But of course...

Right on the tail of my last post I ran across an article examining a recent study by BYU that says playing video games (any kind, not just the violent kind) is bad for you. Here's a quote:

The impact of videogames on relationships is described as statistically "modest," but according to BYU Professor Laura Walker, the lead author on the report, "Everything we found associated with videogames came out negative." Women who play videogames "a lot" have lower self-esteem (presumably than women who don't play) while gamers who play daily smoke marijuana twice as much as "other players" and three times as much as people who don't play games at all.

Now take a second and think about that approach. Does something seem a little funny to you? A little...off?

I believe that those doing the study began with a bias against gaming and therefore (possibly subconsciously) skewed the results.

Isn't it possible that girls who have a low self-esteem tend to play more video games and not the other way around? Isn't it possible that people who smoke a lot of marijuana gravitate towards video games (something regarded as fun to many while high)? This team took two pieces of information and came up with a result; but they had to figure out which piece of information was the catalyst for the other.

For example: I notice that there are periods during the 24-hour cycle where the sun is not visible; and I also notice that there are periods during the cycle that it is significantly cooler than other times. I now have three choices for a conclusion. Either 1) The temperature often cools due to the lack of the sun, or 2) The sun is not visible due to the cold temperature, or 3) These two observations are not actually related and it is coincidence (or some other factor) that they happen at the same time.

Now you and I know that at night, when there is no sun, it is often cooler than when the sun is blazing. We would never think to say that a cold weather front moves in and forces the sun to slip below the horizon. But the BYU team found that there were girls who have low self-esteem, and that often times these girls played video games, and concluded that games lead to low self-esteem (not the other way around (which is totally feasible) or deciding that many, many other factors come into play).

This is simply a perfect example of how society at large views video games and those who play them.

::
::

p.s. What if those girls have a low self-esteem because they very much enjoy themselves when playing video games but people like the BYU team keep telling them they are rejects for doing so?

A Valid Complaint

Yeah yeah, I already posted tonight...but I want to post again. You have a problem with that? Too bad anonymous imaginary friend I am arguing with, I defy your wishes!

Anyway, on to the topic at hand:

I play video games. Yeah, you heard me...I'm admitting to playing video games. There is some kind of strange mark of the reject applied to anyone in today's age who plays video games (at least those over the age of 15 or so) that I don't understand. We're fine with alcoholics (at least functioning alcoholics), street racers, weightlifting fiends, and a myriad of other bizarre (or harmful) activities; but the moment you say you play video games people get this look in their eye that says, "oh, you're one of those."

Well, video games not only relieve stress and supply entertainment; but they do so in a way that is (in all non-extreme cases) harmless.

Video game playing is, in my opinion, on par with the audiophile's hunt for perfect sound and the best albums or even the film student who can't get enough of new techniques and methods for making movies.

Enough of that...that wasn't even the point I was going to make. But I felt I should preface my point with that in case you began reading my rant about video games and tuned out due to a predisposed objection to gamers.

The point at hand: The Drive for Realism in Video Games and it's Impact on Games

There are two major trends in video games right now, those who want to make/play games as realistic and close to our non-gaming world as possible, and those who want the fantastical and out-of-this-worldness.

For a miniature case study, I will look at two games: Grand Theft Auto 4, and Saint's Row 2. Here we go!

GTA 4

GTA 4 cost around $100,000,000 to make (yes, you read that right, one-hundred-million). It is, without a doubt, one of the most realistic representations of a living breathing world in a video game ever created. As you walk around you will witness gunfights, street vendors, car accidents, and regular pedestrian life (and it will be happening whether you are there to witness it or not). The city is dirty and grey-brown and eroding like you would expect if you were walking the streets of NY city. Cars handle like their real-world counterparts and cops flank and call for backup like they would do if being attacked. Everything is as perfect as possible with today's technology.

But is that a good thing?

The colors (other than the sky and occasional park vista) are non-attention-grabbing and the physics system leaves one unable to partake in the supernatural feats usually associated with video games. The main character is an anti-hero who both demands pity and garners hatred. Many of the side-quests are as mundane as delivering pedestrians to their desired locations in a taxi (hopefully without killing them in the process with Evil Knievel style stunt-driving) or taking your friends out bowling or eating in order to keep their friendship.

The bottom line: The realism is amazing. From dust particles in the air to voice acting, everything is awe-inspiring to some extent. Yet something about the game reeks of everyday life in such a way that the game almost feels like a job. Whether it's "Oh, I need to take Michelle out on a date or she'll dump me," or the first 8 hours of the game that are steeped in tutorials (due to complexity), the amount of fun can easily be lost.

Saints Row 2

I'll admit, I ignored this game for months because it sounded so pedantic, so immature that I couldn't see it being any good. I rented it solely because the Blockbuster near my house sucks and never stocks the games desired by the masses. I fired it up, expecting nothing more than a few hours of mindless gunplay; but I was given much, much more.

The graphics are cartoony (compared to GTA 4), the voice acting isn't quite Hollywood worthy, the physics are a little bit wonky, and the goal of the game leads you to the absurd and back.

But is that a bad thing?

With bright colors, more character customization than GTA 4, an easy learning curve (which ramps up appropriately for those desiring controller-throwing hardness), and general insanity coursing through the game's veins, it doesn't take long to revert the player to a place where fun is once more the goal.

When Mario jumped 5-times his own height and swam underwater with no breathing apparatus people didn't jump on the forums and scream, "Wut?!? This game iz totaly stoopid! Mario couldnt do all that sh**!!!1" In the same way, the anti-hero of Saint's Row can spray fecal matter onto high-end housing to lower pricing, smoke a joint anywhere in public, partake in massive gun battles in old churches, and do most anything he or she wants with nearly no repercussions.

The bottom line: The realism is lacking (people don't fall off motorcycles when you hit them at 80mph in your car) which, in turn, lessens the amount of drama raised by the cut-scenes (and the overall story); but who cares? The game lets you revel in base tendencies or be a nearly perfect citizen (e.g. you only get points for killing gang members, and you get extra points for avoiding other cars). In other words, the game is actually fun.

The Actual Bottom Line

There is a place for realism and there is a place for fantasy. Case in point: a film called The Brown Bunny came out in 2003 at the Cannes Film Festival. This film was only 93 minutes long; but (from what I am told) the first 80 or so minutes are a man on a motorcycle traveling cross-country (with brief interruptions for flashbacks, etc) in order to meet the only woman who can satisfy his loneliness (read: the woman who will fellate him (yes, actually doing the act) at the end of the film). The film was realistic in that his travel time was supposedly close to accurate and the audience has to (or gets to) live every minute with him on the way to his destination. But is that great film making, or experimental crap?

Another (even better) example is a game called Desert Bus which simulates a drive from Tucson Arizona to Reno Nevada in a bus that tops out at 45mph. This trip takes about 8 hours and no pretty scenery is added for the players benefit. Also, the bus veers slightly to the right which means the player has no way of rigging the controls and stepping away for a break. Once the player makes it to Vegas, the bus turns around and starts heading back. There is no end. Penny Arcade even made a fundraiser out of the game (apparently the inanity of the game has drawn much attention as well as people determined to conquer the boredom.

The point of the last two examples? Realism isn't always a good thing. Do we, as consumers, want to come home from our extraordinarily real lives just to partake in faux realism (whether movies, TV, or games)? Probably not. So a game like GTA 4 has a serious mark against it. Then again, when a game offers character creation or naming of a character, why do most people make a digital duplicate of him or herself? If we can put ourselves in a hyper-realistic (yet simultaneously fake) environment, we can act in ways totally opposite to our morals, ethics, and values, but with no repercussions. So Saint's Row 2 has a mark against it (due to the lack of believability).

In my humble (read: non-programmer, non-gaming company executive, non-gaming investor) opinion, game makers need to make up their minds. Too much realism breeds boredom and repetition (yet offers possible escape from our normal realistic lives) and too much fantasy leads to goofiness and fluff. The answer to the problem? Stop walking the fine line. Make a crazily-realistic game and give up trying to make it realistic plus being funny, surreal, and touching. Those who want to escape into a very realistic alternate reality will play it and love it. Or, make a fantastical game that doesn't also try to be uber-dramatic, impactful, and semi-realistic. Those who don't want to deal with which camouflage to pick or whether leaving a dead guard on the ground will alert the other guards will flock to it.

In other words: pick a genre, make a kick-ass game, and give up trying to be everything at once (how many dramatic-romantic-comedic-documentaries have you seen?). Oh, and make it fun...please.

Heh

So, a quick thought on blinds. I have always thought that, if I want privacy in my room (e.g. I'm getting dressed after a shower) I should turn the blinds facing down. You know, so the only way to see in your window would be by getting at an extreme angle below the window...and even then, all you would be able to see is the ceiling.

Tonight, I have realized a flaw in my theory.

I live in a condo complex that is 2 stories. I live on the first floor. From my backyard (or should I say "back strip of concrete and a little dirt") I can see the windows of some of my second story neighbors. Most of which, I noticed, have the blinds pointed in the position that I just described.

Maybe this is a bad idea when the downward position means I can (as just happened to me) see into your room, the wall the TV is on, and you're watching porn.

Just a thought. Maybe turn those things facing up if you're on the second story.

Oh no!

I've been TAGGED!

I know that it's incredibly unlikely that you are reading this post and still have no idea what this whole "tagging" thing is about; but I'll recap anyway. The farthest back I can go is Aro who tagged a group including Megan; and then somehow Ed was tagged (Megan ignored the "tag other people" rule) who then tagged me. I must admit, I was secretly coveting all those tagged and was holding my breath hoping it would be my turn soon. Now that it's my turn, I'm worried that I have nothing to say. But here goes!

No...wait, I'm going to interject a mini-post I've been meaning to write before I write my 7 things. Sorry, you'll have to endure my ramblings if you want to read my oh-so-exciting "stuff about me."

New year's eve was a truly amazing event and I wanted to say a few words about it. Megan and I met a group of friends and went to Together as One which, if you don't know, is an organization who puts on massive events. This one was at the LA Coliseum which can fit about 115,000 people (including the field area). Add to that outside tents and the number jumps to something quite absurd. We all got in around 11:40pm, made our way to the very top row of seats, and looked out at a view indescribable by words.

Thousands of people rang in the new year with us and then proceeded to partake in Armin Van Buuren spinning everything from well known hits to remixes of Obama speeches. Hours passed with amazing lights, fantastic music, and great friends. It was, in a word, perfect. There was no better way to begin a year that I'm sure will be full of major (and wonderful) changes.
Anyway, on to the reason for this post...I've been tagged!

7 Strange or Weird Things About Me!
(Wow, it's much harder to think of things than I expected...)

1 - The first instrument I learned was the trumpet (I'm not counting the recorder. Hot Crossed Buns in a shrill squeal does not count in my opinion). Our group was designated to play the typical graduation song for the 8th graders and this seemed like a vastly important task to me. While cleaning the spit valve of my trumpet next to the sink (where my mom was washing dishes), I accidentally knocked my mouthpiece into the running garbage disposal. A horrible metal-on-metal clanking ensued and my mouthpiece was dinged and semi-mutilated. Lacking a replacement mouthpiece, and the graduation being only days away, I continued to practice diligently. As you might know, brass instruments take vibration of the lips against the mouthpiece. By the time we performed for graduation my lips were cut and bleeding due to metal protrusions caused by the garbage disposal. And so began dedication to any given craft, even to the point of personal pain.

2 - I have lied (possibly read: exaggerated) on every resume I have ever submitted. E.g. The boss of my first serving job thought I had worked at least 2 restaurants prior to applying to his restaurant.

3 - I didn't have my first full alcoholic beverage until the age of 20. By "full" I mean a drink all to myself...I had partaken in sips of wine before said age.

4 - I played the role of Bill Sykes in the musical Oliver when I was in Jr. High despite the fact that I cannot sing. The first night of the play I walked on stage for my big song (My Name) and froze. I went a full two stanzas into the song and all I could do was utter a couple of "err"s and "uhh"s. It was, at that point, the most embarrassing moment of my life.

5 - [Disclaimer: this one is kinda graphic, skip if you are easily offended] Before I was ever given the big sex talk, my friends and I (in elementary school, not sure what grade) had a huge argument about sex (which none of us knew anything about). The argument was between my best friend and I and the subject was whether typical sexual intercourse was in the "front hole" or the "back hole" (we didn't even know the terminology).

6 - A girl who I thought was a friend (I later realized the truth) in high school convinced all my other friends that I tried to commit suicide. I, to this day, do not know what made her think that was true (or if she had some other agenda).

7 - I once packed 6 people into my 2-seater convertible in order to get all of us to a location to shoot a scene for a student film that never saw the light of day.

Alright, there's a few tidbits for ya. I don't know anyone whose site I regularly visit who had not already been tagged, so I'll accept that I'm the end of the line. If you have a blog and have not done this, consider yourself tagged. It's fun to try and think of things that your close friends don't know of.

Hope everyone is having a great beginning to the new year!

Ed posted this quote recently and it really struck a cord with me, so I'm going to share it with you in case you don't frequent both sites:

Why do I make room in my mind for such filth and nonsense? Do I hope that if feeling disguises itself as thought I shall feel less? Aren't all these notes the senseless writhings of a man who won't accept the fact that there is nothing we can do with suffering except to suffer it? Who still thinks there is some device (if only he could find it) which will make pain not to be pain. It doesn't really matter whether you grip the arms of the dentist's chair or let your hands lie in you lap. The drill drills on.
- C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, p 33.

So this is the new year...

I had this trend of making new year's resolutions and then checking up on how I did once January of the next year hit. The internet's death-grip on me has loosened over time and I have slipped into complacency in areas that once seemed indescribably important to me. My compatriot Aro recently posted his new year's resolutions much in the same vein of my past posts and inspired (read: guilted) me to resurrect ancient traditions.

New Year's Resolutions - 2009

1 - Find a new job (something in the film world)

2 - Find a new place to live (dependent on resolution #1)

3 - Make a positive major life change (something other than #1 or #2)

4 - Finish Brother's Karamozov and read at least 10 more chapters in Ulysses

5 - Go to the gym more

6 - Grow (whether personally or professionally) in both writing and art

Ok, so there we go. That seems ambitious enough for my taste. In other news, I'll tell ya'll about my new year's eve in a later post. It's late enough that I feel as if I'm indulging in my minor insomnia by writing in the first place, let alone writing about detailed events.

Happy new year to you all and I sincerely hope this is the best year of your life.

The Atlantic was Born Today

There are times when I just want to spill all my feelings out in some public forum for all to see. In years past, this was only possibly through public acts. A person announcing for all to hear their views and beliefs. Today, these are the (often religious) crazies on street corners with cardboard signs and megaphones.

Today we have the blog.

It's strange how, not long ago, a person had to enter the public vicinity and, in a sense, yell their view if they had any hope of more than 10 people understanding how they felt. Today, all it takes is a user name and a password for one to admit to (potentially) thousands (or millions even) of something as mundane as a shopping list or something as important as philosophical beliefs.

I think that the thing that draws people in to this digital yelling-on-a-rooftop is either a) the possible fame that could come from it, or b) the supposed (yet incredibly unlikely) anonymity that comes with posting something online.

I post this blog with a full understanding that nobody might see it, and millions might see it. The internets be warned: I understand the wiles of posting online! And all this is leading up to what? A simple admittance: I love Megan.

I love her with all my heart; and I want anyone and everyone to know. So, if you are one of the few (or many?) who happen upon this site, you have now been subjected to the emotional ramblings of an everyday blogger who expects nothing (yet hopes for everything) from his happenstance readers.

And now? To bed. I'm tired. But I wanted, desperately, to expose my (in my opinion, obvious) feelings to the world. Consider this my shouting-from-the-rooftops without the dangers of falling off and breaking bones.

Ivory Lines Lead...

I have a bunch of random thoughts floating around in my head and I feel like putting them down on...well, I was going to say "putting them down on paper," but that's hardly the case, now is it? More so like putting them into bunches of zeros and ones which will magically be reassembled in front of you through the internets (which I hear is like a bunch of tubes like those cool pneumatic devices in Home Depot, wizzing whatever I tap out to you in an easy to digest visual form!).

Despite being done with school, I have found myself to be increasingly busy; which has spurred me to design this post with your busy schedule in mind! I have devised a simple number scheme by which you might pick and choose only those parts of the post that interest you - so you can skip bits which you find irrelevant - in order to save you time and mental effort! And just so you know, each portion will (hopefully) be quite bite-sized; squeezing much thought into a (somewhat) thought-provoking tid-bit!

(Addendum: Good lord was I wrong! Get ready for some long-winded rambling!)

This post will go as follows:
(1) YouTube and Why We Love Violence
(2) Depersonalizing the Person
(3) Why the JWs Might Be On To Something
(4) Innocently Devious Vs. Deviously Innocent
and
(5) Movies

Let's begin!

(1) YouTube and Why We Love Violence

Some of the most popular videos on YouTube (and the internet video sites in general) are clips of people hurting themselves. And not just some guy tripping a small distance and getting a rug burn. Sites like Break.com are all about the most horrific things happening to people: broken bones, third-degree burns, possible paralyzation (<--made up word?), etc. I have seen my fair share of disturbingly painful videos and have always wondered why these clips are so popular. A while back I was at a Beck concert, standing in line for a beer, when I saw a person fall and crack their head on the unforgiving concrete. Unlike YouTube videos with comments like, "wut a dumass!!1," the first thing I felt was sick. A total stranger fell and wasn't moving. Whether he was dead, paralyzed, or totally fine didn't matter; what mattered was my immediate instinct to help him. A call to 911 and a some helpful medical professionals later and he was being led off to recuperate. This was totally unlike anything I had seen on the internet. So the question is: why didn't I laugh at this stranger's misfortune like the online witnesses or the countless viewers of the video? I've thought allot about it and here is my conclusion: catharsis mixed with schadenfreude. Why do we like being "scared to death" by horror films? Why do we like screaming our heads off on roller coasters? When we can be in a safe place, but feel like we're experiencing something awful (falling to our death on a 50-foot drop on a coaster/being chased by an axe-wielding maniac through the place-holder of an actor) we can face our fears in a controlled environment and come out safe and possibly less fearful of future personal incidents. It's not as obvious with pain; but I think that watching a person get their teeth mashed-in on an escalator both makes us thankful (happy even) that it's happening to someone else and releases the fear that it will happen to us.

Think of it this way: you see someone find a $100 bill on the ground. Chances are you then think, "darn, too bad it wasn't me," and part of your brain thinks that since it happened to someone else that it won't happen to you any time soon. In other words, if lightning strikes your friend while you're standing 10 feet away, you don't think that it will then happen to you any time soon; and chances are you think that the chances of it happening to you (since it just happened to your friend) are incredibly lessened. So watching pain happen to someone else is almost like taking a tincture insuring your safety.


(2) Depersonalizing the Person

I often wonder, since I'm a waiter, how some people treat others so awfully and still respect themselves. I have been treated like dirt (or even less than dirt) more times than I would like to remember. If you have never worked in the service industry, thank your lucky stars (or whatever you find lucky)...you have avoided a personal hell. If it were not for the decent pay, I would be out of this industry in a second. Show me another job where I could possibly make an easy $300 in 6 hours and I'll apply right now. So, what is it I'm referring to specifically?

I get that people from other cultures might not get our customs. I might not like a $10 tip on a $150 bill; but if the guests recently moved here from Argentina I understand to some extent. But what about the people who have lived here all their lives? What about the people who say to me, "Don't worry, I used to be a waiter, I'll take care of you," and then tip you 8% after near perfect service? What about the people who come in rearing for a fight and ready to tussle over how many discounts can be used at one table, or how the steak (all of which they just consumed) was not good quality and therefore a refund is in order and it's your (the waiter's) fault and is coming out of your tip? The people who put five one-dollar bills on the table at the beginning of the meal and every time something doesn't go perfect they take one away (but only when you are there to see it happen)?

My theory goes like this: our society has trained us to believe that we not only can, but should get everything desired. Even if that desire is unreasonable. Buying items off of the internet, over the phone, etc, has trained us to think that we aren't dealing with people so much as we are dealing with autonomous givers of all desires as long as a base amount of money is delivered. You wouldn't think to thank your computer for delivering your e-mail, that would be absurd. But the slippery slope begins. Next you stop thinking there is anyone to thank for deliver your physical mail (it's the mailman's job anyway, right?); plus you don't have to see the mailman, you can wait til the mail is there and then get it. Next you stop seeing the store-clerk as a person and more so a mediator between you and the cash-register (obviously...I mean, you don't tip the girl at Macy's for selling you a sweater). The problem arises when you reach industries like restaurant waiters.

I've talked to SO many people who think that high-end-restaurant servers make $10/12/15/per hour, plus tips. If this were the case, tipping 10% wouldn't be so bad; but what happened to putting some thought into our actions and checking up on etiquette? A mere 80 years ago (or less) the proper way to use a fork was a dire situation...now we just take a wild guess and call it a day. If I don't know how much to tip a valet, I freaking Google it and find out (or ask a friend, or find an etiquette guide, or ask the valet him/herself - trust me, they won't mind - or do any number of things to find out). We don't live this way with anything else...case in point: a person on the street runs up and washes your window while you're at a red light...do you assume they are doing it for free? No, you assume they want money and you go through the thought process of figuring out what they want (is $1 good enough? $5? $8 Do they deserve anything?). Your server makes minimum wage and lives off of tips. Two $150 checks a month will not sustain the average person. People have stopped seeing their servers as hard-working individuals, and more like robots who deliver food and desired accoutrements.


(3) Why the JWs Might Be On To Something

If you are confused, by JWs I mean Jehovah's Witnesses. You are most assuredly more aware of Mormons than you are JWs; but there are a mass amount of JWs around (they simply don't evangelize as aggressively). I will simply explain one of their main practices rather than assume you know or don't know about it. The JWs do not celebrate much of anything. Christmas, Easter, and even birthdays are not hallowed events to the stout JW. The JWs understand that almost every celebration on the Judeo-Christian calendar has a pagan origin. For example: Christmas (the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth) is not taken by hardly anyone as the actual date of Christ's birth. Whether it is the celebration of the winter solstice, Saturnalia, or Yule, the origins of celebrating on (or close to) December 25th is pagan. The early Christian church, in an attempt to rid society of such practices, placed "Christ's birth" on this day. The result? Instead of celebrating non-Christian gods, or non-Christian ideas, Christ became the center of the day and other meanings dwindled.

In other words, Christmas, the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth (arguably one of the most important Christian holidays (second only to Christ's death and resurrection)) is firmly planted in the middle of a pagan celebration. Whereas this is simply accepted by modern-day Christians, this is unacceptable to the JWs. Anything not explicitly "Christian" takes away from the faith.

So what do I mean by saying that they have gotten something right? Well, first off, in my opinion the JWs have taken it too far. They have understood that pagan holidays (in their original form) are meaningless in the Christian faith and have therefore "banned" them all. The upside to this is that the material and hallow aspects of certain holidays (e.g. Eartha Kitt's Santa Baby) are pushed aside. The downside is that any meaning is abandoned. Imagine if we applied this to everyday life: modern understanding of combustion (and the resultant creation of the combustion engine and all that comes with it) would be abandoned because the "pagan" Greeks believed in phlogiston (the negative-weighted element responsible for things like combustion and oxidation). I understand that my example comparing something non-physical (pagan holidays) with something physical (chemistry) is extreme; and you might disagree with such a comparison; but I am simply making my point exceedingly clear. A more appropriate example would be abandoning democracy (something that has worked relatively well for the U.S.) because Plato, the Greek philosopher, who was "pagan" according to modern identification, coined the term and crafted the base for our modern system.

So the end result? We can hardly abandon everything begun by those whose beliefs we disagree with; but at the same time, we should not give up on what we hold true simply because society tells us that it's ok. The good in the JWs beliefs is the realization that modern understanding (and devaluing (in a sense)) of the real meaning of a holiday is harmful. Rather than accept the giant bunny and chocolate eggs of Easter, remember the real reason and don't give up on celebrating the true meaning of what it is that you believe...whatever that may be.


(4) Innocently Devious Vs. Deviously Innocent

This topic is based solely on the observations of one person and my discussion of it will possibly alienate all 3 of you who check up on this blog. But ima do it anyway. I have often been told I look very young, very naive, and very innocent. This has been going on since high school. That - high school - is the earliest people should be considered innocent or not innocent in my opinion; if you are 10 years old and multiple people express their opinion that you are not innocent, there might be a problem. But I'm sure your police record confirms that and my assumption is unnecessary.

I work with a person, a woman, a slightly older woman (not old, but older than me by enough years to have more experience than I) who is pretty good with her psychology. Most everyone I work with has expressed, in one way or another, that I am trustworthy, innocent, and, well, childlike. So much so that during conversation explicitly sexual/vulgar, certain co-workers have yelled out, "Shhh, Grant can hear!" One conversation went as such:

Person 1: Man, Grant, you are really stressed!
Person 2: Seriously, you need to get laid.
Me: Heh.
Person 1: No, I don't think Grant is that kind of person
Person 2: What do you mean?
Person 1: Grant seems like the kind of person who needs to cuddle when he's stressed, not something overtly sexual.

The one exception, the woman I mentioned, was involved in a conversation with me and a few others about my age. It was a guessing game. The first person guessed I was 21. The second guessed I was 23. The third said I looked 22, but I was probably older; it was most likely the innocent face that made me look young. This woman, the psychology one, said, "Oh, he's not innocent. It's just an act. Trust me, he's nowhere as innocent as you might think."

The funny thing is that, at this point in the job, she could not possibly have known any of the intimate details of my life. She simply looked into my eyes and knew that my "innocence" was not actual, but physical (or "skin deep").

This raised the question in my mind: is it better to appear innocent and not be so, or appear not innocent (what we'll call corrupt) but actually be so? Yes, I do understand that there is a middle ground: the person who appears neither innocent nor corrupt and is neutral in the way of action (or some variation where neutrality is part of the equation). This person, however, is, at least in my mind, fictional. Pretend there is a scale of 1-10, 1 being totally innocent and 10 being totally corrupt. I would imagine that nearly nobody would be a 1 or a 10. The sweetest person on earth has probably had a daydream about dirty sex; and the most despicable serial killer has probably loved a kitten (or something similar, you get my point). This being the case, I'm examining the people who appear other than their actual personality.

First off, the person who seems corrupt but is not. The upside: proving people wrong can be incredibly gratifying, and people are more comfortable being themselves around someone who seems damaged. The downside: this person seems un-trustworthy and is treated as such (not getting as many job opportunities, missing out on romantic partners, etc).

Second off, the person who seems innocent but is not. The upside: people trust this person, jobs are more easily obtained, romantic partners are more easily obtained, and (if the "corruption" is significantly dominant) innocent people can be taken advantage of much easier. The downside: people think of this person as a goody-two-shoes and do not open up as much, he or she is seen as holier-than-thou and is somewhat despised for it, and any reveal of the "true self" is only accepted with shock, lack of belief, and disappointment.
So what's the end result? Neither are good...at least in most cases. I guess the best thing to be is totally open about your true nature so people treat you as you really are. If you are truly an innocent person, act that way, reap the rewards of it and deal with the downsides of it; if you are truly a corrupt person, act that way, reap the rewards of it and deal with the downsides of it.


(5) Movies

It's possible you read all that babble above (though unlikely), in which case, you need something light and refreshing. Like a lemon ice slushy on a hot summer's day. Hence the movie section!

Ok, so here we go with quick reviews of recently viewed films!

Wall-E
This was a seriously amazing addition to the all-CG film repertoire. As a film student, I am always impressed with films that rely wholly on the visual aspect. Yeah, dialogue is important; but if you can tell the story solely with visuals and sound effects, you have made a great film. The sound design in Wall-E is absolutely amazing. The few lines of dialogue move the film along; but one finds him/herself waiting impatiently for the next scene of purely "sound effect" driven action. It could have used a little less of the strong-handed, green-peace slaps across the face; but all in all a great film.
Australia
Baz Luhrmann is, in my opinion, one of the great directors of our time. He ignores convention and creates worlds unlike anything solely in our world or in the film world. He meshes modern rock with aristocrat-society/ballroom dance with modern romance/and urban insanity with archetypal romantic antiquity. So why shouldn't his attempt at a sweeping, romantic, Australian western work? Well, multiple reasons it seems. His love of quick cutting, seemingly unrelated inter-cutting, and modern music infusion leaves this film feeling disjointed...almost rushed. The entire beginning, almost 30 minutes of the film, are confusing at best. The story finally takes hold (and it truly is a good story); but Baz's desire to break the mold leaves the audience scratching their collective heads and hoping for some clarification. All in all, this is definitely a film worth watching; but here's to hoping that Baz sticks with what he does best in the future and leaves the wide-open-western for the less inventful.
James Bond: Quantum of Solace
This isn't a complaint - it's simply something I find amusing - but if you stood outside a theater showing this JB film and asked each person coming out what the title meant, 80% (if not more) would have no answer.

James Bond movies, to me, are films about a suave, debonair, woman's man who uses crazy gadgets, kills countless "baddies" in crazy ways, sleeps with every [attractive] woman encountered (somehow every woman involved with JB is smoking hot), and hardly breaks a sweat. This film breaks the mold. A blonde Bond goes rogue, uses no crazy high-tech gadgets, doesn't sleep with every woman available, and has a particularly hard time doing things that are no sweat to prior Bonds. In my opinion, this is incredibly refreshing and stimulates the Bond series. A same-old Bond doing the same-old thing is expected; but a Bond who breaks all stereotypes is just what the series needs. No, this isn't an Oscar-winning movie by any means; but an action flick that doesn't succumb to the expected is always welcome.
___
___

Alright, that was much longer than expected; but I got everything out that I planned to. Hopefully you picked one (or more!) topics and read my typically confusing and possibly incoherent (yet precisely worded) rant/s and got your mind stirring on why I'm right or wrong. I love a vigorous discussion based solely on what you find wrong with my ideas. Hey, without disagreement we wouldn't have much innovation at all, now would we?

Goodnight to you and yours.

P.S. Kudos to anyone who knows where this blog's title comes from. And extra kudos to anyone who knows what it means...because I sure as hell don't.