Scott Adams clearly explains how to know when someone, it could be yourself or another person, is experiencing cognitive dissonance. When a new fact or phenomenon presents itself and it goes against a fundamental belief, one you don’t want to question or part with, your mind uses all kinds of tricks to deflect it so you can remain in your comfort zone.
I recently discovered Jordan Peterson’s videos through Scott Adams of Dilbert fame. I first saw Peterson’s interview with the British broadcaster where he eludes her attempt to make him seem like an offensive, non-PC, heartless villain. I’m enjoying learning more from this gentleman and scholar. (Yeah, I’ve noticed the dearth of gentlemen and scholars, too.)
What he says is straightforward, commonsense, and I think most people I know follow his advice already because they had parents who provided such wisdom. Yet I do know that we all have blindspots and that blame is a tempting easy-out. The video is a healthy reminder and we all need those from time to time.
Below is a sample of the videos Peterson has made himself. These videos are getting a lot of attention and call for more responsible, mature behavior from all of us. No more Peter Pan Complex.
Time magazine made a good choice, I think, in naming the Silence Breakers, i.e. the people who’ve come forward to expose sexual harassment. We certainly need to clean up our society. After reading about Harry Weinstein, Louie C.K., Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Al Franken and more it’s clear that the entertainment and government need to do a clean sweep. This is an issue that’s time has come. Before sexual harassment could just be stuck in a “He said/She said” cycle.
Now since anyone can have a recorder in their pocket and fools will send unseemly messages or have photos taken, getting evidence, hard cold evidence, is possible. And when it’s shared, justice occurs.
I’ve been shocked by the revelations and with each on hoped that it wasn’t true. (Well, not with Harvey Weinstein because he was nothing to me. I didn’t get the news from him or think of him at all.)
I would expect that this is an issue all sensible people can agree on. Yet, I was surprised when I read the Variety article on Matt Lauer, not just by his licentious actions, but by his fans who pledged their loyalty to Lauer and encouraged him to forget about his NBC dismissal and to start a podcast.
(Huh? No one makes $25 million a year on a podcast and Matt didn’t gain fame by his own ideas or stories. He interviewed others. Who’s now going to agree to be interviewed on Matt’s podcast? Other than Charlie Rose and Harvey Weinstein. Lauer is toxic by his own actions.)
Yesterday, I heeded a recommendation to read the New York Times article on the Weinstein Complicity Machine. Wow! This fiend convinced people to cover for him by paying a gossip columnist to find dirt on people and then blackmailing them should they think of revealing Weinstein’s deeds, by threatening to boycott talent agencies if they supported the actresses that he’d attacked or harassed. It’s sickening, but it’s something that needs to be read. I do think Harvey Weinstein belongs behind bars.
I think we really are united to clean up society and show these powerful people that they can’t harass, intimidate and hurt other people. I feel sorry for the spouses and children of these men now that the whole world knows about this heinous, habitual actions. My hope is that all these revelations and the attention they’re getting
If you can’t get yourself to Asia to live the fabulous life of, say an English teacher, just check out one of the over 1000 videos Simon and Martina have made in which they share their discoveries of their old home Korea and their new home Tokyo.
Warning! After watching this I wanted to buy a yukata.
After watching this you’ll want to eat Japanese ice cream. Hard to come by in most places, but a lot cheaper than a yukata.
Here’s some good advice on the protocol of Korean spas, which are worth a visit if you’re in Korea.
Written by David Kamp, The Film Snob’s Dictionary is a fun little reference book with a tongue-in-cheek tone that can help readers learn to b.s. their way through an erudite conversation on film or just help readers learn a little more about filmmakers and terms related to film.
Here are a few entries, chosen randomly, to give you a taste of the book:
Film Threat. Surprisingly buoyant, unsmug Web ‘zine (originally a print magazine) devoted to independent film. Where snobs go to read fulsome appreciations of Sam Raimi and interviews of such Queens of the B’s as Debbie Rochon and Tina Krause. (N.B. The website was bought and taken offline so where will we read these articles about people I never heard of?)
