What is this book about?

For those of you who don’t know, Blade is a superhero vampire hunter. Blade was born in a whorehouse in the Soho neighborhood of London, England at some time in the late nineteenth century. Blade’s mother, Tara Brooks, was a prostitute at Madame Vanity’s Brothel. When his mother experienced severe labor complications, a doctor was summoned who was in actuality Deacon Frost, a vampire who feasted on her during Blade’s birth and killed her. However, this inadvertently passed along certain enzymes in his own blood to the infant. This resulted in Blade’s quasi-vampiric abilities, including a greatly prolonged lifespan and the ability to sense supernatural creatures, as well as an immunity to complete vampirism.

This story takes place after Blade becomes a solo vampire-hunter in New Orleans after he helped Hannibal King defeat their nemesis Deacon Frost. Blade decides to remain in New Orleans.

He comes into contact with the vampire Ulysses Sojourner who was in New Orleans to hold a meeting for the nationwide undead unification, along with his former ally, Morbius, the Living Vampire, who was under Sojourner’s mental thrall.

Why should you read this book?

A Strange Tales miniseries featuring Man-Thing and Werewolf by Night was published in 1998 to tie up plot lines after their individual series had been canceled. Blade’s first volume was just that, his first solo title book under the Strange Tales imprint. Ironically, although four issues were solicited for Man-thing and Werewolf by night, only two issues of this volume saw print, and the conclusions of those storylines were never released. I’m pretty sure this was also the case with Blade’s series as well. Only because, I have the three issues that WERE published under the Strange Tales imprint for his series and I feel like it still ends with unanswered questions. Plus it was never officially released as a “mini-series” with a definitive end to the titles numbering.

And it’s of no surprise that the reason the title came out to begin with was to coincide with the release of the feature length blockbuster hit, Blade. Which so began comic characters matching their movie counterparts. So like, for instance, in the Spider-man films the movie character has organic web shooters instead of mechanical one’s so editors and chairmen gave the comic character organic web shooters as well. In the Superman Returns movie, Superman and Lois Lane had a kid so they gave Superman and Lois Lane in the comics as kid as well. And with the Blade movies, the character could walk around in the daytime, whereas the comic character couldn’t. So to match what was happening, within the movies, editors and chairmen gave Blade the ability to walk around in the daytime. Which I feel was the whole point of creating Blade Volume: 1.

But since it seems as though it was canceled and left without finances to finish the book they had Blade follow Morbius to New York (Spider-man Volume: 2 # 8), where, while teamed with Spider-Man, Blade was bitten by Morbius. Blade’s blood enzymes reacted unexpectedly with Morbius’s unique form of vampirism to grant Blade many vampire strengths while eliminating weaknesses inherent to a vampire, most notably the weakness to sunlight. It was at this time that Blade assumed the unofficial title of “Daywalker” among his prey. Now, officially coinciding with the film. I think they mean’t to do this all along in his own title but it lost funding so they tied it up in a Spider-man book.

I’m not a GIANT fan of this series, but I do LOVE the Spider-man book where Blade gets his ‘Daywalker’ powers. But I feel like those titles go hand in hand and you can’t read one without the other. So yes, I do highly recommend this book. Because although I’m not always keen on comic characters matching their movie counterparts, I do like how this one was handled.

I think the only question I have is, you can clearly see in the enlarged image, on the right, that Blade was walking around in the daytime. But he didn’t get his ‘Daywalker’ abilities until after this particular panel. I don’t know man, the late nineties when Marvel was going bankrupt was an odd time to try and follow comics…

Although, one has to wonder, where is the drama in Blade comics now? He basically can never die. There’s no sense of fear and tension within the book because Blade essentially can’t lose. It’s a little absurd. But, somehow they pull it off nicely where his stories still make for interesting books. After all, Blade has nothing to worry about in terms of sales considering vampires are pretty hott right now…

You can purchase the titles here and the Spider-man issue here.

Bronques is my modern day inspiration.

