Category Archives: Uncategorized

Hollywood Abhors a Vacuum

Culture, Uncategorized

Or why multiplex theaters may be the death of quality cinema.

When I was growing up in Richmond, Virginia there were four old-style, single-screen movie theaters (Byrd, Capitol, Lowe’s and Willow Lawn Shopping Center).  Although I cursed the fact that Sound of Music played for almost a year at the only one within walking distance, the other three offered movies which generally received Academy Award nominations or critical acclaim.  Sometimes you had to wait for a movie to come to town, but the anticipation was worth it.

Today we have multiplex theaters with as many as 30 screens.  The trend began in 1979 with the first 18 screen multiplex, soon followed by a 25-screen version which became known as a megaplex. There are advantages to this trend.  Even though screens have shrunk in size, improvements in sound and digital projection add to the viewing experience.  Blockbuster hits playing on multiple screens ensure available seats (though this never seemed to be a problem in classical theaters with as many 1500 seats compared to the average 300 seats in multiplex theaters).  Multiple showings do have the advantage of more flexible starting times.

Unfortunately, each benefit derived from multiplex theaters comes with a cost, the most obvious being the need to fill each screen with content regardless of quality.  Take a look at the movies with the ten highest box office receipts this past weekend (Source: Box Office Mojo).  Only four of the ten received a majority of positive reviews according to Rotten Tomatoes.  Take a closer look and you shouldn’t be surprised.

Six of the ten are sequels: Find Dory, Independence Day: Resurgence, The Conjuring 2, Now You See Me 2,  X-Men Apocalypse, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows.

The Shallows is a Jaws derivative.

Central Intelligence is one more buddy movie drawing on the star power of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Kevin Hart.

Warcraft (the lowest rated at 30 percent) is a spin-off of a popular video game.

Free State of Jones, an adaptation of the book of the same name, is the only “fresh face” on the top ten.  According to the critics, while the film had huge potential “it is not enough to make up for its stilted treatment of a fascinating real-life story.”  (NOTE: I have not seen it, but wonder if there is a scene in which Matthew McConaughey encourages former slaves to seek freedom by beating on his chest and shouting, “All right!  All right!”)

When you have so much space to fill, the priority becomes marketing instead of quality cinema.  Look at the 2015 films with the three highest box office receipts: Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Jurassic World & Avengers: Age of Ultron.  Star Wars  is a special case, but alone spent over $66 million on TV advertising.  And it paid off pulling in over $2 billion in box office receipts not to mention the residuals from Star Wars toys and other paraphernalia. Can you imagine what a studio would do with Gone With The Wind today?  Would we see Scarlett and Rhett Barbie Dolls? Or Ashley Wilkes action figures?

So here’s my question?  If there were fewer multiplexes would more people have gone to see the following 2016 Oscar nominees (box office ranking):  Spotlight (62nd), The Big Short (44th), Brooklyn (70th) or Bridge of Spies (42nd)?  There is a more disturbing question.  Who is responsible for this trend in cinema quality?  Risk averse major movie studios who rely on movies which follow a tried and true box office formula or the audiences who keep paying to see them?  The answer is probably BOTH.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

All “Press” Is Not Created Equal

Media, Uncategorized

NOTE:  Today I am adding “Media” as a new category.  I originally thought posts related to the media would fall under either “Politics” or “Culture.”  However, the quality of coverage during this electoral cycle continues to raise so many questions I now feel they deserve their own category.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This addition to the Constitution, along with the next nine amendments, is referred to as the “Bill of Rights.”  As  documented in numerous Supreme Court cases, none of these rights are absolute.  Freedom of speech, famously, does not give you permission to shout “fire” in a crowded theater.  Assembly must be done “peaceably.” Petitioning the Government does not include threatening the life of public officials.  In general, access to these rights demands a modicum of responsibility by each citizen.

How does this apply to “freedom of the press?”  First, we need to explore what the founding fathers meant by the word “press.”  There was no “media” in 1789; the written word was the primary means of distributing the news in the form of newspapers or circulars which were produced on printing presses.  Thus, the distinction between “freedom of speech” (i.e. individual expression of an idea) versus “the press” (mass distribution).

Second, we must understand the difference between written journalism and television/radio journalism.  One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was, “Never send the first draft of a negative email.”  My mentor was promoting the value of avoiding conflict by finding a more factual and less emotional way of communicating my displeasure with an event or issue.  Print journalists have this advantage over their electronic-based colleagues.  Newspaper reporters or columnists have an opportunity to edit and re-edit their work.  They have the luxury of fact checking.  And in many instances, they seek feedback from their editors or colleagues before submitting their work for publication.

What we see on TV or hear on radio is often immediate and presented in raw form.  Correspondents on digital media generally do not stop in the middle of an interview and ask, “Would you mind if we take a break while I Google whether what you just said is true?” Nor do they have the luxury of rephrasing a statement or opinion.  Let me give you a recent example.  On cable news, a reporter questioned a Trump surrogate about his having changed his mind whether Japan should have its own nuclear weapons rather than depending on the United States for its defense.  The surrogate’s response, “Mr. Trump did not say that.”  The interviewer, “So, you’re saying his position has not changed.”  Unintentionally (giving him the benefit of the doubt), the interviewer had shifted the conversation from Trump’s veracity to whether the Republican nominee’s position had evolved or not.

In contrast, a print journalist would have pulled the quote from the CNN town hall on March 29 in which the candidate stated:

You have so many countries already — China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia — you have so many countries right now that have them. Now, wouldn’t you rather, in a certain sense, have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?

Equally important, the print journalist had time to reflect on the interview and determine the major takeaway from the conversation.

In hindsight, the TV commentator should have been able to do the same thing, but that required better preparation.  Was he caught off guard when the surrogate denied her candidate had ever suggested Japan obtain nuclear weapons?  Shouldn’t he have had the March 29 quote in his notes, just in case she did?

As stated earlier, I believe print journalists have an advantage in reporting the news.  But the disadvantage to TV and radio personalities does not relieve them on their journalistic responsibilities.  If TV reporters want to benefit from constitutional protections such as “freedom of the press,” they need to find a way to emulate their in-print colleagues.

For what it’s worth,
Dr. ESP

Ayn Rand Versus Jean Jacques Rousseau

Economics, Politics, Uncategorized

Rand Rousseau

The May 12 issue of Time Magazine included an article titled, “American Capitalism’s Greatest Crisis.”  It included the following:

A couple of weeks ago, a poll conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics found something startling: only 19% of Americans ages 18 to 29 identified themselves as “capitalists.” In the richest and most market-oriented country in the world, only 42% of that group said they “supported capitalism.” The numbers were higher among older people; still, only 26% considered themselves capitalists. A little over half supported the system as a whole.

Based on these data, the reporter concluded, “This is a majority of citizens being uncomfortable with the country’s economic foundation.”  What the reporter failed to realize is current economic principles and practices are NOT what the the founders viewed as the overarching philosophy on which American society should be based.  Remember, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, which is touted by many conservatives as holding the keys to American economic exceptionalism was published 168 years AFTER adoption of our Constitution.   When was the last time the “foundation” of any structure was added a century and a half after the enterprise opened for business?

Adams, Jefferson and Franklin relied more heavily on Jean Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract, in which the French philosopher espoused the importance of community responsibility to the survival of civilized societies.  Rousseau did not believe capitalism and socialism were incompatible.  Instead, he saw them as complementary.

If this philosophy is applied to the topics of wealth and taxation, the world is not made up of “makers” and “takers.”  Everyone is a “maker.”  Businesses use private capital (i.e. investment) to produce goods and services.  Likewise, government uses public capital (i.e. tax revenues) to provide basic services such as national security, police, fire production and education as well as infrastructure (e.g. highways, airports, water and sewer systems) without which commerce would not exist.

In the 2012 election, President Obama muddied the waters when he suggested that business owners “did not build that.”  While he argued the sound bite had been taken out of context, it opened the door for opponents to argue he did not value the importance of private initiative. Here’s what he should have said. “Together we build a strong economy.  Privately held businesses marshall resources to fulfill the needs and desires of the marketplace.  Yet, at the same time, governments and non-profit organizations deliver public goods and services so the private sector can focus on what it does best.”

 The private sector is the primary job creator. But just as President Obama misspoke when he tried to explain the the synergy between the public and private sectors, Republicans have done an equally bad job of articulating the role of the private sector in job creation.  First, it is not only the wealthy who are the “job creators”.  Entrepreneurs emerge from every income tier.  Second, business owners create two categories of jobs.  They employ personnel DIRECTLY in their companies.  When they pay taxes, they also INDIRECTLY create public sector jobs and should be given credit for that.

If there is anyone who should be labeled “takers,” it is those individuals and companies who can well afford to pay their fair share of taxes, yet avoid them and shift the financial burden of public goods they use in the course of business to other citizens.  I can hear Rousseau now.  “You are violating the contract on  which civilized societies depend.  Return to it and all those young people just might begin to realize that capitalism is critical to the world in which they live.  Next year, Time will have articles about how capitalism survived this crisis.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Origins of Deprogramming 101

Uncategorized

When I retired as the Cintas Professor of Entrepreneurship at Miami University in December 2011, one reason for the decision was a desire to explore questions and issues without the pressures of academic deadlines and requirements. In my final lecture, I provided the following examples.

What is the correlation between Congressional inaction and the increase in female Senators and Representatives telling us? See POLITICS for the full discussion.

Who said, “The rally in October was a worst case scenario. It brought the S&P back to the black in 2011?” See ECONOMICS for the answer.

How can three books which purport to be the divine word–Old Testament, New Testament, and Koran–all be right if each claim to be the only path to salvation? See RELIGION for the full discussion.

Three and a half years passed before I realized I had not acted on my desire to take advantage of a more relaxed lifestyle to explore these and other questions which deserve our attention. This website is my attempt to make up for lost time and provide a space in which I and others can explore the bigger issues of our time.

Counter-Intuitive Thinking and the Realm of The Possible

Uncategorized

Life is full of possibilities. The extent to which we experience these possibilities depends greatly on the extent to which we identify and act on opportunities. And our ability to see and exploit an opportunity is directly proportional to our openness to question and challenge the biases and assumptions that currently shape our world view.

DEPROGRAMMING 101 is one person’s attempt to encourage others to open their minds and challenge the status quo. I do not pretend I have all the answers nor do I want you to take my positions as gospel. The blogs on each topic are presented as food for thought and stimuli. Each ends with the tagline, “For what it’s worth,” which in some cases may be zero. The ultimate goal is not to find RIGHT answers, it is to promote the asking of BETTER questions.

ging!