Do you have those song lyrics? You know, the ones where it doesn't even matter how much you like the song overall, but just one line of a song really speaks to you, and you always remember it?
I have a few:
From "Come on Get Higher" by Matt Nathanson
So come on get higher, loosen my lips
Faith and desire with a swing of your hips
Just pull me down hard and drown me in love
From "Everything" by Michael Buble
And I can't believe, that I'm your man
And I get to kiss you baby just because I can.
From "Woman" by John Lennon
Woman, I know you understand,
The little child inside the man.
From "You've Got to be Carefully Taught" from South Pacific
You've got to be taught to hate and fear,
You've got to be taught from year to year,
It's got to be drummed in your deaf little ear,
You've got to be carefully taught.
From "Rose's Turn" from Gypsy
Why did I do it?
What did it get me?
Scrapbooks full of me in the background.
Give 'em love and what does it get ya?
What does it get ya?
Thanks a lot and out with the garbage.
They take bows and you're battin' zero.
A more recent one that strikes me is the chorus from "Airplanes" by B.O.B.
Can we pretend that airplanes in the night sky
Are like shooting stars.
'cause I could really use a wish right now...
I think that one speaks to me specifically because of the times we're in. I don't know anyone who doesn't feel like that: I could really use a wish right now. No matter how many times we remind ourselves of the things we have to be grateful for, there are so many things to be fearful of, or to be, frankly, depressed about. Sometimes we're just looking for that ray of optimism.
What are some of the lyrics that speak to you? I'm sure I have more - maybe I'll do a part two to this entry, but in the meantime, share them with me!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
If I Had 50 Million Dollars...
Well, I guess my husband will have to wait a little longer for his TARDIS-inspired media room. On the upside, so will all of the other Dr. Who geeks out there. No one won the $50 million Lotto Max jackpot last night, although 30 people are $1 million richer today, from the MaxMillions prizes. Not me, though.
What is it about lotteries that draws us in? We know the odds. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that they're more likely to have a rhinoceros end up in their living room than to win a big lotto prize, and yet we still try. As I said to my husband last night, the odds are a zillion to one, but if you don't play, they're zero.
Still, I feel pretty foolish today for wasting money last night on tickets. Not a ton, but still... a waste. So why?
Truthfully, I think we pay for the dreams. Is there anyone who doesn't have long conversations about what they'd do with the money? First, starting with all of your philanthropic goals, to absolve any guilt for the big houses, vacations and new cars and vehicles that you plan for after that. These days, especially, it just gives you a sense of hope that things can get better. Most people I've talked to, even though they dream about what they could do with $50 million, say that they'd be happy to just win enough to pay off debts, go on a vacation, have a little luxury in their lives. For so many of us right now, compared to what we may have known before, luxury is a distant memory. Hopefully, a little dreaming is enough for now.
Still, I feel pretty foolish today for wasting money last night on tickets. Not a ton, but still... a waste. So why?
Truthfully, I think we pay for the dreams. Is there anyone who doesn't have long conversations about what they'd do with the money? First, starting with all of your philanthropic goals, to absolve any guilt for the big houses, vacations and new cars and vehicles that you plan for after that. These days, especially, it just gives you a sense of hope that things can get better. Most people I've talked to, even though they dream about what they could do with $50 million, say that they'd be happy to just win enough to pay off debts, go on a vacation, have a little luxury in their lives. For so many of us right now, compared to what we may have known before, luxury is a distant memory. Hopefully, a little dreaming is enough for now.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Heartbreaking Video of the Oil Spill
I admit it: I am an avoider. I avoid reading about issues that I know are going to upset me. I hate feeling helpless. If it makes me angry, fine, I'll read all about it, but if it's just plain sad, even with a little anger mixed in, I'll sometimes avoid an issue until I just can't anymore. I've done that with the oil spill.
Then the other day I watched a slide show of photos of marine birds, covered in oil, completely mired in, dying as surely as if they were covered in cement.
Today I came across this video of an AP reporter, Rich Matthews, scuba diving in the Gulf. It's a worthwhile piece, and I hope you'll watch it. You can read his account of it here.
Then the other day I watched a slide show of photos of marine birds, covered in oil, completely mired in, dying as surely as if they were covered in cement.
Today I came across this video of an AP reporter, Rich Matthews, scuba diving in the Gulf. It's a worthwhile piece, and I hope you'll watch it. You can read his account of it here.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Sale & Pelletier to Divorce
Jamie Sale & David Pelletier had one of the most famous "Love Story"s of the 2000's, but apparently it's coming to an end. The two skaters, who famously were awarded a second Olympic gold medal for pairs figure skating in 2002 captivated audiences worldwide. Those same audiences were thrilled to learn that the skaters were a couple off-ice, as well.
Sale & Pelletier married 4.5 years ago, and have one son, Jesse, who turns 3 in September. They say that they will continue to skate together professionally. They have been living apart for the past 18 months.
Sale & Pelletier married 4.5 years ago, and have one son, Jesse, who turns 3 in September. They say that they will continue to skate together professionally. They have been living apart for the past 18 months.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Mississauga or Abu Ghraib?
According to The Star, employees of Mississauga's transportation and works department were tied up with duct tape, spanked until they were bruised and humiliated, at the behest of a supervisor for over five years. The Ministry of Labour and Peel Region Police did nothing after viewing a videotape of one of the attacks. Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion admits that the city knew about the video back in 2009. Investigations were conducted by the MOL, police and by the city, and "action" was taken by the city, but the supervisor, Domenic Galamini was NOT fired. McCallion declined to specify what action was taken by the city.
In the words of SNL's Seth Myers and Amy Poehler: "REALLY?" Physical and psychological TORTURE of employees isn't a fireable offense? What the heck do you have to do to get fired from there? "Well, no one was actually killed..."
It's international news and people are jailed when American soldiers do it in an Iraq prison, but a supervisor doing this to his employees in a major North American city is worthy of what? A suspension? A note on his record?
This is why government employees (and unions) have such a bad reputation. I mean seriously - use some damned logic, people!
In the words of SNL's Seth Myers and Amy Poehler: "REALLY?" Physical and psychological TORTURE of employees isn't a fireable offense? What the heck do you have to do to get fired from there? "Well, no one was actually killed..."
It's international news and people are jailed when American soldiers do it in an Iraq prison, but a supervisor doing this to his employees in a major North American city is worthy of what? A suspension? A note on his record?
This is why government employees (and unions) have such a bad reputation. I mean seriously - use some damned logic, people!
Friday, May 28, 2010
A Response to the SATC 2 Reviewers (I'm Looking at YOU, Roger Ebert!)
This past Wednesday night my friend, Janice, and I headed into Toronto to see a preview of Sex and the City 2. I had won tickets from the tv network Slice and so we were two of about 400 or so who got to view the movie in advance of its opening today. Most were contest winners from a couple of radio stations, some were media types.
I said to Janice as we were going in that it was blindingly obvious who the movie reviewers were: middle-aged white men in sport coats, looking like they were going to their execution.
I can't really blame them: Sex and the City is just not something that most straight men will ever understand. I'm sure I would have the same look on my face if someone tried to get me to watch Fight Club.
I enjoyed the movie. I imagine that most of the women in the audience did. Honestly, why would they have gone if they didn't already know that they enjoyed the series and the earlier movie? I didn't love the movie. There were parts that bugged me immensely: at the beginning, Carrie made me want to reach out and strangle her, whining about how Big wanted to spend the night at home, sitting in a chair staring at him like there wasn't a single thing to do in a glamourous - if somewhat user-unfriendly, in my opinion - Manhattan apartment. They eat out or eat take-out every night? Seriously? How can someone possibly be that spoiled? So, the movie already had a bit of a climb to dig out of that hole, about ten minutes in. Don't even get me started on Charlotte wearing white vintage Valentino while baking with two little girls.
However, as a general rule, I don't watch SATC for its intricate plot points, its statements on modern life or its moral values; I watch SATC for pure escapism, and this is where most of the reviewers and I differ.
Film critics - like theatre critics - are an interesting bunch. Every once in a while you get one who can accept a movie for just being fun, but that's rare. They want a "film", not a movie. There has to be some deeper meaning to all of it. They want to be intellectually stimulated (or just to be fooled into feeling intellectually stimulated). Absurdist comedies? That's okay. Heavy drama that makes you want to slit your wrist into your popcorn? Excellent - bring it on! Lifestyle porn for women? What's the "point" of it all?
