PUBLIC CELL PHONE USERS - EVIL OR SIMPLY MALADJUSTED? (2)

Reader, I kicked him.

One of the most unforgivable things you can do in a movie theatre (and there are many such things) is to use the back of the seat in front of you as a footrest, especially if you are the sort who uses your feet to express emotion. I will tell you two stories featuring this grievous error, and then a third.

I had gone to see Kiss Me, Guido, a gay version of The Odd Couple with "Felix" being a gay actor who needs a roommate and "Oscar" a straight Italian who needs a room. I didn't find it terribly funny, but perhaps this was because every time the audience laughed I felt a dreadful pummelling against my back. It served as a form of Pavlovian conditioning - I did not have the slightest urge to laugh after the first few times. A more confrontational sort of person would have turned around after the second or third bout and let the boor have it, verbally. Sadly, I am not that sort of person, and as there were no empty seats in the theatre, I endured this assault for the length of the movie, simmering with rage. As the credits were rolling, I turned around, hoping to catch a glimpse of my assailant, and maybe give him a Hard Look which he could not misunderstand. I had envisioned him as a pimply eighteen or nineteen years old. Not so, he was a bearded forty going on fifty-three. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? I thought; but did not say. (Remember - not confrontational.)

On another occasion I had gone to play by Carol Shields, called Thirteen Hands. This was about a group of women whose entire social life (independent of their husbands) was playing bridge every Tuesday night for years. But still, their lives were just as rich and meaningful as anyone else's, don't you know? This was one of those plays that brings out my innermost peevishness. I disliked the fact that the play jumped back and forth in time with the same actors playing different roles. Who are they supposed to be now? I disliked the fact that the actors had decided to treat this dreary pap as a comedy by milking the most modest of Ms. Shield's wryly witty lines as if they were performing Wayne & Schuster at their most guffaw-inducing (which would be circa 1958). (Too many Canadian actors appear to have attended the W&S School of Shameless Mugging.) But I especially disliked the fact that the rest of the audience appeared to be enjoying themselves immensely.

Especially this one man, one row and a few seats away from me. He found Ms. Shields' work to be a laugh-riot, and yes, as you've guessed, he was a seat-kicker. The woman whose seat he was kicking had more gumption than I would have had and turned around and let him have it. I felt vindicated. Though I still hated the play.

Which brings me to this. The other week, I'd gone to see Wall-E, the day after it opened. You who have seen this latest gem from Pixar know that there is a touching moment towards the end of it that requires absolute silence on the part of the audience (except for the occasional sniffle) in order to be fully appreciated. Absolute silence! Not, as in this case, punctuated by an obstrusive cellphone ring. It was coming from the seat immediately in front of me.

At first, I thought this was actually a sound effect from the movie. Then the truth dawned on me. Please shut it off! I, and (I am confident), virtually all of the rest of the audience were thinking. But no, he ANSWERED it! Worse, he began to conduct a CONVERSATION! Worse, he was with someone, who was not shushing him or otherwise attempting to stop him!

I thought, What can I do to get him to shut up? I could kick the back of his seat until he stops. But no - that would be low. I must be civilized. I must not descend to his level.

However, the conversation continued. So, I abandoned all my scrupulous moral principles and gave him one solid kick -

He got the point - almost. He stood up, walked away, and continued his conversation in the aisle. What's the use? I sigh.

PUBLIC CELL PHONE USERS - EVIL OR SIMPLY MALADJUSTED? (1)

This morning on the bus I noticed that someone had scrawled on the back of one of the seat words to this effect: "Look at the white sheet behind u. Rule #3: No cell phone use..." Apparently I'm not the only one peeved at the way people behave with cellphones. I regret to say, though, that my fellow bepeeved one placed an interpretation on Rule #3 that is not strictly warranted by its wording, if the rules posted on the buses correspond to the rules posted on the web. It actually reads: "No playing of any musical instrument, radio, transmitting or receiving device, tape
recorder or similar device, unless earphones are used."

Arguably, that does include cellphones, which are certainly transmitting or receiving devices, and arguably function as a musical instrument with their ever so merry and droll ringtones. And I have frequently heard cellphone users utter profanity, which breaks Rule #13. Unfortunately, I smell a loophole in the word "earphones".

How about another rule? "It is unlawful to annoy your fellow passengers in whatsoever way with whatsoever electronic device you bear upon your person. Two separate complaints from passengers will be deemed sufficient to have you ejected from the vehicle or have your device impounded - recoverable from Mississauga Lost and Found located at the following maximally inconvenient address, and redeemable for a small fine of $25."

Or, more broadly: "Cellphones are not to be sold to persons under 21 years of age. Use of a cellphone is dependent on successfully passing a social etiquette exam. Failure to comply with the rules of social etiquette in respect to cellphone usage will result in a fine of not less than $500 and a lifetime suspension of your cellphone privileges."

But seriously. We're rapidly becoming a society of bubble people, people who don't recognize the claims, or perhaps indeed the very existence, of strangers who are more than six inches from the tips of their noses. Virtually every piece of "communications" technology marketed in the last couple of decades has contributed to that. Is there any way of reversing this trend?

Next time: "Reader, I kicked him."

QUEER AS FOLK COGNITIVE DISSONANCES #1-4

The American version of Queer as Folk aired from 2000 - 2005 & I have the entire series on DVD. Obviously I don't hate it. Nor am I one of those who would complain that it is "not representative of gay life" and hurts the cause, what with its cast of promiscuous, potty-talking, porn-obsessed, pill-popping, frequently-unfaithful-to-their-significant-others characters. Mind you, it isn't representative of most of us, and that includes the promiscuous party-goers: anymore than Bewitched was truly representative of American suburban life in the 1960's or Cheers of what actually goes on in bars. It's all fantasy, right?

However, nary an episode passed (at least after they'd used up the original British scripts) when something, or several things, didn't manage to annoy me. And as this blog is all about annoyances. I will be listing, in no particular order, as many of these annoyances as I can find - especially those that require the viewer to accept two contradictory things at once, i.e. "cognitive dissonance".

1. Uncalled for sex scenes. While, yes, "HELLO! - the series is ABOUT sex!", it never succeeded in making us relaxed about it, no matter how tastefully shot and artfully choreographed these scenes were. When the scene doesn't flow directly and realistically out of the moment for the characters, but is plopped in along the lines of: Well we haven't seen Lindsey and Mel do it since episode 2, have we? Or: What if Ted did that? - it turns the viewer into a voyeur, a spy. There is always at least one of these utterly unnecessary sex scenes, therefore embarrassing sex scenes, per episode
2. Shockeroo sex scenes. Subtly different from the above is the shockeroo sex scene. Not only is this unnecessary, it's quite unlikely, and even morally troubling. Two spring immediately to mind: a) Ted is buying Blake clothing. Blake goes into the store's changing room, which is actually just a circular curtained-off area in the middle of the store, and Ted follows him in they begin to... you know. Because it's broad daylight and the curtains aren't opaque, the silhouette of this action is quite visible from outside. Ted, up to this point, has been portrayed as a very uptight man whom you would never think would do something like this. In fact, you still don't think he would do something like this, so why do the writers insist on having him do it? For the sake of a shockeroo moment! The sales clerk figures out what's going on, and her response is just a sly, conspiratorial smile. Enjoy yourself boys! Rather than - oh, I don't know - scream out "Perverts! Perverts! Get out of here!" and call the police. b) A season or so later, Justin is giving Brian "the job we call blow" right on the sidewalk, in front of a poster of the evil homophobic mayoral candidate. Brian climaxes and Justin stands up and spits out Brian's semen all over the poster image of the mayor. I suppose this was meant as a political statement, but.... Eeww!
3. Brian's ad campaigns. Brian is supposed to be this hotshot cutting edge advertising genius. But almost all his ad campaigns involve associating hunky young men in varying degrees of nudity with the product being sold. I mean, he doesn't have any other ideas, none. The clients invariably are resistant to begin with, then they usually change their minds once they see how persuasive homoeroticism can be to the consumer. When Brian begins a presentation, his colleagues are polite enough never to interrupt him to say, "Let me guess, we're selling cat food - this'll be a guy in a speedo opening a can of Friskas for his cat, right?" "You couldn't be more wrong, he's wearing a jockstrap."
4. Queer moral lapses. Brian is forced to babysit his nephew for a few days. He catches the boy stealing, and grabs him by his neck, drags him over to the toilet bowl, and holds his head under for a few seconds. Later, the boy accuses him of sexual molestation, and provides a made-up story, as opposed to simply telling the truth about what happened. So: Brian is in a lot of trouble, and goes to court - how will he ever get out of this one? Ta da - Justin to the rescue once again! Justin manages to establish that the brat is a little liar, and the judge throws the case out of court. Triumph! HOWEVER, this viewer could not help but notice that sticking a kid's head in a toilet is also considered a form of assault in most places, and just about as serious an offense, even if it isn't sexual; and there Brian was definitely guilty. Yet the tone of this episode implies it's all about the good free-lovin' gays scoring one over the evil repressed family-values homophobes.

More to come...

BEING VOLUNTEERED IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

Theoretically, volunteerism is great, but the literal meaning of the terms is to offer your services freely - without charge, and without being put in a position where you don't have any other choice.

Lately, corporations such as the one I work for have made a big thing about "corporate citizenship", meaning two things a) employees can log their volunteer hours outside work so that he company can say, "Look at what good citizens our employees are!" - (& it is implied "Look at what a good corporate citizen we are!"). Also, b) employees may be required or "strongly encouraged", during work time, to do volunteer work (again implying good corporate citizenship.)

But in the first case, the corporation cannot truly take credit for the volunteer work their employees do on their own time. It is simply an untruth to take credit for it. In the second case, this isn't truly volunteer work, as the employees are essentially being forced to do it as part of their job. Even if technically, you might be perfectly within your legal rights as an employee to refuse to take part in this and instead stay at work and do the job you were after all hired for, one just doesn't have the feeling that one has a choice. It won't look good if you decline to participate. (Moreover, many employees don't have a clear idea of what their rights are in such cases.)

Perhaps I'm being unduly cynical. I wouldn't deny that it's a good thing that companies encourage volunteerism on the part of their employees and provide them with the opportunities. But what bothers me is that companies do this primarily because it makes them look good.

And as a consequence I have spent this morning mucking about planting trees. Well, good enough for me.