I bring all this up because PressPlay has posted a great video this week in which a supercut of tautologies has been compiled from the hit television show The Wire. I greatly enjoyed the five-season series when it was on (though I don’t think quite as highly of it as other critics), and one of the unique qualities of the show was its depiction of the inadequacies of language to explain the horrors of urban life in America. In this short video, you will see everyone—from cops and lawyers to politicians and drug dealers—trying to explain their world and struggling to find the words. This struggle often results in the tautologies you will see here. Beware of adult language. Enjoy!
A tautology is a statement in which an identified term is then defined by the same term. Tautologies often appear as if it holding an undeniable logic, but their vagaries can offer a problematic quality to argumentation. The most common example we currently hear is, “It is what it is.” This sentence implies that whatever “it is” is unavoidable or unchangeable, and it offers an almost exasperated intonation. One tautology I use often is, “People are people.” This sentence, at least when I use it (often jokingly when watching stupidity in action), implies the complicated and irrational nature of humanity that is too difficult to explain by any other term. There are many more out there, with “We don’t know what we don’t know” being another one of my favorites. I bring all this up because PressPlay has posted a great video this week in which a supercut of tautologies has been compiled from the hit television show The Wire. I greatly enjoyed the five-season series when it was on (though I don’t think quite as highly of it as other critics), and one of the unique qualities of the show was its depiction of the inadequacies of language to explain the horrors of urban life in America. In this short video, you will see everyone—from cops and lawyers to politicians and drug dealers—trying to explain their world and struggling to find the words. This struggle often results in the tautologies you will see here. Beware of adult language. Enjoy!
0 Comments
For many students, report cards have recently been issued and, as summer commences, an evaluation of goals and a reflection on accomplishments (or disappointments) will fill young minds before another semester begins anew in the fall. During this downtime, I want to encourage all of those students out there to engage in some healthy metacognition (thinking about thinking) as a way to more thoroughly understand what just happened this spring and recognize areas of improvement before the new school year arrives.
Here’s the best way to self-evaluate: endlessly ask yourself why. Why did I get a D in my English class this semester? Because I’m not a strong writer. Why am I not a strong writer? I don’t read that much, I’m not great with grammar, and I tend to procrastinate. Since I know those things about myself, why have I not addressed them? Because I don’t care enough about English. Why don’t you care enough about a required class that you will have to continue to re-take until you pass it? I don’t know. I guess I should care more, at least enough to work hard on addressing my problem areas so I don’t have to take the class again. Yes! I’m on my way! While this is helpful at the end of a term, this process is actually something you should be doing all the time—every Friday afternoon, every time you finish writing an essay, every time you get a graded paper back. You should be thinking about how you think (and perform all tasks) a lot. If you don’t, you will never know what went wrong and, subsequently, how to fix it so it doesn’t happen again. Here’s another one: I just got a D on a paper...why? Well, I wrote it the night before it was due, and it turned out sloppy. Why did I wait until the night before it was due? Because I decided to hang out with friends every night this week instead of write. Why did I think hanging out with friends was more important than writing a solid paper? I don’t, so next time that choice is presented to me, I will consider my priorities more carefully and set more time aside for writing my paper. There! I have successfully discovered the root of my problem, addressed it, and formed a plan for doing better next time. This time let’s get even more specific. I just received a low grade on a grammar quiz because I couldn’t remember rules for commas. Why don’t I know rules for commas? Because when the teacher was going over them in class, I was not paying attention. Why was I not paying attention? Because I was busy looking at my text messages. Why were you looking at texts instead of paying attention? Because I get easily distracted. Why do you let yourself get distracted? I don’t know. I guess putting my phone away will help me resist the temptation to be distracted, and since I will be more focused, I will pay more attention to the teacher. I might even take notes next time. Genius! After many years of teaching, few things frustrate me more than when I see students continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. Take some time this summer to reflect on your personal learning process and truly commit to getting to the root cause of why you do the things you do academically. I promise, asking yourself why as often as possible will help you focus on improving, and, as long as you’re honest with yourself, great results will follow. It’s Memorial Day today, a time to remember those who bravely fought and died for our country. While it’s impossible for pop culture to adequately portray the complications of war, the attempt at depicting humanity in its most complicated states is the very purpose of art. Here are some of the all-time best films in demonstrating the difficulty of battle. To celebrate today is not to celebrate war, but the men and women who dedicated their lives to a cause. Sometimes that cause is clearly demarcated and sometimes it becomes clouded and thorny. These films show that while no war is good and heroism can take many forms, it is the people that have been lost along the way that deserve our attention and respect.
