I'm going through a cynical phase; at least I hope it's a phase! I think it started about two years ago: I was in a bad relationship and had fallen out of love with the industry. Even though I had just scored a tiny part on The O.C. and was cooking up some more short film ideas, I just felt like I had tried and I had failed. I never thought I'd feel like that, I never thought I'd feel so drained and spent and unsure if what I was doing was right. So in the absence of all those things, I took a job that would pay me a decent wage, something I'd lived without for five years.
I've changed jobs four times since then and ended the relationship but have been single for over a year, and not feeling particularly hopeful about that part of my life either. And now, five months after taking a job that I moved here for, I'm going to be out of work again. My super cool project got killed when leadership changed and funding got cut. But it has been a bumpy ride and there's a chance, it's all for the best. According to my horoscope, which I don't put much stock in except when it seems to kind of be right, the last two years have been putting me to the test but I'm about to finally break out on my own and reap the rewards that I so richly deserve.
Recently I befriended a young man who was supposed to work on my cool project. He's a very talented filmmaker and is just full of life and enthusiasm. He makes his living doing what he loves, has won awards and spent a year traveling the world but there's not a whiff of pretension about him. He's incredibly sweet and down to earth and curious about everything. I don't register any of the doubt and fear and questioning from him that I suffer from, he seems to just do what he loves without any of that.
We were having a drink the other night and I felt like everything that came out of my mouth was cynical, doom and gloom, been there done that, this is what I've learned in the school of hard knocks bullshit. How is it possible, I wondered, that with only ten years between us I'm such a curmudgeon? Has life really been that hard? I'm still young, I have no debt, I'm capable and passionate and curious and the world should still be my oyster. Have I always been this way? People say I'm an eternal optimist but maybe I'm just stubborn and keep going because I'm a creature in motion, not necessarily because I believe in the future.
It seems so long ago, those ten years, yet I remember feeling so different. I think the challenge is not to revert or try to recapture youth, because that isn't possible. You can't unlearn, undo or take back an experience. Even though we "forget," those experiences alter us forever. We are changed by our years. We can, however, let that wisdom be more of a backseat driver than a front seat driver. Shopping with a girl friend last weekend, I saw a huge photo of a teenage girl short shorts and long slim legs. I said to my friend, "Wow, if I'd known then how fleeting those great legs were, I would have worn more short shorts!"
After a minute, it occurred to me that I wore nothing but short shorts, skirts and dresses through my entire teen years. Only once in recorded history did I cover my legs at school. It must follow, then that there are now fleeting moments that I may not be fully appreciating, or more accurately noticing that I'm appreciating. Much of my malaise, I think, is in looking at what isn't instead of what is. (Ironically my annoying ex-boyfriend, the "bad" relationship mentioned above, told me this about our relationship.) Years from now I'll be saying "When I lived in San Francisco, I should have done more ..." or "If I'd known ... while I was working in Silicon Valley, I would have ..." I am already kicking myself for not making more movies when I was in Los Angeles where I have people and friends who wanted to make movies with me. I made everything so difficult, too important, and I focused on what I didn't have (time, money, energy) instead of what I did have (friends, a camera, a computer, ideas).
I think it's easy to be cynical, especially we get older. All the evidence we've gathered over the years supports the theory that life is hard. Everything in the newspaper supports the theory that people suck and we're all gonna die. (I just started getting The Economist which surely isn't helping my mood). But the fact is that hope begets more hope and gloom begets more gloom. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to start looking at what I have and I'm going to capture each spark of hope and fan the flames until I am a roaring bonfire of life and possibility.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Change as the safe option
At the risk of sounding old, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s easy to be young. A young person, company or government has lots of fresh and original ideas, something to rebel against and a clean slate on which to build. As we get older, choices have been made that can’t be undone and the consequences of those choices color every decision made since. Deciding to have a baby, building a website in .net or funding rebels in a war against Communism all become part of an elaborate house of cards in which one mistake could topple the whole thing. It’s no wonder then, that for all of our talk about change we are addicted to the status quo. Change cannot happen for established people, companies or government without taking it all apart. Even if long-term results make the most sense, the short term could be disastrous. It’s impossible to predict whether we can survive the change.
I’ve experienced this phenomenon a lot over the past couple of years, working for mature online companies (10+ years in a coon’s age on the Internet). As a marketer, I’m the most painfully aware of a product’s shortcomings since it’s my job to differentiate it in the market and win over (or retain) customers. So much marketing happens online that product and marketing are virtually indistinguishable. I’ve found that it’s easy to rally the troops for change because it’s easy to see how things can and should be different (once it’s pointed out) but if taken to senior management, these great ideas suffer a quick death. No. No way! Change costs money, jobs, disrupts nepotistic relationships, upsets the stock price and is just too damn hard. Only a company that is founded on change and remains committed to it, because innovation IS their product, can avoid the crippling effects of Cronyism.
Reading about the presidential race, I find it really interesting that Barack Obama is doing so well despite his lack of experience. In this arena, he is youth. But is the U.S. still a young country? Hilary’s close rivalry suggests that people understand that despite the allure of youth and change, they understand that in reality, we are deeply entrenched in our past and in things that cannot be undone and they aren't willing to be the guinea pigs. Eventually, however, all mature organizations discover that the long-term effect of the status quo is far worse than the consequences of short-term change. By many perspectives, this government has already been run into the ground and the time for change is here. But are we really ready or is it just talk?
I’ve experienced this phenomenon a lot over the past couple of years, working for mature online companies (10+ years in a coon’s age on the Internet). As a marketer, I’m the most painfully aware of a product’s shortcomings since it’s my job to differentiate it in the market and win over (or retain) customers. So much marketing happens online that product and marketing are virtually indistinguishable. I’ve found that it’s easy to rally the troops for change because it’s easy to see how things can and should be different (once it’s pointed out) but if taken to senior management, these great ideas suffer a quick death. No. No way! Change costs money, jobs, disrupts nepotistic relationships, upsets the stock price and is just too damn hard. Only a company that is founded on change and remains committed to it, because innovation IS their product, can avoid the crippling effects of Cronyism.
Reading about the presidential race, I find it really interesting that Barack Obama is doing so well despite his lack of experience. In this arena, he is youth. But is the U.S. still a young country? Hilary’s close rivalry suggests that people understand that despite the allure of youth and change, they understand that in reality, we are deeply entrenched in our past and in things that cannot be undone and they aren't willing to be the guinea pigs. Eventually, however, all mature organizations discover that the long-term effect of the status quo is far worse than the consequences of short-term change. By many perspectives, this government has already been run into the ground and the time for change is here. But are we really ready or is it just talk?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Kingo the lowland gorilla
Last week I had to make a trip to L.A. I took my National Geographic on the plane and I was reading an article about the Western Lowland Gorilla, a truly magnificent beast. Kingo has a family of ten, four “wives” and their children. He spends a lot of time to himself, sitting in a swamp sometimes for hours eating the tiny green roots of a water plant. His kids rough house while their mothers nap and together and independently they roam an area about 6 miles in diameter, looking for fruit to eat or a good place to nap and play, traveling over a mile a day. One morning the research team found them 100 feet up in a tree having their breakfast!
