It is very depressing "Inside Llewyn Davis"

Inside Llewyn Davis is probably the most depressing movie I've ever seen.

I don't usually go for depressing movies. I saw Schindler's List, but that's at least got Schindler trying to save people. Life is Beautiful was light at times, but god, the ending. As endings go, Ethan Frome has it beat. And lets not even talk about addiction movies. The one scene of Requiem for a Dream I've seen (if you're wondering, its the one with Jennifer Connelly and another woman entertaining a circle of yelling men) was dark enough I didn't want to go back and watch the rest.

Inside Llewyn Davis isn't depressing like those movies. There's no big villain, like the Nazis, killing innocents, no addictions, no accidents of fate. There are just the everyday blues. But unlike everyday life, there's no hint of sunshine, literally and figuratively (the movie takes place in New York City in the winter). The literal lack of sunshine didn't bother me so much as the complete lack of anything good in this movie.

Maybe good isn't the right word. The acting is good. The music is sublime. More impressive, all the music was recorded live; Oscar Isaac really is that talented (and is also now one of my many celebrity husbands). The cinematography is lovely and gray. There's a cat. A couple of them, actually. And there are funny moments. I actually laughed out loud a couple of times. But the story itself is unrelentingly sad. Llewyn is undeniably talented, but its like he really is the Midas of shit (as Carry Mulligan's character tells him). Nothing, abolsutely nothing goes right for him. He reacts like anyone might in the face of such a hostile universe: with hostility right back. And so the cycle of shit continues. For two hours.

The only light is the music, but its not doing what's its supposed to do for Llewyn, which is make him money. And so eventually, even that sours. That's what makes this movie so depressing, I think. Llewyn isn't willing to compromise his musical integrity and he's so talented that he shouldn't have to. But that's not how the real world works and its certainly not how the world in the movie works.

What really bothered me just how often negative shit seemed to happen. And only negative shit. When the end of the movie rolled around, it was like "that's it? Coen brothers, you're just going to show me two hours of unhappiness, and that's it? WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THAT?" Don't get me wrong, I get that not everything is unicorns and rainbows and puppies and shit. But there just wasn't any point to this negative shit, there wasn't any story. Llewyn ends up exactly where he started, only with a lot of depressing shit in between. And sorry, that just isn't very compelling. I'm a little tired of the "life is shit, doesn't that suck?" story. Try a little harder.

Please, if you really liked Inside Llewyn Davis for the story and not the gorgeous music, lovely cinematography, or general design of the movie, tell me why. Because as of right now, its the most depressing movie I've ever seen.

DANCE ANGER POST

So I'm going through my normal morning internet routine this morning: webcomics, the NYTimes, my plethora of emails, facebook, etc, when I see this: 

http://whatshouldwecallswingdance.tumblr.com/post/55806472244/1-feeling-like-you-cant-say-no

My calm morning reverie is blasted away by a wave of scathing anger at the self-absorption of that post. I will try to be reasonable. I will try to remember that I've been guilty of some of the things that I'm railing against. I will try to remember that this human being, whose ideas I'm gnashing my teeth at, is probably good and great and awesome in many respects. But I make no guarantees. Mom, I will probably use the f-word a lot. 

Look, I get it. Sometimes you don't want to dance with someone. I've been there. We've all been there. Its really fucking hot. You're really fucking sweaty. You just want to hang out with your friends. Your potential partner is a creep. Your potential partner is one of those people who thinks yanking your arm out of its socket is awesome and great. Nobody should feel like they can't say no to a dance. I get it. I GET IT.

But you know what? ITS STILL FUCKING RUDE. Especially if you're one of those assholes who turns down a dance with someone to dance with someone else. That's probably the rudest thing I can think of. Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE AT A FUCKING DANCE. People are there to dance, and (shocking!) to dance with you! So how do you think they feel when, after you've politely told them 'no thanks', they see you swinging your fucking heart out with someone else? I'm pretty sure that's the definition of rude.  That's like canceling plans with one set of not-as-fun friends and then making plans with your more-fun friends AT THE SAME PLACE. And that's shitty. How would you feel if someone did that to you? You'd feel shitty, right?

Look, I'm not saying you have to dance with the creeper. You can politely turn them down. Same with the arm-buster. But then at least have the common decency to sit one out. Seriously, people? Are we so self-absorbed as a society that we don't care if we make other people feel bad, just as long as we feel good? Is ONE FUCKING DANCE too high a price to pay to spare someone's feelings? Just politely say no, thanks, and SIT DOWN. Better yet, strike up a conversation with someone else who is also sitting down, and make a goddamn new lindy friend.

I'm not saying you have to find your reject later, either. Maybe they're so wrapped up in their lindy joy that they could give a fuck whether you find them for a dance later or not. Maybe they'll forget they even asked you. Maybe they only asked you in the first place because you were right there, and why the hell not? So you don't have to feel obligated to ask them again. You don't even have to feel obligated to promise another one later. Like I said, nobody should feel like every single request for a dance is a command. Its not and you can say no.

But if you say no, make sure you have a little compassion for the person you're turning down. If you do have a good reason, you can share that with them. If you don't, just a polite no, thanks, not this one is fine. You don't have to dance with anyone you don't want to. You also don't have to say "thank you" to the barrista who just made your mocha frappacino, but isn’t the world a better place when everyone does? When courtesy is the norm and not the exception? So lets try to keep that in mind.

Oy.

I actually have a lot more to say, but I'm so riled up, none of it is able to surface in any coherent manner. ARRGGGGHHH.  Eventually, I'd actually like to discuss this in a respectful, cogent and thoughtful manner, so if you have thoughts, leave them!

Ramblings and thoughts on Retail and Trayvon Martin

I've been thinking about education a lot lately. Mostly about what its limitations are, but also because school is right around the corner, the Trayvon Martin case and how education has played into the discussion surrounding it, my work situation.

Lets start with the least fraught of those, my work situation. I've spent my summer working retail at the same establishment I've worked at for the last seven years (it'll be eight at the end of August). For me, that establishment (which shall remain nameless in this post, but doubtless you all know the place) has been a safety net. I worked full time for a long time, but haven't been full time in years. I could never quite let go and just quit. The people were amazing. I had a 401K I wanted to keep contributing too (despite the stupid stock market). It was a change of pace from my regular job. And essentially, it was, it is, easy.

Retail is easy in lots of ways. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how to help folks pick a backpack. You can usually figure out how a GPS function from reading the box. Its not difficult in an intelligence sort of way. You could probably be dumb as a rock and still be good at retail. A fact that makes me, a Master's degree holding, dead language teaching, book loving, dilettante of all things intellectual, well, it makes me a little sad sometimes.

The thing that makes someone good at retail is the caring part, which is the thing that makes it decidedly not easy. You have to care what this person, this stranger, wants and then you have to care enough to make it happen for them (if you can).  You must do this even when they're rude, when they're critical, they're indecisive, dismissive, and even when they themselves don't know what they want.  Keeping a level of interest against all those obstacles is difficult. The added burden of keeping the store clean and presentable doesn't help. Again, its not hard to dust. But its hard to care about dusting.

Its the caring that got me wondering about education. I work with highly intelligent people, many of whom are also well-educated. What makes or breaks them in the retail world is finding significance in their daily retail grind. What helps them, what has helped me do that? Is it the caring part? Or the education part? Or is it just plain old smarts?

That got me thinking about what makes a successful retail employee, the type of employee that sells the pants off of good products and does it day in and day out without succumbing to burn-out and boredom. There are a few at my retail establishment and I've worked with them for a good amount of years. I've watched them work. Its the caring that really gets them going, but why do they care? And how do they care without caring? If you care and then the sale goes, it sucks. If you care, and the person you're helping is an asshole, that sucks too. If you care, and all you get to do all is dust because its slow and there aren't any customers, that sucks most of all. So, the caring yes.

The intelligence helps a lot. Problem solving and creativity are a salesperson's friend. And education doesn't hurt either. I love talking to people about the places they're going and the sites they'll see. I mostly know about that stuff from reading about it or learning about it in a class. So education helps a lot. But mostly its the caring.

Here's where Trayvon Martin comes into the mix. I wonder about empathy and retail and stereotypes. You learn quickly in retail not to give into your first impressions, since people often surprise you. Not always, but often enough that you learn to give everyone, the same welcome and the same service, regardless of physical appearance. The grungy cowboy? A millionaire rancher willing to buy three pairs of boots at a time. That little old lady who looks like she's got oodles of cash? Not willing to part with any of it unless those pants fit her 70-year-old parts perfectly. The filthy 20-something kid who looks like he's going to rip you off buys tons of gear to replace his old stuff for his next thru-hike. Its just not worth it to assume you know what a customer is going to do based only on what they look like. So you greet everyone with the same smile, the same offer of help.

I've gotten so used to questioning my first impressions that I often find myself doing so outside of the store. That homeless guy might be a druggy, but he might also be an out-of-work IT guy who didn't make it through the recession. Maybe that mom with all the screaming kids is just lazy, but maybe she's been working all day and all night in order to feed her kids and she just doesn't have the energy. A Hispanic guy in work boots and dirty jeans? Maybe he doesn't speak English and does yard work and construction and maybe he was born here and is working on his house in his old work boots and dirty jeans. And that black kid walking down the street in a hoody and jeans? Maybe he's got his hood up because its raining and he doesn't want to get wet. Maybe he's got skittles and iced tea in his hand, and maybe George Zimmerman should have worked a little retail before he trusted his first impressions. Because his first impressions were wrong, and the cost wasn't a missed sale or an unhappy customer. The cost was a kid's life.

I know everyone is up in arms about the Zimmerman verdict. I'm not a legal scholar or even anywhere close to one. The legal standing of the case don't really matter in the face of the larger social issues: that when we see certain people we assume certain things based on gender, race, clothing, cars, shoes, hairstyles, whatever. I don't think that's ever going to change. Its probably one of the things that helped humans survive, since being able to tell the difference between a friend and an enemy quickly, without thinking, was probably the difference between life and death. But we don't live in that world anymore, and today it makes a lot more sense to take a moment and question those first impressions, especially if you're carrying a gun. That's what bothers me the most, I suppose. That we don't take the time to think about people's circumstances or connect with them in a meaningful way. Instead, the tendency is the think the worst of people. Add deadly weapons into the mix and you get a case like Trayvon Martin's. Awful.

And I wonder, as I always do in the face of awful events, how to make it better, how to make people see past stereotypes. Maybe we should all work retail for a year.

A Follow-up Imaginary Conversation with Patrick Rothfuss

So I finished A Wise Man's Fear. I was so unsatisfied with The Name of the Wind that I my expectations for its sequel were pretty low. My main complaint for The Name of the Wind was that it didn't really have much of a plot. Oh, stuff happened, but it didn't feel like a story. It felt like a bunch of stuff happening. A bunch of stuff happening does not a plot or story make (did I just write in iambic pentameter? Also, Yoda!).  But Kvothe was so completely un-look-overable that I finished it. And then bitched about it. So while I was completely dedicated to reading A Wise Man's Fear, I hoped that Patrick Rothfuss would pull out some sick shit for this one.

And I wasn't disappointed. There is some sick shit in A Wise Man's Fear. The things that happen to Kvothe got more fantastical and more plot-like. But I still had some issues. Here's another imaginary conversation that I had with Patrick Rothfuss about A Wise Man's Fear. 

WARNING: HERE BE SPOILERS!

Me: So, I liked A Wise Man's Fear a lot better. Way to go!

Patrick Rothfuss: Thanks! I like it too.

Me: But I still have some issues. I still felt some dissatisfaction. 

Patrick Rothfuss: *sigh* Of course you do. What was wrong this time?

Me: Kvothe is still really interesting as a character. You write beautifully about his music and I love that. He still does some dumb shit (he is not a wise man by any definition of the word), but he's interesting. Its basically my same complaint as last time: Stuff just happens to him! Stuff happens in the book and its interesting and cool and amazing, but it still just doesn't hang together as a cohesive story!

Patrick Rothfuss: Its not any better? I thought I did a little better this time...although I thought I did pretty well the first time.

Me: Its definitely better. There are better hints at a story to come in this one. Like the Cthaeh. A tree demon that's perfectly clairvoyant and perfectly evil is pretty compelling.  But the thing with the Adem was just a little too much, especially if it was just to get Kvothe into the Spinning Leaf state of mind. What was the point? Also, now Kvothe has slept with Felurian AND LIVED. He's trained with the Adem, who NEVER TAKE OUTSIDERS. And he's survived an encounter with the Cthaeh, WHO IS PERFECTLY EVIL. Its so evil, in fact, that the Fae KILL anyone who meets it. Seriously? I mean, it stretches the imagination. He escapes almost all the consequences of his actions. I thought you meant this to be like real life??

Patrick Rothfuss: You know, there's a reason Kvothe is almost mythic in the minds of most people in this universe. And there's a reason Chronicler is writing down his story. Its extraordinary.

Me: Right. I get that. But there's no point to his extraordinaryness. I mean from you. Why are you telling this story? Why is Kvothe? Again, I appreciate the meta-commentary on the story within a story, but I still don't understand the greater lesson of this tale. 

Patrick Rothfuss: You're not supposed to yet. Its not done.

Me: COPOUT! The thing that bothers me about all of this is that Kvothe still hasn't gained Wisdom (yes, I meant to capitalize that). He is still basically the same character he was in The Name of the Wind. Yes, he's learned the value of Spinning Leaf and Elodin's lessons. Yes, he's learned that he was in the presence of one of the Chandrian. Maybe he's even learned more about politics from Maer Alveron. But he doesn't respect any of that yet. Its too easy. IS THAT POINT, OH MY GOD. Even if it is, you still haven't had him learn anything about life or love or anything. He's still an idiot about Denna. He's still an ass about learning stuff. And he still hasn't done anything with his big quest, which seems to be to find the Chandrian....BUT NOTHING HAS HAPPENED WITH THAT. 

Patrick Rothfuss: You know, there's still one more book.

Me: Dude, I've said this before. If you're going to publish a trilogy, make sure each one has its own story and point. Because otherwise, its not a trilogy. We have been over this before. But I digress. The last book of this series (I refuse to call it a trilogy) had better be a mind-blowing moment of plot-gathering. Because if there are major loose threads, I will be pissed.

Patrick Rothfuss: You aren't now?

Me: I'm not pissed enough to not read the last book. You have one more shot, dude. Don't fuck it up. Don't feel too bad, though. At least you're not George R.R. Martin. He has a WAY bigger job than you do.