With the advent of the internet, I've noticed that what used to get people all in a tizzy is now accepted as normal. We used to call it plagiarism. Now we call it fan fiction.
All over the Web, you can find stories involving television, movie and book characters in brand new stories, not written by the original authors, creators or writers. And nobody minds. In fact, they have great followings.
I'm glad about that, actually. Nobody's trying to make any money off of it (which is probably why nobody objects) and it gives people a chance to try on pre-created characters and settings. Sometimes it can give you a better idea of where the original writers are going. Other times it points out where a show could or should be headed, especially when it comes to character development (Oh the frustration when you know you've come up with a cleaner way to explain something than the show actually uses!). I've even dabbled in it a little myself. And I've actually seen some elements of fan fiction stories I've read suddenly turn up in the show itself. In many cases, it was probably a coincidence, but sometimes, well, it's just eerie.
If I were in one of these shows, I would find it weird to surf the internet and find stories involving my character, some verging on pornography and some with relationships not intended by the writers. (Somebody out there has written something kinky involving Fred and George Weasley. Never mind that they're brothers.) I know of some actors who read the stories and crack up laughing, which is very generous considering some of the plots I've heard. But other times the intention is just to put the writer into something they really enjoy and want to emulate.
After all, they do say that imitation is the finest form of flattery. If that's the case, a lot of people should feel immensely flattered.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Sunday, November 09, 2008
DVD Review: The Matrix Trilogy
Full disclosure: I saw The Matrix on video, Reloaded in the theater and Revolutions on DVD. It wasn't until recently that I saw all three of them fairly close together.
But let's back up. When I first saw the Matrix, I was blown away by the concept but not just that - by the visuals. Forget bullet time. Sure, that's cool. But what I love about these movies is the glossy sharply defined Matrix world, filled with martial arts, sassy clothing, and a patina of richness in the color that seems almost far too real. It's overlaid with a green gloss that sharpens and defines every frame of film. And there's a fantasy element to it. Who do you want to be? What would you learn if it was only as easy as downloading it straight into your brain? How would you live if you could create your own view of yourself? It's a thinker's ass-kicking movie. Sure, some of the computer stuff passed me by, but I could really follow the film's plot.
By the time I saw Reloaded, I was excited to see what happened next. But Reloaded left me befuddled. Who was the Architect and what was he talking about? If the Ghost Brothers are programs and so is the Merovingian, how exactly do they work? What was the point of Perseophone wanting to liplock Neo? (Keanu Reeves is attractive, but he does nothing for me.) What's this about Zion and the people and ... huh??? (But I will take some of that special cake the Merovingian made.) Other than that I felt like I'd gotten left behind by some deeply philosophical computer geek's dream.
So I didn't go see Revolutions when it came out a few months later. I was just too lost. Even though people raved about the whole series, I wasn't sure I wanted to bother. After much persuasion, I finally sat down to see all three, and with the help of Wikipedia, it all began to make a lot more sense. I still don't get all the details, but I don't feel like I'm missing as much as before.
The Matrix, obviously, was meant to stand alone, and in that way it's the crown jewel of all three films because it's a complete story, even if the humans aren't freed from the Matrix as yet. Reloaded is a likeable, even though confusing, middle story that further expands upon the gloss. Revolutions spends far too much time - of necessity - in the drab real world, infested by these machines that are a cross between a spider and a malevolent octopus that just give me the heebie-jeebies. Everybody wears hand knitted sweaters and eats goo. Give me the leather body suits, fast cars, and ass-kicking maneuvers of the Matrix anyday. So I found the third installment a necessary piece but not nearly as visually pleasing as the first two.
The highlight of all three films, in terms of action sequences, has to be the freeway chase scene in Reloaded. What an amazing achievement, and if you watch the DVD extras, it's even more incredible for what WASN'T computer generated. Hydraulics launching cars, stunt doubles leaping motorcycles off semis, you name it. That's edge of your seat action. I could watch that scene over and over and marvel at the mastery involved.
Let's say a few things about the casting: Keanu Reeves is good for these roles, but he's just not much for emoting. Still, his fight scenes are well done and he looks good doing them. Carrie Anne Moss is quietly understated but rock solid, and the only time she's overlooked is when she's next to Monica Belluci's Persephone, who is far sexier than Moss's earthy beauty. Laurence Fishburne was the only choice, in my opinion, for Morpheus. He not only rocks the gear (those nose-pinching round lensed sunglasses - awesome!), but he's got that voice that both whispers and roars with authority. (Plus he looks good bald.) Jada Pinkett Smith is fun as the pilot Niobe. And Hugo Weaving is just brilliant as Agent Smith. We knew the guy could act, but seriously, he's the shit. (Plus the guy who plays Bane does a dead-on Agent Smith in Revolutions and it's really well done and creepy as hell.) The entire supporting cast is really well done and diverse too, which is a nice change from most blockbusters.
I realize this isn't really a 'review' per se, just some thoughts about this movie trilogy. I still like the original the best, and I could watch that one over and over. I could watch parts of Reloaded, but probably wouldn't sit through Revolutions again. I liked it well enough, but I'd rather hang out in the Matrix, where everybody is cool.
DVD: There are tons of extras. I couldn't even get into them all. Leave yourself an extra viewing day for each movie's extras.
Animals: None. I don't even think there are animals in the real world. I think the only one we see is the deja vu cat in the Matrix at the Oracle's apartment.
Overall: The best part of the films is the visual effects, hands down. As an overarching story, I give all three films together three and a half roses out of five, carried by the visuals and the first movie's storyline.
But let's back up. When I first saw the Matrix, I was blown away by the concept but not just that - by the visuals. Forget bullet time. Sure, that's cool. But what I love about these movies is the glossy sharply defined Matrix world, filled with martial arts, sassy clothing, and a patina of richness in the color that seems almost far too real. It's overlaid with a green gloss that sharpens and defines every frame of film. And there's a fantasy element to it. Who do you want to be? What would you learn if it was only as easy as downloading it straight into your brain? How would you live if you could create your own view of yourself? It's a thinker's ass-kicking movie. Sure, some of the computer stuff passed me by, but I could really follow the film's plot.
By the time I saw Reloaded, I was excited to see what happened next. But Reloaded left me befuddled. Who was the Architect and what was he talking about? If the Ghost Brothers are programs and so is the Merovingian, how exactly do they work? What was the point of Perseophone wanting to liplock Neo? (Keanu Reeves is attractive, but he does nothing for me.) What's this about Zion and the people and ... huh??? (But I will take some of that special cake the Merovingian made.) Other than that I felt like I'd gotten left behind by some deeply philosophical computer geek's dream.
So I didn't go see Revolutions when it came out a few months later. I was just too lost. Even though people raved about the whole series, I wasn't sure I wanted to bother. After much persuasion, I finally sat down to see all three, and with the help of Wikipedia, it all began to make a lot more sense. I still don't get all the details, but I don't feel like I'm missing as much as before.
The Matrix, obviously, was meant to stand alone, and in that way it's the crown jewel of all three films because it's a complete story, even if the humans aren't freed from the Matrix as yet. Reloaded is a likeable, even though confusing, middle story that further expands upon the gloss. Revolutions spends far too much time - of necessity - in the drab real world, infested by these machines that are a cross between a spider and a malevolent octopus that just give me the heebie-jeebies. Everybody wears hand knitted sweaters and eats goo. Give me the leather body suits, fast cars, and ass-kicking maneuvers of the Matrix anyday. So I found the third installment a necessary piece but not nearly as visually pleasing as the first two.
The highlight of all three films, in terms of action sequences, has to be the freeway chase scene in Reloaded. What an amazing achievement, and if you watch the DVD extras, it's even more incredible for what WASN'T computer generated. Hydraulics launching cars, stunt doubles leaping motorcycles off semis, you name it. That's edge of your seat action. I could watch that scene over and over and marvel at the mastery involved.
Let's say a few things about the casting: Keanu Reeves is good for these roles, but he's just not much for emoting. Still, his fight scenes are well done and he looks good doing them. Carrie Anne Moss is quietly understated but rock solid, and the only time she's overlooked is when she's next to Monica Belluci's Persephone, who is far sexier than Moss's earthy beauty. Laurence Fishburne was the only choice, in my opinion, for Morpheus. He not only rocks the gear (those nose-pinching round lensed sunglasses - awesome!), but he's got that voice that both whispers and roars with authority. (Plus he looks good bald.) Jada Pinkett Smith is fun as the pilot Niobe. And Hugo Weaving is just brilliant as Agent Smith. We knew the guy could act, but seriously, he's the shit. (Plus the guy who plays Bane does a dead-on Agent Smith in Revolutions and it's really well done and creepy as hell.) The entire supporting cast is really well done and diverse too, which is a nice change from most blockbusters.
I realize this isn't really a 'review' per se, just some thoughts about this movie trilogy. I still like the original the best, and I could watch that one over and over. I could watch parts of Reloaded, but probably wouldn't sit through Revolutions again. I liked it well enough, but I'd rather hang out in the Matrix, where everybody is cool.
DVD: There are tons of extras. I couldn't even get into them all. Leave yourself an extra viewing day for each movie's extras.
Animals: None. I don't even think there are animals in the real world. I think the only one we see is the deja vu cat in the Matrix at the Oracle's apartment.
Overall: The best part of the films is the visual effects, hands down. As an overarching story, I give all three films together three and a half roses out of five, carried by the visuals and the first movie's storyline.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Passing on the High Heels
It's a mainstay of Dos and Don'ts pages in women's magazines everywhere - the photo of the downtown worker in suit and tennis shoes, usually with a black bar across her eyes and some sort of horrified exclamation underneath her picture.
But recently a writer to a women's magazine - might have been Glamour, I'm not sure - brought up a good point. Why, exactly, is this a Don't?
Oh, sure, it's not a look. I get that. But that writer said these same magazines encourage women to use public transportation to be environmentally friendly. She said these women are probably taking the bus or subway in to town, and have to walk a long way from that station to their offices. So of course, any smart woman is going to do that walk in comfortable shoes, not three-inch Christian Louboutins. Besides, you can't tell me you get as quick or smooth a stride in heels as you will in a pair of Nikes.
Here's the other point. These same magazines talk extensively about squeezing in exercise wherever you can. Ten minutes at a time is just as good as doing it all at once, they always say. Who's to say that these women, like many I see every day, aren't squeezing in a brisk ten minutes on the way to work and ten on the way back to the subway at night? Or how about taking that walk at lunch? They may be fitting in that recommended exercise in the way that works best for them, and end up as a Don't in the process.
Well, then, I'm quite happy to be a Don't. I may not look pretty on my lunchtime walk or to and from my car, but it counts toward my exercise goal.
But recently a writer to a women's magazine - might have been Glamour, I'm not sure - brought up a good point. Why, exactly, is this a Don't?
Oh, sure, it's not a look. I get that. But that writer said these same magazines encourage women to use public transportation to be environmentally friendly. She said these women are probably taking the bus or subway in to town, and have to walk a long way from that station to their offices. So of course, any smart woman is going to do that walk in comfortable shoes, not three-inch Christian Louboutins. Besides, you can't tell me you get as quick or smooth a stride in heels as you will in a pair of Nikes.
Here's the other point. These same magazines talk extensively about squeezing in exercise wherever you can. Ten minutes at a time is just as good as doing it all at once, they always say. Who's to say that these women, like many I see every day, aren't squeezing in a brisk ten minutes on the way to work and ten on the way back to the subway at night? Or how about taking that walk at lunch? They may be fitting in that recommended exercise in the way that works best for them, and end up as a Don't in the process.
Well, then, I'm quite happy to be a Don't. I may not look pretty on my lunchtime walk or to and from my car, but it counts toward my exercise goal.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
A Brief Breeders Cup Observation
I know it's supposed to be really cool to have celebs call out, "Ladies and gentlemen, riders up" before each race.
But honestly, it's just not the same as, "Ladies and gentlemen, START YOUR ENGINES!"
But honestly, it's just not the same as, "Ladies and gentlemen, START YOUR ENGINES!"
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Am I Allowed to have Values as a Liberal?
It struck me today that a lot of conservatives talk about having 'conservative values' or 'family values.' And by saying that, I'm not denigrating their value system (even if I might not agree with everything they believe in). I just started wondering - does anybody say they have liberal values? Without it being a cussword...?
I consider myself pretty liberal. What are my values?
- I believe that a family is made up of the people you love who love you and care about you and have your best interests at heart. Gender and DNA aren't everything in terms of who can be 'family.' So when I hear 'family values' I think, well, gee, doesn't everybody have family values? It's just the makeup of that family that's the issue. I also believe that sometimes even your own flesh and blood can be cut out of your life. If someone in your family is abusive or hurtful or dangerous, you're under no obligation to keep in contact with them just because you share the same genes. If you have a partner of the same gender and want to adopt a child, go for it. What counts is the love in the home. And friends can be family just like family can be friends.
- I believe as a woman I have as much worth as a man and should have as much control over my reproductive system as a man. That means I should get equal pay for equal work and be held to the same standards professionally. And I believe prescription drug plans that cover Viagra should also cover birth control, regardless of what the Right to Life position is. ("Viagra fixes something that's broken. Birth control breaks something that works." So, if my significant other wants sex, I have to live with the repercussions, and he can bail whenever he wants? I don't think so.) I respect people's pro-life opinions because I understand where they're coming from, even though I may disagree. I happen to be pro-choice because I don't want a bunch of people I don't know making those tough decisions for me or deciding what I can and can't do with my own body.
- I believe people should as groups be treated equally but as individuals treated for their personal behaviors. So if you're another race or sexual orientation or whatever, you should get the same rights as me. But if you do something illegal you should be punished just like everybody else. Individual circumstances should count for something, sure, but so should personal responsibility. Blaming everybody else for your life is just plain bullshit.
- I believe corporations should be held responsible for their actions regardless of tax breaks and lobbyists and corporate perks. Golden parachutes should be disbanded and the money given to the lowest paid employees who suffer the most when a company goes under. The average resident, who did not cause this problem, should not suffer from either the problem or the solution. (Don't get me started on blaming the housing crisis on homebuyers.)
- I believe environmental impact should always be considered. I'm not trying to stop companies from growing, but 'building the tax base' is a great buzzword for 'we're going to plow under all those forests and wetlands.' Brownfield rehabilitation, building on land already developed and abandoned, and avoiding all forms of pollution should be built in to every contract. We have one earth. If we mess it up, uh, where are we gonna go? Maybe Al Gore is wrong. But what if he isn't?
There are others - things like dealing with the role of government and the like - that I don't have such strong opinions on. What to do about socialized medicine? Jury's still out. Welfare reform? I'm sure it probably needs it, but I'm not sure what that solution is. Same thing with Medicare. Health care needs a freakin' overhaul, but I don't know how it should be done. My point is, liberals aren't valueless, they have values too. Maybe you don't agree with them, but rest assured, liberals care as much as conservatives - they just don't see eye to eye on what to do.
I consider myself pretty liberal. What are my values?
- I believe that a family is made up of the people you love who love you and care about you and have your best interests at heart. Gender and DNA aren't everything in terms of who can be 'family.' So when I hear 'family values' I think, well, gee, doesn't everybody have family values? It's just the makeup of that family that's the issue. I also believe that sometimes even your own flesh and blood can be cut out of your life. If someone in your family is abusive or hurtful or dangerous, you're under no obligation to keep in contact with them just because you share the same genes. If you have a partner of the same gender and want to adopt a child, go for it. What counts is the love in the home. And friends can be family just like family can be friends.
- I believe as a woman I have as much worth as a man and should have as much control over my reproductive system as a man. That means I should get equal pay for equal work and be held to the same standards professionally. And I believe prescription drug plans that cover Viagra should also cover birth control, regardless of what the Right to Life position is. ("Viagra fixes something that's broken. Birth control breaks something that works." So, if my significant other wants sex, I have to live with the repercussions, and he can bail whenever he wants? I don't think so.) I respect people's pro-life opinions because I understand where they're coming from, even though I may disagree. I happen to be pro-choice because I don't want a bunch of people I don't know making those tough decisions for me or deciding what I can and can't do with my own body.
- I believe people should as groups be treated equally but as individuals treated for their personal behaviors. So if you're another race or sexual orientation or whatever, you should get the same rights as me. But if you do something illegal you should be punished just like everybody else. Individual circumstances should count for something, sure, but so should personal responsibility. Blaming everybody else for your life is just plain bullshit.
- I believe corporations should be held responsible for their actions regardless of tax breaks and lobbyists and corporate perks. Golden parachutes should be disbanded and the money given to the lowest paid employees who suffer the most when a company goes under. The average resident, who did not cause this problem, should not suffer from either the problem or the solution. (Don't get me started on blaming the housing crisis on homebuyers.)
- I believe environmental impact should always be considered. I'm not trying to stop companies from growing, but 'building the tax base' is a great buzzword for 'we're going to plow under all those forests and wetlands.' Brownfield rehabilitation, building on land already developed and abandoned, and avoiding all forms of pollution should be built in to every contract. We have one earth. If we mess it up, uh, where are we gonna go? Maybe Al Gore is wrong. But what if he isn't?
There are others - things like dealing with the role of government and the like - that I don't have such strong opinions on. What to do about socialized medicine? Jury's still out. Welfare reform? I'm sure it probably needs it, but I'm not sure what that solution is. Same thing with Medicare. Health care needs a freakin' overhaul, but I don't know how it should be done. My point is, liberals aren't valueless, they have values too. Maybe you don't agree with them, but rest assured, liberals care as much as conservatives - they just don't see eye to eye on what to do.
Monday, October 20, 2008
What Took Them So Long?
Last week the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) announced the creation of a Safety and Integrity Alliance to help clean up horse racing. This Alliance vows to get standardized medication laws in each state, ban steroids from racing altogether, improve safety and security measures for horse and jockey, and treat racehorses better post-racing career.
Sounds great, right? Well, of course.
So how come this measure doesn't yet have any teeth?
Right now the Alliance is a purely voluntary organization. Racetracks vow to follow the measures set forth by the Alliance and are recognized as doing such, but from what I can gather, there is no penalty - so far - to not following these rules. Former WI governor Tommy Thompson and his law firm are there to oversee the Alliance and call it on its foibles. So what's to stop a chastised racetrack from dropping out of the Alliance altogether and going back to letting its horses use steroids?
The Alliance, of course, hopes to get state legislatures on board. Well, sure. But here's yet another hole in the plan. You've got to get those legislatures to all agree. Do you really think you're going to get 50 states' worth of agreement? There aren't even specifics available yet except for following something general called 'House Rules' - and I'm not even sure what that means. I'm listening to a podcast from NTRA on this very issue, and all I can gather is, there are several areas they want to fix in thoroughbred racing, but they don't have the specifics yet. In short, they're telling us what they're going to do, not what they have done.
Great. Then tell me how you're going to accomplish this. They wouldn't even go into how this is going to be paid for. Since NTRA is not a governing body (like, say Major League Baseball or the NFL) it has no real authority. It's a figurehead, of sorts. It's relying on the individual states - indeed, the individual tracks - to follow these rules, even if there's an initial cost to doing so. Racetracks are seeing a drop in the amount of money bet, in a downturn economy, in a sport that has suffered for years from hardly any promotion and lots of tragedy. Curlin should be on the cover of Sports Illustrated. But ask the average sportsfan who he is, and you'd get blank stares. So what makes this group think racetracks, hurting to stay open as it is, are going to do anything without the promise it's going to make them money? Are they simply relying on racing fans who say they'll show up if the horses are treated more humanely?
Look, let's call a spade a spade. Racing slowly sputtered to awareness after the deaths of Barbaro and Eight Belles only because the public became vocally pissed off. Really, it hadn't done much following Barbaro's death (although synthetic tracks were, to be fair, being studied). It was Eight Belle's purely accidental death in the Kentucky Derby that got fans and others in a howl of rage - one that was long in coming. NTRA's announcing this ahead of the first Breeders Cup to be steroid free on an artificial surface (untested, no less, at Santa Anita) is no coincidence, despite what the conference call says. Otherwise they wouldn't come running to us to say, "Look at how thoughtful we're being!"
All of these changes are vastly overdue. And while I'm encouraged that this group exists and several tracks - including Michigan's own Pinnacle - have signed on, I don't see details. I don't see enforceable rules with penalties. I don't even see specific guidelines, merely areas to be explored. Maybe there are specifics but I don't see them posted on NTRA.com, which is where members of the media were told to go if they hadn't gotten the release sent to them. If there were more specifics available, they haven't been posted or I can't find them.
I know how touchy our state legislature is and how tight the budget is. I don't see the Agriculture budget being raised just for one racetrack for an ambiguous goal without any benchmarks or penalties. I see it being ignored. Heck, the state racing commissioner's office hasn't even commented yet.
I'm, to be sure, happy that these topics are being addressed. Fact is, they should have been addressed 30 years ago, but racing was happy enough not to rock the boat if nobody was complaining. It took righteous outrage, PETA protests, and lots of negative media coverage for the racing body to pick up its head and realize there was trouble in the paddock.
So here's what I say. Okay, NTRA. It's time for you to step up to the starting gate to show us whether you've got any real influence at all. It's time to show us you're the stallion in the barn and get those uniform rules drafted and proposed and implemented. Otherwise, frankly, you're just a gelding who long ago should have been put out to pasture.
Sounds great, right? Well, of course.
So how come this measure doesn't yet have any teeth?
Right now the Alliance is a purely voluntary organization. Racetracks vow to follow the measures set forth by the Alliance and are recognized as doing such, but from what I can gather, there is no penalty - so far - to not following these rules. Former WI governor Tommy Thompson and his law firm are there to oversee the Alliance and call it on its foibles. So what's to stop a chastised racetrack from dropping out of the Alliance altogether and going back to letting its horses use steroids?
The Alliance, of course, hopes to get state legislatures on board. Well, sure. But here's yet another hole in the plan. You've got to get those legislatures to all agree. Do you really think you're going to get 50 states' worth of agreement? There aren't even specifics available yet except for following something general called 'House Rules' - and I'm not even sure what that means. I'm listening to a podcast from NTRA on this very issue, and all I can gather is, there are several areas they want to fix in thoroughbred racing, but they don't have the specifics yet. In short, they're telling us what they're going to do, not what they have done.
Great. Then tell me how you're going to accomplish this. They wouldn't even go into how this is going to be paid for. Since NTRA is not a governing body (like, say Major League Baseball or the NFL) it has no real authority. It's a figurehead, of sorts. It's relying on the individual states - indeed, the individual tracks - to follow these rules, even if there's an initial cost to doing so. Racetracks are seeing a drop in the amount of money bet, in a downturn economy, in a sport that has suffered for years from hardly any promotion and lots of tragedy. Curlin should be on the cover of Sports Illustrated. But ask the average sportsfan who he is, and you'd get blank stares. So what makes this group think racetracks, hurting to stay open as it is, are going to do anything without the promise it's going to make them money? Are they simply relying on racing fans who say they'll show up if the horses are treated more humanely?
Look, let's call a spade a spade. Racing slowly sputtered to awareness after the deaths of Barbaro and Eight Belles only because the public became vocally pissed off. Really, it hadn't done much following Barbaro's death (although synthetic tracks were, to be fair, being studied). It was Eight Belle's purely accidental death in the Kentucky Derby that got fans and others in a howl of rage - one that was long in coming. NTRA's announcing this ahead of the first Breeders Cup to be steroid free on an artificial surface (untested, no less, at Santa Anita) is no coincidence, despite what the conference call says. Otherwise they wouldn't come running to us to say, "Look at how thoughtful we're being!"
All of these changes are vastly overdue. And while I'm encouraged that this group exists and several tracks - including Michigan's own Pinnacle - have signed on, I don't see details. I don't see enforceable rules with penalties. I don't even see specific guidelines, merely areas to be explored. Maybe there are specifics but I don't see them posted on NTRA.com, which is where members of the media were told to go if they hadn't gotten the release sent to them. If there were more specifics available, they haven't been posted or I can't find them.
I know how touchy our state legislature is and how tight the budget is. I don't see the Agriculture budget being raised just for one racetrack for an ambiguous goal without any benchmarks or penalties. I see it being ignored. Heck, the state racing commissioner's office hasn't even commented yet.
I'm, to be sure, happy that these topics are being addressed. Fact is, they should have been addressed 30 years ago, but racing was happy enough not to rock the boat if nobody was complaining. It took righteous outrage, PETA protests, and lots of negative media coverage for the racing body to pick up its head and realize there was trouble in the paddock.
So here's what I say. Okay, NTRA. It's time for you to step up to the starting gate to show us whether you've got any real influence at all. It's time to show us you're the stallion in the barn and get those uniform rules drafted and proposed and implemented. Otherwise, frankly, you're just a gelding who long ago should have been put out to pasture.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
I Just Don't Get It - What Women See In...
John Mayer - Some of his music is pretty good. I have "Bigger Than My Body" and "Why Georgia" on my iPod. He's a pretty good guitar player. And you could say he's not unattractive, even though he doesn't do much for me. But why do celebrity women just flock to this guy? (They did it to dreadlocked Adam Duritz of Counting Crows once upon a time too. I didn't get that either.) He's a serial dater. Are they really expecting anything more than to be serially dated??
Adam Levine - I have nothing against Maroon 5 either. I love several of their songs. But what's the big deal with this guy? Again, not unattractive, but he seems in his videos to have the personality of a stick. Watch "If I Never See Your Face Again" with Rihanna. She fairly smokes off the screen. She's sassy and sexy (and I'm straight and I say this). He looks like he'd rather be home washing his socks.
Zac Efron - This is merely a product of my age. He's cute, with those big dimples and that sweet smile. I want to pat him on the head and tell him, no, he can't have the car keys and he's too young to shave.
Hugh Hefner - One of his girlfriends broke up with him because (so the story goes anyway) they would never get married and have kids. Um, sweetie? Whatever makes you think this guy is going to marry??? He's Hugh Hefner. Come on! Now I'm sure there's a LOT more to the story than what we're getting in the media, and I know they're getting a lot of exposure being one of his girlfriends, but expecting the smoking-jacket-wearing founder of Playboy is going to marry you and settle down is, to say the least, delusional.
Plus he's old and creepy.
Who am I missing?
Adam Levine - I have nothing against Maroon 5 either. I love several of their songs. But what's the big deal with this guy? Again, not unattractive, but he seems in his videos to have the personality of a stick. Watch "If I Never See Your Face Again" with Rihanna. She fairly smokes off the screen. She's sassy and sexy (and I'm straight and I say this). He looks like he'd rather be home washing his socks.
Zac Efron - This is merely a product of my age. He's cute, with those big dimples and that sweet smile. I want to pat him on the head and tell him, no, he can't have the car keys and he's too young to shave.
Hugh Hefner - One of his girlfriends broke up with him because (so the story goes anyway) they would never get married and have kids. Um, sweetie? Whatever makes you think this guy is going to marry??? He's Hugh Hefner. Come on! Now I'm sure there's a LOT more to the story than what we're getting in the media, and I know they're getting a lot of exposure being one of his girlfriends, but expecting the smoking-jacket-wearing founder of Playboy is going to marry you and settle down is, to say the least, delusional.
Plus he's old and creepy.
Who am I missing?
Sunday, September 07, 2008
I Just Don't Get It - Anime
Welcome to the first installment of "I Just Don't Get It" - where I freely admit that I just don't see what other people in a certain item, be it reality television, snub-toed pumps or Honda Element SUVs (which I have dubbed, 'The Element of Ugly').
Today's subject is Anime. I know this form of Japanese animation has devoted followers, who can talk endlessly about the joys of Sailor Moon (sorry, it's the only one I know). They love the detail, the expression, the style.
I find it creepy.
Anime, in my limited experience, tends to be bloody and graphic. I'm watching the segments of The Animatrix, which features robots tearing apart human soldiers. This is supposed to be essential viewing for the Matrix fan, but even in the parts where nobody dies, there's always blood. I get that it's the leadup to the movies and explains how the machines subjugated the humans, but do I have to hear the screaming?
It also tends to feature emaciated or bug-eyed girls wearing revealing clothing, yet looking just-this-side of jailbait. Childish, yet heavily sexualized, in little panties and barely-there tops, but with wide eyes and pointed chins, faces unlined. I understand what men might see in a Wonder Woman or some other comic book heroine - she at least looks old enough to vote. (Even if, let's face it, no crime fighter would RUN in thigh-high stilettos with Double-Ds bouncing in the breeze and supported by only the most meager of fabric. Come on. That HURTS. )
I do agree that sometimes the animation is quite detailed and in its own way reflecting of realism. I also realize that there are different kinds of anime - at least from my limited experience - some more childlike cartoonish, others with humans drawn to look like real actual people. And some of these Animatrix shorts feature some great music. And I'm willing to say, if you're a big fan and want to explain to me the lure of this grown-up animation, I'm all ears.
But I think when it comes down to it, I want my cartoons to be innocent, childlike and not quite real - and blood-free.
I think I should just stick to Scooby-Doo.
Today's subject is Anime. I know this form of Japanese animation has devoted followers, who can talk endlessly about the joys of Sailor Moon (sorry, it's the only one I know). They love the detail, the expression, the style.
I find it creepy.
Anime, in my limited experience, tends to be bloody and graphic. I'm watching the segments of The Animatrix, which features robots tearing apart human soldiers. This is supposed to be essential viewing for the Matrix fan, but even in the parts where nobody dies, there's always blood. I get that it's the leadup to the movies and explains how the machines subjugated the humans, but do I have to hear the screaming?
It also tends to feature emaciated or bug-eyed girls wearing revealing clothing, yet looking just-this-side of jailbait. Childish, yet heavily sexualized, in little panties and barely-there tops, but with wide eyes and pointed chins, faces unlined. I understand what men might see in a Wonder Woman or some other comic book heroine - she at least looks old enough to vote. (Even if, let's face it, no crime fighter would RUN in thigh-high stilettos with Double-Ds bouncing in the breeze and supported by only the most meager of fabric. Come on. That HURTS. )
I do agree that sometimes the animation is quite detailed and in its own way reflecting of realism. I also realize that there are different kinds of anime - at least from my limited experience - some more childlike cartoonish, others with humans drawn to look like real actual people. And some of these Animatrix shorts feature some great music. And I'm willing to say, if you're a big fan and want to explain to me the lure of this grown-up animation, I'm all ears.
