This isn't the main subject of this post, but awhile ago I watched a documentary on Netflix that I thought was really good and I don't think I've mentioned it here before. Although maybe I did when I reviewed The Thin Blue Line. If I didn't, I'm going to mention it now. It's called The Seven Five and it's about a corrupt police officer in the NYPD and I thought it was absolutely fascinating.
Anyways, onto the main subject. This again has to do with the process of watching the things that Peter Sarsgaard has been in. This time, it was part of a documentary series done fairly recently, in 2016. The series is called America Divided and it's about issues facing the United States in this day and age. There are a series of different issues covered, each by a different actor/entertainment figure over the course of 5 episodes. Each episode contains parts about multiple issues, rather than one issue per episode. So I watched the episodes that Peter was in although they also had other people as well. Among the issues featured in the episodes I saw were: the struggle of undocumented immigrants, drug addiction in the midwest, inequality/racism in North Carolina. These are all topics that aren't completely new to me; they were things that I'm more or less aware of, so that made me feel kind of superior and informed/unignorant compared to your stereotypical American redneck.. to live where I do, I think it's quite nice, in a number of ways; I would kind of say that we don't see the issues presented in the documentary series as prevalently as in other places around the country. Not to say they're completely nonexistent, but I don't think they're as much of a problem here as they are in other places. Those are just my thoughts on the matter, and if you'd like to correct me, feel free. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but as far as I'm aware, that's my take on it.
The issue that Peter's segment of the documentary covered was... drug addiction (imagine that!) in the midwest. So that was particularly interesting because it involves two things that I'm particularly interested in: drug addicts and Peter Sarsgaard. I have strange interests, I know. The issues were of particular significance to the people who covered them, so in Peter's case it was that apparently he has a cousin (presumably not on his in-laws' side) who is a drug addict and he said that he had been an alcoholic in the past. So yeah, drug addicts and Peter Sarsgaard. In the documentary, he talked to some drug addicts/users who ere in jail (a side note: I saw a news the other day about how the newest version of the AP Stylebook, a manual for how journalists are supposed to write, now says that drug addicts should be referred to as "he was addicted, people with heroin addiction or he used drugs." [from a Slate article about this which is the one that I read and learned about it from] Since this is just my blog, I think I'll eschew those guidelines.), and some police officers in Ohio, among others. It was interesting, I suppose. When each new issue is introduced, they have shots of the person covering it doing some kind of activity. In Peter's case, this was running and I had a little laugh about his exercise attire: short running shorts (I'm telling you, they were short, especially for a man) and crew socks. For one of the other people, they had him canoeing as he talked about inequality in North Carolina, where he's from. I don't really see the relation between canoeing and inequality in North Carolina, but whatever. I'm not the one who made the documentary series.
The documentary series covers subject matters that I'd consider to be under the realm of sociology, at least in some ways, so that was interesting. I wouldn't mind becoming a sociologist in addition to a linguist. Again, it wasn't about things that are totally new subject matters to me, but it was still interesting and compelling and I thought it was well done. It seemed like it was kind of similar to the CNN series United Shades of America, which I've seen a little bit of. I think it would've been interesting if they had gone a little more in depth with this documentary, but it was perfectly decent as it is.
I wonder if there are any other particularly good documentaries out there about people who are addicted to drugs. (see what I did there?) Among other things, I think I might want to watch the movie All the President's Men, which is about Watergate and Nixon and journalism. I wonder how much I'd enjoy it and what kinds of similarities to the present day it might have.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Monday, June 12, 2017
Online dating people
I've been meaning to do this post for awhile, and only now am I finally getting around to it. This is going to be kind of similar to that huge long post I did about actors, but this time, I'm going to be rating the various people I see on the online dating website. There will be 4 categories, as follows: ugly, below average, average, above average. I'm just going to tally up how many people fit into each category, in my opinion. I won't pay attention to whether or not they have a high compatibility rating for this. I have the settings set to show people within (I think) 50 miles, but not sorted by compatibility - it's just a random blend. Also, another category: shave! (for people who would look at least somewhat better if they shaved off their facial hair - this one overlaps with the other categories) If a person doesn't have a good enough picture for me to tell which category they belong in, I'll skip them. So here goes!
Ugly: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 14
Below average: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 27
Average: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 148
Somewhat above average: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 20
Particularly above average: o o-somewhat 1.5
Shave!: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 26
It all calculates out at to having looked at 209 profile pictures, about 70% of which were "average." Average to me means neither particularly ugly nor good looking. Just under 10 percent were a bit better looking ("somewhat above average") than the rest, but nothing particularly beautiful. "Somewhat above average" is not good looking enough for me to want to date. 14 I considered to be not just "below average," but "ugly." About 10 percent were "below average", which means they were notably kind of bad looking, but not terribly ugly.
Picture quality did play some of a role in my ratings - someone who may have been "average" but had a particularly unflattering picture got put into the "below average" category, and so on. Under 1% (one percent!) of the people I saw were "particularly above average." That does not give me a lot of hope regarding this online dating thing... :(
I wonder what other people would find if they did a similar survey of the people who come up for them. Maybe other people have lower standards than me, and/or perhaps there is a larger number of good looking people in other locations.
