(alternatively titled
For some reason, I woke up at 5:20 AM this morning. I wasn't tired enough to go back to sleep so I tried to find something to watch to keep me entertained. I browsed on Netflix but the one movie that I was thinking might be on there now, wasn't. I considered watching the West Wing, but I was more in the mood for something more non-committal at 5:20 AM. I remembered that a number of years ago (11, to be exact), Peter Sarsgaard (who else?) had hosted SNL so I decided to give that a shot even though I'm not really a huge fan of the show (although in the last few months they've been doing pretty well).
This happened to be the episode where Seth Meyers does his Anderson Cooper impression and says "You can see the news reflected in the shimmering blue pools that are my eyes," of which there is a short clip on youtube but this time I got to watch the entire segment. Upon googling that quote, apparently Anderson was unhappy with a more recent parody SNL did of him with someone else, but thought that Seth Meyers' was good.
Among other people, at the time, the SNL cast included names like Amy Poehler, Seth Meyers, and Tina Fey. It was sort of interesting as by now those people are fairly well known for their work aside from SNL but I guess that's where they got their start. Currently, Seth Meyers is channeling Jon Stewart a bit in his Late Night with Seth Meyers show when he comments on all the recent political hoopla. In this episode, Amy Poehler played Hillary Clinton in one skit, which was kind of interesting in light of the more recent SNL portrayals of Hillary.
Anyways, as for Peter, I think he gave a simpering performance (or maybe I was the one doing the simpering) and it was nice, as always, to hear him say things. I would watch a cereal infomercial for him, actually. Imagine that! If I ran SNL, I'd have him on again and have him do a cereal infomercial skit. He was a little chunky and lumpy (a synonym for "kinda fat") but not supremely so. Probably a lot of average everyday men out there have that type of figure. Pleasingly, he was also clean shaven. Anderson, for one, is pretty much always clean shaven (as he is a news anchor) and, to my knowledge, has never been chunky and lumpy. He works out and has pretty impressive arm muscles. (if you really want a picture, you can go look it up yourself since I'm too lazy to link one)
Surprisingly enough, this episode actually had a minimum of WTF-ery, which is mostly what I thought when I tried to watch SNL once a few years ago. I can't make this conclusion just off of seeing one episode, especially one with one of my favorite actors as host, which certainly sweetened the deal, but maybe SNL was better ~10 years ago (notwithstanding its recent resurgence).
Some of the jokes/topics seemed interestingly prescient: Bill O'Reilly was mocked for sexually harassing women, there was a skit about the NSA listening to people's phone conversations, a part where "Al Gore" says that he should have been president, and so on.
I wonder if Anderson will ever host SNL. That could be interesting. I'm not sure why he hasn't yet. Maybe he's just too busy or something.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Movie review: Black Mass
The mobster movie, I watched it, for reasons you probably can guess, and if you can't guess, what kind of a rock have you been living under and not reading my recent blog posts?
Anyways, let's get to it. It was a 2 hour long movie which is pretty average as far as movies go. I actually thought that this movie was a bit better than I was expecting. I thought I might be bored by it and I wasn't really. In the main role this movie starred Johnny Depp as the mobster James Bulger. First things first, he was definitely sleazy and creepy looking in this role, on top of how he already looks creepy even when he's not all made up to play the role of a mobster. Plus he was wearing these bug eyed sunglasses which didn't help things. I don't get why people think Peter Sarsgaard is creepy looking/sounding; he's perfectly normal and friendly looking especially compared to Johnny Depp in either this movie or just in real life.
It took place mostly in the 70s which was evident in the gaudy wallpaper, among other things. And the hairstyles, I suppose. I actually maybe wouldn't mind some 70s esque gaudy wallpaper if I had a house of my own.
There were a number of more or less well known actors in this movie. Obviously Johnny Depp, also Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, Adam Scott (from Parks and Recreation), Benedict Cumberbatch, among others. Benedict is British so it was weird to hear him speaking with an American accent.
This is, to my knowledge, the second movie that I have seen that was set in Boston. There might be others (hmm, actually, I'm remembering another one right now) but the other one that came to mind was Spotlight, with Mark Ruffalo and which was about journalism.
Let's get to my thoughts about Peter's performance in this movie, which is the primary reason I decided to watch it (if you couldn't guess at the beginning of the post). He was only in the movie for a short period of time as he played a somewhat minor character. For those that love attention to detail like I do, he showed up around 45 minutes in and was out of the picture by the 1 hour mark. So he maybe had about 10 minutes of screen time in the entire movie. Spoilers ahead, to varying degrees. I was sort of surprised to see him in the role that he was in, which was someone who was kind of involved with the mobsters but not really that important or anything. He seemed out of place, so to speak. He looked comparatively naive and like he didn't belong associating with mobsters. In any case, (spoiler!!) after his little run in with the mobsters, he goes to the FBI to tell them about it but they don't believe him, even though what he was saying was indeed true. Before he does this, he does drugs as his character is a drug addict (or, as the AP Stylebook advises, someone addicted to drugs). So when it comes to him actually being in everyone's favorite location, the interrogation room, he is freaking out and looks rough because he is high on cocaine. Interestingly enough, he still actually looked fairly decent... he did not look super awful even with his face showing evidence of drug use. Unlike Johnny Depp, who did not look appealing for a single moment in this movie. His character was a detestable person. Who murders Peter's character in broad daylight with, say, 10 gunshots or so. It was something else. Which certainly did nothing to endear me to either Johnny Depp or the character he played. I don't think I'll be watching any other movies with him in them. Edward Scissorhands was good though, but that was before he got all creepy looking.
Even though Peter was only in the movie for maybe 10 minutes, I figured I could probably get a whole paragraph out about him and I did. So on to something else now. The credits sequence was interesting as it had pictures of the real people the movie was about, newspaper clippings, that kind of thing.
All in all, this movie was decent, and better than I expected (my expectations weren't super high) but I wouldn't consider it a favorite or anything. But it wasn't awful or a waste of time, so that was good.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Documentary review: America Divided
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)