It's Hard Out Here For A Frontierswoman: "The Homesman" (2014)

A little uneven, but director Tommy Lee Jones manages to creates some engaging and unsettling moments. The cast was terrific, though I found Swank to be a little too wooden. It's a shame Steinfeld wasn't old enough to play Cuddy.

Given that they're the entire impetus behind the film's plot, there is precious little exploration of the "insane" women outside of a few grim flashbacks. While those scenes are successful, we lose all three characters just as they're introduced. That's an opportunity wasted right there. Outside of 'the frontier is hard' and 'men are scoundrels,' the film doesn't really say a whole lot about them or their experience. Though I suppose that there's any focus on women at all (specifically Swank's character) is something of a coup. Mick LaSalle writes:

The phrase “feminist Western” has been thrown around with regard to the film. Better to say “The Homesman,” based on a 1988 novel by Glendon Swarthout, is concerned with the struggles of women in the West. Just imagine living in a world in which every man is filthy, half drunk and brutalized by hard living, where even the biggest idiot considers himself superior to every woman he sees. Just imagine being a woman in that world. Now imagine living in that world alone.

Overall, it's a decent film that struggles to find the right tone and balance. I feel like this was a mediocre film that could have been a good one. Now I just want to watch True Grit (2010) again for, like, the eight time.

O! The Varieties Of Compatibilism

I enjoyed Gazzaniga's book and would recommend it, but I, like Jerry Coyne, was unmoved by his compatibilist hedgings. Naive 'free will' is one of those old ideas that we made up and began to take for granted, and now we have to all sorts of heavy lifting to undo it. For me, it is far more parsimonious to accept that in light of a deterministic universe, libertarian notions of 'choice' (or any type of free will based on dualist ideas) are incompatible with our understanding of the nature of reality.

I could be wrong, of course, but whenever I see free will being redefined it strikes me as an attempt to hold on to some old idea for no other reason than that it was here FIRST! In this way, it is very much like what Sophisticated Theologians do when they distance themselves from what their revealed holy texts actually say and move toward some new definition of faith or god(s) that can coexist with a modern understanding of the world. The average believer seldom grapples with these heavy intellectual problems and are content to have their immature and unsophisticated view of their faith go unchallenged.

This constant revision should be a clue as to how desperate some are to cling to old ideas in light of new information. At some point, it may be useful to throw it all out and start working from scratch on new explanations rather than trying to square leftovers from more ignorant times with our newfangled enlightened ones.

It has gotten to the point where one must try very hard to see 'freedom' where it probably doesn't exist. And when our intuitive impression of what it means to be a free agent doesn't comport with reality, why not just change or reimagine the definition of said freedom or agency? It all smacks of wishful thinking and moving goal posts. This, again, is very reminiscent of how people work to reduce dissonance with respect to holding onto certain idiosyncratic religious beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Why can't we just shake it off and start constructing arguments from the ground up instead of building on top of what are almost certainly unsound intellectual foundations?

In case my ramblings were unclear, it may serve to quote Coyne at length here:

One of the most obvious resemblances of theology to compatibilism is the continual redefinition of “free will” so that (like God) it’s always preserved despite scientific advances. When Libet and Soon et al. showed that they could predict a person’s behavior several seconds in advance of that person’s conscious decision, the compatibilists rushed to save their definition, declaring that these experiments are completely irrelevant to the notion of free will. They’re not. For if free will means anything, it means that our choices are coincident with our consciousness of making them (to libertarians, our consciousness makes those choices, and we could have chosen otherwise). There is no scientific experiment, no finding from neuroscience, that will make the compatibilists give up their efforts, for they will simply continue to redefine free will in a way that humans will always have it. That resistance to evidence is another way compatibilism resembles Sophisticated Theology.™

In Which I Make Some Unnecessarily Snarky Comments About Richard Linklater's "Boyhood" (2014)

And now, some unnecessarily snarky comments about Richard Linklater's "Boyhood" (2014):

1. Grown-ups are the worst.
2. This movie is Liberal propaganda.
3. RICHARD LINKLATER STOLE MY TASTE IN MUSIC.
4. "You don't understand us!"
5. The Mom has the worst taste in men.
6. Director films movie intermittently over 11 year period. You won't believe what happens next!
7. They couldn't find any better child actors in Texas?
8. Movies grow up so fast. Where does the time go!?
9. You guys. Life is hard, you guys.
10. I've been saying stuff like "It's always now" since, like, 2006.

No, but seriously, following the story of a child growing up over a decade+ is a great idea for a movie. The problem is you still actually have to make the dang movie.