#and by that i mean that he wishes primarily most of all that Sully and really just anybody else he is uncertain of in some ways

[muu-kun]

You know.. My favorite thing about Muu making even just subtle changes to his appearance and style is that he always treats the occasion as an opportunity to present it in a show-and-tell manner. Always to his wife, Hannah, of @kannojo first, then immediate to follow is never not Neff @cosmicstardreamer, and then in the clutch is Fran over at @smokes-and-bullets. My favorite, though, is the immediate, almost child-like bounce of his spirit being like, 'I need to show Sully (@tximidity) most-est of all, because I feel it in my bones that he needs me to be the best (or really just happiest) me I can be!!'

[irreplaceable-spark]

Missives of Appalling Idiocy and Envy Embarrassing to Behold

So many messages of the type alluded to by the title of this article crossed my desk in the last fortnight that I found myself in the rare position of having too much content to easily record and communicate with pen and paper—a writer’s dream, if that content did not also simultaneously indicate both the tolling of the proverbial bell, and the fact that I am one of those for whom the death knell sounds.

I have observed the colleges and universities of the Western world devour themselves in a myriad of fatal errors over the last two decades, and take little pleasure in seeing what I knew was inevitably coming manifest itself in an increasingly comprehensive manner. It is of course a self-destructive and unfortunate tendency of human reason, with all its limitations—as well as ego, with all its pretensions—to wish or otherwise agree to serve as Cassandra, and to derive a certain satisfaction in watching the ship whose demise was foretold breach its hull on rocks hidden from all other observers. The self-righteous pleasure of “I told you so,” is, however, of little comfort when the icy water wends its way around ankle, knee and thigh, threatening to swamp everything still retaining its incalculable and unlikely value, even if it simultaneously makes short shrift of the ignorance and willful blindness that is frequently part and parcel of the death of something once great.

It is also necessary to note that the catastrophic failures of process and aim which I am about to relate were by no means hidden from the public view by the persons and institutions in question. They were instead positively trumpeted to all by multiple attempts to harness the powers of social media and announced, more traditionally, in press releases designed to indicate the success of some great and laudable moral striving. It is nothing less than a dire day when the proud revelation of vices of deadly and multifarious seriousness serve to substitute for announcements of genuine and valuable achievement, but that is where we are at—make no mistake about it.

The first story emerges at Brock University, in combination with the scientific journal Angewandte Chemie—the former an educational institution of moderate reputability; the latter a prestigious place of scientific publication among chemists. It is no easy matter to find a permanent tenured faculty position at such a university, or to publish research findings or literature reviews/summaries in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The process generally requires several years and multiple resubmissions and rounds of editing by a minimum of three colleagues per submission with expertise in the field as well as approval by the editor. Angewandte has a rejection rate of 80%—and it should be noted that that rejection rate only takes into account papers that the submitting researcher felt were of sufficient quality to be considered by a journal of high standards. Dr. Tomas Hudlicky of Brock submitted an essay memorializing and updating a piece written thirty years ago, which has been widely recognized as powerfully influencing the direction of the chemistry subfield in question (organic synthesis).

Now, the first thing that must be understood about Dr. Hudlicky is that he holds a prestigious Canada Research Chair, a position funded by part of a large federal initiative devoting approximately 300 million dollars per year in the attempt to attract to Canada (or to encourage to stay in Canada) researchers who are of particular promise, as evidenced most fundamentally by their research productivity. That promise or productivity, in turn, can be measured with reasonable accuracy with metrics such as number of peer-reviewed articles in relevant scientific journals (more than 400 in Hudlicky’s case), by noting how many times such articles are cited by other authors over the years subsequent to publication (Hudlicky: 13300) and, finally, by a metric known as the h-index, which provides a measure of how many publications have received a variable minimum number of citations (and which therefore combines in a single number some information about publications per se and some about citations). A researcher with an h-index of 10 has published 10 papers with 10 or more citations; a researcher with an h-index of 57 (Hudlicky’s score) has published 57 papers with 57 or more citations. Hudlicky’s research productivity is admirable and rare. The mere fact that he was hired as a Canada Research Chair meant that his department, as well as the federal governmental agency tasked with funding the attraction or retention of extreme talent, both determined in the relatively recent past that he was a fish well worth landing. Something about this needs to be clarified: the universities that hire those researchers competent enough to be competitive in a Canada Research Chair competition are not doing them a favor by offering them a position; rather, it is an honor for the university (and the students, both undergraduate and graduate, that attend the institution) to be chosen by the researcher in question. No serious academic disputes this, although some may quibble about the precise metrics used for identification of the serious talent. This is particularly true of an institution such as Brock, which is an university of reasonable but not exceptional quality, and which genuinely needs highly productive faculty members to help it ratchet itself up the very competitive academic ladder.

Hudlicky’s paper in Angewandte Chemie was peer-reviewed positively, judged as desirable by the relevant editorial staff, and published. This meant that it managed the difficult job of passing through the eye of a needle, and entering the kingdom of heaven, at least as far as research chemists might be concerned. But some of Dr. Hudlicky’s surmises with regard to the discipline of organic synthesis raised the ire of a Twitter mob (https://twitter.com/fxcoudert/status/1268920299833233416?s=20). This is not a difficult feat, in my opinion, as Twitter seems to exist primarily for the purpose of generating mobs—composed primarily of individuals who are hungry for the opportunity to taste blood and bask in the joys of reasonably risk-free reputation destruction, revenge and self-righteousness. Furthermore, as far as Twitter mobs go, those who complained about the Angewandte Chemie publication were not particularly numerous. No matter: once the complaints emerged, the editor of the journal in charge of Dr. Hudlicky’s work—one Dr. Neville Compton—removed the paper from the journal’s website, and offered an abject apology for daring to have published it in the first place. Furthermore, he reported the “suspension” of two of the journal’s editors (indicating precisely how much trust those individuals should have placed initially in his judgement) and cast aspersions on Hudlicky’s ethics, stating that his essay did not properly reflect fairness, trustworthiness and social awareness, while implying that the now-pilloried author and his peer reviewers and editors were discriminatory, unjust and inequitable in practice. It should be noted, by the way, that the position of editor for a scientific journal is general one filled by volunteers, who donate their time for the greater good of the scientific enterprise, rather than for any monetary gain. So Compton fired generous volunteers to ensure that his good name would not be irredeemably sullied by any association with the now-demonized professor Hudlicky and his ne’er-do-well compatriots (none of whom likely knew each other except in passing).

What was Hudlicky’s sin? His 12-page document (approximating 4000 words) dealt with issues he believed were affecting organic synthesis research and communication, and covered topics such as the range of research options available, integrity and trustworthiness of the relevant literature, transference of skills from mentor to trainee, impact of information technology, the corporatization of the university environment, the effect of new technology, the diversity of the available work force, and the competition for resources among researchers—all topics that people of putative good will and competence (such as the author and his reviewers and editors) could agree had a demonstrable effect on the quality of research currently conducted. However, Hudlicky voiced a smattering of opinions that were deemed unacceptable by a small number of people who both read his submission and were somewhat active on Twitter. Here are the sentences constituting his sins, which fall into two of the categories Hudlicky identified as relevant for analysis of research productivity. I have paraphrased them very slightly for length:

Under Diversity of Workforce: “In the last two decades many groups have been designated with “preferential status” (despite substantive increases in the recruitment of women and minorities). Preferential treatment of one group leads inexorably to disadvantages for another. Each candidate should have an equal opportunity to secure a position, regardless of personal identification/ categorization. Hiring practices that aim at equality of outcome is counter-productive if it results in discrimination against the most meritorious candidates. Such practice has also led to the emergence of mandatory “training workshops” on gender equity, inclusion, diversity, and discrimination.”

So those apparently objectional words constitute 90 of 4000—a small proportion of the total content of the essay, and the proffering of an opinion that insists “if”: not that diversity, inclusivity and equality provisions necessarily produce prejudicial hiring practices (although the research evidence suggests that they clearly do [1])) then they may have a detrimental effect on research productivity. It is also important to note that these opinions paraphrase very closely a decision reached and publicized by a German court in 2007, at least according to a supporter of Hudlicky who dared express an opinion supporting his colleague.

The Twitter mob trolls who objected to this opinion reacted as if what Dr. Hudlicky said was that efforts to “diversify” hiring and student selection were definitively harmful, while what he truly did was only raise the possibilities that such actions could become counterproductive if they resulted in the exclusion of qualified candidates. No one can object to this opinion, reasonably—unless they assume, as did Hudlicky’s critics, that all claims to objectivity in hiring and selection are inextricably bound up with the systemic prejudice hypothetically characterizing all hierarchies of specialization.

Under Transference of Skills: “The training and mentoring of new generations of professionals must be attended to by proper relationships of “masters and apprentices” without dilution of standards. Hudlicky described two conditions under which the successful transfer of skills can occur: first, if the skill is not transferred within three generations, it is lost forever, and second, there must be “an unconditional submission of the apprentice to his/her master.” This applies not only in the sciences but also in art, music, and martial arts…. Submission to one’s mentor is rarely attainable today. Many students are unwilling to submit to any level of hard work demanded by professors. The university does not support professors in this endeavor as it views students as financial assets and hence protects them from any undue hardships that may be demanded by the “masters.” This situation, coupled with the fact that professors have less and less time to mentor students in the laboratory, cannot provide for a productive transfer of skills, especially the maintenance of standards and integrity of research.”

This is an additional 170 words/4000, and paraphrases an opinion most famously put forward by Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian-English polymath of genius level, who made contributions to chemistry, philosophy and economics, and who delineated the importance of “tacit knowledge” (that is, knowledge that was acted out but not necessarily articulated) in the transmission of specialized technical ability across the generations. Hudlicky was therefore criticized and pilloried by individuals on Twitter who appeared to know nothing of M. Polanyi’s work on tacit knowledge (for whom such ignorance was perhaps justifiable) but also by the editor of Angewandte, for whom such ignorance (voluntary or otherwise) was most certainly not. Acquisition of this knowledge required precisely the unfreedom recommended by Hudlicky—followed, of course (with the acquisition of the aptly named Master’s degree) by autonomy in thought and action that was increased beyond what it would have been capable of achieving without the devoted apprenticeship in question. Such a process can only be undertaken by a pupil capable of regarding his or her teacher as a true mentor, and by a mentor bent on producing a pupil more capable than him or herself, after an intensive period of training. None of that, according to Hudlicky (and this is not obviously an unreasonable hypothesis in this day of age) is possible in the university as it is currently constituted, even in the departments that still teach hard sciences. Not only is it not possible, he implies, but it is no longer posited even as an acceptable possibility. In a properly functioning institute of training, however, it might be argued that disciplined and contractually-mediated temporary subjugation to higher authority is eminently desirable, despite the limited sacrifice of casual autonomy that might require, if the person or persons to whom the subjugation is made are true experts. It is the willingness to undertake this apprenticeship, as well as the capability of superseding it, that makes up the master in “Master’s degree”—a designation that I notice Brock still grants, despite potentially colonial overtones at least as damning as those that characterized Hudlicky’s writing (if we are going to go down that absurd route).

That is the sum total of Hudlicky’s academic crimes. He has faced severe retaliation on no less than seven separate fronts for his hypothetically unforgivable thoughts—the two we have already discussed, and five more, including, third, the cancelation of an entire issue of the journal Synthesis (published by Thieme), which was to be dedicated to his 70th birthday and for which invitations had already been sent to more than forty prominent scientists; fourth, the elimination of any mention of his work in yet another journal, Highlights in Chemistry; fifth, a statement by the Norwegian Chemical Society (not as of yet made public) hypothetically critiquing his ongoing collaborations with three Norwegian researchers; and sixth, his transformation into whipping boy by his own faithless professional colleagues at the administrative level at Brock University. Dr. Greg Finn, Provost and VP Academic at that institution, saw nothing wrong with stabbing one of his university’s most esteemed scientists in the back at the first sign of trouble. The provost wrote a painfully cringing apologetic “open letter to the public,” claiming, of course, that Hudlicky’s opinions, if in the least controversial, were in no possible manner representative of Brock University as a whole, and essentially hanging that institution’s hypothetically valued top chemist out to dry. Finn states that Hudlicky’s article “…contains descriptions of the graduate supervisor-graduate student relationship that connote disrespect and subservience. These statements could be alarming to students and others who have the reasonable expectation of respectful and supportive mentorship…. [The statements in this paper] do not reflect the principles of inclusivity, diversity and equity included in the University’s mission, vision and values as approved by our Senate and Board of Trustees.” Only an individual accustomed to dining on very thin gruel or simply spoiled meat would find any nourishment in statements with such content and of that quality.

An admirable university, secure in its worth, would have determined very quickly that one Dr. Hudlicky was, conservatively, worth a hundred Dr. Finn’s, and acted accordingly. But research prowess is no longer as important as willingness to mouth the appalling commonplaces of political correctness in the hallowed corridors of academe. And what that essentially means is that resentful and underqualified pretenders to the role of useful intellectual can now exercise the upper hand in apparent scientific worthiness, so far as it has been reduced to a simple political power game. And the list of consequences for Dr. Hudlicky I have outlined so far does not by any means exhaust the description of his punishment. He is (was (?)) apparently a scientist of sufficient merit, as his Canada Research Chair should have clearly and decisively indicated, to have had an entire upcoming issue of another journal, Synthesis, devoted to a retrospective of his work, complete with invited commentary—and now the existence of that tribute has become highly doubtful.

Three other events worth of note that came to my attention over the last two weeks, when I have been communicating with academics concerned with this sequence of happenings, drive these points home. A highly cited professor of physics, who I cannot name, at a university I cannot name either (suffice it to say that the former has garnered 100+ publications and 7000+ citations in a highly technical field) had his standard Canadian Federal grant application rejected because (or so the reviewers claimed) he had not sufficiently detailed his plans to ensure diversity, inclusivity and equity (DIE) practices while conducting his scientific inquiry. It is now standard practice for university hiring boards to insist that their faculty job applicants submit a DIE plan with their curriculum vitae—a terribly dangerous occurrence of its own. I believe that the fundamental reason such plans are required, particularly of those who practice in the so-called “hard” STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) is so that those who could not hope to assess the quality of research endeavours in those specialties as a consequence of their own ability or prowess, can be made into judges by enforcing the adoption of standards of attitude and behavior that have nothing to do with the fields in question. I am no arithmetical genius, for example, myself. It is almost certain that a Master’s degree, to say nothing of a Ph.D. or professorship in mathematics, would have been beyond me, even in my younger years, when such talent is most likely to manifest itself. I would never dream of attempting to review a grant application in a specialized subfield of chemistry, engineering or physics—even of biology, which is nearer my bailiwick. But if it became possible to adopt the position of judge because of my colleagues’ attitude toward student selection and staffing, then—presto! Those who are applying for such funding are no longer painfully more intelligent than me. They are merely and reprehensibly in error in their basic political opinions. There is nothing but victory in that for me, in precise proportion to my degree of resentment for my unfortunate and rather incurable stupidity.

Consider, in addition, the current landing page for the Department of Physics at McGill University. It is difficult to provide a purely objective analysis of the significance of the different elements of this page, at least concerning their relative size or prominence (and, therefore, their implicit importance), because there is wide variation in resolution of the various screens that users may employ to access it. Suffice it to say, however, that at a resolution of 2048 by 1536, which is higher than average (and therefore allows more of the available visual content to be presented to the viewer simultaneously) the second-most visually evident active link is the “McGill Physics Community Statement Against Racism”—and, if this is not sufficient proof of the upstanding moral quality of that “community” there is also an active link to an “Equity Diversity and Inclusion” page in the center of the main menu bar of the page.

It does not seem merely picayune to note (1) that the proper role of such a page is to convey information pertaining to physics to those who might be applying to that department at McGill and not about the political or sociological attitudes of its faculty, administrators and students. It is also perhaps not out of place (2) to voice a certain skepticism with regard to the timing of this oh-so-very-properly-moral statement and note that if it required the unfortunate death of one George Floyd to motivate its appearance it is either inexcusably opportunistic or a classic case of closing the barn door once the cattle had already made their disappearance. To make it even clearer, if that is necessary: if the McGill physics community is so unrepentantly racist that it required someone’s death to draw its existence to the surface, a mere banner statement is by no means sufficient atonement. If it is not racist to that notable extreme, then mere humility might have led to the conclusion that now was not the appropriate time to trumpet the assumption of moral superiority necessary to formulate the anti-racist and pro-diversity claims that are being made, front and center, regardless of the fact that this page exists to provide information about physics and not sociology at the august institution of McGill University.

I would also like to point out, just for the sake of completeness, that the two rather egregious moral errors in page construction do not constitute the entire universe of deception characterizing the page. It is apparent that the McGill Physics Department has decided that live classes of the classic sort are unlikely to take place in the fall of 2020 and is now offering its students (who are certainly being regarded as far stupider than most of the physics majors I have met) the opportunity to “implement modern, evidence-based teaching techniques & technologies” and the “unprecedented chance for students to shape their own education, and how science is taught at McGill.” Clearly, what might appear to the uneducated observer as somewhat of a catastrophe for new undergraduate attendees at McGill (that is, the impossibility of attending live university classes) is actually—as those in the know clearly realize—a new and special opportunity for them to be educated in an even finer manner than those who were unfortunate enough to embark upon their education before the blessing of the COVID-19 virus. I mention this only to point out that virtually nothing presented as content on this departmental page, political or not, has escaped the spirit of deception that is arguably its central and most appalling feature, whether it is political (as in the case of objection 1 and 2) and designed to signal a particular brand of ideological morality, or a consequence of third-rate marketing tactics (objection 3), which are more simply characterized as lies.

And, in case you are not convinced by the stories I just told, which do lack somewhat for detail, because of the current necessity for confidentiality, consider this: a group of three professors at Concordia were awarded a New Frontiers in Research Grant (announced in late 2019) aimed at  “engaging Indigenous understanding and involving Indigenous communities in the co-creation of knowledge, the project aims to decolonize contemporary physics research and attract Indigenous students.” The head researcher, one Dr. Tanja Tajmel, “questioned the colonial assumptions made in the way Western science evaluates light and what it considers knowledge.” Dr. Louellyn White, associate professor in First Peoples Studies, added that “Indigenous ways of knowing have been suppressed and marginalized throughout academic history and we are finally gaining momentum in elevating Indigenous knowledges as equally valid to Western science… If we, as an institution, do not embody the Territorial Acknowledgement by recognizing and affirming the expertise of our Elders as Knowledge Keepers, the acknowledgement becomes nothing but empty platitudes.” Dr. Ingo Salzmann, the last of the three principal investigators to whom the funds were awarded, says, ““The culture of physics certainly changes with diverse people involved,” he argues. “Therefore, decolonizing science involves challenging the underlying hierarchies.”

The refusal of the research grant application specifically requesting funding for what must now apparently be regarded as “colonialized (or colonized (?) physics” and the success of the application that had the magical mention of “indigenous knowledge” should alert those who know of both and who are attending to the increasing politicization of the university that the STEM fields comprise the next frontier for the politically correct. Qualified and expert researchers in such fields are already in great danger of being pushed aside by politically correct activists who will happily and self-righteously displace them by merely refusing to admit to the existence of anything approximating an objective truth against which claims to competence might be assessed. The rest of us will pay in the longer run, when we no longer have the will or the capacity to make use of the rare talents that make people highly competent and productive as scientists, technological innovators, engineers or mathematicians.

We might also note that the politically-correct micro-tyrants beating the drum for diversity, inclusivity and equity are pursuing two goals which exist in logical contradiction to one another. Those who occupy a field like physics can only be racists if the fundamental claims to transcendental or ontological truth of that discipline are accepted: if physics describes the world, in a manner that is objectively true, then it is possible for whatever group that currently holds positions of power in that discipline to be prejudiced, perhaps by sex or race, and exclude qualified individuals who differ unacceptably along those dimensions to suffer unfair exclusion. But to make this case requires acceptance of the idea of the universality of the truth being pursued. Alternatively, there are multiple valuable forms of physics, shall we say, indicating that multicultural approaches are required—but the absence of those multiple forms are not so much racist as opportunistic or even merely isolated from the larger world (as each individual group can only be expected to pursue its values in an environment where there is no objective truth, but only group values). Which is it? The answer is quite simple: either, or both—depending on where the largest degree of guilt can be attributed. Convenient as this might be, it is not a good long-term solution to the problem: the internal contradictions inherent in such claims will results in within-group deterioration of solidarity in very short order. If classic physics is nothing but Eurocentric power-maneuvering, who cares if non-Caucasians are excluded? They are perfectly free to pursue their own power-centered physics. If there is an objective reality to that physics, then it is possible, at least in principle, to use objective tests of competence to rank-order candidates, and the problem of potential discrimination vanishes, at least to the degree that is possible.

I have suspected for years that the STEM fields posed the most dangerous threat possible to the unopposed dominance of politically correct sociological idiocy over the entirety of the university environment, basing their claim to validity on recognition of something approximating a universally accessible objective reality. That claim is too powerful to go unchallenged in today’s climate of moral self-flagellating among those, particularly common in the ranks of university administrators, who want all the advantages of the power high-ranking hierarchical positions provide, but none of the hypothetical moral baggage that are part and parcel of the prejudicial and patriarchal structure that gave rise to those positions. The proper solution? Continual apology for the sins of others who occupy equivalent or superior positions, conjoined with a willingness to damage the reputation of those miscreants, and to force them into an apologetic stance—or even to apologize for their own unearned privilege, as long as that does not result in any true sacrifice of power, income or authority. This is particular evident, in the stories I have related, in the case of the Brock University Provost.

The George Floyd incident has emboldened those who are shamelessly using crooked faux-moral means to stake a moral claim in the so-called patriarchal structure that makes up the academic world. They are certainly able and willing to use the unfortunate death of an individual who had enough of the attributes of a systemically oppressed person to serve as poster boy for the self-serving political claims that are now being made on his behalf. This tendency, unchecked, poses a direct danger to the integrity of precisely those STEM fields that have so far remained essentially immune to the embarrassments and blandishments of the politically correct movement. But, make no mistake about it, scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians: your famous immunity to political concerns will not protect you against what is coming fast over the next five or so years: wake up, pay attention, or perish, along with your legacy. Whatever you might offer the broader culture in terms of general value will be swept aside with little caution by those who regard the very axioms of your field as intolerable truly because of the difficulty in comprehending them and considered publicly as unacceptably exclusionary, unitary and unconcerned with sociological “realities.”

Jordan Peterson, June 16, 2020, https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-missive/

[alessandra-mnl]

Post Scandal 714 and Pre-Finale Thoughts

Well that was surprising a really good episode after the filler we had prior. When Scandal delivers a good episode, well damn it can really deliver a good one from start to end. Ranking which episodes are the best in this show is a bit challenging to do so as it will tend to be subjective due to the different treatments they do (character centric, episodic, bottle) but 714 so far is my favorite for this season and probably the best “real time” episode that we’ve had in a really long time.

1. This is the second time in a row we hear Olivia stating the she is not here for forgiveness. Based on her track record it has me thinking that: a) Olivia is known for rarely apologizing because she is allergic to holding herself accountable (as that would require facing that she’s wrong). On the rare occasions that she does, it is still debatable if it is authentic because it feels like she’s also doing it while expecting something in return; b) Olivia has always been known to respond more through her actions over words. In any show the dialogue is always important but more so in Scandal. This is because a huge part of the text operates on half truths/projections and Olivia is an embodiment of that. How many times have we seen her ‘say one thing and then do another’ or ‘do as I say but not as I do’? All the time. Actions tend to bear more truth and substance compared to the monologues as seen over time in this show. Since the crossover I noticed Olivia is trying be a doer and interact with people instead of talking at them. However I still think a true apology and/or honesty from her in verbal form would play a huge significance to her character, relationships she ruined, and dreams she ended. 

2. For a high octane show, it is surprisingly in the muted and “normal” scenes where I tend to get a deeper insight. Here it’s when Olivia visits Marcus to see if he’s interested for dinner and for company. It is a very simple scene but it had me look at Olivia and the struggles she went through over the course of the series differently. A lot of the characters in this show are alone, at times lonely, or worst both and this happens to be a result of both circumstances and their own doing. However it is only in Olivia that I noticed who’s been repeatedly reminded that the life she lives is primarily a lonely one. This has been more so dragged on to her face since post 509 and during her stint as COS/Command. Instead of watching her life improves as thought so after ending a tumultous relationship and then achieving her ultimate goal, we ended up seeing her pursue a lonelier and more miserable path. Marcus remarks that she doesn’t have any other friends - a somewhat supposedly light moment between the two would still have to sting for someone who has abandonment issues, been constantly reminded that she’s alone, and is now facing the result of ruining the relationships in her life on top of all the other tragedies she experienced.

3. The case brought by Alisha’s father and how it resonated on him for me is one of the most insightful cases we’ve had and almost rivals with the Sully St. James case in the pilot. The father dragging Olivia and placing the blame of Alisha’s death on her was unnecessary but the scene was necessary. Me and @boombitxh​ were breaking down the case during one of our conversations because it served multiple purposes.

The father stressed on the value of having a daughter who’s alive as opposed to losing one who’s accomplished to the corrupt system of “power” and following the blueprint that Olivia sought out on.

Him going off on Olivia reminded me how she (and to an extent Fitz) is still a scandal. Olivia will always be remembered as a scandal ever since she outed herself in s5. It is a fact that is part of history and tied to Fitz’s legacy as reminded by Marcus in 703. It also reminds me of the question posed at the start of 703 regarding the deal with olitz and the lingering unclear fate between the two leaves the scandal as a scandal. Because of this it has me thinking how tricky it can be to leave olitz as open ended, both staying in DC, and remain as professional acquaintances. For personal reasons, boundaries will always be actively tested (especially Fitz’s because honestly it’s still to be seen if he can consistently have them intact) or we would just always be waiting for the other shoe to drop. The other reason is that there would always be speculation around them given their history and others can still paint her in a negative light because in the end the narrative about them never really changed. 

Picking up from the crossover is the return of the case format and @boombitxh shared with me something insightful which is how the purpose of the case now works in reverse. The cases have always been our gateway into Olivia’s headspace but this time it’s the client who’s doing the talking that gives us an inkling to Olivia’s unresolved internal conflict. It’s almost like this time around it is her who is now the client being fixed. We had Annalise showing the value of family in both the personal and professional space. Here it’s the father-daughter and in the upcoming episode it is technically Quinn so I wonder aside from the mission against Cyrus, what can be pick up here that ties to the personal?

4. This episode also had me realize that Fitz has been pretty much our tie to the past this season. There’s the obvious which is olitz as the scandal and how he keeps on taking about them in past tense form. Then Mellie still brings him up for comparison and we saw in 7A the similarities between her and him as POTUS. Lastly his institute is what’s being utilize for the return of the case format but with a different energy this time. However it’s also quite ironic because out of all the other characters, he’s the one that is operating in a new space and is supposed to be moving forward. After Olivia, Fitz is really the next one who’s ending is also unclear and let’s face it their character’s ending is somehow tied to one another. Is he still going to leave as he said early on when he sees an Olivia that he recognizes? Or was that just for the sake of answering?   

5. Other things to ponder on.

Props for incorporating a current social issue and movement while at the same time weaving it organically into the storyline and characters. That’s always a tricky technique with this show as seen especially over the recent seasons and exaggerated monologues. However how it was incorporated here reminded me of the Scandal of the early seasons - simple but significant.

What week between Fitz and Jake was Mellie referring to when she checked Jake? I’m definitely in the minority in saying this but the relationship between the two men always intrigued me and wished that their unclear Navy history was fleshed out more. I hope before the series wraps they get to interact for one last time because there’s always an underlying animosity between the two and yet when they talk it’s like they still have a weird understanding. 

Cyrus is the only one among the characters who can really pull of being the Big Bad and I hope that they go all out on this. We often hear that there are no good and bad guys because it’s all about the grey area. However I think that they can still play along the grey area and make a good villain out of him especially since he is the most unapologetic character since the s1.

6. Olivia’s mission to save Mellie’s presidency from Cryus has me thinking a myriad of her reasons for this: 

She still has guilt over the affair and feels like she still owes her.

Aside from her promise to Mellie of the oval which she did indeed deliver, she feels responsible to not have the first woman President (the candidate the she managed) be taken down

She was the one who brought Cyrus into the administration even after finding out that he is the indirect killer of Vargas so in a way she feels responsible for this.

This might be quite farfetched but in a way she’s fighting against the system (patriarchal system) that took over her life and she emulated on which tarnished her personal relationships and her ‘other goals and dreams’ (which are probably her personal dreams that she rejected for power).  

What I’m curious about is what will she gain out of this? There’s the obvious that this is a final test for her versus the oval power to see if she will still be lured by it. It’s also predictable that she will fix this and defeat cyrus but will it cost her something along the way? Then does this also reunite the gladiators to be OPA again in the end meaning Quinn is out as the head or will she build her own business? Aside from seeing this turn into another win for her, what I’m ultimately hoping to see in the end is an Olivia who’s not only defined by what career path she’ll take on and what her finite job role is. We spent so much of the series seeing her make her life be only about her career and her climb to power. Aside from that we hardly actually see her really enjoy what she’s doing. I’m hoping that my last look at Olivia will not be diluted to a corkboard that holds only of her WH accomplishments and cases she fixed. 

Perhaps my favorite part in this episode is it tackling that Olivia is and not a role model. Sometimes I feel like the writers screens our comments or tweets and fuses it into the show (Fitz asking if he ever was inappropriate has always been a criticism about olitz). This episode definitely feels like it and considering Olivia as a role model could be one of Scandal’s legacy as she is after all one of the most iconic tv characters. However I like that it showed that she is not and that it was never really the intent for her character because it is really us the audience who gave that association. When I started watching Scandal, I like the rest immediately fell in love with the Olivia Pope character. I basically wanted to be like her, dress like her, and present this strong and independent persona especially at work. Throughout the seasons and just like the many, the harder it became to continue liking her character and I always felt this notion that you are doing a disservice as a fan to openly dislike about her actions and choices. Eventually I realized that Scandal is really not about this strong and powerful female character because then that’s also implying that there is no room for her to be weak. Ultimately this is really simply telling a story of this woman during a specific period in her life and personally when I started to openly interrogate her character the more then I became compelled to further analyze her. When I look back at this show I will appreciate that it showed and recognized a messy, complicated, and at times terrible woman (even on times that it doesn't make sense) because that’s very human and real. 

side note: I didn’t include the Olitz scene/s because I feel like that would already take up too much space in this already lengthy post. I’m thinking of doing a solely and overall Olitz thoughts post after this week’s episode. 

[doesitreallywork]

Learn more about Type 2 Diabetes Defeated, and see if it can make a difference in your life, and just how much it can be – read inside to find out now!

Get The Lowest Price Now

Visit Official Website »

Type 2 Diabetes Defeated Review – Does It Really Work?

Are you anticipating recover diabetes? Are you tired of investing your difficult generated income on evaluations looking for the very best overview? Do you wish to call the ups and also downs to healthcare facilities on medicine as well as appointment worrying this illness?

If you addressed yes to among the above concerns after that this is the appropriate overview for you. You have actually pertained to a natural overview that will certainly tune your body to a recovery power that will certainly construct a resistance to the source of diabetes.

Available, there are a variety of individuals that are fighting with this sort of condition … it has actually ended up being hassle however the very best point is that our bodies can managing blood sugar degrees consequently preserving insulin every time.

The overview is based upon abilities, tricks and also means whereby you can reach enhance your blood glucose and also maintain diabetes off your life.

What is Type 2 Diabetes Defeated?

Type 2 Diabetes Defeated is a downloadable book that assures to instruct you a 100% all-natural formula to treat your type 2 diabetes signs without insulin. It is a natural overview with a diet regimen strategy with complete information, descriptions and also workable actions that will certainly assist you reduce your blood glucose degrees normally.

It is stated to be the most safe and also fastest means to eliminate type 2 diabetes. It takes simply a couple of weeks as well as you will certainly be taking your wellness to the best. The system functions so efficient, it addresses the trouble and also equilibriums the entire system to ensure that the blood sugar degree is reduced whatsoever times.

It maintains it secure healthy and balanced as well as ecological totally free. Based upon expertise regarding type 2 diabetes, you popular that it is a long-lasting problem identified by high blood glucose, insulin resistance, and also a family member absence of insulin in your body.

Once individuals uncover that they are dealing with this condition they begin shedding hope in life. Individuals believe that there is no treatment, yet according to the research study it is stated that you can reverse this state. Specific food and also some workout can function well in adjusting your body.

That what the writer, Thomas Sully, highlights in his outstanding as well as well doing overview. Via the diet regimen strategy that himself made use of, along with a little workouts you can return to the state that you were previously.

Exactly how Does it Function?

Primarily, this overview offers you collection of twelve of selection foods differing in dimension as well as result. The 7 diet regimen strategy includes minerals, nutrients, enzymes, as well as vitamins that can manage the hormone approximate as well as urge the pancreatic to make even more insulin at the called for time.

This is a fantastic and also reliable mix active ingredients that will certainly offer you bent on reduced glucose sugar degrees at evening. The requirements are basic and also exact you simply require to exercise the very easy guidelines in the program of this overview, and also you will inevitably obtain its advantages.

The research study behind this program reveals you the over 18 various active ingredients that communicate with the body’s hormone degree, each of which takes place in 10 various foods in differing quantities and also with various results.

As you popular hormonal agent manufacturing in the digestion system is so solid that within a couple of hrs can generate one of the most essential hormone equilibrium in the entire body. With this you will certainly reach tune your body to the best hence reversing your type 2 diabetes state.

Concerning the Writer, Thomas Sully

Thomas Sully is the guy behind this program. You might assume that sully is a clinical or a specialist medical professional … no he is simply a regular individual that has actually encountered a whole lot.

He has actually battled the diabetic person trip for long. He specifies that he established the formula over 2 years and also a variety of tested examinations. No rip-off treatment entailed whichever.

All that what he shows you is simply however the genuine keys that he made use of to draw of the annoyance condition. That is specifically the exact same expertise that he offers you to assist you take out without investing much of your money and time.

While undergoing testimonials to discover something on this man, I discovered that Thomas discovered the diabetic person treatment when he was browsing old research study studies. That is when he located that in many clients that went through belly surgical treatment would certainly observe a decrease of type 2 diabetes signs and symptoms.

He uncovered that there is plainly a link in between the digestion system as well as the pancreatic. Placing that in mind, sully cases the key to reversing your type 2 diabetes isn’t concerning dropping weight.

Instead it has to do with consuming ideal nutrients, minerals, vitamins, as well as enzymes that control your hormonal agent system and also promote the pancreatic to generate even more insulin at the correct time.

What will you gain from this program?

When you purchase this program, there are a variety of points that you will certainly reach gain from it. The whole understanding is to maintain you secure healthy and balanced and also without diabetes.

Type 2 Diabetes Defeated is a natural system to deal with and also stay clear of diabetes utilizing a brand-new kind of diet regimen workout.

It aids various people mainly those experiencing the type 2 diabetes to do away with it without therapy or costly drug.

You will certainly find out about strategies as well as suggestions on exactly how to educate the body to regularize blood sugar level in the blood.

You will certainly be familiar with a diet regimen strategy that can assist you eliminate diabetes and also tune your body to the best way.

Just How Much Does Type 2 Diabetes Defeated Expense?

For simply $39, you’ll get immediate accessibility to this item. It consists of the 100% all-natural, detailed procedure that include the dish strategy, workout regimen, supplements checklist, and also day-to-day tracker, in addition to a Diabetes Recipe book bonus which contains greater than 200 healthy and balanced as well as scrumptious dishes.

There are a warranty, a 60 day cash back reimbursement that remains in instance you are not completely satisfied you can request you cash back.

Bottom Line

With all that in mind you can wrap up that you have a natural option approach created to heal the dreadful problem of diabetes that might be troubling you.

The lion’s share of it is that, the item ensures you that this approach operates in simply couple of days as well as you will certainly start seeing enhancements in as low as a week.

The option is eventually your own to make, however the advantages of doing something as well as reclaiming control over your very own wellness definitely surpasses the prices of not doing anything and also keeping the status. Acquire it as soon as possible and also begin to the diabetes complimentary trip.

You are ensured to a 60 day loan back warranty. That remains in instance you are not pleased with it you can obtain your refund. It is a no fraud program.

Pros

– Type 2 Diabetes Defeated Overview is basic as well as understandable. The technological information remain in an easy way language.

– It is time reward. It developed in a means that will certainly make points simpler for you as well as additionally conserves time.

– It is reasonably low-cost as well as budget-friendly. You simply require to supply $39 as well as it recommends you.

– Type 2 Diabetes Defeated Program is take the chance of complimentary since your financial investment right into it is safeguarded.

– It is a natural program. It has all tried and tested and also checked all-natural active ingredients and also hence you will certainly not require pricey medicine.

– Concerns you with a 60 day refund assurance. In situation you are not pleased you can request your cash back.

Cons

– You require to extremely commit on your own to it in order to obtain wanted outcomes.

– Diabetes defeated system is offered majorly on-line. You consequently require excellent functioning web link for you to access the overview.

Summary

Type 2 Diabetes Defeated is a downloadable book that assures to show you a 100% all-natural formula to treat your type 2 diabetes signs and symptoms without insulin. The system functions so reliable, it addresses the issue and also equilibriums the entire system to ensure that the blood sugar degree is reduced in all times.

Get The Lowest Price Now

Visit Official Website »

The post Type 2 Diabetes Defeated Review – Does It Really Work? appeared first on Does It Really Work?.

#DoesItReallyWork, #review #reviews

[mrmichaelchadler]

A Lit Fuse: The History of the Mission: Impossible Franchise

With this week’s release of “Mission: Impossible - Fallout,” it is time to accept an increasingly undeniable fact—the “Mission: Impossible” series is quite possibly the standout film franchise of its time. From a financial standpoint, its significance cannot be denied; the first five films in the series—“Mission: Impossible” (1996), “Mission: Impossible II” (2000), “Mission: Impossible III” (2006), “Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol” (2011) and “Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation” (2015)—have pulled in over $2.7 billion dollars and, barring some unforeseen disaster, the new one should put it well over the $3 billion mark. With grosses like that, it would be easy to simply treat the series as a sort of annuity that one could return to every couple of years to make a lot of money simply by repeating the basic formula established by the previous films for as long as audiences are will to pay to see them. And yet, thanks to the combination of things up by adding new and intriguing elements to the mix each time, the unique approaches to the basic material employed by a strong and eclectic string of directors and, of course, the indefatigable efforts of producer/star Tom Cruise to thrill moviegoers by any means necessary, a series that should by all means have become creatively moribund years ago has instead gotten better, craftier and more entertaining with age. If all blockbuster-sized entertainments were even half as ambitious and ingenious as these films have been, moviegoers would be infinitely better off.

The inspiration for the series is, of course, the long-running television series that aired between 1966-1973 that chronicled the globe-trotting adventures of the Impossible Missions Force (IMF), a secret quasi-government organization of secret agents who went out on missions, should they choose to accept them, that found them going up against enemy spies, dictators and, once budget cuts forced the producers to reduce the scope in later years, homegrown criminal organizations. In the first year of the series, the group was led by Dan Briggs (Steven Hill) but in the second season, the character was dropped and replaced with Jim Phelps (Peter Graves), who would lead the team for the remainder of the series as well as a short-lived revival of the show that appeared in the late 1980s. 

Seen through today’s eyes, the show is more than a bit odd—this was a program in which most of the episodes seemed to involve the IMF working on assassination plots (though in nearly every case, it would be left to someone else to actually pull the trigger so as not to sully the reputations of our heroes) but the terse approach to the material—the characters were all business and almost never delved into their personal lives—was interesting, the labyrinthine plots (which often included multiple layers of deception and elaborate disguises) were fairly complex by contemporary television standards, the cast (which also included the likes of Barbara Bain, Martin Landau, Leonard Nimoy, Sam Elliott, Greg Morris and Peter Lupus) did solid work and the theme song by Lalo Schifrin remains a stone-cold classic. 

In the Eighties going into the Nineties, spurned on by the success of the “Star Trek” movies, making big screen versions out of familiar small screen titles suddenly became the rage for a while. With its well-known title and memorable theme music, Paramount Pictures was keen to make a “Mission: Impossible” film but the project remained in limbo until Tom Cruise, at the very apex of his stardom, decided not only to do it but to make it the first effort from his newly-formed production company. Sydney Pollack was attached to the project for a while but eventually it went to Brian De Palma—the notion of the generally iconoclastic filmmaker doing a potential tentpole project of this sort must have seemed strange at the time but his last major box-office success had been an adaptation of another television show, “The Untouchables” (1987). A number of top writers, including Robert Towne, Steve Zaillian and David Koepp, worked on the script but it reportedly went into production without a completed screenplay. There were also rumors of friction during the shoot between Cruise and De Palma that appeared to be tacitly confirmed when De Palma dropped out of the film’s press junket on the eve of its opening.

When audiences first sat down to watch “Mission: Impossible” in May 1996, those with an actual working knowledge of the series must have felt right at home. From the start, the film trotted out the most familiar ingredients—the theme, the opening credits featuring a rapid-fire assortment of clips from the story we were about to see and, most of all, an IMF team once again led by veteran Jim Phelps (now played by Jon Voight) and including his wife, Claire (Emmanuelle Beart), and various experts in their respective fields (played by such familiar faces as Kristin Scott Thomas and Emilio Estevez). Most importantly, there was point man Ethan Hunt (Cruise) choosing to accept a mission in Prague to recover a top secret list of CIA agents from the American Embassy that requires clever moves, hi-tech gadgetry and, of course, an elaborate disguise or two. Then, in classic De Palma fashion, things quickly go sideways and the once-cocky Ethan is left standing helpless as the rest of his team is killed off one by one and the list vanishes. To make matters worse, when Hunt reports to his superior (Henry Czerny) for debriefing, he learns that the entire mission was a ruse designed to ferret out a mole who was intending on stealing and selling the list to a secretive arms dealer known only as Max—since he was the only survivor, the assumption is that Ethan was the guilty party. He escapes easily enough and, after putting together an ad-hoc team consisting of a couple of disgraced former IMF operatives, computer genius Luther Stickey (Ving Rhames) and pilot Franz Krieger (Jean Reno), and Claire, who survived the attack after all, creates an elaborate plan to steal the real list himself in order to lure the person who framed him while at the same time escaping the pursuit of his former employers. 

The film got reviews that were decent but hardly spectacular with many of them complaining that the storyline was too convoluted for its own good. Therefore, it may come as a shock to people revisiting it for the first time in a while (or those who have never seen it before) to discover just how strong it really is. Yes, the systematic destruction of the IMF team in the opening scenes, coupled with the later revelation that—Spoiler Alert!—it was Phelps himself who was the mole, shocked and outraged fans of the original show (not to mention some of the original stars, who gave interviews to show their displeasure with the film). And yet, this move proved to be as dramatically clever as it was audacious. The times had changed considerably in the years since the original series went off the air and the notion of a clandestine spy agency going on officially unsanctioned missions to mess around in other countries was simply not going to play in the same fashion. By blowing things up in this way, the film managed to clear the decks for a “Mission: Impossible” designed for the current world while managing to throw most moviegoers for a loop early on in the proceedings. 

It is funny to note that this film was once derided for its alleged incoherence because the narrative seems remarkably clean and efficiently told, especially in comparison to what passes for blockbuster filmmaking these days. When it is seen a second time—and this is the rare modern screen spectacular that actually plays better on repeat viewings—one can more clearly see just how smartly written it really is. (I especially love the scene in which Ethan and Phelps reunite and catch each other up on what is happening and Ethan quietly realizing that he is being lied to by his former mentor.) The performances are also quite good as well, which also comes as a surprise since quality acting is not usually the highest priority in films like this. Cruise does an excellent job of playing against his generally cocksure screen persona, Voight adds weight and even a slight degree of poignance to his turn as Phelps and as the mysterious Max, Vanessa Redgrave turns up in a couple of scenes and pretty much steals the show—when she and Cruise have their big scene together, the screen crackles with so much electricity that one wishes that someone could have found a project that would have given them more chances to play off of each other. (The only sort-of disappointment in the cast is Beart, who is nowhere near as electrifying here as she was in films like “Manon of the Spring” or “La Belle Noisseuse” [1991], though that might have something to do with the last-minute deletion of scenes suggest a love triangle between Claire, her husband and Ethan.)

The best thing about “Mission: Impossible”—not to mention one of the key elements that would go on to drive the subsequent films—is the way that a film that was presumably launched primarily as a star project managed to morph, with the approval of the star/producer, into perhaps the most auteur-friendly franchise in operation today. Since it is a film where he was hired to interpret someone else’s material, this is clearly not a “pure” Brian De Palma movie in the manner of such self-generated projects as “Dressed to Kill” (1980), “Blow Out” (1981) or “Femme Fatale” (2002). However, this is one of his most successful attempts at channeling his own particular obsessions into a more overtly commercial framework than is usually found in his more personal efforts. Although not necessarily the kind of story that he might have designed wholly on his own, this story allowed De Palma to tackle subject matter that has long fascinated him, such as voyeurism, technology, mistrust of the very organizations that are supposedly there to protect us and stories that feature unreliable narrators. The film also allows him to demonstrate once again that he is one of the great visual storytellers of our time and includes some of the most memorable extended set pieces of his career. Under normal circumstances, either the opening sabotage in Prague or the climactic fight aboard and on top of a train speeding through the Chunnel would be duly enshrined as the absolute peak moments in the career of an ordinary filmmaker. With De Palma, they aren’t even the high point of the film thanks to the masterful sequence depicting Ethan and his team infiltrating CIA headquarters to steal the list of spies from a room rigged to sound off alarms at even the slightest hint of an intruder in the room—even a simple drop of sweat could do the trick. The entire sequence is a breathtaking wonder that is pretty much a master class in filmmaking all by itself.

When “Mission: Impossible II” came around, Robert Towne was once again pulled into the fold to write the screenplay but the directing reins were passed on to John Woo, the Hong Kong filmmaker who dazzled audiences around the world with such jaw-droppers as “A Better Tomorrow” (1986), “The Killer” (1989) and “Hard Boiled” (1992) before going to Hollywood to make “Hard Target” (1993) and the smash hit “Face/Off” (1997). This time around, the story revolves around Ethan being sent off to track down Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), a rogue IMF agent who has stolen both a deadly virus and its cure, planning to release the former into the world and sell the latter to the highest bidder. To accomplish this, Ethan recruits professional thief and former Ambrose flame Nyah (Thandie Newton) to seduce her one-time lover and help him recover the virus and antidote—complications inevitably arise when Ethan winds up falling in love with Nyah himself. Yes, this is roughly the same plot as the Alfred Hitchcock classic “Notorious” (1946), though to be fair, “Notorious” did not contain nearly the amount of crazy stunts or over-the-top fight scenes on display here.

“Mission: Impossible II” is usually considered to be the weakest entry in the series but while it is undeniably not quite as good as its predecessor, it is still better than its reputation might otherwise suggest. The story is not much to speak of but it is presented with enough style and energy to keep things humming along nicely enough. The action sequences, starting with the sight of Cruise doing a free solo climb in Moab, Utah and climaxing with a crazy-ass duel with motorcycles, are appropriately hair-raising as well. Most significantly, the series has once again allowed a noted filmmaker to play to their strengths and idiosyncrasies instead of trying to tamp them down. This may not be a great John Woo film in the way that “The Killer” or “Hard Boiled” are but, as was the case with De Palma, he manages to make a film that is undeniably his while still serving the basic needs of any tentpole project. Woo has always been a filmmaker with a taste for grandly melodramatic stories and the swoony romantic triangle at the center of the narrative, not to mention the notion of good and evil being separated by only the thinnest of lines (illustrated at a couple of points by having Ambrose donning a mask to make himself look like Ethan), certainly accomplishes that here. 

After flirtations with David Fincher and Joe Carnahan, it was J.J. Abrams, then riding high on the twin successes of “Alias” and “Lost," who was brought on to make his feature directorial debut with “Mission: Impossible III.” In this installment, Ethan has finally left the field work behind in order to train new agents for their own future missions and is even engaged to marry Julia (Michelle Monaghan), who is under the impression that he works for the DMV. During his engagement party, he is informed that one of his trainees (Keri Russell, perhaps inevitably) has been taken captive by international bad guy Owen Davian (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). He and his team (including Jonathan Rhys Myers, Maggie Q and Rhames) swoop in to make a rescue, but it all goes wrong and Ethan finds himself under suspicion from the new IMF head (Laurence Fishburne). Without official authorization, Ethan and the team set off to nab Davian and while they are initially successful, things once again fall apart and the fates of both the world in general and Julia in particular are at stake. 

“Mission: Impossible III” is easily the most mixed bag of the entire series. Part of the problem with this one is that the main story too often comes across as a rehash of the first film’s plot without any of the genuinely surprising twists or narrative drive that its predecessor demonstrated in spades. The bigger issue is that while Abrams has gone on to direct some of the biggest films imaginable (he is the only guy to direct installments of both the “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” franchises), he was just taking his first tentative steps into telling stories on that scale here and it shows. The action scenes are fast and noisy and frantic but for the most part, they lack the style and precision that De Palma and Woo brought to their set pieces, though comparing the efforts of a relative novice to experts like those two may be a little unfair. That said, Abrams seems more at home with the material involving Ethan’s personal life and the seeming impossibility of balancing a normal life with being called upon to save the world on a regular basis, which was also one of the key themes behind “Alias.” He also injects the series with a much-needed sense of humor courtesy of the introduction of Simon Pegg as a nerdy tech guy who would go on to become a series regular. The most significant aspect of the film, however, is the presence of the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain. This was offbeat casting, to be sure, but it proved to be an extraordinarily effective choice—he is such a genuinely menacing presence throughout that even though you pretty much know going in that Hunt will indeed save the day, Hoffman forces you to consider the possibility that maybe he won’t after all.

When “Mission: Impossible III” was released in the summer of 2006, it came at a time when Tom Cruise’s stock as a star had dipped (this was the period of his sofa-hopping antics and the like) and while it was a success, it would prove to be the lowest-grossing entry in the series. Perhaps in response to this, “Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol” (2011) made a couple of additional tweaks to the formula that might have seemed risky—both literally and metaphorically—at the time but which proved to inject some needed energy into the franchise. The storyline was not necessarily a departure from the usual array of international goings-on: after being falsely accused of blowing up the Kremlin while on a mission to spring a key information source from a Moscow prison, Ethan and his officially disavowed team (which adds Paula Patton and Jeremy Renner with newly promoted Pegg) are assigned to pursue a Russian nuclear strategist (Michael Nyqvist) who is responsible for the bombing and who is hellbent on kicking off a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. But this was arguably the first time that the mission had the feel of a team effort that allowed everyone a moment to shine, from the suspiciously adept defensive moves from seemingly ordinary analyst Renner to the thrilling brawl between Patton and deadly assassin Lea Seydoux that might have been the unquestioned highlight of an ordinary movie. 

This is not to say that Cruise was exactly slacking off this time around. While he had always been a galvanizing physical presence in the previous films—one of the reasons that the stunts had such a visceral impact was that he was clearly doing the vast majority of them himself—perhaps he knew with this one that he had something to prove to audiences who might have thought that the series was beginning to die out. In turn, Cruise goes the extra mile with results that are both exhilarating and exhausting to watch. In the film's most famous moment, we see him climbing on the outside of Dubai’s Burj Khalifa tower, the world’s tallest building. Sure, he was strapped to the building with numerous cables that were later removed in post-production but the sight of a real person hanging from a real building over a great height has a weight and gravity to it that the grandest of CGI spectacles can hardly hope to approach.

The film marked the live-action directorial debut of Brad Bird, who had previously made a name for himself for helming the beloved animated features “The Iron Giant” (1999), “The Incredibles” (2004) and “Ratatouille” (2007). Once again, the decision to put such a huge project in the hands of someone who had never made a film of this size or scope raised more than a few eyebrows at the time, but that was nothing compared to the amount of eyeballs that popped upon seeing what he had done with it. Bird brought his animator’s eye to the staging of the massive action sequences and part of the fun of the film was watching all of the disparate elements come together with a great degree of humor, split-second timing and a remarkable degree of clarity (which included the smart decision to eschew 3-D for the more impressive visual gimmick of shooting a chunk of the film in the high-resolution IMAX format). From the opening Russian jailbreak to the centerpiece Dubai segment (which eventually expands to include both a high-speed chase and a giant sandstorm) to the climax in which Ethan and the big bad guy do battle in an automatic car park in Mumbai that finds both fists and automobiles flying with carefully calibrated abandon, the film feels at times as if it is indeed a live-action cartoon (in the best sense of the word). Even at its most outlandish, however, there is still a human element at its center that keeps both the story and the character grounded at all times, at least metaphorically.

“Ghost Protocol” instantly reenergized the “Mission: Impossible” series (it would prove to be the most successful of the films to date as well as Cruise’s biggest hit) but it did it so well that it almost seemed to paint the franchise into a corner—just the idea of trying to top it in terms of thrills and spectacle seemed to be a doomed prospect. And yet, not only did “Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation” live up to those expectations, it somehow managed to exceed them. Taking over the co-writing and directing chores this time around was Christopher McQuarrie (who had worked with Cruise before on “Valkyrie” [2008], “Jack Reacher” [2012] and “Edge of Tomorrow” [2014] and who did uncredited rewrites on “Ghost Protocol”) and tell a story that tie in together rather than acting as stand-alone narratives. In “Rogue Nation,” with the IMF once again disavowed and placed under the aegis of the head of the CIA (Alec Baldwin), Ethan goes off on his own to investigate The Syndicate, a shadowy organization comprised of presumed-dead agents from around the world to serve as a sort of ad hoc terrorist group. Although old colleagues like Luther and Benji, now officially part of the CIA, turn up to help him prove the existence of the Syndicate and clear his name, Ethan also receives assistance from Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), a mysterious assassin who is either a British intelligence agent posing as a Syndicate operative or vice versa. 

More so than any of the previous sequels, “Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation” did the best job since the original of balancing the white-knuckle action scenes with a story that served as more than just a laundry line to connect the setpieces. Much of the promotional hype surrounding the film was based around the opening sequence in which Cruise is seen dangling from the outside of an airbus in flight. This was a knockout scene to be sure but McQuarrie managed to top those later on with a couple of equally amazing scenes—one involving an extended brawl with a sniper in the wings above the Vienna State Opera during a production of “Turandot” and the other involving Ethan infiltrating Syndicate headquarters by swimming through a pressurized underwater cavern and reprogramming a computer in under three minutes and without the use of air tanks—that demonstrated a heretofore unexpected flair for action filmmaking that rivaled anything seen in the series, or anywhere else for that matter. The writing was just as strong—the chief villain, a former MI6 agent named Solomon Lane (Sean Harris), who seizes control of the Syndicate for his own means, is more interesting than usual, the narrative unfolds in a manner that is complex and twisty without slipping into confusion and contains some very funny moments to help lighten the mood—my favorite is an apparent homage to the old “Scenes We’d Like To See” feature from Mad Magazine that finds the IMF in front of a government commission to answer for the destruction they caused over the course of the earlier films. Best of all is the inclusion of the Ilsa Faust character, a real wild card who, thanks to Ferguson’s star-making performance, serves as both Hunt’s equal and a possible romantic foil, not that they have much time for anything like that here.

Which brings us, at long last, to “Mission: Impossible - Fallout,” which, in a break with tradition, finds McQuarrie returning to write and direct a story that ties directly into its predecessor and while I suppose that the original film remains my favorite of the franchise thanks to the contributions of De Palma, this one is a legitimate work of grand popular art that serves as a wonderful payoff for longtime fans of the series and as a top-notch entertainment on its own. You have no doubt heard about many—though hopefully not all—of the jaw-dropping stunts on display and they all live up to the hoopla. Needless to say, this is one of those movies that needs to be seen in the theatre, preferably on the biggest possible screen. At the same time, the screenplay does an equally impressive job of telling a complex and consistently surprising story that meets all of the genre requirements and still leaves room to allow us to get a better idea of who Hunt is and what it is that drives him. The film even takes time to acknowledge its own now-considerable history with nicely done moments that do everything from pay homage to Max from the first film to resolving the relationship between Ethan and Julia that had been left in a sort of limbo after “Mission: Impossible III.”

And then there is Cruise, whose luster may have dimmed a bit in recent years with such misfires as “The Mummy” but who once again reminds us of the very qualities that made him one of the biggest movie stars around in the first place. Physically, he throws himself into the proceedings with a heedlessness that is bracing to behold—just watching him as he goes about his running and jumping will be enough to exhaust most viewers—but for the first time in the films, he is willing to acknowledge, albeit subtly, that he is getting older, an interesting move for someone who normally plays up his youthful nature whenever he can. He puts just as much effort into the dramatic beats as well and while this is not the kind of performance that will go on to win any awards, I cannot imagine anyone inhabiting the role with even a sliver of the conviction that he continues to bring to it even after all these years. As long as he remains its driving force, the “Mission: Impossible” franchise will hopefully maintain the absurdly high standards that it has already set for itself. However, as many have noted, he is getting up there in years, at least by action hero standards—is there a possibility that he might step away from the series anytime soon? No one can say for sure right now, but I suspect that if you listen to his last line of dialogue in the film, you will have your answer.

from All Content https://ift.tt/2mFxhCe