In football, the preliminaries are over--time for the playoffs.
I am grateful that the big-time colleges have seen fit to add a round to their championship; now the issue is no longer "Who's #3?" but "Who's #5?" This is progress. I hope, and believe, that this stage of evolution will be successful, and that the next move will be to expand the playoffs to six teams, of which the #6 team should be the best chosen from the mid-major level (and should face #3 in the first round). They will be glad to have the opportunity.
One lesson should have been clear from the final selections of the four playoff teams: the "Big 12" needs to get two more teams, so that they really are "12"--that lack, according to the "rules", prevented them from having a conference championship game. The result was that number 5 and number 6, both from the Big 12 (TCU and Baylor) both had final games which earned them no credit and they end up missing out on the playoffs. The conference will need to pick up a couple of stragglers and fill out their roster--that or get the rule changed so they can have their conference championship game next year. That being noted, I really have no complaint with the four teams chosen. I would expect Alabama to make it to the final, but that Florida State-Oregon game is a very interesting matchup. .
In a year in which the SEC teams beat each other up all year, the main interest in the other bowl games will be to see whether the conference's #2-#9, all of which are in prominent bowls, will be able to preserve their sterling record against all comers. I would recommend betting SEC throughout--except for any cases when SEC teams' top players get arrested in the leadup to their bowl games..
In the NFL, the big story (which I didn't hear covered) was the question of which team was playing its last game before moving to Los Angeles. I would put my money on it being the San Diego Chargers, which played a gutless game and blew a playoff spot for which it had the inside track. The other two leading contenders for the LA lottery, the Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams, should be disqualified as teams that have had the blessing of an LA franchise and left there. I do feel for the SD fans, though, who deserve better: theirs is one of the original AFC franchises, one that has stayed in place through thick and thin and no SB championships --I think it and Buffalo are the only ones.
There were some new developments in the league during the regular season--I note the rise of the Arizona Cardinals and the surprising shortcomings of the 49ers--but the end product has a familiar look. The defending champion Seattle Seahawks gave their fans some anxious moments early but came on strong late in the season and secured the top seed in the conference. In a sign of the increased parity evident, no team did better than a 12-4 regular season record (five teams had that mark), but in spite of that, it would be disappointing if the conference final matchups are anything other than #1 vs. #2 (Green Bay vs. Seattle; Denver vs. New England). I will stick with my preseason prediction of the final being the QB showdown of Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady.
Speaking of parity, baseball seems to be in a bit of a leaderless confusion; although the Giants won their third World Series in five years in 2014, I would say they are far from being a favorite next year. I would generalize the offseason thus far by saying the bad teams have gotten better while the teams which have been good are not very convincing. The Dodgers are the case in point for the latter; they should be favored but have not yet demonstrated any passion or quest for postseason excellence.
The opposite of parity is occurring in college basketball these days, as a few teams scoop all the top prospects in this era of "one and done", year after year. Those that can convince their charges to stay more than one year have a bit of an edge. Last year's mediocre U of Kentucky team made it to the national championship final, but a number of their stars were unfulfilled, career-wise (i.e., not going to be drafted among the lottery picks) and stayed around--that combined with yet another stellar crop of freshman recruits makes the Wildcats one of the most potent 10-man-rotation teams ever seen in college hoops and a massive favorite to go through the regular season unbeaten. It has been a very long time since a team did that and won that championship--if that occurs it will be historic, but there are a few other fat cat teams with talent that will challenge them in the tourney.
Finally, the NBA regular season is about half over and the standings are in total chaos. Injuries to stars for the top teams of recent years has been a major factor, along with major adjustments in the personnel of some of those teams. As a result, upstart teams like Portland, Golden State, Toronto, and Washington are riding atop the conferences--not that I believe these teams will end up playing for the titles. I like Houston and Oklahoma City (assuming they get healthy) to be the best in the West, with Chicago and Cleveland (when LeBron & Co. finally get their act together) my prediction for the finalists in the East. So, like the NFL, not so different from the usual contenders in the end, though I think San Antonio's run may finally come to an end (and they may not even make the playoffs this year).
Monday, December 29, 2014
Sunday, December 07, 2014
"Interstellar" - Pt. 1: Science Fiction and Fantasy
I am inspired to write this little essay by watching "Interstellar"; I had the good fortune to find it in a cinema here in Milano yesterday evening in the original language, with subtitles. That's pretty rare here: the dubbing industry remains very strong, with skilled practitioners, and most Italians prefer to watch most films in Italian. I did find that having the original dialogue helped a lot with this movie, as it was not so much that the dialogue was complex, but that it retained the emotional content and inflections of the original actors. The titles (in Italian, of course) actually helped to keep from losing those parts which were "mumbled", an issue I see increasingly in American films. I guess it's realistic to portray speaking roles in the way people actually speak--in the opposite direction from the hearer, asides barely heard--as opposed to declaiming theatrically.
Anyway, the movie made a deep impression and gave me a lot to think about. I am actually doing two reviews of it--this one, of a more general nature, and one which will go into more depth about some of the issues brought up in the climactic final hour. That one, which necessarily has some spoilers about some of the surprising turns toward the end of the movie, will go into a time capsule here and be released in a few months, when the first run (and anticipated post-Oscar continuation of that run) are over, and everyone has had the opportunity and time to see it. I feel that is very appropriate treatment for this movie.
Sci-Fi and Fantasy
Let's start by making a distinction between what was the old-style science fiction and the genre which has largely displaced it in recent decades, fantasy fiction. The main difference between the two is that science fiction should seek to place its narratives in a world we can see as a possible one (past, present, or future). Recognition, or explanation, of scientific understanding helps guide key aspects of the story in directions outside our normal experience, but still possible. Fantasy is not limited by the conventions of possible reality: instead its authors are allowed to consider worlds that may not be possible, beings that may never exist, and scenarios that could never realistically occur.
Both contribute to our ability to imagine alternatives. Science fiction has the additional benefit of sometimes guiding popular understanding of where experience may be heading--in some cases, it has actually contributed to new paths of scientific exploration. Fantasy rises or falls on the completeness of the imagined world and the plausibility of the stories, given their situations and nature, and with a bit stronger suspension of disbelief involved.
I think it's fair to credit (or blame) the relative rise of fantasy to J.R.R. Tolkien's popularity starting from the Sixties, and to blame the decline of science fiction on a combination of the divergence between the recent historical development of science-based lifestyle changes and what science fiction seemed to predict for us a few decades ago (as Steve Earle put it in his excellent recent song, "21st Century Blues", "Where the Hell's my flying car?"). In other words, there has been a lowering of our expectations, or a reduction in our imagination, of what science can do for our future. Science fiction has always had a percentage of apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic stories; I would guess that percentage has increased with the development of the eco-apocalyptic vein ("ecolyptic"?), but I doubt that such downers have done much recently for the broad commercial potential of the genre, whereas the successfully-imagined worlds of fantasy supply the opportunity for serialized continuations ad infinitum, even beyond the lifespans of its authors. That has meant a clear path toward continuing employment as a motivator for authors of imaginative fiction, and there are plenty of cases of authors switching from sci-fi to fantasy in the course of their careers.
Space Fantasy
To sum up, all fiction requires the suspension of disbelief--we need to believe, in the case of historical fiction for example, that the dialogues and events not historically recorded are real. Fantasy differs in that we need to accept, temporarily, an alternate reality. I would argue that "Interstellar" is fantasy--a well-presented one--but one that is contrary to what could ever be possible.
To recap the premise of the story of the movie, something that has been widely disclosed (so no spoiler here), a near-future plague is destroying all of the world's food crops. Only corn remains, and its continued viability is at risk. The population is already decimated and is in the process of dying out. A possible way to continue the species appears in the form of interstellar travel, through the fortuitous appearance of a space-time wormhole near Saturn, to some distant galaxies which may be able to support human life.
One little problem: interstellar travel is way beyond the capability of the human race, now and for the foreseeable future. Of course, in a movie titled "Interstellar", set just a few decades in the future, this is actually a fundamental problem. Director Christopher Nolan, who with his brother wrote the story, goes to great lengths to provide scientific underpinning for his fantastic construct. Some of it has validity, while some I could recognize, even with my freshman physics knowledge, was impossible, though mostly subtly so. I give him credit for trying to make the workings of interstellar travel believable, something that others--I think of "Avatar", the "Aliens" series, "Star Trek"--don't even attempt.
This effort does contribute to the value of the entertainment, though. What we see in "Interstellar" is a variety of people, people not unlike us, in a highly-stressful situation and their human reactions and behavior. There is emotional content, there are characters who develop through the story, there is some study of how decisions are made under stress, there is even philosophy. It is a human story, and a humane one. Violence is present, but in the proper measure; love is a primary factor. As a fantasy, it is quite a satisfying one: complex in its presentation, plenty of food for thought during and after, and the audio-visual aspect is all we should expect. (I might like to see it in Imax.)
I would say it sets a new standard in the genre of space fantasy for its depth and attempt at lucidity. In that sense, it exceeds movies like "Gravity"--which was not fantasy but similar in its drama and some key aspects--or "Avatar". I would compare it most directly to "2001: A Space Odyssey" (to which it's certainly better in the lucidity aspect, though maybe not the artistic ones) and to "Contact" (the Jodie Foster movie from some 20 years ago, based on a story by Carl Sagan). Both share with "Interstellar" a philosophy that man's destiny is in the stars, but "Interstellar" puts a different twist on it. "Interstellar" has a great cast, with several big stars playing their characters (not just themselves--even Matthew McConnaughy, though he does bring a bit more redneck to the role than I thought was needed)--I was particularly tickled to see Wes Bentley (of "American Beauty") and Jeff Hephner (of "Boss"). Finally, I see some parallels with another, supposedly earth-bound, fantasy: "The Wizard of Oz" (however, no singing, though the musical score was excellent).
Even as a fantasy, "Interstellar" is hardly perfect, but to go into the errors--in concept, and in details--would require giving away too much. Check the time capsule in a few months.
My guess for Oscar: about 8-9 nominations, including sound, music, sets, a couple for acting, original screenplay, director, Best Picture, and 3-4 wins.
Anyway, the movie made a deep impression and gave me a lot to think about. I am actually doing two reviews of it--this one, of a more general nature, and one which will go into more depth about some of the issues brought up in the climactic final hour. That one, which necessarily has some spoilers about some of the surprising turns toward the end of the movie, will go into a time capsule here and be released in a few months, when the first run (and anticipated post-Oscar continuation of that run) are over, and everyone has had the opportunity and time to see it. I feel that is very appropriate treatment for this movie.
Sci-Fi and Fantasy
Let's start by making a distinction between what was the old-style science fiction and the genre which has largely displaced it in recent decades, fantasy fiction. The main difference between the two is that science fiction should seek to place its narratives in a world we can see as a possible one (past, present, or future). Recognition, or explanation, of scientific understanding helps guide key aspects of the story in directions outside our normal experience, but still possible. Fantasy is not limited by the conventions of possible reality: instead its authors are allowed to consider worlds that may not be possible, beings that may never exist, and scenarios that could never realistically occur.
Both contribute to our ability to imagine alternatives. Science fiction has the additional benefit of sometimes guiding popular understanding of where experience may be heading--in some cases, it has actually contributed to new paths of scientific exploration. Fantasy rises or falls on the completeness of the imagined world and the plausibility of the stories, given their situations and nature, and with a bit stronger suspension of disbelief involved.
