This is the best thing that's ever happened to me...well, ok, Top 5.

While perusing through his vast movie collection, Rob Chenoweth ran across these gems. (And, yes, he likes to speak of himself in the third person.)


Perfect World

The Best Thing


In truth, I'd like to pen a movie about a 12 year-old boy who spent the summer of 1991 watching and re-watching (and wearing out the VHS) of one Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead. It would end in 2012 with the posting of this blog, and it would all come full circle.

While, admittedly, these songs are a bit schmaltzy, I must admit, I always liked schmaltz. It's only as I've aged that I have developed this hyper sense of elitism, in which I tend to doubt my own taste levels, only to find that Stephen Herek had the same idea back in 1991, and he's probably still reaping the royalties. Nobody ever got rich from Grey Poupon. Well, perhaps someone did, but I bet his fortune doesn't hold a candle to the rich f***er who came up with French's.

Here's to the crazy ones. And to following your gut instincts.

Constitutionalism by the Numbers

I found this extremely well-articulated argument, while browsing through (of all places) IMDB.com. I had to re-post it. Thanks, IMDB user 'SonofKenny'!  

The founders themselves were not even sure how the completed Constitution should have been interpreted. The document itself was a massive compromise, with some language purposely left vague so as not to offend one faction or another. 

If anyone today believes the founders had a clear eyed, constistent view of the relationship between federal and state power, then they either have not done enough reading on the subject, or are taking a position for the purposes of winning an argument, without regard to its veracity. 

Take the Bill of Rights. Is it meant to limit the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution to only those stated, or to codify those they felt were most in danger? Because it wasn't specifically stated, does that then mean privacy is not a guaranteed right? Or were the founders so sure that it was understood to be a right, they didn't feel it needed to be specifically protected? It surely is implied in several parts of the document - in the prohibition on quartering troops for example, or the restrictions on illegal search and seizure. Yet so called strict constructionalists insist there is no right to privacy guaranteed. 

Look at the "general welfare" clause, the "necessary and proper," clause, and the "supremacy" clause, then look at the writings of the various founders, and tell me they had a consistent view of their meaning. You won't be able to. 

Look at the 2nd Amendment. A plain reading of the text clearly shows that it was referrring to "well regulated" militas. Yet strict constructionalists today ignore that portion to give nearly unfettered access to firearms. 

If the founders had been the strict states righters suggested by many today, why start the document "We the People" rather than "We the States?" 

Take that patron saint of strict constructionalists today - Thomas Jefferson, responsible for the biggest expansion of federal power almost in American History with the Louisiana purchase. Show me where in the constitution he was granted that power. 

How about James Madison, a walking, breathing representative of the notion that the Constitution was a living, breathing document. As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention he advocated for federal poiwer to nullify state law. As Secretary of State, he argued that states should be required to enforce federal embargo law against other states. Yet later, when President, he did a nearly 180 degree turn on his view, and actually rewrote portions of his diary and journals to reflect his new view. 

Alexander Hamilton thought states should be eliminated altogether. 

So no, anyone who has taken a serious and honest look at this - yes the intellectual elites which included the founder btw - cannot help to come to the conclusion that the founders were as conflicted on the meaning of the Constitution and how it should be implemented, as people are today.

Well played, Sir. Well played. 

Movie Review: 'Lincoln'

What is with Steven Spielberg's need to hit us over the head with his message? At around 100 minutes into Lincoln's 149 minute runtime, I turned to my mother sitting next to me and said "This is going to win 'Best Picture.'" Imagine my dismay when. by the end of the film, I had to turn back to my mum and retract that statement. 

Make no mistake, the film is grand. At moments, even epic. What it lacks, or rather, what it adds, is an unnecessary ending. An ending which takes it into melodrama, and ultimately lacks the one-two wallop to the gut the 65-year old directing veteran had clearly intended. 

Lincoln is solid entertainment, and extremely well penned, thanks to the sincere and triumphant efforts of Mr. Tony Kushner. It's easy to see how Kushner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, was tapped for this project in particular. Demonstrating a level of wordsmanship here that is possibly only matched by the Great Bard himself, it will be a great surprise (to this reviewer anyway) if he isn't rewarded for his efforts on Oscar night. 

The acting is also first-rate, with Daniel Day-Lewis giving a craggy-faced, embodied performance that could likely garner more Oscar gold. The real surprise here, however, is a returned-to-form Sally Field, who gives an extremely well-rounded and beautifully-acted performance as Mary Todd Lincoln. Field spits out Kushner's lines with such sweet venom and tempered veracity, that it's probably one of the most vibrant female portrayals of an historical figure we're likely to see this year, or ever.

