Fandom on stage: The wheel is come full circle

When people think of hardcore fan*s, they often picture stereotypes like the guys of The Big Bang Theory hanging out in the comic book store, or of the legions of fan*s and cosplayers at Comic-Con. Rarely is the first thing on someone’s mind when fanning is mentioned going to be Shakespeare or theater.

However, believe it or not, some of the biggest celebrities that fan*s have fallen in love with also perform Shakespeare on stage in live theater. Fan*s can dress up as the Doctor at Comic-Con and also enjoy Shakespeare; the two aren’t mutually exclusive. And sometimes, those interests even overlap.

Recently, Tom Hiddleston, whom most fan*s recognize as Loki from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, starred in a stage production of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus produced by National Theatre Live in London. While most Americans weren’t able to travel to see the live production at the Donmar Warehouse in England, National Theatre Live records its plays and broadcasts them in certain theaters around the globe. It’s an excellent way to see brilliant British theatre productions when you’re stuck stateside, like me.

This production of Coriolanus was fantastic. Even Hiddleston fan*s have to admit he was just one of the many terrific things about this play. The production made superb use of a black box space, using just a simple square stage with no scenery or backdrop aside from the cement wall of the warehouse behind them. Coriolanus is a fairly raw play to begin with, and stripping it down to, for the most part, just the actors on the stage really focused attention on the performances, which were all brilliant.

Aside from Hiddleston, fan*s may also recognize Mark Gatiss, co-creator and star of Sherlock, as well as Alfie Enoch, better known as Dean Thomas from the Harry Potter movies.

Another production that National Theatre Live broadcasts in the States almost every year is a fascinating staging of Frankenstein directed by Danny Boyle, known for Slumdog Millionaire and more. This production stars two Sherlocks, each taking turns with the two lead roles. One night, Benedict Cumberbatch will play Dr. Frankenstein while Jonny Lee Miller plays the Creature, and the next night they switch roles. I’ve seen the version with Cumberbatch playing the Creature and it was incredible. If, for any reason, anyone still doubts Cumberbatch’s acting abilities, they need only watch this production to have that doubt erased.

If you’re a fan* as well as a Broadway lover, there have been many opportunities for your interests to overlap recently. Doctor Who fan favorite Arthur Darvill was starring in Once for several months, which I’m sure was enjoyable if you had a chance to see it. Also, at the beginning of January, Chuck’s Zachary Levi finished up a run with the musical First Date, which was wonderful, according to reviews. Emmy-winner Jim Parsons also made his Broadway debut in the 2011 production of The Normal Heart, which is being adapted as a television movie this year.

I can’t mention Broadway productions without bringing up one of the best friendships in the business: Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, who are starring in repertory productions of No Man’s Land and Waiting for Godot that have gotten rave reviews. And if you follow either of these gentlemen on Twitter, you know just how awesome they really are. As an added bonus, these productions also star Billy Crudup, who may be more recognizable to some fans as Watchmen’s Dr. Manhattan.

McKellan and Stewart are also both accomplished Shakespearean actors. Recently, Stewart played a small role in the BBC’s The Hollow Crown, a miniseries adapting the second of the Bard’s historical tetralogies: Richard II; Henry IV, Part 1; Henry IV, Part 2, and Henry V. Stewart played John of Gaunt in Richard II. He has also played Claudius on stage and on film in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s Hamlet, which starred another fan* favorite, David Tennant.

Tennant is probably most famous for his role as the 10th Doctor on the long-running British sci-fi series Doctor Who. He also played Barty Crouch Jr. in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Recently, he has taken on a variety of roles, including starring in several stage productions of Shakespeare’s works. In just the last few years, he has appeared as Hamlet, Benedek in Much Ado About Nothing (alongside former Doctor Who companion Catherine Tate), and Richard II in the Royal Shakespeare Company production.

Speaking of Shakespeare, I’d be remiss if I didn’t include possibly the ultimate crossover between fandom and Shakespeare: Joss Whedon’s Much Ado About Nothing. The movie was filmed during a break in filming The Avengers and stars many of the actors fan*s have come to know and love from Whedon’s other beloved series. The entire film was shot at Whedon’s own home in black and white and is one of my favorite film adaptations of Shakespeare ever.

The best parts of the film are all the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) actions and expressions of the characters in the background. The film flows with a relaxed pace and it’s easy to feel the chemistry and friendship between the actors. This was a project most of them did for fun because they enjoyed working together, and I think some of that comes through in the finished product. If you’re a fan* as well as a Shakespeare lover, I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

And finally, we’ve come full circle. Aside from Hiddleston’s recent stage performance of Coriolanus, he also starred as Prince Hal, the man who becomes Henry V, in the The Hollow Crown. The series aired in the United Kingdom shortly before the Summer Olympics in 2012, and in the United States back in September. It can now be purchased on DVD, and each play is a fairly faithful adaptation of Shakespeare’s work. They are beautifully filmed and the cast is magnificent: aside from Hiddleston and Stewart, you also have Jeremy Irons, Ben Whishaw, Michelle Dockery, Joe Armstrong, Simon Russell Beale, and many others, all of whom are amazing.

This is just an overview of a few of the theatre works some of our favorite celebrities have done in the last few years. If you know of something I missed, feel free to share it in the comments so we can all experience it! One of my favorite parts of being a fan* is introducing people to new things; you wouldn’t believe how many Supernatural and Doctor Who converts I’ve made over the years.

Like I said last week, we now live in a time where it’s cooler to be a fan* than it used to be, so let’s take advantage of that and show everyone just how cool we can be. We can fan out over the new Guardians of the Galaxy trailer or Benedict Cumberbatch on Sesame Street and still enjoy things like Shakespeare and wine.

To be or not to be isn’t the question any more, because now we can have both.

The true, important story of Dallas Buyers Club

The film Dallas Buyers Club tells the true story of Ron Woodroof, a Texas rodeo enthusiast, electrician, and occasional con man adapting to a shocking HIV diagnosis in 1980s Texas, where the disease and its sufferers were shrouded in confusion, homophobia, and hopelessness.

The Best Picture nominee has been a film over 20 years in the making. Screenwriter Craig Borten spent hours interviewing Woodroof prior to the AIDS victim’s death in 1992. The film had several false starts, as the bleak, difficult subject matter put off financiers. Borten found the constant rejection pushing him into self-destructive behaviors. Even after the project was finally green-lit, it nearly came to a screeching halt when financing fell through just seven weeks before filming began.

In the end, enough money came through to create a stirring film, driven by stellar acting and a surprising, touching friendship between two people seemingly as different as night and day.

Woodroof, played by Matthew McConaughey, struggles not only with the physical ravages of HIV and AIDS, but also with the paranoia and prejudice exhibited toward AIDS sufferers. There are the fears and misunderstandings of how HIV is contracted: even Woodroof’s so-called friends didn’t want to get too close to him, for fear they may contract the disease as well. Plus, there is the misconception that to have acquired HIV, Woodroof must be gay — an unacceptable condition in Woodroof’s “macho” circle. His friends all turn their backs on him when he needs them most.

Much of the buzz around Dallas Buys Club concerns McConaughey’s performance as Woodroof. With this role, McConaughey attempts to step out of the shadow of the stereotypical goofy, stoner characters he has been typecast into and take on a much more serious and dramatic role.

McConaughey dove in with such dedication that he lost more than 40 pounds for the movie. His appearance is so skeletal, he’s nearly unrecognizable; only his voice is distinctly his. The way his skin clings to his body makes him look almost mummified. The physical transformation makes it easy to set aside any preconceived notions you may have about McConaughey himself and just see the character.

What many people have forgotten over the last few years, as McConaughey has taken on more and more chick-flick roles and become the brunt of many jokes in Hollywood, is that the man actually has talent. The problem is that talent is all too often squandered on films like Failure to Launch and Magic Mike (in which he coincidentally plays a character named Dallas). But every so often, McConaughey puts on a performance like this one that reminds everyone how good he can be.

As Woodruff defiantly resists treatment for his illness, he finds himself rushed to the hospital, where he shares a room with Rayon, a transgendered AIDS patient. Rayon is a composite character, distilled from a number of individuals the real-life Woodruff came to know. Rayon is played by Jared Leto, the Thirty Seconds to Mars front man, who is brilliant in his first film role in four years.

Rayon, who identifies as a woman, helps balance out and smooth over some of Woodroof’s rough edges. She is a perfect foil for Woodroof, and it’s through Rayon that Woodroof begins to let go of the bigotry he harbored before being diagnosed with HIV. One of the best aspects of this film is watching the friendship that develops between Woodroof and Rayon. Woodroof starts out as a homophobic cowboy with all the same prejudices as his friends, but ultimately Rayon becomes the only true friend he has.

As the HIV/AIDS pandemic exploded in the 1980s, unauthorized “buyers clubs” opened across the United States to provide experimental and alternative treatments for the symptoms of a disease that was poorly understood and often willfully ignored because of its association with so-called immoral behaviors. Before long, Woodruff and Rayon form a partnership to open a buyers club of their own to sell medications to other AIDS patients.

In doing so, Woodroof raises the ire of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. A drug called azidothymidine (AZT) was fast-tracked through the testing process and given FDA approval. AZT was then administered in high doses, which damaged patients as frequently as it helped them. Eve, another composite character, is a crusading doctor at the hospital where Woodruff and Rayon are treated. Eve’s loyalties lie with treating her patients, occasionally bringing her into conflict with hospital administrators and Big Pharma.

Despite the potential for the character, Jennifer Garner is underwhelming in the role of Eve. Compared to the other Oscar-worthy performances in this film, Garner’s effort felt stiff and somewhat awkward. Despite having worked with McConaughey previously, there didn’t seem to be as much chemistry there as one would have expected. Garner is a decent actress; however, she doesn’t seem to have the range of her contemporaries. Quite often, her characters blend together and it feel like she’s always playing the same role.

Leto and McConaughey’s fantastic performances, though, made up for any shortfalls with the rest of the cast. Yet there still seemed to be something lacking in the telling of this story. The filmmakers’ financial struggles forced them to sacrifice some shooting locations and lighting to save money. Director Jean-Marc VallÃ‡e said this may have worked out better, as it ended up being more in the spirit of the characters. Nonetheless, the film felt rough or uneven at times; it was hard to tell how much of this was an intentional choice and how much was a result of the sacrifices that had to be made.

In the end, though, the cinematic inconsistencies within the film do not detract from the overall plot and the performances of its lead actors. Dallas Buyers Club is the fascinating story of one man’s refusal to die quietly and of his determination to fight for the right to use whatever drugs he saw fit to keep himself alive.

If the suit fits, the gentleman impresses

Welcome back, gentlemen. Today, we continue the conversation about the most important piece of clothing in the gentleman’s closet: the suit. Take a moment to review last week’s introduction, and then let’s discuss:

How to wear a suit

Wearing a suit seems simple enough, but there are some details the gentleman attends to, demonstrating his command of the outfit and allowing for his personal style to shine. Suits are specifically designed to flatter the male figure, but this magic only works when the suit is chosen wisely and worn correctly. There are two main factors that determine the visual effect of the suit: cut and fit.

“Cut” refers to the way the tailor has cut the fabric to drape on the body. Cut has a rather direct correlation to price because the cut is a reflection of the skill and care of the tailor, as well as how specifically targeted the suit is to a certain body type. The lower-priced suits in many men’s departments are cut to fit as many men with as little alteration as possible. The result for the would-be-stylish gentleman is a box-shaped, oversized, lifeless garment.

Notice how the jacket tapers from shoulder to waist.

The truth is that nearly every man in America wears a suit that is cut too big for his body. Comfort has come to be equated with looseness. Yet loose clothing looks bad, and looking bad destroys confidence. A man without confidence is a man without comfort. The gentleman must redefine the way he thinks about comfort.

