(:)(:)(:)(:) 4 snouts up out of 5 (Understanding My Snout-Based Rating System) for The Iceman Cometh on Broadway in NYC now starring Denzel Washington. There's a few reasons that this brilliant play by perhaps the best American playwright, Eugene O'Neill, doesn't get staged often: it's got 4 acts; it takes just under 4 hours to run; it has a LARGE cast (which is fine for a musical but for a talky play, unusual); and it is set in 1912 and has a lot of obscure references from that time period.
This production resolved a number of these difficulties simply by casting Denzel Washington as Hickey--the lead charismatic figure (although the part of Larry, played in this production by David Morse is very large--I think he's onstage the whole time). By having Denzel as the lead (who doesn't enter until Act II), you spend the marvelous Act I on the edge of your seat as everyone on stage waits for "Hickey" to come, everyone in the audience waits for Denzel. And even though that's a great first act (crazy to see all these drunks passed out on stage, who periodically come to and say something amazing), the play really starts when Hickey/Denzel character arrives so the 4 hours fly by.
Secondly, Denzel Washington's able easy performance somehow makes everything feel au courant even when it isn't--his character mocks the other characters' focus on "The (Communist Wobbly Workers) Movement," the "Boer (South African--British vs. Africaans) War " and, most of all, their drunken "pipe dreams." (My husband counted something like 41 uses of the phrase "pipe dreams" in the play).
But also Denzel being African American in a sea of white faces (there is one character, Joe, who is written as black, more about that in a minute, the production chose to do "traditional" casting for all the other characters except Denzel's) somehow makes the play feel more current--AND in doing so, this casting choice (and Denzel's winning performance) paves the way for us to easily see O'Neill's central dramatic problem is as real as ever today.
The play takes place entirely in a bar on the lower west side of NYC in 1912. The characters are a whole bunch of male drunks and 3 female prostitutes who basically live in the rooms above this dive. Like most plays, it reflects more about the time in which it was written than it does the time in which it was set. Written in 1940, the play's focus on alcoholism, and the possibility of recovering from it (not considered likely or discussed much in 1912), seems to have been heavily informed by the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous in 1934 and its subsequent literature. Although some researchers think otherwise, believing that O'Neill as a severe alcoholic from an addicted family, recovered from alcoholism by writing his plays.
Hickey, it turns out, has gotten sober and has come back to encourage the group of drunks to get honest about themselves and face the fact that their dreams are strictly pipe-induced (yes, originally the term comes from opium dens) so will never come to pass.
A word about O'Neill's black character, Joe. I'd like to hear what others think. I think it must have been somewhat groundbreaking for 1940 O'Neill to create a black male character who hangs out basically nonstop with white men as a peer drunk. Granted he seems to have some work responsibilities, but so do at least 5 other white characters, and they are minimal. The white characters display racism towards him and hurl awful epithets at him, but Joe stands up for himself and holds his own. Joe has his own parallel story line and pipe dream--some really funny and interesting stories. The greatest compliment he is given is that he is "white," much discussed, which is offensive to our ears and jarring to hear. It strikes me that most other 20th century white playwrights simply avoided the issue of race altogether and wrote entirely white characters--or had poorly developed black characters in the background as a servants.
The female characters in this play, in contrast, are all either prostitutes or discussed as "bitches," and slapped or physically threatened by their bartender pimps are more caricatures, not fully developed--although they do go on "on strike" at one point.
If you see the play, Bill and I recommend taking the steps we took: read the play first, and take a nap in the afternoon prior. It is a little difficult to make out the dialects of some of the characters without the background of having read it or being familiar.
In all though, the power of O'Neill's writing, the strength of Washington's performance and the unique vision of tons of drunks on stage shine through. See this production if you can.
