Backgammon: The Game of Wall Street

I don’t really have anything to add to Raffi Khatchadourian’s profile of Falafel, one of the top-ranked backgammon players in the world (“The Chaos of the Dice,” The New Yorker, 5/13/13), but as someone who once spent a lot of time gambling and is well on his way toward those 10,000 hours of turning intuitive skill into professional ability in a different game, here are some highlights:

  • Whenever a game gets glamorized, as Backgammon did in the ’60s, with black-tie world-championships and celebrity players like Lucille Ball and Paul Newman, you run the risk of turning genuine gamblers–sharks–on to the feeding frenzy of fish–mediocre competitors–if not outright whale hunters, who seek out the deep-pocketed and poor players. The players interviewed in this article are all incredibly cagey when it comes to naming the locations of private games or the rich billionaire players, lest they lose their client-opponents to other savvy and opportunistic gamers.
  • It’s hard to walk away when you’re losing. One player is so rigid about playing in marathon sessions (over fifteen hours at a time, and some sessions have gone for days on end) that a gambler actually brings a stand-in with him to play while he goes to the bathroom. Another terrible player is described as losing a hundred and fifty dollars in half an hour . . . and coming back two hours later with fifty pounds of gold. In the most extreme example, one used as a parable for the sport (“the cruelest game”), one Russian prepared to kill another after wagering that the loser would die. Bruegel’s “The Triumph of Death” features backgammon. Continue reading

We torture people before they die.

How that’s not the opening quote in Jonathan Rauch’s “How Not To Die” (The Atlantic, May 2013), I have no idea, but he gets there soon enough. Aretha Delight Davis is the speaker of this quote, and she’s even more direct than her husband, Dr. Angelo Volandes, who is working on a means of disrupting the current late-care medical treatment system through clearly narrated videos that show patients (and their families) exactly what doctors mean when they present complicated treatment options. “In the absence of complete information, individuals frequently opt for procedures they would not otherwise choose,” reads a study by Benjamin Moulton and Jaime S. King in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (all citations are from The Atlantic‘s article); according to Rauch, whose father suffered “an advanced and untreatable neurological condition,” knows all about this, about the way that “The Conversation  happens less regularly than it should, and that, when it does happen, information is typically presented in a brisk, jargony way that patients and families don’t really understand.” Above all else that’s wrong with the medical system, this may be the worst: this is one of the most critical commercial services out there, and yet we understand so much less about it than anything else we purchase, and thereby trust doctors — who sometimes have ulterior motives, however laced with good intentions they may be — far beyond any rational decision-making point. It’s the same thing I see on Monday Mornings, another giddy David E. Kelly show about ethics (as with Boston Legal before it); yes, you will die without this treatment. With it, however, you may still die, may suffer extremely, may lose part of your brain (the very part that defines your personal identity), and, assuming everything works, may only extend your life by a short term. (And we haven’t even talked about the monetary costs yet.)  Continue reading

Following “The Following”: An Exercise in Predictability

Let’s not talk about The Following, a panderingly gore-heavy and meanderingly uninventive show about a cult of serial killers who have been instructed by a Poe-preaching ex-teacher named Joe Carroll to make the life of former FBI agent Ryan Hardy a living hell. Let’s talk instead about the fact that enough people (around 7 million, sensibly down from a 10 million+ premiere) watch The Following such that FOX has renewed it for a second season, something that appears to have panicked creator Kevin Williamson and start Kevin Bacon into coming up with a plausible turning point (rather than an ending) to the first season. “Kill me,” shouts Ryan Hardy at his literary nemesis: “They’ll never see that twist coming. (And also, it’ll get me out of my contract!)” Sadly, the show pulls back from this, with Joe having almost certainly faked his own death (“You can’t kill me, I’m already dead,” he quotes, at length), and with Ryan stabbed in yet another instance of horrible FBI surveillance. (Seriously, these cultists have abducted agents out of their homes, hotels, and heavily guarded emergency centers.) Still, like a zombie, he’s sure enough to come back next year, shambling somewhat drunkenly onward, because that’s what you do when you’re a television show.

This is why I’ve lost interest in The Walking Dead. Why I’m somewhat in a sense of trepidation about the as-yet unfinished Game of Thrones series. Why I’m finding it difficult to watch Revenge with a straight face. You need a beginning, middle, and an end to your story, and as we saw clearly from the meta-theatrical antics of antagonist Carroll on The Following, all he had was a lot of hackneyed plot. In fifteen episodes, the only plot development we got was that Hardy believed himself to be under a death curse (in which everybody he loves dies, which, surprise, happens to all of us . . . or is something we inflict upon someone else) and that he was in love with Joe’s ex-wife (a “surprise” revealed halfway through the . . . first episode). Oh, and as a moody teenager, he murdered the man who killed his father (by forcing the druggie to overdose in a bout of poetic justice). Aside from that, the only thing that changed from week to week was the implausibility of this cult (which at one point was affiliated with some sort of anti-government militia that ran its high-level computer network out of a BSDM club) and the ever-rising body count, particularly of those on Hardy’s team. (I’m not sure if we should congratulation Shawn Ashmore on surviving, or send him our condolences.)

As The Following reached its conclusion, the writers appeared to run out of ideas. There’s only so many times Hardy or Claire Matthews (Natalie Zea), Carroll’s former wife, can surrender their weapons and walk directly into a trap, but nobody told the writers that. You’d think that someone clever enough to use a buried-alive victim to walk a bunch of FBI members into a sniper’s nest would understand how to actually hit one of their targets, but apparently not. Despite knowing that there were apparently double-agents all over the place, a good guy turned out to be a bad guy in no fewer than seven episodes. There isn’t a convention of the genre that wasn’t obeyed, which made Carroll’s hand-wringing plotting all the sillier. The Following even announced, right of the bat, that Hardy could not be killed until the final episode (as if we didn’t already know that by network up-fronts), which sure took a lot of the suspense out of all those supposedly life-and-death moments.

However, as it turns out (and as CSI and all the countless knock-offs have shown us), audiences like predictability. They like to see a hero (or an anti-hero, these days) confront and overcome adversity. They don’t like to be troubled by the morality of someone like Hardy (or Jack Bauer) torturing criminals in order to get information, and they actually appreciate the senseless violence, the gorier the better, because in their minds that’ll make it all the more satisfying when the perpetrator is eventually caught. (It’s a lot like wrestling, where the heel riles up the crowds . . . except that wrestling makes a lot more sense than The Following.) Originality in sitcoms like Arrested Development or Community is punished by viewers, whereas laugh-track-friendly fare like The Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men keep trucking along, neat little joke-delivery systems that are known more for their ability to get from point A to point B within twenty-two minutes than in the style with which they do so. Dramas face an even harsher upward climb: without a mysterious enough hook or a procedural bait, it becomes almost impossible to convince network viewers to keep tuning in. The Good Wife has managed to avoid doing the same type of legal case twice in any of its episodes–there always seems to be some other trick or back-court shenanigan going on–and because of that, it has remained on the bubble for all of its four seasons.

Watching television has become, in my opinion, more about hanging out (or being titillated by) your favorite actors than about the show itself; how else to explain the majority of programming on USA? Plot moves at a glacier pace, characters are rarely killed (unless the actors leave for greener pastures), and like The Simpsons, nothing ever changes. At least movies have the decency to bill a sequel as a sequel; television shows, which never finish, pretend to evolve when they merely revolve (like doors), regurgitating the same old tropes over and over again for a too-easily entertained audience. Eight years of 24, in which the only thing that really changed were the plots . . . and yet, they’re the one specific thing I can’t remember the slightest thing about. At least give us variations on the familiar, as Doctor Who does on a weekly basis (despite having been on and off the air for like fifty seasons); people look fondly back at Buffy and Angel because they threw in musical, silent, and puppet episodes that felt like nothing else on television, while still fitting the premise of the show. Can’t get away with that on The Vampire Diaries, although I’ll give Supernatural some long-lasting brownie points for trying every now and again. (Then again, the margin for “success” on the CW hardly qualifies their material as “network” shows.)

Let me be clear: I don’t want The Following to have some sort of bizarre genre-altering episode; it’s a thriller, and thrillers can only get away with so much before audiences stop gripping their sofa cushions. (My favorite, Funny Games, lost a lot of people during a key “remote” moment.) But might it be so much to expect that it at least be as clever in subverting expectations as Williamson’s Scream once was? You’ve got killers imitating Edgar Allen Poe, but instead of a creative and disgusting twist on the Pit and the Pendulum or the Cask of Amontillado, we got a dude who lit people on fire in broad daylight, another who butchered all the members of a sorority, and a bunch of generic soldier-types with axes and guns. Even if The Following were to have literally copied Poe’s signature horrors, they would have been more original than the by-the-numbers slaughter that went on this season. Imagine, if you will, that every episode of The X-Files had dealt with a person who claimed to have been abducted by an alien in the same way; in the 90′s, that show wouldn’t have run for nine years. Today, I’m not entirely sure that audiences wouldn’t chomp at the bit for an opportunity to sit down and tune out with a familiar TV show, a familiar beer, and a familiar meal.

Cult was a swiftly cancelled, and yet its premise seems more accurate than The Following‘s: in it, an ex-journalist investigates a cult that’s sprung up around the watching of a terrible television show called Cult (which is essentially the CW’s show-within-a-show version of The Following). Given the way people tastelessly watch The Following, the blind viewing the blind, we’re one step away from becoming a cult ourselves. So don’t be mindless: stop following The Following.

