Follow-Up to Latour
I had a quick correspondence with my dad about this article, and he made the good point that people refuse to believe facts when it suits them, either emotionally (they cannot deal with the notion that their actions are going to push the world over the brink) or because of economic self-interest of course… As he said, they deny facts selectively. And when there are leaders in charge who do the same, they can get away with it more blatantly and encourage others to do so as they see fit. So, though Latour’s efforts may help, they cannot combat the active denial of scientific methods. As my father put it, in our country the only practical solution is to elect new leaders. So, I guess we’ll see about that in the coming week for midterms…
Latour and the Instability of Science
I don’t have any extended (or meandering) thoughts for today, so instead I wanted to link to a fascinating, in-depth NYT article here - on philosopher Bruno Latour, “the Post-Truth Philosopher.”
It’s a deep dive into the history, personality, and effects of this man who critically examined the ways that scientific processes have evolved, and culture has reacted to that evolution. It seems like, at first, his work helped turn a critical eye on the self-assured higher status of scientists so that they could understand their own shortcomings and the political and social networks that they operate in - same as everyone else. Now it seems he needs to fight a defensive crusade in order to protect the veracity of the findings of scientists, especially climate scientists, against a rising tide of people who believe all science is either wrong or subjective and able to be dismissed. There’s a deeper character story here, I think, but I can’t access it at the moment. At the very least, it’s a fascinating and relevant intellectual recounting that helped me understand, on some level, how society may gotten to the point where large swaths of the population can consciously dismiss facts.
My first video essay - complete!
Hope you enjoy! :)
How Much to Write
Well, tentatively, some great news — I just got a new job! I’ll post more about it when it becomes more official, and after I learn how much of it must be kept under wraps, but it’s a great one to land… big sci-fi, great elements involved, will be a huge learning opportunity. As I record this here, I can’t help but start thinking about my rule for myself: to write one post here a day. To keep the writing muscles from atrophying, to record my thoughts as a useful journal of sorts for later… It will be difficult to do so when this job starts in earnest, no doubt it will be demanding. Will it still be valuable to write a post a day, even when I’m in a room of veteran writers - soaking up their wisdom like a sponge? I think so, it’s a different sort of self-learning, or just a self-awareness - to write out my thoughts once a day. So, I’ll try to keep it going as best I can. For the days I occasionally miss, I will try to make up for in following days. At the very least, I’ll record my observations of the show’s first weeks as we go…
Enjoying Just Getting the Interview
Working in the entertainment industry, no matter who you, affects your philosophy on work alongside your career goals. For me, it’s really changed my outlook from wanting to positively manifest things and working hard towards specific, concrete goals into adopting a more relaxed perspective — appreciating how much is really out of my control while also appreciating the good work I can do within those restraints. Beyond that, I don’t stake all my hopes and expectations on one particular type of goal (I must sell this exact script, I must get this sort of job next) — and now I keep my mind open to all sorts of opportunities. It may “waste” time when I pursue and learn more about jobs that turn out to be not for me, but I’d rather learn more and stress less ultimately. With all that said, I’m realizing that one needs to take time to appreciate the little accomplishments - no matter how abstract. For me, this is that I got myself an interview for a writers’ assistant job. It was on a very high-caliber show with great talent attached on all fronts and a writer I was totally psyched to meet in person in the interview. I may not get the job. That outcome is completely out of my control now. But, I hustled to get my resume to the production company via a connection I worked hard to maintain from many jobs back. And once the resume was in, I quickly (if not frantically) got every good TV connection I had made to put recommendations in. No doubt it was this influx of recs that actually got me in the room for the interview, and that orchestrated effort is worth savoring in hindsight. I hope I get the job, but that’s as far as I’ll let my thoughts wander on that topic — lest it gets obsessive, tiring, and pointless throughout. Better to focus on something new, something I can control and create.
On Rewriting
“You have to look at it as if you’re starting from scratch even if you’re not really doing that. I think when you get notes and stuff like that, and you’re trying to execute notes you have to find something inside the note that appeals to you and changes how you want to make the story to make it more interesting to you and look at it that way.” - Aaron Guzikowski.
A simple and great insight into the step of the process that I personally find the most torturous and generally confounding!
The Devils by Ken Russell
Just watched my second Ken Russell film last night with a bunch of friends — my previous only viewing had been Altered States.
Man, I’m not even sure what to record here. It was a pretty brilliant film. Absolutely bonkers too. The thing that stands out to me the most is the sense of spectacle, how Russell creates spectacle that is totally captivating and horrifying as is the point — the spectacle was created to control the masses in Loudun (the medieval French city where it was set). In sense, the only reason we are allowed to judge the masses in the film is because they make up the greater spectacle to us, the viewer. But really, what’s the difference?
Other observations: the set was absolutely spectacular. Apparently the stage designer spent three months building it and it shows — it’s like a medieval city mixed with some sort of medical/modern/pure aesthetic, clean white bricks — even as the plague ravages the city. The acoustics are notable too.
The acting. Every single actor was phenomenal, but of course Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave, and a previously unknown actor to me - Michael Gothard - were standouts among the already strong crowd. Reed’s sermons were fiercely passionate and his introspective moments hypnotizing. I’ll have to check out more of his filmography, from Women in Love to The Curse of the Wolfman. Gothard, meanwhile, was the ravenous and basically insane Witch-hunter Barre.
Overall, the aesthetic was somewhere between The Seventh Seal and Grindhouse. My only single complaint would be the incredibly jarring editing in the second-ish act, intercutting between the witch-hunting and Grandier’s introspective journey. It was a bit absurd to say the least, but really in a movie where horrid absurdity is the point (for the sake of illuminating the dangers and hypocrisies of religion, society, and passion) it’s quite forgivable.
Finally, the script. Awesome. A mix of almost academic religious dialogue that’s made Shakespearean by Reed, and straight up badass lines like: (right before he’s about to be tortured) “Devils in pieces of wood now, Barre?” or the Baron’s line (by Dudley Sutton) “I also have a maxim, father: give me three lines of a man's handwriting and I will hang him.” or Louis XIII [shooting a prisoner dressed as a bird] “Bye bye, blackbird! or of course the famous line from the Baron to Grandier: “Hell will hold no surprises for you.” A grand indictment on the whole thing — what difference does hell hold from what Grandier (and all of us) has already experienced?
Reflections on Two Versions of an Old Pilot
Alternately titled, “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a KALEIDOSCOPE” (thanks, Wallace).
I recently met with a potential management rep and post-meeting he wanted to read some additional sample of mine. One of which is my old psychedelic noir pilot KALEIDOSCOPE. The real issue is that there was so many damn versions of the thing I can’t figure which one to send him. So, I narrowed it down to two options: the most cable-leaning, surreal, original version vs. the slightly more concrete, network-facing procedural.
Having just re-read (most of) both of them, I was sort of jarred. The original version, the one that I went fully on instinct was, well, rough. It had some of the best visual imaginations I’ve ever come up with, and the plot at its bones was interesting, but it really got clouded by something. Just that visceral experience of starting to get slowed down by the narrative writing style, I don’t know whether it’s because I just knew less about writing or because I was so caught up in my own show’s fantasy. But what’s even stranger is the second version that reads like a Eli Edelson attempt at a 2000s procedural. It doesn’t really sound like me, but it does read better, somehow. It’s a bit of a dilemma, but always use the stronger sample - even if its less representative of me as a whole, it’s still a display of ability. It’s heartening to me, on some level, that no matter the self-branding issues or the output of new ideas, as long as you keep writing you do inherently get better - even if it’s a winding path that produces stories you’re not necessarily in love with. To trudge is to succeed, apparently!
P.G. Wodehouse - continued thoughts
I’m now on to reading my second P.G. Wodehouse novel, The Inimitable Jeeves, though some refer to it as a semi-novel collection of stories. The only issue is that I have no idea where this book stands in the collection of things, or what volume the previous one I read is — Stiff Upper Lip, Jeeves! Though I have to say, it really doesn’t matter in the slightest. These stories (and novels, overall) just pop from thought to though, hilarious predicament to hilarious predicament. And furthermore, some Wodehouse achieves this sense of deep interior narrative into the anti-hero (Bertie)’s totally vacuous and superficial and hilarious perspective. The man is more or less a dolt, though hilariously witty in his doltishness. The reader can appreciate his daft wit while also appreciating his unreliable and unaware narration. It’s really a shock to read at first, how fast you can plow through his experiences while savoring the little moments of insight (or lackthereof). I feel there is a deeper meaning and resonance to Betram Wooster, though I’m not sure what it is yet. Something along the lines of a Taoist ideal, maybe? Nothing changes the man, though he overreacts to obstacles he also understands the way of the world and how little control he has over it. The least he can do is enjoy himself and make observations (and make fun) of it as he’s carried along by the strange currents of the society he finds himself in — all the while saved time and time again by the uber-valet Jeeves.
