70134 stories
·
2 followers

Movies: Michael

1 Share

Michael is an intelligent film about an indelible pop singer, songwriter and dancer and it’s best thought of this way. It’s a simple, quiet, layered movie by director Antoine Fuqua written by John Logan (Hugo, The Aviator) that’s as softspoken as its subject.

Tightly focused on the essence of an artist, Michael examines as it asks the audience to contemplate one of the most influential artists of ability in the 20th century. His name is Michael Jackson. He died at the age of 50 on June 25th, 2009. His life was tragic, like the lives of many popular artists of ability, particularly Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley and Whitney Houston. Michael rightly and defiantly depicts Michael Jackson at his best—as America’s archetypical self-made man—not at his worst or most eccentric. Jackson was certainly flawed by all the evidence and you’re free to judge and come to your own conclusions based on facts in evidence. But you’re not free to be narrow-minded when watching Michael, which demands you take the whole man as he was, not as the disembodied freak Netflix or others would have you believe.

Michael begins in 1966 after a setup which will close the picture in 1988. In this remarkable 22-year period, Michael depicts the story of Jackson’s life. Gradually, it’s a coming-of-age altruistic climax to counter his sweetness and softness, which had by then begun to crystallize, harden and warp into a pre-courageous blend of delusion, isolation, pent-up anger, internalized shame, guilt, fear and doubt. Everything was about to explode.

Through it all, Michael’s soul remains the same. This is no easy accomplishment and it’s not to be taken lightly. The talented black boy from Gary, Indiana is exploited, shaped and controlled by his steelworker father in a large family of boys and girls tended to by their religious mother. Somehow, Michael crafts his own way of being in his own light during his dad’s boy band masterminding. He finds himself forging tenderness born of his unique ability to feel the music and express himself.

His mother (Nia Long) gives this space. His siblings—Janet has been erased, possibly for legal reasons—obey the patriarch (Colman Domingo) in the regimented Hoosier household. Later, after moving to the Jackson Five success-fed famous San Fernando Valley compound, one man—Motown businessman Berry Gordy, an underestimated American hero and Midwestern titan of industry—recognizes and affirms Michael’s wholesomeness as he seeks to protect and guide the boy based on reason—as against deforming the child with authority, cruelty and the rule of religious orthodoxy. Larenz Tate shines as Gordy. If Michael has flaws, one of them is downsizing Gordy’s role.

This comes after Motown’s beautiful, intelligent Suzanne De Passe (Laura Harrier) discovers the child star. Later, in another layer in this fascinating portrait, another man—Bill Bray (KeiLyn Durrel Jones in a subtle, excellent, Oscar-worthy performance)—both bears witness and watches over Michael in mind and body in a crucial part of writer John Logan’s and director Fuqua’s mosaic of men of ability rallying around the century’s most enigmatic pop star.

Michael’s strapped by his oppressor and limited by the tyranny of family, tradition and religion. In songs you’ll know and relish, amply and generously sampled, if not fully depicted, Michael foremost showcases the magic, worth and value of Michael Jackson and his remarkable career without delving into affiliations with Diana Ross, Elizabeth Taylor and the pivotal if underexplored role of the late Quincy Jones.

And others. This movie, Michael—a huge hit for Lionsgate in spite of critics’ diatribes—centers on Jackson’s vitality and self-realization in becoming his own man in his own way. Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson is good, performing with a general sensibility, recreating fabulous movements and moments in Jackson’s pre-abuse allegations career. With an arc of Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad, Jackson works through the plot’s conflict—overcoming his father’s radically Kantian ethics of altruism as moral duty—with tragic and, ultimately, deadly consequences. Personally, I wanted glimpses of “Rock With You,” “Heal the World,” “Billie Jean,” “Black or White” and “Smooth Criminal,” but Michael’s behind the scenes scenes of choreographing “Beat It” astonish in detail, entertainment and craftsmanship—Jackson’s intelligence as a songwriter, dancer and producer is on display and undeniable.

As a single-minded recording industrialist, Miles Teller (Whiplash) delivers the best dramatic scene in Michael. It’s a brilliant, almost spiritual, exchange between artist—singer, songwriter, dancer—and patron of the arts, a man named John Branca, who helps Michael Jackson break free from familial imprisonment. The scene’s a breakthrough for the pop star; a rare moment in his life, according to this version, in which the compliant and submissive star begins to assert himself and practice the virtue of selfishness.

Miles Teller’s performance in the scene is remarkable. Watch closely as he does something that’s virtually extinct in today’s Hollywood conferences: he looks like a laser at the only person in the room who truly, objectively matters—the individual whose life and work is at stake in the meeting—and he ruthlessly ignores everyone else to their instantaneous and unanimous disgust and consternation.

But, contrary to Hollywood’s stereotypical portrayal of the businessman as seedy, sleazy and salacious, Teller’s character looks upon the artist with warmth, kindness and deeply shared values—reflecting the very softness Michael Jackson feels inside—and, for the first time, the multimillionaire superstar feels mirrored, removing his mask (his sunglasses) and looking upon his new ally with a kind of hope, glow and wonder. It’s as if Michael Jackson discovers his ego for the first time. The rest of Michael, even with the tragic climax of what anyone who’s studied Michael Jackson’s tragic flaw knows is coming, affords a rich and unforgettable reward.

Michael depicts the Michael Jackson you know, watch, listen to and admire in awe; that fusion of pause, pride and passion for being alive within a childlike soul who knows—and performs—his own beauty, strength and restraint.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
8 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

The Revealing Appeal of 'Emily Hart'

1 Share
A medical student in India known only as "Sam" turns out to be the catfisher behind AI-generated MAGA sweetheart "Emily Hart:"
... Before Hart went viral, he used to create scantily clad women using Gemini Nano Banana and post them on social media; however, this idea didn't take off. Therefore, he turned to AI again to take ideas from it on how he could make his influencer stand out from the crowd. At the time, the bot suggested to him that creating a "hot girl" wouldn't help him stand out from the competition.

The AI further provided him with multiple options for content creation to pick from, so he decided to create a hot girl for the "MAGA/conservative niche." This is because the AI told him that this idea would work. After all, "the conservative audience (especially older men in the US) often has higher disposable income and is more loyal."

...

..."Every Reel I posted was getting 3 million views, 5 million views, 10 million views. The algorithm loved it." He extended his income opportunities by selling subscriptions at Fanvue and MAGA-themed merchandise.
Wired elaborates further:
The influencers are created from a specific template: they tend to be white and blonde, with jobs as emergency responders. (A lot of them are cops, firefighters, or EMTs.) They also incorporate right-wing views into all of their content, railing about immigration or the Epstein files or pronouns while posing in American flag bikinis or MAGA hats -- often both.
There's nothing wrong, of course, with being white, or blonde, or being a tomboy/having an occupation favored by adrenaline junkies, or being attracted to women who meet any or all of these criteria, but my word! How predictable can you get?

My own sense of déjà vu comes from having seen exactly this archetype (scroll down) at the end of nearly every single This Week in Pictures post I've ever seen at Power Line, which, while not necessarily an outright MAGA outlet, carries enough water for Trump that I'll count it.

While I have always been baffled by the tomboy part, and -- I will admit -- it would have never crossed my mind to try to make money off of this, it is still a little bit surprising that it took AI to hatch this scheme.

That said, the following passage from Wired explains a lot:
Few of the fans cared whether Emily was real, Sam says. This is very much in line with the psychology of the average hot girl MAGA fan, according to [Brookings Institution fellow Valerie] Wirtschafter. Whether it's plausible that a sexy blonde nurse would love Christ, ICE, and flashing her boobs for strangers is secondary to the fact that many, many people want to believe it is. "Even among some digital natives, there's a perspective of, 'Well, I don't actually care if this is true. I like the sentiment of it,'" she says. [bold added]
Granted, lots of porn is pure fantasy, but anyone on the outside and looking in at Trump's cult of personality can be forgiven for wondering if this "niche" functions on that level all or most of the time. With Trump himself, after all, the difference between the bill of goods they have been sold and the real deal is, arguably, even greater.

-- CAV
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
8 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Will the Democrats Finally Fund DHS Now?

