Strike!

Well, the writer's strike in Hollywood is in full swing now. Daily talk shows are showing reruns, movies in production have been postponed, and by January tv will turn to reality shows. I think this is a sad time for Hollywood and for the viewers.

I love television! I have my shows that I watch religiously. I understand the arguements that are going on at the moment and I support the writers. However, what am I supposed to do come January when shows like The Office and Pushing Daisies are replaced with crap like Marry My Mom or Eat As Many Gross Things As You Can? My tv will be off until my shows come back, I guess.

I hate reality television for the reason that there is nothing to it. It's absurd! Shows like The Bachelor, The Biggest Loser, Beauty and the Geek, and various others are ridiculous. It's a load of people's 15 minutes of fame. I avoid all MTV reality shows which are even more ridiculous than the ones already listed. Even a huge favorite, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition borders on ridiculous!

I end this post with a plea: Hollywood, please make peace!

Classic or Trash???

Who decides what is "classic" and what is "trash?" I've seen so many things lately that I hear are "classics" and all I really saw was worthless trash that someone deemed "classic-worthy." Who are these people that deem movies, works or art, literature...etc, "classics?" What are their backgrounds? How do they make their decisions?

Take for example, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" with Audrey Hepburn. I still don't see the point. And the fact that this movie is what Audrey Hepburn is known for makes my head spin! She's a social climber, using anyone she can for money. He's a man-whore, having affairs with married women who support him while he attempts to write novels. And they unite over a cat! Who deemed this a classic and why?

If someone could explain this to me I would be forever grateful. I just don't understand what makes something a classic while other things go by unnoticed.

The Generation Gap in Technology

How is it that an eight year old can set up a Wii while a forty year old watches in amazement and confusion? Why can a twelve year old figure out a cell phone faster than a fifty year old? If you've ever asked yourself these questions then you have struggled with the comprehension of the generation gap.

I remember growing up I had a Fisher Price tape recorder (remember those?) that had five large buttons with symbols on them. It didn't say what they were or anything. A green triangle pointing right, a red square, a blue outlined arrow going left, a matching outlined arrow going right, and a red circle. This was my introduction into technology. From these complex symbols I learned play, stop, rewind, fast forward, and record. This is essentially what has gotten me through it all. Sure I've learned things on computers, learned how to use speed dial and voice commands on my cell phone, and even programming a tevo; but what it all really came down to for me was those five little symbols.

I know people like my parents and grandparents didn't have Fisher Price tape recorders to carry them through the technology age. For them, this is a completely different world then what they remember. And I'm not saying I know everything here. My twelve year old cousin makes me look like a fool when it comes to anything video games.

I'm not really sure what divides us in the end. My generation was around for the beginning of the technology age. Years from now I'll tell my grandchildren all about when I was around for the Apple Iphone, in which case they will probably laugh at me for how dated I am.

Slasher flicks gone wild!

I just saw 30 Days of Night about vampires taking over a small Alaskan town. It was the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time. People are being torn apart left and right, and not just adults but children as well. The movie has no real plot and the whole thing is mainly blood and gore. Yet this crap is what tops the box office. Instead of seeing a movie with heart or, god forbid, an actual plot, people rush to the theaters to see people being torn apart, their worst nightmares projected on the screen. I guess I don't get it.

Is it the exhilaration of fear and adrenaline? It is a way to release our morbid sides? Is it the pychotic in all of us that gets to live through the action on the screen, even if only for an hour or so?

It seems like more and more slasher flicks are being released every year. Now they are being released around Christmas time which I think is absolutely absurd! I know they are cheap to make and for some crazy reason draw big crowds. I just don't understand what our morbid fascination with this crap!

Right and Wrong in a World of Gray

This week we read Brighton Rock by Graham Greene which discussed the matter of right and wrong and how nothing is concrete. This got me thinking about how we live in a world of gray. There are very few things that are absolutes. Mathmaticians and scientists will tell you that certain theories and such are absolutes that have been proven and cannot be argued against. However, when the newest discovery that contradicts what they previously believed is found to be true, they change their story. Nothing is set in stone, black and white, right and wrong. We live in a world of gray.

I am a huge Friends fan, if anyone remembers that show and I really hope you do. One of my favorite episodes is the one where Ross tries to convince Phoebe that evolution is the only truth out there. He shows her bones, discusses theories,... anything to prove to her that she is wrong. Her arguement, however, is the best explanation of anything and everything that I've ever heard. She says that scientists believed along time ago that the atom was the smallest thing there was. However, when they split it open they found tinier stuff and proved themselves wrong. So why should she believe them when they could very well be wrong. When Ross, stumped as he is by her reasoning, agrees with her, she states she has lost all respect for him for giving up his beliefs so quickly.

Now this is not a rant against evolution. And this is not a praise session for Friends, although I do love Friends!!! What I am trying to say is that Phoebe proves an excellent point here. The world is constantly changing. New discoveries are constantly being made. Therefore, right and wrong, and various other issues can never be set in stone due to change in our evolving world. We live in a world of gray and we should appreciate it!

The Simple Life

This week we read Evelyn Waugh's A Handful of Dust. It described the deterioration of the marriage of a British couple. While quite satirical, the under lying sadness of the realities these people faced was heartbreaking.

The husband, Tony, is an all-around good guy. He takes care of his family. He goes to church every Sunday. He loves his little boy and even his wife (although some may disagree with me on this point). He takes care of his home which is out of the current fashion of the time. He lives a simple life and doesn't get involved in the scandals and gossip of London, yet he finds himself in the middle of one when his wife begins an affair with a man in London.

Tony was the most sympathetic in the story to me because he seemed the character most removed, if you know what I mean. He lived and stayed in the country, in his little house. He, at times, seemed to not care what was happening around him. Even when his wife wants a divorce, he takes the blame and puts down it was he who had the affair just so she could get alimony. And then he dies and his house gets left to some relatives who will make it into something else. Tony was a good guy who got a raw deal. All he wanted was a simple life. He wasn't too happy and wasn't too miserable either.

Sex and the Rise of Women

This week we conquered D.L. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover where the protagonist, Constance is "trapped" in a loveless marriage to an impotent, diabled veteran and begins having an affair with her gamekeeper. While Constance is looked at with great sympathy by most of the great critics and readers of the century I found her to be selfish.

Constance and her sister are described from the beginning as free-thinking, intellectual women who have sexual relations with men just so that they can keep the sintilating discussion going. It means nothing to them who they're with or why, they just do it so they can stay included. Well, if this is what the early 1900s were like am I glad that I grew up when I did!

I'm not saying that this isn't still happening today. How many women sleep with their bosses to get a promotion? Come on! All I'm saying is that this idea that women have to lower themselves to men just so they can rise to their level is a ridiculous concept!

I hope to someday live in a world where sex is not the only way for a woman to get a job she more than well deserves. We're on our way now!