There isn't too much to blog about really, but I will start from the end of the last one. Monday evening, a group of us went to the movie theatre to see "Slumdog Millionaire". The theatre was huge, as well as the screen, and it was dirt cheap; by far the least amount of money I have spent going to see a movie, and buying popcorn. The movie itself was good and highly enjoyable. It is about two brothers who lose their mother and are forced to fend for themselves in the slums of bombay. A bunch of stuff happens, but how it is set up is that the younger brother is on the indian version of "who wants to be a millionaire" and ends up being able to answer all the questions. Not because he is smart and educated (he is a slumdog), but because little events throughout his life as a slumdog provided him with the answers to most of the questions, and the questions just so happened to pertain to events of his memory he was able to recall. Of course there is the element of love involved, where he and his brother meet this other little girl in the slums, but the younger brother becomes separated from her and the older brother, which drives him to be on the Millionaire show.
I recommend seeing it at least once, even though it has the "cheezy" happy ending, that one of the girls in the group pointed out was improbable and the only thing about the movie that wasn't good. But I say, that the nature of a probability such as this entails that at some point the improbable must happen. Say there is a 1 out of 10 chance that two people in love get the "happy" ending, well all that entails is that 9 of those people don't get the happy ending, but 1 does. So why discount a good movie because the improbable happened? After all, the improbable must happen at some point right? Otherwise there would be a 0 out of 10 chance that the "happy" love ending would take place for a couple, and by experience we know that isn't the case. This leads me to want to explore probability theory, which I have not done yet, but I still recognize the difference between highly improbable and impossible. So one should not ascribe impossibility to a situation that is simply improbable. After all, it is improbable for a gambler to win at the craps table, given the odds, but by necessity there are those who do win at the craps table and role the improbable number, and this chance drives people to play the game. The same should and must be true for a person's attempt at securing a relationship even though the odds against it are paramount. Suffice to say the realism during the movie allows for the improbable ending to occur, and in fact not be "cheezy" in theory; even though the way it was acted out might be a little cheezy, with the whole "kiss me" line when the young man is hesitating to do so. Such cheezy acting can be overlooked for the sake of the transcendental point of what is going on.
Some girls are watching "sex and the city" dvd's right now, and I abhor that show. It is an abomination to nature, and all things productive and intellectually or creatively stimulating. In my personal opinion, I find the show to reflect negatively upon women, and I doubt many women will agree, which I find sad. I have met few young women who do not like the show, and I can't figure out why the number is so small. If there were a show that was only about men talking about their hook ups, and indulging in "locker room" sex gossip, I would find it demeaning and unproductive, and to reflect negatively upon me as a man. It seems apparent that the women who do love the show empathize with the characters and plots, which are severely lacking, and there is almost a sense of womanly pride amongst viewers. Ahhhhhh yes, the struggle of inner city women trying to "make it", and I suppose by "making it" we mean have a lot of sex and gathering to discuss the encounters as soon as possible. The show is almost never about the women's struggle in the workplace or the like, but it's them talking about their hook ups and indulging in "ladies room" sex gossip. Does anyone else not see the negative portrayal of womanly priority amongst young single women? I am failing to find words adequate enough to express my distain for this program.
I have started to watch episodes of the old mtv show "Daria" with a newly acquired friend from California, as she has the episodes on her computer. I haven't seen that show in a really long time. I should have brought some family guy dvd's or something, I didn't really think about it. I can only watch the two south park episodes and one American dad episode I have on my computer so many times.
Every morning the electricity goes off for a time, and I wake up, because the fan turns off. It also goes off randomly throughout the day. Such things are normal, and you don't even flinch, you just keep doing what you are doing and it will be back on shortly.
Tonight we are going to eat dinner at this italian restaurant so we will see how that goes.
Touche on the "cheezy" ending. I will agree with you...although the tandem dance scene was a bit much. ;)
ReplyDeleteSex and the City is a silly show. I think it's only addictive because no one actually desires to live like that, but they like to entertain the idea. It's not practical.
Oh...perhaps you should watch some Entourage...it's more or less Sex in the City for men. ;)
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting you think that about sex and the city because I think a lot of people think of it in the opposite light. Especially if you watch the first episode where Carrie decides she's going to have sex like guys and not care about his needs. You make very valid points, but I think it's the complete nonsense of it all. Dana and I watch it because it reminds us a lot of our friends (not that we're all gigantic whores like them) but to us it is just about friendship. It's great having friends you can discuss anything with and know they won't judge you.
ReplyDeleteWe're over Sex and the city though and have moved on to Entourage :)
But it's simply all nonsense; whether you are guy who has sex with a woman without caring for her needs, or whether you are a girl who does the same with a guy, it's quite simply nonsense. It would be fine if the show portrayed it as nonsense, but it doesn't; it pretends to have some great philosophical point when she is writing her column and simultaneously narrating the story, raising some irrelevant question about men as if upon figuring out the answer (which doesn't even seem to be the goal anyways), some great life secret will be answered.
ReplyDeleteIf I have a sexual encounter of any sort that holds any meaning for me whatsoever, my first instinct is not to tell/brag to the nearest friend(s), to do so would degrade it and the woman. Granted, it may come up in talking to one particular friend, but in no way is it in the context of "locker room" sex gossip such as "dude I totally porked this chick last night I met at a bar...". Which is the male equivalent of the female saying to her bffs "OMG, last night I had THE BEST sex EVER, with this jazz musician I met at this classy jazz club..".
I fail to empathize with such characters and plots, perhaps the object of my intellectual foresight happens to stretch beyond such frivolous activity. It is frivolous because not only is the goal of trying to "figure out" men and relationships null (because we are each individuals and are not absolutely represented by the genitalia we happen have), but because the goal is null it is a completely circular task; making the constant participation in such activity self indulgent and masterbatory. Like two talking-head politicians yelling at each other under the premise that their debate will reach some sort of common goal, when it is obvious that it wont; hence it becomes masterbatory to indulge in, and the same holds true with circular conversations about the sexes and their woes.
Josh... I totally agree with your views of Sex and the City. I have only watched like two episodes and refuse to watch it anymore... it disgusts me! I can't see how some women have so little self respect that they live this lifestyle. Crazy! Jennie
ReplyDeleteI just havent got over Sarah Jessica Parker being married to Ferris Beuller?!?
ReplyDelete-Bill
I do remember having this conversation and I do agree that it is berating women to a degree. The same as a show like Entourage does. But, if you are to hate this one show, you might as well hate a host of other shows that provide no intellectual stimulation and merely entertain. I wouldn't just single out Sex and the City. These days most of television berates the intellect, and yet we still indulge in it sadly. That however is a separate conversation. Your point however, is well-noted and as always well explained.
ReplyDeleteI think you have to look at how a given show purports itself. Take the office, great show, super funny if you have the right kind of humor, I don't think it is dumb humor...but nothing that requires a sharp mind to find it funny. However, it doesn't seem purport itself to be anything other than what it is, a show meant to provoke laughter at the awkward. Sex and the City however seems to purport itself to be a show with something to say, or at least the fans treat it as such through empathy.
ReplyDeleteWhile I may feel a kin to some funny situation that takes place in the 'the office' or that I can relate to the humor, I would not say that I empathize or think to myself "wow, i've totally been there before..."; I watch it to laugh, not to empathize. Many Sex and the City fans seem to do both, or one or the other at any given moment. So one at least must admit that the show's portrayal of women is questionable, 'the office' however has no general portrayal, positive or negative, justified or unjustified to give. Viewers watch it to laugh, not to empathize.
So what is really in question here is the motivation to be a fan of any given TV show. If it is only to be entertained and relax the brain for a while, then I would never find fault in that. I do however find fault in unhealthy amounts of empathy, regarding any TV show, let alone one that is simply about being "city girls" having lots of sex. I must admit there are times where I will watch a bit of the show, precisely because I hate it so much and find it rediculous. So if someone is watching it simply because it is outrageous and are taking mental note of how not to act in order to avoid unpleasant avoidable situations, then fine; but the empathy is where my irritation rests.
I also get the impression that due to the fact that the show purports itself to be something more than just about women having and discussing sex, it may have the potential to cause and perpetuate empathy where it may not have been prior to an individual watching the show. Hence, TV shows, be it a sitcom, drama/suspense, news program, mocumentary/comedy, or straight up documentary...should not purport themselves to be anything other than what it is, and it seems that we have here established that Sex and the City at its core is outrageous, taking social situations to their nonsensical degree and perhaps therein lies the appeal. The fact that empathy is present, seems to be evident that the show tends to purport itself to be something apart from just being outrageous and nonsensical comedy.
It isn't the writers of the show that I am taking to task, they are just appealing and marketing a very marketable subject to the masses to make money, capitalism at its finest. I am questioning those who would empathize with any such program, as they are only perpetuating a negative outlook as well as the false purport that the show portrays.
By the way, who is DJPJ??