Scott Berkun

Jiro Dreams of Sushi: movie review

This film Jiro dreams of Sushi models itself on its subject, a legendary sushi chef at Tokyo’s Sukiyabashi Jiro. Both the movie, and Jiro, are methodical, patient, simple, enigmatic and inspiring.

I enjoyed the film primarily as a meditation on work and living a life dedicate to perfecting a skill. Jiro is 85 years old, and has been making sushi for decades. He came to become a chef on his own terms, without support from his family. The film centers on his sushi restaurants, and how they prepare and serve food.

There are tangents into his life and the lives of his two sons (also sushi chefs), which reveal much about their collective approaches to life. It’s a simple film, just as the methods Jiro employs are simple. But in both cases that simplicity allows for great care to be put into every little decision. Sukiyabashi Jiro is one of the few restaurants in the world with a Michelin 3 star rating.

The film helped me ask myself several important questions:

• How do you know you have the right priorities?
• Why does craft matter? How much of your life should you put into your craft?
• What does work / life balance mean? Is that even the right dichotomy?
• Is excellence more important than pleasure?
• Are each these people happy? Are they fulfilled? Why? Why not? How can I know?
• Where do I see craft of this level of skill around me in my world?

If you like any of these questions, and like sushi or craft, you’ll find the film of interest. It’s a meditative and beautiful film, with many moments without dialog as you watch work being done, providing plenty of space to fill with your own thoughts, and perhaps, your own dreams.

It’s an independent film, and you can find where it’s playing near you here.

The Social Network: movie review

Good movies about software are hard to make. That’s why few people try and those who do mostly end up with mediocre films. David Fincher (Fight Club, Curious Case of Benjamin Button) gets at least one thing right in his new film: pace. This movie, for a drama about young adults making software, is smart, quick and unrelenting in its progression. The Social Network is a good, well acted, well scripted drama, which provokes questions about ideas, ownership, ethics and relationships (End of short review).

I didn’t read the book the film is based on, Accidental Billionaires, as the author’s style of dramatization and invention (He also wrote Bringing down the house) has earned him a reputation for stretching the limits of what can be called reporting. Its foolish to expect Hollywood films to have much interest in upholding literal truths.

However I have researched Facebook history in the past, and it’s clear Zuckerberg was not a great guy in his early years (The New Yorker profile suggests Zuckerberg conceeds this). He managed to upset many people he worked with early in his career, being sued by some of his first employers, and his best friend / co-founder of Facebook. The details of the movie are exaggerated as films, by their nature, tend to be, but the spirit seems not far from the Mark (pun!).  And it’s the spirit represented that’s the most interesting thing about the film.

Nearly everyone is portrayed as shallow, arrogant, selfish and superficial. Some are morons, others are brilliant, but the tone is youthful confusion over what matters. And this reflects our dilemma over what to make of the worst elements of social media: a playing out of high school cliques, displays of ‘status’ to impress others, and a confusion offer what a friend or authenticity actually are. The movie itself shows ” a social network” with Mark at it’s center – but its a sad, broken and treacherous one.

The film has been criticized for poorly portraying women, which is true, but this misses how the film poorly portrays everyone. Nearly every character is an embarrassment in some significant way, and the movie is largely criticizing the shallowness of elites (Harvard, Silicon valley, lawyers, VCs, the upper class, etc.).  The movie is a critique of the kinds of people who would choose to profit from changing the world based on the model of “facebooks” (e.g. yearbooks), relationship status and friending people. The point is:  it’s a 19 or 20 year old view of the universe, for better and, as the movie emphasizes, for worse. It’s notable Zuckerberg’s fiancé, with whom he was dating the entire duration of the time shown in the film, isn’t mentioned much less seen. But otherwise it’s hard to find particular bias: I doubt anyone feels great about how they are portrayed in this movie.

I’ve never met Zuckerberg, but his portrayal here is reminiscent of some people I knew in my Computer Science classes at CMU and in the tech sector today: young men who are arrogant, shy, brilliant, awkward, angry, passive-aggressive, misunderstood and possibly vicious.You’ll find a handful of people like this in any CS classroom, or in any tech start-up or IT department. One appeal of computers is they do exactly what you tell them, much unlike people, which tends to attract people with particular abilities and disabilities. Bill Gates psuedo cameo in the film is telling - go watch his deposition video and its clear he and Zuckerberg, as portrayed, have much in common (Of course anyone deposed is bound to be cranky, but still).

And more interesting, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellision, Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, Henry Ford and dozens of others of captains of industry weren’t lovable, likable or ethical either early in their careers (if ever), despite how we lionize them later. Films of their early lives would have similarities to The Social Network. Simply put, no one is forced to be a CEO or start a company. Those who do are often fueled by greed, arrogance, pride, insecurity or a need to prove something to someone who probably isn’t even paying attention, a point it’s clear David Fincher intended to make.

But much like the film Wall Street, which aimed to show the tragedy of the power brokers in finance but instead created a hero for a certain group of people, The Social Network, which was clearly designed as a tragedy, will have the same fate. Lots of young people will now see having a business card with “I’m CEO, bitch” as a goal worthy of spending their lives chasing, missing how much personal carnage this psychology created for this particular CEO and everyone around him.

How to watch a Michael Bay film

To get out of the 101 degree heat here in Seattle, I decided to take the afternoon off yesterday and go see a film. Only thing playing at the right time was Transformers 2.

I don’t hate Michael Bay, but I rarely like his films since I like movies that make sense. I admit Armageddon was fun, but I can’t say much for the others. Except for The Island which I thought was quite good – probably his best film. If not The Rock. Ok, fine. I guess I do like his films.  But if I do, it’s in part because I’ve learned how to prepare for them.

To prepare for Transformers 2, which I did enjoy, here’s what I did:

• Sit as far back as possible. He loves cramming as much CGI violence and camera movement as possible into the frame and it’s unwatchable unless you’re in the back few rows. Avoid the temptation to get close. You will lose.
• Turn off all plot seeking brain cells. They will be damaged. This is not Memento. This is not Shakespeare. Any positive effects disappear if you activate your higher brain.
• Read all the non-spoiling bad reviews. I skimmed through metacritic which lists all the high profile, and often hi-brow, reviews, and many roasted him alive. Even the complimentary ones ripped him in some serious way. This helped set my expectations very low. So low I debated going in fact. Friends don’t let friends OD on metacritic.
• Forget memories of preceding film in series or actual history.  I did see the first Transformers film, but deliberately avoided remembering any of it so I wouldn’t be disappointed by how much is repeated.
• Don’t think of it as a movie – it’s a mega abstract conceptual art project at a bargain. I paid $7.50 to see a film that cost $150 million to make. There are few bargains this good. By not thinking of it as a movie the pressure to have it make sense went away, and the cheezy jokes, cardboard cutout characters,  or racial stereotypes didn’t bother me. Instead my mind was free to wonder how many people were in charge of Megan Fox’s lip gloss. Or the conversations the CGI folks must have had about how a functioning robot that walks and gets hit by grenades and tank shells could convert in seconds into a functioning jet. Not thinking of it is as movie, and considering it a conceptual art project involving lots of special effects, freed me to daydream, which is a good thing to do when nothing is exploding or being chased in a Bay film.
• Imagine you are talking to a 12 year old boy. It does seem most of his movies are made for 12 year old boys, so it’s good to imagine you’re going to talk to one before sitting down in the theater. If the movie is based on a children’s toy you should know exactly what you’re in for in terms of sophistication. Transformers 2 is a finely made film for 12 year old boys, but if you’re not one yourself, you have some prep work to do.

It was a great way to get out of the heat and see some cool things blow up, including the now standard complement of various monuments and famous buildings.  And if the preview for 2012 was any indication, any buildings Bay hasn’t destroyed on film will be taken care of when that film hits the theaters.