Mark Zuckerberg's story drips with irony. Zuckerberg, a Harvard undergrad so desperate to be liked that he created Facebook, the ultimate "killer app" for online socializing, is so socially inept that we find ourselves wondering if anyone will accept his friend requests.
Yes, Nation, we have officially begun our annual getting-around-to-it of watching the Oscar nominees. We watched "Inception" awhile ago, and last night we took in the David Fincher-Aaron Sorkin extravaganza "The Social Network." The film tells an interesting story with a terrific script and good acting. We learn that Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a nerdy genius, who gains our admiration for creating something that pretty much everybody loves, even while being a generally unlikable human being. It is to the credit of Jesse Eisenberg, who plays Zuckerberg, that the main character comes across as even mildly sympathetic. And while Zuckerberg is surely a bright guy, we suspect that a good deal of his genius affect comes from the fact that he is speaking dialogue written by Aaron Sorkin. Everybody sounds like a genius when speaking Sorkin; Sarah Palin would sound like a genius if Aaron Sorkin wrote her material. (Well, OK, the man's not a miracle worker, but she'd sound a lot better.)
The screenplay was based on a book called The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich. Assuming Sorkin's screenplay sticks to the story in the book, we can guess who cooperated with Mezrich and who didn't. Eduardo Saverin (played by Andrew Garfield), who co-founded Facebook and served as the company's first CFO, comes across as the most sympathetic figure in the movie. Zuckerberg's level-headed superego, Saverin engages in battle with his id, represented by Napster founder Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake); the superego loses. Parker comes across as a fast-talking manipulator of Zuckerberg's essential naivete. And Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (twins played by Armie Hammer), who unwittingly inspired Facebook by recruiting Zuckerberg to design an exclusive Harvard social networking site, are spoiled rich kids who feel entitled to a piece of the Facebook pie.
We're not sure why this should be: The film gives no indication that Zuckerberg "stole" anything from the Winklevi. They wanted to create a Harvard social-network; they wanted Zuckerberg to design it; they gave him neither money nor code; and Zuckerberg went ahead and created the network for himself. It's not as though any of these people invented the concept of social-networking sites; Zuckerberg just tapped into a public desire that already existed--and was already being popularized by sites like MySpace and Friendster--and built a better mousetrap. Where do the Winklevi Twins fit into this? Who knows? Again, though, they may have been less accommodating to Mezrich and/or Sorkin than, say, Saverin was, so all these interpretations may be hopelessly biased.
We can't find any major fault with "The Social Network." At the same time, though, we don't see what all the fuss is about. The film moves along briskly, which is unsurprising with someone like David Fincher at the helm. There's nothing especially "cinematic" about the movie, though. No scenes stand out as exceptionally visually interesting; the settings are mostly dorm rooms and offices. We watched the movie on TV and can't imagine that we missed anything on the big screen.
***************************************
Incidentally, since we've been burned in the past couple of years when we tried to "outwit" the Oscars, our picks this year are just going to be the favorites (and, remember, we've only seen two of the movies):
Best Picture: The King's Speech
Best Director: Tom Hooper (under the theory that the "Picture" director wins--although, of the nominees, we suspect that Darren Aronofsky ["The Black Swan"] did the most "directing." And, we're sorry, but how could Christopher Nolan ["Inception"] not be nominated? Did David Fincher really do a more impressive job with "The Social Network"--where he basically just had to point the camera and say, "Action!"--then Nolan did?)
Best Actor: Colin Firth (While it would be fascinating to see what would happen if James Franco, who's HOSTING the Oscars, won the award, it'll be even more fascinating to see what happens when he loses.)
Best Actress: Natalie Portman (We think this one's a lock.)
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (Again, from what we've heard, this is a lock.)
Best Supporting Actress: Hailee Steinfeld (We don't really know anything about the nominees, and we think we've heard that Melissa Leo is a heavy favorite, but this category seems to go to little girls a lot [see Tatum O'Neal and Anna Paquin].)
And we'll go with "The Social Network" and "The King's Speech" for the screenplay awards (adapted and original, respectively).
If you win your Oscar pool with these picks, be sure to send us our cut.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
No Defense
In the latest sign of civilization's crumbling, the Obama administration has decided to stop defending marriage. President Obama has declared that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, designed to thwart federal recognition of same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional and ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the statute against court challenges. As Jon Stewart commented last night, "OK, Gays: Marriage is undefended! ATTACK!"
The Republican response was as swift as it was predictable. A spokesman for Speaker of the House John "Boys Don't Cry" Boehner, said, “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation."
The Republican response was as swift as it was predictable. A spokesman for Speaker of the House John "Boys Don't Cry" Boehner, said, “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation."
He has a point. After all, you don't see Republicans "stirring up" controversial issues in a time of national financial crisis. It's not as if they're going around trying to redefine rape or allow doctors to refuse to perform emergency abortions even if they are necessary to save a woman's life or cut off all federal funding to Planned Parenthood. Of course, the GOP would probably claim these are simply budget-cutting measures and should not be construed as nakedly political power-plays.
In that spirit, then, we suggest that the Obama Administration is simply looking for ways to cut spending as well. Think of all the money that the Department of Justice can save by not having to defend this frivolous and mean-spirited legislation.
Solipsistography
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Frack This
For most people, the word "frack" (or "frak") entered their consciousness as a pseudo-profanity on "Battlestar Galactica." When fending off Cylon attacks, the battle-hardened Capricans could be counted on to utter many a "Frak!," "Holy Frak!," and "Motherfrakker!" (or words to that effect). At first, it was amusing. Then it kind of got annoying. Finally, it petered out into subliminality. Thankfully, it never seemed to catch on with the general public, in the way that, say, "Shazbot!" did after the heyday of "Mork and Mindy."
We were amused, therefore, to see "fracking" turn up in such respectable venues as The Nation and The New York Times. It has nothing to do with "Galactica," though. It's an abbreviation of "hydrofracturing": a technique for retrieving natural gas that involves injecting huge volumes of water and other chemicals into rocks in order to blast them apart so that the gas trapped within can be retrieved. It's a controversial technique, as the chemicals may sometimes contaminate local water supplies.
We imagine the technique--and therefore the word--existed before "Battlestar Galactica." But if the show lives on in reruns, and if the technique becomes as familiar to the general public as offshore drilling, we suspect that future generations of "Galactica" fans will assume the fake curse word was meant to conjure images of the environmentally unfriendly practice.
Solipsistography
Frak (blog)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy
Recent events in the Middle East have proven uplifting in various ways. The overthrow of Tunisia's autocrat and the uprisings in Bahrain were highly educational: We learned, for example, that there are two countries known as Tunisia and Bahrain. Egypt's own mostly non-violent revolution was inspiring, at least until CBS's Lara Logan was raped in the aftermath. Still, we'll choose to focus on the freedom, not the egregious sexual violence. But we admit that we didn't truly experience a sense of glee until we began seeing the disintegration of the regime of Libya's Colonel Moamar Qadafi. (Khadafy? Gadafy? How come nobody can settle on a spelling for this loser? And, also, if he's such a hot shot, how come he never made general? Just sayin'.)
What's nice about this latest bout of Middle East turmoil is that we Americans can and should pretty much unambiguously and unconflictedly cheer on the Libyan protesters. Unlike Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, who was at least putatively an ally who helped promote US interests in the region, Qadafi is basically an unreconstructed douchebag. For one thing, he's nuts--and not in the good way. To call him a megalomaniac is an insult to megalomaniac's. An excerpt from his latest diatribe: "Muammar Qaddafi [see, even HE isn't sure how to spell it.] is history, resistance, liberty, glory, revolution." Once you start referring to yourself in the third-person, it's pretty much a quick jaunt to Wackytown: Just look at Diddy. Plus, he has so far shown little of Mubarak's restraint about killing his own citizens--which strikes us as questionable domestic policy, at best.
What cinches things for us are the revelations of a former Libyan Justice Minister--one of several high-profile Libyans who have defected since the uprising began--that Qadafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. OK, this was probably the worst-kept secret in the history of international terrorism, but now that we have some semi-official confirmation, the US should show no qualms about cheering on the protesters. Frankly, the Pan Am bombing was nothing short of an act of war. Qadafi's days should be numbered, and the US should do everything in its power to hasten his end.
And while we understand that the last thing our country needs is yet another Middle-Eastern military adventure, we can't help but think how gratifying it would be for the Obama Administration to send a message to the protesters: Just stay away from Tripoli for a couple of days. The US Air Force will clean up your little Qadafi-problem for you.
Na na na na. . . Na na na na. . . Hey hey hey. . .
What's nice about this latest bout of Middle East turmoil is that we Americans can and should pretty much unambiguously and unconflictedly cheer on the Libyan protesters. Unlike Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, who was at least putatively an ally who helped promote US interests in the region, Qadafi is basically an unreconstructed douchebag. For one thing, he's nuts--and not in the good way. To call him a megalomaniac is an insult to megalomaniac's. An excerpt from his latest diatribe: "Muammar Qaddafi [see, even HE isn't sure how to spell it.] is history, resistance, liberty, glory, revolution." Once you start referring to yourself in the third-person, it's pretty much a quick jaunt to Wackytown: Just look at Diddy. Plus, he has so far shown little of Mubarak's restraint about killing his own citizens--which strikes us as questionable domestic policy, at best.
What cinches things for us are the revelations of a former Libyan Justice Minister--one of several high-profile Libyans who have defected since the uprising began--that Qadafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. OK, this was probably the worst-kept secret in the history of international terrorism, but now that we have some semi-official confirmation, the US should show no qualms about cheering on the protesters. Frankly, the Pan Am bombing was nothing short of an act of war. Qadafi's days should be numbered, and the US should do everything in its power to hasten his end.
And while we understand that the last thing our country needs is yet another Middle-Eastern military adventure, we can't help but think how gratifying it would be for the Obama Administration to send a message to the protesters: Just stay away from Tripoli for a couple of days. The US Air Force will clean up your little Qadafi-problem for you.
Na na na na. . . Na na na na. . . Hey hey hey. . . Solipsistography
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Days of Whine and (Runny) Noses
The worst part about being sick is the extended recuperation period. Actually, that's not true. The WORST part of being sick is the aches and pains and chills and general feeling that you're going to die. But the second worst part is the extended recuperation period. You feel a general lack of energy or gumption or will to live. You have a low-grade headache that doesn't quite merit aspirin. You have a post-nasal drip that creates a permanent unclearable tickle in the back of your throat. And yet, you don't feel sick enough to actually call in sick or even to generate much sympathy from those around you.
We don't mind being sick; we just wish that, when the sickness was over, it would just be over! Here endeth the whine.
We don't mind being sick; we just wish that, when the sickness was over, it would just be over! Here endeth the whine.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Norma Rae Was Right
If there's one thing Teabaggers agree on, it's that a black man has no business being the President of the United States. But if there are two things Teabaggers agree on, the other one, we thought, was that government was bad and that the working-class slob was the embodiment of all that was good and right in the world. It strikes us as more than a little inconsistent, then, that Wisconsin Teabaggers are rallying behind the governor (who, unless we misunderstand the term, is a part of the government) against the working-class, embodied by public-sector unions. We know that paleoconservative Republicans have been opposed to unions ever since the first Stegosaurus Hunters Local began agitating for collective bargaining rights. But shouldn't those Teabag Shock Troops of the rabid right take a moment to think about exactly what it is they're protesting?
We know that they blame public-sector unions for bankrupting the body politic. We're not sure why this is. Do people think that mid-level file clerks at the DMV made gazillions of dollars worth of subprime mortgage loans? Are they under the impression that it was their local parks and recreation department employees who decided to bail out Wall Street?
And while we're discussing the Wall Street bailouts, can we stop attacking public union pension funds? Look, we understand that this is a time of financial exigency, and that everyone has to help out; indeed, union officials have indicated a willingness to accept a certain amount of financial sacrifice to help states balance their budgets. But we are really tired of hearing governments plead poverty when asked to own up to their contractual obligations.
A digression about contractual obligations: Whenever you see an advertisement for any kind of investment vehicle, you will notice a disclaimer that "past performance is no guarantee of future performance"--or words to that effect. What this means in plain English is that when you bet on the stock market, you are not guaranteed anything: You might actually lose money. For some reason, though, politicians of both political parties rushed to bail out failed investors when the markets went kerflooey a couple of years ago--even though there was no moral or legal reason they had to do this. On the other hand, when governments hit the financial skids, they are all too quick to start backing out on the legally binding agreements they made with their employees in the form of union contracts.
Unions are not the problem facing the United States today. Indeed, the ability of rank and file workers to agitate for their rights is one of the few things that can actually counter the powers of "big finance" and, yes, "big government." If Teabaggers really believe in the rights of the individual against the overreachings of the powerful, they should be protesting alongside the unions, not against them.
Solipsistography
Sunday, February 20, 2011
A Certain Kind of Fame Eludes Us (Part III)
You know how sometimes, when you watch "Jeopardy!," some poor schlemiel ends up with, like, minus-1200 dollars by the end of round two? You ask yourself, how did this yutz ever end up on the show in the first place? What you have to understand is that everyone who makes it onto the show is actually more than capable of answering the majority of questions. When somebody ends up with a humiliating total, it has to do with timing, not trivia. The thing that separates champions from runners-up is facility with the buzzer, not mental facilities.
We knew we were in trouble, therefore, when, in round one, DougfromToledo got every single answer in the "Cities of New York" category--this despite our own lifetime residence in, y'know, New York! We even got beat out on a question about New York Mets' coach Cookie Rojas. It's not that we didn't know the answers; DougfromToledo was just too damn fast! On the bright side, we did get to choose first in "Double Jeopardy."
In addition to timing being an issue, you need to have a little bit of luck with the categories. In the game before the one in which we appeared, contestants had the category "Batman's World." The categories for our "Double Jeopardy!" round were: "O Canada," "Best Supporting Actresses," "Gypsy," "Rose," "Lee," and "'Strips.'" (Get it? "Gypsy Rose Lee Strips"? BWAAA-HA-HA-HA. Kill us now.) In other words, the previous "day's" contestants got Batman; we got an entire category dedicated to Robert E. Lee.
We began the festivities by choosing "Best Supporting Actresses"--they name the movie, we name the Oscar winner. We got blocked out on the first two answers, but we rang in quickly for the $600 clue: "Moonstruck":
Alex: Yes, Solipsist?
Sol: Who is Cher?
Alex: No. DougfromToledo?
DougfromToledo: Who is Olympia Dukakis?
Alex: Yes. Best supporting actress, Solipsist.
Well. Patronized by Trebek. Guess we can cross that one off the bucket list.
About midway through "Double Jeopardy," though, something strange happened. We actually went on a little bit of a tear. We did quite well in the "strips" category. And we had a moment of true panic-indicued-inspiration when we unwisely rang in on the $1000 clue in the "Rose" category: "Meaning 'The Valley of the Deer,' it's a type of rose, or a single-malt scotch whiskey." Somehow, our brain rifled through its drawers of useless information, and came up with the thought that a Scottish valley was a 'glen' and that we knew there was some kind of scotch called glenfidditch. We guessed and were right. We were back in the game!
"Double Jeopardy" ended, and the unthinkable was suddenly thinkable: DougfromToledo had $8,700. The Solipsist had $4,700. For the first and only time in five games, the championhip was not a foregone conclusion. It was all going to come down to "Final Jeopardy." And then. . . the category was revealed:
World Capitals.
Wait a minute! WORLD CAPITALS?!?
"By the way," we asked as we deplaned at LAX, "I know I should know this, but what is the capital of Sweden?"
"Stockholm."
That was it! It was fate! The answer to "Final Jeopardy" was going to be Stockholm! We were going to defeat DougfromToledo thanks to Hottie McWindowseat! We hardly even needed to see the answer. We knew the question: WHAT IS STOCKHOLM?
Alex read the clue: "Founded in 1840. . . "
What is Stockholm?
"this city is. . . "
What is Stockholm?
"the world's southernmost world capital."
What is. . . Did you say 'southernmost'?
The horrific "Jeopardy!" music played through the studio as contestants scribbled out their answers. What were we supposed to do? How could this have happened? Alex asked Cheryl, who was in third place, for her answer: What is Hobart? Wrong.
Alex: Solipsist?
Solipsist: What is. . . . Stockholm?
Alex: I'm sorry?
Solipsist: (Ahem) What is Stockholm?
Alex: Uh, no. That's. . . that's just incredibly wrong.
*********************************************
OK, we didn't actually guess Stockholm. We might as well have. We went with Johannesburg, which we knew was wrong, but we just drew a blank. It wouldn't have mattered, anyway: DougfromToledo got it right (of course): Wellington, NZ. Even if we had known it, he would have won. Officially, we finished second and won a week's golf and tennis vacation at a resort in Monterey, which would have been great if we had played golf or tennis. Could have been worse, though: We could have won a gift certificate to Lobstergram.
In the long run, though, DougfromToledo is but a footnote in the "Jeopardy!" history books. At the time, he was something like the fourth-highest five-day money winner, but any major acclaim he might have received was surely overshadowed by Ken Jennings, who won a ludicrous 70-plus games before finally being defeated. And even he has now been defeated by IBM's Watson.
In the annals of game-show lore, then, YNSHC is but a footnote to a footnote. We had our moment, though. And we'll challenge Watson to a round of "Deal or No Deal" any day of the week.
Solipsistography
If you want to see every question from the Solipsist's game: The J! Archive
"Computer Wins on 'Jeopardy!': Trivial, It's Not"
We knew we were in trouble, therefore, when, in round one, DougfromToledo got every single answer in the "Cities of New York" category--this despite our own lifetime residence in, y'know, New York! We even got beat out on a question about New York Mets' coach Cookie Rojas. It's not that we didn't know the answers; DougfromToledo was just too damn fast! On the bright side, we did get to choose first in "Double Jeopardy."
In addition to timing being an issue, you need to have a little bit of luck with the categories. In the game before the one in which we appeared, contestants had the category "Batman's World." The categories for our "Double Jeopardy!" round were: "O Canada," "Best Supporting Actresses," "Gypsy," "Rose," "Lee," and "'Strips.'" (Get it? "Gypsy Rose Lee Strips"? BWAAA-HA-HA-HA. Kill us now.) In other words, the previous "day's" contestants got Batman; we got an entire category dedicated to Robert E. Lee.
We began the festivities by choosing "Best Supporting Actresses"--they name the movie, we name the Oscar winner. We got blocked out on the first two answers, but we rang in quickly for the $600 clue: "Moonstruck":
Alex: Yes, Solipsist?
Sol: Who is Cher?
Alex: No. DougfromToledo?
DougfromToledo: Who is Olympia Dukakis?
Alex: Yes. Best supporting actress, Solipsist.
Well. Patronized by Trebek. Guess we can cross that one off the bucket list.
About midway through "Double Jeopardy," though, something strange happened. We actually went on a little bit of a tear. We did quite well in the "strips" category. And we had a moment of true panic-indicued-inspiration when we unwisely rang in on the $1000 clue in the "Rose" category: "Meaning 'The Valley of the Deer,' it's a type of rose, or a single-malt scotch whiskey." Somehow, our brain rifled through its drawers of useless information, and came up with the thought that a Scottish valley was a 'glen' and that we knew there was some kind of scotch called glenfidditch. We guessed and were right. We were back in the game!
"Double Jeopardy" ended, and the unthinkable was suddenly thinkable: DougfromToledo had $8,700. The Solipsist had $4,700. For the first and only time in five games, the championhip was not a foregone conclusion. It was all going to come down to "Final Jeopardy." And then. . . the category was revealed:
World Capitals.
Wait a minute! WORLD CAPITALS?!?
"By the way," we asked as we deplaned at LAX, "I know I should know this, but what is the capital of Sweden?"
"Stockholm."
That was it! It was fate! The answer to "Final Jeopardy" was going to be Stockholm! We were going to defeat DougfromToledo thanks to Hottie McWindowseat! We hardly even needed to see the answer. We knew the question: WHAT IS STOCKHOLM?
Alex read the clue: "Founded in 1840. . . "
What is Stockholm?
"this city is. . . "
What is Stockholm?
"the world's southernmost world capital."
What is. . . Did you say 'southernmost'?
The horrific "Jeopardy!" music played through the studio as contestants scribbled out their answers. What were we supposed to do? How could this have happened? Alex asked Cheryl, who was in third place, for her answer: What is Hobart? Wrong.
Alex: Solipsist?
Solipsist: What is. . . . Stockholm?
Alex: I'm sorry?
Solipsist: (Ahem) What is Stockholm?
Alex: Uh, no. That's. . . that's just incredibly wrong.
*********************************************
OK, we didn't actually guess Stockholm. We might as well have. We went with Johannesburg, which we knew was wrong, but we just drew a blank. It wouldn't have mattered, anyway: DougfromToledo got it right (of course): Wellington, NZ. Even if we had known it, he would have won. Officially, we finished second and won a week's golf and tennis vacation at a resort in Monterey, which would have been great if we had played golf or tennis. Could have been worse, though: We could have won a gift certificate to Lobstergram.
In the long run, though, DougfromToledo is but a footnote in the "Jeopardy!" history books. At the time, he was something like the fourth-highest five-day money winner, but any major acclaim he might have received was surely overshadowed by Ken Jennings, who won a ludicrous 70-plus games before finally being defeated. And even he has now been defeated by IBM's Watson.
In the annals of game-show lore, then, YNSHC is but a footnote to a footnote. We had our moment, though. And we'll challenge Watson to a round of "Deal or No Deal" any day of the week.
Solipsistography
If you want to see every question from the Solipsist's game: The J! Archive
"Computer Wins on 'Jeopardy!': Trivial, It's Not"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)