media: February 2006 Archives

That's how I felt about Match Point, Woody Allen's latest (and by some accounts, best) film. It's message? There is no meaning; everything comes down to luck. The protagonist is never happy, despite the stream of "good" and "bad luck" that happens to him. Even when he taunts it, it goes his way, despite his Dostoevskiesque maunderings. Ultimately, Chris performs with seemingly extreme rationality to maximize his agency. Yet one must wonder, since he never rejects an offer of apparent good luck, if he's not in thrall to some deeply-ingrained suspicion or fear that ultimately rules his every "choice". Does it come down to the difference between love and lust or is that merely another rationalization to justify his violent resolution of good luck gone bad?

Allen is sanguine about the role of luck in the making of the film:

"Woody on luck: The entire film was permeated with luck. The film is about luck and the film is permeated with good luck, that it came through in London, that the weather was good every time I needed something. I got lucky with the actors and actresses in the film. The film came out pretty well I thought and I'm usually a harsh critic of my films. This one I felt positive about."

I enjoyed TransAmerica with friends at the Pleasant St. Theatre last night. We had alternative opinions about its smooth resolution. Was it just a typical Hollywood happy ending? Did it resolve too quickly, too painlessly, the awkwardness of a son trying to seduce the only person who's been consistently kind to him - who he doesn't know is a biological parent? I was impressed by the clean, clear and morally unhesitating response of the parent, who is instantly all too aware of the horrible reality her son will now face: "I don't want it. I don't want to like it. I don't want it at all."

My buddy asked me if my family was that entertaining. Don't I wish! :-/ Searing honesty about mutual disappointments could have made caricatures out of them all (mom/grandmother is a bit over the top), but in the end there is a bond that supercedes mistakes and character flaws.

This was the encore number at "Remembering Ray," a mixed combo, big band, and solo vocalist who performed at the Academy of Music this afternoon. Cynthia Scott was fun (if a wee bit heterosexist - I sang with the women and the men).

I liked Come Rain or Come Shine, then she followed it with Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying. Romance don't last long, does it?

Fathead was hot. Kinda bold too, announcing that Ms. Scott was not one of the Raelettes who "let Ray." Can you imagine that price of fame? No no no, I never slept with the lecher.

I especially enjoyed the third song played by the Jeff Holmes Big Band. Was it Walkin 'and Talkin'? Then there was the best small group moment: Yoron Isreal refusing to come out the groove after his first drum solo. Radam and Scott checked him out and laughed.

I've seen many but not all of this year's nominees.

Watched two movies this evening, Bulworth, and Diary of a Mad Black Woman.

I enjoyed Bulworth's assault on the current state of political-economic affairs, but mostly I empathized with the fact of making personal mistakes on the grandest public scale possible. I wish I could learn well in a more discrete fashion but it just doesn't seem to be my modus operandi.

I'll confess, "Diary" just made me sad with it's them of love gone wrong. It's hardly a comedy, as my fellow movie-viewers critiqued, it is falsely advertised as such. It's more a proselytizing film for Christianity - and not necessarily in its most radical/humanizing form. Nonetheless, once we've made people "pay" for their sins against us (real or imagined?), we do have the option to forgive and move on. Best would be to forgive before any degree of retribution but such requires true sainthood, yes?

When I learned of these cartoons (via two headline stories in the NYTimes a week ago), I inquired of a journalist friend. I then summarized our conversation to another friend via email:

"We agreed that provocative humor is important but ought (?) to be wielded with an eye toward some 'higher' goal rather than the mere incitement of xenophobia. My pal also talked about the editorial responsibility of making the decision to publish. In the current political context, there needs to be complete assurance that no one's job is going to be sacrificed to appease the predictable public outcry. In other words, the decision to publish carries a lot of ethical weight. It must be clean and clear enough to be justifiable and withstand criticism."

She responded:

"I agree on your point about editorial accountability/responsibility, in the muhammad cartoon debate. I also find it very interesting to think about how the issue has been conceptualized in terms of minority/majority cultural conflict; however, who constitutes the threatened minority (muslims in denmark or danes in the world?) and who constitutes the majority in power (danes in denmark or muslims in the world) changes continously, depending on whose perspective is assumed."

Meanwhile, I received an inflammatory anti-Muslim email from another friend, which I passed on to my journalist buddy with the comment:

"I became friends with this woman, a Jew, who impressed the hell out of me on every level.... our friendship has cooled some since I learned of her rabid views but I'm intrigued.... how can such contradictions be possible in one otherwise kind and wise?"

The response was both sharp and insightful:

"Yup, and then there's that. How easy it is to be asking "But why aren't they rising up?" of downtrodden people, uneducated and unemployed, whose lives have, for generations, been mired in helplessness, forced and ideological submission to clever thugs... cosntantly searching for something spiritually meaningful (if material welfare is not to be had at any costs)."

I had all this in mind when I was reading the comments posted in two British web-forums last night (excerpted in Dr Suess and WAR). Toward the end of a long, detailed, markedly "rational" discussion, someone blames the media for making it such a circus. Of course, the participants neglect to notice how their own comments inflame and enliven the very tensions they bemoan.

Who knew? Dr. Seuss was overtly political? I know there are metaphors for social relations in his popular children's books but not that he also sketched editorial cartoons. Cool. I wonder if he'd take a pro/con side in the Mohammed cartoon bisaster? Here's some disturbing anti-Muslim discussion on the Sheffield Forum and a bloglink to The Daily Ablution's roundup of UK news coverage from Feb 3rd, which includes some streaming video.

A friend recently lauded Robert Fisk but not so Scott Burgess, who takes Fisk to task.

I might have to check out the International Society for Presence Research. Conference in Ohio this fall. Online publication and print publications... focused more on what they describe as "(tele)presence, commonly referred to as a sense of 'being there' in a virtual environment and more broadly defined as an illusion of nonmediation in which users of any technology overlook or misconstrue the technology's role in their experience."

Posted to AoIR by Cheryl.

A resource on New book on evidence-based media regulation in a converged world was posted to the AoIR list today by David.

It looks especially useful for folks interested in regulation.

Whatever Cat Stevens' actual politics, his music has been meaningful to me. In particular, I've always enjoyed Miles from Nowhere.

I will not reveal the identities of the eight rapscallions who recently gathered at the department's new pseudo-gay couple's lair to view Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. Quips and clarifications occurred during the viewing, but the most pungent statement was made after it was over, to the effect of Lay and Skilling being appropriate candidates for capital punishment: "if we've got it, why not use it?"

Let me mention, briefly, that there were two sets of (coded) directions to the lair, which is part open, "come and see my room", and part closed, "guided tours only." A meal for one was, however, generously shared with drooling onlookers. Rumor has it we'll watch Junebug (?) next week.

making the comment about Strom Thurmond that became the historical moment of blogs challenging traditional journalism. I found a blog reference with the offending quote from December 2002.

I also found a story citing a study of blogger's role in Lott's resignation as the US Senate Majority Leader. "The report does not portray the blogs as lead actor, but as intelligent reactor to an event of neglect (similar to an act of omission) within professional newsrooms, where the story of Lott’s remarks languished and nearly died. The case study is largely about herd thinking in the press, and the illusion that “news” jumps out at everyone simultaneously."