Monday, June 26, 2023

More movie reviews

The Return of Martin Guerre : The generic Martin is better than the name brand.

Flesh and Blood : Don't mess with those small virgins. The engineer deserves better, but oh well. The price of progress.

The Last Duel: A 1400s #meToo. It's an actual court case from the actual middle ages, so not entirely without its merits. The final fight is great, except that they needed to call several holds for not taking shots.

Dangerous Beauty : One Ms. deFranco conquers 16th c. Venice, one bed at a time. Great eye candy … but don't use it for costume documentation (unless you are documenting what you're wearing to the after revel). Mmm, Hot chicks with swords.
Kingdom of Heaven : Dateline: The Crusades. Orlando Bloom proves he isn't just another pretty Elf. Who knew crusaders were so buff? Deus Vult seeing thee on thy Bowflex.
Queen Margot : Marguerite de Valois, princess of France, tries to keep all sides satisfied in the War of the Three Henries (1580s France). See Dangerous Beauty on documentation.
Shakespeare in Love : A Tom Stoppard script that doesn't put you to sleep like Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead (with many inside jokes for Shakespeare nerds). A tale of writers block, which the movie never makes clear whether Shakespeare ever really got over (see the YouTube parody `George Lucas in Love '). More hot chicks with swords (Gwyneth Paltrow) …mmm, and she can act, too. Beware of the kid pulling the wings off flies – he will turn out to be utterly unimportant to the story, but will drag down many an English Lit class by being like Shakespeare only much, much gorier... For costume, see this one, avoid Elizabeth.
Stealing Heaven : The classic medieval love story of Abelard and Heloise – two lovers separated by an inconvenient belief system. They were pseudo-intellectual before pseudo-intellectual was hip, by about 700 years. (Who names their child Astrolabe?).
The Advocate : A personal favorite – A tale of jurisprudence in 15th Century France. A city lawyer has his eyes opened running a law practice in a small village. How's a lawyer to get any work done between pigs, cows, witches, evil Templars and random hot chicks in his bed. Curious yet?
The Other Boleyn Girl : Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) sharks her sister for the hottest guy in school. That guy just happens to be The Incredible Hulk aka King Henry VIII (Eric Bana). Costuming ok, but who's watching? Taken from a bodice ripper novel, it features a distinct lack of actual ripped bodices. Filmschool 101, people, in film we take a book's complex implied narrative details and turn them into simple graphic statements in explicit color on the screen. Disappointing.
A Man for all Seasons: We just rewatched it. It's very inspiring. It's also really biased. Recommended if you like your Popes pope-shaped, not bishop-of-rome shaped. And, yes, that's Caligula as young Richard Rich.
The Princess of Montpensier: Really pretty costuming. Story's pretty good also.
Brother Sun, Sister Moon: Everything you wanted to know about St. Francis but were afraid to ask.
Slightly post period :
Restoration : An inspiring tale of loss and redemption after the Restoration of the English Monarchy. Gore Warning: Lots of the plague.
The Libertine : A depressing tale of loss and redemption after the Restoration of the English Monarchy. More loss, less redemption. Johnny Depp plays … Johnny Depp playing the Earl of Wilmot, a playwright who is as the title of the movie suggests, but forgets to wear a cap in the rain, if ya know what I mean. John Malkovich plays Charles II. Great costumes, if post-period. Love them coats. Gore Warning: lots of the clap.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

"If we are trying to be anachronistic..."

From the conversation on Same Sex Crowns on scatoday.net:

http://www.scatoday.net/node/21565

Submitted by louis on Wed, 2011-10-19 20:41.

"If we are trying to be anachronistic..."

We should get off the bus right here. Long time players know that the SCA is equal parts entertainment and education. Part of the entertainment value is in escaping the modern world, which is what we might take 'being anachronistic' to mean. However, how unfair, if we are simply wishing to provide a pleasant escape for all from the modern, that we restrict this to a world pleasant only for noble-born, and I would add, white, male, straight Catholic Europeans. For the rest we would only provide a past, worse, world in which prejudice and evil reigned. This is vile in the modern world and, I think, fails to be a goal many wish to even allow, much less advance with our money, time and long efforts.

But, let us not forget the second aspect. Our 501(c)3 charter is to educate ourselves and the public regarding the pre-1601 past of Western Europe and its environs. Education is the antithesis of escapism. Education is only meaningful as far as it provides our modern selves a perspective or insight into the past. We attempt to do this by reenacting (or rebuilding) things and situations of the past. However, when this reenactment runs into the modern aspects of our selves the reenactment can easily (and must) yield to allow any modern person to participate equally. This is both in our modern notion of fairness and is our charge as a California non-profit Corporation. Are same sex rulers perfectly 'period'? There are period examples, and equally one can point out that even the notion of a ruling male-female couple sharing power does not much pass historical muster, but that the notion that perfect reenactment of the past is even a necessary goal of the SCA is a canard. Perfect education does not require perfect reenactment. In fact, eliding what we do not wish to recreate when that aspect is either painful to some or simply out of the scope of what our modern world wishes to study happens all the time in the SCA. It is not only understandable but is really no barrier to educating well and fully on those areas that we do focus on.

Consider: I have read of some Civil War reenactment organizations where blacks wish to portray Confederate regulars. In any notion of period accuracy this would seem downright silly if not insulting to their historic experience. Only when we see the reenactment as educating on the Civil War could we have any notion why such a thing might be agreeable. Indeed if framed that way who are we to question whether a modern person of any gender or race wishes to educate themselves on the Civil War experience by immersion as a Civil War reenactment can do? In like fashion, how could we not allow same sex couples to participate as fully as any other SCA persons are allowed to, as ruling nobles or crowns?

Monday, February 13, 2012

The SCA and values.

by Ben Baron on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 10:04am ·

As I was coming to work this morning I was listening to Pres Obama’s soaring speech to the United Nations on universal human rights and simultaneously thinking of the Caer Galen Peers meeting of last night. The old bugbears of ‘fealty’ and ‘royalism’ came up at various points in the conversation, and the conflation got me thinking of something important.

Why can’t the SCA affirm our real values in the real world?

I try to make my SCA activities about the ‘real world’. Some don’t. They want to live in a fantasy land. That’s their choice, but the fantasy they choose to live is one that I sometimes find personally repugnant.

To quote Kanye: “Imma let you finish”, but ...

Firstly, there is the hypocrisy issue. In the SCA, we construct an entire edifice on believing that all Crowns are virtuous and deserving of respect, even slavish devotion. People justify this under the rubric of Royalism with a mythos that has long been demonstrated to be historically unsupportable, as though that were even a question in the minds of people writing this phony script. All it is to me is a modern world shortcut – the empty calorie equivalent of virtue. It is an easy high, feels good for a moment but doesn’t last. There is a modern world value to be supported, but real virtue is hard. It requires self-awareness and self sacrifice. It requires self-discipline, not swearing fealty reflexively or on command. Real devotion (fealty) is freely given and willingly manifested. Anything else is just extorted, or even feigned. It seems difficult to believe that people try to counterfeit something that obvious, since it can only lead to the ironic sort of statement from George Burns in a different context that “Sincerity is everything. Once you learn to fake that you’ve got it made.”

Second, the SCA can promote another virtue that we see seldom in America, as I have long observed: service. Service does not mean slavery, nor does it mean servility. It allows a man to demonstrate the reciprocal bonds of loyalty of server to client (or master) that can be a lifelong bond of mutual support. In the ‘real world’ of USA, I believe we need more people devoted to, for instance, public service – service as a civil servant, not for personal advancement, but for the common good, above our own craven desires. The worthies of this country once knew this: "I acknowledge that such a debt [of service to my fellow-citizens] exists, that a tour of duty in whatever line he can be most useful to his country, is due from every individual. It is not easy perhaps to say of what length exactly that tour should be, but we may safely say of what length it should not be. Not of our whole life, for instance, for that would be to be born a slave--not even of a very large portion of it." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1793. ME 9:118 Again, then, bitter to me then that some SCA people insist cravenly, again in the name of ‘Royalism’, on subverting this honest, unmet, yearning for an opportunity of service into just another assumption of unilateral servitude to the Crown.

Yet another modern value of worth is defense of the weak. Would that this were promoted more. We obviously yearn for this in our modern world. We wish for a superhero to rescue us from oppression, and most knights were the kids that grew up with a Batman poster on their wall. The elements are there. The intentions were once virtuous, so how does this get short circuited then in the SCA to knights being simply the bullies - stormtroopers of the king? The king, if nothing else, in American minds and lore, is tantamount to an emperor or dictator. Who would a real superhero less wish to support than that?

Finally, on modeling the real world in the SCA, and this is really personal and so could be considered somewhat biased and oversensitive, I had a conversation many years ago with Countess Berengaria which I have never forgotten on the subject of fascism. Not everyone will consider this, but real fascism destroyed tens of millions of people, including mine, within the last century, and many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people were killed trying to combat it. When I see people raising their fists in a quasi-fascist salute and yelling ‘Outlands’ I must say I have never stopped being queasy each and every time it happens. Our SCA, our place of refuge and friendship, should never be ceded to such thuggery, even in sport.

Heavy thoughts, I know, for a day, but I hope this makes people think. I certainly did, and for that I suppose I can thank the King … and Obama.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Royalism in SCA governance

Master Louis-Philippe Mitouard, OP, OL, Baron, twice a kingdom great officer of the Outlands.

Recently there was a discussion in the Outlands that the Kingdom Seneschal should be deferential to the crown, even to the point of treating the Crown, using a corporate model, like the "Chief executive" of the kingdom. Generally this article disagrees with that notion. However, packed into this are the notions of what sort of organization the SCA is and what the roles of the Crown and officers should be. Obviously these are eternal SCA campfire debates, but if we restrict ourselves to the realm of senior kingdom officers vis a vis the Crown I believe the answer, although it can be obscured by general SCA dogma, can be readily discerned.

First, we have to dispose of parsing Royalism as a word. This is truly a vain exercise. Even though there are always people who regard the idea as a touchstone, its meaning is quite slippery. The only consistent definition I have seen is in the negative. Those who are most vociferous about it cannot exactly define what Royalism means except when it comes time to out an `anti-Royalist'. To complete the thought I can do no better than to quote Count Richard Ironsteed, first King of Atenveldt:

In spite of its obviously political character, most Royalists deny that Royalism is a political movement. In fact for most of them "politics" is a pejorative.

While the existence of a political movement in a group without formal political process is somewhat difficult to define, there is no question that by most definitions, Royalism is a highly political stance. Certainly it is not a code of ethics, such as Chivalry, an aesthetic movement or even a style of fighting. In fact, outside of politics, there is little or nothing that can be called Royalist. Aside from their views on what are clearly political questions, many Royalists have nothing in common.

Examination of statements by Royalists shows that for them "politics" has two meanings. It refers either to the turmoil and unpleasantness produced by differences of opinion on major questions or to the very act of expressing some disagreement with the actions of the King or Prince.

For some of the more extreme Royalists, "politics" is simply a code word for any kind of dissent from their opinion, active or passive. In this sense, Royalism can indeed be said to be "non-political" and those who are not whole-hearted Royalists are in fact "playing politics." [1]

Let us next consider the second great slippery phrase `the Dream'. Even though this too is subject to myriad definitions we can dispose of it quickly. Without unpacking it too far, on its face, `dream' connotes unreality or escapism. Although many people have the luxury of playing SCA as they wish history was, would be or could be, officers of the SCA would be well advised for their own financial, legal if not mental, health to see their jobs as they are – agents of a modern world 501(c )3 non-profit corporation. This is the way the authorities will see them if it should come to a test.

In short, by the time you get to be an officer you should know this but, all the relevant laws and penalties you will have to deal with do not take into consideration any notion of what anyone means by `the Dream' or `the current middle ages'.

What, then, is the role of the Crown (King and Queen) and the kingdom officers in governing an SCA kingdom? I do not intend to entirely deconstruct the crown's role in the SCA. One must acknowledge even without knowing or agreeing why that the Crown has a strong mindshare role as a leader of the group. In a purely quantitative way this can be evident when one stages an SCA event. Many groups have experienced that the presence of the royals attracts enough patrons to an event to make an otherwise obscure SCA event quite lucrative.

However, governing the group is another matter.

The prevention of self-dealing is a strong need for any non-profit. Even if it is not enforced as perhaps it should be by the IRS, the threat of suit against a 501(c)(3) for self-dealing (also called private inurement) [2] [3] is always present. This stands to reason as there is no large source of remuneration for participating as a volunteer as one might have at a paying job. Therefore there will always be people who, if they need money from the group, or at all, redirect it from the biggest existing pool – one that is (by definition) not intended for them. This is not a suspicion of the Crown, or any member for that matter, but is simply a well-known feature of nonprofit corporations.

The reason to allow `the king's word [to be] law' was explained to me by a former Seneschal (paraphrasing) thus: In order to allow a crown to prove their virtue we have to allow them to make mistakes. If we regulate the crown too heavily we take away their ability to show greatness.

Allowing that this is the goal for some SCA players, still this runs headlong into problems of self-dealing, either in fact or in appearance. The SCA is a crown-centered game. Rather than denying or diminishing this, in fact it is the reason we must treat the crown as special. They indeed do have a unique ability to guide the group, either to the light or into darkness.

Is the Crown the chief executive officer (CEO) of the kingdom? In a legal sense, clearly no. They are officers of the corporation, but even within the kingdom, the Crown is given much greater informal power than a chief executive but less formal power. The formal powers of the crown are fairly strictly limited. It cannot solely hire or fire officers (it needs the agreement of the directly superior society officer). It has no staff that it directly can appoint or fire. It has only 1/3 of the votes in the kingdom financial committee controlling the kingdom's outlay of money. Any action taken by the Crown can be countermanded by the society or Board of Directors and any discipline imposed by the Crown (banishment) is automatically reviewed from above.

The crown can certainly take actions that while not touching money directly nonetheless will smell like pure self interest. Even leaving aside the actual threat from real world authorities (the scope of which I believe can only be properly assessed by an experienced non-profit attorney) appearance of impropriety itself proves likely to make a crown's life very unpleasant.

On a more general level, the role of the kingdom officer is to keep the ship of the SCA on a steady and peaceful course – to promote order and harmony in their area of focus.

Whether an officer sees his role as the crown's loyal advisor, or in simply wishing to be the steward of a smoothly running group, he cannot generally afford to let the `royals be royal'. The officer corps must steer the crown from temptation.

In matters unrelated to money, such as the general direction of the kingdom or more specifically in recent times, the scheduling or placement of events, especially kingdom events, the Crown has greater latitude, yet still the overhang of self interest is still a problem that is within the kingdom officer corps' power to prevent. For instance, given their druthers, who would not want events scheduled at a manner, time and location convenient to themselves? Some Crowns have proven incapable of resisting this temptation yet it has an undeniable impact on the satisfaction level (and therefore the mission) of our entire organization. I will not make too much of unfairness of royal caprice as a hurting the SCA quantitatively. In moderation, it is arguably a feature of the SCA that some patrons enjoy (although again, arguably, allowing royal caprice has precious little to do with the group's stated mission of studying and educating about the Middle Ages and Renaissance in Europe). Richard Ironsteed goes into this in great and convincing detail, but suffice to say the general unfairness of allowing a few to dictate to the many is a corrosive force that in excess will destroy a volunteer organization.

As stewards of the SCA, kingdom officers can do much to prevent the worst abuses of power without entirely removing the color of the SCA royalty game. Some chafe against terms like `theater' that frame the SCA as something they think of as lacking real world heft but, to be effective, officers must see the SCA as the world outside sees it, not as some `royalist' players might wish it. It is a term worth embracing. Part of the theater of the SCA is that the Crown, as some notions of royalism would have it, can only truly be `king' when they are in sole and unfettered charge. Where this is the goal, realistically we can only allow this to be an act, not reality. Using our analogy, then, the kingdom officers are the crew who make sure a stage is already set for the crown when they are ready to perform. The good crowns allow that this is a charade, and so for that matter do the good officers. However, they do readily break character when needed (when dealing with real world considerations). The bad ones don't.

______________________________________________________________

[1] ROYALISM: AN INFANTILE POLITICAL DISORDER by Count Richard Ironsteed, February 1983 (A.S. XVII) Runnymede Press, Copyright © 1983 Rick Cook.
[2] A general report on private inurement and excess benefit. http://www.nonprofitlawreport.com/guide/private-inurement/
[3]The IRS definition of a non-profit charitable organization: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=123297,00.html
Inurement/Private Benefit - Charitable Organizations
A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Peerage Discussion

[Written in 2002]
Gentles, I mentioned that I would have a separate email on the subject of the discussion of a Laurel candidate 'supporting fighting'.

A clarification was requested about what was meant by 'supporting fighting', and whether a candidate under discussion met the propounded standard. This is not the same discussion as some Laurels had in the past which was more generally about whether candidates should be 'well rounded' and know about more than just their area of interest.

This is also not a moot issue since in the discussion the Crown implied and stated outright that in this reign they were holding very closely (literally, as Her Majesty had a copy of this page in her hand) to the Corpora requirements on peerage. She even implied that they had not made a knight this reign because no one had met this standard.

I feel it is important to divide the discussion into 2 threads: 1) What is the standard for Laureate, according to our reading of Corpora? 2) How closely do we intend to hold candidates to it?

I must state at the outset that I find it unfair to think about or be discussing point 2) before we discuss point 1). Holding a specific candidate to an arguably unstated and certainly unagreed-to standard is completely wrong.

So, I will continue along point 1, leaving point 2 for another thread. I quote from the latest revision of Corpora all germane requirements on Peerages and Laurel Peerage:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. PERSONAL AWARDS AND TITLES
A. Patents Of Arms
1. General Requirements: Candidates for any order conferring a Patent of Arms must meet the following minimum criteria. Additional requirements may be set by law and custom of the kingdoms as deemed appropriate and necessary by the Crown.

They shall have been obedient to the governing documents of the Society and the laws of the kingdom.

They shall have consistently shown respect for the Crown of the kingdom.

They shall have set an example of courteous and noble behavior suitable to a peer of the realm.

They shall have demonstrated support for the aims and ideals of the Society by being as authentic in dress, equipment and behavior as is within their power.

They shall have shared their knowledge and skills with others.

They shall have practiced hospitality according to their means and as appropriate to the circumstances.

They shall have made every effort to learn and practice those skills desirable at and worthy of a civilized court. To this end they should have some knowledge of a wide range of period forms, including but not limited to literature, dancing, music, heraldry, and chess, and they should have some familiarity with combat as practiced in the Society.

They should participate in Society recreations of several aspects of the culture of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

2. Order of Precedence Within the Peerage: The Crown may establish the order of precedence within the peerage according to the laws and customs of the kingdom. However, the Chivalry, the Laurel, and the Pelican are of equal precedence and must be considered as one group.
...
4. Patent Orders: The following institutions are established for all kingdoms in the Society. A Patent of Arms may be conferred only upon a person being admitted into one of these orders. Each candidate for a patent order must satisfy the general requirements listed above in A.1., as well as the specific requirements listed here.
...
b. The Order of the Laurel:
Members of the Order of the Laurel may choose to swear fealty, but are not required to do so. The candidate must have attained the standard of excellence in skill and/or knowledge equal to that of his or her prospective peers in some area of the Arts or Sciences. The candidate must have applied this skill and/or knowledge for the instruction of members and service to the kingdom to an extent above and beyond that normally expected of members of the Society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, wasn't that special? Still with me? Note that the only mention of fighting here is:

"They shall have made every effort to learn and practice those skills desirable at and worthy of a civilized court. To this end they should have some knowledge of a wide range of period forms, including but not limited to literature, dancing, music, heraldry, and chess, and they should have some familiarity with combat as practiced in the Society."

To rely on this as the basis of an assertion that a Laurel must 'support fighting' is a very unsteady argument.

This point is, to my reading, a requirement that the candidate be, in essence, a 'parfait gentyl knight'.

To be fair, I would expect we need to make sure a candidate has read Tristan et Isolde, can compose a virelai, has registered arms and can blazon them, can dance a measure, sing a chanson and play a game of chess (in its medieval as well as modern rules). (For bonus points, show that they can course a hound, train a falcon, ride a horse, etc.).

Surely this is a part of Corpora which has never been taken so literally, and it would be foolish to attempt to do so now.

For instance, if we accept one of these points literally, fairness argues we should read others equally literally. How about these:

"They shall have made every effort to learn and practice those skills desirable at and worthy of a civilized court."

The SCA encompasses every European (or even European-related) land and period pre-1601. What does worthy of a "civilized court" (civilized, with respect to the European High Middle Ages) mean to a 10th Century Viking? to a 13th Century Mongol? Must their persona be that of a visitor to a 'civilized court'. So what of people who depict peasants or practice the meaner arts, such as spinning and weaving, cordwaining, tailor, scribe, tinker -- unworthy of a gentleman?

"They shall have demonstrated support for the aims and ideals of the Society by being as authentic in dress, equipment and behavior as is within their power."

As I read this, if someone could, financially and practically, have authentic metal armor but they have plastic armor they would violate this restriction. If they can afford real linen garments they cannot wear cotton or polyester. They cannot be heard to talk about their computers or their favorite TV show. One can even argue that they cannot talk about the SCA, which is a clearly non-period entity. They must be authentic in behavior, expressing surprise at the sight of an airplane, or a flashlight, or a camera.

