Whine, bitch, moan

Veteran television producer Steven Bochco, whose 2005 television series “Over There” about a platoon of soldiers fighting in Iraq ended after just one season, said it was hard to engage audiences in a “hugely unpopular war.”

“TV is fully saturated with this war and I don’t know if you can do a serious drama about this war and locate any angle that would overcome the negativity about it,” he told the New York daily Newsday.

Iraq films remain a difficult sell for audiences because of the swirl of confusion surrounding the rights and wrongs of the conflict, he added.

“World War II was hugely romanticized in terms of its fiction. There were unambiguous villains, and the feeling we were fighting the right people over the right issues, as opposed to this war, which many people feel is misguided.

Or maybe — maybe — people have been talking about war for 6 years now, they have already made up their minds, and they don’t need Hollywood telling them what to think.

“Issues” do not make good subject material; people and their relationships do. If Hollywood liberals knew this, they would not be wasting their time in creating 2-hour dreck-filled lectures like Lions for Lambs (which will bomb worse than Waterworld).

Not that I take pleasure in this. For once, I want to watch a movie which is not contextulized to our times. People are people, no matter the culture and their socio-economic situation. Give me a story about people, a story that’s honest and true, and I’ll pay money to see it.

It’s not about “escaping”; it’s about being in touch with other human beings.

The Silence of the Shams

You’ll love this New Yorker piece by Malcolm Gladwell on the art of criminal profiling.

Or you won’t:

Astrologers and psychics have known these tricks for years. The magician Ian Rowland, in his classic “The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading,” itemizes them one by one, in what could easily serve as a manual for the beginner profiler. First is the Rainbow Ruse—the “statement which credits the client with both a personality trait and its opposite.” (“I would say that on the whole you can be rather a quiet, self effacing type, but when the circumstances are right, you can be quite the life and soul of the party if the mood strikes you.”) The Jacques Statement, named for the character in “As You Like It” who gives the Seven Ages of Man speech, tailors the prediction to the age of the subject. To someone in his late thirties or early forties, for example, the psychic says, “If you are honest about it, you often get to wondering what happened to all those dreams you had when you were younger.” There is the Barnum Statement, the assertion so general that anyone would agree, and the Fuzzy Fact, the seemingly factual statement couched in a way that “leaves plenty of scope to be developed into something more specific.” (“I can see a connection with Europe, possibly Britain, or it could be the warmer, Mediterranean part?”) And that’s only the start: there is the Greener Grass technique, the Diverted Question, the Russian Doll, Sugar Lumps, not to mention Forking and the Good Chance Guess—all of which, when put together in skillful combination, can convince even the most skeptical observer that he or she is in the presence of real insight.

“Moving on to career matters, you don’t work with children, do you?” Rowland will ask his subjects, in an example of what he dubs the “Vanishing Negative.”

No, I don’t.

“No, I thought not. That’s not really your role.”

Of course, if the subject answers differently, there’s another way to play the question: “Moving on to career matters, you don’t work with children, do you?”

I do, actually, part time.

“Yes, I thought so.”

Great stuff found, as was the source of the previous post, at Arts & Letters Daily.

To Beatles or not to Beatles

Patrick West on the collapse of Heather Mills:

But why marry a Beatle in the first place? The Beatles may have made some of the best pop music of the twentieth century, but they were largely horrible people who sent out a horrible message. OK, Ringo was just a nice simpleton who really can’t be blamed for much, and I did enjoy Thomas the Tank Engine. And, yes, yes, George Harrison was actually a decent cove, who wrote one of the great conservative anthems of our time, ‘Taxman’, and funded two of my favourite films: Monty Python’s Life of Brian and Withnail & I. But John Lennon was a truly horrible character: a drug-taking, allegedly wife-beating, air-headed utopian whose legacy is that ultimate Stalinist anthem: ‘Imagine’.

And then there’s Paul McCartney, the idiot, pouting sentimentalist who created the band Wings, sang about frogs and then did a clichéd bit of multi-racial rubbish with Stevie Wonder about ebony and ivory – which was not at all about black and white people living in harmony, but about two incredibly rich popstars playing the piano together.

Big D clogs up the downtown

Calgary City Council picked up where it left off in their first major dealing since the municipal election last month. Mayor Dave “Calgary Scores a D” Bronconnier has continued to bully aldermen into a fast-tracking of his vision, in this case, turning 17th Ave SW into 36th St NE:

Mayor Dave Bronconnier, who vowed during last month’s election to put the projects on council’s agenda within 60 days, noted the west leg of the LRT has been on the books since 1988.

“This is a 20-year-old decision we’re finally getting around to putting money to,” he said.

Council will spend $135 million to kickstart the new line, $84 million of which is earmarked for 21 new light rail vehicles.

