I've been watching the show Billions the past two weeks. The show is worthy of review. I don't understand why anyone writes lengthy reviews about why a show is "bad." The only intelligent and responsible thing to do in speaking of shows one dislikes is to say, "I thought it was bad. I don't recommend watching it. It's not worth taking the time to critique it," anything summing one's thoughts in three short sentences or less.
Billions is not like that. I often pause and watch a scene again so I absorb everything its teaching. Each sentence, in some scenes, contains wisdom. That's high-level work. Interestingly, I've noticed dialogue is often related to references of other movies with little explanations or synopses of the best lines, scenes, or aspects of movies the characters profess in such a way as to demonstrate their respect for the movie or series by creating a metaphor out of the dialogue sometimes directly lifted from another movie or show, like hip hop does through sampling.
Yes, the writers of the show are incorporating sampling as a way to create contextual metaphors through dialogue that may provide a relevant and accessible reference point for anyone familiar with the movies or shows being quoted, a recommendation for viewers of Billions to watch these other films or videos through homages, they bring quotes to life anew through their delivery in a different context, they reveal timeless truths identified by multiple sources, they create an ecumenicalism toward various genres, and much, much more.
In addition, they do this with more than movies. They do it with real-world art, politics, philosophy, business, athletics, cooking, and pretty much everything wealthy, professional, creative, and learned peoples tend to observe, engage, try, practice, and so on. All of this represents the complexity and value of Billions. Many people watch the show for the purposes of titillation, indulging in sensationalism and the excess of wealth. Fine to watch the show for those reasons, but there are additional ways to watch the show even as you are experiencing emotional gratification of a relatively shallow and short-term sort.
An example: Almost every sentence uttered in the scene from the video located at the beginning of this post is worth taking a deep dive to explore. I did that with nearly every sentence uttered. One concept I had never encountered previously was menschkeit. Chuck's father compliments Chuck, with hilarious affection (the entertainment aspect of the scene), for meeting a woman to do a favor for a friend instead of for the purposes of sex (which Senior also lauds). I wondered what was communicated, but I could tell Chuck Senior was proud of his son. So, I performed a search and found a website with an explanation of the word: Peter Swank.
I discovered menschkeit's heritage was Jewish or Judaic. The author made a list of 40 attributes that a mensch develops within himself while attempting master each--it is apparently a philosophy originally (and perhaps currently) designed for males, but most of the attributes seem entirely applicable to women or transgendered person. Anyone. Everyone.
There were a few that bordered on aggressiveness, but most involved a fairness and assertiveness. there were seven I realized I had never even thought to develop within myself because I never perceived their value. But, upon much consideration, I realized developing some of those attributes might be worthwhile. I also realized I have been actively developing most of those qualities within myself for many different reasons. Some I hadn't even realized I was practicing in my own life because I didn't conceive of my thoughts or deeds those ways.
I wondered, "Hmm, am I mensch?" Maybe. I recognize similar qualities within myself. Being able to realize in another menschkeit qualities in others. But, I decided to perform a deep dive into how my psychology limits me. In other words, I decided to look at my fears. An interesting experience occurred. I realized that when I observed my fears while both feeling the fullness of the fears within my body as intense emotions that had specific locations within me, they seemed to be "grateful" for the acknowledgment because, once acknowledged, the "energy" became "untangled" and the intensity of the pain of fear turned into an intensity of love for myself.
As such, I felt a gratitude toward the creators of menschkeit as well as all of the practitioners throughout history since its inception. Also, I gained a different level of respect for Jews and Judaism (I need to read to discover if it is actually related to Judaism). And I felt a gratitude toward Peter Swank for what he made publicly accessible in a very simple and easy way to understand.
With that in mind, one might ask, "Well, if you're practicing menschkeit principles, what about the one that suggests that mensch's use few words and all are meaningful?" My answer is that this is a blog post, an appropriate forum to say many words and sentences containing a depth of significance. I think I've been responsible, though I am sloppy at times. Probably would need work to master that. If I choose to care.
Right now I don't because I am providing this information to the public for free, for the public's benefit. I receive no further value editing and re-editing this post. There are better uses of my time. That means, though, that this post is of a lesser value than it could be. Fine with me. If that makes me not a mensch, I don't care. I said that I "may" be a mensch. That could only be confirmed or denied by a mensch. One might ask, "How would you know one is a mensch if one is not?" I would answer that if one is not a mensch and has no desire to become one I can't imagine why that would be of any importance to the person asking.
If I met Peter Swank and discovered he wasn't a mensch, I would still respect him for having made available such a fine list of explanations of menschkeit attributes. His efforts are worthy of respect and evidence that he has acted as a mensch would by making an offering of value to the public. One might say, "You're being arrogant." I would answer, "If one is right then they are being appropriately assertive. And even if one is wrong, that person has acted responsibly by making what has been thought available to the public for scrutiny."
That is an example of the value of the show Billions if one watches for purposes that are beyond mere entertainment. Anyone can do that. It is okay if no one does. However, not doing so means that one gained only entertainment and low-level satisfactions (still valuable) such as rest.
All of what I've written challenges every negative critique of Billions I've read. That they can't see the value of the show says something about their capabilities, awareness, skills, talents, as well as their intellectual, aesthetic, and ethical limitations. I could write much more about the show, but I need only provide this glimpse for others to be able to engage with the show to find value. By focusing on one short scene, specifically one word within the scene, I've illuminated much that can be done through building associations within and related to the show. Approach the show properly and you'll acquire the equivalent of a profound liberal arts education.
The video at the beginning of the post shows Charles Senior's ridiculously funny delivery of the statement he made about monogamy being a form of socialism preventing the alpha males from collecting all of the females, but that feels like an indulgence since I've already worked that out in my mind and I'd rather others watch the scene and the show for themselves and dig deep to work through their own conclusions.
I could write five 300-page books about Billions and still have more to express that is of value. I can see it without doing it. That is a quality of menschkeit.
