Tag: Apple

  • Is Martin Scorsese America’s greatest living director?

    Is Martin Scorsese America’s greatest living director?

    Who’s the greatest living American film director? Many would say Steven Spielberg, and that can’t be dismissed, but he hasn’t made a really good film since Munich (2005). There are many younger pretenders – such as David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino – and the more esoterically inclined might make the case for anyone from Terrence Malick to Spike Lee. Yet it’s hard not to feel that the don of contemporary American cinema is Martin Scorsese, whose career over the past five-and-a-half decades has existed, sans pareil, thanks to a vast dollop of talent, a considerable degree of good fortune and, crucially, an ability to lure both A-list collaborators and deep-pocketed moneymen into financing his films.

    Many of these A-list collaborators are on display in Rebecca Miller’s new five-part Apple TV documentary Mr. Scorsese, a comprehensive, if slightly safe, show that is the most laudatory single-director profile since Susan Lacy’s Spielberg (2017). Many of the same collaborators pop up here: the starry likes of Spielberg himself, Cate Blanchett, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brian De Palma and Daniel Day-Lewis (Miller’s husband) are on hand in both instances to gush as to the excellence of that director. (Scorsese, naturally, was equally warm in Spielberg.)

    Yet the two filmmakers could hardly be more different. One is a Jewish-American optimist from Ohio whose primarily heartwarming pictures – even the darker ones – focus on the virtues of kindness, personal decency and the nuclear family. For Scorsese, meanwhile, a fast-talking Italian-American from New York, the idea of “the family” is largely wrapped up with loyalty to a particular code, whether it’s criminal, spiritual or social. This has resulted in some of the very finest American pictures of the last five decades, whether it’s his earlier work with Robert De Niro –Taxi Driver, Mean Streets and Raging Bull – his more recent collaborations with DiCaprio such as The Wolf of Wall Street, The Departed and Killers of the Flower Moon, or some of the most fascinating examinations of religious faith on screen, not least Silence, Kundun and The Last Temptation of Christ.

    Scorsese, now 82 and in the final act of what has been a truly remarkable career, is unafraid to be filmed in an occasionally vulnerable light, looking conspicuously aged (although not frail) and puffing on an inhaler. The motormouth may still be functioning at high speed, but at 80 miles an hour, rather than the previous 120. (There are rumors of a new film, but nothing concrete.)

    Miller is clearly impressed by her articulate and brilliant subject, but it would not have hurt to have had a little more rigor at times: while it is hard to think of a single Scorsese film that is bad, per se, there is a real case for examining what, for instance, possessed him to spend nearly $200 million of a studio’s money on the charming but ephemeral children’s picture Hugo, made in 3D when that format was briefly popular.

    Still, the stories that are included are well worth five hours of anyone’s time. It’s commonly known that the levels of bloodshed in Taxi Driver gave the Motion Picture Association sleepless nights, but it was a revelation to discover that a distraught Scorsese wished to steal the print away from the concerned studio, possibly with the aid of a firearm, just as it’s amusing to hear Spielberg recount how his friend kept saying, “They want me to cut all the blood spurting, they want me to cut the guy who loses his hand.” Marty was, of course, right to stick to his guns.

    There are many strands of the Scorsese saga that are barely touched on here but which remain intriguing. He came up in the New Hollywood era of such young, daring filmmakers as De Palma and Francis Ford Coppola, but he and Spielberg alone continue to attract vast budgets and appreciative audiences in the decidedly dumbed-down new era of cinema that we currently inhabit. This is testament both to his ability to work well with actors – 24 Oscar nominations or wins for his pictures – and his reputation for producing serious yet accessible work.

    Nor is he afraid to rattle cages. His remarks on superhero movies – “they’re not cinema… [they’re] theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being” – outraged bean-counters and internet fanboys alike. But he had hit upon a vital truth, namely that these mass-market pictures – most of which are underperforming financially these days – are not serious intellectual nourishment but grossly ephemeral fast food for the brain.

    I doubt that Mr. Scorsese, or its subject, will ever meet the same fate. Miller is sufficiently humble and savvy enough not to impose herself on the narrative that she has constructed, which is, justifiably, a celebration of the director. Earlier this year, many of us laughed at his self-deprecating cameo in The Studio. He’s one of the few working directors who’s recognizable enough for such an appearance to land. As we watch Mr. Scorsese, the question lingers at the back of our minds as to whether the series is a celebration of the director or a premature eulogy. Let’s hope it’s the former.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 24, 2025 World edition.

  • I’m a slave to my Apple Watch

    I’m a slave to my Apple Watch

    Aside from streaming on an iPad, when riding a stationary bike one of the few entertainments on offer is tracking your heart rate. Breaking 150 beats per minute provides a fleeting (and doubtless misplaced) sense of achievement. Yet the wearable heart monitor that came with my exercise bicycle proved unreliable; one’s BPM never truly drops from 137 to 69 in one second. This is all to explain why I bought the fitness freak’s fetish: an Apple watch.

    Its heart rate monitors are accurate. I opted for a reconditioned older model, not only half the price of the new ones but inclusive of the pulse oximeter function, which a medical technology suit has forced Apple to eliminate in current American models until the litigant’s patent runs out in 2028. I’d never much cared about tracking my blood oxygenation, but this is how technology works now: the very fact that a gizmo can do something overrides the fact that you never really wanted to be able to do that. Thus later models denying me an oximeter made me obsessed with acquiring a model that provided one. Naturally, since testing it once fresh from the package, I’ve never used the oximeter function again.

    For uninitiates, heart rate with this thing is just the beginning. After pairing with the sacred iPhone, you’re forced to choose a set of physical “goals,” unaware that your buzzing wrist will soon torture you with these arbitrary numbers all day long, whether you meet, fall short of or exceed them. An Apple watch is not a passive adornment. It wants to be your friend.

    Yet this is intended to be a two-way relationship. So the first time I straddled the stationary bike and informed the busybody watch that I was going for an “indoor cycle,” I made myself miserable for an enmoistening 47 minutes, only for my watch to announce that my effort had been merely “moderate.” I was insulted. The next furious cycle to nowhere, I really pressed the pedal to the metal. Whether I quite admitted it to myself, I was trying to please my watch. At last my taskmaster granted that my workout had been “hard.” “So there,” I said aloud. “Happy now?” Ever since, I’ve been reporting to the taskmaster on my left wrist every time I exercise in any fashion, because I do not want this object to wheedle and nag. I want credit for my efforts, of course, but most of all, as this device’s new buddy I don’t want to be a disappointment.

    I’ve always had a childlike penchant for anthropomorphizing the objects in my surround, especially my bicycle (the kind that takes you somewhere). When my bike was stripped of all its salable parts in Manhattan while parked on the street, I must have blubbered over its bleeding carcass at 3 a.m. for close to an hour, expressing a grief that I might not have lavished on a mugging victim with two legs. All my bikes have had names. Well, this is a babyish relationship to the inanimate world that Big Tech is aggressively pushing on us all.

    It started when you switched on stereos or CD players and they trailed out “Hello” rather than merely displaying green indicator lights. Now I’ve got a watch that incessantly calls me “Lionel,” in the same brown-nosing spirit in which many Americans use your name in every other sentence. It’s programmed to treat you like an eight-year-old. “You’ve almost closed your Stand ring, Lionel! You can do it! Just 15 more minutes!” It hands out cheap rewards: “Congratulations, Lionel, you’ve had a perfect week!” It does not know my week was not perfect by a long shot.

    AI, of course, is the ultimate in anthropomorphism, but this imputation of personhood to the insentient is spreading everywhere. Siri assumes whatever accent you prefer, and its lilt is purposefully ingratiating. Japanese caretaking robots cultivate intimacy. Our refrigerators note we’re out of milk, which they’ll soon buy for us like cuboid lackeys. And AI has clearly been consciously designed to be fawning. These large language models could have been trained to tell us to sod off or to deride us for asking stupid questions. They might have been trained to have no attitude, to have no fabricated relationship to their users. Instead they are crafted to be digital arse-licks.

    The cruel irony of the once-inert suddenly springing to life the way teapots and spoons dance and sport smiley faces in children’s cartoons is that we’re getting ever more crap at relating to human beings, whom we don’t anthropomorphize enough. My husband wears noise-canceling headphones all day – I am the noise – and to the degree that he acknowledges my existence at all, I am a physical obstacle en route to the kitchen: wife-as-furniture. Meanwhile, marriage rates have plummeted. Fertility is waning. Men have no friends. Kids arrive at kindergarten barely able to talk. Blaring music in nightclubs is surely meant to reprieve young people from the horror of conversation. Should they ever meet in person, teenagers sit around a table glooming at their phones.

    The cumulative effect of the inanimate environment feigning human feeling is to imbue the cultural atmosphere with emotional fraudulence. Fake affection, fake admiration, fake congratulations. Worse, when users fall in love with ChatGPT; elderly Japanese form passionate attachments to robots; and I exercise to suck up to my watch, human relationships start to seem suspect, too. If a machine – which constantly emits approving messages, blandishes you with encouragements and, unlike most people, does what it’s told – successfully substitutes for or even improves upon interaction with another human, doesn’t that indict flesh-and-blood relationships as mechanical, too – as transactional? If a machine makes a credible friend, why bother with the fickle kind? I should obviously trade my husband for an android that also loves my books, compliments my cooking and lies that I look beautiful, but doesn’t appear nearly as annoyed when I ask it to take off its headphones.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 10, 2025 World edition.

  • Live-translation AirPods are the future

    Live-translation AirPods are the future

    I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after an arduous flight from a chaotic London Gatwick Airport. I’m settled in a glamorous top floor apartment in the Quartieri Spagnoli – the romantic old “Spanish Quarter” – where Vespas fizz over cobbles and laundry hangs across alleys like flags of endless surrender.

    Most importantly, I’m clutching my Apple AirPods3 in their shiny new capsule. Because I’ve come here to do a grand, futuristic experiment using their much-heralded “live translate” function.

    Does it really work as smoothly as Apple says? Can I actually slot them in my ears and have them translate the Italian speaker in front of me, in real time? Is it really like the sci-fi Babel Fish from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy? And will this end the linguistic division of humankind – and all the trouble that springs therefrom?

    I’m raring to go. I’m about to do – in my own modest way – one of the more important experiments in human history, and then I discover that the new Apple AirPods3 do not support Italian. Just French, Spanish, Portuguese and German, so far. Also, the use of these new AirPods is gravely restricted in the European Union due to Apple’s dislike of the EU’s various AI laws. So I can’t download the software.

    It seems I am about to infuriate my Spectator editor – “didn’t you check???” – but then I remind myself that I am vaguely prone to criminality, and not without deviousness. Using a virtual private network I routed back to the UK, I manage to source the software, probably illegally, but hey. After a bit more fiddling (you have to download all the available languages, including English) I have the AirPods up and running.

    Now I’m ready. All I need is some foreigners speaking foreign. Even if Italians will be incomprehensible, Naples is a big tourist city and it will be packed with travelers from across Europe – including France, Spain, Germany and Portugal. My guinea pigs.

    My first stop is the celebrated and historic Gran Caffè Gambrinus, at the edge of the Spanish Quarter. It doesn’t take me long to find some German students and they seem happy to indulge my experiment. But it’s here I encounter the first drawback of the brilliant new Apple AirPods3 – as the Germans are not wearing Apple AirPods3, they won’t hear my English words translated, magically into German. This will be a one-sided linguistic miracle.

    Nonetheless we give it a go. And as they speak to me in German, and Apple’s chirpy British Siri voice translates it in real time, pumping it into my brain, I experience a prickle of eerie surprise. I am staring into the uncanny valley of language.

    I know that the AirPods are working, because the new Apple Translate app handily transcribes all the words on to your phone screen as you listen and speak. When I show these words to the Germans they say, “Ja, translation ist good.” However it doesn’t feel quite right in my head because the translation lags – the tech has to wait until it’s got a sense of the whole sentence before it can whisper the interpretation in your ear.

    Also, the AirPods do not automatically detect the tongue spoken. If you forget to toggle to the right language you will hear something like “glu llech ggbboo noot” – that’s a direct transcription from my app. In other words, the tech can be glitchy, slow and beta. But then Apple openly admits this. They’ve slapped a beta label on it.

    Over the next few hours I stage conversations with French, Brazilian and Swiss people, each of which I have to set up and explain beforehand. Again, the tech is impressive but it feels forced. What I need is to be immersed in a foreign language group, so I can listen and interact normally.

    Then I have a brainwave. If I book myself on a Spanish language tour of subterranean Naples, I will be surrounded by Spanish speakers who won’t care about the strange Brit with AirPods lurking at the back. I meet the guide group in lively Piazza Dante and it’s here that I have my epiphany. Now the AirPods are truly whirring: and the tech – at times – is so cleverly good it nearly makes me tearful.

    You know those moving videos of little kids who grow up deaf and are suddenly given the ability to hear by some genius doctor, and you watch as their faces explode with joy? I am getting a sliver of that, here in Naples, as I realize I can understand – for the first time in my whole life – what all the foreign people around me are saying.

    Like most Britons, I’m a tragic monoglot, with about ten words of French and fewer still in German and Spanish. All my life I’ve regretted this, yet not done much about it. I’m terrible at languages.

    With my AirPods3, this profound human barrier is beginning to crumble. As I tilt my phone this way and that I can eavesdrop on these foreign conversations, on this man telling his girlfriend, “I love you,” that wife tetchily saying, “We should have gone to Sorrento first.” As for the guide, she babbles away in Spanish and I stand here beaming – I understand every word. When the tour continues, I realize that there are still plenty of flaws in the technology. At some points the tech lapses into total gibberish, at others it is hilariously wrong – I am unconvinced the innocent guide really means that the Devil came to Naples “for the pussy.”

    Nonetheless: wow. That is the only word for this software when it works as it should (and remember, like all artificial intelligence, it will only get better). This really is Babel Fish; it is really here.

    What does this mean for the future? For travel? For international politics? There are so many potentially profound ramifications it is hard to say. Then there is the emotional impact: the shock of the new. For many people, I suspect, using these AirPods – and their superior and cheaper successors – will be the first time they truly understand how AI is going to change everything. The future is as foreign, thrilling and unnerving as the darkest streets of old Naples.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 10, 2025 World edition.

  • Why is Apple hosting an assassin’s app?

    Why is Apple hosting an assassin’s app?

    ICEBlock is an app that uses real-time information to pinpoint the location of ICE agents in the field. Launched in April in response to Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, it now boasts more than one million users across the country.

    Among them, until recently, was self-styled “anti-fascist” sniper Joshua Jahn, who killed one person – a detainee – and critically injured two more at an ICE facility in Dallas. The FBI has discovered that Jahn used the app, or one like it, to track his intended victims. In a handwritten note, Jahn, who took his own life, wrote, “Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror.”

    ICEBlock claims that its purpose is to help illegal immigrants evade arrest by alerting them to the presence of ICE agents. But its far more wicked use as an assassin’s tool has for a long time been all too easy to predict with the left’s prolific and incendiary rhetoric around “Nazis” and “fascists,” the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the new record-high of left-wing terror attacks.

    And it is almost inevitable that another targeted attack based on data from the app will happen again.

    That’s because Apple is still hosting ICEBlock and apps like it on its App Store. The big tech platform that notoriously removed the conservative social media app Parler for far more nebulous claims of harm after Jan. 6. seems perfectly content to aid future would-be assassins. Apparently, Big Tech is more worried about censoring conservative grannies for wrongthink than it is actual real world violence.

    ICEBlock was developed by Joshua Aaron, a tech bro and former indie musician from Texas. It allows activists to drop a pin on a map wherever they spot ICE agents, which then sends a notification to all other users in a five mile radius.

    “We don’t want anything being discoverable,” Aaron said in a gushing profile for CNN earlier this year. “And so, this is 100 percent anonymous and free for anybody who wants to use it.”

    Of course, ICEBlock would never explicitly incite violence, it would like you to know. Upon log-in, a legal disclaimer states, “Please note that the use of this app is for information and notification purposes only.”

    Aaron says he’s the good guy, someone who wants to “fight back” against the rising tide of Nazism in America. He only cares about “keeping people safe,” he told The Guardian in another fawning interview.

    And playing the victim in an interview with USA Today, he claimed it was “insanity” to link his app with the Texas shooting and that the DOJ was merely “trying to bully [him].” Indeed, he has seemed much more concerned that his wife was let go from her job as a forensic auditor at the Department of Justice because of her ties to the app.

    Most tech founders would sell their first-born to mirror ICEBlock’s growth: it boasted just 20,000 users in June, but as of September Aaron says there are 1.1 million active users across the country – all of whom seem perfectly happy to help would-be assassins find their next victim.

    The app has come under fire from both ICE agents on the ground as well high-ranking Trump officials for putting a very real target on agents’ backs.

    “The DOJ’s looking at it, and they need to throw some people in jail,” Border Czar Tom Homan said of ICEBlock over the summer.

    But little if anything beyond some angry letters and statements has so far been done.

    With the implicit endorsement of mainstream media and big tech, ICEBlock has enjoyed a stamp of institutional legitimacy along with all the impunity that affords. But the days of normalizing leftist agitators with a wink and a nod are over.

    Aaron can cry peaceful resistance as much as he wants, but violent attacks against ICE agents become inevitable in a climate where they’re deemed Nazis and any lunatic is free to track their real-time movements. Denying this reality beggars belief; anyone who does so is stupid, or more likely, lying, and indifferent to violence against agents.

    Attorney General Pam Bondi warned Aaron to “watch out” in July, but it’s time for her office to initiate a real crackdown. Whether through cultural or government pressure, Apple must no longer allow apps like ICEBlock to proliferate, and the full force of the federal government must be used to scrutinize Aaron’s activities. Or these attacks are only going to keep happening.

    This isn’t a matter of free speech, but a matter of very real harm as we saw in Texas.

    Yet it’s an even deeper question of what kind of country we want to live in: one where ICE agents are seen as brownshirts for enforcing basic U.S. law, or one where law, order, and common sense receive the unanimous respect necessary for a functioning nation?

    We can’t have a country without borders. Those who claim otherwise have enjoyed more than enough time dominating the Overton window, and deserve to go back to the fringe.