Sara S. Nichols Follow me on Twitter at @snicholsblog Sara S. Nichols is a former progressive lawyer/lobbyist turned new thought minister/spiritual scientist-- she is moved to share her thoughts on politics spirit movies, plays & books My best rating is (:)(:)(:)(:)(:) out of a total of 5 Snouts Up -- I almost never give 5 Snouts--that's just for the best ever.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Sunday, May 27, 2018
Design Flaw? Commercial Scale Dual Flush Toilet Handles Defy Human Habit
It's a small thing but it has bugged me for a while that the most common form of low flush toilet handle used in large scale bathroom facilities (Leed certified (highly environmentally friendly) type buildings) is designed to encourage more water use.
Let me explain: most toilet flushes are only going to flush away #1, not #2. And most of us (in the U.S.) are used to pushing a toilet handle down to flush.
Enter this model of toilet flush where if you squint at the graphics you can see that for a low flush (1 drop of water on graphic) you pull the handle up and for a heavy flush (3 drops of water on graphic) you push the handle down.
If you're not used to these toilets (most people don't have dual flush toilets in their home, and if they do, they're not this model), you will probably just push the handle down and it will be the heavy (#2) flush, which is likely to be unnecessary.
What am I missing? The people who design these must have thought this through. Am I right? is it really a design flaw? Please educate me.
Let me explain: most toilet flushes are only going to flush away #1, not #2. And most of us (in the U.S.) are used to pushing a toilet handle down to flush.
Photo of handle in Brown University Building |
If you're not used to these toilets (most people don't have dual flush toilets in their home, and if they do, they're not this model), you will probably just push the handle down and it will be the heavy (#2) flush, which is likely to be unnecessary.
What am I missing? The people who design these must have thought this through. Am I right? is it really a design flaw? Please educate me.
Saturday, May 26, 2018
ALREADY? The Fast and Slow Pace of Childrearing
This weekend, Bill and I are in Providence, Rhode Island to see our baby girl graduate from Brown University (with a degree in Computer Science). Every person I've told that we're going has said "already?!" and they don't know the half of it.
The day to day experience of raising children seems to go impossibly slow. Some of those days with very young kids or mad, bored teens, were hecka long. Yet, it all passes by in these bursts of "already?"
It would be too trite to trot out the parade of "alreadys" that march through one's mind. I couldn't possibly bore you with memories of that baby laugh, those bright blonde curls, the first falling down steps, not to mention the carpools, the camping trips, the tears and fun of high school.
When the kids were kids I used to muse that every single age I wished they wouldn't get any older. That was really true. And it was such a blessing. Every single year of their childhood (except for around 15) I thought they were fantastic and wished they wouldn't get any older. They did and that was fantastic too.
I still feel that way. And just like all those other times, I'm convinced that it won't keep up. How could I enjoy my daughter of the future any better than this glorious 21 year old brilliant & charming beauty I have right here?
The day to day experience of raising children seems to go impossibly slow. Some of those days with very young kids or mad, bored teens, were hecka long. Yet, it all passes by in these bursts of "already?"
It would be too trite to trot out the parade of "alreadys" that march through one's mind. I couldn't possibly bore you with memories of that baby laugh, those bright blonde curls, the first falling down steps, not to mention the carpools, the camping trips, the tears and fun of high school.
When the kids were kids I used to muse that every single age I wished they wouldn't get any older. That was really true. And it was such a blessing. Every single year of their childhood (except for around 15) I thought they were fantastic and wished they wouldn't get any older. They did and that was fantastic too.
I still feel that way. And just like all those other times, I'm convinced that it won't keep up. How could I enjoy my daughter of the future any better than this glorious 21 year old brilliant & charming beauty I have right here?
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Happy Birthday to Me (Mostly today only, not all month long anymore)
All Month All About Me Birthday Sara |
Mostly just the day of Birthday Sara |
I still like there to be a family celebration and I still love a good excuse for a party. What's different though is that I don't NEED it very much. I don't need it other than right around the real day. And I don't need it to be all about me. For example, this year, we are taking some friends to the Women's Empowerment Gala Dinner which happens to be tonight, which happens to be my birthday. We're going out in honor of my birthday but we're there to help raise money for this wonderful organization that has helped transitioned women out of homelessness. They are the star attraction, very much not me.
What makes this evolution possible, it strikes me, is that I now get my needs met year round. I do not overdo for others as much. I do not postpone my own down time or fun or play. So I don't need to cram all sorts of things into a month anymore. I also am not craving attention because a) I get a lot of attention in my job and my family life and b) I no longer really expect other people to make me feel okay.
These smaller, sweeter birthdays are really so much more fulfilling than the blowout birthday extravaganzas of yesteryear. I am grateful for another year of life, another day of life.
Friday, May 18, 2018
Voting is the Best Cure for "Common Enemy Intimacy"
Ever since the last presidential election, we've been engaging in “common enemy intimacy”--the problem is it undermines the world we want.
As a person who follows politics and public policy closely with a commitment to my own personal integrity, I am not alone in finding elections (and the entire period since 11/9) challenging. In TED Talk goddess BrenĂ© Brown's latest book, Braving the Wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the Courage to Stand Alone, she says “the challenge is to stop using gossip, common enemy intimacy, and oversharing as a way to hotwire connection.”
“Common enemy intimacy” is the coin of the realm right now and most of us, myself included, are trading in it constantly. Every time I laugh at Trevor Noah's skewering of the President, exchange outraged comments with my husband over the breakfast newspaper reports or bond with a friend at coffee over the latest report, I'm engaging in it.
But, I hear you saying, what's wrong with this? Aren't the things that we're outraged about, well, outrageous? And doesn't it make sense to bond over it? Well, I was reminded recently in listening to a talk by integral enlightenment guru Craig Hamilton, that our evolutionary success as a species depended on exactly that, tribal loyalty over a common enemy.
The problem is that every time that those of us who believe in a world that works for absolutely everyone are bonding over a common enemy, we go backward, not forward because we are engaging in separation. The reason its wrong to pit people against each other by race and nationality and class is because we're all one. And that includes the people that are using this strategy of pitting people against each other. When I use common enemy intimacy, I move away from a world that works for everyone and return to the tribal model.
There are two cures for this conundrum: 1) bond over what we're for instead of what we're against. I don't know about you, but I believe in world where every single man, woman and child goes to bed with a fully belly, a full heart, a roof over their head, and enough clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. That's what I'm for. 2) Vote for candidates whose policies you believe will bring us closer to that world that works for everyone and try to get others to do the same.
As a person who follows politics and public policy closely with a commitment to my own personal integrity, I am not alone in finding elections (and the entire period since 11/9) challenging. In TED Talk goddess BrenĂ© Brown's latest book, Braving the Wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the Courage to Stand Alone, she says “the challenge is to stop using gossip, common enemy intimacy, and oversharing as a way to hotwire connection.”
“Common enemy intimacy” is the coin of the realm right now and most of us, myself included, are trading in it constantly. Every time I laugh at Trevor Noah's skewering of the President, exchange outraged comments with my husband over the breakfast newspaper reports or bond with a friend at coffee over the latest report, I'm engaging in it.
But, I hear you saying, what's wrong with this? Aren't the things that we're outraged about, well, outrageous? And doesn't it make sense to bond over it? Well, I was reminded recently in listening to a talk by integral enlightenment guru Craig Hamilton, that our evolutionary success as a species depended on exactly that, tribal loyalty over a common enemy.
The problem is that every time that those of us who believe in a world that works for absolutely everyone are bonding over a common enemy, we go backward, not forward because we are engaging in separation. The reason its wrong to pit people against each other by race and nationality and class is because we're all one. And that includes the people that are using this strategy of pitting people against each other. When I use common enemy intimacy, I move away from a world that works for everyone and return to the tribal model.
There are two cures for this conundrum: 1) bond over what we're for instead of what we're against. I don't know about you, but I believe in world where every single man, woman and child goes to bed with a fully belly, a full heart, a roof over their head, and enough clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. That's what I'm for. 2) Vote for candidates whose policies you believe will bring us closer to that world that works for everyone and try to get others to do the same.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Why Not Wait to Cast Your Absentee Ballot?/My Picks for Statewide CA Races Today
Delaine Eastin for Governor |
- Your ballot just has to be postmarked not received by June 5th (so as of today, that gives you 3 weeks).
- In the last 3 weeks of the election you could learn a lot about people:
b. There are still more debates. Like tonight UC Riverside is hosting a debate among the candidates for Attorney General. Might you want to watch it or future debates before you decide? (some people say Delaine Eastin was great in the last gubernatorial debate)
c. Stuff may come to light about frontrunner for Governor Gavin Newsom. How great would it be to have a choice between Delaine Eastin and him in November? He doesn't want that of course. He wants a choice between him and a far right Republican so its a cakewalk.
Okay, all this having been said, if the election were held today, who would I vote for in statewide races? See below. Feel free to educate me further in the next 3 weeks!
Kevin de Leon for US Senate |
US Senator State Senator Kevin de Leon (D) every day of the week over incumbent Diane Feinstein (D). Kevin is a progressive who has fought for the environment, labor, and women as leader of the state senate. He will vote and work for a world that works for everyone. Diane Feinstein has repeatedly supported conservatives for the judicial bench, is a hawk and is very fond of policies that benefit large corporations. If Kevin can make it into the run-off in November, he can, at a minimum, push Diane from the left to better policies--if not, miracle, unseat her.
Governor: Former Superintendent of Public Education Delaine Eastin (D) (this is already a change--I posted yesterday on Facebook that I would vote for Gavin but was convinced by some others to go for Eastin.) You know how the top two primary works, right? The top 2 vote getters in June, regardless of party, face off in November. That means that even though Eastin "doesn't have a chance" there's no reason really not to vote for her. Newsom will run in November regardless--why not have a race between progressive and more progressive?
Lt Governor: Today I'd vote for Gayle McClaughlin (I), former Mayor of Richmond. She is a progressive (Bernie Sanders fan) who ran a city. I know state Senator Ed Hernandez pretty well as he was (still is) the chair of the Senate Health committee when I was representing SEIU in the legislature. He is a nice enough guy, but he is no progressive and has been a bad vote on several key environmental and consumer issues. I see no earthly reason to advance him to statewide office.
Secretary of State: incumbent Alex Padilla (D).
Controller, Incumbent Betty Yee (D);
Treasurer, Vivek Viswanathan (D). You might be tempted to vote for the leading Democrat, Fiona Ma--don't. Just don't.
Attorney General: Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones (D). Appointed incumbent Xavier Becerra (D) would probably be pretty good but he's no Dave Jones. Dave, the current Insurance Commissioner, is one of the most aggressive progressive attorneys in this state and will make an OUTSTANDING Attorney General.
Insurance Commissioner: undecided--anyone know who to vote for?
Monday, May 14, 2018
Lessons from 30 years @email
Unlike most people, I've had nearly 30 years of experience on email. I had an email address before almost anybody because my brother Prescott was the manager of a super early Internet Service Provider called Geonet. This would have been the late eighties. He gave me and our other brother Evan email addresses and told us to have at it. There was literally no one else I could email besides my brothers because I didn't know anyone else with an email address. My bros took to it immediately and were tossing off emails several times a day. I checked my email every month or so. They told me that I didn't get the idea. There are still people who don't.
By 1993 or so, maybe earlier, I got the idea and I checked my email many times a day and dove into the first of many jobs where email became the primary mode of communication. This would have been at my job as staff attorney for Public Citizen's Congress Watch in Washington, DC.
Since then, I've had a lot more experience with email and have learned some things that I'll share with you:
- It is good only for communicating logistics and information such as
- When or where will something be
- What will be the agenda
- What to bring to the potluck
- What is a potluck?
- It is not good for making almost any decision
- even when or where is best done voice to voice
- all decisions except for when and where are nuanced so see below
- And it is certainly not good for anything nuanced including:
- Anything involving human emotions
- Which includes anything involving humans
- You see, on email, we may be operating in a late 20th century technological environment but we're still evolutionarily centuries older and the rapid fire of emails sends us into Flight or Fight mode and so our reptilian (or is mammalian) brains cause us to:
- Flame
- Blame
- Shame
- And most of all interpret others as flaming, blaming or shaming, whether they are or not.
- Don't waste your time creating email masterpieces
- Nobody reads emails beyond the first few lines
- So don't write a novel
- And don't expect anybody to have read it
- And certainly don't expect anybody to have looked at the attachment or clicked through to links
- Anytime you have a meeting with anybody who is a volunteer there is almost zero chance that they will have read anything you sent them
- when you have a meeting with someone you work with as a peer, there is almost zero chance that they will read it or engage with
- The only exceptions are:
- People you directly supervise
- People who are paying you a huge hourly rate for your opinion
- but even then...
- People who are retired, not overcommitted, and understand email and how to click through to things
- If someone tells you, "sorry I didn't read it, you wouldn't believe how many emails I get" that means they don't get very many emails because
- Anybody who uses email in the 21st century gets an overwhelming number of emails
- It's like saying, "you wouldn't believe how many people drive cars."
- Yes, we would believe it.
- We exist
- If the person is under 30
- And you do not directly supervise them
- or are not their professor
- you need to send them a text to let them know they got an email
- They really don't check email--only people from the 20th century communicate by email.
Sunday, May 13, 2018
BILL MAGAVERN'S BALLOT MEASURE RECOMMENDATIONS, 2018 CALIFORNIA PRIMARY
Bill Magavern’s CA Ballot Rx
These opinions are my husband, Bill Magavern's,
STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS – all of these were put on the ballot by the Legislature.
"Please feel free to forward them, or to send [him] comments of a civil nature (no rants).
PROP 68, PARKS/WATER/NATURAL RESOURCES BOND -- YES
I don’t love general obligation bonds in general, because taxpayers pay them back with interest, but this one would fund critical needs that are not easily met with other revenue sources. Funds would go to drinking water, flood protection, land conservation, and parks. I especially like that most of the parks money would be set aside for disadvantaged communities that have few parks.
PROP 69, TRANSPORTATION SPENDING – YES
This was part of the big transportation infrastructure package (SB 1) passed last year, and it’s pretty simple: the revenues raised by that measure, through higher taxes and fees on fuels and vehicles, could only be used for transportation purposes, like road repair and public transit expansion and operations. This one is a close call for me. SB 1 had both plusses and minuses, and it’s not always wise to wall off revenues so that they can’t be used during fiscal crises. But we undeniably do need to invest more in transportation, and voters need to be assured that the taxes they pay at the pump are going to improve transportation. Without that assurance, it will be difficult to build support for the revenues that are essential to modernizing our transportation system to reduce accidents, congestion and pollution. The Republicans are opposing this measure because their main strategy for the November election is to ride an initiative that seeks to repeal SB 1’s taxes and put all future fuel tax increases on the ballot, which is a recipe for gridlock, potholes and lung disease.
PROP 70, DIRTY DEAL TO STOP CLIMATE ACTION – NO
This ridiculous measure was put on the ballot as part of a deal to get some Republicans to vote to extend the cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Using their leverage, some Republicans bargained for this constitutional amendment that would require a 2/3 vote in 2024 to spend the revenues that are raised by auctioning off pollution allowances. That means an undemocratic process that would allow a minority of legislators to hold important climate investments hostage to their demands for pork-barrel spending and special-interest deals. The auction revenues that would be at risk are used to reduce pollution and provide jobs and services through solar energy, public transit, clean vehicles, and urban forestry, among other programs. More info at https://stopprop70.org.
PROP 71, EFFECTIVE DATE FOR BALLOT MEASURES – YES
Under existing law, approved ballot measures take effect the day after the election. This could be highly problematic for close races, because counting all the votes can take weeks. So Prop 71 would have the measures take effect five days after the results of the election are certified.
PROP 72, RAINWATER CAPTURE SYSTEMS EXCLUDED FROM PROPERTY TAXES – YES
This is a smart idea to encourage homeowners to install rainwater capture systems that collect and store rainwater that falls on the roof of a building. The water can then be used for gardens, flushing toilets, or other non-drinking uses, relieving stress on our precious water supplies. Prop 72 would allow homeowners to install such systems without seeing an increase in their property taxes. There is a similar exclusion for solar power systems.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Marjorie Prime Gets it Right in the Future
Sacramento Bee Photo and Review |
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Marjorie Prime playing at Capital Stage in Sacramento, CA through June 3, 2018. Understand my Snout-based rating system--5 Snouts up is the best.
At the play's outset, Tess complains that her husband Jon has gone too far by creating a hologram that looks and talks like her dead father to comfort her mother with Alzheimers. "We're living science fiction," she says (or something to this effect). "When did we start living science fiction?"
I love this because it strikes me that usually when fiction is set in the future, the advanced technology seems to be just accepted--it's part of the normal. But is that really how we experience it now? How much of every day do we spend grappling with new technology and its implications? Will that really stop at some point?
This play fuses the emotional and physical reality of 2018 mothers in their 80s with Alzheimers (ask me how I know) with a future possibility of a holographic companion who converses and helps refresh and retain the person's memory.
It's super easy to see a hologram or robot that you've programmed with your memories as a logical extension of today's Echo Dots, Google Home Mini, and Apple HomePods (why oh why aren't these products advertising on my blog right now, sigh?).
And while the play by Jordan Harrison (a 2015 Pulitzer Prize finalist) writes the future and the progression of someone with this disease well, and the complicated relationship between a mother and daughter brilliantly, I am baffled by one thing: based on my experience, the hologram needs to be a lot more proactive to engage Marjorie in real conversation--she holds up her end of the conversation far too much.
Janis Stevens is stunningly brilliant as the lead character, Marjorie. Even though Janis is a talented and powerful actress, I sometimes find her expressive face and voice too much for the relatively small stage and house of Capital Stage or the kind of plays they choose. In this case, always fantastic director Stephanie Gularte (returning from St. Petersburg, FL to direct this joint production with American Stage there), reigns Janis in and helps her channel that power into the insanely subtle yet effective looks and movements of a women with this disease--uncanny!
The rest of the cast is powerful as well, as always Jamie Jones is marvelous as her daughter Tess. I'd love to see more of Steven Sean Garland who plays Tess's husband Jon--wow, he's just charming, relaxed, funny, handsome, sincere, real. Brock Vickers as Walter Prime, the hologram of Marjorie's dead husband (as he appeared when 30) is charming as well.
Friday, May 11, 2018
Change Everything Without Changing Anything--Four Snouts Up -- I Feel Pretty (therefore I am Pretty) in Theaters now
(:)(:)(:)(:) Despite general critical distain, I loved this movie and found it important for a couple of reasons: 1) it makes us identify, laugh and cry about (American) women's obsession and distortion with our looks and bodies; and 2) it reminds us that the most important change we can make isn't a diet, or an exercise regime: it's mental.
I suppose by critical standards, this isn't an especially good film. It has an extremely predictable formulaic arc to its plot: unsuccessful person has something happen that turns them into successful person, girl meets boy, loses boy, regains boy. The dialogue, while funny, is not brilliant. Had Amy Schumer written it in addition to starring in it, the dialogue might have had more oomph or edge.
Yet. Yet. Yet. I enjoyed every minute of it. I laughed. I cried. I was entertained. I was thrilled to sit there in a theater filled almost entirely with women and see a truly average looking woman on the big screen feel gorgeous and powerful and therefore be gorgeous and powerful.
In an age where Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) can take anybody and turn them into anyone, how cool is it that when Amy Schumer wishes to be pretty NOTHING CHANGES ON THE OUTSIDE, the only change is on the INSIDE? I spoil nothing by telling you this. The trailers for this movie tell you the entire plot. The opening scene tells you the entire plot.
I don't recall a mainstream, mass-produced, funny movie where the main plot development is that a woman goes from thinking she is ugly and fat to beautiful and pretty and the only change that has happened is in her mind.
We've seen run-ups to this. In Bridget Jones Diary we saw Renée Zellweger bulked herself up from a size 2 to a size 6 and obsessed on screen about her weight and looks. In Shallow Hal we saw Jack Black fall in love with a hugely overweight woman only because in his mind she looked like Gwyneth Paltrow (and then eventually become willing to love her anyway in spite of her grotesque appearance). But this is different...
I Feel Pretty nods to the movie Big where a little boy wishes on a mechanical carnival magician and wakes up the next day as Tom Hanks. Yet the Renee Bennet (the Amy Schumer character) falls off her exercise bike, hits her head, looks in the mirror and THINKS that she has been changed physically. But we never see a vision of Renee in the mirror that is different from how she actually is. She always looks the same, she only feels different about herself and her entire life changes.
This movie embodies the entire philosophy I teach. At the Centers for Spiritual Living, our founder, Ernest Holmes, said "change your thinking, change your life"--I Feel Pretty has as its tagline: "Change Everything Without Changing Anything." The thing is, you absolutely can. I have done it. You can too.
I suppose by critical standards, this isn't an especially good film. It has an extremely predictable formulaic arc to its plot: unsuccessful person has something happen that turns them into successful person, girl meets boy, loses boy, regains boy. The dialogue, while funny, is not brilliant. Had Amy Schumer written it in addition to starring in it, the dialogue might have had more oomph or edge.
Yet. Yet. Yet. I enjoyed every minute of it. I laughed. I cried. I was entertained. I was thrilled to sit there in a theater filled almost entirely with women and see a truly average looking woman on the big screen feel gorgeous and powerful and therefore be gorgeous and powerful.
In an age where Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) can take anybody and turn them into anyone, how cool is it that when Amy Schumer wishes to be pretty NOTHING CHANGES ON THE OUTSIDE, the only change is on the INSIDE? I spoil nothing by telling you this. The trailers for this movie tell you the entire plot. The opening scene tells you the entire plot.
I don't recall a mainstream, mass-produced, funny movie where the main plot development is that a woman goes from thinking she is ugly and fat to beautiful and pretty and the only change that has happened is in her mind.
We've seen run-ups to this. In Bridget Jones Diary we saw Renée Zellweger bulked herself up from a size 2 to a size 6 and obsessed on screen about her weight and looks. In Shallow Hal we saw Jack Black fall in love with a hugely overweight woman only because in his mind she looked like Gwyneth Paltrow (and then eventually become willing to love her anyway in spite of her grotesque appearance). But this is different...
I Feel Pretty nods to the movie Big where a little boy wishes on a mechanical carnival magician and wakes up the next day as Tom Hanks. Yet the Renee Bennet (the Amy Schumer character) falls off her exercise bike, hits her head, looks in the mirror and THINKS that she has been changed physically. But we never see a vision of Renee in the mirror that is different from how she actually is. She always looks the same, she only feels different about herself and her entire life changes.
This movie embodies the entire philosophy I teach. At the Centers for Spiritual Living, our founder, Ernest Holmes, said "change your thinking, change your life"--I Feel Pretty has as its tagline: "Change Everything Without Changing Anything." The thing is, you absolutely can. I have done it. You can too.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Why not build trust in your intuition by playing a game like Sudoku?
Recently I accidentally stumbled across a fun and easy way
to build my belief in my own intuition and spiritual guidance: Sudoku
I’ve been playing Sudoku on an iphone app on my phone for
years. Not very much, I hasten to
say (lest you judge me as “one of those people” who play games on their phone
all the time). Actually, I wish I were “one of those people” who
play games on their phone because it might indicate that I had time to do
that. Sigh. But that’s a different blog post.
No. I am “one of
those people” who play games on their phone while I’m on an airplane or in a
location where I have no internet and can’t really work. And the game I play at those times is Sudoku. Over the years, I have worked my way up very slowly on
this little app from
“flash” level to “easy” to “medium” (where I stayed for the past two years) to,
very recently, “hard.”
On the flash and easy levels, I used the huge amount of
already filled in spots to give me easy clues to what number would go in a
particular spot. There was no guessing
really, it was a process of elimination, looking at what numbers were all
around it. By the time I put the number
in there, I knew it was right. For a fact.
But when I got to the “hard” level I realized that I either
could not or would not spend the time it took to determine analytically what
number went in each spot. Someone else
might be willing to do this. I could see how it could be done. But I didn’t
seem to want to spend my brainpower on it.
Almost always with this game, you can narrow down to 2 numbers that
could go in a given square. One of them
is right and one of them is wrong. Out
of sheer impatience, I started guessing--so I got a ton of answers wrong.
Then I started using a technique cribbed from something
called Access Consciousness* which I sometimes use to make difficult
decisions. I sit with the choices and
feel each choice and the choice that feels really light and spacious in my
chest when I think of it is the choice that will bring the most possibilities
and joy in my life – what Access would call the “light” choice but someone else might just
call the “right” choice. So I would
narrow down the choice to, say, numbers 4 and 8 and whichever felt lighter, I
would put in the box. And in this app,
unlike if you play on paper, you can immediately see whether the choice was right
or not. I noticed that 99 times out of
100, the choice that was lightest was right.
I think that defies the odds which should really be 1 in 2, but what do
I know?
After doing this like 30 times, I realized with a flash that
this game was an absolutely no stakes way to build my faith in my
intuition. You see what I’m saying? There is no earthly way that it matters
whether I get this wrong. No bank
account or relationship or emotion is depending on me to get the right
answer. And if I’m playing at a level
that is hard enough that its more fun for me to guess than it is to figure it
out with my earth brain then this actually becomes a more fun game for me: intuition
building through Sudoku.
See if I can use this with no stakes matters like Sudoku, I
can build the confidence to use it with low stakes matters like which
restaurant to go to or whether to say yes to a random invitation or
opportunity. And if I can use it with
those things, maybe then I can use it with the really big stuff: career and
finances and marriage and housing level stuff.
Let me hasten to point out the obvious: you don’t need to use either Sudoku or Access
Consciousness to do this test. Pick your
own game with right or wrong answers (I have no idea what that would be, but
I’m sure some exist). Pick your own test
of your intuition (some ideas include: muscle testing, another kind of feeling,
a pendulum, writing, or something else).
It strikes me that most of us do it the other way around—we
turn to our intuition only when desperate, when the stakes appear to be
enormous and we have absolutely no idea what to do. The great thing about the “hard” level of
Sudoku is that it is really a no stakes simulation of high stakes, right? It’s the “hard” level and there’s only one right answer. And if you pick the wrong numbers it will make a buzzing sound and you’ll
“lose” (by getting a low score). The
reptilian or mammalian brain interprets these queues as stakes and generates
some of the stress chemicals that real world decisions might activate—which is
why people like to play games. Why not
use this environment to build your own ability to handle what really matter to
you?
* Access Consciousness teaches some powerful techniques that
absolutely work yet indications are that it has some unhealthy business
practices and aspects that are sufficiently weird to give one pause. My approach with them is to take what I like
and leave the rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)