Star Wars Point Counterpoint

There was a post on Slate about the Star Wars and Disney deal that I want to respond to, since it disagrees with my post of a few days ago. The writer basically says that the Star Wars movies are for kids, that both the original and the prequels were made that way and suffer from the same faults that only adults see. And Disney is good at making movies for kids so the next movies will be good, too.


I completely disagree. The original movies were compelling and easy to understand. It was revolution against an empire. Any student of the American Revolution - or any other revolution - would get it. It was powerful and cruel despots against fledgling upstarts with heart. It was good humans against bad humans.

The prequels were the opposite. There were arcane trade wars that I don't understand (and neither does the author of the Slate piece) and clone wars that make less sense when being shown in the prequels than when mentioned in the originals. And it was humans against machines. Darth Maul was powerful and scary - if there were more like him, the movies might have been better. But the 4 light-saber robot was boring and unmoving - I felt nothing during the battle and nothing when he died - because he was a robot.

The author of the Slate piece is right that there are similarities - there is some bad acting (maybe Mark Hammil and definitely Hayden Christiansen, though the later I blame on the directing) and bad dialogue writing. And both have annoying characters (C3PO and Jar Jar). But the stories are much different. Only the originals have powerful and understandable themes. And only they stand up to adult scrutiny.

Star Wars Won the Super Bowl

In news that got lost in the Hurricane Sandy coverage, Disney bought Lucasfilm from George Lucas, including ILM and Skywalker Sound. And with it came news that Disney plans to bring new Star Wars movies to the screen.

I think this will be a good thing - at least for the movies. I loved the original movies (ie episodes IV, V, and VI) but didn't really like the prequels (episodes I, II, and III - Phantom Menace, etc). I think there was so much promise for the prequels but they just didn't deliver. And I think the main problem was George Lucas. He spent the intervening decades between the originals and the prequals as a business man and not as a writer / director.

Even at top form, I am not convinced Lucas was a great director. I have seen on interviews that he wasn't a very good director of actors. He often relied on good actors to coach themselves (Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Liam Neeson, Ewen McGregor as compared to Hayden Christensen and Samuel L. Jackson - the later of which was just a bad casting decision). In fact, the two best movies, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, were not directed by Lucas.

But I am convinced he was a good writer. Although his dialogue was sometimes pretty flat the stories were engaging and powerful. Remember, he wrote note just Star Wars but the stories for the Indiana Jones movies.

But writing and directing are both crafts that need to be practiced if you want to remain good at them. Believing that you can walk away from them, then come back without any problems is extreme hubris. Lucas decided to write and direct the prequels, and so they suffered. The prequels had not only bad acting but the story didn't hold up.

Disney can be really good at telling stories and I think will be able to create much better movies. At their best, Disney movies like Finding Nemo and Wall-i and Lion King and Monsters, Inc have really great stories.

However, Disney also has a history of creating really bad movies as well. As Seth MacFarlane (the Family Guy) said on Twitter:

Looking forward to seeing what exciting new Star Wars adventures will be cooked up by the dream factory that brought us Mars Needs Moms!

 I think it depends on how seriously Disney treats the movies, and I think they will treat the Star Wars movies well. 

Inside Job: A Review

This year's Oscar for Best Documentary went to Inside Job. Since I read (although didn't quite finish) Sorkin's Too Big to Fail, which is about the financial collapse, I thought I would like the movie even more. I didn't.

The movie tells a one-sided story about the financial collapse, blaming it all on Wall Street. Since Paul Krugman has actually blamed a global savings glut for the bubble and the recession, I have to accept that the documentary is not telling the full truth.

But I do believe that the financial industry along with moderate and conservative politicians and many economists, bear significant blame for the size of the recession and the need for a bailout. So I am only slightly offended that the movie beat up on those parties that called for deregulation.

What really bothered me about the movie though was that the interviewer was not very good at asking good tough questions. His questions were too broad and vague and he often allowed people to simply disagree without any explanation. He probably thinks this made the respondents just look stupid when you compare their answers to the evidence. But I think it doesn't give the interviewees a fair shake and at the same time it missed an opportunity to really get the interviewees.

For example, when talking about executive compensation, he asks if it is excessive. The industry lobbyist was able to simply say, "no". Instead he should have asked whether the compensation rewarded bad behavior by rewarding short term profit without punishing long term risk and loss.

Similarly, he asked about conflicts of interest among economists. The economists would just say no and were never pushed. Instead of asking whether it impacted objectivity when an economist was writing about complex derivatives but also being paid by companies that made a lot of money on derivatives, the interviewer just asked where the economist got his compensation from.

The whole movie had the feel of wanting to beat up on the guilty parties instead of having a real dialogue with them. It seemed to actually try to avoid conversation and using tricks to tell the viewer to hate the person on screen. In fact, most people it wanted to portray negatively refused to appear on screen, which seemed to work fine for those making the movie since they made it seem like those how refused were trying to hide something. But it would have made a better movie had they been able to convince those people that they would have had a real conversation.

As for how it won an Oscar, I wonder if Hollywood was overjoyed to see a movie that made other really rich people look like monsters and made the Hollywood-types - also very rich - feel superior. Just a hunch.

The one thing I hadn't known or thought about before seeing the movie was the issue of conflicts of interest among economists. I think it is a serious issue, but it is one that permeates so many other industries that need to be regulated (conflicts in the pharmaceutical industry has been getting attention lately, but we know that revolving door issues affect many government programs' effectiveness). An across the board - for all industries - conflicts of interest policy is much needed.

On Truman

I finished watching the American Experience documentary on Harry Truman and I have to say that I am thoroughly unimpressed. Maybe if I read McCullough's book I'll understand why people seem to love Truman, but I doubt it. Let's look at his record.

The Good
It seems Truman deserves a good deal of respect for his position on civil rights. He was ahead of his time and so took a pro-civil rights position at great political risk. He integrated the military and supported anti-lynching laws. Though his position was the right one, he wasn't wildly successful.

The Marshall Plan is probably Truman's proudest accomplishment. American aid helped get western Europe through the post-war years and prevented what might have been a move to communism. However Truman, wisely and rightly, gave credit to Secretary of State John Marshall.

Truman is also famous for the saying, "The Buck Stops Here." Accountability is a great thing, but shouldn't be considered a major feat or accomplishment.

The Bad
I already talked about the atomic bomb and how he could have and should have had it dropped on military targets first instead of two large cities leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.

He was also seemingly anti-union in practice. After the end of the war, there were battles between businesses and unions. Business wanted an end to price controls and unions wanted higher wages. It seemed that Truman hated when unions went on strike. In fact, he proposed - illegally - to draft railroad union members if they went on strike. I'm sure conservatives like this, but I don't.

His conduct during the Korean War was terrible. His decision to advance beyond the 38th parallel when China made it clear they would intervene if the UN / US force did so was appalling. He seemed to blame that situation on MacArthur. Granted, MacArthur was amazingly insubordinate, but the blame for the tens of thousands of American deaths that resulted from the advance beyond the 38th parallel lays entirely with Truman. There was no reason to advance and every reason to think it would be a grave mistake.

Truman was also the first president to have to deal with the communist threat, and he used scare tactics that would persist for decades to achieve his foreign policy goals. But those same tactics boxed him in domestically where he required federal employees to take loyalty oaths. And this same rhetoric arguably gave rise to to Senator Joseph McCarthy. A more wise and able president could have presented the threat to communism in a way that didn't allow for people on the far left - ones who had no desire to overthrow the government - to have their lives ruined.

Maybe it is unfair, but there are other small examples that leave me with a low impression of him. His own draft speech against unions, portrayed in the documentary, was amateurish and extreme. Even more so was his letter to the journalist that attacked his daughter's signing.

