ALGORITHMS, PARALLEL UNIVERSES & GROUNDHOG DAY (THE MOVIE)

Algorithms dictate our everyday lives: researchers collect data from open-access social media, smart phones, laptops, etc. This information then gets analyzed and used, as part of statistical analysis, to predict trends--all wrapped up in an artificial bow known as algorithms. These formulas have been used, most notably, in investment strategies for better or worse. Movies, for example The Big Short (2015), have centered on the dangers of relying on numbers without taking long-term vision or considering humanist implications. Because in the end, the seemingly perfect models used to anticipate human behavior can crash and burn. The facts become distorted by human fallacy and greed.

For years, fiction, as in the classic Twilight Zone TV episode called "Mirror Image" (1960), and earlier literary stories such as Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll (1871) delved into the idea that people could travel through space or time into another dimension with often frightening implications. Recent science, the much-toted "string theory" has posited that like a "sliced loaf of bread," we could be living among multiple dimensions but proving this theory has been elusive (Brian Greene, Nova, based on his book The Elegant Universe, 1999)

(Science fiction - Google Images)

Now, theoretical physicists are exploring the idea that dark matter, the blackness of space, may have the answers needed to support parallel universes and other dimensions (Powell, "The Possible Parallel Universe of Dark Matter, Discover Magazine, 2013). How do these theories parallel, forgive the pun, the algorithm discussion above? Algorithm models may accurately predict market forces, but until empirical evidence in the form of investor behavior is quantified, i.e. including outside forces which these formulas can't foresee to prove the models are more than 90% accurate, the models serve little purpose. Science and math won't settle for anything but QED, or proven by the numbers, and when applied, by real-world application.  [For other sources about string theory and dark matter: Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku and Neil DeGrasse Tyson have written accessible books about these theories. See below.]

(Science Fact - Google Images)

To move onto a field which has shown to be far less than perfect in predicting, a.k.a. meteorology, I use the example Groundhog Day, the 1993 movie, starring Bill Murray as a cantankerous, self-involved weatherman, "Phil Connors," who reluctantly covers the annual Groundhog Day celebration in Punxsutawney, PA.

Unlike media forecasters who must have the creds and credibility to make their predictions, the character Phil has neither and shows little interest in doing human interest pieces. Still, like Phil's character who lives the same day over and over, many viewers have accepted the idea that the science of weather-predicting should take a backseat to the entertainment factor.

Of course, The Weather Channel exists to bring 24/7 forecasts to more serious followers, but even that channel has lost some of its respectability. Why? Because media moguls prefer to emphasize fluff pieces rather than hard numbers or science.

We all agree that two plus two equals four, that predicting human behavior can't be done solely with a computer, that theories are theories until proven otherwise, but some have forgotten to use their eyes, see for themselves, instead depending on others. Many don't have the curiosity, education and experience to justify their comments to tell them what is real and what's imaginary.

According to NASA, 97% of active climate scientists not only believe but can demonstrate climate change exists. Moreover, Wall Street insiders who saw the numbers and understood the housing market would collapse, capitalized on "The Big Short." Steven Eisman (Steve Carell portrayed him in the movie) predicted the dire consequences by crunching the numbers (Belvedere, CNBC, 2016) of the housing crisis to come in 2008 and now predicts that the same devastating event will occur under the current administration if financial regulations are rolled back.

And finally, reality TV isn't real but science is; meteorology continues to be an inexact field though improving; investing remains a gamble--in part due to human error, and, scientists admit that theories only work when they can be applied to the real world. Get your facts straight, viewers, whether watching TV, surfing the Internet or listening to radio. Double-check what you hear and make sure your get your facts from reliable sources (from both sides of the question). Hated homework in school? Do it now--before it's too late and before our country, our world implodes.

Suggested reading (all NON-FICTION) -
Articles/books listed above and,

1. The Universe in a Nutshell (2001) by Stephen Hawking
2. Physics of the Impossible (2008) by Michio Kaku
3. One Universe (2000) by Neil deGrasse Tyson
4. The Big Short (book, 2010) by Michael Lewis
5. Meteorology & Climate Change - good luck on finding a non-technical, available book on meteorology but excellent source for climate change is: the Pulitzer Prize winning, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History (2015) by Elizabeth Kolbert

Suggested watching -
Movies/episodes above plus the following links:

1. For all ages (hey, if we can't trust Bill Nye, a trained engineer/scientist, who can we trust?): Bill Nye on Climate Change
2. For climate deniers/skeptics: ELON MUSK ON CLIMATE CHANGE
3. For bullish investors in the stock market who want a simple explanation of "the big short" & how it can happen again: Animated explanation of THE BIG SHORT
4. For science-adverse (those who don't like science or want to know much about it) or science-facts opponents: Neil deGrasse Tyson on WHY SCIENCE (Literacy) MATTERS

MY TOP TEN MOVIES - EMBRACE VARIETY/REVIEW OF LA LA LAND

Movie critics often post top-ten lists which either comprise films they believe worthy of award-season consideration or needing recognition to increase box office revenues. I concur that smaller films that deserve mentioning should be included. Often, however, some critics avoid including blockbusters for the same reason. Whether a movie is mainstream or independent, I believe if deserved they warrant inclusion.

Smaller indie films are rarer on the Cape, and, other films I chose not to see for various reasons including budget. I missed LOVING and SULLY which I'll see when released on Blu-Ray/DVD.

(All posters above from Google Images)

1. LA LA LAND
2. MOONLIGHT
3. HELL OR HIGH WATER
4. CAPTAIN FANTASTIC
5. ARRIVAL
6. LION
7. JACKIE
8. LOVE & FRIENDSHIP
9. DR. STRANGE
10. DEADPOOL

Honorable mention: CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR, DEEPWATER HORIZON, FANTASTIC BEASTS (3-D), FREE STATE OF JONES, HAIL, CAESAR!, THE JUNGLE BOOK, MANCHESTER BY THE SEA, MISS PEREGRINE'S HOME FOR PECULIAR CHILDREN, & X-MEN APOCALYPSE. (Note: listed in alphabetical order and not weighted.)

What separates La La Land (2016) from the others in my list is the marked re-invention of the movie musical. The director, Damien Chazelle, elicits dynamic performances from his actors (Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone) whom you wouldn't normally see dancing or singing. The score, which pays homage to jazz but includes ear-worm-inducing songs like "City of Stars" that continues to happily pound my eardrum, carries us along without producing a sour note.

Some have compared La La Land to The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964). Yes, the director does pay homage to other musicals, such as this French classic starring Catherine Deneuve. [SPOILER ALERT] I ask that reviewers avoid this comparison especially when alluding to La, La Land's ending (spoiled it for me). Seeing La La Land with two other friends, I didn't show surprise when they shared their emotions. I had been prepared but as the end approached, I felt assured Chazelle, who also wrote the screenplay, had chosen wisely. You will have to see why.

Every choice the director makes dazzles. He walks a tightrope where each step could be disastrous. Instead, Chazelle balances anger, disappointment, hope, joy, love, nostalgia and wonderment without resorting to grandstanding, obvious melodrama or sappiness.

More so, the techniques he blends like the perfect milkshake. One example, a palette of primary colors for the women and earth tones for the men never smudges or loses its luster. Chazelle's team of artisans--Mary Zophres (Costume Desiginer), Austin Gorg (Art Direction), David Wasco (Production Design) and Sandy Reynolds-Wasco (Set Decoration) avoid clashes and errant contrasts.

The performances, including J. K. Simmons in a devilish moment as a nightclub owner, never become subsumed by the visual display. Gosling and Stone, like their director, command attention without shouting, "See me!" They're the sum of the whole and to isolate their performances from the film would be to suggest otherwise. For one to receive an award and not the other, as I see it, would be wrong. Making the argument for La La Land to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards because all its pieces fit together as a completed jigsaw puzzle.

Those who avoid musicals should overcome your pre-conceived notions because La La Land will surprise you with its occasional bawdiness, a fresh take on a story that all can relate to, i.e. aspiring to fulfill your dreams vs. making a living, and startling realism when you least expect it. Very few films teach without preaching. If you leave this movie without having learned something new--whether you're a critic, filmmaker or movie-goer--then you will have not opened your mind or your heart.

We live in uncertain times when many people have little to buoy their spirits. La La Land provides a refuge from the fray without disconnecting the audience from the world outside. In that way, Damien Chazelle has created a masterpiece. The film deserves all the accolades it has received plus mega-box office success.