Review: Paranorman (2012 movie)

Norman is a kid with no close friends at school, but he does know a lot of dead people. Of course, neither his parents nor his older sister nor his schoolmates believe he can talk with the departed, but it turns out his crazy uncle has the same ability and needs to pass on to Norman an important annual duty involving a witch executed at a Salem-like trial three centuries before. There will be terrible consequences if Norman fails at the task, but he can’t figure out the uncle’s instructions.

It’s a pretty good story with well-realized characters and witty dialog, and the stop-motion animation (from the same people who did Coraline) is beautifully done, with computer-generated special effects. Not a great film, but entertaining.


Link: https://youtu.be/hgwSpajMw3s



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Review: The Dresden Files (novels and television series)

In the late 1990s a writing student named Jim Butcher was urged by his teacher (author Deborah Chester) to set aside the medieval fantasies he’d been working on and try something in a modern setting. As Butcher said in a 2004 interview, “When I finally got tired of arguing with her and decided to write a novel as if I was some kind of formulaic, genre writing drone, just to prove to her how awful it would be, I wrote the first book of the Dresden Files.”

Harry Dresden lives in Chicago and advertises his services as a wizard, though he acts a lot like a private eye. He makes most of his money as a consultant for a branch of the Chicago police department that deals with weird crimes. He’s far from the only wizard around — there are whole organizations of them — but he seems to be the only one who’s out of the closet, and it’s a little vague how the others earn a living. (My guess is real estate and financial management, or possibly software development.)

Storm Front (2000), the first novel, was flawed but showed promise, especially in terms of original ideas and a good sense of fun. The writing and characterization could be better, there are a few too many private eye clichés, and not everything makes sense. But the pacing improves as it goes along, and it builds to a pretty decent climax.

The sequel, Fool Moon (2001), is better written and features yet more original ideas (including a whole taxonomy of werewolves) and better overall pacing.

Grave Peril (2001) takes things in a new direction and introduces a new major character, a sort of modern-day paladin, who helps Harry deal with ghosts, vampires, a demon who attacks in dreams, and a succubus-like being Harry refers to as his godmother. I confess I rather like the fact that the pseudo-Latin incantation to ignite a fire is something like “flickam bicus.” Unfortunately, the novel is such wall-to-wall action that it gets monotonous.

(These are just the first three Harry Dresden novels. At this writing there are a total of 16. For more information see Jim Butcher’s website.)

Besides Dresden himself, recurring characters in these novels include his girlfriend Susan, who works as a reporter for a tabloid; his usual client Murphy, a petite but tough police detective who heads the special investigations unit; and Bob, a skull occupied by a disembodied spirit with a vast knowledge of magical lore and an enthusiasm for romance novels and hot human babes.

In 2007 the SciFi Channel (now SyFy) broadcast a Canadian-produced television series based on the novels but with a number of changes, which continued to develop in the course of production, especially between the movie-length pilot (which was closer to the novels) and the rest of the episodes. Harry’s powers and the tone of the show varied from one week to the next, and the pilot was never broadcast except in a heavily edited version shown a few episodes before the end of the series.

By the end of the run, the show was starting to hit its stride, and the second season might have been quite good, had there been one. As it was, I liked the television Dresden more than I did the one in the novels.

I particularly liked what the TV show did with Bob, changing him from an invisible demon living in a skull, who’s little more than a silly comic sidekick, to the ghost of a long-dead sorcerer doomed to spend eternity tethered to his own skull and played by the overqualified Terrence Mann, a successful Broadway actor and dancer who incidentally got his professional start here in North Carolina and now moonlights as a professor at Western Carolina University.

I mildly recommend the television series except perhaps for the first few episodes. The initial three novels are also fairly readable (especially the second one), if nothing great. It really is a shame there’s no second season of the television show. I really should get around to reading more of the novels.

Update: Bruce Arthurs says in a comment on this post that it’s widely thought the novel series takes off starting with the fourth book, naturally right after I stopped reading them. Bruce is usually right, so I as I said, I really should read more of them.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Here comes the standardized testing monkey

John Oliver once again tackles an important subject with intelligence and humor. This time the target is standardized testing, something kids are apparently now subjected to literally every few weeks. As he points out, in theory it makes a great deal of sense, but in practice there’s far too much wrong with it.

I write, incidentally, as someone with a talent for taking standardized tests. In school I routinely scored in top few percentile in part because I understood how the tests were put together and in part because I expected to do well and therefore didn’t panic as many students do. (Oliver notes that test administrators are instructed on what to do if a student throws up on his or her test booklet.)

I came away from the experience with a real contempt for standardized multiple-choice testing. If my preformed attitude against standardized testing makes you question my judgment of it, let me point out that according to standardized testing I’m very likely smarter and better informed than you are. So there.

This is a longer-than-average clip but it’s worth your time. Also, it has multiple appearances by a dancing monkey.


Link: https://youtu.be/J6lyURyVz7k

A quick postscript: “The Hare and the Pineapple” is a story by the great children’s author Daniel Pinkwater (website), whose writing is almost without exception brilliant, entertaining, and weird. But I suspect it’s not really a very good choice for a reading comprehension test, because not everyone is going to get Pinkwater, especially on first exposure. Then again, I must admit I’m surprised and impressed that anyone working for a test-writing company has actually read any Pinkwater. It’s a little like coming home and discovering that your cat has done the laundry.

Update: As Daniel Pinkwater explains in a comment to this post (and no offense to anybody else, but I don’t think I’ve ever been more delighted by the identity of a commenter), he didn’t write what appears on the test. The testing company, Pearson, drastically altered the original. I didn’t think anything could lower my opinion of standardized testing companies, but by golly Pearson has managed it.

Meanwhile, to celebrate getting a blog comment from one of my favorite writers, I’m right now heading out to a nearby restaurant for a meal of potato gnocchi tossed with candied pepper bacon, sugar snap peas, red pepper, and onions. Topped with a light cream sauce, parmesan cheese and served with a side garden salad. I suspect Mr Pinkwater would approve.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Review: Meet the Baron (1933 movie)

Jack Pearl is little remembered today, but in the early days of radio he was famous for playing Baron Munchausen, a character with a thick German accent who would recount ludicrous adventures he claimed to have had, responding to skepticism by asking “Vass you dere, Charlie?” which soon became a national catchphrase.

Pearl’s Baron Munchausen was based loosely on a fictional character who was based in turn on a real 19th century Baron Münchhausen. The real Münchhausen was well known as a teller of wild stories about his military career in the Russian army fighting against the Turks. It’s likely that he never meant the stories to be taken too seriously, only meaning to entertain his audience.

But his accounts later inspired some published stories and eventually to an English-language book by German-born writer and scientist Rudolf Erich Raspe, who had fled to England to escape prosecution for theft. Raspe’s book was popular enough to be pirated in an expanded edition and later translated into Raspe’s own native German with yet more additional stories. For more, see the Wikipedia article on Baron Munchausen.

At the start of this ultra-lightweight MGM musical, Jack Pearl and Jimmy Durante are left to die in the jungle by the “real” Baron Munchausen, but are fortunately rescued by explorers who mistake Pearl for the baron. Fearful of being abandoned again (the rescuers seem a bit dodgy), he and Durante play along. Soon Pearl, still pretending to be the baron, is the toast of New York, where he’s interviewed on the radio and invited to lecture at Cuddle College, a women’s school upstate.

There Pearl develops a romantic crush on chambermaid ZaSu Pitts while the whole college is menaced by its janitorial staff consisting of Ted Healy and his Stooges. The Stooges are credited as Larry Fine, Moe Howard, and Jerry Howard, this being I believe the first screen appearance of Jerome Howard, the Stooge latter known as Curly. It wasn’t the first appearance of the Stooges, however; they had previously guest-starred in Rube Goldberg’s Soup to Nuts (1930), reviewed here, with Shemp as the third Stooge.

Meet the Baron is mainly a mass of gags interrupted by some songs, but despite having been directed by Walter Lang (The King and I, There’s No Business Like Show Business) and co-written by such famous names as Herman J. Mankiewicz (Citizen Kane, The Pride of the Yankees), Norma Krasna (Indiscreet, White Christmas) and others, it’s not very good.

There is one very memorable musical number, however: The college students, played by the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Girls, sing, dance, and shower in a vast science-fictional shower room, which is exactly my sort of shower room. The scene is way too short so I had to watch it several times, to study the cinematic techniques and so forth.

There are also some moderately amusing bits here and there. For example, at one point Durante and Pearl are taking shelter from Stooge mayhem under a bed and an annoyed Durante says, “Humiliatin’, that’s what it is! Under a bed and no husband in sight!”

Here’s the trailer:


Link: https://youtu.be/g5TvCrpa5XE

Here’s a clip showing Pearl, Durante, Ted Healy and His Stooges, and ZaSu Pitts sounding a fair amount like Olive Oyl:


Link: https://youtu.be/CskFXbvSsjM

Incidentally, while ZaSu Pitts (full name Eliza Susan Pitts) was a popular comic actress in silent and sound films and on television in the 1950s, she also played serious roles, including a celebrated one as the female lead in Erich von Stroheim’s Greed (1924). Alas, I’ve never seen that film, and in fact only dozen people saw von Stroheim’s original cut running over nine hours that no longer exists. A four-hour restored version is supposed to be remarkably good, however. She also had a major role opposite Stroheim in the film Wedding March (1928) as part of a romantic triangle with Faye Wray (best known for a later romance with King Kong). These interconnections reflect Atkinson’s Law of Connectedness: “Everything relates back to mayonnaise.”

Anyway, for serious students of cinema, here’s the science fictional shower scene I mentioned, which demonstrates that the Hays Office didn’t strictly enforce the vile Motion Picture Production Code until the following year:


Link: https://youtu.be/TWFHH11e328



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Mental Floss gets the Emancipation Proclamation wrong

I’m normally a fan of Hank and John Green’s YouTube empire. Granted, their Mental Floss channel occasionally gets things wrong or at least wrong enough that one can reasonably complain about it, but rarely do they commit an error of the magnitude here, about something that ought to be common knowledge for any American middle school student. It’s something I’ve written about before (link) when electoralvote.com got it equally wrong. Here’s the bit in question (about 30 seconds):


Link (to full video): https://youtu.be/NS4FhUmuTnk

Host Elliott Morgan erroneously claims that it’s a “misconception” that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed any slaves because it applied only to the areas in rebellion, and, also erroneously, claims that it applied to the rebellious states because “Lincoln wanted to hurt” them.

The only part of this that’s right is that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to regions of the Confederacy still deemed in rebellion (and not, for example, to the four slave states that never left the Union or to the regions already back under federal control, such as New Orleans and the surrounding area). But that limitation was a matter of legal necessity. The president of the United States is not a king and can’t rule by decree. In fact, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates Lincoln had pointed out that even Congress had no clear constitutional basis for outlawing slavery in the several states. (The territories, being under direct federal governance, were another matter.) As commander in chief, however, Lincoln did have the authority under the Law of War (and the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862) to order the seizure of enemy property in furtherance of the war effort. The Proclamation hence inter alia ordered federal troops to seize chattel slaves (which were legally property — that’s what “chattel” means) and grant them manumission.

On the very day the Emancipation Proclamation took effect, the first of 1863, Union troops in de facto control of areas still deemed in rebellion freed about 50,000 slaves, and as troops advanced further into the South, the officers carrying printed copies of the Emancipation Proclamation, they freed thousands upon thousands more. By mid-1865 almost all slaves in the Confederacy had been freed. In December 1865 the 13th Amendment was ratified, freeing (at least de jure) the remaining slaves, including those in Kentucky and Delaware, at that point the only remaining Union states that had not yet outlawed slavery. But at that point the great majority of slaves had already been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

In fairness to Elliott Morgan, the blame lies not solely with him but with whoever wrote the episode and with the “fact checker” listed in the credits, and for that matter everybody in the room who had a chance to speak up and point out the glaring Fox-News-level mistake. This is a fundamental piece of American history and no graduate of an American middle school should get it wrong.

(Updated 2015 June 24 and 2018 January 29 to add a few additional details and try to improve clarity.)



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

David Brooks on secular Americans

Something I just read pointed me to an interesting opinion piece by New York Times columnist David Brooks published in early February under the title “Building Better Secularists” (link).

In it, Brooks favorably remarks on a book by Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman titled Living the Secular Life. I haven’t read it, but I gather it’s on the same general subject as Nonbeliever Nation, the book by David Niose I reviewed yesterday (link).

Brooks writes, “Over the past few years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of people who are atheist, agnostic or without religious affiliation. A fifth of all adults and a third of the youngest adults fit into this category.” I think he’s referring specifically to the United States, and if so these numbers are in keeping with others I’ve seen, though as I noted in the review of Nonbeliever Nation the percentages vary somewhat depending one’s definitions and sources.

For the most part what Brooks has to say strikes me as reasonable if not always well-informed, but I think he goes off track a bit partway through, when he suggests that the nonreligious have to create for themselves things that religious persons have by virtue of their faiths. Brooks errs both in imagining that the nonreligious equivalents don’t already exist and in supposing that the religious ones necessarily do. In particular, modern notions of right and wrong are broadly shared across the spectrum of belief and unbelief and even across diverse cultures. Sexual morality is the one obvious exception, and even there I think the great majority of secular and religious persons have a lot in common when it comes to actual practice. Brooks, on the other hand, seems to think that every secular individual must construct his or her own system of ethics from scratch, and that’s just not what happens. Some secular persons may indeed ponder ethical questions, but no more or less than religious people do. In fact, our broadly shared notions of right and wrong have evolved quite a bit over time (consider such ideas as the rights of women and of various minorities), which would not be the case if religious ethics were based solely on unchanging revelation.

Brooks oddly suggests that the nonreligious even need a Sabbath without explaining why. We all do need time off, yes, but for most of people in the U.S. (outside a retail, sports, entertainment, emergency services, and a few other sectors), Friday evening through sometime late on Sunday constitutes a sort of shared two-day Sabbath, which some must consider an improvement on the original single day of rest.

Naturally, some secular folks were put off by Brooks’s lecture. David Koepsell was one of them, and his entertainingly annoyed reaction can be read here.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Review: Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans by David Niose (2012 book)

A number of independent opinion polls conducted over the past several decades have noted a significant increase in the fraction of adult Americans who don’t consider themselves members of any religion. For example, in 2014 the nonreligious accounted for 21 percent of those interviewed for the long-running General Social Survey based at the University of Chicago, which in 1972 they found a mere 5 percent in that category. Other sources also show growth but with different percentages depending on the exact questions asked.

An April 2 report from the Pew Center on Religion and Public Life projects that in the United States the category they call “religiously unaffiliated” will increase from 16.4 percent of the population in 2010 to 25.6 in 2050, with growth in other advanced democracies during the same period (e.g., 57.0 to 67.7 percent in Japan, 28.0 to 44.1 in France, 27.8 to 38.9 in the United Kingdom, and a more modest 24.4 to 29.8 in Germany). Worldwide, however, they estimate that the percentage of unaffiliated will decline from 16.4 to 13.2, at least in part due the higher rate of religious belief and population growth in the third world and religious opposition to birth control.

Nonbelievers hold a wide diversity of views, including a fair number, it seems, who just don’t think about it very much. The General Social Survey classified only 3 percent of Americans as atheist and another 5 percent as agnostic, but they report that only 70 percent of those interviewed said they believe in an afterlife and only 58 percent in God. On the other hand, the American Religious Identification Survey in 2008 found that 69.5 percent expressed belief in a personal God and another 12.1 in a “higher power,” a total of 81.6 percent who believe in God of some sort. I suspect the different numbers result in part from a diversity of notions about the definition of “God” and varying degrees of certainty about one’s belief.

In this book, David Niose acknowledges the difficulty of counting secular Americans (he suggests 15 percent as a reasonable guess) but notes that while the exact number may be uncertain, they probably outnumber any other religious category in the United States besides Christians.

Niose cites a number of examples of hostility toward nonbelievers, some of them disturbing, but the single funniest coming from a 2011 talk by Newt Gingrich in which he said that he feared for his grandchildren, aged 11 and 9, because “if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.” How a country can be both “secular atheist” and dominated by radical Islamists Newt didn’t bother to explain.

Niose notes that the unreligious tend not to talk about their beliefs, in part to avoid hostility (but also, I suspect, in part because not believing doesn’t define who they are, any more than people who don’t play golf identify themselves as non-golfers). He notes that if more were public about their lack of belief it would help disabuse their religious relatives, co-workers, and friends of the notion that nonbelievers are necessarily horrible people.

Developed countries with lower rates of religious belief also tend to have lower rates of homicide, childhood and adult mortality, teen pregnancy, STDs, and abortion. A similar pattern holds among U.S. states. As Niose takes pains to acknowledge, correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, and he’s not arguing that religion causes all these problems, only that the data contradict the idea that secularism is the cause of such things.

He writes, “Secular Americans do not want favoritism — only equality and government neutrality,” the principles championed by Jefferson, Madison, and other Founding Fathers, quite a few of whom were Deists. It’s not an accident that the Constitution contains no mention of religion in its main text or Amendments except for Article VI’s prohibition on religious tests for public office and the First Amendment’s prohibition of an establishment of a religions or interference with its free exercise.

Niose also cites the familiar example of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which in passing asserts that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” The treaty was signed by John Adams, unanimously approved by the Senate (at that time only its third unanimous vote out of 339), and widely published in the press without notable surprise or complaint. And it’s not like nobody took the time to read it; it was one of our first treaties and runs under 1000 words.

(An aside: Some on the religious right have made much of the fact that the page containing Article 11 in the Arabic version of the treaty is missing from the archives, with an irrelevant letter found where it should have been, but this rather misses the point: It was the English version that was unanimously approved by the Senate and widely published in the United States.)

It’s an interesting book and at only 225 pages (not counting end notes and index) a fairly quick read.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Review: The Starving Games (2013 movie)

(Update: I see I managed to post this review twice in slightly different form. The later version is here. I’ll leave both in place to avoid possible broken links.)

One of my numerous character flaws is a tolerance for cheap laff-a-minute parodies. This take-off on The Hunger Games isn’t good but has its moments and isn’t all that much worse than The Interview. The lead actress, Maiara Walsh, is quite appealing, and I was glad to see on her IMDb page that she’s been in a lot of better movies and television shows. In fact, most of the cast rises above the material.

Writers-directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer have made a number of movies parodying various film genres (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Vampires Suck) and were also part of the writing team for the original Scary Movie. According to IMDb, this is the first of their films to be a box-office flop, though one IMDb commenter thought it was the least awful thing they’d done.

One segment features a team of lookalikes for major action stars (Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Bruce Willis, et al), and the actors in question reportedly got along so well during the filming that they now hang out together and call themselves The Expandables.

Not exactly recommended, but not horrible.


Link: https://youtu.be/sSh1HW5kblw



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Review: The Hunger Games (2012 movie)

(Update: I see I somehow managed to post this review twice, more recently here. I’ll leave both in place to avoid possible broken links.)

This is the first of a series of movies adapted from a popular trilogy of young adult science fiction novels by Suzanne Collins, who co-wrote the screenplay with Gary Ross and Billy Ray.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) lives with her mother and little sister in a dystopian future version of the United States, now known as Panem (as in the Roman expressions panem et circenses—“bread and circuses”). District 12, where Katniss lives, seems a lot like 1930s Appalachia in terms of incomes and technology, both presumably limited by the central dictatorship as a means of control. Katniss hunts with a bow and arrow, selling what her family doesn’t eat, in order to supplement their rations and meagre income.

There was a rebellion seventy-some years before the start of the film, and ever since each district has been required to send an annual “tribute” in the form of a two teenagers, a boy and a girl, to take part in the Hunger Games, a multi-day televised fight to the death that ends with a single survivor. Each district’s tributes are chosen randomly (though some volunteer), and families earn extra rations by entering their children’s names into the lottery more than once. This is one reason Katniss hunts — to minimize the risk to herself and her sister of becoming a tribute.

Of course, Katniss becomes a tribute anyway, so it’s fortunate she’s a good archer. She and her male counterpart travel by luxurious bullet train to Panem’s capital city, which the tyrants insist on calling “the Capitol,” just daring you to say something about their spelling. In the Capitol the tributes are housed in luxurious quarters while undergoing training. Pretty much everything in the Capitol is luxurious, but to make up for it the residents are forced to dress like toy poodles.

Woody Harrelson is a hard-drinking former Hunger Games champion from District 12 whose job it is to mentor Katniss and her male counterpart. He’s not happy about it, probably from experience, given that District 12 rarely produces winners.

There’s not a lot of depth here, but there are some nice touches. Some tributes form temporary alliances and even friendships. Some are reluctant, some pretty much pure evil. The male tribute from her district claims to have long had a crush on her from afar, but she suspects he’s lying, and in any case the rules say that at most one of them can live (and she already has a boyfriend).

It’s not a great film but it’s not bad either, and in spots it’s emotionally affecting. Two sequels have been released with a final installment coming this year.


Link: https://youtu.be/mfmrPu43DF8



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

One more note on Baltimore

A piece from Talking Points Memo (link) gives reason to think that an ill-considered pre-emptive police action helped provoke the violence and destruction seen in Baltimore. Quoting:

… The police assumed that black youth in local gangs were targeting them and that some sort of violent purge was imminent, so they began painting a picture of imminent threat. Convinced that they were under attack and having sufficiently defined the enemy (i.e. black youth) to the press, the police decided to strike first.

Therefore, police deployed cops in riot gear to Mondawmin Mall to cut off the buses that the children from local schools use to take home before the children got out of school. From there, things descended into violence as frustrated children, trapped on city streets by armored police and cut off from their mode of transportation home, began hurling rocks and bricks at the police.

The article isn’t particularly objective, but if what it says is true, it points to yet another example of bad decision-making on the part of authorities. A get-tough approach may appeal to one’s instincts, but it doesn’t always work as well in real life as opposed to the movies.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that this justifies the rioting on the part of some protestors. For more on that, see this previous post.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather