Notes on the Academy Awards 2022

draft

For what it is worth, here are my impressions of the Academy Awards 2022.  I have no special insight but I have been around for a while.

People who dont know how this works should realize that the real test of skill is to be invited to, and be noticed at, one or more of the extremely glamourous parties after the awards ceremony itself.  Of course anyone holding an oscar from that year is automatically granted entry to any party (including the Governor's Ball).  Attending the awards itself is certainly a privilege and has a variety of entertaining aspects, but ultimately it is best to realize that it is "work" to the people who are there.  Most of them have to be there.

My observation is that in spite of all the complaints about the various versions of the Academy Awards ceremony, that the award itself retains both its glamour and its practical career benefits.  If you receive an Oscar then it is likely that your career will receive a boost and you will be more marketable.  This differs from branch to branch, I think, at least that would be logical.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Academy funds its entire operation for a year out of that one night.  They do a lot of good work from what I can tell.  Of course I presume there are always politics and some waste, how could there not be?  But they definitely spend their money on things that help us all.  Things like film restoration, for example.

The Will Smith incident is just unfortunate.  People are really highly stressed in these circumstances.  I dont know the man, but I know people who have worked with him on projects and no one has said he is a monster.  He probably just had a bad night which is a shame.

What I Do Not Understand About the Harvey Weinstein Story

draft

Harvey Weinstein has been unveiled as a sexual predator and his career is ruined. I am a little cynical that this gets at the level of sexual abuse that I think is prevalent in the motion picture industry, but beyond that, there is something odd about this story that I do not understand.

As I understand it, when one is powerful and wealthy in the entertainment industry (music, film, television), it is not hard to get laid, if that is all you want to do. Attractive men and women make themselves available, so the story goes. This is not true love of course, and there is always a price to pay, I have heard, and one needs to be so careful where one plays these days, but if all you want is sex, then sex is available.

In other words, I dont get it. I dont get why Mr. Weinstein needed to be a sexual predator unless it is the specific people (actresses, etc) that he wanted to bang rather than merely beautiful women in general. Maybe all it means is that Mr. Weinstein is a sick fuck, something we knew already.

Thank you for letting me share my confusion.

Hero of the Revolution Chris Wedge and his Adventure in Hollywood

In Hollywood, it is said, people are something that they are not. This is a joke that tries to make fun of the phenomenon that people are working in one area but say that they aspire to be working in another. There are many examples of this in real life, and that is one of the reasons that the joke exists. There are actors, writers, producers, etc, who want to direct. There are many waiters and real estate agents who want to act or write. There are many successful writers who are not satisfied with that and want to also be paid to write, direct and produce their own movies.

On the other hand, the fact is that a small percentage of people do get to achieve their dream. People who come to Los Angeles and work in food service or in computer animation, but actually are able to get acting roles in television and film. People who went to film school and become successful film editors. People who write screenplays for years and work at odd jobs who do become successful, working writers in television or film. Or who work mostly in advertising or trailers and make a good living and who are happy to do so. It certainly beats slinging burgers.

And why not? People are ambitious, people are also talented, and many people are not able to find a situation where they can demonstrate that talent. You must be dedicated, tireless, indefatiguable or you are guaranteed not to succeed. This is why we see so many successful people who are outliers when it comes to ambition, only the very ambitious have a chance.

The danger, the classical danger, of course is to know, or not know, when to stop. If Icarus had not flown so high, but stayed at a moderate altitude, then his flight would have been a complete success. When do you stop trying to recreate yourself, and just try to do as well as you can with what you have? If a writer, to write more great screenplays or novels. If an actor, to be a better actor. If an director of animated films, to direct more animated films.

One of the local heroes of the canon and revolution of 3D animation is Chris Wedge, who with his colleagues at Blue Sky in upstate New York, defied the odds and has become a recognzied and accomplished director of 3D animated feature films. Among other films, he has directed the Ice Age films, and he has also been a successful voice actor of many of his characters. But that is not enough, and he wants to direct live action films.

Chris Wedge Publicity Photo from his IMDB Page

The good news is that his first live action film, Monster Trucks (2017), is coming out soon. The bad news is that the studio that financed it has so little faith in it that it is taking a write-off on the film before it even comes out, something that is very unusual, and demonstrates to what extent the studio does not believe in the movie.

I am very proud of Chris for what he has accomplished and hope that this latest adventure will work out for him.

Monster Trucks (2017) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3095734/

Chris Wedge on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0917188/?ref_=tt_ov_dr

Hollywood and Natalie Portman Demonstrate Commitment to Fundamental Values

Whenever we see a threatened community in this chaotic world stand fast and united in support of fundamental values I think it is important to celebrate the event. So many of our friends and institutions have thrown away everything that they used to stand for in order to make a fast buck.

Hollywood is not normally considered a shining pillar of integrity but I believe that is a misunderstanding on the part of outsiders.  Hollywood as a loosely-defined creative community has always had and continues to have a set of core values that are shared across the community and evolves with time.  These values have survived mergers and acquisitions,  new distribution technologies, government antitrust lawsuits, drought, war and pestilence. One of these core values is that there is always money to be made by the cheesy exploitation of women. Let us review a particularly creative use of this principle.

A few years ago, a well-known author of "weird fiction", Jeff VanderMeer, published three novels in a series called the "Southern Reach".  The first of those books, Annihilation, was optioned by Scott Rudin to turn into a movie. He hired the director of Ex Machina (2015), Alex Garland, to write the adaptation and direct the film. The book (and presumably the film) is unusual in many ways and one way that is important to us is that all the protagonists are women. The movie is the story of an expedition of scientists to an area where a strange event occurred many years ago that has cut this area off from the rest of the country.  There have been previous expeditions and they did not end well. So what we have here is a film where the four main characters are all strong and interesting women. The movie stars Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Tessa Thompson. The book is told from the point of view of one of the members of the expedition, the Biologist, played by Natalie Portman.

Nice posture, Natalie! 

As you know, Hollywood has often been accused of perpetuating demeaning stereotypes of women, and failing to provide serious roles for actresses who want to get their next academy award nomination.  So this movie provides an excellent opportunity to refute this sadly somewhat valid criticism of Hollywood.

This film, Annihilation (2017), has finished principal photography and still has a long way to go before it is released but Hollywood realizes it is never too early to start marketing a film. One time-honored way to do this is with interviews by various news media of the star(s) of the film.  And since the film is about four intelligent and adventurous women, it would make sense if that marketing also communicated some of these ideas.

And so an article/interview was created and placed in the New York Times Style Magazine.  It is an interview by email (that social media hook!)  with Natalie Portman by a writer in which they discuss the first short film that Natalie has directed.  They discuss many topics including Natalie's upbringing in Israel, the work of various eclectic authors of fiction, and so forth..

Now we get to the heartwarming, even inspirational, part of our story.  Ms. Portman discusses her movie and her childhood in very intelligent ways, certainly combating the stereotype of women in Hollywood. But I had not realized how financially challenged Ms. Portman was. You see, not everyone in Hollywood makes those multi-million dollar salaries.  Apparently, Ms Portman was or is so poor that she did not own any pants. Nevertheless they bravely went ahead and photographed this wonderful and talented person practically bare-assed naked.  Fortunately, Ms. Portman was able to hold up her part as these pictures clearly show.

It would have been easy for Hollywood to turn its back on a core value and portray Ms. Portman as a politically correct, bisexual, blue jean lesbian styled modern feminist and be acclaimed by one and all, but our producers and the studio are made of sterner stuff. The cheap exploitation of women and sex to sell a film is like "Motherhood and Apple Pie" to the rest of us. It is important. Hollywood did not let us down.

See this fabulous article here.

Are you going to just lounge around all day in your underwear?

The Old Religion and Story Structure in Superhero Movies

As we are all aware, the modern cinema has moved beyond the giant robot to embrace a far richer and more diverse metaphor to better represent the totality of our civilization, that of comic book superheroes. I have recently taken it upon myself to review the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe of 12 films (so far) in order to prepare myself to analyze both the text and subtext of this pillar of popular culture and in so doing was surprised that there were actually some very entertaining movies in this torrent of cinematic excess in the service of art or at least commerce.

Among these 12 were numerous films that fulfilled all the best expectations of the graphic novel whether that involved destroying entire worlds or the threat to life in the galaxy and managed this intense mayhem without being overly burdened by humor, character development or any of those other old-fashioned story elements. But even in the most excessive of these there were moments that were really well done in a non-kinetic fashion, that is, well written, or well acted, or clever. There were four films in particular that had actual humor including Iron Man (2008), Thor (2011), Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) and Ant-Man (2015). 

It was Thor (2011) in particular that completely surprised me. This is the film which is, of course, loosely based on the pre-Christian religion of northern Europe, as documented in the Icelandic Poetic and Prose Eddas as well as other sources. In particular, the film's lead character is the eponymous Thor of Asgard who was said to wield a hammer that destroyed his enemies and would make the sound of thunder when it was used.

There are two movies in one in Thor (2011), one that takes place in Asgard which is boring and stupid and one which takes place on Earth, or Midgard, which is very entertaining. This essay discusses some of the elements that the filmmakers used to achieve their aims: a brilliant director, excellent casting especially of the lead, an appealing and classic story structure, and a story itself that incorporates humor and human values but fails to rely on digital visual effects (how could that be?!)

Thor after his shower and without his shirt....

makes quite an impression on the research assistant.

The fundamental reason that I believe that the “Midgard/Earth” portion of this movie works so well is that it is based on a classic story structure that is sometimes called “setup and payoff”. In “setup and payoff” the audience knows something early on that the other characters in the drama do not know. So as the story proceeds we know that there will be a time when the truth is revealed and that can be very entertaining. "Setup and Payoff" is used on a regular irregular basis in the West as a fundamental element of storytelling and especially of comedy.  One movie that comes to mind is Galaxyquest (1999) which makes very good use of this technique.

In this case, the setup is that we know that the homeless person who seems deranged *is* actually Thor, at least in a modified Marvel Cinematic Universe sort of way, that he is from Asgard, and that he has been banished for his irresponsible behavior. We know this, but *they*, the mere mortals of earth/Midgard, don't. When he saves the lives of his friends at the expense of his own we share in the tragedy yet we know that still all may be well, and indeed, being worthy, his mighty hammer, Mjornir, is restored to him, with his armor, and in full view of everyone he defeats evil.

This of course makes use of another important trope of storytelling one that has been called "He's Back!" and goes by other names as well.  (1) 

The elder scientist tries to convince Natalie Portman that no one will believe her theory without evidence, when Thor's friends arrive to Midgard by way of the Bifrost.  Setup and payoff.

It helps that the main characters are cast so well. In particular, Chris Hemsworth both looks the part, looks great in armor and a pair of jeans, and can play the part straight yet with a touch of humor.  It also helps that the film is directed by Kenneth Branagh slumming here for his first superhero movie. An entertaining script, good actors, well directed, and very few digital effects that do not serve the story.  No wonder Hollywood finds it difficult to make an entertaining movie.

Its a shame they did not emphasize the human sacrifice which is so a part of indigenous European religion, but this is a comic book, after all.  Maybe the sequel of the sequel will make more use of "kennings".

A classic text on the Old Religion

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Religion-North-Ancient-Scandinavia/dp/0837174201/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460974181&sr=1-1

Marvel Cinematic Universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe

Kenneth Branagh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Branagh

Thor (2011) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/

1, There are several extensive lists of storytelling tropes on the Internet, almost all of which are aimed at popular culture, but they could also be applied, with some modification, to classical culture as well.

See http://tvtropes.org/

Underbidding in Visual Effects: Conclusions and Recommendations

In three previous posts we discussed the practice and mythology of underbidding a project in visual effects, something that is alleged to happen quite often and is commonly believed to be a major cause of instability in the visual effects industry.   You can read these posts here, here and here, or you can just read the next paragraph.

In these posts I argue that (a) there are some legitimate reasons for underbidding,  (b) it rarely happens by mistake except in the case of a new production company,  that (c) sometimes when a project is underbid it was done so because of politics or because a grave misunderstanding or breach of trust between the client and the visual effects facility occurred, and finally (d) when we hear retroactively that a project was underbid, it is often just spin on the part of the client to pin the blame for whatever occurred on the visual effects company and cover their own ass.

In fact, very few people realize that the origins of the word "underbid" contains this meaning of "under appreciated".  "To underbid" comes from the German compound verb unterbitte: unter meaning under- or sub- and bitte meaning "please".  Thus "under please" which we might say in English as "under appreciated" or "no good deed goes unpunished".   

If a production company were to stupidly give a client a deal and got screwed for it, then we might say that they have unterbitte the project.

If you are a potential worker, artist, supervisor, or facility owner in visual effects, I think you should keep the following in mind:

1. Do not throw your pearls before swine.

2. Be sure to charge a lot of money.   In Hollywood, getting paid is the most important sign of respect.  If they pay you a lot of money, they respect you.    Its the only way you can tell what they think.   So charge the studios a lot of money and at the end of the day, you will probably say to yourself that you still did not charge enough for the work given what your time is really worth and how stupid the project really is and unpleasant the people really are.

Otherwise you may become the next victim of the unterbitte.

Scientific Breakthrough in Visualizing 3D Blood Leads to Bidding Frenzy

All Hollywood has been abuzz with rumors of a new technology which shows blood in 3D in a much better way. “This is what we have been waiting for”, said an anonymous studio executive, “what we have been begging scientists for all these years”.

The technology, created by a team at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais in Brasil, is said to be able to solve problems in visualizing blood. And not just any blood, blood in 3D in particular.

“Don't expect me to be able to understand scientific mumbo jumbo”, said one executive who was part of a studio bidding team, “I don't know and I don't want to know. What I know is that the audience wants blood and more of it”.

“For years we have been waiting for computer animation to come up with something better than Technicolor Blood #1 and #2, but they have let us down”, said the executive. “Now we don't need to wait for those four-eyed geeks any more, we have the blood we have always wanted and they can go back to their workstations and rot for all we care.”

Is a remake of Fantastic Voyage in 3D in development?

Rumors of the new technology leaked out Monday via the various creative agencies who reported a strong, new interest from the studios for properties that can exploit the new technology. According to Creative Artists, they are seeking all spec scripts with “blood” in the title. “Bloody Monday, Bordello of Blood, Blood in Her Eyes, Oceans of Blood, Tsunami of Blood.... all of these are possible, anything is possible today. We are talking 6 and 7 figure deals as long as people can act fast and write bloody”.

Global Wahrman was able to reach lead author of the paper, Dr. Paula Rosas, in Brasil and asked her what she thought about the excitement that her paper had created. “We have no idea what these Yanqui morons are talking about,” she said, “but if they want to give us a bunch of US Dollars, we are happy to take them. These people seem to be totally crazy!” she laughed.

