My Reaction to the Oscars

The 2010 Oscars (82nd, to be precise) were, by far, my favorite to date. This may have more to do with the fact that I was watching it with amazing people (most of who were drunk) as we did our own acceptance speeches with our fake Oscar and ate food and (in my case) started randomly crying about African American hair (long story). But I really felt that, even sober, this would have been an excellent Oscars. And here is why (in the always convenient bullet form):

• Length: Yay!!!! The Oscars ended at 12:02 am for me...only 2 minutes after 12 am! Sure it was 4 hours. But most years are not 2 but 45 minutes after 12 am. This felt nice and short
• Crazy Red Headed Lady: Love her or hate her, you cannot deny she spiced up the always boring short film categories. Elinor Burkett, the producer of the film Music By Prudence ran up on stage and blatently interrupted the award acceptor Roger Ross Williams. And we later learn that Williams’ very old mother may have tripped her with a cane...priceless 
• Odd Speech by Sean Penn: A must for any good Oscars! What was he talking about? Did he blatently bash all the Best Actress nominees as he’s about to announce the winner? Sean Penn, you never cease to amaze me in your awkwardness. 
• Sandra Bullock’s Speech: Did she deserve the Oscar? God no. But did she deserve a separate award for that amazing, suttle speech? Yes. With little comedic references (“Meryl streep who’s such a good kisser”) to emotional yet always upbeat statement (“thank you for not letting me ride in cars with boys till I was 18...I would do everything you said I would do”), it was a gorgeous, royal speech. 
• John Hughes Tribute: The Breakfast Club. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. The list can go on and on for director John Hughes, whose high school coming of age stories not only defined the 80’s but also told the tough lives teenagers have to go through. The Academy brilliantly brought back child stars like Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick to remember this legendary man. 
• Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin being dicks- and being so good at it! Just look at Clooney’s face!!!!

It was good. I didn’t do great with predictions (a measly 16/24) though I got all the big ones right). The biggest upset of the night (and it wasn’t that big) was Precious’ win over Up in the Air for Adapted Screenplay as well as the general dislike to Avatar, where it failed to get awards in sound. While most people thought The White Ribbon was a lock for Best Foreign Language film, it was surpassed last minute by The Secret in their Eyes)

It’s been a while...

No this is not a Britney Spears piece (though it is the intro of “Break the Ice”). It is my weekly Survivor prediction! The reason why the title is “it’s been a while” is that, well, its been a while...and I’m sorry for that- I’ve been CRAZY busy lately!!!

Anyway, I’m going to make this short and sweet. If the villains lose immunity, I think Russel Hanz will be going home. Randy was the obvious (though wrong) choice but now they don’t have any whiney old men left. Russel may be too slimy for this very smart tribe, but once again players like Parvati could change the game and get rid of a wild card, like Coach. If the Heroes lose, I think Colby will go home. It’s basically him and Tom together and I think Colby is the easier one to get rid of...hope I’m right!!!

Sad reality of life: Gay bashing

If there’s one complaint I have about Brown, it is that it really has made me unaware of the real world’s views of homosexuality. Here, men kiss men. Girls kiss girls. They do it in the dining hall, give a small kiss in class, whatever. It’s no big deal. The teachers, cops, everyone not only accepts gay people, but they make them feel like they’re at home. 

My hometown in NY isn’t as accepting as Brown is (for people who live where we live, you know what I mean) but it isn’t a shocking thing. I have friends who are gay, I know gay older people, and I’m sure, in suburban America as a whole, there is tons of closeted men (especially the ones who basically got forced into marriage due to societal pressures). So, as you can imagine, my life has basically gone by one principal: accept everyone, as everyone will accept you. 

So I was shocked when I answered a simple question by this gay man who was in a dilemma. He was having sex with many men and was worried if he was going to get AIDS. I told him that if he feels like he needs to have sex with so many men, I would get some professional help in the form of a psychologist. But for now, be sure to use protection to reduce the risk of getting that awful disease. I considered my answer to be honest and respectful- I’m no professional, and this man may have just been asking this to “show off” his ability to attract men, but nevertheless he has every right to live the lifestyle he wants. I mean, who has the right to judge someone in the end?

The other answers were disgusting. I considered mine to be by far the nicest, and I’d say the second nicest (as sad as this will be) called him a slut and a whore and said he is sure to get AIDS. I call this the second nicest only because, of the 12 answers, this girl (as well as myself) were the only ones not to gay bash him or say he was sinning. Some of the other answers included were “get a bible”, “stare at girl porn to become straight”, and the most disgusting one was “just kill yourself. You’re a sinner anyway”. I have many friends, both straight and gay, who are religious and lead very sinless lives who embrace other people’s viewpoints and lifestyles. My straight friends at home are perfect examples. They might not be gay, but I’d be sadly shocked if I were to ever see any of them gay bash others. 

I’m writing this blog post for two reasons. The first is because, when I started this blog, I wanted it to be used to just say my viewpoints and not hold in any strong emotions (like my disgust). The second, and more important, is that I want to remind my gay friends at Brown to be careful in the real world. Unfortunately, a lot of the world (and I feel like especially America) isn’t accepting of gay people and can be very cruel. While you should be proud of who you are, just make sure to watch your back. Brown has made all of us kind of oblivious to a lot of the prejudices in society as it is (to the most part) very accepting of various sexual orientations and practices, but not everyone is like that. Much love guys and I hope you can learn from these disgusting people. 

PS. I reported the question to report the question’s answers. They originally told me they will not bring the answers down because of “people’s personal viewpoints”. I wrote back saying “a personal viewpoint is, for example, that McCain would have been a better president than Obama because I’m conservative. Not something like McCain would have been a better president than Obama because he’s white. There’s a huge difference and I urge Yahoo, as such a large company, to recognize the difference between opinion and sheer discrimination and cruelty. Lives have been lost over statements like this, and it is our human responsibility to stop this evil practice of letting people get away with disgusting comments, which are never right to say whether its in person, on paper, or on the internet.” The answers weren’t there two hours after I sent that e-mail :) I just hope they sent an e-mail to those people or blocked them or something. 

Why do we fight wars?

Okay, so I am going to warn you that this post is like a 3rd grade throwback to ending world violence and promoting love and eternal happiness. So forgive me as I am about to be very ignorant and probably too optimist. But I do want to explore war and why we fight it. 

I am a pacifist. So in my ideal world there would be no war or fighting and we would deal with our differences through “other” wars such as boycotting products or refusing to recognize a state acting inappropriately. Now I know there’s war- there has been since the two cavemen fought over the last morsel of food and there will probably be war forever. But why? I mean, think about it. If the theory that everything comes down to economics (a theory that I believe is 99% true for everything- with some rare exceptions), war makes no sense unless it is to get land and raw materials. For example, it would be economically beneficial (but really cruel) of the US to take over a Middle Eastern country for its oil. In that case, I don’t agree with war but I feel the motive makes sense for the selfish nation. But other wars cost billions of dollars and lives for what? The Vietnam War and War in Iraq anger me for 2 reasons relating to this: first of all, our innocent soldiers just doing their job are getting flack for the unpopular war (thankfully this was a more Vietnam thing than an Iraq thing) and as cities such as Providence have to turn away homeless people because of lack of beds in shelters, don’t you think the billions of dollars should go to that? I mean, think of what even $1 billion pumped into cities (divided of course) and how we can achieve some of our longer term goals for reducing crime, ending homelessness, and making life better. 

But I don’t want to lecture on the war. If you go to Brown and are reading this you probably know more about the conflicts than I do, but I just wanted to make a general point. Sure it may be 3rd grade, but I sometimes think that a life filled with everyone thinking like a 3rd grader may actually be better in the end...

