QamiQazi

But really, it wasn't a movie. It was a story told.

But instead of telling us a well-told story, it gave us old clichés, hackneyed formulas, and it wasted our time.

All of those resources, Rafael. All of that production money. All of those top writers. All of the talent at their disposal.

Bruce Almighty should have been good. They make more money in a year than you or I might in a lifetime. Why make excuses for them?

QQ

No, but I play one on TV.

I saw it a few days ago.

There were laughs?

Carrey's character was so unsympathetic and annoying, you just can't believe God would pick this spoiled crybaby for a little lesson in creation management, or even let him live.

Then again, "God" (Morgan Freeman, as a janitor, which rips off another movie whose title I've forgotten - Bill Bixby was in it) doesn't seem too concerned about much, letting Carrey pull the moon out of orbit to impress his girlfriend which generates a "tsunami" on the other side of the globe.

How dumb does it have to be before they look at the next script?

Couldn't watch it to the end but I saw enough to know it wasn't going to improve.

The plot failed on so many levels, you have to wonder. That's it - you just have to wonder.

I thought it was so bad I walked out after about 15 minutes. No, maybe it was ten. It was so absurd on so many levels, including the acting and direction, even as a comic book fantasy (I liked X-Men, and others), I just couldn't take any more.

TGN - I remember that scene. I'm ashamed to say I laughed too. Must be some kind of fart/laughter reflex built into the male nervous system. If the underwater fart went over in Shreck, I guarantee it will be on Everybody Loves Raymond next season.

laleo, I think you're primed for PBS. I was watching next to nothing until I broke down and bought a "Tivo." I watch almost no "live" TV any more. It's like a library. I "check" the show out, and delete it after I see it.

It's all recorded on the box, and I watch when I have time. There really is a lot of good stuff on, but I have to find it, and then record it. I delete a lot of stuff I don't watch, but after a busy month lets up, I can sit through a marathon of shows I wanted to see.

It is live TV that is so disappointing, because "prime time" is when all the garbage comes on.

You mentioned demographics. I don't think there is an original idea on TV any more, or it's very rare. They probably use computers to combine characters with plot lines and predict ratings based on demographic data. I was in a test audience at Universal for some sitcom a few years back. They really do care what a bunch of tired, sweaty theme park visitors think. What if Shakespeare had tried his stuff out on us first? He'd have been producing "Star Search."

I wish people would stop watching the junk. It would make them try a little harder to make something good. But as long as they are getting those commercials onto the tubes, they aren't worried.

I know there are creative and talented people out there. They just can't seem to get any work writing TV shows.

Is it me, or are TV and movies wholly moving into "shock mode?" Are they wearing it out, or is there an endless supply of appreciation for bathroom humor and sexual inuendo out there?

To me, it's so heavy-handed and obvious, it can't possibly be funny, but nearly every sit-com and nearly every popular movie pays tribute to bad taste.

Or is it just my imagination, like the title of this thread which you thought you saw?

Alright, I'll try to answer.

When I speak of beauty here, I am referring to esthetic beauty.

I am not worried that GS will fail the topic. So far, it has succeeded.

This is not to evaluate beauty, to say who's "hot" and who's not, but to better understand beauty both experientially (through the "confessional" posts) and intellectually, if possible.

Does it all come down to the Fibonacci sequence? Of course not.

Find a thought and explore it. Don't attempt to explain it all. What do you know, that others may not?

Ginger, interesting thoughts. And insightful.

You say the thread is too ambitious, but you feel male beauty should be included, and that beauty is universal. That would make the topic considerably more broad, don't you think?

Male and female beauty are not the same thing. I think I mentioned that earlier. Seems obvious, but it's deeper than just labels.

I wanted to focus on female beauty because it's what I've been thinking about. A woman's form, yes, but her manner, her presence, her "way" with a man, another woman, a child - all beautiful, and more beautiful with the passing of time, if it's possible.

I hope this thread is sufficiently ambitious and circumspect to make any vaguely relevant observation both welcome and a propos, regardless of tangent. Consider it your invitation, and a challenge as well. It might not be easy, but you have a way with words.

QQ

Art Garfunkel is a nice fellow and a decent singer with a good ear for harmony.

Paul Simon is one of the brilliant artists of his (our) generation.

Graceland and Rhythm of the Saints among others were masterpieces. All Garfunkel can add is nostalgia and familiar harmonies.

I also agree with johniam about a woman's eyes. I have seen very attractive women with eyes that were empty somehow. Can't explain it, but everything else about them didn't seem to matter. And the reverse is true as well.

And what about our personal sense of beauty?

Haven't we all experienced infatuation - a "crush?" How does your perception of the object of your affection change, for male or female? Is it the same as "closing time" for men (when the women -who haven't already left with someone - all get so much prettier)?

Shellon, it must come back to "finding a balance" between the value we place on esthetics and things that are more important.

We may see a woman's healthy confidence as part of her "beauty" but arrogance and vanity to detract from it. People may over-ride their first impression if the behavior does not match the outward appearance, for better or for worse.

Beauty is often like a see-saw. We see people as more or less beautiful than others. Men are constantly rating women they see (this behavior usually subsides if a friendship or other relationship exists). We're all familiar with the meaning of "ten."

And many women compare themselves to others. As laleo pointed out, it may be in the circumstance of direct competition, or there may be a more generalized sense of competition.

I guess I stand corrected.

laleo, your post was (I thought) candid and even confessional in its own right. Sorry you thought it lacked something. I don't think so. Glad I read it a few times - before it was too late.

You said you didn't think this was a touchy subject, but I think johniam's observation points to the probability that it is. That isn't good or bad. It does reveal how much of our self-esteem is invested in our sense of beauty, even when we try to be objective about this supremely subjective perception.

I think anyone reading will consider what beauty means to them, and how they have pursued it, either as a male or a female in our respective roles.

Thank you for leaving your post as long as you did. It was worthwhile.

laleo's post was very good. I hope some people got to read it.

I deleted very little of my own post - just the first line where I answered excathedra saying it was a good point. I kept the rest because it stood on its own, more or less.

I don't think laleo would mind if you commented, johniam, but she can speak for herself.

But while it's clear that beauty and sexuality cross paths, they are not the same thing.

The truest form of beauty is that which encompasses body and soul. Hollywood has long recognized that plastic perfection is not as beautiful as reality. That's why Hollywood's biggest female stars, like male stars, are flawed. People respond to them because their beauty transcends the image they project.

Some of them might even be considered "homely" by ordinary standards, yet something radiates through.

If it happened once, it can happen again.

http://www.canismajor.com/dog/zoonot.html

This link discusses "zoonotic" diseases, two of which affect the skin. Might want to ask the doc about them. You can probably do a search and get some pictures, to see if anything looks familiar.

Take care, Dot.

You don't want to ask a guy to show up in "male lingerie" or he may appear at your door in Speedo's and water wings.

I have heard that men buy more stuff at Victoria's Secret than women, in hopes the gifts' recipients will model it for them. Briefly.

jardinero, that was beautifully stated. I would be surprised if you didn't get several marriage proprosals - not to embarrass you or to suggest that was your intent.

One thing you came back to a few times, and it's something I love about women, is the pleasure they take in feeling feminine. It may vary from culture to culture, but think few men dress to feel or express their masculinity, at least consciously. I know, guys wear "guy stuff" and yet there is a male detachment about it too. All we know for sure is we DON'T want to feel or look feminine. (If we ever should, don't tell us, just kill us.)

Anyway, thank you.

Greasespots talking.

We know what we mean by abuse.

But what about expectations? Little girls are expected to be "pretty."

Boys are expected to be athletic, brave, tough - things most boys can work on if they don't get it right away.

But how does a little girl work on being "pretty?"

And what if she works on it as all little girls will try, and some little boy tells her she's ugly?

If a boy is lacking in strength or coordination, he will take up a sport or work out. He will develop his prowess and muscles, things which nature meant to be developed.

How does she get to feel prettier?

I think that in a way we throw our girls out there to the wolves, the way Lot threw his daughters to the Sodomites. This cultural addiction to beauty may be killing something in females, and if in them, in males too.

It's not so subtle, unless you've become used to it. And we have.

Speaking of wolves - laleo, interesting thoughts on the views of Ms. Wolf. Also, I have purposely refrained from mentioning my cowboy boots in hopes of maintaining some semblance of decorum.

[This message was edited by QamiQazi on September 08, 2003 at 22:27.]

Random thoughts -

The bible says one should not hide their light under a bushel. Female and male each have their steps in the "mating dance."

Men appreciate female beauty (the understatement of the century), but they may also resent it. We may even see it as a personal invitation, only to be rejected in favor of a rival.

While females are less inclined to whistle and hoot, they have an eye for masculine physicality which parallels the male eye for the feminine. But not exactly.

Have you ever wondered what makes a thing like beauty so instantly recognizable? It's almost as if it were a genetic response, yet the "standards" for what we accept as beautiful have changed considerably over the years. And they differ by culture. Also by social class, education, family background, religious background, peer circles, and "pop culture."

Much of our response to beauty has to do with the way we seek to "frame it," to accessorize it, to emphasize it.

Case in point, what may be beautiful on a beach in Malibu may be considered obscene on a street corner in Tehran, or Peoria for that matter. Why? It's all in how much is revealed, and how much is concealed. Interesting, no?

Does its beauty make it "obscene," in other words, does fundamentalism seek to control the power of beauty by concealing it from view?

Cosmetics raise questions too. We all have some sense of how much make-up is enough, or too much, or not enough. I've seen women transformed into Mardi Gras-like charicatures of themselves from the excessive (in my opinion) application of make-up. Others wear no make-up at all, with varying results. (I kind of like that "look.") Still others seem to apply it so artistically it makes you wonder if its really there, though you know it is.

I am getting the sense that beauty is a touchy subject, even here, and maybe we can understand why. I don't want this thread to become an attempt to "fix" someone else's perception of beauty because it conflicts with popular ideals.

What I like or don't like is irrelevant. But what I see, and what you see, is extremely relevant, if only to understand what motivates us, male or female.

What is this connection between our senses and our sense of beauty? Is there a "cult" of beauty to which we all belong, without even realizing it?

How much do you invest in your personal appearance which you might privately concede is out of vanity? Or conversely, how much do you neglect yourself (as the expression of not loving yourself, or punishing yourself, as the "torch" you bear for some chronic sense of shame or guilt, a.k.a., "sin") enough to look your best?

How much of any obsession or neglect is a disguise or a re-invention of yourself to influence others' behavior toward you? A woman in fear of men might make herself less attractive, for instance. A woman in fear of being alone might spend everything she has on looking attractive. And we'll acknowledge that men, in their own way, will do the same, but it's not the same. Body builders come to mind, but there are lots of other examples.

[This message was edited by QamiQazi on September 08, 2003 at 12:51.]

What caught my eye in the review below was the comparison to "religious or cult-like behavior" with the pursuit of beauty. There is plenty of evidence to suggest American women (and probably the world over) are a little obsessive about their appearance.

I can understand that in one respect because I know the power that female beauty has over me, as a male, and over males in general. Power being... power, it's something to be valued in human societies, and if beauty brings power, then it will be sought. It's ironic that even homosexual males are (if stereotypically) fascinated by the feminine allure, whether they mean to imitate it, or to serve it (as many do in the "beauty industry").

Nobody would deny that the human body can be beautiful, whether male or female. But when referring to male beauty we generally refer to something like perfection of engineering principles, such as proportion and symmetry, undeniably esthetic ideals but fundamentally different than that beauty which is female.

Few of us are blessed/cursed to be born "tens." But men take it much better when they aren't than women seem to. Walk through any department store and you will see the cosmetics section, and the jewelry section, and the accessories section, and the women's shoes, and the lingerie (where we may be tempted to linger?), and after long last, you will stumble on a section for men.

I'm not complaining. It's only to indicate how much more important this stuff is to women. If female beauty is a powerful narcotic to the male (for a look at the perverse extreme this might take, refer to L. Craig Martindale's views on "the Eternal Vagina Fix"), it is a holy grail for most females, and like the grail, unattainable by the standards set by the industries and empires which sell beauty products. After all, what is a "super model" but a genetic freak, often surgically enhanced, always cosmetically enhanced?

quote:

---

Review - This valuable study [The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf], full of infuriating statistics and examples, documents societal pressure on women to conform to a standard form of beauty.

Freelance journalist Wolf cites predominant images that negatively influence women--the wrinkle-free, unnaturally skinny fashion model in advertisements and the curvaceous female in pornography--and questions why women risk their health and endure pain through extreme dieting or plastic surgery to mirror these ideals.

She points out that the quest for beauty is not unlike religious or cult behavior: every nuance in appearance is scrutinized by the godlike, watchful eyes of peers, temptation takes the form of food and salvation can be found in diet and beauty aids.

Women are "trained to see themselves as cheap imitations of fashion photographs" and must learn to recognize and combat these internalized images. Wolf's thoroughly researched and convincing theories encourage rejection of unrealistic goals in favor of a positive self-image.

---

What do you think, and please tell us (if you will) whether you are male or female, unless your handle makes it obvious.

For all the appeal beauty has to men, I also think women love their own beauty, and admire it in other women, in the same way men may admire their physical prowess, or even their looks. These are things upon which we may build our natural healthy pride, and upon which that pride may become unnatural or unhealthy should we lose our sense of values or perspective, or vanity.

Did your participation or indoctrination in TWI affect your notions of female beauty? In what ways?

QQ

[This message was edited by QamiQazi on September 08, 2003 at 0:11.]

Doesn't sound like he's happy about it.

Sounds like it's "best," as in, Greasespot is good and no Greasespot is best. It's the old decision - good vs. best. What's most blessed? What's less blessed? Better to go with most blessed, especially if you're outvoted or outnumbered by those who know better, or rather, best.

Gibson

"primer"

"heresies

The way I see it, "Catholic traditionalism" which is among other things a rejection Vatican II, is akin to an offshoot of the Flat Earth Society, declaring that the FES has betrayed its principles somehow.

It is ignorance within igorance, the blind rejecting the blind, leaving those blind to lead themselves into their own blindness.

What is the attraction cults hold for us? When I think of my own former allegiance to The Way, it was contingent upon results, upon knowing God, and when God seemed to dwell outside of The Way's framework, it remained for a time a social gathering of mostly younger, reasonably educated, "like-minded" people. It just became a part of life, for a while.

While The Way was certainly a cult, it was a mild case compared with many others, some of which have achieved "acceptablity" as denominations.

God save the rest from His "chosen."

[This message was edited by QamiQazi on August 10, 2003 at 13:19.]