I'm always surprised when I look back on a year and see how much or how little I've done. This past year was rather heavy on movie-going, perhaps as a result of living with someone who loves purchasing discount movie tickets. I saw 58 full-length movies in the theaters last year and another 22 short films. Additionally, I watched 25 more movies on DVD, again thanks primarily to The Boyfriend and his "deals" with Netflix and Blockbuster. That's a lot of movies, and that number could account for why I only read 33 books this past year. Granted, some of those books, like Bowling Alone, were very long and took a while to get through, but still, that's a low number for someone with degrees in English. Even worse? I only saw four plays and four musicals in theaters this year. That's very low, and I hope to do better in 2011.
Favorite Movie: Fantastic Mr. Fox and How to Train Your Dragon were both delightful films, a true joy to watch. We seem to be having such a renaissance in animation these days. Every year the bar for excellence seems to be getting higher and higher, and filmmakers just keep leaping over it. Fantastic Mr. Fox has the voice talent of George Clooney and Meryl Streep and Bill Murry and Jason Schwartzman, among others, and the direction of Wes Anderson. It's stop motion animation about a fox (Clooney) who just can't seem to resist stealing chickens even after he's become "respectable." The world of Mr. Fox was created, of course, by novelist Roald Dahl, but Anderson and company bring it fully to life. How to Tame Your Dragon is all computer generated animation, a very different look from Fantastic Mr. Fox, but once again it's the story that is the delight here. A young Viking, one not particularly adept at dragon-slaying, instead befriends one of the wounded animals and begins enjoying the world of flight and adventure. How to Tame Your Dragon, as I've said earlier, is one of the few films released in 3-D and IMAX this year that truly deserved both.
Runner-Up: Piranha (also known as Piranha 3-D) is a remake of a terribly cheesy movie from the 1970s (which I have seen, yes). Why anyone felt there was a need for another version of this film is a mystery, but I'm glad that the filmmakers decided it was worth the effort. I don't think I had a more enjoyable couple of hours in a movie theater this year. Of course, I know this is hardly high-minded cinematic achievement, but everyone involved seems to know that they should be playing this for laughs. Jerry O'Connell, in particular, seems to be having a blast, making what happens to him even more delicious. You know the story: Swarms of the flesh-eating little monster fish are released accidentally into an unusual environment, this time Lake Havasu during Spring Break. What follows is all rather predictable: people become imperiled out of their own stupidity, lots of folks die (not always at the hands, er, mouths of the fish, by the way), people resist efforts to help them. What made this film stand out for me, though, was not the plot but the energy. If you can set aside your predisposition to want a film with a message and just eat the popcorn (no, not drink the Kool-Aid), you can enjoy the goofy fun of Piranha. I'm actually sort of looking forward to the sequel that the end kind of implies.
If you're really expecting me to pick a "serious" film as one of my favorites of the year, the other runner-up would be The Town, the second film to be directed by Ben Affleck. Affleck and Jeremy Renner (in what may be the best performance by a supporting actor in 2010) head a gang of bank robbers who take a bank manager hostage during a heist. The complications that follow from that mistake lead to some intense discussions about loyalty and pride. All of the actors--including Jon Hamm as an FBI agent and the late Pete Postelthwaite as a florist who's really a mob leader--are top-notch, and the movie is filled with action and tension that make for a great moviewatching experience. I had no idea what to expect from this film when we went to see it, but it turned out to be a jewel.
Favorite Performance (Female): Julianne Moore in The Kids Are All Right almost steals the limelight from Annette Bening, no small feat. As a lesbian couple whose children reconnect with the sperm donor who gave them life, Bening and Moore are note-perfect here. Bening has the difficult task of watching so much of her life seem to fall apart in front of her, but Moore has, in a way, the more challenging role. She has to be the instigator for the series of events that lead to the near-collapse of her family. You can sense just how long she's had to endure people's low expectations of her, how she's never really been expected to do anything on her own that was successful. When she begins a sexual affair with the sperm donor--and who wouldn't, considering that it's Mark Ruffalo at his most rakishly charming--I almost felt betrayed myself, but then I realized just how emotionally needy Moore's Jules is feeling needed and wanted by someone for the first time in a long time. She's not just being taken for granted the way she usually is. It's tough to pull that off, to make an audience care for you when you're engaging in behavior that is really inappropriate, but Moore makes you like, even love Jules despite her mistakes.
Favorite Performance (Male): Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Inception is probably not on most people's radar as a standout performance this year, but what he brings to the role of Arthur, the most steady and reliable member of a team of intriguing misfits who plant dreams in people's heads, is a sly charm and a wise sense of the absurdity of the events that swirl around him and the rest of the main players. I know Leonardo DiCaprio is the star of the film and Tom Hardy brings a reckless abandon to his role and Ellen Page is playing up the snarkiness for which she has become well-known, but I kept waiting for Gordon-Levitt to return to the screen while watching Inception. He is sleek and professional and, with his sleek hair and carefully tailored clothing, a real charmer. When he steals a kiss from Page's Ariadne because, as he puts it, "it's worth a shot," you can't help but find him appealing. I realize that I may have asked this before, but who knew when we were watching Third Rock from the Sun years ago that we were witnessing the beginnings of what has turned out to be a remarkable and diverse career for a young actor?
Favorite Play: Del Shores usually writes plays that are more comedic that Yellow, stuff like Southern Baptist Sissies or Sordid Lives. Yellow has its moments of humor as well, but it takes on such serious topics as religious fundamentalism, faithfulness in marriage, parent-child relationships, even critical illnesses. Throughout the couple of hours that the actors occupy the stage--a beautifully if typically blandly done middle-class household in Mississippi--we learn a lot about the kinds of people their characters are. The son of the neighbor who befriends the main characters' family (and who winds up being taken in by them) will, of course, grow up to be gay. The way he is treated by his mother and his best friend (the family daughter) and even the family's son whom he has a crush on says a lot about who we are as a people and who we can aspire to be. The run of Yellow was extended several times at the Coast Playhouse, and it's easy to see why. Shores is a masterful writer, one who understands that so-called simple people truly lead complex, complicated lives.
Favorite Musical: I saw only a few musicals, and all of them were pretty spectacular, but the one I remember most fondly is [title of show]. No, that's not a typo; that's what it's called. It's a four-person show about the creation of an off-Broadway musical. Two men, one of them gay, and two women, both hilarious, present vignettes about the process of writing a show that you hope someone will see. All four actors--one of them best known for playing a drag queen called Bridgette of Madison County--are good singers and dancers, and the fact that the show was in the small venue of the Celebration Theatre made us in the audience seem even more invested in seeing this show-within-a-show musical come to fruition.
Runner-Up: The rest of the musicals I saw were all touring companies of Broadway productions, and the one that stands out is South Pacific. The revival of this well-loved show was everything you might have hoped for in a musical: great cast, spectacular sets, memorable songs. Everything about the production was gorgeous, and I (and the rest of the audience) sang along with the performers all night long. I had previously only seen the film version of South Pacific, never the full stage musical. This was definitely the way to make up for that deficit.
Favorite Book (Fiction): Sometimes picking up a new book is like visiting an old friend. You immediately know about the main character, and you just want to find out what's been happening her or his life since last you met. Reading Mary Ann in Autumn by Armistead Maupin was just such an experience. I've read all of the books in the Tales of the City series, even used one of them in my dissertation, and I've loved the characters so much since I picked up my first book (Sure of You) many years ago upon the advice of a then-boyfriend in Alabama. In Maupin's latest, Mary Ann returns to San Francisco after many years away focusing first upon her career and then upon her second marriage. All of the characters from the earlier novels return, some of them all too briefly, and once again, I found myself caught up in the lives of the former residents of Barbary Lane. Maupin is such a master of handling multiple plots and numerous characters. I hope there are many more Tales of the City books to come.
Runner-Up: I also had a chance to read the book Maupin finished in the series before Mary Ann in Autumn. Michael Tolliver Lives diverges from the other novels in that it is told in first person. This isn't too much of a distraction, however, since Michael (or "Mouse") is probably the surrogate for almost every gay men who's ever read one of these books. This is a novel about life and death and the consequences of both living and dying. I know that sounds rather unhelpful as a description, but reading Michael discuss how his life has changed after finding love with a younger man despite Michael's own diagnosis with HIV is a joy. I'm so grateful Maupin didn't allow this beloved character to die. The spectre of death isn't limited to just the main character, though, as he has to deal with the illnesses of his mother in Florida and his "adopted" mother in San Francisco. This is a somewhat melancholy work, but it was a pleasure for me to read this and Mary Ann in Autumn and get back in touch with these characters once again.
Favorite Book (Non-Fiction): The Star Machine by Jeanine Basinger looks at the Hollywood production system from almost the start of moviemaking until the collapse of the studio system in the 1960s. Basinger looks at fan magazine stories and publicity stills and in-house manuals, among other materials, to examine how it was exactly that our modern notions of what it takes to be a "star" got created and refined. This is fascinating reading, particularly when she begins looking at specific performers. I especially liked the attention to those stars who really didn't quite fit the mold of traditional Hollywood standards.
Runner-Up: I read two autobiographies, in particular, that I enjoyed this year: Like a Lampshade in a Whorehouse by Phyllis Diller and This Time Together by Carol Burnett. Diller has always been one of my favorite funny people, and I still have very fond memories of watching Burnett's show on Saturday nights when I was a kid. Both women are great storytellers. Diller's is a somewhat more traditional biography in that it follows her life from its beginnings through her failed marriage to success as a performer. Along the way, you get some of her best jokes as well. I laughed at the ones I recalled and at new ones I'd never heard before. Burnett's book is more like a series of vignettes, brief memories of people and instances from her life that people tend to ask her about most frequently. Both are fun and informative and testaments to perseverance.
Favorite Book (Poetry): The Fact of a Doorframe by Adrienne Rich was a book I was assigned to read in graduate school at USC almost twenty years ago now. I picked it up and started rereading it this summer and couldn't stop. Rich has written such a remarkable body of work over the years, and this collection of some of her best from the start of her career until the early 1990s is magnificent. I recall sitting in a packed auditorium at USC listening to her read from this collection and An Atlas of the Difficult World and just feeling like I would never get a chance to experience someone with this much power and control over the written word. I think almost any collection of Rich's work would transport a reader, but The Fact of a Doorframe is a great starting point.
Highlight of the Year: I dubbed it The Week of Music. On Friday, Aug. 20, The Boyfriend and I and a couple of friends went to see Rufus Wainwright at the Greek Theatre. Friends and readers of this blog know how much I love Rufus, and he didn't disappoint with this show. The first half was devoted to his most recent collection, All Days are Nights: Songs for Lulu. He didn't allow anyone to applaud during this portion of the show as he was performing the music as a song cycle. He entered slowly, walking across the stage in a goth-glam rock outfit, and sat at the piano and played. Behind him was a screen that projected a series of images of eyes throughout the performance. You can't say he doesn't try something new now and then. The second half of the show featured Rufus in his more traditional style of performing, charming the audience with anecdotes and flubbed lines. I loved that his sister Martha and her infant son were a part of the show as well; Martha is a great, underrated performer. Then again, I think Rufus still is too.
Next, on Sunday, Aug. 22, the Boyfriend and I went to the Hollywood Bowl to see John Mayer. Say what you want to about Mayer, but I enjoyed the show. He's only a passable singer, to be honest, but even he realizes that about himself. In fact, I found one of the most endearing aspects of the show to be his self-deprecating humor. He's heard all of the stuff written and said about him, and he freely admits to some of it and even laughs about the public persona he has. However, the best part of the show is his guitar playing. No matter what you might think about him overall, you should acknowledge that he is a remarkable picker. He sang some of his more famous hits and a couple of songs such as Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" that show just how talented he really is. I can't say much about his opening act, Owl City, except that I did recognize the one song "they" had that was a hit.
The following Friday, August 27, we were back at the Greek Theatre to see Cyndi Lauper in concert. Most of the first part of her set was music from her blues album, which by the way is pretty fantastic. She also told some hilarious stories about what life on the road is like, including on very bizarre, rambling one about a cricket that she befriended. The second part of the show was devoted to her hits, and I have to say that the audience went wild when she started singing songs like "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" and "Time after Time." Lauper may not still be on the minds of today's pop music programmers, but she knows how to perform. Her opening act was the legendary Allen Toussaint. He even came back to perform a couple of numbers with Lauper.
In all my 47 years, I've never attended that many concerts in just one week. However, given how much fun we had at all three, I'd be willing to try it again this summer. The schedule for the Hollywood Bowl is due in about another week, and I'm sure the Greek Theatre can't be far behind. Maybe they'll lead to the most memorable highlight of 2011.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Quick Takes in IMAX and 3-D
I simply must get around to blogging about movies more often. When I realize how many months have passed since I saw these films, it makes me wonder how much attention I've been giving my love of watching and writing about movies.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is, in my opinion, a real mess. It has a convoluted story with far too much bizarre non sequitur type stuff going on. I know it's somewhat spectacular (or garish, depending upon your perspective) to look at, but why couldn't he and his colleagues simply have used the plot from the Lewis Carroll novel? Why did it have to be some meta-narrative about Alice returning to Wonderland and re-encountering people she had met there before in her childhood dreams? And why does it have to be called "Underland" when that's not in the title of the movie? And why were so many talented people wasted in such strange parts? I like Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway and even Johnny Depp (when he isn't in these latter day Burton movies, that is), but they are just given strange things to do here. None of them get to play fully developed characters because Burton and his collaborators have strayed too far from the source material in their attempts to be clever and artsy. Carroll knew how to make the Mad Hatter (Depp's thankless role here) interesting. All Burton can do is make him dance a very strange dance and mumble jibberish. And having seen Mia Wasikowska (who plays Alice) in other roles such as the daughter in The Kids Are All Right, I know she has a great deal of promise as an actress, but she's so passive and bland as Alice that I couldn't imagine why anyone would build an entire movie around her. Yes, The Boyfriend and I saw this in IMAX and 3-D, but I can't say that either of those "experiences" truly enhanced my enjoyment of this movie.
Clash of the Titans was nowhere near as fun or as campy as the "original" from 1981, but nowadays films have to be special effects extravaganzas in order to be considered event movies like this one. In making the focus primarily upon special effects rather than, say, characterization, the filmmakers tend to lose the interest of a lot of viewers like me. I found this to be little more than what's been dubbed a "popcorn" movie: a few hours away from it and you forget almost all of it. There's little nourishment to be had. Sam Worthington, fresh from his success in Avatar, is the lead here as Perseus, a mortal son of Zeus whom the gods have given the unenviable task of saving the world from Hades and his evil minions. I expect Worthington to continue being promoted as the latest It Boy, but he doesn't strike me as the type who can handle a movie that isn't primarily about the special effects. Hades (played by Ralph Fiennes, who seems to be interested only in supporting parts these days and the odder, the better) plans to conquer the heavens eventually as well, so Zeus (Liam Neeson) has a stake in Perseus' eventual success. You don't really watch a movie like this for the plot, however, or for learning about the mythology upon which it's allegedly based. No, a film like this is primarily an opportunity to see how well the special effects team can create super-sized scorpions (try saying that one three times fast) and the kraken/cracken/whatever, and all of that is well done (although I still miss the days when Ray Harryhausen did special effects for films like this and the viewing of them was more fun). Like Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans had also been converted to 3-D after its making, but we were able to see it in its original 2-D format. Again, I don't think there's anything about 3-D that would have enhanced the experience for me.
