Sunday, May 31, 2026

I Origins: A Nearly Perfect Movie

 


Weary of Netflix/Prime TV series about detectives pursuing serial murderers while trying to balance a tortured past, and simultaneously dealing with an adolescent daughter who feels neglected, The Phantom has decided to shift to feature length movies.

One can understand the necessity of the "elevator pitch" when scrolling through the hundreds, thousands of movie titles out there: there are simply so many movies made the producers and money men must be so overwhelmed and jaded that they want only a one sentence, or one paragraph "what it's about," which can be promulgated in the time it takes to ride the elevator from the ground floor to the penthouse suites.

Scrolling through the descriptions of movies under "Science Fiction" the picture for "I Origins" grabbed The Phantom, because the Phantom had once seen a shop in Montreal, where for $69 (Canadian) you could have your irises photographed and the posters on the sidewalks were arresting. 

Who knew irises could be so varied and wonderful? 

Well, apparently the AI folks who make iris recognition software knew.


$69 in Montreal


So, The Phantom gave "I Origins" a whirl, and was sucked in, not instantly, but pretty quickly. 

For one thing, how often do  you see a movie about a PhD working in a laboratory in Queens, New York?

And the reason he works on the evolution of the eye is established with celerity: People who disbelieve evolution point to the eye as the epitome of something in nature which had to require a creator; it is simply so complex and delicately fashioned it implies, like a watch found on a beach, an intelligent designer. So, if Dr. Ian Gray can prove that, like everything else in living organisms, the eye evolved from a precursor gene in animals without eyes, then he can demonstrate that this impossibly precise thing which implies a creator is just another fascinating result of genetic mutation and natural selection.

His obsession with eyes carries over outside the lab, in a very believable way--he is constantly taking high resolution photos of eyes, which works well for him at parties, and, in fact winds up getting him laid in a bathroom by a woman with beautiful, complex irises.

The acting is impeccable, the writing is astounding: The Phantom never completely understood Hemingway's remark that good writing is as much about what you leave out as what you decide to put in, until he watched "I Origins."




 

There are wonderful, subtle scenes, like the one where the good doctor arrives in the lab with the woman from the bathroom, Sofi, who he introduces to Karen, his lab co-worker, as his wife, although, in fact Sofi is only "spiritually" his wife because when they went to City Hall they were told they had to wait 24 hours. Karen is clearly, but quietly crushed to learn of Ian's wife, and it is our first real intimation that she has fallen in love with Ian herself. Nothing is said, but you can see it in the actors' faces. 

When Ian accidentally splashes formaldehyde in his eyes, he tells Sofi how to help him with the emergency eye rinse equipment, but Sofi is flummoxed, so he tells her to call Karen, who arrives and competently bails Ian out.  Sofi clearly feels upstaged and incompetent, and  Sofi later taunts Ian about Karen as someone he may like more than herself; again, the competition between the two women, of which Ian is oblivious is artfully done, but unmissable.

Good scripts should surprise you, and the big surprise is that as devastated as Ian is at Sofi's death, he ultimately reveals to Karen that he realized he did not, and never could love Sofi, no matter how infatuated or sexually aroused he was by her, because Sofi was a fey spiritualist, who believed they had known each other in a previous life, and Ian could never really love such a child ruled by such magical thinking.




Ultimately, the crucial scene for the sci fi explanation comes not between Ian and Karen, but with a woman he meets in India who asks Ian if he's religious, to which Ian says no, because religious people refuse to change their minds despite all evidence, no matter how overwhelming, that their beliefs are wrong. 

And the Indian lady, played by the wonderful Archie Panjabi, tells him a story about the Dalai Lama, who was asked what he would do if science could provide indisputable evidence his beliefs were wrong, and the Dalai Lama says, "First, I would re-examine the evidence, and if, at the end, I concluded it was correct and compelling, then I would change my beliefs."  

And Ian, the scientist says, "A good answer."

"So what would you do, if you were presented with compelling, undeniable evidence that your beliefs about past lives were wrong?"  Panjabi asks Ian evenly.

It's a climatic moment, as Ian has been caught in a trap: If you believe in data, in evidence and if you think a willingness to change belief, if only provisionally, is crucial, then you have to be willing to accept past lives if the evidence presents itself and is convincing.

