So, where does the cultural trait of fear of AI in Western society come from? The same place all cultural traits come from. Movies. (And other conduits of received knowledge.)

I’m teaching a class on a related topic, and in so doing put together a series of video clips that I thought I’d share. Have a watch, and feel free to discuss. You’ve seen most of these already.

They are in a sort of order.

(Hat Tip Parker)

Comic relief. How hackers meet and fall in love:

Modern consequences. One tipping point among many:

The most annoying man in the world almost certainly being wrong:

What have I missed?

Rosenberg stepped down from his post at the DEA because he had to either go along with Trump’s very wrong policies, or step away, which at the time was considered proper for justice department officials. (I suspect that is changing.) You may have heard his famous departing remark, issued in an internal DEA memo in response to Trump telling cops to get illegally tougher on the people they interact with:

The President, in remarks delivered yesterday in New York, condoned police misconduct regarding the treatment of individuals placed under arrest by law enforcement… I write to offer a strong reaffirmation of the operating principles to which we, as law enforcement professionals, adhere. I write because we have an obligation to speak out when something is wrong. That’s what law enforcement officers do. That’s what you do. We fix stuff. At least, we try.

Among his well known cases were the dog fighting charges against Michael Vick, the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, and work on child porn (against, not pro). So, not only has he great and interesting experience, but over time, he has made good friends with many key players in US Justice under the Bush and Obama administrations.

Because of these connections, and the high degree of respect he commands from his colleagues, it has been possible for him to put together a rather bang-up podcast. Different people will like or not like the subject matter, or will find it essential or outside their area of interests, but in fact, any one who listens to a good sampling of the interviews will learn things they didn’t know they didn’t know, but in fact, do need to know. I just now listened to his interview with Joyce Vance, also a regular on MSNBC as a commentator, and former AUSA in Alabama. (You also learn things like what “AUSA” stand for from this podcast.)

One thing I appreciate about The Oath is that Rosenberg, either through careful planning or skilled and thoughtful editing (probably both), makes sure the audience gets what they need to understand the story that is being told. He eschews the common fault many interviewer have of making sure the audience knows how much the interviewer knows, and asks what are probably utterly dumb questions from the point of view of an expert, but essential questions for the average listener. Like, “So what does AUSA stand for?”

I have never been a big podcast listener, but a while back, long after I started my own podcast with Mike Haubrich, I started to listen to a few, and I have a very short list of blue ribbon podcasts I keep up on. The Oath is one of them.

The podcast web page is HERE, but as is the case with most podcasts, you can listen to it with your favorite podcast accessing software on whatever device you use. Within reason.

It is an interesting idea, that the Kerrigan-Harding situation, and Tonya herself, were different from what we came to understand at the time. It will take a bit of a shove to get me to not think Harding was an utter asshole, but that is what the movie apparently purports.

Have a look at this discussion:

To be honest, I’m skeptical about the whole idea, but, at the same time, hearing what Allison says in that clip causes me to put that aside and go see the film with an open mind.

Here’s the trailer for the film:

I expect there will be widespread disappointment, because there is always a lot of disappointment from the usual suspects when something loved is extended, redone, or done again. Part of the charm of the first season was discovering the 1980s retro allegory, and there is more of that in the new Stranger Things, but since it is the second time around … well, we’ll see. Also, Eleven was one of the great science fiction characters ever written, directed, and acted, and I understand that Eleven’s character is different this time around. So that will be a blow to civilization itself.

I wonder what 1980s theme is being incorporated here????[/caption]On the other hand, there will also be great love bestowed on the second season by a large number of fans, simply because the first season was so spectacularly great.

For me, I’m going to watch Season Two with an open mind and I expect to enjoy it for two reasons. First, the people who made the first season did not have such great success by random chance. They are good at what they do, and there is no reason to expect that to not continue. Second, I have low standards and I’m easily entertained. I cultivate that. Life is better that way.

While we are on the subject of Netflix, We’re also getting The Meyerowitz Stories, Eyes Wide Shut, season One of Lego City, and Cult of Chucky! So we’ll be fine!

Here’s a trailer for Stranger Things Season One for those who have not seen it:

And, for Season Two:

And, for fun, here is the SNL takeoff:

I suspect not, but I don’t say this because I don’t trust the actors, the director, the writers, or the producers, to do an excellent job. I say this simply because Stranger Things 1 was a) so very good and b) good in part because of its refreshing uniqueness.

What did that refreshing uniqueness come from? It is anti-uniqueness. Stranger Things Season One turned uniqueness upside down. Or, more exactly, it turned plagiarism upside down in a kind of alternate universe of unique familiarity.

In literature and performance, it is generally considered bad to copy, even in style, prior works. This proscription is developed nowhere more intensely than it exists in the world of western science fiction and fantasy. No matter how good a story is, if it looks or feels like a previous story, it is docked many brownie points in the informal ratings. Never mind that Harry Potter was one of the most derivative works every created and at the same time, most revered. It is a general rule in literature and movies that the best work follows certain rules (including how the stories are made, but also, uniqueness) but the BEST work can do what it wants.

And this has always been annoying to me. I wish westerno-normative science fiction and fantasy would pay more attention to Eastern norms. The best works do not have to be something 100% unique and undone. The best works can be structured and strictured, classically formed, serving as the worthy monstrance for an adorable morsel of creativity.

Anyway, Stranger Things, as by now you know, addressed the proscription against borrowing by turning hard on the yammering proscribers and whacking them firmly upside the head.

VAGUE SPOILERS HERE ON IN, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Stranger Things is ET, Explorers, and a couple of other movies, with the kids conspiring against the adults. It is Close Encounters, with the obsessive craft work of a key character, driven, apparently, by the psychic unity of other and human. It is Poltergeist because of the plaintive voice from beyond the wall, it is Carrie and/or Scanner and/or Firestarter because of things. It is Commando, Predator, and Alien because of (hey, no spoilers!). Some see Goonies, but I’ve not seen Goonies so I don’t know. Some see Star Wars, but they are wrong. There definitely is a moment of Little Shop of Horrors. And yes, the Big Lebowski, maybe, even though that is not sci fi. But this reference does kinda tie the whole movie together.

Few, perhaps none, have noted that it is The Thing. There might be a moment of Repo Man. I’ve yet to see anyone notice Cocoon, but it is there.

Few note, but it is absolutely central to the story, Altered states. Also, there is some of those various time travel movies that involve a lot of energy (though there is probably no time travel in Stranger Things. Or is there?)

Super 8. That one too, and Super 8 is not an 80s movie, but was in that style. What does two meta’s make? A rip in the time space continuum, I’m thinking.

Stranger Things is, in fact, a list of movies to make sure your young child sees before they are old enough to see Stranger Things.

These are thematic representations, specific scenes, plot elements, characters, and everything alluded to or simply ripped from earlier work and used wholesale.

I assume, hope, that Stranger Things 2 will do this as well. But, since Stranger Things 1 already did it, is it really new???? Won’t that ruin everything??11?? Huh.

Anyway, Stranger Things 2 is in the works. Here is a look at each.

Stranger Things 1

Stranger Things 2

Actually I’m expecting Stranger Things Season Two to be as good as the first season. What do you think?

I am writing this review of a film released in 2005 because I only now have seen it. There are three reasons that I did not watch this film earier, and they are important in contextualizing my comments so I’ll mention them: 1) I often watch movies years after they are released. In this case, this means that the reactions to the movie at the time are not fresh in my memory, or in most cases, even known to me. This is important because it means that I have the luxory of being selective in what I pay attention to in formulating my comments, which is very much my intention in this case. This is not a comprehensive review. 2) I avoided watching the film because I more or less accepted the common wisdom at the time (which is persistent today): This was a film about a crazy guy who taunted, by his presence, large carnivores until they finally ate him. As a person who has done the same thing (except the part about being eaten) though much less extensively (and with permission from the authorities and at a smaller scale), I find this story interesting, but also uninteresting, and thus not necessarily compelling enough to have pursued the film when it came out. As you will see below, I now realize that my assumption is incorrect. 3) The first Herzog film I ever saw was not a Herzog film, but rather, a film about a Herzog film, Burden of Dreams. This film made me dislike Herzog enough to avoid his other films. I usually don’t decide what films to watch based on my opinion of the director or actors, but there are limits. Having seen Grizzley Man, I like Herzog a bit better.

Much of the documentary consists of footage showing Treadwell filming himself talking to the camera about bears, about himself and bears, about his knowledge of and interest in bears vis-a-vis his work traveling around to schools teaching about bears, and his opinions about the National Park service, on whose land he resided (not entirely legally) for these visits. He discussed his own alcoholism and how being in the wilderness had more or less cured him of this. (Or at least he implies this.) He repeatedly talks about how dangerous what he is doing is, and how he could be eaten by a bear at any time, but he also talks about how he knows how to handle them and how it is impossible for him to be eaten by them. There are a handful of scenes in Herzog’s film, and I assume that this represents most of the better available examples, of Treadwell interacting very closely with some bear or another, and some of those interactions could be called (but probably really aren’t) “close calls.”

One gets the impression that it was difficult to set these shots up, especaily when Treadwell was working alone. He would set a camera up on a tripod with a bear (or something) off in the distance, and position himself in front of the bear (or whatever) and do a take. He’d have some sort of message. He’d finish the take, and having delivered the message he’d do it again. Each time the message was delivered differently. In some cases (and we don’t know how much Herzog selected for this) the deliveries would become increasingly dogmatic or frenetic or angry or otherwise emotion-filled. Late in the documentary Treadwell records one of his last sequences in which he talks about the park service in less than complementary terms. His dialog seems almost like it was written by David Mamet. If you fucking know the fuck what I fucking mean. Treadwell’s anger at the Park Service is epic.

Another theme of this film that I find fascinating is his relationship with a “family” of foxes. Sometime near the beginning of his decade plus sequence of Alaskan forays, he took in (or befriended, or fed scraps to until it stopped being scared) a red fox cub, who then grew up and had more cubs, who were also friendly. These foxes acted as domestic dogs in his presence, hanging out with him, being petted by him, and so on. I can only guess that he fed them. One scene has him mourning over the disembodied head of one of the fox family’s cubs, the victim of getting a bit too close to a pack of wolves.

Something that I remember from when the documentary first came out was fear, loathing, and controversy over the possibility that Herzog would use the video documentation of Treadwell’s death in the film. He didn’t. The last year or so that Treadwell was in the bush, and possibly for earlier years, he was not entirely alone, but had a girlfirend and helper with him. There is one interesting scene used by Herzog when Treadwell is offloading supplies from the float plane that brought him there every year, and a female comes into the shot to help with the work. He shoo’s her out of the shot and reminds her the he is “supposed to be alone” so she can’t be seen in the film. Anyway, Treadwell and his girlfriend, Amie Huguenard, were in camp when the deadly bear attack happened. Someone had the presence of mind (as it were) to turn on a video camera, but the lens cap never came off. We do not hear the audio in Herzog’s documentary. Instead, we get this:

1) The medical examiner who handled the remains describes the recording;
2) A woman who is Treadwell’s friend and former girlfriend and Herzog sit together while Herzog listens to part of it on a head set. Eventually Herzog tells her that although this tape is hers to do with what she will, she should never listen to it, and she should destroy it.
3) Herzog’s voiceover describes what is in it.

I wont’ describe those details to you, but it is gruesome.

___________________________
Related books:

The Grizzly Maze: Timothy Treadwell’s Fatal Obsession with Alaskan Bears

Among Grizzlies: Living with Wild Bears in Alaska

Death in the Grizzly Maze: The Timothy Treadwell Story

Grizzly Man

___________________________

Now, here is the most important thing that I observed in the film, but before I tell you what it is I must ask you to promise to read the caveat that follows. Promise? OK.

According to everybody I’ve spoken to about this, including people who knew some of the individuals in the film, including but not limited to Treadwell, and individuals not affiliated with the Park Service but who have some inside knowledge, and according to the general knowledge of the events (yes, even including the version of the Wikipedia page I consulted) Treadwell spent some 13 years hanging around with a community of bears and one day one of the bears ate him. But, according to Herzog, Treadwell spent some 13 years hanging around with a community of bears, then left the field at the end of his 13 years to go back to the Lower Forty-Eight. Then, something bad happened related to an airplane ticket, and a frustrated Treadwell and his girlfriend returned to the field. Even before they first left the field, many of the bears in the community he had gotten to know (and who had gotten to know him) over the years had gone off to hibernate. Then, during the time they were away from the site messing around with airplane tickets, the rest of the bears went off to hibernate. When they returned, according to Herzog citing Treadwell, there was an older male itinerant bear hanging around, which he proceeded to film. It seems that this bear was underfed as it was going through some serious effort to get at some hard to recover salmon remains.

Some time later, that bear, one that Treadwell had not habituated to himself (but one that was known to the Park Service, having been knocked down and labeled decades earlier) killed and ate him and his girlfriend.

You can see why this makes a difference. The claim can simply not be made, if this is accurate, that Treadwell hung around with some bears for several years who finally got tired of him or got hungry ir got annoyed and ate him. Rather, to be honest about this, given the above outlined series of events, Treadwell actually successfully did what he claimed to do. Then, an unhabituated bear of a more rogue disposition did him in and ate a more or less innocent bystander as well.

What I find interesting is that this detail is unacceptable to most who hear about it. It is simply not posssible for many to give up on the idea that Treadwell did something stupid and inappropriate and got his comuppance for it. However, that is not a reasonable stance, nor is it necessary. It is perfectly reasonable to claim that Treadwell did several things that were stupid and/or inappropriate. Regardless of his seeming sucess, he had no business hanging around with this community of bears. He violated numerous park service rules. He habituated two (or more) generations of wild fox. And then, he bothered a bear that ate him, and got his girlfriend killed a long the way.

There is no need to perpetuate the lie that his own bears turned on him to vilify him to one’s heart’s content.

Of course, this may not be a lie (or, put more mildly, it may not be a misconception). I’m told by some very good sources that it is not. Is Herzog wrong? Did Herzog change the story? Or did Herzog simply notice a nuance not previously noticed? I do not know.

A second criticism of Treadwell often leveled is that he was crazy, or more specifically, delusional or bipolar. Maybe. Even probably. One sees this in Herzog’s film, even if it is not stressed by the narration. However, I want to give Treadwell a bit of a break in this regard. First, yes, he ‘went bush’ in a big way, but so do many people who spend that much time in the bush, either alone or almost alone, and having frequent traumatic encounters (which one tends to have when hanging around with deadly predators and such). But there is a second element added here: Treadwell was filming himself, and took the liberty to talk to himself via the lens. Alone, or more or less alone, we see his inner voice coming out. That inner voice is manic, often angry, belies deep confusion. He is a poster child for why people who do long term remote fieldwork should receive some special training in advance if possible. But in the end, his expressions and commentary and manic ranting may not be as different from what you or I would do under similar circumstances, whether you want to believe that or not. (I may or may not believe it myself.) Or, at least, the gulf one might imagine between Treadwell’s rants and the calm continence of the civilized and urbane blog-reader may not be as broad as you, dear reader, might be entirely comfortable with.

I mentioned a caveat. The caveat is this, and I’ve alluded to it above: More than one source with connections close to the events assures me that the bear that ate the Treadwell Party was one of those he had partly habituated and hung around with for years. Herzog says otherwise. I have a call in with Herzog but apparently his agent feels no need to get back to me. (This is a problem when Big Famous Director makes a documentary … it’s not really a documentary if the maker is not accountable for what is in it, at least to some degree!)

I’m hoping my contacts and sources, maybe Herzog himself, will come up with some sort of clarification. If that happens, I’ll let you know.

————————-

¹I’m using the word “community” as an informal term to refer to the presumably fluctuating group of bears that habitually live and forage in a given area. It appears that from year to year a more or less similar set of bears lived in the two habitats Treadwell spent time in.

I expect there will be widespread disappointment, because there is always a lot of disappointment from the usual suspects when something loved is extended, redone, or done again. Part of the charm of the first season was discovering the 1980s retro allegory, and there is more of that in the new Stranger Things, but since it is the second time around … well, we’ll see. Also, Eleven was one of the great science fiction characters ever written, directed, and acted, and I understand that Eleven’s character is different this time around. So that will be a blow to civilization itself.

For me, I’m going to watch Season Two with an open mind and I expect to enjoy it for two reasons. First, the people who made the first season did not have such great success by random chance. They are good at what they do, and there is no reason to expect that to not continue. Second, I have low standards and I’m easily entertained. I cultivate that. Life is better that way.

While we are on the subject of Netflix, We’re also getting The Meyerowitz Stories, Eyes Wide Shut, season One of Lego City, and Cult of Chucky! So we’ll be fine!

Here’s a trailer for Stranger Things Season One for those who have not seen it:

And, for Season Two:

And, for fun, here is the SNL takeoff:

The Last Jedi Trailer:

Superman (all of them)

Earthbound

E.T.,The Extra-Terrestrial

Star Trek

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (Theatrical)

TRON The Original Classic (1982)

Star Wars

The Philadelphia Experiment

Terminator (all of them) FLAGGED AS QUESTIONABLE

Back to the Future

D.A.R.Y.L.

Explorers

Flight of The Navigator

Transformers

*Batteries Not Included

Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure

Honey I shrunk/blew up the kids/myself etc. series

Jetsons: The Movie

Journey to the Center of the Earth

Time Bandits