How to Treat Job-Seekers Like Human Beings

As a freelancer and part-timer, I’m always on the lookout for new gigs and interesting positions in which I could exploit my wide ranging skills and expand upon them, while making an impact for interesting companies. No one is going to be a perfect fit every time they interview and it’s not possible to know what an employer is really looking for or why you might not fit the bill. That’s life.

But, in my view, basic human decency requires the following. If a person has cleared the initial phone screen and you bring them in-house for an interview (or series of interviews), you owe them the courtesy of, at the bare minimum, an impersonal email letting them know when the position has been filled. Anything less simply reflects poorly upon you as an employer, as a company and as a human being.

It would be too difficult to contact everyone who applies for a position, but not everyone who comes in to speak to you in person. There is, literally, no acceptable excuse for not doing so. It is cruel. It is dehumanizing. It is wrong.

Have just a modicum of respect for the people who take the time to show up and help you solve your staffing needs. If you are too sensitive to speak to them in person, just send an email. Jobseekers will absolutely cherish you for showing them this consideration, despite the fact that you may be disappointing them. It makes you and your organization look great.

Old Films Fall Into Public Domain Under Copyright Law

This article, by Nicolas Rapold, from yesterday’s New York Times, is a classic example of the bias that informs Big Media Companies’ coverage of intellectual property issues. Read the story—which is mildly informative in some respects about the labyrinth of copyright law in the 20th century as it affected films—and you’ll read that the Public Domain is

"purgatory"

"the wilds"

a “dubious club”

a “copyright rabbit hole”

a result of “lapsed protections”

rather than, say, the right and proper final home for the great wealth of cultural output so that it may best benefit all citizens.

It seems clear that the underlying argument is that artistic works are best held under copyright, indefinitely; that any other arrangement is simply a mistake. This mistake has even been remedied in some instances, such as that of certain Hitchcock films that somehow entered the public domain and then were rescued from this hell and placed back in the loving arms of rights holders.

Undercutting that strange argument is the description of how a number of important PD works have been restored by institutions like the Library of Congress and speciality video houses—which would in some cases not have been possible had the works not been in the public domain though, naturally, the article doesn’t mention that part.

Bad Grey Lady. Bad.

Stephen King's "It" and "Stephen King's It"

So I recently finished reading Stephen King’s opus, It. I’ve been a King fan for years, since Mr. Hough occasionally read us stories from Graveyard Shift in the 6th grade. He would always skip over the swears by kind of nodding his head to their rhythm and producing a kind of garble-talk. A fan, yes, but a light reader; just a handful of King. It is a book that begs to be read by kids just a little bit older than the kids in the book. Some of my friends did just that, it seems, but I would have been too scared at 12 to do the same.

I was convinced by a friend recently that I absolutely had to read It, and so convincing was he that I tried to buy a copy at a local bookstore that same day, a few weeks ago. It was not to be had, though, new or used, so I ordered from Amazon and waited impatiently for it to arrive. It was only after I had started in on this fresh copy that I realized I still had the copy someone gave me in the 8th grade (that I never read) buried in the den on the paperback shelf.

In short, I tore through this 1000 plus page book like an addict. It took over my life. I loved It. The book is so much more than I could have imagined. It isn’t just a horror story. It’s a story about childhood, love, memory, loss, tragedy, friendship, sexual awakening, power, evil, and the history of America. It’s funny and terrifying and awe-inspiring. It hooked my from the first pages and possessed me for 12 days or so.

For me, then, it was fun to follow it up, a day or two later, with a viewing of the TV movie from 1990. Watching bad movies can be very instructive; watching a bad adaptation with the book so fresh is especially interesting. I did the same with Cloud Atlas last year.

Stephen King’s It, the book, presents huge problems to the would-be filmmaker. It’s a giant book, full of characters and flashbacks upon flashbacks stretching back into the history of Derry, Maine, the town at the center of the story, many locations from which are richly described. There are seven central characters, depicted fully as children and as adults. There is a transdimensional evil entity that takes on whatever form most scares the beejeezus out of its victims. There are gruesome murders of children. There are apocalyptic storms, floods, fires and earthquakes. The ending of the book contains not just a kind of 2001-type transdimensional freakout but a sexual encounter that might not even be legally possible to depict in a film in the United States. Then there is the question of tone: just how do you replicate the ungodly suspense of the book while reproducing its endless terror and bountiful humor? Finally, the real thing of the book isn’t even the horror aspect at all, but what that horror represents; that is, the philosophical aspects that make the book a resonant, universal, classic work.

It’s a hopeless task, so I had tremendous sympathy for the producers of Stephen King’s It, the movie. Their adaptation is, all of the above considered plus the limitations of TV in 1990—in terms of budget, content and timeframe—a good effort. It fails in most ways, but clearly not for lack of a writer having seriously wrangled with what was possible. The one coup is Tim Curry’s Pennywise the clown who, though he differs from the book’s Pennywise in some respects, is a deliciously frightening presence.

The rest of the cast, however, apart from a few of the kids in a few moments (Seth Green as a young Richie!), is just gawd-awful. The adult main characters, especially in the second part of the film, are pathetically bad, just drowning. The writers also seem to have given up by this point, but thinking about how this ill-cast gang would have butchered better dialogue is possibly more frightening than the film itself.

This was before the new-golden-age of TV that began perhaps a decade later, with the rise of the pay cable channels and the cable networks, all of the movie stars flocking to the small screen, the budgets and ambitions, and no doubt a far better version of It could now be made by an HBO, for example, or even an AMC. But it’s worth noting that, just half a year before It premiered, David Lynch’s Twin Peaks debuted, basically demolishing everyone’s notions of what was possible on television. Can you imagine what he could have done with It? Holy crap, that’s fun to think about.

And now, here’s an Indian TV series called Woh, loosely based on It: