How to view the body

I watched this Youtube last night (from a channel full of stories of odd or surprising aspects of Japanese history) about how it was quite the thing for a while for Buddhist monks to contemplate artwork of deceased and decaying women as a remedy for feeling sexual attraction towards them (while alive, I hasten to add!) 

 

I presume this tactic did not originate in Japan:  I recall a scene in the movie Samsara, set in Tibet I think, where a monk tried to bring back a fellow monk from abandoning the religious life for a woman by showing him a book which (if I recall correctly) allowed erotic drawings of intercourse to devolve in subsequent pages into corpses having sex.  (!)

Here's some of what Wikipedia says on the topic of Buddhism and the body:

Revulsion

Though perhaps less concerned with issues of purity and pollution than the Brahmanist tradition, certain views of the body recorded in Buddhist scriptures do depict the body as unwholesome and potentially an object of disgust.^[1] This is the “unwantedness” of a body in the tradition of Buddhism identified by some scholars.^[5] Reflecting on the loathsomeness of the body is considered to be a particularly powerful method for countering attachment to sensual pleasures, such as sexuality or pride in appearance.^[1] Stories recorded in scriptures and in the biographies of Buddhist teachers particularly focus on the contemplation of the foulness of the female body as a remedy for sexual desire in a male religious practitioner.^[1]

Value

In contrast to views of the body as disgusting or a source of unworthy desire, the Buddhist tradition does speak of the value of the body in the context of the preciousness of human birth, and the value of a healthy body as an aid to pursuing the Buddhist path.^[1] While contemplating the repulsiveness of the body is considered to be a powerful remedy for sensual attachment, this is a therapeutic perspective that is not necessarily intended to be carried over into other areas of life.^[1] In particular, the suitability of the human body for the pursuit of religious practice is praised in traditional sources, comparing favorably with the capacities of birth among the gods or the various chthonic realms.^[1]

 It's quite the balancing act, then.  Just as it still is in India today.  From a story on BBC News today:

"I can be naked in front of a thousand people… It's just that they get uncomfortable," Bollywood star Ranveer Singh told the Paper magazine recently.

That is exactly what happened when Singh recently posed nude for a photo spread in the same magazine. Social media exploded with both appreciation and indignation - but mostly the latter. Memes and jokes making fun of the pictures abounded; and many accused the actor of denigrating men. If this was not enough, a police complaint was lodged against him for "hurting the sentiments of women".

Singh is not your traditional male star. He's endlessly energetic, flamboyant and embraces a frothy fashion style - velvet pants, sequin turtlenecks, jewellery - that Vogue magazine calls a "positive nod to the non-binary fluidity that fashion today is embracing".

In other words, says Paper, Singh has "challenged practically every stereotype of masculinity in a still-traditionalist Indian society".

"He has an ideal kind of male body. But he dresses on the border of androgyny. He is not rigid and openly talks about sex. He doesn't fit in the notion of masculinity in India. That is causing a lot of anxiety, and also making a lot of men uncomfortable," says Rahul Sen, who's doing his doctoral dissertation on literature and sexuality at Tufts University.

The article goes on to note the odd Indian mix of attitudes to the body, where being nude in public as a way of a holy man showing a spiritual disconnect from material things is fine, but for sexual appreciation, is disturbing (despite the temples covered in depictions of sex):

The differing reactions to Singh are illustrative of what some call India's "wild moral confusion", where people harbour a strange mix of conservative and liberal attitudes. The most graphic examples of erotic temple art can be found in many small-town shrines. One of the world's oldest textbooks of erotic love, Kama Sutra, is from India. Model and dancer Protima Bedi streaked on a Mumbai beach in 1974 for a film magazine cover. Nudity is not uncommon: thousands of ash-smeared Hindu holy men belonging to a cult turn up naked at religious festivals like the Kumbh Mela.  

This made me think how it's also a little odd that Judaism has a reputation for being an 'earthy' religion, where the body and food for it are not to be disdained at all: 

In the Jewish tradition there is no absolute division between material and spiritual, body and soul. According to the Hebrew Bible, the human body expresses divine reality and is a key to divine knowledge. As the Bible states, “From my flesh, I will perceive God.” (Job 19):

Before his expulsion from Eden, Adam’s body shone like the sun and was capable of living forever. Only as a result of eating from the Tree of Knowledge did God “place His hand on man and shrink him”. This changed to skin the body of light which en-clothed him, making it subject to death. One of the goals of Jewish spirituality is to reverse this process: to perfect the body and make it shine.

Judaism’s ultimate goal is not to transcend the physical, but to make for God a dwelling place in the lower worlds. This brings the divine into the physical world. Judaism’s ideal is the soul fully inhabiting the body, not the soul liberated from the body.

And yet, it has also always viewed nudity as shameful:

Oddly, I would say that modern secular Japan, and Scandinavia, with their casual acceptance (indeed celebration) of communal bathing in a non sexual context - seem to hit a happy medium towards attitudes to bodies - not to be seen as awful and corrupting, but something normal, if sometimes still a little embarrassing.   I don't think the Japanese can be accused of the over-promotion of female or male bodies either - I don't think they equate big muscles as a masculine ideal still, nor do I think that their female pop stars ever emphasise their sexual features in dress like some Western ones do.  

Anyway, it's not that I have any particular new insight into this topic - I just remain pleasantly puzzled as to how religious and cultural attitudes towards bodies is such a complicated thing.

More for us, I guess, but I still feel sorry for our wineries

It's rare that I would deem a tweet from The Australian worthy of this quality blog, but here we go:

That's...some turnaround.  I guess I don't feel the same sympathy for something like a mining giant that suddenly loses a market; but agriculture (and wine production in particular) feels like such a human scale enterprise that it seems more personal to hear them hit by unexpected geopolitics.

Judaism and personhood

Slate still occasionally throws up interesting articles, between the salacious allegedly true sex/relationship advice bits.

This one, for example:  What We Can All Learn From How Jewish Law Defines Personhood in A.I., Animals, and Aliens.

Cool!

Here are some key paragraphs:

For many rabbis, humans are valuable whether or not they are unique; not only could other beings share some of our “essential” human characteristics, but a few actually do. Rather than protectively shrinking from this expanded notion of humanity, rabbis have historically been very open to the idea of nonhuman sentience and have tended to see parallels between humans and nonhumans as an excuse to treat nonhumans better.

Evidence for this position isn’t hard to find. Take demons, for example. In rabbinic literature demons are not inherently evil; they are mortal beings with agency, sometimes imagined as the unintended offspring of human beings, and their existence doesn’t pose existential threats to human value. The rabbis also record the existence of an animal called “the man of the field,” which so resembled human beings (one modern rabbi speculated that it was an orangutan) that its corpse is afforded some of the dignity of human dead, and medieval German rabbis talked about vampires and werewolves—sometimes even reading them into the Bible—without any concern about what their existence might entail.

As for beings that aren’t imaginary, Jewish thinkers—like many modern animal rights groups—have tended to value them on a gradient, with animals above plants and plants above inanimate objects. The reason for this, in some strains of thoughts, is that all of these creations are ensouled; the human soul has extra pieces, but it shares much with other beings. In both the Bible and the Talmud, people are regularly criticized for treating animals badly, with the critique occasionally coming from the animals themselves....

The most powerful example of all is the golem. The medieval golem isn’t a proto-robot, and it isn’t a parable about uncontrolled power. Instead, it’s something far more radical: It is a person, one who is brought into existence for the sole purpose of demonstrating that humans, like God, are powerful enough to create life. That humans and golems are essentially the same is the whole point; humans, for the rabbis, are also an artificial intelligence; the first being to be called a golem is Adam. Instead of diminishing human value, the possibility of making golems asks that people appreciate their true power and act accordingly.

Discussions about aliens, golems, and animals occupy very different parts of Jewish thought.
What brings them together is the belief that human value is axiomatic, and that it is precisely because of the unassailability of our value that our instinct should be toward expanding the idea of what is human when we recognize it in others. This idea has a very important corollary: because human value is the basis for valuing these near-humans, the latter can never supersede the former in importance. In other words, this model both allows us to be generous with the idea of humanity while resolving concerns that our own status will become diminished in the process.

 

Russian naval history noted

I possibly may have heard something about this disastrous Russian naval expedition before, but this video account of it is pretty amusing, and it seems appropriate to hear the story of historic Russian incompetence in light of its recent, less than stellar, naval performance:

Odd marketing

The oddest thing I reckon about this "Manly gay pride jersey" story is that to me, the rainbow stripes don't even obviously suggest the gay pride flag:

 

The horizontal banding reminds me more of the Centrum vitamin branding, which has been in a use a long, long time:

Ok, well, the colour order is different, but the stripes on the jersey play with the colour order anyway - with for some reason the bottom strips being different to the top strips.  But was that a deliberate ploy of the marketers, to make it look not conclusively like the gay flag?    A sort of "plausible deniability" for players who aren't so keen on being associated with gay pride? 

Maybe I have spent too much time looking at vitamins at Chemist Warehouse recently, but Centrum would still have come to mind if the media hadn't told me first. 

Certainly believes in cementing his reputation...

...as the laziest and worst Prime Minister in recent history:

   

Putting psychedelic therapy in its place

Hey, I like it when Australian public broadcasting takes up an issue and unexpectedly doesn't take (what might be called) the squishy Left line on the topic.  It happened a couple of months ago when SBS did an Insight episode on trans women in sport, which (surprise!) featured a preponderance of people who argued that it was indeed unfair for former men to become women's sport champions by becoming women.   

And last night it happened when Four Corners looked at psychedelic therapy, and actually focused on some pretty strange people who are at the forefront of promoting it in Australia.  (Some Canada therapists came out of it looking bad, too.) 

In fact, one would have to suspect that the people who appeared were more or less ambushed - thinking that surely the ABC will take the sympathetic line that this is a type of therapy that only stick-in-the-mud conservatives are arguing against, only to find they about to come out of their participation looking somewhat nutty and not entirely trustworthy.

In fact, why did the guy who takes people out on 8 hour bushwalks after taking (I think) peyote agree to appear at all, including showing him distributing an illegal drug?  I mean, the worst aspect of his dubious exercise was that he admitted that he (at least sometimes) takes the drug at the start of the bushwalk too - so much for having someone sober to lead them out of the wilderness if an emergency happens.  

Anyway, least I be criticised for my conservativism on the issue, I wouldn't want to stop all research into the therapeutic use of psychedelics.  It's just that I think it needs to be extremely cautious, and not taken over by people with a missionary zeal,  as the use of these drugs has been around long enough to take a reasonable guess that they are going to be of limited use and benefit, and very unlikely to be some kind of mental health universal panacea. 

A complicated movie

I watched No Sudden Move on Netflix on the weekend - the recent movie directed by Steven Soderbergh and written by Ed Solomon (Men in Black, amongst many other likeable credits.)

It's well directed, well acted, looks really good, and things are always happening;  the only problem is, it does take too long to understand what the movie is really all about.  I mean, on one level, I did admire the complexity of the screenplay - it  keeps half a dozen balls in the air all the time, and is written very realistically, so that it's like how overhearing conversations in real life often presents a puzzle as to what is being discussed.  But it's a fine line to walk, and at certain points, it does verge towards "this is requiring too much concentration. And can some character just explain to another what's going on?"

In general atmosphere, it reminded me both of Mad Men (which I haven't watched, but by reputation, its full of adultery, smoking and drinking, as is this movie) and some of the Fargo TV series (general gangster world vibe).

It's enjoyable enough, but....

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

As this article explains, it is a completely fictional story that is spun around one true life corporate scandal.   That's a little disappointing, because while it never claims directly to be "based on a true story" or even "inspired by real life events", the explanation at the end of the film gives the impression that there probably is some truth to the key crime that takes up, like, the first half of the movie.   It feels like it should be at least an elaboration of some true life event, but it turns out it isn't.