*This was just regarding men. It could be interesting to change my settings so it would only show me women and do the survey again. I wonder how different the results would be.
Ugly: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 14
Below average: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 27
Average: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 148
Somewhat above average: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 20
Particularly above average: o o-somewhat 1.5
Shave!: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 26
It all calculates out at to having looked at 209 profile pictures, about 70% of which were "average." Average to me means neither particularly ugly nor good looking. Just under 10 percent were a bit better looking ("somewhat above average") than the rest, but nothing particularly beautiful. "Somewhat above average" is not good looking enough for me to want to date. 14 I considered to be not just "below average," but "ugly." About 10 percent were "below average", which means they were notably kind of bad looking, but not terribly ugly.
Picture quality did play some of a role in my ratings - someone who may have been "average" but had a particularly unflattering picture got put into the "below average" category, and so on. Under 1% (one percent!) of the people I saw were "particularly above average." That does not give me a lot of hope regarding this online dating thing... :(
I wonder what other people would find if they did a similar survey of the people who come up for them. Maybe other people have lower standards than me, and/or perhaps there is a larger number of good looking people in other locations.
*This was just regarding men. It could be interesting to change my settings so it would only show me women and do the survey again. I wonder how different the results would be.
Postsecret review 3
I think I missed last week's; whoops. Anyways, here is this week's.
"I hope I don't have to lie to my family about my reasons for going back to Iraq." See, now this one is interesting. It leaves a bit to the imagination and is about a somewhat unique subject matter. The postcard that this secret is on has a stamp that reads "Marine Corps Post Office May 30" so that's interesting.. I do wonder about this (presumably a guy) person's reasons for going back to Iraq. My first thought was that perhaps they have a death wish and hope that by going back to Iraq, they'll get killed in the war. Just typing that out, I now realize how morbid that sounds. But hey, maybe that's the reason. Who knows! Since they are worried that they might have to lie to their family about it. Or, perhaps they seek redemption somehow and they think that by going back to Iraq, they'll be able to get it. That's a movie-worthy idea right there. So yeah, this one was an interesting secret.
"When I see cyclists in the middle of the road on my way to CHURCH... I'm tempted to KNOCK them down! <GET OUT THE WAY>" Well, that's not a very spiritual thing to think about, desiring to run into cyclists on the road... Doesn't the Bible say "Thou shalt not kill"?? I wonder if this person realized the irony in their secret.
"One of the reasons I've never had kids is I'm afraid I might be like my mom and leave them." The reason I don't want to have kids is because I think they're annoying and a hassle. Cats are much more my speed since they mostly can entertain/take care of themselves, you just have to feed them and stuff.
"My student wrote me a letter of thanks because I helped him believe in himself. I felt like a failure because his letter had grammar and punctuation mistakes." I like this one too. It's unique and I can understand that this teacher would feel disappointed about the grammar and punctuation mistakes. But I guess it's a good thing that the student now believes in himself? Maybe he'll learn proper grammar and punctuation somewhere along the way later in life.
"I think most adults are kind of boring... but they don't have to be." I don't really get what this is possibly implying. To me, I think what it could imply is the way that adults can cease to be boring is by having (inappropriate) relationships with teenagers. Probably because of the premises of some things that I either am watching or plan to watch being on my mind. Personally, I don't think I'd say that most adults are kind of boring. You can't truly know if someone is boring or not without getting to know them a little bit. Just by looking at someone, you can't know if they're boring or not. Which for some reason is now making me think about online dating. I guess some of the average looking/below average looking people could potentially be interesting, but I'm looking for someone to date (and who therefore should be good looking), not just someone who's interesting but not good looking..
That's it for my review of this week's secrets. Sorry I missed last week's.
"I hope I don't have to lie to my family about my reasons for going back to Iraq." See, now this one is interesting. It leaves a bit to the imagination and is about a somewhat unique subject matter. The postcard that this secret is on has a stamp that reads "Marine Corps Post Office May 30" so that's interesting.. I do wonder about this (presumably a guy) person's reasons for going back to Iraq. My first thought was that perhaps they have a death wish and hope that by going back to Iraq, they'll get killed in the war. Just typing that out, I now realize how morbid that sounds. But hey, maybe that's the reason. Who knows! Since they are worried that they might have to lie to their family about it. Or, perhaps they seek redemption somehow and they think that by going back to Iraq, they'll be able to get it. That's a movie-worthy idea right there. So yeah, this one was an interesting secret.
"When I see cyclists in the middle of the road on my way to CHURCH... I'm tempted to KNOCK them down! <GET OUT THE WAY>" Well, that's not a very spiritual thing to think about, desiring to run into cyclists on the road... Doesn't the Bible say "Thou shalt not kill"?? I wonder if this person realized the irony in their secret.
"One of the reasons I've never had kids is I'm afraid I might be like my mom and leave them." The reason I don't want to have kids is because I think they're annoying and a hassle. Cats are much more my speed since they mostly can entertain/take care of themselves, you just have to feed them and stuff.
"My student wrote me a letter of thanks because I helped him believe in himself. I felt like a failure because his letter had grammar and punctuation mistakes." I like this one too. It's unique and I can understand that this teacher would feel disappointed about the grammar and punctuation mistakes. But I guess it's a good thing that the student now believes in himself? Maybe he'll learn proper grammar and punctuation somewhere along the way later in life.
"I think most adults are kind of boring... but they don't have to be." I don't really get what this is possibly implying. To me, I think what it could imply is the way that adults can cease to be boring is by having (inappropriate) relationships with teenagers. Probably because of the premises of some things that I either am watching or plan to watch being on my mind. Personally, I don't think I'd say that most adults are kind of boring. You can't truly know if someone is boring or not without getting to know them a little bit. Just by looking at someone, you can't know if they're boring or not. Which for some reason is now making me think about online dating. I guess some of the average looking/below average looking people could potentially be interesting, but I'm looking for someone to date (and who therefore should be good looking), not just someone who's interesting but not good looking..
That's it for my review of this week's secrets. Sorry I missed last week's.
Book recommendations
Eyelashes guy (remember him??) made a video in which he gave some summer book recommendations, which I thought was interesting. Some of the books he recommended were about Ronald Reagan, which I'm not interested in reading about, but some of the others seemed like they might be good. Anyways, it made me think about which books I would recommend for summer reading. In the video, eyelashes guy mentioned that he tried to stay away from books that were too heavy/depressing. Personally, I have no such qualms about reading a book like that at any time of year, I think.
I haven't exactly read a ton of books lately, and it wouldn't be bad if I read more, so I'm sort of at a loss for a large quantity of books to recommend. Not Heart of Darkness, at least. That book was awful, and I don't understand why anyone would enjoy it. I think a book by David Sedaris could be interesting, even though I've never read a full book of his, only a couple of essays from them (A Plague of Tics and Me Talk Pretty One Day, respectively).
Also something I have not read, but possibly things that Noam Chomsky has written could be interesting. He's written about linguistics and sociological topics. Sometimes I think about theoretically becoming the next Noam Chomsky.
Something I am in the process of reading (as it's very long): The Andy Warhol Diaries. Andy Warhol had an interesting style of writing and I think the book gives a good insight into his life and how things were like at that time for him. It's too bad he died. I'm not sure how old he'd be if he were still alive - he might be an improbable age so if that's the case I understand him being dead.
I wish Anderson would write a new book about his journalism career, covering the last decade or so since the last one.If he writes such a book I'd be sure to recommend it. He did write a new-ish book within the last couple of years, but it mostly focuses on him and his mother and their relationship.
Also, as for books that were all the rage ~10 years ago, the Millennium trilogy is a great series. Seeing as they were very popular a number of years ago, I'm not sure that there are a lot of people who haven't read those books, or at least the first one. Regardless, if you haven't, I would highly recommend them. I personally thought they were brilliant, but I guess they might not be for everyone. If you like mysteries and intrigue and Scandinavian settings, you would probably enjoy this series. I have yet to find anything comparable to it.
As I said, I haven't been reading that much lately, so I don't have too many books to recommend. One of the other things I'm currently reading is what I guess you'd call a report. It's the report on Stanley Milgram's obedience study, which I decided to read after seeing the movie in which Peter Sarsgaard (of course) played Milgram. It was a nice little movie. I'm glad I took a chance and watched it.
I haven't exactly read a ton of books lately, and it wouldn't be bad if I read more, so I'm sort of at a loss for a large quantity of books to recommend. Not Heart of Darkness, at least. That book was awful, and I don't understand why anyone would enjoy it. I think a book by David Sedaris could be interesting, even though I've never read a full book of his, only a couple of essays from them (A Plague of Tics and Me Talk Pretty One Day, respectively).
Also something I have not read, but possibly things that Noam Chomsky has written could be interesting. He's written about linguistics and sociological topics. Sometimes I think about theoretically becoming the next Noam Chomsky.
Something I am in the process of reading (as it's very long): The Andy Warhol Diaries. Andy Warhol had an interesting style of writing and I think the book gives a good insight into his life and how things were like at that time for him. It's too bad he died. I'm not sure how old he'd be if he were still alive - he might be an improbable age so if that's the case I understand him being dead.
I wish Anderson would write a new book about his journalism career, covering the last decade or so since the last one.If he writes such a book I'd be sure to recommend it. He did write a new-ish book within the last couple of years, but it mostly focuses on him and his mother and their relationship.
Also, as for books that were all the rage ~10 years ago, the Millennium trilogy is a great series. Seeing as they were very popular a number of years ago, I'm not sure that there are a lot of people who haven't read those books, or at least the first one. Regardless, if you haven't, I would highly recommend them. I personally thought they were brilliant, but I guess they might not be for everyone. If you like mysteries and intrigue and Scandinavian settings, you would probably enjoy this series. I have yet to find anything comparable to it.
As I said, I haven't been reading that much lately, so I don't have too many books to recommend. One of the other things I'm currently reading is what I guess you'd call a report. It's the report on Stanley Milgram's obedience study, which I decided to read after seeing the movie in which Peter Sarsgaard (of course) played Milgram. It was a nice little movie. I'm glad I took a chance and watched it.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Life advices
Some thoughts on the premises/scenarios of some of the things that Peter Sarsgaard has been in.
Firstly, there's this one movie that I haven't yet watched, but would like to watch, where he plays a 30 something man who begins a relationship of sorts with a 16 year old girl. It made me think about the idea of 30 something men dating 16 year old girls. Personally, I don't condone such a thing because I think it's kind of (or a lot) weird and I also would not get myself into such a situation. I'm somewhat older than 16, but I still wouldn't date a 30 year old. No way. I think that there are so many ways that something like that can go wrong/badly. So in general it's probably a bad idea. (although I'm not saying that it necessarily goes badly in this particular movie, just that such a situation very well could) I'm glad that when I was 16 I did not get involved with a 30 year old and I'm glad that I'm not getting involved with one now, either. At present, I would only date someone who is a couple of years older than me, at most. Older than that I think would be weird. Obviously, other people may have other standards for this kind of thing, but that's my personal rule. I do kind of wonder what it would be like to get involved with someone a great deal older than me, but not enough to actually try it. (and, while we're on this topic, so many people on the online dating website are so ugly)
The second one is a tv drama (possibly leaning more towards soap opera in terms of the amount of drama - granted, I don't watch this genre of show that much and the only reason I'm watching this one is because of Peter Sarsgaard) where Peter plays a father who is married, and just had his 40th birthday party, during which something happens that will disrupt the lives of all the people involved (his friends and family, and also himself, it seems). The events that I watched happen in just the first episode reminded me of the things I read about in advice columns, like the one Slate.com has and the two that are in the Washington Post, to give you an idea of the kinds of interpersonal conflicts occurring in the show. Getting to the point, the guy that Peter plays (his name is Hector, which to me sounds Hispanic, but this Hector is of Greek descent) is having an affair with the babysitter. He vows to stop the affair in the first episode and the babysitter agrees, but I have a feeling that promise falls through, and my prediction is that his marriage will fall apart as the show progresses. I wonder if I'm right about that..
The general idea of this post can be boiled down to two rules to live life by, probably*: Don't get involved with men twice your age (at least while you're still a teenager) and, if you're a 40 something married man with a family, don't get involved with the babysitter. Tsk tsk.
*I don't speak from experience, just from what I would consider to be common sense.
Edit: as I continue to watch the show (assuming I don't get bored of it), I think it could be interesting to write fictional advice column inquiries from the perspectives of the characters. For example: (I'm sure I've read something along the lines of this before in an advice column, actually) "I love my wife, we have two children together, but I am having an affair wit the babysitter. I know I shouldn't, but my wife doesn't know [yet] and it's such a breath of fresh air to be with someone else every so often."
Imagine that!
Firstly, there's this one movie that I haven't yet watched, but would like to watch, where he plays a 30 something man who begins a relationship of sorts with a 16 year old girl. It made me think about the idea of 30 something men dating 16 year old girls. Personally, I don't condone such a thing because I think it's kind of (or a lot) weird and I also would not get myself into such a situation. I'm somewhat older than 16, but I still wouldn't date a 30 year old. No way. I think that there are so many ways that something like that can go wrong/badly. So in general it's probably a bad idea. (although I'm not saying that it necessarily goes badly in this particular movie, just that such a situation very well could) I'm glad that when I was 16 I did not get involved with a 30 year old and I'm glad that I'm not getting involved with one now, either. At present, I would only date someone who is a couple of years older than me, at most. Older than that I think would be weird. Obviously, other people may have other standards for this kind of thing, but that's my personal rule. I do kind of wonder what it would be like to get involved with someone a great deal older than me, but not enough to actually try it. (and, while we're on this topic, so many people on the online dating website are so ugly)
The second one is a tv drama (possibly leaning more towards soap opera in terms of the amount of drama - granted, I don't watch this genre of show that much and the only reason I'm watching this one is because of Peter Sarsgaard) where Peter plays a father who is married, and just had his 40th birthday party, during which something happens that will disrupt the lives of all the people involved (his friends and family, and also himself, it seems). The events that I watched happen in just the first episode reminded me of the things I read about in advice columns, like the one Slate.com has and the two that are in the Washington Post, to give you an idea of the kinds of interpersonal conflicts occurring in the show. Getting to the point, the guy that Peter plays (his name is Hector, which to me sounds Hispanic, but this Hector is of Greek descent) is having an affair with the babysitter. He vows to stop the affair in the first episode and the babysitter agrees, but I have a feeling that promise falls through, and my prediction is that his marriage will fall apart as the show progresses. I wonder if I'm right about that..
The general idea of this post can be boiled down to two rules to live life by, probably*: Don't get involved with men twice your age (at least while you're still a teenager) and, if you're a 40 something married man with a family, don't get involved with the babysitter. Tsk tsk.
*I don't speak from experience, just from what I would consider to be common sense.
Edit: as I continue to watch the show (assuming I don't get bored of it), I think it could be interesting to write fictional advice column inquiries from the perspectives of the characters. For example: (I'm sure I've read something along the lines of this before in an advice column, actually) "I love my wife, we have two children together, but I am having an affair wit the babysitter. I know I shouldn't, but my wife doesn't know [yet] and it's such a breath of fresh air to be with someone else every so often."
Imagine that!
Saturday, June 10, 2017
To watch or not
(or, Even More About Peter Sarsgaard [can you believe it?])
Since naturally I would like to watch more things that Peter Sarsgaard has been in, the only thing left to decide is which particular things I want to watch. Which got me to thinking about my criteria for selecting such things (this goes for other actors as well)
* They have! And it was in some movie that I watched a long-ish time ago, but don't really remember what happened in. Just that Leonardo DiCaprio was in it, which is why I watched it at that time. Naturally I decided to go back and rewatch it with an eye for some other actors, the ones mentioned here. The movie is The Man in the Iron Mask, and Peter's character only lasts the first half hour (out of slightly over 2 hours total movie time). The movie is about "The former musketeer Athos (John Malkovich) swears vengeance after despotic King Louis XIV (Leonardo DiCaprio) causes the death of his son. Summoning his old comrades Porthos (Gérard Depardieu) and Aramis (Jeremy Irons), he hatches a plan to liberate a shackled prisoner rumored to be the king's twin brother, and then install him on the throne." (from google since I'm too lazy to summarize it in my own words)
Leonardo plays the king, and Peter has a minor-ish role as the son of one of the musketeers. He has silly looking long floppy hair (as do all of the other male characters, since it takes place in 18th century France. Leo for one has long wavy dirty blonde hair, which I'm sort of envious of actually) but it's still kind of cute in a silly way. Coupled with the ornate men's clothing that was in fashion at the time. I can really hear the similarities between his and John Malkovich's voices in this movie as their characters are father and son. Anyways I only watched the first half hour for now but I'd still be kind of interested in seeing what happens in the rest of the movie to refresh my memory. The hairstyle that Peter had in this movie reminded me of a few of James D'Arcy's roles where he had long hair. In fact, Peter in this movie looked fairly similar to James here, although is hair was slightly longer, but not as long as Leo's. Here also, which I think is a bit closer in length. And I finally found a picture of Peter in the movie so you can see (or at least compare and attempt to see) the similarities to the pictures of James. Peter's hair is a little bit lighter than James' though. I think I do have a type, eh??
I found this interesting blog post with a little commentary about the fashions/costume design in the movie.
Since naturally I would like to watch more things that Peter Sarsgaard has been in, the only thing left to decide is which particular things I want to watch. Which got me to thinking about my criteria for selecting such things (this goes for other actors as well)
- Main role? If yes, I'm more likely to watch.
- Facial hair/otherwise unappealing appearance? If yes, I'm probably going to be a little more hesitant
- Interesting character? If yes, that's good
- Genre/subject matter: I'm not into superhero stuff or western movies and I prefer dramas that are unique and/or thought provoking. Crime related stuff can be interesting as well. War movies... I like and dislike them at the same time...
That's pretty much it, I think. These criteria have guided my choices for what I've already watched with him in it and is also why I'm not going to watch that western movie that I was previously unaware that Leonardo DiCaprio had been in, or Vincent's role in a Netflix tv series based on a comic book superhero. I am so sick of the superhero stuff that's been popular these last few years, for the record.
On another related subject matter, I've read that Peter Sarsgaard is apparently similar to this other actor, John Malkovich, who I'm not really familiar with. In fact, Peter has been described as being a young(er) version of John Malkovich. So I took a look (and a listen) for myself. I do think they kind of have similar voices, and I guess they look similar enough to more or less convincingly play a father and son (which I think maybe they have? I'd have to check*). Apparently, John Malkovich is known for playing creepy/etc characters and Peter has also played his fair share of murderous/etc characters. So I suppose that influenced people to think they're similar. Apparently some people consider them both to have creepy voices. Which I guess I can kind of see why people might think that, but I don't consider Peter's voice to be creepy - I quite like it in fact. It's interesting and soft in the way that Vincent's (regular) voice is like that. I wish I had a better way of conveying what I mean than describing their voices as "soft" because I don't mean soft as in quiet. I mean it as in... not rough, I guess. Maybe smooth is a better word? But for some reason soft feels like it fits better. The way that he talks is just lovely. It's soft and Peter has a nice way of enunciation (or something. I think that's what I mean); it has a certain crispness to it. Like good (not squishy) grapes. I made the grapes comparison because the grapes at the grocery store today were a little too squishy for my tastes.
I came across this quote from an interview he did: "It doesn't sound like a normal person's voice, whatever that is. I wouldn't be chosen to sell cereal on TV." I guess I would agree that his voice isn't like a normal person's, in that I don't often find people's voices as ear-catching as I did his when I happened to watch a movie he was in. However, I would certainly not mind if he did actually sell cereal on tv. I don't even like cereal. It's so bland, and the ones with flavor have too much sugar and I was only ever allowed to eat them on vacation, and the habit has stuck and I don't feel like I'm supposed to eat, say, Froot Loops, on any old random day. In any case, if Peter were to sell cereal on tv, I think some kind of more upper end/elite feeling cereal would be fitting. So not Cheerios, they're too mundane/plain (to me at least; maybe that's only because it's the cereal of choice in the house). Maybe something like Kashi brand cereal, which my mother used to eat in the past. If it were up to me, I'd have him sell cereal on tv. Which is now making me think about cereal ads.... and lactose intolerance. I'm glad I'm not lactose intolerant because (whole, or at least 2%) milk is tasty. I would drink half and half in place of milk, willingly. Skim milk just tastes so watery.
Here is a link to the entire interview, which I thought was quite interesting and he comes across well in it - thoughtful and what not. Another quote he says is "I feel like I'm an attractive man." It's good to know that he has decent self esteem.
I came across this quote from an interview he did: "It doesn't sound like a normal person's voice, whatever that is. I wouldn't be chosen to sell cereal on TV." I guess I would agree that his voice isn't like a normal person's, in that I don't often find people's voices as ear-catching as I did his when I happened to watch a movie he was in. However, I would certainly not mind if he did actually sell cereal on tv. I don't even like cereal. It's so bland, and the ones with flavor have too much sugar and I was only ever allowed to eat them on vacation, and the habit has stuck and I don't feel like I'm supposed to eat, say, Froot Loops, on any old random day. In any case, if Peter were to sell cereal on tv, I think some kind of more upper end/elite feeling cereal would be fitting. So not Cheerios, they're too mundane/plain (to me at least; maybe that's only because it's the cereal of choice in the house). Maybe something like Kashi brand cereal, which my mother used to eat in the past. If it were up to me, I'd have him sell cereal on tv. Which is now making me think about cereal ads.... and lactose intolerance. I'm glad I'm not lactose intolerant because (whole, or at least 2%) milk is tasty. I would drink half and half in place of milk, willingly. Skim milk just tastes so watery.
Here is a link to the entire interview, which I thought was quite interesting and he comes across well in it - thoughtful and what not. Another quote he says is "I feel like I'm an attractive man." It's good to know that he has decent self esteem.
Leonardo plays the king, and Peter has a minor-ish role as the son of one of the musketeers. He has silly looking long floppy hair (as do all of the other male characters, since it takes place in 18th century France. Leo for one has long wavy dirty blonde hair, which I'm sort of envious of actually) but it's still kind of cute in a silly way. Coupled with the ornate men's clothing that was in fashion at the time. I can really hear the similarities between his and John Malkovich's voices in this movie as their characters are father and son. Anyways I only watched the first half hour for now but I'd still be kind of interested in seeing what happens in the rest of the movie to refresh my memory. The hairstyle that Peter had in this movie reminded me of a few of James D'Arcy's roles where he had long hair. In fact, Peter in this movie looked fairly similar to James here, although is hair was slightly longer, but not as long as Leo's. Here also, which I think is a bit closer in length. And I finally found a picture of Peter in the movie so you can see (or at least compare and attempt to see) the similarities to the pictures of James. Peter's hair is a little bit lighter than James' though. I think I do have a type, eh??
I found this interesting blog post with a little commentary about the fashions/costume design in the movie.
Also, I know I used "apparently" a lot in that one section. This blog isn't exactly meant to be the epitome of my writing talents, just a mostly coherent (b)log of the things that come to my mind.
And anyways, while we're at it (and I probably will be 'at it', meaning fawning over Peter Sarsgaard, for the foreseeable immediate future), I'd like to comment on some various tweets regarding Peter. The sources shall remain anonymous but you're free to go and search and try to find them on your own.
- "has no other movie cast John Malkovich and Peter Sarsgaard as father and son? Their weird voices make perfect harmony." Interesting, but I don't really think their voices are weird.
- "I once had to see a therapist because I was OBSESSED with a guy who looked like Peter Sarsgaard. he worked in a video store :/" I don't blame her. Hopefully I don't get to that point.
- "Peter Sarsgaard has such a sinister looking face but then if he smiles it's like nothing bad could happen" Again I wouldn't consider him to be naturally sinister looking. I guess the only things these people have watched of him are the roles in which he played a sinister character. On that note, I wonder if people consider a psychologist who does somewhat (but not terrible, in my opinion) unethical social experiments to be sinister? I don't, but perhaps other people might see it that way.
Also, as a closing thought, I think I put a lot of care (and effort, and my thoughts) into my blog posts, and I hope it shows. I also kind of hope it doesn't make me come across as a crazy person, but if it does, so be it.
Also also, I think a more accurate and in-the-moment title for my blog currently would be "Fawning over Peter Sarsgaard, for the most part" but I'm going to resist the urge to change it to that.
Also also, I think a more accurate and in-the-moment title for my blog currently would be "Fawning over Peter Sarsgaard, for the most part" but I'm going to resist the urge to change it to that.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
*sigh*
I was having dinner tonight and I was trying not to look too weird because of my recent infatuation (which is really the only fitting way describe it) with Peter Sarsgaard. What I mean by "trying not to look too weird" is that he's a large part of what I've been thinking about (I don't want to say "all I can think about", because I am thinking of some other things as well, believe it or not) these past few days or so. What comes with this is some funky facial expressions on my part (they're supposed to express happiness/satisfaction about having found someone whose appearance I would like to look at, and also whose voice I would like to hear say things), and contented sighing. Cheesy, I know. So hence, "trying not to look too weird" about it all since I was around my family members and I don't need them asking about this. I'd rather keep it to myself. I think/hope maybe in a few days I'll be able to cool it a little bit regarding this. It's enjoyable and all, but I also feel like I'm just absolutely going crazy over him (in a mostly good, harmless way, but still). I'm pretty sure I was more or less like this back when I was getting into Law and Order and Vincent's performance as Detective Goren. Also eyelashes guy on CNN. So this is far from unprecedented.
So then the thought came to me that at least he's a decent person and he's not super weird looking like, say, Marilyn Manson, and he's also not a despicable person like Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Bill O'Reilly, Mike Pence, Adolf Hitler, etc. In that light, it seems quite acceptable/reasonable to be like this about him. Better him than one of those other people I just listed. I'm just waiting till I have a strange dream starring him. I wonder what that'll be like. I certainly have been thinking about him enough that I could see it happening for him to show up in a dream. (Edit: as of June 12, I have not dreamed about him yet that I remember, but I did dream last night about Jared Leto...)
Which then led me to wonder if there are people out there that find the men I've listed under despicable persons to be attractive. I feel like it's definitely possible but it's also a freaky idea to think about. Let's say there are two different subsets: finding them physically attractive but not liking them as people, and finding them physically attractive while liking them as people as well. Both subsets are still a strange idea to fathom, but I can somewhat understand the first one slightly. The second one... yikes.
Anyways, I would like to see what people have to say about this, so I googled "Donald Trump is attractive"... my comments on what I've found coming up! Firstly though I would like to hypothesize that it's more likely that Trump supporters would find Donald Trump to be physically attractive. Also as you can see this post fits in nicely with my recent shallowness related posts.
Exhibit 1: here is a Slate article from February of last year (unintentional reference) so it's sort of outdated, but I still think there could be some interesting information contained within. One of the quotes so far: "whatever Trump's appeal, it's not of a sexual variety"
And: Melania "has declared him the 'sexiest man in the world,'" which is frightening to think about.
So far, this article seems to be about what I was looking for. It quotes an evolutionary psychologist who says that the notable physical characteristics of Donald Trump are not objectively/scientifically attractive, and that it's more likely that women are attracted to his status and prestige. So basically because he's rich, they're attracted to him. But money can't buy good looks (at least past a certain extent/amount of plastic surgery).
In 1976 an article about Donald Trump described him as "tall, lean and blond." You can be tall, lean and blonde but still be ugly. Although he probably did look ever so slightly less bad back then. But not good looking by any means in my opinion.
Exhibit 2: Now an article from Vice, published in March 2016, so still not super current either. It has some interviews with a number of people who find Donald Trump to be attractive. It opens with saying that "Donald Trump is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in cash" which is a fair enough description.
One of the women interviewed for this article said: "I like tall men with broad shoulders." Okay, fine, but there are a ton of tall men with broad shoulders who aren't Donald Trump. "I want to feel protected with a man. Donald comes off as physically imposing, but approachable in his interviews." More like appalling...
"I also really love his teeth, even if they are veneers." ... Interesting that she mentioned teeth, but it's Donald Trump we're talking about, and his teeth are fake, and he's Donald Trump. I like someone who has nice real teeth (guess who!) and is also a decent person, as opposed to Donald Trump.
She says that his "success and ability to project confidence" is more important than his fame and money... uh, okay. I guess what I see as being completely oblivious, this lady takes as projecting confidence...
Then she concludes that Donald Trump suffers from rosacea and that's why he has the fake tan. I'm really curious as to how she came to that conclusion about the rosacea. And about his hair: "I don't really have any problem with the hair. I actually kind of like it." No comment.
She says that she "understands" that Donald Trump is nicer when he's not on camera. I find that somewhat hard to believe. She says that even if he weren't rich, she would think that he's hot. Again, I have no words.
Another woman who was interviewed: "He's really cute, with his little boy face." This is just... a strange comment all around. This lady also says "I think he looks great. He's 6'3", with his wide shoulders, beautiful skin, those blue eyes. It's all there. And he walks like a man walks!" WTF is all that I can say here. Especially about the "beautiful skin" part. "He knows what he wants and how to get it, and that's alluring." Okay, I sort of understand that, I guess. Although if we look at how he's been doing as president, I don't think he's quite as good at getting what he wants as one might think.
In this article, there was a link to another article where someone photoshopped Donald Trump to try and make him look better. The result is... freaky. I would say it looks like Liev Schreiber a little bit, but that's probably doing a disservice to Liev Schreiber.
Anyways, speaking of Donald Trump appearance related things, I saw a police officer today whose hair reminded me of Donald Jr and/or Eric Trump. I wonder if the police officer got a hairstyle like that on purpose to resemble the Trump sons. If so, yikes. Although it's possible that maybe he didn't and it's just an unfortunate coincidence. This guy also had a sleeve tattoo, which I wasn't aware was allowed for the local police officers. But apparently it is. In terms of police officers I've seen, he wasn't exactly appealing due to the haircut and the sleeve tattoo. Sorry, random police officer guy.
I thought that looking this up was... sort of enlightening/insightful, but in an unpleasant way. The fact that some people find him attractive... eek! And I'm totally just going crazy over Peter Sarsgaard at the moment. I really, really am.
Edit: Today I watched MSNBC for a change and there was a little segment on how Melania is finally moving to the White House. Which got me wondering how on earth she can be (or at least, was in the past, since currently their relationship seems like it might be kind of frosty) attracted to him. Yikes! (again)
So then the thought came to me that at least he's a decent person and he's not super weird looking like, say, Marilyn Manson, and he's also not a despicable person like Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Bill O'Reilly, Mike Pence, Adolf Hitler, etc. In that light, it seems quite acceptable/reasonable to be like this about him. Better him than one of those other people I just listed. I'm just waiting till I have a strange dream starring him. I wonder what that'll be like. I certainly have been thinking about him enough that I could see it happening for him to show up in a dream. (Edit: as of June 12, I have not dreamed about him yet that I remember, but I did dream last night about Jared Leto...)
Which then led me to wonder if there are people out there that find the men I've listed under despicable persons to be attractive. I feel like it's definitely possible but it's also a freaky idea to think about. Let's say there are two different subsets: finding them physically attractive but not liking them as people, and finding them physically attractive while liking them as people as well. Both subsets are still a strange idea to fathom, but I can somewhat understand the first one slightly. The second one... yikes.
Anyways, I would like to see what people have to say about this, so I googled "Donald Trump is attractive"... my comments on what I've found coming up! Firstly though I would like to hypothesize that it's more likely that Trump supporters would find Donald Trump to be physically attractive. Also as you can see this post fits in nicely with my recent shallowness related posts.
Exhibit 1: here is a Slate article from February of last year (unintentional reference) so it's sort of outdated, but I still think there could be some interesting information contained within. One of the quotes so far: "whatever Trump's appeal, it's not of a sexual variety"
And: Melania "has declared him the 'sexiest man in the world,'" which is frightening to think about.
So far, this article seems to be about what I was looking for. It quotes an evolutionary psychologist who says that the notable physical characteristics of Donald Trump are not objectively/scientifically attractive, and that it's more likely that women are attracted to his status and prestige. So basically because he's rich, they're attracted to him. But money can't buy good looks (at least past a certain extent/amount of plastic surgery).
In 1976 an article about Donald Trump described him as "tall, lean and blond." You can be tall, lean and blonde but still be ugly. Although he probably did look ever so slightly less bad back then. But not good looking by any means in my opinion.
Exhibit 2: Now an article from Vice, published in March 2016, so still not super current either. It has some interviews with a number of people who find Donald Trump to be attractive. It opens with saying that "Donald Trump is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in cash" which is a fair enough description.
One of the women interviewed for this article said: "I like tall men with broad shoulders." Okay, fine, but there are a ton of tall men with broad shoulders who aren't Donald Trump. "I want to feel protected with a man. Donald comes off as physically imposing, but approachable in his interviews." More like appalling...
"I also really love his teeth, even if they are veneers." ... Interesting that she mentioned teeth, but it's Donald Trump we're talking about, and his teeth are fake, and he's Donald Trump. I like someone who has nice real teeth (guess who!) and is also a decent person, as opposed to Donald Trump.
She says that his "success and ability to project confidence" is more important than his fame and money... uh, okay. I guess what I see as being completely oblivious, this lady takes as projecting confidence...
Then she concludes that Donald Trump suffers from rosacea and that's why he has the fake tan. I'm really curious as to how she came to that conclusion about the rosacea. And about his hair: "I don't really have any problem with the hair. I actually kind of like it." No comment.
She says that she "understands" that Donald Trump is nicer when he's not on camera. I find that somewhat hard to believe. She says that even if he weren't rich, she would think that he's hot. Again, I have no words.
Another woman who was interviewed: "He's really cute, with his little boy face." This is just... a strange comment all around. This lady also says "I think he looks great. He's 6'3", with his wide shoulders, beautiful skin, those blue eyes. It's all there. And he walks like a man walks!" WTF is all that I can say here. Especially about the "beautiful skin" part. "He knows what he wants and how to get it, and that's alluring." Okay, I sort of understand that, I guess. Although if we look at how he's been doing as president, I don't think he's quite as good at getting what he wants as one might think.
In this article, there was a link to another article where someone photoshopped Donald Trump to try and make him look better. The result is... freaky. I would say it looks like Liev Schreiber a little bit, but that's probably doing a disservice to Liev Schreiber.
Anyways, speaking of Donald Trump appearance related things, I saw a police officer today whose hair reminded me of Donald Jr and/or Eric Trump. I wonder if the police officer got a hairstyle like that on purpose to resemble the Trump sons. If so, yikes. Although it's possible that maybe he didn't and it's just an unfortunate coincidence. This guy also had a sleeve tattoo, which I wasn't aware was allowed for the local police officers. But apparently it is. In terms of police officers I've seen, he wasn't exactly appealing due to the haircut and the sleeve tattoo. Sorry, random police officer guy.
I thought that looking this up was... sort of enlightening/insightful, but in an unpleasant way. The fact that some people find him attractive... eek! And I'm totally just going crazy over Peter Sarsgaard at the moment. I really, really am.
Edit: Today I watched MSNBC for a change and there was a little segment on how Melania is finally moving to the White House. Which got me wondering how on earth she can be (or at least, was in the past, since currently their relationship seems like it might be kind of frosty) attracted to him. Yikes! (again)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)