no matter what i do you know i do it to death

if only because i don't want people visiting this to have to see my stupid commentary about current affairs that i don't really have that great of a grasp on, i'm going to write something to push the previous post off the top. which is not to say that i have nothing to say:

firstly, i saw 'art', by yasmina reza, at the steppenwolf last weekend. it's quite a marvelous little piece. not very long, not particularly deep, but it really takes a hold of the few themes it has decided to concern itself with, and digs in deeply. the characters are relatively flat, but in a way that somehow makes them endearing, and makes you associate parts of yourself with them. the conflict playing out on stage is more akin to a conflict that plays out in your mind, except with a better grasp of philosophy and artistic jargon. nice set also, in that it felt like a room that i wouldn't mind living in.

second, i've seen quite a few movies of late, old and new. a quick run through: 'wolverine' was disappointing, in that it never really seemed to engage with the title character. 'star trek' was entertaining, and reminded me of 'iron man', in that it reviewed well and received tremendous word-of-mouth publicity (i'm guilty in this case), but is clearly flawed. 'dr strangelove' is as scary/funny today as it probably ever was, and quite delightful on a big screen. 'we own the night' needs to be seen by more people, because it's really quite good. ditto for '25th hour', though the clash in narrative voice between the novelist (i've actually read the book) and spike lee does get a little distracting. 'taken' is absolute trash, and only barely tolerable due to liam neeson's amazing accent. 'herr lehmann', a film that i saw in german class, reminds me again how irritating hollywood is, in that films that are not encumbered by the hollywood system are all somehow more charming than those coming out of it. oh, and 'notorious', the old alfred hitchcock movie, is pretty good as well. that's 8 films in about 2 weeks.

third, i've been toying with this idea of late. well, clearly it isn't mine, but i've been thinking about it quite a bit. it's this idea that we determine who we are and who our friends will be simultaneously. it's really quite obvious if you think about it: you can't choose to be a certain type of person, and then also decide independently who your friends are going to be. you decide who you are, and then certain people are going to find you acceptable, and these people will be your friends. or, you could decide who your friends are, and make yourself acceptable to these people. either way, you can't resent the outcome; that's just how things are.

thinking about things this way has made me feel a lot less burdened by the need to be social. i'm pretty comfortable with who i am as a person, and i'm pretty satisfied with the friends i have as a consequence of that. i know i'm not the most popular person in the world, but i know i don't want to be. we can't be liked by everyone, it's just not possible. we just need to avoid feeling like we're somehow inferior because certain people are unwilling to accept us, because there is no benchmark for how to be a person.