California – [art]seen

There are some things that don’t fold out as expected but still can be enjoyable. It may not be the oasis in the middle of the desert, but still good so that you are not disappointed.

‘Licorice Pizza’ was like that to me: I decided to check out this movie because I read a one-sentence review from a very prominent Korean movie critic, Lee Dong-jin, describing the movie as “효용이 사라진 후에야 깨닫게 된 사랑의 가치로 온통 찬란한 달음박질”, which could be, in my poor translation, be translated into something like “a run that is splendid all the way with the realization of the value of love that is realized only after it expired”. I was expecting a romance movie. Well, is this a romance movie? I’d say yes… but I’d also add that that’s maybe not the best part of it.

I think the value of this movie was more in how it displayed the feeling of confusion and being lost when your being young with the decoration of a nostalgic vibe. This is because the focus of the relationship of the characters was not focused on their emotional bonding or depth, but rather on each one’s emotional experiences and growths that they go through while their romance was taking place. The most symbolic scene representing this situation was running scenes of two main characters repeated in different contexts and circumstances. They would run to save, find, and reunite with one another, but while they meet in such an intersection, they are running. Running away, running to, running from, different troubles and situations that directionless youth places them in.

I had a lingering question about the movie, though. There were some scenes where Asian woman and Asian accent were used as a code of humor and the sexuality of women were expressed with revealing clothes and as the subject of curiosity and desire of the male character. Yes, the movie is based in the 70s when those things were not receiving the doubts that ought to be given, but I kept on questioning what will be the value of bringing it once again on a movie screen, especially without any additional context to denounce it. In my opinion, they were not integral to the storyline as well, so eliminating them would not have made the movie less probable. Yes, they were there at the time, but what’s the benefit of saying that they were there when the only purpose that its revival will serve is to state that they were there? That’s the question that I can not answer.

Another event celebrating the birth of the Spectrum Center was the first ever reading of the play “8” by Dustin Lance Black. It was an interesting experience. I had never been to a live play reading before. It was sort of like watching a regular play, except the actors carried the scripts around on stage with them and didn’t deliver the lines quite as well as they would have, though they still did an amazing job. It was also really great because many of the actors were the same Broadway UofM alumni that had performed the night before at the Pink Carpet Gala.

The play was based on the transcripts of the trial in California fighting against Proposition 8. This amendment to the Constitution of California banned gay marriage and recognition of same-sex marriages. The trial was not broadcasted nationally,

although the plaintiffs did fight for it to be. Because of this, the only record we have of the trial is the transcript, and from this document Dustin Lance Black wrote a creative interpretation. His play will be making a tour around the country at many universities. Hopefully it will help spread awareness of what is happening in California and in the rest of the country when it comes to the rights of TBLG people.

Attending this event was sort of like attending a court trial, as it was staged like one, except that it gave us the bullet points of what happened and also introduced the families that were fighting together against the proposition and the ad campaign used by the supporters of Prop 8. It was sort of funny watching this depiction of the trial, because I’ve always wondered how conservatives defend their “values” like banning same-sex marriage. I always wonder what kind of evidence and argument they can come up with. This is exactly what I thought it would be like. The defense could not provide evidence or even an argument. Its witnesses were absent from court because they were afraid to defend their own words on the witness stand. The one witness that did get cross-examined ended up supporting the plaintiff’s argument, completely crushing any chance the defense had.

The outcome of the case was that same-sex marriage would not affect the rate of different-sex marriage or the rate of procreation, which is the argument the defense was trying to use. The plaintiffs won, though it is being repealed and we are still fighting Prop 8 to this day. The best thing we can all do about it is to stay informed and educate others on what has happened. I believe that is what Dustin Lance Black is trying to do with his play and I hope it works.

For more info on Prop 8, please visit http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/ or search it online for other websites that you might prefer. Also, just a fun video that came out around the time of the trial;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_hyT7_Bx9o

Sending you love and light,

Danny Fob

(Coffee is on me if you can name the show that my sign off is from!)

Tag: California

REVIEW: LICORICE PIZZA

Review: 8-Prop and Problem