The Insult

You might consider a title like "The Insult" (2017)  to have a lot of potential to be either very comical or very violent.  It is actually more of a reconciliation movie with two opposing perspectives realizing the other is not totally wrong.  There must be something of merit in a movie nominated for best Oscar foreign movie.  This is one of the few individual movies from my viewpoint that is worth its own separate blog post.  The dialogue is in Arabic with subtitles.

In everyday life people insult one another fairly commonly.  One man even got elected President using many pointed and offensive insults.  Some comedians specialize in insults.  Most of us indulge in insults that we hope the target doesn't hear.  Few insults end up in court.

In Lebanon as generally in the Middle East there is sensitivity towards insults.  Religious and ethnic differences have often resulted in vendettas and wars.  Generally anyone has difficulty in seeing the other viewpoint especially as you are usually surrounded by people who reinforce your opinion.

Reconciliation is common in movies even including romances, but "The Insult" makes its points where some insults can result in violence or court action.  What really makes it stand out is the execution.  There are twists and over the length of the film you come to understand the background and inter-relations.  The two main characters are Christian and Palestinian.  They are both married and both end up hiring lawyers.  Outsiders might not realize that the Palestinian is not legally allowed to work in Lebanon, but has been hired and recognized as a dedicated worker.

During street work tempers flare and actually both men feel insulted.  The Christian wants an apology.  He is not interested in money.  The man asked to apologize is pressured by his boss and finally agrees to meet the other, but that meeting is a disaster resulting in the Palestinian actually breaking two ribs of the Christian.

There are actually two trials.  In the first after some questions to both men the judge dismisses the charge citing lack of information.  Another lawyer steps in to the Christian taking the view this needs to be rectified.  At about the same time the Palestinian is approached by another lawyer this one a woman who feels he has been unfairly treated.  Both lawyers are very impressive and a big twist is when we learn that they are father and daughter.

There are courtroom arguments and more drama outside.  The  Christian's wife gives birth prematurely with health concerns.  The two men, egged on a bit by their wives gradually see the other viewpoint.  Basically they each felt their group had suffered while the other had not and in the end they realized each group had suffered.  There is still tension, but the viewer appreciates that the younger generation and women are more open minded and forgiving.

The general pattern in films is not that rare and although the circumstances are a little unique we can all see connections to other movies and even personal experiences.  This movie stands out by the quality of presentation.

The director Ziad Doueri was born in Lebanon, where he studied in a French school.  He went to the United States during the Lebanese Civil War and after studying worked with Quentin Tarantino on many of his movies., including  'Jackie Brown'  (1997) and "Pulp Fiction " (1994).  By 9/11 he went back to his roots and has made a number of noted movies in the Middle East.  His film as a director/writer, "West Beirut"  (1998) won awards at Cannes and TIFF.  Other noted films have been "Lila Says" (2004) and "The Attack" (2012).  Currently he is working on a French tv series, "Baron Noir" (2016-18). 

He was concerned that he would not be able to get a crew and cast he could work with in Lebanon, but he felt (and I concur) he did really well.

Co-writer Joelle Touma also helped write "Lila Says" and "The Attack"  Recently she was a script doctor for a short, "Perhaps Today," (2017).

Five producers were listed and most have all worked together with Ziad. from a French base.   Rachid Bouchareb of France was a producer for "West Beirut" and "The Attack".  He also was director, writer and producer for "London River." (2009).  Jean Brehat also worked with the same three films.  Julie Gayet had produced "Bonsai"  2011) from Chile. along with another producer, Nadia Turincev.   Antoun Schnaoui is a Lebanese banker who is very involved with the Beirut International Film Festival.  He was also a producer for "Clouds of Sils Maria" (2014). 

The music was subtle, not particularly Middle Eastern by Eric Neveux, a French composer who had worked with Rachid Bouchareb.  He likes to work with independent producers.  He wrote music for some American projects including  a television series, "Inside Obama's White House" (2016).  He also composed for "The Attack."

Tommaso Fiorelli was the cinematographer  having earlier done "The Attack."  Is now working on "Baron Noir"  Beirut is making a comeback as a major international centre and we get a few shots of a modern skyline.

Dominique Marcombe did the editing and had previously edited "West Beirut" and "The Attack." Editing  can be tedious trying to get the right scene cut for emphasis without dragging.  The ending was switched with a scene of relief of a baby regaining health to give more emphasis to the verdict.

Adel Karam, played the main Christian protagonist and won an award as best actor in "The Insult"  He had a small role in "Where Do We Go Now," (2011) that won awards at Cannes and TIFF.  His next film was as the lead role in Egypt.

Kamel El Basha played the main Palestinian protagonist.  His background was with Palestinian theatre.including directing.   He was the writer and director for "Al Helm:  Martin Luther King Jr in Palestine," (2014).  He was a producer for "Defying My Disability," (2016).  He won an acting award for "The Insult" at the Venice Film Festival.

Camille Salameh played the lawyer for the Christian protagonist.  He made the strongest impression on me as a practical, hard hearted advocate.

Diamand Bou Abboud played the daughter lawyer for the Palestinian protagonist and ironically had been a student of Camille who played her father.   Their personal relationship probably helped the spark between them in drama.  She has won acting awards in Lebanon and Egypt.

Rita Hayek played the young wife of the Christian protagonist.  She had received performance training in both Lebanon and California.  She has been a hostess of "So You Think you Can Dance?" in Lebanon.  She also has been a marathoner.  Most of her acting is in television series.

The main actors were outstanding and had been nominated for awards as an ensemble.  Supporting actors added to the realism.  Two of the judges (one male, one female) in the two trials that were commanding.  The boss of the Palestinian, the wife of the Palestinian (who was supposed to Lebanese) were others that come to mind.

The movie was well accepted internationally and locally by the Christian sections of Beirut.  But it was boycotted by many Muslims in Beirut  Generally it made little progress in Muslim quarters.  In Jordan they insisted on cutting about six minutes that was critical of them.  The director refused.

I was not expecting the professionalism of the film.  It really hits at human psychology not just for the Middle East, but of human nature.  If you get the chance, set aside time to watch without distractions.

SUPERCRAWL ON ITS TENTH ANNIVERSARY

When I moved to my current house some 36 years ago it was affordable and not too far from downtown Hamilton.  The problem was that James Street North, the main way downtown was not very attractive and I learned that people from other parts of Hamilton frowned upon it.  However over the years a few things started to develop.

Apparently Toronto real estate prices increasingly forced some artists to look for alternatives.  Some discovered that not only was James St N in Hamilton more affordable, but there were some interesting older buildings that hadn't yet been torn down to be replaced by modern concrete buildings.  Two galleries decided to co-operate by combining two open houses.  Over time more artists got together for what was called an "art crawl"  Every second Friday of the month art studios and galleries would stay open to invite the general public to look at their art and perhaps be entertained by musicians and food.   Restaurants soon realized they could service a larger crowd.  I remember going a few times for the novelty.  Over a decade ago some organizers realized that the public had made the art crawls self sustaining and it could be expanded.  Politicians entered into the discussions and a budget was drawn up to have what came to be termed "Supercrawl."  Insurance and municipal expenses were included.

The first one in 2009 started out as a one day affair, with one city block closed to cars, but each year they attempted to make some kind of improvement.  The second year they closed two blocks and attendance increased.  It was always intended as a "free festival."  Politicians and local businesses realized  this could be a big boost for tourism, not to mention the city's image.  At one point they brought in food trucks for a greater variety of food and to handle the bigger crowds.  As a local I noticed that in good weather the food trucks dominated, but in bad weather the local restaurants were packed.  I am a supporter of the local restaurants and feel James Street North has some of the best restaurants I have been lucky enough to eat at.  One local specialty was Portuguese restaurants, not that I appreciated initially, but now love.