And "lifestyle porn" is what SATC was created for. Yes, most of the women watching like to picture themselves as one of the characters (almost everyone claims to be a "Carrie", by the way), but for the thirty minutes of the tv show, or the 2.5 hours of the movie (and yes, even I think that's a bit ridiculous) you get to escape the reality of your own life. I don't know anyone who lives in an apartment like the ones in which Charlotte and Carrie live. I don't even know anyone with a house in Brooklyn like Miranda's. I sure as Hell don't know anyone with a hot, young movie star ex-boyfriend who gets invited to stay in a beyond luxury hotel in Abu Dhabi with a personal butler for each guest, just for the sake of a little PR. And, sadly, I've never been to a gay wedding officiated by Liza Minelli. A girl can dream, though.
Most of the reviews that I've read take issue with the "obscene" materialism of the movie. In real life, I would agree with them. It would be completely sickening, and I doubt that many real life women would enjoy hanging out with these characters. Most of us couldn't afford to! Watching them, though, is like picturing yourself glorious clothes and shoes that magically appear at just the right time, beautiful scenery that most of us will never see first-hand (even if it's actually Morocco standing in for the UAE) and having a butler fondly called "Paula Abdul".
And yes, men are always objectified in the movies. They were an abundance of package shots that had absolutely nothing to do with shopping. You know what? Good! For the amount of nudity that women do in every other movie on the planet not produced by Pixar, why can't men show a little skin (and er, other things...)? Why is it that women aren't allowed to have sexual thoughts? Do we all have to fit into the whole Virgin, Madonna, and Crone molds?
So Roger Ebert, I know that you feel you wasted your time in that movie. Did you really expect anything different, though? Why not just simply write a review saying "There was no way that I was going to like this movie. I can't objectively review it. If you enjoy Sex and the City you're going to go anyway, and if you don't, you won't."
And to Lindy West, does every movie have to be about your version of feminism? "essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls"? Really? Because that isn't offensive at all. Why isn't it okay for women to be offended by and curious about women wearing burkas? We're just supposed to assume that they wear them (in that kind of heat!) out of their own free will? Do you really think that every woman wearing a veil is doing it because she WANTS to? Are the writers and producers of SATC playing with fire a bit by "going there"? Probably, but how many of us wouldn't be fascinated by a woman having to lift her veil just to put every bite of food in her mouth? Those of us who grew up with the ability to choose our own clothing, including how much skin to show, have every right to wonder how another woman can enjoy life like that.
Oh, and Ms. West? The "c-word" is never appropriate. EVER. So when you write thing like "SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it's my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car" you offend me WAY more than any spoiled rich girl ever could.
I said to Janice as we were going in that it was blindingly obvious who the movie reviewers were: middle-aged white men in sport coats, looking like they were going to their execution.
I can't really blame them: Sex and the City is just not something that most straight men will ever understand. I'm sure I would have the same look on my face if someone tried to get me to watch Fight Club.
I enjoyed the movie. I imagine that most of the women in the audience did. Honestly, why would they have gone if they didn't already know that they enjoyed the series and the earlier movie? I didn't love the movie. There were parts that bugged me immensely: at the beginning, Carrie made me want to reach out and strangle her, whining about how Big wanted to spend the night at home, sitting in a chair staring at him like there wasn't a single thing to do in a glamourous - if somewhat user-unfriendly, in my opinion - Manhattan apartment. They eat out or eat take-out every night? Seriously? How can someone possibly be that spoiled? So, the movie already had a bit of a climb to dig out of that hole, about ten minutes in. Don't even get me started on Charlotte wearing white vintage Valentino while baking with two little girls.
However, as a general rule, I don't watch SATC for its intricate plot points, its statements on modern life or its moral values; I watch SATC for pure escapism, and this is where most of the reviewers and I differ.
Film critics - like theatre critics - are an interesting bunch. Every once in a while you get one who can accept a movie for just being fun, but that's rare. They want a "film", not a movie. There has to be some deeper meaning to all of it. They want to be intellectually stimulated (or just to be fooled into feeling intellectually stimulated). Absurdist comedies? That's okay. Heavy drama that makes you want to slit your wrist into your popcorn? Excellent - bring it on! Lifestyle porn for women? What's the "point" of it all?
And "lifestyle porn" is what SATC was created for. Yes, most of the women watching like to picture themselves as one of the characters (almost everyone claims to be a "Carrie", by the way), but for the thirty minutes of the tv show, or the 2.5 hours of the movie (and yes, even I think that's a bit ridiculous) you get to escape the reality of your own life. I don't know anyone who lives in an apartment like the ones in which Charlotte and Carrie live. I don't even know anyone with a house in Brooklyn like Miranda's. I sure as Hell don't know anyone with a hot, young movie star ex-boyfriend who gets invited to stay in a beyond luxury hotel in Abu Dhabi with a personal butler for each guest, just for the sake of a little PR. And, sadly, I've never been to a gay wedding officiated by Liza Minelli. A girl can dream, though.
And yes, men are always objectified in the movies. They were an abundance of package shots that had absolutely nothing to do with shopping. You know what? Good! For the amount of nudity that women do in every other movie on the planet not produced by Pixar, why can't men show a little skin (and er, other things...)? Why is it that women aren't allowed to have sexual thoughts? Do we all have to fit into the whole Virgin, Madonna, and Crone molds?
So Roger Ebert, I know that you feel you wasted your time in that movie. Did you really expect anything different, though? Why not just simply write a review saying "There was no way that I was going to like this movie. I can't objectively review it. If you enjoy Sex and the City you're going to go anyway, and if you don't, you won't."
And to Lindy West, does every movie have to be about your version of feminism? "essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls"? Really? Because that isn't offensive at all. Why isn't it okay for women to be offended by and curious about women wearing burkas? We're just supposed to assume that they wear them (in that kind of heat!) out of their own free will? Do you really think that every woman wearing a veil is doing it because she WANTS to? Are the writers and producers of SATC playing with fire a bit by "going there"? Probably, but how many of us wouldn't be fascinated by a woman having to lift her veil just to put every bite of food in her mouth? Those of us who grew up with the ability to choose our own clothing, including how much skin to show, have every right to wonder how another woman can enjoy life like that.
Oh, and Ms. West? The "c-word" is never appropriate. EVER. So when you write thing like "SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it's my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car" you offend me WAY more than any spoiled rich girl ever could.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Last Five Years
Back in April, my friend Lisa came for a visit. We don't get to see each other very often, even though she's my best friend from university and I miss her dreadfully when she's not around. She's one of those people who honestly just make me happy by their very presence. She told me about a show happening in Toronto in May, and that I had to see it with her.
Theatre is still my first love, but I rarely get to indulge myself anymore. When she decided it was my birthday present and she was taking me, I couldn't say no.
So last week I drove down to the Toronto Centre for the Arts. There, in the studio theatre, a new company called Angelwalk Theatre was presenting their second show: The Last Five Years by Jason Robert Brown.
It was everything Lisa told me it was: touching, sad, funny - altogether just a really good show. It's a two-hander: not something I'm used to seeing in musicals. It tells the story of a relationship from beginning to end, and from end to beginning all at once. Cathy tells her side of the story from the end and works backwards; Jamie tells his from the beginning to the end. The only song they sing together is "The Next Ten Minutes", which comes at the very middle of the show and shows their wedding.
Of course, I'm late now in posting this, since the show ended last weekend, but I wanted to congratulate Angelwalk Theatre on a great show, and encourage any GTA theatre-goers to check them out next season. If their next shows are as good as this one you'll be in for a wonderful evening.
In the meantime, here's a clip of the actress, Sherie-Rene Scott, who portrayed Cathy in the off-Broadway production, singing the song that's been stuck in my head since last Thursday night. The soundtrack is available, and I really recommend checking it out.
Theatre is still my first love, but I rarely get to indulge myself anymore. When she decided it was my birthday present and she was taking me, I couldn't say no.
So last week I drove down to the Toronto Centre for the Arts. There, in the studio theatre, a new company called Angelwalk Theatre was presenting their second show: The Last Five Years by Jason Robert Brown.
It was everything Lisa told me it was: touching, sad, funny - altogether just a really good show. It's a two-hander: not something I'm used to seeing in musicals. It tells the story of a relationship from beginning to end, and from end to beginning all at once. Cathy tells her side of the story from the end and works backwards; Jamie tells his from the beginning to the end. The only song they sing together is "The Next Ten Minutes", which comes at the very middle of the show and shows their wedding.
Of course, I'm late now in posting this, since the show ended last weekend, but I wanted to congratulate Angelwalk Theatre on a great show, and encourage any GTA theatre-goers to check them out next season. If their next shows are as good as this one you'll be in for a wonderful evening.
In the meantime, here's a clip of the actress, Sherie-Rene Scott, who portrayed Cathy in the off-Broadway production, singing the song that's been stuck in my head since last Thursday night. The soundtrack is available, and I really recommend checking it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)