i'm sure many of you have already heard about the australian guy who slept with his daughter and locked up their six kids in the basement. his oldest daughter got sick and was taken to the hospital some time ago and was found to have organ failure. nurses were very suspicious and called the police who uncovered the crime.
so this guy slept with one of his daughters. together they had seven children, six of whom survived. he kept all the children along with his daughter (their mother) locked up in the basement. none of the children had ever seen the outside and supposedly their only access to the world was a television. the guy's wife (daughter's mother) apparently had no idea any of this was going on.
the children have since been freed and kerstin (the daughter/granddaughter of this guy who was taken to the hospital) says that she wants to see the ocean and go to a robbie williams concert. i'm not really sure what to make of this story. first, i hesitate to believe that the mother didn't know that her husband was having sex with their daughter who was locked up in the basement. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine why she wouldn't do anything if she had known. who can say? i sure can't and won't ever really know the truth.
i will say this though. this guy is one sick sick fuck. he may be literally sick in the head for all i know. and i'm not one to start spewing out nasty stuff about him especially if he has some sort of chemical imbalance. but this is one of those things that just should never never ever happen. it boggles the mind. it makes you question our humanity in general.
people might be turned of by this story, but i find it uplifting. it makes me happy reading about this girl who is finally getting a chance to start her life. it just happened to start 18 years too late.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
spike lee versus clint eastwood
i just heard a story that spike lee and clint eastwood were in a war of words. the story goes that during the cannes film festival when lee was promoting his new world war 2 movie about black soldiers, he criticized eastwoods two wwII movies, flags of our fathers (eh) and letters from iwo jima (pretty good) by saying that they didn't properly portray african americans during the war.
apparently, lee never watched the movies cuz he would have realized that letters from iwo jima was about japanese soldiers. anyway, after the criticism, eastwood told lee to "shut his face", which for some reason didn't go over well with spike. spike then went out to say someone like, this isn't a plantation and eastwood is not my dad. pretty much calling him a racist. spike toned it down a little bit later.
i'm going to have to agree here with eastwood, spike should shut his face. i like spike, i like his movies, love that he's a knicks fan, but he's an arrogant and in my opinion, incredibly stupid human being. he's the type of person who only cares about his causes and gaining power for what he cares about. he doesn't really care about creating a positive force in society, in my opinion. if he did, i doubt he would be shooting nike videos for his corporate idol, jordan. that's just my take on that.
but it's also apparent in his movies. like scorsese says about himself and spike, they make movies from their own experiences. i get that and there's nothing wrong with that. so how can you go out and criticize someone else for doing the same thing. clint is white and was making a movie about these white dudes (and one native american) who plant a flag on iwo jima. does spike think that he should have replaced one of the white guys for a black dude? just for equality's sake?
i'll say this... just cuz you make great movies, great songs, great art or whatever doesn't mean you have any opinions that anyone really wants to hear. you're not smarter than other people. you're opinions aren't more "enlightened" than anyone else's. it doesn't mean that you aren't either, i'm just saying. so to spike: keep making your movies, keep making a mockery of yourself on the knicks sidelines and shut your face cuz that's how most of us like it.
apparently, lee never watched the movies cuz he would have realized that letters from iwo jima was about japanese soldiers. anyway, after the criticism, eastwood told lee to "shut his face", which for some reason didn't go over well with spike. spike then went out to say someone like, this isn't a plantation and eastwood is not my dad. pretty much calling him a racist. spike toned it down a little bit later.
i'm going to have to agree here with eastwood, spike should shut his face. i like spike, i like his movies, love that he's a knicks fan, but he's an arrogant and in my opinion, incredibly stupid human being. he's the type of person who only cares about his causes and gaining power for what he cares about. he doesn't really care about creating a positive force in society, in my opinion. if he did, i doubt he would be shooting nike videos for his corporate idol, jordan. that's just my take on that.
but it's also apparent in his movies. like scorsese says about himself and spike, they make movies from their own experiences. i get that and there's nothing wrong with that. so how can you go out and criticize someone else for doing the same thing. clint is white and was making a movie about these white dudes (and one native american) who plant a flag on iwo jima. does spike think that he should have replaced one of the white guys for a black dude? just for equality's sake?
i'll say this... just cuz you make great movies, great songs, great art or whatever doesn't mean you have any opinions that anyone really wants to hear. you're not smarter than other people. you're opinions aren't more "enlightened" than anyone else's. it doesn't mean that you aren't either, i'm just saying. so to spike: keep making your movies, keep making a mockery of yourself on the knicks sidelines and shut your face cuz that's how most of us like it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
hello, my name is rich and i'm a mike pelfrey fan
the one thing i've learned from watching baseball is that no two paths to success are the same. mark prior was a great college pitcher and a top prospect in the cubs minor leagues. when he first came up he was truly amazing and people could imagine him winning multiple cy young awards. now it's hard to imagine that he'll even come back to win multiple games. jaime moyer didn't find true success until he was in his thirties and even though he stinks at age 45, his numbers are still probably better than the mike pelfrey's.
the point is that you never know where you're going to strike gold and more importantly, when. mike pelfrey was the mets first round draft pick about three years ago. he was picked number 9 overall, but was widely considered the best pitcher in the draft after establishing himself as a great college pitcher at wichita state. he was even considered as the 1st pick overall but was deemed too expensive to sign as a scott boras client.
in his first full season as a pro, pelfrey rose up the ranks quickly posting very impressive numbers (including era, ks and whip). however, as soon as he reached the major league club, he consistently posted numbers in the high 5's in era and his strikeout rate dropped by probably around 33%. He would be sent back and forth between the mets and triple a for the last couple of years, always putting up decent numbers in the minors but terrible numbers in the minors.
to make it worse, he wasn't even putting up incredible numbers in the minors anymore and his strikeout rate considerably dropped there as well.
the question is then obvious: why would i continue to be a mike pelfrey fan. mike pelfrey obviously has skill or at least once had skill, relative to his age and peer group. has he suddenly lost his skill? probably not. but what worked in the low level minors is not as productive when facing the best hitters in the world.
his arsenal consists of a four seamer, a sinker, a changeup, and a slider. he used to have a curve-ball that was scratched due to the organizational philosophy that favors sliders and changeups. his four seamer is marked at 93-95 and his 90 mpg sinker has good late movement. his changeup doesn't have much movement and certainly does not change things up much as it's usually marked at 85. his slider is wildly ineffective and leads to past balls and wild pitches. his achilles heel if you were to pick one is his inability to throw an out pitch to a left handed bat. his sinker drifts to the middle of the plate and he has little accuracy inside to lefties. and with inconsistent command and control, he's certainly a work in progress.
so we go back to the question at hand: why are you still a mike pelfrey fan? i'm a fan b/c of everything i just mentioned.... his fastball has life, his sinker has movement, his slider is new and developing and his changeup is capable of neutralizing lefties if he's able to spot it on the outside corner with some regularity. the problem is that it's hard to find pelfrey on a day where all these things are working in unison (somewhat like the problem that faces the mets in general).
stuff is like height in basketball or speed in football, it's a talent in itself. mike pelfrey is 6'7" and his mechanics are always a struggle for him. i was once told that taller pitchers take a longer time to get their mechanics in order, to the point that it becomes easily repeatable (same arm slot). i was also told that the sinker is the best pitch in baseball, in terms of effectiveness, limiting home runs, keeping pitch counts low, getting double plays, and in injuries to arms). pelfrey is still only 24 years old and he is only two years removed from being one of baseball america's top 20 prospects in the game.
he's shown brilliance at times and you have to think that as he matures, his bad outings will decrease and he'll learn to become more effective even when his stuff isn't there. or maybe i'm just biased.
the point is that you never know where you're going to strike gold and more importantly, when. mike pelfrey was the mets first round draft pick about three years ago. he was picked number 9 overall, but was widely considered the best pitcher in the draft after establishing himself as a great college pitcher at wichita state. he was even considered as the 1st pick overall but was deemed too expensive to sign as a scott boras client.
in his first full season as a pro, pelfrey rose up the ranks quickly posting very impressive numbers (including era, ks and whip). however, as soon as he reached the major league club, he consistently posted numbers in the high 5's in era and his strikeout rate dropped by probably around 33%. He would be sent back and forth between the mets and triple a for the last couple of years, always putting up decent numbers in the minors but terrible numbers in the minors.
to make it worse, he wasn't even putting up incredible numbers in the minors anymore and his strikeout rate considerably dropped there as well.
the question is then obvious: why would i continue to be a mike pelfrey fan. mike pelfrey obviously has skill or at least once had skill, relative to his age and peer group. has he suddenly lost his skill? probably not. but what worked in the low level minors is not as productive when facing the best hitters in the world.
his arsenal consists of a four seamer, a sinker, a changeup, and a slider. he used to have a curve-ball that was scratched due to the organizational philosophy that favors sliders and changeups. his four seamer is marked at 93-95 and his 90 mpg sinker has good late movement. his changeup doesn't have much movement and certainly does not change things up much as it's usually marked at 85. his slider is wildly ineffective and leads to past balls and wild pitches. his achilles heel if you were to pick one is his inability to throw an out pitch to a left handed bat. his sinker drifts to the middle of the plate and he has little accuracy inside to lefties. and with inconsistent command and control, he's certainly a work in progress.
so we go back to the question at hand: why are you still a mike pelfrey fan? i'm a fan b/c of everything i just mentioned.... his fastball has life, his sinker has movement, his slider is new and developing and his changeup is capable of neutralizing lefties if he's able to spot it on the outside corner with some regularity. the problem is that it's hard to find pelfrey on a day where all these things are working in unison (somewhat like the problem that faces the mets in general).
stuff is like height in basketball or speed in football, it's a talent in itself. mike pelfrey is 6'7" and his mechanics are always a struggle for him. i was once told that taller pitchers take a longer time to get their mechanics in order, to the point that it becomes easily repeatable (same arm slot). i was also told that the sinker is the best pitch in baseball, in terms of effectiveness, limiting home runs, keeping pitch counts low, getting double plays, and in injuries to arms). pelfrey is still only 24 years old and he is only two years removed from being one of baseball america's top 20 prospects in the game.
he's shown brilliance at times and you have to think that as he matures, his bad outings will decrease and he'll learn to become more effective even when his stuff isn't there. or maybe i'm just biased.
hunts versus heinz
i don't know what ketchup consists of, but i do know one thing.... hunt's sucks and heinz is awesome. and if a restaurant serves hunt's instead of heinz i am certain that it's a second rate restaurant. i don't ANYONE who likes hunt's more than heinz. if you're that SOMEONE, please contact me so we can discuss.
thinking out loud
i recently read an article tackling the issue of our environmental future.... if we are to have one. even the greatest skeptics will have to admit now that global warming is at least somewhat due to human activity. the question remains, however, "How are we to deal with this issue?"
two prominent ideas are the cap 'n trade system and the carbon tax. the cap n trade system would cap the amount of carbon licensed companies are allowed to collectively produce and put into the atmosphere. then permits would be created that companies can purchase at a price set by the a new market allowing these companies to then emit carbon. permit prices are volatile as are any other prices determined by free markets. however, since we can regulate the cap on carbon emissions we are able to predict the effect it would have on the environment. the carbon tax can not determine with the same accuracy the level of carbon that will be emitted. the carbon tax simply taxes companies for the amount of carbon they emit. taxes are deemed to be largely inefficient, say economists, but require much less regulation than the cap n trade system, which would require the creation of an entire new market (and a department to oversee it; like any other market - stock market). carbon taxes can also be controlled by the government unlike the cap n trade system and thus the prices would be more predictable.
arguments go both ways on this topic, but it's important to realize the goal here and that's to save our environment and ultimately ourselves.
if we are to do that, however, we will need to gather complete international support and there in lies even more problems. for developing nations such as China and India and even Africa, what opportunities are they losing by considering their effect on the environment? the u.s. and europe are for the most part developed and could sustain themselves while producing less carbon. but for those countries that have yet to "modernize" or "industrialize", should they be allowed to emit more carbon relative to the west in order to catch up economically? will the u.s. allow even such a thought?
it's a similar argument that comes up when talking about nuclear weapons. why should the u.s. and russia control most of the nukes. what right do we have to tell other countries not to make them when we already have them. disarmament is one thing, but holding someone back is another. it's easy for us to say that other countries shouldn't create weapons or destroy the environment when we've already achieved all these things. this is not to say that we should allow them to create nukes and pollute the earth, but that power struggles are inevitable.
i have no point really, i'm just thinking out loud.
two prominent ideas are the cap 'n trade system and the carbon tax. the cap n trade system would cap the amount of carbon licensed companies are allowed to collectively produce and put into the atmosphere. then permits would be created that companies can purchase at a price set by the a new market allowing these companies to then emit carbon. permit prices are volatile as are any other prices determined by free markets. however, since we can regulate the cap on carbon emissions we are able to predict the effect it would have on the environment. the carbon tax can not determine with the same accuracy the level of carbon that will be emitted. the carbon tax simply taxes companies for the amount of carbon they emit. taxes are deemed to be largely inefficient, say economists, but require much less regulation than the cap n trade system, which would require the creation of an entire new market (and a department to oversee it; like any other market - stock market). carbon taxes can also be controlled by the government unlike the cap n trade system and thus the prices would be more predictable.
arguments go both ways on this topic, but it's important to realize the goal here and that's to save our environment and ultimately ourselves.
if we are to do that, however, we will need to gather complete international support and there in lies even more problems. for developing nations such as China and India and even Africa, what opportunities are they losing by considering their effect on the environment? the u.s. and europe are for the most part developed and could sustain themselves while producing less carbon. but for those countries that have yet to "modernize" or "industrialize", should they be allowed to emit more carbon relative to the west in order to catch up economically? will the u.s. allow even such a thought?
it's a similar argument that comes up when talking about nuclear weapons. why should the u.s. and russia control most of the nukes. what right do we have to tell other countries not to make them when we already have them. disarmament is one thing, but holding someone back is another. it's easy for us to say that other countries shouldn't create weapons or destroy the environment when we've already achieved all these things. this is not to say that we should allow them to create nukes and pollute the earth, but that power struggles are inevitable.
i have no point really, i'm just thinking out loud.
Friday, November 30, 2007
don't put it on the kids
in a few months from now, those of us who vote in the presidential election will have a great say in what direction this country should take in the coming years. contrary to bush's declaration of a mandate from the american people, he failed to acknowledge how difficult it is to change political course in the middle of a war. in the fall of '08, however, the nation will indeed be voicing their opinions about the direction of this country. while the country as a whole may still be 'moderate' (a term that has no true meaning, but can only be determined in context to the times), the public debates on issues such as health care, foreign policy, immigration and others are truly based on polar ideologies.
when it comes to health care, however, i believe there is one thing we should all agree upon. the dems may want to keep the standard employer-based public health care system, including medicare and medicaid. the government stays heavily involved and health care costs increase.
on the flip side, the neo-cons (i just enjoy that term, no idea what it means), may want to privatize health care, taking it out of the government's hands and putting it into the hands of the people. individuals will have great discretion in how they choose to spend their money, while still being protected in case of a serious illness. the plan hopes to increase efficiency and drive down the cost of health care to society in general.
i am not writing to comment on which system is 'right' or 'wrong' or which one would work better. the only thing i can say is that we shouldn't put it on the kids. if you believe in government involvement in health care, then create a system that protects all the children in this nation. just like medicare protects retirees and just like medicaid protects the indigent we could have a system called medikid. we strive to protect those that can't protect themselves and that includes the elderly, the poor and definitely the children.
if you desire to privatize health care, on the other hand, then i have some words for you as well. if you embrace privatization of social institutions, then it probably follows that you believe in the essence of capitalism, which is that people should reap the benefits of what they sow, that individuals should be free to do what they please with their money, and that market forces should rule. this is why they believe in low taxes because the government should not be taking the money that people have 'earned' out of their hands.
i can only respond by saying that children should not bear the burden of their parents' inabilities to provide for them. if parents have not been able to 'succeed' in society, then i can see how that is a reflection of their poor choices or their poor skills. i can also see why many people do not believe that society should care for these people. i do not agree with this point, but the argument has consistency and is at the very least logical if you start off with certain basic assumptions of humanity.
children, however, do not fall within this logic. they do not fail to provide anything substantial to society. they do not falter because of their bad choices. society does not allow children to provide to society nor to make bad choices. rather, society is designed to protect children. we have schools that educate kids, maternity leave so that mothers can be there for the kids right after they are born, statutory rape laws to protect kids from adults who can take advantage of them, and other laws that protect minors. we, as a society, deem children to be unable and unfit to participate in society completely.
if we view children this way and limit their means, then why do we punish them for our imposition of limitations. if we don't want to guarantee them health care, then maybe we should let them join the workforce, allow them to leave school early, because if their parents can't provide for them in this capitalist setting, shouldn't they be able to provide for themselves?
it makes no sense... do not treat them as kids (which they are) in almost every aspect of society (except murder perhaps), then turn around and punish them as adults. if capitalism is about the individual, then don't punish the child for a parent's shortcomings. the poor are poor because they have failed. old people should have saved more. fine, these statements can be defended, but children? where did they go wrong? are we punishing them because they happened to be born into the wrong family?
i pray that we do not employ this logic for much longer because how can we be proud of a nation that does not even care for their young...
when it comes to health care, however, i believe there is one thing we should all agree upon. the dems may want to keep the standard employer-based public health care system, including medicare and medicaid. the government stays heavily involved and health care costs increase.
on the flip side, the neo-cons (i just enjoy that term, no idea what it means), may want to privatize health care, taking it out of the government's hands and putting it into the hands of the people. individuals will have great discretion in how they choose to spend their money, while still being protected in case of a serious illness. the plan hopes to increase efficiency and drive down the cost of health care to society in general.
i am not writing to comment on which system is 'right' or 'wrong' or which one would work better. the only thing i can say is that we shouldn't put it on the kids. if you believe in government involvement in health care, then create a system that protects all the children in this nation. just like medicare protects retirees and just like medicaid protects the indigent we could have a system called medikid. we strive to protect those that can't protect themselves and that includes the elderly, the poor and definitely the children.
if you desire to privatize health care, on the other hand, then i have some words for you as well. if you embrace privatization of social institutions, then it probably follows that you believe in the essence of capitalism, which is that people should reap the benefits of what they sow, that individuals should be free to do what they please with their money, and that market forces should rule. this is why they believe in low taxes because the government should not be taking the money that people have 'earned' out of their hands.
i can only respond by saying that children should not bear the burden of their parents' inabilities to provide for them. if parents have not been able to 'succeed' in society, then i can see how that is a reflection of their poor choices or their poor skills. i can also see why many people do not believe that society should care for these people. i do not agree with this point, but the argument has consistency and is at the very least logical if you start off with certain basic assumptions of humanity.
children, however, do not fall within this logic. they do not fail to provide anything substantial to society. they do not falter because of their bad choices. society does not allow children to provide to society nor to make bad choices. rather, society is designed to protect children. we have schools that educate kids, maternity leave so that mothers can be there for the kids right after they are born, statutory rape laws to protect kids from adults who can take advantage of them, and other laws that protect minors. we, as a society, deem children to be unable and unfit to participate in society completely.
if we view children this way and limit their means, then why do we punish them for our imposition of limitations. if we don't want to guarantee them health care, then maybe we should let them join the workforce, allow them to leave school early, because if their parents can't provide for them in this capitalist setting, shouldn't they be able to provide for themselves?
it makes no sense... do not treat them as kids (which they are) in almost every aspect of society (except murder perhaps), then turn around and punish them as adults. if capitalism is about the individual, then don't punish the child for a parent's shortcomings. the poor are poor because they have failed. old people should have saved more. fine, these statements can be defended, but children? where did they go wrong? are we punishing them because they happened to be born into the wrong family?
i pray that we do not employ this logic for much longer because how can we be proud of a nation that does not even care for their young...
Friday, November 23, 2007
it's not hbo, it's tv! (tell me you love me - a review)
so the first season of hbo's new show "tell me you love me" is over and since i've been talking about the show for months now trying to get people to watch, i figured i'd write a review of the its inaugural season.
the show revolves around four relationship dynamics. all of the characters are attractive (but not overly attractive), white, heterosexual and successful. in addition, they all have problems. first you have the young, pretty girl who can't seem to be alone and must resort to sex in order to cover up the problems in her relationship. second, you have the 30-something year old couple who have been married for a few years and are now trying very hard, but very unsuccessfully to have their first child. third, you have the middle-aged couple who are married with two kids and are trying to figure out where all the passion has gone. finally, you have the relationship therapist, an elderly woman, who all the other couples go to for advice, but is still dealing with her own issues of a past affair.
recently, over the last couple of years, hbo has seen many of its shows come to a conclusion either through cancellation of retirement... great shows like six feet under, the sopranos, deadwood and rome ended either because of production costs or simply to move on. other shows like carnivale and john from cincinnati just didn't have the viewers to justify more episodes. hbo was left with the wire and big love as the only hour-long dramas left on its schedule. this fall, however, hbo hit the jackpot with one of the most original shows to hit television in a long time - tell me you love me.
the producers of 'tell me you love me' started the season off with some of the more shocking things a person can see on television. let's just say that i've never seen a cumshot on camera before. the show comes at you fast and it doesn't apologize for any of it. if you're not ready for raw, real and therefore unattractive sex then change the channel. this is not porn... sex has never looked this bad. oh, and as a disclaimer, be prepared for old people doing things that you never wanted to think of old people doing.
but in the midst of all the sex (and there's a lot of sex) there's something incredibly engrossing about this show or i guess disturbing, depending on how you look at it. this show attempts to tackle the issues that come with intimacy. when you watch it you're either drawn in because it's so real or bothered by it because it's so real. either way, you've got to hand it to them, they've captured the craziness that is relationships. from the resentment issues to the lies to the things you can never take back, this show puts the viewer on center stage.
if you've ever been in a relationship, you've encountered many of the same problems. take, for example, the 30-something couple trying to have a baby. have you ever been in a relationship where people eventually want different things? the person you chose to be with in the beginning is no longer the person they are now. as a result you follow them down a path that leads to resentment which leads to emotional distance and eventually the intimacy you once had is now dead.
why do people watch tv shows... be it heroes or lost, curb or weeds, boston legal or law and order? there is always some sort of escape, be it a mere distraction or some fantasy world we can lose ourselves in. this escape, however, doesn't exist in hbo's new show... the problems are just too real and delve too deep into our own insecurities and our personal limitations.
i can tell you that i don't watch this show because it brings me any particular enjoyment. rather, it's more amazement than anything else. it's like watching a magic show and being like, 'wow, you got me'... 'now, how did you do that trick'. it's uncomfortable to watch. it's like when you watch a horror movie and scream at the main character not to go into the woods to check out that scary noise. you always say how you would never do that if you were in that situation. but when you watch 'tell me' you can't say these things because you've done them and you'll probably do them again.
i don't know why exactly i watch this show, but it definitely makes you confront your own issues at intimacy and that can be very scary at times. people like to ignore their limitations or insecurities, instead posing as models of perfection. in actuality, i think we're all a little neurotic and we all have the ability to be hurt and to hurt others. this show makes you take a look in the mirror and for those of us who can bear to look, it's a worthwhile hour of television. i mean, it's gotta be better than kid nation.
the show revolves around four relationship dynamics. all of the characters are attractive (but not overly attractive), white, heterosexual and successful. in addition, they all have problems. first you have the young, pretty girl who can't seem to be alone and must resort to sex in order to cover up the problems in her relationship. second, you have the 30-something year old couple who have been married for a few years and are now trying very hard, but very unsuccessfully to have their first child. third, you have the middle-aged couple who are married with two kids and are trying to figure out where all the passion has gone. finally, you have the relationship therapist, an elderly woman, who all the other couples go to for advice, but is still dealing with her own issues of a past affair.
recently, over the last couple of years, hbo has seen many of its shows come to a conclusion either through cancellation of retirement... great shows like six feet under, the sopranos, deadwood and rome ended either because of production costs or simply to move on. other shows like carnivale and john from cincinnati just didn't have the viewers to justify more episodes. hbo was left with the wire and big love as the only hour-long dramas left on its schedule. this fall, however, hbo hit the jackpot with one of the most original shows to hit television in a long time - tell me you love me.
the producers of 'tell me you love me' started the season off with some of the more shocking things a person can see on television. let's just say that i've never seen a cumshot on camera before. the show comes at you fast and it doesn't apologize for any of it. if you're not ready for raw, real and therefore unattractive sex then change the channel. this is not porn... sex has never looked this bad. oh, and as a disclaimer, be prepared for old people doing things that you never wanted to think of old people doing.
but in the midst of all the sex (and there's a lot of sex) there's something incredibly engrossing about this show or i guess disturbing, depending on how you look at it. this show attempts to tackle the issues that come with intimacy. when you watch it you're either drawn in because it's so real or bothered by it because it's so real. either way, you've got to hand it to them, they've captured the craziness that is relationships. from the resentment issues to the lies to the things you can never take back, this show puts the viewer on center stage.
if you've ever been in a relationship, you've encountered many of the same problems. take, for example, the 30-something couple trying to have a baby. have you ever been in a relationship where people eventually want different things? the person you chose to be with in the beginning is no longer the person they are now. as a result you follow them down a path that leads to resentment which leads to emotional distance and eventually the intimacy you once had is now dead.
why do people watch tv shows... be it heroes or lost, curb or weeds, boston legal or law and order? there is always some sort of escape, be it a mere distraction or some fantasy world we can lose ourselves in. this escape, however, doesn't exist in hbo's new show... the problems are just too real and delve too deep into our own insecurities and our personal limitations.
i can tell you that i don't watch this show because it brings me any particular enjoyment. rather, it's more amazement than anything else. it's like watching a magic show and being like, 'wow, you got me'... 'now, how did you do that trick'. it's uncomfortable to watch. it's like when you watch a horror movie and scream at the main character not to go into the woods to check out that scary noise. you always say how you would never do that if you were in that situation. but when you watch 'tell me' you can't say these things because you've done them and you'll probably do them again.
i don't know why exactly i watch this show, but it definitely makes you confront your own issues at intimacy and that can be very scary at times. people like to ignore their limitations or insecurities, instead posing as models of perfection. in actuality, i think we're all a little neurotic and we all have the ability to be hurt and to hurt others. this show makes you take a look in the mirror and for those of us who can bear to look, it's a worthwhile hour of television. i mean, it's gotta be better than kid nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
