2020年9月4日 星期五

Another edition of Movie Time with Jamelle

This week, a few films from Spike Lee.
A scene from Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing.”Universal City Studios

By Jamelle Bouie

Once again, I have thoughts about movies to share with you. Longtime readers of this newsletter know that I watch a lot of movies and write capsule reviews for my own edification. For the past month or so, my wife and I have been (slowly) making our way through the films of Spike Lee, some of which I had seen, most of which I had not. For this set of reviews, I want to share my recent thoughts on three of Spike’s earliest (and most acclaimed) films.

‘School Daze’ (1988)

Even now, 30 years later, there aren’t many films like “School Daze.” It’s a big, overstuffed movie, crackling with its director’s obsessions and preoccupations, from the MGM musicals of the 1950s to the politics of the post-civil rights generation of African-Americans and the emerging class stratification in Black life. It’s heightened, highly stylized and high-energy, with characters that feel simultaneously like archetypes and real, living people.

It is also completely, totally, uncompromisingly Black. This is not a comment about the cast, which is all Black and seems to represent every possible shade and hue within the community. It’s a comment about the sensibility. “School Daze” is a movie about Black people, talking to Black people, about concerns among Black people. There’s no sense, at any point, that anyone is concerned with anything any white person might think. It is insular in the best sense and, for non-Black viewers, a prime example of the power of film to show you a perspective profoundly different from your own.

‘Do the Right Thing’ (1989)

This is maybe my third time watching this movie, and on this viewing, the thing I feel most is sadness. That is because for as much as Spike Lee gestures to capital-I Issues like structural racism and police abuse, this isn’t a movie about Issues, it is a movie about community: about the individuals that make up any community, about the challenges and fears and resentments and anxieties and joys and happiness that fill their lives, and about the ways racism frays the bonds of community with suspicion and hatred.

ADVERTISEMENT

The bright colors and hyperstylization cannot hide the fact that “Do the Right Thing” is a profoundly sad film, attuned to how we can’t avoid the burden of our history and how the pain of that history shapes our relationship with ourselves as well as those we have with one another.

I’ll leave the final word to Samuel L. Jackson as Mister Señor Love Daddy: “My people, my people, what can I say; say what I can. I saw it but didn’t believe it; I didn’t believe what I saw. Are we gonna live together? Together are we gonna live?”

‘Malcolm X’ (1992)

It is hard to make a good biographical film. You can’t actually fit the full scope of someone’s life into a 120-minute movie. It’s why the best films in the genre center on a singular event in an individual’s life versus the full sweep of their experiences. And even then, it’s tough.

Malcolm X is a traditional biopic in that it attempts to tell the story of the Black nationalist and human rights leader from start to finish. But rather than try to avoid or work around the fact that lives — to say nothing of the life of Malcolm X — are big and complicated and impossible to contain, Spike Lee structures the film around that very fact. “Malcolm X” is a nearly three-and-a-half-hour epic built from a great number of styles and genres. But it’s not haphazard. Everything has a purpose. Within this picture, you’ll find the gangster movie, the race film, the prison drama, the Hollywood musical, the Western and the desert epic. You’ll see Spike Lee use the heightened and exaggerated style for which he’s known as well as documentary styles and even cinéma vérité. And all of it — every technique, every camera movement, every edit — tells the singular story of a man struggling, till the very end, for self-actualization.

ADVERTISEMENT

That, to me, is what is so brilliant about this movie, including Denzel Washington’s incomparable performance. There are many ways to tell the story of Malcolm X, and this one focuses almost all of its attention on him as someone who exists in a near-constant state of invention and reinvention, struggling to find a path that will bring him — and those around him — to freedom and a knowledge of self. And when he does find it, he must pay for what he’s gained with his life.

What I Wrote

My Tuesday column was a somewhat arch argument that Trump needs to disavow the extremists on his own side if he wants to win re-election.

What he needs to do right now is condemn those responsible for violence and disavow those who act in his name. He needs, in other words, what political observers have come to call a “Sister Souljah moment,” a pointed repudiation of a radical element within one’s own coalition, named for Bill Clinton’s rebuke of the eponymous hip-hop artist while speaking to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition during the 1992 presidential campaign. A display like Clinton’s would show the country that Trump can be trusted to govern on behalf of all Americans.

My Friday column was a look at the conspiracy-theorizing that has come to characterize a large part of the modern Republican Party.

The “new” conspiracism, by contrast, is conspiracy without any discernible theory of the world. It rejects explanation, however distorted, in favor of disorientation and delegitimization. It is the difference between a conspiracy that tries to make sense of an otherwise incomprehensible reality — however anomalous that sense might be — and one that doesn’t care for the real at all. The “new conspiracism” is certainly partisan, but it isn’t especially political.

I also did a Twitter live chat and I spoke about my “Sister Souljah” column on CBS News.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Reading

Kim Kelly on public defenders in The Baffler.

Jimi Famurewa on John Boeyga in British GQ.

Justin H. Vassallo on populism after Donald Trump in The American Prospect.

Hari Kunzru on the intellectual history of “whiteness” in The New York Review of Books.

Adrienne LaFrance on QAnon in The Atlantic.

Feedback

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

A bridge over the Rivanna River Reservoir in Charlottesville, Va.Jamelle Bouie

Charlottesville has its fair share of problems, but it is a very beautiful place to live, as you can see in this photo, taken last month while I was on a long bike ride.

Now Eating: Hot and Sour Zucchini

It’s a summer ritual: finding something to do with all of the zucchini you get from a single garden plant. To that end, I’ve been making this recipe at least once a week. It helps that it is delicious. A few notes: You’ll want to slice the zucchini as thin as possible (I used a mandolin) so that it cooks quickly in a hot wok. Also, if you use a carbon steel wok, I highly recommend you try cooking outside with charcoal; it’s the easiest and safest way to get the high heat you need for wok cooking. And fair warning: This recipe is pretty spicy. You’ll want to serve it with a cooling element, like marinated cucumbers. This recipe comes from “The Big Book of Wok & Stir-Fry.” I’ve had it in my cookbook library for years, by way of my wife, but only started to use it last month. It’s good!

Ingredients

  • 2 large zucchini, thinly sliced
  • 1 teaspoon salt
  • 2 tablespoons peanut oil
  • 1 teaspoon Sichuan pepper, crushed
  • 1 fresh red chile, seeded and thinly sliced
  • 2 large garlic cloves, thinly sliced
  • 1 teaspoon finely chopped fresh ginger
  • 1 tablespoon rice vinegar
  • 1 tablespoon light soy sauce
  • 2 teaspoons sugar
  • 1 scallion, green part included, thinly sliced
  • a few drops of sesame oil
  • 1 teaspoon sesame seeds

Directions

Put the zucchini slices in a large colander and toss with salt. Cover with a plate resting on the zucchini and put a weight on top. Let drain for 20 minutes. Rinse off the salt and spread out the slices on paper towels to dry.

Heat wok over high heat (if carbon steel, until smoking), then add the peanut oil. Add the Sichuan pepper, chile, garlic and ginger. Fry for about 20 seconds, until the garlic is just beginning to color.

Add the zucchini slices and toss in the oil. Add the rice vinegar, soy sauce and sugar, and stir-fry for 2 minutes. Add the scallion and stir-fry for 30 seconds. Sprinkle with sesame oil and sesame seeds and serve immediately, over rice.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2020年9月3日 星期四

On Tech: Lessons from a virus tracing dud

One state learned the hard way that technology won't get us out of this pandemic. But it can help.

Lessons from a virus tracing dud

Claudia Chinyere Akole

On Tech will be off for a long Labor Day weekend. See you on Tuesday.

In the coronavirus panic in the spring, Utah hired a small tech company to create an app to trace state residents who were infected with the virus and help notify their contacts about possible exposure.

It didn’t go well.

Only about 200 people used the virus-alert app, Healthy Together, for its main intended purpose. Utah then shut down the key feature entirely. Critics of Healthy Together said that state officials spent too much on rushed and unproven technology.

This feels like a familiar tale of failures by government officials and botched pandemic technology. It is, but the story didn’t end there.

The app company, called Twenty, and Utah public health officials focused the app on less ambitious but potentially more useful purposes, including relaying coronavirus test results and digital symptom checks at schools and workplaces. It’s too soon to call Healthy Together a success or a failure, but the app now has a manageable purpose.

The saga of Healthy Together shows both what can go wrong with virus-fighting technologies and how digital helpers — if we establish trust and don’t overstate their capabilities — have a role to play in the human-led fight against the virus.

ADVERTISEMENT

Let me state this plainly: Many virus-tracing technologies, like the first version of Healthy Together, have been a mess.

In Utah, state officials told me that many people were reluctant to share their location information via an app with the public health department so it could try to figure out who they might have come into contact with. The state didn’t do much to convince people that the app might be helpful.

This is not an isolated problem for contact tracing efforts. People don’t necessarily trust government or technology companies. It can feel embarrassing or creepy to tell a public health official who you might have exposed to a dangerous virus. Apple and Google are releasing technology that will make it easier for states to set up virus exposure alerts for smartphones, but it won’t fix the trust problem.

In Utah, Healthy Together dropped the location-tracking technology for now, but it still lets people see a map of coronavirus testing centers near them and offers information about how to get tested and who will pay for it, and simpler stuff like whether restaurants nearby are allowed to serve dine-in meals.

ADVERTISEMENT

A version of the app also offers questionnaires to assess potential coronavirus symptoms for people who work in some health care facilities and colleges including Brigham Young University.

None of this is magic, and that’s fine. We do need some of these digital helpers to supplement the human-powered fight against the pandemic. We just need to be sure to keep technology restrained to what it can reasonably do.

Two of Twenty’s co-founders, Diesel Peltz and Jared Allgood, were humble about what they learned. “We came in with a little naïveté,” Peltz told me. “We had to be honest with ourselves about our limitations and where we can help the [public health] strategy and amplify it.”

Utah State Representative Andrew Stoddard said that he believed Healthy Together wasn’t worth the money, but that it and similar technologies had a role to play in the state’s pandemic response.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I hope the lesson learned is that technology is innovative and helpful, but there are arenas where technology isn’t the best option,” he said.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Facebook made new election rules. Now it has to enforce them.

Facebook made several big policy changes on Thursday to try to lower the temperature on a tumultuous U.S. presidential election in November. The new rules are sensible on paper, but the question now is whether Facebook can effectively enforce them.

My colleague Mike Isaac has all the details on Facebook’s new rules. The biggest one to me: Facebook said it would apply an informational label to posts by political candidates or campaigns that try to prematurely declare victory in the election or cast doubt on the legitimacy of mail-in voting.

This election is going to be unlike any other. Far more Americans are expected to vote by mail to avoid the risk of a coronavirus infection, and that most likely means counting votes will take more time than usual.

If ballot tallies take days or longer, one concern is that President Trump or other candidates might declare victory before all votes are counted, or dispute the outcome. One late night tweet or unchecked Facebook post from the president could contribute to a lack of public trust in the election system.

As wild as this might have seemed a few years ago, Facebook has become essential plumbing in democracy, and the company knows the world is watching how it acts in this election.

But making rules is only half the battle. When the president posted in July a baseless claim about voter fraud, Facebook’s attempt at added context was a link to an election information help page. The supposed information label wasn’t actually informative about what the president said.

And for Facebook to enforce new rules about the election, it will rely in part on social network users flagging posts that seem off, and on teams of workers who must assess whether a post goes against the company’s guidelines.

For particularly sensitive rules like whether a politician is sowing confusion about an election, I would bet that any decisions about whether to remove a post or append contradictory information will ultimately be made by Facebook executives. Those can be tough calls and might take time to make. And on Facebook, bogus information can get millions of eyeballs in a flash.

Before we go …

  • What it’s like to be duped by Russian trolls: My colleague Sheera Frenkel talked to one American who wrote for a news website that turned out to be a covert Russian government-backed propaganda campaign. The writer thought it was strange when editors had a poor grasp of English and waved off some of his article ideas. But he didn’t find out he was ensnared in a propaganda campaign until a reporter contacted him this week.
  • What does Facebook do when political leaders spew hate? Facebook banned the accounts of a prominent Indian politician, T. Raja Singh, over his online posts and comments that have called Muslims traitors and said some Muslim immigrants should be shot. The Wall Street Journal has been reporting on internal division at Facebook over whether the company has protected Singh and some other members of India’s ruling party who have used Facebook to encourage hatred of or violence against Muslims.
  • Instagram scams work because we want stuff easy and fast: A writer for The Verge bought overpriced and crummy secondhand furniture after seeing it listed on Instagram, and dug into why people fall for Instagram pitches for low-quality or sometimes fraudulent merchandise. “The scam works by exploiting our own consumerism — the idea that everything we want should be readily available, and cheap, and delivered within days,” The Verge wrote.

Hugs to this

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/