Indeed, the west LRT leg has been on the books for 20 years, but the underground subway has been around since 1968. (In the slight chance that the mayor actually reads this, that’s 40 years.) In fact, the entire LRT system was designed around a lynchpin subway beneath 8th Ave SW, yet the city has continually gone the inexpensive — or, in the mayor’s case, politically expedient — route by extending above-ground lines through exstablished neighbourhoods.

True, city council approved spending $6 million on a study for the underground route, but in the meantime will add 21 new LRT vehicles which will further be held at bay due to the bottleneck in the downtown core.

All is not lost, however. There will be a strategic planning meeting on November 21 as to the final route of the west LRT. Will the plan remain as is, a lurking monster set to forever alter prosperous, established neighbourhoods? Or will the plan be changed to include Calgary’s next university as well as the new mixed-residential neighbourhoods of Garrison Woods?

We’ll have to wait and see.

sab

The Dead Chamber

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper is being warned to avoid a snap referendum on the future of the Senate amid concerns that holding a vote without educating Canadians about the options could produce a questionable result.

Mr. Harper, who sources say backs a proposal to ask Canadians whether they would support abolishing the Senate, was told Tuesday by experts in the field not to move before voters can get all the information they need to make a proper decision.

And athough Senate reform stalwarts like former Reform Party leader Preston Manning supported the idea, they also warned any campaign needs to have a strong educational component.

A buddy of mine had been invited to attend the opening of parliament a couple of weeks ago. After his return, he said, “I used to think that the Senate was a useless body filled with overpaid time-wasters who sit around doing nothing.

“Now, I know this.”

I’m all for reforming the upper chamber. I believe that it still has merit in being a “sober second thought” to acts brought forth through the Commons, and I believe that it can still do some good. However, the old canard that the Senate deals with policy over longer periods of time, that they weigh heavily on certain issues for which the elected members of parliament have no time, is as asinine as any in political circles today. That sort of work should be — and is — done by think-tanks, for a hell of a lot cheaper price tag too, I might add.

That said, I’m with the PM when he says that a public education and debate must be allowed to foster before the big question is asked. Yes, there are constitutional concerns with any significant changes which might affect the Red Chamber (although there is no reason a PM can set a precedence by appointing elected senators whenever he has a chance) and, yes, constitutional changes take time. Yet, these changes could come across much easier if a healthy debate followed by a referendum or plebesite would occur.

We have recent evidence for initiating a national dialogue before having a vote. Meech Lake is an obvious example of the difficulties with constitutional change, an accord which was driven ramrod against the Canadian populace. Thankfully, it was stopped in its tracks due to the likes of Elijah Harper, though for the wrong reasons. Even more successful was the Charlottetown referendum, which was handily defeated despite the “No” side being outspent 13-to-1 by our political elites.

Had a national dialogue ensued long before the accords were signed, sealed and delivered by Mr Mulroney, we may not have had the unnecessary national crisis which culminated in the 1995 Quebec referendum. Our political elites might have seen the futility of the “distinct society” clause through a public discourse before the tremendous financial and political expense of a national referendum.

In other words, power still flows from below, and given any chance for the general public to stick it to The Man, they will vote for the little guy. Every time.

Thus, I have every confidence that the Senate can and will be reformed through the constitution. But there must be a very public and very convincing debate before the attempt is made. This will be the only opportunity in the next 15 to 20 years to do this, so Harper’s got to do it right.

A symphonic sensation

As I mentioned last week, the Better Third and I mustered up a few ducats to witness the Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra exude The Brilliance of Mozart and Haydn for a one-night-only performance. We were not disappointed.

The evening’s performance was led by CPO Principle Baroque Conductor Ivars Taurins, a pleasing, passionate musician who might want to consider a career at ballet if he was not such a talented artist on the podium. I don’t know much about the niceties of modern symphony behavior; however, I found his swooning and near-pirouettes delightful and a welcome enhancement to the music emanating within the beautiful Jack Singer concert hall. Maybe he was a half-crazed loon, but so be it; I enjoyed it.

The big show began with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s Symphony No. 38 in D Major, also known as “Prague” after the city in which it was first played. Featuring only the orchestra, Prague began with a slow, tranquil movement which builds into a more uplifting middle section. The finale was lively and appeared extremely complex. I marvelled at both the musicianship and the craft of the composer, thinking that this Mozart guy might have something to him.

