Artists Among Us

I serve as a commissioner on my city's cultural arts commission and as a liaison to the public art committee.   As someone who works in assessment and evaluation and is passionate about evidence-based research and practices, I saw the opportunity to serve on such committees as a way to expose myself to the arts and give back to my community.  While I studied dance for more than 10 years and wrote poetry for the better part of my youth, my transition to responsible adulthood has yielded little opportunity for me to formally either dance or write poetry.  I dance (informally) all the time, at home, in the car and in the grocery store.   (Side note: I would like to start a movement for people to dance in the grocery store.)

Our city is now holding an exhibit called Artists Among Us, which is a showcase of the art work of the commission and committee members.   The majority of such folks are artists in varied mediums of sculpture, photography, painting and singing.  While not mandatory, I took this as a sign that I should take time to put some practiced effort into stretching my artistic muscles.   Here are the results of such stretching.

THE PLURAL OF ANECDOTES

by Heidi Mallon

The sum of stories makes a rich picture.

Each tale, an anecdote

provides an example of how life goes.

What is evidence

but the collection of data points

gathered

interpreted

presented as truth.

A story is a data point

embossed with subjective perspective.

Decorated to entertain

to persuade

or even inform.

It can’t be helped

as storytellers are human

flawed and blessed.

So how to find truth?

Unwrap the actual facts

and enjoy the wrapping.

The plural of anecdotes is data.

Perhaps

by Heidi Mallon

What will happen?

Maybe

God-willing optimism will poke out its head

from the turtle shell of despair.

Is there hope

that the sun shining bright

will shine brighter still

to shield one

from the cold embrace of anxiety?

I am a realist, a pragmatist

sensible at nearly every turn.

Dare I hope?

What lurks beyond the corner

could be pernicious

earthshaking

ridiculous

humdrum

aimless

puckish

or some more of the same.

The one thing that is for sure

is that it is uncertain.

Make Yourself Heard

For grad school I had to write a personal manifesto.  Here is the Heidi Mallon Manifesto:

MAKE YOURSELF HEARD

1. MAKE YOURSELF HEARD. No one can support your ideas or recognize your value if you stay silent.  

2. Be introspective.   It is the key to both open-mindedness and legitimate self-confidence.

3.  Move!  Run, jump, dance or wiggle.  Just don’t be still all the time.

4.  Humor is a necessary part of every successful day.

5. Value data, statistics and information, but only to the degree that their source and interpretation is trustworthy.

6.  Have a mentor/coach/advocate and be one for someone else.  

7.  Surround yourself with challenges.  It is the only way to grow, learn and become better.

8.  Drink.  Water to stay hydrated and whatever else to keep you mentally afloat.

9.   Consider nature.  How do you affect it, with your action and/or inaction?

10.  Drive like the Stig.

Sports Films

As someone who appreciates both sports and films, I do love a good movie about sports.   There is no shortage of lists of great sports movies.  Typically they include movies like Rocky, The Natural, A League of Their Own, etc.   Being partial to hockey, I have always been drawn to movies like Slapshot, Mystery Alaska and Miracle.

Miracle is a favorite, as it encompasses a great story, good acting and is truly inspirational.   I recently watched another sports movie called Warrior starring Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton and Nick Nolte.   Now I had heard and read many good things about Warrior, but for some reason I was reticent to see it.  Now I am so glad that I did watch it, as it has so many parallels to Miracle that I have to rate it as a one of my favorite sports films.

First of all the acting is top notch.   I had only seen Tom Hardy in films with his British accent, so it took a moment or two to adjust to his American accent.    Nick Nolte was so quietly amazing, I don't think I have seen him in a better role.  His Oscar nod was totally deserved.   And then there is Joel Edgerton.  I had heard of him before, but this was the first starring role I had seen him in.   I was impressed with his quiet and powerful performance.    The other film I saw this weekend was Zero Dark Thirty and he was in that as well.   I enjoyed that movie on so many levels, and Edgerton's character as a Navy Seal was short on screen time, but certainly noticeable.

Like Warrior, Miracle has strong performances.  Particularly Kurt Russell as Herb Brooks.  It can be so difficult to tell a sports story, particularly one that involves an event as monumental as the Miracle on Ice.    But rather than waiting around for sports action, the viewer is drawn into the personal, social and political dramas surrounding the characters.  Warrior is able to achieve this same level of storytelling throughout the movie as well.   Though many might be compelled to watch for the MMA (mixed martial arts) fighting, the turmoils and difficulties of the characters are deeply affecting.  I don't even really care for MMA fighting that much, but the movie created interest for me by showing the strategy behind it and made the story and outcome seem realistic.    Between the story and acting, I found Warrior to be an extremely well-round movie.

I feel that a thesis might arise from comparing these films, so I will stop there :).  A dissertation could come out of Zero Dark Thirty!  Until I find the time (or courage) to spend more time parsing these movies, I will be content to just sit back and enjoy watching them.    I can use this blog as my opportunity to be an "armchair" movie reviewer.

New Year's Resolution

As the new year starts and many people make resolutions to get in better shape, I wonder if I should resolve to not work out.   You see, I am addicted to exercise.   I am in very good shape and a highly capable athlete, though my station in life nor job requires me to be.   Besides the fact that I love being such a physically capable person, the biggest (and most consistent) high I get out of life is from my workouts.  I have never used drugs of any sort to get high, so I cannot adequately speak to that, but the natural high I get from working out has served me so well that I see no reason to ever use drugs.  Plus, I get other benefits from my workouts besides the high.

Because of my staunch regime of workouts, I considered giving it up.    The regime has been OCD in nature, as I have worked out nearly every day of my life since I was about 12 years old.   When I say every day, I mean every day, save the days I was hospitalized or recovering from surgery.   This was through college and grad school and working full-time.   These are good workouts, lasting at least an hour and sometimes lasting nearly two or three.   How has my body not worn out?  Because I vary the workouts.   Cardio/running at least 3 times a week, between 5-15 miles a time.  Weight training at least twice a week, varying the weights I use and switching between developing muscular strength and endurance.  And finally sprinkling in low impact workouts like hiking/walking and yoga.  It has become such a part of my life that I think it would be harder to give it up, than for a person who hates exercise to start working out.  I think it qualifies as an addiction.