But I think when it comes down to it, I want my cartoons to be innocent, childlike and not quite real - and blood-free.
I think I should just stick to Scooby-Doo.
Monday, September 01, 2008
The Facebook Conundrum
I've just signed up for Facebook - which I find very popular among my peers and former co-workers - but here's what I'm wondering:
Why do people want to 'friend' you on Facebook when you're pretty sure they don't really like you in person?
I assume it's just to boost their friend totals, pilfer from your friends list for anyone else they might actually like or to laugh at your profile. I don't know. Maybe I'm mistaken about their personal feelings, but I don't think so. Okay, they're probably doing it because we have friends in common, and why not, since we know each other?
Regardless, it seems like a fun way to connect with old friends - it appeals to an older set than MySpace - and I'll happily give it a try.
Why do people want to 'friend' you on Facebook when you're pretty sure they don't really like you in person?
I assume it's just to boost their friend totals, pilfer from your friends list for anyone else they might actually like or to laugh at your profile. I don't know. Maybe I'm mistaken about their personal feelings, but I don't think so. Okay, they're probably doing it because we have friends in common, and why not, since we know each other?
Regardless, it seems like a fun way to connect with old friends - it appeals to an older set than MySpace - and I'll happily give it a try.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
NASCAR Sulk
I'm in a full-blown NASCAR sulk this weekend. My driver lost his ride for next season. Patrick Carpentier is being replaced by Reed Sorenson. He'll be the third driver in the 10 car in three years.
If you sign an open-wheel specialist with a strength at road racing, and he doesn't immediately win on the ovals of NASCAR.....um...what were you expecting? And if he qualifies well, hangs with the big boys when he's running with them but loses track position in the pits....whose fault is that exactly?
*sigh*
We now return you to your regularly scheduled sulk-free day.
If you sign an open-wheel specialist with a strength at road racing, and he doesn't immediately win on the ovals of NASCAR.....um...what were you expecting? And if he qualifies well, hangs with the big boys when he's running with them but loses track position in the pits....whose fault is that exactly?
*sigh*
We now return you to your regularly scheduled sulk-free day.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Some Olympic Thoughts
Now that the Olympics are over, I'm feeling decidedly idealist.
What a joy they can be. We remember, again, every two years, that even though governments do their worst and sour us against our neighbors, people are people. They're always happy to show you their culture, their heritage, their heart. They want to show the best of who they are. Sure, it's different, but isn't that okay? And in a lot of ways, aren't we alike as well? I was reminded watching the Chinese pop singers, that we're not that different even if our languages are literally worlds apart. (They like their pop stars pretty and thin too. What a concept!) We get a chance to see the beauty of a new place, the old and new of a country we may never see with our own eyes.
For two weeks the world is literally a smaller, more intimate place. If we did this more often than every two years - including Winter and Summer Games - it wouldn't have the same impact. For two weeks we can leave politics at home, and be proud of who we are and where we came from, and be proud of those who make it this far, even if they never win a medal. Remember that guy who could hardly swim four years ago, much less compete against the Michael Phelpses of the world? Remember how everybody cheered him on? Who cares where he was from? We could all get behind him. He'd struggled to get this far and he might never see another pool ever again, but we were there, rooting for him all the way. I think even Michael would cheer for him.
That's the beauty of the fact that this ideal has survived so many years, so much chaos and war and political struggle. We can root for each other, even for a short time. I love seeing athletes from different countries talking, joking around, kissing each other on the cheek, and taking pictures together, even dancing. They almost always congratulate the winners with respect and sometimes even affection. (A lot of that may have to do with the fact that some athletes train here in the States, regardless of who they compete for.)
I'm thrilled to see some Middle Eastern countries allowing women to compete. I love seeing what people are wearing during the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and their pride for their country. I even love it when the US doesn't win everything. That's perfectly okay with me, even though I'm inclined to root for the US athlete even without knowing anything about him or her. But I honestly don't care if we win the medal race. What's the big deal? It's all down to the individual. That's what's important.
Admittedly, having the Olympic spotlight on your country shows its worst as well. But for two whole weeks, we may compete as a country, but aren't you upset when someone falls or fails? Regardless of where they're from? (I remember wincing and yelping when a Chinese gymnast fell off the rings, and I was glad he got up okay.)
This may be the closest we ever come to world peace. But for at least two weeks, it feels like it's truly possible.
What a joy they can be. We remember, again, every two years, that even though governments do their worst and sour us against our neighbors, people are people. They're always happy to show you their culture, their heritage, their heart. They want to show the best of who they are. Sure, it's different, but isn't that okay? And in a lot of ways, aren't we alike as well? I was reminded watching the Chinese pop singers, that we're not that different even if our languages are literally worlds apart. (They like their pop stars pretty and thin too. What a concept!) We get a chance to see the beauty of a new place, the old and new of a country we may never see with our own eyes.
For two weeks the world is literally a smaller, more intimate place. If we did this more often than every two years - including Winter and Summer Games - it wouldn't have the same impact. For two weeks we can leave politics at home, and be proud of who we are and where we came from, and be proud of those who make it this far, even if they never win a medal. Remember that guy who could hardly swim four years ago, much less compete against the Michael Phelpses of the world? Remember how everybody cheered him on? Who cares where he was from? We could all get behind him. He'd struggled to get this far and he might never see another pool ever again, but we were there, rooting for him all the way. I think even Michael would cheer for him.
That's the beauty of the fact that this ideal has survived so many years, so much chaos and war and political struggle. We can root for each other, even for a short time. I love seeing athletes from different countries talking, joking around, kissing each other on the cheek, and taking pictures together, even dancing. They almost always congratulate the winners with respect and sometimes even affection. (A lot of that may have to do with the fact that some athletes train here in the States, regardless of who they compete for.)
I'm thrilled to see some Middle Eastern countries allowing women to compete. I love seeing what people are wearing during the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and their pride for their country. I even love it when the US doesn't win everything. That's perfectly okay with me, even though I'm inclined to root for the US athlete even without knowing anything about him or her. But I honestly don't care if we win the medal race. What's the big deal? It's all down to the individual. That's what's important.
Admittedly, having the Olympic spotlight on your country shows its worst as well. But for two whole weeks, we may compete as a country, but aren't you upset when someone falls or fails? Regardless of where they're from? (I remember wincing and yelping when a Chinese gymnast fell off the rings, and I was glad he got up okay.)
This may be the closest we ever come to world peace. But for at least two weeks, it feels like it's truly possible.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Thoughts on the Olympics
Random thoughts about the Olympics:
- The guy who announces the beach volleyball just slays me. I can't always understand everything he says, but he says it with such enthusiasm that it cracks me up. He's got that crowd hooting and hollering for their favorite team, probably in at least two languages, and he's so enthusiastic it's hilarious - he never wanes. Even in the pouring rain.
- Whenever somebody starts to cry, I get all sniffly. Whether it's gymnast Jonathan Horton's parents clutching at each other and sobbing happily at his medal or platform diver Haley Ishimatsu choking up when she didn't make it to the finals but still saying she'd had a lot of fun, I reach for tissue. I want to hug a lot of people. Even the sometimes bitter-faced Nastia Lukin. When she smiles and tears up, she's adorable. When she's got her game face on, you kind of expect her to sprinkle itching powder in your shorts.
- The parents are, in fact, some of the most fun. You can't tell me Michael Phelps' mom wasn't kind of hilarious in her own endearing way. Chris Collingsworth told Bob Costas about how during one of the races, she dug her hand into his leg so hard it hurt. She had a variety of facial expressions. I'm almost glad for her heart that his races are over; now she can relax.
- I've found it really hard to watch equestrian. Only a few events are on a TV station I get. Many are on Oxygen, which is not found on my cable network, and most of the rest are online only. Without verbal commentary. Sometimes there's a typed in commentary - complete with misspellings - and so that means you have to watch everything, lest you miss a rider you wanted to see. (Sometimes, if you're lucky, you can hear the on-course commentator, which makes things a little easier.) And you do get to hear the sounds of the game, including the riders making kissing noises to the horses over a fence. But you can't do a bunch of other things while it's on - if you want to follow it, you have to watch it. And sometimes the files are several hours long, so it's hard to keep up.
- Swimmers have no body fat and no body hair. I want one. Can I have one? Is there a spare male swimmer needing a home? I'd adopt one. I KNOW they're still in college and feeding one requires a semi truck making deliveries twice a week. I still want one.
- Nothing's creepier than realizing that had I become a teenage mother, I could have a child old enough to compete in Olympic gymnastics.
- The guy who announces the beach volleyball just slays me. I can't always understand everything he says, but he says it with such enthusiasm that it cracks me up. He's got that crowd hooting and hollering for their favorite team, probably in at least two languages, and he's so enthusiastic it's hilarious - he never wanes. Even in the pouring rain.
- Whenever somebody starts to cry, I get all sniffly. Whether it's gymnast Jonathan Horton's parents clutching at each other and sobbing happily at his medal or platform diver Haley Ishimatsu choking up when she didn't make it to the finals but still saying she'd had a lot of fun, I reach for tissue. I want to hug a lot of people. Even the sometimes bitter-faced Nastia Lukin. When she smiles and tears up, she's adorable. When she's got her game face on, you kind of expect her to sprinkle itching powder in your shorts.
- The parents are, in fact, some of the most fun. You can't tell me Michael Phelps' mom wasn't kind of hilarious in her own endearing way. Chris Collingsworth told Bob Costas about how during one of the races, she dug her hand into his leg so hard it hurt. She had a variety of facial expressions. I'm almost glad for her heart that his races are over; now she can relax.
- I've found it really hard to watch equestrian. Only a few events are on a TV station I get. Many are on Oxygen, which is not found on my cable network, and most of the rest are online only. Without verbal commentary. Sometimes there's a typed in commentary - complete with misspellings - and so that means you have to watch everything, lest you miss a rider you wanted to see. (Sometimes, if you're lucky, you can hear the on-course commentator, which makes things a little easier.) And you do get to hear the sounds of the game, including the riders making kissing noises to the horses over a fence. But you can't do a bunch of other things while it's on - if you want to follow it, you have to watch it. And sometimes the files are several hours long, so it's hard to keep up.
