Category: Film

My very interesting Conversation with Seamus Murphy

Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is the episode summary:

Seamus Murphy is an Irish photographer and filmmaker who has spent decades documenting life in some of the world’s most challenging places—from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to Nigeria’s Boko Haram territories. Having left recession-era Ireland in the 1980s to teach himself photography in American darkrooms, Murphy has become that rare artist who moves seamlessly between conflict zones and recording studios, creating books of Afghan women’s poetry while directing music videos that anticipated Brexit.

Tyler and Seamus discuss the optimistic case for Afghanistan, his biggest fear when visiting any conflict zone, how photography has shaped perceptions of Afghanistan, why Russia reminded him of pre-Celtic Tiger Ireland, how the Catholic Church’s influence collapsed so suddenly in Ireland, why he left Ireland in the 1980s, what shapes Americans impression of Ireland, living part-time in Kolkata and what the future holds for that “slightly dying” but culturally vibrant city, his near-death encounters with Boko Haram in Nigeria, the visual similarities between Michigan and Russia, working with PJ Harvey on Let England Shake and their travels to Kosovo and Afghanistan together, his upcoming film about an Afghan family he’s documented for thirty years, and more.

And an excerpt:

COWEN: Now you’re living in Kolkata mainly?

MURPHY: No. I’m living in London, some of the year in Kolkata.

COWEN: Why Kolkata?

MURPHY: My wife is Indian. She grew up in Delhi, Bombay, and Kolkata, but Kolkata was her favorite. They were the years that were her most fond of years. She’s got lots of friends from Kolkata. I love the city. She was saying that if I didn’t like the city, then we wouldn’t be spending as much time in Kolkata as we do, but I do love the city.

It’s got, in many ways, everything I would look for in a city. Kabul, in a way, was a bit like Kolkata when times were better. This is maybe a replacement for Kabul for me. Kolkata is extraordinary. It’s got that history. It’s got the buildings. Bengalis are fascinating. It’s got culture, fantastic food.

COWEN: The best streets in India, right?

MURPHY: Absolutely.

COWEN: It’s my daughter’s favorite city in India.

MURPHY: Really?

COWEN: Yes.

MURPHY: What does she like about it?

COWEN: There’s a kind of noir feel to it all.

MURPHY: Absolutely.

COWEN: It’s so compelling and so strong and just grabs you, and you feel it on every street, every block. It’s probably still the most intellectual Indian city with the best bookshops, a certain public intellectual life.

MURPHY: It’s widespread. It’s not just elite. It’s everyone. We went to a huge book fair. It’s like going to . . . I don’t know what it’s like going to, Kumbh Mela or something. It’s extraordinary.

There’s a huge tent right in the middle, and it’s for what they call little magazines. Little magazines are these very small publications run by one or two people. They’ll publish poetry. They’ll publish interesting stories. Sadly, I don’t speak Bengali because I’d love to be reading this stuff. There are hundreds of these things. They survive, and people buy them. It’s not just the elite. It’s extraordinary in that way.

COWEN: Is there any significant hardship associated with living there, say a few months of the year?

MURPHY: For us, no. There’s a lot of hardship —

COWEN: No pollution?

MURPHY: Yes. The biggest pollution for me is the noise, the noise pollution.

Interesting throughout.

Scott Sumner is still the greatest movie critic in the world

Here is the intro:

Over time, I’ve noticed that an unusual number of important films came out in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In this post, I’ll argue that the period from 1958 to 1963 is the artistic peak of filmmaking. So what is the evidence for this claim? I certainly won’t argue that the films discussed below are the most popular among the general public. Rather this period is especially important for serious film buffs. [I’ll conclude this post with an contrary view.]

In contrast to the general public, film buffs see a close correlation between “great films” and “films made by great directors.” And almost any list of the greatest directors of all time is going to be dominated by people who did much of their best work around 1960. For instance, in one list of the 250 greatest directors of all time, 11 of the top 13 directors were doing important work around 1960. (The other two were Coppola and Scorsese.) But why 1960? It’s not nostalgia on my part; I was too young to see these films when they came out. And note that the 1958-63 period of great films immediately preceded the golden age of pop music (roughly 1964-69.)

Go through Scott’s list in the post people, you have treasures awaiting you!  I should add that I see another, arguably equally valid peak period in the early to mid-1970s, and for popular music too.

What to Watch (or Not): Ballard, Perfect Days, Billy Joel

Ballard (Amazon Prime) — I liked Bosch, so I had high hopes for this spinoff. The core premise—a team of misfits solving cold cases—is solid enough but the writing is unimaginative and lazy. In one scene, Ballard is told she needs to get a confession. We expect clever interrogation tactics. Instead, she walks in and bluntly asks, “Did you shoot Yulia Kravetz?”

Maggie Q is charismatic but the writers don’t write for her. She’s exceptionally slim, for example, yet the show repeatedly asks us to believe she can physically overpower men twice her size. I have no problem with that in a superhero movie but it’s off putting in a show that pretends to be grounded and gritty. If you’re casting someone with that physique, write her as sharper, more cunning, more insightful—not as a female stand-in for macho Bosch.

Worst of all is the ending: a killer reveal that comes out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing or internal logic. The writers don’t understand the difference between a twist and a cheat. Disappointing.

Perfect Days (Hulu, Amazon)a 2023 Wim Wenders film that won the award at Cannes for “works of artistic quality which witnesses to the power of film to reveal the mysterious depths of human beings through what concerns them, their hurts and failings as well as their hopes.” The film follows the life of Hirayama (Kōji Yakusho, who won at Cannes for best actor) as he cleans public toilets in Tokyo’s Shibuya district. You will not be surprised to learn that the movie proceeds slowly. The toilets and the cleaning are the most interesting part of the first hour! I say this not as critique–I liked Perfect Days and the toilets really are interesting–only to illustrate the kind of movie that it is.

It helps to know the following from a useful Sean Burns review:

Komorebi is a Japanese word for the dancing shadow patterns created by sunlight shining through the rustling leaves of trees. There’s no equivalent term in English, and it’s tough to imagine any American caring enough to come up with one. But every afternoon on his lunch break, Hirayama (Koji Yakusho) takes a picture of the komorebi from his favorite park bench using an old Olympus film camera. Back at his apartment, he’s got boxes and boxes of black-and-white photos of the same spot, every one of them unique. Subtle shifts of the light and swaying branches in the breeze make similar snapshots strikingly different every time. Indeed, the whole concept behind komorebi is that it can exist only in a moment, never to be repeated. “Next time is next time,” Hirayama’s fond of saying, “Now is now.”

https://www.archilovers.com/stories/30456/why-architects-should-watch-perfect-days-by-wim-wenders.html

Although I would disagree with Burns slightly because there is an English term for something related to komorebi and that is crown shyness, the phenomena where trees grow in such a way that their branches keep from touching one another creating a canopy of closeness yet also distance. Indeed, I would argue that crown shyness expresses more of what the movie is about than komorebi.

A key question that divides reviewers is whether Hirayama is happy or content. The standard interpretation is that he has found, as Davis puts it, “beauty in the routine,” stopping to smell the roses. Yes, that is one aspect, but the routine is also a narcotic for the lost. Hirayama is estranged from his family. Barkeeps like him but all his relationships are superficial. He plays a game with a “friend” he never meets—distance and disconnection are everywhere.. In two scenes he finds meaning and joy in looking after a child but in both these scenes the child’s mother quickly rips the child away. Hirayama’s work partner disappears in the second half of the film. He almost makes connections with three women but in each case, crown shyness intervenes. He takes pride in his work but is operating well below his ability. He is isolated, alone, and without someone else to share a life, he is incomplete.

There are great scenes and music in Perfect Days, including a beautiful scene in which a Japanese hostess (Sayuri Ishikawa) sings House of the Rising Sun.

