Monsieur and Madame Adelman

Monsieur and Madame Adelman, a movie (Kanopy/Roku), starts off with the ending. It is predictable that Madame is going to tell someone at the funeral her life story. This is the last time you can be pretty sure of what is going to happen, well, until the

ending that explains the ending. At this point, the characters personalities have been built and so one can trust the obvious. As she begins to tell her story, which begins in the 1970’s, it seems as if this will be a typical love story. You can imagine this, though from the onset, Madame comes across as a cynical woman. She is begging you to pay attention. What comes across to the viewer are exceptional performances from Doria Tillier and Nicolas Bedos (he also wrote the score for the film, directed it and they both wrote the screenplay). Or did she, while he supervised? This is an inside joke from the film.

This film is hilarious in a very witty way. The couple is a duo of intellectual compatibles who take a moment to light their fire. There is no holding back with the lines, which I appreciate from the French. They are not trying to be Politically Correct either, as most modern films are today. True film lovers want to be stimulated by foreign films, because it gives one the sense that they are in the native country. Bringing in non-natives only throw off the vibrations of the storyline by having to deal with the non-natives. However, this being said, a favorite line in the film is “Do we live on a plantation now?” (probably not exact but approximately what Monsieur says). This speaks to the entire film community in the sense that it is saying – “Aren’t we in France?” There is also a play on the stereotype of the “Latin Lover,” at one point which is crucial to the turning point in the film. Is it possible that his character was more comfortable with a cliché than someone from his own roots?

This film seems reminiscent of a Woody Allen film; during his New York period. There isn’t a lot of outdoor scenery, so you could almost be anywhere, save for the décor and the language. The names dropped in the film are some of the best writers of our time and the discussions parallel what you might see in “Annie Hall” or “Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The children of this couple are somewhat like that in “The Royal Tannenbaums,” misfits created by narcissistic lovers. The first child is a tragedy but in line with making this a humorous tale. A second child is a hint at the controversy, once assumed, with regard to Charlotte Gainsbourg and her father Serge (he is used as a character in a scene).

This real-life couple is in their 30’s and as a result, their aging process on camera is quite interesting to watch. The make-up artist did such a wonderful job, it almost felt as if these were different actors in the role.

The film was released in France, 2017 and is listed as a French and Belgium production. It received many nominations but, sadly, only won Best Narrative Feature in the Hamptons International Film Festival.

Ekaterina – Russian TV Series – Catherine the Great

Of all the women in history, I think I can identify with Catherine the Great the most. I read Carolly Erickson’s book many years ago and was really caught by certain similarities. She married at a young age to an abusive man. She had her sons taken from her (for different reasons than I, naturally, but both political). She was a survivor and saw love as a way to redeem the much needed emotional vacancy within herself. She also never remarried (it is possible she married Grigory Potemkin but it is not documented). When I had heard about the Russian TV series Ekaterina (the correct Russian spelling is Yekaterina), I sat down to indulge myself in the two season portrayal of this great monarch.

It is important to watch this if you love women’s history. There have been other versions from different countries, all of which I have seen but they pale in comparison. The fact that this series comes from the country that she reigned over, a place that annihilated their last monarch so that there would never be one again was tempting to me. I had heard that the series was true to life. I was surprised though as I did not think Russia allowed such things to occur. Communism did away with so much from the past, so much that she worked so hard to bring to this country.

Catherine II was not Russian though. Sophia Friederike Auguste was brought from Prussia (which is now Poland) into the country as a bride for the heir presumptive Peter. She spoke German when she came to meet Peter and his Aunt Elizabeth, who was the Empress at that time. Empress Elizabeth was a very strict Roman Catholic and, well, strict is hardly strong enough a word to describe this very disturbing woman. Catherine was modest and intelligent enough to see how to play her cards the minute she stepped food on the royal carpet. She impressed the Empress yet immediately she was forced to give up her culture, speak Russian (which she had been learning) and take the name of Catherine. This is not too unusual when you look at the Native Americans being kidnapped by the Catholics and stripped of their heritage. It is typical in a power play and, for her, better than being brought somewhere as a slave. There are many attributes of Empress Elizabeth that are not played out in Ekaterina, as they focus more on Catherine. They did allude to the fact that she preferred torture over death (for example: skinning alive, branding, and hanging by their arms behind their back).

The show also showed how Empress Elizabeth came to power and this was by taking the infant heir Ivan VI and imprisoning him so that he could not claim the throne.  Later, she was obsessed with finding an heir different from her ignorant nephew, Peter, who was the equivalent of an entitled rich kid in today’s society. When Catherine gave birth to their son, the Empress took the child, the moment it was delivered and Catherine could not see her son again, except on very rare occasions. She and her son, Paul I (Pavel Petrovich), never regained a relationship ever again either. This is even after Empress Elizabeth died and Pavel was eight years old by now. From a psychological perspective this makes a lot of sense.

Children who are removed from their parents early on (and have multiple caretakers – which he did, as Elizabeth did more harm then good as a surrogate), generally suffer from attachment disorders. In extreme cases Reactive Attachment Disorder. The mother has a hard time attaching back to the child because it is as if she hardly knows this person and suddenly she is supposed to have maternal feelings. This may sound crude because it sounds easy to just give a child a hug. However, it is an extremely difficult process to re-connect. When you have a child taken from you, at such a young age, it is emotionally wounding. The mother, in order to protect herself, must detach and emotionally protect herself. This is where Catherine began to replace love with men (she hoped to have other children and with someone she loved). You can’t replace the loss of a mother’s love. One love cannot be exchanged for another.

In this series, they did a good job for the most part. The actors reminded me so much of the book I had read. I felt like I was seeing the actual people for the first time. While they did not look alike, as you see above, their ability to portray their characters personality was very accurate. Marina Alexandrova (as Catherine II) was a woman of power. She came across as a very strong, willful, persistent, aggressive woman who started out as a young silly girl, yet bright and grew over the course of the two seasons. Julia Aug (as Empress Elizabeth), while a beautiful woman, came across as a very ugly ogre. Aleksandr Yatsenko, (as Peter III) was very immature and even more stupid than I had imagined in my mind. His performance was so great as he seemed to have an ease with being the court jester. All three seemed at ease yet I think his role was more difficult because he had more behaviors to portray (or facial expressions to personify) rather than just prancing around in skirts.

The only drawbacks from the film, that I found distracting, were some of the publicity stunts. It was portrayed as a “love story,” which almost made me not want to watch it, knowing that it was anything but. Catherine II had a great many lovers and this was used against her as she became the butt of many jokes internationally and throughout the court. The film also made a big deal of her love affair with Grigory Potemkin and even showed a marriage which is only a possibility.  They also showed Pavel with a black servant (politically correct nonsense?) From what I can find there was a black family that served Peter the Great but they left the castle once he died and lived out their days on an estate. The second season dulls in comparison to the first season and this is because Catherine II is now in power and so it is more a season of “Which lover shall I choose,” and drama with her teenage son. In other words the second season was just a day in the life of a Queen and the first season was a lot of extreme drama and suspense. I feel they should have ended the series at Season I, which appeared to have initially been the end (they stated in the last episode’s credits that she reigned for 34 years). 

One note of interest and I may be wrong about this but I believe the paintings on the wall were the actual paintings of each of the people being portrayed. In the second season there was a scene in the palace where Catherine II leaves the room and the camera angle lingers toward a painting on the wall that I am very sure was the Empress in old age. I found these aspects touching to pay homage for those of us watching who are history buffs. The end of the second season they tried to portray a humbling experience of Catherine II getting in touch with her spiritual side and becoming a more enlightened woman. It came across appropriately but then the show ended so quickly (telling rather than showing). It would have been nice to show the various changes that Catherine II created for her country, in the second season, rather than being so focused on war, teen angst and conquests of men. I don’t really think she came across in such a great light because reading her accomplishments on the screen credits is not the same as showing her love for the arts, philosophy, science, and many other intellectual pursuits. Catherine II was the longest running monarch in Russia.

What the life of Catherine the Great gives us, as women, is a look at a woman’s rise to power. It is insightful to read about her story, even today, as you think and compare her life (minus the castle), with that of a young single parent trying to have a career and even gain an education. Women complain too much in today’s modern society. They whine about what they can and cannot do. It seems to me that they are unable to take responsibility for their own behaviors in the situation in question, they just want to blame. Catherine II’s story also shows us that women are not perfect or the ideal person in power. She was not dominated by a paternal society, she was the matriarch of her kingdom and her word (and Empress Elizabeth’s word during her reign), was the final straw. In actuality, women have accomplished many great things in history and they have done many bad things as well. It is not about what gender or race or culture that is in power but what that person is capable of accomplishing. We are too desperate today to have a woman or a black or a gay in power and this cloud’s our judgement in making choices for who that person should be.

Being an Intellectual in Radical Times

Adolf Hitler and Che Gueverra were both socialists with different views of what was right. Both hated art (unless it was about them) and destroyed art and artists. They both killed people for different reasons. The same occurred within the communist movement and amongst religious zealots in history who wanted to take control over people. They have killed people too for different reasons. All thought they were fair, right and just for doing so. Now we have the feminist radicals who have gone to the extremes in many ways. We are no longer just seeing “Women are better than men,” thought processes but witch hunts from the “MeToo” movement and destruction of art, “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” to fit their purposes. They are destroying men and art and even women who don’t agree with them for the sake of beliefs that they believe is right and just. This radical approach to turning the world around to their perspective, and this causes them to be incapable of looking at another side of things or listen to their instincts (not their ego). The “I am Right and You are Wrong,” is like with any radical thought process mentioned above, it is always “wrong,” as it is based on the ego, not a mature mindset and destroys society.

To be an intellectual, you have to be a mature person who is capable of criticizing art from an intelligent standpoint vs. a radical opinion. I personally hate most modern art but I still recognize the value of the contribution. I don’t hate all of it because I find that some modern art actually peaks my interest. I think most everyone can stare at a red dot on a white background and say, “Oh, I could do that,” and then the cliché’d phrase will be, “Yes, but you didn’t.” The point is that I wouldn’t say “It is stupid or ridiculous,” just because it doesn’t suit my tastes. Instead, I would comment on the piece and talk about what about it doesn’t suit me. The fact that the piece of art has captured someone’s attention, that they can make some decisions about it and agree that it is their perception and not a given, is being an intellectual.

An intellectual is capable of having a broad perspective because they have knowledge of history, art, theater, politics, or a well-rounded education on the world around them. You might not agree with them but you don’t have to. There is democracy in a conversation where people are “arguing” that the film had artistic merit but did not really engage you as a storyline. It ceases to be an intellectual discussion when you are just there to get people on your side. Politics have become like a gang where it is all about whether you are on the red team or the blue team. There is no longer an intellectual discussion about politics, amongst the political; there is only death to the other side who is “stupid” and “wrong.” We have missed out on so much with the lack of verbal intercourse.

I was on a group recently on Facebook which was a fan club for classic films. A woman was destroying “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” because it didn’t fit within the politically correct realms of today’s society. She and another woman were making non-intellectual judgements about the film and got a few others to join in. I questioned this because I wondered “Why are you in a ‘fan’ club if you are here to bash the films?” The moderator at this point doesn’t seem to be paying attention. It is a movie, so worrying about whether or not a cat is thrown out of a taxi is not relevant. This is not an animal rights documentary. It is relevant that people have to make tough decisions at times in their life. City life is not conducive to having pets. At that time, there weren’t “animal rescue groups,” so it was feasible that an action like this may have happened. It was about the story and the passionate place the character was in. Audrey Hepburn’s character hated having to do this act, which was more than obvious in her facial expressions, but felt forced to. In the end “cat” (the name of the cat character) came back into her lap “and they lived happily ever after.” Even then, the director knew it would not make American’s happy to see a cat being thrown away. We, as a whole, like happy endings.

The woman leading the bash of the movie also suggested that she just couldn’t get into the film. I told her she should try and put herself in that time period, rather than coming from the perspective of 2018. This is the problem with radical people. They bash history on film, paintings, songs, statues, books, all because they are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of those that came before then. History is not about 2018. To try and judge others in 1815 or 1938 or 1960 by 2018 standards is missing the lessons of that time. It is disrespectful to our ancestors.

Paintings are all we have, until the creation of the camera, to show us what life was like in those different centuries. Yes, bad things did happen then but you don’t destroy art because you are uncomfortable with history. Women who posed nude for paintings were distraught peasant women who were desperate for a penny. They took their clothes off because it was easier than washing clothes all day long for the same amount of money. I am quite sure they were sexually abused by some artists or the men who watched the artists paint. We don’t destroy the masterpiece because of this; we discuss it and have an opinion on this. We certainly don’t take the piece of art out of the gallery because we found out the woman in the painting was sexually abused or paid only a penny.

“Baby it’s Cold Outside,” is a song. It was written by a husband and wife team in a time period when there was no social media. People actually gathered together in people’s homes to have conversations and enjoyed each other’s company. They “liked” each other in real life. They became “friends” with people they met, through others, at these gatherings which boasted lots of food, song, games and plenty of booze.  I was a kid then but it was a lot of fun. I enjoyed watching people laugh and dance. Later, as an adult, I went to a few parties in the 20 years before the Internet became a “thing.”

The song “Baby it’s Cold Outside,” was created to get people to go home (hint, hint). The couple who created and sang this song became quite the item at parties and were actually invited to come and sing this song at the end. Later on, the husband sold the rights to the song, (which upset his wife), to the studios and the rest became history; as it floated up the charts. Cleveland women recently became enraged by this and forced radio stations to stop playing it because the song made them uncomfortable. I have no idea whether it was the action of a feminist organization in Cleveland or just a bunch of radicals who took the initiative. Once there were a local group of women in Salem, Massachusetts, who determined to get back at older intelligent women and thus many people (I believe 19 was the number) were hung for witchcraft. They were not witches, just people that they wanted to destroy.

Rap music on the other hand, also art, but mostly written and “spoken” to a racist audience (not much different than if the Neo-Nazi group began a type of spoken word), and as in most cases; written to destroy people. The Neo-Nazi movement is not much different than inner city folks who feel their rights are being impinged upon. Different history but the same philosophical anger. Rap music once had to be given ratings to protect children from listening to Rated R words, but now parents do not seem to care at all. At least, I haven’t heard of any measures to protect from these newer lyrics which continue to degrade. This music is now allowed by the White slaves of the Politically Correct movement. People who have been shut down by social media for having an opinion so they acquiesce to save face. You can’t say anything wrong about Black people in today’s society because you are considered a racist, even if they are making racist or sexually degrading comments about your person. You can say something wrong about Neo-Nazi groups because it is taboo in today’s society; even though we are in a democracy, where they do have freedom of speech. (Now I must make a disclaimer to ignorant people who may catch this article and state that I am not a Neo-Nazi, I am making an intellectual statement). Therefore, as we see White slaves to the PC movement in today’s society, it is okay to play rap music on the radio but not a cute, flirtatious, song like “Baby it’s Cold Outside,” that was written by a man for his wife.

Personally, I find the play “Hamilton,” extremely offensive as it panders to White slaves of the Politically Correct movement as well. It is racist against White people because it is destroying our culture by putting Black people in the role of White people, showing that figures in history are just meaningless insignificant people and it is not relevant what their race was. It is dishonest because it is lying about history and making a mockery of it at the same time. Playing rap music for the ignorant who aren’t capable of coming to a historical play with some merit; if it were to use music, costumes, hairstyles, from that time period. It is art of course but it is dishonest. Just like the art work that depicted witches as devil worshippers or ugly old hags with pointy black hats, torn black dresses and striped stockings in pointy toed shoes. Most intelligent people today know that this is dishonest and ridiculous but we don’t throw it in the trash. It is a testament to how far the religious zealots went to force pagans, witches and druids, into Christianity or other religions. It is part of history because it reminds us of how ignorant people were (or still are). One day the play “Hamilton” will, hopefully, at some point in the future, be a testament to the ignorance of our society today. Especially when children become confused about historical characters and forget about the history of African’s who were forced into slavery around that same time period.

Films today, in America and abroad, have sought to expand upon themes by placing politically correct but historical inaccurate characters in period pieces. Thanks to the radical celebrities – many who had no artistic merit in the first place, to be considered for an Academy Award, complained that there weren’t enough awards given to the Black people; so the Oscars were therefore racist. It didn’t matter that the awards were voted on by a very diverse group of people, from around the world. The Oscars are voted on by members of the Academy – which equals people who are past recipients. It also didn’t matter that the films, that were selected for awards, along with those who worked on the production; were of superb quality. The fact that enough actors weren’t of color – not the fact that they weren’t grade “A” professionals, but not enough, was more significant. This caused White slavery of the Politically Correct world to become more international. Now you see period pieces where black people are thrown in, even though they would not have been there (in that time period). You will also see the proverbial gay character storyline; attached to all these films – even though this was very rare then, as it is now, and has nothing really to do with the time period or storyline. Having the gay storyline in the film is not much different than having a sex scene that just isn’t relevant and is only there for the sake of having a sex scene (e.g. Death Comes to Pemberley). This is not how art is congratulated.

Films should be awarded a prize because an actor has gone to a place that is exceptional and on a level that far exceeds. My feeling about the Oscars being “racist” is that if the Black community wants Oscars, they should make better quality films. This comment is not based on “Let them eat cake,” a cliché from history; that was taken out of context in that time period. It is a comment based on Black films I have ventured to watch that were uninteresting, typical or copycat. Copycat by taking storylines from “White” movies to begin with and turned them into Black, which lacks originality (of course this is typical for Americans – who steal from foreign films all the time).

Meanwhile there are many men and women in Black history; that exceptional movies could be made about. By only creating movies about the inner city or slavery, it is saying that there were no intelligent Black people in history, that accomplished something worthy of value or merit; which could be turned into a movie. And yet, notable Black people in history, has the potential to be a storyline worthy of merit. It would show society exactly what this culture wants us to know. With good trained actors and exceptional focus on detail (clothes, plot, cinematography, direction, history) there are so many untold stories – why the need to steal movies that have been done? Why are ignorant White people trying to take care of them by inserting them into films where they wouldn’t have been? This is even worse because White directors are saying that they feel sorry for the Black culture so they will give them a job to make them feel better. It is insulting to their culture that they have to be placed in historically inaccurate roles because they weren’t capable of doing anything on their own.

It is not art, however,  when people flock to the streets and demand that statues of General Robert E. Lee be destroyed. It is ignorant people who aren’t capable of opening a history book so that they understand this human being had nothing to do with slavery. Perhaps they need to make a rap musical about him and have General Robert E. Lee played by a Black actor so that our uneducated audience can understand. This is art being destroyed because our society wants to pick and choose what is acceptable art and what is not acceptable, not much different than what Adolf Hitler did in his rise to power.

All art is acceptable as it makes a statement, whether we like it or not. Whether it is offensive or not is a personal viewpoint and the point of art. We shouldn’t shut down or destroy this as it is a reminder of the times. We should see a statue of Adolf Hitler or Che Gueverra or a Communist Leader or a religious zealot and it should make us angry. The job of art is to get a rise out of people, whether negative or positive. This is no different than selling “Mein Kampf,” at the book store, which was written by Hitler and explains his way of thinking. This is education, it builds a stronger intellect to learn and understand. General Robert E. Lee was a soldier who was chosen to lead the south; after he turned down leading the north. It was based on family and his upbringing not on his personal views about slavery. The Civil War wasn’t created to put an end to slavery; it was a war about gaining power because the southerners were in disagreement with the northerners and wanted to split the country. It is not much different from the Republicans and Democrats fighting for attention and power today. The difference is we are no longer in different sections of the country; political sides are mixed together in each state.

Then there is fashion; another form of art. It is not art to wear holey blue jeans 24/7 and have no respect for ones’ self. This is not style, it is laziness. Chanel, Dior, Balenciaga, Poiret, Schiaperelli, and others; this is art and significant to call fashion. They are masterpieces whereas jeans, they are merely graffiti on the wall, by the train station of a freeway underpass. Anna Wintour has decided to focus on having a penchant for politics rather than keeping her perspective strictly on clothing and style. Fashion is based on politics and the current events of the day but those in this field don’t ignore art or style simply because they don’t like their husband. Therefore, talking down about Melania Trump who has brought back elegance, style, intelligence, in a way that is reminiscent of Jacqueline Kennedy, a true connoisseur of fashion would applaud this not destroy it. An intelligent person would not make fun of a woman who speaks multiple languages and is said to have a high I.Q. and appears to be a dedicated mother and wife. She is “in vogue,” for all these reasons which should be enough for the magazine. Anna Wintour would not have gotten away with her behavior in a more dignified society of our past. She continues to bring down the magazine in agreement with the radical opinions of women in our society today. She ignores the point of the magazine, which was to accede to high fashion. The magazine was made for elite women not radical feminists. We have MS. Magazine that was created for feminists and many others that have followed since then.

How far will we go in the destruction of art in our radical society today before we have completely annihilated authentic history and a fondness for nostalgia? The women’s movement, originally, was not created to destroy history but to improve upon the conditions for women and children in the future. The feminist movement sought to continue this once we had the right to vote and gave rise to new expectations for women and children in the workplace and society. This has nothing to do with replacing art with more comfortable lyrics, paintings, or theater productions. Abolitionists sought to give freedom to all people and the NAACP movement and other Black organizations were created to protect their rights, not destroy art and re-create history to massage their egos.

We are in a place in society where we have no sense of values, only extremist mindsets, which have created group think. Social media has caused fear and unrest from bullying, lies, conspiracy theories, and turned all news into sensationalist rags. We can no longer handle the truth and this is not an intelligent society but a very ignorant, intellectually depleted group of people who are destroying our Earth. Will we ever start rising up again or are we destined toward a future that is ruled by violence rather than intellect?

Sophia Loren – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

This book is one you don’t devour. You take your time, stirring, simmering and seasoning as if you are making a pot of soup or stew. Sophia is a Virgo, which is most of my astrological chart, except the first dominant three. I sensed a grounded woman almost immediately. A person who has taken her time and made the right choices; which led her down a path that would make her a very happy woman. As a Leo, who has made all the wrong choices, very impatiently and innocently, when you have done these things, only then can you truly appreciate someone who is smarter than you. Patience really is a virtue.

While reading the pages of her book, I immersed myself in everything Sophia. I began to look up films on YouTube, but then as luck would have it, Film Struck dedicated a week to Sophia and I had many of the Italian films right at my fingertips. Thankfully, they devoted most of her footage to the old stock from Europe rather than the cheesy “We need an Italian” American movies. I was rather embarrassed to look at a trailer for Houseboat and see that she was darkened with make-up, since no one, in 1958, was capable of accepting she was Italian without it. Odd, since at that time we had a huge Italian population in America.

As she writes in her book, she is more adept at filming in her own country, when she is portraying herself, her mother, her grandmother, and her neighbors. This is clear because she is more natural, less scripted, in her normal color, unafraid to look worn and “ugly,” and not making us think the entire time “Oh look it is Sophia Loren,” like you do when you watch an American actress on film. I think I like her in films more, when she is in a worn out dress, her hair is a mess, she is in her (what seems like) signature slip on sandals and she is fighting for whatever she is passionate about. This type of role is more of an emotional investment than a film where she is just being a pretty woman. Although in “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” it is interesting seeing her portray three different types of women in various personalities. It is almost as if you are getting a person with Dissociative Identity Disorder.

I know I always bash my own country when it comes to cinema but being a foreign film fanatic there is such a huge difference. The answer came for me when I read her book. You are not getting a “tell-all” fraught with sexual harassment stories. There is no political agenda or a feminist bitch-fest which is riddled with “What’s wrong with men,” tales. Instead, you find that she is a professional and holds in high esteem her fellow actors that she worked with. When they were on the set, they had cooking contests or pulled pranks on each other. In her case, her mother came to the set with her while she was starting out. The only time this ceased was when she was meeting her future husband for the first time, producer Carlo Ponti.

When I watched interviews with her, she was very careful in the way she answered questions. Very diplomatic, intelligent enough to remain appearing innocent, though you knew she saw the journalists attempt to get her to “dish the dirt,” using her English as her second language as a tool to stall and prepare.

Naturally, I followed some of Marcello’s interviews as well, as he and Sophia were in some very important movies together. I was embarrassed when David Letterman tried desperately to turn him into a player (which he is) and make him seem dirty to Americans. It is a different lifestyle, a player in Europe vs. a player in America. The Europeans have more tact which results in their escapades being very classy and fashionable. Not that I agree with it or condone this, but it is their business. Here we are more focused (in the last couple of decades) on trashing what used to be alluring, exotic, and only for the mature.

When you see Foreign films, you do get a sense of professionals coming together to make dramatic stories come to life. Even when they are quirky and abstract, such as Frederico Fellini or Pier Paolo Pasolini, it comes together like a typical novel turned into a film, only with the long bits chopped out and the most important scenes smashed together through facial expressions. Serious actors who are trained by great directors and who can relax into the role are able to do these things.

Today, in American films, you have the nouveau riche who started out working hard but are now just entitled adults who can only sell overacted pieces. You get the sense that they are all having one big orgy, especially when they spend an interview flirting with each other and behaving like children. The films are not deep and cerebral, they seem geared toward children. Adults playing action heros are no longer spellbinding as “Superman” once was, or the first “Batman.” Now, everyone is doing it so it is cliché.  I am more interested in the craft, being transported into another place and time, people who appear so much in character that you don’t recognize them. In interviews, I want to see grown-ups behaving like professionals. It feels embarrassing to watch because I know they are going to dread these interviews when they become older and are “has beens” desperate for all the money they spent.

When I watch Sophia Loren in her movies, I think how Penelope Cruz has taken after her in her ability to portray women in despair and not utilize her good looks (this is what the modeling world is for). I think of a good friend that I grew up with, who is Hungarian and who naturally has that sense of being European that I am completely incapable of creating somatically; no matter how hard I try. Those nuances which catch you off guard: a tilt of the lips, a shift in the eyebrow, the movement of the hips, for example that can’t be caught on camera through a third or fourth (and so on) generation.

My favorite film with she and Marcello would be “Sunflower,” which I had to disagree with her on. She spoke of Marcello playing a character similar to Don Dummi in “Marriage – Italian Style,” and I think she mentioned the character from “Too Bad She is Bad.” Nonetheless, she was speaking of a character as a bad boy. On the contrary, I was so moved by the story and his character which from a psychological perspective, the background scenery in the film; was captured quite well. One sensed that the Russian wife understood this but the Italian wife continued to have disdain for her lover. Of course the Russian wife (a single parent) was simply looking for a husband that she went looking for one day; while walking through wounded soldiers. Whereas the Italian wife was terribly and hopelessly in love; seeking emotional revenge in the end. Like in a Fellini or Pasolini film, there is one character, a surviving Italian soldier stranded in Russia, who gives us that snapshot or foreshadowing of what is to come. Psychologically, Antonio was not a bad boy. He was grateful to his protector and felt as if yesterday, as an Italian, had disappeared or maybe it was a dream.

Many years ago I saw “Two Women,” the one film she won an Academy Award for. I felt that she should when I saw it. I don’t think the Internet was around at the time I viewed the story so I only learned this from the book. Also from reading her story, I understood that she was playing a character in a time period she had once lived through. This took on new meaning for me.

Last night, I re-watched Marcello and Sophia in “A Special Day,” which was a gay film that isn’t trying to be a gay film like those we hear about in America today. Again, it is the nuance of a phone call; a slight mention that one has to pay close attention to.  His character is discreet, careful, cautious and classy. Later he has to be more obvious because Sophia’s character is too innocent and lacks street smarts. The ending is tragic in a quiet way for Marcello’s character, while Sophia’s appears to be saying silently “Well, I guess it is back to business,” in her household. Terribly emotional and hard to fight back the tears that you feel rising up from your chest. The second ending is the landlady, who has played a small yet pivotal role hoping to divide the characters. She stands in front of her building working a double entendre as she speaks to her tenants. It was perfect. I am not sure young people or new people to foreign films about World War II would quite understand the intent of this scene. Watch a few more films and then come back to it, if so.

What I loved about the writing in this book was how grateful Sophia Loren is for her life. She tells you over and over again, in so many ways, that she does not take one single thing for granted. I am not sure she realizes that she did do all the right things (not to say she was perfect), as she never lived a life where you do all the wrong things. Her gratefulness is her modesty. It is all her characters rolled up into one thanking the directors, the producers, the family, the audience for helping them to be portrayed in such an honest way. For telling the stories that wanted to be told and creating a space for the unsung heroines of Italian heritage.

What I saw is that she wanted to be a star but she didn’t sleep her way to the top. She was desperate but not stupid. As I mentioned, her mother was there. She worked very hard to understand her roles, to study acting, to listen to her directors and respect them. She wanted to be a wife and mother and patiently waited for her turn with Carlo. When she had her children, they became a priority for her. She talks of her love for the children and how they changed her life. It is quite clear that we won’t be getting a “Mommie Dearest,” book from Eduardo or Carlo Jr. She talks of how she consciously looked over her boys, and how she and Carlo Sr. recognized the talents each had to offer, early on. One son became a director and the other; an orchestral conductor. Having seen one of Eduardo’s movies “The Human Voice,” featuring his mother, this is not a famous man’s son doing his best. He is a man who stands alone. I feel there will be more great things to come.

It is so much easier to be grateful when you have done all the right things and good things happened to you as a result. I am reminded of that first line in “Anna Karenina” by Leo  Tolstoy. I continued to learn as I read her book and took it in on a philosophical level. At this stage in my life, almost 30 years behind her, I am looking back at life in a very spiritually contemplative way. It was not an accident that her book happened to be at the library one day in the “used books for sale” room. I love going through there to find stories I can keep and I had been meaning to buy Sophia’s book through Amazon for some time now (on my wish list). Like when I was a young girl and the library presented so many magical surprises, now the same occurs for me as an adult only I am helping fund the library at the same time.

As I came to the end of her book, she mentioned that her husband had been the producer of “Dr. Zhivago,” when discussing an homage that she and her sons put together in memory of him. Suddenly, he became much more than Sophia Loren’s husband and producer of many of her films. I had no idea that he was responsible for such a beloved masterpiece. This was a nice surprise. Their love story was not quite one that I came to really understand and relate to, as I have never been married for 56 years or a long time relationship period. I have never been able to understand women who are with men twenty to thirty years their senior either, as I was never quite mature enough to undertake such a flirtation. Perhaps other women, like my Hungarian friend will cling to this like an old soul.

I was able to relate to her male counterparts that came to nothing more than friendship, soul mates or a missed out on love that probably would have come to nothing anyway. Having watched a great deal of her films as I read the book and viewing photos of she and her family online, I came to respect this very professional woman whom I once saw, only, as another sexy actress. I hope you will re-visit her work as well and see how it impacts your life.

Outing Celebs who are Dead, is Vulgar and Irresponsible

Liberace was a “flaming fag,” as we used to say in the 80’s. He wasn’t married to a woman, he didn’t try to hide being gay by the way he dressed or acted on stage or in real life. While he didn’t come right out and say “I am gay,” or in his day – a homosexual because saying gay would mean he was giddy or happy, it is safe to say that he wouldn’t be upset that we all know he was gay. Likewise, we could safely say this about Oscar Wilde or Lord Byron and countless others who didn’t take great pains to make sure we didn’t know.

On the other hand, focusing on Cary Grant’s love life or Katherine Hepburn’s or Spencer Tracy’s or even Eleanor Roosevelt’s is inexcusable. It is disrespectful of their families, their husbands and wives, of their name and of their legendary status. If something is not written in their will or if they have taken great pains to hide their love life; than it is none of our business. Yet magazines and their sensationalist journalists take great pains to “expose” them as if they have abused children or animals and need to have their life paraded around the town square for the entire world to see and know.

Life was different in their time period. People had class and very high expectations of themselves and others. Men and women dressed elegantly and went out to dinner with gloves on and hats. They wore fur stoles or full length coats or capes that were left in a cloak room with a “hat check girl.” They drew nicotine from long stems and cocked their heads back when they let out the smoke in a very graceful way. They ate lavish meals and watched performances, which included full orchestras with singers and maybe dancers as well. When they left, they went onto parties or home or somewhere else. The story ended there.

Recently, Scotty Bowers a celebrity pimp at 94 years old, has decided he needs to ruin the reputations of some really wonderful people that we all grew to love and adore. These were people whom we romanticized and fantasized about when we thought of their relationships, or their movies, or their place in office. The meaning of legendary is someone that no one can replace. It is someone who was unique, a valuable contribution to the world, stellar, intelligent, and larger than life.

When they are then exploited for being gay behind closed doors, you are taking away that legendary status by turning them into a common person. You are saying that they had flaws like the rest of us. That beneath that smile was nothing but lies. You are taking away the image we have of them and turning them into nothing more than a Jimmy Saville. And for what purpose? Why do we need to know who was gay and who wasn’t gay? Who does this help? Do we need to meet a quota in today’s society to validate ourselves in the lifestyle we are now living?

“Women He’s Undressed,” sounds demeaning just hearing the title. As I watched this documentary about an Australian designer by the name of Orry-Kelly, I felt embarrassed and uncomfortable as he began to rat out Archie Leach’s lifestyle and then tell us that Cary Grant took great pains to shut him up before he died. Naturally, it is hard to have any respect for Orry-Kelly; as a result of watching this. I began to understand why Cary walked away from him because he was a spineless prick; like most people in the fashion industry. Always out to stab people in the back and then curtsy, while blushing on their way out the door. It’s supposed to be seen as charming and yet it made me want to vomit; which is why I got out.

As I am in the psychology world now, I am equally insulted by fools who focus on the fact that Freud was a cocaine addict or that Jung screwed his clients. None of this was taboo in their time period because they were the fathers of psychology and had not yet determined ethics and laws that are relevant today. Doctors handed out cocaine, heroin, and many other substances that are considered illegal today but weren’t then. It is because therapists or psychoanalysts did what they did that we now know better. But to focus on their behaviors that were inconsequential in their day, takes away from the valuable contributions that they made to psychology.

When I watch an old film, I don’t want to think about the fact that he or she was a dyke or a fag. I want to think about their wit, their je ne sais quois. Yet when someone puts something into my mouth, I can’t get rid of the taste of it. The memory is stuck. When we see these people on screen, it is important to leave them with their clothes on. We want to keep their voice resonating in our head. We want to recall their walk across the room. We want to envy their wives/husbands, children and imagine what it must have been like to be in the room with them.

If these people were alive today, more than likely they would sue the rags that printed them just as Tom Cruise used to do with National Enquirer. Now all magazines and newspapers, the Internet as a whole, seem focused on becoming trashy, smutty, tell-alls who have nothing better to do with their life than to ruin others. When you do this to a dead man, you are essentially spitting on their grave and that of their kin. Allow these people to rest. Allude to their behind the scenes arrangements but really and truly, if they aren’t Jimmy Saville, let it rest. Keep them a legend, a mystery, a well-loved hero/heroine.

Alaine Polcz – Hungarian Writer and Psychologist

In her book, “A Wartime Memoir: Hungary 1944-1945,”Alaine tells about a life changing year that instead of being her downfall, became her life’s purpose. Sitting ducks with a changing guard, from Russian to German on an on-going, what seemed like a never ending basis, she travels from Transylvania (then hoping to remain with Hungary) to Csákvár, in Hungary and back again. In the end, you can imagine the frustration in knowing, if she had never left, her life would have remained simple an innocent.

What is beautiful about this book is that she is not talking like a psychologist but instead, goes back in her mind to re-live painfully traumatic experiences at the age of 19, as if she were that age once more. As a psychotherapist myself, I get the sense that she probably never went through her own course of treatment. This is because she continues to repeat over and over “I do not remember…” This is typical of a sexual abuse survivor or someone who was horribly traumatized at a young age and blocks the exact details of the trauma from their mind, for their own “assumed” well-being. Ironic, as she was a psychologist yet even today, people in this profession are closed off to doing their own work. It is important so that they can properly support others without transferring their own pain onto the client or confusing the client’s story with their own. I am not condemning her though because this was more typical of this time period. I grew up with Hungarians (refugees from the revolution), none of whom went into therapy and all of whom went through some of their own harrowing ordeals. Not least of which was fleeing their beloved homeland.

Alaine was born in Kolozsvár, when it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (at this time known as the city of Cluj-Napoca). Now it is Romania and it was in 1944-1945 as well. This was a time of unrest between the Romanians and Hungarians, power struggles on the Romanian part that included violence and discrimination against the Hungarians who lived there. Alaine’s father gave her this male name because of two reasons. One, he did not know French and so unaware that it was a man’s name but Two, his only purpose was finding a name that was not able to be translated into Romanian.

At the onset of 1944, Alaine, at 19, was married to her childhood sweetheart János. Within a few months into their honeymoon period, he gives her gonorrhea. Amazingly, but not surprisingly, it is at this point when he detaches from her and begins to be an emotionally abusive husband. She has the luck of being a strong woman, though terribly naïve. His mother, Mami, happens to work for the Esterházy family, who are of noble origins. It is here that they will go to live and because of him that she follows the family as they escape into Hungary to live and work at another estate, which will be the beginning of the end of Alaine’s life as she knows it. In Csákvar, what seems to bring some peace and safety for a short time, ends up being the front lines, which means constant harassment or torture from either the Germans or the Russians. For women, as with all wars, she and other villagers will be gang raped on what appears to be a daily basis, and at this time, she is under the impression that her husband was executed. The most impressive lines that she writes of her first account of abuse goes like this:

He put the photograph [of she and her husband] on the nightstand and laid me down on the bed. I was afraid he would not give me the picture. When he was done, he took the picture into his hand and showed it to me again…

When she writes, she is not writing like a writer in this book.  She states facts, over and over. There are no pictures drawn and yet there is a story being told. Fuzzy memories are re-told and sometimes they are not even in order, so you have to re-read to catch yourself. It is as if you are sitting with her and she is telling you a story. When I got to the line “When he was done,” it came at me so quickly; I had to read it a few times to let it register. “Oh, okay,” I thought, this is how she is protecting herself and the audience. Even though she is not talking like a psychologist, she is consciously protecting throughout the book.

At some point, days, maybe a month or so later, she is escorted to a cellar, with 79 other Hungarians, who are doing their best to survive. They will go through days or months (you are never sure of the timeline but the book is only one year), of not bathing, very little food and at one point no water, ritual defecating and urinating (they can only go outside to do this during the 10 minutes of ceasefire which occurs daily at the same time), as well as lice and natural body odors. She is only with Mami and her dachshund “Filike,” who she holds at her breast, under a coat which no one notices until the end of her time there.

Alaine does spend a lot of time talking about blood and guts and waste, more than any other writer I have seen when it comes to war zones. One does wonder how people use the toilet during these times. When she mentions herself running away from a gang rape sequence, she talks about running through the snow with a slip on and blood being caked on her body and in her panties. She mentions being in the cellar when she pulls her shirt away from her body and a woman notices the skin of a sore coming with it. She is telling us about how you just keep going, no matter what, becoming oblivious to your own vanity.

The war is at the end, in 1945, when this part of her story comes to a close. She returns to Budapest, still without her husband, to be reunited with family; who will then return to Kolozsvár. She is saved from being labeled a whore, as most women will be in this time period, because her family are good people and she finally denies what happened. By this time the gonorrhea and the life conditions she has just endured have taken its toll on her body. She is hospitalized for some time before she will recover and get some of her life back. The irony is that she will never be able to bear a child and this was the fault of her own husband. The sardonic twist is the realization that all those Russian soldiers had went home to their wives passing on her venereal disease to them.

She and János will part ways and soon she will meet her second husband Miklós Mészöly, who went on to become a famous Hungarian writer. Alaine will go on to become the founder of the first children’s hospice program and win two different awards. She receives the Tibor Déry Award in 1992 (for this book, which was written in 1991) and The Middle Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary in 2001. Alaine’s husband dies in 2001 and she will pass six years later.

Post-Script: What is horribly frustrating about the book is the writing and translation. Albert Tezla is the translator and having read a great number of translated books from several different countries, this is pathetic. You would almost think he didn’t speak English because the sentences come across as broken and unedited. I believe he is translating word for word, rather than trying to put it together in some organized fashion. It is also possible that Alaine was never edited since Albert was not either. I think this is embarrassing to both the writer and the country itself. While I am not a prolific writer myself and certainly need to be edited, I am self-published and have no professional acclaim to add to my repertoire.  I was disappointed to say the least. However, this story, edited or not, annoying with the redundancy or not, needed to be told. What I have noticed when I find anything about women in history, this is so often the case. It is sad because I can’t recall any time when I have seen the same about men.

#METOO feels Self-Serving to Me

Back in the mid-80’s, I lived and worked in LA and was trying to get into modeling. I was not naïve to the “casting couch” as I had read the non-fiction “Hollywood Babylon” (published in 1959) as a teenager and knew this was a dirty world. My last time to try and make a go of it was with an agency looking for older models (I was 26-ish by then). They were off of Laurel Canyon and Ventura Blvd. It was in a building across from the famous newsstand which may or may not exist anymore (do people still buy trade magazines and newspapers?). The guy who ran this agency worked with his wife, a beautiful Swedish/Norwegian looking blonde lady who was very pregnant with their first child. He took me and another younger woman to Malibu and we spent the day doing photos for our portfolios. We were in bathing suits and had to endure two Mexican men ogling us from over the side of a cliff we were under. We also had to endure this man/photographer telling us about his days with Playgirl magazine (when he was a model) and the size of his male part and how great he was.

The photos turned out really well actually and when I went to retrieve them from his office, I then had to endure being propositioned. Behind him on the wall was a huge painting of a woman with her legs spread apart (pre-Sharon Stone scene) and I only recall the color red and that the painting was very ugly. Not ugly as in bad artist but ugly woman, it was actually quite a good painting as artists go. As he was propositioning me, his pregnant wife was two offices up on the phone conducting business.  He told me that Brooke Shields and Cindy Crawford had done these things, he was requesting of me, because he had been to parties where he had opened doors and seen things. He had photos in his office of different celebrities with him (I don’t recall if they were the same people he was mentioning or not). The photographs made his statements seem legitimate to me though. It was obvious he knew people. However, I told him that I wasn’t that interested in getting into the modeling business if it meant performing on him to get a job. I said I was pretty surprised to hear that those women did those things but nonetheless, I was not. Naturally, he would not go on to work with me.

As I left the office, pissed off once again for having to put up with crap like that, I kept wondering to myself “Why is it that all these famous women haven’t done anything to protect women in the industry?” Here we are in 2018, the #METOO movement comes out of nowhere, only a few months ago and our country behaves as if they are in shock to know this is happening. This is three decades after my incident that I described above. Three decades of very famous, very wealthy actors and actresses who could have done something so that it would have been dealt with by now. After all, if you are Meryl Streep who has a reputation that will never be tarnished and has been in Washington lobbying one thing or another over the years (nothing to do with women’s rights), you don’t have to worry. If you are Mira Sorvino or Gwyneth Paltrow, whose parents preceded you in the “business,” you don’t have to worry either. Yet, here they are, jumping on the bandwagon that they themselves could have fixed many decades ago.

The “casting couch” has been around since the industry began. We have seen movies about this world; we have read non-fiction books, which include auto-biographies and memoirs and yet nothing has ever been done about this until now. Tyra Banks had a modeling show during this time where she paraded young innocents around in soft-porn situations and kicked a Christian woman off the show because she wasn’t comfortable participating. Tyra’s comment to her was that this is part of being in the industry, which is no different than the kind of thing pimps told our young foster girls that they were grooming for their “business” in Oakland, CA; when I worked there. I am sure there are more women involved in this business, who led these women onto the couch. You haven’t heard anything about this though, #METOO seems only to be focused on men.

Back in the mid-80’s my girlfriend in LA was involved in a women director’s association and I was aware that there were quite a few other associations, specifically for women in this field. There are also unions for all actors, most notably the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG).  Yet up until now, too my knowledge the subject of sexual harassment of women has been ignored in Hollywood.

What was concerning to me about the #METOO movement is that it does not appear to be doing anything but performing a “Witch Hunt” in Hollywood. There were many non-acting women on the #METOO board on Twitter, giving graphic stories about their situations which no doubt caused them to be re-traumatized as they wrote. These other women who are not in Hollywood assumed (I would imagine since they spoke out) that something would be done by telling. Yet other than hearing one more story about some actor/director/producer in Hollywood, we hear nothing about women in general and change being made. What needs to happen is better training that should be mandatory for all police and fire fighters – who are the people a young woman would run to in an emergency situation. I have known plenty of trainers who have worked with these professionals around the country but as I hear stories of people where I live locally (and work as a therapist) I am aware that it is obvious no training has been conducted here. The reason I say this is that I have heard women tell me that they were not offered a “rape kit” that they were told “it is a he said, she said” situation, that were told there wasn’t enough evidence and who were led to believe it was their fault that it happened.

I even heard a story by a young woman who told me her sister was left in a parking lot, in the winter, after a sheriff asked her why she was sitting there in her car with her child. She explained that her husband had a gun and had threatened to use this on them and she had escaped and had nowhere to go. Instead of being given resources to a domestic violence shelter or even being told that she could call 211 for a bed, he just said “Oh, okay” and left them there.

Worrying about damaging Harvey Weinstein’s career is hardly the concern of the average young woman. Having Matt Damon harassed for his opinions by an ex-girlfriend, Minnie Driver, who he broke up with because she sicked the Paparazzi on them while they were on a date is rather hypocritical. It all works though because most of the general public doesn’t remember these things and they like focusing on reality shows which are merely the freak shows of yesteryear that people would view inside of a tent at a carnival.

None of the big actresses in Hollywood, who got on the bandwagon of the #Metoo movement, have anything to worry about. They are rich and powerful ladies. All women, who are average everyday people, who have survived horrible situations by men who aren’t rich and powerful, will continue to have something to be concerned of for the rest of their lives. Those who we need to be worried about the most are the naïve teen girls and young adult women who are fresh, inexperienced, and vulnerable. I too assumed that the #Metoo movement was going to make change and have an impact on women around our country. I soon began to realize that all it was doing was focusing on men in Hollywood. How wrong it was to misinform the public and have all those survivors re-traumatize themselves by sharing their stories online when it was really just a waste of time. I haven’t seen one article about changes being made locally or across the country to help women and girls who have been affected by sexual harassment or abuse. It would have been a great movement, had it actually accomplished this.

There is a big difference between a woman who is making a choice, for her career and a woman who has no choice at all. I am sure there have been some actresses who really didn’t have any choice because they weren’t being propositioned. The average woman never has a choice. When a woman is raped, sexually harassed or abused it is not about a career but about a man (usually) who is asserting their power over a powerless person. We need to focus on abuse to women and girls, not just in Hollywood but in general. Not as a publicity stunt that is focusing on an issue that should have been dealt with decades ago but as a real concern that has only been given partial attention up until now. The only major attention the average woman gets is when the situation gets really, really bad, like when she is killed.

Unfortunately, taking advantage of women and girls is another hot topic that goes in the back seat just like mental health in general and gun control. It is exciting to hear about the first few weeks of the incident and then another scandal comes to our attention or the weeks go by and we all just forget about it and quietly go about our business of living our lives.

 

Incidentally, I sent this recent Hollywood photo to the #MeToo movement on Twitter a couple of days ago. Wondering why it was okay for women to sexually harass people. I was offended by this photo and if we were working together in a business, this woman would be fired for third party sexual harassment. So, #TimesUp #MeToo, Sexual Harassment is not okay, whether it is men to women, women to men, women to women or men to men. 

Abhorrent – the new # in Holywood

Holier than thou Hollywood continues to gain power over our society with their extreme left thinking to over compensate for their anger at the right. Hypocritically speaking out about tolerance and freedom of speech and then firing someone for just that. It is okay for Samantha Bee to disrespect a president’s daughter and call her a F-cking C-nt and for Kathy Griffin to want to decapitate a world leader, or for Joy Behar to trash Christians. All “comedians” but when a well-known, controversial, funny woman Roseanne Barr says something she is fired from her own TV show. Let’s look back at a couple of her more interesting quotes:

“I like to get people talking. I am a provocateur, and I do like getting on Twitter and riling people up. You know what, after a while some sane dialogue and sane conclusions come of that kind of thing.”

“I’m either mentally ill or Jewish. I can’t sometimes tell the difference.”

“I’m a comic, and I’m supposed to outrage and make people laugh, Part of makin’ people laugh is to shake up their thinkin’. That’s what I came here to do.”

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/roseanne_barr

Whatever happened to “Hey man, that’s not cool?” the person would apologize and say “Okay, maybe I went too far,” or just letting it go because you can’t trash White people and get away with it but trashing Black people means you’re a racist.  You’re a racist whether you are trashing White people or Black people. No excuses as to why it is okay to trash White people. If you want to become a better class of people, you rise above it. I could understand a Christian doing this and using the biblical quote “an eye for an eye,” but most people in Holywood are not Christians, they are just pretending to be when they win an award.

There was a time when it was shocking to nab legendary celebrities for being communists. People lost their jobs, were blacklisted, committed suicide, it was a very horrible time for actors. We look back on this now and are outraged by this time period. People have a right to their opinions, whether we like it or not. Shaking up society with a comment is detrimental yes but telling at the same time. If you put a lock on people’s mouths like women’s chastity were once protected, where is this getting us in a “free country?” It is saner for a person to get something off their chest than to annihilate their voice for doing so.

Be very afraid Americans, not of Trump because he says what he thinks. There is no question about that. Be afraid of the far left that are judging your every move and telling you how to live your life. It is almost as if we need a hotline to call so we can ask a liberal “Is it okay to say this?” or do this, or act like this, or have a photo with our child. The last post asked whether being politically correct has gone too far. The answer is undoubtedly yes. We are becoming China and North Korea a place most Americans wouldn’t want to live. Yet telling people how to live their lives, firing people for saying something untoward, being a hypocrite by driving around in a car that says teach peace, teach tolerance, or some other self-righteous comment and this is about as red as you can get. We have to grow up and learn to take the good with the bad. We don’t need some smarta… liberal or conservative, for that matter, telling us what we can and cannot do on social media. Bullying laws, yes, this makes sense. There is a difference between someone making a smarta… comment about someone because they are pissed vs. someone who is trolling and harassing someone on a daily basis. If you are a celebrity you are used to getting fired upon vocally, if you are a child or a non-celebrity, you are not. But fired?

Here are the new rules for our society, according to the far left (just in case you haven’t gotten your newsletter).

  • It is okay to trash Christians but not Muslims (Teach religious tolerance though).
  • It is okay to say the “N word” if you are Black but not if you are White and live in the same inner city, rap, speak Ebonics and hang out with these people in the “hood” (Oakland schools fight to speak Ebonics in the classroom). The use of the word niggardly, is now taboo, even though it is not a derogatory word, it just sounds like it is.
  • It is okay to be a racist if you are Black but not if you are White (Teach Tolerance though).
  • It is acceptable to deface your country if you are Black.
  • You can have pride if you are Asian, Hispanic, Black, or Muslim but not if you are White.
  • You are a racist if you are White and won’t sleep with anyone (or marry someone) that is not White, except if you are in an “acceptable” cultural group or race.
  • The word pride means you are gay, as does the word “gay,” and girls are no longer allowed to have girlfriends because this means they are lesbians. If men travel together or women travel together, you have to tell people you aren’t gay, just good friends who don’t want to travel alone, or out having fun with the boys or the girls.
  • It is okay to have plastic surgery underage and dress the opposite of your sex in school because educating our children is not important anymore, f—king them up mentally takes precedence (Brains don’t fully develop until 21). Indulging them to become entitled children so that they will live in your basement and become a “gamer” or have to be evicted in a court of law at the age of 30.
  • Being a patriotic person means you are a born-again who owns a gun, flies the confederate flag and are a conservative.
  • You can’t sexually harass women but we can sexually harass you!

 

Politically Correct Debate for Modern Thinkers

This is quite a fascinating debate series founded by Hungarian born Paul Munk in 2008 out of Toronto, Canada. Interestingly, I learned about this through a client recently. I find that I get many good resources from the people I serve almost as if it were providence. They did make me aware of who won the debate before I saw it, though it wasn’t that hard to figure out as it was quite obvious which side were more gifted in speech and somatic comfort. What is troubling, as always, are Americans abroad. They are just incapable of realizing it isn’t all about them.

This debate is about Political Correctness, or at least that is what it was supposed to be about. The argument isn’t really about what is fair or which words should be used, it is more about whether it has gone too far and what might be a better way to go about this. I recall being a student at Antioch University in Santa Barbara, back in the 90’s and my fellow alumni (now) and I were having discussions about this ourselves. At that point, we could already see the ridiculousness of this new language and so I can imagine how they would feel watching this video today. Unfortunately, we parted and went in various directions, most of us onto graduate schools and with that, a much more difficult level of study that didn’t allow for keeping in touch with old friends quite so easily. It was before FB and Twitter and LinkedIn and by the time those things came about, I couldn’t even recall their names.

Watching this debate, I was already prepared for an interesting discussion by Stephen Fry as he is most likely a genius and typical with most Brits and Europeans, very humble. I have never heard of Jordan Peterson before today and will definitely pick up one of his books and learn more about what he has to say. While the Americans on the panel had no appreciation for his highly intellectual banter, I certainly am eager to see what the controversy is all about. Remember that most philosophers, scientists, inventors; they were all controversial in their time. Whenever someone challenges your thought process, it is debatable and can be fun to see the direction they take it in.

On the other side we had a woman who sat with her legs spread apart, most of the time, eager like the “feminist” thinkers of today to say “look at my vagina but don’t touch it.” Such a contradiction, a mixed message, from a foolish person who would probably do a better job as a dominatrix.  Then you have a minister who appears to be bi-racial but has so much anger for one part of himself. These two wanted to make the program about them and their issues with being a woman and being black. A debate is not meant to be a memoir, it is about giving an argument for the side you are on. All four of the people on the panel were liberal and so much of the time they were agreeing with each other in different ways. I suppose this was a safer way to have this discussion, even though the pros didn’t seem to understand that they were all liberal. They behaved as if they were up against Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump. But as I said, they felt it was all about them.

This is the issue with Political Correctness and the extreme thinking of today. It is the reason Donald Trump is in office. The people who voted for him needed some balance because the liberals had swung so far left they couldn’t even remember which side they were on. With Clinton taking all the jobs away from Americans and giving them to communists, turning our country effectively into one big ghetto with a huge opioid crisis. One only needs to visit a previous factory town that gave some dignity to the people there and notice the dealers, the depression, the hopelessness, the poverty. After this we went to Obamacare, which took precedence over the recession and the only ones who approved of this and will sing its praises are people who get their insurance paid for by the companies they work for. I can certainly say that I am no fan when my medication went from $30 to $700. There was no concern for human beings in the country that they served when these two major changes took over our lives. I am not arguing that Republicans haven’t made mistakes here, I am arguing that Democrats forgot what it meant to be liberal in their need to enforce their self-righteous viewpoint.

On a world stage such as the Munk Debates, it is such a dichotomy when you have socialists vs. capitalists. Nonetheless, I am captivated by this series that I have now signed up for. It is refreshing to know such an exchange of words exists, is allowed (naturally we wouldn’t be able to handle this in the U.S.) and to feel related to people who haven’t disappeared or crawled under a carpet.

Don Draper – Self-help Guru

Since I don’t pay for cable, I have to wait for episodes of good TV programs, from around the world, to come on Netflix. I try to stay off of entertainment news broadcasts so that I have no idea what is going on and can watch it with the same surprises as everyone else. However, I did catch a few news headlines about the end of Mad Men and waited with bated breath to see what I would think of the ending. Needless to say, I was a little perplexed at the thoughts people had about the end of the show. The caption had read something like “Is Don Draper committing suicide?” I rather hoped this would not be the way Matthew Weiner ended the series because it just didn’t feel right to me. It is obvious that Don Draper suffered from Depression, yes, but to commit suicide? Hardly. This man was a survivor, not a victim.

Don Draper was always re-inventing himself throughout the eight years that the show played out. He didn’t strike me as a “give-up” kind of guy. He worked on his memoirs at one point, which was the beginning of him stripping down the layers of his psyche. He was fired from a major firm and worked for that same firm behind the scenes. He wasn’t the type to be had. He was the type to say “FU” and figure out how to make them crave him even more. He also lost two wives, had numerous affairs (and never once seemed to get a venereal disease), drank enough for an entire bar it seemed and never seemed to put up a sweat. The man always looked like a GQ model for his generation. It made women swoon and gave men a hero. I never quite got caught up in idolizing him as a potential fantasy mate. I wouldn’t have minded a liaison but definitely not a “commitment.” Who wants an alcoholic womanizer?

You could say he was a Narcissist and to some degree he was. What kept him on the border was that he had a heart and a soul. He cared very deeply for the people around him. He was a reluctant leader, I think, though he craved being on top. I suspect many people have this push-pull, who are in power and you can see this is the way that they hesitate. It makes sense to have moments of despair because with authority comes exhaustion: emotionally, physically, and mentally. A Narcissist isn’t quite into self-growth or introspection as Don Draper was. A Narcissist thinks they are perfect, just the way they are.  He had to behave like a Narcissist because this was a power play. It kept him from looking like a failure or a “Dick,” Whitman (his real name if you have forgotten).

The final episode seemed to be taking its time getting to that last frame. In doing so, many things happened to this character. He learned his first wife was going to die of cancer and he would lose the right to raise all of his children in lieu of another family member. Not a big deal, he would continue to have visits as he does now.  His company completely collapsed and this time he made a choice to walk away and give it all up. The road trip seemed to be a soul searching journey. A Jack Kerouac mixed with Charles Kuralt.  He seemed to be letting it all go, getting naked, something that needs to happen in order to have a truly eye-opening, aha, kind of moment. For someone in power as he was, it would have taken quite a major shakedown in order for him to begin again. In the end, it was a simple loss to be trapped at a self-help resort. The phone call where he was on the ground in tears was his final break down before having his break-through. He had now shed away all the layers and there was nothing left of him except an empty space inside of a used up body.

In the final scene, he is in a lotus position, deep in meditation and has a smile on his face. There was a sense of inner peace that I myself have felt and have seen on a great many others in the same posture. The grounds he had been left at gave a feeling of utopia. Heaven, some might say, but this is a very naïve way of looking at things. It could have been Big Sur or Point Reyes, places that do not make one think of committing suicide but of happiness and joy. The last thing on my mind when the credits began to roll was that Don Draper was going to become a Tony Robbins type of person. As soon as this came to my mind, I began to reminisce my own 80’s as well as imagine the future for the character. What we were left with was a brilliant new beginning.  Enlightenment.

The time period, at the end of this season, was the 70’s and it was when many motivational speakers were making their mark amongst young adults as well as the older ones. It was the advent of the “me” generation. People like Werner Erhard were already giving EST workshops around the country. Tony Robbins would make his start at the very end of the seventies and would later become famous for his “walking on hot coals,” which people would proclaim had changed their life. Scientology began to become infamous as a celebrity no, no and kabbalah would later become an “in” thing that was respected amongst the rich and famous. It is natural to assume that Don Draper would suddenly re-emerge on the scene as a motivational speaker and end up a very wealthy man.

Having been to many self-awareness workshops over the years, it gives me great delight to imagine Don Draper as one of those leaders. Most of us who have been to these seminars already know the rest of the story and I think it will give them a chuckle to realize this is probably correct. It was an amazing way to end the series and well played out along the years, so that it made sense the show would end just this way. This is what I had begun to wonder about way back when he was writing the book and so I think it wrapped up quite nicely and believably. Congratulations to Matthew Weiner for creating a masterpiece. It is a rare thing to have such an insightful and well written program.

written by Annika Valour, March 6, 2016