- Swimmers have no body fat and no body hair. I want one. Can I have one? Is there a spare male swimmer needing a home? I'd adopt one. I KNOW they're still in college and feeding one requires a semi truck making deliveries twice a week. I still want one.
- Nothing's creepier than realizing that had I become a teenage mother, I could have a child old enough to compete in Olympic gymnastics.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The Successful Move
Over the years I've gotten good at this. I've moved people into dorms, into apartments and into houses. And out of houses into apartments. Here are my unscientific tips to a successful move after helping a friend today with a move that turned out great:
1. Hire movers. Oh wait. Not everybody can afford that or wants total strangers manhandling all their furniture. Okay, well, in the absence of 'Two Men and a Truck' here's what else I've learned.
2. Go through your stuff way ahead of time. If you can pare down the stuff, less stuff has to be hauled. You'd think this would be a big 'duh.' I can tell you I should have pared down some stuff a long time ago. But I hauled it from place to place. Ugh.
3. Have everything packed before people arrive. They are not going to pack up your stuff while it's going out the door. If it's not ready to go, they're not taking it and you'll have to take it later. I have done this on both ends - the mover and the movee. On both ends it's seriously annoying.
4. Label your boxes with the room of destination. That will really help when you have to find those cups. And it makes unpacking go much more smoothly. And it also saves your movers from stacking everything six boxes deep in what will eventually be your dining room.
5. Tell all your friends. Seriously, the more people you have to help, the quicker the whole move goes and the less exhausted all of your friends are at the end of the day. They might even stay to help you unpack. Today's move went great because a ton of people showed up. That really helped when a couple of the guys faced the dilemma of getting a huge sofa out of the house and then into the apartment. We had enough people that we got a lot done while they handled that sticky situation and we were done by 1:00. So if you can get a bunch of heavy lifters to take the big furniture, even better.
6. Have available at the old house and haul to the new house: ziploc baggies for nuts and bolts, duct tape, an entire and comprehensive tool kit with screwdrivers of all sizes, paper towels, and cleaning materials.
7. Make sure you have the following items at the new home: toilet paper in all bathrooms, bottled water in the fridge that is already ice cold, cups and plates and napkins, and something snacky.
8. Know where you want your furniture before it comes in the front door. Or expect to move it on your own later. Dithering about where something is going to go when it's heavy means your mover is going to set it down wherever and you're going to have to move it yourself. Today's move didn't face that at all - by the time the sofa arrived we knew where it was going to go.
9. Feed your movers. Beer and pizza are popular.
Anything I've missed? Any tips? Horror stories? Stories of success?
Now I'm going to take a nap.
1. Hire movers. Oh wait. Not everybody can afford that or wants total strangers manhandling all their furniture. Okay, well, in the absence of 'Two Men and a Truck' here's what else I've learned.
2. Go through your stuff way ahead of time. If you can pare down the stuff, less stuff has to be hauled. You'd think this would be a big 'duh.' I can tell you I should have pared down some stuff a long time ago. But I hauled it from place to place. Ugh.
3. Have everything packed before people arrive. They are not going to pack up your stuff while it's going out the door. If it's not ready to go, they're not taking it and you'll have to take it later. I have done this on both ends - the mover and the movee. On both ends it's seriously annoying.
4. Label your boxes with the room of destination. That will really help when you have to find those cups. And it makes unpacking go much more smoothly. And it also saves your movers from stacking everything six boxes deep in what will eventually be your dining room.
5. Tell all your friends. Seriously, the more people you have to help, the quicker the whole move goes and the less exhausted all of your friends are at the end of the day. They might even stay to help you unpack. Today's move went great because a ton of people showed up. That really helped when a couple of the guys faced the dilemma of getting a huge sofa out of the house and then into the apartment. We had enough people that we got a lot done while they handled that sticky situation and we were done by 1:00. So if you can get a bunch of heavy lifters to take the big furniture, even better.
6. Have available at the old house and haul to the new house: ziploc baggies for nuts and bolts, duct tape, an entire and comprehensive tool kit with screwdrivers of all sizes, paper towels, and cleaning materials.
7. Make sure you have the following items at the new home: toilet paper in all bathrooms, bottled water in the fridge that is already ice cold, cups and plates and napkins, and something snacky.
8. Know where you want your furniture before it comes in the front door. Or expect to move it on your own later. Dithering about where something is going to go when it's heavy means your mover is going to set it down wherever and you're going to have to move it yourself. Today's move didn't face that at all - by the time the sofa arrived we knew where it was going to go.
9. Feed your movers. Beer and pizza are popular.
Anything I've missed? Any tips? Horror stories? Stories of success?
Now I'm going to take a nap.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Movie Review: X-Files: I Want to Believe
I wanted to like this movie. I really did. I gave it every opportunity to wow me, to bring on a sense of recollection, to slip me an in-joke. Instead, it just grossed me out and left me sorely disappointed.
When we rejoin our favorite FBI agents, Scully is working as a doctor in a Catholic hospital and clashing with one of the Fathers about the treatment of a dying boy (named Christian, in a obviously heavy metaphor). And Mulder is clipping articles from newspapers, tacking them up in a little room, and not shaving.
The FBI decides it wants Mulder back to help with an investigation into an agent's disappearance, and sends Agent Mosley Drummy (rapper/actor Xzibit) to seek out Scully. She's no longer working with Mulder or the FBI, but she dutifully tells Mulder that they need his help with a psychic priest (Billy Connolly) who claims to have visions of the missing agent and clues into a mutilated arm found in the snow. Mulder gets pulled into the case, which involves missing women, body parts, and Callum Keith Rennie doing his creepy best with a Russian accent.
This movie wants desperately to be a love story about Mulder and Scully, and it wants to be a story about faith and belief and reason. Instead, it comes off as a muddled mess. I never figured out if Mulder and Scully are actually living together - they're in a relationship, obviously, which also I find offputting, as I liked them better in their chaste courtship, but Scully walks into Mulder's house hesitantly. She doesn't knock, but she doesn't act like she lives there either. And while David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson are excellent in these worn old roles and both look great, the change in their relationship and the circumstances in which they find themselves seem strained. They have chemistry, but I don't need to see them making out or snuggling in bed. That's never what their relationship was about during the show. Mulder making dirty jokes at Scully feels awkward and a little surreal.
Scully is having an awkward crisis of faith and wants to condemn Father Crissman - the psychic priest - for his bad deeds; Mulder wants to believe him; Agent Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) doesn't know what to do. I never did figure out what her role was. Does she believe, like Mulder does? Or is she grasping at straws? Mulder and Scully have their old battle about belief and reason, and yet it feels stilted and old hat, like the characters should have moved beyond this, especially if they're sleeping together. (If they hadn't seen each other in a long time, then yes, I might have bought this. But none of this is ever clear, and it sure isn't the fault of any of the actors. Everyone cast does as good a job as they can. It's the script that fails them.)
This movie also wants desperately to appeal to those who don't know the show AND to those who do. But you have to pick one. Xzibit and Peet do the best they can with minimal roles - we could probably have done without both of them, honestly - but nothing really looks familiar to us. I don't recognize the halls Mulder and Scully walk at the FBI, or any of the agents. In fact, by the time we get one familiar face (and just one, if you don't count Rennie, who was originally up for the role of Krycek and later did two episodes of the show) it seems like the writers are pandering to the old Phile crowd. Like, look at this! You know this person!
That's the only in-joke we get. There's a reference to William, Scully and Mulder's son, and to Samantha, Mulder's sister, but the latter feels like a retread, because that issue felt resolved to me after the show had ended. To have it referenced in this movie felt like another moment to appease long-time fans, but instead it feels tacked on, to explain who Mulder is. But don't most people who would see this movie already know who he is and what spurs him? How many people are going to stumble into the theater without ever having seen the show?
Part of the problem is the fact that the show went on too long - probably two whole seasons - and killed off a lot of the charismatic characters we came to know and love or hate. The Lone Gunmen, Cancer Man, Krycek, Well-Manicured Man, Mr X, Deep Throat - all of them are missing. We don't even get Kersch. So the movie feels like a shadow of what the X-Files used to be.
And the story itself is gruesome and violent. I know the X-Files did some pretty horrific things over the course of the show, but this just seemed way too overdone - too slasher film. I covered my eyes several times and I found it uncomfortable in a way I couldn't easily put aside.
The movie also hands us a huge plot hole - Scully puts her faith in a science that the Catholic church has been vocal about rejecting in the real world. Yet in the movie that's not what the church is objecting to - it's upset that Scully wants to try to save this boy when they feel he should be left to die in peace. So we watch Scully wrestle with what she's doing - is she saving him? Is she making him into William? Is she causing him unnecessary pain? Does she believe in God or not? Her faith takes a beating but never feels real to me - it feels forced and heavy-handed from the beginning, when fans are used to a much more subtle treatment of her issues of faith (watch "Revelations" instead). In short, I missed the little green men.
Animals: Large dogs take a lot of abuse in the last third of this movie - they are shown mutilated in pictures and Mulder seriously wounds one who attacks him. I found this very disturbing on top of the violence done to the people. I actually considered walking out.
Overall: This movie felt like a X-Files film made by somebody who only knew a little bit about the show, and who wanted to gross us out with a slasher film. I was seriously disappointed, and while it was nice to see familiar characters, the plotline and the main characters' relationship has gone beyond the point of being either interesting or comfortable. I give it two roses out of five, and one of those roses is strictly because of the cast. Grab a DVD of Seasons Two or Three again and skip the film.
When we rejoin our favorite FBI agents, Scully is working as a doctor in a Catholic hospital and clashing with one of the Fathers about the treatment of a dying boy (named Christian, in a obviously heavy metaphor). And Mulder is clipping articles from newspapers, tacking them up in a little room, and not shaving.
The FBI decides it wants Mulder back to help with an investigation into an agent's disappearance, and sends Agent Mosley Drummy (rapper/actor Xzibit) to seek out Scully. She's no longer working with Mulder or the FBI, but she dutifully tells Mulder that they need his help with a psychic priest (Billy Connolly) who claims to have visions of the missing agent and clues into a mutilated arm found in the snow. Mulder gets pulled into the case, which involves missing women, body parts, and Callum Keith Rennie doing his creepy best with a Russian accent.
This movie wants desperately to be a love story about Mulder and Scully, and it wants to be a story about faith and belief and reason. Instead, it comes off as a muddled mess. I never figured out if Mulder and Scully are actually living together - they're in a relationship, obviously, which also I find offputting, as I liked them better in their chaste courtship, but Scully walks into Mulder's house hesitantly. She doesn't knock, but she doesn't act like she lives there either. And while David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson are excellent in these worn old roles and both look great, the change in their relationship and the circumstances in which they find themselves seem strained. They have chemistry, but I don't need to see them making out or snuggling in bed. That's never what their relationship was about during the show. Mulder making dirty jokes at Scully feels awkward and a little surreal.
Scully is having an awkward crisis of faith and wants to condemn Father Crissman - the psychic priest - for his bad deeds; Mulder wants to believe him; Agent Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) doesn't know what to do. I never did figure out what her role was. Does she believe, like Mulder does? Or is she grasping at straws? Mulder and Scully have their old battle about belief and reason, and yet it feels stilted and old hat, like the characters should have moved beyond this, especially if they're sleeping together. (If they hadn't seen each other in a long time, then yes, I might have bought this. But none of this is ever clear, and it sure isn't the fault of any of the actors. Everyone cast does as good a job as they can. It's the script that fails them.)
This movie also wants desperately to appeal to those who don't know the show AND to those who do. But you have to pick one. Xzibit and Peet do the best they can with minimal roles - we could probably have done without both of them, honestly - but nothing really looks familiar to us. I don't recognize the halls Mulder and Scully walk at the FBI, or any of the agents. In fact, by the time we get one familiar face (and just one, if you don't count Rennie, who was originally up for the role of Krycek and later did two episodes of the show) it seems like the writers are pandering to the old Phile crowd. Like, look at this! You know this person!
That's the only in-joke we get. There's a reference to William, Scully and Mulder's son, and to Samantha, Mulder's sister, but the latter feels like a retread, because that issue felt resolved to me after the show had ended. To have it referenced in this movie felt like another moment to appease long-time fans, but instead it feels tacked on, to explain who Mulder is. But don't most people who would see this movie already know who he is and what spurs him? How many people are going to stumble into the theater without ever having seen the show?
Part of the problem is the fact that the show went on too long - probably two whole seasons - and killed off a lot of the charismatic characters we came to know and love or hate. The Lone Gunmen, Cancer Man, Krycek, Well-Manicured Man, Mr X, Deep Throat - all of them are missing. We don't even get Kersch. So the movie feels like a shadow of what the X-Files used to be.
And the story itself is gruesome and violent. I know the X-Files did some pretty horrific things over the course of the show, but this just seemed way too overdone - too slasher film. I covered my eyes several times and I found it uncomfortable in a way I couldn't easily put aside.
The movie also hands us a huge plot hole - Scully puts her faith in a science that the Catholic church has been vocal about rejecting in the real world. Yet in the movie that's not what the church is objecting to - it's upset that Scully wants to try to save this boy when they feel he should be left to die in peace. So we watch Scully wrestle with what she's doing - is she saving him? Is she making him into William? Is she causing him unnecessary pain? Does she believe in God or not? Her faith takes a beating but never feels real to me - it feels forced and heavy-handed from the beginning, when fans are used to a much more subtle treatment of her issues of faith (watch "Revelations" instead). In short, I missed the little green men.
Animals: Large dogs take a lot of abuse in the last third of this movie - they are shown mutilated in pictures and Mulder seriously wounds one who attacks him. I found this very disturbing on top of the violence done to the people. I actually considered walking out.
Overall: This movie felt like a X-Files film made by somebody who only knew a little bit about the show, and who wanted to gross us out with a slasher film. I was seriously disappointed, and while it was nice to see familiar characters, the plotline and the main characters' relationship has gone beyond the point of being either interesting or comfortable. I give it two roses out of five, and one of those roses is strictly because of the cast. Grab a DVD of Seasons Two or Three again and skip the film.
Monday, July 28, 2008
In Driver News...
Patrick did especially well this past week at the Brickyard, finishing 18th. Hey, a top 20 finish is a great thing! AND that puts him in 36th position overall. One more move up and he doesn't have to qualify for races anymore, he's automatically in.
That of course assumes the races won't go to caution every ten laps for new tires.
In other racing news, I have to say I get less impressed with Danica Patrick's behavior almost every week. Her little spat with Milka Duno would have been funnier had Milka slugged her one, but at least Milka got to throw a towel.
I'm not really sure if Danica gets a pass because she's female or not. Male drivers confront each other all the time. Is she trying too hard to be one of the guys, feeling she can confront anybody who does her wrong? Does she think being female gives her a pass on jumping on the guys because she knows they really can't jump back at her? Because frankly, the more I hear of stuff like this, I think she's behaving like a brat. She has to know everybody's eyes are on her, and that includes all those little girls who look up to her.
She's not the friendliest person, so it appears - she comes off as a bit of a cold fish. Fine. I get that she's had a lot of sexism to deal with. And she's talented, for sure. But I can say that if she had Sarah Fisher's personality, or Sarah had her driving skills/ride, the tables would sure be turned and Sarah would be the most popular driver in the series, along the league of Helio Castroneves. Danica is hurting her own popularity by appearing standoffish.
And she's of course under lots of pressure. I get that too. But she has to learn to behave herself in the public eye with the panache of Lyn St. James or Dale Earnhardt Jr and remember that storming down pit road to snap at somebody just makes her look like a little kid who can't handle the pressure.
That of course assumes the races won't go to caution every ten laps for new tires.
In other racing news, I have to say I get less impressed with Danica Patrick's behavior almost every week. Her little spat with Milka Duno would have been funnier had Milka slugged her one, but at least Milka got to throw a towel.
I'm not really sure if Danica gets a pass because she's female or not. Male drivers confront each other all the time. Is she trying too hard to be one of the guys, feeling she can confront anybody who does her wrong? Does she think being female gives her a pass on jumping on the guys because she knows they really can't jump back at her? Because frankly, the more I hear of stuff like this, I think she's behaving like a brat. She has to know everybody's eyes are on her, and that includes all those little girls who look up to her.
She's not the friendliest person, so it appears - she comes off as a bit of a cold fish. Fine. I get that she's had a lot of sexism to deal with. And she's talented, for sure. But I can say that if she had Sarah Fisher's personality, or Sarah had her driving skills/ride, the tables would sure be turned and Sarah would be the most popular driver in the series, along the league of Helio Castroneves. Danica is hurting her own popularity by appearing standoffish.
And she's of course under lots of pressure. I get that too. But she has to learn to behave herself in the public eye with the panache of Lyn St. James or Dale Earnhardt Jr and remember that storming down pit road to snap at somebody just makes her look like a little kid who can't handle the pressure.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Movie Review: The Good Shepherd
Pay attention. Brush up on your history. Take notes. Whatever you have to do to unravel this complicated plot, do it.
I like movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominator in the audience, and I like having to pay attention. And this movie definitely requires that level of concentration. With a running time of nearly three hours, flashbacks and historical references, it's difficult to follow what's going on without stopping the DVD and discussing the plot with your friends. You'll even want to dig out Wikipedia to get a historical brush up on WWII, Bay of Pigs, Cuba and other historical happenings that figure prominently into the plot.
Matt Damon stars as Edward Wilson. We see him performing in 'HMS Pinafore' before being inducted into Yale's Skull and Bones society, where he meets up with the slightly malevolent Richard Hayes (Lee Pace from TV's Pushing Daisies). They'll run into each other several times
over the next few years, as Wilson is pushed into a loveless marriage, loses the woman he does love, and ends up as a spy overseas. The whole movie is based on his rise into the CIA and how his duty to his country and the path he seems to have fallen into affect his life, his decisions and ultimately his happiness.
Damon plays this role without color. I suppose that's the point, but eventually you want to see him emote, show something, do anything. When he does unleash his giant boyish smile, it seems far too warm for the character. He's good at what he does, of course, but it's hard to feel anything for Edward, since he doesn't seem to feel anything for anyone else.
Angelina Jolie plays Clover (which, if you ask me, is a cow's name) the sister of a friend, and she comes on to Edward with very little subtlety. But I'm still not sure if we're supposed to see her as fast, too intrigued by Edward to be careful, or merely naive and reckless. You don't, after all, cast Jolie to be a virginal prude. That said, Jolie is a better actress than the material or her sex-bomb reputation have allowed her. But she doesn't have a lot to work with here. Despite that, she seems to age better than many actresses her actual chronological age do, and she wears the years with a heavy weariness that Damon's aging character can't match.
The cast is stellar - Michael Gambon, William Hurt, Billy Crudup, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Alec Baldwin, Timothy Hutton, John Sessions and many more. That alone would make the movie interesting, if you could only figure out how they're all connected to Edward and the plot. That takes some real doing. It's nice to see all those familiar faces (although I didn't recognize Crudup at all) but getting their actual role in the film is easier said than done with many of them, especially since Edward meets up with some of them both socially and professionally. Hayes lurks, for example, in both realms, and it isn't until the end that you know for sure where he stands.
Among other notable characters, Tammy Blanchard plays Laura, Edwards' first love who has severe hearing loss. She drifts into and out of the story over the years, and Edward pines for her, we suppose, but he doesn't really show it much. Instead, we see time and time again how his job is the ultimate focal point of his life - less so, his family and friends, because he can no longer trust anyone. He doesn't trust women or treat any of them particularly well, and his fellow Skull-and-Bones friends seem not to affect him in any way, even when he's in his early years and supposed to be good friends with these men. In fact, he shows the most life while acting in drag, whatever that's supposed to tell us. When he's with Blanchard, the color comes from her; she blossoms under his affections.
