Reading this article. . .
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=24037654
I just find it interesting that Bob Rae argues that Canada should extend "our" Canadian laws to third world countries, I suppose minus P.E.I. and any Canadian who isn't a big fan of abortion. If the G8 were to lump abortion in with contraception under the "birth control" banner, would it pay for sex sellection abortions as well? Because that seems to be a norm in the third world. At what point are we imposing our values on a culture and not just money? I think it's one thing to keep abortion legal where it is already legal in Canada; the genie is already out of the bottle. It may be another thing to allocate funds overseas for abortion unless the goal is to thin out the herd. I can see many Canadians just leaving the third world off the scope and figuring the more abortions the better over there. Reminds me of the MacLean and MacLean song, a choir prayer, "Keep it over there, Lord, keep it over there
Famine and diseases, keep them over there."
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
scandals and Easter
Happy Easter. If you are very retro, I suppose Happy Ester.
I don't know about scandals. I hear about them, read about them, but come away knowing nothing. There is the "church cover-up" of child sexual abuse by priests, which gets a lot of press. But not much about the other end of it. This is not to put any responsibily on the head of any victim or victim's parent. I can't put responsibility there, because it already IS there. If you have been abused, report it TO THE POLICE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You press charges, give whatever testimony you can, and see what happens. The church, or whatever institution an abuser belongs to, can't "cover-up" that. In fact, it'll likely hit the press without much filtration - from police report pretty much to the headline - so you are likely to get lots of satisfaction as the alleged abuser is pretty much tried and convicted in the court of public opinion ASAP. You can argue that gee, if priests were married they wouldn't be diddlers, which I don't know to be a fact. Aren't there married pedophiles? Aren't there hockey coaches and trainers and babysitters who are like that? I don't know how it is all on the head of the church. Yes, they ordained someone who turned out to be unfit. For that they bear some responsibility. But this business of cover-up? Versus what? I'm not sure publication of names of people who were accused merely in WHISPER CAMPAIGNS and NOT CHARGED by POLICE is something an organiation has any obligatin to do. If they have reason to believe someone on their staff is a pervert, moving them on to another community may be terrible and irresponsible. But WHAT reason do they have to turn someone over to the police if they haven't witnessed anything. It still must be a conflict between accused and victim. Why should the church be the middle-man? The parents presumably are also involved, so why can't THEY press charges or speak to police? If I were a Bishop and what I'm told is that a priest in my area has been accused of wrongdoing, I would ask why the wrongdoing isn't reported to the police if it so clearly happened. How is the Bishop, let alone the Vatican, involved in the conversation at that level except if a priest can't show up for work because he is being interviewed by police or behind bars? Anyway, I just think there are sharks who smell blood and want the church to go down one way or another. One picket says, "It is time for God to step down," which is either ironic or delusional. I'm not sure.
I don't know about celebrity scandals either. I recall a proonged story about an action-movie star who was "accused" by a fan of having a gay interlude. No names, because this movie star has been bashed enough. He responded with a defamation suit and won. The fan moped that he would never watch that star's movies again. Poor baby. I say accusation because the wrongdoing on the part of the star would be infidelity to his wife and lying to his wife. The accusation of a gay tryst actually says nothing concrete about the actor but tells us something about the accuser:
The accuser in this case is one of two things, either a liar or a backstabber. If he is telling the truth, he is recklessly jeopardising the career and fortune of someone who did him no harm and with whom he was intimate. Even though the shadow cast by this kind of scandal remains, the actor still has a degree of box office draw and respect. Even if the accusation were true, he would still be cool. But the would-be fan creating the scandal would still be a scumbag. Even if gossip and scandal come from ostensibly liberal sources, I think they are inherently catty and conservative in the worst way and it still is another version of the tall poppy syndrom - cutting someone down for being outstanding.
I don't know if these issues are well-served in the sound-byte culture. Too many levels. Too many granedes lobbed into a crowd by people with hidden agendas. If a priest compares the strain of churc scandal to the strain of anti-Semetism, of COURSE that is going to be a big story. I would have compared it more to the way TTC workers feel the day after subway and bus fares go up or the day after a striked that messes up thousands of lives to ensure the workers get better than merely twice our wages and three times the benefits but something absurdly more. I think the Pope could have slapped the scandals of the church down a long time ago. The abuse story is front and center, but we are still talking about a church with more mundane mess-ups on its plate. They went out of the way around 2005 to suggest girls should not be encouraged to be altar servers. Well, I used to work as a Sacristan in a church between the ages of 12 and 17 and told a girl to suit up as often as a boy, and one can hand wine to the priest as well as the other. The old boys' club is the problem. But as for who "covers-up" a scandal, I don't know if it's anyone but the victim. Some of them waited until 20 years passed before they went to police and got closure. Had they and/or their parents gone straight to police, instead of imagining there was some sort of internal policing, maybe there would be earlier publicity and fewer abuses. If a teacher abuses a student, would they and the parently merely go to the Principal? Or would they speak to police? I don't know.