 

“The Dance of Death” Is No Hokey Pokey, But it Puts its Whole Self In

Despite the elegance of August Strindberg’s barbs, The Dance of Death is less of a waltz and more of a marathon dance-till-you-drop, an exhausting and only occasionally exhilarating battle between Alice (Laila Robins) and Edgar (Daniel Davis) on the eve of their twenty-fifth anniversary. Like George and Martha, sixty years down the road in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, these mismatched lovers maintain themselves by subjecting the rest of the world to their misanthropic scorn, united by the games they play with people like Gustav (Derek Smith), a cousin’s of Alice’s, come to visit. Like spiritual vampires–which they are directly called throughout the play, they leech off the feelings of those around them, and under Joseph Hardy’s cruel direction for Red Bull Theater–forever a brilliant but unflinching lot–that includes the audience, which is likely to feel drained by the lengthy production. There is little else in this world to grab on to for sustenance: Beowulf Boritt’s set is leached of its color, with black tendrils of decay snaking through the corners, and Clifton Taylor’s lighting is used only to emphasize and focus the most intense of showdowns between duelists. Mike Poulton’s terrific adaptation sounds great, and the cast–in particular Robins–delivers it well, going to great lengths to avoid coming across as monotonous in their repetitive insults, and yet it is hard to stomach the vitriol. (Imagine performing this twice a day!)

However, whereas Woolf has more elaborate games and philosophy to discuss, and Pinter uses structural tricks or revelations to give us something else (beyond cruelty) to consider, The Dance of Death feels like a full-bore heart attack which, like Edgar himself, is dying of a literal hard heart. There’s a clogging sensation to the narrative flow, akin to that of attempting to unstop a toilet, one that’s illustrated by Gustav when he notes that “Hatred breeds hatred.” There is more to the play than this–the way Alice and Edgar behave behind closed doors, as opposed to before an audience (like Gustav), and as Poulton emphasizes, the way that emotions are twisted by the way people identify. In Alice’s case, as a failed actress with false laurels hanging from the wall beneath a larger-than-life portrait of herself, she lashes out with deception and hyperbole, blaming Edgar for phantom abuses and laying a guilt trip like nobody’s business; in Edgar’s case, as the perennial soldier who refuses to retire (and ignores the mockery of those he would command), he must have everything according to his order, even if that means red-bodied rages and stubborn disputes with the doctor. But what comes across most is the miasma of suffering, which Gustav mistakes for the purpose of life: “We are here to endure.”

The Dance of Death is an unpleasant success, and if I weren’t afraid of love and commitment before, I am now.

 

“The Loneliest Planet” Makes the Loneliest Point

Art for art’s sake has its purpose: after all, The Loneliest Planet is an absolutely beautiful travelogue, one that Julia Loktev has filled with long, languid looks at the Georgian countryside (Georgia the country, not the state). It feels slight as a film, however: an hour is spent establishing the relationship between two young and invincible lovebirds, Alex (Gael Garcia Bernal) and Nica (Hani Furstenberg), as they wander through the wilderness (along with a terse yet colorful tour guide, played by an actual tour guide named Bidzina Gujabidze), only so that a momentary encounter with an armed stranger can shake them up with a dear old brush with mortality. There are none of the survivalist extremes (or delusions) of Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours; because it is so isolated and straightforward, it feels less affecting than the non-linear Into the Wild. Ironically, the no-nonsense approach, in which everything speaks for itself, makes The Loneliest Planet feel more real than either of these two other films (both of which were based on real stories), and yet far less interesting. After all that wandering about, in which the viewer wonders what the film is about, to then have to spend another hour watching Bernal and Furstenberg cope with their close encounter . . . the performances are fine but flimsy. We get it, we get it, we get it.

None of this is accidental: the film is meant to be repetitive, with a parallel structure to that of The Scarlet Letter, in which there is a transitional moment at the center that warps and reflects all that follows. The long tracking shots and the decision to shoot from far away is meant to emphasize their isolation and smallness (against the wild), and the film successfully captures a series of small and subtle shifts in complex emotional states. After spending so long waiting for something to happen, we’re meant to then wait for a follow-up, because in real life, things simply occur (or don’t) and then continue to occur (or not). It’s as much a subversion of our expectations as the scene in Funny Games in which the antagonist pauses and rewinds the action, demonstrating the control that we have ceded for entertainment; here, the film demonstrates just how dull and deadly life can be . . . by being dull. But again, so what? This is a slight, singular point to make: we get it, we get it, we get it.

Perhaps I’m biased. I was mugged a number of years ago, held up at knife-point in the lobby of my building, so I understand the sensation of being lost and adrift after such a sudden, potentially deadly situation. I get how devastating it is, especially when you’re young, to have your illusion of invulnerability pierced, to realize that your sense of order means nothing; no matter how nice you are, it could easily, suddenly end. (To this end, it seems useless to be paralyzed by a terrorist attack or incidence of domestic violence; you could just as easily be hit by a car, a falling meteorite, a stray bullet.) This is perhaps an important concept to realize, and perhaps it is helpful to see it reflected through the perfect relationship of two other people (Bernal and Furstenberg are terrific actors in this piece). And yet again, what does it accomplish? Those who know they are mortal don’t need to spend two hours watching actors come to this realization; those who do not most likely will not understand (or sit through) this two hour public service announcement and/or Georgian tourism promotion. The film is not likely to have much of an effect on anybody, which makes you wonder why it was made in the first place. I’d continue, but I think you get it, you get it, you get it.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 667 other followers

%d bloggers like this: