Optimistic faith without gullibility

"You're very gullible." --Todd
"No Todd, I'm OPEN." --Cathy

As I was watching TV today, this quote struck me. The former was said because Cathy had mentioned occasionally consulting psychics, and wanting to have her cards read. Perhaps the writers were going for sarcasm, but I choose to take it as a very real debate on one of those fine lines that we tread in life. Cathy is a self proclaimed optimist, while Todd is a hard science MD who chooses "realism" over either the sunny side up or dark clouds abound ways of thinking. Some might say that realism is a nice happy medium between optimism and pessimism. In truth, I think that everyone is realistic in their own sense of reality, and that those who go with "realism" as a philosophy simply do it to either justify or temper their inclination to either extreme.

But where are the lines between reality and blind faith? Openness to being closed off? Optimism vs. Pessimism? Are any right? Is moderation always the key?

Optimists are by nature hopeful people who tend to be open to more possibilities than the average person. Many optimists are people of faith, because many religions preach hope... or pretend to. Interestingly enough, this is not a reverseable truth. You cannot say that most people of faith are optimists, nor that most people of science are pessimists. The reason? Neither science nor faith lends itself to optimism or pessimism. Pessmistic people of faith will always find the dark gloom of the religious doctrine. Optimistic scientists see excitement in the power of knowledge and it's progression.

But back to the original question, where is the sweet spot between the two? Many will say that it can be found, and those people who find it become the average and "realistic" middle. Of course, this is completely inaccurate. Though it is true that the average person is neither an optimist or a pessimist, this is neither realistic nor some great sweet spot. We are so often inclined to want everything in moderation, and to find the balance and the middle that we sometimes forget that we're not supposed to. Look at being smart. Is there a medium point we should hit? Of course not. Dumb is bad. Smart is good. The smarter the better. Of course we often overlook the fact that there are traits like that even when they would help us a great deal.

So first to tackle the "realism" issue, which is nicely illustrated in the original quote. Todd believes in only what can be proven. Cathy, it seems believes in a great deal, or at least the "possibility" of a great deal. Interestingly enough, in the end, according to history, Cathy will prove right... by science. That's right. The great tool of "realism" is historically that which proves people of faith correct. Let me note here that I am not using faith in a purely religious term. Lots of "religious" people have no faith, and lots of people of faith choose no religion. The people of faith that I refer to are those that somehow inherently know and believe that there is more out there. Of course we time and time again prove that this is true. Thousands of years ago those who had faith in great laws of the universe that governed all living things were men of faith. They may said these laws were governed by gods or by "magic" but it was the men of faith who believed that they existed.

I also would say that true people of faith, do not fight against science and facts. They simply believe that there are MORE facts that we don't know. Those who say that knowledge removes faith are those who are seriously lacking in... well... faith. It is totally plausible, and EFFECTIVE to believe the facts as fact, and to believe that there is more to it than we know. Some of the things that "realists" reject have strangely been around for a very very long time. Why is it that even in an age of mass information and science can we still sometimes be shocked at accuracy of "alternative" ideas and methods? Perhaps there is a reason these things seem to work a great deal. Perhaps we just aren't yet ready to figure out the science behind it all. Maybe our "reasons" for why something works isn't dead on, but maybe it works just the same. People of hope and of faith inherently understand this. People who destroy these ideas with no more proof than those who believe in them are only hindering their own possible knowledge.

On to the second issue of optimism vs. pessimism, this one should be as clear as the smart vs dumb argument, yet somehow it's not. When we're young we are born optimistic. We are called naive, and this is a derogatory statement. Innocent is slightly nicer, but in effect the idea is the more you know about the world, the more pessimistic you should be. Now most people would argue that we don't actually want people to be "pessimistic," just more realistic (there's that word again). People who are optimistic in love are "hopelessly romantic." Hopeless again such a derogatory term, and yet we use it in this context all the time. People who trust are suckers, people who don't run in fear are ignorant. You are allowed to be optimistic only until you fall flat on your face, have your heart broken, your trust betrayed, etc. and suddenly "know better."