And Tommy Nelson and Eddie Redmayne play Edward Jr. as both a boy and a young man, and both roles require him to be something of an odd duck. Both actors do well with that role; in particular young Tommy is actually rather creepy as he plays Edward Junior, that awkwardness due to his father's neglect.
This movie is at least 45 minutes too long. Some subplots could be excised; others take far too long to pay off; long before then I was fidgeting on the sofa, sleepy but wanting to figure out how it all ties together. When it was over, it was hard to say if I liked it. I'm still not really sure. I think it could have been brilliant, had somebody told Director De Niro that the story is bloated and hard to follow.
Animals: None that I recall.
Overall: An interesting complex plot becomes too complex, with far too many characters and threads to come to a conclusion that answers questions before it wears out the viewer. Because of the stellar cast and the intelligence the film assumes from the viewer, I give it three roses out of five.
I like movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominator in the audience, and I like having to pay attention. And this movie definitely requires that level of concentration. With a running time of nearly three hours, flashbacks and historical references, it's difficult to follow what's going on without stopping the DVD and discussing the plot with your friends. You'll even want to dig out Wikipedia to get a historical brush up on WWII, Bay of Pigs, Cuba and other historical happenings that figure prominently into the plot.
Matt Damon stars as Edward Wilson. We see him performing in 'HMS Pinafore' before being inducted into Yale's Skull and Bones society, where he meets up with the slightly malevolent Richard Hayes (Lee Pace from TV's Pushing Daisies). They'll run into each other several times
over the next few years, as Wilson is pushed into a loveless marriage, loses the woman he does love, and ends up as a spy overseas. The whole movie is based on his rise into the CIA and how his duty to his country and the path he seems to have fallen into affect his life, his decisions and ultimately his happiness.
Damon plays this role without color. I suppose that's the point, but eventually you want to see him emote, show something, do anything. When he does unleash his giant boyish smile, it seems far too warm for the character. He's good at what he does, of course, but it's hard to feel anything for Edward, since he doesn't seem to feel anything for anyone else.
Angelina Jolie plays Clover (which, if you ask me, is a cow's name) the sister of a friend, and she comes on to Edward with very little subtlety. But I'm still not sure if we're supposed to see her as fast, too intrigued by Edward to be careful, or merely naive and reckless. You don't, after all, cast Jolie to be a virginal prude. That said, Jolie is a better actress than the material or her sex-bomb reputation have allowed her. But she doesn't have a lot to work with here. Despite that, she seems to age better than many actresses her actual chronological age do, and she wears the years with a heavy weariness that Damon's aging character can't match.
The cast is stellar - Michael Gambon, William Hurt, Billy Crudup, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Alec Baldwin, Timothy Hutton, John Sessions and many more. That alone would make the movie interesting, if you could only figure out how they're all connected to Edward and the plot. That takes some real doing. It's nice to see all those familiar faces (although I didn't recognize Crudup at all) but getting their actual role in the film is easier said than done with many of them, especially since Edward meets up with some of them both socially and professionally. Hayes lurks, for example, in both realms, and it isn't until the end that you know for sure where he stands.
Among other notable characters, Tammy Blanchard plays Laura, Edwards' first love who has severe hearing loss. She drifts into and out of the story over the years, and Edward pines for her, we suppose, but he doesn't really show it much. Instead, we see time and time again how his job is the ultimate focal point of his life - less so, his family and friends, because he can no longer trust anyone. He doesn't trust women or treat any of them particularly well, and his fellow Skull-and-Bones friends seem not to affect him in any way, even when he's in his early years and supposed to be good friends with these men. In fact, he shows the most life while acting in drag, whatever that's supposed to tell us. When he's with Blanchard, the color comes from her; she blossoms under his affections.
And Tommy Nelson and Eddie Redmayne play Edward Jr. as both a boy and a young man, and both roles require him to be something of an odd duck. Both actors do well with that role; in particular young Tommy is actually rather creepy as he plays Edward Junior, that awkwardness due to his father's neglect.
This movie is at least 45 minutes too long. Some subplots could be excised; others take far too long to pay off; long before then I was fidgeting on the sofa, sleepy but wanting to figure out how it all ties together. When it was over, it was hard to say if I liked it. I'm still not really sure. I think it could have been brilliant, had somebody told Director De Niro that the story is bloated and hard to follow.
Animals: None that I recall.
Overall: An interesting complex plot becomes too complex, with far too many characters and threads to come to a conclusion that answers questions before it wears out the viewer. Because of the stellar cast and the intelligence the film assumes from the viewer, I give it three roses out of five.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Movie Review: Wall E
A cartoon should be goofy, larger than life, and full of chattery characters, right? The latest Pixar creation, Wall E, is none of these, and yet it's a deeply enjoyable layered ride.
You could subtitle this film "Robots In Love". There's a lot I don't want to say about the plot so that you're not spoiled, but I can tell you this: Wall E - Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class - appears to be the lone occupant of a wasted planet. Like a good worker, he takes his lunch cooler out to the piles and mounds of trash, and accompanied by his cockroach friend, uses his compactor insides to crush the trash into usable cubes. From there he builds skyscrapers of junk. He also keeps some of the treasures he finds - rubber duckies, light bulbs, a spork - and he happily cannibalizes other Wall Es that have stopped working to supplement his parts. He hardly makes any noises, but you understand him perfectly. The dialogue comes solely from a videotape of 'Hello Dolly' that Wall E is fascinated with.
Suffice it to say he meets other robots and has adventures. That may sound simplistic - on one level the story really is very simple - but it's better for you to come into the story like Wall E goes through his life and his adventures - with a sense of newness and wonder.
Wall E's beginnings on the wasted planet are drawn so intricately, with such detail, that you forget you're watching a cartoon. Wall E has so many human traits and movements (and occasionally he mimics a turtle, to funny effect) that you quickly pick up on the fact that he's just no ordinary robot. It may seem slow to the kiddies, but it takes its time to tell its story, while it gives you a chance to absorb Wall E's world and feel for him as strongly as if he was human.
The first half of the film is based on this home planet (our home planet as a matter of fact), and it feels incredibly different than any other Pixar film. It's quiet, introspective, detailed, calm, and funny. You will find yourself laughing at the robot pratfalls as though you'd never seen them before. You'll wince when he hits his head, 'aw' at his attempts to dance, feel sad with him when he feels alone.
The second half of the film is more typically Pixar - the action picks up and there is actual dialogue, but it's no less funny. Without spoiling too much, I can tell you that Fred Willard plays the President (yes, real live people in a Pixar film!), consumerism has taken over the world, and we've gotten so attached to our video screens that we forget everything else. I'll leave all the details out - you need to see it for yourself. I can say, however, that the adage about the eyes being the window to the soul is absolutely true, and a pair of blue eyes in this film tell us so much that I was just amazed at what we're able to learn from this simple device.
And this is one of those movies where there's a lot going on in the background, so I need to see it again to see everything I might have missed. So much is happening in the second half of the film that there are probably a ton of inside jokes and funny moments happening behind the action, and you'll only catch them on future viewings. That said, the kids will like the second half of the movie better, while adults will adore the first half. But everybody will go home happy.
This movie is proceeded by a hilarious short, 'Presto' that left me laughing so hard I was in tears. Just remember to feed your rabbit.
Animals: That cockroach is well-nigh indestructible, but no animals are harmed in the film. And after the movie's over, you'll feel like getting out to walk the dog, run a marathon, anything other than sit in front of a screen.
Overall: This introspective film with the eco-sensitive bent is gorgeous and makes you want to consider hugging your toaster. I give it four roses out of five.
You could subtitle this film "Robots In Love". There's a lot I don't want to say about the plot so that you're not spoiled, but I can tell you this: Wall E - Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class - appears to be the lone occupant of a wasted planet. Like a good worker, he takes his lunch cooler out to the piles and mounds of trash, and accompanied by his cockroach friend, uses his compactor insides to crush the trash into usable cubes. From there he builds skyscrapers of junk. He also keeps some of the treasures he finds - rubber duckies, light bulbs, a spork - and he happily cannibalizes other Wall Es that have stopped working to supplement his parts. He hardly makes any noises, but you understand him perfectly. The dialogue comes solely from a videotape of 'Hello Dolly' that Wall E is fascinated with.
Suffice it to say he meets other robots and has adventures. That may sound simplistic - on one level the story really is very simple - but it's better for you to come into the story like Wall E goes through his life and his adventures - with a sense of newness and wonder.
Wall E's beginnings on the wasted planet are drawn so intricately, with such detail, that you forget you're watching a cartoon. Wall E has so many human traits and movements (and occasionally he mimics a turtle, to funny effect) that you quickly pick up on the fact that he's just no ordinary robot. It may seem slow to the kiddies, but it takes its time to tell its story, while it gives you a chance to absorb Wall E's world and feel for him as strongly as if he was human.
The first half of the film is based on this home planet (our home planet as a matter of fact), and it feels incredibly different than any other Pixar film. It's quiet, introspective, detailed, calm, and funny. You will find yourself laughing at the robot pratfalls as though you'd never seen them before. You'll wince when he hits his head, 'aw' at his attempts to dance, feel sad with him when he feels alone.
The second half of the film is more typically Pixar - the action picks up and there is actual dialogue, but it's no less funny. Without spoiling too much, I can tell you that Fred Willard plays the President (yes, real live people in a Pixar film!), consumerism has taken over the world, and we've gotten so attached to our video screens that we forget everything else. I'll leave all the details out - you need to see it for yourself. I can say, however, that the adage about the eyes being the window to the soul is absolutely true, and a pair of blue eyes in this film tell us so much that I was just amazed at what we're able to learn from this simple device.
And this is one of those movies where there's a lot going on in the background, so I need to see it again to see everything I might have missed. So much is happening in the second half of the film that there are probably a ton of inside jokes and funny moments happening behind the action, and you'll only catch them on future viewings. That said, the kids will like the second half of the movie better, while adults will adore the first half. But everybody will go home happy.
This movie is proceeded by a hilarious short, 'Presto' that left me laughing so hard I was in tears. Just remember to feed your rabbit.
Animals: That cockroach is well-nigh indestructible, but no animals are harmed in the film. And after the movie's over, you'll feel like getting out to walk the dog, run a marathon, anything other than sit in front of a screen.
Overall: This introspective film with the eco-sensitive bent is gorgeous and makes you want to consider hugging your toaster. I give it four roses out of five.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Durned If You Do...
So let me get this straight. You are horrified by the high gas prices you're seeing every time you pass the local Citgo. So you make a few changes. You buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, maybe even a hybrid. And then you cut back on your driving - you make all your trips at one time, you carpool to the office, you decide not to take a summer vacation. You even drive slower so you're not burning as much fuel. It's all to save your family money.
After a winter of driving over more potholes than you'd expect to see craters on the moon, you know MDOT and other road fixing folks get 19 cents per every gallon of gas sold - it's tax money. And you also know they rely on that money to fix the roads and bridges, because Michigan gets 92 cents of every dollar it sends to Washington, back for road repair and similar projects, making Michigan a 'donor state.'
Then you hear MDOT and friends say say, Gee, we're not getting nearly as much money from drivers because they're driving less and driving hybrids or more fuel-efficient cars, so they're not buying as much gasoline, and that means less gas tax money for us. But we really need money to fix those roads, otherwise you're going to run the risk of the Minnesota bridge disaster. So we need you to raise the tax on a gallon of gasoline to 28 cents on the gallon or more.
This article lays out all the facts and figures pretty well.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/METRO05/806120380
Without doing a lot of fancy math, aren't you pretty much screwed either way?? You make the effort to be a more responsible citizen behind the wheel to save yourself money, and in the end, you're still going to pay out of pocket when gas prices go up yet again - only this time, it's tax money to pay for crumbling roads, which could be better funded by the federal government, if it would give Michigan a dollar in road money for every dollar it sends to Washington (and no, I don't really get how that works either). In short, no matter what you do to save money, it's going to be wrestled out of your pockets one way or another.
Does this make even the LEAST bit of sense to anyone else??
After a winter of driving over more potholes than you'd expect to see craters on the moon, you know MDOT and other road fixing folks get 19 cents per every gallon of gas sold - it's tax money. And you also know they rely on that money to fix the roads and bridges, because Michigan gets 92 cents of every dollar it sends to Washington, back for road repair and similar projects, making Michigan a 'donor state.'
Then you hear MDOT and friends say say, Gee, we're not getting nearly as much money from drivers because they're driving less and driving hybrids or more fuel-efficient cars, so they're not buying as much gasoline, and that means less gas tax money for us. But we really need money to fix those roads, otherwise you're going to run the risk of the Minnesota bridge disaster. So we need you to raise the tax on a gallon of gasoline to 28 cents on the gallon or more.
This article lays out all the facts and figures pretty well.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/METRO05/806120380
Without doing a lot of fancy math, aren't you pretty much screwed either way?? You make the effort to be a more responsible citizen behind the wheel to save yourself money, and in the end, you're still going to pay out of pocket when gas prices go up yet again - only this time, it's tax money to pay for crumbling roads, which could be better funded by the federal government, if it would give Michigan a dollar in road money for every dollar it sends to Washington (and no, I don't really get how that works either). In short, no matter what you do to save money, it's going to be wrestled out of your pockets one way or another.
Does this make even the LEAST bit of sense to anyone else??
Monday, June 09, 2008
No Bridezillas Here
Since it's wedding month, I've been reading a lot online about crazed brides who insisted their bridesmaids buy $500 dresses, spend a fortune on shower gifts at multiple showers they're required to attend, and even dye their hair the same color as the bride's. One even kicked one gal off her wedding party (after she bought a $300 dress on a student budget) because she suggested a less-expensive bachelorette party package in Vegas. The bride said she wasn't 'dedicated enough to the wedding.'
Thank God I have never had to deal with a Bridezilla.
I've been in four weddings, and am getting ready for a fifth, and I have been lucky not only to have worn five beautiful dresses (no lie!), but to have dealt with five great brides. No bride has ever complained about what I did or didn't do for her. No bride has flipped out, lost her temper, or made unreasonable demands. One bride did have a minor meltdown during photography over her too-tight shoes, but that was quickly remedied by a pair of specially-decorated Keds, courtesy of her quick-thinking sister-in-law. I can't imagine I would be as calm as any of these women.
And I count my blessings every time I hear about a bride-gone-crazy financially. All five brides have been remarkably laid back, open to ideas, and willing to hear what my budget was, and thus willing to work with it. I've never felt pressured to spend money I didn't have, go somewhere I couldn't afford or do something completely unreasonable (the hair-dyeing counts). I just stated what I could and couldn't afford (politely, I mean) and they've all been willing to work with me.
And honestly, if I had been confronted with those demands, I would simply back out of the wedding party. Why do these gals put up with this kind of stuff from their 'friends' without speaking up? And why would a bride ever treat her friends like that anyway? I know it's 'her day' but that doesn't entitle her to become a raving bitch who has to be the center of attention for everything. Seriously, Disney may promote princesses, but grown women should have a little more perspective.
Yet some women get so caught up in the idea of it being all about them for not just one day but the entire run up to the big day (forgetting about the marriage in the process of planning for the wedding), that they ruin friendships in the process with their outrageous demands.
Is a poofy white dress really worth all that? I don't think so.
Thank God I have never had to deal with a Bridezilla.
I've been in four weddings, and am getting ready for a fifth, and I have been lucky not only to have worn five beautiful dresses (no lie!), but to have dealt with five great brides. No bride has ever complained about what I did or didn't do for her. No bride has flipped out, lost her temper, or made unreasonable demands. One bride did have a minor meltdown during photography over her too-tight shoes, but that was quickly remedied by a pair of specially-decorated Keds, courtesy of her quick-thinking sister-in-law. I can't imagine I would be as calm as any of these women.
And I count my blessings every time I hear about a bride-gone-crazy financially. All five brides have been remarkably laid back, open to ideas, and willing to hear what my budget was, and thus willing to work with it. I've never felt pressured to spend money I didn't have, go somewhere I couldn't afford or do something completely unreasonable (the hair-dyeing counts). I just stated what I could and couldn't afford (politely, I mean) and they've all been willing to work with me.
And honestly, if I had been confronted with those demands, I would simply back out of the wedding party. Why do these gals put up with this kind of stuff from their 'friends' without speaking up? And why would a bride ever treat her friends like that anyway? I know it's 'her day' but that doesn't entitle her to become a raving bitch who has to be the center of attention for everything. Seriously, Disney may promote princesses, but grown women should have a little more perspective.
Yet some women get so caught up in the idea of it being all about them for not just one day but the entire run up to the big day (forgetting about the marriage in the process of planning for the wedding), that they ruin friendships in the process with their outrageous demands.
Is a poofy white dress really worth all that? I don't think so.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
'Not Catching the Bouquet' Good
Can we start a new wedding reception rule? If you're 35 or over and still single, you do not have to stand up for the bouquet toss. No wildly amused family member or mischievous friend can drag you out to stand among the 17-year-olds in their sky-high pumps and short skirts to grab for a bedraggled bouquet that nobody actually really wants to catch. If you find out that's what's coming up next, you can - with your dignity perfectly intact - leave the dance floor, and hide in the bathroom if necessary without the DJ heckling you or sending the seven-year-old flower girl to peer under the door of your stall to pull you out of there.
Why is this rite of passage so entertaining for older married members of the crowd? Why do they think this is FUN? They cheer and clap as you're being dragged - and I mean physically dragged - onto the dance floor. They will actually put hands on you to shove you out there, even if you profess offense. Brides think this is hilarious. They're secretly thinking, "I don't have to do this anymore! But you do!"
You know what it says? LOSER. It says YOU SUCK. It says YOU SLEEP ALONE AND WE'RE RUBBING IT IN. So the fact that everybody else thinks it's HIGH-larious to force you to stand out on the dance floor behind the bridesmaids when you could easily have given birth to them is humiliating on a grand scale.
If you're in the wedding party, I get that that's part of the protocol. That, I wearily accept. But when you're the only bridesmaid still single, that adds to the humiliation. But there are means of coping. I've taken to standing behind somebody really tall who seems eager to catch the bouquet, even if it means some frightened lad or very drunk groomsman is later going to stuff the garter up her dress. I figure I might show my support for the bride by standing there in my bridesmaid dress, but I refuse to leap for the flowers.
But I've had about enough of this gross humiliation. I'm already the only singleton in the family and as time goes on, my friends quickly succumb too. Sooner or later their kids will be getting hitched, and I'll still be out there. So I'm taking action, and it isn't going to be pretty. I'm quickly getting to the point where I'm going to start telling people to shove the taffeta-wrapped, wilted-rose-and-baby's-breath concoction far up their asses, if they try to herd me onto the dance floor with kids half my age to catch a reminder of loneliness.
Why is this rite of passage so entertaining for older married members of the crowd? Why do they think this is FUN? They cheer and clap as you're being dragged - and I mean physically dragged - onto the dance floor. They will actually put hands on you to shove you out there, even if you profess offense. Brides think this is hilarious. They're secretly thinking, "I don't have to do this anymore! But you do!"
You know what it says? LOSER. It says YOU SUCK. It says YOU SLEEP ALONE AND WE'RE RUBBING IT IN. So the fact that everybody else thinks it's HIGH-larious to force you to stand out on the dance floor behind the bridesmaids when you could easily have given birth to them is humiliating on a grand scale.
If you're in the wedding party, I get that that's part of the protocol. That, I wearily accept. But when you're the only bridesmaid still single, that adds to the humiliation. But there are means of coping. I've taken to standing behind somebody really tall who seems eager to catch the bouquet, even if it means some frightened lad or very drunk groomsman is later going to stuff the garter up her dress. I figure I might show my support for the bride by standing there in my bridesmaid dress, but I refuse to leap for the flowers.
But I've had about enough of this gross humiliation. I'm already the only singleton in the family and as time goes on, my friends quickly succumb too. Sooner or later their kids will be getting hitched, and I'll still be out there. So I'm taking action, and it isn't going to be pretty. I'm quickly getting to the point where I'm going to start telling people to shove the taffeta-wrapped, wilted-rose-and-baby's-breath concoction far up their asses, if they try to herd me onto the dance floor with kids half my age to catch a reminder of loneliness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
