I made it quite a habit to criticise televison. Mostly german television, which in my opinion does a great job at ignoring the audience most of the time. They cripple movies so they fit the ads, they replicate certain formats like crazy because they’re cheap and to some people at least create a fake impression of mild entertainment. And, for the most part, they import shows from abroad, shows that might actually be great but are put into the most invaluable timeslots. It takes some effort to find the gems on german television and they don’t always get the attention they deserve. Well, today I’d like to recommend a truly good program. And it’s not from Germany. *g*

I recently watched a number of episodes of “Inside the Actors Studio“, a remarkable television show that runs on its 16th season in the US right now and has been broadcasted in 125 countries. Funny enough although it used to be shown in Germany (on EinsFestival, an exclusive digital channel where the show is named “Ungeschminkt”) and it took about 9 years to make its way here, it’s not scheduled at the moment and I’ve never seen it on german tv which – once more – illustrates the state of the german tv cosmos. UPDATE: Just learned that it ran in german free tv as well but it’s not on at the moment.

So, what is it about? Well, during the course of every show one actor or actress, director, musician or comedian is interviewed by James Lipton about their lives and their art in chronological order beginning with birth and covering all mayor events that shaped the person and artist including their most outstanding works. In some cases groups of people visited the show for example the Cast of the Simpsons, the Cast of Family Guy or the members of Bon Jovi. The show typically lasts one hour – cut from a several hour interview – with some episodes being 90 minutes or even 2 hours long.

I understand the Actors Studio Drama school offers Master’s degree programs for actors, playwriters and directors and the interviews conducted by James Lipton, who is also the Dean Emiritus of the school, are considered classes for the students who are therefore the main live audience.
At the end of each interview there is a Q & A session with the students but before that Lipton asks the interviewee a recurring questionaire that was used for many years by Bernard Pivot on French television and is derived from the Proust questionaire. Those questions are:

1. What is your favorite word?
2. What is your least favorite word?
3. What turns you on?
4. What turns you off?
5. What sound or noise do you love?
6. What sound or noise do you hate?
7. What is your favorite curse word?
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
9. What profession would you not like to participate in?
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

It is the simplicity of this concept and the purity of the presentation that makes this show extraordinary to me. But it’s hard to explain so I’d like to recommend just giving it a look. A number of episodes are scattered over YouTube in 10 minute clips so you might just have a look here and pick a show that features one of your favourite actors (over 200 guests have already been there). If you consider that too much work let me link you to the great interview with comedian Dave Chapelle (1st of 9 parts) from 2008 and furthermore to the 200th episode in which James Lipton himself is interviewed by Dave Chapelle and some of the greatest moments on the show are collaged together. There are also DVDs of some of the shows but – and I don’t usually recommend this – many more can be found as torrents.

James Lipton himself is a vital part of the phenomenon of the show as he is a respectful host and manages to have the person on the chair next to him open up as most talk shows – and/or host – don’t allow for. He’s famous (maybe even infamous) for thoroughly researching his guest’s life and preparing a huge deck of blue note cards on which quite often he collects the most private or obscure facts, repeatedly to the guest’s astonishment. He also wrote a book on the history of “Inside the Actors Studio” named “Inside Inside“.

So next time when you’re unhappy with the television program I hope you enjoy a few moments from “Inside the Actors Studio”.

Maybe next time, I’ll pick some of our national gems currently available. We’ll see.

Liebe/r Leser/in,

ich begrüße dich im neuen Jahr 2010, dem Jahr der Fussball-WM in Südafrika, dem finalen Abschluss der Agenda 2010, dem erste Jahr der Zehnerjahre des 21. Jahrhunderts.

Man sollte das neue Jahr vielleicht mit leichtem Lesestoff beginnen, etwas unterhaltsam Erbauliches oder etwas, das die eigene Humorzentrale in Schwingungen versetzt. Stattdessen möchte eine Buch (und ein Hörbuch) vorschlagen, welches Faszinierendes zum philosophischen Fundament unserer Gesellschaft anzumerken hat. Es handelt sich um ein Buch von Scott Adams, der dir, geneigte/r Leser/in, möglicherweise von seinem erfolgreichen Comic “Dilbert”  und den diversen dazu erschienenen Büchern bekannt ist. “God’s debris – A Thought Experiment” hat mit Dilbert aber überhaupt nichts zu tun, es zeigt vielmehr die philosophische Seite von Adams, der auch in seinem Blog immer wieder seine Leser mit wilden Theorien und Gedankenexperimente konfrontiert, ohne sich selbst und seinen Standpunkt dabei allzu ernst zu nehmen.

Die beiden Hauptcharaktere des Buches sind gleichsam auch die einzigen Charaktere. Der Protagonist ist ein Paketlieferant, der ein Paket an einen alten Mann genannt Avatar ausliefert. Dieser verwickelt ihn in ein Gespräch um Gott und die Welt, der daraus folgende Dialog ist zentraler Gegenstand des Buches.
Der Avatar diskutiert zunächst einige zentrale Begriffe wie “freien Willen” (free will) und das K0nzept “Gott”. Er argumentiert außerdem dafür, dass das menschliche Gehirn lediglich ein Täschungsgenerator (delusion generator) ist, weil es nicht dazu in der Lage ist, die komplexe Welt tatsächlich zu verstehen und als Ersatz dafür vereinfachte Modelle schafft.

Basierend auf diesen Grundmotiven behauptet der Avatar, dass anzunehmen ist, dass es für einen allmächtigen Gott nur eine wirkliche Herausforderung, nur eine Motivation geben kann: Selbstzerstörung. Daraus folgert er, dass Gott sich selbst zerstört hat und alles was existiert (inklusive der Menschen) Gottes Trümmer sein müssen. Diese bestehen aus zwei Komponenten: Materie, in einer uniformen stofflichen Form, die so klein ist, dass wir sie noch nicht entdeckt haben, und Wahrscheinlichkeit (Probability). Aus dieser Annahme speisen sich die folgenden Theorien und Erklärungen, die sich über astronomische und physischen, gesellschaftliche und philosophische Sphären erstrecken. Letztendlich schickt sich der Avatar an, uralte philosophische Fragen zu diskutieren, wobei er immer wieder darauf verweist, sich auf die einfachsten möglichen Erklärungen zu berufen.
So wird im Buch das Leben und unsere Existenz als ein Prozess des Wieder-Zusammen-Setzens von Gott interpretiert, weil scheinbar nur auf diese Weise eine erklärbare Motivation für unsere Existenz vorhanden wäre.

Der Untertitel “Ein Gedankenexperiment” ist hier nicht nur inhaltlich zu sehen: Das gesamte Buch fordert den Leser dazu auf, zunächst andere Erklärungen und Denkansätze zu akzeptieren und die eigenen Überzeugungen kritisch zu prüfen. Letztendlich sollen aber keine Antworten gegeben sondern neue Fragen aufgeworfen werden. Die ‘einfachen’ Erklärungen sind interessante Möglichkeiten, aber nicht unbedingt viel mehr.

Image via Wikipedia

Mich persönlich haben einige Gedanken durchaus fasziniert, teilweise stößt man mit ein bißchen Überlegung auch schnell an Grenzen. Gibt es eine natürliche Tendenz zu einfachen Erklärungen? Und hat das überhaupt Konsequenzen für das Individuum? Adams behauptet außerdem, er habe beim Schreiben des Buches eine Hypnosetechnik eingebaut, die dem Leser ein positives Gefühl des Erkenntnisgewinnes geben soll. Eine gewisse erleuchtende Wirkung kann man durchaus verspüren, ob das Aha-Erlebnis durch die Hypnose ausgelöst wird, kann natürlich kaum belegt werden.

Wer gerne geistige Luftschlösser baut oder einreißt, sollte hier unbedingt mal seine Nase reinstecken, das Werk liegt aussließlich im Englischen vor, dafür ist das eBuch sogar gratis herunterladbar. Nichtsdestotrotz kann man es auch käuflich erwerben. Ich persönlich habe es mir vorlesen lassen, ein Hörbuch ist bei Audible über den iTunes Store für knappe 4 € zu erstehen. Es gibt auch eine Fortsetzung mit dem Titel “The Reglion War”, dies sei jedoch nur der Vollständigkeit wegen erwähnt, ich habe es nicht gelesen. Bis jetzt.

Liebe Grüße!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hypnotized by an Audio Book (dilbert.com)
• Dilbert Takes On Overbearing Patents (techdirt.com)

I’m reading a book  at the moment called “The Element” by Sir Ken Robinson. The subtitle says “How finding your passion changes everything”. I have blogged about Sir Ken Robinson before because of his marvelous talk at the TED conference. Many points he made there are in this book that he kind of announces during the talk.
He has a simple yet powerful message: Everybody is born creative but many of us are educated out of our native creativity. He claims that school systems are predetermined on a certain type of intelligence thereby ignoring other forms and sorting out people who rely on them. According to him three features seem to be similar across school system around the world:

“First, there is the preoccupation with certain sorts of academic ability, I know that academic ability is very important. But school system tend to be preoccupied with certain sorts of critical analysis and reasoning, particularly with words and numbers. Important as those skills are, there is much more to human intelligence than that. [..] The second feature is the hierarchy of subjects. At the top of the hierarchy are mathematics, science, and language skills. In the middle are the humanities. At the bottom are the arts. In the arts, there is another hierarchy: music and visual arts normally have a higher status than theater and dance. In fact, more and more schools are cutting the arts out of the curriculum altogether. A hugh high school might have only one fine arts teacher, and even elementary school children get very little time to simply paint and draw.
The third feature is the growing reliance on particular types of assessment. Children everywhere are under intense pressure to perform at higher and higher levels on a narrow range of standardized tests.”

If you think about this for a second you immediately realise it is true. For example I went to a catholic school that focuses especially on languages and arts (and religion, which is not that important in this context). However, while we always had math, physics, chemistry up to three times a week each, languages, history and geography took place -  as far as I can remember – two times weekly at maximum while we had music and art (and sports) once a week. And in the final ‘Abitur‘ you could only have sciences and languages as primary written exams, humanities and arts were just allowed as secondary or oral exams. Dance and theater were not taught as subjects (although they had brilliant teachers ready to do it) and were rather offered as after-school activities. Same goes for sports. Also, there were much more and more intense formal exams in sciences and languages than in the other subjects. And by the end of school I guess I (and most of the other students) had learned at least unconsciously that those things were simply valued more by society. But already – after being out of school for only 7 years – I realise that this is plain wrong. My advanced level courses were math and chemistry in which I scored 8 out of 15 points in the final exams – obviously a bad choice on my part – , both of which I don’t need today studying media literacy. My basic level courses English (15 points) and Ethics (11 points) were much more relevant, yet the knowledge in computers and media that I rely on today was not formally taught at school, I did it mostly on my own. I was at a pretty good school though and we were offered a great variety of after-school courses by highly motivated teachers, but I know for a fact that this was not common on public schools back then and it probably isn’t today.

Now in the book Ken Robinson collected stories from several people like Gillian Lynne or Matt Groening explaining how they found their “element” or their talent/passion and how it changed their lifes. He also stresses the point that those talents could have been overlooked easily due to the nature of the educational systems and uniform approach to learning. I remember I used to draw a lot when I was small, maybe five or six years old. I wasn’t particularly fond of going outside and so I spend my time drawing, I had a lot of fantasy and made up stuff. When I got into primary school and we started getting drawing lessons I probably noticed for the first time that my drawing was not so good because I started to get bad grades (not really that bad but bad compared what I usually expected). But even more I realised I couldn’t do what we were supposed to do. We were told to draw certain things and I didn’t understand how to do it properly. And I could no longer choose what to draw. Everybody else seemed to get it. I didn’t. And over time I lost interest and joy in drawing which only slightly started to come back two or three years before school was over when I already had found other things I was interested in and was good at doing. Today I’m quite sure drawing is not a particular talent of mine, but then again who knows? Maybe I would have needed another approach to learning to draw.  Maybe I was just not interested in the kind of drawing we practised during the lessons. I will never be able to restore the state of mind I was in when I was a child and drew all day long. Robinson now claims that this is no error in the system but rather that the system is designed to work just that way. It’s the believe that the world consists of essential and non-essential knowledge and that we just need to feed children the essential stuff – and doing that in an uniform way – to prepare them for the future – a future we can’t possibly imagine – and the believe that there is only one relevant form of intelligence. These believes are profoundly wrong. And we start to see the symptoms.

I share this view and although I believe many good teachers know this and try to improve the educational experience  the system they rely on does not give them the freedom and ressources to properly fullfil their profession. It’s a sad fact – facing the national election here in Germany tomorrow – that none of the parties so far have actually made education a core subject in their programmes or have expressed clear ideas on what education should be like apart from the will “to improve” the situation and to raise availability and quality of education. Whatever that means. (Please feel free to prove me wrong  here!!)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Book Review: The Element (ericbrown.com)
• Are you in your element? (wheresthesausage.typepad.com)
• 10 Questions for Ken Robinson (hermenaut.org)

Well, I just returned from cinema where I watched the latest installment of the Harry Potter series – known as “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood prince” in the original (=non-localized) version. I will first try to say something about the movie itself and then come to two thoughts that crossed my mind after I watched it.

Instead of doing a review-like article – which I usually write – I’d like to try out a more ‘ethnographical’ approach and describe the audiences’ reaction to the movie as I observed it including my own reactions. I try to be as non-spoilerish as possible. First of all, I don’t know the books. That’s probably important to know because the climax of the movie – which really is a low point moodwise – and other information is known to those watching the movie with the book in the back of the head. I didn’t have that but I watched the five movies – in order – during the first halve of this year to prepare for the sixth thereby seeing the fourth and fifth movie for the very first time.
As this picture was featured on several occasions across the media, I knew it would be much darker and dense which is building upon the mood that was created during the last movie. The whole series took a spin to a more serious tone which I like very much as in my opinion the plot scheme became to obviously repetitive and boring with the third movie.
However, there was much laughing during the show, sometimes shortly after very dramativ parts, so the movie manages well to some how linger between this serious tone and humorous relief. Love is a big subject in the movie, as all the main characters are involved in relationship troubles, and it’s the main thing that counters the rather dramatic, even shocking events during the second half of the film enough to still keep the audience from being totally depressed after watching. The movie never really reaches a light or too funny tone or to say it differently, there always is some hint that something dark and evil is coming. All the colours are pretty cold, all the characters are kind of darker, there are no children anymore – although of course there are some because it’s a school but they’re left out – they all have aged and this is also referred to in certain dialogue sentences. The relationship between Harry and Dumbledore is played out very detailed and certainly is the mysterious role of Severes Snape. Jim Broadbent in the role of Professor Slughorn is a great addition to the cast, his character has both a rather funny and a very dramatic side.

Image by Pessimist Huang via Flickr

During the movie I could not hear much talking – although there were not that many people in the room – nor eating and drinking which I find a sign that a movie really catches an audience well. I myself nipped on my cola only during the break. In the end when you-know-who is killed there was dead silence in the cinema, although I had been told that it would happen, I still found myself surprised, shocked and – by the end – exhausted. I think it’s a great movie, probably better than certain other episodes from the series, but of course it has the privilege to build upon all the things – characters, story, look, relationships – established during the other five movies. You should watch those before seeing this one. This movie already was quite long – as I mentioned there was a 10-minute break, so i spent about 3 hours in cinema – and you may have already heard that the last book will be made into two movies coming in 2010 and 2011.

This brings me to my first thought which is rooted in a more common observation: Serials are big in the media nowadays! (No, I could not come up with something more obvious!) I’m not sur since when, might be the early days of mass media or even earlier but I find this interesting to see. Be it movies, tv shows, books or computer games – they all are more and more relying on the premise ‘to go on’ or ‘to be continued’. There are of course economic reasons for this but it strikes me as being merely the symptom because those products wouldn’t be commercially successful if people wouldn’t want to see them. I wondered – as I was confronted with the perceived insecurity of our modern world as an academic subject during the past year – whether we actually want our virtual media worlds to deliver a kind of anchor, reliability and continuity that we miss in our real world. My place, my time and my life-parameters in the real world can be changing – and they do – but the patterns in my favourite sitcom(s), soap opera(s), movie(s) or game(s) are always the same or they change quite slowly. Also if they change, the change is controlled and never to overwhelming. Especially with “Harry Potter” it’s pretty obvious. The movies grow with their audience, children who have seen the first movie in 2001 are teenagers or young adults by now and the whole franchise is build to grow with them. This seems to be important. Many older franchises from the 70s or 80s (Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, just to name a few) were relaunched to connect with old and new audiences raising awareness for the old stuff in young people and continue nurturing the already existing audience. It’s a bit like grandpa telling stories to the young ones at the firesite in the evening but adding new parts to the narration everytime to keep it interesting. There are probably people already analysing this phenomenon, perhaps I should research that a little. Maybe this is a reason why makers of serials become more courageous in truly continuing story arcs over many episodes like the ones found in tv shows like Lost, Heroes and Babylon 5 or movies like Matrix and Lord of the Rings. And maybe it explains why those are so enormously successful.

"Choice" by anajazz65@flickr.com

The second thought came to me because of a certain sentence that was said in the movie – if you’re bored by know please don’t continue – which I can’t recall exactly but it was something like ‘If we don’t make the choices in our lives our fate will be completely lost to chance.’ It probably sounded better than that. However the point is that it reminded me of discussions I had with people whether there is something like fate and our life is determined or whether there’s something like chance and so we have the ability to actually make profound choices and therefore steer our life ourselves. I usually argue that I don’t think chance exists – in form of a law of nature, as most people imagine it – but life’s parameters are just to complex for us to grasp so we can’t know or for the most part explain why things happen the way they do. Just because we don’t know the reasons or the chain of causality it doesn’t mean there is none. Which is basically an argument I borrowed from religion where god exists although we have no proof of that because we can also not prove he’s not there.
I’m not trying to make a point here, I was just wondering about the oddity of the thought that we put so much effort in our choices – so much in fact, that the freedom of choosing is no longer making us happy as Barry Schwartz explains in his book -  because we expect them to shape our future and then there is at least the possibility that – maybe – they don’t really matter as much as we believe.