Les Misérables – thoughts on the movie

OMGOMGOMG. (Emotional breakdown in progress, please hold.) Okay… hopefully I’ll be able to calm down enough to write this… Deep breaths…

I’ve been anticipating this movie ever since I saw the musical at the Orpheum about a year or so ago, and found out what I had been missing all my life. I’m a Broadway fanatic: Wicked, Phantom, Lion King, Joseph, Beauty and the Beast… love ‘em all. And Les Mis turned out to be just as good as any of the others, if not better.

The movie was released Christmas day, and for the past month I had been looking forward to it much more than the holiday. And it did not disappoint. I went to the second-earliest show on Christmas day and the theater was packed in a way that almost rivals Avatar (my benchmark for crowded movie theaters). There was a burst of spontaneous applause at the end, and the women on either side of me were crying throughout—one being my own mom, the other just some lady with a lot of Kleenex.

Everyone was cast perfectly with the unfortunate exception of Russell Crowe as Javert. He looked the part perfectly; you couldn’t have found anyone who looked more like Javert, but I think they forgot how big of a role it was when they cast him. He has two solo songs, and his voice simply wasn’t strong enough to pull that off. They should have at least let him record those two songs (Stars, and Javert’s Suicide (uh, spoiler alert…?)) in the studio instead of live on set so he could focus on making his voice stronger or deeper. Or they should’ve cast someone else. Just pull somebody off of Broadway, make him star! Or if they wanted another big name to put on posters, Gerard Butler probably would’ve done well in that role. I liked him as the Phantom, anyway. His voice is certainly deep and powerful enough.

See what I mean? He is Javert. Too bad he can't sing.

 Everyone else was wonderful, and the idea of having the actors sing live on set is still genius. If anything, it’s a small trade of perfect vocal quality for raw emotion, which is well worth it.

The complex plot makes loads more sense in movie format than it ever could on stage, although the sewer scene is decidedly more difficult to stomach. Ick.

So, I’m looking forward to going again tomorrow for my birthday. I think I’ll cry more this time, since the first time I was more interested in seeing how they’d do everything and constantly thinking about how cute Eddie Redmayne is:

Gaaah he's adorable. And he was amazing as Marius.
"Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" will make you cry.

Tomorrow I’ll probably just be bawling nonstop. Happy birthday to me…

Give this movie a chance, even if you’re not a Broadway person. I mean, where else are you going to see Hugh Jackman coated in sewage, and Anne Hathaway getting her hair hacked off and her teeth yanked out? Oh, yes. There’s a reason why it’s called ‘The Miserable Ones.’

Gun Control

I’ve been wanting to write about gun control for a while now. I was going to do this after Aurora. Then after the more recent mall shooting. Now there’s been another one just yesterday at an elementary school in Connecticut.

People often say that it’s not appropriate to have these types of conversations after such tragedies. Well, then when is it appropriate? The fact is that it doesn’t just seem like shootings are happening more often that they used to—they are happening more often.

 People love the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Let me tell you what’s crap about this. First of all, yes—guns don’t act of their own accord. Someone has to pull the trigger. But there has to be a trigger to pull. I mean, really—hasn’t anyone ever played Clue? The three parts are the suspect, the location and the weapon. The weapon is one-third of the crime! Without the candlestick, Colonel Mustard wouldn’t have been able to commit the murder. Likewise, without (completely legal) access to powerful assault weapons James Holmes wouldn’t have been able to shoot 70 people in Aurora, killing 12. These kinds of guns used to be illegal until 2004. And maybe this ban didn’t spur a huge decrease in gun violence (although I think the above graph is pretty compelling) and maybe renewing it won’t make a huge difference. After all, people could still illegally obtain these guns and people of course will continue to do terrible things. But I don’t think it could make things worse than they already are.

These types of guns are not for defense. So don’t say that you need semi-automatic rifles to protect yourself from burglary. Because if you pull out a gun every time you hear a sound at night, you’re more likely to shoot your own granddaughter, as happened this past week in Minnesota. If the man had used something even more powerful, it’s likely she wouldn’t have survived.

