What is romance?  And why are half of the books sold romance novels, trashy or otherwise?  Is it indicative of women’s lack or need of it? Variety is the spice of life, so maybe they need different men as stated in Steve Harvey’s book.

I, being a macho, macho man, am stereotyped to not know the answer to this or any other thing about women.  Oddly, this myth is not perpetuated by women, but by men.  I can’t count how many times men in the media state they know nothing about women and never will.  And if that were true, then freakin’ learn, dammit!  Women certainly want us to, which may be why romance is so lucrative. 

Having completed  my first novel, I’ve been asked is there romance in it?  I don’t know.

Hey!  Have you seen this:

A man gathers his briefcase, closes his office door, enters an ambiguous, crowded elevator. Taking a deep breath, he looks at his Tag timekeeper, exits the sky scrapin’ building, and raises his hand. 

A yeller taxi screeches. A radiant woman gets out, with hair from a high-priced salon wafts in the warm breeze, dressed in perfect fitted clothes, carrying a Burberry purse. Don’t ask me how I know that brand. 

They’re eyes lock and the world comes to a startling but pleasurable halt. Her hair waves coyly at him.  His stature postures over her like a gentle beast ready to pounce. Her eyes gaze ever so softly into his. She brushes her hair with the back of her hand. 

What do we know and have been programmed to know from this cliche?  A scene we’ve seen in countless movies, TV shows, books, plays, and commercials.

He is the it boy.  She is the it girl. And by the massive powers of God, the universe, Shiva, Buddha, Geezus Krist, and the dominant iPhone with FaceTime, they’re meant for each other for all time, passed time, into infinity and beyond, and a little more.  

Whew!  I need a smoke. 

Going back to the question, does my book have romance? 

I didn’t know how to answer that question until I readRoger Ebert’s essay on Lost In Translation,starring Bill Murray and Scarlet Johansen, directed by Sofia Copola.  In fact, I saw this in the theater years ago and didn’t know why I loved it until now.

In many ways, the movie starts out to be a cliche. A lonely man visits Japan. He runs into an equally lonely woman. They’re subtly attracted to each other, but by no means are they the it couple.  He’s an older married man, she’s the younger married woman. I thought they were going to hit it off. A nice romp in the bed, some drama about his wife or her husband catching them, then a climatic ending where they both leave their respective spouses, and run toward each other as the waves splash onto the sandy beach. 

Nope. The movie is about a deep connection between two people, which is probably why I loved it so much because I cherish deep connections. 

Does my book have romance?

No. Not like the taxi example above. My story focuses on a married couple who has to contend with the death of their child. Then they have to contemplate the mortality of their other, who is called to duty when a looming war approaches. 

My goal was to explore the pain of loss, the guilt one spouse places on the other, on oneself, and to explore war itself. It has been a painful and enlightening experience in the sense storytelling.

Trash talk.  When it comes to sports, trash talk can spell death for the one talking. We saw this with the men’s French swim team in the last Summer Olympics held in China. “The Americans? We’re going to smash them. That’s what we came here for,” Alain Bernard said, referring to the freestyle relay event.

Despite being heavily favored to win, the French lost.  Not sure if you can tell by Phelp’s reaction:

Even when you win, trash talk is something fans don’t appreciate but pay attention to cause it creates drama. Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a great example, considered as one of the best boxers in the world. His trash talk had earned him searing spite among fans. So fans pay to watch the fight to see him lose or get knocked out. As of today, no one has been able to do either.  Still, fans of the sport give little respect to the man holding a 41-0 pro record.  An oddity when legendary greats like Tyson or Ali have losses.

I had attended this past weekend’s UFC 117:  Silva vs. Sonnen.

Anderson Silva is considered the best pound for pound mix martial arts fighter in the world.  All of the top fighters in his division (185 lbs) have tried to beat him.  None ever came close. Silva has won 11 straight wins coming into this fight. In the world of MMA where there are innumerable ways to lose, this is amazing.

But I was never a fan when Silva came to the UFC, and I doubt I’ll ever be.  Why?  I want someone who’s open and real, and somehow he’s not genuine. I’m not the type to like someone just because he’s a winner.

Then comes in Chael Sonnen. He was an NCAA Division I All-American wrestler at the University of Oregon, two-time University National Champion in Greco Roman wrestling, and a US Olympic team alternate. But forget about that.

Not only did he sell tickets and create interest in his fight with heavily favored Silva (7 to 1 odds) with his trash talk, he had earned a fan with me. Here’s why:

“I think I can win this fight, I don’t know I’m gonna win,” said Sonnen on Jim Rome’s radio show.

This has been my life’s philospy. If you wanna be a New York Times best selling author, an Academy award winning actor, a great pro athlete, then you have to start with “I can” and not worry about “But will I?”.

You gotta be in it to win it.

And for four and half rounds, each one being five minutes long, Sonnen had dominated Silva.  As far as I know, Silva had only lost one round in his UFC career. Silva vs. Sonnen was one of the most exciting fights I had seen. I was one of very few who leaped out of the seat, Jersey Shore fist pumpin, screaming as Sonnen pounded away at the champ.

But like all greats, Silva had pulled a triangle hold and won the bout.

Sonnen had backed up every single word, save winning the championship belt. But in the world of MMA, he has made himself a huge factor and revealed a gaping blackhole in a once invincible champion.

 Loading ...

I ask you this:  What is possible?

Many of us were severely limited by our parents.  They were our world when we were born.  Hell, we lived in out mothers for nine freakin months! Why wouldn’t we listen to them.  They teach us how the world works, what’s good, what’s bad, and they unconsciously plant our initial view of ourselves, our self worth.

I ask you again:  What is possible?

Can your dreams be attained?  And who’s voice do you hear answering?

I was listening to Michael Neill, and he said throw out what’s possible.  Because what’s possible is always laced with our limitations taught to us…

or impaled by us.

A better question:  What do you want?

Dreaming of what we truly want can be indicated by the high energy we feel like going out with great friends, the anticipation of eating warm apple pie with a fresh scoop of vanilla ice cream, or lounging in the sun on Waikiki beach.  That high energy can be a guide to what we desire in life.

Live out your imagination, not your history–Stephen R. Covey

Every man dies. Not every man really lives–William Wallace

Do you feel depressed or unhappy because that’s how you think you should feel?

I’d come across a method of getting rid of feelings of anxiety, which would eventually lead to great things that I wanted to create in my life.  Who wouldn’t want that?

So I bought the book The Sedona Method, by Hale Dwoskin.  It was a pretty easy read and the exercises were really simple.  In recommending the book to my best friend, he’d got it but had one complaint.  

“I wish the feeling of peace would last longer,” he said.

I agreed. 

Then I was listening to one of my favorite speakers and author, Michael Neill, and he mentioned that most people felt any variance of unhappiness  because they thought they should. 

For example, if someone insulted you or cut you off while driving (man, I hate that) would you get angry?  Want revenge (guilty)?

If you lost someone special, do you need to feel bad in order to mourn? Or can you mourn and feel at peace, or happy?

Maybe in some way we’re trained to feel unhappy.  Bad thing happens, time to feel bad.  Kinda like Pavlov’s dog.  Or ever heard too much of a good thing is bad (religion anyone)?  Don’t wanna feel too happy or else…what?

I don’t know.  Happiness?

Then I realized that we practiced feeling not at peace that we got to be pretty goddamn good at it.

So when tools such as The Sedona Method comes along, we need to practice feeling happy, peaceful, instead of feeling unsatisfied that it didn’t work.

The iPhone 4 has come out and reviewers from techies such as PC World and financial papers such as The Wall Street Journal have given it two thumbs up.

But it may have one big flaw, or fraw as mother would say. The antenna being on the outside of the phone, making up the glass and metal casing, is causing reception issues when held in a certain way.  How huge they are depends on the strength ot AT&T’s signal in that area.

There have been thousands upon thousands of angry complaints, one law suit filed, another on the way, and the Willy Wonka like CEO simply said not to hold it that way.  There were simple solutions like buying a case, or bumper, or using scotch tape to relieve the issue.  Which it does.

Has that stopped the complaints?  No.

There are two basic choices. Keep it or return the damn phone.

I’m a huge fan of Apple and Steve Jobs. Jobs never graduated from college, but by following his heart, he had cofounded one of the most influential companies the world has seen. Many counted the phone maker out when Apple was a few months away from bankruptcy.Many wireless carriers denied Apple a chance when presented with their plans for the iPhone.Now, it’s a global phenom.

One of my friends waited nine hours for one.  Geezus Kryst!

Despite the reception issue (it is a phone dammit), most iPhone 4 users, around two million at this point, will not return the phone but relagate to complaining.  People put so much emphasis on the one negative and not see the massive positives and wonder why their lives suck.

 Loading ...

One of my top five movies is The Karate Kid, 1984, starring Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita. Ralph played the unconfident Daniel Larusso, and Pat played Kesuke Miyagi, Mr. Miyagi.  It’s one of the coolest stories because it’s aboutbelieving in yourself.

Both at the time were relative unknowns. Macchio had only acted professionally, according to IMDb, since the early 80’s. Morita had been acting since the 60’s, possibly earlier.  I do remember him as Al in the sitcom Happy Days. Mr. Miyagi was his role to play, and from the DVD extras, the voice and mannerisms came to him instantly. A sign of this was his nomination as best supporting actor both in the Academy and Golden Globe awards.

When I first heard they were remaking this, I cringed. Then I heard Jaden Smith, Will Smith’s son was starring in it.  I felt Smith was grooming his son to follow in his stardom, which is fine. And I think it worked.

Honestly, I wasn’t going to watch this.  I loved the original too much, but then I told myself, “I gotsa support my Asian brothah, Jackie Chan!”  If that were true, then I would have watched The Spy Next Door.

I’ve always been a proponent of knowing why you like certain things, and The Karate Kid, 1984 was one. I’ve watched the movie dozens upon dozens of times.  Analyzed it as much as I could. And my most favorite part about the story is the relationship between the student and teacher. The relationship has a rocky start since Mr. Miyagi is cold and distant in the beginning. But as Daniel’s needs become apparent, Mr. Miyagi makes the reluctant decision to teach him, putting him through day-long chores, which are really karate lessons. You can feel that their relationship is real.

Remember “Wax on, wax off”?

The newly released version replaces Daniel with Dre, played by Smith, and Mr. Miyagi with Mr. Han, played by Chan.

The feel of an intimate relationship is what’s missing from The Karate Kid, 2010. Both Smith and Chan act well, but their relationship never blossoms. We see there is supposed to be a connection when Mr. Han gently pats a snoozing Dre, or when Dre realizes that taking his jacket off, throwing it on the ground, picking it up, putting it back on a thousand times is a karate lesson…I mean a kung fu lesson.  But I’m writing about The Karate Kid. Ah…huh…anyways…

The awe, the holy crap I am learning karate…argh…I mean kung fu…wasn’t totally realized. And it’s in that moment, in the original, is where their relationship solidifies from mere student/teacher…

to mentor/believer…

and moves on to BFFs…

Another problem I had with the movie was personal.  I’ve seen the original too many times.  I know it too well.  And they really didn’t do anything new with the story.  Well…there’s new names, new actors, better martial arts choreography, and two big names playing the main parts, and China, but that’s it.  It wasn’t really a remake as much of a regurgitate.

A lot of the dialogue mirrored/copied the original.  The story structure and plot mirrored/copied the original.  There was a moment in the movie where I told myself, here comes the humanizing of Mr. Han, jokingly.  Then that scene came when Mr. Han shows Dre, and the audience, that he’s human.  I often found myself comparing the two movies.  And I don’t think I would have had the dialogue, scenes, and when they happened didn’t mirror/copy the original so closely.

One last thing.  Macchio played the role well, swimming in and out of self-realization and fear.  In the last climatic fight, Daniel-san’s leg was kicked, rendering unusable, and Macchio sold it.  When the same thing happens to Dre, Smith doesn’t sell the injury at all, walking as if he stubbed his toe.  Despite acting well, Smith didn’t have opposing sides of fear and self-realization, something that would have given the character dimension.

“[Is] unacting acting, or acting unacting…” -Bruce Lee

Objectively, the movie worked, albeit without the relationship. The audience cheered the ending.  Most were too young to have seen the original.  It’s one thing to remain faithful to the original, like translating comic books to the silver screen.  It’s another to copy the original.

One of the coolest things about all art is the interpretation. Debates go endlessly about movies, books, paintings, poems, sculptures. And who’s to say who’s right and who’s not when we can’t even agree what’s art and what isn’t.

In trying to get feedback on my book, I’ve been giving out copies to my friends and family to get initial reactions, both kneejerk and constructive. I had readers who are fans and non-fans of fantasy, which is my genre.

One of my readers stated that my main character was highly sexual and emotional. I wanted honest opinions and here we are!

My kneejerk reaction was of course to defend.

But I’m here to learn so I asked her question after question, trying to keep an open mind.

None of my other readers had mentioned any of this. And just in case they missed something my friend hadn’t, I asked one of them specifically about the above points.

Highly sexual was something that really surprised me. I asked her what made her think this. She said that my hero thought about his wife’s scent, was enamored by her silky hair, and in a key scene couldn’t sleep due to the absence of her breathing next to him. I asked another female reader what she thought about this without mentioning what my friend thought. She said my hero was in love with his wife that it was about love.

Who’s correct?

Both.

There’s a saying. What you hate in others is what you hate in yourself. When I look at the lives of these two women, I can see why both thought the way they did.

I’m not saying they hated my book, but often what we see in art is often a reflection of us, an aspect anyway. I mean, haven’t you listened to music that reflects how you feel in the moment? We listen to love songs, or angry alternative, when we’ve broken up with someone. Or listen to ambient music when we want to be calm. Or listen to heavy metal or techno when we’re working out.

And knowing how 50% of sold books are romance novels tells you what women are feeling or needing.

My friend’s second point, complaint really, about my hero being emotional was also interesting.  For one, he is.  It being a complaint is a judgement on the character. Kinda like saying someone being short is not good. It’s not their fault.  My hero just turned out that way.

This brings us to the definition of art. First off, I don’t think it can be defined. It’s like defining the soul. Or God. You can’t. But a famed photographer once said that art is the language of the soul. Isn’t that where inspiration comes from?

But if you want to see a cool and heated debate of what art is, check out an articleRober Ebertwrote about how video games aren’t art.

 Loading ...

I just saw Fame, the 2009 version.  I never saw Fame, the 1980 version.  I should since it won two Oscars.  And I’m not one of those people who watches only Oscar winners, but the 2009 version got bad reviews.  And I know why.

In the 2009 version, we have a cross section of characters that are admitted to Performance Arts High School.  Clever name.  In this cross section, we have freshmen who deal with issues with shyness, self worth, preconceived ideas from parental figures, grades that lead to being expelled, and people in the industry who’ve scammed money.

This seems like a lot but a lot of stories have this many sub plots that help drive the main story line.  Problem here is I’m not sure what the main story line is, and these play like sub plots with no main plot.  You could also say they are all main plots but that would be too many.

The second problem is we move from admission to graduation in a period of 107 minutes.  I’m not saying this can’t be done, but when you have many sub plots with no main plot, or a whole bouquet of main plots, it’s going to be difficult to develop these characters.  Hell!  It’d be difficult with just a single character.  Again, it can be done, but you better be one helluva screenwriter.  The issue here is no character development.  Here’s an example:

There’s a character named Malik who runs into the problem of parental limitation.  His mom says he ain’t all that.  Not in those exact words, but it’s a good problem.  We’ve all at some level–friends or family–have been told we ain’t all dat.  Is any of it true?  Of course not.  But the movie doesn’t show Malik overcoming that issue, finding that he’s special, then realizing he is truly talented.

What if he wasn’t?  The movie doesn’t show that either.

So is the message of the movie saying that none of us are special (not in the yellow bus way)?  No because the movie is called Fame.

So what’s the message?  Not quite sure.

Throughout the whole movie we get performances that are well choreographed.  There must have been a dozen.  To take up 107 minutes with that many performances ruins the pacing and doesn’t spend enough moments on what is truly important, the story.  It’s like having a ton of special effects with no substance.

We go from admission to graduation, and, in doing so, the characters who are faced with character arc problems either don’t solve them, or we don’t see them solved, or are not solved.  One ballet dancer is told he won’t make it by his teacher, told that he might be a decent teacher.  He believes her, submitting to becoming a ballet teacher.  So does the teacher see herself as a failure?  Then why is she teaching?  As the term character arc states, there’s an arc.  We basically go from beginning, miss the keystone moment and BAM!  We’ve arrive at the end.  And we’re not sure why.

One of my favorite critics is Roger Ebert.  I’ve watched his show Siskel and Ebert, a TV movie review show that made the two thumbs up famous.

On hissite, he had reviewed a movie call The Girlfriend Experience. In meandering around Neflix, I had come across this movie that stars Sasha Grey, directed by Steven Soderbergh, director of the Ocean’s Eleven movies, The Informant starring Matt Damon, just to name a few.

GFE is filled with unknown actors except for one, Sasha Grey. She is a porn star. Don’t ask me how I know this. I just happen to be really smart. Ahem. GFE is an actual term used by escorts who give the girl friend experience. They usually charge by the hour or clients can arrange overnight stays, which seemed to be Chelsea’s (Grey) bread and butter.

According to Ebert’s research on IMDb, Grey has starred in 161 adult films, and she now has her own company managing other girls. I’ve done no research into Grey.  That is a lot of movies.  I know guys who haven’t had sex that many times.

For Soderbergh to choose a woman who has sex for money to play a woman who has sex for money seems obvious. But why choose Grey? Mainly because of who she is and the depth she carries. Further proof of depth was revealed when she listed her top five movies on Current’s Rotten Tomatoes show.  I’ve heard none of those movies because most of them were foreign films.  Her explanation of why she chose them indicates her depth.

Porn stars are not known for their acting ability, nor are they even required to. And for a woman who I think would have thick skin, Grey plays Chelsey with a level of sensitivity and vulnerability.

The movie takes place during the 2008 presidential election, follows her through several of her transactions, while following her boyfriend’s as well. He’s a personal trainer who’s trying to get a clothing line up and explores more lucrative job opportunities.  Chelsey’s clients talk mainly about the downed economy, telling her what she should do with her money.  I couldn’t help thinking how we’re all selling a part of ourselves. Chelsey may be selling her body, but how many of us work in meaningless jobs, selling parts of our souls.

The character arch seemed to be a tragic one. We’re lead to believe that she is special, that she’s the creme of the crop in the escort industry. But as the film moves along Chelsey realizes that she’s not. A bit depressing since we get the same sense that her clients are also nothing special despite their wealth. Chelsey is expensive.

I liked the movie. It’s was an experimental film by Soderbergh. Did I need to see it? I guess so, having watched it.

Now here’s a question:

 Loading ...

There’s only two ways to Kick Ass, the movie.  The high road.  Or the low road.

Let’s take the high road since that’s gonna be short and not so sweet.  Having an 11 year-old girl kill endless mob men with red hot knife through butter ease is horrific, gruesome, grotesque, highly unnecessary, and just freakin’ stupid.  Something like this would never happen in real life.  Her acrobatics makes Jackie Chan look like a first grader.

Well…that wasn’t all that fun.

When I see a movie with the word “Kick Ass” as it’s title, I have a slight feeling, an inkling that this movie isn’t going to delve into the meaning of life.  That’s what my woman’s intuition is telling me.  This movie is about escaping the real world, whatever that may be for you, and having fun.  It’s pure fun.  It’s entertaining.  And the writing is pretty damn good.

One of the screenwriters was Jane Goldman who took the screenwriting class fromDavid Freeman.And one of the main things he emphasizes is surprises, to not write cliches.  So one of the things I expected was Kick-Ass, played by Aaron Johnson, to literally kick ass.  But like any real person who tries to fight bad dudes who has no fighting skill, no athletic ability, no fitness of any kind will get their ass kicked.  And that surprised me.  He didn’t get bit by no spider and, bam, he has super powers.

I also didn’t expect an 11 year-old girl, aptly named Hit Girl, to literally kick ass.  And she did.  It was also nice to see that she wasn’t written to have any kind of remorse.  Nor did the movie explain why.  It didn’t need to.  It would have taken away from the comedic carnage that she commits.  She’s a highly trained killer who could probably take on many Jackie Chans.  Chloe Moretz’s presence slid off the screen.  I think she made the part and even stole the show.

Another thing that was cool was Nicholas Cage, playing the role of Big Daddy.  His whole thing is vengeance.  But he teaches his daughter how to kill through love and adoration as if he was teaching her how to paint a Monet.  He doesn’t teach her with anger, to punish those who took away his love.  And that’s different.

I had seen several critics take the high road.  And I’m thinking, “Are you serious?”  Apparently, yes.

When the main character is named Kick-Ass, aided by Hit Girl and Big Daddy, and the kid who made McLovin from Hawaii famous plays one of the bad guys called Red Mist, you can’t take this movie too serious.  Or else you won’t have fun.