Seth About Town, Seth On The Arts

THE SUN BURNS I: Transcript Of A Rant

6 Comments

The notion that the sun shines and the rain pours is part of big sun’s weather propaganda.

FUN WITH SUNFEARING COLLECTION:

I: TRANSCRIPT OF A RANT (you are here)
II: VOICE OF A RANT
III: T-SHIRT OF A RANT
IV: GENIUS BROTHER OF A RANT

As summer ominously approaches for another year, and I listen as always to weather reporters proclaim its glory, I am reminded of a rant provided by myself during my radio days at SethFM. I have just taken an ear peak at it, and I can confirm that my words then are as true now (if not truer, considering global warming) as the day they were born.

Since first publishing that rant, I have received many threats (from the sun), and I have feared for my skin’s life. And so I have long resisted re-releasing my resistance material on the internet. However, I recently heard a caller into The Bill Good Show (CKNW) who brilliantly and entertainingly made her own complaints about weather reporters who insist upon decrying rain as though it’s a catastrophe. In this age of natural disasters, she asked, “Does it have to be scorching hot for people to be satisfied?”

I was delighted by this rare expression of sun resistance in our sun-obsessed culture. Bill, however—who is ordinarily a reasonable man—merely chuckled and called her “grumpy.”

Really, would you refer to Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and other oppression opposers as simply being in a bad mood? 😉

Thus, in defense of my sun-resister-sister, for the first time on the internet, I offer you now the transcript of Seth’s Editorial Rant, “The Sun Burns”:

I’ve been doing a little bit of research on journalism and what I’ve learned is that journalists are expected, nay, obligated to be impartial in their journaling. You’ll notice, for instance, when Bob Newsanchor reads the news, he says:

“Today Jean Chrétien was named Prime Minister of Canada.  He does not, however, say, “Yippee, I’m glad to see that my favourite guy, J.C., got the job!”

It is, therefore, with great confusion that I notice that one species of journalist—the weather journalist—seems to believe that they are immune to the rules of journalism; you will notice, that is, that the weather journalist believes he or she has the right to tell us whether the weather news is good or bad.  When the day is to be rain-shining, we are told that it is to be “a miserable day,” while when the day is to be sun-pouring, “it will be beautiful.”

Now I for one hate the sun, always have, and so when I hear that the weather is to be, quote, “nice,” I immediately get both my rain jacket and my singing voice on so that I can get out and do some singing in the rain.*  For 24 years, that has been my habit, and for 24 years I have been disappointed as I discover that, instead of some lovely rain, that ugly yellow disc, that I like to call the burning ball of fire, is out to play.

*Now, of course, I am being facetious: I know that all weather people revere the sun like we can’t live without it, but I wonder what gives the weather people the right to expect me to worship that same weather that they do?

As someone who likes overcast best, I feel persecuted for my beliefs.  Sometimes a passing stranger will comment to me, “What nice weather we’re having.” To which I sometimes reply:

“What nice weather?! All I can see is a burning ball of fire which is giving me cancer, is causing me to squint, and is making you, kind stranger, sweat like an ice cube in an oven convention!”

To which the stranger will reply:

“Oh, come now, we can’t complain about the heat; after all, when it was raining, we all wished for the sun to come out.”

To which I reply:

“But I didn’t complain about the rain; in fact I was out there singing in it.”

To which the stranger will reply:

“How dare you prefer the rain to the sun! You have no right to live!”

Needless to say, being a rain fan is not an easy life to live in this country of sun-o-centrics.  Indeed, I often find myself hiding my rain preferences just to protect myself from an anti-rain lecture.  But, on the rainy side, or—as the sun-o-files would say—on “the bright side,” by pretending to be a sun-o-file to avoid being discriminated against, I have been able to infiltrate some conversations of sunners, and what I’ve discovered is that many sunners have latent feelings of sun hating.

“What a beautiful day,” they’ll say out loud for the sun to hear, but then they’ll mutter under their breath, “Gosh it sure is hot,” “I’m exhausted,” “I need some water,” and so on.

Such words are calls for help.  The fact is, most people are terrified to come out of the rain closet.  You see, when it comes to weather, Canada is much more a cult than a country.  We have, that is, been brainwashed to believe that we must love and adore the sun.  Who is to blame for the brainwashing?  Why, the aforementioned weather reporters, of course.  Those quirky folks with wacky ties who stand in front of weather maps pretending to know how to interpret the weather.  Yes, it is they who tell us that sun is good, rain is bad.  It is they who have forced upon our society this one-dimensional image of weather beauty.  And it is they who must be stopped.

We must stand up and tell the weather reporters that we will no longer allow them to tell us what weather we should like and what weather we should dislike.  I’m not asking the weathermen and women to enjoy a good overcast day, I’m just asking they that don’t infringe upon my right to enjoy it.  I’m just asking that—like all other journalists—they report what they see, not what they think.

Well put, previous Seth! Well put, indeed.

Portal to the video version of this rant.

FUN WITH SUNFEARING COLLECTION:

I: TRANSCRIPT OF A RANT (you were just here)
II: VOICE OF A RANT
III: T-SHIRT OF A RANT
IV: GENIUS BROTHER OF A RANT

Seth On The Arts

READING PERRY MASON

2 Comments

I’m currently reading Earle Stanley Gardner’s Perry Mason mystery,The Case of the Daring Divorcee. It is enlightening to spend time in Gardner’s 1964 sensibilities and discoveries (including a strange “tape-recording answering machine”). Most intriguing, though, is the mind of our heroic defence attorney, Mr. Perry Mason, who wields a refreshingly logical brilliance.

I find that the authors of most modern brainy heroes don’t let us in on how their characters arrive at their profound conclusions; instead, we are to watch as they form their elusive epiphanies, but have to wait for a dramatic moment to be let in on the fun. Mason, though, is methodical and breaks down events right in front of us. Although don’t try to think ahead of him! He’s always one step ahead.

Consider Perry Mason vs Lieutenant Tragg regarding Mason’s client Adele Hastings. Perry anticipated that Tragg would bring Mrs. Hastings in front of a witness, who had seen a woman matching her description do something suspicious; so Perry had several women, of that same description, arrive in the meeting room just before Hastings was about to be identified.

The result, as Perry had planned, was that the witness picked out the first women to arrive—not Adelle Hastings—as the suspicious person. Lieutenant Tragg immediately intervened and told the witness to look at all the women: which one who was the women she had seen? Now the witness wasn’t sure: they all looked like her.

Don’t be impressed yet; watch what Mason does to Tragg next:

TRAGG (to the decoy women): You can go, all of you.

MASON: All of you can go. All of you.

TRAGG: Hey, wait a minute. I want Mrs. Hastings to say.

MASON: All right, which one is Mrs. Hastings?

TRAGG: Don’t pull those tricks on me.

MASON: Pick her out if you want her.

TRAGG: You’re talking to an officer, Perry. Don’t try those tricks.

Tragg then successfully identified Mrs. Hastings.

TRAGG: What the hell were you trying to do? Make a monkey of me? Did you think I couldn’t pick Mrs. Hastings out of that group?…

MASON: No, you didn’t have any trouble picking her out. That’s all I needed to convince any jury that the test was a fair one.

Brilliant! Like a magician, Perry had misdirected Tragg and I to assume that he was trying to further demonstrate the fallibility of witnesses by showing Tragg that even he couldn’t pick his client out of a lineup. Well, Tragg and I could prove that wrong: we could easily identify Hastings! And, just like that, Perry pulled the rabbit out of our testimony as he proved that, if his client really was the one who had been witnessed, she would have been identifiable even amongst a crowd of lookalikes.

Next time I’m on trial for a crime I didn’t commit, I’m calling Perry Mason!

Seth On The Arts

THE BEST AND WORST OF SUDDEN MAGIC PREMISE COMEDIES

4 Comments

I am often tempted by what I’ll call “Sudden Magic Premise Comedies” (in particular those starring adults) in which our (almost always) male protagonist is successful and charming, but possesses a seemingly tragic flaw (an overabundance of ego, shallowness, or shyness) and so is suddenly given (or cursed by) a magic power (perhaps being able hear women’s thoughts), limitation (he can no longer tell a lie), or situation (he has to relive the same day repeatedly). In almost every case, when our hero meets his magic circumstance, we begin with his slapstick comedic reaction to his plight (this is a good reason to hire Jim Carrey or Bill Murray for your lead as they can handle the humour gracefully), but the situation will eventually turn dire to the point that he will lose almost everything in his life, including, apparently, the affection of the female lead. Her role is key as she is almost unanimously unencumbered by personality or humour, but possesses an understanding of the true meaning of life and family; it is precisely that outlook that the protagonist must adopt if he’s going to escape his magic premise.

I am often seduced by these magic premises, as I am curious as to how the hero will handle what seems to me to be an intriguing situation. For instance, before viewing Bruce Almighty, in which the great Jim Carrey’s character temporarily acquires the powers of God, I was intrigued to see how he would deal out his deity magic to those around him. Unfortunately, I need to be reminded before I purchase my ticket that these movies are not meant to be philosophical or ethical commentaries: JC’s character did not, as we might hope, spend his powers on curing major illnesses in third world countries; instead, he focussed on the petty preferences of his own life. And so I was disappointed by what seemed to be empathetically-challenged behaviour from our hero, but that was my own fault for mixing up the genre for something that it’s not.

Sudden Magic Premise Comedies can—in SethBlogs’ opinion—be very good movies, but it’s important to remember their function before going in. I forgot this rule once again last night when I was drawn in by the Magic Comedy Premise of A Thousand Words, in which the protagonist, played by Eddie Murphy, is given only a thousand words to live. Intrigue me! How exactly would he ration them? What clever strategies for handling the problem would he invent? But, once again, I should have realized that this wasn’t meant to be a thought-provoking movie in the way that I’d hoped. I was therefore displeased by the results. My bad once again.

As with all genres, there are both good and bad Sudden Magic Premise Comedies (so long as we are willing to remember the limitations of the genre). If you are considering trying one out, I am at your service. Below are my rankings of the non-kid-led Sudden Magic Premise Comedies that I can remember at this time.

1. Groundhog Day (1993)

Magic Premise: I don’t want to give this one away as this movie is best witnessed without awareness of what is about to befall our hero.

SethBlogs Analysis: This movie is already highly ranked in several prestigious SethBlogs categories, such as “Best Comedy Film,” “Best Bill Murray Movie,” (tied with Quick Change), and “Best Overall Movie.” The dialogue is overflowing with wit, the comedy has impeccable timing (leaving every joke before it becomes tedious), and the existentially superior love interest possesses a rare hint of a personality beyond the requirements of the genre.

2. What Women Want (2000)

Magic Premise: Our charming, but somewhat chauvinistic hero is given the ability to hear the thoughts of all women.

SethBlogs Analysis: While there is some silly gender humour in this film, SethBlogs found the characters to be much more nuanced and human than we normally encounter in Sudden Magic Premise Comedies. As a result, the world in which these characters interact seems more believable and three-dimensional. Even the morally superior female lead possesses rare personality and even unprecedented self-doubt. Consequently, the plot is not as gimmicky as the genre would normally forgive.

3. Liar Liar (1997)

Magic Premise: A double-talking lawyer’s neglected son successfully wishes that his dad lose the ability to tell lies.

SethBlogs Analysis: This one’s all in the Carrey. Without Jim, its silliness would be too slapstick for viewing, but in the face and charm of the master, I pronounce it worth seeing.

4. Yes Man (2008)

  • Directed by: Peyton Reed
  • Screenplay by: Nicholas Stoller and Jarrad Paul & Andrew Mogel
  • Starring: Jim Carrey
  • Not-So-Bland Lady Love Interest: Zoey Deschanel (SethBlogs categorizes her as not-so-bland because she is a free spirit with some evident charm, but given the movie’s role is to teach Jim Carrey’s character to lead a more spontaneous life, she still fulfills her genre duty to take the moral high ground and to inspire him to do better)

Magic Premise: In this case, the lead’s tragic flaw is not that he is over-confident, but that he is under-existing. He is thus sentenced to say “Yes” to everything anyone ever asks of him (if he doesn’t, bad things happen) so that he will learn to take on life more assertively.

SethBlogs Analysis: There are some painfully silly moments in this movie, but Carrey’s standard brilliance, along with a likeable collection of co-stars, provokes approval from the SethBlogs staff.

5. Bedazzled (2000)

Magic Premise: This time our hero’s tragic flaw comes from his dorky demeanor, which is stalling his efforts to attain his dream girl. Thus he sells his soul to the devil in exchange for seven wishes with which he hopes to improve his manliness so that he can impress his love.

SethBlogs Analysis: There is some confusion about human tendencies here (for instance, when Brendan’s character wishes for the ability to be the sweetest man on earth, our hero becomes annoyingly sickly sweet, but of course a truly sensitive person would be aware of how to avoid being annoying.) However, some genuinely funny moments combined with Brendan Fraser’s incomparable pathos make this a worthwhile viewing, in SethBlogs’ humble opinion.

6. Bruce Almighty (2003)

  • Directed by: Tom Shadyac
  • Screenplay by: Steve Koren & Mark O’Keefe and Steve Oedekerk
  • Starring: Jim Carrey
  • Bland Lady Love Interest: Jennifer Aniston (another colossal misuse of a comedic talent here as Anniston’s character lacks even of a hint of the personality that the actress is capable of portraying)

Magic Premise: Bruce gets to borrow God’s powers for a while.

SethBlogs Analysis: This is one of the most silly in the genre that’s still worth seeing. While it is philosophically agonizing to watch, the cast—led by our Jim—is charming and funny enough to keep the SethBlogs’s eyes on screen.

7. Shallow Hall (2001)

Magic Premise: The lead’s tragic flaw in this case is right there in the title: he’s so shallow that he only sees women for their looks, and so he is given the power/curse to see women only for their inner beauty.

SethBlogs Analysis: As always, the writer-director combo of the Farrelly brothers mix some offensive humour into a comedy with heart. Shallow Hall is both mildly insulting and compassionate to the less fortunate in appearance, and so has just barely earned SethBlogs’ approval.

8. The Invention of Lying (2009)

Magic Premise: Gervais’s character lives in a world where no one has ever thought to lie; everything changes when he suddenly one day realizes the power of deception.

SethBlogs Analysis: This movie is all premise and no pay off. The writers confuse the inability to tell lies with an insistence on oversharing. Gervais spends time being funny, but as with all of his roles, he eventually returns to his most famous persona, David Brent from The Office (which is always enjoyable, but distracting when he’s supposed to be playing a different character). SethBlogs does not think this movie is worth seeing, and yet the premise is so interesting, that even now we want to go back to that world to give it another chance.

9. A Thousand Words (2012)

Magic Premise: Murphy’s charming, but double-talking literary agent persona is taught a lesson by a magic tree who limits him to approximately a thousand words for the rest of his life.

SethBlogs Analysis: Perhaps the promise of the premise has led me to unfairly dislike this film for dealing with its intriguing thought example in such a silly way. For instance, to facilitate the comedy of a particular moment, Murphy’s character repeatedly wastes many precious words to complete the scene’s comedy, but for the drama of another situation, he refuses say a word to stop his simple, but pure wife from misinterpreting him to catastrophic results. Nevertheless, Murphy plays the part well and there is one scene that got the whole SethBlogs team laughing.

10. Evan Almighty (2007)

  • Directed by: Tom Shadyac
  • Written by: Steve Oderkerk
  • Starring: Steve Carrel
  • Bland Lady Love Interest: Lauren Graham (once again, this is a mighty waste of talent as the ultra-funny Graham stays on formula and never utters a breath that isn’t morally superior and devoid of personality)

Magic Premise: In this rare Magic Premise sequel, Bruce Almighty’s rival, Evan, gets to play a Bible character as God sentences him to be a modern-day Noah.

SethBlogs Analysis: This is one of the top ten worst movies that SethBlogs has had the displeasure of witnessing. It is relentlessly silly and contrived without a hint of funny.

Seth On The Arts

GENRE-HOPPING MAD

4 Comments

As far as I can tell, there are three major classes of standard action movie:

(1) PURE ACTION: 

In this case, like a musical, every moment is a set up for the action aria. Usually, a pure action movie will feature an actor known for his (and very occasionally her) martial arts skills or bubble-muscles (or both), such as Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Jason Statham, Vin Diesel, Jean-Claude van Damme, or all-time leader, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The dialogue often features wooden pre-and-post-violence-catchphrases such as “Time to take out the trash,” or “That hit the spot.” At the same time, such films are often sanitized in the sense that there is a small amount of blood and gore in proportion to the impressive volume of shooting and killing; as a result, the victims of the violence are not sympathetic figures, but instead merely stunt men. The relationship between good and bad, meanwhile, is cartoonish, but satisfying to those of us with simple hearts.

(2) SITUATION ACTION:

Here the scenario is king as our hero is caught in a tricky situation that he (or occasionally she) has to escape or resolve. The action can be impressive, but is directed by the necessity of the plot and so makes each obstacle that our hero must defeat exciting and significant. Our hero’s moxie, however, is more crucial than his martial arts skills. Consider Die Hard or much of Harrison Ford’s work. Once again, the good guy is juxtaposed with a bad guy who does evil things to people’s grandmothers, but since the focus is as much on the brains and personalities of both sides as it is their swinging back kicks, it is easier to invest oneself in the characters. And our hero and villain’s humour is usually more wit than punch-line-based.

(3) GRITTY ACTION:

In this case, the story is once again significant, but it is usually dark and blurs the distinction between good and evil. The action, when it happens, is harsh, loud, and disconcerting. The action hero again doesn’t have to be a black belt in anything, but he (and very rarely she) must be ready to be moody about a dark past. Dim lighting throughout the film often causes the protagonist’s morose mood to infect ours, as does the disconcerting violence, which features grisly death, rape, and torture. The characters are generally humourless (who could blame them?), as they’re rather focussed on revenge at the moment. Films such as Law Abiding Citizen and Payback are classic examples.

When done skillfully, all three genres can produce work that I like, but it has come to my realization that I generally prefer situation action movies because I find them to be a fun place for my imagination to play. I appreciate the fact that they don’t take themselves too seriously, deriving their humour from wit and personality traits as opposed to the slapstick death of a pawn character or a clichéd punch-line. The heroes usually endear themselves to me to the point that I actually care about what happens to them when the action starts. (Rank 1 on the action genre list.)

In contrast, pure action movies, whilst also not taking themselves too seriously, are rarely able to provoke any connection between the hero, the action, and me. The violence is so constant and unlinked to a recognizable scenario or character I care about that I find myself bored with the constantly flashing movement on screen and the noise reverberating in my eardrums. (Rank 3.)

Meanwhile, gritty action films work hard to connect us with the characters, but, since they have such ambiguous morality levels, they’re not particularly likeable. And, because the story is told with a dark and pessimistic tone and often involves serious and controversial subject matter, I find myself less entertained as I am sad about the world. The action itself, meanwhile, is so raw and blood-spattered that it’s not particularly pleasing to view. Nevertheless, given the dark story takes on some challenging subject matter, it generally at least provokes my disconcerted brain to have some unexpected thoughts. (Rank 2.)

These distinctions are helpful, I think, because they can allow us (even if we’re not always conscious of them) to select the type of movie that best suits our taste buds. Moreover, it would be helpful for movie critics to keep genre conventions in mind in order to avoid unfairly condemning a movie for having too much or not enough action, humour, character development, complexity, or gravitas. For instance, when watching a pure action film, it would be unreasonable to expect the same degree of character development as in Citizen Kane, because that is not its function. Rather, a pure action should be judged based on its successful implementation of the genre’s key elements.

At the same time, it is rather irritating to me when an action movie tries to reap all the benefits of each genre, and ends up being none of them. Consider Safe House, which I took in last night. It brands itself as a gritty action, and certainly it possesses sufficiently dark themes for that (I was definitely good and depressed as I watched). The hero (played by Ryan Reynolds), per specifications, is under-appreciated and faced with difficult decisions in which he has to choose between love and work. And we have plenty of brutal, cold-blooded killing, along with a realistic scene of torture (the actor-victim, Denzel Washington, explained afterwards that he allowed himself to be water-boarded—albeit briefly—so as to get the good grit). Fine. Gritty action it is: my thoughts were primed for provocation.

But then the movie quickly turns into a situation flick where our quick-thinking hero has to navigate the Safe House world using only his brilliant maneuvering, reluctantly bonding with his sometimes-prisoner in a formulaic father-son, mentor-student relationship. And the action, itself, while dark and extreme like a gritty movie, is constant, gratuitous, and sometimes even nonsensical, featuring indiscriminate and hopeless shooting by the enemy, lots of fancy fight moves, and virtually pain-free car crashes, all meeting pure action requirements. Thus, even though the movie tries to get the intellectual credit for being gritty, it actually relies on the conventions of pure and situation action to entertain us. The result is an unharmonious blending of genres that is too dark to be enjoyable and too silly to be interesting. Whereas I was initially sympathetic to the protagonist because of the frightening situation he is caught in and the invocation of various situation-action conventions, the paradoxical mixing of gritty with silly eventually deflated my concern as I could no longer take the film seriously.

EPILOGUE: I also recently watched the situation action movie Man on a Ledge, which officially will get much lower marks from the critics because it is an unashamedly lowbrow movie (featuring some implausible moments and unnecessary cleavage). To me, it’s underrated redeeming quality is that it doesn’t pretend to be anything else. Instead of genre-hopping like Safe House, it stays consistently in its own lane. Consequently, by knowing its limitations, it succeeds at being something; whereas, by trying to be everything, Safe House fails to be anything.

Seth On Sports, Seth On The Arts

THE ARTFUL SPORTSCASTER III: All-Star Babble

2 Comments

Sadly, those in charge of directing sports broadcasts seem to be more interested in the arts than sports. (Perhaps sports’ fans only recourse is to send our athletes in to direct their operas.)

THE ARTFUL SPORTSCASTER SERIES:

I: EMPTY NET WORK
II: DISPLAYS OF THE YEAR
III: ALL-STAR BABBLE (you are here)

Dear CBC Sports:

Unlike many snobby viewers such as your Don Cherry (who lament the lack of standard hockey violence), I enjoy taking in the NHL’s annual lighthearted skill-a-thon known as the all-star game. In contrast with those who can’t bare the uncharacteristically free-wheeling pace, I appreciate the players’ efforts to entertain me with lots of fancy goals. And why not?! The intensity-connoisseurs get their way every other game of the year, can’t we skill-fans have this one moment on the scoreboard?

Apparently not, CBC Sports, since you decided that the game wasn’t interesting enough to keep the fans’ attention. So, instead of providing the usual exciting live-action commentary (“he shoots, he scores,” etc.) from your expert broadcasters, you spent the game showing off your mic’d up technology and access to the players by interviewing them while the game was being played!

“So, Bobby,” your announcer asked one all-star while another was about to score the goal of the game, “how are you enjoying the game so far?”

These meandering mic’d moments might have been interesting if they weren’t muting the coverage of the play I’d tuned in to witness. I’ve ranted it before, and I’ll rant it again: there’s nothing wrong with these alternate perspectives, but there’s also nothing wrong with recording them and waiting till a break in the action to show them to us. Patience, my broadcasting friends. When you impose your instant-access distractions on the live action then—instead of accentuating your fans’ experience—your broadcasting toys take precedence over the game that brought us to your channel.

I think the problem here, CBC Sports, is that you recognize that social media is a big deal right now—and so you want to harness it’s all-access power—but you don’t quite understand why it’s so successful. So let me clarify: yes, this new everybody-tweets world means we’re used to hearing the everyday thoughts of previously inaccessible celebrities. But that doesn’t mean that, in the middle of our maiden viewing of the new movie, Battleship Vengeance, we want Johnny Superstar to tweet across the screen how he completed that big stunt. That would actually disrupt our experience. Save that stuff for when we’re not concentrating on the plot (like on a separate Twitter feed or in the DVD Special Features).

As it was, CBC Sports, your version of the 2012 NHL all-star game became a fast-paced Facebook after party before the game was even over, and I did not care for it.

Good day to you, CBC Sports!
SethBlogs

THE ARTFUL SPORTSCASTER SERIES:

I: EMPTY NET WORK
II: DISPLAYS OF THE YEAR
III: ALL-STAR BABBLE (you were just here)

Seth On Sports, Seth On The Arts

THE ARTFUL SPORTSCASTER II: Displays Of The Year

2 Comments

Sadly, those in charge of directing sports broadcasts seem to be more interested in the arts than sports. (Perhaps sports’ fans only recourse is to send our athletes in to direct their operas.)

THE ARTFUL SPORTSCASTER SERIES:

I: EMPTY NET WORK
II: DISPLAYS OF THE YEAR (you are here)
III: ALL-STAR BABBLE

I couldn’t have said it better myself in my April 2011 blogging, THE ARTFUL SPORTSCASTER I: EMPTY NET WORK, when I noted that sports broadcasters sometimes let their yearning to be artistic (and to use all of their broadcast toys) block the subject they’re supposed to be covering.

For instance, some hockey broadcasters enjoy showing us exciting events of the game from a camera positioned behind the defending team’s net (instead of the standard and all-illuminating side-overview shot).

Now, if the hockey game were an art show, I would tip my sherry to the broadcast poets, as their keyhole view offers us an unusual, mind-bending visual.  The problem is that, for earnest hockey fans, this perspective-shifting angle corrupts our ability to follow the play, itself (which may, in fact, have been the basis for our viewing in the first place).

As I have pleaded with the hockey broadcasters many times, I wish they would save those unique shots (and disruptive close-ups of players with the puck) for replays and special after-game compilations, but during the game, relax, and let me watch my favourite sport from the perfect vantage point and leave me alone about it.

But it gets worse.  I’ve recently broken open my copy of the greatest hockey ever played, the Canada Cup 1987 tournament, featuring the Great Wayne Gretzky, in his prime, setting up the Magnificent Mario Lemieux in his early-career awakening.  The first game has already left me hollering at the director, who in the heart of the play, enjoys stepping away from the action to show us live shots of the Canadian coach watching on!  Now I’m not particularly interested in watching someone else watch a game at the boringest of times, but in the middle of the greatest hockey ever played, I certainly don’t want to be staring at someone else staring at what I would in fact like to be witnessing!

All of this is relevant to our current New Year’s Eve moment in time, because today is a day in which many sports broadcasters enjoy presenting to us their “plays of the year.”  Unfortunately, those assigned to put together said plays are not necessarily sports fans, but seem instead to be music video and editing specialists, and so they pack the imagery—that would have entertained on its own—with stops and starts and assorted effects to wow our artistic eyes, while leaving our sportsfanship disrupted.

I know that it is too late to stop this year’s exhibition of sports broadcasting artwork, but I would like to make a New Year’s Resolution by proxy to sports broadcasters to excommunicate this distracting editing from all future sports presenting.  This request carries with it the same obligations (and guilt in failure) as a resolution made for oneself.

(Actually, now that I consider it, I think New Year’s Resolutions by proxy are going to be the next big thing: this way one can make plans to better the world without having to do the work on the other side of the resolution.)

Merry Nearly New Year from all of us at Sethblogs!

For more Sethblogs discussion of Broadcasting interference in the future, see THE ARTFUL SPORTSCASTER III: ALL-STAR BABBLE.

THE ARTFUL SPORTSCASTER SERIES:

I: EMPTY NET WORK
II: DISPLAYS OF THE YEAR (you were just here)
III: ALL-STAR BABBLE

Seth About Town, SethBlogs' Holiday Cards

MERRY SHOPPING!

Leave a comment

As we reach the eve of Christmas this year
I ask you to lay down your holiday sneer

I realize that some environmentalists may have a legitimate beef with our annual holiday upgrade in consuming products, but, aside from that inconvenient gaggle of apocolapse-alerters, I’m not sure why so many seem to talk of resenting the commercial aspect of Christmas.

We live in a world where things come in handy, but at Christmas time, participants don’t look for these items for ourselves (well, we don’t set out to, anyway), but instead we spend time thinking about our favourite people and then trying to find a thing or two that they may not normally buy for themselves, but which they may nevertheless enjoy. And so, various entrepreneurs, big and small, lineup to provide locations for us to set our annual scavenger hunt. I have no quibble with such service with a profit.

I’m told that the results are rather healthy for the economy, too, as retailers apparently can acquire up to 40% of their yearly profit from the pleasin’ season. Given the world’s current financial troubles, maybe that’s a good thing?

Meanwhile, on a social level—where I think the collective Bah-hum-bug crowd is really directing most of their disapproval—I will admit that I find Christmas shopping in the malls to be fun. And I’m someone who hates shopping like being blocked by an escalator-stander!

As I walked through the congested nostrils of the Megatron Mall today, I felt a sense of cultural community: we were all in it together. And in a town where we normally don’t like to look each other in the eye too often, we strangers smiled at each other like we were old friends. In fact, I was even patient with the slow-walkers—apparently late-minute gift-collecting is one habitat in which all speeds of walkers can co-exist peacefully. If there was stress in the air, I didn’t smell it; and if my random acts of smiling were annoying anyone, they didn’t frown so.

So Merry Christmas (Eve) shopping, everyone, and a happy new sneer!

Sethics vs. Assorted Assumptions

OCCUPY HUMILITY

4 Comments

One of the things that drives me to roll my eyes at politicians in general, and my British Columbian representatives in particular, is that most of them (or at least the most successful of them) seem to live in perpetual spin. When a legitimate criticism finds its way to them, their duty to their brand seems to be to misinterpret, misdirect, and/or simply confuse the issue until the previously straightforward matter is going in circles. Or, if their mistake is too damning to spin, then they simply hold up a mirror in the direction of their opposition and point out that—when the rival brand was in power—they did something similar.

The latter is a brilliant technique for escaping the most daunting scrutiny because—for almost every level of blunder that you make—one of your enemy political brand members will undoubtably have at some point committed a similar faux pas. Indeed, when eventually the enemy retakes power, and provide their own scandals, they in turn will recall your mistakes back to the stage—and so the circle of politics will continue.

As much as my eyes roll with this spin, I can understand its origins. Much like a product on the market, it is difficult for our democratically elected leaders (and the media that covers them) to focus too much on nuance in the 30 second soundbites that define them. Nevertheless, I often wonder if there is room for a mild case of humility amongst politicians. Perhaps if former BC Premier, Gordon Campbell, had been more humble in his imposition of the HST, the populace wouldn’t have developed such an disproportionate hatred for it.

Maybe I’m wrong: maybe we the voters see humility as a sign of weakness. Perhaps, if a politician admits imperfection too often, we will think they lack confidence. Indeed, the strange modesty-free behaviours of politicians seem to back up this notion. Whereas the rest of us are expected to speak of our own achievements with a modicum of self-deprecation, politicians must continually cheer themselves on and associate themselves with any successful enterprise whether they spawned it or not.

In a few-party system like British Columbia’s, this strategy apparently will get you elected, but it will also eventually get you hated. Indeed, most political leaders—no matter how popular they are in their arrival—will leave office under a hale of contempt. Campbell was one of the most successful politicians in BC history, but by the end, he was amongst the least popular leaders we’ve ever run out of office. The decapitated political party, though, can still survive by renouncing their own former head and admitting they need a fresh start.

Which brings me (finally) to my point. I think I see why the Occupy movement in BC (Vancouver, specifically) seemed to lose so much of their fan base so quickly. Because they are a consensus-based group, they don’t have a leader to blame for their mistakes. And so, when they received criticism that was stronger than standard spin could handle—instead of serving up a fall guy for us to swarm—they simply denied their flaws and claimed the press was not fairly covering them. (It’s never a good idea to attack the media that you rely on to promote your rhetoric.)

Using my talk radio listening experience as my blunt measuring tool, it seems to me that most Vancouverites are significantly sympathetic to the Occupy movement in the US as we perceive that their financial system has betrayed them. Given, however, that Canada, whatever its flaws, has been—my pundits tell me—a beacon of financial security during the current world economic crisis, many wondered—when Canadian Occupiers first arrived—what our self-proclaimed 99% representatives were going to be ranting against.

At first, the Vancouver version wouldn’t really say. One Vancouver representative admitted to my radio host (Bill Good) that—because they were a consensus movement—creating a coherent thesis was going to take a while. Nevertheless, the general “Down with the Man; up with the rest of us” message seemed to resonate with many in the populace who had never heard a pander they didn’t like.

To their credit, some of the Vancouver occupiers were capable of discussing with the press the things they wanted changed about the world, but understandably no two occupiers seemed to think alike, and so the general notion that they didn’t know what they wanted persisted.

In the meantime, many observers were becoming increasingly impatient with the Occupation of previously shared public space. The Occupiers seemed to feel that they were above the bylaw: not only were they ignoring the rules against tent structures, they renounced the authority of the fire department who had claimed that the impressive tent village was contrary to fire code. The movement did eventually conform to the fire department’s “recommendations,” but not without antagonizing their bylaw-abiding audience.

By the time the Vancouver Occupy Movement put forth a list of 60 demands, which itemized a coherent selection of idealistic goals, for many of us, it was too much, too late. In general, my radio friends (at least those who called in to the radio talk shows) agreed with a large percentage of the ideas within the Occupy platform, but they were tired of their anti-social methodology. (And when Vancouver had to re-route its Santa Claus parade around the Occupation, that was the last straw that broke the camel’s back!)

The trouble, I think, with the Occupy movement—in contrast with standard political parties—is that while, yes, most politicians will attempt to spin their way out of criticism, the Occupy party appears to feel that they are above it. After two drug overdoses (one leading to a death) in the Vancouver encampment, they were quick to absolve themselves of any responsibility as they blamed the government for not having better programs for the drug-afflicted; they implied, that is, that their lost comrade would have died even without their Occupation. Perhaps they were right, but their unwillingness to express a morsel of remorse or acknowledgment that they could have done anything differently, themselves, once again alienated their audience.

All of that, I supposed, could be described as standard political rhetoric, but the Occupiers stepped off script forever when a few of them tried to intimidate the press away from covering these potentially damaging stories. And, while some Occupiers tried to talk down the “Don’t broadcast our problems” wing of the movement, they did not renounce the anti-pressers.

In standard politics, if you provoke a scandal (or tax) too big to spin, the party has to leave you under the bus. By the nature of their consensus design, though, Occupiers can never disown their own and so are left to feebly spin the egregious behaviour of their brethren as free speech to which they have a right. (Of course they do, but that doesn’t answer the criticism.)

Strangely, then, this is one case where critics can legitimately paint the whole organization with the same brush. The consensus movement is beholden to the actions of its least reasonable members. One caller to my radio noted that the dreadful behaviours of those aggressive Occupiers were not unlike the beasts in George Orwell’s Animal Farm whose originally righteous resistance to oppressive farmers eventually mutated into a facsimile of the very overlords they had overthrown. As intriguing as this criticism is, I don’t think it’s yet fair to this particular movement. If they continue to treat themselves as infallible, however, they may be on their way.

