Thoughts on the democratic presidential primary.

Like many others, over the last few months I've been paying a lot of attention to the ongoing democratic presidential primaries. I've spent more than enough time following the candidates, the debates, the polls and the actual primaries (results broadcasts).

Indeed, as a some sort of a political junkie (from Scandinavia), I can't help but to be interested in the U.S. politics. I find it to be so fascinating and interesting - especially because there are so many things so wrong with how the political system works there.

In any case, so far we've had two primaries (in Iowa and in New Hampshire) and based on those states, the frontrunner is none other than senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. He's the most likely to become the nominee for the democrats in the November election.

The reason for this is that as a presidential candidate, he's pretty much the only person who actually cares and is trying to help others. He has a consistent history of pushing issues like medicare for all, free college and green new deal - which voters find to be popular.

At the same time, even though Bernie is doing well, it's not guaranteed yet that he's going to be the nominee for the democrats. There are still obstacles left that he needs to clear before he gets his chance to battle Donald Trump in the November election.

So when it comes to the candidates that were the biggest threat for Bernie, at first it seemed that former vice-president Joe Biden would be the one to beat. It seemed that he was the one who was unbeatable and who would stay high in the polls.

However, right before the first primaries, after months of speculation, Biden finally tanked in the polls. It took much longer than expected but his support finally took a hit (first two primaries Biden placing 4th in Iowa and 5th New Hampshire was a disaster for him).

Another candidate that actually did well in the first two states is South Bend Indiana's mayor Pete Buttigieg. He's the candidate that has gotten a huge amount of free positive press from the mainstream media (he's an obvious Wall Street candidate).

However, the problem with Pete is that even though he tied with Bernie in Iowa, he doesn't have a strong campaign infrastructure or support from the minorities (especially blacks). This is such an issue that he won't probably make it much further in the race.

The last remaining card for the corporate democrats seems to be former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who only got in the race a couple of months ago. He was so late that he didn't even meet the deadlines to take part in the Iowa & New Hampshire primaries.

The real danger about him is that Bloomberg as a billionaire oligarch (he even has a news service named after him) has unlimited amount of money to spend (worth 52 billion dollars). He has already spent at least 400 million dollars on his campaign out of his own pockets.

At the same time, the problem with Bloomberg is that he has a pretty awful history as a Mayor. He has his problems with racism (unconstitutional 'stop and frisk' in NY), numerous sexual harassment cases and other things that should sink his campaign.

So based on all these things, when you look at the primaries so far, even though you can't tell for sure how things are going to go, it currently looks like that there is a path for Bernie Sanders. It looks like he might actually get the nomination here.

Indeed, not only does he have the best campaign operation going (pulls big crowds, the most amount of individual donors etc.), but he's also the real deal. He has managed to give people real hope, which is what matters and why things look so good.

Still, when you take into account that the mainstream media and the DNC (democratic party apparatus) are 100% against his candidacy, one has to tread carefully here. One shouldn't take anything for granted until he has managed to get the majority of the delegates.

After all, considering that the 'notorious' Nevada's caucus is next, the DNC is going to pull all the stops in trying to kneecap Bernie and his presidential campaign. They (like in 2016) most certainly aren't going to give him the nomination without a fight.

In that sense, when it comes to next Saturday's caucus in Nevada, I really hope that Bernie will win there. I hope he wins the caucus, because even though pretty much nothing is guaranteed in this election, clearly he's the best candidate to beat Trump in November.

'Classic' novels aren't always that well written.

A couple of weeks ago I noticed that our home library - that has hundreds of books - included a copy of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel 'The Great Gatsby'. I noticed the book on our bookshelf and thought that perhaps I should give it a chance and read it. 

After all, even though I haven't been reading books that much lately, I thought that it was time to pick up on that hobby again. The novel would be a quick read anyway (it has 150 pages) and I thought that I could perhaps watch the film adaptation later too.

Having now read the original novel and having also seen the latest film adaptation (that stars Leonardo DiCaprio) I have to say that I wasn't really impressed with either the book or the film. Both of them left a lot to be desired and were disappointing if I'm being honest here.

So when it comes to Fitzgerald's 'Great Gatsby', one of the biggest problems with this 'tale about the mysterious millionaire' is that there isn't much of a story to tell. There isn't a properly structured drama or character arcs that we could actually care about.

What this means in practice is that when it comes to the original book version and its story, the story doesn't even begin until we reach its last fifty pages. Before that, all the book does is describe some 'upper class' parties that don't really amount to much.

What makes this approach so bad story-wise is that since nothing meaningful happens during these earlier pages, the characters don't get a chance to develop properly. We don't get any of those crucial character defining moments that matter (character = plot).

Indeed, in the book version we don't get to know anything meaningful about Jay Gatsby and his *mysterious* background that we're supposed to care about. The character is so underdeveloped and one-dimensional that you just don't get to invest to him at all.

In contrast, the reason that movie version works at least a bit better is that it at least tries to give us some of those character beats earlier. The movie gives us bits about Gatsby's background that makes the film more plausible (like his vulnerability - not in the book).

At the same time, just because the movie is structurally a bit better and handles exposition better than the book, that doesn't mean that the film works that well as a whole. There are still tons of problems with both the book and the film version.

Indeed, among other things, one of the worst things about both the book and the movie has to do with its main character Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire). As the narrator, he doesn't contribute anything to the story and all he does is passively follow the rest.

Not surprisingly, once we - in the final third of the book / film finally get to the 'dramatic' moments in the story, things don't really get much better either. The stuff that happens in both versions comes out of nowhere and there is no natural build up to anything.

Indeed, especially once the *car accident* happens, all I could think was that the event was nothing more than a desperate 'deux ex machina'. There's no build up to it (including the forced fatal aftermath) and the whole thing feels contrived and convoluted.

In that sense, when I think about 'The Great Gatsby' as a whole, it's pretty clear that just because a book might have a great reputation, that doesn't always mean that much. There's no guarantee that it's 'objectively' speaking well written and that its story works.

After all, even though a lot of so called 'classics' actually are worth their praise, you still need to be cautious about them. You need judge these books based on their actual storytelling merit and not give them a pass just because times were different back then.

In that sense, in the end, if you're in a position to make a movie about a well regarded 'classic' novel, you should definitely make sure that it has a story that works. You should first make certain that its reputation is earned and not based on some other qualities.

After all, even though classics can be well made, especially in the case of 'The Great Gatsby' (ranked #2 book of all time in the U.S) this is just not true. You shouldn't be thinking that its readable prose makes it instantly great and awesome.

On the contrary, from an objective perspective, there are simply too many flaws in the book. These flaws, like its bland characters, bad structure and lack of story are serious and are the real reason why 'The Great Gatsby's' film adaptations have never really worked.

The Mandalorian: Season 1 reviewed.

When it comes to the new 'Star Wars' movies, it's not exactly a secret that audiences around the world haven't been that happy about these films. Especially when it comes to the new trilogy (VII to IX), the quality of these movies have left a bit too much to be desired.

At the same time, even though most of the new films in the series haven't necessarily been that good, the latest television series in the franchise has actually delivered. 'Star Wars: The Mandalorian' has been a surprise hit and has been rather well received. 

Having now seen the first season of 'The Mandalorian' (that consists of eight one hour episodes), I have to say that the show didn't disappoint. It managed to keep me entertained during its first season, even though the series could have been even better too.

So when it comes the things that I liked about the series, one of the best things about 'Mandalorian' is that it keeps things simple. As a series it manages to pay attention to the basics and doesn't try to be too fancy or anything else like that.

In practice, what this means is that unlike in the official Star Wars films, in this one our main character is not someone who has super powers. Instead, our character is a 'simple' bounty hunter called 'Mandalorian', who is a gun for hire for different tasks.

Indeed, in the first chapter of the series, after being introduced to him as a no nonsense character that takes no crap from anyone, he gets his mission that sets him on a journey. We see him being hired - by some imperial forces - to find some special mysterious person. 

Not surprisingly, over the course of the first episode our protagonist runs into all kinds of situations. There's the usual back and forth banter, there's some interplanetary traveling and after our character reaches his destination, some fights and battles too.

What makes this 'mission' so interesting is that at the end of the first episode, we're shown what the whole thing is about. Once our hero reaches his target and finishes his opponents, it turns out that the person that he was searching is none other than 'Baby Yoda'.

Indeed, this reveal on the show is why people have been so happy about 'The Mandalorian'.  The audience - including me - really liked that our grumpy helmet-wearing hero becomes a guardian to that cute little thing with big eyes and ears (and some actual 'Force').

After all, the reason that we care about what happens later during the season is that the hero has to protect 'Yoda' from the imperial forces. He does his best to keep the cute creature safe - which isn't always easy and requires some 'magic' from the baby too.

So based on these things, when I look back at the first season as a whole, I think it's pretty clear that the show managed to get this 'Yoda' + 'Mandalorian' thing right. It managed to create characters that we would actually relate to and care about.

After all, even though there's really nothing wrong with the grumpy main character, Yoda's presence gives the show its much needed contrast that makes things click. It gives us a reason to care and reminds us what the whole thing really is about.

In that sense, now that we're looking forward to the show's second season, hopefully the writers won't screw things up next season. I hope that they manage to come up with storylines and episodes that will keep us entertained and invested in the show.

After all, even though 'The Mandalorian' during its first season was pretty solid, there were a couple of stand-alone episodes that just weren't up to the standard. These episodes seemed to lack purpose and weren't that well thought out to be honest.

Still, when it comes to the show as a whole, if you haven't managed to give it a chance yet, you should give the series a go and check it out. You should give the series a chance and not be discouraged by the trilogy movies that have been released lately.

After all, even though episodes VII-IX were a bit disappointing, this television series works and gets things right. 'The Mandalorian' gets things right and shows that 'Star Wars', despite all its problems still is alive as a franchise and is able to deliver the goods.

Movies that I've managed to see this month.

So when it comes to the movies that have been released in the theatres lately, I have actually managed to see some of them in the recent weeks. I managed to watch these films with my friends who were kind enough to join me at the local cinema.

Indeed, over the last month or so we managed to watch the Matt Damon / Christian Bale vehicle 'Ford v Ferrari', Rian Johnson's homage to Agatha Christie called 'Knives Out' and of course the latest Star Wars film 'Rise of The Skywalker'. 

So when it comes to the first movie that I saw, I saw 'Ford v Ferrari' with my friend who was visiting us all the way from Canada. We decided to give the movie a chance because it looked good and seemed to be a great experience based on its reviews.

After all, based on its rave reviews alone (92% fresh from the critics and 98% fresh from the audience) the film looked like it was must watch stuff. There was no way we were going to miss an opportunity like this to have fun together.

Not surprisingly, the movie about the 'underdog' car manufacturing company Ford trying to challenge the ultimate race car Ferrari in the Le Mans 24 h race did not disappoint. Both me and my friend were totally on the edge of our seats almost from start to finish.

Indeed, even though 'Ford v. Ferrari' works well as a drama - thanks to its competent acting (especially the incredible Christian Bale) and writing - what really 'made' the movie was its racing scenes. I have never seen a better racing movie in my life if I'm being honest.

As a whole. what made the film and its racing scenes especially great is that special effects were used relatively sparingly. It really felt like you were part of the race and you couldn't help but to feel the danger and the rush that is involved in being a racing driver.

In hindsight, the only tiny problem that I had with the movie had to do with its ending. Like probably many others, I'm not sure that we really needed that last ten minutes of the film, even though it had to do with the filmmakers being honest about the aftermath too.

Still, when you put it all together, 'Ford v Ferrari' was certainly a movie that managed to deliver. I absolutely loved seeing the film - especially in a theatre - and I would highly recommend it for everyone to see it on the big screen if only possible.

So the second film that I saw with my friend is 'Knives Out', a classic who-dune-it murder-in-the-family mystery about the murder of a successful patriarch. This is a film that we saw since my friend was excited about it and thought that it would be worth watching. 

Indeed, since my friend is a big time reader among other things, it shouldn't have come as a surprise that she would like to see a story like this on a big screen. She clearly has a knack for movies that have a 'classic' story written all over them.

Fortunately, going to the cinema with her to see the film wasn't a hard decision. The fact that 'Knives Out' had gotten superb reviews (96% fresh from the critics on Rottentomatoes.com) made it a safe choice to go watch it in theatres.

So having seen the film, I have to say that 'Knives Out' turned out to pretty exciting and entertaining. Even though I still had some tiny doubts before seeing it, this ensemble movie kept us entertained from start to finish and didn't disappoint us.

Indeed, as you kept watching the film and trying to guess what really happened - and who actually killed Christopher Plummer's character, there's something for everyone. There's solid drama, there's humour and there are some genuinely touching moments too.

Storywise, the biggest reason that the film works so well is because of the maid character (played by Ana De Armas). Once this genuinely relatable character runs into trouble (no spoilers here), you can't help but to empathize with her and hope for the best.

In hindsight, the only tiny problem with 'Knives Out' is that even though the story makes sense on paper, it feels a bit too convoluted as you watch it unfold. I couldn't help but to think (wrongly though) that there were plot holes and other issues too.

Still, when it all is said and done, as a whole I'm more than happy that we saw the film together. 'Knives Out' turned out to be a solid film and certainly redeemed director Rian Johnson a bit after his not-so-well-received 'The Last Jedi'.

Finally, the third and the last film that I (in this case) saw with my friends is 'Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker'. This a film that we saw last Saturday when we didn't have anything better to do during that evening.

After all, when it comes to the movie, we didn't have our hopes up since we had already read the reviews for the film and knew that it wasn't going to be that great (54% fresh at Rottentomatoes.com). We knew that there were going to be problems in it.

Not surprisingly, having seen 'The Rise of The Skywalker', it has to be said that there are a lot of flaws in the movie and the new trilogy. As unfortunate as it is, this final chapter just didn't work as well as one would have hoped.

Indeed, when it comes to the problems and issues, one of the biggest reasons that the new episodes didn't work is that the writers didn't have a roadmap to follow. There was no overarching story for the trilogy, which made the movies inconsistent and incoherent.

Another problem with the new movies was that the producers - as sad as it is - killed all the original characters. I don't know what they were thinking when they got rid of Han Solo's or especially Luke Skywalker's character, because we really cared about them.

Still, perhaps the biggest problem with the new saga was that the main character Rey had no noticeable arc (no development). Instead of going through 'a hero's journey,' she immediately knew everything about being a Jedi and had no real struggles.

In that sense, even though this new trilogy and its last movie had its moments - especially the last 30 minutes of 'The Rise of The Skywalker' were solid, I was pretty disappointed. I was disappointed how underwhelming the new trilogy turned out to be.

After all, even though I haven't been a 'super fan' of the series, I still expected more from these new movies. I expected more from these films, because clearly the series had potential to deliver something better and more exciting than what we were eventually given.

Know when to trust your eyes as a writer.

So when it comes to making assessments about the quality of your writing, it's not always easy to figure out whether your stuff works. It's not easy to automatically see where you possibly went wrong with the script and why.

After all, as a writer, it's pretty much guaranteed that you tend to get lost in the process as you keep going. The longer you write, the less you're able to see the forest for the trees, no matter how much you might keep telling yourself otherwise.

At the same time, once you actually manage to take that break from writing and get yourself a fresh pair of eyes, things change considerably. It's pretty remarkable how quick and accurate your assessment about the script can be sometimes.

For example, if I take that break from my project and later (the very next day with articles) get back to the task, even a fast glimpse at the text can show that things don't work. A quick cursory look is all that it might take to see that there are problems.

What this means in practice is that if I'm about to start rewriting the article and have read the first half of it (that works), I might already see that there's a problem with the latter half. Without reading the rest, my eyes are already telling me that I screwed up.

The reason for this is that even though I haven't read the full text, I already see that there's something wrong with it length-wise (missing stuff, too short). My mind can see (based on the pacing & the correct structure) how the text should look when it's done right.

After all, if you notice that the second half of the text seems to be too short (or way too long), it's certain that there are logical / transition problems that need to be fixed. (note: 'correct' length doesn't guarantee that the text works as it should).

This same approach - trusting your eyes - also applies to bigger projects like books where you really have to make sure that your structure / pacing works well. In these cases it's crucial that you're able to see when things don't seem to work.

For example, when I started rewriting my book and went through the pages on my notepad, it became obvious pretty fast that there were problems. As I went through the pages, my eyes (that looked at the sidebar) knew that the pacing was simply off.

By that I mean that once I had read the first 1/3rd in the story (structure-wise), as I kept checking the sidebar, I noticed that I had already gone past the 50% mark in actual pages. This was an absolutely terrible thing pacing-wise and meant that I was in trouble.

After all, even though the script doesn't have to be completely in sync with the story 'structure' or the 'formula', it still has to be close enough. You cannot tell a good story if (for example) the latter half of the story happens in the last 10% of the pages.

Fortunately, in this case, once I started rewriting the story and tried to make sure that the chapters would be well paced, little by little the script started to look better. It didn't seem like the pacing was as obviously off as it was in the beginning.

After all, once I had finished the rewriting process, I noticed that the whole thing seemed to work really well now. The story had finally a solid flow from start to finish and actually felt good (I had increased the word count by a whopping 60%).

In that sense, when it comes to this whole thing, it's pretty clear that if you ever find yourself in a situation where it 'looks' like there's a problem with your script, you should take that feeling seriously. You should take the gut feeling seriously and not ignore it.

After all, even though there are certainly exceptions to the rule (like being too tired from too much writing), in most cases your eyes are onto something. They know that there's a problem, even though your brain might not have figured out the details yet.

In that sense, especially when it comes to my book project, it's fairly clear that had I not trusted my eyes when I re-read the draft, I probably would have not fixed the script. It's very likely that I would have just thought that the book was good already and that was it.

After all, especially considering that I had gotten good reviews from my readers and other stuffs, I was clearly in the danger zone here. There was every reason for me to get too comfortable and complacent with my 'very first book ever'.

Fortunately though, even though I lacked experience, in the end, I did trust my eyes once I gave the draft a fresh look after a break. Once I gave another look at the script, I knew that there was a big problem and that my work with the task had not been finished.

Observations about the rewriting process (book).

So when it comes to my book writing project, it can be finally said that - after months of rewriting - it looks like that I've managed to get it more or less completed. It looks like that I'm in a situation where I can't do that much to make it better anymore.

Indeed, over the last few days I've noticed that the story finally seems to work pretty well from start to finish. The book is long enough, the pacing is solid and the story doesn't seem to have moments where you think that it's not believable enough.

Not surprisingly, getting the story to work and readable enough hasn't been that easy or effortless. There have been moments when I have really needed patience and resilience because otherwise things wouldn't have worked out at all.

So when it comes to those annoying surprises that I had during the rewriting process, one of them was how difficult it was to fix certain specific problems in the story. No matter what I did, the fixes didn't seem to work (they initially looked good, but not later).

The problem in these cases was that I had a tendency to micromanage things too much. I more or less thought that as long as I would change some of the specific words, the whole thing would miraculously start to work again (it never did).

In reality, in case you face a situation that doesn't seem to work, it's usually a better strategy to find a solution where (for example) your character simply tries to do something else. That way it's much more likely that the scene will feel more natural and plausible.

Another thing that surprised me during the rewriting process was how much I actually needed to rewrite the book. It's not enough to give your chapters a couple of rewrites and think that it's enough - especially when it comes to those later chapters.

In my case, I found it to be especially frustrating that even though I had fixed the earlier chapters in the book, I had not polished the latter ones enough. I just thought they would be solid because the earlier ones worked too (complete lack of logic there).

Thankfully, when it came to these later chapters, you pretty much 'just' needed to have the patience to revisit and re-re-rewrite them again. You needed to have the patience to keep going and rewrite so that the story could actually become good enough.

Still, when it comes to this whole rewriting process, there was clearly one thing that surprised me the most. By far the biggest surprise (a positive one) was how much the rewriting process actually can have an effect on the length of the book.

After all, when I first wrote here about me starting to rewrite the book, I wrote that perhaps at best I could increase the page count by something like 25%. That was pretty much the best case scenario and I thought I was already reaching a bit with that estimation.

Yet, once I was finally done with rewriting the last chapter in the book, it turned out that I had increased the length of the book by almost 60%. That was a big surprise and made all the difference in making the story as well paced and enjoyable as possible.

In that sense, now that I've finished the script and have started sending it to different publishers, I'm pretty sure that I've done my best here with the project. I'm pretty certain that I've tried my best to make sure that the story could be as good as it can only be.

After all, not only did I manage - in all likelihood - to fix those specific problems in the book, I also managed to re-re-re-write the latter chapters. These efforts helped to make the story 'long enough' and also gave the book as a whole a good flow.

In the end, whether the book is eventually at some point going to get published, is another issue. There are certainly no guarantees and I shouldn't be thinking that it's a shoe-in to get it published by one of the major companies out there.

After all, no matter how good the book is and how much value it might have, it's still a bit of a crapshoot to break it in the industry. It's not guaranteed that I'll be published with this story (it was difficult for J.K.Rowling too) no matter how much I'd want it to happen.

At the same time, considering how hard I've worked with the project, I think I would deserve to get lucky here. I think I deserve to get lucky here, because even though the book could always be a tiny bit better, in my opinion it's still good enough to be published.

Review: 'Super Size Me 2 - Holy Chicken'.

So when it comes to things that I've seen lately, during the last couple of weeks me and my friend have watched documentary films. We've tried to watch some of the latest documentaries that we have found to promising and that could be worth our time.

After all, even though I prefer watching movies in general, I can't deny that watching documentaries might actually make you a bit more informed. There's a chance that you might learn something and that the stuff might enlighten you as a person.

So when it comes to the documentary that we watched, it wasn't a difficult decision to choose what to watch. Once we noticed that filmmaker Morgan Spurlock had come up with a sequel to 'Super Size Me', we wanted to see the documentary right away.

After all, the original 'Super Size Me' was about a guy who tried eating junk food for 30 days at McDonalds. It was about testing and monitoring what happens to your health and your body when you eat nothing but fast food 24/7. 

Thankfully, in 'Super Size Me 2 - Holy Chicken' Spurlock does not stuff food in his mouth (except in the poster). Instead, this time as a chicken farmer / restaurant owner he studies the chicken fast food industry in the U.S. and the industry's marketing.

Indeed, the film is basically an expose of the living conditions of chickens and the claims of the fast food marketing department. It shows all kinds of ethical lapses within the industry and how false most - if not all - the claims that the restaurant chains make are.

So when it comes to story of the film, the first part (out of three) is about Spurlock setting up his own chicken farm. This is the part when see how easy it is to find loopholes for raising the chickens and how individual farmers are being destroyed by the corporate greed. 

The second part in the film is about the advertising industry and how fast food chains mislead about their products. We visit marketing firms & taste labs where we see all kinds of examples about how we are lied about stuffs ('free-range', 'all natural', 'bbq grilled' etc.)

The third part of the documentary is when he finally decides to open his brutally honest 'Holy Chicken' restaurant. He does that so that he could educate people about the industry and how completely misleading it is (with some unexpected results).

So when it comes to the quality of the film, like many others, I found the documentary to be mostly pretty well made. There are a lot of things to appreciate and one can't help but to respect the fact that Spurlock takes a hands on approach with the subject matter.

After all, what is better way to get know about the industry than to start raising those so called free-ranged chicken by yourself. This way we get to see what is required to be in the business and how things are done (thankfully he doesn't blame the farmers).

Another good thing about the film has to do with the marketing claims and 'cheats' with the chicken products. You can't help but to laugh at things like the fact that those charcoal stripes in barbequed chickens are actually painted in.

At the same time, even though I did enjoy the film, I also have to say there were some story problems in the documentary. The 'story' in 'Super Size Me 2' didn't feel particularly natural or smooth and the transitions felt a bit too forced and contrived.

After all, there are clearly timeline problems in the film that make you wonder what happened and when. These really hurt the film's flow - like the fact that they didn't use his chickens to provide meat for his restaurant (chicken footage 2016, restaurant 2018).

Still, when I think about the film as a whole, it has to be said that despite these flaws in the story, the positives nevertheless managed to outweigh the negatives. There's clearly enough material to keep you interested and that these points are pretty well made in the film.

In that sense, if you haven't seen the movie yet, you should give it a chance and watch it. You should watch 'Super Size Me 2 - Holy Chicken', because even though the film could have been better, it was still worth watching and was worth my time.