Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 396, in which I interview Bob Hutchins about AI. My guess is you'll find this discussion much more optimistic about AI than what you'll usually hear.
Discussed or mentioned in this interview:
Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 395, in which Patrick Rands interviews me about It's Real Life: An Alternate History of The Beatles on his WZBC Radio program Abstract Terrain.
I started reading Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard's new 400+ page book on Friday. I finished it last night -- Monday night. That should give you an idea of how important and captivating Confronting the Presidents is.
It is subtitled "No Spin Assessments from Washington to Biden". But that obscures what the book actually is: assessments of US Presidents from Washington to Obama, co-written by O'Reilly and Dugard, followed by assessments of Trump and Biden written by O'Reilly, and assessments of Trump and Biden written by Dugard. I'll explain near the end of this review why I think that distinction is crucial.
First, let me begin by saying I was on the O'Reilly's Fox show, The Factor, several times over 20 years ago (here's the video of my first appearance in January 2004), and four times on O'Reilly's No Spin News podcast several years ago. We have strongly different political opinions, but I very much enjoyed our conversations. O'Reilly has written numerous best-selling books, and O'Reilly and Dugard have a best-selling series (the "Killing" series about assassinations, attempted assassinations, killings of terrorists, etc), which I haven't read, but based on the writing in Confronting the Presidents, I expect that I eventually will, or at least read some of the books.
That writing is crisp, informative, and even exciting. In part because most of it is in the present tense -- "At the start of Jefferson's second term, he is sixty-one years old. He is no longer the young idealist...." And in part because it has so many facts, big and little, that I didn't know and, after reading them in Confronting the Presidents, I think I should have known. Like Theodore Roosevelt planning to run for a third term as president in 1919, before he died, and LBJ having a decades-long affair with Alice Glass, which Lady Bird knew about, and only ended when Alice left him because she was so furious about the Vietnam War.
We learn what each president ate for breakfast (right, I find that interesting), what kind of exercise they preferred, and how they died. There's lots of humor in the book, but cradled in an underlying gravity and mortality. And this is not because of what happened to Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and JFK, and almost happened to several others, but because as the authors make clear, the job of president, given the power to make one's dreams come true, is almost guaranteed not to be fulfilled, meaning your dreams will end up broken, their only chance being some future president may pick one up and carry it to victory in some more hospitable time.
Another salient point of history which I already knew as a media historian, and Confronting the Presidents makes abundantly clear, is that the intense polarization in our current world, (wrongly often blamed on social media, I would say), actually has been in the United States of America from the very beginning. Editors of newspapers were prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Act that John Adams signed into law, and O'Reilly and Dugard tell us that Alexander Hamilton wrote that Adams was "a mere old woman and unfit for president".
As a professor and lifelong student of communication and media studies, I was also glad to see that Confronting the Presidents notes that First Lady "Carrie" Harrison brought electricity to the White House but she and her husband Benjamin (1889-1893) were afraid of being electrocuted, radio began to have a big influence on politics in the 1920s, and of course TV took center stage in the 1960s. (See my continually updated McLuhan in an Age of Social Media for how and when television gave way to the social media president.)
***
But this powerhouse book, brimming with fascinating, useful, and important information, concludes its confrontation of presidents with Barack Obama. An "Afterword" briefly gives O'Reilly's and Dugard's assessments of Trump and Biden independently. The reason for this change in format isn't given, but it must be because Trump's presidency may not be finished (he's currently running for a second term), and at the time the book was written, neither was Biden's (he had not yet withdrawn from the current election).
I'm making such a big deal about this because O'Reilly's assessments of Trump and Biden are the first in the book I strongly disagree with. No mention is made of Trump's treatment of COVID, and the attack on the Capitol he instigated on January 6, 2021 is barely mentioned, as a political mistake, not the fundamental attack on our democracy that it was. Even more incredibly, O'Reilly ranks Biden as the second worst president in American history (after James Buchanan).
As I said at the beginning of this review, O'Reilly and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. But I was nonetheless taken aback by what he said about Biden and didn't say about Trump because I found his joint assessments with Dugard about other progressive presidents like Obama and Clinton, and conservatives like Nixon, to be right on key.
Obviously, Dugard was a moderating factor, and he had plenty to say in his own assessment of Trump about January 6, 2021 (because of this, he ranks Trump the worst president, one below Herbert Hoover). Dugard also had some praise for Biden, and went so far as to say he hopes Biden wins in 2024 (the book was completed, again, before Biden withdrew from the race).
So what you'll get from Confronting the Presidents is a fair and balanced -- to use that Fox cliche -- assessment of every American President prior to Trump. Then, for Trump and Biden, separate assessments from each author, which taken together accurately reflect the current polarization of this country.
I'm not sure what I would have suggested to the two authors prior to publication about how to conclude this book. Maybe conclude with Obama with no Afterword. Or maybe struggle to find some common ground as the authors did for every other president. But I can say I recommend this book to anyone who'd like to have a handy, accessible guide to the people who have been at the top of our noble, imperfect experiment with democracy.
So, the family and I spend a lot of time on Cape Cod, and have been loving it for decades. The Perfect Couple takes place in nearby Nantucket, and the shots of the water and the sand and those wind-blown weathered wooden fences look so much like those on the Cape I felt like I was back there again, and it was still the summer. Hey, for all I know, those scenes were shot on the Cape. How could I not love this series?
And the lead actors, Nicole Kidman as Greer and Liev Schreiber as her husband Tag, top-notch any time, were especially outstanding in this scenic murder mystery adapted from Elin Hilderbrand's novel (which I haven't read), so well plotted, with so many nearly convincing suspects, that this novel could have been written by Agatha Christie.
The supporting actors, most of who I haven't seen on the screen before, were excellent as well. Here are some of my favorite scenes and characters:
[And there may be spoilers ahead ...]
I don't recall ever seeing a Presidential debate like this, Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump: a cool, passionate, articulate champion of democratic values and principles vs. well, a lunatic and fascist admirer.
One of Trump's lies which struck me most -- lies are too weak a word for it -- was Trump's claim that immigrants are eating dogs. One of the moderators, David Muir, quietly pointed out that the City Manager of one of the allegedly afflicted places said that dogs were not being eaten in his town. Among the plethora of Trump's lies, this one strikes me as one of the most indicative of Trump's mental maladjustment. It's far less serious, of course, than Trump's continuing charge that governors in Democratic states allow killing of newborn babies -- denounced as a lie by both Harris and the other moderator, Linsey Davis. That's an egregious lie about a crucial issue. But the claim about immigrants and dogs is somehow vivid evidence that the former President is not in his right mind.
As for his politics,what I found most significant and disturbing was Trump's citing the pride he takes in Viktor Orban's praise of him. A fascist, neo-Nazi, who has systematically put down and tried to pull down the press and democratic structures in his country, Hungary. I couldn't help thinking that if Hitler was alive, and said anything good about Trump. the former President would have cited him as an admiring ally too.
Kamala Harris aptly pointed out that the most important thing in Trump's book and psyche is flattery from others. Everything she said in the debate was astute and on target. In fact, I can't think of a single off-key thing she said. Sure, that's because I agree with everything she said, but I still think her performance was objectively excellent. That includes her facial reactions to Trump's lies and absurdities, which we've known since the 1960 JFK/Nixon debates are at least as important as what the candidates actually say.
As for the moderators, better than CNN's in the Biden-Trump debate in June, but that's faint praise. They did quietly point out a few of Trump's lies, but maybe I'm old fashioned thinking that they should have called out every single one of them. Loudly and clearly.
Big good news arrived shortly after the debate in Taylor Swift's ringing endorsement of Harris for President. I'm pulling for a landslide.
Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 394, in which I interview Dan Abella about The New York Science Fiction Film Festival, to take place Saturday, September 14, 2024 at the Stuart Cinema and Cafe, 79 West Street in Brooklyn, NY.