I don't know about scandals. I hear about them, read about them, but come away knowing nothing. There is the "church cover-up" of child sexual abuse by priests, which gets a lot of press. But not much about the other end of it. This is not to put any responsibily on the head of any victim or victim's parent. I can't put responsibility there, because it already IS there. If you have been abused, report it TO THE POLICE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You press charges, give whatever testimony you can, and see what happens. The church, or whatever institution an abuser belongs to, can't "cover-up" that. In fact, it'll likely hit the press without much filtration - from police report pretty much to the headline - so you are likely to get lots of satisfaction as the alleged abuser is pretty much tried and convicted in the court of public opinion ASAP. You can argue that gee, if priests were married they wouldn't be diddlers, which I don't know to be a fact. Aren't there married pedophiles? Aren't there hockey coaches and trainers and babysitters who are like that? I don't know how it is all on the head of the church. Yes, they ordained someone who turned out to be unfit. For that they bear some responsibility. But this business of cover-up? Versus what? I'm not sure publication of names of people who were accused merely in WHISPER CAMPAIGNS and NOT CHARGED by POLICE is something an organiation has any obligatin to do. If they have reason to believe someone on their staff is a pervert, moving them on to another community may be terrible and irresponsible. But WHAT reason do they have to turn someone over to the police if they haven't witnessed anything. It still must be a conflict between accused and victim. Why should the church be the middle-man? The parents presumably are also involved, so why can't THEY press charges or speak to police? If I were a Bishop and what I'm told is that a priest in my area has been accused of wrongdoing, I would ask why the wrongdoing isn't reported to the police if it so clearly happened. How is the Bishop, let alone the Vatican, involved in the conversation at that level except if a priest can't show up for work because he is being interviewed by police or behind bars? Anyway, I just think there are sharks who smell blood and want the church to go down one way or another. One picket says, "It is time for God to step down," which is either ironic or delusional. I'm not sure.
I don't know about celebrity scandals either. I recall a proonged story about an action-movie star who was "accused" by a fan of having a gay interlude. No names, because this movie star has been bashed enough. He responded with a defamation suit and won. The fan moped that he would never watch that star's movies again. Poor baby. I say accusation because the wrongdoing on the part of the star would be infidelity to his wife and lying to his wife. The accusation of a gay tryst actually says nothing concrete about the actor but tells us something about the accuser:
The accuser in this case is one of two things, either a liar or a backstabber. If he is telling the truth, he is recklessly jeopardising the career and fortune of someone who did him no harm and with whom he was intimate. Even though the shadow cast by this kind of scandal remains, the actor still has a degree of box office draw and respect. Even if the accusation were true, he would still be cool. But the would-be fan creating the scandal would still be a scumbag. Even if gossip and scandal come from ostensibly liberal sources, I think they are inherently catty and conservative in the worst way and it still is another version of the tall poppy syndrom - cutting someone down for being outstanding.
I don't know if these issues are well-served in the sound-byte culture. Too many levels. Too many granedes lobbed into a crowd by people with hidden agendas. If a priest compares the strain of churc scandal to the strain of anti-Semetism, of COURSE that is going to be a big story. I would have compared it more to the way TTC workers feel the day after subway and bus fares go up or the day after a striked that messes up thousands of lives to ensure the workers get better than merely twice our wages and three times the benefits but something absurdly more. I think the Pope could have slapped the scandals of the church down a long time ago. The abuse story is front and center, but we are still talking about a church with more mundane mess-ups on its plate. They went out of the way around 2005 to suggest girls should not be encouraged to be altar servers. Well, I used to work as a Sacristan in a church between the ages of 12 and 17 and told a girl to suit up as often as a boy, and one can hand wine to the priest as well as the other. The old boys' club is the problem. But as for who "covers-up" a scandal, I don't know if it's anyone but the victim. Some of them waited until 20 years passed before they went to police and got closure. Had they and/or their parents gone straight to police, instead of imagining there was some sort of internal policing, maybe there would be earlier publicity and fewer abuses. If a teacher abuses a student, would they and the parently merely go to the Principal? Or would they speak to police? I don't know.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
I don't know
That could be the new title of my blog, or my autobiography which I should write and keep on hand in case I get famous and someone asks for it. Because if I had to write it when famous I might be too busy having fun. I say I don't know because though they say write about what you know I think I fill more space by focusing on what I don't know.
I don't know about the word respect. Is it regard? Is it acknowledgement that a person or thing exists? Because I hear people "respect" each other many times who have not earned, say, admiration which is the main word I think respect means. I don't like to throw that word around. How can I "respect" an obstreperous A-hole and have my respect for Nelson Mandela not be devalued?
I don't know about homophobia. Who was the first to coin the term? If I'm writing a script that takes place in 1942, can a character say "homophobic"? I don't know where it comes from. I'm sure the break down has been done before. It doesn't mean fear of same, or fear of people or men fearing men. There are guys I might fear, but not because they are men. I've heard a guy called homophobic because his first fear about going to jail is being sodomized by another inmate. If a woman fears being raped I don't know if anyone would pipe up and call her heterophobic. They might regard the context - say walking alone down a dark street filled with thugs - and give her some credit. But a guy gets the third degree if he fears being raped? I don't know. I thought prejudice was unfairly painting people with a wide brush, and yet I see that go on a lot - by some gay people. Canadian playwright Brad Fraser deleted me from his Facebook because I defended Mel Gibson. When Edge of Darkness was released, Brad posted at least four status updates on his page that were slamming Mel. That's in one day, along with other random updates. I'm lucky if I update my facebook status once a day. But I understand in the case of a high profile playwright it is marketing - he must want everyone to know how brilliant his plays will be if we get around to actually seeing them. In this case, I don't know from brilliant. He didn't seem capable of engaging in reasonable debate. As far as he is concerned Mel is an alcoholic and anti-Semite and don't confuse him with the facts. And so I find Brad Fraser annoying, yet I don't fear him. So is it homoannoya? The folks who run Defamer or TMZ or Out Magazine (assuming that still exists) or even GLAAD seem very willing to disregard the rights and privacy of others, pulling celebrities out of a "closet" even if they are action stars. I don't know if Tom Cruise is gay, but in any case I still consider him cool and responsible as a businessmam. Jodie Foster was right to keep her personal life to herself all those years. It's none of her business, and she has NO obligation to show up at parades and be someone's role model. What if someone's personal kick is the secrecy if being "on the down low"? Who is to say they have a civic responsibility to pay lip service to GLAAD and or any other brand of gossip monger? Jerry Lewis attends a golf tournament in Australia and makes gay joke, so GLAAD asks him to. . .what? Recant what he said? To pretend he doesn't laugh at non-PC jokes. at fat jokes, at fart jokes, at gay jokes? And is a member of the Rat Pack really all that concerned with whether his rainbow stripes are in the right order? How many Dean Martin or Sinatra fans are supposed to give a rat's ass? Hypothetically, what would it serve a movie star with a business and a production company to run to suddenly faunt a love life that heartland America - a sizable market - has not granted equality let alone embraced? Or are they expected to make a mea culpa for all the years they dated the opposite gender? I sense that a lot of these people who claim to be all about personal freedom are quite nasty, rubbing someone's nose in shit, just loving it when Family Values icon Gibson falls off the wagon and sputters incoherent drunken rantings about his own media persecutors (in that case David Geffin and some anonymous rabi and random uninformed yahoos on Youtube). Neil Patrick Harris became cool in Harold and Kumar Go to Whitecastle, and frankly stayed cool after outing himself. Ellen DeGeneres is terrific. They're also not Brad Fraser. They're not annoying. But I don't know. Maybe they do the same thing he does and I just don't hear about it because I'm not paying attention. Maybe they do a variation of writing a letter to a theater who has rejected a play and trying to find out why it has been rejected. . .gradually trying to back the theater's aquisitions person into dismissing him for a non PC reason when frankly all they have to say is that his work is generally boring and pretty much peaked with the line "Honey, I'm Home - o!" 20 years ago. Now if, because of this, I am called homophobic, it will just be more laziness. It's an easy accusation because it's tough to refute. So it's over used and barely has meaning. There is a big difference between someone getting beaten up in Timmons for "being gay" and someone lingering and prancing in the health club shower hoping to cruise someone and causing some guys to wait it out frozen by the lockers until he leaves. The latter is actually a reasonable and healthy discomfort over someone being rude. As for how someone gets beaten up for being gay, I don't think that means he sand a Shania Twain song in front of the courthouse. I'm assuming it was unprovoked, and hateful prejudiced bullies descended and swarmed the poor little guy. He might have made fun of their plaid shirts or their low I.Q. (those involved in the attack, not the population of Timmons). But I don't know.