The Boyfriend and I were actually hoping to see a different film, but it was sold out, so we wound up going to see Date Night instead. If this were the 1930s, I'd use the term "screwball comedy" to characterize Date Night, and I always enjoyed those earlier films. Steve Carell and Tina Fey play a couple in the suburbs whose lives have been boring and routine. They still manage to have a "date night" on occasion, but even that is rather monotonous. After hearing that some friends are ending their marriage, Carell and Fey's Phil and Claire Foster decide to go to New York City and have an elegant, romantic evening at a fashionable restaurant. When they discover that you need a reservation far in advance, they assume the identity of another couple whose name is called. A couple of thugs with guns, thinking they are the couple with the reservation, take the Fosters into an alley behind the restaurant and attempt to kill them. What follows is a hilarious pursuit through the city, an homage to those earlier screwball comedies. Mark Wahlberg has a supporting role as one of Claire's former clients, one to whom she was obviously attracted, and he makes the most of his brief time on the screen. Carell's reaction to the flirting going on between his wife and Wahlberg's character is priceless. There's no deep meaning to this film and you won't learn any true life lessons from watching it--you already know that you should appreciate your spouse and spend more time with her or him, and you already know that sometimes a boring life with someone you love is all you truly need--but you'll certainly laugh at some of the situations in which Carell and Fey find themselves and the ways they try to get out of those situations. You don't need gimmicks like 3-D or IMAX in order to make a film like this one entertaining.
Dream Boy is a small independent movie about two next door neighbor boys who fall in love with each other and begin a furtive sexual relationship. The film is set in the South, apparently during the 1970s or early 1980s, based upon the clothing styles, and that naturally means that the boys, who are teens still in high school, have to keep their relationship a secret from their families and friends. Of course, each of the boys is saddled with trouble in their personal lives, and even though neither of the scenarios is all that unique in terms of independent gay film these days, I won't reveal the alleged surprises that occur. I will, however, readily admit to being appalled if not shocked at what happens when the boys join three of their so-called friends for a weekend getaway in the woods. (Why would people who basically live in the woods already feel a need to get away to the woods for an entire weekend? That mentality has always confused me, being from the country myself.) Both of the lead actors, Stephan Bender and Maximilian Roeg, are quite good, and it was a pleasure to see Diana Scarwid and Rickie Lee Jones playing their mothers. And I always enjoy seeing cinematography of the South when it's handled this well; it creates quite an appropriate mood and atmosphere.
How to Train Your Dragon was one of the highlights of the year for me. I'll be honest and admit that I didn't have high expectations based upon the few trailers I had seen, but when The Boyfriend insisted, I went along, paying for the 3-D and IMAX enhanced version as well. And, boy, am I glad that I did. This is a relatively simple tale of a young Viking named Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) who is an outsider in his village. He doesn't seem to be as athletic as his fellow teens or as interested in dragon slaying as they are. He does, though, want to fit in, so he begins going to classes in how to hunt and kill dragons, and we in the audience learn about the different varieties of dragons--a charming sequence in the film. Hiccup gets involved in defending the village from a dragon attack and injures a rare dragon of the Night Fury variety. He befriends it rather than kills it, and he and the girl he loves (you knew there would be a love interest) enjoy spending time helping the beast Hiccup has nicknamed Toothless regain his ability to fly. I suppose I don't need to tell you that Hiccup becomes the true hero of the story or that Toothless is integral to his success; you have seen enough movies about outsiders to know how this all ends. Yet knowing that some of the standard cliches are going to be included doesn't detract from the joy of watching some thrilling flying sequences or enjoying some broadly comic scenes involving Hiccup and his fellow schoolmates. This was one of the few movies in 3-D that I saw this year that was truly deserving of putting on those funny glasses.
I have never been a fan of the slasher genre of films. I've seen a few over the years, but I could never quite understand the appeal of watching some crazed killer devise new ways to off people. It always seemed like a sick joke to me that there's a large audience out there for these kinds of movies. The Boyfriend, however, is a huge fan (although he does have an odd tendency to hide his eyes whenever a particularly gruesome murder takes place while I'm always able to watch and be disgusted by what I see--go figure). So you can imagine my reluctance to go see A Nightmare on Elm Street, the "rebooting" of the series that stretches back to the 1980s. I think I had seen one of them, but The Boyfriend has seen them all and wanted to compare this one to those he already knew and apparently enjoyed. Well, even he didn't like this one. It's an attempt to give us a history of how Freddy Krueger (played now by Jackie Earle Haley) became the killer that he is. There's a backstory involving a class of students who all share a secret that I won't reveal even though it isn't all that surprising anyway. They begin dying off one by one, but to be honest, I found it difficult to care about any of them because they are so underdeveloped as individual characters and the actors portraying them are all relatively bland. Even the hunky Kellan Lutz, probably better known from those Eclipse movies, is wasted here, as is the great Connie Britton as the mother of one of the girls who is consistently tormented throughout the film. The Boyfriend, being more knowledgeable about the series, tried to explain some of the links to the original that the filmmakers tried to incorporate, but I think a film should be able to stand on its own, particularly when you're trying to delve into the origin of one of the most famous slashers in the past few decades. At the end of this film, all I felt was as exhausted.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is, in my opinion, a real mess. It has a convoluted story with far too much bizarre non sequitur type stuff going on. I know it's somewhat spectacular (or garish, depending upon your perspective) to look at, but why couldn't he and his colleagues simply have used the plot from the Lewis Carroll novel? Why did it have to be some meta-narrative about Alice returning to Wonderland and re-encountering people she had met there before in her childhood dreams? And why does it have to be called "Underland" when that's not in the title of the movie? And why were so many talented people wasted in such strange parts? I like Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway and even Johnny Depp (when he isn't in these latter day Burton movies, that is), but they are just given strange things to do here. None of them get to play fully developed characters because Burton and his collaborators have strayed too far from the source material in their attempts to be clever and artsy. Carroll knew how to make the Mad Hatter (Depp's thankless role here) interesting. All Burton can do is make him dance a very strange dance and mumble jibberish. And having seen Mia Wasikowska (who plays Alice) in other roles such as the daughter in The Kids Are All Right, I know she has a great deal of promise as an actress, but she's so passive and bland as Alice that I couldn't imagine why anyone would build an entire movie around her. Yes, The Boyfriend and I saw this in IMAX and 3-D, but I can't say that either of those "experiences" truly enhanced my enjoyment of this movie.
