1. One of those weeks where I was very busy and productive, but feel like I didn’t really get anything done. Very little actually ended up in the ‘finished’ pile, since I ended up passing from one project to another or deciding after a few hours’ work that this one isn’t going to fly after all. It’s very frustrating and something I need to work on.

2. Started reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. I’ve only covered a couple so far, but I’ve already noticed something deeply amusing: the two sides use the exact same rhetoric.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments.
-Federalist no. 1

[Supporters] consist generally, of…holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, Bankers and Lawyers: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination.
-Anti-Federalist no. 1

“Those on the other side are would-be elites trying to guard their own self-interests, while our side is the one that is disinterestedly trying to serve the people.”

It’s always the precious liberties of the American People versus the greed, arrogance, and selfishness of the Elites. They simply swap out which side of the issue is which.

Sound familiar?

3. That’s not to say the issue itself isn’t important, I just find it interesting to see these same rhetorical ploys not only being used at the very start of our Republic, but being used on both sides. It’s almost as if we don’t have many other tools in the toolbox, though I suppose I should reserve judgment until I read the rest.

4. So far I think the Federalists have the better case (e.g. Anti-Fed no. 2 tried to argue that the states have no reason to fear war anyway, so there’s no need for a union like the Feds proposed. Which, even if that were true, how long do you expect that to last?). Though it’s early days yet, and a large part of that might just be because Hamilton is far and away the best writer of either side (though I haven’t gotten to any of Madison’s yet. Or Henry’s, though I’m honestly not expecting much from Mr. Clanking Chains over there). We’ll see how that develops.

John Jay really lost his touch during the war; Fed no. 2 is very dull and pedantic with none of the frothing rhetorical insanity of his Letter to the English People. Though I suppose it’s harder to do that sort of thing when you’re arguing for the government.

5. I went out to see Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning last week with my brother, and we both thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s not the best of the series, but it is solid, well-made, imaginative fun of the kind that you almost just don’t get anymore. There’s an intricate plot with a lot of moving pieces that is nevertheless fairly easy to follow, a threat to the peace of the world, tightly choreographed and creative action sequences set in gorgeous real-world locations (e.g. a car chase through the streets of Rome), a square-jawed hero upholding truth and justice, beautiful, competent, and oft-imperiled women, loyal-to-the-death amusing sidekicks, and spectacular stunts. All the sort of things you used to get in Bond films before they decided to go the ‘woe is me!’ 90s-comic-book route.

It’s definitely a little too long, I didn’t care for a certain character’s exit (not to mention I was inwardly screaming about the fight choreography in that scene), and there are a few moments that are too cartoonishly contrived, but in today’s world? This is an actual piece of entertainment, and those are getting rare on the ground. I’m sorry to hear it isn’t doing as well as it should be and hope they can pick up by word of mouth.

6. Also, when we went to see it I had an experience at the theater that I don’t think I’ve had for many, many years. So long that I can’t even remember the last time.

None of the trailers looked awful!

It was Oppenheimer, Napoleon, and Killers of the Flower Moon. Not saying any or all of them will be great, but the trailers at least made them look like they could be good, and none of them made me cringe out of my skin. I still don’t really trust Scott to do the French Revolution, but Napoleon did look like it could be a decent epic.

I’ll probably actually go see Oppenheimer, since it does genuinely look good.

Flower Moon‘s a Scorsese film (also a little hit-or-miss) about a land battle in the 1920s over the Oklahoma oil fields that turned out to be under the Indian Reservations. I don’t know really anything about the real events to know what I think about it, but the film looked like it could be a decent historical crime drama, and I didn’t get the sense of an overabundance of ‘bad white person! Bad!’ from it.

7. Speaking of Oppenheimer, a lot of people are talking about how the CG-averse Christopher Nolan is going to try to simulate a nuclear explosion without computers. I picture pre-production went something like this:

Producer: “How do you think you can do an atomic blast without computers?”
Nolan: (on the phone) “I’ll tell you in a second…Hello, is this the White House?”