bookmark_borderIs music getting worse? Why?

Even before I found Rick Beato’s Youtube channel, I had a theory that technology was making many arts worse, (not just music, but especially music.)

However, unlike Beato, I think the downward slide began over 100 years ago, perhaps 200. And I do not think that technology is the only culprit.

Let’s summarize Beato’s theory. He seems to see the high point of music as some time around the 1970s. Still in the 60s, automation was making music easier to make. People no longer had to experiment, they no longer needed mastery of the instrument.

We can see something similar in painting. With the invention of the photograph, artists no longer had to know how to paint. Even if they wanted to paint realistically, they could merely take a photograph and project it onto a canvas (camera obscura existed for hundreds of years, but that did not necessarily create a timeless piece of art.)

However, artists reacted to photography by going in new directions. Some of these directions were worse, we no longer have true masters, paintings might be blobs of just empty canvases, and sculptures might just be hunks of metal.

Rick Beato’s opinion on why music is getting worse.

Movies also have a lot of the same problems as music. Films can be corrected in post (post-production), and many films are a mess without a screenplay and without rehearsals, designed to be fixed in post-production.

Economics leads to a lack of imagination. The more we have people from outside the industry pulling the strings, the more short-sighted decision making it. People who do not know how long it takes to make a masterwork are more likely to look for the quick buck, for a short term solution, than invest what is needed to create and promote the kind of films, songs, or works of art that last.

However, another possible problem is leadership. Many labels are no longer led by people who care about music. We look at the name of the companies, and they are merely subsidies of huge conglomerates.

That said, many of the CEOs have worked in the music industry for a time. But, they have bounced around companies. They seem to lack loyalty, to not have the same kind of stake in the individual business that most great leaders have.

Digitial technology makes it easier to fix mistakes. It also creates a lot of creative leeway. But, instead of being used to create new things, it is being used to try to create artificial duplications for the real world, and fix mistakes.

bookmark_borderThe Chosen – Review

Now, just a warning to fans of The Chosen show, I hate it. It is because of films like this that I temporarily quit the film industry, the people I was around actually like this gargage, so i thought, “Oh no, if I make more films, it will be like this boring #$%^&.”

Yes, this show is so bad, it makes me swear in my thoughts, and I swear so loudly, I don’t even know what swear word it is, just a bunch of random characters. But why exactly do I hate, “The Chosen,” if I do not hate the people it is based on?

Theory 1. “Thou shalt not bear false witness…”

It must because I do not hate the people it is based on, that’s why. That series bears false witness against apostles, calling the Apostle Matthew a Roman collaborator, a snitch, a traitor, a corrupt sabbath breaker, and lots of other things in the very first episode. If I made a film like that about Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or your favorite Pope, you’d probably go nuts. (Maybe I will.)

Back when Oscar Wilde wrote Salame, that play was banned in the UK for blasphemy, even though John The Baptist is a minor character and it does not even slander anyone. I was able to enjoy Salome, perhaps because the characters imagined are not distorted. And because it doesn’t slander important characters like apostles, it just tries to understand a character. Who was Salome, the one who danced for Herod? How did she react?

Theory 2: “Thou shalt not add to the word which I command you…”

“The Chosen” makes light of demon posession and it replaces scriptures with modern philosophy. And it choses the dumbest philosophies, too.

But, do I really hate all religious movies? I liked Charton Heston in The Ten Commandments. I remember watching Samson and Delilah as a child, and thinking, maybe the Bible is not so bad after all. I even remember laughing at History of the World, Part I. (Or was it Part II?) I loved Veggie Tales’ Jonah. So, I am not like the people who banned Salome. If it is done well, I actually enjoy religious movies. The problem is, it is usually done terribly, so I generally refuse to work on anything religious.

Theory 3: It takes you away from real religion

Sadhguru warns people against fake yoga, in that it takes you away from real enlightenment. I think of The Chosen as fake scriptures. The time you waste watching that garbage, could be spent reading real scriptures, or at least movies like “Veggie Tales Jonah” that have real Bible stories in them.

If the Apostles were around today, I bet they would rather you do fake yoga than watch that fake “Chosen.” At least fake yoga doesn’t slander Bible characters. (I can imagine them now, “Call us veggies, make fun of us in parody, just don’t throw us in some half baked script that turns us into a third-rate soap opera. Now excuse me, while I practice my sun salutations.”)

I enjoy films that distort other religions. Keanu Reeves was entertaining as Siddhartha in “Little Buddha.” I liked Ray Harryhausen’s puppets in “Jason and The Argonauts.” So, what is the real reason that I dislike the app “film” so much?

Real reason: It is boring and stupid

The real reason I dislike The Chosen so much is not only does it insult some people I respect from the Bible, it also insults the audience. I hate it for the same reason that I hate the new Star Treks, where you have Spock dancing like a Kung Fu master from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Propaganda.

But at least the new Spock dances! The new bible characters, well, they just stand around and talk. The camera work is boring, the screenwriting is terrible, and the acting is okay for a school play but nothing special.

Oh, but the camera work is great, you say. It has great production values, you say. I don’t really care. That is like complementing a self-published book because there are no typos in it and the writer knew how to align-justify. The fact that someone can film the actors and control the focus dial is not a reason to watch a film.

No, I did not get past episode one or two, and the only reason I even attempted to watch an entire episode of “The Chosen” is because nice people kept recommending it. I do not hate you for recommending that garbage, because as Saint Augustine once said, “love the Sinners, hate their apps.” I just lost any respect for your taste in movies. Especially if you recommend an app while recommending the show.

The Chosen is my least favorite TV show of all time. If I were a Hollywood moghul and that script landed on my desk, it would be “The Rejected.” It may have a few famous faces involved, but I give it zero stars.

bookmark_borderSome Birds – Review

When they hand you voting cards at a film festival, I never know what to tick. The first film always seems great, it is better than the documentaries you are used to, perhaps it is the first time you have been in a cinema in a while, the atmosphere is contagious.

And then, the second is even better. If I could give Some Birds more than five stars, I would. I am not saying it is better than perfect, although it is great (especially for first time filmmakers), it is that I had already given five stars to another film at this festival, and Some Birds was better than that.

The filmmakers started their journey five years before the festival. Yes, it does take that long to make a movie. The director had an idea from his personal life, and the writer could relate. So, they met at a workshop, and decided to work on it together.

In other words, the story starts with an insider story, writing what you know. But they didn’t end it with their knowledge. They had expert guidance, from experienced filmmakers in an incubator program. And, they even spent a year observing different care homes, asking questions to the director of a care home when they had idea.

The main character is put into a care home by his son. The second main character ends up looking after him, as some kind of juvenile rehabilitation project. Well, the main character does not like it in the care home, and wants to escape, to prove that he can look after himself.

Is that a spoiler? Oh well. Here, the creators did their research, and asked the care home how somoene could be discharged. The scenes in the film are authentic, not only drawing on the creators lives, or the lives of others who are in the homes, but out of questions the creators asked, to see what options the characters would have in real life. They seem to have done more research than the writers of most biopics.

And, I think that is why I like the film. Of course, it helps to have a main character who is charismatic. The actor has had small parts in films before, but is better known as the voice in movies. When his movie-grandson heard the actor’s voice, he said, “you are Rabbit from Winnie the Pooh!” He isn’t really a rabbit, but he is the Hungarian voice of Rabbit.

All of the actors do their parts well, and even before I heard it was anyone’s first time film (it was the writers first, director’s, and the DOP’s first), it was still my favorite film. This film was much more powerful than other films I had seen by seasoned directors. It was more real than documentaries. But it probably won’t win the festival. That usually goes to something political.

I would also recommend Some Birds to learners of Hungarian. There are lots of sections that can be cut out and used as lessons, basic words that A1 or A2 learners should be able to understand. There are also longer sections that are more difficult to follow, and there are a few characters who speak German. But the basic language is interesting, it really fits the lives of the characters, or certain scenes of them anyway, much more naturally than a langauge textbook would.

Yes, I recommend this film. Watch it until the end, and you will see why even the title fits, and why it is called, “Some Birds.”

bookmark_borderWhy didn’t Portugal join the allies?

I was going to title this, “sympathy for the devil,” after reading all the condolences for a recently departed head of state. Countries who strongly condemned Iran’s regime have been lamenting the loss of that country’s president, and it reminds me of a similar incident almost eighty years ago. (It happened oong before I was born, but I read about it, maybe eight years ago.)

I don’t know as much about Iran as I do Portugal. I have read about the protests, the stories of prison, including “white torture”, the stories of repression, the stories of capitivity, and the accusations of terrorism.

Now, with the condolences sent by the European Union and Nato for the death of the president of Iran, can we really say that mere condolences show any alliance or aligned ideals?

Some of the accusations have been made against various opposing regimes. There was the sinking of a tanker that is sometimes blamed on Gadaffi, sometimes on the Iranian regime, sometimes perhaps even on MEK or some other organisation entirely. The accusations can sound like the angry kid who lost his pen and blames as many people as he can find rather than looking in his bag. But even among Iranians, you might hear things.

Continue reading “Why didn’t Portugal join the allies?”

bookmark_borderNasty film review

Ilie Nastase was voted fifty-fifth. (according to the “Mari Romani” show.) 

His teammate, Ion Tiriac, ranked 77.  

