Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Wealth, Capitalism, and Greed.
I'm not super-rich. By the standards of this country I'm not even sort of rich. As I'm fond of saying, I want to make a living, not a killing. I'm a single wage earner in a household of six people, for cryin' out loud. But I paid attention enough when I was a kid to know how well off we are today.
My father was a native American. He was born in this country with nothing. My grandparents on my mother's side were Hungarian Jews. They arrived in this country with nothing. My stepfather was born in 1922 in Andersen, South Carolina. He went to school in a one-room schoolhouse with no plumbing. At lunch the children would get drinking water from the creek. That's because that's how people lived. He once confided to me that when he was 12 years old he never imagined that he would one day be rich enough to live in a painted house. All of these people came from the poorest of the poor. They all made something of themselves. Remember that phrase.
Why is it that some places in the world are wealthier than others? It's not about natural resources; Switzerland and Japan prove that. It's not about taking or withholding from others. It's not geography. For instance, during the cold war, West Germany created wealth at a breakneck pace while East Germany did nothing. How did that happen?
It has everything to do with Capitalism.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. You can create wealth directly out of your imagination, as an author does when writing a book. J.K. Rowling's net worth is roughly a billion dollars. Yet her only real assets are the products of her imagination! And this isn't some kind of trick accounting that simply to account for money that she sucked out of other people... When she wrote Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, she had something of newly created value even before it was sold. This is literal creation of wealth. Wealth is created when human beings use their imagination to produce something new... something that someone else wants. This is capitalism.
Capitalism is not about greed. It's not just about acquisition. It's about reaching a level of comfort and satisfaction that's right for you, whatever that level may be, and not having impediments to the attainment of those goals. Capitalism doesn't promote the collection of wealth at the expense of other people. Rather, it's about creating an economic environment where anybody can succeed. Remember, it depends on production to work. and capitalism has worked so well in this country that not only can anybody succeed, nearly everybody does. In industrialized countries like the United States, capitalism has raised the level of the "poor" beyond the definition of "rich" in the rest of the world, as our workers are paid to participate in the creative process and share the rewards. You don't believe it? Go visit some other countries. There, it's a blessing to simply eat, and having no shoes is normal. What we call "poor" in this country is anything but poor. Here it's a shame not to have a television or new shoes. This is because our "poor" work for capitalists. (There are some real poor in this country, but they are very few. That's not a consolation for those who are poor; it's simply a fact.)
The redistribution of wealth -- socialism -- is not about creating anything. Rather, it's about taking the wealth created by someone else and simply spreading it around. It might sound great on paper (between the covers of the Communist Manifesto or Obama's economic plan), but in practice it falls apart almost immediately. That's because once you go down this path; once you vilify and steal from the entrepeneurs to give to the idle; once you've spread all the cash around, you soon discover that there's no more to spread. The cash flow... doesn't.
Witness the Soviet Union. Despite the iron fist of a government willing to use its military against its own people, it fell apart not because of foreign military opposition, but because they couldn't pay the bills. It fell because SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK. Why? Because socialism removes any incentive for creation of wealth by stealing that wealth from the people who created it. Without incentive, entrepeneurs cease to take risks and artists become daydreamers. They cease to create wealth, and there's no one left from whom the socialists can steal.
The redistribution of wealth is motivated by envy and greed. It's not about improving your own lot... it's about taking something away from someone else so that they are more like you. It's about institutionalized theft. It's saying "I want what he has, but I don't want to work for it. I don't want to create wealth, I want to steal it." It's about the promotion of class warfare; it deliberately incites people to alienate themselves from the people most likely to help them succeed. In so doing, it perpetuates hatred and distrust and mediocrity.
Leading the charge to institutionalize this despicable behavior is our own President, Barack Obama, who waved the promise of change, but failed to mention that it was most assuredly change for the worse. After enduring a week of this Administration's inept blundering, I I experienced the proverbial "final straw" this morning when an Administration apologist defended the admittedly socialist agenda by ignoring every question he was asked in order to repeatedly decry the "discrepancy between the very rich and the very poor". Folks, this "discrepancy" is a red herring. It's a distraction to keep you focused on envy and greed to keep you from realizing some very true things:
My father joined the military, then the fire department. He never made a lot of money, but that's not what capitalism is about. It's about reaching your level of comfort and satisfaction. He was a fireman; he saved lives.
My mother's parents worked hard and mastered the English language. They made their own way without public assistance, and contributed three children to society: My Uncle Ben became a successful anesthesiologist; Uncle Vic was a translator for the US Army; and my mother, Lillian, was an amazing seamstress and factory worker who managed to provide a comfortable home for her children (and hers is an incredible story by itself).
My stepfather, Terrell, who ploughed with mules and drank from the creek, was a proud Marine who joined the rest of his generation in literally saving the world from tyranny. After World War II he became an engraver and was eventually foreman of the engraving department of the largest newspaper in South Carolina. He bought the land on which stood the unpainted house in which he was born and ran it as a Christmas tree farm in his retirement.
These weren't amazing tales of rags to riches; they were just ordinary folks who, starting from nothing, earned themselves ordinary, comfortable lives. But all of them believed that you are limited only by your imagination and desire. In the country they were born in, migrated to, and fought for, this was true. I hope it remains true in the years to come. I'll have more words on that tomorrow.
My father was a native American. He was born in this country with nothing. My grandparents on my mother's side were Hungarian Jews. They arrived in this country with nothing. My stepfather was born in 1922 in Andersen, South Carolina. He went to school in a one-room schoolhouse with no plumbing. At lunch the children would get drinking water from the creek. That's because that's how people lived. He once confided to me that when he was 12 years old he never imagined that he would one day be rich enough to live in a painted house. All of these people came from the poorest of the poor. They all made something of themselves. Remember that phrase.
Why is it that some places in the world are wealthier than others? It's not about natural resources; Switzerland and Japan prove that. It's not about taking or withholding from others. It's not geography. For instance, during the cold war, West Germany created wealth at a breakneck pace while East Germany did nothing. How did that happen?
It has everything to do with Capitalism.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. You can create wealth directly out of your imagination, as an author does when writing a book. J.K. Rowling's net worth is roughly a billion dollars. Yet her only real assets are the products of her imagination! And this isn't some kind of trick accounting that simply to account for money that she sucked out of other people... When she wrote Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, she had something of newly created value even before it was sold. This is literal creation of wealth. Wealth is created when human beings use their imagination to produce something new... something that someone else wants. This is capitalism.
Capitalism is not about greed. It's not just about acquisition. It's about reaching a level of comfort and satisfaction that's right for you, whatever that level may be, and not having impediments to the attainment of those goals. Capitalism doesn't promote the collection of wealth at the expense of other people. Rather, it's about creating an economic environment where anybody can succeed. Remember, it depends on production to work. and capitalism has worked so well in this country that not only can anybody succeed, nearly everybody does. In industrialized countries like the United States, capitalism has raised the level of the "poor" beyond the definition of "rich" in the rest of the world, as our workers are paid to participate in the creative process and share the rewards. You don't believe it? Go visit some other countries. There, it's a blessing to simply eat, and having no shoes is normal. What we call "poor" in this country is anything but poor. Here it's a shame not to have a television or new shoes. This is because our "poor" work for capitalists. (There are some real poor in this country, but they are very few. That's not a consolation for those who are poor; it's simply a fact.)
The redistribution of wealth -- socialism -- is not about creating anything. Rather, it's about taking the wealth created by someone else and simply spreading it around. It might sound great on paper (between the covers of the Communist Manifesto or Obama's economic plan), but in practice it falls apart almost immediately. That's because once you go down this path; once you vilify and steal from the entrepeneurs to give to the idle; once you've spread all the cash around, you soon discover that there's no more to spread. The cash flow... doesn't.
Witness the Soviet Union. Despite the iron fist of a government willing to use its military against its own people, it fell apart not because of foreign military opposition, but because they couldn't pay the bills. It fell because SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK. Why? Because socialism removes any incentive for creation of wealth by stealing that wealth from the people who created it. Without incentive, entrepeneurs cease to take risks and artists become daydreamers. They cease to create wealth, and there's no one left from whom the socialists can steal.
The redistribution of wealth is motivated by envy and greed. It's not about improving your own lot... it's about taking something away from someone else so that they are more like you. It's about institutionalized theft. It's saying "I want what he has, but I don't want to work for it. I don't want to create wealth, I want to steal it." It's about the promotion of class warfare; it deliberately incites people to alienate themselves from the people most likely to help them succeed. In so doing, it perpetuates hatred and distrust and mediocrity.
Leading the charge to institutionalize this despicable behavior is our own President, Barack Obama, who waved the promise of change, but failed to mention that it was most assuredly change for the worse. After enduring a week of this Administration's inept blundering, I I experienced the proverbial "final straw" this morning when an Administration apologist defended the admittedly socialist agenda by ignoring every question he was asked in order to repeatedly decry the "discrepancy between the very rich and the very poor". Folks, this "discrepancy" is a red herring. It's a distraction to keep you focused on envy and greed to keep you from realizing some very true things:
- First, someone else's good fortune is not your misfortune. Remember, wealth is literally created from imagination and effort. As such, the potential for wealth is unlimited.
- Second, you can create wealth for yourself. You have as much opportunity as anyone else. If you have ability as well, you will be successful.
- Third, even if you lack the ability to create wealth, you can work for someone who does, and thus collect wealth by assisting with their creative efforts.
- Fourth, our economic problems will not be solved with redistribution of wealth, bail-outs using borrowed money, and taxation.
- Finally, if you open the door to stealing someone else's wealth, it will happen to you, too.
My father joined the military, then the fire department. He never made a lot of money, but that's not what capitalism is about. It's about reaching your level of comfort and satisfaction. He was a fireman; he saved lives.
My mother's parents worked hard and mastered the English language. They made their own way without public assistance, and contributed three children to society: My Uncle Ben became a successful anesthesiologist; Uncle Vic was a translator for the US Army; and my mother, Lillian, was an amazing seamstress and factory worker who managed to provide a comfortable home for her children (and hers is an incredible story by itself).
My stepfather, Terrell, who ploughed with mules and drank from the creek, was a proud Marine who joined the rest of his generation in literally saving the world from tyranny. After World War II he became an engraver and was eventually foreman of the engraving department of the largest newspaper in South Carolina. He bought the land on which stood the unpainted house in which he was born and ran it as a Christmas tree farm in his retirement.
These weren't amazing tales of rags to riches; they were just ordinary folks who, starting from nothing, earned themselves ordinary, comfortable lives. But all of them believed that you are limited only by your imagination and desire. In the country they were born in, migrated to, and fought for, this was true. I hope it remains true in the years to come. I'll have more words on that tomorrow.
Friday, March 20, 2009
A story and an endorsement
Good Lord! I haven't updated this blog in months. Have I been that busy? Well... yes, actually, but that tale can wait. As for right now, I'm waiting on a script to finish running on my computer, so I'll post this little story:
On December 6th, 1985 I was in an auto accident in the UK. I remember the date vividly, as this was the opening night of Guys and Dolls, and I was in one of the lead roles, Nathan Detroit. I was driving a Pontiac T-1000 (basically a Chevette. It was similar to the photo shown here, but with the optional "European styling package" consisting of an air dam and spiffy hubcaps.), and I hit a long patch of black ice on the A43 south of Brackley.
The funny thing about this sort of accident is that you've got time enough to plot the Great American Novel in your head, but you don't have time to react to anything. Your muscles simply don't move as fast as the millions of synapses that all activate in your brain under stress. I hit the brakes, which promptly locked up. There was no ABS on that car. I tried steering onto the verge with no luck, as I'd already lost traction completely. There was no airbag on that car, either. The only thing left to do was brace for impact as I approached the rear of another car and wonder how my wife and parents were going to react to my imminent death, for I was fairly certain I was about to die.
I didn't die, obviously. But both of my legs went through the plastic dashboard, which shattered, ripping large gashes my knees through which you could see the kneecaps. This happened, of course, in slow motion, and it was excruciatingly painful.
As a result of this accident I learned exactly how much better made a Mercedes is than a Pontiac T-1000. The car I impacted wasn't damaged. At all. My car was a total loss, as were the trousers I was wearing. I pushed my car to the side of the road and continued into town on foot. (No. The other driver did not offer me a lift.)
Did I mention this was opening night, and I was playing the lead? Good. Did I mention there was no understudy? Well, there wasn't. So I smeared some petroleum jelly in my wounds, wrapped my knees up in Ace bandages, and called someone to come get me. I was determined to do the show, then go to the hospital. The show started late (not my fault... we were waiting on the pianist), and the curtain went up.
Now, what I'd forgotten in my noble adoption of the maxim "the show must go on" is that there is a moment in the play where Nathan Detroit (that's me) begs for the forgiveness of his fiancee of 14 years, Adelaide (played by Deston Lee). It was completely out of my head until I dropped to my knees to deliver the line "Adelaide! I'm on my knees!". Imagine if you will three-foot long hot skewers pummeled into your knees with a large mallet. Imagine they're inserted lengthwise through your femur, all the way up your thighs (both of them), and that they continue all the way up to your armpits. Imagine all of the fluid displaced by these skewers erupting from your tear ducts in twin geysers of saline. I didn't expect that!
Nevertheless, I dutifully bawled out my line and waited for the reaction. Deston turned toward me, and the look on her face was something not easily forgotten. Though this was not the line, written clearly on her shocked expression was "Oh, you poor man, of COURSE I'll come back to you!" Then she visibly overcame that impulse and continued with her lines, totally appropriate and in character. To this, my internal reaction was, "Wow, she really can act!"
We finished the show, and I went to the hospital, and was told that all the dancing and movement was probably the best thing I could have done to retain my mobility. I didn't tell them the part about dropping to my knees. To this day I've got some rather incredible scars to remind me of the story.
Another reminder comes from the fact that I recently spoke with Deston's husband Bill Lee, who directed this play and who played Inspector Brannigan in some of the performances. As you can read on my drama pages, this was an ambitious production. We started with borrowed facilities, no costumes, no sets, and no budget. That didn't deter Bill in the slightest. The production was done mainly through the force of Bill's will. Not only that, but we took it on the road and performed it to benefit local causes in the Midlands. One of the things I learned in the course of that production is that William Lee can get things done. This is a man who has never looked to someone else to solve his problems. And he has a positive, practical, effective approach to any task he faces. There are real, long term problems that this country is facing right now, and to solve them we need people like Bill to get involved.
That's why I'm glad to hear that Bill is running for the position of US Senator from Illinois in 2014. That sounds like a long way away, but when you're starting from ground floor you need to plan ahead. If you're in Illinois and you're reading this, read Bill's blog, contact him, talk to him, look for his speaking engagements, and support him. You'll be glad you did.
On December 6th, 1985 I was in an auto accident in the UK. I remember the date vividly, as this was the opening night of Guys and Dolls, and I was in one of the lead roles, Nathan Detroit. I was driving a Pontiac T-1000 (basically a Chevette. It was similar to the photo shown here, but with the optional "European styling package" consisting of an air dam and spiffy hubcaps.), and I hit a long patch of black ice on the A43 south of Brackley.
The funny thing about this sort of accident is that you've got time enough to plot the Great American Novel in your head, but you don't have time to react to anything. Your muscles simply don't move as fast as the millions of synapses that all activate in your brain under stress. I hit the brakes, which promptly locked up. There was no ABS on that car. I tried steering onto the verge with no luck, as I'd already lost traction completely. There was no airbag on that car, either. The only thing left to do was brace for impact as I approached the rear of another car and wonder how my wife and parents were going to react to my imminent death, for I was fairly certain I was about to die.
I didn't die, obviously. But both of my legs went through the plastic dashboard, which shattered, ripping large gashes my knees through which you could see the kneecaps. This happened, of course, in slow motion, and it was excruciatingly painful.
As a result of this accident I learned exactly how much better made a Mercedes is than a Pontiac T-1000. The car I impacted wasn't damaged. At all. My car was a total loss, as were the trousers I was wearing. I pushed my car to the side of the road and continued into town on foot. (No. The other driver did not offer me a lift.)
Did I mention this was opening night, and I was playing the lead? Good. Did I mention there was no understudy? Well, there wasn't. So I smeared some petroleum jelly in my wounds, wrapped my knees up in Ace bandages, and called someone to come get me. I was determined to do the show, then go to the hospital. The show started late (not my fault... we were waiting on the pianist), and the curtain went up.
Now, what I'd forgotten in my noble adoption of the maxim "the show must go on" is that there is a moment in the play where Nathan Detroit (that's me) begs for the forgiveness of his fiancee of 14 years, Adelaide (played by Deston Lee). It was completely out of my head until I dropped to my knees to deliver the line "Adelaide! I'm on my knees!". Imagine if you will three-foot long hot skewers pummeled into your knees with a large mallet. Imagine they're inserted lengthwise through your femur, all the way up your thighs (both of them), and that they continue all the way up to your armpits. Imagine all of the fluid displaced by these skewers erupting from your tear ducts in twin geysers of saline. I didn't expect that!
Nevertheless, I dutifully bawled out my line and waited for the reaction. Deston turned toward me, and the look on her face was something not easily forgotten. Though this was not the line, written clearly on her shocked expression was "Oh, you poor man, of COURSE I'll come back to you!" Then she visibly overcame that impulse and continued with her lines, totally appropriate and in character. To this, my internal reaction was, "Wow, she really can act!"
We finished the show, and I went to the hospital, and was told that all the dancing and movement was probably the best thing I could have done to retain my mobility. I didn't tell them the part about dropping to my knees. To this day I've got some rather incredible scars to remind me of the story.
Another reminder comes from the fact that I recently spoke with Deston's husband Bill Lee, who directed this play and who played Inspector Brannigan in some of the performances. As you can read on my drama pages, this was an ambitious production. We started with borrowed facilities, no costumes, no sets, and no budget. That didn't deter Bill in the slightest. The production was done mainly through the force of Bill's will. Not only that, but we took it on the road and performed it to benefit local causes in the Midlands. One of the things I learned in the course of that production is that William Lee can get things done. This is a man who has never looked to someone else to solve his problems. And he has a positive, practical, effective approach to any task he faces. There are real, long term problems that this country is facing right now, and to solve them we need people like Bill to get involved.
That's why I'm glad to hear that Bill is running for the position of US Senator from Illinois in 2014. That sounds like a long way away, but when you're starting from ground floor you need to plan ahead. If you're in Illinois and you're reading this, read Bill's blog, contact him, talk to him, look for his speaking engagements, and support him. You'll be glad you did.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
2009 Resolutions
I was going to resolve to not make any resolutions, but then I realized that that's the one resolution that breaks itself. So here they are:
1. Eat only at mealtimes.
2. Clean my basement.
3. Put out a new VIC release
4. Learn Java
5. Listen to my backlog of audio dramas.
1. Eat only at mealtimes.
2. Clean my basement.
3. Put out a new VIC release
4. Learn Java
5. Listen to my backlog of audio dramas.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Happy New Year!
And here's a gift for the new year. A recipe for Shampagne... much smoother than real champagne, if your tastes run toward Boone's Farm or Mad Dog 20/20.
Shampagne
2 fingers Captain Morgan's spiced rum.
8 oz Welches' sparkling grape juice.
That's it. Enjoy.
Credit for the recipe goes to Dave Wade of Union, SC, who invented it tonight for no explicable reason other than he doesn't like real champagne. I have to admit, it ain't bad.
Shampagne
2 fingers Captain Morgan's spiced rum.
8 oz Welches' sparkling grape juice.
That's it. Enjoy.
Credit for the recipe goes to Dave Wade of Union, SC, who invented it tonight for no explicable reason other than he doesn't like real champagne. I have to admit, it ain't bad.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
REVIEW: The Day the Earth Stood Still
This poorly considered remake starring Keanu Reeves should be re-titled "How to Fuck up a Classic". Sorry, but it's true. How bad is it? Well, try this on for size: The reviews are so nearly universally bad that it scores lower than Attack of the Killer Tomatoes on RottenTomatoes.com.
So, we can take it as a non-debatable "given" that TDTESS sucks. The bigger question is why? Well, I think it's pretty damned clear. Nobody involved in the remake had the slightest understanding about what made the original a classic. They didn't understand the plot; they didn't understand the message; they didn't understand the characterization. They completely failed to grasp the slightest concept that made the original memorable.
Let's start with the characters. In the original Michael Rennie's Klaatu was thoroughly human, despite the fact that he was from outer space. He was warm, engaging; he had a sense of humor. We could easily identify with him, and through his eyes we could see ourselves in a new light, with all of our inconsistencies, petty fears, and superstitions exposed. (There are other themes revolving around Klaatu's use of the name "Carpenter", his resurrection, and the saving of humanity, which give the classic enough levels of profound meaning to keep a college philosophy class busy for weeks.) Keanu Reeves' Klaatu could have been played as ably by a cigar-store Indian. He has no depth, no subtlety, no humanity. Reeve tried so hard to be otherworldly that he and his opinions of us lost relevence. Who cares what a frackin' robot thinks?
In the original, Mrs. Benson and her son are simply ordinary people that Klaatu encounters as he's studying humanity. Why is this important? Because Mrs. Benson is not some scientist who is so thoroughly non-representative that even an alien would discount her presense, much less her claims for humanity. She and Bobby are humanity... a mother and child: caring, sensitive, inquisitive people by whom Klaatu can measure our species. How fortunate we are that he meets thm first! What a shame that the remake re-casts her as an "important" -- and therefore irrelevant -- personage.
The original's Professor Barnhardt is not awed or cowed by the presense of Klaatu. He doesn't beg for humanity. He looks Klaatu in the face as a fellow being equal in spirit, if technologically backward. In every case, the new production screws up the characterization. Hell, if I were Klaatu and were faced with this new lot of whiners, I doubt I could find a reason to save them.
And that brings us to the message. In the original, Klaatu's people couldn't give a rat's fart whether or not humanity survives on our own world. But at the time of the original movie nuclear weaponry was new and we held high hopes for our eventual colonization of space. It is the thought that we might take our violence off of this planet that gives Klaatu's people pause. They are acting to forestall a danger to themselves. Klaatu himself is a good person, and is merely delivering the message in an effective way that will get our attention while not violating his own code of non-violence. He is thoroughly genuine. And this is a message that is still appropriate in a world dominated by terrorism and anti-terrorism, nascent nuclear states and rogue nuclear powers... a world which only recently announced a renewed push to establish a base on the Moon and a human foothold on Mars.
By contrast, the new Klaatu is a hypocritical bastard that would calmly commit genocide to save "the planet". News flash to all pseudo-intellectual Al Gore wannabes that made or (God forbid!) like this movie: if we all die off, "the planet" continues. If we screw up the biosphere as much as we possibly can, then life on this ball will continue. This planet has already experienced repeated global ecocide (notably, the Permian Extinction wiped out 90-95% of all life 251 million years ago). Guess what? Life continued. There is no impact upon Klaatu's people, not even a philosophical one, even if we completely and totally screw up. As such, Klaatu's whole mission is pointless in the remake. Why should Klaatu prefer our existing species of Blue Spruce to the plant species that would succeed them when we kill ourselves off? Why should he prefer ANY species to the only intelligent one on the planet? The only possible answers to this do not do the aliens credit.
Take this exchange from the remake: the Secretary of Defense asks Klaatu, "Why have you come to our planet?" Klaatu responds, "YOUR planet?"
Well, YES. Our planet, you bug-f*cker. Who do you think it belongs to? Us, or some gussied up space-monkey who shows up to demand that we live our lives in accordance with his alien design? As you can see, the new Klaatu's motives don't pass the sniff test. He's not authentic. He's not genuine. He's not believable in any fashion. He's not a savior, he's a usurper. (To the Liberals out there: he's George Bush in Iraq.) In the original, Klaatu warns us of the consequenses of our own actions: he's there to give us fair warning. In the remake he "saves" us from a trumped-up "danger" of his own making. That's not salvation! Should a gunman be credited with "saving your life" if he decides not to administer a killing shot after he's wounded you? It's a stupid concept at its very core, yet it's the same stupid concept that Reeves & Co. think script-worthy.
There's more. I could go on about the top-heavy special effects (the original had few because they weren't needed to drive the story). I could point out that dozens of giant spheres and gargantuan robots that noisily and sloppily destroy the world (hypocritically causing great ecological stress) aren't nearly as impressive as one saucer that can do the same job quietly and efficiently. And what's the point of Dr. Wu? I could point out more, but by now you get the point. In trying to be "different", largely due to the academic ineptitude of the filmakers, the remake turns all of the original's themes on their heads. The result isn't a new and fresh update of a classic; it's an anti-classic that deserves its 22 on the Tomatometer.
We see this all the time from Hollywood. For instance, we saw it with Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds. It scores 73% on the Tomatometer, whereas the 1955 version with Gene Barry scores a more respectable 85%, the same as the 1951 version of TDTESS. Neither film is terribly true to the book, but the 1955 version at least has the excuse that the special effects describe weren't really achievable in its day. Tom Cruise doesn't even have that excuse, and his movie scores 12% lower. If you want to see WOTW achieve a better rating? Set it in Victorian England. Follow the damned book. Give us some real Tripods, and sink the bloody Thunder Child with a Heat Ray. Leave the kids and the comic relief at home. Hollywood says it would never work. I say how could you possibly know? In the last hundred years you've never tried it. Sadly, WOTW has been done wrong so many times that even a genuine masterpiece of a film would seem cliched.
All is not lost for The Day the Earth Stood Still, though. The best possible use for this abyssmal, disastrous turkey of a movie is to use it as a launching pad for a kick-ass sequel. Here's a premise: The Day the Stars Trembled. For years, in fear of our lives, we've been bicycling to work and conscientiously composting our banana peels under the watchful eye of the the GORT on each corner. Publicly we're all smiles and say "Yes, massah!" to our alien robot overlords... I mean "protectors". In the meantime there's been a massive underground movement to study, adapt, and improve upon the alien technologies. Now it's been 200 years and it's time to take our planet back. In the course of exposition, all of the eco-plot flaws of the original are exposed, and our heroes, having subdued and captured one of the aliens during the planet-wide melee, puts it to him directly: "What are you REALLY afraid of?" To which the alien answers, "Of all the animal species in all the known Galaxy, human beings are the only ones who bare their fangs when they're happy."
So, we can take it as a non-debatable "given" that TDTESS sucks. The bigger question is why? Well, I think it's pretty damned clear. Nobody involved in the remake had the slightest understanding about what made the original a classic. They didn't understand the plot; they didn't understand the message; they didn't understand the characterization. They completely failed to grasp the slightest concept that made the original memorable.Let's start with the characters. In the original Michael Rennie's Klaatu was thoroughly human, despite the fact that he was from outer space. He was warm, engaging; he had a sense of humor. We could easily identify with him, and through his eyes we could see ourselves in a new light, with all of our inconsistencies, petty fears, and superstitions exposed. (There are other themes revolving around Klaatu's use of the name "Carpenter", his resurrection, and the saving of humanity, which give the classic enough levels of profound meaning to keep a college philosophy class busy for weeks.) Keanu Reeves' Klaatu could have been played as ably by a cigar-store Indian. He has no depth, no subtlety, no humanity. Reeve tried so hard to be otherworldly that he and his opinions of us lost relevence. Who cares what a frackin' robot thinks?
In the original, Mrs. Benson and her son are simply ordinary people that Klaatu encounters as he's studying humanity. Why is this important? Because Mrs. Benson is not some scientist who is so thoroughly non-representative that even an alien would discount her presense, much less her claims for humanity. She and Bobby are humanity... a mother and child: caring, sensitive, inquisitive people by whom Klaatu can measure our species. How fortunate we are that he meets thm first! What a shame that the remake re-casts her as an "important" -- and therefore irrelevant -- personage.
The original's Professor Barnhardt is not awed or cowed by the presense of Klaatu. He doesn't beg for humanity. He looks Klaatu in the face as a fellow being equal in spirit, if technologically backward. In every case, the new production screws up the characterization. Hell, if I were Klaatu and were faced with this new lot of whiners, I doubt I could find a reason to save them.
And that brings us to the message. In the original, Klaatu's people couldn't give a rat's fart whether or not humanity survives on our own world. But at the time of the original movie nuclear weaponry was new and we held high hopes for our eventual colonization of space. It is the thought that we might take our violence off of this planet that gives Klaatu's people pause. They are acting to forestall a danger to themselves. Klaatu himself is a good person, and is merely delivering the message in an effective way that will get our attention while not violating his own code of non-violence. He is thoroughly genuine. And this is a message that is still appropriate in a world dominated by terrorism and anti-terrorism, nascent nuclear states and rogue nuclear powers... a world which only recently announced a renewed push to establish a base on the Moon and a human foothold on Mars.
By contrast, the new Klaatu is a hypocritical bastard that would calmly commit genocide to save "the planet". News flash to all pseudo-intellectual Al Gore wannabes that made or (God forbid!) like this movie: if we all die off, "the planet" continues. If we screw up the biosphere as much as we possibly can, then life on this ball will continue. This planet has already experienced repeated global ecocide (notably, the Permian Extinction wiped out 90-95% of all life 251 million years ago). Guess what? Life continued. There is no impact upon Klaatu's people, not even a philosophical one, even if we completely and totally screw up. As such, Klaatu's whole mission is pointless in the remake. Why should Klaatu prefer our existing species of Blue Spruce to the plant species that would succeed them when we kill ourselves off? Why should he prefer ANY species to the only intelligent one on the planet? The only possible answers to this do not do the aliens credit.
Take this exchange from the remake: the Secretary of Defense asks Klaatu, "Why have you come to our planet?" Klaatu responds, "YOUR planet?"
Well, YES. Our planet, you bug-f*cker. Who do you think it belongs to? Us, or some gussied up space-monkey who shows up to demand that we live our lives in accordance with his alien design? As you can see, the new Klaatu's motives don't pass the sniff test. He's not authentic. He's not genuine. He's not believable in any fashion. He's not a savior, he's a usurper. (To the Liberals out there: he's George Bush in Iraq.) In the original, Klaatu warns us of the consequenses of our own actions: he's there to give us fair warning. In the remake he "saves" us from a trumped-up "danger" of his own making. That's not salvation! Should a gunman be credited with "saving your life" if he decides not to administer a killing shot after he's wounded you? It's a stupid concept at its very core, yet it's the same stupid concept that Reeves & Co. think script-worthy.
There's more. I could go on about the top-heavy special effects (the original had few because they weren't needed to drive the story). I could point out that dozens of giant spheres and gargantuan robots that noisily and sloppily destroy the world (hypocritically causing great ecological stress) aren't nearly as impressive as one saucer that can do the same job quietly and efficiently. And what's the point of Dr. Wu? I could point out more, but by now you get the point. In trying to be "different", largely due to the academic ineptitude of the filmakers, the remake turns all of the original's themes on their heads. The result isn't a new and fresh update of a classic; it's an anti-classic that deserves its 22 on the Tomatometer.
We see this all the time from Hollywood. For instance, we saw it with Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds. It scores 73% on the Tomatometer, whereas the 1955 version with Gene Barry scores a more respectable 85%, the same as the 1951 version of TDTESS. Neither film is terribly true to the book, but the 1955 version at least has the excuse that the special effects describe weren't really achievable in its day. Tom Cruise doesn't even have that excuse, and his movie scores 12% lower. If you want to see WOTW achieve a better rating? Set it in Victorian England. Follow the damned book. Give us some real Tripods, and sink the bloody Thunder Child with a Heat Ray. Leave the kids and the comic relief at home. Hollywood says it would never work. I say how could you possibly know? In the last hundred years you've never tried it. Sadly, WOTW has been done wrong so many times that even a genuine masterpiece of a film would seem cliched.
All is not lost for The Day the Earth Stood Still, though. The best possible use for this abyssmal, disastrous turkey of a movie is to use it as a launching pad for a kick-ass sequel. Here's a premise: The Day the Stars Trembled. For years, in fear of our lives, we've been bicycling to work and conscientiously composting our banana peels under the watchful eye of the the GORT on each corner. Publicly we're all smiles and say "Yes, massah!" to our alien robot overlords... I mean "protectors". In the meantime there's been a massive underground movement to study, adapt, and improve upon the alien technologies. Now it's been 200 years and it's time to take our planet back. In the course of exposition, all of the eco-plot flaws of the original are exposed, and our heroes, having subdued and captured one of the aliens during the planet-wide melee, puts it to him directly: "What are you REALLY afraid of?" To which the alien answers, "Of all the animal species in all the known Galaxy, human beings are the only ones who bare their fangs when they're happy."
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
A Class Act
Today we awake with a new President-elect, Barack Obama.
Although I was and am a McCain supporter, I'm almost glad that he lost this election, if for no other reason than to show the Democrats how it's done.
Although there was arguably cause for bitterness, given many thousands of questionable voter registrations by groups such as ACORN, voter intimidation at the polls, etc. McCain chose not to whine and cry about his defeat as did the last two Democrat contenders. He did not drag it through the courts to the detriment of our country as did Gore and Kerry, but conceded with grace and dignity. He truly does put "Country First". John McCain truly is a class act.
Before I take McCain's advice and get behind the new President, I'd like to make some observations.
First, this election is proof that remnants of racism are alive and well in the United States of America. But the source is unexpected. There is no doubt whatsoever that Obama was elected with unprecedented support from the white community, and no one would argue that these constituents voted for Obama simply because he is black. At least we all hope that didn't happen, and that the issues took precedence. There is also no doubt whatsoever that he was elected by many black voters because he is black, just as some white voters voted against him because he is black. I think that's a shame for two reasons.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Obama is every bit as white as he is black. If there's anyone on Earth who can claim to transcend race -- to claim humanity over race -- it is he, and yet he chose to pass up that opportunity. That's a shame.
Also, As Dr. King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Those people who voted because of color, either primarily or incidentally, are not yet ready for that day. And that's a shame. But it's not a terrible shame, because the novelty of this event provides some measure of excuse. The next time a candidate runs and mention is made of his race, we should say, "so what?" And we should look back on past candidates like Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes (a favorite of mine) with 20/20 hindsight and be able to admit that they did not lose "because they were black", but because they weren't very good candidates to start with. And we should look with some satisfaction that voting patterns were not significantly different with regard to this candidate: rural areas generally voted Republican and urbanites generally voted Democrat, just as they always have. That Obama's support cut across demographics brings us one step closer to that dream.
Third, I have reservations about Obama's promises. His purported "tax cut" is nothing of the kind. It is money given to people who pay no income taxes at all. After the fact, his campaign explained that we're talking about a rebate of payroll taxes. Folks, what this means is that he is dipping into Social Security taxes, plain and simple. And we know that this is fiscally reckless, and if he'd been man enough to own up to it in the campaign. Though he calls it a "tax cut", the only way to make it work without bankrupting Social Security is to replenish the money out of the general fund, and that amounts to EXACTLY what the Republicans alleged... that it's a simple re-distribution of funds. It's pandering. It's a bribe.
But bribes work, in the short term. I saw an interview with an Obama supporter who claimed she was excited by an Obama presidency because, "I won't have to worry about my house payment or my car payment no more." And she's not alone: here's another one who says almost the same thing (this one was saved for posterity on YouTube). These people think they elected Santa Claus. I can imagine no one on this planet who will be more disillusioned and pissed off this time next year. What happens to the love when these voters are scorned?
The sort of promises that lead to these reactions are nothing new. It's called pandering. And it rarely works out in the long term. The last president that offered "a chicken in every pot" was Herbert Hoover. And we know how that worked out. But once again, Obama has no track record, so we are all destined to a future of surprises, whether our expectations are met or not.
In his victory speech, Obama tries to manage these expectations, saying that change may not happen in the first year or the first term. It's a far cry from a campaign in which the mere mention of his candidacy slowed the rising of the oceans and hastened the healing of the planet. Nevertheless, he will have to deliver something, or there will be no second term.
Finally, I have reservations about what will happen in terms of foreign policy. I strongly suspect that Obama will discover what Carter and Clinton did... that talk is cheap, and much of our foreign policy is dictated by the circumstances we find ourselves in. Does anyone really believe that George Bush invited or wanted the attacks of 9/11? That he wants to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan any longer than necessary? If so, they are fools. No president wishes such a thing upon himself or his country. We all agree that we should bring the war to a close... the only disagreement is on how that should be done, and how we should define "necessary." I don't believe that Barack Obama will intentionally screw up our foreign policy, nor do I believe he will be the unmitigated disaster that was Jimmy Carter. He will do his best, and partly this is because he now has to fill the rather large set of shoes he created for himself.
So those are my reservations. To overcome those reservations, and with no supermajority in Congress, Obama will have to "reach across the aisle", and that means that we need to reach back. We don't want failure anymore than he does. Especially given his near total lack of experience, and our experience with similarly naive presidents in the past, this is a case where we need to get behind the President and offer him our full support... and I don't mean "support" in the sense of cheerleading.
Although I was and am a McCain supporter, I'm almost glad that he lost this election, if for no other reason than to show the Democrats how it's done.
Although there was arguably cause for bitterness, given many thousands of questionable voter registrations by groups such as ACORN, voter intimidation at the polls, etc. McCain chose not to whine and cry about his defeat as did the last two Democrat contenders. He did not drag it through the courts to the detriment of our country as did Gore and Kerry, but conceded with grace and dignity. He truly does put "Country First". John McCain truly is a class act.
Before I take McCain's advice and get behind the new President, I'd like to make some observations.
First, this election is proof that remnants of racism are alive and well in the United States of America. But the source is unexpected. There is no doubt whatsoever that Obama was elected with unprecedented support from the white community, and no one would argue that these constituents voted for Obama simply because he is black. At least we all hope that didn't happen, and that the issues took precedence. There is also no doubt whatsoever that he was elected by many black voters because he is black, just as some white voters voted against him because he is black. I think that's a shame for two reasons.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Obama is every bit as white as he is black. If there's anyone on Earth who can claim to transcend race -- to claim humanity over race -- it is he, and yet he chose to pass up that opportunity. That's a shame.
Also, As Dr. King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Those people who voted because of color, either primarily or incidentally, are not yet ready for that day. And that's a shame. But it's not a terrible shame, because the novelty of this event provides some measure of excuse. The next time a candidate runs and mention is made of his race, we should say, "so what?" And we should look back on past candidates like Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes (a favorite of mine) with 20/20 hindsight and be able to admit that they did not lose "because they were black", but because they weren't very good candidates to start with. And we should look with some satisfaction that voting patterns were not significantly different with regard to this candidate: rural areas generally voted Republican and urbanites generally voted Democrat, just as they always have. That Obama's support cut across demographics brings us one step closer to that dream.
Second, I still have reservations about Obama's judgement. He is, if nothing else, a poor judge of character, and reckless in his associations, whether we're talking about William Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or the misguided ACORN that has promoted fraud in the name of community activism. Nevertheless, these are reservations based on his associations of other people of questionable character, and it does not necessarily follow that Obama is of questionable character himself. The plain fact is that we know very little of Obama's character because we have never seen him when he is not campaigning. He has no track record, so at this time we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Third, I have reservations about Obama's promises. His purported "tax cut" is nothing of the kind. It is money given to people who pay no income taxes at all. After the fact, his campaign explained that we're talking about a rebate of payroll taxes. Folks, what this means is that he is dipping into Social Security taxes, plain and simple. And we know that this is fiscally reckless, and if he'd been man enough to own up to it in the campaign. Though he calls it a "tax cut", the only way to make it work without bankrupting Social Security is to replenish the money out of the general fund, and that amounts to EXACTLY what the Republicans alleged... that it's a simple re-distribution of funds. It's pandering. It's a bribe.
But bribes work, in the short term. I saw an interview with an Obama supporter who claimed she was excited by an Obama presidency because, "I won't have to worry about my house payment or my car payment no more." And she's not alone: here's another one who says almost the same thing (this one was saved for posterity on YouTube). These people think they elected Santa Claus. I can imagine no one on this planet who will be more disillusioned and pissed off this time next year. What happens to the love when these voters are scorned?
The sort of promises that lead to these reactions are nothing new. It's called pandering. And it rarely works out in the long term. The last president that offered "a chicken in every pot" was Herbert Hoover. And we know how that worked out. But once again, Obama has no track record, so we are all destined to a future of surprises, whether our expectations are met or not.
In his victory speech, Obama tries to manage these expectations, saying that change may not happen in the first year or the first term. It's a far cry from a campaign in which the mere mention of his candidacy slowed the rising of the oceans and hastened the healing of the planet. Nevertheless, he will have to deliver something, or there will be no second term.
Finally, I have reservations about what will happen in terms of foreign policy. I strongly suspect that Obama will discover what Carter and Clinton did... that talk is cheap, and much of our foreign policy is dictated by the circumstances we find ourselves in. Does anyone really believe that George Bush invited or wanted the attacks of 9/11? That he wants to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan any longer than necessary? If so, they are fools. No president wishes such a thing upon himself or his country. We all agree that we should bring the war to a close... the only disagreement is on how that should be done, and how we should define "necessary." I don't believe that Barack Obama will intentionally screw up our foreign policy, nor do I believe he will be the unmitigated disaster that was Jimmy Carter. He will do his best, and partly this is because he now has to fill the rather large set of shoes he created for himself.
So those are my reservations. To overcome those reservations, and with no supermajority in Congress, Obama will have to "reach across the aisle", and that means that we need to reach back. We don't want failure anymore than he does. Especially given his near total lack of experience, and our experience with similarly naive presidents in the past, this is a case where we need to get behind the President and offer him our full support... and I don't mean "support" in the sense of cheerleading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)