A few weeks ago I noticed that Rex Murphy's column failed to appear in my Saturday Globe and Mail. While I do not necessarily read the column regularly, I do tend to observe its presence or absence.
At first I thought that it was possible that Murphy had just taken a few weeks off, though I don't recall him doing this in the past. Eventually the absnence of the columns seemed a little more ominous.
Tonight, after seeing Murphy's name in another context I decided to see if I could get to the bottom of the matter and figure out why the columns had not been appearing regularly. What I found is that Murphy seems to have left the Globe and Mail and begun working for the National Post (he seems to have pulled a reverse Christie Blatchford).
Blog-off Score
Neil: 0
Cameron: 5
Showing posts with label Rex Murphy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rex Murphy. Show all posts
Monday, February 01, 2010
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Hypocrisy $tar$ in the Globe or a Comment on Rex's latest column
As is my Saturday morning habit I started the morning off with a pot of coffee, breakfast, and the Globe and Mail. Not to long after I started making my way through the paper I ended up on the last page of the first section. After quickly skimming the page I decided that I would skip to Rex Murphy's column and then call it for that section.
It soon became clear that Murphy was using the column to take issue with the relatively large, and growing, budgets associated with Hollywood blockbusters (and particularly the monstrous budgets associated with James Cameron). Murphy seemed to find the contrast between the general economic restraint associated with a recession and these ever growing budgets something beyond distasteful. Eventually Murphy introduced the idea that the 'stars' in these films are now sometimes paid more than $20 million for their 'work.' Jim Carrey, and a few recent comments about greed and ambition, received particular attention and criticism.
As much as I might agree with Murphy about the absurdity of pay rates of contemporary Hollywood actors, I think that he missed the larger picture by making them the central component of his critique. These pay packages are really only a very small part of the picture when it comes to the economic implications of a Hollywood blockbuster (particularly a $500 million blockbuster, such as the one James Cameron is trying to make).
Unlike the picture that Murphy paints, the money used to make these movies does not just disappear, nor is it a case of feeding babies or making a movie (without such a movie no more money will go to the perpetuation of the welfare state). More accurately, money is invested a number of interests/corporations and people and then disbursed as salaries or payments during the making of the film. A much better way of thinking about a $500 million film is as a project that will take $500 million from corporate backers and distribute it among those parties involved in the production process. So instead of this money being wasted, it is likely providing pay cheques to thousands of individuals during the course of the production of the movie. If successful, such a movie would the replenish the coffers of the investors allowing them to invest in future projects. Ideally the cycle will repeat itself without pause (creating jobs and economic growth with each iteration).
I guess what I found strange about the column Murphy's seeming unwillingness to accept that transactions like those that result from the funding of a movie are what fundamentally drive our economy. To associate Carrey's comments about ambition and greed with such a picture was a rhetorical trick that did nothing but obscure the larger picture as well as the specific outcomes that are likely to come from a $500 million movie.
Only by investing money and creating jobs are we likely to exit such a recession. Staying at home and keeping our bank accounts tightly secured, on the other hand, isn't a viable solution to the problem.
While one may not like the package that comes with the Hollywood blockbuster (and I am not a big fan) it seems unfair not to acknowledge the positive economic benefits that are likely to flow from such enterprises. To impugn major capital investments, even if they are for Hollywood films, in a period of time when their absence is a notable part of the problem seems not only to be unreasonable, but to demonstrate a lack of understanding or misperception of the problem currently being faced by the economy.
So, yes, Jim Carrey may make ridiculous comments and be paid too much but that doesn't mean that blockbuster movies may not actually help us move out of the recession. Most importantly, it is not the case, as Murphy's comments seem suggest, that we should sit back with a sense of quiet respect and acquiescence as the recession runs rampant and refuse to attend movies, or other participate in other forms of economic activity that may stimulate further economic activity and growth.
It is rather ironic that Murphy didn't catch the hypocrisy in his own column yet was so quick to jump on it in Hollywood.
It soon became clear that Murphy was using the column to take issue with the relatively large, and growing, budgets associated with Hollywood blockbusters (and particularly the monstrous budgets associated with James Cameron). Murphy seemed to find the contrast between the general economic restraint associated with a recession and these ever growing budgets something beyond distasteful. Eventually Murphy introduced the idea that the 'stars' in these films are now sometimes paid more than $20 million for their 'work.' Jim Carrey, and a few recent comments about greed and ambition, received particular attention and criticism.
As much as I might agree with Murphy about the absurdity of pay rates of contemporary Hollywood actors, I think that he missed the larger picture by making them the central component of his critique. These pay packages are really only a very small part of the picture when it comes to the economic implications of a Hollywood blockbuster (particularly a $500 million blockbuster, such as the one James Cameron is trying to make).
Unlike the picture that Murphy paints, the money used to make these movies does not just disappear, nor is it a case of feeding babies or making a movie (without such a movie no more money will go to the perpetuation of the welfare state). More accurately, money is invested a number of interests/corporations and people and then disbursed as salaries or payments during the making of the film. A much better way of thinking about a $500 million film is as a project that will take $500 million from corporate backers and distribute it among those parties involved in the production process. So instead of this money being wasted, it is likely providing pay cheques to thousands of individuals during the course of the production of the movie. If successful, such a movie would the replenish the coffers of the investors allowing them to invest in future projects. Ideally the cycle will repeat itself without pause (creating jobs and economic growth with each iteration).
I guess what I found strange about the column Murphy's seeming unwillingness to accept that transactions like those that result from the funding of a movie are what fundamentally drive our economy. To associate Carrey's comments about ambition and greed with such a picture was a rhetorical trick that did nothing but obscure the larger picture as well as the specific outcomes that are likely to come from a $500 million movie.
Only by investing money and creating jobs are we likely to exit such a recession. Staying at home and keeping our bank accounts tightly secured, on the other hand, isn't a viable solution to the problem.
While one may not like the package that comes with the Hollywood blockbuster (and I am not a big fan) it seems unfair not to acknowledge the positive economic benefits that are likely to flow from such enterprises. To impugn major capital investments, even if they are for Hollywood films, in a period of time when their absence is a notable part of the problem seems not only to be unreasonable, but to demonstrate a lack of understanding or misperception of the problem currently being faced by the economy.
So, yes, Jim Carrey may make ridiculous comments and be paid too much but that doesn't mean that blockbuster movies may not actually help us move out of the recession. Most importantly, it is not the case, as Murphy's comments seem suggest, that we should sit back with a sense of quiet respect and acquiescence as the recession runs rampant and refuse to attend movies, or other participate in other forms of economic activity that may stimulate further economic activity and growth.
It is rather ironic that Murphy didn't catch the hypocrisy in his own column yet was so quick to jump on it in Hollywood.
Friday, October 09, 2009
A Few Quick Notes 364
-Today seems to have been largely overcast and cool, though it hasn't rained and it hasn't been cold, so I guess it gets a passing grade. That being said, it feels as though we are now definitely in fall and not just experiencing a cold spell.
-On Tuesday night Neil and I attended the Rex Murphy book a launch that I mentioned a few posts ago. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but the talk was much more entertaining and exciting than I expected. It is likely that Neil and I were so drawn in because Rex spent a good portion of his time recounting his experiences working for Newfoundland Liberal party in the 1980s.
I should also give Rex credit for being a particularly capable public speaker. As far as I could tell, aside from a brief section at the end of his talk, he managed to speak for 45 minutes without notes and without a microphone (and with only a few sips of water). More impressive than just the fact that he accomplished such a feat was that the content, if wandering at times, was well presented and managed to draw out a number of connections that I hadn't previously made. So I guess I am recommending Rex as a speaker if you ever have the opportunity to hear him.
After the talk he signed a few books. As neither Neil nor I purchased a book we did not stick around for the signing, though I did try to snap a few photos (the quality of which were hampered by light and distance).
-Last night I joined the matheletes on a booze cruise on the Halifax harbour. It turns out that most of us weren't really prepared for what we eventually experienced, though I think that once we started to get a sense of things we were at least able to deal with the experience.
I am not sure what it says about me, but I was glad to get the chance to go under both bridges. One thing that I found strange is that only the Souther bridge (I can't remember which is which) was properly illuminated.
At one point two of us were looking at the wheelhouse and were a little bit surprised to see this.
As you might have guessed, the crew was obscured by the wheel. Sadly, they didn't try to ghost ride the Harbour Queen (as unique an experience as that might have been).
-On Wednesday it was quite wet and windy so we decided not to play our Ultimate game, though we only made this decision at the field. As we were all there and free for a few hours most of us decided to hit the closest bar, the Rodeo Lounge in Burnside.
Once in the bar we learned that not only were we basically the only customers but that they had an indoor basketball net as well as Nintendo Wii that we were able to use (and did use). Unfortunately, the mechanical bull was not in use while we were there, though now that I know it exists I have some motivation to head back at some point in the future.
I should also say that the prices were reasonable and the service was great. It was incredibly fun to play a few games of HORSE/take a few shots while hanging out and drinking some beer. It would be great if more bars had such facilities.
-I harvested quite a number of tomatoes today. I think it is safe to say that this was my biggest single harvest yet, though I hope to be able surpass this record next year.
Hopefully Neil will be able to eat them all before they go bad.
-On Tuesday night Neil and I attended the Rex Murphy book a launch that I mentioned a few posts ago. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but the talk was much more entertaining and exciting than I expected. It is likely that Neil and I were so drawn in because Rex spent a good portion of his time recounting his experiences working for Newfoundland Liberal party in the 1980s.
I should also give Rex credit for being a particularly capable public speaker. As far as I could tell, aside from a brief section at the end of his talk, he managed to speak for 45 minutes without notes and without a microphone (and with only a few sips of water). More impressive than just the fact that he accomplished such a feat was that the content, if wandering at times, was well presented and managed to draw out a number of connections that I hadn't previously made. So I guess I am recommending Rex as a speaker if you ever have the opportunity to hear him.
After the talk he signed a few books. As neither Neil nor I purchased a book we did not stick around for the signing, though I did try to snap a few photos (the quality of which were hampered by light and distance).
-Last night I joined the matheletes on a booze cruise on the Halifax harbour. It turns out that most of us weren't really prepared for what we eventually experienced, though I think that once we started to get a sense of things we were at least able to deal with the experience.
I am not sure what it says about me, but I was glad to get the chance to go under both bridges. One thing that I found strange is that only the Souther bridge (I can't remember which is which) was properly illuminated.
At one point two of us were looking at the wheelhouse and were a little bit surprised to see this.
As you might have guessed, the crew was obscured by the wheel. Sadly, they didn't try to ghost ride the Harbour Queen (as unique an experience as that might have been).
-On Wednesday it was quite wet and windy so we decided not to play our Ultimate game, though we only made this decision at the field. As we were all there and free for a few hours most of us decided to hit the closest bar, the Rodeo Lounge in Burnside.
Once in the bar we learned that not only were we basically the only customers but that they had an indoor basketball net as well as Nintendo Wii that we were able to use (and did use). Unfortunately, the mechanical bull was not in use while we were there, though now that I know it exists I have some motivation to head back at some point in the future.
I should also say that the prices were reasonable and the service was great. It was incredibly fun to play a few games of HORSE/take a few shots while hanging out and drinking some beer. It would be great if more bars had such facilities.
-I harvested quite a number of tomatoes today. I think it is safe to say that this was my biggest single harvest yet, though I hope to be able surpass this record next year.
Hopefully Neil will be able to eat them all before they go bad.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Sexy Rexy live at the McCain Building tonight
For those of you in Halifax this evening, you may be interested to know that Rex Murphy will be having a book launch (which I presume includes either a reading or talk of some kind) at the Scotiabank Auditorium in the McCain Building on the Dalhousie Campus. The event is free and starts at 7:30, though I imagine if you want good seats you will need to show up a little on the early side as I can't see how this won't be rocking.
(Edit: Neil and I plan on attending.)
(Edit: Neil and I plan on attending.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)