Sunday Night Journal — May 27, 2012

Three Movies and a Book

Winter's Bone

I suspect most people who read this blog regularly have already seen this–after all, you're the ones who told me about it. But a brief description for those who haven't: it's about a seriously messed-up family in rural Missouri. and is a very grim portrayal of the methedrine trade that seems to be doing to a lot of rural and small-town America what crack did to the big cities. The father is mixed up with the local meth (and who knows what else) syndicate. After being arrested, he has put the family farm up for bail money and disappeared. The mother is mentally ill in a pretty serious way, completely non-functional. There are three children: seventeen-year-old Ree and two much younger siblings. As the semi-adult on the scene, it falls to her to try to salvage the family and their home.

Ree needs to find her father and get him to show up for his court appearance. Naturally she goes first to his criminal associates. They don't want any questions asked. Things get ugly, and that's enough plot summary, in case anyone who's reading this hasn't seen the movie.

It's an excellent piece of work, but extremely grim, though not hopeless. Take two parts rural poverty, one part menace, and a dash of horror, and set it in the middle of grey-brown mountain winter. Not pretty, but worth seeing. I must say, too, that it captures the general atmosphere of a certain element of the rural South all too well. (No, Missouri is not "the South" exactly, but the poor white culture that we think of as Southern actually reaches into parts of the Midwest.) I don't mean the drugs and the heavy violence, but the basic culture: the way the people talk, the way they deal with each other, the houses with old cars and other machinery strewn around the property, and so forth. The film mainly shows only the darker side, which is only one part of the picture, but accurate as far as it goes. The acting is excellent. I was amused to hear a figure of speech which I used to hear frequently from someone I worked with who came from a similar background: "useless as tits on a boar."

I have not read the novel on which the movie is based, by the way.

Thank You for Smoking

This is a comedy based on Christopher Buckley's novel of the same name, which, again, I have not read. A black comedy, I should say (is that still allowed?), which follows the fortunes of a spokesman for the tobacco industry as he tries to make his employer look like a benefactor of mankind. Deeply cynical, he meets regularly with a couple of lobbyists for the firearms and alcohol industries. The three call themselves the M.O.D. Squad–Merchants of Death. I wouldn't recommend it strongly, but it's pretty funny in places. There is a sex scene which, like most, would have been better left off-screen. 

Die Hard

I hate to say it–I'm embarrassed to say it–but within the limits of the sort of thing it is, this is a great movie. I recorded it when it was shown on AMC several weeks ago and watched it in half-hour bits.  (It is crazy that we have cable TV and only use it for watching Alabama football, PBS, and movies most of which we could easily rent.) Years ago–and I think this is not the first time I've described this phenomenon–I saw part of it on TV in a hotel while I was at some conference or training. I had seen the last half or so of it, and every time I saw it mentioned I wondered how the story started. 

Really, don't laugh: as action movies go, I doubt they get much better than this. The villains are really bad, the action is spectacular and for the most part not totally unbelievable, and the hero is really a hero, albeit a flawed one (naturally): in the end his strongest motivation is his love for his wife and the attempt to save her from the villains. 

I suppose anyone with the least bit of weakness for this sort of thing has already seen it,  but if not, try it sometime when you want a couple of hours' entertainment. Die Hard II  is not nearly as good, in my opinion.

Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell

One of my children gave me this book, which is subtitled The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, for Christmas, inscribing it to "Indecisive" from "Overthinking it." I was skeptical, because I hadn't read any of Gladwell's books and think of him as a purveyor of the sort of pop social-science that tries to explain way too much. I ended up somewhat fascinated, though, not so much by any overall thesis, which in the end is not really on offer here (the subtitle seems to promise something which is not delivered), but by the case studies presented and what they reveal about the working of the human mind. 

I have suspected for a long time that there really is such a thing as female intuition, and that it's nothing mystical, but rather a very strong sensitivity to little things, operating in part below the level of consciousness. I have seen instances in which it was strikingly correct and instances in which it was strikingly incorrect. That sort of phenomenon, and those two sorts of instances, are what the book is about. It begins with a (true) story in which the Getty museum was offered a piece of statuary represented as being ancient Greek. The museum paid legal experts to investigate its ownership and history, and scientists to investigate its age. It was pronounced genuine, and the purchase was made. But from the beginning there were doubts on the part of art experts who knew at first glance that something was wrong.

Evelyn Harrison was next. She was one of the world's foremost experts on Greek sculpture, and she was in Los Angeles visiting the Getty just before the museum finalized the deal with Becchina. "Arthur Houghton, who was then the curator, took us down to see it," Harrison remembers. "He just swished a cloth off the top of it and said, 'Well, it isn't ours yet, but it will be in a couple of weeks.' And I said, 'I'm sorry to hear that.'"

The book contains one anecdote after another like that, in which someone reaches an instantaneous sub-rational conclusion and is convinced of its truth though he may not be able to explain why he believes it. My favorite of these is a tennis coach who usually knows when a player is about to double-fault on a serve. He didn't set out to make these predictions as a stunt, he just noticed that he usually seemed to know. And–this is the really interesting part–even after devoting a great deal of effort to trying to figure out the signal, watching a great deal of film, breaking it down frame-by-frame and so forth, as of the writing of the book he still doesn't know how he does it.

And then there are the cases where an intuitive snap judgment is wrong, the most dramatic and tragic being the Diallo case in New York, in which an unarmed man was killed by police who seem to have genuinely believed, first he was holding a gun, then that he had fired it.

What is the lesson here? That sometimes quick intuitive judgments are uncannily right, and sometimes they're completely wrong. When they're wrong, they tend to involve situations where something is at work that causes us to think we see what we expected to see, or are particularly alert for, such as a gun in the hand of a suspected criminal.

There is one situation, the only one I can think of, where I've noticed myself having the sort of ability that those art experts in the Getty story had. I worked for ten years as a software developer, and still do a certain amount of that work in my current job. I was never as good as the best programmers with whom I worked, but I did notice one gift that not everyone else seemed to have: when there was a problem with software that I had been involved with, I often was able to go straight to the source of the problem without any preliminary investigation, without looking at the evidence. This was obviously based on knowledge, but my judgment did not make conscious use of that knowledge. Not a particularly significant instance, but an interesting one in light of this book, because I remember wondering how I knew. Whether or not the ideas in this book have any applicability to situations in which one finds oneself, it's an interesting read. 

26 responses to “Sunday Night Journal — May 27, 2012”

  1. I had to read Gladwell’s Outliers for a book club last year. I was not happy about it and I thought the book had many faults, for example, I don’t think there was enough evidence to prove some of the points he was trying to make, and I think he overlooked a lot of aspects that may have influenced the situations he was describing. Also, his idea of success is so different from mine, that I didn’t find it particularly useful. Still, the book was interesting anecdotally and I’m not sorry I read it. The explanation, for example, of why Korean flights crashed so often was really interesting.
    AMDG

  2. I remember you complaining about that and was sort of prepared for you to express dismay at my discussing this one. “Interesting anecdotally and I’m not sorry I read it” sort of sums up my reaction to this one. It’s the only Gladwell I’ve read, btw. Why did Korean flights crash so often?

  3. Because Koreans never correct their superiors. So, the co- pilot might realize something was terriblywrong but he could only talk around it and hope the pilot would catch on. It got so bad that Korean planes weren’t allowed to fly over Canadian airspace.Having worked with Korean students, I can see how this would be true.
    Finally, they figured out what was going on and trained the pilots to interact differently.
    AMDG

  4. That’s fascinating. Reminds me of a talk on a somewhat similar phenomenon I heard years ago. Don’t have time right now to tell it–tomorrow sometime.

  5. Noah G.

    I saw Die Hard three times in the theaters when it first came out (I was 14 or so). I used to really love that movie. It’s been awhile, maybe I’ll watch it again. ๐Ÿ™‚

  6. There are worse things you could have been watching at age 14. Might not be as good as you remember it…but then I loved The Great Escape when I was somewhere around that age and it’s still good. Better than DH, though they’re so different that that’s not a fair comparison.

  7. Grumpy Ex Pat

    Winter’s Bone was one of the best movies I saw in 2011. I would like to see Die Hard!

  8. I’m pretty sure that I saw Die Hard a long time ago and that I even liked it, but I couldn’t tell you anything about it except that Bruce Willis was in it.
    Someday I will probably watch Winter’s Bone, but I am only going to watch pretty happy stuff for about two months. I think.
    I pretty much like grey-brown mountain winter. I don’t think I’d like to like in a cold cabin in the mountains, but I like to drive through them, and walk around a bit when they are that way.
    AMDG
    aMDG

  9. I do, too (like grey-brown winter), but it’s used to very depressing effect in this movie. You definitely should avoid it if you aren’t in the frame of mind to watch serious grimness.
    I sorta think you would enjoy DH, Grumpy. The eeeevvvilll guy is Alan Rickman, who apparently has been specializing in eeeevvvillll for a while.

  10. I saw Alan Rickman get killed by a snake tonight for the 147,000th time. It’s beginning to be not so sad.
    My favorite AR roles are Col. Brandon in Sense and Sensibility in the version in which I hate almost everyone else, and Alexander Dane in Galaxy Quest. You have to have watched a lot of Star Trek to think GQ is funny. I have, although I have no desire to watch it again, and I think it’s really funny.
    I had forgotten that he played Obadiah Slope in Barchester Towers. What a horrid person he was.
    AMDG

  11. I watched Die Hard a couple of years ago. I had only known (by reputation) the later ones, and had assumed the first was about as good (that is, about as bad). I was surprised when I discovered that the first film was well regarded. I liked it, although I had hoped it would be better than it was. I think action movies have benefitted from the filming and editing techniques that high-tech makes possible, and somehow older action films don’t have that same punch.
    Bruce Willis is always such a likeable actor. He’s done bad movies, but he is not usually the locus of badness.
    I am on record as not much liking Winter’s Bone, but I am content to be in a minority. I liked the actress. Has anybody seen her in Hunger Games?

  12. No, I haven’t seen Hunger Games. And I didn’t know Die Hard was well-regarded–that’s interesting. I don’t think I’d ever read anything about it or heard anyone else’s opinion. I’m not sure I would agree that later action movies are better, action-wise. I haven’t seen enough of them, old or new, to have an informed opinion, but based on the few I’ve seen it seems to me that technology has helped make them more spectacular but less believable. Can’t think of any examples, unfortunately. Well, DH2 was way past believability at some points–that long sequence where they’re fighting on the wing of the airplane. Not that DH was truly plausible, but overall it seemed less implausible.

  13. Grumpy Ex Pat

    I agree with Maclin about tech and action movies. Most of them have become cartoon like – with heroes doing things like falling 200 feet off a burning building and rising effortlessly to their feet (sorry, can’t think of a good example) or leaping off a low flying airplane and landing on the ground unhurt (that actually happens in Cowboys and Aliens). I know what Craig means – there is something pedestrian about the action in, say, Ben Hur, now. But the problem is that when the exploits become humanly impossible, it’s hard to care about the heroes as humans. For me, the one recent exception to this is the new Avengers movie. This was because the heroes are explicitly not really ‘human’ but super-heroes, kind of like Christian demi-gods if there could be such a thing.

  14. Grumpy Ex Pat

    Are all Janet’s Undead threads closed? I wanted to ask there, but I can’t seem to comment. I am teaching a 2nd year course next semester on ‘Love’ – a course for theology majors. What three movies should I show? I am thinking of Baran, Romeo and Juliet and Once, although I cannot think of any theological meaning to ascribe to the latter. I got very good suggestions last year for my Film and Theology course, which is why, scrounging on Maclin’s goodwill, I am asking here again.

  15. Yes, it was closed, but I just reopened it, so you can post this there if you want to. Or I’ll put the question in a regular post later today–sounds like a good discussion-starter. I had closed the Undead thread 3.0 a while back because it was attracting so much spam, intending to reopen it after a week or so, but of course forgot.

  16. I also agree with Maclin, so I must be pretty confused…
    Perhaps what I should have said was that the best of recent action films are better, in my mind, than older action films (that I have seen). I am thinking of, say, the better Mission:Impossible films, or the Kill Bill films, or some of Christopher Nolan’s films.
    I probably shouldn’t talk about this at all, because I don’t see many action films, and for the reasons you both have said: I don’t much like noise and explosions, and there is nothing thrilling about watching a cartoon man do cartoonish things.

  17. When it comes to the actions scenes, I know I’m not going to be able to figure out what’s going on, so I just sit back and wait to see the outcome.
    AMDG

  18. Grumpy Ex Pat

    Maybe the confusion is what ‘recent’ means. I love the Bourne movies, but I don’t count them as recent. As they went on, they did become cartoonish – Bourne jumps through (closed) windows and lands on his feet and keeps running, etc. But the car chase in Paris is unbeatable.

  19. Grumpy Ex Pat

    Maclin, if you want to make it part of a discussion, that would be very helpful to me. Last semester, I had a course on ‘The Church in Time and Eternity’. We watched three movies, in the evenings, instead of three afternoon classes. We had A Man for All Seasons, The Ninth Day, and The Son. The latter was way over most of their heads, but three people wrote very good papers on it. In other words, it would be OK to have one ‘art’ movie, that a few people get a lot out of. But not three! In the course, we are going to read the Symposium, and Pieper, and ‘The Four Loves’, and Deus Caritas Est, and von Balthasar’s Love Alone is Credible. I have not written the syllabus yet (I am supposed to do that this week), but I know those are the core books.

  20. Ryan C

    No need to be embarrassed of liking ‘Die Hard.’ The sequels on the other hand…

  21. Not so much embarrassed at liking it, because I like a fair amount of junk, but at feeling compelled to defend it as being a bit more than junk. Or really really good junk, or something.

  22. Rob G

    “I think action movies have benefitted from the filming and editing techniques that high-tech makes possible, and somehow older action films don’t have that same punch.”
    This is probably true in many cases but there are notable exceptions. I recently watched ‘Stagecoach’ (John Ford, 1939) for the first time, and was struck by how good the Indian chase at the end is. Still exciting after all these years!

  23. Rob G

    By the way, have I mentioned Small Town Murder Songs here yet? Odd but good little Canadian indie pic with Peter Stormare and Martha Plimpton. Stomare plays a middle-aged small town police chief whose ex-girlfriend may be involved in a murder. He has a violent past himself, but has recently cleaned up his act, gotten baptized and joined (or maybe rejoined) the church. The murder investigation threatens to dredge up his past.
    What’s interesting about this movie is that it takes the main characters’ religion quite seriously — no condescenscion or ironic winks — and really does show the chief’s struggles to live out his new life in an honest and sympathetic way.
    There is some rough language and nudity (one scene is set in a stripper bar) and some brief violence. Also, lots of folks seem put off by the soundtrack which is by a Canadian band called Bruce Peninsula — it’s kind of a loud, percussive Gospelly type-thing with vocals reminiscent of Tom Waits. Doesn’t sound like it would fit what is mostly a quiet film, but I thought it worked really well.

  24. Grumpy Ex Pat

    Rob G, that sounds like a good one to watch with the postgrad film club which sort of meets at my house.

  25. Grumpy Ex Pat

    I am almost hoping day 8 of giving up smoking might be bad enough to watch Die Hard 2

  26. Somebody who knows the genre better might be able to recommend something better. But then it would probably suffice to get your mind off smoking.
    I don’t recall you mentioning that one before, Rob. Sounds good.

Leave a reply to Mac Cancel reply