So, I’m not saying we should violate anyone’s second-amendment rights here—but personal freedoms are limited all the time for the safety of society. Drunk-driving is illegal, and even though plenty of people still do it I don’t hear anyone arguing to stop trying to prevent alcohol-related car accidents. On average, 33 people are killed by guns every day in the U.S. Considering those numbers, we hear about gun related deaths very little. Maybe I’m just a bleeding heart liberal, but I think it’s time we do something about this.

Ray Wise is in Every TV Show Ever

Alright, I’ve had two somewhat relevant, timely posts… I think I deserve to move onto the second part of my blog’s title (i.e. other things that don’t matter). Namely, a recent observation I made.

*This entry will also be a shocking testament to my chronic Netflix Addiction*

I used to never watch TV. Literally. Then… Netflix. Making up for lost time, I suppose, I’ve already plowed through dozens of seasons of several shows, and—according to my mom—taken years off my life in the process. Eh. One of these shows is the classic Twin Peaks from 1990. It’s a dark, quirky, super intense murder mystery series starring an adorable Kyle MacLachlan as Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Dale Cooper. (For a while, I carried around a little tape recorder, telling ‘Diane’ about what I had for breakfast. And I made this picture.)

I feel like no one appreciates how awesome I am.

Ray Wise played Leeland Palmer, the (*SPOILER ALERT*) murderer. And he is so—unbelievably—CREEPY.  

Case in point. (If he looks familiar, that's because you've watched TV before.

Anyway, Twin Peaks is amazing until the murder is solved and then it takes an unforgivable plunge in quality as they try to force subplots into becoming main plots and it’s cringingly bad. It did not get a third season.

So I moved onto other shows! Like Burn Notice. In the first episode, who do I see? Leeland-freaking-Palmer. Playing the bad guy (of course) in the pilot. So that’s interesting. Then I watch Psych: Leeland Palmer. Then I watch Bones: Leeland Palmer. Then I watch How I Met Your Mother: Leeland Palmer shoving Robin out of a helicopter.

According to Wikipedia, he’s also appeared in 24, Mad Men, Star Trek, Law and Order… and, well, like I said: every TV show ever. And every time he pops up, I can only think of this:

So this was a very media-heavy and pointless post. Hopefully I'll have something to say about politics or current events in the near future, but I had way more fun writing this... ;)

The Electoral College & Why It's Stupid

If you were watching election night coverage you may have noticed that even after Obama was projected the winner Romney was still ahead in the popular vote. Of course after all the votes were tallied Obama was up by a 3 million vote margin, but this shows a much closer race than the Electoral College numbers convey. This led to a sudden distaste for the Electoral system among certain Fox News talking heads. (Sean Hannity, however, said that we should keep it in place because abolishing it would actually lead to more democrats voting in states like New York and California. Big fan of democracy, I see.) And even though I thought they were being a little whiny that night I have to say I agree with them. It’s about time we get rid of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College, in the very first few elections, was a way to keep the common people from directly electing a president. The uneducated masses were not to be trusted with such an important decision, even if they were white enough and male enough and land-owning enough to vote. But obviously the elite College chose well. Eventually, as communication improved and the number of people allowed to vote increased, the system became what it is today: The popular vote in each state is tallied and that state’s assigned number of votes (depending on its population) is given to one candidate or the other. And most of the time it works just fine. Except when it doesn’t.

The first time was the vital election of 1876. The South was under post-Civil War military reconstruction and the North had dominated politics for over a decade. So when the election results came in there was an obvious problem. The Democrat, the Southerner, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by 2 million and also had a leg up in the Electoral College, but 20 electoral votes were still in dispute. Conveniently these 20 votes would give Hayes the narrowest of victories over Tilden: one electoral vote. So, the powers that be whipped up a little something known as the Compromise of 1877, handing the 20 disputed votes and the presidency over to Hayes. In return, military reconstruction was ended in the South, effectively reversing any progress made for African Americans in the years since the Civil War.


The Electoral College results of 1876. Wow - imagine a time when California was worth less than Maine!

Without the Electoral College Tilden would have won—there would have been nothing to debate, no compromise to make—and arguably full rights for blacks would have been achieved much sooner.

If you’re not willing to amend the Constitution punishing the Electoral College for its past mistakes then let’s move into what this system actually means for democracy today.

The Electoral College means that not everyone’s vote counts. It’s that simple. And call me crazy but I believe that in a democracy everyone’s vote should count. And equally. Considering we’ve just gone through an election I can safely assume you’re sick of hearing about Ohio. Think for a second how much money was spent in that state, how many times the candidates visited it—and how much it actually did matter to the outcome. Now think about this: If the Electoral College is abolished you won’t ever again hear the word “Ohio” so many times it will make you want to puke. I know. Just take a second to let that sink in.

Then there’s what I like to call the Republican-in-California Effect. The best example of this is, obviously, a republican living in California. They voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney and every other republican candidate, but since the state they live in happens to be a solid blue state their vote never actually counts. They might as well not have even voted. And I’d guess a lot of them don’t. It’d be downright depressing! And there goes a whopping 55 points to the Democrat. Every four years. Without fail. This also holds true to Democrats living in Texas. Or the five or six of them living in North Dakota. It’s not fair to those people that they should have to move to cast a meaningful ballot for president. A switch to a pure, raw popular vote would, I believe, increase voter turnout and give everyone that nice, mushy feeling that they actually have a voice.

Also it’s arguable that it would dilute the effect of things like SuperPACs on elections; they wouldn’t be as effective if they couldn’t concentrate their message in battleground states. In fact, it’d be less likely that the unpredictable flukes democrats were worried about this time around (such as Hurricane Sandy, or certain Republican governors’ sudden fixation on voter fraud) would have any real effect if it weren’t for the Electoral College.

I will say that this change would make presidential strategy a nightmare—until they figure it out at least. The key would be voter turnout, and it’s true that candidates would probably end up focusing most of their attention on big cities and their other strongholds, but… that’s still better than freaking Ohio.

It might be naïve to think that such a monumental change to our Constitution would be possible, but we have an amendment process for a reason. So let’s use it and take another step toward a more perfect union.

The Answer to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Recently my home state of Minnesota voted down the proposed Marriage Amendment (the first state to do so, might I add… I’m so proud!), but same-sex marriage is still illegal here. Just less illegal, I guess. Anyway, the occasion got me thinking about this issue and I just had to write something about it. This is not an idea that I came up with—in fact, it’s one shared by a growing number of people. It’s an idea that I believe would at the very least make same-sex marriage a non-governmental problem. Which would really cool things down.

Minnesota Marriage Amendment

Currently, a marriage is a legal union of two people. But it’s also a deeply religious thing for a lot of Americans. And it should not be both. Think about it. The government doesn’t regulate baptisms or funerals; it instead gives out birth certificates and death certificates. Purely secular documents, unattached to the often accompanying religious ceremonies. You know, good old separation of church and state. This is what should be done with marriage in this country.

The government should only give civil unions—to any two people (or more potentially) who want them and meet whatever requirements are in place. This would be strictly for financial and legal purposes. It would have nothing to do with sex. Just the legal and financial rights that traditionally accompany a marriage.

Now, if a couple isn’t particularly religious, they could stop there. They’d have all the benefits. But the marriage ceremonies and certificates would be given solely by churches and other licensed people (let’s say Elvis, in Las Vegas). You would first have to enter into a civil union with your desired partner, but after that you could obtain a “marriage” through whichever church will give you one. There would have to be laws though to protect a church’s right to deny marriage to whomever it wishes, but since a marriage would just be an intangible ceremony with no rights attached to it (like a baptism or confirmation), it’s unlikely people will get too worked up about it.

And wouldn’t that be great? A United States where we can finally take the touchy subject of marriage out of the hands of the government?

Although if a church can marry whomever it wants (as long as they can get a civil union) there will be concerns about how marriage won’t mean anything. But a marriage means something different to everyone, and if you want it to mean something special to you it shouldn’t matter what other people are doing—focus on your own life for God’s sake! Make your marriage mean something.

As for those concerned about slippery slopes and polygamy and marrying farm animals, well… we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. I guess I’ll leave you with this: have some faith in democracy. If there’s a time when the majority of Americans wants polygamy or interspecies marriage… that’s the price we pay for the best system of government the world’s ever seen. Democracy can be messy, and it’s certainly imperfect, but it hasn’t failed us yet.