And I can't get over his relationship with his wife. She seemed to treat him badly and maybe didn't even respect him. Yet he always seemed to grovel and flatter her. Sure, patience is a virtue, but being a doormat is not.

Conclusion
Overall, I don't see enough good from President Truman to have a high opinion of him. In fact, I get every impression that he was in over his head - which he himself thought at times. Although he originally was elevated to president after Roosevelt died, he ran for his own term in 1948.

I have long thought that President Bush was in over his head and should not have ran for president. Even more so with Sarah Palin. The "everyman" should not be president. Only extraordinary men and women should be president. This doesn't mean ivy league, but it does mean people that are smart and well-educated and well-informed on history and current events.

After watching this movie, I have to think that Truman was in over his head, as was Bush. And neither should have put the country at risk by running for president when they felt - or should have felt - under-qualified.

Collision: A Review

Summary. I just watched Collision, the documentary about the debates on whether Christianity is good for the world between Hitchens and Wilson. In this post I will tell you where my beliefs are and what I thought about the two arguments. Get comfortable, this is going to be a long one.

I finally got a chance to watch Collision, the movie that shows the debates between Christopher Hitchens (Anti-theist) and Douglas Wilson (Christian). Before I get into their arguments, I should tell you where I am started from.

First, although raised in the church, I no longer believe. I just can't get myself to believe in, and then worship, a God that would allow the type of suffering that has existed and continues to exist in this world. Second, a God that was worth worshiping would prefer that I try my best to make the world better and not waste time worshiping Him. There is a relatively common message in Christian churches that a Christian should feel JOY by putting Jesus first, then others, and lastly yourself. Sorry, I think it should be different; Jesus / God should come last. As for what comes first, I don't think one can lead a healthy life that puts yourself last. I think family, others, and yourself need to be on relatively equal footing.

While that is the state of my belief, overall I do not think that Christianity is good or bad for the world by itself. I think there is beauty in the church. Listen to Robert Randolph (The Word), Ben Harper and the Blind Boys of Alabama, gospel music that has been coming out of African-American churches before we had rock and roll or even the blues, or more traditional white choirs. And there are few things more beautiful than Christmas eve candle-light service singing Silent Night and Joy to the World. Most importantly, the fellowship, good works, and humility that is formed in many churches across the country is inspiring.

But there is also ugliness. Many in the church are not humble, as God would call on them to be, but are instead righteous. They attack those around them for not being worthy and cause tremendous emotional suffering. And of course, following Jesus has lead people to war, or at least made them feel justified.

I therefore think the church, like other institutions are as beautiful and flawed as the human race is, at least from a big picture. As you will see, Hitchens got me to think of the small picture as well.

One more thing before I get started, it was a good movie, especially because it shows how real debates can happen - debates where both sides are intellectually honest, smart, and considerate. The debates take the viewer seriously and give them serious substance. This is lacking in our current cable environment.

As for the movie, I will say that I found Hitchens most convincing, probably because I started closer to his point of view. What most surprised me though was the form of Hitchens' argument. I have debated atheists before. In those arguments, the atheist seemed to say that wars were usually the fault of religions and that soon science would answer all of our questions. Neither of those points convinced me. I think just as many people have died for other reasons as for religion. And the point about science is based on faith as much as a belief in God is.

Hitchens' biggest point though is not about religion, but about Christianity. He says the vicarious redemption, whereby Christ shoulders all of our sins, is actually bad for the world. No one can and should take away our responsibility for our actions.

I found this to be rather compelling. I have always found it odd that if we are truly sorry for our actions, we will be forgiven. It is never clear how far this goes, but the possibilities seem endless. To be fair though, while I find this argument theoretically compelling, I do not get the sense that people actually use this to abdicate responsibility and therefore am not convinced how much effect it really has.

