Category: Film

I didn't think it was possible to make a movie this Hansonian and no they never waver.  The basic premise is "a comedy set in a world where no one has ever lied."  People speak the truth to each other in unbiased fashion and every channel on TV is some version of The History Channel.  You then see, step by step, why this is not a Nash equilibrium and you observe, as the title indicates, "the invention of lying," including under conditions of altruism.  Along the way, you see a theory of the origins of religion, a portrait of how the world would look if no one signaled, a redo of Geoffrey Miller on The Mating Mind, and hints at the idea of ESS.  It's a "remarkably radical comedy" (Ebert) and the gushy parts have hidden venom. 

Tarantino made his Hong Kong movie, his martial arts movie, and his Blaxpoitation flick but I never expected him to dip into Nazi cinema.  He sure loves hearing those Germans talk — boy are they eloquent — and fascist chattering takes up most of the movie.  There is a veneer of a Jewish revenge plot against the Germans, but most of the movie strikes me as a re-aestheticization of various Nazi ideals, cinematic, linguistic, and otherwise.  I'm not suggesting Tarantino literally favors the rule of Hitler, rather he probably got a kick out of getting away with such a swindle, right under the noses of Hollywood and with commercial success to boot.  The Jewish assassin squad members hardly seem virtuous (in some ways they're portrayed to fit Nazi stereotypes), whereas the German characters light up the screen and show extreme cleverness.  (Hitler by the way is a "crummy Austrian," not up to the more rigorous German ideal.)  The sniper "movie within a movie" — which has Tarantino constructing a Nazi movie for a screening scene — is a stand-in for the broader enterprise.  Throughout one wonders what are the implied references to Israel, such as when the Jewish suicide bombers strap explosives to themselves.  There is homage to Riefenstahl, Pabst, Emil Jannings, Nazi "mountain movies" and other unsavory bits.  I found viewing this movie a disturbing and negative experience.  I've done a lot of work on the history of the state and the arts; if you don't believe me, go away and research Nazi cinema and watch the film again.

I disagree with Steve Sailer on fundamental issues but I thought on this movie he was right; if anything he didn't go far enough.

At first I thought Brüno would be the most politically incorrect movie of the year, then I thought District 9, but no it is this one and I doubt that claim will be dislodged between now and January 1.

Here is the story.  With five entries there are usually only two or maybe three real contenders.  Strategic voting is present but manageable.  There can be split votes across a particular actor or genre.  With ten entries it is much harder to tell which picture will win.  Counterintuitively, it might be harder for "odd" pictures to be nominated because they might end up winning.  Popular movies like The Dark Knight will win more often because it will be hard not to nominate them (it didn't even receive a nomination).  The net incentive is to encourage florid and unusual blockbusters with both dedicated followings and lots of commercial success.  The semi-serious and historically proper puffy bloated movie probably will be discouraged.  Is that trade-off so terrible?

Nominating so many pictures was common in the 1930s and 40s and it did not have obviously disastrous consequences.

Here is a previous post on how an economist should think about the Academy Awards.

Many plays, such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, are made into movies and they end up on DVD in this manner.  But why don't they just film Tom Stoppard's Arcadia (recommended, by the way; it's playing at the Folger and it's one of the classic plays of our time).  A look at Amazon doesn't yield much.  Nor does a search on "Edward Albee."

I can think of a few possible factors:

1. It wouldn't be very good.  (This doesn't stop most of what is put out on DVD.  Furthermore the highly complex genre of opera on DVD works just fine and has become the industry standard.)

2. There wouldn't be much of an audience.  Yet you could sell memento copies to people who saw the plays, a few plays on DVD might hit it big, and in any case they wouldn't cost much to produce.  There are plenty of niche products on Netflix.

3. It would squash the demand for live performance.  Really?  Most people don't go to the theater anyway.  Those who do, in this age of 3-D cinema and TiVo, presumably enjoy live performance in a manner which is robust.  It is more likely that DVD viewing would stimulate demand for the live product.  Besides, they put these plays out in book form and no one thinks that is a big problem.

None of these answers seem to work.  So, to repeat the question, why don't they put more theatrical plays out on DVD?

Addendum: Could it be they are holding out for the sale of movie rights and that profit is maximized by restricting alternative viewing options?

When I see this phrase in an ad, as I did for the new film Bloom Brothers, I respond negatively (although I still will see it).  But exactly why?  After all, I am a movie lover by virtually any objective standard.  Shouldn't I read this description and jump for joy?

But no.

1. Perhaps this description signals pretension and, ultimately, stupidity.  Truly good restaurants don't advertise that they appeal to "gourmets"; rather the relevance of that quality is taken for granted.  See my discussion of counter-signaling in Discover Your Inner Economist.

2. Perhaps it is a sign they have nothing better to say about the movie.

3. Perhaps it is a sign that the movie is full of insider jokes about the movie business.  Movies of that kind do not generally excite me.

4. They are using the phrase because they think it will appeal to relatively large numbers of people.  Perhaps I am slightly insulted, as I feel that my love for movies deserves a more exclusive designation.

Update: I was conned.  The datum provides evidence for #1.

I enjoyed the homages to Howl's Moving Castle and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.  The soundtrack was excellent.  The protagonist, as a young man, resembles Bryan Caplan.  As an old man he resembles Gordon Tullock.  It's some of the most beautiful filmmaking I've seen and probably my favorite Pixar movie to date.

I was very taken by this movie, which is much more insightful than the recent The End of Poverty?.  The film is an attempt to pay homage to Evo Morales and his supporters but it actually shows a far bleaker and more Caplanian picture of life on the ground.  It's one of the best movies on poverty, albeit unintentionally in whole or in part.  The two most unforgettable scenes are when the Morales supporters cannot get the calculator to give them an arithmetical answer ("we need a better calculator") and when they discuss how they torture wrongdoers by tying them to a post and letting the ants come and eat them for a while.  The discussions of how coca leaves are actually good for you are classics of political reasoning.  The lighter-skinned elites don't come off looking so good either.  Recommended, if you're into this sort of thing.

The key line is about non-rivalry and non-excludability.  I didn't like that Harold played Sulu or that Bones sounded just like Sawyer.  Young Kirk and Spock were superb.  Sadly, there was no information about the progress of monetary institutions.  Bryan Caplan complained that the implied rate of economic growth was so low.  I've long wondered why there is not more technology transfer to Vulcan.  The soundtrack was poor.  Everything Alex says is true.  The best part was Uhuru but I won't say more on that.

The new movie is a good revitalization of the franchise.  It's most enjoyable moments build on, foreshadow and deepen our appreciation of its familiar characters.  The casting and actors are all superb on this score.  The action is passable, although the fight scenes are poor and I wish they had put more effort into the plot. 

Best piece of Star Trek trivia: Vulcan education includes rigorous training in mathematics, physics and economics.  (Listen carefully during the education scene!)

Addendum: Aha!  I am told unofficially that we can thank economist turned screenwriter Glen Whitman for adding the economics lesson to Vulcan!