Belly Up to the Bar Boys

I’m taking an on-line course on World Cinema through a very pandemic start-up called BuzzClub where we watch a movie before “class” and then discuss it in a Zoom session. Right up my alley. Recently we watched and the discussed the Danish movie, Another Round, starring Mads Mikkelson, which won the 2020 Oscar for Best International Feature Film. I recommend it. It has great characters, an interesting story line, and is both funny and poignant. It also made me think, and what better can you say about a movie. 

The story centers on four high school teachers who are, to put it mildly, in a rut. They decide to try an experiment based on a theory by a Norwegian psychiatrist, Finn Skårderud, maintaining that a steady level of alcohol in your system (about two glasses of wine’s worth) brings people up to optimum performance, maximizing personal and professional happiness. Initially things work out pretty well, though, not surprisingly, it’s not that simple. 

This film made me think about my lifelong relationship with potent potables. My parents did not drink, and were adamant about the hazards of liquor. Which meant, of course, that as soon as I got out of the house (and a bit before as well) I began indulging. Like most young, stupid kids (that’s redundant, isn’t it?), I overindulged a bit too often, and pretty much kept that up until I got married and had children. Now I’m a comparative teetotaler.  

I am fully aware of the dangers of firewater, and the devastation that it can leave in its wake. Yet, I’d be a liar if I said that I regret all that drinking. It was, and still is to a lesser extent, a way to ease social anxiety, bond quickly with new people and take chances that I might otherwise have backed away from. Many close friendships were forged over a beer, or two, etc., etc. Many memorable conversations were interrupted only by another shot of tequila.  

In a recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal referenced by Phil Donahue in our class (no, not that Phil Donahue) Edward Slingerland, a Canadian Professor of Philosophy, opines that the desire to consume spirits is part of our evolutionary journey. [I can’t avoid noting the great names I encountered writing this post. Mads Mikkelson. Finn Skårderud. Edward Slingerland. They remind me of the great Eddie Izzard routine where he ponders the meeting where singer Jerry Dorsey, soon to be Engelbert Humperdinck, brainstorms stage names with his handlers, coming up with suggestions like “Zingelbert Bembledack, Tringelbert Wangledack, Slut Bunwalla, Klingybun Fistelvase, Dindlebert Zindledack, Jerry Dorsey, Zengelbert Bingledack, Engelbert Humperdinck, Vingelbert Wingledanck.”] 

 Anyway, Slingerland’s theory is that since hooch has so many potentially negative consequences, there must be some compensatory evolutionary benefit that makes it so pervasive in human history. He believes that it is alcohol’s enhancement of certain qualities, including those noted above – artistic inspiration, deepened ability to build trust, the willingness to think outside the box – that led us to, almost universally across societies, develop drinking as a social norm. In other words, according to Slingerland, these positive byproducts of booze have been central to the development of civilization.  

This is an interesting and unique way to look at the urge to indulge. Maybe drinking is not just a brainless excuse to get out of the humdrum of everyday life, but is also a way to assure that as a species we build alliances we may otherwise have strayed away from, create art that might not have penetrated our thick skulls and take unpredictable chances with significant payoff. It kind of makes imbibing the noble endeavor we wish it was. 

That being said, there is a reason why drinking is sometimes referred to as getting stupid. Maybe some moderate consumption enhances certain admirable traits, but anyone who has descended that path knows that before too long alliances that look good can take you down some dark alleys, that creativity becomes sloppy and chaotic, and that there is a thin line between a foolish gamble and a downright boneheaded one. As a wise man once said “Responsible Drinking? Now that’s an Oxymoron”. 

General theories, like those of Skårderud and Slingerland, can be very helpful to view the world on a macro level, but they are pretty much useless on an individual basis. Even if Skårderud is right and a consistently low level of alcohol in the system does enhance certain constructive traits (And I do question this. I know that when I did indulge in a drink at lunch all it ever enhanced was my desire to take a nap at my desk), few of us have the self-control to maintain that kind of discipline.  

In the same way, even if, as Slingerland argues, we owe some of history’s innovations to a bunch of bombed Babylonians, heavy drinking hardly seems a recipe for the technological and system recasting that we need to survive in an ever more complex and challenged world. I’ve had too many drinks with too many people to put my trust in some engineer who is mapping out the software systems for a Mars launch between shots of bourbon.  

I am certainly not going to end this by hypocritically setting out the dangers of drinking. My standing to do that sailed on the Good Ship Guiness long ago. Plus, I never met anyone who wasn’t aware of the problems over-consumption could bring, even if they were on their fourth or fifth gin and tonic. Drinking is not going anywhere. Whether through evolution or not, it is part of who we are, for better or worse. So, enjoy Another Round, with a libation at your elbow if you like, and maybe ponder the above drinking theories. Just don’t take them too seriously.   

Yes, Virginia, there is an ALF

How did this get by me? How did I miss what may be the biggest news story of 2021? How did I fail to note confirmation of the massive conspiracy that has been going on since at least the 1950’s? Why wasn’t every paper and website in the country leading with the issuance of the Defense Department Report on UFO’s? Why wasn’t every other Facebook post showing the Naval footage of unexplained flying objects? Does the cover-up go that deep? 

It could be that the Report was a bust. Yes, the Report confirms that there have been more than 120 incidents over the past two decades of soaring aircraft sightings that did not originate from any American military or other U.S. government technology. The Report also dismisses the notion that these sightings were weather or research balloons. It would go no further.  

The bottom line is that government refused to say whether the unexplained phenomena were extra-terrestrial. They did not dismiss the possibility that we have been visited by alien spacecraft, but speculate that perhaps instead these indeterminable flying machines were experimental technology from a rival power, like China or Russia. Hardly satisfying. 

There are one of two conclusions we can glean from this Report. We can take the government at its word, accept that there are things swooping around in our skies that we can’t explain, and wait for further information. Or, (cue X-Files’ theme), we can see this as further evidence of the decade-long efforts to hide from the American people that aliens do exist, that they are visiting our planet, and that it’s only a matter of time before we will have to confront them, one way or the other. In other words, do we take the boring measured approach or indulge in incredibly enjoyable speculation without any firm facts to back us up? I think the question answers itself.    

I am generally not a fan of government conspiracy theories. They tend to be so elaborate and far reaching that they, by their very nature, have to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people. These theories assume that those in charge are able to direct their followers, keep secret their manipulations and muzzle any leaks that may occur. That is certainly not the government I know.  

Those who propound these theories are generally the same people who want us to believe that our government is wholly incompetent, arguing against any Washington run program as a waste of money. Yet these same bureaucratic buffoons are apparently able to pull off incredibly complex, wide-ranging schemes, that extend across years, and sometimes decades. If I truly believed that our leaders were capable of that kind of planning and execution, I would feel better about the future of our country than I do. 

We also know that whenever our government has tried to keep uncomfortable truths from the public the truth has eventually emerged. Our biggest “secret project” was development of the atom bomb. We even exiled key scientists to the middle of nowhere to protect the A-Bomb discoveries. And yet, the results were leaked almost immediately. We know about the clandestine CIA experiments with LSD. We know about the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. We know about the illegal sale of arms to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan contras. We know about the FBI’s Cointelpro program (though Hoover kept that hidden for quite some time). We know about the government’s massive collection of personal data. Let’s face it. Our government cannot keep a secret if its (or our) lives depended on it. 

Does that mean that UFOs are a sham? Absolutely not. Something is flying around in our airspace, and has been for some time. I find it hard to believe that both the Russians and the Chinese are so far ahead us in military technology that they have developed these supersonic aircraft without our knowledge. Heck, China can’t even run a marathon without killing a bunch of people. If we eliminate secret US weapons development, there are not a whole lot of other explanations. 

But if that’s true, what the heck are these aliens waiting for? Why not just come down and say howdy? If some species has the capability of flying massive distances through space, they certainly can quicky determine that we are no threat to them. Or is it just a matter of a more advanced species studying primitive beings for scientific knowledge, and having no incentive to actually interact with them? The way we might study nematodes.  

Frankly, I have no good explanation for these phenomena, and that is the frustration. I believe that there have been unexplained sightings, but every scenario I consider to make sense of what is being seen seems outlandish. It just appears to be a big game of hide and seek where someone’s found the ultimate hiding spot – in plain view (the letters of transit are in Sam’s piano). 

So, as unsatisfying as it is, I have to go back and accept our government at its word (a shocking thought). They have no idea what is going on, as much as we have no idea what is going on. Until more information is available all speculation, while enjoyable, is futile. As the wisest alien I have ever known, Mr. Spock, said, “Insufficient facts always invite danger.”  Klaatu Barada Nikto.     

                 

Roll ‘Em

I did it. For the first time since seeing Charlie Chaplin’s City Lights on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at the Ambler Theater, I went into a movie house to see a film. Appropriately, it was a classic, the 1940 screwball comedy, His Girl Friday, with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. Also, appropriately, I saw it at the HiWay Theater, a Main Street independent movie house in the grand tradition of old time Hollywood.  

The movie did not disappoint, even though I had seen it countless times. The fast-paced dialogue. The spot-on performances by the stars. The great character actors filling out the supporting roles. I knew what was coming and I still laughed out loud. Even though there were very few people in the theater (basically the five of us who went together, and one other couple) it was still wonderful to be sitting in the dark, laughing with those around me. 

Someone asked me if I had ever seen this movie in a theater before, and it really sent me on a nostalgic trip of the venues that I have loved. It’s unlikely I ever saw it in a theater while growing up in Bethlehem. There were no theaters there that showed old movies that I knew of, though I do remember going to a Marx Brothers double feature at a local multi-plex (At the Circus and A Night at the Opera) where I literally (and I do mean literally) fell out of my seat I was laughing so hard (the stateroom scene). 

Maybe it was at the theater in the student union at the University of South Carolina. They showed a different movie every night, either a foreign art film (that was where I discovered Bergman and Truffaut) or old Hollywood. Weekends were recently released films for $1.00. I certainly saw enough movies there, especially during my first two years when I lived in the dorms. I know that is where I first saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail (the second time I literally fell out of my seat with laughter) and Rocky Horror Picture Show (before we started throwing things at the screen). 

Or could it have been the Pittsburgh Playhouse, which was two blocks from where I lived my first year of Law School? This is something they definitely would have shown. It was where I saw Casablanca, and A Clockwork Orange (Singing in the Rain has never been the same). A couple years ago, I snuck into the Playhouse building, which was being used by the University for film studies. It looked totally different, but I was still so glad to visit it once again. I read that since then they tore it down (Noooooo!!!!!)

There is no doubt that His Girl Friday would have been part of a double-feature at the TLA on South Street when I first moved to Philly (now its just music). Probably paired with screwball comedies like Bringing up Baby or My Man Godfrey. I would have been sitting towards the front on the left-hand side. I’ve been back for concerts at the TLA since, and by instinct gravitate to that spot. 

If I hadn’t seen it at any of those theaters, I would have probably seen it as part of the Summer Nights series at the Ambler Theater once I moved out to the burbs. That series was big on James Bond films, and I know I saw the Godfather there, but there was plenty of old Tinsel Town masterpieces as well. I loved going there with my kids to see these films.

What does it say about me that some of the places I remember best in every city I lived are movie houses? They’re all of a style. Small, independent, willing to go beyond the most recent blockbuster. I can still feel the sensation of walking into these venues and seeing the big screen waiting to be lit up. Sinking into a well-worn seat and anxiously anticipating the dimming of the lights. There is nothing like it. 

I was once accused of never having seen a movie I didn’t like. With very few exceptions (don’t get me started on Happy Feet or No Country for Old Men) I stand guilty as charged!!!!!  

Through a Crystal Ball, Darkly

Have you always wanted an ocean view? If so, Psychic Nikki has good news for you. By the end of 2021 cities will begin to form underwater. You can indulge your love of the sea to the fullest extent possible. Of course, this does put an entire new level of peril to the phrase, “We sprung a leak.” 

Underwater cities may be our only refuge in light of Nikki’s prediction that penguins will be invading a metropolis near you. If underwater living doesn’t excite you, and you aren’t thrilled at having penguins for neighbors (and who is), you could sign up for the inevitable expedition to track the giant gorilla that will be found on a remote island sometime this year. Though I would caution you, such expeditions have not always worked out so well. 

Looking at psychic predictions for the year ahead is one life’s great guilty pleasures. Publication of the annual prediction issue of the Weekly World News creates one of the few times that I don’t mind standing in line at the grocery store, though I do get some odd looks when I keep letting people go ahead of me. After all, who can resist knowing what Bat Boy has planned next. (To my conservative friends, no, Joe Biden is not Bat Boy).  

 There have been other recent, more serious predictions, for the years ahead. According to a recent New York Times article world demographers are predicting that the global population is expected to reach its peak by mid-Century, and then decline precipitously from there. China’s population is slated to fall from its current 1.4 billion to 730 million by 2100. The vast majority of countries will have fertility rates below replacement level by that time, including the good ole U.S of A.  

For those of us who grew up in the wake of the Population Bomb this is a real shocker. Through the 1970’s and 1980’s the prediction was that the global population would continue to grow exponentially until we found ourselves in a Malthusian nightmare where resources were scarce, leading to a Darwinian struggle for existence. (Sorry, I just couldn’t resist using some of the academic speak of the time). Since the global population increased from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000 this seemed not only possible, but inevitable. 

If the decline in population comes to pass, it will not necessarily be good or bad, it will just mean that there will be significant changes in how we live. Countries will have to allocate their resources to account for an older mean population (mean, as in as in average, not temperament, though we know how cantankerous old people can be). People may have to work longer (heaven forbid!!). However, there could be less strain on the environment and natural resources (though let’s not forget we will still be the same voracious species we have always been).   

The seeming fact that the prior predictions about population are not playing out as expected does not mean that those predications were frivolous. They were soundly based on realities at the time, but did not, and could not, take into account subsequent shifts in societal norms, such as the significantly higher number of women in the workforce, and the increase in the cost of living, both of which have acted to reduce the number of children being born. The prognosticators also could not foresee China’s one child policy, and its far-reaching impact.  

We also should not discount the influence such predictions had on the world’s view of population, regardless of whether they were ultimately accurate. Such concerns may have driven misguided policies, such as China’s, but they also made us ask hard questions about resource use and allocation. They sparked a critical examination of how humans are tied closely to the well-bring of the planet, which dovetailed into a broader environmental movement, and today’s concerns about climate change.   

The difficulty in predicting exactly how issues like population and climate change will play out over decades has led many to wholly dismiss these concerns as chimerical. I have seen a number of recent articles scoffing at predictions made around the first Earth Day in 1970, many of which were apocalyptic and contradictory, as a means of dismissing the concerns of climate scientists today. But that is missing the point. 

There is a general consensus, at least within the scientific community, that there has been a significant shift in the earth’s atmosphere, with the vast majority of scientists believing the shift has been caused by the activities of mankind. There is also a general consensus that this shift could result in extremely serious consequences over the next 50 years if it is not slowed down significantly or reversed. However, scientists differ as to the exact nature of those consequences, opening the door to those who want to scoff at these predictions, and thereby dismiss the problem. 

The truth of the matter is that most of the scientists’ predictions will probably not come true as stated. I don’t mean to get all Professor Malcolm on you (or Werner Heisenberg if you prefer), but there are just too many variables and unknowns to accurately predict exactly what will happen a year from now, let alone 50 years from now (unless, of course, you are the reincarnation of Nostradamus).  

Even if we accept that the current estimates of future harm are likely to change, it would be ludicrous to ignore the scientists’ warnings. The predictions are based on what is happening to the Earth today. The planet is warming. The ice caps are melting. The makeup of the atmosphere is changing, and not for the better. And while the planet has had similar climactic shifts before, they have never occurred in as short a time span. These are facts, and they must be dealt with. 

So, while we are contemplating the coming fire that will destroy Graceland, or wondering which movie star will be eaten by a crocodile (my money is on Shia LaBeouf), let’s not conflate scientific predictions with psychic prognostications. The hit rate may be similar (after all, Psychic Nikki was right in predicting that there would be flooding in Venice in 2020), but the basis of the predictions, and the consequences for ignoring them could not be more different.