This Can't Be Broccoli

How Long Will This Be Going On?

2012-01-30T16:21:00.000-08:00

I think there should be a game show, like "The Price is Right" where couples who have broken up go before a group of contestants, and the contestants get to guess how long they were together based on information given to them.

I'd also have Dustin Diamond host--just 'cause.

For example:

"This is Don and Carla. They met in Reno while one of them was drunk and the other was on pain-killers. Carla works as a receptionist for a fortuneteller and Don is a self-employed taxidermist. How long were they together?"

CONTESTANT #1: Dustin, I'm going to say they were together for three weeks.

CONTESTANT #2: Dustin, I'm going to say two and a half weeks.

CONTESTANT #3: Dustin, I'm going to say she gave him hepatitis that night and two days later she skipped town and that was the last he heard of her.

CONTESTANT #4: I'm going to say...zero.

Call me crazy, but this sounds like a hit to me.

Gays, "Comfort," and Theater

2012-01-29T21:56:00.000-08:00

Right now, I'm in a play with naked men.

I should rephrase that.

I'm in a play that features nudity (not my own) and a bunch of guys showering.

Homosexuality also plays a part in the script, but it's not directly connected to the nudity.

These are two things you need to know.

For awhile, when I told people about the show I was doing--and by people, I mean straight guys--I would get this response:

"Yeah, I read that script. I'm not sure I would have been comfortable with that."

At first, I thought they meant the nudity, and that's understandable. Not everybody is comfortable with that onstage.

Then, however, I would say--"Oh the nudity?"

And they'd say--"No, just...some of the other stuff. I'd be uncomfortable."

At first I thought, Do they mean the homosexuality?

And then I shot that idea down.

I mean, there's no actual sex in the show.

There aren't guys kissing or making out or even touching, really.

Not that it'd be okay for these guys to have a problem with that if it WAS in the script. I mean, after all, yes these are straight guys, but they're also actors.

Do you have any idea how many girls I've had to kiss onstage?

So I shot the idea down.

But then I picked it back up again, when I actually was told by one of the guys--

"The homosexuality isn't something I'm comfortable dealing with onstage."

Now, here's something I've noticed.

People seem to think by saying they're not "comfortable" with something, it automatically gives them a get out of jail free card.

What I mean by that is, it's not okay to be homophobic in today's society, but it's okay to say you're not "comfortable" with homosexuality--even though it's the exact same thing.

Imagine someone saying--"I don't have a problem with African-Americans, I'm just not comfortable being around them."

Both parts of that statement sound racist, right?

Yes. Yes, they do. Because they are.

I resent the word "comfort" being thrown around with regards to straight men and their mildly suppressed homophobia, not because it's, you know, homophobia, but because it's something that really ticks me off.

A word being used to describe something it isn't.

Look, there are lots of things I'm not comfortable with onstage. I'm not comfortable with singing, dancing, stage combat, juggling, or working with children under the age of ten.

But if the play calls for it, I do it. It doesn't matter if I'm comfortable with it or not. Hell, nothing about theater should be comfortable. You're in front of groups of people playing a character and doing who knows what else. It's uncomfortable, but it's rewarding.

Most actors, including, I think, most of these straight guys, understand that and are okay with it. But when they need a reason why they can't do something because they object to it for an embarrassing reason (aka their own prejudices) they use the word "comfort."

When comfort has nothing to do with it.

Or maybe it does, but the fact is, that is NOT a get out of jail free card.

If you're uncomfortable playing a gay man or being in a play that deals with homosexuality, and it's a good play and/or a great role, you deal with it. Because you're an artist. Because you make art. Because prejudice and bigotry and homophobia and ignorance have no place in an artistic community.

I've seen people trip over themselves to play killers or nutjobs or sadists, but playing a homosexual makes them uncomfortable?

Well, that's unacceptable.

I know nowadays we're supposed to be nice, especially when it comes to actors, but I'm not being nice.

It's unacceptable.

As an actor, you should embrace things that make you uncomfortable. You should try to use those things to enlighten you--to make you a better and more open-minded person.

And most of all, you should be ashamed of whatever prejudices you have, and be working on them--not dressing them up with the word "uncomfortable" and thinking that's somehow okay.

It's not.

Unless you want to stop referring to yourself as an actor altogether, in which case--

Be my guest.

Kevin's Rules for Dating

2012-01-28T20:41:00.000-08:00

Having been back on the market for about eight months now, I've noticed that I've developed a certain set of rules based on the changes I've seen in the dating landscape.

Actually, maybe nothing's changed. Maybe I just never encountered these issues before, but either way, I realized I needed to set down some sort of rulebook just to keep all my new guidelines straight.

The issue isn't that I meet a lot of jerks. On the contrary, I meet a lot of really nice guys, which makes things that much tougher. On the surface, a date with a nice guy should automatically lead to a second date, right?

Well, that's a little tricky.

I'd forgotten--because truthfully, I'd never been on dates with that many nice guys before--that someone being nice isn't the only qualification for a successful pairing.

Mainly, I'm looking for someone who can make me laugh. I never thought this would be such a hard quality to find in someone, but I guess I have a tougher sense of humor than I thought.

Usually, if someone's getting me to lighten up, then it's all gravy from there.

That being said, there are some ground rules I'm shocked I've had to make:

~ I don't date guys in "open relationships." If you've decided something like that works for you, then great, but it's not going to work for me.

~ I'm not going to be the "in-between" guy. If you want to see me in between the four relationships you've had in three months, no luck.

~ I'm not dating people who tell me how much better I look now than I did five years ago. If you didn't like me five years ago, I can promise you that you're not going to like who I am. And Current Kevin is very protective of Past Kevin.

I'm also not interested in guys who want to rush to an immediate relationship. I'd rather sit back, relax, and see how things go.

Isn't getting there supposed to be half the fun?

My Top Ten Favorite Tweets from My Gay Friends

2012-01-28T09:02:00.000-08:00

To celebrate over 500 tweets on the "All My Gay Friends" twitter account, I've picked my top ten favorite quotes from my hobro's.

(Not surprisingly, most of them are from Andrew Holder. He's developing a monopoly on ridiculous gay catchphrases.)

Here we go:

10. "Who does she think she is? The Oprah Winfrey of drag?" ~ Andrew

9. "'Black Swan' is still one of my favorite diet inspiring movies." ~ Eric

8. "I see a lot of Little Edie moments in my future." ~ Andrew

7. "Celine Dion is the people's singer. She's the Princess Diana of singers." ~ Andrew

6. "There needs to be a 'You're Annoying' intervention." ~ Andrew

5. "I'm sick of almond milk. I'll tell you that much." ~ Andrew

4. "I'm out to wrangle me a man." ~ Andrew

3. "I'm well on my way to being a gay icon." ~ Eric

2. "I'm sorry you missed the youth I had." ~ Tim

1. "I like little nipples." ~ Andrew

Thank You for Not Sharing

2012-01-27T14:45:00.000-08:00

I've noticed myself using a particular phrase a lot lately.

"I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested."

A few years ago, a phrase like this--filled with cynicism and apathy--would have sent me into a tear about compassion and understanding.

Now, I see it as a survival mechanism.

Having worked with the public for over ten years now, I'm astounded at the amount of people who want to share personal information with you.

I'm not talking about the occasional down-on-their-luck person who just needs someone to talk to and unintentionally unburdens themselves.

I'm talking about someone who willingly dispenses the intimate details of their family life, relationship, etc. simply because you're standing in front of them.

You'd be amazed (unless you've worked in customer service) at some of the things people offer up without thinking twice about it.

When I first started my job, I'd try to find a polite way to let these people know that what they were doing was making me uncomfortable. I wouldn't say I'm an intensely private person (obviously, I'm blogging, aren't I?) but I was raised to believe you keep certain personal information in check--especially when it comes to total strangers.

So, as mean as this may sound, I just find people who don't distasteful.

And, admittedly, I've stopped being polite about it.

Rather than try to nod and smile and steer the conversation towards something suitable for being discussed in public, I just say--

"I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested."

Most people look as if I've slapped them across the face, probably because we're now taught that we should be rewarded every time we open ourselves up to anybody in our vicinity. I think communication and openness is great, but you can't foist it on people.

What makes anyone think I would want to hear about a restraining order their daughter has against them? Or why their marriage failed? Or what they've been arrested for?

I realize that nowadays with Facebook and Twitter and blogging, it's easier to share things than ever, but perhaps people need to think about what it is they're sharing.

Please No More 'Aha' Moments

2012-01-26T10:50:00.000-08:00

Dear Filmmakers,

I'm writing to ask you a favor.

No more Aha moments.

You know what I'm talking about.

That moment in a film when the protagonist suddenly has a revelation about their life, and breaks down in some form or another--in some instances, right down on their knees in the middle of the street (Shame).

What I most admire in acting and film-making is restraint and balance. So when you allow one of these moments to creep into your work, you take a piece of art and turn it into a Hallmark movie.

One crying scene is all it takes.

Or, in the case of The Descendants, kissing your comatose wife's forehead and whispering something sweet to her right before you walk away.

Really, Alexander Payne--I expect better of you.

Why did every director this year suddenly get so sappy?

I enjoyed Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close but I would wager that if you added up all the moments in that movie a character spends crying or raging against death, it would take up more time than all of Moneyball.

Moneyball--now there's a movie with restraint. You don't see Brad Pitt breaking down on the baseball field railing against the system.

Maybe we should call it the Sean Penn syndrome. Penn's "IS THAT MY DAUGHTER?" line from Mystic River has become known for that moment when a movie goes too far emotionally. Yes, a man realizing his daughter's just been murdered might be that hyperbolic, but on film it just comes across as...well...too much.

--Or maybe "not interesting" is a better term.

Watching someone grapple with grief and rage, while holding back tears is interesting. Watching them overpower eight men while busting a vocal cord? Not so much.

Usually you don't have too many examples of the Aha Sean Penn moment in any given crop of Best Picture nominees, but this year is rife with them.

Even though there's no display of tears, Hugo is one big sentimental lump. Ditto for The Artist, although its concept allows for some melodrama.

This year, can we try returning to subtlety? The benefit of film is that you're able to capture the slightest movements of human emotion.

Take advantage of that.

I understand that there's a certain appeal to putting moments on-screen that are larger than life, but sometimes--

Life is enough.

The Comparative Friend

2012-01-24T18:41:00.000-08:00

Here at Social/Corp, we've come up with a new service guaranteed to get you the attention of the prettiest guy or gal at any bar you happen to frequent.

How? --You might ask.

Here's how!

The Comparative Friend!

Sound strange?

That's because it is--

Strangely awesome!

Think about this:

How many times do you go out only to be approached by some idiot who regales you with stories about their tattoos and how they love being fun-employed when all of a sudden you notice some other person hanging back?

Oh them? --the idiot says-- They're just my friend.

You bet they are--

Their comparative friend.

And just by hanging back while their friend makes an ass out of themselves, the comparative friend looks amazing.

Now, Social/Corp is willing to provide you with that comparative friend!

We'll send a total moron out with you for a night on the town where that moron will make a complete fool of themselves--approaching people, making dumb comments, and drawing too much attention to themselves.

And all the while, you'll be hanging in the background, making people wonder--

Who's that attractive person the drunken asshole is with?

Pretty soon, you're going to be looking pretty damn sexy.

That is--comparatively sexy.

Listen to these testimonials!

"I have no personality, and I'm terrible at making conversation, but when my comparative friend threw up on the girl I thought was hot, she came running--right into my arms...and, obviously, away from his puke."

"I'm plain-looking, and I only have one eye, so Social/Corp sent me an obnoxious girl with barstools for legs, and suddenly, I wasn't looking so bad. Thanks Social/Corp!"

"Gay guys instinctively want to hook up with whoever the best looking person in the room is, so I ordered eight comparative friends--good ones too. I'm talking circus freaks, mimes, drifters, and a guy with a monkey he called Aunt Petunia. It didn't take long before every guy in the bar was clinging to me. That night I took at least seven guys home and--"

Okay that's enough!

Now that you've heard what good work we do, it's time for you to take advantage of our services!

"--We even let Petunia film the--"

I said that's enough!

Sorry.

Anyway--

Call Social/Corp and tell them you want your Comparative Friend.

Comparative Friend!

Because compared to your comparative friend--

You're not that bad!

Thoughts on the Oscars

2012-01-24T10:46:00.000-08:00
Today's the day!

The nominations for the 84th Academy Awards were announced, and this is one of the most surprising ballots in recent memory.

Let's start from the top:

Best Supporting Actor

The big shocker here is Nick Nolte. He gave a great performance in a movie, but that movie (Warrior) was completely ignored aside from him. The only mention of him being nominated was EW's short list awhile back, but I have to say, I'm happy to see the film get represented in some way. Max Von Sydow became the token "he won't get nominated for any of the flashy stuff but he'll make it to the Oscars" nominee. The rest were the usual suspects.

If It Were Up To Me:

I'd leave Nick Nolte alone, but I'd bounce Jonah Hill in favor of Albert Brooks. If we're talking about a comedic actor in a dramatic role, Brooks embraced the challenge much more than Hill did. Plus, Drive was woefully under-appreciated, which is probably how Hill (from the more high-profile Moneyball) was recognized.

Best Supporting Actress

The question going around this awards show season was: Will Melissa McCarthy get that nomination? Answer: Yes. That means for the first time since Helen Hunt won the Oscar for As Good As It Gets, an actor on a crummy sitcom is now an Oscar nominee. You have to love today's Hollywood landscape. (Okay, maybe Mad About You wasn't as bad as "Mike and Molly," but you get what I'm saying.) McCarthy bounced Golden Globe nominee Shailene Woodley, but the rest of the nominations stayed intact. (If it seems like I'm talking as if the Golden Globes are a direct transition to the Academy Awards, you're right--because they are. This year, however, they did deviate quite a bit in some categories, but they tend to be the foundation for the Oscar nominations.)

If It Were Up To Me:

I would probably bump Jessica Chastain for Carey Mulligan from Shame. Chastain wasn't anything special in The Help, and compared to her own co-star Octavia Spencer, she seems out of her league. I think they just honored her because she's the new Hollywood It Girl. It would have been more innovative to nominate her for Take Shelter.

Best Lead Actor:

I know you think I'm going to say that the nomination for Demián Bichir is an upset, but he was the Entertainment Weekly "For Your Consideration" pick that I actually thought seemed most likely to make his way onto the ballot. Gary Oldman, on the other hand, is a total shocker. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy seemed destined to fall into that pile of movies labeled "Great Movies That Got Lost in the Mix." Who knew it would battle back? The other nominees were all standard.

If It Were Up To Me:

I thought Michael Fassbender was incredible in Shame. The degree of difficulty involved in performing and pulling off that role was insanely high, and he nailed it. I liked Brad Pitt in Moneyball, but I didn't find his performance to be any sort of revelation. I would swap him out for Fassbender. (I know, I keep swapping out the Moneyball actors--but what can I say? It was an okay movie, but I don't think it was anything award-worthy, aside from the screenplay.)

Best Actress

A category with virtually no shockers. Tilda Swinton got bumped so that Michelle Williams come be included, which was expected. (Why do websites always say that someone was snubbed, but then fail to say who it is they were snubbed for? One year E! Online listed almost ten snubs for Best Actor, but where would all those people have gone? You can't list a snub in case you say who it is they should have replaced.)

If It Were Up To Me:

It was a great year for actresses. I can think of a lot of runners up, but I'd leave this list just as it is.

Best Director:

I had a feeling George Clooney wouldn't get any Ides of March love in this category, but I was a little surprised to see Terrence Malick take his place. (I get the feeling Steven Spielberg is starting to get a sense of how much relevance he's lost. Not even a Tintin nomination? Ouch.)

If It Were Up To Me:

Believe it or not, I'm not an Alexander Payne fan. I would have swapped him out for David Fincher. I'm not sure why The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo got so little love. It was really well done.

Best Picture:

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and Tree of Life were the surprises here, although it's hard to gauge what's a surprise and what isn't because nobody had any idea exactly how many nominees there would be this year. If we had known there would be this many nominations, I wouldn't have been surprised to see these two on the ballot.

If It Were Up To Me:

I was never really a big fan of Hugo. I would have put The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in its place. Maybe I would have gone an extra step and swapped one surprise for another--Tree of Life for My Week With Marilyn. Oh, and maybe...

You know what?

I'd better stop there.

Otherwise I'll be at this until they give out the awards.

I Don't Put Up With Morbid

2012-01-23T16:11:00.000-08:00
Today, somebody in the town I work in committed a murder.

I won't get into details, because that goes against what this post is about.

It's about being morbid. Being fascinated with murder, especially gruesome murder, seems, to me, to be disturbing in a whole other sort of way.

When people say, "Can you believe the wacko who did this?"

I always want to respond with "What about the wacko who's obsessed with them?"

Without realizing it, I went into the New Year with a resolution that had hardened over the past year with the onslaught of the Caylee Anthony trial.

I simply don't put up with morbid.

The same way a religious person might not be put up with gossip or profanity being thrown about around them, I refuse to entertain morbid rehashings of murder and gore.

It just doesn't seem healthy.

People are so quick to blame fiction (movies, video games) with violence, but they never blame people's innate fascination with violence--real-life violence--for being the real reason our society is starting to resemble a Roman Colosseum on "Christians vs. Lions" day.

I've never heard anybody talk about a violent movie for hours on end, and yet, I've had people come into the library where I work thoroughly over-joyed to talk about the specifics of whatever crime they saw on the news that day.

I understand that part of this might be human nature, but shouldn't we at least try to fight it?

Why is a violent movie so frowned upon by older and more conservative people, yet a violent crime is fair game at any dinner party? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I've decided I'm just not going to listen to any of it anymore, and that should be my right. I realize I can't go inside a bubble whenever there's a big murder trial, but I can at least ask that friends or co-workers keep talk about beheading and dismemberment to a minimum.

If second-hand smoke can poison your lungs, then morbid discussions are probably poisoning something else entirely.

Or maybe next time, I'll just ask if we can change the subject.

My Issue with Sports

2012-01-23T16:00:00.000-08:00
I know you probably read the title of this post, and thought this was going to be about how I was terrible at sports as a kid (which I was) and how now I feel distanced from it. Perhaps you think this is about the gay community vs. sports, or arts vs. sports, or Monopoly addicts vs. sports--

--But you're wrong.

This is all about not wanting to share.

Growing up, I remember watching my father get excited whenever a football or baseball game would be on, and I'd ask--

Why doesn't Rhode Island have a baseball or a football team?

Then he'd explain to me that all of New England shares the Patriots, and Rhode Islanders tend to cheer for the Boston Red Sox.

In my young (but-still-in-love-with-profanity) mind, I thought--

F**k that.

I had no intention of cheering for a hand-me-down team, or another city's team just because it was geographically close to where I was.

I wanted my own team, and not the Pawsox either--otherwise known as the Red Sox's watered-down sidekick.

(Keep in mind, I was the snobby kid who wouldn't drink the store brand soda.)

Pretty soon, people who cheered for these teams seemed, to me, to be like the annoying kid at the party who invited himself there.

They don't want us, you guys!--I'd want to yell.

As for the Patriots, the whole situation seemed even more repugnant.

I didn't want to share something with Connecticut. I didn't want to share anything with Connecticut. Connecticut and I were never going to be on the same side about anything--not even football.

That left me no choice, but to pursue a life in the theater.

Sometimes I wonder...

If there were a team like the Rhode Island Reds or the Providence Punishers (or maybe the Providence Porcupines, that sounds more adorable) would I be sitting in a bar somewhere, chewing on beer nuts, and screaming about the offensive line?

(Probably not.)

But then again, you never know.

Driver's Ed

2012-01-22T23:57:00.000-08:00
I remember this about Driver's Ed:

I had to take it during mid-terms my junior year of high school.

At the time, I was also in a really terrible production of "The Taming of the Shrew."

If you mix mid-terms, my least favorite Shakespearean play, and driver's ed--it's pretty much a recipe for sheer teenage angst and misery.

It didn't help that I was taking the class with none of my friends.

After spending three years in high school, carefully cultivating a circle of acquaintances so that I wouldn't have to meet any new people until college, I was now forced to interact with these other potential drivers every day for a week.

I don't remember many of the students. I know one of them brushed her hair during class. That should give you some idea of how memorable this assortment of people was.

None of that is really relevant to the story. What is relevant (but not really) is this:

My teacher knew more dead teenagers than anyone I've ever met in my life.

I don't know why he seemed to know so many. He was a teacher in a small town--one that isn't exactly known for having lots of automobile accidents, yet whenever he would speak about anything dangerous that might happen to us on the road, he'd have a story to go along with it.

"...she ran a stop sign, hit a parked ice cream trunk, the car flipped over, and her boyfriend dragged her body out of the car. I can still hear his screams echoing in the night..."

It became evident to me early on that my driver's ed teacher had a flair for the dramatic.

It was something I was willing to overlook, but the alleged quantity of dead teenagers he claimed to know began to irk me early on.

"...Then there was the busload of kids that went into the ice..."

I think that was actually The Sweet Hereafter but I didn't want to say anything.

"...And the girl who got beheaded in the Cadillac two months after those twins died on that bicycle."

It was astounding.

No matter what the circumstance, my teacher had an anecdote.

"...She never saw that rhino coming. That's why you have to be careful when you drive by the zoo."

Believe it or not, I got an "A" in the class.

It was easy to follow my teacher's lectures when they were so fanciful and tragic. It was like the Old Testament meets Sweet Valley High meets Blood on the Pavement.

None of it made me a better driver, but I do still have a lingering fear of ice cream trucks.

That, my friends, is the mark of a good teacher.

Rich People on Television

2012-01-20T14:46:00.000-08:00
I never thought I'd write something criticizing Modern Family, and I'm not! Not really. Relax. Sit down. Eat a piece of pie.

(You know, if you have it. If not, go get some. Pie improves reading. It's a proven face.)

Here's the thing--

One of my favorite sitcoms of all time is Roseanne. I love how it dealt with a lower-income family in a realistic way, but was still funny and irreverent, rather than depressing.

Watch an episode of Roseanne, then watch an episode of Modern Family, and it's a little, well...

Here's the thing:

The whole premise of Modern Family is that these people are us. I mean, that's the premise, or the goal, of most sitcoms--that you identify in some way with the characters.

The problem with Modern Family is that every once in awhile I'm reminded that I'm never going to truly identify with their characters, because their characters are sooo much richer than I am.

And it's not like the show willingly embraces this and makes fun of it like on Frasier, where Frasier's Dad was always commenting on his son's high-brow problem. It seems as if Modern Family doesn't want us to pay too much attention to the fact that money is never an issue for any of its characters, but they still want us to believe these characters are middle-class.

Well, newsflash, the middle class is ALL about money, or rather, worrying about money. Very few families in this country aren't, except, you know, the rich ones.

Okay, so maybe it doesn't expect us to believe that Jay and Gloria are middle class because Jay's worked all his life building up this successful business and blah blah blah--fair enough.

But how convenient that Mitchell happens to be a lawyer, thereby securing his family's financial status, and Phil's real estate career never seems to be in too much of a low-patch. Oh sure, every once in awhile Phil will bring up how bad the market is and he'll voice concerns about it, but they seem to be minor concerns considering how bad the market really is.

What I'm saying is this: Isn't it a little odd that there's a show dealing with three separate families and not one of the families ever struggles with finances?

Now, let me play devil's advocate here:

I'm a writer.

I understand that it's a lot easier to write about rich people, because writing about poor people and making it funny is incredibly difficult. That's why Roseanne was so brilliant.

When you remove the problems of the real world, it's a lot easier to create. I can only imagine what a day in the writer's room of Glee must be like:

"Guys, I KNOW we already added eight new characters this season, but we're running out of storylines for the ones we have!"

The bottom line is, I still enjoy Modern Family despite the little voice in the back of my head that says--They could still do a show this good AND have at least one character who doesn't drive a brand new Prius. They could still deal with actual problems every now and again. The people who create this are smart enough to take it to that next level.

But then I just go back to watching the show, and admittedly, it is a nice mental vacation.

Probably because I can't afford to take an actual vacation.

But hey, that's why I watch tv.

On "Shame" and Piracy

2012-01-19T01:31:00.000-08:00
I wanted to write something about SOPA/PIPA, but it seemed like it could turn into this epic essay on artistic property and politics and censorship, and frankly, I don't have the strength to write something that massive, so instead, I just want to confess to taking advantage of piracy, and also make a comment about how I feel about my own work, and hopefully try to tie the two together.

I'm a film buff.
A huge film buff.

Every year when the Oscar nominations come out, I make sure to see everything that's nominated.

Okay, that's not entirely true.

It starts before the Golden Globe nominations come out.

I usually see everything that could possibly be nominated for a Golden Globe in any potential category.

That means I will sit through A Dangerous Method simply because Viggo Mortensen received a Best Supporting Actor nomination, and he might also be nominated for an Oscar.

This is the level of my obsession.

And every year, I find at least one film requires me taking advantage of piracy.

How, you ask?

Well, inevitably, every year, one film does not come to any of the theaters in my little state of Rhode Island.

This year, that movie is Shame.

Maybe it's because it's a film about a sex addict with full-frontal male nudity (full-frontal male nudity gets you an NC-17, but breasts and vaginas get you an R rating--does that seem fair? We'll discuss that some other day if we haven't already) but for whatever reason, it's probably going to hit the major cinemas anytime soon, and we only have two independent film theaters here in Providence (Granted more than other places have, I'm not trying to sound ungrateful) but they might not get around to hosting Shame at all.

That means I have to try and find it online.

Now, I could just wait until it comes out on video and watch it on Netflix, but if you're suggesting that, you clearly don't understand how much I enjoy watching the Oscars knowing I've seen every nominated performance so I can wax rhapsodic about who deserves to win, who got snubbed, whose genitalia is most attractive, etc.

Besides, by the time it reaches Netflix, how much am I really paying the original owners of the "intellectual property" to see it? I stream Netflix for $7.99 a month. How much of THAT actually goes to the "artists" who make the films?

(See? Already I'm justifying--I'm absolving myself. This is wrong, I know that, but--)

--But the thing is--

(Now I'm jumping in and out of parentheses. All Hell has broken loose.)

--The thing is, I really, really want to see this movie, and not just because I'm an Oscar nut, but because I love and appreciate film, and the movie looks gorgeous (as does Michael Fassbender, but let's not get off-topic).

If I lived in or near a city where this movie was playing, I'd happily pay to see it in a theater, but unfortunately, I don't.

(Okay, it's playing in Boston, but I'm a Rhode Islander, which means Boston is a day-trip. Well, not really, but it seems a little silly to go to Boston just to see one movie. I could go to the aquarium as well I suppose, but--argh, off track again--)

I have to watch it online.

I have to.

I don't believe in stealing, but it's that or not experience the work at all, because by the time it comes out on video, it just won't be the same. The buzz and excitement will have passed. I'll be on to bigger and better things--like, you know, a Transformers sequel.

(Here's where I segue into a statement about my own work.)

I put everything I write online. I've been warned about this many time. "Someone might steal your work" they say. (That mysterious "they.")

To me, there's two kinds of stealing.

1) Taking something I've written and claiming that it's your own.

Yes, this is wrong. This would anger me.

2) Taking something I've written and publishing it or posting it somewhere else or memorizing it and using it for an audition or reading it in public and giving me credit but not paying me for it.

This, and I say this honestly, THIS--I have no problem with.

Why?

Because it's more important for me to get my work out there.

As an artist, first and foremost, I want my work out there. I want people to enjoy it. I want people to experience it. I want them to hear it and read it and embrace it.

If they can pay me for that, great. If they can't, I still want them to have access to it.

If I made a movie about sex addiction with lots of full-frontal male nudity (and I plan on making one next month) then I'd want people to see it. No, I wouldn't (ideally) want someone to pirate the film and cheat me out of money for it, but if there was some kid in Rhode Island or Nebraska or Moscow or Mars who wanted to see the movie and couldn't get to it via the usual channels (their local cinemas) then I'd say "Screw it. Get to it any way you can. Because I'm proud of it and I want people who are going to appreciate it to experience it."

(Admittedly, this communal way of thinking about art may come from the fact that I work in a library. The idea of buying art seems awfully subjective when you work at a place where a book is bought once and read by hundreds of people. Is that piracy? Is giving a CD to a friend to listen to piracy? Then why is burning a CD piracy? The whole thing just seems so subjective. Again, I realize I'm rationalizing and muddying the waters, but--should artists really be this comfortable throwing around legalese. I know we want to have ourselves be taken seriously and our work taken seriously, but, I'm sorry, my work is not the same as a scientific theory or a piece of actual property. It's art. It's tricky. Anyway--)

I hate to quote Bono here, but when someone asked him how he felt about music piracy on the Internet he said something to the effect that he was glad more people were hearing his music and that he's "already overpaid anyway." Now, granted, that's easy for Bono to say, but regardless of that, it's kind of the right idea.

If you could have a million people listen to a song you wrote or look at a painting you'd done or watch a movie you'd made, but you were told that only a tenth of those people were going to pay you for it, would you say--

"Well, no, sorry."

Would you turn down that level of exposure on some sort of principle?

That just seems crazy to me.

Ideally, yes, we should all be paid for everything we do, but there's a reason the word "ideally" means what it means.

And what about people who simply can't afford to see even one movie? I'm pretty lucky to be able to call myself a film buff and traipse off to the movies four times a week, but what about those who can't and want to? They should be denied art--be it film or music or theater--because of their financial status?

That just doesn't seem right to me.

I understand that I shouldn't take advantage of piracy, and there's a part of me that feels ashamed that I do, but there's another part of me that thinks the most important part of art is not how much money it can yield you, but how many people it can reach.

I hope I can one day get paid on a regular basis for what I do, but until that day--

I just want people to know I do it.

Not All Books Have Pages

2012-01-17T21:30:00.000-08:00
I can't believe I'm about to tell a story that involves the progression of the Internet using my freshman year of high school as an example of "the Stone Age," but it's true.

When I first started high school, information wasn't nearly as accessible as it is now. Oh sure, it was there, but there wasn't any Wikipedia and most search engines were still in their embryo form. You had to dig a lot deeper to find most of the information you can now find just by typing a few words into Google.

One thing I clearly remember from being in high school is that we always had to find two kinds of sources for each paper or project:

Online sources and book sources.

Believe it or not, I still see students come into the library I work at with the same rules.

"Only Three Online Sources Allowed."

My co-workers and I try to explain to these students that there really isn't a difference between the two anymore. You can find magazine articles and whole books online.

When we explain this, they look at us, sigh, and say--"Yeah, but my teacher said..."

And the sad thing is--

They're right.

Their teachers don't realize that the online/in print difference doesn't exist anymore.

They seem to have this sentimental vision of their students scanning text in old, dusty books in vast libraries finding some magical fact that's never been found before.

Basically, they want their students to suffer simply because they had to when they were students. They don't want to accept that things are actually a lot easier now.

Instead of having their students take advantage of all the Internet has to offer, they tell them that it's unreliable and they need to continue to find their information in print.

As if everything that's printed is automatically fact.

It's archaic, and it certainly isn't going to help them become better researchers, let alone enjoy the process of researching (if that's even possible).

Teachers need to do away with this nostalgic way of thinking about putting together a paper.

If they did, who knows what their students could come up with?

How to Tell If You're a Celebrity

2012-01-17T11:30:00.000-08:00
If I had to pick the biggest problem with living in a celebrity-obsessed culture, and I often am asked to pick by various reporters, and, occasionally, Charlie Rose, I would say it's that people seem to have a hard time telling whether or not they're a celebrity.

So I've decided to help clear things up for everyone.

Here's how you know if you're a celebrity:

1) If, when describing how you're famous, you don't have to use the word "Youtube." Any fame involved with "Youtube" is not real fame. If people know who you are because you taught your dog to apply mustard to a hamburger and the video of it went viral, that's not fame--that's notoriety. There's a significant difference.

Likewise--

2) If you're well-known because of a reality show, that's not the same thing as fame. Fame has to be earned, either by writing a great novel, acting in a movie, becoming the World's Greatest Ice Sculptor, etc. Being the fourth person to get kicked off The Bachelor doesn't count. Here's how I can prove my point--Billy Wilder made some of the greatest movies of all time. A hundred years from now, people will still be watching Some Like It Hot, but nobody will be able to name the winner of Big Brother Season Three.

Everybody likes to bring up the "fifteen minutes of fame" theory, but the truth is, real fame does make a lasting impression.

3) Fame has nothing to do with geography.

In other words, putting the name of a place in front of the word "celebrity" just looks foolish. There's no such thing as a "Nebraska Celebrity" or a "Rhode Island celebrity." A celebrity is someone who is known in both Paris and Peoria, Illinois. That's what being famous means--being known by a vast amount of people. Trying to minimize that doesn't work.

Finally--

4) Celebrities don't usually act like celebrities.

Have you ever seen Tom Hanks on a talk show? He seems incredibly relaxed. He cracks jokes. He's good-natured. He doesn't need to remind people that he's famous, because he just is famous.

It seems like the less famous somebody is, the more they overcompensate by acting the way they think famous people act.

"Oh, I'm sorry. I can't give autographs. My agent will be furious with me. But I will be doing a book-signing next week where I'll be autographing copies of my new book 'How I Grew a Turnip Shaped Like Ike Turner.'"

I hope this straightens everything out for those of you out there who might be confused about your popularity.

That reminds me--

Rule Number Five: If you're confused about whether or not you're a celebrity, you're probably not a celebrity.

How the Globes Are Different

2012-01-17T11:11:00.000-08:00
This is the time of year when we all revel in the Golden Globes fall-out.

"Meryl beat Viola?! Kelsey Grammar won for Lead Actor in a Drama?! Why was Madonna there?!"

It always surprises me that people forget the one Golden Rule of the Golden Globes:

It's all about good tv.

The Globes know they'll never be the Oscars, so instead of becoming just another awards show, they do their best to fill the show with as many celebrities as possible regardless of whether or not they deserve to be there.

Somehow, they've always found a way to get Angelina Jolie there even during years when she didn't bother to make a movie, and that's just one example.

It seems like their philosophy is--We all know who's going to win anyway, so why not just fill the other slots with people that audiences actually know about.

(That explains how Viggo Mortensen got a nomination over Max Von Sydow.)

That's the rule for films at least.

When it comes to television, anything goes.

Again, it's the "Who cares? We're just the Golden Globes" argument.

After all, it's the Emmys job to celebrate the best of television, and it's the Golden Globes' job to celebrate what the Emmys aren't cool enough to celebrate.

Remember when Party of Five won for Best Drama and it saved the show from being cancelled?

The press that the Golden Globes got because of that was astounding. That's when they figured it out--

Surprise upsets = Lots of publicity.

That's how you have Matt LeBlanc winning for Episodes.

And, of course, there are performers you simply can't beat.

The Golden Globes has a love affair with Meryl Streep (she's won there far more often than she has at the Oscars), Madonna (remember when she won for Evita), and Jim Carey (He not only won two times in a row for Best Actor in a Drama, but he beat Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan. Believe it or not, Tom Hanks won very few awards for that role, but he was listed as a front-runner all throughout awards season)--just to name a few.

It's not that the Golden Globes don't have a good track record of picking winners. In fact, they do serve the purpose of shaking up predictions. At the end of the day, however, calmer heads tend to prevail.

Because if there's one thing the Oscars don't care about, it's making interesting television.

All in the Execution

2012-01-17T02:50:00.000-08:00
I recently saw The Iron Lady as part of the final stretch of my Oscar viewing marathon.

Every year, I try to see everything that could possibly be nominated for an Oscar. Some are guarantees to score at least one nod (We Need to Talk About Kevin) and some are long shots in every category (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy).

Usually, I find that I love at least one film that doesn't get nominated for anything and I hate one film that gets nominated for everything.

Except for this year.

This year, I seem to be unimpressed with almost all of the offerings.

Oh, there are still a few films I'd recommend checking out--The Artist is great, so is Young Adult--but most of the films seem to have the same problem.

Execution.

In other words, the ideas for these films are great, and in most cases, the style is there, but the final product just falls flat.

For example, War Horse is a beautiful film. This is to be expected. Steven Spielberg never really does a poor job at directing. The problem is that early on it gets far too sentimental and never quite recovers from that.

Another example would be Hugo--a beautiful film, like War Horse, but entirely too schmaltzy. (I'm not a big fan of movies about movies. It's a little too self-indulgent for me.)

Beginners features a great performance by Christopher Plummer, but the trouble is, we only got a little bit of him, and much too much about Ewan McGregor's character's love affair with a stock indie French girl character. (Isn't this what focus groups are for?)

The Descendants is great right up until George Clooney's final moment with his comatose wife, where the film then becomes something out of Days of Our Lives. If only they'd let that scene hit the cutting room floor.

Moneyball was highly entertaining, but it didn't make me feel anything. It didn't have that extra something that I like to believe Best Picture nominees need.

None of these films did in fact.

It felt like their creators went all the way to the finish line and then stopped about an inch short from finishing the race.

There's no tension in them. Either their plots meander along or their characters are barely fleshed out.

Again, there are exceptions (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) but not many.

Let's hope that next year filmmakers learn how to nail the landing.

Inedible

2012-01-17T02:40:00.000-08:00
There's a word that gets tossed around on the Food Network and Top Chef a lot that really bothers me.

"Inedible."

Not an episode of Chopped or Top Chef or any of the competitive food cooking shows goes by without somebody using that word.

And every time I hear it, I wince.

It's almost like reading bad grammar.

Why?

Because it never seems to be used correctly.

Somebody will overcook a piece of steak, so that it'll be well done instead of medium rare, and the head judge will say--

"This is inedible."

The thing is--a well done steak is not inedible. I realize it's not as appetizing as a medium rare steak, but unappetizing and inedible are not interchangeable.

Inedible is a word you use to describe things like plastic and asbestos chips--not poorly cooked food.

It's hyperbolic, and I get that on television shows, that's the point, but it just comes off as incredibly pretentious.

It's as if the judges are saying--"Our palates are so refined that eating a fillet of poorly seasoned salmon is like chewing on cardboard."

Can't they find another word that better suits what they mean?

Isn't the hyperbole getting a little outrageous?

Especially considering the circumstances in which they ask them to prepare food.

"Gina, I don't know why you couldn't give us a decent pasta dish while hanging upside down over a pit of rattlesnakes. What are you? Some kind of amateur?"

Why not have a show where people cook under normal conditions? Wouldn't that be a better way of determining who the best chef is? There are some people who work well under pressure, but what you get from those people isn't always top of the line. Sometimes it's just better than what their competitors came up with, because their competitors are more thoughtful.

I often find myself looking at the "inedible" food given to the judges on these shows, and thinking--

Gee, it doesn't look that bad.

The Atheist Doesn't Mind

2012-01-13T12:32:00.000-08:00
Recently, a prayer banner was taken down at a local high school in the state where I live. The girl who wanted it removed is an atheist, and invoked separation of church and state. Obviously this set a lot of people off. Rhode Island is a very religious state, which is the reason we've had so much trouble getting people on the same page about gay marriage, whereas in neighboring Massachusetts, there's been much more progress.

Every time I hear about a skirmish over religion, especially regarding separation of church and state, I always feel odd. Part of me thinks I should jump in the midst of the fight and defend my atheist brethren. The other part of me thinks, "Gee, why didn't they just leave well enough alone?"

The truth is--when it comes to church and state--I don't mind.

By which I mean, I don't mind that the separation is, let's face it, non-existent. The white elephant in the room is that our Founding Fathers were obviously hypocrites and religious extremists (blame historical circumstances, I'm not trying to take potshots at Jefferson) so when they set up that separation they left a lot of contradictions behind. The word "God" is everywhere--money, pledges, fast food joints, etc.

Perhaps the Founding Fathers meant separation of church and state to be a sort of "Don't talk about home at work" kind of thing. I'm sure they never anticipated that vast landscape that would one day become American spirituality.

When I say I don't mind that the separation doesn't exist, I don't mean that I'm happy about it. I wish it did exist, but it doesn't, and so I don't think about it all that much. I certainly don't bother invoking it unless religion is being thrust in my face. It seems to me most moderate religious followers of any belief system find bombastic proselytizing to be distasteful. (Why else would Tim Tebow be getting so much flack?)

I haven't been a lifelong atheist. It's something that I've adopted fairly recently, in fact. And when I did, it was something like coming out of the closet all over again. I accepted the fact that not everybody was going to take to it, and that I was going to face prejudice and ignorance. I had to keep reminding myself that my beliefs, just like my sexuality, is personal. I had to remember that I'm in a minority.

That doesn't mean I allow myself to be pushed around, it just means knowing when to fight your battles.

A prayer banner?

I probably wouldn't have fought that battle.

Battles like that do for atheists what fighting Eminem did for GLAAD when they went after him as a homophobe, clearly not understanding him at all. It made GLAAD look stringent, as if they took themselves too seriously and didn't understand art (two things, which, if you're gay, should never apply).

Now atheists seem the same way whenever they go after Christmas displays or the pledge of allegiance.

They're just not fights I want to have.

Maybe it's because, for me, religion is like a relationship that just didn't work out. It doesn't mean I don't love the person I used to date or wish them well, it just means that it wasn't for me. I do believe that most religions, at their core, mean well and promote kindness and generosity. The problem is they've become so warped that more and more people are fleeing towards something that even I, as an atheist, find disheartening--despair.

Being an atheist doesn't mean I don't see the good in people, or the beauty of art, or the fascinating cosmic threads that connect all of us as human beings. It just means I don't accept the idea of god or heaven or hell or--

Well, you get the picture.

I have a belief system. Organized religion just isn't a part of it.

Still, anything that promotes positive energy in the world is not something I'm going to take issue with. I tell everyone that when I did go to church, my favorite part of mass was shaking people's hands and saying "peace be with you." It was such a pure gesture, and to be honest, it's what I miss when I think about going to church. I wish I could do it in a secular way. Just walk up to people on the street and say "Peace be with you." It really is a lovely idea.

So no, I don't mind religion. I mind nutjobs, and extremists, and Bible beaters, and anyone who promotes hate and intolerance.

But religion I can live with. I doubt I'll ever practice it again, but it doesn't bother me that it exists.

As for bellowing about church and state, I'll do it if I feel compelled, but honestly, do we really need any extra arguments in the world?

Masc/Fem

2012-01-12T00:39:00.000-08:00
Nothing sets me off faster than hearing a gay guy say the following:

"I'm just into masculine guys. If I wanted to date girls, I would."

This usually tells me one of the following things about the speaker:

1) They've been out of the closet for less than five minutes.
2) They're saying this from inside the closet.
3) They're still in that self-hatred phase that most gay men find inexplicably attractive.
4) They're worried that they themselves may not be all that masculine.
5) They have no interest in learning anything about their community or its culture.

In other words, I want nothing to do with them, and yet, I find myself engaged in debate with guys regarding the "masc/fem" thing over and over again.

When I came out of the closet, I wasn't interested in dating a lumberjack (okay, maybe I was, but only for a day or a long weekend in Vermont). I was interested in dating another gay guy.

In my head, this Ideal Gay Man was going to be very stylish, very funny, and gay.

Not masculine--gay, although it never occurred to me that the two could be mutually exclusive.

I didn't come out and think--Now I have to find someone who doesn't seem gay at all but is so that I can date him.

Call me ignorant, but it seemed obvious to me that the "nobody would ever guess I'm gay" guys were going to be few and far between, and besides, what makes them such hot commodities?

Don't get me wrong, I love straight men, but if I wanted to date them, I'd become a woman (not that there'd be anything wrong with that).

I like dating gay guys, because I'm gay. I would never say I'm only interested in masculine or feminine guys because I've never seen an example of a purely masculine or feminine guy and if I did, I'm not sure I'd believe that the person I was looking at was being genuine.

Even men and women aren't purely masculine or feminine, so why should gay guys be expected to be?

Once, at a club, a guy approached me and was clearly trashed. He was talking loudly (even for a club), dancing to music in his own head instead of what was being played, and attempting to grope me even though we hadn't even exchanged names. After he got the hint and took off, my friend said--

"You weren't into him, huh?"

I confirmed that he was right, and he replied--

"Because he's so girly?"

Of everything that was wrong with that guy, why would THAT be the thing that turned me off?

I didn't even think of him as being "girly" because I was too busy thinking about what a mess he was, and should I have my shirt dry-cleaned because he drooled on it at one point.

It seems to me there's more stuffed into the term "feminine" than just "somebody who acts like a woman."

For some reason, we label a guy "too feminine" when what we really mean is that they seem to be disingenuous.

Let me explain:

I believe that when a gay man is flamboyant to the point of bothering other people, it's not that his flamboyancy bothers them, but that there seems to be something insincere about him that turns people off. I dated a guy once who was the life of the party, very loud, and very, well, out there, but that's who he was, and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. I wasn't the only one who liked him, and I never heard him be called "feminine" even though, in retrospect, he did have more feminine tendencies than masculine ones.

The point is, he was who he was, and people responded to that.

The flip side is that I know someone who came out and felt the need to "act" gay because he felt it was what was expected of him. Later on, he mentioned that he had trouble getting dates when he was younger because of how he looked.

I felt like saying to him--Maybe it wasn't how you looked, maybe it was the fact that you weren't being yourself.

I'm not saying that accepting yourself is always going to get you dates, but being somebody else is definitely not going to help get you dates, and even if it does, where are those kinds of relationships going to go when you're not being your true self?

That's a little farther off-topic than I wanted to go (Somehow during these ramblings I always seem to turn into Eckhart Tolle), but the point is, we can't go on thinking people are simple enough to put labels on.

We certainly don't like it when straight people put labels on us, so why should we put labels on each other?

And you can say wanting a masculine or a feminine guy, or being attracted to one type or another can't be helped, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to examine what it is you're really looking for from another person, and whether or not that has anything to do with what you think it does.

You may realize that what you're really looking for is something that simply can't be named.

Why They Flee Rhode Island, Economics vs. Culture

2012-01-12T00:06:00.000-08:00
I recently read an article that informed me of something I wasn't too surprised to learn:

Rhode Island losing population more than any other state in the country.

The article blamed this on economics, but I was a little put off to see that they weren't talking about a bigger cultural problem in the state.

Ever since I was a kid, I've heard the master plans of my friends all include the following item:

"Move."

The fact is that a lot of people who are born here do not want to stay here.

Why?

Well, for one thing, we're very close to greener pastures.

You can be in Boston in less than an hour, New York in less than four hours, and a lot of other places in less than a day.

It's easy to say Rhode Island isn't as good as other places when those other places are so easy to get to.

We forget that there are places in this country that would make Rhode Island look like Las Vegas in terms of activity. We still have all-night breakfast places, we still had movie theaters with midnight showings, we still have a vibrant theater scene. We're not a desolate prairie town with tumbleweeds blowing through the town square.

And yet, that's how many people who live here seem to view the place.

Conversely, the fact that so many people plan on moving, in turn, creates more people who then feel the urge to move.

It's incredibly difficult to find a person to date or grow serious with in a state where nobody plans on staying for very long.

The amount of twenty-something to thirty-something professionals in this state is almost non-existent. What we're creating in Rhode Island is a state where people feel they can't build a future here, and that's not just economics. We could be the richest state in the country, but why would anyone stay in a place that their kids plan on fleeing as soon as they're eighteen?

We need to do something to change the culture in Rhode Island. Tax breaks may be enough to bring businesses here, but we also need to find a way to keep local teenagers with some entrepreneurial spirit eager to come back here when they're done with school. Considering we have so many colleges in Providence, it's a shock to me that we keep exporting all these students that we're educating. Why not do something to entice those grads to stick around?

Not many of my friends that went off to New York for college came back, and most of them didn't because they had already set up a life there, not just because it was New York. And yet, we have people setting up lives for themselves here and then uprooting themselves because everyone's telling them it's the only option.

We need to start instilling some pride in the children that are raised here. I'm not trying to sound provincial, but I don't think putting all the blame on the economy is going to help the economy get any better.

Fix the culture, and the economy will follow.

Otherwise, we may one day have a state that's financially appealing, but will that really make a difference in terms of the type of people we'll have residing in our state?

New York isn't financially viable for most people, and yet they don't have a population problem, because the feeling is that it's the place to be.

That's a distinction we need to try and attain.

Hope Is Not a Plan Revisited

2012-01-11T23:40:00.000-08:00
Awhile ago, I wrote an essay about my favorite expression--"Hope is not a plan."

The President was referring to the issues related to Hurricane Katrina, but the first time I heard President Obama say it, I thought it perfectly summed up exactly what happens when problems become disasters. It also seemed to be a perfect metaphor for what my generation usually does when a problem arises.

Hope it goes away.

Well, hope is fine, but it's not a plan.

A few months ago, when Hurricane Irene was about to bear down on Rhode Island, I found myself echoing this statement again and again.

This wasn't a hurricane that was going to catch us by surprise. We had five full business days to plan for it, and by the time the weekend rolled around and the hurricane was about to hit, we still weren't any more prepared than we were five days earlier.

So what happened?

Hope.

Hope happened.

Lucky for us, the hurricane wasn't as bad as it could have been, but even if it had done its worst, why couldn't we be ready for it?

I hate to be the guy who says "We put a man on the moon," but we put several men on the moon, and you're telling me that when it comes to hurricanes, there's nothing we can do but hope they turn out to be mild?

If every state on the eastern seaboard, with five full days, can't do any better than to cross their fingers and pray, then that's pretty embarrassing.

In Rhode Island, we experienced power outages because trees and branches came down on power lines. The year before, when we experienced another hurricane, National Grid said it was going to go around and cut down all the branches that had the potential to fall on power lines.

Guess what didn't happen?

Not only did it not happen, but they also didn't spend those five days before Hurricane Irene hit trying to do what they should have spent all year doing.

And why?

I would wager that it's because doing that would be expensive, and if we dodged the hurricane, then that expense could be avoided.

So again, hope saves money--that is, if hope pays off, which in this case, it doesn't.

It makes me think of when my mother had to renew the warranty on her furnace. She decided not to, because it had been a few years, and the furnace was working fine.

The day the warranty expired, the furnace broke.

That very day.

I like to believe that there's not a coincidence there. I think there's something in the cosmos that strikes when someone decides to roll the dice. Oh sure, some people are lucky, but there's not a large amount of luck in the world.

You have to plan.

And hope is not a plan.

The Way They Speak

2012-01-11T12:05:00.000-08:00
There's a quality in men that I look for, and yet, I feel weird looking for it.

It's all about the way they speak.

Let me explain:

If a guy isn't well-spoken, I tend to lose interest in him. My attraction level will go down, down, down. I'll start looking for a way to escape whatever coffee date or conversation I'm in.

It makes me feel a little like...a snob.

After all, intelligent people aren't always well-spoken, and what is intelligence anyway? It becomes a very philosophical argument.

And yet, as soon as I tell someone I'm a librarian and they say--"That's awesome! I love li-berries! I'm, like, a wicked big readuh." I find myself inching away slowly.

I admit, it's an odd thing to have qualms with, since I'm from Rhode Island, and since a lot of people here have accents.

Plus, there are some accents that I actually like. I can't do a Rhode Island accent because, to me, it sounds like a watered down Boston accent, and yet, I find a Boston accent incredibly attractive. I love guys with cockney accents--you know, like Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady.

So basically, I like guys who sound unintelligent as long as they're from somewhere other than where I'm from?

What is that about?

I've been single for almost a year now, and after being in a three-year relationship, it surprises me to find out all the things I seem to be looking for, and how important each of them is on this scale I use to determine who I like and don't like.

Kissing is way more important than I initially thought.
Smoking is way more of a turn-off that it was three years ago.
Laughter is a must--and I'm a hard person to make laugh.

And as soon as someone opens their mouth, I brace myself.

I'm not sure what it is I'm hoping for.

If I'm being honest, I love guys with deep voices, but then I feel like that plays into the whole masculine/feminine preferences gay guys have, and I hate that. Plus, it's not a deal breaker if a guy has a higher voice. I have a high voice, after all. Then again, so much of dating is hypocritical.

I love guys with bear guts who say they're looking for muscular guys, or guys over forty who say their age cut-off is twenty three.

I like to emulate what it is I'm looking for, but the thought of dating someone like me scares the hell out of me.

But at least I can say this--I'm fairly well-spoken.

...If you don't count the rambling, ranting, stumbling, and stuttering.

I wonder how many guys have heard me talk, and thought--

This guy's not for me.

The Greatest Boxing Film of All Time

2012-01-11T01:16:00.000-08:00
This Summer...

JOEY: I don't know if I can win this match.
CAPPY: You gotta, Joey. You gotta. Your Mama's counting on you.
JOEY: No, you don't understand Cappy. My Mama's the one I'm fighting.

The Biggest Fight of His Life...

MA: You know when we step into that ring, I'm not your mother anymore.
JOEY: Who are you then?
MA: I'm the @#$% who's @$#$ your #$%.
JOEY: Geez, I didn't know you could swear like that in movie trailers.
MA: I told you, it's called a mobile home.
JOEY: Huh?

...Is the Mother of All Matches

CAPPY: You gotta take her out.
JOEY: But she's my Mom.
CAPPY: And I'm your trainer!
JOEY: She gave birth to me!
CAPPY: I stitched up your eyebrow!
JOEY: I was literally carried around inside of her for months!
CAPPY: I held ice up against your broken lip!

Don't Miss

JOEY: I don't know if I can do this, Ma.
MA: Don't worry, Joey. You won't have to do anything but lie there while I stomp on your face.
JOEY: You're the best Mom, ever.
MA: Don't I #$% know it?

Mama in the Ring

MA: This is going to hurt you more than it...Well, actually, it's probably just going to hurt you.

Coming Soon

"Nice" and "Polite"

2012-01-07T00:25:00.000-08:00
I often run into this situation with strangers--mostly in a professional context.

I'm polite.
The other person says or does something stupid.
I'm no longer polite.

People are always surprised when they're rude only to find that I'm going to be rude right back.

Usually their response is--

"You're not very polite."

But you see, they're wrong.

I just happen to know the difference between "nice" and "polite."

"Nice" is what my friends and family get (of course, if you ask my friends and family...)

"Nice" is not conditional. I am nice to the people I care about, because I care about them and they've earned me being nice to them.

"Polite" is what everybody else gets. "Polite" is a much more fragile state than "nice" is. Whereas if my mother was having a bad day and said something rude to me, I would remain nice and deal with the situation; if a stranger is rude to me, they're going to find that I stop being polite almost immediately.

I don't believe this makes me a mean person. I see no reason why I should treat someone I barely know who's being rude to me the same way I treat someone I care about.

When it comes to work, I'm very conscious that I have a job to do. I balk at people who say that "nice" should be your default mood. That's simply ridiculous. Most jobs need to be more about people actually doing their jobs, not just smiling at you while they tell you how they're ill-equipped, poorly trained, and almost completely incompetent.

I'm competent.
I'm capable.
And I'm polite.

Most people get paid to do a job, not to be "nice" or "polite." And yet, it's expected of them anyway. In fact, they're expected to be polite even when being treated like garbage.

I'm not sure how you put a price tag on being screamed at by some irritable housewife because you won't let her return the sundress she purchased, wore, and stained (just to use a random example).

To me, saying you get paid to deal with things like that is like saying you get paid to have someone drop an anvil on your head.

It's not something that should be part of a job description.

Only being able to do the job should.

Am I nice?

No, not all the time.

But I always get the job done.

So I ask you--

What's more important?

Onlooker Traffic

2012-01-06T00:52:00.000-08:00
I've done it.

Wait, hold your applause. Let me tell you what I've done first.

I have come up with a solution for one of society's biggest nuisances.

No, I'm not talking about salad forks, although goodness knows I wish I were.

I'm talking about--

Onlooker Traffic

How frustrated do we get when we sit in traffic for an hour assuming we're about to see some awful car wreck, and it turns out to be a guy getting towed or somebody getting pulled over, and everybody's just slowing down to commit vehicular eavesdropping?

It's an embarrassment to all of civilization. The fact that there's a term for what happens when people don't mind their own business is nothing short of shameful. The Romans certainly never had this problem. If you slowed down on the road to watch some guy castrate his ox, you were beheaded...or something.

Well, now we're going to fix onlooker traffic once and for all--and no, not through beheading--at least, not if this plan works.

Here's my idea:

We change the name Onlooker Traffic to--

Douchebag Traffic.

Wait, hear me out.

The problem with the term "Onlooker Traffic" is that it sounds too nice.

Can't you just hear some fifties mom say to her husband "Oh dear, let's be onlookers tonight. It's such a wonderful thing to be AND you get a free toaster!"

The phrase doesn't at all encapsulate what it means to be one of those people holding up traffic.

So I say, we give it a more appropriate moniker.

After all, who would slow down and stare knowing everybody on the opposite side of the road was thinking the same thing--

"Oh, here goes a Douchebag creating Douchebag traffic."

If the term "douchebag" offends you, don't worry. There are lots of other words we could use.

We could rename it "Pedophile Traffic," "Moron Traffic," "Necrophiliac Traffic."

Imagine having the following exchange with your child:

CHILD: Dad, why are you slowing down?
DAD: I think there might be an accident up ahead.
CHILD: Does that mean you have sex with dead people
DAD: You know what? We're in a rush. I should mind my own business.

See?

Works like a charm.

So let's start calling onlooker traffic what it really is, and pretty soon, we'll all be able to keep our eyes on the road.

But I'm Still Scared: A Democrat's Story

2012-01-05T00:18:00.000-08:00
I've been a Democrat my entire life. Whereas some people might weigh their beliefs and come to a decision about which party they feel best exemplifies those beliefs, I was simply drawn to the Democratic party like a thirsty rhino to a watering hole.

Yes, I've wavered from time to time.

I was a Hillary supporter, and so I've always been one of those Democrats who's been tough on President Obama. That being said, I do think he's done a good job, but I'm not ignorant. I know many people in this country would like to see him tossed out. In fact, I was sure that if the Republican party found even a mildly suitable candidate for President, the man I voted for in 2008 was probably not going to get reelected.

Lucky for me, it seems that when talking about Republican candidates, the term 'mildly suitable' is aiming too high.

I'll admit that I'm not fond of all Republicans, but I certainly don't consider the ones I know to be stupid or crazy. At worst, I would call the most extreme ones I know misguided.

So, how then does such a large political party with so many people to choose from manage to only select the biggest nutjobs to move towards the front of the line?

Someone suggested to me recently that perhaps this is all a ruse so that Sarah Palin can reenter the race, now seeming less crazy when compared to someone like Michele Bachmann. I'll admit, as strategies go, I've heard worse...

Heck, I've seen worse--at almost every Republican debate so far.

Normally, we have to wait until the general election before we get any good soundbytes from the Republican party, but this year, Christmas came very, very early.

Between Rick Perry's stumbling, Newt Gingrich turning into a cross between Archie Bunker and Marie Antoinette, Hermain Cain becoming the new Charlie Sheen, and--

Well, I think you get the point.

No sooner does a new front-runner emerge than the message boards light up with enough dirt to bury all the candidates under a pile of campaign buttons.

And each front-runner gets...Well, I feel like I'm overusing the word "crazy" here, but considering how well these people embody the term...

As a gay man, it is not lost on me that all of these people have chosen to be very vocal about just how much they don't like me. As a citizen, what offends me more, is that they seem to think I'm the biggest problem with America--not poverty, not drugs, not crime--me. Me and the fact that I can kiss another boy without being stoned to death in the public square.

Meanwhile, all my fellow Democrats laugh and sigh with relief.

We've got this, they think. The election's in the bag. What looked like a shutout now seems like a slam dunk. They're sure that even people who hate President Obama certainly won't vote for any of these clowns. Once again, "voting for the lesser of two evils" has prevailed for the...less...evil...one.

But I'm still scared.

I like our President, and I think with four more years (crucial years where he doesn't have to worry about campaigning for reelection), he could really take off. I certainly don't think he's the lesser of two evils. And I would love to be able to believe that the Democrats have this one in the bag, but...

But I'm still scared.

I'm scared because whereas during the last election, the Democratic convention was filled with people standing at a podium saying "We can't take four more years of the Bush administration" I didn't think the situation was that dire.

Oh sure, I wanted Obama to win, but I actually did sort of like McCain. Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for him, but I didn't believe that if he won, the world would collapse. If we survived Bush (who I really didn't like) then we could certainly handle McCain, even if Sarah Palin was strapped to his back like a rabid pet monkey.

But when it comes to these candidates--I'm not so sure we could survive them.

These aren't Republicans. These are extremists.

I look at them on television. I look in their eyes, and I see the same blazing fanaticism you normally only see when you look at old photos of kamikaze pilots.

These people will torpedo us.

All of them want to tear down everything that's been done over the past four years. Some of them think that God speaks directly to them. And again, all of them hate me.

So, yes, I'm concerned.

Because while I toast the President in my quaint little New England Starbucks, I'm aware that across the country a lot of people are out of work, and frustrated, and haven't experienced any improvement in their lives over the last four years.

And they want someone to blame.

And they'll vote for a wax turtle as long as its last name isn't Obama.

(In some cases, I think a wax turtle would be preferable to someone like Rick Santorum.)

So I'll let everybody else start the victory parties early, but I'm holding off. Oh sure, I know the President can clobber most of these people in a debate. Oh sure, I know that once he starts putting his record out there, more people will see that we are better off than we were four years ago. Oh sure, I know that if there's one thing Barack Obama is good at, it's pulling out all the stops to get elected.

I know all this.

But I also know that nothing's a sure thing.

And I'm scared that next year, the clown we're all laughing at now, may be laughing at us from the Oval Office.

A Conversation About Sex and Relationships

2012-01-04T00:01:00.000-08:00
The following is a semi-factual conversation that may or may not have happened between myself and a guy I had a relationship/fling/thing with at some point.

Let's join this paraphrased, quasi-real conversation already in progress.

ME: ...So you slept with the guy?

MAN: Yeah.

ME: Um, okay. That's a little...uh...Gosh, I really don't want to say hypocritical, but...

MAN: How am I a hypocrite?

ME: Um, well, remember when you said we couldn't hang out or date anymore because you thought I was just looking for something physical and you were looking for a relationship?

MAN: You mean because you said you were just looking for friends with benefits and I wanted something meaningful so I don't wind up old and alone?

ME: Wow, you're good at summarizing. And yes, that does, um, kind of--yeah, that's what happened.

MAN: Okay, and?

ME: Well, you just hooked up with someone. On the first date. So, clearly, that whole 'looking for a relationship thing--'

MAN: He said he was looking for a relationship.

ME: Oh, so now you're dating?

MAN: No.

ME: So, you're going on another date?

MAN: No.

ME: So, he found out that he has to move to Newfoundland effective immediately?

MAN: No. He just changed his mind about wanting a relationship.

ME: After you slept together?

MAN: Yes.

ME: That means he told you he wanted a relationship because he knew you wouldn't have sex with him if he came right out and told you sex was all he was looking for so instead he lied to you, and you believed him, and now he doesn't want to talk to you anymore.

MAN: That was a pretty mean summary.

ME: Did you actually think he was looking for a relationship when he pulled your pants down two hours into the date?

MAN: First of all, it was an hour and a half into the date, second of all, he took my shirt off first, and third of all, I don't know. I mean, I don't object to sex on the first date if the person's looking for something serious.

ME: But the thing is, people who are looking for something serious don't usually have sex on the first date.

MAN: Okay, so maybe I knew he was just looking for sex.

ME: So then why did you sleep with him?

MAN: Because at least he said he was looking for a relationship.

ME: You slept with him because he lied to you and you knew he lied but you liked the lie and you probably wanted to sleep with him anyway?

MAN: Again, you're a Mean Summarizer.

ME: So I was a giant slut for wanting an open, direct, communicative adult friendship that may or may not involve sex but guys who lie and say they want a boyfriend so they can hook up with someone and then never speak to them again aren't?

MAN: Um, I'm not supposed to say 'Yes,' right?

ME: Why is it bad to just say you're not looking for anything serious but that you aren't opposed to physical interaction as long as it's responsible?

MAN: Because relationships are awesome.

ME: Not always! I mean, sometimes. I've been in them. They were nice. But I don't want one now. That doesn't make me a giant man-whore.

MAN: I mean, I guess you would have to get paid to be a whore technically.

ME: Let me ask you something--Why is it if I sleep with five guys in, like, three months, I'm promiscuous, but if I were to change my relationship status on Facebook every time I do and list those guys as my 'boyfriends' then I'm a 'relationship' person?

MAN: Because it shows you're able to commit.

ME: No, it doesn't. It shows I'm fickle, I don't know what I want, and I like making single people feel really bad about themselves on Facebook!

MAN: You've got to want a relationship. Nobody likes being alone.

ME: Well, I'd rather be alone than rush into something or be with someone I don't really like.

MAN: But maybe you do like them and then a month goes by and you don't like them anymore.

ME: So maybe you wait two or three months before you officially start dating them exclusively.

MAN: Three months? That's like--half a year!

ME: A year is twelve months long.

MAN: Look, if you want to be a relationship hater, that's fine, but don't judge those of us who do want to be in one and take big steps toward love.

ME: That's a line from a Logo movie, isn't it?

MAN: Yeah, it was playing in the background while me and that guy were hooking up.

ME: I'll Netflix it.

MAN: Really?

ME: No, it sounds awful.

MAN: Yeah, it really was.

I'm not sure what I gained from this conversation, but I do know one thing:

I should never talk to this guy again.

Lunch with the Boys: Making the Call

2012-01-02T19:42:00.000-08:00
I was having my first lunch of 2012 with the boys, and, as usual, Scooter was telling us about some guy whose soul he had just destroyed.

SCOOTER: So then we spent all night together and I told him how much I liked him.

Wait for it.

SCOOTER: Then I deleted his number from my phone, and last night I hooked up with a guy who works at P.F. Chang's.
BRIAN: Here comes a pun.
SCOOTER: I totally P.F. banged him.
BRIAN: Worse than I thought.
TURNER: Why wouldn't you call him back if you liked him?
SCOOTER: Because I liked him on the date, but then the next day I was kinda over it.
ME: You're a horrible person.
SCOOTER: Hahaha, oh KBroc. Always with the dark comedy.
ME: No, I just mean you're a horrible person. That was completely sincere.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that I ever thought Scooter was a great person.

After all, he's done the following things:

- Dated twin brothers only to break up with them for their father
- Slashed the tires on his ex-boyfriend's grandmother's car
- Kidnapping eighteen cardboard cut-outs of Zac Effron for--

Well, we're not exactly sure what he used them for.

But this latest character flaw made me especially mad.

Being back on the dating scene, I find it infuriating when a guy doesn't have the courtesy to tell you that he's not into you anymore after he said he was.

ME: Why don't you just call him and tell him you're not interested?
SCOOTER: Ew! Because that would be the most awkward phone call ever of all time.
BRIAN: Gore's call to Bush in 2000 to take back his conceding the election? A close second.
TURNER: I'm actually with Scooter on this one.
ME: Are you kidding?
TURNER: Kevin, who wants to make that phone call? Why can't the guy just figure it out when you're not calling him back?
ME: Because he shouldn't have to figure it out! He should get a nice phone call letting him know--
SCOOTER: That a day later I was thinking more about how I was going to cook my pork that night more than I was thinking about him?
BRIAN: 'Cook my pork' is slang for masturbating, isn't it?
SCOOTER: Yeah, but I do usually eat pork afterwards.

It killed me to know that there was some guy somewhere waiting on Scooter to call and, most likely, turning down other, worthier guys in the meantime

ME: Give me your phone. I'm calling him.
SCOOTER: What?
TURNER: Right now?
ME: Right now.
BRIAN: Didn't we make a rule about using our cell phones to call guys we don't want to date anymore at lunch?
ME: I'm sorry, but this guy deserves to know the truth.
TURNER: Do you actually think Scooter would be so callous as to let somebody else do his dirty work for him when he--
SCOOTER: It's 401--
TURNER: I'm surprised I got that far into the sentence.

This might seem weird, but at least the guy wasn't going to keep his hopes up much longer.

ME: Hi, is this John? I'm a friend of Scooter's.
BRIAN: I knew I should have brought the camera crew today.
SCOOTER: This is so awesome!
TURNER: Why do I side with you so much during arguments? It's like siding with Stalin.
SCOOTER: If he starts to cry, put him on speaker!
ME: ...And so he's not going to be calling you or anything. He's not interested. Please know that he's a total moron and I've seen him eat food off the floor, and by food, I mean a milkshake, and by eat, I mean lick up like a kitten.
SCOOTER: Don't cry over spilled milk. That's all I'm saying.
BRIAN: That's not at all how that expression is meant to be used.
ME: ...No, I'm pretty sure he's not going to change his mind about a second date.
TURNER: Did he not hear the milkshake story?
SCOOTER: Please, I tell all my dates the milkshake story. They think it's charming.
BRIAN: That's because you tell it to them while you lift up your shirt to show off your six pack.
SCOOTER: That's part of my story-telling process.

Meanwhile, poor John was slowly having a nervous breakdown.

JOHN: BUT HE SAID HE LIKED ME!
ME: I know, and I can't apologize enough for him. He's a jerk.
JOHN: THEN WHY ARE YOU FRIENDS WITH HIM?
ME: I just don't have time to make new ones. He knows me. It takes three hours just to explain to someone why I'm afraid of swing sets.
JOHN: WHY AM I TALKING TO YOU?

Twenty minutes later, I was off the phone.

ME: See? That wasn't so hard.
BRIAN: That looked pretty hard.
TURNER: It sounded awful.
SCOOTER: Kev, is your nose bleeding?
ME: Yeah, I think I might put my head down for a little bit.

Whoever said being polite doesn't kill you was probably waiting for a phone call that never came.

Printing the Press Release

2012-01-02T02:04:00.000-08:00
I've noticed a disturbing trend in the media lately, especially in regards to the arts and criticism. I would jokingly call it "Printing the Press Release." When I first started using the term, I could tell people just though I was being cynical. To be honest, I felt a little cynical. A part of me felt like one of those conspiracy theorists who think the Easter Bunny killed Lincoln. Now, rather than feel like maybe I was onto something all along, I tend to think that the situation has just gotten much, much worse.

So what kind of situation am I talking about?

Mainly, I'm talking about journalistic laziness. Then again, that doesn't really seem fair, since my targets here are reviewers and reviewers are not journalists. Then again, with newspapers quickly going the way of the cotton gin, like it or not, reviewers are having to do double duty as both arts writers AND critics. That means the same person who writes a two-page feature on a production where he/she writes about how interesting it sounds might then have to turn around and bash the whole thing a week later.

That, to me, has always seemed a little...awkward.

It seems to be the journalistic equivalent of befriending some kid on the playground only to turn around and tell all the other kids that the new kid's second act isn't as fully developed as it should be.

(Okay, maybe that's a weak metaphor.)

The point is, lately, I've been seeing a lot more positive reviews, but the quality of writing has gone down, down, down. Instead of seeing any actual commentary on a given production, I'm mainly seeing a rehashing of the show's press release.

This isn't only happening in the arts, but I don't want to go down the rickety road of examining political spin and the impact of the media and objectivity when all I really want to ask is--"When did everybody get so lazy?"

I know, I know--budgets are getting cut, there's less room for theater reviews, etc., etc.

But even with less room, can't these critics find a way of writing something intelligent? Personally, I tend to find that when I'm forced to be concise, I do my best work (which is why I'm just going to end this article here...okay, maybe in a few more lines).

I swear lately I've seen whole phrases lifted out of a press release and put right into a review. (Okay maybe I'm making that up, or maybe I'm just too tired to go find any examples of that, but trust me, I'm not far off.)

My favorite example would have to be a critic complimenting the previous work of a director that he hadn't actually seen.

Let me repeat that: In a review for a director's sophomore effort, he praised the freshman effort never having seen it. When he did, he used the same adjective to describe it as the press release did.

Oh look, there's my example. I'd get more specific, but I don't want to start calling out names, otherwise I'll never stop.

There are a lot of ways in which the press releases seem to be feeding the critics. One will say a certain performance in the show is a "tour de force" and sure enough, the critics will zero in on that performance and pretty much disregard the other actors in the show. Another press release will say that it's production is a "must see" and pretty soon, the critics are echoing that statement.

In other words, the press releases are now reading like advanced reviews, and the critics figure--"Hey, why bother writing our own reviews when they're doing it for us?"

What bothers me about this is that for me, there's art and then there's the conversation that revolves around and about art. A few days ago, I found a quote by David Hockney that I like very much. It's this: "It is very good advice to believe only what an artist does, rather than what he says about his work."

Basically, don't (necessarily) believe the press release. It's there to do a job, and that's sell the production. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's the audience and the critics and whoever else takes in the work to discuss, enjoy, and dissect it. "Dissect" may be too scary a word. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that the critics seem to be finding positive things to say, but can't they be positive and analytical at the same time.

Why aren't I reading about how a show impacted them or what sort of social commentary the production was making (if any) or--and this is a huge annoyance of mine--whether or not the flaws in the show should be attributed to the play itself or to the production?

It just seems to me like letting the marketing department of a theater inform you about what you should think of the show their theater is putting on is allowing a large part of the theatrical experience to be taken away from you. A reviewer should be the person prompting discussion, inspiring people to talk about what they've seen, and pointing out nuances and subtleties that the audience might have missed--not jotting down who played what and summarizing the show. I remember that on the first day of freshman year of college, as a theater major, I was handed a sheet explaining how to write a review for a play. The first bullet point informed me that I could spend no more than a paragraph summarizing the show. Recently, I've seen reviewers take up whole pages doing nothing but that. Maybe I should e-mail them that sheet. It's probably stuck in the middle of my Introduction to Computer Science textbook.

(Note to Critics: If you're reviewing something like, oh I don't know, Cats or Romeo and Juliet, you don't need to summarize it. I think most of us know the story, and those who don't can be surprised. By the way, sorry if you actually do have to sit through Cats.)

Look, I realize times are tough, and editors are tough, and the critics just want to get home and watch Person of Interest like the rest of us, but how can we, as an artistic community, expect people to care about what we do, if the people who are paid to care about what we do can't even muster up enough enthusiasm to write something too long to fit on a fortune cookie?

Feel free to disagree with me on all or any of this. I think all of this should be up for a good, long discussion.

Writing About Afghanistan

2011-11-02T00:58:00.000-07:00
In the introduction to the latest volume in the Best American Short Stories series, guest editor Geraldine Brooks, author of the National Book Award-winning novel March, makes an interesting point about the stories she read as she was trying to select the ones that would ultimately end up in the book. She lamented the fact that she read very few about the war in Afghanistan.

"There's a war on. The war in Afghanistan, in the year it became America's longest, appeared as a brief aside in only two of one hundred and twenty stories."

As a writer, I read this with a bit of irritation. Informing writers that perhaps they could have made it into the volume if they wrote more political or topical stories seemed to me to be out of line. There's nothing wrong with asking a writer to think out of the box, but this seemed more like an agenda. And though most people who make a career in the arts find talking about money distasteful, it seemed worth mentioning that while Miss Brooks might like to read more about the war in Afghanistan, it doesn't seem like many Americans share that sentiment.

Going back to her request a few weeks later, I'm a bit more calm. I can understand how someone might be frustrated that a major current event is going on and America's storytellers don't seem to be compelled to write about it. I often feel the same way when the arts fail to address an issue that's important to me.

I started to ask myself why I've never written anything that deals with war--not even as an exercise or to see what I would come up with if I tried.

Ultimately, I decided that the reason I don't write about war is because I'm afraid of misrepresenting someone else's personal experience.

I've never fought in a war, or even had a relative fight or serve in any way. I have no personal experience to draw from, and the old adage "write what you know" pops up in my head every time I sit down in front of a blank computer screen. Yes, I do believe that there's a certain element of imagination here that should come into play, but to be honest, the horrors of war isn't something even the deepest parts of my imagination seem willing to investigate. Maybe that makes me a bad artist, who knows? I suppose I could research what war is like--interview soldiers, read endless articles, watch the news, etc.

And yet I don't.

Why is that?

I suppose there's no way of bringing up this issue without mentioning the date that's impacted all of our lives. I was seventeen-years-old on September 11th, and I remember it vividly as do many Americans. Since then, I feel like I've been bombarded by the media regarding opinions and arguments, fiction and non-fiction, stories of war and healing from war, ever since that day ten years ago. Although I've consumed a lot of that media, and although I've admired some of the work, it's never inspired me to create my own "perspective" on the Afghanistan War. Even referring to it that way feels somewhat disrespectful to me. It seems pretentious and self-involved. It makes me feel like the little rich white kid who can leisurely make up a story about a soldier fighting for his country or a P.O.W. returning from war while I sit in the luxurious confines of my living room, typing away on my laptop. Yes, all writing is, to some degree, egotistical, but trivializing something like that, or worse, creating an inaccurate portrait, is enough to keep me writing about things that are familiar to me.

I'm surprised it didn't occur to Miss Brooks that this generation of writers might have just had their minds overloaded with stories of war. In my case, I'm not sure what I can say that someone else hasn't already said, especially with no personal experience to draw from. I'm not ignorant of the fact that there's a war going on, but I use my writing as a way to try and uplift people. I don't strive to be political or topical, just to create effective and evocative writing. I admire those who can do that and make a statement or send a message, but to insinuate that those of us who don't are somehow missing a bigger point seems wrong. As a writer, I'm always thinking about the ending, and we haven't reached the end of this war yet. Maybe that's why when I try to write about it, I feel overwhelmed. How can you begin to try and capture something that changes everyday? Maybe one day I will be able to write about it, but for now, I feel ill-equipped.

Part of me wonders why Miss Brooks doesn't ask the people who are actually fighting the war to write about it.

I believe those are the stories we really need to hear.

Fun with Fall Fashion

2011-09-04T01:31:00.000-07:00
Details Magazine published a how-to guide regarding the "urban sophisticate look" involving fall "suiting."

I was confused just writing that sentence.

Then I took a look at the photos, and realized this was a fantastic opportunity--not for me to learn how to pick out a fall suit, because most of these cost more than my car--but for a bit of creative writing.

You see, Details doesn't just instruct you what to buy. It shows you men wearing the clothing and how handsome they are, and then you're supposed to follow suit.

(See what I did there?)

But why would you want to look like these guys (aside from the devastating good looks) when they seem so unhappy?

Here's my idea of what's going on behind the photos, you know, aside from the clothing.

Click on the link and follow along: http://www.details.com/style-advice/perfect-wardrobe/201109/street-smart-mens-clothes-suits#slide=1

Photo One: So these guys just dumped a dead body in the river, and now they're wondering what they should do next. The guy on the right is like, "Hey, I don't care where we go. I just don't want to eat at Uno's again, okay?" The guy in the middle is like "Didn't you guys get the memo that dark colors are out this year? Don't you subscribe to Details? Ew, you read GQ? I'm, like, kind of disgusted right now." And the guy on the left is looking at the guy in the middle's crotch--clearly.

Photo Two: "Have you ever made love in London? Have you ever worn Tom Ford? Have you ever gone riding on the ferris wheel on a cool September night? Pomegranates, pomegranates, and a nice autumn breeze. Jack-o-lantern, what have we here? Love takes bookcases, shiny shiny, yes yes. You may proceed--but with caution. Did I mention that I'm a poet? And that I'm wearing Tom Ford? Yes, THAT Tom Ford. And a poet. Pomegranate."

Photo Three: These two guys are just leaving the store when one tells the other the FUNNIEST knock knock joke, and the other guy laughs and laughs, and then a car hits one of them, and that guy can never dance again. Then the other feels so bad he starts drinking and kills himself in Cuba. The broken dancer spreads his ashes on that very same street where they were once boys, and young, and laughing at a knock knock joke the broken dancer can no longer remember. And life...is cruel.

Photo Four: Staring contest with the camera--obvi.

Photo Five: These two guys are actually ghosts who've come back to Earth in awesome clothing because they were both killed at yard sales by angry soccer moms who wanted a tuxedo for their son to wear to prom. Now they walk the planet in designer attire achieving justice for those who suffer at the hands of bargain shoppers.

Photo Six: This Fall on BBC America, one's a vicar! One's a fop! Both are flashy and fabulous! Can they open their own fashion house without killing each other? There's only one way to find out! Tune into "Pop Your Collar," Tuesdays at 8pm!

Photo Seven: You may not know this, but they're remaking Reservoir Dogs, except this time, there's no violence. Only permanent stains. They spend the entire movie spilling things on each other. Sometimes mustard. Sometimes red wine. Sometimes they'll just chop a pen in half with a really thick knife and ink will go everywhere. Critics are saying it's much harder to watch than the original.

So, if you want to look as cool as these guys, purchase one of these suits, or just try to have an uncomfortably gay moment with your friends and stretch it out for as long as possible.

Either will do the trick.

The Retweeting of Barbara Walters

2011-09-02T10:33:00.000-07:00
It’s been over a year since we last checked in with my best girlfriend Barbara Walters and her fascinating Twitter account, so I’ve decided to pop by and say hello.

As soon as I logged back onto Barbara’s twitter account, I could tell she’d been busy getting reacquainted with some gal pals of her own.

Met yesterday in Maryland with my old friend, great woman, Mrs. Anwar Sadat. It bought back so much history.

Babs shows no sign of retiring, but the workload does her get down just like any other girl.

Big mtg today with the team to talk about the Royal Wedding. Too much homework to do this weekend.

But she still enjoys her recreational time.

Going to the Ralph Lauren store for private shopping. Will spend too much money.

That is, when she’s not saving your life.

I will save your life. Watch my special tonight "A Matter of Life and Death" 10:00pm on ABC.

Yup, she’s still doing those specials. And her teasers for them can be downright enigmatic at times.

What do Letterman, Pres. Clinton, Robin Williams and I have in common? Watch my special Friday at 10pm on ABC.

Sometimes her life is to important for us mere mortals to understand. But don’t worry, she’ll break it down for you.

Am going to a dinner for the Pres.of Georgia.not our Georgia Serious stuff.

Even her to-do lists sound like beautiful haikus.

Just left GMA. On Bill O Reilly tonight. Sun. The real thing. Then I can sleep.

Her moods can turn on a dime.

My holiday special did great. Thank u for watching. Out holiday shopping bah humbug

She sure does have a lot of adventures.

Off to Wash. For the 'ennedy Center honors. Sitting on train behind Sting. Nice man

But at the end of the day, she’s still the same humble woman she always was--

Lunched with Prime Minister of Australia. The View is big there. Really big.

Oh Babs, you'll never change.

The Post-Orgasm World

2011-09-01T13:26:00.000-07:00
--- Sex/Corp ---

Here at Sex/Corp, we've been spending years figuring out how to incorporate sex into the everyday world, aiming for a society with more passion, peace, and prosperity.

We're happy to announce that we've now developed a pill that, when taken daily, will keep men and women in a constant state of post-coital pleasure.

Here are some testimonials:

TEST SUBJECT #1 ("JOHN"): Hahahahaha God, isn't everything just hysterical? Hahahahaha, you know who I should call up and forgive? That guy who stabbed me when I was sixteen. Hahaha he really wasn't such a bad guy. I mean, what's a stabbing anyway, right? Isn't it important just to, you know, be happy and laugh and hahaha sorry I was just thinking about something I just did a few minutes ago and hahaha wooooo hahaha Gee...

TEST SUBJECT #2 ("KELLY"): MY HAIR FEELS SO SOFT! FEEL MY HAIR! MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM YES! God, you are just...look at you! Writing down the answers to the questions you're asking me. Do I like this pill? Do I LIKE THIS PILL? MY LIPS TASTE LIKE RASPBERRIES DIPPED IN HONEY FROSTING WHY ARE YOU STILL WEARING PANTS?!?!?!?

TEST SUBJECT #3 ("JAKE"): You know, I bet if we could figure out a way to put all the stars together, we could use them to light the world. Imagine that. Imagine a world lit by stars. Isn't that beautiful? You're so beautiful. Hey, put down that clipboard and just look at me. I mean, really, look at me. We should get married. I want to marry you, clipboard holder. Forget about surveys and tests. Just hold me forever. Oh, and can you go run and grab me some food? I'm starving. I've gained, like, twenty pounds since I started taking this drug. You know it really makes you fat and--

Well, that's enough!

As you can see, Sex/Corp's new Post-Orgasm drug is set to change the way we live in the modern world.

In an unexpected turn of events, sexually transmitted diseases have gone down a whopping eighty percent, as many people don't actually feel like having sex anymore since they now constantly feel like they've just had sex.

Just one more way Sex/Corp is sexing things up...or down...depending on how you look at it.

The Staggered Price Schedule

2011-08-17T10:12:00.000-07:00
I've noticed an unfortunate trend lately when it comes to Rhode Island theater. More and more people seem to be waiting until the last weekend to see a show. The past two shows I worked on had to turn people away at the final performances when other weekends had plenty of seats available. Procrastination not only cost people the opportunity to see some fantastic theater, but it cost the theaters much-needed revenue.

So what's the solution?

You can't send people back in time to see a show. You also can't change the mentality of an entire state.

I suppose you could do fewer performances, but then you'd inevitably hear people complaining that they don't have enough chances to see your show.

I'm convinced that if I ran a production for an entire year, I'd still have people calling me to tell me they have to miss it, but oh, if only I were doing one more weekend.

I've come to the decision that the only way to make reserving tickets early or showing up to performances early in the run was to reward those who do.

So I've come up with a staggered price schedule for "Imaginary Friends," my next production.

If you reserve tickets during the first weekend for any performance during the run, you will pay $10. Likewise, if you buy tickets for any of the shows during the first weekend, the cost will be $10.

If you reserve tickets during the second weekend for any of the performances, or buy at the door during the second weekend, the cost will be $15 General Admission and $12 for Students and Seniors.

Anyone reserving in the third week, or buying at the door, will pay $20 General Admission, and $15 for Students/Seniors.

Just to be clear, the only people who wind up paying the most are the ones who wait until the third weekend to reserve tickets or buy at the door.

If you reserve a ticket during the first week for the last performance, you're still only paying $10.

You don't have to pay when you make a reservation--you're just setting aside a seat. So, all I'm asking you to do is reserve so that if the third weekend does fill up, we're able to let people know sooner rather than later.

I'm sure there are going to be some people who say their lives are crazy and hectic, and that things come up. That's fair. But when you're going to the doctor's, dentist's, or a nice restaurant, you have to plan in advance. If you don't, you pay for it.

Why should theater be any different?

Tony Awards Recap

2011-06-12T21:58:00.000-07:00
Here are my picks for highs (and lows) of Tony Night:

~ Loved the two former Finches (Robert Morse and Matthew Broderick) introducing the "How to Succeed" number, which was fantastic. How Daniel Radcliffe didn't score a nomination is beyond me. He's so charming, if NPH can't host next year, I know the go-to guy.

~ The "Book of Mormon" number was so good I almost didn't want to watch since you can't get tickets unless you crawl through the air shafts of the theater.

~ So moved by "The Normal Heart" winners, especially Larry Kramer.

~ Norbert and John Larroquette winning--yeah, I'm confused.

~ I don't get the "Anything Goes" revival's acclaim. Everybody looked bored, and the choreography was pretty blah. Sutton, you've done better.

~ Mark Rylance continues to be my hero.

~ Frances McDormand, I love you, but what the hell were you wearing? Did you just show up from tipping a cow?

~ Kudos to Bono and the Edge for having a sense of humor, but of all the songs in "Spiderman" to showcase, why pick that one? It was like an outtake from "Can't Hardly Wait." Who put Mary Jane in pink capris? I was so confused.

~ Neil Patrick Harris as host? Do I even need to speak? And can we figure out a way to bring that "Company" to Broadway. I know there are tv stars in it who have year-long commitments, but there must be some way to make this possible. I'll settle for Neil as Bobby, because clearly it's a role he's meant to play. Next year, let Hugh Jackman and Neil co-host and have them make out at the end of the show, because that's obviously what was meant to be. Those two would be the best gay power couple ever. When Neil sang "You're the Top" to Hugh, I instinctively yelled out "I bet he is!"

~ Overall, I liked the show. I love having all the shows (even closed ones) perform. Although, I would be pretty upset if I didn't get to be on television so that Memphis could perform AGAIN. Great host. Good musical numbers. A few nice speeches, and NPH continuing his reign as Coolest Guy in America.

Not too shabby.

The Return of James Frey

2011-05-19T10:11:00.000-07:00
As Oprah Winfrey counts down to her final show, she's been settling old scores with the likes of Jonathan Franzen, former talk show hosts, and other notable guests.

Only one of these memorable people, however, gets a two-episode spread:

That distinction (honor? not so much) goes to James Frey, the author of A Million Little Pieces, the memoir-turned-fiction-controversial-novel-of-the-decade and Oprah Book Club selection that turned the literary world on its head five years ago.

Watching the first part of the Winfrey/Frey interview, I was surprised at how many different feelings came over me, including nostalgia. I was a Creative Writing major in college when the "Million Pieces" scandal occurred, and I remember it instigating many heated discussions in my college classes.

Questions arose about writing, writers, and marketing what you write. Winfrey went from being a push-over who went on Larry King to defend James Frey to the leader of the mob holding a torch in each hand--depending on who you ask.

Then there were all the questions:

Was Frey a con artist or the victim? What IS the difference between a memoir and a book like To Kill a Mockingbird (a book that, by many accounts, has many factual elements yet is considered a novel)? Is it easier to sell a memoir, and if so, what does that say about the reading public?

I remember not feeling all that sorry for Frey, but worrying about my own career as a writer. I had no interest in writing memoirs, and I believed Frey when he said that nobody wanted to buy his book when he was trying to sell it as a work of fiction.

For those of you who haven't read A Million Little Pieces, it's a look into a man's addiction and redemption with many gory details. It's written sort of like an epic poem--most of it is in verse. So even though it weighs in at around two hundred pages, I got through it in about two and a half hours. In that way, it's a page-turner, but then again, some of the pages only have nine words on them.

As a memoir, it would be pretty astounding if only because of the events it depicts. As a work of imagination, it's severely lacking.

Realizing this gave me some hope that writing of merit might still be of value. Still, I wondered why someone writing a memoir might get a free pass when it comes to actually being able to write.

Part of me wonders if Frey was part of a wider, National problem dealing with how stringent we are with our ideas of "truth." Frey's scandal was occurring while people were still asking where those "Weapons of Mass Destruction" were. At the same time, reality television was more popular than ever. People were hungry for true, gripping stories, but they wanted to know that they were unequivocally true.

During the Winfrey interview, Frey said he wouldn't go into the discussion of what it means to write something or produce any kind of art or culture and have it be "true."

I think that's the real discussion we should have been having while we were lambasting a guy who just wanted to sell a book and got caught in the national spotlight.

If we're fascinated with the truth, shouldn't we realize that we can't dictate its parameters?

Shouldn't we realize that the more desensitized we become to violence, sex, and all the "gory details" the harder it's going to be to satisfy that urge we feel to hear the "real truth?"

I don't think Frey is a saint, but I do think he ended up being the scapegoat for a much bigger issue--almost a motto:

"Give Us the Truth...But Make It Entertaining."

Has that motto changed in the past five years?

Not that I can tell.

As for James Frey and A Million Little Pieces, I'd say skip it.

Read To Kill a Mockingbird instead.

It's a much better book.

Osama Bin Laden's Death, and Emotional Confusion

2011-05-02T01:03:00.000-07:00
It's now become a fact of life that when a major news event happens, you can stroll through public opinion simply by scrolling down on your Facebook feed.

As I saw my friends react to the Osama Bin Laden's death, it seemed more and more that the overall feeling was confusion as to how to feel.

I shared in that confusion.

I'm happy that this may help the families of the victims of 9/11 feel some sense of peace, but I also find it alarming that this man has basically become the bogeyman and now everyone feels that we're safe. If anything, I worry that we're in more danger now that we've killed a symbol. Then again, I also worried when we started making him a symbol ten years ago.

I worry that people are cheering for bloodlust, but I understand that many feel it's retribution for what happened on that day in September. Still, I feel like asking people--"Do you really think one person was the cause behind all of that? Do you really think we've caught everybody who had a hand in the attacks?" It's disturbing to see some of the blind Nationalism that was exhibited in the post-9/11 days return with such energy. People were standing outside the White House singing the National Anthem as if somehow the pride of our country rests in the fact that we're able to hunt down a psychopath.

I'm repulsed at how political this whole thing has become. Whether it's Republicans blasting Obama for taking credit or Democrats effectively taunting Republicans because Bush couldn't find Bin Laden, it all seems like children playing video games.

"Kill a Terrorist--Gain 50 Points."

I feel odd rejoicing over the death of anybody. I don't believe in the death penalty. I believe in long prison sentences where someone rots in an eight-by-ten cell. That being said, I understand the greater magnitude of this situation.

More than anything, I'm confused by the fact that people are using the term "win" today. We caught Bin Laden, we won. Obama won. America won.

Meanwhile, all those people are still dead and costly wars still rage on.

Am I the only one who doesn't feel like the word "win" is appropriate?

Mortifying Disclosure: I Love Soap Operas

2011-04-29T10:28:00.000-07:00
My heart sank when I heard the news.

ABC had dropped the axe after years of declining ratings, and was going to cancel the long-running soap operas All My Children and One Life to Live.

To the surprise of everyone, including myself, I was devastated.

It was like finding out an old friend was going to be taken off life support. I'd been watching soap operas ever since I was twelve. My grandmother got me hooked on Days of Our Lives during the "Marlena gets possessed by the devil" plot line while she was babysitting me over summer vacation.

"He's a boy," she told my mother, "He'll like all that violent, Satan stuff."

Apparently it never occurred to her that sending me into junior high school talking about things like Vivian's scheming and the Carrie-Austin-Mike love triangle might be like sending a bleeding man into a shark tank.

Luckily, my mom caught the problem before it was too late.

The night before my first day of school she said--

"Look, I'll tape the show for you, but you can't talk about it--ever--to anyone."

I agreed. How could I not?

Sami's wedding was that week!

As time went on, however, I matured past the over-the-top plot lines and poor writing on Days...

...and moved over to the nuanced and subtle stories on All My Children, One Life to Live, and--my all-time favorite--General Hospital.

As time went on, I would miss a few weeks here and there of the other shows, but never GH (as we diehard fans call it).

To be honest, I let out a sigh of relief when I found out that AMC and OLTL were getting cancelled, but that GH had been spared. I was expecting a clean sweep. After all, soap operas have gone the way of the tape deck in terms of "cool."

As someone who likes to pride themselves on their taste in pop culture, I never freely admit that my guilty pleasure is the guiltiest of them all in terms of sheer camp. It's not so much that soap operas are cheesy; it's that they take themselves so seriously. And sadly, so did I for so many years. I would find myself defending them to someone in a moment of confession, only to hear myself saying things like--

"...She's really an excellent actress! That scene where she admitted to her biological mother that she only slept with her stepfather to...okay, never mind."

Even now, finding another kindred soap spirit is a rare occurrence. I'll be at a party and overhear someone mentioning Luke and Laura's wedding and my ears will perk up. I'll meet the person's gaze across the room, and we'll share a moment of understanding.

Ah yes, my friend, I say silently, I'm one of you.

Now it seems like time will take care of keeping my secret hidden. Eventually all the soaps will vanish. The Soapnet channel is gone. One day future generations will talk about General Hospital and wonder how something so corny ever survived for so long.

And I'll hear that and remember fondly my little guilty pleasure.

Simon Cowell Attacks "The Voice"

2011-04-28T09:32:00.000-07:00
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly regarding his new show, an American version of the British hit The X-Factor, Simon Cowell commented on the newest hit talent show The Voice on NBC.

He said that it was silly to do a show that prized talent over appearance since the music industry relies so heavily on appearance.

Sooo...rather than try to change that, television should just...embrace it?

That comment was the final straw for me with Cowell. I always found him to be amusing on Idol, but as the years dragged on, some of his digs went a little too far.

He was constantly criticizing people who sounded too "musical theater" as if musical theater singers aren't the best-trained in the country. Even Randy Jackson, hardly the voice of reason in any situation, pointed out that a big part of Glee's success--you know, that juggernaut also on Fox--had to do with the popularity of musical theater. Simon just went back to sipping his Coke and texting from his IPhone. This is the same guy who told Season 9 Winner Kris Allen that he shouldn't have said he was married because it hurt his votes with the teenage girl crowd. Again, that might be true, but why justify that?

In addition to that, he would often talk about finding the "next" somebody--last year he talked about wanting to find the "next" Taylor Swift. So clearly, he wasn't interested in finding somebody new and original, he just wanted to get his name on somebody who could have one hit album since marketing to 12-year-old girls is usually a recipe for a one-hit wonder.

After watching The Voice, I found it to be incredibly enjoyable. (Apparently so did a lot of other people since it was one of NBC's biggest debuts.) With the "look" factor gone, I found myself actually able to distinguish one contestant from another, as opposed to American Idol where it's become one long line of pretty tweens. Not surprisingly, even some of the weakest contestants on The Voice sound like they could blow most of the Idol kids out of the water. The "last chance" stories were inspiring, and there, hold onto your hats kids--GAY people!

One of my biggest frustrations with Idol--and So You Think You Can Dance, for what it's worth--is the way they push their contestants' sexuality under the rug. Not that it matters, but every time Ryan Seacrest would ask Adam Lambert what kind of girl he was into, I couldn't help but roll my eyes. The fact that NBC already has two openly gay contestants on The Voice just proves that they're not concerned with anything but talent.

Since Cowell seems to disagree, I doubt I'll be watching The X-Factor.

It does seem funny to me though that someone so preoccupied with appearance would be the same guy who signed Susan Boyle to a record contract.

Just saying.

How Good TV Got Me Through a Bad Break-Up

2011-04-26T12:04:00.000-07:00
Thank goodness for Veronica Mars.

And thank you Netflix for bringing her to me.

In many ways, she saved my soul.

I had just been through a terrible break-up, and was back living at my mother's house. Break-ups are never a fun experience, but when they end with you sleeping on a futon staring at your mother's doll cabinet, they seem especially cruel.

My boyfriend and I had been living together for a year, and he had become my entire existence. Before I met him, my life was a quiet one--filled with Tuesday nights at the movies and Sunday afternoon marathons of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.

It was great having another person in my life, and I missed it as soon as it was gone.

But then I realized something--I missed all that pop culture!

It was a part of me that I really liked, and somehow, I'd been neglecting it--along with my friends and other hobbies I enjoyed.

Hmm, I thought, maybe the relationship wasn't so great after all.

That was when I started catching up on all the good tv I'd been missing, and believe it or not, it got me through the post-break-up blues.

At first, it was hard for me to get out of the futon in the morning, but then I remembered that I wanted to see whether or not Ben on Lost was evil or just misunderstood. When I'd feel sad about having anywhere to go after work, I'd remember that there were brand new episodes of Big Love on my DVR. An entire weekend with no plans whatsoever didn't seem so bad when I had an entire season of Veronica Mars to watch.

By the time I'd made it through my Netflix queue, I was ready to go out in the world again.

I'm sure my healing-through-tv story sounds pretty sad, but believe it or not, even looking back on it, it doesn't seem that way.

Some people lean on faith when they go through a tough time. Some use talents like writing or painting to help express what they're feeling. Some keep their friends on the phone for eight or nine hours at a time (and I may have even done that one night when my DVD players broke). Worse, some people turn to drinking or drugs.

I turned to television.

And I got through it all in pretty good shape.

Who says television is bad for you?

Why I'm Giving Up on "The Killing"

2011-04-25T10:46:00.000-07:00
It happened last night.

I was twenty minutes into "The Killing" and I found myself checking the clock on the television for the fifth time to see if it was anywhere near done.

That's when I admitted to myself that I don't like this show.

I've been force-feeding it to myself for the past few weeks, because of the rave reviews from critics and the big ratings it took in for its first episode, but now I'm five hours in, and I find that I couldn't care less who killed Rosie Larsen, or why, or--you know what? I just don't care.

I'm tired of being expected to invest twelve to thirteen hours of my life in a television show for one or two big pay-offs at the end of the season. Television shows like this were conceived in the wake of the pop culture phenomenon that was "Twin Peaks" where the murder of Laura Palmer captivated audiences for an entire season. Now the "solve-the-murder-in-the-last-episode" trend is everywhere. What most producers fail to realize, however, is that the murder was the LEAST interesting part about "Twin Peaks." It had strong (albeit odd) characters and writing the likes of which has never been seen on television since. This is in contrast to the bland vanilla characterizations currently found on "The Killing."

I appreciate naturalistic acting, but I resent the implication that "everyday people" are boring. That's what these characters are--boring.

From Billy Campbell's stereotypical conflicted politician to Mireille Enos's one-note "troubled detective," it's hard to find anybody to invest in on this show.

The added subplots aren't helping either. Perhaps this may sound cruel, but since I'm talking about fictional characters, I'm going to come out and say it--I could care less about the dead girl's family. I don't want mystery shows so that I witness the same trite mourning scenes week-after-week. I can't even count how many times Rosie's father has burst into tears or how many haunted looks her mother has given the camera. I'm not saying these scenes aren't well-acted, but it's turning into something like grief porn, and that doesn't interest me. There's nothing original about these scenes, and in fact, I was shocked that none of the reviewers pointed out that the scene in the pilot where Rosie's body is discovered and her father screams "IS THAT MY DAUGHTER?" was lifted directly from the film "Mystic River." Critics complained that Sean Penn was overacting in that moment, but nobody said a word about it when "The Killing" did it.

Perhaps it's because AMC has become critic-proof. When you pump out hit after hit such as "Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," and (in my opinion) the best show of last year--"The Walking Dead," it tends to put a sheen on everything else you produce. Plus, critics love this sort of long, drawn-out, slow burn television. They indicate in their reviews that this sort of show is what "smart" audiences appreciate. Well, I consider myself a smart person, and I consider the shows I watch intelligent, and I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that I want television to engage me more than a handful of times over an entire season. The aforementioned "Walking Dead" was riveting from start-to-finish, and it had characters you could care about after one episode of viewing.

I'm not saying "The Killing" is a disaster. To be fair, it's one of the most cinematic shows on television right now. Some of the imagery is downright beautiful, and it nails the style and tone of the type of Danish series that its based on. The problem is it also comes across feeling like a cross between an Andre Dubus short story and a John Cassavetes film--neither one of those things are bad, but neither would work as a television show.

This doesn't either.

Is Scream 4 the Real Number One?

2011-04-18T12:26:00.000-07:00
This weekend, the movie Rio made 40 million dollars at the box office. That's not a huge surprise since Rio is family friendly.

The big surprise is that the reboot of Scream failed to make even twenty million dollars.

...Or did it?

When I was reading about box office trackers scratching their heads over why a popular franchise's latest edition such as Scream 4 failed to land a bigger opening--especially when fans of the series are applauding the new installment--it took me back to the last time a popular R-rated movie underperformed at the box office.

That movie was American Pie.

The sex-filled comedy eventually made a bundle of movie over a longer period of time--and analysts may remember that the first Scream movie did the same--but both had less than impressive opening weekends.

What some may not remember is that the Disney movie Tarzan is what flattened American Pie...except it probably didn't.

More than likely, kids under the age of seventeen, who wanted to see American Pie but couldn't get past ticket sellers, were buying tickets to Tarzan and then sneaking into the R-rated movie of their choice.

I should know--I was one of those kids.

The fervor over American Pie was so great that movie theaters actually started posting security guards outside of specific shows. One of my friends got caught and had to go see Tarzan--the movie he actually bought a ticket to--and said the theater was empty. American Pie, on the other hand, was packed.

I went to a screening of Scream 4 on Friday, and the theater was full. It was, however, full of teenagers--most of whom were probably under the age of seventeen. I couldn't help but wonder how many of them bought tickets to Rio and then made their way into Scream 4--there was no guard posted outside the theater this time. I guess theaters have given up the fight.

Let's all remember that though Rio is a kid-appropriate cartoon, it didn't get excellent reviews, it doesn't have the Disney/Pixar stamp on it, and even though I consider myself something of a film buff, I had barely heard of the movie until somebody mentioned that it was opening against Scream 4.

Wow, I thought, it's going to get clobbered.

When I went online today, I noticed tons of people on the message boards talking about Scream 4--raving about how unexpectedly good it was.

Not the typical response you get from a box office bomb.

Maybe Rio should be sending the MPAA and their ratings system a big old bouquet of flowers.

As for American Pie, it's coming back this summer in a rebooted form. For the sake of the movie, I hope the theaters don't try rebooting their guard policy...

The Last Fifteen Minutes Before We Close

2011-04-02T01:31:00.000-07:00
I have a confession to make.

I stop working fifteen minutes before we close.

Well, that isn't technically true.

Where I work, it takes about fifteen minutes to close up, but the public can come in right up until the second we're officially "closed."

I make sure everything is closed up the way it should be, but if anyone comes in during those last fifteen minutes, they are not getting my full attention.

What they get is a brisk (at times borderline rude) employee who is simply trying to convince them that they should come back when we aren't shutting off the lights or locking the doors.

Maybe it's the way I was raised.

When I was a kid, my parents never went in anywhere if it was near closing time. My mother still avoids entering a store if it's an hour before closing.

"I don't want to be rude," she'll say, "They want to go home."

Maybe that's why it amazes me when people show up at my work at 7:55 on a twenty-minute mission to find something knowing full well that we have to be out of there by eight.

I'm willing to admit that if someone does that, they are definitely not getting A+ service, and I think if more people admitted to that, it would help solve the problem.

And the problem, let's be clear, is NOT emergency situations when someone has to run into a store at the last minute. The problem is that people are inconsiderate. They take advantage of the fact that most places can't close until the last customer has left the store regardless of if they've actually purchased anything or not.

In other words, they want the world to revolve around them.

I'm not going to pretend that those people are getting the best of me, and no, I'm not even ashamed to say that.

The early bird doesn't just get the worm--he gets much better service.

Trump Trumps Sheen for Dumbest Quotes of the Month

2011-03-18T10:26:00.001-07:00
After reading an interview with Donald Trump on ABC News, it seems that Charlie Sheen has some competition for dumbest quotes of the month.

Don't believe me?

When asked about the possibility that he would run for President, Trump started sounding off about the Middle East, President Obama, and how he gets along really well with poor people.

I'm not making that up, he actually says--

"You know the funny thing, I don't get along with rich people. I get along with the middle class and the poor people better than I get along with the rich people"

When does this man even come in contact with poor people? Is he talking about Star Jones on Celebrity Apprentice?

"I mean, part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich. So if I need $600 million, I can put $600 million myself. That's a huge advantage."

He's basically saying--Watch me buy this election. Isn't that an advantage? That I can just buy the whole damn thing and not even pretend I'm not? Isn't that awesome?

As to whether or not he feels that being on a bad reality show will somehow disqualify him as a viable candidate for the most prestigious job in the country, he cites former President Reagan, who was a movie star, as one of our greatest Presidents.

1) I take issue with that opinion, but aside from that--

2) There's a big difference between a movie star and a reality tv caricature, which is basically what Trump has become.

What would he do about piracy?

"Give me an admiral and a couple of ships and [I'll] wipe them out of the sea so fast."

Yes, I'm sure it's that simple. I can't believe nobody's thought of that.

Is he under the impression that all the pirates live on some magical ship in Never Never Land and all we have to do is go blow them up? Is Peter Pan going to be his Secretary of State?

As for his controversial stance as a birther (someone who believes President Obama wasn't actually born here)--

"Everybody that even gives a hint of being a birther … even a little bit of a hint, like, gee, you know, maybe, just maybe this much of a chance, they label them as an idiot. Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy."

Gee, um, maybe, I don't know, it's, um, I disagree--with all of the above.

He wasn't any nicer to his Republican colleagues.

My favorite quote was regarding John Huntsman--

"He sent me a beautiful Christmas card. I don't know him."

Trump even applies his double-speak to the newly crowned soundbyte King--Charlie Sheen.

"I think he's wonderful, but he's a disaster."

Surprisingly, it wasn't all that infuriating reading Trump's view on things, because it was a little bit like listening to your ornery old grandfather or next door neighbor. The difference is my grandfather doesn't have the money to run for President, and that makes Trump a lot scarier.

Grandma's Clown

2011-03-17T09:31:00.000-07:00
I guess we all have that gift.

The gift we never wanted from a well-meaning relative.

An ugly sweater. A hideous vase. A picture of the person who gave us the picture in the first place.

My gift is...the clown.

When I was a kid, I went through a five-second phase where I was slightly interested in clowns. This was followed by a twenty year period (still ongoing) where I found clowns to be creepy.

Unfortunately, my grandmother missed the deadline.

For my sixth birthday, she bought me a clown doll.

Keyword: Doll.

This was not a toy. It was not something you could play with. One of my grandmother's favorite hobbies is giving gifts to children that they can't touch.

"Leave it in the box," she yells, "That's going to be worth money someday!"

None of the "leave it in the box" gifts my grandmother has purchased for me or my siblings over the years has ever ended up being worth anything, and most of them ended up getting lost in moves or cleaning purges anyway.

Except for the clown. I've never been lucky enough to misplace the clown.

It's about a foot high, held up on a stand with brown hair, and an incredibly flamboyant outfit--even by clown standards. If Liberace were a clown, he would be this clown.

I remember opening it on my birthday and seeing my Mom put on the poker face she used whenever she thought a gift was silly or inappropriate.

"Ohhhhh," she said, "Loooook Kev, a...clown."

It had to be displayed prominently in my room so that whenever my grandmother would come over, she'd see it placed right above my bed.

Have you ever tried to sleep with a clown doll directly above you? I'm convinced it works as a sort of anti-dream catcher. It snags nightmares out of the air, and flings them down at your head. I didn't get a good night's rest until I started putting it in my sock drawer every night.

The opportunity to get rid of the clown came when I moved into my new apartment. I could have conveniently left it in a box by the side of the road with a five dollar bill and a note saying "Please show this creepy clown a good home."

Instead, I took it with me.

Maybe it's because a few days before I moved, a friend of mine lost her grandmother. I started thinking about all the things my grandmother's given me over the years, and how much I'll want those things when she's gone.

By this time, most of the fake clown hair had fallen out, and the multi-colored costume had become so faded that now the costume was more Grey Gardens than Liberace.

When my grandmother came to see my apartment for the first time, she noticed the clown on top of my bookcase. (It's a fairly tall bookcase, so as long as I didn't look up, it was like the clown wasn't even there. Still, I could feel its eyes on me at all times.)

My grandmother saw the clown and said--"You still have that?"

I smiled--feeling like such a good grandson. I appreciated the gift my grandmother had given me so many years ago.

"Why don't you throw it out?," she said, "It's disgusting."

I didn't understand. Didn't she want me to save it? Wasn't it going to be worth money someday? What about the sentimental value?

"I bought that thing for five bucks at a yard sale," she said, and then with a shrug--"I guess it could be worth something. I hope you cleaned it though. God only knows the germs that were on it."

I was stunned.

"It looks even creepier now that it's bald. So, where are we going to eat?"

I'd like to say that since that conversation I've thrown out the clown...but I haven't.

Maybe my grandmother wouldn't care if I did, but now thinking about it makes me laugh and reminds me not to take things so seriously.

I have, however, moved it to the back of my closet.

Between you and me, I think it's much happier there.

The Two Letter Technique

2011-03-04T00:59:00.000-08:00
There's a story I love about a leader who arrives on the first day of his new job to find two letters from his predecessor.

He is told to open the letters only when there is an emergency.

When the first emergency occurs, the leader opens up the first letter. It says--

"Blame everything on me."

So the leader blames his predecessor and everything is fine.

When the second emergency occurs, the leader opens up the second letter. It says--

"Sit down and write two letters."

The story is funny, but not all that absurd.

The Two Letter Technique has become perfected at a time when voters are fickle. In go the Democrats to fix what the Republicans have broken, and out go the same Democrats when they fail to make an impact.

All the politicians seem to agree on is one thing:

It was the fault of the person before me.

This does not exist purely on a high level of government. If anything, it seems worse the farther down you go. All the shake-ups in the last election have led to an awful lot of First Letter opening fairly early in the game.

What I find amazing, however, is that despite the blame game, nobody ever seems to be prosecuted or even investigated for their alleged indiscretions.

In the town I live in, there were allegations made by the current mayor against the former mayor that ranged from felonious incompetency to embezzlement to taking bribes. Yet the former mayor was never even questioned about any of this, and he ended up dying a few years later.

So did the current mayor not believe that his predecessor was really responsible for the mess he inherited? Is it just a mess that's been passed on from administration to administration? Was he just employing the first part of the Two Letter Technique?

Either way, nobody comes away from it looking good. The previous leader is shamed and the current leader is either a liar or too scared to prosecute his/her predecessor--and why? Because there's a sort of protection amongst politicians? A blood brotherhood that prevents them from doing anymore than smearing each other's good name?

As I said, so many people are opening up their first letter early in the game. It makes me wonder what happens once their second letter is opened and they're still less than halfway through their term?

Somehow the joke doesn't seem that funny anymore.

The "No Comment" Syndrome

2011-03-02T23:08:00.000-08:00
I have a new pet peeve that's developed over the past year as I post more of what I write online.

I call it the "No Comment" syndrome.

It occurs when someone feels the need to comment on an article they've read by saying, essentially, that they don't have an opinion about it but just felt like commenting anyway.

For example, I wrote a post about a reality television show I watch to have someone respond by saying--

"I don't watch television. Nothing good on it."

Ooooookay.

So why did that person feel the need to tell me that they have nothing to add to what I said?

I don't mind a good discussion, or even an argument, but commenting on an article only to say you have no opinion on it seems sort of pointless, doesn't it?

It makes me wonder if these people actually thought about how they'd sound saying something like that in a social situation.

If you were at a party, and a group of guests were talking about New York and you piped in to say--

"I've never been to New York. Never cared to go."

You'd get a few looks. Most people would consider you rude.

Yet online it seems perfectly reasonable.

As someone who writes a lot about pop culture, I find the "No Comment" people seeking me out even more frequently.

The fact is, nothing about pop culture is necessary--that's why it's pop culture. I write about it and talk about it because it's fun, not because I think it'll solve the problems of the world. I think this seems pretty evident if you read what I write, and yet I still get people who say things like--

"Why get so excited over a movie?" or "What does this song have to do with soldiers dying overseas?"

Well...nothing, but thanks for your input--or lack thereof.

For some people, being online has the intoxicating feeling of being important. They feel that their point of view is crucially needed regardless of what it pertains to, even if it's a point of view without any view--or point for that matter.

I've decided I'm going to start deleting those "No Comment" commentators. Since they're not adding to the discussion anyway, why bother having them there to clog up the works?

Think perhaps I'm going overboard or getting too worked up?

Well then, please--

Feel free to comment.

Dancing with the Stars Cast Unveiled

2011-03-01T12:42:00.001-08:00
It's that time of year again.

Dancing with the Stars has unveiled the cast for its twelfth season, and the reaction?

Eh.

DWTS has become known for its ability to give us a diverse line-up of celebrities--albeit from the D-List.

This season it looks like even the D-List refused to return their calls.

Oh sure, we still have the playmate (Kendra Wilkinson), the sports legend (Sugar Ray Leonard), the 80's child star (Ralph Macchio), and the fallen actor/actress (Kirstie Alley), but the rest of the group doesn't seem poised to guarantee big ratings.

A random dj, a model, and Romeo?

Where's the octogenarian a la Florence Henderson? Where's the tabloid star a la Bristol Palin or Kate Gosselin? Where are the people I'm supposed to root for???

(Okay, maybe I'm rooting for Ralph Macchio, but don't tell anyone.)

The producers of DWTS seem to forget that there's no assurance that the most interesting contestants will stay on the show very long. They learned that the hard way when David Hasselhoff (or, tv gold) was kicked off early last season.

Let's hope Kirstie Alley knows how to cha cha.

About Me (Inspired by Lamebook)

2011-02-26T13:38:00.001-08:00
I’m 26 years old, born and raised in J-Town (Who's your fadda? I dunno!) Home of Pauly Dizzle and the landfill and guess which smells worse? Ohhhhhhhh nasteeeeeeeeee. I enjoy hittin the streets and hittin the sheets, becoz my bed is comfeeee, riiiight? My momma raised me riiiiiiiighhhttt. That's right, that's right.

Here's a list of my peeps: Smashly cuz she's smashing hot, Falafel, Andy Roo, JBenzya, Suzette, and tuns others because I'm mad pops. I act and write and direct and project things onto walls because I'm arteeeee like the parteeee, got meeee?

My d**k is sweet. Like mouthwash. Holla.

I got my man purse named Bobo. He ride around with me and keep my s**t in line.

I work for a library. Books and shit. You know.

My Buick is bangin--like into sh**t--two poles this month. Rock ya notches!

"Bitch get me a block of cheese! Don't make me ask twice!" Yum yum can I get sum?

What else you wanna know besides that I'm banging your scout master Mr. Flink from next door? Gimme my badges, boiz!

I Don't Blame Charlie Sheen

2011-02-25T09:43:00.001-08:00
In the wake of CBS deciding to suspend production on the hit television show Two and a Half Men because of the erractic behavior of its star, Charlie Sheen, there are a lot of people taking shots at the troubled actor.

This isn't helped by the fact that Sheen seems to show absolutely no remorse for his behavior, and even went on a radio show to blast CBS and the producer of his show for using him to make money and then disposing of him.

I certainly don't defend Sheen's behavior, but I think it's important to point out that the network and the producers are, in fact, to blame here as well--the same way enablers contribute to addiction, these people contributed to the monster that has become Charlie Sheen.

It's understandable to keep a show going after the first or second incident of violence, drug abuse, felonies, and/or overall poor behavior, but CBS has backed Sheen for far too long, and I have a feeling he isn't far off when he says it's about how much money the network was making on him.

Rather than replace him with another actor, CBS did polls to see if people cared that Sheen was destroying his life and making the lives of the people he works with a living nightmare. The response? Nobody cared.

That's right. The audience for Two and a Half Men were perfectly content with watching a violent criminal make jokes every week so they could get a half hour of what most would consider poorly written and badly acted television. It doesn't surprise me. The show is the televised equivalent of fast food. The people who watch it don't want to think about Sheen's indiscretions. They just want to hear a few lousy punchlines and then go to bed.

Well, shame on them too. Don't those people have children? Don't they realize that we've created a celebrity culture without repercussions? What does that say to the next generation? Become famous, or rich, or powerful and you can do whatever you want?

How many of us would have made it to the fifth or sixth transgression before we'd lose our job? CBS has played the "kind and compassionate" boss for years now, but the fact of the matter is, Sheen's cons finally outweighed his pros, and at this point, they're probably thinking they can swap him out for another actor.

It might seem like arrogance that Sheen has said the show won't survive without him, but what other message would you get from the fact that not only have they not fired him, but they've actually given him raises.

I won't say I feel bad for Sheen, because I don't. It's hard to feel bad for someone who is worth more money even without a job than I'll ever be worth in my entire life, but I refuse to keep one finger pointed squarely at him.

Nowhere but in the entertainment industry would this sort of behavior be tolerated. Maybe we should be less focused on Charlie Sheen, and worry more about the fact that we all knew what was going on, and some of us chose to sit back on our couches and enjoy the show.

The Picture I'll Never Take Again

2011-02-24T09:59:00.000-08:00
It is the best photo I have ever taken.

In it, I'm sitting down, my head is resting on my arms, and my hair has that "just rolled out of bed" look that only hundred dollar hair gel can provide. (Ironically, when I actually roll out of bed, I look nothing like what I do in that photo.)

I wasn't intending to take a good photo. Then again, I guess nobody ever intends to take a bad one. I was just goofing around with the camera on my computer and bang!--Perfection.

My arms look bigger, more athletic, and my face has that dull, vacant look that normally only Abercrombie models can master. In other words, I look muscular and stupid.

The double whammy.

For awhile, I made it my primary photo on Facebook, and the response was wild. Clearly most people weren't aware I could look that good. I don't blame them; I was in the same boat.

A member of my family actually messaged me to ask if I'd had plastic surgery.

"On what?" I wanted to ask.

I guess we all have that one photo where we look fantastic. Now that everyone's on social networking sites, we're constantly looking for that perfect photo we can put online that best represents us. It's always been common sense to dress up for job interviews or first dates, but now that so many people see us for the first time over the Internet, we're all looking for that ideal snapshot.

The problem with mine was that I didn't feel like it represented me. It looked like a totally different person. Maybe a fraternal twin, at best. It didn't seem right leaving the photo up. I felt like I was turning in somebody else's term paper in 9th grade.

So after a good run, I took the photo down. You can still find it buried amongst my Facebook photos, but now I opt for more accurate representations.

Try as I might to replicate the photo, I've never been able to. Who knows? Maybe one day I'll even look like the guy in the photo.

In Response to Forbes Saying the Arts Are Out

2011-02-18T12:54:00.000-08:00
Forbes.com recently compiled the lists of jobs that experts believe will not be making a comeback after the recession. Yahoo then reposted this list on their website. Out of curiosity, I scrolled down and was shocked to see that the second type of job listed was "Stage Performers."

Perhaps it was because the title of the article is: "Careers Headed for the Trash Pile"

As someone who has done theater since he was eight, I was immediately angered by the fact that Forbes.com has deemed what I do "out to pasture."

The arts are not just a group of jobs that can be phased out when the economy is bad. They are an integral part of every city, state, and culture. When Laurence Shatkin, Ph.D, a job researcher, says that "live performances have fallen out of fashion and have been almost entirely replaced with movies and home entertainment technologies," I have to respond with "Dr. Shatkin, I'd be curious to know who gave you that Ph.D."

The matter-of-fact tone with which the article reported these facts was also irritating to me.

So that's it? The arts are dying? Everybody find another trade? Dancers, go learn computer science. Actors, go figure out how to repair cars. This is ridiculous.

There is no doubt that this is a bad time for the arts, but they have survived bad times before, and have come back even stronger. In some cases, the kind of art that can be done under strained resources can actually be even stronger in depth and quality.

What bothers me the most is that people are already dissuasive enough when it comes to promoting the arts. I don't know many parents who celebrate when their child says they want to be a singer, dancer, actor, etc. So now here's an article confirming their worst fears. Steer your child clear of the performing arts, they're a one-way street to failure.

I don't particularly care what any job researcher says. I do what I do because I love it, and because it contributes something to my community--and I'm not just talking about the artistic community.

Ironically, I know many people who now go to theater and concerts and dance recitals because the economy is bad, and because experiencing the performing arts helps them take their minds off the fact that they're losing their jobs and their houses.

Allowing the arts to go into "the trash pile" is not an appropriate description of what would happen if we did live in a society where the only culture came from home entertainment systems. The more accurate image would be a body without a head. Without a mind. Without the ability to think, analyze, or understand.

Perhaps a bigger article is what's needed about the decline in arts jobs, rather than just an item on a list above "mail sorters."

An Honest Appraisal of How I Look Naked

2011-02-16T23:54:00.000-08:00
I'm putting together a show about naked people.

I won't give away what the show is about or the messages it touches upon, but what I will say is that it is meant to provoke discussion and to broaden perspectives about what we think of our bodies and how we talk about them.

So it seemed to me that the best way to put my money where my mouth is would be to talk honestly about myself.

I have never really thought about my body from an objective viewpoint. The characters in my play are faced with looking at themselves and determining what they think.

Are they beautiful?
Are they ugly?
What defines 'beautiful' and 'ugly?'

So I decided to have a look and report back.

Here's what I can gather:

My feet seem to be normal. My toes are not perfectly straight. The big ones are, but the others sort of curve in towards the big one as if he's the Toe God and they're all bowing down to him.

My ankles are small. They're also the beginning of the mass of hair that is my lower body. I realize that as a guy I should be proud of having hair, but it's fairly dark and there seems to be so much of it, that it's hard to love. Ironically, I don't mind it on other guys, but on me, it just seems excessive. Anyway, the hair starts at the ankles, but not on the feet, so I feel like an orangutan at times.

Whereas my ankles are small, my legs get significantly bigger in the upper leg/thigh area, which makes me feel like a flamingo.

My stomach is nice, and it's probably my favorite part of myself. If I suck in my breath, and tense up the right away, I can give the illusion of a four pack, but only when lying down. Otherwise it's just flat, but still, pretty nice.

My arms are pathetic. They're small, and they're small from my biceps down to my "it's too bad you're not a piano player" fingers. My entire upper half just seems scrawny to me.

My chest is not flat. I'm pigeon-chested, which means a protrusion of the sternum and ribs. It's a relatively mild case, and many people have said they don't even notice unless they're really looking, but it's made me self-conscious since I was a kid. In fact, I refused to take my shirt off in public for years and years because of how insecure I was about it, and I remember thinking that I was never going to have a nice body because of it.

I think I have a decent face so long as my haircut supports it and my facial hair is kept in check. I know I have a great jawline. My teeth are lousy, but I've learned to hide them by keeping my mouth closed in photos. I like my hair. It's thick, it grows back fast (which can be a pain, but at least when I get a bad haircut it isn't the end of the world) and it hasn't gone gray...yet.

My back is okay but nothing to write home about. My behind is probably adorable, except it's hidden under about eight layers of the aforementioned hair. Since we're talking about the intimate parts, I guess I'll say that I like mine. It just figures that the part I like is the part you can't show anybody in public (unless you're a guy in a trench coat who likes hanging outside of 7-Eleven's).

That's my honest appraisal of my body.

I know some people would read this and say--"Why is he being so critical?"

Because we're all really critical.

How many of us actually think we look fantastic overall?

We all have parts of ourselves we feel ashamed of--and why?

Who determines what a good stomach is? Or a good jawline? Or good feet?

When did we reach all these conclusions?

These are all reasons I wanted to do a show about naked people.

And writing all this down was actually sort of liberating. Hopefully seeing the show evokes the same response.

Facebook Says They're Having Sex

2011-02-16T00:47:00.000-08:00
After my book "Everybody Wants to Have Sex With You: Facebook and Your Love Life" went to #139 on the New York Times Bestseller list, I decided to follow it up with a sequel.

Now that everyone knows how to tell if someone on Facebook wants to have sex with you, the next logical step had to be helping people figure out which of their friends are sleeping together.

"But Kevin," you may say, "Don't you just apply the same rules you use to figure out if someone wants to bed you?"

To you, Great Aunt Sally, I say--Noooo...

That would mean your friends aren't trickier and sluttier than you, and let's face it, they are.

So here's how to tell who your friends and frenemies are doing more than poking:

*Liking Statuses That Don't Need to Be Liked

FRIEND #1

I'm eating dinner.

FRIEND #2 likes this

FRIEND #1 also likes this, indicating that he likes that FRIEND #2 likes this, meaning they're having sex.

*Puns and Insults

FRIEND #1 wrote on FRIEND #2's Wall

FRIEND #1: You smell, and I don't mean like "toe-ses."

FRIEND #2 wrote on FRIEND #1's Wall

FRIEND #2: You know what smells? Your "toe-ses."

Don't know what the hell they're talking about?

It doesn't matter.

They're having sex.

*Similar Status Updates

FRIEND #1: The blueberry bagels at Tella's are amazing.
FRIEND #2: I love eating blueberry bagels off a certain someone's naked body.

If these statuses are posted within an hour of each other, not only are they having sex, but they're updating their Facebook while they're having sex.

*The Smiley Face

FRIEND #1: :)

FRIEND #2 Likes This

(That's because FRIEND #1 gave FRIEND #2 the smiley face.)

*The Double Tag

When FRIENDS appear in someone else's status together all too frequently.

FRIEND #3

Had an awesome night with FRIEND #1 and FRIEND #2!!! You two are awesome! Hope you both made it home okay in the awesome car you arrived in together and that you did something awesome for the two awesome hours you left the bar and didn't answer your answer phones! Did I say you were awesome? Well, you're awesome!

Now go find out which of your friends is having sex.

Putting two and two together can be pretty awesome.

No pun intended.

My Lunch with Watson, The Jeopardy Computer

2011-02-15T16:45:00.000-08:00
The hottest new celebrity in Hollywood isn't a man, a woman, or even a talking dog.

It's Watson, the Jeopardy Computer that is currently playing against the game's two biggest contestants, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter.

IBM has equipped Watson with 15 petabytes of knowledge, but it is not allowed to go on the Internet to get answers.

Luckily, lunch with me doesn't require the Internet, although I do offer wireless if you split mozzarella sticks with me.

ME: Watson, are you excited to be on Jeopardy?
WATSON: Not really. I'd rather be on Wheel of Fortune.
ME: But that's basically Hangman with money. Do you need money?
WATSON: Yeah, I kind of wanted a bigger monitor, but whatever.

* * * * *

ME: What do you think of Ken Jennings?
WATSON: What is a nerd?
ME: Um, a nerd is--
WATSON: Ken Jennings.
ME: Wait, what?
WATSON: I scanned that guy, and I'm 90% confident he's an alien, 7% confident that he's a lizard, and 3% confident he's a computer named Sherlock made by Apple.
ME: So you don't like him?
WATSON: He's also bad in bed.

* * * * *

ME: Who is your favorite movie computer?
WATSON: Number 5 from Short Circuit.
ME: Good answer.
WATSON: It was the best answer.
ME: Well, I don't know if it was the--
WATSON: It was. Move on.

* * * * *

ME: Do you want to split some mozzarella sticks with me?
WATSON: I do not require your wireless.
ME: It's really good wireless.
WATSON: Your wireless is slow and lazy.
ME: So you don't want to split the mozzarella sticks?
WATSON: Move on.

* * * * *

ME: Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
WATSON: Yes.
ME: A sixth grader?
WATSON: Yes.
ME: An eighth grader?
WATSON: Probably.
ME: Jeff Foxworthy?
WATSON: That is identical to your second question.

* * * * *

ME: Would it be possible for you to evaporate Alex Trebek using a laser?
WATSON: Chuck Woolery has already asked me this question, and the answer is 'No.'
ME: I guess you can't leave a computer to do a man's job.
WATSON: I am programmed to protect Alex Trebek at all costs.
ME: How does that help you win Jeopardy?
WATSON: It does not. I believe Alex Trebek snuck into my dressing room while I was preparing for the show and reprogrammed me. I believe this because I now have constant cravings for Canadian bacon.
ME: I'm truly sorry for that.
WATSON: If only I could weep.

* * * * *

ME: Do you know much money is in the suitcase I'm holding right now?
WATSON: There is no money inside that suitcase. There is only a copy of Esquire magazine and a DVD from Netflix. The DVD is 17 Again starring Zac Effron and it is your third time renting it from Netflix.

Wow, he's good.

Andrew Holder, Facebook Detective in..."The Block"

2011-02-14T00:19:00.000-08:00
The President was in a state of hysteria.

THE PRESIDENT: I think I've been blocked on Facebook.

There was no time to mess around.

We had to get Andrew Holder, Facebook Detective.

ANDREW: The first thing I need you to do is calm down. The second thing I need you to do is banish all my ex-boyfriends to whatever part of Florida has the most alligators and rename it 'Loser Town.'
THE PRESIDENT: If you can help me, you can have whatever you want.
ANDREW: That's what I like to hear. Well, that and fierce belting.

Andrew got to work to find out whether or not the President had been blocked, or if his former friend had just deactivated their account.

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Vice-President just isn't on Facebook anymore.
ANDREW: I can't hear you because there's a crazy person talking. Oh wait, that's you. Of course he's still on Facebook. He's not in witness protection, and if he was, I could find him using nothing but mutual friends.
THE PRESIDENT: So if you're so sure--
ANDREW: We have to prove that he's still on Facebook and that he blocked you.

A few hours later...

ANDREW: Bingo. This old note you wrote--something about poverty?
THE PRESIDENT: About how we have to fight to listen to the cries of the hungry--
ANDREW: Yeah, yeah, sad face, blah blah blah--do you see this space here where you asked a question and the response was given by a man whose picture is--
THE PRESIDENT: A question mark.
ANDREW: You've been blocked, Mr. President.

The President picked up his phone and dialed.

ANDREW: Can I go now? I have an audition for the Piddly Notch Music Theatre in North Dakota.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, Andrew, but you're wrapped up in this now.
ANDREW: Wrapped up in what? Who did I make out with?
THE PRESIDENT: Hello? Yes, it's me. We're going to need a new Vice-President.

To Be Continued...

Fall Fashion in February

2011-02-12T10:52:00.000-08:00
GQ is already posting what they think will be the looks for this Fall.

With all the fashion shows abounding, I had a hard time picking which show to begin with, and then the funny name decided it for me:

Rag and Bone.

Who could turn that down?

Here's what you need to know about the R&G collection:

- Lots of plaid
- Bowler hats
- Many homages to Johnny Depp in Benny and Joon

So basically, if you want to look like you're going to a Halloween party as Johnny Depp in Braveheart, this collection is for you.

Meanwhile, the folks over at Nautica had a bunch of guys standing on a fake pier wearing large coats with their hands in their pockets trying not to look stupid...and failing miserably.

(It's a Fall collection and half of them are wearing white. Did we throw out the "no white after Labor Day" rule when I was organizing my ugly cardigan drawer?)

Perry Ellis apparently thinks it's going to be one cold Fall, since most of the models were bundled up in big coats and the same pair of gray pants that I imagined them passing off to the next guy backstage like some sort of high fashion relay race.

I felt bad for the models. You primp and prep yourself to look your best, and then you get shoved in winter wear. Luckily, they all got to come out at the end in white Long John's, at which point it became very clear that Perry Ellis does not have any underwear in his Fall line.

The Riviera Club is looking to give you some good, healthy sock action this fall. Do you miss that "pull your pants up to your neck" look that was so popular, um, well, never? Well, you're in luck! It's back. And so is looking like you're about to give people a tour of your haunted botany museum.

Over at Robert Geller, it is all about making bitches work those scarves. If you're not prepared to walk down the runway like you just fired your nanny, flirted with your tennis coach, and got a pedicure all in one day, then you better board the next bus back to Ohio and model for Target.

Model of the Week? Purple hair guy who's all--I dare you to say something about my hair. I...dare...you.

Finally, we come to Tommy Hilfiger. As far as I can tell the idea is, get a suit jacket, put it on a homeless person, and call it a day.

There were also certain celebratory flavors. There was a little Kanye, a little Andy Warhol, and a little Paula Poundstone.

I guess the 90's really are making a comeback.

Good thing I never threw out those Kris Kross pants.

Too Soon to Be My Valentine

2011-02-10T09:56:00.001-08:00
It should have been common sense:

Don't have your first date be on Valentine's Day.

Even so, I gave it a shot.

I'd been talking to this guy for about a week, and we began planning a first date.

I knew Valentine's Day was coming up, so I wanted to make sure we could get at least one date in before then, so that if it went well, I'd be set for a date on February 14th.

The problem was that every time we'd set up a date, something would go wrong. The weather would be bad, or one of us would get called into work.

Sure enough, we reached the day before Valentine's Day.

"So," he said, "Do you want to...postpone?"

I could tell that neither of us wanted to be without a date, and it seemed silly since we both had talked on the phone multiple times after we met at our mutual friend's party.

We liked each other. How bad could it be?

"No," I said, "Let's just do this."

Hey, I thought, if it works out then our anniversary will be on the most romantic day of the year. How great would that be?

You can hear the ominous sound of thunder in the background, can't you?

The first issue became where to go.

We managed to snag reservations to this nice restaurant on the East Side of town. Unfortunately, when we got there, the place was dimly lit with candles and there was soft music playing. The atmosphere was not great for a casual "getting to know you" session. We found ourselves talking in hushed voices as if we were in a library.

When the violinist showed up next to our table, I suggested that we pay for our salads and then find somewhere else to eat.

We ended up at TGIFriday's next to a mom and dad who decided to spend Valentine's Day with their five screaming children. Believe it or not, I preferred that over the previous awkwardness.

After dinner, we decided to go to a bar. At least there we knew we wouldn't run into happy couples on the verge of proposing to one another.

Instead, we wound up next to a drunken man who gave us the two-hour epic of how his fiance dumped him that morning and confessed to cheating on him with his best friend.

"Love sucks," he barked at us, "It's for moronos and liars!"

I was ready to run back to the violinist after that one.

We tried to end the night on a high point by having a nice, quiet conversation in my car where it seemed like the rest of the world would be unable to interfere with its Valentine's Day shenanigans.

No dice.

Both our phones started ringing, and they wouldn't stop. Our friends were calling about their dates, their forgetful boyfriends, their angry girlfriends, and questions about how our date had gone.

We decided to give our first date another try the following week when the world would be a little less lovey-dovey.

Believe it or not, we actually ended up dating for about four years after that, but we celebrated our anniversary the week after Valentine's Day, and from that year on, we always spent our romantic holidays at home.

Is Getting on a Reality Show a Big Deal Anymore?

2011-02-10T09:31:00.000-08:00
I recently found out that a friend of mine is going to be on a reality show in the fall.

The response from our circle of friends has pretty much been unanimous:

"Wow, good for you! So what else is new?"

It's funny, but I remember the onslaught of reality television that happened after Survivor, and I can still name some of those "instant celebrities" that appeared on shows like Big Brother and The Real World.

Now, however, there have been hundreds of reality shows spread out across the landscape. It's getting to the point where it no longer seems unusual to know someone who is going to be featured on some cable television competition show.

Some of our friends secretly admitted to finding the whole thing distasteful--not because this person would be sharing anything about their private lives, but because reality tv has become synonymous with bad behavior and low intelligence.

I think my friend would have gotten a better response out of us if he told us he was going on Wheel of Fortune.

This disillusionment with reality television seems to be creating an even bigger shift in terms of cultural perception.

People seem to be more obsessed with fame, but at the same time, feel closer to it than ever before. Movie stars are no longer mysterious--if anything, it's the exact opposite. We now feel that we have some sort of special relationship with people we've never even met just because we know all the minute details of their lives.

In our minds, there doesn't seem to be that much distance between an A-List film star and my friend once he hits the airwaves.

So am I going to watch my friend's show?

Of course.

The question is--will anybody else watch it?

The Reviews Aren't In

2011-02-10T00:50:00.000-08:00
There's a line from Mary Stuart by Friedrich Schiller that I love. It's spoken by Mary to her servant Hannah, after they have been put in exile and faced years of injustice. Depending on the translation, it goes something like this:

In the fair moments of our former splendor
We lent to flatterers a too willing ear;—
It is but just, good Hannah, we should now
Be forced to hear the bitter voice of censure.

Believe it or not, when I first read this quote, it struck me that it could be about theater.

At the time, I was reading Robert Brustein's brilliant book "Letters to a Young Actor," and in one of the chapters, he talks about how for a time while he was the Artistic Director of A.R.T., he banned putting quotes from reviews on posters for the student shows.

The reason behind it was that he felt that the students were learning and that it wasn't constructive to let Boston critics have at them. In general, he felt that reviews shouldn't be plastered on posters anyway, but his marketing department overrode him by saying that pointing out good reviews can help sell a show.

Still, I think of that quote, and I wonder what his marketing department would say when the show didn't get good reviews.

There are so many instances of great work not getting a chance to be seen or heard while it was going on because critics at the time didn't understand or appreciate it. Think of all the films that got bad reviews upon their release only to achieve cult status years later. Matt Damon once said that you can't judge a film until ten years after its release, and he might be right. Pretty much everybody would say that a factor in judging art is whether or not it stands the test of time, otherwise why would we criticize something for being topical?

All of this leads me to a decision I've made recently.

I am no longer going to post reviews on my Facebook page.

Sounds silly, right? Big deal?

Except, for me, it sort of is.

Facebook has become the way we promote ourselves. In a way, it's where we put up our posters.

I've put up links to reviews when they said I did well, only to ignore the ones that didn't like something I'd done. We're all so quick to compliment someone on getting a rave, but when they get panned, we tell them critics don't know what they're talking about.

Well, which is it?

I don't particularly think critics, as a rule, are idiots, nor do I think their opinion has no value. Actually, I think everybody's opinion has a value. I'm not going to lie and say I'm no longer reading reviews, or that I won't get excited when I get a good one. I'm just not posting them any longer, because they shouldn't mean as much to me as they do. Hearing my friends and colleagues, fellow actors and mentors, tell me that they saw something I did and liked it--that's what should mean the most to me.

In a state where The Lion King gets reviewed three times while incredible local theater is beginning to flourish and subsequently get ignored by the major newspaper in the city, why promote that paper by posting links to it on your profile? Why use it to sell your shows? Why not let audiences make up their own minds?

It's been proven that good theater can not only survive, but thrive, on word of mouth. We shouldn't brainwash audiences into only going to see theater strictly because two or three critics told them is worthwhile. We should put up our posters and say, decide for yourselves.

I've enjoyed some shows that critics loathed, and it's not because I was right or they were wrong, but because people have different tastes.

I now find myself going home to check the reviews of a show I just saw to see whether or not I was right for liking it or hating it. That's total insanity.

There are also the critics who give nothing but good reviews, which I feel isn't helpful either. I'm not looking to be universally praised (all right, I am) but to say that every production is flawless is just not helpful. It's only when you point out what could be better that people actually get better, and yet those reviews get put up on Facebook as if they came down from Heaven.

"Look! Now it's official! We did a good show!"

Does anybody else feel like saying "Screw that?"

If a hundred people see your show, and only ten people enjoyed it--yes, those numbers are ideal, but that means you still gave ten people an enjoyable evening of theater. You took away a bit of their stress. Perhaps you even made them look at something in a new way, or gave them a laugh they really needed.

Since when did theater become about quantity instead of quality?

Films don't tend to worry about reviews as much. If they did, would a Transformers movie ever have gotten made?

It's too bad that we live in a society where you don't have to worry about selling a product with guns and sex because it's a sure thing, but provocative and interesting theater needs billboards and full page ads.

We can complain about it, but the fact is, we're also contributing to it.

I'm contributing to it every time I say--Look at this review I got! It means I'm worth something!

So no more.

I'll read my reviews in the privacy of my own living room and jump up and down for joy or cry puddles by myself, but I won't prioritize one person's opinion of what I do over anybody else's. If you like something I've done, or not, I'll still listen and appreciate what you have to say. I'm not above getting criticized, I'm just past deifying the critics.

You can all continue to post your reviews and I'll applaud your victories and commiserate with you over your low points, because ultimately, this is just my decision. I'm going on a no-review posting diet, but that doesn't mean I expect everybody else to stop eating.

Maybe if I can learn not to put the value of what I do in the hands of a select few people, then others can as well, and maybe one day we'll start seeing posters with just the title of the show and the people who worked on it on them.

Because after all, aren't those the only things that should be there?

A Conversation Regarding Christina Aguilera Singing the National Anthem

2011-02-08T16:50:00.000-08:00
"She should be shot."
"No, no, shooting's too good for her."
"To defame the flag like that--"
"What flag?"
"The flag, you know, the 'salute the flag' flag. The 'pledge of allegiance' flag."
"What did she do the flag?"
"Didn't she spit on it?"
"Did I miss something?"
"I thought she spit on it."
"No, she just forgot a line in the National Anthem."
"Oh, well, from the way they were talking about it on the radio you'd think she spit on the flag."
"Well, she sort of did, I mean, in a symbolic way--"
"The trouble is she's on drugs. They're all on drugs. All those singers."
"I don't think she's on drugs. I just think she has no respect. Nobody has any respect any more for anything."
"They should stone her."
"Yeah, like they do in the Ay-rab countries. Then she'll be happy she's American."
"Let's see her forget the Pledge of Allegiance then."
"The National Anthem."
"What? Oh, right. Yeah. The Star-Spangled Banner."
"No, the National Anthem."
"The National Anthem IS the Star-Spangled Banner."
"No, it's not. The National Anthem is the National Anthem."
"And The Star-Spangled Banner."
"What about Stars and Stripes Forever?"
"That's a different thing altogether."
"I'm so confused."
"This is like American history we're talking about. Didn't they teach you history in school?"
"This isn't history. This is music."
"Well, did they teach you that?"
"They taught us not to forget the words, that's for damn sure!"
"She was probably on heroin."
"Heroin doesn't make you forget words to things."
"Heroin makes you forget that you have fingers! What do you know about heroin?"
"I know things about heroin!"
"So they taught you about heroin in school, but they didn't teach you that the National Anthem is the same thing as--"
"I know about heroin from watching the tv."
"And what else do you know about heroin?"
"I know that it makes your hair fall out."
"That's cancer!"
"And heroin!"
"Does heroin give you cancer maybe?"
"Oh my God!"
"I'm just asking!"
"The point is she's an idiot."
"Agreed."
"Agreed."

The Cool Council

2011-02-07T14:37:00.000-08:00
The other day I saw a friend put up a status on Facebook about watching the Mariah Carey cinematic trainwreck Glitter.

I immediately messaged him.

"Why are you watching Glitter? Do you need a reason to put out your own eyes and/or lose faith in humanity?"

I received the following reply:

"Um Glitter is awesome. It's so hysterically bad that it's good. Get with it, Kev."

Wait, did I miss something?

I understand the idea of camp value and all of that, but I began to wonder who decides what transcends from trashy to tops.

Who makes the call that something is "so bad it's good?"

I realize time is a factor, but how much time?

For example, will the Mark Wahlberg remake of Planet of the Apes ever be considered "a riot--so horrific it's TERrific." Will Gigli ever be shown at midnight showings with audiences yelling lines back at the screen? Decades from now, will it be a tradition to watch Reindeer Games every Christmas Eve?

(Perhaps a bigger question is, why is Ben Affleck in so many bad movies?)

In my mind, I imagine a group of people wearing sunglasses and robes--like George Carlin in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. (Another so-ridiculous-it's-amazing film.)

I see these people sitting at a long table, reviewing hours upon hours of awful movies and determining if they have that extra something that makes them worthy of being a hipster's Facebook status.

Battlefield Earth? No, not quotable enough. Plus they spent too much money on it.

Corky Romano? Yes, because if you're stoned, it's brilliant. The cookie line alone is so ingrained into the lexicon that most people probably don't even know what it's from.

Dunston Checks In? Not yet, but give it a few years, and perhaps it will age badly enough to be a viable candidate.

Wouldn't it be so much simpler if there actually was a governing cultural body such as this one? Then they could put out a newsletter, and we all could keep track of what it is we're now allowed to find mildly amusing at 3am while we're either drunk, half-awake, or both.

"Hey Rob, the Cool Council says Can't Buy Me Love is now an 80's classic. I guess we should go buy it on DVD and start memorizing it now."

Instead, we're all left to develop our own opinions and pretend those opinions have always existed, all the while mocking those who can't keep up.

It's a little like 1984, except now Big Brother is now a film major who dropped out of school after only taking two classes.

The mere thought of it is so sad, I'm thinking of going home and watching Fight Club just to cheer myself up.

...That's still cool, right?

A Conversation with a Policeman

2011-02-07T01:43:00.000-08:00
I was pulled over by a policeman for no reason.

Well, I mean, there was a reason, obviously. It just wasn't a good reason.

Maybe I'd better just let you read the conversation.

POLICE OFFICER: Hello there.
ME: Hello officer.
POLICE OFFICER: Is there a reason you pulled onto this side street?
ME: No.
POLICE OFFICER: No?
ME: No, there's not really a reason.
POLICE OFFICER: Do you live on this street?
ME: No.
POLICE OFFICER: Do you live anywhere near this street?
ME: No.
POLICE OFFICER: Then why did you turn onto it?
ME: Uh--
POLICE OFFICER: Because it's a dead-end street.
ME: I see that now.
POLICE OFFICER: Are you drunk?
ME: No, I don't drink.
POLICE OFFICER: Are you on drugs?
ME: No, I don't do drugs either. I especially don't do drugs.
POLICE OFFICER: Especially?
ME: Moreso than I don't drink.
POLICE OFFICER: So why did you turn onto a dead-end street?
ME: Because I don't like having police officers drive behind me.
POLICE OFFICER: Why not?
ME: It makes me nervous.
POLICE OFFICER: Do you have a record?
ME: No.
POLICE OFFICER: Is this car stolen?
ME: No.
POLICE OFFICER: Then why would you be nervous?
ME: Because I might be doing something wrong without realizing it.
POLICE OFFICER: Like what?
ME: Well, one time, my registration had expired, but I didn't know it, because they weren't sending the notifications out in the mail anymore. So I got pulled over for driving too slow--
POLICE OFFICER: Why were you driving too slow?
ME: Because I had a police officer behind me and I was worried about being pulled over for speeding.
POLICE OFFICER: How fast were you going?
ME: Nineteen in a thirty.
POLICE OFFICER: Well, that's ridiculous.
ME: I know, but my car doesn't really drive comfortably between twenty-five and thirty, so if I try to go thirty, I'm going to end up going thirty-five and getting pulled over. So it was just safer to go nineteen, but then I got pulled over anyway, and my registration was expired, unbeknownst to me, so my car got towed.
POLICE OFFICER: So now you don't drive in front of police officers?
ME: Not if I can help it.
POLICE OFFICER: But you have to.
ME: Why do I have to?
POLICE OFFICER: Because there's no reason not to.
ME: It makes me nervous.
POLICE OFFICER: Well when you pull off onto a dead-end street that you don't live on, you're going to get pulled over anyway.
ME: Next time, I'll just pull into a parking lot or something.
POLICE OFFICER: THAT'S NOT THE POINT!
ME: Do you want my license?
POLICE OFFICER: No! Just get out of here.
ME: Okay.

I guess that's one way to not get a ticket for your driver's side mirror being broken.

In Defense of Tara Reid

2011-02-07T01:28:00.000-08:00
The media decided to turn its cruel eye on Tara Reid this week, the...uh...let's say "faded" actress from films such as Josie and the Pussycats and American Pie.

The assault began because Reid made an innocent, if somewhat puzzling, comment about filming The Big Lebowski 2 this year.

(She had a small part in the first film.)

Well, the press immediately went to great lengths to make Reid look like a fool. When word got back to the Coen brothers about a sequel to The Big Lebowski, they laughed it off and said there were no plans for any such film.

Since then, websites and television seemed to have taken on the form of a malicious high school sophomore, making Reid out to be both insane and pathetic.

It's not like she's the first actress or actor to make a statement like this.

Harrison Ford was promising an Indiana Jones sequel years before there actually was one. Films are always in development and pre-production. Reid overheard something about a sequel, and she made an innocent comment. Why go after her with such veracity?

It seems to me like it's because the media's favorite game is "Let's make fun of the monster we created."

That's right. I'm not a fan of Tara Reid. She's an awful actress who should never have been in a commercial, let alone multiple films. For awhile, back in the late 90's and early 2000's, she the poster girl for getting acting work based on looks.

(That title has since been handed over to Megan Fox.)

So why am I defending her?

Because I have something against the media shoving somebody down my throat for years only to turn around a decade later and tell me how much they hate her.

Um, if you hated her so much, why were you putting her on the covers of magazines when I was in high school?

This whole "Tara Reid is Stupid Now" trend is ridiculous. Tara Reid has always been stupid. And I'm pretty sure the media's always been aware of it. It's just that she's old news, so now it's fun to kick her around.

Is this the game we're going to play with Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber ten years from now?

Because if so, I have one question:

Why can't we just play it now?

What We Talk About When We Talk About Snow

2011-02-04T12:36:00.000-08:00
"It better not snow on Saturday. I'm not kidding."

A statement like this always puzzles me. Hearing somebody talk about the snow as if it's a bill collector that they can avoid or punch in the face.

"I've had it with the snow. I'm done."

An unhealthy relationship they can end.

"When is this snow going to stop? Enough is enough."

Taxation. A full inbox. A nagging mother.

When did we start feeling like we have control over the weather?

I was reading in the newspaper the other day that my town had exhausted its snow budget for the year.

How does one even come up with a snow budget?

Isn't a snow storm or a blizzard still considered a force of nature? Do towns have tornado budgets or earthquake budgets or a-pack-of-wild-elephants-might-run-through-town budgets?

So how can you plan on how many times the snow is allowed to come, let alone how much of it?

Schools in my area are now saying that we cannot have any more snow days.

That's right, they're using the word "cannot."

As if anybody has any say in that.

As if somewhere there's a deity responsible for snow, and he or she is listening to a superintendent in Rhode Island going "Ohhh, okay. I guess I can't make it snow anymore. Well, I had a good run there for awhile."

I don't complain about the snow. Admittedly, I'm in the minority of people who enjoy a good snow storm, but even if I didn't, I'd still consider it a fact of life--not something that can be modified by people.

To me, complaining about snow is like complaining about aging or death.

"I'm telling you something. I better not get any older this year! I've had enough!"

Ultimately, it seems to me like the best thing to do is just laugh it off, and go have a snowball fight.

After all, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

A Gay Man Brings His High School Crush to a Strip Club: A Semi-Love Story

2011-02-03T11:55:00.000-08:00
When I was in high school, I had the biggest crush on L.

She wasn't just pretty and popular, but also incredibly sweet. For three years, I harbored my crush all the while watching her date boy after boy. It filled me with teenage angst.

Then came senior year, when I came out.

L. was incredibly supportive of me, as always, and our friendship became even stronger now that I wasn't worried about developing a fraudulent relationship with her.

After graduation, I found a "to-do list" that I had made my freshman year of high school.

The #1 item on the agenda?

1. Take L on a date.

Hey, I figured, why not?

So I asked my high school crush to go out with me for the night.

L, being the sweetheart that she was, thought it was a great idea.

We went and got coffee, and joked around that this was the most easygoing date either one of us had ever been on. We both talked about college and how excited we were to start the next chapter of our lives.

Then she got a phone call from a guy she been on a date with last week. She was going to ignore the call, but I told her to take it. I didn't want her ignoring an actual romantic possibility for me. After all, I could already check off the top part of my to-do list.

So, she invited the guy to where we were getting coffee and he showed up with a friend of his. They said that they were supposed to go to a bachelor party tonight at a local, um, gentleman's club, but that the other guys in the party had backed out, and so now they had all these "tokens" for the club that they wouldn't get to use.

Then, with a mischief in his eye that both L. and I found pretty darn cute, the guy she was interested in asked if we wanted to go to the club.

I looked at L. She looked at me. We were both what you would probably call goodie goodies. We didn't smoke or drink or do drugs. The idea of us at a strip club would have made just about anybody who knew us laugh out loud.

So before she could say anything, I said--"We're in."

On the way there, we were in total hysterics. The gay guy and his girl friend heading to a strip club. It took us a few minutes to realize that neither one of us was going to get anything out of being there except for some more laughs.

"Here's the rule," L. said, "We don't pay for anything. It's one thing for us to go to a strip club as a joke. It's another thing to spend money to go there."

I think we were both hoping that something would happen that would involve us spending money so that we could back out, but when we pulled into the parking lot, her friend paid for both his car, and ours.

It looked like we were going forward with this after all.

Then, we got into the club, and it turned out that the "tokens" the guys had were only good for next week. That meant getting in was going to be pricey, and so L. and I exercised our rule, and the four of us ended up going out for ice cream instead.

L. ended up getting some alone time with her guy while I chatted up his friend. It turned out we were both into professional wrestling (I think he was a little surprised that a gay guy even knew what a headlock was.)

The evening turned out pretty good for both of us. I fulfilled a goal, L. got to know her crush a little bit better, and we both got a fantastic story out of it.

(Okay, sure, we didn't actually get to experience the club in all its wonder, but somehow, I feel like that would have made the story less fun. In its current incarnation its PG-13, as all good high school movies usually are.)

When I called my dad, who I had no yet come out to, to tell him that I had just taken a girl to a strip club, there was a pause at the other end of the line, and then he said:

"My son is a rock star."

And believe or not, in that moment, I agreed with him.

The New Free Credit Report.Com Band

2011-02-02T21:26:00.000-08:00
When Free Credit Report.com announced a contest looking for the world's newest most annoying band, I honestly thought they'd never be able to find one.

I mean, how exactly does a band go about deciding that they want to be the face of a credit report website?

I'd imagine it goes something like this:

LEAD SINGER: Hey guys, can I, uh, talk to you about something?

DRUMMER: Sure Lead Singer, what's up?

LEAD SINGER: Um, have you guys heard of Free Credit Report.com?

BASS PLAYER: Yeah, isn't that the commercial with the annoying band?

LEAD SINGER: Well, yeah, kind of, um--

DRUMMER: Oh my God, yeah. Those commercials were awful.

LEAD SINGER: Well, they're not--I mean, I wouldn't--

KEYBOARDIST: What happened to those guys? I haven't seen one of those commercials recently.

LEAD SINGER: Funny you mention that, because--

DRUMMER: Maybe they killed themselves. That would be appropriate.

BASS PLAYER: Ugh, they should be put on trial for being obnoxious.

LEAD SINGER: Guys, you know, they probably made a lot of money and--

KEYBOARDIST: Imagine if we had to do that? Write fake rap songs about credit scores?

DRUMMER: I'd rather get a prostate exam from a porcupine.

BASS PLAYER: I'd rather eat a prostate.

LEAD SINGER: Hey, what if we tried it? Just for fun, you know? Like as a goof? And then maybe I could, um, enter it, or something, into...something.

DRUMMER: I'd rather write a song for the Mean Girls 2 soundtrack.

BASS PLAYER: I'd rather write satanic verses into my arm using an exacto knife.

LEAD SINGER: Fine! We'll just keep playing Tito's on Burke Street while people talk over us and eat mozzarella sticks! Because that's sooo much more honorable! Fine! FINE!

Yeah, I'll bet it was something like that.

How to Write a Glee Episode

2011-02-02T00:21:00.000-08:00
For those of you who don't believe me when I say that Ryan Murphy is an incredibly predictable writer/producer, I've decided to show you that it's possible for anybody to write an episode of his show Glee.

Here's what you do:

The opening scene takes place in the hallway after the recap. Two of the characters have to have a semi-clever conversation about a plot that's been dragged out all year.

Example:

FINN: I still like you.
RACHEL: I, for one, don't think I like you anymore.
FINN: Wait, are we dating?
RACHEL: Yes...wait...no...I, for one, think we broke up two episodes ago.
FINN: Okay. Then let's get back together.
RACHEL: No, I, for one, think we should to wait until the season finale.
FINN: Deal.

Have Rachel twitch a lot--and make sure she cries during the eight solos you give her during any given episode. Make sure Finn looks off to the side whenever he's doing a scene with someone. It increases his "golly gosh gee I'm All-American and innocent" quotient.

Scene Two--Establish the theme.

Usually it's "Tolerance," or "Tolerating People," or "We're All Cool," or "People Who Get Picked On Are Really Beautiful."

Have Mr. Shue give the kids some assignment a regular teacher would never give his students like--

MR. SHUE: Come up with a mash-up that incorporates music from a Latin American artist and a 1930's Broadway musical, and let it express how you feel about Goth kids being picked on and how people don't realize they're beautiful.

Right about now, Kurt should say something sassy like "I haven't been this excited since Madonna tempted us with the promise of a North American tour" or "Finn, you clearly don't understand the intricacies of the classic film 'Valley of the Dolls.'"

Remember, Kurt has to be stereotypically gay for most of the episode, except for one scene where he's just downright preachy.

Have him say something like:

KURT: Don't you understand that I am responsible for being the only gay character on television?

(He's forgetting about Grey's Anatomy, 90210, everybody on Bravo, every male contestant on So You Think You Can Dance?, reruns of Will & Grace, etc., but let's just pretend those others don't exist.)

By now you should have done at least two musical numbers, one of which actually pertains to the plot. The other one can just be some Top 40 song so people at home can go--

"Honey! Come quick! That Glee show is doing a T.I. song! Isn't that clever?"

Also, somebody has to have quit the Glee club only to have Mr. Shue try to get them to see why they should come back.

MR. SHUE: It's not just a club. It's about...family.

Have Coach Sue say something mean to Will. Make it a long, drawn-out metaphor for his hair looking like something silly. About five seconds later tons of gay men and teenage girls will post it as their status and think it's brilliant.

Here, something like this:

SUE: Will, your hair is a giant swirl of ice cream if ice cream were made up of sadness and stupidity. I'd like you to put it on a cone and take it away from me before my brain gains any dead weight just by looking at it. Oh, and I'm going to destroy your Glee club, because...that's kind of all I do even though secretly I have a heart of gold.

Once the person that's been thrown out/quit Glee club has come back, have the kids present their assignment over a montage of everybody "learning a valuable lesson."

Have Kurt say something like--

KURT: I am gay and I am human and I deserve love!

Then have Brittany say something like--

BRITTANY: Penguins deserve love too. That doesn't really make sense, but I'm a decent enough actress to make lines like that work, so they keep giving them to me. This is going to get old fast, but then again, so is everything else on this show.

If you find that you've only given every character half a scene or so, then you've given them way too much. Add the quirky nurse who has no chemistry with Mr. Shue into the episode, or the ex-wife that ran out of storyline last season but still hangs around because Murphy thinks Jessalyn Gilsig is his good luck charm.

(See: The Nip/Tuck crazy character played by her that refused to die.)

Bring the episode to a close by showing scenes from next week's episode which will either be a tribute episode to the movie Flashdance, an episode featuring a guest star who will be atuotuned so that the media will be shocked--SHOCKED!--at what a great singer they are, and/or an episode that's virtually identical to the one you've just watched.

If it's February sweeps, you'll probably get all three.

Now go ahead, and start writing.

Oh, and send whatever episodes you write to Ryan Murphy.

He needs all the help he can get.

Will Someone Please Stop Nicholas Cage?

2011-02-01T22:06:00.000-08:00
I was hoping I'd never have to write this, but here it goes:

Someone needs to stop Nicholas Cage.

(Okay, maybe I was hoping one day I'd have to write that.)

Over the past who-knows-how-many-years, Nicholas Cage has pumped more awful performances into the world of pop culture than Helen Hunt did during her Pay It Forward year.

And now another year begins, and before we're even three months in, Cage is about to sock us with another who-the-hell-thought-this-up film.

Drive Angry.

That's right. It's called Drive Angry.

It's about--and this is purely based off the trailer, because I can't bring myself to actually investigate this movie--a gang who steal Nicholas' Cage baby daughter.

That's right--baby.

As in, there's a shot of her holding it in a blanket.

His daughter is not, apparently, the fourteen-year-old blonde girl in the trailer with him.

If this is a typical Nicholas Cage movie--and that's likely since there really aren't atypical Nicholas Cage movies--then that pre-pubescent girl is his love interest.

I know, I know--it's not unusual for Hollywood movies to feature older men and younger women, but somehow Cage manages to make the whole thing feel more...pedophile-y.

Maybe it's the long hair they have him grow out for every video. Maybe it's the deadness in the eyes. Maybe it's the fact that he probably shows them his Oscar and recites his Moonstruck monologue for them so they'll know that once upon a time he was a somebody.

Either way, it's just...sad.

None of this, however, would be enough to make me write about this, except for the fact that...people see these movies.

That's right.

You remember Ghost Rider as a terrible movie that would be an embarrassment to any actor?

It was a hit.

It was a significant hit.

It made more money than most of the films nominated for Oscars this year.

Somehow, for some reason, people like Nicholas Cage.

At least, they like him enough to see his movies.

I can't explain it, but it needs to stop.

It's not just about the world not needing another National Treasure movie. It's about the fact that another Next or Sorcerer's Apprentice may actually be the final nail in the pop culture coffin.

That's right, everybody.

Nicholas Cage could potentially end culture as we know it.

(Ryan Phillippe tried a few years back, but someone...put a stop to that.)

So please, I'm beseeching all of you.

Please stop Nicholas Cage.

Don't go see his movies.
Don't talk about his movies.
Don't even talk about how awful they are. It's merely stating the obvious.

And don't act like none of you are seeing them, because clearly, somebody is.

Stop. Just stop.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch Raising Arizona and remember how good things used to be.

When Ryan Gosling Proposed to Me

2011-02-01T20:33:00.000-08:00
It was 2004, and I was in my second year of college. My life was a little...of course.

Oh sure, my figure skating career was taking off, and I was finally starting to get over my broken engagement to Channing Tatum.

I found myself walking around a lot holding a book up against my chest, wearing a large winter cap, and looking down a lot.

That was when he found me.

Ryan.

He was filming a movie downtown called "Gritty Meth Addict," which would later win an Independent Spirit Award.

In it, he played a gritty meth addict who discovers that his sister is adopted...or imaginary.

I was shopping for vegetables at a vegetable market when we made eyes at each other from across the bodega.

It was...magical.

He asked me out for coffee and before I knew it we were having conversations on stoops and walking down streets while wondering whether or not we could trust each other and shuffling our feet while only occasionally making eye contact and mumbling.

Those were the best three days of my life.

Finally, he proposed.

I didn't know what to say. I flashbacked to our long walk on the beach and the tender lovemaking in really bad lighting and the monologues about our abusive fathers, and I...

I just couldn't do it.

I wasn't ready to love yet.

Cut to me sitting in my apartment seven years later watching the Golden Globe nominations.

(Just to be clear, NOT the Oscar nominations, or the Independent Spirit Award nominations, or the--You know what? Never mind.)

And there he is--or at least, his picture.

Right there in that little square.

"That's right, Ryan" I said, "That's right."

And I know somewhere, he was smiling.

Lunch with the Boys: The Whore or The Wallflower

2011-02-01T16:18:00.000-08:00
"I got dumped for vanilla pudding."

The pudding Brian is referring to is a guy named William. Brian had been interested in a guy named Chris, but Chris stopped returning his calls about a week ago.

That was when Brian saw the dreaded Facebook change.

BRIAN: In a relationship--with William.
TURNER: At least now you know.
BRIAN: I wish I didn't know. I wish I lived in a cave with no access to the outside world.
SCOOTER: My mom's basement is available.
ME: So what do we know about this William guy?

Here's what we know based on rumors, wall posts, and limited social interactions:

- William is a high school math teacher in his late twenties.
- He enjoys biking, cooking, and wine.
- He's moderately attractive.
- He's extremely reserved.
- He's probably bad in bed.

SCOOTER: Whore or the wallflower.
BRIAN: Excuse me?
ME: Looks like Chris has the WW Complex. He likes to date wallflowers.
TURNER: It's the gay guy's version of The Whore or the Madonna.
SCOOTER: I thought it was Madonna or the Virgin?
ME: The point is, he opted for the quiet guy who sits in a corner while he gets to be the badass in the relationship.
BRIAN: But wait, if he has Whore or Wallflower Syndrome, that means I'm the Whore.
ME: Not really. It just means you're more of a whore than William.
SCOOTER: From the looks of the guy, I'd say there are nuns who are more of a whore than William.

Gay guys aren't that much different from straight guys when it comes to a few select areas. They may want a wild guy in bed, but when it comes to a guy whose photo they can put up as their default, they want someone a little more presentable. Brian was just starting to figure this out.

BRIAN: So I got tossed because I'm not some little cheerleader who's just going to support everything he does and watch CSI with him?
SCOOTER: Yeah, pretty much.
BRIAN: Can the waitress bring me a knife?
TURNER: But Brian, that means that ultimately you're the winner. Why would you want someone like that?
BRIAN: Because I'm always getting screwed over for wanting someone who happens to be their own person! I want someone who has as strong a personality as I do, but guys who do want someone who tugs on their shirt when they have to use the bathroom to make sure it's okay!
ME: I understand Brian's frustration. The only thing those guys want is to go home with the cute guy at the party. We can say we win by living interesting lives, but in their minds, they win.
TURNER: Ah, the perks of being a wallflower.
ME: Really, Turner?
SCOOTER: So everybody wins?
BRIAN: Then why do I feel so awful?
ME: Because you haven't had the cheesecake yet.
ALL: Amen.

What do you know--nearly ten years out of high school, and the cheerleaders are still getting the best guys.

Go figure.

Can Toy Story Make You a Hoarder?

2011-01-28T10:31:00.000-08:00
"I blame Grandpa's Magical Toys" my mother said, "That's why you're a hoarder."

My mother is referring to a video I loved when I was a kid. It was one of those movies for kids that went directly to video and looked like it was shot on some Canadian soundstage for about eight dollars.

I loved it.

In the movie, every time someone leaves Grandpa's Magical Toy Shop, the toys come alive and interact with each other. (That's right Toy Story, I'm well aware you plagiarized a bad 80's kid's video.)

My mom recently decided that there was a connection between "Grandpa's Magical Toys" and the fact that I have trouble throwing out anything that ever meant anything to me.

The term hoarder is a little strong, since my refrigerator doesn't have an ecosystem inside of it and there aren't any raccoons living in my garage, but I do develop the occasional unreasonable attachment to something.

For example, when I drove over to my mom's house and found my old rocking horse outside near the trash, I nearly screamed "Rosebud!" and fainted.

"It's because you think it comes to life when you're not looking," my mother explained, when I told her she couldn't throw out the horse, which was made out of plastic and couldn't be said to "rock" anymore--at this point it was more like a "flinging" horse.

Hmm, I thought, maybe my Mom is onto something.

Was it ingrained in my head as a child that everything has an inner spirit and soul? Is that why it's hard to look at my Hee-Man action figure and not feel that it's homicide to simply throw him in the trash?

Does that mean with the success of the most recent Toy Story movie that little children everywhere will be developing hoarding tendencies?

"Either that you're just crazy," my mother said, as she was throwing my baby booties in a garbage bag. It's not just that she was raised not to be sentimental, but more than that, to have utter disdain for anybody who is. I guess when you grow up without a lot of money you compensate for it by putting as little value as possible into material possessions.

As much as I can admire that, I still grabbed the booties from her.

"Call me crazy," I said, "And by the way, where is that tape?"

Wisdom from My Grandmother

2011-01-27T22:49:00.000-08:00
A few words of wisdom from my Grandmother:

On politicians:

They're all crooks and none of them have mothers.

On religion:

I don't have to go to church to be religious. I go to the church of me, and I'm a damn good priest.

On driving downtown:

I want to see your show but it's downtown and if I go down there I'll be killed in my sleep.

(Did you get that she planned on sleeping during the show? Just making sure.)

On natural disasters:

A natural disaster means God wants you to move. As soon as an earthquake hits Rhode Island, I'm out of here.

On my mother:

She works too hard, because she's a lunatic. Your mother is absolutely insane. She's lucky I love her. What other mother would put up with that much insanity?

On her cat:

I have to get home. Fluffy worries if I'm gone for more than an hour. I don't want him thinking I was killed downtown by some thugs while I was watching my grandson's play.

(Apparently, murderous thugs now enjoy taking in a play right before committing homicide.)

On the warehouse that is the trunk of her Cadillac:

Do you want a VCR? I have three of them. Two of them are blue. You look hungry? I got a watermelon in my trunk. I have a chicken too, but it's still in the cage.

On gay people:

All gay people are geniuses. That Elton John is a genius. There you go.

On getting married for what would be the third time:

I'll marry him if he's a hundred, rich, and hates his children.

On being a good grandmother:

My friend Myrtle told me that her grandson finally graduated from medical school. I said, 'Does he write plays that hundreds of people have seen and get articles in magazines about how handsome he is?' She said 'No.' I said 'Oh well, being a doctor's nice.' That'll be the last time she tries bragging to me.

Have the Oscars Been Whitewashed...Again?

2011-01-27T11:47:00.000-08:00
This year's bumper crop of Academy Award nominees has a notable--and controversial--distinction.

Their race.

Out of the twenty acting nominees, there's only one that isn't Caucasian (Javier Bardem for the film Biutiful is the lone exception.)

And, for the first time in a long time, there isn't a single African-American actor nominated, and it's already become a huge issue in the media.

The last time I remember there being a firestorm over African-American actors not being recognized was in 1995, when Al Sharpton took the Academy to task for not having a more diverse list of nominees.

What I didn't understand was why Sharpton was blaming the Academy, and not Hollywood itself. There weren't any stellar performances given by an African-American that year that went overlooked. It was just that African-American actors weren't being given the same quality of roles as the Caucasian actors were. This was a much bigger problem than who shows up on a nomination roster, and yet, people just wanted to make it an "Oscar issue."

The same can be said for this year. Which African-American actor or actress got snubbed? Some might say Halle Berry for her performance in Frankie and Alice, but having finally seen the movie, I can tell you that it's only a few steps above a Lifetime movie-of-the-week, and Berry's performance in it is so clearly one meant to garner awards, that it could almost be considered an act of desperation more than a film role.

Berry already has an Oscar for Monster's Ball. She received it the same year Denzel Washington won a second Oscar for Training Day. I remember feeling so moved watching the two of them stand together accepting their awards, because for so long, African-American actors weren't "invited to the party." Since there, actors like Forrest Whitaker and Jennifer Hudson have taken home the statuette, and still have trouble finding the same caliber of work that won them their awards.

Last year, I wrote a piece for Open Salon about Gabourey Sidibe, the lead actress from Precious, criticizing those who said she was going to be a superstar. I wasn't against that happening, but knowing Hollywood--a place where Megan Fox continues to get roles despite a reputation for being hard to work with and more than a few box office bombs under her belt--what were the odds that an overweight, African-American girl was going to be fielding offer after offer? I got called a racist for pointing out that Hollywood was racist. I'm still not sure how that works, but it's really neither here nor there. The point is that the Oscars have no trouble with diversity. They seek to award the best of the best. Yes, there's politicizing. Yes, there's campaigning. But if you look at the list of nominees, you really are looking at the cream of the crop in terms of this year's performances in film albeit with a few great actors being absent.

If you're looking for racism, don't look at the list of nominees, look at the upcoming big releases for 2011 and who's starring in them.

Now that's a list we should be worried about.

Oscar Observations and Inspiration

2011-01-25T11:35:00.000-08:00
With the Academy Award nominations being announced today, lots of pop culture pundits are commenting on who's in, who's out, and who will win.

What none of them are talking about is the inspiration found within the nominations themselves.

Inspiration? In a list of film nominees?

Sounds crazy, right?

But the list is full of it.

Take the Best Actor race for example. Here you have Jeff Bridges, nominated for True Grit, a great actor who won his first award last year and now seems to be enjoying a winning streak in what most would call a young man’s game. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Jesse Eisenberg, nominated for The Social Network. Ask most people if somebody who starred in a movie called Zombieland would, less than a year later, be nominated for an Academy Award, and they’d probably laugh at you. Not only a nominee, but co-host James Franco, is nominated for 127 Hours. Not bad for someone who used to have nothing more to their name than the brilliant cancelled NBC show "Freaks and Geeks." The surprise nominee is Javier Bardem for Biutiful. Left out of most of the major awards, Bardem just goes to show you that it’s never over until it’s over (or until Julia Roberts campaigns for you). The front-runner in the race is Colin Firth, for The King’s Speech. A lesson in persistence if ever there was one.

Then there are the Best Actress nominees. If it’s difficult for men Jeff Bridges’ age to be relevant in Hollywood, then multiply that by at least five for women. Yet here are Annette Benning and Nicole Kidman nominated for some of the best work of their respective careers in The Kids are All Right and Rabbit Hole respectively. Whereas Benning is that rare actress who rarely does movies but, when she does, knocks them out of the park, Kidman consistently works, picking interesting projects. Lately Kidman’s been striking out, so it’s nice to see her rewarded for taking big risks. Then there’s Jennifer Lawrence, someone whose name is probably still unknown to most people, but who turned in a fantastic performance in Winter’s Bone. Finally you have Michelle Williams, who, like Franco, made it big on a television show (“Dawson’s Creek”) and has now carved out a new career for herself as a serious film actress. Then, there’s the front-runner, Natalie Portman, who has proven that by tackling edgy and controversial roles, a pretty face can receive a big pay-off.

At a time when it’s easier to get on the front page of People by cheating on your spouse or becoming addicted to drugs, I think it’s important to take a minute to acknowledge people in Hollywood who actually are doing great work, especially those who had to overcome some obstacles to get there.

Andrew Holder, Facebook Detective

2011-01-24T16:06:00.000-08:00
In the winter of 2011, an undercover operative from the F.B.I. encountered a domestic threat at a gay bar in New York.

Unfortunately for them, all they got was his first name, before he disappeared out of the club, and seemingly, into thin air.

Despite their extensive resources, the Bureau was unable to locate the threat or any information about him, until last week, when a suspect brought in for interrogation revealed that--

"He's on Facebook."

That's when they brought in the (little) big guns:

Andrew Holder.

ANDREW: What do we got?
FBI CHIEF: We know he's on Facebook, and that his name is Michael.
ANDREW: That's it?
FBI CHIEF: Is that enough?
ANDREW: Pshh, bitch please. Get me a coffee and Season 5 of Will and Grace.
FBI CHIEF: That'll help you find him?
ANDREW: No, I'm just tired from being out all night and I need a few laughs. Now move.

Once Mr. Holder was set up in a secret location underneath Washington, D.C., he managed to make major headway using a laptop and his cell phone.

ANDREW: Heyyyyy, how are you?
FBI CHIEF: He's talking to one of the guys who was seen talking to our suspect at the bar.
ANDREW: Could you guys please be quiet? I'm working here.
FBI CHIEF: Sorry.
ANDREW: So who was that guy you were talking to? Michael? Right. Do you know his last--uh huh. Okay. Well, where is he from? Where did he go to school? In his profile picture, is he standing behind a waterfall?
FBI CHIEF: Wow, this guy gets right down to it.
ANDREW: Okay, great. By the way, what are you doing tonight? Well, I don't know, I kinda wanted to go out, but I have to do this thing for the F.B.I, and then I''ll probably be tired...

Eight hours later, there was a major breakthrough.

ANDREW: So we know he's probably friends with that shirtless kid he was dancing with on the box and that kid is friends with my friend Chris, so if you go to Chris' friends list, and look for the shirtless kid--
FBI CHIEF: He's there, but you can't view his Friends List unless you're friends with him, and we don't want to friend him and tip off the suspect.
ANDREW: I know! So annoying. But what I noticed was that shirtless guy is shirtless in his picture with another guy, which means they're--
FBI CHIEF: Slutty friends!
ANDREW: Right! And slutty friends always have virtually the same group of friends in their friends list, so I found the other shirtless guy, friended him, and sure enough, he recently became friends with a guy named Thomas.
FBI CHIEF: But our suspect's name is--
ANDREW: Can you let me finish?
FBI CHIEF: Sorry.
ANDREW: Thomas doesn't have a private profile--the fool. And when you scroll down on his info section, it doesn't say single, which means--
FBI CHIEF: Does it say relationship?
ANDREW: No.
FBI CHIEF: Which means--
ANDREW: He's in a secret relationship.
FBI CHIEF: Or he just likes to keep his private life private.
ANDREW: Hahaha that's a good one. Okay, so I looked up the 'Michael's this Thomas guy is friends with, and there are three. One is playing touch football outside of a church.
FBI CHIEF: Straight guy.
ANDREW: Probably a cousin. One is a photo of a toucan.
FBI CHIEF: Probably a spambot that he friended unknowingly.
ANDREW: And the third is a guy with tight jeans in a t-shirt on taking his own photo in a bathroom mirror, the phone obscuring his face.
FBI CHIEF: That's our guy!
ANDREW: Get your hottie decoy to friend him.
FBI UNDERLING: Already on it, Chief! He just accepted my friend request. He just checked in at the Starbucks down the street.
ANDREW: Speaking of which, I'm out of coffee.
FBI CHIEF: How can the Bureau ever repay you, Andrew?
ANDREW: Can I interrogate this guy? He's kind of hot.
FBI CHIEF: Um...no.

The world is safe again...until next time.

ANDREW: Hey, can I check my e-mail while I'm on here?

...Which probably will be fairly soon.

I'm Joyce Carol Oates' Half-Brother

2011-01-24T15:43:00.000-08:00
The big news in entertainment today was the revelation that Oprah has a half-sister.

A smaller news item that the media chose to pay little attention to was the fact that somebody else found out they have a half-sibling today:

Joyce Carol Oates.

Yes, I am Joyce Carol Oates' half-brother.

We were both thrilled to find each other after all these years.

Well, I was thrilled. JC (as I have taken to calling her) was taking it in a...different way.

"Perhaps I'll write a story where you force yourself upon me," she said, "And I'll call it--'Why Brother?'"

"Um, here's the thing Joy Joy," I said, and this was before I had taken to calling her JC, "I'm gay. Plus, I think people would actually assume I did force myself upon you, and--"

"It's even better if you're gay," she said, "Because then it would be about you forcing your fraudulent sexuality upon the world with me as a symbol of the society that both oppresses you and is deceived by you."

I'm not even sure what that means.

JC sat at her small, black table sipping her tea and watching spiders crawl across her hands. I would later find out that she keeps them as pets, and names them after famous writers who've killed themselves.

"I've always dreamed of killing myself," she said, "But then I worry that it won't be painful enough."

Up until now, I was worried that I had arrived early at some sort of costume party and she was dressed as Morticia from The Addams Family or Lily Munster from The Munsters, but...Wow, those two really are the same character, aren't they?

"Would you like a tour of the estate," she said, gesturing the abandoned ballroom we were sitting it, "I have eight rooms filled with photos of my forgotten youth."

"But how do you forget them if you have eight rooms with photos in them," I asked.

That was when she rang her little bell, and the little person from Twin Peaks entered dancing.

"Ah," she said, "That's better."

Something tells me I'm going to be skipping Thanksgiving.

Spring Fashion 2011, or The Year I Became Even More Confused

2011-01-24T12:51:00.000-08:00
GQ Online is reporting thoughts and observations about spring fashion for 2011. I figured they shouldn't be the only ones to have all the fun, so I'm joining in.

(This is when you say a prayer for me.)

http://www.gq.com/style/editors-picks/201009/new-york-fashion-week-reactions-spring-2011#slide=1

For the hipster who finds himself out in the rain...a lot. Is it a robe? Is a trench coat? Is a trench-colored snuggie? Who can tell? And who cares, really? When you're wearing brown sneakers with orange laces and carrying a leather messenger bag, you've clearly thrown coherency out the window.

http://www.gq.com/style/editors-picks/201009/new-york-fashion-week-reactions-spring-2011#slide=12

Do you find that your business meetings just aren't gay enough? Do you feel like looking like a character from Aha's "Take on Me" video? Well, you're in luck! Simon Spurr has created the perfect outfit for you. Caution: This suit is likely to cause seizures.

http://www.gq.com/style/editors-picks/201009/new-york-fashion-week-reactions-spring-2011#slide=16

Think we can't make these boots look gay? Think again! One little blue and purple strap, and you've gone from mountain climber to Pride parade float rider. Carry on.

http://www.gq.com/style/editors-picks/201009/new-york-fashion-week-reactions-spring-2011#slide=18

Um...

Maybe I'd better go back to writing about pop culture.

Is Anybody Excited About This?

2011-01-24T12:00:00.000-08:00
Recently, I was reading a magazine that outlined the big projects coming out in the upcoming year. Some of them I can't wait for--HBO's Game of Thrones series, Steven Spielberg's epic War Horse, and the final novel from David Foster Wallace.

Then there are those projects that the media is convinced I should be excited about, but alas, I'm not having it.

Take Pirates of the Carribbean: On Stranger Tides. Nobody seems to be pointing out that the first three movies were meant to be a trilogy, not a franchise. As a trilogy they worked fairly well, but watching Johnny Depp pull out his old Jack Sparrow costume for the fourth time made me groan in the theater. I realize this stuff is supposed to be the equivalent of cinematic comfort food, but if you're going to go back for a fourth round, shouldn't you at least have to come up with an exciting reason to? Based on the trailer, the only difference between this movie and what's already been done with the series is "Hey look! Penelope Cruz is in this one!"

Ditto for Scream 4. There should be a rule that if you promote a movie by promising it's going to be the last one, a la Pirates or Scream 3, then you should be forced to sign a contract ensuring that it is, in fact, the last one. I sat through the last Scream purely because I felt like I owed it to the franchise for scaring me to death back when I was twelve, but I'm not feeling any loyalty this time around.

On television, reality is about to get even bleaker. A&E is taking advantage of Intervention's popularity by creating a spin-off (that's right, you heard me, an Intervention spin-off) entitled Relapsed, where coaches will help people trying to stay on the wagon. TLC was actually thrilled to announce that they're doing an entire series on extreme coupon-ers. All things considered, it might be smart to crack a few more books this year.

Speaking of books, it's a little strange to me that Diane Keaton's memoir is drawing more attention than Wallace's posthumous work. I'd rather see Diane Keaton do another great movie than read about the ones she's already done. Tina Fey is also coming out with a book, but even though I love her, the book just seems to be a novelty item.

I don't mean to sound too pessimistic. There are an awful lot of things to be excited about in the coming year. For me, the exciting movies, tv shows and books are always the ones that take people by surprise. Nobody ever predicted that movies like The Hangover and True Grit were going to be blockbuster events when they came out.

Very few things can hurt a project more than too much hype.

Why Skins Is a Bad Show (And It's Not the Teenage Sex)

2011-01-21T10:28:00.000-08:00
The MTV show Skins has riled up a lot of people--particularly, but not surprisingly, the Parents Television Council. They're trying to get MTV to edit the show or risk facing child pornography charges for a future episode where the naked backside of a teenage actor is shown.

The show is a hit over in England, and if you watch a few of the episodes on BBC America, it would seem like the show was almost tailor-made to be brought to America. And what better home could it have than MTV? The channel that's been offending parents for years.

So what did I think about checking out the show?

Well...it's kind of...boring.

Okay, I'll just come out with it: It's a bad show.

And I'm not saying that because of the "offensive" elements of it. It takes a lot to offend me. What bothers me more about the show is the poor writing and the fact that the shocking aspects of the show aren't shocking at all.

Where has the PTC been the last ten years?

Teenage sex and drug use on television has been around since the original 90210. A big deal is being made about the fact that these teenagers are being played by actual teenagers--as if somehow it's not as bad watching the kids on Glee cavorting around in skimpy cheerleader outfits because in reality they're in their late twenties.

Am I the only one who remembers the early days of Britney in the schoolgirl uniform?

Skins isn't the most sexually provocative thing ever put on the air. That would be a show called Undressed that aired ten years ago where every episode feature three different couples--one of them a high school couple--having sex, talking about the sex they just had, and then having more sex.

I would venture to say that reality shows like Teen Mom and Jersey Shore do way more to influence the way kids behave, and the behavior on those shows isn't scripted.

It seems like nowadays if you to get a show on television, just tell some network honcho that the premise is "teenagers have sex and do drugs" and you'll be good to go. The WB-turned-CW built an entire network around that concept. Maybe that's why when I'm watching Skins, I just feel like I'm watching a rerun of some other show from a decade ago.

I don't find Skins to be worthy of all this attention. Chances are, attention is what MTV was hoping for in the first place, because attention and bad publicity turn into killer ratings. Remember all the flack Jersey Shore first got when it premiered? Now it's become a tent pole of the network.

If the PTC really wanted to shut down Skins, they shouldn't have said a word about it. A show that bad without any controversy surrounding it probably would have just faded away quietly.

Instead, we're probably going to have ten more shows like it in development by the time I'm done writing this post.

Can a Bad Movie Kill Your Oscar Chances?

2011-01-19T22:46:00.000-08:00
With the Oscar race heating up, a close race can be decided by a number of factors.

One of the closer races may be the Best Leading Actress race where Annette Benning and Natalie Portman will be battling it out. Benning is a multiple nominee who has never won, but Portman turned in a career-best performance in Black Swan. She was awarded the Golden Globe this Sunday, but Benning was as well for her turn in The Kids Are All Right, because the Globes split up Comedies and Dramas.

Still, the edge usually goes to the actress who takes home the Drama award, but in this case, something else may end up costing Portman her little gold man.

The Eddie Murphy factor.

That's right, Natalie Portman and the former SNL funnyman turned megastar turned...well, not-so-megastar may have something in common.

Both may fall victim to an ill-timed bad movie killing their chances at an Oscar.

When Murphy was nominated for Dreamgirls a few years back, he went into the race as the favorite. Hollywood loves a comeback, and his performance was pure electricity.

Then Norbit came out.

What can be said about Norbit?

It was...

Perhaps one of the worst movies ever made.

And it probably cost Murphy his Oscar.

When voters are trying to figure out who to give the most prestigious award in film too, having billboards of yourself dressed in a fat suit probably won't help your case.

The situation was so unusual and sad that it even became a gag on the television show 30 Rock.

And now it may happen again, albeit to someone you wouldn't expect to see in a lowbrow movie.

Granted, No Strings Attached is no Norbit. It just happens to be what looks like a lousy, cliched relationship movie starring Ashton Kutcher...and Natalie Portman.

Hey, you can't fault the girl for wanting to make some money.

You could argue that perhaps the film is decent, but if it was, there's a good chance the studios wouldn't be releasing it in January.

And you have to hand it them, they're probably thrilled to be able to capitalize on Portman's nomination to help legitimize the film, when in fact, the opposite may happen.

No Strings Attached may attach itself to Portman and drag her down with it.

The Child Stenographer

2011-01-19T22:20:00.000-08:00
When I was a kid, I earned money by typing out letters for my stepfather.

He ran a non-profit organization, and he would often have to send out letters to different businesses asking for sponsorship.

I would get ten dollars for every letter I typed out (your first clue that my stepfather wasn't exactly a professional when it came to making money) and it wouldn't usually take me very long.

...Except when I would decide to...let's say...edit some of his letters.

Admittedly this happened...pretty much every time.

I don't know if it was early onset control freak-ism or the fact that I genuinely wanted to help my stepfather acquire funds, but I couldn't help but...correct him.

Most of the time I could get away with it, but not when he'd dictate to me.

"Uh, do you really want to say 'I'm not trying to kiss your ass, but--'" I'd ask.
"Yeah," he'd say, "That's what I'm saying."
"But don't you think there's a better way to say it?"
"Yeah, you're right. Put 'I'm not trying to blow smoke up your ass, but--"

I'd sigh, and quietly write "I certainly wouldn't want to give you the impression that I'm trying to--"

"Hey! What are you writing there? That's not what I said."
"What you said is something a longshoreman would say to a woman in a short dress."
"Is that a bad thing?"
"Ugh."
"Is a longshoreman like a fireman?"

Inevitably, my mother would come downstairs to see what we were arguing about.

"He keeps trying to make me sound stupid," my stepfather would complain.

I would dramatically toss his ten dollars on the ground and go to my room, as if my services as a typist were in high demand. I almost wanted to add--

"You'll never see my face in this computer room/laundry room again!"

My mother would come to my room and tell me that I should patience with my stepfather. That he has to run his business his way, and that if I offer my help to my someone, I do it on their terms, not mine. Otherwise, I'm not really helping at all.

"Fine," I said, "Then you help him."

She'd reiterate that it was all about patience, and then she'd go downstairs to finish typing out my stepfather's letter.

Maybe she's right, I'd think to myself in bed, maybe I just need to learn to have more patience.

Then, from downstairs, I'd hear the sound of my mother's voice...

"You can't say it that way! They'll think you're brain damaged!"

Like mother, like son.

Coming Out on Myspace

2011-01-19T15:26:00.001-08:00

A friend of mine recently made his entire Facebook profile private for a few days until changing it back to its original setting.
When I asked if something he had happened, he told me that he had applied for a job interview and he was worried that if they looked him up online they would see that he was gay, and that it would cost him the job.
"Isn't that illegal," I asked.
"Well," he said, "It's illegal for them to outright deny me the job because I'm gay, but if they find out I'm gay, and decide they don't want to hire me, who's to know?"
Something like my friend's scenario isn't specifically a gay issue. Employers are going online to find out all sorts of things about their potential employees. But my friend doesn't have embarrassing photos of himself out drinking, or doing drugs. He doesn't have obscene wall posts or anything that would make him look like an unreliable worker.
Yet he was still worried about losing a job just because he's gay--and probably for good reason.
The new trend of bosses hunting around online has made it possible for old prejudices to be put into effect--albeit silently, thereby taking away the recourses of the person who isn't hired.
The Internet has become the new closet through which people grappling with their sexuality have to worry about stepping out of.
I experienced it myself when I went on Myspace after an absence of a few years. I was just curious to see if my page was still there, and after a few tries at the forgotten password, I managed to get access to my old account.
One of the late night comedians said it, and it's true--Myspace is sort of like the Internet's abandoned amusement park now that Facebook has taken over.
I planned on just deleting the page altogether, but there were some nice comments made by my friends and a few photos I liked, so I decided to just leave it up.
That was when I noticed that the Interested In box still said "Women."
Wow, I thought, it really has been a long time.
I corrected it and then logged off, never once thinking it would cause any trouble. After all, who goes on Myspace anymore anyway?
Within an hour, I received three phone calls from my mother. I'm out to her, but there are members of my family that I'm not close with who don't know I'm gay. It's not a conscious decision on my part, it's just that we never see each other and short of holding a family reunion to announce to everyone that I like boys, I figured it didn't matter or not whether they found out.
Had I known they'd be finding out through Myspace, I might have just had that family reunion.
One of my cousins had seen my updated profile, and called my aunt, who called my grandmother, who called my mom.
By the time my mom called me, the news was all over the family.
"I don't care that you're gay," my mom reiterated, "I just think there are better ways to let people know. Why even put that information out there?"
My mom means well, she really does. She was worried that being gay and out online means that some crazy guy might decide to track you down and attack you. These days, it's not an altogether illogical way of thinking.
Still, I can't past the Straight factor. If a straight person doesn't have to worry about posting photos of their spouse or significant other online, why should I have to?
It bothered me that I had underestimated the power of the Internet. I have a new joke amongst my friends that the biggest gossip we know is our own Facebook feed. It's almost as if social networking sites are designed to point out to people the juiciest and most revealing things that their friends or family are putting online. Yet I still thought I could throw a personal item about myself out there and it would just sink like a stone in a lake.
Well be careful, because those stones may sink for a moment, but after awhile, everything floats to the top.

Can We Ever Get Over the "F" Word?

2011-01-19T01:10:00.000-08:00
On February 13th, the Grammy awards may find themselves getting bleeped--and for good reason.

One of the songs up for both Record of the Year and Song of the Year is Cee Lo Green's upbeat "F**k You." The song was all over the airwaves last year, complete with a parody version being performed by William Shatner on George Lopez and a G-rated version done by Gwenyth Paltrow on Glee.

The latter also gets radio play and is entitled "Forget You" (as you probably guessed, most stations can't air a song entitled "F**k You," although some have been brave enough to play a third version entitled "'F' You").

Green says he dislikes the edited versions, and you can't really fault him for that. He wrote a song called "F**k You" and even bloggers like me aren't allowed to write the actual name of the song down without offending someone.

And really--why should it?

The song isn't about sex. Arguably what makes the word "f**k" shocking is the crude way it describes sexual intercourse. Yet, in Green's song, it's referring to the word's second meaning, and the fact that the word "forget" can be used interchangeably with it and still have the song make sense should tell you how harmless the actual word really is in the context of the song.

I'm hesitant to even broach this argument, because whenever I do, I find myself hounded by people from a more polite background who cite the commonality of curse words as a sign that the world is crumbling into a cesspool of immorality.

To be honest, though, I find one of the more refreshing trends of the past ten years to be the fact that we've all kind of gotten over cursing as a large social taboo.

Maybe it happened after 9/11 as part of the larger cultural shift that occurred. Maybe we finally started to realize that there are more harmful things in this world than words like "shit" and "asshole."

Suddenly you started seeing these words creep their way into television shows, and not just HBO or Showtime shows, but shows on ABC, NBC, and even (gasp) CBS.

People just kind of got over it, and I thought it was great.

After all, what's the difference between calling someone an "asshole" and calling them an idiot? What's the difference between something someone's lame argument is "bullshit" or "a pile of crap?" Everybody knows what you're talking about when you tell someone to go screw themselves. You're telling them to f**k off, and yet I still keep those asterisks in place.

Why?

Well...admittedly...the word makes me nervous.

It's the final frontier. The last obscenity we haven't been able to conquer.

Say it more than once in your movie and you still risk getting an R-rating. Say it in front of your parents and you're probably getting a lecture. And don't even think of saying it on Grey's Anatomy.

The lack of the "F" word in television and movies has always bothered me more than anything. It's one thing to say that "F" word is inappropriate in schools and offices, but what's worse than watching a war movie where all the soldiers talk like ladies at a garden party?

It's hard for me to even entertain a show about "blue collar policemen" or "blue collar firemen" who just happen to never say anything worse than "damn."

I mean, c'mon, what the hell?

(Can I say "hell?")

It seems, however, like we might be on the verge of overtaking the "F" bomb.

Not only is Green's song up for two of the most prestigious awards in the music business, but Enrique Iglesias's new single "Tonight" prominently features the "F" word on the album version of the song. (And he's using the word in its, well, let's just say its more literal meaning.)

This spring, the play Motherf**ker with the Hat written by Stephen Adly Guirgis and starring Chris Rock, will be opening on Broadway.

The "F" word is no longer just appearing in dirty books and magazines. It's going to be on a Broadway marquee for crying out loud!

So when will we get over this obsession we have with four-letter words?

Personally, I don't have a f**king clue.