The article said we didn’t know much about them because it takes years for a human to gain their confidence enough to observe them. Despite their size, it took a team of four local trackers to find Kingo and his family but it took six years for Diane Doran-Sheehy (responsible for saving this piece of the forest that Kingo and his family live in) to originally find and name them.
Then I came across this sentence, “Even though all gorillas found in zoos around the world are western gorillas, little is known about their behavior in the wild.” I just started weeping, right there on the plane. The image of this complex and incredible animal in a concrete cage, without his family, without his swamp and trees, without his six miles to roam and wander, without the peace and privacy to take his daily nap, just broke my heart. We don't even know enough about his behavior in the wild to even ATTEMPT to replicate his environment. How, I ask myself, how do we justify that? I had to force myself to try to think of something else, anything that would keep me from crying.
A few days later I was reading an article about the natural science museum finally opening this year in Golden Gate park. It's an impressive and beautiful building with a living green roof and solar panels, it's being touted as a highly responsible ecological building and yet, they are going to feature 38,000 animals in their aquariums. Granted they're growing coral and using local seawater but still, a space the size of this building must surely be much smaller than their complex and vast natural habitat, the ocean. I understand that we want to educate people about animals but I just haven't seen the data to support the theory that animals in captivity on display have helped any in the wild. By my count, the wild animals of this world are vanishing at an extremely alarming rate.
Then I was in Berkeley with a friend of mine. We passed an older hippie guy on the street with a clipboard. He was wearing the kind of socks that have toes in different colors, and Birkenstocks. He was collecting signatures for a farm bill; I know the one because I’ve already signed it and because I’m a Humane Society member. I thanked him and walked on. Another guy passed him and I heard the hippie ask him to sign a petition for a bill that would allow farm animals to move around in their cages. The guy just shook his head and moved on.
About an hour later, we were in a furniture store while my friend was looking for a bed. I heard the hippie in my head asking for help so the animals could “move around in their cages.” It made me sick, I thought it’s like asking for less torture, more humane captivity, the irony is ridiculous. I can’t believe we have to fight for this, that we have to try to convince people to care enough to not torture their animals before they kill them. I was overwhelmed with grief and had to leave the store. I couldn’t stop crying and my friend didn’t even believe me when I said it was because of the animals.
A few weekends ago, I almost volunteered to be that person collecting signatures. Can you imagine? What would someone do if they didn’t sign the petition and I started crying? I wonder. So today I was reading an interesting article in The New York Times Magazine about morality. The author says that we are genetically moral creatures. That we universally believe in certain principles that are possibly biologically motivated to keep us alive. Universally, we feel that it is wrong to harm others, we believe in fairness, we value community and loyalty, we respect authority and we revere purity. Where it gets tricky, however, is in the ranking and weight of those morals.
There are instances, for example, where certain cultures allow harm to those who are considered impure. Or where fairness is denied to those who disrespect authority. The upholding of these morals can be wildly divergent even if the basic motivation is the same. Liberals, for example, tend to rank fairness much higher than purity or loyalty. Also very interesting, was the fact that certain behaviors cycle in and out of morality.
Smoking has become morally bad since the emphasis on second-hand smoke whereas getting a divorce is more or less accepted as a fact of life. And certainly we have widened the net of who deserves humane treatment as time goes on. Slavery, once an acceptable economic practice, is now reviled pretty much the world over. I have a dream, in the words of our Martin Luther King, Jr. that someday we’ll consider keeping an animal in a cage as barbaric as selling a man on an auction block.
A McKinsey survey published in The Economist showed that out of 15 major issues of the next five years, the environment is number 1 globally but the top issues after the environment are safer products, retirement benefits, health-care benefits and affordable products. These are pretty much the same things we've always been concerned about. Ethically produced products is near the bottom of the list and I assume that the welfare of animals falls in that category. So we want to protect the environment, meaning that we don't want to die, but aren't really concerned about everything else dying? I think we feel that we can't care about everything, that we have to pick our battles.
So I’ve learned that there isn’t anything wrong with me and there isn’t anything wrong with everyone else for that matter. It’s just that our moral barometers are all set differently. Looking at my five spheres of morality, by far the largest would be harm, followed by purity, which I think is where my love of nature comes from. The spheres of fairness, loyalty and authority are there but much smaller. If I had to choose between having money for retirement and seeing animals roam free, I'm afraid I'd choose the animals over myself.
The article said we didn’t know much about them because it takes years for a human to gain their confidence enough to observe them. Despite their size, it took a team of four local trackers to find Kingo and his family but it took six years for Diane Doran-Sheehy (responsible for saving this piece of the forest that Kingo and his family live in) to originally find and name them.
Then I came across this sentence, “Even though all gorillas found in zoos around the world are western gorillas, little is known about their behavior in the wild.” I just started weeping, right there on the plane. The image of this complex and incredible animal in a concrete cage, without his family, without his swamp and trees, without his six miles to roam and wander, without the peace and privacy to take his daily nap, just broke my heart. We don't even know enough about his behavior in the wild to even ATTEMPT to replicate his environment. How, I ask myself, how do we justify that? I had to force myself to try to think of something else, anything that would keep me from crying.
A few days later I was reading an article about the natural science museum finally opening this year in Golden Gate park. It's an impressive and beautiful building with a living green roof and solar panels, it's being touted as a highly responsible ecological building and yet, they are going to feature 38,000 animals in their aquariums. Granted they're growing coral and using local seawater but still, a space the size of this building must surely be much smaller than their complex and vast natural habitat, the ocean. I understand that we want to educate people about animals but I just haven't seen the data to support the theory that animals in captivity on display have helped any in the wild. By my count, the wild animals of this world are vanishing at an extremely alarming rate.
Then I was in Berkeley with a friend of mine. We passed an older hippie guy on the street with a clipboard. He was wearing the kind of socks that have toes in different colors, and Birkenstocks. He was collecting signatures for a farm bill; I know the one because I’ve already signed it and because I’m a Humane Society member. I thanked him and walked on. Another guy passed him and I heard the hippie ask him to sign a petition for a bill that would allow farm animals to move around in their cages. The guy just shook his head and moved on.
About an hour later, we were in a furniture store while my friend was looking for a bed. I heard the hippie in my head asking for help so the animals could “move around in their cages.” It made me sick, I thought it’s like asking for less torture, more humane captivity, the irony is ridiculous. I can’t believe we have to fight for this, that we have to try to convince people to care enough to not torture their animals before they kill them. I was overwhelmed with grief and had to leave the store. I couldn’t stop crying and my friend didn’t even believe me when I said it was because of the animals.
A few weekends ago, I almost volunteered to be that person collecting signatures. Can you imagine? What would someone do if they didn’t sign the petition and I started crying? I wonder. So today I was reading an interesting article in The New York Times Magazine about morality. The author says that we are genetically moral creatures. That we universally believe in certain principles that are possibly biologically motivated to keep us alive. Universally, we feel that it is wrong to harm others, we believe in fairness, we value community and loyalty, we respect authority and we revere purity. Where it gets tricky, however, is in the ranking and weight of those morals.
There are instances, for example, where certain cultures allow harm to those who are considered impure. Or where fairness is denied to those who disrespect authority. The upholding of these morals can be wildly divergent even if the basic motivation is the same. Liberals, for example, tend to rank fairness much higher than purity or loyalty. Also very interesting, was the fact that certain behaviors cycle in and out of morality.
Smoking has become morally bad since the emphasis on second-hand smoke whereas getting a divorce is more or less accepted as a fact of life. And certainly we have widened the net of who deserves humane treatment as time goes on. Slavery, once an acceptable economic practice, is now reviled pretty much the world over. I have a dream, in the words of our Martin Luther King, Jr. that someday we’ll consider keeping an animal in a cage as barbaric as selling a man on an auction block.
A McKinsey survey published in The Economist showed that out of 15 major issues of the next five years, the environment is number 1 globally but the top issues after the environment are safer products, retirement benefits, health-care benefits and affordable products. These are pretty much the same things we've always been concerned about. Ethically produced products is near the bottom of the list and I assume that the welfare of animals falls in that category. So we want to protect the environment, meaning that we don't want to die, but aren't really concerned about everything else dying? I think we feel that we can't care about everything, that we have to pick our battles.
So I’ve learned that there isn’t anything wrong with me and there isn’t anything wrong with everyone else for that matter. It’s just that our moral barometers are all set differently. Looking at my five spheres of morality, by far the largest would be harm, followed by purity, which I think is where my love of nature comes from. The spheres of fairness, loyalty and authority are there but much smaller. If I had to choose between having money for retirement and seeing animals roam free, I'm afraid I'd choose the animals over myself.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Is your job cramping your style?
I feel like a broken record. I'm even tired of hearing myself THINK the same thoughts. I never get enough sleep (about 7 - 7.5 but I really need 8+), I don't get enough exercise (really, appallingly, almost none), my job is stressful and my back and neck always hurt, and I don't have enough time to blog (my notebook continues to fill up with handwritten half-written blogs that never make it to the computer). Some of this is because I don't have the right workstation. I need to buy a desk but it has eluded me despite throwing hours and hours at the task.
Some of it is the job, and now I need to find a new one which I liken to looking for a new husband in the middle of a divorce, absolutely the last thing I want to do! I just want to lick my wounds for a moment and contemplate my next move without the constant threat of eviction and insurmountable debt hanging around like vultures waiting for me to keel over. An acquaintance at work asked me how the job experience has been and to my surprise, my response was not that positive! Not that sweet or politely political. I mean, I've only been there six months, how could it be that bad? I honestly think I'm just not cut out for the corporate world. All the layers and positioning and egos and bullshit, it's a lot to decipher and I feel too vulnerable and too transparent for it.
But I learned something really valuable tonight at a brand lecture I went to that might explain it. This woman speaking said to make sure to carve out an area of incompetence. People who are too good at everything get volunteered for way to much work, and they drown. The key is to make sure everyone knows that you're really bad at a couple of things. That way, you'll only have to do what you're good at, you'll excel and up the ladder you go!
I could also complain that my apartment is too f'ing cold, I hear sirens blast by 3-5 times a night, and I spend way too much money. Every weekend I'm trying to loosen the knots in my back and neck with drinks, dinners, chocolate, shopping. For the most part, I'm spending everything I have with reckless abandon. And I have company. One recent outing for a desk in the $200 range led me to contemplate a desk at $350, then $500, then $900 before I gave up on the whole thing. Modern life isn't easy and jobs seem to take up way too much of our time and energy. I spoke to three good friends and my brother on the phone over the weekend and we spent most of it talking about work. In the private sector and in non-profits, there are the same problems of greed, incompetency, bad management, lack of leadership and vision, nepotism and politics.
I think the moral of the story is that I have to carve out an area for myself. If I dial down my capabilities at work, I won't have too much to do, I won't be as stressed, I'll have more time to exercise, more energy to blog and won't feel the need to shop as much. Now I just have to think of something to be bad at!
Some of it is the job, and now I need to find a new one which I liken to looking for a new husband in the middle of a divorce, absolutely the last thing I want to do! I just want to lick my wounds for a moment and contemplate my next move without the constant threat of eviction and insurmountable debt hanging around like vultures waiting for me to keel over. An acquaintance at work asked me how the job experience has been and to my surprise, my response was not that positive! Not that sweet or politely political. I mean, I've only been there six months, how could it be that bad? I honestly think I'm just not cut out for the corporate world. All the layers and positioning and egos and bullshit, it's a lot to decipher and I feel too vulnerable and too transparent for it.
But I learned something really valuable tonight at a brand lecture I went to that might explain it. This woman speaking said to make sure to carve out an area of incompetence. People who are too good at everything get volunteered for way to much work, and they drown. The key is to make sure everyone knows that you're really bad at a couple of things. That way, you'll only have to do what you're good at, you'll excel and up the ladder you go!
I could also complain that my apartment is too f'ing cold, I hear sirens blast by 3-5 times a night, and I spend way too much money. Every weekend I'm trying to loosen the knots in my back and neck with drinks, dinners, chocolate, shopping. For the most part, I'm spending everything I have with reckless abandon. And I have company. One recent outing for a desk in the $200 range led me to contemplate a desk at $350, then $500, then $900 before I gave up on the whole thing. Modern life isn't easy and jobs seem to take up way too much of our time and energy. I spoke to three good friends and my brother on the phone over the weekend and we spent most of it talking about work. In the private sector and in non-profits, there are the same problems of greed, incompetency, bad management, lack of leadership and vision, nepotism and politics.
I think the moral of the story is that I have to carve out an area for myself. If I dial down my capabilities at work, I won't have too much to do, I won't be as stressed, I'll have more time to exercise, more energy to blog and won't feel the need to shop as much. Now I just have to think of something to be bad at!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
A new brand promise
I'm constantly amazed that world is full of hope and beauty despite overwhelming evidence that our existence on this planet – a struggle to survive despite ourselves – is about to come to an end. I know this because history has shown us that everything eventually ends although our reign here so far has been but a blip on the billion-year timeline of our incredible planet. Despite knowing this and a little else, we’re still rubbish at predicting the future. Even things that we think we know and control are beyond us. So we’re in a curious place right now, a moment in time when we’re being asked to believe two incredibly difficult things: 1) That the way we live is destroying the one place that makes life possible and 2) That we can do something about it.
An unbelievable amount of change has happened in public opinion in the last couple of years. People now accept, at least in part, that we are a complicit partner in global warning. But it is still a very ambiguous concept to most people and it is only part of the picture. The bigger picture is a shift in perception, a belief that the world gives us life and that we should be grateful for that gift. It’s gratitude not entitlement that should drive our interactions with our planet and our fellow inhabitants. I'd wish the Christian Right were half as diligent about protecting plants and animals as they are unborn children, and would like to see corporations caring at least half as much about keeping people safe as they do in raising their profits, and wish government kept half a mind on how to create a new world economy while they send people to die for the old one.
I think the big picture has not been effectively branded or marketed. The focus has been on what will happen if we don’t stop what we’re doing, the effects of what we’re doing, and how we can replace what we’re doing with something else. What I think we really need is a brilliant future to believe in. Why are we bothering to save the wretched institutions we have like cars and freeways instead of committing to high-speed rail, for example?
I swear, if I read one more article about how scientists are working around the clock to make a car that doesn’t use gas I’m going to puke. What about all the other bad things about cars: #1 cause of death for young people, huge waste of natural resources, loss of farmland to build roads and parking lots, and loud crowded cities with poor public transportation infrastructures? Even if we build a car that uses no oil, China will have to pave over their food source to drive them!
We need to think much bigger than just keeping what we’ve got because if we really can mobilize the entire planet for change, why stop at the status quo? I’d like to imagine a world where animals aren’t kept in cages for our entertainment or experimentation, where rivers are sacred and not a place to dump toxic waste, where people understood the purpose and origins of food – real food that comes out of the ground and off the trees – and grew it for themselves, where forests and oceans were considered riches as they as are and not as they can be exploited and destroyed, where people’s senses became finely tuned to the natural life buzzing around them and preferred it to loud cars, strong chemicals and a flood of artificial light.
The difficulty, I suppose, is imagining people wanting to take better care of their planet than they do themselves, or to have a more daring vision for the world than they do their life. But I think we’re a product of our environment and even though we’ve created it, it shapes us, which is why this idea is so empowering. We have the ability to re-imagine our entire universe. All we need is something we can all believe in, and just like every marketing piece supports a brand promise, every action will support our belief.
In thinking of a brand promise for this movement, I came up with this: “I believe the world is a beautiful miracle, created by God or by accident, and as long as humans are given life I believe it is our duty to care for this planet and all of its inhabitants.” Greenpeace and
the United Nations both have pretty compelling mission statements, by the way. The truth is, we probably aren’t clever enough to care for this planet but if we measure all of our actions against this promise, we can at least say that we did our best.
An unbelievable amount of change has happened in public opinion in the last couple of years. People now accept, at least in part, that we are a complicit partner in global warning. But it is still a very ambiguous concept to most people and it is only part of the picture. The bigger picture is a shift in perception, a belief that the world gives us life and that we should be grateful for that gift. It’s gratitude not entitlement that should drive our interactions with our planet and our fellow inhabitants. I'd wish the Christian Right were half as diligent about protecting plants and animals as they are unborn children, and would like to see corporations caring at least half as much about keeping people safe as they do in raising their profits, and wish government kept half a mind on how to create a new world economy while they send people to die for the old one.
I think the big picture has not been effectively branded or marketed. The focus has been on what will happen if we don’t stop what we’re doing, the effects of what we’re doing, and how we can replace what we’re doing with something else. What I think we really need is a brilliant future to believe in. Why are we bothering to save the wretched institutions we have like cars and freeways instead of committing to high-speed rail, for example?
I swear, if I read one more article about how scientists are working around the clock to make a car that doesn’t use gas I’m going to puke. What about all the other bad things about cars: #1 cause of death for young people, huge waste of natural resources, loss of farmland to build roads and parking lots, and loud crowded cities with poor public transportation infrastructures? Even if we build a car that uses no oil, China will have to pave over their food source to drive them!
We need to think much bigger than just keeping what we’ve got because if we really can mobilize the entire planet for change, why stop at the status quo? I’d like to imagine a world where animals aren’t kept in cages for our entertainment or experimentation, where rivers are sacred and not a place to dump toxic waste, where people understood the purpose and origins of food – real food that comes out of the ground and off the trees – and grew it for themselves, where forests and oceans were considered riches as they as are and not as they can be exploited and destroyed, where people’s senses became finely tuned to the natural life buzzing around them and preferred it to loud cars, strong chemicals and a flood of artificial light.
The difficulty, I suppose, is imagining people wanting to take better care of their planet than they do themselves, or to have a more daring vision for the world than they do their life. But I think we’re a product of our environment and even though we’ve created it, it shapes us, which is why this idea is so empowering. We have the ability to re-imagine our entire universe. All we need is something we can all believe in, and just like every marketing piece supports a brand promise, every action will support our belief.
In thinking of a brand promise for this movement, I came up with this: “I believe the world is a beautiful miracle, created by God or by accident, and as long as humans are given life I believe it is our duty to care for this planet and all of its inhabitants.” Greenpeace and
the United Nations both have pretty compelling mission statements, by the way. The truth is, we probably aren’t clever enough to care for this planet but if we measure all of our actions against this promise, we can at least say that we did our best.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Speaking of tigers...
Last fall I went to North Carolina for my good friend's wedding and one our activities was a trip to the Carnivore Preservation Trust. North Carolina is one of the states that still allows citizens to keep wild animals as pets. When these brilliant people realize that it's dangerous to keep animals whose teeth are shaped like scissors and their claws are razor sharp and they're given up or taken away, CPT is where they live the rest of their days. They all really should be living in the wild but because they've been raised by humans, they can't.
A carnivore, by the way, is defined by its teeth, not the intestines as is often the argument that humans are carnivores. A carnivore's teeth work exactly like scissors, not to chew anything but to cut meat into bite sized pieces that are then swallowed whole. CPT's residents range from Siberian tigers to some amazing small cats that jump 12-15 feet with these powerful back legs and can catch 2-3 birds at the same time (one in each paw and one in the mouth), and a jaguar that can carry the carcass of an animal three times its weight up into a tree, with its teeth.
For the record, there are several differences between this facility and a zoo:
1) It's a not-for-profit organization that rescues abused, abandoned or otherwise neglected carnivores. It does NOT purchase animals, contribute to breeding programs (although ironically that is the origin of the CPT) or capture animals from the wild for profit, as zoos do.
2) They have very limited visiting hours as their focus is the well being of the animals, not making money.
3) You MUST go on a tour with a CPT guide. You cannot walk around unsupervised or even stray from the group. In addition, the guides only take you to visit the cats who are feeling "social" that day and avoid those that are new and still adjusting to their new environment. The guides are extremely well versed in their subject and highly engaging so you leave feeling educated and enlightened. They are so reverent to the animals and instruct guests on how to be considerate so that you feel you are being granted permission by the animals to be viewed, instead of the zoo environment of entitlement.
4) The habitats are dirt, grass, rocks, trees and bushes. There is no concrete. The concrete viewing arenas at the zoo are so disgusting to me. Can you imagine living your whole life with nothing natural in your environment? It reminds me of the white man making the Native-American children wear shoes when they had always felt the earth beneath their feet or fish in an aquarium the size of a shoe box filled with plastic plants. So sad!
We learned some really interesting things about tigers. The volunteers never ever go inside a cage with a tiger. A tiger is an extremely powerful and dangerous animal. Its cage is at least 20 feet high and food is catapulted over the top or put into an empty cage before the tiger is allowed to move into it. If someone hits a deer on the road there, they bring it to CPT to be thrown over the cage for the tigers, a real treat!
We also learned that white tigers are actually albinos. They are freaks of nature, not a rare species of tiger as some zoos (the famed educational centers) and circuses would have you believe. The first white tiger was found in the jungle by an Indian Maharajah in the 1800's. He brought the white tiger cub back to his compound and bred it with another tiger until they had another white one. As the story goes, he killed all the yellow cubs as he really didn't have any use for them. Then he inbred the white ones to get more but only one out of every four comes out white and they are almost always born with some kind of deformity - cleft palates, crossed eyes, malformed spines, shortened tendons of the legs and other totally disgusting things. In the wild, a mother tiger would probably kill a white cub, or it wouldn't survive on its own because it doesn't camouflage with its environment.
Then they told us a story about a guy who bought a "guard tiger" for his store. It was just a cub but it kept people from robbing him, apparently. Then one day it got taken away because he couldn't prove that he'd bought the tiger in the U.S. See, and here's where the law is totally stupid, it's legal to buy a tiger born in the U.S. bred by the circus or whoever, but not to buy one from the wild. I guess the reasoning is that an animal born in captivity is already ruined and might as well be a pet, but those animals should NEVER be bred in the first place. But I digress. A couple of years later, the shop owner turned up to the authorities with his papers proving the tiger's origins and demanded him back. The good people at CPT walked this guy to the cage of his now 600-lb. tiger at which point the guy freaked and said "you can keep him!" Good to know the people buying these cubs know so much about tigers, eh?
A carnivore, by the way, is defined by its teeth, not the intestines as is often the argument that humans are carnivores. A carnivore's teeth work exactly like scissors, not to chew anything but to cut meat into bite sized pieces that are then swallowed whole. CPT's residents range from Siberian tigers to some amazing small cats that jump 12-15 feet with these powerful back legs and can catch 2-3 birds at the same time (one in each paw and one in the mouth), and a jaguar that can carry the carcass of an animal three times its weight up into a tree, with its teeth.
For the record, there are several differences between this facility and a zoo:
1) It's a not-for-profit organization that rescues abused, abandoned or otherwise neglected carnivores. It does NOT purchase animals, contribute to breeding programs (although ironically that is the origin of the CPT) or capture animals from the wild for profit, as zoos do.
2) They have very limited visiting hours as their focus is the well being of the animals, not making money.
3) You MUST go on a tour with a CPT guide. You cannot walk around unsupervised or even stray from the group. In addition, the guides only take you to visit the cats who are feeling "social" that day and avoid those that are new and still adjusting to their new environment. The guides are extremely well versed in their subject and highly engaging so you leave feeling educated and enlightened. They are so reverent to the animals and instruct guests on how to be considerate so that you feel you are being granted permission by the animals to be viewed, instead of the zoo environment of entitlement.
4) The habitats are dirt, grass, rocks, trees and bushes. There is no concrete. The concrete viewing arenas at the zoo are so disgusting to me. Can you imagine living your whole life with nothing natural in your environment? It reminds me of the white man making the Native-American children wear shoes when they had always felt the earth beneath their feet or fish in an aquarium the size of a shoe box filled with plastic plants. So sad!
We learned some really interesting things about tigers. The volunteers never ever go inside a cage with a tiger. A tiger is an extremely powerful and dangerous animal. Its cage is at least 20 feet high and food is catapulted over the top or put into an empty cage before the tiger is allowed to move into it. If someone hits a deer on the road there, they bring it to CPT to be thrown over the cage for the tigers, a real treat!
We also learned that white tigers are actually albinos. They are freaks of nature, not a rare species of tiger as some zoos (the famed educational centers) and circuses would have you believe. The first white tiger was found in the jungle by an Indian Maharajah in the 1800's. He brought the white tiger cub back to his compound and bred it with another tiger until they had another white one. As the story goes, he killed all the yellow cubs as he really didn't have any use for them. Then he inbred the white ones to get more but only one out of every four comes out white and they are almost always born with some kind of deformity - cleft palates, crossed eyes, malformed spines, shortened tendons of the legs and other totally disgusting things. In the wild, a mother tiger would probably kill a white cub, or it wouldn't survive on its own because it doesn't camouflage with its environment.
Then they told us a story about a guy who bought a "guard tiger" for his store. It was just a cub but it kept people from robbing him, apparently. Then one day it got taken away because he couldn't prove that he'd bought the tiger in the U.S. See, and here's where the law is totally stupid, it's legal to buy a tiger born in the U.S. bred by the circus or whoever, but not to buy one from the wild. I guess the reasoning is that an animal born in captivity is already ruined and might as well be a pet, but those animals should NEVER be bred in the first place. But I digress. A couple of years later, the shop owner turned up to the authorities with his papers proving the tiger's origins and demanded him back. The good people at CPT walked this guy to the cage of his now 600-lb. tiger at which point the guy freaked and said "you can keep him!" Good to know the people buying these cubs know so much about tigers, eh?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Scaling the walls
On Christmas day, a Siberian tiger escaped its enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo and attacked three teenage boys, killing one, before police shot and killed it. The zoo claims the teen and his friends were throwing things, harassing the tiger, and had evidence of drugs in their car. But the real concern seems to be whether the walls should be higher; clearly the public isn’t safe around a caged wild animal.
Yesterday, the paper reported that since the attack, in two separate incidents, a 600-pound polar bear scaled the wall of her enclosure and nearly escaped and a snow leopard, while being moved between enclosures, chewed a 4-inch hole in the mesh cage and stuck its head and paw through. The zoo administrator denied these reports as escape attempts or anything to be worried about. Of course, they mean that we don't have to worry about ourselves. We should still be worried about the animals.
Most of the animals that people like to see in zoos are mammals. Mammals are the only species that need touch from other mammals to survive. Our social structures are built around that touch – how and when and who can touch us. These majestic animals that we love to look at - gorillas, tigers, lions, elephants and polar bears – have incredibly complex social structures like our own. Think about your life. How many people you see on a daily basis, how many you talk to, how many are your friends and your family. Think about how many miles you travel, all the different kinds of foods you eat and the places you go and look at.
Now imagine that you instead you spent your whole life in an apartment with one person you don’t even know and might not even like. Your keepers expect you to mate and have children with that person! Should you actually like this person enough to do so, it's very probable that they'll take your child or sell you to another zoo. They feed you the same thing every day. You never leave, you never see anyone different, you weigh twice as much as you do now, and you sleep all the time because you’re depressed.
Now imagine that six days a week visitors came to look at you. They yell at you, pound on your windows, take pictures of you and sometimes throw things. They want you to do something entertaining, to make them laugh or smile but they get to leave and you will always be there. Would you regard that life as anything but torture? Wouldn’t you also scale a wall or chew a hole through your cage and attack someone? Wouldn’t you do anything you could to get out of that situation?
I have said before that PETA is too extreme but on this issue, I agree with them one hundred percent. Zoos are pitiful prisons and they should be closed. All of them. The position of the Humane Society, whom I normally support, is pathetic and contradictory:
The Humane Society of the United States strongly believes that under most circumstances wild animals should be permitted to exist undisturbed in their natural environments. However, we recognize the widespread existence of zoos and acknowledge that some serve a demonstrable purpose in the long-term benefit of animals, such as the preservation and restoration of endangered species, and the education of people to the needs of wild animals and their role in ecosystems. [Emphasis mine]
But then they go on to say that not only is it impossible to simulate an animal's natural environment, only 10% of facilities are accredited to humane standards - and even that doesn't ensure humane treatment! Their focus is to work for better treatment of animals in zoos. It reminds me of the tobacco companies who, when their sales are dropping, ask how they could get people smoking more and never question whether they should even be making cigarettes. That's what we should be asking here, why are there zoos?
Zoos fail at everything they claim to do. They don't educate. Where's the education is seeing an animal in a cage? It's not going to do anything it does in the wild and people don't want to learn anyway, they want to be entertained. Zoos don't preserve species. Even if they breed endangered species, those animals can never be released into the wild because if they're raised in captivity, they aren't really wild animals! In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond says that the animals that are domesticated are domesticated because it was possible, because it was easy. Wild animals are not meant to be raised by humans.
How many people, I wonder, after learning that an animal they've seen in the zoo is endangered, like the Siberian Tiger that killed the teenager, go home a write a check for preservation, or find out what they can do to help that species, get involved or write a letter? Are people really more concerned about poaching and encroachment and loss of habitat when they've just seen a majestic animal pacing in a cage like a creature that's lost its mind? Clearly it only sends a message that it's acceptable to torture animals.
"But the kids LOVE the zoo!" No, kids don't love zoos, they love animals. They come out of the womb loving animals but they have to be taught to love the zoo. Whenever I’ve gone with my nephew, we spend more time trying to get him excited about the exhibits than anything else. “Look Jonathan, look over here!” we yell while he seems perfectly fine to look at the plants, climb on a rock or watch other people.
Our pets are treated ten times better than these animals. They're domesticated for one thing, so human company is something they choose and enjoy. (Except for some states like North Carolina that allow ownership of wild animals including tigers.) They get to eat all different kinds of foods, or whatever food they want. They get out into the world, get to socialize with other animals, get love and affection and new experiences. Even so, we've all seen what happens when a dog is tied up and neglected. They're mean, they bark and bite and attack. Why? Because it's inhumane to restrict an animal's movement and deprive them of social interaction. Even domesticated animals have been known to escape from the slaughter house.
So I find it really sad that people love zoos. A Google search of "I love zoos" turned up 225,000 results while "I hate zoos," only 26,400. Ten times more people find the idea of building bigger walls and restricting the animals even more to be preferable over closing the zoo altogether. We put people in prisons as a punishment but what did the animals do to us? I say if you really like animals, boycott the zoo, donate to WWF, watch animal shows like Planet Earth, buy your kids a subscription to National Geographic Kids and take them hiking where you can see wild animals in their own habitat.
Here's the way kids should enjoy lions!
Yesterday, the paper reported that since the attack, in two separate incidents, a 600-pound polar bear scaled the wall of her enclosure and nearly escaped and a snow leopard, while being moved between enclosures, chewed a 4-inch hole in the mesh cage and stuck its head and paw through. The zoo administrator denied these reports as escape attempts or anything to be worried about. Of course, they mean that we don't have to worry about ourselves. We should still be worried about the animals.
Most of the animals that people like to see in zoos are mammals. Mammals are the only species that need touch from other mammals to survive. Our social structures are built around that touch – how and when and who can touch us. These majestic animals that we love to look at - gorillas, tigers, lions, elephants and polar bears – have incredibly complex social structures like our own. Think about your life. How many people you see on a daily basis, how many you talk to, how many are your friends and your family. Think about how many miles you travel, all the different kinds of foods you eat and the places you go and look at.
Now imagine that you instead you spent your whole life in an apartment with one person you don’t even know and might not even like. Your keepers expect you to mate and have children with that person! Should you actually like this person enough to do so, it's very probable that they'll take your child or sell you to another zoo. They feed you the same thing every day. You never leave, you never see anyone different, you weigh twice as much as you do now, and you sleep all the time because you’re depressed.
Now imagine that six days a week visitors came to look at you. They yell at you, pound on your windows, take pictures of you and sometimes throw things. They want you to do something entertaining, to make them laugh or smile but they get to leave and you will always be there. Would you regard that life as anything but torture? Wouldn’t you also scale a wall or chew a hole through your cage and attack someone? Wouldn’t you do anything you could to get out of that situation?
I have said before that PETA is too extreme but on this issue, I agree with them one hundred percent. Zoos are pitiful prisons and they should be closed. All of them. The position of the Humane Society, whom I normally support, is pathetic and contradictory:
The Humane Society of the United States strongly believes that under most circumstances wild animals should be permitted to exist undisturbed in their natural environments. However, we recognize the widespread existence of zoos and acknowledge that some serve a demonstrable purpose in the long-term benefit of animals, such as the preservation and restoration of endangered species, and the education of people to the needs of wild animals and their role in ecosystems. [Emphasis mine]
But then they go on to say that not only is it impossible to simulate an animal's natural environment, only 10% of facilities are accredited to humane standards - and even that doesn't ensure humane treatment! Their focus is to work for better treatment of animals in zoos. It reminds me of the tobacco companies who, when their sales are dropping, ask how they could get people smoking more and never question whether they should even be making cigarettes. That's what we should be asking here, why are there zoos?
Zoos fail at everything they claim to do. They don't educate. Where's the education is seeing an animal in a cage? It's not going to do anything it does in the wild and people don't want to learn anyway, they want to be entertained. Zoos don't preserve species. Even if they breed endangered species, those animals can never be released into the wild because if they're raised in captivity, they aren't really wild animals! In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond says that the animals that are domesticated are domesticated because it was possible, because it was easy. Wild animals are not meant to be raised by humans.
How many people, I wonder, after learning that an animal they've seen in the zoo is endangered, like the Siberian Tiger that killed the teenager, go home a write a check for preservation, or find out what they can do to help that species, get involved or write a letter? Are people really more concerned about poaching and encroachment and loss of habitat when they've just seen a majestic animal pacing in a cage like a creature that's lost its mind? Clearly it only sends a message that it's acceptable to torture animals.
"But the kids LOVE the zoo!" No, kids don't love zoos, they love animals. They come out of the womb loving animals but they have to be taught to love the zoo. Whenever I’ve gone with my nephew, we spend more time trying to get him excited about the exhibits than anything else. “Look Jonathan, look over here!” we yell while he seems perfectly fine to look at the plants, climb on a rock or watch other people.
Our pets are treated ten times better than these animals. They're domesticated for one thing, so human company is something they choose and enjoy. (Except for some states like North Carolina that allow ownership of wild animals including tigers.) They get to eat all different kinds of foods, or whatever food they want. They get out into the world, get to socialize with other animals, get love and affection and new experiences. Even so, we've all seen what happens when a dog is tied up and neglected. They're mean, they bark and bite and attack. Why? Because it's inhumane to restrict an animal's movement and deprive them of social interaction. Even domesticated animals have been known to escape from the slaughter house.
So I find it really sad that people love zoos. A Google search of "I love zoos" turned up 225,000 results while "I hate zoos," only 26,400. Ten times more people find the idea of building bigger walls and restricting the animals even more to be preferable over closing the zoo altogether. We put people in prisons as a punishment but what did the animals do to us? I say if you really like animals, boycott the zoo, donate to WWF, watch animal shows like Planet Earth, buy your kids a subscription to National Geographic Kids and take them hiking where you can see wild animals in their own habitat.
Here's the way kids should enjoy lions!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Letter to Radiohead
Dear Mr. Yorke,
I've been reading the articles about you and your band in Wired and am really excited about the changes in the music industry, especially as they put the music directly into the hands of the fans. I've never had such a varied music collection as I do now. At the moment, I can't stop listening to your solo album (thank you!) which I bought on an old-fashioned CD.
So I read your interview in Wired this month with great interest, especially your dilemma over making most of your money touring but not being a fan of the ecological impact. I'm a fan, a filmmaker and a marketer and I have an idea to address this issue.
First I considered why people go to a live show:
- To be close to the band
- To enjoy the music with other fans
- To be part of a once-in-lifetime event
- For an experience beyond the album
- For a great show!
But there are certain limitations to concerts:
- You're never close enough to the band
- They’re expensive, making them inaccessible to many people
- They have limited dates and times, again making them inaccessible
- Late hours and long distances keep people from going more than once
- Big venues, unruly crowds and traffic jams can make the show impersonal and unsatisfying
A couple of years ago, I saw a screening of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars at the Henry Fonda Amphitheater in Hollywood. It was part of the LA Film Festival so the price of admission was the same as a movie, about $10. It was a summer night and the amphitheater was packed with people of all ages. The film was beautifully shot and the projection and sound were amazing. People sang along, clapped and shouted as if they were at a live performance. The film brought us so close to Bowie, we were practically onstage with him. I honestly felt like it was 1973 and I was watching the one and only Ziggy Stardust. Truly a beautiful experience!
Then this New Year’s Eve, a friend of mine sent me a video of a “silent disco” she went to in London. Hundreds of people wearing headphones danced in virtual silence as they tuned their headphones to one of two DJs and listened at whatever volume they liked. They were having no less fun than if they were all listening to the same live music. The virtual experience is rapidly catching up to and in some cases surpassing the real thing.
So here’s the idea: You shoot a concert series with one or several filmmakers that screens in small venues all over the world for the price of a movie. The series runs as long as people attend, like a film, and you own the rights, you don’t have to travel, your concert is ten times more accessible and it’s available forever!
Here’s how it could work:
- A small audience of diehard fans, or a random audience via a sweepstakes on your website, is selected to be your live audience
- You shoot a number of concerts with your selected audience in beautiful, historic or otherwise significant locations, each show is a little different so people will want to experience all of them
- Because there are several different films, multiple venues in the same city can competitively screen the series at the same time
- Radiohead sells the DVD through the website
- Venues can use the headphone idea to create a more personalized experience
I see you've already booked your tour dates for 2008 but maybe you could consider this idea for the next go around. Or maybe you love the idea of making your own Pennebaker classic and will contact this eager young filmmaker for more great ideas.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Cheers!
I've been reading the articles about you and your band in Wired and am really excited about the changes in the music industry, especially as they put the music directly into the hands of the fans. I've never had such a varied music collection as I do now. At the moment, I can't stop listening to your solo album (thank you!) which I bought on an old-fashioned CD.
So I read your interview in Wired this month with great interest, especially your dilemma over making most of your money touring but not being a fan of the ecological impact. I'm a fan, a filmmaker and a marketer and I have an idea to address this issue.
First I considered why people go to a live show:
- To be close to the band
- To enjoy the music with other fans
- To be part of a once-in-lifetime event
- For an experience beyond the album
- For a great show!
But there are certain limitations to concerts:
- You're never close enough to the band
- They’re expensive, making them inaccessible to many people
- They have limited dates and times, again making them inaccessible
- Late hours and long distances keep people from going more than once
- Big venues, unruly crowds and traffic jams can make the show impersonal and unsatisfying
A couple of years ago, I saw a screening of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars at the Henry Fonda Amphitheater in Hollywood. It was part of the LA Film Festival so the price of admission was the same as a movie, about $10. It was a summer night and the amphitheater was packed with people of all ages. The film was beautifully shot and the projection and sound were amazing. People sang along, clapped and shouted as if they were at a live performance. The film brought us so close to Bowie, we were practically onstage with him. I honestly felt like it was 1973 and I was watching the one and only Ziggy Stardust. Truly a beautiful experience!
Then this New Year’s Eve, a friend of mine sent me a video of a “silent disco” she went to in London. Hundreds of people wearing headphones danced in virtual silence as they tuned their headphones to one of two DJs and listened at whatever volume they liked. They were having no less fun than if they were all listening to the same live music. The virtual experience is rapidly catching up to and in some cases surpassing the real thing.
So here’s the idea: You shoot a concert series with one or several filmmakers that screens in small venues all over the world for the price of a movie. The series runs as long as people attend, like a film, and you own the rights, you don’t have to travel, your concert is ten times more accessible and it’s available forever!
Here’s how it could work:
- A small audience of diehard fans, or a random audience via a sweepstakes on your website, is selected to be your live audience
- You shoot a number of concerts with your selected audience in beautiful, historic or otherwise significant locations, each show is a little different so people will want to experience all of them
- Because there are several different films, multiple venues in the same city can competitively screen the series at the same time
- Radiohead sells the DVD through the website
- Venues can use the headphone idea to create a more personalized experience
I see you've already booked your tour dates for 2008 but maybe you could consider this idea for the next go around. Or maybe you love the idea of making your own Pennebaker classic and will contact this eager young filmmaker for more great ideas.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Cheers!
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
A place worth fighting for
I've been asked by so many people since I've moved here why I gave up acting. They ask the question as if talking about something I loved to do and got to do all the time but just grew tired of, like drawing. In Los Angeles, no one asks you why you're giving up acting, and I doubt any really believes you until you move away. See, it's not ACTING that anyone gives up, it's the PURSUIT of acting, which is really a completely different animal.
The pursuit of acting is like gambling. It requires a huge investment, over a long period of time with very poor odds that it will ever pay out. The more money and support an actor has from their family (and you'd be surprised to learn how many are being supported by husbands, wives and parents) the better their chances. They can make more bets, bigger bets and can afford to stay in the game longer. But that doesn't take into account the enormous emotional toll being in the game takes.
Some don't have the courage to play at all and just sit on the sidelines waiting for someone to discover them, or for the right moment. Those who do throw in their chips, eventually win but the wins are usually small and only justify the playing. If you gamble $50 in an hour but win $5 back, you keep playing because you've proven that you CAN win. I remember thinking it was funny when I first met someone in L.A. who described herself as a recovering actress. I had no idea what she meant.
People who haven't lived it find it to be funny and I guess it is in an ironic sort of way. At its best, it's exhilarating. An entire town of people with stars in their eyes, singing, dancing and acting their hearts out day after day, hoping to hit the jackpot. At it's worst, it's a town of junkies so desperate for a fix that they'll do anything to get it. So surrounded by their own kind that they don't notice their condition. The masses of those who accomplish nothing are so thick that a couple of lines on a little watched TV show for a few hundred bucks are enough to garner great accolades and envy from one's friends.
I "quit acting" because I couldn't afford to play any more. It just wasn't fun. Those little victories, a few bucks after a year of gambling for two lines on a TV show, were depressing instead of thrilling. And the promise of bigger fortune seemed more and more like the bright lights, air conditioning and lack of windows at the casinos in Vegas that keep you gambling all night because you lose track of time. How much time was I willing to lose for this jackpot?
So around the same time that I was fielding this question from well-meaning new friends, I read an article in National Geographic. I love that magazine for publishing an article around Christmas about what a disaster Bethlehem is and about how few Christians are left in the birthplace of Jesus. One family that's leaving has been there since before the birth of Christ and can trace their ancestors to the Bible! The ones that have stayed describe themselves as punching bags in between Israel and Palestine.
The Israelis talk about their children tucking their legs under them on the bus to keep from being blown off like a school friend of theirs, or finding their teenagers bludgeoned to death in a cave. The Palestinians complain of a twenty foot wall that divides their city, and of two-three hours lines they must wait in to be allowed to get to the other side and tend their own land. Encroachment, violence, bankruptcy, and more violence and yet when asked why they don't leave, they say "because I love it," or "because this is where I belong."
It's amazing to me that "place" can have such a draw. I couldn't help but make the comparison to Hollywood. I know it's not the same, I know actors aren't getting their legs blown off in Hollywood and yet, despite so many perils, so many obvious reasons to leave, to go somewhere else, to do something else, they don't. Thousands of people from all over the world move to Hollywood every day to pursue their dream and while some of them eventually leave, many never leave. They just can't. No matter what humiliation or poverty they suffer, no matter how they are taken advantage of, they still love it. Even celebrities, the lottery winners, who can afford to leave - Gene Hackman lives a secluded life in New Mexico, Clint Eastwood runs a ranch in Carmel - still, overwhelmingly stay in L.A. They're as much a part of the game as anyone. They just high-rollers now - the stakes are higher and they're treated a hell of a lot better while they're winning.
The pursuit of acting is like gambling. It requires a huge investment, over a long period of time with very poor odds that it will ever pay out. The more money and support an actor has from their family (and you'd be surprised to learn how many are being supported by husbands, wives and parents) the better their chances. They can make more bets, bigger bets and can afford to stay in the game longer. But that doesn't take into account the enormous emotional toll being in the game takes.
Some don't have the courage to play at all and just sit on the sidelines waiting for someone to discover them, or for the right moment. Those who do throw in their chips, eventually win but the wins are usually small and only justify the playing. If you gamble $50 in an hour but win $5 back, you keep playing because you've proven that you CAN win. I remember thinking it was funny when I first met someone in L.A. who described herself as a recovering actress. I had no idea what she meant.
People who haven't lived it find it to be funny and I guess it is in an ironic sort of way. At its best, it's exhilarating. An entire town of people with stars in their eyes, singing, dancing and acting their hearts out day after day, hoping to hit the jackpot. At it's worst, it's a town of junkies so desperate for a fix that they'll do anything to get it. So surrounded by their own kind that they don't notice their condition. The masses of those who accomplish nothing are so thick that a couple of lines on a little watched TV show for a few hundred bucks are enough to garner great accolades and envy from one's friends.
I "quit acting" because I couldn't afford to play any more. It just wasn't fun. Those little victories, a few bucks after a year of gambling for two lines on a TV show, were depressing instead of thrilling. And the promise of bigger fortune seemed more and more like the bright lights, air conditioning and lack of windows at the casinos in Vegas that keep you gambling all night because you lose track of time. How much time was I willing to lose for this jackpot?
So around the same time that I was fielding this question from well-meaning new friends, I read an article in National Geographic. I love that magazine for publishing an article around Christmas about what a disaster Bethlehem is and about how few Christians are left in the birthplace of Jesus. One family that's leaving has been there since before the birth of Christ and can trace their ancestors to the Bible! The ones that have stayed describe themselves as punching bags in between Israel and Palestine.
The Israelis talk about their children tucking their legs under them on the bus to keep from being blown off like a school friend of theirs, or finding their teenagers bludgeoned to death in a cave. The Palestinians complain of a twenty foot wall that divides their city, and of two-three hours lines they must wait in to be allowed to get to the other side and tend their own land. Encroachment, violence, bankruptcy, and more violence and yet when asked why they don't leave, they say "because I love it," or "because this is where I belong."
It's amazing to me that "place" can have such a draw. I couldn't help but make the comparison to Hollywood. I know it's not the same, I know actors aren't getting their legs blown off in Hollywood and yet, despite so many perils, so many obvious reasons to leave, to go somewhere else, to do something else, they don't. Thousands of people from all over the world move to Hollywood every day to pursue their dream and while some of them eventually leave, many never leave. They just can't. No matter what humiliation or poverty they suffer, no matter how they are taken advantage of, they still love it. Even celebrities, the lottery winners, who can afford to leave - Gene Hackman lives a secluded life in New Mexico, Clint Eastwood runs a ranch in Carmel - still, overwhelmingly stay in L.A. They're as much a part of the game as anyone. They just high-rollers now - the stakes are higher and they're treated a hell of a lot better while they're winning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)