As has been widely reported NYT columnist Charles Blow's son was stopped at gunpoint by a cop on the Yale Campus. Blow, and presumably his son, are African-American.
Now it is being reported in some "conservative" outlets that the cop was also Black. This is being taken to vitiate the impact of the story.
I don't get this. Blacks can be prejudiced no less than whites. And even if the cop was justified in making the stop, it is still an experience that most white students wouldn't have, and remains troubling on that level.
I especially find the lack of empathy troubling here (Nick Kristof has a piece on a similar subject also in today's Times). As in the American Sniper case, everyone is responding to these things based on their political impact. The human tragedy in both cases is almost totally lost. This bodes poorly for dialogue and the very existence of civil society. You can't improve things if you can't listen, even if it's people you don't like.
People who talk about "civility" ought to think of this aspect, as well.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
american sniper
So I saw commercial movies two days in a row, something that will almost certainly never happen again in my life. This time it was "American Sniper," the megahit directed by Clint Eastwood about Chris Kyle, the highly decorated Iraq veteran who was killed by another veteran, whom he was trying to help, a couple of years ago.
Couple of comments:
1. Quality.--I thought it was very good, a much better movie than "Selma," although lacking equivalent moral inspiration. This may have been intentional, see below. Bradley Cooper was absolutely astounding--I had trouble telling which was the real guy (at the end) and which the actor.
2. Message.--A lot of people saw this movie as celebrating war generally and (specifically) the war in Iraq. I wonder if they say the same movie that I did. What I saw was a guy, courageous but wholly naive, thrown into a situation he knew nothing about, brutalized beyond belief, then (with others like him) more or less abandoned when he came home. And the movie is clear that his redemption, so to speak, comes when he stops trying to save Americans by killing Iraqis and starts trying to save Americans by, well, saving Americans, with this charitable and rehabilitation work. If this was a prowar movie, I'd hate to see an antiwar one.
3. Eastwood.--I can't speak for others, but his movies--notably Letters from Iwo Jima (the one from the Japanese viewpoint) and this one--affected me more than any other "antiwar" films. It may be that people want an anti-Bush movie rather than an anti-war movie. But I think it's much more effective this way. You can hate Bush and still want more wars: all you have to do is say, the next President (Obama, Clinton, maybe another Bush) is more honest so this time it's OK. Eastwood's message is universal.
It was interesting to see this and Selma on successive days. Selma was a somewhat wooden movie with a deep emotional core. American Sniper was a very powerful movie with a somewhat hollow or empty core. But I think that was Eastwood's point: this guy was incredibly heroic, but what exactly was he fighting for? The irony is that Selma, which is supposed to be a "critical" film, finishes up in an almost celebratory mode. American Sniper, supposed to be "conservative," left me deeply disturbed.
P.S. To give you an idea of the impact of this movie, if you Google "American," it comes up third after American Airlines and American Eagle (really the same thing). If you try "Chris Kyle," it comes up by the time you reach "Ch." That can't be all people who want to redeem George Bush.
Couple of comments:
1. Quality.--I thought it was very good, a much better movie than "Selma," although lacking equivalent moral inspiration. This may have been intentional, see below. Bradley Cooper was absolutely astounding--I had trouble telling which was the real guy (at the end) and which the actor.
2. Message.--A lot of people saw this movie as celebrating war generally and (specifically) the war in Iraq. I wonder if they say the same movie that I did. What I saw was a guy, courageous but wholly naive, thrown into a situation he knew nothing about, brutalized beyond belief, then (with others like him) more or less abandoned when he came home. And the movie is clear that his redemption, so to speak, comes when he stops trying to save Americans by killing Iraqis and starts trying to save Americans by, well, saving Americans, with this charitable and rehabilitation work. If this was a prowar movie, I'd hate to see an antiwar one.
3. Eastwood.--I can't speak for others, but his movies--notably Letters from Iwo Jima (the one from the Japanese viewpoint) and this one--affected me more than any other "antiwar" films. It may be that people want an anti-Bush movie rather than an anti-war movie. But I think it's much more effective this way. You can hate Bush and still want more wars: all you have to do is say, the next President (Obama, Clinton, maybe another Bush) is more honest so this time it's OK. Eastwood's message is universal.
