Category Archives: Culture

A Sad Day (Not Just in Sports)

Culture, Sports

Ali Weigh-inIn a previous life, I was a freelance photographer.  In July 1976, I was working on a behind-the-scenes photo story about the Capital Centre, which had recently opened in Landover, Maryland.  One of the inaugural events was a heavyweight championship fight between Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Young.  I took this picture during the weigh-in.  That is Ali’s trainer, the late Angelo Dundee on the left. Although it was forty years ago, I still remember Dundee’s concern when Ali weighed in at 227 pounds, the heaviest of his boxing career.

I was fortunate to have this opportunity, but the Ali photograph I would have treasured more is not one in the ring.  If only I had accompanied Ali on one of his goodwill missions to Africa or the Middle East.  I wish I had captured the faces of young children who looked in Ali’s eyes and saw hope and new possibilities. Google images of “Ali in Africa” and you’ll see what I mean.

Back to July 1976.  The night of the fight, I was standing with Dundee waiting for Ali to arrive at the arena.  Dundee was not happy.  The preliminary bouts had already begun and his fighter was nowhere in sight.  He wondered if Ali was taking his opponent too lightly.  As it turned out, the contest was much closer than it should have ever been.

Whenever events or life do not go according to plan, I often wonder if there is an explanation.  Forty years later I think I know what might have happened that night. Ali was often referred to “as the most famous person on the planet.”  From that pedestal, his post-boxing life would be devoted to social and philanthropic causes.  It makes you wonder.  Was boxing just a means to an end?  Who would have listened to some African-American kid from Louisville?  Were all the years of training and sacrifice his way of creating a venue for the greater purpose of his life?

I was doing the New York Times crossword puzzle on my tablet last night, when the Associated Press alert popped up on the screen.  Ali had died at age 74.  I could not sleep.  I had lost someone who was important to my life experience.  I am comforted by the fact I am not alone.

For What It’s Worth
Dr. ESP

Right Under Your Nose Redux

Culture, Media, Politics

It happened again this weekend.  I guess the media never heard of “Occam’s Razor,” the problem solving principle which suggests, given a number of hypotheses, the one that requires the least assumptions is most preferable.  In more modern terminology, it is much like the acronym KISS or “keep it simple stupid.”

Yesterday, CNN reported on the sudden emergence of a 1991 interview between a “publicist” for Donald Trump and People Magazine writer Sue Carswell.  From the tape and transcripts of the interview, it is fairly certain Trump was using the pseudonym John Miller to brag about himself.  At first, everyone assumed Carswell or People Magazine had released the tape.  However, she claims that she has the only copy of the tape and has never shared it. On CNN,  Carswell speculated that Trump may have also recorded the conversation and was responsible for its release.

The CNN reporter then asks Carswell, “Why do you think Trump or his people would do that?” Did you really need to ask?  Just watch your own broadcasts.  For the last 48 hours, CNN and other news outlets had focused on Trump’s unwillingness to release his tax returns.  Newspapers and his critics (e.g. 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney) peppered the presumptive nominee about what he might be hiding.  Trump was  being trolled on Twitter with the hashtag “#weakdonald.”

If I were Trump’s campaign manager, I would be polling to see if this was the “last straw” for many Republicans and, more importantly, independents.  Could my candidate, who constantly reminds us he tells it like it is, weather the hypocrisy of not applying this adage to himself?  I would have two choices.  The most obvious one is release the returns.  This would either quiet the critics, or as some have suggested, confirm charges that Trump overstates his net worth, is less charitable than he claims and/or pays little if any taxes. As campaign manager, do I want to take that risk?  Probably not.

Say what you will about Trump, he and his team are masters at manipulating the media. Therefore, the campaign team’s second choice is to change the narrative.  And that is what they did.  They offered a more succulent piece of red meat to the media and the critics.  A tape in which Trump lauds his own greatness disguised as a publicist.  The modus operandus of a true narcissist. But everyone already knows that.  One more piece of evidence to confirm something about which Trump enthusiasts and potential supporters have been exposed many times and don’t seem to care.

Look at the headlines over the last 72 hours in the Washington Post which broke the story on Friday.  At the end of the week, everything was about Trump’s tax returns.  This morning’s Sunday edition is about the tape.  No story about tax returns.  No op-eds about Trump’s lack of transparency.  The Trump campaign successfully pulled the entree off the table and replaced it with dessert.

There is one more question.  Why the Washington Post? Why not the New York Times, Trump’s hometown paper of record? Just this week, Trump re-opened his Twitter attack on Post owner and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, claiming the Post was anti-Trump because Bezos is afraid Amazon will be charged with anti-trust violations by a Trump Department of Justice. What is more satisfying than using a hated adversary’s asset as a prop for his reality show?

For those of you who think the purpose of this post is to criticize Trump, you are wrong. Each of you needs to assess the Trump candidacy on your own.  I personally don’t agree with most of what Trump offers, but as they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.  He is right when he chastises the media and calls them a disgrace.  However, I guess Trump and I reach that conclusion from different perspectives.

Trump is not the primary villain in this melodramatic magic show which turned “taxes” into “tape.”  He is only taking advantage of an audience that falls for his slight of hand and is afraid to ask how it is done.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

When Hollywood Gets It Right

Culture

 

My last post focused on the trend in movies and television to generate fear through depictions of terrorist attacks and other acts of violence.  Though I briefly touched on docu-dramas and documentaries which demonstrate the better side of human nature, I regret not putting more effort into a defense of Hollywood when it uses the powerful language of storytelling to help us understand ourselves and the world in which we live.

Last night I watched the final episode of Season II of “Better Call Saul,” the prequel-spinoff from “Breaking Bad.”  My first reaction.  If Executive Producer Vince Gilligan had been in charge of “Star Wars Episodes I-III,” they would have been monumentally better than the originals.  The narrative of how aspiring attorney Jimmy McGill evolves into the ambulance-chasing shyster and drug money bagman Saul Goodman is exactly what George Lucas attempted to do with the transformation of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader.  But the resemblance ends there.

“Star Wars I-III” is a perfect example of lost opportunities when special effects and fight scenes displace intelligent writing and subtlety.  In contrast, “Saul” shares seminal moments in the lives of all its characters which shape their perspectives on life and relationships.  Yet, their personal journeys are neither linear nor without speed bumps. In particular, the last two episodes in Season II represent the classic intersection between nature and nurture.  (I PROMISE, NO SPOILER ALERT NEEDED)  The audience sees both sides, each character’s core values challenged by their life experiences.

I want to share one other observation about “Saul.” I was a late-comer to “Breaking Bad.” I never watched a single episode on its original air date, instead binge-watching the entire series in less than one month.  I was more than satisfied the viewing pleasure was worth the time commitment.  But Gilligan and his team also show us the power of curiosity in the creative process.  They were not content Saul Goodman provided welcomed comic relief in Walter White’s dark world of drug dealing and violence.  They wanted (maybe even needed) to know, “Who is this guy?  Where did he come from?  Why does he represent drug dealers?  Why does he need a henchman?  And how did the two become partners?”

This brand of curiosity may not result in another “Breaking Bad.”  But it sure gets one closer than one could have ever imagined.  One can only hope other film and television producers have a similar epiphany.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Nothing to Fear But Hollywood

Culture

 

 Several of the candidates running for President in 2016 have based their appeal on fear.  Fear of terrorist attacks.  Perceived attacks on religious freedom.  Concerns who will have his/her finger on the nuclear button.  I’ll let you, the reader, decide which are valid and which are fear-mongering.  But that decision should be based on what the candidates say and do as well as current events.

What it should not depend on is Hollywood’s playing to audience fears because it produces good box office.  “Homeland” viewers watched as the CIA building was bombed.  Beginning with “Black Sunday” in 1977, movie plots have included fictionalized terrorist attacks on American institutions such as the Super Bowl, Air Force One and most recently, the White House.

Last night, my wife and I began watching the most recent episode of “Madam Secretary,” a show we had enjoyed immensely in Season One.  We jokingly called it, “If Tony Soprano Were Secretary of State,” as “The Sopranos” and “Madam Secretary” share a common thread. Individuals in high-stress jobs face equally stressful lives at home.

Season Two is a different story.  The show should now be called, “Who Gets Blown Up This Week.”  First it was a dirty bomb at a Washington, D.C. luncheon for a Malala doppelganger.  Last night it was a medical team in Africa trying to ward off a potential pandemic. We turned it off. Enough is enough.

Wikipedia lists 59 fictional films in which terrorism is a central theme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorism_films). Many contain worst case scenarios regardless of how credible the situation or probability.  Where is the outcry from those who argue violence on TV and the movies promotes a culture of violence?  My guess: they believe violence portrayed in film and TV against U.S and global. institutions supports their messages “the world is on fire” or “be afraid, very afraid.”

None of this discussion minimizes the tragedies in Paris, Brussels, San Bernadino, Charleston or Oklahoma City.  However, they were not apocalyptic.  And the fact that there are not many more of these events is a good sign.  No, authorities cannot stop every attack, but they do prevent more than might be expected according to Hollywood.

This does not suggest film producers and TV studios have not also played a positive role.  On the same Wikipedia page, there are equally as many examples of films portraying actual terrorist events and their aftermath.  In many of the documentaries and docu-dramas, we are touched by the heroism and compassion of those who are the victims or who make a living trying to keep us safe.  However, fiction carries the day. “Air Force One” is the highest grossing terrorism movie of all time pulling in $173 million.  “United 93” is ranked 24th with $34 million in ticket sales.  If only it was the other way around.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Right Under Your Nose

Culture, Media

Renowned journalist Edward R. Morrow once said, “The obscure we see eventually.  The obvious, it seems, takes longer.”

I thought about this quote as I was watching analysis of the events in San Bernandino, California last week.  The cable news stations were inundated with “experts” who were trying to explain why Syed Farook and his wife chose the holiday party as their terrorism target.  The consensus was the couple were “amateur” terrorists and past cases suggest non-professionals choose a location with which they are familiar.

But there is a much more obvious reason which seems to be completely overlooked.  Witnesses report Farook left his coat on his chair when he left the room.  The couple NEVER intended to become martyrs.  The coat was to be part of Farook’s alibi.  Not only would he not be the killer, he was a potential victim.  You can almost hear his intended statement to the police.  “I was just lucky.  I had to go to the men’s room.  When I heard the shots, I fled the building.  I didn’t even retrieve the coat I’d left at the table where I was sitting.”

Other evidence supports this view.  The couple left their baby with the maternal grandmother and left nothing behind on-line or in their apartment suggesting she would have to care for the baby in the event something happened to them.  They fully expected to retrieve their child later that day.

The alibi would also have served Farook well if he and his wife had conducted a second attack as suggested by the weapons in the rented SUV.  He could always have claimed to have been at the Inland Regional Center attending the holiday party and awards ceremony.

Remember, Inland was not where Farook worked.  It was only the site of the office event.  Therefore, he probably was not as familiar with the layout as the “experts” suggest.

This is only one example where expert analysts, in an attempt to demonstrate their grasp of events beyond that of most people, just try to hard.  And by doing so, fail to see what is right under their noses.  They would be better served to employ Occum’s razor, “All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the most probable.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP