Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, October 16, 2017

OTP 16 October 2017: Sorry, Yankee fans: Trump’s claim that he can ensure victory simply isn’t true

As is sometimes the case with Trump’s tweet’s, his claims don’t hold up. We identified 14 games that Trump has attended since 1988, including two preseason games and the game above. Of those 14 games, the Yankees won eight and lost six — 57 percent of the time during seasons when the Yankees won 60 percent of their games overall.

In other words — Trump might be a jinx.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 16, 2017 at 07:49 AM | 1967 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: astros, playoffs, politics, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 19 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 > 
   1801. BDC Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:20 PM (#5559661)
Star Trek VI was another fun suggestion I've seen

Only Nixon can go to China, as the Vulcans say.

Actually one that came up here last week and might still be good for International Relations is Duck Soup. So is Bridge of Spies – both are takes on the intricacies (and/or idiocies) of diplomacy, but diplomacy certainly qualifies as some aspect of International Relations.
   1802. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:20 PM (#5559662)
Could be some concern about revealing sources & methods, but it's from 54 years ago.

It'll professionally embarrass somebody still living. Can't have that.
   1803. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:20 PM (#5559663)
Satan, you italicized trickster of men!
   1804. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:20 PM (#5559664)
CoB, I believe that #1788 stemmed from a rather critical misreading.
   1805. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:21 PM (#5559665)
MIND
   1806. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:22 PM (#5559667)
Fixed. Don't have a cow, man.
   1807. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:25 PM (#5559668)
There was always concern Oswald might be seen as a Russian/Cuban agent. And as always, that certain federal police and spy agencies keeping tabs were asleep at the switch.

We were actively seeking Castro's overthrow/assassination at the time.
   1808. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:26 PM (#5559669)
I sense that during the American revolution SBB was pulling for the English, after all you can support "terrorists" right?


Perhaps at this point, Andy can again cue up the facile meme, "We'll give up our cafe bombs when you give up your bombers" -- and the cockholstering will be complete.
   1809. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:27 PM (#5559670)
Jurassic Park changed the landscape of movie making by almost single-handedly killing off the physical/miniature special effects departments and making computers the centerpiece for movie making.
Once it became important to use computers for creating effects, it also became important to use digital files to record the original images, for the processing power to catch up to the demand, and for space to be available to store all these petabytes of data being generated.

All this demand for graphics processing, bandwidth, storage, and digital film changed how movies are made to this day (and also, with video games, pushed technological advances in all things computers; graphics cards, CPU, storage, broadband, sound).

This goes without mentioning that it was the first big film to make more money outside the US than domestically ($350million inside the US, $575million outside), and THAT changed the world by suddenly opening up the international markets like never before (and thus spreading the American-made films to more people).

   1810. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:28 PM (#5559671)
I don't get FS1, so I can either listen to Sterling and Waldman, or catch Al Gore, An Inconvenient Sequel on CSPAN2.
   1811. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:35 PM (#5559675)
I don't get FS1, so I can either listen to Sterling and Waldman, or catch Al Gore, An Inconvenient Sequel on CSPAN2.


There are alternatives ...
   1812. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:39 PM (#5559677)
One persons "freedom fighter" is another persons "terrorist" sbb, you cant be so myopic and so far gone not to see that calling native Algerians fighting for self determination "terrorists" wont hold true to most people.
   1813. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:47 PM (#5559679)
I think "terrorist" can be and should be a term that is neutral with regard to the motivations of the people in question.
   1814. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:54 PM (#5559682)
Again "terrorist" in this case and most others is a matter of perspective and not remotely "neutral" in this day and age, if it ever was.
   1815. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:54 PM (#5559683)
Attacking random civilians for public effect is properly named terrorism.
   1816. tshipman Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:56 PM (#5559688)
Movies that changed society:

Rashomon
Jaws
Star Wars
Titanic
Blackfish
Supersize Me
The Matrix
Brokeback Mountain
To Kill a Mockingbird
   1817. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:57 PM (#5559690)
If that is the definition "satan" then US drone attacks are "terrorism" as are the actions of the french army in Algeria.
   1818. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:57 PM (#5559691)

There are alternatives ...


Great scene, great movie. Harry Dean soon discovers the bathing Frankie.

Not a bad way to go, as long as somebody finds you before the flies do.
   1819. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:58 PM (#5559692)
Again "terrorist" in this case and most others is a matter of perspective and not remotely "neutral" in this day and age, if it ever was.


Ok, so, stuff is relative. Great. Did SBB use the term incorrectly? Or is the term so malleable as to be useless?
   1820. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:59 PM (#5559694)
US drone attacks are "terrorism"


Do they attack random civilians purposefully, just for effect? I doubt that.

as are the actions of the french army in Algeria


Perhaps, yes. Isn't that sort of complexity one reason the movie is so good?
   1821. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 07:59 PM (#5559695)
If that is the definition "satan" then US drone attacks are "terrorism" as are the actions of the french army in Algeria.

In some instances, yes. But there's a distinction between targeting combatants and random people walking the streets.
   1822. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:01 PM (#5559696)
Blackfish


It was in the news just this month that Seaworld was firing a whole bunch of people due to the precipitous drop in attendance which is attributed, at least partially, to public perception as a result of this documentary. I don't know how you could watch it and enjoy seeing cetaceans in captivity afterwards.
   1823. tshipman Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:06 PM (#5559701)
It was in the news just this month that Seaworld was firing a whole bunch of people due to the precipitous drop in attendance which is attributed, at least partially, to public perception as a result of this documentary. I don't know how you could watch it and enjoy seeing cetaceans in captivity afterwards.


I'm sure Ray will advise.
   1824. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:08 PM (#5559702)
"he controversial U.S. drone strike program in the Middle East aims to pinpoint and kill terrorist leaders, but new documents indicate that a staggering number of these "targeted killings" affect far more people than just their targets.

According to a new report from The Intercept, nearly 90 percent of people killed in recent drone strikes in Afghanistan "were not the intended targets" of the attacks."

Some instances seems to be nearly every instance recorded when it comes to drones.
The French forces engaged in random killings and torture as part of their attempt to defeat the FLN.
Not trying to excuse either side but "terrorist" is just too easy and in this case not appropriate in my mind.
   1825. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:09 PM (#5559703)
Blackfish


It was in the news just this month that Seaworld was firing a whole bunch of people due to the precipitous drop in attendance which is attributed, at least partially, to public perception as a result of this documentary. I don't know how you could watch it and enjoy seeing cetaceans in captivity afterwards.


Here and I thought it was a documentary about the fall of House Tully.
   1826. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:10 PM (#5559704)
"he controversial U.S. drone strike program in the Middle East aims to pinpoint and kill terrorist leaders, but new documents indicate that a staggering number of these "targeted killings" affect far more people than just their targets.


That's called collateral damage. It's a real problem but you're not describing terrorism.
   1827. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:15 PM (#5559706)
I doubt the families involved consider random drone attacks that kill their loved ones "collateral damage" , I am pretty certain they see it correctly as a random act of terror perpetrated on them from an outside hostile force. Semantics may make you feel better about how your government behaves internationally but it does not change what they are actually engaging in.
   1828. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:20 PM (#5559710)
Semantics may make you feel better

Pot kettle.

I'm against the drone program, rendition, torture, and any extra-legal military strikes abroad. But conflating state military action in which civilians are killed with targeting civilians directly numbs conscience and concern for any of them.
   1829. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:21 PM (#5559711)
According to a new report from The Intercept . . .

Really?
   1830. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:24 PM (#5559712)
The reports are available everywhere as more documents become declassified, if this is news to some of you that "surgical" strikes have in fact missed their intended targets several times but killed a few hundred innocent people in the process I do not know what to say, how did this not make mainstream media in the states?
   1831. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:25 PM (#5559714)
Really?

Really. Not a perfect vehicle, but they've done some very good reporting in this instance.
   1832. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:26 PM (#5559715)
State military action is not some moral "get out of jail" free card. you fire imprecise random drones into foreign countries and miss the target entirely but kill a group of civilians who just happen to be in the target zone, does that sound like terrorism? cause it sure looks like terrorism to an outsider.
   1833. Hot Wheeling American Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:26 PM (#5559716)
If you loved The Accountant, perhaps The Snowman will be 2017's reason to not walk out of another movie:
Arguably the most staggeringly incompetent, sloppily produced film I've seen in years, The Snowman wastes so much talent in front of and behind the camera on the cinematic equivalent of a dumpster fire.
   1834. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:27 PM (#5559717)
Waldman gives the scoreboard report just to get the sponsorship plug in.
   1835. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:30 PM (#5559719)
but killed a few hundred innocent people


A "few hundred innocent people"?

We've killed thousands of innocent people in drone strikes ...
   1836. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:32 PM (#5559720)
cinematic equivalent of a dumpster fire.

Those can be entertaining, but not for two hours.
   1837. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:34 PM (#5559726)
Judge showing off his glove again. Helps to be 6'8".
   1838. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:37 PM (#5559729)
cause it sure looks like terrorism to an outsider.


Actually, in a more important sense, it looks like terrorism to an "insider" ... namely, the family, friends, neighbors and relatives of the "collateral damage" we kill.

   1839. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:39 PM (#5559733)
Ray's not interested in animals. I bet he doesn't care about the existence of Sea World.
   1840. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:39 PM (#5559734)
Yes but state sanctioned terrorism is not terrorism cause "reasons"!
   1841. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:45 PM (#5559739)
"District 9" is a VFX trailer reel \wrapped in liberal catnip.

Does anyone else think this? You don't mean the follow-up, right?
   1842. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 21, 2017 at 08:59 PM (#5559750)
To add to 1839, if there were more people who had Ray's level of interest in Seaworld there wouldn't be one, which would be a good thing, unless you'd miss the jobs the place generates.
   1843. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:00 PM (#5559751)
Certainly technically and aesthetically brilliant, but its primary influence lay in the romanticization of terrorists and terrorism -- the intellectual scourge of the era between about 1965-75.
Right; that was before things started improving drastically after 1979.
   1844. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:05 PM (#5559753)
Does anyone else think this? You don't mean the follow-up, right?


No. I mean "District 9".

It's a lazy, intellectually vapid film that I think has lovely special effects and deserves credit for a perfectly planned and executed cynical understanding of Hollywood and the knee-jerk response of American critics.

You need some liberal BLAMMO bacon for your tepid shoot-em up buddy movie (that makes no sense once you think about it) and you're South African???

Try allusions to Apartheid!
   1845. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:06 PM (#5559756)
simon, a conventional military action can look like "terrorism" according to your definition, which is so malleable as to be essentially useless.
   1846. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:08 PM (#5559758)
A really high percentage of commercials these days have interracial couples.
   1847. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:11 PM (#5559762)
Fish I was reacting to some other definition of "terrorism" , the random targeting of civilians one which makes the bombing of dresden and a half dozen Japanese non military cities acts of terrorism. I do not agree with that definition but I do not think any definition works when discussing a battle between indigenous folks trying to fight off their colonial overlords.
   1848. Swoboda is freedom Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:12 PM (#5559763)
I don't think any piece of art can fundamentally change society. Just too high a bar to clear.

I think the show Hamilton did change our perception of Alexander Hamilton though. I wrote a paper on him in college and he was unknown. He would be off the $10 Bill now without the musical.
   1849. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:17 PM (#5559770)
I do not think any definition works when discussing a battle between indigenous folks trying to fight off their colonial overlords.


Why? Because in that case violence against civilians is justified?
   1850. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:21 PM (#5559775)
Is the violence against the inhabitants of Dresden justified? Is the violence against Muslims perpetrated by the french army in Algeria justified? What justification is acceptable and which is not?
My point is it is just too easy and imprecise to call the FLN or the Sandinista's "terrorists" because you either do not like their politics or their religion.
Were the pro Israeli fighters committing an act of terror when they blew up the King David hotel?
   1851. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:26 PM (#5559780)
My point is that I do not want to even open the door to that question. Politics, religion, and virtue should be irrelevant. Terrorism should have an entirely neutral definition. And thus it could be equally applied to the righteous and to the evil.

(Setting aside, for the moment, how righteous you can be if you're targeting civilians)
   1852. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:26 PM (#5559781)
Simon dances around the distinction I drew above.

Is driving a truck over people walking the streets, spraying a restaurant with automatic weapons fire, or bombings a sports stadium or music concert ever justified, Simon?
   1853. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:28 PM (#5559785)
The word by its very definition and use of the root "terror" could not be further from neutral. It is a word that connotes dread and fear and violence.
   1854. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:30 PM (#5559787)
It is a word that connotes dread and fear and violence.

No ####, Sherlock.
   1855. Greg K Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:31 PM (#5559790)
Is driving a truck over people walking the streets, spraying a restaurant with automatic weapons fire, or bombings a sports stadium or music concert ever justified, Simon?

Ask me again after the game tonight.
   1856. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:33 PM (#5559791)
Is firing a drone at a target that you are unsure is correct justified?
Is randomly arresting torturing and killing a math professor justified because the state "believes" he has sympathies to their opponents?
Justification of violence is one thing, random acts of terror are something else, people fighting for their personal freedom a third thing. The issue here is some posters want to tar every freedom fighter they disagree with as a "terrorist", and that is the dance that is being attempted and it fails on every level to be remotely accurate.
   1857. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:33 PM (#5559792)
Black Sunday was great pulp fiction.

Bruce Dern is so darned good as a bad guy. Noiticed The Cowboys is on tbe tube tonight.
   1858. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:38 PM (#5559794)
Simon won't answer the quezyion because he's not against running over kids in cars.

Sam would approve.
   1859. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:39 PM (#5559796)
I answered those questions above. Fotunately, you can dodge a question easier than a mack truck.
   1860. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:42 PM (#5559798)
You did not answer anything troll so give it a rest.
Do I support the terrorism in the UK committed by whack jobs? no I condemn it vehemently as pointless barbarism .
now go bother someone else you add nothing to a real discussion.
   1861. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:46 PM (#5559803)
Post #1828.

And the high horse you rode in on.
   1862. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:51 PM (#5559807)
except post 1828 tries to use "military action" as a get out of jail free card. and that is not honest or on point. military operations quite often target civilians for no other reason than they can, and you cannot hand wave that away and say that it is just accidental that civilians sometimes bear the brunt of action. So either own up to the fact that your countries military has targeted civilians intentionally quite often unarmed non combatants , even domestically in your history or keep trying to dance around pretending that the other side is somehow worse because you do not recognize the FLN or the Sandinistas as a real organized fighting force.
If you do recognize they are in fact an armed forces like the states, then we can dispense with this idiotic semantic argument about "terrorism" and instead argue about what should or should not be acceptable in the theater of war.
   1863. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 09:52 PM (#5559809)
The issue here is some posters want to tar every freedom fighter they disagree with as a "terrorist"


You are making a lot of bad guesses about my intentions here. I'm making a boring and, yes, semantical argument. Haven't said a word about who is justified and who isn't - that's you that's brought that into the discussion.

   1864. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:02 PM (#5559827)
Only because "terrorism" is a negative term. What is a justified act of war and what is not is a tough discussion at the best of times. Both sides in the Algerian war committed atrocities and I do not excuse either of them I just think it was beyond inaccurate that troll bot sbb portrayed the movie as romanticizing terrorists , the film did no such thing.
   1865. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:03 PM (#5559828)
you fire imprecise random drones into foreign countries and miss the target entirely but kill a group of civilians who just happen to be in the target zone, does that sound like terrorism?
No. It sounds like the opposite of terrorism. (Well, not the actual _opposite_, which would be, I don't know, singing kumbaya. But the opposite in that when terrorists kill civilians it's because they hit their target, not because they miss it.)
   1866. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:06 PM (#5559835)
Is driving a truck over people walking the streets, spraying a restaurant with automatic weapons fire, or bombings a sports stadium or music concert ever justified, Simon?
Is it Yankee Stadium?
   1867. Howie Menckel Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:10 PM (#5559848)
too soon
   1868. simon bedford Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:12 PM (#5559852)
Killing civilians indiscriminately because you think maybe you might hit a bad guy based on often completely false information? It is terrorism , state sanctioned and shrugged off with "well there was a reason" but the reason only exists in a foreign states mind and the end result is still the death of innocent people .
And that is not the opposite of terrorism , it is terrorism.
   1869. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:13 PM (#5559855)
   1870. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:14 PM (#5559856)
No. It sounds like the opposite of terrorism. (Well, not the actual _opposite_, which would be, I don't know, singing kumbaya. But the opposite in that when terrorists kill civilians it's because they hit their target, not because they miss it.)


Not really. Terrorists don't care who they hit as long as they hit someone. Often times, nation-states don't care who else they hit, as long as they also hit the right target. That's a bit simplistic of course, but not an ungenerous summary.
   1871. greenback wears sandals on his head Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:19 PM (#5559863)
But the opposite in that when terrorists kill civilians it's because they hit their target, not because they miss it.

If I expect 0.1 innocent civilians will die per dropped bomb, and I proceed to drop 10,000 bombs anyway, then by design I've killed 1,000 innocent civilians. You can argue the deaths are "worth it" -- that's pretty much what we just did with Raqqa and daesh -- but there are still 1,000 deaths on the negative side of the ledger.
   1872. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:24 PM (#5559867)

How comfortable are you with collateral damage?

If Chris Christie is the target, go for it.
   1873. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:28 PM (#5559871)
You can argue the deaths are "worth it" -- that's pretty much what we just did with Raqqa and daesh -- but there are still 1,000 deaths on the negative side of the ledger.