I don't know about pro-life and pro-choice on abortion. Some Family organization bought air time during the Superbown on CBS to run a carefully crafted spot promiting what was ostensibly a pro-life message, but I don't know if I get it. I had been told all along was that the pro-life position was "against abortion unless the mother's life is at risk." Notice I'm not even saying health, because that's a legal wording from back in the day. The pro-life position still put the mother's LIFE first. That's just common sense. A bird in the hand. . . But the main thrust of this Superbowl ad was that an NFL player would not have been born if his mother had listened to the doctors (plural) who told her not to go full term. And these presumably weren't abortion providers angling for a gig. So the ad throws out a significant pro-life point. What about the choice part? The mother CHOSE to ignore the doctors because it was her own life to risk. So it was a pro-choice ad, and I haven't seen anyone on the left give CBS credit for being so subversive. They helped write the ad. They were afraid of offending anyone. On the one hand you have the visual reinforcement that gestating fetuses can grow up to be mediocre football players. That has kind of a poor man's Save-Sarah-Connor-So-John-Connor-Can-Be-Born vibe, like the great pro-life movie The Terminator. But how many millions in contributions did that Family Values banner organization spend to promote the choice of the mother to ignore doctors and to under-value the pro-life message by turning ii into something other than a sane and relatable acknowledgement of gestating human beings AND their HOST organism? Was the message intended for any confused young women watching the football game that day? No, it was just for idiots to mark territory and piss off other idiots. Why? I don't know.
I don't know about the word respect. Is it regard? Is it acknowledgement that a person or thing exists? Because I hear people "respect" each other many times who have not earned, say, admiration which is the main word I think respect means. I don't like to throw that word around. How can I "respect" an obstreperous A-hole and have my respect for Nelson Mandela not be devalued?
I don't know about homophobia. Who was the first to coin the term? If I'm writing a script that takes place in 1942, can a character say "homophobic"? I don't know where it comes from. I'm sure the break down has been done before. It doesn't mean fear of same, or fear of people or men fearing men. There are guys I might fear, but not because they are men. I've heard a guy called homophobic because his first fear about going to jail is being sodomized by another inmate. If a woman fears being raped I don't know if anyone would pipe up and call her heterophobic. They might regard the context - say walking alone down a dark street filled with thugs - and give her some credit. But a guy gets the third degree if he fears being raped? I don't know. I thought prejudice was unfairly painting people with a wide brush, and yet I see that go on a lot - by some gay people. Canadian playwright Brad Fraser deleted me from his Facebook because I defended Mel Gibson. When Edge of Darkness was released, Brad posted at least four status updates on his page that were slamming Mel. That's in one day, along with other random updates. I'm lucky if I update my facebook status once a day. But I understand in the case of a high profile playwright it is marketing - he must want everyone to know how brilliant his plays will be if we get around to actually seeing them. In this case, I don't know from brilliant. He didn't seem capable of engaging in reasonable debate. As far as he is concerned Mel is an alcoholic and anti-Semite and don't confuse him with the facts. And so I find Brad Fraser annoying, yet I don't fear him. So is it homoannoya? The folks who run Defamer or TMZ or Out Magazine (assuming that still exists) or even GLAAD seem very willing to disregard the rights and privacy of others, pulling celebrities out of a "closet" even if they are action stars. I don't know if Tom Cruise is gay, but in any case I still consider him cool and responsible as a businessmam. Jodie Foster was right to keep her personal life to herself all those years. It's none of her business, and she has NO obligation to show up at parades and be someone's role model. What if someone's personal kick is the secrecy if being "on the down low"? Who is to say they have a civic responsibility to pay lip service to GLAAD and or any other brand of gossip monger? Jerry Lewis attends a golf tournament in Australia and makes gay joke, so GLAAD asks him to. . .what? Recant what he said? To pretend he doesn't laugh at non-PC jokes. at fat jokes, at fart jokes, at gay jokes? And is a member of the Rat Pack really all that concerned with whether his rainbow stripes are in the right order? How many Dean Martin or Sinatra fans are supposed to give a rat's ass? Hypothetically, what would it serve a movie star with a business and a production company to run to suddenly faunt a love life that heartland America - a sizable market - has not granted equality let alone embraced? Or are they expected to make a mea culpa for all the years they dated the opposite gender? I sense that a lot of these people who claim to be all about personal freedom are quite nasty, rubbing someone's nose in shit, just loving it when Family Values icon Gibson falls off the wagon and sputters incoherent drunken rantings about his own media persecutors (in that case David Geffin and some anonymous rabi and random uninformed yahoos on Youtube). Neil Patrick Harris became cool in Harold and Kumar Go to Whitecastle, and frankly stayed cool after outing himself. Ellen DeGeneres is terrific. They're also not Brad Fraser. They're not annoying. But I don't know. Maybe they do the same thing he does and I just don't hear about it because I'm not paying attention. Maybe they do a variation of writing a letter to a theater who has rejected a play and trying to find out why it has been rejected. . .gradually trying to back the theater's aquisitions person into dismissing him for a non PC reason when frankly all they have to say is that his work is generally boring and pretty much peaked with the line "Honey, I'm Home - o!" 20 years ago. Now if, because of this, I am called homophobic, it will just be more laziness. It's an easy accusation because it's tough to refute. So it's over used and barely has meaning. There is a big difference between someone getting beaten up in Timmons for "being gay" and someone lingering and prancing in the health club shower hoping to cruise someone and causing some guys to wait it out frozen by the lockers until he leaves. The latter is actually a reasonable and healthy discomfort over someone being rude. As for how someone gets beaten up for being gay, I don't think that means he sand a Shania Twain song in front of the courthouse. I'm assuming it was unprovoked, and hateful prejudiced bullies descended and swarmed the poor little guy. He might have made fun of their plaid shirts or their low I.Q. (those involved in the attack, not the population of Timmons). But I don't know.
I don't know about pro-life and pro-choice on abortion. Some Family organization bought air time during the Superbown on CBS to run a carefully crafted spot promiting what was ostensibly a pro-life message, but I don't know if I get it. I had been told all along was that the pro-life position was "against abortion unless the mother's life is at risk." Notice I'm not even saying health, because that's a legal wording from back in the day. The pro-life position still put the mother's LIFE first. That's just common sense. A bird in the hand. . . But the main thrust of this Superbowl ad was that an NFL player would not have been born if his mother had listened to the doctors (plural) who told her not to go full term. And these presumably weren't abortion providers angling for a gig. So the ad throws out a significant pro-life point. What about the choice part? The mother CHOSE to ignore the doctors because it was her own life to risk. So it was a pro-choice ad, and I haven't seen anyone on the left give CBS credit for being so subversive. They helped write the ad. They were afraid of offending anyone. On the one hand you have the visual reinforcement that gestating fetuses can grow up to be mediocre football players. That has kind of a poor man's Save-Sarah-Connor-So-John-Connor-Can-Be-Born vibe, like the great pro-life movie The Terminator. But how many millions in contributions did that Family Values banner organization spend to promote the choice of the mother to ignore doctors and to under-value the pro-life message by turning ii into something other than a sane and relatable acknowledgement of gestating human beings AND their HOST organism? Was the message intended for any confused young women watching the football game that day? No, it was just for idiots to mark territory and piss off other idiots. Why? I don't know.
The Fashion of the Christ - blog updated
http://fashionofthechrist.blogspot.com/2010/03/post-production.html
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Letting Idiots Be Idiots
Last night while waiting for a movie to start I couldn't help but overhear a conversation from the couple behind me. This is not the same as eves dropping, not that I give a rat's pooper whether that's what I was doing. When you didn't bring anything to read and you decided to attend an event even if it is alone, there's that moment when even the most mundane succession of words are something to latch onto. It's like the value a used free newspaper takes when you have to kill time on the subway.
