Talent Myopia

In 1960, Theodore Levitt published Marketing Myopia, a seminal article for the Harvard Business Review that highlighted how a narrow understanding and a refusal to accept change doomed a number of business empires. Companies ranging from electric street car manufacturers that didn't understand the effect of the automotive industry to dry cleaners who did not cope with the development of new synthetic fabrics were criticized. The same problems also manifest themselves away from the business world, on the basketball court, where players get caught up with their own abilities and misunderstand their role in the sport.

Self-Deceiving Cycle: There is a certain groupthink among today’s ballers, ideas and opinions taken as given, facts ignored, despite all common sense. They follow the hoop culture vicariously via NBA.com but don’t follow the example of their role models. They watch an And1 mix tape and assume that they have the all the skills they need. E.O. Wilson once said that “Blind faith, no matter how passionately expressed, will not suffice. Science for its part will test relentlessly every assumption about the human condition.”

The Cycle develops as players forget how their heroes made the Association, ignoring examples like Steve Nash shooting free throws in the rain on Vancouver Island and disregarding the countless others who wanted to be him but failed in a blaze of glory. From where they are now, focusing only on their narrow range of skills and not the entire game, it might serve them well to read the signposts.

Production Pressure: It can’t be denied that young players are pressured by countless others. There’s pressure to keep the baskets coming at the Bantam level, rather than shoot correctly (irrespective of the outcome). There’s pressure to win by any means necessary rather than do it the right way (you don’t get paid for winning club games). There’s pressure to talk about Brandon Roy’s three-point buzzer beater against Houston, rather than the player who allowed him to get open (Travis Outlaw set the screen). There’s pressure achieve the coach’s definition of success, rather than John Wooden’s (As Coach Wooden would say, you can’t shoot if you can’t move and get open). Coaches should pressure players to improve, not just perform.

Population Myth: Some excellent student-athletes have always been recruited because they standout at their level. There are countless youth teams but very few professional leagues, and very few professional leagues that pay well. It’s hard to make a living playing ball. Agents serve dozens of clients and most of them are not Scott Boras.

Sooner or later, the number of buyers will shrink and the number of sellers will remain the same. Coaches will not only assess players on their physical abilities but their mental and social abilities as well. Some players will reach a certain point based on talent alone but others will be held back. Some players will less talent will surpass them because they play the game well.

Student-athletes must accept that they are basketball players, not ball handlers or scorers and learn the about the entire game: accept advice, rebound, set screens, give help, take leadership, move the ball, pass and cut, etc… Even Trajan Langdon is getting paid to play basketball these days.

Quantum of Solace

When a franchise becomes over-extended, it becomes a parody of itself. It reflects incredibly poorly upon Quantum of Solace that the most memorable moment of the film is a reference to an earlier James Bond story: like Auric Goldfinger covered Jill Masterson in gold, Dominic Greene covered another one of Bond’s failed loves with crude. (Similar to how Halle Barry’s emergence from the ocean is more a nod to Ursula Andress and Doctor No than a part of Die Another Day.)

The visual is striking because of the earlier scene that it parodies; Agent Fields appeared far too briefly for the audience to form any connection with her and her death is more or less meaningless in a film where many characters wind up like her.

The problem is symbolic of the film’s faults. If the explosions would slow down for a second, the audience could better relate to Bond and his desire for revenge after Casino Royale. Sean Connery and Roger Moore’s Bonds tried to unravel the mystery of S.P.E.C.T.R.E., Daniel Craig’s protagonist is charged with exposing the Quantum criminal syndicate, led by Mr. White. Although Bond is focused on revenge in this film, the screenwriters missed the point that the story is supposed to be a mystery.

For the film to be truly excellent, there are two alternatives. The first option is that the audience connects emotionally with Bond and wants him to avenge his lover. When Bond succeeds, the audience realizes that his passion has misguided him; despite achieving his goal, he gains less than “a quantum of solace” and continues as the tragic hero that Ian Fleming designed. Or Bond gradually uncovers clues that lead him towards Quantum, permitting the audience to become familiar with the characters and increasing the desire to see the resolution.

Either way, there is not enough exploratory dialogue and dramatic scenes for the audience to connect with Bond and get a better idea of the criminal organization that he is trailing. Quantum of Solace is a cool medium that requires extensive audience participation to make sense of and fill in the blanks.

Nonetheless, the film is well directed. Marc Foster makes some interesting dialogues. When there is a shoot-out at the opera house, cutting the sound puts the viewer in Bond’s perspective. The shots fired, breaking glass, and crashing tables would become so overwhelming that his body would ignore them in order to get out of the building alive.

Quantum of Solace offers some interesting political commentary. Over the years, Bond films have featured villains endeavouring to control the gold markets, the media, and now the water supply. In this movie, alliances shift more quickly. Countries don’t seem to care if they must do business with a criminal if it meets their needs.

When Bond tells “M” that oil isn’t the motive for this situation, she asks him if he is sure and shows him Fields’ body. It’s not that she is covered in crude that is the message, it is the fact that Quantum can get to anyone, anywhere. Like Mr. White says, they have people everywhere. The message from the murder is that Quantum is the organization in control.

Apparently, Daniel Craig will complete at least a trilogy as James Bond. He performs well as a character who is supposed to be largely disconnected from his emotions. There are some intense actions scenes which are more or less consistent, although done to excess. Craig performs many of his own stunts and his character shows the scars of a life as a spy.

Screenwriting in the Bond franchise remains a concern. Although one of the screenwriter in the last two movies possesses an Oscar, there were serious flaws in Quantum of Solace. This is the second movie in the past three Bond films where 007 has been suspended and stripped of his “00” status, forced to regain the trust of “M” and her organization.

How many time musts Bond team up with a woman out to kill the same man that he is investigating? Aren’t there other ways to meet people? Surely, there a new directions to take the next film and hopefully the final chapter of the Quantum mystery will prove more satisfying.

Fun

First concert in a while Tuesday night. Saw The Hold Steady at the Phoenx. Last time that I was at that club, Beck was playing and people were worried about Y2K. Last time that I was at a show, Oasis were touring Don’t Believe the Truth at the Molson Amphitheatre.

It was more or less enjoyable, a reminder to do so more often. It was similar to seeing Birds of Wales at the Mod Club, another band suggested by a friend. The Hold Steady turned out to be a band that I like (of course, any rock band that plays chords like that loudly is fun to listen to), although the countless spoken word lyrics became a tad excessive.

I should go out more. I can’t let my entertainment be limited to “Oh. My. God. House just kissed Cuddy.” Hopefully, Quantum of Solace doesn’t disappoint tomorrow either.

Synecdoche, New York

“The visible world is no longer a reality and the unseen world no longer a dream.” - W.B. Yeats
Synecdoche, New York, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and directed by Charlie Kaufman opened to mixed reviews this past weekend. I thought it was a good film.

Kaufman’s directorial debut delves into death, divorce, and decay. The protagonist, Caden Cotard, a struggling director in Schenectady, New York reads the obituaries of different friends in the newspaper as September turns into November in a single morning. Eventually, Caden’s wife leaves him and he becomes paranoid about his health. He receives an apparently unlimited grant which permits him to move to New York City and stage a play of his life, which becomes a play of a play, and more.

Surrealism reigns and space and time become compressed; eventually seventeen years pass. Cast members leave, others arrive, and eventually his ex-wife, daughter, and lover are dead (she died of smoke inhalation after moving into a burning house, put on the market by a “motivated seller”). Caden can no longer take the strain of directing and swaps roles with one of his actors.

During one of the many funerals, a priest announces that everyone is insignificant in an absolute sense. Compared to the life of the universe, a person is alive for less than a mere fraction of a second, spending eons waiting to be born and the rest of time being dead. Yet, a person can discover moments of significance in a relative sense, as Caden discovers when he finally accepts the overtures of Hazel, who was front of house for his productions in Schenectady and assistant director after the company moved to New York.

