Talking about the Dark Knight with some other hard-core obsessives here.
We've begun plotting the next movie...
Thursday, July 31, 2008
I love the smell of napalm in the morning
This is an excellent smackdown of this almost entirely incoherent protest letter.
For background, a bunch of professors wrote to protest the establishment (or at least the official U of Chicago participation in) the Milton Friedman institute. This is because, displaying their love for intellectual openness and diversity, they feel Milton Friedman is the devil and his ideas should be banned forever. I exaggerate. Somewhat.
At any rate, this John Cochrane fellow, who is apparently also on the faculty of U of Chicago but despite that apparently feels that being a scholar should entail clarity of writing and thought, not just signing on to the cause-du-jour, however inane, incoherent or counter to prior causes-du-jour, has written a response to the protest letter.
It is excellent and gives me hope for our future. The fact that he is one man and the signatories of the original document were legion, however, crushes that hope like the jaws of a child finishing off a gob-stopper.
(Got to this particular smackdown through the excellent Marginal Revolutions blog here)
For background, a bunch of professors wrote to protest the establishment (or at least the official U of Chicago participation in) the Milton Friedman institute. This is because, displaying their love for intellectual openness and diversity, they feel Milton Friedman is the devil and his ideas should be banned forever. I exaggerate. Somewhat.
At any rate, this John Cochrane fellow, who is apparently also on the faculty of U of Chicago but despite that apparently feels that being a scholar should entail clarity of writing and thought, not just signing on to the cause-du-jour, however inane, incoherent or counter to prior causes-du-jour, has written a response to the protest letter.
It is excellent and gives me hope for our future. The fact that he is one man and the signatories of the original document were legion, however, crushes that hope like the jaws of a child finishing off a gob-stopper.
(Got to this particular smackdown through the excellent Marginal Revolutions blog here)
Who wears short-shorts?
Article in the NYTimes this morning about the rise of shorts in male formal wear.
This is interesting for a few reasons. 1) Outside of, maybe, very fashionable gay men, I don't think any man will start wearing this look. 2) The only exception to 1) is, maybe, people who enjoy looking like 8-year old boys dressed up for Sunday school (this could be known as the 'Pee Wee Herman' look)
3) is a little more involved.
The article goes on to discuss the rise of "showing some skin" in men's fashion more generally. The concept is that men have spent all this time in the gym getting these perfect, perfect bodies and they want to show them off. So what examples do they give us? A professional hockey player who is also a self-described fashion maeven; David Beckham, who I suppose could still be called a professional athlete, but is really more like a model at this point; and Anderson Cooper, who is clearly a celebrity and, though he may be a fine, fine newsman, is obviously in a business in which being attractive matters enormously.
So why is this interesting? Because at one point the elite males were not necessarily the most attractive people. The selecting simply wasn't being done on looks or muscle-tone or even upright-posture. No, the selection had to do with bloodlines and political skill and, perhaps, military ability. So you ended up with the European nobility, many of whom were just shivering piles of regressive genes that couldn't pass for a male model if they devoted themselves to nothing else.
But these were the elite. So these were the people spending time and money at clothiers. So fashion developed to try and make normal-bodied people look good, or at least as good as they could. This is actually the goal behind most of traditional male formal wear. You'll notice that it all looks pretty much the same: don't stand out, because if you're not an adonis, standing out will not be to your benefit. Also, have some padded shoulders to give your sloped, world-weary frame the impression of vigorous masculinity. Keep every thing in simple lines to hopefully distract from the decidely un-simple lines of your paunchy, crap body.
But now-a-days we have entire industries made up of the prettiest. We have entire elites (Hollywood, pro-athletes, news anchors, to a slightly-lesser-but-rising-all-the-time extent politicians) who are largely selected on the basis of physical perfection. These people do not need fashion to hide their faults, they want fashion to showcase their perfection. Thus more skin, tighter, etc., etc.
I should add that women's fashion went through much the same process, only earlier. Go back to the staid victorian fashions with their corsets and bustles and the like and notice that they too are designed to make any woman look at least passably attractive. But a mini-skirt and a tank-top really is not attractive on everyone, despite what the unattractive might fool themselves into thinking.
This is interesting for a few reasons. 1) Outside of, maybe, very fashionable gay men, I don't think any man will start wearing this look. 2) The only exception to 1) is, maybe, people who enjoy looking like 8-year old boys dressed up for Sunday school (this could be known as the 'Pee Wee Herman' look)
3) is a little more involved.
