Category: Uncategorized

available as a kindle ebook here

the quotes from the Old School Quotes are available as a Kindle ebook here

The provenance of this speech boils down to me “discovering” Vince Lombardi in the mid-late 1980s and being given a copy of a mimeographed transcript that I was told was given by Vince Lombardi.

I have no reason to question the authenticity of the speech – but I wasn’t at the event … so I believe Vince Lombardi gave the speech in June of 1970 to a group of “business people” in Dayton, Ohio

Google verifies that June 22, 1970 was Mr Lombardi’s “last public appearance and speech before his death on September 3, 1970.”

The Dayton Daily News had a 2012 article referencing the event (“Lombardi’s last public speech was in Dayton” – April 28, 2012)

SO when I got a computer – one of the things I did was type in the text from my mimeograph copy. I probably used WordPerfect.

When I created the pdf I did a little light editing – mostly breaking up long paragraphs into smaller paragraphs and adding a little punctuation.

The original text read like a transcript of a live event – my guess is that the paragraph breaks were more about time than content. There are parts that come across as a speech given by an experienced public speaker – he probably had “notes” but not the entire speech written down.

I like the speech and think it remains relevant – but I can’t 100% say that this is actually the speech Mr Lombardi gave June 22, 1970

pdf in progress

Maybe the first question becomes “Do amateur sports have a purpose?”

The numbers fluctuate but there are AROUND 1 million high school football players each year in the United States.

Around 7.8% of those high school football players will play in college (at any level).

Less than 0.5% of those college players will make an NFL roster.

For baseball the percentages are even worse – 1 in 200 high school players will get drafted to play “professional baseball” (around 0.05% – yes, that means “minor leagues”).

Around 1% of high school basketball players will play Division I college basketball. Out of every 10,000 High School basketball players 2 or 3 will play in the NBA.

The point being that if “getting a scholarship” or “going pro” is the “purpose” of playing amateur sports – then a large number of athletes are chasing a fantasy.

BUT are those “ordinary players” wasting their time playing a sport? Oh, and what about those sports where “going pro” isn’t an option?

Purpose

In the U.S. “organized amateur sports” tend to be associated with secondary education/”high schools.”

The “why” sports are associated with high schools has a lot to do with “organization” by proximity. After the Civil War “disorganized” sports began popping up. Those early ‘amateur athletics’ weren’t much more that ‘pickup games’ with the teams representing “communities.”

The “point” of those games was simply friendly competition and entertainment.

Does “competition” have a purpose? Well, the short answer is “yes.”

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

Proverbs 27:17

BUT there are “healthy” and “unhealthy” variants of “competition.”

The goal of ANY competition is NOT just to “win” but to “win within the rules.” HEALTHY competition will make everyone involved “better” – in that Proverbs 27:17 way.

UNHEALTHY competition is the “law of the jungle” or “winning at any cost.” This isn’t just “cheating” but also potentially trying to harm the opposition.

To be clear, there is a BIG difference between “competing hard” and “winning at any cost.” Wanting to win isn’t wrong, but being so obsessed with winning that you are willing to “cheat” is missing the point of the competition.

An individual’s “self worth” should NEVER come from winning an athletic contest. The individual has inherent worth because they are a human being NOT because they are good at “sport ball.”

The players will change but the sport and/or team will continue. Which means in the grand scheme of things victory is never “total” and defeat is never “final.”

Losing a “sport ball” contest does NOT diminish a human beings worth. Winning does not excuse bad behavior.

Teenagers

In the middle of the 20th Century the post WW2 baby boom and economic prosperity helped create a new demographic called “teenagers.”

Yes, there have always been 13 to 19 year olds – but in the 1950s they got disposable income and cars. Along with rock & roll music came “organized high school sports.”

In general terms the core motivation of ‘administrators’ organizing those high school sports was (and still is) the welfare of the “student athlete.”

Establishing “rules” for sports, certifying “officials” to enforce those rules, and then providing a structure for HEALTHY competition required “organization.”

i.e. the students were going to compete, “organizing” the competition helped keep that competition healthy. To keep competition “fair” things like “divisions” and “age restrictions” were also required.

Fast forward 70+ years and “scholastic sports” is a massive industry. However, the PURPOSE of that industry is still healthy (fair) competition.

The joy of competition comes from preparing and then competing. Having a competition goal, putting in the time and effort to prepare for that competition, and then competing teaches a long list of positives. Winning a close contest against an opponent of equal ability is satisfying BUT losing a close contest to “honorable opponent” is NOT dissatisfying (disappointing? yes – but the “joy” comes from preparing and competing hard – “winning” is a byproduct of the process)

Meanwhile dominating an outclassed opponent is about as satisfying as taking out the garbage. Something was accomplished, but there isn’t a great deal of “joy” involved.

Respecting and liking an opponent just makes beating them more fun. If the opponent is inept or “out of their league,” then beating them isn’t particularly satisfying …

Fair?

I’ve thrown that term “fair” out there several times – what does it mean?

Well, “fair competition” is between “peers”/equals. This is obviously why there are “weight classes” and “age divisions” in sports like boxing and wrestling.

Again, the point of “competition” is to push each other to higher levels NOT just “winning.”

An athlete that intentionally goes in search of “less skilled” opponents for easy victories will never be forced to “push themselves.”

One more time – no human beings “purpose” is “beating up on lower skilled opponents.” The “athlete” that INTENTIONALLY seeks out a lower level of competition has once again missed the point or lost their way.

Lessons learned from competition

I am always quick to point out that the most valuable thing I learned from “amateur sports” was that “success” is a process.

Setting a goal, coming up with a plan to achieve that goal, and then following through on the plan are “transferable” life skills.

Of course OTHER folks doing the same thing will mean that sometimes you get knocked on your duff – however you get the chance to get back up or you can stay “knocked down.”