Among the science fiction filmmakers we discuss: Gerrit Van Woudenberg, Jay Kensinger, Frank Spotnitz, M. Night Shyamalan, Francis Ford Coppola
Among the science fiction authors we discuss: Philip K. Dick, Sam Delany, Robert Harris, Walter Mosley
Well, Slow Horses is back on Apple TV+ with the debut episode of its 4th season, and
[Spoilers ahead ... ]
In the riveting opening and subsequent scenes it sure looks like River was shot to death by his (probably) somewhat deranged grandfather, but I didn't really believe that, because it's too crazy a way to die, even for Slow Horses, and in the end we learn Lamb didn't buy it either, and in fact River's in France, on some mission likely connected to the terrorists Taverner and the MI5 crew are dealing with (ineptly, because this is after all just the beginning of a new season).
But there were clues before the big French reveal, most notably that the body said to be River's had its face shot off, which made it difficult to identify as River's, on the basis of just eyesight. This probably tipped off Lamb from the beginning. He's in good form, by the way, not only farting, but scratching his ass (not at the same time). At least it was outside this time, not in a car with the doors closed.
The team, other than Ho, are more or less devastated, especially Louisa, who in one unfortunate scene not only rebuffed River's possible advance, but suggested he visit grandpa. Standish is not devastated at all, because, as we learn near the end, she knows River has not been shot, and Grandpa David is taking a nap in her bed. Have we ever actually seen her and Lamb in bed together and awake? I can't recall, but I think not, and I hope that will happen sooner or later in some future episode or season.
Kudos again, by the way, for Mick Jagger's excellent theme song at the beginning, but I didn't hear it again at the end, as we have in prior seasons, and that's s shame, because I'm always eager to hear that song, even in the middle of an episode.
But off to great start, and I'll be back with weekly reviews.
See also Slow Horses 3.1-3.2: Beatles Level ... 3.3: The Meaningful Difference Between "The" and "A" in the UK ... 3.4: "Clear the Board" ... 3.5: Winners and Losers, Part 1 ... 3.6: Winners and Losers, Part 2
And see also Slow Horses 2.1-2.2: Do Horses Eat Ramen? ... 2.3: Faster Than You Think ... 2.4-2.5: Lamb Firing On All Cylinders ... Slow Horses 2.6: Heralds of Humiliation
And see also Slow Horses 1.1-2: Fast-Moving Spy Thriller ... Slow Horses 1.3: The Fine Art of Bumbling ... Slow Horses 1.4: Fine New Song by Mick Jagger ... Slow Horses 1.5: Did You Hear the One About the ... Slow Horses 1.6: The Scorecard
I watched Fair Play -- a 2023 movie on Netflix last night -- because, well I've been a fan of Rich Sommer since he played Harry Crane on Mad Men (and he looked then like a young Isaac Asimov), [see
=========
I just saw the eight-episode Criminal Record on Apple TV+. My wife and I are avid devotees of British detectives in dramas, and Criminal Record is better than most. In fact, it's outstanding in every way.
The story features a relatively junior detective, DS June Lenker played by Cush Jumbo, and a senior detective, DCI Daniel Hegarty played by Peter Capaldi, who come into conflict over Errol Mathis (played by Tom Moutchi), who Lenker increasingly believes was railroaded into taking the fall for the murder of his wife.
The acting is superb. Capaldi distinguished himself as Dr. Who, Jumbo was on The Good Wife, and I don't recall seeing Mathis anywhere before Criminal Record, but it's Paul Rutman's writing and creation of of this series that give it such remarkable power. In most stories like this, you'd expect DCI Hegarty to use every ounce of his prowess to protect himself and his colleagues' putting away Mathis for the presumed murder of his wife, but Hegarty has a conscience and a decency, Mathis may actually think he's guilty, and you don't know what's really what until the very last moment of the eighth episode.
