Here is something to warm your heart: a story about Lily Gladstone and the Blackfeet Nation in The Washington Post. Makes me want to see Killers of the Flower Moon this weekend, but from what I’ve heard the movie is, alas, far from heartwarming.

🍿 The first movie snow days bring to mind is, of course, A Christmas Story (1983). The second one is not its bloodless sequel but rather 8-bit Christmas (2021), the true spiritual successor. The snow day scene there is one of the best, but nowhere to be found online. Best to watch the whole thing!

🍿 Laputa: Castle in the Sky (1986) was a delight, even at 2 hours. As the first Studio Ghibli movie it has been overshadowed by what came later, but its influence is obvious. Inside Ghibli itself, there is one-to-one mapping of characters (Captain Dola becomes Yubaba from Spirited Away, her husband becomes Kamaji) and plot points (a boy protecting a magical girl in Ponyo). Externally, the robots are echoed in The Iron Giant and Wall-E. Doesn’t the latest Zelda have a flying castle? And of course it is one of the first popular steampunk anime.

I will also note that the movie is almost 40 years old: it came out the same year as Top Gun and Crocodile Dundee. But good luck getting your kids to watch either. Incredible how much more gracefully animation ages compared to live-action.

Only six movies that came out this year made it to my watch list:

• Oppenheimer: three movies in one, and only one of them was good.
• Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken: forgettable.
• Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: easily the best of the lot.
• Elemental: initially a disappointment, but has more depth the more I think about it.
• Barbie: better than Oppenheimer but also too long and not very good by the end.
• The Family Plan: a fun throwback to the 1990s, but also forgettable.

I did not see Killers of the Flower Moon yet, but I hope to do so soon. I did watch a bunch of older movies, some of which were quite good, but naming them all here would not mean much (and you can always go to the movies tag). Let me instead list the movies I rewatched this year, in the order in which they came out:

• The Godfather (1972)
• Murder on the Orient Express (1974)
• The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, extended ed. (2001), and notice the 1980s and ’90s-sized gap there.
• The Ring (2002), the rare horror movie that is actually scary.
• Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), which is the parents' best friend when in need of a teachable moment.
• Gone Girl (2014), in which Ben Affleck is watchable (a rarity).
• Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018), and I still won’t forgive myself for watching this movie on the plane the first time around.

Every year I time myself that I should watch more movies, and every year television wins out. May 2024 be the same.

🍿 Klaus (2019) flew under the radar for us when it first came out, so kudos to the Netflix recommendation algorithm for resurfacing it for the holidays. It is a classically — and beautifully — animated family movie that’s not trying to be hip or edgy, and is all the better for it.

This time last year, Netflix scrapped the director’s follow-up project. Here’s hoping that Ember will find a new home.

🍿 The Family Plan (2023) features a milquetoast father of 3 who takes his family on a road trip to Vegas in a Honda Odyssey, so of course we had to see it as soon as it came out. It was… OK, for a dressed up 1990s action comedy. At least Wahlberg is slightly more believable as a boring white-collar schmuck than Schwarzenegger was in his day.

Still, kudos to Apple for embracing brainless entertainment and extending The Mitchells… sphere of influence to live action.

Serbia in the 1990s had a peculiar mass media landscape in that movies were rarely officially released, yet were shown on TV days after premiering through the magic of pirating, practiced by both broadcast and cable networks. The most successful of these was TV Pink, now a horror show of reality TV, and one of the many peculiar features of TV Pink was that its daytime content would rely heavily on those E! making-of fillers and patter interviews with exhausted celebrities on their movie-promoting circuit. While home-bound sick kids of America filled their days with Bob Barker and Jerry Springer, in Serbia it was all Hollywood all the time — unless you were the weirdo who liked to watch reruns of 1960s kids shows and their poorly made hyperinflation-era remakes, which was the only thing state TV was capable of producing.

But that wasn’t me! So when I got bacterial pneumonia back in 6th grade and was stuck at home for two whole weeks while receiving twice-daily intramuscular right-into-the-gluteus aminoglycoside antibiotics — the lackadaisical attitude of Serbian pediatricians towards dosing and toxicities is a different story — Pink took up more of my time than I care to admit, and making-of videos from that period got engrained in my memory more so than the movies themselves. Topping the list was the 1995 comedy Get Shorty starring John Travolta, which back then I thought must have been the biggest blockbuster ever if they were talking about it so much.

All this is a preamble to what I heard said by Travolta, or his co-star Danny DeVito, or maybe it was the director Barry Sonnenfeld, and it was this: the movie was based on a book, and the book was outstanding and written by Elmor Leonard who had a way with writing dialogue, and whenever they had an urge to improvise their lines they would hold back because Leonard must have already thought about the things that came to the actors minds first and decided that, no, this thing on the page was better.

And I have heard that line so many times — my pre-frontal cortex still developing — that I have now completely internalized it and act on it unconsciously. When evaluating someone’s work — outside of grading papers, for that is a different matter entirely — I start with the assumption that they have thought long and hard about the paper they’ve submitted for my peer review, certainly longer than the few hours I can dedicate to reviewing it, and I give them the benefit of the doubt. My first impression is probably something they thought about and dismissed, to come up with what they are submitting. Now, some papers are so egregiously wrong that they will still be red all over after I’m done; but if there is a small difference of opinion, or a nit to pick with style, or something I would maybe have done slightly differently, I just let it be, in deference to the authors' work and respect to their, the editor’s, and — why hide it? — my own, time.

After being on the receiving end of quite a few paper and grant reviews myself ⊕ Oh, and meetings. So many meetings., I am beginning to suspect that not everyone is following the Get Shorty ethos.

Now, the worst peer review I have ever received was also the shortest. It was for a paper about a clincial study in rare disese that had a one-sentence rejection from the first journal where it was submitted: “Only 11 patients, they need more”. But most other reviews are not “bad” in that sense, but rather overly verbose and nit-picky about the tiniest of details with dozens of comments per review, the purpose of which is not to improve the article, but rather to show to the editor of the prestigious journal — the higher the impact factor, the more nits to pick — that the reviewer was worthy of the invitation to provide his or her services free of charge to the academic publishing machine. Look at me, ma', I’m paying attention!

Which is fine for papers, I guess, since the reviewers will be in the ballpark of your field (those that aren’t won’t accept the review), and you may at least get a chance to respond. Grants are worse: not only are the reviewers forced into it for the prestige of being on a study section, there is little chance if any that they will have the knowledge of your field ⊕ This is why, I suspect, the best predictor of receiving an NIH grant is already having received an NIH grant. Not only have you been stamped as a success for the “educated lay-people” on the study section, but if you reapply to the study section their knowledge of your field will have been what you told them, and the Program Officer, in prior grant applications. The problem is trebled if you apply with a clinical trial, because all the people with clinical trial expertise across all of the NIH study sections could probably all fit in a Mini. But how much more difficult could designing a clinical trial be from running a lab, eh?

The examples are many and I’m not at liberty to discuss most of them, but back when I was opening trials in T-cell lymphoma a grant was not funded mostly because they didn’t think we could enroll patients for this “rarest of the rare” disease in time (we were well over half-way done with enrollment by the time we heard of this decision). In case you were wondering why all the money goes to breast, colon, and lung cancer research, well, no one ever had a problem recruiting for those!

There is a role for peer review: to weed out the impossible and the truly un-fundable. But after that it may as well be a lottery: why would rolling the dice be worse than adding up laundry lists of small, irrelevant issues that could sink an application which gets assigned to two or three particularly detail-oriented reviewers. It would also save a hell of a lot of time for everyone involved.

🍿 If there is such a thing as a cinematic soulmate, Scott Sumner is mine. He has just published a batch of reviews that includes his best ever in each genre which all but confirmed it: both Singin' in the Rain and Mulholland Drive are there, and deservedly so. (ᔥTyler Cowen)

🍿 Barbie (2023) turned out to be I ♥︎ Huckabees (2004) with a higher budget and a feminist bent, which isn’t the worst thing in the world. Like its partner, it relies more on moods and vibes than narrative coherence, particularly in the third act which required so much mind-squinting to make sense on any level that my brain shrunk by two sizes. Still, it was better at being an existentialist comedy than Oppenheimer was at being a biopic, so pink for the win!

Miyazaki has a new movie coming out, “The Boy and the Heron”, and the teaser trailer looks like “Spirited Away” mixed with “Grave of the Fireflies”. I’m sold!

This would, of course, be Miyazaki’s third last film ever to date. Here’s hoping for many more. (ᔥwaxy.org)

Update 9/8/23: Well, that didn’t take long!