Hastily Written Angry Movie Review: "The Monuments Men" (2014)

 

I didn't think it could possibly be as bad as everyone said it was. I thought wrong. This was a complete and total misfire. The script is a joke, and the tone and direction are all wrong. It's hopelessly dull and curiously amateurish.

For a detective story about recovering stolen artistic masterpieces, there sure wasn't a lot of detective work or focus on the art itself. Instead, this scatterbrained mess chooses to force some awkward character set pieces on the viewer in the hopes that we might begin to care about them. It's flimsy, cheap, and ultimately hollow.

Didn't anyone watch this before they released it? You'd think with so many great people involved in this film, at least one of them would have been embarrassed enough so as to not want this film to see the light of day.

Okay, maybe I'm being excessively harsh, but that's only because I was so excited by the trailers and the cast way back in the day when I first heard about the movie.What a waste.

Vibram Never Lied To Me (Part 2): The Headline Strikes Back

Another day, another headline. This time, it's from VOX, a site which I've enjoyed reading since it launched a little while back. But I've got a teeny tiny little tarsal bone to pick with it about this article.

Despite the headline, at least this article explains how there just isn't much good evidence one way or the other about styles of running and injury rates. Again, the Vibram settlement doesn't suggest that barefoot running is wrong (though the headline kind of implies that), just that they made some marketing claims without sufficient evidence.

Toe shoes were around for a while before the "Born To Run" book became a bestseller and helped spark a lot of interest in barefoot/minimal running. It just so happened that Vibram had a product that wasn't initially marketed for runners, but enthusiasts quickly seized on them for that purpose. Seeing a potentially lucrative sales opportunity, Vibram overreached in their marketing claims in order to cash in on the interest. And now they're paying for it.

I continue not to have a problem with this, both with respect to Vibram getting its comeuppance while simultaneously not feeling "lied to" by the company.

But barefoot running and forefoot striking has been around a lot longer than this company. Despite this ugly fiasco, the 'barefoot running boom' has at least engendered some skepticism towards the de facto form of running footwear with its raised heels, cushioned soles, and 'motion control' technology. This is a case where more technology and intervention may not be necessary for everyone to enjoy a healthy running habit. Some people really need orthotics! Some don't need shoes at all, and it may be best to avoid them because they will inevitably mess with your biomechanics.

Again, I feel it necessary to point out that any kind of running increases your risk of injury. It's hard to get a stress fracture while sitting on the couch or in front of a computer screen. But there's no magic bullet for injury prevention. People get hurt in modern running shoes, and people get hurt running barefoot (albeit potentially in different ways and for different reasons). The question is: What's best for the individual when it comes to balancing the benefits and risks of enjoying running as part of a healthy lifestyle? This question is not to be taken lightly, and it may require doing plenty of research online, talking to your doctor, and just experimenting with different shoes (or forgoing them altogether) while being cautious and honest about your own abilities and needs. But don't just take my word for it.

As usual, we just need more evidence about form, footwear and injuries. At least now more people are starting to look for it, rather than just assume that big soft shoes must be good for running because they make it easier to get out there and 'pound the pavement'.

Vibram Never Lied To Me

So the news broke this past week that Vibram will settle a class action lawsuit for $3.75 million over false claims about the health benefits of FiveFingers footwear. The first internet news story I saw about the suit was from a site called FITTISH, which ran the headline "FiveFingers Maker Will Pay Millions To Suckers Who Bought Its Shoes". Suckers, eh? And then there's the HuffPo piece saying that Vibram "lied to us all". See!? It was all a big scam! I can keep wearing my traditional cushiony running shoes without having to feel like a schmuck for not jumping on the minimalist bandwagon. The self-righteous "told-ya-so" tone of these articles sort of imply the settlement is somehow an indictment against barefoot/minimalist running itself. Talk about being a sore winner...

Well, not so fast. I do not necessarily intend to go to bat for Vibram here, but I should disclose that I've been running in FiveFingers for years and have been, in general, very happy with them. I am not going to provide anecdotal 'evidence' to show how awesome and totally rad FiveFingers are and why everyone should run in them. The fact is, there are plenty of people who probably shouldn't run barefoot or with minimalist footwear. We were not all born to run, unfortunately. There are good biomechanical reasons why some people may be great at barefoot running, while others certainly won't be. These are just cruel facts of biology.

As for lawsuit itself, this is really the crux of it as described by Runner's World:

Valerie Bezdek brought the class action suit against Vibram in March 2012.  She filed her complaint in Massachusetts, the state where Vibram’s U.S. headquarters are located. Bezdek alleged that Vibram deceived consumers by advertising that the footwear could reduce foot injuries and strengthen foot muscles, without basing those assertions on any scientific merit. “The gist of her claim is that Vibram illegally obtained an economic windfall from her because it was only by making false health claims that Vibram induced consumers to buy FiveFingers shoes, and to pay more for them than they would have otherwise,” Harvard Law School professor, John C. P. Goldberg, told Runner’s World at the time of the original filing. Subsequent class action suits were filed against Vibram in California and Illinois, and those were absorbed into Bezdek’s case.

Tribal affiliations aside, I will readily admit that there really isn't a whole lot of scientific evidence surrounding the claim that barefoot running reduces injury rates. This is a difficult thing to study as there are so many factors involved that are hard to control for. All our bodies are different, we all wear different shoes at different times, we all have different running forms, we all run different amounts at different paces across different terrains, and so on. At one time, all running shoes were more or less flat, and people sometimes got hurt while running. Then they made shoes with raised heels and cushioned soles, and more people started running in them. People continued to get hurt. Some folks chose to run barefoot, and a few shoe companies offered various products which allowed for this running style while not compromising on sole thickness or heel-toe drop. People still got hurt.

It's all murky, and there's not a lot of clear evidence about how to avoid injury. Which is precisely why Vibram never should have made any claims that using their toe shoes would strengthen the muscles in the foot and lower leg and reduce injuries. You just don't get to say those things without the objective data to back it up, since people will inevitably get hurt when they get up off the couch and go running, barefoot or otherwise. Their lawyers must have been out to lunch when their marketing team overreached with their claims of potential health benefits. People can and do run differently and efficiently when not using modern running shoes. It's all about impact forces and footstrike, but this does not necessarily have any implications for reducing injury:

If impact transient forces contribute to some forms of injury, then this style of running (shod or barefoot) might have some benefits, but that hypothesis remains to be tested.

That being said, I do not feel Vibram "lied to [me]." At the time I was considering the switch to minimalist footwear, there were lots of things to consider. The least of which were any claims of "health benefits and reduced injury rates". I don't recall Vibram making those claims, and they certainly weren't what attracted me to them in the first place. (Perhaps the explicit claims were removed from their website before I even ordered my first pair a couple years ago.) Nebulous and inconclusive studies notwithstanding, pretty much everything I read about 'barefoot' running (including running in FiveFingers) carried this warning: GO SLOWLY. Transitioning from normal running shoes to minimalist shoes (or no shoes) was a difficult and risky process that required a lengthy acclimation period. To me, this was sound advice that made sense. So I followed it as best I could, though I couldn't help but be a little overzealous at times when the feeling of foot freedom overtook me.

Therefore I will not be seeking to a payout from Vibram as a part of this settlement. Their product has performed well for me and did not fail to meet my expectations. Coincidentally, I had ordered a new pair of FiveFingers from them just a few days before I heard about the lawsuit last week.

The news of this class action lawsuit will probably do little to shake the faith of the Vibram True Believers, and the detractors who never 'gave in' into the barefoot running fad will feel vindicated by the settlement. There may be a few fence sitters out there who will perhaps think twice about experimenting with minimal footwear and the barefoot running style. People will become more entrenched and seek to reaffirm their original positions. This is to be expected.

The lesson here is to always be on the lookout for better and more reliable evidence about footwear and running form so that we can all make informed decisions concerning how we choose to run. We should also be skeptical of any claims made by those who are tying to sell you a product. There will always be risk of injury, and the more you know about your body and how it works should help you reduce that risk. But it would be foolish to think the risk can be completely eliminated. The key is to find what works best for the individual, and that takes practice, patience, and a willingness to learn and reflect.

(Click here for Part 2)

"Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely

Our irrational behaviors are neither random or senseless - they are systematic and predictable. We all make the same types of mistakes over and over, because of the basic wiring of our brains. So wouldn't it make sense to modify standard economics and move away from naive psychology, which often fails the test of reason, introspection, and - most important - empirical scrutiny?

Wouldn't economics make a lot more sense if it were based on how people actually behave, instead of how they should behave?

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, by Dan Ariely

Yes, Dan. It would make sense. Humans aren't nearly as rational as we tend to think we are, though we are fairly adept at rationalizing. People consistently make irrational choices. We are dishonest. We cheat and steal when given the opportunity, especially when we are a step or two removed from dealing with cash. We procrastinate and often discount or devalue the future at our peril. We are seduced by the powerful allure of FREE! We succumb to social pressures. Our experiences are modulated by our expectations of them. The placebo effect plays a much greater role in our lives than we ever could imagine. And so on...

And yet, standard economic theory would have it that humans are rational agents capable of acting in their own interest based on the best available information in the realm of the free market. If we mess up, "market forces" will correct the errors and set us back on the right path. To me, these ideas aren't just mistaken, but delusional. 

The reality is that humans are evolved creatures that come equipped with all sorts of cognitive biases and blind spots that serve to limit our ability to behave in an idealistically rational way. There is little room for freedom here. This is just another example of the disconnect between what we think the world is like (or wish it would be like), and what the world is really like. Ideology, unfortunately, often trumps a more evidence-based approach to understanding reality.

Better Half*

The force must have been with me today. (*My watch automatically pauses when I stop for a drink, etc.)

Currently Reading: "A Short History of Progress" by Ronald Wright

Change is not in our interest. Our only rational policy is not to risk provoking it. Yet we face abundant evidence that civilization itself, through fossil-fuel emissions and other disturbances, is upsetting the long calm in which it grew. Ice sheets at both poles are breaking up. Glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas are thawing; some have disappeared in only twenty-five years. Droughts and unusually hot weather have already caused world grain output to fall or stagnate for eight years in a row. During the same eight years, the number of mouths to feed went up by 600 million.

A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright (2004)

Nice civilization you got there. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

See also:

Currently Reading - "Touching A Nerve" by Patricia Churchland

Nothing groundbreaking to report here so far. I'm already convinced that I am my brain, and that dualism is bunk, and that we do not survive our own death. There has been some discussion of the neuroevolution of morality and mammalian caring, which is interesting to examine at the level of hormones and their receptors in the brain (specifically, oxytocin and vasopressin).

I was interested in Churchland's book (which I became aware of through here interview on The Colbert Report) because the study of neurophilosophy sounds so dang sexy. In the latter half of the book (which I have yet to read), I'm hoping for a little more in the philosophy department with regard to the broader implications of 'neuroexistentialism'.