Super 8 is the movie of the year. I could justify that declaration by raving about the way that J.J. Abrams (writer/director) and Steven Spielberg (producer) crafted a masterpiece from a technical standpoint or by describing how Super 8 deftly evokes nostalgia without being maudlin or mawkish but there is a simpler and more profound way to capture Super 8's impact: in the packed theater where I saw the film, no cell phone displays lit up for two hours and the movie received two standing ovations--one after the main feature ended and the second after the "Easter egg" concluded during the credits.
Go see Super 8; you won't be disappointed--and make sure you don't leave until after the credits end!
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Moral Clarity and the Death of Osama bin Laden
"Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done."--President George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress following the 9/11 Attacks
When I learned that Osama bin Laden had finally been killed I immediately thought of President George W. Bush's clarion call to action; President Bush has become a polarizing figure who is regarded with great esteem in some quarters and with great revulsion in others but he spoke truth to power in the wake of the worst terrorist attack ever committed on American soil: the people who did this attack are evil, they are our enemies and their leaders must either be brought to justice or have justice brought to them.
It is not fashionable to speak of good and evil; those words are considered to be inflexible, hardline and reactionary--but the simple, powerful truth is that good and evil exist, that evil people act with tremendous force and unrelenting cruelty and that evil must be answered with tremendous force.
What the United States should have done in Iraq and Afghanistan--and what the United States should do now in Libya and other countries run by despotic, evil regimes--cannot be simply answered in soundbites and superficial rhetoric; these are questions of both strategy (whether or not to act militarily) and tactics (how to deploy the military most effectively if the decision is made to act militarily). It is certainly possible to question or critique President Bush's strategy and/or tactics--but the most valuable service that President Bush provided is that he strongly framed the 9/11 attacks in the proper moral context: the attacks were committed by evil men who took orders from evil men and those evil men must be brought to justice or have justice brought to them.
**********
President Barack Obama gave the final order to execute the mission that resulted in Osama bin Laden's death but that act of justice would not have been possible without President Bush's clarion call or without the military and intelligence structures that President Bush put into place. It is interesting to speculate about why bin Laden was able to avoid justice for so long only to be taken down suddenly and relatively easily; this is reminiscent of how the Unabomber got away with his crimes until his own brother turned him in to the authorities. I suspect that at least some of the people who were sheltering bin Laden decided that the terror mastermind had become more of a burden than an asset. I am not taking anything away from U.S. intelligence and I certainly am not taking anything away from the brave Special Forces' unit that brought justice to bin Laden but I think that without information from someone close to bin Laden the United States might have spent many more years looking for bin Laden in empty caves in Afghanistan.
Speaking of those caves, if it is true that the United States has given upwards of $10 billion to Pakistan over the past decade to fund anti-terrorism efforts then the United States is due a refund--and more--in light of the obvious fact that the Pakistani government gave aid and comfort to Public Enemy Number One. It is outrageous that bin Laden lived for years in a well-secured mansion in Pakistan while American soldiers fought and died in Afghanistan trying to find bin Laden in the mountains and other rough terrain; Pakistan should issue death and/or disability payments to every U.S. soldier who was killed or injured in Afghanistan.
**********
In a seemingly unrelated--and yet very related--recent story, CBS reporter Lara Logan was recently brutally assaulted, sexually violated and nearly killed by a mob attack in Egypt; she was in the country to report on the uprising against Hosni Mubarak. Two things struck me about Logan's account of her harrowing ordeal: (1) The crowd attacked her because they thought that she was an Israeli and/or a Jew; (2) Logan said that until this happened to her she never realized how prevalent brutality against women is in Egypt.
What does this have to do with bin Laden? President Bush spoke truth to power about bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban, using "old fashioned" concepts about good and evil; everything is not relative and there are not always two sides to every story: sometimes there is just right and wrong, good and evil. After the 9/11 attacks, a Congressional investigation revealed that bin Laden had paid the legal fees of El Sayed Nosair, the man who murdered Rabbi Meir Kahane on November 5, 1990. Failing to distinguish between good and evil prevented U.S. authorities from fully investigating the Kahane murder and discovering the connections between Nosair, Omar Abdel-Rahman (the "blind Sheikh") and bin Laden's al Qaeda; at the time, Kahane's murder was blithely dismissed by the media and by the U.S. government as a radical Arab killing a prominent Jewish figure but we now know that this crime was the first terrorist act committed on American soil by the group that eventually attacked the World Trade Center in 1993: bin Laden's confederates failed to bring down the Twin Towers that time but the next group that bin Laden sent succeeded eight years later. The idea that Kahane and bin Laden are equally radical and equally dangerous is an example of the pernicious, fallacious thinking that Vladimir Nabokov called "poshlost." There are not two equally valid sides regarding Kahane and bin Laden; Kahane proposed political solutions (with which one is free to agree or disagree), while bin Laden proposed (and delivered) mass murder around the globe; it is impossible to act correctly without making correct distinctions.
The Egyptian crowd nearly killed Logan merely because they thought that she was Israeli and/or Jewish; this is a powerful testimony to how much hatred has been instilled in the Arab/Muslim world against Israelis and against Jews: Arab and Muslim dictators do not have the ability and/or inclination to improve the lot of their people but these dictators have discovered that scapegoating Israelis and Jews is a great way to distract their citizens from the real causes of their countries' economic, scientific and political backwardness. Many Israeli and/or Jewish men, women and children have been killed by people whose minds are poisoned by hate, people who think and act just like the ones who attacked Logan precisely because they assumed that she was Israeli and/or Jewish (to cite just one example, in October 2000 two Israelis took a wrong turn into Ramallah and were literally ripped apart limb from limb). If Logan truly does not know about such attacks or about the virulent nature of this hatred then this is likely because she has bought into a narrative (very popular in the mainstream media) that teaches that there is not good and evil but rather two (or more) equally valid narratives; it is this kind of thinking that reacts to the 9/11 attacks by assuming--or even declaring--that some supposedly legitimate grievances explain and/or justify killing innocent civilians just because they are Americans (or Israelis or Jews). The Western media far too often covers up the racism, antisemitism and misogyny that is prevalent in the Arab and Islamic world because the media's preferred narrative is that Israel is persecuting Arabs, not the other way around--an odd (which is to say false) narrative when one realizes that the Arab/Muslim population of Israel has been steadily increasing for decades while the minority populations of Arab/Muslim countries have been steadily declining and face constant persecution.
**********
It is powerfully symbolic that the U.S. carried out President Bush's vow to bring bin Laden to justice or bring justice to bin Laden but it will require clear thinking and decisive action to ultimately defeat al Qaeda and other groups/nations that are motivated by evil ideologies and that act with tremendous violence and unrelenting cruelty--and clear thinking must start with understanding the distinction between good and evil.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
City on the Edge of Forever and The Adjustment Bureau
City on the Edge of Forever, Harlan Ellison's brilliant Star Trek screenplay, is a love story that also examines the themes of destiny, time travel and self sacrifice. After Dr. McCoy experiences an accidental drug overdose, he flees the Starship Enterprise and ends up going through a portal that transports him back in time. As a result of something that happens during his time travel, the Enterprise--and all members of her crew that are not in the immediate presence of the "Guardian of Forever" (the name of the time travel portal)--disappears. Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, aided by tricorder readings that Mr. Spock made, jump into the portal to try to reverse whatever Dr. McCoy did. Kirk, Spock and McCoy all arrived at the same time and place (New York City during the Great Depression) but Kirk and Spock are not able to immediately locate McCoy.
Spock's tricorder readings reveal that a woman named Edith Keeler died in the original timeline but survived in the timeline that McCoy altered; the ripple effect of that change--Keeler became a leader of the pacifist movement and delayed the entry of the United States into World War II, enabling the Nazis to win the war--destroyed history as Kirk, Spock and McCoy had known it. The problem is that by the time Spock figures out that Keeler must die Kirk has fallen deeply in love with her (and, unbeknownst to Kirk and Spock, Keeler has befriended McCoy and nursed him back to health as the effects of the drug overdose subsided). The episode culminates with the three shipmates suddenly reuniting on one side of a street and Keeler crossing the street to greet them, not noticing a fast moving truck that is approaching her. McCoy moves to save Keeler but Kirk restrains him; Keeler dies and the original timeline is restored. Though it pains Kirk greatly, he sacrifices Keeler's life for the greater good of the human race.
The Adjustment Bureau deals with some similar thematic issues but the main character ultimately makes a different choice than Kirk did. While Senate candidate David Norris is rehearsing his concession speech in a hotel men's room, he has a chance encounter with a woman named Elise; they form an instant connection but are separated before they can exchange contact information. According to "the plan" written by the mysterious "Chairman," David and Elise were only supposed to meet that one time; she inspired David to go off script in his concession speech and this boosted David's political career: the "Chairman" intends for David to become the President of the United States and ultimately have a powerful (though unspecified) positive impact on history. Instead, one of the "Chairman's" agents literally falls asleep on the job and David encounters Elise again, this time on a bus; they instantly connect again and she gives him her phone number. David then arrives at his office building earlier than he was supposed to and discovers the "Chairman's" Adjustment Bureau agents at work, freezing people in time temporarily in order to "adjust" their thinking. David flees but is captured by the agents and told that he must never speak a word about what he has seen nor ever try to contact Elise; if he disobeys, they will "adjust" his mind accordingly. One of the agents burns the piece of paper on which Elise wrote her phone number so that David cannot contact her (David still does not know her last name, residence or work place).
The rest of the movie revolves around David's determination to get back in touch with Elise no matter the price. David is told by an Adjustment Bureau official that if he and Elise become a couple he will not become President and she will become an ordinary dance teacher instead of the world renowned dancer she had been destined to become; a heartbroken David at first defies the Adjustment Bureau but later abandons Elise after she sprains her ankle during a performance: in an encounter at the hospital, the Adjustment Bureau official tells David that usually when someone comforts another by saying that there was nothing the person could have done it is true but in this instance it really was his fault that she got hurt and that if David stayed with her she would ultimately suffer a career-ending injury.
A few years later, David is well on the road to political success and Elise has become a famous dancer who is engaged to be married to a choreographer (with whom she had broken off a previous engagement after her first chance encounter with David). When David sees the engagement announcement in the newspaper he decides that he will do anything in his power to prevent that marriage so that he can spend the rest of his life with Elise. Aided by a sympathetic Adjustment Bureau official (the same one who fell asleep prior to David and Elise's second meeting), David reunites with Elise, asks her to trust him and--while they are being chased by Adjustment Bureau officials--tries to explain everything that has happened. David and Elise are eventually cornered but instead of having their minds "adjusted" the sympathetic Adjustment Bureau official tells them that the "Chairman" has been so moved by the power of their love that he has rewritten his "plan." Apparently, David and Elise will live together happily ever after, though no indication is given about what this means in terms of David's political career and/or Elise's dancing career.
The Adjustment Bureau is a powerful love story that raises intriguing questions about free will, destiny and self sacrifice. During a key exposition scene, David challenges a high ranking Adjustment Bureau official to explain why David and Elise cannot be together. The official does not answer that question at first; it is strongly implied that the official does not know all of the contents of the "plan" and it is made clear throughout the movie that the "plan" often changes, both because of random actions and also because of various "adjustments." The high ranking Adjustment Bureau official tells David that the "Chairman" gave human beings free will but this led to the Dark Ages; the "Chairman" then provided the Renaissance and the Enlightenment but as soon as he provided free will again the result was two World Wars, the Holocaust and a world on the brink of nuclear annihilation (the Cuban Missile Crisis). Since that time, the "Chairman" tasked the Adjustment Bureau with making sure that the human race does not destroy itself.
David's parents and brother died when he was young and it is later revealed that the deaths of his father and brother were part of the "plan" (his mother's death was random); the loneliness in David's heart is ameliorated by the public adoration he receives as a politician--but if he and Elise get married then she will fill that void in his heart and he will no longer have the drive to continue his political career. Framing this in terms of City on the Edge of Forever, David is being asked by the Adjustment Bureau to sacrifice some of his personal happiness in exchange for playing a role in saving the human race, much like Kirk had to sacrifice his beloved Edith Keeler to prevent the Nazis from conquering the world. Kirk agonized but ultimately decided that he must act on behalf of humanity; David was willing to possibly wreck the "plan" if necessary rather than be separated from Elise. The movie takes the easy way out, in a sense, by not showing what happens to the world after David and Elise get back together: we are told that the "plan" has been changed and are left with the assumption that everything ends well--but what if the "plan" could not have been changed? Would David have been right to pursue Elise even if this would plunge humanity into some kind of Dark Age?
An even bigger issue that the movie skirts is the question of why the world is so messed up now if the "Chairman" and his agents have been adjusting things since the Kennedy Administration; the high ranking Adjustment Bureau official dismisses David's inquiry about that subject by simply declaring that humanity is still here and humanity would not still be here if the "Chairman" had not intervened--but that is a copout: if the "plan" can be changed to accommodate David and Elise's love then why could it not have been changed to prevent the Vietnam War, Pol Pot's massacres, AIDS, world hunger, the 9/11 attacks and so many other tragedies that have afflicted the world?
The Adjustment Bureau is an engaging, heartfelt movie--and a very touching love story--but it ultimately provides no answers to the profound questions it raises about free will and destiny; I fully realize that the movie was not intended to provide such answers and that, indeed, such answers may not even exist: I just find it fascinating to compare the choice made by Captain Kirk with the choice made by David Norris. If there is a "Chairman" whose job is to make sure that everything runs correctly then why would humans even be required to make such heart-wrenching choices? If there is no such "Chairman" then is one obligated to be like Captain Kirk and sacrifice personal happiness for the greater good? What if a person truly wants to make that particular choice but is not presented with a clearly correct way to do so?
There are no easy answers to these questions but I credit the writers, directors and actors involved with both projects for raising these issues in thought provoking, powerful and yet entertaining ways.
Spock's tricorder readings reveal that a woman named Edith Keeler died in the original timeline but survived in the timeline that McCoy altered; the ripple effect of that change--Keeler became a leader of the pacifist movement and delayed the entry of the United States into World War II, enabling the Nazis to win the war--destroyed history as Kirk, Spock and McCoy had known it. The problem is that by the time Spock figures out that Keeler must die Kirk has fallen deeply in love with her (and, unbeknownst to Kirk and Spock, Keeler has befriended McCoy and nursed him back to health as the effects of the drug overdose subsided). The episode culminates with the three shipmates suddenly reuniting on one side of a street and Keeler crossing the street to greet them, not noticing a fast moving truck that is approaching her. McCoy moves to save Keeler but Kirk restrains him; Keeler dies and the original timeline is restored. Though it pains Kirk greatly, he sacrifices Keeler's life for the greater good of the human race.
The Adjustment Bureau deals with some similar thematic issues but the main character ultimately makes a different choice than Kirk did. While Senate candidate David Norris is rehearsing his concession speech in a hotel men's room, he has a chance encounter with a woman named Elise; they form an instant connection but are separated before they can exchange contact information. According to "the plan" written by the mysterious "Chairman," David and Elise were only supposed to meet that one time; she inspired David to go off script in his concession speech and this boosted David's political career: the "Chairman" intends for David to become the President of the United States and ultimately have a powerful (though unspecified) positive impact on history. Instead, one of the "Chairman's" agents literally falls asleep on the job and David encounters Elise again, this time on a bus; they instantly connect again and she gives him her phone number. David then arrives at his office building earlier than he was supposed to and discovers the "Chairman's" Adjustment Bureau agents at work, freezing people in time temporarily in order to "adjust" their thinking. David flees but is captured by the agents and told that he must never speak a word about what he has seen nor ever try to contact Elise; if he disobeys, they will "adjust" his mind accordingly. One of the agents burns the piece of paper on which Elise wrote her phone number so that David cannot contact her (David still does not know her last name, residence or work place).
The rest of the movie revolves around David's determination to get back in touch with Elise no matter the price. David is told by an Adjustment Bureau official that if he and Elise become a couple he will not become President and she will become an ordinary dance teacher instead of the world renowned dancer she had been destined to become; a heartbroken David at first defies the Adjustment Bureau but later abandons Elise after she sprains her ankle during a performance: in an encounter at the hospital, the Adjustment Bureau official tells David that usually when someone comforts another by saying that there was nothing the person could have done it is true but in this instance it really was his fault that she got hurt and that if David stayed with her she would ultimately suffer a career-ending injury.