Hitchens also attacks other tenets of the faith. He questions whether love is actually possible when it is compulsory and whether it is possible to both love and fear someone. He also says that religion is our first and worst attempt to understand the world and if we had accepted Christianity's take on the world, we would not have made any scientific progress. While some people, like Wilson, can talk about science and Christianity, and Christianity can also try to keep moral frameworks as part of considerations for new science, in most cases Christianity seems to deny science.

Finally, Hitchens talks about how God is like a father that never goes away and therefore never lets us grow up. While this metaphor is convincing at first, I can't think of a way in which this is actually true. After all, my father is still around but has also let me grow up. What ways does God prevent that?

Wilson spends most of his time defending Christianity by showing how it can be a foundation for moral decision-making. That by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, we can try to understand how we should live. There is no similar construct for atheists. If a person is bad and an atheist, he or she is not violating any principles or foundations of atheism.

The problem is that either by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, or by trying to decide how we should behave as decent human beings, we are still exercising reason - either as applied to the Bible or to non-religious readings - to decide how to live. I just don't see any evidence that Christianity provides a better foundation than non-religious humanist writings. In each case, we pick and choose which things are better codes to live by.

Seemingly in response to Hitchens' point about vicarious redemption, Wilson says that Stalin went to his grave believing that there was no final judgment waiting for him. Wouldn't it be a better world if that wasn't the case, Wilson asks. Yes, it would be comforting if there was the fear of damnation, or justice, for terrible acts. And although we can't make Stalin believe it, maybe there are some people that behave because they fear damnation.

One point they almost touched on but didn't get into was about how God would choose between two people: a believer but not a good person and a non-believer but a good person. After all, the Bible says that whoever feeds or clothes the least among us has therefore clothed and fed God. And to them will be given the reward of Heaven. But God also says that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. So do both people go? Or only the person that both believes and his helpful? I'm not sure I would want to share heaven with a bunch of pious but unhelpful souls. Nor would Heaven be worth going if those that helped but did not believe were not invited.

So where do I come out after seeing the movie? First, I feel I need to read their book (Is Christianity Good for the World) to make sure I got all of their arguments. Some might have been left out for brevity's sake. I'll be sure to post after I read the book.

Overall, as I said above, I was more convinced by Hitchens, at least about why not to believe in God. I think his arguments were better than any I have heard from atheists. However, I am not convinced that Christianity is bad for the world. I see the problems with vicarious redemption, but the Stalin argument was convincing as well. The bottom line is that I still think Christianity is neither good nor bad. As humans, we regularly make things beautiful, but we also spoil much that we touch.

Truman's Bomb

I have been watching the American Experience documentary on President Truman. So far I am half way through and just got to the end of World War II. Since I haven't read McCullough's Truman or any other biography, this is my first study of him. The one thing that sticks out of course is the decision to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima using the nuclear bomb.

Usually the decision to bomb Japan is contrasted to not using the bomb and invading mainland Japan. That option of course would have lead to many thousands more American deaths. However, that was not the only other option. Truman, as has been well established, could have used the bomb once in Japan where there were no people or at the very least on a military target to show the amazing power of the atomic bomb.

The question is why didn't he chose one of those other options. If I understand the documentary correctly, Truman delegated the decision about where to use the bomb to the military. Only after the extreme destruction of the two bombings did Truman take the power back from the military so that he alone would decide if there was another bombing and where it would be.

If this is true, I find it appalling and very scary. I can admit that I don't have the proper historical context - maybe presidents delegated chores like this frequently during this time. If so, Truman made a grave and stupid mistake not recognizing that his was a new weapon that demanded new protocol.

The nuclear bomb should have been used on military targets until it was clear Japan was not scared, and only then used on civilian populations. And that decision should have come from the President himself. I think we have learned our lesson. What I don't understand is why we (or McCullough) hold Truman in such high regard. Maybe the second half of the documentary will show me.