So why is this bad? Shouldn't we temper the hope and light with some solid "protection" that a dash of pessimism can provide? NO. Why? What makes this seemingly reasonable idea bad? Because pessimism kills us and optimism gives us life. We are born optimistic for a reason. Science has proven time and time again that a good outlook on life increases your ability to fight disease, lengthens your life, and makes you a healthier person. Optimism provides for this in a way that pessimism never can. This is why there has never been a scientific study proving pessimists live longer. Ever. Yet time and time again the reverse is true. Despite all the "protection" and "safety" that pessimism and through it "realism" provides, those who choose this don't live as long as the optimists. Do optimists make mistakes? Do they trust when they shouldn't? Do they put themselves in harms way without always realizing it? Yep! Of course what is often forgotten is that so does EVERYONE. Who in this world, no matter how much "realism" they spout hasn't made errors in judgement, or taken the unsafe path? No one. This is the truth. We're all gullible at some point. We all assume we know more than we do. Pessimism doesn't protect you. No one has the ability to be infallible, and therefore any amount of protection will be imperfect. By choosing optimism, you create a happier situation to live in when trouble isn't on the horizon rather than living in darkness. Further, optimism gives you the strength, hope, and IDEAS to get back up again when you've been knocked down. An optimist is like a rubber ball. It'll hit the ground, but it will always bounce back. Realism is like a lead ball. When it falls, it finds it hard to ever move again, because it traps itself in the "reality" it finds itself in. Pessimism is more like an egg. It has this amazing shell that protects it. Unfortunately, that shell can't hold forever, and when it finally breaks, the soft insides just spill all over.

Everyone can choose what they will. I have always chosen to believe in more than what I know, and to know in my heart that things in truth are bright and good. The sun is always shining, even if we can't see it. Looking only at the darkness will only blind us to the light when it comes back out again.

How do you like your eggs?

The thoughts of this dreary Sunday were given a new direction when my roommate decided that a good use of our time would be watching "Runaway Bride." Despite my love of Julia Roberts and romantic comedies in general, I had never actually seen this film. It was indeed enjoyable and a good counter-agent to the gloominess that was permeating my day. Once the movie was over, I felt a theme resonate with me, and the more I thought about it, the more aspects of relationships seemed to tie into this.

The theme is simply ones self. In the movie, it comes out that Robert's character has never settled into who she is and what she wants. Her engagements alwats come with her acting in a way that she can be who they want. This is artfully demonstrated by the fact that each former suitor claims that she likes her eggs the same way that they do. By the end, Roberts realizes that she in fact likes her eggs completely differently from all the guys she had been with. (Her finally landing on loving Eggs Benedict certainly gets a thumbs up from me).

I have talked before about the statement that people often need to get themselves together before they can be in a real relationship. I have often debunked this notion. This movie in some ways challenged my thoughts, but in the end, actually only strengthen my argument. People don't need their lives to be in order. If anything a relationship can often be a catalyst to taking our lives to new heights and bringing in line some of the loose edges that we allow to creep up in your singledom. What we do have to have is our sense of self.

I have seen many people run from relationships because "they weren't in the right place." While sometimes this is indeed true, often it is simply an excuse to continue to live in fear and run away from something serious or potentially painful or difficult. What if often overlooked is when people aren't actually ready, because they don't know themselves. They can't decide what type of eggs to order, what makes them truly happy. No other person is going to provide the pieces to our cosmic puzzle if we don't know what kind of pictures we want our pieced together puzzle to look like. When we seek out people to give us meaning or definition to our lives, we simply assume their meaning and definitions, or assume those that they are looking for. This can never make us happy, because we aren't fitting with what we need.

People weren't meant to create their personalities to fit someone else, or to become someone's mirror, though we all know people who often fall into this trap. I hold that a real relationship is "perfect" when two people come together with their individual wants and needs, and somehow with all that held within them, somehow mesh. Sometimes this means similar wants and needs, sometimes it's just when they work out. I would never need a guy who would love to wolf down my Eggs Benedict, but he better be as happy with my love of them as I am with his Country Scramble. Who knows if we will find a person who will make the same order we do. What matters is if we're both happy with the choices that each makes for themselves, and more importantly, the fact that they know what it is that they want to order.

Oscar Gold!

Last night was the 81st Annual Academy Awards, and though it is indeed the gay SuperBowl, I was not that excited. The last several years have left me completely underwhelmed and I watch mostly just to see those 3 actual moments that people will talk about for the next week or two. Even with good hosts, something about the way the Oscars work made me feel like I was at a bad charity dinner- lots of interesting people doing nothing at all of interest.

