Month: November 2004

Canon Lawyer Or Movie Critic?

As so often with the case, that question is a false dichotomy. It isn’t an either/or situation, in the case of canonist Dr. Edward Peters, it’s both/and. Though primarily known as a canon lawyer, Peters has for years been an afficionado of film, though he hasn’t published many reviews in recent times–a fact he needs to fix. In that regard, he’s made a setp in the right direction by beefing up the film section of his website (canonlaw.info).

At the beginning of the section, he explains his philosophy of film:

The key criterion by which to judge a film is simple: does it tell a good story,
and does it tell it well. Thus, writing is the most important factor in a film
(just as it is, though more obviously so, in literature and drama). Direction
and acting are great arts, but they should be, and are in most cases, at the
service of the story. Not every story need be profound, of course; there is a
place for healthy diversion, and some films might serve primarily as settings
for, say, great acting, the way some passages of Waugh are primarily occasions
for exquisite prose. But in the end, most films should be assessed as outlined
above, that is, the way stories have been judged ever since little groups of
frightened foragers, long since banished from Eden, first sat around camp fires
under the stars, waiting for Sunrise.

CHECK OUT HIS RECOMMENDATIONS.

What Is It Like To Be A Bat?

That’s the title of a famous paper by philosopher Thomas Nagel. But you don’t have to be a philosopher to wonder about the question. A reader writes:

My 10 year old asked me this questions and since I think you are a bit
of a science fan, I thought I might  ask you.

Can a bat ‘see’ a stealth bomber with its radar or would it fly right
into it?

What do you think?

I’m not an expert here, but I’ll be happy to conjecture (perhaps other readers can fill-in/correct the details via collective brainpower).

It seems to me that the answer to the question depends on two things: (1) how fast the stealth bomber is flying and (2) whether its surfaces reflect, deflect, or absorb sonar.

The sonar issue is key, because bats have sonar (echolocation by sound waves), not radar (echolocation by radio waves). Because sonar is dependent on the speed of sound (not light) the first question is also relevant.

If the stealth bomber is flying faster than the speed of sound then the sound waves from the bat will not have the chance to reach it before that bomber flies into/past the bat, so it won’t see the bomber coming. (NOTE: Stealth bombers usually fly below the speed of sound to avoid creating a sonic boom that they can be tracked by.)

If the stealth bomber is flying slower than the speed of sound then the sound waves from the bat will have the chance to reach it before the plane flies into/past the bat, so the bat might be able to see it (see below). However, the plane is probably so loud that the bat might not need sonar to see it. It might just hear it coming. (That is not to say it would be able to get out of the way in time; bats fly way slower than the speed of sound.)

If the stealth bomber is standing still and turned off (e.g., on a runway, in a hangar) then the speed and noise of the plane wouldn’t matter, leading us to the question of whether the surfaces of the plane reflect, deflect, or absorb sound waves.

The way stealth technology works in planes, such aircraft are made of and covered with materials that absorb radar but not sonar. These might not help hide a plane from a bat. However, not all the radio waves used in radar are absorbed by the plane, so its surfaces are shaped and angled in such a way that they deflect radio waves so that they won’t echo back to radar station. The angle and shape of theser surfaces might also deflect sonar (I don’t know). But even then, the stealth craft’s "invisibility" is not pefect. What the advent of stealth technology did was allow us to reduce a plane’s radar signature to the size of an insect but not to eliminate it entirely.

Bats, however, are good at spotting things the size of insects (that’s what a lot of bat species eat). Also, the angle of the surfaces on a stealth aircraft only deflect stuff from certain angles. Therfore, my guess is that if a plane were sitting still and a bat were flying around it, the bat probably could see it with sonar.

For what it’s worth, I Googled the question of stealth technology and sonar and found references to stealth submarines designed to thwart sonar underwater, but these might not work against bats as water has acoustic properties that are quite different than air (the medium in which bats’ sonar is designed to work).

Greek Pronunciation

A reader(‘s son) writes:

I am a 14-year-old high schooler and am trying to teach myself ancient
Greek. I am using the Athenaze series.

Because I have no teacher to help with pronunciation, I was wondering if
you could help me with some questions I have. My mom reads your blog and
said that you are skilled at ancient languages. I know you are very busy
and hope you can find the time to answer my questions.

Here are my questions:

I want to know if the Greek letter chi is pronounced as the letter "k" is
pronounced, or as the letter combination "ch" in the English language?

It’s neither. The letter chi represents a sound that we either don’t have or that we barely use in standard American English. Ancient Greek textbooks will often say that this is like the "ch" in the Scottish pronunciation of "Loch" (a very harsh sound) but in modern Greek it’s more like the "h" on the front of "Hugh" (a less harsh sound). You also hear it compared to the "ch" in the German pronunciation of "Bach."

I know that it is pronounced as a softer sound in modern Greek but don’t know for sure whether it was harsher or softer in ancient Greek. Any of the above pronunciations (i.e., from "Loch," "Bach," and "Hugh") will get you in the ballpark, though.

A similar question for the letter phi and the letter psi.

The first is easy. Pronounce phi just like the letter "f."

Psi is a little harder for English-speakers at first. It is pronounced like the letters "ps" in the word "lips." You can’t drop off the "p" sound (as we do in English when we say "psychiatrist" and pronounce it /sai-kai-ah-trist/). Neither should you exaggerate the "p" sound and say "pea" (like the Animaniacs do when they say "pea-sai-kai-ah-trist"). It’s just like the "ps" in "lips" or "cops" or "chaps."

The difficulty is caused by the fact that, though we use this sound in English, we don’t put it on the front of words. The Greeks did. To get used to saying it on the front of a Greek word (like "psuche" [meaning "soul"]), you might try adding an extra syllable on the front of the word as a kind of "training wheel" that you can take off once you feel comfortable putting the sound up front. For example, you might say /cops-oo-chay/ (note that this has the chi-sound in it!)  and then drop the /co-/ to arrive at the correct pronunciation, /psoo-chay/.

Thank you very much. If you can suggest another series that might provide
more help than the Athenaze series, I would appreicate it.

I’m familiar with Athenaze, but I haven’t used it myself, so I don’t have a feel for how the program works. That makes it hard to recommend something better. If it were me, though, I’d probably try learning either Koine or modern Greek first, since there are very good tools for learning these (see recommendations below), and then afterwards learn the kind of classical that Athenaze covers.

My mom bought me the book on heiroglyphics that you recommended last year
and I really enjoy it. Actually I like languages a lot. My school doesn’t
offer Latin or Greek, so I am studying German. I am the top student in
the school.

Congratulations! Incidentally, your German will serve you well in learning Latin and Greek. The noun system in Latin and Greek works the same general way that the German noun system does (i.e., it has cases and declensions). Also glad you like the hieroglyphics book!

Also, can you recommend a resource to learn koine Greek? I am interested
in learning that so I can study the old Bible texts.

The best resource to really start studying Koine Greek in a serious way is William Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek. It offers tremendous help to the student that other courses don’t offer.

On the other hand, if it’s a little advanced for you, you might try Mounce’s Greek For The Rest Of Us or James Found’s Basic Greek In 30 Minutes A Day.

MORE KOINE GREEK RECOMMENDATIONS HERE.

The best resource for starting to learn modern Greek is Pimsleur. You might try one of the smaller, cheaper sets and see if you like the program.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your language studies!

Viktor Or Viktor Victor In Ukraine?

KIEV (DAILY PLANET) – Street demonstrations continued in the Ukraine today as Ukrainians demonstrated in the street to express their outrage over the hotly disputed election in their state.

At issue was whether Viktor Yushchenko or Viktor Yanukovych was elected president of the Ukraine last week.

Numerous Ukrainians charged voter fraud and ballot manipulation at the polls. A consensus among the demonstrators, however, suggested that the largest factor producing election confusion was the similarity of the two candidates’ names.

"It’s just too confusing!" said demonstrator Viktor Yushkovych. "I meant to vote for Viktor Yushchenko, but I ended up voting for Viktor Yanukovych!"