1 Share


Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
12 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Democrats: Manifesto Doesn't Tell You the Actual Motive of Cole Allen

1 Share


Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
12 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Vote NO on a backdoor expansion of the ethanol mandate

1 Share

On Monday, the House Rules Committee decides whether to allow two E15 amendments onto the House floor as part of the forthcoming Farm Bill.

The Sorensen amendment expands government-dictated ethanol by exempting E15 from air quality limits that currently restrain the ethanol mandate.

The Fischbach amendment does the same thing AND it also punishes small refiners by making it much harder for small refineries to obtain exemptions from the mandate.

The House Rules Committee should block both amendments for two reasons:

1) Moral: The amendments entrench and expand the destructive and immoral ethanol mandate, which no one seriously supports on its merits.

2) Procedural: The amendments have nothing to do with farming policy and instead change air quality law, so they should be disqualified as “non-germane” per the Committee’s own rules.

For more on why to oppose government-dictated ethanol, read this:


Questions about this article? Ask AlexAI, my chatbot for energy and climate answers:

Try AlexAI for free

Popular links


“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.

Subscribe now

Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
14 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

★ The New York Times Printed the Wrong Crossword Grid Last Sunday, and I Find That Timing Serendipitous

1 Share

The New York Times PR account, on Twitter/X a week ago:

Sunday’s crossword puzzle in the print edition of The New York Times Magazine contains a grid that does not match the clues. The correct version of the puzzle can be found in the news section of Sunday’s print edition of The Times. The puzzle on our app is correct.

Maggie Duffy, writing for Vulture:

Some solvers who, like Wegener’s wife, complete the Sunday puzzle in the print magazine (often with pen) complained on crossword forums and social media, saying they were “nearly in tears,” some with fears of “sudden onset dementia” or, worse yet, ineptitude.

For Irene Papoulis, a former writing instructor at Trinity College, the puzzle is typically a source of pride. “It didn’t even occur to me that it could be their mistake,” she told me. “I just blamed myself.” When Mike McFadden, in New Jersey, couldn’t crack it, he had a similar reaction. “I thought something was wrong with me,” he told me. “I didn’t think that they would have an error.” It nagged at him all day. At a function on Saturday, he couldn’t bring himself to mention it to his brother-in-law, a fellow solver; he was still too upset.

Some had such trust in the crossword that they believed the erroneous grid was purposeful. “I’m saying to myself, ‘Okay, maybe there’s some sort of scientific or mathematical trick,’” McFadden said. When I spoke with Will Shortz, the Times’ crossword editor, he said the Times does “so many tricks with the puzzles” that he could see how someone’s first thought would be “I wonder what they’re up to now?

This is the first such mistake the Times has made in the 84 years that they’ve been printing a crossword puzzle. I came of age doing work in print — writing and editing The Triangle, the student newspaper at Drexel, and then spending a few years as a working graphic designer, at a time when print still ruled. There’s an inherent stress about going to press. Mistakes are forever. We once ran a headline at The Triangle that read “Headline Goes Here”. Once. Going to press is stressful but exhilarating. There’s an adrenaline rush that comes with giving the go-ahead to start a very expensive large-scale full-color press run. The stress focuses the mind.

Print, effectively, is hardware. Atoms, not bits. The web is literally software. If you make a mistake in software that results in incorrect mathematical results, you ship an update. If you make a mistake in a CPU such that it results in incorrect floating-point math, perhaps only in 1 out of every 9 billion calculations, people will remember the mistake 30 years later.

If The New York Times had run the wrong crossword grid on the web or in their app, they would have corrected the error quickly, few people would have encountered it, and fewer still would remember it. But by printing the wrong grid in the Sunday magazine last week, they made a mistake that some people will never forget (and some will never forgive).

Hardware brain is different from software brain. Software brain says Go faster; do more; the only mistake you can’t fix is having gone too slow. Hardware brain says Slow down; do less; focus; strive for perfection and never settle for less than excellence; mistakes are forever.

If his background in hardware means that incoming Apple CEO John Ternus has hardware brain, and will lead Apple accordingly, that suggests Apple will double down on zigging in the midst of a still-escalating AI hype cycle that has the rest of the industry zagging ever more frenetically. That feels right to me.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
16 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories