MUGWUMP

Just a thought I had today

Why did Mike Ovitz name the agency he founded Creative Artists Agency (CAA)?
I mean, aren't artists by definition 'creative'? It's a bit redundant.
I bet in the beginning it really stood for "Cut of Actors' Assets" but then... after he got the letterhead and business cards printed... he had to change it to something that would pump up the clients' egos and not scare them off.

The Squid and the Whale

I ended up going to the movies yesterday to see Laura Linney and Jeff Daniels in "The Squid and the Whale" and to my surprise and amazement, I discovered that I have some deep-seated issues regarding my parent's divorce (which happened when my brother and I were in the 4th grade). I say "surprise" because I have long believed that I handled our family split incredibly well -- remembering feeling a sense of relief and satisfaction when my Mom finally left my Dad, and believing that it was a necessity if any of us were to find any long term happiness -- but this movie stirred some things up in me... forcing me to re-examine that whole period.

You don't really see a lot of movies being produced that deal with divorce and the break-up of a family in a realistic way... "Kramer vs. Kramer" is the only one that springs to mind and I saw that in 1979 -- before I could even really understand it. Maybe that's why it's always been easy for me to leave this particular chapter of my life in the past or just to simply disregard it, but there were so many moments (while watching the movie) where I just sat in the dark thinking, "wow... I remember that!" over and over and over again. These were sad and hurtful and angry and bitter moments and time and time again I recognized as incredibly personal exactly what was being portrayed on the screen. To put it simply, it shook me.... So much so that after the end credits I told the people I was with that I had to go to the bathroom, and once I got into the stall I sobbed for a few moments.

I hadn't really wanted to go see the movie, (all I really knew about it was that it was about divorce and it sounded like a real downer), but I allowed myself to be talked into going because I wanted to get out of the house and spend some time with a friend... but I'm wondering now if that aversion to that movie choice was a subconscious sort of red flag from my brain subliminally sounding a warning alarm. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

In college and during the years since I've always gotten overly-sentimental when I spend time with friends' families... envying the open showing of affection and vicariously sponging some of it for myself... but always thinking that they were the anomalies. After all, I grew up in that era where divorce was becoming so common that it was almost unusual if you're parents WEREN'T split up. My generation was taught how to feel about it... (that it was 'for the best'... that it 'wasn't our fault'... that sometimes life didn't work out the way you expected, but that was 'OK') by single-mom/divorcees Alice (Linda Lavin) on 'Alice' and Ann Romano (Bonnie Franklin) on 'One Day at a Time', and even by the sage Mrs. Garrett (Charlotte Rae) on a very special episode of 'The Facts of Life'. My emotional preparedness for real life came through lessons taught on television, and... well... I guess I thought "if Tootie can handle it, then so can I!" So I puffed my chest out, held my chin up, and didn't really give the reality of the situation much more thought than the half an hour that these shows seemed to think the topic was worth, by the end of which everything would somehow be resolved.

Anyways I digress...The movie itself is very good... well crafted and solidly acted and insightfully written.... but the movie I saw yesterday wasn't the same movie that the people who were with me saw. They enjoyed it and found humourous moments through-out it where I did not. I just felt a deep and profound sadness. And that 'surprise' at the fact that there are things lingering in me that I'm not exactly aware of.... that might surface unexpectedly when spurred on... and like it or not, I might not be ready for them.

All of this, I think, is a testament to the film, which I recommend... just... well... you've been warned.

Chatroom murders

On June 29, 2003 in Britain, one teen boy who was in love with another crafted a plan of murder/suicide. This bizarre true-life tale has everything. Stalkers, spies, terminal illness, murders, unrequieted love.
It turns out that the film rights to this story (which I've been following for over a year) were purchased by Bryan Singer's company. I hope they don't screw it up.

Are you a "sinner" if you reject the premise of the argument?

One of the things that is really pissing me off at the moment is the conflation of church and state in government. Bush, Roberts, Miers (et al) have made no secret of the fact that they are led to make the decisions they make by their spirituality and belief in Christ.

The problem with that, when viewed by an atheist like me, is that I feel like my interests and issues -- as well as the interests and issues of those religious Americans whose religion doesn't happen to be Christianity -- are completely disregarded as irrelevant to The American Way.

I think that the Moral Majority find it easy to disregard us because they have bought into a notion (perhaps generated by their own leaders) that if a person isn't a christian, then they must be a degenerate or reprobate or hedonist (not that it -in many instances- isn't true). I remember growing up in bible-belt Kentucky and thinking that atheist Madaline Murray O'Hair was a satan worshipper. She wasn't, of course, but that's what I was led to believe -- here's the kicker -- IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. (It wasn't until years later that I determined that the woman wasn't actually a devil worshipper).

I have to admit that it sometimes feels like we're dropping the ball in actively disproving this notion. It would be great if we could, by word and example, show the Republican Base that just because someone isn't a christian, it doesn't mean that they aren't a GOOD person... but when one of the ten commandments is "Thou shall have no other God before me" there's absolutely NOTHING that the most virtuous, devout Hindu, Buddist, Muslim, or Jew can do that will make them anything other than a sinner in the eyes of a christian fundamentalist. Why would they even contemplate having a debate with 'sinners' over issues of best interests? They wouldn't.... I see the mental leaps going something like this: "If you're not a Christian, you're a sinner. If you're a sinner, you must be either a degenerate or reprobate or hedonist. If you're a degenerate or reprobate or hedonist you certainly shouldn't have any input on how to best tend to societies' needs." ...and that's why we find ourselves so regularly dealing with this attitude of "We know what's best for us AND YOU" from those currently governing.

I've often said (when asked what my religion is) that I'm a Lincolnist, and when pressed to explain what it means I tell the story of when Abraham Lincoln (a republican) was himself asked what his religion was. He replied, "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. THAT'S my religion."

I don't know if there are any other self-described Lincolnists out there but if so... I think we should maybe start converting. It would be an attractive offer... no having to get up early on Sunday morning to go to church... no "SIN"... no having to pray before meals. Unfortunately, there'd still be GUILT... so other than not having to go to confession, it would be just like Catholicism. (I'd even be open to keeping the bingo thing... and the wine and bread bit... and since I'm gay you can bet I'd totally be into the pompous ceremonial crap but our musical numbers would have a lot more zip... maybe our hymns would be showstoppers like "Let Me Entertain You" from Gypsy or "Razzle Dazzle" from Chicago.)

Who wouldn't want to convert???

The main thing about Lincolnism is just that it means there's no praising God for the good or blaming God for the bad... It means taking responsibility for your own actions.

Hmmmn.... now that I think about it, judging from the behavior of the Bush Administration, that one is probably a dealbreaker.

Update

Sorry for the complete lack of posts lately but I've been setting up a staged script reading for my next film "The Year of Ice" based on the book by Brian Malloy.  Keep your fingers crossed for me.

No Experience Necessary

Twenty years from now we may look back upon this decade and label it the "Unqualified Years" since it's seeming more and more that qualifications don't really matter... to head FEMA (Brownie), to be an "Astronaut" (U.S. millionaire Gregory Olsen who is currently in orbit), to be a judge on the supreme court (Harriet Miers), to be a t.v. and film actress/celebrity (Paris Hilton), to be governor (Ah-nold), or even president (W).
As long as you can buy your way in or are well connected, the only thing else you need (just like Kevin Federline) is an unearned sense of entitlement.

I don't even HAVE children and I'm afraid of what they must be learning from our example.