It was interesting to see this and Selma on successive days. Selma was a somewhat wooden movie with a deep emotional core. American Sniper was a very powerful movie with a somewhat hollow or empty core. But I think that was Eastwood's point: this guy was incredibly heroic, but what exactly was he fighting for? The irony is that Selma, which is supposed to be a "critical" film, finishes up in an almost celebratory mode. American Sniper, supposed to be "conservative," left me deeply disturbed.
P.S. To give you an idea of the impact of this movie, if you Google "American," it comes up third after American Airlines and American Eagle (really the same thing). If you try "Chris Kyle," it comes up by the time you reach "Ch." That can't be all people who want to redeem George Bush.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Selma
I saw it this afternoon with perhaps 10 other people in the theater--not bad for 1:00 pm on a Tuesday in an industrial park.
Some random reactions:
1. I thought the movie was a little wooden, but it got points for sticking to the story (more or less) and avoiding the feelgood, we-can-make-even-the-Holocaust-into-a-happy-story feel. The acting was generally good, and it brought in a lot of people, like Diane Nash and Viola Luzzo, who had not obvious star appeal. It was also a good decision to keep a narrow focus on Selma rather than trying to tell the whole Civil Rights story.
2. I wasn't as bothered by the LBJ characterization as some others. The details may be inaccurate, but the overall idea--that Johnson was trying to play both ends off against the middle, and had to be pushed by the civil rights movement into moving faster than he otherwise would have--is more or less true. The actor didn't look much like Johnson, but that's probably just as well.
3. Speaking of actors--the guy who played Andrew Young must have been either Andrew Young or his grandson. There was a scene with about a half dozen people and you could tell it was him in about a second. I didn't recognize Opra Winfrey until the credits, so I guess that's good acting, too.
Overall you would probably be better off seeing the "Eyes on the Prize" series than this movie, but you'd also be better off watching Shoah than Schindler's List, and so forth. The fact is that about a zillion times more people watch Hollywood movies than historical documentaries. So a movie like this does more good than harm, and that's worth celebrating.
Note: I'm writing a book on law, history and memory, so no snide comments about "how come you get to to a movie on a weekday afternoon." I'm even planning to deduct it!
Some random reactions:
1. I thought the movie was a little wooden, but it got points for sticking to the story (more or less) and avoiding the feelgood, we-can-make-even-the-Holocaust-into-a-happy-story feel. The acting was generally good, and it brought in a lot of people, like Diane Nash and Viola Luzzo, who had not obvious star appeal. It was also a good decision to keep a narrow focus on Selma rather than trying to tell the whole Civil Rights story.
2. I wasn't as bothered by the LBJ characterization as some others. The details may be inaccurate, but the overall idea--that Johnson was trying to play both ends off against the middle, and had to be pushed by the civil rights movement into moving faster than he otherwise would have--is more or less true. The actor didn't look much like Johnson, but that's probably just as well.
3. Speaking of actors--the guy who played Andrew Young must have been either Andrew Young or his grandson. There was a scene with about a half dozen people and you could tell it was him in about a second. I didn't recognize Opra Winfrey until the credits, so I guess that's good acting, too.
Overall you would probably be better off seeing the "Eyes on the Prize" series than this movie, but you'd also be better off watching Shoah than Schindler's List, and so forth. The fact is that about a zillion times more people watch Hollywood movies than historical documentaries. So a movie like this does more good than harm, and that's worth celebrating.
Note: I'm writing a book on law, history and memory, so no snide comments about "how come you get to to a movie on a weekday afternoon." I'm even planning to deduct it!
Sunday, January 18, 2015
And now that the game is over . . .
. . . a great win for Seattle, but also a good example of how people make questionable decisions based on recent experience.
In retrospect it's pretty clear that a 12-point lead, on the road, against an explosive team is not really all that much. So the Packers should never have been as conservative as they were on their last couple of possessions. But Seattle had had zero offense--literally, zero--to that point and it seemed like the right thing to everyone, myself included. It just didn't turn out that way.
