The Boy Who Could Fly is a 1986 American fantasy drama film written and directed by Nick Castle. It was produced by Lorimar Productions for 20th Century Fox, and released theatrically on August 15, 1986.

The film stars Lucy Deakins as 14-year-old Milly Michaelson, Jay Underwood as Eric Gibb, a boy with autism, Bonnie Bedelia as Milly's mother, Fred Savage as Milly's little brother, Colleen Dewhurst as a teacher, Fred Gwynne as Eric's uncle, Janet MacLachlan, and Mindy Cohn. After the suicide of her terminally ill father, Milly becomes friends with Eric, who lost both of his parents to a plane crash. Together, Eric and Milly find ways to cope with the loss and the pain as they escape to faraway places.

Plot

Fourteen-year-old Amelia "Milly" Michaelson (Deakins) and her family move into a new suburban home shortly after the death of her father. Milly makes friends with her new neighbor Geneva, and Milly and her eight-year-old brother Louis (Savage), a budding military buff, have difficulty adjusting to their new schools, while their mother Charlene (Bedelia) copes with a demotion at work and her inability to learn how to use a computer. Louis is also plagued by bullies down the street who won't let him get around the block. During the first night at the house, Milly is in her bedroom talking to her pet bird. Something flies past the window, but when Milly goes to investigate, she sees nothing.

Milly and Geneva observe Eric Gibb (Underwood), a boy with autism, living next door with his alcoholic uncle Hugo (Gwynne). Eric has never spoken a word in his life, doesn't like to be around people, and exhibits bizarre behavior related to flying. Milly hears that Eric's parents died in a plane crash. Later that night, Milly and her family watch as Eric and three adults appear outside, with Eric in a straitjacket and being restrained by two men. Milly later reveals to Geneva one night when Milly's mother is out for the evening that she finds Eric attractive.

Although Eric cannot communicate with anyone, he begins to react to Milly. Mrs. Sherman observes this interaction and asks Milly to keep an eye on Eric, explaining that because of Uncle Hugo's drinking, Eric is in constant danger of being taken by authorities and placed in a hospital. Milly works with Eric over the course of the school year and takes notes on his progress, which is slow at first. Milly notes excitedly the first time Eric smiles on his own, rather than merely copying her own smile. Eric does nothing when Milly throws balls to him, except for one day when he spontaneously reaches out and catches a stray baseball flying toward Milly's head.

Strange occurrences, like Eric's apparent ability to appear in his own window one instant and in Milly's the next without any link between their homes, begin to make Milly question reality.

On a school field trip, with no one present except Eric, Milly falls off a bridge while trying to pick a rose. Knocked unconscious, she dreams that she wakes up in the hospital, with Eric sitting on the windowsill. After a conversation with him (albeit wordless on Eric's part), she becomes convinced he can fly. Eric gives her the rose she was trying to reach and then, taking her hand, leads her out of the window and the two begin flying. The two watch a fireworks display from a cloud before they share a kiss and return to the hospital window. After watching Eric fly off, Milly's dream becomes a nightmare as she sees her Dad in a hospital bed, dead, with a girl called Mona throwing a volleyball at her which knocks her out of the window.

Milly then wakes up in a hospital and tells her mother that Eric can fly and that he caught her as she fell. A shrink, Dr. Grenader, talks to Milly and tells her that Eric caught her, as she only has a concussion and no serious injuries. Dr. Grenader, however, puts forth a more logical explanation and explains her belief that Eric can fly may be due to stress caused by the death of her father as he died from cancer. It is revealed that Milly's father knew he had cancer, but kept it a secret from his family because he did not want them to worry. Rather than seek treatment, he said goodbye and committed suicide.

Upon returning home, Milly notices the rose on her windowsill and becomes convinced that Eric can fly. When she shouts to Uncle Hugo about Eric's whereabouts, he replies by saying the institute has taken him away as Hugo was found drunk again. Despite the efforts of Milly and her family, they are not allowed to see Eric. As they leave, Eric tries to force the window open and is restrained by two men who try to sedate him. Another attempt by Louis to get around the block fails as the bullies tear his tricycle apart and to make matters worse, his dog Max is hit by a passing car and is taken to an animal hospital.

Later that evening, Milly thinks she spots Eric on his roof during a thunderstorm and after climbing into the attic, she finds Eric, who is soaked from the rain and shivering with cold. As Milly pulls a blanket around him, he pulls out a box and from within it, he takes out a ring which he gives to Milly.

When the authorities arrive at Eric's house the next day, Milly sneaks Eric out, and the police chase them to the roof of the school during a carnival. Eric turns to Milly and speaks her name, the first word he has spoken thus far. Milly asks Eric if he really can fly, and he smiles and nods his head. He holds her hand and the two fall off the building. Just before hitting the ground, Milly and Eric begin flying hand in hand in plain view of the crowd around the carnival, which follows Milly and Eric down the streets of their town, shocking Charlene, Louis, Geneva, and Uncle Hugo. Eric brings Milly to her own window, tells her he loves her, and kisses her before he says goodbye and flies away.

Milly is heartbroken, but quickly realizes why Eric had to leave: Over the following weeks, spectators, policemen, and scientists mob the town, looking for an explanation and taking all of Eric's belongings away to be analyzed. Milly speculates that Eric too would have been taken by scientists had he remained.

Despite all the ensuing media attention, Eric's story becomes an inspiration to the people closest to him in his neighborhood. Eric's uncle beats his drinking problem and gets an excellent job. The Michaelsons' dog Max gets better. Louis dominates the bullies down the street using a water gun full of urine. Charlene masters the computer at work. Milly regains interest in her life and relationships with those around her. The movie ends with Milly looking out the window, waiting for Eric. As the sun sets, she throws out a paper airplane, which flies ever upward.

Cast
 Lucy Deakins as Amelia "Milly" Michaelson
 Jay Underwood as Eric Gibb
 Bonnie Bedelia as Charlene Michaelson
 Fred Savage as Louis Michaelson
 Colleen Dewhurst as Mrs. Carolyn Sherman
 Fred Gwynne as Uncle Hugo Gibb
 Janet MacLachlan as Mrs. D'Gregario
 Mindy Cohn as Geneva Goodman
 Jennifer Michas as Mona
 Michelle Bardeaux as Erin
 Aura Pithart as Colette
 Jason Priestley as Gary
 Cam Bancroft as Joe
 Chris Arnold as Sonny
 Dwight Koss as Milly's Dad
 Louise Fletcher as Dr. Grenader
 Jake as Max the Dog

Reception
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 64% of 33 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 5.9/10. The site's consensus states: "Writer-director Nick Castle's careful command of tone keeps The Boy Who Could Fly from fully surrendering to its story's sentimental tendencies." Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun-Times gave the film 3 out of 4 stars and wrote "Here is a sweet and innocent parable about a boy who could fly -- and about a girl who could fly, too." Variety wrote "The Boy Who Could Fly is a well-intentioned film that deals with mental illness, suicide and other weighty subjects and their effects on children in a general and understanding way." Adding "Under Nick Castle's careful direction, scenes never become maudlin, which is remarkable considering the potential of the subject matter. Deakins and Underwood handle their difficult roles with amazing grace."

Box office
The movie debuted at No. 4.

Soundtrack
The film's score was composed and conducted by Bruce Broughton. Varèse Sarabande released a re-recording of highlights in 1986 on LP and cassette (later reissued on compact disc as part of the Varese Encore line), performed by the Sinfonia of London and conducted by the composer; in 2002 Percepto released the film recordings of Broughton's music as a limited edition promotional release. Intrada Records issued the complete score in 2015, including Stephen Bishop's "Walkin' On Air" (written and recorded for the film's end credits in lieu of Broughton's unused end title cue) and the brief song "Back Of The Bus" (written by screenwriter Nick Castle and Broughton).