Billy Joel: And So It Goes (HBO) — 52nd Street was one of my favorite albums as a youth and it was fun to revisit his career. Billy Joel’s first wife, Elizabeth Weber, was the muse for many of his early songs including Big Shot and Stiletto:

She cuts you hard, she cuts you deepShe’s got so much skillShe’s so fascinatingThat you’re still there waitingWhen she comes back for the killYou’ve been slashed in the faceYou’ve been left there to bleedYou want to run awayBut you know you’re gonna stay‘Cause she gives you what you need

She is indeed, fascinating! Wow. Even today, she comes across as formidable.

I thought a lot about genetics while watching And So It Goes. Joel’s father was a classical musician, though his only notable comment on Billy’s playing was to knock him unconscious for taking too much liberty with a piece. The father left when Billy was eight. Not much nurture. Years later, they reunite in Vienna—where Joel discovers he has a half-brother, Alexander Joel, a successful pianist and conductor.

Joel grew up poor, but his paternal grandfather had been a wealthy Jewish businessman in Germany until the Nazis forced him out. His mother, Rosalind, was also musical, but her primary inheritance may have been bipolar disorder. Joel’s mental health struggles are never explicitly named in the documentary, but the signs are everywhere: an early suicide attempt, alcoholism, repeated motorcycle and car crashes of a self-destructive nature. The emotional cycles also help explain the pattern of intense, short-lived marriages to beautiful and accomplished women—Weber, Christie Brinkley, Katie Lee, and Alexis Roderick. In his highs, he was irresistible. In his lows, unbearable. He goes to extremes.

Critics didn’t always love Joel’s music, but his catalog has become part of the American songbook. Proof of something Tyler and I often discuss, the power of simply keeping going.

My entertaining Conversation with Annie Jacobsen

Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is part of the episode summary:

Tyler and Annie explore whether we should be more afraid of nuclear weapons or if fear itself raises the risks, who should advise presidents during the six-minute decision window, whether moving toward disarmament makes us safer or more vulnerable, what Thomas Schelling really meant about nuclear war and rational actors, the probability that America would retaliate after a nuclear attack, the chances of intercepting a single incoming ICBM, why missile defense systems can’t replicate Israel’s Iron Dome success, how Pakistan-India nuclear tensions could escalate, why she’s surprised domestic drone attacks haven’t happened yet, her reporting on JFK assassination mysteries and deathbed phone calls, her views on UFOs and the dark human experiments at Area 51, what motivates intelligence community operators, her encounters with Uri Geller and CIA psychic research, what she’s working on next, and more.

Excerpt:

JACOBSEN: I quote him in the notes of my book, and this is perhaps the only regret I have in the entire book, that I put this quote from Schelling in the notes rather than in the text. Maybe it’s more interesting for your listeners if we drill down on this than the big platitudes of, “Do more nuclear weapons make us more safe?” It goes like this. This was Schelling in an interview with WGBH Radio in 1986 in Boston.

He says, “The problem with applying game theory to nuclear war is that nuclear war, by its very nature, does not involve rational men. It can’t. What sane person would be willing to kill hundreds of millions of people, ruin the earth, and end modern civilization in order to make somebody called the enemy doesn’t win first?”

COWEN: But Schelling did favor nuclear weapons. That was his dark sense of humor, I would say.

JACOBSEN: You think what I just read was his sense of humor?

COWEN: Absolutely.

JACOBSEN: I believe it was a man in his elder years coming to the conclusion that nuclear war is insane, which is the fundamental premise that I make in the book.

COWEN: You can hold both views. It is insane, but it might be the better insanity of the ones available to us.

JACOBSEN: Yes. From my take, he, like so many others that I have interviewed, because, for some reason — call it fate and circumstance — I have spent my career interviewing men in their 80s and 90s, who are defense officials who spent their entire life making war or preventing war. I watch them share with me their reflections in that third act of their life, which are decidedly different — in their own words — than those that they would have made as a younger man.

I find that fascinating, and that’s my takeaway from the Schelling quote, that he came to terms with the fact that intellectualizing game theory — like von Neumann, who never got to his old age — is madness.

COWEN: Let’s say that Russia or China, by mistake, did a full-scale launch toward the United States, and they couldn’t call the things back, and we’re in that six-minute window, or whatever it would be with hypersonics. What do you think is the probability that we would do a full-scale launch back?

COWEN: The word madness doesn’t have much force with me. My life is a lot of different kinds of madness. I’ve heard people say marriage is madness. A lot of social conventions seem to me to be madness.

The question is getting the least harmful form of madness out there. Then, I’m not convinced that those who wish to disarm have really made their case. Certainly, saying nuclear war is madness doesn’t persuade me. If anything, if enough people think it’s madness, we won’t get it, and it’s fine to have the nuclear weapons.

A different and quite stimulating episode.

*Superman* (some general observations, no real spoilers)

The first half was more fun than I was expecting, though overall I cannot call it a good movie.

The core message is that AI, drones, biotech, and nanotech will elevate the power of private companies and individuals over states, and this is likely to prove unstable on an ongoing basis.  Whether or not you agree, I found that a consistent and also important theme to pursue.

One should not conclude that Superman is obviously one of the good guys, no matter how noble his intent.  I found that interesting too.  The filmmakers hint at the logic of growth models, and Garett Jones.

Unlike what some commentators have suggested, I did not view the movie as intending much explicit commentary about either immigration or Israel vs. Hamas.  Still, you can spot a few references to each.

The main flaws of the film are a) stupidity, b) excess reliance on multiple climactic yet never compelling supposedly climactic battle scenes, c) lame portrayals of villains, and d) lack of interest in being truly cinematic.

I can report that I did not walk out, but it does not come close to the dramatic impact of the original Christopher Reeve installment.

What should I ask Seamus Murphy?

Yes I will be doing a Conversation with him.  An associate of his emails me this excellent description of his work:

Spent over two decades photographing in Afghanistan (12 trips between 1994–2007). Has been back since the fall of the U.S. side.

  • Collaborated with P.J. Harvey on her album Let England Shake— they travelled together through Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the U.S. while she wrote songs and he filmed/photographed. This lead to P.J.’s album, and Seamus’s documentary ‘A Dog Called Money’
  • Made a film on recently deceased Irish poet Pat Ingoldsby. Pat was a well known Dublin character, a former TV presenter who sold his poetry on the streets of Dublin outside Trinity college for decades.
  • Published several books, including:
    • A Darkness Visible: Afghanistan
    • I Am the Beggar of the World (with Afghan women’s Landay poetry)
    • The Hollow of the Hand (with P.J. Harvey)
    • The Republic (on Ireland pre-2016 centenary)
  • Won 7 work press photo awards, and has photos held in the Getty Museum and Imperial War Museum
  • More recently Seamus has published Strange Love which is a photography book on visual parallels between the U.S. and Russia.
  • Seamus also semi lives in India now and has photo collections on modernising/not-modernising India (https://www.seamusmurphy.com/Epic-City/2)

TC again: So what should I ask him?

p.s. Here is Murphy’s home page.

Are cultural products getting longer?

Ted Gioia argues that cultural products are getting longer:

Some video creators have already figured this out. That’s why the number of videos longer than 20 minutes uploaded on YouTube grew from 1.3 million to 8.5 million in just two years

Songs are also getting longer. The top ten hits on Billboard actually increased twenty seconds in duration last year. Five top ten hits ran for more than five minutes…

I’ve charted the duration of [Taylor] Swift’s studio albums over the last two decades, and it tells the same story. She has gradually learned that her audience prefers longer musical experiences…

I  calculated the average length of the current fiction bestsellers, and they are longer than in any of the previous measurement periods.

Movies are getting longer too.  Of course this is the exact opposite of what the “smart phones are ruining our brains” theorists have been telling us.  I think I would sooner say that the variance of our attention spans is going up?  In any case, here is part of Ted’s theory:

  1. The dopamine boosts from endlessly scrolling short videos eventually produce anhedonia—the complete absence of enjoyment in an experience supposedly pursued for pleasure. (I write about that here.) So even addicts grow dissatisfied with their addiction.
  2. More and more people are now rebelling against these manipulative digital interfaces. A sizable portion of the population simply refuses to become addicts. This has always been true with booze and drugs, and it’s now true with digital entertainment.
  3. Short form clickbait gets digested easily, and spreads quickly. But this doesn’t generate longterm loyalty. Short form is like a meme—spreading easily and then disappearing. Whereas long immersive experiences reach deeper into the hearts and souls of the audience. This creates a much stronger bond than any 15-second video or melody will ever match.

An important piece and useful corrective.

My Conversation with the excellent Any Austin

Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is an introduction to Any Austin:

Any Austin has carved a unique niche for himself on YouTube: analyzing seemingly mundane or otherwise overlooked details in video games with the seriousness of an art critic examining Renaissance sculptures. With millions of viewers hanging on his every word about fluvial flows in Breath of the Wild or unemployment rates in the towns of Skyrim, Austin has become what Tyler calls “the very best in the world at the hermeneutics of infrastructure within video games.” But Austin’s deeper mission is teaching us to think analytically about everything we encounter, and to replace gaming culture’s obsession with technical specs and comparative analysis with a deeper aesthetic appreciation that asks simply: what are we looking at, and what does it reveal?

Excerpt:

COWEN: The role in history is important to me. Now AI-generated art would have its own role in history, but it wouldn’t compete directly with Michelangelo. When it comes to movies, I think it’s different because mostly when I’m seeing movies, I’m seeing new movies that don’t yet have a role in history. If the new movie were made in part or fully by the AI, or maybe I’m making it myself, I don’t think I would be any less interested. It’s all artifice anyway.

AUSTIN: There’re two things I take a little issue with there. I don’t take issue with the fact that the role in history is important and beautiful, but the fact that you can watch a movie and get an emotional thing from it without having its role in history implies that there’s some intrinsic, whatever, value to the movie itself, et cetera. Is the implication there that if you didn’t know the role in history of Michelangelo’s David, or whatever, you would look at it and go, “That’s just a guy.” Do you think there’s no intrinsic something to that thing?

COWEN: There’s some, but if I didn’t understand Christianity, Florence, the Renaissance, I think it would lose more than half its value.

AUSTIN: Which artistic mediums is that true for you, and which ones isn’t it? Like music —

COWEN: Abstract music — the role in history is not that important in most cases.

AUSTIN: It’s more of a supplement to you. It makes it more fun to learn about. If you know that Mozart was in the place with these people and were . . . If you understand all of that stuff, it’s fun.

COWEN: That’s 10 percent of the value, but not that much.

AUSTIN: Is it 10 percent . . . Is it the same type of value to you? Or is it just a separate thing to know —

COWEN: Separate thing. With opera, the role in history becomes important again. You hear Don Giovanni. You know about Romanticism, the Enlightenment, Casanova. It all makes much more sense, and it’s funnier.

And this:

COWEN: I have a favorite infrastructure. For me, it would be bridges, ports, and harbors. Do you have a favorite infrastructure?

AUSTIN: Definitely. I’m a big fan of . . . Oh, man, bridges are really good. Bridges, ports, harbors. Roads are good. Actually, no, it’s the stuff we don’t see. Sewage is pretty crazy to me. That we’ve managed to take care of all of that is pretty wild. Energy infrastructure is really fascinating to me.

COWEN: I love wind power turbines.

AUSTIN: Wind power turbines are scary, but I respect your opinion. Nuclear power plants are awesome. Really, really cool.

COWEN: Agreed.

AUSTIN: We should have more. That’s not a policy thing. I think they’re neat. We should build them for the aesthetics, honestly. We should just build those towers. Forget about the —

COWEN: You don’t need the power. Just build the thing. That’s why it’s an artwork.

AUSTIN: Yes, I agree. You have to put in some kind of steam thing because you want to see the steam coming out of it, but just generate steam for no reason. Don’t put any fans in or any spinning turbines or anything. Just have them.

COWEN: We would have historical context like with the sculptures, right?

Definitely recommended, an excellent and very different episode.

And note that Conversations with Tyler now has a dedicated YouTube channel.  Subscribe at youtube.com/@CowenConvos.

Noah on cultural stagnation

Fast-forward to the 2020s, and the artistic community has been largely disintermediated. If you want to be a successful commercial creator, the way to get started now is not first to struggle to prove yourself in the closed and cosseted artistic community — it’s to simply throw your work up online and see if it goes viral. If it does, you’re in.

This means that any creator whose goal is to sell out can do so without spending years making art that impresses artists. Of course, some creators still just intrinsically want to impress other artists. But if the money-motivated creators have left the community, there are just fewer people in that community left to impress. It becomes more and more niche and hipster. And there are fewer crossovers from the art world to mass culture, because the people left in the art world are the ones who don’t really care if they get famous and rich.

…But that’s the basic principle — if you want more novelty, I think you’ve got to make the artists work for each other more. How you do that, in a world where technology has made artists irrelevant as gatekeepers, is not something I have a concrete answer for. We may simply be in for a long period of artistic stagnation in America.

To sum up, I sort of believe that cultural stagnation is real, but I also think the root of the problem is probably technological — and therefore very hard to expunge.

Here is the full essay.  One question is how much stagnation we have, and I will not address that at this moment.  Another is what is the source of that degree of stagnation.  I am perhaps more inclined to blame the current quality of audience taste today.  In the past, audience taste often did very well, for instance in supporting the Beatles or Motown, or many earlier Hollywood movies, even when critical or artistic taste was mixed.  Mozart too was popular with his audiences.  Still Noah’s hypothesis is an interesting one.

Addendum: Alex and I wrote a paper on closely related issues, An Economic Theory of Avant-Garde and Popular Art.

Tabarrok on the Movie Tariff

The Hollywood Reporter has a good piece on Trump’s proposed movie tariffs:

Even if such a tariff were legal — and there is some debate about whether Trump has the authority to impose such levies — industry experts are baffled as to how, in practice, a “movie tariff” would work.

“What exactly does he want to put a tariff on: A film’s production budget, the level of foreign tax incentive, its ticket receipts in the U.S.?” asks David Garrett of international film sales group Mister Smith Entertainment.

Details, as so often with Trump, are vague. What precisely constitutes a “foreign” production is unclear. Does a production need to be majority shot outside America — Warner Bros’ A Minecraft Movie, say, which filmed in New Zealand and Canada, or Paramount’s Gladiator II, shot in Morocco, Malta and the U.K. — to qualify as “foreign” under the tariffs, or is it enough to have some foreign locations? Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts*, for example, had some location shooting in Malaysia but did the bulk of its production in the U.S, in Atlanta, New York and Utah.

…“The only certainty right now is uncertainty,” notes Martin Moszkowicz, a producer for German mini-major Constantin, whose credits including Monster Hunter and Resident Evil: The Final Chapter. “That’s not good for business.”

A movie producer is quoted on the bottom line:

“Consistent with everything Trump does and says, this is an erratic, ill conceived and poorly considered action,” says Nicholas Tabarrok of Darius Films, a production house with offices in Los Angeles and Toronto. “It will adversely affect everyone. U.S. studios, distributors, and filmmakers will suffer as much as international ones. Trump just doesn’t seem to understand that international trade is good for both parties and tariffs not only penalize international companies but also raise prices for U.S. based companies and consumers. This is an ‘everyone loses, no one gains’ policy.”

Trump proposes 100% tariff on movies shot outside the United States

Here is one link.  Of course the proposal is not easy to understand.  If it is a Jason Bourne movie, do they add up the number of scenes shot abroad and consider those as a percentage of the entire movie?  Does one scene shot abroad invoke the entire tariff?  o3 guesstimates that about half of major Hollywood releases are shot abroad to a significant degree, with many more having particular scenes shot abroad.