The paper, entitled Total 3D imaging of phase objects using defocusing microscopy: application

to red blood cells by Rosas, et alia, can be read at the following links:

Abstract:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2968

Paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.2968v1.pdf

Lets Put the National Reconnaissance Office in Charge of Film Production

Rewritten on 5/1/2025 to tone down my real feelings.

Although Hollywood is awash with so-called 3D films, more properly called stereoscopic, there are many of us who doubt their commitment to the medium. Hard to believe, I know, that Hollywood would not be completely sincere but the reality is that many producers are primarily motivated by the business considerations.  

Whether this lack of artistic intent is true in general in studio executives, it is certainly true in the case of stereoscopic films. This stereo "fad", which has lasted longer than I would have guessed, is based on two motivations: an effort to do something that will bring people into the theatre and as part of a larger play with consumer electronics manufacturers to help them sell new televisions to consumers. Beyond that they don't really care.

In addition, stereo projection was enabled by an artifact of digital projection, so it cost the exhibitors very little to be able to reliably project stereo movies. "Very little" is a lot to exhibitors, generally speaking, so there may have been some cost sharing between studios and exhibitors. In other words, studios could hedge their bets by making a stereo version of the film and not have to outlay a lot of money to do so, and in return are covered if stereo exhibition or television becomes very popular.

A tiny percentage of filmmakers actually care about stereoscopic and work to explore what it means to filmmaking and the rest just accommodate the requirement as part of the deal they had to make with the studio to get the project financed. Their sincere cynicism combined with the studio's unwillingness to extend shooting days to allow for the complications of stereo during principal photography is why the filmmakers choose to "add" stereo in the post-production process with the "dimensionalization" techniques. What is interesting about these post-production stereographic techniques is not that they work well, but that they work at all.

The dreary prospect about the lack of passion is the danger of the self-fulfilling prophecy: the filmmakers and studios do not care and the films thus produced are lackluster at best in the area of stereo and the audience senses this and gets bored. And one more time, an opportunity to create a vibrant stereo cinema art form is lost as it has been lost before.

What then can the believer in stereoscopic cinema do to avert this mediocre result? Is there a way forward that will encourage excellence? I think that there is and that the answer is to put someone in charge who believes in stereoscopic, who genuinely cares, and has a proven track record of demanding excellence in this area.  I know of only one such organization: the National Reconnaissance Office.

Notice that the NRO logo image is in the 2.35 widescreen aspect ratio.  This shows that they are already aware of filmmaking conventions.

The NRO is one of the famous secret three-letter agencies of our country's intelligence community. It was and is the one with contract authority to build and launch the satellites and broker the result to the various other agencies and departments such as the CIA, the Dept of the Air Force, and so forth. For decades it has had the largest budget of any three letter agency because the satellites are so damn expensive. Although cloaked in secrecy, the NRO recently declassified their history, or part of it, in "A History of Satellite Reconnaissance" which can be found on their website here.

I think these NRO mission badges are hilarious.

A careful reading of this document will show that various groups inside the NRO have shown a passionate commitment to stereo in various satellite projects as well as an excellent track record for sponsoring the creation of new cameras for reconnaissance, 70mm, counter-balanced, and with other exotic attributes, as well as new and better high resolution film in collaboration with Kodak. They have a proven track record for managing large complicated projects and yet holding firm to what is important. They have integrity and vision.

A stereo project that was managed by the NRO would not be able to get by with shallow and uninteresting post-filmmaking stereoscopy tacked on at the end. No, they would insist on stereo being designed in from the beginning with principal photography being shot in stereo.

Lets end this mediocre effort by the traditional studios who neither understand nor care and put the NRO in charge of all feature film production in Hollywood and get some decent stereo films for a change.

I call upon all the stereoscopic partisans of the world to rise up and write your congressman or whatever the international equivalent may be and demand that the NRO be given this new assignment.  The stereoscopic cinema has been given another chance, lets not throw it away this time.

Visit the NRO on the Internet at www.nro.gov.

The North Korean Style of Insult

It would seem that the art of insulting people and character assassination has gone downhill in recent years with nowhere near the elegance and power that it has had in the past.   This great art is a pale shadow of its former greatness, at least here in the West.

A repetitive use of simple slurs, repeated over and over again, has become the standard fare when insulting someone's personality, ethics and morality. The same old watered down insults generally applied in a very generic form merely demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy and shallowness of the would-be character assassin.   How many times have we heard "He's an asshole. What a shithead. Scumbag!   Moron!"   These insults have no originality, they are mere placeholders for what used to be an honored part of rhetoric.

This decline may or may not be of practical importance depending on what field you are in, as some fields make more use of the insult and verbal backstabbing than others.  The culturally important field of visual effects and animation is known throughout the world for the shallow insults members of the field shower on each other.  Only paleontology is believed to be more verbally vicious and cutthroat.

This decay of this formerly great artform is just one example of the general collapse of America which can be seen in so many areas of our culture.  Whether the area is pop music for underage girls, pulp novels, sexist imagery or drive-in movies, all of these genres have lost much of their integrity and vigor.   Still, we must do what we can to shore up what is left and try to move on.

As is often the case when we have a civilization in collapse, the collapse is fortunately uneven and there continue to be regions that have maintained the art and sciences of the past with great integrity. Although the American style of insult and sarcasm have not been preserved to the best of my knowledge, other cultures have preserved their own traditions in this area.   If we are willing to let go of some of our pride we can learn from some of our neighbors to our benefit.

One esteemed style of insult, one of the greatest in history, was created during the Cold War by the various Communist governments. Although almost all the former practitioners of this style have abandoned their own traditions in their haste to embrace capitalism, one country has stood firm and maintained its traditions.  And that country is none other than the proud but misunderstood nation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) as led by their Dear Leader Kim Sung-un.

Just recently I came across a fine example of this art when I read about the purge of Kim Sung-un's uncle, Jang Song-thaek, formerly the second most powerful person in the DPRK.   Tears came to my eyes as I read the announcement of Jang's execution so struck was I by the sincerity and venom of the text.

Despicable Human Scum

Here are some excerpts: 

Every sentence of the decision served as sledge-hammer blow brought down by our angry service personnel and people on the head of Jang, an anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional element and despicable political careerist and trickster.

However, despicable human scum Jang, who was worse than a dog, perpetrated thrice-cursed acts of treachery in betrayal of such profound trust and warmest paternal love shown by the party and the leader for him.

Jang encouraged money-making under various pretexts to secure funds necessary for gratifying his political greed and was engrossed in irregularities and corruption. He thus took the lead in spreading indolent, careless and undisciplined virus in our society.

He let the decadent capitalist lifestyle find its way to our society by distributing all sorts of pornographic pictures among his confidants since 2009. He led a dissolute, depraved life, squandering money wherever he went. 

The era and history will eternally record and never forget the shuddering crimes committed by Jang Song Thaek, the enemy of the party, revolution and people and heinous traitor to the nation.

You can read the full text of the announcement on the execution of Jang here.

I think this is truly a magnificent example of a classic Cold War style of character assassination in all its glory and it is certainly much more eloquent and impressive that merely calling Jang a scumbag or a shithead. I hope that our own nation can rise to this example. I particular hope that my field of visual effects and computer animation that puts so much store on attacking other people's character, yet does so in such a boring and stupid way, can also learn to do a better job.  (1)

Thank you, Dear Leader Kim Song-un for showing us the way.

Dear Leader

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
http://www.korea-dpr.com/

______________________________________________________

1. But keep in mind, if attempting to apply these techniques of rhetoric to the field of visual effects, that many of the practioners in the field do not know the meaning of most words over two syllables or at least pretend to be that ignorant.  So keep it simple for them, pithy and filled with color, but only simple words.

Why I Did Not Attend the Keynote Speech at SIGGRAPH 2013

When I declined to attend the SIGGRAPH 2013 Keynote Speech, a friend was surprised and concerned. The Keynote speech was a collection of talks by successful directors of computer animation as organized by the Academy (of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences). He simply could not understand why I would not want to listen to the publicity machine grind out more material about those chosen by the powerful to be successful, but I will try to explain.

The reason was not because I fundamentally believe that a Keynote speech by a healthy organization is going to be by someone in the field who helped to create it, and who has something to say about how the field is doing, where it has been and where it might be headed. SIGGRAPH has gone away from that years ago, in fact the last talk of that type that I recall was Ed Catmull, president of PIXAR, and even he might have been selected for the wrong reasons.

But I understand why we do not have a keynote speech of that more serious type, and instead usually have someone else who has nothing to do with the field.  The reason is that SIGGRAPH uses the Keynote speech as a way of advertising the conference to the people who might not attend otherwise. Its also a way to generate publicity for the conference, seeing as how our media could not care less about a computer science conference, but give them Hollywood and they jump to. So they choose people who have media appeal to give a "Keynote" speech that isn't.

But that is ok with me because I think that they do need to attract people and there are other ways to get the effect of a Keynote speech. In fact, I think that the Awards speeches which was initiated this year come very close to what I am looking for.

I did not attend because of something else entirely, something ineffable. Something about my past. Something about being in computer animation in Los Angeles in the 1980s.

Voice echoes and camera defocuses to indicate a flashback.

In the 1980s, I chose to destroy my life by working to help invent computer animation. (1) Being an intellectual out of water (any intellectual in Los Angeles is out of water) I attended no less than 20 or so courses at UCLA, the American Film Institute, and attended many lectures at the Academy. Had I not been a complete idiot, I would have enrolled in a degree program and gotten my terminal degree in some field, that would have done me some good. But instead, I decided to learn about the glamourous and rewarding motion picture industry from a series of continuing education classes taught by working professionals. Not less than 300 individual lectures by my reckoning.

And I had a wonderful time. I attended Robert McKee's story structure course when it was ten 4-hour lectures (and not the weekend thing it became). I attended classes with Lynda Obst, Debra Hill, Lauren Shuler, John Dykstra, Bruce Berman, the VP of Finance of Warner Bros, John Badham, Richard Donner, Joel Schumacher, George Roy Hill. Directors, writers, producers, and even a few "movie stars" (Jody Foster, Women in Film, etc).

Writers on writing. Producers on producing. Directors on directing. And I learned a lot, I think. But after a while one has a diminishing return from such things. Hearing Martha Coolidge speak at WIF is entertaining but it does not pay the bills. Hearing Douglas Trumbull talk about doing all the effects on 2001 is enlightening until you realize that he did not do all the effects on 2001. He just managed to figure out how to get the credit for the work (2)

Then, as with anything, knowledge and experience begins to show you the dark side of these innocent events.

So what do we have with these seven so-called "directors of computer animation".

First, very few of these people are directors in the way that term is used in the rest of the motion picture industry. They are at best managers of part of the production process whose creative content (e.g. script, design) has been created by a studio system that may have nothing to do with the director, who in general is partnered with another person to spearhead and organize the production process.

Second, the people chosen to be directors are chosen for a variety of reasons, of which talent and accomplishment are only two, and probably not the most important ones. The people doing the choosing are people who do not have a clue about computer animation, for the most part.

Third, how many of the people up there sacrificed anything to help bring computer animation into existence? None, I reckon. Why in fact, one of them is a stop motion animator who hates computer animation and was dragged into it kicking and screaming.   To glorify such a person at SIGGRAPH is at best ironic but probably worse.

Fourth, isn't it rude to have a presentation celebrating and glorifying people who had nothing to do with inventing a field at this conference while so many of the inventors of the field are unemployed and impoverished for doing so, are walking around outside?

I think it is rude.

There are two other reasons why I did not attend.  First, I do not have enough time at SIGGRAPH as it is to do the work I need to do there and thus consider it a waste of time to listen to talks I could just as easily hear at some other time or venue.   There was nothing about those particular talks that was unique to SIGGRAPH.    Second, I know, from vast personal experience, that while talks of this type might be entertaining, they do not lead to anything.  Ever.

So that is why I did not attend.

_____________________________________________

1. In order to do so, I had to turn down opportunities that almost certainly would have made me independently wealthy. Those opportunities are gone, they were part of that time. And being involved in computer animation did not result in being able to make a living. Therefore, since I did not come from a wealthy family and since being wealthy or being able to generate wealth is a sine qua non of our society,  I had destroyed my life by making this choice.

2. He was so egregious at this that Stanley Kubrick took out an ad in the trades reminding everyone that the credits for visual effects for 2001 had five names, the first being Stanley Kubrick.  I think the ad ran about 1982 but I am not sure.

Vast Government Conspiracy to Make Bad Movies and Influence Third World Revealed in Foreign Affairs

Isn't it convenient that Ed Snowden forgot to expose our Government's secret multi-decade program to influence world affairs through manipulating Hollywood movies? In failing to do so, in allowing his integrity to be compromised and bought off, he confirmed what right-minded people have been saying all along: that the movies Hollywood makes is not the result of some sort of implausible and incomprehensible "development process" but is the result of a vast secret government program to influence what movies get made in order to control the world.

A recent post on the Foreign Affairs web site implicitly exposes this foul plot, in The Myth of the American Superman by Ahmed Shafi and Najib Sharifi, here, they reveal the shocking truth about how Rambo III and Titanic were both used to influence and control unsuspecting Afghani's in order to support the American Way of life.

But not even Shafi and Sharifi are willing to go the full distance and ask how it is these insane movies were created in the first place.  No observer of Hollywood and Washington shenanigans could believe that these things "just happened" because of a "development process".   If there was an invisible "black hand" that directed the creation of mediocre and mindless entertainment then at least this is an explanation that does not rely on the idea that all studio executives are stupid, tasteless and desperate to imitate each other.

But to start with the Shafi and Sharifi evidence, they cite three horrifying examples of American influence to create an image of America in Afghanistan that is far from the truth and thus influence regional politics. Two of these examples are major Hollywood motion pictures and the third is an odd story from the 1830s, nearly two centuries ago, the story of Josiah Harlan. Apparently this Pennsylvanian got himself named Prince of Ghor for Perpetuity in the 1830s and this made a very positive impression about Americans for Afghanis, as implausible as that may seem. I guess they are also romantics. (See note 1)

But it is their second and third examples that happened in the 20th century that seem to fit all to well to our conspiracy theory:  apparently two movies have had a huge impact on Afghanistan in the last 20 years. One is Rambo III (1988) and the other is Titanic (1997).

In the words of our Foreign Affairs correspondents:

But perhaps the most important contributions to this ethos have come from Hollywood. In the late 1980s, the film Rambo III, in particular, embodied the Superman image of America for Afghans. In the movie, Rambo, with his buffed muscles and thirst to kill Soviets, made all of the right moves to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. He braved the towering mountains of Afghanistan on a horseback. He displayed his ghairat (enthusiasm and honor) by accepting an Afghan challenge to play buzkashi, a national sport which is similar to polo. And he impressed Afghans further by effortlessly beating the best and toughest chapandaz (players). He even took up arms and joined a ragtag group of Afghan fighters to blow up a Soviet military base.

Hey, watch me play some Buzkashi!

The movie was such a big hit in Afghanistan that even high ranking officials in the communist regime loved it, despite having initially banned the film. Thousands of VHS copies of the film were smuggled into Kabul and provided a massive boost to America's image. Afghans loved seeing the American superhero on their side, sharing their sorrows, and fighting ferociously against the "evil" communists.

I actually like Sylvester Stallone and will talk about First Blood (the first Rambo movie) in glowing terms in another post.

The second example is also shocking. During the Taliban regime, watching Western movies was forbidden. But Afghanis were so moved by the dreadful shmaltz-fest Titanic that they risked their lives smuggling in VHS copies and watching in secret movie appreciation meetings or "cells". The Taliban was so determined to crack down on this abomination that they would detain any youth who had a "Titanic haircut". I would have done the same thing myself.

Prohibited Titanic haircut example on left.

I can hear the conspiracy theory skeptics sharpening their pencils ready to cast ridicule and doubt on this idea.   I challenge them to generate another explanation that some modicum of plausibility.  Please, please, please do not recycle the idea that Hollywood makes the movies it does because "it just happens that way".  No senior executive of American corporation could make that many bad decisions in a row without being deposed by their shareholders.  Isn't that what we are taught about our free enterprise system?  And remember these people are not paid well.  Many of them struggle with a modest 7 figure salary plus bonuses.

A government conspiracy cloaked in secrecy which attempts to control the world by making bad movies would at least make some rational sense however vile these motivations may be.   The alternative is to believe their story about the "development process" and no one in their right mind could believe that.

Rambo III (1988) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095956/

Titanic (1997) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/

_______________________________________________

1. The story of Josiah Harlan is, on the face of it, completely implausible. The son of Quakers from Pennsylvania goes to Afghanistan in order to get himself declared King of the Afghans. Having been abandoned by his fiance while overseas, he posed as a surgeon for the British East India Company and after a time migrated north to the Punjab. There he befriended an exiled King of Afghanistan and travelled further meeting the current King, his brother, then met a Maharaja where he was appointed governor of a province of Afghanistan and later named Prince of Ghor in perpetuity for himself and his descendents.

Josiah Harlan.   Was he secretly working for Andrew Jackson?

I should only have to mention that this was during the Jackson administration in the 1830s for a knowledgable American to immediately smell a rat.  Was Harlan working for the infamous Pres. Andrew Jackson the whole time?   Someone should do a FOIA petition and try to pry the truth out of Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Harlan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghor

Espionage, Reality, Smiley's People and Constitutional Law

If Hollywood holds one principle above all others, that principle would probably be "There is nothing in the world more important than making a fast buck and if in order to do that we compromise reality, history, truth, or ethics, even egregiously, then that is what we will do."

It is wrong to think therefore that when Hollywood distorts something that this indicates a lack of integrity or a failure in character or even a criminal misrepresentation of the facts. In fact, it is evidence of the most sincere devotion to the highest principles on which Hollywood was founded.

When it comes to the subgenre of espionage and the Cold War, Hollywood is pathetically out of its league. Off the top of my head, I can not think of a single American film that comes close to describing or portraying American intelligence in anything close to reality, (1) but they always revert to the lowest level of stereotype and vulgar misrepresentation. The latest in this proud tradition of stupidity is Zero Dark Thirty, but we will not dwell on it beyond making the following observation. The filmmakers claim that what they present is real, e.g. the facts. It isn't. Even Argo misrepresents important details of the situation in Iran and that portrayal had diplomatic blowback in the real world.

But thats OK.

One must set realistic expectations in life and expecting Hollywood to act responsibly or knowlegably in this area is clearly not realistic.

But hard as it may be to believe, there are other countries that make films, and one of them is the UK. They are also famously not realistic by the way, but they are perhaps more amusing while they are not realistic. After all, James Bond is a British creation with almost no basis in reality. Another author whose work is apparently a bit closer to reality is the work of David Cornwell, aka John LeCarre, and it is in reference to one of his novels, Smiley's People (1992), that this post is written. The BBC made a six episode teleplay out of it, and someone has put it on Youttube.

You can find the first episode here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dh4tnvx2b8

Is it totally realistic? Probably not. But it does go over in some colorful detail the role of emigres in the Cold War, the time scale of the work (e.g. years and decades), how individuals in the emigre community were used by both sides, the role of blackmail in turning agents, and how certain kinds of operations are done, or perhaps are done. The turning of the Soviet diplomat, Grigoriev is particularly interesting, as is the interview of the psychiatric patient, Tatiana, who may or may not be the daughter of the head of a special directorate of Moscow Center.

The former and current heads of foreign intelligence review a confession of a Soviet Spy

A Russian emigre meets a representative of the Riga Group and General Vladimir

I was surprised at how well this was done.  I have watched it several times since finding it on Youtube.

The story is the third in a series, but pretty much all you need to know of the backstory is (a) that Smiley used to be head of the British Foreign Intelligence, (b) that Karla is the bad guy, and (c) that Smiley's wife, Ann, famously cheated on him. A lot.

For those of you who think, as many American's probably do, that espionage agencies act outside the law and are guilty of the most heinous crimes, I refer you to the following paper I found on the Internet by a Georgetown Professor of Law who wrote a 56 page paper on the legality of certain espionage "deals" as found in Smiley's People in American constitutional law.

Second Guessing the Spymasters with a Judicial Role in Espionage Deals by John Radsan, Wm. Mitchell School of Law, Georgetown University.

http://apps.law.georgetown.edu/state-secrets-archive/resourcedocuments/Radsan_67.pdf

Radsan makes several points in his paper, including first and foremost that the ending of Smiley's People may be the most unrealistic part.   George makes an offer to Karla in writing without any help from the Circus's legal staff.   I thought that was a very funny thing of Radsan to say, in reality, in the CIA at least, there would have been lawyers everywhere.

The bulk of the paper is taken up with the various rulings by our legal system of whether the courts can be used to enforce an agreement between an agency like the CIA and an agent.  The short answer seems to be no, they can not.  The agent either has to trust the agency or they have to get their cash up front as it were.

Among other anecdotes we learn that Pres. Abraham Lincoln personally hired a spy and then failed to pay him.

I am not the least bit surprised.

David Cornwell, aka John LeCarre on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_le_Carr%C3%A9

Smiley's People on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dh4tnvx2b8

Smiley's People on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083480/

________________________________________

1. Now that I think of it, there is one sequence in Patriot Games (1992) that seems pretty accurate, up to a point, and that is sequence in the basement where they watch a special operation by live satellite.  Accurate?  Maybe not.  But definitely amusing.

The Controversy over Zero Dark Thirty

[Foreign Policy Online has an article on the movie and its portrayal of torture in Zero Farce Thirty restating the conclusion of the Washington defense establishment that extraordinary interrogation techniques (e.g. waterboarding) was not effective in general and did not help find Bin Laden.  See
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/19/zero_farce_thirty]

We have a major incident brewing between the glamourous and self-entitled motion picture industry which knows everything, and the Washington defense and intelligence community which also knows everything.

It shows every likelihood of blowing up into a big disaster and when it does, it will be the last time Hollywood gets any help from the DOD or intelligence, at least until the next time.

The new Kathryn Bigelow film, Zero Dark Thirty, which is considered a front runner for Best Picture before it is even released is going to say that torture enabled us to get Bin Laden. And Kathryn Bigelow was given access to all sorts of things about the background of that event, to the point where the Republicans in congress are atttacking the Obama administration and the CIA for releasing classified information. And Obama and the CIA helped Ms. Bigelow not knowing that she was going to say this so they have mud on their faces.

Or do they?  Maybe they planned their own humiliation as part of some complicated, mirrors within mirrors game of espionage!   How would we know?   Ok, this is unlikely.  Anyway, back to our story.

There are a number of different issues here.  The first is that no one in the defense and intelligence community that I know of (or have read online) believes that torture led us to Bin Laden.  The second is that the criminals in the Bush administration were never properly reprimanded by Obama (in other words, they were not charged with crimes that they had committed), and thus even though the Obama administration stopped the torture, or we think they did, they are compromised by their failure to punish the guilty.

And so it turns out that the Obama administration and the intelligence community cooperated in extraordinary ways with a filmmaker that was going to turn around and attack them in an area where they are compromised yet, in an odd way, innocent, stirring up an issue they wish would just go away.

What do I mean they cooperated in extraordinary ways?  Consider this: Kathryn Bigelow met the woman who in real life did what the heroine of the movie is going to be shown to do.  Now, the person, in real life is still covert. "Who cleared Bigelow to allow her to meet this person and know her real role?  Why was she cleared?  What else was she told?", you can just imagine the opponents to the Obama administration rubbing their hands in anticipatory glee.

So Bigelow not only damages the career of people who helped her, she gets the story wrong, and in doing so, she helps the case of people who believe we should be using torture.

What a delicious situation.

Cool nightvision image.

Perhaps the result will be that the next administration buoyed by the argument that torture had solid results here, will reinstate torture as our formal policy.  If not, it won't be because the people who helped Bigelow create this slander are there to do it, their career is (ahem) compromised.  Whatever the long term result, in the short term careers are damaged, people are embarrassed, the Obama administration will be under attack for working with this person, and on top of that, torture probably had very little to do with getting Bin Laden.

Thats show biz.

(In a further post, we will go over some nuances here about torture).