"We do what we can with people with the time we have with them..."

Saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button the other day with my mum. Enjoyed it very much--strong, yet subtle. Very well done. It reminded me of two things that I tend to believe.

1) Everything happens when it's supposed to happen. Everything that happens is a resulting confluence of other happenings and it does so for a reason. What that reason is, and who or what determines it, I don't know. But in my mind, that's how it is.

2) We have a finite amount of time with the people we meet, and all we can do is be grateful for it and enjoy it while it lasts, learn something from it, and let it go when it's run its course. There's no point in trying to hold onto something that has faded away; all that will do is cause you grief. Sometimes I think we try to hold on when we feel interrupted and transplanted--when we're not prepared for the end. Then we don't want to let go. But other times, I think we're given signs, warnings, that the going has gotten rough. We then come to see that perhaps, that a relationship has become tumultuous and corruptive and is doing more harm than good, or that it isn't just changing--it's wilting. That can be tricky, because change can be embraced and both parties can adapt, but some things cannot be overcome. That was the tragedy of The Goat--Martin, Stevie, and Billy loved each other, but something so deeply unsettling and life-altering had occurred, that they did not know if their love for each other could overcome this event that had shaken them each to their core--that had caused them to reevaluate everything they thought they knew.

But I digress. As so often happens at 3 in the morning. Anyway, that's what Benjamin Button reminded me of, with the wide array of characters that Benjamin encountered throughout his life. I'd understand if a critic faulted the script with introducing too many supporting characters that had a very minimal amount of screen time. That worked, to me, though, because it felt real. There were people that Benjamin was close with for years of his life, yet there were some who had a lot of influence over him that he only knew for a short time. Funny enough, even though he was growing younger all the time, he almost never looked back once someone was gone. He just took what he'd learned and loved and moved on to the next stage of his life, the next adventure, the next project. He stayed in the moment. It really is the richest way of living, I think.

And by learning to let go, I don't mean learning not to care. In a way, I think learning to care requires one to learn to let go. And acceptance doesn't often come over night. Though it'd be nice if it did.

I've discovered that I find a lot of comfort and hope in Bruce's words, though, in "Atlantic City":

Everything dies, baby, that's a fact,

But maybe everything that dies, some day comes back.

<3

----------------
Now playing: John Mayer - Love Soon

An addendum of sorts to that last post...

Addendum? Is that even a word? Whatever. Just something else I meant to add to that post this afternoon, the one about what you do vs. who you are.

It's funny how the emphasis between the two shifts. Sometimes, like I said, we're insisting, "Just because he did something bad, doesn't mean he's a bad person," but we also point out that "Actions speak louder than words," and really, all the world really knows of you is what you do. Personally I find it frustrating because even though it's not like I don't care what people do, it can be really difficult to discern to what extent their actions represent who they are, what they value, etc., and that's the kind of stuff I want to know. Who was it, C.S. Lewis maybe, who said something like, "Friendship is a slow-ripening blossom" or something like that? Or it was Aristotle and "Wishing to be friends is quick work, but friendship is a slow-ripening fruit." Hahaha. Not even remotely close. Same sentiment, and that's what I was getting at. I'm impatient. I don't like having to wait, because often, it doesn't take me that long to trust them as a friend. Which is kind of funny considering I'm slow to trust in general. But whatever. Major digression. What else is new.

The whole thing I was getting at, is how I think it's funny that when we have conversations with other people, we spend so much time talking about what we do. When we ask someone, "How was your weekend," we usually follow it up with "What did you do?" or "What happened?" If they say, "Nothing," then we're disappointed. Bored. Stories about things that people have done entertain us. So in that sense, aren't our actions superficial? Small talk is about the trivial, and about what we do. That's about it. Conversations about things that matter are labeled as "serious", and consequently as "boring" or "depressing". Well, unless you're me, or similar. Haha. But I mean, I don't really have a problem talking about more abstract stuff, or what I believe in, or any of that kind of stuff, that other people avoid because it makes them uncomfortable, or that they only talk about with "close" friends. Try talking to an acquaintance about something like that some time, and watch how fast they clam up and get flustered. It's annoying, because that's how I am when I try to make small talk, hahaha. Well, sometimes. Lately.

I suppose because it's easier for me to talk about that kind of stuff, I've always been that kid who more enjoys sitting and talking with the adults than with the kids. I dunno. It's not that I don't like to hear stories about what my friends do - I suppose I'm more honestly interested in that than most people, because it doesn't matter to me whether or not what they do is "entertaining - but I'm interested because I care, and I care because I like them as a person, not just what they do. It's just frustrating because I'm not really interested in surface bonds based on what they do that's entertaining. Not worth wasting my time. Tell me something worth knowing about you. Tell me why I should like you. Why I should respect you. Well, that's not really what I mean. I suppose keen observation will tell you more about a person than them saying "I'm trustworthy" or "I don't lie" or something like that. I guess...I don't know. I shouldn't write this late. I'm not making sense. I'm not finding a decent way to verbalize what I mean. Maybe I'll try another time.

----------------
Now playing: Third Eye Blind - Semi-Charmed Life

"You do not know how much they mean to me, my friends..."

I would just like to say I have some AMAZING friends and I would be lost without them. Hell, I'm semi-lost even with them, so I'd be stuck in an infinite abyss without them, haha. Love them all, they and my family are my world and I hope they know that.

Also while I was bored in AFP tonight I was thinking about how even if I'm not completely satisfied with college, I'm still glad to be here if for no other reason than for the handful of great people I've had the pleasure of meeting. My life is all the richer for having met them and I'm grateful for it. And for having met my friends' new friends. Friends are wonderful things, aren't they? <333

You do not know how much they mean to me, my friends,
And how, how rare and strange it is, to find
In a life composed so much of odds and ends…
To find a friend who has these qualities,
Who has, and gives
Those qualities upon which friendship lives.
How much it means that I say this to you –
Without these friendships - life, what cauchemar!
- T.S. Eliot, “Portrait of a Lady”

"Lock and load"

So. Lately I've been watching the first two seasons of Boston Legal, which together are 44 episodes. Everyone knocks Boston Legal, in part because William Shatner is in it, and in part because it really is a ridiculous show. I'm rather fond of it, though, for a number of reasons.

1) This is kind of odd, but it reminds me of Edward Albee's stuff. From what I've read, Albee, who is generally considered an Absurdist dramatist, tends to use crazy, seemingly unorganized events and silly characters and plots to bring to the surface bold statements about the human condition. In a way, that's what David E. Kelley does with Boston Legal: he uses absurd plotlines, characters and cases, to communicate social and political commentary, as well as to entertain.

One of the attorneys defends a plastic surgeon who injected his own ass fat into women's faces instead of their own. A little old man kills his mother, then kills his neighbor, with a frying pan - and then a little old woman kills him the same way. A couple fight over a collection of Victorian erotica during their divorce. A group of Christians and a group of Wiccans protest a Halloween pageant at an elementary school. A teacher files for a restraining order because a student's parents keep harassing her about their child's grades. A girl who's brother was in the National Guard and was killed in Iraq performing a task he was not trained for, when his tour was supposed to have ended already, sues the government. A decorated general who was dishonorably discharged for being open about his homosexuality sues the government over their "don't ask, don't tell" policy. A man is fired as a department store's Santa Claus for being a cross-dresser. A mayor tries to ban red meat in his town, putting steakhouses out of business. Two science teachers are fired for refusing to teach Creationism. A doctor is sued for prescribing a drug that isn't approved by the FDA, even though it works. A man sues a nightclub because they won't let him sing "War," claiming it's unpatriotic. While this is all very funny and amusing, beneath all the absurdity there are often legitimate points. Generally there's a liberal slant ("They say when people are scared, the first thing they'll give up is their civil liberties"), but that's not unexpected, and the fact that politics aren't simply ignored or dismissed is refreshing.

Kelley has tackled racial profiling, homophobia, discrimination against people with social and physical disorders, public education, the war in Iraq, the ethics of Guantanamo Bay, the situation in Sudan, foreign financial aid, medical malpractice, environmental issues, unethical credit interest inflation, car companies with faulty vehicles, First Amendment violations, assisted suicide, "pill" parties (and clinical depression due to high parental expectations) in today's youth, the death penalty, cock fighting, gambling and other addictions, and a wealth of other issues. It's nice to see a show address (and in a relatively balanced manner, at that) what most shows wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

2) One character in particular, Jerry Espensen, tends to bring up a theme that kind of resonates with me: the increasing isolation of the individual in today's world. Jerry has Asperger's, and when he didn't make partner at the firm, he snapped and took one of the senior name partners hostage with a cake knife at her throat. He wasn't convicted once diagnosed, but later returned to the firm, claiming that he missed the ties with the people. He points out that people are more and more isolated these days: instead of communicating face to face, or even over the phone, people rely on memos, emailing, and texting. I like that Kelley makes a point of bringing this up every once in a while, since it really is so true. People don't connect; they network. Relationships are less fulfilling, and it seems like everyone is always aloof. :: Shrug ::

3) I just love the characters. They're all incredibly ridiculous. Denny Crane is ancient, senile, sexually offensive, delusional, ultra-conservative, and has a propensity to shoot people. Alan Shore is similarly offensive, and he has no problem with using bribery, extortion, and blackmail to win his cases. In one case, he hints to a client that he should flee before appearing before court, and when he's eventually arrested, he still gets himself off. He also generally has all the women in the office fighting over him. Two of the attorneys, at one point, impersonate FBI agents in order to recover a kidnapped child. Another pretends to be looking for a date at a bar to discover privileged information from opposing counsel. Another flirts and leads opposing counsel on, then blackmails them. In court, they all use their connections and understanding of people to work the jury and judge from the right angle, even if it's in a positively absurd way. The thing is, despite these antics and "theatrics" and seemingly unethical behavior, they all do this with the best intentions, for what they truly believe to be right.

