Category: Movies, Entertainment & Media

Life’s Mind Tricks


When I was a senior in high school and it became apparent that I will not be allowed to become a theater theorist, a cultural critic, or an art historian, and would have to settle for something more practical like finance or engineering, I went to see my history teacher to pour my frustration on her metaphorical shoulder.  And it was just that – a metaphor: I was upset, but I was not going to cry.  The roots of the tough Frustrated CFO that I am now were already forming then.  No, I was not planning on shedding a tear over it.

I wasn't, but the teacher cried.  This hard core, no bullshit lady couldn't stop crying.  I made tea, put it in front her, and asked, what made her so upset.  She replied that these were tears for my mind.  She got me slightly worried, not for my mind, but for hers.  What was she implying?  That the forced career choice will make me crazy?

When she calmed down, she explained her empirical theory that, regardless of your natural intellectual inclination, your occupation (note the key word – it occupies you!) little by little changes your brain; reshapes it comply with the job requirements.  She said, "If you are going to count money and look at numbers 60 hours a week, it will change you forever.  Your mind will never be able to respond to a movie, a play, a piece of music or art, the same way it can now."

"It will never happen to me!!!" – that was my answer.  And I can proudly say, it didn't.  Through MBA, PhD in Economics, and over 20 years in accounting and finance, somehow, I retained my ability of unadulterated absorption of any artistic expression.  Don't get me wrong – my profession affected many sides of my personality, and not in a good way, but somehow I retained the sensitivity to the arts.  Maybe I subconsciously resisted the alteration of the mind because I was warned?  Who knows?  But, I am a rare exception.  Years of observing other people proved to me that my old history teacher's theory was correct.  Life does play tricks with most people's intellect. 

A month or so ago I attended a philanthropic event headlined by Andrew Bird.  I really love his eclectic music that combines classical technique with rock-n-roll melodic structure and folky stylistics.  It always has a tremendous emotional impact on me.

I was there with a group of people, some of them big time art philanthropists, including one hedge-fund guy, who supports many art organizations in NYC and around the country.  In his youth he was a follower of the Great French Mime and a member of a street performing group, but then Life called him away to become a multi-millionaire.  He never saw Andrew Bird before and after the concert talked to me about him.

The first thing he said was, "What a technical range!"  Considering that my heart was just shredded into pieces by the beauty of the performance, I was secretly taken aback by such cold, mechanistic assessment.  Then he picked my brain about the artist's career, and I relayed how he was classically trained as a child, but lost all his fancy scholarships as soon as he made a shift to rock.  The response was, "I'd say, he's done well for himself, regardless."

And that's how I was reminded about my old history teacher's theory again.  Youthful artistic endeavours – that was all in the past.  Now, the cold mind of the big-money-maker cannot absorb the emotional outpouring of the musician he just heard!  He reacts with "Professional skills!  Career achievement!"  His mind is twisted towards that train of thought and there is nothing anybody can do about that.

Is Rupert Murdoch Really Responsible?


ImagesI get CNN's Breaking News emails.  I got one last week during Rupert Murdoch's questioning by the British Parliament's committee regarding the phone-hacking scandal that stems from News of the World and threatens to overtake the entire News Corp.  The email was dedicated specifically to his statement that he did not consider himself "ultimately responsible for the fiasco," and that these were misdeeds of the people he trusted.  In other words, he is blameless because he did not give direct orders and it was all his employees' fault.

Indeed, unlike Bernie Madoff he did not personally masterminded to rip off thousands of people; he did not instruct anyone to tap private phones and  bribe police officials.  For all we know he had no clue who poor Milly Dowler was until inquiries began.  News Corporation holdings include over 100 newspapers, magazines and TV stations.  He cannot possibly keep track of every single report they publish. 

He could not recognize (or so he says) most of the names of people working for him.  Also not surprising – News Corporation employs over 51,000 people worldwide.  We cannot expect him to know every single one of them.  I myself always argue that the Boss should deal only with the uppermost echelon of management. 

Yet, he does know Rebekah Brooks very well.  She's been making his scandalous rags Sun and News of the World profitable for nearly half of her life, climbing up the ranks with his personal support.  She knew how to deliver what was needed and he liked it.  In 1994, at 26, she hired techies to secretly wire the entire hotel suite for the interview with Princess Diana's beau.  And that was just a start.  Everything she did was ruthless, unsavory and amoral and Rupert Murdoch was promoting her for it. 

I wonder what kind of conversations this boss and this top exec had? 

RM: "Great job, great job, just watch yourself, don't get caught." 

RB: "I do what I can to please you, sir.  And don't worry – everything is under control, I hold them all by their balls."

RM: "That's my girl! Here's £3.5 million bonus.  Just don't tell anyone."

And that's makes him personally responsible.  He knowingly hand-picked this woman to be one of his top executives.  Journalism has seized to be an honorable profession long time ago, but Ms. Brooks' tactics go beyond levels of immorality we've learned to accept.  What kind of organizational environment he expected her to cultivate?  He knew exactly what he was doing, and I hope the British law enforcement will see it that way as well.

The reason this case is a good topic of discussion here is that business owners frequently display deliberate negligence in their executive staffing and still don't feel responsible for their employees actions. 

I know a national law firm specializing in consumer debt collections.  Most of the cases come in a wholesale form: debt-owners, such as credit card issuers and mortgage companies, outsource collection of delinquent balances to such attorneys.  This is very different from the regular law work when a counselor is face-to-face with his client.  This is bulk work – individual attorneys never meet the plaintiffs.  And that gives the principal partner the freedom to save on the quality of attorneys he hires.  He gets them straight out of fourth-tier law schools for salaries of office workers, he does not train them, he throws them into regional offices and lets them "swim or sink."  Meanwhile, thousands of cases get no attention and pass the statute of limitation.

There is no question in my mind that this is a violation of fiduciary duty to the firm's clients.  So, did Rupert Murdoch violated his fiduciary duties to the public by keeping Rebekah Brooks and letting her to do "her thing"?


Quote of the Day (House M.D.)


Images-1 Wilson to House:

" You don't like yourself, but you admire yourself.  That's all you got, so you cling to it.  Being miserable doesn't make you special, it just makes you miserable."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Frustrated CFO Takes Lessons from Robert McKee


Images-1 Human beings are like sponges – the second we are born we start acquiring general knowledge of things from everything around us.  It is a natural process. 

When it comes to intellectual knowledge, however, we tend to make our own choices.  Some people read Pynchon, others prefer Sports Illustrated.  Some go to see Black Swan, while others would never miss a new Transformers installment. 

It gets even more selective for specialized knowledge -  higher education, professional publications, technical books, etc.  Even with the subjects of human psychology, relationships, our understanding of the world around us (all frequently featured in The Frustrated CFO's posts), people are more likely to go for books written by "specialists." 

But the truth is that the nature of human interactions and the principles of emotional response to life do not change from industry to industry and from trade to trade. They are universal and I have learned long time ago that the knowledge of things pertaining to human experience can come to us from anywhere.  There is a reason I frequently present my topics by referring to books, TV programs and movies – the best examples of these art forms pursue the truth of life; that is why we can relate.

Those who have seen Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman's "Adaptation" may remember the screenwriting guru character played by Brian Cox.  Well, he is a real person – one of the best theoretician's of creative writing in the world Robert McKee.  After several decades of writing for theater and television, Mr. McKee found his true calling in formulating a set of fundamental principles for compelling storytelling, which became the framework of his world-touring STORY seminar.   He also compiled them into a bestselling book by the same name.

I happened to know a young screenwriter who attended McKee's seminar twice and described it as a life-changing experience – not just as a writer, but as a human being.  You see, Robert McKee teaches how movies should be written so that they penetrate straight into the audience's soul.  So, inevitably he touches on the subjects that reach far beyond cinematic matters.  That, together with the fact that his films recommendation list pretty much matches my own roster of favorites, persuaded me to buy his STORY book.

What can I tell you?  This is a very brilliant man.  Anyone who loves movies should read this book…  And everyone who considers himself a student of human nature should read this book.  It is impossible to convey all the wisdom Robert McKee generously shares, but his study of "the principle of antagonism" is particularly invaluable.  

He goes beyond the conventional knowledge that antagonistic conflicts are at the basis of existence (and a story, of course).  He concludes that there are three primary antagonistic forces for any positive value, progressing from contrary to contradictory to "the Negation of the Negation," which, unlike in math where two negatives make a positive, is "a force of antagonism that's doubly negative."  

He further constructs illustrative charts for such values as love, truth, consciousness, wealth, communication, success, bravery, loyalty,  justice, wisdom, and freedom.  I find the last three absolutely universal and applicable to many conflicts we encounter both in our professional and personal lives.  They are reproduced below.  It's mesmerizing: you look at them and it's like a reel of your life's events, fitting perfectly into these diagrams, unspools in front of your eyes.

McKee


“The King’s Speech” Illustrates The Frustrated CFO’s (and Mark Twain’s) Point


11154473_detThose who have been reading this blog since its start, hopefully remember this early post about my personal tools of frustration release.  The first method on the list advised to go into an isolated place and let your frustration out with the worst curses you know.

More recently, I posted this Quote from Mark Twain,  emphasizing the same notion.  The great writer, who found humor even in the rumors about his death, also found solace in profanity.

Whether consciously or subconsciously, everyone recognizes the power of cursing.   We use it far more frequently as an expression of physical pain, anguish, anger, and frustration, than as a deriding instrument.  People curse at themselves, at their lives' circumstances, at the damned table corner always in the way.  Most of the time they do it when they are completely alone and nobody can hear them.  They do it because it is an intuitive tension-release mechanism.

Case in point – Oscar-nominated The King's Speech, based on a true story.  Prince Albert (always fantastic Colin Firth), had a speech impediment caused by multiple childhood psychological traumas.  Because of his position, the future King George VI was in the public view and, through the popularization of the radio, in the public ear – stammering and all.  It made him an object of ridicule even before the abdication of his older brother David pushed him into the throne of British Empire.  

For many years he sought help of different doctors and linguistic practitioners.  Finally, he meets Lionel Logue (even more fantastic Geoffrey Rush).  This unorthodox, way-ahead-of-his-time speech therapist worked with post-traumatic WWI veterans and understood that acquired defects are psychological in their roots and have to do with fear and tension. 

Mr. Logue takes on the Royal patient.   His methods are designed to remove the stress that causes his charge to stumble over the words.  He has a lot of tricks up his sleeve: breathing, exercising, singing and, of course, cursing are all used as means of frustration release.  The movie wonderfully shows how the speech center in His Majesty's brain has much easier time dealing with difficult sentences after the fear rides out on those few "dirty" words.   Thus, it illustrates my point that if you find yourself chocking with anxiety, profanity helps.

Sadly and ridiculously those few oaths caused the movie to be rated R.   I mean, 13-year-olds, can hear more curse words on their way to school.  Now, the entertainment media talks about the Weinstein brothers deciding to cut those therapeutic outbursts out in order to "re-introduce" The Kings Speech with PG-13 rating.  I have no clue why they want to do that.  The movie has already grossed nearly 900% of its budget.  Some people say that it will not take anything away from the story, but I strongly disagree.  It is an integral part of keeping yourself functional in this stressful life – for a king, a writer, or a CFO.