There was a mistake made back in January, and a quick post (quickly deleted) titled St. Patrick’s Day made its way out into the internets. Oops.
Anyway, now it is that day. Hopefully, if you observe it at all, you have a wonderful time of it. Cheers to all my Irish brethren.
The Academy Awards really wrap up the awards season. It’s not as important to viewers. I’m not even sure it’s all that important to Hollywood anymore. But after 95 years, it’s kind of hard to get away from.
And, if you didn’t know, being recognized with an award is pretty fun. So, a good excuse to party and pat yourself on the back. Maybe not as vital for the recognition of amazing work in cinema.
Still, with Everything, Everywhere All At Once winning Best Picture, and the studio A24 having Yeoh and Fraser in the Best Actress and Actor category, most of the Hollywood folk feel pretty good about the awards show. Popular selections and critical acclaim.
But where can it go from here? The nature of entertainment is changing, with the ultra-short form’s popularity on the rise (which is interesting, considering how badly Quibi did). So will the award shows change with it?
Only time will tell.
“Once I was a schleppa
– Gypsy
Now I’m Miss Mazeppa
With my revolution in dance
You gotta have a gimmick
If you wanna have a chance”
It seems like everyone is hustling. Now, maybe that’s just because the ones who are hustling are the front-facing ones – those who post on socials daily, get interviewed, or just seem to be altogether omnipresent. In the background the non-hustlers toil away, completely content to be where they are, happy in the burrows of their lives. Not needing the attention of, well, whoever.
And for every hustler who’s made it, there’s probably a thousand who hasn’t. Or ten-thousand. Maybe more. But they all keep going and they all keep hustling. Because the odds don’t matter, only the result.
The thing is, it just takes one. One viral post. One incredible story. One unique experience. And then that struggling hustler becomes a well-known one, and maybe, just maybe, that would satisfy them.
Thinking more about what I wrote yesterday, it’s difficult to know where to fall on the spectrum of free speech vs. censorship. There is a slight problem with landing squarely on the side of uninhibited free speech, since it is somewhat likely to lead to mayhem. Conversely, I’m hardly a proponent of censoring, though certainly there are times when doing so benefits the public good. Not a blanket censorship, though also not a complete allowance of all thoughts, ideas, or ideologies.
How should we decide which of the two is better? Who should make the decision? How should we ensure that we have good systems and reviews in place? We are likely to encounter an even greater number of questions and even more problematic discussions if we were to answer these questions. However, we don’t have those discussions right now. Whether it’s standing on pulpits or milk crates, we proclaim that the world has gone mad and the other side is to blame for this.
To get to the heart of it, we need to communicate. And I think that is what we’re missing.
What makes us feel the need to shut off access to different opinions in order to protect our own viewpoints? Recently there have been book bans, or attempts to ban books, with the intent to protect, encapsulate, or, in a more insidious manner, perhaps to indoctrinate. In this New Yorker piece, critic Katy Waldman examines book bans, starting in my home state of Florida.
Some bans take parts of Florida’s controversial Stop WOKE Act, citing that “media specialists should avoid material that provokes feelings of ‘guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress’ related to race or gender.”
There’s an element of hypocrisy to the whole thing. On one side, we have those who want to ban books they deem “questionable in nature”. They will criticize their opponents for canceling, or attempting to cancel, those who have spoken or acted in ways that offend and demean.
However, on the flip side, detractors of book bans often claim that certain types of free speech aren’t protected under the free speech principle. Which is, fundamentally, what those advocating for book bans are claiming.
In the end, it’s not the principles that differ between them – it’s rather how they interpret them that is different.
In a recent conversation, I was told by someone that he didn’t trust Democrats, because, although they may appear to speak in a politically correct manner, this does not necessarily reflect what they really believe. As far as he is concerned, a Republican is much more likely to be transparent than a Democrat.
Honestly, I didn’t know what to say to that. For starters, it’s entirely too diminutive. While it may seem useful to box up an entire cross-section based on one aspect, even in statistics, after a certain point, any scheme that does this loses its effectiveness because it is oversimplified and simplistic.
However, it is still an interesting theory to consider. Our point of view does not change as a result of the fact that we are taught to be politically correct. What changes is how we speak. As important as what is on the outside is, in fact, what is on the inside.
24 hours.
It’s what you get, from midnight to 11:59pm, and how you fill it is entirely up to you. Sure, you have commitments, but those are commitments you made, and whether or not you fulfill them. Entirely up to you.
Eight hours of sleep would be nice. Probably eight hours at work, Monday through Friday. Though, currently, it’s often more like nine. Leaving you with around seven to make something else happen.
What do those seven look like? Family? Enrichment? Mindless entertainment? Joyful hobbies, or needless toil? All options that you get to choose.
It occurred to me as I was looking through one of the indie filmmaking books that I have that describes super 8 and 16mm, along with the editing process by splicing, that I was wondering whether outdated technology in a particular field may need to be learned at all?
Speaking beyond the scope of purely academic studies.
All things considered, if you are ready to learn the current useful technologies and go out there and start using them, you will not be required to familiarize yourself with previous iterations of those technologies. Consider the example of a computer. The maintenance of automobiles. The medical field. Navigation.
While maybe there is no need to learn these things, I believe it may prove beneficial to have some knowledge of them.
I am a wanderer at heart. I find it to be a strange way of living, and it is a part of myself that I’m still learning to embrace as I grow older. I have an insatiable curiosity about everything around me. As a matter of fact, I believe that most of us do. Our world is just too rich and diverse for us to be able to see just a tiny portion of all that is going on past our borders.
I’m not saying that our individual slices of home aren’t beautiful in and of themselves, they really are. It’s just, what more can we learn by venturing further into the beyond?
They say that the grass is always greener, but if you keep jumping the fence, eventually you’ll find the greenest grass, right?
We are the story that we tell about ourselves. and how we perceive who we are is often closely tied to how others see us. One of the things that I notice about the lives of some of my friends is that they are always so confident in their abilities. Sometimes it comes across as mere bravado.
That said, isn’t the story we tell about ourselves what actually makes us who we are? I think of Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich, in which he states, as he opens his book, that “Truly, thoughts are things, and powerful things at that, if they are mixed with a definiteness of purpose, persistence, and a BURNING DESIRE for their translation into riches, or other material objects, that they can make a great difference in our lives.”
Michael's Musings 