The article goes on to discuss the rise of "showing some skin" in men's fashion more generally. The concept is that men have spent all this time in the gym getting these perfect, perfect bodies and they want to show them off. So what examples do they give us? A professional hockey player who is also a self-described fashion maeven; David Beckham, who I suppose could still be called a professional athlete, but is really more like a model at this point; and Anderson Cooper, who is clearly a celebrity and, though he may be a fine, fine newsman, is obviously in a business in which being attractive matters enormously.
So why is this interesting? Because at one point the elite males were not necessarily the most attractive people. The selecting simply wasn't being done on looks or muscle-tone or even upright-posture. No, the selection had to do with bloodlines and political skill and, perhaps, military ability. So you ended up with the European nobility, many of whom were just shivering piles of regressive genes that couldn't pass for a male model if they devoted themselves to nothing else.
But these were the elite. So these were the people spending time and money at clothiers. So fashion developed to try and make normal-bodied people look good, or at least as good as they could. This is actually the goal behind most of traditional male formal wear. You'll notice that it all looks pretty much the same: don't stand out, because if you're not an adonis, standing out will not be to your benefit. Also, have some padded shoulders to give your sloped, world-weary frame the impression of vigorous masculinity. Keep every thing in simple lines to hopefully distract from the decidely un-simple lines of your paunchy, crap body.
But now-a-days we have entire industries made up of the prettiest. We have entire elites (Hollywood, pro-athletes, news anchors, to a slightly-lesser-but-rising-all-the-time extent politicians) who are largely selected on the basis of physical perfection. These people do not need fashion to hide their faults, they want fashion to showcase their perfection. Thus more skin, tighter, etc., etc.
I should add that women's fashion went through much the same process, only earlier. Go back to the staid victorian fashions with their corsets and bustles and the like and notice that they too are designed to make any woman look at least passably attractive. But a mini-skirt and a tank-top really is not attractive on everyone, despite what the unattractive might fool themselves into thinking.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Revised and Extended: The Dark Knight
Because I'm all OCD like that, I've been devouring the Wikipedia and various blog-posts I've come across about The Dark Knight.
I enjoyed the film tremendously. Enough so that I might even see it in the theater again, though preferably I-Maxed this time.
However, after extensive reading, some of the criticisms do seem to have merit. Not so much merit that I'm rethinking my love of the movie but still...
This post has some interesting discussion in the comments about some perceived plot-holes. I don't think most of the plot holes he identifies are actual plot holes (as I said in a comment posted there) but I do think that there are some plot holes in the movie. The most notable (SPOILER WARNING) is what happens in the party at Wayne's penthouse after Batman and Rachel go out the window. Basically, we just skip merrily along to the next scene and are left, I suppose, to gather that the Joker after getting Batman to jump out the window just gave up on finding Harvey Dent at the party. Doesn't seem likely.
Here's a review from a guy who didn't like the movie, despite (or perhaps *because* of) having thought there was a lot of potential in a followup to Batman Begins. He raises some good criticisms but ultimately my response to movies relies much less on the sort of conscious evaluation of themes and mechanics that he is using here and much more on visceral reaction to the film. So the fact that Heath Ledger was amazing (which everyone but my two closest male friends in NYC seems to agree was the case) and that Aaron Eckhart blew away my expectations of his ability to play his role in the movie left me a v. happy camper. That and the fact that I have, perhaps, a better memory for movie lines than the average camper, so the relative non-memorability of the "one-liners" in this movie didn't really phase me: I liked it so I remember them.
That and the action bits were awesome. Which is not nothing when looking for summer entertainment...
I enjoyed the film tremendously. Enough so that I might even see it in the theater again, though preferably I-Maxed this time.
However, after extensive reading, some of the criticisms do seem to have merit. Not so much merit that I'm rethinking my love of the movie but still...
This post has some interesting discussion in the comments about some perceived plot-holes. I don't think most of the plot holes he identifies are actual plot holes (as I said in a comment posted there) but I do think that there are some plot holes in the movie. The most notable (SPOILER WARNING) is what happens in the party at Wayne's penthouse after Batman and Rachel go out the window. Basically, we just skip merrily along to the next scene and are left, I suppose, to gather that the Joker after getting Batman to jump out the window just gave up on finding Harvey Dent at the party. Doesn't seem likely.
Here's a review from a guy who didn't like the movie, despite (or perhaps *because* of) having thought there was a lot of potential in a followup to Batman Begins. He raises some good criticisms but ultimately my response to movies relies much less on the sort of conscious evaluation of themes and mechanics that he is using here and much more on visceral reaction to the film. So the fact that Heath Ledger was amazing (which everyone but my two closest male friends in NYC seems to agree was the case) and that Aaron Eckhart blew away my expectations of his ability to play his role in the movie left me a v. happy camper. That and the fact that I have, perhaps, a better memory for movie lines than the average camper, so the relative non-memorability of the "one-liners" in this movie didn't really phase me: I liked it so I remember them.
That and the action bits were awesome. Which is not nothing when looking for summer entertainment...
But mostly, how can you not love this guy?
No, no, applause to you Mr. J...
(PS, I got to all of the various links in this post from this post on Ross Douthat's blog. )
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Bridge to Nowhere Senator Indicted
They better be careful where they put him; he might try to escape through that series of tubes...
Next Up: Books
So having finished one book, what will I be reading next? I've got a stack of books to pick from but I'm thinking it'll likely be "Basic Economics" by Tom Sowell at home (it's a big hardcover, too large for rush-hour subway reading) and either "Rain and Other South Sea Stories" by Somerset Maugham or possibly "Time Enough for Love" by Robert Heinlein for the train.
Basic Economics lays out economic principles with real-world examples. So far (chapter 4) I'm finding it to be an excellent source of easy-to-relate economic explanations. The comment on "greed" and prices from earlier was inspired by the book.
Rain, etc. is a book of Maugham's short stories. I've been on something of a Maugham kick recently, after being reminded of how amazing his fictionalized life of Gauguin, "The Moon and Sixpence" was. (Seriously, read that book immediately, it's amazing.) I recently read his fictionalized biography of himself, "Of Human Bondage", which was decent, though not as good as the Moon and Sixpence.
"Time Enough for Love" is the latest on my Heinlein kick. It's science-fiction, so if you're the type to dismiss that out of hand, skip over the rest of this paragraph. I've recently read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", which is about a libertarian revolution on the moon, and "Starship Troopers", which is a heavily, heavily militarized tale about a war with aliens. But mostly it's about military culture and life.
I've also got a paperback copy of Joseph Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" which is one of the Great Books of economics that I always wish I'd read but I don't think I could take it for the train while reading econ at home as well. Maybe after I finish Basic Economics it'll become my train book.
There are a bunch more on my "unread" stack, but those are the ones that are in the warm-up circle, so to speak.
Basic Economics lays out economic principles with real-world examples. So far (chapter 4) I'm finding it to be an excellent source of easy-to-relate economic explanations. The comment on "greed" and prices from earlier was inspired by the book.
Rain, etc. is a book of Maugham's short stories. I've been on something of a Maugham kick recently, after being reminded of how amazing his fictionalized life of Gauguin, "The Moon and Sixpence" was. (Seriously, read that book immediately, it's amazing.) I recently read his fictionalized biography of himself, "Of Human Bondage", which was decent, though not as good as the Moon and Sixpence.
"Time Enough for Love" is the latest on my Heinlein kick. It's science-fiction, so if you're the type to dismiss that out of hand, skip over the rest of this paragraph. I've recently read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", which is about a libertarian revolution on the moon, and "Starship Troopers", which is a heavily, heavily militarized tale about a war with aliens. But mostly it's about military culture and life.
I've also got a paperback copy of Joseph Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" which is one of the Great Books of economics that I always wish I'd read but I don't think I could take it for the train while reading econ at home as well. Maybe after I finish Basic Economics it'll become my train book.
There are a bunch more on my "unread" stack, but those are the ones that are in the warm-up circle, so to speak.
Book Report: Brutal
So I've decided to start doing book reports again, because, honestly, was there a better assignment back in those halcyon days of elementary school? There was not.
The latest book I read was Brutal:The Untold Story of My Life Inside Whitey Bulger's Irish Mob by Kevin Weeks.
Let me just say that the title "Brutal" is a good example of truth in advertising. These guys were not nice fellows. There is much fighting. Much killing. Much burying of bodies. Much extortion, drug-deals, car-chases, back-stabbing (often preemptive, sometimes literal).
There are some interesting tidbits. The opening chapter is about growing up in a poor Irish family in Southie. He paints it as quite the decent place to grow up and asks us not to blame it for his and Whitey's descent into criminality. Interestingly, Weeks had 2 brothers who went to Harvard and claims that he, too, might have been Harvard-bound, if he could only have stopped getting in fist-fights with... everybody.
He might even be right. Clearly, he and Whitey had a special kind of gift for criminality, which is why they were so successful at it, but it might have just been a general gift that they applied to criminality because it suited their temperaments. Their brothers were clearly successful (for those of you who don't know, Whitey Bulger's brother was President both of UMass and the Mass. State Senate), so it's not crazy to assume they would have done well at whatever they set themselves to.
