CAP Hollywood Update

In all honesty, I don't have much of an update. Since Connor's editing at home, I can't really say how the editing's going (though he has shown us periodic rough cuts, and they look BEAUTIFUL). We're finishing up filming today--thank you, Mr. Mayo, for helping me find the equipment and for lending us your own camera (!)--but that should only take half an hour or so. Really, the most pressing problem I have right now in regards to CAP Hollywood is figuring out what to wear, because I have no idea. (Also persuading Olivia and Everleigh to wear ball gowns like they promised). I have full faith in Connor to make our film excellent, and I'm excited to see how it turns out.

CAP Hollywood Update

Well, we're trucking along.

Last Sunday, we came very close to finishing our filming. We finished almost all of the montage, and we finished everything involving the girls. We just have to do the bits with the guy typing, and then we'll be done. We'll probably film that one evening this week, after the AP or after school.

The montage stuff with the girls looks AWESOME, thanks to Connor. It's super artsy and pretty and I am a big fan. Olivia and Everleigh were very good sports as we trekked all over kingdom come, going from Connor's house to the park to along Sligo Creek and back, then to downtown Silver Spring, a couple bus stops, and the train station. (Since the montage is meant to span lots of time, they also had to keep changing their outfits, which they were also nice about. Both of them brought big bags filled with outfits, and just changed every time we changed locations. It was great).

So far, this has been my favorite project that we've done in media. I appreciate the creative free reign we get, and it's so exciting to see my story becoming real. Connor's doing most of the editing, and he's doing a great job. I'm really excited to present the films in--yikes!--17 days. (All of my actors are gonna get super dressed up and come. It'll be awesome).

Unfortunately, I missed two of the three media classes this past week, due to sickness and Change Project stuff, so I haven't got much to report by way of what we've been working on, but I know it'll be great.

CAP Hollywood Update

I am so freaking excited about our movie.

To be honest, I've been excited about it since I wrote my short story. Ever since I started it, I've been able to picture it in my head. When I discussed my story with Ms. Fillman, we talked about how easy it'd be to film, and how good it would look. (We agreed that it would make for great indie, artsy cinematography, which I love). When it was picked to be made into a movie, and our group started discussing filming, it seemed only natural: my story already was a movie, at least inside my head.

Last Saturday, we had our first day of filming. It was one of the most incredible things I've ever seen: the characters in my head, once only imagined, now real and beautiful and emotional, saying the things I wrote for them. My friend Olivia, who was in my Conservatory at Imagination Stage, plays the main character, and Josh, the father of a friend, plays her scene partner. They are both so talented and professional, and it was amazing to work with them. Going back and watching the footage, I can't imagine the scenes any differently. Olivia in particular is fantastic--at one point in the scene, she was actually crying, and we have one beautiful shot of a tear falling down her face. I fully expect her to be at least nominated for Best Actor.

We also got a lot of filming done on Saturday--namely, all of our dialogue and the majority of our script. Tomorrow, we have our second day of filming, and while that'll be a bit of a pain--it requires us to move around a lot, to a bunch of different locations--I'm excited for it, not in the least because it'll be the most fun part to film. It's going to be a montage of cute scenes between Olivia and Everleigh (another actor), and Connor's filming it in a super artsy indie hipster beautiful way.

I'm a little worried about editing, just because we have SO MUCH footage. Luckily, Connor's offered to edit at home in addition to editing at school, so that we can get everything done in time. (Which we will).

We also have great music--we found some good stuff on Creative Commons, but we also emailed an artist that we like and asked if we can use their music. They said yes, so we'll be using 'Big Jet Plane' by Angus and Julia Stone in our film.

Basically, it's gonna be great.

'Murder, Mayhem, and Monkeys...An Evening of David Ives'

So, some of you may recall that last year, I and Sarah Trunk were in a little (actually not so little, actually kinda giant and awesome) thing called the Sarah Play at Roundhouse Theatre. Last year it was 'The Giver,' directed by Jessie Klueter. I played the Chief Elder, and Sarah played Lily. It was the 10th anniversary of the Sarah Play, so it was a huge deal, and lots of exciting things happened as a result of it--there was an article in the Gazette, NPR did a piece on it, and the Sarah Play held its very first student matinee, performed during the school day for students of Loiderman Middle School.

The Sarah Play was created in honor of the memory of Sarah Metzger, an active member of the theatre community in her school and at Round House, who was killed in an automobile accident during her freshman year of college. One of the Round House family’s lasting memories of Sarah is that, while still a high school student, she independently mounted a full-scale theatre production. Wishing to expand on the opportunities offered by her high school’s theatre department, Sarah worked to raise funds, secure facilities and a production staff, market and promote her production, and direct a full-length play. After her passing, Sarah’s family worked with Round House to create The Sarah Metzger Memorial Fund as a tribute to the inspiring young woman. Through the generosity of many contributors, the fund provides the financial resources each season for similarly passionate and motivated high school students to create a fully-realized production with a professional theatre company. Every year, the Sarah Play is directed, designed, stage-managed, and performed by high-schoolers, all of whom are mentored by professionals in their area.

