A scary thought is that any person that I know could, potentially, become a celebrity. They walk among us, everyday, donning civilian clothes and attemping to fit in. You could be in line at the bank or a grocery store and a celebrity could be just behind you buying milk, eggs, and maybe even cereal. It's a scary thought. But there is hope. We need not live in fear. No longer must we constantly be looking over our collective shoulder, thanks to Us Weekly.
Yes that supermarket tabloid we've all come to know and love has saved humanity. There is a section of the magazine entitled, "Celebrities: They're just like us!", where paparazzi take photos of celebs doing everyday things like walking, yawning, putting in eye drops, and other banal activities to prove their humanity.
Everytime I see those articles, I think of the movie Reign of Fire with Matthew McConnehey and Christian Bale. When Van Zant and his team of ruffians come to London, he tells Quinn about the true nature of the dragons. "They're made of flesh and blood! They got a heart, liver, and mind. You take out one of them, you bring down the beast!" I love that speech just because McConnehey is bald, bearded, and ripped to shreds and is almost always crying tears of absolute passion in every scene. But when ever I watch that movie, I always think of Us Weekly and the reminders they give us about how "normal" celebrities are. I guess some people think you have to decapitate celebrites Highlander style or shoot them with silver bullets to bring down.
This is why I would never want to be famous and/or a celebrity: you lose your humanity and you spend the rest of your life trying to get it back. This is probably why so many celebrities form charities and foundations, so they look like they care. I'm sure they do, too. I don't think all celebrities are shallow and callous and full of hate. I don't think they think of themselves as gods on Olympus. But we do. That's how we see them. I know this because there is a section in Us Weekly called "Celebrities: They're Just Like Us!". If we thought celebrities were just normal Joe Schmos then that article would never exist. But I guess in the long run, that section is good. People shouldn't think of celebrities as superpowerful uber-people and the article definate brings them down from that stature. I just think it's silly that we NEED that article to do so.
20 July 2007
16 July 2007
Internshit and Actors Welcome
If there is one thing that I can pull from my internship it's that work can never always be fun. And by work, I mean work at a career, not at some stupid summer job or an hourly gig. I mean like what you want to do when you "grow up" or whatever. Luckily, it's worse when you just start out but sadly, that's where I am right now. Mind-numbing is the only word to describe the work I did today. Absolutely mind-fucking-numbing. I had to log footage from interviews for a Towson University promotional video. That was a complete fuck.
But it was actually kind of funny. The people they interviewed didn't know what to say. They couldn't make the school look good. They talked a lot without saying anything. Oddly enough, one of them was a political science major and I think that skill will definately come in handy for him at some point.
Anyway, so they are just going on and on with countless "um's" and "uh's" that I actually have to type. But the best part came at the end where the interviewers asked them to do a little plug in about the school's tour. They basically asked them to act which I think was asking too much of them. They asked the interviewees to be energetic and spontaeous and to "just have fun". Well the only fun to be had was at thier expense with all of the nonsense that spew out of thier mouths.
The first guy just started screaming. But he was a political science major so he didn't want to pull a Howard Dean and so he threw in some big words with the screaming to off-set the ridiculousness. He said, "OH MY GOD IT'S AWESOME! IT'S....STUPENDOUS!!!!"
What?
He continued by saying if we don't go on the tour, a part of him will die.
BUT WHAT PART WILL IT BE!?!?!?!
The next guy was pretty calm but he just went off on one of the wilder tangents I've heard. He starts talking about Stephan's Hall:
"Oh man, Stephan's hall is like...so old! Oh my God, it's crazy how old it is. And then you go over to the other side of campus on the other side and it's like the 70s and you're like, "Wow, did I just step into a time warp or something?" you know. It's awesome".
I don't think I need to comment.
They were just saying the stupidest shit. I almost thought it was better than the internet but I didn't want to get ahead of myself. I wanted them to completely go off the deep end and say like, "If you don't go on the tour then your mom will get AIDS and your dog will be raped by a homeless man!" That's the sort of incentive our youth needs to get them motivated! I just hope that they say in the beginning "Not an actor" when they're picture pops up in the video. Although, I don't think that will be necessary.
But it was actually kind of funny. The people they interviewed didn't know what to say. They couldn't make the school look good. They talked a lot without saying anything. Oddly enough, one of them was a political science major and I think that skill will definately come in handy for him at some point.
Anyway, so they are just going on and on with countless "um's" and "uh's" that I actually have to type. But the best part came at the end where the interviewers asked them to do a little plug in about the school's tour. They basically asked them to act which I think was asking too much of them. They asked the interviewees to be energetic and spontaeous and to "just have fun". Well the only fun to be had was at thier expense with all of the nonsense that spew out of thier mouths.
The first guy just started screaming. But he was a political science major so he didn't want to pull a Howard Dean and so he threw in some big words with the screaming to off-set the ridiculousness. He said, "OH MY GOD IT'S AWESOME! IT'S....STUPENDOUS!!!!"
What?
He continued by saying if we don't go on the tour, a part of him will die.
BUT WHAT PART WILL IT BE!?!?!?!
The next guy was pretty calm but he just went off on one of the wilder tangents I've heard. He starts talking about Stephan's Hall:
"Oh man, Stephan's hall is like...so old! Oh my God, it's crazy how old it is. And then you go over to the other side of campus on the other side and it's like the 70s and you're like, "Wow, did I just step into a time warp or something?" you know. It's awesome".
I don't think I need to comment.
They were just saying the stupidest shit. I almost thought it was better than the internet but I didn't want to get ahead of myself. I wanted them to completely go off the deep end and say like, "If you don't go on the tour then your mom will get AIDS and your dog will be raped by a homeless man!" That's the sort of incentive our youth needs to get them motivated! I just hope that they say in the beginning "Not an actor" when they're picture pops up in the video. Although, I don't think that will be necessary.
02 July 2007
Wikipedia: The Cracked-Out Human Brain on the Internet
The internet sucks. There are too many idiots on it who think they know what the hell they are talking about. But I know better. It seems like anyone can create a website, write something, and feel important. This all started back in high school when we were taught how to identify "credible sources". My disdain for the internet only grew as the years passed. I now have three websites that I visit everyday (excluding Google) and two of them are the essentially the same. They are: Rottentomatoes, IMDb, and Wikipedia.
Having said that, you're probably thinking that I am a huge hypocrite. And I am to some degree, I won't deny that. Those who need help understanding why I am a hypocrite need only visit Wikipedia.org once. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is compiled by everyday websurfers. What makes this interesting is that, while you can cite it, articles can be added by ANYONE. Wikipedia is not reliable by any means but that is not why I enjoy it. No, there is a more primal, instinctual appreciation.
Wikipedia is set up with a variety of links on every page. These links are usually related to the current page but some go off on tangents both great and small. I prefer the bigger tangents though because they will transport me to a page that I would not have visited otherwise. One can be looking up cooking tips and be transported to Pro-Pedophilic Activism in a matter of seconds. Once I was "researching" chloroplasts for my biology class last semester and, through no fault of my own, I was taken to a page dedicated to the "Art of Murder". Coincidentally, just as I had clicked the link my roommate walked in on me looking at a page called "Art of Murder" and asked what exactly it was I was doing. And the great thing was I didn't have an answer. The only thing I could mutter out was, "Dude, it's wikipedia."
And that's what I want to talk about really. The techo-psychological correlation between wikipedia and a phenomoeon called stream of consciousness.
We all do it. When we are alone or walking to class or whatever, we think about the most random shit. And the topics vary from somewhat related to completely off-the-fucking-wall. A good example of this is in the film THE WEATHER MAN with Nicolas Cage during the scene where he goes to get tartar sauce. We think of something and, for one reason or another, we begin to think of something else.
But it's hard to study or analyze stream of consciousness because a) You're not really thinking about whatever it is you're thinking about. It's a lot like staring, just because you're looking at something doesn't mean you know what you're looking at. Unfortunately this gets guys in trouble with the ladies on many occasions. And b) It's nearly impossible to backtrack your thoughts because of point A. You're not thinking about it, so you can't recall why you ended up on a thought that made you think, "Why the hell am I thinking about this!?!?!"
But with wikipedia, this is possible. If you find yourself in a daze and browsing through wikipedia and you end up on "Gay Male Pornstars of the 80s" when you started on particle acceleration, you can simply click the "back" button on the browser and see how you came to your current page.
The main difference between stream of consciousness and wikipedia is reassurance - reassurance that you are not insane. If you start thinking about one thing and end up on something horrific and/or taboo, you can start doubting yourself or your mental health. But on wikipedia it's okay because you can simply retrace your steps and go back to where you started. If you choose to do this, you can at least lie to yourself that you are not out of your mind or a goddamn psychopath.
Having said that, you're probably thinking that I am a huge hypocrite. And I am to some degree, I won't deny that. Those who need help understanding why I am a hypocrite need only visit Wikipedia.org once. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is compiled by everyday websurfers. What makes this interesting is that, while you can cite it, articles can be added by ANYONE. Wikipedia is not reliable by any means but that is not why I enjoy it. No, there is a more primal, instinctual appreciation.
Wikipedia is set up with a variety of links on every page. These links are usually related to the current page but some go off on tangents both great and small. I prefer the bigger tangents though because they will transport me to a page that I would not have visited otherwise. One can be looking up cooking tips and be transported to Pro-Pedophilic Activism in a matter of seconds. Once I was "researching" chloroplasts for my biology class last semester and, through no fault of my own, I was taken to a page dedicated to the "Art of Murder". Coincidentally, just as I had clicked the link my roommate walked in on me looking at a page called "Art of Murder" and asked what exactly it was I was doing. And the great thing was I didn't have an answer. The only thing I could mutter out was, "Dude, it's wikipedia."
And that's what I want to talk about really. The techo-psychological correlation between wikipedia and a phenomoeon called stream of consciousness.
We all do it. When we are alone or walking to class or whatever, we think about the most random shit. And the topics vary from somewhat related to completely off-the-fucking-wall. A good example of this is in the film THE WEATHER MAN with Nicolas Cage during the scene where he goes to get tartar sauce. We think of something and, for one reason or another, we begin to think of something else.
But it's hard to study or analyze stream of consciousness because a) You're not really thinking about whatever it is you're thinking about. It's a lot like staring, just because you're looking at something doesn't mean you know what you're looking at. Unfortunately this gets guys in trouble with the ladies on many occasions. And b) It's nearly impossible to backtrack your thoughts because of point A. You're not thinking about it, so you can't recall why you ended up on a thought that made you think, "Why the hell am I thinking about this!?!?!"
But with wikipedia, this is possible. If you find yourself in a daze and browsing through wikipedia and you end up on "Gay Male Pornstars of the 80s" when you started on particle acceleration, you can simply click the "back" button on the browser and see how you came to your current page.
The main difference between stream of consciousness and wikipedia is reassurance - reassurance that you are not insane. If you start thinking about one thing and end up on something horrific and/or taboo, you can start doubting yourself or your mental health. But on wikipedia it's okay because you can simply retrace your steps and go back to where you started. If you choose to do this, you can at least lie to yourself that you are not out of your mind or a goddamn psychopath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)