desperately seeking susan

I am thinking up new topics to post here...until then, some old stuff revisited...

[previously posted on myspace on May 29, 2009]

Personal ads are funny...

(air quotes)

50/M/Straight/Single

I like movies, dining out, taking trips, traveling, going to shows, the beach, pretty much anything relaxing. Would prefer a girl from 25 to 40.

...A "girl?" Ums. Ewh. And why does this sound like he's ordering something from Amazon.com?

Also, I love how most ads say essentially the same thing for likes. I mean, who doesn't like movies, eating and/or relaxing? I would like to see an ad that says "I enjoy yelling obscenities at a movie screen (particularly if it's a "rom-com"), I only eat food that is naturally or unnaturally purple and relaxing freaks me out."

such a classic girl

[originally posted on myspace on August 4, 2009]

I wasn't much a fan of the Gilmore Girls. My mother actually watched the show regularly and eventually got me into it. When I first started watching, I liked the alt-music references, some of the snappy dialogue and the whole Rory-Jess thing. I liked Jess when he was first introduced, as the moody, rebellious boy who liked cool music and who actually read books and put him with Rory, in the whole 'they are so perfect together...will they or won't they ever get together' scenario...then the writers, as they tended to do with all of Rory's boyfriends (Dean, Logan) quickly turned him into a jerk.

Anyway, I watched an episode over the weekend, back from around the time I would have been Jess-fixated and ooh, they made a Belle and Sebastian reference-oriented time, but, now, since it's been some six or seven years since seeing this episode, one of the storylines was almost relatable. Lorelai, a character I never really liked much during the course of the show, a character I tended to find grating, was going through something (I almost felt sympathy towards her character, though I continue to find her grating) and if I did not say to myself, 'geez, everyone must go through that at least once, then.' It was oddly nice to know a fictional character was feeling comparable pain. And it made me laugh out loud.

And I've log wondered, what does my mom get out of that show? Insight into the mother-daughter relationship? Or is she just a sap for the Lorelai-Like relationship, like me?

So, what makes a 'classic' a classic?

This is something I've been thinking about (as I enter another inward philosophical period) - just the overall idea of what makes something (book, movie, television show) beyond good, what makes it beloved and worthy of multiple readings/viewings...because if there are such distinct traits, I want to know them and incorporate them in my work (I just hear Stewie's voice in my head, when he rails on Brian's never finished novel, 'a richer experience for the reader...').

Gilmore Girls, to me, is a classic, in that, much like the movie Singles, besides being entertaining with each viewing, it is multi-layered, you can get something different out of it, just depending on where you are at when you watch (is that what a critic means when he/she says something has 'depth'?).

So, can a classic just be something you are familiar with, that you can watch over and over, recite the lines out loud, like a reliable friend (or a comfort dish of mac and cheese), with predictability and known patterns/outcomes when all else seems upside down? Or does that just make something good? Does adding to it the layering, making it so that someone can get something different out of it each time, raise it to classic value?

And does someone who has no favorites (no favorite movie or book or - what I hate - no favorite bands or songs, even) just someone who needs the novel, who needs something new at every turn (one could also argue that nothing is new - that all things, books, movies, music, etc, is repeated/influenced by something and therefore, not 'new') or someone with an attachment disorder?

A person's television/movie/book preferences as it relates to his/her interpersonal relations. I've got my next research paper.

interpretative dance

[originally posted on myspace on May 14, 2010]

There are less and less myspace blogs from others each day. Sad.

So, I've had this song in my head all evening. It's a song I so love for many reasons. Somehow, the song came up in conversation with Guy I Sort of Went on a Few Dates with Last Year. I probably said something along the lines of "oh, I like that song," rather than "omg, I love that song, it so describes how excited/nervous/silly you can get when you like someone, it's such an accurate, perfect description set to music, etc etc." He provided his explanation of the song, how he interpreted it (essentially, "what a slutty girl").

I did not tell him he was wrong or that my interpretation differed (greatly). I just nodded and new subjects came and went. But that, the fact that our interpretations were so different and far apart, that always bugged me. And it doesn't matter who was right..I don't know the person(s) who wrote the song, so we could both be way off base and wrong when it comes to what the song's about/the inspiration. Regardless, me and Guy were ultimately doomed before we started.

And this wasn't the first time.

Not that I am all knowing, but I can kind of understand where a song is coming from, or, at the very least, how/what the song means to me, anyway. And several times Guys I've Sort of Dated have interpreted a song in a completely different way. And while differences are beautiful, I'm thinking in these cases, if we can't even agree as to what a song is about, if we don't have a similar idea, then we don't belong together.

So, for the future, I will really have to think about it, think about a song that is super personal for me at least, super personal for how I interpret it and hold onto that song. And, when Future Guy(s) comes along, I will casually bring it up in conversation, or maybe in an odd twist, he'll mention it first. If he thinks it's about XY, while I think it's about A, I will proceed with caution. If he thinks it's about 483, then I will run.

fruit stand

[originally posted on myspace on January 7, 2009 - Wednesday]

I had a realization last night. This is something I realized awhile ago, many times, though I don't always remember it/stick with it but last night was the first time a metaphor for it all popped up in my head. So, my lovelies, bare with me while I get a little Dr. Phil.

If someone can only offer you oranges, it is pointless to want apples from said person.

Oranges are ok, but really, you want apples. So you go to this person, expecting/wanting/asking for apples. But there is no way they can possibly give you apples, as all they have to give are oranges (and, hey, they might not even want to give those up). And standing there with your hand out, constantly surprised (or mad/sad/disappointed) that you aren't getting any apples is a waste of time.

So, you must move on. And it's not as simple as finding just anyone with apples because, oh, are there people out there with apples and you don't want to settle for just anyone. There will be people willing to throw apples at you freely, maybe giving you way more than you really want. There will be people with plenty of apples who enjoy dangling them in front of you, trying to make you work for it (because they're a little twisted inside). There will be people with a stockpile of those nasty, soft green apples (when you really want a red, crunchy one). You just have to keep looking and one day (maybe), you'll find the right person, with the right apple and the right speed of delivery (until then, take your own damn apples and make a pie). And then, there are some people that are just bananas.

what would Badu do?

[originally posted on myspace on August 3, 2008, Sunday]

My new mantra - what would Erykah Badu do?

Seriously.

Yesterday, one of the MTVs ran a block of her videos, while I was concerned about some trifling boy who doesn't know how to use a telephone properly. I left the TV on for background noise (and because I love her songs) and it hit me, Erykah Badu wouldn't be concerned with this...she's bad ass. Maybe she'd write a sappy song about it later but for the time being, she'd get dressed (in a so odd it works way) and go out anyway and have a good time and not worry about a stupid guy. I'm gonna start doing what she (and any bad ass female) would do. So that's what I did, sorta...

I need my own advice column

[originally posted on myspace on Tuesday, December 11, 2007]

Ok, so this lady gets "dumped" via Facebook (um, what's a "poke?") and she writes in to a column for advice on how she should "handle" it. The columnist then launches into how humans are becoming more and more reliant on technology and becoming worse at interpersonal communication…technology encourages lazy communication blah blah blah.

My reaction?

This lady says they were "dating pretty seriously for the past few months." Um, in real life or in Facebook world? And I am so curious as to how she defines "dating pretty seriously" versus what it really was/versus his definition of "pretty serious."

So, regardless, let's say they actually met in person and were real "boyfriend/girlfriend." This lady (and I do feel bad for her, really, because getting dumped sucks) is 26 (I'd have more sympathy if she was 18, truly). She asks how to handle this? UM – if anyone is that LAME to "dump" you (she says that she's had trouble reaching him since their last date –duh, warning sign number one- and then he changed his status to single without telling her) online, through a networking site…then good riddance. He's probably an idiot with zero social graces. Be glad of potentially dodging a bullet there. He probably came on fast (what is that saying, a candle that burns twice as fast..) and got bored/felt stifled/etc. Yes, he should have told her rather than avoid her and change his relationship status, but, whatever, he is LAME. He probably exhibited precursors of this lameness in their "several months" of dating.

I am so disappointed that none of that was covered in the advice giving (I am glad she suggested "Say no to being asked out over text messages" and a general suggestion of this person demanding "integrity" in her communications in the future) but maybe it was more a technology related advice column… At least they didn't suggest some online revenge campaign.

Ha…notice the web page is "how to handle getting dum_b" rather than "how to handle getting dumped?" I think that says it all. Ladies, don't let the boys get you stupid.

(yes, this high and mighty talk coming from me…the lameness of emailing someone –after a date and a half which, to me, cancels out some of the lame- to ask for some space)

[article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-hassler/how-to-handle-getting-dum_b_76139.html]

wax ecstatic (Lars and the Real Girl review)

[originally posted on myspace on Tuesday, October 30, 2007]

What do you call it when a movie goes from limited release to mainstream, mass market release? No idea. Anyway, Lars and The Real Girl was finally released to the mainstream populous last Friday (I was a bit scared it'd never make it past it's limited release date of 10/12).

I was a bit surprised when it was showing at a chain theater (Muvico) and one of those big fancy ones at that (the Egyptian themed jumbo sized theater-dome). I was shocked when the theater was all but full for the 7:35 PM showing. And I was mildly annoyed by the group of teens in our row who offered color commentary during the first fifteen minutes of the movie (and then left, assumingly bored and off to go watch Saw IV).

I didn't know what to expect from the film. I mean, I have my love/respect/creeped-out-ness/fear of Real Dolls. The plot sounded cute, the writer sounded good, it was all very promising. But Hollywood has suckered me before, so I wasn't keeping my hopes up.

At the start of the movie, we meet shy and a smidge reclusive Lars (Ryan "So Hot" Gosling, more on him in a bit) who lives in the garage at the house of his kind of cute brother Gus (Paul Schneider) and (very annoying in the beginning of the film) wife Karen (Emily Mortimer).

In the beginning, still impressed by how many people are here (and none walk out!), I am distracted. First, by the pretty outdoors scenery (in the film, they are somewhere northern US, but it's really shot in Canada) and then by Ryan Gosling. I keep wondering, is he the guy in that horrible Amityville remake? Nope, Ryan Reynolds. Then, hmm, is he married to Alanis Morrisette? Nope, Ryan Reynolds again (side note: yahoo says that they "began dating by e-mail in 2002" – how does that work?). Later, after researching, I found out that Gosling is the reason I tried so hard to (unsuccessfully) make it through the United States of Leland and half of the reason I waded through Stay (nerdy-dressed Ewan McGregor the other half).

My point in all this – at the beginning, I was easily distracted. By the later beginning, middle and end, I was drawn into the story. It felt like these people (especially some of the ugly sweater wearing church members) were real.

Movie plot short: Lars has issues. Some unexplained childhood issues (from his mom dying while giving birth to him), some (I guess) because his brother's wife is pregnant. He orders a doll off line and tells everyone (and appears to believe it himself) that she is, in fact, real. The town's doctor/shrink (small town medical practitioners have to specialize in it all, apparently) tells Lars' concerned brother and brother's wife that he must be working through issues with the doll and to play along (the whole town eventually plays along), to let it runs it's course. Surprisingly, it does run it's course. The doll "dies" when he deals with all the abandonment/fear of talking to girls/etc/etc issues he's had.

A guy and a sex doll could have been handled so many (bad) ways. It could have easily been a Cohen Brothers slapstick. But this film is so sweet in it's handling. It's funny and cute, without being too saccharine. The treatment of Lars' possible mental illness, however temporary it was, was considerate and somewhat realistic (ok, probably not realistic that the whole town would support his delusion, but Lars' character is so unassumingly nice, you don't really second guess it). The characters have dimension (and yes, I would totally date post-doll Lars, Kym!) and the story isn't (terribly) predictable and it's certainly unique.

It's a charming little movie about love and relationships and family and psychological disorders/delusions (my idea of a good romantic comedy, just like Punch Drunk Love). And, no, it's not perfect. It drags a little. There are multiple, multiple scenes where the boom mike at times sneaks overhead and at times boldly looms into frame (fire the editing people, seriously).

Go see this movie.

The crowded theater made me think it'd do well on the weekend box office. Not so much. It did come in at number 19, making $926,675 this weekend while playing in 296 theaters nationwide (compared to the weekend's number 1 movie, Saw IV, which made over 31 million dollars while playing in 3183 theaters nationwide). BUT, Lars had a production budget of 12 million (seriously? Fire those editing people who let the boom mikes slip) dollars (production budgets in comparison: 30 Days of Night, 30 million).

And big tickets sales and profits don't make a good movie, I know, but, hell, it's a business. If good little sleeper films like this can actually get made, not get tinkered around with to fit a formula, get shown in chain theaters and have an audience (and just maybe break even)…it's just a little inspiring to the rest of us.

dress you up in my love

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

dismemberment plan (review of the movie May)

[originally posted on myspace on Tuesday, June 26, 2007]

There is something about vacation days that make me watch movies. I think it's the fact that I don't have to go to work the next day makes me stay up late, which results in watching movies I might never had bothered with.

One night (morning?), IFC aired the movie May (2002, I know, I'm behind) sandwiched in between airings of House of 1000 Corpses. Based on that and on its generic and somewhat vague on screen description, I expected a gore fest. Instead, I got a horror movie that I truly believe should be shown to all tweens and teens (and lots of adults) as a guide to how not to date.

The movie's title character, May, is a socially inept oddball with a mad collection of dolls and a need to find love. She meets pseudo-quirky Adam and love blooms. Adam eventually sees that May is a bit crazy and slowly (very slowly) backs off. May quickly finds solace by giving into oversexed coworker Polly's advances. Unfortunately, Polly isn't a one woman girl and May is disappointed by love yet again. May then decides to take matters into her hands, quite literally, and makes her own perfect companion. Spoiler: she hacks up a few people and stitches them together to make a new friend.

Angela Bettis plays May to a possible career long pigeon holing perfection. You end the film really believing she is May. At times, she makes you feel sorry for her, yet in the next scene, you are down right disgusted. She creates an almost loveable unhinged lunatic, reminiscent to Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates.

Her main love interest Adam (Jeremy Sisto) is a fairly interesting character. He is apparently into the sick and deranged, evident by his collections odds and ends and his cheesy indie film he shows May on an early date. Yet when he is faced with the real thing embodied by May, he eventually runs off. He very slowly runs. Even after it is obvious to him that he is dealing with crazy on another level, he gives May a few more chances when he could have avoided a whole lot of drama by changing his phone number and leaving town.

It is a fairly original idea and the characters are somewhat believable, but the film has some drawbacks. The cinematography is not consistent. Most annoying are the dated bursts of grainy shots (think video for NIN's "Closer"). Surprisingly for the plot, the violence is fast and in no means gory. The schlockiness more resembles '80s bad horror and at times comes off as not realistic and unintentionally laughable. Goofy yet annoying lesbian-stereotype Polly (Anna Faris) is given some corny dialogue that attempts foreshadowing. The end of the movie is disappointingly predictable.

The movie borders good and bad, pushing it to the realm of cult status. Underneath it all, it has a good morale. Girls, take it as a guide to not be obsessively looking for love. Guys, take it as a guide that if a girl acts like this on the first date, run. Note to all: there is no such thing as a perfect partner (in real life).