Common Sense

Common Sense begins with the opinion that representative democracy is simply the extension of the Welch House meeting where all residents would convene to determine matters of utmost importance. This small meeting expands to become the Trinity College Meeting, which becomes the Joint College Meeting. Finally, the population becomes so large that it is impractical for everyone to convene in one place at a single time and individual constituencies elect one of their own to represent them.

If the representative is typical of the citizens, he will faithfully advance their interests -- because they are his interests. If the representative is not cut from the same cloth as his electors, he will not be in touch with their needs and wants.

So far, Barack Obama has been a very charismatic candidate and present: a seemingly regular person doing an important job who believes that family comes first, enjoys playing sports, and advocates a transparent administration. The media has showered the new president and his family, news headlines have focused more on moving into the White House and inauguration dresses rather than the issues of the first 100 days. In creating a new celebrity family, society has ignored the fact that the two year electoral cycle has created a country where only a select few possess the wherewithal to contest high office.

Obama may inspire a paradigm shift in politics and new constructive solutions but for the moment he is a link a chain of elite presidents that has included Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. It seems as if the last representative to honestly personify the electorate was Ransom Stoddard.

In his inaugural address, Obama meant to quote George Washington but usurped the words of Thomas Paine instead: “Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it.” Paine wrote that account in his work: The American Crisis; In Common Sense, he logically outlines a case for separation from England, detailing how each citizen could gain.

Whilst discussing the potential economy of the new country, Paine describes how the thirteen colonies could make hundreds of ships - in order to make war or for sale - foreshadowing the United States reliance on the military-industry complex (I also read Hugh Laurie’s The Gun Seller recently; it was fair but much less amusing than A Bit of Fry and Laurie). Paine goes on to say that “America doth not yet know what opulence is.” The philosopher criticizes the divide between rick and poor yet has no idea of the absurdity of the size the gap will grow to. Common Sense claims that Americans fight neither for revenge or conquest.

Paine proceeds to address an appendix to the Quakers, advocating peace and the separation of church and state. My edition included a chapter entitled Agrarian Justice, which argued for a sort of natural type of justice without property ownership. Paine’s intent was to raise the standard of living of every citizen, not just the richest landowners. Perhaps the new administration will finally make good on that promise of equality.

Milking Documentaries

Milk tells a compelling story of a man who moves to San Francisco in the early 1970s and finds self-satisfaction promoting human rights, environmental, labour, and neighborhood issues. Harvey Milk initially opens a camera shop but after facing anti-gay adversity decides to enter politics. Early in the movie, the protagonist is worried that he has do nothing to be proud of during his life but manages to draft several progressive pieces of legislation during his short time as a city supervisor. Milk also leads a coalition against state legislation targeting homosexual teachers.

Other themes in the film are Milk’s attempts to balance his love life with his political career and his development from a counter-culture figure to a slick politician who knows how to trade favours and make deals at City Hall.

The cast is very strong, lead by Sean Penn and Josh Brolin who received Oscar nominations for their parts. Penn seems to channel the Harvey Milk perfectly and rivals Frank Langella and Mickey Rourke for best male performance of the year. There supporting cast creates believable characters whose lives are intertwined with Milk’s career.

It’s true that there are too many biopics this year but films like Milk or Frost/Nixon are better than Last Chance Harvey (a different Harvey) by leaps and bounds. Gus Van Sant combines grainy film with archival footage to place the viewer directly in that particular time and place. However, watching one more hand-held camera film this year will be a tipping point for me.

Arriving late and skipping the requisite Duplicity trailer increased my enjoyment of the experience immensely. Watching a real-life double-cross - even one recreated on film - far surpasses the contrived “who will betray who?” films that have been overdone lately, three or four versions of the same script (many featuring Julia Roberts) per year.

Frost & Nixon

In Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard employs many of the same techniques that he used in A Beautiful Mind. To me, the wide angle shots that would dissolve into the next scene were especially reminiscent of the 2002 Academy Award Best Picture. Howard’s close-ups of Frank Langella allow the audience to see Richard Nixon as a real person but shots from the side or behind capture the ex-president’s loneliness.

In my opinion, one of the main flaws of the film is the closing shot. Nixon is often seen looking out towards the audience and the final shot shows him alone on his estate. When the camera pulls away, the top of Nixon’s head lines up exactly with the horizon. The vanishing point falls in Langella’s hair, as opposed to his body. The actor should have been shot in the foreground or blocked off to the side to avoid the awkward view.

Otherwise, Frost/Nixon was well directed. Perhaps it is typical of this year’s crop of films that direction was inconsistent and uneven. For example, a good piece of direction is how Howard puts the audience inside David Frost’s head. The tight interview set becomes engraved in the minds of the audience; later in David Frost’s hotel room the entertainer is facing an empty armchair and one expects to see Nixon sitting there, until the silence is shattered by a loud telephone ring.

Both lead actors are excellent. After he won the Tony Award for Best Actor last year for the same role, it was imperative to cast Frank Langella as Richard Nixon. His portrayal was closed to flawless, showing Nixon’s public persona and his personal flaws. Martin Sheen received some criticism but he was in a difficult position: David Frost was supposed to be the lightweight in the film. Sheen combined daft and serious aspects in his character.

Frost/Nixon is also enjoyable for the philosophical questions that were raised. Plato would have appreciated the debate over how can one determine what is right and wrong and Machiavelli would have enjoyed Nixon’s quote that “it’s not illegal if the President does it.”

In addition to Watergate, the interview covers foreign and domestic policy. Frost has trouble landing any blows regarding Vietnam or Cambodia as the ex-president successfully justifies his actions early in the film. When Nixon drops his guard during the latter part of the film, Frost is able to quiz him about the break-in and the failed cover-up, asking if obstruction of justice could ever be justified.

Richard Nixon closes the interview by apologizing to the young people who he discouraged from participating in government. He maintained that he made mistakes of the heart and that he didn’t mean to poison the public opinion of the presidency. Even if Plato spent most of his time debating other issues, he still understood the importance of government and how it should work. Likewise, Nixon expresses a view that arguments about right and wrong aside, all countries require effective leadership.

Waltz with Bashir

Waltz with Bashir, an animated film by Ari Folman, recounts the story of a man trying to recover repressed memories from his time in the army. The film is a study of contrasts: the black and white of the characters compared to the bright colours of the sky, children at play and children serving as child soldiers, the violence of R.P.G. explosions and the loud sounds of rock music, vibrant young people in a club and a dead child in a pile of rubble, the 2-D animation and the emotion of the live video footage shown the conclusion of the film.

As a young person, Folman witnessed the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps but has no memories of the event. He visits his former comarades and tries to piece together his memory. After hearing their individual stories, Folman finally remembers what happened. The massacre by Lebanese Christian Phalangist militias was one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century and Folman uses live footage to convey the intensity of his memories.

Like many other war movies, Waltz with Bashir illustrates the absurdity of war: Israeli soldiers fighting over who can use which weapon, a young Folman wishes for his own death so he can make his ex-girlfriend feel bad, a war correspondent walking through a firefight and ignoring the flying bullets. It is a short film that provides a meaningful experience. Animated films like this or Persepolis have become more popular lately because they can be visually extravagant and still affect the emotions of the audience.

Extraordinary Events

What is the overall effect of an extraordinary event on a single team? The death of Alexei Cherepanov during a game triggered an eight-game slide for Avangard Omsk in the K. The Superbowl champion New York Giants lost four of their last five games after receiver Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg. Teams can collapse when a key player is suspended or experiences a breakdown on the court.

Yet other teams rally together when they experience a critical injury. What is the difference between a positive and a negative outcome in the face of adversity? A lot of a team’s success under difficult circumstances is determined by how the team was put together in the first place.

“Hard Work”: Coaches should clearly define the team goals at the beginning of the season and secure player buy-in. If a player can confidently answer the question “why am I here?” and “what is this all for?”, they are more likely to persevere during the tough times. Team progress will improve before, during, and after adversity.

“Family”: There will be different relationships among different team members and coaches should ensure that they remain positive. Evaluating the team chemistry - how teammates communicate and support each other - can help a coach spot problems ahead of time. Questions to ask are “where could we communicate better?” or “how we help each other succeed more?” It may be necessary to intervene or make time for a team building activity before small conflicts escalate. Athletic success (or success in any field) is strongly linked to how an athlete interacts with their environment.

Pushing each other and pulling together are attributes of a successful team. A team may still experience a shock in the face of a surprise but the players are better able to continue when everyone is on the same page. Creating the support mechanism before they are needed results in better results and less stress for all involved.

Information, Uncertainty, Game Theory, and Quality

Tryouts are a case of adverse selection because coaches rarely have the opportunity to see a player’s complete skill set. It’s certainly a matter of imperfection information and coaches must develop signals that reliably reflect the ability of perspective team members.

Sometimes teams make a draft pick because of “unlimited potential” or a “high ceiling”. This logic becomes absurd if it causes players who have been seen in greater detail (therefore exposing all of their skills and flaws) to be overlooked. In 2005 and 2006, Chris Paul and Brandon Roy were seen as the collegiate players most ready for the Association yet they were picked behind others who have not performed as well since entering the league. Some N.H.L. teams wish to draft the enigmatic Victor Hedman instead of the over-exposed John Tavares. Such instances show that qualities such as athleticism, one-on-one skill, and the success of previous players sharing characteristics are inappropriate signals of success in the Association.

George A. Akerlof wrote “The Market for Lemons” in 1970. The paper predicted that in cases of asymmetrical information (when the seller knows more about the product than the buyer), the threat of buying a lemon will discourage most buyers from paying a high price for a used car. Sellers with good used cars will not enter the market because they will never receive the true value of their car and the market will consequently collapse. Currently, tryouts are a situation where the seller (player) knows more about the product than the buyer but the market (tryouts) has not collapsed. The onus falls on coaches to hold tryouts and select players based on sound principals.

Conducting tryouts based on performances in scrimmages could also lead to biased signals. If games are an extension of self and young players are developing their personality for the first time, an individual game such as basketball could lead to greater selfishness or poor decisions. The coaching staff should understand how and why these young players are making their choices. Constructing the evaluation so that it excludes the temptation to show-off and control the pass will identify the players who are most skilled and best suited to join the team and avoid “basketball lemons”.

Identifying player combinations with good chemistry, observing how prospects interact with each other on and off the court, demonstrating a new skill and watching how it is performed, or organizing tightly controlled part method drills provide better information than an open scrimmage. Coaches must recognize the make-up of their players and use game theory to predict their reactions. Alternatively, they could gage the players’ reactions and spend more time analyzing exactly what it means. Coaching skill lies in creating situation that create quality and force it to rise to the top. Obviously, standards should remain clear, fair, and consistent.

Judgment at Nuremberg

Based on the post-WWII trials of Nazi officials, Judgment at Nuremberg features Spencer Tracy as the lead judge of the tribunal, one of the last roles of his career. The film is certainly a grand spectacle: the formal tribunal is brought to life by a group of skilled actors and accompanied by an epic soundtrack. The film is not exciting because of action sequences but tense because of a number of emotional monologues and confrontations between characters. Tracy’s performance is a highlight as he portrays Dan Haywood, a retired judge charged with deciding culpability among a group of justices who supported the Nazi regime.

Haywood faces a fundamental question that all jurists and rule-makers must ask themselves: what is wrong and what is right in each situation? Scenes from the tribunal show the brutal nature of World War II and Nazi concentration camps but Haywood’s conversations with regular Germans show that they are regular people with their own values. It quickly becomes apparent that not all of the defendants are identical and that they all made their choices for different reasons.

Some argued that the turnaround created by Hitler’s policies was worth the sacrifice of human lives. Others felt that it was important that they perform their duties in accordance with military tradition. A few based their support of Hitler on their aversion to Communism.

Did the judges know the ultimate outcome of their verdicts? How can one person judge another from an entirely different perspective who acted under extreme pressure? One of the defendants, Dr. Ernst Janning had a distinguished career and was considered to be the most skilled German jurist. However, he was now on trial for decisions made under Hitler’s rule that advanced the National Socialist regime.

The U.S. Army prosecutor had been working at the tribunal for two years; after reviewing the same brutal evidence over and over again, he had become very certain of his argument. The German lawyer assigned to the defendants used logical arguments and American legal history to make a compelling case. The primary defendant, played by Burt Lancaster retained his dignity throughout most of the proceedings but eventually exploded in a burst of emotion. Haywood won the respect of all parties by navigating through all of the evidence impartially and attempting to consider as many points of view as possible.

Understanding Media

Recently, CNN has revamped the format of their programmes to include more subtitles. Immediately after a guest says something, it is posted in the bar at the bottom of the screen. According to Marshall McLuhan in Understanding Media, this will turn television into a slightly cooler medium and require greater audience participation to keep up with the addition information that they are offered. Highlighting the key point - along with the visual medium - will increase audience retention of that specific information relative to a written article or radio broadcast. However, the phrases are so superficial and pedantic that the viewer will learn nothing; Mr. McLuhan would predict that the audience won’t pay as much attention to the speaker explaining the details and focus on keeping up with the statements on screen.

While it makes a great number of predictions about media as an extension of man’s self, the book is a little long. Some anecdotal evidence is interesting but esoteric and not germane to McLuhan’s argument. On the other hand, the work is very thorough and breaks down many components of daily life, ranging from radio and telephone to games, automobiles, and weapons.

The seminal argument is that it’s not what is on the news that that is important, but how the fact that people are communicating in new ways which is changing how modern life is structured. What becomes unfortunate is that the book (a hot medium) will likely scare away many prospective readers who have been conditioned to receive their information in little bunches as opposed to seeking it out and processing it themselves. So McLuhan may put forth correct theories but less and less people will be aware of them and understanding the effect on their daily lives.