It has been several years since I left New York but memories of the times I spent there are still vivid. One such memory which remains indelibly part of my thoughts of New York is the tradition of Thanksgiving celebration, specifically the Macy's Day parade. When I wasn't able to check out the festivities myself, I would stay glued to the television set, watching the floats, costumes and celebrities go by. The Macy's Day parade was as much a part of the Thanksgiving Day experience as eating turkey with family and friends. While I now live in a different state, I try to enjoy the Thankgiving day experience the way I did when I lived in New York, by checking out the Macy's Day parade festivities on television or viewing the pictures on The New York Times site.
Pictures of the Macy's Day parade were not the only interesting thing I saw on The New York Times site; I was also happy to see some pictures of Austin. There is something about spending all those evenings wandering about in Manhattan, checking out the various artistic attractions, that has made big city life appealing regardless of state or country. Beside the arts scene, another place where I spent a great deal of time hanging out in New York was Central Park. Central Park is incredibly long, and dwarfs the neighboring Metropolitan Museum of Art, which at a "quarter mile long" is itself one of the largest museums in the world. Although much smaller in size and in many ways quite distinct, Dallas does have a few things in common with New York City, and the new Woodall Rodgers Park being built in the Arts District, adjacent to the Dallas Museum of Art, is one similarity.
Later on I will talk about arts and culture in Texas, in particular Dallas; Tennis; Movies; Christmas songs; and a book I am reading. Happy Holiday weekend.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What to do when disaster strikes
This has been a strange year for film. While there have been some standouts, such as Public Enemies and Star Trek (I have not seen Precious, but from what I have heard, it appears destined for at least an Oscar nomination for acting), most of the films released so far, while not entirely subpar, have been less than stellar. True, most of the Oscar contenders tend to be released later in the year, at the final leg of the Oscar race when the movies are fresh in the minds, so the reasoning goes at least, of the Oscar judges. But as I look at what's on the horizon I see very little that rise to the caliber of Oscar contenders in previous years. Lovely Bones, The Road, Avatar and Broken Embraces are the only films that I could think of that has some Oscar buzz. This is not the "grand opening" one would hope for to usher in the new Best Picture category, which lists ten pictures instead of the customary five, a change that was made in large measure due to the belief that a lot of deserving films were left off the Best Picture list last year.
No doubt one of the more interesting recent developments in this unusual year in film is the decision by studios to release big budget films near the end of the year as oppose to during the summer months. Two such films being released include 2012, which did spectacularly well in the US and even more so abroad, and New Moon, a film that looks to do incredibly well at the box office this weekend. What explains the decision to release these two films now? Perhaps the studios are betting that moviegoers will flock to these films the way they did, a couple of years ago, The Lord of the Rings films (unique among blockbuster films for also being Oscar contenders). And with people looking for some escapist fun from an economy that is still on the mend, I will probably not bet against them.
Speaking of blockbuster films, I saw one last weekend, 2012. It was an interesting film, and running at two hours and thirty eight minutes, incredibly long. I actually don't mind long films, provided that they are good. And in my humble opinion, I thought 2012, contrary to the view of a number of film critics, was surprisingly good. Granted disaster flick specialist Roland Emmerich, of Independence Day and Day After Tomorrow fame, outdid himself by including a kaleidoscope of almost every known disaster movie idea into one monstrous disaster conceit. However with all the craziness that takes place, this film's celebration of compassion - of exuding, and preserving, what's best about humanity when our very existence is at stake - is what won me over. The final forty minutes or so of 2012 was particularly moving. Although it probably wouldn't win any of the non-technical Oscars, I would definitely recommend this film.
No doubt one of the more interesting recent developments in this unusual year in film is the decision by studios to release big budget films near the end of the year as oppose to during the summer months. Two such films being released include 2012, which did spectacularly well in the US and even more so abroad, and New Moon, a film that looks to do incredibly well at the box office this weekend. What explains the decision to release these two films now? Perhaps the studios are betting that moviegoers will flock to these films the way they did, a couple of years ago, The Lord of the Rings films (unique among blockbuster films for also being Oscar contenders). And with people looking for some escapist fun from an economy that is still on the mend, I will probably not bet against them.
Speaking of blockbuster films, I saw one last weekend, 2012. It was an interesting film, and running at two hours and thirty eight minutes, incredibly long. I actually don't mind long films, provided that they are good. And in my humble opinion, I thought 2012, contrary to the view of a number of film critics, was surprisingly good. Granted disaster flick specialist Roland Emmerich, of Independence Day and Day After Tomorrow fame, outdid himself by including a kaleidoscope of almost every known disaster movie idea into one monstrous disaster conceit. However with all the craziness that takes place, this film's celebration of compassion - of exuding, and preserving, what's best about humanity when our very existence is at stake - is what won me over. The final forty minutes or so of 2012 was particularly moving. Although it probably wouldn't win any of the non-technical Oscars, I would definitely recommend this film.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
When change becomes unstoppable
As promised, my thoughts on The Tipping Point, the bestselling first effort by The New Yorker staff writer Malcolm Gladwell. I thought The Tipping Point was well written and gave an objective and interesting analysis of the idea that “small things can make a big difference.” Based on social pyschologist Stanley Migram’s “Six Degrees of Separation” study, Gladwell defines the idea of the “tipping point” as “the moment of critical mass (when) change becomes unstoppable.” In explaining it, Gladwell identified three phenomenon which contribute to the spread of social epidemics, namely “The Law of the Few,” “the Stickiness Factor,” and “The Power of Context.”
I found the sections of the book dealing with “The Law of the Few,” “the Stickiness Factor,” and “The Power of Context” the most compelling. “The Law of the Few” talked about the people who are most capable of starting social epidemics: “mavens,” or people who are extremely knowledgeable and are willing to share that knowledge with others; “social connectors,” or people who are sociable and have innumerable acquaintances in various social environments; and “salespersons,” or people who are preternaturally persuasive and have the ability to draw others in. The “Stickiness Factor” dealt with ideas or commodities that are presented or advertised in such a way as to leave a lasting impression. This “lasting impression” act as a virus that spreads precisely because of its “sticky” qualities. To illustrate this point, Gladwell focused on the children’s programs Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues. And finally “The Power of Context,” a section which had a cogent analysis of the “Broken Windows” theory, talked about the ability of “circumstances and conditions” to influence social epidemics – that though change may be initiated by, say, the bold act of one individual, conditions determine to a significant degree whether that act will take on a life of its own.
Slightly less compelling, however, was the final third of the book concerning “case studies,” where Gladwell sought to use “The Law of the Few,” “the Stickiness Factor,” and “The Power of Context” to explain stories about, for example, the spread of teen smoking, the rise of suicides, and the popularity of certain kinds of shoes. While Gladwell is no doubt a gifted and persuasive writer, I thought that his argument would have been more convincing if he had focused more on research that support his points. Despite its shortcomings, The Tipping Point contains a wealth of useful information and I would definitely recommend it.
Stuff on Language and Books
I have so much stuff I plan to do that it is a wonder I even manage to remember it all let alone complete them. One of the things I plan to do is to learn a foreign language. I have already purchased a book to get started on the basics and later on I plan to take classes. Another thing I plan to do is read at least one book a week. Lately I haven’t had much time to read, except for the occasional magazine article, because I have been busy with other things. But I should have some extra time in the coming weeks.
I found the sections of the book dealing with “The Law of the Few,” “the Stickiness Factor,” and “The Power of Context” the most compelling. “The Law of the Few” talked about the people who are most capable of starting social epidemics: “mavens,” or people who are extremely knowledgeable and are willing to share that knowledge with others; “social connectors,” or people who are sociable and have innumerable acquaintances in various social environments; and “salespersons,” or people who are preternaturally persuasive and have the ability to draw others in. The “Stickiness Factor” dealt with ideas or commodities that are presented or advertised in such a way as to leave a lasting impression. This “lasting impression” act as a virus that spreads precisely because of its “sticky” qualities. To illustrate this point, Gladwell focused on the children’s programs Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues. And finally “The Power of Context,” a section which had a cogent analysis of the “Broken Windows” theory, talked about the ability of “circumstances and conditions” to influence social epidemics – that though change may be initiated by, say, the bold act of one individual, conditions determine to a significant degree whether that act will take on a life of its own.
Slightly less compelling, however, was the final third of the book concerning “case studies,” where Gladwell sought to use “The Law of the Few,” “the Stickiness Factor,” and “The Power of Context” to explain stories about, for example, the spread of teen smoking, the rise of suicides, and the popularity of certain kinds of shoes. While Gladwell is no doubt a gifted and persuasive writer, I thought that his argument would have been more convincing if he had focused more on research that support his points. Despite its shortcomings, The Tipping Point contains a wealth of useful information and I would definitely recommend it.
I have so much stuff I plan to do that it is a wonder I even manage to remember it all let alone complete them. One of the things I plan to do is to learn a foreign language. I have already purchased a book to get started on the basics and later on I plan to take classes. Another thing I plan to do is read at least one book a week. Lately I haven’t had much time to read, except for the occasional magazine article, because I have been busy with other things. But I should have some extra time in the coming weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