While Ion Tiriac’s wax statue was displayed recently at Iulius mall, Ilie “Nasty” Nastase is the title character of the documentary about the golden age of men’s tennis in Romania. While a search for “Tiriac” might yield results for the former tennis great’s successful businesses (including Tiriac Auto and Allianz Tiriac insurance company) a search for “Nastase” brings results about the other player himself.  Ion Tiriac is a success story to be proud of, but Mr. Nastase is a character to remember.

Continue reading “Nasty film review”

bookmark_borderMy favorite films

What makes a good movie? That is, of course, a matter of taste.

If you ask a first year film student his favorite films on his first day, before he has been brainwashed, or educated, on why Kubrick and Eisenstein are great filmmakers, he might tell you that he loved Airplane, or the original Ghostbusters, or something with Abbot and Costello. (With me it was Laurel and Hardy).

Of course, even if he isn’t brainwashed, being exposed to new voices like Charlie Chaplin can increase what he has to choose from, and his favorite films can change simply because he wasn’t before exposed to what he really enjoyed.

Analysis can be a killjoy. Looking at a film like Airplane frame by frame and from an ideological perspective, it might seem sexist, or against one’s religious or political beliefs. Some innocent joke is suddenly a source of everything that is bad in the universe.

I never really liked most Kubrick films, but for some reason, I tried to learn from his filmmaking method. I found 2001 long and drawn out, other films I couldn’t even finish. Sure, Dr Strangelove was more interesting as I got older, but most of the ones that Kubrick fans recommend to me frankly bore me.

A lot of French films have the same effect: I hear the “making of” and they sound like masterpieces; but I try to watch them and I am fast asleep.

I am not the first to look at films this way. In their Caheirs du Cinema, the great French analysts who led the new wave looked at the B films of Hitchcock and analysed crowdpleases as the true masterpieces of cinema. But why not Harrihausen? Suddenly the works of Chaplin could also be enjoyed, but why not Laurel and Hardy?

If you need to talk about the making of a film, the politics or ethics, the economics or any other factor external to the film itself to tell me it is a good film, then I lose interest. A good salad is not a good salad because of the chef’s politics or how long he spent in the kitchen.

That said, I look at my favorite films, and how they were made, and I have observed a pattern. No one necessarily got rich off the film, but everyone from the above the line (producer, screenwriter and director) down to the runner was paid more than a living wage for the time. Unlike Kubrick’s movies and Elon Musk’s philosophy, most if not all the people involved worked fourty hour weeks, with adequate lunch breaks, free weekends, family time, and all the rest of it.

Almost every one of my favorite actors, writers, editors and directors has stories about time with their family, often spent during the making of a film. Some may be single, but they tend to have stories of time with their friends.

None of them used amateur actors. Sorry, I do not really like the films of Ken Loach or those social realists. (Though I hear that style was popular with certain dictators in the mid twentieth century). If you cannot afford professional actors, that is one thing, but those who choose to repeatedly work with amateurs tend to make films that look like bad documentaries.

I have written films that can be shot in one room because of a lack of confidence in raising money, but they are not my favorite to watch. And they are not necessarily that simple to make anyway. Keeping one room available for the entire production is more difficult than it seems, unless you are the sole owner of the property and any adjoining rooms. (even if your producers are partial owners, they may decide to do some spring cleaning or home improvements that ruin your set because they do not understand the filmmaking process as well as you do).

My favorite films have full-time (not overtime) professional casts and crew (but often not celebrities). People involved are paid well enough to live on, usually, but very seldom do they get rich off the movie.

I dislike films with so many stars that you get dizzy recognising them from other movies. Speilburg’s Lincoln was terribly boring, more like watching a poorly planned improve at the afterparty of an academy awards show than a proper movie. Even the flags and main characters felt like crowdfunding cameos.

Laurel and Hardy’s Way Out West, on the other hand, had only two recognisable faces, both of which were not famous for their looks or politics, only for their talent. PeeWee Herman’s Big Adventure had some very brief celebrity cameos, but the main characters are played by actors I have not seen anywhere else.

But education can get quite political, and politics often get in the way of good judgement. While I often say that I would rather work with people with film degrees, I mean those who survived the degree without being contaminated by the politics, those who hold a strong interest in making films that are in their own right, rather than feeling the need to satisfy some socio-political goal. As Moliere says, the point of entertainment is to please the audience, not the critic. And I believe the best way to do that is making middle of the road pictures, with career professionals rather than celebrities or amateurs.

Currently, I think the countries doing this best are India and Hungary. I have very little time for British movies, for anything that shows at film festivals like Raindance. Well, I watch them sometimes, but do not tend to enjoy them (I am grateful that youtube and DVD players allow double speed).

Hungarian movies that get no European funding tend to be much better than British films that get European and Lottery funding. I do not know why, but government funding, even tax credits, seems to diminish the quality of art. (It might be because the EU and UK directives push bad art).

