Tag Archives: Nazi Germany

“The Man in the High Castle” Is Captivating Television

It has been some time since we took a look at some of the new offerings from the movie, television or music worlds and that is a good thing. First of all, I’m not going to waste your time telling you about something that is completely awful (I know I said Quantico wasn’t very good, but it hasn’t been canceled yet…that means some people must like it). If I am going to take the time to offer up something, 9 out of 10 times it is going to be worth checking out (or at least I think so). That is what we have when we look at a new offering that has just been released.

HighCastle

There is a completely new world out there when it comes to the streaming services. The days of when these outlets simply provided a way to catch the latest movies or watch an old show (or a new one) are causing rapid changes in what they offer. Part of their attractiveness is that they can be watched over virtually any device. In the beginning it was just computers, then the outlets branched into tablets, cellphones and video game devices. Now, the HDTVs that come out (with the spanking new 4K technology and “smart” TV capabilities) have one or more of these streaming outlets pre-programmed on them.

Maybe it is because of the above that the streaming outlets made the moves they did. Such outlets as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Hulu Plus have decided to swan-dive into the deep end of the pool and produce their own shows rather than just offer the other networks’ material (and, in most cases, pay out the ass for the programming). Since I wasn’t around for the start of House of Cards or even Orange is the New Black, I am trying to find something that I can get into that is new to many (and can take over while I wait for the spring session of Blindspot and the second season of Mr. Robot to start) and it appears that Amazon has the next big thing.

Released on November 20, The Man in the High Castle is a ten-episode series that was foisted on the public all at once, meaning you can take it in the traditional episodic doses or can fully immerse yourself in it through a “binge.” This method of “broadcasting” (hey, it’s the only term I can think of that applies) has its pros and cons; it does allow you to blast through it in one big marathon but, if you take it one or two episodes at a time, you might forget that you are watching it and not go back to the series (confession:  I DVRed The Player, meaning to watch it but never did. It was canceled two episodes into its run). With High Castle, I sincerely doubt that someone is going to forget they have it in the library.

The series is based on the book of the same name written by one of the great minds of U. S. literature, Philip K. Dick. Dick, who wrote the science fiction classic Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? that eventually became the basis for the classic 1982 film Blade Runner (one of my personal favorites), this time steps into the alternative history genre and has the same impact there that he had with science fiction. The person who brought High Castle to the air, Frank Spotnitz (best known for his work on The X-Files), also deserves kudos for producing an excellent product.

The year is 1962, ten years removed from “V-A Day,” or the day that Nazi Germany and the forces of Imperial Japan defeated the United States in World War II. As a part of the peace, the Nazis take over the Eastern part of the United States virtually all the way to the Rocky Mountains, renaming it the Greater Nazi Reich; the Japanese, for their efforts, take over from the West Coast to the Rockies with their Japanese Pacific States. Between the two, running the ridges of the Rockies, is a Neutral Zone to separate the Nazis and the Japanese that has become an area to provide living space for segments of society (minorities, homosexuals and other “deviants”) that would otherwise be persecuted or even killed for who or what they are.

It is a tenuous peace between the two international powers, however. An aging Adolf Hitler is in failing health and, as Himmler and Goebbels jockey for position to take over from him, the Japanese grow concerned that Hitler’s death would result in warfare that would force them out of the former United States. Since the end of WWII, Germany has become a technological powerhouse, developing the hydrogen bomb and planes that fly from New York to San Francisco in two hours, while Japan has languished in its imperial peace. This is an important part of the program, but it isn’t the only plotline to pay attention to as the show continues.

The show opens up with a young man, Joe Blake (Luke Kleintank), visiting a factory in New York City on the seemingly innocent premise of looking for a job. He strolls through a totalitarian Times Square replete with the Nazi swastika burnished on video boards and flags and, upon reaching the factory, finds the manager. As we sit in on their meeting, we discover it isn’t for a job in the factory; Joe is being hired to drive a truck across the Greater Nazi Reich to Canon City, a town in the Neutral Zone, for The Resistance, a rebel alliance looking to oust the Nazis from the country.

After demonstrating his will to do the job, Joe gets the keys from the manager just as Nazi troops raid the factory. While the bullets fly, Joe is able to get away from the factory intact, but everyone else is not so lucky. The Nazis summarily execute everyone who was in the factory save for the manager, who is taken into custody and, as we find out through the first episode, tortured mercilessly.

As Joe is doing this, we go to San Francisco where another part of the story is developing. Juliana Crain (Alexa Davalos), who has assimilated nicely into a post-war Japanese society (taking aikido lessons and embracing their medicinal and cultural offerings), is stunned to meet up with her half-sister who tells her she has a great new job. Later in the evening, Juliana and her sister meet again under much more dire circumstances; Juliana’s sister hands her a package and cryptically tells her to take care of it before running away. As Juliana hides in the shadows, Japanese soldiers execute her sister in the street.

Running home, a perplexed Juliana (why would soldiers kill her sister) looks in the bag her sister gave to her. In the bag is a film entitled The Grasshopper Lies Heavy and, after viewing the reel, Juliana discovers it is an alternate reality film based on what happened if the Allies had instead won World War II (you with me so far?). Spurred to action by watching the film and the death of her sister, Juliana leaves her boyfriend (Rupert Evans) who hides that he is part Jewish, a crime punishable by death even in the Japanese Pacific States, and heads for Canon City with a ticket procured for her sister to make the trip.

The remainder of the first episode brings our protagonists to Canon City. Blake has what might be called an uneventful run but discovers that, out on the Great Plains, hospitals are crematoriums for the sickly and elderly instead of healing (remember, that’s Nazi Country). Juliana has her own issues, with a female passenger on the bus she is taking to Canon City mysteriously stealing her belongings but not the movie reels. The first episode ends with a twist that I honestly didn’t see coming and, after seeing it, nearly made me rocket into the second episode rather than allowing the first one to sink in fully.

Beyond the point that we have several different plotlines intersecting in this one hour – the impending death of Hitler and the potential for war between the Nazi and Japanese, the trips of both Blake and Crain to Canon City to do what isn’t exactly known and the film (is it possible it’s true?) and its purpose – there is an attention to detail in creating the false reality of “this” divided U. S. nation that is remarkable. There are far too many things to point out that helped to convey the dread and dismay of the conditions of living in such a situation and, with the supporting cast, all viewpoints are offered (Crain’s mother hates the Japanese for killing her husband; Blake meets a police officer who was in the U. S. military but now accepts his fate with the Nazis). It potentially indicates that there are some deeper analogies that we might see in the future of the program.

The Man in the High Castle also showed me that there is a new reality to the future of television. Unrestrained by broadcast guidelines or traditional “broadcasting times,” these shows being put out by the streaming networks are quality works that should demand a great deal more attention from the viewing public. If every program was of the high quality that High Castle is, then there would be a greater impetus to “cut the cord” from normal cable and network broadcasting, which have become staid with their product.

If you haven’t had a chance to check out these streaming channels, you’re missing out on what could be a bountiful arena of choices for your viewing pleasure. You’re definitely missing out on one of the best programs of the year with The Man in the High Castle; I’d suggest climbing onboard the wagon soon for both the show and for the streaming channels.

If You Could Change Everything, Would You Do It?

TheThinker

One of the greatest traits of humans is their never-ceasing ability to question its surroundings, its science and even itself. The ability to innovate – Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press, Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison’s work in radio and electricity, Albert Einstein’s work with theoretical physics…all have expanded our knowledge of the world and, at the same time, expanded the knowledge of ourselves. But at what point does that innovation go beyond the expansion of human knowledge and enter into realms that shouldn’t be explored?

A recent article at BusinessInsider.com discussed the issue of what the next great innovation will be in technology. It won’t come in any grand leap in computer technology or even in some areas that would be truly fascinating, such as virtual reality. According to those who were surveyed, the next great “leap” will come in the arena of genetics.

This research, as related by BusinessInsider.com’s Kevin Loria, would be the ability to look at the human genome – the basic building block for the traits that make everyone individualistic – and be able to manipulate particular segments of the DNA code. Through the analysis, it is predicted that debilitating diseases could be found and cut out, potential errors in the DNA sequence could be reversed to prevent mental illness and even the creation of the “superhuman” resilient to all diseases could potentially be created.

This process, called gene-editing (also known as CRISPR), is something that has scientists in a frenzy as to the possibilities. “We’re basically able to have a molecular scalpel for genomes,” Jennifer Doudna, a biologist credited as one of the co-discoverers of CRISPR who has used the technology, is quoted by Loria. “All the technologies in the past were sort of like sledgehammers…This just gives scientists the capability do something that is incredibly powerful.”

The ever-inquisitive nature of humans reaches into every aspect of life, even (believe it or not) the 2016 Presidential campaign. A question in New York Times Magazine that was blasted over the internet – “Could you kill Baby Hitler?” – has become an intriguing experiment with the human psyche (according to the Times statisticians, 42% of people responded “yes,” 30% responded “no” and 28% “not sure”). The question, when posed to GOP Presidential candidate Jeb Bush, brought no hesitation in his reply.

Asked if he had the opportunity to kill an infant Hitler – if he knew what that baby would become but not what effect his death in infancy would have on the overall world – Bush responded to The Huffington Post, “Hell, yeah, I would! You gotta step up, man!” After some contemplation on the potential ramifications of such an act, Bush doesn’t change his mind, instead doubling down by repeating, “It could have a dangerous effect on everything else, but I’d do it – I mean, Hitler,” Bush concluded.

In essence, the question has become “If you could change everything, would you do it?”

People may hear the word “existential” in their lives but not really have an idea as to what it actually means. Many may hear the term “existential threat” and conjure up something that is a threat to their very existence. This is the literal definition of “existential”; for example, if a politician says “Vladimir Putin is an existential threat to the United States,” it literally means that Putin is a threat to the U. S. and its citizens.

When people use the term “existential questions,” they are actually pondering the meaning and thought behind the practice of living, the very essence of being. There is actually a branch of philosophy dedicated to existentialism, with the founders being the philosophers Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre and Fyodor Dostoyevsky (among others). There are different branches on the Tree of Existentialism, but basically they all come back to the individual being the starting point for pretty much everything.

Finally, an “existential crisis” sounds like something that might come out of deep introspection through Existentialism, but is actually a tool used to joke about someone who is thinking too deeply (normally about themselves). If you’ve heard the term “navel gazing,” then this is what they were talking about.

In looking at these two circumstances, there is plenty to think about in these two “existential questions.” With the first subject, mankind would have the ability to pretty much eradicate any issues that may face humanity. Conditions such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, neuromuscular diseases (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis (MS) and others) could be an afterthought in the future if doctors could identify in a single strand of DNA those “trigger points” and remove them from the sequence rather than let them reach actual life.

Then there would be the “other side” of the equation, however. With the ability to manipulate the genome to take away disease, people could also ensure that they have a blonde-haired, blue-eyed child (boy or girl), cause mutations in musculature or height, even perhaps remove the ability to feel pain or maybe even block emotional feelings. While the ability to edit the genome may be a breakthrough that leads us into a bold new future, it could also lead us down a dark path to manipulation.

In the case of Governor Bush, the question has been the subject of plenty of alternate history and science fiction tomes. The killing of Hitler – whether as a child (the preferred theory as he would supposedly be defenseless) or before he reached the apex of his power in Nazi Germany (the theory here is during his service in World War I) – would have theoretically prevented the horror that was World War II and additionally the ghastly philosophy that Hitler inflicted on the Jewish race, the Final Solution (or the Holocaust). If this were to be done from OUR future, however, what would be the ramifications?

The theory on this part is the “Butterfly Effect” which basically says even the smallest action has bigger ramifications (the “butterfly” flapping its wings causes a hurricane thousands of miles away). With the death of Hitler, would WWII have been avoided? At what point would you kill Hitler, in his youth or as an adult? If you waited until he was an adult, would that be too late?

The existential questions continue…if Hitler hadn’t come along at that particular point in history, could someone else who lived in that time simply taken his place? What if one of the people who died during WWII actually went on to discover a cure for cancer or significant breakthroughs in another scientific field? Add into this the fact that, no matter how many times people may use the term “I could kill you,” the ability for one human to kill another isn’t as easy as it sounds, there is plenty to think about.

For myself, the first question is surprisingly easy. As a general rule, I would be against any manipulation of the human genetic code, but as a way of eradicating disease it would be a viable idea. If the debilitating diseases that plague mankind (yes, even the Plague) could be controlled and/or eliminated, think of the improvements in people’s lives (and the ability to bring down medical costs and spending on disease control)! We would be tremendously advanced as a species if we could improve on our basic genetic code and its inherent imperfections to the point of eliminating them completely.

Where I would have a problem, though, is when it is done for simply cosmetic or aesthetic purposes. Don’t like your eye color? Changing your genetic code (or doing it to an in utero child) just so you can satisfy your own vanity is about the most narcissistic thing imaginable. In my mind, we don’t come up with tremendous breakthroughs in our existence to simply use them to change what we see in the mirror, we come up with them to improve mankind and its world.

The second question is a much thornier one. Besides being one of the pivotal moments in human history, not just the 20th century, World War II and its players had a seminal impact on how the world is shaped today. By eliminating Hitler from the equation – and, in theory, eliminating the catalyst for the start of WWII – what effect would that have on the world today? You may not think that is a big deal, but (using the “Butterfly Effect”) what if the lack of WWII caused your grandfather to not enter the military, where he would meet your grandmother at a base dance that led to their marriage and the birth of your father/mother? The resulting theory would be that YOU do not exist.

I would have to use one of science fiction’s greatest creations in musing over killing Hitler or not. In the Star Trek universe, the Prime Directive is the governing philosophy of the United Federation of Planets. In that codified theory, representatives of the Federation aren’t to have an impact on developing societies or their historical direction. With this in mind – and the potential ramifications, both good and bad, in the historical sense – I would have to say that I wouldn’t kill Hitler if given the chance. There is simply too much that could occur otherwise – and in some cases, could be even worse – than even the genocide, hatred and pain that Hitler’s short existence brought about.

Where would you land on these subjects? And what does it say about you? If you could change everything, would you do it?