Rewatchable Films Are The Best Films

I love The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974).  I watch the film at least once a year.  It's a perfect film that never fails to entertain me.  The plain fact is that it gets more enjoyable with each viewing.  Most films drift in and out of my life.  This film has found a permanent place in my life. 

A typical argument is that, while highly rewatchable films often excel in entertainment value, relatability or comfort, they do not necessarily represent the best films in terms of artistic achievement, innovation, and emotional impact.  Some films, like Schindler's List and Requiem for a Dream, are critically acclaimed but emotionally heavy, which makes them less likely to be revisited.  Conversely, lighthearted, crowd-pleasing films, like Jurassic Park and Mean Girls, may lack the depth or complexity that some associate with greatness, yet they remain beloved for their enduring charm.  So, in the end, the thinking is that the best films balance entertainment and artistic value, resonating with audiences on multiple levels — whether they demand rewatching or leave a lasting impression after just one viewing.

But is that true?  It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) is a film that I often watch.  It is, in my opinion, as much an epic masterpiece as Lawrence of Arabia (1962).  It is a light-hearted, crowd-pleasing film, but it also checks the boxes for artistic achievement, innovation, and emotional impact.  The fact that I laugh constantly while watching the film is proof of its emotional impact.  Crafting an entertaining film that resonates across generations is a great artistic achievement.  I argue that highly rewatchable films are the greatest films for their amazing durability and the important place they occupy in our lives.

Let's look closely at the artistic and cultural significance of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.  The film was one of the earliest to utilize the widescreen Cinerama process, which was innovative for its time, offering a panoramic view that was both visually engaging and technically ambitious. The use of such technology in a comedy was groundbreaking, showcasing how comedy could be just as epic in scope as any drama.

With an unprecedented ensemble of comedy legends, the film's casting was a feat of coordination and vision. The interactions among these comedians parallel the great character interactions in drama.

The film satirizes human greed, ambition and the American Dream through its treasure hunt plot.  It presents a microcosm of society, much like how prestige films use personal narratives to comment on larger societal issues. The humor here serves as both entertainment and critique, offering insights into human nature.

The film's narrative structure with multiple intersecting stories is complex, demonstrating that comedies can have as intricate a plot as any serious drama.  The way these stories converge towards the end is a narrative triumph, showing that comedy can handle sophisticated storytelling.

In conclusion, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World stands as a testament to the artistic, technical, and cultural value of comedy.  It challenges the notion that only films dealing with heavy emotional or societal issues can be considered "art."  By pushing the boundaries of what comedy can achieve in terms of scope, commentary, and storytelling, it deserves recognition alongside any prestige film for its contributions to cinema.

Midjourney Bans Images of Celebrities

I have often used Midjourney to create images of classic movie stars.  It has been fun to resurrect Cary Grant, making him look as charming and elegant as ever in a stylish new suit.  It has been fun to invent parody mash-ups with Hollywood legends.  It has been fun to use these images to explore the alternate casting of famous roles.  Imagine, for instance, Grant playing Harold Hill in The Music Man.

Or Grant as Norman Bates.

The program wasn't flawless in capturing a person's likeness, but each new version of the program showed great improvement.   

My high hopes for Midjourney were recently shattered when I learned that Midjourney has taken strong measures to stop its program from generating accurate images of celebrities.  I had to go to a Midjourney competitor, Grok, to create these images of Grant.  Why did Midjourney do this?  It's the obvious reason.  Gullible people were fooled by the fakes, which created a major headache for the company.  

To start, Pixar became upset over fake Pixar ads generated by AI programs.  

How could anyone think that these were real films?

Microsoft quickly blocked the term "Pixar" from being entered into its image generator and those users who try to use it are now shown a message saying that the prompt is against the company's policies. 

Accurate images of Hitler became a problem.  The Midjourney people became horrified that their program was being used to create highly offensive Hitler memes.  So, they promptly banned references to Hitler in image descriptions.  Strangely, they also banned any reference to the dictator's distinctive toothbrush moustache.  Presumably, they were worried that you could suggest Hitler by putting that mustache on anything from a cat to a potato.  

Of course, without the toothbrush mustache, it was no longer possible to generate images of Charlie Chaplin and Oliver Hardy, whose appearances were very much dependent on that unique smudge of facial hair. 

You give a child blocks.  Most children will stack the blocks to build a tower.  Some will sort the blocks to create a variety of shapes.  The blocks allow children to develop spatial awareness, fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, problem-solving abilities, and creativity.  A few unruly children will chuck a block at another child.  But that doesn't mean that you should ban blocks.  You punish the wrongdoers.  That's how it has to be.  

And then came the AI-generated images of Taylor Swift.  First, a deepfake of Swift was used to promote a Le Creuset cookware giveaway.  

Then, a man disseminated sexually explicit AI images of Swift across several social media platforms.  These images were viewed by 47 million people before the man's social media accounts were suspended.

There were others like this.

Someone ever paired up Swift with Hitler.

It wouldn't have likely been a problem if the images of Swift were as harmless as this one.

AP News reported:

Brittany Spanos, a senior writer at Rolling Stone who teaches a course on Swift at New York University, says Swift's fans are quick to mobilize in support of their artist, especially those who take their fandom very seriously and in situations of wrongdoing.

So, the good times were over.  It became clear that AI-generated images of real people could be manipulated for unethical purposes, including misinformation and defamation.  AI could produce manipulated images that place an actor in a false context, having them endorse a controversial political position, engaging in illegal activities, or participating in offensive content.  This could mislead the public and damage the actor's reputation.  Famous entertainers have certain rights to their likenesses and could argue that a person infringed on their rights if they used their likeness without authorization.    

Midjourney and a number of competitors simply decided that it would be in their best interest to avoid deepfake controversies.  

But why create a general ban?  Most artistic reinterpretations of celebrities fall under "fair use."  This certainly applies if the artwork is not used for commercial purposes, if the artwork is not used to create a false narrative, and if the artwork in no way damages an actor's reputation.  You can't outlaw fan art.  I know a woman on Twitter who creates intricate pencil portraits of famous people.  She once did a great portrait of John Wayne.  Should this be illegal?  

Parody or fan art hardly violates the rights of a famous actor.  A platform can easily solve this problem by prominently labeling an image to indicate that the image is AI-generated.  And, again, punishment of misuse is the best remedy.

Midjourney now encourages users to describe generic or inspired characters rather than try to directly replicate a real individual.  So, you end up with a generic Cary Grant-inspired character like this.  It isn't much, is it?

Grok is now the only source for AI images of celebrities.  At my request, the program generated these images of Laurel and Hardy.

YouTuber Nerdrotic had the idea of dressing up famous old actors as famous old superheroes.  It's Cary Grant under Batman's cowl.   

I added these images to Nerdrotic's collection.

I tried to get Grok to generate an image of The Three Stooges as trial attorneys.  It didn't work out well.

AI Art Notes for January 2025

Midjourney has made it easier to generate images using reference photos.  I submitted this photo of Dinah Sheridan, which is from the charming 1953 British comedy Genevieve.  

This is the result.

A year and a half ago, I submitted a picture of myself to Midjourney.  I estimate that I was 26 years old at the time the picture was taken.  This was the result.  The images only vaguely resemble me. 

I tried again recently.  I don't think this looks like me.  The man in these portraits has an oblong face.  I think that my face is more oval.  But I really can't be objective. 

I used portraits of Lloyd Hamilton as references images.  This is the result.

I asked to see a group of overweight men in striped pajamas.  This is what I got.

Midjourney had a new feature called Retexturing.  I retextured an AI image of a generic 1940s comedy team.

This is Midjourney's interpretation of Barton Fink.  The program obviously favored a more handsome Barton.

Have a good day.