The intermission came about, after which the audience was introduced to the Philharmonic Chorus, as well as a quartet of soloists, who were to participate in the remaining presentations. Thus began several excerpts from Mozart’s Thamos, King of Egypt, an unusual composition designed to be a score for a heroic drama of the same name. Technically more an oratorio than an opera, the beautiful harmonies of the ladies’ sopranos and altos juxtaposing with the men’s tenors and bass made me inch ahead on my seat as I tried to differentiate them from the multifarious instrumentation in the background. It’s unfortunate that there was only time for excerpts from the original score as the progression seemed to lack adequate pacing. Still, the grand finish, punctuated by horns and timpani, made for a rising crescendo suitable for the ulitmate victory of the Egyptian gods and their favoured Thamos.

The show closed with Joseph Haydn’s Missa Sancti Nicolai, a delicate Missa brevis (short mass) meant to be perfomed on December 6th, the feast of St Nick (which also happened to be the namesake of Haydn’s benfactor, Prince Nicolas Esterhazy). As you can assume from any mass celebrated during Advent, this performance was festive and bright and left the observer with a feeling of joy. Being a Catholic, I also appreciated the fact that I could follow the movements inherently: A splendid Kyrie and Gloria; the energetic Credo; a surprisingly dark Et Incarnatus; the lovely Sanctus and Benedictus; and a Agnus Dei which reminisced the Kyrie from the opening. There is no doubt I would attend mass more oftten if accompanied by this glorious music.

Before the performance, I was apprehensive about not being able to distinguish the individual characteristics between these two preeminent composers. Fortunately, this was not the case. While it is true that the three compositons performed during the evening were meant for differing contexts, I believe that I caught a wiff of distinctiveness between Haydn and Mozart.

Haydn, it seems, was the one who composed just so. He did everything correctly without going overboard. He was a finely-tuned engine which does exactly what is supposed to be done and pleases the ear tremendously. Mozart, on the other hand, is much more reckless. In the hands of a less-skilled artist, the attempts to add flourish could prove disasterous. His genius is to add the unexpected and make it sound routine. In other words, he is a Maserati to Haydn’s Rolls.

I now understand Erik Tarloff’s answer to his question: If you had taken LSD and suddenly realized your trip was heading seriously south, what music would you put on the stereo to restore your emotional equilibrium and silence your demons?

Tarloff’s answer — and, now, mine — is Haydn. Mozart would simply blow my mind.

And he did.

Bumf recommends.

Coming right up: Can apes talk?

A new study indicates that no, they cannot.

How nice to feel nothing

Roger L Simon on the Hollywood “blacklst” and the general suckiness of film today:

There are many reasons for the failure of these movies, but chief among them is not what the right-wing blogs say – that they are out of touch with the public. That may be true to some degree (issue movies, taking at the very minimum nine or ten months to make, usually considerably longer, are almost always late to market as far as public opinion is concerned). It is that they are fake – these films are not really believed by their makers in any deep sense. They are a cinema of “as if” and all but the most biased sense this on some level. This is the opposite of a movie like the classic of classics Casablanca, a film that triumphs with its audiences for being heartfelt. Hollywood’s anti-war flicks are essentially posturing. They are cinema made by people who think they are supposed to be anti-war, but don’t really feel anything. No wonder the audience doesn’t respond.

I’ve had many coversations over the past few years with people who believe that pop music is generally bland and without substance. They cite the melding between alternative, pop, country and hip-hop into a monotonous medley which invariably ends up with Nickleback (Or “Theory of a Nickle Fault”, as my man BP calls it). However, my argument has been that there is some incredible music being produced, some of which even makes to the mainstream (see: Arcade Fire, the Shins, Modest Mouse, Silversun Pickups).

The revolution of digital technology has made it possible to create music at an extremely low cost, not to mention the marketing options which have been growing at an exponential rate. A fan often has to do a bit of legwork to find some of these interesting artists, but it is not beyond the realm of impossibility for independent artists to market themselves. And the increasing diversity of artists has made for a corresponding increasing diversity of art. In fact, I would argue that music has never been more diverse and interesting as it has today, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.

Film making has also experienced a digital revolution which has made it extremely affordable for the average joe schmoe to potentially become the next Martin Scorsese. Yet, we haven’t seen a revolutionary break-through in young film makers in the same fashion as their counterparts in popular music. While we still have some interesting directors and screenwriters emerging from the art-house fold (see: Michale Modry, Charlie Kaufmann, Spike Jonez), today’s Hollywood is a far cry from, say, the 1970s, which saw the likes of Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Polanski and Lucas turn the art form on its ear. Simon says as much.

This suggests, obviously, that technology is only limited by the imagination and that imagination is one quality missing in Hollywood today. One cannot have imagination if one limits oneself to the prevailing viewpoint. When everyone thinks the same, there cannot be a diversity of thought, and a lack of diversity only hinders the lack of original and stimulating art.

Not only is art a form (some say, THE form) of self-expression, it is also used to stimulate the senses and imagination. Like the proverbial frog in a slowly-boiling pot of water, if there is no sudden change in environment, the senses will have little if any stimulation for those in the experience. In the same way, where there is no diverging from the “sensible” viewpoint, there is no appreciable reaction from the viewer. In that sense, with every single “anti-war” or “anti-American” film, there is an increased saturation in the well of ideas, which results in a further reduction in stimulation. Thus, there is less interest for the consumer.

Therefore, this is where I disagree with Simon. He believes that the main cause of disenchantment with Hollywood is not only because of a lack of diversity in content but more so due to the “fakeness” of producers who don’t really believe — or necessarly “feel” — the message they are telling. I’d argue that the lack of emotion of studio execs has always existed. Does one truly believe that all producers had a emotional interest in everything they’ve done since the dawn of the talkie age? In some instances, sure, there is no reason not to believe that there is some love involved in any given project. However, like any other industry, business or enterprise, there has always been a form of cynicism or malaise to the products being developed in the movie industry, and anyone who believes otherwise is as naive as a virginal Doris Day.

Of course, there are other factors which have had a negative affect on today’s Hollywood, including, as Simon points out, video games. Still, instead of playing it safe by imposing the same world-view upon the audience (especially if they don’t really believe it themselves), Hollywood would be doing themselves a favour by allowing outside artists and, more importantly, ideas to offer a different perspective once in a while. Hell, if that happens, I might even be compelled to go to the theatres more than twice a year.

But I’m not going to hold my breath.

To CWB or not to CWB?

In the interest of revealing both sides to the debate, here is Paul Beingessner’s latest, emailed to me by my brother-in-law who farms organic crops near Kerrobert, Saskatchewan:

Column # 642 Farmers Guess Badly on Wheat Sales 22/10/07

Western Canadian Wheat Grower vice-president Stephen Vandervalk is no quitter. Despite showing the world how wrong he was he isn’t giving up on his diatribe against the Canadian Wheat Board.

In August, the feisty Albertan ranted against the CWB’s Pool Return Outlook (PRO) for barley. He trumpeted his own cleverness at selling much of his yet-unharvested crop before the CWB announced it would challenge the federal government’s attempt to remove the single desk from malt barley and exports of feed barley. That challenge, according to Vandervalk, caused the price of feed barley to plummet and cost him big bucks on his remaining unsold stocks. As to malt barley, Vandervalk said a maltster offered him $4.75 a bushel for his. The court case put a stop to that and he claimed the lower price the CWB was projecting would cost him dearly.

A short month later, Vandervalk should have been gnashing his teeth. The September PRO was projecting $5.43 for malt barley at his Alberta home and the feed barley he pre-sold for $4 was projected to be worth $4.64 delivered to the CWB. Vandervalk lost big all right, not because of the CWB, but because of his own feed barley marketing folly. The CWB court case saved his from making the same mistake with his malt barley.

Rather than be chastened by his marketing failure, Vandervalk continued on his quest to damn the CWB. In late September, he was showering farm newspapers with information comparing U.S. elevator prices to the CWB PRO. According to these figures, Vandervalk was losing a small fortune because he could not sell his durum across the line. Comparing the elevator price in Montana, which hit $13.10 a bushel that week to the CWB PRO of $10.70, Vandervalk’s estimated deficit would be $151,000.

You have to give Vandervalk some credit here. Despite being prevented from ever marketing his own durum by the CWB monopoly, he apparently would be far better at it than most American farmers who do it all the time. According to the marketing director of the North Dakota Wheat Commission, most durum farmers in his state missed out on the high durum prices because they sold earlier, at much lower prices. Those prices looked good at the time and no one was projecting the heights to which durum would soar. Nor were North Dakota farmers the only poor marketers. Wheat farmers in Washington state also blew it, selling some 70% of their crop before prices reached their highs. As much as 50% was sold at values roughly half those available today.

If Vandervalk were selling his own durum, it seems safe to assume he would have done what he did with his feed barley – sell much of it early for what appeared to be good prices. It is unlikely he would have had enough foresight to wait until the day it hit $13 at a Montana elevator. It is also unlikely any Montana elevator would have been able to absorb his reported 63,000 bushels in one fell swoop.

Luckily, and despite his efforts to the contrary, Vandervalk has the CWB to protect him from his misadventures. No, the CWB will likely not sell all of western Canada’s 4 or 5 million tonnes of durum at $13.00 a bushel. The U.S. can absorb only a small amount of our durum. The rest will be sold over the course of the crop year for various prices to various countries. And it will incur some large rail and ocean freight bills. But this year, the CWB will likely return far more to durum farmers in western Canada than their American brothers will receive, since much of their durum has already been sold for a relatively low price. Stephen Vandervalk is one of those lucky Canadian farmers, and if he were honest with himself, he would admit it.