We're all prone to nostalgia. It's an ailment common to the human condition. Right about the time we hit 30 years old, something happens. Music on the radio just isn't as fun anymore. And you know you have a problem when all your favorite songs are on a "Classic Hits" station or worse yet - it is playing in the McDonald's lobby. Not the watered down muzak version, but the original. This was the music that we used to annoy our parents and it's playing in the background like Kenny G and Yanni.
I suppose it was inevitable. It happened to our parents and it will probably happen to our children. But that isn't what sparked my little rant. I happened across a small collection of music videos from the '80's and watched a few, one of which was by Phil Collins who recently announced he was done with the music business and I can see why he'd want out. 25 years ago when videos were still in their adolescence, there was more humor and story to them. Sometimes it was a bit absurdist, but they were generally enjoyable to watch. That's probably why MTV could exist playing them...because people would watch them and be entertained for hours. MTV, as many before have lamented, no longer plays music videos. They have gone the way of the dodo. Those that do exist are mostly just rock stars posing, lip syncing, and mooching for the camera. There are some exceptions (Muse - Knights of Cydonia!), but for the most part music videos have lost their fearless style.
All that just to say I miss Phil Collins' impish grin.
If you have a favorite video (nostalgic or current), tell me about it in the comments.
(I don't know why I say this because nobody ever does...)
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
First Love
Note: This is written from a male point of view. Because I am one.
As anyone can tell from a cursory glance, I love the cinema. Not the vulgar "movies", although I often refer to them as such, but cinema as an art form. I not into paintings or symphonies, although I do have niches in both that I indulge in from time to time. Cinema is for people that eat before they go into movie so they aren't distracted by popcorn and candy wrappers. Cinema is for people that see a trailer as more than just an advertisement, but as it's own sweet art form. Cinema is for people that stay after and look at every movie poster in the theater and imagine how they might look in one's cave. Needless to say, none of my friends will play "Scene It?" with me anymore.
As a cinephile, you would think that I would have seen all the classics, but I am often surprised at the gaping holes in my film pedigree. I've never seen "Gone With The Wind" or "The Godfather". I do know enough trivia about each, however, to have a conversation about both. I do go through phases where I scoop up all the notable films in a certain genre or by an artist. Just recently I went through a Cary Grant phase where I watched "His Girl Friday", "Arsenic and Old Lace", and "Father Goose" and a 70's Realist phase where I watched "Chinatown", "The French Connection", and "Serpico". I know there are more in both of those categories worth watching, but I try to limit it to three so I don't burn out.
It has taken me two paragraphs of introduction to get to my point. Somewhere an English teacher is weeping.
You would think with my love of (classic) cinema that I would have already seen "Cinema Paradiso" before, but despite having it recommended to me on numerous occasions by like-minded friends, I only finished it last night - the director's cut, of course. It's a hard story not to love, and although post-WWII rural Italy is nothing like my own childhood, I could easily relate to the struggles of growing up. You can't help but reflect on your own life and your own first love, which is what I really want to talk about.
Love is a whimsical thing. Of course we have to split being "in love" from "loving" someone. I love my wife. She is my rock and my support. Without her, my life would tailspin out of control. But I don't feel the same way about her as when we were courting. My hands don't get sweaty around her. My heart doesn't beat faster. My mind doesn't fill with elaborate machinations about how to win her over. At least not very often. And, although being in love is lots of fun, loving someone is much deeper and stronger. So many people jettison their marriage once the spark is gone assuming that love is gone with it. They simply haven't learned that true love is not the searing flame of nearsighted desire, but the warm glow of acceptance and trust. People who swing from relationship to relationship like Tarzan on a vine are seeking that thrilling rush of being "in love". You might say (and actually could clinically diagnose it since it's all about hormones and brain chemistry) that they are addicted to love, although only to the easy fun part.
Most of us have had several loves in our lives until we found the one we thought was strong enough to go the distance. Most of them fade away and blend together in the fog of distant memory. But there is one that always somehow seems bright - our first love. You remember the time you suddenly realized that you didn't care if girls had cooties. Perhaps you acted out to get their attention. Or perhaps you secretly spied on them. Or maybe even both. You remember her name. You remember what she looked like. You've wondered on more than one occasion what ever happened to her.