Back in January, I was looking for a new method of assessment in my writing courses. I decided to create video reviews for each student essay, rather than handing papers back with comments and red marks. I wanted to devise a way to force students to take a few minutes to hear to my voice, carefully listen as I explain my comments, and hopefully implement my advice on future work.
Too often, students simply look at the grade on the back page and never pay attention to what the teacher has offered. The videos seemed to help with that problem. The feedback I got at the end of the semester was quite positive, as students appreciated the more personal connection of the videos and understood my evaluation much more clearly than trying to decipher my scribbles in the margins. Each video ended up being between five and ten minutes in length, depending on how much critique was required, so it didn't take much extra work on my part. I simply used Screencast-o-matic and highlighted areas on my screen while narrating and recording. The videos were easy to save and upload and email back to students through Google Drive. If anyone is seeking a way to improve communication in assessing student work, I highly recommend the video route. Get rid of the red pen and the paper stacks for a semester, and see what you think. In last Wednesday’s post, I mentioned the news report of a professor who resigned over her beliefs regarding treatment of fellow employees. As a follow-up, I wanted to give a piece of advice for those students out there finishing up research papers or getting into arguments in places besides the classroom.
This is something I tell my classes when investigating issues: when someone adamantly claims something is a financial issue, it is more than likely an issue about beliefs instead. It is up to us as good thinkers and good researchers to discover what beliefs are driving those finances. For example, those who abhor taxation are probably not greedy misers who hate public spending. It’s not about the benjamins. Rather, they have a firm belief that confiscation of property is wrong, whether it is done by a burglar or a well-intentioned government. Arguing about the dollars and cents won’t go anywhere; argue the beliefs instead. In the case of Yeshiva University, it appears that they believe in temporary teaching and inadequate instruction for their students. The decisions in how money is spent seem to reflect that belief. It’s an easy test anyone can do. I’ll show you: I don’t believe in smoking, so I devote zero resources to it. I greatly believe in eating chocolate donuts, so I devote lots of resources to their purchase. Look at a person’s credit card statement, or a university’s budget, and you will quickly see where beliefs lie. In an example similar to the incident at Yeshiva, let me offer a quick anecdote. I recently met two gentlemen at a dinner party who are in charge of a business. Their main frustration with their company right now is that they just don’t have the resources to expand—to hire great employees and grow a larger customer base. To make matters worse, not only are they unable to grow, they are actually dangerously close to going out of business. Walking this tenuous line has caused them great stress, as one could imagine. However, I came to discover, these two leaders of the company earn over $400,000 per year in combined salary. Now, this is not to say that they don’t deserve that level of income—I’m all for people grabbing as much as they possibly can. On the other hand, it seems rather contradictory to claim a dearth of resources when an abundance of assets are devoted to just two people’s salaries. If these men simply reduced their combined income by half, to a total of $200,000, still placing each of them among the wealthiest earners in America, they could hire five excellent employees at $40,000 and stimulate the business to grow exponentially. Last I heard, they haven’t adjusted their salaries. This is a case of blaming finances when beliefs are the real culprit. These men are not devoid of resources. They believe they are worth that much money. And they may be! However, such men cannot simultaneously plead paucity. These men have devoted resources according to their strongest beliefs—that they deserve the most money—even though they are potentially placing direct harm upon their own company. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this as long as they are honest with themselves and those around them. But then they should not go around telling everyone how empty their pockets are and how the business can’t thrive. Clearly this is a situation in which beliefs are not aligning with company goals. So let’s bring this back to academia. Yeshiva University, and hundreds of other colleges just like them, could very well make ends meet in a more efficient way. Teachers could take on larger teaching loads. Classes could get slightly larger to reduce facility strains. Administrators could take pay cuts, or better yet, administrative positions could be eliminated. (Now I’m really dreaming!) If schools truly believed in helping students reduce their tuition and improving their academic environment by hiring more qualified faculty, they could do it tomorrow. But they won’t. They will talk instead about financial constraints or lack of subsidy. And they will ignore their misplaced beliefs. That’s the lesson for you students out there: when someone talks a lot about money, ask what their beliefs are and see if they line up. If they aren’t putting their money where their mouth is, you may want to walk away. It’s not about money. It’s about doing what you believe. What university out there will be the first to publicly take such a stand and lead the way to a new academic model? I originally had no desire to see a new Mad Max chapter (released this weekend), and I was only curious about seeing this film because of my affinity for Tom Hardy’s consistently excellent broodiness and Charlize Theron’s, well, Charlizeness. And I can certainly say I wasn’t disappointed. Mad Max: Fury Road is an adrenaline-infused tale of chaos and car wrecks amid a post-apocalyptic Western backdrop. It is an assault on the senses and an orgy of wild action sequences, outlandish characters, and brutal violence. If you can resist the motion sickness elicited from the swooping camerawork and endless quick cuts, you are in for a ride unlike any other.
Those meeting Max for the first time here will likely struggle with understanding his backstory or how all of this came to be. Director George Miller, the creator of the original films decades ago, banks that it won’t matter. The narrative—along with the history of the resource wars and the murder of Max’s family—is secondary to the constant bombardment of grandiose stunts. Cacophonous chase scenes are the staple of the Mad Max franchise, showing the audience that bad guys hunting somewhat okay guys is all the story you really need. In this installment, Max is arguably not even the main character as Theron’s Furiosa leads the way with her rescue of five women—breeding wives—from the evil clutches of a despotic cult leader. Her War Rig, a gasoline tanker, is the ultimate battle machine and is put to the most vicious of tests against multiple terrorizing gangs as she and Max, and their precious cargo, are endlessly on the run across an unnamed and desolate landscape. Describing much more of the plot won’t much assist in your understanding of this world, but the third act is kicked off by an interesting turn in which Furiosa, in an attempt to return to her former home, is met by a band of women who are the rugged survivors of a “Green Place,” long since gone. The women join the War Rig in one last trek back to where the story began in an attempt to defeat the tyrant leader and liberate the enslaved people and unleash a hoarded water supply. These strong women lend qualities not often seen in film—skilled, violent, and defiant in the coolest way possible—as they are the warriors we ultimately root for. There are elements here of Waterworld, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Book of Eli, The Road, and many standard end-of-the-world motifs we’ve seen in recent years. But the execution in Fury Road is excellent, and each intricately orchestrated action piece is effectively distinct. The film seems very aware of its excess and seems to wink at the audience in its violence. Never telling the audience why the world is as it is, Fury Road is a film that doesn’t make much sense if you aren’t familiar with the franchise. Yet, it knows it doesn’t have to as its campy quality creates a weird watchability. And its action is some of the best you will see during this or any year. The film looks fantastic on the screen. Its feminist angle is unique and fun. And you can’t help but get swept up in the fast pace and overall badassery of its protagonists. Watch this film without thinking too hard and you’ll have a great time. Grade: B+ A surprising incident took place at Yeshiva University in New York recently, in which professor Gillian Steinberg resigned from her position in the English and writing department as a form of protest of how other faculty are treated on her campus and elsewhere. After years of trying to assist fellow teachers in obtaining full-time work in the face of an administration that limits hiring and predominantly relies on less-than-effective part-time employees, she has finally given up the fight. Upon her exit, she stated, "I hope that it might effect some positive change as my colleagues at other institutions see, first, that resignation as protest is a real possibility and, second, that we can stand in solidarity across our profession to draw attention to the issues that plague academia, and especially writing programs, today."
I often feel about activist teachers the way I feel about Hollywood elites. Like George Clooney decrying the wealth gap from his mansion in Italy or Leonardo DiCaprio lecturing the world on global warming while zooming around the planet on private jets, most professors feel empowered to voice a position without actually doing anything about it personally. Take a pay cut, George, and close the gap by paying everyone else who works on your film just as much as you earn. Take a break from the yachts and jets, Leo, and worry about your own carbon footprint first. If you really believe what you say, then make the change yourself. But that never happens. And teachers are much the same way, believing they are bravely out on a limb when they’re actually firmly clinging to the trunk. Tenured and financially secure professors say they oppose the use of adjunct faculty, but they never feel strongly enough about it to instigate real change. It’s easy to pay lip service without offering any real sacrifice. It’s easy to sound strong from a place of security. The case at Yeshiva is truly unique. This English professor’s gesture is unlikely to induce any real results, but I respect the commitment to her belief. "Cutting my ties fully is the right ethical stand to take," she said. I’m not one for activism—after all, we put ourselves into this mess—but I am one for guts. And Ms. Steinberg’s got them. An exciting event is likely to occur tonight in the world of art. As The Telegraph reports, a Picasso painting, “Les Femmes d’Alger,” is predicted to set a new auction record by selling for over $142 million at Christie’s New York this evening. While a few insanely rich people haggle over a picture, the rest of us might be thinking that there is no way some weird circles and squares on canvas can be worth such a price. But most people forget about the power of subjective value, the driver of all economic exchange.
Each person determines value based on one’s own inclination toward utility (satisfaction or happiness), thus leading to prices that signify willingness to purchase. It’s the reason some people buy expensive smartphones or pricey wine, while others only by brand name groceries or thrift store clothing. And, regardless of personal wealth, people switch back and forth among these categories depending upon their individual predilections. There are lots of wealthy people who drive inexpensive cars and don’t care for fancy footwear, just as there are plenty of poorer people who drive Audis and wear Air Jordans. Some people believe that a strange painting is worth millions, and others wouldn’t hang it in their house if it were $20 at a garage sale. Everyone’s value is subjective. This is one of the defining principles (among about a hundred) why Marxism and Keynesianism can never work. It’s impossible to organize the personal preferences of seven billion people. Even Picasso didn’t quite grasp subjectivity. There’s an old story about Picasso that has lived on over time in a few different versions. In one, Picasso is at a cafe, chilling with his buds, when someone points to his used napkin and asks, “Can you draw an ear on this napkin?” Picasso complies. “Can you draw an eye somewhere on this napkin?” Picasso complies again. “How about a mouth?” Picasso obliges, again. “Now sign the napkin for me.” Picasso says, “Sure. That’ll be $25,000.” “$25,000? But, it only took you two minutes to draw them!” complains the fella. “Yes, but it took me 25 years for my signature to be worth something,” replies Picasso. In another variation, Picasso is having a drink in a bar in Paris. He is recognized by an admirer who asks the great man if he would do a quick sketch for her on a napkin. Picasso complies, hands over the drawing and asks for a considerable amount of money in exchange. The lady is horrified. “But that only took you five minutes,” she exclaims. Picasso leans over and in a heavy Spanish accent says, “No, dear lady. It took me forty years.” Urban Dictionary even has an official entry for the legend: Picasso's Napkin. “This is when something of little inherent worth or value, that took little time, effort, or talent to make, and that most likely could be made by just about anyone, is produced, and yet is over-esteemed as a great work of art or over-valued at a high price simply because of a name attached to the work or the name of a person who produced it.” In both versions, Picasso believes he has earned the right to sell his work, even his slapdash work, for a lofty sum based on who he is and his years of effort and skill. And he may be right, to a certain extent. After all, it’s why a 40-year-old can walk into a job interview and request a higher starting salary than a 20-year-old. Some may say he is just being greedy. And he may be, to a certain extent. However, there is no mathematical formula that determines what something is worth. Picasso’s napkin drawing is not worth thousands because he says so. It’s only worth thousands if the customer says so. Because if the buyer turns it down, the drawing is worthless—it will be thrown in the trash when the waiter comes by. The customer has all the power. This is true in business, as much as it is in art. Businesses are not evil, as many choose to believe. They simply offer something they think we want, and it’s up to us to buy it, depending on our subjective value and determination of utility. If we don’t, the business must either lower the price to align with our subjective value, seek a different customer who is willing to buy, or devise alternative products. Similarly, Picasso’s painting tonight is only worth millions if someone is willing to pay millions. Otherwise, the price will come down to a more appropriate level, or if no one is interested (just as I would never be), it will go back into a warehouse somewhere. These are the real world lessons we can take from examining art, film, literature, or anything that has been created. The next time you complain about prices of a product, remember that the price has only been set because someone out there is willing to pay it. And you have the power to shop elsewhere. In this case, I know I would. Picasso is just too weird for me. UPDATE: Picasso's painting ended up selling for a whopping $179.4 million last night, a new record. I haven’t been to the movies in months, and that bothers me. There just hasn’t been anything that I’ve wanted to spend money on, which is why I haven’t added a new movie review in a long time and my month-end lists are filled with flicks I’ve already seen before. Perhaps I’m too picky in what genres and stories I like. Perhaps my standards are too high. Unfortunately, spring is usually the dead zone on the calendar for releasing interesting films. Fall and winter have their award bait and summer has its blockbusters. Spring sucks. So will the approaching summer cure my movie withdrawal woes? I’m not betting on it. I refuse to see the recently released Avengers installment, and many other films set to arrive in the coming months all seem to be following a similar style about which I cannot bring myself to care. This is not new; it has been going on for some time. And I don’t believe there is an end in sight. To demonstrate how nearly all big releases are really just the same movie, the latest video from the smart guys over at RedLetterMedia—their brilliant trailer of all trailers—effectively demonstrates how Hollywood regurgitates the same motion sickness-inducing camerawork, heavy-handed background sounds, ridiculous action sequences, and cartoonish characters. And audience’s keep falling for them. The end of 2014 was one of the best periods of film in a number of years. Someone out there, please make more of those kinds of movies, I beg you. Or, if you insist on making Fast and Furious: The Elderly Years, or Iron Man 7: Yes, RDJ is Still Snarky, or The Avengers: Age of Some Other Made Up Word, at least make a more interesting trailer. As the end of the semester draws near, many students may be wondering if they can receive extra credit points, hoping to nudge them a little closer to that higher GPA or catapult them across the ominous line between passing and failing. For my many years of teaching, my policy has always been that I don’t allow extra credit. Waiting until the final week of class to suddenly begin caring about their grade doesn’t elicit much sympathy from me. I expect students to get it right the first time.
The Chronicle of Higher Education offered some commentary on this issue a few days ago. There are tips here for students thinking about asking their professors for a few more points, as well as tips for teachers on how to handle that intrepid request in their own classrooms. One teacher’s humorous analogy of frantically trying to floss before a dental exam is spot on. Take a look at the article, and let me know your policy. A hundred extra credit points for the most desperate student story! It’s a new month and that means a new homepage quote. This one comes from the great transcendentalist intellectual and author Ralph Waldo Emerson. It’s strange that when we meet a bright person we never wonder, “I wonder what video games he’s been playing recently.” Or, “I wonder what reality shows she is into right now.” Somehow, books provide a different signal of smarts. Literacy inspires a respect that can be difficult to duplicate.
Whenever I meet someone smart or have long and interesting conversations with friends I respect, I always want to know what they have been reading lately. I want to learn, to be exposed to something new, to simply see what is out there that I have missed. And I am always happy when they are eager to share. It always makes me feel good when people ask me what books I am reading, or what books I recommend they read. This doesn’t give me a sense of arrogance or intellectual superiority; rather, it demonstrates two things: 1) those people respect me well enough to trust that I will describe or offer something worthwhile, enlightening, or otherwise interesting; 2) they are mature enough in their own intellectual curiosity to seek out someone’s advice about books. And I never get tired of those two things. Remember, you are never too old or too young to be a recommender or a seeker of good books. Strive to be someone of “rare intellect,” and be sure to ask for and offer a good book this month! It’s the end of the month again, and that means another Soderbergh Challenge update. As always, the (r) indicates those sources that I'd seen/read previous times, and of course, there were a few books that I started but just couldn't finish that are not listed here. Here are April's books and films:
4/1 A Literary Education by Joseph Epstein 4/2 Glengarry Glen Ross (r) 4/3 The Imitation Game (r) 4/4 Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Economics I Learned from Online Dating by Paul Oyer 4/7 Don’t Put Me In, Coach by Mark Titus 4/8 Alien (r) 4/9 Aliens (r) 4/10 We’re the Millers (r) 4/11 The Last Great Game by Gene Wojciechowski 4/12 HBO’s Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief 4/13 Eating the Dinosaur by Chuck Klosterman 4/14 Begin Again 4/15 The Babadook 4/16 The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein 4/17 Hannah and Her Sisters 4/18 Trading Places (r) 4/19 Old School (r) 4/20 Dog Day Afternoon (r) 4/21 Three Days of the Condor 4/22 The Wisdom of Harvey Penick with Bud Shrake 4/23 Nightcrawler (r) 4/26 Rounders (r) 4/27 Satin Island by Tom McCarthy 4/29 PBS’s Last Days in Vietnam Let me know how your list is developing this year! |
AuthorDr. Spivey is a college English professor and lives in Scottsdale, Arizona. Archives
October 2017
Movie Reviews |