Print Story 2008.01.28: There's no need to lie.
Diary
By BlueOregon (Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:30:51 PM EST) (all tags)

It's like poker. The truth is best. The others still think you're bluffing, so you win.

PF: What is your greatest ambition in life?
Pa: To become immortal... and then die.

Inside: reading, watching, and listening.



I

Ah, "this day in German culture," if you can call it that ...

I love math; I miss math. That makes math sound like meth, an addiction, or obsession. Snorting, shooting, swallowing math—your daily dose of geometry, your algebra fix, a number theory flashback.

That reminds me that I owe that such-and-such firm a firm reply, a polite thanks but no thanks; they managed to spam as many Budapest math program folks as possible, including my old roommate, who likewise provided them with a polite but perhaps more direct response, for when he sees, feels, or thinks something he is not wont to couch it in veiled terms. So he told them what was wrong with their strategy and what they should do to improve their recruitment returns.

As for today and math, January 28th is the birthday (1540–1610) of Ludolph van Ceulen, born in Hildesheim (in Lower Saxony). He later moved to the Netherlands and ended up in Leiden, where van Ceulen taught fencing and mathematics. Ah, the merging of two great loves.

By the end of his life he calculated π to 35 digits by hand (using polygons with 262 sides); and in some circles π was (and occasionally is) known as the "Ludolphine number."

See also:

  • An old and expensive book (Fundamemta arithmetica et geometrica cum eorum usu. In varii problematis, geometricis, partim solo linearum, ductu, partim per numeros irrationales, & tabulas sinuum, & algebram solutis. Authore Ludolpho A Ceulen Hildesheimensis & vernaculo in latinum translata a Wil. Sn. R.F.)—EUR 5,500.00
  • What is Algorithmic Number Theory?: "Why were we celebrating Van Ceulen and his pi computation now, and at a number theory conference? For one thing, pi computation is surprisingly close to algorithmic number theory."

II

At home Johnny Cash plays; at work Beethoven's piano sonatas. Regarding the former I've got three and a half (of about 12?) hours to go, but that mass of songs will have to wait. As for the latter, I just pick and choose when I'm in the office and need something to help me work.

Days Without:

  • Alcohol: 28
  • Ice Cream: 28
  • Finishing a book: 0
  • Finishing a comic: 0
  • Watching a movie: 0
  • ...?

Get your Free-Dried Yogurt Starter. There's a new yogurt culture—get your probiotic frozen yogurt. We don't have it here in the upper midwest, though several CAia friends seem to find it interesting.

The trailer for the upcoming waste of Al Pacino, 88 Minutes, seems to have decent production values, but I see nothing that differentiates it from any other post-Silence of the Lambs "thriller"—given the rest of its cast, it looks like a high-budget TV episode in terms of plot(ting). I can't say that Romulus, My Father, will be a better movie than 88 Minutes, or even a good movie, but it looks as if it at least uses its cinematography to artistic and story-telling effect. Variety reviewed it such: "Warmly felt but haltingly told meller 'Romulus, My Father' holds the attention with fine perfs and exquisite lensing, but never really grips the imagination." The World Socialist Web Site also gave it a mixed review.

A few other links:

  • Reads Like a Book, Looks Like a Film: "It is also an obvious source of his talent. [Brian Selznick's] obsessions with old French movies, automatons, clockworks and the filmmaker Georges Méliès inspired 'Hugo,' which earlier this month won the Randolph Caldecott Medal for the most distinguished American picture book for children."
  • Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler: We've discussed the topic on this site ad nauseum (eating local, organic, XXX-fed, you name it), and it's a topic that's been discussed in books and such for a couple years now. And now the N.Y. Times talks about it (not as a book review), which reminds me of when years after all my friends were drinking them they decided to "review" lambics, and years after bourbon was no longer a backwoods, overall-wearing second-class (at best) whiskey, they "reviewed" that as well (last November?). My colleague K provided the proper response to their years-after-the-fact "reporting" of such matters for their print audience: "Hello?"
  • Bits & Pieces (old archive page)
  • Back to the N.Y. Times, this time on Ezra Pound (Charles McGrath reviewing A. David Moody's biography): "[Pound] challenged the poet Lascelles Abercrombie to a duel on grounds of 'stupidity' so great it amounted to 'public menace,' and he called The Times of London a 'slut-bellied obstructionist,' a 'fungus' and a 'continuous gangrene.'"