With such large crowds (over 200,000 some years) there is a big demand for eating.  A dozen food trucks are brought in and this year listening to visitors they added a lot of bench tables to make it more convenient.  A few years ago Hamilton was host to several soccer matches for the Pan American Games and local vendors were promised they would benefit.  In reality out of town visitors were herded right to the stadium and local businesses did not benefit significantly and in fact some lost out as they had invested in upgrading and stocking for the expected crowd.  At this Supercrawl I am pleased to say all of the restaurants along the route (and even slightly off) were packed.  We went through about half a dozen before we were squeezed into Nique, but once there we were not rushed and enjoyed a great meal. 

On one of their early years they were virtually rained out.  Weather is unpredictable, but they have taken some precautions.   

For the 10th anniversary they added a fourth day on Thursday as a sort of warm up.  On Friday and Saturday night and only a little less on Sunday it is very similar to walking through the midway on Kids' Day.  There are interesting things along the way--street entertainers, art installations and a wide variety of boutique type booths.

A big popular band is a key draw.  I don't usually stay that late, but did for K'Naan a few years back.  This year they headlined with Broken Social Scene, a previous top act on Thursday night and Lights was the highlight for Saturday night. 

The Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra offers an interesting combo of a small version of orchestra with a local indie rock band.  There is a little cross over.  Introducing some classical music to some and a local band to others.  Their latest version was with The Altobeelays.

Circus Orange at their first appearance was a bit of a mystery.  They put on an aerial display of acrobats with fire.  The photo is from that first year.  Each year they have done a distinctly new show, sometimes using local buildings such as a parking facility.  People line up, mostly standing over an hour in advance to get a good view.









I included references to the art crawl and Supercrawl in more general blogs, but I started blogging about the art crawl by itself in 2013:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/08/james-st-north-art-crawl-is-progressing.html  

An earlier art crawl:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/09/hamiltons-fifth-supercrawl.html 

A few random shots from this year.  The logo at the top was designed by Lester Colomo.

THE SHOWMAN AND THE REALITY

The Wizard of Oz is one of my all time favorite movies, a bit dated, but with some enduring values.  The Wizard himself was a nice enough guy who projected power that awed his subjects.  Dorothy was an innocent young girl who was focused on just getting back home. Somehow she looked behind the curtain and found he wasn't nearly as powerful as his subjects took for granted.

Donald Trump is a showman and superficially effective in some circumstances, but he is not a nice person.  For some intelligent people including many of his supporters they don't care.  Many of them think he is on their side and that he is accomplishing important things.  In truth not being nice is indicative that there might be something behind the curtain.  Admittedly if an advocate for what I believe in was a showman who got things of value done I wouldn't care an awful lot if he or she was a nice person. 

His supporters proclaim that Trump has done some very important things that benefit lots of people.  They point to a booming stock market and low unemployment rates.  They should be looked at as the short term results of misleading policies and also ironically a continuation of many discarded policies.

He attributes the economic boom (while exaggerating its historic uniqueness) to tax cuts and deregulation.  Behind the superficial claims comes the real force behind them.  The biggest donors were demanding large tax cuts and deregulation.  Some Republicans claimed the tax cuts will pay for themselves and deregulation would just free up business energy.   For a clearer picture of who wanted the tax cuts and deregulation:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/07/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html

The tax cuts do not pay for themselves and it is already evident that the government will have to borrow more money which in the end will raise interest rates and make it more difficult for the average person to borrow money.  Another course which is favored by many conservatives is to cut government expenses in a wide variety of areas including education, safety net programs, foreign aid, etc.  But not military which admittedly does provide jobs, but are they the ultimate jobs we want?