And in the midst of all this, Criminal Record delivers some really funny moments. Hegarty under the strain of these events often looks like he slept the night before in a crypt, and one of his former colleagues remarks when Hegarty is looking particularly haggard that he would do well if he showed up for a casting call for a corpse.
I don't want to share any more humor with you, or anything more about the plot, lest I rob you of the enjoyment you'll have watching this series. There's talk of making a second season, and I certainly hope they do. In the meantime, you absolutely can't go wrong watching the first.
And that's not the person who killed Carolyn in the novel and the movie!
And I won't tell you who either is, in case you haven't read the novel, seen the movie, or the series, even after the Spoiler advisory below.
[Spoilers ahead ... ]
It wasn't Tommy Molto, even though he loved Carolyn too, and she rejected him. He gave a great summation of the prosecution's case to the jury, but Rusty's in his own defence was even better, and carried the day. All in all, one of the best courtroom scenes I've ever seen on screen,
It was also something to learn that Rusty staged the murder scene -- tied up Carolyn's body -- to protect whom he thought was the murderer.
Hats off to everyone who created this series for telling a story much like the book and the movie, but with some very different parts and angles, all sharp and intriguing. There wasn't a single acting performance that wasn't powerful in all kinds of ways, and I can't wait to see where all of this goes in the second season.
See also Presumed Innocent 1.1-1.2: Presumed Excellent, And So Far Is ... 1.3: Sterling Performances ... 1.4: Under Fingernails ... 1.6: Tommy Molto ... 1.7: The Poker
First, let me say that I'm glad we find out in the first few minutes of episode 1.7 of Presumed Innocent on Apple TV+ that Horgan and is alive and well. In fact, so well, that we see him back in court with a pacemaker in his heart as Rusty takes the stand.
Which, of course, is the last thing a defendant in a murder case is supposed to do, and Molto has a field day with Rusty, winning the rarely given praise of Nico. But Molto's satisfaction is short-lived. He returns home, finds his apartment has been ransacked, and a fire poker with the charming note attached, "G0 FUCK YOURSELF".
What does this tell us? Well, Molto didn't write the note in all caps himself. Someone put it there on the poker. That poker, presumably, is the poker that was used to bludgeon and kill Carolyn. I didn't see any blood on it, but that could have cleaned off.
I see two possibilities. One, Molto is the killer, he cleaned and hid the poker in his home, and someone found it -- after ransaking the place -- and left it and the note. Who could that person be?
Well, the other possibility is that the murderer in the book and the movie, angry about what Molto had put Rusty through in court, left the poker with the note in Molto's home. I guess this is the more likely explanation, but then why was the home ransacked?
We'll find out the answer next week. And I'm glad there'll be another season of this superb drama.
See also Presumed Innocent 1.1-1.2: Presumed Excellent, And So Far Is ... 1.3: Sterling Performances ... 1.4: Under Fingernails ... 1.6: Tommy Molto
[Spoilers ahead ... ]
Wow! Jill's played by Felicity Huffman, and she not only was married to Jason -- killed nearly 10 years ago (off-camera) by an unsub -- but had some kind of important relationship to Rossi, who tells Emily he doesn't want Jill brought into the BAU's current investigation into the various Stars. (As far as I can recall, she didn't actually appear in the first few seasons in which Jason was on the show.)
Of course, Emily ignores Rossi's plea -- she's back in charge of the BAU, so no one in the BAU can tell her what to do, including Rossi -- and we get some great scenes as Emily knocks on Jill's door, and is something less than warmly received. Again, as in last week's episode, it was fun to hear Emily go over all the missing BAU members, when Jill asks her what's happening at the BAU. Once again, I was most interested in what Emily had to say about Spencer, characterizing his absence as "on sabbatical". That's certainly better than dead -- which we know isn't the case for Spencer -- or even left in a huff.
Moving on to other characters, I just want to also say that Tyler should be made a member of the BAU already. No need to keep him in the vestibule of being a consultant any more.
And as for the plot of this episode and its violence -- the specific kind of depraved violence featured in this episode -- I found it suitably revolting, as I usually do. But that's not why I watch this fascinating series.
See also Criminal Minds: Evolution 17.1-17-.2 The Elusive Profile ... 17.3: "BAU Gate" ... 17.4: Progress ... 17.6: Gideon, Morgan, Hotch
And see also Criminal Minds: Evolution 16.1-16.4: Outstanding! ... 16.5: Assessment of What Could Have Happened at the End ... 16.6-16.8: Better Than Ever on Paramount Plus ... 16.9: Elias Voit and David Rossi ... 16.10: Gold Star
I think there's a good chance Tommy Molto murdered Carolyn in this excellent version of Presumed Innocent. We saw previously that she said she didn't want to work with him on any more cases. And in episode 1.6 we learn that she formally told Human Resources that she didn't want to work with Tommy because he was "ick"y.
Now, again, I know who killed Carolyn in the novel and the movie. It wasn't Tommy. But I've already seen some differences between those and this TV series, and I can see why Carolyn would see some "ick" in Tommy. Does that mean he killed her? No, but it certainly makes him a good suspect.
[Spoilers ahead ... ]
Now for the shocker: Rusty's lead attorney, former DA Horgan, collapses in the courtroom. I think Horgan is a great character, and Bill Camp's doing a fine job portraying him, so I certainly hope he survives. If he doesn't, Mya's an excellent attorney, she can take over, but she doesn't have the gravitas that Horgan has as the former DA.
I recall Horgan in the novel or the movie, so I have no idea how he'll fare in the TV series, but I sure hope -- for Rusty's sake and the audience's -- that we haven't see the last of him.
See also Presumed Innocent 1.1-1.2: Presumed Excellent, And So Far Is ... 1.3: Sterling Performances ... 1.4: Under Fingernails
[Spoilers ahead .... ]
We already know she's building an old-fashioned H. G. Wellsian time machine. And Wes wants to kill her before the machine becomes fully operational. She sends Janet and Ross back to do the job. But there's a lot more to this than meets the eye.
First, Robin seems to be a Gray supporter. Good, Wes is clearly the villain in this second season, and Robin is the only one who can have at least some control over her.
Next, there are, of course, two versions of Janet in play here. The younger one who's sent back with Ross to kill Kitty Gray, and does. And the older one who comes to know and respect and really care about Gray. This older Janet knows that stopping her younger self from killing Gray will upset too many apple carts, but it's unclear if she can bring herself to stopping her younger self from doing the deed. And we never find out what the older Janet would have done, because Wes sends the younger Janet back to kill Gray earlier than she was killed in the original reality (if it makes senses in this kind of time travel story to talk about an original reality).
I will say, again, that I think Gray (played by Zoe Telford) is a wonderful character. Especially because, as we find out in this episode, her motive in inventing a time machine is true love.
See you back here next week with another review.
See also The Lazarus Project season 2.1: Shades of Gray ... 2.2: Shag in the Alley ... 2.3: The Plane Outside the Loop ... 2.4: 2018
And see also The Lazarus Project season 1: Time Travel Done Superbly Right
[Spoilers ahead ... ]
Emily asks J. J. to think about everyone who has come and gone at the BAU since she and J. J. met -- "Gideon, Morgan, Hotch". Why did she pick those three? Well, Gideon was the first head of the unit we met, all those years ago. Hotchner was there the longest. And Morgan I don't think was ever head, but he was a major player.
But I wonder why Emily didn't include Spencer in her reminisce. It would have been easy to add a fourth name. I'm pretty sure I heard someone mention Spencer's name earlier this season, but the stoned conversation in Emily's apartment would have been a good time to say it again.
Spencer was on the show for 324 episodes, from 2005 through 2020. Showrunner Erica Messer says scheduling conflicts kept Matthew Gray Gubler from coming back for the first season of Criminal Minds: Evolution, and this may be the case for the second season, but his desk remains, as is the possibility that he'll be back in some future episode or season (see Screen Rant for more).
With a serial killer like Voit behind bars but still very dangerous, and the big reveal at the end of 17.6 that the BAU's historic leaders may be North Star, related in some way to Gold Star, the BAU could certainly use every bit of Spencer's brain power it can get.
See also Criminal Minds: Evolution 17.1-17-.2 The Elusive Profile ... 17.3: "BAU Gate" ... 17.4: Progress
And see also Criminal Minds: Evolution 16.1-16.4: Outstanding! ... 16.5: Assessment of What Could Have Happened at the End ... 16.6-16.8: Better Than Ever on Paramount Plus ... 16.9: Elias Voit and David Rossi ... 16.10: Gold Star
An excellent little pocket of an episode 2.4 of The Lazarus Project, in which just about everything takes place in
[Spoilers ahead ,,, ]
2018. Even though our band of heroes were trying to get back to 2012 to meet Dr. Kitty Gray, the inventor of the true time machine.
My favorite delightful drama in the 2018 pocket are the two Georges and two Sarahs, one of each knowing what's going on, the other not, mixing and matching at the corner of true romance. I've thought throughout both seasons of this series that their true love story and its time travel tributions would in and of itself have made for a compelling time travel television series.
As it is, The Lazarus Project has many other riveting stories to tell. Rebrov is an excellent character in any stage of his education about the complexities of time travel, and he pulls some significant triggers -- literally -- in episode 2.4. Of course, when time travel loops are involved, death isn't what it is in our off-screen world, in which as far as we know there is not a way to redo anything, certainly not life and death.
Since this second season is the final season, I can't help wondering who will live happily ever after at the end. I'm hoping that George and Sarah, Rebrov and Janet (and Becky), and Archie and Zhang will go on to live and prosper, but that's probably too much to hope for.
See also The Lazarus Project season 2.1: Shades of Gray ... 2.2: Shag in the Alley ... 2.3: The Plane Outside the Loop
And see also The Lazarus Project season 1: Time Travel Done Superbly Right
Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 393, in which I argue that debate performance has nothing to do with how a candidate actually performs as President.
See also:
Presumed Innocent 1.4 ended with a shocker: Rusty's DNA is found under Carolyn's fingernails. This is obvious proof that the two were fighting ...
Of course, if we read the book or saw the 1990 movie, Rusty's DNA under Carolyn's fingernails is entirely consistent with who the real killer is, definitely not Rusty. And since I have no idea how similar this Apple TV+ series and the 1990 movie will be, I'm keeping an open mind: the killer could be the 1990 killer, or Rusty, or someone else entirely.
The relationship between Rusty and Raymond, his lawyer, continues be strong, and Mya on the defense team is an excellent asset. Over on the prosecution side, Nico continues to be unflappable, but also not having 100% confidence in Tommy. I'd like to see more focus on Tommy's character. He actually seems to be doing a pretty good job, which makes me wonder why Nico seems so quick to disagree with him.
We also need to know more about Carolyn. What was Tommy's relationship with her in the office? What was Raymond's relationship with Carolyn -- he after all was her boss. Shouldn't there be more investigation of Carolyn's cases, and whether any of the people she prosecuted were now in a position to kill her?
I'm very much looking forward to seeing how this literally life-and-story, and saga of justice, unfolds.
See also Presumed Innocent 1.1-1.2: Presumed Excellent, And So Far Is ... 1.3: Sterling Performances
Biden tried to say decent, ethical things but delivered most of his words poorly in last night's Presidential debate; Trump spoke much more clearly but said vile things and lied just about every time he opened his mouth (lies which the CNN moderators failed to call out).
What are we to think about this?
I would say it's that debates shouldn't matter as much as they seem to. JFK looked better on TV than did Nixon, and a majority of people who saw the two on TV thought Kennedy won. A much smaller number of people heard the same debate on radio, and thought Nixon won. That event certainly demonstrated the importance of debates. But though JFK proved to be an excellent President, the fact that he won the debate was really no indication that JFK would do so well in office. The debates, in other words, were very valuable windows into the effects of media in politics, not indicators of the political character and acumen of the candidates.
It's plain logic that what a President does in office has nothing to do with the President's voice quality or appearance. FDR was in a wheelchair throughout his presidency. He connected to the American people in an age before television via his fireside chats on radios. Few people knew he was in a wheelchair. Most historians agree he was our very best President, getting the United States out of the Great Depression, and guiding us and our allies to victory in the Second World War.
I've spent my professional life as a professor of media and an author talking about the importance of televised debates, how candidates look and sound on television. JFK won the debate with Nixon because because by 1960 more than 90-percent of Americans had television in their homes. Reagan prevailed over Mondale by making a savvy joke about not making the younger age of his opponent an issue. Obama faltered in his first debate with Romney but came back strong in their second nationally televized conversation. But maybe it's time to focus on what debates really are: a 90-minute performance that has little to do with what the candidate did, is doing, or will do in office. The truth is that the skills needed to be an effective debater have nothing to do with the skills needed to be an effective President. Never did, never will. Maybe it's long since time that we recognized that.
Marshall McLuhan was the first to point out that JFK won the 1960 debates and then the election because he performed so well on television, in contrast to Nixon who was judged as winning the debates on their radio broadcasts that so few people listened to. McLuhan made this observation in Understanding Media (1964), whose breakthrough message was "the medium is the message". The view that Biden's poor performance in Thursday's debate means he's no longer fit to be President strikes me as an egregious case of mistaking the medium (the debate) for the message (Biden's been doing a superb job as President).
Or, to paraphrase Shelley, maybe it's the debate that failed last night, not Biden.
***
Note added Friday, June 28th, afternoon: And Biden amply demonstrated his power to effectively communicate in a rip-roaring speech in North Carolina. Again, a debate is a unique mode of communication, which not only has nothing to do with Presidential decision-making and other Presidential activity, but not much in common with speech-making, interviews, and other kinds of communication, either.
Note added Saturday, June 29: The New York Times' editorial board called on Joe Biden to leave the race. They didn't say a word about Biden's speech in North Carolina. What are we to make about such an unprecedented call from the editors of what used to be known as the newspaper of record? I would say this is just more evidence of the decline of a once-great newspaper. See my What's Wrong with The New York Times for an example this past Fall of what I'm talking about.
Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 392, in which I review Dark Matter 1.9 on Apple TV+.
Further places:
See also Deadline's interview with Blake Crouch
[Spoilers ahead ... ]
I said last week that the multitude of Jasons showing up in one world gave cinematic verite to the poster for the series. But that crucial scene near the end of 1.9, with all of those Jasons, marshalled by their leader to let our Jason -- Jason 1 -- have the life he deserved with Daniela and Charlie -- well, that scene epitomized the poster.
I also said last week that I didn't expect to see the happy ending that the ending of 1.8 was pointing to. And we did see Jason 1 and Daniela 1 and Charlie 1 in family bliss for part of 1.9, only to have that taken away from them by a few of the marauding Jasons. But Jason 2 saved them -- at least, I think that was Jason 2, I'm never 100% sure -- and got the crowd of Jasons to let the Jason 1 family go into a world where they could presumably have a very happy life.
That scene with the crowd of Jasons made me realize that I was watching not just a science fiction story but a horror story. Crowds have been a part of horror at least since the notorious town folk with their torches in Frankenstein. They weren't carrying torches in Dark Matter 1.9, and they were different versions of the same person, but they felt to me to have a kinship with those villagers in Frankenstein. Mary Shelley's and Blake Crouch's stories, after all, are both vivid testaments to the horror that uncontrolled science can bring. The Twilight Zone often focused on this field of dreams turned nightmares, too.
So, the Jason 1 family has a happy ending. And Jason 2 sees the error of his ways and redeems himself. But there are an infinity of stories in that crowd of Jasons, and in this, our offscreen reality, I envision a Canterbury Tales of Dark Matter stories spanning years.