Merlin is a creature of the nightlife, partying hard and photographing partygoers for his site Last Night’s Party. More often than not an R-rated photographic chronicle of the downtown demimonde that has become as desirable a showcase for club kids as the pages of W magazine are to Park Avenue socialites.

Despite the heat from the critics, the site’s popularity shows no signs of waning. In fact, the fun-at-all-costs message seems to be spreading. While a life of seven-nights-a-week clubbing might wear on some people, Bronques seems to thrive on it.

“You know that song by Arcade Fire that goes ‘Sleeping is giving in’? That’s my anthem.”

Combining the best of glamorous pinup photography with a lush, urban aesthetic, and his photos capture the vibrancy of New York life and its most lusty citizens. His passion for his craft is clear in the way he describes his work and his nonstop clicking. When not walking the city streets hoping for a glimpse of his next top model. He finds them anywhere and everywhere, and believes, “With a complete stranger you can explore sides of yourself that you never could with family, friends and even your significant other.”

The photoblogging phenomenon has helped convince regular people they are amazing enough to get their photo taken. Merlin and Mark Hunter of thecobrasnake.com. Coupled with the digital-photography boom and the prevalence of photobloggers, a paparazzi-type feel has erupted at every nightclub—places where not too long ago, anyone, famous or not, could let loose anonymously. Now people don’t just want you to take their photos, they expect it. Nightclubs are their red carpet, the (insert club name) and (insert club name) are their movie premieres, and lastnightsparty.com and thecobrasnake.com are their Us Weekly and Star magazines.

And actually, I have a confession to make that just became clear after that last paragraph. I hate, I mean hate with a passion that burns with the power of a thousand suns, reality T.V. Any form of it. I’m talking everything from the Hills to Cops. And even though shows like Man vs. Wild, the Girls next door, and Dirty Jobs have all at times captured my attention and heart, I am sickened by that form of “entertainment.” But the concept of reality T.V. isn’t that far off from what club photographing is all about. Making the average and most of the time not-so-average person a celebrity by a single photo. And I have to admit, as a person who’s struggled his whole life knowing that the odds of being a true celebrity are slim to none…it makes me feel a little warm inside feeling as though I’m handsome enough, fashionable enough, dare I say even funny enough to have my photo taken and posted online in a very tabloid-esque manner.

“The first time I ever took pictures at Happy Ending, there were no other photographers there,” Bronques says. “People asked, ‘Why would you want to take pictures here? There are no celebrities here.’ But I love blurring the line between celebrity and the kids. A lot of the kids I photograph are as cool as any celebrity that I photograph.”

Bronques sees party photographers as an addition to the nightlife experience: “You have a cool DJ that plays good music, go-go dancers that hype the atmosphere, a host that makes it look cool, and a photographer who adds that sense of glamour to it. It helps a party.” You can trace that idea to Studio 54—all of us are in some way paying homage to the documentation of that glitzy era. But back then, nightclub photography wasn’t so commonplace. It meant something to get your picture taken.

Up here in Boston, the club photographer who is extremely well known throughout the indie hipster scene is David Day, who takes photos for the site, Nicky Digital. He’s snapped my photo a bunch of times. Most notably these gems:

Click image to see a short slideshow of images, RSS readers, please go to actual post.

In the indie-verse the most ‘popular’ club photographers are: Merlin Bronques, MisShapes, The Cobra Snake, and Nicky Digital (if you don’t know these names, you’re either over 35 years old or need to seriously re-read your Hipster Handbook).

You might say I’m a little obsessed with sex and the exploitation thereof. Things that ooze and drip sex I love. So, what Merlin shoots is like art to me. It is art in fact. And the thing is, it’s not even just the sexual photos, it’s the photos he takes of gallivanting around the world. Shots of being on a plane or in a cab going somewhere. Walking down the street and taking amazing photos of that cities current newspaper. It’s all completely random but, it all tells a story. It’s his life in photographs.

I’m sure there have been hundreds of other artists/photographers who have done this very thing. But, he continues to capture my eyes, brain, and heart with every thing he shoots so I had to write about him and his work because I am in awe on a weekly basis and that awe cannot go not talked about.

Since it would seem most of my friends and people I know who read this blog, tend to a) dislike the sex-ploitation of women b) dislike hipsters and c) don’t like reading my reviews (based on Google Analytics) I’ll assume none of my friends have read anything past the first paragraph so I won’t even warn them that the visual content they skipped to is most definitely NSFW.

Not only does he snap photos but he makes short videos and writes even shorter stories. Both of which are almost better than the photo he takes. Here are some of my favorite pieces of work done by him (video, word, and photos):

These movies are probably the two greatest pieces of video that have ever been shot, and I mean that.

Here’s two of my favorite things he’s written:

You call me into your meetings and you have so many new ideas. You’re going to put New York City back on the map. You’re going to put the “life” back into “nightlife”. Hey, have you met my friend Michelle? She just moved here. She’s 18 years old and she makes her own outfits. She’s friends with all the drag queens that hang out at The Box and she gets table comps at Avenue and the Boom Boom Room. They love her at Rose Bar. She missed everything. The Beatrice days, the Misshapes days, the Ruff Club days, the Motherfucker days, the We Bite days and the Happy Valley days. She doesn’t care. She’ll go see Frog at Happy Ending because he makes her laugh and he always plays the Beatles. Opening Ceremony wants her to be a brand ambassador. She hardly wears any make-up. They say she looks like early Kate Moss but they don’t know what to do with those big boobs on her little frame. She gets in everywhere. When she goes to Brooklyn, she goes there to dance. She discovered BK when Hiro Ballroom almost killed the scene and before Webster came back to try to save it. She was just visiting back then, and all her friends wanted to go to Marquee because Time Out Magazine said it was a hot, but she followed a photographer to a warehouse party across the river. They took the L train on a night where it was actually working and they saw Thelophius London for the first time. Will she come to your parties when you start saving New York? Probably not, because she’s moving to LA.

People come in and out of the scene like seasons. When we haven’t seen someone in a while, we know that we’ve probably lost them to an overdose… or a relationship. When these new relationships start, it’s always with the best intentions that nothing will change. But slowly and gradually it happens. The new couple starts to leave the parties earlier and earlier until eventually they start hosting dinners at home instead. People bring wine and they talk about their little projects. Like the one’s they’re developing together, a catering business or a clothing store or a fashion line and they talk about how they’ve started going to the gym and they’re doing cardio and that they have an awesome personal trainer with a Russian name. They’re being more “productive”. They’re “growing up”. Eventually, there are less dinners, or rather, the kids “not-in-relationships” get invited less and less and the lovely couple suddenly disappears. Off the radar, just like that, and the party people stop trying to call, and everybody’s life just goes on.

And it’s always when we least expect it, you know, when we’ve finally found peace with our new dancing partners for “Lust For Life” and Arcade Fire and when we have new people to do Patron shots with, that one of them re-appears again with a brand new haircut and some cute clothes telling us and everyone else how they really lost themselves in that last relationship. It was good, they don’t regret it, but New York City isn’t made for settling down. They can’t wait to re-connect with themselves and their old friends again. But, you know, it’s never as comfortable as the last time around. There’s too many new faces. The party names have changed, the DJs are “mixing harder”, and after the over-emotional, over-compensating hugs that last as if we were Vietnam vets reunited, they realize that they have changed too and that they have nothing in common with the new regime.

Here is a very small group of photos I’ve collected from his site that I think are wonderful. RSS readers, please go to actual post:

What is this book about?

Filmmaker David Lynch describes his personal methods of capturing and working with ideas, and the immense creative benefits he has experienced from the practice of meditation.

Lynch typically reveals very little of himself, or the ideas behind his work. Catching the Big Fish: Meditation, Consciousness, and Creativity is a window he provides into his methods as an artist and his personal working style. In Catching the Big Fish, Lynch writes about the tremendous creative benefits he has gained from his thirty-two-year commitment to practicing Transcendental Meditation.

In hilariously super brief chapters, Lynch describes the experience of “diving within” and “catching” ideas like fish-and then preparing them for television or movie screens, and other mediums in which Lynch works, such as photography and painting. I say hilariously super brief chapters because if you’ve ever watched, seen or read any of Lynch’s other books, media, commentary, etc. The man has a tendency to be overly verbose. So I’m curious what the editing process was for a book like this.

The book comes as a revelation to the legion of fans who have longed to better understand Lynch’s deeply personal vision. And it is equally intriguing to anyone who grapples with questions such as: “Where do ideas come from?” and “How can I nurture creativity?

Why should you read this book?

Catching the Big Fish provides unprecedented insight into Lynch’s methods, as it also offers a set of practical ideas that speak to matters of personal fulfillment, increased creativity, and greater harmony with one’s surroundings.

I’ve always been pretty skeptical about meditation. In a way, I feel like I practice meditation every day anyhow. For me, meditation is the open mind. I don’t feel as though you have to practice the cliche sitting Indian style humming “Om.” I feel like I practice meditation when I’m running, laying in bed, sitting on the toilet, drawing, cooking, basically doing things that my mind and body otherwise feels is mindless work where it then lets my mind think about things I wouldn’t be able to while I have to concentrate.

I guess I always stereotyped meditation thinking that it was always a get-healed-quick-type-solution for your problems. Where you just push your anger down and never deal with it, creating obvious problems later. But a quote from Lynch from the book made me feel otherwise:

“There’s no guarantee that meditation or delivering the Wall Street Journal is going to make you a success. But, with focus and with meditation–although the events of your life may stay the same–the way you go through those events changes and gets so much better.”–David Lynch

Which really gets me thinking about my life and how to go about making it better.

I actually made an appointment with a therapist recently to try and make my life better and am also just as skeptical about therapy, if not more, than I am about meditation. But, clearly I’m not doing so well, so I’m looking at anything else to try and make things better. And Catching the Big Fish: Meditation, Consciousness, and Creativity couldn’t have come at a better time.

It’s a very quick read and although I feel that the book caters more to the fans of David Lynch as an inside look into his psyche and rationale, it’s intriguing and interesting outside of David Lynch fandom. If anything I feel like it’s better than a regular “how-to” guide on transcendental meditation because you can actually see how someone was able to apply to their work and how it changed them and their impact on the world.

Buy it here.

Also, here are some really great quotes from the book:

“If want to get one hour of good painting in, you have to have four hours of uninterrupted time. You don’t just start painting. You have to sit for a while and get some kind of mental idea in order to go and make the right moves.”–David Lynch

“I went to a psychiatrist once, I was doing something that had become a pattern in my life, and I thought, Well, I should go talk to a psychiatrist. When I got into the room, I asked him, “Do you think that this process could, in any way, damage my creativity?” and he said “Well, David, I have to be honest: it could.” And I shook his hand and left.”–David Lynch

“Instead of instilling fear, if a company offered a way for everyone in the business to dive within- to start expanding energy and intelligence-people would work overtime for free. They would be far more creative. And the company would just leap forward. This is the way it can be. It’s not the way it is, but it could be that way so easily.”–David Lynch

“Sometimes accidents happen that aren’t happy, but you have to work with those as well. You adapt. You throw out this thing, and throw out that thing, and throw out another thing. But if you pay attention to the original idea-stay true to that-it’s surprising how, at the end, even the things that were accidents are honest. They’re true to the idea.”–David Lynch

Something came up recently where friends of mine had went to go see Where the wild things are. And came back with a fairly negative review. And normally if I had seen the movie I’m apt to try and shed some open-minded light on the subject. However, I haven’t seen Where the wild things are nor have I any real desire to, but that still didn’t stop me from trying to take the open minded stance in the conversation.

Their complaint is that it left them feeling more depressed after having seen the movie. When the book felt like a more light-hearted tale that didn’t make them feel that way. And one of my friends even points out, that, Where the wild things are is only like a 10-page book so Spike Jonze didn’t have much to work with in terms of screenplay. So he kind of had to make up and insert things to make it a feature length movie.

Which really got me thinking, because, it reminds me of an argument that comes up a lot in my field. What happens when making images, video, animation, etc larger than what it was originally created at. Allow me to show you:

Notice that the image on the right looks pretty crappy and distorted. See, the image on the right is the result of the computer ‘guessing’ (based on mathematical algorithms) what the image is supposed to look like once it’s become larger. Because you can’t just make something larger (or smaller for that matter) without taking away or replacing it with something. What we’re looking at is “the square cube law.”

The square-cube law is a biomechanical principle that explains why we don’t have man-sized insects, elephant-sized birds, and why you can’t make jpg images larger without it pixelating; But could also explain why you liked the book better than the movie as well.

As an object increases in size, its volume and mass increase as well. The area of bodily organs such as bones, muscles, or breathing tubes only increase in size not mass.

Which means, if you double the size of an animal, its mass increases by a factor 8, but the strength of its bones and muscles only increases by a factor of 4. Increase the size far enough, and the animal will no longer be strong enough to support its own weight. It’ll also have trouble breathing and pumping enough blood around, because the tubes and blood vessels don’t increase in size fast enough to handle the extra body weight either.

So let’s use this principal with something less tangible, such as movies and screenplays…

A lot of movies are based off of books, comics, short stories, novels, etc. Producers will hire writers to write a screenplays based on the book or sometimes directly word for word from the book. All depending on what the producers want for the final product.

So if we take Where the wild things are for example, if the book is only 10 pages and you need to make a half an hour-to-a two hour film you’re going to have to create a lot of story that wasn’t there originally. This isn’t to say let’s reinvent the wheel and completely change around how the story is told to make it into a feature length movie, (even though many writers do this). Sometimes all that needs to be done, is create a backstory for the characters and / or show more of their personality’s in detail. Which, to my understanding of the Where the wild things are movie is what they did. However, the less you have to work with and the smaller the original media the more likely the movie won’t be strong enough to support its own weight.

So, even though though the square cubed law explains biomechanical principles it can applied to metaphysical principles as well.

You can’t take something with an original size of ten pages such as Where the wild things are and make it into a movie without adding or extending scenes. Just like you can’t blow up an insect or another animal without restructuring their biology to enable their body to work at a larger size you can’t blow up a book into a movie without restructuring the story to work at a longer length. Unfortunately for fans, what ends up happening, is that once the book is scaled up you can begin to see the distortion from the book to movie translation, much like Photoshop’s ‘guess’ as to what an image looks like scaled up from it’s original version.

However, the explanation for what happens when adapting a screenplay from a short a story into a movie isn’t why I’m writing. I’m writing, to try and shed some light on the reasons possibly why it is you liked the book better.

Obviously, books and movies are very different mediums. When you read, you create your own movie in a sense. You produce your own movie in your head with how the characters speak, what they look like, and what their surroundings are like; even if the author describes in great detail what they sound like, look like, and where they are. Which is different with movies because this is the author’s, as well as any number of other people involved in the film’s, combined interpretation of what they saw and want to be seen in the movie.

I’m not sure what goes on during the publishing and producing of a book, but, it feels like, there’s more opportunities to say what you want and produce it how you want so long as the publisher is okay with what is being printed. And based on one of my favorite author’s (Chuck Palahniuk) quotes, it sounds as though he’s inclined to feel the same way:

But the first time I read ‘Guts’, nobody fainted. My goal was just to write some new form of horror story, something based on the ordinary world. Without supernatural monsters or magic. It would be a book you wouldn’t want to keep next to your bed. A book that would be a trapdoor down into some place dark. A place only you could go, alone, when you opened the cover. Because only books have that power. A motion picture, or music, or television, they have to maintain a certain decorum in order to be broadcast to a vast audience. Other forms of mass media cost too much to product to risk reaching only a limited audience. But a book… A book is cheap to print and bind. A book is as private and consensual as sex. A book takes time and effort to consume – something that gives a reader every chance to walk away. Actually, so few people make the effort to read that it’s difficult to call books a ‘mass medium’. No one really gives a damn about books. No one has bothered to ban a book in decades. But with that disregard comes the freedom that only books have. And if a storyteller is going to write novels instead of screenplays, that’s a freedom you need to exploit. Otherwise, write a movie. That’s where the big money’s at. Write for television. But, if you want the freedom to go anywhere, talk about anything, then write books. That’s why I wrote ‘Guts’. Just a three-act short story based on true-life anecdotes. People write to say this story is the funniest they’ve ever heard. People write to say it’s the saddest they’ve ever heard. And ‘Guts’ is by no means the darkest or funniest or most upsetting story from the novel Haunted. Some, I didn’t dare read in public. These are the places that only books can go. This is the advantage that books still have. This is why I write. Thank you for reading my work.”

He’s a critically acclaimed popular sought after writer that knows the business inside of movies and out. More so, he’s also the author of Fight Club, who I’d warrant a guess to say, the majority of the people that read the book and saw the movie, would have to say that people liked Fight Club the movie better. Why that is, I don’t know, I can only speculate. Ask around, I’m sure you’ll find this to be the census.

There’s lots of factors to consider when determining why you liked the book better. 1) When directors cast roles for films, they don’t always get it the way you would want it. And it’s not always entirely their fault, it’s not always just the opinion of the director for what stays and what goes. Sometimes certain people are unavailable or don’t want the role or they need to cast someone for other obscure various reasons. 2) Highly elaborate sets may be wonderful but they may not be a faithful portrayal or your interpretation. You may find yourself disappointed by movie versions that don’t live up to your imagination. 3) Another problem many people have is the deletion of certain scenarios the reader read in the book, important or not, the reader is left wondering why would they take that out? Because even though the scene didn’t translate to film or they didn’t have room for it or they felt it was unnecessary, the reader feels as though that scene was important enough to them to understand the book because it was necessary for their imagination to fill in the gaps. If the director must make a shorter film, there’s no way to include everything, especially when it comes from a long book. 4) Not only is deletion of scenes a common reason why people usually like the book better but also the addition of scenes not created by the writer as well. And the director, feels as though it was necessary to add those scenes to show you, explain or heighten the viewing experience to try and get the attention of the viewer good or bad / well received or not well received.

So the majority of the reasons for why you liked the book better is because of differing opinions among many people. The opinion of the director, the opinion of the media, the opinion of society, the author, critics, cast members, crew members, and yourself. All warring with one another on what they think is correct book to movie translation.

That’s why you liked the book better. Because nothing is better than what you create yourself. Nothing is better than the euphoria of feeling that you are right.

The simple fact of the matter is, as much as we want to see our favorite characters in live-action 3D environments on screen, we don’t. Because the only way they will match up to our expectations is if we create it ourselves. It’s easier to hate on something picking out all the little things that should have been done than to just do something great yourself.

But knowing that the majority of us cannot create or be a part of a feature length movie, it makes sense that we settle on criticism. However, in order for us to fully enjoy the movie version just as much as we enjoy the book we might have to settle for being fair about our expectations and consider that someone might actually know better than us.

However, having said that, it’s important that Hollywood recognize it’s societal responsibility by factoring in science prior to production. As well as respecting the opinions of others, even though it’s their movie to make doesn’t mean it’s their movie. We paid for the book, we spent time to consume the book, “when an artist creates, whatever they create belongs to society.”–South Park

You liked the book better because they are better when people aren’t respectful for the original media and opinions of others.

As I’m sure you’ve heard, John Hughes – director of such 80s classics as “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” “Sixteen Candles,” and “The Breakfast Club” – has died.

I am connected to the “blogosphere” at least 3/4 of my day, and for the most part, a lot of people do not blog about anything new or post original content. They take a news clip from a favorite site of theirs and post it, thus sharing it with their friends, and their friends sharing it others etc. So when something happens like Michael Jackson’s death, or an alleged monster washing up on shore of some beach, or Paula Abdul leaving American Idol, or legendary director John Hughes dying; it immediately gets blogged about like crazy and everyone posts something about it but nobody offers anything new about the story. They’re just stating that he died and that he will be missed.

Cool? Interesting? Compelling? This post makes me want to go back to your site why? Create original thoughts! Create original content! Be funny, be memorable, be something other than a lemming. For instance, with my blog post called, Imitate or differentiate, I offered another outlook onto the video as opposed to just posting it and throwing it out there into the world yet again like so many others did. Granted, I am guilty of just posting content without offering anything new to it, I will not judge without judging myself. Like this post for instance…this post will be just another, “John Hughes R.I.P.,” blog post where I talk about how those movies defined my youth and how influential he was on a generation.

However, it will also be unique because I have a vessel that not only enables, but kind of requires me to blog about news and issues that deal with the theme of this blog; which is the drama, insight, and emotions that go along with being forced into a stereotype of what it means to grow-up and become an adult. So yeah John Hughes? The guy that directed movies that shaped what kind of person I decided I was going to be, news of him dying fits directly in line with what I usually talk about on this blog.

Allison Reynolds: When you grow up, your heart dies.
- The Breakfast Club

Most thoughts that pass through my head on a regular basis at least take a moment to remember a particular scene from each of these movies. They were totally the essence of high-school yet totally unrelated to the realities of my particular high-school experience. He had a knack for presenting me the version of adolescence I really wanted; he even sold me on the bad parts of it.

Everything I thought high school, college and growing up was going to be, look like, feel like, sound like, etc. I thought was going to be like a John Hughes movie. And maybe because of that, maybe because I spent so much time hoping and trying to make it like one, I lost out on making it my own experience. Leaving me in the position I am today. However, I do not regret it. I feel that where I lacked in branching out then, I gain in branching out now.

There is this song by a band named Okkervil River called “Our Life Is Not a Movie or Maybe.”

I think it suggests that life doesn’t work out like movies do but it also suggests that maybe it does. Just because there is not a magnificent climax with a “costly parade for you only,” doesn’t mean that your life was not movie-esque. Think about it this way, an actor doesn’t usually see the finality of the film they were a part of until the screening and/or possibly the premiere. While shooting the movie the actors certainly don’t see what we see. They saw how it was made; and until they watch the screening only then can they step back and see their “life” that they were portraying as we do when we think back to our past.

The present is just us making a movie that we will watch in our heads in the future where we will quote, reflect, and reference like we do with movies.

Life does emulate movies, and movies do emulate life.

Our past when reflected on will not feel like it did when it was happening, it will be voyeuristic like it is when you watch a movie. You will look at yourself and not see necessarily the same person as you see today. Because you’ve grown, mentally and physically. Seeing who you were in the past will be like watching someone else portray your life like in a movie.

Movies are real life, but it’s expected of you to believe they’re not because we are told that fantasy is not reality, that the things that happen in movies are not real. But the people who are saying that do not understand that movies are metaphors. The things that happen in fiction are just metaphors to teach you something about yourself. To become self aware of the person you actually are, as opposed to be person who you think you are.

Anyway, I just wanted to write another John Hughes R.I.P. blog post and say that I hope that his family and friends are doing okay and are coping well and make it known to the world in the only way that I can right now that he has made my life easier to live as a result of him creating something he was passionate about. Hughes’ work has influenced every generation since and will continue to do so as long as people are willing to listen. I hope he and his family truly understand what they’ve done for this world.

“Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.”
- Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

PS: You should check out this really cool post about a girl who was apparently pen pals with Hughes.