Today I watched a short lecture on laughter and how it affects the brain.
The video is from the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, specifically Professor Sophie Scott. The video isn't very long, like 5 mins, but it feels more like an advertisement for UCL than on the topic of comedy and the brain.
It discusses how the brain reacts to laughter, why we find laughter to be contagious, and some broader exploration into what purposes laughter and comedy serve. But it felt like every other sentence started with "We here at UCL" or "Thanks to the hard work of our crack team of scientists, we've discovered...." blah blah blah. I was just hoping they'd dive into the topic more than they did.
I think I love thinking about comedy more than actually doing it; comedic theory is endlessly fascinating to me. Someone once said "laughter is the body's response to something it doesn't understand". That's why so many funny things revolve around surprise or the unexpected.
I expected this to be better than it was. You can watch it here:
Today I watched a very short and very funny film about a certain flight of stairs in NYC.
At the 36th subway station, there's one step in a flight of stairs that is slightly off in size by a fraction of an inch. The result? Everyone trips on that exact step, all the time. The film is just a collection of people tripping over the same step throughout the course of the day.
The first thing that came to mind after watching this was schadenfreude, which is a German word for taking pleasure in another's misfortune. It's amazing how often I find people, or myself, laughing at schadenfreude. 'America's Funniest Videos' is basically just syndicated schadenfreude, so is 'Jackass', 'Candid Camera', or 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' or 'The Office', relying on a form of social schadenfreude.
Is it morally wrong to laugh at other people's misfortune? If it is, why does the laughter come so easily, almost automatically? Can it be wrong if it's a natural response? Even when I see people I know get hurt I sometimes laugh (think about people slipping on ice).
I've been considering this new theory on schadenfreude that maybe we aren't laughing at them because they are hurt or embarrassed, or even laughing because we're thinking "glad it wasn't me". Personally I feel a sense of relief watching people make simple mistakes because I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who makes them. I mean, I know people make mistakes but seeing it actually happens make me feel more like a regular person. So watching strangers trip over a stair makes me feel better about myself.
What do you think? Why do we laugh at schadenfreude?
Today I watched an hour long round table discussion with some of television's leading comedic actresses.
Hollywood Reporter invited Zooey Deschanel, Christina Applegate, Julie Bowen, Laura Dern, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jane Lynch, and Martha Plimpton to sit down and discuss what it means to be a comedic actress in today's world.
Look how funny they are being
This is a great example of something being thought provoking, but still not very good. I'm not overly impressed with the whole thing, but it gave me a lot of questions about comedy and gender to ponder, so it was certainly worth my time.
First off, Hollywood Reporter spends a strange amount of time showing us footage of them being photographed. I know it was probably for the magazine, and they wanted video they could mix with the audio of the round table discussion, but I felt like waaaay too much of this was just shots of them looking pretty for the camera. If the goal of the discussion was "why aren't women taken more seriously comedy", cutting the interviews with shots of them posing and preening undermines the whole thing.
Also, I felt there are some major undertones of competition and jealously going on throughout the interview. Maybe it's a result of getting that many celebrities to interview each other, or because they are all technically competitors in their careers (didn't the Emmy's just happen?), but there's a part of me that just feels it is because they are women. Get a group of women together, no matter how powerful or assertive, and the same games seem to appear.
For one thing, I heard a lot of apologizing- people saying sorry for what they said, or for losing their train of thought, or saying something that could be potentially embarrassing or contrarian. It seemed to me the main goal was to keep the tone light and happy, more than to make a point or to express a strong opinion. Compare this to 'Talking Funny', which I watched a few months ago (here) where they had no problem calling each other out or flat out disagreeing on topics.
Also, a good amount of time was spent complimenting each other. Not that there is anything wrong with showing respect for your contemporaries, I just felt the motive behind most of these comments was less "I respect you" and more "we're cool, right?". If the interview was all men, I don't think they'd spend this much time talking each other up. It reminds me of a Cracked article that talks about why women take so long to say goodbye at parties:
"In research published by Daniel Balliet, Norman P. Li, Shane J. Macfarlan and Mark Van Vugt of the American Psychological Association in Psychological Bulletin, men cooperate better with other men than women cooperate with other women. Researchers reviewed 272 studies containing 31,642 participants in 18 countries. Each study contained one social dilemma. In a social dilemma experiment, two or more people must choose between short-term self-interest and long-term group interest. The research revealed that women were more likely to cooperate when men were involved and women were less cooperative than men in same-sex situations."
I don't know how well any of the women in this interview really know each other, but I got the feeling they wanted us to think they were all best friends.
For the record, I don't blame any of these women for their behavior. I think our gender roles and expectations are hard wired into our brains from a very early age, and those who choose to live in front of the cameras have to deal with them even more often than the average person. So I don't slight any of them for acting this way- it's a result of our gendered society.
Today I watched a short animated documentary about the state of science. It basically taught me that we know nothing about anything.
The film, interviewed narration set over cartoon imagery, discusses what scientists know and don't know about the mysteries of the universe. Right off the bat I learned something interesting; if you look at what the universe is made of, scientists can only identify 5% of it. The rest is either Dark Matter (which makes up 20%) or completely unknown material.
It's all very ominous.
So there's a lot we don't know. The film discusses the two main ways scientists try to learn what we don't know: micro-research and macro-research. While some spend their time splitting atoms and labeling quarks, looking for what makes up the smallest known matter, others are looking outward what lies beyond the galaxy. Both of these methods might very well turn up the same answers, just in different ways.
As someone who knows nothing about science, I am amazed at how little they know about science. As he states in the film, most people assume science of this era is just an exploration of the finer details. In reality there is still a lot of very big, very complex issues that need answers.
Today I watched a 4 minute TED talk by Richard St. John on the elements of success.
St. John doesn't say what he does for a living, though he does say "this is really a 2 hour presentation I give to high school students cut down to 3 minutes." So I assume he's a teacher or something of that ilk.
His lecture, though inspiring, doesn't tread any new ground. He tells us to work hard, surround ourselves with like-minded individuals, and do what makes you happy. He spent 7 years conducting over 500 interviews with some of the most 'successful' TED speakers and attendees, and that's what he has to show for it. I have to be honest, I expected something a bit more profound.
He seems more interested in sucking up to TED and its fans and speakers more than answering what makes someone successful. He has an awful lot of nice things to say about the other people that speak at TED, but little in terms of specific, original ideas to become successful, or even the different ways success can be defined.
If you want to watch 3 minute video of a stranger telling you how to be successful, go right ahead. But I'd recommend you follow your head and your heart, and you'll get just as far, if not farther.
Today I watched a documentary about the Occupy Chicago protests. The film was created by fellow protesters. I was hoping the film would dive into some of the deeper motives behind the protests, but the 20 minute film instead merely skimmed the surface of the issues.
Not sure if you can read the text. It basically says "Capitalism Sucks"
I am a supporter of the Occupy movement. Had I been alive during the 60's I would have supported all the protests that were happening then as well. I think protesting is a given right that should be exercised frequently. To not protest means there's nothing that could be improved, reformed, or left to discuss as a country. I support the rights of all protesters, even Westboro Church and the Tea Party Movement. As Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to your death the right to say it."
But I take issue with those who only protest. Protesting, though a good starting point, will rarely create enough of the change needed to make a difference. Protesting is the ignition- the spark that can get bigger, more sustainable actions underway. It's biggest functions are to: 1. highlight a problem. 2. Address it. 3. Inform others. 4. Prove that no one is alone in opposing it. 5. Rally around a common solution.
That's where I take issue with this documentary. It's supposed to be an official product of the Occupy movement, but it barely dives into the real problems that Occupy should be addressing. It shows footage of the thousand-strong crowds, of the the police barricades and the clashes that ensue. But there's little time spent on the big, looming question: what comes after the protests? Where do we go from here?
Maybe I'm not the intended audience. I am already on board, and sympathetic to the cause. Maybe this is more for the fence sitters who are still believing the outdated stereotypes about the kinds of people who protest. But eventually enough of the population will start to favor the cause, and will want to know that there are steps in place to take us off the streets and into the next phase, whatever that might be.
Overall the documentary is fine for what it is, but I am still looking for more.
Today I watched a very brief TED talk about the number 1 and units of measurement.
The video's only 3 minutes long, which means by the time you finish reading this post, you could have watched the whole thing.
Christopher Danielson wonders about the number one, and when is it singular and when is it part of a whole?
Best quote: "Think about toaster pastries: they come in packs of 2, then they get put together in sets of 4 to make a box, so when I buy 1 box of toaster pastries am I buying 1 thing, 4 things, or 8 things?"
As someone with no love of math, I wish teachers had posed questions like this to me at an early age. I don't think skill factors into academia nearly as much as general curiosity- if I could have only developed an interest in math I would have had the desire to get better and understand it more.
Oh well, I'm not an old dog yet, no reason to think I can't fall in love with math now.
Today I watched an amazing short documentary called Amar. I think someone posted it on Tumblr.
This is one of the few docs I'm hesitant to say much about, because you just need to watch it. Not that there are spoilers or things to ruin, I just know any review I give isn't going to properly capture why it's such a good film. I don't even think I could tell you what makes it so good. There's almost no dialogue, music, or characters besides the main child, Amar. But it gave me a lot to think about.
'Amar' is a 10 min documentary that follows a young Indian (I think?) boy through his day. The film's description is this:
Amar is 14 and top of his class. Someday he'd like to be a professional cricketer, but for now he's the family's main breadwinner, working two jobs six and a half days a week on top of attending school in the afternoons. This short observational documentary is a simple journey with Amar through his daily life.
Today I watched a documentary about the British tv show 'Peepshow'. I think I found this documentary on Tumblr. Peepshow is a BBC show staring David Mitchell and Robert Webb. I first learned about these dudes from their amazing sketch show, 'The Mitchell and Webb Look". Here's one of my favorite sketches ever:
Mitchell and Webb: Scooby Doo
The documentary is just a basic overview of the show; its genesis, the behind the scenes work, the characters, and the actors that play them. There are a couple of cool stories from the cast and crew thrown in too.
Having only seen one or two episodes of Peepshow, I really learned a lot. It makes me want to watch more of it. I, like most comedy nerds, automatically assume most British comedies are going to be good, and this one seems to promote that assumption.
I suggest you go watch some 'Mitchell and Webb", then go check out Peepshow, then hit up the doc for some trivia.
Today I watched the second documentary on the 'Running Man' Dvd. If you've never seen the movie, it's awesome. Seriously one of my top 5 favorite Arnold movies (up there with Total Recall, 6th Day, and Kindergarten Cop).
This documentary is about the current police state within America. I thought this was a pretty interesting subject choice for something as relatively shallow as a Schwarzenegger movie, even considering its relation to the movie's subject matter. Why take a cheesy 80's movie and make it a platform to preach your political views? What do you gain? You just run the risk of alienating audience members. Plus the obvious fact that Arnold's a committed Republican...
That being said, most of the documentary was in line with my own views, so I was willing to let that slide. The film mainly focuses on the Patriot Act, and the many many ways it impedes upon and invades our civil liberties. I could stand on my soap box and wail about the amazing injustice we call the Patriot Act, but I won't.
I'll just say this- are we safer than we were before 9/11? Are these extreme measures (wire tappings, illegal searches, detainment without trial) making a noticeable difference in our safety? Or even our perception of safety? There's a difference between being safe and feeling safe. In my opinion Americans have given up a lot of freedoms without gaining any stronger sense of safety.
Anyway, as far as political docs go, this is not the most hard hitting or informative. But considering it's 20 mins on the 2nd disc of a Arnold movie, it isn't that bad.
Today I watched a short documentary produced by the makers of The Running Man, a 1987 Schwarzenegger movie. The documentary is a special feature on the dvd.
So, a couple things right off the bat. I love Schwarzenegger movies. For a long time I thought I only liked them ironically, the way I like modern rap and dime store sci-fi books. But I've come to realize I just legitimately like them. To properly test this, I asked for nothing but his movies for my last birthday. After watching one a month for the last year, I can honestly state I like them, non-ironically, as the cheesy action movies they are.
I recently rewatched Running Man as a tribute to the recently deceased Richard Dawson, ex-host of 'Family Feud' and main bad guy in RM.
On the second disc there are two short documentaries loosely based on themes presented in the movie: one is about the rise of reality tv and the other is about the threat of a police state. Today I watched the reality tv one.
The doc, about 20 minutes long, is a mix of interviews with sociology experts, television executives, and ex-reality tv stars discussing how and why reality tv has become such an American obsession. Their answer is that we love living vicariously through others, we love watching villains, and tv shows love tiny budgets and not having to pay their talent much money. It was a match made in heaven.
The part I found most interesting is when the tv execs basically admit that reality tv isn't really that 'real'- they acknowledge that scenes are prompted, dialogue is constructed, and emotions are heightened to unbelievable levels. But in the same breath they defend it as a strong form of entertainment that still sheds light on the human condition, and thus preventing them from fully having to admit what a giant crock of shit it all is.
If you want to watch it, you can come borrow my 'Running Man' dvd.
Today I watched a PBS documentary about 'the tank man", the famous, anonymous Chinese man who stood in front of military tanks during the Tienanmen Square protests in 1989.
The Tank Man, also known as the Unknown Rebel, stood up to the tanks 23 years ago last week, June 5th. I had seen the photo before and knew a little about the situation but decided to use the anniversary as a good reason to learn more.
The Frontline episode explores a few different things. It mainly focuses on what the riots of Tienanmen Square were about. The Chinese people were protesting a lack of basic civil liberties their government was withholding from them. The protests had been going on since May, but turned dangerous when the government sent in the military to run them off. Reporters and protesters interviewed for the doc. talk about how the soldiers were shooting wildly in all directions, even into buildings and apartments nearby. They were using military-grade weapons, not rubber bullets or tear gas. It was weapons used to inflict the most amount of damage possible. The Chinese Red Cross would eventually state that 2,600 civilians were killed altogether. The Chinese government's records show only 241 deaths total.
Somewhere in the middle of these events a row of tanks begins rumbling into the square. As they creep forward a man walking down the street races in front of the tanks and refuses to move. The tanks come to a halt for a brief moment.
The event itself only lasts a few minutes, but it's so tense it feels like forever. Eventually a group of strangers pick the guy up and drag him off to safety. The man was never identified, never charged, and to this day his motives remain a mystery.
The doc then turns to China as a whole, discussing how much has changed for the country in the last 20 years. The rise of capitalism, the growth of business, and the welcoming of consumerism by the Chinese people. It details in turn what the country has going for it (economic growth, GDP) and where it is still in dire trouble (income inequality, civil liberties).
We return to the idea of The Tank Man- a simple middle class citizen, probably a blue collar worker. What would he think about modern China, and the changes that have occurred?
I was happy with this documentary. It gave me the information I had originally wanted (about the Tank Man) but then offered me what I didn't even know I wanted to hear (about China). It did a great job of tying the themes together and using a narrative throughout.
There's too much about this film to dive into all of it fully, so here are just some random thoughts:
The protests reminded me of the Occupy Wall Street movement in that both were started by the upper-to-middle class college educated crowd, but were geared towards and eventually picked up by the working class. Tienanmen protesters were fighting for everyone's rights; workers, govt employees, even the military and the police that were threatening them.
In a discussion about civil liberties the role of American companies in China was brought up. What role does Google and Yahoo have in protecting freedom of speech abroad? They both gave in to the Chinese Govt. and allowed their search engines to be censored, and faced harsh criticism for it. Should they have done that?
What was going through that man's head as he defied the tanks? What possesses a person to do something so bold and, to be perfectly frank, stupid? He, like the rest of the world, had just watched the military lay siege upon the innocent protesters and bystanders- he must have known it was a suicide mission? Were his views so steadfast that he was ready to give up his life for them?
Today I watched a film on how the internet shares information across the world.
If it wasn't for the internet, this would have never happened
The World Science Festival (which put on this awesome book discussion I talked about a few months ago-here) teaches us how the internet works. I honestly never knew how the internet worked, nor did I particularly care. I assumed it'd be over my head, and even if I could understand it, it'd be a very dry and technical explanation. I was right on both counts.
So when you access a website, it must first request the proper information from the site's servers, which would be anywhere in the world. The servers compile the proper information to form the website, then send it back in complicated 'packets' of information to your computer. It travels through a series of cables, sometimes above ground and sometimes underwater.
I learned something, and it's presented in a cool, interesting way. And I love "A Packet's Tale"- totally sounds like it could be a Disney/Pixar movie.
