Maybe Inappropriate?

Okay, so Dan, I asked you to send me the Grimms' auf Deutsch book, and I may have left a rambling message that didn't really explain what I needed it for besides saying I'll explain later.

That's the book for those who don't know what's going on. This is a German language copy of the Brothers Grimm's Fairy Tales, a copy of a book I salvaged years ago from high school. I was hoping it had survived various moves and, it turns out, it had.

The reason I was asking after it was because of the Art Exchange's Marathon Project. The Art Exchange is a non-profit organization here in Long Beach that does different shows and projects and is involved in our Second Saturday activities. The Second Saturday happens each month and consists of a street fair with arts and crafts and performances. This Marathon Project was a 9 AM to 9 PM reading of the Grimms' Fairy Tales, similar to an activity the husband of the husband and wife directing team of the Art X used to do while he was the head of the English department at Texas Tech in Lubbock.

I heard about it one day walking by, since the Art X in literally down the street from us. I mentioned that I or my brother had a copy of der Bruder Grimm auf Deutsch, and if we could get our hands on it, would they like someone to read a story in the original German? They thought that would be super cool, and asked me to get back to them if we could find the book.

You can kinda see it posted up on the table below:

The day I got it in the mail, I walked it over to the Art X and they put it on display in the window. I thought it was pretty cool.

The way this "marathon" reading worked was local merchants signed up for blocks of time, read their tales, then had the kids present do some kind of activity. The young lady in the red dress above is an illustrator and taught the kids how to make a tiny book out of an 8.5" x 11" sheet of paper. It's actually pretty cool.

Below is a local librarian after reading a pair of frog prince stories:

Outside I was almost surprised to see my own name and icon for Robot Crickets, since I hadn't yet given them the digital image:

So, then it was my turn. I picked probably the shortest piece I could find so as to, as I put it, "not assault their ears with German for too long."

I had translated it with the help of Google translate and my own memories, and it turned out to be one of the craziest tiny stories, and it highlights how sensibilities change, but stay the same, across centuries and oceans. I was going to transcribe the whole thing here in German, and then put the loose translation along with it. Instead, here it is in English:

*

The Stubborn Child

There was once a stubborn child who didn't do what his mother wanted. This angered God, who let him get sick, so sick a doctor couldn't help, and soon they laid him down onto his deathbed. It was so that he was sunk into a grave and dirt thrown over it, but then his arms started to reach out of the dirt, so they threw more dirt on top, but it didn't help, and his arms kept trying to climb out. Then his mother had to come herself to the grave and beat his arms back with a metal rod, but he grabbed the rod and took her down into the grave with him, and finally he was able to find rest underground.

*

Mostly Grimms' Tales, in the original German or not smoothed over, are not really appropriate for little kids. Well, I guess that depends on how you feel about violence in today's America. Grimms' Tales though have violence and death and maiming but also lessons, ultimately, like "The Stubborn Child" here. It has what we consider zombie imagery mixed with the lesson of "do what your mom says or God will punish you" mixed with maybe how some parents of unruly kids may feel (being dragged into the grave). 

I didn't give my audience the translation beyond 'a stubborn kid doesn't do what his mother wants and get's punished', because I felt it may not be appropriate. I guess if any of the kids in the audience watch any television, they've probably been exposed to far more violent images that are in the story, but that realization came to me later.

That's the difference, I suppose, between scaring kids straight and desensitizing them. 

Latest lame-o movie post

Last night Cindy and I sat down to Arthur Christmas, watching it in February, fourteen months after its holiday release in 2011. I recall reviewers greeting it rather favorably at the time, and that's why I snagged it for the Netflix DVD queue. It even has a 7.1 rating on IMDB, which could perhaps be traced to enthusiastic families who have gathered for Christmas and soaked up a bunch of candy, liquor, or both. It isn't that good.

Here's what it does well: it shows the Christmas gift-delivery operation as a modern, hi-tech logistics wonder. Santa Claus relies very heavily on his son, a Bluetooth-connected executive named Steve, to make it all happen. Steve commands an army of tens of millions of elves at the North Pole in a massive underground ice palace, each gazing intently at their computer monitor: the Apollo 13 control room, times ten thousand, meets Polar Express. A major part of the magic is the S-1, a dazzling starship crewed by an elite group of elves, that disguises itself as the night sky. The  techie touches of this sequence are pretty cool. However ...

the reigning Santa Claus, Steve's Dad, and his other son, Arthur, are portrayed as ineffective boobs. Santa is lazy and out of touch, and relies on Steve to literally deliver the goods. And Arthur, while not lazy, is a clumsy, wild-eyed naïf. The movie makes an attempt to sustain some suspense about getting a bike to a little girl in Cornwall, missed originally because of an oversight. Every last person in the audience knows how the thing will turn out, and all the tricks, dead ends, bad navigation, and flea-bitten, has-been reindeer in the world can't change that. There are some cool effects here, but this thing is destined for the scrap heap. I wouldn't give it more than five stars on a 10-star scale. 

