Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Avatar v. The Hurt Locker

Monday, March 8th, 2010

I would not be surprised to see the experiment of an expanded list of Best Picture Oscar nominees come to a quick end. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a body of about 6000 industry professionals that awards the famous statuettes, doubled the number of Best Picture nominees to 10 this year while leaving all other categories unchanged. The motivation, ironically, was to include blockbuster movies that are frequently pushed aside by those pesky unknown independent and low-budget movies the Academy voters tend to favor. Of course, the Academy was not really worried about blockbuster movies not getting enough attention. Their concern was declining ratings for the annual awards broadcast. Viewers are understandably less excited about awards going to movies they have never heard of, let alone seen. By nominating 10 movies for Best Picture the Academy reasoned that popular movies that would otherwise be snubbed by the hoity-toity Oscars would be included in the celebration and draw more people to watch the awards show. This seems to have worked: this year’s show was the most-watched Oscar-cast since 2005.

The extended list of nominees did include three popular movies that would otherwise have been overlooked: Up, The Blind Side, and District 9. Avatar, the all-time blockbuster, was nominated, but it would have been a lock to be nominated even in the original 5-picture format. And Up, an animated movie, was nominated for best animated picture, so its inclusion in the Best Picture nominee list did not really expand things. Of the remaining 6 Best Picture nominees, Inglourious Basterds cracked the $100 million mark, and Up in the Air had a respectable $83 million.

But Avatar is the elephant in the room. Visually groundbreaking and tremendous fun to watch, Avatar was the movie of 2009. While The Hurt Locker is a great movie, Avatar is a landmark movie and one that, like The Wizard of Oz, will be talked about for years, likely decades to come. By not giving Avatar the Best Picture Oscar, the Academy risks making itself seem even more elitist and disconnected from moviegoers. While we’ll never know, I believe that had their been only 5 nominees, as in years past, Avatar would have won. The reason is that to accommodate the expanded list of nominees, the Academy changed the voting procedure for Best Picture. Rather than voters simply selecting the one movie they would like to win, for Best Picture they ranked movies from 1 to 10. If less than 50% of the voters ranked any one movie at the top, the lowest ranking movie is eliminated, and the 2nd ranked movie on all the ballots that had the eliminated movie ranked first would then get tallied in a second round of voting. The process of eliminating from the bottom up continues until one movie is the top selection of more than 50% of the ballots.

The reason this might have tilted things away from Avatar is that even if a plurality of voters chose Avatar to win Best Picture (the only requirement necessary in years past), if a significant fraction of the other voters placed Avatar far down the list while The Hurt Locker ranked at number 2 or near the top of almost everyone’s list, The Hurt Locker would eventually come out on top. I think voters that did not want Avatar to win, really didn’t want it to win and so could effectively cast an anti-Avatar vote by ranking it low on their list. Meanwhile, nobody who saw The Hurt Locker would be actively against it winning. It’s a great, tense movie, and certainly in no way is it undeserving of winning Best Picture. Avatar, on the other hand, while in some ways a cliche, is, it’s fair to say, a film for the ages. The Academy is certainly not against giving Best Picture awards to big blockbusters. See Titanic (deserving), and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (not so much). My guess: Avatar had a plurality of first-place votes on the first round of ballot-counting as well as a significant number of low-ranking votes from the stereotypical grumpy Academy member who was resentful of its success, irritated by its corny message, or determined to reward the excellent lesser known movies on the ballot. Avatar, after all, already has its billions, the thinking might have gone. Meanwhile, The Hurt Locker probably ranked in the top three on almost every ballot. So this year’s Best Picture winner might have been more of a consensus winner, while in years past a movie could theoretically have won with merely 20% plus 1 vote.

The Great Faith Debate

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Tonight, “new atheist” Christopher Hitchens and “new apologist” Dinesh D’Souza engaged in a debate on religion at the UCF arena. According to the moderator, it was the largest crowd for such a debate to date. (I would guess about 4000-5000 people were there.) On points, D’Souza out-debated Hitchens who appeared sweaty, frequently spoke so low and rapidly to be incomprehensible, and did not take advantage of many easy rebuttals of D’Souza’s arguments. D’Souza spoke clearly and with more conviction. While his arguments were mostly tired and not convincing of anything in particular, they enthralled the majority of the audience.

The questions the debaters were supposed to address were: “What about God?”, “What about Christianity and other religions?”, and “What about science and reason?” The best point D’Souza made, in my opinion, was that Christianity is qualitatively different than other religions because it involves the descent of God to the level of man in the form of Jesus, where other religions involve the aspiration of humans to ascend to the level of God. Hitchens ignored this, probably because it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Christianity makes any sense, and also does nothing to refute Hitchens’ argument that Christianity, like other religions, imposes odious rules on behavior (for example, we cannot choose who we love, but must love Jesus (and our neighbor) or face damnation). Another of Hitchens’ arguments on the evils of Christianity is that, like other religions, it is invoked as an excuse for a long litany of horrible deeds. I think my principle difference with Hitchens is that I think for the most part, people do evil because they are evil, not because they are religious. Frequently religion is a handy tool for evil-doers, but it is not a prerequisite.

D’Souza’s most dramatic proclamations were repeated claims that the universe, like the play Hamlet, has a plot and a design and therefore must have an author. Hitchens, in my view, failed to call him on this, going on a tangent about how one determines the identity of the author rather than refuting the ridiculous claim that the universe has a plot and a design. D’Souza also repeatedly stated that the universe is “fine-tuned” for the existence of humans, implying that there is not only a creator, but that the creator cares about our existence. Hitchens also let these easily rebutted claims go unchallenged. The fine-tuning D’Souza refers to is that if the fundamental constants of the universe are changed by small amounts, things like stars would not be possible. Any universe that ever existed or exists with those different constants therefore could not have any beings in it remarking that there must not be a creator because if there were it would not have made a universe with such lame fundamental constants. We only can exist in a universe like the one we do exist in. Astronomers have now detected hundreds of planets in our corner of the galaxy, beyond the handful in our only solar system. Of these, only one apparently is “fine-tuned” to allow life to exist. D’Souza would apparently conclude God must exist to create such a fine-tuned planet. But we can’t exist on any of the other planets. Out of hundreds (known so far), all planets but one are not fine-tuned for life. If a designer fine-tuned the universe for homo sapiens, it was a remarkably inefficient job: our little planet is a vanishingly small fraction of a universe that is, for the most part, completely inhospitable and also beyond our reach. Our primitive understanding of cosmology does not preclude (and in fact supports) an analogous situation for the universe: many may exist, and we inhabit one in which it is possible for life to exist.

But the most remarkable unchallenged argument of D’Souza was his supposed rebuttal of the “God of the gaps” argument (one not raised by Hitchens). To paraphrase D’Souza, atheists and scientists have unscientifically dismissed various discrepancies in the predictions of scientific theories, expecting them to be resolved by minor improvements in the theories. Two specific examples he gave were the failure of the Ptolemaic model of the motion of planets to accurately predict their positions, and the failure of Newtonian dynamics to explain the precession of Mercury’s orbit. In both cases, he stated with great import, a revolutionary change in the relevant scientific theories was needed to explain the discrepancies, not a small incremental change. So - the scientific method successfully explained theses discrepancies. New theories were developed that worked better than the previous ones. That’s how science is supposed to work. How exactly is a physics-based, scientific explanation for the universe and the triumph of the evidence-based scientific method supposed to be refuting a rational model of the world and supporting a faith-based one?

An Imagined Conversation with a Moon Conspiracist

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

With the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 I have heard more than I care about the delusional segment of the public that insists we did not go to the Moon. Only for my peace of mind, I have imagined a conversation with a Moon landing conspiracist where I ask him if he believes people have been to Antarctica. (My satisfaction in this imaginary conversation depends on him saying “yes,” but the beauty of me imagining this conversation is that I do, in fact, get to decide what the other person says.) So he says “Yes, of course!” to which I reply, “Why?”. Well, you can imagine the responses to this as well as I can, because presumably you also believe people have been to Antarctica, and unless you have personally been there yourself (and I know some of you have), all your reasons for believing people have been to Antarctica are the same as the reasons for believing people have been to the Moon: we have seen pictures of people there; we have talked to people who have been there; we have seen things that were brought back from there; we have seen the machines that take people there. Qualitatively, (unless, again, you have been there yourself), there is no difference in the evidence for people going to the Moon and the evidence for people going to Antarctica. My imaginary debater can then only fall back on the idea that going to the Moon is implausibly hard, to which I wonder if he believes that I can store thousands of books, pictures, songs, and movies on a device the size of a matchbook and why he thinks that is easier that sending a rocket to the Moon. In my imagination, my foe is crushed on the withering force of my logic. In reality, of course, there is just no arguing with some people.

John Lennon and Jesus

Sunday, November 23rd, 2008

I’ve always been mystified by the outrage provoked by John Lennon’s infamous statement that the Beatles would outdraw Jesus. Now the Vatican has forgiven the statement, though it seems clear that Lennon’s statement was never a comment about Jesus or religion, but about pop culture. It is also clear that it was a hyperbole, meant to pick the most extreme example possible to express his amazement at how fanatical Beatles fans were in the mid-60’s.

Jason Jones in Wasilla

Monday, October 27th, 2008

This has to be seen to be believed:

Ethical Treatment of Animals

Thursday, June 26th, 2008

Humans have made significant progress in applying basic concepts of human rights to all people (though there is still much that needs to be done in guaranteeing rights for women in much of the world). The ethical treatment of animals still has a long way to go, but there are many groups that have managed to improve the living conditions of farm animals. Now a landmark decision may be near in Spain that grants our closest animal relatives the right to life, liberty, and, if not the pursuit of happiness, at least the right not to be tortured. That puts them ahead of humans deemed by our administration to be enemy combatants.

Evolution in Florida

Friday, February 22nd, 2008

Florida’s State Board of Education voted (4-3!) this week to include evolution (for the first time!) in the science curriculum of public schools. (Previously the concepts of evolution were taught in Florida, but the curriculum referred only to things such as “change over time”. My own recollecton of Honors Biology in a Florida High School are that our class had a debate on the topic of evolution. I was one of three or four on the side arguing in support of evolution, and the opposing group argued for Biblical creation. I do not recall any instruction on the matter in class at all.) The new standards were apparently headed for defeat until a so-called compromise was reached by inserting the words “the scientific theory of” before the word “evolution”. This concisely illustrates the anti-evolution advocates’ lack of understanding not only of evolution but also of what “scientific theory” means.

American Gangster

Sunday, December 9th, 2007

Starting as a somewhat scattered and murky movie tracking the rise of Harlem drug boss Frank Lucas, American Gangster hits its stride halfway through once cop Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is given a special task force to tackle the rampant New York drug problem. The story of Roberts’ difficulties in his private life, involving a lengthy divorce proceeding and his night law-school studies, is more distracting than anything else. It also makes Crowe’s decision to portray Roberts with an awkward duck-like stride and nervous habits jar with the depiction of his character as a rampant womanizer. Denzel Washington brings Lucas to life as a chilling but somehow like-able killer that you nevertheless really want to see brought down. Stephen Zaillian’s screenplay was inspired by this New York Magazine article about Lucas. I recommend seeing the movie before reading the article, as I did. The latter half of the movie, especially, is gripping story-telling. It is fascinating to see the scale of the dope operation that Lucas ran in Harlem and to learn that his was but one of many. I found myself simultaneously hoping desperately for him to be captured, but also for him to come out of it all okay somehow.

There is more interesting information on Lucas here that provides a bit more dose of reality to some of Lucas’s claims as well as the dramatic depictions of events in the movie.

UFOs and the Burden of Proof

Friday, November 16th, 2007

Yesterday I attended a short speech given by former Apollo astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell at the University of Central Florida. Mitchell presented a scholarship to a UCF Engineering student and then gave a brief description of his career as an astronaut culminating in two 5-hour sojourns on the lunar surface as part of the Apollo 14 mission. Mitchell, with a Sc.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Aeronautics and Astronautics, then expressed his concerns and hopes for the future of humanity: concerns that we will destroy ourselves as our technological capabilities advance faster than our sensibilities, and hopes that we will survive these dangers to continue exploration of the cosmos. They are good and noble sentiments, and I appreciate him expressing them and pointing out that when the Earth is viewed from afar, as only he and a handful of other men have done, national boundaries evaporate and the precarious and unique status of the Earth as home to all life becomes painfully clear.

In response to questions, Dr. Mitchell expressed that aliens have visited the Earth, and while he wasn’t explicit, implied that they are living among us and concealed from us by a vast cover-up. He also affirmed that he had successfully communicated through ESP while on the surface of the Moon and that quantum mechanics now explained how this could happen. And this brings me to the criticism from “Object Reporter” on my post a couple of days ago in which I expressed dismay in a new call for government-funded research into UFOs. Object Reporter says I am uninformed on the topic of UFOs and accuses me of spouting nonsense. I stand by my statement that aliens are the least probable explanation for UFO sightings. While it is physically possible for aliens from another planet to visit Earth, there is no compelling evidence that that has ever happened. And compelling evidence is required for such an extraordinary claim. It is an extraordinary claim because the amount of energy needed for interstellar travel is huge, and a visit to the Earth by aliens would represent a huge investment of resources. For them to make this investment and then hide, but hide poorly, does not make sense. They hide poorly because somehow, while they escape detection by the vast network of aircraft and spacecraft tracking systems as well as the vast majority of the population including people like me who would be thrilled to meet them, they apparently occasionally make themselves plainly visible to some casual observers. Other explanations are more likely because in the vast majority of UFO sightings, ordinary terrestrial explanations for those sightings have already been demonstrated to be the case. If one hundred UFO sightings are demonstrated to be due to weather balloons, military aircraft, meteors, ball lightning, camera flares and other mundane explanations, then it’s likely something like that is the explanation for the one hundred and first. The claim of evidence for extraterrestrials carries the burden of proof. I, happily, do not have the burden to debunk each UFO sighting, anymore than if I claim that there is an underground civilization on the Moon someone else has the burden to prove me wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would be thrilled by the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence, but so far there is no evidence, and the most likely evidence we’ll get would be an extraterrestrial radio signal.

The idea of a vast cover-up is also extraordinary. Forget for the moment that it is difficult to imagine a motive for a cover-up. The power of people in government is always enhanced by engendering fear in the populace, and fear is presumably one consequence of discovering aliens. NASA has as its mission to look for life elsewhere in the universe, and nothing would boost its budget more than the discovery of extraterrestrial life, even microbial in form. In short, lots of people in government have a self-interest in seeing extraterrestrial life proven, not hidden. But the biggest problem I see with the cover-up idea is how consistently miserable people are at keeping secrets. The most powerful person on the planet, the President of the United States, could not even keep a hotel break-in secret or (in a different incarnation) oral sex. The idea that, for decades, hundreds or thousands of people in the military and government could hide the existence of alien visitors defies reason. As for Dr. Mitchell’s demonstration of ESP, James Randi has a million dollars waiting for anyone who can demonstrate ESP or other paranormal phenomena. No one has succeeded, and by the way quantum mechanics, which beautifully describes the behavior of electrons and atoms, offers no explanation for ESP. Finally, in response to the comment on my previous post that “I wasn’t aware that the three doctors, half a dozen ex-military officials and a former state governor were supposed to be taken lightly…”: it is the claims of these people that aliens are on Earth I take lightly because they do not meet the burden of proof. And by the way, George W. Bush is a former state governor, and I take almost everything he says lightly. It’s the only way to avoid depression. Live long and prosper.

Not Again with the UFOs

Tuesday, November 13th, 2007

Seizing on a comment by Dennis Kucinich about a UFO sighting, UFO believers have renewed a call for government resources to be wasted on investigating things that people see in the sky and cannot identify. The Reuters story does not identify the members of the “international panel” other than to say they are former pilots and government officials. 9/11 is invoked (of course) as a reason why somehow now we really have to pay attention to UFOs. I’m not exactly sure how that works: are aliens going to crash into our building? Or will we misinterpret an alien spaceship as hijacked airliner or foreign bomber? Our money would be much better spent educating people about the things that are in the sky rather than investigating the least likely explanation (aliens) of all possible explanations. The Air Force sums it up concisely: “Since the termination of Project Blue Book, nothing has occurred that would support a resumption of UFO investigations.”