Everyday messenger bag

I've backed a ton of Kickstarter projects in my day, and experience tells me that projects that require electronics and hardware almost never ship on time. They are almost always manufactured somewhere in China, and somewhere along the line, some part doesn't come back the way the creators hoped, and it's back to the drawing board, and the promised release date becomes a joke, albeit not an amusing one for either party.

Physical goods that don't require electronics, however, have shipped on time more often than not. Fashion items, for example. Thus I'm hopeful to receive one of these Everyday Messenger Bags by the end of 2015, hopefully before Christmas vacation.

I've long wanted a bag that would hold both a 13" to 15" Macbook Pro and a camera body plus a few lenses. This looks like it might fit the bill, and the latest update includes a potentially clever tripod carrying solution.

Check out the video below and/or the Kickstarter page for more detail.

Truly defective

When discussing his masterful 1968 neo-noir Le Samourai, writer/director Jean-Pierre Melville said, “I’m not interested in realism. All my films hinge on the fantastic […] A film is first and foremost a dream.” This same philosophy runs through True Detective. But showrunner Nic Pizzolatto overplayed his hand in season two, leading to characters whose emotional landscapes lacked depth, or much of a through line (unless you count daddy issues). True Detective is the clearest example of the emptiest aspects of modern noir: vengeful, self-centered white men; casual racism; violence without grace or purpose; mistaking the cliché strong female character for something meaningful; lack of levity or humor; labyrinthine plotlines without verve. Ultimately, it’s a parody lacking the sincerity needed to give its pulpy center meaning. As easy as it would be to hang this on the inflated ego of its creator, True Detective is indicative of a larger problem: Modern noir has atrophied.
 

Great essay by Angelica Jade Bastién couching the problems of True Detective in the larger context of the decline of noir in film and television.

This second season of True Detective was problematic, as many have pointed out. The plot was both convoluted and shallow all at once. I didn't think season one was as great as its widespread critical reception would have one believe.

Despite all that, I am glad a show like True Detective exists. I love the film noir genre. For all of season one's plot banality, it achieved an ominous, claustrophobic mood that is something typically found only in movies and not in television with its heavily plot-driven priorities and rhythms.

I love genre movies because they're such entertaining software for encoding deeper commentary about society, life, and the human condition. The gangster movie. The western. Film noir. Vampire movies. The heist film. They're always about something else beyond the literal plot realities, and as such they persist across the decades, commenting on each successive iteration of society, pointing out that plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

As long as there are people who are forced to play a losing game by the world, noir has a place in our storytelling toolbox. We are certainly far from done with the femme fatale, for example.

Noir’s shifts in part come down to one question: Whose story is being told? The dominant image of noir today is a white, male power fantasy, whether it be in positioning his brutality as badass in Drive, turning depravity into parody in Sin City, or the empty stylistic exercise of Looper. Meanwhile, the dominant female image in noir has shifted from a complex, contradictory woman comfortable with her sexuality to a hard-edged one whose strength and anti-feminine dress are implicitly linked to past sexual trauma. Shows like Top of the LakeThe Killing, and now True Detective replicate the same basic template. These female detectives are white, capable, and rough-hewn. They have immense hang-ups with their sexuality and motherhood, along with a bevy of daddy issues. Besides their genuine interest in the women they seek justice for, they aren’t all that different from their male counterparts, which means their creators don’t have to stretch themselves creatively. And what we’ve lost along the way is one of noir’s most soulful and powerful depictions of the hypocrisy of the American Dream: the femme fatale.
 
By virtue of her gender, the femme fatale’s choices are limited. Her quest for riches belies more than greed. Money is never just money in American culture. It’s the ability to define your own life story. It gives women the kind of power that society often precludes them from reaching. What’s more important to the American Dream than the means to define your own future? Films like Clash by Night, Sudden Fear, and the entire oeuvre of Gloria Grahame delve deeply into how the notion of the American Dream does not include prosperity for women or people of color. The femme fatale is often categorized simplistically, as virgin or whore. This forgets that it is the femme fatale who spurns the plot, often having the most active role in the film, and shown as having anxieties and desires all her own. Ultimately, can’t the femme fatale be viewed as much as a female power fantasy as a male nightmare?
 

True Detective hewed so closely to the outer trappings of the genre that it was too easy to see the structure, too hard to detect its dark heart.

(Rough bets: This season ends with Ray learning that, yes, his son is his own. I would put good money on that. I would be less likely to put money on the idea of Ray getting Ani pregnant, but I think it will probably happen.)
 

That's Todd VanDerWerff of Vox discussing the show in early July. These are characters trapped in a prison of the screenwriter's design. It's okay to know generally how a genre piece ends, that's why they call it genre, but to see the specifics coming from so far away does detract from the narrative pleasure.

Despite all my misgivings, I hope True Detective returns for another season. The noir genre is underrepresented on television (season one of Fargo on FX was one other example, and a superior one at that). Since the show resets its storyline and characters every season, it offers something that the noir genre rarely offers its characters: hope.

Limetown

Ten years ago, over three hundred men, women and children disappeared from a small town in Tennessee, never to be heard from again.
 
In this seven-part podcast, American Public Radio host Lia Haddock asks the question once more, "What happened to the people of Limetown?"
 

The new podcast Limetown is fictional (not a spoiler, it's noted on their website), but it's executed in the style of popular non-fictional public radio podcasts like Serial, Radiolab, and that ilk.

Perhaps a medium or genre comes of age once the first spoof or satire can be made, a sign that it's achieved sufficient popularity to support such a joke? This wouldn't be the first attempt to poke fun at this genre, but it's the first native spoof I'm aware of.

Related: Fred Armisen plays Ira Glass on the Doppelgängers episode of This American Life. Armisen first unveiled the impression during a dress rehearsal sketch, but it proved too niche to connect with enough audience members so it never aired. You philistines, I think it's one of Armisen's best impressions.

Can kitchens be happier?

Rene Redzepi of Noma fame wonders if it's possible to for restaurant kitchens to be something other than terrifying dictatorships.

I started cooking in a time when it was common to see my fellow cooks get slapped across the face for making simple mistakes, to see plates fly across a room, crashing into someone who was doing his job too slowly. It wasn’t uncommon for me to be called a worthless cunt or worse. It wasn’t uncommon to reach for a pan only to find that someone had stuck the handle in the fire and then put it back on my station just to mess with me.
 
I watched chefs—mine and others—use bullying and humiliation to wring results out of their cooks. I would think to myself: Why is that necessary? I’ll never be like that.
 
But then I became a chef. I had my own restaurant, with my own money invested, with the weight of all the expectation in the world. And within a few months I started to feel something rumbling inside of me. I could feel it bubbling, bubbling, bubbling. And then one day the lid came flying off. The smallest transgressions sent me into an absolute rage: Why the hell have you not picked the thyme correctly? Why have you overcooked the fish? What is wrong with you? Suddenly I was going crazy about someone’s mise en place or some small thing they said wrong.
 

I've never worked in a restaurant kitchen, but I know many people who have, and I've always been struck by the horrifying stories of chefs dressing down their staff in front of everyone else,ten bordering on physical abuse. How did that become the norm? Is it just an inherited playbook with just one strategy in it? Are the staff not trained properly before getting into the kitchen? Are the expectations unreasonable?

What of other professions where screaming and throwing objects at underlings is the norm? I can think of some technology CEOs and movie directors, many TV show runners, coaches in certain sports...perhaps the popularity of such a management style across all these disparate areas has common roots.

The 2016 Republican roster

But a direct comparison with the last Republican primary, in 2012, reveals how strong this bunch of candidates is for the 2016 nomination. And the comparison is surprisingly direct: For most of the 2012 candidates, 2016 has offered a stronger, better-prepared, and more qualified rough equivalent.
 
Jeb Bush, for instance, is more or less Mitt Romney — a respected, technocratic, big-money Republican governor from a gentler decade. Except Bush was actually a conservative at the time, and so he doesn’t find himself painfully rewriting his history or groveling to a movement he used to scorn.
 

Interesting observation by Ben Smith at Buzzfeed on the 2016 slate of Republican candidates. The meta point is that Democrats shouldn't make the mistake of thinking 2016 will be a replay of Obama vs. a Republican joke.

Beyond that, the analogies get a little thin. Trump is a singular figure, a product of the New York tabloids with no 2012 equivalent, though Newt Gingrich, with more will than rationale, filled some of the same space, as did Bachmann. Rick Perry 2.0 appears to be pretty much Rick Perry. Mike Huckabee becomes a somewhat weaker candidate every cycle, as his demographic ages out and his charm wears thin. Santorum 2.0 is a poor man’s Santorum 1.0. And Marco Rubio’s generational campaign has no 2012 equivalent.
 
But don’t be fooled into thinking that this is a weak field, or that most of these candidates would get run over by the Clinton juggernaut. The Democrats are plodding toward the nomination of the sort of solid establishment candidate John McCain was in 2008 for Republicans. The Republicans onstage tonight represent a generation of their party’s stars.