PyotrVerkhovensky
No bio...
User ID: 2154
PyotrVerkhovensky
18d ago
I think Lucas has great ideas: Star Wars and THX-1138 are both interesting concepts. I'm not sure how involved he was in the special effects for the Original Trilogy, but they were revolutionary for the time. I don't think he is a good screenwriter or director. The success of the first Star Wars (I refuse to call it "A New Hope" :)) can be attributed to a lot of luck (it originally wasn't going to even have a score) and creative tension and pushback from the actors and crew. Harrison Ford and Mark Hamil would change their lines or ad-lib; summarized pithily, famously, and probably mistakenly by Harrison Ford's "You can write this, but you can't say it". Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were not directed by Lucas. Empire Strikes Back in particular, widely considered the best of the Trilogy, had relatively little creative involvement by Lucas.
It has been 20 years since Revenge of the Sith came out. The entire Star Wars series was formational in my childhood and teenage years, and Revenge of the Sith was one of the few movies I saw in theaters as a teenager. When it was released, it was widely considered a step above the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. The story was darker and more mature; and Jar Jar was essentially non-existent.
I just rewatched it as a 35 year old. So how well has it held up over the last twenty years?
First, the good:
- On a technical level, while digital movie cameras were still in their relative infancy, it has a sharper and crisper look than Attack of the Clones. Attack of the Clones was the first major picture to be shot entirely digitally rather than with 35 or 70 mm film, and it shows. Many of the shots are soft and do not have the detail of film. The lack of "analog noise" and the ease of imposing digital effects were the only benefits in 2002; by 2005 the situation had improved considerably.
- Lightsabers show up vibrantly on early digital cameras. They seem to visually "pop" out of the screen.
- The sound design was widely considered a disappointment after the tour-de-force of the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. However, there are still some solid scenes. Anakin's lightsaber effect as he ignites it before killing the younglings has a deep and menacing bass note that can only truly can be appreciated on a high-end system. The heart-thump juxtaposition during the twin birth scene and the rise of Darth Vader is top-notch, and again can only be appreciated with a good sound system. Surround activity is mostly active and ships whiz seamlessly across the sound stage.
- John Williams has some of his best work. He weaves in the Imperial March throughout the final half of the movie, notably during Darth Vader's destruction of the separatists and more subtly during Padme's funeral and construction of the Death Star. The haunting twilight moment between Anakin and Padme as they gaze at each other across Coruscant is a perfect mixture of sound and cinematography. Indeed, that scene is the pivotal point where the movie starts taking itself seriously.
- Speaking of cinematography, there are some outstanding moments as well. While keeping the Star Wars feel, there are some genuinely powerful framing; including the aforementioned Coruscant scene, the "Order 66" scene, Padme's funeral (with the camera fading on Anakin's childhood gift to Padme), and Darth Vader being carried to the medical center during a thunderstorm.
- Padme is portrayed as a tough, no compromise idealist during the first two movies. Marriage and pregnancy seem to have softened her. Even at the end, when confronted with Anakin's "evil" she doesn't fully turn on him. If Anakin hadn't gone berserk when seeing Obi Wan, she may have been convinced to support him even as he took power in the Empire. As I grow older, I consider duty a high calling, and I believe she should have continued to support Anakin (until, that is, he tried to kill her) even as he ascended into Power. The fact that there was this ambiguity in a major blockbuster is pleasantly surprising, and stands in contrast to (say) Chani in the film adaptation of Dune. (As an aside...Dune is supposed to be "Star Wars for grown ups" yet the heroine acts more like a child than in Star Wars).
- There is some good--sometimes great--acting by Ewan McGregor. He was a standout among a cast that includes some excellent actors (including later Best Actress Natalie Portman). Ian McDiarmid also has one or two excellent scenes, in particular the conversation with Anakin at the opera.
- The story itself is not a "black and white" "good versus evil" story. The Jedi really are plotting to take control of the Senate. They truly are lost: they lack conviction in their own ideals. They play the politics like any other faction. If it wasn't for the (contrived? arbitrary?) distinction between the Jedi and the "Dark Side", it would have been difficult to say who was "in the right" (at least, until kids started getting slaughtered).
Now for the bad:
- The CGI. CGI will never stand up over time...and yet everything was CGI. Even the Clones were needlessly CGI. The actors spend the entire film against green screen. There were scenes that were obviously shot in a comfortable setting, but Lucas thought would look "cooler" in a more "action" shot, and so actors who are sitting on a green-screen couch are now suddenly supposed to be skimming a few miles in the air. Actors need some context to understand how to act, which is entirely lost if they are transported to a completely different setting post-production.
- The 2005 digital cameras were loud and most of the dialog was lip-synced after shooting. This doesn't help an actor "feel" the scene.
- While the actors certainly didn't get much help from the script or the technology, the acting still disappoints. Actors don't emote. They look like they are reading from a script. Ewan somehow managed to take a lousy script and no direction and still provide believable scenes, but no one else was up to the task.
- The dialog itself is well below average. The movie opening has Obi Wan and Anakin infiltrating an enemy ship. This is intended to be a "fun" part of the movie, and much of the action is enjoyable. However, they are given lines that are clearly intended to be "quippy" but simply fall flat. The "best" line is Anakin's "no loose-wire jokes" when Obi-Wan doubts R2's capabilities. There are dozens of lines that are even worse.
