Beats me . . . what do YOU want to watch?

PREAMBLE

In 1965, Shirley Ellis released a hit single on the pop music charts, called “The Name Game”. I was in Grade Six at the time. I loved the song. In fact, everyone I knew, loved the song. I recall huddling together in classroom nooks and around water fountains in the hallway or on benches in the school playground to sing with my classmates, using the names that Shirley Ellis herself, used in that magical little number. Names like ‘Lincoln’, ‘Marsha’ and ‘Nick’ and ‘Tony’ – a person was fortunate to have one of those names – so as to simply imitate what she had done with it in the song. Most of us though, were not included in her list so, we had to listen closely to the ‘formula’ she espoused, and then substitute our names into it. As much as I enjoyed her catchy melody, even more so, I was enamored with that formula. I was also intrigued by her pedagogical approach in casually manipulating the formula, which qualified her to boast in the lyrics that she could, "make a rhyme out of anybody’s name!” Years later, while teaching cooking and high-school mathematics in China, I sometimes called on her song to enhance English usage in my classroom. On occasion, when the technical language seemed to be getting the better of my students, we would take a break from graphing periodic functions or decorating cheesecakes and sing a round or two of “The Name Game” . The effectiveness of Shirley’s jingle held up well even for Chinese names like Yuting and Peipei and Xiayan. Analogous to Stephen Hawking’s quest for a single formula that explains everything in the universe, that musical algorithm stood the test of time in a similar, but no less significant quest for, and explanation of, the rhyming of names.

"The Name Game" by Shirley Ellis and the ideas of Stephen Hawking have combined to serve as inspiration for my present proposal for, and construction of, an all-purpose formula capable of eliminating frustration and time-consumption in the selection-for-personal-viewing of electronic visual media.

Teaching is often considered to be an arduous profession because of the number of decisions an educator has to make in the course of a regular working day. One might argue though, that teaching no longer monopolizes this propriety on decision-making. Recently, I have had the opportunity to examine the world outside of school walls and, I have concluded that the number of decisions any human being makes daily has increased astronomically from ‘the olden days’. Just as high-volume decision-making lent strain to teaching back in the 1970s and beyond, a heightened degree of choice, now also renders life itself an enduring practice in the twenty-first century and into the foreseeable future. The more decisions we have to make, the more difficult they become and the more difficult they become, the more annoyed and impatient we become in having to make them. Whatever the combination of reasons for that, we subsequently find it bothersome to choose something even as innocuous say, as a restaurant or the perfect vacation spot. The ‘great wall’ of possibilities for ultimately selecting a shampoo or a toothpaste in the market, is mind-boggling and often forces one to escape to the local corner shop, where the variety of items is refreshingly diminished. A trip to the convenience store is fine on occasion and reversion to simplicity is forgivable when choosing toothpaste, but, in the case of electronic visual entertainment, we mustn't 'tap out' to archaic practices, like choice-limitation, especially out of respect for the labors of progress expended to produce them initially. We should rather be expanding our horizons, while at the same time adding ease and efficiency in the move toward the enhancement of possibilities.

PROBLEM

When I was seven years old and my family hooked up our first television set in the most featured position in the living room, we had no cause to deliberate over the programs we watched. The only real choice in the matter was TV-‘ON’ or TV-‘OFF’. On any Saturday evening during those cold prairie winters, we could all be found either watching “Hockey Night in Canada” or not watching “Hockey Night in Canada”. Television, at that time, was so novel. Nothing about the experience seemed frustrating, and there was certainly no need for decision-making. As the years in front of the tube drifted past however, the choices for programs and number of programs and times and satellites and which hand-held remote to use, became more abundant. With this abundance, came a growing array of associated annoyances, until finally in today’s world, whether we be sitting in front of a computer screen, a cell phone display, a 75-inch flat-screen, or in an interactive IMAX theatre, complete with pre-show VIP food service, we find ourselves overwhelmed with the number of decisions we need to consider in order to simply watch something for the next hour or so. I have had the frustrating privilege of knowing movie-watchers who deliberate longer over what feature to view on Netflix than it takes to actually write the script for the movie they finally choose. I abhor even the thought of someone scrolling through the menu guide on cable or satellite TV in an attempt to find the perfect program. I sometimes long for a time when TV confrontation was done empty-handed, wrestling only with knobs to produce indiscernible black and white screen-images and finally retreating cautiously, in fear of hexing the reception yardage one had just gained – all for simple enjoyment of the ‘only show in town’. What the world of television, online features and cinema entertainment drastically needs, is a schematic, an algorithm, that can be deftly deployed by the viewer to assist in eliminating big-time decision-making around the whole selection 'dance'. We need to put the simplicity and enjoyment back into choosing a film to watch. With this premise in mind, I present the following proposal.

PROPOSAL

In order to take the stress out of deciding what movies to watch at the cinema or regarding television programs on personal devices at home, one must fully understand what they desire in a movie or TV show. They must ask themselves, "What makes the show enjoyable for ME?" This is an important task of self-awareness and discovery that one simply cannot leave to the online information world. Surely, we all must yearn to know more about ourselves than what others presume to know about us. Of all the people and pressures and possibilities that bid for a piece of our limited 700-thousand-hour time-pie, certainly lengthy decisions over what electronic media to watch, shouldn't be one of them. If the length of time one spends deciding about a show, exceeds the length of the program itself, a change should probably occur.

As a teacher of mathematics, I have faith in the quantification of most matters of the universe. Consequently, I believe that numbers, for various self-serving reasons, can be strategically assigned to certain aspects of the things around us. One example of this would be the data-based aspects of a movie, as they correlate to inherent sensory-based attributes of that same movie. These numbers can subsequently be manipulated by means of a formula or algorithm to provide an end result in the form of a recommendation. The nearer this derivation approximates a chosen pre-set standard representing a viewer’s preferences, the more likely it will be that the motion picture under scrutiny will also be thoroughly enjoyed by that person. The end-game of this exercise is for the consumer to personally select movies to watch, based on personal criteria and not on a recommendation made by someone else. The viewer needs to minimize effects of the forces that continue to feast on his / her general distaste for decision-making. To initiate this process, one needs to develop several specific and personal data banks which will eventually provide the currency for fueling the proposed mathematical formula.

The first step in the process is to produce a list of 20 favorite movies of all time. Once completed, one must search for common threads representing the pleasures that these 20 movies evoke in the viewer. These common-thread aspects need be further correlated with objective data that can be gathered from DVD jackets and media summaries, etc. without actually having to watch the movie.

A key assumption of this proposal is that there are indeed non-viewable movie data (i.e., running time, lead actors, audience rating, etc.) that correlate positively with in-movie characteristics already identified by the consumer as favorable qualities of any film.

For example, the category of ACTORS, who star in these 20 favorite movies, is a good category with which to start, and aptly chosen because, in at least 99.9% of all the movies out there, one does not have to watch a movie to discover what actors are working. This information is public domain even before munching that first handful of popcorn. Fabrication of an ACTORs list then graduates to an ordinal compilation and a corresponding quantitative allotment for the purpose of algorithmic substitution. For any given film to be evaluated, I would suggest consideration of a maximum of three actors for the purpose of compiling points, but again, personal preferences will probably prevail beyond any suggestions I offer.

Once numeric values have been assigned according to position on my list, I would naturally like to test the concept. Say that Tom Hanks is the number two actor on my ‘ACTORS’ list. For the sake of convenience, he arbitrarily wins 9 points toward any movie he is in. Geena Davis is number 15 on that list so, she wins say, 5 points toward any movie she stars in. Madonna is not on the list so she scores zero points toward any movie to be evaluated, and so on. To further simplify, let’s imagine that ‘ACTORS’ will be the only criterium used in rating any particular movie, thus implying a formula in which there is only one variable requiring substitution. As a result of this limited categorization, the evaluation total for the movie, “A League of Their Own”, would be 14 points. If a movie has to score over 10 in order to be chosen for viewing, then this film could be considered by the viewer.

However, there are other data-based evaluation categories besides the category of ‘ACTORS’. For instance, one could also use movie ‘GENRE’ as a grouping. Continuing, I would rate Comedy movies highest on my list of genres. Sports movies would be number two. If I looked at a movie like “Major League” which is both a comedy and a sports movie, I would enter the summed points of both into my formula, thus awarding this movie 19 points in the GENRE category. Furthermore if, in this example, Charlie Sheen was my second favourite actor, then I could add another 9 points in the ACTORS category for a total of 28 points. If movies have to score greater than 20 points to be considered for viewing, “Major League” would fit the bill.

Perhaps the most important concept to consider in any decision-making exercise is expediency. In the present exercise, we want to be able to choose a movie or television series or episode in the least amount of time and with as little mental effort as possible. We must choose the minimum number of review categories possible while still retaining a decent sample size to allow for a valid and reliable evaluation. Not only do we need to limit the number of categories, but we need to commit the items within each, and their corresponding awarded points, to memory. The purpose of this system would be defeated if the reviewer had to constantly refer to physical lists or cell phone data in order to organize factors and calculate final results. If we wish for expedience in the selection of electronic media, we actually have to be active in a time-saving practice like the one highlighted in this proposal, and not be constantly relying on our time-consuming habits of the past.

DEVELOPING THE ALGORITHM

Imagine we are in a video store and we pick up a DVD jacket from the shelf. What information can be gleaned from the cover, in lieu of viewing the movie? To begin with, there’s always a TITLE and there’s almost always a PHOTO of some sort. There is also a list of ACTORS names. An AUDIENCE RATING appears along with a list of film officials like DIRECTOR and producers and so on. Taken together, all of this information will suggest a GENRE for the movie, if indeed one is not already given in the data. The RUNNING TIME of the movie will be indicated somewhere as well. There are also subjective, albeit biased REVIEWs and SYNOPSES available on the jacket. We will not reference these however, as they are neither a product of our own opinions nor of objective research. Only appropriate amounts of objective analysis and perhaps a dash of our own evaluation will be trusted in the recipe for this proposal. In all then, we have more than enough objective ammunition to judge whether or not a particular movie is actually worth watching.

After inspection of these data-based categories for suitable evaluation of visual electronic media, my finished personal list now includes TITLE, SEQUELS, PHOTO, ACTORS, DIRECTOR, GENRE, RATING, RUNNING TIME (C)and X FACTOR. The X FACTOR category is a bonus category. It is the only bit of subjectivity with a position in my formula - but, since it is MY subjectivity, I have made the executive decision to allow it. One may choose to do the same with their own algorithm. My rationale for including the X FACTOR is exemplified in that, I have recently come to enjoy Foreign / Indigenous films like “Parasite” and “The Fast Runner”. A quantitatively borderline film, may still be chosen if it leans toward such an 'unlisted' GENRE. Likewise, if an unheard-of actor shows promise in a film, the X FACTOR may be brought into play. Each viewer will have his own specific and personal X FACTOR and accompanying values. One need remember that it is the formula itself which is crucial – the formula, using only data gathered in lieu of watching the movie. Statistics, which can be mentally processed at a glance, are vital and common to the selection process of all viewers. Conversely, the elements within the foundational aspects will show vast differences for each person using this system. For example, my favorite ACTOR's list will contain different names than yours. The points we assign to each name may also differ, but the way these points are used in the formula (and the formula itself), will be quite similar. When I explain the elements within the broader categories, I will do so from my point of view. When they are explained by the reader, to someone else, they should be explained from that perspective, and so on. Finally, unlike Stephen Hawking’s dream formula which strives to explain everything, my formula only explains about 95% of my electronic visual media universe and thus the need for an X FACTOR.

1. TITLE (represented by “T” in the evaluation formula) – my assessment of movie titles falls within certain parameters. Since I enjoy sports and music and road trips and comedy, I look for words in the title that allude to any of these interest areas. I also look for brevity in a title. I am drawn to one-word titles like “Matrix” and “Godfather” but I don’t like sequels so, I would avoid films like “Matrix – Reloaded” or “Godfather Part III”. A movie like “Fight Club” would catch my attention because of the short title and because it contains the word ‘Fight’. Movie titles with references to Outer Space are also favorites of mine. “Star Wars” movies, whether sequels or originals are always good. I seldom choose a movie with a conjunction in the title, especially if it is represented by an ampersand (&). Movies like “Pride & Prejudice” or “Sense & Sensibility” or “Fast & Furious” remain low on my list of possibilities. In my system, the best title will be awarded the least value, to minimize its reducing affect in the denominator of the evaluation formula. With all this in mind, here is my point dispersal for this category. One or Two-word titles - 1 point, Three or Four-word titles - 2 points, Greater than Four-word titles - 3 points, Titles containing “&” - (add 0.5 points).

2. SEQUELs (Represented by “S” in the evaluation formula) – as mentioned above, I am not a big fan of sequels. There are those who believe that if the original movie was great then adding the phrase ‘Part II’ to the original title will make the new feature even more great. With maybe the exception of “Godfather II” and “Kill Bill II” (which was really just the second half of “Kill Bill”), I find that all the good points portrayed in the original edition of a movie are simply exploited and diluted in parts two and three and four and so on. The same goes for subsequent seasons of a made-for-TV movie series – “24” was interesting in Season One, but in subsequent seasons, it was like watching NFL Football but with all the rules changed and no referees around to enforce the changes. One got the feeling, they were just making it up as they went along. Original movie / program - 1 point, Part II / Season 2 - 2 points, Part III / Season 3 or beyond - 3 points.

3. PHOTOs (Represented by “P” in the evaluation formula) – photos depicting sports, action, music, road trips and comedy are rated highly, whereas photos that portray nineteenth-century, lacey petticoats and parasols and rural English estates would not fare well in my rating system. Road trips / Comedy - 5 points, Sports / Music / Space - 4 points, Day-to-day Relationships / School / Life - 3 points, All others - 2 points, Except Nineteenth-century reference - 1 point.

4. GENRE (Represented by “G” in the evaluation formula) – for me, comedy movies are much more enjoyable than complicated mystery dramas. My own life is a complicated mystery drama – I get plenty of that stuff unfolding in front of me every day! I love sports and music and I like the excitement of a road trip across some continent. I am not certain that the Generic categories I have listed below are documented and official categories used by the film and television industry, but they work for me and, as per my previous allusion, the categorical fabrication of film evaluation is truly a personal business. Comedy - 10 points, Sports / Road Trip - 9 points, Outer Space / Futuristic - 8 points, Relationships / Foreign - 7 points, Country & Western - 6 points, Rock Musicals - 5 points, Animated - 4 points, Classic & Other Musicals - 3 points, Mystery / Drama - 2 points, Horror - 1 point, All Others - 0 points.

5. RATING (Represented by “R” in the evaluation formula) – I like movies with sex scenes. Such interludes in a film or television program, add an element of reality to the program that cannot be achieved through any other behavioral parameter. For example, violence in movies attempts to produce a similar visceral effect but it doesn’t come close in my opinion. Let’s face it, sex is often on the minds of many viewers. I like to equate the appeal of a sex scene in a movie, to me getting up off the couch, going to the fridge, getting a glass of cola and ice, stretching, and then sitting down again. In short, the sex scene renews my interest in the movie and, saves me a lot of steps in the process. NC-17 - 5 points, R - 4 points, PG-13 - 3 points, PG - 2 points, G - 1 point.

6. RUNNING TIME (Represented by “C” (for clock) in the evaluation formula) – movies that are shorter than 100 minutes are frustrating – I don’t want to go through the trouble of parking and getting popcorn and snacks and drinks for a show that is finished before all the candy is. If I do not have to use the washroom by the time a movie is over, it was too short. Even though the expiration date on my bladder is less than 100 minutes, I am still willing to agonize through the final 40 or 50 minutes to get my complete fix. That being said, neither my bladder nor I care for movies that require an intermission. Life doesn’t have intermissions and neither should movies. 130 – 160 minutes - 3 points, 110 – 129 minutes - 2 points, All others - 1 point.

7. ACTORs (Represented by “A” in the evaluation formula) – for this segment of the evaluation, everyone’s personal preferences really kick into action. No matter who does the evaluation, everyone has to have their own list of 10 or 20 favorite actors and actresses. Nobody can legitimately tell you what movie to watch or not watch, based on their favorites. Over my 65-year movie-watching career, I have pretty much determined that I can enjoy or, suffer through if I have to, any film starring any of the following actors. Meg Ryan - 10 points, Halle Berry - 9 points, Meryl Streep - 8 points, Scarlett Johansson - 7 points, Charlize Theron - 6 points, Natalie Portman - 5 points, Selma Hayek - 4 points, Ashley Judd - 3 points, Susan Sarandon - 2 points, Geena Davis - 1 point, All others - 0 points /

Robert DeNiro - 10 points, Brad Pitt - 9 points, Jim Carrey - 8 points, Leonardo DiCaprio - 7 points, Clint Eastwood - 6 points, Morgan Freeman - 5 points, Billy Bob Thornton - 4 points, Will Smith - 3 points, Tom Hanks - 2 points, Christoph Waltz / Ben Stiller - 1 point, All Others - 0 points.

8. DIRECTORs (Represented by “D” in the evaluation formula) – I don’t know as many directors as I should, by the work they do but, I have still managed to pick a few favorites. Clint Eastwood - 10 points, Steven Spielberg - 9 points, Quentin Tarantino - 8 points, Ron Howard - 7 points, Rob Reiner - 6 points, Penny Marshall - 5 points, Stanley Kubrick - 4 points, Sam Mendes / Akira Kurosawa - 3 points, Alfred Hitchcock - 2 points, Pedro Almodovar - 1 point, All Others - 0 points.

9. X – FACTOR (Represented by “X” in the evaluation formula) – as described previously, these are subjective bonus points thrown into the mix and based on what my ‘gut instincts’ may tell me. The X-FACTOR value can be any mark from 0 – 10 and simply added to the subtotal derived from calculation of values in the first segment of the formula.

THE FORMULA

{(D + A ) + [C( P + R + G)]}/(T + S) = Subtotal + X = Final Grade

The first term of the formula, (D+A), contains the total points for DIRECTORs and ACTORs. All the formula is saying here, in a distinctive mathematical voice, is that if one hadn’t the time to examine anything other than the stars of the movie and the director, a good sense of the movie could still be wrought numerically. The total for these categories is intended to flesh out the numerator of the formula. Next, is the non-additive CLOCK factor. Its importance is reflected by the multiplicative power with which it is bestowed in the formula. Also, in this second term, are included the additive values for PHOTOs, RATING for Audiences and GENRE of the movie. Their sum is multiplied by the CLOCK factor, [C(P+R+G)], to obtain a value for the second term in the numerator. As the PHOTOs and RATING categories are never represented by ‘zero’ values, the entire term is also a non-zero value. Therefore, when the sum of P, R and G is multiplied by C, a further non-zero value will result. So, even when there are no favorite actors or directors in the film to be evaluated, the numerator will still never have a zero value. The denominator portion of the formula is made up of the summed values of TITLE and SEQUEL, (T+S). As neither of the two will ever be a zero value, according to my rating system, the denominator of the formula’s end-result cannot be a zero either, thus we have no non-permissible values to worry about in the final result. I know for the average movie viewer, this doesn’t seem like a big deal, but for anybody with latent mathematical tendencies, this goes a long way in further stress reduction with regard to movie selection. Finally, the value for the X FACTOR, (X), is simply added to the total derived in the calculation to this point.

Exhale . . . Clear as mud? I am just sorry that Shirley Ellis couldn't be around to help me explain things more musically!

Examples

To illustrate all of this, let’s use the formula to review an average random movie such as “Mr. Holland’s Opus” and see what happens. Note, that none of my favorite actors appear in this film and neither is it directed by anyone on my favorite directors list, so the 'zero' values which I substitute into the formula will reflect that. I will also give this film an X FACTOR value of about 5, because of the photo references to music and school on the DVD jacket cover. Where: D=0, A=0, C=3, P=4, R=2, G=7+3 (because it qualifies for two desired genres), T= 2, S=1, X= 5 .

{( 0 + 0 + 5) + [3( 4 + 2 + (7+3))]} / (2 + 1) = { 5 + 58 }/(3) = 21 + 5= 26

I am happy with any movie that scores over 20 so, for a movie such as, “Mr. Holland’s Opus”, which I viewed and subjectively rated as ‘not bad’, my formula validates my personal bias with a quantitative evaluation of 26. Note also, that this movie could have a different rating score from a different reviewer because, for that person say, Richard Dreyfuss may have been number one on the favorite ACTORs list, thus earning the movie more points in the evaluation.

Let’s try another one though, just to further illustrate the utility of a good formula – a movie, this time, I know I do not favor - “Pride & Prejudice”. Where: D=0, A=0, C=2, P=0.5, R=1, G=0, T= (2+0.5), S=1, X= 0.25 (jacket liner photo displaying a lace-decorated parasol).

{(0 + 0) + [2(0.5 + 1 + 0)]}/(2.5 + 1 + 0.5) = {0 + 3} /(4) = 0.75 + 0.25 = 1

This movie, which I did watch once, but which I would neither watch again nor recommend, scored a 1 on my rating scale, thereby lending numerical support to my already-derived subjective opinion of the movie.

CONCLUSION

The point of my essay is, that people have their own biases and preferences when it comes to watching movies. Their own 'mental formulas’ for evaluating or predicting the pleasure factor of a film, will be based upon and, reflect those biases. It should not come as a surprise, that any formula - mental, mathematical or otherwise - developed by any given film-watcher will demonstrate that the movie “Emma”, exhibits the same degree of watchability for them, as “Sense & Sensibility”. If I like one humorous sports movie starring Brad Pitt, I will probably like another humorous sports movie starring Brad Pitt. There is no real magic in predicting whether a person will enjoy a movie based on previous movies watched and enjoyed. Video store clerks have been pointing that out to us for years, by the strategies they use to stock and organize the film inventory on their shelves. All that my algebraic formula really provides is a low-risk loan of quantitative validation and credence to what would otherwise appear as mere subjectivity and educated guesswork. However, I still eagerly offer this numerical algorithm for movie, film and television program selection. Working with it, the way I have suggested, may greatly facilitate one's movie selection experience.

Besides this offering, I also want to contribute some valuable advice. That being, that a viewer can only watch one movie at a time. We need to remember – one of the most brilliant characteristics of electronic media is that it never disappears. If we don’t choose to watch a movie today, we can choose it tomorrow or next week or next year. In using my proposed formula, it is suggested that the viewer change his / her mind-set to one of resignation and satisfaction in selecting one, and only one, movie - that being the first movie that meets or exceeds the pre-determined standards of his / her personal formula. One movie per sitting, is what this doctor is ordering. If the formula is misused, to instead compare movies for viewing or to select the best of the best, the purpose of the formula, for ease in viewing selection, will be defeated and, no time, effort or energy will ever be saved in the process. The formula is intended to expedite the process, not grind it to a halt. The formula also affords us the luxury of describing the movie and film universe in terms of numbers and, in this day and age of required ‘proof’ for everything, there is no real substitute for numbers. These numbers, used appropriately within the handy little formula, have allowed me to proclaim boastfully and conclusively that indeed, “there isn't any movie that I can't rate”!!