How you can cure your depression! Follow the steps I did!

(Ladies and gentlemen, this is a satire. If a person had actually written this in earnest, he would be a lot sicker than the extent to which he describes below. Only sociopaths who can feel the pain of no one else think like this. As I once reassured a friend, "If you're worried that you're a sociopath you're not a sociopath as sociopaths do not worry about whether or not they are sociopaths!" Black humor is used to illustrate the insensitivity and ignorance of people who should know better.)         

 Sometimes I fail to realize what a lucky guy I am. You see, I was born not only in the richest country on Earth, but into one of its richest families. In addition to being born into wealth, I was also gifted with looks, an IQ in the genius level, friends, connections, perfect health and popularity. You could say I had/have it all. This was especially true in school. By the time my freshman year of high school ended, I was already 6'3" and a naturally lean, but muscular 190 lbs. I got excellent grades without even trying. As for girls, I never had any trouble attracting the best looking. You could say I had a charmed life.
           If high school offered me the good life, college offered me nearly the perfect life. Easily accepted into an Ivy League school, I made Dean's List every semester; on top of that, I was a champion on the varsity rowing team. Upon graduating, I didn't have to worry about job prospects as I already had an inheritance. A charmed life indeed. Then something happened. Shortly after graduation, I started having a series of melancholy thoughts. I would lie in bed for entire weekends. I would shun contact with my friends. I would neglect personal hygiene. I lost all interest in the things that once made me happy, such as time with friends, exercise, reading, traveling, etc. I couldn't understand what was wrong. I hadn't suffered any losses. I was in perfect physical health yet I was being attacked by these terrible feelings all the time. I started losing weight due to not eating for 48 hours straight. At one point I was down to 140 lbs. I had never been much of a drinker, but I was now drinking hard liquor early in the morning on the few occasions when I would actually get up before evening. I was always sad. I would always hear an inner voice telling me that I didn't deserve to live, that I was worthless, evil, unworthy of love, and that the world would be better off without me.
         Despite having so much going for me, I was on the edge of taking my own life. I felt nothing but sadness, and the reasons were totally unknown to me. After all, I had never been in a war, I had never lost a loved one and I was in perfect physical health, so why was I feeling like this? What I didn't realize is that I had a sickness of the brain, something known as depression. What was I to do? I was too embarrassed to see a therapist; after all, real men don't see therapists, and guys who have had it as good as me, shouldn't be in such a psychological state.
          Fate intervened in the form of my first cousin. His name is Nate and Nate has been through a fair amount of hardship in his life. His wife was unfaithful to him, and they ended up divorced. In the custody battle, he lost custody of both his children. Already, at age 41 he had suffered his first heart attack. On top of that, many of his initial investments had failed, which led to him having to ask my father for help just to stay afloat. He knew his share of suffering. Nate taught me something that every so-called "depressive" needs to learn: you're not the only one suffering! Nate reminded me that while I have it all, kids are dying of famine in Ethiopia, women have no rights in Somalia, people are thrown in prison for their political beliefs in North Korea and so many other atrocities. With that in mind I cheered up instantly. I thought how lucky I am that I am not one of those losers. Then I would really have a reason to be sad. As long as people are starving and suffering in the Third World, and I am doing well, I have reason to be overjoyed! The thought that I am not some kid in Ethiopia with flies all around his face and a stomach distended from malnutrition cheers me up in a jiffy! Knowing that I will never have to live life as a woman under the Taliban makes me realize how awesome my life is and how happy I should be! Knowing that I don't have a terminal illness makes me realize how much better everything is for me than for those sad sacks drawing their final breath.
            Another thing that helped me overcome my depression is prayer. I had never really taken the time to contemplate matters of faith in my youth. Sure, my parents had me baptised as an Episcopalian, but we only went to church for Easter and Christmas, and religion was never a serious part of my upbringing. Nate told me about his faith in Christ, and I was interested. I started praying, and guess what? I started to feel better. The things I prayed for came true, such as finding true love, earning more money in the stock market, etc. I then thought to myself, "What a source of joy knowing that Jesus not only loves me, but answers my prayers!" Thank God I'm not like one of those pitiful specimens who spends all his time praying to Jesus, but gets nothing in return. No, Jesus specifically likes ME and answers MY prayers, unlike those other losers whose needs he is indifferent to. I am blessed. As long as Jesus is personally paying attention to me, and not others, I feel great. I also feel exhilarated knowing that millions of people around the world are living in horrifying conditions, but I am not! Such a change in my thoughts helped me overcome depression, and if you apply the same technique to your way of thinking, you can break away from depression forever, just like I did!
      
     

On supposed liberal elitism

Often heard is the accusation that liberals form an "elite," a sub-stratum of society wholly antithetical to the values of "real Americans." Characteristic of this elite are their personal choices regarding reading material, residency, transportation and other affinities. Rarely is the Internet not laden with charges that "Volvo-driving, wine-sipping, NYC/SF-dwelling, gay-loving, college-graduating, Europe-worshipping, subtitled-film watching agnostics look down on 'real Americans'."

How is this any more elite than a truck, an SUV or a Hummer?

If one is to look closely at the elements so scorned by so many of these "real" Americans, one may find that they are hardly elite at all, just different from the mainstream. To begin with, a frequent generalization concerns the mode of transportation favored by these "elites." This, of course, would be the Prius or the Volvo. The Prius starts at just over $23,000, according to the Toyota website: http://www.toyota.com/sem/prius.html?srchid=K610_p312826639 while a Volvo can fetch for between $25,000 to $40,000. Either way, purchasing a Volvo or a Prius firsthand can incur considerable expense, but so can the purchase of a Hummer or a pick-up truck with the latest accoutrements from an American car company. While some could argue that the purchase of a hybrid car can induce a smug feeling of moral superiority on the part of the owner, so could being wholly reliant on public transport, something that is considered decidedly "non-elite" by much of mainstream America.

Despite rumors to the contrary, most subtitled films do make sense!

As for entertainment, it is often generalized that this "elite" would rather spend hours being entertained by the likes of Fellini or Bergman or Truffaut than NASCAR. To many, foreign films, particularly those bearing subtitles, are considered impenetrable and thus only appealing to a small sector of our society. Undoubtedly, some of the works of Fellini and Bergman may have limited appeal; however, several of these "elite" directors have made works that are easily accessible to the masses. Fellini films such as "I Vitelloni" and "Nights of Cabiria" offer no serious obstacles to the ordinary viewer and treat universal themes. So do many of the films by Kurosawa, Herzog and Bergman, particularly "Scenes from a Marriage," and "Wild Strawberries." An affinity for foreign film is not automatically exclusionary. The presence of subtitles does not necessarily indicate that the work is only accessible to those with a background in Jungian psychology or an MFA in film studies.

With color pictures, easy-to-understand vocabulary and entire sections dedicated to the trivial, how is this publication "elitist"?

As for reading material, the New York Times is often held up as the pinnacle of elitist journalism. Although the vocabulary level of the New York Times of today is nowhere close to what it was in, say, 1960, many believe that the Times utilizes a style that excludes the multitude. The Times is hardly impenetrable. As for the charge that it is "elitist," this would be valid if the editors began charging hundreds of dollars for a single copy, but as it stands, the New York Times, for all its flaws, is a very accessible publication that can be had for the same price as its competitors.

In my own lifetime of 37 years, these "elites," these individuals who show a fondness for foreign films, the New York Times and hybrid cars, are often not of the monied class, but are often academics who earn an income that is hardly staggering. The studio-dwelling San Franciscan with a boxed set of Ozu films and posters of Tosca and La Traviata on his walls is hardly an elite who poses a threat to the values of real Americans. The real threat comes from those who see exploitation, greed and violence as the necessary staples of our society.

Shakespeare Marathon, part IX: Henry IV, Part Two

            The maturation of the future King Henry V and the bawdy displays by Falstaff are probably the most salient parts of the two Henry IV plays. Having displayed his mettle in battle, the future Henry V finds himself increasingly drawn to his familial obligations and thus forsakes the company of the raffish Falstaff.
             It is unfortunate that I have not had the chance to watch Chimes at Midnight nor the BBC productions of the two Henry IV plays, matters to which I will attend when I am alloted free time later this week.
            For now, as of 1 November 2011, my readings/viewings have included:
1. All's Well that Ends Well (read; watched the BBC production)
2. Antony and Cleopatra (read; watched the BBC production)
3. As You Like It (read, watched the BBC production and I am almost finished watching the 1936 film adaptation with Olivier)
4. The Comedy of Errors (read; watched the BBC production)
5. Coriolanus (read; watched the BBC production)
6. Cymbeline (read)
7. Hamlet (read; watched the 1996 Kenneth Branagh adaptation and the 2009 RSC production featuring David Tennant and Patrick Stewart)
8. Henry IV, Part One (read)
9. Henry IV, Part Two (read)
10. Henry V (read)
11. Henry VI, Part One (read)
12. Henry VI, Part Two (read)
13. Henry VIII (read)
14. Julius Caesar (read; watched the 1950 film version starring Charlton Heston)
15. King John (read)
16. King Lear (currently reading; watched the 1971 version by Kozintsev)

Other parts of this marathon that stand out were this weekend's viewing of Kozintsev's 1971 adaptation of King Lear.

On the persistent accusation of "America supported the IRA"

Frequently lobbed at American participants in chat forums regarding terrorism is the accusation "you Yanks supported the IRA for decades and now you want to lecture the world on how evil terrorism is!" Unfortunately, such an inane generalization has gained currency in the on-line community. As is the case with such accusations, they have a habit of being repeated to the point where they lodge themselves into the popular consciousness and cannot be extricated easily.

The recent revelations that Rep. Peter King had indeed given money to the Irish Republican Army has bolstered this accusation. Rep. King is, however, hardly representative of the entire House of Representatives. No person, when queried as to how the U.S. subsidized IRA terrorism, has been able to offer examples of legislation passed by both houses allocating money to the Irish Republican Army. Lacking proof of such official U.S. patronage, the argument often turns to two other venues: the existence of NORAID and the collections undertaken in bars in New York and Boston among the Irish diaspora.

Organizations such as Clan na Gael and Noraid have certainly existed and have provided succour of  sorts to those on the Republican side in Ulster; however, to believe that small organizations within a nation of over 300,000,000 people substantiate the claim that "America supports the IRA" is ludicrous. What should one then think of Britain, a nation that has shown itself via public demonstrations, to be the home of more than one would-be Jihadist? Of the nation's 1,500 mosques, what if 10 were found to be linked to radical movements abroad? Would that then make Britain a "supporter of Islamic fundamentalist terror"? Hardly. The actions of certain individuals outside of our lawful bodies of legislation (save for Rep. King, who appears to be an isolated case), hardly makes a nation a supporter of terrorism.

What also needs to be remembered is that the IRA bombing campaigns did not transpire in England until the 1970s. As the Troubles intensified in 1969, a great deal of sympathy was felt worldwide for the Catholic minority in Ulster. Many individuals offering material aid to those on that side of the divide acted in good faith towards those seen as oppressed unfairly. Thus, not all aid offered to the minority in Ulster was geared towards the advocacy of terrorism; in fact, a great deal of it was aid with day-to-day living, a strenuous undertaking for those often denied employment and suitable housing. Althougn NORAID is an agency that has advocated on behalf of the Catholic minority in Ulster, NORAID is hardly indicative of U.S. legislation or the charitable inclinations of the U.S. majority. As stated previously, the presence of those individuals who support radical Islam within Britain hardly makes the United Kingdom a state supporter of Islamic extremism.

One other factor to which attention should be drawn is the inordinate amount of attention drawn to the IRA itself. The IRA is not without its adversarial counterparts. One need only look at the UDA (Ulster Defence Association), active from 1971 to 2007, to see that bloodshed was not inflicted solely by the Republican side. In addition to the UDA, Royalist paramilitary groups have also included:
The Ulster Volunteer Force (responsible for over 400 civilian deaths during the Troubles)
Loyalist Volunteer Force (responsible for 18 murders)
Red Hand Commando (responsible for 13 murders)
Ulster Young Militants
Ulster Resistance
UVF Mid-Ulster Brigade

Whether it be murder, arson, or acts of petty hooliganism, Royalist groups have also perpetrated violence upon people in the United Kingdom. Such facts should not be marginalized when entering into an analysis of the IRA and its history. The actions of the UDA or UVF do not in any way exonerate the IRA, but it should never be forgotten that they do not work within a vacuum. The real issue here is not so much the IRA or its counterparts on the other side of the ideological/religious divide. What stands at the forefront is how persistent an absurd accusation has become, particularly in light of the diversity and sheer size of the U.S. populace.

True crime on film: an introduction

The legitimacy of the true-crime genre was bolstered by the publication of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood (1965). Previously, those associated with genuine artistry were leery of being affiliated with the recreation of the heinous in the modern age. Although violence has been an integral part of much of great literature, documenting real-life atrocities of recent history has drawn the indignation of some literary critics. These critics often saw the true-crime genre as exploitative and unworthy of the serious artist. Capote helped change this, and literature was further enriched by Norman Mailer's The Executioner's Song, the re-telling of the tragic destiny of Gary Gilmore and his victims. Despite such legitimacy, there is often a certain degree of suspicion directed towards aficionados of true-crime narrative. Readers are sometimes dismissed as morbid, potential miscreants who gain amusement from the misfortunes of others. While utter immersion in the field of true crime may be disquieting over the long run, criminality has inspired excellent films that merit considerable attention.

Returning to the man who helped pioneer this literary genre among respected writers, Truman Capote saw his work of literature transformed into film in 1967. In Cold Blood, starring Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, is one of the most powerful re-enactments of a senseless slaughter ever brought to screen. The story concerns two young men, no strangers to the penal system who, upon release, decide to rob the safe of a seemingly prosperous Kansas farmer. Supplied with this faulty intelligence whilst incarcerated, the two cons are disappointed to learn that the farmer is no more a man of means than the two miscreants are men of honor. Enraged, the duo slaughter the entire family, an act of violence completely incomprehensible in peacetime to those resident in Holcomb, Kansas. The film wisely avoids sensationalism and focuses more on subdued character analysis of the murderer with whom Capote formed the closest bond. Robert Blake, the diminutive, former child star, is particularly moving as a criminal who has only known disappointment and has brought suffering upon others. What is most striking about In Cold Blood is the constant reminder that without each other, these two men would likely have never graduated from hooliganism to mass murder. By focusing on one individual, we are led to see that without the malign encouragement of the other, no such cataclysm would have taken place. In Cold Blood is a most worthy starting point for anyone determined to gain a good understanding of the criminal mind via the medium of film. It was remade several years later for television and featured the sadly under-utilized talents of Eric Roberts. While the 1967 production is the worthier of the two, the remake merits viewing as well.

The theme of Folie à Deux, a madness shared by two people, is not applicable to the preceding work. While the savagery of the Clutter Family slaughter could not have transpired without the efforts of two men, no indication of madness is ever given to the perpetrators. Theirs was a crime carried out in the heat of the moment by two desperate men, both eager to prove their masculinity to the other as well as dispose of evidence. In the case of Heavenly Creatures, a genuine exploration of madness is given us. Heavenly Creatures concerns the murder of Honora Parker in 1954 New Zealand. The act was carried out by her daughter and her daughter's closest friend whilst on a hiking trip outside Christchurch. The urge to matricide is generated by the decision of the concerned parents to seperate the girls from what they see as an unnatural attachment. The cinematic treatment of one of the uglier episodes in recent NZ history was given by Peter Jackson who attained even greater acclaim with the Lord of the Rings' series. Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey play the principals and the performances are universally good. Most striking, however, is the near-perfect ability of the camera to recreate the New Zealand of the Post-War period.

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Shakespeare Marathon, Part VIII: Henry IV, Part One

Witnessing the evolution from rogue to man of distinction is a pleasurable experience.  Nowhere is this more evident than in a re-reading of Henry IV, Part One. Hal, the young wastrel and disappointment to his father, is, along with Falstaff, the most distinct element of the play. Henry IV, Part One is yet another work completed in my quest to read and see performed all of Shakespeare's 37 plays. The only options I have for witnessing a performance of the text will be through the BBC series. One somewhat unorthodox alternative will be, of course, a viewing of Falstaff , or Chimes at Midnight (1966) by Orson Welles. One film that borrows much from the saga of young Prince Hal is My Own Private Idaho (1991), an updating of sorts set in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. This filmconcerns a youth born into distinction who surrounds himself with Falstaffian elements that make up the world of male hustling. For now, I have had the pleasure of either watching or reading All's Well that Ends Well, Antony and Cleopatra, As You Like It, The Comedy of Errors, Coriolanus, Cymbeline, Hamlet, Henry IV, Part One, Henry IV, Part Two and Henry V. As film adaptations go, I have not had the opportunity to move beyond the offerings of the BBC, although a viewing of As You Like It (1936) is in the works.

Shakespeare Marathon, part VII: Hamlet

To assume that I could add anything to textual analysis of Hamlet would be the height of arrogance. Having stated such, all I can add to the body of work done on this oft-analyzed tragedy are a few resources for those who enjoy cinematic adaptations of the play. To begin with, it is often stated that Olivier provided the definitive screen portrayal of the tortured Danish prince. Olivier, who also gave us Henry V (1944) and Richard III (1956), filmed this version of Hamlet in 1948.

http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Criterion-Collection-Laurence-Olivier/dp/0780021312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319060001&sr=8-1

Equally impressive is a Soviet adaptation by Kozintsev that premiered in 1964. To purchase it from Amazon, here is the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Grigori-Kozintsevs-Original-Widescreen-Special/dp/B004Q87DBQ/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319060085&sr=1-3

1964 was also significant for this work as Richard Burton brought the character of Hamlet to life on the Broadway stage. A non-dress rehearsal of the play has been released on DVD:
http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Burtons-Hamlet-Burton/dp/B00000JMON/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319060142&sr=1-1

The BBC has proven to be the greatest resource for Shakespeare purists, and Hamlet is part of the series undertaken in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Derek Jacobi plays the tortured Dane in this particular production.

Purists were alarmed at the prospect of Mel Gibson, previously known primarily for action films, as Hamlet. Franco Zeffirelli, who had already given us the definitive Romeo and Juliet in 1968, was at the helm for this offering. It's available at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Mel-Gibson/dp/B00019072G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319060818&sr=8-1

Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is, along with the BBC version, the most faithful to the original text. Although not a commercial success, his 1996 version is well regarded. One can obtain further details here: http://www.amazon.com/William-Shakespeares-Hamlet-Two-Disc-Special/dp/B00005JLCI/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319060904&sr=1-1

Updated to modern-day Manhattan, Ethan Hawke's Hamlet  (2000) finds the tormented soul pitted against the barons of corporate America. Bill Murray and Kyle MacLachlan also star.
http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Ethan-Hawke/dp/B00004Z4RP/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319061369&sr=8-2

For something even more unorthodox, Akira Kurosawa, who many believe gave us the ultimate in King Lear with Ran (1985) and Macbeth with Throne of Blood (1957), also gave a modern take on Hamlet with a corporate setting. This film is known as The Bad Sleep Well and is available at Amazon as well: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Sleep-Well-Criterion-Collection/dp/B000BR6QCI/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319061587&sr=1-1