Abley has a point about minority languages being worth saving. The problem to me is that he’s making the wrong argument for it.

His angle on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis seems wrong. (Though I don’t know what the latest research is,) There’s doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support it in its strongest senses. So what’s the big deal? Abley repeatedly makes the point that when we lose a language, we literally lose a way of thinking. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem so according to research, though subjectively it does seem so.

He also tries to make a correlation between a language taking on foreign words and expressions and its safety among the land of the living. Au contraire! It makes a language richer to broaden its base. While I wouldn’t suggest that English isn’t a juggernaut that infiltrates the most isolated parts of the world, English words and idioms in a language isn’t prima facie evidence that they’re killing the invaded tougue. Enough. I’m getting a bit of schadenfreude from commenting on the foibles of that idea.

For the record, the previous paragraph had words either directly brought over from or naturalized to English from: Latin, prima facie; French, au contraire; German, schadenfreude; Greek, isolated; Hindi, juggernaut; Norse, they. So clearly this tendency for languages to accrete foreign words isn’t a necessary precondition for demise.

Except that he’s right. Language is a cultural thing. Answer this: Can a person be culturally Russian and not speak Russian? That idea is almost preposterous. Sure you can be of Russian heritage or live in Russia and not speak Russian, but to identify as ethnically Russian? Similarly it is difficult to conceive of French culture without the French language. But what about being Welsh? Can you be culturally and ethnically Welsh without speaking Welsh? Seemingly the answer to that is yes. What do we lose by having Welsh people who speak nothing but English? This is where the book was interesting. He explored exactly some of those facets of minority languages, and this is why I unabashedly recommend this book. He explored the challenges minority-language speakers face both with the majority language and the fights within the community over such things as spelling. He looks at how languages are passed from generation to generation.

It isn’t perfect, but Abley makes a point: the world is a poorer place without these small languages.

While I was watching this movie I didn’t think too much of it. The story was somewhat predictable. The peripheral characters seemed somewhat flat. The general appearance seemed low budget.

But over the last couple of weeks, I’ve grown to appreciate it. Even savor it. Of course the peripheral characters were flat: they were supposed to be. The audience was supposed to know these characters like comfortable clothes: ready to wear and just the right size. The stock characters facilitated the main characters action without need to get into back story, and I think I like it. You can tell your story and not need to explain anything. Irascible old man needs no explanation if you know who he is. Meddlesome mothers needn’t have built-up, layered angst to drive the protagonists into action. Nothing needs explanation: just let the plot roll out.

That doesn’t mean the story has to be predictable. Not at all. Stock characters give you the flexibility to not have to have an intricate back story. The director can focus on the story.

It’s different from Hollywood, but it fits like an old cardigan. The kind you want to wear again and again. I will have to look for more movies by the director of this movie, Iraj Tahmasb.

The movie is an interesting character study, though it is presented as a comedy. Certainly, there are some comic moments in it, but that’s not what the film is.

Instead it is a story about a curmudgeonly factory owner who, for whatever reason, wants to show his visiting brother that he is married. Strange things unfold when the brothers and guest take a road trip to a beach town in Uruguay. Along the way are images of workaday Uruguay that you won’t see in other movies. (Why? Very few movies are made there.)

If you’re looking for action, move along. If you are looking for broad, sweeping drama, move along. If you’re looking for character study, this is for you.

The movie opens with a man screaming at his hand. How can you top that?

I don’t even know where to begin with this. It’s a comedy with time travel, tsars and impostors. In some ways it will look pretty camp to 21st century Americans, and maybe the director intended that. There are some chase scenes which look like Benny Hill’s inspiration. There are Russian historic sites pressed into cinematic duty. There is a building superintendent who looks like Ivan the Terrible. Mistaken identities load it up for a screwball comedy of errors.

It’s amazing to think that this came out in the same year as Soylent Green or Westworld. Soviet film was definitely up to something different behind the Iron Curtain. Consider this a peek behind it.

If you can’t make a great movie, make it long.

I had figured out who the bad guys was at least an hour before the main characters did. There’s something about being that much more on the ball than the characters in the movie that bothers me. Mind you, this does not apply to hapless horror movie sorts who should not be opening that door.

I was bummed by the movie. Kind of a neat concept. Some interesting plot twists. Ham-handed execution. Yeah, I know, lots of other people really like this movie. I kept watching it hoping it would live up to its promise.

If you love hoppy beer, this is the one for you. The name tells you what you need to know. It’s bitter, complex and strong. Exactly what I love in a beer. If you love the same things too, it will blow your mind. On the other hand, if Bud Light is too much of a beer for you, you’ll hate this and think it’s medicinal.

To each their own. For beer lovers, try this. Of course one won’t be enough, but you won’t be able to drink the second.

V is introducing anarchy to the masses in a consumer-friendly package. I’ll probably get around to re-watching this some time.

But until then, I’ll wish his anarchy had been non-violent.

V definitely needs to know about the non-initiation of force. (Shhhh, I’m well aware that force had been initiated against him.)

There were spots in the movie where I thought to myself, “Freeze frame, this is the frame in the comic.”

The movie was entertaining enough. Certainly technically well made, but it still felt like an adaptation.

I now know that tetherball with a beehive is a bad idea.

Sadly, Ken Burns got away with it.

Watching this made me wonder if the baseball I had watched was the same baseball he watched.

1. Cal Ripken saved baseball after the strike? Really? I thought that was McGwire and Sosa. Or maybe just some time passing.

2. Steroids are cheating. Well, ok they are. But the film took what seemed to be a simplistic look at it. Its commenters saw the complexity of the issue, but Burns seemed to see it as pure cheating. As much as I prefer pitchers’ duels and small ball, steroid style baseball made the turnstiles turn. The steroids made for a better product in the eyes of the market. I think Chris Rock got it when he asked if you’d take a pill that would make you the best at your job.

3. The focus on Barry Bonds was both irritating and riveting.

4. There are teams that aren’t the Yankees and Red Sox. Seeing this made me want to watch a baseball game in Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Minneapolis over the course of a summer. Oh, wait, I did.

5. They glossed over the public financing of the stadiums that have enriched teams. Particularly of interest to me are the Florida teams. Tropicana Field was built to lure a team, and tonight they gave away 20,000 tickets for a team that is going to the playoffs. The Marlins come nowhere near filling the lower deck, but there is a new stadium going up for them in Miami.

6. The increasingly ridiculous price of tickets was not mentioned. Yankees fans have to go to other towns to even see their team play. It’s over $20 to sit in even the worst seats to watch a last place team play.

7. They didn’t even mention the financial side that allows teams like the Yankees and Red Sox to buy winners, while forcing teams like Minnesota and Oakland to carefully develop prospects and lose them to free agency. Montreal and Minnesota nearly got contracted out. No mention.

Admittedly, those aren’t the pretty sides of baseball. But given the complexity of the game, Burns steamrolled it to give us the bi-coastal view of it.

They play baseball in Cincinnati, but I doubt Ken Burns knows that.