I think it's fair to credit (or blame) the relative rise of fantasy to J.R.R. Tolkien's popularity starting from the Sixties, and to blame the decline of science fiction on a combination of the divergence between the recent historical development of science-based lifestyle changes and what science fiction seemed to predict for us a few decades ago (as Steve Earle put it in his excellent recent song, "21st Century Blues", "Where the Hell's my flying car?"). In other words, there has been a lowering of our expectations, or a reduction in our imagination, of what science can do for our future. Science fiction has always had a percentage of apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic stories; I would guess that percentage has increased with the development of the eco-apocalyptic vein ("ecolyptic"?), but I doubt that such downers have done much recently for the broad commercial potential of the genre, whereas the successfully-imagined worlds of fantasy supply the opportunity for serialized continuations ad infinitum, even beyond the lifespans of its authors. That has meant a clear path toward continuing employment as a motivator for authors of imaginative fiction, and there are plenty of cases of authors switching from sci-fi to fantasy in the course of their careers.
Space Fantasy
To sum up, all fiction requires the suspension of disbelief--we need to believe, in the case of historical fiction for example, that the dialogues and events not historically recorded are real. Fantasy differs in that we need to accept, temporarily, an alternate reality. I would argue that "Interstellar" is fantasy--a well-presented one--but one that is contrary to what could ever be possible.
To recap the premise of the story of the movie, something that has been widely disclosed (so no spoiler here), a near-future plague is destroying all of the world's food crops. Only corn remains, and its continued viability is at risk. The population is already decimated and is in the process of dying out. A possible way to continue the species appears in the form of interstellar travel, through the fortuitous appearance of a space-time wormhole near Saturn, to some distant galaxies which may be able to support human life.
One little problem: interstellar travel is way beyond the capability of the human race, now and for the foreseeable future. Of course, in a movie titled "Interstellar", set just a few decades in the future, this is actually a fundamental problem. Director Christopher Nolan, who with his brother wrote the story, goes to great lengths to provide scientific underpinning for his fantastic construct. Some of it has validity, while some I could recognize, even with my freshman physics knowledge, was impossible, though mostly subtly so. I give him credit for trying to make the workings of interstellar travel believable, something that others--I think of "Avatar", the "Aliens" series, "Star Trek"--don't even attempt.
This effort does contribute to the value of the entertainment, though. What we see in "Interstellar" is a variety of people, people not unlike us, in a highly-stressful situation and their human reactions and behavior. There is emotional content, there are characters who develop through the story, there is some study of how decisions are made under stress, there is even philosophy. It is a human story, and a humane one. Violence is present, but in the proper measure; love is a primary factor. As a fantasy, it is quite a satisfying one: complex in its presentation, plenty of food for thought during and after, and the audio-visual aspect is all we should expect. (I might like to see it in Imax.)
I would say it sets a new standard in the genre of space fantasy for its depth and attempt at lucidity. In that sense, it exceeds movies like "Gravity"--which was not fantasy but similar in its drama and some key aspects--or "Avatar". I would compare it most directly to "2001: A Space Odyssey" (to which it's certainly better in the lucidity aspect, though maybe not the artistic ones) and to "Contact" (the Jodie Foster movie from some 20 years ago, based on a story by Carl Sagan). Both share with "Interstellar" a philosophy that man's destiny is in the stars, but "Interstellar" puts a different twist on it. "Interstellar" has a great cast, with several big stars playing their characters (not just themselves--even Matthew McConnaughy, though he does bring a bit more redneck to the role than I thought was needed)--I was particularly tickled to see Wes Bentley (of "American Beauty") and Jeff Hephner (of "Boss"). Finally, I see some parallels with another, supposedly earth-bound, fantasy: "The Wizard of Oz" (however, no singing, though the musical score was excellent).
Even as a fantasy, "Interstellar" is hardly perfect, but to go into the errors--in concept, and in details--would require giving away too much. Check the time capsule in a few months.
My guess for Oscar: about 8-9 nominations, including sound, music, sets, a couple for acting, original screenplay, director, Best Picture, and 3-4 wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