People are largely interchangeable, as shown by the actors who star in Caden’s play - and the play within it - and the performances of Hoffman and the rest of the cast. The character is as real as any person in the theatre. It doesn’t matter if you are Caden, the first Brock in a series, the twentieth one, or the only one. Eventually, one of the Prisoners leaves the Cave and doesn’t know what to make of it, like Dave in 2001: A Space Odessey.

Caden’s life does not work out as he had planned and he spends a great deal of time cleaning. He’s worried that he is dying, progressing from a fear of death in a few days, to a death in several months, to death in many years.

Years later, Caden makes peace with the mother of the actress with whom he traded places. Since people are peers of one another, this moment provides sufficient satisfaction to the director. He lets most of his worries go moments and finally enjoys life for a moment. Then he dies.

The Best and Brightest

“Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it,” according to George Santayana. According to David Halberstam’s book, The Best and the Brightest - which exposes how the Kennedy and Johnson cabinets of the 1960s handled Vietnam - it may not be so simple. John F. Kennedy’s administration had lofty goals: some of the most educated men in the country sought to redefine the role of the United States on the world stage. Some sought to curtail the arms race, others sought to establish a new, modern “Great Society” back home. Despite their best intentions and their amazingly bright minds, they failed miserably. Although the scholars had many good ideas, they lacked the aptitudes to implement them properly.

“The charts look good,” said Walt Rostow, National Security Advisor to Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1967. Yet despite that claim, the situation in Vietnam was worsening. Those making decisions didn’t have the proper statistics and consequently made incorrect choices. Many Far East experts had been purged from the State department and few individuals with experience in Southeast Asia remained to analyze the events.

Some information was false due to incompetence, other information ignored because decisions makers didn’t want to acknowledge what was happening. The United States viewed the war quantitively (believing their shear numbers advantage would win), rather than qualitively (and acknowledge that the Viet Cong was employing a different type of warfare). Some information was even falsified in order to avoid excessive media coverage. Ironically, when Johnson’s team lied about the true cost of the war, it wasn’t that the country couldn’t afford the higher figure but the fact that he had lie that helped bring him down.

“He’s my intellectual,” said Johnson about Rostow. Johnson was somewhat paranoid about Kennedy’s appointees and how they treated him. Advisors were hired based on the opinions, not their ability to understand a situation. Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, was fired because he opposed an escalation of the bombing in North Vietnam. Aides were reluctant to bring their superiors information that might seem negative or pessimistic.

Throughout the administration, there was widespread refusal to admit wrong and accept weaknesses. Once the conflict escalated, the United States felt reluctant to withdraw because they didn’t want the world to think they were conceding defeat to a Communist country. There was also a reluctance to change and alter a course of action once it had been understand.

To me, a surprising fact was that many of the cabinet came from families that had advised the president a generation before (and some families continued to advise a generation later). Although they claimed not to be political, personal grudges and mistrust permeated the administration.

“The only difference between the Kennedy assassination and mine is that I am alive and it has been more tortuous,” complained Johnson during the 1968 primary season. Halberstam has written a detailed history of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The book covers how people achieved their positions at the time and what happened after it all fell apart. It was not one decision that led to the disaster in Vietnam but many small choices, some made repeatedly.

“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds Awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible,” recited T.E. Lawrence after World War I. The 660 page chronicle is incredibly fascinating and sometimes depressing. Any leader can learn from this text and improve themselves and their team. Any person could read this, or Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and wonder how the same mistakes are made over and over again, even today.

The Audacity of Whatever

Now that Barack Obama has finally become President of the United States, he must put his plans into motions. Grand ideals must transform into nuts and bolts, a campaign of change into possibly a deficit budget.

Hyperbole has become acceptable discourse in politics. Rather than debate the details of Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax and how it would be implemented, Stephen Harper called exaggerated the policy and called Dion another tax and spend Liberal (if a government is going to tax, it should be a consumption tax). Rather than introduce his own policies, John McCain tossed key words like Socialist at Obama. Superficial discussions and ad-hominem attacks triumphed, like they do in everyday like.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson won two huge victories for the Democratic Party. Both enjoyed a honeymoon with the American public and both Houses of Congress and pushed through as much legislation as they could. Roosevelt over-stepped his authority and tried to expand the Supreme Court; Johnson was slowly overcome by the Vietnam issue. Neither finished their campaign of change.

