June 6th, 2001

NPA

(no subject)

June 5, 2001:

Sleepy tonight, this will probably be on the short side.

It occurred to me after I posted yesterday's entry that I gave the "Adult Language" warning, and then didn't use any.

Another day of running around, doing medical things with Dad. Up at 8:45, which is unhappy since I was asleep at 4AM. More testing, then I took him to dialysis, which left me, finally, with some "me-time". I spent it, well, spending-today's purchases:

"Tomb Raider: the Soundtrack" and "Essence" by Lucinda Williams (CD). "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (DVD). "American Tabloid", by James Ellroy-it's my new "car book". The newest "Entertainment Weekly" and "The Week" (magazines). I really have to plug "The Week". It's crack for the information-addict. They distill all sorts of different news sources and publish the base bits from everything. And I saw "The Animal".

"The Animal" is bad. It's not going to make anyone forget the great comedies of yore, like "City Lights" and "Clerks". But it does have funny bits. I did laugh, at times very hard. And here's the thing-there's an odd underlying sweetness to it, something that was also present in "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo". While watching "The Animal", I figured out what may be the fundamental difference between an Adam Sandler movie, and a Rob Schneider one: in an Adam Sandler movie, many of the jokes are and assault of sorts, directed from the Sandler character outward at the world around him (this is best typified in "Happy Gilmore", but there are elements of it in most all of his work). In a Schneider film, however, most of the jokes are directed at Schneider-he's the semi-lovable schmuck who takes abuse until something happens to change his situation. Also on the topic of "The Animal", I must mention that Colleen Haskell, while probably not in any danger of becoming the next Meryl Streep, could certainly have a career in acting based on what she does here.

Going back to last night's points on what to print on here, and what not to, I had the following conversation with a friend of mine-I'll call him "Angelo"-on AOL Instant Messenger tonight. The conversation has been edited mildly for content but not grammar, etc., as you will soon see.

HVConstat9: 'allo 'allo 'allo.
Angelo: I'm here- is it something important (do you want to call me?)
HVConstat9: No, not at all--I'm just wondering if you got a chance to read what I wrote.
Angelo: i skimmed it, i'm interested to see how it pans out. It needs movie reviews. ;)
HVConstat9: Well, I saw "The Animal" today, and I was going to comment on it.
Angelo: Make it four inches of standard column, and it's a deal! ;)
HVConstat9: Ha. I'm puzzled, though. Only one person responded to the e-mail I sent.
Angelo: As far as the responses- I didn't know what to say, as there wasn't a lot of "Actual" content (what I would expect to be in a journal)
HVConstat9: Well, can you offer any guidance to the questions I raised in point #2?
Angelo: be right with you
Angelo: Here's the thing:
Angelo: Personally, I don't think that you can be completely popular and un-censored if you're going to publish it, and let people know it's yours. Because you're advertising it, there's no social "law" which dictates you cannot be hurtful/honest/investigative-reporter, but it'll still hurt, and I know (if it were me) I'd feel really embarassed and hurt and betrayed.
HVConstat9: Which Is why I put that bit in there, hoping to solicit some opinion. The one that worries me most is, to not use euphemism or pseudonym, "[Extremely blunt discussion of a mutual friend's life status edited out]" I don't want to make a statement like that and have it come back and bite me in the ass.
Angelo: Then don't do it.
Angelo: I used to talk MUCH more shit about people than I do now. I just got tired of smiling at them afterword and wondering if it had gotten back to them. It's just no good for me. That's the only opinion I can offer, really.
HVConstat9: That's probably what I'm going to have to do. At the same time, I worry that it will make things less interesting--the whole point of an exercise such as this is the vomiting forth of ALL the ideas in my head. Did I, perhaps, fuck myself by telling people about this?
HVConstat9: (Also, can I use this conversation? I will shield your identity, of course.)
Angelo: Yes, go ahead and use this. However, it just depends what you want to do: if you want a true "naturalistic" slice of your life, then no- you really can't do that after telling people. However, if you want a "this is what I think about the OUTSIDE (of your ecos-system) world, and the interesting things that happen to me" then you probably could.
Angelo: Maybe "[Generalized statement of previously-discussed mutual friend]" rather than "[Reexpression of previous blunt statement on mutual friend, only changing first letter of names]"
HVConstat9: Hmm...I must think on this. But for now I'm signing off to work out tonight's entry.

And so I did. (Side note: I wrote "Sleepy tonight, this will probably be on the short side" at 12:20. It's now 2:45.) I think I'm going to hold back on the real personal opinions on people around me for now. Unless someone give me a good reason to say "fuck 'em, say what you want". Today's link of the day is a cause we can all stand behind-that's right, it's http://www.stopclownpornnow.org

JHR
6/6/2001 2:57 AM