Throughout the book, in fact, he talks about how he and Whitey would often ponder over how much more money they might be making if they were putting the kind of effort they put into criminal enterprise into legit enterprise. While counter intuitive, that's probably right. Criminal enterprise carries a premium because of the risk of getting killed or jailed or beaten or whatever. If you are putting the kind of effort into it that these guys were -- that is the kind of effort that keeps you alive, out-of-jail, and relatively healthy -- the premium is probably not fully compensating you for the extra effort.
Other interesting bits were some advice for the aspiring criminal. For example, Whitey was apparently quite fond of using darkness and the weather to help conceal his activities when possible. At night, in the rain, there are fewer people out, meaning fewer potential witnesses. Also, those who are out are carrying umbrellas, generally have their head down, and are in a hurry to get out of the rain, thus less likely to be looking around taking in the scenery. So when planning a hit or a move of guns or money or the ditching of a getaway car, Whitey would wait for bad weather and do it then.
Another helpful tip was what might be called the "walk, don't run" school of getting-away-with-it. This is something I've actually noticed in my own life. When you're trying to escape notice or sneak by someone, so often the temptation is to do it quickly, to run, in other words. This is wrong. The thing to do is to walk normally, as if you totally belong there. This way you blend into the background and are less likely to be noticed or remembered. This comes in handy as they are dumping a body off a pier in one chapter. They walk by some other fishermen on the way out and the fishermen offer to watch their stuff for them. They just say thanks and keep walking. No way the fishermen will even remember talking to them.
At any rate. I came across the book on the NY Times Freakonomics blog here.
It was alright. Though not the best written book I've ever read, the down-to-Earth, first-this-happened-then-this-happened style worked for the subject matter.
I give it two and a half stars. I'll decide out of how many some other time.
The latest book I read was Brutal:The Untold Story of My Life Inside Whitey Bulger's Irish Mob by Kevin Weeks.
Let me just say that the title "Brutal" is a good example of truth in advertising. These guys were not nice fellows. There is much fighting. Much killing. Much burying of bodies. Much extortion, drug-deals, car-chases, back-stabbing (often preemptive, sometimes literal).
There are some interesting tidbits. The opening chapter is about growing up in a poor Irish family in Southie. He paints it as quite the decent place to grow up and asks us not to blame it for his and Whitey's descent into criminality. Interestingly, Weeks had 2 brothers who went to Harvard and claims that he, too, might have been Harvard-bound, if he could only have stopped getting in fist-fights with... everybody.
He might even be right. Clearly, he and Whitey had a special kind of gift for criminality, which is why they were so successful at it, but it might have just been a general gift that they applied to criminality because it suited their temperaments. Their brothers were clearly successful (for those of you who don't know, Whitey Bulger's brother was President both of UMass and the Mass. State Senate), so it's not crazy to assume they would have done well at whatever they set themselves to.
Throughout the book, in fact, he talks about how he and Whitey would often ponder over how much more money they might be making if they were putting the kind of effort they put into criminal enterprise into legit enterprise. While counter intuitive, that's probably right. Criminal enterprise carries a premium because of the risk of getting killed or jailed or beaten or whatever. If you are putting the kind of effort into it that these guys were -- that is the kind of effort that keeps you alive, out-of-jail, and relatively healthy -- the premium is probably not fully compensating you for the extra effort.
Other interesting bits were some advice for the aspiring criminal. For example, Whitey was apparently quite fond of using darkness and the weather to help conceal his activities when possible. At night, in the rain, there are fewer people out, meaning fewer potential witnesses. Also, those who are out are carrying umbrellas, generally have their head down, and are in a hurry to get out of the rain, thus less likely to be looking around taking in the scenery. So when planning a hit or a move of guns or money or the ditching of a getaway car, Whitey would wait for bad weather and do it then.
Another helpful tip was what might be called the "walk, don't run" school of getting-away-with-it. This is something I've actually noticed in my own life. When you're trying to escape notice or sneak by someone, so often the temptation is to do it quickly, to run, in other words. This is wrong. The thing to do is to walk normally, as if you totally belong there. This way you blend into the background and are less likely to be noticed or remembered. This comes in handy as they are dumping a body off a pier in one chapter. They walk by some other fishermen on the way out and the fishermen offer to watch their stuff for them. They just say thanks and keep walking. No way the fishermen will even remember talking to them.
At any rate. I came across the book on the NY Times Freakonomics blog here.
It was alright. Though not the best written book I've ever read, the down-to-Earth, first-this-happened-then-this-happened style worked for the subject matter.
I give it two and a half stars. I'll decide out of how many some other time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