For me, it happened in 4th grade. She was almost a year older than me and taller, of course. For four years I secretly carried a torch for her. Anyone watching from the outside could tell how I felt, though. I made her cookies without prompting when she was sick, although I very rarely went over to her house (don't want people to get suspicious). I went roller skating with her at the local fair grounds. I have a shoebox full of memories of her. And when we finally moved away, I told her how I felt in a letter. Yes...I was a grand coward, but I was only 12 so I might be forgiven. We held hands one time and I will never forget it. The last time I saw her I was 14 and we came back to the old neighborhood for a visit. Had I know then that I would never see her again, I probably would have taken a picture, but as it stands, I have none. Just my memory.
I've often thought about getting in touch with her, but life has moved on and really, no good can come of it. Somewhere deep inside me is a small flame which still burns. I have no idea if I had the same effect on her as she had on me, but it doesn't really matter. I have only one thing to say: Thank you, Christine.
Required viewing:
As anyone can tell from a cursory glance, I love the cinema. Not the vulgar "movies", although I often refer to them as such, but cinema as an art form. I not into paintings or symphonies, although I do have niches in both that I indulge in from time to time. Cinema is for people that eat before they go into movie so they aren't distracted by popcorn and candy wrappers. Cinema is for people that see a trailer as more than just an advertisement, but as it's own sweet art form. Cinema is for people that stay after and look at every movie poster in the theater and imagine how they might look in one's cave. Needless to say, none of my friends will play "Scene It?" with me anymore.
As a cinephile, you would think that I would have seen all the classics, but I am often surprised at the gaping holes in my film pedigree. I've never seen "Gone With The Wind" or "The Godfather". I do know enough trivia about each, however, to have a conversation about both. I do go through phases where I scoop up all the notable films in a certain genre or by an artist. Just recently I went through a Cary Grant phase where I watched "His Girl Friday", "Arsenic and Old Lace", and "Father Goose" and a 70's Realist phase where I watched "Chinatown", "The French Connection", and "Serpico". I know there are more in both of those categories worth watching, but I try to limit it to three so I don't burn out.
It has taken me two paragraphs of introduction to get to my point. Somewhere an English teacher is weeping.
You would think with my love of (classic) cinema that I would have already seen "Cinema Paradiso" before, but despite having it recommended to me on numerous occasions by like-minded friends, I only finished it last night - the director's cut, of course. It's a hard story not to love, and although post-WWII rural Italy is nothing like my own childhood, I could easily relate to the struggles of growing up. You can't help but reflect on your own life and your own first love, which is what I really want to talk about.
Love is a whimsical thing. Of course we have to split being "in love" from "loving" someone. I love my wife. She is my rock and my support. Without her, my life would tailspin out of control. But I don't feel the same way about her as when we were courting. My hands don't get sweaty around her. My heart doesn't beat faster. My mind doesn't fill with elaborate machinations about how to win her over. At least not very often. And, although being in love is lots of fun, loving someone is much deeper and stronger. So many people jettison their marriage once the spark is gone assuming that love is gone with it. They simply haven't learned that true love is not the searing flame of nearsighted desire, but the warm glow of acceptance and trust. People who swing from relationship to relationship like Tarzan on a vine are seeking that thrilling rush of being "in love". You might say (and actually could clinically diagnose it since it's all about hormones and brain chemistry) that they are addicted to love, although only to the easy fun part.
Most of us have had several loves in our lives until we found the one we thought was strong enough to go the distance. Most of them fade away and blend together in the fog of distant memory. But there is one that always somehow seems bright - our first love. You remember the time you suddenly realized that you didn't care if girls had cooties. Perhaps you acted out to get their attention. Or perhaps you secretly spied on them. Or maybe even both. You remember her name. You remember what she looked like. You've wondered on more than one occasion what ever happened to her.
For me, it happened in 4th grade. She was almost a year older than me and taller, of course. For four years I secretly carried a torch for her. Anyone watching from the outside could tell how I felt, though. I made her cookies without prompting when she was sick, although I very rarely went over to her house (don't want people to get suspicious). I went roller skating with her at the local fair grounds. I have a shoebox full of memories of her. And when we finally moved away, I told her how I felt in a letter. Yes...I was a grand coward, but I was only 12 so I might be forgiven. We held hands one time and I will never forget it. The last time I saw her I was 14 and we came back to the old neighborhood for a visit. Had I know then that I would never see her again, I probably would have taken a picture, but as it stands, I have none. Just my memory.