Feeding this is the literature and evidence that exercise improves your health and makes you look better.  While those are benefits I enjoy, the thing I love most is how I feel great during and afterwards.   I feel so confident and capable.  I am less irritable and it has been shown that exercise acts as an acute buffer against stress during the day (which is one reason that I favor morning workouts).       The social aspect is and can be nice for many people, but I have always been a lone wolf when it comes to workouts, even when I was playing team sports (ice hockey and cheerleading).  

Maybe I shouldn’t give up exercise entirely, but just tone it down.   Or perhaps be more forgiving if I miss a workout.   The problem is, missing it is not only just not doing the workout.   It is like walking by an old friend that you want to give a hug to,  or passing up an interview for your dream job.  It is MISSING it.    It seems I have a good deal of energy and passion that might be redirected.   I am applying for a program in grad school.   If I get in, maybe my faculties would be better served to excel in that area.   I could utilize the discipline from my workouts to succeed in my new field.   I will have to think about that on my run tomorrow.   Runs are so helpful because they help me clear my mind and organize my thoughts.

On second thought, I will continue to work out.   When part or all of my body gives out, that will be time to stop J

 

Movies with an agenda?

As the holiday season is well upon us, so is the onslaught of movies with "Oscar buzz."  I particularly enjoy this season in the movies, mostly because these movies tend to focus on good stories and amazing  performances.   I do enjoy the occasional mindless entertainment via action movie or comedy, but I don't enjoy those movies quite as much without the good story or acting.  Skyfall was particularly enjoyable to me, not only as a life-long Bond fan, but as someone who appreciates a good story.

I am quite looking forward to Zero Dark Thirty and Django Unchained.   The latter for more pure entertainment, as Quentin Tarantino is know to deliver.   I don't love all his movies, but you can expect a fun ride with them, and some good performances.   There is a bit of reversal of typecasting with Christoph Waltz in a "good guy" role and Leonardo DiCaprio in a "bad guy" role, though those absolute characterizations are not typical in Tarantino movies.   Both DiCaprio and Waltz are talented actors, so I expect to be entertained.    My sense is that Django Unchained's agenda is do to just that.

Zero Dark Thirty is already making headlines.   Not only for it's value as a movie, but with accusations by some that it has an agenda.    Full disclosure, I am a fan of Kathryn Bigelow and quite excited about her telling the story of the hunt for bin Laden.   That aside, I understand that there is creative license with the story and it is meant to entertain.  If a movie provokes thought (much like I think ZDT will) so much the better.   I have read at least 2 articles discussing whether the movie argues that "enhanced interrogation" (i.e. torture) is effective.    My thought is, so what if it does or doesn't?  If someone is thoughtful enough to try and recognize when someone is trying to sell them something in a movie, that someone should be able to weigh the evidence, theories and philosophies for that argument.   People with either be lemmings or they won't.   When going to the movies, one can find an agenda in ANY film, if you are looking for it.   Without knowing whether Bigelow has an agenda or not, I plan to view the movie and decide for myself thereafter.

Of course some movies do not try to hide that they have an agenda.   I am a fan of documentaries and believe that good ones tell stories as objectively as possible.   But it can never be completely objective.  Just by choosing a particular topic, the documentary filmmaker has an agenda but working to bring that topic and its surrounding issues to the public eye.    Fictional stories in movies can be hyperbolic and use half-truths to sell a point.  However, the viewer knows that it is fiction and will presumably sort out their beliefs/feelings from that storyline.   At least I hope they would.  On a cynical day, I don't know that people are capable or willing to do that.

I had heard recently that Tom Hardy, Tobey Maguire and DiCaprio were working on a film about poaching.   As an animal lover and wildlife advocate, that is a movie that I hope has an agenda.   The potential for good acting and storytelling is there, which might draw me in otherwise.   But an agenda that I agree with will draw me in just as quick.  

 I think that is the case with the majority of people.  If they want to be entertained, or they agree with the agenda (intended or not) of a movie, they will buy tickets.    Movies seem to be so targeted.  Targeted to a demographic, to an award, or to a cause.  But they are all targeted to make money.    Money for the studio, for an actor, and/or director.    That movie may not translate directly to money, but to opportunity or to fame.  In that regard, ALL movies have an agenda.

A Career in Conservation?

A Career in Conservation?

A few weeks ago I took one of the best trips of my life.  Living in a swing state, I was being bombarded by election calls, ads and mailings and needed to get away.  I tried to decide between going to New England and going to California.   As it turns out, Hurricane Sandy was about to swing through, so fortunately I chose to go to California.

I had a VIP experience at the San Diego Zoo.   I went to the Veterinary hospital there and saw a mountain lion named Koya (one of the few indigenous species at the zoo) get a root canal.   I saw some of the fantastic, innovative tools that vets there use to help treat animals.    The hospital houses SIX pathologists and I heard about some innovative techniques used in turtle physical therapy.    I got up close to tigers and leopards, and fed and petted elephants, giraffes, meerkats and 23-year-old blind sea lion named Jake.  Beyond the thrill of all that, I learned so much.  For instance, elephants like raisins, polar bears like grapes (and are incredibly smart) and flamingos get their pink color from their consumption of shrimp and other crustaceans.

I have always loved zoos and aquariums.  I watch Nature religiously and even went to the Berlin Zoo on my honeymoon (to see Knute the polar bear).  I guess my dream job would be to be a zookeeper.  Being around animals, not at a desk, and educating others about conservation would be a dream for sure.  So after my visit to the zoo, I thought about how I might achieve that dream.   I went to the Denver Zoo website, to see about volunteering or internships.    Much to my surprise and joy, I discovered a Master’s program for working professionals.   I can get my Master’s in Zoology while still working at the Center for Bioethics.   Having graduate degrees  in both education and zoology will prime me for my dream job.  Zookeeper/conservationist/animal advocate.

It only took 2 weeks, but I completed my application.   Essays and information submitted, transcripts sent,  and letters of recommendation submitted.    In March of 2013, they will be interviewing candidates for admission.    This time of year usually fliess by, but I have a feeling it will be slow going as I wait to hear if I am on the path to moving towards my dream job.

What would be better still?  For me to get on the Daily Show and be interviewed by Jon Stewart as conservationist.

