General thoughts on life, the universe and everything. Stuff that doesn’t fit in the other categories!
You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I’m not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future.
What kind of atheist are you? |
Last night we went to see the recording of a new BBC Radio 4 comedy programme called “His Master’s Voice.” It’s the first time that I’ve ever been to the Drill Hall (on Chennies Street in London) although I’ve heard many broadcasts of “Just A Minute” that were recorded there.
The programme itself is a political satire set in the offices of “The Blue Touch Paper,” the weekly magazine for the thinking Tory. I don’t want to give too much of the story away because I want you to tune in when it airs in July!
The script was pretty good, with a good number of laugh-out-loud moments, especially in the second episode. Afterwards we were debating whether that was just because we were more familiar with the material or not. It was also interesting to see some of the production process as they had to re-record some lines at the end of each of the two episode we saw. Even we were not blameless as at the end our applause was so loud that it crashed the end credits!
As we bundled into Goodge Street tube station to escape the May rain and head home, we saw about half of the main cast ahead of us. B shouted “Good Show!” but I don’t think they heard. An unusual end to a fun evening. Thanks for getting the tickets, C!
I enjoyed writing my CRAP Alert post yesterday. Very cathartic. But there are some serious points in it and while I might be overstating the case when I spell them out here, I think it’s worth doing just to be clear.
The truth is I genuinely do support the right of people to publish this kind of information. I am against pretty much all forms of censorship and am very much in favour of giving people good information so that they can make an informed decision themselves.
In the case of CAP Alert the thing that I dislike is the absolute nature of their criticism ((Which is no doubt seated in their moral objectivism rather than my more relative stance.)) and their insistence that what they are doing is in any way objective. The numerical aspect is of dubious value — are you a better person if you swear only five times rather than ten? — and the commentary is no more objective than what I?ve written here. Using a checklist does not make things absolute, just as referring to a book does not make your morals any more sound than mine.
The checklist approach also fails to distinguish between scenes that condone “bad” behaviour and those that condemn it. Similarly, films often lose points if the protagonist questions authority. But is it always wrong to question authority? Certain historical precedents say not. Nothing is black and white.
More significantly, the “objective” nature of their commentary is undermined when they completely misunderstand the plot of the film. My favourite is for their write-up of American Beauty, in which they commend a “redneck” Marine Colonel for arguing against homosexuality while simultaneously failing to note that it was he who was gay and not his son. Kind of important to the plot, yet they claim it did “nothing for the script.” I wonder if the reviewers actually see the movies in question.
Naturally violence in real life should not be encouraged and there is such a thing as too much in a movie. I am not terribly keen on the recent spate of vigilante endings of some of the more violent Hollywood movies. But I don?t necessarily think that people genuinely take it as advice to take the law into their own hands. It?s more a case of lax story telling than lax morals. On the other hand, the CAP blanket ban on nudity betrays their puritanical roots. I find it hard to believe that it is the cause of any of the ills of the world.
Ultimately, CAP is ripe for ridicule not because of what it’s trying to do — while I do not agree with their values I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of reviewing films for specific demographics — but because in an effort to push their politics on their readers they frequently miss the mark.
Ever since I found it a few years ago I have been very impressed with the CAP Alert website. The “American Culture Ministry” owns it and their plan is to review films for objectionable content. In this context, “objectionable” means anything that does not fit in with their fairly strict interpretation of the Bible. They claim that their reviews are objective ((Although the scores are “objective” the associated commentary rarely is. For example, a man being brutally executed is dismissed as only being a film while a Disney film, which has roughly the same score on the WISDOM scale, has “behavioral, moral and value implantation dangers.” The movies were The Passion of the Christ and The Incredibles.)) as they use the WISDOM scale ((WISDOM are the first letters of the six elements that are assessed: Wanton violence/crime; Impudence/Hate; Sexual morality; Drugs/alcohol; Offence to God; and Murder/suicide.)). I absolutely support the rights of groups such as this to take all the fun out of entertainment.
However I feel an alternative is required for people who may not follow the same faith or may not take such a strict line on all elements of the WISDOM scale. I have, therefore, created a new scale designed for the people who like a good movie and don’t take them too seriously.