A few years later, David is well on the road to political success and Elise has become a famous dancer who is engaged to be married to a choreographer (with whom she had broken off a previous engagement after her first chance encounter with David). When David sees the engagement announcement in the newspaper he decides that he will do anything in his power to prevent that marriage so that he can spend the rest of his life with Elise. Aided by a sympathetic Adjustment Bureau official (the same one who fell asleep prior to David and Elise's second meeting), David reunites with Elise, asks her to trust him and--while they are being chased by Adjustment Bureau officials--tries to explain everything that has happened. David and Elise are eventually cornered but instead of having their minds "adjusted" the sympathetic Adjustment Bureau official tells them that the "Chairman" has been so moved by the power of their love that he has rewritten his "plan." Apparently, David and Elise will live together happily ever after, though no indication is given about what this means in terms of David's political career and/or Elise's dancing career.
The Adjustment Bureau is a powerful love story that raises intriguing questions about free will, destiny and self sacrifice. During a key exposition scene, David challenges a high ranking Adjustment Bureau official to explain why David and Elise cannot be together. The official does not answer that question at first; it is strongly implied that the official does not know all of the contents of the "plan" and it is made clear throughout the movie that the "plan" often changes, both because of random actions and also because of various "adjustments." The high ranking Adjustment Bureau official tells David that the "Chairman" gave human beings free will but this led to the Dark Ages; the "Chairman" then provided the Renaissance and the Enlightenment but as soon as he provided free will again the result was two World Wars, the Holocaust and a world on the brink of nuclear annihilation (the Cuban Missile Crisis). Since that time, the "Chairman" tasked the Adjustment Bureau with making sure that the human race does not destroy itself.
David's parents and brother died when he was young and it is later revealed that the deaths of his father and brother were part of the "plan" (his mother's death was random); the loneliness in David's heart is ameliorated by the public adoration he receives as a politician--but if he and Elise get married then she will fill that void in his heart and he will no longer have the drive to continue his political career. Framing this in terms of City on the Edge of Forever, David is being asked by the Adjustment Bureau to sacrifice some of his personal happiness in exchange for playing a role in saving the human race, much like Kirk had to sacrifice his beloved Edith Keeler to prevent the Nazis from conquering the world. Kirk agonized but ultimately decided that he must act on behalf of humanity; David was willing to possibly wreck the "plan" if necessary rather than be separated from Elise. The movie takes the easy way out, in a sense, by not showing what happens to the world after David and Elise get back together: we are told that the "plan" has been changed and are left with the assumption that everything ends well--but what if the "plan" could not have been changed? Would David have been right to pursue Elise even if this would plunge humanity into some kind of Dark Age?
An even bigger issue that the movie skirts is the question of why the world is so messed up now if the "Chairman" and his agents have been adjusting things since the Kennedy Administration; the high ranking Adjustment Bureau official dismisses David's inquiry about that subject by simply declaring that humanity is still here and humanity would not still be here if the "Chairman" had not intervened--but that is a copout: if the "plan" can be changed to accommodate David and Elise's love then why could it not have been changed to prevent the Vietnam War, Pol Pot's massacres, AIDS, world hunger, the 9/11 attacks and so many other tragedies that have afflicted the world?
The Adjustment Bureau is an engaging, heartfelt movie--and a very touching love story--but it ultimately provides no answers to the profound questions it raises about free will and destiny; I fully realize that the movie was not intended to provide such answers and that, indeed, such answers may not even exist: I just find it fascinating to compare the choice made by Captain Kirk with the choice made by David Norris. If there is a "Chairman" whose job is to make sure that everything runs correctly then why would humans even be required to make such heart-wrenching choices? If there is no such "Chairman" then is one obligated to be like Captain Kirk and sacrifice personal happiness for the greater good? What if a person truly wants to make that particular choice but is not presented with a clearly correct way to do so?
There are no easy answers to these questions but I credit the writers, directors and actors involved with both projects for raising these issues in thought provoking, powerful and yet entertaining ways.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Living and Dying in 4/4 Time
"Some people believe in life after death. I believe in death after life."--Grandmaster Anatoly Lein
"Genius is pain."--John Lennon
"People say I'm crazy doing what I'm doing...I'm just watching the wheels go round and round"--John Lennon, "Watching the Wheels"
Somehow, until yesterday it escaped my attention that Matt Dobek--former p.r. director for the Detroit Pistons--committed suicide in late August. Dobek took his life just a few months after the Pistons fired him, had him escorted from team headquarters by security and then informed him that he would not receive his severance package (the Pistons alleged that Dobek had violated a confidentiality agreement). I enjoyed Dobek's book Bad Boys (which detailed the story of Detroit's 1989 championship) but I did not know Dobek; the closest I came to meeting him was being in the same room with him a few times when I covered various Cleveland-Detroit games. I have no idea whether or not he violated the terms of his contract but it does not surprise me that someone who loyally and tirelessly served a franchise for nearly three decades could be summarily fired and then treated like a worthless piece of garbage--that is the way the world works.
Why should the Pistons care about destroying a man's career and pushing him over the brink? All that matters to the Pistons is that they kept their "corporate secrets" safe--and what exactly were those secrets? The only "secret" formula the Pistons have seems to be the one that transforms a championship caliber team into an afterthought.
******
A young man founded a magazine but soon his business went under and he had no money, so his father took out a second mortgage on his house and maxed out his credit cards to help the son start over. Seven years later, the son was a billionaire and he purchased the Washington Redskins. Daniel Snyder did not come from a wealthy family but his father believed in him so much that he literally put everything on the line as a show of faith and an act of support. I wonder what it is like to have someone in your life who believes in you to that extent but I am sure that I will never, ever find out.
There is no such thing as "trying" to help someone; as Yoda said to Luke Skywalker, "Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'" Skywalker subsequently failed to levitate his swamp-bound X-Wing fighter but watched in disbelief as Yoda freed the X-Wing and deposited it gently on dry land. "I don't believe it," Skywalker said. "That is why you fail," replied Yoda.
You either believe in someone and you help that person or you don't. It really is just that simple.
******
I have always been fascinated by the thin line between success and failure. The life stories of talented people like William James Sidis and Earl Manigault are compelling and tragic; Sidis may have been as intellectually gifted as anyone who ever lived, while Manigault was a breathtakingly talented basketball player, but Sidis died in obscurity and Manigault became a streetball legend instead of an NBA superstar. When I was younger I spent a lot of time thinking about Sidis, Manigault and other talented "failures" (I am not calling them "failures" but merely describing how the outside world views the disparity between their talents and their publicly known accomplishments) and I tried to figure out if they fell short because of their own internal weaknesses or because society failed them in some way; at that time I thought that the truth is somewhere between those extremes but I was quite sure that I was smarter, tougher and savvier than they had been in terms of achieving my goals: I certainly am well aware of the irony of my youthful perspective in light of the fact that my career is currently on the "Sidis track." It is liberating to just "watch the wheels go round" instead of trying to sell articles to idiots but while my failure to connect with idiots does not disturb me in the least my failure to attain the NM title haunts me to the depths of my soul (melodramatic, pathetic--and true). The bitter irony is that even if do I manage to attain the NM title, I will still be haunted by how long it took (there is nothing quite like having a mind that places you in a no win position combined with a competitive spirit that insists you must find a way to win!).
Maybe 40 years after I am dead the next Amy Wallace will emerge to write a sympathetic biography of me--but if GM Lein is right then that really will not do me much good, will it?
"Genius is pain."--John Lennon
"People say I'm crazy doing what I'm doing...I'm just watching the wheels go round and round"--John Lennon, "Watching the Wheels"
Somehow, until yesterday it escaped my attention that Matt Dobek--former p.r. director for the Detroit Pistons--committed suicide in late August. Dobek took his life just a few months after the Pistons fired him, had him escorted from team headquarters by security and then informed him that he would not receive his severance package (the Pistons alleged that Dobek had violated a confidentiality agreement). I enjoyed Dobek's book Bad Boys (which detailed the story of Detroit's 1989 championship) but I did not know Dobek; the closest I came to meeting him was being in the same room with him a few times when I covered various Cleveland-Detroit games. I have no idea whether or not he violated the terms of his contract but it does not surprise me that someone who loyally and tirelessly served a franchise for nearly three decades could be summarily fired and then treated like a worthless piece of garbage--that is the way the world works.
Why should the Pistons care about destroying a man's career and pushing him over the brink? All that matters to the Pistons is that they kept their "corporate secrets" safe--and what exactly were those secrets? The only "secret" formula the Pistons have seems to be the one that transforms a championship caliber team into an afterthought.
******
A young man founded a magazine but soon his business went under and he had no money, so his father took out a second mortgage on his house and maxed out his credit cards to help the son start over. Seven years later, the son was a billionaire and he purchased the Washington Redskins. Daniel Snyder did not come from a wealthy family but his father believed in him so much that he literally put everything on the line as a show of faith and an act of support. I wonder what it is like to have someone in your life who believes in you to that extent but I am sure that I will never, ever find out.