Ethics in "The Dark Knight"

Film is a multi-purpose medium in modern society that entertains, educates and philosophizes about the human experience. Of course not all films accomplish, or even strive to achieve these purposes. However, films that both entertain and stimulate thought and discourse become useful vehicles for education.  In an attempt to explore complex notions of ethics, integrity and the human condition, filmmakers may not always  capture the casual viewer’s interest or imagination. A stunning example of a film which entertains and stimulates thought is Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight”. Nolan’s movie dramatizes ethical and moral dilemmas experienced by Batman (and his alter ego Bruce Wayne), as well as those faced by his allies in the fight to save Gotham from crime and injustice.  The examples are extreme and involve peoples’ lives being brokered by Batman, the Joker (the chief villain of the movie) and District Attorney Harvey Dent. Though the movie is a fantastical allegory, it nicely parallels health care ethics in terms of lives and well-being hanging in the balance. The themes of “The Dark Knight” include integrity, the common good and justice.
        Throughout the movie, the character of Batman/Bruce Wayne experiences numerous challenges to his integrity, the most glaring dilemma being in defining his personal values and staying true to those values in two different roles.  Bruce Wayne creates the persona of Batman to be a masked crimefighter who secretly battles the criminals and villians of Gotham.  Despite having this cover, Batman refuses to use guns and will not take a human life.  Both Bruce Wayne and Batman are able to maintain their personal integrity by stopping short of killing, even though Batman frequently and deliberately places himself in dangerous situations in which violence is not only standard, but expected.   The persona of Batman not only enables Bruce to fight crime, but it also protects him, the people he cares about from physical harm and his business interests from criticism.   

The value in separating the personas of Bruce Wayne and Batman is tested to the extremes in the film by the Joker, Batman’s central nemesis.  This occurs when the Joker, seemingly in cahoots with the mobsters of Gotham, gives Batman an ultimatum regarding his identity.  As Batman has almost completely shut down crime in Gotham, he has stopped the mobsters from making any money.   The Joker threatens to murder a person every day that Batman does not come forward to reveal his true identity.  To prove his point, he starts by killing a man who was heartened by Batman’s efforts to fight crime, and thus dressed up as Batman to help fight criminals.   Batman is now faced with a dilemma.  He either allows  the Joker to murder a person every day he does not come forward, or destroys the protective cover of Batman and risks his own personal safety as well as those of his loved ones.   In addition, revealing Batman’s identity would destroy the powerful image and hero that deters and stops crime in Gotham.

        So in the midst of trying to locate and capture the Joker, Bruce Wayne must weigh the consequences of his choices.  Should he reveal his identity as Batman to save potential victims from being murdered by the Joker?  Or should he keep his identity secret to protect his identity and maintain the peace and law enforcement that Batman provides?  Initially Bruce Wayne leans toward maintaining his secret, but after several more people are murdered, that decision becomes more difficult.   His butler Alfred (who is the chief  supporter of his secret, both physically and mentally), argues that he needs to keep his identity secret, as the persona of Batman enables him to serve the greater good as a symbol and that he should not give in to the whims of a madman.   In contrast to that, Rachel (Bruce’s childhood sweetheart and another character privy to his dual identities) argues that he should come forward to prevent innocent people from being murdered.  The motivations for her argument are colored by the fact that she has told Bruce in the past that they cannot be together as a couple as long as he is Batman.  Rachel herself has her integrity tested in several instances in the film.  At one point Rachel is facing the Joker directly, and revealing herself (and her identity as Bruce’s friend) means that she will likely be maimed or killed. Rachel’s commitment to honesty and justice seems to be in contrast with Bruce’s values of maintaining his Batman persona and his affection for her.
        The theme of justice is another strong thread in “The Dark Knight”.    Batman is the secret crusader who fights for good outside the law.  His character is juxtaposed with that of Harvey Dent, the District Attorney who is determined to fight crime in Gotham within the constructs of the law and who acts as a metaphorical white knight.   In addition, he is romantically involved with Rachel.   Despite this relationship, Bruce Wayne does not see Harvey Dent as a foil, rather  as a way for him to eventually relinquish the Batman persona so that he can be with Rachel.   The characters of Harvey Dent and Batman show the multiple and complicated ways for justice to be exacted and enforced.   However, their varied approaches dovetail together in the climax of the movie, first with an ethical dilemma faced by Batman and then with the crumbling of Harvey’s moral code and his adoption of a new system of justice.
        At the end of the film, the Joker has been captured and is being interrogated by Batman as to the whereabouts of Harvey and Rachel, both whom have disappeared.   The Joker has crafted a scheme in which both Harvey and Rachel are bound and surrounded by explosives in two separate locations.  The Joker gives Batman both their locations, but only with enough time to save one of them.  Does he save the woman he loves, or the man who can uphold the peace of Gotham and take over as Gotham’s hero?   Besides the stakes being high, the decision must be made immediately.    Though this decision is made hyperbolically dramatic in the context of a movie, it is not so different from the decisions that a health professional might need to make in an emergency situation.  In a short time table, health care professionals frequently have to consider life, quality of life and the values of their patient and themselves.
        The Joker, well-established as a character that does not play fair, has switched the locations of Rachel and Harvey, resulting in Batman going to save Harvey when he intends to save Rachel.  As a result, Rachel dies and Harvey ends up with half of his face burnt off.   Rachel’s death and his disfigurement cause Harvey to go into a mental and emotional tailspin.   He then goes after the corrupt cops and mobsters who captured him and Rachel,  and upon encountering each offending person, determines whether he will kill them or not by flipping a coin.   Harvey argues that the system of justice under which he formerly operated was not fair, but that by flipping a coin each decision is fair in that each outcome has a 50/50 shot. The movie is powerful in the regard that Harvey Dent is initially shown to be a just man whose perspective of justice becomes skewed and his code of ethics is radically changed by traumatic events.
        Harvey’s downfall sets the stage for Batman’s final ethical dilemma of the movie.  In a final showdown, Harvey wants Batman, Commissioner Gordon and himself to all face the consequences of their decisions in the movie. Using his coin flip system of justice, Harvey is threatening Gordon’s family with a gun.  As a result of the ensuing altercation,  Harvey dies as Batman and Gordon try to save Gordon’s family. Standing over Harvey’s dead body, Batman realizes that the public will learn of Harvey’s murderous crime spree.   This will likely result in the overturning of the convictions of hundreds of criminals, and undo much of the legal justice that benefitted the city of Gotham.   Bruce will be then further removed from being able to retire the Batman persona.   It is at this point that Batman decides that he will take responsibility for Harvey’s crimes.   In order to preserve the good that was done, both by Harvey’s legal work and Batman’s crusading, Bruce allows the persona of Batman to be labeled as criminal, responsible for Harvey’s crimes.   The beginning of the movie shows examples of citizens standing up to crime and emulating Batman as a hero.   Through the crimes and manipulation of the Joker, Batman is faced with ethical choices that result in him becoming an erroneously-labeled villain.  This is further example of Batman’s integrity, as he believes that the value in having a city with less crime and preserving the image of Harvey Dent is more important than Batman being perceived as a hero and just crusader.
        There is a point in the movie where Harvey Dent states “You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” This statement applies to both Harvey and to Batman.  Both characters act with integrity and are driven by a sense of justice.   Events in the film cause their individual interpretations of justice shift.   Harvey comes to believe that judging individuals through the chance of a coin flip is justice, whereas Batman believes that the larger good is representative of a just society.
Both ultimately become villians in the end, as Harvey literally becomes a villain and Batman figuratively becomes a villain.   
        The Dark Knight is rife with themes of justice, integrity and the common good. The characters face challenging ethical dilemmas without a lot of time to make a decision.   These dilemmas are also faced while having to consider the lives and values of others and avoid personal physical harm.   It parallels the situations that many health professionals face in having to address the life and well-being of themselves and patients, as well as adhering to a code of ethics. The discussion prompted about integrity, justice and ethics in “The Dark Knight” is only enriched by multiple viewings. What particularly makes it a dynamic film is that although many questions are raised and dilemmas are presented, no concrete answers are given. It is up to the viewer to decide their own guiding principles.

Aurora and the Dark Knight Rises

Having been a fan of Christopher Nolan's work for years, and a huge fan of his Batman re-imagining, I had been waiting for The Dark Knight Rises to come out for well over a year.    I had been counting down months, days, hours.   I knew I would see it several times and be enthralled as I analyzed it and marveled at Nolan's work of art.

 I work in Aurora, Colorado, at the Anschutz Medical Campus, as a matter of fact.   So on the sad morning of July 20, 2012, when I was inundated with calls and texts from people, I thought it was because they wanted to know what I thought of the movie (which I had rambled on about incessantly).   To my horror, they were checking to see if I was alive.   It was my own fortune that I was not in that midnight showing.

A week later I am still swimming in the tide of that event, with the news media and police all around my work, and with some of the victims still in the hospital just a few 100 hundred yards from where I sit.   Christian Bale's visit to the victims here would normally make me jealous, as I am a big fan of his.   But I do not envy the victims experience, and I hope that Mr. Bale's visit was something of a temporary balm for the victims.   It seems every colleague or connection here is being sucked dry by the demands of the media, public and their own conflicting emotions.   I can't escape it really, and my small ribbon of support is but one way I can try to help.    We are now looking at retooling the ethics course for the campus, as this tragedy cannot help but be brought up in my students' discussions.

What makes me sad as well, (and I feel bad about this), is that this monstrous act has forever tainted my experience of the movie.    That is but a small cross to bear considering what the victims of this are going through, but my experience of this movie is a huge part of my life.    Nolan's movies have always affected me deeply, but the Batman movies resonated with me in particular because of their themes of justice, hope, and truth.     The movies showcase peoples struggles in a real way, all the while being wildly entertaining.    I expected this movie to cap the trilogy in a fantastic way and provide hours of discussion dissecting it's themes.    I have seen The Dark Knight Rises three times.  It is a great movie that has gotten richer with each viewing.   But I am torn in my enjoyment of it.   Something about loving and speaking to the movie's greatness seems wrong.   Though I know it is not the case, it feels like I can't enjoy Nolan's work without somehow trivializing the horror of the movie theatre shooting.

I have tried to go back and watch Inception, and the Prestige, to better acquaint my experience with Nolan's movies in a positive light.  But I keep coming back to DKR.   It is probably too fresh, having happened so recently.   The wound is likely to stay fresh and be reopened for much longer than folks who don't work or live in Aurora, who aren't as proximal, or who don't work where the shooter studied.     Though I will probably see DKR many more times, my viewings in the near future will not just be to enjoy the movie, but to escape the reality that is currently Aurora, CO.

Selfishness vs. Beneficence

It has been awhile since I have posted anything here, but I had a philosophical question pop into my head this morning and thought blogging might be a good way to sort it out.   Over the past six months I have moved to a new state, sharpened my intellectual teeth on a new job, and tried (and successfully sold a house).  Since a lot of big tasks are off my plate, I find my brain wondering back to cerebral, philosophical matters as it is not occupied by completing projects and tasks that require focus.  It is also a function of not having seeing any deep, thought-provoking movies in the past couple of months.   Though we are moving into summer movie season, which certainly does not promise much, I am hoping that "The Dark Knight Rises" provides the thought-provoking entertainment that I am currently craving.    Christopher Nolan has a good track record of delivering entertaining, cerebral movies that stimulate thought upon repeated viewing.

As for the philosophical question, it is: If one enjoys helping/bringing joy/providing for others, is is selfish to be beneficent?   I have been thinking about beneficence a lot, mostly because I work in medical research ethics.   However, beneficence is not just an ethical requirement for healthcare providers.  Many people really and truly enjoy giving to others.   Where does this stem from?  It could come from a moral code or self-imposed religious duty.   Or perhaps the feeling from knowing you had a part (or are completely responsible) for making someone smile or have success.   Down to a root level, it suggests that having an impact on others or feeling productive is a base drive that most people have.    So in being charitable to others, is it really to help others, or is it selfishly sating one's desire/need to have an impact?  Perhaps it is both.    There is no reason that there could be multiple motivations for a person's actions.

If we really want to nitpick, I could question it further by framing it as a chicken or egg type of question. Which comes first, the desire to be charitable or the desire to have an impact?  Does one drive the other? I often think about this question when thinking about people's desire to be famous.   What power comes from having a lot of people know who you are?  There are the obvious perks like money and influence that can get you nice materials items and sway over projects, parties and processes.   This would point to a more self-serving bent.   But what about people who want to use that money, influence and power to help others?   That is provide for those who need, be it material items or life experiences.    It is not necessarily a charitable impact either.  Perhaps someone wants to be a famous author, and be able to say they entertained, influenced or educated X number of people who read their book. 

The desire to be productive or have an impact on others often comes from an existential perspective.  People want to know the meaning of life and specifically what they are "meant" to do with themselves (presupposing that anyone who thinks this is operating with a normative level of cognition and self-awareness).   Personally I think that the depths with which someone questions their own value/meaning is correlated with their degree of instropection and self-awareness.  I don't think that there needs to be any deep thinking though, for someone to want to have an impact.   My question is, does that need to have an impact manifest itself through selfish desires (wanting to be loved, admired, respected) or beneficent ones (helping others, giving to causes, contributing to the knowledge base)?

Everyone wants to be known or remembered, whether by a few or many.   How one is thought of or remembered is what is important, in my opinion.  I admire those who make intellectual, educational and scientific contributions that change people's lives.   A utilitarian philosophy would argue the more people impacted, the better.  But we all can't be world changers.  It's funny because I never want to be famous (though I wouldn't mind some of the financial, social or opportunity perks that come with it).   But I would like to impact others.  If that is selfish of me, does that matter?

Before I Die I Want to....

I recently saw this as a headline on a news story.   At first I thought of it for making a bucket list, or a list of things that you want to do before you die.    Naturally I started thinking about things that would be on MY bucket list.   I am surprised that it never occured to me to make a bucket list before.   Given that I have nearly died at least 3 times (being hit by lightning, falling down a flight of stairs, and being hit by a moving truck while I was out running to name a few), it would seem that I would have philosophised about my mortality a bit more.   Sure, I have had folks tell me how "lucky" I am to have survived all those things (and that I should play the lottery), but it has never given me any sort of impulse to accomplish specific things.

After having thought about it, I can only think of one thing.  I would like to be on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart.   Now the terms are flexible.  I have such an affinity for the show, that whenever is on, I have to watch.  Even when the segments or news are uncomfortable, which they frequently are.  By uncomfortable, I mean watching the shenanigans of politicians or celebrities, and that sinking feeling that this is the world we live in.  Somehow humor makes it more palatable, which is why I think so many people get their news from the Daily Show.   The other reason I like it so much is Jon Stewart.   The man exhibits an intelligence, humility and wit unlike any other newscaster or pundit (apart from perhaps Brian Williams).   It doesn't hurt that Jon and I share an alma mater of William and Mary (Go Tribe! Um, I mean Griffins?). And he shares my morbid sense of humor.

So to be on the Daily Show would be my one item on my bucket list.   As I mentioned, how it came to be does not matter.  I might be a passerby in one of the news segments (the likeliest), a correspondent deadpanning my way through some issue (a lot less likely) or a guest.    Chance dictates the likelihood of the first, a career in comedy would make the second more feasible, and nothing short of a miracle would constitute the third.   Daily Show guests are typically celebrities or people who have accomplished something noteworthy.  Not being a celebrity, I would have to do the latter.  One of the only things I can think of  that I might be able to accomplish to be on the Daily Show would be to write a book.  A really good book that Jon Stewart would like.  I am sure that is no easy task.   My favorite author, Mary Roach, was on the Daily Show, and I am not even close to being a Mary Roach.

Not to sell myself short.  I have a postgraduate degree, I am introspective, intuitive and am reasonably intelligent.   But writing a book that would meet the standards of Jon Stewart is something else.  My bucket list doesn't include writing a book, unless writing that book was an avenue to get on the Daily Show.   I suppose I could also write a movie (which seems more likely given my love of film) or I could do my dream documentary (about graduate school) but those are expensive endeavors that require networking.   I am too much of a realist (and too sensitive to disappointment) to try those.  Unless I won the lottery and could live off that money as I tried.   But that is not going to happen.

So what could I write about?  I have an idea for a book that I would call "What You've Got".    It would be my own musings, as well as thoughts from the spectrum of people I have encountered through my various jobs and travel, about what a person possesses.   I mean physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally, intellectually, etc.   I would like to be philosophical and informative, without coming off as a "self-help" book.   The key ingredient would be my own brand of humor.   The kind that serves Mary Roach so well, and would land me on the Daily Show.  Oh I have the outline and some musing already, but the final manuscript needs to be crafted.  I guess part of me, well most of me, wants to sign the book deal before I invest that amount of energy/time/blood/sweat/tears.  (Remember, I am "sensitive to disappointment" :) ).

So my bucket list is short, and not likely going to happen.  But that is okay because it is what one WANTS to do, not what one HAS to do.   Sure I would like to go to Scotland or Australia (again).  I definitely want to see The Dark Knight Rises (assuming I live until next July).   But I don't need to do any of those things.    Being on the Daily Show would be an awesome footnote that I think would punctuate my life experience, but not define it.

Life as a Book

Hard outer covering becomes soft with age
Flipping through pages
pouring over pages
studying pages
rereading pages
pages are torn, stained, smudged if well-used
is there any dramatic climax?
or just a series of events recorded
The end of the story is here before you know it.

Reality TV

Is anyone else sickened by the turn that "reality TV" has taken?   I used to watch reality TV in the early stages, when it felt more informative, intimate and like a documentary.  Now for the most part it has turned into a horrible boil on the butt of humanity.    For example cooking shows like Iron Chef would showcase cooking talent.  Now shows like Rocco's Dinner Pary showcase a rude, egomaniacal restaurantuer who just wants to flaunt famous friends and belittle people.  In addition, the shows either encourage participants to behave rudely, or just edit to showcase bad behavior.  Yuck.

What worse is now people strive to become these "stars".   The super wealthy like the Kardashians exploit the viewing public for their monetary gain.   I don't know what skills or talents this family might have, but they seem to fall into the realm of being famous for being famous, ala a Paris Hilton.  On top of it you have everyday people doing rude, mean, societally invaluable things to become a "star" on TV.   And why not?  When the people on the Jersey Shore show make more money in one year than some college-educated people, then kids see that as a "profession" particularly because it involves little to no intelligence, education or heaven forbid "work". 