Mankiewicz, Herman. Gruff, whiskey-soaked, cigar chomping, old-school screenwriter par excellence (1807-1953)who bolted from his comfy perch at the Algonquin Round Table to write titles for silent films and screenplays for talkies, famously summoning his friend Ven Hecht west with te line “Millions are to be grabbed out here and your only competition are idiots.” A dab hand at many genres–he wrote or cowrote Dinner at Eight, the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup and The Pride of the Yankees . . . .
Third Row, The. The only appropriate place for a true cinephile to sit, as per the dictum of the late snob overlord and belle-lettrist Susan Sontag. Though the third row is said to provide the ideal perch from which to comfortably take in the MISE-EN-SCENE while unobstructed by fellow audience members, New York’s Anthology Film Archives, in 1970, catered to the socio-pathology of Film Snobs by opening its Invisible Cinema . . . .
Based on Michael Lewis’ book, starring Steve Carell, Brad Pitt, Christian Bale and Ryan Gosling, The Big Short tells the story of the man who figured out the U.S. housing market was a house of cards and the others who learned about it and bet (invested) the market would collapse. It’s an interesting story though now anyone who follows the news knows what happened and why.
I liked the main narrative, but found the montages ineffective. These were interspersed showed the era through random images shot with a shaky hand, which was no doubt imagined to be “cool.” The director aimed to be artsy with these and I think failed. Just tell us the story in as compelling a way as possible.
The story’s sort of a cat and mouse plot, with three teams of investors tracking the source of the financial crisis and even though they bet big, I found myself rooting for them. I wonder whether generations hence would. The film does bring up the question of their hypocrisy, which is a fair question and needed to be asked.
Although I doubt the filmmakers realized that while their film indicts the greedy on Wall Street, it implicitly indicts all swaggering, men who lack a code of honor or morality. What we see is a male-dominated field with no true oversight who spend way too much time joking around, teasing each other. The film, probably made by a boys’ club, puts strippers or “bathing beauties” in a scene whenever they could. I left the theater angry that only one man went to jail for causing the crisis, that we could still have a similar crisis as we don’t have new regulations that can prevent it, and that Hollywood is yet another male-dominated field that doesn’t serve society as it could.
I could have done without the gratuitous strippers and a clearer narrative, but I’d still say it’s worth seeing, though perhaps it’s better to read the book.
I’ve watched this engrossing, enlightening YouTube video by Tony Zhou of Every Frame a Painting, three times. He makes it clear how much more absorbing a Kurosawa film is than your average Hollywood film often due to the masterful use of movement.
A fast-paced concise overview of Hong Kong’s protests.
After watching Harold Lloyd in Safety Last, I became curious about what the newspapers of the day said about him. So I went to my library’s website and searched for him and the years 1922 – 1923 (when this film was made and was released in the Chicago Tribune archives.
I was struck by the tone of the paper – very casual. The movie Gal Friday seem realistic. One article I found was “The Real Inside Dope on the Movie Stars: Yes, Hard Knocks Made Harold Lloyd What He Is Today.” I chuckle at the “The Read Inside Dope” phrase. The article begins:
Harold Lloyd is one of those intrepid, joyous young persons who would attempt to dig a transcontinental canal with his fingernails if he thought the effort would benefit anybody. His character has been battered into shape by hard knocks — into such shape as he is spoken of as “the finest chap in Hollywood.”
The article goes on to explain how he isn’t conceited like Conway Tearle, whoever he was, nor a “rounder.” He exemplified the rags to riches archetype as he started work at age 11 selling popcorn at train stations. Later he sold newspapers, was a waiter, and an amateur boxer. As a teen he had the savvy to enlarge his paper route and then hire other boys to deliver segments of it.
Lloyd’s father owned a restaurant, which failed. The family was in dire straits and Lloyd wanted them to move to New York so he could work on the stage. The father thought Los Angeles and movies would be better. The father decided to flip a coin to determine where they’d go. I can’t imagine flipping a coin for such a decision. The coin decided they’d go to L.A.
Getting a foot in the door was tricky. Lloyd couldn’t get past the guards. He figured out that if he put on his grease paint and walked in with the extras returning from lunch, he could breeze by the “fish-eyed guards.” That trick worked and eventually Lloyd was hired for $3.50/day. Opportunities came his way after than and he rose from extra to star. He got the idea for his signature glasses from a comic he saw. His were specially designed so his expressive eyebrows could be seen.
How did he lose his thumb and index finger, I wondered. Seems he was posing for a still ad. The concept required that he be holding a bomb. It was supposed to be fake but wasn’t. Lloyd had a cigarette at the time and BOOM! He was blinded for 4 days and lost his fingers. If you’ve seen him scaling the walls in Safety Last, you can see he didn’t let that stop him.
Next I read the Chicago Tribune’s review of Safety First. I didn’t realize that movies would be shown at Orchestra Hall, a rather posh site. Then again those were posh-er times than ours and the era of the movie palace. The reviewer, Inez Cunningham admitted to not watching the half hour of the film when Lloyd has to scale the building because she was afraid of such exploits and didn’t see why anyone would like them. I’m wondering how such a stick in the mud got a job as a movie critic in the era of Lloyd, Keaton and Chaplin. Upfront she writes that she doesn’t generally like Lloyd, but admits that on this film he was on his best behavior and left out his usual vulgarities and “blythe.” I suppose I’ll have to watch some of his earlier films to see these vulgarities.
Cunningham, Inez. “Harold Must Be Good: Even Critic Laughs.” Chicago Tribune. 28 May 1923: Print.
Harpman, Julia. “The Real Inside Dope on the Movie Stars: Yes, Hard Knocks Made Harold Lloyd What He Is Today.” Chicago Tribune. 3 Aug. 1924: Print.
On Sunday’s Downton Abbey finale, Rose finally was presented to society in a majestic ceremony with much elegance. I didn’t realize these women were presented to the King and Queen. I expected something like the presentation balls in the States (not that I’d been to one). I’ve read plenty of books and seen many BBC dramas, where this is mentioned, but I’m glad Downton showed us the real spectacle. Both Cora and Lord Grantham were stunning, as was Rose.
Thanks to my friendly, public library reference services, I’ve found out a bit about all this Presentation business:
From ABC-CLIO’s Daily Life through History website
The word debutante comes from the French, debut, which means, “beginning.” The young woman is said to be “coming out” when she is introduced, implying that she is leaving the sheltered world of family life to join a wider society. The tradition of formal presentation of a young woman is rooted in an old English practice where daughters of the aristocracy, who married within a very small circle of elite families, were presented to those of similar social standing when they reached a marriageable age. The practice continues to be associated generally with wealthy and socially prominent families.
In England, presentations took place during “The London Season,” which usually coincided with the sitting of Parliament. Generally, it began after Easter and continued until August when the grouse-hunting season started. Families of wealth and position made a mass migration from their country estates to London for “The Season,” to exchange their quiet life of limited entertainment for days of shopping, riding, and visiting; and evenings of theater, dances, and balls. It was regarded as the chance for young men and women of position to mingle and find a marriageable partner. Marriages were more likely to be made on the basis of social connections, eligibility, and finances than on common interests, compatibility, and love.
Before a young woman could join in the social activities of “The Season,” she had to be presented at court to the queen. This typically took place when she reached 18. Prior to that time the activities of a young woman of social position would be restricted to attendance at school and limited participation in any social functions. While the actual presentation would only take a few minutes, preparations for the event were extensive. There were rigidly prescribed rules for presentation that extended to dress and accessories. Unmarried women were expected to wear a white gown, although soft color over a white background was permitted. The gown had to have a train. The headdress had to have feathers and a tulle veil long enough to reach the train. The number and size of the feathers on a headdress varied with the whim of the monarch. Queen Victoria favored three large feathers.
Continue reading “Downton Abbey: Presentation balls”