Author Archives: Phil Bowermaster

"Dude, that Was the Trailer?"

I don’t often read (much less quote) Youtube comments, but the title of this post was taken from the comments on this video, the theatrical trailer for the 1969 version of True Grit

Compare that trailer to the one for the new Coen brothers version of the same story and you begin to see the commenter’s point:

If nothing else has improved over the past 40 years (I tend to think quite a few things have, of course), we can all agree that movie previews are far more sophisticated and engaging than they used to be. There is a whole vocabulary of how images and sounds, words and actions are to be combined to hint at (or often give away quite a lot of) a much larger story. That vocabulary is what makes things like this possible:

Here’s another example. Would you rather watch this movie…

…or this movie?

“Dude, that Was the Trailer?”

I don’t often read (much less quote) Youtube comments, but the title of this post was taken from the comments on this video, the theatrical trailer for the 1969 version of True Grit

Compare that trailer to the one for the new Coen brothers version of the same story and you begin to see the commenter’s point:

If nothing else has improved over the past 40 years (I tend to think quite a few things have, of course), we can all agree that movie previews are far more sophisticated and engaging than they used to be. There is a whole vocabulary of how images and sounds, words and actions are to be combined to hint at (or often give away quite a lot of) a much larger story. That vocabulary is what makes things like this possible:

Here’s another example. Would you rather watch this movie…

…or this movie?

It's a Wonderful Life

Mr. Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore), the riche...

Image via Wikipedia

[ I just realized that a perennial holiday favorite is chock-full of Speculist themes. My musings to that effect follow. Please note that this piece is rife with spoilers. If you've never seen It's a Wonderful Life, I assume that's by choice. ]

First off, I love It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s hokey. It’s sentimental. It’s rife with embarrassing, sometimes cringe-inducing ethnic stereotypes and blatant sexism. (“She’s an old maid…just about to close down the library!”)

It is classic Frank Capra, which accounts in large part for its mid-20th century New Deal vibe that wants to be all for success and the American Dream but that can’t quite let go of some crucial assumptions about class warfare. We hate Potter because he is greedy and evil. We tolerate Sam Wainwright, who is a little too successful, and obnoxious to boot — “HEE HAW!!!” — because he ultimately channels his wealth in a benevolent direction. But we love George Bailey (and his father before him) because they practice an almost profit-free form of capitalism and really don’t care about making money. They just want to do what’s right and help people.

“Chumps!” Potter would say, and maybe he’s on to something.

Who, after all, are the real heroes of the story?

Well, first off, Mary Bailey. When her honeymoon is interrupted by a run on the Building and Loan, she is the one who steps in and announces, “I have two thousand dollars!” It’s not George who thinks of this solution. Would he have thought of it? Maybe, or maybe he would have just kept right on speechifying until every last member of the B&L wandered off to get their 50 cents on the dollar from Potter. 

In the parallel universe in which George was never born, Bedford Falls has become a very bleak place called Pottersville. If not for Mary’s fast action, Bedford Falls would have been well on its way to becoming Pottersville even with George. She saved the town.

Note that the movie portrays the interrupted honeymoon as something that happens primarily to George. But for crying out loud, Mary wouldn’t have had to be a bridezilla not to want to part with that cash (granted it was probably mostly George’s savings) even if the future of the town was at stake. However I don’t think she was trying to save the town. She was trying to save her husband’s business. In other words, Mary helped a lot of people and saved the town by acting in her own best financial interests. 

We’ll come back to that.

Later, after Uncle Billy loses the $8000 and ruin looks certain for the House of Bailey, Mary is the one who leverages the social media available at the time (that is, going door-to-door), and crowd-sources a solution to the shortfall. What’s George doing while she’s out doing that? Getting drunk, having angst, and learning the meaning of life.

The other big hero of the story is the aforementioned Sam Wainwright. His telegram is the clincher. He authorizes a funds transfer more than three times the amount that’s missing. We don’t know how much Mary and Uncle Billy have collected from the good folks of Bedford Falls, but suddenly it doesn’t matter. Sam takes care of his old friend because he knows that George is a decent guy and that the town needs him.

What does that say about Sam? Well, it says that he, too, is a decent guy. Moreover, it says that, while his motives aren’t as pure as George’s and his personal manner is not as appealing, Sam has something George doesn’t. What he has is the means to recover from Uncle Billy’s ineptitude and / or stand up to Potter (however you want to look at it.)

Sam has these means because he got into plastics when the getting was good and made himself a bundle. In other words, like Mary, Sam Wainwright is able to do great good to the folks of Bedford Falls because he acted in his own self-interest.

The third true hero of It’s a Wonderful Life is Clarence. He’s an angel, a divine being. He’s a sweet old guy, and he obviously cares very much about George and his family.

But he’s also got some skin in the game — he wants to get his wings and become an Angel First Class. In this movie, even angels help others by acting in their own best interests.

No, I’m not trying to tease out a secret Objectivist sub-text in It’s a Wonderful Life. (Nothing can beat the authentic Ayn Rand Christmas Special anyhow.) But I do believe that if Frank Capra were still with us, he would very much enjoy reading The Rational Optimist. Bedford Falls is not too unlike the world as described by Matt Ridley — a world wherein individuals seeking to improve their own circumstances end up improving the circumstances of those with whom they interact. 

I don’t think Ridley would agree with Potter’s assessment of the Bailey’s as chumps, but I think he would smile knowingly at the scene wherein one of Potter’s flunkies points out how much value there is in all those houses in Bailey Park.

Finally, there’s George Bailey. He’s a hero, too. He doesn’t exactly save the day; he just consistently makes the world a better place for others. (He might find that he could do this more easily if he took better care of himself, but maybe part of the appeal of this character is that he will never figure that out.)

With the help of Clarence, George comes to realize what a wonderful life he has. The overt message of the film is that his life is wonderful because of all the good he has done for others, directly and indirectly. (“Every man on that transport died. Harry wasn’t there to save them because you weren’t there to save Harry.”) But in the final scenes, where we seeing him joyfully greeting the authorities who are there to arrest him, hugging his kids, and kissing his wife over and over, we see a man celebrating something more than all the good he has done.

In the end, George Bailey is profoundly glad to be alive because…damn it, it’s good to be alive. Clarence describes George’s life as “God’s greatest gift” to him, which sounds right to me, but I realize that many Speculist readers would be uncomfortable with that kind of formulation. So I offer this alternative.

Your existence is profoundly unlikely. Think of thousands of millions-to-one sperm and egg combinations that produced the chain of ancestors that eventually led to you. It’s mind-boggling. And what are the chances that there would ever have been human beings in the first place? What are the chances that life would evolve on this planet? That this universe would come together in a form enabling life?

We are, each of us, so vastly and ridiculously improbable that it only makes sense that we should be delighted by the fact that we exist. Winning a big Lotto jackpot is small potatoes compared with just being here in the first place. Maybe we should all be a bit more like George Bailey, running through the streets shouting ourselves hoarse with “Merry Christmas!” at the realization that this truly is a wonderful life.

[ I didn't list them out as I went, but those Speculist themes include social media, memetics, crowdsourcing, parallel universes, Rational Optimism, and the Attitude of Gratitude. And there are probably others, as well. What did I miss? ]   

Enhanced by Zemanta

 

It’s a Wonderful Life

Mr. Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore), the riche...

Image via Wikipedia

[ I just realized that a perennial holiday favorite is chock-full of Speculist themes. My musings to that effect follow. Please note that this piece is rife with spoilers. If you've never seen It's a Wonderful Life, I assume that's by choice. ]

First off, I love It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s hokey. It’s sentimental. It’s rife with embarrassing, sometimes cringe-inducing ethnic stereotypes and blatant sexism. (“She’s an old maid…just about to close down the library!”)

It is classic Frank Capra, which accounts in large part for its mid-20th century New Deal vibe that wants to be all for success and the American Dream but that can’t quite let go of some crucial assumptions about class warfare. We hate Potter because he is greedy and evil. We tolerate Sam Wainwright, who is a little too successful, and obnoxious to boot — “HEE HAW!!!” — because he ultimately channels his wealth in a benevolent direction. But we love George Bailey (and his father before him) because they practice an almost profit-free form of capitalism and really don’t care about making money. They just want to do what’s right and help people.

“Chumps!” Potter would say, and maybe he’s on to something.

Who, after all, are the real heroes of the story?

Well, first off, Mary Bailey. When her honeymoon is interrupted by a run on the Building and Loan, she is the one who steps in and announces, “I have two thousand dollars!” It’s not George who thinks of this solution. Would he have thought of it? Maybe, or maybe he would have just kept right on speechifying until every last member of the B&L wandered off to get their 50 cents on the dollar from Potter. 

In the parallel universe in which George was never born, Bedford Falls has become a very bleak place called Pottersville. If not for Mary’s fast action, Bedford Falls would have been well on its way to becoming Pottersville even with George. She saved the town.

Note that the movie portrays the interrupted honeymoon as something that happens primarily to George. But for crying out loud, Mary wouldn’t have had to be a bridezilla not to want to part with that cash (granted it was probably mostly George’s savings) even if the future of the town was at stake. However I don’t think she was trying to save the town. She was trying to save her husband’s business. In other words, Mary helped a lot of people and saved the town by acting in her own best financial interests. 

We’ll come back to that.

Later, after Uncle Billy loses the $8000 and ruin looks certain for the House of Bailey, Mary is the one who leverages the social media available at the time (that is, going door-to-door), and crowd-sources a solution to the shortfall. What’s George doing while she’s out doing that? Getting drunk, having angst, and learning the meaning of life.

The other big hero of the story is the aforementioned Sam Wainwright. His telegram is the clincher. He authorizes a funds transfer more than three times the amount that’s missing. We don’t know how much Mary and Uncle Billy have collected from the good folks of Bedford Falls, but suddenly it doesn’t matter. Sam takes care of his old friend because he knows that George is a decent guy and that the town needs him.

What does that say about Sam? Well, it says that he, too, is a decent guy. Moreover, it says that, while his motives aren’t as pure as George’s and his personal manner is not as appealing, Sam has something George doesn’t. What he has is the means to recover from Uncle Billy’s ineptitude and / or stand up to Potter (however you want to look at it.)

Sam has these means because he got into plastics when the getting was good and made himself a bundle. In other words, like Mary, Sam Wainwright is able to do great good to the folks of Bedford Falls because he acted in his own self-interest.

The third true hero of It’s a Wonderful Life is Clarence. He’s an angel, a divine being. He’s a sweet old guy, and he obviously cares very much about George and his family.

But he’s also got some skin in the game — he wants to get his wings and become an Angel First Class. In this movie, even angels help others by acting in their own best interests.

No, I’m not trying to tease out a secret Objectivist sub-text in It’s a Wonderful Life. (Nothing can beat the authentic Ayn Rand Christmas Special anyhow.) But I do believe that if Frank Capra were still with us, he would very much enjoy reading The Rational Optimist. Bedford Falls is not too unlike the world as described by Matt Ridley — a world wherein individuals seeking to improve their own circumstances end up improving the circumstances of those with whom they interact. 

I don’t think Ridley would agree with Potter’s assessment of the Bailey’s as chumps, but I think he would smile knowingly at the scene wherein one of Potter’s flunkies points out how much value there is in all those houses in Bailey Park.

Finally, there’s George Bailey. He’s a hero, too. He doesn’t exactly save the day; he just consistently makes the world a better place for others. (He might find that he could do this more easily if he took better care of himself, but maybe part of the appeal of this character is that he will never figure that out.)

With the help of Clarence, George comes to realize what a wonderful life he has. The overt message of the film is that his life is wonderful because of all the good he has done for others, directly and indirectly. (“Every man on that transport died. Harry wasn’t there to save them because you weren’t there to save Harry.”) But in the final scenes, where we seeing him joyfully greeting the authorities who are there to arrest him, hugging his kids, and kissing his wife over and over, we see a man celebrating something more than all the good he has done.

