Woody Allen Controversy - Who Is To Be Believed?

What we DO know is that a) Mia reacted much more passionately to the Soon-Yi thing at the time (producer had to persuade her to come back to shoot the last couple of scenes for Husbands and Wives) than any allegation supposedly put forward by Dylan (after the charge of molestation, she still called Woody about costume fittings for Manhattan Murder Mystery due to shoot in 5 weeks). b) Alleged venue of abuse was the attic Woody wouldn't go into c) Team Mia - Dylan and Ronan - were 7 and an infant respectively, whereas Team Woody Soon-Yi and Moses make more credible witnesses of the context of the household circa 1992. d) Woody would have been happy with Soon-Yi and on enemy turf on the date in question where such a monstrous risk and violation is unlikely. e) Woody has had 22 years of his name being sullied for the accusations alone. f) Two states have vetted him and Soon-Yi for current adoptions g) Why did Mia sign-off on her footage for the tribute that so offended her unless she wanted it as an excuse to fan the flames? h) Woody has directed 22 films since 1992 and acted in others and received honours for which Mia was silent (apart from writing What Falls Away) while her career sputtered.  i) If she was such a great mother, why treat Soon-Yi as the "other woman" and shut her out?  And if Woody were a pedo, how would it escape the notice of Soon-Yi ?  Therefore I believe the brainwashing angle.    

Movie Cops

Just a few random thoughts about film. I suppose this is about two movie cops, a dirty one from Rampart and a heroic one from Die Hard 5, as well as the third kind of cops - the ones in the audience policing the product. There are two movies I took a long time to see because of their reputation. A) too much hand-held b) poor story structure. ***Those are the charges against Rampart and A Good Day To Die Hard, anyway. People had represented Rampart as something I wouldn’t like on the basis of not having a clear structure or a point or resolution. I watched it on DVD and then listened to the commentary. The movie is how it should be and is a character piece that is reminiscent of Taxi Driver in the sense that is compelling because of the performances despite your unwillingness to identify. The last couple of images may not have been part of the original plan but they do bring to mind the final images of Taxi Driver – main character at the wheel of a car, close-up, unsettled, and the view of street lights ahead under ending credits. One scene in particular comes to mind in terms of choices, a sand dune obscures the lower frame and some of the action in a way that is effective between Woody Harrelson and Ned Beatty. Another scene between them in a restaurant photographs them from outside the booth in a way that might bring to mind a confessional. Apparently the plan was to obscure Woody’s cop character “Date Rape” Dave Brown as the movie progresses. I like the fact that creative decisions have been made despite the argument these days that every scene also has to be shot with close-ups of anyone speaking – which a network or studio may default to if they feel young audiences (or those watching on small devices) will become restless unless they see full screen faces. Any time a scene survives that requires the audience to lean forward and pay attention and imagine what is happening just out of frame it is a victory for the creative process, whether it comes 100% from the director or other crew and cast have fought for it. Also, strange is the tendency of reviewers (especially on-line reviewers) to police the format as to whether the movie has a straight-line Syd Field/Robert McKee three act structure with day-glow plot-points and turning points and the beats of audience rooting interest firmly in place. Those rules may be helpful for screenwriters editing their stories and refining them in terms of how much time is devoted to a given story element, but they are mostly popular as tools for non-writers, executives, gate-keepers, official readers to say no to a script and have some sort of handy lingo to justify it. Also to sell books and seminars. It is distressing that so many people attacked this film for not following lock-step with screenwriting dogma. (I once participated in a screenwriting circle in which the leader/host pinned me down to define the word dogma. In the Catholic church for example, it would be an edict or a regulation that comes from man but is not attributed to Jesus so it is questionable. And example would be “don’t eat meat on Friday.” In scriptwriting, there is the semantic distinction between rules and principles. One guru says there must be a resolution of events that create a catharsis and closure. Another says that it is more important to leave the reader somewhat frustrated and deny them closure so that there will be discussion and contemplation of the film and the fate of the characters for days or weeks after the final fade out.) A Good Day to Die Hard starring Bruce Willis returning as John McClanewas not a bad movie. It was not expected to be on a par with the original or even the second one, despite the good marketing tag line, “Yippy kayee, Mother Russia .” It may even be a missed opportunity. Bonnie Bedelia has been absent from these films since the second movie, despite seeming to have kept herself up well judging by her role on the latest Parenthood TV series. This can only be the Hollywood adage that a male action star is only as old as his leading lady. So home and hearth here is represented by Lucy McClane the daughter, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead who is underused here but helps frame the story’s departure, initiation, return format. The movie could have remained more or less the same and kept the same casting of Jai Courtney as Jack or John McClane Jr. but could have easily added in another layer of social relevance that might have been timely with a few more lines of dialogue. Suppose the estrangement of John and his son is not just that the elder McClane spent too much time focused on work and ignored his family. Suppose his son was gay and that was the reason he was in the Russian jail. Can’t help thinking that must have been discussed in story conferences. That might have been a plausible rift for old-school crank McClane. But nobody was calling for that. The movie was attacked in ways that seemed reasonable. Chris Stuckman posted a detailed evaluation of the movie (below) in addition to his usual review. I was impressed by this approach to a practical essay, and the arguments behind it persuaded me not to see Die Hard 5 or A Good Day to Die Hard. I had seen the previous one Live Free or Die Hard opening weekend in a theater partially because Kevin Smith had been cast as “Warlock” an internet genius of sorts. Between movies, there was of course a falling out between Willis and Smith so likely no Warlock. I recently caught the on DVD and although it is not as good as the previous film it is not a disaster either. In fairness I think some of even Stuckman’s points are just not right. I don’t think the director did an awful job. There was a lot of hand-held, which I can live without, but that might have been for expedience since I can hardly believe they let so much of the action be filmed in Russia. In any case, I did not notice the directing except that it seemed to communicate what was intended. Willis was said to have come across as sour throughout the film as if he did not want to be there and that there were no jokes or quips. That turns out to not be correct. I wanted to believe that because of the Smith rift, but the character does pretty much retain his humor. No big laughs, but the attempt is there and even the can scene “Are you American?” “Yeah.” Is a different take of that exchange, which had him sit up and say “Yeah” with a patriotic pride. The scene is more loose and friendly in the actual movie. The claim is also made that the bad guys, who they are and what they are after are confusing. I found this not to be the case. No plot point breakthroughs, but the kind of underhanded characters and the shape-shifter archetypes are represented. The running time is shorter than the past 4 Die Hard flicks. That is one statement I found to be correct. It did not seem to lack much. A couple of deleted scenes definitely could have been put back in, like a fight with some thugs over guns in a trunk. Maybe they felt it diluted the tension and seemed more goofy than the rest of the movie. John Moore (remake of the Omen 2006) has a lot of haters apparently, but this movie is not the mess it is made out to be. I will say that it strained my patience only once, when McClane decides to crash through a guardrail on an overpass to drive across the tops of some vehicles below. And the scene also had the garnish of Lucy phoning his cell and his attempt to avoid telling her the trouble he is in. That is kind of a boldface Hollywooden moment that may enrage people so much that they are not won back. The equivalent moment occurs in the previous film Live Free of Die Hard when he jumps onto a supersonic jet and rides the top of it. That is the kind of insanity where I check out. The original Die Hard and even the first sequel had genuine tension and danger. Die Hard 2 pushed it with the eject-seat scene, but even that is a charming stretch and I was still on the edge of my seat and not ejecting. One other charge against Die Hard 5 is the most significant (and damning if it were true) that John McClane does not care about people in this movie. A clip below shows him stealing a vehicle with supposed disregard for the driver, but in context it breezes by. The person is not really harmed and the priority of moving forward is a little more clear. There is less emotion in this movie, but it is subtle and it is there. Some things still blow up real good and it is still better than a Michael Bay movie. Maybe it is the old principle of wide versus narrow acceptance; Frank Capra used to say that Lost Horizon’s full version played very well in the editing room and small screening room but was considered awful when shown to a full public audience. He figured that when individuals watch something there is a wider range of acceptance for it, even strange ranges of style and that the range becomes narrower the more people are sitting through it. He solved that by trimming out the first few reels of that movie, seeing it then accepted as a hit, and then for home video it was restored. Maybe watching a movie at home or on a portable DVD player on the subway it seems like a better movie and any anger I might feel about absurd stunt scenes is diffused. But ultimately the character of John McClane is best when he is the bug escaping the shoe of a gigantic villain, and less appealing if he starts to believe he is in a movie and therefore invulnerable.

debates: context

Lately I've had a few clashes online over the issue of Mel Gibson. I saw Edge of Darkness and I like it. The man makes good movies. Others are interested in promoting a negative image.

