Horton Hears a Who

What does it take to win the no. 1 rated box office smash? The Disney G-rated movie Horton hears a Who won this weekends opening title. Jim Carey playing the voice of Horton made for a comical relief message that turned a new tune towards the end.

In a crazy turn of events it appears as if the new box office hits appear to be the less gory less sexualized G-rated Disney animated movies. I myself having seen this movie over the weekend thought it incredible.

Horton hears a Who being a favorite child story this movie was right up my ally. In fact it is right up anyones alley. That seems to be the appeal of the movie anyone can see and enjoy the beautiful plot line and hilarious jokes along the way. All in all this movie was a hit and worth your time a definite must see.

Mr. O

Mr. O

Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympiad (Mr.O) are prized titles that set a god-like level of physique as the basis for entrance into the competition. Cheating to attain a title of such nature seems unethical and immoral yet the use of steroids has become a devastating problem in these competitions. Politics don’t fall far from the dumbbell for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger’s strategic marriage to achieve political success, marrying into the elite political family, the Kennedys’, seems as immoral as his steroid use in attaining his bodybuilding titles. Questions surface to weather these methods of attaining goals are as damaging to Arnold’s character as they seem. In analyzing the incredibly goal oriented lifestyle of the world icon, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the only objective left is to determine if the credit is justly due.

In 1968 the twenty-one year old Arnold Schwarzenegger emigrated into the U.S.

from Austria with only a mindful of determination to live off of. Barbara Baker became Arnold’s first girlfriend in the U.S. just seven months after his immigration. Mrs. Barker in an interview with The Daily Telegraph described Arnold as, “a prolific goal setter, Arnold would write rediculous objectives at the start of the year on index cards, and succeed in doing all of them.” She goes on to include, “(Arnold) had this incredible focus and that was very stimulating. He's as much a self-made man as it's possible to be - he never got encouragement from his parents, his family, his brother. He just had this huge determination to prove himself, and that was very attractive.” Mrs. Barker in the interview includes that Arnold had told her of his goals to become Governor of California in the seventies.

Setting the political career goal of becoming governor early questions if Schwarzenegger’s marriage to television journalist Maria Shriver, niece of John F. Kennedy was a means to achieve an end, his goal of governor, or real love. Marrying into the most prized political family would defiantly give political spotlight to Arnold. Coincidence seems far-fetched yet a twenty-two year marriage yielding four children seems a highly extravagant means to achieve a goal. With similar common interests, politics and media, Schwarzenegger and Shriver’s marriage appears to have a firm foundation. The couple both working in media are viewed by the general public to be fairly attractive figures. Arnold being awarded the treasured O seven times is labeled with the single greatest bodybuilding physique ever! Money and fame are worth no consideration as the two independently acquired both. The intent for marrying Maria Shriver seems an unanswerable question that tangles a goal oriented man with his success.

In Arnold’s defense his accomplishments in bodybuilding are what built him the name and title that made him what he is today. Arnold’s workouts are preformed throughout the nation in attempts to become Arnold Strong. Arnold’s accomplishments are what brought him into the media and presented the chance to even meet a Kennedy. From his early days as an actor and devoted bodybuilder Schwarzenegger has persevered to achieve excellence. What is Arnold’s, the Great Oak, claim to fame… twenty-two inch biceps. Arnold recollects in a Muscle and Fitness interview his bodybuilding measurements, “during the peak of my career, my calves were 20 inches, thighs 28.5 inches, waist 34 inches, chest 57 inches, and 22-inch arms.” These measurements to an ordinary bodybuilder seem factitious, requiring devoted perseverance for the entirety of ones life to obtain. Or steroids! Arnold has admitted to the fact of using illegal anabolic steriod. Arnold claims that, “steroids were helpful to me in maintaining muscle size while on a strict diet in preparation for a contest. I did not use them for muscle growth, but rather for muscle maintenance when cutting up.” It is believed that Schwarzenegger won his first Mr. Olympia title using just

3-Dianabol(Methandrostenolone) once per day. The competition for the Mr. O title has seen a vast majority of its contenders using anabolic steroids. Some estimates place the use of steroids at eighty percent. During Arnold’s rein as Mr. O few tests and little information is avaible on steriod use. Speculation places a high percentage of the athletes at the contest even during Arnold’s time under the influence of preformance inhancing drugs.

Arnold resorting to drugs to get a compettitive edge may label him a poor role model but his attributes to bodybuilding are unmatched. Being the figure head for bodybuilding, Arnold invented more than twenty-five exercises that tax muscles to their limits. As Time Magazine puts it, “He outpsyched his opponents as well as out — trained them. He did a deeply American thing: he took a bohemian subculture and infused it with the hard — edged, competitive ethos of capitalism.”His invention of triple drop sets and multiple angular rotations produces a physique that catapulted him into Hollywood.

Arnold’s roles in film come as no surprise. A super-human physique is necessary for roles such as the Terminator and Connan the Barbarian. Yet, Arnold reaches a height in acting few others achieve as the single highest paid actor. Arnold had no help in becoming a movie icon and his movie status would prove to carry into his political life as the Governator.

Arnold in numerous respects is self taught and self made. Arriving in the U.S. knowing less then 200 English words his vocabulary expanded almost as quickly as his social life. Arnold made his first million before the age of thirty and before his roles in film. A brick laying company with fellow Mr. Olympian Franco Columbu would prove a successful start to Arnold’s rise to the top. Schwarzenegger’s brick laying company was known for its marketing savvy and ability to lay twice as many bricks as the competition in the same day. Arnold invested profits from the brick laying company into what he knew best, bodybuilding. The highly successful business ventures of Arnold were all to his credit he gives praise to other entrepreneurs such as Donald Trump for their advice and know-how but cites that he was self motivated and highly determined to succeed.

The question left standing for the sixty-one year old Schwarzenegger is weather the credit is justly due? In the two California elections that placed Arnold in office as governor voting was superfluously in his favor. Winning both elections by more than a million votes it is quite evident that his rein as governor is as treasured as his rein as Mr. O. Arnold as a role model appears flawed but to modern standards it is just to hard to tarnish a surname as long as his. Presumably all of politics is a popularity contest with a prime example being the current president George W. Bush. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the American Dream a self made highly goal oriented man with a vision. His methods in attaining this dream are questionable but at best dust under the plate rack. Arnold as he stands 6’2, 240 has the drive that is necessary in a political office. His charisma from a highly social lifestyle is only seconded by his goal oriented mind. Arnold Schwarzenegger quite simply is a leader and damn fine one at that!

From New York Times Monday, March 3

Attributes to the Job


Shockingly money doesn’t seem to be the issue for the 43-year-old actress Mary-Louise Parker. Winning a 2001 Tony Award and receiving rich raves for her performances in numerous theatrical performances Ms. Parker is a very well distinguished actress with a love for acting. Her recent arrival on the small screen in “Weeds,” “Angels in America,” and ‘West Wing” has brought about complications in her life that can be described as a nightmarish. Ms. Parkers describes the prying impulses of paparazzi repeatedly as “inelegant.” The moral failings of paparazzi produce a voyeuristic fascination with celebrities that questions what the public should have privilege too and what is too far.

Campbell Robertson’s interview with Mary-Louise Parker casts the question: “Does tabloid attention come with the job?” Neither Robertson nor Ms. Parker agree that it should. Ms. Parker displays her hatred for tabloid exploitation in comparing it to a sexual assault crime. Ms. Parker draws an analogy between a woman wearing a short skirt and asking for it to her exploitation as an actress by the paparazzi. The fundamental debate of tabloid slander and paparazzi hounding is never bluntly addressed but lines are given to the subject matter. Ms. Parker portrays paparazzi as having gone too far and making the lives of many celebrities hell when off the set.

Robertson’s interview fails to addresses the question between acceptable celebrity fascination and fascination that crosses the line. In her opening paragraph Robertson quotes Ms. Parker in saying, very matter-of-factly, that she had tried to get out of this interview. At first glance Ms. Parker’s interview dilemma was thought to be from her indecision to solely do theatre or to do both theatre and the small screen. Yet after finishing the story, questions arise to weather Ms. Parker really just wants to keep her life private and the interview itself perturbs her.

The interview of Mary-Louise Parker gives a definite sense of her attitude. Unwilling to allow her small screen performances to be edited or rearranged Mary-Louise Parker comes off as a strong independent actress. Robertson describes talking to her to be “rather intimidating.” Her strong attitude comes across very prevalently when she addresses the directors of “Weeds” in editing her performances saying, “People were made aware.” Robertson goes on to include, “when she made clear, loud and clear, that her performances were not to be edited and rearranged without her knowledge.” Describing the facial features of Ms. Parker during the interview Robertson questions if 125 pound Ms. Parker has the strength to actually rip her head off. Robertson finds the tight-pursed lips of Ms. Parker’s frigid and they come out during their discussion of paparazzi. It is evident from the uptight speech of Ms. Parker that her hatred for the discussion of her offstage life has altered her mood and gives a different portrayal of her in this interview.

The security of family is the only thing Mary-Lousie Parker mentions as a viable reason to give up the job (acting) that she so loves and is so good at. Yet this security is being breached as Ms. Parker mentions, “Living in a fishbowl is a nightmare, but doubly so when family is involved.” Possibly her tabloid moment with Billy Crudup is still resonating in her mind but doubtable so. More to the point falls the question that was tip toed around in the interview, “Does tabloid attention come with the job?” In all practical purposes the answer seems easy, but in transcending to different jobs and their respective stereotypical attributes maybe the answer isn’t so clear. Is being an asshole a prerequisite for being a cop?

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin during his life composed a thesis on the evolution of a species and how its processes are carried out. Darwin the wise and religious man he was saw the implications to his findings and set his thesis aside for many years (12 years). In the advent of someone else making claim to his discoveries he published Origin of Species a comprehensive look at observations noted while aboard The Beagle.

In much the same fashion as then people have looked at these findings through distorted lenses. The great debate over the question of God not only arose in the publishing of Darwin’s thesis but also still persists today. Taking a comparative look at the mindsets of then and now I aim to distinguish truths about the theory of evolution and its poor liking.


Further undertakings of the project will delve into the lives of some Americans today who have closed their mind to the ideas of science. Specifically touching on the awe that is inspired by the complexity of science I hope to mold a discussion that leds to a greater understanding of the how a supreme being can still be assumed while accepting the inevitable fact that is evolution.

Product Placement

In the new book entitled Cathy’s Book a very problematic situation arose. Ms. Wells the author talks with companies that her characters use in the book. The talks often lead to the company such as Cover Girl supporting the book with additional advertisement and sponsorship. Cathy’s Book is geared towards the teen girl population and has become a best seller. Problems arise with other novelists doing similar endeavors. Which characters are simply promoting products and which truly should be written the way they are is a tough distinction. Ms. Wells states, “ Mackenzie loves Converse. Does Converse want a to work with us? I have no clue. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Mackenzie loves Converse.” However when asked later if Nike came to her to strike a deal Ms. Wells said she could write in a character that liked Nike.


The moral dilemma arises with when has a book gone to far with its promotions. In the growing world of advertisement today are novels/books a free enterprise yet untapped. Or is it propaganda to let young children get plugged repeatedly for the silly things they don’t need? Books should be tools of learning not tools for advertisement, down with the corporations.

From New York Times (Tuesday Feb 19, 2008)

If These Walls Could Talk

Enjoying a beer late one night, Edward Albee saw scrawled in graffiti the line “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf,” in a bathroom mirror. This stuck him as, “a rather typical, university intellectual joke.” Later Albee put these words of wit to use as the title to his now infamous play. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf was very edgy for its publication date in 1962, yet won multiple awards including a Tony Award for Best Play. The play centers on two university faculty couples and their masochistic drunken games. The Whole Art Theatre’s unique seating (theatre in the round) and George and Martha’s roles being flawlessly acted by a married couple, Martie and Richard Philpot, made for a conviction of emotion that led to a sensation on stage.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf revolves around an alcoholic night of torturous games played by the two couples. These games divulge intricate detail about the marital status of the two couples. George sarcastically titles the four games: “Humiliate the Host,” “Get the Guests,” “Hump the Hostess,” and “Bringing up Baby.” In the first game “Humiliate the Host,” George is crushed with humiliation as Martha describes him as a “FLOP.” Her claims that he will never amount to anything more than an Associate Professor of History are taken to heart. In “Get the Guests,” George turns his humiliation towards Nick and Honey by addressing their “hysterical pregnancy” and consequential marriage. “Hump the Hostess” is an act committed between Nick and Martha. However, it was found unbelievable in the play as Nick fails to fully roam the body of Martha. Instead, Nick keeps his hands and lips to himself. The final game leaves Martha utterly distraught as George relays information to her that their son has died.

The older couple George and Martha has a very angry and volatile relationship that finds them lashing out at one another verbally and often physically. One scene finds George strangling his wife in a fit of anger. Randy Wolfe decision as director to use the married actors Martie and Richard Philpot to play Martha and George was ingenious. They depict the chemistry and hatred of George and Martha’s long-standing marriage to near perfection. Slapping and spitting on one another in deep verbal arguments with gusto, their parts have impeccable believability. In comparison to Martie and Richard few could have lived up to the expectations set for the younger couple. A sub-par performance was witnessed from Trevor Maher as Nick and Carol Zombro as Honey.

The theater in the round setting makes for a spectacular viewing experience. Situated in seats that corresponded to the walls of George and Martha’s living room, the outlandish conversations are viewed from an insider perspective. This vantage point captures the full expression of the actors. As Martha taunts George over his failures, his bottom lip quivers and his face becomes bright red with frustration. The theatre in the round produces a conviction of feelings as antagonizing lines are shot from one actor to another. The emotion on the actor’s faces was as easy to read as the words on the program.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf enthralls the audience with its twisting plotline and voracious argumentative dialogue. The sensation of the play is attributed to the raw emotion that George and Martha wore on their faces with each line they spat at one another. The pair’s quality of acting was closely seconded by the effects of the theatre in the round. It was this seating that gave a real feel for being a part of the set, a wall to the room, a close observer to the madness at hand.

Maybe More Isn't Better

A growing number of Americans find comfort in a psychologist. The overly worked and overly stressed American lifestyle often leads to repressing problems. Americans unable to conjure enough time to work through their own matters employ a psychologist. HBO, recognizing this common denominator in Americans, airs its original series In Treatment. Cornering an audience, HBO allows viewers to look into the psychoanalytical appointments of fictional characters. Addressing the depressing problems of others In Treatment fails to hold the viewer’s attention. In Treatment’s plot line is overtaxing, the action of it’s characters are unbelievable, and its short episodes address a depressing topic.

In an opening episode the patient Laura (Melissa George) sits weeping for an exuberantly drawn out period. Long enough to merit changing the station. In a frantic ultimatum between marriage and separation Laura leaves her boyfriend. Escaping to a bar she randomly has sex in the bathroom with an unknown man. The sound of pissing in the neighboring stall conjures different feelings in Laura. After halting the unknown man’s penetration Laura pleasures him in other ways. She explains all of this to her psychoanalyst Paul Weston (Gabriel Byrne) down to every last detail, and then leaves the room to throw up. Laura then ends the session by confessing feelings for Paul. Placing Laura, the emotionally distraught and love seeking women, next to the well-composed psychoanalyst made Laura’s love confession all to predictable from the beginning. Furthermore, the writers take Laura’s story too far making it unbelievable and hard to identify with the character of Laura. A one nightstand at her place might have been believable but a bar bathroom is gross. Sex may sell but the extent to which it is taken leaves a sickly aftertaste.

To end each week of episodes Paul visits his own therapist Dr. Gina Toll (Dianne Wiest) who was an old mentor to Paul. A long mentor/mentee history is drawn between them, yet the reason for their fallout is never brought to light. Fighting through their session together the dissonance between them is also failed to be resolved. The problem would seem easy for two psychoanalysts to address but is only danced around. Paul the central character of the series would presumably be the character most developed. However, little information about Paul is given. Instead more problems with his life are presented that tax the viewer further. Pleading for information about the relationship between Gina and Paul the conversational session only leads to more tangles that frankly just annoy. The poorly written episode ends with no idea of why Paul has chosen now to visit Gina. The limited information given does not intrigue, it angers.

In Treatment looks at the problems of our overstressed Americans head on. Americans in an awkwardly ironic scenario have turned to the unrealistic dilemmas of television for enjoyment and release. Finding release in the overly complex problems that Laura brings on herself seems counter intuitive in this age of stress. Theses depressing problems aren’t a release but a form of masochism that only prompts further stress. In Treatment is designed for the rising mass of overly worked overly stressed Americans who will stay up for thirty more minutes to get a fix of drama.