- This is a movie of two halves, and the first half is far worse than the second. The first half is a lighthearted and rather stupid romp. The other is a serious and dark drama. It is whiplash to go between the two.
- Anakin's fall to the dark side is too sudden to be believable. Is he after power? Is he distrustful of the Jedi? Does he just want to save Padme? Is he jealous of Padme and Obi-Wan? There can be multiple reasons to ultimately make a life-altering decision, but none of these are truly fleshed out in a way that makes me believe he would turn to the Dark Side. The way to seduce Anakin is through promises of power and through making him feel part of the "inner circle". Yet Palpatine transparently lies to Anakin throughout the movie: from hiding his identity as a Sith Lord to praising Anakin for bringing peace when by that point everyone knows Palpatine orchestrated the entire war.
- This movie also features some of John William's worst work. The most egregious is the copy/pasta of Duel of the Fates during Yoda and Palpatine's fight. The finale of the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan feels like a music video more than a movie.
- Certain scenes have abysmal sound design. While overall the movie feels more "compressed" (less variation between quiet and loud sounds) than Episode I and II, the Jedi confrontation with Palpatine is especially bad. There is almost no dynamic range. Surrounds have little activity. It almost sounds like it was mixed for stereo. General Grievous's death similarly lacks bass where it is severely needed, making the entire battle feel fake and inconsequential.
- Now that I have three kids, Padme's death seems ludicrous. Once you have kids, they become your will to live, replacing pretty much everything else.
Other notes:
- Both sides try to paint the other as intolerant and unyielding. "Only the Sith deal in absolutes". "If one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force." Much was made at the time that the "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" line was a dig at George Bush's "if you are not with us, you are against us". Now, it just feels like an anachronism from an era where the only "bad" thing was intolerance.
- The Star Wars movies do not explicitly say why the "Dark Side" is bad. They say hate and anger are key to the Dark Side, and the sinister aesthetics of the Emperor and Darth Vader certainly hint at evil. But when taking a step back, they seem like standard fare politicians, rather than something intrinsically "evil". And the "good" side, as mentioned before, has become just another political faction; also interested in power. Perhaps this is justification for Anakin's sudden turn: there isn't much outward difference between the "good" and "bad" side; so one may as well join the winning side.
The scripting flaws of Episode III reveal just how bad Episode I and II were. Episode I was almost entirely a waste: it introduces Padme and Anakin, and shows Palpatine gaining power. Nothing else in that movie was important for later films. Episode I should have started in Coruscant, where Anakin was in training to be a Jedi and Padme was a senator's assistant. This would have revealed the tension and interplay between the various factions and let their love grow in a far more believable setting. The Clone Wars would have started during Episode I, possibly with the destruction of a large portion of the Senate, which would have helped accelerate Anakin's and Padme's careers. Episode II would have been focused mainly on the Clone Wars, possibly showing how destructive it was even to the core of the Republic. It would also show the growing distrust between Anakin and Obi-Wan, and Anakin's budding desire for power. A risky move would have been to make Obi-Wan the twin's father, but it would have made the journey to the Dark Side far more believable. Episode III would then have been entirely about the Anakin's fall, and the destruction of the Jedi.
PyotrVerkhovensky
26d ago
What drives Zelensky? While surely a mix of motives coalesces into his behavior and decisions, I posit the following are primary candidates:
- Beneficence of the Ukrainian people
- Will of the Ukrainian people
- Hatred of Russia
- Desire to retain power
The first motive simply states that Zelensky is operating to maximize his country's well-being. This often means making difficult choices, and ones that may appear detrimental in the short-run. I think Zelensky's brave choice to remain in Kiev in the opening weeks of the war was a demonstration of this: risking his own life to inspire and lead his armies as they fought the invading force. However, if he now is truly attempting to maximize his people's well-being, he should have signed the rare-earth agreement with the United States. His childish behavior (inappropriate attire, attempting to alter the deal in front of the press, insolence to a nation responsible for his nation still existing) put the deal at risk, and seems to indicate that his country’s well-being no longer holds paramount sway in Zelensky.
The second frames Zelensky as a conduit for his people's will. In this sense he serves as an ambassador petitioning support for his people and their cause. Again, I think in the early days this objective clearly was a major motivator. He was able to transmute sympathy into aid, keeping his nation afloat with economic and military materiel as patriotic fervor swelled his armies with volunteers. Yet now we are three years into the war, and conscription has replaced volunteerism. The average age of the fighting man is over 40. Zelensky has resisted calls for an election, which while he has the legal right to do still undermines any claim to be operating with the people's mandate.
The third motive has been in the background for the entire war. Yet now it may be moving to the forefront. In his interview with Lex Friedman, Zelensky dismissed any idea of negotiating with Putin. He refused to speak in Russian (despite it being a common language between Friedman and Zelensky) and went out of his way to say Putin would be "forced to pay" for the things he has done. This could certainly be grandstanding, but such a hatred would also explain his recent behavior in Washington. If driven primarily by hatred for Russia, he would risk sacrificing his own people to reduce the probability of a cease fire. In this case, he may well have gone to DC with no intention of signing the rare-earths deal, and intentionally blew it up (though doubtless he didn’t desire the dressing-down he received).
The desire to retain power, while clearly the most damning for Zelensky, also fits the recent facts. If there was a cease fire or a peace agreement, Zelensky would risk deposition. His stature in the world and his ability to remain in quasi-dictatorial power comes from the war. It is in his best interests to keep the war going at all expense.
Many commentators seem to assume Zelensky is operating primarily under one of the first two motivations. Certainly those with Ukrainian flags in their avatars conflate Zelensky with the Ukrainian people. Yet given recent circumstances I can no longer assume the interests of the Ukrainian people and Zelensky are aligned. And the rest of the West shouldn't either.
PyotrVerkhovensky
27d ago
There are four categories of government spending:
- spending that hurts the US and the World (eg, funding LGBTQ+ agendas across the globe)
- spending that is ambivalent to the US but helps the World (eg, PEPFAR)
- spending that is good for the US, but may not be the best way to spend the dollar (eg, Science research/funding)
- spending that is unambiguously a good marginal return on investment (I can't think of an example)
The first category should be defunded. The second category should spawn a discussion on what the purpose of government is. Is it to maximize global utility? At what point should we tradeoff between a citizen's wellbeing and another nation's citizen's wellbeing. The third category should spawn a both a practical debate on the tradeoffs between various alternatives (including returning the money to the taxpayers). The fourth we should keep funding.
However, I'm currently in favor of fast, indiscriminate cuts. We are dealing with a quickly metastasizing cancer and we need aggressive chemotherapy to address it. Chemotherapy so aggressive that yes, hair will fall out and the body will feel deathly sick. Once the cancer is removed, we can again discuss the latter three categories dispassionately and objectively, and fund areas that meet the bar.
PyotrVerkhovensky
27d ago
Per usual, I'm late to the action.
As I watched the exchange, it felt like I was witness to a public altercation between a spoiled, petulant teenager acting out and his harried parents trying to contain the situation. The criticism of clothing style, the "who put the roof over your head"-type comments, the "you should be grateful" all played into the trope.
And as usual for public scenes between parents and wayward teenagers, no one came out looking good. The parents become exasperated, the teenager sulks, the public may send sympathetic glances towards the parents but mostly just feel awkward.
More interesting is the reaction of the public. Of course in America one side had to be right, and one wrong; so reaction fell necessarily along partisan lines. Some from both sides hailed this as the end of the international order, with a differing perspective on the desirability of this outcome. But what personally irked me was the reaction of Western European leaders, predictable as it was. When a teenager is acting out in public, you should never defend the teenager. The teenager needs to mature and grow: that happens through both direct criticism and social disapproval (and possibly ostracism until they learn to behave). If anything, public support should got to the parents. Privately there can (and possibly should be) discussion with the parents on how to handle such situations in the future, but petulant anti-socialness should not be condoned: especially when that teenager is responsible for millions of lives.
PyotrVerkhovensky
2mo ago
Thanks for this comment...its good to hear these perspectives.
You make a distinction between the medium and the message...but isn't the medium the message? Whether it be BLM and LGBT in 2010-2022 USA, the "woman question" and "serf's rights" in 1870s Russia, or the Jacobins in 1770s France; the superficial message may change, but the medium stays the same: the attainment of power through societal disruption, revolution, and chaos. It usually begins and ends in blood. In Dostoyevsky's Idiot and Demons there are conversations and confrontations in those books that could be ripped straight out of a 2020 struggle session.
But, if you must make a distinction between the two (and acknowledging that I am not the OP and he/she may have a different take): yes; I dislike both the medium and the message. I think racism is sub-optimal and is a "lesser" sin of envy, but not "abhorrent". Humans cannot have an inalienable right to shelter and healthcare because these things depend on other humans. Did Robinson Crusoe have a right to shelter and healthcare? (He did, as an aside, have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). I think it is a moral imperative to restrict LGBTQ rights and acceptance (uh oh, there goes our shot at a pluralistic society).
In short, I fight both wokeness and extreme progressivism, if it is even possible to disambiguate the two.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
Some Guy writes a riveting blog which often includes extended anecdotes purportedly from his childhood and youth. Most of these mix horror, humor, pathos, and sentimentality into a compelling brew. One of his stories ends with his Dad telling him "I don’t fucking care if you’re a faggot or anything. You’re still my son and I still love you". Another is titled "My Micronesian Stepfather was a White Supremacist Amateur Elvis Impersonator". It seems unlikely that all the stories could possibly be true; if they are his is truly one of the more unlucky childhoods of anyone in the United States, and his ability to transcend it to become (what seems to be) an upstanding citizen is miraculous. But in another sense, it doesn't really matter if these stories are true: even as fiction they lose none of their power. Each of these stories could happen, and they contain a core of truth about large swaths of our society.
Some Guy seems to (cautiously and mildly) align with Jordan Peterson on the topic of Cultural Christianity: that is, the concept that even if you don't believe in God, or the Incarnation, or the Resurrection, you should still go to church and perform the outward rituals and ceremonies of the Christian religion. Christianity has, as a meme, proved itself to be pro-social, pro-growth, and pro-peace and we don't have a better replacement. Better to treat Christianity as a Chesterton Fence and embrace it even against your reason than to cast it aside and be left in a Nietzschean void.
Some Guy recently published an article in favor of Cultural Christianity. His main goal in the essay seems to be to convince sympathetic atheists to attend religious services. He calls the "obvious" objections distractions, and seems to think that many of these objections will be naturally addressed through interactions with the religious community. If he is holds orthodox Christian views (I believe he is Roman Catholic), then such questions could only be addressed truthfully in the Church; but he asks these atheists to attend synagogues and mosques as well. Perhaps he considers any religious exposure a positive step in an atheist's journey towards Christ.
In his next section of the essay on Dawkins, he reveals another glimpse into the way he thinks of Christianity. Given the question "Do you believe Jesus died for our sins?", he answers "Yes, but you have to begin from the position that Jesus wasn’t just some guy who arbitrarily claimed a particular title. It was as if morality itself became a person. I find the moral innovations of Jesus to be something close to the mechanical equivalent of finding a functioning F-35 jet plane in ancient Egypt. Do you know what people were like before that guy got nailed to a cross? Crack open a history book.". What an astonishing thing to say! "Jesus died for our sins" is "real" because after Jesus died, we literally sinned less! We went from barbaric and cruel to civilized and moral*.
I'm guessing that the following is a fair summary of Some Guy's theology: Some Guy believes in God. He believes God reveals himself in various ways. Humanity, in its own way, tries to comprehend the transcendent Truth, and does so imperfectly. Over time, humanity gains more and more knowledge of God. Judaism may have been the best human effort to understand God until Christianity came along; and still holds much wisdom and truth. But both Judaism and Christianity merely scratch the surface of what we can possibly understand about God and should not be treated as the final or only word on the matter. The Gospel narrative was humanity's closest interaction with the divine (even if there wasn't a literal incarnation) and the resulting Testament gives us an opaque glimpse into that divine, using the only means that imperfect and distinctly sub-divine humanity could use. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
I disagree with this argument, but I also find it difficult to counter. It is a much more compelling line (though superficially similar) to the "all religions contain truth" platitude that many Gen Xers felt was the best way to end uncomfortable conversations in the 90s and early 00s. I do hold that humanity can never know everything about God (mathematically, this is a certainty: He is infinite, we are finite). And much like I enjoy Some Guy's writing even if his stories are fiction, I accept that there is much wisdom and truth in parables and fiction. As Jordan Peterson might say, "there is more truth in Dostoyevsky than in a newspaper". People will fight and die for an idea much more readily than they will fight and die for a fact. Someone who "believes" in Christianity in such a way could even say the Nicene Creed with a clear conscience: while the words may not be literally true they come the closest that we can come today in capturing our understanding of God.
And yet, the Bible makes many assertions that do not countenance ambiguity. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.". "Today you will be with me in paradise". And "For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! .... If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." These are not the words of apostles that are struggling to describe the transcendent: these are definitive statements made by those who believed they were writing factual accounts. Without the literal Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, we truly do not have hope and are among all the most to be pitied.
*Empirically, I do not find this argument compelling...humanity even in "Christian" Europe remained quite "cruel" (at least by modern sensibilities). Yes, Christianity elevated the status of children, women, and the downtrodden; but wars and violence continued (and continue) to be the norm.
PyotrVerkhovensky
6mo ago
Reduce the franchise to one vote per household who have at least two children between 0 and 18. The benefits:
- Strong societal pressure for marriage and children
- Shift vote from narcissistic youth and the obdurate aged towards those with the lowest time preference. We would see social security reform, housing and schooling reform, and a better mix of energy and maturity from our politics.
- Decrease in political activism: parents of 2+ children between 0 and 18 don't have the time.
PyotrVerkhovensky
7mo ago
I'm late to this thread, but I did read Scott's post a few days ago. I don't love any of his examples or his framing. To me there are three categories to consider:
- Personally not watching/buying something either because the content doesn't align with my values or the company doesn't align with my values
- Organizing a group of like-minded people to not watch/buy something (boycott)
- Organizing a group of like-minded people to pressure a company to take an action (firing an employee, making a financial contribution to a cause, or disavowing/distance from statements previously made)
The first two categories are not cancel culture. They are just economics and personal/group preference. Companies may change their behavior in response to the economic reality, including terminating employees, but these are in response to employees directing the company in an unprofitable direction. The desired outcome, if accomplished at all, is achieved passively. All choices are made by the company in response to changing circumstances. Budweiser, Gillette, and Dixie Chicks all fall into this category.
The third category is cancel culture. It is a direct and active demand on the company to change it's behavior in some way. The company often has no direct economic rationale for taking the action. The action, if taken, is done to placate the mob. Gina Carano was well liked as Cara Dune, but Disney caved under pressure. My own company, who publicly espouses values disconnected from their core mission that are somewhat misaligned from my own, would happily sacrifice me to avoid an online mob, despite my opinions having zero to do with my company's profitability. Indeed, official policy states that an employee is liable to termination if they make controversial posts and are subsequently revealed to be an employee. This has an absolutely chilling effect on speech.
PyotrVerkhovensky
7mo ago
Sure, if you use a simple utility function (say, 1-e^{-x}), where x is millions of dollars, then the "sure bet" in choice 1 has utility 1-exp(-1)=.63 while the "gamble" ([.01, .89, .1]) under the real-world measure has utility (1-exp(-1))*.89+(1-exp(-5))*.1=.66. By adjusting the probabilities to (as an example) [.1, .89, .01] then the under this new measure the utility is (1-exp(-1))*.89+(1-exp(-5))*.01=.57, which is less than .63.
