plus-sizes...AND THAT'S OKAY

I haven’t posted anything here in a while, but...

With the recent Abercrombie & Fitch thing in the news—about no plus sizes, etc—and this, which I saw today:

“Jennie Runk: My life as a ‘plus-size’ model”

I wanted to take a few moments and say something about the insanely shallow attitude about size in our culture.

Here it is: we are really fucked up in our brains to believe that success and attractiveness and happiness can only come in a few limited sizes. (Actually, we are really fucked up in our brains concerning MANY topics in our culture, but today, I’m just gonna focus on this one.)

And here is my rant:

Be the size you are. I don’t mean that anything goes. I mean, honestly look at yourself and figure out what size you are. I don’t mean dress size or suit size...I mean how big you actually ought to be. NOT how big society thinks you ought to be. I mean how big your body should be, based on your body. Looking at your genetic relatives can help a little here, but you need to take into account environmental/behavioral issues.

Do we have an epidemic of obesity in this country? Yes. Are fast food and pre-packaged, pre-processed convenience-type foods and high sugar &/or salt content foods (and drinks) to blame. Yes, in part. Also, there’s economics involved, AND BEHAVIOR...CHOICES. That could be a whole documentary film...or several. But I’m not really focusing on that right now. 

Just like some people are tall and some are short, some people are fat and some are skinny, AND THAT’S OKAY. Seriously. We all need to come to terms with that. People come in different sizes. Yes, we all have the same basic shape, but there’s a significant range in how big we “normally” get. The thing is this: be the size you should be. And learn to be okay with that.

Sure, if you’re the size of a house, and can’t leave your house, that’s a problem. You need to make some changes. Or if you’re an average-height adult and you weigh the same as an average dining room table, that’s a problem. You need to make some changes.

Activity is important. Whether you’re...let’s say “corpulent” or “whispy”, don’t sit around on your ass all day. It’s not good for you. Take a walk. Take the stairs. Do some activity. Now, I do not really exercise. I don’t go to the gym or run or swim or pull out the yoga mat and do crunches. Yes, I should, but it’s just not a habit I’ve gotten into. When I’ve tried, something always comes along to disrupt my schedule before it’s had a chance to really take hold. BUT, I do walk. I do take the stairs if it’s only a few floors.

Anyway, what I’m saying is, do some activity when you can. And if you feel that you’re not fit enough, then do more activity. If you’re thin and want to put on some weight, then start lifting weights, and drinking protein shakes, and maybe eating a little more. If you’re fat and want to take some off, do something that uses big muscle groups and increases heart rate and breathing. Yes, if you’re worried, consult a doctor first. And don’t go crazy right off the bat; you could hurt yourself.

But don’t compare what you look like to what you see in TV & movies, commercials, magazines. Don’t worry that you don’t look like some pop star celebrity type, and ESPECIALLY not professional “models” who walk on runways and do photo shoots for glamor magazines and perfume ads. Don’t be upset if you don’t look like that. Those people don’t even look like that. You gotta let all the shit go, and look at real people.

And if you’re a child or teen or even in your early twenties, you need to know that your weight, your mass, whatever, may change in the next 5 or 10 years. You may gain weight &/or height without doing much of anything to make it happen. Or you might lose weight, though probably not height, unless you have some degenerative bone disease.

So...in conclusion, two things:

ONE, learn to love your body. That means getting to know your body and being honest and realistic about it. That doesn’t mean you think your body is “perfect”. But it’s really important to love and accept your body. It’s a big part of who you are. In fact, some would argue that it’s all of who you are.

TWO, if you want to make changes, be healthy and reasonable about it. Sure, you might end up with really extreme positive results. Yeah! Great! Awesome! But if that doesn’t happen, that’s okay. The main thing is to be reasonable healthy and okay about that, and know that eventually, your body will degenerate. We can fight it, and that’s fine, but eventually we will lose that fight. AND THAT’S OKAY.

So, what happened with City Arts?

Okay, this will be long, but I don’t really want to write a whole lot about this. Because I don’t really want to get angry, or any more depressed than I usually am. So mostly this will just be copied and pasted from my email.

I couple of months ago I got this email from the City Arts Drama Director:

Your public blog has recently come to my attention.  Having seen it, I have no choice but to let you know that until such time your naked pictures are not available to the public you will not be allowed to work with City Arts.  Our concern is that parents may not understand your point of view and that makes your association with us, potentially damaging to our tax-funded program.

Should you want to discuss this with me, I am available to schedule a meeting at your convenience.  We are not terminating you, but rather using the guidelines of Roster work as an as-needed employee.  At this time, your services as an accompanist can be served by others on our roster.

Well, the only involvement I’d had with them since starting this blog was that I had once or twice before prepared recordings for their children’s theatre to use. (Yeah, instead of their hiring someone to play the piano, the music director—who is a friend of mine—asked if I could make a recoding.) So, being the creative and often bored type I am, instead of just sitting down and playing through and recording the piano accompaniment as written, I did a (small) orchestration of all the music in the show and had my computer make a recording of that. It was not terribly extensive or complicated music, but this did constitute an artist effort on my part.

So, I wrote back:

That’s fine. I would ask that you inform the others involved with the show to not use the recordings I’ve prepared.
If you would, please, let me know when this has been taken care of. Thanks.

Well, I got no answer from him for a week, during which I contacted my friend the music director and was contacted by the stage director/children’s theatre director, both of whom basically said that it was unfortunate it went this way and that the artistic director didn’t need to send that original email. And they both asked me to reconsider. Yet my feeling was that this was not something I wanted to reconsider.

So I wrote again:

Has this been taken care of?
I want to be sure that the files I sent are deleted and any hard copies that may've been made are destroyed
Please let me know.

He did respond to that:

As this is a work for hire, I don’t need to destroy anything. Please send your invoice for payment. Feel free to call my cell if you have questions. I don’t have your number, otherwise I would have called on the first contact.

So I wrote and sent this diatribe:

I’m sure if you wanted to call me, you have my number somewhere, as it has not changed in the past 5 years.

Since I started posting my blog, over a year ago, you have not hired me as an accompanist. I’ve never thought you to be under any obligation to do offer me any work. 

You said in your email last week that my “association” with City Arts could be damaging. Well, this recording is the only “association” I currently have with you, apart from occasional attendance at meetings of the Playwrights’ Forum (of which I’m not currently a member). So, when you contact me to tell me that I will “not be allowed to work with City Arts” I think it’s a reasonable assumption that this position of yours should apply to the recordings I’ve made.

If that is not what you meant, then I don’t know why you bothered to send that email. But you did. You have created this situation at this time. I understand your decision. You’re acting as an administrator out of fear of potential backlash due to ignorance, conservatism, and religion. That is the side you have come down on in this.

Sadly, it is not surprising. However, I completely disagree with your position on this. I would like to think that the director of an Arts program, and a playwright, would make a stand to support personal and artistic exploration and expression, whether or not you or others may like it or are comfortable with it.

Now, I do not consider my photography as being directly connected to my work as a musician, however you have chosen to make that connection. So I am taking a stand, since you will not, in support of artistic expression. This is an issue of artistic integrity, and not something from which I’m likely to back down. Therefore, I must insist that those recordings NOT be used by City Arts.

Furthermore, this is not work that you have “hired” me to do. As in the past, this is something I did at the request of the music director as a favor and for which, in the past, I did not get paid to do, nor do I expect to be paid for the time I put into these recordings.

Well, again I got no response from this guy. Another week later, I found out from the music director that they’d gotten someone else to make a recording.  So I wrote this guy again:

I have heard that the children's theatre will be using a different recording from the orchestrated one I prepared. I would appreciate some official word, confirming that this is indeed the case. It would allow me to consider this situation officially resolved, so I no longer need to be concerned with it. Thank you.

He didn’t answer. The children’s theatre director did. And I still have heard nothing from the artistic director.

I don’t get it. It’s a lot like the reaction of the guy in Mississippi last year.

Apparently, from what I’ve gathered by talking to a couple of other people, no one had lodged any sort of complaint. He and the directors of the show for which I’d made these recordings had talked about it and decided it would be okay to use the recordings, and then he sent that first email.

This was all a “what-if”/pre-emptive-strike/covering-my-own-ass-in-case-of-future-whatever sort of thing.

I have yet to run into this City Arts guy socially (or professionally). And when I do, I’m not sure exactly what my response will be. But I don’t have anything much to say that I haven’t already said. I mean, I could say more, but it would likely just get personal and insulting. 

Unfriend number whatever

So, I just noticed that yet another person unfriended me on the facebook. Earlier today, I think.

A few years ago, I might not have noticed for a while. But now, it’s something I still just assume is going to happen.

(Just a quick recap for anyone new: When I started this blog and started posting links on the facebook, I lost about 60 or so within a couple of months. It was a little extreme. And since then it’s taped off a lot. Now it’s more occasional. My total number of “lost” “friends” is probably around 75 or 80? Maybe more, I don’t know.) 

I used to really wonder a lot who it was, often looking through my “friend” list to figure it out. I’ve probably said this before, but...when someone unfriends you, I wish the facebook would send you a notification. They notify you of every other fuckin’ thing.

Obviously, many of my “facebook friends” I’m not REALLY friends with. I know them in real life—well, there is one I can think of right now, whom I’ve not met in real life. A lot of them are people I was friends with or worked with or knew 5 or 10 or 20-something years ago. And even most of the people I currently know, I’m not that close to.

Well, this is starting to head toward depressing self-indulgent crap.

So, I’ll just say that while I haven’t bothered to figure out who the last several “friends” are who silently unfriended me, I assume that it’s due to this blog. In fact, of all the unfriends in the last year-and-a-half, only one ever wrote me and said anything. It was almost humorous.

Anyway, despite that fact that I still sort of expect unfriendings, it still surprises me. It’s just sad so many people can’t handle being friends with a naked person. And they just disappear, in silence. Have some balls, people. Tell me you don’t like this or you’re uncomfortable, or that you think I’m a pervert out to do horrible things to your children.
(Oh yeah, I never did write about that. I guess I’m still processing... Soon.)

Well...enough ranting.
Goodnight. 

Les Misérables, the movie—my thoughts

So, I just saw Les Mistoday. And yes, I’m gonna complain and bitch about stuff I didn’t like. I’ll try to mention some things I did like too.

My first reaction is about the piece—the score and lyrics and “script”. The songs are really great. The recitative-like bits aren’t so great. They just don’t feel natural. Am I wrong in thinking there’s a lot of “new” stuff added in? I’m somewhat familiar with the show, but I don’t KNOW it, the way I know shows that I’ve done. But there were a lot of little bits here and there which I didn’t recognize and which were kind of clunky and awkward, much like the “recitative”.

I had issues with several little bits of “dialogue” which seemed like ad libs. Maybe they aren’t. As I said, I’m not intimately familiar with the show, but that’s how they seemed to me. I’m not opposed to ad libsas a concept, but these spots I’m thinking of didn’t seem necessary, nor particularly great—they didn’t make it better, in my opinion, or convey anything that would otherwise be missing, so why not leave them out?

Also, I had some with the voices. Generally, I thought everyone “acted the songs” well without adding on a lot of stuff that didn't come from the text, etc. Everyone, that it, except Javert and adult Cosette, both of whom I found boring. But that may be an issue with the writing. Also, frankly, I felt that some of Anne Hathaway’s Fantine was a bit histrionic.

This is another writing issue: except for Valjean, I don’t feel that there’s really much to know about the characters, so I don’t care about them. And I think I’m expected to care about them pretty quickly as soon as we meet them.

So, about the singers...

I just hated Javert's voice most of the time. It was awkward and not natural. I think it's a technical issue with the placement. And, to me, it seemed Russell Crowe wasn't at ease with singing.

Hugh Jackman. He seemed very comfortable with singing. And that was great. He did a great job of “acting the songs”. And his last scene, at the very end, did move me to tears. (Not outright bawling or anything. Come on, this is me.) However, I thought his placement was strange maybe half of the time. Toward the end of the movie (3/4s through it) it occurred to me that maybe the role is just too high for him. Not that he can't sing those notes, but it sits fairly high much of the time. I found myself thinking he might’ve made a better Javert, certainly better than Russell Crowe. (I also found myself thinking that he was so strong because of the adamantium laced-bones.)

Eddie Redmayne as Marius. I thought his voice sounded good, but that shaky jaw tension thing was annoying to watch.  Really annoying.

When the Thénardiers appeared, I just thought, “Ug”. Weren’t they satisfied with their roles in Sweeney Todd? I just was not that crazy about either Sacha Baron Cohen or Helena Bonham Carter. They were alright, but I just saw them and not the characters.

When Amanda Seyfried sang (Cosette) I kept wondering if that was a real voice or some computer-adjusted thing. Especially when it went high. It was odd, maybe a bit like a boy soprano or something.

Anne Hathaway sang well, but as I said it was a bit much at times.

I think that covers all the famous people, right? All the “stars”. Everyone who I didn’t recognize, the non-stars, was great. Aaron Tveit as Enjolras (the “leader” of the revolutionaries—I had to look up both the actor and character names) was great. I actually thought he should’ve played Marius. Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche (the little boy revolutionary) was wonderful. Samantha Barks was fine as Éponine, although I did find the character uninteresting.

I thought that the bishop was really excellent. It’s not a big role (yes, there ARE small roles), but he was great. Ohhh...No wonder. I just looked it up, and he was played by Colm Wilkinson. Colm Wilkinson was the original London and Broadway Valjean, as well as various other stage musical roles.

A general note concerning the accuracy of musical performances in this film. I fear that this film may piss off various music directors and music teachers and accompanists for several years to come. Because there seemed to me to be a hell of a lot of inaccurate rhythms and pitches, and rushing. (“Rushing” means going faster than you’re supposed to so that you get ahead of the beat.)  And now that it’s recorded in this way, it’s set, tons of singers and actors will learn it that way.

(This is part of a general gripe of mine about how many actors learn music—by only using a recording when they apparently don’t have the ability to decide if that’s the way it’s supposed to be. In fact, I know an actor/singer who used to think that since people went to so much trouble to make a recoding, often with the composer involved, that it must be the way it’s supposed to be. Not true. A recording, like any production, usually involves compromises. You loved this one take, except there was that one spot which was a little off. Or, you love how this actor performs this role, except they have trouble with the range or maybe have trouble with learning tricky rhythms or whatever. You make compromises. Anyway...)

Okay...what else?

The sets and costumes were great, although, I didn’t like the Thénardiers costumes. They just seemed a bit...I don’t know, not ridiculous, but they sort of took me out of the story. Look, comic relief is great and absolutely useful in a drama. But to me, they were too much. Sorry, this isn’t about their costumes so much as about their performances.

The women in the factory and “Lovely Ladies” scenes I found kind of annoying, and the choreography in the factory seemed contrived to me. Like suddenly they were doing a number. And that generally was not the feel of the rest of the movie (except “Master of the House”...again, the Thénardiers). And the “Lovely Ladies” scene seemed almost an odd, stylized thing unlike the rest of the movie.

I liked how the opening just began, no Overture, no bumbling around, just start. I did not like the long (CGI?) camera shot from far away and above. I similarly did not like the couple of shots at the end of songs (“Stars” and “Bring Him Home” I think) that pulled up and away from the singer, both visually and aurally, so that the last note, the last word, didn’t end, but faded instead. The first time that happened I laughed out loud. And the couple of times Javert was pacing somewhere up high above the rest of the city seemed strange to me.

There was one shot I though odd—with young Cosette and Madame Thénardier. It was where Cosette was hiding behind a wall, and you saw only her eyes and mouth, alternating with Madame Thénardier’s hair and eyes and nose, but not her mouth. That image of Cosette was a really great, striking image, but it just struck me as odd within the film—I don’t recall there being other such striking images.

There were a lot of shots that seemed off-center a bit—almost more diagonal than horizontal. I feel certain that those were done on purpose, but I don’t know why. They just made me feel a little dizzy. And there was a lot of cutting back and forth between 2 or more shots in solo songs, which was also a bit dizzying. I would’ve appreciated more shots where the camera was set in one spot or moving in a longer shot with the singer.

Re: Javert’s suicide—it was so incredibly obvious to me from before his last song even started what he was going to do. There was no working it out, no questioning, nothing like that. Just a long, drawn out “I’m confused and I can’t live like that, so I’m gonna do it. I’m not even trying to convince myself or justify it. I just have to get through this hurdle of a song and then I’m done.” So, the whole time I was just sitting there thinking, “Yeah, do it. Now. Don’t make me suffer through any more of your dreadful singing. Do it.”

Wow, that sounds kind of callous. But, in my defense, from the beginning of the movie I found his voice annoying and I didn’t care about his character at all. So what else was I supposed to feel about that song?

Okay. Well...I’m not sure what more there is to say. Obviously these things are a matter of taste and opinion, like much of what I’ve mentioned here. Then again, it is me writing my reaction to the film. I’m certainly open to questions or responses. 

LOTR, the ending(s)

Ya know, some movies and stories just don’t have much of an ending—no denouement, just climax-and-we’re-done, like a dude who falls asleep the moment he’s done having sex. But that’s okay; The Lord of the Rings trilogy has a few to spare.

(A.k.a, so, the Ring of Power is destroyed, the dark army is defeated, and Frodo and Sam are saved by giant birds. Movie’s done, right? Nope.)

1. Frodo wakes up (in Rivendale?) and sees all his friends., a.k.a. The Wizard of Oz ending.

2. Aragorn is crowned King, everyone appluads, he gives a pretty speech, and he gets to make out with his girlfriend, a.k.a, the “It’s good to be the king” ending.

3. Frodo narrates that the Hobbits made it back home, a.k.a., the “all’s well that ends well” ending.

4. Samwise finally chats up the hot Hobbit chick from early in the first movie, cut to their wedding day, and all the Hobbits are happy, a.k.a., the traditional-comedy-ends-with-a-marriage ending(?).

5. Frodo narrates some more, writes in Bilbo’s/his book while melancholy music plays, complains to Samwise about his wound, narrates some more and accompanies decrepit Bilbo to the Elves ship, then Bilbo gets to make a last funny comment about the Ring, a.k.a., the sad but cute ending.

6. Gandalf gives a goodbye speech, a.k.a., the wise old dude ending.

7. Frodo leaves with the Elves (along with Gandalf and Bilbo) after a tearful goodbye to the other Hobbits, a.k.a., the actual sad ending, OR the long, drawn-out ending.

8. Samwise goes back home to the Shire (hot Hobbit wife and Hobbit kids), while Frodo narrates some more about life and the future, a.k.a., the actual ending, OR the unnecessary ending unless there’s gonna be a sequel—perhaps called Hobbits the Next Generation, or maybe Son of Sam...wise.

Survivors

I just finished reading Survivorsby James Wesley, Rawles. Yes, that’s his name: James Wesley Comma Rawles. He’s a former-military, conservative Christian, survivalist blogger/author/consultant.

It was very disappointing. I bought this book mainly because I liked the cover-art and the description suggested a slightly different story than what I got.

It kept me reading, because from the beginning there was a sense that something big and awful, perhaps awesome, was going to happen. It took a long time setting it up, which only increased the tension. But the closer I got to the end, the less I liked it. There was never a pay-off—no truly big, exciting episode, and no real ending. Also close to the end, the author introduces new characters that seemed as though they should’ve been someone we met before, and there was a several-page episode with new characters in a new location that never reappeared nor had anything to do with any other characters.

There was one character who at the beginning was a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan and who worked his way back home. Along the way he kept encountering people who spoke pretty-good English. So that was a big help. Plus all the gold and silver coins he happened to have hidden away.

Basically this book was just a description of how several (presumably fictional) characters and their families survived an economic collapse—mostly because they were prepared ahead of time with a lot of guns and ammunition, as well as gold and silver coins stored up in readiness for such a collapse. It included a lot of description of guns and other equipment. Also prayer and Bible verses, but certainly nothing that really indicated “God” actually exists or was listening or helping them out. 

I think it was shelved in the sci-fi/fantasy section of some bookstore. But it should’ve been in the Christian fiction section, if there was one. 

Let the airing of grievances begin!

Ya know, I wonder about the seeming increase in the length of the Christmas/Holiday Season...apart from the horrid consumerism aspect, which I think on a lot.

Already? Ug.

Perhaps as time goes on in this failed way of life* we have, there’s more and more of a need for some big escape from it all. Like the stakes are getting higher. Like it’s more and more vital to make “the holidays” more and more meaningful. And it’s all to distract us from how generally unfulfilling our lives are—our way of life.

* You know—this civilization of totalitarian agriculture/we control the world and it

needs our control/everyone has to live like us because it’s the one right way to live... etc.

I don’t know if this holiday escape is something that we the people unconsciously perceive the need for, or if it’s perpetuated by the mechanisms continuing our way of life, i.e., those selling us all the shit, etc. Probably it’s bi-partisan effort.