I'm learning to just let idiots be idiots, and that may be one of my New Years Resolutions, except that it gets easier the less I care. The guy was telling his date about his experience on the field of battle - Internet discussion boards. He was boasting that he had "corrected" someone and that "CS Lewis was not a contemporary of Tolken" and he want on to shoot some shit about the Narnia books. His girlfriend rebuked him a little by saying that at least the Narnia books are readable and that she couldn't get through Lord of the Rings. He went on regardless, insisting that Narnia is so simple and Rings are so detailed that the two authors wouldn't have known each other. I wanted to say "Have you read the Screwtape Letters or any other Lewis?" I wanted to put him straight about whether the two authors were peers. But before I could twist around to politely invite myself into their conversation, the guy went on to speculate about how people will receive his upcoming internet review of Astroboy and how the kid who plays Charlie in Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chololate Factory does the voice of Astroboy. By then my eyes were glazing over and I was ready to splash the last of my coffee into my own face.
That's how it sounds when someone reviews movies online on a regular basis, the pointlessness of the exercise driven home perfectly by this stranger I didn't much respect. I've been accused of having "too much free time" myself having posted my share of comments and reviews on imdb and other sites. But the futility hadn't hit home as well as it had listening to this dink. I forget who said this of critics versus doers but, "all respect should go to the person actually in the arena." True critical thinking is rarely seen among so-called critics and audience chat board wags. Try to set something straight and it is like diving in after a drowning person and being pulled under.
"There is too much detail."
"There is too much dialog."
"The ending isn't ________."
For people starting out with a project, passing a draft script around, these can stop a writer in his or her tracks. And yet, without feedback they could move forward and create something that makes all of those comments moot. I'm thinking of Bill Murray's words of wisdom at the end of Meatballs, "It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter. . ."
I'm learning to just let idiots be idiots, and that may be one of my New Years Resolutions, except that it gets easier the less I care. The guy was telling his date about his experience on the field of battle - Internet discussion boards. He was boasting that he had "corrected" someone and that "CS Lewis was not a contemporary of Tolken" and he want on to shoot some shit about the Narnia books. His girlfriend rebuked him a little by saying that at least the Narnia books are readable and that she couldn't get through Lord of the Rings. He went on regardless, insisting that Narnia is so simple and Rings are so detailed that the two authors wouldn't have known each other. I wanted to say "Have you read the Screwtape Letters or any other Lewis?" I wanted to put him straight about whether the two authors were peers. But before I could twist around to politely invite myself into their conversation, the guy went on to speculate about how people will receive his upcoming internet review of Astroboy and how the kid who plays Charlie in Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chololate Factory does the voice of Astroboy. By then my eyes were glazing over and I was ready to splash the last of my coffee into my own face.
That's how it sounds when someone reviews movies online on a regular basis, the pointlessness of the exercise driven home perfectly by this stranger I didn't much respect. I've been accused of having "too much free time" myself having posted my share of comments and reviews on imdb and other sites. But the futility hadn't hit home as well as it had listening to this dink. I forget who said this of critics versus doers but, "all respect should go to the person actually in the arena." True critical thinking is rarely seen among so-called critics and audience chat board wags. Try to set something straight and it is like diving in after a drowning person and being pulled under.
"There is too much detail."
"There is too much dialog."
"The ending isn't ________."
For people starting out with a project, passing a draft script around, these can stop a writer in his or her tracks. And yet, without feedback they could move forward and create something that makes all of those comments moot. I'm thinking of Bill Murray's words of wisdom at the end of Meatballs, "It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter. . ."
Friday, December 11, 2009
film and sleep
I saw a good film by a friend of mine tonight, his best yet, with strong believable performances throughout. So much dialog that it seemed like a short padded into a feature, but it kept my attention so I can't complain about running time. It was based on a play after all. If I submitted the same script, people would say "Too much talking" or "Show, don't tell." But sometimes letting the characters talk is just fine and the only time we can allow that is when we do our own movies.
The trouble with me and being a film fan lately is that once a movie is part way through my eyelids get heavy. I don't know if its my meds or being middle age, but the same thing happened watching Inglorious Basterds so it is no reflection on the movie itself. It's an ironic sort of curse - that the simplest thing I enjoy - sitting down to watch a movie - is now complicated and involves effort. I used to be astonished when people would say they didn't feel up to a movie or didn't have time. Now keeping my eyes open and also the sitting part can be a chore thanks to developing a bum rear end you might say.
I'm not sure what the solution is. And I've yet to sit down and watch all of the Extended Lord of the Rings DVDs, let alone the special features, even though for years I was all about the commentaries. Maybe I'm unconsciously telling myself something. Maybe once I have made more progress with my own projects and feel like first and foremost a writer/filmmaker then I can enjoy movies again. I'm wondering if it is psychosomatic. But I doubt it. It might be the beginning of the big FADE OUT. Maybe I'm making more of it than I should. But I couldn't even drag myself to the after-party and I really need to do more of that. I mean who do I think I am wandering off and skipping the party? It's not like I don't need to meet new people or pay attention to the people I already know. I still have my sleepy head up my fissure-laden anus.
Too much information? Oh, well, it's not like anybody reads these blogs. If it wasn't for Kevin Smith being graphic about medical problems I'd be in a silent panic, so it's likely that there's no such thing as too much information. I wouldn't want people to say "we had no idea" when I die of something. I want to make sure the signs and red flags are up, in case anything can be done. I have a doctor's appointment this coming week, and this guy is good. But I still haven't replaced the awful and neglectful GP I had up to 2006. Oops, is that slanderous? Not if I don't name the buck-passing, lying jumble of abuse. With any luck there will be a decent GP out there who doesn't greet honesty with "If you feel that way, maybe we should close your file." I didn't realize how quality of doctors has been nose-diving lately, but that's what I'm hearing. I once got yelled at for mentioning more than two ailments during a visit -- as if I'm supposed to know the rules for patients in Ontario. Apparently instead of giving the holistic picture and being pressed for "is that all?" as it used to be, now we have to split up our ailments and come back for another visit so the doctor can bill accordingly.
I just hope whatever is shorting me out isn't something that could have been caught if I had all the right people looking at me at the right time. Next, my eye doctor whose office sent me some insurance letters that had nothing to do with my situation and seemed like junk mail pitches. I thought it was bad enough that I never know when the bank or the phone company are really calling or whether it is some worthless time-wasting promotion cold-call. Maybe stress and exhaustion are the cause of my sleep seizures - that's what I call them - and my sore butt.
The trouble with me and being a film fan lately is that once a movie is part way through my eyelids get heavy. I don't know if its my meds or being middle age, but the same thing happened watching Inglorious Basterds so it is no reflection on the movie itself. It's an ironic sort of curse - that the simplest thing I enjoy - sitting down to watch a movie - is now complicated and involves effort. I used to be astonished when people would say they didn't feel up to a movie or didn't have time. Now keeping my eyes open and also the sitting part can be a chore thanks to developing a bum rear end you might say.
I'm not sure what the solution is. And I've yet to sit down and watch all of the Extended Lord of the Rings DVDs, let alone the special features, even though for years I was all about the commentaries. Maybe I'm unconsciously telling myself something. Maybe once I have made more progress with my own projects and feel like first and foremost a writer/filmmaker then I can enjoy movies again. I'm wondering if it is psychosomatic. But I doubt it. It might be the beginning of the big FADE OUT. Maybe I'm making more of it than I should. But I couldn't even drag myself to the after-party and I really need to do more of that. I mean who do I think I am wandering off and skipping the party? It's not like I don't need to meet new people or pay attention to the people I already know. I still have my sleepy head up my fissure-laden anus.
Too much information? Oh, well, it's not like anybody reads these blogs. If it wasn't for Kevin Smith being graphic about medical problems I'd be in a silent panic, so it's likely that there's no such thing as too much information. I wouldn't want people to say "we had no idea" when I die of something. I want to make sure the signs and red flags are up, in case anything can be done. I have a doctor's appointment this coming week, and this guy is good. But I still haven't replaced the awful and neglectful GP I had up to 2006. Oops, is that slanderous? Not if I don't name the buck-passing, lying jumble of abuse. With any luck there will be a decent GP out there who doesn't greet honesty with "If you feel that way, maybe we should close your file." I didn't realize how quality of doctors has been nose-diving lately, but that's what I'm hearing. I once got yelled at for mentioning more than two ailments during a visit -- as if I'm supposed to know the rules for patients in Ontario. Apparently instead of giving the holistic picture and being pressed for "is that all?" as it used to be, now we have to split up our ailments and come back for another visit so the doctor can bill accordingly.
I just hope whatever is shorting me out isn't something that could have been caught if I had all the right people looking at me at the right time. Next, my eye doctor whose office sent me some insurance letters that had nothing to do with my situation and seemed like junk mail pitches. I thought it was bad enough that I never know when the bank or the phone company are really calling or whether it is some worthless time-wasting promotion cold-call. Maybe stress and exhaustion are the cause of my sleep seizures - that's what I call them - and my sore butt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)