PyotrVerkhovensky
7mo ago
They can yes, and there may be cases (I can't think of one off the top of my head) where the actual probabilities are required. But if the objective is to be able to represent preferences via expectations of utility functions (and take advantage of all the benefits that such a representation can provide), then such a representation can be achieved under an equivalent measure instead. Its not too different conceptually from using "risk neutral" probabilities in asset pricing.
PyotrVerkhovensky
7mo ago
No, the Allais paradox is only a violation of the 4th axiom from the von Neummann-Morgenstern theorem. This axiom is necessary to show the existence of a representation of preferences by an expectation under the "real world" measure. My point is that the 4th axiom isn't necessary for such a representation. The measure under which expectations must be taken may need to change, but the use of expectations is still valid. Its not the utility function but the probabilities that are changed.
PyotrVerkhovensky
7mo ago
The Allais' case would be where E[u(X)]<E[u(Y)] even though X is preferred to Y. But as long as there is a non-zero probability that the outcome of X (let's call it x) is preferred to the outcome of Y (y), the probabilities can be re-weighted to put more emphasis on the state of the world in which x>y. A trivial example would be simply giving weight only to the probabilities for which x>y.
In practice, in a discrete probability space, the re-weighted probabilities can be represented as a non-negative least-squares problem. Let U be a matrix which holds the utility of each gamble in each state, multiplied by the real-world probability of each state. Let b be the actual utility of the gamble. Then minimize | | Ax-b | |. The altered probabilities xp/sum(xp) then form the measure v under which E_v[u(X)]>E_v[u(Y)].
PyotrVerkhovensky
7mo ago
There have been other non-political posts here that have gotten some engagement but this one may be too niche :). Thanks for letting me know about lesswrong, I have heard of it but have only visited a handful of times.
PyotrVerkhovensky
7mo ago
Not without doxxing myself, unfortunately...
PyotrVerkhovensky
8mo ago
You may well be correct, but the two things that remain unexplained are the extent of the panic after a mediocre debate (which you yourself show didn't impact polls long term) and the flavor of the reaction to his withdrawing from the race (which would have made more sense if he hadn't fought tooth and nail to stay in).
I'm not supposing that the elites coordinate that much, or that they have much control. Indeed, I think the world is spiraling out of their control (to the extent they ever had it). My theory only requires the actions from one or two individuals...and responses to those reactions that are quite predictable.
PyotrVerkhovensky
8mo ago
When I first saw memes hinting that Biden's debate flop was an intentional setup by the Democratic Machine, I thought it a humorous take but didn't treat it seriously. While the overall media reaction was excessive, the dismay seemed genuine. What benefit would there be to publicly humiliate their candidate? However, given the immediate and overwhelming support for Harris following his withdrawal, I've since updated my beliefs. I think now that Biden's flop was at least somewhat arranged.
If my theory is correct, sometime in early 2024 (Feb-April), Biden suffered a steep decline. It was too late to pivot for the primaries, and the Party hoped that he would be able to limp his way to re-election in the fall.
The Biden administration proposed in mid-May to have an extra-early June debate. It could be that the setup was already in play at this point, though I suspect it was a still a backup plan that would only kick in if something particularly incrementing happened before the debate.
On June 4th, the Wall Street Journal reported Biden's decline on his Europe trip. The Wall Street Journal only wades against the Narrative when it has airtight evidence lest it be accused of partisanship (a worry that the Washington Post and New York Times, alas, do not share). Indeed, the administration immediately accused the Journal of partisanship, and enlisted more friendly journalists to rebut the claim. Yet, the Party saw that the cat was out of the bag and that they likely couldn't sufficiently contain the evidence of decline through November.
On the day of the debate, I suspect that the Party withheld whatever stimulants they normally provided Biden during late speaking engagements. I suspect they also hinted to the CNN hosts that overtly negative coverage of Biden would be tolerable. The administration can drum up positive coverage at will as demonstrated by the above Journal article; it seems likely they can influence negative coverage as well. One or two senior officials would then tweet or otherwise message a stirring farewell. As is often the case, a compelling message from the top is quickly repeated and augmented by the lower echelons of the Party. There is no conspiracy in this: it is simply a way for Party members to signal their loyalty. The sooner they can repeat the message, the more likely their message is to go viral, so there is an incentive to relay it quickly.
But then, something happened that was not anticipated: Biden was not ready to go gently into that good night. He stuck around for weeks as the calls for him to step down mounted. What could, and, (from the Party's perspective) should have been a clean withdrawal followed by a Harris coronation, stretched into something that looked more and more like a soft coup (which, if my theory is correct, it certainly was). Finally, Biden under mounting pressure formally withdrew; though given the medium for that message, even that was done in a way that raised eyebrows.
The most brazen aspect of the whole charade was how the originally planned message was then promulgated with no substantial updates. My social media feeds from lesser Party officials became a chorus of "how brave and noble for him to put his country above his personal desires, and his term was one of the most successful of any president". An example quote, verbatim: "President Joe Biden has been the most effective president of the last century. He's...always put integrity first. So grateful of his leadership, and looking forward to working alongside Kamala Harris to win this November." For me, this messaging was 1984 levels of bizarre: we had just seen the Democratic Machine take down a sitting president who clearly wanted to remain in the race, yet when he acquiesced that same machine treated him as a hero. We were always at war with Eastasia. Yet I have seen no pushback from any center/mainstream outlet on this sudden and disingenuous pivot. And it was on observing this that I updated my opinion on the debate.
PyotrVerkhovensky
8mo ago
I am very conservative, probably even by this community's standards (though I like The Jews...I just wished they stopped voting against their interests). Some of my friend groups are very conservative. I have two friends in two separate friend groups who had immediate family members in the Capitol on Jan 6. And yet, I don't know anyone who even knows anyone who believes QAnon or RRN. If it is genuinely popular/believed, it is in niche conservative groups that my bubbles don't happen to overlap with. I lean towards genuine belief being quite rare, with a fair bit of QAnon talking points being repeated for the LOLs.
I do think that any belief or interest in these highly bizarre theories does reflect a broader rejection or negation of the mainstream narrative, which in turn evidences the domination of the mainstream narrative. We don't have true epistemological competition. We have the consensus. It is the water we swim in. It is the universal milieu. I tend to roll my eyes at mainstream hand-wringing over "misinformation" or "alternative facts" as if the disseminators or believers in these alternative narratives are so ensconced in these bubbles that they have no access to the enlightened narrative. This is just not true. Simply by existing I am aware of my expected place in ensuring the smooth path for progress along the arc of history. DEI is good, certain neo-reactionaries such as Musk notwithstanding. The future is female. Bring your whole self to work (but only if you are gay or black...not if you are a Christian).
Everything is liberal, and it cannot be escaped. In short, we have one narrative. Everything else is an anti-narrative. Anti-narratives can be true (I happen to think some weak forms of the anti-narrative are closer to the truth than the narrative), but they are all going to be compelling to those who reject the narrative. To some extent, the more extreme the anti-narrative, the bigger the "up yours" to the narrative.
PyotrVerkhovensky
8mo ago
I'll have to re-read Messiah, but I recall her being at least the equal of Irulun in the games of politics (not that that was saying much), and she commanded the respect of the people.
PyotrVerkhovensky
8mo ago
I agree that she was there to bludgeon the audience with "actually, Paul becoming the emperor is a VERY BAD THING". Destroying a character to translate a book to a movie is a risky move, but one that can work: for instance, both Jessica and Stilgar were made one-dimensional and I agree with those choices (more so with Jessica's than Stilgar's). Chani was not the right character to destroy. From a narrative perspective, it lacked the subtlety I expect from Villanueva. It didn't respect the source material, imposing Western 2024 norms on a feudal culture.
PyotrVerkhovensky
8mo ago
I am hopelessly behind in my movie watching, and have just recently finished Dune 2. I'm 5 months late to the party, but the movie's deep flaws spurred me to write this post, and hopefully provide some change of pace to the constant Biden drama.
Villanueva often uses strange settings (Arrival, Blade Runner) to tell a compelling and intimate story. I had high expectations for Dune in his hands: the narrative of Paul, Chani, and Jessica has an uncanny setting yet is a story with nuance and personality. Unfortunately, Villanueva has not delivered on either the setting or the interpersonal relationships.
As in the first Dune installment, the planet is not the omnipresent danger that it is in the books. Dune should be the harshest, most inhospitable environment imaginable, with even the prison planet paling in comparison. Those that survive are forced into extreme military discipline. There is no questioning authority unless the questioner was willing to fight to the death. The planet made the Fremen who they are: the galaxies most feared killers. Yet the movie never shows the planet as anything even a tenth as scary as the Sahara in Laurence of Arabia. None of the Fremen practice water discipline, with mouths wide open to the desert and several incidents of tears (only in extreme cases would water be given to the dead!).
The Fremen themselves are petulant and cliquish rather than clannish. Modern sensibilities are ludicrously transplanted, without modification, into a setting in which every minute brings a chance of death. Chani, inexplicably, is drawn to Paul as he internally embraces a sniveling beta-male persona. She talks of perfect gender equality among the Fremen, while any society that actually evolved in such extremities would be intensely patriarchal (as they are in the book). She says she will never leave him, as long as he remains who he is. A true Fremen (and a true woman!) would have never caveated or conditioned such a statement.
Paul, backed into a corner by the Harkonnen, finally transforms into the leader he is destined to be. Chani disapproves: she wanted a tame, domesticated partner. His transformation into a conqueror precipitates an extended hissy fit that ends with her abandoning Paul, the Fremen, and her duty. She takes on the persona of a girl-boss, and is as unhappy (and, seemingly, as barren) as any modern-day girl-boss.
In the book, Chani is loyal. She is a consistent mainstay for Paul, sharing in his miseries and exulting in his triumphs. She is no flake, and takes her duty and responsibility with great seriousness. She is perfectly at home in the society, with none of the bizarre anachronism of the movie.
Perhaps the best way to show the disconnect between the book and the movie, and in the character of Chani, is quoting a passage from each:
She spoke from the tent’s gloom, another shadow there: “It’s not yet full light, beloved.”
“Sihaya,” he said, speaking with half a laugh in his voice.
“You call me your desert spring,” she said, “but this day I’m thy goad. I am the Sayyadina who watches that the rites be obeyed.”
He began tightening his stillsuit. “You told me once the words of the Kitab al-Ibar,” he said. “You told me: ‘Woman is thy field; go then to thy field and till it.’”
“I am the mother of thy firstborn,” she agreed. He saw her in the grayness matching him movement for movement, securing her stillsuit for the open desert. “You should get all the rest you can,” she said.
He recognized her love for him speaking then and chided her gently: “The Sayyadina of the Watch does not caution or warn the candidate.”
She slid across to his side, touched his cheek with her palm. “Today, I am both the watcher and the woman.”
And the movie:
[Paul] What’s your secret name?
[Chani] Sihaya.
[Paul] Sihaya.
[Chani] Hmm.
[Paul] What does that mean?
[Chani] Means Desert Spring.
[Paul] “Desert Spring.” I love it.
[Chani] I hate it. It’s from some stupid prophecy. I prefer Chani.
[Paul] I prefer Chani, too, then. Do you think Stilgar would teach me?
[Chani] To ride?
[Paul] Yeah.
[Chani laughs] No. Only Fremen ride worms.
[Paul] Well, I thought I’d become one, didn’t I?
[Chani] By name, not by blood. Your blood comes from Dukes and Great Houses. We don’t have that here. Here, we’re equal, men and women alike. What we do, we do for the benefit of all.
[Paul] Well, I’d very much like to be equal to you.
[Chani] Paul Muad’Dib Usul… maybe you could be Fremen. Maybe I’ll show you the way.
Which version of Chani seems more real? More responsible? More happy? Villanueva (unintentionally) provides meta-commentary on modern feminism, and it isn't pretty.
PyotrVerkhovensky
10mo ago
Ready for some mild 36 year old culture war material? In 1988, BBC released their adaptation of C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". I watched this adaptation with my children this weekend, and having recently reread the Chronicles of Narnia series, I was surprised how little the script deviated from the book. Indeed, the essentially verbatim reproduction puts a spotlight on the few deviations.
In the book, the children meet Father Christmas who gives presents to ready them for the coming fight.
"And the dagger is to defend yourself at great need. For you also are not to be in the battle."
"Why, Sir," said Lucy. "I think—I don't know—but I think I could be brave enough."
"That is not the point," he said. "But battles are ugly when women fight."
The BBC adaptation follows the book word for word until the last sentence (as best as I can remember: I couldn't find the script online):
"That is not the point. But you will be needed after the battle."
The original reading was a powerful statement, even in the time that Lewis wrote the book, and fully in keeping with his complementarian perspective. In the BBC adaptation, the interaction with Father Christmas ends unsatisfactorily, without any larger point than to provide the children with tools. The scene is robbed of the emotion and power of the original text.
Of course, the Disney adaptation is even worse, making is seem like Father Christmas is giving Susan permission to fight, and possibly intentionally subverting the original text:
Lucy: Thank you, sir, but I think I could be brave enough.
Father Christmas: I’m sure you could. But battles are ugly affairs. Susan. Trust in this bow and it will not easily miss.
Susan: What happened to "battles are ugly affairs"?
Neither the BBC or the Disney is "rewriting history"; every adaptation has to make compromises to fit the medium. However I would desire that any adaptation treat the source with respect and not neuter or subvert it. In many ways, C.S. Lewis was and remains a counter-cultural force. Watering down his work to be palatable to modern audiences is a direct contradiction to his intentionally medieval outlook.
PyotrVerkhovensky
10mo ago
Harrison Butker's commencement speech (transcript) is probably the most politically incorrect public exposition I've ever heard from a (relatively) public non-political figure. Butker is the Kansas City Chief's placekicker, and a devout Catholic. He hits nearly all the culture war hot topics: abortion, pride month, women's role in society, the Covid response, and Biden's leadership or lack thereof.
While the mainstream and new media are universal in their condemnation of this speech, the NFL up to this point is merely "distancing" itself from Butker's viewpoints. If Butker's career can survive intact, this seems to be further evidence in favor of the "vibe-shift". Indeed, he may have shifted the Overton window himself: he mentions his "teammate's girlfriend" (Taylor Swift); and simply by being on the same team as Travis Kelce, Butker's beliefs has the potential to be platformed to the millions of women who have started following the Chiefs.
Courage is contagious: the more people who stand up to the regime, the easier it becomes for others to do so. In my own small way, I signed a petition in support of Butker under my real name. While this seems a small risk to take, it isn't one I would have countenanced four years ago.
PyotrVerkhovensky
11mo ago
Scott's April Links led me to Walt Bismarck's "How the Alt Right won", a fascinating retrospective on a movement now nearly a decade old and six years removed from its slide into irrelevance following Charlottesville. Walt's surprising claim is that the Alt-Right won: identitarian politics, ranging from anti-immigration and desire for traditional gender roles from the "Alt light" to White nationalism, HBD, and skepticism of Israel from the harder "Alt right" are now quasi-mainstream among Republicans.
Walt is mostly incorrect. Certainly many Alt-Right talking points have been taken up by the Dissident Right, but the DR is an online phenomenon. Even now, the median Republican supports Israel, doesn't know what "HBD" stands for, and is only conceptually concerned about illegal immigration. Walt himself seems to have been both mildly blue-pilled and black-pilled following contact with the real world: a steady corporate job and girlfriend mellowed his edgier takes, while his realization that normie Republicans simply don't share the Spencer worldview and had no stomach for activism showed him the futility of full-on White Nationalism.