The 60 demands of the Vancouver Occupy movement may be wonderful goals for our society. But Utopia is not easy to create. As flawed as Canada may be in terms of social justice, it is still—as compared to all of the societies in history—approximately in the top 99th percentile. Per Winston Churchill‘s famous description, democracy, with all of its problem areas, has so far proven to be the most effective way to achieve the best in humanity

However, it is certainly not perfect. For instance, one thing democracy didn’t seem to account for in its birth is that we the people may actually destroy our earth. Unfortunately, we seem unwilling to vote for politicians who will change our habitat-destroying habits. So maybe the Occupiers are right that we need an upgrade on our “now”-obsessed political system.

At this point, though, I don’t believe the Occupy Movement in BC is the one to achieve this utopian goal. When Occupy Vancouver received (and, to their credit, obeyed) legal injunctions to remove themselves from public sites not long ago, they promised to get their message across via flash occupations of public places such as the Skytrain. But the Skytrain is something our society has gotten right, hasn’t it?! Isn’t such public transit good for the environment as it promotes people out of their gas-sipping cars into much more energy efficient trains? And more importantly, from the 99% perspective, Skytrain service helps the majority of us to get around cost-effectively.

But our self-proclaimed 99% reps apparently are so certain of their righteousness that they’re willing to disrupt the travels of often non-rich, green-abiding constituents. As with all politicians, I’m sure they’ll spin this contradiction brilliantly, but, if that doesn’t work—and the 99% is as outraged as it should be by their un-green threat—the Occupiers, sadly, don’t have the option to simply fire their leader. Consensus has no scapegoat.

So far, thankfully, Occupy Vancouver have not lived down to their Occupy Skytrain threat. This gives me hope for their future; however, the fact that the idea was even suggested by their representatives is a discredit to their movement.

Seth On Sports, Sethics vs. Assorted Assumptions, Word Spin

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LAZY JOURNALISM III: Smyth vs. The False Dichotomy

7 Comments

Journalism is vital to a free society; so too is criticism of the media. And yet SethBlogs doesn’t see as much oversight of the media’s methods as there are for other vital societal resources. SethBlogs suspects that this oversight oversight provokes lazy complacency among our favourite journalistic representatives.

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LAZY JOURNALISM SERIES:

I: THE USEFUL CRUELTY OF SCRUTINY (OF IDEAS)

II: EXTRA SENSORY PRESUMPTIONS (OF EMOTION)

III: SMYTH vs. THE FALSE DICHOTOMY (OF ROLES) (you are here)

IV: EXTRA SENSORY PRESUMPTIONS (OF INTENTION)

V: THE EMPEROR HAS NO QUESTIONS (ON SEXISM)

VI: THE EMPEROR HAS NO QUESTIONS (ON RACISM)

This may seem like a small matter, but I think it is a symptom of how many in our media unduly segregate their subjects into only black or white. Consider the following fallacious phrases that I have witnessed in the media:

“Is the new gas tax going to help the environment or is it another burden on families?”

“Are boiled lobsters animal cruelty, or are they good eating?”

Um, why can’t it be both?

Use of such ridiculously black vs. white phrases is so prevalent in our media that I have come to the speculation that the use of false dichotomies may be taught in broadcasting and/or journalism schools:

PROFESSOR: All right, what you need to do for every issue is ask the audience to choose between the top hope of each side of the argument.

STUDENT: What if the answer is somewhere in the middle?

PROFESSOR: Boring! Remember: Black or white will excite! Grey won’t pay!

STUDENT: Right, I forgot.

PROFESSOR: Memorize it!

STUDENT: So how do we do it?

PROFESSOR: Okay, give me a significant government policy.

STUDENT: How about the recent plan to build a major new transit line?

PROFESSOR: Good, what’s a possible benefit of this policy?

STUDENT: That it’s good for the environment and will reduce congestion.

PROFESSOR: Okay, and what’s a criticism of it?

STUDENT: That it’ll cost lots of taxpayer money.

PROFESSOR: Perfect! Here’s your headline question: “THE NEW TRANSIT LINE: ENVIRONMENTAL HERO OR MAJOR TAX BURDEN?” Now everyone has to move their thinking to one side or the other!

It is the popular media’s craving for the simplicity of definitive answers, I suppose, that provokes them to invoke false dichotomies—in spite of the fact that false dichotomies are among the great enemies of logic. To quote myself in the Twitter version of SethBlogs:

“You either agree that false dichotomies are a blight of human communication or you believe in violence against puppies.”

Which brings me to my very important hockey-based point. Well-known hockey player, Ryan Smyth, who grew up in Edmonton, Alberta and has played most of his hockey career for the Edmonton Oilers, is famous for his ability to go into the tough areas in front of his opposition’s net to score goals. Hockey pundits, therefore, categorize him as a tough-nosed veteran player and nothing more.

No hockey commentator whom I’ve heard has noticed that, when he’s not in front the opposition’s net, he moves like the most iconic and distinct Edmonton Oiler skater of all time, Wayne Gretzky. I’m not saying that Smyth possesses the Great One’s magic skills (who could?), but his stride and passing motion look more like the all-time NHL scoring leader than any player I’ve ever seen.

This should not be surprising given that Smyth would have learned his love of the game while Gretzky was winning Stanley Cups for his city’s team, and so the young Oiler fan might have patterned his style after his hero. Smyth lacks Gretzky’s bounty of abilities, obviously—perhaps part of the reason he added a toughness to his repertoire since he couldn’t score 200 points a season like his idol—but Ryan Smyth, in spite of being a lumbering skater, is—to my eye—one of the best passers in the league.

And yet TV announcers who follow him always seem surprised when he provides a great pass—I’ve never heard them acknowledge that it’s a regular part of his skill set. I guess they’ve long answered the question:

“Is Ryan Smyth tough in front of the net or is he a great passer?”

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LAZY JOURNALISM SERIES:

I: THE USEFUL CRUELTY OF SCRUTINY (OF IDEAS)

II: EXTRA SENSORY PRESUMPTIONS (OF EMOTION)

III: SMYTH vs. THE FALSE DICHOTOMY (OF ROLES) (you were just here)

IV: EXTRA SENSORY PRESUMPTIONS (OF INTENTION)

V: THE EMPEROR HAS NO QUESTIONS (ON SEXISM)

VI: THE EMPEROR HAS NO QUESTIONS (ON RACISM)

Sethics vs. Assorted Assumptions

PANDER OR PERISH?

3 Comments

Another election two years from now, and another preemptive attack ad (this time on radio):

HE VOICE: That BC Conservative Leader sure likes everyone thinking he’s a real Conservative.

SHE VOICE: Who, John Cummins?

HE VOICE: What a joke. I mean he voted for the BC NDP in the last election.

SHE VOICE: So Cummins pretends he’s a conservative, then votes NDP. Just what we need—another unprincipled politician.

HE VOICE: That’s John Cummins.

SHE VOICE: If we split the vote, we get stuck with the NDP.

HE VOICE: What a disaster.

SHE VOICE: How can you trust a politician who says one thing and then does another?

HE VOICE: You can’t.

ANNOUNCER: Find out more at Canttrustcummins.ca. A message from the BC Liberal Party.

Yes, in 2013, the province of BC is scheduled to select its next Premier. In the last several elections, the choice has been predominantly between the incumbent right of centre Liberals and the left side NDPs, but the upcoming election promises a new mouth to feed votes, the BC Conservatives on the further right wing. They won’t win, but—as the above advertisement suggests—it’s possible that they’ll acquire sufficient starboard votes that the port-side NDP will regain power, even if a higher percentage of voters are still to the right of them.

The Liberals have lost enough popularity over the years (since the fast ferry scandal that ejected the NDPs in 2001) that they may lose their spot, anyway, but the fear of losing simply because the right-wing votes are divided has provoked them to attack their lesser rival, the Conservatives, well in advance of the election:

SHE VOICE: That John Cummins.

HE VOICE: Leader of the BC Conservatives?

SHE VOICE: Yeah, he opposed Christy’s minimum wage increase, but takes a $100, 000 pension from taxpayers.

HE VOICE: Another unprincipled politician.

SHE VOICE: He says he quote “owes it to his offspring.”

HE VOICE: His offspring, what about the rest us?

SHE VOICE: Well, we aren’t good enough for a raise.

HE VOICE: So he lives off federal tax dollars…

SHE VOICE: While running in provincial politics for the BCC. How can you trust a politician like John Cummins?

HE VOICE: You can’t.

ANNOUNCER: Find out more at Canttrustcummins.ca. A message from the BC Liberal Party.

These painful advertisements astutely follow the model successfully demonstrated by the National Conservatives (well in advance of the last Federal election) whereby they undermined the character of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff via a series of inflammatory ads that focussed on out-of-context character notes as opposed to the substance of his political argument. Pundits everywhere recoil at this style of presentation as an example of anti-intellectual advertising that caters to the worst of human biases. Even BC Liberal apologist, Alise Mills, was said she was disappointed by the ad (admitting on her weekly CKNW debate with NDP apologist, David Schreck, that it contained the same crimes against respectful discourse that she had criticized in the Premier-attacking “Christy Crunch” ads by the NDP).

Indeed, it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t say that they disdain this phony conversation style ad, flavoured with oversimplified arguments that condescendingly try to appeal to our common hearts. The argument that, because Cummins receives a powerful pension, he’s “an unprincipled politician” is particularly galling. It’s a fact of our society that politicians receive generous compensation compared to the average citizen (and so perhaps they should, given that they’re vital to our democracy, and yet will only escape character assassination if they die young). But a handsome pension does not obligate them to any particular stance on minimum wage. One could easily argue that both a lower minimum wage is best for the province (perhaps because it’s best for business and so good for the economy) while a high politician wage is also best (perhaps because it attracts the best candidates to these indispensable posts). If a politician must apply every privilege they receive to every constituent, then I look forward to the ensuing ads:

SHE VOICE: That Christy Clark.

HE VOICE: Who, the Premier?

SHE VOICE: She makes more money in a week than my 16 year-old son does in a year.

HE VOICE: So while she’s hobnobbing with her powerful BCL friends…

SHE VOICE: He’s stuck at McDonald’s.

HE VOICE: Another unprincipled politician.

SHE VOICE: I guess my son’s not good enough to eat at the same table as her.

HE VOICE: How can you trust a politician that claims to care about families, but takes money away from children?

SHE VOICE: You can’t.

ANNOUNCER: Find out more at Christyhateschildren.ca. A message from the One Society, One Salary Party of BC.

And yet, as I cringe at these ads, I wonder if it’s fair to argue that the BC Liberals shouldn’t put them out. Even though some pundits suggest that they’re increasing Cummins’ name recognition, the federal version of them worked beautifully against Michael Ignatieff even though they were equally vile. So is it wrong, then, to play irrational politics if it gives you the best chance of winning (especially if you genuinely believe you’ll do more good than your rival when elected)?

I’m not sure, but if we don’t want politicians to play such games (such as the BC NDP piling onto the popular but—most economists seem to agree—ill-informed hatred of the HST), then we need to find a way to demonstrate that we’d rather be spoken to like intelligent adults. This, I admit, is a fantastical hope, and I have no idea how it would be implemented, but I think it’s up to us to show the politicians we want such respect and will actually respond to it.

Michael Ignatieff was allegedly an intellectual (a former Harvard professor, in fact), but he didn’t present his ideas like one, probably because he was terrified to alienate an electorate who does not seem to trust academics. The late Federal NDP leader Jack Layton had a PhD, too, but he never emphasized it, not because he was modest, but I suspect because he wanted to appear like one of us—another leader with whom we could share a beer.

Attack ads are utilized because they work. Whenever a party that I’ve voted for uses one, I am embarrassed. However, in the political world, the motto seems to be “pander or perish.” Most parties do it to some degree and so shouldn’t the blame, at least in part, be placed on the society that swarms to it?