River of no return

How many takes?
She was very sweet. She was a comedian. She was very shy. She was fuck me. She was very uncomfortable. She was convinced, she was not very sexy and pretty. She didn’t have an aura of sexiness about her. There was some magic about her, she would play at it. She would burlesque it. She seemed like a lost child. It seemed to her like Alice in Wonderland and she could not believe it. Anybody was very serious about her. She really felt she didn’t have the inner qualifications to fulfil the image of a sex goddess. She thought that the whole thing was a lie, because it was not her. She would never feel worthy. She was very very difficult. She was vulnerable. She was weak. She was teary. She was struggling. She was falling apart. She was hurt. She was an addict. She was needy. She was difficult. She was in pain. She was adorable. She was drunk. She was nice. She was childlike. She was late. She was lovely. She was hanging on. She was calling me. She was calling everybody. She was caring. She was unprofessional. She was sexy. She was beautiful. She was funny. She was doing the thing that was wanted of her, she was not doing what she wanted.

My interest in Marilyn is interest in how the dilemma of gender culminates in one person so perfectly

What is spoken of her and why. What do people want to know, what is of interest for anyone in a beautiful woman. What do we pay attention to and why she is seen via her sex which seems to dictate all she can do, how she can be and must do, how she must do to make an effect. She is an effect, a special effect on the set. That is her purpose. Her value seems pretty infinite despite she is ripped off her value as a multi talented person. Her value is partly in the tragedy of not having achieved enough professionally that she is diminished no matter what she accomplished and modelled to be something  to which she contributes voluntarily because it seems she had no other choice. This no other choice to succeed but via the sexual part of a blond shell is part of the puzzle for me. To have a lot but be limited as an artist by the system and the way women are seen.

Those are the terms to succeed is like a plan given. Do as you are told and this is what is wanted of you. This is what the public wants to see, you are for yes only (I mean eyes), to pleasure others. Why is this what is thought the public wants or are we so simple-minded it really is what we want? It puzzles me still although it is clear in a way that the public is infinitely narrow-minded and seeks to be entertained in the simplest of ways. That is also what gossip is all about. That is also the trap in to which entertainment industry constantly steps: repeating the same imagery and narrative which is luring, attention seeking, fabulous visually and repeating the gender roles and stereotypes as if nothing ever changes, and yes things do change slowly. Something else than the real life and not so much.

My interest is in how someone is talked about. What becomes of this tale which is continued, passed forward. What is the story people like to give, they believe it themselves, what are their motives, what is the truth and what are the reasons for telling the story. Who knows the truth and who is a reliable witness. Because what is being said and what is the reality can be very different from each other so much so that surreal is the reality. What people believe is the truth is bound to bias and what is wanted to be seen as the truth. How personal experience of someone is true and what is the value of telling this personal view forward.

A person who is dimensional but does not show all of her dimensions is infinitely interesting obviously applies to women. To believe women are able to achieve excellence takes work for some men and women. Simplicity and less are easier to believe to be true and accept than someone who is much. Much is difficult to control and tolerate.

Act of bomb shell

Something began with Mae West continuing to Jane Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe to whom many blond big breasted beautiful women in limelight are connected. The biggest role for Norma Jean Baker was Marilyn Monroe and it was not bad acting at all. Marilyn Monroe perfected celebrity performance live act. How could anybody say she was a bad actress? Stupidity, clumsiness, unaware flirting supposed weaknesses of female sex embodied as a childlike doll, inabilities, drunkenness, forgetting her lines and singing. Who is she like when she is like that, why do we tolerate her like that, let her do what she does and adore her, are endlessly interested in her still? Was she doing what she was told to do, to act nice and look beautiful, smile, wave, walk, be perky bubbly adorable magnet. If you are not smiling you are troubled and rumors get wings, there are pictures of you with wrinkles on your forehead, hand on your face, face looking sad, you distant and depressed-looking. Sad beauty is not fun. She is pathetic and it is time to find a new one who will entertain us with her moves and nonsense kind of puppuppiduu and I love you’s. Is she on medication, does she do drugs, why does she drink? What is her problem? How can someone so beautiful have such problems?
That she is a manipulating calculating bitch who knows what she is doing turns the thing of childish stupidity around and her more of a product of her own doing. She is like a victim but she does it herself. Nobody is forcing her to become the sex bomb other than herself but sex bombing is the way for her to be seen and get ahead in her career. She gets to be noticed. There is interest in her, she is wanted to be seen, perform, asked to TV-shows, interviewed. What is the interest in with whom she is having sex? Sex is what gets us to be interested in her and how she is sexual in front of us, what she is daring to do and behaving ways most of us wouldn’t dare in public. To look at someone who is daring is a turn on, exciting and fun, a riot kind of boost. She is crossing a limit, stepping over and looking what happens.
Then we do not know the whole story and we start inventing what is she like and why is she doing what she does, what is her motivation, what is her problem, is she talented at all, what does she have what others do not. She is using us for her benefit, isn’t she? Seduction of come look at me, look what I have got, would you like to touch and have a piece of me, dream of me, just look at me. Tragedy is when sex bomb cannot be anything else even though she would like to. We don’t want her as anyone else but as that posing body wearing a tight dress and smiling face which is eternally youthful white pure but dirty underneath. All is told but nothing is said. Something remains the same and is like a circle. White blond bleached retouched lifted up tightened squeezed into erased immortalized repeated over and over again. Is she in trouble, is she the trouble, what did she do, who does she think she is? She is nothing and everything, she is diminished and made big. What a contrast and battle to have. How is it possible to stay in that role, keep that pose, keep that white and that form of body?

Manipulative force of movies: What are movies wanted to make us think?

Are movies like malls where we can wander and pick things of our choosing up in a chart, pay and leave happily for having found what we came for? What are our reactions to movies, especially to those which get a lot of advertising and space in media. Do we expect something of movies we choose to watch? Enjoyment, escape, dreams, stories, anything else? A surprise or something specific which we are paying for not to be disappointed but leave the theater content and entertained. Movies play an important role not only as something to be shown in theaters and on TV to pass the time but something very complex, maybe more than meets the eye. The help to create an empire of merchandise, news, extra on top of the cake and it is fun to make movies, I’m sure. So I am not spoiling the fun, I am just wondering visuals among which we live, power of business and how well organized can a machinery to make profit be. Are visuals used making our perspectives more narrow? Our possibilities in making pictures, thoughts of what can be done, why something is done and what is good?

As it is always in action movies there is good vs. bad, probably the most used juxtaposition as is the all mighty solitary hero and heroine against a mass of ordinary folks who cannot keep up the speed. Heroes and heroines can make a good story with turns that interest a crowd enough to pay to see it, if that is what is enough. What interests to such extent that up to repetition story of all mighty hero has to be told similarly repetitiously with similar kind of twist as American fathers bond with their sons by throwing ball? That a movie makes a blockbuster as planned and how a concept of blockbuster movie is so luring that it over and over again finds viewers making hundreds of millions of dollars? One can question the buzz around it but one can hardly stop it. Just like that, impossible. We are in a whirlwind of media and its choosing of visuals. Is it too obvious and more importantly are we as viewers and consumers that obvious? So it seems. To see something that could actually happen but is bigger than we are, still somehow within reach, attractive as a fantasy and a dream, maybe not as every day scene in real life but saving first America and then the World. Something already may be lost.

What do viewers witness or are viewers being used?

Jurassic Park never lit me in any way but here are couple of interesting articles concerning women in science, role models and movies, how movies impact the viewer:
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/in-praise-of-jurassic-parks-dr-ellie-sattler “ When the park’s power fails to come back on as expected, she doesn’t sit in the emergency bunker waiting for rescue. She makes a plan and grabs a walkie-talkie, heading out to find the power switch.” 


To be a woman of action does it still mean denying femininity?

As it happens women who pursue work that requires/means physical stress measured as getting dirty, sweaty, working with your hands wearing overalls, mask and gloves, lifting things, moving and making something that needs one to work with whole of body adding problem solving to work are thought to lose something of their femininity. Rationality and innovation with capable hands is for some reason not something women have. Idea of what women are and can be still lives in the 20th century dragging behind infuriating. Women who are doing something that is not traditionally their area to work at, to be expert at without question is seen obscure like an absurdity in every day. Strangely work for women which is to be for some reason clean, neat, ‘easy’ and allow cute clothes is really an invention of the modern times and place that used to belong to upper class women who at best did nothing but things that were strictly theirs for some reason by nature, by their gender and by their class, so a privilege. Nowadays to me privilege is to be able to do work that one desires to do and most people want to work. To be absolutely idle to which we in our easy living fantasy dream about, is hopefully just a dream and an impossibility. Those unemployed rarely are happy about their idle existence.

Nature is regularly referred to when talking about women. Women are physically weaker than men and division is made clear what are chores for women. Strength and power are male characteristics physically and mentally which as such is an appalling stereotype and false. Men feel attacked and put down when women enter work that traditionally is labelled for men. This I have experienced many times myself. My work effort as my capabilities are diminished and questioned over and over. Here applies again the strange truth how people do not believe other than their bias and what they think is true. That unchangeable solid truth of theirs is so unwavering it can be changed only by huge amount of proving, maybe not even then. How slowly our world changes even though our technological advancement is rapid. Even those who have high degrees in science to my surprise are very biased what comes to women in science and art. That slowly movable wall strikes as what the fuck is it there for. Such highly educated people who hold dear the world order of theirs where just to have a Ph.D. is enough to tell how knowledgeable, refined, correct and justifiable they are and see their points of views unchangeable and undeniable. Offence is to follow, no doubt, when questioned.

What is hip and cool and why do we pay attention to the at the moment hip and cool phenomenons and trends knowing they do change all the time and the most hip and cool are those who do their thing disregarding the fashion of hip and cool? Do you know what I mean? For example making applications for the sake of making applications is a now-thing, but it is probably over quite soon, because who actually needs them. More important would be to ask why be hip and cool when you can be thoughtful, innovative, active maker, do many things in your life disregarding do they make you a fortune, things that have other kinds of meanings than what they appear outside and not do because it is your place which is decided by others but because you want to.

To my surprise younger generations to me are very often not taught to do basic chores at home at all. If it is so that parents do every day nuisance such dishes and cleaning for their kinds, boys and girls, how does it change our world of work? Will we have maids to do those inconvenient things that are dirty and low, unappreciated work chores? Robots?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/what-exactly-does-its-a-mans-world-mean_b_7454660.html?utm_hp_ref=tw “It’s a shame our society generally fails to teach girls to have higher expectations and boys not to feel threatened by their realization. The worst part about people’s responses to the suggestion that we find ways to address women’s needs in public spaces was the reality of many women’s low expectations and desire not to offend anxious and angry men.”