Coolest Night of My Life

And that's really only a slight exaggeration.

An ex-coworker of mine is now working on a pilot as a writer's assistant. This new pilot he's working on is entitled "Barenaked Ladies Project" and yes, that is the Barenaked Ladies, of "Brian Wilson" fame. Apparently they really want to do a TV show. And last night they had to film some of the concert superstitials (or at least that's what I think the word is). They also recorded the new theme song for the show.

So I got to hang out back stage for this and watch them perform. Before they let in the masses, the band recorded some other stuff for the show that didn't require a crowd and it was pretty nifty to watch them actually record a song.

Even cooler, I met all the band members. Even got to make Steven Page and Jim Creegan laugh. Steven, by the way, is looking mighty adorable these days -- even in his hazmat suit. (The show will explain) Luckily, despite my several year crush on him and the rest of the band, I managed not to make a total ass out of myself. Not an easy feat.

I also got a copy of the script for the pilot and it was actually hysterical. The show is a bit like the Monkees' show was...but funny. A whole lot of funny. There's a lot of talk about goat wrestling. Nothing beats goat wrestling.

However, some might say the highlight of the night was the moment I stood next to Jason "Brandon Walsh" Priestly of "Beverly Hills, 90210" fame and exchanged a brief "Hey". But then again, getting the BNL treatment of Duran Duran's "Rio" was also pretty freaking sweet.

The Fragile Nature of Friendship

In the past couple of months I've lost several very close friends. Oh, nothing bad happened to them, it's just that the friendships went the way of so much else in this world and we are no longer in touch. One of these relationships was with someone I've known since I was in 10th grade. Another was more recent, since 2000. But the end of both were equally devastating.

I don't know if it's just me, and that is quite likely, but as I've grown older friends that I've had for years have fallen by the wayside. Either we started to lead totally divergent lives or on rarer occasions, we would have major falling outs. No matter how it happened, out of all the people I've been close to over the years, only a few chosen few remain.

Now I'm not going to get into some overly emotional diatribe on how we need to cherish each other or anything like that. I think we all know that we need to value the people in our lives that matter to us. It's not really a far stretch of the imagination. But I do wonder about how easily it is sometimes to slip in and out of people's lives and see them come and go in ours. In a way it's like people we once dated; at one point they were our worlds, we couldn't live or breathe without them. We break up and it's devastating. But as time passes, the pain lessens and eventually you don't really remember having them in your life that way. If nothing else, the fact that time can diminish emotional pain is a wonderful defense mechanism. I could not imagine reliving the same pain everyday for the rest of my life.

All that being said, I have been thinking a lot about the people I had once been so close with and now I don't even know what state they live in. I'll never be one of those people who go around talking about embracing and everyone at every moment. But it is worth thinking about those who have made us who we are and those who keep us who we are and try to hold onto them as best we can. If nothing else, they are good for a cup of coffee when it's cold outside and chuckle when it's cold inside.

Can a Woman be a Scientist?

There has been a big brouhaha around the recent remarks of the President of Harvard University about women and science and math.

Unfortunately there were no transcripts of the speech and so we are all left to speculate.

Apparently he said that women aren't really able to succeed in those fields the same way men do mostly because of the lifestyle choices they end up making, such as wanting to have children and raise a family, are at odds with the demanding careers of science and math. He also apparently sited biologic differences as a culprit.

A lot of people, especially women, have decided that such statement are wholly unfair to women and just deepen the already present discrimination against women in the sciences. They feel that Harvard itself should take back this statement that in their eyes reads as Harvard feeling that women aren't as good at math and science.

Here's the thing, though, that's not what he said. From what I've been able to gather, he never said women can't do math or science or aren't good at it. He just made a statement that they might not advance as far because there is a difference between the sexes, and that difference can effect the career outcomes. This makes perfect sense to me.

Growing up the daughter of a very strong women's libber, it took some time for me to comfortable with saying that there are differences between men and woman, beyond the dangly bits, of course. Neither sex is better or worse, but they are two wholly different creatures who think and act in wholly different manners. It is an insult to women to say they are the same as men, and vice versa. These statements can be made without any sort of judgment being applied to them. This is not that same as Orwell's "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Anyone who denies these differences is denying the inherent positives that each sex has and by the same token the possible issues each has to deal with. Women are the ones who have children and almost all of the time are the ones who raise them. Despite the current mindset, it is very hard to really dedicate yourself to your family AND your career. It sucks, but it's true, you end up having to make some sort of choice in the matter. If you choose your family, you must be aware that your career will suffer. If you are a scientist perhaps that means that you will not be as ahead in your research as your male counterparts. This is no way suggests that you cannot do the research or are dumber than your peers. It just means you might not have the time or energy to devote that they do.

As for the biological difference, I'm not as informed but I have heard quite a lot about the biological differences and the way men and women think as a consequence. It is not unlikely that the average man might be better at math or science while the average women is better at something like language. Again, this doesn't imply judgement, just a factual difference.

Maybe since I am a woman I should be as equally offended as everyone else seems to be.
But to me, this just makes sense.

Some Thoughts on the Awards Season

For those of you who couldn't care less, and I know you're out there, now is what the media has loving deemed the "awards season" for Hollywood. All the various guilds and groups and consortiums and committees are handing out honors and prizes like so much candy on Halloween. Actors, directors, writers and perhaps even foley artists are the toasts of the town for a couple of months. And on occasion, on a rare occasion, everyone gets it right.

This past weekend saw the Hollywood Foreign Press association dole out the Golden Globe awards. They didn't make any insanely egregious errors (I have no problem with Nip/Tuck winning best TV drama) and they even made a few excellent calls, such as Jason Bateman winning for Best actor in a TV comedy. But most people tend to think that the GG's are a poor man's Oscar, the second prize in the pie eating contest, or just a huge laughing stock.

The big guns, as we all know, now shoot out at the end of February. They used to hand out the Oscars at the end of March, but the three month campaigns were getting to be too much for anyone to handle or want to pay attention to. Nominations are announced this year on January 25th and then the studios have almost a month to convince Academy voters that their movie really wasn't so much shit put onto celluloid.

Now, heaven forefend anyone think that I am not a rabid fan of the Oscars. I ensconce myself in front of the television from the moment everyone starts arriving on the red carpet to the final strains of the orchestra playing everyone out of the Kodak Theatre. I try to see all the movies that are nominated and engage in long and sometimes angry discussions with people over the various categories. I won't watch ten minutes of the Golden Globes, but I won't miss ten seconds of the Oscars.

However, as I've grown up and some might even say matured, the Oscars, the SAG awards, the New York Film Critics Circle awards, they've lost a bit of their oomph, a smidgen of their pizazz. Perhaps it's the fact that world has become a darker place in recent years, and even the gold lamee of Nicole Kidman's Dior can't make the sun shine all the time. Or perhaps it's realization that just like the elections for student council president, it's all a popularity contest with the cool kids winning all the great awards and sitting up front while the nerds have to wait for the brush off Documentary categories and watch from the nosebleed seats. Or perhaps I don't care anymore because I've realized that while I love movies and to some extent the entire society that is Hollywood, it really has no real baring on my life and I can still enjoy the spectacle of the season without making it the central focus of my life.

All that being said and understood who the hell gave Leonardo DiCaprio the Golden Globe over Johnny Depp? I mean seriously, c'mon!

What the Hell is Wrong with Married People?

Ok, so not all married people (or Smug Marrieds to use the Bridget Jones vernacular) are jerks. But quite a few are. And unfortunately, I feel like I know a lot of them.

I am a 28 year old single woman. I have 2 more years before I become a statistic and I have a better chance of getting struck by lightening than finding someone. Don't think this hasn't crossed my mind a few thousand times a day. It's not like I have been in any crazy rush to get married. Of course while all my friends were getting hitched at the tender age of 20 or 21, I thought calmly, "I can wait till I'm 27. What's the hurry?" Problem is 27 came and went, and here I am, still single.

The problem starts when my friends ask me how I am and how my life is.
(Note: in general my life ain't so great, but I'm alive and barely breathing so nothing too major)

I tell my friends that while I am also looking for that great job in New York, and for that great living situation (aka away from my family in LA), one of the bigger issues in my life is the fact that I am alone with no respite in sight.

While they try to sympathic, for the most part they give me a lecture.
"So what if you're single? Marriage isn't everything."
I never said it was.

"Isn't it more important to find a job than a man? Who cares if you aren't with someone?"
Yes, finding a job I love is more important...right now. As I get older, the whole man thing gains importance.

"Oh it's no big deal. You'll find someone eventually."
Oh really? No big deal? And please define "eventually".

And this just keeps going and going.

Personally I am having a very hard time hearing that I should be patient from people who no longer have this to worry about. I'm sure they figure, eh, I found my person, so will everyone else. But that's not true. Not everyone finds another person to love and who will love them. There are quite a few people out there who still buy enough groceries for only 1 person. Just because you found someone who can tolerate your idiocy doesn't mean that will happen for the rest of us.

I am sure some of these people have not yet wholly forgotten what it is like to feel alone and unwanted. But these feelings have faded, like the memories of the SAT's. You remember the stress and the angst, but it just doesn't matter anymore. I have a hard time imagining they really know how I feel. That doesn't mean at one point they didn't, but right now they surely don't.

I know most of these people are just trying to be comforting, to make me feel better, but they are really not helping.

The Real Phantom of the Opera

Despite many many reviews urging me to stay away, far away, due to rain and a need to sit and dry my feet, I saw "The Phantom of the Opera". I should have listened to all those reviews.

It was only a matter of time before the uber-successful stage show was turned into a movie. With the success of "Moulin Rouge" and "Chicago", musicals are no longer considered taboo in Hollywood. However, unlike "Moulin Rouge" and "Chicago" the source material for Phantom is crap. Utter and complete garbage. The flimsiest of stories paired with the most bombastic, with a serious helping of ridiculous melodrama does not equal good movie. It barely equaled good show.

A major part of the problem that no one seemed to have realized is that what works on stage does not really work on the big screen. Exaggerated and overblown emotions can create a sense of immediacy in a live performance. Not always, of course, but there are occasions where loud and overenthusiastic music makes a point in a musical. But when all this is splashed on the screen, without the orchestra or the distance from the stage to the seat, it can seem garish and silly. And this is what happened with Phantom.

All this aside, the movie could be have serviceable. Alas.

Emmy Rossum played Christine, the ingenue who has been taught by the Phantom and is the object of his creepy affections. She sang the role and has quite a lovely voice. However, she needs some serious acting lessons. She spent the entire 3 hours in a trance, barely moving her lips let alone emoting. The only reason I knew she was the one singing was because I'd heard about it before seeing the movie. Gerard Butler played the dangerous and mysterious Phantom. The fact that his Phantom was only minorly deformed wasn't his fault. The fact that his Phantom could barely sing, was. The role, made famous by Michael Crawford, is full of angry and pained arias that require a bit vocal dexterity. Unfortunately Mr. Butler needed a lot more limbering up to perform the role properly. Patrick Wilson played Raoul, the non-deformed man after Christine's love. Most recently Mr. Wilson was in "Angels in America" and his character's lack of personality was a plus. In Phantom the fact that this Raoul has no personality is a major detraction. The only amusing character was Minnie Driver's Carlotta, the coloratura diva who Christine replaced in the opera company. She was amusingly over the top and it was no matter that she didn't do her own singing. She provided a few well needed laughs.

It was a beautiful movie. The colors, the sets, the costumes were all breathtaking. However, none of that could stop me from realizing what a disaster the rest of the movie was. Directed by Joel Schumacher, the auteur who brought us the mindnumbingly awful "Batman and Robin", one might say this Phantom never had a chance. Starting with Sir Lloyd Weber's material, Scorsese could have directed the movie and it would have never had a chance.

I suggest everyone else do what I didn't and stay far far away.

Some Unpleasant News

Got a call from my doctor today.

A couple of weeks ago I went back for some tests.

Apparently there were some "worrisome irregularities".

No one is quite sure what yet.

Requires more testing.

Sigh.