blablabla


6/30/2011

Me, Worrying

The most pitiful thing about me is that I am a worrier. Not warrior. That would be cool.
No, I am worrying. Constantly, about everything. It's not always justified.

Tomorrow is trash day. OMG, did I take out the trash or will I have to sit on stinky leftovers for another week or two?
Did I make a mistake with the salary statement I submitted? Will they think I did it deliberately? Will they be mean to me in jail?
Why does my car make these strange noises? Should I really continue ignoring that flashing control light?
Did I tip the lady in the bakery enough?
(In case she hands out the poisoned bread to unfriendly no-tip customers!)

I could think of a million other trivial things.

Interestingly enough all those minor concerns dissolve into nothingness when there is one giant reason sitting on my chest. I can't eat nor sleep. My husband is sick. He has severe stomach cramps. He is vomiting nonstop. Even the water he drinks doesn't stay inside. There is nothing left in his system but he still can't stop. What if it's an ulcer?
Or something else with c?
I am not worried anymore. By now, it's full-blown panic.

6/27/2011

My audition for Blogger Idol

As I mentioned earlier I auditioned for Blogger Idol 2011. I wrote several entries until I decided to send in the least offensive one. Here it is.

 ---
Hello panel, I am Daniela Renelt aka DasNuk. Wow, me, competing!

The last competition I took part in was a children’s drawing challenge when I was 10 years old.
The local bank organized the event and the first prize was a savings account with 10 Deutschmarks.

We Germans really know how to motivate, don’t we?

The required task was to draw a picture of how we imagined the future of the world to look like. 
I always enjoyed drawing despite my lack of talent, and the desire to be a winner overruled any doubts about my abilities.

Unfortunately, those other kids were fierce competitors; they ambitiously illustrated polluted earths, dumpsites in space, abandoned cities with grey skyscrapers, thus showing off mathematically accurate renditions of earthly continents and star constellations.

The majority of contestants painted a gloomy picture of how they (or their parents: I wasn’t quite sure) saw the future. It dawned on me then, that they already knew something I didn’t about the importance of having a sinister view on life.

Great. No one ever told me that I would have to draw the apocalypse to be taken seriously.

And I never thought about asking my parents for advice either.
They would have told me to think about something for myself or not to enter the competition at all.

Huge bummer, those two.

I just drew without any help. The result was dreadful, even for my standards.
There were bird nests that looked like tennis balls stuffed with giant eggs in trees like mushroom clouds, and people like, or better yet, not like anything remotely resembling the human race.

They were the backdrop for the giant medieval castle prominently towering over the entire scenery and at least as unappealing, if not worse. 

It looked like it was drawn by a 5 year old.

Imagine my surprise when the bank called some months later to inform me that I had made it to the Top 12. The pictures were printed as a calendar and my drawing represented March 1991.

Sometimes, I still wonder what kind of person this juror might have been, the one who picked me, the retro rebel. I imagined a middle-aged woman with a hat and smudgy glasses, someone who liked to read Harlequin romance novels much more than spending time with her family.

But I never asked.

It is the writer’s way of thinking that kept me from finding out, always listening inwardly for a resonance to any curious question about life.

That’s what I still do.

Sometimes writers have to say ridiculously self-important things.

That’s what I still do.

So, why would you pick me?

The theory is, that me not being a native speaker gives my writing an interesting spin. It’s the emotional disconnect to this language that allows me to open up my luggage and let the world have a look inside.

There are half-eaten granola bars stuck to my panties.

Darn, I just skid marked these!
 ----

I was so cocky. I thought they would seriously fall for my innate German charm. 
Well, they didn't. 

They liked Mama Bolognese and Daddy v. Autistic Cat.

Oh, don't listen to me. I'm just a jealous bitch.

6/17/2011

Everybody's Fine reviewed

This dramedy from 2009, starring Robert De Niro, Sam Rockwell, Kate Beckinsale and Drew Barrymore is a remake of the 1990's Italian production Stanno tutti bene with Marcello Mastroianni playing the lead.

In the remake, Matteo Scuro turns into Frank Goode and is embodied by Robert De Niro. I don't have anything against De Niro, I just don't like him very much. He still doesn't have his annoying head-bobbing move under control, but maybe that's some sort of disease, if so, my bad.


De Niro: Cross-country travel in 70s inspired old-man wardrobe














Anyhow, even though the cast lineup is pretty good, I didn't expect much when I read the movie description, thinking that this comedy-drama would possibly turn out to be one of
those classic not-so-funny-comedy resp. not-so-sad-tragedy flicks. And in the beginning, it somewhat met my preconceptions with Mr. De Niro aka Frank, the sluggish widower, oddly preparing the logistics of the yearly get-together with his four children.


Unfortunately each of his children cancels the family date giving somewhat suspicious excuses, so Frank decides to go on a major trip across the country and visit them one by one in spite of his bad health. It quickly turns into a desperate mission to reconnect with his children. I don't want to spoil anything, but as expected, there is a reason they didn't tell Frank the truth why they didn't come to visit...

The overall pacing of this movie is comfortable and while it is not always possible to impartially enjoy De Niro's portrayal of the worried and somewhat peculiar Dad who lost his connection to the real world, I appreciated his effort. A little too wooden and uninspired for my taste, but maybe that's the curse of more than 40 years of Method Acting. Again, what do I know.

Drew Barrymore is sweet and likeable as usual, but not that memorable and I bought her "reveal" the least. Kate Beckinsale did a solid job in portraying the career woman with a secret. It could have easily slipped into a cheesy stereotype, but she walked the fine line.

The real hero of this movie is Sam Rockwell though. He manages to convey a deep feeling of conflict between father and son within the excellently written dialogue sequence. Writer-director Kirk Jones gently raised the issues of career choices, failed ambitions and fatherly approval without too much cliché. For that part I really love this flick, and once again, it's the writing that saved the day and this movie for me.


How about a smoke: rocky relationship between father and son














The cinematography is somehwhat artsy, but discreetly so. It stood out while De Niro was wandering clumsily around Beckinsale's mansion and created magic with him as opposed to the modernistic architecture, being a foreign body in a dysfunctional family.
Most of the times though the stylistics remained largely unnoticed, which is what I always enjoy and appreciate much more than any blunt in-your-face-notice-me statement.

However, I have to add, that, when seeing the description of the original 1990's movie, the choices for the 2009 version make sense in retrospect, but nevertheless, the remake makes a lot of bold changes to the much more theatrical original script, and I don't know if those are all for the better. I guess, it may seem more suitable for a family holiday movie with a dramatic climax, not to have the operatic background or to turn the main character into a telephone wire manufacturer (with the irony of him not being able to talk openly to his kids), but still, I don't know if they all played out in favour of the narration and the overall critical reception of the movie.


    
Stanno Tutti Bene (1990)    Everybody's Fine

6/11/2011

IMHO: Hate it!

Brace yourselves, this is going to be one of those rants. I promise to keep it short, since I shouldn't be doing this anyway. I should be working on my audition, but - nooo - instead I am opening a can of worms.. or woop ass!

Oh well, it is what it is. Today's topic is having an opinion.
Everyone has an opinion on pretty much everything.

Politics, war, movies, that fat bloke across the street.

I have an opinion on having opinions!

If you ask certain people to make any kind of statement, unless they are paid critics, they will tell you that they like or don't like something for any vague (at best!) or most of the times for no particular reason. Just cause.

Take a look at this dialogue below, it really happened.

Q: Why do you dislike this particular politician? 
A: He's a liar; they are all liars.  

Imagine my disappointment. I ask you: Is this answer something that really qualifies as an opinion? In my world, an opinion is something you have actually thought about, not spit out as an emotional reflex or is not, as seen in this case, prejudice on top of prejudice. Distrust, vomited.

A snappy response to the statement above would have been:
So is your husband, but you still like him though? 
Of course, as always, I thought about this many hours too late...

But to get back on track, an opinion should be more than a mere impulse. I have nothing against finding arguments to underline an immediate response, but there needs to be some kind of reason for it. People wouldn't ask for anybody's opinion if they weren't interested in the reason behind it.

I know, this "high standard" entails spending some extra time in educating oneself, finding facts to back up one's view, finding arguments for or against something and eventually verbalizing it. This can be exhausting, and unfortunately, not everyone has the time or sees the need to do that.

But as a consequence, you people too busy to spend your time on improving your half-baked preferences, feel free to remain ignorant, but would you mind and shut up, step aside and let the people who have done their homework answer? Or just be honest and say something like:
I never have thought about it. I feel I like/dislike it but I don't have enough facts to make a statement.
It sounds so much more competent than
-> insert verbal diarrhea here <-

And while you're at it, start identifying your own judgemental processes. It is time well spent. Not for anyone else but yourself. You'll learn so much.

6/01/2011

Milky Way's Backpack

Bad Fate, Misbehaving

Today, I have a question. It's the eternal question. It's not every day you ask those kinds of things! The question is: Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do bad things happen at all? It may seem mind-boggling at first, but if you think about it, there is an answer. It's one of those mysteries that can be resolved. Don't worry. The thing is, if you really want to know, you first of all have to agree that you will not immediately reject the answer, even if it seems to be profane and deeply underwhelming. Is there ever such a thing as an exciting answer? We'll find out. So let's sherlock, shall we?

Good People, Gandhi and such...

The key to solving almost every philosophical problem is to break it down into its basic elements. So let's start up with morals. The question itself is somewhat religiously charged. And the concept of deserving-undeserving floats around in there somewhere. It's a dangerous one and in itself, highly immoral if you think about it's repercussions. But anyhow, let's get on with our quest for today.

It seems it always starts with basic definitions. The definitions themselves are half the answer most of the times. So, it all comes down to defining good, and bad and maybe happen. Yes we will.

Bad Things - Good People.

Mahatma Gandhi - Good. Adolf Hitler - Bad. Agreed? Swell.
The intention to do something good: Good?
Let's say you feel the need to take action to save your family from a possible threat. Good intention! Let's say this idea includes killing someone. Let's make this person a mass murderer. The intention is still good, but the execution is rather bad? Or does a good intention overweigh the outcome? Isn't it bad at all? Does the end really justify the means? Yes and No.

You see, we may have some disagreement there already. Unfortunately there's nothing we can do to resolve it. It's alright, as long as we are aware of the differences.

There can't be a universal consensus on what is good and bad, because these views are just preferences, without any claims on truth. No truth, just opinions! Great! But it also means that there is no such a thing as a right and a wrong position! Another thing we cannot define universally, stink! Zero-g makes us very uncomfortable.

Poor Milky Way's Back

We have to unroll it from the other side then. We still don't know why bad things happen to good people. Good people, it's a dangerous definition. Who can say what is a good or a bad quality in people?

In a universal context, everyone does all kinds of things, good and bad. Every single person is guilty of living, thereby destroying the environment, using resources and air and space in the process. The sole fact that we live is a huge bad thing, happening to mother earth, completely undeserved! Or isn't it? Didn't she herself cause the consequences in being extra fertile and inviting, so that we humans had no choice but to come into existence? Hah!

Take solace in the fact that poor mother earth may be a huge drain on the galaxy, always hanging around that self-centered sun, in the meantime using up precious spacetime in the solar system. Those two are useless, Milky Way sighs heavily. Against it's better judgement, Milky Way still carries those two around in his backpack! Now, if that's not true altruism! Maybe not. Cosmos is convinced, that Milky Way may have some serious brain damage, because it carries those two idiots around and therefore Cosmos wants to vote him off the island. Luckily, another unknown authority votet against it...

Everybody seems to be a drain on someone else in some way or another, regardless of his level of awareness. The fact that we live creates consequences. We cannot always be aware of them. In fact, it's impossible to know all of them, in a larger scale. For example, how could we possibly know what our existence means for other species, especially the ones we never met. We are incapable of seeing the mere potential of what's not directly in front of our nose. And furthermore, we humans are mono-causal thinkers. We don't see what's up ahead two corners. That's why we cannot be held responsible, in any cosmic scale. Brain space is limited. Good intention or bad, it doesn't matter. Mother Hitler may have had good intentions while making love to her husband.
Bad outcome, nonetheless.

42 Reasons to Keep on Asking

So back to the question: Why do bad things happen to good people. As far as I am concerned we eliminated the concept of good and bad, and the question that remains is: Why do things happen? Answer: It's basic physics, no moral pun. Cause and effect. It's a rather unsatisfying answer. But there's more meat to it than you might think. How about that initial cause that had the most giant effect imaginable. The big one. The big bang! Physics, help?!

So if you think about it, the real question, the absolute and eternal question, it is still out there, waiting to be resolved and most importantly, ultimately inserted into our fleeting brains. I hope, I'll see the day when it fits.