My favorite movies

• Tootsie
  A brilliant take on human relationships, sexuality, gender identity and roles, and the trifecta centerpiece that underscores it all, compassion, humor and humility. Michael Dorsay (Dustin Hoffman) is an unemployed actor in New York, and through a series of unexpected events, gets cast as a woman on a daytime drama. His transformation into "Dorothy Michaels" is fascinating as he literally "walks in a woman's shoes" and embarks on a very revealing personal journey. Julie Nichols (Jessica Lange) is a cast member on the daytime drama as well, and the friendship that evolves between she and Dorothy is complex and satisfying, and yet also humorous since we're "in" on the conceit. One of the funniest and most touching movies you'll ever see. Hoffman's performance is genius, Lange is sublime. (If you become a real fan, you'll want to memorize the staircase scene at the end.)



• Star Wars series
  As a 9-year old, Star Wars captivated me and every other soul breathing at that time. But what is it about this series that so captivated people? Yes, it was the whole sci-fi/special effects angle, but I think the family drama provides many flashes of recognition for us all. And George Lucas is a magician, the way he manages to morph Vader from innocence to evil to compassion. Remember the scene in Jedi when Luke is calmly pleading with his father, "I know there's good in you..." And Lucas somehow manages to evoke tenderness from this "monster" - watch it again, you'll be amazed.



• Sophie's Choice
  I was so drawn to this movie, even as a young teenager. Movies that dealt with the Holocaust were of interest to me; I just couldn't fathom it. I think Streep's Sophie is truly sublime - a masterpiece of vulnerability and strength. Even before I had a child, I was completely destroyed by this movie's premise. You'll find yourself gasping for breath. Not to be missed.




• The Unbearable Lightness of Being
  I saw this movie during my junior year in college (1989), and I was so blown away. It was an especially vulnerable time for me in my own exploration of identity. I will always identify with the core conflicts of intimacy in this movie. That is, what is "intimacy"? How do we define it? How do we engage in intimacy? Are there boundaries we shouldn't cross, and what if we do? Can we achieve fulfillment in life without intimacy? Is there such a thing as non-monogamous intimacy, or is that a contradiction in terms? Can "non-sexual" intimacy be just as fulfilling as "sexual" intimacy? The time/place setting of this movie is particularly relevant, I think, in terms of shining light on the "personal is the political" philosophy, as it takes place during the 1968 Russian invasion of Prague. And the "ballet of eroticism" (as Ebert calls it) between Sabina and Tereza is truly masterful filmmaking. Another film not to be missed. "Life's so light. It's like an outline you can't ever fill in or make any better." Tomas
  




• The Sopranos

Yes, "The Sopranos" is a tv series, not a movie; but in terms of character development and overall quality of writing, the series is arguably on par with the best movies. I find the characters to be almost Shakespearean in terms of contradictions. Here you have Tony Soprano, the most feared and powerful Mob boss, who has, on multiple occasions, committed horrific and repugnant acts (where shall I begin? How about with murder and adultery.)

And yet, he has this remarkable sensitivity to certain things. For example, his fondness for animals. The series begins with the tenderness he displays for ducks in his backyard; he develops an intense fondness for these ducks, and is truly saddened when they leave. Or, horses. Tony is devastated when he learns that a barn fire has killed a number of horses. When he realizes that Ralph set the barn on fire, his grief evolves into fury, which leads him to kill Ralph in a fit of rage.

Tony also has a certain moral compass in terms of how "family" is "supposed" to be; unfailing, devoted, completely loyal, respecting elders, cherishing and spoiling children. He rationalizes his cheating on Carmela that he has her complicit approval. And it's not entirely a rationalization; Carmela actually confesses to Father Intintola that she "looks past" Tony's infidelities, in exchange for all that she "gets" (a lovely home, cars, furs, jewelry, vacations to Paris: and of course the status as the Boss's wife). The "code" that Tony, his family, and his "soldiers" live by is exacting and non-negotiable. To a great extent, this is the "moral compass" that drives him.

And then there are some absurdly petty things that Tony seems to care about; for example, the young man in the restaurant, dining with his baseball cap on. This annoyed Tony enough that he approached the young man and "strongly suggested" that he might want to remove the hat. Was this just a brute show of force for the sake of it? No, I don't think so; I think Tony really was annoyed that a man would be disrespectful enough to wear a baseball cap in an upscale restaurant. Or how about Tony's faithfulness to the Sunday evening meal. He may miss dinner during the week ("...that's what microwaves are for: inconsiderate husbands"), but he never misses Sunday dinner with the extended family.