Sadly, where the film falls apart is toward its inevitable conclusion. Spielberg has, in recent years, felt this head-scratching need to tack on endings which take the film past its point of expiration. The milk gets spoiled where, instead of ending the film on a high note after the 13th Amendment is passed, the director takes the audience all the way through the assassination and death of the eponymous title character. For a film that carries the 16th President's moniker, this film feels decidedly about the 13th Amendment and such a specific time frame within the President's life, that this ending feels a disservice. We, the audience, know how it all ends. So why not end with the lingering shot of Honest Abe walking down the hallway toward his destiny? It felt like such a missed opportunity to leave an already raptured audience pondering what this man's life meant, that I couldn't help but feel disappointed.

Overall, the film is deserving of acclaim, and it will more than likely be garnered with multiple awards as the season progresses. It just pains me to feel that, only in its best moments, does it deserve it.

Grade: B+

The Seduction of Rob Chenoweth

Gay men fascinate me. I specify gay men and not lesbians, because, I, myself, am a gay man, and they say "write what you know!" I don't know who came up with that, but thank goodness we're not all out there writing about the Native American experience, or what it's like to live as an amputee! But, I digress.

In much the same way that Discovery Channel can instantly pull my attention from anything I am doing (restrooms be damned!), I find myself endlessly drawn into this dance with gay culture. The age-old "why am I alone?" takes on new dimensions when you're gay. Unlike our heterosexual counterparts, we don't have the luxury of being able to randomly bump into our soul mates at the office (unless you work for Apple) or on eHarmony.com (look it up!) (Am I getting TOO parenthetical?) It irks me to no end that I can't seem to meet Mr. Right Around the Corner, well...around the corner. I am bored with the gay bars and the endless searches on Grindr and Scruff, hoping that something, somewhere will change. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Well, I can assure you I am fucking bat-shit certifiable.

When I was in my early 20s, I recall feeling this sense of wonder and excitement at the prospects of what the future held. I might marry rich, or I might die young and beautiful like James Dean. I could be a starving artist who travels Europe with my handsome French beau, or I might end up a world-class director winning an Academy Award. Now, in my mid-30s, I am lucky to recall last week, let alone my early youthful follies. What I do recall of my younger self is that he was filled with hope, and he wanted love. Oh, l'amour.

But something happened over the last decade that has shifted the culture I once knew so well. What the hell happened to you, Gay Culture? Did you go the way of the dinosaur once you became status quo? Thanks, Will & Grace! You fucked it up again with your witty dialogue and mainstreaming! I, for one, sort of miss the days when you had to wonder if someone was gay or not. It was like a sexualized Where's Waldo. Is he here? Nope! There he is! In the East Village back room of The Cock! (Again, look it up!) Or maybe it's I who has changed. Or not changed, along with the times. I'm like that movie The Village. Unchanged by time, but I still blow. That's it! Gay culture died around the same time that M. Night Shyamalan's career did! There has to be a correlation that would hold up in a court of law.

So, I have decided, henceforth, that I am going to enter into a relationship with myself. Since nobody else seems to be stepping up to the plate to fill these big shoes (Size 12), then I guess I will just have to get in there and do it. After all, don't send a boy to do a Man's job.

"I'm the Doctor..."

How I went most of my adult life without knowing about "Dr. Who" is beyond me. Thanks to some avid recommendations by friends, as well as intriguing Facebook wall posts and memes, my interests were peaked enough to slide my hand over and click the small "+" in order to add it to my Netflix streaming queue, and bam! I am hooked.

I am only a few episodes into the first season, and there's enough drama and fun already, that I can officially say 'you've got me, Doctor.'

What have you people got me into??? I may never be the same.

And so it begins....

This is not a test. If this had been a test, then you would have ignored my siren song, and it would have cost you dearly. Now you've wakened to a new possibility, and it's time to begin the great work ahead. 

Sometimes in life, we make hard choices that, as we look back, don't really make much sense for us in the long-term. I made one of those choices in 2006, and it was not a conscious choice. It was one made from fear and lack of motivation. Almost seven years ago, I moved to Austin with hopes that this would be the place for me to grow. I have grown, and I am forever changed by what I have learned living here, but it's time to move on. 

Someone once said, 'In dreams, begin responsibilities..' Without realizing it as it was happening, I have accumulated a massive amount of responsibility. To my health. To my loving family and friends. To my adoring animals. But what of my responsibility to my dreams and to my future self? I think he got lost somewhere in the haze of the past and the confusion of the present.

It is with great fear and trepidation I take these first bold steps into a brave new world. Let's see what's waiting for me...