert salespeople, and in fact only two people bought the coupons from us. Though to be fair there were plenty of people who expressed interest and went to buy the coupons at the cash registers. Truth be told, I was perfectly happy to have people buy at the register instead of from us. The charity gets the same money, and I didn't have to worry about handling as much cash.
But, while we manned the table starting at 1:00, we actually had to be at Macy's at 9:30 in the morning. That was so that Ethan could speak about Stack-Up at a "rally." As near as I could tell, the rally was essentially a departmental pep talk. A half hour before the store opened, the employees of the women's shoe department gathered and one person (their boss? I'm not sure) talked about sales results and goals, and handed out certificates to high performers. They also talked about the Got Your Six campaign, and then introduced Ethan who had a minute or two to introduce Stack-Up. He was great. It's so gratifying to see him getting better and better and more and more comfortable speaking to groups. After the rally, we had a couple hours to go shopping at the farmers' market in Union Square and have lunch before being back for our 1:00 table-manning.
It was great to find out that Macy's is supporting the military in this way. Until I had heard about this campaign, I had had no idea.
After that, it was off to the headquarters of The Wounded Warrior Project. WWP is a military charity that helps injured veterans deal with their life back in the civilian world. WWP was having a Mario Kart competition, and we were going there to help out. And provide a Wii-U, since they were short one. I think we have plans to help WWP with some of their upcoming social events.
I see a lot of news and commentary items about student groups at universities protesting and giving the administrations lists of demands.* These demands generally include some combination of safe spaces, extra spending on "diversity," and support for various leftist causes. They often include vaguely threatening statements that they are not negotiable or that ignoring them will not be tolerated. It always puzzles me when an administration takes these demands seriously. If I were a University President and I had my way, my response would be something along the lines of, "If you don't like it here, you are free to leave."
I bring that up because Tom Nichols touched on it when he spoke last Thursday at the New York City Bar. His talk (technically, a conversation with Bard College's Jim Ketterer), sponsored by the Bard Globalization and International Affairs Program, was in promotion of his new book, The Death of Expertise. He didn't specifically talk about campus protests and their demands, but he did talk about students forgetting their place (my word not his -- he was more diplomatic) vis-à-vis that of the professor. He noted that the student petitioned for admission to the school, and is not being held a prisoner there. Nichols also referenced, albeit briefly, the case of Yale's shrieking girl (video below). Nichols also related his own experience at Georgetown, as a graduate student, assuming himself to be a peer to one of his philosophy professors.
Ketterer opened the conversation by asking why Nichols wrote the book, since it is outside of his field of expertise**. Nichols' areas are national security, international relations and -- especially -- Russia. He is one of our country's leading experts on Russia and the Soviet Union. Nichols pinned his decision to write the book on an exchange he had when Edward Snowden was in the news. Someone turned to him and said "Tom, let me explain Russia to you." He went home and wrote a long angry blogpost. Nichols did acknowledge that it wasn't that comment alone. He has heard similar things before, and he is concerned about the fact that expertise seems to be devalued these days.
Nichols and Ketterer placed blame with a few scapegoats, including academia, the obsession with children's self-esteem, and social media. The topic of President Trump inevitably came up, which led to Nichols' best line of the night: "Donald Trump did not create the war on expertise, but he surfed it magnificently."
The distrust of experts was a theme that Nichols hit on repeatedly. Experts do make mistakes, he noted, but their opinions still have more value than the opinions of nonexperts. But experts could gain more trust if they were more forthcoming about their mistakes.
I tended to agree with most of the points Nichols made, though I am not convinced about social media's role in all this. I suspect that there was the same distrust of experts before, but it was harder for anyone who wasn't accepted as an expert to have a voice. Now, anyone with access to a computer can make Youtube videos, and it can be hard to tell who actually is an expert. Take, for example, 9/11. There are all sorts of Youtube videos providing all sorts of crazy theories about the attack. ANd many of them may look completely legitimate if viewed in a vacuum. Hell, with Sharon's help, I could probably create a convincing-looking video "proving" that 9/11 was the work of space aliens.
I do hope that I didn't offend Professor Nichols. Before the talk, Ethan and I asked him to sign our copy of his new book. In talking to him, I called him Mr. Nichols instead of Dr. or Professor. Oops. Well, Ethan is probably seeing him again this week. Maybe he won't make the same mistake I did.
