"Raising Arizona" (1987)

Aside from the fact that Nicolas Cage really irritates me, and we have fairly different philosophies on what makes a great actor (as I can tell in his performance in this particular film...), I really respect the way the Coens honed their gift of creating comedic crime pieces. Admittedly, it was a little difficult for me to sympathize with a former inmate who stole a beautiful precious baby from a good family, but what saves this scenario is Holly Hunter’s portrayal of Edwina McDunnough, or, more casually, Ed. Call it the mommy instinct in me, but I really felt the devastation in her inability to conceive. How awful would that be for any woman to go through, especially with someone you love? 

Aside from my little side notes, I definitely felt as though this was a more cleaned-up version of “Crimewave.” In “Raising Arizona,” they give us comedy and a crime without the overblown antics in “Crimewave.” Okay, their antics were a tad over-blown in this feature, but, for some reason, it works better. I think it’s because they weren’t relying on the tool of caricaturism as much, and give us laughable characters who offer more empathy, rather than acceptable, entertaining indifference. Though the notion of kidnapping someone else’s child truly sickens me, I know that the Coens were not endorsing this crime. They were, in fact, endorsing the notion that people who commit these crimes are worthy of being laughed at, yet, in some crazy little way, they still provide these characters with a slither of justice (as they should). (For example: when Hi and Ed save the little baby from that crazy Mr. Smalls. - and when they’re still forgiven for kidnapping Nathan Jr. from Nathan Sr. at the end..)

My thoughts: (and I hate to use the shoulda, woulda, coulda scenarios in these little film briefs, but.....) I think that framing the film from Ed’s perspective, Gale Snoats’ and Evelle Snoats’ perspectives would have provided this film with a little more meaning - I thought they were equally as funny and equally as empathetic. And maybe I’m just biased because I think Nicolas Cage is weird, but I think his performance was more supportive than leading.

"Crimewave" (1985)

Next on my little list of Coen Brothers movies is 1985’s Crimewave for which they wrote the script with Sam Raimi, who directed the piece. Though the Coens didn’t have as much control over this project, their influence in its construction is palpable and one can definitely feel their ability to maneuver - as I like to say it - “kitchen-sink” crimes. Each scene is almost like a mini-movie, with a beginning, a middle, and an end - all pertinent to the overarching power of the film. There is such a wealth of delectable images, crystal-clear characters, plot mechanisms, and layered crime scenarios, that it is almost too much to bear at times, but they manage to pull it off because every aspect of the film is completely caricaturized. It seems like this was the perfect follow up after Blood Simple, in which the Coens told us they can make a great crime, drama, thriller all in one, but, in Crimewave, they tell us that they can cook up a dish with all the latter ingredients alongside a course of film noir/black comedy. 

As Blood Simple ends with an “unsolved” mystery to the eyes of any crime detective, Crimewave begins with an “unsolved” mystery to the eyes of any crime detective. Or, in this case, the eyes of penitentiary executioners, because the first shot of the movie opens with Victor Ajax, played by Reed Birney, sitting in an electric chair for  allegedly murdering people that were, in fact, killed by psychotic exterminators. I don’t wanna give away the ending, but I can assure you that, if anything, this piece showed an unexpected range from the Coen Brothers when it was released. With only two major movies under their belt at the point, audiences saw that the duo could make an intricate crime story comedic, or heart-wrenchingly visceral. It didn’t do too well at the box office, but it was a great experience for both the Coen Brothers and Raimi - I mean, I don’t really know if it was a “great” experience, but one can hypothesize as such because I’ve noticed several elements of Crimewave in all of their later work. So, even if making the film was not a “great experience,” it is certain that its creation remains heavily significant in regard to subsequent Coen Brothers’ and Raimi films.

I’ll leave you with one final note about the movie: The decision to create, in a sense, a caricature of a crime is what makes this film, giving Raimi and the Coens license to make anything as ridiculous as they wanna make it. It can be a little overbearing at times, but I only think it’s because the Coens didn’t direct it.

"Blood Simple" (1984)

Talk about a forensic psychologist’s dream. “Blood Simple” brings you inside the mind of everyone involved in a crime, and not just any crime, but a crime story on crack. With such a delicious combination, and the piece being the first feature concocted by the Coen Brothers, it was easy to see that they would have a glorious career ahead. I won’t give too much away, but I’ll just give you the premise on which the film was built. Basically, it’s about a Texan bar owner Julian Marty, played by Dan Hedaya, who hires sociopath private eye Loren Visser (one of the most brilliant characters in film, if I say so myself...), played by M. Emmet Walsh, to finish off his unfaithful wife Abby, played by Frances McDormand, and her boyfriend Ray, portrayed by John Getz. 

