The ratings for the last couple episodes of "Gotham" have been down a bit. And it's too bad. It's really a great show. It has been renewed for a second season, so there's no danger of cancellation. But, it would be cool if the ratings picked up a bit (or a lot) as we head toward the season finale and await Season 2. Because I want a Season 3. And I don't want Ben McKenzie to be sad. He works too hard to have to be sad.
Now, I know many people started out watching "Gotham" and then quit after a few episodes. Y'all should come back. You should always give a new show AT LEAST five episodes, and probably more like seven, before you give up on it. It really takes that long for the thing to get out of the gate and get into its groove. You should believe me on this because somebody once called me a "film producer," so -- obviously -- I know about these things. Haha. Actually, you should believe me on this because I have skipped too much housework in lieu of watching a lot of TV in my life, and I have noticed this phenomenon. And I'll tell you, "Gotham" has really gotten its s**t together. Mind you, I have enjoyed it from the get-go, but it has gotten better and better. For one thing, Ben McKenzie has truly found his Jim Gordon and is consistently "in the zone." Bravo, Ben! You are rockin' it.
I know some people also have an issue with "Gotham's" 8:00 time slot, especially parents. I have noticed that young people are pestering their parents to let them watch "Gotham," leading them to just put their foot down in a frustrated demonstration of parental authority. Thus, these poor moms and dads most likely don't even DVR the show and also -- probably -- boycott everything FOX. I have noticed that most people hate on FOX. The progressives hate on it because of the news and the conservatives hate on it because of its entertainment offerings. It's a wonder, of sorts, that FOX is even still on the air. I guess, though, that giving absolutely everybody something to hate on could make you quite popular.
Take heart, moms and dads. The violence on "Gotham," though present, is not gratuitous. It is appropriate for the story. And that story has key moral questions that your children should consider. Of course, I am not talking about 7-year-olds. But, I do think that children who are 10 years old and above could reap many benefits from watching "Gotham." The show presents to its audience the types of moral conundrums that most (if not all) of us will face in our lives. This is part of the value of a good story, which "Gotham" is. We see these fictional situations and fictional characters. We see how the characters -- some of whom we admire and some of whom we don't -- interact with the situations. We see what the results of those interactions are. There is much food for thought here, and many parallels with "real life." I homeschooled my kids for 13 years, and if "Gotham" had been on, I would have used it in writing lessons, ethics lessons, history lessons, political science lessons, art lessons... I almost want to have another baby so that I can use "Gotham" in lesson plans. (No. Not really. Just kidding. And -- besides -- I am "past the age.") The point is, though, that if you watch "Gotham" with your kids and you have any semblance of coolness about you as a parent, you can leverage it in order to teach your kids A LOT.
Also, as far as real life role models, you should want your kids to be acquainted with those involved in making "Gotham." The whole team is pretty incredible. They are positive people living positive lives. The actor who plays the young Bruce Wayne and the young actress who plays Selina Kyle (the future Catwoman) are prime examples of this. They are incredibly grounded, intelligent, energetic, joyful, engaged-with-life young people. They speak about their "real lives" and their work in a way which could inspire kids to live their own lives with both a sense of healthy fun and purpose. As they speak about the story of "Gotham," they shed light onto the creative process, which is an especially important thing for kids to understand as they navigate their way through the educational system's literature and writing assignments. Ben, himself, is a very good example for kids. He believes young people should work very hard, be very responsible, as they strive to reach worthwhile goals; and he will often speak of this. In fact, he can almost come off as a little bit of a curmudgeon. I actually told my daughter that if he ever has kids, he's going to be the world's strictest dad. ;-) What makes his message such a terrific one for young people, though, is the fact that he is a truly fun person and he has the right end-game in mind. --> He desires that kids grow up to do work that means something to them, work they will enjoy, work that will benefit both themselves and others. And he knows from experience and expresses quite effectively (i.e. in a way that kids will listen) what is necessary to achieve these things.
It seems this post has morphed from why people -- in general -- should watch "Gotham" into why parents should let their kids watch "Gotham." That really wasn't my original intention, but there you have it. And adults should watch it, too. It's beautifully crafted, well-written, compelling, thought-provoking, and a great deal of FUN! I actually think it's really all about President Obama. Or LBJ. Or FDR. Or even The Gipper. So... Catch up on those previously aired episodes and I hope to see you on Monday night in Gotham! And then I hope to see you on Tuesday night for "Agents Of Shield." We've gotta get Coulson out of that jam. I love Coulson!
Showing posts with label Ben McKenzie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben McKenzie. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Gotham: Okay. Where is the damn ring??? ;p
If we knew the answer to this question, it would clear a whole lotta things up.
"What ring?" you may be asking.
BARBARA'S ENGAGEMENT RING.
Because I believe she had one. If she didn't, this whole post is pointless and you may as well click away now.
Barbara, if you are not aware, is (or was) engaged to Jim Gordon. After being kidnapped by one of the seemingly infinite array of gangsters running around Gotham City, she ended up "taking a break" from Jim. She left him a "Dear John" letter -- as well as her fancy apartment -- and headed back into the arms of her long-ago lover, Renee Montoya. I don't blame her really. Renee -- in many ways -- is much less annoying than Jim. I mean, I love Jim. Jim is great. But, he would be a rather difficult man with whom to be involved. He is intelligent, honest, handsome, looks nice in a suit, and -- apparently -- mixes a good cocktail. On the other hand, he is stubborn, rather emotionally unavailable, and so gung-ho and hard-charging that he probably would not be the most relaxing person with whom to pass a pleasant Sunday afternoon watching the Dallas Cowboys. After observing Jim for a while, it's kinda easy to understand why Barbara drinks a little.
Anyway...
Back to the "Dear John" letter.
We see Jim reading said letter and then leaving Barbara a heartfelt phone message -- begging her to come back to him. As he leaves this message, Barbara is in the arms of Renee. This little scene led many in the "Gotham" fandom to "hate on" Barbara. (Ben McKenzie really does know how to do those facial expressions that get you totally on his side. My Bridget thinks -- based on these facial expressions -- that his teachers probably let him get away with a whole lot of stuff when he was a little boy.) But if you close your eyes and ignore the facial expressions and stay calm for a moment, I would like to point out one thing. It did not take long for our hero to find himself a new girlfriend -- all before even tracking down Barbara and talking with her. I mean -- come on -- the man is a DETECTIVE. Don't tell me he couldn't have found Barbara. He knows Barbara used to be involved with Renee. If I were a detective, I think I'd know where to look first. Come to think of it, maybe this is why Gotham is in such a mess. Do ALL their law enforcement officials have such weak powers of deductive reasoning? That would explain much. No offense Jim, but I don't think you tried all that hard here.
(Now I am going to get "hated on.") ;-)
But -- STOP.
JUST STOP.
There is one little question that would solve this whole conundrum of who is in the right and who is in the wrong and who (if anybody) should be "hated on."
And that is -- WHERE IS THE DAMN ENGAGEMENT RING???
THIS IS THE KEY QUESTION.
If Barbara kept the ring, then we should "hate on" BOTH her and Jim. Because that would mean they are still "technically" engaged. If the lady says, "We need to take a break," AND she keeps the ring, then she really hasn't broken off the engagement and she shouldn't be in anybody else's arms. Period. End of story. ESPECIALLY if her man is on a detective's salary. And if the man has not gotten back the ring, then it is his obligation to track down said ring AND the lady to whom he gave it, requesting (respectfully, of course) some answers as to their relationship status, before he takes up with a beautiful doctor. ESPECIALLY if that man is a detective, who would be logically assumed to possess "detecting" skills.
If -- on the other hand -- Barbara left the ring, along with the "Dear John" letter, for Jim to find, then both are off the hook. The engagement is over, called off, nullified. Period. End of story. And each party is free to be in somebody else's arms. Although -- perhaps -- they might find their new lovers in a way which employs a bit more good, old-fashioned, Italian common sense/suspicion. One thing we know, for sure, is that both Jim and Barbara are lacking competent Italian mothers. We've seen Barbara's mother, of course. And she's obviously NOT Italian. Not at all. If Barbara were my daughter, I would have met her at the door with coffee, cookies, and a good rehab doctor. We haven't seen Jim's mother, but she is -- evidently -- no better than Ben Sherman's. And we all know how that turned out. And if you don't know how that turned out, you'd better go watch "SouthLAnd." Right now.
Because...
"SouthLAnd" forever... ;-)
"What ring?" you may be asking.
BARBARA'S ENGAGEMENT RING.
Because I believe she had one. If she didn't, this whole post is pointless and you may as well click away now.
Barbara, if you are not aware, is (or was) engaged to Jim Gordon. After being kidnapped by one of the seemingly infinite array of gangsters running around Gotham City, she ended up "taking a break" from Jim. She left him a "Dear John" letter -- as well as her fancy apartment -- and headed back into the arms of her long-ago lover, Renee Montoya. I don't blame her really. Renee -- in many ways -- is much less annoying than Jim. I mean, I love Jim. Jim is great. But, he would be a rather difficult man with whom to be involved. He is intelligent, honest, handsome, looks nice in a suit, and -- apparently -- mixes a good cocktail. On the other hand, he is stubborn, rather emotionally unavailable, and so gung-ho and hard-charging that he probably would not be the most relaxing person with whom to pass a pleasant Sunday afternoon watching the Dallas Cowboys. After observing Jim for a while, it's kinda easy to understand why Barbara drinks a little.
Anyway...
Back to the "Dear John" letter.
We see Jim reading said letter and then leaving Barbara a heartfelt phone message -- begging her to come back to him. As he leaves this message, Barbara is in the arms of Renee. This little scene led many in the "Gotham" fandom to "hate on" Barbara. (Ben McKenzie really does know how to do those facial expressions that get you totally on his side. My Bridget thinks -- based on these facial expressions -- that his teachers probably let him get away with a whole lot of stuff when he was a little boy.) But if you close your eyes and ignore the facial expressions and stay calm for a moment, I would like to point out one thing. It did not take long for our hero to find himself a new girlfriend -- all before even tracking down Barbara and talking with her. I mean -- come on -- the man is a DETECTIVE. Don't tell me he couldn't have found Barbara. He knows Barbara used to be involved with Renee. If I were a detective, I think I'd know where to look first. Come to think of it, maybe this is why Gotham is in such a mess. Do ALL their law enforcement officials have such weak powers of deductive reasoning? That would explain much. No offense Jim, but I don't think you tried all that hard here.
(Now I am going to get "hated on.") ;-)
But -- STOP.
JUST STOP.
There is one little question that would solve this whole conundrum of who is in the right and who is in the wrong and who (if anybody) should be "hated on."
And that is -- WHERE IS THE DAMN ENGAGEMENT RING???
THIS IS THE KEY QUESTION.
If Barbara kept the ring, then we should "hate on" BOTH her and Jim. Because that would mean they are still "technically" engaged. If the lady says, "We need to take a break," AND she keeps the ring, then she really hasn't broken off the engagement and she shouldn't be in anybody else's arms. Period. End of story. ESPECIALLY if her man is on a detective's salary. And if the man has not gotten back the ring, then it is his obligation to track down said ring AND the lady to whom he gave it, requesting (respectfully, of course) some answers as to their relationship status, before he takes up with a beautiful doctor. ESPECIALLY if that man is a detective, who would be logically assumed to possess "detecting" skills.
If -- on the other hand -- Barbara left the ring, along with the "Dear John" letter, for Jim to find, then both are off the hook. The engagement is over, called off, nullified. Period. End of story. And each party is free to be in somebody else's arms. Although -- perhaps -- they might find their new lovers in a way which employs a bit more good, old-fashioned, Italian common sense/suspicion. One thing we know, for sure, is that both Jim and Barbara are lacking competent Italian mothers. We've seen Barbara's mother, of course. And she's obviously NOT Italian. Not at all. If Barbara were my daughter, I would have met her at the door with coffee, cookies, and a good rehab doctor. We haven't seen Jim's mother, but she is -- evidently -- no better than Ben Sherman's. And we all know how that turned out. And if you don't know how that turned out, you'd better go watch "SouthLAnd." Right now.
Because...
"SouthLAnd" forever... ;-)
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Liza & Leslie -- Two Peas In A Pod?
If you are not watching "Gotham," you should be. I know some of you gave it up in frustration after a few episodes, but it has really gotten its groove on, lately. So, you should give it another try.
And if you are watching "Gotham," you will know about Liza and Leslie. Liza was a beautiful young woman (who also seemed to have spent some time fighting MMA) sent to spy on Falcone by Fish, as part of Fish's attempt to stage a coup on Falcone's empire. Liza was all dressed up and trained by Fish to appeal to both Falcone's remembrances of his dearly-departed mother and his sex drive. It really was kind of kinky. But Fish -- being all about kink -- knew how to do it exactly right. It would have worked, too, except for the Little Bird telling. And -- now -- poor Liza is at the bottom of the proverbial river.
Dr. Leslie Thompkins is another beautiful young woman (sans any apparent MMA skills), who has suddenly become the love interest of Jim Gordon. Or -- rather -- in my feminism, I prefer to think of Jim Gordon as becoming the love interest of Dr. Leslie Thompkins. She seems to be the ideal gal for our beleaguered hero, after he is dumped by Barbara and booted from his detective position in the GCPD and forced to work as a security guard in the Arkham Asylum For The Criminally Insane. Dr. Thompkins appears as an angel out of nowhere when poor Jim is at his lowest point. She both admires him (exactly what his battered male ego needs) and gives him much-needed assistance (while still respecting that male ego). She is beautiful, intelligent, idealistic, funny, and impeccably coiffed (this last being a quality which Jim seems to value, judging by Barbara). The lovely Leslie is able to joke with Jim -- even poking a little fun at him. But, she jokes in such a way as to amuse him without crossing the line into stomping on that aforementioned male ego. She -- in short -- is both the perfect ally and lover for Jim.
A little too perfect, maybe???
A little bit like Liza, maybe???
I know, I know. These are absolutely HORRID thoughts to be having about Leslie Thompkins. HORRID. I am ASHAMED. But, there you have it. I can't help but be a bit suspicious. It's in my middle-aged Italian mother nature to be suspicious of ALL love interests -- whenever and wherever they may appear, real or fictional -- until they prove themselves worthy of my trust.
One thing I know, though, is that if Leslie does turn out to be a bad guy, she won't end up at the bottom of the proverbial river, strangled to death by our hero's hands. I don't think so, anyway. But... This is Gotham, after all.
And Gotham -- when all is said and done -- will be Gotham.
And if you are watching "Gotham," you will know about Liza and Leslie. Liza was a beautiful young woman (who also seemed to have spent some time fighting MMA) sent to spy on Falcone by Fish, as part of Fish's attempt to stage a coup on Falcone's empire. Liza was all dressed up and trained by Fish to appeal to both Falcone's remembrances of his dearly-departed mother and his sex drive. It really was kind of kinky. But Fish -- being all about kink -- knew how to do it exactly right. It would have worked, too, except for the Little Bird telling. And -- now -- poor Liza is at the bottom of the proverbial river.
Dr. Leslie Thompkins is another beautiful young woman (sans any apparent MMA skills), who has suddenly become the love interest of Jim Gordon. Or -- rather -- in my feminism, I prefer to think of Jim Gordon as becoming the love interest of Dr. Leslie Thompkins. She seems to be the ideal gal for our beleaguered hero, after he is dumped by Barbara and booted from his detective position in the GCPD and forced to work as a security guard in the Arkham Asylum For The Criminally Insane. Dr. Thompkins appears as an angel out of nowhere when poor Jim is at his lowest point. She both admires him (exactly what his battered male ego needs) and gives him much-needed assistance (while still respecting that male ego). She is beautiful, intelligent, idealistic, funny, and impeccably coiffed (this last being a quality which Jim seems to value, judging by Barbara). The lovely Leslie is able to joke with Jim -- even poking a little fun at him. But, she jokes in such a way as to amuse him without crossing the line into stomping on that aforementioned male ego. She -- in short -- is both the perfect ally and lover for Jim.
A little too perfect, maybe???
A little bit like Liza, maybe???
I know, I know. These are absolutely HORRID thoughts to be having about Leslie Thompkins. HORRID. I am ASHAMED. But, there you have it. I can't help but be a bit suspicious. It's in my middle-aged Italian mother nature to be suspicious of ALL love interests -- whenever and wherever they may appear, real or fictional -- until they prove themselves worthy of my trust.
One thing I know, though, is that if Leslie does turn out to be a bad guy, she won't end up at the bottom of the proverbial river, strangled to death by our hero's hands. I don't think so, anyway. But... This is Gotham, after all.
And Gotham -- when all is said and done -- will be Gotham.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Let's Not Slut-Shame Barbara. Okay???
Who is Barbara?
Barbara is Barbara Kean of "Gotham". She is engaged to Det. Jim Gordon and let's just say there's a lot of trouble in paradise. I'm not going to summarize the whole plot here, so if you don't watch "Gotham," you'll probably be confused. Sorry.
Anyway, Barbara and Jim are busy being all gorgeous together in Barbara's gorgeous penthouse when it turns out that there are many, many more problems in Gotham than Det. Gordon had realized when he came on the job. Most people would take all that gorgeousness and move someplace safer, but not Jim. Jim is stubborn and tenacious and righteous. And -- by golly -- he is going to fix Gotham.
Meanwhile, it turns out that Barbara has many, many more problems than Det. Gordon had realized when he proposed to her and moved all his suits, ties, and spare guns into her gorgeous penthouse. These problems involve past (and current) difficulties with alcohol, drugs, and a beautiful former (not-quite-gotten-over) lover who works with Jim Gordon. Jim, apparently -- for all of his detective skills -- knows nothing about the alcohol (well, he knows a bit about the alcohol), drugs, and former beautiful lover (even though he works with her). Jim is a very trusting person, for a detective. Bless his heart. I have known a few law enforcement types. And they are usually quite suspicious. Of everybody and everything. I'm glad, though, that Jim has not yet fallen into that cynicism. It is rather refreshing, except it does keep him from noticing a lot of things that would be worth noticing. Like the smell of pot that certainly must permeate that penthouse, from what I've seen.