 Personally I would be bored senseless to be doing any of it, but I am an introspective person who enjoys learning and good intellectual discussion.   I wouldn't mind having the money these people have, but I certainly don't want to be famous.    It makes me wonder are they in for the money or the fame?  I would like to live comfortably and  know my retirement is secure,  but I would hate having papparazzi following me or the world judging my decisions.   Do they need the validation, or do they really think they are deserving or entitled to the attention/money?

I guess with the information superhighway and ease and speed of access to information, that is why we have the reality TV.  It is not replacing the useful information or intelligent discussion, but it is providing a common thread of information into the genre of pop culture that most people can easily read and digest.  It is sort of like everyone is in high school again, and rather than discussing the SATs or AP exams or athletics or history or math, people talk about who is dating who, who bought a new pair of jeans or has a new car or got caught cheating.

With all this information and ease of access, there is something for everyone.  Good thing I can choose to tune into what I want or tune out what I don't.

A Good Read

In previous posts I have discussed music and movies, but today I am moved to write about books.   What a person likes to read can be so subjective.   I like to read the occasional novel (John Grisham is an author I consistently enjoy) and I have found the occasional Janet Evanovich is a be a nice distraction.  But for the most part I like reading what can best be described as "informative, yet entertaining, nonfiction".   Currently I am reading The Disappearing Spoon which is about the history and drama behind the periodic table of elements.  I loved chemistry in college and have always been fascinated by it, so this book is proving to be a captivating and interesting read.  The author also makes liberal use of interesting footnotes, though inconveniently placed in the back of the book.

My absolute favorite author (who uses footnotes both judiciously and hilariously) is Mary Roach.  In fact, I am surprised I haven't talked more about her writing in this blog.   I started with her first book Stiff, which is about the scientific use of cadavers.    After eating that up, I quickly went through her other books, Spook (about the science of the afterlife) and Bonk (about the science of sex).   At this point I was hooked and was then excited to hear that she was coming out with Packing for Mars, about the exploration of outer space.   I bought it the day it came out and read through it with relish. When she stopped by Austin on a book tour, I was out of town, so my husband graciously went to hear her speak and got her to autograph one of my books.   He has since become a fan as well.  He was also able to learn the title of her next upcoming book, which sounds interesting, though I don't want to make any assumptions about the content based on the title.

What makes me enjoy Ms. Roach's writing so much is her thoughtful insight and hilarious commentary on the topics about which she writes.   She is a science writer, so the topics are informative, but in the most interesting way.   Her commentary and writing is thus supported by extensive research.   I mean, this woman contacts the most relevant researchers and gets unprecedented access to the places that can best explain/illustrate the topic she is covering.  For example, while researching space exploration, she got access to Russian cosmonauts and their space program, as well as got to ride in the US's "vomit comet"  the plane which does a parabolic flight to mimic weightlessness.  Awesome!    Through it all, she describes the experience and discusses the topic with grace and humor.

I realized I hadn't written in this blog for awhile, and at the same time I am mulling inviting Ms. Roach to speak at the place I work.   (It is not a stretch at all for her to be a speaker, here, though I personally might do it if I thought it was necessary).  In fact, it was one of my colleagues who suggested inviting her to speak, which I wish I had thought of myself.   This is the same colleauge who shares my love of film and applies it to our work.   So naturally, we get along aces.   Well, I am off to extend the invitation to Ms. Roach.  I hope it works out.

Science Fiction as Entertainment

I enjoy Science Fiction.   Growing up, I was exposed to a great deal of sci-fi, thanks to my father.  Dad loved to both read and watch science fiction, so I was introduced to Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, V, the Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits.   I still have vivid memories of being scared, intrigued and thrilled by most of it.  I have my dad to thank for my lifelong devotion to all things Star Wars (and James Bond, which could arguably be considered science fiction in some circles).

It is probably no accident that I married a science fiction enthusiast.  Though his passion for Star Trek exceedingly outweighs the passing interest I hold for it, his ardor does not reach the level of "Trekkie".  Our differences in affection for Star Trek and ensuing discussions did help me to learn to articulate what it is about scifi that I like.   Yes I love the effects and mythology of Star Wars, but those factors never really helped me to get into Firefly or Stargate.   I find that I am drawn more to those movies/shows/stories that are closer to the basic premise of scifi, which is a slight twist on reality.    The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits are good examples of this.  Most stories include everyday people or situations that are somehow altered by time travel, alternate universes, superpowers, magical objects or monsters. 

Perhaps because the slight twist on reality is so close to what reality is, it makes it more relatable.  As mentioned in previous posts, I personal prefer entertainment that is not too far removed from reality.   Also with an appreciation for darker endings, "slight twist" science fiction lends itself better to darker endings.  I mean, if you are going all out and having an outlandish, totally different world in your story, then you can more easily provide a happy ending to suit your desires.  I typically find those endings to be more deus ex machina, which I am definitely do not like.   If you ever want to see a simple, but incredibly terrifying scifi conceit, watch Dr. Who's episode "Blink".  Easily one of the scariest examples of science fiction.  And it stars Oscar-nominee Carey Mulligan.    The British are good proprietors of scifi, which is why their well-known actors and actresses don't shy away from it.   They also make good comedy (Black Adder, Monty Python), but that is for another discussion.

What Do You Expect from a Movie?

I have always been a big fan of unconventional movie endings.    The films that don't end as you would expect, or don't end with the traditional happy ending have always stuck with me.  In fact, most of these endings are pretty bleak.  It seems to me that one's preference for unconventional movie endings says something about why one enjoys going to movies.    I like going to movies to be entertained and to escape, but my enjoyment is typically predicated on being surprised or seeing something original, be it storytelling or direction or some other novel aspect of a movie.   For others, escaping into entertainment might means living an alternate experience, but still with the happy ending.   For those folks, reality might be so demoralizing or boring, they want to experience the love, the adventure, the mystery, etc. but know that a happy ending is in store.   Personally, I want to see originality.