“I don’t pity any man who does hard work worth doing. I admire him. I pity the creature who does not work, at whichever end of the social scale he may regard himself as being.” 

Theodore Roosevelt

Healthy competition in TEAM sports provides obvious life lessons – with positive socialization, and working together towards a common goal immediately coming to mind.

BUT remember UNHEALTHY competition involves trying to “win at any cost” and disrespecting the opposition.

“Winning by cheating” is by definition self-destructive. Unethical competition might work in the “short term” but “being a jerk” will catch up with them eventually …

I understand there are “well intended” folks that push various flavors of “non competitive” sports. If the goal of the “event” is “socialization” and/or “exercise” then running around on a field for 40 minutes might be useful.

There is no reason to keep score at such events OR give EVERYONE a trophy at the end of the year. Non-competition means “no winners” NOT “everyone is a winner.”

I’m not a big fan of “organized youth sports” (whatever age that may be). Organization will always imply competition of some kind. If the lesson learned is “I win by doing nothing but showing up” then “they” are creating self-esteem sinkholes not healthy individuals.

But of course “youth sports” can be a good or a bad experience for the “youths” BUT the “youths” should be the focus.

random thought: From an “athletic standpoint” – the “future professional athlete” is probably exceptional at every level they participate. However that doesn’t mean that they are exceptional BECAUSE they started playing “sport ball” before they could walk …

ANYWAY

Sports was/is the original “reality” television – amateur sports have a larger purpose only to the point that the teach a work-ethic and social skills. Participating (or NOT participating) in “sport” will never impact the “value” of an individual as a human being.

The opportunity to compete against peers is “positive” on a grand scale. While claiming that “unfair competition” must be allowed so that “fraction of society” can feel “good” about themselves is counter-productive on a grand scale ….

A lifetime ago I worked as a “student employee” as an undergrad. I was helping out the “system administration” folks – and ended up doing low level “desktop support” for faculty members.

random thought: I remember running the big ol’ suit case size “VHS video” camera when they gave a presentation about this new “internet” thing that the college was joining. That was “pre – world wide web” and you needed to use “command line” utilities to move around.

Thinking back to that presentation – the presenter was talking about using FTP and email (again, there was an “Internet” before there was the “world wide web”). One of the sites they talked about was in London (England) and you could download the complete works of Shakespeare!

Needless to say, I was impressed – but at that time the “general public” didn’t have access to the Internet. Only military bases and academic institutions were granted access – but the network was growing.

As I remember the debate – the folks running “academic institutions” seemed to think that if the Internet was opened up to the “general public” it would be overrun by advertisers/porn/spam – and of course they were correct. BUT what really caused the Internet to explode was making it “easy to use” for non-computer experts – i.e. the “world wide web.”

Hamlet and John Wayne

ANYWAY – one of the “faculty members” whose office computer I visited way-back-when was in the “theater” department. He had pictures of Hamlet AND John Wayne on his wall.

I had read Hamlet (for the first time) when I was in the Army, and grew up a John Wayne fan – so I asked him about the pictures. Obviously the Prof new much more about both than I did at the time – as I remember it he said something like “Shakespeare is a lot more ‘rough and tumble’ than you might think” – and also John Wayne more complex.

Fast forward a lifetime of study — and Mr Shakespeare and John Wayne were both working within “frameworks” catering to an audience. Mr Shakespeare wanted folks to buy tickets to performances of his plays, and Mr Wayne wanted folks to buy tickets to watch his movies.

BOTH were working in “genres.” John Wayne is most remembered for his work in “westerns” but he made a lot of “war” movies and a handful of “detective” movies – e.g. 184 credits listed on IMDB.

random thought: the joke was that John Wayne played the same character in every movie – i.e. “John Wayne” – which is a little unfair, but “funny because of the truth involved.” Mr Wayne’s Academy Award winning performance was playing a very NOT “John Wayne” roll – Rooster Cogburn in “True Grit” (1969)

random thought part 2: at the moment I can only think of 2 “fictional John Wayne character names” – Ethan Edwards in “The Searchers”(1956) and Rooster Cogburn – illustrating that “John Wayne” was what audiences paid to see … of course he also played Davy Crockett in “The Alamo” (1960) and Ghengis Khan in “The Conqueror” (1956) — yes, that was John Wayne as the Great Khan – mid-western drawl and all (not one of his better movies)

The “genres” Mr Shakespeare was dealing with were PRIMARILY designed to attract an audience. e.g. early on the audience would have gone to a “comedy”/”tragedy” or a “history” play not specifically a play by “William Shakespeare”

The super short “intro to Shakespeare” class would point out that what distinguished “comedies” and “tragedies” was the ending of the play – a comedy would end at the altar (folks getting married) and the tragedy would end at the crypt (folks dead).

The “histories” were similar to what we expect from modern “biopics” – they covered “themes” but weren’t always exactly “true.” More “based on a true event” than “actually true.” Again, Mr. Shakespeare was writing for an AUDIENCE – not pushing any agenda (except maybe “sell tickets”).

Go beyond the “intro” level and Mr Shakespeare’s comedies changed over the course of his career. The “early comedies” might have a “fantasy” aspect (e.g. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” – the “lovers” go into the forest, things get weird, but are sorted out for a happy resolution in the morning). The “late romances” would have “fantasy” aspects core to the story (e.g. “The Tempest” – Prospero is literally a “wizard” with a “spirit servant” – but things also happily sort themselves out by the end).

The “entertainment industry” of the Elizabethan era being what it was – Mr Shakespeare wouldn’t have been able to remain a going concern without “patrons” backing his work. i.e. there was no “long tail” market – no “sub rights” to sell.

I’ve never seen an in depth analysis or a “profit and loss” statement from Shakespeare’s time — I don’t think the “patrons” expected to get a return on their investment OTHER than good seats at play performances. The fact that Mr Shakespeare “retired” at 47 implies the plays were commercially successful (and he died at 52).

random thought: the death of cause of death for Mr. Shakespeare is still a mystery. There are theories that he died after a drunken binge, that he had syphilis, or he might have been murdered! BUT it was 1616, who knows …

the “Western” …

ANYWAY – someone (recently) came up with a “greatest western movies” of all time type list. All such lists tend to be a little “arbitrary” – but also tend to be “interesting.” The list itself wasn’t what caught my attention – i.e. just what makes a “western” a “western?”

When Mr Shakespeare died, “working in the entertainment industry” wasn’t a highly esteemed profession. When he died the funeral was on a “wealthy local retiree” not “celebrity.” Literary immortality for Mr Shakespeare happened AFTER his death when his friends and admirers collected his works for publication.

Remember that “movable type printing” was perfected 150 years or so earlier – so it was an established technology but more importantly there was a growing market for “printed books.”

What does that have to do with “westerns?” Well, multiple zeitgeists probably collided in the last half of the 19th Century – the industrial revolution increased city populations, gave folks more “free time”, and increased disposable/discretionary income (as opposed to agricultural work).

Combine that with “public education” – and you have what the corporate types would call a “growing market segment” – i.e. folks with money in their pocket looking for something to buy.

Random thought: ANOTHER “old prof” back in the day liked to point out that the “printing press” had a lot of unintended consequences. Their theory was that people stopped “sitting around the fire” telling stories because they had “books” that they could go off and read by themselves – I think the point was that “humans are natural storytellers” or something BUT “fear of public speaking” is always high on the list of “common phobias.”

random thought part 2: I don’t think people fear “public speaking” what they fear is “being embarrassed in public” – e.g. a certain amount of “stage fright” is kinda required, if the speaker isn’t a LITTLE worried then they will be exceptionally boring – as everyone that has had to listen to “boring speaker” drone on, and on, and on understands … BUT “boring” might come from arrogance OR lack of preparation – neither of which is predestined

SO “lower cost printing” meets “public demand” and the “pulp magazines” were born. The “pulp” part was a reference to the low quality paper used in the printing process – and the content tended to be of similar quality.

Now, “sex” and “violence” are part of human history — just having “sex and violence” in a book doesn’t make it “low quality”, it obviously depends on how the “sex and violence” is presented.

If you have some form of “action/consequence” then you MIGHT have a work of “high literary quality” BUT if the work is just “descriptions of explicit sex” polite society might call that “pornography.”

Same idea with “violence” – and I will wave at the trend of “violence porn” without comment beyond it might have some sex/nudity, but is just “pointless violence.”

I seem to remember hearing that Sam Peckinpah got criticized for showing “blood” in “The Wild Bunch” back in 1969 (which really just looks like ketchup on shirts) – umm, slippery slope and all that …

MEANWHILE …

“Pulp” magazines needed content and humans have always loved reading/haring about “exotic locations” so the “American West” after the Civil War was the source of a LOT of “colorful pseudo historical” characters.

William “Buffalo Bill” Cody and his “Wild West Show” helped create the specific “idea” of the “western” as a distinct genre. But Buffalo Bill serves as an example of the trend – not the source.

The world’s first “modern celebrity” was Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) – the quintessential storyteller, both in print and on stage. Mr Clemens was more famous as “travel writer” during his lifetime than for “Huckleberry Fin” – “Roughing It” (published in 1872) was his semi-autobiographical contribution to “books about the west.”

Again, Mark Twain is an example not the source. The IDEA of a “frontier” separating “polite society” from the “unknown” is (probably) as old as human beings.

Even the “idea” of “the west” as being “unknown”/terra incognita goes back to “ancient times.” My pet theory is that this “west” as “frontier” involves the rising of the sun (in the “east”) and the setting of the sun (in the “west”) – but I’m just guessing …

The specific “western frontier” for the United States is obviously based on the fact the the original “13 Colonies” were on the eastern coast of the continent.

Expansion “west” was initially a slow process for “American History class” reasons. This is where we start bumping up against the problems defining the “western” genre.

Stories set in “Colonial Times”, “Pioneer Times” (the initial slow move west), and the Civil War period, PROBABLY don’t fit into a narrow definition of “the western.”

e.g. at one point Ohio was the “western frontier” – and having grown up and living in Ohio I can say we have a lot of “history” – the story of “Blue Jacket” and the Shawnee people is historically interesting – I’m just not calling it a “western” …

Pop Culture

The U.S. Bureau of the Census declared the “frontier” closed in 1890 (as in “no longer a discernible demarcation between frontier and settlement”).

Not surprisingly, the “western” in pop culture became popular AFTER the frontier closed. Again, folks looking for “entertainment” tend to look to the “unknown”/unusual – i.e. if you were living on the “frontier” you probably didn’t have much interest in reading first hand accounts of “frontier life” – even if they were available.

The “American Wild West” period is usually dated from “after the Civil War” (1865ish) to the turn of the century.

Zane Grey published his first novel in 1903. Mr. Grey’s name is synonymous with “western” – but again, SOME of his stories could be more accurately called “frontier”/pioneer stories.

“Max Brand” however was a pen name for Frederick Schiller Faust. Mr Faust wrote 300+ novels under various pen names – “Max Brand” was pure “western” genre written in a “pulp” fashion.

Then Louis L’Amour (200 million books sold) started writing when the “western” was a fully formed pop culture concept. Mr L’Amour preferred saying he wrote “western stories” not “westerns” — which brings us back to the initial problem …

Radio, Movies, and TV …

All of this talk about “literary genres” is nice – but it is all precursor to the TRULY mass media of modern times.

The western quickly found its way to the silver screen. The “B” western being a great example of “pulp western” plots with visuals.

Radio brought the western into folks homes – “Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear …” – e.g. both the Lone Ranger and Gunsmoke started out as “radio shows”

When sound and pictures came into folks homes – so did the western. With the 1950s being the “golden age” of TV westerns — which is another subject …

Two World Wars and millions of Americans going overseas would change American society, and the “western” changed with it.

The movies labelled “spaghetti westerns” (in the late 1960’s and 1970s) were truly “multinational” projects – the “man with no name” trilogy being a good example – filmed in Spain, Italian director, American actors. The legend is that the multinational cast members would say their lines in their native language, and then be dubbed over as needed – which gives the films a VERY distinctive look …

random thought: The fact the several of Akira Kurosawa’s samurai movies were made into “westerns” illustrates both “underlying themes” AND the versatility of the “western” as a genre – both “The Magnificent Seven” and “A Fistful of Dollars” are based on Kurosawa movies (though Sergio Leone denied the connection).

Did the western die?

There was almost a decade gap between “The Outlaw Jose Wales” (1976) and “Pale Rider”/”Silverado”/”Rustlers’ Rhapsody” (all 1985).

Did the “western” die? Well, if you define “western” as a story with “cowboy hats and horses in a specific time period” then the answer is “maybe.”

From a “movie business” point of view – when a large % of TV shows were westerns and multiple “westerns” would be released each year then the “cost of production” for a “western” wasn’t particularly high compared to a “non western.”

i.e. a lot of sets could be reused and “talent” was available – so “movie company” could “send the crew” out to the “back lot” and make a movie on time and under budget.

BUT if everything has to be built from scratch and talent selected/hired – well, things get expensive/”unprofitable” fast.

SO it would be more accurate to say that the “western” fell out of fashion much more than “died.”

Some other movie franchises were also wildly popular at the time (“Star Wars” 1977, “Empire Strikes Back” 1980, and “Return of the Jedi” 1983). “Raiders of the Lost Arc” (1981) has a LOT of “western” elements but isn’t a “western.”

The 1980’s “action movie” isn’t TOO far removed from “pulp western” plots. Clint Eastwood’s career is intertwined with the “western” — I like to point out that “Dirty” Harry Callahan is basically the “man with no name” as “Police Detective” and a bureaucracy …

the stories we tell …

All of which means the “western” as a genre is a little hard to define – AND that it isn’t going away anytime soon because it is part of the “American myth” and “foundation legend”

I should point out the difference between “myth” (completely fabricated) and “legend” (there is a “historic source” but stuff has been added over the years).

e.g. the story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table is the stuff of “legend” – i.e. there PROBABLY was a historic source for “Arthur” but the story as it is told today says more about the people telling the story than it does about that historic figure.

e.g. there is apparently no historic basis for “Robin Hood and his Merry Men” – but it does help explain how the U.K. became the U.K. so we could call it a “modern myth”

The “western” is both “myth” AND “legend” —

The “myth” might sound like “plucky pioneers endured hardship, overcame nature, with the intent of building a nation” — which isn’t totally “false” but if you had interviewed the folks “going west” they were PROBABLY doing it MOSTLY out of their own self-interest not pursuing some grand ideal of a new nation.

The number of “western legends” is legion – Davy Crockett swinging his rifle (“Betsy”) on the parapets of the Alamo immediately comes to mind.

ANY “quick draw gun fight” story is pure “legend” (e.g. Wyatt Earp’s advice for a gun fight was: “take your time and hit what you are aiming at” – which is much easier said than done …).

Billy the Kid as “frontier Robin Hood” had as much truth in it as “Robin Hood.” Henry McCarty was a real person – but more thug than folk hero. fwiw: he pops up in the (I enjoyed it) movie “Old Henry” (2021) –

while I’m at it, Wyatt Earp was an interesting individual – but nothing like the classic TV series “The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp” — again, THAT story says much more about 1950’s America than the real live Wyatt Earp …

I could go on, but won’t 😉

find me on linkedin

Re-watched the original “Mad Max” (1979) – available on various “streaming services.”

Now, the ORIGINAL “Mad Max” was/is a “low budget” Australian movie. It didn’t get “distributed” in the U.S. “back in the day” – which was why “Mad Max 2” (1981) was released as “The Road Warrior” (1982) in the U.S.

The “low budget” nature distracted me when I watched “Mad Max” on home video (probably in the late 1980s). I’m guessing that the version I saw had been “edited” somewhere along the way – because (if memory serves) it was shorter than 90 minutes.

There is a section of the movie where they establish the “bad guys” as VERY bad — which (when it was obvious what was going on and that it was going to last a while) I fast forwarded through this time around – it wasn’t “explicit” so much as “unpleasant.”

The “low budget” nature of the movie precluded the sort of “makeup” effects common in movies. I was reminded of Oedipus Rex (the Ancient Greek play) – there was plenty of “implied off stage” violence – but they didn’t/couldn’t show it ON stage.

The often replayed scene from “Mad Max” is the finale – where Max comes across the last “bad guy” (who has obviously just murdered someone and is trying to steal the dead man’s boots). No spoiler – the “bad” guy (who Max had arrested earlier in the movie and then the “courts” released) pleads for his life saying that he is “sick” and that the “court says I’m not responsible for my actions.”

Yeah, Max gives the guy a choice – and then drives away. Remember “Mad Max” is set in a “dystopian future” but it reflects a “society without the rule of law.” “Max” crosses the “line” but only after he has been driven to it by the (VERY) bad guys.

good guys vs bad guys

“Mad Max” unintentionally hit a lot of the “mythic storytelling” points – and then they INTENTIONALLY hit more of those “mythic hero story” elements in “The Road Warrior.”

In true “vengeance genre” fashion Max is the “good man” pushed “too far” who then takes matters into his own hands.

Charles Bronson made a LOT of movies (161 credits on IMDB) – some of those movies are very good – “The Magnificent 7”, “The Great Escape”, “The Dirty Dozen”, and “Once Upon a Time in the West.” If Mr Bronson had stopped making movies (all of those mentioned were made in the 1960s) he would deserve a place in the “Action movie Hall of Fame”

(random thought: if there isn’t an “Action movie Hall of Fame” there needs to be …)

BUT then the 1970s happened – the same decade that would give us “The Godfather”, “Jaws”, and “Star Wars” gave us “Death Wish” (1974).

I have to admit that I have NOT seen the original “Death Wish.” I saw one of the sequels when it was on cable – but by that time the 1980’s action movie and “horror” films had made the “one man on a vengeance mission” even MORE cliche.

Vengeance is Mine, and recompense;
Their foot shall slip in due time;
For the day of their calamity is at hand,
And the things to come hasten upon them.

Deuteronomy 32:35

BUT again, Mr Bronson played the “good guy pushed too far.”

fwiw: the Judeo Christian “turn the other cheek” ethic doesn’t mean the “bad guys” get away with anything – e.g. the pull quote … ’nuff said

random thought: A character in the “Dirty Dozen” THINKS he is the “hand of God” carrying out punishment – but the character is nuts

ANYWAY The fact that there were 5 “Death Wish” movies says something about the business of low-quality exploitation movies than anything (people kept buying tickets, the movies kept making a profit, they kept making more sequels) – but “human vengeance” is never finished might be the message (if there is a message …)

Dwayne Johnson (“The Rock”) made a “vengeance genre” flick called “Faster” (2010) which drives home the unending nature of “vengeance” — so the movie becomes a good example of “twisting” a genre a little. All of the “vengeance” elements are there AND they added some “philosophical meat” – Google tells me the movie made a small profit, but wasn’t one of Mr Johnson’s bigger “box office” hits

The MBA in me wants to point out that Faster made an $11 million profit on a $24 million budget so the return on investment (ROI) as a % might have been higher than some of those close to $billion box office movies.

random thought: that “low budget” but high ROI % was where “Hollywood schlock” legend Roger Corman made a living – Google tells me he had an estimated net worth of $200 million when he died in May 2024 …

the repentant gunfighter

IF the “good guys” act just like the “bad guys” what is the difference between the two?

Well, that is a good question. No, I’m not going to try to summarize all of human existence/experience.

From a MOVIE morality point of view the difference is “intent” and “motivation.”

e.g. Max does what he does BECAUSE of what the “bad guys” did. The bad guys did what THEY did because, well, they are “bad.”

The “psych 101” concept of a “sociopath” involves not feeling remorse. Ever. If “sociopath” gets caught doing “bad thing” then they might feel bad about being “caught” but not for what they did.

This idea is the “psychology” behind the “repentant gunfighter” genre. “Shane” (1953) is a classic example (of course the book is “better” but the movie is good in its own right).

e.g. it is implied that “Shane” had done a lot of “bad things” until he decided he wouldn’t. Shane “turned away” from being a gun for hire … and “plot happens” … and Shane has to face another “gun for hire” in the climax.

The implied difference between “Shane” and the “bad gunfighter” (played by Jack Palance) is that the “bud guy” enjoys killing, and Shane is a “soldier” doing a required task (and he is just very good at the task).

The legend of John Henry “Doc” Holliday comes to mind. Ol’ Doc was a dentist until he came down with tuberculosis. Since no one wants to go to a dentist with tuberculosis, Doc became a professional gambler and (sometimes) gunfighter.

His expectation being that one day he would get into a gunfight with someone faster or more accurate than him and the tuberculosis would no longer be a problem. His final words (as he was dying of tuberculosis in a hospital bed) was “This is funny.” c’est la vie

The important part of the above is that the sociopath (by definition) cannot be “rehabilitated” because they never feel remorse – they can never “repent” because (in their head) they have no reason to “repent.”

There are a lot of “click bait” sociopath tests that might be amusing – but if you want to know if someone is a “sociopath” all you need to do is ask them. They will (probably) gladly tell you that EVERYONE thinks/acts they way they do and if someone doesn’t, well, they are fools.

BUT be careful, “sociopaths” (by definition) are also master manipulators – but it is hard to “hide” sociopathic behavior. Paying more attention to what folks “do” more than what they “say” is always good advice, but especially true of “sociopaths”

… and the “good guy” always understands that (but doesn’t enjoy it)

“You can’t serve a writ to a rat”

– Rooster Cogburn

Oh, and I’ll kind of wave in the direction of “The Outfit” (2022) as another example of the “repentant gunfighter” genre with a “twist” …

franchises

The entire concept of a “franchise business” is that customers know what to expect. The “franchise” provides information on “processes” as well as “resources” and (probably) marketing on a large scale.

e.g. if you go into ANY establishment calling itself a “coffee shop” you expect certain things – obviously a variety of “coffee” and probably some sort of pastry/sandwich selection.

BUT if you go into a “Starbucks” franchise the expectations will be for specific drinks and food prepared in a uniform manner. The idea being that visiting a “Starbucks” franchise in Los Angeles should be a similar experience to visiting a “Starbucks” franchise in Roanoke (or pick any other location).

The Starbucks folks might say they are selling an “experience” BUT the true value of being a franchise is probably in the “name recognition.”

If you try to open a coffee shop that looks just like “Starbucks” but isn’t – if/when they find out about it – the legal department at Starbucks, Inc will send you a nice letter telling you that you are violating various laws and you should cease and desist

The “franchise” problem becomes that just “looking like a Starbucks” does not guarantee the coffee/food will meet expectations. There are around 16,000 Starbucks in the U.S. and (around) 9,000 of those are run by “corporate.” Those 7,000 other locations are “independently owned and operated” – i.e. THEY might do things slightly different than “corporate” BUT the “core experience” should fall into a certain range of expectations

SO the same idea holds true for “entertainment franchises.” The problem for “entertainment franchise” is that folks adding to the “franchise” need to understand the “core product.”

Imagine a group of talented musicians who decide to go on tour with a “Sound of the 1960’s” tour (or pick any decade you like) – folks buying tickets are going to expect what? well, probably music from the 1960s

Now imagine a group like “1964 The Tribute” – folks buying tickets are going to expect what? Probably music specifically from The Beatles.

Folks going to a “Tarzan” movie are gonna expect certain “Tarzan” elements – folks going to a “Sherlock Holmes” movie are gonna expect different elements than the Tarzan folks.

I was trying to think of a “long running” franchise that has stayed true to its “core” and the BEST example I could think of was Scooby-Doo.

no, seriously – the “core element” of Scooby-Doo has always been a “boy and his dog” — i.e. Shaggy and Scooby are “core elements”, everything else can be added/removed but you always need those two characters — if you try to twist the franchise into “angry girl power show” then, well, you get the “Velma” series – which is only tangentially associated with “Scooby-Doo” as a franchise

bad product

I don’t think fans blame “franchise” for “bad product” – again, this is kind of the “franchise” concept we have come to expect.

Fans understand that MANY establishments are independently owned/operated. BUT that doesn’t really matter – if “location” consistently under performs, then they will lose customers to other locations.

the job of weeding out the “under performers” that hurt the franchise brand name belongs to “corporate.”

If “corporate” isn’t up to the task – well, franchises come and go on a regular basis …

fwiw: yes, “Star Wars” as a franchise abandoned its core audience a few years back. They are selling “feces in a nice box” and seem to think they are defecating gold nuggets. News of developing “Star Wars” projects fall into the same category as a lot of the commercials for prescription drugs I see which I have no idea what they treat (but the guys cuddling and engaging in p.d.a. imply I’m not the target market)

The “history” lesson is (probably) that “franchises” come and go. Long running franchises are exceptionally rare because “time and fate” happen to us all.

Now, if “Red Lobster” (first franchise opened in 1968 in Lakeland, Florida) were to disappear I would take notice – but wouldn’t be terribly sad about the franchise demise.

“Burger Chef” used to be a national chain, then closed their last location in 1996. I’m told a “Burger Chef” like location existed for another couple years due to a long franchise agreement – i.e. it looked like a “Burger Chef”, had a similar sign as “Burger Chef” but called itself something NOT “Burger Chef.”

Southwestern Ohio used to be the “world headquarters” for “Ponderosa Steakhouse, Inc” so we had access to a LOT of locations “back in the day.” “Ponderosa” was always fun – The price to food quality/quantity ratio was always high – but the possibility of “screaming baby” also tended to be high. In 2024 Google tells me there is a Ponderosa around Columbus somewhere (a little to far for me to drive – but next time I’m in Columbus …).

The point (if I had one) being that “franchise death” tends to be a long slow process. The beginning of the slippery slope of franchise death is probably barely perceptible – but once it starts it is hard to stop (you know “slippery slope” and all that) and accelerates quickly

The good news for “entertainment franchises” is that “rebooting” the franchise is just a single good project away — e.g. no one will remember “Velma” in a few years, and Scooby-Doo and Shaggy will continue onto new projects.

The “core elements” of “Star Wars” were NEVER exclusive to “Star Wars” – so Disney, Inc can be “Disney, Inc” all it wants. Fans looking for “steak and potatoes” will just go somewhere else …

Genre found its way into the English language in the late 18th century from “middle French.” The French got it from Latin – the “gen-” part tends to refer to “grouping”/category – e.g. “genus” in biology is closely related.

random thought: gender is also “closely related” but “genesis” was derived from the Greek “gignesthal” with a “to be born” meaning – implying beginnings/origins –

Classification systems tend to tell us more about the folks doing the “classifying” than on the things being classified.

A couple of ancient Greek guys liked to argue about the nature of “things” – and without fun stuff like “DNA testing” it can be hard to determine how closely different critters are related.

“To be is to do” — Socrates.
“To do is to be” — Aristotle
“Do be do be do” — Frank Sinatra.”

(famous graffiti)

The pull-quote is PROBABLY a famous “misquote” — Socrates asked a lot of questions and his student Plato started a school where Aristotle did a lot of “observing” and classifying.

If you go back a couple thousand years an expedient way to classify critters would be by what they eat and observable physical traits: e.g. does it have hoofs? are they split? does it eat grass? does it chew the cud?

SO ol’ Mr Aristotle probably didn’t say “to do is to be” but he said something like “tell me what is does and I’ll tell you what it is” – which is obviously different than “tell me what it is and I’ll tell you what it does” — oh, and Mr Sinatra was singing about “Strangers in the night“

She blinded me with …

meanwhile the fine folks at Merriam-Webster tell me that the Latin scientia (“knowledge, awareness, understanding, branch of knowledge, learning,”) is the root of the English word “science” – which first appeared in the 14th Century.

“Science” in modern usage tends to imply a systematized body of knowledge gathered using the “scientific method.” The word “scientist” didn’t pop up until 1834 — a new word was needed for classification. e.g. Ben Franklin would have been called a “natural philosopher.”

Of course the “natural philosopher” was by definition “God” centered. For what it is worth – it is possible to have “religion” without “science” but that doesn’t mean that “science” and “religion” are at odds with each other.

Is “science” a “religion?” Umm, yes – but you will probably upset your biology professor if you bring up the subject – and we are moving on …

Science Fiction

Ok, my mind went down this rabbit hole when someone tried to suggest that Lucien’s “A True Story” was the first science fiction (“SF”) story.

Now, I should say that I don’t feel strongly enough about the question to get into a fight about it – but you kinda need “science” before you can have “science fiction”

The problem is one of “classification” — i.e. is the work “fiction?” yes. does it involve “science?” no.

Of course that would also mean that some VERY popular “space based” franchises are not “science fiction” either.

e.g. “Star Wars” is more accurately labelled “space fantasy” than “science fiction.” George Lucas made a movie titled THX-1138 in 1971 that is closer to “science fiction” but if I’m being REALLY pedantic it is a “futuristic dystopia”

Yeah, the term “science fiction” lost any real meaning a long time ago – but some famous stories NOT thought of as science fiction could fit my definition (again “science” has to be part of the story) – e.g. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” has “electricity” at its core – if you take away the “electricity”/science portion the story doesn’t happen

While Star Wars (Episode IV) is about a young farm boy going on an adventure to save a princess and becoming a hero along the way — you could take out the “hyperspace travel” and “space dog-fighting” and you have a somewhat traditional adventure story.

Again, if I’m being pedantic – “space based” combat wouldn’t look anything like what they do in the “Star Wars” franchise – i.e. you kinda need an atmosphere to do the quick turning acrobatic moves. The Death Star showing up in orbit around an “earth like” planet would cause disaster on the surface – just from being in orbit.

I’m a fan of “Star Wars” and if you passionately want it to be “science fiction” that is just fine with me. I think it is a great movie – just not “technically” science fiction.

Sub-Genres

But “science fiction” can cover a wide range of subjects. Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) fits my definition – so do “The Time Machine” (1960) and “The Matrix” (1999) –

“The Planet of the Apes” (1968) checks off the “science fiction” boxes and so did the “reboot” of the franchise – and notice that the 21st Century “reboot” didn’t have “space ships” or “time travel.”

The point being that science fiction has a lot of “sub genres.” Just for fun we could classify those sub-genre’s on a scale of “hardness” e.g. maybe “Star Trek” is “medium hardness” and “Doctor Who” is “softer” and the “Three Body Problem” is “harder”

There tends to be a healthy dose of “speculation” involved in science FICTION – so spending too much time explaining the “speculative science” is a good way to convince me to go somewhere else 😉

Science Fiction without the “science” …

SO what are we left with it you take the “science” out of “science fiction” — well, yeah obviously the “fiction” remains but “story taking a long time ago in a place far, far away” is a recipe for “fantasy.”

I’m probably poking another VERY LARGE mammal if I point out that the “X-Men” franchise is “fantasy” trying very hard to be pretend “science.” Seriously “they were just born with super human powers” is a great way to avoid having to come up with “origin” stories for a wide range of fantastic characters – but it isn’t “science fiction.”

Of course the “superhero” sub-genre could fit under either fantasy or SF – “The Incredible Hulk” and “The Fantastic Four” are “SF-ish” – but CLASSIC “Superman” not so much (e.g. he is from “outer space” and magically gets his powers from the sun and can fly because … I’m not really sure …).

Once again, I enjoy “X-Men” and “Superman” – i just don’t consider them “science fiction.”

“Max Brand” was one of the pen names used by Frederick Faust (1892-1944). Mr Faust wrote “westerns” under the name “Max Brand” – somewhere in the neighborhood of 220 “pulp westerns.” Mr Faust also wrote under 21 other pseudonyms, in another dozen genres.

Mr Faust was described as a “classical poet” – but since there wasn’t any money to be made writing “classical poetry” – he wrote fast action “pulp” stories

Random thought: Mr Faust died as a war correspondent during WWII. Now, I don’t think anyone would every confuse Frederick Faust with Ernest Hemingway — BUT Mr Hemingway was in his mid-50s when he wrote “The Old Man and the Sea”, if Frederick Faust had survived who knows what he might have written — e.g. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a lot of “pulp junk” – but is remembered as a “great writer” because of “The Great Gatsby.”

Mr Faust had no delusions about the quality of his “westerns” — he knew he was writing “what the public wanted” not “creating art” — but his “western heroes” tended to resemble “knights on horseback.”

e.g. the “Max Brand” formula involves “bad guys doing bad stuff” usually a “young woman in distress” and then the “hero on horseback.” To the point that he was “writing for an audience” – and that “audience” was probably MOSTLY “young men” – the hero having a “good horse” was more important than the “heroine”/love interest.

Note that this does NOT make his “westerns” anti-anything – he was just writing in a genre for an audience.

e.g. Louis L’amour took his “stories of the west” more seriously than Max Brand – but you see the same patterns (Mr. L’amour wrote and sold a LOT of books – most of them “stories of the west” and is another subject).

the noble steed

Note that this does NOT make his “westerns” anti-anything – he was just writing in a genre for an audience.

e.g. Louis L’amour took his “stories of the west” more seriously than Max Brand – but you see the same patterns (Mr. L’amour wrote and sold a LOT of books – most of them “stories of the west” and is another subject).

the noble steed

The story of human history and the domestication of the horse go hand in hand. The functional horse used on the farm to plow land or pull a cart deserves acknowledgement – the farmer certainly appreciates “Mollie” and “Clover” – but they are “tools” more than “companions.”

The “mythic romantic hero” needs his “noble steed” — just not necessarily as “transportation.” If you are in the business of telling “daring deeds of Heroes” (notice that is “Hero” with a capital “H” – as in big, brawny, and bold – “legendary”) – the Hero needs a noble steed.

e.g. Sir Gawain had “Gringolet” (“Le Grin golet”) – we never find out WHAT Gringolet’s story is, but by giving the horse a name we are assured that there MUST be a “story” of how Sir Gawain and Gringolet became a team.

We know nothing else about Gringolet – but we can be sure that he is confident, strong, steady, and loyal to his master.

To have a name is to be given a “personality.” If an “anonymous thing” has been given a “name” it is no longer “anonymous.” Excalibur was more than “just a sword” – Mjollnir certainly wasn’t “just a hammer” – and “Trigger” wasn’t “just a horse”

Reciprocity

The psych 101 thought is to point out the “rule of reciprocity” – e.g. when something is “useful”/”pleasant”/”nice” to us we (humanity in general) tend to feel positively towards that “something.”

Some researchers at “big university” did a study on “human – machine” interactions with a “robotic trashcan.” I think the “robot” would come to people when they “called” it – and then they could throw away their trash. People that interacted with the “robot trashcan” reported positive feelings toward the device.

My guess is that the ‘researchers’ where trying to make some point about humans and machines — but all they did was rediscover “reciprocity.” e.g. the robot was responsive and useful – so the natural human response was to “like” the robot.

From that “psych 101” point of view the hero’s horse IS “just a horse” — BUT we learn something about ANYONE by how they treat those “under their power.”

e.g. Are the “nice” to superiors but “abusive” to anyone else” well, that can’t be our “hero” — (I distinctly remember the first “Hopalong Cassidy” B-western I saw – a character knocked down a small boy and kicked the boy’s dog – “that must be the BAD guy” was my first thought).

Often given “Interview advice” is that “they” are paying attention to how you treat everyone – so being a jerk to the receptionist isn’t going to help your chances of getting the job.

(btw: I try to be “nice” to everyone as a rule – the whole “do unto others” thing ALWAYS applies – I catch myself “thanking” my digital assistant for being useful, AND the devs have programmed in the “polite response” – AND I feel kindly toward my inanimate objects, but I still recognize them as “inanimate objects”)

The remuda

“Remuda” entered the English language in the late 19th century – it traces back to the Spanish “remudar – to exchange” which traces back to the Latin “mutare – change”

That ‘working cowboy’ back in the day would probably get his horse from the remuda. The character/quality of the craftsman/worker can be seen by how they treat their “tools” – the cliche is that “the tools do the job” so take care of them and they will take care of you.

BUT our “romantic hero” loses something when they trade in the “remuda” for the “car pool.”

There are a LOT more “fictional horses” with names than there are “fictional cars” with names – Batman has the “Batmobile” but it doesn’t have a distinct personality – I saw a VW bug that was painted like “Herbie the Love Bug” the other day, but I don’t remember WHY “Herbie” was sentient

Maybe the fact that our “devices” become an extension of “us” explains why “cars” were so popular in the last half of the 20th century (beyond just being “transportation”) AND why some folks have anxiety attacks when they can’t find their smart phone.

If I was a character in a novel the fact that I DON’T carry my phone with me ALL the time would be important – but that is another subject …

buy me a coffee

Patreon

“The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” – a classic movie starring Humphrey Bogart and directed by John Huston has a couple of memorable lines.

Probably the most referenced line is:

“Badges?… We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges. I don’t have to show you any stinking badges!”

… I don’t think it will spoil the movie for any first time viewer to know that the “Badges” line is delivered by someone pretending to be a Federales – so of course they don’t have any “badge” to show … and that is usually the context in which the line is used (e.g. this scene from “Blazing Saddles” )

The old “Bugs Bunny” shorts used to make the occasional reference to real world Hollywood Stars – Fred C Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart’s character) makes an appearance as a running gag

The line Mr Bogart actually says in the movie is:

“Say, mister. Will you stake a fellow American to a meal?”

Fred C Dobbs

“Treasure of the Sierra Madre” would win 3 Academy Awards (John Huston won for Best Director, and Best Screenplay – Walter Huston won for Best Supporting Actor) – so there is obviously a lot of good stuff in there – BUT the movie revolves around Mr Bogart’s character going from “penniless beggar” to “greedy hoarder.”

Walter Huston plays the older/wiser prospector who tries to warn his companions on the effect “gold” has on human nature — i.e. everyone is friendly and cooperative until “real” money/gold enters the picture.

SO “Fred C. Dobbs” goes from “happy to have money for a meal” to “packs of gold aren’t ‘enough’”

the “human nature” on display is how the concept of “enough” can change — e.g. if you are cold and hungry – then just NOT being “cold and hungry” is probably “enough.” BUT to “wealthy business executive” having millions in the bank may not be “enough.”

Of course it ain’t my job to tell anyone else how much is “enough” for them — but “greed” is never good.

In an ideal scenario where someone is helping others fulfill a want/need then accumulating a massive fortune will be a side effect of their purpose NOT their actual purpose.

A famous quote comes to mind:

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”

The quote tends to be attributed to Abraham Lincoln – but it was PROBABLY said ABOUT Mr Lincoln not BY Mr Lincoln. The point being that “power” and “money” tend to attract each other – i.e. being “poor” is not inherently more (or less) virtuous than being “rich.”

BUT if you have never considered the question of “what REALLY matters” then ‘Fred C Dobbs’ becomes a cautionary tale …

The Rat Pack

Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall took on the roll of “Hollywood royalty” to a certain degree — the term “Rat Pack” traces back to parties at the Bogart’s house in California (e.g. Lauren Bacall usually gets credit for coining the phrase “The Rat Pack”)

When Humphrey Bogart died in 1957 – Frank Sinatra (one of those friends attending the Bogart’s house parties) took over the “celebrity mantle.” The press started calling Mr Sinatra’s inner circle “The Rat Pack” – but the rumor was that Frank Sinatra didn’t care for the term

It is fair to say that the Sinatra ‘circle’ had layers — with Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Sammy Davis jr forming the hub of that circle.

The movie most associated with the “Rat Pack” was “Ocean’s 11” (1960) — which isn’t a ‘bad’ movie, but also not a ‘great’ movie in part because the “Rat Pack” were splitting time between ‘making a movie’ and ‘carousing‘ on a Las Vegas stage all night

btw: Mr Sinatra (probably) didn’t consume excessive amounts of alcohol — the rumor was that he enjoyed playing ‘host’ surrounded by friends (i.e. getting OTHER people drunk). I’m sure he drank his share – just not as much as he APPEARED to be drinking …

road trips

Las Vegas positioned itself as a “road trip” destination when they legalized gambling in 1931. I don’t gamble so I find the entertainment options being more interesting — and of course the Raiders are in Vegas now, and MLB is coming to town — sounds like it is time for a road trip …

If you would like to help out a fellow traveler (and see the pictures/video from the road trips) my Patreon link is above or just buy me a coffee (link above) …

as always, we thank you for your support