On my flight from Hong Kong to Los Angeles I watched How to Train Your Dragon. I was only interested because it had received very positive reviews earlier this year (Note: I never read film reviews before I see a movie, but I pay attention to the general consensus as a guide for my time and money).
The film follows the teenage prince of a Viking kingdom in a generational war with marauding dragons. This prince is much smaller, less violent, and interestingly less Scottish than the other Vikings. When he discovers a grounded dragon with a missing tail-wing, the two form a friendship, and eventually the prince convinces his warrior-father that the Vikings and dragons do not have to be existential enemies.
What I found most interesting was that in the happy ending where Vikings and dragons live “side-by-side,” the dragons are not equals, but the domesticated friendly pets of the Vikings. This didn’t sit right with me.
It suggests that instead of killing our enemies, we should simply dominate them peacefully. If only we understood and trusted each other, they would accept our benevolent mastership.
In my mind it contrasted with the science fiction novel Ender’s Game, which I recently read, in which humans and the alien race they destroy are portrayed as equal species that were incapable of understanding the other’s peaceful intentions. The moral there is that enemies might be able to coexist if they just try to understand each other and resist their fears, which I think is a more applicable lesson.
Instead How to Train Your Dragon resembles films like Gone with the Wind, in which the simple slaves serve their owners with smiles and good humor. That might not be a fair comparison, but I’ll criticize any modern film that even reasonably invites the parallel.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Big Lie or Little Lie: Pick Your Poison
The current requirements for classifying information in the United States are outlined in Executive Order 13526, signed by President Obama on December 29, 2009. The order says that information can only be classified if it:
--Will bring some identifiable and describable damage to national security
--Involves information from a foreign government
--Involves covert action or cryptology
--Involves the safety of nuclear facilities, weapons systems, or infrastructure
--Involves the production or use of weapons of mass destruction
It also says that information can NOT be classified in order to:
--Conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error
--Prevent embarrassment
--Keep information that doesn't threaten national security secret
Much has been written about WikiLeaks' recent release of tens of thousands of documents regarding the War in Afghanistan. As far as I have seen, all of this literature has been focused on whether the information is important, analyzing what these documents tell us about the war, and analyzing the consequences for the administration, the war effort, and WikiLeaks.
Administration officials generally responded that the release of the information is illegal and irresponsible. WikiLeaks and the newspapers that broke the story all said they only released documents they didn’t consider harmful. For example, The New York Times wrote, “The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests . . . We would not disclose . . . anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations.”
So, the government promises to classify information only if its release would harm national security. WikiLeaks and three newspapers say they haven’t released anything that would harm national security. Clearly the government and these news organizations have a profound disagreement.
Consider the report of a soldier shooting and wounding a deaf and mute civilian because of a misunderstanding. According the report, the civilian was frightened by the soldiers and ran away. The soldiers, unaware that he could not hear, fired warning shots until finally shooting the civilian in the ankle so as only to wound him. This incident is obviously unfortunate, but why was it classified? How would its release harm national security? False retellings of the report could be used by our enemies as propaganda, but I don’t accept that we have to classify everything that could conceivably inspire fictitious stories to make us look bad. Moreover, it doesn’t match the current regulations regarding what information should be classified. There isn’t an identifiable and describable consequence of releasing the information, only hypothetical consequences. I presume this document was classified to “prevent embarrassment,” or minimize the Afghan and American publics’ knowledge of how the War in Afghanistan is harming civilians, even by accident.
Or consider the report about an aid project in which the military built an orphanage for 102 children. Months later, they discovered that the money had not reached the children, and the orphanage only had 30 children, not 102. This doesn’t harm national security, except that it suggests a strategy isn’t working. Once again a document is classified to “prevent embarrassment” and conceal “administrative error.”
As I see it, the classification of these documents is illegal and against my rights. Put another way, it’s my right to know if a bullet I helped pay for found its way into an innocent man’s ankle, whether it makes my government look bad or not.
There are several counter-stances one could reasonably take. First, I have used President Obama’s executive order, and all of these events took place before that order was issued. I have done so because I could not find a similar executive order from President George W. Bush. I assume--perhaps incorrectly--that if I did it would have very similar guidelines. If there were differences, then documents that did not reach the new administration’s standards for secrecy should have been declassified.
One might also argue that for the success of a hearts and minds campaign, the military has to conceal information that could be used to turn the Afghan public against NATO forces. But the priority of a hearts and minds campaign must be not shooting civilians, as opposed to pretending you’re not shooting civilians.
I accept that my government needs to keep some secrets. But I put a high price on my knowledge of what our military is doing and whether it’s working. I haven’t seen other columnists or pundits claim that the classification of these documents represents an alarmingly shallow regard for democracy. To make sure I consulted a blog on The New York Times that listed different writers' and bloggers' reactions to the leaks, and I didn’t find one that complained, as I am, that the classification of these documents was an overreach by the military and the government into my rights as a citizen. More than anything else about this story, that’s what frightens me.
--Will bring some identifiable and describable damage to national security
--Involves information from a foreign government
--Involves covert action or cryptology
--Involves the safety of nuclear facilities, weapons systems, or infrastructure
--Involves the production or use of weapons of mass destruction
It also says that information can NOT be classified in order to:
--Conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error
--Prevent embarrassment
--Keep information that doesn't threaten national security secret
Much has been written about WikiLeaks' recent release of tens of thousands of documents regarding the War in Afghanistan. As far as I have seen, all of this literature has been focused on whether the information is important, analyzing what these documents tell us about the war, and analyzing the consequences for the administration, the war effort, and WikiLeaks.
Administration officials generally responded that the release of the information is illegal and irresponsible. WikiLeaks and the newspapers that broke the story all said they only released documents they didn’t consider harmful. For example, The New York Times wrote, “The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests . . . We would not disclose . . . anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations.”
So, the government promises to classify information only if its release would harm national security. WikiLeaks and three newspapers say they haven’t released anything that would harm national security. Clearly the government and these news organizations have a profound disagreement.
Consider the report of a soldier shooting and wounding a deaf and mute civilian because of a misunderstanding. According the report, the civilian was frightened by the soldiers and ran away. The soldiers, unaware that he could not hear, fired warning shots until finally shooting the civilian in the ankle so as only to wound him. This incident is obviously unfortunate, but why was it classified? How would its release harm national security? False retellings of the report could be used by our enemies as propaganda, but I don’t accept that we have to classify everything that could conceivably inspire fictitious stories to make us look bad. Moreover, it doesn’t match the current regulations regarding what information should be classified. There isn’t an identifiable and describable consequence of releasing the information, only hypothetical consequences. I presume this document was classified to “prevent embarrassment,” or minimize the Afghan and American publics’ knowledge of how the War in Afghanistan is harming civilians, even by accident.
Or consider the report about an aid project in which the military built an orphanage for 102 children. Months later, they discovered that the money had not reached the children, and the orphanage only had 30 children, not 102. This doesn’t harm national security, except that it suggests a strategy isn’t working. Once again a document is classified to “prevent embarrassment” and conceal “administrative error.”
As I see it, the classification of these documents is illegal and against my rights. Put another way, it’s my right to know if a bullet I helped pay for found its way into an innocent man’s ankle, whether it makes my government look bad or not.
There are several counter-stances one could reasonably take. First, I have used President Obama’s executive order, and all of these events took place before that order was issued. I have done so because I could not find a similar executive order from President George W. Bush. I assume--perhaps incorrectly--that if I did it would have very similar guidelines. If there were differences, then documents that did not reach the new administration’s standards for secrecy should have been declassified.
One might also argue that for the success of a hearts and minds campaign, the military has to conceal information that could be used to turn the Afghan public against NATO forces. But the priority of a hearts and minds campaign must be not shooting civilians, as opposed to pretending you’re not shooting civilians.
I accept that my government needs to keep some secrets. But I put a high price on my knowledge of what our military is doing and whether it’s working. I haven’t seen other columnists or pundits claim that the classification of these documents represents an alarmingly shallow regard for democracy. To make sure I consulted a blog on The New York Times that listed different writers' and bloggers' reactions to the leaks, and I didn’t find one that complained, as I am, that the classification of these documents was an overreach by the military and the government into my rights as a citizen. More than anything else about this story, that’s what frightens me.
Friday, July 9, 2010
The League that Michael Jordan Made
Since Michael Jordan retired, his successor has been prayed for and prophesized. Kobe Bryant? Close, but no. Allen Iverson? Scoring, but no winning. Finally, in 2005 Nike introduced the “Witness” campaign for Lebron James (who wears Jordan‘s #23), which I always interpreted to mean “Witness the second coming of Michael Jordan.”
As Lebron James announced his signing with the Miami Heat, where he will join Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and Hall of Fame manager Pat Riley, he also unofficially conceded defeat in his heretical quest to become the greatest. His new strategy is being on the best team in NBA history.
There are a few noteworthy aspects to this development. Pat Riley, who has already coached some of the greatest players of all time (Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Wade), has proven to be a master strategist, a tycoon of professional basketball.
Wade, Bosh, and James have also shown a remarkable amount of cooperation, including a willingness to take pay-cuts (apparently Florida’s generous tax policies will mitigate most of the losses in salary). This deal was seemingly constructed as much by them as by anyone else, and surely half a dozen teams tried to lure each of them elsewhere, particularly the New York Knicks and Chicago Bulls.
But at the end of the day, I think this deal marks these athletes as cowards and hurts the game of basketball.
When Chris Bosh signed with the Heat several days ago, I assumed James would go to the Chicago Bulls. That would put each of the league’s major stars on a team that could conceivably make a championship run, perhaps with James in the best shape of all. I would have expected the next several years to be an annual competition between the Lakers, Bulls, and Heat, perhaps like the reliable Celtics-Lakers rivalries of past decades. There would be occasional Cinderella teams to spice things up. Perhaps Kevin Durant and the Oklahoma City Thunder or Dwight Howard and the Orlando Magic would have squeezed in some championship appearances.
Instead they have executed something like the 2008 Celtics, when Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce joined forces. That union had more charm. Each of those players was winding down his career, and none of them had won a championship on his own. This was teamwork, by which three very good players could take down the best player (Kobe Bryant), which they did.
But Lebron James, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade are not in immediate danger of retiring empty-handed. They’re in their primes, and each can win a championship without the other--Wade already has, in Jordan-esque fashion no less.
This team may win every title for the next two presidential terms, but now they’ll never touch Jordan. Jordan isn’t the greatest because he won six titles. Hell, nine players have more titles than he does, including Robert Horry of all people. Jordan is the greatest because he played in Utah with the flu, scoring 38 points (15 in the 4th quarter) until he collapsed into his teammates’ arms with seconds remaining. Jordan is the greatest because every person and every child knew the Bulls would pull ahead in the clutch, by Jordan’s sheer will if necessary.
And James, Wade, and Bosh also won’t capture the excitement of classic rivalries, as they could have. If Magic and Larry Bird had played on the same team maybe they could have won ten titles. But each title they won against each other meant more because everyone knew they had to beat the other best player in the world to earn it. With these three on the same team every victory will be worth less and every defeat will taste worse. Winning a championship will be a fulfillment of expectations, while losing will always be a story of David defeating Goliath.
On the face of it, it seems hard to predict anyone could beat these three exceptional athletes. Perhaps some alliance between Dwight Howard and either Kevin Durant or Chris Paul could do the trick.
On the other hand, however, sports karma doesn’t always favor the big money and big names. Consider the New York Yankees losing the World Series to the much poorer Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks. In the 2004 NBA Finals, four Hall of Famers of the Los Angeles Lakers were thumped in the “five game sweep” by a Detroit Pistons team without a single player that averaged twenty points. In fact, Lebron James and Dwyane Wade have previously played together for the U.S. Redeem Team, which (before it won the 2008 Gold Medal) lost in the 2006 World Championship Semi-finals to Greece.
Looking at the Heat’s roster specifically, there is reason to question their championship potential. At the moment there doesn’t seem to be a facilitator to dish out assists to the superstars. Rafer Alston and Mario Chalmers presumably aren’t the answer. I also can’t think of any championship team that has had two all-stars play such similar positions as Lebron James and Dwyane Wade. Perhaps James will become more of a forward, low-post kind of player, but if not it will be interesting to see how these two divide labor. The team also has several holes. They lack a deadly perimeter shooter, and Chris Bosh doesn’t have the advantage matching up against Dwight Howard in Orlando. Unless Riley makes some more moves--which he’s very good at historically--this team will show whether an overkill of talent at key positions is enough to overcome deficiency in the team as a whole.
Regardless of how this affects the reputations and legacies of the players involved, I believe it’s bad for sports and bad for basketball. By my--perhaps naïve--definition, sports is about getting the best players and the best teams and setting them against each other to determine who is athletically, mentally, and strategically supreme. These players, particularly James, seem so afraid that they might retire without a title that they’ll forgo the pride of leading a team to victory with their own blood, sweat, and leadership.
I, for one, will root against them in every game.
As Lebron James announced his signing with the Miami Heat, where he will join Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and Hall of Fame manager Pat Riley, he also unofficially conceded defeat in his heretical quest to become the greatest. His new strategy is being on the best team in NBA history.
There are a few noteworthy aspects to this development. Pat Riley, who has already coached some of the greatest players of all time (Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Wade), has proven to be a master strategist, a tycoon of professional basketball.
Wade, Bosh, and James have also shown a remarkable amount of cooperation, including a willingness to take pay-cuts (apparently Florida’s generous tax policies will mitigate most of the losses in salary). This deal was seemingly constructed as much by them as by anyone else, and surely half a dozen teams tried to lure each of them elsewhere, particularly the New York Knicks and Chicago Bulls.
But at the end of the day, I think this deal marks these athletes as cowards and hurts the game of basketball.
When Chris Bosh signed with the Heat several days ago, I assumed James would go to the Chicago Bulls. That would put each of the league’s major stars on a team that could conceivably make a championship run, perhaps with James in the best shape of all. I would have expected the next several years to be an annual competition between the Lakers, Bulls, and Heat, perhaps like the reliable Celtics-Lakers rivalries of past decades. There would be occasional Cinderella teams to spice things up. Perhaps Kevin Durant and the Oklahoma City Thunder or Dwight Howard and the Orlando Magic would have squeezed in some championship appearances.
Instead they have executed something like the 2008 Celtics, when Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce joined forces. That union had more charm. Each of those players was winding down his career, and none of them had won a championship on his own. This was teamwork, by which three very good players could take down the best player (Kobe Bryant), which they did.
But Lebron James, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade are not in immediate danger of retiring empty-handed. They’re in their primes, and each can win a championship without the other--Wade already has, in Jordan-esque fashion no less.
This team may win every title for the next two presidential terms, but now they’ll never touch Jordan. Jordan isn’t the greatest because he won six titles. Hell, nine players have more titles than he does, including Robert Horry of all people. Jordan is the greatest because he played in Utah with the flu, scoring 38 points (15 in the 4th quarter) until he collapsed into his teammates’ arms with seconds remaining. Jordan is the greatest because every person and every child knew the Bulls would pull ahead in the clutch, by Jordan’s sheer will if necessary.
And James, Wade, and Bosh also won’t capture the excitement of classic rivalries, as they could have. If Magic and Larry Bird had played on the same team maybe they could have won ten titles. But each title they won against each other meant more because everyone knew they had to beat the other best player in the world to earn it. With these three on the same team every victory will be worth less and every defeat will taste worse. Winning a championship will be a fulfillment of expectations, while losing will always be a story of David defeating Goliath.
On the face of it, it seems hard to predict anyone could beat these three exceptional athletes. Perhaps some alliance between Dwight Howard and either Kevin Durant or Chris Paul could do the trick.
On the other hand, however, sports karma doesn’t always favor the big money and big names. Consider the New York Yankees losing the World Series to the much poorer Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks. In the 2004 NBA Finals, four Hall of Famers of the Los Angeles Lakers were thumped in the “five game sweep” by a Detroit Pistons team without a single player that averaged twenty points. In fact, Lebron James and Dwyane Wade have previously played together for the U.S. Redeem Team, which (before it won the 2008 Gold Medal) lost in the 2006 World Championship Semi-finals to Greece.
Looking at the Heat’s roster specifically, there is reason to question their championship potential. At the moment there doesn’t seem to be a facilitator to dish out assists to the superstars. Rafer Alston and Mario Chalmers presumably aren’t the answer. I also can’t think of any championship team that has had two all-stars play such similar positions as Lebron James and Dwyane Wade. Perhaps James will become more of a forward, low-post kind of player, but if not it will be interesting to see how these two divide labor. The team also has several holes. They lack a deadly perimeter shooter, and Chris Bosh doesn’t have the advantage matching up against Dwight Howard in Orlando. Unless Riley makes some more moves--which he’s very good at historically--this team will show whether an overkill of talent at key positions is enough to overcome deficiency in the team as a whole.
Regardless of how this affects the reputations and legacies of the players involved, I believe it’s bad for sports and bad for basketball. By my--perhaps naïve--definition, sports is about getting the best players and the best teams and setting them against each other to determine who is athletically, mentally, and strategically supreme. These players, particularly James, seem so afraid that they might retire without a title that they’ll forgo the pride of leading a team to victory with their own blood, sweat, and leadership.
I, for one, will root against them in every game.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Toy Story 3 Reflection
Perhaps a week ago I was on facebook when I found a photo of my nephew, Liam, playing with Buzz Lightyear from the Toy Story franchise.
I remembered myself fifteen years ago, when the first Toy Story was released. I was also five, playing with my collection of Toy Story characters to make dozens of sequels. That photo combined with a predictable level of homesickness while I’m abroad made me resolve to do two things as soon as possible: visit my nephews and see Toy Story 3. The first must wait at least until we’re in the same country, but the latter I have just accomplished.
In a timeline just a few years off from my own, Toy Story 3 begins with Andy going to college. He’s long outgrown his toys, which are either going into storage in the attic or being donated. By accident they end up at Sunnyside Day Care Center, where a tyrannical bear imprisons them. Even if they escape, they have to find Andy, and who’s to say he still wants them?
Toy Story’s production studio, PIXAR, is undoubtedly the most successful and reliable production company of the last fifteen years. They’ve never made a bad or unsuccessful movie, and their competitors in computer-animated children’s entertainment have always been too desperate for laughs and entirely incapable of PIXAR’s tenderness.
Even so, PIXAR’s sure-handed quality control process includes a reliance on several clichés. The protagonists are trapped and need to escape. A mentor character turns out to be evil because he was betrayed earlier in life. Toy Story 3 falls into both of these, and the first two-thirds of the film suffer as a result. One can feel the writers--and audience members over seven--checking off boxes and filling in the spaces as the toys plan their escape from Sunnyside and its evil teddy tyrant. There’s also a diversion with Barbie and Ken that feels forced and annoying (Who would have imagined Michael Keaton would produce a bland voice performance?)
But PIXAR’s advantage has always been individual scenes of complex emotion and sublime humanity. Buzz Lightyear discovering he can’t fly. Sully saying goodbye to Boo. Dory begging Marlin not to leave. The montage of Carl and Ellie’s life together. These moments of movie magic are embedded in otherwise satisfactory narratives, but they alone are worth theprice of admission time spent downloading.
Toy Story 3 saves these moments for the third act, and then delivers beautifully. In a moment of surprising maturity and intensity, the toys brace for and accept certain death. In another, Woody’s friendship with Buzz is paralleled with Andy’s mother saying goodbye to her son. Andy finally leaving his toys is a cathartic metaphor for anyone who is separated from someone they loved or grew up with.