The band The Coupe de Villes (composed of Nick Castle, horror director/composer/screenwriter/musician John Carpenter and director Tommy Lee Wallace) appear in a cameo on a television in a scene in the film playing their original song Back on the Bus. The band is known today for their theme song "Big Trouble in Little China" for the movie with the same name directed by Carpenter, and their 1985 album Waiting out the Eighties.

1986 Varèse Sarabande album
 Main Title (2:36)
 New Starts (3:51)
 Millie's Science Project (3:09)
 Family (2:57)
 Flying (4:29)
 Eric On The Roof (2:23)
 Eric Agitated/Louis Defeated (3:55)
 Millie And Eric Flee (3:45)
 In The Air (4:31)
 The Boy Who Could Fly (2:45)

2002 Percepto album
 Main Title/Meeting Eric (4:44)
 Military Mission/New Neighbors (2:10)
 Night (1:02)
 Surprise Visit (1:23)
 Eric On The Roof (2:24)
 Milly's Science Project (3:33)
 Heads Up (1:39)
 Family (3:08)
 The Field Trip (1:57)
 The Hospital/Flying (7:37)
 Returning Home (3:59)
 Eric Agitated/Louis Defeated (4:16)
 The Rainstorm/The Ring (6:40)
 Milly & Eric Flee/Into The Air (9:01)
 New Starts (4:14)
 Milly Reflects (2:06)
 The Boy Who Could Fly (3:02)

2015 Intrada album
 Main Title (4:45)
 Louis Meets Hitler (1:00)
 Louis' Retreat (1:14)
 Late! (First Hint - Revised) (1:04)
 Eric On The Sill (0:28)
 On Milly's Sill (1:24)
 Eric On The Roof (2:25)
 Milly's Science Project (3:34)
 First Triumph (1:40)
 Family (3:09)
 The Rose/Flying (9:35)
 Eric's Gone (4:00)
 Eric Agitated (4:17)
 Louis Gives Up (3:24)
 The Ring (3:22)
 Milly And Eric Flee/He Really Flies (9:01)
 New Starts (4:15)
 Milly Reflects/End Credits (Instrumental) (5:03)
 Walkin' On Air (End Credits) - Stephen Bishop (3:28)
 First Hint (1:04)
 Fireworks (From To Catch a Thief) - Lyn Murray, cond. Broughton (1:40)
 Back Of The Bus - The Coupe De Villes (0:59)
 Car Radio (2:16)

In popular culture
The band Thrice released a song based on the film, titled "A Song for Milly Michaelson" on their 2007 LP The Alchemy Index Vols. III & IV.

References

External links

1986 drama films
1980s coming-of-age drama films
1980s English-language films
1980s fantasy drama films
1980s teen drama films
1980s teen fantasy films
20th Century Fox films
American coming-of-age drama films
American fantasy drama films
American teen drama films
Films about autism
Films directed by Nick Castle
Films scored by Bruce Broughton
Films shot in Vancouver
1980s American films
English-language fantasy drama films

The Boy Who Could Fly


Militarism or militarist ideology is a view on society.
It says society should be like the military.
This means that society should follow concepts that can be found in the culture, system and people of the military. People that say militarism is good are called militarists.

Most important to militarists is discipline. Discipline means to follow a set of rules.
It also means training that follows such rules. A strong military is good for discipline.
There are many areas where moral goals and the culture of the military can be applied. Most notable are private business, government, education and entertainment.

Militarism is related to militarization, and militarist countries often have a strong military.  Thus Sparta in Ancient Greece, and Prussia in the 19th century were militarist and had more powerful armies than other states their size.  North Korea is a good example in modern times.  In militarist states the military either run the government, or greatly influence it.  Often the head of state is a military person, though that does not always mean the society is militarised.

Military

Militarism


Ramsey sentences are formal logical reconstructions of theoretical propositions attempting to draw a line between science and metaphysics. A Ramsey sentence aims at rendering propositions containing non-observable theoretical terms (terms employed by a theoretical language) clear by substituting them with observational terms (terms employed by an observation language, also called empirical language).

Ramsey sentences were introduced by the logical empiricist philosopher Rudolf Carnap. However, they should not be confused with Carnap sentences, which are neutral on whether there exists anything to which the term applies.

Distinction between scientific (real) questions and metaphysical (pseudo-)questions
For Carnap, questions such as "Are electrons real?" and "Can you prove electrons are real?" were not legitimate questions, nor did they contain any great philosophical or metaphysical truths. Rather, they were meaningless "pseudo-questions without cognitive content," asked from outside a language framework of science. Inside this framework, entities such as electrons or sound waves, and relations such as mass and force not only exist and have meaning but are "useful" to the scientists who work with them. To accommodate such internal questions in a way that would justify their theoretical content empirically – and to do so while maintaining a distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions – Carnap set out to develop a systematized way to consolidate theory and empirical observation in a meaningful language formula.

Distinction between observable and non-observable
Carnap began by differentiating observable things from non-observable  things. Immediately, a problem arises: neither the German nor the English language naturally distinguish predicate terms on the basis of an observational categorization. As Carnap admitted, "The line separating observable from non-observable is highly arbitrary." For example, the predicate "hot" can be perceived by touching a hand to a lighted coal. But "hot" might take place at such a microlevel (e.g., the theoretical "heat" generated by the production of proteins in a eukaryotic cell) that it is virtually non-observable (at present). Physicist-philosopher Moritz Schlick characterized the difference linguistically, as the difference between the German verbs "kennen" (knowing as being acquainted with a thing – perception) and "erkennen" (knowing as understanding a thing – even if non-observable). This linguistic distinction may explain Carnap's decision to divide the vocabulary into two artificial categories: a vocabulary of non-observable ("theoretical") terms (hereafter "VT"): i.e., terms we know of but are not acquainted with (erkennen), and a vocabulary of observable terms ("VO"), those terms we are acquainted with (kennen) and will accept arbitrarily. Accordingly, the terms thus distinguished were incorporated into comparable sentence structures: T-terms into theoretical sentences (T-sentences); O-terms into observational sentences (O-sentences).

The next step for Carnap was to connect these separate concepts by what he calls "correspondence rules" (C-rules), which are "mixed" sentences containing both T- and O-terms. Such a theory can be formulated as: T + C = df: the conjunction of T-postulates + the conjunction of C-rules – i.e., . This can be further expanded to include class terms such as for the class of all molecules, relations such as "betweenness," and predicates: e.g., TC ( t1, t2, . . ., tn,  o1, o2, . . ., om). Though this enabled Carnap to establish what it means for a theory to be "empirical," this sentence neither defines the T-terms explicitly nor draws any distinction between its analytic and its synthetic content, therefore it was not yet sufficient for Carnap's purposes.

In the theories of Frank P. Ramsey, Carnap found the method he needed to take the next step, which was to substitute variables for each T-term, then to quantify existentially all T-terms in both T-sentences and C-rules. The resulting "Ramsey sentence" effectively eliminated the T-terms as such, while still providing an account of the theory's empirical content. The evolution of the formula proceeds thus:
Step 1 (empirical theory, assumed true):   TC ( t1 . . . tn,  o1 . . . om)
Step 2 (substitution of variables for T-terms): TC (x1 . . . xn, o1 . . . om)
Step 3 (-quantification of the variables): .

Step 3 is the complete Ramsey sentence, expressed "RTC," and to be read: "There are some (unspecified) relations such that TC (x1 . . . xn, o1 . . . om) is satisfied when the variables are assigned these relations. (This is equivalent to an interpretation as an appropriate model: there are relations r1 . . . rn such that TC (x1 . . . xn, o1 . . . om) is satisfied when xi is assigned the value ri, and .)

In this form, the Ramsey sentence captures the factual content of the theory. Though Ramsey believed this formulation was adequate to the needs of science, Carnap disagreed, with regard to a comprehensive
reconstruction. In order to delineate a distinction between analytic and synthetic content, Carnap thought the reconstructed sentence would have to satisfy three desired requirements:
 The factual (FT) component must be observationally equivalent to the original theory (TC).
 The analytic (AT) component must be observationally uninformative.
 The combination of FT and AT must be logically equivalent to the original theory – that is, .