I've always been skeptical of the Moneyball concept, that is, the idea that statistics or computer-driven data should take the place of common sense decisions. Maybe this is one time they should have. But of course, a computer would never have told Russell Wilson to throw a 40- or 50-yard pass on the game's last play, which is exactly what he did. And won the game.
Congratulations Seahawks!
In retrospect it's pretty clear that a 12-point lead, on the road, against an explosive team is not really all that much. So the Packers should never have been as conservative as they were on their last couple of possessions. But Seattle had had zero offense--literally, zero--to that point and it seemed like the right thing to everyone, myself included. It just didn't turn out that way.
I've always been skeptical of the Moneyball concept, that is, the idea that statistics or computer-driven data should take the place of common sense decisions. Maybe this is one time they should have. But of course, a computer would never have told Russell Wilson to throw a 40- or 50-yard pass on the game's last play, which is exactly what he did. And won the game.
Congratulations Seahawks!
Waiting for The Game to start . . .
A perfect? Sunday: working on my novel, working on my mother's taxes, and getting ready to watch the NFC Championship Game. Don't know what will happen, but let me say in advance: I LOVE RICHARD SHERMAN. Imagine trying to stay with someone who has 9.5 speed and knows exactly where he's going, and you don't. Imagine also trying to time your leap when you don't know when or even if the ball is coming. And imagine doing that, not one time, but every play for 60 minutes, with almost flawless results. If I could do that, I would mouth off to the media now and then, too. Come to think of it, I CAN'T do that, and I mouth off anyway. So which of us is a better person? Don't even think about answering. See you after the game.
Friday, January 2, 2015
Thoughts on the College Playoffs
I fell asleep in the third quarter of Ohio State-Alabama, but that won't stop me from commenting:
1. The playoff has clearly been vindicated. Under the BCS rules, Alabama would have played Oregon or (more likely) Florida State with OSU completely out of it. Plainly, these wouldn't have been the best teams.
2. It's equally clear that the SEC has been overrated: most likely, a combination of inertia and the conference publicity machine fed by TV networks. Not only did Alabama lose, but Mississippi was creamed by TCU and the other SEC teams didn't overimpress, either. That's another reason why you need a playoff.
3. Although four teams are better than two, I think it's an unsustainable number. The exclusion of TCU, which I think would have clocked Florida State and maybe Alabama as well, is a particular case in point. I think we will see eight teams and possibly more soon enough.
BTW, while I still think Rutgers made a mistake joining the Big 10, the decision looks a little better now than before. They won their own bowl game, and the big conference powers (Ohio State, Michigan State, etc.) did pretty well, also. The Big 10 "brand"--a sort of midway between the SEC and the Ivy League, good sports and good enough academics--thus looks better now than it did a few months ago. I still think that big time college sports are headed for a fall and it would be better to distance one's self while you still can. But if professors really mattered, they'd be football coaches.
1. The playoff has clearly been vindicated. Under the BCS rules, Alabama would have played Oregon or (more likely) Florida State with OSU completely out of it. Plainly, these wouldn't have been the best teams.
2. It's equally clear that the SEC has been overrated: most likely, a combination of inertia and the conference publicity machine fed by TV networks. Not only did Alabama lose, but Mississippi was creamed by TCU and the other SEC teams didn't overimpress, either. That's another reason why you need a playoff.
3. Although four teams are better than two, I think it's an unsustainable number. The exclusion of TCU, which I think would have clocked Florida State and maybe Alabama as well, is a particular case in point. I think we will see eight teams and possibly more soon enough.
BTW, while I still think Rutgers made a mistake joining the Big 10, the decision looks a little better now than before. They won their own bowl game, and the big conference powers (Ohio State, Michigan State, etc.) did pretty well, also. The Big 10 "brand"--a sort of midway between the SEC and the Ivy League, good sports and good enough academics--thus looks better now than it did a few months ago. I still think that big time college sports are headed for a fall and it would be better to distance one's self while you still can. But if professors really mattered, they'd be football coaches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)