Operation Saturday

I had an MRI done on my prostate last week Thursday.  My RN said to call her Friday for the results.   When I did, whoever answered the phone asked me when the MRI was done and I said the day before and I asked if I could speak to my RN to get the results. "Oh no, those wouldn't be available yet.  Try again on Monday."

Wait another three days to find out if my cancer spread and I'm going to die?!?!

Normally I'd have argued and asked to speak to my RN, but I was at work and didn't feel like getting loud, so I decided to let it go and call again Monday.  No problem, I figured, I can wait.

The weekend wasn't too bad, I distracted myself with a lot of activity.  Monday morning at work I called and asked to speak to my RN again and I was told my surgeon would call me later in the afternoon.  I pushed this time and said my RN told me to call her for the results.  The woman I was talking to said my surgeon prefers to discuss the results directly with his patients so he'd call me.

Great, so now I won't know the results until sometime in the afternoon.  Fuck me.

Around 11:00 I emailed my RN and told her I was pretty anxious to get the results so could she please make sure my surgeon didn't forget to call.  She emailed me back soon after and said she'd make sure he got back to me.

So I waited.  And I waited.  And I waited.

It was horrible.  You can't stop your mind from imagining every possible outcome, many of which would be catastrophically bad.  "Unfortunately Mr. Hughes, the cancer has spread beyond the prostate and there are indications it's in your lymph nodes and bones.  At this point there's no need to operate, it wouldn't do any good.  We can manage the disease for a while and make you comfortable, but we can't cure it."  That, of course, was the worst fear.  Until I had the results, I knew that outcome was a possibility.  It seemed remote, but it was possible.

Or maybe it wouldn't be so bad?  Maybe the cancer would have spread but not so much that it couldn't still be cured?  Or maybe, hope of hopes, it was still contained to the prostate so the surgery would be the only and final treatment?  My surgeon seemed to expect that would be the case, but until we saw the MRI, there was no way to be sure.

My head was spinning all day.  My boss asked me to do things and I asked him stupid questions in response, things I knew the answers to, because I was having trouble thinking straight.  All I could think was, Am I going to die soon?  Is the cancer contained?  What will the MRI show?  When will they fucking call me?

My surgeon finally called me at 2:30 (he'd been in surgery all day until then).  He was very matter-of-fact and low-keyed and said the MRI basically showed what he expected to see.  I asked him if the cancer appeared to be contained and he said yes with the slight possibility of a microscopic breach of the prostate on one side, but it was so small it was hard to tell.  I asked him if this was going to be a problem and he said no, they'd just excise a bit of extra tissue there to be safe.  He said that's the benefit of the MRI, it shows things that might need more attention.  He said the breach, if it's even there, is extremely small and he's not concerned about it.  He said he expected the surgery would cure me and I wouldn't need any further treatment.

To call it a relief is an understatement, it was more like a reprieve.  It was the first good news I'd had since this whole mess started.

So my Surgery is the day after tomorrow.  I go in at about 10:30 Saturday morning - I'll get a confirmation call tomorrow - and will be operated on at about noon.  Depending on which brochure you read it will take between three and four hours or four and five hours.  So I guess that means roughly four hours.  I'll stay one night in the hospital in a private room in what sounds like a pretty fancy wing of the hospital, and there's a bed Melanie can have if she wants to spend the night.  I don't think this is the treatment everyone gets, I'm assuming it's because I'm an employee.  Of course yes, I am a VIP, but I always assumed that was just in my own mind.

So things are looking up.  The idea of the surgery makes me a little anxious, but only a little.  I've been operated on a bunch of times and I'm comfortable with the idea of being opened up and repaired.  I think of surgery like working on a car.  I normally recover pretty quickly, though this is a more involved surgery than I've had before so we'll see.  I put in for a medical absence from work of a few weeks and depending on how I'm doing, I may go back before it runs out.  I'm not too concerned about adapting to the changes in my anatomy either.  All indications are I'll have a good recovery and should bounce back pretty much to normal.  There may be some lingering changes, but from what I know - and looking at my age and overall health - I'm not too worried.  I have the best surgeon you can get for this, truly at the top of the profession, and that greatly reduces the side-effects of the procedure.  (He's the co-director of the department.)  In the end the surgery is a pretty easy choice; death on the one hand doing nothing versus surgery and the possibility of some physical changes afterwards.  No brainer.

All in all, at this point I'm feeling pretty lucky.  This could easily have been so much worse.

Furniture & Marriage

I've been noticing differences between Melanie and I lately. I mean, besides the obvious ones, that I have these hard proby guy parts and she has these moist succulant girly parts.

It's the way we consider, think about, treat, and respect furniture.

Melanie does.

I don't.

I'm not sure I can articulate this but I'll try.

My father was a furniture builder and made some amazing stuff. Half or more of our furniture when I was growing up was furniture he built, everything from our family room end tables to the dining room hutch. The basement was his wood shop, and it was - as we Hugheses are - well endowed. Table saws, band saws, work benches, hand tools, electric tools, glues, screws, spray cans, laqueres, paints, sandpapers, and sawdust, lots of sawdust. I've seen furniture built from the ground up and I recognize and like it.

I don't respect it as much as Melanie does. She and her family bought furniture. To get it, they, like most people, paid for it.

Maybe I always took furniture for granted?

Here's an example. If I had a party when my parents were away once - I'm not saying I did, but if I did - and someone let a cigarette burn out on the living room table, my parents might have been pissed off when they came home and saw the burn mark. (Oh man were they.) But I knew my father could make another table. I was in trouble, but it wasn't the same as a parent saying, "you just burned hundreds of dollars of my money." I knew the worse I'd be into my father was for the cost of the lumber.

So maybe I think of furniture as disposable, or easily replaceable.

Melanie likes good furniture. She's sacrificed for it and she has a good eye, and she has very nice furniture.

Very nice furniture.

Then, poor dear, she married me.

I have an antique banker's desk in our 2nd bedroom/office. I bought it years ago at a place near where I grew up, and I love it. Rich dark wood, desktop slightly cracked and uneven, rugged. Manly. It's a man's desk. They won't let you buy this desk until you promise whisky or beer will reside on it at all times, preferably near a defecating horse.

So here's what married life is to me. I put coasters under drinks before I put them down on furniture Melanie bought, but I put naked, condensation-dripping beer bottles down on my banker's desk and glory in the wonderful way this ages the wood.

Who's right?

Of course - you saw this coming, right? - both of us.  I think we understand and acknowledge the differences even if we don't adopt them. That's why I love her. For that, and for many other reasons.

Like those moist succulent girly parts...

Oh shit, sorry, need to go, left that naked Dewers on the dining room table a while back there...

Operation Scheduled

I met with my surgeon Dr. Vincent Laudone today and scheduled my prostatectomy for October 20th. I have an MRI on October 11th in preparation for that and hopefully indications will be that the cancer is contained. If my cancer is contained to the prostate, then after the surgery my treatment is finished, I'm done.

Dr. Laudone said people are typically out of work four to six weeks after the surgery, which surprised me, though some people go back in their second week. Melanie and I are leaving on November 28th for a trip to India so I'm hoping I'll be in good shape for that, and though it will be close, it looks like I should be doing well by then.

Dr. Laudone is the guy you want for this operation, he's at the top of the game and is personable and easy to talk to. I'm very comfortable with him doing the work, and he's got a great track record. He said as long as the cancer is contained to my prostate, I can expect to have the same life expectancy after the surgery as if I'd never had the cancer. So much for my plan to die young and leave a beautiful corpse...

My big fear, obviously, is the cancer is not contained to my prostate. The MRI will tell more, but the results won't be definitive even if they look good. During the surgery they'll sample a lot of the surrounding tissue and test it for cancer later, so it's not until I know those results we'll know the full story of what I'm dealing with. Of course I hope the MRI looks good, I don't want it to find anything suspicious, but the definitive results won't come until after the surgery.

So fingers crossed the cancer is contained. Dr. Laudone characterized this as an aggressive cancer, but I guess it's all in how you interpret it. He said my PSA was low at this stage of the game so that was good. They look at "Gleason" scores which run between six and ten and mine was an eight, right in the middle of the scale. So I'm halfway between "wait-and-see" and "very aggressive." It's serious enough they'll do the surgery before my trip to India instead of later, which is what I want, I wouldn't be able to enjoy myself with the operation hanging over me.

It feels good to have this scheduled. Now I hope everything goes well with no surprises.

(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to leave a comment.)

Michael Chabon Book Signing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chabon

My man Alain & I were in the Union Square Barnes & Noble last night to hear Michael Chabon read from his latest novel "Telegraph Avenue" (we share mutual Michael Chabon man-crushes). Thanks go to Alain's beautiful bride Kacie who spotted the appearance. Following the reading, Michael signed copies of his book.

The way it worked was, you bought the book on the main floor, then brought it and the receipt up to the 4th floor (it's a big bookstore) for the reading and signing. The receipt was your entry ticket. Michael would sign any book you brought so long as he wrote it, and sure enough, there were people who seemed to have stacks of every book he’d ever touched. (We were told someone at the previous signing wanted him to sign a copy of "Moby Dick" for some reason. New Yorkers, don't ask.)

Alain and I were both surprised by the sound of Chabon's voice. I don't know what I’d expected - I wasn't aware I had any expectations at all - but what I heard surprised me, a slightly higher-pitched soft tenor-y voice as opposed to the commanding baritone I must have imagined. Maybe I expected to hear the narrator in those Hollywood blockbuster trailers: "IN A WORLD WITHOUT HOPE, ONE MAN STANDS ON THE BRINK OF ETERNITY!!!"

I don't follow too many contemporary writers, but Michael Chabon has interested me for a long time. I became aware of him after seeing a movie based on his book "Wonder Boys." The film shares the title and stars Michael Douglas, Toby McGuire, and a pre-sobriety Robert Downey Jr., and is fantastic, I LOVE this movie. I picked up the book and was even more impressed. I haven’t responded like that to a new writer in a long time. Later, in 2001, Chabon won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for his novel "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay" about the early days of the comic book industry. This new one, "Telegraph Avenue," is about a used record store in 2004. Not only is Chabon a brilliant writer, he writes about the geeky things I love.

Chabon read the beginning of the book, then took questions from the audience. He was relaxed and conversational answering questions and came off likeable and genuine. After that he signed easily hundreds of autographs for people. Alain and I were near the back of the line but we got to shake his hand and get our books signed. Very cool night.

Springsteen: "Born To Run" & "The Rising"

I've never seen Bruce Springsteen in concert and I don't know if I'd call myself a fan. I love some of his stuff and I have maybe half of his albums. On the other hand, I buy a lot of albums, so… I'm aware of what he's doing at any given time, but I'm more of an interested outsider than a fan.

Then there's the album "Born To Run."

"Born To Run" is in my Top Ten albums of all time; no, my Top Five. It was released when I was in high school and I borrowed it from my friend Mitch (some of you might know Mitch as Captin Krunch) and recorded it to my father's reel-to-reel tape recorder. I gave the LP back to Mitch and listened to the tape over the next week or two, and I was so blown away by the lyrics (I'd never paid much attention to lyrics before) I borrowed the record again so I could type the words out on my mother's old manual typewriter. (Do you remember that, Mitch?)

It was the first time I'd related to what a rock album had to say. Bruce sings about the Jersey shore on this record and I KNEW those people, I'd SEEN them. I lived in the suburbs, but I'd go to the shore and this album talked about something familiar. I was blown away. A rock album made me consider the world in a way I hadn't before. It was the first time I saw popular music as art I guess, or as something that could move me and change my perceptions and experiences, or maybe affirm them; I don't know, it's a complicated thing when art moves you.

I followed Bruce's career after that. I got "Darkness On The Edge Of Town" released an agonizingly long three years later. The wait was caused by Bruce's legal dispute with his previous manager. I remember first hearing "Darkness" on an FM station at night, they played an advanced copy in its entirety, and I'd expected it to be "Born To Run - Part II." But of course it wasn't, it isn't. "Darkness" is an album by an older artist exploring different themes. I wasn't ready for that, and I was disappointed.

I followed Bruce's stuff over the years. I was in the Air Force when "Born In The USA" was released and became the monster hit of his career with all those top-ten songs. But just as the hit single "Born To Run" never grabbed me much, the album "Born In The USA" didn't do much for me. It was good, but it didn't match the greatness of the "Born To Run" album; nothing did.

I kept buying maybe every-other Bruce album over the years and was always a little disappointed.

Then 9/11 happened and the things that were important before took a back seat to the fears of the world. A few pop music artists released albums and songs responding to this event - Neil Young for one - but nothing registered for me.

Then Bruce released "The Rising."

I cry like a baby every time I put "The Rising" on. That's why I'll never listen to it in front of you, I can't. "The Rising" did for the country what "Born To Run" did for New Jersey. It brought to vivid life a people in a place at a time with magical artistry in a way no one else did or maybe could do.

And it does so much more.

"The Rising" is tender, loving, and tries to understand. "The Rising" isn't judgmental, it doesn't point fingers, and it doesn't accuse. It comes from a place of humanity. It knows people all have the same needs and concerns, and it tries to make sense of the tragedy of 9/11 in a way that leaves me in utter awe. I'm not kidding when I say I cry every time I put this CD on.

What an achievement this record is. It articulates the depth of absence, something we usually never consider.

This album is as great as the best work of any popular artist living in their time; da Vinci, Mozart, Twain, Pollack, Kerouac, Beatles, Dylan… and Bruce. All popular artists of their day who remain inspiring and influential. It's hard to appreciate a prophet in his home town, and we - especially in America - dismiss our own easily. But this album is one of the best.

If you haven't heard "The Rising," listen to it. Keep in mind when you do this was released ten months after 9/11 and is a direct response to it. Though not all the songs were written after 9/11, they were included for the way they reflect on that tragedy. Be aware of that, and think about how this album is about the permanence of absence. I like to think this record makes us better people.


(I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to comment.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_to_run
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rising_(album)

Waiting To Talk To The Surgeon

This Thursday at 11:00 I talk with the surgeon who will probably do my prostatectomy. I'm going with the robotic surgery which has the same long-term outcome as traditional surgery but is less invasive, is possibly more accurate, and has a shorter recovery time. I've seen the device in action and I'm impressed. To me, it's a no-brainer.

A bit more info on the findings of my prostate biopsy. The doctors said they only take into account Gleason scores between six and ten, with a six indicating a possibly slow-growing and benign cancer for which they take a wait-and-see approach, and a ten indicating an aggressive cancer that needs to be treated. They took fourteen samples of my prostate during the biopsy and six were positive for cancer. My highest Gleason score was an eight and the next highest sample - or core - was a seven I think. That put me somewhere between wait-and-see and treat it now. With my family history - my father died of prostate cancer when he was 70 - and my relative youth, I think it'd be a mistake to let this go untreated. All things being equal, I could be around another 30 years or so; that's a long time for an existing cancer to branch out and become problematic. Plus, I don't like the idea of living day-to-day wondering if the cancer is spreading yet.

One alternative to surgery is to have radiation pellets - or seeds - put directly into my prostate to keep the cancer at bay. However, the prognosis for that is messy. Over time the likelihood of incontinence and sexual dysfunction increases. There also seems to be a question about whether the seeds are a cure or simply keep the cancer in check, and if so, for how long. And the longer the radiation pellets stay in, the more damage they cause to the healthy tissue. Maybe for someone in their 70s it's a way to go, but I don't think it's an option for me. Another thing that makes surgery more attractive to me is with surgery, I remove all the cancer in one procedure and start the recovery and healing process right away and keep getting better over time.

So surgery it is. I'll have it done at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center where I work and there's no better facility for something like this. We're truly cutting edge, real pioneers in this treatment. You can probably find care which is as good elsewhere, but I don't think you'll find better. In a way I'm lucky, I just happened to get a job here three years ago so I have access to this treatment. I feel very comfortable my care will be the best, period.

I'm a little worried though, of course. I'm concerned the cancer has spread. That seems very unlikely; all indications are this is an early detection and the cancer is contained. But a spread is a possibility, and so far I haven't been beating any of the odds. That's got me concerned.

Even the best case scenario is a little mixed. If they do remove all the cancer, I'll still be dealing with the effects of the prostatectomy for the rest of my life. The urinary incontinence should be mild and temporary; it won't be a loss of control so much as a loss of FULL control. For a short time. The possibility of sexual dysfunction, though, is scarier and varies from person to person. There seems to be very little risk of impotence. The best I can tell is, at my age and general health, I can expect to get about 90% of my sexual function back, maybe more. And the better your surgeons are and the more experienced they are, the better your chances of having a successful recovery there. Sex will never be the same as before the surgery because my anatomy will be different, but I should regain most of the ability and function. Clearly it's not the end of the world, and it's certainly preferable over death. But even with the best outcome I can't help but think of the punchline: "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?"

I freak out a bit from time to time, but since I'm going to do this, I just want to get it over with, I hate thinking and waiting. I'm hoping the meeting goes well with the surgeon Thursday and I get this scheduled and feel reassured about the outcome.

To be continued. And continued. And continued. And con…

(I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to comment.)

The Mind Of A Cancer Owner

Fantasy Conversation Inside My Head Right Now

I'm freaking out a little bit.  Did my cancer spread?  I can deal with the surgery recovery shit if I have to, but did my cancer spread?  How bad is it?  Will it kill me?  Is this surgery, like my father's treatment, a waste of time?  Will this cancer kill me like it killed him?  Something will kill me some time eventually, but am I dealing with that eventuality now?  Will this cancer kill me?

Probably not.

Probably?  That's the best you can do?

Yes, it is.  There are no certainties in medicine, not today's medicine, only statistical probabilities. This cancer probably won't kill you.  It might, and it does kill some people in your situation, but it probably won't kill you.

Can you tell me something more positive?  More uplifting?

Yes.  You make bald look good.

.... Uhm....   Thanks?

(I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to comment.)

Prostate Cancer

I'm getting tired of getting cancer all the time!  (Four or five years ago I had Melanoma, which they removed from my back and no further treatment was needed.)

Today, 9/11 of all days, I found out I have prostate cancer.  These days the approach is often to do nothing, wait-and-see, because so many prostate cancers are relatively benign, slow growing or non-growing and unlikely to pose any risk.  But in my case, because of the amount they found and the density, they categorized it as between wait-and-see and aggressive.  They recommended taking care of it, and I have to agree.  Plus my father died from prostate cancer, so I don't want to take any chances.

All indications point to surgery taking care of the whole problem, there seems to be very little risk of it having spread at this point.  I work at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center so I have access to the best cancer care you can get.  There's no doubt my doctors know what they're doing and will do the best job anyone can.  I may be dealing with something shitty, but I've got the best people in the field working on it.

I got over the Melanoma surgery fast, and I expect I'll get over this one relatively quickly too.  It will be a longer recovery obviously, but with my age and overall health - and the skill of the surgeons I have access to - my side effects should be on the smaller side and manageable.

It's an easy choice though.  I have dying on one hand, and living with an unpleasant recovery and some side effects I'm sure I can handle on the other.  Talk about a no brainer.  Plus I'm with Melanie now, so I'm planning on sticking around as long as I can.  It took me a while to find her and now that I have, I'm not planning on leaving anytime soon.

Oh shut up Cameron and get some sleep.  

OK, I think I will.  

Goodnight. 

Clybourne Park

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clybourne_Park

Melanie and I saw "Clybourne Park" tonight, the 2012 Tony winning and 2011 Pulitzer Prize winning play. We loved it. Engaging and "thought-provoking" in the true sense. It gives you believable situations, real characters and dialogue, without supplying answers to the questions raised.

The show is surprisingly funny with amazing and brilliant conversations that wander off into non-sequiturs which circle back into poignantly still moments. It uses silence well, it's Miles Davis, the pauses are pregnant.

It's almost brilliant, but it's not perfect.

There are devices introduced which are never resolved. Are they MacGuffins? No. They don't detract from the main storyline to enhance it, and they have no satisfying conclusions themselves. (The trunk. The son's letter.) So why are they there?

On the surface "Clybourne Park" is about race relations, the awkward misunderstandings between races, the embarrassing attempts and failures to find common ground. Cleverly it shows how, for all our enlightened modern progress, we're still stuck.

What elevates the play is it's really about the human impasse, how all people, even couples, vibrant and dynamic, know each other and communicate but don't connect. We see lots of communicating but not so much communication. It's about the inability of people to understand each other.

Alain and Kacie saw it a couple of months ago and I asked them recently what they thought. I think their reactions were like ours, that it was good but not great. At the time I was surprised they said that, from the reviews I thought it would be astonishing

Now that I've seen it, I agree with them. The play has so much, yet it somehow misses the mark. It's ALMOST there, but falls just short. On a scale of ten, I give it a nine. I think Alain might give it an eight, Kacie about the same.

"Clybourne Park" is a fantastic play - and it's so great to have a modern Broadway play worth talking about - and I recommend seeing it. But it's just short of a classic.


(I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to comment.)

Shane

I finally got around to watching “Shane” over the weekend, I’d never seen it before, this classic of the genre. It’s one of Roger Ebert’s “Great Movies” and I’ve had it on my Netflix streaming queue for a few months and finally played it.

I should say I’m not much of a Westerns fan, never was, even as a kid. They always seemed dull and hokey to me. I remember liking “Rooster Cogburn” (though I don’t remember it now) and I think I liked “The Shootist,” but I don’t remember liking any other John Wayne movies. I never got into the John Ford Westerns or the more popular Westerns with people like Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda and Gary Cooper.

Westerns always struck me as hypocritical in the same way organized religion is hypocritical, preaching a morality that's unattainable. Westerns and The Church had their peak in America at around the same time; coincidence? Or are they cut from the same rawhide? (Ouch.)

The Westerns I’d see as a kid (mostly on TV) seemed to be from another era, one I couldn’t relate to; not because they were set in the 1800s, but because their morality and their codes didn’t resonate with me. I was more attracted to the counter-culture, even before I knew what the counter-culture was, and Westerns of the 40s, 50s and early 60s were The Culture. (I have photographs of myself at 11 or 12 wearing headbands, bleached bell-bottoms, and love beads. I was very cute. My favorite Halloween costume was a Hippie. My parents, New-England Catholics, used to stare at me with uncomfortable smiles and shake their heads. They never really stopped, come to think of it.) I picked up a DVD of “The Wild Bunch” maybe ten or fifteen years ago because it seemed like the kind of deconstructionist Western I’d get into, but I never got past the half-way point. (I need to give that one another shot, I think I'd like it if I saw all of it.)

I rarely watched Western TV shows either. I hated “Gunsmoke” and “Bonanza.” I did like “F Troop,” but does that count? I love “Blazing Saddles” but can you call that a Western? (Can you call “Young Frankenstein” a horror flick?)

On the other hand, I LOVED (still do) “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.” I also liked the TV show it inspired, “Alias Smith and Jones,” both the first season with Pete Duel, and the second season after Duel's suicide featuring the less-charismatic Roger Davis. As a tot I liked “The Rifleman” starring Chuck Connors. I’m not sure why that one appealed to me when none of the others did. Maybe it was the co-star, the Winchester rifle, so perfect, graceful and iconic, still my favorite rifle of all time. (You mean you don’t have a favorite rifle?)

A few years ago I watched “The Magnificent Seven” during a Movie Night and I enjoyed that. And I’m watching the Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns for the first time, those are good. I like “Unforgiven” and “Silverado” and “True Grit” (not sure if I saw the original though) and “Dances With Wolves” and “Maverick,” so you can’t say I’m against the genre. I like “Westworld,” but I guess that doesn’t count, it's more sci-fi. Even “Maverick” might not be a “true” Western, more of an action-comedy.

The point is, even though I’m not against the genre, I’m not a Westerns fan, I don’t identify with them the way other people do. So take what I say about “Shane” with a grain of salt.

I hate “Shane,” just hate it.

This is a classic? Really?! Why?!

This was a popular movie when it was released. That means a lot of people liked it and recommended it. Why?! Granted it’s outdated today, but it’s also corny and boring. There’s nothing “real” about it. It’s just another tired retelling of the same fantasy, overripe – no, rotting - with the Western Code.

I read Ebert’s review afterwards and even his interest seems to be more about what was happening underneath the movie rather than what was going on in it. He likes it for the things hinted at but not addressed: the unconsummated attraction between Shane and the wife, the idea that Shane is doomed to go from town-to-town getting into the same conflict because he’s ultimately damaged, and the way Shane seems unable to engage with people in a healthy, intimate way. Ebert’s interest seems more about what the movie says of attitude of the 1950s than what the movie is itself. That kind of social critiquing is valid and often interesting, but it doesn’t help me appreciate this movie any more.

Shane reminds me of Joe DiMaggio. People used to idolize DiMaggio because he never showed emotion on the field, he kept it to himself with the grace of a real man, never exploded in anger or frustration. I look at that behavior and I think, repressed repressed repressed. It’s unhealthy to be so self-contained, it’s unrealistic, phony, and insincere. Here’s Shane, a bigger-than-life movie personification of the same values, and it pisses me off because the movie tries to sell that as the way a real man should be. It’s unnatural and unattainable. I’m NOT saying you shouldn’t help people or be selfless; I’m saying the total qualities that make up the Shane character are laughably inhuman.

Lenny Bruce talked about the lie we were told (in his opinion) about Jacqueline Kennedy’s reaction when John Kennedy was shot beside her. We’re told she tried to gather up the fragments of his brain from the back of the car in a selfless effort to help him. Bruce had a different interpretation. He said she was trying to get away, a perfectly normal and healthy human response to danger. The Secret Service pushed her back into the car for her own safety and it sped off. What made Bruce angry was the lie we were told, that we are supposed to be selfless and saint-like in the midst of horrible circumstances. It bothered him because he didn’t want his daughter to ever be criticized for acting in a human, healthy, normal way. He didn’t want her to be vilified for saving herself. He didn’t want her to feel unworthy because she couldn’t live up to the lie.

“Shane” preaches that lie.

I had a hard time finishing the movie. Melanie saw a few minutes and left the room. It didn’t just not engage me, it disturbed me, made me uncomfortable. You mean people really bought into this Western-code morality bullshit? The goofy cutaways to the treacly, hero-worshiping kid are bizarre and unnatural (though in a typically 1950s actor-y Hollywood way). The rest of the acting is equally stilted. The story line is predictable. I hated it, all the laughable goodness in the townsfolk and the laughable badness in the villains.

Yes, a few things were interesting. I liked the flaws in that one farmer who gets gunned down in the mud. It was great seeing Jack Palance in an early role (his first? He's billed as Walter Jack Palance). He doesn’t say much but he’s an impressively imposing bad guy even if he is very stock, black-hat and all. I guess I like how the main villain tries to convince Joe Starrett several times to move on or sell his land, and even ends up offering the guy a job. I don’t remember seeing a bad guy act with that kind of logic in a Western before.

It’s not the fantasy element of the movie I object to necessarily, I don’t want all movies to be gritty and realistic. I love movie musicals of the same period, and you can’t get further from reality than people breaking into song and dance to an invisible orchestra. But I guess the difference is, musicals aren’t intended to be about life or to teach us, and Westerns like “Shane” espouse a moral code for people to aspire to, and that’s just wrong.

I hate “Shane.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_(film)

(I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to comment.)

The Audition

I hate auditions. I hate them for the obvious reasons, because they’re competitive and rife with rejection. You’re nervous and you hope you’re what the casting people are looking for and you hope you do well.

But what I hate most are the other actors. Everyone’s yammering away empty-headedly in nervous self-consciousness, trying to be all friendly and nice and root for each other, like, Hey, we’re in this together so let’s have fun and enjoy each other! and I’m like, Leave me alone, don’t talk to me, and just let me read. I’m not here to be your friend. You don’t really care about me and I don’t really care about you and neither one of us really wishes the other any luck, so shut the fuck up and let me get in there, read, and get out of here.

I had an audition after work today for an indy feature with some pay. I read for two parts, one of a clerk in a head shop, and one of a beleaguered father of a lay-about stoner son. The head shop clerk could have been fun but they wanted someone uptight and serious. I thought I read the role of the exasperated father better.

In the end you never know what they’re looking for. It often comes down to appearance; you don’t look enough like the people cast as your kids or your parents, or you’re too short, or the character is supposed to have a full head of hair or be thinner or whatever. You’d think this knowledge would take some of the the sting away from not getting a part, but it doesn’t, there's a voice inside every actor that says you didn't get it because you suck. And the reality is, you don’t get the part most of the time. And there's no way to tell at an audition how you did or what they think. I can only rely on my own sense of accomplishment; did I read as well as I wanted to? Did I sound “authentic” and not stagey? Do they seem to be LOOKING for authentic and not stagey?

For the most part I think I did OK in this one, but who knows? At least the writing looks good judging from the sides I got. The people at the audition seemed OK and I got a good vibe about the production. We'll see. It’d be fun to get into something decent again.

(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

W.E.

Melanie and I watched the movie “W.E.” last night via a Netflix Blue-ray rental and I admit I was prepared to hate it. Madonna directed and co-wrote it and it only has a %12 Rotten Tomatoes approval rating from critics. The only reason I was aware of the movie at all was because of its Oscar nomination for costumes.

 

Part of my expectation was tainted by my dislike of Madonna. It’s a weird thing to dislike a celebrity because you don’t know them, your impression is formed strictly by the media. Nonetheless, I think she’s a demanding, self-serving wannabe with questionable talents. She doesn’t let people get in her way and seems to use others to get ahead. You can say this is no different from the behavior of successful men which we accept - and women often use this argument to defend the unlikable behavior of successful women - but that assumes a lot about me. I don’t like or accept this behavior in anyone, woman or man. To be self-serving at the expense of others is not, to me, an attractive or acceptable way for someone to behave.

Madonna was most recently married to the British film director Guy Ritchie and in 2003 they collaborated on the very un-Guy Ritchie movie “Swept Away.” He wrote and directed it, she starred in it. It was a huge bomb with a %5 Rotten Tomato score. (Just before the movie opened, I remember seeing Ritchie and Madonna on a Red Carpet somewhere. When asked how “Swept Away” was, Ritchie said, “It’s horrible.” Madonna elbowed him and laughed and said he was kidding, but it didn’t look to me like he was kidding.) The impression is that Madonna used her husband to further her own career.

 

Of the 78 reviews for “Swept Away” on Rotten Tomatoes, only four gave it a favorable rating. Of those who liked it, one admits to it having a “ghastly” start, one predicted it will become a camp classic, one gave backhanded kudos to Madonna saying it shows she “doesn’t suck” as an actress, and the other’s review is no longer active on the site.

Melanie was curious to see "W.E." and I like historical dramas, so I was mildly interested too. The film tells two parallel stories. One is about Wallis Simpson’s affair and marriage to King Edward VIII who abdicated his throne for her, and the other is of a woman in 1998 who’s fascinated with the Simpson story and sees similarities in her own life.

The line in the film that sounds like pure Madonna to me (I’m paraphrasing from memory) is, “Everyone talks about how much he gave up by marrying her, but no one ever talks about what she gave up.”

That’s right, Wallis Simpson is the one we should all feel sorry for, no one appreciates what women go through. Bitch, please. What did Simpson give up? She was a married woman who had an affair with a would-be king and divorced her (from all accounts) decent, loving and non-abusive husband for him. She was then ostracized by Britain and the royal family. So what did she give up exactly?

Now here’s the surprise; "W.E." isn't half bad. Well, maybe it is half bad, but it's only half bad. The critics gave it a %12 approval rating but the audience rated it %51.

The direction is deftly handled (it's not easy for me to say that) and I like the intercutting between the two story lines. Sometimes the film switches back and forth quickly without warning, but you never get lost. I think the acting is great (Madonna’s not in it) and the production and costumes especially are very well done. The script is a little weak and one-note. The modern story isn’t well resolved and might not be needed at all, despite the good acting. It’s not bad, just doesn't seem to go anywhere. And you never understand why the modern woman is so fascinated by Simpson and Edward. So the script could definitely be better. But I think the main reason the critics didn't give the movie a better reception has more to do with Madonna than the movie itself. That’s unfortunate because the film, though only OK, is better than Madonna’s being given credit for. I enjoyed it; not a lot, but I enjoyed it, and it did make me want to know more about the real story of Wallis Simpson and King Edward.

Maybe the only reason I liked the movie at all is because my expectations were so low.  But I don’t think so. It’s still obvious why Madonna chose to do it – a female-directed female-centric movie starring two women depicting the struggles of strong women – but the movie works more than it doesn’t. Interesting.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Magic City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_City_(TV_series)

I’ve been watching this new show on the Starz cable channel called “Magic City.”  It’s set in a fancy hotel in Miami in the late 1950s and I didn’t know what to make of it at first.  I liked it but I was a little put off by it.

The hotel owner is played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan who looks a bit like Dean Martin in his prime.  He has people like Sinatra playing his hotel and the Kennedy’s stopping by for luncheons, and also allows backroom gambling and has hookers on site.  As a result, he deals with the local mob boss played by Danny Huston.  Huston may be a boyhood friend, but he’s also a moral-less crime lord who comes off a bit crazy, a bit insane. 

To demonstrate.  There’s a bar in the hotel with windows that look out under a pool.  Danny Huston’s character Ben "The Butcher" Diamond says things like, “You should put mermaids in that pool.  No one wants to watch fat kids swim.”  Ike (Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s character) says, “I have girls in there too Ben, you’ve seen them.”  “No, mermaids I said.  Mermaids.” 

How do you answer crazy?

It’s also a lurid program.  Lots of death and Showtime-caliber sex.  I have the past three or four episodes on the TiVo, meaning I’ve been letting them pile up because I didn’t know if I was into the show or not.  It’s not Melanie’s kind of thing so I haven’t been getting around to watching them.

I just finished watching two of the recent episodes and then it hit me.  This show is Mickey Spillane without the censorship.  It’s a pulp novel crime thriller come to life with real tits and ass.  There are no cutaways to trains going into tunnels.  When the guy and the girl hit the sack, you see it in all its cable glory.

I didn’t mention an interesting twist.  The hotel owner is Jewish as is Ben “The Butcher” Diamond.  You don’t see that too often, usually the mob guys are Italian, even though there has always been an active Jewish mob too.  On the other hand, it’s almost not noteworthy because in the end, criminals are criminals.  I never thought of crime as an equal opportunity employer, but there you go.

I’m getting into the look and feel of the show.  The sets and costumes are fantastic, and the cars, amazing.  Even the color palette is like old color Kodaks or postcards.  Everyone drinks and smokes and it makes me wish I lived in a time when smoking was still OK for you.

I think I’ll watch the remaining episodes pretty quickly now.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Johnny Carson

I’ve never been a huge fan of Johnny Carson. I grew up when he was at his most popular and watched him probably most nights – I’ve always tended toward late hours and his was the only show on - but I never worshiped him to the extent a lot of entertainers do. Carson is often praised for his comic timing and quick ad-libbing, and his ability to put guests at ease, knowing when to interject and when to let them go on. And these are all valid observations.

But what I always saw in Carson was insincerity. Not that he was nasty or unkind, just hidden and secretive. I had no problem believing he was shy off camera because I could see the tension as he strove to stay in character and suppress his real persona. I had no problem believing he wasn’t always pleasant and could be mean and vindictive. Carson was great at hiding in plain sight. You saw him every night but you never saw what he was really about. The person on camera was manufactured.

He wasn’t genuine, he wasn’t real, and that always bothered me. He was incredibly polished but he was artificial. Jack Parr was Carson’s immediate predecessor and I’ve only ever seen his Tonight Show in clips, but what I see is someone infinitely more “authentic” than Carson ever was. Of course this is an opinion, I never met Jack Parr to know what he was like, but he conveyed sincerity and authenticity. With Carson, I always knew there was a lot more lurking or cowering under the surface and it felt distancing to me. He might laugh at a guest but I’d wonder, what are you really thinking?

A recent American Masters on PBS takes a look at Carson’s life and career. Watching clips from the Tonight Show underlines my initial impression of Carson, stylistically perfect but disingenuous. On the other hand, I have a better respect for Carson’s insight into what works and what doesn’t work when interviewing guests. He DID make that look easy and it isn’t (remember how embarrassingly uncomfortable Chevy Chase was in his short-lived talk show?). I think Carson was a good listener and was good at making his guests feel they were the center of his attention, and he was effective at drawing them out. And he understood comedy and used it well. But I always felt he was like a ticking bomb that could explode at any moment.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

New Keyboard

My old keyboard came with my MacPro about five years ago and it's been showing it's age. First the keys got grimy from my beefy mits. I pulled and cleaned them and they looked good for a while, but I think I scrubbed off some protective coating because they got dirty again real fast. Then the space bar started getting temperamental. Today was the day for a replacement.


Apple only sells one detached keyboard now so it makes your choice... easier. It's got a considerably smaller footprint than the older one, but fortunately the keys are spaced and sized the same. That means it's not as congested as a laptop keypad, which I can barely use. I feel like I'm wearing mittens when I try to type on one.

The difference in size is dramatic.



Same sized keys, just fewer of them in a slimmer box.

But watching me use the thing is like watching a circus clown on a tricycle.



I like it. Smooth action, great response and feel.   But I see a period of adjustment before me.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

The Skin I Live In

Melanie and I watched "The Skin I Live In" via a Netflix Blu-ray over the weekend. It's a 2011 movie written and directed by Pedro Almodóvar starring Antonio Banderas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skin_I_Live_In

When I first started watching it I thought it was done by the same director who did "Y Tu Mamá También" in 2001, Alfonso Cuarón (who also co-wrote that script). Both directors have unique, individual (though similar) styles and approach sexuality in frank, almost shocking but intelligent ways.

Cuarón had already shot two big budget American films prior to "Y Tu Mamá También" but he chose to shoot it in Mexico. I've read it was partly because he feared getting an NC-17 rating in the States which would have made financing and marketing difficult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Tu_Mam%C3%A1_Tambi%C3%A9n

The resulting film is in no way pornographic, but it depicts sexual growth and maturity in an honest and adult way. It’s not overtly graphic, but it’s not cautiously shy either. It seems Cuarón was afraid any honest depiction of budding sexual awareness would scare Jack Valenti’s puritanical MPAA ratings board away from an R rating. (Amazingly, the film Cuarón directed immediately after this was "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." He did a great job, but what about "Y Tu Mamá También" made the producers think he was right for a Harry Potter movie?!?!) By shooting in his native Mexico, Cuarón was able to make the movie he wanted and it's a great flick, a coming of age story between two Mexican teenagers and an “older” woman in her late 20s who accompanies them on a road trip.

“The Skin I Live In” contains sexual elements with a bizarre storyline that reminded me of the vibe of "Y Tu Mamá También" but with more thriller and some sci-fi elements. The films explore the nature of sexuality in different ways (though you wouldn’t really call “The Skin I Live In” a movie about sex, maybe more about sexual roles).

“The Skin I Live In” stars Banderas as a surgeon who becomes obsessed with the idea of transforming people through plastic surgery. We find out early on he lost a wife to a fire and later suffered another tragic loss. He decides to develop an artificial skin that will look and function as effectively as normal human skin but will be much more impervious to burning. Wait until you see how he goes about testing it.

The movie flashes back and forth a lot so you have to pay attention, but I had no trouble understanding where it was going and understanding the actions, motivations and relationships of the characters (unlike "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy). At times the information is a little subtle but I like that, the movie treats us like intelligent people and trusts we’ll be able to follow along. The film is a thriller, a mystery, an examination of identity and sexual identity, and it’s an original. You won’t see the ending coming, it’s a deftly-handled surprise. I like mainly how smart the film is. Banderas is great in what might have been seen to be on paper a risky role. He’s confident and effortless, and I enjoyed seeing him in something with substance. The movie gets close to melodrama and the mild sci-fi elements might strain credulity a bit, but it’s so expertly put together I had no trouble suspending my disbelief and going with it.

I’d be curious to know what other people think. Chime in if you’ve seen it. If you haven’t and you like original movies, check it out. It’s in Spanish with subtitles but by the end you’ll forget you’re even reading them.

The movie, which premiered in May 2011 in competition at the 64th Cannes Film Festival, didn’t get any Academy Award nominations this year but it won Best Film Not in the English Language at the 65th British Academy Film Awards.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Delta Airlines

MY COMPLAINT TO DELTA AIRLINES SENT TUESDAY NIGHT AT ABOUT 9:30

My wife Melanie Hanlon and I had an unhappy flight this afternoon coming home from Ft. Myers Florida.

There were two flight attendants on board, a very nice and helpful woman named Joyce, and a very unpleasant blonde woman who didn't wear a name tag. She was abrupt and rude to me on several occasions during the flight.

I got up to use the bathroom but apparently the seatbelt light was on. It was a smooth flight and at this point well under way. In my experience, people are generally allowed to relieve themselves if needed even if the light is on. If not, I expect to be asked nicely to return to my seat.

I approached the bathroom where the blonde attendant was and asked how I could tell if the bathroom was empty, and she said very abruptly, "You must return to your seat at once sir, the seat belt light is on! I just made another announcement." If so I hadn't heard it.

After 10-15 minutes when the light went out, the same attendant was in the galley by the bathroom. I reached for the bathroom door and she said, "Someone's in there!" in an abrupt tone. I asked her how I could tell and she looked at me uncomprehending. I asked again how I could tell and she tapped a wall and pointed to a light. (I never did figure out how to interpret the light.) She then demanded I stand in the isle while I waited. I backed up out of her way but again she demanded I stand in the aisle instead of to the side of the bathroom, apparently I was in her way. I took a step back into the aisle and waited.

After I'd used the bathroom the attendant was in the aisle between me and my seat. I didn't wait in the aisle because that would block her when she backed up, so I waited in the galley. When she saw me she demanded to know where my seat was. I said "In front of the cart." She backed the cart up into the galley and stared at me not saying anything. I went back to my seat.

My wife told me the same attendant had missed servicing our seat and had to be waved down for a beverage. My wife got a drink but I never did. Other people were missed as well.

During the flight I watched when the seatbelt light was turned on as other passengers walked about using the bathroom without being scolded.

At the end of the flight, again abruptly, the same attendant demanded I bring my seat back upright, a seat I'd never adjusted. I leaned forward and pushed the button but the seat stayed where it was. A moment later Joyce, the other flight attendant, asked me to bring my seat forward. I explained I'd already done that but Joyce asked me to lean forward. She then manually pushed my seat back upright. Apparently it had slipped back during the flight and the mechanism didn't respond when I pressed the button to raise it. Joyce was helpful and nice, and a dramatic contrast to the horrible attitude of the other attendant.

I'm not a novice flyer. In my experience, once a flight is underway and is going smoothly, getting up to use the bathroom when the seatbelt light is on is generally allowed. And if I need to go back to my seat, I expect the flight attendant to tell me so in a courteous manner.

This is unacceptable. I'm not looking for anything, but I want an answer to a question. These are difficult and competitive days for the airline industry. As a traveler I expect to be treated with professionalism and courtesy. My question is this. With so many other airlines on which to fly, why would I choose to fly Delta again?


DELTA AIRLINES' RESPONSE TO ME SENT AT 5:20AM WEDNESDAY

Dear Mr. Hughes,

RE: Case Number 6139917

Thank you for your comments. On behalf of Delta Air Lines and Delta Connection carrier, Shuttle America, I sincerely apologize for the poor customer service received from one of our flight attendant while traveling with us.

After reading your comments, I certainly understand why you wanted to bring this matter to our attention. We expect our flight attendants to be helpful and professional at all times. Excellent customer service is the key to our success and your comments and observations are helpful in ensuring we maintain our goal of providing this level of service. We will make every effort to prevent anything similar from happening again. Please accept our apology for the poor impression, and we welcome further opportunities to be of service. I am truly sorry you did not receive the service you expected and should have received.

That said, we also appreciate your kind comments regarding the service received from another flight attendant, Joyce. We believe our team members are our most important assets, and I am happy to learn our flight attendant exceeded your expectations. Please know I will be sharing all your comments with our responsible leadership team.

However, as a gesture of apology for the poor customer service received, I have issued an Electronic Transportation Credit Voucher (eTCV) in the amount of $50.00 for each passenger. Please note the voucher number and associated Terms and Conditions will be arriving in a separate email. I encourage you to add Delta Air Lines to your receiver list so the voucher document is not misdirected to your spam folder. Please keep the voucher number and the Terms and Conditions since the number is required for redemption. It is also important to remind you that there is no Direct Ticketing fee for reservations confirmed online at delta.com.

Mr. Hughes, I want to thank you, again, for writing regarding the poor customer service received while traveling with us. We appreciate your interest in our company and look towards your future travel with us.

Sincerely,

Michelle M. Matthews
Coordinator, Corporate Customer Care
Delta Air Lines

-----

I figure if you got nothing to lose, why not speak up?

(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Miracle on South Division Street

Melanie and I saw an interesting play last night at St. Luke’s Theatre on West 46th Street, “Miracle on South Division Street.” It was a comedy drama and tickets were $28.50/ea via TDF.

http://stlukestheatre.com/

St. Luke’s is an Off-Broadway house I’d never been to before and is on the small size, bigger than a 99-seat black box but not by much at 174 seats.

“Miracle on South Division Street” is a four-character play with a mother and her three adult children. TOO adult, in fact; the actress playing the oldest daughter didn’t look much younger than the actress playing the mother.

It’s an Equity show and I wondered why they didn’t cast more age-appropriate actors out of that professional pool. I figure the pay probably wasn’t great so maybe they couldn’t attract more talented and appropriate actors.

I liked the woman who played the middle child Beverly Nowak (Liz Zazzi), she had great presence and timing and a well-developed character. The eldest daughter Ruth Nowak (Andrea Maulella), though too old, did a good job playing someone younger, and her character takes some nice turns. The mother Clara Nowalk (Peggy Cosgrave) was a little flat and one-note, and she should have aged herself with makeup for the part. The actor playing the youngest, the son Jimmy Nowalk (Rusty Ross), started off weak and amateurish and I kept wondering how he got cast. When I see weaker actors in otherwise professional plays I think maybe there’s hope for me (I don’t set my own bar very high ☺ ). He get’s better through the show though, almost as if the actor has to warm into the character.

The play is flawed but good. The end gets farcical which isn’t a bad thing, but you have to suspend your disbelief more than usual to go with it. But there are some great laugh-out-loud moments. It also has a nice heart and some real emotion. A clever show that starts off a little slowly. Good, not great, and entertaining; I’m glad we saw it.


(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Dead Jazz

Today I had the pleasure of being amidst some great jazz musicians.  What a collection of players.  First, Max Roach on drums.  Look him up, he's played with everyone, even Bird.  Two great sax players, Jackie McLean on Alto and Illinois Jacquet on Tenor.  The two "headliners" though are unparalleled, there was Miles Davis on trumpet and Duke Ellington leading the ensem.  It gets no better than that.

Unfortunately I saw them all at the Woodlawn Cemetery in The Bronx.  (And I didn't even know Max Roach had died.)

Melanie knew the cemetery was a National Historic Landmark and asked if I'd be interested in seeing it.  We knew some famous people were buried there and that there were some interesting monuments.

It was worth the visit.  I knew Duke Ellington was buried there but I didn't know Miles was there until Melanie saw him on the map.  They're on the same intersection of paths across from each other.  (They have nothing in common musically or, from what I know, personally.  But they're both at the top of jazz royalty.)

We walked further along and I saw the gravestone for Illinois Jacquet.  Wow, so who else is here?  Turns out Max Roach is close by and Jackie McLean is a few yard over from him.

(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

G&S

A few weeks ago I told Melanie I wanted to take her out on a weekly Date Night.  We usually go out two or three times a week anyway - sometimes just us and sometimes with friends - but I wanted to plan something each week like I would if we were still dating.  I thought it would be fun to go during the week and we agreed on Tuesday nights with Wednesdays if Tuesdays didn't work.  The rule was I'd pick the place.

We've done three or four things and they've been fun, but this Tuesday I took her to a production of Gilbert & Sullivan's "Utopia, Limited, or, The Flowers of Progress."

Yikes.

It was uptown on 104th & 5th at El Teatro El Museo Del Barrio, a nice theater in a museum/performance space, but wow what a fantastically lousy and amateurish production.

During the first act I'm thinking, there's no WAY Melanie is enjoying this.  I couldn't wait for intermission to ask if she wanted to leave.  She did.

We felt like two kids skipping school.  I don't think I've ever walked out on a show before, but it was so worth it.  We went home and watched TiVo and that saved the evening.

I'm loving this.  Even if the event turns out to be a bomb, we're sharing in it together.

Here are some shots of the theater.  When the show started I realized I could take pictures of the production, but there was no point...

(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)

Game of Thrones

I've always hated the fantasy genre, it's too unrealistic.  I like gritty urban dramas set in a world I see.

A few years ago someone at work who became a good friend, Susan Emro (she was Susan Kemp then), told me how much she liked the Harry Potter books.

Susan?!  Liking Harry Potter?!  Maybe I should read one.

I got the first novel and realized I'd been wrong to rule out something based on its genre.  The Harry Potter books are populated with people and relationships, and in that way they are universal.  And the writing, especially early on, is tight and powerful.

(As the series progressed I think Rowling's success made editors afraid to trim her books down, to her detriment; the Stephen King affliction.)

A show on HBO just premiered its second season, "Game of Thrones."

It's a fantasy show.

When I saw the first season advertised I thought it looked boring and stupid.  But it got good reviews, so I checked it out.

What an amazing show.  Each episode is like a 60-minute movie with HUGE production values; big main cast, a gazillion extras, amazing locations and sets, and elaborate wardrobe and prop pieces.  You know a lot of what you see has to be CGI, but it works so well you just go with it.  And the writing is stellar, blending in the occasionally fantastical with real characters and situations easy to relate to.

Maybe it works for me because the setting seems more like medieval England than some fantastical universe.  Or maybe that's how a lot of fantasy is?  (If so, what's the connection between medieval England and the fantasy genre?)

After watching this show I bought a discount boxed set of the first four books of the series in paperback, the original novels written by George R. R. Martin.  Very impressive.  I can recommend these to anyone who likes good writing.

Like Robert E. Howard before him with Conan The Barbarian, Martin creates an elaborate, sophisticated, whole reality.  The difference is that Howard (like Burroughs) was a pulp writer.  Martin is much better.  He's more like Ray Bradbury, someone who works within a genre but creates literature.

Miraculously the HBO program found the budget and the talent to bring all this to life.  It's sooo good.

I'm a fan.  The second season just started and I re-watched the first season in preparation.  Check it out if you haven't.  Start with the first season and pay attention.  Maybe watch each one twice, that helped me get all the details down.  Either way, watch it and let me know what you think.

(I'd love to hear from you.  Feel free to comment.)