More compelling is Walt's personal journey and description of the heady year of 2015-2016 and the subsequent reality-check of 2017. While Walt paints with a broad brush, there is much truth in the wave of black-pilled Ron Paul supporters flocking to the hard right, entertaining and promulgating ideas for outside the normal discourse: I was one of them. He captures well the excitement and ethos of 2015-2016. He also captures well the ennui and bitterness following Charlottesville and Doug Jones' senate victory. With Covid throwing a massive wrench in the collective imagination, Walt's essays serves as a good reminder of the rollercoaster ride that was politics in the 2 years between 2015-2017.
Walt chooses to skip over much of 2018-2024. While 2017 was a very bad year (in addition to Charlottesville and Doug Jones, there was McCain sinking the repeal of Obamacare and his subsequent adoration by the left, which was for me personally a massive black pill), 2018-2020 was far better. Trump passed two major pieces of legislation which helped unleash an economy that had been sputtering under Obama. Doug Jones, rather than throwing a wrench, voted for each. 2018 was not the mid-term bloodbath that many feared. The politicized and baseless investigations into Trump made it clear to the median Republican that there was a deep state that was determined to undermine and overthrow Trump. By early 2020 I was cautiously optimistic about the direction of the country.
Then Covid happened. March 2020 to January 2021 was a dark time: the authoritarianism against law-abiding citizens, rioters burning down our cities suffering no prosecution, election laws changed to make "allowance" for Covid, relentless DEI. The intense isolation and frustration of feeling like the only sane person in a world gone mad. I believe this pent-up frustration was partially responsible for the events of January 6th. January 6th itself was a turning point. The harsh crackdown on the rioters when whole cities had burned six months earlier with no reprisal made it clear to the median Republican that there was a deep state that was determined to undermine and overthrow them. The culture war was now existential. And the Right started to put up a fight.
Into the fray stepped Rufo, Desantis, and Lindsay. They were able to identify core leftist ideology and repurposed previously leftist jargon (CRT, DEI) into pejorative labels. Desantis and Rufo put the weight of legislative action against the pervasive left-wing hegemony. Groups such as the National Conservatives, self-described Post-Liberals, and Christian Nationalists started coalescing and providing intellectual leadership for a new Right. X and Substack have allowed for the exchange of ideas that would have been impossible in 2020. Everyone, conservative or not, now sees that the emperor has no clothes. The deep state exists, and is sclerotic and incompetent. Several key victories, mostly through the Supreme Court, have served to shift the legal framework in favor of the Right. The Right isn't just fighting, it is often winning.
Walt is incorrect that the Alt-Right won. But he is correct that it had an important dissident voice that provided a valuable alternative to think-tank Conservatism. The newer leaders on the Right may be more "mature", more "institutional", and only retain a subset of the Alt-Right's objectives, but they owe a debt to the Alt-Right. They no longer need to apologize or throat-clear. They can speak plainly and authoritatively. The battle lines are clear, and the next stage of the fight can now commence.
I wrote last week on Revenge of the Sith, and how it benefited from the ambiguity between the "good" side and the bad. As Padme said, "[what if] the Republic has become the very evil we have been fighting to destroy?" @SubstantialFrivolity responded that, despite its flaws, Revenge of the Sith was the best of the Star Wars movies due to this complexity, and mildly criticized the original Star Wars for being a derivative "hero's journey".
Since I first watched Star Wars at age 7 (just before the abominable Special Editions came out, in its unadulterated form) it has been my favorite movie.
It is not a derivative "hero's journey". It is a distilled "hero's journey". A restless youth is trapped in a backwater. One day he seizes the opportunity to do something greater, and is suddenly thrust into confrontations of galactic import. He rescues a literal princess, with the help of a ragtag band of comrades. And while he doesn't "get the girl", that is not actually a critical component of a hero's story: rather what distinguishes the Journey is the acceptance and subsequential overcoming of an offered challenge.
A key part of a hero's journey is that the morality of the conquest is never in doubt. In Star Wars, evil is evil and good is good. From the first moment of the movie, where a gigantic, sharp, wedge shaped ship fires on a smaller, fleeing vessel; to the black, masked villain stepping into the pristine white interior; to the almost flippant destruction of an entire planet, the Evil Empire is clearly evil. The princess is being held captive, and it is a moral imperative to rescue her. The Death Star is threatening to kill all the characters we have met throughout the movie, and it is obviously a moral good to destroy it.
It is a common modern trope for a Hero to self-doubt and self-incriminate following the successful completion of the quest. (We see this writ large in our society's embarrassment over "colonialization"; which, at the time, was a manifestation of an "ascendent" society). Yet Star Wars had such clear Heroes and Villains that it carried through three sequels unexamined. It wasn't until the second movie of the sequel Trilogy that this narrative began to be subverted (and explains the audience backlash against The Last Jedi).
In short, Star Wars is pure. It is purified in its distillation of the Hero's Journey. It is pure in its depiction of Good and Evil. It is pure in its innocence. From the humble beginnings on a desert planet to the triumphant return of the motif in the Throne Room, Star Wars perfectly embodies something elemental and essential, untainted by cynicism or doubt.
More options
Context Copy link