DeGeneres v. Bush / Kind v. Nice / Me v. Grammar

The recent story about Ellen DeGeneres sitting next to George W. Bush at a football game has inspired some thoughts. I am sharing Ellen's account of the events in the video posted above (which if TMZ is to be believed is also endorsed by the former President), but I also want to express my feels about it. So I hope you will take the time to read my rant as well as watch the video.

First, no one should judge FPOTUS* Bush or QODTTV** DeGeneres on a single, brief glimpse of the two of them seated together in a neutral setting. Ellen implies in her story that she did not know exactly who she would see that day, so it's not like she was looking to do a photo-op with a deeply unpopular political figure. Not everyone who is photographed in close proximity to George W. Bush had equal volition in those circumstances They do not all share equal moral responsibility for their situation. So unless you know what led to Ellen and George sharing a luxury box at an NFL game you should reserve judgement. When I first saw the picture of them together, it was because a gay internet celebrity shared it in a since deleted tweet. They asked their followers to find the situation adorable, and received a fair bit of blowback for doing so. At first I was mildly irked and considered responding. Then I remembered the golden rule of social media: You DO NOT need to share your thoughts about everything with everyone. However, Ellen's response in the video has given us some context, and I have found her defense lacking in some important ways.
*Former President of the United States
**Queen of Daytime Television

When Ellen frames this as a question about differing beliefs, she fails to address the true stakes of the situation. She claims she is friends with a lot of people who don't share her beliefs. We can all sympathize with that. (Though as someone with very few friends that actually sounds really stressful to me.) Be that as it may, our sympathies should not blind us to the fact that George W. Bush is not simply someone who has different beliefs. He is one of 44 human beings who have ever had the powers as head of the United State government and Commander in Chief of the US military to turn his beliefs into reality. Even after his term in office Bush remains a figure of significant social and cultural influence. The former President's support of Brett Kavanaugh during his nomination to the Supreme Court shows that even years after he left the White House he has the ability to influence policy for decades to come. You have probably heard some loved one propose some idea so ridiculous it made you thankful that person wasn't in charge of the world. We all live in a world that has been shaped in part by the beliefs of George W. Bush. For me to believe that Ellen understands the significance of her relationship with Bush is, she needs to show that she understands this crucial difference.

Beyond downplaying the importance of former President Bush, DeGeneres also fails to acknowledge that she could play an important role if she chose. In most friendships that involve political disagreements there is little to accomplish in arguing about it. Maybe one of the parties will change their mind to some degree, but to no real consequence. However Ellen had the chance to speak to her pal George not just as his buddy, but as the voice for many, many people he would never hear from. Consider the lives Presidents tend to lead once they leave office. They are usually sequestered from everyday life, spending most of their time with other powerful people or those who protect them. Very few people ever get to be in the same room as George W. Bush. He will never have to face someone who lost their home because of the Great Recession, or who lost a loved one because of Hurricane Katrina, or who lost everything because of the Iraq War. Ellen doesn't even have to be the voice for strangers she has never met. As one of the most highly visible LGBTQ+ people in the world, Ellen could have had a substantive conversation with a man who in 2004 advocated for an amendment to the Constitution that would have made her marriage to her wife Portia illegal and prevented the Obergefell decision from ever happening. Ellen could have done something that the rest of the world will never get to do, hold George W. Bush accountable for the consequences of his beliefs.

Perhaps worst of all DeGeneres misunderstands what it means to be kind when you are friends with someone like President Bush. Human nature compels us to form bonds with people, especially when dealing with those we perceive to be in our social group. In most face-to-face situations we will have an almost overwhelming urge to be nice. Since 2008 DeGeneres has come up in the world and Bush has come down in it. Consequently she may view herself as being his peer. Therefore in social situations like a football game I can understand if she obeyed the conventional norms to just be nice. However we should not conflate "nice" with "kind". Ask anyone who has had a friend struggling with a substance dependency, a mental health issue, or a dysfunctional relationship, and they will tell you that sometimes the kind thing to do for that friend is to have an unpleasant conversation with them. In situations like that being nice and avoiding risking the relationship in a confrontation will only allow a friend's problems to worsen. To be truly kind to a friend and look out for their best interest, regardless of the consequences, you must on occasion share unhappy facts with them. Ellen is free to be friends with whomever she pleases. I sympathize with her call to be kind to everyone. Nevertheless if she claims George W. Bush as a friend and cannot honestly say that she has had the same sort of conversations with him that she once did with John McCain, then I would say she is being nice to Bush, but she is not being kind.

Ellen DeGeneres should know very well that at times men have been allies to women and straights have been allies to gays to serve as a connection with people who only pay attention to the privileged. That was a kindness for groups who have been marginalized. Now that Ellen has the privileges success and fame bring, she had a rare chance to be an ally to a great many people who do not consider George W. Bush their friend. She did not have to do this at the football game, but I believe she has a moral obligation to do it eventually. So I sincerely hope that at some point before or after this encounter she challenged Bush on his different beliefs. It would have been a kindness for those of us who will never get that chance.

The Worst Spin-Off Idea Ever!!!

In an earlier post I mentioned that I sometimes write comedy sketches as a way to amuse myself. Going through an old smartphone, I found one I wrote a ways back. It's just two characters discussing a piece of pop culture ephemera. Basically I just ripped off the format of Cracked's Today's Topic series of videos.Y'know from back in the day when Cracked.com produced original, high-quality videos. Before they fired all their best creators who are now producing original, high-quality videos on their own. So the initial reference point is a little dated now, but the heart of the piece is still as a relevant as ever. It's a compelling and thought-provoking breakdown of the WORST [clap emoji] SPIN-OFF [clap emoji] EVER! [clap emoji] [clap emoji] [clap emoji]

EXTERIOR NIGHT, THE SECOND MOON OF ENDOR, NOT THE ONE WITH THE EWOKS, THE OTHER ONE*

PERSON A: I am really excited for the Fast & Furious spin-off movie starring Jason Statham and The Rock.

PERSON B: You aren't disappointed that Hollywood is so creatively bankrupt they're spinning off second tier characters instead of producing fresh movies based on new ideas?

