Gorilla Filmmaking

"Talking nonsense is man's only privilege that distinguishes him from all other organisms." -Fyodor Dostoevsky

By now you've probably heard something about the BBC Chimp movie. "The world's first film shot entirely by chimpanzees is to be broadcast by the BBC as part of a natural history documentary."

Up until now we've only seen what these primates can do with paint, which is kinda impressive (especially Micheal's portrait of his dog Apple).

Anyways, the prospect of their transition into motion pictures is an exciting one... except....

There's something of a gray area, and I can't help but wonder if this counts as them shooting it.
According to the film's producer, Ms Herrelko, "The apes are unlikely to have actively tried to film any particular subject, or understand that by carrying Chimpcam around, they were making a film."

This is where I hear myself saying, "Okay, so they 'technically' shot it, since they were the ones 'operating' the camera." But what do I mean by technically?

I don't mean to get into an argument about semantics here, but when someone uses the word "technically" it translates into, "My pattern recognition software mostly agrees with what you're saying, but somewhere, on some level, it doesn't, however, the impact this section has on the overall conclusion I've automatically drawn is negligible to the parts that tell me otherwise."

Anyways, aside from it being a Television first, it offers an interesting hypothetical situation.
Imagine what it would be like being these apes as they are presented with a movie that they had no idea they shot (actually chances are they'll just fling poo at the screen, which may or may not be a criticism on the film itself).

Obstinate Tosspots

I ask a great deal of questions, many of them hypothetical. Most times it's to spark conversation at a party or to play around with an idea. Some of the trouble I run into when asking questions is that I will unintentionally uncover pompous fools.

You know the type, guys who are fools and are covering for it by impressing on people as to how wonderful they are with all this self-flattery and trying to prove they are correct by holding the same opinion at the end of a conversation as they did at the beginning.

Take for example when someone asks, "So, you believe in the Big Bang Theory then?"
Chances are this person is going to have an idea about astrophysics that is less than accurate.
After bracing yourself for absurdity, you can take the time to discuss observational evidence, the expansion of the Universe and if they knew that the static on their television is caused by radiation left over from the Big Bang, but these points are not helpful when dealing with a pompous fool.

The pompous fool will argue back nonsense, "You weren't there, so how could you know?""What happened before the Big Bang?" and "How do you know TV static isn't ghosts?"

Uh huh.

There's a difference between arguing a hypothetical for the sake of creating a fertile ground for iterative problem solving and being an obstinate tosspot only interested in being able to find new ways to interpret your own ideas.