"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.

Idealistic or unrealistic?

So a while ago, I ranted (calmly) about how unfortunate it is that escapist stories often make us (even if only subconsciously) long for a fantasy that we know will more than likely never come true. We form this whole distorted view of reality, and we like it. We like having that hope that life can be like a fairy tale, or a myth, or an epic.

Really, though, I think fiction affects us much more than we realize. Or at least, much more than we actively acknowledge. (Damn media literacy. It was actually effective.) We watch movies and TV shows, we listen to music, we see advertisements. All of this registers in our minds and affects the way we perceive everything. Everyone's always up in arms about this, and everyone claims that the media doesn't affect them, but that's such garbage.

When you really think about it, the media dictates what qualifies as the status quo - it sets or announces the standards for everything. What's trendy, what's "unique," what's uncool, what's attractive. So and so wore this designer who used this kind of neckline and this kind of hem, and that's trendy right now. That woman has big eyes and a straight nose and she's beautiful, so that's a new standard of beauty. The awkward nerd in that movie is cute because he's awkward. Etc. etc. It's almost like we conform without even realizing it.

It goes further than that, though. We watch movies where shy homely girls fall in love with an arrogant, impossibly handsome and charming, "misunderstood guy" archetype, where against all odds, he falls in love with her and her influence makes him redeem himself and they live happily ever after. We read books where, like in any good plot, all the characters undergo some kind of change, and often a dramatic one. We listen to songs that explore every emotion concerning and relating to love of all kinds. We fall in love with idealized characters and unconsciously refuse to settle for anyone who isn't as great. We want to believe that these perfect ideas are achievable.

One day this summer, I met my 75-year-old candy nazi of a boss's boyfriend. He was pretty strange. She told me how they met, and it was a cute story - kind of weird and creepy, but cute. She also told me how he's been a bachelor his entire life. My boss, as a widower, told me that this was making it harder to break him of certain habits that she hated, because he was so used to being able to do whatever he liked whenever, without having to be considerate of anyone else. But she also told me that she understood this, and that she had no expectations of making him change. She told me that that's the mistake that a lot of women make - they meet a man, and they say, "Oh, I'm in love - he's practically perfect, except for ______." They think they can reform him, that they can just change what they don't like about him, when really, it won't work out unless they accept him as he is.

Honestly, that's probably the smartest thing she ever said to me. Or rather, the wisest. I think we all expect to be able to change people's basic natures much more than we usually can or do. Sure, it's possible - but I think it's the exception rather than the rule. At least, changing them in the noticeably dramatic fashions that we expect isn't usually what happens. But I also think that we may tend to say that we simply accept people we love when really, we are excusing them. It's okay for them to have certain flaws that we despise because we love them - but it's not okay for other people to be that way. But I digress.

Or not. That was all I really had. Now I need to sleep.

Art and Money

So this past fall, I was going to go to this forum at the New York Public Library sponsored by the photography journal Blind Spot, which quarterly publishes work by both renowned and up and coming photographers. It's a pretty big deal. But anyway, they were cosponsoring a 3-part forum. The first part was a discussion between two photographers. The third part was "Truth and Authenticity in Photography" - to what extent does a photographer record and to what extent does he create an image? The second part was entitled "Money, Money, Money, Money," which was a panel discussion about commerce and art.

The NYPL described as: "In an era when creativity and innovation have a price tag and the lines between art and commerce are increasingly blurred, how do artists negotiate this terrain? Are commercial entities like Prada, Apple and Louis Vuitton modern-day Medicis or are these corporations and their consigliere simply bandits brokering on the fame of the artist? Is art in the service of commerce or vice versa?" The panel included creative directors and CEO's of magazines and fashion ad agencies, photographers, and co-founder of the Kate Spade label, Andy Spade. I thought it sounded interesting, but I ended up not going.

The concept did get me thinking, though, about how closely art and commerce are tied in our society. Let's say you write a brilliant novel. A brilliant novel that could change the lives of men everywhere, but with no popular appeal whatsoever. With a very small potential audience. What good is that, then? You have something brilliant, but something that a) no one will ever publish, and if someone does, b) no one will ever read it. Does art (or anything, for that matter) have value if it has no audience? And I mean outside the creator's self and close friends and family and whatnot - I guess one should at least be glad that his loved ones will experience it. But if, on a large scale, no one is affected by it, or experiences it, is it still important? I mean, sure, in theory, you should create for yourself. But once you create something beautiful, if there's no way for you to share it, what good does that do? Yet, should you keep a mass audience in mind when you create, so as to have the means to share it with others? And thinking that way, how many undiscovered masterpieces exist to no one's knowledge?

And outside of that, if you're going to make a living solely by committing yourself to your art, it must have some kind of popular appeal on one level or another. Otherwise, you'll never make any money, and won't be able to live without doing something else. Which is why I wish I never had to worry about money and could just do whatever I liked. Haha.

Sooze: That’s my worst fear. Making a sound and no one hears it.
– Eric Bogosian, subUrbia

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

Once in a while, I just step back and look at everything and wonder, "When the hell did I become the person that I am?"

Seriously. There are days where I look at what I do, what I say, how I act - I remember the things I've done, the way I've handled different situations - and I wonder, how did I get here. How did I get to be this way.

Then I think, really, do I even have any idea who I do want to be? No. I have no freaking clue. I don't know who I am, who I want to be, what I want to do, or even how I want to be seen. I just want to be me, and I have no clue who that is. How can I have any respect for myself when I can't even recognize myself? How can I expect anyone else to respect me? And if I don't deserve respect, how can I deserve love?

Okay, so that's going too far. I guess I do have an idea of who I am. I used to know. But sometimes now all I can see are shadowy images of myself running away from each other, floating around, sometimes colliding to form something more corporeal, but dissolving away before I can get a good look. I guess it's not even something I should think about. I should just be me. But there are times when I feel like that's so much easier said than done.

There are nights (rarely days) that I just get completely frustrated with me. I don't know what I want. I lack motivation. I lack passion. Or at least, am somewhat lacking. I'm not working at the levels I'm capable of, and I'm shirking responsibility. I'm apathetic and self-indulgent, lazy and selfish, arrogant and self-absorbed. I'm small, ugly, cowardly, weak, plain, and unoriginal. I've got no faith in anything, or anyone, and am utterly incapable of trusting or loving with my whole self.

Okay, going too far again. But that's the feeling I get sometimes. And I feel completely isolated and alone, which is also untrue. I just want to be someone else. Or a better version of me. Or, I want to know who I am. Figure my life out. Everything's a big clutter of loose ends and I'm not getting anywhere.

And odd things stand out in my mind. Like how someone once told me that they feel alone even when they're around others, and that makes it worse. Or how for the longest time, I didn't like any of my friends without realizing it. Probably because I didn't want to accept that they weren't who I thought they were. I can pinpoint the time I became aware of life, aware that there were other people worth loving. People who I shouldn't keep at an arm's length.

Sometimes I'd like to go back to before then, back to when I didn't think about anything. When I didn't care what anyone thought of me, or if anyone even noticed, and just went about my life being relatively invisible and misperceived, and pushed everyone away for no particular reason.

Other times I feel trapped by love, which is just completely wrong. Still other times I feel like the people around me don't let me be me, which is also silly. If anything, I guess I let their presence force me to be restrained, which is also wrong.

None of this makes sense. Which is worse, being sane and spouting nonsense, or being insane and babbling uselessly?

P.S. No one's allowed to worry about me. I'm fine. I'll figure it out. Besides, I'll wake up in the morning (afternoon?) and the feeling will have dissipated completely. That's how it works. I just had to vent somewhere. And please note it's after 5 a.m. We all know I'm not the most rational and coherent at this hour. Yeah. I'm not depressed. I'm just...human. Mmkay?


----------------
Now playing: John Mayer - Slow Dancing In a Burning Room