My methodology is based, fundamentally, on the well-understood principle that the number of exploding helicopters is generally proportional to the quality of the film. For example, “Waterworld” is rightly considered to be a dreadful film by most critics and movie-goers. And how many exploding helicopters are there in it?
Of course, ninety minute of exploding helicopters would get a little monotonous. For this reason the scale includes other elements that make movies entertaining such as gratuitous sex or nudity, humour and cruelty to animals. (Just to be clear, I don’t condone cruelty to real animals, with the possible exception of poodles.)
I like to call this scale CRAP. Originally I wanted to go for the full six pillars like the WISDOM scale, but I realized that I really wanted to enjoy the films I watch and that I couldn’t be bothered watching a film while looking for six different characteristics. Each letter stands for something and the following paragraphs explain what to look for.
Chopper. As explained above this is only about exploding helicopters. Helicopters landing at a wonky angle or with a jolt do not count. Planes do not count. Actually, I exaggerate for dramatic effect. This pillar is really all about entertaining “action” sequences.
Relations. Here we’re looking for normal, healthy relations between consenting adults. Unlike certain other profiles, we do not discriminate on sexual orientation or marital status. Extra points may be awarded for gratuitous nudity.
Amusement. Here we rate the “fun factor” of the movie. Is it funny? Entertaining?
Plot. While the WISDOM scale will happily give high marks to films that are dull but worthy, the CRAP scale rewards movies that have a plot and “go somewhere.” Exceptions may be given where no plot is necessary, for example documentaries or Charlies Angels.
I think you’ll agree that this scale intuitively makes sense. Over the next few months I shall be reviewing movies using the CRAP scale. I plan to look at both classics and new films. You may be surprised how they compare with the WISDOM scale. I encourage you to use this scale when viewing films and suggest you add your own reviews as comments below. You will be doing a service to the whole Internet community and I thank you for your help.
Where were you on the evening of 23rd April? We were in a rather damp and over-cast looking Trafalgar Square clicking together two halves of a coconut in an attempt to break a world record. The record?
“The worlds largest coconut orchestra.”
Very silly. And a lot of fun.
(By the way, the title is in reference to the TV series Record Breakers. Apparently it was the 65th Greatest Children’s TV Programme.)
I knew it was a bad sign. I mean that literally. As I got on a busy northern line train this evening I saw a dark, bearded man in a long, brown coat with yellow sign hung around his neck. It was too packed to actually read his message but I suspected that I wouldn’t have to wait long to find out.
“Where is the love?”
As the train doors closed, with all us commuters trapped, he started. He was here to tell us about his god. He did well to raise his voice above the level of the tube train; holding a conversation with the person next to you can be a challenge but he made himself heard by half of the carriage.
“God is the only way we can be truly happy.”
He confronted a few people, directly asking them what they had last said to god and when. Unsurprisingly they studiously avoided eye contact. If it wasn’t this morning, he added, then it wasn’t too late.
“Why do we read all those other books but not the bible?”
Clearly concerned by the fact that everyone was ignoring him, he rounded on our books. There was only one book worth reading; one book that told us everything we needed to know about Jesus.
“What is happening to the world?”
Good question. What is happening in the world when you can’t get on a tube train without being harassed by Christians? Would he like it if I start leafleting his neighborhood with questions such as “Why doesn?t God heal amputees?”
“Children are carrying knives to school!”
I think he’s playing connect the dots now, drawing together the points he’s made so far to make one convincing argument just before we pull into London Bridge. He thinks he’s painting a Turner, unfortunately I’m getting Rorschach tests at best.
Are Christians really any happier than people who don?t believe in an Abrahamic god? Is it truly the only way to be happy? Would children be carrying flowers instead of knives if they were brought up in a religious household?
Did this guy really think he would get any converts? I was probably the only person listening. However I’m not a great audience for him, as I’m fascinated by his conviction but utterly unconvinced by his argument.
“We already heard it! Groan…“
Not his words, but those of a passenger just after the doors closed and the preacher started his spiel again, almost word for word.