August 2007 - Posts
Makes sense, right? Bridges collapse, people die, surely we need to raise money to pay for this? Holy cow, we'd better raise taxes! Well sure enough, Democrats in congress are already calling for a 5-cent/gallon tax hike on gasoline. But wait. We already collect $22 billion/year on gasoline. Oh, but that money is already spent on repairs, you say?
Oh really? Turns out it's not. Minnesota, site of the I35W bridge collapse, had been allocated tens of millions of dollars for infrastructure repair. It decided to spend it instead on things like bike path studies, and postponed bridge repairs. And apparently this sort of thing happens all the time -- pet projects in congressional home districts get favored while key infrastructure components get ignored.
All of this is a drop in the bucket compared with what we spend annually on road repair ($75 billion) and what we may [B]need[/B] to spend, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (http://abcnews.go.com/International/CSM/story?id=3464792), which is a whopping $155.5 billion. But that's only two years of normal spending. Do we really need to permanently raise taxes for something that will be solved in two years?
And isn't the real problem that they're spending current money inappropriately, and want to keep doing that?
Some additional reading:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1119213390
In this second installment of my new series on favorite movie scenes (the first one may be found here), we take a look at the movie Jaws, by Steven Spielberg. Jaws was the first of the great modern summer blockbusters, almost single-handedly reinventing the movie industry (Jaws was the first film to make more than $100 million in theaters). There are many scenes we could look at, but I chose this one (known as "Panic on the Beach") because it encompasses both an homage to classic movie-making as well as a creative new direction. Let's watch the scene:
What makes this scene so great? Well the answer, as always, depends on the individual. Scene Deconstruction is not about defining what makes a scene enjoyable to you -- it's about finding common elements and figuring out which ones matter to each of us. So let's take a look at a few of those common elements and see what they might be.
First and most obvious is the use of quietness. It's just a quiet day at the beach, right? There's no musical score, we only hear the waves, the quiet talking of children and adults, and a few birds chirping. What could possibly go wrong?
Second would have to be the slow building of dramatic tension. Sheriff Brody is on the absolute razor's edge, and we know his instinct is right -- something is about to go horribly wrong. This is accomplished by means of quick-edit cuts that create a jarring intervention into the otherwise idyllic scenery. The interruptions from passers-by, the false alarms, the off-set camera angles, all contribute to this feeling.
The last thing I'll mention is the nod to Alfred Hitchcock. At the 3:43 mark in the above clip there's a shot of Brody just realizing that he's seen the shark attack. The wierd camera effect, known as a dolly zoom, is accomplished by pushing the camera forward on a track (towards the actors) while zooming back on the camera lens (causing the background to distort as if the camera were pulling back). Hitchcock and his crew invented the shot for Vertigo, and Spielberg repopularized it with Jaws, and it's been used in many movies since.
Jaws is #48 on the American Film Institute's famous list, and the line in the clip below (bonus clip!) is #35 on their famous quotes list.
Now it's your turn! What do you like or dislike about these scenes? What do they remind you of?
A DailyTech blog entry has been making the news & blogosphere rounds this week in which the author discusses a potential Y2K bug that has reportedly been found in NASA's data regarding global temperatures. The study is (or so it says here) the basis for ongoing media stories saying that 1998 is the warmest year on record, but the new information (if it's accurate) states that the corrected data shows 1934 to be warmest, and that it also disturbs the upward trend, instead showing half of the "warmest years" to be in the early part of the 20th century.
But the article also goes on to say that this would only impact the overall warming trend by 1-2%. Which really begs the question of whether this is really an important piece of information, or just more ammunition for what Newsweek this week called the organized effort to deny global warming.
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
My opinion is that there have become evangelists on both sides of this issue and it's important that science remain vigilant to the truth, however inconvenient or messy or complex that happens to be. I think if we do that, eventually the world will come around and take the proper, necessary actions. If that means having to correct erroneous data from time to time, so be it. Best to be up front about these things. Transparency is key.
Gotta love the political irony in this, especially coming just days after the Pakistan statement from Barrage Obomba. Just two years ago Democrats were OUTRAGED about warrantless wiretapping of American civilians placing overseas telephone calls to suspect terrorist nations. So much hay was made over that issue that it surely contributed to the mid-term elections that put Democrats in the legislative majority.
My how times have changed. Over the weekend, carefully away from the prying eyes of the mass media, congress, for once, acted quickly and quietly. The new law signed by President Bush yesterday allows the federal government to wiretap any overseas call placed by American citizens... without even a FISA warrant!
Senator Diane Feinstein was one of the most outspoken critics of the administration on this issue back in 2005. But yesterday she was one of the bill's most outspoken supporters! But the new law does allow Democrats to split hairs and try to save political face. Senator Feinstein, for example, said in 2005 that the president's actions "called into question the integrity and credibility of our nation's commitment to the rule of law". Well now warrantless wiretapping certainly has the "rule of law" behind it!
So... can somebody tell me how Democrats are any different from Republicans on this issue? Anybody?
<crickets chirp>
Not much introduction is needed here, of course. This is not only the most famous scene in Casablanca, it's also one of the most iconic moments in film.
The Marseillaise, of course, is the French national anthem, but I'll spare the reader any further explanation and assume they know the basic story. What I want to focus on is what aspects of the scene make it so enduring. In short, what makes it work. Let's start at the beginning.
The German customers have, of course, annoyed the French regulars and staff by singing a traditional German song (if you're curious, it's Die Wacht am Rhein, which means "The Watch on the Rhine", and you can read more about it here). Just to expand a bit more on the historical context of the scene, it's important to remember that when this movie was first seen by audiences, World War 2 was just getting underway and the United States wasn't even involved yet. Not only that, but many filmgoers would have known that this particular scene was (intentionally) reminiscent of a scene in the 1937 French film Le Grand Illusion, in which the same two pieces of music were juxtaposed in exactly the same way! (Alas, I've not seen this scene posted on YouTube.) So not only was the fate of France very much in doubt amongst this film's earliest viewers, they were also being reminded just what a tragedy that was. (It's also notable that one of the actors from that scene will be appearing in a future Scene Deconstruction.)
But let's get back to the scene. A few seconds into the song, the camera pans left across the audience. Some are clearly in favor of the song, others opposed. But a few have a different reaction. Captain Renault suspects that this will become a problem and looks over to Rick. The camera follows his glance and shows us Rick, tolerantly waiting for the song to end. And here we have what I believe is one of the cleverest shots in all of early cinema. The camera is actually showing us two people -- Rick and Victor. When the camera stops we're supposed to look at Rick. Therefore it comes as a surprise when Victor actually steps into motion. It is only after we see him move that we realize Victor wasn't just standing there -- he was trying to decide how to handle the situation, quite unlike Rick. This brief shot is symbolic of the characters of both men.
But Pat, you say, how do we know this was what director Michael Curtiz actually intended? Weren't we just coincidentally looking at Rick? After all, it's Humphrey Bogart. He's the star, right? Well sure, he's the star, and you might've been looking at him for that reason. But as I mentioned, there's another reason why we're looking at Rick: Because Captain Renault steered us towards him. He looked at Rick to see what he will do, so logically when the camera arrives we look at him too, wondering the same thing.
Next we see Victor cross the floor and come over to the band. The glances continue as Ilsa looks at Victor (puzzled), Victor looks at the band leader (determined), the band leader looks at Rick (conflicted), and Rick looks back and nods (resigned). These unspoken glances tell the story of the scene, explaining everyone's emotional interest, but they also help to create tension and anticipation, lending weight to the scene. You can't just drop something like this into a movie -- you have to set it up. This is sometimes called "framing the moment", and it's a big part of why this scene works so well.
Interestingly, as the song continues, so do the glances. Victor glances at Ilsa (resolute). Ilsa looks back (Bergman manages to look both lovingly supportive and worried sick in a single magnificent moment). As the song ends, the German leader looks around, determined to turn a defeat into a victory. And the viewer quickly learns what Ilsa clearly already knows, which is that there is going to be a heavy price to pay for Victor's little victory. As we hear The Marseillaise one last time, this time in a minor key, we learn that the bar is to be closed immediately.
The underlying setting of Casablanca is that of individuals caught up in great events. In the end what this scene is about is that even if one person can't change the world, they can make things a little better for each other. Roger Ebert wrote of Casablanca that "as we leave the theater, we are absolutely convinced that the only thing keeping the world from going crazy is that the problems of three little people do after all amount to more than a hill of beans."
More Posts