More seriously deregulation is portrayed as undoing unfair restrictions on honest business men.  The problem historically has been that some of the more successful businessmen have little hesitation to take advantage of innocent consumers.  This was very evident in the 2008 recession when money lenders were on one hand more generous, but also deceptive.  Many borrowers found themselves over their heads.  Banks and investment houses were also big donators and demanding looser regulations.  Eventually the con men will disrupt our economy.  Chances are the wealthiest will suffer the least.  Check:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/10/regulation-how-we-protect-ourselves.html

International relations is a relatively safe place to spout off.  Only it is not.  We now live in an increasingly inter-connected world.  What is the point of alienating nations that have historically been supportive?  When most of the world recognizes climate change as a major concern (more on that below) the United States federal government makes a very emphatic statement as it withdraws from the Paris Agreement.  Trade agreements that have benefits are ridiculed, but are tied to jobs right around the globe and have engendered peaceful relations.

The Iran Agreement was not designed to take care of every complaint against Iran, but was focused on the most serious concern to limit nuclear arms proliferation.  Several nations with different politics united to force compliance.  Yes everyone realized that Iran might not live up to its part, but the most comprehensive protections in all history were designed to protect international interests.  Like many countries Iran has conflicting factions and those who distrusted the American government have gained influence as a result.  America has created distrust.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/the-iran-nuclear-agreement.html

Immigration is perhaps the most flammable issue.  Immigrants are pictured by those in power as job stealers and cultural diminishers.  It hides the fact that the real job squeeze comes from automation and the desire of those in power to maximize their profits by seeking the lowest wages with the least regulations.  It overlooks the historical value of diversity and also the global refugee crisis created by global trends with which most of us are complicit.  Some more thoughts on the refugee problem http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/04/rescue.html

Climate change is increasingly being recognized as one of the most serious concerns for all living beings although others argue that the threat of a nuclear war is maybe more serious.  Again vested interests have found bribing politicians the best way to stifle any efforts to cramp their profits.  Some of the efforts to lessen the worst effects of climate change are tied to reducing pollution.  One area Trump felt was successful was the work of Scott Pruitt who eliminated dozens of restrictions on polluters and after his overwhelming corruption forced him out his successor has carried on.  Another example of putting the fox in charge of the hen house but in this case everyone's health is endangered.

To a Canadian such as myself, the fight over health care seems ridiculous.  Canadians live longer and pay less for their healthcare than Americans do.  Not unusual as most developed nations are very similar in comparisons.  Why aren't Americans asking their politicians about how they can boost the outcomes of a health care program and who benefits from the current status?

Who benefits the most from the Trump regime?  There are of course individuals who are smart enough or lucky enough to be in a good position, but as groups I would suggest two.  The 1% who now have a thicker cushion to enjoy a high standard of living.  Another group is the anti-American forces, most specifically Russia who want the breakup  of international alliances and increased polarization in western nations. 

Who suffers the most.  Pretty much the bottom 90% of the population somewhat proportionately as the most unfortunate people are concerned.  Minority groups who are the brunt of blame and some considered sinners by the evangelical base.

As part of the conservative agenda is a desire to rid themselves of big government restrictions.  They have convinced those who have been protected by a liberal large government  that their interests are not protected.  Conservatives are quick to extol the advantages of private enterprise, but overlook the contributions of government  for their own benefit.  See how the government has boosted business:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/the-entreprenurial-state.html

Voting is a right, but if it not used carefully can hurt those who make a poorly thought out decision.  Criticizing the Trump regime has the danger of overwhelming the victims who do not believe them anyway.  I hope no one has been overwhelmed by my list of misdeeds, but assure you it is an incomplete list.

THE ESTABLISHMENT PARTIES AND PROPORTIONAL VOTING

It seems politics is all about power.  Once you have power you can do good things.  But politics can be about getting things done better by sharing power.

The current Canadian first past the post system has disadvantages for even the established parties.  It is often told how the minority parties lose when they get 6% overall voting, but don't get a single seat in Parliament.  Yes it is obvious that those votes are "wasted" but so are many of the votes for the establishment.  Once a candidate has achieved plurality in a riding each additional vote is unnecessary and therefore wasted.  In a proportional system those extra votes could help boost their overall number of seats.

A problem came up a few years back when Stephen Harper's party in 2006 won the majority of seats, but were lacking members from Vancouver and Montreal that traditionally would be represented with a cabinet minister.  Harper likes to present himself as a man of principle, but broke two of his principles.  He didn't approve of enticing opposition members (it had been done to him) to switch sides, but decided in one case that was his best option.  He enticed David Emerson the Liberal member for Vancouver Kingsway with a cabinet post--Minster of International Trade.  He also didn't like how the Canadian Senate was filled with appointees, but again bent his principle to take a Senator for a Cabinet position.  Actually he took a Conservative campaign organizer, Michael Fortier from the Montreal area and after appointing him to the Senate made him the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. This could have been avoided with a proportional system by listing Cabinet potential candidates to a higher ranking.  Some voters claim they vote for the "man" and not the party, but they still can vote for a slate of specific people under the proportional voting.

Although those in power under the first past the post system like to proclaim they have a mandate to do the people's will, in many cases that is pretty shoddy when the majority of the voters actually voted for other parties often specifically against the plurality winner's agenda.  Not to mention the larger numbers who for different reasons chose not to vote.  A real mandate comes only from a true majority.

Sharing power may seem like a diminishment of real power, but  it should result in real change that more people can accept.  Not because they got 100% of what they wanted, but because they (or their representatives) were consulted instead of dismissed.

A key part of how much credibility an election has is the number  of citizens who take the effort to vote.  It is often said that most people just vote reflexively without much study of the issues and personalities.  There could be truth to that, just as many non voters don't think it is worth their while to consider the consequences of a vote that would be "wasted."  And of course there is the strategic voter who has calculated their favored candidate has no chance and a vote for them could in fact enable the worst possibility to get elected unless they choose a more favorable candidate.

When the actual consequences of a single vote are realized (your vote really can make a difference) there will be a more powerful  reason to be involved.  Undoubtedly many votes will be made with little analysis, but under a proportional system more people are encouraged to study the issues beyond their seemingly narrow traditional range.

The advantages seem to shift power to the ordinary(?) voter and that politicians will have to think out platforms that appeal to a wider range of voters.  It is also true that some politicians can narrow their focus, but that is more likely to result in a narrower percentage of votes.  Engagement from citizens comes from education and the realization that one vote does count for something one can believe in.

An earlier post  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/your-guy-didnt-get-in.html

For those of you ready to get more involved check out http://fairvote.ca  For Americans check out https://www.fairvote.org for a perspective on your unique setup.

"That's what she said" a book worth reading.

First learned about Joanne and her new book from her appearance with Fareed Zakaria.

The title comes from remarks overheard at a business meeting.  A male was given credit for something that had first been brought up by a female.  This all too common scenario is one of the events that inspired Joanne to write the book.

Joanne very early on explains this book is not about man shaming.  She recognizes gender equality will never be truly reached without the involvement of men. Fortunately many men are helping.  Women are also a part of the problem as they have too many unconscious notions of women's role.

Many women think the way to succeed in a man's world is to adopt male interests such as sports, dirty jokes, etc.  Sometimes it works, but other times they are thought of as unfeminine.  Asserting authority, even when they have it has a higher price than suffered by males.

Boys are raised to be competitive while girls are taught to be co-operative and deferential.

One critical, but contested fact is that diversity boosts productivity.  Our country has been run by white men and even now it is hard to break the mould.  Companies in different fields have found their profits increased as women more involved in decisions.

An early example was Tupperware.  It was invented by Earl Tupper, but he didn't really appreciate that his principle audience found it difficult to understand.  Brownie Wise had her efforts to achieve management level after being the top sales person were rejected.  She convinced Tupper to go the house party route and it turned the product around.

Diversity training has become more common, but Joanne found that it is relatively ineffective and often counter-productive.  Unconscious bias awareness seems to be more effective.  Google was an early pioneer as they were concerned that they were not hiring or retaining women to levels they thought would be beneficial.  Everyone is at least a bit sexist and a bit racist among other inapropriate thoughts.  Another blog that discusses the critical role of the subconscious is:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/08/what-choice-do-you-have-some-thoughts.html

Deutch Bank became concerned that they were losing too many women to their competition.  They learned that the women were reluctant to ask for promotions and raises and assumed they were in a dead end situation.  After this was discovered more women were offered promotions.

Respect is a key concept.  Women are more interrupted than men, even at the Supreme Court level.  One example is that male doctors receive more respect than females and conversely male nurses are not as respected.  Transgender studies have demonstrated that transgender males gain more respect than they received as females.  Transgender females lose respect after their transition.  

Speaking up is key.  Some companies encourage their staff (male and female) to point out bias even to the boss.

In the 2016 American presidential election Donald Trump expressed his anger loudly and gained respect, but Hilary Clinton was criticized for "shrillness."  Although there were a myriad of factors undoubtedly for many voters a female candidate didn't command enough respect.  During his administration Obama tried in many ways to close the gender gap, but Trump has rolled back many of the efforts.

Blind auditions for musicians gave women more orchestra and band positions  It has been extended to fields where talent could be evaluated without identifying a person.

Maternity and paternity policies are common in much of the world, except very limited in the United States.  Some companies are realizing to retain women long term they have to develop policies that acknowledge women will be concerned about child rearing.  One suggestion was to give them projects that would keep them in the loop.  Eventually their children grow up and they are free to  apply their talents.

Mentoring has always been an effective way to nurture and develop new employees, but early efforts to bring senior males with junior females had lots of problems.  One solution at the social level has been to include spouses and even children. 

She concludes her book by admitting that women are still living in a man's world, but that each day more men reach across the gender divide.  There were thousands of men in the Women's March, the day after the 2017 inauguration.  Men and women evolved to survive in a dangerous world, but as conditions change we need to develop new understandings and new habits to cope with new dangers and new opportunities.  Lots of suggestions are provided.

A bit more about Joanne:  http://joannelipman.com

THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN FROM A JOURNALIST PERSPECTIVE

Katy Tur was encouraged to recount her adventures on the Trump campaign and the result was "Unbelievable."  The voters knew everything they needed to know to make a better choice, but many just didn't care.  Katy Tur didn't set out to be Trump's shadow, but circumstances conspired against her.

The story alternates between election day and various significant events. during the campaign  There is a lot about Trump much of which you have already been told, but may have forgotten because there was so much unbelievable.  A reporter in this campaign, Katy found herself in a very unique position.  Never before  has a candidate spent so much time insulting and intimidating.  Trump  for all his faults used members of the press for his own purposes.  Despite his public hostility towards Katy he consented for interviews.

From my position insulated from the actual campaign, Katy reinforced many of my prejudices.  Trump lies and lies and lies some more.  He sometimes puts it that he engages in harmless hyperbole and that offends my educated snobbery.  He insults.  He doesn't really approach discussing issues, but seems to know what his followers expect.

Katy recounts how Trump intruded into politics with his birther claims.   Most of us acknowledge that underneath it all was racism.  Talking to some of his followers without admitting to it confirmed the link.  Lyndon Johnson once said "If you can convince the lowest of white men he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket."  Hitting out at established prejudices such as the Chinese don't play fair, Iran is playing Americans for suckers, Mexicans are stealing jobs and bringing in drugs, etc. his base didn't care about his shortcomings.

Katy pointed out that Trump for all his bombast only made one change to the Republican platform.  That was to strike out plans to arm the Ukrainians. We are still learning more about the links from the Russians to Trump.

Just before one of the presidential debates NBC discovered the infamous Hollywood Access tapes.  Katy was the one who notified the Trump campaign that they had the tapes and would be publicly releasing them.  This seemed like a stunner, but not for long as Trump managed to round up a few Clinton accusers and brought them to the debate.  One of them was a woman that Hilary Clinton had defended her accused in a rape case in Arkansas.  The issue was soon neutralized with lots of voters offering their support.  It did spur some other women to publicly accuse Trump of sexual assault, but again he weathered that storm. 

 For anyone who took a good look at Donald Trump there was enough evidence that he was totally unqualified to be president.  It was easy to spot, but enough people loved his antics and with a few fortuitous events he pulled it off.  One of the fortuitous events was the Electoral College, heavily influenced by slave owners meant that he won despite getting almost 3 million less votes than Hilary.  James Comey, soon to be fired actually helped nail the coffin.  Who fully understands what the Russians (and other outsiders) were up to, but they didn't want  Hilary to win and had tools to diminish her chances.

There was a personal toll on reporters.  Katy, at the beginning had a happy relationship with a French man while she worked at an enjoyable job in London.  At the end she was planning a marriage to a fellow traveler on the campaign trail and moved back to New York.

Two  links to other Donald Trump blogs:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html 

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/02/trump-and-media-or-media-and-us.html

The Triumph of Christianity--a history

Christianity might have become a Jewish sect or a minor religion, but instead it changed the world.  Its core believers at the beginning were mostly illiterate.  This book by Bart D. Ehrman can be interpreted as a marketing study.

After the death of Jesus, his followers did carry on his mission, but mostly talking to other Jews who were very resistant.  The author contends that Paul was a key factor.  As a Pharisee Jew he actually had attacked followers of Jesus, but after he "saw the light" he was the first to attempt converting non Jews to the Christian faith without having to adopt Jewish customs.  Paul would visit larger population centres and pay his keep with his trade of tent making and talking to whoever would listen.  After work he would continue seeking out people to talk to.  He would try to get enough believers to establish a church which usually meant meetings in homes.  He would move on to another town and repeat the process.  Only now he kept in touch with his famous letters.

Paul, unlike the original apostles tried to convert non Jews, but had suffered beatings in synagogues and elsewhere.  Pagans did not offer life after death and tolerated a variety of Gods.   Miracles impressed many converts.  One requirement was to reject pagan beliefs and over time this gave the movement more solidarity.  Fear of hell (a new concept for most) compelled many to be converted.  Christians felt a need to service others and this often included medical assistance.  Usually when one household member joined the other members followed.  Conversions were slow, but steady and over the first three centuries became significant.

Hardships and torture actually boosted the appeal of Christianity, although not as common as has been pictured.  Believers who could endure tortures and barbarities inflicted on them became martyrs in the hearts and minds of pagans.  Paganism provided few if any martyrs.

Bart D Ehrman analyses a variety of scenarios but feels most comfortable with the notion that  conversions were mostly in ones and twos, but that over a long time they would have an exponential growth.  The greatest success was among the lower classes and more women than men. 

Constantine was born a pagan, but was converted before a major battle.  He was not baptized until on his death bed, but the author feels it was a common enough personal preference as they would not have time to sin after the baptism.  Constantine did not not try to force Christianity on others, but it was natural that some would convert to gain his favor and others felt it was a natural choice as the new religion was officially approved.  He was very involved in the religion, even holding high level meetings to sort out theological disputes.  Later Emperors were more aggressive in promoting Christianity.

The author notes that before Christianity became the majority they favored the separation of church and state, but afterwards many advocated Christianity as the state religion.  Pagan statues were mutilated.  Anti Semitism was boosted as many Christians thought of Jews as God killers.

The book stops at the fourth century when Christianity had overcome many obstacles.  Obviously Christianity has had a major impact on civilization starting in Europe, but as Europeans conquered and colonized much of the rest of the world it grew in strength.  There are many historical observations and the author draws on the studies of many other scholars.

For a related perspective on how things become popular:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/02/hit-makers.html