The Brown budget and the economy as a whole

So Brown just came out with its corporation report today and I was surprisingly pleased. Brown, as in every school, has been hurt by the economy. Overall, I’ve had problems with Brown has dealt with it though. I am an optimist and though I understand the economy is bad, I also believe in focusing on the good (such as the $1.4 billion campaign being 19 months ahead) and discussing the bad in a more positive light (for example, isn’t it good if we can save $30 million by eliminating no positions but eliminating unneeded waste?). I felt that the weekly Brown e-mails were too depressing and really brought the school down. A simple read from them made Brown look like it was surviving by a hair. Sure, it lost tons of money. And Brown’s need-blind admissions, while vital and an amazing attribute, probably cost the school more money than its need-aware peers. But lets also look at the facts. Brown’s endowment is $2.8 billion. Though its not close to Harvard’s $25 billion, it is also much higher than many school’s $500 million. And the e-mails often failed to recognize one thing: the economy is largely cyclic and though it is vital to cut costs, drastic measures are not the way to go. I remember one particular e-mail where Brown seriously considered cutting sports teams. Now, I’m not into sports. But I understand their importance and, to be honest, I don’t know if I could go to Brown if it didn’t have that traditional sports aspect to it...it’d feel too “cheap” for me. 

The report that came out today pleased me. Financial aid was increased in both undergrad and med school, all construction is on target, and sports have stayed. Though the corporation falled back onto one of its biggest weakness in not telling every detail of how we saved money, the fact is that Brown managed to not do anything drastic. Ruth Simmons, our amazing president, has been getting lots of flack recently due to her ties with Golman Sachs (she recently resigned) and the university’s hidden investments, but I feel she did rise to the occasion to recognize that Brown is, at its heart, here for us. Sure, life would probably be easier to say “to save money we’re not being need-blind anymore and only admitting those who can pay themselves”. And, just from living here, I can tell you that most likely Brown could fill classes that way. But we’re here to learn, and learning involves living with all different people from different races, economic classes, and backgrounds. So I commend them on that. 

My big complaint is the graduate school stipend. The stipend, at $19,000, will be increased to $19,500. Now I would love to get $500, but in the long run, what does $500 extra on such a small salary really do? I may be wrong, but think of working in a job that 500 people have and you got a $1,000 raise from $23,000 to $24,000. It’s nice, but will it really help pay bills in the long run? Not really. And the effects are devastating. About 20-22 employees could have been hired if salaries remained at $23,000. I don’t know about you, but if I was given the option to take a $1000 raise or save my friend’s job, I’d easily decline the raise. If you are going to increase graduate stipends, invest in a signifigant change like making it $25000, not a mere $500 more. That was my big complaint. 

Okay, I promise this will be the most “numbered” article for a while! I not only find Brown’s financial health interesting, but also important. I love this school and it has given me so many good things I only want the best for it...

RIP Parvati or Randy???

SPOILER WARNING 

SPOILER WARNING

Ok, I warned you! So I didn't get to see Survivor at the normal time last night due to this odd french food thing I went to with my friend Caroline and roommate (the lovely Allan). But I did see it at 12:32 am E time. And I was a bit surprised to be honest.

I have to give it to Parvati- she's a brilliant player. This is the 3rd season she's been doing the same strategy and she is clearly showing it always work (as Randy does state very intuitively, its worked since the cavemen days). But I am surprised that these all-stars of the all-stars are still falling for it...I mean this is her third season! Parvati I love you and all, but I think you’d even admit you are a huge threat and they were stupid as hell not to get rid of you. I mean, what the hell will Randy do in the end, win it all? I doubt it.

So the evil producers threw me off again...I have no idea who’s leaving next, but I think if its the villians, Coach is going. If its the Heroes, James is finally going...We’ll see though.

And in continuing with the snubs of this season, I’m going to choose a villian who should be here...Either Laura from Samoa or (even better yet) Corrine from Gabon, who gave the infamous speech to Sugar about her dead mother and asked Susie to get her vocal cords removed...yikes!!!

Top 10 most culturally significant films from 2000-2009

10. Avatar (2009)- I’m going to say it and I really don’t care what you think: “Avatar” was one of the most overrated films of all time. With a cliched, boring script and a cheesy at best screenplay, “Avatar”’s only saving grace is that it was revolutionary, and gave us some fancy new words (like Navi and Pandora). Most critics would put this at number 1 or 2...I’m keeping it at 10 because I couldn’t stand the film. 

9. Superbad (2007)- One of the funniest films of all time, “Superbad” is not a wonderful film, but succeeds by making us laugh. And it was the rage at the time and still the classic stoner comedy. A great film I recommend for all. 

8. Napoleon Dynamite (2004)- I have never seen this film (!!!). But I included it on my list because even as someone who has never seen it, I have heard so much about it...

7. Little Miss Sunshine (2006)- The indie genre of film has existed for some time (around the early 2000’s as studios started taking it seriously). But this comedy was the first film to be both financially and critically successful. It started the “wildcard” trend at the Academy Awards, where a non-traditional film (like 2007’s “Juno”) slipped into the Best Picture category. But mostly it made us laugh...a lot. 

6. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003): It was long (3 hours, 20 minutes). It had at least 6 endings. And it broke so many cinema laws I can’t begin to count. Yet it was a masterpiece of a film, and cemented the trilogy as one of the greatest cinematic feats in human history. 

5. Batman Begins (2005)- Though its sequel “The Dark Knight” may be the more commercially and critically successful film, “Batman Begins” re-invented the definition of a reboot to near-dead franchises. The film was long, full of philosophical action, and dramatic, but it was ultimately one of the best films of 2005 and led to a number of remakes in the comic book industry. 

4. The Passion of the Christ (2004)- No film has ever captivated the world and caused world-wide debate. Was it anti-semetic? Was it anti-Catholic? Was it Mel Gibson pushing the boundaries? No one really knows (well, we kind of know the first one now). But the important thing about “Passion” is its ability to be the first religious based film (not even in English) to be a top grosser at the box office. Clearly people liked the film or were at least intrigued by it, to the tune of $455 million. 

3. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)- I could go on and on about the cultural influences “Harry Potter” has given us (including a classmate of mine), but it is clear that this film began the multi-billion dollar franchise in the right way. Though it may be considered one of the weaker of the films in future years, “Harry Potter” not only gave us new actors (and rebooted the careers of old ones), but it also gave us magic in the cinema. 

2. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)- The feel good film of the year, “Slumdog Millionaire” will arguably be one of the more controversial film in a few years due to its romanticized cliched views of Indian slum life as well as the commercialization of poor, real-life poor actors. Nevertheless, no other film has brought a genre (in this case Bollywood) to American popular culture to the extent “Slumdog” did. Proof: just look at the Pussycat Doll’s rendition of Jai Ho, the Oscar winning song. 

1. Mean Girls (2004)- with a witty, undeniably quotable script, this Lindsay Lohan film (her best performance to date) gave us the scene stealer Rachel McAdams, the term “fetch”, and Glen Coco, to name a few. More importantly, “Mean Girls” was the first film of the internet generation to expose the hells- and sheer survival nature of high school hell. Both hilarious and brilliant, “Mean Girls” was ranked 8th best film of 2004 for me. 

The importance of Tuesdays/Thursdays off

So I have no classes Tuesdays or Thursdays. Sounds like a luxury, I know. But in reality, I think it was one of the smartest things I've done here. I was enrolled in 5 classes (for all you non-Brownies, the standard is 4, minimum is 3, and max is 5) for a while, only to drop a (bless him) really really boring class about physics (taught by the undeniably amazing Leon Cooper). I was going to add another class to get back to 5, but realized that having those 2 strategic days off was perfect. I mean, what days can you roll out of bed at 1 pm AND get a shit load of work done? So here is basically the gist of my post...Obviously, if there is a class you love at 9 am on Tuesdays and Thursday, take it. I took a great film class at 9 am last semester on Tues/Thurs and despite that challenge of getting up that early, I don't regret it at all. But unless you are in love with a class, have one shitty day on Mon or Wed or Fri and just relax those days! Okay, this is part of my better your life series by Michael Sean Quinn...hope u enjoyed!

I'm on a roll!!! Now less corny and more strategy about Survivor: H vs. V

*******************SPOILER WARNING         
SPOILER WARNING***********************

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villians is by far the hardest season for me to watch as I grew up idolizing most of the heroes and loving to hate most of the villians (with some exception. Like Danielle why in god's name are you a villian? You seem so nice! And Candace you sound nice but you kinda did a villanous thing when you mutinied so if anything why are you a hero?). Anyway, this season is different in the sense that, unlike previous season, there is never an "easy vote". Survivor typically starts out in the same formula. There is usually a very weak person (generally older...though Marisa from Samoa was very young) that screws up a challenge or is just plain annoying. However, these are the all stars of the all stars...there is no "weak" player and not many historically annoying ones. I usually am like "god get rid of him/her" on the first 2 episodes but the past 2 episodes have been hard as hell! I love Sugar and loved her Gabon gameplay, and she was only eliminated b/c they were desperate. And I hated seeing Stephanie go. But the alternate, Amanda, is also amazing too...It's so hard.

Here are my predictions: From the ads, I think James is going next. Next episode (Thursday at 8!!!!) I believe Heroes will once again lose immunity and will vote James out. I will never judge a contestant on the show as selective editing often characterizes them, but the James-heavy ad makes me think James is the big focus on tomorrow's episode. Who do I want to go? To be honest, Tyson. He was entertaining but he seemed kinda mean to me. He is, of course, on the Villian's tribe and I hope they lose immunity (sorry villians!) as I love it when its even at the merge. But I commend the villians for working their asses off on the challenge.

Also, every weekly pre-survivor prediction will include my snub for this season. And my first is Sierra for the heroes. Not only was she amazingly entertaining, but it would be wonderful to see a Coach-Tyson-Sierra battle...That is good TV! And she seemed so nice! Talk to u later!

My college essay

This is going to sound corny, but I kinda grew up idolizing many of these survivors. I was about 10 or 11 when Jerri was the ultimate bitch of her season (from what I've seen about Jerri, she actually seems to be a very nice woman who was largely misunderstood...or the victim of wonderful editing!!! H vs. V I think shows that more so than Australia and All-Stars did) and when Colby made the disastrous, yet courageous move, to bring Tina with him to the finals. And I could go on and on until Russel Hanz reinvented the villain of his season (last season's wonderful Samoa). And here I have my dirty confession to make:

For my college admissions essay, I decided to write about Survivor. As any close friends can attest, I basically live this show. As weird as it may sound, whenever I'm in a group of 8-10 people, hypothetical alliances come to mind and whenever I'm in a group and am the clear outsider, I think of strategies I could somehow spare elimination. Survivor is kinda like a pothead's pot or cigarette smoker's cigarette...I kinda need it in my life. Anyway, I wrote my college based on Survivor. I am usually judgemental about my work, but it was the best thing I've ever written. I won't share the details here b/c it was a very very very personal essay (more than I want the whole world to know) but it was basically a metaphor of Survivor to my life...it was full of the stages of the game where I described times I thought elimination was eminent only for life (aka my tribe mates) to change direction and save me for one more day. It was largely about not ever knowing what the hell was going on but just surviving one more day until I got to the final 2. In my essay, I ultimately lost the game (though I never distinctly said it)- it was important for me to lose something but still be proud of myself.

The reason why I share this is to kinda give a shout out to the 300+ survivors (especially Todd, who not only reminded me so much like myself but played a strategically flawless game...and clearly loved every second of it!) who not only basically got me into Brown (I have to thank Jeff and Mark Burnett too!) but also helped me get through really hard times in my life...anytime I felt down I thought of my dream to be on this show and prove to the many people (including often myself) who thought of me as too "divaish" or weak to be on the show and to maybe impact another fan like the contestants impacted me. So this is a corny post, but I thought it was necessary :)