I have a soft spot for Andrew McCarthy.

Even though he was decent in Pretty in Pink, I'm a Duckie fan all the way. But I absolutely *love *his character in St. Elmo's Fire - Kevin, the cynical aspiring journalist and recent Georgetown grad who wears the strangest clothes (and always a trench coat), smokes way too much (which can be forgiven, I guess) and is secretly in love with his best friend's girl. He broods, he ponders the meaning of life, he rocks out to Aretha Franklin when no one's around, and he has a coffin at the foot of his bed. Before admitting he's in love with Leslie, he staunchly maintains that love doesn't exist.

Kevin: Love, love, you know what love is? Love is an illusion created by lawyer types like yourself to perpetuate another illusion called marriage to create the reality of divorce and then the illusionary need for divorce lawyers.
...
Kirby: You are just pissed off and bitter because you have not had sex in. . . how long? What is it. . . a year. . . maybe two? Refresh my memory please, Kevin. Haven't you heard of the sexual revolution?
Kevin: Who won, huh? Nobody. Used to be sex was the only free thing. No longer. Alimony, palimony. . . it's all financial. Love is an illusion.
Kirby: It's the only illusion that counts, my friend.
Kevin: Says who?
Kirby: Anyone who's been in love.
Kevin: Love sucks.
Kirby: So does your attitude.

Kevin: Marriage is a concept invented by people who were lucky to make it to 20 without being eaten by dinosaurs. Marriage is obsolete.
Alec: Dinosaurs are obsolete. Marriage is still around.

I was thinking about these quotes the other day and about the wonderful Kevin just because I was feeling really cynical and wondering, what if love really was just an illusion? What if it was just a game of seeing how deeply in denial you can get, if you could convince yourself that the illusion is real? What if the only people who won were the ones who could lie to themselves like that? Then would marriage just be a game of seeing who's the best at lying to themselves? Who can maintain the illusion the longest?

Haha. If that's the case, I think I'd fail. Though, "Never underestimate the power of denial." And my powers of denial are great, when least expected.
: D


P.S. [Talking about Andrew McCarthy and why he inspired him to be an actor] "Yeah, St. Elmo's Fire (1985) is probably the one that I love him in the most. He was really vulnerable, really open, I think. And he had floppy hair, kind of bad hair, and I had really bad hair for quite a long time when I was a kid."
- Reason # 96145 I positively adore James McAvoy. <3333 style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">

What was wrong with a solid sort of guy?

...Did you want a marriage full of surprises, or did you want a guy you could depend on? Someone who, when you looked at him, you knew what he'd be like in fifty years?

She asked Laurie, because Laurie had a theory about everything. "It seems to me," Laurie had said, "that you can marry someone you're lucky to get or you can marry someone who's lucky to get you. I used to think the first was best. Now I don't know. Wouldn't it be better to spend your life with someone who thinks he's lucky to be there?"

"Why can't you both be lucky?" Prudie asked.
"You can wait for that, if you like."

- The Jane Austen Book Club

FRICK. Okay, so I was going to elaborate on this, except for 2 things. One, the day I wrote this, I didn't have the time, and two, I just started to now and Firefox shut down on me. Rawr. I don't remember quite what I said, but I have a vague idea.

I like this passage a lot. I was going to relate it to this quote from either Before Sunrise or Before Sunset, I don't remember which, that basically talks about having a "better self" and an "honest self," because I was thinking about that today - which would be better, to be with someone who makes you feel like you are your "better self" or with someone who recognizes you as your "better self"? To be with someone who makes you feel good about yourself and such, or someone who simply makes you feel like yourself? But I can't find the quote and I don't have time to watch both movies to figure out what it is.

I was reading reviews of these movies before. Most critics agree that the sequel, Before Sunset, is much better than the original, Before Sunrise, which was made nine years earlier in 1995. A lot of critics and people in general condemned Before Sunrise and its characters for being self-absorbed, smug, self-congratulatory, pretentious (that was a popular one), and just generally obnoxious and too dialogue-heavy. One person actually said that they "talk to much, and say too little," and that they "aren't so much waiting to hear as they are for their turn to talk." This amused me. I was amused that people complained that the characters in St. Elmo's Fire are obnoxious and too self-absorbed for the same reason. The kids in that movie were recent college graduates - around 22 or 23 - and in Before Sunrise, Jesse and Celine are both 23. Really, aren't most people that age self-absorbed? And if they're given to self-examination and exploration and reflection and thought at all, aren't many of them pretentious? Hell, pretty much everything I write/post on this damn thing fairly reeks of pretentiousness and self-absorption/involvement/etc. But that's why I try to pour it out here instead of actually talking about it to people and getting that "you actually talk about this crap?" tone from them. I figure, this is how I am right now, and all I can really do is hope I learn and change in time, ya know?

In St. Elmo's Fire, Rob Lowe's character says, "We're all going through this. It's our time on the edge," and Demi Moore replies that she's tired, and she just doesn't even know who to be any more. Except she and all the other characters in that movie are typical '80s kids - parties, relationships, "love," and heading out into the "real world." Jesse and Celine are the slightly more intellectual, deeply-connected version. In their own way, they're "on the edge," and they also don't really know who they are. I guess that's why I really love both movies - I can completely relate to their confusion and utter uncertainty. As I've already pointed out my pretentiousness and overwhelming self-interest, I might as well also point out that if I'm going to be completely honest, I pretty much qualify for the label "walking disaster." [Excised: Excessively Long Self-Examination and Obnoxious Criticisms.] I have an idea that if I went to a shrink, there's at least a 50% chance I'd be diagnosed as clinically depressed. A year ago that'd probably have been closer to 75%. I mean, I don't think I'm clinically depressed. But I bet a shrink would have a field day with me. I mean, isn't it now that about 20% of people this age have been diagnosed with depression? That's ridiculous. But, I have no real reason to be the way I am. I think it's just this particular time of life. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way, in being insane - I just think that, being the person I am, I choose a less conventional (though not unique, slash probably more annoying) way of dealing with my confusion and general social and emotional dysfunction. And I'm not even going to get into my physical health. Though there are an increasing number of nights that I think, "I really should start drinking," the fact that I don't is probably the only thing stopping me from becoming a complete, certified wreck. Though I'm not even sure any more why I don't, if it's that I still just don't want to, or if it's turned into me being proud and stupid and reluctant to actually do something human-like and put myself out there in any way shape or form. And then there's the fact that I realize a lot of what's wrong about me and have no idea what the hell to do about any of it. Or maybe it's just that I have no idea what to start with, where to begin. And then I stop and think about how I'm really most likely not the only one who feels this crazy, but most normal people - and also people who are way more messed up than I am - don't complain and throw themselves pity parties and obsess over everything, and think I think, "Wow, way to be a complete jerk."

Shutting up. Christ. I'm not really as pathetic as this makes me sound. And I swear I really don't loathe myself and I really don't need someone to stage some kind of Intervention and I really don't think I'm clinically depressed. Just confused. And despite the fact that I seem to constantly soak in pools of self-pity, I really don't want anyone else's. I don't like pity. Pity doesn't help, so I guess I should stop that. And if you despise me now, well, I can't really blame you. And if your best advice is not to write after 2 am any more, don't worry; from now on, I'm on top of that one. As for the obvious, "Don't think so much"...ha. You try it. Then get back to me.

Lord. I'm rambling worse than Dickens. I really need to work on the whole control / brevity / pithiness thing.

P.S. Watching A Streetcar Named Desire today...wow. I forgot what an absolutely brilliant masterpiece that is. As great as Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is, I still think this is better. Never fails to amaze me. If you've never read/seen it, I recommend you do both.

----------------
Now playing: Iron & Wine - The Trapeze Swinger

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Taking a super short break from working on my Lit and Film paper on "the theme/conflict between the 'significant' and 'insignificant' person in literature in film" to rant really quickly about how much it annoys me when lit professors make you try to find "meaning" in everything. Everything is a symbol; everything means something. The monkey is a symbol! The origin of his name "means" something! He calls her "Anna Karenina" - that "means" something! What does the goose "mean"? What do the cossacks "mean"? What does the department store in Modern Times "mean"? God. I mean, I get the importance of looking for the deeper subtext or being aware that a deeper subtext exists, but really. Everything does mean something in context, so why do we have to spend an hour and a half trying to figure out what the hell Gogol was thinking during the three years he took to write his obnoxious story "The Overcoat" (which, if for no other reason, is obnoxious just because of its lack of paragraphs)?!?! How are we ever supposed to understand what he wanted us to get out of this story that he wrote over 160 years ago?? I can appreciate analyzing literature, I really can. Sometimes I even enjoy looking at themes and archetypes and motifs and style - crazy, I know. But sometimes, especially where symbolism is concerned, I get incredibly frustrated with this whole looking for something that may not be there deal. Also when reading literary criticism. I can't believe people make a living by foisting their convoluted theories onto others. But I digress. My point is, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - sometimes a starfish is just a starfish - and sometimes a giant monkey picked up off a raft during a typhoon is just a damn lucky monkey.

----------------
Now playing: Chris Ayer - A Starfish In The Front Yard

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.

- Mark Twain

Argh. If only, if only.

My Latest Life Plan:

• Finish college.
• Grad school?
• Win the lottery (preferably the mega millions jackpot).
• Buy a pretty house on a beach / an apartment in New York.
• Write a novel or screenplay or whatever tickles my fancy. Perhaps start a website and critique movies and plays - it's easy to be a critic when you're not worried about finding a job with a respectable publication! William Wolf does it...AND teaches at NYU, besides. I could do that.
  
• Engage in various philanthropic pursuits. Or at the very least, do nice things for my immediate family and close friends. (*See: Franny in 'Friends With Money'.)
  
• Finance an independent film.
• Open a private school or help improve public ones somehow or something.
  
• Travel. Photograph stuff. Do good things for others.
• Just live. Forget planning. Just do stuff.