What’s interesting about family films is their focus on our less outward, but deeper emotions about best friends, siblings, parents, and children. A children’s film turns out to be a perfect medium for introducing ideas about growing up, one‘s purpose in life, the death of loved ones, and even the death of one’s self. Consider the significance of Bambi and Dumbo in many children‘s development, the latter having maintained its popularity despite poor storytelling and anachronistic social values. It probably won’t be as iconic in history, but upon my first viewing I think Toy Story 3’s final act may deserve a place somewhere close to the first half of The Lion King in terms of rousing complex emotions in a way children can appreciate.
In the concluding scenes I thought of my own family and my own life. Whenever my mind gets autobiographical and reflective during a film, I accept that the filmmakers have defeated my coldness and my skepticism (Cinema Paradiso and Au Hasard Balthasar might be the best examples). It doesn’t mean the film as a whole is masterful, but it’s an example of why people have always used and enjoyed art.
When Andy gives his toys to a new little girl, and I think of my nephew playing the same way I did fifteen years ago, as Jake LaMotta says in Raging Bull, "That's entertainment."
I remembered myself fifteen years ago, when the first Toy Story was released. I was also five, playing with my collection of Toy Story characters to make dozens of sequels. That photo combined with a predictable level of homesickness while I’m abroad made me resolve to do two things as soon as possible: visit my nephews and see Toy Story 3. The first must wait at least until we’re in the same country, but the latter I have just accomplished.
In a timeline just a few years off from my own, Toy Story 3 begins with Andy going to college. He’s long outgrown his toys, which are either going into storage in the attic or being donated. By accident they end up at Sunnyside Day Care Center, where a tyrannical bear imprisons them. Even if they escape, they have to find Andy, and who’s to say he still wants them?
Toy Story’s production studio, PIXAR, is undoubtedly the most successful and reliable production company of the last fifteen years. They’ve never made a bad or unsuccessful movie, and their competitors in computer-animated children’s entertainment have always been too desperate for laughs and entirely incapable of PIXAR’s tenderness.
Even so, PIXAR’s sure-handed quality control process includes a reliance on several clichés. The protagonists are trapped and need to escape. A mentor character turns out to be evil because he was betrayed earlier in life. Toy Story 3 falls into both of these, and the first two-thirds of the film suffer as a result. One can feel the writers--and audience members over seven--checking off boxes and filling in the spaces as the toys plan their escape from Sunnyside and its evil teddy tyrant. There’s also a diversion with Barbie and Ken that feels forced and annoying (Who would have imagined Michael Keaton would produce a bland voice performance?)
But PIXAR’s advantage has always been individual scenes of complex emotion and sublime humanity. Buzz Lightyear discovering he can’t fly. Sully saying goodbye to Boo. Dory begging Marlin not to leave. The montage of Carl and Ellie’s life together. These moments of movie magic are embedded in otherwise satisfactory narratives, but they alone are worth the
Toy Story 3 saves these moments for the third act, and then delivers beautifully. In a moment of surprising maturity and intensity, the toys brace for and accept certain death. In another, Woody’s friendship with Buzz is paralleled with Andy’s mother saying goodbye to her son. Andy finally leaving his toys is a cathartic metaphor for anyone who is separated from someone they loved or grew up with.
What’s interesting about family films is their focus on our less outward, but deeper emotions about best friends, siblings, parents, and children. A children’s film turns out to be a perfect medium for introducing ideas about growing up, one‘s purpose in life, the death of loved ones, and even the death of one’s self. Consider the significance of Bambi and Dumbo in many children‘s development, the latter having maintained its popularity despite poor storytelling and anachronistic social values. It probably won’t be as iconic in history, but upon my first viewing I think Toy Story 3’s final act may deserve a place somewhere close to the first half of The Lion King in terms of rousing complex emotions in a way children can appreciate.
In the concluding scenes I thought of my own family and my own life. Whenever my mind gets autobiographical and reflective during a film, I accept that the filmmakers have defeated my coldness and my skepticism (Cinema Paradiso and Au Hasard Balthasar might be the best examples). It doesn’t mean the film as a whole is masterful, but it’s an example of why people have always used and enjoyed art.
When Andy gives his toys to a new little girl, and I think of my nephew playing the same way I did fifteen years ago, as Jake LaMotta says in Raging Bull, "That's entertainment."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)