Far From Heaven

Last week, I finally saw this movie, Far From Heaven.  It was included as Andrew O'Hehir's top ten best of the Aughts - up there with Pan's Labyrinth.  I agree that Julianne Moore's performance was stunning - I haven't seen all her other work.  It is hard to believe that she is the same actress who plays Jack Donaghy's heavy Boston accented school crush.

It really is a beautiful movie, the colors are vibrant.The costumes are great, as well as the set design. All in all, it was a good film.  I think it consciously played off the stereotypical woman in the late 1950s plot.  Or, woman trapped by society plot (haven't we seen this with Anna Karenina?).  Actually, it did remind me quite a bit of Anna Karenina - without the Levin character.

Part of the film is the realization that the main character (Kathy's) husband is gay - they appear to have the perfect home and life. But in reality, they do not.  He's never home and always unhappy.  At one point, Frank (played by Dennis Quaid) even goes to a psychiatrist to try and "cure" him of being gay.  Homosexuality was thought (back then) of as a disease (until 1973).  

Throughout the movie there is a heavy handed idea that this was life then, and things are different now.

What's interesting for me, and why I bring this up is that I didn't realize that the LDS church (that I was raised in) was still encouraging gay men to marry women.  Well, I think it has backed off on that stance a bit - although I'm not sure if that is official or not. But this is the situation that many couples find themselves in, not fifty years ago - but in the past decade.  And as the MSP post I linked to above brings up - is that fair to either person in the couple?  Is that fair to the wife? 

There is a painful scene in the film where the husband describes to his wife that he has fallen in love.  He says "I didn't know what it was like"...and she looks like she's been slapped in the face.  Because all along, she loved him, she tried to do everything possible to be happy.  And not a month earlier, he had been so angry that she had been seen talking with a man of color (which was a scandal for the entire town). 

One of the conflicts in the movie was the assumption that he could change - just because he wanted to. 

It was a sad movie.  And one worth seeing - if only to realize some of where we have come from, and where we are.  I don't know if it makes my list of top ten films from the last decade, but it was definitely worth seeing. 

Music and Aging

Found it!  Finally! 

I was listening to npr the other day and heard a report from this reporter.  Just to keep everyone in the loop, I've been searching for this article through search engines for some time now, and couldn't find the right key words.

The story is here from 2006..."Does Age quash our spirit of adventure?"   So it had nothing to do with music at all, which is why I couldn't find it. 

Robert Sapolsky, a distinguished neuroscientist in his 40s, had a young assistant who played different music every day, from Sonic Youth to Minnie Pearl. That made Sapolsky crazy -- and curious about why his aging ears still crave the music he loved in college. Is there a certain age when the typical American passes from the novelty stage to utter predictability?

While I have certainly met older people who enjoy all types of music, I have found this observation to be true for me personally.  Listening to music I loved from high school produces an emotional reaction for me - I like current music, but it is just not the same. 

So it's nice to have my theories backed up by research.  It's true, I think some people are simply more experimental than others in terms of their musical preferences.   But I think as we age, we're less interested in experiencing and understanding new things.

New Year's Resolutions - update

So as I've mentioned before, I'm not really someone who sets new years' resolutions.  It has never really spoken to me.

This year, however, we set a new year's resolution as a family.  The resolution?  Sit on one's chair at the dinner table, do not stand up and dance around instead of eating. 

My husband and I have done very well at this particular resolution.  Granted, I'm not sure it was a habit we had prior to this year either.

For some reason, however, framing it to our kids in terms of a "resolution" has added weight to the request (and added authority to it).  Now, not only is sitting at the dinner table a request, but it's also a "resolution" that we are working towards as a family. 

Believe it or not, we really tend to be a pretty laid back family - at least I tend to think so. We don't have a lot of rules that need to be followed.  But there are a few rules that do exist, and they do have reasons behind them.

As a parent, I get the task of attempting to socialize my children. Because, really, it's just not acceptable in most restaurants for adults to jump on top of their chairs (not to mention dangerous) and start dancing or jumping. 

At some point in life, we have to come face to face with reality; with social manners and with keeping ourselves safe.  And honestly, I am not familiar with many different cultures - but all the cultures I've come in contact with have this as a rule.

So it's not as if what we're asking for is unreasonable.  Some days the urge to dance spontaneously is simply too difficult to fight - no matter what the resolution may be.

New or Used

 

I purchased this coat my junior year of college (over ten years ago) .  It has served me well.  It was incredibly warm - and well made enough that goose down didn't leak everywhere.  I had a coat that spewed feathers everywhere, and it drove me *nuts* - not in a good way.  So this coat really was worth the investment.

 

I bought these shoes around seven or eight years ago.  I don't remember exactly.  They have lasted through lots of walks and two years of a gym membership.

The reason I'm writing about them is simply that I  invested in a new winter coat and shoes today.  These items will be retired, probably to some form of donation store. 

Typically I don't buy new, and I can't say that I'm pleased with the research I've done into some clothing manufacturers.  

Recently a friend of mine on a popular social networking site posted that she had taken the handmade pledge:

 

The Ethical Clothing Pledge: I pledge to only wear clothing that is one or more of the following: 1. Pre-loved 2. Handmade (preferably by me) 3. Reconstructed 4. Made with ethical / environmentally friendly materials 5. Made by a company with strong ethical policy & workers' rights

I believe that there are some items that it makes sense to buy new.  Even if it's not ethical or environmentally friendly. I don't think that goes against the pledge either.  

I need to do more research about the other categories - environmentally friendly materials or strong ethical policies.  

My new coat and shoes do not fit with this pledge.  But I will think about it for the future.  

Some time ago, finding things that were handmade or discovering some company policies would take some time and effort.  One would have to go to the library, look in journals - or subscribe to certain publications.  Now, with the internet, these things are available at one's perusal.  And you can't even argue about the cost, as many of the companies probably have discounts and sales.  

While I am all about doing good things now - there is a growing list of things I want to do more of as my kids get older.  This would be one of those things.  For now, it's not possible for the way I live.  But in the future, it would definitely be a possibility.

Louisa May

I recently saw this documentary on pbs.  I really enjoyed "Little Women" when I was younger.  I read lots of classics (even at that time) and I knew many teachers/relatives who appreciated the novel (and Anne of Green Gables, and Little House on the Prarie). 

I thought the documentary was well done. (I loved the images of the actress running in nineteenth century dress - Alcott was a runner).  I confess that I associated Ms. Alcott simply with Little Women and that series, not realizing how far ahead of her time she was.  I knew her father was friends with many of the transcendalists (Emerson and Thoreau).

I also wasn't aware that she had added the ending about Jo's marriage after many letters from fans imploring her that Jo needed to be married.  Jo's marriage always seemed a bit rushed and out of character for the novel (in my opinion).

Louisa herself never married.


I also hadn't known that for years, she had supported her family (her parents) through writing "pulp" fiction novels using a pseudonym.  And that she supported her family through many, many other types of jobs and positions - everything/anything that would be considered "proper" for a woman at that time.

I've lamented before that I didn't know many happy, successful, stable single people (particularly women) growing up. 


But what I didn't realize was how many of my favorite female figures or authors never married.  In the nineteenth century, unfortunately, it seemed as if the only way a woman could have any sort of career was to not marry.  (I think of Florence Nightengale as a great example of that, by the way).

So now I will go back and read Alcott's descriptions of working in a hospital during the civil war. Those essays were critically acclaimed at the time. 

It's nice to be reminded of just how far women have come, and the additional opportunities we now have.  Women no longer have to "choose" between marriage and other pursuits.  And they are (now) much better able to support themselves. 

Eventful visit to the Dentist

At the dentist yesterday, I was sitting in the waiting room when a lady around the age of 70 was walking out.  She was walking slowly and at first, appeared to have problems opening the door to the waiting room.  Then, she just stopped and stared straight ahead.  The nurse ran over and caught her before she collapsed; she dropped her purse.

A chair was brought, and questions were asked.  I have been working (very hard) on my "Mind your own business" way of life but in such situations, sometimes it's difficult.  Anyway, I overheard the nurses (and assistants) and the dentist asked her about blood sugar, etc.

I'm sure she was embarrassed and uncomfortable about all the attention she was getting.

But in the end, no ambulance was called.  A nurse walked her to the car and she drove away.

So this situation seems wrong (and frightening) to me on two levels. First of all, if you are not able to respond to direct questions and almost collapse, it seems to me that you probably do need to have an ambulance check you out.  Maybe it was just blood sugar.  But maybe not. I am dismayed that for whatever reason, (perhaps money), that this woman didn't feel an ambulance was necessary.

What was going on (to my very amateur view) was a possible mini-stroke.  That's not something to take lightly.

Then, I'm dismayed that after such an incident, she was capable of driving a vehicle.  I am all for people having independence, and as I've mentioned before, my city is not so good on the public transportation front.  But I feel behind the wheel of a car, she may be a danger to herself and others.

So, I understand the railing against a "nanny state".  But there is a point where a person's behavior and choices do impact others around them.  My parked car was totaled around ten years ago by someone who suffered from altzheimers. After he hit my car, he didn't even realize he had hit another vehicle.  He slowly turned around to drive home.  When questioned by police, he didn't know why there was paint on the front of his car, or a cut on his forehead.  Fortunately, he still had insurance (!!?!).  But he should not have been behind the wheel of a car.

I hope she got home safely, and I hope that it was just a momentary lapse.  I do think we need to discuss these types of things as a society.  I'm all for personal independence, but not at the expense of everyone's safety.

Bonus! No one freak out, this is just a picture I took after the accident some years ago. 

eta: 

Selfishness and Obligation

Recently I was having a conversation on a message board I wanted to write about here.

Sometimes, I think a person can be accused of being selfish when they are just trying to fulfill their own needs. But it's also possible that someone is so self-focused that they become narcissistic - or unaware of the needs of others' around them. 

It's a continuum - at any point a person can be protecting their own healthy self-interest or infringing on the rights of others. The line is not always obvious or easy to tell. 



A great example, when someone raised mormon decides their needs are not being met in mormonism and chooses to stop attending church. Other people (some active LDS) may call this "selfish" but making a personal decision to stop attending a religion is not selfish.

And yes, I have heard people say leaving the church (not attending regularly) and not working for change from within is, indeed, selfish. But is it selfish to take ownership of one's own happiness and beliefs?  Is a person obligated to a belief system simply because they were raised in that belief system?

But, I also agree that me some people are very self-focused, and really can't see how they affect others - and they can be controlling and passive aggressive.

Situations are different and it is not black and white. One person may seem selfish and controlling to one person and not to another.



Quote from the person I was having a conversation with:

"And the ideas that 'I must love myself before I can love others,' or 'my every need must be met before I can help someone else' are demonstrably false.  "

I don't know about being false - but it seems to me, if you are exhausted from spending every waking moment doing things for other people or a religion, you can't really help anyone else. If you (a person) takes time to take care of some basic needs (their sleep, etc.) or their responsibilities - the rest will follow.

When I was a new mom, getting little sleep - there was no way that I could do much else but focus on my kids and myself. Now that my kids are older, I have time to myself, they can entertain themselves (and sleep through the night!!) and I am much better able to focus on other things (myself, my career, education, volunteering, etc.).

Viktor Frankl (the therapist who survived the concentration camps) was, seemingly, able to help others in the most desperate of circumstances. So it's true, a person can always help others.

But focusing on meeting your own basic needs is not wrong - getting enough sleep, eating well, keeping up with health, etc.  **

So it's true that some of these things can be over-used, and used to justify bad behavior. But some of the theory is actually sound.

I think a person can be selfish and generous at any given point, in any situation. I don't think (for most people) that they are (at any time) all one or the other.

I may be "selfish" in terms of my co-workers by leaving on time and not working overtime - but not selfish because I'm going home to take care of my family.

I do not think the concept of co-dependence is overused - particularly in an LDS setting/framework. Any religion that implies that what *you* do has an impact on others' religious beliefs - that it is *your* fault if someone leaves the church is not healthy.

Did my grandmother really cause me to leave mormonism? No, of course not. But she believes that there was something she did, something she could have done. This isn't idle speculation on my part, she told me so - asking if there was something she had done that caused me to leave the faith. The conversation was a difficult one, for both of us. 


Granted, all mormons do not believe this, and many disagree with this, but some still do talk about and teach this on a regular basis.

I'll make a vast generalization here. I believe cultural mormonism encourages people to believe they have control over other people's lives, decisions and beliefs. Until a person realizes how much control they have over other people's actions, decisions and beliefs (not much), there is no way to move forward - to be healthy. 

It is not selfish to take responsibility for one's health and well-being.  To be aware of the needs and requests of others around you - but to ultimately take ownership for yourself.  Deciding to not help another adult, to not take responsibility for *their* actions or beliefs is not selfish. At each point, we can choose what we will participate in or not participate in. 

For me personally, the notion of "obligation" is very different than what I previously believed.


**The person I was having a conversation with did agree that it was important to take care of your own needs, health, sleep, etc. later in the thread.