And then there is Christopher; also a morally repugnant character to a large extent. And yet, he has a love for cinema that rivals my own. Christopher is convinced that he could be a screen writer, and early in the series, he begins work on a screenplay on his ThinkPad. (Yes, it's a Mob drama, but with sci/fi twist!) Christopher becomes obsessed with finding an "arc," and is very frustrated by how disinterested his Mob counterparts are in his screenwriting pursuits. (At one point, he attempted to share his quandaries with his "arc" development to Pussy (...to be continued).


• Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
  


How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!The world forgetting, by the world forgot.Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd. -- Alexander Pope, "Eloisa to Abelard"

• The Hours


• Lost in Translation
  A wonderful, if atypical, romance/comedy, Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation" is a dead-on portrayal of two lost souls who unexpectedly find intimacy in each other. "Bob" (Bill Murray), a washed-up middle-aged actor on location in Tokyo, meets "Charlotte" (Scarlett Johansson) a young newlywed accompanying her husband on assignment. Charlotte finds herself in a very dark place because she is alienated from her disengaged husband; and she's unconsoled by the beauty and wonder of Japan. Bob and Charlotte become close companions, though never actually consummate the relationship. Yet the relationship is not diminished (and is maybe even enhanced) by the lack of consummation. Murray exhibits his usual understated comedic brilliance. The ending is heart-breaking and yet fulfilling, because we know both characters have been enriched by their brief yet intimate friendship.
  
  
• Transamerica
  
  
• Bend it Like Beckham
  


A hugely entertaining film about two teen-age girls who are "all about" soccer, each with their own distinct struggles, yet who find friendship in each other. Set in London, the film is centered around a girl from a traditional Indian family; her mom is driven to teach her to cook and to marry her off to a nice young Indian boy. The other girl is a local Londoner, whose Dad is delighted with her soccer pursuits (because, he thinks, she'll spend less time thinking about boys), while her mother is terrified that her "jockness" must mean that she's a lesbian (she isn't). The two soccer friends come of age, despite the inevitable trials. Funny and touching and engaging.

Many more to come...

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others"

I love this quote from Winston Churchill. To me, it so exquisitely defines the importance of context and relativity in any situation. As far as government systems are concerned, democracy is certainly not a panacea; but compared to other systems, it generally works well for the greater good. That is, we must always consider the alternatives in any situation before making an assessment about whether or not something is "good" or "not good."

I'll give you another kind of example. How about road rage? So many drivers are rude, impatient, even hostile. Yet how "bad" can it be if you can afford to drive a car, to conveniently and quickly reach places? A very small percentage of the world's population actually owns a car; but instead of perceiving it as a luxury, many people complain about traffic. Well, your choices are: complain about traffic and act all hostile and rude to your fellow drivers; or, recognize how lucky you are to be able to hit the beach in two hours. Better yet, relinquish your car and then see how life is without it. Challenge yourself to take public transportation everywhere, or even ride your bike. There are always alternatives to your current situation; you can make choices and act instead of complaining. Live for a year without your car; then, when you start driving again, how hostile will you be? It's all contextual and relative.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

Another inspiring quote from Eleanor Roosevelt. This quote speaks to the idea that you and you alone control how you react to other people's behavior toward you. Think about the power of this quote. No one can diminish you unless you allow their words or actions to affect you. Instead of imagining how you're "supposed to" react, you can control how you react. You can extinguish insults or rude behavior by ignoring them. As challenging as it may seem, you can mitigate the hurt of cruelty by rising above it. It certainly is easier to rise to this challenge if you are grounded with a strong sense of self-esteem. But you can build your self-esteem by following Eleanor Roosevelt's timeless advice.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't."

Quote from Eleaonor Roosevelt

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

There's no question that Aretha's got it right: it all comes down to respect. (Remember what Jack Black says in "School of Rock": "Everybody wants to party with Aretha!") How many of the world's ills are due to a lack of respect for each other? A lack of respect for the earth? A lack of respect for the power of nature?

Lacking respect for each other

What elements embolden us to be so disrespectful to each other? I would argue that one element is anonymity. It amazes me (but doesn't surprise me) when I see road rage unleashed against the anonymous driver roaring past at 80mph. Yet how emboldened would that same person be to "rage" against another person walking down the street? The anonymity seems to allow (and maybe even facilitate) bad behavior. Another element that facilitates disrespect is how you might perceive someone's stature on the hierarchy of power. Perhaps it's a cliche, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that a tall, good-looking young man in a business suit will garner more respect than a diminutive, older female Mexican house-keeper. (It's not a stretch, but it is very disconcerting.) Here's a really novel concept: let's pretend that all human beings are equally worthy of respect and dignity! It doesn't matter where you live! From what tribe you come! Whether you're male or female, "of color" or not (isn't "white" a color?), wealthy or poverty-stricken, gay, bi, or straight! Well, if only; keep dreaming, my friends.

Lacking respect for the earth

Hey, here's an idea! Let's build an entire infrastructure and global economy around fossil fuel as our primary energy source! Then, let's consume that energy like drunken sailors, every day and every night, like there's no tomorrow! ("Doh! It just cost $95 to fill up my new Escalade!") ANd let's build a wildly inefficient Interstate highway system (all the while, ignoring the many benefits of a high-speed rail system) and transfer goods in huge-ass 18-wheeler trucks! Oh, and let's be sure to ignore other potential "green" energy sources, that could actually create jobs and stoke the economy! While we may have scorned Al Gore's claim that he "invented the Internet...," let's not arrogantly ignore his dire warnings about the real crisis that is global warning. (If you haven't seen it, immediately go to Netlflix and order up "An Inconvenient Truth.")

Lacking respect for Mother Nature

While I'd agree that a beach house on Malibu beach would be fabulous, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to build houses there, since so many of them are regularly consumed by fires and mudslides. Nor does it make a lot of sense to build one on the Jersey shore, which is suffering greatly from erosion. And I'm not convinced that it's wise to build and maintain a city below sea level. While I respect the engineering fortitude required for building and maintaining a city below sea level, can't we channel our energies toward a more sustainable city model? Or, how about hiking Mt. Hood during a Winter storm? Mother Nature is awesome in the truest sense of the word; let's not chastise her for being Herself.

It sounds so wildly simple, and yet it's so true: R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Why can't we all just show respect?

"80% of Success is Showing Up"

This is a quote from Woody Allen. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this quote. I mean, I did show up for my SAT test in high school, but I wouldn't characterize the test results as a "success." (Then again, how many of us can claim a mountain of successes by age 16?)

I suppose it depends on how you define "success," but also how you might characterize "showing up." There's a difference between showing up "prepared" and showing up otherwise. If I were to analyze this quote, I think Mr. Allen is saying that "showing up" is often the most difficult barrier to overcome in any given situation. Sure, you're terrified to "show up" for that job interview, but once you get there, you really click with the interviewer, and all of a sudden, it's three hours later. Sure, it's a drag "showing up" for the American Idol try-outs and standing in line for 17 hours, and of course you don't land an audition, but you end up meeting a fabulous soul mate while whittling away the hours in line. And sure, you're utterly anxiety-ridden to "show up" at freshman orientation, but even 20 years later you fondly recall your college days. Mustering the courage to "show up" is often well worth it.

Posts to Come

• the irony of technical writers (that is, life doesn't come with an instruction manual)
• professional history/resume/publications/seminars
• the beauty of the Pacific Northwest, and why it feels like home (Ireland)
  
• industry musings: what is "content"?
  
• our cultural celebrity obsession
• the SWA pilot applicant
• the 4k foot observation deck
• "class" and affirmative action
  
• moral quandary #324: public or private school?
• culture of isolation (iPod)
• the farce of "The Secret" (absolute snake oil!)
  
• Deepak Chopra's fulfillment of desire
• "Being" a Christian or "living as" a Christian?
• Intelligent Design
• The miracle of flight
• The parable of the Good Samaratin
  

"Ooh, I have a 'BLOG'!"

The supposed novelty of this "blog" craze cracks me up. It's like, "ooh, look, there's this new thing where I can write something articulate and post it on my blog to share with all my friends!" Except, "blogs" have existed since at least the early 1990s (and arguably long before). It's called the Internet.

It reminds me of a fellow I used to work with in the Valley. Let's call him "Wizard." Wizard was one of the true, genuine Internet geeks, who "blogged" before it was coined as such. He would dial into his shell account and cruise the boards, making posts and thoroughly engaging with other prehistoric "bloggers." (We're talking the Well era and even before.) When I got my Netcom account, he looked at me incredulously and said, "you do have a shell account, don't you?" (He assessed my worthiness as a Net geekster as to whether I knew what a "shell account" was.)

He and his cohorts had nothing but disdain for this new ISP called "AOL," and took sheer delight when AOL's servers crashed in the Spring of '96. ("All those damn idiots attaching 50MB photos to their emails..." he would chuckle derisively.)

Around this time also, some Internet geeks were experimenting with a "home page." Wizard was suspect of this experimentation, as it signaled a path that might actually make the Internet experience accessible to the masses (gasp! say it ain't so!). So, Wizard didn't enter this realm gracefully. He created a "home page" with the following text, and nothing else:

"Yes I have a fucking home page. Now go away."

It was scathingly patronizing and condescending. And he loved showing it to people!

I have to confess to feeling a sense of camaraderie with Wizard when this "blog" craze erupted. (Same with the "wiki" craze. "Ooh, look, we can post a page to the Internet. And then we can edit it!"). I don't mean to sound superior or anything (even though I know I do...) But this "blog" isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. We've "been there, done that" for a while now, haven't we, Wizard?

;-)

"It Takes Two to Tango."

One of my favorite adages is, "it takes two to tango." It reminds us that in any given situation or circumstance, we have to ask ourselves, "what did I bring to the table here? How did my behavior impact the situation? What could I have said or done that brought on this scenario?" You can often gauge a person's maturity level depending on how (or even, whether) a person asks these questions.

How many times have you heard someone complaining about "...they did this, and then they did that..." with an indignant tone of disbelief. Yet they've failed completely to examine how they may have played a role in the drama.

This adage also reminds me of, "There are three versions of the truth: what I said, what you said, and what really happened." Can we ever really be objective? Well, yes, but it's hard. It's a constant balancing act of really be in touch with our emotions, while simultaneously acknowledging and respecting the other person's point of view. Yet sometimes it amazes me how differently two people can experience the same situation.

One strategy I've employed, with some success, is to listen. Not just "listen," but REALLY LISTEN to what a person is saying. Listening is a hugely underrated skill, especially in our 24/7 fast-paced world, in which we're constantly bombarded by interruptions and distractions. I've often been in conversations in which I sensed that the other person was merely waiting for me to finish a sentence, so that they could begin talking. I find this so annoying that I try diligently to not do it to anyone. When conversing with someone, I make it a point to make eye contact and truly engage (which can occasionally be off-putting to shallow, cavalier people). (This could be why I much prefer talking to someone "live" instead of on the phone; to me, there's so many missed opportunities for engagement while on the phone.)

"The Pawn Shop Theory."

Have you ever been to a pawn shop? Generally, these are not nice places in shady neighborhoods, and are often visited by those involved in illicit dealings. Sometimes, you'll see a sports store ("Play it Again Sports") or a Music store that operates on "pawn shop" principles. I use the metaphor of a "pawn shop" as a sort of twist on Murphy's Law. Consider this:

I bring my run-of-the-mill, standard, cookie-cutter stratocaster guitar to the "new and used" music store, hoping to get some cash for it. The clerk surveys it, feigning seriousness. "Oh, well, you know, this isn't worth much, because it's a good ol' strat. These standard strats are a dime-a-dozen, especially these 'made-in-Mexico' strats... ." He continues to espouse its worthlessness, and I finally settle for a paltry sum.

Several years later (a point in my life in which I genuinely acknowledge my musical limitations), I survey the several guitars I still own and elect to trade another one at the "music" shop. This time, I feel better armored. This time, I don't have a standard, run-of-the-mill strat; no, this time I have a unique, one-of-a-kind, special edition strat, that happened to have cost a pretty penny when I purchased it new. I walk in with a confident attitude, like, "this time, I'll get some respect."

The clerk surveyed it suspiciously. "Hmm, oh..." he begins. "Oh, well, these special edition strats aren't that popular, everyone wants a standard strat instead..." You'll be astounded to hear that this guitar, too, was assessed by the clerk as essentially worthless.

Lo and behold, it didn't matter _what_ I brought to the pawn shop... it was all worthless!

"He's Not Heavy, He's My Brother"

Unfortunately, sometimes, it does not matter "what you do," but often instead, "who you are" that matters. This probably sounds cynical, right? Yes, I suppose it is. It's a reflection of how shallow our society can be. Gorgeous blonde in the Mercedes convertible rear-end you? "Oops, it was probably my fault, since I was lost and had to stop suddenly." Puerto Rican teenager in the souped-up Camaro rear-end you? "Damn, how did he get a driver's license in this country?"

For example, all those studies that show that "attractive" and "tall" people are more successful, climb the corporate ladder quicker, etc., et al. Well, duh. But could we be any more shallow? It's truly disheartening to contemplate how much our physical appearance may affect our destiny.

And, besides offering our physical appearance to be judged, we also get judged by "who we are." That is, our class (and family background), race, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), gender, sexual orientation, etc., et al. Are we doomed to be judged, stereotyped, and cast aside by the sheer superficiality of all these characteristics? How can we let the true "content of our character" shine through? Well, it is a cliche, but I've found the most effective strategy is to just "be yourself." And just keep on being yourself. This is often harder than it sounds; it requires us to completely surrender to the idea that we cannot control what people think or how they may react to us. We can only control how we act.

Think about the genuine earnestness of the phrase "he's not heavy, he's my brother." Heck, he may weigh 200 pounds, but he's actually light as a feather, right? This phrase so often reminds me of Bill Clinton, in terms of a person who will always be "too heavy." Here's a guy so reviled by the established Washington elites that he could do no right. Even when he did EXACTLY what the Republican Right would've done (for example, scale back an entitlement program like AFDC), he was still reviled. But, if George H.W. Bush had done the same, he would've been made a hero by the Right. Bill Clinton will always be "heavy" to many people on the Right. Alas, it doesn't matter what was done, it mattered who did it.