Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Make Facebook Great Again.

Facebook is under more scrutiny than usual, and rightly so. The social network behemoth found itself in the wrong place at the wrong time to some extent. As the incredible cascade of media noise around the US presidential election peaked, Facebook in turn became the single biggest media delivery source on the planet Earth. At a time when it could have done a World of good, Facebook instead was a major purveyor in the worst kind of misinformation seen perhaps ever in Human history.


These statements are made entirely apolitically, by the way. I am a left leaning centrist personally, however I am not solely alluding to the deluge of right wing, fake articles that did the rounds on Facebook in the run up to November 8th. I acknowledge fully there were also fake liberal articles designed clumsily to do the same as their right leaning counterparts. Independent reviews have found that as many as 38% of the news articles on Facebook were fake right wing articles, with 16% leaning left. 

The fact is, Facebook has a big problem. Whether it likes it or not it is a massive media giant, and with that should come some responsibility. Instead, the Facebook board is essentially running around watching the flames build, putting its hands over its ears and singing loudly ‘there’s nothing wrong, there’s nothing wrong!’.

What exactly is the problem? In short, various groups are hijacking Facebook with landslides of fake news articles, and vast swathes of Facebook’s community of users are falling for it hook, line and sinker. News stories such as ‘How Hillary Funded Assassination Of American Soldiers In Iraq’ have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of shares and interactions on Facebook. Months ago, well before the election, you might recall Facebook attempted to do something about this, and their editorial team started to remove some of the crazier articles. As noted, the majority of the crazy is right wing (shocker!) and therefore most of the deleted articles were right wing. Cue the uproar from the right wing community, ‘Facebook is preventing us from free speech!’

It’s important to keep in mind what we’re talking about here, these articles are absolute trash and many are being housed on fake newspapers such as the Denver Guardian, or the Boston Gazette, and being created in placed as far flung as Macedonia, where young college kids are building them to collect Google advertising money from stupid Americans clicking on their bait. That’s literally what’s happening.

The right made such a noise defending these trash ‘articles’ that Facebook panicked, and, seriously, fired their entire editorial team. Yes, fired them, security escorting them off the premises.

Why is all this happening? A clue to the motivation behind Facebook’s moves (or lack of) is the involvement in powerful billionaire Peter Thiel. You might remember him as the individual who had a personal vendetta against the Gawker media empire, and who financed Hulk Hogan’s ultimately successful legal battle against them. Thiel recently poured millions into the GOP presidential campaign, and has made no secret of this right wing leaning. In fact, he revels in it and is obviously starting to exert some serious pressure on the Facebook board to ensure it doesn’t become ‘too left’ leaning.

What are we left with? A stream of endless ‘Hillary killed my husband’ and ‘Hillary worships the devil’ articles lapped up by the less intelligent among us.

What can you, the average Facebook user, do?

The answer, as with most everything, is to look within and take accountability for your own space. We can whine and complain as long and as often as we like, but the fact of the matter is we are (generally) not helpless beings without the ability to enforce change in front of us. Quite the contrary. We can mold everything around us, including Facebook. You can complain all day long about the way Facebook does things, but, it’s a service, and it’s up to you to use it the way you want.

First things first, trim your Friends, no matter how painful. The election provided me insight into a couple of unsavory characters on my list. I have plenty of friends with right and center views that I respect immensely. Good people. I also had a couple of absolute clowns hiding in the weeds, thankfully the election reminded me, I don’t have to listen to certain people. Delete, delete, delete. You don’t owe a single person your Facebook space. Delete.


Secondly, curate your newsfeed appropriately. I spent some time a while ago ensuring I was, generally, following responsible and accountable journalistic sites. A tip; https:\\ImpeachClinton\Right_wing.org is probably not going to be accountable journalism, so you might want to go ahead and unfollow that. It’s quite simple to garden your Facebook weeds to the point where you are seeing a feed that’s at least close to what you’re looking for.

Third, when you are clicking on a link that looks suspiciously slanted (either way, left or right), think twice. There’s a massive difference in reading a well-researched, accountable article with associated journalistic standards, and reading click bait crap that’s designed simply to outrage you. There’s a very good reason the GOP went to great lengths recently to throw insults at levels not heard since Pol Pot at the media. Trump and his cronies didn’t want their lemmings reading The Washington Post, the New York Times or The Guardian. They didn’t want their pawns reading journalists who paid due diligence to their reporting, who researched their articles and exhibited journalistic integrity when producing their content. They wanted a riled-up mob reading right wing gutter press, where facts are few and integrity is nonexistent.

You simply owe it to yourself to stick to proper journalism. Why waste your valuable time reading some garbage, presented to you with the sole aim of getting you all hot and bothered, and, not in a good way?

When you complain about Facebook the fact is you're really commenting on how you, yourself, use Facebook. Like everything in life, you can mold Facebook to be exactly what you want it to be. Just a little fine tuning (stop clicking dumb article links, and whatever you do, don't click on the ads!) and you can enjoy a simple, easy to use and free social network relatively hassle free.

Do it. Make Facebook great again.



Wednesday, November 02, 2016

Would The Top Matt Damon Movies Be Better As DiCaprio Movies?

In May we hypothesized that the top box office hits for Leo DiCaprio would be better if they starred Matt Damon. This all came off the back of The Sports Guy, Bill Simmons, comment that ''I believe every DiCaprio movie would be just a little better as a Matt Damon movie.''. At the time we ended up with a 5-5 tie between the two great actors but noted that;


In summary, does this 5-5 tie come anywhere close to proving Simmons’ somewhat outrageous comment? Not really, no. Not really, for two reasons. First, Damon only barely got the nod for most of his 5 wins. DiCaprio absolutely annihilated the suggestion with most of his 5 wins. For example, going back to The Wolf, there’s no way Damon improves on that performance, in any imaginary scenario possible. So, the 5-5 tie is at best a precarious position for Damon. The second reason? Simmons’ original hypothesis can only be fully fleshed out be visiting the same topic upon Damon’s movies. Could DiCaprio have made Damon’s top 10 movies ‘better’?



Well guess what, it's time to find out. It's time to put DiCaprio in ten of the most famous Matt Damon roles and ask, would Leo have done a better job than Matt?





Rounders


10. Rounders.


Rounders shouldn't technically be on this list. It sits currently at joint 32nd on Matt Damon's all-time box office list. The fact is however, despite its slow start at the box office, Rounders has become a cult classic and an essential Matt Damon classic. That out of the way, would DiCaprio in the Damon role improve Rounders? Well, it would definitely have been a different movie. Better? There is a goofy likeability at the heart of Rounders. Whether it's the fun, quasi sleazy, late-night-drinks soundtrack, Edward Norton's boisterous 'Worm' or John Malkovich's over the top Teddy KGB, Rounders might not be technically the greatest movie of all time, but it's a very, very likeable movie. Adding DiCaprio, instead of Damon, might have brought a level of seriousness and perhaps a depth, but that wouldn't have fitted in the context in which Rounders works. So, no, Rounders would not have been better had DiCaprio played Damon's role.


Matt Damon 1-0.


9. The Talented Mr. Ripley.
Ripley did surprisingly well at the box office, taking in almost $90 million, which back in the 90s was decent. It's a terrific, well paced and stylish movie, and, perfectly cast with Damon in the lead role. I say that last part with authority primarily due to one line, delivered early on as Damon meets Law on the beach for the first time. ''Dickie Greenleaf? It's Tom, Tom Ripley, we were at Princeton together.'' Here's the thing, if that's DiCaprio, and he's standing there delivering that line, you just know, immediately, that something is afoot. The audience knows, Dickie Greenleaf knows, we all know immediately that something is not right and this dude is up to something, for sure. With Damon's Ripley, you don't know. He's too goofy in those little yellow shorts and with that foppish hair, way too goofy, to be up to anything, surely? Damon's early innocence and goof lends itself perfectly to the Ripley character. Pushing DiCaprio into that role might have brought some extra menace, but at the cost of the innocence and believability of the Damon Ripley, so essential to the story.

Matt Damon 2-0.

8. Elysium.
At the heart of this exercise we're not judging a movie, we're judging whether one certain actor would do better if they replaced another in said movie. In this case, with Elysium, it's hard to argue DiCaprio wouldn't add a certain grit and tenacity to the Damon role. For whatever reason, Damon is oddly not given much humor, physical or verbal, to work with in Elysium, and that's kind of the point in bringing Damon into a role like this, see The Martian for a perfect example. In this role, with this script, in this movie, DiCaprio could do the robotic with aplomb, and might bring a little extra to the table while doing so.

Matt Damon 2-1.

7. The Departed.
When writing the flip side of this, putting Damon in the DiCaprio role, it was pretty clear that would work, and it's easy to recycle that sentiment and use it here. Damon would be great in the Billy Costigan role, and would bring a different kind of fresh vulnerability to it. On the flip side, DiCaprio would have made an excellent Colin Sullivan, and as we said previously, would have brought some serious extra menace to the role. I hate double guessing casting, particularly in a movie that's so good and which I enjoyed so much, but in this case, you have to suggest The Departed would have been even better had they flipped the lead roles.

We're at a tie, 2-2.



6. Good Will Hunting.
The temptation here is to say, 'No, nope, not even close.' However, you have to imagine DiCaprio in '97 to accurately asses if he could fill out this character better than Damon, and subsequently create a better movie. You think about that, and, you start thinking, 'well, maybe'. However, Good Will Hunting is built primarily on a couple of relationships, and in both of those, Damon excels. The movie succeeds not on the basis of this awful, awful trailer, not on the basis of the tongue in cheek humor or the love interest story line (at times pretty kitsch), but instead it succeeds on the interplay between Damon and Affleck and Damon and Williams. In both situations, Damon is superb. While DiCaprio might have done a fine job overall, Damon created something special in his relationships with Affleck and Williams. That almost father and son like bond that developed in front of us between Damon and Williams is a thing of beauty, and very hard, if not impossible, to recreate.


Matt Damon takes the lead again 3-2.


5. True Grit.
Grit is an unexpected gem. Jeff Bridges hammers home his credentials as an American Treasure, a truly brilliant performance, I'm going to go as far as saying the greatest modern Western performance to date. Damon's LaBoef flits in and out of the story at important junctures and provides some levity and a nice balance to Bridge's Rooster Cogburn. Introducing DiCaprio into this role could have upended that balance and changed the dynamic of the movie. Damon was understated, and I don't know if DiCaprio can do that, understated.

Matt Damon 4-2.

4. The Ocean's movies (all of them).
Bunching the Ocean's movies together makes sense as Damon plays the same character all the way through and those character traits solidify as he goes through the sequels. Damon brings his usual, affable, everyman goofiness to the role and by the time we get to the third part of the story, the movie is leaning heavily on Damon and sometimes squirmingly awkward situations. The fake nose thing for example, simply no way DiCaprio pulls that off without someone physically pointing a gun at him, or threating to melt a glacier or something. Damon's Ocean turn works because it's Damon, and because of his relationship to Clooney and Pitt. Stick DiCaprio and his somewhat lone-wolf persona in that mix and, who knows what you'd get. Whatever happens, no way you get him to do that nose gag. Just no way.

Matt Damon 5-2.
3. Saving Private Ryan.
A short but pivotal role, there's a certain vulnerability required to play Private Ryan. His scenes all involve Damon playing an Iowa farm boy type, complete with goofy laugh and a level of soft sentiment that not many could bring to that role. DiCaprio would have brought a steel and an edge, sure, but it might have been out of place here. Perhaps the easiest one to judge, no way DiCaprio improves upon the movie with his inclusion.

Matt Damon 6-2.


2. Bourne (All of them!).
Now we're getting to the good stuff. Let's ask it out loud, would the first three Bourne movies be 'better' with DiCaprio in the lead role? Thinking about what DiCaprio would have brought to the role, there definitely would have been an uptick in urgency and tension. DiCaprio walking swiftly down a Swiss street, or DiCaprio beating bad guys up in Waterloo station might have been edgier and somewhat tougher than the Damon version of same, but, it's not these scenes that set the tone for the opening Bourne trilogy. Instead, think of the elements that made Jason Bourne what he is. Think of Bourne waking up on a park bench in the snow, and discovering he could kick the crap out of Swiss Police officers. Think of Bourne and Marie outside the hotel, ad-libbing their way into a plan to obtain phone records (so simple, so human, so effective), Damon delivers a brilliant 'Oh, ok' moment when Marie gets the job done, I don't see DiCaprio getting that moment right. Think of Bourne in any of the more innocuous situations and it's hard to imagine DiCaprio duplicating the humanity in those parts. I contend it's those background building moments that make Bourne the success it is.

Matt Damon 7-2.

1. The Martian.
Good golly The Martian was a massive success. Over $230 million gross, $54 million on its opening weekend alone. They couldn't have thought it would be this successful. Sometimes a good movie just happens, kind of out of the blue. A large slice of that success is of course Damon's every-man, delivered so easily, with just the right level of humor at the right time. Damon is laugh-out-loud funny in several parts, and brings a great humanity to the role. I think we can all see where this is going.

Matt Damon wins, with a stunning, landslide 8-2 win over DiCaprio. The simple truth is that, no, the top Matt Damon movies would not be better with DiCaprio in the leading role. This doesn't mean either actor is necessarily 'better' than the other. In this case it just means that I believe Damon was very well cast in his top movies.
When we looked at the reverse a couple of months ago, we decided that a 5-5 tie was apt for the top 10 DiCaprio movies. This suggests Damon might be a slightly more flexible actor than DiCaprio, but remember the caveat, in the 5 that DiCaprio won, I suggested he won handily, easily proving the better cast actor in those cases.


What have we learnt? DiCaprio is well cast in over half of his movies, Damon perhaps even better cast in the majority of his. DiCaprio brings a seriousness, depth and edge to his roles, while Damon's everyman act is used to perfection in his top movies. Most of all, that's twenty seriously good movies and movie sets we're talking about, and the common denominators are Damon and DiCaprio.

Maybe that's all we need to know.


Irish National baseball team

Irish National baseball team
Team Ireland at the European Championships, Croatia, 2000.

A nice little mention for this blog on Fox Sports

A nice little mention for this blog on Fox Sports

copyright

WHAT THIS MEANS: It means you can quote me or reproduce parts of my postsbut YOU MUST ATTRIBUTE THE SOURCE. Do NOT reproduce any of my posts as a whole. Do NOT reproduce any of my content for commercial gain. ESPECIALLY DO NOT PASS MY WORK OFF AS YOUR OWN. ALL CONTENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IS SOLE PROPERTY OF THE SITE AUTHOR AND PROTECTED UNDER COPYRIGHT.