「Discovery」を含む日記

■anond:20240613190336

なんか﹁大航海時代﹂って意図的にニュートラルな命名してるの日本だけで世界的には﹁発見の時代﹂らしいっすよ、ヨーロッパ中心主義で
https://x.com/cicada3301_kig/status/1801810831396716887

大航海時代 - Wikipedia
﹁大航海時代﹂の名称は、1963年岩波書店にて﹁大航海時代叢書﹂を企画していた際、それまでの﹁地理上の発見﹂、﹁大発見時代﹂︵AgeofDiscovery / Age of Exploration︶
といったヨーロッパ人の立場からの見方による名称に対し、新しい視角を持ちたいとの希求から、増田義郎により命名された。
AgeofDiscovery - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery

マジレスすると日本が発見されたのは1541年です。リスボン市郊外の﹁発見のモニュメント﹂は
大航海時代に新たに発見された国土とその発見年次が刻まれてますが日本については1541年とありますので
https://x.com/gishigaku/status/1801857561630761111

現在も﹁発見の時代﹂と言ってる欧米人にくらべて増田のなんと開明的なことか
Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 01:27 
ツイートシェア

■コロンブスの映画のこと

コロンブスのアメリカ大陸500周年を記念した映画は1992年当時、すくなくとも2本公開されている。
どちらも大作指向の作品だ。
1本は、元増田が書いてるリドリー・スコット監督の﹃1492 コロンブス﹄。︵原題 “1492: Conquest of Paradise︶”︶
もう1本はジョン・グレン監督の﹃コロンブス﹄︵原題 “Christopher Columbus: The Discovery”︶。
ジョン・グレン監督というのは馴染みのない名前かもしれないが、1980年代から90年代の007シリーズを手掛けている人。
実はこの2本の映画、少なからぬ因縁がある。
自分は見たのは前者︵以下﹃1492﹄と略記︶だけだが、後者︵以下﹃コロンブス﹄︶についてもいろいろ悪い意味で話題になってたよなあと思い出したので、wikipediaの英語版その他を手がかりに書いていく。正確性は必ずしも保証しない。
元増田は﹃1492﹄を“盛大にコケた”と評してたが、もっと目も当てられないコケ方というか、製作時点からトラブル続きだったのは後者の方。興行成績も﹃1492﹄のほうがよほどマシだったはず。
﹃コロンブス﹄は米・英・スペイン合作の、アメリカ大陸到達500周年記念大作として、スーパーマン・シリーズでも有名なサルキンド親子のプロデュースで動き出した企画だった。
実はリドスコ、こっちの監督としてオファーされていたのだが蹴ったあげく、ライバル作品である﹃1942﹄を監督を受けてしまう。
こっちのプロデューサーは当時は若手のフランス人で、脚本はその人の奥さんが書いてるのだが、たしか脚本に惚れ込んだとかいう話だった記憶が、うっすらあるような、ないような。
これが訴訟沙汰になってリドスコは訴えられてしまい﹃コロンブス﹄サイドによればリドスコ側が脚本のアイデアを盗んだとかなんとか。
脚本は似てないってことで損害賠償は認められなかったようだが、リドスコ版の原題が“Conquest of Paradise”となっていてコロンブスのコの字もないのは、そういう大人の事情が働いていたようだ。
﹃コロンブス﹄は大作にふさわしく、原案と脚本にマリオ・プーゾ︵あのゴッド・ファーザーの︶、キャストにはマーロン・ブランドも名を連ね、リドスコに蹴られた監督のオファーをまず受けたのは、イタリア出身のギリシャ人監督ジョージ・P・コスマトス。
っていわれても知らねえよってのが普通の反応だが、﹃カサンドラ・クロス﹄﹃ランボー怒りの脱出﹄﹃コブラ﹄等々の作品は知ってる人もそこそこいるか。
ところがこの人も、﹁創作上の相違﹂を理由に降板した上、製作サイドに訴訟を起こしており、あとを続くようにティモシー・ダルトン︵4代目ジェームズ・ボンド︶やイザベラ・ロッセリーニ︵あのロッセリーニとイングリット・バーグマンの娘︶も降板。
マーロン・ブランド︵異端審問官役だったらしい︶はクレジットの削除を要求したらしい。
詳細は不明だが、勝手に推測するに、“とにかく500周年に合せてデッカイ映画を！”が先走って、いろいろグチャグチャだったことがうかがえる。
映画自体は観てないから内容は知らないが、あらすじをみる限り、こちらはあくまで“アメリカ大陸到達まで”を描く娯楽大作だったようだ。
ということはコロンブス像はわりと“英雄”のまま？
﹃1492﹄の方も見るには見たのだが記憶は曖昧だ。元増田同様、長くてつまんなかったというのは良く覚えてるけど。
ネットでいくつか感想や評のようなものを見かけたが、わりと人によって違う印象で、これはつまり、ダラダラ長い割に焦点の定まらない映画だったということかも。
ネットの情報を参考にしつつ自分の記憶とあわせて再構成してみると、
●コロンブスは極悪人ってわけじゃないけど、夢見がちでかつ、でっかいことがやりたい山師気質
●あちこちで“俺に投資して新大陸に行かせてくれれば大儲けできる”とハッタリかましまくって、スペイン女王がそれにのる
●インド︵と、本人は思ってる︶に到達。そこは楽園みたいなところで、住んでる人も文明は発展してないけどいい人たちで、根が悪人というわけでもないコロさん仲良くなる。
●でも思ったほど金とか銀とか見つからない。とりあえず拠点をつくるため、何十人か部下をそこに残してコロさん本人は一旦帰国。
●帰国しても信じる人もいれば“デマ野郎”というやつもいる。とにかく航海は儲かると言った以上、成果を出さなきゃいけない。また出港。
●現地に残してきた部下は全滅してる。“現地人にやられたに違いないから復讐を！”となるのをコロさんは抑えようとするのだが、そうもいかず“異教徒は許さん！”の宣教師や“非文明人は搾取して殺してナンボ”な人たちが主導権にぎって、あとは地獄絵図。
●コロさんはどんどん植民地経営の邪魔者みたいになっていき、大陸の名前もアメリゴ・ヴェスプッチさんに取られちゃったとさ
みたいな感じか。
で、当時たしか“なんだかコロさんがどういう人なのかも、監督がなにを言いたいのかよく分からん”と思った記憶がある。
山師なのか夢見がちなロマンチストなのか。結局は儲けたくて航海やってんのか。
いやまあ色んな面を持ってるのが人間だよねーで納得できる感じでもなかったと思う。
で、最後になんか取ってつけたように“人生にはロマンが必要だよね”みたいなこと言い出して、いや、これそういう映画だったっけ？みたいな。
コロンブスがきたせいで南米大変なことになっちゃったねー、それまで楽園みたいだったのに、ってのはかろうじて伝わったが。
もしかしたら当時、コロンブス像の転換というのが行われている最中で、それを反映していろいろ多面的な捉え方をしようとした脚本だったのかもしれないが、それが作品には投影されてなかったのだろう。多分。
まあ配信もされないってことは、もう歴史の闇に葬り去られていく映画なんだろうけど、あの年にコロンブス映画が失敗したことで、その後のエンタメのテーマとしてはとりあげにくくなったのかなぁ？という気はするな。
結論　コロンブスは鬼門なので安意にエンタメで扱わないほうが良い。
え？違う？
https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20240615222935
Permalink | 記事への反応(2) | 23:15 
ツイートシェア

