Interview With Robert Gardner

A few weeks ago I interviewed legendary documentary filmmaker Robert Gardner for The Brooklyn Rail, in conjunction with film screenings at Anthology Film Archives and the DVD release of Gardner's 1970's vintage TV show, The Screening Room. You can read the interview here. Conducting the interview was an honor and a pleasure: I'm a great admirer of Gardner's films (especially Forest of Bliss) and he was exceptionally generous and cordial. I hope the interview went well. At the very least, Jennifer MacMillan liked it.

Mea Culpa

My apologies to my few, hardy readers. After a long hiatus, I finally logged in to Blogger. Only to discover, to my dismay, that I had inadvertently set comments to "moderate." And failed miserably in my moderation. To all those whose thoughtful comments were left in limbo - Rob, Ben, Chris, &c. - my humblest apologies. As my penance, I'll see if I can't post something once in awhile. The judge doesn't seem to mind, so long as I keep it sufficiently innocuous.

An Uncommonplace Book

My good friend Patrick Ciccone alerts me to his new An Uncommonplace Book weblog, where he posts assorted quotations on various subjects. A representative example:

Obsolete Morality #1
This new form of entertainment has gone far to blast maidenhood… Depraved adults with candies and pennies beguile children with the inevitable result. The Society has prosecuted many for leading girls astray through picture shows, but GOD alone knows how many are leading dissolute lives begun at the “moving pictures.”

The Annual Report of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Children, 1909

Review of Wanda by Barbara Loden

Somehow, I never seem to get writing assignments until I leave town. Started writing for Cineaste when I moved to DC and The Brooklyn Rail when I moved to Olympia. So, appropriately, a week before moving to Alaska, The Stranger asked me to review the DVD release of Barbara Loden's Wanda. A largely-forgotten verite-style feature made in 1970, Wanda looked promising... but didn't deliver. In any case, you can read the review here.

Magic Lantern Masterpieces

Attention! My good friend Ben Russell of Providence, Rhode Island's Magic Lantern Cinema informs me posters from past programs are now available for sale. One (or more!) of these lovely, limited edition, hand-silkscreened compositions by assorted artists can be yours for a mere $15. Just click here to purchase. And I can personally attest to their fine craftsmanship and charm. Pictured is the poster for The Magic Show, which I was particularly sorry to miss. I urge you to place your order as soon as possible. They cannot last long.

Stan Brakhage Reader Review

I recently reviewed Stan Brakhage: Filmmaker, David James's new collection of essays on Stan Brakhage, for Senses of Cinema. The review appears here.

July 28-29, 2006: From the Temple of Justice to the Fortress of Solitude

Our last week in Olympia began with a party, our first and last in the little stucco house on Bigelow Street. The weekend was hot and dry, and a pair of trees down the street framed the Lakefair fireworks like a proscenium. They weren't so impressive as all that - or perhaps I'm jaded after NYC - but it seemed a bit like they were sending us off. Unfortunately, I didn't get any pictures. So above you see me in the new glasses Carrie found for me at the Goodwill. They look just like Opu's. And the coke-bottle lenses are quite appropriate, if only metaphorically.
I was up all night Thursday finishing my last opinion for Justice Sanders, who pronounced it "pretty good." From him, that's high praise, and much appreciated. And it was a relief to know I left him all caught up. The judge's comments are often spare, but always incisive. Looking back over what I wrote for him this year, I was pleasantly surprised to realize how much better I've gotten. On Friday, Justice Sanders took the office out to lunch, then Sylvia organized coffee and cake in the afternoon, where I took some pictures. Here you see Justice Sanders in the middle and my co-clerk Marcin Grabowski on the left.
And here you see Sylvia Campbell, Justice Sanders's administrative assistance and my savior. My absent-mindedness is legendary, at least among those obliged to put up with it (ask Carrie and my brother). And Sylvia ensured I could focus on the things I actually do reasonably well (i.e. research & writing) without stepping on any landmines. Beatification seems quite appropriate. The miracle: no irremediable catastrophes.
Luckily, we landed some excellent interns this year, starting with Troy, then Kurt, and finally Wesley Hottot, whom who see above. Wesley's a UW law student. But he's originally from VA, where he worked on the VA Film Festival the year I attended. Somehow, I suspect I met him at the party at the vast old plantation house on the mountain. But I can't be sure. In any case, I only got to work with Wesley for about a month. But it was a true pleasure, as he really cares about the cases and what they stand for, and made sure even every motion to modify was just right.
Some of the other clerks have already left, but many of those still remaining were able to attend. I didn't get a picture until the end of the party. Here you see Jessica Fogel, Grace, and Jessica from the left, and Wesley and Marcin from the right. And I close with a snapshot of Justice Sanders. Goodbye Temple of Justice. I should have cried, wanted to salute, and just walked away smiling Friday afternoon, leaving the walnut, marble, and mountains of papers behind. I miss Olympia already. And somehow I suspect I'll see it again someday. On to Alaska. Another state, another judge.

Interview with Bruce McClure

I recently interviewed filmmaker Bruce McClure for The Brooklyn Rail. We discussed how McClure makes his films, how they work, and how they've developed over the years. You can read the interview here.

Paving Georgia in Solar Cells?

Professor Reynolds is cautiously pollyannaish on the future of solar energy. An MIT professor working on "quantum dot photovoltaics" suggests we could supply all US energy needs by covering 2% of the continental US with photovoltaic systems working at 10% efficiency. But as Reynolds notes, "Two percent is a LOT of land." Indeed it is. The Truth Laid Bear figures it as, well, Georgia. And asks, "So: who's for paving over Georgia?"
Now, I'm no mathematician. And I know less than nothing about solar energy. But I thought to do some figuring myself. My (admittedly back-of-the-envelope) calculations suggest the MIT man was asking for a bit more real estate than he needed.
About 1 kilowatt of solar energy per square meter reaches the ground. So a photovoltaic cell working at 10% efficiency (which is pretty standard, apparently) produces .1 kilowatt, or about 876 kwh per year. The US uses about 3500 billion kwh a year. Which means we'd need about 3,995,443,800 square meters, or about 4000 square kilometers of solar panels to cover current energy use. The total area of the US is 9,629,091 square kilometers, of which 9,158,960 square kilometers is land. Figuring we'd only put solar cells on land, I put 4,000 square kilometers to be about .04% of the of the United States. Or rather, a hair more than Rhode Island.
That's still a lot of solar cells. But at least it sounds remotely plausible.

In re Palsgraf

Peter Lattman of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports on the Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York's recent re-enactment of Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Apparently, New York Court of Appeals judge and Historical Society trustee Albert Rosenblatt chose Palsgraf, arguably the most important case in American tort law.
As every law student knows, Palsgraf was a 1928 case with an unusual - fantastic, really - fact pattern. A man carrying a sealed box was late for his train, and the railroad workers gave him a push to help him on. He dropped the box, which landed on the tracks. Unfortunately, the box was full of fireworks, which exploded, causing a railroad scale to fall on Helen Palsgraf. When she acquired a stammer as a result of the injury, she sued the railroad for negligence.
Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Cardozo's opinion for a 4-3 court dismissed Palsgraf's claim, finding her injury unforseeable. Judge Andrews's dissent argued proximate case is a question of fact for the jury. Despite questions regarding the honesty of its account of the events, see, e.g., William H. Manz, Palsgraf: Cardozo's Urban Legend, 107 Dick. L. Rev. 785 (2003), ultimately, Palsgraf established the legitimacy of treating the scope of tort liability as a policy question. Or rather, it provided cover for judges to decide certain questions of fact, rather than let them go to the jury.
But today's New York Court of Appeals (or rather a simulacrum thereof, consisting of New York Court of Appeals judge Harold Levine; New York’s Solicitor General Caitlin Halligan ; Roy Reardon of Simpson Thacher; Bettina Plevan of Proskauer Rose; and Judy Livingston of Kramer Dillof) is having none of it. The re-enacting panel went with Andrews's dissent, apparently concluding breach is a question of fact for the jury.
Clara of Liberty Belles is appalled at this apparent confirmation of the total victory of the tort plaintiff's bar. I'm not so sure. As I recall, Professor Nelson suggested Cardozo's opinion was something of a Trojan horse, intended to undermine the foundations of 19th century tort theory. Not unlike another justly famous case, Marbury v. Madison, establishing judicial review while ruling the government's favor.
If judges decide the scope of liability on the basis of policy, what matters is the policy, not the rule. And as we've seen, many a policy supports construing the scope of liability very broadly indeed. So, perhaps Palsgraf is properly cast as the martyr for the hordes of successful tort plaintiffs who followed.
Or, to put it more abstractly, Cardozo's opinion justifies conceptualizing tort law as a theory of harms rather than a theory of wrongs. For an excellent discussion of this distinction see Scott Hershovitz, Two Models of Torts (and Takings), 92 Va. L. Rev. ___ (2006). On Cardozo's theory, the railroad is not liable because the injury was unforseeable. In other words, it wasn't the least-cost avoider. But on Andrews's theory, the railroad might be liable, if its negligence harmed Palsgraf. In other words, if it committed an actionable wrong. While Cardozo's result may align with our intuitions in this case, perhaps its because we just don't think Palsgraf alleged a wrong (i.e. the railroad wasn't negligent), not because we think it wasn't the least cost avoider. Remember, you can be the least-cost avoider without committing a wrong.
In any case, I suspect Andrews was actually right on the law. Perhaps the Court of Appeals could have dismissed the case for failure to allege a negligent act. But if Palsgraf alleged sufficient facts to find the railroad agents acted negligently and that her injury was a but-for cause of their negligence, she was entitled to send her claim to a jury. Even today, that's no guarantee of success.
Incidentally, should the Court of Appeals decide to do another re-enactment, perhaps Lochner v. New York would be an appropriate choice. At the very least, a reversal of that 4-3 decision would be rather unlikely.