Older Brother Characterizations

Corrie and I recently watched two different movies from streaming Netflix that, strangely, had the main character's name as the first word of each film's titles, and each of those characters were the younger siblings of a pair of boys. It seems like in America's contemporary story-telling landscape (for hacks), the "older brother" is at first a villainous bully.

In the first movie I'm talking about, Jeff, Who Lives at Home, Jason Segel plays Jeff, a 30-year-old stoner living in his mom's basement. She's played by Susan Sarandon, while Jeff's older brother is played by Ed Helms, an asshole who repulses his wife, demeans his brother, and bickers with his mom. Guess what his name is...

It's Pat.

The movie follows Jeff and his bong-addled brain interpreting "clues" that lead him to some kind of action. Part of the day's activities consist of Jeff helping Pat interrupt his wife's act of infidelity, and we're led to believe that the journey was about Jeff helping Pat. Of course its bigger than that. Susan Sarandon has her own B-story, and the ending is an odd coincidence in a mostly enjoyable if unbalanced effort from the brotherly writer/director team of Jay and Mark Duplass.

The second movie is Lars and the Real Girl. Ryan Gosling plays Lars, the younger brother to Paul Schneider's Gus. Their mother died during Lars' childbirth, and their father died many years later, having lived a quiet life of disappointment. Gus and his pregnant wife Karin have moved back into the boys' childhood home, causing Lars to voluntarily move out to the garage.

The premise of the movie is that Lars, socially awkward and with a distaste for human contact, orders a highly realistic and anatomically correct doll, and introduces "Bianca" to people as his girlfriend. At first Gus, the older brother, is reluctant to play along, and gets a little hysterical in the privacy of his and Karin's bedroom. But Gus gets introspective and ends up supportive before it ends.

Eventually the whole rural upstate Wisconsin town, out of their feelings for Lars, go along with him and his delusion, and everyone finds themselves affected by their various relationships with Bianca. Never once is the story played for lurid jokes, making it a very gentle study of sadness and responsibility.

Gus is much more nuanced that Pat, but both start out gruff wankers. Pat is an ass, but Gus is only frustrated. Pat's transformation seems a little more forced and unlikely, but that's because he's more of a caricature.

That's the easy characterization I'm talking about: making a character likable by making them an underdog is a natural thing, and making someone an underdog naturally by giving them an older sibling to berate them is a lazy way to staff a movie. That's an opinion, of course.

Jeff and Lars are the star characters of those respective movies, as are Jason Segel and Ryan Gosling. The more touching story all around involves less caricature in general, but that's not specific to the older-brother dynamic.

I thought that it was interesting to have the range in the characterizations of those two older brothers, Pat and Gus, while having them starting out very similar, as the stereotype older brother. That stereotype: asshole.

As the older brother of only two boys, am I keenly aware of what stereotype into which I'm to fall?

Rising Indeed

I always thought Batman was cooler than Superman inasmuch as Bruce Wayne is an Earthling and comes by his powers through intelligence and hard work. Well, that, and loads and loads of money, too. But, he manages to strike fear into the miscreants and malcontents of Gotham City by dint of his high intellect and his dedication.

And The Dark Knight Rises manages to add quite a bit to the mythos of Batman. It reinforces his virtues while managing to kick his ass through a very solid portion of the movie. And lo and behold, there's a plot twist at the end - I don't mean the autopilot scam, I mean the one where we find out that Bane's not the one who "flew" out of that prison in the desert. They handled the origins of Catwoman and Robin superbly, too. And at this point I'm remembering the original Christopher Reeve Superman, where the "Red 'S'" conundrum was handled - maybe a little heavy-handedly, but handled nonetheless. Since the first in the spate of comicbook hero movies, they have spent a lot of thought and resources on the "origin" part of each character's story. Dark Knight raises this to an art form, with its pacing and its seemingly effortless weaving-in of heroic satellite characters. These are nuanced characters, too, as far from cardboard cutouts as you can get.

