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.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Sunday, February 3, 2013
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!
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!
Monday, January 28, 2013
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.
Friday, January 25, 2013
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.
(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.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
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.
"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.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Babies
Babies are cute.
This universal truth is, or would seem to be, the basis of "Babies", a 2010 documentary made by French director Thomas Balmès. "Babies" follows four babies...
 |
| Ponijao, from Opuwo, Namibia |
 |
| Mari, from Tokyo, Japan |
 |
| Bayar, from Bayanchandmani, Mongolia |
 |
| Hattie, from San Francisco, CA, USA |
The film was basically entirely B-roll, or straight footage of the children interacting with their parents and environment. One might think this could get boring, but it was strangely fascinating to watch the children explore and learn (or just be really really cute). It was also very interesting to observe the different cultures shown, particularly the ones from rural areas, Namibia and Mongolia. Those children spent significantly more time outdoors, playing in the dirt, grass, and with random bits of wood and stone, and interacting with animals (which was often hilarious). Somehow their upbringing seemed much more peaceful than the Tokyo or San Francisco babies, whose environments, while fairly tranquil, couldn't compete with the wide open skies and plains shown in Namibia and Mongolia.
Since it was all basically the filmmaker passively observing the children, the astounding quality of the cinematography was the most striking aspect of the film. Simply put, it was beautiful. It was also all completely real, which was even more exciting. There was nothing staged, not even interviews. No one wore makeup, and no one dictated what was going to happen. It just happened. That kind of filmmaking excites me: completely true-to-life films that highlight the beauty of life instead of creating it.
...That being said, it might have been even more interesting had more things been explained. In a way, it was as though we were seeing the movie from the perspective of the babies, as nothing was explained to them, and they just had to watch and learn. And that was cool. However, I would've liked to know more about each baby's life than what I saw. I don't think it would've disrupted the flow too much just to have some text on the images giving some basic facts, or more basic facts than location and name. The situations of the Namibia and Mongolia children interested me specially, because I know absolutely nothing about either of those places, and about how life works there. But I was overall content, because...babies.
Admittedly, in order to enjoy this movie (which I did, whole-heartedly), you must like babies. I do not understand how one could not like babies, but apparently it is possible, and those sorts of people would probably not enjoy watching 79 minutes of babies. For everyone else--i.e., all normal and sane people--WATCH THIS MOVIE.
"Babies"
79 minutes
PG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)