Two men kidnap a girl. That’s pretty much all I can say about The Disappearance of Alice Creed without giving away the various twists. What I found interesting about this film was that the three main characters are the only people in the whole movie. Also, almost the entire story takes place within 2 rooms in an apartment, and everything develops from the dialogue and interaction between the characters and the performances, which were great. In that sense, it’s kind of like a play. On the other hand, it’s shot with some stylish cinematography, which gives it sufficient “movie-ness” that you might not even notice how small the scope is. (Some people in the audience actually chuckled when the credits rolled and they realized that there were only 3 people in it.)

Excellent acting, great script, great style, and some very cool and unexpected twists. My favourite of the festival so far.

4 out of 5

I attended a press & industry screening¹ of this documentary about Daniel Ellsberg, a government official who, during the Vietnam War, leaked some top secret Pentagon documents (the “Pentagon Papers”) that proved that the war was based on government lies. Americans probably know the history of the event, but ignorant Canadian that I am, I was not familiar with it. So on one level, I enjoyed the movie as a history lesson. But what really drove the film for me was Ellsberg’s personality. (He narrates the film and is seen throughout in the typical talking head interviews.) When he speaks, you can tell that he’s absolutely committed to doing the right thing. More than that, he followed his words with actions—actions that put his own freedom at risk. I have great respect for this, and I think that he is a true hero.

On the negative side, I thought they overdid the portrayal of Nixon as a bad, bad man. The repeated use of sound clips of Nixon saying vulgar and awful things almost came off as unintentionally funny because it was so on the nose. (E.g. someone in an interview would say something like, “Surely, the government would not do XYZ.” Then it would cut to a tape of Nixon saying “By God, we better goddamn do XYZ to those sons of bitches.“) I would have preferred a little more subtlety. Minor criticisms aside, this was a very fascinating doc.

3.5 out of 5

Footnotes

1. My volunteer reward vouchers give access to these insider screenings that are not available to the public—a very nice perk. As an aside, P&I screenings are a completely different experience compared to public screenings. Everybody is there to work, not necessarily to “enjoy” the film, so it’s totally lacking in energy. For example, Suck was also a press screening, and I heard maybe two people laughing. I’m sure that there would have been a much bigger reaction at a public show. ↩

I didn’t watch Suck with 100% attentiveness because I was working as an usher/anti-piracy cop for the screening. (It really sucks watching a movie standing up and facing sideways.) But I did get enough of it to form an opinion. The movie is a comedy about a rock band where one of the members becomes a vampire.

I liked some parts, and I would have been laughing out loud had I not been wearing my professional volunteer mask. There is a scene—a flashback sequence involving Malcolm McDowell’s character, which incorporates footage of a young McDowell from some old movie—that was really well done. Ultimately though, the jokes were hit and miss, because it was kind of cheesy, goofy humour which doesn’t always work for me. But I can see this becoming a “cult favourite” type of film with a good fanbase. Oh, and it’s Canadian.

2.5 out of 5

A while ago, I posted an item about the word “Darwinism” and how I thought it had some bad connotations. This week, there was a column in the New York Times called “Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live” (free registration required). It has a similar theme but obviously more professionally written and better researched. In particular, one paragraph echoes some of the ideas in my original post.

Science has marched on. But evolution can seem uniquely stuck on its founder. We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism. “Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man’s dictates, like Marxism. And “isms” (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science. “Darwinism” implies that biological scientists “believe in” Darwin’s “theory.” It’s as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.

Needless to say, I agree. I have no further comment on the matter. I only wanted to bask in self-congratulation. Thank you.

Got the statement from my corporate credit card. It made me feel good.

ONE BILLION DOLLARS…

Of course I’d get fired and probably shot if I used it, but it’s nice to know it’s there in case of emergency. Emergency luxury yacht purchases, that is…

Read more…

One of the effects of living in an apartment is that you spend a lot of time in the elevator. Of course, most of the time, you’re just in there by yourself, staring at the wall. Or, if there’s someone else in there with you, it’s an awkward experience at best. As George Carlin put it, “there’s nothing to do in an elevator except not look at the other guy.” But, once in a while, the elevator will be the site of a bizarre happenstance.

This morning, I was leaving to go to work. As I stood waiting for the elevator, I noticed that it was taking longer than usual to arrive at my floor. Oh well, I thought, it’s not like I’m in a hurry to get to work.

The elevator eventually arrived, and the door slid open. Standing in the middle of the elevator was a puppy. Just a puppy. With nobody else inside. He was a small little white dog, a terrier of some sort, and wearing a red knit sweater. Not able to help myself, I let out a high-pitched “Awwww…”

When I stepped into the elevator, I saw that the little guy (let’s call him “Buddy,” because what else do you call a dog you don’t know?) was feeling scared, because his limbs were all shaking. I didn’t know what to do, it’s not really wise to try to confront a frightened animal. So I ignored him. There’s nothing to do in an elevator except not look at the dog.

Pretty soon the elevator stopped at another floor. A lady came in with another dog. Apparently this woman knew Buddy, because she started to talk to him and bending down like she was going to pick him up. “Where’s your mommy? Where’s your mommy?” Buddy’s nervousness increased from this woman’s overexuberance, and increased further as the other dog started growling (obviously jealous of the attention that Buddy was receiving). I tried to remember whether I had ever had a rabies shot.

Fortunately, we reached the ground floor before the fur started flying. Buddy’s owner (“mommy”) was waiting. Apparently she and Buddy were about to come up the elevator when she ran into someone in the lobby and started to have a chat. Buddy had hopped into the elevator on his own before realizing that she had stayed behind. Poor Buddy. Poor, poor Buddy.

N.B.: I don’t normally post personal items on this blog, so this will be thinly disguised as a technology review article.

I’m moving into my own apartment soon, and I’m pretty excited about it. In preparation, I’ve been shopping for some furniture, as well as thinking about how I’m going to arrange the furniture in the limited space that I have. When I was at IKEA, I saw booths set up where people were using some custom software to design their furniture layouts, and I thought it would be a good idea to try to do some “interior design” of my apartment using some 3D software to better visualize the space.

I had heard good things about Google SketchUp, so I thought I would give that a shot. SketchUp is a pretty generic 3D modeling tool, but it seems like most people use it to create architectural designs. After watching some of the video tutorials on the site, and some experimentation with the interface, I was able to whip up something pretty quickly.

Voila:

This is the living room.

I’m considering maybe putting another shelf next to the TV for additional storage of books, DVDs, or whatever. On the other hand, it’s good to have some empty space so that it’s not too cluttered. There’s also a pretty large storage closet in the apartment, so anything that doesn’t need to always be conveniently available, I can just put in the closet.

Here’s the bedroom.

The bedroom seemed small to me when I first looked at the floorplan and at the empty apartment, but now I’ve seen it in 3D with the furniture models, it’s not so bad.

So in conclusion: Google SketchUp is pretty good. Pretty, pretty good. 9/10

So Radiohead announced the release of a new album called “In Rainbows”, coming out October 10th. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an album announcement so close to its release date. Usually there’s months of anticipation before a release, but this time they’ve decided to spring this on us on short notice. Like “Hey, new album next week!” Apparently, they’re able to do this because they’re no longer signed to a record contract; this is basically an “indie” release.

Because of their newly gained indie status, the band is also doing things a little differently in terms of distributing and pricing the release. The album is coming out as an online download at first. The price: “It’s up to you.” Kind of like selling it through an honour system. You can even download it for free, and they won’t mind. (I’m going to give them a couple of bucks anyway. You know, for their trouble.) This is great and very forward-thinking of them, and gives fanboys like myself ammunition when discussing the greatness of Radiohead with fans of other, more inferior bands.

BUT

They’re also selling the album as a boxset to be released later this year. The boxset will have CD and vinyl versions of the album, which makes for good collector’s items to be sure. But the thing that’s killing me is, there’s a second CD with more songs, that’s only available in the boxset. It’s like they’re selling a double album where you can download the first part for free, but you have to buy the special collector’s edition for the second part. And how much is the boxset? £40. Or about $80 CAD. (Or $80 USD, ha!) That’s a long way from “It’s up to you.”

I know I’ll probably buy the boxset anyways, and the fanboy in me wants to forgive them, but this is really a rip-off. It’s like they’re trying to trick us into thinking they’re really cool by giving away the free download, just so we’ll be happy to spend the money on the boxset. I only hope they’ll come to their senses and make the second CD available as a standalone purchase. Otherwise, I’m boycotting Radiohead forever. Oh, who am I kidding? I love you, Thom Yorke.

I was reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and something occurred to me. While I worked my way through the section about the evolution vs. intelligent design debate (which any book about atheism should address), the word “Darwinism” kept popping up. Every time the word was used, I became more and more conscious of it; something about it bothered me.

The thing that struck me is this: why is Darwinism an “-ism”? The -ism suffix is generally used for names of religions (e.g. Judaism, Catholicism, Hinduism), or a philosophical stance (e.g. existentialism, Marxism, even atheism itself), or a political movement (e.g. feminism, abolitionism).

Darwinism, being a scientific theory, doesn’t fit into these categories. I can’t think of any other scientific theories with the -ism suffix. Wouldn’t it be like calling the Laws of Motion “Newtonism”, or general relativity “Einsteinism”, or genetics “Watson and Crickism”? (Or maybe “Watsonism-and-Crickism” to be more fair to Watson.)

I wonder if the use of the word “Darwinism” weakens the evolution argument in the public eye, because it makes it sound like something less than an established theory. Maybe “Darwinism” has a very precise meaning that I’m unclear on, but it is commonly used when discussing evolution and natural selection. The debate between evolution and creationism (which is appropriately an -ism) is a public, cultural one; and the public, in my opinion, is not so concerned with precisely defining terms.

A word like “Darwinism” lends itself to attacks of this sort: “See? It’s just some guy’s opinion!” I’d like to see the word used less, at least for the purposes of cultural debate. Charles Darwin obviously deserves a lot of credit, but in this case, a more decisive term may be more useful.