There is no such thing as "trying" to help someone; as Yoda said to Luke Skywalker, "Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'" Skywalker subsequently failed to levitate his swamp-bound X-Wing fighter but watched in disbelief as Yoda freed the X-Wing and deposited it gently on dry land. "I don't believe it," Skywalker said. "That is why you fail," replied Yoda.
You either believe in someone and you help that person or you don't. It really is just that simple.
******
I have always been fascinated by the thin line between success and failure. The life stories of talented people like William James Sidis and Earl Manigault are compelling and tragic; Sidis may have been as intellectually gifted as anyone who ever lived, while Manigault was a breathtakingly talented basketball player, but Sidis died in obscurity and Manigault became a streetball legend instead of an NBA superstar. When I was younger I spent a lot of time thinking about Sidis, Manigault and other talented "failures" (I am not calling them "failures" but merely describing how the outside world views the disparity between their talents and their publicly known accomplishments) and I tried to figure out if they fell short because of their own internal weaknesses or because society failed them in some way; at that time I thought that the truth is somewhere between those extremes but I was quite sure that I was smarter, tougher and savvier than they had been in terms of achieving my goals: I certainly am well aware of the irony of my youthful perspective in light of the fact that my career is currently on the "Sidis track." It is liberating to just "watch the wheels go round" instead of trying to sell articles to idiots but while my failure to connect with idiots does not disturb me in the least my failure to attain the NM title haunts me to the depths of my soul (melodramatic, pathetic--and true). The bitter irony is that even if do I manage to attain the NM title, I will still be haunted by how long it took (there is nothing quite like having a mind that places you in a no win position combined with a competitive spirit that insists you must find a way to win!).
Maybe 40 years after I am dead the next Amy Wallace will emerge to write a sympathetic biography of me--but if GM Lein is right then that really will not do me much good, will it?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thoughts on Poshlost and the Defining Arrogance of Genius
In Vladimir Nabokov, The Art of Fiction No. 40, interviewer Herbert Gold of the Paris Review asked Nabokov, "What is most characteristic of poshlust in contemporary writing? Are there temptations for you in the sin of poshlust? Have you ever fallen?"
Nabokov replied (emphasis added):
“Poshlust,” or in a better transliteration poshlost, has many nuances, and evidently I have not described them clearly enough in my little book on Gogol, if you think one can ask anybody if he is tempted by poshlost. Corny trash, vulgar clichés, Philistinism in all its phases, imitations of imitations, bogus profundities, crude, moronic, and dishonest pseudo-literature—these are obvious examples. Now, if we want to pin down poshlost in contemporary writing, we must look for it in Freudian symbolism, moth-eaten mythologies, social comment, humanistic messages, political allegories, overconcern with class or race, and the journalistic generalities we all know. Poshlost speaks in such concepts as “America is no better than Russia” or “We all share in Germany's guilt.” The flowers of poshlost bloom in such phrases and terms as “the moment of truth,” “charisma,” “existential” (used seriously), “dialogue” (as applied to political talks between nations), and “vocabulary” (as applied to a dauber). Listing in one breath Auschwitz, Hiroshima, and Vietnam is seditious poshlost. Belonging to a very select club (which sports one Jewish name—that of the treasurer) is genteel poshlost. Hack reviews are frequently poshlost, but it also lurks in certain highbrow essays. Poshlost calls Mr. Blank a great poet and Mr. Bluff a great novelist. One of poshlost's favorite breeding places has always been the Art Exhibition; there it is produced by so-called sculptors working with the tools of wreckers, building crankshaft cretins of stainless steel, Zen stereos, polystyrene stinkbirds, objects trouvés in latrines, cannonballs, canned balls. There we admire the gabinetti wall patterns of so-called abstract artists, Freudian surrealism, roric smudges, and Rorschach blots—all of it as corny in its own right as the academic “September Morns” and “Florentine Flowergirls” of half a century ago. The list is long, and, of course, everybody has his bête noire, his black pet, in the series. Mine is that airline ad: the snack served by an obsequious wench to a young couple—she eyeing ecstatically the cucumber canapé, he admiring wistfully the hostess. And, of course, Death in Venice. You see the range.
Nabokov's statement foreshadowed/predicted much of what is wrong not only with contemporary journalism but also with the ideological perspectives that have become very fashionable in certain circles (i.e., equating the actions of President George Herbert Walker Bush with the crimes against humanity committed by Saddam Hussein is not merely inaccurate--it is perverse, or, as Nabokov would say, an example of "poshlost").
Here are some other Nabokov gems from that interview:
The purpose of a critique is to say something about a book the critic has or has not read. Criticism can be instructive in the sense that it gives readers, including the author of the book, some information about the critic's intelligence, or honesty, or both.
---
There is only one school: that of talent.
(Nabokov dismissed the idea that certain Russian poets belonged to different "schools").
---
Derivative writers seem versatile because they imitate many others, past and present. Artistic originality has only its own self to copy.
*****
Nabokov clearly not only possessed talent and originality but he had a quite keen awareness of the extent of his talent and originality; this is a characteristic feature of genius: while people of lesser talent are often clueless about how their skills compare to those of other people and people of average/slightly above average talent have understandable doubts about their capacity to compete with the truly gifted, geniuses generally possess extreme self assurance--to the point of sounding megalomaniacal or even delusional if their public accomplishments do not measure up to their seemingly grossly inflated opinions about themselves. The great architect Frank Lloyd Wright once declared, "Early in life I had to choose between an honest arrogance and a hypocritical humility. I chose honest arrogance and have seen no occasion to change."
Wright's statement is similar to World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer's reply after being asked who is the greatest chess player: "It's nice to be modest, but it would be stupid if I did not tell the truth. It is Fischer."
Albert Einstein's self confidence went even further than Wright's or Fischer's. Einstein's Theory of Relativity was not confirmed until Sir Arthur Eddington made his famous eclipse observations proving that gravity bends light in the manner that Einstein predicted but Einstein never doubted that his conception of how the universe works is not only correct but also the most elegant way for nature to function. Asked what he would have thought if Eddington's experiment had not confirmed the Theory of Relativity, Einstein replied, "Then I would have felt sorry for the Dear Lord. The theory is correct." Einstein thought that he knew better than God--or at least as much as God--about how the laws of nature should work in terms of mathematical elegance, beauty and simplicity!
There can be a thin line between confidence and self-delusion. The tremendous self confidence possessed by Wright, Fischer and Einstein does not seem delusional to us now because each of those men proved himself to be arguably the greatest practitioner of his craft--but what about George Ohr? Was he a confident genius, a delusional eccentric or some combination of both? Should he be defined by his own descriptions of his abilities, by what his contemporaries thought of him or by the high esteem with which his art is now viewed? Which perspective is true, which perspective is most accurate? If Einstein had lived in an era during which it was not possible to experimentally confirm the Theory of Relativity but he insisted that despite his status as a lowly patent clerk he had glimpsed into the mind of God would it have been correct to view Einstein as a genius or a madman?
I suspect that anyone who ranks well above the 99th percentile in a given endeavor--whether that field is architecture, chess, physics, basketball, writing or anything else--truly believes that he is the best in the world, if not the greatest of all-time. Of course, there can really only be one person who is truly the greatest. Disregarding the difficulty--if not impossibility--of proving who is in fact the greatest, if only one person actually is the greatest are the other nine people who rank in the top 10 delusional for thinking that they are the greatest? Or is that kind of thinking, that perspective about oneself, an essential personality trait for anyone who is trying to scale the very highest of heights?
Nabokov replied (emphasis added):
“Poshlust,” or in a better transliteration poshlost, has many nuances, and evidently I have not described them clearly enough in my little book on Gogol, if you think one can ask anybody if he is tempted by poshlost. Corny trash, vulgar clichés, Philistinism in all its phases, imitations of imitations, bogus profundities, crude, moronic, and dishonest pseudo-literature—these are obvious examples. Now, if we want to pin down poshlost in contemporary writing, we must look for it in Freudian symbolism, moth-eaten mythologies, social comment, humanistic messages, political allegories, overconcern with class or race, and the journalistic generalities we all know. Poshlost speaks in such concepts as “America is no better than Russia” or “We all share in Germany's guilt.” The flowers of poshlost bloom in such phrases and terms as “the moment of truth,” “charisma,” “existential” (used seriously), “dialogue” (as applied to political talks between nations), and “vocabulary” (as applied to a dauber). Listing in one breath Auschwitz, Hiroshima, and Vietnam is seditious poshlost. Belonging to a very select club (which sports one Jewish name—that of the treasurer) is genteel poshlost. Hack reviews are frequently poshlost, but it also lurks in certain highbrow essays. Poshlost calls Mr. Blank a great poet and Mr. Bluff a great novelist. One of poshlost's favorite breeding places has always been the Art Exhibition; there it is produced by so-called sculptors working with the tools of wreckers, building crankshaft cretins of stainless steel, Zen stereos, polystyrene stinkbirds, objects trouvés in latrines, cannonballs, canned balls. There we admire the gabinetti wall patterns of so-called abstract artists, Freudian surrealism, roric smudges, and Rorschach blots—all of it as corny in its own right as the academic “September Morns” and “Florentine Flowergirls” of half a century ago. The list is long, and, of course, everybody has his bête noire, his black pet, in the series. Mine is that airline ad: the snack served by an obsequious wench to a young couple—she eyeing ecstatically the cucumber canapé, he admiring wistfully the hostess. And, of course, Death in Venice. You see the range.
Nabokov's statement foreshadowed/predicted much of what is wrong not only with contemporary journalism but also with the ideological perspectives that have become very fashionable in certain circles (i.e., equating the actions of President George Herbert Walker Bush with the crimes against humanity committed by Saddam Hussein is not merely inaccurate--it is perverse, or, as Nabokov would say, an example of "poshlost").
Here are some other Nabokov gems from that interview:
The purpose of a critique is to say something about a book the critic has or has not read. Criticism can be instructive in the sense that it gives readers, including the author of the book, some information about the critic's intelligence, or honesty, or both.
---
There is only one school: that of talent.
(Nabokov dismissed the idea that certain Russian poets belonged to different "schools").
---
Derivative writers seem versatile because they imitate many others, past and present. Artistic originality has only its own self to copy.
*****
Nabokov clearly not only possessed talent and originality but he had a quite keen awareness of the extent of his talent and originality; this is a characteristic feature of genius: while people of lesser talent are often clueless about how their skills compare to those of other people and people of average/slightly above average talent have understandable doubts about their capacity to compete with the truly gifted, geniuses generally possess extreme self assurance--to the point of sounding megalomaniacal or even delusional if their public accomplishments do not measure up to their seemingly grossly inflated opinions about themselves. The great architect Frank Lloyd Wright once declared, "Early in life I had to choose between an honest arrogance and a hypocritical humility. I chose honest arrogance and have seen no occasion to change."
Wright's statement is similar to World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer's reply after being asked who is the greatest chess player: "It's nice to be modest, but it would be stupid if I did not tell the truth. It is Fischer."
Albert Einstein's self confidence went even further than Wright's or Fischer's. Einstein's Theory of Relativity was not confirmed until Sir Arthur Eddington made his famous eclipse observations proving that gravity bends light in the manner that Einstein predicted but Einstein never doubted that his conception of how the universe works is not only correct but also the most elegant way for nature to function. Asked what he would have thought if Eddington's experiment had not confirmed the Theory of Relativity, Einstein replied, "Then I would have felt sorry for the Dear Lord. The theory is correct." Einstein thought that he knew better than God--or at least as much as God--about how the laws of nature should work in terms of mathematical elegance, beauty and simplicity!
There can be a thin line between confidence and self-delusion. The tremendous self confidence possessed by Wright, Fischer and Einstein does not seem delusional to us now because each of those men proved himself to be arguably the greatest practitioner of his craft--but what about George Ohr? Was he a confident genius, a delusional eccentric or some combination of both? Should he be defined by his own descriptions of his abilities, by what his contemporaries thought of him or by the high esteem with which his art is now viewed? Which perspective is true, which perspective is most accurate? If Einstein had lived in an era during which it was not possible to experimentally confirm the Theory of Relativity but he insisted that despite his status as a lowly patent clerk he had glimpsed into the mind of God would it have been correct to view Einstein as a genius or a madman?
I suspect that anyone who ranks well above the 99th percentile in a given endeavor--whether that field is architecture, chess, physics, basketball, writing or anything else--truly believes that he is the best in the world, if not the greatest of all-time. Of course, there can really only be one person who is truly the greatest. Disregarding the difficulty--if not impossibility--of proving who is in fact the greatest, if only one person actually is the greatest are the other nine people who rank in the top 10 delusional for thinking that they are the greatest? Or is that kind of thinking, that perspective about oneself, an essential personality trait for anyone who is trying to scale the very highest of heights?
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
George Ohr: "The Mad Potter of Biloxi"
"Mozart died a pauper/Heine lived in dread/Foster died in Bellevue/Homer begged for bread/Genius pays off handsomely--/After you are dead"--Yip Harburg
"When I am gone, my work will be praised, honored, and cherished. It will come."--George Ohr
Imagine being the very best at what you do, an innovative trendsetter with boundless energy and creativity. That may sound wonderful but often the Faustian "bargain" that comes with such a tremendous gift is that the rest of the world does not recognize your greatness until long after you have died--Vincent Van Gogh sold just one canvas before he killed himself at the age of 37, yet more than a century after his death one biographer rightly declared that Van Gogh "produced an incredible number of masterpieces that will continue 'living' for the rest of human history."
You have most likely never heard of George Ohr. When he died of throat cancer at the age of 60 in 1918 he was considered--by the few people who even knew who he was--to be a flamboyant eccentric. More than 7000 pieces of pottery that Ohr lovingly created languished in crates stored in the garage of an auto repair shop run by his sons in his native Biloxi, Mississippi. If not for a chance encounter between a New Jersey antiques dealer named James Carpenter and Ohr's son Ojo it is likely that the world would never have known about Ohr's distinctive works.
Although Ohr was mocked during his lifetime and had trouble selling his pottery even to his few admirers, Ohr had boundless confidence. When he set up his wares, Ohr proudly posted a sign that read, "'Greatest' art potter on Earth. 'You' prove it contrary." In a 1901 interview, Ohr acknowledged his lack of commercial success by lamenting "I have a notion...that I am a mistake" but his prescient prediction from that same interview indicates that he knew that the "mistake" was really the lack of insight shown by his contemporaries: "When I am gone, my work will be praised, honored, and cherished. It will come." In his shop, Ohr hung a hand-lettered sign with the Latin phrase Magnus opus, nulli secundus/optimus cognito, ergo sum! (A masterpiece, second to none/The best, therefore, I am!).
How thin is the line between being a genius who is celebrated during his lifetime and a genius who is not recognized as such until long after his death? Consider that Albert Einstein--whose name has become synonymous with the word genius--worked six days a week for seven years as a patent clerk because he could not obtain a full time academic position. During his spare time, Einstein wrote five papers that completely revolutionized the way that we perceive the universe--and yet even after the "annus mirabilis" (miracle year) of 1905 in which Einstein composed and published those papers it took until 1908 before Einstein became a full professor. Wouldn't you love to eavesdrop on some of those job interviews? "We're sorry, Herr Einstein, but you just are not quite qualified to teach at our institution." What must Einstein have thought after being rejected numerous times by people who had just a fraction of his intelligence? A quote from a letter that Einstein wrote during this frustrating period provides a glimpse of how he perceived the academics who refused to hire him: "From now on I’ll no longer turn to such people, and will instead attack them mercilessly in the journals, as they deserve. No wonder little by little one becomes a misanthrope."
Although Einstein had to suffer slings and arrows from many fools, he eventually achieved the fame and respect that he deserved, which provided him what he most wanted--the opportunity to work on his theories in solitude, undisturbed by the rest of the world. The huge advantage that Einstein enjoyed over Van Gogh and Ohr is that it became possible to experimentally verify some of the fantastic theoretical predictions that Einstein made in his 1905 papers; when Arthur Eddington's 1919 eclipse observations confirmed Einstein's assertion that gravity bends light Einstein instantly became a figure of worldwide renown not only in the scientific community but among the general public. Sadly, such instant verification of genius does not exist in the literary or artistic fields.
"When I am gone, my work will be praised, honored, and cherished. It will come."--George Ohr
Imagine being the very best at what you do, an innovative trendsetter with boundless energy and creativity. That may sound wonderful but often the Faustian "bargain" that comes with such a tremendous gift is that the rest of the world does not recognize your greatness until long after you have died--Vincent Van Gogh sold just one canvas before he killed himself at the age of 37, yet more than a century after his death one biographer rightly declared that Van Gogh "produced an incredible number of masterpieces that will continue 'living' for the rest of human history."
You have most likely never heard of George Ohr. When he died of throat cancer at the age of 60 in 1918 he was considered--by the few people who even knew who he was--to be a flamboyant eccentric. More than 7000 pieces of pottery that Ohr lovingly created languished in crates stored in the garage of an auto repair shop run by his sons in his native Biloxi, Mississippi. If not for a chance encounter between a New Jersey antiques dealer named James Carpenter and Ohr's son Ojo it is likely that the world would never have known about Ohr's distinctive works.
Although Ohr was mocked during his lifetime and had trouble selling his pottery even to his few admirers, Ohr had boundless confidence. When he set up his wares, Ohr proudly posted a sign that read, "'Greatest' art potter on Earth. 'You' prove it contrary." In a 1901 interview, Ohr acknowledged his lack of commercial success by lamenting "I have a notion...that I am a mistake" but his prescient prediction from that same interview indicates that he knew that the "mistake" was really the lack of insight shown by his contemporaries: "When I am gone, my work will be praised, honored, and cherished. It will come." In his shop, Ohr hung a hand-lettered sign with the Latin phrase Magnus opus, nulli secundus/optimus cognito, ergo sum! (A masterpiece, second to none/The best, therefore, I am!).
How thin is the line between being a genius who is celebrated during his lifetime and a genius who is not recognized as such until long after his death? Consider that Albert Einstein--whose name has become synonymous with the word genius--worked six days a week for seven years as a patent clerk because he could not obtain a full time academic position. During his spare time, Einstein wrote five papers that completely revolutionized the way that we perceive the universe--and yet even after the "annus mirabilis" (miracle year) of 1905 in which Einstein composed and published those papers it took until 1908 before Einstein became a full professor. Wouldn't you love to eavesdrop on some of those job interviews? "We're sorry, Herr Einstein, but you just are not quite qualified to teach at our institution." What must Einstein have thought after being rejected numerous times by people who had just a fraction of his intelligence? A quote from a letter that Einstein wrote during this frustrating period provides a glimpse of how he perceived the academics who refused to hire him: "From now on I’ll no longer turn to such people, and will instead attack them mercilessly in the journals, as they deserve. No wonder little by little one becomes a misanthrope."
Although Einstein had to suffer slings and arrows from many fools, he eventually achieved the fame and respect that he deserved, which provided him what he most wanted--the opportunity to work on his theories in solitude, undisturbed by the rest of the world. The huge advantage that Einstein enjoyed over Van Gogh and Ohr is that it became possible to experimentally verify some of the fantastic theoretical predictions that Einstein made in his 1905 papers; when Arthur Eddington's 1919 eclipse observations confirmed Einstein's assertion that gravity bends light Einstein instantly became a figure of worldwide renown not only in the scientific community but among the general public. Sadly, such instant verification of genius does not exist in the literary or artistic fields.
Labels:
Albert Einstein,
genius,
George Ohr,
pottery,
Smithsonian,
Vincent Van Gogh
Saturday, December 19, 2009
New Wrinkle in Demjanjuk Case
There is significant, powerful evidence that John Demjanjuk served as an SS guard who participated in the Nazi genocide against the Jewish people during World War II; I called out Esquire's Scott Raab for ignoring that evidence but Esquire did not publish my letter to the editor. Now it seems that Demjanjuk was not only a cog in the Nazi Death Camp Machine--which is bad enough and should be punishable by execution--but that he also murdered a Jewish Holocaust survivor in cold blood while both men worked for the U.S. army motor pool in post-war Germany.
In his article Raab identifies himself as a Jew, as if his heritage justifies/excuses his sloppy research and tendentious writing. Raab and Esquire must be so proud that they have provided aid and comfort to Demjanjuk while also disregarding my refutation of their irresponsible "journalism."
In his article Raab identifies himself as a Jew, as if his heritage justifies/excuses his sloppy research and tendentious writing. Raab and Esquire must be so proud that they have provided aid and comfort to Demjanjuk while also disregarding my refutation of their irresponsible "journalism."
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Arshile Gorky: "A Short Life, but Long Enough to be a Hinge that History Turned on"
The quality of one's life cannot properly be measured merely in years but rather in the fullness and depth of a person's artistic, creative and/or humanitarian achievement. Arshile Gorky suffered for his art, turned his suffering into art and then, while in his mid-40s (his exact year of birth is not known), decided to permanently end his suffering. Gorky is not remembered for how he died but for what he created while he lived and for the tremendous influence that he exerted over contemporary and future artists.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
"Michael Jackson's This is It": Fitting Requiem for an Artistic Genius
I just saw "Michael Jackson's This is It," an entertaining and poignant look at Michael Jackson's last performances: his rehearsals for what he planned to be his final worldwide tour. If Jackson had not died suddenly and unexpectedly at the age of 50 just days before the tour would have started then we likely would never have seen the rehearsal footage, because it was originally supposed to go into Jackson's private library; I suspect that the perfectionist in Jackson might have been somewhat self conscious about the world seeing him practice but that the part of him that loved his fans would have understood how much it means to them to see and hear him perform his classic hits one last time.
The footage makes it very clear that Jackson still had his singing and dancing chops and that his final tour would have been an ambitious, bold extravaganza, featuring new audio and visual takes on his greatest hits while preserving the essence that made those songs so popular; in one practice session for "The Way You Make Me Feel," Jackson patiently worked with the musical director and other musicians to literally make sure that every single note sounded exactly right. Jackson said that he wanted each note to sound precisely the way that it did on his albums because that is what the fans expect--yet he also jazzed up (or funked up) certain parts of some songs as well, making them sound familiar and yet new at the same time. You don't have to be a musical expert to quickly notice that Jackson not only had a highly tuned ear that detected the subtlest difference between musical notes but also that he was very good at explaining/demonstrating exactly what he expected the other musicians to do. Jackson made his points softly, with a generous sharing spirit; he involved others in the creative process as opposed to simply dictating to them what to do. On several occasions when a dancer or musician messed up, Jackson quietly offered a correction and said, without any evident frustration, "That is why we have rehearsal."
During one segment, Jackson and others worked out the sequence in which various effects would happen. Jackson wanted to give a hand signal as a cue to start one effect, but the director asked Jackson how Jackson would know the right time to give the signal because Jackson would not be able to see when the preceding effect behind him had finished. Jackson thought for a beat, then said that he would know when to make the cue by "feel." That simple reply is a touchstone of his genius and made me think of how a grandmaster once said that Bobby Fischer could throw a chess piece in the air and it would land on the right square: one aspect of genius is an innate "feel" for how something should be done, indeed how it must be done--and yet it is very important to understand that this innate "feel" must be honed by thousands of hours of practice in order to fully blossom. Fischer arguably had the most talent but it is inarguable that he worked extraordinarily diligently.
While it certainly would have been wonderful to see Jackson successfully complete his concert tour, I find it fascinating to get a glimpse of his behind the scenes work ethic; when I go to NBA games one of my favorite things to do is watch the players warm up--not just the cursory warmup that takes place minutes before tip-off but also the practicing that they do before the doors open to the general public: I will never forget watching Reggie Miller's extensive, highly programmed shooting routine, starting with layups and then moving outward progressively. Miller is one of the greatest long-range shooters ever but he practiced layups before every single game! Miller had a tremendous "feel" for shooting but he honed that "feel" with his diligent attention to detail. I only saw Michael Jordan in person twice--once in a preseason game during his first comeback and once in a regular season game during his second comeback--and what struck me most about those two games was the shots that Jordan practiced beforehand: he concentrated mainly on turnaround jumpers in the post/midpost and free throws; Jordan had obviously shot those shots thousands of times previously but he never stopped working on perfecting his touch from his primary scoring areas. Jordan neither wasted time with shots that he would not shoot in a game nor did he neglect to practice any shot that he likely would take. This summer, Kobe Bryant--who has been the most complete player in the NBA for years--worked out with Hakeem Olajuwon to learn low post moves. Jordan, Bryant and Miller could be described as basketball geniuses but they understand that their "feel" for the game must be constantly honed. Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young expresses a similar sentiment when he speaks of the "craft" of quarterbacking.
Jackson worked hard during the rehearsals and yet he seemed to experience great joy; he talked about preserving his voice for the upcoming tour but he could not resist singing through complete songs at full force, much to the delight of the assembled dancers, musicians and work crew--Jackson lightheartedly chided them for giving him so much love that he felt obligated to sing instead of simply walking through the choreography.