Barbara, though, for all her problems, really does love Jim. She wants to stand by his side and be strong and helpful. She desires greatly to be helpful. And in her desire to help her man in his time of need, she ends up getting kidnapped by the bad guys. And in the aftermath of this undoubtedly traumatic event, she ends up leaving Jim and going back to her former, not-quite-so-gotten-over, beautiful lover. Poor Jim. You see him leaving a pleading, heartfelt message on her cell phone. He tells her he loves her and begs her to come back to him. (After all, who is going to pay the rent on that penthouse? He is on a detective's salary, after all. No, no. Sorry. That is SO cynical of me. And it isn't true, either. Jim really does love Barbara and wants her to come back.) And while Jim is leaving this heartfelt message, we see Barbara in the arms of her beautiful lover. It really was quite sexy. And I am straight as straight can be. So, that is sexy. Believe me.
After this episode of "Gotham" aired, I noticed something. I noticed a lot of people on Twitter slut-shaming Barbara. Some of them -- in their passionate vociferousness -- seemed to forget that she is a fictional character. There was a lot of real nastiness going on toward Barbara. Downright mean comments about what she was doing to poor Jim. (And yes. Ben McKenzie REALLY knows how to do those hang-dog eyes. He can work it with those "feel sorry for my character" facial expressions and voice. It is quite something. And this is not an insult, in case you're wondering. It is a compliment. The guy knows how to make you feel for his characters, without going all overboard and sappy. He plays it just right. Go, Ben.) I kind of had a hard time, though, dealing with the cut-to-the-bone insults being hurled at Barbara, all about how she's a slut. I mean, wait just a freakin' minute here. Let's think about this.
Now, I am not saying that Barbara did the right thing. But, looked at compassionately, I think she did an understandable thing. She definitely isn't a slut.
First, she and Jim had kinda been having a rocky time. She felt that he was shutting her out of his life. He was shutting her out -- to a large degree -- but, this was to protect her. He could have done a better job in getting this across to her, though. A great communicator, he is not. He is a very, very good guy. Absolutely good. But, he is a little stubborn and a little reticent in expressing himself and -- perhaps -- a bit prideful and self-righteous. And these traits do not combine to make a person a good communicator during stressful times in a relationship.
Secondly, Barbara is in no condition -- dealing with all the baggage of her past and present life -- to be able to form a healthy romantic relationship. She needs to put her own house in order. But, she also really wants to be strong and good. She wants to love and be loved. But, she doesn't know how to make peace with her past in order to give and receive love in a proper fashion. Like a lot of us. A lot of us are like Barbara, at least at points in our lives. We go through crap. We don't know how to put that crap to rest. And it affects how we form relationships. So, before we go hurling stones at Barbara, we should take a look at ourselves and our moments of vulnerability.
Thirdly, if you recall, when Barbara was being held by the bad guys, one of those bad guys made a remark to Jim about having to rough Barbara up a bit in order to make sure that she didn't have any valuable information. Hmmm... It was kind of a passing remark, but maybe more significant than we realize. What, exactly, did they do to Barbara? Did they -- possibly -- sexually assault her? If she was assaulted -- sexually, or otherwise -- that would explain a lot of her subsequent behavior, especially her return to her former lover. I mean, she was already having a struggle with substance abuse. She apparently has crappy parents. Jim was not being the easiest guy in the world to deal with. And then she gets assaulted, perhaps in a sexual way? You put all those things together and her decision to leave Jim and go back to Renee would not be surprising.
Anyway, this is just my two cents, for what their worth. And thank-you for taking the time to read this. Hope to be seeing you in Gotham!!! ;-)
Barbara is Barbara Kean of "Gotham". She is engaged to Det. Jim Gordon and let's just say there's a lot of trouble in paradise. I'm not going to summarize the whole plot here, so if you don't watch "Gotham," you'll probably be confused. Sorry.
Anyway, Barbara and Jim are busy being all gorgeous together in Barbara's gorgeous penthouse when it turns out that there are many, many more problems in Gotham than Det. Gordon had realized when he came on the job. Most people would take all that gorgeousness and move someplace safer, but not Jim. Jim is stubborn and tenacious and righteous. And -- by golly -- he is going to fix Gotham.
Meanwhile, it turns out that Barbara has many, many more problems than Det. Gordon had realized when he proposed to her and moved all his suits, ties, and spare guns into her gorgeous penthouse. These problems involve past (and current) difficulties with alcohol, drugs, and a beautiful former (not-quite-gotten-over) lover who works with Jim Gordon. Jim, apparently -- for all of his detective skills -- knows nothing about the alcohol (well, he knows a bit about the alcohol), drugs, and former beautiful lover (even though he works with her). Jim is a very trusting person, for a detective. Bless his heart. I have known a few law enforcement types. And they are usually quite suspicious. Of everybody and everything. I'm glad, though, that Jim has not yet fallen into that cynicism. It is rather refreshing, except it does keep him from noticing a lot of things that would be worth noticing. Like the smell of pot that certainly must permeate that penthouse, from what I've seen.
Barbara, though, for all her problems, really does love Jim. She wants to stand by his side and be strong and helpful. She desires greatly to be helpful. And in her desire to help her man in his time of need, she ends up getting kidnapped by the bad guys. And in the aftermath of this undoubtedly traumatic event, she ends up leaving Jim and going back to her former, not-quite-so-gotten-over, beautiful lover. Poor Jim. You see him leaving a pleading, heartfelt message on her cell phone. He tells her he loves her and begs her to come back to him. (After all, who is going to pay the rent on that penthouse? He is on a detective's salary, after all. No, no. Sorry. That is SO cynical of me. And it isn't true, either. Jim really does love Barbara and wants her to come back.) And while Jim is leaving this heartfelt message, we see Barbara in the arms of her beautiful lover. It really was quite sexy. And I am straight as straight can be. So, that is sexy. Believe me.
After this episode of "Gotham" aired, I noticed something. I noticed a lot of people on Twitter slut-shaming Barbara. Some of them -- in their passionate vociferousness -- seemed to forget that she is a fictional character. There was a lot of real nastiness going on toward Barbara. Downright mean comments about what she was doing to poor Jim. (And yes. Ben McKenzie REALLY knows how to do those hang-dog eyes. He can work it with those "feel sorry for my character" facial expressions and voice. It is quite something. And this is not an insult, in case you're wondering. It is a compliment. The guy knows how to make you feel for his characters, without going all overboard and sappy. He plays it just right. Go, Ben.) I kind of had a hard time, though, dealing with the cut-to-the-bone insults being hurled at Barbara, all about how she's a slut. I mean, wait just a freakin' minute here. Let's think about this.
Now, I am not saying that Barbara did the right thing. But, looked at compassionately, I think she did an understandable thing. She definitely isn't a slut.
First, she and Jim had kinda been having a rocky time. She felt that he was shutting her out of his life. He was shutting her out -- to a large degree -- but, this was to protect her. He could have done a better job in getting this across to her, though. A great communicator, he is not. He is a very, very good guy. Absolutely good. But, he is a little stubborn and a little reticent in expressing himself and -- perhaps -- a bit prideful and self-righteous. And these traits do not combine to make a person a good communicator during stressful times in a relationship.
Secondly, Barbara is in no condition -- dealing with all the baggage of her past and present life -- to be able to form a healthy romantic relationship. She needs to put her own house in order. But, she also really wants to be strong and good. She wants to love and be loved. But, she doesn't know how to make peace with her past in order to give and receive love in a proper fashion. Like a lot of us. A lot of us are like Barbara, at least at points in our lives. We go through crap. We don't know how to put that crap to rest. And it affects how we form relationships. So, before we go hurling stones at Barbara, we should take a look at ourselves and our moments of vulnerability.
Thirdly, if you recall, when Barbara was being held by the bad guys, one of those bad guys made a remark to Jim about having to rough Barbara up a bit in order to make sure that she didn't have any valuable information. Hmmm... It was kind of a passing remark, but maybe more significant than we realize. What, exactly, did they do to Barbara? Did they -- possibly -- sexually assault her? If she was assaulted -- sexually, or otherwise -- that would explain a lot of her subsequent behavior, especially her return to her former lover. I mean, she was already having a struggle with substance abuse. She apparently has crappy parents. Jim was not being the easiest guy in the world to deal with. And then she gets assaulted, perhaps in a sexual way? You put all those things together and her decision to leave Jim and go back to Renee would not be surprising.
Anyway, this is just my two cents, for what their worth. And thank-you for taking the time to read this. Hope to be seeing you in Gotham!!! ;-)
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
"Gotham" -- A Middle-Aged Italian Mom's View
(Aside: People should not talk about politics, unless they can do it without getting all mad.)
Anyway...
There have been many reviews about "Gotham."
Here is mine.
Well... It's not really a review. It's just a compilation of some random thoughts I've had about it.
Two episodes of "Gotham" have aired so far, and I have loved both of them.
First of all, I can understand EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THE DIALOGUE. YAY!!! This is rare for me, and I would like to compliment the talented cast and the amazing sound people. It is very rare for me to be able to understand all the dialogue in a show. People can tend to mumble a little and speak rather quickly, which for a pair of young ears is all well and good. But, my middle-aged ears have a rather tough time with it. So, THANK-YOU, "GOTHAM," for not making me feel so old. xoxo <3
Secondly, I can follow the story completely. YAY again!!! This has also been rare for me, with a lot of "modern" drama-type shows. So, thank-you to the writers and editors for not making me feel stupid as I try to understand the story.
These two things may not seem like a big thing to you, but they are HUGE to me. Especially because the dialogue in "Gotham" is worth understanding and the story the show is telling is worth following. Unlike "The Bachelor."
Thirdly, in "Gotham," Ben McKenzie runs with a gun while pretending to be a law enforcement officer. Ben McKenzie excels at running with a gun while pretending to be a law enforcement officer. It is SO much fun to watch. He looks so cool when he runs. Some people like to see Ben do "love scenes." I have actually had hits to my blog by people looking for "Ben McKenzie love scenes." (I have never written about those, by the way.) I, though, would much prefer to see Ben run with a gun. So -- thank-you, Ben and writers and directors.
Closely related to the running with a gun is this: In "Gotham," Ben McKenzie does fight scenes. He also excels at those. Every time I watch one, though, I get kind of tense, thinking about him ramming his head into the concrete pillar on his birthday. I hope the "Gotham" producers are giving Ben time to get enough sleep. You need lots of sleep in order to do fight scenes safely. Especially as you get older.
You can totally tell that a middle-aged Italian mother is writing this, can't you??? ;-)
For you more serious people, here are a few thoughts about "Gotham" that are a little more serious.
The show is beautiful to look at. It is gorgeous. It is a work of art. It looks just like the comic books sprang off the pages and came to life -- the characters, the costumes, the props, the sets, absolutely everything. Even the dialogue is reminiscent of what you would see in the comic books. Some people have poked fun at the dialogue. They have called it "cheesy" and "corny." Nonsense. The dialogue is done in such a manner that it lends to the overall feeling that you are watching a living, breathing comic book. It is brilliant.
The performances are outstanding. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. Yes, I spoke about Ben McKenzie, but ALL the actors are to be commended. They are perfect in their roles. And it doesn't seem as though anybody is being a "prima donna." I get the impression that everybody is working as a team, supporting one other so that each person can give his or her best for the show. And that's why the show is as good as it is.
The story is well-thought-out and expertly crafted. The premiere set the stage in an outstanding manner so that the story can develop organically in all of its multi-layered complexity. I get the feeling that there will be very few, if any, inconsistencies in the plot. The overall story arc seems to be well-integrated into the smaller story-arcs of the individual episodes -- something that is not easy to do. The story is also fascinating. I want to keep watching it. I am curious to see what will happen week after week. That is a rare thing for me.
The show also embraces diversity -- there are many major female characters, there is a lesbian character, there are characters of many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. This is very cool. And it is especially cool because it is done in a very natural way. When I was younger, whenever a show was even brave enough to embrace diversity, it was often done in an awkward manner. There was almost like this big effort on the part of such a show to announce, "LOOK!!! We have DIVERSITY!!!" With "Gotham," though, the characters just are who they are -- living their lives, doing their jobs, having their relationships, being good or bad or somewhere in-between. This, to me, is a positive thing. It reinforces the fact that we are all human beings, with human needs and hopes and desires.
Thanks for reading my thoughts. I appreciate that you would take the time to do so. And -- hopefully -- I'll see you on Monday. In Gotham. ;-)
Anyway...
There have been many reviews about "Gotham."
Here is mine.
Well... It's not really a review. It's just a compilation of some random thoughts I've had about it.
Two episodes of "Gotham" have aired so far, and I have loved both of them.
First of all, I can understand EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THE DIALOGUE. YAY!!! This is rare for me, and I would like to compliment the talented cast and the amazing sound people. It is very rare for me to be able to understand all the dialogue in a show. People can tend to mumble a little and speak rather quickly, which for a pair of young ears is all well and good. But, my middle-aged ears have a rather tough time with it. So, THANK-YOU, "GOTHAM," for not making me feel so old. xoxo <3
Secondly, I can follow the story completely. YAY again!!! This has also been rare for me, with a lot of "modern" drama-type shows. So, thank-you to the writers and editors for not making me feel stupid as I try to understand the story.
These two things may not seem like a big thing to you, but they are HUGE to me. Especially because the dialogue in "Gotham" is worth understanding and the story the show is telling is worth following. Unlike "The Bachelor."
Thirdly, in "Gotham," Ben McKenzie runs with a gun while pretending to be a law enforcement officer. Ben McKenzie excels at running with a gun while pretending to be a law enforcement officer. It is SO much fun to watch. He looks so cool when he runs. Some people like to see Ben do "love scenes." I have actually had hits to my blog by people looking for "Ben McKenzie love scenes." (I have never written about those, by the way.) I, though, would much prefer to see Ben run with a gun. So -- thank-you, Ben and writers and directors.
Closely related to the running with a gun is this: In "Gotham," Ben McKenzie does fight scenes. He also excels at those. Every time I watch one, though, I get kind of tense, thinking about him ramming his head into the concrete pillar on his birthday. I hope the "Gotham" producers are giving Ben time to get enough sleep. You need lots of sleep in order to do fight scenes safely. Especially as you get older.
You can totally tell that a middle-aged Italian mother is writing this, can't you??? ;-)
For you more serious people, here are a few thoughts about "Gotham" that are a little more serious.
The show is beautiful to look at. It is gorgeous. It is a work of art. It looks just like the comic books sprang off the pages and came to life -- the characters, the costumes, the props, the sets, absolutely everything. Even the dialogue is reminiscent of what you would see in the comic books. Some people have poked fun at the dialogue. They have called it "cheesy" and "corny." Nonsense. The dialogue is done in such a manner that it lends to the overall feeling that you are watching a living, breathing comic book. It is brilliant.
The performances are outstanding. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. Yes, I spoke about Ben McKenzie, but ALL the actors are to be commended. They are perfect in their roles. And it doesn't seem as though anybody is being a "prima donna." I get the impression that everybody is working as a team, supporting one other so that each person can give his or her best for the show. And that's why the show is as good as it is.
The story is well-thought-out and expertly crafted. The premiere set the stage in an outstanding manner so that the story can develop organically in all of its multi-layered complexity. I get the feeling that there will be very few, if any, inconsistencies in the plot. The overall story arc seems to be well-integrated into the smaller story-arcs of the individual episodes -- something that is not easy to do. The story is also fascinating. I want to keep watching it. I am curious to see what will happen week after week. That is a rare thing for me.
The show also embraces diversity -- there are many major female characters, there is a lesbian character, there are characters of many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. This is very cool. And it is especially cool because it is done in a very natural way. When I was younger, whenever a show was even brave enough to embrace diversity, it was often done in an awkward manner. There was almost like this big effort on the part of such a show to announce, "LOOK!!! We have DIVERSITY!!!" With "Gotham," though, the characters just are who they are -- living their lives, doing their jobs, having their relationships, being good or bad or somewhere in-between. This, to me, is a positive thing. It reinforces the fact that we are all human beings, with human needs and hopes and desires.
Thanks for reading my thoughts. I appreciate that you would take the time to do so. And -- hopefully -- I'll see you on Monday. In Gotham. ;-)
Monday, September 22, 2014
Gotham -- Of Heroes And Parental Advisories
As many of you probably know, "Gotham" starts tonight. I am VERY excited about "Gotham". Because of "SouthLAnd". Yes -- all roads lead to "SouthLAnd". You see -- Ben McKenzie, who was one of the lead actors on "SouthLAnd" is playing the lead role of Jim Gordon in "Gotham". And -- as a very dear friend of mine said -- "I will support the "SouthLAnd" actors until the day that I die." Yep.
So, if you don't know, "Gotham" is a "Batman" origin story. It follows the newly-hired Detective Jim Gordon as he tries to deal with the chaos that is Gotham City until he finally can't take it anymore and thinks up Batman. Yes. I believe the whole Batman thing will end up being Jim Gordon's brainchild. Bruce Wayne will be like, "Have you lost your mother f***ing mind, Jim??? You want me to do WHAT??? That's just f***ing crazy." And Jim Gordon will be all like, "You have the money. You have the education. You have a very large basement and a cool old house with mysterious spaces. You have the athletic ability. And I'm just plain tired out from chasing around bad people who like to pretend they're animals and stuff. And Barbara is tired of me never being at home. In fact, I think she's got a little something goin' on the side. Who can blame her? She's never been the same since the time I cracked my skull up against that concrete pillar. (Points at forehead.) Yes. That was years ago and you'd think she'd have gotten over it. But -- nooooooo. So, I think I've got to go home and start gettin' some sexy on with Babs before it's too late." And -- thus -- Bruce Wayne, in a moment of sympathy for his old friend and realizing that his fun afternoons with Barbara had to come to an end at some point, relents and goes to the PLUS SIZE lingerie shop to get some black tights and such.
So... What was the point of this whole thing again?
Oh, yeah.
Parental advisories.
I read a parental advisory for "Gotham" last week. I forget which group posted it. I don't remember the exact wording. But, I'll strive for accuracy.
The parental advisory people said that "Gotham" is not suitable for children. I agree. It probably isn't. To each his or her own, though. I wouldn't have let my kids watch it when they were little.
The parental advisory people also said that "Gotham" wasn't suitable for young teens. I'm a little bit more unsure about that point. I probably would have let my kids watch it as young teens.
The thing the parental advisory said, though, that really made me roll my eyes was something to this effect: They weren't advising the show for kids or young teens because the hero -- Jim Gordon -- isn't going to win in the end. He's basically going to be a defeated hero. And, apparently, this sort of hero is very bad for children and young teens.
Say what???
First of all, I'm sure he's going to have at least a few little victories along the way. Yes, in the end -- exhausted and suffering from Barbara withdrawals -- he will have to think up Batman. But, that doesn't make him a defeated hero. It just makes him realistic and a little bit humble. I mean, one guy against a whole evil city??? Come on.
Seriously, though, what is a hero? Is a hero somebody who inevitably overcomes his obstacles single-handedly. Who never admits defeat? Who is never actually defeated? -- OR -- Is a real hero somebody who makes mistakes, makes the wrong choices sometimes, goes down some wrong paths, has serious falls (even moral ones), trusts the wrong people occasionally, ends up lost -- maybe even completely lost -- and then has the humility and the moral strength and the fortitude to admit his faults and his failings (at least to himself) and get back up and go on and try to do the right thing. To me, this second kind of person is a real hero. The first kind of hero -- the unfailing, unerring, inevitably undefeated/undefeatable one is not a real hero. It's easy to be that kind of person. The authentic hero -- to my mind, anyway -- is the one who has to face down his wayward humanity and keep on pushing forward, even when it would be easier to give up and run away. It certainly would be easier for Jim Gordon to give up and run away. But, he doesn't. And that, at the end of the day, is what makes him a real hero. He doesn't run away -- either from himself or from the city that needs him.
So -- perhaps -- Jim Gordon is just the kind of hero our young teens need. Because -- in life -- that's what most of us have to go through. Most of us are not Captain America (bless his heart). Most of us are more like Jim Gordon. We screw up. Badly. We have disappointments -- from others and from ourselves. And we need to learn to rise up those screw-ups and disappointments and stay the course. And there are times when we have to call in our own Batman (a.k.a. bestie). And if my kids were still young teenagers watching "Gotham", this is what we would be talking about.
Pax.
So, if you don't know, "Gotham" is a "Batman" origin story. It follows the newly-hired Detective Jim Gordon as he tries to deal with the chaos that is Gotham City until he finally can't take it anymore and thinks up Batman. Yes. I believe the whole Batman thing will end up being Jim Gordon's brainchild. Bruce Wayne will be like, "Have you lost your mother f***ing mind, Jim??? You want me to do WHAT??? That's just f***ing crazy." And Jim Gordon will be all like, "You have the money. You have the education. You have a very large basement and a cool old house with mysterious spaces. You have the athletic ability. And I'm just plain tired out from chasing around bad people who like to pretend they're animals and stuff. And Barbara is tired of me never being at home. In fact, I think she's got a little something goin' on the side. Who can blame her? She's never been the same since the time I cracked my skull up against that concrete pillar. (Points at forehead.) Yes. That was years ago and you'd think she'd have gotten over it. But -- nooooooo. So, I think I've got to go home and start gettin' some sexy on with Babs before it's too late." And -- thus -- Bruce Wayne, in a moment of sympathy for his old friend and realizing that his fun afternoons with Barbara had to come to an end at some point, relents and goes to the PLUS SIZE lingerie shop to get some black tights and such.
So... What was the point of this whole thing again?
Oh, yeah.
Parental advisories.
I read a parental advisory for "Gotham" last week. I forget which group posted it. I don't remember the exact wording. But, I'll strive for accuracy.
The parental advisory people said that "Gotham" is not suitable for children. I agree. It probably isn't. To each his or her own, though. I wouldn't have let my kids watch it when they were little.
The parental advisory people also said that "Gotham" wasn't suitable for young teens. I'm a little bit more unsure about that point. I probably would have let my kids watch it as young teens.
The thing the parental advisory said, though, that really made me roll my eyes was something to this effect: They weren't advising the show for kids or young teens because the hero -- Jim Gordon -- isn't going to win in the end. He's basically going to be a defeated hero. And, apparently, this sort of hero is very bad for children and young teens.
Say what???
First of all, I'm sure he's going to have at least a few little victories along the way. Yes, in the end -- exhausted and suffering from Barbara withdrawals -- he will have to think up Batman. But, that doesn't make him a defeated hero. It just makes him realistic and a little bit humble. I mean, one guy against a whole evil city??? Come on.
Seriously, though, what is a hero? Is a hero somebody who inevitably overcomes his obstacles single-handedly. Who never admits defeat? Who is never actually defeated? -- OR -- Is a real hero somebody who makes mistakes, makes the wrong choices sometimes, goes down some wrong paths, has serious falls (even moral ones), trusts the wrong people occasionally, ends up lost -- maybe even completely lost -- and then has the humility and the moral strength and the fortitude to admit his faults and his failings (at least to himself) and get back up and go on and try to do the right thing. To me, this second kind of person is a real hero. The first kind of hero -- the unfailing, unerring, inevitably undefeated/undefeatable one is not a real hero. It's easy to be that kind of person. The authentic hero -- to my mind, anyway -- is the one who has to face down his wayward humanity and keep on pushing forward, even when it would be easier to give up and run away. It certainly would be easier for Jim Gordon to give up and run away. But, he doesn't. And that, at the end of the day, is what makes him a real hero. He doesn't run away -- either from himself or from the city that needs him.
So -- perhaps -- Jim Gordon is just the kind of hero our young teens need. Because -- in life -- that's what most of us have to go through. Most of us are not Captain America (bless his heart). Most of us are more like Jim Gordon. We screw up. Badly. We have disappointments -- from others and from ourselves. And we need to learn to rise up those screw-ups and disappointments and stay the course. And there are times when we have to call in our own Batman (a.k.a. bestie). And if my kids were still young teenagers watching "Gotham", this is what we would be talking about.
Pax.
Friday, July 11, 2014
A Little Bit Of "Gotham" Fan Fiction
(I know. "Gotham" hasn't even come out yet. So, it's kinda silly to write fan fiction. But, I'm kinda tired and I've missed writing lately and I enjoy being creative and Miss Pinelou keeps posting pictures taken by people in NYC who are happening across the shooting of that much-anticipated show. So, I just felt like writing some fan fiction.)
Protagonist: Annie. Middle-aged widow and mom of two young adult children who have graduated from college and gone on to greener pastures. Long-time resident of Gotham City. Diner waitress.
*******
Two o'clock in the morning, iPhone screen says. Hmmm... If I can afford this iPhone, why am I living in this rather questionable apartment building? Well, it's clean. No cockroaches, anyway. Simple and clean. And Roy -- my late husband's best friend -- he does give me a good deal on the rent. A little bit of a discount, for friendship's sake. Not a huge discount, mind you. But -- ha! -- enough to pay for this iPhone. And he doesn't expect anything in return, if you know what I mean. Not that any guy in his right mind would. In fact, most guys would probably pay me to keep my clothes on. Oh, well. Maybe I'm being too hard on myself. After all, when I take that pretty, but neglected, negligee out of the back of my bottom dresser drawer every once in a while and put it on, what looks back at me from the full-length mirror isn't so bad, I guess. Not for a fifty-year-old, anyway. It's a lovely negligee. And a lovely mirror. My husband -- God rest him -- enjoyed surrounding me with loveliness, even though he really couldn't afford it, not on his sergeant's salary.
Yes. My husband was a cop. And that's what killed him. No. He wasn't killed on the job. He wasn't shot or stabbed or beaten or run over by a "bad guy." So, how was he killed by his work? Heart attack. A heart attack brought on by what he saw happening in this city. There has been an evil growing -- growing for a long time now. Barely discernible at first, it now penetrates and is choking the life out of all that was good about this once beautiful place. And it was such a beautiful place -- for a family, to be a cop, to be a wife and mom. My husband saw the evil from the beginning. He tried to warn people -- the other cops, our pastor, our friends. But, they just laughed at him. Called him paranoid. But, he was perceptive and he was right. And by the time others noticed what he had been seeing for a long while, it was too late. And it broke his heart.
It made me angry, really. I was angry with him for dying, for leaving me and our daughters. Our bright, beautiful daughters. I felt like he loved the city more than he loved us. Why couldn't we have just left, moved away? It would have been hard, but not impossible. He was stubborn, though. He felt a duty to the city. And the city took him from me, from our kids. It made me so angry. I'm okay now, though. Because -- in the end -- I understood. We weren't raised here, in this city. But, it did become our home. We somehow came to belong to it and it to us. After all, I'm still here, aren't I? Here in this rather questionable apartment that I moved into after selling my house. My daughters had already gone away to college when they lost their father, and our neighborhood was becoming less-than-safe. So, I sold the house. It was a good move. It was paid for and I made a decent profit. I think it's a rental now.
Yes, I really could move away. Between the money I made selling the house and my husband's life insurance and pension, I really could move away. But, I stay. Like my beloved stayed. So, how can I be angry with him?
You might think I'm rolling in dough, but I'm not. My house wasn't worth that much -- not in this housing market, in this deteriorating city. I've invested the money, though, along with the life insurance, in relatively "safe" investments. Have you checked the returns on "safe" investments lately? And the pension and social security payments are modest, as my husband was young when he died. So, I work. I'm a diner waitress. It's only part-time, but it's adequate for now, and I like it. And it, too, was a lucky break -- a gift bestowed on me by the manager, who was a buddy of my husband. Cops love diners, and my husband frequented this one for years. So, when he died, Johnny offered me the job. He knew I needed one. And -- frankly -- I think I'm pretty good at it. I enjoy the banter and wielding that coffee-pot. Those who make the coffee rule the world, when you think about it.
Another reason I love my job is it gives me the opportunity to keep my finger on the pulse of this city. A never-ending stream of cops comes into and out of that diner, along with every other kind of character this city holds. And though that pulse has been weakening for some time, as the evil my husband warned about years and years ago continues to grow, seemingly unabated, I heard something the other day that gives me a bit of hope. It seems there's a new kid coming to town. A relatively young man named Jim Gordon has just been hired as a detective. Actually, he's not technically a "new kid." He grew up here, apparently, although we've never met. And I'm hearing he's a good man, a strong man. Some of the cops I know -- the ones not really worthy of the badge -- they're a little nervous about Jim Gordon. Although, they try to hide it with bravado and dark humor about "putting him in his place." But, the good cops I know -- and those are few and far between -- are actually excited about the guy. Apparently, some of them knew him growing up. Or knew of him. There seems to be something about this guy, something a little out-of-the-ordinary, something a little inspiring. We'll see. I've learned by now not to get my hopes up about so-called "good news" in this city.
And I think about my husband, my Tommy. He was good, too. He was strong. He was special. And the evil in this city just chewed him up and spit him out. So, God help this Jim Gordon, if what I'm hearing about him is even halfway true.
Protagonist: Annie. Middle-aged widow and mom of two young adult children who have graduated from college and gone on to greener pastures. Long-time resident of Gotham City. Diner waitress.
*******
Two o'clock in the morning, iPhone screen says. Hmmm... If I can afford this iPhone, why am I living in this rather questionable apartment building? Well, it's clean. No cockroaches, anyway. Simple and clean. And Roy -- my late husband's best friend -- he does give me a good deal on the rent. A little bit of a discount, for friendship's sake. Not a huge discount, mind you. But -- ha! -- enough to pay for this iPhone. And he doesn't expect anything in return, if you know what I mean. Not that any guy in his right mind would. In fact, most guys would probably pay me to keep my clothes on. Oh, well. Maybe I'm being too hard on myself. After all, when I take that pretty, but neglected, negligee out of the back of my bottom dresser drawer every once in a while and put it on, what looks back at me from the full-length mirror isn't so bad, I guess. Not for a fifty-year-old, anyway. It's a lovely negligee. And a lovely mirror. My husband -- God rest him -- enjoyed surrounding me with loveliness, even though he really couldn't afford it, not on his sergeant's salary.
Yes. My husband was a cop. And that's what killed him. No. He wasn't killed on the job. He wasn't shot or stabbed or beaten or run over by a "bad guy." So, how was he killed by his work? Heart attack. A heart attack brought on by what he saw happening in this city. There has been an evil growing -- growing for a long time now. Barely discernible at first, it now penetrates and is choking the life out of all that was good about this once beautiful place. And it was such a beautiful place -- for a family, to be a cop, to be a wife and mom. My husband saw the evil from the beginning. He tried to warn people -- the other cops, our pastor, our friends. But, they just laughed at him. Called him paranoid. But, he was perceptive and he was right. And by the time others noticed what he had been seeing for a long while, it was too late. And it broke his heart.
It made me angry, really. I was angry with him for dying, for leaving me and our daughters. Our bright, beautiful daughters. I felt like he loved the city more than he loved us. Why couldn't we have just left, moved away? It would have been hard, but not impossible. He was stubborn, though. He felt a duty to the city. And the city took him from me, from our kids. It made me so angry. I'm okay now, though. Because -- in the end -- I understood. We weren't raised here, in this city. But, it did become our home. We somehow came to belong to it and it to us. After all, I'm still here, aren't I? Here in this rather questionable apartment that I moved into after selling my house. My daughters had already gone away to college when they lost their father, and our neighborhood was becoming less-than-safe. So, I sold the house. It was a good move. It was paid for and I made a decent profit. I think it's a rental now.
Yes, I really could move away. Between the money I made selling the house and my husband's life insurance and pension, I really could move away. But, I stay. Like my beloved stayed. So, how can I be angry with him?
You might think I'm rolling in dough, but I'm not. My house wasn't worth that much -- not in this housing market, in this deteriorating city. I've invested the money, though, along with the life insurance, in relatively "safe" investments. Have you checked the returns on "safe" investments lately? And the pension and social security payments are modest, as my husband was young when he died. So, I work. I'm a diner waitress. It's only part-time, but it's adequate for now, and I like it. And it, too, was a lucky break -- a gift bestowed on me by the manager, who was a buddy of my husband. Cops love diners, and my husband frequented this one for years. So, when he died, Johnny offered me the job. He knew I needed one. And -- frankly -- I think I'm pretty good at it. I enjoy the banter and wielding that coffee-pot. Those who make the coffee rule the world, when you think about it.
Another reason I love my job is it gives me the opportunity to keep my finger on the pulse of this city. A never-ending stream of cops comes into and out of that diner, along with every other kind of character this city holds. And though that pulse has been weakening for some time, as the evil my husband warned about years and years ago continues to grow, seemingly unabated, I heard something the other day that gives me a bit of hope. It seems there's a new kid coming to town. A relatively young man named Jim Gordon has just been hired as a detective. Actually, he's not technically a "new kid." He grew up here, apparently, although we've never met. And I'm hearing he's a good man, a strong man. Some of the cops I know -- the ones not really worthy of the badge -- they're a little nervous about Jim Gordon. Although, they try to hide it with bravado and dark humor about "putting him in his place." But, the good cops I know -- and those are few and far between -- are actually excited about the guy. Apparently, some of them knew him growing up. Or knew of him. There seems to be something about this guy, something a little out-of-the-ordinary, something a little inspiring. We'll see. I've learned by now not to get my hopes up about so-called "good news" in this city.
And I think about my husband, my Tommy. He was good, too. He was strong. He was special. And the evil in this city just chewed him up and spit him out. So, God help this Jim Gordon, if what I'm hearing about him is even halfway true.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
"...a simple, flawed human being. He's strong...
...and smart and tough, but he's going to make the wrong decisions and trust the wrong people. And he has no out -- he can't put on a cape and fly off."
This is how Ben McKenzie describes his character -- Detective Jim Gordon -- of the upcoming TV show "Gotham" in an interview for "Entertainment Weekly".
Years ago, when I was a young woman, this statement wouldn't have struck me as anything particularly insightful or terribly brilliant. But now that I am older -- a 51-year-old mom with three young adult kids -- it strikes me as both insightful and brilliant. And it is also strangely comforting to my menopausal heart.
Why?
Because, when I was a young woman, I liked to think of myself as strong and smart and tough. Lots of people told me I was those things. I was a little bit proud of it, I guess, when I think about it now. And maybe I was those things, to some degree, anyway. And when I started having kids, at the ripe old age of 25, I wanted to be all of those things for them. I wanted to be the best mom. And I had this idea that because I was strong and smart and tough that I somehow wouldn't blow it, at all. I remember sitting in my hospital bed, with my first little baby in my arms, and not wanting any harm to ever touch her. I was afraid. I was afraid of all the crap in the world. And I resolved -- as I sat there looking at her little face and feeling the weight of her against me -- that I would use all of my strength and smarts and toughness to somehow get her to adulthood unscathed.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
As a mom, I have made many wrong decisions and trusted many of the wrong people. And I have really beaten myself up for these mistakes, especially when I see how they have hurt my kids. I have been tempted to cynicism. I have been tempted to trust no more. There have been times when I have been plagued by self-doubt when there is an important decision I have to make.
And when I read the statement that Ben McKenzie made, regarding Jim Gordon, that he is a "simple, flawed human being," while at the same time being "strong and smart and tough," I realized what I have been missing. I have failed to authentically accept my human weakness -- especially in regards to my role as a mother. Maybe I am -- and maybe I am not -- strong and smart and tough. I don't know, really. But, even if I am, my human frailty is going to enter into the equation. And I will inevitably make decisions that are wrong and trust people I shouldn't.
So, as I sat in that hospital bed with that new baby all those years ago, I grasped onto a completely erroneous notion -- a notion that I have never fully relinquished. Maybe it's finally time to get real. Maybe it's time to finally make peace with myself about this, because I want to live my life with confidence and joy, even with the knowledge that I am going to screw certain things up. I'm going to make the wrong calls, and not have the option of putting on a cape and flying off. And maybe this is really okay.