Yes, and there are probably any number of nasty words we can use to accurately describe that campaign, but "terrorism" isn't one of them.
   1874. Morty Causa Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:32 PM (#5559878)
I feel that Bonnie & Clyde was a game changer. Movies then became more violent, more graphic, with sympathy going to the criminals. Criminals even won, got away with it. Pictorially, B & C introduce violent death in slow motion, and slow motion became very common in movies for a while there from the late '60s into the '70s. And of course the sex became overt, even graphic, and hippies and the counterculture influence followed hotly on its heels. Conventional morality and institutions were attacked. The Graduate came out around the same time, followed soon by movies like MASH, Easy Rider, The Wild Bunch, and Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice. But B & C represented a definite change in a number of ways. Many felt it was robbed at the Academy Awards.
   1875. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:49 PM (#5559915)
That's a movie that holds up great to my Xennial generation eyes.
   1876. Greg K Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:49 PM (#5559919)
On a similar subject...I'm working on a podcast of early 17th century England (just recorded the first bit of it today, and upon hearing my voice I am reconsidering the whole project).

But in the course of putting together the material I revisited the famous scene in 1601 when a group of guys stopped by the Globe Theatre and paid Shakespeare and his troupe to put on Richard II for them (despite the fact that the play was a few years old and not much of a draw). But they were about to go off with the Earl of Essex the next day and initiate a coup, so they wanted to see something that would put them in the mood, so to speak.

That probably falls well short of Shakespeare causing Essex's rebellion, but it kind of hints at the theatre filling the heads of young men with ideas. And the Earl of Southampton (one of Shakespeare's patrons) was part of the coup.

As mentioned by someone up thread, it's likely a two-way street (politics/society shaping art, and art shaping politics/society) so it's never clear what the relationship is. But there's a relationship there.

EDIT: I'd also be curious to know, from someone more familiar with the play than me. If you're planning on marching up to the Queen, guns drawn to enforce your will on her in 12 hours, how are you interpreting/what are you getting out of Richard II?
   1877. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:51 PM (#5559923)
1967 was Bonnie & Clyde, Point Blank, and Cool Hand Luke. Also a rising tide of protests against Vietnam, including the march on the Pentagon.
   1878. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 21, 2017 at 10:57 PM (#5559929)
discussing a battle between indigenous folks trying to fight off their colonial overlords.


Putting a hidden bomb in a civilian cafe on a Friday night and then running away before it explodes is not a "battle."
   1879. Morty Causa Posted: October 21, 2017 at 11:21 PM (#5559961)
Cool Hand Luke was influential, but Point Blank, although a very fine movie wasn't discussed as a movie representing a social change. '67 in matters of social change discussion was Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate, In the Heat of the Night, Cool-Hand Luke, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. In the Heat and Guess Who's were vastly overrated.
   1880. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 21, 2017 at 11:39 PM (#5560000)
I like several of these, but to claim any of these "fundamentally changed society" seems a delirious over-reach.

Well, that's because you are buying into Ray's ridiculous premise that something has to have fundamentally changed society in order to be important. Something doesn't have to rise to the level of the Black death, The Renaissance, or the Industrial Revolution to be important.

A film can be "important" but not "change society". Those aren't interchangeable terms.

A movie can be influential in reinforcing, or providing moral support, for previously existing social trends. There are probably hundreds of examples of movies like that. But no movie has the power to reverse a society's course, which is what "changing" clearly implies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I feel that Bonnie & Clyde was a game changer. Movies then became more violent, more graphic, with sympathy going to the criminals.

All true, but society changed so much as a result of that movie that a year after its release Richard Nixon was elected on a "law & order" campaign. So if anything, it changed the game in the opposite direction. You could say the same thing about Easy Rider, and other films that glorified the seamier sides of the so-called "counter culture". When that latter film was showed in many parts of the non-urban country, the audience openly cheered the trucker who blew away Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And of course the FLN in Algeria engaged in terrorism, in response to the far greater terrorism of French colonialism that had been imposed on them for the previous century. And leave us not forget the terror campaign waged by the self-styled "counter-terrorist" OAS (Secret Army Organization), which engaged in assassinations and other forms of terror in a vain effort to keep Algeria under French rule during the last two years of colonial rule.

It's not that complicated: No French colonialism, no FLN.
   1881. Morty Causa Posted: October 21, 2017 at 11:45 PM (#5560005)
The election of Richard Nixon as to that score--the social changes manifested in B & C--was locking the barn door after the horses had fled. As to a return to conventional morality, that was a joke. Things got wilder. Nixon and the moral majority were a cosmetic joke as to that. Lipstick on a pig. The Battle of Algiers had exactly no influence on America and it's mores or on Hollywood aesthetics when it came out.
   1882. Satan Says Posted: October 21, 2017 at 11:47 PM (#5560007)
It's not that complicated: No French colonialism, no FLN.

No US in Saudi Arabia, no 9/11.
   1883. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 22, 2017 at 12:01 AM (#5560017)
The election of Richard Nixon as to that score--the social changes manifested in B & C--was locking the barn door after the horses had fled.

But what "social change" came about as a result of Bonnie & Clyde? That film was indeed enormously influential in how it affected other movies, but glamorized and sympathetic gangsters had been a staple of Hollywood ever since the days of The Public Enemy. And there's no evidence whatever that the public had any more sympathy for criminals before Nixon was elected----if that had been the case, he wouldn't have been elected. There was a certain degree of sympathy for political groups that used violent rhetoric, but that sympathy was hardly mainstream, unless by mainstream you're talking about the folks at Leonard Bernstein's cocktail parties. All that the Black Panthers and similar groups actually accomplished was increasing sympathy for the likes of Nixon and Agnew.

The truth is that for all the hype surrounding it, Bonnie & Clyde was at bottom a brilliantly conceived commercial product that influenced other commercial products, mainly other movies and to an extent, fashion, but its actual influence on society's attitudes towards violent criminals was zero, zilch, nada.
   1884. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 22, 2017 at 12:14 AM (#5560022)
As to a return to conventional morality, that was a joke.

Somehow I think that the reaction to the war in Vietnam, plus deinstitutionalisation and the wave of political assassinations might have had a bit more to do with the disillusionment about traditional morality than a handful of Hollywood movies. Watch the Burns Vietnam documentary and see how many soldiers were made cynical and shell shocked by their combat experiences caused by a government that had lied to them, and compare it to how many of them were made cynical by a handful of Hollywood movies.

The Battle of Algiers had exactly no influence on America and it's mores or on Hollywood aesthetics when it came out.

Along with the writings of Franz Fanon, who was virtually required reading among emerging black nationalists in the aftermath of the 1963 publication of The Wretched of the Earth, The Battle of Algiers most certainly did have influence on a certain faction of American dissidents, who viewed it as a de facto instruction manual. I'm NOT saying that it had any influence within the larger society, but those are two completely different categories of influence.
   1885. Morty Causa Posted: October 22, 2017 at 12:18 AM (#5560023)
No, crooks and criminals were not glamorized before like B & C were in that movie. Moreover, after B & C came the deluge. It became de rigueur for the crooks to be the good guys and the law to be the bad guys. For the crooks to even win. Amorality at the service of individualism--looking out for number one. And there was no accounting in the end. Or if there was, it wasn't a Rocky Dies Yellow type thing at all. That was new. If you let that pass by you, you slept through the late '60s and '70s. With Vietnam and its influences, manifesting itself in popular culture like the movies, the entire conventional mainstream was turned on its head. That was not how it previously was represented.

Mass media and mass commercial product are what influences society (when it doesn't reflect society's change) in America. Everyone in the late 60s, '70s was talking about the movies, and it wasn't about recherche foreign flicks the masses were talking about. There was a sea change that took place in movies at that time. Didn't you notice it?
   1886. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 22, 2017 at 12:38 AM (#5560028)
No, crooks and criminals were not glamorized before like B & C were in that movie.

That's so completely ahistorical I can't believe that you, of all people with your movie knowledge, could ever write anything like that. What in the hell do you think that Joseph I. Breen was reacting to? What do you think Our Movie-Made Children, an early 1930's counterpart to Fredric Wortham's The Seduction of the Innocent, was all about? That book came out in early 1933, and by the time the "Breen Code" was firmly established in mid-1934, it had already gone through six large printings by a major publisher (Macmillan). That book and the movements it reflected had more actual influence on the movies than a hundred Bonnie and Clydes.

Christ, there were civic movements galore that were expressly created to stem the glamorization of criminals and loose women. And those movements succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. You know your film history, and surely that entire bit of its history couldn't have escaped you.

Moreover, after B & C came the deluge. It became de rigueur for the crooks to be the good guys and the law to be the bad guys.

I've already said (see #1883) that Bonnie and Clyde had enormous influence on other movies, so I'm not sure whom you're arguing with here.
   1887. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 22, 2017 at 12:48 AM (#5560032)
Amorality at the service of individualism--looking out for number one. And there was no accounting in the end. Or if there was, it wasn't a Rocky Dies Yellow type thing at all. That was new. If you let that pass by you, you slept through the late '60s and '70s.

I hardly slept through the late 60's and 70's, but you evidently skipped over the entire pre-code genre of film if you think that movies like Bonnie & Clyde represented anything really new under the sun, as opposed to an updating of those earlier movies with a lot more advanced cinematography.

NOTE TO MORTY: Gangsters have ALWAYS been glamorized by Americans,** just as lawless lawmen have been. You might remember that for every Bonnie and Clyde there was a Green Berets, a Dirty Harry and a Death Wish, all of which did boffo box office.

** The real life Bonnie and Clyde weren't as physically glamorous as Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway, but they appeared every bit as charismatic to newspaper readers who thrilled to their exploits. In case you don't realize it, banks weren't too popular during the Depression.
   1888. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 22, 2017 at 02:24 AM (#5560043)
Guys and Dolls, Rififi, A Pocketful of Miracles, Breathless, Oceans 11, Topkapi, How to Steal a Million, For a Few Dollars More, etc... are we sure "Bonnie & Clyde" invented the idea of the romanticized or sympathetic criminal? I wasn't aware that "Trouble in Paradise" came out in 1968.

This is not to say that "Bonnie & Clyde" didn't have a disproportionate impact, but... anyway, what's more important is that everyone should read Mark Harris' "Pictures at a Revolution," a book which uses the 1967 Oscar slate of Best Picture nominees (Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, The Graduate, In the Heat of the Night, Bonnie and Clyde, and... Doctor Doolittle (!)) as the hub to discuss the seismic shifts in Hollywood filmmaking that occurred at that time.
   1889. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 22, 2017 at 06:56 AM (#5560046)
And of course the FLN in Algeria engaged in terrorism, in response to the far greater terrorism of French colonialism that had been imposed on them for the previous century.


Uh-huh.
   1890. Satan Says Posted: October 22, 2017 at 08:55 AM (#5560052)
So silent support here as the fascists in Madrid smash Catalan autonomy by disolving its government and imposing direct rule? Or is it that if it didn't involve the US, it didn't happen?
   1891. BDC Posted: October 22, 2017 at 09:05 AM (#5560053)
I'd also be curious to know, from someone more familiar with the play than me. If you're planning on marching up to the Queen, guns drawn to enforce your will on her in 12 hours, how are you interpreting/what are you getting out of Richard II?

Not claiming to know the play better than you, but I would say that it's hard to say. Richard II represents a deposition, and the representation was controversial (it appears in some printed versions of the play and not others, so we infer that that scene was suppressed at times). But the play is heavily ambivalent about deposition. It lines up, much of the time, with Richard himself, who says in Act 3, Scene 2:

Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
The breath of worldly men cannot depose
The deputy elected by the Lord:
For every man that Bolingbroke hath press'd
To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown,
God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay
A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,
Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right.


But the deposers have a legitimate grievance, as John of Gaunt points out earlier in the play (Act 2, Scene 1):

this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds.


So what were Essex's men thinking? Let's overthrow this monarch, but let's do so thoughtfully and conflictedly? Maybe it was just the power of the deposition scene itself that made it rhetorically effective: look, see, it can be done. Other plays show kings toppled by defeat in battle or treacherously murdered, and the Henry VI plays show that king deposed and deposed again, but for some reason Richard II (maybe because it's so conflicted) was the most problematic.
   1892. Greg K Posted: October 22, 2017 at 09:08 AM (#5560054)
Rajoy seems to be doing everything he can to legitimize the Catalonian independence movement.

It's kind of a funny example of how law and politics aren't quite the same thing. Rajoy and the Spanish government have been following constitutional rules, and have a much better legal argument for their behaviour over the past few months. But every step of the way the Catalonians seem like they are winning the political argument, and have legitimacy on their side.

A month ago, the SNP and some far-right trouble-makers were the only people in Europe who had any sympathy for the Catalonians, and the EU was praying that this wouldn't be their problem. But now I think there are a lot of mainstream political voices pretty annoyed with Rajoy, and this is one step closer to being the EU's problem.
   1893. Greg K Posted: October 22, 2017 at 09:19 AM (#5560055)
Thanks, BDC!

It's a bit complicated as well because it's not entirely clear what Essex and his gang were hoping to achieve. In the subsequent trial that ended with Essex's execution, Cecil argued that Essex was out to make himself King of England. But that is unlikely. More likely, Essex (who had been banished from court) blamed Cecil for his exile and intended to force his way into the Queen, explain himself, and discredit Cecil and his friends who surrounded the Queen spreading lies about him.

The added layer of complication is, of course, that Elizabeth was old and had no clear heir. Essex was the key link to one of the claimants, James VI of Scotland (and in fact, the correspondence Essex had with James was probably treasonous in itself). Part of his preparations for the coup was a message to James asking for support. So was he looking to depose Elizabeth? Force her at sword-point to announce James as her heir?

Maybe they liked the ambivalence of Richard II, because they were themselves ambivalent about what the hell they were actually doing.

I can see that second passage stirring them to action. One of the great failings they saw in the current regime was its apparent desire for an end to the Spanish war, which to them was weakness (if not a betrayal of England).
   1894. BDC Posted: October 22, 2017 at 09:30 AM (#5560059)
Coriolanus is another interesting play for its political ambivalence. It has been adapted by people as diverse as Bertolt Brecht and Steve Bannon, and has at times been banned here and there (though I think there's very little contemporary Jacobean performance history for the play). The central problem is dictatorial competence vs. democratic fecklessness, perpetually a dilemma in any number of political situations.
   1895. Morty Causa Posted: October 22, 2017 at 09:54 AM (#5560062)
This is not to say that "Bonnie & Clyde" didn't have a disproportionate impact,

Thank you.

but... anyway, what's more important is that everyone should read Mark Harris' "Pictures at a Revolution," a book which uses the 1967 Oscar slate of Best Picture nominees (Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, The Graduate, In the Heat of the Night, Bonnie and Clyde, and... Doctor Doolittle (!)) as the hub to discuss the seismic shifts in Hollywood filmmaking that occurred at that time.

Have you read Harris's Five Came Back?
   1896. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 22, 2017 at 10:07 AM (#5560067)
If Algeria is precedent, there's no justifiable reason for anyone not to support Catalonian independence. Catalonia is actually far more of an actual nation than Algeria was in 1960.
   1897. Greg K Posted: October 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM (#5560068)
Reading up on Coriolanus, there appears to be an argument that the 1607 Midlands Revolt influenced the play.

You really could do a "World History in 100 Objects" type of book with Shakespeare. Though, it's Shakespeare, so I imagine someone already has.
   1898. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: October 22, 2017 at 12:13 PM (#5560102)
Since we're talking about culturally significant movies, have any of you checked out Filmstruck? Them having a library of Criterion Collection movies caught my eye, since I used to shell out $30-$40 for those damn DVDs a decade and a half ago.
   1899. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: October 22, 2017 at 12:20 PM (#5560106)
No, crooks and criminals were not glamorized before like B & C were in that movie.


I know they always had the criminals get their comeuppance at the end to assuage moral critics, but what about the countless Warner Bros. gangster films with the likes of Cagney and Robinson? They made the criminal life look pretty glamorous until the obligatory fall from grace at the end.
   1900. Satan Says Posted: October 22, 2017 at 12:32 PM (#5560109)
Flick
Page 19 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - November* 2017 College Football thread
(182 - 1:53am, Nov 19)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogHow an Astros player helped high-school kids have a cool World Series celebration
(1 - 12:20am, Nov 19)
Last: ajnrules

NewsblogOTP 13 November 2017: Politics, race now touching every sport
(1992 - 11:58pm, Nov 18)
Last: PreservedFish

Hall of MeritMock 2018 Modern Baseball Committee Hall of Fame Ballot
(76 - 11:33pm, Nov 18)
Last: robd4701

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1410 - 11:06pm, Nov 18)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(197 - 10:58pm, Nov 18)
Last: SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY

NewsblogThe Eric Hosmer Dilemma | FanGraphs Baseball
(37 - 9:34pm, Nov 18)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(240 - 5:49pm, Nov 18)
Last: The Honorable Ardo

NewsblogStanton, Altuve capture first MVP Awards | MVP
(51 - 4:35pm, Nov 18)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogJim Palmer on Mark Belanger and Omar Vizquel: The Hardball Times
(98 - 4:33pm, Nov 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFangraphs: Let's Make One Thing Absolutely Clear About Aaron Judge
(22 - 3:42pm, Nov 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe story of Alex Anthopoulos: From tragedy to prodigy to Braves GM
(1 - 8:30am, Nov 18)
Last: bfan

NewsblogBraves will lose prospects, and possibly a lot more, for violating international market rules
(48 - 1:30am, Nov 18)
Last: Armored Trooper VOTTO

NewsblogJudge, Bellinger named BBWAA Rookies of Year | MLB.com
(86 - 9:25pm, Nov 17)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDerek Jeter addresses Giancarlo Stanton rumors | MLB.com
(24 - 7:38pm, Nov 17)
Last: Khrushin it bro

Page rendered in 1.1228 seconds
47 querie(s) executed