I finally got around to finishing The Black Dossier while consuming my coffee late this afternoon. The 3D glasses rock.

I'm eagerly awaiting Volume III.

Tonight I have Antonioni to watch; the DVDs are due back tomorrow.

III

Last week some time I read Jack Finney's Body Snatchers (1955) after watching 2007's less than inspiring adaptation, The Invasion. There are tales of how the Wachowski brothers and James McTeigue were brought in to do late rewrites and re/new-shooting after the studio was unhappy with Oliver Hirschbiegel's (Der Untergang [Downfall]) version; I can't say whether the "original" version was better or worse than what they released, only that what they released has a so-so script, decent enough performances, and rather bad editing. There are jump-cuts, and then there are sloppy cuts, and this has the latter. The added special/visual effects and car chase crap were unwelcome additions. I like to think there was a darker, moodier, more claustrophobic film hidden away in Hierschbiegel's product or at least his imagination ... but, alas ...

And that's what brought me to Body Snatchers. Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon writes:

The original 1956 "Body Snatchers" served as either a Cold War fable about the evils of communism or a deft condemnation of our sheeplike fear-mongering about the same, depending on your interpretation. Philip Kaufman's 1978 remake was a timely exploration of the post-Watergate and Vietnam generation's collective loss of trust. Abel Ferrara's 1993 reworking of the tale focused on what happens when we put our faith in the military. So now, in an era when the term sleeper cell is the stuff of headline news, what better time to reinvent science fiction's allegorical heavyweight champ?

As the critique continues, it's The Ivasion's failure to be timely that is ... well, it's failure, and there is something in that. The argument goes, each generation gets its generation-specific adaption of Body Snatchers; this parallels, I think quite aptly, the observation that each generation also gets its adaption of I am Legend, and given the similar ages of the stories and how close together the most recent adaptations of each hit theaters this is even more worthy of an essay, one that I surely won't be the one to write.

The version of the book I read was put out by Gregg Press (in the Gregg Press Science Fiction Series), a division of G.K. Hall & Co., in 1976. The run was limited by contract to 400 copies, and I was lucky enough to run across one of them, for this version contains a very nice introduction by Richard Gid Powers (Richmond College, CUNY). Powers rightly points out that the politics of the 1956 movie (and of the later versions) is lacking in the novel, though, Powers continues, Finney's brand of American traditionalism was for quite a while merged in the minds of many and interpreted as anti-communism. There is but one political reference in the novel, early on, when it is mentioned that the county (in California) had gone Republican in the last election, and Eisenhower is mentioned by name. That's it. As a confrontation with modernity, though, the slender volume might be dated but it's still quite interesting.

Better than expected.

< Fisher v Lowe. | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
2008.01.28: There's no need to lie. | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Post-Silence of the Lambs? by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #1 Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:44:06 PM EST
I don't get the 88 Minutes/Silence of the Lambs connection. Explicay cee vooo play.

ah, indeed ... by BlueOregon (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:49:02 AM EST

... it might have been unfair of me to throw it in with other post-SotL "thrillers," unfair to lower those other knock-offs, that is ... for from the few 'reviews' I've read it's not even good enough to be a knock-off, and evidently there are good reasons they've shelved it for a couple years.

Direct to Video Reviews writes: "Brenneman does a decent job and Forsythe is wasted as usual. Alica Witt comes off the worst with some weak line readings and expressions. The plot seems like a fast-paced thrill ride but it's anything but. It picks up towards the end but most of the suspense seems forced and squeezed out." A German review claims this is one of Jon Avnet's lesser films, that the story is well-known and obvious, and that the identity of the 'bad guy' is far to easily deduced (and far too early, at least for narrowing down the perp).

Which does not exactly answer your question. But the point of my statement was not to make an 88 Minutes and SotL comparison or even much of a connection. Only that SotL is the most common yardstick by which thrillers and psychological thrillers are measured (e.g. "Untraceable's cybercrime twist is virtually all that separates it from any number of by-the-book, Silence Of The Lambs-lite thrillers, and not always in a good way." [AV Club] and "It has been 11 years since THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS established the benchmark by which all other psychological thrillers are measured." [bookreporter.com]).

[ Parent ]
re: WSWS by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:06:54 PM EST
I think it's pretty cool that the Socialists have a web site. I'll be losing several productive hours reading that one.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

2008.01.28: There's no need to lie. | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback