Steven’s Oscar predictions: how good were they?

February 23, 2015 • 7:29 am

On January 20, my nephew Steven, a movie maven of great insight, made his predictions for the 2014 Oscar winners, which I posted here. Let’s see how well he did this year. In the list below, Steven’s predictions are in regular type, and the actual winners are in bold:

Picture: Boyhood WRONG: Birdman
Director: Richard Linklater, Boyhood WRONG: Alejandro González Iñárritu for Birdman
Actor: Michael Keaton, Birdman WRONG: Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything
Actress: Julianne Moore, Still Alice CORRECT
Supporting Actor: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash  CORRECT
Supporting Actress: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood CORRECT
Original Screenplay: The Grand Budapest Hotel WRONG: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo – Birdman
Adapted Screenplay: The Imitation Game CORRECT Graham Moore – The Imitation Game
Song: “Glory,” Selma CORRECT
Foreign Language Film: Ida CORRECT
Animated Feature: How to Train Your Dragon 2 WRONG: Big Hero 6
Documentary Feature: CitizenFour  CORRECT
Score: The Theory of Everything WRONGAlexandre Desplat – The Grand Budapest Hotel
Production Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel CORRECT
Cinematography: Birdman CORRECT
Costume Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel CORRECT
Film Editing: Boyhood WRONG: Whiplash – Tom Cross
Makeup and Hairstyling: Guardians of the Galaxy WRONGThe Grand Budapest Hotel – Frances Hannon, Mark Coulier
Sound Mixing: Interstellar WRONGWhiplash – Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins, Thomas Curley
Sound Editing: Interstellar WRONGAmerican Sniper – Alan Robert Murray, Bub Asman
Visual Effects: Interstellar CORRECT

Total score: 10/22 = 45% correct

This is at least credible, for of course random guessing would yield a much lower percentage, but it’s not nearly as many hits as my nephew predicted. Doubtless he will have his excuses, but, like the justifications of theologians, those are post hoc confabulations.

Steven also awards his own trophies, the fabled “Golden Steves” to the pictures and achievements he sees as best, which often diverge wildly from the Academy’s choices. His list of winners is at his website, “Truth at 24“, where you can also see the nominees. There were a few convergences between his winners and those of the Academy (including Julianne Moore and J. K. Simmons), but his other choices aren’t the same. You might want to see the winning films, for, despite the lad’s hubris, he does have good taste—taste marred only by his horrible and inexcusable choice of “The Tree of Life” for Best Picture of 2011. Excuse my rant, but I still cannot see how anyone, much less Steven, could like that bloated piece of directorial pomposity.

I must confess, though, that I’ve seen only one of the Best Picture nominees this year (The Grand Budapest Hotel, which I walked out on), for the Albatross largely kept me from such activities. But I do plan to see the others as soon as I can.

Monday: Hili dialogue

February 23, 2015 • 4:55 am

It’s warmed up in Chicago! And by “warm,” I mean temperatures in the 20’s (Farenheit). We’ll have lower temperatures later this week—in the single digits—but, like Punxatawny Phil, I sense the approach of spring. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is feeling her oats. Isn’t she adorable?

Hili: Do I look like a big, wild cat?
A: No, you look like a little domesticated cat.
Hili: It must be a matter of perspective: you are looking from a height.
P1020342
In Polish:
Hili: Czy wyglądam teraz jak duży, dziki kot?
Ja: Nie, wyglądasz jak mały, oswojony kot,
Hili: To musi być kwestia perspektywy, bo patrzysz na mnie z góry.

Do animals see optical illusions?

February 22, 2015 • 2:00 pm

This gif strongly suggests that at least cats do:

uE9ihTO

This page will show you a larger version of the “wheel” illusion that the cat is inspecting (and attacking). I think it’s very clever to present such images to animals who can show us directly (as hunting cats can) whether their senses are fooled. This moggie was clearly duped!

That’s not all that surprising, of course, as we naturally think that other mammals’ eyes work the same way as ours. But this shows more than that—it shows that other mammals’ brains work the same way as ours (at least insofar as the illusion works), for what is taken in by the eye is interpreted by the brain. This cat sees a nonmoving image and, like us, interprets it as being in motion.

Optical illusions are a byproduct of the evolved interaction between vision and its neural interpretation, and many such illusions—like the “checker-shadow” illusion, perhaps the best of all optical illusions— reflect our evolved ability to compensate for natural phenomena. Greg Mayer has written about how countershading in animals takes advantage of predator’s evolved tendency to be fooled about the hue of an object. Likewise the checker-shadow illusion fools us because our brains evolved to imagine things in shadow to be lighter than they really are.

Of course many of the selective pressures that molded our own interpretation of what we see must be similar in animals. Predators and humans are both fooled by countershading, and I bet a mammalian predator’s brain would also be fooled by the checkershadow illusion. (Actually, that could be tested, at least in birds, by training them to peck at squares of a certain hue and then giving them the illusion.) Or perhaps we’ve simply inherited the eye-brain connection that is fooled by illusions from our ancestors in which that visual interpretation was critical for survival, and we’re the victims of “evolutionary inertia.” Regardless, the cat above shows that we’re not the only species fooled by these two-dimensional tricks.

h/t: John S.

The anti-free speech police ride again

February 22, 2015 • 12:12 pm

The proliferation of identity politics and the demonization of free speech continues apace on America’s campuses. Speakers with unpopular opinions have their speaking invitations rescinded or are demonized by students whose tender ears can’t bear to hear something challenging, and students continually press for rules against “hate speech,” often construed as “speech that makes me uncomfortable.” For a fuller account of the bizarre extremes of this brand of campus fascism, see Wendy Kaminer’s piece in Friday’s Washington Post, “The progressive ideas behind the lack of free speech on campus.

I don’t know why the mantra “all politics is personal” is permeating our campus, but I have my theories. I won’t inflict those on you now; I merely want to report another example of campus excess, a flyer distributed by Columbia University’s group Everyone Allied Against Homophobia (EEAH). EEAH asked every Columbia student to put this on their window, declaring their room to be a “safer space,” and many did:

safespaceONLINE

I hardly need to point out that I, too, am against homophobia, have taken a consistent position in favor of gay rights over the last few decades, and written about it frequently here. And of course I abhor discrimination against trans people, disabled people, poor people, or members of other ethnic groups.

But what this sign is about is censorship: certain ideas will not be discussed, certain issues will not be entertained, all feelings will be coddled and nobody will be offended. Colleges are supposed to be “unsafe spaces”—unsafe in the sense that you can expect your ideas to be challenged, your feelings to sometimes be bruised, and, rather than having your ideas, opinions, and feelings coddled, you’ll be expected to defend them. I feel revulsion at the idea of a “safe space”, for it’s the antithesis of academic freedom, and a discussion stopper.

Let me put it this way: everyone here knows that while I think Israel has done some bad stuff in the Middle East, I also think they’ve been given an excessively bad rap by the world, and the Palestinians given excessive deference. But would I want to stop discussion of this topic on campus, or prevent someone from bringing it up in my presence or even from making anti-semitic remarks? No. Would I want my university to prosecute someone who called me a “racist” for generally being on Israel’s side in the fracas (and those slurs have been made)? No. I would argue back as far as I was able, and perhaps I’d learn something, as I often have in these discussions. If my room were a “safe space” in which nobody could bring up potentially upsetting matters, I would never even have the opportunity to change my mind or even examine my views.

At any rate, a Columbia student named Adam Shapiro, a history major, wrote a letter in the Columbia student newspaper decrying this proliferation of “safe-space” ideology, and also said this in an interview for Spiked:

‘People call them safe-space zones, but actually they’re censorship zones, that’s exactly what they are’, Shapiro tells me. ‘Students need to fight back and have dangerous spaces.’ Towards the end of last year, Columbia — home to some of the most PC, word-watching students in the modern West — had at least one ‘dangerous space’: Shapiro’s room. Instead of hanging up the sad ‘safe space’ sign shoved under his and every other students’ dorm door, Shapiro wrote and displayed a sign headlined ‘I do not want this to be a safe space’. His room, the sign said, is a place where all who enter will be expected ‘not to allow identity to trump ideas [or] emotion to trump critical thinking’. ‘Whether you’re black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, bi, transgender, fully abled, disabled, religious, secular, rich, middle class or poor, I will judge your ideas based on their soundness and coherence, not based on who you are’, his sign declared. Then there was the sign-off, in bold, a warning to anyone who thought they could pop into this student’s room and arrogantly expect that certain things would not be thought, said, or argued out: ‘This is a dangerous space.

College is—or should be—a dangerous space. The world is a dangerous space. The only reason we’ve been able to bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice, as Martin Luther King put it, is through speech and discussion—speech that some group would have deemed offensive and dangerous. Prohibit that discussion, and the arc will straighten again.

h/t: Amy Alkon

 

Aliens under the ocean

February 22, 2015 • 10:40 am

by Matthew Cobb

Watch this video (preferably on fullscreen), and name those species (down to class level, please. This test will count towards your final mark).

From Earth’s point of view, these aren’t the aliens – it’s been living with things like this for over 500 million years. The really weird stuff is that bipedal quadruped that popped up the other day, somehow became conscious, and is now trashing the place…

(Don’t know who made this image)

Bill Nye gives advice to beleaguered European Jews: “Get to know your neighbors”

February 22, 2015 • 9:00 am

I know that many readers love Bill Nye, and that I’ll take flak for criticizing him, but I do think the man is a befuddled seeker of the limelight, desperately looking to regain the renown he had when he was Bill Nye the Science Guy. (Full disclosure: I never watched that show, and I do admire his mission and his drive to educate people about science, and to call out climate-change denialists.) But now he’s making pronouncements about things in which he has no expertise, counting, I suppose, on his image as the amiable Science Uncle to give him credibility. (I wasn’t all that impressed with his defense of evolution in his debate with Ken Ham.) But to me he just seems like a befuddled relative, bumbling around looking for his glasses and not making a lot of sense. He will eventually fade away, I suspect, and I won’t miss him. There are plenty of better science popularizers.

Here’s this week’s example of Nye’s cluelessness: a discussion of European antisemitism involving Bill Maher, Nye, Rob Reiner, and Washington Post reporter Elahe Izadi on Maher’s “Real Time” show last Friday. They’re talking about Netanyahu’s misguided suggestion that European Jews should move to Israel to avoid the recent rise of antisemitic sentiment and actions. Then Nye chimes in with his useful advice to mitigate the bigotry:

Nye: “So what do you do about it? I think you get to know your neighbors. That said–it’s gonna take, does it take a century? Something like that.”

The man may be The Science Guy, but he’s not a Human Relations Guy! I exchanged emails about this with my friend Malgorzata, most of whose relatives were killed in the Holocaust, who married a non-Jew, and who was driven out of Poland long after the war because of anti-Semitism. (The wave of antisemitism in Poland started in 1967 after the Six-Day War and culminated with the Polish government advising, or rather urging, Jews to leave the country. She and her husband, who first was forbidden to accompany her because he was an “Aryan,” went to Sweden in 1971, returning to Poland only much later.) Her reaction was much stronger than mine (which was simply “Nye is an moron”):

[Nye] pontificated that it could take a century. Didn’t this idiot know that Jews were living in Europe for millennia? That they knew their neighbours as far as the neighbours allowed? Even Jews who converted to Christianity were killed by Germans as Jews*—but what more can you do than to take the religion of your neighbours and renounce your community? And even that didn’t help. There were writers writing in the language of the country of “their neigbours”, scientists who worked in their laboratories, etc. And they went to Auschwitz together with the Orthodox Jews with payos [sidelocks]—they were all deemed to be the same. Today in Poland there are a few Jews who know nothing about Judaism, are not religious, Polish is their mother tongue, and they even were sitting in jails in the Communist era for the fight for free Poland (not free Israel). There is still so much hatred against them, in spite of the fact they think they are the same as their neighbours. Oh, I could continue but I have no time to write and you have no time to read my rant.

*JAC: A famous example of a Jew who converted to Catholicism, and became a nun, but was still killed by the Nazis at Auschwitz because of her Jewish background, was Edith Stein, later made a saint by the Vatican. She also had a doctorate in philosophy.