Nanowrimo 2009

"Now there's something you don't see every day," he cracked, looking at the body of what was presumably the owner of Sensei Mike's Karate Academy with a sword sticking all the way through his chest and piercing the punching bag on the other side.

He was right, but the joke was about as stale as the McDonalds coffee that I was reduced to sipping out of a Styrofoam cup. Being forced to drink fast food coffee would be enough to put me in a foul mood even if I wasn't having to stare down at the body of a homicide victim with my best friend (who usually really isn't that much of an asshole) making feeble stabs at gallows humor to try to hide his discomfort.

[Only 49, 874 more words to go! This novel writing stuff is easy breezy, Chucky Cheesey.]

Christian Fiction

My article on "Christian Fiction" from the Books and Beyond (a Greenwood Encylopedia of Literary Genres) is now available online here.

Bible Films Meme

My friend Carmen at In The Open Space: God & Culture tagged me with a meme that is going around asking people to select their three favorite "Bible Films" and to add one Bible based film they would like to see made.

This was a hard challenge for me because I mostly don't like Bible films, and I'm tempted to start a long discourse on why. But then, I'm always afraid in such instances that doing so turns into a knock on those who act or feel differently, and I don't want to do that either.

I guess I do need to say enough to contextualize my list. I tend to not like Bible films for much the same reason I don't like literary adaptations--good enough is hardly ever perfect, and I end up feeling as though my relationship to the text gets transferred in ways I don't particularly like. Also, I actively resist passive reading or passive viewing where the Bible is involved, meaning I'm usually working against the text.

Okay, so much for my caveats. Here are the three that I would consider my favorites:

The Miracle Maker (Hayes, 2000)
I find that the claymation and animation mix helps create defamiliarization, an essential element of any Bible film for me. Most of the interpretive choices or glosses are fairly well vetted, so the film mostly avoids the kinds of theologically problematic glosses on scenes that take me out of a film when I watch them.

I do tend to dislike the mix of Biblical and apocryphal interpolations (despite two of them being on my list), and I would prefer that an unknown voice Jesus, since any actor's persona carries with it problematic associations with other roles. Generally quick moving, and at times (in the animation) more emotionally suggestive than literal, The Miracle Maker is generally my go to film if I want a film as devotional or contemplative aid, though even this one feels long at 90 minutes sometimes.

The Bible: In The Beginning (Huston, 1966)
If I like The Miracle Maker for being stylized, I like The Bible for its insistent plainness. The most iconic thing about it is Huston's rich, accented voice, and the minimalist interpretations of the early Genesis scenes to help me to think of them as historical depictions of actual people rather than legendary archetypes. Certainly by the time one gets to George C. Scott as Abraham, I feel like I'm watching an actor read his lines rather than a tableau enact the spoken words, but I have a soft spot for the Noah passages. Perhaps it comes from having read of Huston's trials in working with animals and feeling as though there is something just a little metafictive in the way that he, like Noah, takes on a task that is so clearly out of his control.

I've posted a little bit more about Huston at 1More Film Blog, including this quote, which made me love the man, even while I was still on the fence about what I thought of this film: "I try to direct as little as possible. The more one directs, the more there is a tendency to monotony. If one is telling each person what to do, one ends up with a host of little replicas of oneself." Honestly, I don't know how anyone could direct a Bible film any other way.

Intolerance (Griffith, 1916)
D.W. Griffith's film is often viewed as his apology for or defense of Birth of a Nation, but really it's his defense of himself for having made Birth of a Nation. Intersplicing four stories of intolerance through the ages, the film might not be considered a Bible film by some, since only one of the stories is from the Bible. I find that I need something outside the standard depictions of the passion text, however, to keep me from just falling into a familiar sense that I've seen it before. And since some Bible films do feel self-contained to me, I sort of like ones that point outside the cinematic text and address the question of the text's relation to the surrounding world rather than simply being an illustrated text. As a film, Intolerance's use of sets and actual people always instills a sort of awe in me that CGI just doesn't give. There is something epic about the production values that gives the film a sort of weightiness that, while not the end-all-be-all of a Bible film, is, I think, a necessary element.

In terms of Bible films I would like to see made, that's a tough one. I'm tempted to say Carl Theodor Dreyer's long contemplated but never filmed biography of Jesus, but the truth is that I'm happy enough with what Dreyer created. I suppose Hosea might make a good film, as would Jonah, if there were a way to contextualize it quickly enough that the human emotions that are so universal in these texts could be allowed to stand without all the exposition. Rather than pick a film that I want made, can I pick an auteur whose Bible film I would be most interested in screening, whatever subject matter he/she picked from?

Answer: Frederic Back.

TIFF Coverage at Christianity Today Movies

I'm happy to announce I'll be doing some guest blogging for Christianity Today (CT Movies). You can follow my posts at the CT Movies Blog.

Tentative 2009 TIFF Schedule

Well, I got my Out of Town Package from the Toronto International Film Festival today, and spent most of the day figuring out what my itinerary will be. Now, the question is what will happen if I lose out on any of these in the lottery.

Here's what I put in for:

THURSDAY SEP 10:

6:00-7:40 An Education--Sherfig (Ryerson)

FRIDAY SEP 11:

12:30-2:51 Face--Tsai (Scotiabank 1)
6:00-7:50 Vision--von Trotta (Scotiabank 2)
9:00-11:04 Fish Tank--Arnold (Scotiabank 2)

SATURDAY SEP 12:
11:45-1:22 My Tehran For Sale--Moussavi (AMC 7)
3:15-4:56 The Art of the Steal--Argott (AMC 2)
5:15-7:40 White Ribbon--Haneke (Scotiabank 1)
9:15-10:50 The Disappearance of Alice Creed--Blakeson (Ryerson)

SUNDAY Sep 13:
9:30-11:30 Bright Star--Campion (Scotiabank 2)
12:30-2:17 Dorian Gray--Parker (Winter Garden)
9:00-11:00 Air Doll--Koreeda (Scotiabank 2)

MONDAY Sep 14:
10:00-11:30 Solitary Man--Koppelman (Scotiabank 2)
3:00-5:00 The Road--Hillcoat (Scotiabank 2)
5:00-7:00 Agora--Amenabar (Scotiabank 1)
8:15-9:51 Life During Wartime--Solondz (Scotiabank 1)

TUESDAY Sep 15:
9:30-11:14 Wild Grass--Resnais (Scotiabank 4)
12:30-2:03 Carmel--Gitai (Scotiabank 2)
6:30-8:12 White Material--Denis (Scotiabank 1)
9:15-10:51 Lourdes--Hausner (Scotiabank 1)

WEDS Sep 16:
9:15-10:40 Leslie, My Name is Evil--Harkema (Scotiabank 4)

Poker Question That Probably Only Interests Me...

...or maybe it's a math question.

I remember talking to my friend Tom (tdeem1) once about euchre strategy, and he said something like "there is euchre and there is ladder euchre." Part of what he meant was that in order to succeed, you had to know not only the game but the venue.

Which brings me to Zynga Poker. Zynga is a free poker game attached to Facebook. Players earn chips that give them access to various rooms, but really there is no money exchanged. So that's one difference right there. People tend to be more aggressive, play to a draw more often, etc., when there is nothing really at stake.

Zynga has what is called a "Shoot Out" progressive tournament. You buy in for $2000 imaginary Zynga dollars and everyone gets $1000 chips. The winner gets his/her stake back plus entry into round 2. (Second and third get partial amount of stake back.) In round 2 the top three places score and the winner gets entry into round 3, where the winner gets 500,000 imaginary dollars.

Because the cost of the buy in is so low for Round 1, because they have very little attention span, and because it is not real money, many players in Round 1 go "all-in" on the first hand regardless of what they have. Most tables the average number of players who go all in is around 5, though I've seen all 9. I've only on very few occasions seen less than 4.

So here is my question, for the average person for whom imaginary game site dollars are not low (I have like 600 K and the buy in is 2K), when should you move all-in on the first hand?

Various thoughts, followed by rationale, follow, but I'm interested in other people's, especially math guru's, thoughts. FWIW, bear in mind that the fewer people all in (like 4) the easier it is to win the hand but the less decided advantage the person has. If there are seven people all in, it is possible with the blinds still at 10 and 20 dollars, to buy in to most pre-flop hands, wait for a commanding advantage and win the game. Though I have beaten the first hand winner many times, even when he/she generally has a 4-1 or 5-1 chips advantage.

Thought #1: NEVER
The problem with ever entering these free for alls is that even pocket aces seldom win. It becomes more random. You are 4-1 to beat a lower pair, but if there are 2 lower pair, and someone has suited cards and someone else has connectors, well, you get the idea...the number of hands that can beat you increases the more hands that are in and you can rarely get people off the hand. I will usually ANNOUNCE quickly when I have pocket aces, and I usually get 2-4 calls anyway. My hope is that 1 or 2 people might wait a hand to go all in. The fewer hands, the higher my probability of winning the first hand. And even just doubling up the first hand puts me in a much better position to be patient to bust the winner of the eventual group all-in.

Thoguht #2: ALWAYS
If it's just random, you should win a certain percentage over the long run (times where you have aces losing to a flush evening out with times you have 7-2 and suck out someone with the better hand). Once you win, you are in a commanding position. And if you wait, you are playing catch up most of the game.

Thought #3: Sometimes
Okay, but when? Given the fact that most of the other players will go in with anything, my thought here is that if you only play higher probability hands, you will still lose a lot, but the goal is to win more than a strictly random amount. So if you fold the 7-2s and play the AA, well, you'll now and then miss out on the 2-2-2 flop and get sucked out by the flush or straight draw, but the latter will happen less frequently than the former, and so, over time, you'll win a higher percentage than accepting the coin flip.

I sort of go with #3...I'll join if I have two cards 10 or higher, suited connecters, or an Ace + 2, 8, or 9.

Part of my wondering here is that not EVERYONE goes all in, so it is not strictly random draw. If I assume most people similarly won't fold two high cards, I can reasonably assume that the more people who are all-in, the less likely I am to draw a hand since there will be more low cards in the deck to flop. So, part of me thinks if there are 4 or fewer, go all in with high cards, but 5 or more, go all in with low cards (or value suited-connectors more). Then again, a lot of the players are just randomly all-in, so it isn't as though I can seriously read anyone's hand.

Also, does table position matter in this situation at all? I see some people just call the big blind and wait to see how many go all in, but I've seen it go all the way around the table to the small blind only to have him go all in and players with AA or 2-9 follow around the table, so the notion that there is less likely to be more good hands if it calls almost all the way around isn't really valid.

Just wondering if any poker players or math people have some thoughts about the most logical way to play this first hand melee.

Town Halls

I remember a professor in graduate school saying once that the only appropriate response to some arguments is the "no comment F."

Dis-enchanted

Rummaging through the desk the other day I found a hard copy of a paper I had delivered at a conference and thought was inadvertently deleted. It compares the films Ella Enchanted and Kill Bill: Volume 2.

I've put a copy of the paper up at 1More Film Blog.