Month: February 2020

Last week, I heard someone complain that the environmental message in this season of Doctor Who was heavy-handed. Really? I didn’t even notice it. When I saw those episodes, I just took it as the setting they were set in. One can’t deny that we are altering the environment of our planet in unprecedented ways.

Last season, I had another middle-aged white male complain that Doctor Who was too political. He couldn’t give me specific examples, so I didn’t really know what he was talking about. Was it the walks into history with Rosa Parks in Rosa or with the division of India in 1949 in Demons of the Punjab?

I suspect that what both of these friends were really complaining about was that the show was highlighting social issues that they disagreed with. That is, they don’t like the social commentary or decry that SJWs (social justice warriors) have taken over world culture. In fact, science fiction has always been political, making comments about issues of concern in society since what is considered the first science fiction story ever written, Frankenstein by Mary Shelly.

*Spoiler Alert*

One of the things I love about this season of Doctor Who and to some extent, last season, is the focus on meeting historical figures. For the most part, they focus on marginalized historical figures like Mary Shelley or Ada Lovelace. Both of these women had the foresight to see what the future coold look like. One as the conceptual inventory of software for a conceptual computer designed by Charles Babbage. The other was Mary Shelley, the writer of what is considered the very first science fiction novel.

Frankenstein as Social Commentary

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was a commentary on the effects of human prejudice and discrimination. Look Here for a short essay on the politics of Frankenstein. It was also a commentary on the enlightenment and the growing reliance on science and scientific discoveries in industry and medicine.

“Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein cannot merely be read as a literary work of the early 19th century. It represents the workings of young Shelley’s mind. Further, it represents the vast scientific discoveries of the time, combined with Mary Shelley’s intuitive perception of science. She views science as a powerful entity, but also recognizes the dangers if uncontrolled. Shelley demonstrates this fear in the book as science drives Victor Frankenstein to create his monster. In the end, it is also his use of science that inevitably becomes his demise. ” Frankenstein: The Man and the Monster, Suzanna Storment, October 2002

Politics in Doctor Who

It really burns me up to have people complain the Doctor Who has become too political. In fact, Doctor Who has been political since its inception in 1963. The Daleks came out of a series focussing on the horrors of war and fascism. Remember, World War II had only ended 18 years earlier and the world was in the midst of the Cold War. The Daleks are a commentary on what happens when you subordinate your humanity to victory at any cost.

The Cybermen are a direct descendant of Frankenstein and its commentary on the use of science to “improve” humans. What happens to our humanity when we are so merged with machines? C.f. Daleks above. For more examples of politics in Doctor Who, see this article on SyFy.com.

Politics in Science Fiction

Politics in science fiction has a long history. In fact, one could say that the purpose of science fiction is social commentary. How best to hold a mirror up to our own society than to create a fictional society where the aspect you want to focus on is magnified. Examples abound: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, 1984 by George Orwell, Dune by Frank Herbert, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. These are considered the pinnacle of science fiction and all are not just political, but blatantly political.

Star Trek in the 1960s took on social issues of race and war as well. Many commentators have noted that the first interracial kiss on television was on Star Trek, between the white Captain Kirk and the black Lt. Uhuru.

If your only exposure to science fiction is Star Wars, you might be forgiven for thinking science fiction shouldn’t be political, but even then, as watered down as it is, Star Wars is also political. In the wake of post-Vietnam, the original is suffused with the politics of the outgunned but plucky rebellion fighting against an overwhelming empire with only its wits and a pseudo-mystical force. How is that not social commentary?

When I hear people complaining about their favorite science fiction being too political, they are actually stating their own political preference. What they are actually complaining about is that their favorite show is displaying politics that they disagree with. If you hear this sort of complaint from someone, I suggest you challenge them on the issue. Ask if what they are complaining about is the show expressing a political point or if they are disagreeing with the point the show is expressing. I think you’ll find the answer informative.

Comments closed

Let’s not panic about coronavirus. Be cautious and take preventative action to avoid catching the disease (see below for more information).

In the hardest hit area, Hubei province in China, 65,500 people have been infected. That is about 0.01% of the population. It even lower in other parts of China.

If the same rate hits the US, we would might see 350,000 get sick. Even so, it is likely to be far less than that. Washington State would see about at most 8,000 people get sick. Most of them will get mild symptoms.

With a 2% death rate for the disease, we might see 7,000 deaths in the US if the infection rate is high. In Washington state, given the same infection rate, we might see 140-150 deaths. Those will probably be those who already have weakened systems. By comparison, we saw 34,157 people die from the flu or flu-like illness in the US in the 2018-2019 flu season. *

I’m not saying let’s be complacent, but don’t panic.

Other information from the CDC regarding flu

You may be able to spread flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick.

• People with flu are most contagious in the first 3-4 days after their illness begins.
• Some otherwise healthy adults may be able to infect others beginning 1 day before symptoms develop and up to 5 to 7 days after becoming sick.
• Some people, especially young children and people with weakened immune systems, might be able to infect others for an even longer time.

The time from when a person is exposed and infected with flu to when symptoms begin is about 2 days, but can range from about 1 to 4 days.

Everyday preventive actions to stop the spread of germs

• Try to avoid close contact with sick people.
• While sick, limit contact with others as much as possible to keep from infecting them.
• If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone for 24 hours without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.)
• Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. After using a tissue, throw it in the trash and wash your hands.
• Wash your hands often with soap and water. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand rub.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth. Germs spread this way.
• Clean and disinfect surfaces and objects that may be contaminated with germs like flu.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/prevention.htm

*Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

Comments closed

An article in the Seattle Times today describes the practice of redlining. Real estate and property insurance agents would grade property on its value. The practice led to the segregation of minority populations to certain neighborhoods. The impact is still with us today. Take a look at this map and you can see where the black neighborhoods were and where white neighborhoods were. The map lists “Grade of Security” where “Dangerous” means black or Asian.

You can read more at The Seattle Times: Wing Luke’s ‘Excluded, Inside the Lines’ exhibit takes on redlining and housing discrimination in Seattle

Comments closed

It’s rare that I have seen all the Oscar nominated movies in a given year. In fact it’s never happened. This year is no different, but for a change, I have seen most of them. Of the sixteen listed below, I have already seen ten. I expect to see more after the awards ceremony.

It was a very competitive year. The hardest category for me is in Lead Actor between Adam Driver and Joaquin Phoenix. I think Adam Sandler was robbed of a nomination in that category, but he probably wouldn’t have won against Driver or Phoenix.

Best Picture:

 “The Irishman” – This is a great study in the long-term implications of a life of crime. How to live a long life with nothing to show for it but regret.

“Joker” – This movie is about a man making bad decisions and falling in a downward spiral that transforms him. It evokes films of the 1970s but Joaquin Phoenix’s performance drives it.

“Marriage Story” – This was a difficult movie to watch other than the amazing performances. I did not relate to the situation, having never gone through a divorce.

“1917” – The technical achievement of this film is amazing. I started watching to figure out where the transitions were, but after a while, I ignored it in favor of the story. I felt I was in the middle of the action. It was visceral and emotional.

“Jojo Rabbit” – I saw this the day after 1917, which was hard. It started off as a silly romp. I mean a kid with Adolf Hitler as an imaginary friend (and played by Taika Waititi), how could it not be funny? I described it as the darkest of comedies, with an emphasis on the dark.

“Parasite” – I didn’t want to see this. Bong Joon Ho’s other films were more sci-fi while this seemed like a simple family drama. It is anything but simple. Like all his movies it weaves in commentary on class and the Korean relationship to American culture. At the end, I had to wonder, who was the parasite of the title? He leaves the question open.

“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” This was an entertaining film until the end. Like most of Tarantino’s films these days, it ends in a bloodbath of revenge porn. That and the fictionalizing of real events take away from the appeal for me.

“Ford v Ferrari” – Haven’t seen it yet. The DVD doesn’t come out until after the awards.
“Little Women” – Haven’t seen it yet.

Director:

Sam Mendes, “1917” – How do you separate best picture from best director? If the director is the person who is responsible for the best picture, isn’t that person the best director? I think 1917 points out the difference. While it was a great film and will likely win best picture, Sam Mendes’s direction made it what it is. Other films might be great for the acting or the writing. It wasn’t the great acting or script that made this film great, but the decision to use what felt like a single tracking shot (with one break in the middle) to put the audience in the middle of the action. This is a textbook example of how the decisions of a director make a film.

Martin Scorsese, “The Irishman” – Scorcese is a giant in film. Other directors emulate him (see Todd Phillips below). This movie evokes his other mob films (Goodfellas, Casino, The Departed). It is an ambitious film with great performances. He fails in the technical aspect of making old actors look younger, putting him behind Sam Mendes in that aspect. He probably won’t get this award due to politics and his commentary about the typical Hollywood blockbuster not being “real cinema”.

Todd Phillips, “Joker” – Putting aside Joaquin Phoenix’s performance, this was a good film, not a great one. Phillips made the film feel like New York in the 1970s, evoking Taxi Driver or Dog Day Afternoon, but it did not live up to those films.

Quentin Tarantino, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” – I don’t like Tarantino, though his movies are good. I think he’s an arrogant asshole who thinks only of himself. He thinks he is the only one who made his movie. I refer to his speech at the Golden Globes where he took credit alone for this movie and gave absolutely none to the cast or crew.

Bong Joon Ho, “Parasite” – Having seen this film, I realized what the other films I’ve seen from him have in common. They all start out like a typical genre film. Somewhere in the middle, they shift. Parasite is no different. In this case, it starts like a con artist film. About two thirds of the way through, you realize you are watching something other than what you started watching. All his films are commentaries on class division and the inequality between rich and poor.

Lead Actor:

Joaquin Phoenix, “Joker” – This was an amazing performance. It lifts the superhero (supervillain) movie to another level. He physically, emotionally, and intellectually inhabits one of the most psychotic characters in literature. (Yes, I did just refer to comic books as literature.)

Adam Driver, “Marriage Story” – Until I saw this, I thought Joaquin Phoenix was a hands-down favorite for best actor. Driver goes places in this few actors dare. It is hard watching a person completely break down emotionally.

Leonardo DiCaprio, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” – I liked Leonardo DiCaprio in this, but I didn’t think it will win him best actor. He goes pretty deep into what it takes to be a great actor and Hollywood loves movies about itself.

Jonathan Pryce, “The Two Popes” – This was a great portrayal of the man who became Pope Francis. I’m not sure it deserves best lead actor. I’m not good at Spanish, but as far an I can tell, he acted in Spanish quite well and in English with an accent that did not seem fake. That is a feat for an actor whose native language is English.

Antonio Banderas, “Pain and Glory” – Haven’t seen it yet.

Lead Actress:

Renee Zellweger, “Judy” – This has my vote for best actress, though Cynthia Erivo comes a close second. While watching this, I wasn’t sure whether it was Judy Garland’s or Renee Zellweger’s performance that was enthralling me. Zellweger embodied Garland physically and sang as well as she did too.

Cynthia Erivo, “Harriet” – This was a heart-wrenching portrayal of a woman who rose above what the world told her she was. She overcame her own bondage to free herself and went back to slave country 18-19 times to free hundreds of slaves. Erivo, a British actress, embodied a strong black woman born into slavery but overcame fear. Harriet Tubman’s fierceness comes through in this portrayal.  

Scarlett Johansson, “Marriage Story” – Her performance was very good in this. Like Driver, we are watching a woman broken down emotionally by the failure of her marriage. Her performance pales next to Driver’s though. Like his, she goes places emotionally that are very difficult to go.

Saoirse Ronan, “Little Women” – Haven’t seen it yet.
Charlize Theron, “Bombshell” – Haven’t seen it yet.

Supporting Actor:

Joe Pesci, “The Irishman” – Pesci is famous for being bombastic in his roles (see Goodfellas). In this, he plays a quiet, unassuming man who wields power quietly and with a velvet glove. It is a different Joe Pesci than what we are used to.

Al Pacino, “The Irishman” – It’s too bad Pacino has to compete against Pesci in this category. Voters will probably split between them and Brad Pitt will win. Pacino in this, while still Pacino (he always is), portrays Jimmy Hoffa so that you can almost forget it’s Pacino. He is charismatic and demands attention.

Brad Pitt, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” – Brad Pitt is such a Hollywood movie star. He plays one in this. I know it doesn’t seem much of a stretch for and actor, but it takes some self-awareness to do this right and he does. He is probably the favorite for the win, and I loved his humble speech at the Golden Globes.

Anthony Hopkins, “The Two Popes” – This movie is basically a conversation between two men. Hopkins portrays a man who, having won his heart’s desire, doubts himself and his faith. However, I still felt it was Anthony Hopkins, not Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI).

Tom Hanks, “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” – Haven’t seen it yet, but how can you not love Tom Hanks playing Mr. Rogers?

Supporting Actress:

Laura Dern, “Marriage Story” – She plays a slick lawyer in this. I felt she was manipulating the family in this to its destruction. But she didn’t do it in an evil way. She supported her client and fought for her tooth and nail. She was strong and gracious. It’s a hard balance to keep. Laura Dern did an amazing job.

Scarlett Johansson, “Jojo Rabbit” – Comparing  her performance in this to that in Marriage Story is like night and day. While in Marriage Story it is emotional and raw, in Jojo Rabbit, it is subtle and refined. She must hold back everything she is feeling in the face of the evils of Nazism at the same time her child glorifies in it. Nevertheless, it is rare to get two nominations in one year.

Kathy Bates, “Richard Jewell” – Haven’t seen it yet.
Florence Pugh, “Little Women” – Haven’t seen it yet.
Margot Robbie, “Bombshell” – Haven’t seen it yet.

1 Comment