Requirement 1 is satisfied by RTC in that the existential quantification of the T-terms does not change the logical truth (L-truth) of either statement, and the reconstruction FT has the same O-sentences as the theory itself, hence RTC is observationally equivalent to TC : (i.e., for
every O-sentence: O,  ).  As stated, however, requirements 2 and 3 remain unsatisfied. That is, taken individually, AT does contain observational information (such-and-such a theoretical entity is observed to do such-and-such, or hold such-and-such a relation); and AT does not necessarily follow from FT.

Carnap's solution is to make the two statements conditional. If there are some relations such that [TC (x1 . . . xn, o1 . . . om)] is satisfied when the variables are assigned some relations, then the relations assigned to those variables by the original theory will satisfy [TC (t1 . . . tn, o1 . . . om)] – or: RTC → TC. This important move satisfies both remaining requirements and effectively creates a distinction between the total formula's analytic and synthetic components. Specifically, for requirement 2: The conditional sentence does not make any information claim about the O-sentences in TC, it states only that "if" the variables in are satisfied by the relations, "then" the O-sentences will be true. This means that every O-sentence in TC that is logically implied by the sentence RTC → TC is L-true (i.e., every O-sentence in AT is true or not-true: the metal expands or it does not; the chemical turns blue or it does not, etc.). Thus TC can be taken as the non-informative (i.e., non-factual) component of the statement, or AT. Requirement 3 is satisfied by inference: given AT, infer FT → AT. This makes AT + FT nothing more than a reformulation of the original theory, hence AT Ù FT
ó TC.

Carnap took as a fundamental requirement a respect for the analytic–synthetic distinction. This is met by using two distinct processes in the formulation: drawing an empirical connection between the statement's factual content and the original theory (observational equivalence), and by requiring the analytic content to be observationally non-informative.

Application

Carnap's reconstruction as it is given here is not intended to be a literal method for formulating scientific propositions. To capture what Pierre Duhem would call the entire "holistic" universe relating to any specified theory would require long and complicated renderings of  RTC → TC. Instead, it is to be taken as demonstrating logically that there is a way that science could formulate empirical, observational explications of theoretical concepts – and in that context the Ramsey and Carnap construct can be said to provide a formal justificatory
distinction between scientific observation and metaphysical inquiry.

Criticism
Among critics of the Ramsey formalism are John Winnie, who extended the requirements to include an "observationally non-creative" restriction on Carnap's AT – and both W. V. O. Quine and Carl Hempel attacked Carnap's initial assumptions by emphasizing the ambiguity that persists between observable and non-observable terms.

See also
 Ramsey-style epistemic structural realism

Notes

Works cited
Carnap, R. (1950) "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology," in Paul Moser and Arnold Nat, Human Knowledge Oxford University Press. (2003).
Carnap, R. (1966) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (esp. Parts III, and V), ed. Martin Gardner. Dover Publications, New York. 1995.
Carnap, R. (2000) [originally: 29 December 1959] "Theoretical Concepts in Science," with introduction by Stathis Psillos. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31(1).
Demopoulos, W. "Carnap on the Reconstruction of Scientific Theories," The Cambridge Companion to Carnap, eds. R. Creath and M. Friedman.
Moser, P. K. and vander Nat, A. (2003) Human Knowledge Oxford Univ. Press.
Schlick, Moritz (1918) General Theory of Knowledge (Allegemeine Erkenntnislehre). Trans. Albert Blumberg. Open Court Publishing, Chicago/La Salle, IL. (2002).
Hallvard Lillehammer, D. H. Mellor (2005), Ramsey's legacy, Oxford University Press, p. 109.
Stathis Psillos, "Carnap, the Ramsey-Sentence and Realistic Empiricism", 2000.

External links
"Epistemic Structural Realism and Ramsey Sentences"
"Theoretical Terms in Science"

Philosophy of science
Sentences by type

Ramsey sentence


Baji (Nepal Bhasa: बजि, , chiura, English: flattened rice) is a type of beaten rice eaten in Nepal. The most common word for it, and the one visitors to Nepal will generally encounter, is "chiura." "Baji" is the term used by the Newar in the Kathmandu Valley. Rice is a staple in Nepal, as throughout South Asia. The grain is incorporated into everyday life, festivals, and rituals. Chiura is a common snack among farmers and workers in rural Nepal. The snack is made by pounding rice. The dish can be served with yogurt, curry, and or meat. Often chiura is paired with tea as a mid-morning snack in the fields.

Chiura holds an important place in the traditional Nepali wedding ceremony. Chiura is usually included in the brideprice, any valuables or wealth given to the bride's family by the groom. After the initial wedding ceremony, the families escort the bride back to the groom's house. During this procession, the pounded rice ceremony occurs. The bride and groom are seated next to one another, and the bride is given the chiura. The groom then formally asks the bride to give him the chiura. He will ask this two more times, each time using a form of "you" that indicates a lowering of her social status. This ceremony reiterates the fact that the woman's social ranking has dropped far below its original status.

Types
 Red (Nepal Bhasa:ह्यांगु बजि hyangu baji): using reddish beaten rice.
 White (Nepal Bhasa: तुयु बजि tuyu baji)

Consumption
It is usually consumed during the daytime with lentil or other vegetables with soup. It is the main food served in Newari feasts. The red type is considered better type. Samaybaji is specially consumed in Newari festivals.

Liquified baji is also used in Chinese folk medicine as an aphrodisiac.

References

Newari cuisine
Rice dishes

Baji (food)


Centropristis is a genus of marine ray-finned fishes which is a member of the subfamily Serraninae of the family Serranidae, which includes the groupers and anthias. There are five species distributed in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fishes of this genus are known commonly as sea basses.

Black sea bass (C. striata) is of economic importance in commercial and recreational fishing in the waters off of the East Coast of the United States.

Species in genus Centropristis include:

Centropristis fuscula Poey, 1861 (twospot sea bass)
Centropristis ocyurus (D.S. Jordan & Evermann, 1887) (bank sea bass)
Centropristis philadelphica (Linnaeus, 1758) (rock sea bass)
Centropristis rufa Cuvier 1829
Centropristis striata (Linnaeus 1758) (black sea bass)

References

Serraninae
Taxa named by Georges Cuvier

Centropristis


Giles is a ghost town located along the Fremont River in the Blue Valley of Wayne County, Utah, United States. The town was inhabited circa 1883–1919.

History
In the early 1880s, several settlements in Wayne County were started by Mormon farmers under the leadership of Hyrum Burgess. By 1883 some Burgess family members had moved to the Blue Valley area, constructing a dam and irrigation canal by 1884.

The land along the Fremont River was fertile, and the growing season longer than in western Wayne County. The valley's farming potential soon brought other settlers. The settlement was known as Blue Valley for its blue-gray soil, colored by Bentonite clay and Mancos Shale. The town was built on both banks of the river, but most people lived on the south side. A footbridge connected the two halves. A school building was erected in 1888, but a proper townsite was not laid out until June 1895. At that time residents renamed their settlement Giles, in honor of the late Bishop Henry Giles, who had been one of Blue Valley's most prominent residents. The crops in Giles grew well, and by 1900 the population had increased to 200. A new meetinghouse went up in 1901, said to be the largest in the county. There was a sawmill in the nearby Henry Mountains, and the town included a grocery store, blacksmith shop, and boarding house.

The early 1900s brought frequent devastating floods of the Fremont River. The flooding in 1909–1910 was so severe that local church authorities gave up on trying to maintain a permanent dam. Unable to irrigate their crops, the residents began to leave. By 1919 Giles was a ghost town.

Two rock buildings still stand at the site, and numerous foundations and old corrals show where the town once was.

References

External links

Giles at GhostTowns.com

Ghost towns in Utah
Populated places established in 1883
Ghost towns in Wayne County, Utah

Giles, Utah