It’s possible to work hand, take care of the little things, break the cycle, and exceed the expectations of others but difficult. Obama needs to do as he promised: ignore politics and make decisions based on their merits, use the information that’s available to make his country more educated, and be willing to change his mind if it’s necessary to take the best course of action. Reverse the political trend and put self-actualizaiton over self-importance.

What Just Happened?

“Indeed,” remarked the cinema patrons as they left Robert DeNiro’s latest film What Just Happened? “Was that a comedy or a drama?” said one. “I have no clue,” replied another. “Just keep walking,” urged a third.

Did a comedy happen? Or a drama? I was hoping that an absurd series of events would parody Hollywood like Get Shorty. Or maybe a disaffected protagonist grinding his way through a series of soulless setbacks, like directory Barry Levinson’s T.V. series Homicide and Oz. If not that, then two leading actors bantering back and forth and satirizing their field, like another Levinson-DeNiro collaboration Wag the Dog.

Instead, it seems as if nothing happened. Ninety minutes were used to set up two reasonably funny jokes. The worst crime a comedy can commit is to not be funny.

DeNiro’s Ben, a famous film producer, drives mindlessly through the lights and freeways of Los Angeles, a plane leaves without him, and his ex-wife re-upholsters his favourite chair. Ben takes ecstasy and is only slightly more confused and disoriented than when he is sober. Levinson bashes the audience over the head with symbolism like he was using a hammer.

An important plotline is whether Bruce Willis, a star in Ben’s next picture, will shave his lumberjack beard. In the end, he shaves half of it and the production crew applauds. Did he mean to yank their chains and shave the rest or was it a blunt metaphor that meaningless compromises are now accepted and congratulated? “You didn’t do anything worthwhile, but at least you put forth a token effort and are no longer a complete disgrace.”

I.M.D.B. gave this film 8.1 stars out of ten. At least the actors and crew tried. It was an evening of entertainment but nothing more. Entirely overrated, perhaps like the Hollywood lifestyle, the film manages to teach a brief lesson as it concludes: as Ben’s life collapses around him, he manages to find more self-satisfaction and peace of mind than he ever did during his successful years.

Basketball Relativism

Seeking to avoid the tendency to move players around like Stratego pieces but still recognizing that the basketball season is like a game of Labyrinth. Balancing the motivation of a group of student-athletes towards meaningful goals while encouraging them when they falter. Generating elite performance from the team on the court and inspiring personal improvement away from it.

Coaching becomes much more challenging than diagramming a sideout play down two with two seconds left on the clock.

As a moderate Platonist, I try to avoid moral relativism. I think that there are standards of success, of good performance, that shouldn’t be shunned. But then what is success? John Wooden defines it as “the peace of minds that comes from the self-satisfaction of knowing you did your best to be the best you are capable of becoming.” Rick Pitino says that “success is a choice.” Certainly their records convey empower their words with a degree of credibility. I definitely think that every team member should be constantly striving to improve themselves, including the coach.

For a coach to provide extrinsic motivation that is as powerful as a player’s own intrinsic motivation, the player must share the coach’s ideals to a point. If a coach holds one concept of success close to his heart and the player another, conflict erupts. A common error is assuming that one’s personal views are the only reasonable view and that they are very common; therefore, anyone who takes an opposing viewpoint is wrong and expressing an absurd viewpoint.

So when a player confronts a coach (metaphorically, not physically), the coach should evaluate the viewpoint that led to the conflict. Players are people, after all. To live a personally satisfying life, the coach should never sacrifice his personal values but to experience a collectively satisfying season, the coach should be willing to change.

Beyond wins and losses, success could mean instilling individual pride in group accomplishments, promoting attendance and punctuality, inspiring student-athletes to do better in class. With younger students, even small steps should be encouraged and although it is a struggle for coaches, they should congratulate the progress, slow as it may be.

“It is not the purpose of war to annihilate those who provoke it, but to cause them to mend their ways.”
- Polybius