While newer films have much better effects, the writing and acting is terrible. Having a soldier play WonderWoman is distracting, it is like something Ed Wood would have done.

The truth is, I am not afraid of AI taking over films because it seems that it already has. The current generation of talent seem to act like robots, lacking any personality as they are shot down for the slightest controversial opinion. The worst part is that a growing part of the audience is a bunch of robots.

okay, rant over. Let us be grateful that we can still remember the old films and shows instead of seeing the remakes or reruns. Even if we become killjoys because we see their imperfections a second time, we have our innocent memories.

And a few films, like those with Laurel and Hardy, are pretty good even if we see them after getting a film degree.

bookmark_borderThe workout that built the camel’s back

f you know me well, you may know that there are a few roles that are not on my LinkedIn Profile. I had a rule, any project that lasted less than a year, I usually omitted, and anything less than a month I left out.

Asleep yet?

Yes, I hear some of you say, but if something lasts for months, are you just going to leave a hole in your resume?

A lot of my education is missing. I started a degree, took a few courses, and dropped out. I didn’t want to list it because I didn’t want to talk about it and answer that inevitable question – why did you quit?

Why did you quit?

Why did…

Yes, I started a PGCE, and dropped it. And suddenly, the questions kept coming. My driving instructor refused to give me more classes. Older relatives yelled at me. This only made me regret applying for the PGCE in the first place.

But why didn’t I just answer the question? Well, I wouldn’t be honest if I gave a simple answer. First of all, There wasn’t a single reason.

Sure, I could try to blame a bad boss, an unsupportive person in my personal life, an extra responsibility, an illness, or find some other scapegoat. Blaming would be an easy way out. But really, it was a case of the straw that broke the camel’s back. I can point to that straw, that moment when I made my decision, but it was just a small thing compared to some of the other pressures I felt.

So, why didn’t I just say that I was overwhelmed? That all these little things, and perhaps some big things, got me down, and I collapsed under the weight of so much pressure? Because I got over it.

Almost ten years later, I was running my own business and interviewing people for the position of sound engineer. Or maybe it was assistant audio technician, I forget the exact job title.

If I could go back in time, I would have found a way to hire multiple applicants. One applicant stood out, and I might regret not hiring him for something. (Recruiters often make mistakes. I was one of the recruiters who made them.)

I asked him about a gap on his CV. Here, a man younger than I was, gave the best answer ever. “I was young.”

This is the main reason I do not like the question, “Why did you quit that job.” The answer that was true of me then would not be true of me today.

As we get older, our muscles change. Our relationships change. What may have been too difficult for me to deal with 20 years ago is a cinch today. Things I didn’t like back then I have since learned to appreciate. I was once a toddler unable to walk across the room, but now I can run a marathon.

To me today, a much more interesting question is, how did you overcome the difficulties that you once faced? Why are you stronger today? How have you shaped your life to be able to deal with the challenges ahead? What has made you interested in work you once found boring or pointless?

I remember that when my grandfather died, my grandmother went to university and became a professional nurse. She had served in the war but needed a certificate to work.

Then, when she retired, she learned a new language. And other skills in order to help her friends. Perhaps you can’t teach old dogs new tricks, but Grandma was never a dog.

That example was the first muscle that helped rebuild and strengthen the camel’s back. And the camel keeps getting stronger.

Now, of course, if someone tries to overwhelm the camel, the camel might spit. He doesn’t want his back broken again.

bookmark_borderArtificial Stupidity, a threat to history?

You might not know much about Chester A Arthur, one of the more obscure presidents of the USA. But if you are a history nut, or you even read a long article about the guy, then you probably know more than the AI does.

A lot of articles about Artificial Intelligence talk about how computer intelligence is a threat to writers (which may include historians). After a test drive of one popular engine, I do not feel the least bit intimidated by the engine’s “intelligence.” The bigger threat might be its popularity, and the possible impact it has on finding the facts.

Continue reading “Artificial Stupidity, a threat to history?”

bookmark_borderOpen by setting the scene

A lot of writing advice will pretend to teach you how to grab an audience’s attention. Well, there’s more to writing than getting attention.  There’s the reader to consider.

This is an editorial essay, so we start with an introduction.  In the first paragraph, I let you know the purpose, to determine whether or not this is something that interests you and is useful to you.  Good writing respects the reader, it doesn’t try to waste the reader’s time with sensationalism.

Not all writing is an essay, however.  In fiction, and in especially in journalism and in most other storytelling genres, writing usually starts with setting the scene.  If you were to write for the Ptara blog or an article for our journal, we’d normally expect the writing to start in the appropriate way, depending upon the genre. Continue reading “Open by setting the scene”