As usual, I've been looking for new (to me) movies to watch. Somehow I thought of the movie Brokeback Mountain, which I haven't seen but is decently famous, I think. It's about two men out in the west who have a secret gay relationship in the 1960s. Seems more or less interesting, right? Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger have the main roles in this movie. Jake is Peter Sarsgaard's brother in law, so tangentially he's relevant. I decided to look up what other movies he had been in, to see if there was anything particularly interesting. In the process, I came across an interview... (yes, we're back on this subject)
It was an interview from The Guardian done earlier this year. He came across somewhat badly in this interview, which may spell disaster for my personal opinion of him (see: George Clooney). Apparently, he's very protective about his personal life and the interviewer dared to ask him a question that touched on the subject of his personal life. I would certainly not consider it to have been a particularly intrusive question. A proper answer to it would not have required a deep discussion of his personal life. But I guess he doesn't even want to even touch on the topic of his personal life one bit. At the end of the interview, he began ranting (maybe that's a bit harsh of a word to use) about politics. To top it off, he also came across as sort of pretentious in the interview. You can read it for yourself and see. In contrast, Peter Sarsgaard comes across as a nice, easygoing and thoughtful kind of person. Vincent seems like a dear. James D'Arcy comes across well in interviews too. So, happening to have read this interview of Jake does not bode too well for my personal opinion of him. At least he isn't as creepy looking as Johnny Depp.
I decided to read a few other interviews of his to get a more filled out idea of what he's like. He didn't come across quite as badly as in the aforementioned one, but he also didn't come across as lovely either. Eh. I think he still came across as a little stuck up in these other interviews too. http://iheartjake.com/2017/03/jake-gyllenhaal-covers-esquire-uk-magazine-april-issue/#more-13616
I have seen two movies with Jake in them in the past, but he didn't particularly stand out -he was overshadowed by other actors. One was Zodiac, in which I was more focused on Mark Ruffalo, I think because he somewhat reminded me of Vincent. It wasn't a particularly good movie anyways, so the other actors didn't make much of an impression on me because they didn't resemble Vincent, even though they're pretty famous (Jake and Robert Downey Jr). As for the other one, I was paying more attention to Peter Sarsgaard for reasons that should be obvious. I'm going to give Brokeback Mountain and Nightcrawler a shot, and if I'm not impressed, Jake Gyllenhaal goes into my overrated pile as well. Maybe if he were more my type in terms of looks I'd be more enthused about him. But alas, he's not. He's kind of weird looking.
Anyways, while we're at it... some choice tweets:
"Jake Gyllenhaal & Johnny Depp are the BEST actors out there. Don't @ me on this." I beg to differ. A lot.
"Jake Gyllenhaal's voice is either the nicest or creepiest one ever depending on the context" In relation to this tweet, I had to find an example of how he talks. I found an interview from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, which was actually pretty good although maybe it's just because it was Jon Stewart and you can't go wrong with Jon Stewart. Jake's voice is surprisingly... light and high pitched. I expected he'd have a more intimidating/forceful voice. I wouldn't consider it to be particularly creepy or nice, just... regular, but not what I was expecting. Now as for Peter Sarsgaard... (no, I will probably not shut up about him anytime soon) http://www.cc.com/video-clips/3jbfst/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-jake-gyllenhaal
"My memoir is coming out next month! It's called "Jake Gyllenhaal, I Love You"" Imagine what my memoir would be called..
"I love Jake Gyllenhaal so much. He is so pretty. I love him" He is... okay looking. Better looking than Johnny Depp by a little bit, but not as good looking as (insert favorite actors here).
As it stands, Mark Ruffalo > Jake Gyllenhaal in my book. And I don't even like Mark Ruffalo a huge amount. Not that I dislike him. I have a mildly positive opinion of him. Also, Peter Sarsgaard > Jake Gyllenhaal. Fight me.
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Postsecret review 5
This is for the online secrets; the ones that I thought were notable in the Postal Museum will be reviewed in a separate blog post. I'm pretty late on this but I was on vacation earlier this week, hence the lack of blog posts.
"I found the man I'm supposed to marry on match.com... ... but I can't contact him because I refuse to pay the membership fee." Well, there are a few possible solutions to this. One, google his name. Two, reverse search his profile picture and see what comes up; maybe his social media would come up and you could contact him through there. And honestly, if it's really the man you think you're supposed to marry, I'd think you should be willing to forfeit some money for the membership fee to contact him. It seems silly to abstain from paying the fee to contact someone you think you're supposed to marry. Unless you somehow know that you're only going to be married to him for a short time and then get divorced.
"People think I've stopped lying... but I've just gotten better at it." This one is... interesting. Lying is sometimes a useful skill to have, but I don't completely condone it. It definitely depends on the circumstances - if you're lying to awful people that you hate, then that's not so bad. But lying to decent/good people in order to say, maliciously manipulate them, that's not good.
"I tell everyone you're an artist because I'm too embarrassed to tell them what you really do for a living." I certainly wonder what this person really does for a living. Maybe they're a porn star.
"Drugs damaged my brain. I wish I could know the man I would've been without them." Two questions: what drugs caused this brain damage, and how severe is it? I'm very curious. Maybe it was methamphetamine, or perhaps cocaine. Or heroin.
"I crop the people that piss me off out of the company newsletter, for I'm the graphic designer." Well, that's pretty passive aggressive.
"The only reason I'm an 'avid gardener' is... so when I retire I'll have the... skills to grow 'the most amazing' herb!!" (over pictures of marijuana plants) I guess this person thought that by the time they retired, it would be legal to grow marijuana plants?
"Visit Ruby Falls - where tour guides want to kill your stupid kids!!" That's an interesting sentiment to have towards one's job..
"I comb my heavily shedding dog outside when my asshole neighbors have cookouts. They cannot see me doing it but I can see them freaking out Bon Appetit" Another passive aggressive one. I wonder if they have or will eventually find out where the hair is coming from. I don't think it would be that hard to put two and two together.
"I found the man I'm supposed to marry on match.com... ... but I can't contact him because I refuse to pay the membership fee." Well, there are a few possible solutions to this. One, google his name. Two, reverse search his profile picture and see what comes up; maybe his social media would come up and you could contact him through there. And honestly, if it's really the man you think you're supposed to marry, I'd think you should be willing to forfeit some money for the membership fee to contact him. It seems silly to abstain from paying the fee to contact someone you think you're supposed to marry. Unless you somehow know that you're only going to be married to him for a short time and then get divorced.
"People think I've stopped lying... but I've just gotten better at it." This one is... interesting. Lying is sometimes a useful skill to have, but I don't completely condone it. It definitely depends on the circumstances - if you're lying to awful people that you hate, then that's not so bad. But lying to decent/good people in order to say, maliciously manipulate them, that's not good.
"I tell everyone you're an artist because I'm too embarrassed to tell them what you really do for a living." I certainly wonder what this person really does for a living. Maybe they're a porn star.
"Drugs damaged my brain. I wish I could know the man I would've been without them." Two questions: what drugs caused this brain damage, and how severe is it? I'm very curious. Maybe it was methamphetamine, or perhaps cocaine. Or heroin.
"I crop the people that piss me off out of the company newsletter, for I'm the graphic designer." Well, that's pretty passive aggressive.
"The only reason I'm an 'avid gardener' is... so when I retire I'll have the... skills to grow 'the most amazing' herb!!" (over pictures of marijuana plants) I guess this person thought that by the time they retired, it would be legal to grow marijuana plants?
"Visit Ruby Falls - where tour guides want to kill your stupid kids!!" That's an interesting sentiment to have towards one's job..
"I comb my heavily shedding dog outside when my asshole neighbors have cookouts. They cannot see me doing it but I can see them freaking out Bon Appetit" Another passive aggressive one. I wonder if they have or will eventually find out where the hair is coming from. I don't think it would be that hard to put two and two together.
Movie review: Taking Lives
A week or so ago, Netflix gave me a notification that this movie was newly added, and it seemed more or less interesting so I considered watching it sometime in the future. Tonight, as I'm filled with snot and eye water due to an illness, I decided to watch it mostly for the convenience factor of it being on Netflix and me not wanting to watch anything I'd have to be too invested in (meaning, other movies with favorite actors in them because then I'd want to actually pay a lot of attention to the movie).
This movie had Angelina Jolie in it, who is a famous actress for some reason or other. Maybe it was because she was married to Brad Pitt. As far as I'm aware, I don't recall watching any other movies with her in them in the past. She looked kind of weird in this movie because a) her eyebrows were plucked very thinly and b) her lips looked puffy, which I think they might just be naturally, but it looked sort of weird. She played an FBI agent who goes to Canada to help police there catch a serial killer. I'm not really sure what the purpose of setting the movie in Canada was - it didn't seem to make much of a difference in the plot. It very well could've just taken place in the US. Anyways, she goes there and tries to help solve the murders.
Ethan Hawke, another actor who I'm vaguely familiar with, was also in this movie as a main character. He was in two other movies that I've seen which also happened to have Vincent in them. In one part of this movie, his character wears glasses and I thought that he looked somewhat similar to James D'Arcy, particularly a character that he played that wore glasses. In the past I'd also noticed this slight similarity, since there was a poster of him reading a book in the library in high school and I walked by it probably every day. They also had posters of other famous-ish people, like the Twilight cast and Seth Meyers, and some basketball player, and I think Hugh Laurie as well (maybe?). The Seth Meyers one (I hope I'm remembering correctly and not just imagining it) made me think of when Seth Meyers played Anderson Cooper on SNL. "See the news reflected in the shimmering blue pools that are my eyes." There was a scene at the end of this movie that reminded me a little of a movie James was in, called In Their Skin. Interestingly enough, the concept of that movie is kind of similar to the concept of this movie, which is about a serial killer who kills people and assumes their identities. Speaking of which, it might be interesting to watch that movie again. I thought that it was surprisingly decent for some random horror-ish movie, and James D'Arcy plays a depraved murderous guy. Fun, right?!
Spoilery comments: I kept thinking that Ethan Hawke's character would either get murdered or possibly turn out to be the murderer, and I was right!!
Overall it was an okay movie. Very average and it certainly could've been better and more riveting. It wasn't horrible though and I didn't go into it with particularly high expectations, so it wasn't as much of a disappointment as, say, Zodiac.
Overrated: Johnny Depp, superhero movies and shows
Underrated: all of my favorite actors (minus Leo though), Law and Order CI,
This movie had Angelina Jolie in it, who is a famous actress for some reason or other. Maybe it was because she was married to Brad Pitt. As far as I'm aware, I don't recall watching any other movies with her in them in the past. She looked kind of weird in this movie because a) her eyebrows were plucked very thinly and b) her lips looked puffy, which I think they might just be naturally, but it looked sort of weird. She played an FBI agent who goes to Canada to help police there catch a serial killer. I'm not really sure what the purpose of setting the movie in Canada was - it didn't seem to make much of a difference in the plot. It very well could've just taken place in the US. Anyways, she goes there and tries to help solve the murders.
Ethan Hawke, another actor who I'm vaguely familiar with, was also in this movie as a main character. He was in two other movies that I've seen which also happened to have Vincent in them. In one part of this movie, his character wears glasses and I thought that he looked somewhat similar to James D'Arcy, particularly a character that he played that wore glasses. In the past I'd also noticed this slight similarity, since there was a poster of him reading a book in the library in high school and I walked by it probably every day. They also had posters of other famous-ish people, like the Twilight cast and Seth Meyers, and some basketball player, and I think Hugh Laurie as well (maybe?). The Seth Meyers one (I hope I'm remembering correctly and not just imagining it) made me think of when Seth Meyers played Anderson Cooper on SNL. "See the news reflected in the shimmering blue pools that are my eyes." There was a scene at the end of this movie that reminded me a little of a movie James was in, called In Their Skin. Interestingly enough, the concept of that movie is kind of similar to the concept of this movie, which is about a serial killer who kills people and assumes their identities. Speaking of which, it might be interesting to watch that movie again. I thought that it was surprisingly decent for some random horror-ish movie, and James D'Arcy plays a depraved murderous guy. Fun, right?!
Spoilery comments: I kept thinking that Ethan Hawke's character would either get murdered or possibly turn out to be the murderer, and I was right!!
Overall it was an okay movie. Very average and it certainly could've been better and more riveting. It wasn't horrible though and I didn't go into it with particularly high expectations, so it wasn't as much of a disappointment as, say, Zodiac.
Overrated: Johnny Depp, superhero movies and shows
Underrated: all of my favorite actors (minus Leo though), Law and Order CI,
Friday, July 7, 2017
Television indecision
More dithering over what I should watch next. (the title should also include movies, but I liked the way it sounded as it is)
Speaking of actor -gårds (remember that Slate thing?), I thought that maybe it would be interesting to watch things with other -gårds in them, like Alexander Skarsgård, a Swedish actor, son of Stellan Skarsgård, also a Swedish actor. -gaard is an alternative spelling of -gård; in the Scandinavian languages, å can be written aa if absolutely necessary. In German they do not have a letter å. They do however have ß and vowels with umlauts.
As far as things with Alexander Skarsgård to watch, there's an HBO series he was in just about 10 years ago called Generation Kill. It is based off of an eponymous book about what it was like for American soldiers in the beginning of the Iraq War. Apparently I keep getting drawn to things about war, which today I developed a theory on. Having no personal experience or familiarity with war/the military, one of the ways I can attempt to understand it/familiarize myself with it is via movies and tv. Obviously there are limitations to this because movies and tv aren't necessarily 100% realistic, but the point still stands.
HBO has done a number of things that I think could be interesting to watch - Oz (starring a pre-SVU Chris Meloni as a prisoner), The Wire (which I've heard is very good), The Night Of (based on a British show that I watched a few years ago because it had Ben Whishaw in it). Unfortunately I do not have an HBO subscription :( Apparently HBO costs $15 a month, which seems like kind of a lot. Maybe I could have a subscription for only one month, watch all the stuff I want to in that period, and then cancel the subscription. I wonder if that'd be practical and if other people do that.
I ideally wanted to watch a good drama type (not as in soap opera, as in normal levels of non soap opera drama) show, which maybe The West Wing would've worked for if I'd liked the first episode better. I thought that the show The Mindy Project, a comedy, might be interesting, but it's not on Netflix. So the dithering continues...
As far as Sarsgaard movies go, I'm going to make a rough list of the ones I'm interested in seeing, somewhat in order (and none of which are on Netflx... :( .
An Education
Boys Don't Cry
Flightplan
Jackie
Robot and Frank
Kinsey
The Skeleton Key
Pawn Sacrifice
Garden State
Orphan
The Salton Sea (also has Vincent in it, as a noseless drug dealer [I think])
Speaking of actor -gårds (remember that Slate thing?), I thought that maybe it would be interesting to watch things with other -gårds in them, like Alexander Skarsgård, a Swedish actor, son of Stellan Skarsgård, also a Swedish actor. -gaard is an alternative spelling of -gård; in the Scandinavian languages, å can be written aa if absolutely necessary. In German they do not have a letter å. They do however have ß and vowels with umlauts.
As far as things with Alexander Skarsgård to watch, there's an HBO series he was in just about 10 years ago called Generation Kill. It is based off of an eponymous book about what it was like for American soldiers in the beginning of the Iraq War. Apparently I keep getting drawn to things about war, which today I developed a theory on. Having no personal experience or familiarity with war/the military, one of the ways I can attempt to understand it/familiarize myself with it is via movies and tv. Obviously there are limitations to this because movies and tv aren't necessarily 100% realistic, but the point still stands.
HBO has done a number of things that I think could be interesting to watch - Oz (starring a pre-SVU Chris Meloni as a prisoner), The Wire (which I've heard is very good), The Night Of (based on a British show that I watched a few years ago because it had Ben Whishaw in it). Unfortunately I do not have an HBO subscription :( Apparently HBO costs $15 a month, which seems like kind of a lot. Maybe I could have a subscription for only one month, watch all the stuff I want to in that period, and then cancel the subscription. I wonder if that'd be practical and if other people do that.
I ideally wanted to watch a good drama type (not as in soap opera, as in normal levels of non soap opera drama) show, which maybe The West Wing would've worked for if I'd liked the first episode better. I thought that the show The Mindy Project, a comedy, might be interesting, but it's not on Netflix. So the dithering continues...
As far as Sarsgaard movies go, I'm going to make a rough list of the ones I'm interested in seeing, somewhat in order (and none of which are on Netflx... :( .
An Education
Boys Don't Cry
Flightplan
Jackie
Robot and Frank
Kinsey
The Skeleton Key
Pawn Sacrifice
Garden State
Orphan
The Salton Sea (also has Vincent in it, as a noseless drug dealer [I think])
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Movie review: Dead Man Walking
(less a movie review than yet another post about Peter Sarsgaard. Oh boy.)
As intended, I got around to watching this movie earlier today. It was good and I'm kind of surprised that I hadn't been aware of it previously, until I went to looking up Peter Sarsgaard's filmography. He is certainly not the main attraction in this movie; he has a small, non-speaking (save for perhaps a gasp when he is accosted by the murderers) role as a murder victim. The movie was done in 1995 so he was quite young and youthful looking in it. It was cute. The movie had Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn in the main roles; I think they both did a good job, especially Susan Sarandon. Her appearance in this role reminded me of one of the characters in Requiem for a Dream, which I'm always up to rewatch. It would've been interesting if Peter had been cast instead of Jared Leto in that movie...
The premise of the movie, which was based on a true story, is about a nun in Louisiana who befriends a prisoner on death row as he faces execution. I think that kind of a story is intrinsically interesting, at least for me - the topics of crime, punishment, possible innocence/guilt, the criminal justice system. There are a couple of other things dealing with similar topics that I've seen: Devil's Knot, season 3 of The Killing, The Shawshank Redemption. I know I've said I'm trying to get away from the subject matter of murder/crime in the things I watch, but it's just so interesting. I also have been trying to ponder about stuff other than journalism and all that that entails, but I just can't seem to escape it. Alas.
The dynamic in this movie between the nun and the prisoner seemed fairly similar to what transpires between one of the detectives and a prisoner in season 3 of The Killing.
Now is as good as a time as any to tally up the various Peter Sarsgaard things I've seen so far - it would be nice to have them in writing.
(asterisks denote my favorites so far)
Not too shabby for 1 month's time. I noticed today that he was the voice of a robot in some movie, which is kind of interesting, but obviously as a robot, his voice isn't completely natural which is kind of a shame. It's still recognizable as his voice though. But in a roboticized form. Kind of like how Siri talks. Which then got me thinking/imagining if his voice were used for Siri. Wouldn't that be fun!
I'm still at a bit of a loss for what to watch next. There are other Peter Sarsgaard movies that I haven't seen yet, but they aren't on Netflix, which is sort of inconvenient. I'm trying to find a tv show that would be to my tastes and ideally of a different subject matter than crime/murder (which rules out Broadchurch, but I think I would enjoy that show. It also rules out The Wire and Oz, neither of which are on Netflix).
In other matters, my books shipped this evening and should be here within 1 or 2 weeks. I eagerly await their arrival.
As intended, I got around to watching this movie earlier today. It was good and I'm kind of surprised that I hadn't been aware of it previously, until I went to looking up Peter Sarsgaard's filmography. He is certainly not the main attraction in this movie; he has a small, non-speaking (save for perhaps a gasp when he is accosted by the murderers) role as a murder victim. The movie was done in 1995 so he was quite young and youthful looking in it. It was cute. The movie had Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn in the main roles; I think they both did a good job, especially Susan Sarandon. Her appearance in this role reminded me of one of the characters in Requiem for a Dream, which I'm always up to rewatch. It would've been interesting if Peter had been cast instead of Jared Leto in that movie...
The premise of the movie, which was based on a true story, is about a nun in Louisiana who befriends a prisoner on death row as he faces execution. I think that kind of a story is intrinsically interesting, at least for me - the topics of crime, punishment, possible innocence/guilt, the criminal justice system. There are a couple of other things dealing with similar topics that I've seen: Devil's Knot, season 3 of The Killing, The Shawshank Redemption. I know I've said I'm trying to get away from the subject matter of murder/crime in the things I watch, but it's just so interesting. I also have been trying to ponder about stuff other than journalism and all that that entails, but I just can't seem to escape it. Alas.
The dynamic in this movie between the nun and the prisoner seemed fairly similar to what transpires between one of the detectives and a prisoner in season 3 of The Killing.
Now is as good as a time as any to tally up the various Peter Sarsgaard things I've seen so far - it would be nice to have them in writing.
- Experimenter *
- The Magnificent 7
- Shattered Glass *
- The Killing *
- Lovelace
- Dead Man Walking
- The Man in the Iron Mask
- Jarhead *
- Documentary on rock climbing that he narrated
- Black Mass
- Documentary about drug addiction that he was involved in
(asterisks denote my favorites so far)
Not too shabby for 1 month's time. I noticed today that he was the voice of a robot in some movie, which is kind of interesting, but obviously as a robot, his voice isn't completely natural which is kind of a shame. It's still recognizable as his voice though. But in a roboticized form. Kind of like how Siri talks. Which then got me thinking/imagining if his voice were used for Siri. Wouldn't that be fun!
I'm still at a bit of a loss for what to watch next. There are other Peter Sarsgaard movies that I haven't seen yet, but they aren't on Netflix, which is sort of inconvenient. I'm trying to find a tv show that would be to my tastes and ideally of a different subject matter than crime/murder (which rules out Broadchurch, but I think I would enjoy that show. It also rules out The Wire and Oz, neither of which are on Netflix).
In other matters, my books shipped this evening and should be here within 1 or 2 weeks. I eagerly await their arrival.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Changing gears
It's probably not a bad idea to insert a lighter post compared to the subject matter/content of my last few, which have been fairly heavy. Therefore a post that's a bit more mindless is in order.
How about the wonderful subject of online dating (again), which came to mind as I dealt with an email from the online dating website that someone has messaged me. It was a perfectly reasonable, normal message, decently thought out but for some reason I still felt like giving a semi-snarky response, if I were to respond. I have pretty much given up (as I've said in the past) on finding someone who I would actually want to date on that damn website. The people are either not good enough looking or not interesting enough, or both. Boo. I think I am both at least decent looking (I made sure to choose flattering pictures for my profile) as well as an interesting person and I won't settle for less in a romantic partner. I think it's good to have standards. In light of the lack of suitable romantic partners on the online dating website, it naturally brings a certain person to mind. A certain person who I unexpectedly dreamed about the other night (and I still have not dreamed about Peter Sarsgaard. I don't get it.) and whose hair I touched in real life a bit over a year ago. I'm sure that was probably a brief, but weird experience for him. As you can tell, I still think/wonder about him and hope things are well with him, and I also wish to look at him and photograph him. I hope he becomes a model as well - he has the right look for it, I believe. Hopefully no sort of tragic accident has befallen/will occur in the future to him.
On a somewhat unrelated topic it would be interesting to see what's new at the modern art museum, although as that involves a trip into the nation's capitol, I think it's very possible I might get distracted by thinking about politics, news/journalism and how that all fits together with regards to my life and future, not to mention the status and trajectory of the country as a whole. Nuclear war? Seems possible. (on the upside, if there's a nuclear war I won't really have to worry that much about my future...) I wonder if there are any good nuclear war/apocalypse movies out there that I'd enjoy.
As far as movies to watch go, there's one I have in mind but just haven't felt quite in the right mood to watch it yet. I could've watched it today, but I didn't. Instead I delved into reading about the topic of disgraced journalists, among other things. I'd like to watch the movie Dead Man Walking, which is about a man convicted of murder and facing execution, although he claims to be innocent (I think). Peter Sarsgaard has a small role in this movie as a murder victim. However I am interested in this movie beyond the fact that Peter is in it. I think it was his first film role ever. Interestingly enough, about 20 years later, he goes on to play a convicted murderer facing execution who may be innocent. It might also be interesting to see some of the other Jason Bourne movies. Apparently they are supposed to have a bit more depth than James Bond (although Casino Royale and Skyfall are standouts).
Re: tv shows, I haven't found anything yet that seems sufficiently interesting. I gave The West Wing a shot but wasn't enthralled and I'm not sure I'd enjoy other political drama shows. It would possibly be a nice idea to branch out from murder shows, which is why I tried watching The West Wing. I think if it weren't for Martin Sheen that show might be watchable. He just does not look presidential. Maybe I should give the show Mad Men a chance? Netflix says that it's a 67% match, whatever that means. Who knows how accurate that number is. As far as I'm aware, I don't think there's anything coming soon to Netflix that I'm dying to watch. If only they'd have Requiem for a Dream back on there. That was a great movie. Some other things Peter Sarsgaard has been in would be nice too. Throw in Leonardo DiCaprio for that matter as well.
How about the wonderful subject of online dating (again), which came to mind as I dealt with an email from the online dating website that someone has messaged me. It was a perfectly reasonable, normal message, decently thought out but for some reason I still felt like giving a semi-snarky response, if I were to respond. I have pretty much given up (as I've said in the past) on finding someone who I would actually want to date on that damn website. The people are either not good enough looking or not interesting enough, or both. Boo. I think I am both at least decent looking (I made sure to choose flattering pictures for my profile) as well as an interesting person and I won't settle for less in a romantic partner. I think it's good to have standards. In light of the lack of suitable romantic partners on the online dating website, it naturally brings a certain person to mind. A certain person who I unexpectedly dreamed about the other night (and I still have not dreamed about Peter Sarsgaard. I don't get it.) and whose hair I touched in real life a bit over a year ago. I'm sure that was probably a brief, but weird experience for him. As you can tell, I still think/wonder about him and hope things are well with him, and I also wish to look at him and photograph him. I hope he becomes a model as well - he has the right look for it, I believe. Hopefully no sort of tragic accident has befallen/will occur in the future to him.
On a somewhat unrelated topic it would be interesting to see what's new at the modern art museum, although as that involves a trip into the nation's capitol, I think it's very possible I might get distracted by thinking about politics, news/journalism and how that all fits together with regards to my life and future, not to mention the status and trajectory of the country as a whole. Nuclear war? Seems possible. (on the upside, if there's a nuclear war I won't really have to worry that much about my future...) I wonder if there are any good nuclear war/apocalypse movies out there that I'd enjoy.
As far as movies to watch go, there's one I have in mind but just haven't felt quite in the right mood to watch it yet. I could've watched it today, but I didn't. Instead I delved into reading about the topic of disgraced journalists, among other things. I'd like to watch the movie Dead Man Walking, which is about a man convicted of murder and facing execution, although he claims to be innocent (I think). Peter Sarsgaard has a small role in this movie as a murder victim. However I am interested in this movie beyond the fact that Peter is in it. I think it was his first film role ever. Interestingly enough, about 20 years later, he goes on to play a convicted murderer facing execution who may be innocent. It might also be interesting to see some of the other Jason Bourne movies. Apparently they are supposed to have a bit more depth than James Bond (although Casino Royale and Skyfall are standouts).
Re: tv shows, I haven't found anything yet that seems sufficiently interesting. I gave The West Wing a shot but wasn't enthralled and I'm not sure I'd enjoy other political drama shows. It would possibly be a nice idea to branch out from murder shows, which is why I tried watching The West Wing. I think if it weren't for Martin Sheen that show might be watchable. He just does not look presidential. Maybe I should give the show Mad Men a chance? Netflix says that it's a 67% match, whatever that means. Who knows how accurate that number is. As far as I'm aware, I don't think there's anything coming soon to Netflix that I'm dying to watch. If only they'd have Requiem for a Dream back on there. That was a great movie. Some other things Peter Sarsgaard has been in would be nice too. Throw in Leonardo DiCaprio for that matter as well.
Journalistic offenses
This could fit nicely as an additional section in one of my recent posts about Stephen Glass, but I decided to give it its own post. Recently, 3 people at CNN resigned (I wonder if they felt forced into doing that) because a story had been published without the proper verification. I read a Washington Post article about the incident and delved a little bit into the comments. Some people view this situation as overblown and note that CNN did the right thing by retracting the story and apologizing, as the people responsible resigned. They also consider the dichotomy of other news organizations such as Fox News not getting criticized by the president for inaccuracies and errors in their reporting. Personally I think it's a good thing that CNN took responsibility for the error and apologized, although it's possible that the resignation of the people involved wasn't completely necessary. That may be more of an optics thing.
In googling "journalistic offenses" I came across some interesting things on Poynter.org: one which suggests that people who commit journalistic offenses shouldn't be 'excommunicated' and instead should be taken back in and rehabilitated/taught how to be a proper journalist who does not plagiarize/fabricate. The other is about which errors are enough to get a journalist fired, and the conclusion in that article is that there isn't a clear standard. Re: the first article, I think what happened with Brian Williams could be an example of the proposal in it. He lost his position as anchor of NBC's Nightly News (which I remember watching as a child) for making some things up about what happened to him when reporting in the Middle East. A few years later on, he hasn't been completely exiled. He appears on MSNBC as an occasional anchor, to my knowledge. Another disgraced journalist mentioned in this article (this looks like another rabbit hole for me to go down) is Jayson Blair, who wrote for the New York Times and in 2003 his plagiarism and fabrication were discovered. More commentary on him to come, probably. I'm curious as to how his case compares to Stephen Glass - the nature of the fabrications as well as the motivations. It looks like this guy has also written a book, so that could be an interesting read as well.
ETA: all my thoughts about Jayson Blair's plagiarism and fabrication.
I first read through the Wikipedia article on him, which says that he fabricated being in locations that he never went to, as well as plagiarizing some things here and there. He also made up quotes from people he hadn't spoken to and other details in his stories. In the list of journalistic offenses he committed, it mentions that he also misspelled names on multiple occasions. There was also an interesting tidbit that I wasn't aware of before - a Law and Order episode (that I refer to in my mind as 'the plagiarism one') was based on his journalistic offenses. I didn't know it had been based on a true story and that this was the true story it was inspired by.
As to his motivations, apparently in an interview he said that he did it mainly because he was afraid he wouldn't live up to his own and others' expectations, and that it began with a small ethical misconduct which later grew to larger proportions. It doesn't look like he ever made up entire stories, unlike Stephen Glass. I'm not really sure how The New Republic compared in terms of status/prestige in the late 90s and early 2000s so it's hard to draw a comparison as to the magnitude - how large of an audience read the plagiarism and fabrications. "Blair explained that his fabrications started with what he thought was a relatively innocent infraction: using a quote from a press conference which he had missed." This is actually fairly similar to what happened with Glass - he thought an article of his was missing a good quote so he just made one up and left it in there. As far as motivations are concerned, their motivations were somewhat different - wanting to meet people's expectations (ie a fear of failure) vs wanting to be liked/to impress people (colleagues). However you could argue that those motivations have a bit in common - feelings of insecurity, or perhaps moreso inadequacy for Jayson Blair. They were both young men who wrote for well-respected publications and ended up as journalistic disgraces. In a New York Times article detailing the saga of Blair, colleagues describe him as being sloppy and careless, causing him to make mistakes which he was continually reprimanded for. They also said that he was quite involved in office politics and gossip, but charismatic. However, he continued to make mistakes and transgressions, clashing with his editors on multiple occasions. There's an interesting passage in this article that bears remarkable similarity to some things that happened with Stephen Glass: a confrontation between fabricator/plagiarist and editor - "'Look me in the eye and tell me you did what you say you did,' Mr. Roberts demanded. Mr. Blair returned his gaze and said he had." The article also describes Blair's editors demanding to see his notes because they were suspicious. It says that his friends felt betrayed by his deceitful actions, which is something I saw when reading about Stephen Glass as well. Someone quoted in the article said that it's difficult to catch people who are intentionally trying to deceive; a similar sentiment was expressed by Stephen Glass' editor. The NYT article from 2003 raises the question of how long Blair's misdeeds will be associated with the paper, which is kind of interesting to think about in the present day. I personally was unaware of both of these cases of fabrication (and in one, plagiarism) until I happened to watch a movie about one of them, which led me to read up on the matter. However these things happened/were in the news before I was old enough to register them, so someone older than me may remember both of these scandals.
As for differences, one that seems worth noting is the apparently careless/sloppy nature of Blair's journalistic offenses/mistakes as opposed to the meticulousness that Stephen Glass went to with his fabrications. Throughout Blair's career in journalism he was being reprimanded for various mistakes. From what I've read about Glass, it doesn't look like he was considered to be careless or sloppy by his colleagues. He could also be considered to have been charismatic, although perhaps in a bit of a different way - he yearned to please/impress/be liked and was self-deprecating, criticizing his own work and constantly asking people if they were mad at him. In a 2016 interview of Blair, he says that at the time he plagiarized and fabricated, he was suffering from bipolar disorder as well as recovering from drug and alcohol addictions, but does not consider that to be an excuse for his behavior.
In closing, I think there's some interesting summer reading on my horizon: Stephen Glass' lightly fictionalized account of his journalistic offenses (The Fabulist) as well as Jayson Blair's book (Burning Down My Master's House), which wasn't lightly fictionalized. Conveniently they can be had from Amazon at reduced prices. Hopefully they will be interesting and insightful.
https://www.poynter.org/2012/why-journalism-should-rehabilitate-not-excommunicate-plagiarists/185085/
http://www.poynter.org/2013/which-reporting-errors-will-get-one-fired-good-luck-finding-clear-standards/226805/
In googling "journalistic offenses" I came across some interesting things on Poynter.org: one which suggests that people who commit journalistic offenses shouldn't be 'excommunicated' and instead should be taken back in and rehabilitated/taught how to be a proper journalist who does not plagiarize/fabricate. The other is about which errors are enough to get a journalist fired, and the conclusion in that article is that there isn't a clear standard. Re: the first article, I think what happened with Brian Williams could be an example of the proposal in it. He lost his position as anchor of NBC's Nightly News (which I remember watching as a child) for making some things up about what happened to him when reporting in the Middle East. A few years later on, he hasn't been completely exiled. He appears on MSNBC as an occasional anchor, to my knowledge. Another disgraced journalist mentioned in this article (this looks like another rabbit hole for me to go down) is Jayson Blair, who wrote for the New York Times and in 2003 his plagiarism and fabrication were discovered. More commentary on him to come, probably. I'm curious as to how his case compares to Stephen Glass - the nature of the fabrications as well as the motivations. It looks like this guy has also written a book, so that could be an interesting read as well.
ETA: all my thoughts about Jayson Blair's plagiarism and fabrication.
I first read through the Wikipedia article on him, which says that he fabricated being in locations that he never went to, as well as plagiarizing some things here and there. He also made up quotes from people he hadn't spoken to and other details in his stories. In the list of journalistic offenses he committed, it mentions that he also misspelled names on multiple occasions. There was also an interesting tidbit that I wasn't aware of before - a Law and Order episode (that I refer to in my mind as 'the plagiarism one') was based on his journalistic offenses. I didn't know it had been based on a true story and that this was the true story it was inspired by.
As to his motivations, apparently in an interview he said that he did it mainly because he was afraid he wouldn't live up to his own and others' expectations, and that it began with a small ethical misconduct which later grew to larger proportions. It doesn't look like he ever made up entire stories, unlike Stephen Glass. I'm not really sure how The New Republic compared in terms of status/prestige in the late 90s and early 2000s so it's hard to draw a comparison as to the magnitude - how large of an audience read the plagiarism and fabrications. "Blair explained that his fabrications started with what he thought was a relatively innocent infraction: using a quote from a press conference which he had missed." This is actually fairly similar to what happened with Glass - he thought an article of his was missing a good quote so he just made one up and left it in there. As far as motivations are concerned, their motivations were somewhat different - wanting to meet people's expectations (ie a fear of failure) vs wanting to be liked/to impress people (colleagues). However you could argue that those motivations have a bit in common - feelings of insecurity, or perhaps moreso inadequacy for Jayson Blair. They were both young men who wrote for well-respected publications and ended up as journalistic disgraces. In a New York Times article detailing the saga of Blair, colleagues describe him as being sloppy and careless, causing him to make mistakes which he was continually reprimanded for. They also said that he was quite involved in office politics and gossip, but charismatic. However, he continued to make mistakes and transgressions, clashing with his editors on multiple occasions. There's an interesting passage in this article that bears remarkable similarity to some things that happened with Stephen Glass: a confrontation between fabricator/plagiarist and editor - "'Look me in the eye and tell me you did what you say you did,' Mr. Roberts demanded. Mr. Blair returned his gaze and said he had." The article also describes Blair's editors demanding to see his notes because they were suspicious. It says that his friends felt betrayed by his deceitful actions, which is something I saw when reading about Stephen Glass as well. Someone quoted in the article said that it's difficult to catch people who are intentionally trying to deceive; a similar sentiment was expressed by Stephen Glass' editor. The NYT article from 2003 raises the question of how long Blair's misdeeds will be associated with the paper, which is kind of interesting to think about in the present day. I personally was unaware of both of these cases of fabrication (and in one, plagiarism) until I happened to watch a movie about one of them, which led me to read up on the matter. However these things happened/were in the news before I was old enough to register them, so someone older than me may remember both of these scandals.
As for differences, one that seems worth noting is the apparently careless/sloppy nature of Blair's journalistic offenses/mistakes as opposed to the meticulousness that Stephen Glass went to with his fabrications. Throughout Blair's career in journalism he was being reprimanded for various mistakes. From what I've read about Glass, it doesn't look like he was considered to be careless or sloppy by his colleagues. He could also be considered to have been charismatic, although perhaps in a bit of a different way - he yearned to please/impress/be liked and was self-deprecating, criticizing his own work and constantly asking people if they were mad at him. In a 2016 interview of Blair, he says that at the time he plagiarized and fabricated, he was suffering from bipolar disorder as well as recovering from drug and alcohol addictions, but does not consider that to be an excuse for his behavior.
In closing, I think there's some interesting summer reading on my horizon: Stephen Glass' lightly fictionalized account of his journalistic offenses (The Fabulist) as well as Jayson Blair's book (Burning Down My Master's House), which wasn't lightly fictionalized. Conveniently they can be had from Amazon at reduced prices. Hopefully they will be interesting and insightful.
https://www.poynter.org/2012/why-journalism-should-rehabilitate-not-excommunicate-plagiarists/185085/
http://www.poynter.org/2013/which-reporting-errors-will-get-one-fired-good-luck-finding-clear-standards/226805/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)