Filed under: posts | Tags: china, Communism, Communist Revolution, food, life, love, Mao, parents, self, society
[poster via Stefan Landsberger]
This weekend was an interesting one. Along with finally finding a trustworthy and knowledgeable mechanic for my car, I visited one of our family friends who happened to own a Japanese restaurant in Antioch. I am a sashimi fiend and when my Dad asked me to go over and take some pictures of the finished architecture and design project, I was quick to ditch my economics homework and head on over.
It think I will withhold his name and just call him Mr. L. I knew he was a talker, I’ve heard him go on and on about his son (Berkeley physics grad) and his hopes and dreams for him. I am not here to discuss his parenting – which I do find a bit unsettling in its mercilessness.
This particular time I went over we sat down and he started talking about something that he never really discussed with me before. He told me about how love was viewed under the Communist regime. In his youth, during the revolutions of the 70s, there was no time for petty things like love. There was only China to love. And oh did the youth love China.
My generation’s parents, those born in China during the mid-to-late 50s all have experienced a certain prescribed form of love. Love, as universal and human as it may seem, was something controllable by the government. They simply had to encumber the youth with so much nationalism and so many duties associated with such nationalism that they thought love to be a waste of time – hours and hours that could be used towards revolution.
So love was simple, quick and utilitarian. Oh, she’s a hard worker, not terribly ugly and gets along with my family. Done. Run down to the marriage office, get a license (which in that time was a fairly new thing) and then you’re done. There was no concept of dating or choices. When the opportunity arose, you just simply tied the knot then got back to pushing Mao’s goals forward.
To say that Mr. L. was a revolutionary is an understatement. He was a party leader. A man who cried real, angry tears during Mao’s fear-induced purges. The Tienanmen square incident still bubbling in his veins. He was a passionate comrade of the old guard. He believed fiercely in the social values that Mao tauted but became disillusioned after those promises fell short. Needless to say, he put his love of China over love over any woman.
Now, he tells me this is the single greatest regret of his entire life.
Filed under: posts | Tags: AP English, Berkeley, economics, everyday, Midterms, risk, school, sights & sounds, Tim Minear, tirade, Waiting for Godot, Wonderfalls
So today I took my econ midterm. It was a stressful as hell experience. In an hour and twenty minute class, the professor gave us four problems, each with at least three subsets. But there’s more! Those subsets had subsets. It ended up the equivalent of thirty some odd questions. Needless to day, I think I made some careless mistakes about signs and explanations, but hopefully, nothing too serious. Thank God it is the first of two midterms – with the second being worth more.
This post needs a cut-off.
Yes, this show deserves a full page ad on the front of inkless – not that it really does anything for them. Pushing Daisies is brilliant. I know I say that about a lot of things, but this show really is something inarguably original. It’s a romantic drama-comedy which breaks free from all the usual drudgery that kills romantic comedies.
It has an Amelie-eque quirkiness about it. This is a great thing. It means that the background are vibrant, the music is uppity and sweeping, and the characters are genuinely different and interest. For instance, the main male protagonist is a pie maker. That in itself is a nice change from the lawyers, doctors and crime scene investigators flooding the airwaves. But really, a show about a pie maker would be very short lived after the tartness wears off.
The real genius of this show is the structure of how the plot works. First off, let me explain that the main character, Ned, has a superpower. This is not surprising considering Bryan Fuller, the producer, worked on Heroes. Ned can bring the dead back to life. However, his power comes with two stipulations. First of all, if his reanimated subject stays alive for one minute, another living person will die in his/her place. Secondly, if Ned comes into contact with the reanimated subject for the second time, then he/she will die again – permanently.
Without giving too much away, let me just say that these stipulations serve up an original romantic drama. It becomes love unfocused the visceral, physical side. TV romances not relying on sex, who knew! Ironically, this absence of physicality makes it an even more valued issue. It really is quite the interesting situation.
We’ve seen this in other great works of the same kind. Of note is really Lost in Translation which harnessed that tension between people almost to an art. The Before Sunrise/Sunset films, mostly dialogue, did the same. Films that are able to tell life and love as it is on a more mature level seem to resonate with viewers looking for alternatives to the clothes-tearing, bra-unclipping, tongue-slobbering stuff we usually see. Not that sex should not be a part of life or a part of America mainstream television, but it is glorified and cheapened on the screen.
If you don’t want it for the interplay between the two characters, watch it for the quirky setting and excellent story-telling. It is a crime-romance-comedy in essence. There’s a little something for everyone, I promise. Now, when have I ever steered you wrong?
Let me leave you with a trailer and a teaser:
‘Tis all.