Some of Jackson's collaborators seemed understandably star-struck; on a couple occasions, he had to gesture to a dancer to complete a move instead of simply watching what Jackson did. Jackson encouraged everyone to express their talents fully; he told lead guitarist Orianthi Panagaris that a certain guitar solo was her "time to shine" and that she should hit the highest note that she could muster.
Jackson emphasized that he intended for his concert tour to not only entertain but to also spread the important message that we must love each other and we must tenderly care for our ailing planet before it is too late. Music and dance emanate from a place deep within the human soul and that is why the artistry of great musicians and dancers resonates so powerfully. I have always thought that in Jackson's Egyptian-themed "Remember the Time" video the real power rested not with Eddie Murray's Pharoah character--a leader whose mere gesture of disapproval could lead to someone's execution--but rather with Jackson's character (a sort of court jester), because Jackson had the ability to inspire wonder from all those around him; even if the Pharoah's henchmen had captured and killed the Jackson character anyone who had seen him perform for Pharoah would have never forgotten him, so the Jackson character was truly immortal--much like Jackson himself is. In "My Philosophy," KRS-ONE very poetically expressed that creators have enduring power far superior to the power held by political and business leaders: "Who gets weaker? The king or the teacher?/It's not about a salary, it's all about reality/Teachers teach and do the world good/Kings just rule and most are never understood/If you were to rule or govern a certain industry/All inside this room right now would be in misery/No one would get along nor sing a song/'Cause everyone'd be singing for the king, am I wrong?"
Jackson clearly experienced "flow" during these rehearsal sessions. It is our loss that he is no longer with us to continue to create music--and his sister Janet Jackson made a poignant comment shortly after his death when she said that to the rest of the world Michael Jackson is an icon but to her he is family--but it could also be said that Jackson died while doing what he most liked to do and at a time when he was still able to perform at a high level; unlike the last images of a bloated Elvis Presley, who--though still young--had already seen his best days, "Michael Jackson's This is It" shows an artist who still possessed vibrancy, creativity and energy. Jackson's rehearsal performances are achingly beautiful and at times they moved me to tears--tears of joy from watching a great artist in a "flow" state, tears of sadness that he is gone and even tears of relief in the sense that Jackson has been released from the internal demons and external critics who hounded him.
"Michael Jackson's This is It" will only be in theaters for a two week run starting October 28, so if you want to see it on the big screen then you need to act quickly.
The footage makes it very clear that Jackson still had his singing and dancing chops and that his final tour would have been an ambitious, bold extravaganza, featuring new audio and visual takes on his greatest hits while preserving the essence that made those songs so popular; in one practice session for "The Way You Make Me Feel," Jackson patiently worked with the musical director and other musicians to literally make sure that every single note sounded exactly right. Jackson said that he wanted each note to sound precisely the way that it did on his albums because that is what the fans expect--yet he also jazzed up (or funked up) certain parts of some songs as well, making them sound familiar and yet new at the same time. You don't have to be a musical expert to quickly notice that Jackson not only had a highly tuned ear that detected the subtlest difference between musical notes but also that he was very good at explaining/demonstrating exactly what he expected the other musicians to do. Jackson made his points softly, with a generous sharing spirit; he involved others in the creative process as opposed to simply dictating to them what to do. On several occasions when a dancer or musician messed up, Jackson quietly offered a correction and said, without any evident frustration, "That is why we have rehearsal."
During one segment, Jackson and others worked out the sequence in which various effects would happen. Jackson wanted to give a hand signal as a cue to start one effect, but the director asked Jackson how Jackson would know the right time to give the signal because Jackson would not be able to see when the preceding effect behind him had finished. Jackson thought for a beat, then said that he would know when to make the cue by "feel." That simple reply is a touchstone of his genius and made me think of how a grandmaster once said that Bobby Fischer could throw a chess piece in the air and it would land on the right square: one aspect of genius is an innate "feel" for how something should be done, indeed how it must be done--and yet it is very important to understand that this innate "feel" must be honed by thousands of hours of practice in order to fully blossom. Fischer arguably had the most talent but it is inarguable that he worked extraordinarily diligently.
While it certainly would have been wonderful to see Jackson successfully complete his concert tour, I find it fascinating to get a glimpse of his behind the scenes work ethic; when I go to NBA games one of my favorite things to do is watch the players warm up--not just the cursory warmup that takes place minutes before tip-off but also the practicing that they do before the doors open to the general public: I will never forget watching Reggie Miller's extensive, highly programmed shooting routine, starting with layups and then moving outward progressively. Miller is one of the greatest long-range shooters ever but he practiced layups before every single game! Miller had a tremendous "feel" for shooting but he honed that "feel" with his diligent attention to detail. I only saw Michael Jordan in person twice--once in a preseason game during his first comeback and once in a regular season game during his second comeback--and what struck me most about those two games was the shots that Jordan practiced beforehand: he concentrated mainly on turnaround jumpers in the post/midpost and free throws; Jordan had obviously shot those shots thousands of times previously but he never stopped working on perfecting his touch from his primary scoring areas. Jordan neither wasted time with shots that he would not shoot in a game nor did he neglect to practice any shot that he likely would take. This summer, Kobe Bryant--who has been the most complete player in the NBA for years--worked out with Hakeem Olajuwon to learn low post moves. Jordan, Bryant and Miller could be described as basketball geniuses but they understand that their "feel" for the game must be constantly honed. Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young expresses a similar sentiment when he speaks of the "craft" of quarterbacking.
Jackson worked hard during the rehearsals and yet he seemed to experience great joy; he talked about preserving his voice for the upcoming tour but he could not resist singing through complete songs at full force, much to the delight of the assembled dancers, musicians and work crew--Jackson lightheartedly chided them for giving him so much love that he felt obligated to sing instead of simply walking through the choreography.
Some of Jackson's collaborators seemed understandably star-struck; on a couple occasions, he had to gesture to a dancer to complete a move instead of simply watching what Jackson did. Jackson encouraged everyone to express their talents fully; he told lead guitarist Orianthi Panagaris that a certain guitar solo was her "time to shine" and that she should hit the highest note that she could muster.
Jackson emphasized that he intended for his concert tour to not only entertain but to also spread the important message that we must love each other and we must tenderly care for our ailing planet before it is too late. Music and dance emanate from a place deep within the human soul and that is why the artistry of great musicians and dancers resonates so powerfully. I have always thought that in Jackson's Egyptian-themed "Remember the Time" video the real power rested not with Eddie Murray's Pharoah character--a leader whose mere gesture of disapproval could lead to someone's execution--but rather with Jackson's character (a sort of court jester), because Jackson had the ability to inspire wonder from all those around him; even if the Pharoah's henchmen had captured and killed the Jackson character anyone who had seen him perform for Pharoah would have never forgotten him, so the Jackson character was truly immortal--much like Jackson himself is. In "My Philosophy," KRS-ONE very poetically expressed that creators have enduring power far superior to the power held by political and business leaders: "Who gets weaker? The king or the teacher?/It's not about a salary, it's all about reality/Teachers teach and do the world good/Kings just rule and most are never understood/If you were to rule or govern a certain industry/All inside this room right now would be in misery/No one would get along nor sing a song/'Cause everyone'd be singing for the king, am I wrong?"
Jackson clearly experienced "flow" during these rehearsal sessions. It is our loss that he is no longer with us to continue to create music--and his sister Janet Jackson made a poignant comment shortly after his death when she said that to the rest of the world Michael Jackson is an icon but to her he is family--but it could also be said that Jackson died while doing what he most liked to do and at a time when he was still able to perform at a high level; unlike the last images of a bloated Elvis Presley, who--though still young--had already seen his best days, "Michael Jackson's This is It" shows an artist who still possessed vibrancy, creativity and energy. Jackson's rehearsal performances are achingly beautiful and at times they moved me to tears--tears of joy from watching a great artist in a "flow" state, tears of sadness that he is gone and even tears of relief in the sense that Jackson has been released from the internal demons and external critics who hounded him.
"Michael Jackson's This is It" will only be in theaters for a two week run starting October 28, so if you want to see it on the big screen then you need to act quickly.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Esquire Magazine Glorifies Accused SS Guard John Demjanjuk
Scott Raab's November 2009 Esquire article titled "The Last Nazi" paints a sympathetic portrait of John Demjanjuk, the Cleveland autoworker who has been accused of being an SS guard. Demjanjuk was sentenced to death by Israel in 1988 but the Israel Supreme Court overturned that conviction on a technicality in 1993; Demjanjuk had been charged with being Treblinka's infamous "Ivan the Terrible" but evidence released from Soviet archives after Demjanjuk's conviction raised the possibility that Demjanjuk was, as Alan Dershowitz wrote in an August 14, 1993 Jerusalem Post International Edition article, "Ivan the Very Bad of Sobibor." Dershowitz also pointed out that the Israel Supreme Court bent over backwards to be fair to Demjanjuk, because most courts have "unreasonably rigid rules about when newly discovered evidence can be introduced to reverse a guilty verdict, even in a death penalty case." While the Israeli trial may not have proven that Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible," it demonstrated that Demjanjuk had in fact served as an SS guard at the Sobibor death camp--and on that basis alone the Israeli Supreme Court certainly would have been justified in upholding Demjanjuk's death sentence. Indeed, an August 7, 1993 JPIE article by Evelyn Gordon bore the title, "The judges' ruling was a triumph of legal principle but was justice done?" Gordon quoted Mordechai Kremnitzer, dean of the Hebrew University Law School: "The Supreme Court stretched to the maximum these liberal principles of proper defense for criminals." Kremnitzer added that Demjanjunk "got off the hook by a distance that could be measured perhaps in millimeters" and although Kremnitzer refused to explicitly condemn the Supreme Court's ruling he concluded, "But if the court had decided to convict him--at least on the Trawnicki document, which was a major part of the case--I would have been ready to defend the decision."
Raab's article disgusted me so much that I sent this letter to Esquire's editors:
Scott Raab attempted to do justice both to the horrors of the Holocaust and to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" but his attempt to create sympathy for John Demjanjuk is most unfortunate because it is not grounded in the facts of the case. Joshua Muravchik authored the definitive piece about the Demjanjuk case ("Demjanjuk: A Summing Up," published in the April 1997 issue of Commentary).
Raab suggested that it is "funny" that the same evidence that first was used to accuse Demjanjuk of being an SS guard at Treblinka is now being used to accuse Demjanjuk of being an SS guard at Sobibor--but Demjanjuk's posting to Sobibor is dated March 27, 1943 and Muravchik noted "Since the vast bulk of the killing at Treblinka was accomplished between July 1942 and January 1943, Demjanjuk could have earned his notoriety as Ivan the Terrible there and then been transferred to Sobibor in March. The two camps were only 100 miles apart and Wachmanner were often transferred."
Raab completely ignored the numerous contradictions--not to mention outright lies--in Demjanjuk's various accounts of his wartime activities, including the fact that Demjanjuk has admitted that he lied on his immigration application to the United States. Demjanjuk also did not have a satisfactory explanation for the scar on his left arm in the exact place where Waffen SS members received tattoos; Demjanjuk admitted to being tattooed there and he admitted to gouging out the tattoo but denied that it had been an SS tattoo.
Murachik declared, "None of the courts that have heard Demjanjuk's case, in America or in Israel, has found him credible on his wartime experience. As Judge Thomas Wiseman, Jr., the Special Master appointed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, stated in his report: 'Mr. Demjanjuk's alibi was so incredible as to legitimately raise the suspicions of his prosecutors that he lied about everything.'"
It is irresponsible for Raab to not have made it quite clear that Demjanjuk has not only contradicted himself during his various court testimonies but at times Demjanjuk has even contradicted the evidence supplied by his own lawyers! Demjanjuk has never provided a credible, consistent account of his wartime activities. Raab paints an image of a sickly, dying Demjanjuk but the reality is that Demjanjuk lied when he was a young man trying to gain entry to the United States and Demjanjuk lied when he was a middle aged man on trial for being an SS guard.
The Israeli Supreme Court ultimately set Demjanjuk free on a procedural technicality and declined to put him on trial again despite the very strong evidence that he did in fact serve as an SS guard in Sobibor, so for Raab to try to make Demjanjuk a sympathetic figure is reprehensible. Murachik concluded, "In short, the evidence that Demjanjuk served as a Wachmann at Trawnicki, Sobibor and Flossenburg was and remains quite persuasive. In addition to the identity card, at least one other document places him at Sobibor and at least four put him at Trawnicki, while at least three put him at Flossenburg after Sobibor. All of these documents are mutually consistent and all bear Demjanjuk's tell-tale identification number...Is John Demjanjuk Ivan the Terrible? We may never know. If he is not, then justice of a sort has been done through his acquittal by the Israel Supreme Court. But that acquittal hardly makes him 'an innocent victim,' as his defenders would have it, much less a martyr. Far from it. That he served the SS and assisted in unspeakable crimes against humanity--of that, there can be no doubt."
Raab obviously spent quite a bit of time interviewing various Demjanjuk family members/sympathizers--but did he ever take the time to review the court proceedings and the actual evidence of the case? Raab's article will surely give great comfort to Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers but it hardly did justice to this case or to the victims of the Holocaust.
Raab's article disgusted me so much that I sent this letter to Esquire's editors:
Scott Raab attempted to do justice both to the horrors of the Holocaust and to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" but his attempt to create sympathy for John Demjanjuk is most unfortunate because it is not grounded in the facts of the case. Joshua Muravchik authored the definitive piece about the Demjanjuk case ("Demjanjuk: A Summing Up," published in the April 1997 issue of Commentary).
Raab suggested that it is "funny" that the same evidence that first was used to accuse Demjanjuk of being an SS guard at Treblinka is now being used to accuse Demjanjuk of being an SS guard at Sobibor--but Demjanjuk's posting to Sobibor is dated March 27, 1943 and Muravchik noted "Since the vast bulk of the killing at Treblinka was accomplished between July 1942 and January 1943, Demjanjuk could have earned his notoriety as Ivan the Terrible there and then been transferred to Sobibor in March. The two camps were only 100 miles apart and Wachmanner were often transferred."
Raab completely ignored the numerous contradictions--not to mention outright lies--in Demjanjuk's various accounts of his wartime activities, including the fact that Demjanjuk has admitted that he lied on his immigration application to the United States. Demjanjuk also did not have a satisfactory explanation for the scar on his left arm in the exact place where Waffen SS members received tattoos; Demjanjuk admitted to being tattooed there and he admitted to gouging out the tattoo but denied that it had been an SS tattoo.
Murachik declared, "None of the courts that have heard Demjanjuk's case, in America or in Israel, has found him credible on his wartime experience. As Judge Thomas Wiseman, Jr., the Special Master appointed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, stated in his report: 'Mr. Demjanjuk's alibi was so incredible as to legitimately raise the suspicions of his prosecutors that he lied about everything.'"
It is irresponsible for Raab to not have made it quite clear that Demjanjuk has not only contradicted himself during his various court testimonies but at times Demjanjuk has even contradicted the evidence supplied by his own lawyers! Demjanjuk has never provided a credible, consistent account of his wartime activities. Raab paints an image of a sickly, dying Demjanjuk but the reality is that Demjanjuk lied when he was a young man trying to gain entry to the United States and Demjanjuk lied when he was a middle aged man on trial for being an SS guard.
The Israeli Supreme Court ultimately set Demjanjuk free on a procedural technicality and declined to put him on trial again despite the very strong evidence that he did in fact serve as an SS guard in Sobibor, so for Raab to try to make Demjanjuk a sympathetic figure is reprehensible. Murachik concluded, "In short, the evidence that Demjanjuk served as a Wachmann at Trawnicki, Sobibor and Flossenburg was and remains quite persuasive. In addition to the identity card, at least one other document places him at Sobibor and at least four put him at Trawnicki, while at least three put him at Flossenburg after Sobibor. All of these documents are mutually consistent and all bear Demjanjuk's tell-tale identification number...Is John Demjanjuk Ivan the Terrible? We may never know. If he is not, then justice of a sort has been done through his acquittal by the Israel Supreme Court. But that acquittal hardly makes him 'an innocent victim,' as his defenders would have it, much less a martyr. Far from it. That he served the SS and assisted in unspeakable crimes against humanity--of that, there can be no doubt."
Raab obviously spent quite a bit of time interviewing various Demjanjuk family members/sympathizers--but did he ever take the time to review the court proceedings and the actual evidence of the case? Raab's article will surely give great comfort to Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers but it hardly did justice to this case or to the victims of the Holocaust.
Labels:
Esquire Magazine,
John Demjanjuk,
Scott Raab,
Sobibor,
Treblinka
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
All contents Copyright (c) 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 David Friedman. All rights reserved.
