An open theoretical letter

to that one guy...

To start off, I apologize for touching your hair all those months ago if you found that weird which I imagine you did, at least to some degree. But I really wanted to touch it and I was probably never going to see you again so I had to do it then and there. Your hair is very nice and blonde and soft. And I'm pretty sure it's natural. It's very blonde.

What are you doing these days? I looked up on the Internet what kinds of things are considered normal conversation topics because I'm predisposed to talking about strange things like murder, drug addicts, various actors/musicians/etc that I like, Law and Order (that's a big one) and a certain political commentator who I call eyelashes guy (because he has long magnificent eyelashes, obviously). So, those are topics that I probably would talk about but have consciously attempted to avoid at this point because I barely know anything about you. But now you know some stuff about me. Although like I said I will try to talk about things that are considered "normal conversation topics" such as what did you do last weekend, or what do you like to eat, what are you studying, or what's your favorite TV show, etc. (Mine, like I said before, is Law and Order.)

I'm quite worried that this comes across as very, exceedingly weird. But my friend says I need to take more initiative and maybe I will have more success with this than on the online dating website which I mostly use at this point as a kind of exercise in people watching for when I'm bored. Also said by this friend is that if someone they sort of knew of from high school contacted them out of the blue, they would probably respond and have a conversation and following this point is that please don't make me regret this. Come to think of it, that's kind of a... loaded statement. If you really don't like me or something or you think I'm just way too weird (which I wouldn't blame you for) then feel free to indeed make me regret this and just ignore it or say something mean back. I won't bother you anymore if you do that although I will be kind of sad that what my friend said turned out not to happen. Oh yeah, another reason that you could possibly decide not to interact with me is that you have a girlfriend already. In which case the aforementioned applies too.

I wanted to lay it all out there because I will admit that I'm... different/eccentric/other similar words, as you possibly may have gathered from reading this. And I didn't want to begin with a pretense of normality like what I expect other people would be like. Even if you do have a girlfriend (or boyfriend if you happen to be gay... that's always a possibility) then I would settle for just being friends because mostly I think you look like a model and I would just like to look at you and theoretically photograph you even if you don't actually date me.

The end. If you found me in some way to be someone that you'd actually feel like talking to, then by all means please do. Or if I'm just too weird for you, I understand and you can just decide not to talk to me. I have barely any idea what you're like so who knows how you'll react to this!

Deryueglaadsdhiecsts

(the title is a combination of the words "drug addicts" and "eyelashes")

I was reading about the movies about drug addicts that I've watched recently and came across this choice line in a NYT article... 
"As the junkie Harry, a wasted pretty boy, he seems kept aloft by his eyelashes, the only substantial thing on his frame."

What a quote!! I don't think I have to spell it out as to why I find this quote quite pleasing to have read. Also, the next sentence: "Superficially, it might be easy to confuse the protagonists of '''Requiem'' with the models in a Calvin Klein Jeans ad of a few years ago."

Here is the review that these quotes came from if you'd like to read it in full.

Also, here is another relevant quote. 
"Did you enjoy Darren Aronosky leading you by the hand to the brink of suicide, only to leave you tottering there above an abyss of despair? If so, you’re a bit weird. But don’t worry, you’re not alone; and neither is ‘Requiem for a Dream’. For more of the same spirit-crushing depression, check out ‘The Panic in Needle Park’, ‘Christiane F.’ or ‘What About Me?’" ~ Jonny Sweet

Here is a short little blurb about the two movies.

I just wanted to put this out there.

Movie review: The Panic in Needle Park

Today I was bored because I don't have anywhere to go and so I've just been sitting in the house and decided to try and find something on Netflix to watch. I at first considered some movie that Vincent had been in a couple of years ago and also co-produced (or something like that) but it didn't have particularly good reviews so I thought it might end up being a waste of time (sorry Vincent). So, I decided to watch another movie in the same vein (no puns intended) as Requiem for a Dream (which I would willingly watch a third time, in fact - other people have considered it to be a movie they never want to see again because it's too depressing or something, but I could watch it yet another time...). This movie was from 1971, nearly 30 years before Requiem for a Dream was made although the book Requiem for a Dream was published I think around that time. This movie also apparently was based off of a book but I'm not aware of any particular details about that book. It took place in New York, on the west side of Manhattan, presumably in the 70s compared to Requiem for a Dream taking place in the Bronx (in the book) or Brooklyn (in the movie). Regardless, it's all New York City. 

There were a number of similarities to Requiem for a Dream (although technically, just based off the movies, Requiem is the one which would have been taking cues from Panic in Needle Park. However, I don't know when the respective books were published so it's possible it went the other way around.) however the movies have distinctively different story arcs/effects. The themes are perhaps not quite as different seeing as both movies are about drug addicts, but I do think they are kind of different. One of the interesting similarities to Requiem is in the beginning, the main male character steals a television to sell at a pawn shop although the particulars are a little different - in Requiem Harry takes his mother's tv (which, we see, has been a recurring event) but in this movie the main character (Bobby, which you have to remember is not the same as Bobby from Law and Order) steals the tv out of the back of a truck. Another particular similarity is a line that the main female character (Marion in Requiem, Helen in this movie) says - Marion is going out to dinner with her therapist in order to borrow money from him and she imagines stabbing him in the hand with a fork and screaming at him "YOU SMUG SON OF A BITCH!!!" In this movie, Helen screams this line (minus the smug part, although I do think that would have fit in her case as well) at a cop who did her a favor but wants her to snitch on her boyfriend. Which leads me onto the next subject here. In this movie, a part of the plot is about the characters' run ins with law enforcement because they're using drugs/dealing drugs/being a prostitute in order to get money for drugs, the like. This isn't as prominent in Requiem for a Dream. There is a pair of cops who are after Bobby and his drug dealing accomplices. One of them talks to Helen multiple times in an effort to get her to turn in Bobby.For some reason, I just couldn't see him as a cop. Maybe it was the way he looked. He kind of resembled pop stars of the 80s. I think it was the hair. Plus neither of them had badges, which I thought was weird. In Law and Order the detectives are always wearing their badges. In any case I just didn't really like that character. He rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. 

I thought this movie had a bit of an anticlimactic ending. It just kind of ended. It didn't have quite as defined of a story arc as Requiem for a Dream does. I guess perhaps the assumption is that in the end the characters continue to live on in the way that they did during the movie. Requiem for a Dream definitely has more of an impact on the viewer, I think. It also has the visual side of things going for it as well - just as far as the way the movie looks, it's rather pleasing even though it's about drug addicts. This movie, being made in the early 70s, does look a bit dated and 70s-ish. Not that that's bad, it just is something to note. 

I went and read some stuff about this movie and one thing said that it was the Requiem for a Dream of its time, which is a pretty good description.

Movie review: Reservation Road

I have had a lot of time to be watching movies lately, hence the amount of movie review posts. The latest movie that I watched is called Reservation Road and it had one of the actresses from Requiem for a Dream in it and also Mark Ruffalo. The fact that I was at least somewhat familiar with these actors was part of why I decided to watch it, but I also thought the plot seemed interesting. The movie is about two families in New England, one of which has their son killed in a hit and run accident. The father of the other family is the one who was driving and killed the kid. The premise is rather interesting in and of itself; as the movie progresses we learn that these two men (the father of the dead kid and the guy who killed said kid but whose own son is still alive and well) end up crossing paths in interesting ways although the man with the dead kid is unaware that the other guy is to blame. 

I actually was rather impressed with Mark Ruffalo's performance in this movie and I was surprised by that. I didn't exactly expect that I'd think he did particularly well in this role. I think perhaps this was because of the writing rather than his acting ability - for example, I liked Tom Cruise in Born on the 4th of July but didn't enjoy Vanilla Sky. I like Vincent in Law and Order but I won't watch Men in Black because as far as I'm aware he has a rather cheesy role in that movie. I think Mark Ruffalo sort of perhaps looks better with shorter hair actually like he had in this movie rather than longer hair like in other movies. Although I think he should get his chest hair waxed or something... there was a scene where I caught a glimpse of it and there was a decent amount of it and personally I don't like lots of chest hairs. I wonder if he has back hair as well... 

Sort of interestingly, I found myself sympathizing with Mark Ruffalo's character (the one who hit the other guy's kid and just drove away) more so than the father of the kid who was killed. I'm not really sure why, honestly, because you'd think that one would sympathize with the man whose son was killed by a driver who then left the scene. Perhaps what influenced it was that Mark Ruffalo's character was divorced and only got to see his son sometimes, otherwise he was in the care of the ex wife. Mark Ruffalo's character definitely tried to be a good father/make his son happy (they shared a love of baseball) so perhaps that was part of it. Also, the other guy had a crop of facial hair and heavy eyebrows and honestly looked kind of creepy. And, he began to have problems in his marriage due to how he and his wife (played by the actress who played a drug addict in Requiem for a Dream) were trying to deal with the aftermath of their son's death - he was very angry at the unknown person who had killed his son and was dwelling on it and was contemplating taking justice into his own hands because he believed the police were inept. His wife on the other hand wanted to focus on their remaining child and being there for her rather than steeping in anger about the accident. SPOILERS to come. (highlight between the # symbols with cursor to read) 
# The man whose son was killed eventually does decide to take justice into his own hand and goes out to buy a gun which he then goes to Mark Ruffalo's character's house and threatens him with it (while his son is about to go to sleep in the next room), forces him into the trunk of his car, drives somewhere else and continues to threaten to kill him. A) that's called kidnapping and B) if this were Law and Order and I were Jack McCoy, I would totally prosecute the guy who kidnapped and threatened to kill Mark Ruffalo's character. I mention this because the other day I watched a Law and Order (original version) episode where a mother whose daughter was killed sneaks a gun into the courtroom and shoots the suspect while he testifies. McCoy wants to prosecute the mother because she ended up killing the suspect and people shouldn't take justice into their own hands. His colleagues tell him that no jury will convict the mother because they probably wanted the suspect to be dead as well. However, in Reservation Road, I found the man whose son was killed to be not that sympathetic and I would theoretically prosecute him for the kidnapping. I would build my case by portraying him as unhealthily obsessed with his son's death and unable to let go of his immense anger, which he took out by ruthlessly threatening/attempting to kill the man he believed was responsible. Of course, I'm not a lawyer so this is all just amateur theorizing. Regardless, it's kind of interesting to think about. 
# end spoilers.

All in all I would recommend this movie; I thought it was interesting and I thought Mark Ruffalo did a good job in portraying his role. It reminded me a little bit of the book/movie Charlie St. Cloud in that they both involved baseball fans and car accidents. 

To have or not to have an affair

(mind you, the title does not mean that I am the person considering whether to have an affair or not)

As you may know I am kind of a fan of reading advice columns. In the olden days, I used to read the two (I think) columns that run in the Style section of the Washington Post, one of which is written by a lady named Carolyn and there are interesting little cartoons to accompany the columns (some days, at least). Now, I mostly read Slate's advice column and sometimes the NYT's Ethicist column although I have not read that one recently. 

One column that I read recently on Slate was about a person whose relative had gotten drunk and killed someone in an accident while driving. Obviously, this is an unfortunate situation to be in for both the relative and the person seeking advice. Another person was seeking advice on whether or not she should have an affair with a friend because her husband never wants to have sex with her even though she prances around in expensive fancy underwear. Firstly, an affair is very usually not a good idea which I would assume most people are aware of just due to common sense. Apparently this lady is not and thinks it could possibly have the chance of turning out well. The best solution, with the information given, is probably that she should get a divorce so she can sleep with people however often she likes. Maybe she could become a prostitute if she's so starved for sex. (please realize I'm being a little facetious here.) And she'd even be able to make money off of it that way. Although, it would definitely be a good idea for her to perhaps talk with her husband about this situation - perhaps he could offer some insight on why he doesn't want to have sex with her. Maybe he doesn't find her attractive. Or maybe he needs a prescription for Viagra. Maybe he finds it unappealing how clamorous she is about wanting to have sex and that puts him off even more from wanting to roll around naked in bed with her (or maybe not in bed. Maybe they are the type of people who like to do it in the shower, or in a tent underneath the night sky, or in a public place, etc). Etc. In my personal opinion, being married to someone like that (the wife, not the husband) would decidedly be a nightmare. It would be just unappealing to be married to someone who's always begging to have sex. Our advice column lady says she "doesn't see how he can be a good husband" if he doesn't have sex with his wife barely ever. Maybe he just doesn't like it. Some people aren't particularly fond of physical affection. 

In any case, this lady wouldn't have this problem in the first place if she hadn't married him - presumably she was aware that he didn't like to have sex that often before she married him. If it was so important to her to have sex a lot then maybe she should have married someone else who had similar desires. I guess she could always become a prostitute... although of course, I can't say that that would have any better of an outcome for her marriage as having an affair. She could just tell her husband that it's strictly business... I wonder if she has considered that option, to become a prostitute. It seems like it would satisfy her desire to have sex, at the very least. And like I said before, she could get paid for doing it, so... it couldn't really be all that bad. Or... assuming she fits his type, she could try to have an affair with Donald Trump because he really loves the ladies as various things that have come to light have revealed. And she would get lots of publicity for this, probably, assuming the affair became public knowledge, and it could be like Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton and Donald Trump could end up getting impeached! I see no losers here. Due to the publicity, she could find even more men to sleep with. She seems like the kind of person who wouldn't be totally opposed to having an affair with Donald Trump (never mind his orange wrinkly skin and those tiny hands.... he says there's no problem, but is he being honest??) because she apparently sees no issue with the concept of having an affair, so does it really matter who it's with? Are some affairs more wrong than others? A theoretical scenario: say you are a secretary of a large company and you have an affair with a married coworker. Or, say you are still a secretary but in this scenario you have the affair with the CEO of the company, but he's not married (although he is perhaps dating someone else). Which affair is more wrong? Or are they both the same amount of wrong? Are some animals more equal than others??

Also

Some miscellaneous additional thoughts on Requiem for a Dream.
I decided to watch it again (I must be an emotional masochist) and anyways the second time around for watching anything you can pay attention to all the little details more.
One thing I wonder about is how Jared Leto got to be so pale for that movie. He's quite pale in this movie. I wonder if there was any intentional action on his part to obtain the pale complexion - did he stay indoors for the summer? (I guess if I looked at what time of year it was filmed it might give me some insight into if Jared Leto potentially had to spend a whole summer indoors so as to palen up for the role)
In addition to being pale, he was also rather skinny which I didn't particularly take a lot of note of the first time around because that's kind of my type. I guess a normal person might have noticed it more that he was that skinny. Here is a relevant quote: "I don't like good looking guys. I like them skinny and pale, like they're dying." Believe it or not, this is a quote that someone else other than me said originally. Anyways, in one scene he's looking rather ribby because you can see his ribs a little bit through the back of his shirt. Additionally, I'd bet that he had some nice prominent spine bones while filming that movie, in addition to the ribs. Spines. Ah. He was not bad looking in this movie even though he was portraying a drug addict. Drug addicts apparently tend to not have a lot of extra fat on them.
I don't think I like the way he looks nowadays though. As far as I'm aware he has been tending to sport long hair and facial hair which does not look good. Alas. But still, if I desire pale and skinny look like they're dying type of people, there's always male models. I wonder if any of them also happen to be drug addicts. I would not like to become a drug addict although I realize that the possibility is there, even if it's minimal.

Movie review: Vanilla Sky

I don't really have a lot to say about this movie because it was really really weird and not in a good kind of way. Not even in the Full Metal Jacket kind of way because in this movie I don't think I even really understood the plot that much at all. Even other movies that have been kind of a mindfuck I ended up understanding by the end (think: Dot the i, Dream House, Shutter Island) but this one I just... it left me mostly just thinking wtf. And not in a good way, like I said. Anyways I'm off to read about it so I can find out what the plot was actually supposed to be because I certainly didn't grasp it just from watching the movie. And to think that I anticipated this coming on Netflix today so I could watch it because I thought it would be good. It had Tom Cruise in it is all I can say. 

If you're curious, below is some information on what it was supposed to be about. I don't recommend this movie nor do I recommend Apocalypse Now. Anyways I think I'm off to watch Requiem for a Dream again sometime in the nearish future. 

From Wikipedia: 

According to Cameron Crowe's commentary, there are five different interpretations of the ending:

• "Tech support" is telling the truth: 150 years have passed since Aames killed himself and subsequent events form a lucid dream.
• The entire film is a dream, evidenced by the sticker on Aames' car that reads "2/30/01" (February 30 does not occur in the Gregorian calendar).
• The events following the crash form a dream that occurs while Aames is in a coma.
• The entire film is the plot of the book that Brian is writing.
• The entire film after the crash is a hallucination caused by the drugs that were administered during Aames' reconstructive surgery.

Crowe has noted that the presence of "Vanilla Sky" marks the first lucid dream scene (the morning reunion after the club scene)—all that follows is a dream