I find whatever the topic if I'm engaged in debate with someone the core of the debate is this: It is their goal to eliminate context and my goal to acknowledge context.

That seems to be a common element in any extended, significant fight with me.

I think some people are looking for something to simplify so it is purely something to from which the unconscious can react. People "love to hate" this or that, and wrap themselves in flags or embrace "umbrella" rules that have been extracted from specific incidents or cases. I have no interest in "umbrella" rules, except to reject them. And example would be: "So, the end justifies the means?" No, that's an umbrella someone is trying to hold over a specific case about which you do have an informed opinion and judgment.

Would you kill this person? Would you condone (blank)?

Yes.

So the end justifies the means?

No.

But. . .

One case at a time. No rule or law needs to be extracted from a particular example.
It might be necessary to keep a law in place that I can imagine breaking or circumventing. Subway passengers may need to be herded further along a platform while at the same time I need to find the most efficient way to get to the section of train which best lines up to the access point or escalator I anticipate at my stop. I would not extract an umbrella rule for everyone that says it is okay to skirt around a barrier. It may not be okay, and we don't want chaos, but this isn't about being a role model. It's about CONTEXT. Some will discard every element of context as self serving rationalization or "excuses," but in a novel for example that is exactly what allows us to accept the mini choices and compromises and accidents and failures and increments that deliver us to a strange and controversial turning point in question. For example:

Human beings love to raise someone up and then tear them down and will be relentless.

This principle has many examples, like Jesus Christ being tortured and killed by (or having this cheered on and/or tolerated by and ordered by) his own community. In Catholic Easter services, that community everyone present and all of us recite the taunts and rejections and the call for crucifixion. Wherever Jesus happened to be born in the world, people would have turned against him. It is understood that this is not a special case against Jews. The high priest Ciaphus has about as much in common with a modern rabbi as Judas has to Steven Spielberg. By the same token, I feel no special need to justify or defend white people who condoned slavery or any number of other injustices or atrocities through history. We barely have a connection to our ancestors let alone people who nominally share the same religion.

This is a tired example, but one made vivid and refreshing in the terrifying depiction by Mel Gibson The Passion of the Christ in 2004. I have no problem with this movie. Before it was even shot, there was an uproar discouraging even the decision to tell the story.

The inflammatory and loud position is: How dare anyone suggest the crucifixion was painful? How dare anyone suggest that Jews - any Jews - had culpability?
Do I have that right? Is that the outrage? Because the inverse is a fantasy land where a Roman thug is geared up to flog someone and does it gently, or someone is crucified nicely and painlessly, and where Jews are the only human beings in the world blessed with infallible ancestors. And if Jesus were in fact given special mercy, then why? Also, life gives all of us pain and fear and suffering and the story - true or not - has meaning and value to inspire if the person suffering manages to avoid hatred of his persecutors.

Mel chose to tell that story. He told it well and very persuasively.
Then he was persecuted even further and faced resentment over the financial success of The Passion. He still had offers to act in movies and turned down the excellent World Trade Center by Oliver Stone in order to direct Apocalypto. But by the time Apocalypto was in post production there was pressure on Disney to shelve it. Even though that story thread ended happily, at the time Gibson would have been up against the wall. There was enough stress that he took that deadly drink and fell off the wagon. In this case the wagon was traveling very fast on the highway and attracted police and he was drunk enough to mouth off. The police report was leaked to the internet, and because Mel allegedly babbled a few sentences that could be cribbed in memo books, he was firmly established as a sexist for calling one cop "Sugar Tits" and anti-Semitic for saying to the other cop, "Are you Jewish? Jews start all the wars of the world." Again, did I get that correct? Those two manifestos - the pro-sexist philosophy and the Nazi essay? Because this doesn't sound like someone who should be held up as if his fifty years of life are the sum of human hatred. He doesn't quite sound like he should be having beers with the President of Iran.

