Here's another blast from the past. I used to listen to this one over and over. It was cathartic. It helped me feel like someone out there could relate. It's interesting how the human mind filters and applies various contexts on the fly. For example,
No one heard
No one came
No angel of mercy
Appears to know her name
This piece of the song I took quite literally. No one seemed to hear my prayers. No one came. There was no angel of mercy coming to "rescue" me from my attractions. On the other hand:
And she sees her future falling
Til it finds the ocean floor
Oh life, she cries
There must be more
I knew this was probably talking about suicide, but while I often wished my life was over acting on that wish was never really in the picture for me. Still, something about the imagery of a future lost in darkness and oblivion spoke to me. It was just a metaphor.
On the dock her soul is sinking
But her spirit longs to soar
Oh life, she cries
There must be more
Another part I related to personally and more literally.
Sometimes, it's nice to be able to listen to a song and know that you don't feel that way anymore.
I haven't heard this song in a while, but it came up on my playlist today. Mulan was released in 1998. My wife and I had agreed we would separate just before Thanksgiving 1998. We waited for the holidays to pass, and I moved out January 5, 1999. Needless to say 1998 was a rough year. I remember being floored by this song the first time I saw the movie. Even now hearing it again brings back all those feelings of inadequacy and seeing no way for things to ever change.
It may even have been this song that started my long slide to leaving the church and coming out. It articulated how I was feeling so perfectly. It almost felt like someone was trying to tell me something. If that song started it, this one cinched it.
(Try and get past the awful music video. I'm making a serious point here.) Footloose was originally released in 1984. Being completely clueless, I hadn't figured out I was gay at the time, even though I totally related to that song and felt that yearning for a prince charming come to rescue me. I did say I was completely clueless.
Fast forward to 1999. For the 15 year anniversary of Footloose's release, the soundtrack was remastered and released. Having always had an emotional connection to that soundtrack, I bought the CD. I got it home, popped it into my computer and gave it a listen. Bonnie Tyler's song came on and I suddenly felt like I had been put into a time machine and transported back to 1984. It was like I was 17 again. Nothing about how I felt about that song had changed. I knew then that if nothing in the intervening 15 years had done anything to alter the way that song made me feel, nothing ever would.
So a few weeks ago I posted a nice little graphic that I thought had a nice empowering message with just a bit of f-u to it.
Imagine my chagrin when this song came on the radio this morning in the car and I realized this is where that line comes from, especially since I really like P!nk and that's hardly the first time I've heard the song...
I'm sure many of you are thinking, "Well, duh, Sean." I know. I'm a little slow sometimes.
Since this song just came up on my playlist, let's just make it a musical f-bomb day.
I've never seen the official music video before. I like this one better (even though the whole song isn't there.)
This morning on the Diane Rhem show she interviewed Edward Albee the playwright who wrote Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? When I tuned in, he was relating how the movie studio didn't keep to their original vision of the movie based on Albee's play as described to him. He talked about how the character Martha was 52 in the play, but 32 in the movie and was intended to be 20 years her husband George's senior, but is six years his junior in the movie. He made light of the fact that the verbal agreement he had with the studio "wasn't worth the paper it wasn't written on." Nevertheless he thought the movie was well done, well acted and well directed.
The first caller was a gentleman who called to talk about an all male production of the play he had participated in. I'm sure he was expecting a response along the lines of "That's an interesting idea. How did it go? Was it well received?" But that's not what he got. Albee's response: "I wouldn't have let you do that." You could tell the caller was taken aback by Albee's outright rejection of the idea. He fumbled with his words. He tried to talk about the success of the production, that it was very well received. He also talked about how strictly faithful they were to the script, the only change that was made was to substitute Martha for a man named Richard. I don't remember how many times Albee repeated "I wouldn't have let you do that." He wouldn't engage with the caller at all. He just kept repeating "I wouldn't have let you do that." He did ask if the men were in drag or if they had substituted a gay male for a heterosexual female. When the caller affirmed the second option, Albee's once again stated, "I wouldn't have let you do that. It hardly seems the same to me." (paraphrasing) Apparently he would have been okay with men in drag. There is, after all, a long standing (sexist) tradition in theater of men in drag acting female parts.
I was also disappointed in Diane's response to this interchange. Rather than trying to encourage Albee to engage on the topic, she affirmed his statements and said, "Well, [caller] you've heard it from the source." So much for the journalist who asks hard questions of her guests. I guess if you're a well-known playwright you get a pass. At the very least she could have asked him to elaborate on what exactly the differences are as he sees them. I guess I'm going to have to see the play/movie now. Based on the synopsis I've read, I have a hard time seeing how the sex of the couple is even relevant.
I really felt for the caller. I'm sure the caller expected a playwright with a reputation writing plays that are "are considered well-crafted, often unsympathetic examinations of the modern condition" to be more open to the idea or at the very least to not completely shut down the conversation. I don't know enough about Albee's work to know if the caller's expectations were off base or not. Still, it just goes to show you that you never know how someone is going to react to the subject of homosexuality. In fact, in my experience, it's these types of situations that hurt the most. You go in expecting an affirming response—or worst case, a neutral response—and you walk away feeling sucker punched by hostility.
It also goes to show that even in our more "enlightened" age, there is still a lot of stunning ignorance, even among those we hope are our friends.
Damn. I'm gonna have to break down and read the books again. I own them all. I just gave up on them. George spins a fantastic yarn, but it's been six years since the last book was released and there's no news regarding the next book's release date. The last time George updated his web site on the subject was 2008.
According to Wikipedia, there are two more books after that. Heaven help me. At the rate he's going, I'll end up re-reading the entire series whenever he puts out a new book. Six years is a long time to try and remember a story that complex.
There's also the concern that he'll never finish. George isn't exactly a spring chicken.
From Joe McNalley's Blog:
Visited the Apple store on 5th, and shot a pretty typical up looking view of the spiral staircase there. Liked the graphics of it, until of course an Apple employee stepped up and told me I couldn’t shoot up at the stairs cause somebody might be wearing a skirt. Now in Manhattan the array of people who could be potentially wearing a skirt is widely varied, so I could understand their concern. But really–all you see are the bottoms of shoes. Do I look that desperate? The guy who complained to me musta had the nuns.
"Musta had the nuns." I like that. Oh, and don't you think someone had already thought of that which is why the glass is frosted? Sounds to me like someone can't think of any other reason to be looking up . . .
Not usually a big fan of meme's, and I won't be tagging anyone, but this one seemed interesting.
- turn on your mp3 player
- go to Shuffle songs mode
- Write down the first 25 songs that come up…song title and artist– NO editing/cheating, please.
Not that I ever listen to my music this way. I'm a big believer in play lists.
- Lovestoned [The "MJ" mash up] - New York Rappers
- Shoot The Moon - Norah Jones
- Dancing Boy - Harry Chapin
- Juanita - Shania Twain
- Super Trooper - ABBA
- Two Beds And A Coffee Machine - Savage Garden
- Happy Boys And Girls - Aqua
- Light A Rainbow - Tukan
- Teddy Bear - Elvis Presley
- You Take My Breath Away - Rex Smith
- Beggars At The Feast - Les Miserables
- Love One Another - Cher
- Sand In My Shoes - Dido
- I Got You Babe - Cher/Sonny Bono
- The Prison - Melissa Etheridge
- Everybody Wants The Same Thing - Scissor Sisters
- Epona - Enya
- Thrown Down - Fleetwood Mac
- A View To A Kill - Duran Duran
- Do You Remember - Phil Collins
- Nevarre Returns To Aquila - Alan Parsons Project
- Anything Goes - Patti Lupone
- Blame It On The Weather Man - B*Witched
- Shame - Matchbox 20
- I Love U - Nikki Jane
Milk is a must see. It's an extremely well done movie about a story worth telling. It may have happened in the 70s, but it is no less relevant today. What I think impressed me most is Milk never tried to blend in, never made apologies for who he was, never took the back door.
Utah is gearing up for a political battle over gay rights. It's called the Common Ground Initiative. Theoretically the LDS Church does not have a problem with equal rights for GLBT folk. They know they are safe in saying so because they know no such laws will pass here. Already law makers are opposing the legislation because they fear it will eventually lead to marriage rights for all.
But Equality Utah, the gay rights organization here, is releasing statements saying, "This is not about marriage." Perhaps. Perhaps it is more about calling the LDS Church's bluff, but it still seems disingenuous to me. For one, yes. it. is. It is absolutely a way to get the proverbial foot in the case law door. For another, they are not fooling anyone. Utah's anti-gay amendment will have to be amended or struck down because of the "or anything like unto it" language that exists, and conservative legislators here know it. That is just one reason why I have always disagreed with an "incremental approach."
Separate is never equal and civil unions are already proving to be mostly worthless as far as protecting the rights of the couple when someone decides they don't want to acknowledge them as such. I do not understand why GLBT folk seem so eager to accept table scraps. All we are doing is admitting to ourselves and everyone else that we don't deserve any better.
I've finally sat down and watched Four Weddings and a Funeral. You know what? I really liked it. OK, granted. I'm gay. Chick flicks are not exactly foreign territory. And I must admit the whiskey probably has had some influence on my thinking...or at least what passes for thinking when one has consumed as much whiskey as I have...
Apart from being a sappy love story, what I really liked about it was the gay couple. I suppose the best word for it was poignant. I don't know that D and I will ever get married. For my part: Been there. Done that. D, I think, has marriage bound up with all things religious, which tends to give him the heebie jeebies. Honestly, I cannot blame him.
Spoiler Alert (Surely I'm not the last person to see this movie...)
Nevertheless, married or not, the gay couple in Four Weddings and a Funeral was nice to see. An adorable May to November couple, the funeral was both touching in the expression of love that was given by the surviving partner as is was poignant (do you know how hard it is to spell that word when drunk?)—not only in the fact that they were careful never to appear a couple in public, but also when the surviving husband was introduced as "Gareth's closest friend" and not even in the course of the funeral proper, but as a preface thereto.
How sad is that? OK, the movie is still 20th Century. And over ten years ago, that was probably an extremely progressive move (even if it was "over there" in liberal, god-forsaken Europe). Still, even now in 21st Century America, homosexuality is still "the love that is only just beginning to dare speak its name." There are states where heterosexuals do not even have to make a formal declaration of their love. Spend enough time together and it's a done deal. On the other hand, out of 50 states, only two allow two men to claim the title of husband, as if love and devotion were the purview of human institutions.
Still, married or not, I love D. I know that one should never say never, but at this point in my life I cannot imagine myself ever loving anyone as much as I love my cute Mexican. And you know what? Government sanctioned or not, that should be good enough.
I've always said God did create Adam and Steve. He just didn't put them in the Garden together. I guess I was wrong.
Photo by Marc Da Cunha Lopez