Category Archives: Entertainment

Quick Review: One Day

Posted on by

Over this past weekend, I read One Day by David Nicholls. This book is a love story told over a 20 year span. The twist: the author checks in with each member of the couple one day each year (the anniversary of their first meeting). The book has garnered a number of positive reviews.

My quick thoughts:

1. It is a story that would translate easily into a movie.

2. I don’t know if the characters are likable. They are young and idealistic when they first meet, not so much so later on after more life experiences. They are generally self-indulgent. Lots of drinking among both characters – a sign of their troubled lives or a reflection of contemporary life in the United Kingdom?

3. I like the idea of checking in once a year. Their lives gradually change and the story doesn’t get bogged down in extended scenes.

4. My wife and I disagreed about whether we enjoyed the book. She did not enjoy it, as “90% of the book involved the protagonists being miserable and/or drunk.” I think this book is like much adult fiction: it is more “realistic” or at least presents a strong contrast between miserable life alone and wonderful life together. Therefore, my wife finds reading a book like this unpleasant – she doesn’t want to spend that much time dwelling on the worse parts of life. Additionally, she felt that the author betrayed the reader at the end.  I, on the other hand, think misery is a common part of life and therefore should be explored in books, movies, music, etc. However, I do think much adult fiction today is melodramatic in its presentation of tough times.

5. *SPOILER ALERT*

Though it has the twist of checking in once a year, it seems like a fairly common story line. Two people meet and then experience difficulties over the years before meeting up again (though it is more complicated than this). This seems to be a kind of story our culture enjoys: love overcoming obstacles, even if these obstacles are self-imposed by the participants.

Overall: a good choice for light (not really fun but not exactly addressing deeper issues in life) yet engaging weekend-away reading. A modern classic? No.

Measuring celebrity

Posted on by

Forbes has released its annual list of the 100 most powerful celebrities. See Forbes’ website for a full portal that includes profiles of some of the celebrities and the full rankings (including rankings on subcategories). Topping the list is Oprah followed by Beyonce and James Cameron.

Buried at the bottom of the story is the methodology by which Forbes developed its list (the methodology is mentioned in this reposted story at Yahoo):

The Celebrity 100 is a measure of power based on money and fame. Earnings estimates, which include income from films, television shows, endorsements, books, and other entertainment ventures, are calculated between June 2009 and June 2010. Figures were rounded off where appropriate. Additional sources include Billboard, Pollstar, Adams Media Research, The Nielsen Company, and SNL Kagan. Fame is calculated using web hits on Google, Blog Search, TV/radio mentions on LexisNexis, overall press mentions on Factiva, and the number of times a celebrity’s image appeared on the cover of 25 consumer magazines. Social rank is calculated using metrics like Facebook friends and fans as well as Twitter followers.

I would be very interested in knowing the weights applied to each of these measures and broader categories (such as social rank). Take Lady Gaga for example: she is new to the list this year, does not have the media empires like some of the others on the list (Oprah’s big money advantage comes from an involvement in a multitude of media outlets), and yet benefits from a #1 ranking in the social rankings.

After a quick glance, money appears most important here. Perhaps having money prompts more media (of all kinds) mentions. Or perhaps the media mentions help build the money which then leads to a reinforcing cycle. Regardless, just having money may be a sign that you are a true celebrity. We as Americans may like our celebrities because they host a TV show or can do amazing things with a golf ball or can direct exciting movies, but just having money seems pretty interesting in itself.

The Fellowship of the Vuvuzela

Posted on by

This is making the rounds – but it is an entertaining mashup of Lord of the Rings and the World Cup. Watched a World Cup game this summer and wanted to get rid of the vuvuzela noise? Just bring in the Fellowship of the Vuvuzela.

Watch here.

Where Hitler is not reviled

Posted on by

Interesting AP story regarding a Bollywood film about Hitler titled Dear Friend Hitler. From the piece:

[In India], Hitler is not viewed as the personification of evil, but with an attitude of morally ambiguous fascination. He is seen as a management guru – akin to Machiavelli or Sun Tzu – by business students, and an object of wonder by people craving order amid the chaos of India.

A sociologist, Ashsish Nandy, gives several reasons for this:

For some readers, modern India is a country in chaos and, there is a “certain admiration” for Hitler and his extreme authoritarianism.

There is also India’s colonial inheritance when “every enemy of Britain was a friend of India and at least potentially a good person,” he says, adding that among today’s young readers “there is kind a vague sense that it’s about a person who gave a tough time to the Brits.”

Much of this is likely to look strange to Westerners where Hitler is often invoked as the “epitome of evil.” But the two reasons given by Nandy may have some merit. The British colonial legacy, often negative even more than six decades later, is still a strong cultural factor. Current “chaos” also invokes hope that any leader, in any form, might bring order.

Quick Review: Toy Story 3

Posted on by

Toy Story 3 is in its second week in theaters. Featuring the same band of characters, Woody, Buzz Lightyear, and friends, plus some new toys and humans, Pixar has served up another successful film. My thoughts:

1. Andy is off to college. An interesting plot device as the toys have to switch gears – but also seems connected to a Pixar interest in chronicling life changes. Up contrasted an old man and young boy. Cars looked at changes in a small town. These films are not just about a moment of time but they involve complicated contexts for the current story. These transitional periods, such as a move from childhood to college or from mourning and grumpiness to meaning and joy after the loss of a spouse, have much potential for exploration.

2. There does seem something a little strange about watching a movie about a kid playing with toys. Andy is depicted in his youth running around his house with his cast of toys – no shots of him sitting at a computer, in a movie theater, texting. Older Andy is tied more to his computer. Yet we are paying money to see a sentimental movie about a kid playing with his toys. Does a movie like this inspire kids to be more imaginative with their toys or simply encourage them to watch more movies?

3. Pixar is really good at invoking sentimentalism without being mawkish. Andy eventually reflects on what the toys mean to him – and it is a touching moment. The typical sweeping Hollywood soundtrack is not present (thankfully) and the characters are not overdramatic. Even though Pixar makes animated stories, the key to their success are engaging stories.

4. If you were curious, the door is left wide open at the end for another film with a new set of human characters.

See no evil

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal is reporting a summary judgment ruling in the Viacom vs. YouTube copyright infringment case (link to the opinion here).

For those of you not familiar with the case, Viacom, which owns a host of media outlets, is suing on the theory that YouTube/Google is legally responsible for Viacom clips that YouTube users post.  As Judge Louis Stanton puts it, “the critical question” from a legal perspective is whether the law punishes an online service provider that has “a general awareness that there are infringements” taking place (i.e., the fact that everyone knows there are infringing videos up on YouTube) or whether YouTube is only responsible if it has “actual or constructive knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of individual items.”  Closely reading the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [text] and its legislative history, Judge Stanton concludes that “[m]ere knowledge of prevalence of [infringing] activity is not enough….To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ posting infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.”

This one’s virtually certain to be appealed.  Stay tuned…

Chunga – 6/23/10 8:24 PM – The onus now seems to be on the content providers, like Viacom, to monitor which of their products are uploaded and then ask for their removal (which Google appears quite willing to do). If Viacom does not explicitly ask for a removal, YouTube/Google can keep all sorts of of copyrighted material online?

Sagescape – 6/23/10 9:34 PM – Generally speaking, that’s correct.  There’s a very helpful FAQ maintained by ChillingEffects.org that describes the DMCA’s “notice and takedown” process in some detail.

Collective effervescence in front of my TV

Posted on by

I worked from home this morning while watching the USA take on Algeria in the final group-stage match in the World Cup. When the US scored in the 91st minute, I was excited. And then, like I occasionally do while watching the Olympics, I felt a swell of national pride. For a moment, I was connected to other Americans…and the images on ESPN of joyous fans at some pub in Seattle.

To the innocent, all things are innocent

Posted on by

In an interesting anecdote on the perennial nature vs. nurture debate, a father lets his 4-year-old son play Grand Theft Auto:  San Andreas, to rather surprising results.

Quick Review: The Wire

Posted on by

I finished watching the last season of The Wire over the weekend. Quick observations before I provide some links to academics and sociologists commenting on the show, one that several critics have deemed “the best TV show ever.”

1. The City of Baltimore is truly part of the story. Unlike many shows that use a “bland big city” for the background, this show digs deeper into the place.

2. Multi-faceted view of the situation and complicated stories. Each season attempts a slightly different angle including children and the media (seasons 4 and 5). There are consistent characters through all the seasons but each season keeps adding a little more as a new perspective is developed. Not a fast-moving show.

3. Some fascinating characters. Jimmy McNulty – a detective that perhaps only loves his cases. Stringer Bell – a gang leader who is also taking business classes at night to improve his skills. Officer Daniels (who moves up the ranks during the show) unwilling to “juke the stats” to please his bosses. Many more to name.

4. The police are just as deep into the drugs and violence as the gangs. From consistent violence to “Hamsterdam” to cover-ups to “juking the stats” to impressive detective work, the police are not simply geniuses or people who can shoot better. In fact, the police rarely shoot – a problem with many cop shows since most real-life police rarely or never fire a gun in the line of duty.

4a. The politicians are similarly involved. The goal: get as much positive credit for change while minimizing negatives that happen when you are in charge.

5. Somewhat hopeless ending – new people on both sides, the gangs and police, come in, take the place of those before, and similar battles are fought. Some of the kids get out and many do not. A good number of the police are ruined. The politicians try to use whatever they can to get ahead. Money and power are what people want and just their means of pursuing them are different.

6. Sociologically, a lot of the show seemed similar to Sudhir Venkatesh’s books on life on the South side of Chicago: American Project, Off the Books, Gang Leader for a Day.

Some commentary from other sociologists:

1. Sudhir Venkatesh talking about the show with “real thugs”.

2. A short collection of reviews from Racism Review.

3. The Guardian UK summarizes an academic conference on The Wire.

4. Slate.com writing about academic courses on the TV show, including  noted sociologist William Julius Wilson teaching such a course at Harvard.

5. Two sociologists comment in Dissent in 2008 (and participate in a broader discussion) and then expand on their thoughts in City and Community.

I’m sure there is more out there. It is rare to find any media creation that receives praise from so many in providing a realistic portrayal of city life.

Lawmakers don’t like cameras in their face

Posted on by

Interesting look at how many federal legislators don’t like having cameras stuck in their face. Doing this often prompts angry reactions – that are then spread across the Internet and media and may require apologies from the legislators.

A response that one lawmaker has found useful – simply film them back:

“Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) said he has the answer to aggressive guerilla-style video crews, and he’s shared it with his colleagues. He films them right back using his iPhone’s Qik program, which uploads the video directly to his website.

“I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had bloggers approach me on the street to interview me and my response is I’m always happy to visit with them; however, I always pull out my Qik camera, and I film them filming me,” he said.

“And then I notice the tone changes of the person filming me — they become much less aggressive and more polite and conversational. I’ve actually had bloggers with cameras turn 180 degrees away and leave. I used to have it on my hip, and say, ‘C’mon, it’s OK, c’mon. I’m a Texan.’ ”