Clash of the Titans was nowhere near as fun or as campy as the "original" from 1981, but nowadays films have to be special effects extravaganzas in order to be considered event movies like this one. In making the focus primarily upon special effects rather than, say, characterization, the filmmakers tend to lose the interest of a lot of viewers like me. I found this to be little more than what's been dubbed a "popcorn" movie: a few hours away from it and you forget almost all of it. There's little nourishment to be had. Sam Worthington, fresh from his success in Avatar, is the lead here as Perseus, a mortal son of Zeus whom the gods have given the unenviable task of saving the world from Hades and his evil minions. I expect Worthington to continue being promoted as the latest It Boy, but he doesn't strike me as the type who can handle a movie that isn't primarily about the special effects. Hades (played by Ralph Fiennes, who seems to be interested only in supporting parts these days and the odder, the better) plans to conquer the heavens eventually as well, so Zeus (Liam Neeson) has a stake in Perseus' eventual success. You don't really watch a movie like this for the plot, however, or for learning about the mythology upon which it's allegedly based. No, a film like this is primarily an opportunity to see how well the special effects team can create super-sized scorpions (try saying that one three times fast) and the kraken/cracken/whatever, and all of that is well done (although I still miss the days when Ray Harryhausen did special effects for films like this and the viewing of them was more fun). Like Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans had also been converted to 3-D after its making, but we were able to see it in its original 2-D format. Again, I don't think there's anything about 3-D that would have enhanced the experience for me.
The Boyfriend and I were actually hoping to see a different film, but it was sold out, so we wound up going to see Date Night instead. If this were the 1930s, I'd use the term "screwball comedy" to characterize Date Night, and I always enjoyed those earlier films. Steve Carell and Tina Fey play a couple in the suburbs whose lives have been boring and routine. They still manage to have a "date night" on occasion, but even that is rather monotonous. After hearing that some friends are ending their marriage, Carell and Fey's Phil and Claire Foster decide to go to New York City and have an elegant, romantic evening at a fashionable restaurant. When they discover that you need a reservation far in advance, they assume the identity of another couple whose name is called. A couple of thugs with guns, thinking they are the couple with the reservation, take the Fosters into an alley behind the restaurant and attempt to kill them. What follows is a hilarious pursuit through the city, an homage to those earlier screwball comedies. Mark Wahlberg has a supporting role as one of Claire's former clients, one to whom she was obviously attracted, and he makes the most of his brief time on the screen. Carell's reaction to the flirting going on between his wife and Wahlberg's character is priceless. There's no deep meaning to this film and you won't learn any true life lessons from watching it--you already know that you should appreciate your spouse and spend more time with her or him, and you already know that sometimes a boring life with someone you love is all you truly need--but you'll certainly laugh at some of the situations in which Carell and Fey find themselves and the ways they try to get out of those situations. You don't need gimmicks like 3-D or IMAX in order to make a film like this one entertaining.
Dream Boy is a small independent movie about two next door neighbor boys who fall in love with each other and begin a furtive sexual relationship. The film is set in the South, apparently during the 1970s or early 1980s, based upon the clothing styles, and that naturally means that the boys, who are teens still in high school, have to keep their relationship a secret from their families and friends. Of course, each of the boys is saddled with trouble in their personal lives, and even though neither of the scenarios is all that unique in terms of independent gay film these days, I won't reveal the alleged surprises that occur. I will, however, readily admit to being appalled if not shocked at what happens when the boys join three of their so-called friends for a weekend getaway in the woods. (Why would people who basically live in the woods already feel a need to get away to the woods for an entire weekend? That mentality has always confused me, being from the country myself.) Both of the lead actors, Stephan Bender and Maximilian Roeg, are quite good, and it was a pleasure to see Diana Scarwid and Rickie Lee Jones playing their mothers. And I always enjoy seeing cinematography of the South when it's handled this well; it creates quite an appropriate mood and atmosphere.
How to Train Your Dragon was one of the highlights of the year for me. I'll be honest and admit that I didn't have high expectations based upon the few trailers I had seen, but when The Boyfriend insisted, I went along, paying for the 3-D and IMAX enhanced version as well. And, boy, am I glad that I did. This is a relatively simple tale of a young Viking named Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) who is an outsider in his village. He doesn't seem to be as athletic as his fellow teens or as interested in dragon slaying as they are. He does, though, want to fit in, so he begins going to classes in how to hunt and kill dragons, and we in the audience learn about the different varieties of dragons--a charming sequence in the film. Hiccup gets involved in defending the village from a dragon attack and injures a rare dragon of the Night Fury variety. He befriends it rather than kills it, and he and the girl he loves (you knew there would be a love interest) enjoy spending time helping the beast Hiccup has nicknamed Toothless regain his ability to fly. I suppose I don't need to tell you that Hiccup becomes the true hero of the story or that Toothless is integral to his success; you have seen enough movies about outsiders to know how this all ends. Yet knowing that some of the standard cliches are going to be included doesn't detract from the joy of watching some thrilling flying sequences or enjoying some broadly comic scenes involving Hiccup and his fellow schoolmates. This was one of the few movies in 3-D that I saw this year that was truly deserving of putting on those funny glasses.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Planning Ahead
We had been working on doing some prewriting activities for the final essay of the semester in my developmental writing classes. Not horribly complicated stuff. Just getting some ideas down on paper for use in the rough draft. We'd been at it for about an hour, and I suggested that most of the information needed for a response to the assignment was now on the sheets of paper in front of them. I then asked them to take what we had previously discussed about organization and write an outline for the rough draft. I thought I would get some solid attempts at putting together a framework for an essay, but I have to admit that my favorite came from one of the football players. His outline, preserved in its original form:
- intro
- body
- body
- body
- conlusion [sic]
Spiritual Awakening
The assignment was a relatively simple one. I asked students to watch a movie or television show, select a specific group of people depicted on that show or in the movie, and then explain what a viewer's impression of that group would be based upon how it was depicted. I did suggest that it might be more interesting to choose a group of which the student was not a member.
The students (all of them in my developmental writing classes) made some intriguing choices: serial killers (Dexter), Alaskans (The Proposal), gypsies or "pikeys" (Snatch), pirates (One Piece), married men (Old School), bosses (The Office), snipers (Enemy at the Gates), even Jedis (Star Wars Episode II: The Attack of the Clones). A few faltered in the explanation of how the group was depicted, but it was only a rough draft, so I expect the final drafts will likely be stronger and have more examples and other details.
One, however, stood out not only for the group chosen for discussion but also for a couple of astonishing statements. The students is a tall, athletic Latino. I have reason to suspect that he might be religious given the brochures for the Latter Day Saints that I've seen in his notebook. I would never have suspected that he would choose Pineapple Express as the movie and potheads as the group. The overall essay was strong for a rough draft, but when I read the following statements in the introduction, I have to admit that I was pretty shocked: "People are very judgmental nowadays and they will try to determine the type of person you are by any little thing that they see. For instance people that smoke Marijuana are looked at upon in a very bad way just because they smoke a natural herb that God created for us." In the conclusion, he returned to the same idea: "Potheads are not bad people, they smoke a natural herb that was placed here by God. Humans don't add any chemicals or change the material to make what they want. It is a natural plant and you can pick it and smoke it instantly, other drugs need to be played around with to get the final result, but that's why marijuana is not bad." Yes, I preserved his grammatical errors in the quote, not to mention his apparent lack of knowledge of how people...um..."use" marijuana.
I know I probably shouldn't be shocked that there's a Christian rationalization for pot smoking. People can probably justify almost anything under the umbrella of religious faith. It just seemed so out of character for this young man. He states in his essay that he doesn't smoke pot (although he has friends who do) and I suspect that to be the case, but I would have never considered him to be a supporter of marijuana use. He even defended potheads as being more goal-oriented that people typically give them credit for being.
I feel like I learn something astonishing with almost every set of papers I read these days.
The students (all of them in my developmental writing classes) made some intriguing choices: serial killers (Dexter), Alaskans (The Proposal), gypsies or "pikeys" (Snatch), pirates (One Piece), married men (Old School), bosses (The Office), snipers (Enemy at the Gates), even Jedis (Star Wars Episode II: The Attack of the Clones). A few faltered in the explanation of how the group was depicted, but it was only a rough draft, so I expect the final drafts will likely be stronger and have more examples and other details.
One, however, stood out not only for the group chosen for discussion but also for a couple of astonishing statements. The students is a tall, athletic Latino. I have reason to suspect that he might be religious given the brochures for the Latter Day Saints that I've seen in his notebook. I would never have suspected that he would choose Pineapple Express as the movie and potheads as the group. The overall essay was strong for a rough draft, but when I read the following statements in the introduction, I have to admit that I was pretty shocked: "People are very judgmental nowadays and they will try to determine the type of person you are by any little thing that they see. For instance people that smoke Marijuana are looked at upon in a very bad way just because they smoke a natural herb that God created for us." In the conclusion, he returned to the same idea: "Potheads are not bad people, they smoke a natural herb that was placed here by God. Humans don't add any chemicals or change the material to make what they want. It is a natural plant and you can pick it and smoke it instantly, other drugs need to be played around with to get the final result, but that's why marijuana is not bad." Yes, I preserved his grammatical errors in the quote, not to mention his apparent lack of knowledge of how people...um..."use" marijuana.
I know I probably shouldn't be shocked that there's a Christian rationalization for pot smoking. People can probably justify almost anything under the umbrella of religious faith. It just seemed so out of character for this young man. He states in his essay that he doesn't smoke pot (although he has friends who do) and I suspect that to be the case, but I would have never considered him to be a supporter of marijuana use. He even defended potheads as being more goal-oriented that people typically give them credit for being.
I feel like I learn something astonishing with almost every set of papers I read these days.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Shame on the Hall of Fame
For the past three weeks or so, I've been posting videos on my Facebook page of women who have not been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame but who deserve to be (in my opinion, at least). It's a astonishing list: Joan Baez, Pat Benatar, Cher, Petula Clark, Lesley Gore, Janet Jackson, Joan Jett, Carole King, Cyndi Lauper, Stevie Nicks, Laura Nyro, Linda Ronstadt, Buffy Sainte Marie, Carly Simon, Tina Turner, Mary Wells, the Chiffons, the Crystals, the Go-Gos, the Indigo Girls, the Marvelettes, and the Shangri-Las. All of these women have made significant and lasting contributions to rock and roll and to music in general, yet they have yet to be included among the august company of inductees. And I stopped before I could include other luminaries such as Judy Collins, Marianne Faithful, Lita Ford, Janis Ian, Rickie Lee Jones, Nico, Helen Reddy, Carla Thomas, the Dixie Cups, the Runaways, and the Slits (whose lead singer recently passed away).
When you see that list of names and then you look at some of the inductees into the Hall of Fame, you begin to wonder just how fairly women are treated in rock music. I'm not trying to quibble over some of the people who have already been honored, but I do think that if you could find room to include the Dave Clark Five and Gene Vincent and the Lovin' Spoonful and Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers, surely there must be room for Pat Benatar and Linda Ronstadt and the Go-Gos and Lesley Gore. If you can induct Bob Dylan and then later induct his band, The Band, then you can induct Joan Baez. If you can include James Taylor, then you can include his ex-wife Carly Simon and his current touring partner Carole King. If you can induct the Jackson Five and then later induct Michael Jackson, certainly you can make room for younger sister Janet Jackson.
It's true that Tina Turner is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame already, but as a part of a duo with her ex-husband, not for her solo career. Given the bad blood between them, Tina decided that she would skip the ceremony when they were inducted, leaving Ike Turner to enjoy an evening to revel in his success. Tina Turner has never had a chance to feel that same sense of pride. Yes, Stevie Nicks is also in the hall, but as a part of Fleetwood Mac, not for her solo career. Her time as a solo artist is almost equal to the time she's spent with the rest of Fleetwood Mac. Lest you think that it would be inappropriate to induct someone twice, just remember that Eric Clapton has been inducted three times already, for his solo work and as a part of the Yardbirds and as a member of Cream. And fifteen other men have been inducted twice, including three of the Beatles (no, not Ringo Starr--yet) and all of the members of Crosby, Stills, & Nash. Tina Turner and Stevie Nicks and other female performers should get the same consideration.
Likewise, Carole King is included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but in the "non-performer" category that is now named after famed record producer Ahmet Ertegun. She's there with her songwriting partner, Gerry Goffin, but to consider King a non-performer is to miss the contributions of her overall career. Maybe none of the nominating committee has ever listened to Tapestry, at one time the biggest-selling album by a female artist.
By this point, you may be wondering just which women are already in the Hall of Fame. It is an impressive list of performers. The solo female artists in the hall are Aretha Franklin (inducted in 1987), LaVern Baker (1991), Ruth Brown (1993), Etta James (1993), Janis Jopin (1995), Joni Mitchell (1997), Dusty Springfield (1999), Bonnie Raitt (2000), Brenda Lee (2002), Patti Smith (2007), and Madonna (2008). That's eleven women out of the 82 solo artists who have been inducted, about 13 percent of the total. You may notice that not all of them are truly "rock and roll" singers, but they all have certainly influenced rock music throughout the years.
When it comes to duos and groups, the counting gets a bit trickier. Sixteen duos and groups with at least one female member have been inducted, among them the Supremes (inducted in 1988), Ike and Tina Turner (1991), Sly and the Family Stone (1993), Martha and the Vandellas (1995), Gladys Knight and the Pips (1996), Jefferson Airplane (1996), the Shirelles (1996), the Velvet Underground (1996), Fleetwood Mac (1998), the Mamas and the Papas (1998), the Staple Singers (1999), Talking Heads (2002), the Pretenders (2005), Blondie (2006), the Ronettes (2007), and ABBA (2010). A few of those, like the Pretenders and Blondie, are fronted by women, and others, like the Supremes and Martha and the Vandellas, are exclusively female groups, but no one would consider Sly and the Family Stone or the Talking Heads to be "female-centered." Still, if you're feeling generous, duos or groups with female members constitute 18 percent of the 87 duos and groups in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
(A quick note about the Velvet Underground: You may have noticed that I included Nico, who performed with the Underground quite often, as one of the women yet to be inducted. That's because she was omitted from the list of members when the group was honored in 1996. Maureen Tucker, the band's drummer, was included among the honorees, so that's why the Velvet Underground is included above.)
This is all about the category for "performers," by the way, but there are four other categories in which one could be inducted. There's one for "early influences, which includes thirty people, six of them women (Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, Dinah Washington, Mahalia Jackson, Billie Holiday, and Wanda Jackson). Jackson, of course, was a contemporary of performers like Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis, both of whom are inducted as performers. Early influences, according to the hall's website, are performers "whose music predated rock and roll but had an impact on the evolution of rock and roll and inspired rock's leading artists." Perhaps there's some logic at work here that would explain why Jackson (who was inducted in this category in 2009) wasn't just included among the performers, given that she was one of the few women playing rockabilly music in the 1950s, but it escapes me. The lifetime achievement category has seven inductees, all of them men, none of them performers. I've already mentioned the "non-performers" category above with respect to Carole King. Two other women, both songwriters, are included in this category: Ellie Greenwich and Cynthia Weil, both of them inducted with their male songwriting partners too. That category contains 41 individuals. Finally, there's the "sidemen" category, which includes fifteen men best known for performing as backup musicians.
The rules for how an artist is inducted, to be fair, are a bit bewildering. There's a committee that picks finalists each year from a list of artists who have had at least twenty-five years since the release of their first record. Who's on the committee is never quite clear. Neither is it clear who the 500 "rock experts" are who are given ballots of the finalists to select. An artist must be chosen by more than 50 percent of those "experts" in order to be inducted.
This year's nominees are Alice Cooper (the whole band, not just the individual), the Beastie Boys, Bon Jovi, Chic (which has female members), Neil Diamond, Donovan, Dr. John, the J. Geils Band, LL Cool J, Darlene Love, Laura Nyro, Donna Summer, Joe Tex, Tom Waits, and Chuck Willis. Love, Nyro, and Summer have all been finalists in the past; none of them are given good odds for induction this year, but who can tell what the "experts" might decide.
I'd like to make a case for one female artist, in particular. Pat Benatar released her first major studio album in 1979 although she had, technically, released a single ("Day Gig") five years earlier. That would mean that she has been eligible for induction at least since 2004. To my knowledge, she's never even been one of the finalists. Yet she has amassed nineteen Top 40 singles, numerous gold, platinum, and multi-platinum albums, and four consecutive Grammy Awards for the Best Female Rock Vocal Performance. That last honor is rather unprecedented (well, outside of the polka category). Benatar received her first Grammy for 1980's Crimes of Passion album, her second for "Fire and Ice," the third for "Shadows of the Night," and her final award for "Love Is a Battlefield." She was nominated an additional three times in the same category and once more in the Female Pop Vocal Performance.
She was a star from the release of the single "Heartbreaker" in 1979, and she was well established enough by the time that MTV arrived in 1981 that her video for "You Better Run" was the second video ever shown on the channel (after "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles--someone at MTV had a sense of humor). She was known for her live performances and her groundbreaking videos, and she's still performing today with her husband of twenty-eight years, guitarist Neil Giraldo, and the rest of her band. I myself saw her perform at Mississippi State University in the mid 1980s, and I can still recall how powerful a singer she was (and is) despite being so tiny. I regretted not going to her show this past summer at the Greek Theatre, but she was touring with REO Speedwagon, and I didn't think I could manage to sit through their segment in order to enjoy Benatar and her music.
Benatar took up causes in her music, including domestic violence, child abuse, and sexism. If you read her autobiography published earlier this year, Between a Heart and a Rock Place, you'll understand just how much of a pioneer she truly was. She was one of the few women to challenge the men who controlled the music business. While she didn't always succeed, she managed to get the last laugh sometimes. I think her video for "Sex as a Weapon" was clearly aimed at everyone who told her that she needed to look pretty for the stage.
I cannot imagine a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that doesn't include someone like Pat Benatar. She defined what being a rock star was during the 1980s and beyond. There's a scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High where some girls are talking about how much everyone is influenced by Benatar, and the camera then pans the school to show girls with that famous haircut and those outfits. I can even recall when the band Quarterflash was popular (briefly), and everyone was talking about how much the lead singer was copying Benatar's vocal style. Lots of other women in music did too, but it's too bad that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame hasn't seen fit yet to honor her contributions.
When you see that list of names and then you look at some of the inductees into the Hall of Fame, you begin to wonder just how fairly women are treated in rock music. I'm not trying to quibble over some of the people who have already been honored, but I do think that if you could find room to include the Dave Clark Five and Gene Vincent and the Lovin' Spoonful and Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers, surely there must be room for Pat Benatar and Linda Ronstadt and the Go-Gos and Lesley Gore. If you can induct Bob Dylan and then later induct his band, The Band, then you can induct Joan Baez. If you can include James Taylor, then you can include his ex-wife Carly Simon and his current touring partner Carole King. If you can induct the Jackson Five and then later induct Michael Jackson, certainly you can make room for younger sister Janet Jackson.
It's true that Tina Turner is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame already, but as a part of a duo with her ex-husband, not for her solo career. Given the bad blood between them, Tina decided that she would skip the ceremony when they were inducted, leaving Ike Turner to enjoy an evening to revel in his success. Tina Turner has never had a chance to feel that same sense of pride. Yes, Stevie Nicks is also in the hall, but as a part of Fleetwood Mac, not for her solo career. Her time as a solo artist is almost equal to the time she's spent with the rest of Fleetwood Mac. Lest you think that it would be inappropriate to induct someone twice, just remember that Eric Clapton has been inducted three times already, for his solo work and as a part of the Yardbirds and as a member of Cream. And fifteen other men have been inducted twice, including three of the Beatles (no, not Ringo Starr--yet) and all of the members of Crosby, Stills, & Nash. Tina Turner and Stevie Nicks and other female performers should get the same consideration.
Likewise, Carole King is included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but in the "non-performer" category that is now named after famed record producer Ahmet Ertegun. She's there with her songwriting partner, Gerry Goffin, but to consider King a non-performer is to miss the contributions of her overall career. Maybe none of the nominating committee has ever listened to Tapestry, at one time the biggest-selling album by a female artist.
By this point, you may be wondering just which women are already in the Hall of Fame. It is an impressive list of performers. The solo female artists in the hall are Aretha Franklin (inducted in 1987), LaVern Baker (1991), Ruth Brown (1993), Etta James (1993), Janis Jopin (1995), Joni Mitchell (1997), Dusty Springfield (1999), Bonnie Raitt (2000), Brenda Lee (2002), Patti Smith (2007), and Madonna (2008). That's eleven women out of the 82 solo artists who have been inducted, about 13 percent of the total. You may notice that not all of them are truly "rock and roll" singers, but they all have certainly influenced rock music throughout the years.
When it comes to duos and groups, the counting gets a bit trickier. Sixteen duos and groups with at least one female member have been inducted, among them the Supremes (inducted in 1988), Ike and Tina Turner (1991), Sly and the Family Stone (1993), Martha and the Vandellas (1995), Gladys Knight and the Pips (1996), Jefferson Airplane (1996), the Shirelles (1996), the Velvet Underground (1996), Fleetwood Mac (1998), the Mamas and the Papas (1998), the Staple Singers (1999), Talking Heads (2002), the Pretenders (2005), Blondie (2006), the Ronettes (2007), and ABBA (2010). A few of those, like the Pretenders and Blondie, are fronted by women, and others, like the Supremes and Martha and the Vandellas, are exclusively female groups, but no one would consider Sly and the Family Stone or the Talking Heads to be "female-centered." Still, if you're feeling generous, duos or groups with female members constitute 18 percent of the 87 duos and groups in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
(A quick note about the Velvet Underground: You may have noticed that I included Nico, who performed with the Underground quite often, as one of the women yet to be inducted. That's because she was omitted from the list of members when the group was honored in 1996. Maureen Tucker, the band's drummer, was included among the honorees, so that's why the Velvet Underground is included above.)
This is all about the category for "performers," by the way, but there are four other categories in which one could be inducted. There's one for "early influences, which includes thirty people, six of them women (Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, Dinah Washington, Mahalia Jackson, Billie Holiday, and Wanda Jackson). Jackson, of course, was a contemporary of performers like Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis, both of whom are inducted as performers. Early influences, according to the hall's website, are performers "whose music predated rock and roll but had an impact on the evolution of rock and roll and inspired rock's leading artists." Perhaps there's some logic at work here that would explain why Jackson (who was inducted in this category in 2009) wasn't just included among the performers, given that she was one of the few women playing rockabilly music in the 1950s, but it escapes me. The lifetime achievement category has seven inductees, all of them men, none of them performers. I've already mentioned the "non-performers" category above with respect to Carole King. Two other women, both songwriters, are included in this category: Ellie Greenwich and Cynthia Weil, both of them inducted with their male songwriting partners too. That category contains 41 individuals. Finally, there's the "sidemen" category, which includes fifteen men best known for performing as backup musicians.
The rules for how an artist is inducted, to be fair, are a bit bewildering. There's a committee that picks finalists each year from a list of artists who have had at least twenty-five years since the release of their first record. Who's on the committee is never quite clear. Neither is it clear who the 500 "rock experts" are who are given ballots of the finalists to select. An artist must be chosen by more than 50 percent of those "experts" in order to be inducted.
This year's nominees are Alice Cooper (the whole band, not just the individual), the Beastie Boys, Bon Jovi, Chic (which has female members), Neil Diamond, Donovan, Dr. John, the J. Geils Band, LL Cool J, Darlene Love, Laura Nyro, Donna Summer, Joe Tex, Tom Waits, and Chuck Willis. Love, Nyro, and Summer have all been finalists in the past; none of them are given good odds for induction this year, but who can tell what the "experts" might decide.
I'd like to make a case for one female artist, in particular. Pat Benatar released her first major studio album in 1979 although she had, technically, released a single ("Day Gig") five years earlier. That would mean that she has been eligible for induction at least since 2004. To my knowledge, she's never even been one of the finalists. Yet she has amassed nineteen Top 40 singles, numerous gold, platinum, and multi-platinum albums, and four consecutive Grammy Awards for the Best Female Rock Vocal Performance. That last honor is rather unprecedented (well, outside of the polka category). Benatar received her first Grammy for 1980's Crimes of Passion album, her second for "Fire and Ice," the third for "Shadows of the Night," and her final award for "Love Is a Battlefield." She was nominated an additional three times in the same category and once more in the Female Pop Vocal Performance.
She was a star from the release of the single "Heartbreaker" in 1979, and she was well established enough by the time that MTV arrived in 1981 that her video for "You Better Run" was the second video ever shown on the channel (after "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles--someone at MTV had a sense of humor). She was known for her live performances and her groundbreaking videos, and she's still performing today with her husband of twenty-eight years, guitarist Neil Giraldo, and the rest of her band. I myself saw her perform at Mississippi State University in the mid 1980s, and I can still recall how powerful a singer she was (and is) despite being so tiny. I regretted not going to her show this past summer at the Greek Theatre, but she was touring with REO Speedwagon, and I didn't think I could manage to sit through their segment in order to enjoy Benatar and her music.
Benatar took up causes in her music, including domestic violence, child abuse, and sexism. If you read her autobiography published earlier this year, Between a Heart and a Rock Place, you'll understand just how much of a pioneer she truly was. She was one of the few women to challenge the men who controlled the music business. While she didn't always succeed, she managed to get the last laugh sometimes. I think her video for "Sex as a Weapon" was clearly aimed at everyone who told her that she needed to look pretty for the stage.
I cannot imagine a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that doesn't include someone like Pat Benatar. She defined what being a rock star was during the 1980s and beyond. There's a scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High where some girls are talking about how much everyone is influenced by Benatar, and the camera then pans the school to show girls with that famous haircut and those outfits. I can even recall when the band Quarterflash was popular (briefly), and everyone was talking about how much the lead singer was copying Benatar's vocal style. Lots of other women in music did too, but it's too bad that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame hasn't seen fit yet to honor her contributions.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Nutty Neighbors: Late-Breaking News
I know that I should keep you updated more often on the neighbors, but work takes up so much time these days that it's difficult to let you know about every crazy little thing that they do. For example, should I tell you about the loud fight they had last evening? It's not the first argument they've had, mind you, but this one lasted for a couple of hours and there was a lot of yelling involved. However, since they seemed to have made up this morning, perhaps I'll instead update you on a couple of other interesting items.
Item 1: For the past couple of weeks, the key case (you may recall it was very cleverly marked "KEY CASE" so no one would suspect what it is) disappeared from the door frame out in the hallway. The Boyfriend and I speculated about the possible reasons--she lost the case as well as the keys, they have no friends to leave the keys for any longer, he started stapling the key to her clothes every morning--but we reached no conclusion. However, I returned home one night earlier this week to find that the key is still being left in the hallway, just in a less conspicuous fashion.
Yes, that's the edge of the rug in the hallway. Yes, we're back to leaving the key under the rug. Yes, we're also not being very careful about how exposed our key is.
Item 2: Despite the months of having the key case (or, as if you prefer KEY CASE) on the door frame in the hallway and despite now having the key under the mat, Godzilla still sometimes locks herself out of the apartment and has to call the security patrol to let her into her home. It's a $50 charge each time, so it's costing her some money to do this. However, that's not the most unusual part of this. Several weeks ago, we received a memo regarding the complex's policy on dogs. It clearly states (in bold letters and some all capital letters, no less): "Pet Dogs are NEVER allowed in any Tower unit." You may recall that I live in one of the towers in the complex. Godzilla just happened to be sitting in front of her apartment with a dog in her lap when the patrol officer came by to unlock her door. He told her that he would unlock the door but reminded her that dogs were not allowed in the tower apartments. He even mentioned that we had recently received a memo about this issue. I am quite certain that Godzilla didn't read the memo, since most of the memos or phone books or fast food brochures wind up lying on the floor outside her apartment for days until someone else picks them up. She responded that she was just taking care of the dog for a friend--you know, dog-sitting. That's when the patrol officer reminded her of another provision that was included in the memo: "NO visitor or guest dogs are allowed on the property." She asked him to open her door anyway and said that she would take the dog somewhere else that night. You know, of course, how this turned out, don't you? The dog stayed the entire night, and it whimpered every time she left the apartment. Thankfully, its owner must have picked it up the next day, and there's been no further sign of a dog on this floor. (As for other floors, well, that's another story. Apparently, it isn't just Godzilla who doesn't--or can't--read memos.)
Item 3: For the past four days, there has been a box in the hallway outside the door to Godzilla and Hermey's apartment. It's the box from a new printer for a computer, and there is a printer inside. The Boyfriend thinks it's a brand new printer, complete with printer cartridge sitting on top. I think it's an old printer, maybe the one the new printer replaced, with a cartridge that won't fit the new one. Nevertheless, it just looks a bit trashy to leave one's garbage outside in the hallway, especially since we don't have door-to-door pick-up of garbage. Neither Godzilla nor Hermey will take the responsibility to move the box down to the garbage bins in the basement, and The Boyfriend is threatening to take the printer and sell it on Craigslist.
I guess it's not all that intrusive.
It just sticks out a bit and I know you can just walk around it, but I'm sure if you're a considerate tenant, you can think of ways to make it less of an obstacle.
You'd think if someone has the ability to move a box so that it doesn't stick out into the hallway as much as before, that same person could carry it to the garbage chute or to the basement so that the hallway doesn't look like the start of an episode of Hoarders.
This certainly isn't the first time that Godzilla and/or Hermey has left garbage in the hallway. Thankfully, it's usually only paper products like the new phone books or those fast food menus I mentioned above (or those helpful, informative memos from the apartment complex's owners). Still, you'd expect grown-ups to want their place to look a bit nicer than this, particularly if they are still going to have friends come over to visit. Then again, I guess I don't have much evidence that the people living next door are actually grown-ups.
Item 1: For the past couple of weeks, the key case (you may recall it was very cleverly marked "KEY CASE" so no one would suspect what it is) disappeared from the door frame out in the hallway. The Boyfriend and I speculated about the possible reasons--she lost the case as well as the keys, they have no friends to leave the keys for any longer, he started stapling the key to her clothes every morning--but we reached no conclusion. However, I returned home one night earlier this week to find that the key is still being left in the hallway, just in a less conspicuous fashion.
Yes, that's the edge of the rug in the hallway. Yes, we're back to leaving the key under the rug. Yes, we're also not being very careful about how exposed our key is.
Item 2: Despite the months of having the key case (or, as if you prefer KEY CASE) on the door frame in the hallway and despite now having the key under the mat, Godzilla still sometimes locks herself out of the apartment and has to call the security patrol to let her into her home. It's a $50 charge each time, so it's costing her some money to do this. However, that's not the most unusual part of this. Several weeks ago, we received a memo regarding the complex's policy on dogs. It clearly states (in bold letters and some all capital letters, no less): "Pet Dogs are NEVER allowed in any Tower unit." You may recall that I live in one of the towers in the complex. Godzilla just happened to be sitting in front of her apartment with a dog in her lap when the patrol officer came by to unlock her door. He told her that he would unlock the door but reminded her that dogs were not allowed in the tower apartments. He even mentioned that we had recently received a memo about this issue. I am quite certain that Godzilla didn't read the memo, since most of the memos or phone books or fast food brochures wind up lying on the floor outside her apartment for days until someone else picks them up. She responded that she was just taking care of the dog for a friend--you know, dog-sitting. That's when the patrol officer reminded her of another provision that was included in the memo: "NO visitor or guest dogs are allowed on the property." She asked him to open her door anyway and said that she would take the dog somewhere else that night. You know, of course, how this turned out, don't you? The dog stayed the entire night, and it whimpered every time she left the apartment. Thankfully, its owner must have picked it up the next day, and there's been no further sign of a dog on this floor. (As for other floors, well, that's another story. Apparently, it isn't just Godzilla who doesn't--or can't--read memos.)
Item 3: For the past four days, there has been a box in the hallway outside the door to Godzilla and Hermey's apartment. It's the box from a new printer for a computer, and there is a printer inside. The Boyfriend thinks it's a brand new printer, complete with printer cartridge sitting on top. I think it's an old printer, maybe the one the new printer replaced, with a cartridge that won't fit the new one. Nevertheless, it just looks a bit trashy to leave one's garbage outside in the hallway, especially since we don't have door-to-door pick-up of garbage. Neither Godzilla nor Hermey will take the responsibility to move the box down to the garbage bins in the basement, and The Boyfriend is threatening to take the printer and sell it on Craigslist.
I guess it's not all that intrusive.
It just sticks out a bit and I know you can just walk around it, but I'm sure if you're a considerate tenant, you can think of ways to make it less of an obstacle.
You'd think if someone has the ability to move a box so that it doesn't stick out into the hallway as much as before, that same person could carry it to the garbage chute or to the basement so that the hallway doesn't look like the start of an episode of Hoarders.
This certainly isn't the first time that Godzilla and/or Hermey has left garbage in the hallway. Thankfully, it's usually only paper products like the new phone books or those fast food menus I mentioned above (or those helpful, informative memos from the apartment complex's owners). Still, you'd expect grown-ups to want their place to look a bit nicer than this, particularly if they are still going to have friends come over to visit. Then again, I guess I don't have much evidence that the people living next door are actually grown-ups.
Advice for Advisors
I've been the advisor for a student club on my campus for fifteen years. As the years have progressed, I've noticed that the bureaucratic demands have only increased. To be more accurate, they've gotten worse, and I've gotten more frustrated. Sometime, perhaps when I'm feeling less wounded from the experience, I'll try to recount what happened in the spring when the club wanted to put on a drag show as a fundraiser. It was, simply put, a nightmare and one of the busiest times I've ever experienced as an advisor. I even started to think that that it might be institutional homophobia since the club is for LGBT students and their friends and supporters. However, when you receive an e-mail like the one below, you start to realize that it isn't at all personal. The bureaucracy treats everyone badly.
I received this e-mail from the person in charge of all of the clubs on campus. It was meant to give students some ideas for how they might "earn" some money for their club activities. It's not that unusual, frankly, because a lot of clubs and other groups at colleges and universities go to tapings of television shows. They just don't have to deal with as much paperwork as we do. You should know that the person who sent this e-mail is very well-intentioned, but as you can tell from the following, maybe a bit too hung up on forms.
"Here's a fun fundraising/event idea, however please keep in mind that such events should be planned at least 6 weeks in advance to meet the campus timelines and process requirement.
"(FYI....There won't be enough time to turnaround approvals for these October events, however, keep this type of event in mind for future.)
"For fundraising events such as this, please remember to:
Well, that should be simple enough, shouldn't it? I think that last bullet point must have been ironic. If you've survived all of the preceding steps of the process, you won't have the energy to enjoy your time at Chelsea Lately or Dancing with the Stars or Let's Make a Deal.
I have tried several times over the past few years to convince some other faculty or classified staff member to take over as the advisor to the club. We used to have four advisors. In fact, there were times when the advisors outnumbered the club members. That's actually how the LGBT employee group got started; we were talking together at a student meeting and decided to form our own organization. Times were simpler then, and more people were able to be involved in things like advising. Can you imagine finding a replacement now if she or he found out about what the school demands just to travel to a taping of a television show? And don't even ask what you'd need to submit if you wanted to take one of the school vans to the event.
I received this e-mail from the person in charge of all of the clubs on campus. It was meant to give students some ideas for how they might "earn" some money for their club activities. It's not that unusual, frankly, because a lot of clubs and other groups at colleges and universities go to tapings of television shows. They just don't have to deal with as much paperwork as we do. You should know that the person who sent this e-mail is very well-intentioned, but as you can tell from the following, maybe a bit too hung up on forms.
"Here's a fun fundraising/event idea, however please keep in mind that such events should be planned at least 6 weeks in advance to meet the campus timelines and process requirement.
"(FYI....There won't be enough time to turnaround approvals for these October events, however, keep this type of event in mind for future.)
"For fundraising events such as this, please remember to:
- "Start planning at least 6 weeks in advance
- "Obtain information/agreement/co. forms from the taping co. Be sure to read the details very carefully. Pls check age requirement
- "Seek availability of appropriate advisor to attend/supervise event
- "Seek Club approval
- "Submit FC Pre-Approval Form for Club Events to Student Affairs with fundraising form
- "Once approved, submit Master Calendar request
- "Complete FC Agreement/Contract Packet and forward to Co to sign. This contract is needed back at FC Student Affairs at least 3 weeks prior to the event to obtain FC signatures (per the FC President, there are no exceptions)
- "Submit Field Trip Request with waivers/participant agreement forms to Student Affairs at least 6 working days prior to the event for campus approvals (for FC Students, Faculty and Staff only)
- "Once event is approved by the campus, then you can begin to promote the event, as normal (submit Distribution of Printed Materials form with copy of flier to Student Affairs; obtain signage approvals through Student Affairs)
- "Once payment is received from company, complete the reconciliation part of the copy of your initial fundraiser form (including advisor's signature) and submit it with the deposit form (with advisors signature) and payment to Student Affairs for processing.
- "Enjoy!"
Well, that should be simple enough, shouldn't it? I think that last bullet point must have been ironic. If you've survived all of the preceding steps of the process, you won't have the energy to enjoy your time at Chelsea Lately or Dancing with the Stars or Let's Make a Deal.
I have tried several times over the past few years to convince some other faculty or classified staff member to take over as the advisor to the club. We used to have four advisors. In fact, there were times when the advisors outnumbered the club members. That's actually how the LGBT employee group got started; we were talking together at a student meeting and decided to form our own organization. Times were simpler then, and more people were able to be involved in things like advising. Can you imagine finding a replacement now if she or he found out about what the school demands just to travel to a taping of a television show? And don't even ask what you'd need to submit if you wanted to take one of the school vans to the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)