A: Not at all. Spin-offs are a time honored Hollywood tradition. Hobbs & Shaw is far from the worst example.

B: So what would you call the worst spin-off ever?

A: Did you know there was a Mrs. Columbo?

B: Of course Columbo talked about his wife all the time in the old TV show.

A: No, I mean there was a spin-off  television series called Mrs. Columbo that followed the adventures of Columbo's wife, Kate.

B: Wasn't the gag in the original Columbo shows that we never saw his wife?

A: Exactly.

B: So how did they make a spin-off out of an unseen character? Does that really count as a spin-off?

A: Apparently it does if you claim the show is directly based on a previous series. So you just cast some actor and call her the wife of a beloved TV detective.

B: So what actor did they find to play a woman tough and worldly enough to bust Lieutenant Columbo's hump?

A: Kate Mulgrew.

B: Captain Janeway!? When did this happen?

A: 1979, just after Columbo's first cancellation.

B: Wait, how old was she then? Because she was 40 when she was started on Voyager, right?

A: Yup. So she was 24 when she did this.

B: And Peter Falk was in his 50's when Columbo ended its run on NBC? Ugh! It must have been gross for audiences to watch old Rumplecoatskin kiss his child bride.

A: Don't worry. Peter Falk never appeared on the spin-off.

B: That makes sense. He probably needed a break from the character. Oh, I get it! They reversed the gag. So in Mrs. Columbo her husband the detective is always off-screen and these are like the scenes of what's happening while he's off doing policework. I like it. Very Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

A: Except that wasn't the premise. In fact, she wasn't even married to Columbo for the entire series. They had them get divorced between episodes and changed the lead character's name to Kate Callahan.

B: How can you have a show called "Mrs. Columbo" without any character named "Columbo" in it?

A: They changed the title of the show to Kate the Detective. 

B: Does that mean in the world of the show a police lieutenant is married to another cop?

A: No, she was a reporter. That may have been part of the reason why they changed the title again to Kate Loves a Mystery.

B: Good gravy! Two title changes and an off-screen divorce? How long did this show run!?

A: Thirteen episodes.

B: That's insane!

A: I know! It's like somebody's fan-fiction ran wild and wound up as a TV show that actually got broadcast on a national network.

B: I guess compared to that, the expanding Fast & Furi-verse seems reasonable.

A: Precisely. So stop worrying about what kinds of movies are getting made and just enjoy that they're being made well.

B: Even the Dark Universe doesn't seem so bad.

A: Let's not go crazy.

-FIN- 

*It doesn't matter where this scene takes place, so just imagine whatever setting you find most entertaining.

Quiz- Heavy Metal or Super-Hero?

Since Google hasn't yet decided to retire all the blogs on their platform to free up server space, I might as well make use of this forum. I had a fun idea recently that I thought could amuse the perverts and identity thieves of the Internet. It came to me as I was staring at the Marvel Comics trading cards I have posted on my walls. (That's right, baby, I'm living the dream!) I realized that something connects heavy metal and comic books, aside from obsessive fans with questionable social skills. Both bands that play variations on metal and characters from the comic books of my childhood tended to share similar naming conventions. They often incorporated weird portmanteaus, dark or violent imagery, references to mythology, and let's say "creative" spelling. They are so similar I think it might be hard to tell which is which.

With apologies to McSweeney's Internet Tendency I challenge the readers of this blog to take my quiz. From the following list, can you tell which names are of European black metal bands and which are characters immortalized in the 1993 Marvel Universe collection from SkyBox?

Quiz: European Black Metal Band or Marvel Comic Book Character?

(Answers below)

1- Grimfist
2- Black Axe
3- Arcturus
4- Moonblood
5- Motormouth
6- Bloodseed
7- Morg
8- Black Flame
9- Satyricon
10- Stryfe
11- Ragnarok
12- Die-Cut
13- Pantheon I
14- Infernum
15- Morbius
16- Tormentor
17- Venom
18- The Kovenant
19- Behemoth
20- Rage
21- Marduk
22- Slayback
23- Celestia
24- Night Thrasher
25- Drastique
26- Blackheart
27- Hellstorm
28- Demogoblin
29- Graveworm
30- Death's Head II
31- Hellhammer
32- Terror, Inc.
33- Forefather
34- Bloodaxe
35- Deathwatch
36- Nightfall
37- Heart Attack
38- Witchmaster
39- Darkhold Redeemers
40- Basilisk

*******************************************************************





ANSWERS:

Black Metal-1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 29, 31, 33, 36, 38

Marvel- 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40

Both- 17  

Another comedy sketch

Cover of an issue Jabberwock: a Monthly Magazine for Boys and Girls

Writing comedy sketches has become one of my favorite pastimes for when I just want to entertain myself. If you've been keeping track of this blog through the years, you may have noticed I have posted a couple of scripts on this blog in the past. I enjoy playing with language and dialogue. It helps give me respite from the drudgery of working on longer projects. So when I have a funny idea I like to run with it as an amusing mental exercise. In doing that I have produced a scenelet (with apologies to Lewis Carroll), which you can read below.

INTERIOR DAY, A COURTROOM

(THE JUDGE is seated on the bench at the center of one side of the room, seated next to him is a WITNESS, at a table opposite sits an ATTORNEY.)

JUDGE:  Counselor, you may now question the witness.

ATTORNEY: (Stands) Thank you, Your Honor. Now, sir, I want to go back to the day the events in question happened. To start, can you please describe what you remember about the day in general?

WITNESS: 'Twas brillig.

ATTORNEY: I'm sorry. It was what?

WITNESS: Brillig.

ATTORNEY: I don't know what "brillig" means.

WITNESS: It's a perfectly cromulent word.

ATTORNEY: Could you use it in a sentence?

WITNESS: "The hooker noticed it was a brillig day."

ATTORNEY:  Is brillig a term from the world of prostitution?

WITNESS: No! Certainly not. Why would you think that?

ATTORNEY: You mentioned a hooker in your example!

JUDGE: Let's try to move it along, counselor.

ATTORNEY: Of course, your honor. Besides being "brillig", what else do remember about that day? What was happening before the events?

WITNESS: The slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

ATTORNEY:  Did you say "slimy troves"?

WITNESS: No. Slithy. Toves. Toves which are slithy.

ATTORNEY: And these (makes air quotes) "slithy toves" were doing what?

WITNESS: They did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

ATTORNEY: Gyre and gimble? Because of the wabe?

WITNESS: Well, in the wabe, not necessarily because of it.

ATTORNEY: Naturally. Anything else?

WITNESS: All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe.

ATTORNEY: We're just going to skip past that. Did you speak with anyone that day?

WITNESS: Yes, my father.

ATTORNEY: And what did he say to you?

WITNESS: Before I left he said to me, "Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

ATTORNEY: Now that sounds important. Why what is it about (makes air quotes) "Jabberwock" that you would need to beware of?

WITNESS: The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

ATTORNEY: Okay, things are finally making sense. Was there anything else your father said you should beware of?

WITNESS: The Jubjub bird.

ATTORNEY: Excuse me?

WITNESS: Oh, and I should shun the Bandersnatch.

ATTORNEY: What is happening!?

JUDGE: Excuse me, but did you say "shun the Bandersnatch"?

WITNESS: Yes. If it's frumious.

JUDGE: I understand then. You may proceed, counselor.

ATTORNEY: When your father said this to you, did you understand what he meant?

WITNESS: Honestly, at first I didn't understand anything he said.

ATTORNEY: That make two of us. So what did you think he was saying with all this talk of Jabberwocks, Jubjubs, and Bandersnatches?

WITNESS: I thought he might be trying to tell me not to hire a hooker.

ATTORNEY: Were you going to hire a hooker?

WITNESS: No! Certainly not. Why would you think that?

ATTORNEY: You just told us you thought your father was talking about hookers.

WITNESS: I may like getting my tove slithy as much as the next man, but I don't pay for it.

JUDGE: Counselor, this witness is not here to answer questions about your bizarre hooker obsession.

ATTORNEY: Your Honor!? Fine. After your father gave you this warning, did you take any precautions when you went out?

WITNESS: I took my vorpal sword in hand.

ATTORNEY: I'm sorry, what is (makes air quotes) "vorpal"?

JUDGE: Counselor, if you make those finger quotes one more time, I will bop you with my gavel.

ATTORNEY: I'm sorry, your honor. I won't do it again. I have just never heard of a vorpal sword.

WITNESS: It's a sword that's vorpalic.

ATTORNEY: Right.

WITNESS: Obviously I wouldn't carry a sword in vorpality, but those were extraordinary circumstances.

ATTORNEY: And then what did you do?

WITNESS: Long time the manxome foe I sought.

ATTORNEY:  Wait, (raises fingers to make air quotes but pulls them back while cutting sentence short) did you say  manx-

JUDGE: (Pointing gavel at ATTORNEY) Don't test me.

ATTORNEY: What happened next?

WITNESS:  So I rested by the Tumtum tree and stood awhile in thought.

ATTORNEY: Do you recall what you thought at that time?

WITNESS: Not exactly. I just remember my thoughts were uffish.

ATTORNEY: Uh-huh. But it was at this moment that thinks took a turn, wasn't it?

WITNESS: The Jabberwock, with eyes aflame, came whiffling through the tulgey wood, and burbled as it came!

ATTORNEY: I still don't understand a lot of what you just said, but please tell us, what did you do then?

WITNESS: One, two! One, two! And through and through the vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

ATTORNEY: Your honor, could you instruct the witness to respond to the question?

JUDGE: He is responding, counselor, if you would pay attention.

WITNESS: I left it dead, and with its head I went galumphing back.

ATTORNEY: Did you say (makes air quotes) "galumphing"

(JUDGE  strikes ATTORNEY on head with gavel, ATTORNEY shouts in pain)

JUDGE: I warned you.

ATTORNEY: Upon your return did you speak with anyone.

WITNESS: Yes, my father chortled in his you, "And hast thous slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"

ATTORNEY: So now we can add frabjous, callooh, and callay to the list of words you've said today that I do not understand.

JUDGE: Don't forget beamish.

ATTORNEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

JUDGE: And what about chortle?

ATTORNEY: Actually, I think I got that one. It means to sort of laugh, right?

WITNESS: Yes, but in a frabjous sort of way. Not like when you outgrabe.

ATTORNEY: Thank you. Is there anything else you would like to share with the court.

WITNESS: I would just like to reiterate: 'twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe; all mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe. Oh, and I did hire a hooker after all.

ATTORNEY: Your honor, I think I've proven my point.

JUDGE: I agree. This witness is competent to stand trial. (Gavels) What's next?

ATTORNEY: Next, I would like to review my motion in the case of Alice v. West Hampton Looking Glass Co.

-SCENE-

Over 100 Years of American Film History in 1 Spreadsheet

Click here for the spreadsheet

The American Film Institute's theater outside Washington, DC -Photo by Kate Mereand

Twenty years ago on June 16th 1998, I was on vacation in the Outer Banks, and I couldn't tear myself from a show on CBS. Even as a relatively young person, I already had the priorities of a octogenarian. While the people I was vacationing with were busy doing things like partying in the sand, relaxing by the pool, or playing cards and games in adjacent rooms, I was glued to the television.  Needless to say, I was not the coolest guy on the trip. I even grabbed my artist sketch pad I had brought to do drawings, so I could keep notes on the proceedings. My priorities may not have been yours, but, dammit I was committed to them.

The American Film Institute had put together a TV special based on counting down the one hundred greatest American films of the 20th Century. It was a broadcast so specifically designed to appeal to all of my key interests that to this day I worry I may have been used as a guinea pig in some scientific experiment that designed it. I loved movies. I loved ranking things. I have an inherent subservient tendency that love when authority figures tall me what is valuable in art. That's why I love when the Oscars declare with autocratic confidence what was best in film in a given year.  Well this special, titled AFI's 100 Year... 100 Movies, felt like an Oscar ceremony for a whole century of movies!

A love affair began between me and the American Film Institute that continues to this day. The next day I all I wanted to do was talk about the list with people. I want to debate it, and analyze it, and break it down to the nth degree. Instead of wasting the wall space of my bedroom on photos of supermodels or rock stars I clipped a newspaper article with the AFI's list and taped that up.  Years later I would rejoice at the opportunity to move close to the AFI Silver theater in Maryland. I was so excited to take part in their many events celebrating the past and present of filmmaking. Then, like any good creep, I would then try to form a relationship with the good folks there over the internet.

In the years following my initial introduction to their work AFI created more rankings shared across more specials. Like Waylon Smithers with Mr. Burns, I would dutifully knowledge each one, copy down everything they said, and nod in agreement. Over the years the AFI ranked the 100 greatest comedies, the 100 greatest romances, the 100 most thrilling movies, the 100 most inspiring movies, the 50 greatest heroes and 50 greatest villains, the Top Ten of ten different genres of film, and several more lists denoting cinematic greatness. I recorded all of these carefully in notebooks before moving on to spreadsheets on a computer. While the AFI released their final list ten years ago, I have gone back to those lists over and over again for my own purposes.

Eventually, I began to consider the idea of compiling all of those lists into a single resource. In a move that my therapist called "an obsessive's dream" I took it upon myself to create one comprehensive List of Lists ("Because YOU demanded it!"). Thankfully AFI was generous enough to share tons of very useful information on their website. There I could find the lists from their 13 special events and the background information of all the lists of nominated films they used to build their rankings on their website. From those raw materials I crafted a single spreadsheet to summarize everything that was great from over 100 years of American film history. 

If you think my work with AFI lists is obsessive, you should see my Oscars research

Now here comes the part of the piece where I describe my methodology in excruciating detail that almost no one will care about. However I have spent too much time in the company of academics to skip this step. So if you want to insight into my obsessive mind, read on! Everyone else can skip to the next picture. After that I will talk about fun things you can do with the List of Lists.

The first step in making a List of Lists is determining all the lists you have to list. Over 11 years the AFI produced 13 events announcing a set of rankings. They were, in chronological order:

• June 16, 1998- AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, ranking the 100 best American movies to that point all-inclusive (all other lists will also be limited to films produced in the United States or with major involvement from Americans) 
• June 16, 1999- AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars, ranking the 25 greatest male and 25 greatest female movie stars who had made their film debut before 1950 or who had died prior to the creation of the list (so more like the 50 most popular stars you'll find on TCM)
• June 13, 2000- AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs, ranking the 100 greatest comedies
• June 12, 2001- AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills, ranking the 100 most thrilling, or "pulse-pounding" in the words of the telecast, movie; there was not a strict genre restriction on this list like there were on others
• June 11, 2002- AFI's 100 Years...100 Passions, ranking the 100 greatest love stories in films both dramatic and comedic (but disappointing some, none that were pornographic)
• June 4, 2003- AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains, ranking the 50 greatest heroes and 50 greatest villains portrayed in films
• June 22, 2004- AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs, ranking the 100 greatest musical moments, not limited to those in movie musicals or even songs written for films, rather any instance of music being used in the body of a movie
• June 21, 2005- AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes, this one should be self-explanatory
• September 23, 2005- AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores, ranking the 25 greats film scores, this was presented in a special one-night only event at the Hollywood Bowl instead of a broadcast
• June 14, 2006- AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers, ranking the 100 most inspiring films; again this list was not confined to any specific genre
• September 3, 2006- AFI's Greatest Movie Musicals, ranking the 25 greatest musicals, this was also presented at a live performance rather than over television
• June 20, 2007- AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies – 10th Anniversary Edition, revising the original list of the 100 greatest movies, both to incorporate films since released and changing opinion regarding certain films (so goodbye to 1915's The Birth of a Nation)
• June 17, 2008-AFI's 10 Top 10, ranking the 10 greatest films of 10 genres: animated films, court room dramas, epics, fantasy, gangster movies, mysteries, romantic comedies, science-fiction, sports movies, and westerns.  

My main purpose for this spreadsheet is to create a database of movies judged to be of holistically high quality. That means that some of these lists would not be conducive to my goal. 

The list of 50 stars was the most difficult to deal with as I could not figure how to account for it. The AFI surely did not mean it as an endorsement of every film in the combined body of work of over 50 actors. I determined that The Plastic Age did not merit inclusion in the spreadsheet by virtue of an uncredited appearance by Carole Lombard. Had the AFI based inclusion on that list for specific films starring the actors as they did with the heroes and villains then I could use it. Instead I did not include that list at all.

Also I divided the 10 Top 10 into ten separate lists. Since each top ten was based a specific list of nominees that occasionally overlapped, it seemed appropriate to treat them as distinct entities.


The list of heroes and villains had some unusual features. Heroes and villains were both given the same number of ranked spots, but were not equally represented among the nominees. Further the nominees were not categorized as heroes or villains. Thus I treated it as one list of characters with split rankings.

This left me with a total of 21 lists to consider. The lists represented a combined 1,949 films ranging chronologically from 1912 to 2006. Some where represented in multiple rankings, while a majority of them were only nominated on a single list. Simply listing all the nominated films would leave me with a useless catalog that would not communicate the various ranking the AFI went to so much trouble to create. To try to capture the relative merits of each movie according to the lists, I would need a system to account for the frequency and placement of a film among the combined rankings.

First I decided to divide the rankings into tiers. I did not want to simply rank films by their ordinal number for a few reasons. There was no clear way to deal with the hundreds of nominees which had no ordinal ranking. Since I cannot be privy to the specific mechanations that determined the rankings, I couldn't be sure how much value to assign the difference between the 53rd and 52nd film on a list. However tiering could assign proper weight to the kind of intuitive ranges that the juries creating this lists likely had in the back of their minds. In a list of 100 films distinguishing the top 50 from the top 25  or top 10 makes sense. Tiers also made it easier to compare scores across lists.