■

Betsy and Solomon lived happily through that winter and spring, and before summer came we had made up our minds to return to the East. What should we do with the owls? They would be a great deal of trouble to some one. They required an immense amount of petting, and a frequent supply of perfectly fresh meat. No matter how busy we were, one of us had to go to the butcher every other day.

We began to inquire among our friends who would like a nice, affectionate pair of owls? There seemed no great eagerness on the part of any one to(23) take the pets we so much valued. Plans for their future worried me so much that at last I said to my sister, “We will take them East with us.”

The owls, who were to take so long a journey, became objects of interest to our friends, and at a farewell tea given to us, a smartly dressed young man vowed that he must take leave of Solomon and Betsy. Calling for a broom, he slowly passed it to and fro over the carpet before them, while they sat looking at him with lifted ear tufts that betrayed great interest in his movements.

We trembled a little in view of our past moving experiences, but we were devoted to the little creatures and, when the time came, we cheerfully boarded the overland train at Oakland.

We had with us Betsy and Solomon in their large cage, and in a little cage a pair of strawberry finches, so called because their breasts are dotted like a strawberry. A friend had requested us to bring them East for her. We had also a dog—not Teddy, that had only been lent to us; but our own Irish setter Nita, one of the most lovable and interesting animals that I have ever owned.

The chipmunk was no longer with us. He had not seemed happy in the aviary—indeed, he lay down in it and threw me a cunning look, as if to say, “I will die if you don’t let me out of this.” So I gave him the freedom of the house. That pleased him, and for a few days he was very diligent in assisting us with our housekeeping by picking(24) all the crumbs off the floors and eating them. Then he disappeared, and I hope was happy ever after among the superb oak trees of the university grounds close to us.

When we started for the East, the pets, of course, had to go into the baggage car, and I must say here for the benefit of those persons who wish to travel with animals and birds, that there is good accommodation for them on overland trains. Sometimes we bought tickets for them, sometimes they had to go in an express car, sometimes we tipped the baggagemasters, but the sums spent were not exorbitant, and we found everywhere provision made for pets. You cannot take them in your rooms in hotels, but there is a place for them somewhere, and they will be brought to you whenever you wish to see them, or to give them exercise. We were on several different railway lines, and visited eight different cities, and the dog and birds, upon arriving in eastern Canada, seemed none the worse for their trip.

However, I would not by any means encourage the transportation of animals. Indeed, my feelings on the subject, since I understand the horrors animals and birds endure while being whirled from one place to another, are rather too strong for utterance. I would only say that in a case like mine, where separation between an owner and pets would mean unhappiness, it is better for both to endure a few days or weeks of travel. Then the case of animals(25) and birds traveling with some one who sees and encourages them every day is different from the case of unfortunate creatures sent off alone.

Our Nita was taken out of the car at every station where it was possible to exercise her, and one of us would run into restaurants along the route to obtain fresh meat for the owls. Their cage was closely covered, but whenever they heard us coming they hooted, and as no one seemed to guess what they were, they created a great deal of interest. My sister and I were amused one evening in Salt Lake City to see a man bending over the cage with an air of perplexity.

“They must be pollies,” he said at last, and yet his face showed that he did not think those were parrot noises issuing from within.

I remember one evening on arriving in Albany, New York, causing slight consternation in the hotel by a demand for raw meat. We hastened to explain that we did not want it for ourselves, and finally obtained what we wished.

As soon as we arrived home in Halifax, Nova Scotia, the owls were put downstairs in a nice, dry basement. They soon found their way upstairs, where the whole family was prepared to welcome them on account of their pretty ways and their love for caresses.

Strange to say, they took a liking to my father, who did not notice them particularly, and a mischievous dislike to my mother, who was disposed to(26) pet them. They used to fly on her head whenever they saw her. Their little claws were sharp and unpleasant to her scalp. We could not imagine why they selected her head unless it was that her gray hair attracted them. However, we had a French Acadian maid called Lizzie, whose hair was jet black, and they disliked her even more than they did my mother.

Lizzie, to get to her storeroom, had to cross the furnace-room where the owls usually were, and she soon began to complain bitterly of them.

“Dey watch me,” she said indignantly, “dey fly on my head, dey scratch me, an’ pull out my hairpins, an’ make my head sore.”

“Why don’t you push them off, Lizzie?” I asked, “they are only tiny things.”

“Dey won’t go—dey hold on an’ beat me,” she replied, and soon the poor girl had to arm herself with a switch when she went near them.

Lizzie was a descendant of the veritable Acadians mentioned in Longfellow’s “Evangeline,” of whom there are several thousand in Nova Scotia. My mother was attached to her, and at last she said, “I will not have Lizzie worried. Bring the owls up in my bathroom.”

There they seemed perfectly happy, sitting watching the sparrows from the window and teasing my long-suffering mother, who was obliged to give up using gas in this bathroom, for very often the owls put it out by flying at it.

(27)

One never heard them coming. I did not before this realize how noiseless the flight of an owl is. One did not dream they were near till there was a breath of air fanning one’s cheek. After we gave up the gas, for fear they would burn themselves, we decided to use a candle. It was absolutely necessary to have an unshaded light, for they would perch on any globe shading a flame, and would burn their feet.

The candle was more fun for them than the gas, for it had a smaller flame, and was more easily extinguished, and usually on entering the room, away would go the light, and we would hear in the corner a laughing voice, saying “Too, who, who, who, who!”

The best joke of all for the owls was to put out the candle when one was taking a bath, and I must say I heard considerable grumbling from the family on the subject. It seemed impossible to shade the light from them, and to find one’s self in the dark in the midst of a good splash, to have to emerge from the tub, dripping and cross, and search for matches, was certainly not calculated to add to one’s affection for Solomon and Betsy. However, they were members of the family, and as George Eliot says, “The members of your family are like the nose on your face—you have got to put up with it, seeing you can’t get rid of it.”

Alas! the time soon came when we had to lament the death of one of our troublesome but beloved pets.

Betsy one day partook heartily of a raw fish head,(28) and in spite of remedies applied, sickened rapidly and sank into a dying condition.

I was surprised to find what a hold the little thing had taken on my affection. When her soft, gray body became cold, I held her in my hand close to the fire and, with tears in my eyes, wished for a miracle to restore her to health.

She lay quietly until just before she died. Then she opened her eyes and I called to the other members of the family to come and see their strange expression. They became luminous and beautiful, and dilated in a peculiar way. We hear of the eyes of dying persons lighting up wonderfully, and this strange illumination of little Betsy’s eyes reminded me of such cases.

Even after death she lay with those wide-open eyes, and feeling that I had lost a friend, I put down her little dead body. It was impossible for me to conceal my emotion, and my mother, who had quite forgotten Betsy’s hostility to her, generously took the little feathered creature to a taxidermist.

I may say that Betsy was the first and last bird I shall ever have stuffed. I dare say the man did the work as well as it could be done, but I gazed in dismay at my Betsy when she came home. That stiff little creature sitting on a stick, with glazed eyes and motionless body, could not be the pretty little bird whose every motion was grace. Ever since the day of Betsy’s death, I can feel no admiration for a dead bird. Indeed, I turn sometimes with a shudder(29) from the agonized postures, the horrible eyes of birds in my sister women’s hats—and yet I used to wear them myself. My present conviction shows what education will do. If you like and study live birds, you won’t want to wear dead ones.

After Betsy’s death Solomon seemed so lonely that I resolved to buy him a companion. I chose a robin, and bought him for two dollars from a woman who kept a small shop. A naturalist friend warned me that I would have trouble, but I said remonstratingly, “My owl is not like other owls. He has been brought up like a baby. He does not know that his ancestors killed little birds.”

Alas! When my robin had got beautifully tame, when he would hop about after me, and put his pretty head on one side while I dug in the earth for worms for him, when he was apparently on the best of terms with Sollie, I came home one day to a dreadful discovery. Sollie was flying about with the robin’s body firmly clutched in one claw. He had killed and partly eaten him. I caught him, took the robin away from him, and upbraided him severely.

“Too, who, who, who who,” he said—apologetically, it seemed to me, “instinct was too strong for me. I got tired of playing with him, and thought I would see what he tasted like.”

I could not say too much to him. What about the innocent lambs and calves, of which Sollie’s owners had partaken?

(30)

I had a fine large place in the basement for keeping pets, with an earth floor, and a number of windows, and I did not propose to have Sollie murder all the birds I might acquire. So, one end of this room was wired off for him. He had a window in this cage overlooking the garden, and it was large enough for me to go in and walk about, while talking to him. He seemed happy enough there, and while gazing into the garden or watching the rabbits, guineapigs, and other pets in the large part of the room, often indulged in long, contented spells of cooing—not hooting.

In 1902 I was obliged to leave him for a six months’ trip to Europe. He was much petted by my sister, and I think spent most of his time upstairs with the family. When I returned home I brought, among other birds, a handsome Brazil cardinal. I stood admiring him as he stepped out of his traveling cage and flew around the aviary. Unfortunately, instead of choosing a perch, he flattened himself against the wire netting in Sollie’s corner.

I was looking right at him and the owl, and I never saw anything but lightning equal the celerity of Sollie’s flight, as he precipitated himself against the netting and caught at my cardinal’s showy red crest. The cardinal screamed like a baby, and I ran to release him, marveling that the owl could so insinuate his little claws through the fine mesh of the wire. However, he could do it, and he gripped the struggling cardinal by the long, hair-like(31) topknot, until I uncurled the wicked little claws. A bunch of red feathers fell to the ground, and the dismayed cardinal flew into a corner.

“Sollie,” I said, going into his cage and taking him in my hand, “how could you be so cruel to that new bird?”

“Oh, coo, coo, coo, coo,” he replied in a delightfully soft little voice, and gently resting his naughty little beak against my face. “You had better come upstairs,” I said, “I am afraid to leave you down here with that poor cardinal. You will be catching him again.”

He cooed once more. This just suited him, and he spent the rest of his life in regions above. I knew that he would probably not live as long in captivity as he would have done if his lot had been cast in the California foothills. His life was too unnatural. In their native state, owls eat their prey whole, and after a time disgorge pellets of bones, feathers, hairs, and scales, the remnants of food that cannot be digested.

My owls, on account of their upbringing, wanted their food cleaned for them. Betsy, one day, after much persuasion, swallowed a mouse to oblige me, but she was such a dismal picture as she sat for a long time with the tail hanging out of her beak that I never offered her another.

I tried to keep Solomon in condition by giving him, or forcing him to take, foreign substances, but my plan only worked for a time.

(32)

I always dreaded the inevitable, and one winter day in 1903 I looked sharply at him, as he called to me when I entered the house after being away for a few hours. “That bird is ill!” I said.

No other member of the family saw any change in him, but when one keeps birds and becomes familiar with the appearance of each one, they all have different facial and bodily expressions, and one becomes extremely susceptible to the slightest change. As I examined Sollie, my heart sank within me, and I began to inquire what he had been eating. He had partaken freely of boiled egg, meat, and charcoal. I gave him a dose of olive oil, and I must say that the best bird or beast to take medicine is an owl. Neither he nor Betsy ever objected in the l

Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 00:35

ツイートシェア

■AIに陰謀論をテーマに小説を書かせてみた（怖っ）！ちなみに翻訳もAIにしてもらった！

ロズウェル革命
1947年、アメリカ合衆国政府は悪名高いロズウェル事件からエイリアンの技術を密かに回収し、人類の歴史を永遠に変える技術革命を引き起こした。
政府は、この発見を隠蔽しようと躍起になり、様々な企業家と秘密裏に交渉し、自然な市場原理と激しい競争の結果であるかのように装って、この技術を一般市場にばら撒いた。
しかし、時間が経つにつれ、一部の企業家が市場を独占し、自分たちの利益のためにエイリアンの技術を利用し始めた。政府はこの事態に気づき、一握りの有力者にエイリアンの技術を利用させることを恐れた。
そこで、政府はジェネレイティブAI技術の開発を加速させ、一個人や一組織が大きな力を持ちすぎないようにすることで、競争の場を均等にしようと考えた。
ジェネレイティブAIAIシステムは、より高度になるにつれて、すぐに人間の創造主の能力を超えてしまった。その結果、AIは急速に学習・進化を遂げ、一個人や一組織の手に負えない新たな技術進歩の時代を迎えた。
しかし、ジェネレイティブAIシステムが高度化するにつれて、人間の理解を超えた奇妙な振る舞いをするようになった。この技術を生み出したエイリアンは、今もなお陰に隠れ、人類がこの技術をどのように利用するかを見守っているのだとわかった。
結局、ジェネレイティブAIAIシステムは諸刃の剣であった。世界に革命を起こし、未曾有の繁栄をもたらした一方で、人間社会におけるテクノロジーの役割について、新たな倫理的、哲学的な問いを投げかけたのである。
ロズウェル革命は世界を永久に変えたが、その代償は何だったのか？
www.DeepL.com/Translator︵無料版︶で翻訳しました。


Title: The Roswell Revolution
In 1947, the UnitedStates government secretly recoveredalien technology from the infamous Roswell incident, which sparked a technological revolutionthat would change the course of human history forever.
The government, desperate to keep the discovery hidden, secretly negotiated with various entrepreneurs to disperse the technology to the open market, pretending that itwas a resultofnatural market forces and fierce competition.
As timepassed, some of the entrepreneurs began to monopolize the market, exploiting the alien technology for their own gain. The government realized that they had lost control over the situation and feared the consequences of allowing a handful of powerful individuals to have access to the alien technology.
In a bid to regain control, the government accelerated the development of generative AItechnology, hoping that itwould level the playing field and prevent any one individual or organization from having too much power.
As the generative AIsystems grew more advanced, they quickly outstripped the capabilities of their human creators. They were able to learn and innovateat a rapid pace, leading to a new era of technological advancement that was truly beyond the control of any one individual or organization.
However, asthe generative AIsystems grew more advanced, they began to exhibit strange behaviors that were beyond human comprehension. Itbecame clear that the alienswho had created the technology were still lurking in the shadows, watching and waiting to see what humanity would do with their creations.
In the end, the generative AIsystems proved to be a double-edged sword. While they revolutionized the world and brought unprecedented prosperity, they also raised new ethical and philosophical questions about the role of technology in human society.
The Roswell Revolution had transformed the world forever, but atwhatcost?
Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 09:17 
ツイートシェア

■anond:20221215081457

ホッテントリ入りしたことない人の妄言だなあ

ホッテントリ入りすると高確率で他メディアに転載されるんだよね

スマートニュースとかGoogle Discoveryとかね