Oh well - I guess if I had known that at the start, it would have saved the disappointment.

The cow problem

I love milk and cheese, and there's no way I'm giving them up, but the issue of how the industry deals with calves does give ethical doubts.

From a recent story at the ABC, which is an odd mix of sort of good, and sort of bad, news:

* Dairy Australia says 300,000 calves were slaughtered at five days of age during the 2021 financial year

• It says that number is down from 450,000 calves

 It is common practice on the majority Australian dairy farms for calves to be separated from cows within 24 hours of birth.

The calves are then taken to rearing facility or another shed and fed milk by farmers.

A percentage of female calves will stay on farm to be used as replacement heifers, and the remaining become surplus and are used for beef production.

Calves under 30 days old are known as bobby calves and must be at least five days old before they leave the farm.

Dairy Australia animal welfare national lead Sarah Bolton said the number of bobby calves going to slaughter in Australia was dropping.

"More and more dairy farms are looking to increase the number of calves raised for mature beef production, as opposed to slaughtering them as bobby calves," Dr Bolton said....

Dr Bolton, who is also a veterinarian, said there were several key reasons to separate calves and cows soon after birth.

"The first is the management of colostrum," Dr Bolton said.

"Dairy calves are born without a functioning immune system and rely on their first milk, which we call colostrum, to receive their immune system."

She said data showed that if left to suckle the cow on their own, at least 40 per cent of calves wouldn't get enough, which left them without an adequate immune system.

"We also have good data that shows the longer we leave a calf with a cow, the more stressful it is when we do separate them," Dr Bolton said.

Hmm.

That colostrum story sounds a bit suspiciously convenient for farmers who just want to get the calves separated and off to the slaughterhouse as soon as possible.

The story featured a small scale Victorian dairy farmer who says she doesn't separate the calves from the mothers,  although doing so seemingly halves the amount of milk that can be taken by the farmer.

Dr Bolton goes on to explain:

Dr Bolton said the industry was always looking at the issue of calf and cow separation and early life slaughter as public values evolved.

"The practice of culling calves at five days of age hasn't been undertaken because dairy farmers want to, or because it's particularly appealing for anyone," she said.

"It's been largely motivated by the fact those calves have historically not been seen as economically viable for beef production as a result of their genetics being selected for milk production.

"But the great news is as a result of research and innovation we are getting better at breeding dairy calves for beef production.

This article at The Guardian talks about "ethical dairy" methods:

The calves still need to be separated after weaning at around five months, a process Finlay and his new herdsman Charles Ellett have learned to manage by starting off with overnight periods of separation first.

“That first day we don’t open the gates in the morning though there is a huge outcry from the calves and cows,” says Finlay, who has got round it by introducing a surrogate mother – usually an older cow not producing much milk. They then use this cow to lead all the calves into a field on the other side of the farm to settle them.

The initial period of overnight separation helps create social bonds between the calves, says Finlay, making the final separation easier. The female calves will then stay on the farm to become milking cows, while the male calves are sold after five to seven months to produce veal.

And there's an argument that the early separation is actually less stressful:

Academic researchers say early separation within 24 hours has been found in some cases to reduce distress for both beef and dairy cows and calves, although the evidence for dairy calves is still inconclusive. “The faster you break the bond [between cow and calf] the fewer vocalisations you are going to get from calves,” says Marina Von Keyserlingk, a professor in animal welfare at the University of British Columbia.

Helen Browning, dairy farmer and CEO of the organic trade body the Soil Association, separates her calves and cows within 24 hours, but then keeps them with a surrogate mother cow who has been retired or rested from the dairy herd. Under organic standards, calves are separated from their mothers after birth, but are always kept in groups and must be given cow’s milk for their first 12 weeks.

“Calves hate being weaned and cows hate their calves being taken away, whether after one day or five months. But it is better to do it before a bond has developed. In nature cows would live together as a family with cows and their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, so we are already interfering a lot with that family process,” she says.

I don't know - killing animals within days of birth seems a waste of pregnancy and birth.  Same as I don't care for baby roosters going straight into the grinder at an egg farm.   Seems you should let something that has gone through birth at least a chance to see what life's about.   Is 6 months enough?  I guess they are being killed while they're cow teenagers.   Is that better or worse than being killed as a 7 day old calve?   This is complicated.  But if the calves are with their mother for 6 months, then that's better for the mother.  Isn't it?   

I wish someone would get on with making lab milk - not plant milk, but something pretty much identical to dairy milk.   They're working on it, but it seems to be taking too long...

 

Happy Friday thoughts

*  I'm not at Splendour in the Grass.   Never seen the appeal at being at a massive outdoor music festival where you stand a good chance of either sunburn or being in a mudbath.  Each to their own, I guess.

*  Someone on Twitter posted about this dress this morning, and it is very stylish, and very old.  (Apparently, the string was mostly gone, so it is a restoration of how it is believed to have originally looked.)  But were there any undergarments at all?:

*  Lots of publicity being given to the claim that in fact, low levels of serotonin in the brain are not shown to be the cause of depression.   While I haven't read much about it yet, I would have thought that proper blind trials would have been done to show that selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors are of benefit for some people, and if can rule out a placebo effect, they must be doing something?   Is this happy news?   No, not really.   But it's interesting, at least.

Electric bus type things coming to Brisbane

I don't know who this guy is who has made this video, which is obviously very supportive of the Brisbane Council's plan for improving public transport with electric long bus things (the first of which is apparently currently undergoing testing), but I do have the say, the whole system and idea sounds pretty impressive: 

 

I like the way the "buses" recharge themselves, too (see at the 3min 50 sec mark in the video). Another video indicated they are made in Switzerland. We can trust the Swiss not to use batteries that blow up, can't we?

When the Holocaust came to Paris - updated

It surprises me a little to realise that there are people still alive with cogent memories of World War 2, but this article from France 24 has interviews with 6 people who were kids when this terrible incident occurred:

Over two days in the summer of 1942, French police carried out Western Europe’s largest wartime roundup of Jews, acting on orders from occupying German forces and their French allies in the Vichy Regime.

On July 16 and 17 of that year, a total of 12,884 Jews – men, women and children – were snatched from their homes in Paris and in neighbouring suburbs. Some were taken directly to an internment camp in Drancy, northeast of the capital. The rest were crammed into the Vélodrome d’Hiver, a stadium located on the banks of the Seine in the 15th arrondissement (district) of Paris, which would give its name to this sinister chapter in French history.

This reminded me about a book I mentioned back in 2007:  a biography of a French sleazy character who profited greatly out of adopting Nazi anti-Semitism.   I don't think I ever fully finished the book, actually, but I think I got through most of it.  I should find it on the shelf and check it out again.

An interesting way to fictional success

At the Washington Post, a story about how fictional stories that have started on Reddit have met with success.

America has some problems (part 1,000)

I keep saying that, like Noah Smith, I am basically optimist about America eventually getting over its current problems, but news like this makes you wonder:

And this:

Takeaways: Overdose rates were highest in areas with the most treatment options available, in 25 states and the District of Columbia, where data was available, the report found.

• "Just because there's availability of services doesn't meant they're necessarily accessible," Mbabazi Kariisa, a CDC health scientist, told reporters.
• Systemic racism, income inequality, and lack of reliable housing, transportation and health insurance all play a role in why drug overdoses are disproportionately affecting Black and Native American people, CDC officials said.

By the numbers: In 2020, there were 91,799 Americans who died of a drug overdose, according to HHS, and from 2019 to 2020 overdose rates increased the most among teens and young adults.

• Black youths and young adults ages 15 to 24 years old experienced the largest overdose death rate increase at 86%.
• Native American people ages 25 to 44 years old saw an increase of 49% in the rate of overdose deaths.
• White people ages 15 to 24 years old had a 34% increase in overdose death rate.

Foolish old people watch

areff says:

July 20, 2022 at 3:39 pm

Daughter-in-law is pregnant and due in September. Just heard from my son that the baby, as revealed by sonogram, has an aortic stenosis. It’s apparently a mild case and, if surgery is needed, it’s a tried and true procedure.

So I ask the fruit of my lines when his wife got her COVID jabs.

Pause on the line, then this:

“Yeah, I thought of that and I figure she was jabbed around conception time.”

Another pause.

“And then she got another about three months later on doctor’s advice”

Jeez.

Which was followed by this supportive comment:

Old bloke says:

July 20, 2022 at 4:01 pm

areff says:
July 20, 2022 at 3:39 pm

Serious question, why aren’t we seeing people hanging from the street lamps yet?

Meanwhile, neither of these geezers, I am sure, think anything is significant about England having its first 40 degree day yesterday. 

Yes I know, cranky old fools who think they know better have been with us always.   The problem is, the internet now lets them find each other and mutually reinforce their dangerous and obnoxious beliefs.  

And what's worse - people like Rupert Murdoch and Tucker Carlson make a worldwide career out of pandering to them.    I honestly don't think there is enough daily outrage about this pathetic and dangerous man:

Update:  a bitter truth - 

 

The problems of cannibalism

From a story at Science, handily listing the main problems with cannibalism:

Eating your own kind is fairly common throughout the animal world, from single-celled amoebas to salamanders, he and his colleagues report in a new review in Ecology. But not as many species snack on their brethren as one might expect—and the team has detailed the reasons why.

First off, cannibalism is risky. If you’ve got dangerous claws and teeth, so do your comrades. Female praying mantises are notorious for biting the heads off of much smaller males during mating, for example, but they also occasionally go toe to toe with an evenly matched female. “I’ve seen one female chew the leg off another,” Rosenheim says, “and then the female who lost the leg somehow manages to kill the other one.”

Cannibalism is also dicey from a disease perspective. Many pathogens are host specific, so if a cannibal devours an infected companion, it risks picking up the same disease. Different populations of humans have found this out the hard way multiple times. One of the most famous examples is the spread of a rare and fatal brain disease called kuru that ravaged the Fore people of New Guinea in the 1950s. Kuru raged across the Fore community through a cannibalistic funerary ritual in which families cooked and ate the flesh—including contaminated brain tissue—of deceased relatives. Once the Fore phased the ritual out, the spread of kuru was stopped in its tracks.

Finally, cannibalism is a terrible way to pass down one’s genes. “From an evolutionary perspective, the last thing you want to do is eat your offspring,” Rosenheim says. That’s a major reason big-eyed bugs limit their population sizes by snacking on their own offspring. If they grow too numerous—as happened with the aphid experiments—they deposit eggs all over the place. And because they can’t recognize their own eggs, they end up devouring their own brood.

Oh, so there's a cannibalism hormone?:

Although cannibalism is far from ideal, certain conditions appear to make the risky behavior worthwhile. Even if you’re eating a friend—or an heir—if you’re starving, you’ve got to protect your survival, says Erica Wildy, an ecologist at California State University, East Bay, who was not involved with the study. In her own work, Wildy has found that hunger makes long-toed salamander larvae more likely to nibble on—and occasionally eat—one another.

In their review, Rosenheim and his colleagues pinpoint specific hormones—octopamine in invertebrates and epinephrine in vertebrates—that appear to be linked to increasing rates of cannibalism. As conditions become crowded and food becomes scarce, the amounts of these hormones spike and “hangry” animals attack whatever they can snatch with jaws, legs, or pincers.

Huh.

Political comedy considered, again

Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey notes that Stephen Colbert ran with Biden age jokes (and attacked him for the Saudi visit) the other night.   He starts:

Has Joe Biden become so unpopular that late-night comics might actually move away from their clapter production and start being funny again? Bill Maher made this transition months ago, but the rest of the late-night comics have been as loathe to target Biden for pointed political jokes as they were with Barack Obama. Or so it has seemed, anyway; late-night TV comedy has been pointless for well over a decade as it went from being funny to being didactic.

Now, this raises something I refuse to believe - that comedians who move to support of the current American Right are actually capable of being funny.   I know, I know - I can readily be accused of suffering from the same problem as conservatives - letting political views influence what I allow myself to find funny.  But I'm certain any objective observer would have to agree with me - with my main evidence being the absolutely woeful "Gutfeld!" on Fox, which I have watched sometimes recently on Youtube.  

Despite getting some attention not so long ago for apparent ratings success (which I think has diminished again), he and the show is painfully unfunny.  And weirdly, I noticed, he seems in his monologues to often try to do self deprecation of the "maybe I'm gay" kind, only to have it fail utterly.  Why would he even try that with the type of audience he has? 

As for Bill Maher - I had been meaning to say that his segments (increasingly frequent) where he just wants to attack the Left for wokeness and political correctness, and not talk much about the Right turning the country into Christian fascism (because that doesn't annoy him as much), have also been poorly written and pretty painful to watch.   I was never a big fan, but he has become much, much worse.

It's not just a current thing - over my life, even when I voted Liberal, I knew that comedy sympathetic to Right wing politics has very, very rarely worked.   I mean, I don't like all Left wing comedy either - I was never a fan of Max Gillies, for example, and more recently, I couldn't stand Tom Ballard's shows.  But Left leaning comedy at least has the capacity (in a way Right wing comedy virtually doesn't) to be funny, even if it didn't always work for me.  Right wing comedy especially doesn't work now, when the worst of the Right (and that's a disturbingly large part of America) has developed clear sympathy to religious fascism.   

   

 

Not convinced

That's a co-incidence:  The Guardian has a very positive review up of Midnight Mass, the (sort of) horror series which has been out on Netflix for maybe 6 months, although I have only recently started watching it.

I'm 3 episodes in, and I'm not convinced.   It's way, way too talky, and the dialogue is often very "stagey" - it feels unnatural to me a lot of the time.  And now that I have seen the apparent explanation for the mysterious young priest appearing on the (admittedly interesting as a location) small island, I admit it wasn't exactly a normal supernatural trope, but it was so novel, I didn't know what to make of it.  I'm probably going to go with reading a synopsis of the rest of the show, rather than devoting time to finding out more about what is going on.  

It's a weird show, and I don't think it's very good. 

That's odd: having Covid has made me want to post really unimportant stuff

 

Back to Lost in Space

While I was convalescing at home with Covid, Youtube kept insisting I watch a series of interviews of the old Lost in Space stars Bill Mumy and Jonathan Harris (aka Will Robinson and Dr Smith).  

Mumy seems a particularly nice person, and a (seemingly unusual?) case of a child actor (he really did a lot of work I wasn't aware of) who grew up normal and not scarred by the experience.  Or maybe by the 1960's, there was enough care of child actors in the studio system - I mean, I guess Ron Howard turned out fine too.

Things I learned from watching these interviews:

*   Jonathan Harris was given carte blanche to re-write his lines.  This meant that Mumy would have to visit Harris's trailer to go over the re-written scripts and re-learn his cues from those in the original.  (I feared for a moment that there was going to be some shocking incident of abuse while alone with him, but no.  In fact, I checked Harris's Wikipedia page to check about his sexuality - I mean, it would hardly be surprising to learn he was gay.  But he was married and had a son, and there are quite a few websites noting that he counts high on the list of actors you thought could be gay, but apparently wasn't.)

* Mumy is an excellent voice mimic.

* Mumy worked for Alfred Hitchcock on a few episodes of his TV show, and really disliked him.

* He explained how he felt sorry for Guy Williams, his fictional father, who was given less and less to do in the show, while the Dr Smith character more or less took over.  And after the show, he went and retired in Argentina, where he was considered a hero because of his role in Zorro (!).

* His first serious girlfriend, when he was old enough to drive, was his co-star Angela Cartwright (Penny).  They remain good friends.

* I thought the anecdote in this clip was pretty funny:

*  Jonathan Harris paints a funny picture of Irwin Allen as a blustering, old style cranky Hollywood producer.