The next set of surprises happens when Ian finally tracks down the possessor of the eyes in question and subjects her to a set of tests, which suggest that she is not from some past life after all, but he has to admit the tests may not be all that conclusive. 

Then a test presents itself which likely is conclusive, or at least highly suggestive.

It's a wonderful, artful, intelligent movie, acted brilliantly, directly deftly and brought to a strong end at just the right moment, leaving you with an hour or two of thinking about a lot of fascinating topics.

It does just what the best science fiction is capable of doing. 

Mike Cahill 


Its author and director is a man named Mike Cahill, who, oddly enough attended Georgetown University while The Phantom was on the medical school faculty there, but The Phantom never heard of him until now. He got his start working for National Geographic films, not by going to a school of film at UCLA or USC or Tisch/ NYU. He says his favorite sci fi films include "Another Earth" and "The Double Life of Veronique." 

You can  bet the Phantom will be searching out those flicks.




Friday, April 24, 2026

Alex Pretti Is Still Dead



And so is Renee Good.


But who can remember?



So is that kid in the photo from Kent State, lying in the street, shot  by National Guard on campus. That kid was not even in the protest, just walking by.



(For that matter, so was the black man in the photo of the the police dog which became famous.)



This is what state terrorism, in other words, state totalitarianism, looks like.

Sieg!




Heil!

At the Democratic "forum" in Portsmouth last week no questions were asked of the six Democrats seeking the nomination to run for Congress about Alex Pretti or Renee Good. Last month's news. (Actually, February's news.) So, ICE, government murders caught on video, not really a topic any more. That was so last February. "Qualified immunity," they call it. Police are above the law. Police are the law. They were just following orders. The Democrats do not debate any of this in their "forums." The Democrats here in New Hampshire do not debate. They have forums, which sounds less confrontational. And the last thing we want in New Hampshire is confrontation. Or discord. Or to be reminded that maybe, just down the road, ICE will construct a "detention center." Arbeit Macht Frie. Nobody's seen ICE round these parts lately, anyway. No way they might come back. And for damn sure, nobody wants to be reminded of all that unpleasantness.

Or, for that matter: Remember Ukraine? Remember when we were upset about the Russians trying to do to Ukraine what the Israelis did to Gaza? So unpleasant. Better to not talk about it. 

Remember her?

 

You May Say That I Ain't Free


So, oh, well. Move on to the next outrage. The CDC refuses to publish a report showing the most recent COVID vaccine reduced hospitalizations. The US Navy is stopping ships as part of the war against Iran nobody voted for. Secretary of Treasury defends bribes from Qatar to the Trump family. What are a couple of deaths of some Midwestern middle class people, really? 

But It Don't Worry Me


Just bury my heart at Minneapolis and move on.

What?


Custer died for our sins. Who did Alex Pretti and Renee Good die for?

Me Worry?


Don't be a martyr.

As the Bard said,

Don't follow leaders

Watch the parkin' meters.

Look out kid

They keep it all hid

Better jump down a manhole

Light yourself a candle.


The price of bread may worry some
But it don’t worry me
Tax relief may never come
But it don’t worry me

Economy’s depressed, not me
My spirit’s high as it can be
And you may say that I ain’t free
But it don’t worry me

It don’t worry me
It don’t worry me
You may say that I ain’t free
But it don’t worry me

They say this train don’t give out rides
Well, it don’t worry me
The whole world is taking sides
But it don’t worry me

'Cause in my empire life is sweet
Oh, just ask any beau you meet
And life may be a one-way street
But it don’t worry me

It don’t worry me
It don’t worry me
You may say that I ain’t free
But it don’t worry me

--Keith Carradine, "Nashville" (the movie)

Thursday, April 23, 2026

Guillermo Rodriguez Cringe

 

As a bone fide Youtube addict and a fan (mostly) of Jimmy Kimmel, who is the most effective Trump defiant late night comedian left standing, now that Stephen Colbert has been run out of town, the Phantom finds himself in a peculiar and disorienting position.



Kimmel is wonderful when skewering Trump, but he has this bizarre, disturbing twitch in the form of a short, portly, determinedly vapid "sidesick," whose range of responses whenever Kimmel turns to him and asks, "Isn't that right, Guillermo?" covers the space all the way from A to B.  

Guillermo responds, almost no matter what the question, with a sprightly, "That's right, Jimmy!" and claps his hands and beams brightly as if he has just been told he has won the nursery school prize for precocious behavior. 

What is most disturbing is the look behind his eyes which clearly tells you he has no idea what is going on and he is desperate to cover up that void of understanding with a laugh so pathetic it could deflate blimps. 

When I first started watching Kimmel, years ago, I thought Guillermo was one of those Down's syndrome kids who load up groceries into cars outside supermarkets, but he clearly does not have Down's and most Down's kids function at an intellectual level way higher than Guillermo. And, in any case, those kids are doing useful service, and nobody feels sorry for them because they are doing a service, most often cheerfully, and we are all happy to see them thriving.

But Guillermo is an object of pity, or should be, and his incongruous laugh, as he clearly is almost never in on the joke, is so pitiable it is dreadfully sad. 

It's as if Kimmel has found a really low functioning mentally retarded (--oh, sorry, politically incorrect--cognitively challenged) child and Kimmel is making him the butt of jokes by asking him if he gets Jimmy's point, which poor Guillermo never does, but then responds with a bright faced, "Thaaat's right, Jimmy!" and everyone in the audience laughs and claps and Guillermo thinks he's done good, and is very pleased with himself.

It is beyond cringe worthy, and it is completely baffling.

Why is Guillermo on that stage?

Why is it okay we are laughing at him, not with him?

On Reddit, people describe this as "racist," but the Phantom thinks they are wrong. We are not laughing at Guillermo because he is  Hispanic, or because he speaks with an accent. He's not funny because he is representing some idea of a stupid Mexican. Spanish accents are not stupid. Sophia Vergara has a Spanish accent, but she is sly, funny and enormously attractive. Guillermo is not sly, or funny or even attractive. He is just lost at sea, every night, clinging to a stool on the stage, wondering when the roof will fall in on him. He is perpetually confused, and unable to get the joke. We are not seeing him as a representative of Mexico. We are seeing him as a representative of a person of no intelligence, but his dumb and dumber affect is not sharp enough to be funny. 

He is more like a cuddly Labrador. No, he doesn't have a Lab's intelligence. He is more like an eager to please, anxious, child.  So he desperately clings to Jimmy, hoping Jimmy will never turn on him.

We are asked to laugh at him because he is not smart enough to get the joke, which strikes the Phantom as simply cruel, the ultimate in what mean girls do to the outsider, as they all laugh as someone or something, and the outsider laughs too, hoping to be accepted as part of the group, but everyone can see the outsider hasn't the foggiest about what is funny, and can never be accepted as anything but the stupid kid. So the mean girls get to ridicule the object of their scorn and they get to ridicule the object which tries to join the scorn club, but never can. 

Very disturbing.


Sunday, March 29, 2026

Thinking Alike: Fauvism or Just Color?

 

Gaugain lived with Van Gogh for a short time, until Van Gogh went truly stark raving mad, but both men agreed Van Gogh learned a lot about color from Gaugain.

Gabrielle Munter learned about color from Kandinsky, and the Fauvism experiment of Matisse and De Rain reflected the use of saturated color, said to express emotion rather than to reflect reality had its day.

But what of the man who paints as a hermit, who has not hung out with any of these artists, although their work is now available to anyone with a computer, but what of the guy who simply paints and then is told, "Oh, that's like Munter. Go check her out."? 

If he has never seen Munter or Matisse's Fauvism phase or DeRain, can an artist have "unconsciously" absorbed the elements by simply seeing their downstream effects?

Painters, for generations, were taught to paint by sending them to museums and plopping them down before the work of a master and instructing them to copy. The sight of those students was commonplace. That was not considered plagiarism, but learning.

In the March 10 New Yorker, Anthony Lane writes about plagiarism in music--Did George Harrison unconsciously plagiarize a three note riff from "He's So Fine," for his "My Sweet Lord," as a judge later wrote that he did?

If we unconsciously plagiarize three notes, or a style of short sentences or long sentences connected by "and's" and "but's" should we be sued and chastised, sued and said to have expropriated, acted unfairly? 

And what is language but imitation? And what is the difference between imitation and appropriation?

Of course artificial intelligence "learns" by reviewing the work of others, and incorporating that into an essay. Is that plagiarism? When we learn language as a two year old, are we not plagiarizing other people's thoughts and words? Are we not doing as we learn new languages just what AI is doing? 

Somehow, the visual arts seem less bound by the idea of plagiarism. In fact, the ability of an artist to render a "likeness" of a human face or a scene has been celebrated as a skill and as art.  Then photography came along and really stole images. Now, people argue about the rights of a sidewalk photographer to photograph someone without their permission. Some primitives, seeing a photograph were aghast and claimed the photographer had stolen their souls.

Sometimes, for fun, it's an exercise to simply see where people arrive, even if the road there is not clear.

So now, at the risk of displaying paintings which resemble each other in a way some may stamp "plagiarism," the Phantom provides:


Youngblood


DeRain



Youngblood


DeRain



Youngblood



Matisse



Youngblood




Youngblood




Matisse




Youngblood




Matisse



Youngblood





Youngblood



DeRain





Youngblood




DeRain




Youngblood





Gaugain




Munter



Youngblood




Munter  





Youngblood



Gaugain



Munter



Youngblood




On Marrying A Princeton Man

 


Susan Patton, Princeton '77, wrote a letter to the Princetonian campus newspaper in 2013 advising women to find their husbands in the fertile pastures of the Princeton campus because they would never again find the concentration of men worthy of them, men intelligent, driven, competent, daring and quality enough to qualify as  spouse material.

Happy Hunting Grounds


Of course, uproar ensued, 

What she was saying was unromantic, of course, but to her mind, eminently practical--as a matchmaker in the 19th century Jewish shtetls might have said, you are looking for quality and potential. Love is just so hopelessly romantic and really, a big con.

Ms. Patton argued that once women left Princeton to swim in a sea diluted by lesser lights, and pursued a career there would be far diminished chances of meeting Mr. Right.

Susan Patton, Princeton '77


The storm she provoked had much to do with the idea that the Ivy League, and not just the Ivy League, but Princeton, was peopled by people who thought themselves superior to others much as British aristocracy thought itself peopled by superior people selected in the case of the Brits not by meritocracy but by bloodlines, which, as in race horses, simply bred for the proper traits. The Brits thought themselves selected by God; the Princeton crowd was selected by the SAT exam.


Fiddler on the Roof: Celestial Match-making



Of course, she was writing at a time when Michelle Obama (Princeton '85)  was calling the White House home, and she managed to fine a pretty good husband who did not go to Princeton, but then again, she was Black and somehow I do not think Ms. Patton was thinking much about Black Princeton women when she gave her advice.


Ms. Patton insisted she was not saying marrying outside the faith, marrying someone say, from Harvard, was the problem; she was simply arguing that when you think about the places where you are likely to find a good husband, the chances are your best selection will occur while you are still at Princeton. 

It turns out the whole marry-a-Princeton-man was not entirely an amusing kerfuffle--some people actually took this seriously. And they were not thinking about playing the odds about where you are most likely to succeed in finding a good catch,  but they were morphing Princeton into a new tribal identity.

The Phantom's son mentioned a woman in his medical school class who had gone to Princeton, who had boyfriends amongst her Columbia P&S classmates, but she really never consider marrying anyone who had not graduated from Princeton.

"You're kidding, of course," the Phantom said.

"Not at all," the son reported. "She had gone to the magnet school at Montgomery Blair High School, then Princeton, now Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, but marrying someone who had not gone to Princeton would be like a Jewess marrying outside her faith, just sacrilegious. In fact, this woman happened to be Jewish, but marrying a Jew meant nothing to her. The real proscription was against marrying a non-Princeton guy." 

And thinking in his own generation, the Phantom realized he had seen something which might have explained the mystifying behavior of a medical resident he knew.  He  had a girlfriend for whom everyone envied him-- a nurse. She was beautiful, whip smart and a sort of queen bee of the medical center, and she was crazy about him. But, in the end, he dropped her and married a woman who had gone to Princeton. The nurse went to an Ivy League nursing school, but in nursing, and, at any rate, not to Princeton. 

In 2013, when Ms. Patton was writing,  likely significantly more than half of the women graduating Princeton went on to graduate school, if not immediately, then eventually, where, very possibly another happy hunting ground for husbands, pre selected for quality might prevail. So maybe Princeton women did not need to pull the trigger quite so soon. They could, like the Phantom's son's friend, wait, go off to medical school, but they must always return to marry within the tribe.


Matchmaker...If I were a Rich Man!


When the Phantom went to college, age 17-22, he was in no frame of mind to consider marrying anyone; he was simply too young and inexperienced.  In fact, the very experience of having a college girlfriend convinced him marriage was a very unsound idea. As the years passed, it struck him that there was "love," or more accurately, women and sex, which had to do with desire, and sometimes even emotion, and then there was the marriage contract, where you negotiated with a woman for a long-term partnership which committed you to share child raising (a very expensive commitment), home buying, wealth building, vacation planning, heath care and obligations for family gatherings, weddings, funerals etc.

Women, it was pretty clear did not look at men, at least in the world of the hospital culture in which the Phantom lived, in the same way men looked at women. Men looked at women as sex objects, who got boring quickly if they turned out to be dumb. Women looked at men as a source of economic advancement, of social security, much the way women in Jane Austen's time did.  Among hospital women, there were more and less promising males--surgeons were going to be richer than physicians, and some specialists were going to be richer than others--better find a cardiologist than a pediatrician.

Which is not to say personality did not matter, or kindness or intelligence or humor, but basically women could find a lot more signs of all that in a guy who was going to be rich.

Terri Gibbs


So, there was the cult thing surrounding Princeton, but even if you were not captive of that particular oddity, the enduring, cross cultural dictate came down to money, as embodied in the hard edged ode from Terry Gibbs,  which echoed Marilyn Monroe's "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend," but for Gibbs it was "Rich Man."

"My mamma said girl I can see that you're a woman

There's something that I want you to know

You got to get yourself a rich man

You got to marry you a rich man

You gotta live your life if you wanna be a wife

I know you got to have love

But it's just as easy lovin' you a rich man

You got to get yourself a rich man

If you're a poor man's wife

You'll live a poor man's life

You can never get your hands on a dime

And you can sing the blues

And you can pay your dues but you can never pay the rent on time

But there ain't no reason for doing without 

If you're married to the man who's got the dollar in his hand."

So, in one sense, Ms. Patton had it right: Marriage is not about romance, but it is a practical partnership with a person you project just might grow on you, but at least who won't bore you and leave you asking yourself: What did I get myself into here? 

What was I thinking? 



Wednesday, March 25, 2026

Ineffable: Knowing It When You See It





 "I cannot define obscenity, but I know it when I see it."

That line comes from Justice Potter Stewart's opinion in Jacobellis v Ohio, in which he held a movie in question was not "hard core pornography."

He did not actually use that exact phrase, but it has been a reasonable and widely used paraphrase ever since, as it says that some things are hard to define but that doesn't mean we cannot make a judgment.

Flower Bed Porch, Obadiah Youngblood


The same is very much true for paintings and music.

People make good livings writing and talking about artworks--what makes Van Gogh exceptional? I cannot say, but I know he is. 

Gabrielle Munter 


But the same is true for other artists, who in their own way are just as stunning, although less known.  Gabrielle Munter's paintings adorned the Phantom's previous blog post and they are wonderful, but why the Phantom is at a loss to explain.

Gabrielle Munter


So is Andre DeRain, whose paintings are shown with this post, and so is August Macke. 


Andre DeRain


Munter, Macke, DeRain were orbiting the art world in overlapping orbits, although how much each influenced the others is beyond Mad Dog's ken.  Munter lived for a time with Kadinsky, a Russian artist, who became her lover after he became her art teacher. 

Andre DeRain


They are all wonderful, and they bear a familial resemblance, but like siblings and cousins, they are distinct, not clones or twins.


Andre De Rain