The movies with unconventional endings that I enjoy are movies like Seven, Arlington Road, and Memento.   Seven has a particularly bleak ending, but the way it unfolds and then ends is just so surprising and feels like it would end that way in real life.   It is so easy to relate to Detective Mills (Brad Pitt's character) and also feel the despair and horror (and apathy) felt by Morgan Freeman's character.   That movie sticks with you because of the ending, because so many movies have lunatic killers with strange methods of killing.   Arlington Road is a great film because the ending, like Seven, sticks with you.  I hesitate to give away the endings of any of these movies, because if you have not seen them, it really does spoil it to say how it ends.   My college roommate spoiled the ending of the Sixth Sense for me, and I think that took away my enjoyment and fondness for the film that  others might possess.   Memento is has the trifecta of greatness (IMHO) due to the fact that it was directed by Christopher Nolan, is told in reverse time (an incredibly original concept), and has an ending (beginning?) that feels so real, so HUMAN, that is also sticks with you.  Man that is a good movie.

One of the worst offenders for dealing the standard, happy, movie-ending is the romantic comedy.   The protaganist always gets the object of their affection, typically after they hate each other or are laden with numerous obstacles.    I am happy to report that there are some innovators out there that buck that trend.  One example is My Best Friends' Wedding.   The heroine, Juliet, played by Julia Roberts no less, is conniving and self-absorbed and acts how a person might act in her situation (with the standard Hollywood hyperbolic embellishments).    It is still a love story, but with a different ending and different types of love that you might expect.   In that same regard Love Actually is unconventional, with parallel stories both happy and sad, real and unrealistic, all mixed together.    That movie can appeal to both people like myself and those who want the standard movie escape.   A third rom-com that bucks the trend is 500 Days of Summer.   Not only is the movie told in non-sequential order (in a non-linear fashion), but it achieves both the unexpected ending and a happy ending, which is particularly difficulty for a rom-com.

The percentage of movies out there with unconventional endings or completely original deliveries are low.  In a good sense, having them be so rare makes me appreciate them all the more.  The possibilities are out there.  I say this going into the summer movie season, which is pretty much the rubber stamp season of movies.   But as long as my expectations are for that, I can still enjoy the standard blockbuster fare.    So I guess that is what the enjoyment of movie-watching all comes down to.  What do you expect?

The Nostalgic Power of Entertainment

I have recently been thinking about the nostalgic power of entertainment.   The music, movies, TV shows, etc. that I grew up listening to have a powerful influence on me.   For example, among my copies of The Departed and Inception, I have Seasons 1 and 2 of The Muppet Show (and I don't have kids).   For the rehearsal dinner at our wedding, my husband and I rented out the Alamo Drafthouse theatre in Austin, TX and showed a viewing of The Empire Strikes Back.  It should be noted that a prerequisite for marrying me is loving the Star Wars franchise.  As it turns out, my husband is a sci-fi fan in the "classical" sense.  That is, he loves sci-fi as a morality metaphor and a twist on reality.   But Science Fiction as a genre is a topic for another column.

At that rehearsal dinner, I met my cousin Allison and her husband Sam for the first time ever.  Turns out that they are HUGE Star Wars fans and we bonded over that commonality.   This is just a small example of how an entertainment medium (the Star Wars phenomenon in particular) brought a sense of nostalgia and facilitated bonding.  I am sure I could wear a Star Wars T-shirt on the T in Boston and get a few comments from complete strangers.  And the entertainment industry takes advantage of this, too.  I mean, look at the SuperBowl commercial for Volkswagen in which the little boy tries using the force.  (Catch it here: http://youtu.be/R55e-uHQna0).  That was one of the most popular ads.   Even the smallest reference to Star Wars brings me back to playing with the action figures, dressing up like Leia, or watching the movie.

It happens with music too.  Back when I was a kid and my family was driving cross-country and I had little to no control over the music played in the car, I was subject to Neil Diamond, Lee Greenwood, the Beach Boys, the Righteous Brothers and the Kingston Trio.   I may not actively seek out listening to any of those at this point, but I still remember the words to all the songs and hearing one of them instantly takes me back to being in that station wagon with my parents and brother.   Just last weekend, after finally getting a table in Giacomo's in the North End of Boston on the Saturday night before the Boston marathon (no easy feat), I heard the Righteous Brothers "You're My Soul & Inspiration."  It was like I was transported back 25 years sitting in the living room while my dad played the album.

Now TV and movie soundtracks are replete with music that invokes a sense of nostalgia.   The only trouble is, if you use a well-known song, it is competing with other possible memories attached.    It is almost as if there needs to be a waiting period to prominently feature a song in a movie.   It also presents a challenge for writers as to how to incorporate (and if they should) a particular song into a scene.   I really admire those who can incorporate music in an unconventional manner, in a way it has never been used before.  An instance comes to mind in which a beloved character from my past was linked to a musician that came to enjoy later in life.   As I have mentioned before, I am a huge NIN fan, and consider Trent Reznor to be a musical innovator, particularly with lyrics.   His song "Hurt" is a powerful example, one that was covered by the late great Johnny Cash.   However, some bold individual made a video using the song "Hurt" and showcasing Kermit the Frog as a heroin addict.   This icon from my childhood was now shown in a distinctly more modern, adult light.  I may have been offended, had I not considered a humorous, satirical perspective.  I wonder what Trent Reznor thinks of it.

I think a lot of people use this entertainment nostalgia as a tool for dealing with life.  Why else would we buy movies or songs but to view them repeatedly, or at least have them to experience when we like?  With a modern culture of instant access, it has become a way to comfort ourselves, excite ourselves, or gain new perspective.   It is entertainment not just to entertain, but as therapy.

Movie Soundtracks: A soundtrack for life.

I think almost anyone might agree that the sound and music in a movie is key to it's value/impact to the viewer.   Sound mixers, foley artists, composers, songwriters, and so on can really shape your emotion and how you feel about a scene or movie as a whole.  And isn't that what the movie-going experience is as a whole?  An escape? An evaluation? A mirror?

I am a huge fan of movie scores/soundtracks, not just because they remind me of a movie, but usually because I will typically like the music from the movie I like.  (Insert chicken or the egg argument here about which is the reason I like one or the other.)    At this year's Oscars, I was torn as to whether to root for Hans Zimmer, whose mind-blowing score was integral to my love for the movie Inception, or for Trent Reznor, who scored for David Fincher's The Social Network.   I thoroughly enjoyed The Social Network as a movie, but I am also partial to Mr. Reznor as I grew up a rabid Nine Inch Nails fan.  In fact when I saw TSN, I almost dropped my popcorn when I heard the music in one scene and realized that it had to be Trent who scored it.  I really wish they could have given out 2 Oscars for Score.

Growing up I not only listened to every conceivable type of music with lyrics, but I danced ballet from age 5 up through college.   That experience gave me an appreciation for classical music, the movement of music, and particularly how music makes one FEEL.   These days, as I take the subway or bus around town, or drive in my car, I listen to music whenever I can.   I can't help but notice how my mood is so affected by what I have listened to.    The music doesn't necessarily correlate with what you might think either.  If I am listening to NIN or Metallica, it certainly puts me in a good mood, sometimes even relaxed.  On the other hand,  Marc Cohn's "Walking in Memphis" or Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water" might make me angry.  This is for reasons of personal experience which I will not divulge.   But it goes to show that music and our own experience shape how we feel about the music.

How we feel about music, in turn, shapes how we feel about a movie.   Even the absence of sound makes a powerful impact.  Take the Coen brothers' No Country for Old Men.  If you haven't, do it now and take notes.  I guess the best way for us to create our own life score or soundtrack is via iPod, or by listening to the radio.   It would be awesome to be able to do that whenever we wanted (especially at a job you don't necessarily like).   Just as important would be taking time for NO music or sound, the time to contemplate, think, be.

So here's to the folks that shape how we listen to movies..........or should I say, HEARS to you?

Documentary on Graduate Student Life

I have always loved documentaries.  It fascinates me how someone can go so in depth into a particular subject.  IMHO, the best documentaries are either peeking behind the curtain of something that may already be popular, or shedding light on a particularly benign subject.

I have long wanted to develop and create a documentary.   The topic had changed as I grew up, but during and since graduate school, is has remained the same.   I think that the life and culture of graduate programs is a topic BEGGING to be covered.  After getting my graduate degree, I spend over eight years working in and managing graduate programs in various departments.   As such, I have developed quite the network of friends and acquaintances who have experienced life as a graduate student, and many that went on to make graduate program culture a permanent part of their life.  (I am looking at you, graduate school faculty and staff!)

  There is stress, tension, high drama, and no shortage of subjects.   It is fascinating to me to see the dynamics between advisors and their advisees, and how they can range from distant to inappropriately intimate.   Not only that, but the range of research and education is staggering.  Particularly when a doctoral student can spend anywhere from 4 to 10 years focusing on the minutiae of a particular subject.   It is a descent into obsession, and for some is the most trying time of their life.   Particularly for students writing their dissertation.   It is a journey really, a mental marathon for which no one is every prepared.  I think it would put any reality show fodder to shame.  I see it as a hybrid of a PBS show like "Nature" and an episode of "The Real Housewives of  Such and Such".   Except more information and infinitely more tears and rage.

Someday I would like to do such a documentary, but alas, as is the case of many aspiring documentary filmmakers, I lack the resources.   I am working on developing contacts in this area, but resources are scarce.   At least I have the seed of an idea and the passion..........

Who do you look like?

One way that I have become good at remembering faces is by relating them to the famous person they look like.  For example, when I first met my husband I thought he looked like a particular movie actor.  I won't say who, because he doesn't think he looks like this person.   The tricky thing is that the personality characteristics of the famous person might be displaced on to your new acquaintance, which is not helpful as you get to know the person.   For example, if you think someone looks like George Clooney and start to attribute this new person as smooth, funny, etc.   The guy may be a misogynistic, ill-mannered, boor.

This has also backfired on me in terms of attributing personality characteristics from a famous person to a friend.  I made the mistake of saying that Steve Buscemi reminded me of  guy (because I happen to think that Buscemi is a renaissance actor, funny and talented).  My friend took it as I meant he LOOKED like Steve Buscemi, which he took great offense too.   Because let's face it, Buschemi is talented, but unfortunate-looking.   However, don't we see smart, beautiful, talented women with unfortunate-looking talented men all the time?

Another way in which this has been positive, beside helping me remember people, is that it can make a person I don't get along with more palatable.  For example, I have a coworker who I don't see eye-to-eye with.  I think she is immature and manipulative.  However, I also think she looks like Snarf from the children's cartoon, Thundercats.  No joke, that is the first association that popped in my head when I met her.   So now it might be abrasive to deal with her, but I am usually reminded me of Snarf, which makes me laugh (at least internally).   Tension in our staff meeting?  Thundercats, HO!

R.I.P. Joan of Arcadia

On last night's episode of House I was reminded of one of my all-time favorite shows, Joan of Arcadia.  Amber Tamblyn now stars on House, and her former co-star on JoA, Christopher Marquette, showed up as a patient.   With his character's references to God, I was thrown back into the whimsy of JoA.   (Though I do know House writers love to put in references to actors' former roles.  In a recent episode, Peter Jacobson (Taub) referred to Omar Epps (Foreman) as Linc from the Mod Squad.   Epps played Linc in the movie version of the Mod Squad.)  Another JoA reunion took place on Criminal Minds, where Joe Montegna (who played Will Girardi on JoA) reunited with Michael Welch (who played his son Luke on JoA).

The storyline on House was solid and this episode "Fall from Grace" had a turn at the end that was memorable which I will not reveal here.    TV really seems to be a writers' place to shine, and none more so than on the series Joan of Arcadia.  It is such a shame it only lasted two seasons.   I guess because it addressed the existence of God and discussed religion, philosophy and morals on a TV show, it may not have been appealing to a mass audience.  (Better to a "Mass" audience.  HA!  Had to get that pun in.)  Plus it was on Friday nights, which can be the kiss of death for any show.  What was great about it was that it was not a preachy show.   Just a show that was a forum and catalyst for discussing such topics.

 I have my opinions on all those subjects, but I found myself being impressed by how the proverbial door was opened to the topic.  I mean, anybody could use that show as a tool for teaching a class on how to be a decent person.    Not necessarily pertaining to any religion or faith or moral code.  Just decency.  It is really a shame that it did not continue.  Especially since the 2nd season cliffhanger finale was a great setup for furthering those sorts of discussions, but done so in a way that Joan of the story's life was mirroring Joan of Arc.   The series was just getting legs!   Oh well.  Here's hoping that some other series is written or comes along that is close to being as entertainingly meaningful as that one.