Note also the very clear assertion that maximum authenticity '[supports the] aims and ideals of the Society'. This is to say, we are an authenticity-based organization, not 'creative anachronism'. Does everyone not agree?

"They shall have practiced hospitality according to their means and as appropriate to the circumstances."

Been invited to stay at the candidate's house recently? At their camp? Has the candidate fed you when you forgot to pack a meal? Did they lend you their cloak when you forgot yours?

So, is it sensible to read Corpora literally? I maintain that in practice we do not and it is such an imperfect document that we cannot. If we do not, although we may think support for fighting, whatever that means, is desirable, I cannot believe in good conscience we should construe Corpora to require it in any way.

Friday, December 30, 2011

Has the Outlands Jumped the Shark?

Dear friends, I have considered whether to write this, but like many of my letters it comes more unbidden than not, at hours of the night when my higher functions aren’t working so well. please forgive any candor that is undesired.

I believe the SCA has jumped the shark. Actually, more properly, since I don’t have experience with other kingdoms directly I will confine my argument to ‘I believe the Outlands has jumped the shark’.

Let me explain. I will first say that this comes on the heels of giving xxx a yyy, which prompted no small amount of annoyance on my part, but it is not caused by it. Those who know me will realize that I am breaking my own rules by proclaiming something to be a crisis or some sort of tipping point or other momentous event. This is mostly because I am never smart enough to figure out when those occur or even if they have occurred, and I don’t wish to take the tack of a Doomsday Preacher who predicts the end of the world every week and surely will be right some day.

That said, although giving xxx a yyy is not a last straw nor is it prompting me to concede or throw in the towel, I considered carefully whether it means anything except me getting older and less patient with the same old SCA. I decided it was somewhat true but the pattern of events including giving that award does have some arc. So, I hereby suspend the rules and proceed to do some big picture skrying of the future.

Now, why ‘jumped the shark’? I stay away from things that sound like the fall of the Roman empire or other cries of the inevitable fall of a decadent society. In addition to it being entirely too fatalistic I think it inapt. I have spent the entirety of my SCA career lecturing that the SCA is not a government. Really it isn’t – it is a form of entertainment.

That is why jumping the shark is the right analogy.

So, what is it?

For those who are familiar with media fandom (of which the SCA is in no small part a close cousin, having developed at the cons and being populated by those people), jumping the shark refers to that episode late in the run of Happy Days where they had the Fonz jump a shark tank with his iconic motorcycle.

A tv show is said to ‘jump the shark’ at a certain point. Let us anatomize for a moment what this means and why it applies. Every scripted serial drama has a set of characters and a story arc. The best are charming and most of all the writing is creative and has a certain amount of originality and novelty in what they say about their characters – usually called character development, but when the Fonz jumped the shark tank we knew he was going from a developing character to a stereotype. Of what? Of that character, The Fonz.

At that point the show was doomed. The Fonz would never be anything more than a set of traits – the motorcycle, the jacket, the fake NY accent, the thumbs up Heey. We knew that nothing more could progress. The show would be doomed to repeat itself ad absurdum, and finally ad mortem.

Why does this happen and what does it mean?

It happens to the best of shows for the most innocent of reasons – it was entertaining. As we get more history with the show we become nostalgic and want to repeat this pleasurable experience over and over. We become more and more impatient with the inevitable clunkers – nothing more than the natural result of the creative process - which when we had no expectations were overlooked but now are dire disappointments. So, our demand narrows to only the things we remember best, the most iconic. And in so doing, we contract our horizons. We love the thing to death.

You know when you see this happening. The characters become a distilled version of what they were. What were tendencies in those characters become requirements. There is no surprise or mystery. The stories become absurdly amplified versions of what they were early on, but are essentially repeats of what came before. Although there will continue to be some occasional glories, like a turtle confined by being unable to shed its shell, the organism can not grow and so must eventually wither and die.

Does this apply to the SCA? Somewhat. Although it is not a scripted tv series, it is an entertainment medium and can be viewed as an ongoing series of improvisational plays, event after event.

Again, just looking at tendencies, I can draw myriad analogies to other SCA behaviors in which our choices have become narrower, less creative. We want events to be like we remember so we don’t try new types of events or even change their names. We won’t try new activites or branch out. The event scheduling mechanism seems designed to take away any chance of an original or novel event idea having to compete with others (and so succeed or fail) on its own merits. Instead every event is hammered to fit, painted to match.

As I have stated in other venues, the iconic, defining, part of the SCA is the Crown and award giving.

Worst of all, of late, not just to xxx, but for the last several reigns, there has been a strong tendency for the Crown to give awards to and only to their coterie. I believe they do so because they are guessing instead of knowing. They don’t want to poll the peerages or ask (or even gather award recommendations). They believe or maybe wish that their buddies meet the standards of the past. But they are wrong. By my (perhaps overly optimistic) theory, they do this not simply out of malice but out of impatience. It is just the capricious desire to have that experience of rewarding a deserving person, as they remember it from the past, but as all our lives become faster paced day by day they lack the patience to wait for it to come along naturally. Instead they want it manufactured on demand, each time, every time (I forego here the inevitable comparisons to addiction, but I leave them as an exercise for the reader to fill in mentally).

That, friends, is exactly the same reason why Fonzie had to jump the shark tank.

The good news is where the analogy differs. In a scripted series we are bound by what character developments happened before, good or ill. The arrow of time goes only one direction – forward (except at the end of Dallas, where they disavowed the entire plot as a dream; we see how well that worked out for them).

The Outlands can still change. It should change to fit the times and it can continue to be new and innovative and genuinely surprising and creative but it cannot if we by action or inaction shoehorn it into the mold of the past just to experience that illusory short term sugar high. If this game is to stay entertaining for those of us who happen not to be the crown or its suckups we must.

l.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Any other suggestions on SCA-ish movies -or- are you smarter than the Outlands list?

Any other suggestions on SCA-ish movies -or- are you smarter than the Outlands list?
‎Tuesday, ‎February ‎16, ‎2010, ‏‎3:04:36 PM | Ben Baron
Re: Outlander Seeking Movie Suggestions

Here were my contributions. See the Outlands List for other details, if necessary.

Other suggestions (from Caer Galen movie night):

Dangerous Beauty : One Ms. deFranco conquers 16th c. Venice, one bed at a time. Great eye candy … but don't use it for costume documentation (unless you are documenting what you're wearing to the after revel). Mmm, Hot chicks with swords.

Kingdom of Heaven : Dateline: The Crusades. Orlando Bloom proves he isn't just another pretty Elf. Who knew crusaders were so buff? Deus Vult seeing thee on thy Bowflex.

Queen Margot : Marguerite de Valois, princess of France, tries to keep all sides satisfied in the War of the Three Henries (1580s France). See Dangerous Beauty on documentation.

Shakespeare in Love : A Tom Stoppard script that doesn't put you to sleep like Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead (with many inside jokes for Shakespeare nerds). A tale of writers block, which the movie never makes clear whether Shakespeare ever really got over (see the YouTube parody `George Lucas in Love '). More hot chicks with swords (Gwyneth Paltrow) …mmm, and she can act, too. Beware of the kid pulling the wings off flies – he will turn out to be utterly unimportant to the story, but will drag down many an English Lit class by being like Shakespeare only much, much gorier... For costume, see this one, avoid Elizabeth.

Stealing Heaven : The classic medieval love story of Abelard and Heloise – two lovers separated by an inconvenient belief system. They were pseudo-intellectual before pseudo-intellectual was hip, by about 700 years. (Who names their child Astrolabe?).

The Advocate : A personal favorite – A tale of jurisprudence in 15th Century France. A city lawyer has his eyes opened running a law practice in a small village. How's a lawyer to get any work done between pigs, cows, witches, evil Templars and random hot chicks in his bed. Curious yet?

The Other Boleyn Girl : Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) sharks her sister for the hottest guy in school. That guy just happens to be The Incredible Hulk aka King Henry VIII (Eric Bana). Costuming ok, but who's watching? Taken from a bodice ripper novel, it features a distinct lack of actual ripped bodices. Filmschool 101, people, in film we take a book's complex implied narrative details and turn them into simple graphic statements in explicit color on the screen. Disappointing.

Slightly post period :

Restoration : An inspiring tale of loss and redemption after the Restoration of the English Monarchy. Gore Warning: Lots of the plague.

The Libertine : A depressing tale of loss and redemption after the Restoration of the English Monarchy. More loss, less redemption. Johnny Depp plays … Johnny Depp playing the Earl of Wilmot, a playwright who is as the title of the movie suggests, but forgets to wear a cap in the rain, if ya know what I mean. John Malkovich plays Charles II. Great costumes, if post-period. Love them coats. Gore Warning: lots of the clap.