Penoptic

After years of near-relentless pursuing by a certain enamored friend who shall remain nameless, I finally watched 'A Beautiful Mind' tonight. Said friend had promised me that this movie would make me into a Russell Crowe fan, after years of being (seemingly) the only person in America who wasn't absolutely in love with 'Gladiator.' Friend, it didn't work. But I think it got me a step closer to pinning down why I'm not a fan of the guy. I don't deny that he's talented or skilled in his craft, but he lacks charisma. In his photographs or television appearances on talk shows, he seems to have plenty; indeed, give me a spread of him in InStyle magazine, and I can't tear my eyes away. But it fails to appear on screen. He can't wrap me into his characters at all. I think that's why 'Master and Commander' was literally painful to watch, why 'Gladiator' is little better than modest entertainment on a rainy afternoon, and why '...

In a moment of extremely strange symmetry, I'm watching 'Moonstruck' on TV tonight. Why is there symmetry, you ask? Well, I'm in Syracuse, which was actually the first place I ever watched 'Moonstruck.' Many :-/ years ago, I came to Syracuse with my mom. We were staying at my mom's old roommate's parent's (you still with me?) house here in Syracuse, and after dinner we were watching the news or something equally mundane, and at a time when all the grown-ups were going to bed, I saw a commercial for 'Moonstruck' coming up next. Since I was crashing on the couch anyway, I stayed up and watched it. I feel lucky to remember that event. It's such an understated movie, understated in almost every way: scenery, acting, costumes (definitely), and of course, music, with Puccini's masterpiece 'Musetta's Waltz' dominating the background (except for a forgettable soft jazz/easy listening moment while Loretta's dressing for the ope...

I wonder if there is any such thing as human nature. In my experience, an action, deed or thought that will seem quite natural to one person will seem equally unnatural to another. Where one would speak, another would remain silence. Where one would run, another would fight. Where one would offer kindness and hospitality in any available form, another would turn a cold shoulder. It's not uncommon to hear, "it's human nature to do this or that," but the more I see of people, the more I am convinced that there is no human nature, only the nature of being a human: needing food, drink, air, rest, et cetera. For every traumatic or life-shaping event you've ever experienced, another has experienced only a void in that area. You can always tell when I've been doing my annual reading of 'David Copperfield' because I start to wonder things like this. I can't help it. There's such a variety of characters in that book, so many people who look at the same ...

pan·op·tic 1. permitting the viewing of all parts or elements. 2. considering all parts or elements; all inclusive. im·par·tial not partial or biased; fair; just. -Random House Dictionary Is it ever possible to have a panoptic, impartial view of anything? How can one's view include the entire range of the human experience, and still remain impartial? The tagline of the New York Times reads, "All the news that's fit to print." But what does that say about the news that's not fit to print? And who is it who judges what's fit and what's unfit? Even at one of the most respected and widely-read newspapers on the planet, it's possible to cast aspersions on the universality of their coverage. For every story that's in the paper, one wonders how many stories (and what kind of stories) didn't make it in, and why. One's life is invariably shaped by background, access, education, memory, emotion, achievement, and that most fickle of all experiences,...