From there I would assign each film a score for appearing on a list in any position weighted relative to it that position. I awarded a movie a number of points equal to the number of films nominated for that list divided by how many other films fell in the same tier (or higher) as that movie ( #Nominees/# in Tier=Points). If that quotient didn't result in an even number I rounded to the nearest integer. Thus each film that was nominated and not ranked earned 1 point (#Nominees/#Nominees=1). Then the higher up a list a movie ranked the more points it would earn. Lists of 100 would be have tiers for their top 50 and top 25. All lists had a tier for the top ten. Then the top film on each list was awarded as many points as there were nominees in the list ( by the logic that it was in a tier of 1 and #Nominees/1= #Nominees). Isn't this all sounding more interesting than anything you could do on a subtropical beach?

Ranked films that were drawn from larger pools of nominees (like the 500 nominees considered for the greatest comedies) earned more points than those from smaller pools (the 10 Top 10 lists each came from only 50 nominated films). That gave appropriate weight for films that stood out among crowded fields versus those selected within narrow genre restrictions.

The heroes and villains list again posed some challenges. Since I had decided to treat it as one list of 100 characters, I chose to split the points evenly between the two sub-categories. So I awarded the top 25 heroes and top 25 villains the number of points they would have earned for being in the top 50 of another list. Then I created a top 20 tier instead of a top 25 to include an even number of both goodies and baddies while also observing a number that seems like an intuitive division within such a list. The top ten and number one of both lists were treated as ties and shared the respective points (i.e. #Nominees/2).

Because the 10th Anniversary was openly an attempt to improve upon the original list by altering the rankings of some of the films, I also included an adjustment based on movement from one list to the other. The formula was designed to reflect both upward and downward changes by subtracting or adding a number of points equal to the difference between the movie's position on the 1998 list and its average position on both lists.

In keeping with my goal to create scores that were reflective of a film's totality, I grouped the lists into different two groups. Most lists ranked films as a whole or for a major component (e.g. the hero or villain of the story). I added all of those together for one score. In the List of Lists I kept those on the sheet labeled "List Set 1". For the lists that only ranked relatively minor aspects of a movie (the score, musical moments, and quotes), I included those points in a secondary score, the sheet labeled "List Set 2". You may choose to rely on either score as you see fit.

After that I could begin using the List of Lists to explore any number of research areas. I tried to treat the points like Bill James treats Win Shares. I keep their limits in mind, but I use them as a tool when answering certain questions. If creating the list was an obsessive's dream, then this was the sort of extended fantasy sequence for an obsessive that Hollywood might portray in a lavish musical number.

Unlike a beach vacation the fun never ends with a database like this!

The first and most obvious thing to do with a List of Lists is to combine the scores from all lists. This gives you an impression of which films succeeded in multiple area. While the movies that were number one on a list will dominate, they will be separated by scoring well across multiple genres, or by have attributes like be both thrilling and inspiring.

For example, Casablanca, was ranked on eight lists and was nominated for another. The Wizard of Oz reached the top 10 in six different lists including topping two of them. Perhaps most impressive is Schindler's List which was not the top movie on any list yet had the 11th highest primary score and 14th highest secondary score, topping many movies that had claimed a number one ranking! (I included that exclamation point so you can understand how much more fun I find this than whatever fun and games other people were having in the Outer Banks all those years ago.)

Another use for the list is to group films together in various ways. I included the year each film was released in my data and combined this with their cumulative scores to compare what films stood out most from each year. You can compare this to contemporary attempts to adjudicate the best movie each year, say for example the winners of the Academy Award for Best Picture. Those comparisons help us understand some of what goes into helping a film stand the test of time.

Given the amount of shade that gets tossed at Oscar and all his friends at AMPAS, you might expect hindsight to reveal the Best Picture winners to frequently underperform. Yet the AFI and the Academy actually agree on the best picture quite often (but of course they don't always agree). In the first year the Oscars were awarded based on the calendar year a film was released, 1934, both picked It Happened One Night as the top film. The last year of movies that were released before the majority of AFI lists were determined was 2002. In that year we again have a consensus pick in Chicago. In between those two extremes the Best Picture and highest score film line up may other times, e.g. Titanic, Unforgiven, Out of Africa, The Deer Hunter, The Godfather, The Sound of Music, On the Waterfront, Casablanca, etc.

However I also found plenty of disagreements that were pretty revealing. The Greatest Show on Earth is frequently cited as one of the weakest picks to win Best Picture. The AFI certainly supports that judgement. Across all 21 list it only scored 1 point. The highest scoring film of that year, 1952, was Singin' in the Rain has one of the ten highest point totals for any of the nearly 2000 films listed. And it wasn't even nominated by the Academy! Perhaps the happy and poppy musical seemed light weight compared to the big scale production by Cecil B. DeMille. However hindsight has allowed critics to recognize that beneath the song and dance numbers is an interesting story about the end of the silent movie era with a nuanced message about artistry and authenticity.

Two of the also-rans from 1987 accumulated more than ten times the points of that years Best Picture winner. While The Last Emperor is the sort of historic epic that people tend to associate with the Academy Awards, both Moonstruck and Fatal Attraction are better remembered today. Maybe the Academy overlooked them because they are stories primarily driven by women. Remember that #OscarsSoWhite campaign? This helps demonstrated that #OscarsSoMale too.

Conversely this method can identify some instances where the Oscars must have been very competitive. In some years multiple movies will have very high point totals. The race in 1977 may have come down to the Star Wars movie that started it all and eventual winner Annie Hall. They both racked up lots of points with the AFI with the winner depending entirely on which list set you favor. The Sound of Music had to face Doctor Zhivago in 1965, and according to my primary set of scores they are exactly tied! The year before may have been even harder though. Three of the nominees for Best Picture -Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady, and Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Taught My Eyes to Skim Past the Inordinately Long Subtitle- all rank among the 100 highest scoring films of all time.

I even tool breaking things down by year one step further. I assess each year based on how many films from that year appear in the List of Lists, how many total point were earned by the films from that year, and the average number of points earned by the listed films of that year.  You can find that data in the sheet labeled "Year by Year", including a set of charts to help visualize the numbers.

Measuring years as a unit tells an interesting story of cinema history. The number of listed films each year is low through the early years of the 20th century reflective of an art form still establishing itself. Things pick up in the late 1920's as the silent film era peaks, then really take off with the introduction of the talkies. After that noteworthy films appear each year at a fairly steady pace with the exception of a brief drop in the mid-1960's marking the gap between the "Old" and "New" Hollywood eras. The numbers only tail off in the 21st century because a decreasing number of the AFI lists cover those years. This suggests that the film industry has basically been in good health since the introduction of sound.

The point totals and averages provide some more nuance to the story. The total points show some distinct peaks in filmmaking. The end of the 1930's and start of the 1940's stand out far above all other years. 1939 has frequently been described as the greatest year in American movies, and this data certainly bears that out. It has the most total points by far and the best average to a less extreme extent. This marks the peak of the studio system in Hollywood when movie making enjoyed a level of artistic and financial success it will likely never see again. Unfortunately the effects of World War II damaged the film industry taking away talent and resources for a higher purpose. The movies regained their footing, but they wouldn't hit another height like that until the period from 1959 to 1962.

The graph showing the average points has a shape very similar to a wave pattern. This suggests that the art form rises and falls as every few years new styles, approaches, and technologies revitalize it. While it appears as though the wave is ebbing with the peaks decreasing, I believe this is a natural effect of human retrospection. Those movies that have had longer to influence others and being studied and appreciated will of course have higher standing. However as they fade from living memory and more recent films have their time in the sun the shape of the wave will shift. Doubtlessly some folks in the mid-20th century would have argued that the silent films they remembered were far superior to the musicals and special effect laden blockbusters that followed. I conclude from this that the art of movie making is as alive and vibrant as ever with new peaks still to come.

You can do so much more with this data. I have already tried a few different experiments that I may share in later posts. Hopefully you will be inspired by the 20th anniversary of the AFI 100 Years... series and pursue your own ideas. If you do please tell me about them in the comments. Until then thank you for joining me in celebrating the wonder of the movies and strangeness of a guy who would rather watch a TV show about movies than party on the beach.

My Big, Dumb Roommate

Portrait of the "author"

Anyone who has ever lived with an animal has likely spent some amount of time pondering what the animal is thinking. What must be happening in that creature's brain to make it behave the way it does? How does it see the world? Would the thoughts of a member of another species be completely alien to us, or are they more similar to us than we realize? Most importantly, what must animals think of the humans around them? This is my attempt to view myself through my pet cat's eyes. 


Let me tell you about this guy I live with. Frankly I cannot make sense of the way he acts most of the time. I won't name him here partly because it is in a weird language that I can never pronounce and am incapable of spelling. Mostly though, I don't want to share his name because I am about to tell you a bunch of weird stuff about him, and I don't want to embarrass him.

To start at the beginning of each day, my roommate sleeps like a rock. Long after I have woken up and started my routine he'll still be dead to the world. Many mornings I actually get worried about him. I start to think, "Is he sick or dead?" So before I can eat breakfast I'll go to his bedroom and try to wake him. Sometimes I'll just say something to get him out of bed. Other times I have to physically prod him, like poke his face or something, just to wake him up!

For someone who sleeps so late in the morning, he also seems to go to bed surprisingly early. Now I really shouldn't judge. I work from home, so I don't have to go out each day like he does. That also gives me the freedom to structure my sleep schedule more loosely by taking naps during the day and not collapsing as soon as the sun starts to set. There's just so much fun stuff to do after dark, I think it's a waste to spend all those hours in bed.

My roommate has known I like to stay up and do stuff at night since I moved in with him. Still every so often he will get out of bed and come looking for me. He acts as if he can't sleep while I am active in another room. I would apologize that whatever I was busy with was making so much noise it woke him up, but then every morning he's nearly impossible to wrest from slumber. Maybe he has some kind of condition that gives him variable hearing that peaks shortly after he falls asleep, but effectively deafens him after a few hours of sleep. Is that even medically possible?

On the topic of his senses, I do honestly think he has some sort of strange condition. He is way, WAY above average in height and weight, so it's possible he has an undiagnosed pituitary problem. It seems to effect the sensitivity and acuity of all of his senses in some way or another.

His vision can be quite accurate with good lighting. Though as an side, I'd argue he has strange taste in the colors he likes to put together. Whenever it gets dark though he is practically blind. If the apartment isn't lit up at night like it's noon on a summer day, he frequently bumps into things. Including and especially me!

He seems to have a very peculiar palate. Maybe he comes from a culture that favors different kinds of foods than I like, but I cannot fathom what he likes about some of the things he eats. He will often substitute vegetables or grains for meat in his meals. I love meat, can't get enough of it, but different strokes for different folks. However what really confounds me are all the baked goods, creams, confections, and other foods he eats because he claims they satisfy his "sweet tooth". On the rare occasion when I have tried something off his plate, I find it all pretty flavorless. It's as if he has some completely different sensory experience than I do when he eats that stuff.

Fine dining

Also, the condition that seems to affect his hearing, must leave him pretty hard of hearing most of the time. All the time I will hear loud noises that startle me, but he doesn't seem to hear them at all. I will snap to attention or coming running into a room, because I heard something that I fear may signal imminent danger. Then I notice my roommate sitting their as oblivious to the noises of the world as if he had triple-thick ear muffs on.

On the topic of his sense of smell, things can be kind of sensitive, so I don't want to say too much. However I have to note the very pungent personal odor my roommate seems to carefully cultivate.

All standards of beauty and grooming are cultural, so I don't bring this up to shame my roommate. He stinks, but I don't know if he's to blame. It isn't the odor of his body that is so powerful; it's all the stuff he puts on it. I wash myself regularly, as I was raised to do, and I don't drown myself in product when I do.He cleans himself much less often, but uses tons of very fragrant soaps, washes, scrubs and other things like that. I guess the idea is the aromatic nature of his cleansers will cover his BO, but he goes way  overboard.  He even rubs on additional scented lotions and creams all day long. Very often I can detect his approach by smell before he even enters the room.

My roommate is great in that he'll do all the shopping. I do try to contribute as well by bringing in some food for us. I was raised in a family of hunters. I still feel it is important to catch some of what you eat yourself. There are many species that would overwhelm the local environment if their numbers weren't regularly thinned by hunters. So I have no moral problem with killing the occasional wild critter to supplement my diet. My roommate seems repulsed by this though. It's not like he's a vegetarian or anything, so I don't understand why he gets so grossed. I admit I do use common areas to clean my kill which can get pretty messy. Still I think he just doesn't have the stomach to confront what it means to live a carnivorous lifestyle.

There are other perks my roommate offers. He also pays the bills for all the utilities. That makes sense since all of that was in his name already from when he lived in the apartment by himself. Besides we have a system in place by which I reimburse him for everything he does. I may not have much money but I always contribute in kind. The system seems to work well for both of us.

The "author" looking after some toys

I like to help out with some of the household chores. My roommate never asks me to, but I think it demonstrates the value of having me around. Very often I clear things of tables and desks. I put stray items away. However it seems that I don't do this "properly", because my roommate often gets frustrated. Sometimes he seems baffled that he can't find something only to discover that I stored it somewhere he didn't think to look. Somedays I wonder if I should even bother trying to clean up. At least when I make a mess (if I get sick or something), I try to keep it from spreading  and stinking up the place.

My roommate is very particular about where he sits down. He always needs a heavily padded seat and plenty of room to stretch out his gargantuan limbs. He is adamant that he has to have a lot of room to rest his big backside. If he catches me sitting somewhere he wants to flop down on he'll chase me away. I never do that. I am always more than happy to share a seat with him. It's fine though, because I will basically sit anywhere. Obviously I have a preference for warms spots. Also I like a nice, spot where I can tuck in my limbs and watch the world go by from a safe, protected place. Basically if I can fit somewhere I will sit there.

Having a roommate has conditioned me to want company around me at all hours of the day. To be honest I can get pretty lonely hanging out at home without him.  So I do tend to make a big deal of it when he comes home. I will yell and shout and try to display physical affection. Sometimes he acts like he's not in the mood to deal with my display of friendliness. I doubt he understands how much his arrival each day means to me.

There are times when I worry he actually might forget where he lives. As I've mentioned his senses are kind of dull, so it might be hard for him to even identify our home. Also he can be kind of absent-minded -not paying attention to details- and he's a bit of a bumbler. When I see him coming from the window I will start shouting at him. Mostly I'm just excited to see him, but I also don't know if he would know where to go without my hearing voice. He may find it annoying, but I can't help it. I just want to see him get home safely.

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins"

He has some real trouble understanding boundaries. He never seems able to identify the right time to start or stop fooling around. He will try to get me to play a game with him when I am clearly not interested. Then when we are in the middle of something really fun, he'll abruptly stop. Even when I am clearly still hyped up and raring to go, he'll just wander away. When I am feeling revved up and trying to burn off some extra energy after he has decided to observe his ridiculously early bedtime, he acts like I'm the jerk. Why can't he understand the simple body language clues that signal when I am down to clown versus when I want him to get lost? I guess some of it might me cultural, but I do wonder if he might be "on the spectrum".

The real problem is that my roommate really doesn't understand what is and isn't appropriate body contact. If he happens to be working on something around the apartment, and I so much as approach him to say hello he freaks out. Just because I ruffled some papers or sat on his keyboard, he acts like I am a nuisance. Then when I am relaxed and minding my own business, he'll start groping me out of nowhere!

Generally he limits these unsolicited touches to the top of my head or down my spine, but he has a real affinity for touching me in places I do NOT like to be touched. He seems to get a perverse joy our of running his hand along my belly and ribs (and sometimes he definitely makes contact with my nipples!), when it should be obvious to all that I am very protective of those parts of my body. Usually I only let my guard down when I feel very comfortable and safe. When he does this I tend to lash out at him, because it makes me feel like I must be on guard every moment of every day. Then he wonders how I appear to have so little energy.

With all that said, I still am glad to have my big, dumb roommate. For starters having a big body in the house, makes me feel safer. I wouldn't say we live in a bad neighborhood, but I definitely see some suspicious characters out the window. Having him around helps me feel protected. Also I really appreciate sharing my home with someone who seems to care so much about me. When I feel cold, he will even let me climb into bed with him to warm up. He may not be perfect, but I am glad he's mine.

The "author" and roommate sharing a rare moment of mutual understanding

 

Does Gravity Have a Schedule? Or: When Will Reality Hit Trump?

Gravity is undefeated

The cleverest thing I heard during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign came from Republican commentator Rick Wilson. He was describing the success of Donald Trump to that point by saying, "Donald Trump is like a man who jumped off a hundred story building, has fallen to about the fiftieth floor, and now thinks he can fly." (I can't find an exact transcript of his remark, so forgive me if I paraphrased any of this incorrectly.) Basically he was alleging that gravity still applied to Mr. Trump even if he hadn't felt its full effects yet.

Now obviously Mr. Wilson was operating under the assumption that then-candidate Trump would soon hit the ground in the form of losing to Hillary Clinton by an embarrassing margin. However, since we live on a planet God is punishing for some reason, the former reality-TV star actually won that election. (Oh, in case any of my previous material didn't make it clear, I'm a super-liberal Democrat. The results of 2016 have pushed me to be more open and vocal about it on my microblogging/mass-texting service.) To this day now-president Trump still has the appearance of a man in midair. While for a time we all began to question whether he would ever touch the ground, increasingly it seems as though the pull of gravity will force him to Earth soon. The most obvious downward pressure on the President may be the investigations which many expect to produce evidence of criminal wrongdoing. You also have to consider the political opposition that has risen up like bitchy yeast in the aftermath of the Republicans' 2016 victories. By this time next year the odds are very good President Trump will have to deal with Democrats controlling at least one house of Congress. However I would like to highlight a different force that may cause our POTUS to plummet and on a predictable schedule too: betrayal by Republicans in Congress.

My theory stems from an interview one unnamed Republican member of Congress gave to notable conservative media figure, Erick Erickson. This Congressman (while concealing their exact identity Erickson apparently felt it safe to let us know what kind of genitals this MoC has) contacted his buddy Erick to vent about the frustrations of being a member of Donald Trump's party when he is constantly causing political problems. Some people have taken part in a parlor game to guess this mysterious public servant's identity, but I would rather focus on the content of some of what he said and try to extrapolate from it.

Mr. Erickson begins his story by quoting the unidentified lawmaker as saying, "If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherf**ker".  That certainly raised my eyebrows. The brows reached new heights when I then read that this secretive legislator has gone on television multiple times to defend said motherf**ker. Thus he confirms the suspicion some have that other Republicans in DC hate the man they nominated and elected, even if they won't come right out and say it. That made me wonder if there are a set of conditions in which the members of the President's party on Capitol Hill would ultimately brings the President crashing down.

Thankfully we get an indication of what that might look like later on in Erickson's piece where he provides for the full context for the opening line.

Judiciary is stacked with a bunch of people who can win re-election so long as they don't piss off Trump voters in the primary. But if we get to summer and most of the primaries are over, they just might pull the trigger if the President fires Mueller. The sh*t will hit the fan if that happens and I'd vote to impeach him myself. Most of us would, I think. Hell, all the Democrats would and you only need a majority in the House. If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherf**ker. Take him out with us and let Mike [Pence] take over. At least then we could sleep well at night.

He also details the internal strife Congressional Republicans are experiencing, the ramifications of the Democrats expected reclaiming of House of Representatives in the next election, and all the ways President Trump has infuriated him. In all it paints a picture of a President who is much closer to hitting pavement than he might realize. It's really just a question of when, not if, the gravity of the situation become more than he can overcome.

Crucially the concealed Congressman hinges all of his predictions of impeachment on the condition that President Trump fire the special counsel currently investigating him. That is an important caveat to keep in mind as all of my following predictions cannot come to pass with that inciting event. However since it is already something many people are already speculating about, some reasonable parties are preparing for, and that almost happened once already, I think it's fair to treat the attempted termination of the investigation as read. 

With that out of the way, let's focus on the meat of this obscured politician's veritable smorgasbord of revelatory comments. He focuses on the House Judiciary Committee as the decisive factor in all of this as they are the folks in Congress who would first consider any articles of impeachment against a sitting president. He predicts they could do this once they no longer need fear reprisal from voters that support Trump. While he vaguely refers to "the summer", we can actually be much more specific than that by working out the exact date when enough committee members will cross that threshold.

We can begin determining the date by defining the threshold. The House Judiciary Committee has 39 member which means for any articles of impeachment to be successfully voted to the full House would require at least 20 votes. Our anonymous official is likely correct that all Democrats (or close enough to make no difference) would vote to impeach President Trump, and they represent 17 votes in Judiciary. That should mean we only need 3 Republican votes, except I doubt it's as simple as that. In the modern House nothing moves with support primarily from the minority party, especially when Republicans control it. Former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, established the "Hastert Rule", which stated simply that a majority of the majority party must support something for it to be voted on. Republicans have typically followed that rule, which would mean at least 11 and preferably 12 of the Republicans on Judiciary would have to be willing to vote for impeachment before we'd see any actual action. So when will 12 members of the committee from the GOP be free from the so-called "Trump base"?

Our next step will be to identify any Members of Congress in this pool of 22 who cannot afford to lose the support of the maybe 25% of voters who are deeply devoted to President Trump. We cannot judge this purely on those who speak in favor of the President publicly as our unnamed elected office holder clearly demonstrates that is no proof of true support. However a few people on this committee have demonstrated a loyalty to Trump, his voters, or his agenda with more than just lip service.

I believe 5 of the 22 are "Trump loyalists" who have gone above and beyond the call of party loyalty. First Rep. Steve King has repeatedly represented himself as a member of the "Trump Base" and certainly shares the President's views on some key issues. Next we can note that Rep. Jim Jordan has not only actively sought to undermine the special counsel, but that he has made some pretty indefensible claims supporting Trump as well. Then we should acknowledge that both Reps. Louie Gohmert and Andy Biggs have called for removing Robert Mueller from the investigation. So they are pretty unlikely to support any impeachment vote resulting from the President doing exactly that. Finally, I would not expect Rep. Matt Gaetz to turn on Donald Trump when they already share so much, including political mentor Roger Stone.

Another 4 committee members may need all the Republican votes they can get for a general election. Two of them, Reps. Karen Handel and Steve Chabot, both face potentially tough races for reelection, according to Cook Political Report. Two other current members are leaving the House as they each run for governor of their respective states. In Idaho Rep. Raul Labrador is leading in the polls over other Republican primary candidates, and Rep. Ron DeSantis is currently enjoying a similar position in Florida. Even if neither of them wins their primary they have clearly shown an interest in higher office suggesting that neither of them would want to upset a large segment of Republican voters.

That leaves 13 of our original 22 a possible votes for impeachment once they are free to vote their conscious. We can list 7 of them as "free" right this moment. Reps. Lamar Smith, Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, and Trey Gowdy are all retiring from Congress and seem to be leaving the worries of pleasing Republican primary voters behind them. More importantly the chair of the committee Rep. Bob Goodlatte is retiring as well. If the chair wasn't willing to hold a vote in committee there would be no chance of impeachment. On top of that we can add Rep. John Ratcliffe who is already past his primary and Doug Collins who has no opponent in his.

Then it's just a matter of looking through the calendar and finding when each of the remaining members is finished with their primary. Whether these incumbents win or lose, they will be past the concern that a faction of Republican voters can end their careers. The 11th member will become "free" on June 27th, before the Sicario sequel hits theaters. If you want to be extra sure the majority of Republicans would be free to vote for impeachment, you could wait until August 15th when Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner who has already voiced his support for the special counsel investigation.

So depending on how events pass we may not have to wait for November, 2020 to see the Trump Presidency come undone. We may not even have to wait for Labor Day. Keep that in mind if you ever find yourself stressed about political news.  President Trump may still act like he can fly, but the rest of us know it's only a matter of time before gravity wins.