James Spader's Alan Shore is really the star of the show, and even though everyone puzzles over the fact that he's won two Emmys for it (in addition to the 3 other wins and 10 other nominations the show has garnered, plus Golden Globe and SAG Award nominations and wins), he really is very good. He has such a juicy character, though, whom I absolutely love. Alan Shore is despicable. He's vile, crude, offensive, arrogant, self-centered, and inappropriate. Yet, he's aware of his short-comings, even though he tends to hide them behind his words, and he pushes away everyone who discovers both his flaws and his good side - except for Denny. Alan really does possess good qualities: he's deeply compassionate, and as he's wildly liberal, he has huge concern for civil and human rights, the environment, etc. It's more than being liberal, though: he always works for justice in terms of the situation at hand, not in terms of the concrete law. Alan's compassion, sympathy, and empathy for people always steers him straight. He's also incredibly loyal to the very few who are dear to him, and even though he is a lawyer, he only ever twists the truth when necessary, and when he gives his word, he always honors it. He's untrustworthy on some levels, but when he explicitly gives his word, he is always good for it. Alan really is just a good, strong, but fun character, and I bet James Spader has a blast playing him.

4) Also random, but one thing that I really love about this show and about Scrubs is their portrayal of a strong friendship between two men. Both JD and Turk, and Alan and Denny, have very strong bonds - their idea of friendship is almost above and beyond their concepts of marriage, and they are always loyal to it. I feel like today, two guys can't be best friends without being accused of being homosexuals. Girls get away with it all the time. Hanging out, sleeping over, going out. They're not often called lesbians for it. Yet when two guys hang out all the time, go out in public just the two of them, they're called gay. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being gay - I'm saying it's falsely judging and misrepresenting people as something they're not. And I like that even though there are jokingly homosexual undertones (or is it overtones?) in both these shows, they ultimately celebrate the friendship and love between two men. And I love that Scrubs included a song about it in their musical episode: "Guy Love."

And wow, did not think I could / mean to write that much about freaking Boston Legal. I could probably go on, but I'm going to sleep.

The Reader's Digest version, and then some other random stuff.

• Sometimes I'm not sure who I am any more.
• Sometimes I don't like who I am any more.
• Usually I'm almost positive this whole caring about people thing is a very raw deal for the person who cares for a lot of people.
• Especially for the person who generally cares about others before oneself, when most care for themselves before others.
• I feel like I don't have faith in anything any more.
• I have no idea what I want and I hate that.
• Life isn't fair and I should just accept that, but that's not really working out.
• I'm pretty sure I'm making everything a lot more complicated than it really is.
• I'm really not sure how I'm going to deal with any of this. And I hate that too.

Now that I've gotten that fully and compltely out of my system, I'm going to stop wallowing. Though I have a feeling that one of these days, I'm just going to explode...

Anyway, I watched Cat on a Hot Tin Roof the other night, and I was a little disappointed in the alterations, especially to the ending. At the end of the play, Maggie takes a stand against Brick, insists that he help her cover up her lie, and tells him that she loves him, truly, and he smiles sadly and says, "Wouldn't it be funny if that was true?" In the movie, he's the one that says they're going to cover up her lie and that's it, pretty much, if I recall. But there was something to the ending in the play - a sort of bittersweet surrender, on Brick's part, to the buried affection deep inside him - not reborn desire for his wife. It was quaint and sad and fit right into the dramatic romance. Edward Albee noted in his foreword to the "definitive" edition of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof that Tennessee Williams was a master at creating dramas that are both romantic and tough - they are both delicate and rough, loved by both men and women. The movie messed that up a little, to me.

I think they changed the Maggie/Brick/Skipper situation a little too. One of the things I loved about the play is its ambiguity about Brick and Skipper's friendship. Though it may be a provacative statement about homosexuality in the fading Old South, I prefer to think of it as Brick thought of it: something pure and real and dependable - something beautiful and untainted - a true comraderie and deep love. Brick still can't get past the fact that others - people who supposedly love him - are defiling it, that they're taking that away from him. They had something innocent and good, and so-called "loved ones" ruined it for him, even disgracing the memory for him. It's like taking a dewy half-blown blossom and throwing it in a mud puddle and stomping on it. I can fully understand Brick's resentment for that.

In doing some reading on writing effective dialogue, I'm coming across a lot of stuff that says to be very familiar with your characters' motives - that that's the most important part. You have to be very clear in understanding what your characters want, why they do what they do, what their goals are. Isn't that helpful in life, too, though? To understand why people do what they do, and what it is they want - to understand them in general. I guess that's what I love so much about people I don't immediately understand, people with lots of little idiosyncrasies and contradictions - they're complicated (or simple?) to the point that they fascinate me. Like in Pride and Prejudice:

"'I did not know before,' continued Bingley immediately, 'that you were a studier of character. It must be an amusing study.'
"'Yes, but intricate characters are the most amusing. They have at least that advantage...people themselves alter so much, that there is something new to be observed in them for ever.'"

Oh, to be able to create such memorable characters as those. I guess it's worth a shot.

----------------
Now playing: Matchbox Twenty - Bent

Well people come and go in our lives and no one stays forever...

...New loves come and new priorities and new responsibilities and new lives and death. We do what we can with people with the time we have with them. You come and go in and out of others’ lives, and if you’re lucky, you will change them before they are gone. For, they will be gone, sooner or later, whether you’re ready to move on without them or not. If you’re lucky, you’ll move on knowing that you have left your mark on their lives, that they carry a bit of you with them – knowing that you have not forgotten, and they haven’t either.


So I wrote that back in February. Except it's not completely right. Yes, you're lucky if you change someone before you leave their life (or they leave yours). But I should have placed more emphasis on, "If you're lucky, you'll move on knowing that you have left your mark..." Knowing. It's so hard to know that you've changed someone's life, yet most of us need that knowledge - that reassurance that our time was not wasted.

"We do what we can with people with the time we have with them." I sort of found out this year that often, that time is a lot shorter than you'd think, and when its over, all you have is your memories of it. And it's hard to hold on to those. You want to let them go, and in some ways, you need to. Memories are things of the past and you can't hold on to them like they're the present. But you can't forget them, even if all evidence of their occurrence has dissipated. Even if you can't recognize the changes you inflicted, you have to remember that at one time, they were there, and even if you can't see them any more, they could still be there. You can't let yourself feel like you wasted your time with anyone, and if you do, you have to ride it out and get past it.

"Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods."
- C. S. Lewis

"Without doubt there's no free will, without free will there's no humanity, without humanity there's no divinity."
- God, 'Joan of Arcadia'

Faith is like a shape-shifting factotum. It looks different all the time, and it does so many different things. It pops up everywhere. There are so many different kinds of faith, and when you get down to it, I guess you could say that everything is faith. Well, memories are faith too. Holding onto memories is trusting that the past did happen; in this case, it's trusting that you did really do something worthwhile. It's easy to say that you want to do something to "change the hearts of men," even if it's only fleeting, but it's harder to hold onto that memory of what you did and continually gain strength from it after it's gone. Often, it seems, the effects of what you do really are short-lived, even if we'd like to think that everything we do is going to change people's lives forever, including our own. Perhaps it does change people lives forever, but if it does, it's often subtle, like a scar or blemish covered over with make-up: invisible and unknown to everyone but the person who inflicted it and the afflicted. After a while, it fades and the person seems to forget it was ever there, but he can't ever truly forget - the mark has been made. Forgetting the marks you've made on others is a crisis of faith.

"Life is doubt, and faith without doubt is nothing but death."
- Miguel de Unamuno

"Skepticism is the beginning of faith."
- Oscar Wilde

We make marks in all sorts of ways, on our friends more than anyone else. On the most basic level, our best friends bear our marks more than anyone else - those friends that we can trust with everything, who are always there for us, to listen, comfort, help, cheer up, or just be around. You don't have to be a person's best friend, though, to be a good friend. Sometimes you don't need someone who's going to listen to your problems and talk you through them and help you out - sometimes you need someone who's not going to ask you any questions and will just take your mind off things. Sometimes you don't need someone who's going to be particularly kind and sensitive and thoughtful - you need someone who's not going to treat you any differently than normal. Sometimes, a good friend is simply one who will give you what you need - or, rather, what you think you need - what you want.

Elliot's thoughts: Listening to Molly made me realize a person doesn't have to be perfect to be exactly what you need.
- Scrubs

I guess it comes down to what kind of friend you want to be. Do you want to give friends what they want, what sometimes they only think they need, or do you want to give them what they really need? The problem is, people are more apt to like you if you simply give them what they want all the time. Giving people what they need, what is best for them in the long run, isn't always the most popular route, and it's usually not the easiest. If you want to give them what they really need, you have to be sharp. You have to be able to tell when they really need to be distracted from when they're just running away from something. You have to be able to tell when intervening is going to help and when it's going to push them to the edge. You won't get it right every time, but hey, you've got to try. Right?

And all at once the crowd begins to sing
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same...
The Fray

----------------
Now playing: Matchbox Twenty - Bent