This year, I am once again performing in the Sarah Play, entitled 'Murder, Mayhem, and Monkeys...An Evening of David Ives', and directed by Joan Sergay. It's a collection of one-acts, all by David Ives, and linked together through a theme of technology. The four one-acts are:

'The Philadelphia': a girl is stuck in a state of being called a 'Philadelphia' where she can get anything except what she wants. Hey, we're all got to be somewhere. Performed by Zoe Johnson (Ali), Megan Wirtz (Waitress), and Helen Hanger (Marcy).

'Words, Words, Words': three monkeys in a research lab explore the philosophical idea that monkeys typing into infinity will sooner or later produce Hamlet. Performed by Kenny Hahn (Milton), Everleigh Brenner (Kafka), and Zoe Johnson (Swift).

'Sure Thing': two people, meeting for the first time, have their conversation reset over and over until they get it right. Perfomed by Megan Wirtz (Betty) and Kazz Feliz-Hawver (Bill).

'The Mystery of Twicknam Vicarage': in a classically ridiculous murder mystery, some startling revelations about the relationships between upper-class Brits surface as they try to determine who killed Jeremy Thumpington Fuh-Fuh-Fines. Performed by Everleigh Brenner (Sarah), Kazz Felix-Hawver (Roger), Kenny Hahn (Mona), Helen Hanger (Jeremy), and Zoe Johnson (Inspector Dexter).

The technological theme relates the one-acts through texting, Google searches, and iPhone apps, which connect each one-act to each other and to the audience.

The play opened last Friday night, and, though I say it myself, it was wonderful. The really, really tricky thing about David Ives one-acts is that they are language comedy, and, as Ives' most popular book of plays is entitled, it really is "All in the Timing." As an actor, there have been a lot of challenging aspects of this play--memorizing three one-acts, having three very different characters, going from one character to another quickly, learning how to act like a monkey, developing a Cockney accent--but the most persistent difficulty I and other actors have had with it is getting the timing, rhythm, and energy right. There is a very distinct rhythm to be found in one-acts, and that--combined with the fact that these are comedies (significantly harder than dramas), and language comedies to boot (meaning the audience has to hear and understand everything we say, or else it won't be funny)--makes them supremely difficult to perform. And, although we've been working very hard on this show for three months, and have a terrific fantastic wonderful director, as well as the assistance and guidance of Brianna Letourneau, our acting mentor, and Danisha Crosby, the directing mentor, it's still hard.

On top of that, tech week made me worried. The weekend before the show opened, we had thirteen hours of rehearsal in the black box, just teching the show (putting in lights, sound, etc), and running transitions (quick changes, furniture changes, etc). For most of that time, we were performing at half-energy, as it was a long weekend and we were mostly there to help the designers, anyway. That, combined with all the new elements being integrated, as well as the desire to take our already-done work to a whole new level, made the focus on rhythm intense. Tuesday we had a lot of difficulty, Wednesday we had a great run, Thursday we performed our final dress rehearsal for friends of Roundhouse...and 'Philadelphia' was way too fast, 'Twicknam Vicarage' was too slow. I was scared for Friday. It's a common theatre saying that a bad dress rehearsal makes for a good opening night, but my response to that is always, "What if it doesn't?"

As it turned out, it was a beautiful, beautiful show. The energy was high, the audience was warm, and the fact is, we love theatre, we love performing, and we loved telling this story. Also, the opening night of the Sarah Play is always a really really big deal. As I mentioned above, the reason it's called the Sarah Play is because it's in honor of Sarah Metzger. We are performing in honor of someone's life--someone who, like us, loved theatre. On Thursday, before our final dress, we had a long talk with Brianna and Joan about that: about what a gift it is that we get to do theatre, how the Sarah Play is really about enjoying theatre, and no matter what happens, the fact that we are doing this is special. Because Sarah was special, and theatre is special, and all of us coming together to commemorate that is special. And on the opening night of the Sarah Play, after the show, the Metzgers, Danisha, and various Roundhouse people (including Artistic Director Ryan Rillette, with whom we had an acting workshop earlier this year) speak about Sarah, and the Sarah Play, and what it means to all of us. There were many tears--from the cast, the professionals, and the audience. Everyone cries on opening night. (Incidentally, most of the cast had also cried a lot before the show. Joan had left us each a rose and a note saying how proud of us she was. I knew I would be crying that night anyway--it's an incredibly emotionally charged night--so I took the note and my thoughts to an empty hallway an hour before the show and bawled my eyes out). Before we went onstage, the cast warmed up together, and dedicated the show to Sarah.

Come see the Sarah Play. Really.

March 22nd and 23rd at 8, March 24th at 2. More information at
http://www.roundhousetheatre.org/learn/programs-for-students/the-sarah-play/.

VAWA Reauthorized, Extended

Last Thursday, President Obama reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was first passed in 1994 to help victims of rape and domestic violence find safety, care, and justice. VAWA is credited with reducing rates of domestic violence by two-thirds over the past two decades. The reauthorization, which occurs approximately every five years, was opposed by House Republicans, who objected to extended protections for LGBT victims, immigrants, and Native Americans.

VAWA is a federal law, first signed in 1994 by President Clinton, that provides $1.6 billion for programs and services for survivors of domestic violence and rape, implements a federal 'rape shield' law, and establishes the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice. VAWA was first drafted by the office of then-Senator Joe Biden, with the help of advocacy groups, and passed Congress in 1994 with bipartisan support. In 2000, a sharply divided Supreme Court declared the provision of VAWA allowing women the right to sue their attackers in court unconstitutional, as it was an infringement of states' rights. Nevertheless, VAWA again passed Congress easily in 2000 and 2005.

However, the 2012 renewal of VAWA was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to the extended protections written into the newest version of the Act. In April 2012, the Senate passed the bill. Later that year, the House passed the unextended version, omitting the passages pertaining to LGBTQs, immigrants, and Native Americans. Reconciliation of the two bills was slow, and it was uncertain whether VAWA would be reauthorized at all. The 112th Congress ended without it being passed. Luckily, the extended version of VAWA was again introduced to the Senate in the 113th Congress, and it was passed on Feb. 11, 2013, with a vote of 78-22. The House had also re-introduced its bill, with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor explaining that "Our goal in strengthening the Violence Against Women Act is simple. We want to help all women who are faced with violent, abusive and dangerous situations."

(Can we just take a moment to appreciate the fact that he says "all women" despite the fact that he's trying to strike down provisions to help all women? Yeah).

Anyway, the House's proposal was met with indignation from women's groups, the White House, Democrats, and some Republicans, and on Feb. 26, the GOP leadership in the House agreed to have a vote on the Senate bill. On Feb. 28, the House passed the Senate's all-inclusive bill 286 to 138, after rejecting the limited-protections bill 257 to 166. It was awesome.

Something interesting to note is what this will mean in terms of the GOP's appeal to women. While the Republicans argued that they were opposed to the extensions, not to the core of the bill, their reluctance to pass the bill only heightened the sense that the Republican party is anti-women, a popular narrative that didn't help their chances last November. (Democrats have been winning the female vote since 1984). It's also interesting to note that all the female Republican senators voted for it--the only ones against it were male. Perhaps the GOP will take this opportunity to take a good hard look at their policies and re-evaluate their positions towards women. That'd be good for everyone.

Some notes on the extended provisions:

1) Native American women suffer domestic violence at rates more than double the national average. However, Native American courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Native Americans, and federal prosecutors do not take up about half the violence cases because of lack of resources to pursue crimes on isolated Native American lands. The Senate bill gives Native American courts the ability to prosecute non-Native Americans for a set of crimes limited to domestic violence and violations of protecting orders.

2) The bill adds stalking to the list of crimes that make immigrants eligible for protection and authorizes programs dealing with sexual assault on college campuses. It also reauthorizes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which is arguably the most important anti-trafficking law ever passed.

3) It authorizes $659 million a year over five years to fund current programs that provide housing, legal, police, and hotline grants.  

Inclusive Fitness Theory

I have issues with humans' inability to get along with each other.

All I want is for people to be nice, and respect one another, and not kill or do harm or otherwise intentionally ruin other people's lives.

Historical precedent would suggest, however, that this is unlikely to happen.

But don't despair: there is a spark of hope, in the form of a evolution theory known as 'inclusive fitness theory.'

The basic principle of inclusive fitness theory (or IFT, as I will hereafter refer to it) is that organisms can improve their genetic success through altruistic social behavior. Biologists have long been perplexed by the behavior of animals who help their kin at the risk of their own lives, as this selfless behavior does not fit under the survival-instincts-only theory based in Darwinism. IFT explains this behavior through overall, not personal genetic succession. There is a much better chance of genes surviving if everyone looks after everyone else in the family, and not just themselves.

For example: vampire bats live in huge colonies of thousands of bats, and feed only on blood. They have a remarkably fast metabolism, and so must feed at least every two days, or they will die. They also only emerge at night. This poses a problem, as they cannot guarantee finding food every night. However, the bats share: if a bat is unable to find food, it finds a bat who did find food. The two bats clamp mouths, and the food is distributed between them. This is how the colonies are able to thrive, and the species to survive. If not for the generous behavior of the bats, they would die off very quickly. Therefore, sharing ensures the survival of the species.

In 1964, W. D. Hamilton proved mathematically that a gene and/or species can increase its evolutionary success by promoting the survival of the entire group with that gene or within that species, not just the survival of the individual. Hamilton's rule states that rb > c, where r is the probability (above the species average) of the individuals sharing a gene (commonly known as the 'degree of relatedness', b is the reproductive benefit of the recipient of the altruistic behavior, and c is the reproductive cost to the altruist.

In "Kin and Kind", a New Yorker article about IFT by Jonah Lehrer, he describes the conflict arising from this equation, and this theory. A whole lot of mathematicians are super upset about the alleged inconsistency of this equation (described in this paper), and a whole lot of scientists--particularly evolutionary biologists--are super upset that the mathematicians are getting super upset. As Lehrer describes, the conflict seems primarily to be rising from the different approaches taken: the math people are annoyed about the math used, and the science people are annoyed that the math people are getting bogged down in the math part when the science part is so much more important. IFT has offered all sorts of insights into natural selection theory (the current ruling evolution theory), especially as relating to social behavior and why animals do the things they do. If one removes IFT, one removes a whole lot of scientific theory in a field that had just about stopped making headway.

To me, IFT makes sense. I'm not a mathematician or an evolutionary biologist, but one of the theory's strong points is that it's just simple enough to seem true. However, it would seem that humans have too many other complex psychological things going on (as well as perhaps too many people in the species) for this theory to apply to them: none of us are particularly worried about our genes being carried on, as everyone around us shares 99% of our genes anyway. Which is unfortunate, because maybe if we had more riding on each other's lives, we'd take better care of each other. But oh well.

My only other problem with IFT is a point made by Lehrer:

"The controversy [over IFT] is fuelled by a larger debate about the evolution of altruism. Can true altruism even exist? Is generosity a sustainable trait? Or are living things inherently selfish, our kindness nothing but a mask? This is science with existential stakes."

If IFT is to be believed, there is no such thing as true altruism. If we do anything for each other, it's purely a survival instinct. We as humans like to believe that we're deeper and more meaningful than that, that we love people because we love them, not because they're best suited to survive; that we help people because we're nice, not because we're ensuring the survival of our own genes. But IFT would suggest that none of that is true, and we are all living under the influence of our genes, who are greedy bastards longing to live on.

To be honest, though, I don't mind if that's true. Even if it's just for our genes, the fact that we are altruistic and loving at all is something to be happy about.

Things I Would Rather Be Doing (And Will Do, Come April)

So, over the past couple months (since November, I think), my activity level has become outrageous. I like to keep busy--there's so many fun and interesting things to do, and when I have free time, I normally just go on Tumblr a lot--but this has gotten ridiculous. So far this year, I've been on two school sports teams (cross-country and swimming), worked on four shows (One-Act Festival, Pippin, The Taming of the Shrew/The Tamer Tamed, and this year's Sarah Play, which will be performed in March), graduated from a conservatory, written for the press team of the SMOB's Student Advisory Council, stayed on top of academics, and (mostly) got enough sleep. Mind you, I wouldn't take back on of that--it's all been incredibly fun--but I also haven't gotten to hang out with my family or friends very much, make dinner, or exercise as much as I'd like to (once the sports teams were over). Come April, however, I'll have significantly more free time, as my only commitments will be to school and the press team (as well as to Richie Yarrow's SMOB campaign--VOTE FOR RICHIE!)

I still have a lot of goals for this spring, because I have a lot of stuff I'd like to do, so I'm going to think of myself of being no less busy, but being busy with different things. Because, as I mentioned earlier, if I think I have free time, I spend all of it on Tumblr. So, here are some things I'm planning on doing in the spring:

1) Exercise every day. This past fall, I did cross-country for the first time at Blair, and I loved it. I've come to the conclusion that I am naturally slow, but it doesn't matter to me, as I just like running, and the Blair XC team is really supportive and nice (and weird). I'm looking forward to being able to get home and go for a run every day after school. On Saturdays, I'm going to go biking (probably mostly to Bethesda, because a) there's a Barnes and Noble and b) one of my best friends lives there). On Sundays, I'm going to go to yoga at the Y. It'll be great.

2) Learn how to play the ukelele. I asked for and received a ukelele for my birthday, which was in October, but haven't had much time to mess around with it since. I've learned the basics, but would really like to develop my skills, especially my strumming, because for some reason I'm really bad at that. I've promised to serenade certain members of my family for their birthday gifts, so I have to do that, and also I just feel that my life would be significantly better if I could play the ukelele. I can kind of play 'Only the Good Die Young', as well as some folk songs, but that's it.

3) Cook more often. Last year, I started making dinner twice a week, and I'd like to get back to doing that. I bake a lot (and would like to bake more), but also need to develop my cooking skills, because most things that you bake are either dessert or bread (both of which I love, but which aren't the core of a healthy lifestyle). I like feeding people, and would like to start pulling more of my weight in my house. Also, me and Milena used to have a weekly Friday playdate where we made dinner, and I want to start doing that again. And I want to learn how to make bread.

4) Hang out with friends and family more. I'd like to start hanging out with friends at least twice a week, because I think having an active social life is important to the well-being of every person, and there's a lot of really cool people in my life that I do not get to see enough. I'd also like hang out with my parents and grandmother more often--go for walks and hikes and stuff--and go visit my sister at college in North Carolina.

5) Sleep. I don't think I know anyone in high school who gets the full 8.5-9 hours that teenagers need. I will aspire to this standard come April. Sleep deprivation is incredibly bad for your brain in ways we can't even begin to fathom. Messes with the circuitry and all that. In order to get 9 hours of sleep, I need to be asleep by 9:15, so I can wake up at 6:15. This would mean I'd need to be getting ready for bed by 8 or 8:15, and turn off the light at 8:45, as it takes me a while to calm down for sleep. It'll be hard, but I think I can do it.

Another exciting thing beginning in April is the season for professional women's soccer! In January, the National Women's Soccer League was officially formed, and the Maryland Soccerplex, located in Germantown, is now home to the Washington Spirit. I hope to attend many games, as the Washington Spirit holds some of my favorite USWNT players, and most of their games will be against teams that hold MORE of my favorite USWNT players! Wheee. So excited. I'll post an introduction to the teams and players soon.

Basically, I'm just really excited for spring.

The Taming of the Shrew/The Tamer Tamed

So, for the past two months I've been working on a cool little show called "The Taming of the Shrew/The Tamer Tamed" at Blair. Most people would recognize the first half of the title as a pretty famous play by a pretty famous guy, but the second half is considerably less well-known. "The Tamer Tamed" is a play by 17th-century playwright John Fletcher, who, though he doesn't enjoy the same name-recognition as Shakespeare nowadays, was one of the most influential dramatists of his day. It's a sequel and a counter to the decidedly sexist message of "Taming of the Shrew": in "The Tamer Tamed", Petruchio (the male lead, who 'tames' Kate, the female lead and the 'shrew' of the title) marries again after Kate's death, and is shocked when his new wife, Maria, refuses to obey him, and goes to considerable measures to tame him. Once he is tamed, however, she promises never to rule over him, and the message, stated in the epilogue, is to "teach both sexes due equality."

Which is a pretty great message, yeah? When I auditioned for the play, I'd never heard of "The Tamer Tamed", but now I can't imagine performing "The Taming of the Shrew" without it--partially because it's really fun, really well-written, and generally terrific on its own, but also because the ending of "The Taming of the Shrew" really does make one cringe. Kate's final speech is a sermon of obedience, describing a husband as "thy lord, thy life, thy keeper," and stating that women are bound to "serve, love, and obey." Eeeww. It just doesn't feel right to end like that. Art is, for me, the ultimate portrayal of the human condition. You learn so much about being a person, and, if you are successful in your portrayals, the audience does, too. Ending with an expression of unfeminist values and gender roles makes me feel (or rather, would make me feel) like I had just communicated that I support that, even if just for entertainment. Thinking about it, I'm kind of surprised that people do still perform "The Taming of the Shrew" as it is.

(Incidentally, reading through the 'Controversy' section on the Wikipedia page of "Taming of the Shrew", two interesting arguments pop up: first that Shakespeare is not promoting female submissiveness, but rather arguing against the mistreatment of women by exaggeration. In other words, Shakespeare intentionally makes Petruchio and the other men as cruel and awful as possible so that the audience is repelled by their actions. He investigates misogyny, and comes to the conclusion--as does, presumably, the audience--that it's bad. While this argument is nice to think about, I have difficulty believing it, primarily because Petruchio wins, everyone celebrates, and it is acknowledged to be a comedy because it has a happy ending. If you sympathize with someone, you'll probably sympathize with the person whose burden you most identify with, and for most 16th- and 17th-century men, that would probably be the guy with the crazy wife. I don't think Shakespeare was subtly arguing the opposite of what his play is blatantly stating. The second argument is that the play is neither anti- or pro-women, but rather an more-or-less accurate portrayal of what Shakespeare saw as the relationship between men and women, and while I do think it's almost impossible to give a fictional portrayal of something without adding your own opinion or stance on the issue, I think this is the most likely argument--that Shakespeare wasn't against women (indeed, he has some remarkably strong heroines in other plays), or against women (despite what Kate's final monologue would suggest), but rather was just telling it like it was).

Anyway. "The Taming of the Shrew/The Tamer Tamed" is basically just an incredibly fun show. I play Hortensio, and am wretchedly abused throughout the whole thing--a guitar is broken over my head, I have to eat a lot of food really fast, and a bowl of water is thrown on me. It doesn't really matter if you don't especially like Shakespeare--the show is hilarious and very fast-paced, and, as Ms. O'Connor likes to say, would entertain a five-year-old. Ravyn, Christina, and Conor are also in it. If you haven't already, you should definitely come see it. The four of us are all in the Red Cast (BLOOD!), and our last two performances are Thursday at 3:30 and Saturday at 7:30. If you can't come to either of those, the White Cast is also really good, and is performing on Friday at 7:30 and Saturday at 2. See you there!

The British Are Coming

Hey there! This is me and Milena's independent film video. We both filmed, I juggled, she (tried to) juggle, she edited, and I made cupcakes. Also provided props.

Plan of Action

For the documentary me, Ravyn, and Abir are making about the importance of including unskilled attendant care in medical insurance, my primary role is editor, because I am fairly good at and enjoy video editing. Therefore, in order to create the rough cut of our documentary, I am in charge of cutting up the footage we have, listing the shots, and arranging them (with assistance from my group members), along with spaces for quotes and B-roll. This is, I think, my favorite part of editing: when I actually get to do stuff. Despite my fondness for writing, I dislike writing scripts, particularly when I feel like I don't have all the parts organized: we've done lots of research and two really good interviews, and we know what we're trying to say, but somehow the parts don't seem to link together quite yet. Abir's found a lot of good pictures and music, and he and Ravyn have come up with the beginnings of a script, but I really think it'll all start falling together once we have a rough cut. The rough cut and the script are going to be formulated together, which I think will help us visualize the final product a lot better: I'm always reluctant to write scripts prior to putting together footage, since it's likely to change drastically as we accomodate the clips and pictures, and figure out the arc of the documentary. Those are our basic goals for the next week, but to put it plainer:

(I don't remember the exact dates on the handout, so this is subject to change, but):

Monday, Jan. 28: list all shots, B-roll, and pieces of information to include, and organize by order to begin establishing a narrative line.

Wednesday, Jan. 30: begin putting shots, B-roll, and text slides with research (to be replaced by voiceover, etc. in the final video) in order in Final Cut, so we can see what it'll look like, and arrange accordingly.

Friday, Feb. 1: finalize rough cut of documentary. I'm not sure exactly what that'll look like, but it'll entail finalizing the narrative line and finishing the script, as well as polishing clips, B-roll, etc. to make sure it all basically hangs together.

Why I'm Vegetarian

I've been vegetarian for about six years now, since January 2007. It started with a bet: my best friend and I wanted to see which one of us could go without meat for longer. Obviously, I won. (It wasn't even close--she broke it within 24 hours, because her dad made bacon for breakfast the next morning). I kept going because I wanted to see how long I could do it. It wasn't that hard--the only meat I liked was hot dogs, chicken nuggets, and bacon, and I enjoyed not having my parents try to get me to eat ham, steak, hamburgers, etc. However, as I got older, I found more and more reasons to be vegetarian, and by this point, it surprises me a little that people still eat meat at all. It is good protein, and I know that particularly in low-income areas the nutrition in meat is important; I also know that most people like meat too much to give it up. While I think the first reason is a far better one than the second, I do respect people's right to eat meat (far more, I generally find, than people respect my decision to not eat meat), and therefore present these three simple reasons not as persuasion, but as explanation.

1. It's good for you.

According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Vegetarians have lower levels of cholesterol and saturated fat, as well as lower blood pressure, which leads to significantly lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, dementia, and other disorders. There is also evidence it decreases the chance of various types of cancer. In the 2010 edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans, issued by the US Dept. of Agriculture and the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, vegetarianism was described as being associated with improved health outcomes, such as lower levels of obesity, reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, and lower total mortality. Vegetarians consume less calories and more fiber, potassium, and vitamins. Also, according to studies, protein intake for vegetarians is only slightly lower than meat-eaters, as one can get the essential amino acids from various complementary vegetables and other sources. Therefore, the argument that you need meat to be healthy is frankly false, and, it would appear, the exact opposite is true.

2. Murder is murder.

When I see raw meat, I can't stop thinking about the animal it was, and how our greedy, selfish human desires have caused us to slaughter poor, innocent creatures just so we can eat what we want. If a human killed another human in order to eat them--remember, humans are meat, too--they would certainly be given life in prison, if not the death penalty, for such a horrific crime. It would become an Internet sensation, and millions of people across the world would be appalled at such inhumanity. Guess what? We do this every day, and millions of people across the world eat the flesh of another living creature all the time, casually, without even thinking about it. Oh, God, it makes me shudder to think of it. I don't care if--as people tell me all the time, semi-apologetically, with a shrug--you "like meat too much to give it up." Oh, well, that makes it all okay then. It's not that I don't want to let the innocent live, it's that I like the taste of their flesh too much to let them live in peace, without being trapped in slaughterhouses, fattened, and murdered, just so I can eat it. We all have the right to live.

Sorry if I'm grossing you out. Maybe you'll think about this next time you eat a corpse.

3. Slaughterhouses and meat-processing are bad for everyone.

We're already established that most meat-eaters don't think or really care all that much about the welfare of animals, and if the last paragraph didn't gross you out, I doubt I can get you emotional about the miserable conditions animals in slaughterhouses face--but I'll try. Slaughterhouses have been, historically, largely unregulated, and agencies and animal-rights activists still have difficulty getting information from them. There has been criticism of the methods of transportation, herding, preparation, and killing within slaughterhouses, and several investigations have indicated that animals are, due to the speed at which workers are required to work, frequently skinned and gutted while alive and conscious. Also, the journeys to the slaughterhouses (often very far away due to the fact that they make people uncomfortable, with the smell and aura of death) frequently cause injuries and death to the animals en route. Most countries have laws in regards to the treatment of animals at slaughterhouses, but not the US: the only law pertaining to the treatment of animals in the meat industry, the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, which mandates that animals be unconscious before being shackled and hoisted up on the line, is largely ignored, since there is no penalties for violation, and inspection officials typically ignore it. Gail Eisnitz, chief investigator for the Humane Farming Association, interviewed slaughterhouse workers who, without exception, told her that they have beaten, strangled, boiled, and dismembered animals alive, and/or failed to report those who do. Several said that this violence has led them to be physically abusive and/or take to alcohol and drugs.

The production of meat and animal products for mass consumption is also bad for the environment. According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contribute on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity. Also, animal agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gases, representing, according to one estimate, 18% of the world's emissions. Going vegetarian is, therefore, a simple and easy way to go green and reduce your footprint.

The simple conclusion?

 

Being vegetarian is good for YOU, for ANIMALS, and for the WORLD.

Every Day

A couple days ago, I finished reading "Every Day", by David Levithan. I'd originally purchased the book as a present for my older sister Emmy, since David Levithan is one of her favorite writers. I got the book at Politics & Prose, and attended a book reading and signing for it (as well as "Beneath a Meth Moon", by Jacqueline Woodson) to get it signed for Emmy. However, I was then so interested in the book that I decided to read it myself before giving it away. I expected this to be easy; however, since I had just started a new book ("Snow Flower and the Secret Fan"), had two reading assignments for school at the same time, and had a ridiculously busy December, I didn't finish the book before my sister came home from college, or before I gave it to her. She teased me about my lack of subtlety--I left the book lying around by mistake, and she saw it numerous times--but the autograph was still a surprise, so I didn't mind.

"Every Day" is centered around the unique life of A, who wakes up every day in a different body, living a different life. There is no way to control where A will wake up, and there is no way to stay in a certain body. A has no attachments, no future, no possessions. And A has made peace with that--until A wakes up in the body of Justin, and meets Justin's girlfriend, Rhiannon. A loves Rhiannon. But is that enough?

*SPOILER ALERT*

No.


Now, please don’t get me wrong. Levithan is a fantastic writer, and “Every Day” is a terrific book. However, the uniqueness of A’s situation makes A’s problems difficult to relate to, and, since the book doesn’t end happily and A’s situation is incredibly depressing, it becomes Unrealistic Depressing Fiction (UDF), which is my least favorite genre. (The Hunger Games series and “My Sister’s Keeper” are also good examples of UDF. It’s as if the author is just making up scenarios to make you cry. There are plenty of real-life horribly depressing things in life. We do NOT need any more).

Just thinking about A’s life makes you sad. A has no past, no recurring characters, no home, no friends, no family. There is no way A can hold onto anything—as A points out near the end of the book, A can’t even carry around a picture of Rhiannon, let alone be in a relationship with someone. When A was little, it upset A when people (borrowed parents or friends) spoke about ‘tomorrow’, or tried to make plans of the future: A would start crying, saying that they wouldn’t be there tomorrow. The person would reassure A that of course they would be there. Then A would wake up, and of course they weren’t there. God, it’s heartbreaking. Lonely forever. What is the point of A’s existence? How can one go on like that? There’s not even some future to look forward to, to work towards. When one feels down, and questions the meaning of one’s existence, feeling like a small, infinitesimally small, infinitesimally pathetic speck of dust in the wide, wide universe, it is at least some consolation to merely continue on with your life. Eat a bagel. Go for a run. Read a book. Chat with a friend. You might be small and pathetic and useless and meaningless, but life’s pretty nice. If it’s not, you can work towards it being nice. Life goes on.

But not for A. A’s circumstances change every day. What can you do? A can’t even commit suicide, because it would also kill the person whose body A is in.

Now, if you’re still with me, and I haven’t totally put you off this book, it is actually very good. It’s really, really interesting, mostly due to the insight into the lives of the countless people A inhabits. The expression ‘walk a mile in someone else’s shoes’ doesn’t even begin to cover it. One of our chief problems as human beings is our persistent inability to understand and empathize with our fellows. This intolerance is not intentional, or at the very least wasn’t in the beginning. Think about it: if you had never seen another human being, what would you imagine human beings to look like? In other words, if you only knew yourself, how accepting would you be of others? I am tall. It is therefore reasonable for me to assume—having no other basis for What a Human is Like than myself—that a human being who is short is freakish in some way. Naturally, this is wrong, but unless I am taught otherwise, it is the logical conclusion. The only person you know in and out is yourself. The diversity in our bloodlines, and the cultural melting pot of our cities, makes us accustomed to all different colors and races. However, when we encounter something (a custom, religion, tradition, etc) that we don’t recognize, we condemn it is wrong because it is unfamiliar. Again, this is not intentional intolerance—we are hardwired to reject as scary and weird that which we do not know to be safe and normal. But by this point in our civilization, we really ought to be able to manage this impulse and be freakin’ open-minded already. We are all human. We all want the same things—food, shelter, safety, love, acceptance. Let’s just live in peace, okay?

Why can’t I get through a blog post without an off-topic rant?

Anyway.

A lives in some pretty interesting people. Since I’m interested in psychology, one of the most interesting for me was a girl with depression. Depression is a largely misunderstood mental disorder that causes a person to have low mood, energy, and functioning. It is not just sadness, and the person cannot just get over it. In fact, due to the uniqueness of each person’s psyche, there is no one treatment for depression. Talk therapy and certain medications have proven to be the most effective, but what works for one person does not necessarily work for others, which is why depression (as well as other mental disorders) is so difficult to treat. However, one of the keys to understanding depression is recognizing that it is a condition that the person can’t help, and which affects their whole level of functioning. When A wakes up in the body of the girl with depression, A can sense it immediately. The senses are muted. The thoughts are slow. It is difficult to maintain interest in anything, let alone get anything done. Even though A’s mind is separate from the girl’s, and does not hold the sadness and pain that may have been a factor in causing her depression, A is affected by her illness, because it has become part of her body, and she cannot get rid of it. At least, not alone: A looks through her journal, and discovers that she is planning to kill herself in six days. The girl’s mother isn’t there, and her father doesn’t pay attention to her. She doesn’t have close friends. To save her life, A confronts her father, telling him that he has to get her help: take her to a doctor, hospitalize her, anything. Depression is serious, and its consequences can be permanent. If you know someone who you worry is thinking about hurting him/herself, talk to a trusted adult, like a parent or a counselor. Do not worry that you are betraying their confidence, or that they’ll be mad at you. They deserve to live.

Anyway.

A also experiences life as a severely obese boy, as an extremely hot girl, and one half of a gay couple. I’m not going to go into another rant—three is enough for this post—but let’s just be nice to each other, okay, and not judge based on appearances or what you think you know about people. Okay? Great.

The last thing I want to point out about this book—which you should totally read even though I just spoiled it for you and criticized it at length, it really is really super good—is the concept that initially fascinated me, and the moral lessons to take away from the book. What most interested me about this book prior to reading it was the concept of who we actually are, outside of our physical properties and surroundings. While not having a body or life of one’s own would, as I pointed out above, be lonely and depressing and awful, it would also be incredibly liberating. Think about it. Imagine yourself merely as a self, without a body. If you could be anyone, who would you be? A does not have a gender. A does not have body image. No one has perceptions or impressions of A, and A does not have to worry about how other people view A. If you could be anyone, who would you be? If your consciousness/soul/personality was not influenced by others around you, what would it be like? What would you be like? What would you do? How would you think, create, love, believe? The possibilities are endless. And that, I believe, is the moral lesson we are meant to take away from the book: the life you are stuck in should not influence who you are as a person. In other words, even if your circumstances are unkind, choose to be kind. Even if your situation is hopeless, choose to be hopeful. Even—especially—if your life is bad, choose to be good. At the end of the book, A discovers that there is a way to stay in a body, to steal someone’s life. If A did that, A could be with Rhiannon. Forever. The entire book has been based around the question ‘how can A stay with Rhiannon’, and this is the answer. But A doesn’t do it, because stealing someone’s life is worse than murder. A gives up Rhiannon—giving her to another person at the same time—because it’s the right thing to do.

Make the right choice. Be a good person. Also, read this book.