Birdman!

I've heard it said that this is a golden age of television. There are countless phenomenal shows worth our attention. There are still good movies being made, but seemingly fewer. I finally had a chance to see the critically acclaimed Birdman, one of these better movies. I was impressed with its originality, self-reflection, dark humor, and ability to bring out that humanity in difficult characters. It made me think of some of the best movies from recent years. Or maybe not all that recent, since as I age, 20 years ago feels like yesterday.

Birdman feels like a play adapted to the screen, since 90% of it takes place in one building (a theater, no less), and it doesn't use elaborate sets. It is a lot like the movie Doubt in that sense, which was in fact adapted from the stage.

Riggan Thomson, the protagonist in Birdman, is not that different from Bob Harris in Lost in Translation: an aging Hollywood acting trying to find his place in the world.

The movie is a big middle finger to blockbuster action films. The viewer gets the sense that although his Birdman trilogy was a tremendous financial success, it did not give Thomson much fulfillment as an actor. When a theater critic tells him that he is not an actor, but a mere celebrity, he does not dispute that, knowing that he is out to change that through his stage performance.

Charlie Kaufman's Synecdouche, New York, is way too radical a movie to even register much in my mind. But I caught an echo of it in Birdman with the story within a story that ties into the protagonist's evolution.

These comparison's are not to put Birdman down. The opposite, really. The movie shares qualities with these other films that are some most creative, original, and mind-expanding of recent years. And kudos again to Michael Keaton. After decades on film, with Birdman and Spotlight he is now doing his best work.

I loved this novel less

Online summaries drew me to Tom Spanbauer's novel, I Loved You More, about a Young Gay Writer in NYC in the 1980s, who is then a middle-aged writer with AIDS in Portland, Oregon in the 1990s. And there is certainly a quality to the book. Spanbaur's prose is unique and personal. He captures eloquently how AIDS took the protagonists' health, sanity, and the lives of his friends and lovers.

I was not much moved by the protagonist's drama. His dad was too macho, his mom nuts, his sister too much of a twisted parent filling in where his parents lapsed. And the phenomenon of people unexpectedly surviving AIDS thanks to the new drug cocktails in the mid 1990s is more compellingly covered in Paul Russell's War Against the Animals.

I picked up Spanbaur's early Novel, The Man Who Fell in Love with the Moon, because the title is beautiful and what I know of the book sounds interesting. I hope it is not another mistake.

Badass Marathoners

I've never been into major league sports culture. It all looks like thuggery on the field and douchebaggery in the stands. It seems cruel when sports reporters put a microphone in front of a footballer so that he can stumble through an explanation of how his team won by scoring the most points. And I am so freaking tired of hearing sports fans say "we won" or "we lost", as though they are out there on the field playing.

But let me tell you what moves me. I watched some of the Boston marathon coverage today and I saw a man who lost his legs in the 2013 marathon bombing running the race with prosthetics. There are paraplegics who compete on the wheelchair race. Parents run pushing a disabled child.

These people are badass, but there is no thuggery there. They are peaceful warriors fighting to be their very best. The accept the reality of their limitations, but fight to excel anyway.

That inspires me.

The folly of annual job reviews

The idea of annual job reviews makes sense. Employers should want to be attuned to employees' performance for obvious reasons.  But in all the jobs I've had, there has never been a sensible review process.

At one job I had (let's call it Job A), my annual raise was tied to my annual performance review. I think that is fair as can be. However, the company levied a substantial penalty for the first sick day one took. If they are trying to reward perfect attendance, they should spread the word about this policy to all new employees. (Maybe it is in the handbook.) But I know very well that the best employees who bring the most value to a company are going to take some sick days. And they will probably be turned off by the expectation that an ideal employee take no sick days. I do, though, respect my employer at Job A for having a substantive annual review process, tied to compensation, for fairly low-paid and unskilled employees. It sends the message that they take interest in their workers.

At Job B, which was higher paying and involved the welfare and safety of the people I served, there was not a serious annual review process. It was a self-evaluation that was turned into a supervisor. Once or twice the supervisor met with me after, but did not discuss the review with me. Maybe the self-evaluation could have been more valuable if the supervisor expressed interest in it.

Job C is a professional position where my supervisor takes a very real interest in his staff's performance. Annual reviews are upon request of the employee and consist of a simple meeting. This is not a very serious review to me. But because the supervisor takes an interest year round in performance, it might not be needed.

I am trying something new now. I am a dedicated professional who wants to excel in his career. Since no annual review process has helped me much, I am doing my own. I am making a confidential table of my strengths, weaknesses, accomplishments, and failures as I see them. I think I will then go through the table and come up with ideas for addressing my shortcomings and building on the good things. I may then pull a limited number of goals from all that that can guide my professional development. Job B required an annual self-evaluation, but the employer didn't value it. I think the difference with a confidential self-evaluation is that I can be free to be honestly and deeply introspective.

Crashing and burning

In Crash and Burn, Artie Lange (and cowriter Anthony Bozza) chronicles his extreme drug use. It is really something for an Artie Lange fan, who has followed him on the Howard Stern show over the years, to learn how he was high throughout most it. He had been upfront that he struggled off and on with booze, coke, and heroin. But the books reveals that it was much worse than he let on at the time. When he dozed off during the radio show, it wasn't because he was tired from performing comedy shows on weekends--it was because he was either high or struggling between highs. There was even a very hilarious appearance on Conan that he now reveals he can't remember at all because he was blacked out during the interview.

Artie sometimes credits his huge success as a comedian with the exposure he got from being on the Stern show, and he isn't wrong. But he landed the Stern gig because he is extremely talented and very hard working. He pulled himself from working class beginnings to wealth and fame.

It doesn't bode well for his chances at recovering that he is hilarious when he is on drugs, since he is a professional comedian. The fame and fortune probably don't help either. If he still had the pressures of a more regular life, his worst tenancies might be tempered. I think Michael Jackson is the most extreme example of that. If he were just a regular guy who is insecure about his appearance and struggles to sleep at night, would he have had multiple cosmetic surgeries and a personal physician injecting him with powerful drugs to to get him to sleep?

I think the normal responsibilities in my life keep me grounded. Having to keep a job, maintain a relationship, and deal with others is good for my character.