So, I would like to thank you, Ben, for the advice that you probably didn't even know you were giving.
Can't wait for "Gotham"!!!
P.S. -- The "EW" interview also states that the first scene Ben shot for "Gotham" involves him driving a 1970's-era Chrysler. This is a very cool thing for me, as my family owned a 1970's-era Chrysler. It had this BIG OLE' HONKIN' engine, and was ABSOLUTELY AWESOME for peeling out from stop signs in my hometown. A teenage girl's dream car, if you will. I wonder if Detective Gordon gets to peel out from stop signs in his Chrysler. It would be a shame if he doesn't. ;-)
This is how Ben McKenzie describes his character -- Detective Jim Gordon -- of the upcoming TV show "Gotham" in an interview for "Entertainment Weekly".
Years ago, when I was a young woman, this statement wouldn't have struck me as anything particularly insightful or terribly brilliant. But now that I am older -- a 51-year-old mom with three young adult kids -- it strikes me as both insightful and brilliant. And it is also strangely comforting to my menopausal heart.
Why?
Because, when I was a young woman, I liked to think of myself as strong and smart and tough. Lots of people told me I was those things. I was a little bit proud of it, I guess, when I think about it now. And maybe I was those things, to some degree, anyway. And when I started having kids, at the ripe old age of 25, I wanted to be all of those things for them. I wanted to be the best mom. And I had this idea that because I was strong and smart and tough that I somehow wouldn't blow it, at all. I remember sitting in my hospital bed, with my first little baby in my arms, and not wanting any harm to ever touch her. I was afraid. I was afraid of all the crap in the world. And I resolved -- as I sat there looking at her little face and feeling the weight of her against me -- that I would use all of my strength and smarts and toughness to somehow get her to adulthood unscathed.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
As a mom, I have made many wrong decisions and trusted many of the wrong people. And I have really beaten myself up for these mistakes, especially when I see how they have hurt my kids. I have been tempted to cynicism. I have been tempted to trust no more. There have been times when I have been plagued by self-doubt when there is an important decision I have to make.
And when I read the statement that Ben McKenzie made, regarding Jim Gordon, that he is a "simple, flawed human being," while at the same time being "strong and smart and tough," I realized what I have been missing. I have failed to authentically accept my human weakness -- especially in regards to my role as a mother. Maybe I am -- and maybe I am not -- strong and smart and tough. I don't know, really. But, even if I am, my human frailty is going to enter into the equation. And I will inevitably make decisions that are wrong and trust people I shouldn't.
So, as I sat in that hospital bed with that new baby all those years ago, I grasped onto a completely erroneous notion -- a notion that I have never fully relinquished. Maybe it's finally time to get real. Maybe it's time to finally make peace with myself about this, because I want to live my life with confidence and joy, even with the knowledge that I am going to screw certain things up. I'm going to make the wrong calls, and not have the option of putting on a cape and flying off. And maybe this is really okay.
So, I would like to thank you, Ben, for the advice that you probably didn't even know you were giving.
Can't wait for "Gotham"!!!
P.S. -- The "EW" interview also states that the first scene Ben shot for "Gotham" involves him driving a 1970's-era Chrysler. This is a very cool thing for me, as my family owned a 1970's-era Chrysler. It had this BIG OLE' HONKIN' engine, and was ABSOLUTELY AWESOME for peeling out from stop signs in my hometown. A teenage girl's dream car, if you will. I wonder if Detective Gordon gets to peel out from stop signs in his Chrysler. It would be a shame if he doesn't. ;-)
Thursday, March 27, 2014
I think I have not changed a bit...
...since high school.
I was thinking about this because of the "Gotham" casting calls.
To back up a little, if you have been reading this blog for a while, you may remember the post wherein I described dragging my best friend through the process of trying out for the high school pom-pom girl squad, even though we had pretty much none of the qualifications for the job. And, yes, she thought I was pretty crazy, but -- because she was such a nice best friend -- she went along with it. And, no, we did not make the squad. Such is life.
Anyway, back to the "Gotham" casting calls.
I have made a wonderful internet friend who runs "Ben McKenzie News." If you do not know who Ben McKenzie is, then you have obviously not read my blog AT ALL. Ben is a big star. He is also a really nice guy. I have this on good authority. And he is headlining the upcoming TV show "Gotham." "Gotham" is a Batman prequel series, and Ben is playing the main character -- Detective Gordon -- who will be the future Commissioner Gordon.
Anyway, the lovely lady who runs "Ben McKenzie News" has, naturally, been giving us daily updates on the filming of the pilot, which is happening, as we speak, in New York City. It is all quite exciting. Miss Pinelou, as I shall call her, posts BTS photos and videos, anecdotes, fan pictures, and -- of course -- casting calls. And when she posts the casting calls, I always imagine which role or roles I would be good for, and I tell her. And I ask her which role or roles she would want to play.
Now, for many of these roles, there are not a whole lot of requirements. You might have to possess certain clothes or a certain type of vehicle or have a certain "look." Some of the roles don't even require you to be a union member. There have been casting calls for: prostitutes, cab drivers, diner waitresses, women to drive American cars and trucks back and forth on the street, drummers, funeral-goers, Asian pedestrians, and burlesque dancers.
This is all very tempting to me. And I realize that -- were I in NYC -- I would totally be showing up for at least some of these casting calls. And I would be dragging my lovely friend, Miss Pinelou, along with me. She would probably be hesitant -- at least at first -- but I would prevail. Just like I did with my best friend in high school. Miss Pinelou is from Japan, and one of the casting calls was for Asian people to play pedestrians. She would be a shoe-in for that one. I would want to play a prostitute, because it would be fun to wear a tight little outfit after all the dieting efforts I have been putting forth over the past couple of months. It might also be fun to be a diner waitress. I think I am earthy-looking enough to be a diner waitress, and it would be a total hoot to call Detective Gordon "hun." As in, "What'll ya have, hun?" I'd say this as I stood there jauntily, with a coffee pot in one hand and my other hand on my hip. Miss Pinelou and I would also be quite adept at driving the American cars up and down the street, or standing solemnly at the funeral of Mr. and Mrs. Wayne. Of course, the casting call said that you had to have upscale funeral clothes for the funeral scene, and I don't really have anything like that. But, I'll bet Miss Pinelou does. And my daughter Bridget does, so she could come along, too.
WE WOULD ALL HAVE SO MUCH FUN!!!
So, you see, I have not changed -- not one bit -- since high school. And, I admit, this distresses me a little bit. But, it also makes me more than a little bit happy inside. ;-)
I was thinking about this because of the "Gotham" casting calls.
To back up a little, if you have been reading this blog for a while, you may remember the post wherein I described dragging my best friend through the process of trying out for the high school pom-pom girl squad, even though we had pretty much none of the qualifications for the job. And, yes, she thought I was pretty crazy, but -- because she was such a nice best friend -- she went along with it. And, no, we did not make the squad. Such is life.
Anyway, back to the "Gotham" casting calls.
I have made a wonderful internet friend who runs "Ben McKenzie News." If you do not know who Ben McKenzie is, then you have obviously not read my blog AT ALL. Ben is a big star. He is also a really nice guy. I have this on good authority. And he is headlining the upcoming TV show "Gotham." "Gotham" is a Batman prequel series, and Ben is playing the main character -- Detective Gordon -- who will be the future Commissioner Gordon.
Anyway, the lovely lady who runs "Ben McKenzie News" has, naturally, been giving us daily updates on the filming of the pilot, which is happening, as we speak, in New York City. It is all quite exciting. Miss Pinelou, as I shall call her, posts BTS photos and videos, anecdotes, fan pictures, and -- of course -- casting calls. And when she posts the casting calls, I always imagine which role or roles I would be good for, and I tell her. And I ask her which role or roles she would want to play.
Now, for many of these roles, there are not a whole lot of requirements. You might have to possess certain clothes or a certain type of vehicle or have a certain "look." Some of the roles don't even require you to be a union member. There have been casting calls for: prostitutes, cab drivers, diner waitresses, women to drive American cars and trucks back and forth on the street, drummers, funeral-goers, Asian pedestrians, and burlesque dancers.
This is all very tempting to me. And I realize that -- were I in NYC -- I would totally be showing up for at least some of these casting calls. And I would be dragging my lovely friend, Miss Pinelou, along with me. She would probably be hesitant -- at least at first -- but I would prevail. Just like I did with my best friend in high school. Miss Pinelou is from Japan, and one of the casting calls was for Asian people to play pedestrians. She would be a shoe-in for that one. I would want to play a prostitute, because it would be fun to wear a tight little outfit after all the dieting efforts I have been putting forth over the past couple of months. It might also be fun to be a diner waitress. I think I am earthy-looking enough to be a diner waitress, and it would be a total hoot to call Detective Gordon "hun." As in, "What'll ya have, hun?" I'd say this as I stood there jauntily, with a coffee pot in one hand and my other hand on my hip. Miss Pinelou and I would also be quite adept at driving the American cars up and down the street, or standing solemnly at the funeral of Mr. and Mrs. Wayne. Of course, the casting call said that you had to have upscale funeral clothes for the funeral scene, and I don't really have anything like that. But, I'll bet Miss Pinelou does. And my daughter Bridget does, so she could come along, too.
WE WOULD ALL HAVE SO MUCH FUN!!!
So, you see, I have not changed -- not one bit -- since high school. And, I admit, this distresses me a little bit. But, it also makes me more than a little bit happy inside. ;-)
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Ben Sherman's Healthiest "Relationship"...
...with a woman was what he had goin' on with Chickie.
And it had nothing to do with sex or "romance."
And it had everything to do with genuine affection, mutual respect, caring, trust, real friendship, camaraderie, and even a tad bit of actual communication.
If you don't know this by now (and you should if you have read my blog for a while), Ben Sherman is one of the main cop characters on the wondrous TV show "SouthLAnd." "SouthLAnd" is my favorite TV show of all time -- the best show since "Dragnet," "Adam 12," and "Emergency" ruled the airwaves of my childhood. Unfortunately, it was canceled this past spring, after five glorious seasons. But, it will live forever in my iPad, in my computer, and on my DVD player. Ben Sherman is played by Ben McKenzie, and nobody could have played the guy better. Ben Sherman starts out as a young, idealistic, naive cop, who, because of a combination of character flaws and painful circumstances, slides steadily down into one of the Seven Circles Of Hell over the course of the show. His character arc is brilliant, full of a great number of moral lessons, without being told in an overly moralistic manner. In fact, the whole thing is often quite entertaining to behold. As we accompany Officer Ben on his journey, he has many "lady friends" -- kind of like Bond girls. And he often has more than one "lady friend" at a time. In fact, part of Officer Ben's undoing occurs when one of these "lady friends" turns out to be a little bit mentally unstable. This darling, yet problematic, young woman becomes rather unglued when she finds out she isn't the only one Officer Ben is "seeing" (to state it in a polite manner). Although, other of his "lady friends" seem happy to share him (literally). Anyway, Officer Ben never develops what one would consider to be a "healthy" relationship with one of his "lady friends." He never becomes a faithful boyfriend to a good woman. He basically bounces from bed to bed, sometimes landing in more than one during a 24-hour period. His relationships with women never really encompass true love or any kind of commitment or even genuine friendship (as in the kind of friendship where you care about the WHOLE person -- spiritually, mentally, and physically). There is, though, a gal he likes a lot during Season One. Her name is Daisy. But, she dumps him unceremoniously for an ex-boyfriend. Personally, I think this heartbreak is, at least in part, responsible for his ethical demise.
There is one woman, though, with whom Officer Ben actually develops an admirable relationship. This woman is Chickie. She is a fellow cop, and she is a bit older than Officer Ben. She is quite beautiful, extremely in-shape, and totally kick-ass. She is also very feminine, and has vulnerabilities and heartaches which affect both her work and personal life. She is a single mother, and does not seem to date, putting her son above her own desires. So, because of her age and life situation, she is in no way available to Officer Ben as a "romantic" partner. Thence, she is available to him as an actual friend and comrade. Officer Ben and Chickie meet, I believe, on his first day on the job. She observes him taking his first cop "baby steps." She observes his triumphs and his struggles. And she offers him support, encouragement, and praise (where praise is warranted). She also stays his hand occasionally. For example, when he becomes quite angry with his training officer and another cop, who are "razzing" him, she gets him to back off and encourages him to have a sense of humor about the situation. Because she is a solid person, because of her experience, because of her respectful and good-natured support of Officer Ben, she comes to gain his respect and trust. And he gains hers, to a large degree. Thus, she sometimes will confide in him and share her own insecurities with him. They are honest with each other. They are fond of each other. They treat each other with respect. They are proud when the other does something well. And, when it is called for, they gently correct each other. One of my favorite Ben-Chickie moments is when he is having a "fling" with a lady known in the department as "Red-Head Sally." Sally, apparently, has had her way with virtually all of the cops in the Hollywood Division. Officer Ben, however, is unaware of this little fact when this wild lady initially lures him into her lair. Thus, he is heavily teased by the other cops and regaled with their "Sally stories." Chickie doesn't cut him any slack, either, calling him "Romeo" and affectionately ribbing him about the situation. She also lets him know that Sally once tried to talk her into a "threesome." You should see the look on his face when she asks him if Sally still has the poster of Clint Eastwood on her wall.
So, as I see it, Chickie basically gets the best there is to have of Officer Ben. And he, in her, has his best relationship with a woman over the whole course of the "SouthLAnd" story. No, Chickie never partakes of Officer Ben's legendary abilities in the bedroom, but she gets something better. She is the recipient of his respect and authentic friendship. And Officer Ben, from Chickie, receives the most valuable gifts a woman can bestow on a man -- her affection, her care and concern, and her trust.
And it had nothing to do with sex or "romance."
And it had everything to do with genuine affection, mutual respect, caring, trust, real friendship, camaraderie, and even a tad bit of actual communication.
If you don't know this by now (and you should if you have read my blog for a while), Ben Sherman is one of the main cop characters on the wondrous TV show "SouthLAnd." "SouthLAnd" is my favorite TV show of all time -- the best show since "Dragnet," "Adam 12," and "Emergency" ruled the airwaves of my childhood. Unfortunately, it was canceled this past spring, after five glorious seasons. But, it will live forever in my iPad, in my computer, and on my DVD player. Ben Sherman is played by Ben McKenzie, and nobody could have played the guy better. Ben Sherman starts out as a young, idealistic, naive cop, who, because of a combination of character flaws and painful circumstances, slides steadily down into one of the Seven Circles Of Hell over the course of the show. His character arc is brilliant, full of a great number of moral lessons, without being told in an overly moralistic manner. In fact, the whole thing is often quite entertaining to behold. As we accompany Officer Ben on his journey, he has many "lady friends" -- kind of like Bond girls. And he often has more than one "lady friend" at a time. In fact, part of Officer Ben's undoing occurs when one of these "lady friends" turns out to be a little bit mentally unstable. This darling, yet problematic, young woman becomes rather unglued when she finds out she isn't the only one Officer Ben is "seeing" (to state it in a polite manner). Although, other of his "lady friends" seem happy to share him (literally). Anyway, Officer Ben never develops what one would consider to be a "healthy" relationship with one of his "lady friends." He never becomes a faithful boyfriend to a good woman. He basically bounces from bed to bed, sometimes landing in more than one during a 24-hour period. His relationships with women never really encompass true love or any kind of commitment or even genuine friendship (as in the kind of friendship where you care about the WHOLE person -- spiritually, mentally, and physically). There is, though, a gal he likes a lot during Season One. Her name is Daisy. But, she dumps him unceremoniously for an ex-boyfriend. Personally, I think this heartbreak is, at least in part, responsible for his ethical demise.
There is one woman, though, with whom Officer Ben actually develops an admirable relationship. This woman is Chickie. She is a fellow cop, and she is a bit older than Officer Ben. She is quite beautiful, extremely in-shape, and totally kick-ass. She is also very feminine, and has vulnerabilities and heartaches which affect both her work and personal life. She is a single mother, and does not seem to date, putting her son above her own desires. So, because of her age and life situation, she is in no way available to Officer Ben as a "romantic" partner. Thence, she is available to him as an actual friend and comrade. Officer Ben and Chickie meet, I believe, on his first day on the job. She observes him taking his first cop "baby steps." She observes his triumphs and his struggles. And she offers him support, encouragement, and praise (where praise is warranted). She also stays his hand occasionally. For example, when he becomes quite angry with his training officer and another cop, who are "razzing" him, she gets him to back off and encourages him to have a sense of humor about the situation. Because she is a solid person, because of her experience, because of her respectful and good-natured support of Officer Ben, she comes to gain his respect and trust. And he gains hers, to a large degree. Thus, she sometimes will confide in him and share her own insecurities with him. They are honest with each other. They are fond of each other. They treat each other with respect. They are proud when the other does something well. And, when it is called for, they gently correct each other. One of my favorite Ben-Chickie moments is when he is having a "fling" with a lady known in the department as "Red-Head Sally." Sally, apparently, has had her way with virtually all of the cops in the Hollywood Division. Officer Ben, however, is unaware of this little fact when this wild lady initially lures him into her lair. Thus, he is heavily teased by the other cops and regaled with their "Sally stories." Chickie doesn't cut him any slack, either, calling him "Romeo" and affectionately ribbing him about the situation. She also lets him know that Sally once tried to talk her into a "threesome." You should see the look on his face when she asks him if Sally still has the poster of Clint Eastwood on her wall.
So, as I see it, Chickie basically gets the best there is to have of Officer Ben. And he, in her, has his best relationship with a woman over the whole course of the "SouthLAnd" story. No, Chickie never partakes of Officer Ben's legendary abilities in the bedroom, but she gets something better. She is the recipient of his respect and authentic friendship. And Officer Ben, from Chickie, receives the most valuable gifts a woman can bestow on a man -- her affection, her care and concern, and her trust.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
An "O.C." Reunion That Might Be Acceptable All-Around
I'm just taking a wild guess about this. But, here goes.
Recently, the TV show "The O.C." (which ran from 2003-2007) celebrated its 10-year anniversary. Of course, I only heard about the thing a little over a year ago, so I don't have that long of a history with it. Some people, though, have loved and adored it from its premiere episode all those years ago right up on to the present day. And many, if not most, of these long-time fans would love to see a reunion. But, there are apparently some problems with this reunion concept, not the least of which is the reluctance of a couple of the main stars of the series to do such a thing. I don't really blame them for this. Life goes on; other appealing and challenging projects present themselves. A reunion may seem a bit like going backwards to something that -- even though it was a wonderful cultural phenomenon -- might be best left to iTunes and DVDs.
On the other hand, I feel a bit bad for these scores of faithful fans. So, I have been wondering about an "O.C." reunion format that might be amenable to those who may be a bit hesitant to participate.
I get the impression that when most people think about a reunion, they think about a continuation of the story. They imagine the original actors reprising their roles, bringing the tale of the Ryan Atwood and Company up-to-date. To my mind, there are difficulties with this concept. The series ended on a very satisfying note, bringing the hope of happiness for each of the beloved characters. Each fan has his/her own idea about the details of what the future will hold for Ryan, Seth, Summer, and everybody else. Of course, we are given some clues, such as a glimpse of Seth and Summer's nuptials. A lot, though, is left to the imagination. And this, to me, is a good thing. If the story were to be continued -- a la Josh Schwartz -- there is a lot of risk. Because of the necessity for tension in stories -- not everything will be happy -- many fans may find themselves being let down. And even if everything ends happily once more, it may not end happily in the manner each die-hard fan has been imagining for the last several years. The show left all of us with many warm, fuzzy feelings and good memories. Introducing controversy into that equation is at least a little bit dangerous.
There is an alternative, though, to this. Instead of continuing the story and requiring Ben McKenzie to once again don his white wife beater, maybe there could be a rather informal gathering of the cast members to reminisce. Each actor could choose favorite scenes to be shown, describing his or her memories and feelings. Anecdotes could be told. There could be a general atmosphere of levity. This would require a minimal financial investment and would not require a great deal (if any) preparation by the actors. Mischa Barton could even participate, even though her character died tragically at the end of Season 3. And I know many people would enjoy that -- seeing "Ryan and Marissa" together again on TV, even though they'd be appearing as their real selves. Perhaps audience members could submit questions -- either in advance or in real time -- via Twitter or some other internet mode. It could be a lot of fun for the fans. It could even be fun for the cast members and Josh Schwartz. No pressure on anybody. Just a celebration of what is -- at least to many people -- one of the biggest television joys of our time.
Recently, the TV show "The O.C." (which ran from 2003-2007) celebrated its 10-year anniversary. Of course, I only heard about the thing a little over a year ago, so I don't have that long of a history with it. Some people, though, have loved and adored it from its premiere episode all those years ago right up on to the present day. And many, if not most, of these long-time fans would love to see a reunion. But, there are apparently some problems with this reunion concept, not the least of which is the reluctance of a couple of the main stars of the series to do such a thing. I don't really blame them for this. Life goes on; other appealing and challenging projects present themselves. A reunion may seem a bit like going backwards to something that -- even though it was a wonderful cultural phenomenon -- might be best left to iTunes and DVDs.
On the other hand, I feel a bit bad for these scores of faithful fans. So, I have been wondering about an "O.C." reunion format that might be amenable to those who may be a bit hesitant to participate.
I get the impression that when most people think about a reunion, they think about a continuation of the story. They imagine the original actors reprising their roles, bringing the tale of the Ryan Atwood and Company up-to-date. To my mind, there are difficulties with this concept. The series ended on a very satisfying note, bringing the hope of happiness for each of the beloved characters. Each fan has his/her own idea about the details of what the future will hold for Ryan, Seth, Summer, and everybody else. Of course, we are given some clues, such as a glimpse of Seth and Summer's nuptials. A lot, though, is left to the imagination. And this, to me, is a good thing. If the story were to be continued -- a la Josh Schwartz -- there is a lot of risk. Because of the necessity for tension in stories -- not everything will be happy -- many fans may find themselves being let down. And even if everything ends happily once more, it may not end happily in the manner each die-hard fan has been imagining for the last several years. The show left all of us with many warm, fuzzy feelings and good memories. Introducing controversy into that equation is at least a little bit dangerous.
There is an alternative, though, to this. Instead of continuing the story and requiring Ben McKenzie to once again don his white wife beater, maybe there could be a rather informal gathering of the cast members to reminisce. Each actor could choose favorite scenes to be shown, describing his or her memories and feelings. Anecdotes could be told. There could be a general atmosphere of levity. This would require a minimal financial investment and would not require a great deal (if any) preparation by the actors. Mischa Barton could even participate, even though her character died tragically at the end of Season 3. And I know many people would enjoy that -- seeing "Ryan and Marissa" together again on TV, even though they'd be appearing as their real selves. Perhaps audience members could submit questions -- either in advance or in real time -- via Twitter or some other internet mode. It could be a lot of fun for the fans. It could even be fun for the cast members and Josh Schwartz. No pressure on anybody. Just a celebration of what is -- at least to many people -- one of the biggest television joys of our time.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Watching TV With Your Teens And Young Adult Kids -- A Few More Thoughts
Yesterday, I used "The O.C." as an example of how I watch TV with my kids, who are now 24 (almost 25), 23, and 21 years old. The older two are girls. The youngest is a boy.
I tend to get along pretty well with my kids. Sometimes, they think I am too strict. Sometimes, I think they are too strict. Don't go thinking that they don't get on me about stuff. Like, for instance, my cage dancing fantasy.
But, anyway.
When I spoke about watching "The O.C." with my children, I related how I used the characters and happenings in the show as "teachable moments." We would discuss issues the show presented and how the characters handled various situations they encountered. I hoped that these discussions would help my kids to become a little wiser about the ways of the world.
As I thought more about my blog post, I realized I kind of made it sound like I'm always and everywhere trying to teach my kids valuable lessons when we watch TV and movies. Frankly, if that were the case, I don't think my kids would want to watch ANYTHING with me, at all. I would just be a ball and chain around their entertainment-loving young selves.
So, I guess, most of the time, I just sit with my kids and we enjoy television shows and movies together. No comments, no judging, no discussion. Just fun and genuine, spur-of-the-moment reactions to the stories being told. Maybe some snacks thrown in. I mean, after all, my kids are older now. If they don't know the values I wanted them to grow up with by this time, I have pretty much failed. Although, I also took this more silent approach -- at least most of the time -- when they were teenagers. And I think it has value.
Why do I think it has value?
People are a generally rebellious lot. We don't like to get told what to do so very much. We like to make up our own minds. And, frankly, most kids know what their parents' opinions are by the time they are teenagers. That's why, when you see them rebelling, they are doing the opposite of what their parents would suggest. They have obviously figured out their parents way of thinking. And they are testing that way of thinking.
As you may know by now (ha-ha), I am a rather rebellious person. But -- and this may surprise you -- I never engaged in any so-called "high-risk" behaviors as a teen or young adult. Why? Certainly not because of my own common sense. I attribute this to my parents -- especially my dad -- who knew how to tread gently. He knew not to back me into a corner. This doesn't mean we didn't have some pretty "spirited discussions" -- a.k.a. "fights." But, in the end, my dad would look at me calmly and say, "Well, it's your life. Do what you want." Then, most of the time, whatever common sense I did possess would kick in and I would realize that I didn't want to do whatever that lame-ass thing was that I had been so vehemently demanding to do a few minutes before. Why didn't I want to do it? Because there was no more contest of wills going on. I didn't have to do that lame-ass thing in order to prove to my father that I couldn't be forced into things, by him or anyone else.
And that brings me back to the idea of just watching TV shows and movies with my kids with no commentary, simply with the goal of enjoying (or, perhaps, being shocked or terrified by) a story. Especially if it is a television program or movie of their choosing. I'm not going to turn this form of entertainment into an opportunity for rebellion. I am, rather, going to use it as an opportunity for bonding. After all, having a good time together watching Sammy and Ben run around is one ingredient that can lead to a very positive mother-daughter relationship. At least, in my experience. SouthLAnd. Forever. ;-)
Disclaimer: I am assuming, of course, that your kids aren't bringing home "films" from the Adult Store. That is a whole different issue.
I tend to get along pretty well with my kids. Sometimes, they think I am too strict. Sometimes, I think they are too strict. Don't go thinking that they don't get on me about stuff. Like, for instance, my cage dancing fantasy.
But, anyway.
When I spoke about watching "The O.C." with my children, I related how I used the characters and happenings in the show as "teachable moments." We would discuss issues the show presented and how the characters handled various situations they encountered. I hoped that these discussions would help my kids to become a little wiser about the ways of the world.
As I thought more about my blog post, I realized I kind of made it sound like I'm always and everywhere trying to teach my kids valuable lessons when we watch TV and movies. Frankly, if that were the case, I don't think my kids would want to watch ANYTHING with me, at all. I would just be a ball and chain around their entertainment-loving young selves.
So, I guess, most of the time, I just sit with my kids and we enjoy television shows and movies together. No comments, no judging, no discussion. Just fun and genuine, spur-of-the-moment reactions to the stories being told. Maybe some snacks thrown in. I mean, after all, my kids are older now. If they don't know the values I wanted them to grow up with by this time, I have pretty much failed. Although, I also took this more silent approach -- at least most of the time -- when they were teenagers. And I think it has value.
Why do I think it has value?
People are a generally rebellious lot. We don't like to get told what to do so very much. We like to make up our own minds. And, frankly, most kids know what their parents' opinions are by the time they are teenagers. That's why, when you see them rebelling, they are doing the opposite of what their parents would suggest. They have obviously figured out their parents way of thinking. And they are testing that way of thinking.
As you may know by now (ha-ha), I am a rather rebellious person. But -- and this may surprise you -- I never engaged in any so-called "high-risk" behaviors as a teen or young adult. Why? Certainly not because of my own common sense. I attribute this to my parents -- especially my dad -- who knew how to tread gently. He knew not to back me into a corner. This doesn't mean we didn't have some pretty "spirited discussions" -- a.k.a. "fights." But, in the end, my dad would look at me calmly and say, "Well, it's your life. Do what you want." Then, most of the time, whatever common sense I did possess would kick in and I would realize that I didn't want to do whatever that lame-ass thing was that I had been so vehemently demanding to do a few minutes before. Why didn't I want to do it? Because there was no more contest of wills going on. I didn't have to do that lame-ass thing in order to prove to my father that I couldn't be forced into things, by him or anyone else.
And that brings me back to the idea of just watching TV shows and movies with my kids with no commentary, simply with the goal of enjoying (or, perhaps, being shocked or terrified by) a story. Especially if it is a television program or movie of their choosing. I'm not going to turn this form of entertainment into an opportunity for rebellion. I am, rather, going to use it as an opportunity for bonding. After all, having a good time together watching Sammy and Ben run around is one ingredient that can lead to a very positive mother-daughter relationship. At least, in my experience. SouthLAnd. Forever. ;-)
Disclaimer: I am assuming, of course, that your kids aren't bringing home "films" from the Adult Store. That is a whole different issue.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The O.C. -- A Case Study In Watching TV With Young People
This post is related to my last post, which was a rather long, boring, and preachy post. Maybe this one will be more fun, while also serving as an example of what I was talking about in my last rather long, boring, and preachy post. Maybe it will serve as a bit of a clarification, if you will.
Some of you reading this may have never heard of the TV show entitled "The O.C." It was enormously popular from 2003-2007. In spite of its enormous popularity, the first time I heard about it was last spring when I was engrossed in watching another TV show -- "SouthLAnd" -- which I also didn't hear about until late in the game, as in the middle of Season 4. "SouthLAnd" has an amazingly talented ensemble cast. I had seen most of the principal actors from "SouthLAnd" in other TV shows and movies, with the exception of one, whose name is Ben McKenzie. So, being that I had never heard of him, I decided to look up his IMdB to see if he had done any other work. Lo and behold, he had done a lot of other work, including a TV show called "The O.C." I googled "The O.C." and discovered that it had been quite a hit. It was billed as a teen soap opera, which normally I don't watch, but because Mr. McKenzie had impressed me so much with his work on "SouthLAnd," I decided to give it a try. So, I ordered the DVD's and proceeded to watch it, along with my two daughters, who are in their early 20's. They, too, had never before heard of or seen "The O.C." They had, though, been wrangled (by me) into watching "SouthLAnd."
"The O.C." is the tale of a young man from the "wrong side of the tracks" named Ryan Atwood (Ben McKenzie), who -- through the actions of Providence and some extremely creative storytellers -- ends up being adopted into a wealthy family in Orange County, California. Admittedly, "The O.C." has many soap-opera elements to it. What drew me into the story, though, is its touching portrayal of such things as family life, friendship, forgiveness, and hope. The writing is also clever and sprinkled with ample bits of humor. And Mr. McKenzie does an absolutely superb job of making his character relatable. Ryan -- from the very first scene of the very first episode -- is someone for whom you deeply care, someone for whom you want only the best. He is also damn hot. He wears white wife beaters, which show off the fact that Mr. McKenzie probably works out constantly. He sports uber-cool leather accessories, and his expressive face and off-putting manner caused my younger daughter to wonder "if Ben got away with lots of things while he was growing up." So, of course, since Ryan Atwood is the way Ryan Atwood is, there are going to be sexual situations.
As a parent, I had a couple of alternatives. I could decide that we were not going to watch this show in my house, with all its "objectionable" content. Or, I could decide to take advantage of all the teachable moments it presented. If I chose the first alternative, we would have missed out on what turned out to be an absolutely delightful story. I would have also annoyed my daughters. And I wanted to watch the show myself, so there's that. Therefore, I chose the second option. I didn't turn out lecture after lecture on sexual morality for my kids, based on "The O.C." But, I did use situations presented in the show and the questions my kids had as an opportunities for the tossing about of ideas.
Here is an example:
Bridget and I were at a Mexican restaurant one night, having a little mom-daughter dinner, because the rest of the family was otherwise engaged. She said to me, "What would you say if I brought Ryan Atwood home?"
I laughed and replied, "I would high-five you and shout, 'Score!!!'" I then said, "I have never, in all my life, known a guy like Ryan Atwood. And I have known a fair number of guys. But, if you did happen to find him, there are a lot of good things about Ryan. He's a good person. He's good to people. He's kind. He works hard. And, yeah, who doesn't want a hot boyfriend?" But, I also told her, "I wouldn't go locking yourself in any pool house with him, though. The chances of ending up pregnant would be pretty high. And even if you didn't end up getting pregnant, if you slept with him and then broke up, it would break your heart even more than it would if you hadn't slept with him. That's been my experience in life, anyway." To throw some good humor into the whole thing, I ended with, "If you did hang out in the pool house with him, I'd make you keep all the blinds open. And I'd walk back and forth every five minutes and wave at you guys."
What were my goals in this conversation? I wanted Bridget to know that I perfectly understand the appeal of Ryan Atwood. He's great. But, I wanted to sort the fantasy from the reality. I also wanted her to know that I am -- always -- on her side. I wanted to speak to her in a way that let her know that she can come to me with anything, any time. And I wanted her to know that I have a sense of humor and a sense of fun about things youthfully romantic. After all, it's just a plain old good time talking with and laughing with a daughter about "The O.C."
Some of you reading this may have never heard of the TV show entitled "The O.C." It was enormously popular from 2003-2007. In spite of its enormous popularity, the first time I heard about it was last spring when I was engrossed in watching another TV show -- "SouthLAnd" -- which I also didn't hear about until late in the game, as in the middle of Season 4. "SouthLAnd" has an amazingly talented ensemble cast. I had seen most of the principal actors from "SouthLAnd" in other TV shows and movies, with the exception of one, whose name is Ben McKenzie. So, being that I had never heard of him, I decided to look up his IMdB to see if he had done any other work. Lo and behold, he had done a lot of other work, including a TV show called "The O.C." I googled "The O.C." and discovered that it had been quite a hit. It was billed as a teen soap opera, which normally I don't watch, but because Mr. McKenzie had impressed me so much with his work on "SouthLAnd," I decided to give it a try. So, I ordered the DVD's and proceeded to watch it, along with my two daughters, who are in their early 20's. They, too, had never before heard of or seen "The O.C." They had, though, been wrangled (by me) into watching "SouthLAnd."
"The O.C." is the tale of a young man from the "wrong side of the tracks" named Ryan Atwood (Ben McKenzie), who -- through the actions of Providence and some extremely creative storytellers -- ends up being adopted into a wealthy family in Orange County, California. Admittedly, "The O.C." has many soap-opera elements to it. What drew me into the story, though, is its touching portrayal of such things as family life, friendship, forgiveness, and hope. The writing is also clever and sprinkled with ample bits of humor. And Mr. McKenzie does an absolutely superb job of making his character relatable. Ryan -- from the very first scene of the very first episode -- is someone for whom you deeply care, someone for whom you want only the best. He is also damn hot. He wears white wife beaters, which show off the fact that Mr. McKenzie probably works out constantly. He sports uber-cool leather accessories, and his expressive face and off-putting manner caused my younger daughter to wonder "if Ben got away with lots of things while he was growing up." So, of course, since Ryan Atwood is the way Ryan Atwood is, there are going to be sexual situations.
As a parent, I had a couple of alternatives. I could decide that we were not going to watch this show in my house, with all its "objectionable" content. Or, I could decide to take advantage of all the teachable moments it presented. If I chose the first alternative, we would have missed out on what turned out to be an absolutely delightful story. I would have also annoyed my daughters. And I wanted to watch the show myself, so there's that. Therefore, I chose the second option. I didn't turn out lecture after lecture on sexual morality for my kids, based on "The O.C." But, I did use situations presented in the show and the questions my kids had as an opportunities for the tossing about of ideas.
