Aug 13 2011

L.A. Noire is good. Really good.

Judging whether Rockstar's latest, LA Noire is artistically successful hinges on two things. The first is whether it fits into the genre its purports. The second is whether it does so well. The answers are yes, and hell yes.

Film noir wasn't so much a genre as it was a movement, spanning the 1940s and 50s. Saying where it began is difficult (and pointless), but a good argument could be made that the first was The Maltese Falcon, and the last is almost always considered to be Touch of Evil. Visually the films were shot with unconventional lighting, often overhead lamps and emphasizing silhouettes and shadows. Typically these films follow investigators, usually reprehensible men who nonetheless are behaving the least abominably of all the characters we meet. (Even Sam Spade in Falcon was a petty cad, having his murdered partner's name removed from the front door of the office before the body was cold, even as it is strongly suggested he was sleeping with the partner's wife.) Sometimes these were cops, but often they were private investigators or insurance investigators (especially Double Indemnity and The Killers). Other times the investigation was led by a person put in such circumstances (Out of the Past, The Lady from Shanghai, and almost any Hitchcock film with Cary Grant come to mind immediately).

But the most important character in noir was the city. This city was almost always either LA or San Francisco. Car chases and tailing are a staple, as are mingling with movie moguls, drug lords, mobsters, and magnates. In this case, LA Noire takes place in Los Angeles (obviously), and every part of the city feels right. Set in 1947 and featuring historically correct streets and buildings, the city is awash with vivid details---black and hispanic parts of town, new housing developments for GIs, the wealthy districts along Santa Monica, and the dumpy real structures behind the movie industry. Even the famous Hollywoodland sign is represented faithfully (though I believe the H was by that time in disrepair).

Noir has never really been out of fashion, but the tenor of it has certainly undergone some changes. The initial films were made under the strict studio "Code", prohibiting most of the grisly murder details and sexual escapades that the genre practically demands. Again, in The Maltese Falcon, it is clearly indicated that Gutman, Cairo, and Wilmer are part of a gay cabal, out to enrich themselves by obtaining the Falcon. One wonders how the film's director, John Houston who also adapted the screenplay, figured out how to get the suggestion into the film without the censors noticing it. By Kiss Me Deadly, the rules had loosened significantly---sex wasn't just implied anymore, and the protagonist is a bottom feeder who seduces men's wives while his partner takes pictures, only to sell the pictures to the men for use in divorce proceedings. Obviously, by the time of the superb LA Confidential, everything was on the table: horrible violence, rape, rough sex, prostitution, gay sex, rampant drug use.

All of that and more is represented in LA Noire. Cole Phelps gets knocked around between divisions as good investigating and bad politics influence events. Yes, the Elizabeth Short "Black Dahlia" case is explored to a certain extent. But mainly these are creative, original works, wonderfully drawn, and featuring the kind of moral ambiguity that I find hard to resist.

The game is essentially a modern-day adventure game. The action is relatively rare, relatively quick, and totally painless (in that you are always given an option to skip it.) Most of the game is either spent detecting, by combing crime scenes for clues, or in interviewing/interrogation. And it's all in here: a cop with a checkered past in the war, dirty cops, corrupt politicians, gangsters, unscrupulous businessmen, junkies, and whores. Noire features the most advanced face motion capture and rendering ever attempted, and it basically succeeds. Famous actors are instantly recognizable ("that's SO Walter from Fringe"). When speaking to contemptible smug villains, cagey low-rung criminals, or wide-eyed patrolmen, all of it feels just like it should.

However, not appearing from the adventure genre: ridiculous inventory puzzles, profuse pixel hunting, operation of absurd machines, fetch quests, unforeseeable deaths, or just finding yourself not knowing what to do next.

The complaints leveled at the game by Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation are valid. The motion capture for bodies leads to some weird animation, and the conversation paths are ambiguous enough that you'll probably want to consult a FAQ. And yes, Cole sometimes yells when it doesn't make sense to. Some of the details of the plot get obscured, and at one point it seemed to me that there were facts the characters knew that hadn't yet been revealed. These are serious complaints. But none of them really comes close to diminishing the game.

Finally: the music is divine. In cars you hear a selection of popular tunes from the day. Outside, though, is a rich soundtrack of original jazz pieces featuring trumpet player Gerard Presencer. It never gets old.

May 18 2011

People, we are heading off a cliff!

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) recently said in an interview with CNBC that our creditors would accept the US defaulting on its debt "for a day or two or three or four". Ryan is widely considered to be the intellectual leader of the GOP, so much so that Newt Gingrich was recently prompted to apologize to Ryan when he said he wasn't for Ryan's Medicare reforms.

Our creditors most certainly will not accept a default. If this happens, or if we get close to it happening, we are heading off a cliff. Our bonds will, overnight, become worth peanuts compared with what they are now. The US will plunge into recession or worse, and the situation will not recover in my lifetime.

How long has this been known? The first bonds issued by a government for the purposes of funding itself were those of Venice in the 13th century. Venice sold the bonds, telling the bearers that they would be paid an annual interest payment on the face value, and that they could be held indefinitely. The bonds were a huge success. And Venice made their payments on the debt consistently. As Kenneth Silber writes "From 1262 to 1379, Venice never missed an interest payment, solidifying the credibility of the new instruments." They were as good as cash for transactions, and a very good place to invest money.

But Venice defaulted on its obligations. Now, there are two senses here in which default can have meaning. One is that a debt is "repudiated." This is what the North made the South do upon cessation of the Civil War. Anybody who owned Southern bonds was out of luck, they had no value. But this isn't what Venice did. They merely defaulted by stopping their interest payments for a few years in the early 1380s, and then resumed. This is akin to what Ryan is talking about.

What happened? The bond market in Venice never recovered. What people had for more than 100 years considered to be as good as cash was suddenly something with risk. The risk abruptly went from nothing to substantial, and people reasonably began to worry that they had much less money than they thought they had.

Does this sound familiar? It should. The crisis in 2007, resulting in the worst recession since the Great Depression, was caused by the same thing. Credit markets locked up because suddenly people realized they had less money than they thought they had. Things that were supposed to be as good as cash (insured securities backed by mortgages) were, overnight, perceived to be inherently risky; investors thought they might end up holding worthless paper. So they tried to cash everything out immediately, and refused to invest in anything. This has caused the liquidity trap that we're currently in. Everyone just wants cash and wants to stick it under a mattress.

And, to be honest, mortgage backed securities were esoteric. They weren't held by that many people. Treasury notes, on the other hand, are owned by everybody. So if you thought 2007 was bad, you just wait until August 2011. It will be armageddon.

So what do politicians, in particular the GOP, say about this? "Don't worry", they say, "we can still make payments on the debt and just default on other things. And hey, the markets didn't crash when there was a possible government shutdown." They also contend that just because the markets will react negatively, it won't be so bad. As Senator Pat Toomey said recently, “a disruptive series of events are not a catastrophe.”

This is horrifyingly ignorant. It is true that the bond market has not yet responded to the possibility of risk. But if there appears to be any possibility of a default for even one day, something that has zero risk will suddenly have some risk. And the market knows that if we head towards default one year, it's just as likely to happen the next year, and the next after that. Treasury bonds will no longer be a perfectly sound investment. They may be mostly sound, but they will be priced at a significantly higher rate, and many investors will try to cash out immediately. As Roger Altman, former deputy secretary of the Treasury said, “if America were to default, even for 24 hours, that would have an unprecedented and catastrophic impact” on global financial markets.

So, if you have to worry about one thing (other than global warming), worry about this. If this happens, it's the end of the US as we know it.

May 10 2011

A lie about Social Security that won't go away

People like Alan Simpson and Rick Santorum want to cut Social Security benefits because, as Simpson says,

It was never intended as a retirement program. It was set up in ‘37 and ‘38 to take care of people who were in distress -- ditch diggers, wage earners -- it was to give them 43 percent of the replacement rate of their wages. The [life expectancy] was 63. That’s why they set retirement age at 65.

This is a lie.

Source: Social Security Administration

I've heard people say this for many years, and none of them appeared to take the time to figure out whether it was really true or not.

As for the charge that our social safety net is a "Ponzi Scheme", it's a silly slander. Every insurance company works this way. There is always a group that gets benefits and a group that doesn't. If these people are the "smart" ones trying to fix our system, I have serious misgivings about what's actually going to happen when the non-smart legislature gets involved.

Apr 25 2011

New PPP poll on Civil War outcome is a doozy

In a poll released today, PPP revealed what southerners from former confederate states (Mississippi, North Carolina, and Georgia) think about the outcome of the Civil War.

This is ugly.

GA NC MS
Glad North won 53% 48% 34%
Wish South had won 23% 21% 27%
Not sure 24% 31% 39%

Looking at the crosstabs and the sampling size, I can conclude that among the three states only 54% of blacks are glad the North won the Civil War. An astounding 12% of blacks wish the South had won, with 33% unsure.

What the hell?

Mar 11 2011

Clear gender bias in American Idol voting

If it seems like American Idol always turns into a sausage fest, it's probably because it really does. If you're a female singer, you have only slightly more than a 30% chance of reaching the top 2 under the current rules.

I compiled data from Wikipedia on the gender makeup of remaining finalists on all seasons excluding season 3 (more on that later). My feeling has been that women get hosed, but I didn't really think it was this bad:

Gender makeup of finalists
(note that season 1 had only top 10)

The average top 12 starts out at about 50% men, with slightly more due to season 8 having a top 13, the extra of which was a man (Anoop Desai), plus one extra man from voting in the semifinals. The average number of women for non-season-3 has never exceeded 50% once in the 9 complete seasons that have aired. The only 2 judges saves were both used on men, for Matt Giraud and Mike Lynch, neither of which made it to the top 3.

For all that, female winners (again, not including Fantasia, winner of season 3) constitute 3 of the 8 seasons, or about 37% of the winners, which isn't terrible. This is mostly on the strength, though, of Carrie Underwood, who in season 4 saw 3 out of 6 of the female competitors eliminated in the first 3 weeks; and Jordin Sparks, who saw 3 out of 6 eliminated in the first 4 weeks. Three seasons came down to two men, whereas no (zero) non-season-3 year has come down to two women.

About season 3: that year was rigged. The top 12 had 8 women, due to both Randy and Paula choosing a female from those who were not voted in by the public (Leah LaBelle and Jennifer Hudson[!]).

By the way, seasons 4 thru 6 I considered the best (and were the best rated, excluding season 7), and each had a final between a man and woman.

P.S. Season 8 had eight men, but women were eliminated very quickly. Removing this season from the data set does not appreciably alter the trend.

Older posts «

» Newer posts