As with all impressive works, it's hard to tell how they're going to make a better one next time out. I tried to imagine what they would do after the first Pirates of the Caribbean, and it looks like they had as hard a time imagining a successful sequel as I did.  Obviously they have established the foundation where Batman comes back to surprise the next world-class jerk who threatens Gotham, and I look forward to that.

Christian Bale looks like he might be able to avoid the stigma that attached itself to Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer. And Joseph Gordon-Levitt! He's a revelation in this. I may have seen him is something since Third Rock from the Sun, but I don't remember it. What a great choice. And it looks as though Bruce picked him out for a partner. Like I said, the thing is set up very deftly.

Not long ago I saw The Avengers, and I liked it quite a bit. While Knight is a deeper movie, with its gravity coming from the main character's psyche, Avengers is not totally lacking in depth itself. I especially liked their treatment of Bruce Banner and Tony Stark. The revelation that Dr. Banner can turn into the "other guy" whenever he wants was pretty cool. After the Black Widow says, "Hadn't you better get pissed off?" as they're about to face a powerful enemy, he turns to her and says, "Hey, that's my secret. I'm always pissed off!"

I liked The Avengers for the complete mayhem perpetrated by its heroes. It's totally fuckin' loaded with ass-kicking, which is frankly what superhero movies should be about. I'm not faulting Dark Knight with that statement. Both movies are outstanding. Thanks, Dan, for suggesting I push that to the top of my queue.

Silent Movie

I use my own laptop to do my posts on my various blogs, but I used to use Corrie's Mac for posting. The transition to using my own lappy happened while we were living in Texas, and one reason was because of the changing home of our digital photograph storage.

Which means that there are a ton of pictures and what-not over on Corrie's compy. We've tried setting a network up or getting a storage device that will hold all the pictures, but there have been complications due to the age of Corrie's Mac (it predates the Intel Core-Duo processor, so mass external drives seem to be able to format for it or mine, but not both)(stupid technology).

In any case, I sometimes go through the pictures when I visit that work station in the apartment, and today I found something I wanted to post:

A silent video.

I know it sure sounds exciting.

It's grainy and small and you can hardly tell the details, but it's also kinda cool.

I took the film with my Old-Reliable, my first digital camera and the one we took to Europe and have taken maybe fifteen thousand pictures with over the years.

But it's footage from August 13th 14th, 2006, which was a Sunday Monday according to my notes. It was our first Yankee game at the old Stadium, and see if you can see what's going on:

I caught Jeter hitting a homer to center.

I'd been shooting the occasional pitch-and-swing for no real reason besides data-collection, which is silly when I write it like that. But this time, Jeter hit a home-run.

Pretty cool first game in the Bronx.

(UPDATE: My notebook confirmed my suspicion that the game was not a Sunday night game:

Glued ticket stub evidence. I love it when my copious pack-rat-like notes prove helpful.)

The edge? Removed, thanks

I rode the airport escalator up from the main terminal floor to the departure level. Denver International has a very large terminal building, and the upper level is really only a balcony, albeit a rather high balcony, above the main space. As I stood languidly, the only person on the stairs, I watched the activity around me, and felt a glow; I hadn't a care in the world.

There's something about airline travel that makes me and everybody else in the entire world feel like Dan's graphic post below. So, yeah. So week before last, while waiting at the Kansas City airport for my flight home, I decided I'd indulge myself. I wasn't going to have just one Scotch on the plane, but a double. I wanted two.

Southwest must have made a change to their in-air service policies. It's painfully slow, but you know, I had my inner Buddha going: patience R us. Across the aisle and a couple of rows ahead, a young guy had something of an issue with the (male) cabin attendant. As I watched, it was evident that he wanted his little bottle of rum to go with his can of Coke. The steward did have an evident attitude, but I didn't think it would affect me and my intent to imbibe. He finally came and asked me for my order - I'd seen that they had Dewar's White Label Scotch, which is actually my preference among the blends. (The non-blended Scotches would be the Single Malts, which are almost always preferable to any blend.)

Anyway, I got it across that I wanted two, and was certainly willing to pay double, which was $10. I wasn't totally surprised that when my drink came, it had already been poured over ice in a tumbler-size cup. No two bottles, no control over the situation. One sip proved it was indeed a double, and I drank it, without waiting for any meltage. The flight isn't a long one, and service being what it was, I drank it rather quickly. I wanted the edge removed. And just in time for my happy little ride on the underground shuttle and my highly relaxed saunter outside to meet Cin, I was indeed at one with the world. I hadn't had anything other than a beer since before Christmas, and only a couple of those over the weeks. So it was quite welcome.

Okay, just one more, then I'll leave it

P & D, I'm going to lay this out so each of you can react to this in your own way. Dan, you already think I'm a nerd, and this isn't going to change that. So, Pat, the tables in my previous post are in an Excel file, and I did actually one further calculation on each. For the position players, I calculated their WAR per 500 plate appearances, to arrive at a rate of efficiency at which they accomplished their WAR:

WAR Rank Player WAR  PA WAR/500 PA 1 Babe Ruth 138.2 9,198 7.51 2 Lou Gehrig 108.5 9,663 5.61 24 Rickey Henderson 30.3 2,735 5.54 3 Mickey Mantle 105.5 9,907 5.32 4 Joe DiMaggio 75.1 7,673 4.89 9 Alex Rodriguez 49.8 5,476 4.55 17 Charlie Keller 39.4 4,466 4.41 21 Joe Gordon 35.1 4,216 4.16 7 Bill Dickey 52.4 7,064 3.71 12 Thurman Munson 43.3 5,905 3.67 19 Gil McDougald 38.6 5,398 3.58 8 Willie Randolph 51.7 7,464 3.46 22 Robinson Cano 34.8 5,110 3.41 6 Yogi Berra 56.2 8,350 3.37 14 Graig Nettles 41.0 6,248 3.28 11 Tony Lazzeri 44.7 7,068 3.16 23 Tommy Henrich 33.6 5,410 3.11 15 Earle Combs 40.0 6,513 3.07 5 Derek Jeter 69.3 11,895 2.91 20 Phil Rizzuto 38.1 6,718 2.84 25 Roger Peckinpaugh 29.5 5,267 2.80 13 Roy White 43.0 7,735 2.78 18 Jorge Posada 39.0 7,150 2.73 16 Don Mattingly 39.8 7,722 2.58 10 Bernie Williams 45.9 9,053 2.54

I raised an eyebrow over Rickey Henderson, I'll tell you. But one thing his ranking tells you is that unless you have a good cast around you, you're not going to win any rings. Plus: a 2-WAR player is considered well above average, and these are Yankee career averages. I did some similar exercises for the pitchers, and maybe I should split it into starters and relievers. Never mind. Consider this: a high WAR per 200 innings means a lot of success in high-leverage situations. A high WAR per 50 games pitched means a lot of deep games, and a lot of durability: Player WAR   IP Per200IP GP Per50G Mariano Rivera 52.7 1,219.67 8.64 1051 2.51 Whitey Ford 50.6 3,170.33 3.19 498 5.08 Andy Pettitte 45.8 2,611.00 3.51 417 5.49 Ron Guidry 45.4 2,392.00 3.80 368 6.17 Red Ruffing 41.7 3,168.67 2.63 426 4.89 Lefty Gomez 39.5 2,497.33 3.16 367 5.38 Bob Shawkey 39.0 2,490.00 3.13 415 4.70 Mel Stottlemyre 37.5 2,661.33 2.82 360 5.21 Mike Mussina 33.1 1,553.00 4.26 249 6.65 Waite Hoyt 32.0 2,273.33 2.82 365 4.38 Herb Pennock 29.9 2,202.67 2.71 346 4.32 Ray Caldwell 27.1 1,718.33 3.15 248 5.46 Jack Chesbro 26.6 1,952.00 2.73 269 4.94 Russ Ford 24.3 1,112.67 4.37 143 8.50 Dave Righetti 21.8 1,136.67 3.84 522 2.09 CC Sabathia 20.6 905.00 4.55 129 7.98 Spud Chandler 20.6 1,485.00 2.77 211 4.88 Roger Clemens 19.9 1,103.00 3.61 175 5.69 David Cone 19.1 922.00 4.14 145 6.59 Rich Gossage 18.4 533.00 6.90 319 2.88 Tommy John 18.4 1,367.00 2.69 214 4.30 Allie Reynolds 18.2 1,700.00 2.14 295 3.08 Orlando Hernandez 17.9 876.33 4.09 139 6.44 Ray Fisher 17.4 1,380.33 2.52 219 3.97 Fritz Peterson 17.2 1,857.33 1.85 288 2.99

One last thing, check out the modern-day starters with over 4 WAR per 200 innings: Mike Mussina, David Cone, CC Sabathia, Orlando (El Duque) Hernandez. No Guidry, no Whitey Ford, no Clemens.