Sunday, 26 August 2012

RNC delayed by one day. Since when do Republicans pay attention to climate models? Everyone knows that predicting the future is incredibly easy, whereas explaining the past is incredibly difficult. For example, in 1933 everyone in the entire world could foresee that Hitler's rise to power would lead directly to the Final Solution, whereas today, it's impossible to prove that the Holocaust even happened. Similarly, today everyone in the Republican Party can look at the meteorological maps and foresee that delaying the convention by a day is a prudent idea, whereas a decade hence, they won't even be able to prove that a "Hurricane Isaac" delayed their trip to "Tampa Bay" to nominate something called a "Mitt Romney" to represent their "Party" in the "White House." It'll be called "Convention Theory" and will, of course, merely be a "theory." Just like global warming and the Holocaust. If ever there were a time to slam conservatives for their selective belief systems, it is now. If they truly don't believe in that scientists can accurately account for climatological events, we should hold their feet to the fire and demand mandatory attendance for all planned speakers. Doesn't matter if Jindal wants to stay in Louisiana, because by the standards he otherwise champions there's no proof that Hurricane Isaac will hit New Orleans. It's only a "theory." If Isaac does hit New Orleans, it won't mean anything other than weather. Pat Robertson won't go on national television and declare that Isaac's landing is God's Punishment. The optics of Republicans partying at their convention while New Orleans drowns again won't be indicative of the Party's disregard for Americans who are poor or black, it'll be a creation of the liberal media intended to make the Republicans look callous. "We'd planned this convention for months and removing Obama from office is paramount to the plight of an already drowned city," not a single one of them will say. But some conservative bloggers will note -- as they did during Katrina -- that New Orleans deserves its death because it's low-lying and within a common hurricane track, and they'll base their conviction on solid evidence, by which they'll mean the same geological record and climate modeling that relegates global warming to the status of "theory." Just like the Holocaust.
Breaking Bad: "Say My Name," or fine, maybe don't even acknowledge I exist. One of the more gratifying things about studying film and television is the occasional payoff. You consider a scene in obsessive detail and it turns out that scene is just as important as you thought it was. This isn't a credit to you, obviously, so much as the director. (Though it is a validation that you're not imparting significance to irrelevant details.) So watching the latest episode of Breaking Bad, "Say My Name," was particularly gratifying for yours truly because it indicated that I didn't waste a day last week breaking down that scene at the dinner table in "Buyout." It had a punchline. Recall the establishing shot from that episode: Compare that to the establishing shot in "Say My Name": They're nearly identical. Nearly. As I tell my students: shots in which the differences are slight matter more than shots in which the differences are grand. So this long shot is a little longer—the head of the couch in the living room is visible—but the composition is identical, albeit less tightly framed. What does the looser framing suggest? Given the off-center position of the couch-head, the implication is that whatever orderly detente had been reached in the previous episode has, literally, been cast askew. Evidence of the tipped kilter abounds: two of the chairs occupied in "Buyout" are empty, and one of the characters—Jesse in his role as a figure of a son—has been replaced by a bottle of wine. It's almost as if the director, Thomas Schnauz, is claiming that if Jesse prevented Skyler and Walter from having a conversation in "Buyout," in "Say My Name" it's the wine. (And that Skyler's deliberately putting the wine between them. It had occupied the majority of her attention the last time after all.) Point being: Schnauz wants viewers to employ their Highlights for Kids-cultivated ability to discern what's different about these establishing shots. He's inviting the comparison, and there are many to be made. In "Buyout," for example, the "family" sat down to a freshly cooked dinner from Albertson's. It's not quite home-cooking, but it's not entirely processed either. In "Say My Name," Skyler has sat down with a bottle of wine and a TV dinner. She didn't even bother to buy the freshly prepackaged meal, meaning she cares one degree-of-freshness less in this episode than she did in the last. And not just about herself: She's "prepared" a microwave dinner for Walter as well, if by "prepare" one means "purchased and deposited in the freezer." The implication in "Buyout" was that she'd plated the food she'd bought at Albertson's—hence Jesse's confusion about it being home-cooked—whereas in "Say My Name" Walter's clearly had to microwave his own highly processed dinner. Moreover, whereas in the previous episode some modicum of social graces kept Skyler at the table long enough to listen to Jesse blather on about the green beans, in this episode as soon as Walter starts talking about Jesse's replacement, Skyler just leaves: And note that she takes the long...

Become a Fan

Recent Comments