What really blows me away about this film is .. just .... everything. They truly weaved such a colorful, at times morbid (okay let's be real - it was pretty morbid every single second...), tapestry to perfection, with each thread being essential to the ultimate look of the piece. From the moment it starts to the moment it ends, the music, the images, the acting, the smells, the anxiety, the direction are working alongside each other magically. I would love to delve into specific scenes more, and it’s tearing me apart that I’m choosing not to, but the ending leaves Abby at the center of an unsolved mystery to the eyes of any detective or forensic crime analyst. And the Coen Brothers give the audience the tools to solve this multi-layered mystery....The composition of which almost reminds me of the mechanics one would discover under a kitchen sink - with such incredibly confusing, twisted pipes, one would never think that each of them are necessary for some simple water. Yes, “Blood Simple” is a kitchen sink with the most perplexing maze - water looks simple and we don’t think about how it is transferred to us. I would love to see the Coen Brothers make an educational video for plumbers or sink mechanics...possible entitling it “Water Simple” - what do ya think?? :) 

The Real Leads Behind the Camera: Why Is Film Their Purest Air?

It was the only pictorial I found that defined the
"Watchmaker" philosophy best.

Part I.

Yesterday I viewed The Hollywood Reporter roundtable discussion with Barry Ackroyd, Sean Bobbit, Bruno Delbonnel, Stuart Dryburgh, and Phedon Papamichael, and began an examination of their cinematic duties which I intended to finish today. The piece was entitled “The Cinematographer: A Lead Behind the Camera?”, and I was aiming to provide the definition of cinematography, because shamefully I never really knew what they were. It’s almost like that feeling when you see actors in several films, but you don’t really know their names, you just know that they’re part of a cinematic production... Well, in addition to being introduced to the definition of cinematography, I was also taught how cinematographers are, in some ways, leads in a film, because they’re necessary to any quality production, just as much, if not more so, than a lead actor. I also believe now that actors or actresses must not only obey and respect the director, but also the cinematographer, because they are the ones who truly bend over backwards and sideways and everywhere to execute the director’s vision. But due to various technical issues caused by a naughty little hacker, that particular post and my notes got lost, and they were nowhere to be found .... So I chose to suck it up, and re-watch the conversation and re-write the post - and it’s completely different, not one idea is the same as yesterday’s. 

But the universe works in wonderfully magical ways sometimes, because my initial viewing of the video provided me the definition and duty of a cinematographer, but I could sense that I was brought back to the roundtable today because my cinematic guardian angel, if I have such a guide, needed me, not only to understand the cinematographer, but possibly the cinematographer’s experience. My little angel hadn’t finished with my lesson, and I was obliged to uncover why my initial piece, and notes, were so abruptly dissolved, forcing me to take a closer look at each of these cinematographic dynamites! I identified my true lesson only hours ago after realizing that, yesterday, I was told what a cinematographer is and their specific responsibilities, whereas today, I am told, not only of the duties of the cinematographer, but of a tragedy that has befallen quality filmmaking, and the eyes of real film may eventually be blinded because of it: a cinematographer’s remarkable talent in a production may become so abrasively stifled, simply because current entertainment is now depreciating the art of film with the reliance on digital, artificial intelligence.

I will introduce this brief investigation with the definition of a cinematographer, because, sadly, many of us are unaware of their crucial role in a film, myself included until yesterday. I’ll start by filling you in on my mental idea of a movie set, I’ve never been on a real one, and I’m sure this isn’t physically the case all the time or ever really, but it gives me a true, analogical, fairly philosophical, idea of how I envision quality filmmaking. So, just bear with me for a second, and imagine the director is looking over a great landscape...

And in the smallest valley of that landscape, standing in front of him is the cinematographer who controls the camera. You see, there has to be room for the producers, costuming people, lighting people, and everything in between who cannot go past the cinematographer when his cinematic eyes are open (or when the camera’s filming...), and they cannot step in between the director and the cinematographer when they’re working, but the cinematographer is responsible for managing all those in between. Sounds simple, right?? In a nutshell, in my crazy little mind I imagine, when filming, the director is behind the cinematographer, and other members of the production are also behind the cinematographer, but they don’t step in between the director and cinematographer, or in the cinematographer’s view when filming, but the cinematographer must manage all these crew members standing behind him to execute a picture the director’s happy with. Let me take a breath...  (Obviously in real life, I’m sure the director and cinematographer are standing like..right next to each other, but I hope you see what I’m saying). The director is in control, as he or she should be, it is their project, and the cinematographer crafts the eyes of the director’s project, and, ultimately, the way an audience member may view the final a piece of art.  

Alright, so now you have my rough definition of a cinematographer: they hold the camera on set, and they are responsible for creating an artistic image on film that represents the specific vision of a director. I’ll try and make the rest of this pretty short, but I think it’s necessary that you know what a cinematographer is.....

All right now for part II. 

The last Hollywood Reporter roundtable I viewed with directors gave me further insight on my definition of a good artist and a great one, whereas this roundtable session couldn’t have been more mind-blowing for me - just because, as shameful as it is, we rarely hear the voice of the cinematographer. Cinematographers Barry Ackroyd, Sean Bobbit, Bruno Delbonnel, Stuart Dryburgh, and Phedon Papamichael provided me, after watching their roundtable discussion, with such a greater understanding of “the pen” with which a movie is created, as said so sweetly by Dryburgh, and that technology has very much to do with the execution of such a remarkable creative process, which, intuitively, I’ve always kind of been aware of. I’ve always known that I’ve loved film over digital (but I’ve always thought that digital is a potential tool for a cinematographer, if they wish to use it. Just to create images that are as authentic as possible in the context of the director’s vision. I mean, I remember when I was 11 viewing Max Reinhardt’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1935) and seeing the strings attached to the ‘flying’ fairies. Of course, any cinematographer would use a digital tool to remove the strings to allow the audience to feel as though the fairies were really flying....But that’s what digital is: a tool, not a camera). Also, Dryburgh’s affirmation that he knows people in the academic world who I guess really believe that digital camera filming is the next big thing, and that theaters will be able to crank out so many different movies all the time really disgusted me. It’s almost as if the use of the digital camera in mainstream entertainment will turn movies into ‘fast food’ .. which is a reality, and I hate to get so sappy, that could completely break my heart. I remember seeing my Nana Hazel when I was probably just a toddler in ‘Stepping Toes’ and thinking she was the most beautiful, wonderful person in the world - and being so mesmerized by the fact that this was a pure portrait of my grandmother at one time...I couldn’t believe it! Imagine if I viewed those incredible scenes through a digital camera - her beautiful smile, her happiest happy demeanor, and her love to entertain would have been so dampened .... And I can’t imagine having those happy moments with her any other way.

I’m sure we can all agree that there may be great digital movies ahead, but anyone who claims that a digital lens is better than an organic, personalized one clearly hasn’t familiarized his or herself with previous, cinematic masters of film. And that’s why I also believe education is such an important aspect in cultivating a culture that knows what a quality movie is and what a quality movie isn’t. In my experience, and I’ve taken many courses revolving around the arts, people who have had a similar educational experience in artistic subjects tend to agree that, to put it bluntly, film is better than digital....

I don’t mean to be so upsetting, so I’m gonna share with you some of my favorite aspects of what each cinematographer said. I couldn’t choose a favorite, just because I really think that they all brought greatness to the discussion in their own cool ways. I completely completely completely loved Bruno Delbonnel’s example that cinematography is like watchmaking, which I believe may have been a reference to William Paley’s watchmaker philosophy (as pictured)....But it really helped me understand that there !really!!! is a true design and craft behind this type of work, and one that is found through film, not digital. His insinuations that himself and the other cinematographers at the table have very different styles, yet they’re still able to perform at such a brilliant level, in a way that is rewarding for themselves, and especially for a director, really resonated me. He basically says to Ackroyd that, since they don’t have the same brain, they could never do what the other does, which goes for all of the cinematographers around the table. It really got me thinking about how different their respective films this year would come out had, for example, Delbonnel been the cinematographer for “12 Years a Slave” or even if Papamichael been the cinematographer for “Captain Phillips.” They were each perfect for the parts they had this year and no one would have it any other way, but they certainly all have differing approaches to the art of cinematography - that are all exciting to watch.

In addition, Barry Ackroyd’s insight that the world works in two ways, a chemical and a physical way, and that a digital camera could not the capture the authentic combination of the two was pretty powerful. Especially as he was reiterating that he loves the creative process, which, even though I don’t have his experience by any means, I just know how rewarding it is and fulfilling it is when you create something that is just so, personally fulfilling through such a real method. Specifically, whether something great is created through a pen on paper(in my case - or  even a keyboard to a blank Word document), or a film camera on an image, it is the most rewarding, amazing feeling in the world.

I also have to admit that Sean Bobbit’s permanent little smile is an image that I’ll remember forever from the discussion. It never faded, even as he was stating his deepest insights on the world of cinematography. He really has an intuitive way of knowing where he stands with the director and creating work that a specific director wants, whether that director likes images or actors more - it seems like Bobbit can assess a way he creates pictures based on the director’s view of actors and images. I thought that was pretty cool....

Okay now we have Papamichael and Dryburgh.. To me, one can definitely tell that Papamichael is a cinematographer (after she knows what cinematographers are that is...), just because he is so, extremely observant. I almost felt as though he was looking at the people and the set around him thinking about how he would use a film camera to capture their moments together...You can tell he’s the type of dude who can say a lot with his eyes and, as I’ve discovered, is a great quality to have as a cinematographer.

I wanted to end with Dryburgh because his belief in movie magic is just as strong as mine. He refers to film’s ability to let him create “happy accidents” and he says that “the moment of creation is what I get a charge from.” I thought these statements were really sweet and beautiful, yet ring true for anyone who loves quality cinematic pieces - because these moments, let’s face it, cannot be found through digitalism (if that’s even a word..). Happy accidents are the heart of any creative process, and whenever you hear someone talking about ‘movie magic’ it is because of these wonderful discoveries. It really is magic. If you can’t find it, then ....I really just don’t know what to say(really, I don’t). Because magic is what I love most about movies, and anyone who doesn’t see that magic was likely never taught it or even really aware of it...

I know this post was in such strong support of film over digital - but I can’t help it. They were simply the first types of movies I was exposed to as a child, and the ones I remember loving. These cinematographers weren’t just making these arguments to save a job, they were stating such strong opinions against digital movies because they intend to save the craft of film - and those who love the arts, really really love the arts, will put it before themselves (whether or not they’ll get paid for it). This isn’t to say I haven’t fallen in love with certain digital films .. “Slumdog Millionaire” is of my favorite movies, but the fact is that a reliance on digital ‘film’ leads to a mass production of colorless movies - a ‘fast food’ of ‘film,’ if you will.  This may be a silly example, but I’d  so much rather see a handful of great, masterful movies a year than a number of lackluster ones.  So, basically, I’m just an advocate for quality over quantity.

Let Go of The Ego: What Makes a Great Artist?

Stepanek embodies
my definition of a
great artist.

From theatre classes to english ones, the question of the inherent variation between a good artist and a great one was always a part of my academic discourse. After giving if it 4 years of thought, I have come to the grand conclusion that the most essential characteristic of a great artist lies not only in the natural ability to compose dazzling orchestrations and symphonies, but in the artist’s ultimate faculty to dissolve the ego.

When a piece of art is created, whether it be a film, piece of literature, or proportionally exact sculpture, the one who creates such work must do so with the knowledge that the final product is not only about the artist, but the craft. Of course, artists will always put much of themselves in their creations (as they should), but true artists do so primarily to contribute to their respective arenas of work. Whether they want to give a delicious gift to the audience or even save someone’s life, they must love the craft so much that they put it before themselves. The craft comes first, and I come last. 

It’s no surprise to anyone who knows me that I love literature and the performing arts, so I’m just gonna fill you in on my idea of a great artist from that perspective. These are just my passions, and whether another’s passion is in business, charity, or other work, I intend for this brief examination to dissect the main characteristic of a master in any field: the ability to let go of the ego.

Even though I’m working toward becoming a paralegal, and have such a passion for the material I’ve learned and hope to learn in the future, another incredible passion of mine is acting. From an acting point of view, it is crucial that the performer let go of the ego to give their most delicious performance. Even if an actor has the most brilliant vision for the character, it must must must be approved by the director. What the director says goes. I have to know that it’s not about me, but the ultimate goal of giving something wonderful to the world of theatre, doing my character justice, and even making the director happy, just because I love it so much. Make sense?

And I just recently viewed a director roundtable session with David O. Russell, Alfonso Cuaron, Lee Daniels, Steve McQueen, Paul Greengrass, and Ben Stiller, which  indirectly reiterated much of my philosophy on what, in their case, separates a good director from a great one. All of these artists bring something to the table, and all of them are willing to learn from the work they created. However, my only complaint about the little session was Cuaron’s confession that he wish he hadn’t made “Great Expectations.” I thought he did a marvelously creative job modernizing Dickens’ “Great Expectations” (one of my favorite books....), but, regardless of what I think about the film, he viewed this experience as a regret rather than a learning experience. In theatre classes, we’re taught not to apologize, just to learn from what we do. It’s natural to feel regretful about mistakes, which we all make, but we shouldn’t apologize for our art or our respective instruments. (I mean, this is not to say that you shouldn’t apologize if you do something really f*cked up, but I hope you get the gist of what I’m saying...).

Even though each of these directors are true geniuses and I love them all, my favorite is David O. Russell. He seems like such a cool dude, he’s willing to take accountability, and I love the fact that he said that there’s no note he won’t take. For anyone who is passionate about their craft, this the ideal mentality to have: always take constructive criticism, don’t ignore credible critics, and seek ‘notes’ wherever you can because work that feeds your passion is a life practice. 

Great artist’s don’t do the work for the fame, they do it because they cannot function if they don’t. I don’t know where my career will take me and I definitely hope to be a paralegal soon, but I do know I’ll be acting for the rest of my life...even if it’s in my local theater. Even if I’m at an audition, and there’s no certainty that I’ll get a part, I feel lucky just because I get to act for five minutes or so. Let the ego drift away while your producing, and if you happen to get awesome feedback after creating a wonderful piece of work that you put your heart and soul into - you’re entitled to give yourself a pat on the back. You just need to remind yourself how much you suck when you’re back to work :)

The Endearing Mindset of an Author-Actress: What on Earth Was I Thinking??!

"The Kiss" by Gustav Klimt (1909)
Klimt intended for this piece to display
the raw, true passion men have for women.
The man in the painting, too, is an
endearing, infatuated maniac! :)

"The Endearing Mindset of an Infatuated Maniac":

THE Analysis

Okay, so I wrote "The Endearing Mindset of an Infatuated Maniac" in January, a little after the new year, and I was really surprised that it got the amount of page views that it did. I have never spoken to a soul about it, aside from my brilliant actor pal from JMU who I want to perform the monologue **which we still need to find the time to do, Austin!!** (even though I could perform it equally as awesomely, but, to maintain my .. as they say .. "artistic integrity" .. I thought he was better suited for the role.) Anyway, I'm sidetracking, so in this post, I wanted to provide a brief, authentic analysis of this little writing! And an analysis like this can't get more authentic when it's from the person who wrote it (me.)

(Alright, so I'm not gonna tell you who it's about, and I will never, ever ever ever ever ever tell anybody who it's about for as.long.as.I.live. People have asked me and I lie. I don't think the person it's about even knows it's about him, so that's why I green-lit it for my blog..Of course, I would be a super embarrassed if he did know it was about him,but whatever.....)

I'm sidetracking. So, without further adieu, here it goes....

___________________________________________________________________________

I've enrolled in creative writing courses at JMU- I even did a creative writing study abroad course  in Ireland, a perfect location for any literary nerd! The several workshops we had in our classes were so beneficial when it came to our creative writing, really helping us understand the difference between good and not-so-good literature. (You wouldn't eat shit, shouldn't read it either!!) So I definitely knew the flaws in this monologue before I published it, and I was aware of the type of criticism it would possibly receive. So, if this monologue were graded by a creative writing professor, I would say that it would probably land within the B range. I've read "B" stories and watched "B" movies that I absolutely love..Just because a piece of art doesn't get a perfect score doesn't mean that it's a work that the audience can't find appealing, resonating, or a little moving. (Don't get me wrong, I've definitely written "A" stories, but I just wanted to wing this and really allow the reader to grasp on to the emotion of the speaker. So even if it got a B/B+, I still think this is a piece that receives an "A" for audience adoration..even if there are people who didn't like it, I hope anyone who reads it sees why there are others who really do love it (which surprised me too!) 

For this to become A-worthy, there needs much more definition. 

When it comes to these types of pieces, you must define, define, define!! Even though the scene isn't particularly well defined, I think the emotion in this monologue is truly defined. So even if you watch a "B" movie, or listen to a "B" song, or read a "B" book, if the emotion is defined, you're guaranteed a spot in at least one of your audience member's list of artistic favorites. Make sense??

So I'm splitting this up in sections- I could really, really, really go for it though, and analyze each and every word, but I'm not going to. I don't wanna give too much away because A. It's not anyone's business and it can get very personal, B. It would take too long for a blog post, and C. I want you to have fun with it and use your imagination!!!!

______________________________________________________________

This is my introduction....

It’s not the first time I’ve been down this road. 

Physically and figuratively. 

I’m currently driving down 95, 

which I venture across quite frequently to get to and from NoVa- 

Oh NoVa, where do I begin? 

And in the intro, I wanted the reader to grasp the speaker's familiarity with Northern Virginia, offering a bit of definition to his surroundings - really giving the idea that he's been away for a while, but he's coming back home. There's a breath of nostalgia in his emotion, but I didn't want it to lead into the realm of sentimentality. He's saying this because this is really what he's doing: going home, seeing his family, brotherly friends, and, of course, the one person who is friends with all of his friends, the one person he thinks about everyday, and the one person...

_____________________________________________________________

And, in the proverbial sense, 

I’ve breezed down this road to see my --

 don’t really know what to call it, but a friend I guess...

..he knows so well, but doesn't know anymore. Never having a real relationship, it's difficult for him to gage where he stands with her. He's confused why there is such a connection between himself and her, when there was no real relationship, and can only refer to her as a "friend I guess..." Understandable.

______________________________________________________________

She annoys the fuck outta me,  she’s spoiled as shit, crazy as a god damn rat, bat, 

and mother fucking banshee,

yet I can’t seem to pull away. 

It’s like, her insanity intrigues me. 

This is where he starts to get 'endearing.' (Fun Fact: I thought of the title after I wrote the piece, I thought it was pretty on point...) Anyway, I wanted to give off the vibe that he is truly from Mars, and his lady-love is from Venus. An alien specimen that he doesn't understand, because she's such a lady and he's such a man. She really isn't insane, or even that crazy, but he sees her that way because he's a caveman and doesn't understand girls, even though he loves and does, I believe, respect them. He doesn't understand why she likes clothes, why she likes getting her nails done, etc. and this is why she's 'crazy.' She's like a mystical creature to him...And that's why her 'insanity,' or being a normal girl, 'intrigues' him. It's ironic though, because, in a way, he does understand her and he makes more of an effort for her, yet he doesn't understand 'girls' in general - adding to his sense of confusion. 

Okay- I’ll admit, she doesn’t really know I’m coming to see her specifically, but this is the game we play. 

______________________________________________________________

I love her. 

I thought this was the icing on the 'endearing' cake. He thinks she's so 'crazy' and he's surprised why he loves her sososoo much. 

I wanted this statement to feel like a brilliant discovery - He is so bewildered why he loves her so much, even though it's natural to feel that way - He thinks he's so amazing for loving her(which he is!), but I thought it was pretty funny. I wanted it to almost sound like he's doing her a favor by loving her...not in a condescending way though!! But in an...endearing..one.

_____________________________________________________________

I love her more than any girl I’ve ever known and I’ll continue to love her until the day I die. 

And if I ever tell her, 

she’ll look me dead in the eye, 

articulating one of her signature phrases, 

“You’re such a fucking idiot- get the hell away from me.”

In some ways, I wanted his 'endearing' nature to be a bit of comic relief - for the sadness he has felt for her and the sadness she's experienced. But he knows she's strong, and I wanted it to sound like there's a part of his brain that knows they'll be together one day, she just needs to figure herself out. And he loves her so much, he'll be patient and let her do that - so they can come back in the end. If he wants to be in it with her, he wants it to be perfect. He knows that day will come, but he's willing to wait no matter how sad it makes him.

______________________________________________________________

Professing love to a girl like her is like selling your soul to the fucking devil. 

It gives her power - 

a magnitude of power that she can and will use to her advantage. 

Guys don’t even realize she’s making them fall in love with her, one poor heart at a time.

 (Literally, I’ve seen her turn men into crying little b*tches.) 

I know what she’s like, so I don’t give her an inch. 

This part is really open to interpretation, but I wanted it to sound as though she does not do this, and is actually a cool lady. He just sees it that way because he thinks she's so awesome. I wanted it to sound like something any guy in a relationship would say about his girlfriend - or something any guy or person who is infatuated with someone else would say... (I was worried when I published it that people would think that I wrote this part as a truth about myself..but,no, I may have a bit of an ego *which we all have*, but I'm not that cocky. I feel like this is something a guy would say about a girl he's infatuated with...again, more endearing, comic relief.)

_______________________________________________________________

Funnily enough, 

I think that’s why she loves me too. 

People judge her. 

She's not afraid to put him in his place, so why shouldn't he?? But I wanted it to sound like he's a little worried about her, and tell hers the truth, and doesn't always tell her what she wants to hear, because he cares about her and wants the best for her - even if it hurts.

_______________________________________________________________

They don’t know about her difficult past, 

they don’t know why she is the way she is,

 and they certainly don’t know why she’s such a depressed fucking dumbass. 

Again, this is concern...Also, I don't feel comfortable going into detail about this, so I'll make this description a little short..but I think it's another aspect of a relationship people can relate to. He sees her sadness, and how it destroys her - and him. Basically, he's telling her to get over it and move on, because her past will never change..and he thinks she plays the victim sometimes, which she does. But he gets why she can't help it - because she thinks the universe, in some ways, has victimized her- which he knows it has, but he doesn't want her to play the victim when she doesn't need to(and rightly so.)

________________________________________________________________

The only reason I call her a dumbass is because, 

in too many ways, 

she’s so fucking stupid. 

Concerned for her self-destructive behavior....

________________________________________________________________

She’s beautiful, 

smart as shit, 

and almost too fucking talented - 

to a point where she blows my mind and everyone else’s for that matter,

 yet she’s been so unhappy, 

Because he can see the bad in her, he also sees the best in her  - he just wishes that she saw the best in herself too.

________________________________________________________________

drinks too much(or used to, she’s pretty good now, from what I hear..), 

spends way too much money on clothes, 

and she’s slightly socially awkward- completely oblivious to the things she says. 

I don’t judge her though, 

Again, sees her self-destruct, but feels helpless - the only thing he can do is tell her what he thinks with a hope that she'll listen. 

**Also, with the line "she spends way too much money on clothes" I wanted it to be a little more comic relief, and tie in with the vibe that he still sees her as some mystical foreign creature - even though all girls have a secret shopping problem - he just doesn't get it because he's a dude.

______________________________________________________________

and I don't enable her, 

I merely understand her- 

she doesn’t even know I do but, 

trust me, 

I know how her twisted little mind works.

 I know what’s she’s gonna say before she says it,

 and I know what will trigger her anger, 

excitement, 

and, unfortunately, her mouth that won’t shut the hell up.

 Ever. 

H can read her mind, and she can read his- it's crazy. He knows what she thinks, showing the deep, intricate connection that they have...

______________________________________________________________

She talks so fucking much - 

to the point where I’ve contemplated taking my dirty socks off and sticking them down her annoying little throat. 

As much as I hate to say it, 

she’s like a little misbehaved puppy who needs training, 

discipline, 

and a guy who will treat her the way she deserves to be treated when she’s good and, 

especially, 

when she’s bad. 

Some more endearing stuff tied into some heavy stuff - I'll leave this for you to judge :) How do you interpret it? Of course, I have my own, but I'll leave this to your imagination.

____________________________________________________________________

She’s really not what you’d call girlfriend material, 

and she’s certainly no Little Bo Peep, 

but she’s the shit and I fucking love her.

So I wanted to conclude with a sign off that displays his endearing nature and his infatuation with her.

With the line "she's the shit and I fucking love her," I really felt as though it was another notion we could all relate to. What guy wouldn't say that about the girl he loves??!

____________________________________________________________

Well, here’s my exit...

 Bye bye!

I love this  last line - I think it gives readers a lot to think about.

Isn't it interesting how he's 'exiting' to 'enter' somewhere - isn't that what exits are though?? Entrances to somewhere else??

So I'm hoping this post gives people a little more understanding of where I was coming from when I wrote "The Endearing Mindset of an Infatuated Maniac." I wanted to leave it open to interpretation, and I would love to hear thoughts on your own perspectives of this piece!! Don't be shy!! :)

P.S. I'm sorry for the typos - if there are any - but I have no time to proofread!! In a rush for the little play I'm in ..matinee at 2. Wish me luck!