The YM Paid Intern Program is gearing up for the winter season and while we are not accepting applications this time around, there’s a searchcommittee culling and weeding out the best prospects. So far, Lenore Beadsman has accepted and her first assignment was to write about Magnolia. Not really sure why.
Magnolia came out in the year 1999, which is when I was starting the eighth grade. My friend teaches eighth graders and they are always telling her, “Miss ______, we don’t care about our grades, the world is ending in 2012 anyway!” That is sort of how I felt in the year 2000 except not about the world ending, just not caring about my grades. I didn’t get into honors bio for the next year and my parents weren’t even that mad; they were very, very disappointed but loved me anyway and it gave me jitters and made me feel terrible. So you know Magnolia is all about (spoiler!) fathers and their children (well, maybe not “all” but “a lot”) and how they fail one another and themselves, so anyway. Another thing about 1999 is I had braces and to this day I can’t understand why the Whiz Kid would get them, even for the deepest crush of all time, even for the deepest love of all time, no matter how much love he has to give, it doesn’t make sense; orthodontia is a curse, and not a noble one.
But I didn’t see Magnolia in 1999, I saw it for the first time maybe three or four years later but I stopped watching in the middle only to (spoiler alert) see frogs raining from the sky the next time I looked up, and I rolled my eyes at that because I was maybe sixteen and I spent a lot of time rolling my eyes when I was sixteen and didn’t watch the movie again til I was I think 20. I thought about it briefly, before that, this one time in college when I went to the gallery opening of someone’s BFA senior project and the only things there besides the art and attendees were red wine, a cheese plate with crackers and grapes, and a boom box playing an Aimee Mann mix CD.
So now I am 24 and Krucoff told me to write about Magnolia, but don’t write about it. I thought: well I was in the eighth grade in 1999, which makes me a Millennial, right? And I also compulsively google actors’ heights, right? And I am insufferable to watch movies with because I am forever checking to see how tall actors are, or how old they are, or what year this movie was made in, or what state was the director born in, or where can I get that shirt, right? In 2k11, I embarked on a self-improvement campaign, which has been an utter failure so I figured I’d give it another go: be a serious movie-watcher for at least three hours. Watch this movie. Do nothing but watch this movie — drinking wine is OK, but not too much. No knitting. Get off the internet. Everyone knows that the epitome of lazy writing, which I guess is closely related to if not the same thing as not-writing, is making a list. So here is the complete list of things I would google if I allowed myself access to google while watching this movie, which has a run time of 188 minutes.
NB: I tried to leave it as uncensored as possible, but of course the gaze exists and I am not even writing this for my own blog and blogging at all is inherently performative and blogging for someone else’s blog is even more so and I’m not that new to critical theory. But stick with me.
aimee mann breakout
wanda big love claudia magnolia wiki
pt anderson movies set in los angeles
adult orthodontia cost (note: i would then have googled an inflation calculator)
how tall is john c reilly
how tall is tom cruise
brief interviews with hideous men wiki
felicity huffman filmography
how many days a year does it rain in los angeles
tv quiz shows wiki
cancers by fatality rate
"ladies and germs" phrase origin
puka shell necklace wiki
julianne moore dob
what is it called when music in a movie is being heard by the characters in it
how tall is philip seymour hoffman
will i ever not tear up at the date scene in magnolia
waste land madame sorostris wish to die
(Note: I KNOW that it’s Madame Sosostris and Sybil is the one who wishes to die so if that speaks to the “authenticity” of the list since I got it wrong at the time I was watching the movie then there you go.)
My tumblr has always had meta tags which dictate that it should never be crawled by search engines. My full name has never appeared on the site, nor do any external sites link to me with my full name. Any that have were contacted quickly and quickly reworded the link.
I work on the web. I used to think I understood Google fairly well. I could control my online presence. But I can’t really explain how, when searching for my full name, my tumblr is now the second result to appear. Even if Google were to see the site, associate it with me through some third-degree intelligence, why list a site fully declared “noindex,nofollow” so highly? What is their incentive?
So do I delete my blog, change the URL, or just embrace it?
I just visited Business Insider for the first time in about a year, maybe two. It just occurred to me: do media people ever feel like they have a professional duty — like a real professional duty, not wink wink grammar gotcha — to note when their brethren simply fall off the map of what is the most loose definition of credible? I mean, we saw the photos of Guardian folks glamming it up on a couch with Blodgett, so I guess the answer is a big stinking no, their willingness to take potshots at Murdoch over phone hacking notwithstanding.
Because I looked at every story on the front page of BI and if you hit me with a stick — a lot — I couldn’t point to anything that smelled like journalism, even journalism left out in the sun to fester for a week or two.
I just watched South Park for the first time in a year
03 Nov 2011 4:41 AM
Guys, I didn’t mean that they were skewering only the OWS protesters, but more that they were skewering everyone involved—the 1%, the 99%, the 53%, the media, the police, etc.—and intended for the term to be a sort of all-encompassing one. Apologies if that didn’t translate.
“American reporters “like” covering a presidential campaign (it gets them out on the road, it has balloons, it has music, it is viewed as a big story, one that leads to the respect of one’s peers, to the Sunday shows, to lecture fees and often to Washington), which is why there has developed among those who do it so arresting an enthusiasm for overlooking the contradictions inherent in reporting that which occurs only in order to be reported. They are willing, in exchange for “access,” to transmit the images their sources wish transmitted. They are even willing, in exchange for certain colorful details around which a “reconstruction” can be built (the “kitchen table” at which the Dukakis campaign was said to have conferred on the night Lloyd Bentsen was added to the 1988 Democratic ticket, the “slips of paper” on which key members of the 1988 Bush campaign, aboard Air Force Two on their way to the Republican convention in New Orleans, were said to have written their choices for vice president), to present these images not as a story the campaign wants told but as fact.”
—Joan Didion in “Insider Baseball”
And this is why YM says fuck the political press corps. Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. It’s all a joke.
Thanks for your call, which I am sorry I was not able to accept. But after many too many contributions to candidates for Congress, I have adopted an absolute rule:
I will not consider making a contribution to your campaign for Congress unless you commit absolutely and prominently to support reforms to end the corrupting influence of money in Congress.
“Absolutely and prominently” means this is the thrust of your campaign: One of the first things you mention, the issue you come back to again and again, and the issue you use to explain every other issue. Buddy Roemer is the best example of this. If you’re Roemer-like, then I will consider contributing to your campaign.
That is a necessary condition. It isn’t sufficient. I don’t have a great deal of personal wealth. But if you can certify you qualify as a #rootstriker, I am happy to consider contributing, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, and happy to share that fact with others.
Good luck with the campaign. The institution you seek to serve within was the crown jewel of our Framers. It has since been badly tarnished. I hope you can commit to restoring it.