In the end, George Bailey is profoundly glad to be alive because…damn it, it’s good to be alive. Clarence describes George’s life as “God’s greatest gift” to him, which sounds right to me, but I realize that many Speculist readers would be uncomfortable with that kind of formulation. So I offer this alternative.

Your existence is profoundly unlikely. Think of thousands of millions-to-one sperm and egg combinations that produced the chain of ancestors that eventually led to you. It’s mind-boggling. And what are the chances that there would ever have been human beings in the first place? What are the chances that life would evolve on this planet? That this universe would come together in a form enabling life?

We are, each of us, so vastly and ridiculously improbable that it only makes sense that we should be delighted by the fact that we exist. Winning a big Lotto jackpot is small potatoes compared with just being here in the first place. Maybe we should all be a bit more like George Bailey, running through the streets shouting ourselves hoarse with “Merry Christmas!” at the realization that this truly is a wonderful life.

[ I didn't list them out as I went, but those Speculist themes include social media, memetics, crowdsourcing, parallel universes, Rational Optimism, and the Attitude of Gratitude. And there are probably others, as well. What did I miss? ]   

Enhanced by Zemanta

 

Holiday Shopping: Gadgets and Stuff

Here’s a headline that would have been gibberish not long ago:

Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad vs. Galaxy Tab: What to consider

My co-blogger will tell you that this is no contest and that the iPad wins hands down. I’m not so sure. iPads are awesome gadgets but this decision rests on (among other things) how gadgety your life needs to be.

As I see it, the argument for the iPad is that this…

 

superfantasticswissarmyknife.pngmust be better than this…

 

regularswissarmyknife.jpgbecause it can do more.

It’s not a perfect analogy — that monstrous Swiss Army knife doesn’t look like it would fit in your pocket — in which case what is the point, exactly? But say you could fit all those tools into roughly the same space as the smaller knife, weighing somewhat more and costing considerably more.

Why would anyone go for the less-capable tool? Assuming that the weight difference is not a big deal, we’re left with asking why not pay more for tons more capabilities?

Ultimately it’s a matter of individual budget and preferences. I used to own a Swiss Army knife that was somewhere between the two items shown above. To me, what  mattered most about it was that I always had a pair of scissors, a phillips and regular screwdriver, and a corkscrew on my person at all times. I rarely used it for other things, inlcuding — oddly – cutting things with the knife blades. (And given a choice, I would much prefer a real screwdriver to the stunted versions included in the knife, but in  a pinch they would work.)

I speak of my Swiss Army knife in the past tense because I lost track of it sometime after 9/11. Turns out it was much handier on the road than in real life, and if I couldn’t carry it with me onto an airplane, it just wasn’t something I needed all that much. At home or at the office I can usually find a real pair of scissors or a screwdriver (or even a corkscrew), so the handy tool that conveniently combined all those capabilities disappeared from my life.

With all this in mind, I’m undecided as to what my next handy gadget is going to be. I already have an iPhone, and to me it is a Swiss Army knife. I can carry it in my pocket and, in a pinch, do a lot of stuff with it that I would do with a computer if there was one handy.

However when there is a computer handy, I use it. The bigger the keyboard and mouse, the better. I have pudgy fingers and I like big stuff. And while I suppose there might be some inherent superiority of a tablet over a laptop, I still look at an iPad and think, ”Okay, much better keyboard than my iPhone, but still not as good as my laptop.”

So if I were to get a reader I’m not sure I’d make the leap to iPad. I might just go with the Kindle.

What I am getting is a brand new desktop computer — my first  in several years. (What I’m getting is not a surprise as I was allowed to pick it out.) Sure, with a laptop and wi-fi, I can work anywhere in my house or at thousands of locations worldwide.

 Granted. And make no mistake – I’m keeping my laptop!

 But where I’m sitting right now is where I like to be when I write, where I like to be when I work on videos, and where I like to be when I podcast. I’d like to have that all set up all the time, with a big screen and a big keyboard and mouse and the whole works. I’m getting an HP Pavilion which specs out as follows:

Features

  • Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.5GHz Processor
  • 8GB PC3-10600 DDR3 SDRAM memory
  • 1TB SATA 3G 5400rpm Hard Drive
  • SuperMulti DVD Burner with LightScribe Technology
  • Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)

Processor, Memory, and Motherboard

  • Processor: 2.5 hertz Intel Core 2 Quad
  • RAM: 8 GB
  • Memory Slots: 4

Hard Drive

  • Size: 1000 GB

It’s not the absolute top of the line, but it’s pretty sweet. And it’s a big step up from my Vaio, which I’ll now be using just as a kind of expanded netbook, with the HP being my command center. Then I’ve got my iPhone for when the Vaio is too much.

It’s all kind of like this:

 

 (A great bit all the way through, but starts getting relevant at about 2:20.)

So my desktop computer is my BIG PILE OF STUFF. It’s like my house.

The Vaio is like the stuff in the hotel room in Honolulu.

The iPhone is like the stuff I take to Maui for the weekend.

 SoI guess I’m not yet convinced that I need an intermediate stage between Honolulu and Maui. But stay tuned.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why You Should Listen to FastForward Radio (Part 1)

Our new limited FastForward Radio series, The World Transformed 2, is scheduled to begin the last week of January 2011. Obviously we’ve got some getting-ready to do, so here begins a series we’ll be running over the next few weeks that explores some of the thinking behind FastForward Radio and The World Transformed.

We’ll start this week with the three things that set FastForward Radio apart from other shows dealing with the same topics:

1. Unabashed optimism. (Some of our friends who do similar podcasts actually ding us, usually oh-so-gently, for this.) Let me quickly distinguish unabashed optimism from unreasonable or untempered optimism. We’re not followers of Dr. Pangloss, and we don’t push any nonsense about everything working for the best in the best of all possible worlds. We acknowledge that horrible and appalling things have happened, are happening, and will happen in the future.

But we believe that any honest and rational analysis of human progress to date creates an expectation that, overall, the human condition will continue to improve. There are no guarantees of a better world, but on the face of the evidence at hand, a better world is the most likely outcome. So we start from that position and build the show around understanding how we can be ready for the changes, how we can take advantage of the opportunities, and how we can avoid that which might slow or hinder our progress.

2. An outsiders’ perspective.  Stephen and I live in “flyover country” relative to most of the rest of the singularity / transhumanist world, and I mean that in both a cultural and geographic way. We live in the suburbs / boondocks. We work ordinary jobs ( a marketing guy and a lawyer). We’re out here amongst what many members of the transhumanist community view as the Great Unwashed — people who, if anything, stand in the way of the transhumanist agenda.

We just don’t see it that way. We make every effort to do a show that will appeal both to our fellow singularitarian transhumanist geeks as well as to people who aren’t any of those things. The future belongs to all of us. FastForward Radio doesn’t check geek credentials (nor religious, political, or ideological credentials) — we want to talk to anyone who is interested in a better future. Of course, we figure that anyone who listens to us long enough will probably tend to move in some kind of  singularitarian transhumanist geek direction, but maybe by broadening what those terms mean as much as by changing the people who are listening to us.

3. It’s fun. I don’t know how else to say it. We have a blast doing FastForward Radio. We take serious topics seriously, but we tend not to take ourselves too seriously. We love engaging with members of this community in an effort to take large quantities of complex and highly technical material and make engaging to as wide  an audience as possible. Of course, we also feel free to do a whole show about Batman or Star Trek when the urge strikes. But even when we talk about movies or sports or our personal lives, we always tie it back into our chief interest which is the rapid changes the world is undergoing and where we think those changes are leading.

We spent half a show once talking with Michael Anissimov about singularitarian themes in the fiction of H. P. Lovecraft — now where else are you going to find something like that?

 

So don’t miss out. Just go to FastForward Radio or keep watching this space for more details.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta