In 1969, Jim Henson locked a man in a box and let him die. Don’t worry, it was just for a movie. A movie that now gathers dust in the LAPD’s evidence room inside a locked crate marked “Too horrifying to watch”. How does it gather dust inside a locked crate? Good question.

Let’s talk about The Cube, a Henson-directed telefilm from the same year.

A man is trapped in a white room. He doesn’t know how he got there, and can’t leave. People enter the room through mysterious doors (which only they can see and use), and do things to the man that might be pranks, might be torture, or might be attempts to enlighten him. They rave, threaten, lie, confabulate, explain, offer hallucinatory narratives about what’s happening, then leave. The man is still in the cube.

Henson made films about puppets. The Cube depicts a man (played by Richard Schaal) who’s metaphysically a puppet: he lacks free will, and is at the mercy of his unreliable senses. That’s the simplest reading of The Cube: we are locked inside our own minds: trapped in a skull-box, grasping at threads and slivers of light and sound spilling through pinholes and cracks and fissures, seeking meaning in the pale, languid eidolons, trying to infer the world buzzing outside the cube—a world we can never actually visit, because it would mean stepping outside the boundaries of our own awareness. We are prisoners of the sensorium. And it’s lying to us.

The 60s were a decade made for such questions. Marijuana. LSD. MKULTRA. Postmodernism. The edges of reality and perception were being tested and rewritten and overturned. Science accelerated cultural derealization: we could actually examine an eyeball, and see all the kludges and hacks holding our vision together: see the bloody lattice of veins and arteries spread across the retina, see the optical nerve which interrupts our vision (a blind spot that the brain edits out with a patchwork of surrounding data), see how the sensory sausage is made.

In 1967—one year after Henson and Muppets co-writer Jerry Juhl wrote The Cube‘s screenplay—Doreen Kimura conducted her famous dichronic experiments, revealing the mangled patchwork of the human auditory system. Simply put, aural pathways from our ears to our brain “cross over” inside our heads—what the left ear hears goes to the right side of the brain, and vice versa. But the left hemisphere is dominant for language tasks: so when human speech (for example) enters the left ear, the signal must make an additional trip from the right side to the left via the corpus callosum for processing, adding a few-millisecond delay to the sound. To compensate for this, the brain does the same thing a laggy online videogame does: by artificially delaying the signal from the right ear, so that both left and right stereo signals match. Essentially, your ears hear things happening later than they actually did. The brain coheres all this into a singular experience, a singular sound, but it’s an illusion.

The Cube could be viewed as a metaphor about scientific derealization. It also has religious readings. A Christian Scientist turned hippie, Henson likely had at least a remedial understanding of Buddhism, and The Cube kind of works as a dramatization of three “marks of existence”: Impermanence, suffering, and selflessness.

Anicca: all is impermanent. Reality inside the cube is unsettled and ill-defined. A mud that swirls into new shapes every time The Man tries to touch it Objects and people suddenly appear that weren’t there before. The words of his visitors are no more reliable: often they’re palpable lies, or contradictions. He meets a prisoner called Watson, who claims to have spent a very long time in another cube—how long, he cannot say, because when he tried to mark the passage of days on his thumbnail, they tore it out. (This itself is rugpulled: the man is later described as an actor, playing a role…which is true, of course. None of these events are happening. The Cube is a 1969 TV movie directed by Jim Henson.) There’s a layer of metafiction, as the man sees himself on a TV screen, and must process the implications.

Dukkha: all is suffering. The Man is sent reeling through psychological states. Hope, horror, amusement, confusion, sexual desire, anger. All are useless in the cube. His actions aren’t totally meaningless—people react to him, such as two clowns (the first is apparently a parody of Eddie Cantor) who become savagely angry when The Man fails to laugh at them—but he can’t escape the cube. He’s like a ball in a pinball arcade cabinet: it whips around at dizzying speed, racking up points on bumper after bumper, but will fundamentally never escape the cabinet. The cube is a hell twisted into the shape of a Kline bottle. There’s nowhere to escape, except straight back into it.

Anattā: lack of self. The Man (for he is indeed all men), is the most Hensonian of objects: a puppet. Kermit might have form and shape, but he is hollow cloth with sawed-in-half eyes. His behaviors are supplied by the ghostly demonic hand twisting inside him. Likewise, the Man has no name, and no memories. The torments he is subjected to are nonsense…but in a sense, they’re all that’s real in The Cube. A coquettish seductress walks into the cube, seems to be trying to seduce him…and then reveals it was all an act. This is cruel…but was it really fake? The lust the man felt was real. So is the anger he feels after the prank is revealed. In a sense, she has provided him with what he lacks: an identity as a lustful, angry man. Without the external world torturing him, he would just be nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

Maybe The Cube is simply a freeform Rorschach blot onto which the audience imprints their own meaning. It certainly has a hippie-esque “it’s so deep, man” vibe. And what’s the hippie term for a prisoner of the system? A square. And what’s a cube made of…?

The problem with a film about meaninglessness is that it can quickly shade into the film itself lacking meaning. The Cube does not quite reach that point, but if it had gone on longer than 60 minutes, it probably would have. The Cube is strange, challenging, but perhaps ultimately a bit shallow. Eventually, you get the idea. It’s all a weird, dark game that he’s better off not playing. Instead, even at the end he’s still basically falling for the idea that there’s some “deep reality” that he can reach beyond these shifting stands. Most of the film consists of arbitrary events, that could probably be rearranged in nearly any order with no loss of meaning.

Many of the tricks played on The Man are also tricks on the viewer. A strange monklike figure gives him a mystic artifact called a Ramadar, which might be key to his salvation. But all the Ramadar seems to do is make an annoying buzzing sound, and he smashes it in frustration. Is this a metaphor for the impossibility of enlightenment, or just another red herring? You decide.

The mind is a dark place where all of us live, yet none of us live. And certainly, it is not a place we can escape. My dad had a running joke (likely stolen from some comedian), that old TVs had dust traps down the bottom, and after you watched an old western, you had to empty out all the dead Indians from the bottom of your TV, before they started to smell. They were probably happy to go. They escaped the cube.

No Comments »

Scott Alexander created a Turing Test for AI generated artwork. Begin quote:

I got 88% correct (44/50). Here’s my attempt (or rather my imperfect memory of my attempt), and my justification for the answers I gave.

Concluding Thoughts

You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs, trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?

No Comments »

This guitar teacher talks about an amusing, perhaps alarming, trend he’s seen among his students.

In the 90s, they’d be hardcore fans of a particular band. They’d want to learn Metallica’s Master of Puppets in its entirety, or some obscure song buried at the back of an album. They’d display fierce loyalty to a chosen artist or style.

This era of music is summed up by Zebra Man in Jeff Krulik and John Heyn’s infamous gonzo documentary Heavy Metal Parking Lot. “Heavy metal rules! All that punk shit sucks! It belongs on fucking Mars, man!”

Things changed in the Napster/Limewire era (early 2000s). Digital filesharing meant the album slowly started to die. Kids would rock up to him with home-burned CDs and tapes of random songs collaged from various places. This was exciting, as far as it went. Kids were taking control of their music. Albums are ultimately a marketing construct from the 1950s dictated by manufacturing constraints. There’s no God-given reason why music has to be doled out in 40-60 minute blobs, all by the same artist, and with an immutable track order. Other worlds are possible. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.

But the new generation of listeners had far less loyalty to individual bands/artists. They did not know the “deep tracks”. If they wanted to learn an Offspring song, it would always be one of the same 3-4 songs.

Today, it has shifted again. His students are like “yo, I want to learn $SONG”, he’s like “so you like $SONG_ARTIST?” and he gets a blank stare. They live in a world where endless music drifts algorithmically in front of them, like indistinguishable ocean waves. Sometimes they like it, but this doesn’t provoke any interest in who made the music, where it came from, what its context is, and so forth. Why even learn those things? More and equally good music is coming along soon. There’s no reason to be a fan of anyone. Once the artist vanishes from Spotify playlists, they can safely forget about them.

(Superfans obviously still exist, but now seem to be motivated more by weird parasocial obsessions than actual artistic output. What would the average kpop “sasaeng” desire more—an unreleased song by Jungkook, or a piece of Jungkook’s shirt?)

It makes you wonder….what does it actually mean to be a fan of someone?

I view fandom as a search algorithm. A way of managing the limitless choices of entertainment.

If I want to read a book there are millions of them, but reading random books is a poor use of my time: most are bad/uninteresting/unsuitable for me. I can dramatically increase my odds of finding a good book by reading an author I’ve enjoyed in the past.

This creates an illusion that the author is important. Actually, “author” is just a highly optimal branch on a search tree for book discovery. If my favorite author started writing bad books, I’d eventually stop reading him. The books are what matters.

Which leads to the question: what happens when search algorithms can connect you with good books better than the tried-and-true method of “read books by your favorite author”? Do you still need to have a favorite author? What happens in that world? Does the fan still exist?

Here’s a related thing I recently read: Kat Tenbarge’s Sorry, Bella Poarch, this IS ‘Build a B*tch’

Overnight, a Tiktoker became the third biggest star on the platform because she nodded her head to an electronic beat for a few seconds.

This is literally a fame lottery. There is no reasonable way that talent, perseverance, or “star power” can manifest in a video that’s a few seconds long and where you don’t even talk. (The Tiktok algorithm, by the way, is believed to have a reasonable amount of random noise, to stop people hacking it.) We expect stars to have a degree of personal charisma. Stars produced this way, as Tenbarge notes, tend to be punishingly average and unsuited for fame.

All of it — and this is coming from someone who collects influencer merchandise — is incredibly boring and one-dimensional. This is not by any means an invitation to bash Charli, who I feel great sympathy for given her age and precarious position in multiple overlapping industries. She’s at the epicenter of a new generation’s group of power brokers, with her every move impacting the salaries of grown adults, including her parents and older sister. And I mean this in this kindest way possible — she’s not qualified for any of it. Charli, who I have never personally spoken to, comes off as incredibly sweet, caring, and normal. She reminds me of every high school-aged white girl at my hideously expensive dance studio in suburban Cincinnati. She can definitely perform well, as well as any “Dance Moms-”era teenage competitive dancer from Connecticut. But if you read an interview with Charli and her older sister Dixie, the mediocrity is palpable. They don’t really have anything interesting to say about, well, anything — and if they do, their publicists won’t let them. I’ve seen a handful of their YouTube videos, listened to clips from their podcasts, and scrolled through dozens of Instagram posts, TikTok videos, and tweets. There’s nothing wrong with either of them, they’re just oppressively average. And by the way, so are all their friends in the Hype House and Sway House and whatever new teeny-bopper house went on the market this week.

Bella has attempted to turn her fame into a recording career, with familiar results to anyone familiar with past cases like Kreayshawn or Tila Tequila.

To me, this feels like an area where the past world is meshing incongruously with the new, algorithmic one.

The industry is trying to position Bella Poarch for a lasting career, where her fans continue to buy the songs she puts out for a long time because she’s talented and special. But if her audience cared enough to do that, they probably wouldn’t have found her on Tiktok to begin with. Bella Poarch is the product of a system where the old rules no longer quite apply. She is a nobody who was plucked out of obscurity, through no great merit of her own. She’s not some rising, hot property who will sustain a long career.

And it’s all so meaningless! In 1964, 73 million people watched the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show, and it reshaped the face of music. Today, Tiktoks get billions of views and leave no mark on popular culture at all. It’s just noise that gets drowned out by the next day’s noise.

(Hero image: Laura Makabresku | The silent light of God’s Mercy)

No Comments »