Here is an example:
Bridget and I were at a Mexican restaurant one night, having a little mom-daughter dinner, because the rest of the family was otherwise engaged. She said to me, "What would you say if I brought Ryan Atwood home?"
I laughed and replied, "I would high-five you and shout, 'Score!!!'" I then said, "I have never, in all my life, known a guy like Ryan Atwood. And I have known a fair number of guys. But, if you did happen to find him, there are a lot of good things about Ryan. He's a good person. He's good to people. He's kind. He works hard. And, yeah, who doesn't want a hot boyfriend?" But, I also told her, "I wouldn't go locking yourself in any pool house with him, though. The chances of ending up pregnant would be pretty high. And even if you didn't end up getting pregnant, if you slept with him and then broke up, it would break your heart even more than it would if you hadn't slept with him. That's been my experience in life, anyway." To throw some good humor into the whole thing, I ended with, "If you did hang out in the pool house with him, I'd make you keep all the blinds open. And I'd walk back and forth every five minutes and wave at you guys."
What were my goals in this conversation? I wanted Bridget to know that I perfectly understand the appeal of Ryan Atwood. He's great. But, I wanted to sort the fantasy from the reality. I also wanted her to know that I am -- always -- on her side. I wanted to speak to her in a way that let her know that she can come to me with anything, any time. And I wanted her to know that I have a sense of humor and a sense of fun about things youthfully romantic. After all, it's just a plain old good time talking with and laughing with a daughter about "The O.C."
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
How Democrats Could Talk So Republicans Would (Maybe) Listen
I have heard a lot about the forty-whatever percent of people that the Republicans write off, or that the Democrats write off. These are the people who, supposedly, won't be swayed to vote for somebody of the opposite party. So, during campaigns, I have heard that candidates speak either to their own constituents, or to the small percentage of the population looked upon as the "swing vote."
This is all understandable. An election is, after all, a contest. In a contest, one hopes to win. In a contest, one employs strategies that will maximize one's chances of victory. That is the nature of a contest.
But, I think this is too simplistic of a way to look at things. There are, after all, people like me. People who, even though they are viewed as having strong and unwavering political leanings, can actually be counted upon to listen fairly to both sides of an issue. For example, I have never actually met any candidates for political office, except for Richard I-Can't-Remember-His-Last-Name, who was the mayor of Redwood City when I was a young girl. He went to our church, and he made sure to show up quite regularly during his campaign. I probably remember him most because I sorta had a crush on his rather hot son, who was a couple of years older than me, and was a kick-ass guitar player and drummer. Now, Richard I-Can't-Remember-His-Last-Name was a Democrat. And, if I had been old enough to vote, I probably would have voted for him, regardless of my more conservative views. Not because of his son the rock star, but because I really liked him (Richard, that is). He was a very good guy. I realize I have rambled a tad bit here, but my point is this: Even though I have always been pretty conservative and traditional, I have a soft spot for the more liberal way of looking at things, especially when those more liberal ways of looking at things are espoused by good and trustworthy people. I was just telling my son this morning (and I think maybe he was not very happy with me, but "oh, well") that I really love the liberals nowadays. Especially the young ones. They are full of good-hearted, enthusiastic idealism. They are joyful and full of fun. They really do care about freedom and equality and justice. They have hearts for the poor and marginalized. They are willing to make personal sacrifices for others. And they have softened my Republican heart a little bit. They have made me take a second look at certain positions that they hold. They have helped me regard certain things from a different angle or in a new light. They have helped me to achieve a personal spirit of bipartisanship, if it is possible to have a "personal" spirit of bipartisanship.
In listening to these lovely young liberals, though, I do have a little bit of advice.
First. Do not write off us old fart conservatives. Don't write off the young conservatives, either.
Second. Please be sensitive to the "fear-mongering" employed by some of the more extreme conservatives to alienate people to your viewpoints. For instance, sometime during the 2008 election, a rather respected conservative blogger put up a picture of what looked like a concentration camp and wrote a piece implying that Obama was planning to build camps in which to house all of us annoying Christians. Did I believe this? No. My husband even wrote to this man, telling him that a respected blogger such as himself shouldn't be engaging in such "bullshit" (my word). Did my husband get a reply? No. The thing is, though, that a lot of conservative people believe this hogwash, especially when it is put forth by a fellow "Christian." So, if you -- dear liberals -- are a bit sensitive to this, I believe it would be helpful. And this leads me to my next point.
Third. (Admission. The lovely lady who runs "Ben McKenzie News" reported on Mr. McKenzie's activities while he was campaigning for Obama during 2012. She posted a couple of radio interviews, several pictures, and a TV ad. I looked at these things, and this is where some of this advice comes from.) I may be wrong here, but it is my feeling that if you call yourselves "surrogates" for Obama, you will just freak a lot of conservatives out. "Surrogates" does not have a lot of good connotations for conservatives. It brings to mind surrogate motherhood, which a lot of conservatives frown upon. It also sounds very "sci-fi," if you will, conjuring up images akin to "1984." I understand what you are trying to say when you use this term. It means you are standing in for the president and presenting his ideas to people, as he would present them. But, if you could come up with another term, it might be helpful. Also, I think it might be beneficial if, when explaining Mr. Obama's views, you did not use his exact vocabulary all the time. As in, we are "chatting with folks." Mr. Obama uses the words "chatting" and "folks" often. And I know that when you -- on the campaign trail -- also use these words, you are simply reiterating and "driving home" his messages. The thing is, to conservatives who might otherwise listen to you, this might be a little off-putting. It may sound to them a bit like you are not using your own brains, but have instead had your wills co-opted by Mr. Obama. Now, I know you have not had your wills co-opted, and I hope I am not pissing you all off here. It's just that I have been around a lot of conservatives for a long time, and I have some experience with how many of them react to things.
Of course, I realize that Mr. Obama won't be campaigning in 2016, so a lot of these points might seem like too little, too late. But, maybe there are lessons to be learned when planning Mrs. Clinton's campaign. And, frankly, I like Mrs. Clinton. A lot. I did not much care for her back in '92, but I have watched her really come into her own, and I think she has her head screwed on right. So, if an old fart Republican like me might be swayed to even consider voting for Mrs. Clinton, there may actually be some hope in not writing off that forty-whatever percent of us you might consider to be unreachable. And even if it doesn't seem to be worth your time and effort and dollars to try to get our votes, it might be a little investment in the future of our country to craft your message in such a way that enables all of us to see each other more positively and work together more constructively.
And, to be fair, do I think Republicans need to talk differently so that Democrats would (maybe) listen? Yes, I do. But, I didn't feel like writing about that today. I felt like writing about this. I'll probably write about the other side of the coin at some point, as well. ;-)
This is all understandable. An election is, after all, a contest. In a contest, one hopes to win. In a contest, one employs strategies that will maximize one's chances of victory. That is the nature of a contest.
But, I think this is too simplistic of a way to look at things. There are, after all, people like me. People who, even though they are viewed as having strong and unwavering political leanings, can actually be counted upon to listen fairly to both sides of an issue. For example, I have never actually met any candidates for political office, except for Richard I-Can't-Remember-His-Last-Name, who was the mayor of Redwood City when I was a young girl. He went to our church, and he made sure to show up quite regularly during his campaign. I probably remember him most because I sorta had a crush on his rather hot son, who was a couple of years older than me, and was a kick-ass guitar player and drummer. Now, Richard I-Can't-Remember-His-Last-Name was a Democrat. And, if I had been old enough to vote, I probably would have voted for him, regardless of my more conservative views. Not because of his son the rock star, but because I really liked him (Richard, that is). He was a very good guy. I realize I have rambled a tad bit here, but my point is this: Even though I have always been pretty conservative and traditional, I have a soft spot for the more liberal way of looking at things, especially when those more liberal ways of looking at things are espoused by good and trustworthy people. I was just telling my son this morning (and I think maybe he was not very happy with me, but "oh, well") that I really love the liberals nowadays. Especially the young ones. They are full of good-hearted, enthusiastic idealism. They are joyful and full of fun. They really do care about freedom and equality and justice. They have hearts for the poor and marginalized. They are willing to make personal sacrifices for others. And they have softened my Republican heart a little bit. They have made me take a second look at certain positions that they hold. They have helped me regard certain things from a different angle or in a new light. They have helped me to achieve a personal spirit of bipartisanship, if it is possible to have a "personal" spirit of bipartisanship.
In listening to these lovely young liberals, though, I do have a little bit of advice.
First. Do not write off us old fart conservatives. Don't write off the young conservatives, either.
Second. Please be sensitive to the "fear-mongering" employed by some of the more extreme conservatives to alienate people to your viewpoints. For instance, sometime during the 2008 election, a rather respected conservative blogger put up a picture of what looked like a concentration camp and wrote a piece implying that Obama was planning to build camps in which to house all of us annoying Christians. Did I believe this? No. My husband even wrote to this man, telling him that a respected blogger such as himself shouldn't be engaging in such "bullshit" (my word). Did my husband get a reply? No. The thing is, though, that a lot of conservative people believe this hogwash, especially when it is put forth by a fellow "Christian." So, if you -- dear liberals -- are a bit sensitive to this, I believe it would be helpful. And this leads me to my next point.
Third. (Admission. The lovely lady who runs "Ben McKenzie News" reported on Mr. McKenzie's activities while he was campaigning for Obama during 2012. She posted a couple of radio interviews, several pictures, and a TV ad. I looked at these things, and this is where some of this advice comes from.) I may be wrong here, but it is my feeling that if you call yourselves "surrogates" for Obama, you will just freak a lot of conservatives out. "Surrogates" does not have a lot of good connotations for conservatives. It brings to mind surrogate motherhood, which a lot of conservatives frown upon. It also sounds very "sci-fi," if you will, conjuring up images akin to "1984." I understand what you are trying to say when you use this term. It means you are standing in for the president and presenting his ideas to people, as he would present them. But, if you could come up with another term, it might be helpful. Also, I think it might be beneficial if, when explaining Mr. Obama's views, you did not use his exact vocabulary all the time. As in, we are "chatting with folks." Mr. Obama uses the words "chatting" and "folks" often. And I know that when you -- on the campaign trail -- also use these words, you are simply reiterating and "driving home" his messages. The thing is, to conservatives who might otherwise listen to you, this might be a little off-putting. It may sound to them a bit like you are not using your own brains, but have instead had your wills co-opted by Mr. Obama. Now, I know you have not had your wills co-opted, and I hope I am not pissing you all off here. It's just that I have been around a lot of conservatives for a long time, and I have some experience with how many of them react to things.
Of course, I realize that Mr. Obama won't be campaigning in 2016, so a lot of these points might seem like too little, too late. But, maybe there are lessons to be learned when planning Mrs. Clinton's campaign. And, frankly, I like Mrs. Clinton. A lot. I did not much care for her back in '92, but I have watched her really come into her own, and I think she has her head screwed on right. So, if an old fart Republican like me might be swayed to even consider voting for Mrs. Clinton, there may actually be some hope in not writing off that forty-whatever percent of us you might consider to be unreachable. And even if it doesn't seem to be worth your time and effort and dollars to try to get our votes, it might be a little investment in the future of our country to craft your message in such a way that enables all of us to see each other more positively and work together more constructively.
And, to be fair, do I think Republicans need to talk differently so that Democrats would (maybe) listen? Yes, I do. But, I didn't feel like writing about that today. I felt like writing about this. I'll probably write about the other side of the coin at some point, as well. ;-)
Sunday, July 28, 2013
"The O.C." -- The Chrismukkah Shopping Babysitting Job
*A Little Fan Fiction For A Sunday Evening*
It seemed fair enough. Sandy and Kirsten needed to go Chrismukkah shopping. Besides, they hadn't gone out together alone since Sophie was born several months ago. Not that they were complaining. They are totally over the moon with that baby. And living in Berkeley allows Kirsten to be the kind of mom she's always really wanted to be. A Birkenstock-clad, cotton-skirt-wearing, quinoa-eating, nursing machine. Don't get me wrong, though. It looks good on her. Beautiful, in fact. I have never seen her looking so lovely. And simply happy.
But, the Chrismukkah shopping did need to be done. And I was finished with my finals. "So," I thought to myself, "why not offer to babysit?"
So, there I was. Me, a beautiful little blonde baby girl, and a bottle of breast milk. I was trying -- very, very hard -- not to think about where the cream colored liquid in that bottle came from. And the baby girl? Was unhappy. Noisily and loudly unhappy. She was not being fooled by the silicone nipple on that plastic bottle. Not at all. Smart girl.
"Yes," I thought to myself. "You should have spent more weekends at the house. Then your baby sister would know you a little better. You could have practiced holding her, getting familiar with all her favorite positions. Maybe Kirsten would even have let you give her the occasional bottle of breast milk." But, of course, I had gotten wrapped up in my studies. And my new social life. I had neglected my family a bit, along with my little sister. And my sister was now letting me know, in no uncertain terms, that she didn't appreciate my neglect.
So, I put down the bottle and I took a deep breath and I cradled the baby in my arms the way I had seen (on the rare occasions I was home) Sandy do it, with her head nestled in the crook of my left elbow and my right arm supporting her body. I held her close to my chest and took deep, calm breaths. She was still crying, but seemed to be relaxing a bit. I walked over to the window, looking out at the twinkling holiday lights decorating the neighborhood on this cold night, and I rocked little Sophie back and forth. I looked at her little face, and into her blue eyes. And I thought about all the Chrismukkahs before this one. Special times that always did seem to bring miracles, in spite of my usually dubious attitude. "You should never doubt Moses and Jesus," Seth would remind me. Moses and Jesus -- the world's original superheroes. And as I looked into my little sister's eyes, I couldn't help but think of the little brother that I would soon be seeing. My little half-brother. Marissa's little half-brother. He would be visiting for the holiday, along with all the people I have come to call my family. A family I know will never leave me. Miracles added upon miracles.
Sophie was now quiet, but very alert, looking back into my eyes as I gazed into hers. "Are you hungry, little one?" I asked her. It's funny, isn't it, the way you talk to babies like they'll answer you? I guess they do, in their own way. Retrieving the bottle from the place where I had left it, I put it to Sophie's lips and she started to drink, never taking her eyes off my face. It was a feeling that I had never had before -- her warm little body, wrapped in soft flannel, hungrily drinking her mother's milk. And she polished off the whole thing in no time flat. A true Cohen.
I then proceeded to the next step. Burping her. I placed a cloth diaper that had been left on the dining room table for this purpose over my left shoulder and lifted Sophie up to that shoulder, the way I had seen Sandy do it. I could feel her soft hair against my neck and cheek as I gently patted her back. And then, it happened. She burped, all right. She burped with such great force that Kirsten's beautiful white easy chair -- which was about three feet behind me -- was fairly soaked with liquid.
For a moment, I was a bit panic-stricken. But, then I just had to laugh. I held the little girlie gently out in front of me, so I could see her face. I have to say she looked quite self-satisfied. "Happy with yourself, are you?" I chided gently.
Deciding to ignore the mess on the easy chair in favor of not losing any of this rare and special time with my sister, I carried her into her room, and sat down with her in the rocking chair that Kirsten kept in there. An antique wooden rocking chair, carved with beautiful, intricate designs, and covered with soft hand-made cushions. The moonlight was coming in through the window. A window silhouetted by delicate lace curtains. I rocked Sophie on my shoulder until I could tell by her deep, even breaths that she was asleep. And then I rocked her some more. I rocked her until Sandy and Kirsten came home.
And when they did come home, I didn't mention the mess on the easy chair. I simply didn't want to ruin the moment. And I figured they'd find it for themselves, easily enough, the next day. Besides, Seth was coming home the next day. He's always had a talent with upholstery cleaner.
It seemed fair enough. Sandy and Kirsten needed to go Chrismukkah shopping. Besides, they hadn't gone out together alone since Sophie was born several months ago. Not that they were complaining. They are totally over the moon with that baby. And living in Berkeley allows Kirsten to be the kind of mom she's always really wanted to be. A Birkenstock-clad, cotton-skirt-wearing, quinoa-eating, nursing machine. Don't get me wrong, though. It looks good on her. Beautiful, in fact. I have never seen her looking so lovely. And simply happy.
But, the Chrismukkah shopping did need to be done. And I was finished with my finals. "So," I thought to myself, "why not offer to babysit?"
So, there I was. Me, a beautiful little blonde baby girl, and a bottle of breast milk. I was trying -- very, very hard -- not to think about where the cream colored liquid in that bottle came from. And the baby girl? Was unhappy. Noisily and loudly unhappy. She was not being fooled by the silicone nipple on that plastic bottle. Not at all. Smart girl.
"Yes," I thought to myself. "You should have spent more weekends at the house. Then your baby sister would know you a little better. You could have practiced holding her, getting familiar with all her favorite positions. Maybe Kirsten would even have let you give her the occasional bottle of breast milk." But, of course, I had gotten wrapped up in my studies. And my new social life. I had neglected my family a bit, along with my little sister. And my sister was now letting me know, in no uncertain terms, that she didn't appreciate my neglect.
So, I put down the bottle and I took a deep breath and I cradled the baby in my arms the way I had seen (on the rare occasions I was home) Sandy do it, with her head nestled in the crook of my left elbow and my right arm supporting her body. I held her close to my chest and took deep, calm breaths. She was still crying, but seemed to be relaxing a bit. I walked over to the window, looking out at the twinkling holiday lights decorating the neighborhood on this cold night, and I rocked little Sophie back and forth. I looked at her little face, and into her blue eyes. And I thought about all the Chrismukkahs before this one. Special times that always did seem to bring miracles, in spite of my usually dubious attitude. "You should never doubt Moses and Jesus," Seth would remind me. Moses and Jesus -- the world's original superheroes. And as I looked into my little sister's eyes, I couldn't help but think of the little brother that I would soon be seeing. My little half-brother. Marissa's little half-brother. He would be visiting for the holiday, along with all the people I have come to call my family. A family I know will never leave me. Miracles added upon miracles.
Sophie was now quiet, but very alert, looking back into my eyes as I gazed into hers. "Are you hungry, little one?" I asked her. It's funny, isn't it, the way you talk to babies like they'll answer you? I guess they do, in their own way. Retrieving the bottle from the place where I had left it, I put it to Sophie's lips and she started to drink, never taking her eyes off my face. It was a feeling that I had never had before -- her warm little body, wrapped in soft flannel, hungrily drinking her mother's milk. And she polished off the whole thing in no time flat. A true Cohen.
I then proceeded to the next step. Burping her. I placed a cloth diaper that had been left on the dining room table for this purpose over my left shoulder and lifted Sophie up to that shoulder, the way I had seen Sandy do it. I could feel her soft hair against my neck and cheek as I gently patted her back. And then, it happened. She burped, all right. She burped with such great force that Kirsten's beautiful white easy chair -- which was about three feet behind me -- was fairly soaked with liquid.
For a moment, I was a bit panic-stricken. But, then I just had to laugh. I held the little girlie gently out in front of me, so I could see her face. I have to say she looked quite self-satisfied. "Happy with yourself, are you?" I chided gently.
Deciding to ignore the mess on the easy chair in favor of not losing any of this rare and special time with my sister, I carried her into her room, and sat down with her in the rocking chair that Kirsten kept in there. An antique wooden rocking chair, carved with beautiful, intricate designs, and covered with soft hand-made cushions. The moonlight was coming in through the window. A window silhouetted by delicate lace curtains. I rocked Sophie on my shoulder until I could tell by her deep, even breaths that she was asleep. And then I rocked her some more. I rocked her until Sandy and Kirsten came home.
And when they did come home, I didn't mention the mess on the easy chair. I simply didn't want to ruin the moment. And I figured they'd find it for themselves, easily enough, the next day. Besides, Seth was coming home the next day. He's always had a talent with upholstery cleaner.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
The Having Of Teenagers -- Part 2
I know my last post on this topic of having teenagers was a bit rambling, but I just had to figure out a way to tell and comment on that story about the kid and his coffee cake wishes.
This post will probably be a bit briefer and more to the point. Maybe.
First of all, people living with other people is always problematic. Because people are problematic. There are times when I think it would be lovely to have my own studio apartment with a murphy bed and shiny hardwood floors. There would be nothing in it except the bare essentials and my Mac. And I think we all wish this sort of thing from time to time. Do we actually want it to happen? Nah. It's just that people living with people has its stresses, as well as its rewards, no matter how much you love each other.
And so it is if you have teenagers. It's going to get stressful. But, it can also be a lot of fun.
How can we make it fun?
It starts when they're little, as I said before. Have fun together, enjoy life together, but make it clear that you are in charge. If you say something, it goes. It doesn't have to be a fight. You can be friendly about it.
For example, if you are in the park and it's time to go home:
Mom: You have five more minutes to do what you want to do and then it's time to go home.
*Five Minutes Pass (Or ten. When they are three, they really have no idea.)*
Mom: (in a friendly, yet firm, voice) We are leaving now.
Children: (whining) Can't we stay just five more minutes!?!?!? Pleeeeease!?!?!?
Mom: (calmly walking over, picking up the youngest child, fully expecting the others to follow) We are leaving now.
If you do this, each and every time, it will work. I think. You just have to be consistent. And calm. And firm.
And if you start this with your toddlers and your pre-schoolers, things will probably progress rather smoothly as your children head toward adolescence.
Then, one day, your adolescent child (especially if said child is a girl) will roll her eyes at you when you ask her to do something quite reasonable. Do not lose your temper. Just smile mischievously and take her picture with your iPhone. I actually did this (though not with an iPhone, as they weren't invented yet) and my daughter started to laugh. Calmly re-assert what you want your child to do and expect that she will do it. Of course, before you make your request, you have to take your child's personality and state-of-mind and mood into consideration. Don't set yourself up for failure. Set yourself up for success. It is best to make requests of your child when she is not feeling exhausted and overwhelmed with life. Because -- let's face it -- teens these days do have a lot of pressure. One mother told me that her child was told to take the SAT at least three times and to fill out a minimum of ten college applications. No wonder so many of them are on anti-depressants (the moms and the teens). So, start by making small, reasonable requests when your child is in a good mood and not in the middle of a term paper. That way, she will get used to cooperating with you in a pleasant way.
In this vein, do not ever fight with your teenagers. Don't get into shouting matches. Don't threaten. Just don't do it. You will lose. Every time. They have way more energy than you do. They can come up with clever plans to get around you. They have friends who will collude with them against you. Even if they are homeschooled.
How to not fight?
Firstly, listen to your teen without judging. Kids like to tell you things, even when they are teens and young adults, if you don't judge them and what they're saying. So, if your teen is telling you her opinion that short hair on guys is better than long hair on guys -- which is a totally screwed up opinion, in my opinion -- it is best just to listen. Or if your son is telling you that if he doesn't get into college, he has figured out a way to live independently on minimum wage, just hear him out. My husband once said to me something like this, "The kids tell you all kinds of crazy things, and you don't say anything." "Well," I replied, "they will eventually figure out most of these things for themselves."
Does this mean you should never say anything? Of course not. My Bridget and I have had many discussions about the hair of Thor versus the hair of Captain America. But, this is the thing. You have to gauge the state-of-mind of your child when she starts talking. Is it time to have a mutual discussion or to just be a listening ear? If in doubt, go with the listening ear.
Secondly, do not micromanage your teens. Nobody likes to be micromanaged. Keep your expectations simple and basic, such as: have good personal hygiene, pass your classes, speak politely to your parents and siblings, don't date douche-bags, no sex, no illegal drugs, drive in a legal manner. Keep your requests reasonable, too. For example, I have always thought a strict curfew was lame. But, on the other hand, I had to know where my kids were going, with whom, and by when they would be home. The time I expected them to arrive home depended on the activity. And I expected them to call if their plans changed or they were going to be late. And if they gave me a bad time about these reasonable things, I would calmly explain how they were reasonable things and what could happen if they did not do them. These kinds of discussions evolved over time -- starting from when they were in grade school -- so, my expectations were no big shock when they became teenagers. (Confession: Even now, even though they are in their 20's, these rules still apply. They will apply until my kids get places of their own. Because I cannot sleep if I don't know where they are. I start imagining them being kidnapped. Yes, this is idiotic. But, it's the way it is and the price for living at home with a mother who gets slightly anxious even though she tries not to. Did I say "slightly?" My kids would probably laugh at my use of that word. They are patient with me, though. Most of the time, anyway.)
Thirdly, and probably most important, enjoy your teens and let them see that you are a "cool" person. By "cool," I don't mean that you have to take Metal Class on Mondays (like Chris Bruno) -- although that is very cool. You don't have to act like a teen yourself, because -- frankly -- that will just embarrass your teens. But, be the kind of parent whose teenagers will enjoy having their friends over to your house. My kids have lots of parties with their friends at my house -- even though they aren't teens, anymore. And their friends seem to enjoy coming over here. Probably because we let them drink beer (now that they are of age). We even buy their friends beer sometimes. And, sometimes, their friends buy the beer. They even let my husband and I attend the parties and have some beer, too. Let me say, though, that nobody -- EVER -- gets drunk. That would quickly end the parties, and my kids know it.
I guess I have digressed a bit -- in talking about beer parties -- from the topic of teenagers. For whom you should never, ever buy beer.
And while we are on the topic of enjoying your teens -- now that I am done digressing -- maybe it is worth it to discuss the issue of TV and movies. These things often cause conflict among parents and teens. For example, Mom might want to watch "Magic Mike" and her kids might think it is inappropriate. Well, Mom, it is time to assert your parental authority here. Or Mom might want to watch "SouthLAnd" and her kids might think it is too violent. Again, time to assert the parental authority, and -- if your teen is female -- point out the hotness of Ben McKenzie, thus luring her in and making her your "SouthLAnd" buddy. My point being? If you don't act all judgmental about your kids' TV shows and movies, they won't act all judgmental about yours. And if you want your kids to watch your stuff with you, it is important that you watch their stuff with them. And then talk about their stuff with them in a friendly, non-threatening way. Here are some possible discussion questions that you can use when discussing TV shows and movies with your kids:
1. How come the Rules For Being A Vampire are different in each vampire show?
2. How come it is taking Charlie so damn long to propose to Amita?
3. How come some actors don't mind showing us their bums and some do?
4. Do you think this role is more or less likely to cause the paparazzi to show up at Shawn Hatosy's house?
5. How do you like the way the abortion issue is handled by the writers of "The O.C."?
6. How many sexually transmitted diseases do you suppose Ben Sherman has?
7. When did Neil Patrick Harris suddenly become hot?
8. Who is Channing Tatum?
9. What do you suppose would happen if you spent hours upon hours locked up in a pool house alone with Ryan Atwood? Would this be good sense?
10. Did Sammy steal the money from the bank robbery? If he did, is that actually such a bad thing?
11. Is the guy who plays Jim in "The Office" more or less of a douche in real life than the guy who plays Dwight?
12. Was Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing" the most rockin' thing you ever saw, or what?
13. What was your favorite scene in Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing"?
14. How is Hollywood's representation of gay characters, of sexuality, of women's rights the same as, or different from, what others in the homeschool community might have you believe?
15. Should they have killed off Marissa or let her and Ryan live happily-ever-after? How did the killing off of Marissa affect your opinion of how Hollywood might affect the souls of young actors?
So, I guess we have now discovered whether or not I would be briefer and more to the point today.
Definitely not.
I hope, though, that you have been entertained by this post. At least a little bit. And I hope that, perhaps, you have gotten something out of it that is helpful to you, or will someday be helpful to you.
And I want you to know that I really appreciate the time you have taken to read my meandering ramblings. ;-)
This post will probably be a bit briefer and more to the point. Maybe.
First of all, people living with other people is always problematic. Because people are problematic. There are times when I think it would be lovely to have my own studio apartment with a murphy bed and shiny hardwood floors. There would be nothing in it except the bare essentials and my Mac. And I think we all wish this sort of thing from time to time. Do we actually want it to happen? Nah. It's just that people living with people has its stresses, as well as its rewards, no matter how much you love each other.
And so it is if you have teenagers. It's going to get stressful. But, it can also be a lot of fun.
How can we make it fun?
It starts when they're little, as I said before. Have fun together, enjoy life together, but make it clear that you are in charge. If you say something, it goes. It doesn't have to be a fight. You can be friendly about it.
For example, if you are in the park and it's time to go home:
Mom: You have five more minutes to do what you want to do and then it's time to go home.
*Five Minutes Pass (Or ten. When they are three, they really have no idea.)*
Mom: (in a friendly, yet firm, voice) We are leaving now.
Children: (whining) Can't we stay just five more minutes!?!?!? Pleeeeease!?!?!?
Mom: (calmly walking over, picking up the youngest child, fully expecting the others to follow) We are leaving now.
If you do this, each and every time, it will work. I think. You just have to be consistent. And calm. And firm.
And if you start this with your toddlers and your pre-schoolers, things will probably progress rather smoothly as your children head toward adolescence.
Then, one day, your adolescent child (especially if said child is a girl) will roll her eyes at you when you ask her to do something quite reasonable. Do not lose your temper. Just smile mischievously and take her picture with your iPhone. I actually did this (though not with an iPhone, as they weren't invented yet) and my daughter started to laugh. Calmly re-assert what you want your child to do and expect that she will do it. Of course, before you make your request, you have to take your child's personality and state-of-mind and mood into consideration. Don't set yourself up for failure. Set yourself up for success. It is best to make requests of your child when she is not feeling exhausted and overwhelmed with life. Because -- let's face it -- teens these days do have a lot of pressure. One mother told me that her child was told to take the SAT at least three times and to fill out a minimum of ten college applications. No wonder so many of them are on anti-depressants (the moms and the teens). So, start by making small, reasonable requests when your child is in a good mood and not in the middle of a term paper. That way, she will get used to cooperating with you in a pleasant way.
In this vein, do not ever fight with your teenagers. Don't get into shouting matches. Don't threaten. Just don't do it. You will lose. Every time. They have way more energy than you do. They can come up with clever plans to get around you. They have friends who will collude with them against you. Even if they are homeschooled.
How to not fight?
Firstly, listen to your teen without judging. Kids like to tell you things, even when they are teens and young adults, if you don't judge them and what they're saying. So, if your teen is telling you her opinion that short hair on guys is better than long hair on guys -- which is a totally screwed up opinion, in my opinion -- it is best just to listen. Or if your son is telling you that if he doesn't get into college, he has figured out a way to live independently on minimum wage, just hear him out. My husband once said to me something like this, "The kids tell you all kinds of crazy things, and you don't say anything." "Well," I replied, "they will eventually figure out most of these things for themselves."
Does this mean you should never say anything? Of course not. My Bridget and I have had many discussions about the hair of Thor versus the hair of Captain America. But, this is the thing. You have to gauge the state-of-mind of your child when she starts talking. Is it time to have a mutual discussion or to just be a listening ear? If in doubt, go with the listening ear.
Secondly, do not micromanage your teens. Nobody likes to be micromanaged. Keep your expectations simple and basic, such as: have good personal hygiene, pass your classes, speak politely to your parents and siblings, don't date douche-bags, no sex, no illegal drugs, drive in a legal manner. Keep your requests reasonable, too. For example, I have always thought a strict curfew was lame. But, on the other hand, I had to know where my kids were going, with whom, and by when they would be home. The time I expected them to arrive home depended on the activity. And I expected them to call if their plans changed or they were going to be late. And if they gave me a bad time about these reasonable things, I would calmly explain how they were reasonable things and what could happen if they did not do them. These kinds of discussions evolved over time -- starting from when they were in grade school -- so, my expectations were no big shock when they became teenagers. (Confession: Even now, even though they are in their 20's, these rules still apply. They will apply until my kids get places of their own. Because I cannot sleep if I don't know where they are. I start imagining them being kidnapped. Yes, this is idiotic. But, it's the way it is and the price for living at home with a mother who gets slightly anxious even though she tries not to. Did I say "slightly?" My kids would probably laugh at my use of that word. They are patient with me, though. Most of the time, anyway.)
Thirdly, and probably most important, enjoy your teens and let them see that you are a "cool" person. By "cool," I don't mean that you have to take Metal Class on Mondays (like Chris Bruno) -- although that is very cool. You don't have to act like a teen yourself, because -- frankly -- that will just embarrass your teens. But, be the kind of parent whose teenagers will enjoy having their friends over to your house. My kids have lots of parties with their friends at my house -- even though they aren't teens, anymore. And their friends seem to enjoy coming over here. Probably because we let them drink beer (now that they are of age). We even buy their friends beer sometimes. And, sometimes, their friends buy the beer. They even let my husband and I attend the parties and have some beer, too. Let me say, though, that nobody -- EVER -- gets drunk. That would quickly end the parties, and my kids know it.
I guess I have digressed a bit -- in talking about beer parties -- from the topic of teenagers. For whom you should never, ever buy beer.
And while we are on the topic of enjoying your teens -- now that I am done digressing -- maybe it is worth it to discuss the issue of TV and movies. These things often cause conflict among parents and teens. For example, Mom might want to watch "Magic Mike" and her kids might think it is inappropriate. Well, Mom, it is time to assert your parental authority here. Or Mom might want to watch "SouthLAnd" and her kids might think it is too violent. Again, time to assert the parental authority, and -- if your teen is female -- point out the hotness of Ben McKenzie, thus luring her in and making her your "SouthLAnd" buddy. My point being? If you don't act all judgmental about your kids' TV shows and movies, they won't act all judgmental about yours. And if you want your kids to watch your stuff with you, it is important that you watch their stuff with them. And then talk about their stuff with them in a friendly, non-threatening way. Here are some possible discussion questions that you can use when discussing TV shows and movies with your kids:
1. How come the Rules For Being A Vampire are different in each vampire show?
2. How come it is taking Charlie so damn long to propose to Amita?
3. How come some actors don't mind showing us their bums and some do?
4. Do you think this role is more or less likely to cause the paparazzi to show up at Shawn Hatosy's house?
5. How do you like the way the abortion issue is handled by the writers of "The O.C."?
6. How many sexually transmitted diseases do you suppose Ben Sherman has?
7. When did Neil Patrick Harris suddenly become hot?
8. Who is Channing Tatum?
9. What do you suppose would happen if you spent hours upon hours locked up in a pool house alone with Ryan Atwood? Would this be good sense?
10. Did Sammy steal the money from the bank robbery? If he did, is that actually such a bad thing?
11. Is the guy who plays Jim in "The Office" more or less of a douche in real life than the guy who plays Dwight?
12. Was Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing" the most rockin' thing you ever saw, or what?
13. What was your favorite scene in Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing"?
14. How is Hollywood's representation of gay characters, of sexuality, of women's rights the same as, or different from, what others in the homeschool community might have you believe?
15. Should they have killed off Marissa or let her and Ryan live happily-ever-after? How did the killing off of Marissa affect your opinion of how Hollywood might affect the souls of young actors?
So, I guess we have now discovered whether or not I would be briefer and more to the point today.
Definitely not.
I hope, though, that you have been entertained by this post. At least a little bit. And I hope that, perhaps, you have gotten something out of it that is helpful to you, or will someday be helpful to you.
And I want you to know that I really appreciate the time you have taken to read my meandering ramblings. ;-)
Monday, June 24, 2013
Having A Little Confidence In Your Legs
One of the reasons I like Ben McKenzie is that he gives me lots of ideas for things to blog about. Thanks, Mr. McKenzie!
For example, he did an interview (thoughtfully put online by the lovely lady from "Ben McKenzie News") in which he talks about four things he looks for in a gal. Two of them, in particular, struck me.
They are:
1. confidence
2. a good pair of legs.
I'm not sure if this interview was originally in print or done live. But, I imagine -- especially if it was done live -- that when he said the thing about the legs, at least 75% of the females who were listening to him looked down at their own pair, wondering if they measured up to Mr. McKenzie's standards. After all, he did not describe in any sort of detail what kinds of characteristics he looks for in legs. Does he like them long or short? Should the muscles be well-defined or softer and rounder? Are the calves or thighs of more interest to him? How about the knees? Does he care for tan skin or fair? I mean, when you start thinking about it, the whole thing can get a little overwhelming.
And this leads me to the idea of confidence.
In my experience, ladies don't tend to have a lot of confidence in their legs (or in their bodies, in general). They tend to be extremely hard on themselves -- and on each other. They complain that one part is "too fat," another part is "too thin." They tell themselves that they are "too bony" here or "too flabby" there. They put themselves under a dissecting microscope and have at it, judging themselves in the harshest manner.
All of this makes me sad.
Because, now that I am 50 and looking at my daughters (who are 23 and 24), at their friends, at the young women in my little town, and at all the youthful ladies I see as I travel here and there for various reasons, I realize something. Virtually all young women (and by that, I mean those 35 and under) are lovely. Please don't get me wrong. Older women are lovely, too. But, it's the younger ones who are especially hard on themselves, so they are the ones I am addressing right now.
So, young women, hear me. You are beautiful. Most of you groom yourselves well. You shower and do your hair and put something on that makes you feel pretty. You smile and laugh and have fun. You have spunk. And you have nice legs, too. Whether they are a little larger or a little smaller, a bit longer or a tad shorter, your young legs look cute dressed in the stylish shorts, pants, and skirts that you wear. They look cute when you walk around with your friends, getting coffee in the mall or going to the movies or dancing in a club. And not just your legs look cute. The rest of you looks adorable, too.
Therefore:
Have a little confidence in yourselves. Have confidence that you are beautiful -- but not only that. Have confidence in your intelligence and your abilities. Let your natural goodness and enthusiasm shine through. And don't worry about what others might think of your legs or any other part of you. Be happy in yourselves. Know in your heart that you can create lives and friendships that will be rewarding and satisfying.
Because, I must admit, Mr. McKenzie does have a point. When you are confident, you will be attractive. But, it needs to be authentic confidence. The kind of confidence that -- if you happened to run into Mr. McKenzie somewhere -- would allow you to look him in the eye and smile warmly, not worrying about what he is thinking of your legs. For I believe that Mr. McKenzie -- seeming to be a truly good sort of guy -- and any other guy worth your time and attention, is going to be looking at the totality of you as a person. He's not going to be spending a great deal of time rating your body parts. A worthwhile guy wants to be with somebody who cares about him, who cares about others, who can converse with him about interesting things, and (maybe I am getting ahead of myself here, but what the hell) who might be a good mother. A good guy realizes that when he falls in love and makes a commitment that the woman he chooses is going to get older, along with her body parts. And he will have the maturity to deal with that.
For example, he did an interview (thoughtfully put online by the lovely lady from "Ben McKenzie News") in which he talks about four things he looks for in a gal. Two of them, in particular, struck me.
They are:
1. confidence
2. a good pair of legs.
I'm not sure if this interview was originally in print or done live. But, I imagine -- especially if it was done live -- that when he said the thing about the legs, at least 75% of the females who were listening to him looked down at their own pair, wondering if they measured up to Mr. McKenzie's standards. After all, he did not describe in any sort of detail what kinds of characteristics he looks for in legs. Does he like them long or short? Should the muscles be well-defined or softer and rounder? Are the calves or thighs of more interest to him? How about the knees? Does he care for tan skin or fair? I mean, when you start thinking about it, the whole thing can get a little overwhelming.
And this leads me to the idea of confidence.
In my experience, ladies don't tend to have a lot of confidence in their legs (or in their bodies, in general). They tend to be extremely hard on themselves -- and on each other. They complain that one part is "too fat," another part is "too thin." They tell themselves that they are "too bony" here or "too flabby" there. They put themselves under a dissecting microscope and have at it, judging themselves in the harshest manner.
All of this makes me sad.
Because, now that I am 50 and looking at my daughters (who are 23 and 24), at their friends, at the young women in my little town, and at all the youthful ladies I see as I travel here and there for various reasons, I realize something. Virtually all young women (and by that, I mean those 35 and under) are lovely. Please don't get me wrong. Older women are lovely, too. But, it's the younger ones who are especially hard on themselves, so they are the ones I am addressing right now.
So, young women, hear me. You are beautiful. Most of you groom yourselves well. You shower and do your hair and put something on that makes you feel pretty. You smile and laugh and have fun. You have spunk. And you have nice legs, too. Whether they are a little larger or a little smaller, a bit longer or a tad shorter, your young legs look cute dressed in the stylish shorts, pants, and skirts that you wear. They look cute when you walk around with your friends, getting coffee in the mall or going to the movies or dancing in a club. And not just your legs look cute. The rest of you looks adorable, too.
Therefore:
Have a little confidence in yourselves. Have confidence that you are beautiful -- but not only that. Have confidence in your intelligence and your abilities. Let your natural goodness and enthusiasm shine through. And don't worry about what others might think of your legs or any other part of you. Be happy in yourselves. Know in your heart that you can create lives and friendships that will be rewarding and satisfying.
Because, I must admit, Mr. McKenzie does have a point. When you are confident, you will be attractive. But, it needs to be authentic confidence. The kind of confidence that -- if you happened to run into Mr. McKenzie somewhere -- would allow you to look him in the eye and smile warmly, not worrying about what he is thinking of your legs. For I believe that Mr. McKenzie -- seeming to be a truly good sort of guy -- and any other guy worth your time and attention, is going to be looking at the totality of you as a person. He's not going to be spending a great deal of time rating your body parts. A worthwhile guy wants to be with somebody who cares about him, who cares about others, who can converse with him about interesting things, and (maybe I am getting ahead of myself here, but what the hell) who might be a good mother. A good guy realizes that when he falls in love and makes a commitment that the woman he chooses is going to get older, along with her body parts. And he will have the maturity to deal with that.
Friday, June 14, 2013
"Goodbye World" -- or -- "Goodbye, World"
"Goodbye World" is a movie that is going to be screened at the LA Film Festival. It is sort of a modern-day-hippie-apocalypse story.
I have seen a few trailers for this movie, and it is rather appealing. It also has Ben McKenzie in it. "Ah-ha," you are now saying. "Now I get it," you are thinking to yourself. And you would be right. I like Ben's projects, though. They tend to be interesting and funky. That is also their downside, because his projects -- being so off-beat and quirky -- seem to have a hard time making it out of festivals or being expanded beyond a 6- or 10-episode television season. This is unfortunate, at least for me, because he is greatly talented and brings a lot to his roles. Sometimes I think he chooses these types of roles because he was, maybe, a little bit traumatized by his whole Ryan Atwood experience. I suppose it could be rather difficult for somebody who is rather private and comes from a very intellectual background to become a teen idol virtually overnight. Maybe his brothers teased him. So, I can understand why he would choose these more "artsy" types of projects. They would allow him to express his creativity while staying off the paparazzi radar. There is one thing, though, that I would mention to Ben, and that is this: You should do at least one blockbuster project in which you get to play a guy of the age that you are now so that people will recognize you as being famous apart from "The O.C." For example, they could say, "Oh, there's James Bond!" instead of "Oh, it's Ryan Atwood!" Of course, I am not a showbiz person, so there is really no reason that Ben should actually pay attention to me.
Anyway, I am no expert on this movie, but that's not going to stop me from writing down my thoughts and opinions about it. As uninformed as they may be. Being uninformed about something has never once stopped me from voicing my thoughts and opinions, so why should I start hesitating now? "Goodbye World," as I said, involves an apocalyptic theme. I don't think Jesus comes back in the movie, though, so it is a secular-type of apocalypse. As I understand it, there is a cyber-attack which brings society to a halt, so a bunch of Stanford alumni go to stay with their Stanford alumni friends (a married couple with a little girl) who are living "off-the-grid" somewhere in the vast northern regions of California. This, in itself, makes me smile. I am from Redwood City, CA, which is not far from Stanford University. I have had many friends, acquaintances, and teachers from that well-known institution. And I have to say -- from the trailers I have seen of this movie -- that they totally hit the Stanford "personality" right on the head. Not that there is one Stanford "personality," because Stanford attracts a diverse population. And Stanford purposefully admits a great diversity of people, as they want to be a school known for its diversity. But, still, Stanford people take on a certain Stanford air. I mean, for one thing, its students are all freaking brilliant. And their brilliance is enhanced and their personalities shaped by being in that cultural melting-pot known as Stanford University, and so -- in my life experience -- there is such a thing as a "Stanfordite." And -- I repeat -- "Goodbye World" gets it totally right.
So, here is this group of friends, reunited by calamity, eating and smoking different organic substances, trying to survive a worldwide the apocalypse while simultaneously sorting out their past histories with each other, all amidst the beautiful natural environment that is Northern California. Sounds pretty fascinating to me. And I think it's cool the way the writers of the movie have taken into consideration and researched what these people would actually need in order to survive this type of catastrophic event. There is talk of energy and water and food supplies and rationing. Although, it is apparent that not all of the friends take everything as seriously as they might. For example, Ben's character seems more preoccupied with his feelings for the woman who appears to be his ex-girlfriend -- who is now married to the guy who owns the off-the-grid-property -- than he is concerned about the practical situation at-hand. Now, if Ben's character was as smart as a true Stanford alum would be, he would realize what side his bread is buttered on, and not piss off the guy who knows how to work all the generators and grow all the food and purify all the water. If I were Ben's character, I would be extra respectful to this guy, otherwise I would worry that people would find my mangled body after I had an "accident" with the water pump. But, Ben's character seems oblivious to these possibilities. Another cool thing is that Ben's character shows up at the off-the-grid property with a lovely young woman, who is also a Stanford alum and was acquainted with the owners of the property when they were in school. Although, they don't recognize her at first, because I guess she was rather unpopular -- a fan of Christian rock and sort of a "goody-two-shoes." I get a big kick out of her because that is what I was like in college, and it gives me satisfaction that Ben's character shows up with her. I'm not sure whether or not he is her boyfriend, but it seems like maybe he is, so I'm all like, "SCORE for us Amy Grant-loving, studious squares! Woo-hoo!!!" Although, I have to say, she seems much quieter and more polite than I ever was.
In thinking about this movie and its well-informed research and presentation of an off-the-grid, post-apocalypse survival situation, there is one question I have, though. I hope to eventually get to see "Goodbye World" and maybe my question will be answered. But, anyhow, here is what I am wondering. There are all these good-looking, healthy young people living on this property. There is at least one married couple. There is obviously a lot of attraction going on. So, what about birth control, or "family planning," or whatever you want to call it? Will there be a midwife around? Because no matter how much "family planning" you do, by whatever method, young, healthy, attractive women have a tendency to get pregnant when spending a lot of time with young, healthy, attractive men. This might be especially prone to happen in an apocalypse because of all the stress and boredom. Why will there be boredom? Because Twitter probably won't be functioning. That's why. People talk about the apocalypse all the time these days. They talk about food and water and energy and evil government activity. But, nobody ever takes sex into consideration, and I think it is very important to do so. Because -- frankly -- there probably won't be birth control pills readily available. Or any other prescription birth control methods, for that matter. Should people be stockpiling condoms or spermicidal foams and jellies? And how long does it take before the rubber starts degrading? What is the expiration date of the foams and jellies? Should people be collecting massive piles of Natural Family Planning charts and basal body temperature thermometers? And I'm not talking about the newfangled battery-operated thermometers, because we will run out of batteries in an apocalypse. I mean the old-fashioned thermometers that you had to shake down by hand and leave in your mouth for AT LEAST 3 to 5 minutes. (Don't ask me how I know this.) Or are people supposed to give up sex in an apocalypse? That might be for the best, at least for a while, but it doesn't seem like anybody told the "Goodbye World" characters this.
So, if you are in the LA area, I hear there still might be a few tickets left for one of the screenings of "Goodbye World" -- or -- "Goodbye, World." (I'm unsure about the comma, and I'm too lazy to check it on Google.) And since I have probably totally piqued your interest, you might want to buy yourself one of those tickets. Or two -- and bring a friend along. And then you can tell me the answers to the stuff I am wondering about.
I have seen a few trailers for this movie, and it is rather appealing. It also has Ben McKenzie in it. "Ah-ha," you are now saying. "Now I get it," you are thinking to yourself. And you would be right. I like Ben's projects, though. They tend to be interesting and funky. That is also their downside, because his projects -- being so off-beat and quirky -- seem to have a hard time making it out of festivals or being expanded beyond a 6- or 10-episode television season. This is unfortunate, at least for me, because he is greatly talented and brings a lot to his roles. Sometimes I think he chooses these types of roles because he was, maybe, a little bit traumatized by his whole Ryan Atwood experience. I suppose it could be rather difficult for somebody who is rather private and comes from a very intellectual background to become a teen idol virtually overnight. Maybe his brothers teased him. So, I can understand why he would choose these more "artsy" types of projects. They would allow him to express his creativity while staying off the paparazzi radar. There is one thing, though, that I would mention to Ben, and that is this: You should do at least one blockbuster project in which you get to play a guy of the age that you are now so that people will recognize you as being famous apart from "The O.C." For example, they could say, "Oh, there's James Bond!" instead of "Oh, it's Ryan Atwood!" Of course, I am not a showbiz person, so there is really no reason that Ben should actually pay attention to me.
Anyway, I am no expert on this movie, but that's not going to stop me from writing down my thoughts and opinions about it. As uninformed as they may be. Being uninformed about something has never once stopped me from voicing my thoughts and opinions, so why should I start hesitating now? "Goodbye World," as I said, involves an apocalyptic theme. I don't think Jesus comes back in the movie, though, so it is a secular-type of apocalypse. As I understand it, there is a cyber-attack which brings society to a halt, so a bunch of Stanford alumni go to stay with their Stanford alumni friends (a married couple with a little girl) who are living "off-the-grid" somewhere in the vast northern regions of California. This, in itself, makes me smile. I am from Redwood City, CA, which is not far from Stanford University. I have had many friends, acquaintances, and teachers from that well-known institution. And I have to say -- from the trailers I have seen of this movie -- that they totally hit the Stanford "personality" right on the head. Not that there is one Stanford "personality," because Stanford attracts a diverse population. And Stanford purposefully admits a great diversity of people, as they want to be a school known for its diversity. But, still, Stanford people take on a certain Stanford air. I mean, for one thing, its students are all freaking brilliant. And their brilliance is enhanced and their personalities shaped by being in that cultural melting-pot known as Stanford University, and so -- in my life experience -- there is such a thing as a "Stanfordite." And -- I repeat -- "Goodbye World" gets it totally right.
So, here is this group of friends, reunited by calamity, eating and smoking different organic substances, trying to survive a worldwide the apocalypse while simultaneously sorting out their past histories with each other, all amidst the beautiful natural environment that is Northern California. Sounds pretty fascinating to me. And I think it's cool the way the writers of the movie have taken into consideration and researched what these people would actually need in order to survive this type of catastrophic event. There is talk of energy and water and food supplies and rationing. Although, it is apparent that not all of the friends take everything as seriously as they might. For example, Ben's character seems more preoccupied with his feelings for the woman who appears to be his ex-girlfriend -- who is now married to the guy who owns the off-the-grid-property -- than he is concerned about the practical situation at-hand. Now, if Ben's character was as smart as a true Stanford alum would be, he would realize what side his bread is buttered on, and not piss off the guy who knows how to work all the generators and grow all the food and purify all the water. If I were Ben's character, I would be extra respectful to this guy, otherwise I would worry that people would find my mangled body after I had an "accident" with the water pump. But, Ben's character seems oblivious to these possibilities. Another cool thing is that Ben's character shows up at the off-the-grid property with a lovely young woman, who is also a Stanford alum and was acquainted with the owners of the property when they were in school. Although, they don't recognize her at first, because I guess she was rather unpopular -- a fan of Christian rock and sort of a "goody-two-shoes." I get a big kick out of her because that is what I was like in college, and it gives me satisfaction that Ben's character shows up with her. I'm not sure whether or not he is her boyfriend, but it seems like maybe he is, so I'm all like, "SCORE for us Amy Grant-loving, studious squares! Woo-hoo!!!" Although, I have to say, she seems much quieter and more polite than I ever was.
In thinking about this movie and its well-informed research and presentation of an off-the-grid, post-apocalypse survival situation, there is one question I have, though. I hope to eventually get to see "Goodbye World" and maybe my question will be answered. But, anyhow, here is what I am wondering. There are all these good-looking, healthy young people living on this property. There is at least one married couple. There is obviously a lot of attraction going on. So, what about birth control, or "family planning," or whatever you want to call it? Will there be a midwife around? Because no matter how much "family planning" you do, by whatever method, young, healthy, attractive women have a tendency to get pregnant when spending a lot of time with young, healthy, attractive men. This might be especially prone to happen in an apocalypse because of all the stress and boredom. Why will there be boredom? Because Twitter probably won't be functioning. That's why. People talk about the apocalypse all the time these days. They talk about food and water and energy and evil government activity. But, nobody ever takes sex into consideration, and I think it is very important to do so. Because -- frankly -- there probably won't be birth control pills readily available. Or any other prescription birth control methods, for that matter. Should people be stockpiling condoms or spermicidal foams and jellies? And how long does it take before the rubber starts degrading? What is the expiration date of the foams and jellies? Should people be collecting massive piles of Natural Family Planning charts and basal body temperature thermometers? And I'm not talking about the newfangled battery-operated thermometers, because we will run out of batteries in an apocalypse. I mean the old-fashioned thermometers that you had to shake down by hand and leave in your mouth for AT LEAST 3 to 5 minutes. (Don't ask me how I know this.) Or are people supposed to give up sex in an apocalypse? That might be for the best, at least for a while, but it doesn't seem like anybody told the "Goodbye World" characters this.
So, if you are in the LA area, I hear there still might be a few tickets left for one of the screenings of "Goodbye World" -- or -- "Goodbye, World." (I'm unsure about the comma, and I'm too lazy to check it on Google.) And since I have probably totally piqued your interest, you might want to buy yourself one of those tickets. Or two -- and bring a friend along. And then you can tell me the answers to the stuff I am wondering about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)