I was looking forward to the show, it being the first concert for me in two years. I had taken a liking to going to concerts solo, especially for a band that I’ve followed since I was 15 years old, no friend nor companion could possibly keep up with my enthusiasm. I got there reasonably early and felt like a nerd. Somehow I found myself front row centre and I wasn’t even trying! The crowd was mature, peppered with a few rambunctious and surely high early-twenty-somethings that I theorize discovered the BRMC in their high school heydays while watching the O.C. – Misha Barton was really into the band.

The opening band came and went and I was anxiously grasping the railing of the barricade. The lights went dim and I caught myself by surprise squealing like a schoolgirl and applauding as the band hit the stage.

The excitement of seeing your favourite band live is overwhelming. I felt myself regressing to an adolescent state of uncontrollable girlish glee. I made fantastical and highly unlikely assumptions about Robert Levon Been giving me the eye (as if he could see through the blinding fucking lights into the crowd); assessed that Leah Shapiro and Peter Hayes were an item (speculation, guys, don’t go quoting me on this, I’m no clairvoyant) and hopped over the barricade because Robert Levon Been told me so (with total disregard for myself and the person I probably kicked in the face). This was an evening; a complete departure from the buttoned-down 27-year-old woman I have become…what happened?

Rock n Roll, of course.

     Pep Talk

I’m a

ragamuffin

from the streets, I trained you

to be a ruffian, not a

loser

READ! Whitney’s sonnet: “the mention of mermaids“ in response to our 2012 sonnet challenge and “genuine article“ for this year’s cinquain challenge.

There is an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer to that effect: “Beer Bad”.

Despite her superhuman strength and larger-than-life destiny, Buffy is susceptible to very human moments – like that feeling of confusion and worthlessness following what she didn’t think was going to be a one-night stand, but was. Against her deepest desires for and assumptions about the date, it wound up a one-night stand that meant nothing to him, but meant so much to her. So when Parker (his name was Parker) didn’t call after the fact, Buffy felt the way most women feel about a situation they have no control over: that something was wrong with her. That she was undesirable, that she did something or said something that would incite a seemingly drastic behavioural change in a person.

She has not done a thing. She is awesome. Parker clearly has way more issues than she does and she’s a fucking slayer! But she doesn’t see that yet. She justifies his “intimacy issues” by mentioning the death of his father; to which Willow responds, “Not interested. Tell it to the bartender.” Who cares what his reasons are for going from girl to girl, unable to commit? Buffy must move on, right? Right, but easier said than done…

“I might not deserve this, but do you think you could forgive me?”

For every ounce of her that calls him a stupid face, she equally wants him back. She wants him to recognize that he was wrong to treat her that way. And even though I scoff at the delusional things Buffy says in defence of Parker, I am doing the same thing in my situation. It all goes back to this idea of self-worth. Buffy (and I) know deep down that we are valuable and to have these boys threaten to take away our feelings of worth, it hurts. There is pride involved.

So when a group of charming gents come along and invite Buffy to have drinks with them, call her beautiful and appreciate her company, who is she to say no? Because a member of the opposite sex rejected her, she feels comfort when a group of the opposite sex welcomes her. And it’s kind of a blow to the egos of her close friends who have spent hours, oh I don’t know, listening to her emotional ramblings, helping her rationalize the situation, boost her morale, you know, be there for her! Yet, somehow, these drunken, non-committal social settings with boys are what get us to forget the boy because we are surrounded by other boys and we stand out as the only girl (and we like that we stand out as the only girl). This is all fine, but it is counter-productive. It’s a distraction from the time Buffy or I should be spending trying to fall in-love with ourselves.

Buffy got to demonstrate her value at the end of the episode. She saves Parker’s life, he recognizes her worth and apologizes for the way he treated her. Buffy got what she wanted as well as just desserts – she conked him over the head with a large branch. I don’t have that convenient luxury written for me. And maybe I do want my ex to hold a bouquet of roses in one hand and a tub of ice cream in the other while apologizing for his inexplicable change of heart… I know that what I truly want is to be whole again. Alone.

Like I expected, he wrote what he knew and added a surrealist twist to it – again, the influence of his writing heroes. Was it a cohesive piece of writing? No. At least, not yet. And I lined the harsh criticism I offered with encouragement and optimism. He wants this, who am I to tell him he doesn’t have what it takes?

I knew he liked the Mighty Boosh, so I made them an example of how long it takes to craft solid comedic material. Personally, I have only seen the television series Steve Coogan’s company produced in 2004 to 2007, but the Boosh have been around since 1998. Before the TV series, there were The Mighty Boosh stage shows, numerous fringe festival performances and radio-dramas. Noel Fielding and Julian Barratt were stand-up comedians, playing the English clubs, testing out their own brand of comedy before they met and formed a partnership. In addition to comedy, they are both multi-disciplinary artists in music, art and stage performance that oriented the energy and content of their writing. They were working actors too. Throughout those years, they surely struggled and failed and staggered and fell and kept getting back up again until the hard work paid off. And I’m sure they had fun the whole way through, even though the life of a performance artist is often a rough one financially.

The Boosh aren’t the only ones that found mainstream success later than when they started. Louis C.K. is much funnier now than when he was in the 90s. He was in the background writing for Conan O’Brien, Dana Carvey, Letterman, Cedric the Entertainer, among others. And let’s not forget a little movie called Pootie Tang. Louis C.K. wasn’t the confident, intellectual yet still inherently insecure funny-man we see today – he ate a lot of shit, as is customary in the industry, and worked his keister off and worked through a lot of crap before honing the insightful and hilarious material for his comedy. Ditto for Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee and even Ken Jeong, who gave up being a doctor to work in Hollywood, could you believe it?

There are so many variables…a-ha! Zaligano! Fucking Zaligano! That’s what I called him. Stupid name. Why’d I give him that? Anyway, there are so many variables to a successful writing career in comedy. More than anything you need a strong support system around you to whom you can test out your material. You also have to be able to self-critique and be critiqued. Strong neck, thick skin – that’s what a writer is. And don’t stop.

I just met the guy so I think the rules of civility apply and I can’t be unsupportive, so I tell him to write me something. I give him a deadline – he has one week (from today) to deliver a sketch – beginning, middle and end – and goddamn! it must be funny. Either way, I’m excited to read what a passionate person with a loose concept of story structure will deliver. I’ll be posting about what he puts out so stay tuned!

I believe Zaligano’s yearning to write sketch comedy comes from his love of cerebral yet eccentric, at times dark, outlandish humour he grew up with – Ren & Stimpy, Kids in the Hall…. – content envelope pushers like Arrested Development and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and contemporary British comedy series, among them The Mighty Boosh and Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace. He feels the current comedy standards in the United Kingdom are much higher than North America’s and thus Zaligano aspires to write comedy of a UK standard, which is admirable. I, myself, have just begun to delve into the world of BBC comedy and I am taken and amused by the sophisticated level of writing.

I just hope Zaligano is not simply enamoured by the idea of being a comedy writer…

I think people like Judd Apatow and his buddies (Apatow regulars like Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel…) or the Frat Pack (Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell, Vince Vaughn…) make the idea of comedy writing a fun, glamorous and easy thing. A very macho – guys and their beers and their women somewhere in the background – kind of thing. I think this because Zaligano has expressed his need for a writing partner, who “gets” his brand of comedy. You may have clued in on the sceptic tone throughout this post…

It’s not that I want Zaligano to fail. It’s that I know how difficult it is to write something good and I am put off by, and perhaps even envious at, his naiveté. I used to feel so much excitement, so much energy, so much ease about writing before I knew what good writing was and so my envy for my friend may be the fear that I am not working on my own writing as much as I should. (Hence, this first blog post in 2 months…)

If anything, Zaligano is motivating me to get back into the writing game after slacking for so long. Okay, Zaligano, try me.

On a shoot recently, I had the pleasure of fraternizing with a troupe of young gents from the Niagara region, who played junior hockey. Some were in leagues, others just played for fun. They were called in to be extras in a short film.

I was working out of the same space they were being held until they were needed and overheard their banter as I set up my work station and apologized profusely for the inconvenience. An inconvenience they refused to acknowledge, instead they helped me set up and complimented me on how polite I was (I suppose big city slickers don’t have the nicest of reputations around those parts?) and how I did not look 27 (I had to work that in here somehow).

Their chatter about waking up so early to sit around, comparing moustaches, about who’s going to Jessica’s friend Maureen’s party on Saturday kept me entertained throughout the day. It was right then and there that I realized that “jocks” have been a foreign species to me. I had never fraternized or even associated academically with anyone I’d consider a jock.

Yeah, just like Moose in this episode of the Simpsons.

There were pseudo-jocks in my secondary school – non-committal interpretations of the high school hero, but the jock was definitely an anglophone, highly American concept with subsets that exist in different cultures. But these jocks on set were different – they weren’t the power-hungry, villainous and ego-obsessed jocks often portrayed on 90s television. No. They were, in fact, far more sympathetic than today’s nerd. I can happily say that these jocks were probably the most engaging individuals on set. Not to knock my fellow cast and crew members, but perhaps I’m partial because the Niagara gents reminded me of Rocky in their uncouth, down-to-earth, unfiltered conversation, bravado and pure love of hockey.

An hour after they had arrived, the “actor hockey players” came in, whom the Niagara gents were not shy to liken to OneDirection. Maybe it was the actors’ smooth skin, chiselled jaw-lines, clean-shaven-ness, slick-gelled hair and gym-toned muscles that prompted the reaction. Whatever it was, it didn’t stop the Niagara gents from being so…so…catty! How very uncharacteristic for a group of macho men; yet it was humanizing behaviour in a group who represented a larger than life personality in Canadian society: the all-mighty hockey player.

But the social barrier was broken – these jocks and I were one and the same.

BECHDEL TEST:

(1) The film has two or more [named] women characters (2) Who talk to each other (3) About something other than a man.

Sounds simple. Yet you’d be surprised at how many films fail the test. As Anita Sarkeesian explains in her Intro to the Bechdel Test video below, the test is not about determining whether a film is feminist or not, nor good or not. The Test determines a societal issue about where women’s stories lie in mainstream cinema; that women aren’t expected to engage in meaningful conversation with one another and if they do, it is to talk about a man. It’s weird.

And to think that gender bias can be solved by creating strong female characters? Unfortunately, the issue at hand is much more complicated.

What about my favourite films? Surely, a person so critical of everything must have discriminating tastes on how women are depicted in film, right? Right?! Let’s see how well my faves do…

1) BUFFALO 66 – dir. Vincent Gallo

There are two or more women in the film? Yes.

Who talk to each other? Yes

About something other than a man? Barely:

Jan stares at Layla.

Pause.

Layla: I’m twenty-eight.

Jan: Oh! You look like a baby! So young and pretty. My son used to be a beautiful baby. Oh! He was just adorable!…Look at him now.

Moving on…

2) HUSBANDS – dir. John Cassavetes

There are two or more women in the film? Yes.

Who talk to each other? Yes.

About something other than a man? Not exactly.

*Annie (Harry’s wife) tells her mother to stay, to sit down, as Harry is in the room. In other instances, women are seen interacting with one another, but we do not hear what they are talking about.

3) THE RED SHOES – dir. Michael Powell

There are two or more women in the film? Yes.

Who talk to each other? Yes, but not much.

About something other than a man? No.

* 1948 – Despite a predominantly female corps de ballet, The Red Shoes does not show them engage in conversation. They exchange but a few words to one another on two occasions and on both those words regard Lermontov.

4) REDBELT – dir. David Mamet

There are two or more women in the film? Yes

Who talk to each other? Yes

About something other than a man? Yes!

*The dialogue between women in this film is sparse, but the content of the exchange creates a ripple effect plot-wise. Mamet is known for male-centric storytelling and though his female characters are strong, they find themselves fighting for a place amongst men.

5) OPENING NIGHT – dir. John Cassavetes

There are two or more women in this film? Yes.

Who talk to each other? Yes.

About something other than a man? Yes!

*I refer to Opening Night in a previous post, Girls.

++

Damsels in Distress (2011) dir. Whit Stillman

1985 – the Bechdel Test has been around since my birth, but what prompted me to write this post now was circumstance. I watched a couple of films, one by a man (Whit Stillman), one by a woman (Nicole Holofcener), both passing the test with flying colours, neither of them specifically feminist, though they can be viewed that way. So I watched these films and felt, and I hate admitting to this, restless, unaccustomed when men weren’t in the picture, nor part of it in reference.

Please Give (2010) dir. Nicole Holofcener

Say, you grow up with gender bias chiselled into your everyday and even if you are critical of the treatment you or someone you know has received as a minority, there is still an inherent sexism that forces us to adjust to what is supposed to be an everyday thing – like two women talking about their ideas.

Again, the Bechdel Test isn’t a feminist film test – Showgirls (1995) passes – nor a test to determine the strength of a film – Showgirls, again…(although I do like Showgirls…)

What was the last film you saw that passed the Bechdel Test? Think about it.

1) ELLEN RIPLEY

I was Ripley last Halloween and I think it turned out great considering I committed to the costume on the day…Behold!

See? Seemless.

What you’ll need:

• white T-shirt
• space pants (khaki or commando-style pants will do just fine!)
• High-top sneakers (Converse are fine)
• cinnamon, steeped dark tea bag or coffee grains (or all) to stain the T-shirt (these are to simulate the dirtiness of Ripley’s costume, but if you have a white mangy T-shirt lying around you don’t mind wearing – go for it!)
• Toy machine gun (I put black foamboard as a facade, but realized how unnecessary it was)
• Black straps or suspenders

2) LISA SIMPSON AS “FLOREDA”

This one is a bit more involved, but, like Principal Skinner says in the episode, it is a costume done by a student who clearly had no help from her parents. So you can do it too!

What you’ll need:

• Two pieces of cardboard (or any such malleable material available) cut long and narrow to the length/width of your body, rounded at top and bottom.
• Grey fabric or grey paint to cover said cardboard – don’t forget to cut the hole for your face at, of course, face level.
• Duct tape or heavy duty masking tape (the more DIY, the better)
• Black marker – don’t forget to spell it F-L-O-R-E-D-A!
• an orange

3) RALPH WIGGUM AS “IDAHO”

[See Above Photo]

A few of you lazybones will be drawn to this one over Lisa’s because it takes little to no effort and is essentially idiot-proof.

What you’ll need:

• A piece of loose-leaf paper cut to the shape of the state of Idaho (so a little research involved)
• Tape
• Pencil (to write Idaho, duh)

4) LOIS LANE

Lois Lane has been interpreted in many ways from trench-coated to pant-suited to blazer-wearin. Surely, whatever you have in your closet saved for work, a job interview or political rally is Lois Lane material….This costume may be more accessible to women or whoever has regular access to clothing that match these descriptions…

What you’ll need:

• Power suit (skirt or pant) or skirt/pant & buttoned up blouse tucked in skirt or pant
• Pumps or dress shoes
• small flip notebook & pen
• tape recorder (optional)

*Replace notebook & pen with stack of books and you’ve got a Librarian costume, cover your shoulders with a cardigan and you’re set!

5) CHARLIE KELLY (IT’S ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA)

Charlie has a variety of “outfits” that are synonymous with “lazy schlub” – I’m sure something in your closet fits one of his many looks.

What you’ll need:

• Just raid your closet…you’ll find something.

6) HELLO, MY NAME IS: GOD

…can equally be done for SATAN.

What you’ll need:

• “Hello, my name is” sticker tag
• Black marker to fill in the name
• Your favourite outfit

It was fun – more than anything I felt like I learned a ton about what I can and can’t get away with structurally, how to delegate properly and, most importantly, how to communicate effectively with an actor. I don’t want to say much about the fruit of my loins, though I do value it for the knowledge I gained from it, but…as hard as it is for me…I am curious to hear what you have to say about it.

So without further ado:

The existence of Lena Dunham was introduced to me in the worst possible way: as a guest on the Colbert Report. It is my dream to be on that show – to hold my own against Stephen Colbert in a way that so many have tried and so little have triumphed. My dream! And Lena Dunham did it at my age, promoting her new show on HBO that she has full creative control over.

I was jealous. Could you believe it? So jealous. Envious – that’s the word. It’s worse than jealousy because the reasoning behind it is even more intangible. Why did I envy Lena Dunham? And why was I relishing in articles and gossip that took her down a peg? I get that the industry I work in is competitive, but this was not healthy. I was stewing. Why did I not champion my fellow woman?

Most female aggression is indirect (psychological, etc.) and rarely physical unless in competition for survival.

I have an odd relationship with women, but, quite frankly, I think all women do to one another. I used to make this observation of myself, I used to say, “I have a hard time getting along with women” and when I met a woman I felt an affinity for, I would whip out that line. Sometimes that woman would respond back with, “Me too!” and I’d think we had progress, this relationship was on its way to friendship. What I was really doing by saying that line, however, is levelling out the playing field and setting up some ground rules. Unconsciously, of course. By stating that line, I expected from this woman to understand that this buddy-buddyness would not work if she lets me down. In any way. Basically, I expected her to be infallible – I was setting her up for rejection. Likewise, this has been done onto me.

I don’t say that line any more. Yes, I became conscious of its significance, but also because I realized that most of my closest, dearest friends and family members are women. Somehow that doesn’t stop me from shunning my female peers for succeeding and doing “better at life” than me. Women can be so cruel to one another and yet we yearn so deeply for female connections.

Hey, I’m human and I am capable of change.

It took Phyllis Chesler 20 years to finish writing this book. Most women refuse to acknowledge or even rationalize their differences with other women and so I understand the hesitation, if there ever was any.

I started reading this book. It’s really depressing because I realized that I spent all of this time becoming the person that I am and I’m still terrible. It’s kind of like working for years on a screenplay (or any personal project) and then having someone tell you “that’s not very good, start over” – that’s it! I feel like I’m starting from scratch, trying to de-program myself of attitudes and reactive behaviours that over the years have become automatic.

“Opening Night” (1977) by John Cassavetes – one of my favourite films. It wasn’t the main story, but Dorothy’s character arc really got to me. She overcomes her jealousy of Myrtle (unbeknownst to Myrtle) and develops an admiration for an equal.

I applaud Ms. Dunham. Wholeheartedly. She lucked out, which I mean in no way disparagingly. It’s just the nature of the business. But from one professional to another, the show’s not so great. I do understand the appeal though, in that there aren’t really any shows on television that portray women in their 20s (or “girls”) dramatically; and for tapping into a demographic seldom targeted, I salute you.