When David Geffin announced that he would not work with Gibson, one wonders if it was out of disgust with the above quoted example of "anti-Semitism" or because of Mel's alleged "homophobia." One thing for sure is that a lot of people celebrated the idea that Mr. Family Values and Mr. Christian had a scandal and could be promoted as an icon of hatred. As opposed to Icon Productions boss. The naive view accepts the third act good deed of the criminal as proof of his nature and prefer the third act screw up to be more true than a lifetime of compassion, precision and empathy that came before it. In a culture of sound bytes and youtube rants, a blip of human failing ends up being celebrated.

And are they giving him the nice crucifixion or the relentless one complete with taunts and ridicule? I know, even talking about it opens me up to hear "Poor Mel, his movie has to lag behind Avatar. Poor Mel, in its second week Edge of Darkness has made just under 30 million when its production budget was 80 million. Will it stay in theaters? At the time of writing, I don't know. But it's bigger than whether a movie star opens a film strongly. Even if Mel Gibson the man were a jerk after all, the alleged incident being talked about is not the real issue. It is "Look at me, look at me, I'm a God. I'M THE GOD HERE. Meeeee!" It's the average person trying to plug in to something, to play good guys and bad guys, but mostly to say if you lower the stock market value of "gay" then you must be attacked, or if you lower the stock market value of "Jew" then you must be destroyed. The Passion of the Christ attracted the hardcore Christian audience who voted Republican and were against gay marriage and served up a second term for George W. Bush. Those judgments were about on par with taking one's little children to an R-rated movie like The Passion of the Christ. Those things are connected, but they need not be rolled up together as if they are all the same wad of silly puddy. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a fine movie too, and well attended. The Passion of the Christ did not re-elect George W. Bush. But it's financial success might have been a shot of solidarity in the collective arm of Christians. That fact alone isn't necessarily a negative thing. But if it spilled over into political zeal, it certainly didn't hurt the right wing.

I wish Mel Gibson continued and increased success.

I appreciated The Passion of the Christ, having seen it opening day before the full brunt of the fuss and the debate really caught on. I continue to share it on DVD.

No Jew I know has ever participated in a crucifixion.

Apocalypto is a fine movie deserving of success, a bold vision of someone willing to go to the edge.

Jaguar Paw is a cool Mayan. We like him. Some other Mayans were brilliant in math, science and archetecture and human sacrifice.

I like Jesus, and/or the idea of Jesus that I admire.

I feel gays deserve equality and marriage rights and so on, even though as many of them as us can be irritating twerps and whining cry-babies.

It is unfortunate that George W. Bush got into the White House at all, let alone for two terms.

Michael Moore is vital and interesting. Kevin Smith is one of my favourites and it's a shame he slams Mel and the Passion. The Last Temptation of Christ is a good movie, but very chatty so maybe that's why he likes it.

I don't care what happened with intoxicated, drunk driving Mel and what might have been said or what slurs were slurred. It's for the best that he was at least pulled over and didn't kill anyone. He was properly driven to the station. At least the cops got that part of their job right. But since context is so often thrown out the window and people react for the sake of reacting and use whatever images and scenes and quotes to serve whatever hot-button they wish to promote it is unfortunate that the police report was not kept more secure. People don't have a "right to know" every detail; not all information is equal, nor is all handling and function of it.
Especially when some people disregard the whole drunk driving issue and scold the alcoholic for his ramblings which are merely the unconscious rages that have been repressed by the civilized business person. Never mind that alcoholics say they came to realize they are "powerless over alcohol" and their lives have become unmanageable, and the man takes a drink and the drink takes a drink then the drink takes the man. What folly to get in the face of the alcoholic telling him to time travel back to before he took the fatal drink and simply will himself not to take it.
And folly is a polite word for it.

Anyway, those are a few thoughts on context while watching a DVD.

debate and bait

Most often we don't have to choose a side because we are one, determined by our own immediate self interest and that of our family, friends, peers and alies. But when it comes to abstraction or objectivity or discussion of larger topics in our attempt to think outside the box of our own bias, there may seem to be no escaping this idea of the team and competition. Debate as a sport in school for example imposes the somewhat artificial choices in a debate match and participants who may praise the process as developming and refining their thought process are perhaps over-organizing. It is actually human organic approximation of mechanican thinking. Ones and zeros. On or off. As entertaining as it may be and as useful as it may be as an exercise it is dangerous and most issues debated this way are ill served. Certainly truth and the process of maintaining its complexity are compromised.

We understand that a crime of passion is something to be less damnable than a premeditated one. We know that someone with a great record keeping mindset and the earliest IBM punch card technology contributed to the Shoah or Holocaust and that if the worst choices are made at the top then those below in the chain of command can become little more than switches "only following orders" and united by fear of stepping out of lock-step or goose-step formation. We know that when people commit suicide they are rarely raving in overtly noticable depression and that they have settled into a calm or even a comfort zone because logic has given them a choice to aim for and a plan, a rational and simple end. Perhaps the repercussions toward others haven't been factored in, unless they have read Final Exit and accounted for who is most likely to find the body and so on. When terrorists are brainwashed it is not because of pixie dust from religious meditation but because of a targeted and logical programming of arguments that strip away the complexity of the individual and leave only what seems like a plan and a path to a closure that feels like the end of an equation.

The trouble is that it is an end-defined choice or a goal-defined method of thinking and it contaminates or aborts the search for truth. It speeds forward instead of letting tendrals of new information and forgotten information slow down progress of the team or the objective or the act. The part of the rapist's mind that allows him to steal or procure a drug like roofies and then place it into a woman's drink and then transport her patiently to a private place perhaps careful that others don't say goodnight to them or get a good look at her behaviour -- this is not a person so full of passion he is out of control. This is the mechanical mind kicking in and running the show, for all the joy the presumed act(s) of consumation will give him which have more to do with access, knowledge and access or power over someone. All consistent with the gamesmanship of logic or debate. In this case debate against the conscience or natural social instinct of trust or intimacy. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper allocated funding for G-8 and G-20 in excess of a billion dollars, and much of it for security, it was with reasonable and logical expectation of the results. Vandalism was anticipated, as was disrption or blocking of resources such as a Soup Kitchen for the homeless and economic hardship to small businesses in Toronto. When Police Chief Bill Blair failed to issue a mandate of putting citizens first and simply letting the fences for example keep the people clear of the visiting dignitaries, logic was available to him and he used it. He allowed chaos to rule and he let rule inspire chaos. A pay duty police constable or a security guard has to go out of his or her way to stop and interrogate people about why they are walking in the city core. The prospect of terrorists striking from the ground and amid a crowd was unlikely. Infiltration of the demonstrators by plain clothes police was logical, and yet the Black Bloc still did their thing. Documentary footage of interrogations and personal confrontation with citizens are especially damning because a gathering that was organic and human was contaminated by the formality of robotic, logical and goal-oriented personnelle. The psyche of the G-20 pressence was pushed and over-managed by the super-ego.

All of which are basic principles most people imagined when they saw the money being lavished on G-20. This was not so that the heads of state could see what Toronto is like. What they could see of it under G-20 wasn't an image the city wants to sell anyway, even if they could get close to it. Harper must have wanted to reinforce his message of "I can do whatever I like and prioritize however I want, and no matter what you know about me and my policies my machine will continue to run." The smooth running of the machine continues. Just as it did back when there was a glimmer of hope and talk of a Coalition between Liberals and NDP with the blessing of the Bloc finally ousting the Harper Conservatives. His neck was exposed and our dear Michelle Jean whose job was mostly window dressing through 99 percent of Canada's history has a chance to give Canada back to Canadians and circumvent the catch we are now in and she blew it. Now we still stand with a Conservative encumbant and a split of any votes against him and his party. With his detractors devided, logic lets him sail through without doing anything extrordinary. Suppose Canada had been labeled as "cheap" for not showing off any fake lake or over-the-top security bills and they had merely rented a boat and held the G-20 in Toronto Harbour and a few decoys where there was no reliable shot vantage point for an assasin, as opposed to the convention center which had several viable options. The enforcement of G-20 last minute legislation was more about putting on a show of force and putting people down. Investigating people at the top and holding them accountable in a concrete way would help undo some of that. But the machines are in charge.

We can vent on Twitter and Facebook and feel as if we are in control. And maybe that will make some small dent. People want to throw mythology and the Bible out the window these days because they are not logical. But some of that non-logic is helpful in abstracting what we can't quite articulate with what is at hand in reality. The Tower of Babel is still something that we try to make. We try to make it with logic and Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and the Atheist Bus but it's just a mechanical argument. It isn't liberating to me personally to believe there is no God; I'm not going to age any slower or have better luck dating. Nobody cares if the fat guy at the party declairs himself a hedonist; it would only scare the girls off more. We have failed to contact God or reach him with our flimsy tower of technology or logic and have only found ourselves cursed. Our voices are now speaking many different languages and putting up an obstacle to our ability to built another tower. Even an earnest attempt at this goal, for altruistic reasons, will be seen as arrogance. I don't remember how many people died falling from the Tower of Babel or whether its builders gave up simply because they couldn't understand each other.

I don't understand the idea that it is immature to imagine the world other than the way it is. But I'm told that is the judgement. I don't know that God should he forced to show his face or even that such a Supreme Being would require acknowledgement in order to exist. I exist without much acknowledgement at work, for example. The Tower of Babel is also the steeple on many churches, many of which are being sold off and "de-sanctified" including one I went to as a child and a teen. Whichever church has the bigger ding-dong ringing from its clock, I suppose wins the debate about which hairstyle will doom you to Hell. Many times in my life as a Roman Catholic I have said "Amen" as a Minister of the Eucharist has offered "The Body of Christ." I was in my twenties, long after being Confirmed Catholic at 13, before being corrected that what we believe is that the wafer does transform into the body of Jesus and the wine transforms into the blood. While it's interesting to have someone tell me with authority what I believe, having worked in that Parish as a Sacristan and having drank unblessed wine stock with my friends and eaten unblessed wafers like chips (until tiring of their blandness) I find they taste the same before and after the blessing. And I wondered why for a while we were getting whole wheet brown wafers when after the blessing they were going to be Jesus anyway. To be a strict Catholic, and to say I won't eat the body of Christ as long as he manifests and tells me I am not worthy. . .is to use the same logic as the atheist in demanding he show his face. Then our own logic says that since he hasn't spoken up I must be worthy to consume the body of my God. And then we eat Him. We are Diavores. No just Omnivores, but Diavores. And how can you argue with us? We eat the Supreme Being sometimes twice on Sundays. We haven't figured out why a Priest can bless holy water and sprinkle it onto a posessed person to get a reaction but not simply bless the water that makes up a high percentage of the posessed person's body. Wouldn't blessed blood already kick the shit out of a demon? But that's being too logical. Or if a person - maybe a priest (one who hasn't renedered his blessings worthless by doing something evil) - says grace before every meal and that blessed food and drink is generating all the cells of his body, how can a vampire bite him? That logic may be too ambitious and arrogant for me. Because who am I to argue with vampires? Maybe they know something I don't.

Most of the things we debate about are bullshit or become bullshit on either side eventually when stretched to apply too globally. A person might be pro-choice because they don't believe the law should bother focusing on arresting both the doctor performing the abortion and the pregnant woman paying him to do it. Far too may of us know people we don't want to see arrested, whether we wish they had gone full term or not. But how can a person say pro-choice and freedom are their guides when it comes to insisting a doctor in a remote or underserved area must make time to perform abortions against his or her will? At what point can a person say "Keep that mission statement for your free Toronto tabloid with hooker ads at the back" ? Maybe it's not such a big deal to say that in a town where there is no huge demand for abortion maybe somebody's got to take that long bus ride or go full term. For an urban person, that attitude sounds cold and humorless and outragously conservative. But that is also an over simplification and a compartmentalization and a branding of teams and logos and objectives. You can dislike that comment or argument and then get up in arms and blast the writer with something snarky. But it's a feeling, about as solid as a logo for a sports team or a beer you feel loyalty to. It is not loyalty to a town or a group of free-agents who may or may not play a full season wearing those colors. It is like Mel Brooks said as the 2000 Year Old Man, (singing a fight song) "Let them all go to hell, except cave 76!" Your empathy is with yourself, and anything that isn't celebrating you and your like is the other. Mel also said, "Tragedy is I cut my finger; Comedy is that YOU fall into an open sewer and die."

That's the best example of tribalism and debate in general that I can recall.
And I had to write this long mess.

zoetrope.com

I'm starting my day early for no reason. Usual bowl of chilled monkey brains just so it won't go bad, watching my girlfriend levitate from the other side of the table. She hits her head on the ceiling a lot since I filled her with helium. Otherwise a typical day.

I may check my e-mails and the usual message boards, even though they say "ignore the fruits of your actions." By that rule it makes no sense to see if anyone replies to a post. It would save a lot of time.

Here's a quote that is rattling around in my head lately, like a song that just won't go away so you have to look for it on Youtube or your own collection and hear it until you are cured:

"I've been in high school eight years; I'm no dummy."
- Curtis Armstrong advising John Cusack in Better Off Dead

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088794/

I think it's the ever-present realization that being "smart about movies" isn't such a badge of honor and that when you close in on a decade of discussions (even killing time on someone else' clock as is the case with many of us most of the time) it's not that a seasoned veteran of b.s. can say to a newbie, "Listen here, in my day. . ."

There have been steps forward in the vocation, but if I was one of those annoying people with a five year plan and a one year plan chirping "fail to plan, plan to fail" I might be more in touch with whatever unconscious depression might be going on. Or I might be exactly where I need to be. They say the measure of sanity is the proximity of reality to the dream.

What could I be doing instead of debating whether a given movie may be over-rated or under-rated? I mean, I'd be sacrificing the pay-off of possibly convincing some anonymous teen to knuckle down and see more movies. What could I be doing instead of watching movies? To my left is a $3500 Cannon HX A1 which can shoot some pretty decent HD; it has a nice t-shirt over it so it won't get all dusty. On the floor is the instruction manual torn apart for photocopies. I've read some of it. What a time to realize my instruction-phobia is back in full bloom. I've had meetings and meetings and generated a backlog of scripts. . .

I wonder how many screenplays I can read and review - under whatever accounts or IDs - and have it improve my taste and facility within the form of the screenplay. It's great to stumble across a link to a resource or somebody else's short film and be inspired once in a while or take a shortcut in my political education or current events by looking at articles and clips that someone else labored to collect. I'll get drawn into a debate on zoetrope once in a while, and it's interesting to come away with a vivid projection of someone's character or pathology. Not something to debate or even state outright, of course, because any self-respecting sociopath would take offence at the accusation. I have been called arrogant, but it's hard to make that stick when I'm pretty open about my stupidity.

I know from my job that there are some very functional sociopaths walking around.

Starting to dabble in radio drama again. I wrote a one-act play for the stage in 2001 after I had been on my job for a few months. It had a public reading, went well, and then after 9/11 there was to be a reading of the next draft and somehow I got the date wrong and missed it. I've been re-writing it on the same themes with each workplace. Once in a while a vital layer is added and the story enriched bu higher stakes. A life experience can be an end to itself; a job experience had better add to the writing.

I keep thinking if I really apply myself I can finish watching all the Extended Lord of the Rings DVDs by this weekend, and hear the commentaries. Imagine THAT feeling like a chore to procrastinate about.

Man, when I had nothing, when I had no job or when I thought my job was temporary I would spend days in a library cubby hole doing my storyboards and correcting my scripts. There is a point where everything that drifts into your transom is not there as a sprig of wisdom that has to be absorbed or explored in your life as an artist. Most opinions are the waste material of having consumed movies or TV or gossip rags or having spent all day playing video games (like cigarettes, this last example is one of the few bad habits I haven't picked up yet, much to the disappointment of friends and nephews).

If anyone else does read this, the one thing I can say in my defense is that the chilled monkey brains and inflate-a-date are jokes. If I actually get some cardio at the gym today for a change, I might view this whole thing differently. I might be ready to actually accomplish something today.