I've often thought about getting in touch with her, but life has moved on and really, no good can come of it. Somewhere deep inside me is a small flame which still burns. I have no idea if I had the same effect on her as she had on me, but it doesn't really matter. I have only one thing to say: Thank you, Christine.
Required viewing:
- Little Manhattan
- Flipped
- Hearts in Atlantis
- and of course: Cinema Paradiso
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The Love/Hate of Risk
I am not a businessman. A truer statement could not be said.
And yet I studied business. After my undergraduate studying psychology and my early career in IT. I gave up both of those pursuits (rather willingly I might add) to investigate the world of business - a study in contradiction if ever there was one.
Management is many things. Some people say it is a counterpart to Leadership. Others say they are the same. Some people say it is technical. Others say it is personal. The only thing most people can agree on is that Business Management is about making good decisions with incomplete information. We cannot know the future with our human faculties and so we make the best informed decision we can.
Which introduces us to the idea of risk. Risk, simply put, is the probability of failure. Of course, in hind sight, we see the course that events have run and the past has only one probability - that which actually happened. And so we look to the past to see the future. We run complex calculations and statistics on the past to come up with probable scenarios. We see how often our predictions hold true and we refine our predictive method. Of course, we are often wrong, but we try to minimize that by betting on the surest things. And so we play it safe. We quantify Risk with things like interest rates and volatility indexes. Business is, by nature, risk averse.
Then why, in every class I took with little exception, did every professor encourage us to take chances, be bold, and push the envelope? Business people say they want "out-of-the-box" thinking. Clearly out of the box thinking carries with it more inherent risk. So why on earth would they want it? You would think they would want a room full of actuaries, statisticians, and financial analysts. In point of fact, they do surround themselves with these people. They want round pegs for round holes because they know they fit.
So why the platitudes about going out on a limb. Perhaps they like to see people fail because it makes them feel better about their own failures. Or perhaps the casino mentality drives them to wish for "bet big, win big" scenarios. All I know is they aren't really looking for people who are different. People who might have a different point of view. People that act different. Not that they are looking for "yes" men, but that they are looking for like-minded thinkers. People that solve problems the same way. People that treat risk the same way.
And breaking into that club if you're an outsider can be almost impossible. They love the idea of risk, but hate risking anything.
Cowards.
And yet I studied business. After my undergraduate studying psychology and my early career in IT. I gave up both of those pursuits (rather willingly I might add) to investigate the world of business - a study in contradiction if ever there was one.
Management is many things. Some people say it is a counterpart to Leadership. Others say they are the same. Some people say it is technical. Others say it is personal. The only thing most people can agree on is that Business Management is about making good decisions with incomplete information. We cannot know the future with our human faculties and so we make the best informed decision we can.
Which introduces us to the idea of risk. Risk, simply put, is the probability of failure. Of course, in hind sight, we see the course that events have run and the past has only one probability - that which actually happened. And so we look to the past to see the future. We run complex calculations and statistics on the past to come up with probable scenarios. We see how often our predictions hold true and we refine our predictive method. Of course, we are often wrong, but we try to minimize that by betting on the surest things. And so we play it safe. We quantify Risk with things like interest rates and volatility indexes. Business is, by nature, risk averse.
Then why, in every class I took with little exception, did every professor encourage us to take chances, be bold, and push the envelope? Business people say they want "out-of-the-box" thinking. Clearly out of the box thinking carries with it more inherent risk. So why on earth would they want it? You would think they would want a room full of actuaries, statisticians, and financial analysts. In point of fact, they do surround themselves with these people. They want round pegs for round holes because they know they fit.
So why the platitudes about going out on a limb. Perhaps they like to see people fail because it makes them feel better about their own failures. Or perhaps the casino mentality drives them to wish for "bet big, win big" scenarios. All I know is they aren't really looking for people who are different. People who might have a different point of view. People that act different. Not that they are looking for "yes" men, but that they are looking for like-minded thinkers. People that solve problems the same way. People that treat risk the same way.
And breaking into that club if you're an outsider can be almost impossible. They love the idea of risk, but hate risking anything.
Cowards.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Great Movies Come From Great Villains
We root for the underdog and we root for the home team. We cheer on the hero. But, as M. Night Shyamalan noted in his sleeping ode to comics, Unbreakable, the heroes are nothing without the villains. Without a hero, you almost don't have a show. But without a perfect foil for the hero, one with purpose and true lethality not only to the body of the hero, but to the mind and soul, a movie falls flat.
Arguably the most interesting director these days is Christopher Nolan, and it isn't hard to see why. His breakthrough film, Memento, gets a lot of props for it's inventive storytelling and twist ending. But (spoiler alert) making the unwitting hero into the villain was a stroke of genius. Then look at the Batman movies. You can point to the villains, sure. But the true villain is what can break him without touching him...crime and corruption themselves. The villains are built on themes. Fear in the case of the Scarecrow and Chaos in the cases of the Joker and later Two-Face. They aren't just self-serving evil-doers. Instead they are the embodiments of those primal elements, and that is what makes them so good to watch. Excellent acting and direction help, but without those foundations deep in the human psyche, they wouldn't be nearly as interesting.
And then, of course, we have Inception. Who is the real villain there? Guilt. A whole movie based around fighting guilt in a personified real form. Again, another brilliant turn by Nolan. If he continues this streak, I can't wait to see what he cooks up next.
But enough of singing his praises. We need better villains. We need people to write more intelligent bad guys. Villains, not heroes, are what raise movies from B-rate action flicks, to memorable Oscar contenders. Anyone can write a mob boss, a drug lord, or a terrorist as a villain. And heck, we do need a few simple bad guys once in a while to sharpen our hero on, but the true nemesis will be the one able to break down a hero psychologically, emotionally, and philosophically. They must have a real chance at destroying the hero or the plot isn't nearly as compelling.
In the comments, lets hear about your favorite villains and why they were great.
Arguably the most interesting director these days is Christopher Nolan, and it isn't hard to see why. His breakthrough film, Memento, gets a lot of props for it's inventive storytelling and twist ending. But (spoiler alert) making the unwitting hero into the villain was a stroke of genius. Then look at the Batman movies. You can point to the villains, sure. But the true villain is what can break him without touching him...crime and corruption themselves. The villains are built on themes. Fear in the case of the Scarecrow and Chaos in the cases of the Joker and later Two-Face. They aren't just self-serving evil-doers. Instead they are the embodiments of those primal elements, and that is what makes them so good to watch. Excellent acting and direction help, but without those foundations deep in the human psyche, they wouldn't be nearly as interesting.
And then, of course, we have Inception. Who is the real villain there? Guilt. A whole movie based around fighting guilt in a personified real form. Again, another brilliant turn by Nolan. If he continues this streak, I can't wait to see what he cooks up next.
But enough of singing his praises. We need better villains. We need people to write more intelligent bad guys. Villains, not heroes, are what raise movies from B-rate action flicks, to memorable Oscar contenders. Anyone can write a mob boss, a drug lord, or a terrorist as a villain. And heck, we do need a few simple bad guys once in a while to sharpen our hero on, but the true nemesis will be the one able to break down a hero psychologically, emotionally, and philosophically. They must have a real chance at destroying the hero or the plot isn't nearly as compelling.
In the comments, lets hear about your favorite villains and why they were great.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Post your sci-fi ideas - or not
I dream. As do most people. I'm not talking aspirational dreams like world peace. I'm talking funky talking marmoset as James Bond flying in a purple blimp dream. You know the kind you have when you're asleep. Often the make little sense when I'm awake, but in the early 30 seconds or so after I wake up, they seem to make perfect sense to me, and awesome ideas for movies. Most of them would have to be some sort of science fiction because I'm pretty sure it is the only genre elastic enough to contain them.
I've had quite a few ideas for movies. I even tried to write one down once. I got two chapters in and was so bored, I canceled myself. But that doesn't mean the premise of the plot was bad. It just means that I should have taken more classes in creative writing.
Additionally, I've noticed that many movies are "based on an idea by" someone. They take some crazy idea and build a whole movie around it. And, given the fact that Hollywood may be out of ideas, I thought this could serve as a repository for great movie starts. And we might get a few laughs jump starting our imaginations.
I'll go first with one I thought about today:
It's several centuries into the future. Mankind has taken control of evolution by selecting the genetic traits it wants in its offspring and weeding out the genetic diseases and weakness. We have engineered new genes that give us better advantages and fill in some of the genetic blank space in our DNA. Only one problem...a disease attacks that mankind has evolved past and has not genetic code to resist. Our only hope is to re-integrate with the luddites that resisted change and were persecuted almost into non-existence and genetically are almost another species. Only they have the naturally evolved DNA to survive. Themes of class struggle and trying to control nature could be explored.
If you're a movie exec or an author and would like to use my idea, get in touch and we'll do lunch. (really, a nice lunch is probably all I need to sign over the rights. That and maybe a good movie).
Post your own ideas in the comments. (although given the sparse comments so far, I'm not holding my breath)
P.S. - rights belong to the commenter. I won't steal your ideas. I'm not sure how to steal an idea anyway.
I've had quite a few ideas for movies. I even tried to write one down once. I got two chapters in and was so bored, I canceled myself. But that doesn't mean the premise of the plot was bad. It just means that I should have taken more classes in creative writing.
Additionally, I've noticed that many movies are "based on an idea by" someone. They take some crazy idea and build a whole movie around it. And, given the fact that Hollywood may be out of ideas, I thought this could serve as a repository for great movie starts. And we might get a few laughs jump starting our imaginations.
I'll go first with one I thought about today:
It's several centuries into the future. Mankind has taken control of evolution by selecting the genetic traits it wants in its offspring and weeding out the genetic diseases and weakness. We have engineered new genes that give us better advantages and fill in some of the genetic blank space in our DNA. Only one problem...a disease attacks that mankind has evolved past and has not genetic code to resist. Our only hope is to re-integrate with the luddites that resisted change and were persecuted almost into non-existence and genetically are almost another species. Only they have the naturally evolved DNA to survive. Themes of class struggle and trying to control nature could be explored.
If you're a movie exec or an author and would like to use my idea, get in touch and we'll do lunch. (really, a nice lunch is probably all I need to sign over the rights. That and maybe a good movie).
Post your own ideas in the comments. (although given the sparse comments so far, I'm not holding my breath)
P.S. - rights belong to the commenter. I won't steal your ideas. I'm not sure how to steal an idea anyway.
What is it?
Some people just have it, but I'm not sure what it is. Some people just ooze success and confidence. They strike up conversations with people and put them at ease with natural smiles. They are not supermodel beautiful, and as a matter of fact, some of them are very...um...homely. But they have what it takes to understand people and make relationships easily.
What is it? And why don't I have it? I went to school with them and I made the mistake of linking to many of them on LinkedIn, which sends me regular postcards about their accomplishments and success. My sisters seem to have it, too.
I'm not dumb. I'd like to think that my intelligence is above average (having actually taken an IQ test once, I will only state that I'm almost 2 sigma above average) which isn't bad. But intelligence isn't enough. As a matter of fact, it might be a problem if not used properly. But I can't figure out how some people can just walk into a situation and control it. I don't thaw out until I've been in a group for a while. I have good ideas, but I'm often too shy to express them. Or too slow.
Self-confidence and charm. Those are the weapons that conquer the world. Everything else is pointless without them. It's what nerds wish they had. It's why the jocks rule. It's what the executives that know jack have and why the brilliant peons toil. You can't fake those, at least not for long.
Rant Complete. End Transmission.
What is it? And why don't I have it? I went to school with them and I made the mistake of linking to many of them on LinkedIn, which sends me regular postcards about their accomplishments and success. My sisters seem to have it, too.
I'm not dumb. I'd like to think that my intelligence is above average (having actually taken an IQ test once, I will only state that I'm almost 2 sigma above average) which isn't bad. But intelligence isn't enough. As a matter of fact, it might be a problem if not used properly. But I can't figure out how some people can just walk into a situation and control it. I don't thaw out until I've been in a group for a while. I have good ideas, but I'm often too shy to express them. Or too slow.
Self-confidence and charm. Those are the weapons that conquer the world. Everything else is pointless without them. It's what nerds wish they had. It's why the jocks rule. It's what the executives that know jack have and why the brilliant peons toil. You can't fake those, at least not for long.
Rant Complete. End Transmission.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Principles
Now I would like to turn my (and your) attention to the notion of a principle-centered life. In order to do so, I must first define what I mean by “principle” and it’s simply this: a rule that governs my actions. There are plenty of synonyms such as mores, laws, and traditions. What I don’t mean are habits. And I generally don’t include self-interest, although Gordon Gecko certainly makes a good argument to call it a principle.
There are plenty of ways principles show up in our lives. They are not the exclusive domain of religious people, either. Joss Whedon, an avowed atheist, once said that atheists have an even greater imperative to live by principles since they don’t have their principles given to them (and I’m paraphrasing that). While I don’t necessarily agree with him about the magnitude of principle-centered living that an atheist does vs. a religious person, it did give me food for thought. What does it mean to live by a principle?
It should be noted that principles are slightly different than values. Values are generally the basis for a principle. For example, I value cleanliness, so I have a principle that I take a shower every day. You can get into an argument about which causes which. Do people salute the flag because the respect it, or do people respect the flag because they salute it? I believe it can go both ways. Things which we persist in doing can cause us to value those things, and things that we value can cause us to create a rule.
Principles help us make decisions. You can think of them as shortcuts. As with the above shower example, I take one whether or not I think I need one. Perhaps I don’t need one because I didn’t get dirty, or perhaps I do because, although clean, I can’t sense my own body odor. Regardless of what I might think about a situation, my principle cuts out the rationalization and I submit to a shower.
Principles are not always rational. For example, my sister-in-law has a principle where she will not allow herself to touch another person’s wedding ring if they offer it to her directly. (Apparently this is a common superstition where she is from.) They must first put it down and she will pick it up. The purpose here is the irrational idea that touching it directly will somehow cause the marriage to sour and cause a divorce. The value is good (a sound marriage), but the principle itself is faulty. (At least to me it is.) Such is the way of most superstitions; they spring out of good intentions but have no logical connection.
Principles can also be good, but based on a less than noble value. For example, my daughter learned how to go to the bathroom by being bribed with candy. Her value of candy was greater than her value not to wet her pants. If suddenly she were to devalue candy, what would happen to her principle? It would become hollow and probably soon disappear. Other times there are principles that have no value at all – just the skeletons of a forgotten value. These often take the form of hollow tradition. Take for example “knocking on wood”. Society has largely forgotten why we do this: it is to make noise so the devil won’t hear what we’re planning and interfere. But we keep on doing this. I’m sure there are plenty of other principles you can think of that are based on little or no value.
Principles can also be bad. Take racism for example. It is a bad value based on faulty logic and a bad principle that builds out of it. Most prejudice falls into this category. They are rules that govern our behavior and eliminate decision making. In this case, having principles may not be such a good thing.
Principles, as stated before, are not the domain of only the religious. They are just as important to moral relativists. They are stakes in the ground that we plant and say this is where I will build my character. They form the basis of our moral compass. The difference between atheists and theists is that the theists believe that their principles are established for them pointing north, while atheists are left alone to choose north for themselves. I'll let the reader decide which is better. It should be pointed out, however, that if a religious person doesn't examine their God-given principles and create an underlying value, they will whither away. Where we don’t have principles, the ground is always shifting and each encounter is subject to either our thought process or our appetites. In some cases, that may be a good thing, such as when we meet new people. Instead of judging them out of our principles (read prejudice), we should judge them on their own merit. However, the world is too complex for us to judge every situation and so some principles should be established to guide our actions in certain situations so that we can focus what free processing capacity we have on those issues that are too new or important to have a principle. And on occasion, we should check our principles to see if they are in keeping with our values and having the desired effect. We should reflect on whether they are based on real values or simply the remainder of something now past.
Personally, I am evaluating my values and seeing if they line up with my principles. I see a lot of behavior that is simply be guided by my appetites, which are fickle and can lead to inconsistent behavior. In those cases, I’m looking to see if it is significant and whether it violates some of my values. And I’m looking at my behavior to see if new principles need to be established or re-emphasized to myself because I believe that a principle-centered life will lead me to less personal stress, more adherence to my values, and an easier overall existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)