Miscellaneous: 100 years ago, through Europe on a Harley-Davidson

It was in the spring of 1922, just over 100 years ago, that Warren R. Laity wrote a three-part account of a trip through Britain and continental Europe on a 1920 Harley-Davidson roadster (with side car) for the Harley-Davidson company magazine. His account appeared in the March, April, and May issues of "The Harley-Davidson Enthusiast." 

Although he says it's possible to enter Europe through any port, he recommends an American choosing a British point of entry, suggesting that the common language makes the transition to a new country easier than it might be through, for example, France. 

He describes his machine as "economical and dependable" and outlines the process of crating a motorcycle and having it delivered to a US port for departure, meeting the machine at the port and paying for its transport as baggage ($25, or $35 with sidecar), and also taking care of customs and other formalities, before writing about the pleasures of travel through unfamiliar lands on a motorcycle. He says "Some walk, but that is too slow, bicycling is too tiresome, and autoing too formal. The Motorcyclist may stop any moment for a prolonged view or a chat with some odd character. It is so easy to slide from the saddle to snap a picture or inspect some romantic ruin by the roadside...." 

His wanderings take him from England to Belgium, and France, and then through Switzerland, and Italy. The articles are profusely illustrated with his own photographs, and it was as a photographer that he was known (particularly for photographs of architectural subjects; he taught art history at a New Jersey women’s college that later became part of Rutgers. His special areas of interest were the history of the flying buttress and runic script on cathedrals in Europe). Warren R. Laity was my mother's father. My son Warren is named after him. Above is one of his photographs (Florence), a cover of one of the magazine issues his account appeared in, and a picture of the type of motorcycle he used (I regret that I have been unable to find a credit for the motorcycle photo). 

Movies I'm Watching: What's so great about Blade Runner?

I generally avoid movies and TV shows that are relentlessly hyped and talked about in the media (I'm the guy who saw the first episode of 'Breaking Bad' the day the final episode aired). As a result, despite being a fan of movies in general, there are quite a few famous films I've never seen. These excessively promoted flicks are often a big disappointment, I find, so I shy away from them. For example, I didn't see any of the Godfather movies until about 2005 (the first two, against the trend, were not disappointments, and, for the record, I binge-watched 'Breaking Bad' in about two weeks). That said, I've still never seen 'Midnight Cowboy', 'Apocalypse Now', 'The Deer Hunter', any of the Star Wars films, 'Titanic', any of the Tolkein adaptations, 'Blade Runner', and on and on (as Kurt Vonnegut used to say). 

Last night, however, 'Blade Runner' was on Netflix, so I gave it a shot. I have to say, I don't understand why so many people seem to think this is a great film. First, this is supposed to be Los Angeles. Why is it raining all the time? Second, this is supposed to be Los Angeles. Why are all the stores advertising themselves in Japanese? Third, why are half the inhabitants Japanese and Chinese? Fourth, if, the job of the burnt-out cop, Rick Deckard, the Harrison Ford character, is to kill replicants, as we are told, why doesn't he eliminate the Rachel character immediately? Is he smitten? Does he see something different in her? If so, the director has failed to explain to us what makes it easy for him to 'retire' the other female replicant but not Rachel. It is suggested that she is a newer version that has been given manufactured memories and that she herself is unsure about whether she is a replicant, but never is Deckard's motivation made clear.

So, she's pretty. He's attracted to her--presumably so strongly that he's willing to rebel--but we don't even get a good sex scene to make clear his desire for her (working here on the assumption that replicants are so human-like that they can have sex, even if it's non-reproductive sex). 

Aside from that, while the acting is not notably bad, in my view, it's notably notable either. In short, I don't see why this has the following that it seems to have--I don't understand why I've been hearing about it over and over for so many years. When it was first released, I lived in Tokyo (1982). I remember seeing a billboard for the movie being painted to the right side of the entrance to Shinjuku Station (East Exit) back when real people still painted movie billboards by hand in Japan when a film was first released. Apparently, there are different versions made subsequently, though. I saw the 'Final Cut'. 

I haven't read the story the film is based on. Given the reputation of Philip K. Dick and, having read (and enjoyed) 'The Man in the High Tower', I suspect it worked better on the printed page than as an adaption. In short, I don't get it....