#one can respect someone's commentary talent and still note that person is terrible at other parts of their job

[alianoralacanta]

Just read the news about Matteo Bobbi and Davide Valsecchi getting suspended due to a sustained exchange of sexist comments in the Sky Italia post-Spanish Grand Prix chat. I am very disappointed in them and had thought that they’d know better. How, exactly, does one keep a broadcasting job for 10 years and still think it’s a good idea to continue exchanging such quips after being told off about them on air?!? That’s not simply a human decency issue, that’s a professional competence issue! Speaking of which, well done to Frederica Masolin (the other pundit on screen) for adroitly handling their combined folly. Her comment is the only one I will repeat here: She told the pair to ‘be careful’ but as the joke continued added: ‘Can we watch some interviews instead of these two? Let’s hear from Carlos Sainz, please. I’m going to censure you two.’

[codywalzel]

The Emoji Movie (And Weak TV/Movies in general)- A Entreaty to Cut the Snark

(In a public forum anyway, if you just want to goof off in conversation with friends, knock yourself out.)

So, if you’re drafting your scathing tweet for whatever the current week’s freshly released and much hated property happens to be:

Please don’t. Take Emoji, for example. First off, I didn’t work on Emoji. I have many friends that did during my time at Sony, but this essay isn’t for their sake. I would have worked on Emoji if offered for reasons I’ll get to later, but for now let me start with this: None of the respectable artists that worked on the film wanted it to turn out how it did. Business people with only a secondary interest in art controlled a product, with which they hoped to make money, and guess what, it worked. I’m not trying to throw executives under the bus here either. Executives, whose job is to make money, not to make “good” movies, don’t always the time or budget to assure quality. And honestly, even for the world’s best filmmakers, with infinite budgets and complete control, quality is never a certainty. So, especially in a time crunch, with a full slate, and unproven filmmakers, quality is not necessarily the best business plan for execs. At least that’s the perception to many of us working on a project, and I can see from their perspective the logic that stance. It’s a, “I don’t care if the fart joke is stupid, kids will LOVE it!” kind of thing. Often, sensationalism and even bad press can actually be a good business plan, because that assures the movie won’t be buried. Kids like poop jokes, and adults want a ticket to the train wreck. The decision-makers on the film probably leaned into the low brow as an allure for the marketing campaign, making it a far more visible film due to all the negative buzz surrounding it. The producers don’t care if they’re serving McDonald’s or filet mignon, they’re playing a completely different game, and it’s about getting butts in seats at any cost. Incredibly talented artists fought hard to make the most of a bad situation, and as is usually the case, were outvoted time and again by money, because money had completely different goals. I’m in no way advocating an acceptance of mediocre filmmaking, or a lowered set of expectations for your media consumption. I am, however, trying to make a case that the culture of snottiness, and smug, side-mouth “witticisms” is one of misspent energy, presuming your goal is to help contribute quality art to the world. 

The reason I say not to waste time crafting some cutting diatribe is, the public negativity won’t ever hurt the execs, they won’t see the criticism, and they don’t care because the movie did fulfilled its financial responsibility as a product. But the artists who try and fail to make good movies take the brunt of all the negativity and snark that gets thrown out there. Even though filmmakers will likely never see your specific post, every bit of nasty amateur commentary contributes to a general culture of creativity-stifling artist bashing. Although we should always hold professionals to the highest standard, you have to try and be realistic about the amount of control they have on a project like this. This is not to say you shouldn’t recognize crappy choices for what they are, go ahead and notice what doesn’t work about a movie. Professional reviewers can and should dissect a work’s failing. But, there’s no point in taking so much glee in throwing rocks in the town square. The world just really doesn’t need another sick-burn Tweet featuring your “hot take” on the movie. We get it. You’re smart and the filmmakers are dumb. Your opinion is the same as everyone else’s, but you worded it slightly differently, so that 160 character Twitter review that starts with “Apparently…” and oozes smarm from there is better off left in the drafts. This type of schadenfreude is among the nastiest behaviors to which creatives regularly subject each other. To be working on a very visible project means that almost every artist on that film or show has legions of fans that adore their original work, and an entire industry to speak to their talent. Yet so often I see the artists themselves, and not just the one work, lumped together in the public eye as “the idiots who made that bad thing.” You might ask, “Why would they take that crappy job then?” For the same reason people who haven’t make it into the industry yet take jobs bagging groceries: to pay rent, to support their families, to pay for classes to improve themselves, or just to get them through to the next, better job. It’s not every day that the Iron Giant or Finding Nemo is staffing up, and you never know what kind of project a movie is going to turn out to be going in. So many huge successes fought their way to greatness after an incredibly rocky start. And many movies at a promising studio, with a great premise and solid leadership, end up being terrible. There’s no way to know going in. If you truly think you’re the exception to that rule, take out a loan and open a small studio, because you’ll be the most successful figure in Hollywood history if you can predict a hit every time.

Everybody knows now that the Emoji Movie is bad at this point. Any of the slew of amateur ”reviews” now will just be a race to the bottom, another rotten cabbage to throw at the guy with his head in the pillory. In these situations it feels like all the sassy internet hecklers, many of whom have little or no relationship with the process of actually making films, are lining up to kick a downed opponent, and make themselves look like a tough guy. Each slam is looking raise the bar on the new meanest possible insult, “_____ (movie) was so terrible it made me want to kill myself with my own ticket stub through a thousand tiny paper-cuts”.  The desperation of scrambling to find a “hot take” on an exhausted property is palpable. So many Facebook Status “Film Gurus”, Youtube Movie Ranters, and the ever scholarly forum commentators, are always at the ready to weave a mixture of diatribe and condescending, film-school-freshman lecturing. There’s this ever present tone of “if they only knew these obvious filmmaking truisms, they’d be smart like me, and make better movies. Please, please when will a producer drift into this forum, recognize my intelligence, and give me movies to make instead?” They then usually proceed to lay out some “rules” they’ve read from various screenwriting books. Rest the rules, because I guarantee you that the artists involved in these films read the same books. The filmmakers are just as big of film buffs as us, they watch all the same shows and movies, and they study filmmaking theory through books, blogs, criticism, and movie absorption the same way we do. Yet, with all their knowledge, you still get this kind of “bad” movie, which just shows you how hard it is to make a movie work. There is a harsh reality to showbusiness’ balance of commerce and art: a businesses’ goal is profit, and Hollywood Filmmaking is a business. Here’s a shortened example of what it might take to get a “good” movie made: 1. Someone makes it through the long and cut-throat-competitive thresher of endlessly pitching their ideas. For the sake of condensing many steps, we’ll cut to the part where the project is the 1% that makes it through development hell, and we’ll say the filmmaker survives their 50/50 shot of being replaced by the studio for someone they like better.  2. The filmmaker convinces the studio that “quality” will be a factor that earns money for this movie, and not one of a many possible marketing directives.  3. The filmmaker is also able to assure those footing the bill that they can achieve quality, and in the process get enough creative control to make the thing work. That often includes either convincing a studio that your ability to execute a vision is superior to theirs, or tricking them into thinking both of your visions of the movie are the same, and quietly seeing how many of their notes you can hide under the carpet while you and your trained creative team actually make it work. (On rare occasions execs are either excellent collaborators, or trusting enough of filmmakers to let them do the creative work they were hired to do.)    4. Assuming the filmmaker is able to settle the control issue, and wrestle the steering wheel from the people whose money they are spending, then the filmmaker must then have been correct about their vision being a good one that will work on screen.  5. Finally, if the stars align, then the millions of moving pieces that make up a film/show are somehow kept from falling apart. If all those fragile pieces work in unison, and nothing major changes with the leadership at studios, or the state of the industry as a whole, the project has a chance of being “good”. Even then, there’s no guarantee that “good” thing will make money.  On every project I’ve ever worked on, even the ones I’m proud of, the whole is so much less than the sum of it’s parts. Sometimes I already follow every person I work with on a project on social media when I come in on the first day. There are usually talented people in every department, an all star team, but the project is almost never an all star result. Sometimes it’s not even something I would watch.

Due to the safety and reach of the Internet, the culture of “critiquing” filmmaking has given every basement dwelling cynic and film school sophomore an outlet for their bitter condescension. I think this has led to the general impression that the most important thing that critics do is tear movies apart. I’ve even seen actual, professional critics resort to a kind of schoolyard rap battle to see who can deliver the most crushing blow to a film. But, the most acclaimed critics in film history spent much their time championing films they love- celebrating successes rather than brutally attacking failures. People like Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin became legendary figures in film history by using their influence to introduce the world to filmmaking that might have otherwise gone overlooked. Hate what you want. Bash what you want. I’m not going to try and fight some crusade against internet flame culture. But, since so many of the people who so joyfully hate on films online claim a passionate love of cinema, just know that a horde of nasty tweets doesn’t help cinema in any way. Way more terrible movies are made than great ones, that’s both the law of averages, and a sad reality of the business. So, although one can learn just as much from a bad movie as a good one, keep it balanced- If you find that the goal of your criticism is to dog-pile an already hated property, I'm begging you to choose again:

-Be the bold person to articulate dissatisfaction with a beloved movie instead.

-Or champion the strong parts of a despised movie.

-Or even continue in the awesome tradition of Tony Zhou, by doing the hard work it takes to neatly point out successful things a strong movie accomplishes. 

-But most of the time, if you're in such a bitter mood that you want to publicly slam a bunch of strangers, your best option is to bury that opinion deep, deep inside of yourself, log off of your computer, and go deal with whatever is making you so angry.

[wicked-messenger-tarot]

The Radiant Sun Redux

Introduction

Maybe I wouldn’t have realized the need for an extensive, plotted rewrite of the book and definitions accompanying the Oracle of the Radiant Sun if, in fact, my moon was not in Leo, and if I had not drawn the card representing the Moon in Leo on New Year’s Eve.

Here’s the card that made the decision for me, about whether or not to go forward:

Because even though I had already toyed with the idea, THIS card’s write-up was so egregious, and reminded me so much of those useless newspaper horoscopes that turned me off to astrology for decades, and highlighted such an extreme cultural difference between America and England, (and by the by affronted me and my Leo Moon personally), that something obviously had to be done.

So I am starting with this card even though I’ll be doing the rest of the deck in the order the authors gave them.  This card, APPRECIATION, is the begining for me, and so apt, in all regards.

Things I Appreciate about The Book

The idea of merging Horary Astrology and the form of an oracle on cards was, on the surface, pretty ingenious, and also incredibly complex.  The entire concept necessitated a lot of work, study, knowledge, and decision-making in two fairly incompatible directions, and despite the extreme drawbacks of the book, this shows-- Smith and Astrop put a lot of work into this.

John Astrop was an extremely experienced astrologer who designed some of the first computer programs for astrologers.  He was the author of over a hundred books on the subject of astrology, including a whole series for parents to help them understand their wee baby Scorpios or what have you.  So this guy was no slouch.  My beef with him and his book has nothing to do with my sense of his expertise or seriousness.  This wasn’t someone who threw something together carelessly. 

Another thing I like about the book is how well organized it is. 

And that’s pretty much it.

What I Do Not Appreciate

The idea just doesn’t work.  Merging two entirely disparate systems seems like a good idea at first but it becomes, pretty rapidly, an attempt to merge one set of things that are tangible with arbitrarily assigned meaning (astrology) and another set of tangible things with arbitrarily assigned meaning (cards), but the party of the first part is, you know, an actual thing that is happening regardless of what you think it means.  The moment you are born, the sky looks a certain way, period.  The moment you ask a specific question the stars and planets are in specific places, period.  That’s what horary astrology is-- the moment the question is “born” is the moment the stars are consulted, which is pretty neat and the basis for most ancient astrologers’ jobs with royal courts.

And what the sky looks like when you ask your question will have, most likely, ZERO to do with which cards you pull from this oracle deck.  The two things are operating on a totally different wavelength.  There’s nothing wrong with either of those wavelengths, but there is also nothing whatsoever connected between those two things.

That said, it’s not that there’s zero connection symbolically between astrology and, say, Tarot.  Tarot cards have a lot of interconnections to astrology.  There’s no reason these cards can’t be utilized in that fashion, perhaps even more directly.  The germ of the idea isn’t terrible, but the way the book attempts to carry it through is kind of a disaster.

The main thing I do not appreciate is the fact a PERSONAL HOROSCOPE makes no sense to include on a card that anyone can pull out of the deck.  There is no good context in which this will work, hence my comparison to cheesey newspaper sun sign horoscopes that are largely useless.

Example:  APPRECIATION

At the top of the page it reads:  APPRECIATION.  Moon in Leo.  [Shows the astrological symbols.]  MOON-Security.  LEO-Creative Self-Expression.

Take a good look at that card.  Here’s the description in the book:  “...a rich and elegant lady performs on a lute.  Her audience is a swift symbolizing spring and new creation.  Below is a cornucopia bursting with fruit symbolizing man and woman, Sun and Moon.”

And now the book definitions:  “PERSONAL.  The emotions of somewhat prima-donna-ish Moon/Leo characters require affection, appreciation, and lots of good opportunities for over-dramatic expression.  This card indicates a need to be center stage as regards feelings, because for Leos big is beautiful, and they can be as emotionally generous as they are bullying.  Emotionally, Moon/Leo people are great romantics.  Feelings are important to them and must be apreciated and respected if Moon lions are to maintain their usual warm optimism.  Children can be an important part of their life and, whether they have any of their own or not, people with th is planet/sign combination are fond of the company of young-thinking people.  This basically emotionally optimistic person has a tendency to over-impulsive actions where loved ones are concerned.  He or she often has a good natural feeling for art and can benefit from developing latent talents in this area.”

Okay, it’s New Year’s Eve, a traditional time to consult an oracle.  Usually I use Tarot but this year I got funsy and used this deck.  One of the three cards I pulled was APPRECIATION.  A word that has a definition, and a word that, when it appears on a card, by itself with specific images, gives you a very particular feeling, idea, advice even?  You know, the main reason people consult an oracle on the New Year, combined with wanting to know what might lie ahead?

And instead you get a whole slew of ideas about... Moon Leos.  Say you are a Moon Leo, you’re nothing like any of that, and you are aware that your entire chart is in play so that’s probably why, but how is any of that helpful?  That’s a lot of real estate taken up on a page to make a bunch of general commentary on someone with their Moon in Leo, and emphasis on “general” and “commentary” because

None of that commentary is implied by the card, either in terms of image, the word it is illustrating, or even the notation at the top of the page about the astrological symbols and their meanings.  But say you are NOT a Moon Leo-- what does any of that have to do with you?  Was this entire process of consulting your oracle deck a waste of your time?  Sure seems like.

He goes on:  “When this card appears in a reading, it can indicate a powerful need for recognition in some aspect of life.  There may be a feeling that those around are not responding appreciatively enough, provoking an unhelpful over-the-top response”  Imma stop him for a sec, how on earth is anyone going to get that from this card?  From the image?  From the word APPRECIATION?  In context with many cards in a traditional Tarot type reading maybe the first sentence, okay, but the rest of it?  And in a single-card draw?

He continues:  “The card can also indicate emotional dependency on a partner or close friends.  Positively, if the card does not refer to the questioner, it can portray someone popular, generous, and much admired by others.”  So if this card is drawn by you for you, you’re a mess, but if you want to know about someone else, they’re awesome, and also if neither of you has a Moon in Leo it still somehow applies to you for reasons, or it doesn’t and you need to find a card that does.  Got it.

And last:  “EVENTS:  A lavish occasion;  theatrical event, children’s performance; pride in an achievement;  short-lived fame, excessively dramatic behavior;  family party or gathering.”  Three of these things are not events, by any stretch of the imagination.

(Sigh.)

This is what makes any book accompanying any deck, what’s the word, BAD.  It is a bad book if it doesn’t mesh with the cards.

One of the constants throughout this book is how resolutely negative each of his definitions are compared to the images on the cards.  Some of this negativity is really excessive, especially for a deck that doesn’t use reversals (I do, so we’ll get into that a bit.)

Also many of his definitions don’t fit the card at hand but will fit another card that actually means the thing he ascribes to another card.  For example, OPTIMISM is for no apparent reason also about “extreme and immovable fundamentalism”, and yet this deck literally has a card called EXTREMISM.  You’ll note the repeated references to “drama” and “over the top” and such with APPRECIATION-- yet there is literally, in this deck, a card called DRAMA.

Books on oracles and Tarot often step into the role of a professional reader to ostensibly help the amateur who is trying a deck of cards for the first time to have a successful reading, and that’s fine.  But it’s often unclear when an author’s opinions are just that, opinions, and not a hard and fast definition.  It would be more useful to add an example of the card in a reading so the person excitedly trying out their first or second or thirtieth new deck will clearly see there are myriad ways of interpreting the card, and this deck would have benefitted from this.  Then the author, a man of experience and a wide knowledge base, could have put his opinions of Moon Leos or whatever in there without ruining what is probably a perfectly good and perhaps brilliant divination tool.

So let’s fix this.

My Rewrite

When this card appears upright in a reading, it can indicate a powerful need for recognition in some aspect of life and that it is time to pursue this.  It can mean that the querant is appreciated more than they realize, or are unaware of how much they should appreciate about themselves and their circumstances.  It is time to be thankful and show your gratitude for this.  If the card does not refer to the querant, it can portray someone popular, generous, and much admired by others, or someone the querant should appreciate more.

When this card appears reversed, it can indicate emotional dependency on others to show appreciation for the querant-- for example, if this card appears reversed in a reading with cards indicating jealousy, insecurity, and drama, the meaning might be that the querant needs to take a step back and remember they cannot find in others what they cannot find in themselves. This card might indicate a need to be center stage, and there may be a feeling that those around are not responding appreciatively enough.  Acknowledge these feelings.

PERSONAL.  Moon/Leo characters require affection, appreciation, and lots of good opportunities for self expression.   Moon/Leo people are great romantics. Feelings are important to them and must be apreciated.  He or she often has a good natural feeling for art and can benefit from developing latent talents in this area.

EVENTS:  A lavish occasion;  theatrical event, children’s performance; pride in an achievement;  family party or gathering;  awards ceremony;  promotion or congratulations

See how I moved and shortened “Personal” so those who might have a Moon in Leo (and know about it) can see a general newspaper-horoscope definition and find something useful in the context of the card?  I’m a big fan of usefulness in a reading.  It does nothing to tell someone a bunch of general opinions about something they can’t change-- it’s perfectly fine to tell someone the consensus opinion, sans judgement, and let them see if it fits them.  (No, this definition still largely doesn’t fit me, but that’s okay, because in the context of my overall chart I can see where the parts that do fall into place.)

Conclusion

So that’s where I’ll be going with this over the course of the year.  As I go I’ll be writing each of my rewrites out and putting them in the book, possibly even gluing over the pages, so I can consult it when I need to.

Because above all, I deeply appreciate the feel of this deck, the images, the energy of the ideas behind it, and the couple who put it together as what was probably an exciting labor of love.  That energy wasn’t destroyed by my objections to the follow-through that is the book, and that alone is a testament to how worthwhile this deck really is.

Thank you for reading.