Blog

Watching a video compilation of family home movies – a movie within the movie The Iron Lady – the ghost of Denis Thatcher says these words to Margaret. The Iron Lady is the latest in the genre of films about the elderly people who attempt to deal with this sad reality. The movie argues that, politically, there was little Margaret Thatcher would want to have changed. She set out to make a difference and, by God, she did. She had no regrets about her key decisions, for example going to war over the Falklands, confronting the miners, or privatizing much of the public sector.

Her political regrets were over lives lost in military conflict (the soldiers killed in the Falklands War) or political conflict (IRA assassinations, in particular her supporter Airey Neave). At a personal level, while she made clear to Denis when accepting his marriage proposal, that she would not be a typical housewife, the movie still suggests some regret that her political career so dominated her family life.

Nonetheless, for both the historical figure and the protagonist of the movie, Edith Piaf’s “je ne regrette rien” would be the personal anthem of choice.

The Iron Lady thus invites comparison with two overtly political films about aging, Errol Morris’s documentary on Robert McNamara, The Fog of War, and the superb Merchant-Ivory adaptation of Kuzuo Ishiguro’s Booker prize winning The Remains of the Day. In both, the protagonists express deep regret. In McNamara’s case, despite his successes as a senior executive modernizing Ford Motors and as Secretary of Defense controlling the hyper-aggression of the generals, his name remains eternally linked to the futility of the Viet Nam War. In The Remains of the Day, the fictional protagonists all have their regrets, Lord Darlington over his embrace of appeasement, and the butler Stevens over his inability to escape the personal and psychic imprisonment of domestic service.

Movies about regret have an intellectual and emotional appeal. Characters can in their minds replay the past and imagine what would have happened had they made different decisions. We in the audience all have regrets about some of the choices we made, and watching characters in movies express regret and show the sadness that comes from regret provides identification with and validation of our own emotions as well as a measure of schadenfreude.

A triumphal movie about an elderly person who expresses no regret would be unlikely to facilitate much connection between protagonist and audience. Imagine Errol Morris trying to make a movie based on an extended interview with Margaret Thatcher. Despite Morris’s interlocutorial skill at both expressing sympathy for and challenging his interviewees, Margaret Thatcher would be far less interesting than Robert McNamara. Morris might show headlines and photos alluding to her controversial ministry, just as he did for McNamara, but he would not elicit the moments of dismay, regret, self-doubt, and sadness that he elicited from McNamara. Likely, all he would have received was a shrill scolding.

The creators of the Iron Lady have necessarily taken a different tack in their attempt to humanize and ironize Margaret Thatcher. They have seized upon the fact that she now suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Thus, the movie depicts her as both physically frail and intellectually confused, suffering from the failure of her short-term memory as well as hallucinating through the entire movie about the presence of her deceased husband Denis. The interesting mental mechanism that is evoked is how a person suffering from Alzheimer’s can still channel into her memories, mainly of her triumphs and occasionally of her regrets. The one late life victory Thatcher achieves – only with considerable prodding from her daughter and her handlers – is to divest herself of Denis’ clothing and personal effects and finally to convince herself that he is dead.

At its core, The Iron Lady is a movie about Alzheimer’s disease rather than a movie about politics. The political recollections are too fleeting to deal adequately with her controversial ministry. The movie attempts to depict the mechanisms of a mind remembering, of a mind failing to remember, and of a mind hallucinating to replace the present with the past. It also tries to show what of her character remains and what is lost.

Meryl Streep has received accolades for her portrayal of Thatcher. It has two aspects: the mimicry of the voice, facial expressions, and bearing of the public figure we all remember, and the creation of a victim of Alzheimer’s who happens to live within the body of the former prime minister. Portrayal of people with disabilities requires believably demonstrating the disability while still communicating the person’s essential humanity. When done well, and two instances that come to mind are Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man and Colin Firth in The King’s Speech, the audience will be riveted.

The critic’s consensus is that Meryl Streep has succeeded at doing this here. But the film critics are more knowledgeable about politics than they are about psychology. It would be valuable to hear what gerontologists and psychologists think about The Iron Lady. Do Phyllida Lloyd’s directing, Abi Morgan’s screenplay, and Meryl Streep’s acting ring true? Have they created a clinically realistic version of Alzheimer’s? With the aging of the boomers, the question is an important one. It matters less what the movie says about the actual Margaret Thatcher’s politics than about the character “Margaret Thatcher’s” dementia. If much of what we all think we know comes from the movies, has this movie taught the right lessons?

My mother-in-law, Dr. Roslyn Herst, lent me the recent autobiography of Michael Bliss, her fellow member of the Toronto Medical History Club. Bliss has had a stellar career as a Canadian and medical historian and political commentator. The autobiography makes clear the secrets of his success: a powerful work ethic, a strong entrepreneurial streak that allowed him to connect with both the Canadian business and publishing communities, and a real talent for story-telling.

While my contact with Bliss is now mediated by one degree of separation, there were a number of occasions in the past when we were in direct contact and several causes we had in common. I’ll mention four: Claude Bissell’s Canadian history course at Harvard, distance running through Toronto’s streets and ravines, the political career of Joe Clark, and the University of Toronto’s so-called ethics review process.

Bliss was one of Bissell’s two teaching assistants and I was a freshman taking the course. I’ve come to know Harvard well enough over the years that I wasn’t surprised at Bliss’s recounting of how, in its snobbishness and self-centredness, it ignored Bissell. I agree with Bliss’s retrospective assessment that Bissell did a competent job telling Canada’s story. The course wasn’t nearly as intellectually exciting as many others I might have taken. But I took it during 1967-68, a crucial time in both Canadian and American history – though for different reasons –and it kept me in touch with the sea-change that brought Pierre Trudeau to power.

Bliss became a runner to reshape and reenergize. I always had a runner’s build, but I was attempting to overcome the debilitation of asthma. We both succeeded in our quests, and crossed paths at several 10k runs over the years. I’m still at it, albeit with reduced distances and slower speeds, as I have the good fortune that my legs have held up. It’s also helped to minimize the damage by combining it with swimming, cycling, and skiing.

I was one of the group that helped Joe Clark win the Conservative leadership in 1976. Bliss was one of those who tried unsuccessfully to keep the party from overthrowing him in 1983. I think we were both attracted by Clark’s thoughtfulness, essential decency, and attempt to formulate a conservatism that transcended rather than repudiated Trudeau’s statism. But we both came to realize that Clark lacked the cunning necessary for political survival. While some of his political achievements, for example slowing Trudeau’s constitutional train long enough for nine of the provinces to come on board, will merit footnotes in history, he will primarily be remembered – here’s the trivia question – as one of the three late twentieth century “summer job” prime ministers.

Research ethics offices at most universities still seem to operate on the medical research model, which ill fits the sort of “elite interviewing” both Bliss and I have done. Our interviews are, in effect, conversations between consenting adults. The interviewees have been interviewed many times before and know why we are interviewing them. The conventions of this type of interviewing – for example, on-the-record, off-the-record, or a mixture of both – are well known. Research ethics offices, by demanding that we produce a standard interview protocol despite the fact that each interview is unique, and by requiring that interviewees be presented with consent forms, are complicating our work without adding any value. We’ve both come to recognize that the best thing to do is provide the appearance of compliance and get on with the work.

While discussing his graduate studies at U of T, Bliss remarked en passant that “I always felt that political science was a misnamed pseudo-discipline – the idea of a science of politics defies comment – and mostly fraudulent.” (p. 108). While I’m not a political scientist, as a product of Harvard’s undergraduate Social Studies program and its doctoral program in economics, and a management scholar who focuses on the public sector, I am certainly a social scientist, and therefore must take issue with Bliss’s diss-missing of a social science. Social scientists construct models and test hypotheses about individual and group behavior using as their data surveys, experiments, and historical records. History is thus of value to us as an important point of departure. Why, then, does Bliss devalue our work?

Yes, some social science produces findings that win ig-Nobel prizes or that belong to what my wife describes as the “no shit, Sherlock” school of research. But other studies can be both surprising and useful.

Concerning political science, Bliss’s bête noire: two extremely important streams of quantitative research involve electoral studies explaining why people vote the way they do, and attempts (from Borda and Condorcet to Arrow and Fishkin) to design systems of collective decision-making that induce participants to reveal their true preferences rather than vote strategically.

Turning to Bliss’s own research, his methodology includes extensive gathering and close reading of relevant documents, interviewing of participants and witnesses, and a skepticism of people’s motives, particularly when attempting to influence or make public policy, that owes a perhaps unacknowledged debt to public choice theory in economics. All these are appropriate, but I wonder if he found leadership studies, particularly those involving the American presidency, relevant to his book on Canadian prime ministers or if he found Erik Erikson’s sequential model of ego development relevant to his biographies. I certainly would have.

I think it would be worth their while for historians to embrace social scientific methodologies just as much as some social scientists appropriate historical data.

Looking at Bliss’s most renowned work, his book on the discovery of insulin and his biography of Frederick Banting, from the narratological perspective that I’ve developed, I compliment Bliss on the wise decision he made to divide the project into two books. The book on insulin is a heroic fable, in which he focused on insulin’s value to society by telling the stories of individuals who benefited from it soon after its discovery. Bliss’s timing was opportune, because there were still people living who remembered the diabetic’s grim sentence to a short and painful life before insulin. Those who remembered created the book’s constituency.

The biography of Banting focuses on the tensions among Banting and his codiscoverers. This is a classic entrepreneurial story, rich in conflict and irony. It is strongly reminiscent of the recent Fincher-Sorkin film The Social Network. Heroic and ironic stories are compelling, but in different ways, and sometimes are best separated.

A final comment. In his discussion of the history of the University of Toronto, Bliss rues the decision to end the distinction between the three year General Arts degree and the four year honours degree. He remarks that, at the time of their establishment, Claude Bissell hoped that the Scarborough and Erindale campuses would both “offer good General Arts degrees to large numbers of students, while the downtown, or St. George campus, evolved into a home for honours undergraduates and a flourishing graduate school” (p. 130).

Over time, the university decided that faculty based at UTSC and UTM, as they are now called, would be held to the same standards of performance in teaching and scholarship as those based at St. George. The logic of this decision ultimately contradicts the differentiation in academic status Bissell and others intended. There are now some unique programs based at the suburban campuses and others that surpass their St. George counterparts. The issue of equal compensation for suburban faculty who meet the same standards as their colleagues downtown remains contested to this day.

To conclude: Bliss’s book was enjoyable and thought-provoking, even when it touched upon the U of T’s inside baseball, and a rewarding way to spend some of my holiday.

I was asked by iPolitics.ca to put myself in Premier McGuinty’s shoes to think about priorities and problems at the start of his new mandate. While the iPolitics article, with contributions from a variety of pundits, will be coming out early in January, here are my un-media-ted views now.

The leadership of the federal Liberals is McGuinty’s for the asking. While leading the third party in opposition is always a hard grind, after this overview, the conclusion might be that it is preferable to governing Ontario now.

The province is running a substantial deficit in an economy that is not rebounding as quickly as anticipated a few months ago, and the debt ratings agencies are watching carefully, with the possibility of a downgrade looming. In addition, the generosity of the federal government, for example in constantly increasing transfers for health care, can no longer be taken for granted. It has its own fiscal concerns.

The province has little, if any room, for tax increases as a way to achieving fiscal balance. Economically, higher taxes decrease growth. Politically, higher taxes would confirm the “taxman” image the Conservatives, with at least some success, stuck on McGuinty. The alternative – spending cuts – militates against two key components of McGuinty’s style and substance of government.

First, he has taken pride in improvements in the quality of public service, for example decreases in hospital waiting times, reduction in class sizes, and better student performance in province-wide tests. All of these have required increases in spending. Second, after the public sector turmoil of both the Rae and Harris governments, McGuinty has brought a measure of stability and cordiality to the public sector, achieved through generosity in labour settlements, within both the OPS and the broader public sector. In addition, the McGuinty government has directed considerable spending towards key priorities, such as green energy. Spending cuts will make it very difficult to extend all these components of an activist agenda into the next mandate.

The McGuinty government may face two microeconomic challenges, the worsening situation at RIM and a possible collapse of the high-rise condo market in Toronto. RIM’s troubles may be the result of better strategizing and implementation by its competitors. Or they may be the consequence of co-CEO’s who, instead of sticking to their kitting, were attempting in one case to emulate Albert Einstein and in the other Larry Tannenbaum. A turnaround seems increasingly unlikely, so the best-case scenario would be takeover by a competitor and the worst-case bankruptcy. RIM has spawned an agglomeration of technological and entrepreneurial expertise in the Waterloo-area, and losing it would be very damaging to the Ontario economy. Just as the McGuinty Government intervened to prop up the auto industry in 2008, it can be expected to intervene to ensure a transition that maintains Waterloo’s technological and intellectual capital.

If Toronto’s high-rise condo market collapses, one implication will be major layoffs in the construction industry. The collapse of Toronto’s housing market in the early Nineties is a precedent, as the slack was taken up by the construction of Highway 407. The debt rating agencies were cooperative, agreeing not to add spending on the highway to the Rae government’s debt because of the prospect of cost recovery through tolling. The expansion of the Toronto subway system may play a similar role now, though the financial model and the likely reaction of the rating agencies would be different this time.

Politically, while McGuinty no longer has a majority, the Liberals have the advantage of straddling the political centre, making it hard for the Conservatives and NDP to find common cause and bring down the government. Furthermore, McGuinty has an advantage over the Conservatives in that leader Tim Hudak still chooses to wear the mantle of Mike Harris’s common sense revolution. McGuinty’s response would be that, if austerity is inevitable, it would be better to have it delivered by a leader who will do his best to mitigate the damage than by a leader who relishes it.

Ultimately McGuinty’s challenge will be to find some way to both recast himself and maintain continuity with a self-definition that has worked.

This will be my last post of the calendar year. I wish my readers a relaxing holiday season and healthy and happy new year.

This week I watched an almost-forgotten 1999 made-for-television docudrama, Pirates of Silicon Valley, about the origins of Apple and Microsoft. The movie focuses its attention on Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, with Steve Wozniak and Steve Ballmer both acting as narrators.

Neither Gates nor Jobs was portrayed very attractively. While Jobs was a visionary who combined art and science, he was also a slave-driver who demeaned and insulted his talented staff, a misguided manager who incited a near war between the Macintosh team and the rest of the company, and a dead-beat dad. Gates applied the strategic talent of an expert poker player to position Microsoft in the most lucrative sweet spot of the rapidly-evolving computer industry. Nonetheless, in his demeanor as well as his laughable attempts to impress women, he was a classic geek.

In retrospect, these portraits do not appear far off the mark, particularly that of Jobs, which is in its essentials close to that drawn by Walter Isaacson in his recent biography. Steve Wozniak and Steve Ballmer are both sympathetically portrayed as regular decent guys who, as narrators, explain their flawed genius partners to the audience. This perspective, however, downplayed their similarity with their partners. In Ballmer’s case, certainly, his similarities to Gates have emerged in his role as his successor at Microsoft. A number of YouTube videos of Ballmer catch his hyper-aggressiveness, topped off by his own very particular brand of simian whooping.

Made-for-television movies have a tendency to be melodramatic, or, as their audience would likely say “cheesy,” and this was no exception. Nevertheless, this movie was prescient about the trope that was captured in the title “Pirates of Silicon Valley.” There was a recognition on the part of the major players in the early years of the personal computer industry that an enormous amount of value was about to be created, and the big question was who would seize the lion’s share of it.

Much of this question revolved around intellectual property. Both Gates and Jobs recognized that Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) had invented things that Xerox’s corporate leadership were ignoring, so each went off to steal as much as possible from PARC. In fact, the most interesting scenes in the movie are those involving the principals and their entourage touring each other’s facilities to steal ideas from one another. Jobs explicitly said that “great artists steal,” And Gates, in a confrontation with Jobs about whether Windows was an infringement on Apple’s intellectual property, claimed ‘Steve, all cars have steering wheels, but no one tries to claim that the steering wheel was their invention.”

Flash forward a decade to The Social Network. Here, too, the essence of the story is about claiming the rewards from the creation of intellectual property. Mark Zuckerberg, in words almost identical to Gates’s asks “does a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone who ever made a chair?” The Social Network, too, focuses on the question of appropriating the value of intellectual property, though the narrative device it uses is the deposition-taking involving Zuckerberg, Saverin, and the Winkelvi. In this legal hearing, issues of ownership are debated, and flash back scenes are aired as evidence.

By and large, visual narrative is not effective at depicting the act of creativity particularly if it is the creativity of one individual. One exception I can think of, thought, is the scene early in The Social Network where Zuckerberg launches his Facemash website comparing the attractiveness of Harvard women. Creativity can at least be represented by the different images flickering on his screen.

Visual narrative is effective at depicting human relationships, whether conflictual, cooperative, or something in-between. Pirates of Silicon Valley rightly devoted a good deal of attention to conflict over the appropriation of ideas and to negotiations, in particular Gates’s negotiations with the potential corporate of Microsoft’s first operating systems.

Thus Pirates of Silicon Valley was on the right track. It was prescient in confronting the key issues of the technological entrepreneurship genre. Later films, particularly The Social Network, would do this much more elegantly, but at least Pirates of Silicon Valley was there as a precursor, just as a Lisa was a distant precursor to an iPad.

In attempting to identify entrepreneurship fables, one place to look is the dot-com boom that began in the Nineties. If the dominant fable is the entrepreneurial success story, as most recently depicted in The Social Network, then the counter-fable would be the disaster story. The disaster story looks at a dot-com startup that began with high expectations and fulsome venture capital funding. However, the concept was flawed or poorly executed, the entrepreneurs burned through the funding with nothing to show for it, and when no more capital was forthcoming, the startup declared bankruptcy.

The best-known dot-com disaster movie is the 2001 documentary Startup.com. In it, co-director Jehane Noujaim embedded herself for about a year in an Internet startup, followed the firm to its demise, and provided a compelling cinema verite documentary. The film won a number of documentary awards for Noujaim as well as her mentor, co-director Chris Hegedus. (Hegedus is the spouse of another renowned documentarist, D.A. Pennebaker.) The film got good reviews, seems to have recovered its investment, and launched Noujaim’s career.

A more recent (2008) dot-com disaster movie is August, directed by Austin Chick and written by Howard Rodman. Unfortunately, the movie itself is a disaster. It received poor reviews, quickly closed, and didn’t come near recovering its investment. Its user rating on imdb.com is 5.4, as compared with Startup.com’s very respectable 7.

In the entrepreneurial dot-com genre, the essential business partnership is between the marketer, who attempts to find a need that can be answered online and to convince the world of the value of the website that is intended to answer that need, and the programmer, who attempts to build the website. The potential failing on the part of the marketer is narcissism and on the part of the programmer is solipsism.

Startup.com followed govworks.com, a website intended to facilitate online transactions for municipal government. The essential flaw in the business plan was that, like its federal and state counterparts, municipal governments ultimately developed their own websites to handle transactions, rather than sending them to online intermediaries.

In startup.com we see the failings of Kahleil Tuzman, the externally oriented but narcissistic CEO, and Tom Herman, the skilled but unfocused head programmer. By spending a year up-close and personal with Tuzman and Herman, Jehane Noujaim showed us their strengths and weaknesses. Tuzman was effective at selling a vision to the outside world, including an admiring President Clinton, but had no idea how to manage a growing organization. And Tom Herman was equally at sea as a manager. By the end of the movie, we feel as if we know Kahleil and Tom and sympathize with them, but also understand why their startup did not succeed in the market.

In August, the startup’s CEO, Tom Sterling (played by Tom Cruise clone John Hartnett) tells us that no one does what his website Landshark.com does, that it is not a vehicle but the road itself, that it is pure e, and that it is a brand that speaks for itself. But he never spells out exactly what Landshark does. While I interpret this as a deficiency in the plot, I suppose it could also be interpreted as a satirical statement about the deficiency of many Internet startups during the dot-cot bubble.

We see Landshark in August 2001, which turns out to be the critical lockup period before its managers and investors can trade their shares. Its share price is tanking, along with the rest of the Nasdaq, and it is rapidly burning through cash. Sterling is frantically searching the VC world for enough cash to make it through the lockup period, but stubbornly unwilling to give up control. Sterling’s brother Josh is the programming genius, writing code for whatever Landshark is supposed to do, but also worrying whether the company will be able to provide some financial security for him, his wife, and their new-born child.

Tom, the main protagonist in the movie, assumes the CEO role because of his alleged business acumen, but is a total narcissist, concerned only about his appearance and his gratification. He shows no leadership skill, and rules by command rather than by inspiration. His personal relationships are a disaster. He offends his brother by asking him for a loan and insults his father, saying “you take your failure for success and my success for failure; you wanted to change the world, but settled for tenure.” He reconnects with a former girlfriend, an architect, wins her trust sufficiently to get her into bed, but loses her just as quickly when he is unable or unwilling to show up at her first design show until five minutes before closing.

All told, Tom is a disaster as a leader, and, as he acknowledges, Landshark’s numbers don’t add up, it is running on fumes, and its market doesn’t exist. Tom and his team approach a venture capitalist, charmingly played by David Byrne, who gives Tom an instant take-it-or-leave-it offer of 15 cents on the dollar for his shares, on the condition that he leaves the company, while the rest of the management and technical team stays. Based on the evidence presented in the movie, the venture capitalist made precisely the right decision.

Tom is so disastrous a leader that one wonders how he made it into a leadership role in the first place, which necessarily undercuts the credibility of August’s plot. It is always possible to create how-not-to films, but they are usually comedies (Fawlty Towers, Yes Minister at times, and the Video Arts training films). Drama demands some redeeming virtues of its protagonists. August leaves the audience with contempt for its protagonist and satisfaction at his being cut loose, but it teaches no management lessons.

In future posts, I intend to documentaries or docudramas that chronicle the technology sector’s most notable success stories.