This year, I was VERY pleasantly surprised! Since the winners were really not all that surprising, I want to instead talk about the show itself. Although I should note that Sean Penn’s speech was incredible, and most of the women looked AMAZING! This year they brought in new producers and completely changed the format and from top to bottom, the changes were a definite winner for me.

First off, Hugh Jackman was an incredible host! He was funny and entertaining, without simply using standup which was a nice change. He also wasn’t afraid to bring his musical background into the show, which seemed to be backed up well by the producers. This both made me happy, and of course made the show even gayer than before.

Another major change was the way that they presented the Acting awards. In years past, the last year’s winners of the opposite sex gave the award to the current winner after a small speech and clips from the nominees’ performances. This year, they pulled 5 (one for each nominee) previous winners of the same category, and each of them gave a personal tribute to the nominees. Each speech was so personal and moving, it actually felt the all the nominees were being honored, and by their peers. Several of them had tears in their eyes, and no wonder. It was moving.

They also had each team of presenters for non-acting categories present more than one award. This did several things. First, it saved time introducing people, which is always an issue. Secondly it allowed the presenters to actually carry through their personal presentation style so that nothing seemed rushed. Very nice all around.

Something else that was totally new were montages that included movies not at all mentioned in the Oscars. They did one for love, comedy, and action, and I would say at least 80% of the movies shown were all great movies that had no chance of winning a nomination. By showing these movies, it felt like they were still acknowledging their great effort, even though it was outside the traditional Academy honors.

The memorial was also made more moving when Queen Latifah sang. She was really good, looked great, and added a nice depth to the somber moment.

While all of these changes may seem small, in many ways for the show, they were revolutionary. And with ratings for the event consistently sliding, it was nice to see them finally make some changes that the audience could embrace. All in all it was more entertaining, and the show seemed far more personal than ever before.

Bravo!

So Many Things, Just One Blog

First, let's start with a movie. Today I saw Notes on a Scandal. One word: BRILLIANT! As is certainly not always the case, I completely agree with all the critics' hype about this movie. Judy Dench and Cate Blanchett were simply phenomenal. I certainly haven't seen a performance to rival there's this year, if anytime in the last several. . The It was fascinating to me because you can't really "like" either of their characters, and yet you find yourself loving, hating, and feeling sorry for them all at the same time. I laughed, and almost cried, which is hard to do in the same moviemusic was great, the dialogue interesting, and the acting superb. Definitely one of my new favorites.

As to other things. Hmmm. Which to pick? The rumor mill is amazing! Let's just start there. So many things the last two weeks have been brought to fruition early, or even fabricated by the rumor mill. I was talking to one of my friends a while back, and I mentioned that all my real relationships are very public. As I do a lot of work in the community, politically, etc., when I am serious about it, the world sees it quite plainly, as I would never be with someone who couldn't share the limelight with me at least in part. The interesting thing about this is that while I am so very public with my serious relationships, I am not so with those in the infant stages. It is easy for someone to create an interest, much more difficult for that interest to become something real. So it is that until I am serious about someone (something that has not happened very often, considering) I am very closed off about what is going on.

Sometimes this is hard to do. People seem to thrive on other people and what is going on in their lives. The last week or so, people have seemingly become so dissatisfied with the things that are going on in their own life, that not only are they focusing on other people, but they are in fact making things up to fill the void when something they want isn't really going on. Two things that I should say. 1. I am not talking only about things centered on me, but also people that I know. 2. Gossip is not a foreign concept to me. I love talking about and getting information about other people as much as the next guy (or girl). Given my curious nature, maybe even more than most. What I don't understand is making things up or jumping to conclusions to fill the void. If someone does something I think is interesting, or don't agree with, I am not going to hold back in telling someone else. On the reverse, I don't find any benefit in saying things about people, or myself that simply aren't true. In my experience the truth always comes out, and on top of that the real facts are normally far more interesting than the fabricated ones, so it stands to make more sense to only listen to and perpetuate the truth. It seems that many people I know disagree.

Oh yes, the last blog. A few days ago I posted a song that I really identify with. My dear friend Aurelie was singing it and it just seemed to ring true in life. I thought it was rather self explanatory, but I got questions about it. Interestingly enough, some people even asked if it was about them. I will say that I chose the song because of it's truth in life, not a specific circumstance, but at the same time, I can use it to describe many people, and chances are if you had to ask about it, at least part of it certainly applies to you.

Really, I think that that song (which if you haven't read the blog is "A Fine Line") applies to one of the most difficult balances in life. Especially as a person who believes that you should always be true to yourself and only remain in circumstances that make you happy be it your job, relationships, etc.; this fine line is a tough one to decipher sometimes. On one hand, "I would do anything for love," but also am unwilling to waste my time when it isn't worth it. One thing is love being a two way street. Of course, sometimes people let things get in the way of the fact that they love someone else, and the other person has to try and fight past that. At some point though, that love is simply a waste of time. When you really care about someone, you have to find the point where it is you fighting for love, and when you are simply wasting your time with something that isn't worth it for you. A fine line indeed. As this seems to be a strong theme in love and life, this will probably not be the last time I hit on this, but I wanted to give a brief clarification.

Something struck me tonight, that I simply didn't want to wait to write about. I was talking to someone about how serious they were with someone else, and there really wasn't much clarification, which means that they aren't serious. I have seen that scenario enough to be saddened that people will actually fill their time with something that they don't see has potential. I understand the "getting to know you" phase, but honestly, if you actually are honest with each other and have any kind of communication that can only last so long.

Anyway, that small segue, while true is not what I was getting at. I was thinking about someone that I was with for a while, and I wanted to go to them and ask them when they were going to realize how good I was. Now that may sound horrible, but I promise, there is a point that isn't all that ego driven. But seriously, I think that I have a lot to offer someone, and throughout my life, I have felt like I am somehow not making that apparent, or maybe my ego has been covering up some serious deficiencies that I have that make people not want to stick around. Tonight, I actually had someone accidentally point out my problem, and I was baffled.

Simply, it is not my weaknesses, but my strengths, that most often drive people away. Now, the person who made me realize this does know me pretty well, and when I looked back at my past, I can see a truth to this. Some things I know about me is that I am smart, passionate, and ambitious. I can think of conversations with exes or potential relationships that never made it that have included some sort of dilemma in dealing with those strengths. "I don't feel smart when I am around you." "You are too passionate. It scares me." Point in fact that one has been used in one form or another many times. "I just feel like you have a plan in life that is too much for me to deal with." Etc, etc, etc. Now for a while I thought that these were kiss off answers to not make me feel bad, but looking back, it may be true, and that is scarier still.

Today, someone who I think is incredible admitted that no matter how much they like me, it is hard for them to get over the fact that they could not be my "mentor in life." What? As I talked to other people, it seems that the average person really wants an inequality in their relationship. They want to be the greater or the lesser. Few want to be the equal (see, this really did have a non-egocentric point). I have always looked for an equal. To me this doesn't mean someone the same as me, but someone who at their core is where I am as a person. I would be perfectly happy with an artist who knew nothing about business, if they shared a passion for their work the same as I share mine. Things like that.

I want someone who I can walk through my life with at my side. I don't want to drag them along with me, and I don't want to be the one drug along either. I want to learn from them, as they learn from me. I want to expand their life to new horizons as they expand mine. I want to protect them, and know that they are protecting me. Friends, family, random people even have made me realize that most people just don't want that. They want to be the protector, or the protected, not both. They want to be the mentor, or the mentee, not both. I simply cannot wrap my head around that. Further, to see that my strengths are going to put someone off because I am either "greater" than them in their eyes, or more likely, their equal when they want someone "lesser" simply baffles me.

I coyly told someone that one day they would realize how amazing I am, and their response left me speechless. "I know how amazing you are, and I love it. I simply can't be with you." While my ego loves the boost, my heart hates it. And honestly, anyone who knows me knows that I boost my ego a lot, and while I like it, to have someone like what is there, but those very things that they like about me to be what keeps us apart? Inconceivable, yet so common.

That may have come across as a diatribe that covered me making myself feel good about or deluding myself, but as I talked tonight and thought about it, it is something that really bothers me. When the things you love about yourself are working against you, how can you ever win?

Traps of Life

Traps of Life
Current mood: aggravated
Category: Life

The other night I saw Little Children with a couple of my friends. It was a good movie, and Kate Winslet was amazing!

I should stop here to say that the philosophical issues that I am going to bring up pertain to the ending. As such, if you do not want to know how the movie ends, stop reading and go about your merry business. If you don't care, then by all means, carry one.

***SPOILER*** LAST CALL

Beyond the incredible acting, I was impressed by the solid content of the struggles that people face in their lives. Extreme cases like the guy with the psychosexual disorder were coupled with couples' jealousies. This impressed me. I was of course taken in immediately with the primary issue that they were addressing, that of unhappiness in life and relationships. When Kate's character gave her input on Madame Bovarie (that she was heroic for fighting against the fate given to her and the unhappiness that it brought) I was excited that they were making fighting against that struggle the noble thing to do.

Though throughout the movie, you really couldn't say that the acts that they were committing were honorable, you really felt for the characters as they cheated on their spouses with one another. They were living miserably in their marriages, and even before there was sex, there was happiness in the relationship that they were building with each other.

The culmination of my happiness came when they decided to leave together. I think that they were finally going to be honest about their feelings and leave their misery behind was exactly what needed to happen. In fact, their crime never would have been committed if they had indeed simply been honest with their spouses to begin with. To finally be honest, quit the cheating and lying, and embrace happiness all at the same time was exactly what they should have done.

Then of course, came the end. Somehow they completely did a 180 and marched straight back into their old lives. Kate seemed to do it as a sacrifice for his daughter, where her love (Patrick Wilson) seemed to do it out of fear. Both scenarios are horrible to me. I know that this is an independent film and that for the most part, any form of predictable, happy ending is thrown out, but this scenario completely validates what so many people do with their lives.

Fear, and some bizarre sense of necessary sacrifice seem to be the most prevalent causes of continued misery in the human existence. Life will never be "perfect," but the amount of hell that people put themselves through by "just dealing with it" is simply appalling. I think that if people were more honest with themselves from the beginning, less bad relationships would exist. Then, if somehow a bad relationship is created, if people weren't foolish enough to give into this fear or compulsion, it wouldn't go as far as it normally does. The first would probably reduce the number of divorces, for people wouldn't end up in as many bad marriages, and the second would make it so that the common wisdom wasn't that marriage will ultimately make you unhappy.

The best relationships that I have ever seen are the ones where people are honest, and deal with the problems that exist. They aren't willing to sacrifice themselves, or give into fear. At what point in our existence did we decide that these things were ok?

Though the movie as a whole was incredible, and in large part the writing was phenomenal, I have to say that I am disappointed in both Todd Field and Tom Perrotta for having their ending give into this already exasperated human condition.

Imagined Affection

Last night I went and saw The Night Listener with a good friend of mine (which, as an aside, was really nice as she and I have not seen each other much lately, and I had almost forgotten how much fun we had. Scary to believe, but she is more like me than anyone I have ever met). The movie was good, though a bit weird, but definitely one I would recommend to those who enjoy thoughtful movies. It even had some good humor thrown in. I won't go into the details, as doing so would definitely detract from the tale, but there is one line that really stuck out to me. Robin Williams is talking with a friend when he asks, "How can you miss someone that never existed?"

For whatever reason initially, that line stuck with me and I realized how many facets of life that can come into play. Think about when you meet someone and get to know them. Your affection for them is set one way or another based upon what you see in them. What happens when this turns out not to be truly who they are? Think of the relationships where people say they have fallen in love with a lie. What they realize is that it is not the person that they truly fell in love with, but rather who they thought that person to be. When the truth is discovered, the one in love is often devastated even though in truth the object of their affection never existed.

If you want an easier example that is perhaps more universal, consider a good novel or movie. If it is truly good, you develop feelings for the characters. You are elated when the "bad guy" is defeated, or crushed when a loveable person dies. Why? In the abstract it is easy to think that our feelings are attached to people, but in fact they seem to be only attached to thoughts, imaginings even. When reading a book you aren't even given expression or a face to attach your feelings to, only a thought. How then, can they be so powerful?

On a baser level one has to wonder whether the feelings created in any of these instances are only replications of our feelings for real things, or are they in fact the same things we always attach feelings to: an image in our mind? Answering these questions would not only provide an abstract insight into people as a whole, but could be incredibly powerful in answering a vital question that every person faces: How much can we control our feelings? Some would say that we have total control while others advise that we have none. If we are only replicating our feelings, then perhaps the latter can be true, but if feelings are really only attached to our thoughts, then the potential for our control could be great indeed.

Your -ness Factor

Tonight I saw You, Me and Dupree. I know, a comedy. It was indeed funny, but that isn't what I am writing about. In the movie, Owen Wilson's character (Dupree) keeps talking to his friend (Carl) about his "Carlness." He explains that it is that part of him that won't back down and makes him the person he is. At the end of the movie, he is talking to many people, asking them what their name is, and asking what their -ness is. "It's just your name with "ness" at the end of it. It's who you are.

What a great idea. This simple thing speaks quite succinctly to what I fervently believe: that you should be the best version of yourself possible. How do you do that? Now I think I can easily say that you should find your inner -ness. Each person has that thing that makes them who they are. Deep down, what is the highest form of your own essence? What is your inner -ness?

I certainly am excited to carry this thought forward and see how far it takes me.

Relationship Equality?

First off, let me say that I saw Flight 93 today, and I really liked it. I think it was extremely well done and to me it was a moving tribute to those who fought so hard. I know that some people were angered that the film was released, but I think they are being ridiculous. If it is too soon for them, they need not see it. I am glad that it came out, and I felt that it did far more good than it could ever do harm.

Alright. That rant out of the way, I want to move on to something that I have in one form or another pondered for a while: Can their really be equality in a relationship?

What I mean by this is that the majority- if not all- relationships seem to be lopsided. One person really is the caretaker, while another is dependent. Sometimes there are multiple levels of this that vary between partners. The "traditional" view of marriage for a long time was that the man supported the family financially, the woman, emotionally. Even in this, though, there is no equality. They are not on equal footing, and in that example, no one is able to support the woman emotionally, nor the man financially.

I think that the ideal relationship is one in which both parties constantly benefit. A pairing in which they can rely upon one another equally. Sometimes I wonder if this is unrealistic. Even more, it is possible that it is undesirable. I don't know if I believe that, but perhaps there is something to be said for someone to take care of someone who wants to be taken care of.

I guess there is something in my independent nature that screams out against this, but at the same time, I want to be able to be supported by someone too. I want to know that I provide for someone while they provide for me. I think that in a truly great relationship, two very different people bring out the best in one another... equally. While one may not necessarily be as passionate, if their partner's passion stirs in them their own passion, I would say it is a good match. If the energetic one is the only source of passion in that relationship, I think that is inequal.

At this point I am not sure what the answer is, and I wonder what other thoughts people have. In time, I am sure more will come.

Movie Thoughts: Kong and Mountain

This week I saw two new movies, both of which I greatly enjoyed, though in entirely different ways.

King Kong was amazing. I think that Peter Jackson did an amazing job bringing new life into the classic film while keeping true to the story. Some people said that it was "overdone," and maybe that's why I liked it, but I felt that it was just right. The fight scenes were the most realistic I had ever seen. They were very feral, lacking some of the "choreography" that is so often present when animals fight. This was fast and brutal kill or be killed, and I thought that made it highly realistic. Kong also was obviously a veteran of such fights, sporting scars all over his body. I thought that the actress did well (her name currently escapes me) and the facial expressions of Kong along with her skill definitely added a level of emotion to the otherwise action-packed film.

Of course emotion overflowed in Brokeback Mountain.I went to St. Louis to see it as part of a PROMO fundraiser (and because it won't be released in KC until January 6th), and was a bit disappointed in the theatre, but I think the film made up for it. Throughout the movie I struggled some, because I put so much stock into a film's dialogue. What I realized was that this movie was all about what wasn't said. Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger do a phenomenal job, in very challenging roles, and they are well supported by Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams.

I left the movie feeling down, and somewhat unsatisfied. I was definitely cognizant of the deep sadness that was present, but it wasn't until later, I realized what an impact there was. All night my mind kept drifting back to various parts of the film, reliving the story, and seeing more and more of what was there that I missed while listening to the words that were spoken. During the show, many people around me were crying, and though I often cry at emotional scenes, I didn't feel like I was hit in the same way. Having now attained a deeper sense of what was present in the film, I have a feeling that I will ball like a baby when I watch it again.

I also noticed an age difference in the level of emotion. Older guys that I was with definitely seemed to grasp the subtly a lot faster than a lot of the younger guys. I think part of that came with the fact that many of them lived through situations that were very similar, whereas a lot of the younger generation has not. Oh... I realize that unlike King Kong, many people may not know what this movie is. Well here's the gist. It is a love story that spans 20 years between the two lead men, showing them as they first meet and fall in love (though they deny it) and then follows through with them struggling through the next two decades with their wives and their unspoken need for one another.

As far as love stories go, this one was somewhat of an anomaly, and for more than just the "gay factor." For one, it was not romantic. They both (though one more than the other) felt that what they had was dark and dangerous, and so it was only through violent rents in their self control that they are able to express their feelings, and more often than not, those expressions are never seen by the one they truly love. The tender moments are so few, at first it seems to be a failing in the movie, but by the end, you have learned to treasure those instances all the more.

I am afraid that I will give more away if I talk much more, but suffice to say, I was deeply moved by this film, and I have a feeling it will only affect me more so with repeat viewings. It also reaffirmed my believe and conviction that leaving things unsaid and not pursuing what lies in your heart will destroy you and those you love. What I would give to see a world where that is not so common as it is today.

*Note the Brokeback Mountain website has a forum where people can share their thoughts... I have only read a couple and already I want to cry. Some people endure so much...

No day but today

I am not able to sleep, because my emotions are still in overdrive. Tonight, Randy had his International Thanksgiving Dinner, which was fun, but I will speak more to later. After the dinner, most of us went to see the movie Rent. I loved the musical, and was excited to see it made into a movie, but was completely unprepared for the impact it would have.

To me, the best movies are the ones that can make you laugh and cry, and I was laughing so hard that my side hurt, and later was continually crying my eyes out. Rarely can I say that there was hardly a dry eye in the theatre, but it was certainly true in this case. The majority of people were sniffling throughout a great portion of it, and many came out of the movie with eyes reddened from their tears. It was that powerful.

One of the things that I realize was that the movie had me crying as much in happiness as it did in sadness. Scenes in the movie uplifted my spirits as much as other depressed me. The simple message of the movie of living life to its utmost is something that I believe wholeheartedly in, and yet I cannot think of any other film that has portrayed it so well.

One other interesting point of note is how much it made me want that person whom I will spend the rest of my life with. Though I do not know when I will find them (or if I already have) it reminded me of my intense desire to share my life with someone. Strangely, many points in the movie conjured images of someone I know who is very dear to me. I am not sure exactly what that means, but I do know that there are circumstances in my life that I have been delicate with for far too long. Brock pointed out to me that that is not who I am. I am aggressive and determined, and holding back can't truly lead to anything that will make me ultimately happy. He reminded me of Chris, who I held back not an ounce with. Though we aren't together, we were very happy and to this day, he and I are close friends. I guess it is rather hypocritical of me to believe that I should be myself, and then knowingly go against that very nature.

Moral of the story: We only rent the life that we have. We might as well make the most of what is there, and get off the bench and see what happens. Bad things can happen, but indecision only leaves you cold and empty. "No day but today."

"There's Only Now
There's Only Here
Give In To Love
Or Live In Fear
No Other Path
No Other Way
No Day But Today"

Goblet of Fire

I just wanted to take a quick moment to say that the new Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire is absolutely amazing. Though they had to cram an immense amount into a small amount of time, I think they did it very well, and on top of that, it made me cry. Amazing. If you like fantasy at all, go see it! 

Election Recovery

Okay, I know that it took me a week to make any sort of response after what happened last week, but trust me, no one would have liked what I had to say during most of that time, and I try not to make it so that I rant too much. It's always hard to lose, and even harder to have the people you put your faith into not see it through when the going gets tough.

The week overall has been pretty good. I avoided human contact for most of Wednesday, but recovered fairly quickly after that. I cringed as I read the papers that revealed the new agenda of the Presidency, although nothing was too surprising. Luckily for me, West Wing Season 3 came out, so I did a little consoling by watching some of those episodes. They really motivate me, which is what I needed. After all that I had put into the elections, and so few of them going my way, I was feeling rather dispirited. But, now I am up to fight another day, which will make some of you cheer, and some of you cry, but hey, that's life.

I did do something rather unusual for me the other day. On Saturday, I went with Chris to Brian Busby's house where he and a bunch of his friends were playing poker. Although I have played the game from time to time, it is certainly not something that regularly comes up, and certainly not with that kind of formality, and I found it quite refreshing. One of my favorite things to do change things up so that there is no routine in my life, and yet the world tries its best to curb this kind of instability, so it is nice when something comes along that breaks up the monotony. Chris and I did fairly well, especially considering the fact that I never play the game, and we made a small return on what we put up.

Other than that, I have been spending a lot of time working on my final paper for my MU class, which is rather intensive, and requiring way too much of my time, but it will be good to have it done so that I can focus on consolidating my residences to Kansas City. That is something I am looking forward to. Well, I am looking forward to living full time in KC for a while, but of course I am not thrilled about the action of moving half of my stuff across the state. Oh well, I think it will be worth it.

Well, I don't want to ramble on much more, and I really don't want to get onto something too deep, I just wanted to put something up for those of you who follow my life. I suppose that I will let you go. I will probably get back to saying something important to me in a day or so, so as always, check back often or simply subscribe and save yourself the task. Till then /wave!

Current items of enjoyment

So, you may have noticed that the "currently playing" for this entry is the soundtrack to Playing by Heart. I finally got this CD just this week, after spending a great deal of time in search of it. You might wonder why I would spend so much time looking for it, but I will tell you that it was worth it. For those of you who don't know (which means you must not really know me) Playing by Heart is one of my three favorite movies. It is one that every time I watch, I like more than the last. There were several songs that made me want the soundtrack, and now that I have listened to it, I am very impressed. Like the movie, it transcends genres and styles to make a truly unique and moving compilation. The mix of jazz and pop, modern and traditional, vocals and instrumental are truly something I enjoy.

Now that I think about it, I might as well draw attention to the other entries' selections. If you haven't figured it out, I am able to select a book, music, or movie title at the begining of each entry. I like it because it allows you to see some of what I read/watch/listen to in my life. (Clicking on one takes you to the title at Amazon.com should you ever want to try it for yourself). I think its a really unique thing that adds a lot. But since we are on the subject, I thought I might tell you about some of my selections.

I should first note that I am normally going to put a book up for you to see. Obviously if I am still reading one I have already posted, I won't throw it at you twice, and in those cases, I may select a CD or DVD I am watching, if nothing else than to add some spice! I started with Dracula, which I was actually reading for my English class. Despite it being manditory, I found that reading that book is the most enjoyable thing about the class. I never realized how different the original was from all of the offshoots. I like classics, and I was glad that the class forced me to pick this one up. I would recommend it for any fans of Vampires, as it is what brought that particular entity into the limelight.

Since I was still immersed in Dracula, I next chose Affimation, a CD by the now broken-up Savage Garden. I cannot tell you how much I love this CD. The title song is by far one of my favorite songs of all time, especially since I could sing it and mean every word. The rest of the CD is in my mind amazing, and I can't quite explain why. It could be its uniquness, or maybe the emotions that it invokes. No matter what though, it has a special place in my heart.

Going back to my modern fantasy, I recently picked up Suzanna Clarke's book. I read a very enticing review that heralded the book as "the Harry Potter for adults." Having thuroughly enjoyed the entire Potter series, I of course was forced to pick this one up. I must say that it was quite a fun read, and didn't disappoint. It takes place in England at the end of the War of 1812. Unlike Harry Potter, it spends almost all of its time in the real world, making the wizards face all the prejudices and fears that we might imagine. Should you be anyway drawn to fantasy, I must recommend it.

Finally, I decided to highlight Angels in America. For those of you who have yet to see this movie, it is based upon an excellent play, and is in itself a work of art. I am sure that I have only scratched the surface of the meaning that is embedded within, but it was enough. Dealing with the very real fear of AIDS in 1985, it presents an interesting view into a variety of lives that are all tragically linked togeather. The fact that there is a great deal of depressing content, and the fact that the movie is 6 hours long (it was an HBO mini-series) I would have to suggest that you break it into parts. I will warn you that it is a bit off, but then again, in my eyes, most great pieces of art are.

Well, I guess that's more than enough writing for one night. Although I don't think I really said anything profound, maybe I gave you a tiny glimpse into the things that interest me and maybe sparked some interest in you as well. Until next time...