"He’s right!" said fellow demonstrator Viktor Yanuchenko. "I wanted to Viktor Yanukovych to be victor, but I voted for Viktor Yushchenko. We’ve got to have candidates with less similar names!"

The Ukraine situation has made a striking impact on the world of the arts.

Mediums all over the world reported that the ghost of Oscar Wilde is now working on a new play based on the disputed election: The Importance Of Being Viktor.

Meanwhile, Julie Andrews is planning a remake of her 1982 film Victor/Victoria. Originally set in turn of the century Paris about a woman pretending to be a female impersonator, the new film Viktor/Viktor will now be set in present day Kiev and will tell the story of a woman pretending to be two identically-named politicians from different parties.

The Searchers

Mittenbuttes_1There’s a scene in a Deep Space 9 episode where Nog is hiding out in Vic Fontane’s 1963 apartment watching TV. He sees the end of the Western movie Shane and then declares:

NOG: I liked The Searchers better.

VIC: (shrugging) Who doesn’t?

This intrigued me because, at the time, I had seen Shane but not The Searchers. Recently, I got the chance to. In fact, Steve Greydanus and I watched it together. It was the first time to see the film for both of us, and afterward we had a great time debating the film–particularly its moral significance.

YOU CAN READ STEVE’S REVIEW HERE.

I’m particularly tickled by one line in Steve’s review, where he cites as an example of pointless carping the criticism that John Ford’s Monument Valley, Utah filming location doesn’t look like the West Texas setting of the film. I’m tickled by that because as we watched the film, I made this very criticism! (Sure, Monument Valley is gorgeous, but seeing the East and West Mitten Buttes [above] in film after film by Ford harms my suspension of disbelief.)

My thought largely converges with Steve’s, but I thought I’d add a few thoughts of my own.

First, about Shane. There is a reason one can compare this film with The Searchers, because both are part of the same general subgenre of Western, which one might call "the thoughtful Western." This contrasts with the commedic Western (Support Your Local Sheriff, Support Your Local Gunfighter, Maverick), the hard-bitten Western (Clint Eastwood’s "Man With No Name" trilogy), the Indian-centric Western (The Little Big Man, Dances With Wolves), the Spaghetti Western (Sergio Leone’s stuff), the historical recreation (Tombstone, Wyatt Earp) and a bunch of other subgenres, including the Sci-Fi Western (Timerider, Back to the Future III, The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.).

The thoughtful Western involves showing something other than a feel-good shoot-’em-up or a hostile critique of Western expansion. It combines elements of the two, attempting to show the moral complexity of the Old West. It allows elements of the feel-good Western but mixes it with disturbing elements that serve as a moral counterpoint. It doesn’t slide into being "hate America," politically correct history, but it doesn’t present the Old West with "white hats vs. black hats" simplicity.

In other words, it tries in some measure to capture the human condition. This is what elevates The Searchers into being a work of art rather than simply being a work of entertainment.

Shane does this to a certain extent, most memorably in a scene in which its hero is having a brutal fight with a villain and the proceedings are being observed by a young boy who–his eyes wide with wonder at the spectacle–is also eagerly munching on a candy cane as he watches. This disturbing image of a child being exposed to and fascinated by such violence invites the audience to contemplate its own enjoyment of Western action and the motives that might be behind the pleasure they get at watching it. It’s an implicit questioning of the simplistic vision of the Western hero.

Shane does not break too much from the mold and does not examine the moral complexity of the Old West to the extent of other films, but John Ford’s The Searchers does. This film carries the respectful questioning of Western mythology to a whole new level.

It would be a little hard for me to say, with Nog and Vic, that I would "like" or "enjoy" The Searchers more than Shane.  I recognize that it is a film that better expresses the human condition and that from this perspective it is a better film, and one that is to be watched. But for pure enjoyment value, a Western with more feel-good factor is more likely what I’d plop into my DVD tray on any given occasion.

The Searchers represents a continuation of themes found in previous John Ford’s works. His earlier film She Wore A Yellow Ribbon was set just after the Battle of the Little Bighorn (i.e., Custer’s Last Stand) and features John Wayne as an aging calvalryman who is trying to avert a full-scale Indian war and the devastation it would bring to both sides if, buoyed by their success against Custer, various tribes decided to begin a massacre.

At one point in the film, Wayne tries to avoid the coming war by meeting with an aging Indian chief who is a personal friend of his. The chief, who is a Christian, tells Wayne that the young men of the tribes are too empassioned to be calmed down by words, that he has lost his influence with them, and that he fears that a war that will be devastating for both sides is now unstoppable. This "voice of wisdom and experience" vs. "youth and passion" dynamic represents a factor of the human condition affecting all groups (Indians and Anglos alike) and goes beyond the "circle the wagons, start the shoot-’em-up" mentality of many Westerns.

In The Searchers, Wayne is again working with Ford, but this time the director expresses the human condition in a different way, by turning Wayne not into the aging voice of wisdom but into the aging voice of bitterness.

Now Wayne is an embittered former Confederate soldier who refused to surrender at the end of the war and who has been wandering ever since. Like the majority of people at this time, he harbors racist attitudes, but they are not so extreme that he is unable to recognize and respect the humanity of others. It would seem that Wayne’s character would be happy if different groups simply left each other alone and minded their own affairs.

He doesn’t get what he wants, because an aggrieved Indian leader murders most of his family and kidnaps two of its youngest female members. In an attempt to get them back, Wayne and a companion become the searchers that give the movie it’s title.

Wayne’s character is far more complex than what one expects from the traditional John Wayne hero. At different moments he can be heroic, wise, foolish, and morally repugnant. And the film means him to be shown in these lights. While Ford  means us to respect and appreciate much of what Wayne does, he are means us to be dismayed and abhorred by some of it.  He is thus trying to show the human condition, for all humans barring Our Lord and Our Lady are in some measure praiseworthy and in some measure abhorrent.

Ford does not push the character so far in the direction of the latter that he becomes an anti-hero. In this way, The Searchers may represent a transitional film in the history of Westerns, pushing the hero firmly toward the dark side, but not pushing him full into it the way later filmmakers did. There are several points in the latter half of the movie where Ford could have simply stopped filming, leaving us with a bleak, existential statement, but in the end he allows the characters involved, Wayne’s included, to find redemption.

After all, no matter what our flaws, redemption is what each of us is searching for.

The Searchers

Mittenbuttes_1There’s a scene in a Deep Space 9 episode where Nog is hiding out in Vic Fontane’s 1963 apartment watching TV. He sees the end of the Western movie Shane and then declares:

NOG: I liked The Searchers better.

VIC: (shrugging) Who doesn’t?

This intrigued me because, at the time, I had seen Shane but not The Searchers. Recently, I got the chance to. In fact, Steve Greydanus and I watched it together. It was the first time to see the film for both of us, and afterward we had a great time debating the film–particularly its moral significance.

YOU CAN READ STEVE’S REVIEW HERE.

I’m particularly tickled by one line in Steve’s review, where he cites as an example of pointless carping the criticism that John Ford’s Monument Valley, Utah filming location doesn’t look like the West Texas setting of the film. I’m tickled by that because as we watched the film, I made this very criticism! (Sure, Monument Valley is gorgeous, but seeing the East and West Mitten Buttes [above] in film after film by Ford harms my suspension of disbelief.)

My thought largely converges with Steve’s, but I thought I’d add a few thoughts of my own.

First, about Shane. There is a reason one can compare this film with The Searchers, because both are part of the same general subgenre of Western, which one might call "the thoughtful Western." This contrasts with the commedic Western (Support Your Local Sheriff, Support Your Local Gunfighter, Maverick), the hard-bitten Western (Clint Eastwood’s "Man With No Name" trilogy), the Indian-centric Western (The Little Big Man, Dances With Wolves), the Spaghetti Western (Sergio Leone’s stuff), the historical recreation (Tombstone, Wyatt Earp) and a bunch of other subgenres, including the Sci-Fi Western (Timerider, Back to the Future III, The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.).

The thoughtful Western involves showing something other than a feel-good shoot-’em-up or a hostile critique of Western expansion. It combines elements of the two, attempting to show the moral complexity of the Old West. It allows elements of the feel-good Western but mixes it with disturbing elements that serve as a moral counterpoint. It doesn’t slide into being "hate America," politically correct history, but it doesn’t present the Old West with "white hats vs. black hats" simplicity.

In other words, it tries in some measure to capture the human condition. This is what elevates The Searchers into being a work of art rather than simply being a work of entertainment.

Shane does this to a certain extent, most memorably in a scene in which its hero is having a brutal fight with a villain and the proceedings are being observed by a young boy who–his eyes wide with wonder at the spectacle–is also eagerly munching on a candy cane as he watches. This disturbing image of a child being exposed to and fascinated by such violence invites the audience to contemplate its own enjoyment of Western action and the motives that might be behind the pleasure they get at watching it. It’s an implicit questioning of the simplistic vision of the Western hero.

Shane does not break too much from the mold and does not examine the moral complexity of the Old West to the extent of other films, but John Ford’s The Searchers does. This film carries the respectful questioning of Western mythology to a whole new level.

It would be a little hard for me to say, with Nog and Vic, that I would "like" or "enjoy" The Searchers more than Shane.  I recognize that it is a film that better expresses the human condition and that from this perspective it is a better film, and one that is to be watched. But for pure enjoyment value, a Western with more feel-good factor is more likely what I’d plop into my DVD tray on any given occasion.

The Searchers represents a continuation of themes found in previous John Ford’s works. His earlier film She Wore A Yellow Ribbon was set just after the Battle of the Little Bighorn (i.e., Custer’s Last Stand) and features John Wayne as an aging calvalryman who is trying to avert a full-scale Indian war and the devastation it would bring to both sides if, buoyed by their success against Custer, various tribes decided to begin a massacre.

At one point in the film, Wayne tries to avoid the coming war by meeting with an aging Indian chief who is a personal friend of his. The chief, who is a Christian, tells Wayne that the young men of the tribes are too empassioned to be calmed down by words, that he has lost his influence with them, and that he fears that a war that will be devastating for both sides is now unstoppable. This "voice of wisdom and experience" vs. "youth and passion" dynamic represents a factor of the human condition affecting all groups (Indians and Anglos alike) and goes beyond the "circle the wagons, start the shoot-’em-up" mentality of many Westerns.

In The Searchers, Wayne is again working with Ford, but this time the director expresses the human condition in a different way, by turning Wayne not into the aging voice of wisdom but into the aging voice of bitterness.

Now Wayne is an embittered former Confederate soldier who refused to surrender at the end of the war and who has been wandering ever since. Like the majority of people at this time, he harbors racist attitudes, but they are not so extreme that he is unable to recognize and respect the humanity of others. It would seem that Wayne’s character would be happy if different groups simply left each other alone and minded their own affairs.

He doesn’t get what he wants, because an aggrieved Indian leader murders most of his family and kidnaps two of its youngest female members. In an attempt to get them back, Wayne and a companion become the searchers that give the movie it’s title.

Wayne’s character is far more complex than what one expects from the traditional John Wayne hero. At different moments he can be heroic, wise, foolish, and morally repugnant. And the film means him to be shown in these lights. While Ford  means us to respect and appreciate much of what Wayne does, he are means us to be dismayed and abhorred by some of it.  He is thus trying to show the human condition, for all humans barring Our Lord and Our Lady are in some measure praiseworthy and in some measure abhorrent.

Ford does not push the character so far in the direction of the latter that he becomes an anti-hero. In this way, The Searchers may represent a transitional film in the history of Westerns, pushing the hero firmly toward the dark side, but not pushing him full into it the way later filmmakers did. There are several points in the latter half of the movie where Ford could have simply stopped filming, leaving us with a bleak, existential statement, but in the end he allows the characters involved, Wayne’s included, to find redemption.

After all, no matter what our flaws, redemption is what each of us is searching for.