In our great country the United States, we can legally do a lot of things when we turn the age of eighteen, such as adopt a child, smoke, join the military, vote, or even be a stripper.

by Fiona Wheeler

Joseph McBride writes in his screenwriting manual Writing in Pictures,

The fragmentation of the TV-watching experience, the influence of the Internet and YouTube, and the effect of our amped-up video culture on feature filmmaking have resulted in a modern style relying more on moment-to-moment sensation than on the traditional pleasures of coherent storytelling.

Culture is turning away from books in favor of the visual media in recent decades, the related decline in reading skills also have had damaging effect on our storytelling skills.

Steven Spielberg was speaking in an interview about the Golden Age of films from the 70s and early 80s, considered by many the greatest period of American cinema. The interviewer asked why it was that great films like those aren’t being written any more. Spielberg replied,

They read the great words of great minds… In our romance with technology and our excitement at exploring all the possibilities… I think we’ve partially lost something we now have to reclaim… for only a generation of readers will spawn a generation of writers.

Is that right? Are screenwriters who have dropped classic reading from their “to do” lists to blame?

[Read Steven Spielberg’s Curriculum, the 200 films Spielberg thinks every filmmaker should watch.]

How The Blockbuster Began Its Reign

The Paramount case of 1948, during those paranoid post-War times, saw the enforced separation of production, distribution and exhibition. A single company could no longer make movies secure in the knowledge that each new title would be passed along and shown (by the various branches of the parent company) to a ready-made domestic and international audience.

Budgets were tightened, studios became more cautious. A film now had to rely on the pulling power of great stories and well-known actors. Actors, that is, who increased and maintained their screen appeal by their savvy choice of well-written, complex characters.

To write such multi-faceted characters, studios sought to hire well-known authors. Writing critically-acclaimed novels has never exactly paid well, so it is was that many great writers and playwrights of the day, with their vast reserves of cultural and literary knowledge, turned to screenplays. Being well-read became the screenwriter norm.

The rise the French New Wave and its knock-on impact on American culture meant that by the 70s in America the film director “auteur” was dictator. But, as any historian will tell you, no dictatorship lasts forever. A series of mega hits saw studios giving directors as much rope as they wanted, and inevitable massive losses resulted.

During this dictatorship of the directors, the studios had been working behind the scenes to repeal the “divorcement” decree of 1948. In 1985 they were successful. Finally, global conglomerates were once again allowed to make, distribute, and exhibit their own product (movies). Plus, they could exclusively use songs from music labels they owned, as well as license, manufacture and sell movie-related merchandise in their various food and retail outlets.

Knowing they stood to make so much in value-added income, studios could once again afford to bankroll the blockbusters. Suddenly story and nuanced, complex characters weren’t important anymore. Special effects and related technologies were where the investment dollars were funneled.

But that doesn’t explain why we, the screenwriters, stopped reading.

The Modern Screenwriter

Societal shifts and the rise of the literary savant (first-time novelists whose self-style rebel image was built upon their refusal to read the classics, or any written works) meant that for the first time writing became an accessible, and acceptable, dream for not just the cultural elite, but everyone. And what’s more accessible than film and TV? Thousands, tens of thousands, who were intimidated by the very idea of great literature, felt comfortable sitting down to write their very own screenplay or teleplay.

Then came the next tsunami: the digital revolution. Almost overnight the prohibitive cost of making a (celluloid) feature film disappeared. To the non-professional, unaware that a film production is a myriad of perfectly balanced moving cogs, writing a feature seemed even more possible than ever before.

Does it matter that filmmakers with no formal training in writing, directing or cinematography are making features?

Some would argue that that’s exactly what the French have been doing all along.

What works for one nationality, doesn’t necessarily work for another. Firstly, 80 percent of French box office is for American, not European, films. Secondly, the French are educated in an entirely different way than Americans. Philosophy and the culture of knowledge are fundamental to the French way of being.

If you grow up in Paris, you live only a train ride from the place where the first ever declaration of Human Rights was penned. From there you can stroll down to the Seine River and gaze across at Notre Dame, which was saved from crumbling to ruins because an author, Victor Hugo, wrote a novel set there. When a French director says they read “no more than most” and have no great focus on literature, culture or ideas, it’s relative.

So what are American writers, and those who wish to write for American producers/studios to do?

Read, Watch, Experience, Enjoy

Julian Hoxter, author of the screenwriting manual Write What You Don’t Know says, “Engage with culture, politics and the world… your characters don’t live in a vacuum and, if you want to make them come alive, neither should you.”

We all agree that a screenplay is the blueprint of a film. For an architect to be judged knowledgeable enough to create a blueprint for a building, they must first study other great structures and understand why it is those landmarks have withstood the tests of time. I agree with Spielberg: only a generation of great readers will spawn a generation of great writers.

So read. Read the newspaper. Read classic novels. Read pulp fiction. Read your friend’s scripts. Read produced scripts. And watch and experience and revel and enjoy, as well. Surround yourself with art and knowledge, and your craft is sure to benefit.

SACRAMENTO >> California's Assembly on Thursday approved a hotly contested bill requiring that nearly all public schoolchildren be vaccinated, clearing one of its last major legislative obstacles before the measure heads to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown.

The bill aims to increase immunization rates after a measles outbreak linked to Disneyland in December sickened over 100 people in the U.

Hovertext: Also, that's not EXACTLY a circle.

Come onnnn hatemail. Come onnnnn hatemail. 

SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS >> At least one airplane was temporarily called off of fighting the Lake Fire on Wednesday because a drone entered the temporary flight restriction area, according to the U.S. Forest Service.

"When there's a drone there, it's a safety issue," said Forest Service spokeswoman Melody Lardner.

Sitting in his surgical gown inside a large medical suite in Reston, Va., a Vienna man prepared for his colonoscopy by pressing record on his smartphone, to capture the instructions his doctor would give him after the procedure.

But as soon as he pressed play on his way home, he was shocked out of his anesthesia-induced stupor: He found that he had recorded the entire examination and that the surgical team had mocked and insulted him as soon as he drifted off to sleep.

In addition to their vicious commentary, the doctors discussed avoiding the man after the colonoscopy, instructing an assistant to lie to him, and then placed a false diagnosis on his chart.

“After five minutes of talking to you in pre-op,” the anesthesiologist told the sedated patient, “I wanted to punch you in the face and man you up a little bit,” she was recorded saying.

When a medical assistant noted the man had a rash, the anesthesiologist warned her not to touch it, saying she might get “some syphilis on your arm or something,” then added, “It’s probably tuberculosis in the penis, so you’ll be all right.”

Tiffany M. Ingham (Maj. Dale Greer/Kentucky Air National Guard)

[Listen to clips of doctors trashing the patient]

When the assistant noted that the man reported getting queasy when watching a needle placed in his arm, the anesthesiologist remarked on the recording, “Well, why are you looking then, retard?”

There was much more. So the man sued the two doctors and their practices for defamation and medical malpractice and, last week, after a three-day trial, a Fairfax County jury ordered the anesthesiologist and her practice to pay him $500,000.

The plaintiff, identified in court papers only as “D.B.,” wanted to maintain his anonymity and did not want to comment about the case, said his attorneys, Mikhael Charnoff and Scott Perry.

The anesthesiologist, Tiffany M. Ingham, 42, could not be reached for comment, and her attorney, D. Lee Rutland, did not return messages seeking comment. Ingham worked out of the Aisthesis anesthesia practice in Bethesda, Md., which the jury ruled should pay $50,000 of the $200,000 in punitive damages it awarded. Officials there did not return a call seeking comment. Ingham no longer works there, an Aisthesis employee said, and state licensing records indicate that she has moved to Florida. An anesthesiology practice in Tavares, Fla., said she no longer worked there. Calls to a number believed to be Ingham’s were not returned, and there was not an answering machine or voicemail at that number.

[Opinion: Nurses make fun of their dying patients. And that’s okay.]

On the opening day of the trial last week, the gastroenterologist who performed the colonoscopy, Soloman Shah, 48, was dismissed from the case. Court documents state Shah also made some insulting remarks — “As long as it’s not Ebola, you’re okay,” Shah was recorded saying during the rash discussion — and did not discourage Ingham from her comments or actions, which included writing on the man’s chart that he had hemorrhoids, when he did not.

Neither Shah, who did not return a message left at his office, nor the lawyers on either side would comment.

The lawyers also would not discuss whether Ingham or Shah faced disciplinary action from the Virginia Board of Medicine. No actions are listed against either on the board’s Web site.

The jury awarded the man $100,000 for defamation — $50,000 each for the comments about the man having syphilis and tuberculosis — and $200,000 for medical malpractice, as well as the $200,000 in punitive damages. Though the remarks by Ingham and Shah perhaps did not leave the operating room in Reston, experts in libel and slander said defamation does not have to be widely published, merely said by one party to another and understood by the second party to be fact, when it is not.

“I’ve never heard of a case like this,” said Lee Berlik, a Reston lawyer who specializes in defamation law. He said comments between doctors typically would be privileged, but the Vienna man claimed his recording showed that there was at least one and as many as three other people in the room during the procedure and that they were discussing matters beyond the scope of the colonoscopy.

“Usually, all [legal] publication requires is publication to someone other than the plaintiff,” Berlik said. “If one of the doctors said to someone else in the room that this guy had syphilis and tuberculosis and that person believed it, that could be a claim. Then it’s up to the jury to decide: Were the statements literal assertions of fact? The jury apparently was just so offended at this unprofessional behavior that they’re going to give the plaintiff a win. That’s what happens in the real world.”

One of the jurors, Farid Khairzada, said that “there was not much defense, because everything was on tape.” He said that the man’s attorneys asked for $1.75 million and that the $500,000 award was a compromise between one juror who thought the man deserved nothing and at least one who thought he deserved more.

“We finally came to a conclusion,” Khairzada said, “that we have to give him something, just to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.”

The colonoscopy took place in Shah’s surgical suite on April 18, 2013, according to the man’s lawsuit. While being prepped for the procedure, the man apparently told Ingham that he had passed out previously while having blood drawn and that he was taking medication for a mild rash on his genitals.

Because he was going to be fully anesthetized, the man decided to turn on his cellphone’s audio recorder before the procedure so it would capture the doctor’s post-operation instructions, the suit states. But the man’s phone, in his pants, was placed beneath him under the operating table and inadvertently recorded the audio of the entire procedure, court records show. The doctors’ attorneys argued that the recording was illegal, but the man’s attorneys noted that Virginia is a “one-party consent” state, meaning that only one person involved in a conversation need agree to the recording.

The recording captured Ingham mocking the amount of anesthetic needed to sedate the man, the lawsuit states, and Shah then commented that another doctor they both knew “would eat him for lunch.”

The discussion soon turned to the rash on the man’s penis, followed by the comments implying that the man had syphilis or tuberculosis. The doctors then discussed “misleading and avoiding” the man after he awoke, and Shah reportedly told an assistant to convince the man that he had spoken with Shah and “you just don’t remember it.” Ingham suggested Shah receive an urgent “fake page” and said, “I’ve done the fake page before,” the complaint states. “Round and round we go. Wheel of annoying patients we go. Where it’ll land, nobody knows,” Ingham reportedly said.

Ingham then mocked the man for attending Mary Washington College, once an all-women’s school, and wondered aloud whether her patient was gay, the suit states. Then the anesthesiologist said, “I’m going to mark ‘hemorrhoids’ even though we don’t see them and probably won’t,” and did write a diagnosis of hemorrhoids on the man’s chart, which the lawsuit said was a falsification of medical records.

After declaring the patient a “big wimp,” Ingham reportedly said: “People are into their medical problems. They need to have medical problems.”

Shah replied, “I call it the Northern Virginia syndrome,” according to the suit.

The doctors argued that the Vienna man did not suffer any physical injury or miss any days of work. The man’s complaint said that he was “verbally brutalized” and suffered anxiety, embarrassment and loss of sleep for several months.

“These types of conversations,” testified Kathryn E. McGoldrick, former president of the Academy of Anesthesiology, “are not only offensive but frankly stupid, because we can never be certain that our patients are asleep and wouldn’t have recall.”

CALABASAS >> As temperatures neared the century mark across Los Angeles last week, hordes of bathers bypassed crowded beaches to splash into cool mountain swimming holes.

But the swimmers who leaped into fresh-water ponds across the Santa Monica Mountains said they weren't aware the ponds and creeks may contain enough fecal matter to potentially make them sick, according to a newly released study.

Hovertext: It's so nice how all cute life forms are immortal!

Bigger and better than ever, LA Beer Week 7 -- a celebration of the county's rapidly expanding craft beer industry -- kicks off Saturday at Exposition Park with an expanded opening day festival boasting more than 75 breweries and 200 brews.

Traditionally held in the fall, the seventh edition moves to the start of summer for the first time to avoid a conflict with other large craft beer gatherings.

An undated file photo shows al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden. (EPA/STR)

According to a recently leaked document, the son of al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden, Abdullah bin Laden, sent a letter to the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia to ask for his father's death certificate.

In response, the embassy wrote to Abdullah to inform him that there was no death certificate issued for the older bin Laden.

The letter went on to suggest other ways that the al-Qaeda leader's death could be officially confirmed.

The remarkable exchange has come to light thanks to the latest release from WikiLeaks, the controversial secret sharing organization helmed by Julian Assange. On Friday, the organization released what it said was the first part of more than a half-million cables and other documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry, which it had dubbed "The Saudi Cables."

The U.S. Embassy's response to Abdallah was included within the release. It is dated Sept. 9, 2011, approximately four months after bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces during a raid on his hideout in Pakistan. U.S. officials have said that bin Laden was later buried at sea. Requests to publish photographs of bin Laden's body or his burial have been denied and any photographs taken are suspected to have been destroyed.

In the letter to Abdullah bin Laden, Glen Keiser, a consul general at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, explains that the lack of a death certificate for bin Laden is "consistent with regular practice for individuals killed in the course of military operations."

Keiser goes on to suggest that the criminal case against Osama bin Laden had effectively been dropped due to his death since June 2011, and describes a process for requesting the order of "nolle prosequi" (which literally means "unwilling to pursue") from the court, which could act as proof of death.

It's unclear why Abdullah bin Laden had requested the death certificate.

In 2012, the Department of Defense responded to an Associated Press Freedom of Information Act request and said that it was unable to find a death certificate for bin Laden.

You can see the full letter below:

More on WorldViews

The bin Laden library the U.S. government doesn’t want you to see: The porn stash.

Chomsky, Woodward and 9/11 conspiracy theories: Bin Laden’s English-language bookshelf

The Saudi king gave a prize to an Islamic scholar who says 9/11 was an ‘inside job’

One of the latest things in universities, including at University of California (where I teach) is condemning “microaggressions,” supposed “brief, subtle verbal or non-verbal exchanges that send denigrating messages to the recipient because of his or her group membership (such as race, gender, age or socio-economic status).” Such microaggressions, the argument goes, can lead to a “hostile learning environment,” which UC — and the federal government — views as legally actionable. This is stuff you could get disciplined or fired for, especially if you aren’t a tenured faculty member.

But of course this concept is now being used to suppress not just, say, personal insults or discrimination in hiring or grading, but also ideas that the UC wants to exclude from university classrooms. Here, from the UC Office of the President, Academic and Personnel Programs department’s site (promoted, for instance, here, here, and here), are some of what the UC wants to see stamped out, in classrooms and presumably elsewhere as well:

Tool: Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send

Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership (from Diversity in the Classroom, UCLA Diversity & Faculty Development, 2014). The first step in addressing microaggressions is to recognize when a microaggression has occurred and what message it may be sending. The context of the relationship and situation is critical. Below are common themes to which microaggressions attach….

[Theme:] Color Blindness[:] Statements that indicate that a White person does not want to or need to acknowledge race.

[Microaggression Examples:] “There is only one race, the human race.”
“America is a melting pot.”
“I don’t believe in race.” …

[Theme:] Denial of Individual Racism/Sexism/Heterosexism[:] A statement made when bias is denied….

[Microaggression Examples:] … To a person of color: “Are you sure you were being followed in the store? I can’t believe it.” …

[Theme:] Myth of Meritocracy[:] Statements which assert that race or gender does not play a role in
life successes, for example in issues like faculty demographics.

[Microaggression Examples:] “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
“Of course he’ll get tenure, even though he hasn’t published much — he’s Black!”
“Men and women have equal opportunities for achievement.”
“Gender plays no part in who we hire.”
“America is the land of opportunity.”
“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
“Affirmative action is racist.”

Well, I’m happy to say that I’m just going to keep on microaggressing. I like to think that I’m generally polite, so I won’t express these views rudely. And I try not to inject my own irrelevant opinions into classes I teach, so there are many situations in which I won’t bring up these views simply because it’s not my job to express my views in those contexts. But the document that I quote isn’t about keeping classes on-topic or preventing presonal insults — it’s about suppressing particular viewpoints. And what’s tenure for, if not to resist these attempts to stop the expression of unpopular views?

But I’m afraid that many faculty members who aren’t yet tenured, many adjuncts and lecturers who aren’t on the tenure ladder, many staff members, and likely even many students — and perhaps even quite a few tenured faculty members as well — will get the message that certain viewpoints are best not expressed when you’re working for UC, whether in the classroom, in casual discussions, in scholarship, in op-eds, on blogs, or elsewhere. (Remember that when talk turns to speech that supposedly creates a “hostile learning environment,” speech off campus or among supposed friends can easily be condemned as creating such an environment, once others on campus learn about it.) A serious blow to academic freedom and to freedom of discourse more generally, courtesy of the University of California administration.

UPDATE: Fox News reports this response by a UC Office of the President spokeswoman:

“Given the diverse backgrounds of our students, faculty and staff, UC offered these seminars to make people aware of how their words or actions may be interpreted when used in certain contexts. Deans and department heads were invited, but not required, to attend the seminars,” University of California Office of the President spokeswoman Shelly Meron told FoxNews.com.

She added that the university had not banned the words when it labeled them as examples of micro-aggressions and insisted that the university system is “committed to upholding, encouraging and preserving academic freedom and the free flow of ideas.”

So let’s see if I understand it. “Microaggressions” are defined as “send[ing] denigrating messages” based (in relevant part) on race. Unsurprisingly, they are labeled as potentially leading to “hostile learning environments,” which the university and the federal government views as legally actionable. The university as an employer is telling its employees, including many employees who don’t have tenure, that expressing certain views is a “microaggression.”

But then the university insists that it’s “preserving academic freedom and the free flow of ideas.” Because, you know, lecturers, adjuncts, not-yet-tenured faculty members, and so on, will read this and say, “sure, I can express my ideas condemning affirmative action, and be labeled by UC as engaging in ‘microaggressions’ — of course UC isn’t going to retaliate against me for that.” Doesn’t seem to reflect how actual employees behave in the face of such statements from the employer’s Office of the President, Academic and Personnel Programs department.

FURTHER UPDATE: Here is a more recent statement from the UC Office of the President media relations people:

To suggest that the University of California is censoring classroom discussions on our campuses is wrong and irresponsible. No such censorship exists. UC is committed to upholding, encouraging, and preserving academic freedom and the free flow of ideas throughout the University. As such, the media characterization of voluntary seminars for UC deans and department heads about campus climate issues — similar to seminars at university campuses throughout the country — is inaccurate.

Contrary to what has been reported, no one at the University of California is prohibited from making statements such as “America is a melting pot,” “America is the land of opportunity,” or any other such statement. Given the diverse backgrounds of our students, faculty and staff, UC offered these seminars to make people aware of how their words or actions may be interpreted when used in certain contexts. Deans and department heads were invited, but not required, to attend the seminars.

Let’s just say that I’m unpersuaded. Note that another paper endorsed by the UC Office of the President defines microaggressions as “one form of systemic everyday racism.” So the UC says microaggressions are a form of racism; communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership; and can help create a hostile environment. And it says that expressing certain views is a form of racial microaggression. (By the way, UC Berkeley says this not just to administrators but also to “faculty or graduate student instructor[s].”) UC also often talks about how important campus climate is and how important diversity is, and indeed makes “contributions to diversity and equal opportunity,” such as “research … that highlights inequalities,” as a factor “in the evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications” when it comes to hiring, promotion, and appraisal.

But apparently instructors — including untenured ones — are somehow expected to feel uncensored, and free to express their ideas, including ones UC has labeled racist, aggressive, and hostile. Really?

Verbatim: The D.N.C.’s Tongue-in-Cheek Welcome to Donald Trump

Today, Donald Trump became the second major Republican candidate to announce for president in two days. He adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the G.O.P. field, and we look forward hearing more about his ideas for the nation.”

— A statement sent out to reporters from the Democratic National Committee, welcoming Donald Trump to the 2016 presidential race, with just the slightest hint of sarcasm.

Buried in Jeb Bush Website, a ‘Die Hard’ Surprise

For an hour or so this afternoon, buried in the source code of Jeb Bush’s website were several paragraphs summarizing the plot of the “Die Hard” movie franchise.

Besides spoiling the “Die Hard” movies for people who haven’t seen them, the inclusion of the scripting files — something of a joke among the campaign’s programmers — does nothing to compromise the function of Mr. Bush’s website.

But source code of candidate websites has been an interesting place to browse so far this cycle.

The source code of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s site features an ASCII-art version of her campaign logo, and the page source for Rand Paul’s site includes a pitch to join the campaign’s tech team.

(Hiding messages in a site’s HTML files isn’t an uncommon practice. Even the Times includes a recruiting message in the source code of many of its pages.)

So, when browsing campaign websites, don’t forget to look under the hood. You just might find something that surprises you.

I wrote a comic about my Tesla Model S.

Hovertext: ...we think.

In case you missed it, the new little kids' books (which are suuuuper limited) are on sale now!