Imagine the new Amazon release: “James Bond in Seattle.”  And it actually would be Seattle — do they have baccarat there?

Furthermore, virtually all foreign films are shot abroad rather than in the U.S.  The incidence in this case is interesting.  Assuming the movie would have been made anyway, most of the tax burden falls on the producer, not the American consumer, because the marginal cost of sending the extra units of the film to America is low.  Nonetheless lower American revenue will force those films onto lower budgets.  Possibly Canadian and also English movies will suffer the most, because they are most likely to have the U.S. as their dominant market.

Of course the U.S: is by far the world’s number one exporter of movies, so we are vulnerable to retaliation on this issue, to say the least.

*Postcard from Earth*

If you are willing to pay $250 or so, you can watch it in The Sphere.  From Wikipedia:

Postcard from Earth is a 2023 film directed by Darren Aronofsky, starring Brandon Santana and Zaya Ribeiro. Created specifically to be screened at Sphere in the Las Vegas Valley on the venue’s 160,000 square-foot video screen, the film was shot in an 18K resolution with the Big Sky camera system. The 4D film features 270 degrees of viewing experience, climate control, haptic capabilities for the venue’s seating, and scents to create an immersive environment that tells the story of life on Earth. The film is one of two entertainment features to inaugurate the Sphere, along with U2‘s concert residency.

For visuals, and “integration with its venue,” I give the film an A++.  For script a D?  (Not having read Julian Simon is the least of it.)  For soundtrack C minus?  So it is hardly the Gesamtkunstwerk you might have been hoping for.  But it was worth the money, though barely.

*The African Gaze: Photography, Cinema and Power*

By Amy Sall.  I love this picture book, or should I say photo book?  Most of it is reproductions of photographs from the “golden age” of African photography, with profiles of each major photographer, plus a section on cinema as well.

One very good way to find “a picture book for you” is to visit a good museum bookshop, in this case for me it was the Kimball Museum in Fort Worth.  Look around at the books with images.  Find one that intrigues you, and then buy it, take it home and read and look through it.  Do note this might cost 2x a normal book, but on average it is more than 2x better.  It will open up whole new worlds.  And it is not something your GPT is able to do (yet), though of course you can follow up with queries.

You can order the book here.

The Remarkable Life of Ibelin

The Remarkable Life of Ibelin (Netflix) is one of the best and best-crafted documentaries that I have ever seen. It tells the story of Mats Steen, a Norwegian boy living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. As the disease relentlessly robs him of mobility, Mats turns to the online world, spending much of his time immersed in World of Warcraft. (No spoilers.)

To Mats’ parents, his growing screen time is a source of worry and a reminder of the physical limitations imposed by his condition: a life confined to a wheelchair, seemingly isolated and devoid of traditional social connections. By his early twenties, Mats is capable of moving only a few fingers—just enough to click a mouse. But what else, his parents wonder, is there for him?

The documentary follows Mats’ until his death at the age of 25. On the surface, it’s a tragic yet predictable narrative of a young life overshadowed by illness. What happens next transforms the story. After Mats’ passing, his parents post a notice of his death on his blog. To their astonishment, messages pour in from all over the world. Strangers write heartfelt tributes, sharing stories of how Mats profoundly impacted their lives. In the online realm, Mats was known as Ibelin, a vibrant personality who had cultivated deep friendships, inspired others, and even experienced romantic relationships.

The documentary then retells Mats’ story but this time as Ibelin and it does so in such a way that we feel the exhilaration and freedom that Mats must have felt when he discovered that he could have a flourishing life in a new realm. It’s brilliant conceived and aided by the fact that Mat’s entire online life–which in many ways is his life–has been recorded. Everything he said and did, 42,000 pages of text, is preserved online. (As Tyler has said, if you want to be remembered, write for the AIs.)

The film raises profound questions: If heaven is incorporeal, is an online existence closer to a heavenly life than the physical one? What defines an ideal romance? What constitutes true friendship? Highly recommended.