The Modern Urban Gentleman understands that not all gentleman are built the same. Nonetheless, a slimmer cut will flatter many gentlemen who would not expect themselves to fall into the “slim” category. The ideal jacket cut will taper slightly from the shoulders through the torso; the perfect pant will hug, not squeeze, the thigh without restricting motion, and will hang from the knee without flaring.

Once the gentleman has tried on several cuts of suit, he turns his attention to fit. In finding the right fit for a suit jacket, focus on three things. First, the shoulders of the jacket should end at the point of the gentleman’s shoulder. Too often, the suit shoulders extend beyond the silhouette of the body, creating the box effect.

Second, button the jacket. The gentleman should be able to slide his hand between this sternum and the jacket — no more, no less. Too loose: the jacket will hang sloppily; too tight, the fabric will be pinched, creating a seam across the waist.

Finally, the gentleman should stand tall and let his arms hang at his side. His fingers should naturally curl up under the tails of the jacket. This length corresponds to a jacket that just covers the rear, allowing the back vents (you may have two vents, or one center vent) to fall just so when seated. The correct jacket length also enhances the “window” of the shirt and tie, and allows the buttons to close over the bottom of the tie and belt.

The fit of the suit pants is a peeve of this Modern Urban Gentleman. Most men understand that pants are sized according to waist and inseam, but most men are egregiously lying to themselves about their true dimensions.

Believe me when I say the Modern Urban Gentleman understands how psychologically difficult it can be to admit the waist is a 36, not a 34. But also trust me when I say that wearing the right size makes the gentleman look thinner than squeezing into too-small pants does. The muffin top is not exclusive to women, and feeling bound up all day will ameliorate many of the swagger effects of wearing a suit.

Another sticking point for many men is the inclination to wear suit pants in the same way they wear jeans: around the hips. Let’s be clear: casual wear should sit around the hips; I am not asking anyone to change their ways on that point. But suit pants sit higher. This is non-negotiable, and may alter the size of pants you buy. The jacket and pants work in tandem, and pants that sit too low create a ripple effect, both up and down the body, that destroys the entire package. The gentleman’s pants sit above the hips, loosely enough not to bind, but snugly enough that a belt is unnecessary (though one should always be worn).

Finally, most visually jarring of all men’s fashion faux pas: the pooling pant leg. The fabric of the pant leg should never be allowed to gather and lay on the top of the shoe. When the gentleman stands, his pant leg should brush the shoe; when he sits, the pant leg should expose several inches of the stylish sock beneath (a topic for another day).

A gentleman never lets this happen.

Beyond cut and fit, the gentlemen must be aware of one key point in order to maximize the visual appeal of the suit. Most suit jackets on American men have two or three buttons to fasten the suit over the abdomen. It may come as a surprise to many, but these buttons are functional, not merely decoration. When a gentleman is standing, his suit jacket is buttoned; when he sits, it is unbuttoned.

The buttoned suit jacket streamlines the upper body and blends it seamlessly into the overall effect of the suit. A closed jacket is also practical; it keeps the necktie in place, especially on a windy day. The buttoned jacket also provides a bit of cover for a necktie that is not tied to the perfect length (the tip of the tie resting just over the top edge of the belt buckle, but more on that in another column). An open jacket draws the eye to any unsightly cushioning around the midsection; the necktie, perched on the shelf of the beer belly, only exaggerates the effect.

And there you have it, gentlemen: the basics of the suit. As the gentleman’s budget grows, he can begin to consider more luxurious details, such as hand-stitching, full-canvas lining, and thread count. But for now, suit shopping shall no longer cause undue consternation.

In the coming weeks, the Modern Urban Gentleman will discuss the other elements, including the shirt, tie, pocket square, and more, that will complete the look. But don’t waste any time before getting to your neighborhood suit shop.

And remember: no pleats.

Welcome to Kansas: Gays need not apply

I don’t have a problem with homophobes. Some of my friends are homophobes. And while I don’t agree with their lifestyle choice, it’s not my place to judge others, even if what they’re doing is an affront to everything I believe in. As far as I’m concerned, they can hate whomever they want as long as they don’t try any of that with me.

And please, just don’t do it in public. I don’t want to have to explain to my (theoretical) kids why you are behaving in such a disgraceful way.

I understand it’s tough to be a homophobe in this day and age. It seems like the world is against you, constantly telling you how your way of thinking is immoral and wrong. You are being persistently attacked for feelings that are beyond your control when all you are trying to do is exercise your Constitutional right to express those feelings.

And now you have to worry about these anti-homophobic laws that are making their ways through legislatures across the world. Will you be legally persecuted just for being anti-gay? Certainly, we can’t have that in America.

Well, fear not, my friend. Kansas has heard your cry and the representatives of the people have taken steps to create a safe haven for other homophobes like you. The state’s House of Representatives last week passed a bill that would allow you and your business to express your views by denying services to the gays who offend your delicate sensibilities. If you see two men together and find yourself feeling uncontrollable feelings, you can simply tell these men to stop acting without concern for other people and kick them out.

I understand. You are the victim. Your rights to freedom of expression need to be upheld. No one should be allowed to prevent you from being who you are. It’s just a good thing you were able to stop this before Big Government started passing laws like the Nazis, preventing you from being served at public places or from getting good jobs because of who you are and what you believe. I mean, seriously, that would be just about the most authoritarian, fascistic, Hitler-esque thing one could do.

***

Satire aside, I do know people I honestly consider to be friends who might object to this message because they don’t agree with marriage equality or a military that does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, and that’s fine. I’m never going to change their minds, and I respect their right to hold to their positions. I even accept that some folks whom I genuinely esteem believe being gay is a sin. I disagree, but I can appreciate our differences.

The problem I have is with the victim mentality. People who disagree about marriage equality can have a civil debate. But to say that there exists some kind of nefarious homosexual agenda that aims to subjugate good Christians is an absurd lie. Many people who are gay, including friends of mine, are Christians themselves, and would never want to see their faiths harmed. They are also American and love our country because it allows them to be who they are without having to worry about government-sponsored actions detrimental to their well-being.

Most Americans, no matter where they fall on the left-right spectrum, can agree on a basic principle: we should be allowed as many freedoms and liberties as possible without hindering the rights of other human beings. Your right to call someone a demon or subhuman is just as valid as my right to say you have beautiful eyes. However, your right to kill is not more important than someone else’s right to live.

This precept holds true in civil rights as well. You have every right to hate me for being different than you, but you have no right to hurt me because of that hatred. Your problems with people who are different from you are your own and cannot be legislated — and certainly not under the guise of “religious liberty” that only applies to your own interpretation of religion.

Stop fearing the “gay agenda.” The only agenda anyone is pushing is for civil rights. Nothing that is being advocated by the LGBT community and its allies will infringe on your rights in any way. You will still have the right to hate whomever you want, and you will still have the right to be treated like a human wherever you go.

The anti-gay agenda, however, is about taking away rights, not granting them. And Republicans in the Kansas House tried to take a huge step in advancing that restrictive agenda. Thankfully, the president of the Kansas Senate has put the bill on ice. If she had not, men and women who are gay would be treated differently for who they are and whom they love. That would be someone’s “right” to hate trumping another person’s right to live, and that is wrong.

A law like the one proposed in Kansas cannot stand and would not pass even simple Constitutional scrutiny, despite what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would inevitably say. State law cannot violate the U.S. Constitution. In the end, a discriminatory law like this would prove a huge favor to gay rights advocates; its striking-down would set a precedent to be called upon in all future cases.

Some of you will disagree with me. I’m glad you will. We all need to have our views challenged. I welcome the debate, and I look forward to hearing from you.

‘A Feminist Sensibility’: What a feminist looks like

This will come as no shock to those who know me: I am, and always have been, a feminist. I spent my high school and college years fighting loudly against gender stereotypes and injustices, either real or perceived. Although I’m much more reserved in my feminism now, I still look at the world through a feminist lens, and I think it is vitally important to provide a feminist voice in every hot debate.

I’ve decided to bring that perspective here to Curiata.com. Each week, I’ll be spending some time discussing one of a myriad of topics — pop culture, news, sports, and even fashion — from a feminist point of view. Most of my colleagues here consider themselves feminists (even the boys), and I’m hoping they may even chime in every once in a while on a topic that I’m just not as familiar with.

So, let’s get started with a fundamental question: What is feminism? There are a lot of definitions and conceptions out there; however, I think the simplest (and best) explanation is straight out of Merriam-Webster: feminism is “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.”

It is important to note what that definition does not say. Not all feminists are man-haters, nor do we think we should run the planet (although, a planet run by a fem-puter Bea Arthur might be fun!). Being a feminist is far more complicated than world domination.

As a feminist, I believe that if a man wants to take six or more weeks of paternity leave after the birth of a child, he should be afforded the opportunity to do so.

As a feminist, I believe we have an obligation to continue to work to break the glass ceiling and close the pay gap.

As a feminist, I believe a woman is no more or less of a woman whether or not she decides to get married (to either a man or another woman).

As a feminist, I believe a woman is no more or less of a woman whether or not she decides to have children.

As a feminist, I believe if a woman chooses to have children, she should not be obligated to stay at home nor obligated to return to work, but rather be able to choose the path that is the best fit for her.

As a feminist, I believe I have an obligation to educate others on the status of women in other countries. Whether it is an easy topic to talk about, like the fact that approximately only 15 percent of females in Afghanistan can read and write, or a topic that can be stomach-turning, like the fact that approximately 90 percent of women in Eritrea will suffer female genital mutilation. Ignoring the mistreatment of women in other countries will not do anyone a bit of good.

As a feminist, I wear makeup, high heels, and dresses.

As a feminist, I wear jeans, a t-shirt, and sneakers.

As a feminist, I drink wine.

As a feminist, I drink beer.

As a feminist, I drink Scotch.

As a feminist, I drink … well, you get the picture.

These are just a taste of the feminist beliefs that make up my worldview, to whet your appetite for the discussions we’ll have in the coming weeks. I’m excited to begin this column and to have you join me every week for a little fun feminism.

I want this to be a conversation; please feel free to share your thoughts on anything I bring up in the comments below. I do, however, have one request: no name calling. I’m not just talking to the “anti-feminists” of the world. There is a sentiment within some parts of the feminist movement that engages in calling out women who are “not feminist enough.” That has got to stop.

Feminists are working toward the same ends, and it will be a lot easier (and much more peaceful) to cross that finish line if we work together. And even though we may never see true equal rights for men and women around the globe during our lifetimes, I believe the kinder we are to one another, the more likely we are to achieve this goal.

With that out of the way, I hope you’ll join me next Tuesday for my first “real” feminist column. It may seem an unlikely place to start, but if you knew the men in my life, you’d understand why I feel compelled to explore the male-dominated world of … professional wrestling!

Obscure, ancient sports may be Olympic material

The Olympics have a storied history. The Greeks (and Romans) held them virtually unbroken for a thousand years until they were banned in the fourth century in the interests of Christianity. They came back in the late 1800s and have stuck around until present day, no longer connoting paganism, but now presenting a worldwide competition, complete with advertising, paparazzi, and terrorist attacks (sometimes). We marvel at the figure skaters and gymnasts, we cheer at the runners, swimmers, and skiers. We wince at the inevitable slips and tumbles.

Some of us tune in, though, just to see the stranger sports showcased, such as biathlon (you ski, and then you shoot stuff!), bicycle sprint (you try very hard to go slower than the other person for as long as possible before the finish line, when you speed up and go for the win), and curling (I … uh … truth be told, I have no idea what’s going on in curling). What we strange-sports enthusiasts need is more! More weird stuff, the weirder the better.

“But Jim,” you ask, “where are you going to get weirder sports than those?”

Have no fear, dear reader. There’s gold in them thar hills.

Caber toss

The Scottish “heavy” sport of throwing logs around. From the Gaelic word for “pole,” a caber is a long, wooden beam, 19-and-a-half feet tall (about 4 people), that weighs around 75 pounds. The sport is probably only a few hundred years old, and it’s believed that the first caber tossers practiced their craft in order to construct impromptu bridges during wartime, perhaps as part of sieges or invasions of contested territory near rivers and marshlands. They’d throw a tree trunk so their fellows could scramble across quickly and catch the enemy in an unguarded flank.

The caber is lifted up vertical, so the top of it is directly above the tosser’s head. The tosser lets the caber fall forward, running after it, until it hits a precise angle. Then the bottom of the caber is lifted up. The top (now the new bottom) plants into the ground and the bottom (now the new top) flips up and over, hopefully, landing on the other side. The object is not to get the most distance, but rather to have the straightest possible line. If the caber does not flip entirely over, the tosser loses major points.

Would this sport be a good addition to the Olympics, or a great addition to the Olympics? I, for one, would absolutely tune in to see this in the Summer Games, especially if it were jumbled together with some other sport, like biking or distance running. Run a mile, then toss a caber, run another mile (or more if your toss doesn’t make it over). Great fun!

Pankration

Greek παγκράτιον (pan: “all”; kra-tee-on: “strength”) is essentially the mixed-martial arts of the original Olympic Games. A sort of crossbreed between wrestling and boxing, the only rules were no biting and no eye-gouging. Everything else was fair and square (though excessive overuse of kicking was not considered very manly). The one who tapped out (or passed out, or died) first was the loser.

In one of the games, a man named Arrhichion managed to kick his opponent in the toe, breaking it, while trapped in a chokehold. The other man forfeited from the pain, thus granting victory to A-Dog, but by the time the ref called the match, Arrhichion was dead from the choke. They named him winner, put a crown of laurels on his head, and marched him back home as a champion, though.

Theseus was supposed to have used this fighting style against the minotaur, and Hercules against the lion in his first labor. Indeed, the grappling and choking techniques of pankration were used by the Grecian and Macedonian armies, including the Spartan hoplites. (“This is madness! This is pankration!“)

Should pankration be part of the games? It was an original Olympic sport, after all. But probably not. There’s a reason Ultimate Fighting Championship-style, “anything goes” combat tournaments are not shown on daytime television. People get hurt. People die. Granted, there have been seven athlete deaths during modern Olympic games, from 1912 through 2010 (mostly in practice), and hundreds of injuries, but we don’t go seeking them out, either.

Pankration is more of a blood sport than fits well into a competition designed to bring people and cultures together. When Pierre de Coubertin sought to revive the Olympic Games in 1896, the archbishop of Lyon told him, “We accept all, except pankration.” Yeah, but what about chariot racing?

Mesoamerican ball game

It has a more fun name than that. The Mayans called it Pok-Ta-Pok. Probably onomatopoeia. The ball game was serious business! Even more so than football! It was deeply entrenched in the religious rituals and myths of the Mesoamerican people. Games were sometimes held to represent historic battles, where one team were the “losers,” so they would lose the game, then be sacrificed to the gods.

The Mayan hero twins, Hunahpu (“Who?” “Nah, Pooh”) and Xbalanque (“Chi ball on, ‘kay?”), played against One and Seven Death. (Mayans named their kids after the day they were born, and Death was not a great day to be born on.) Mssrs. Death were the rulers of Xibalba, which is sort of like Hell, a little. It’s where the dead go. After overcoming seven trials, the heroes won the ball game! Then got thrown into a fire. Then they came back and disguised themselves as magicians for a while, until One and Seven Death invited the twins to perform, and the Xibalbans were like “Ooh! Ooh! Saw me in half now!” so Hunahpu and Xbalanque did. Anyway, the ball game was super important.

While some of the aspects of the original game are lost, we still know a lot about it. The ball was solid rubber, heavy and tough, about a foot in diameter. Players bopped the ball back and forth with their hips, and wore thick leather girdles to prevent bones breaking and such. If a ball hit you in the head, hard and fast, you could very easily die. You scored points by knocking the ball into the other team’s wall. Eventually, they started putting vertical hoops about six meters (20ish feet) up the wall on either side of the court, barely large enough to fit the ball into — think Quidditch. If you got the ball through one, you won the game, though trying for it and missing cost you points.

Should the ball game make an Olympic comeback? Heck yeah! With ergonomic and safe equipment, athletes could be throwing their hips around like Elvis impersonators at a bar mitzvah in no time. I mean, cut the bit about human sacrifice, anyway, and it’s all gravy.

What do you all think? Are weird sports your tea and biscuits? Any others I haven’t mentioned? Let us know!

Star-Crossed creator talks background, new series

The rolling hills of Pottsville, Pa., are situated in the heart of the anthracite coal region that stretches from Harrisburg to Scranton. The area thrived through the 19th and early 20th centuries, but the economy has struggled to rebound since the mines were shuttered.

Today, Pottsville is most often described to outsiders as the site of D. G. Yuengling and Son, America’s oldest brewery. Soon, that conversation may include the mention of a successful television writer and producer who calls the city home.

Meredith Averill, a Pottsville native, is the creator and executive producer of the new science-fiction drama Star-Crossed, premiering Monday on the CW. She spoke last week with Curiata.com about the new show and how she came to the television industry.

The title of the series echoes the famous line from the prologue of Romeo and Juliet, and the show updates the tale of forbidden love so familiar to teenaged English students everywhere — with an otherworldly twist. In the pilot episode, an alien humanoid enrolls in a Louisiana high school and a romance develops between him and a human classmate.

The realization of this series is the culmination of a long journey for Averill. Pottsville is a place that can seem as alien to the dreams of a young writer as the Atrians are to the planet where they crash-landed 10 years earlier.

“I always knew I wanted to be a writer, but I didn’t know what kind of writer I wanted to be,” Averill explained.

As a high school student, Averill channeled her passion for writing into her school newspaper, Tide Lines. During those formative years, Averill relied on teachers who supported her writing and parents who “always encouraged me to dream big.”

While it may be far removed from the sound stages of Los Angeles, Pottsville is only three hours away from Manhattan. Averill’s father would frequently take her on trips to New York City when she was in middle and high school, planting the seeds for her to break out of her sleepy hometown and pursue her passions.

“I fell in love with the city, and when I wanted to move there for college — which was a big deal for someone from a small town like Pottsville — my parents didn’t even flinch,” Averill said. “They knew it’s where I needed to be.”

Following in the footsteps of John O’Hara, Pottsville’s most famous writer to date, Averill packed her bags and headed to the Big Apple. She attended New York University, planning to major in cinema studies.

“I loved writing about movies,” Averill said, “so I thought I might go into entertainment journalism, but pretty soon, I realized it wasn’t for me. I was more interested in telling stories rather than critiquing them.”

She changed her major to screenwriting, and “I’ve been writing scripts ever since.”

Television didn’t play a large role in Averill’s life until after she graduated from NYU. She began watching series like Alias, The West Wing, and Twin Peaks on DVD and fell in love with the medium. Like many potential screenwriters, Averill drafted “spec scripts” — unsolicited screenplays either for an original concept or for a show already in existence.

“My first spec script was for Sex & the City, and I’m pretty sure it was terrible, but I had a blast writing it,” Averill recalled.

For her next spec script, she chose to write an episode of Grey’s Anatomy and spent more time studying the structure of a typical episode before putting pen to paper.

“After that, I felt confident enough to write an original pilot spec, which I ended up submitting to a writing program in Los Angeles called ‘Writers on the Verge‘ in 2007, and I was accepted into that program.”

Averill’s first job in television was as an assistant for Josh Appelbaum and André Nemec, a writing team who had also worked as producers on shows like Alias and October Road.

“They gave me my first writing job and hired me as a writer on two of their shows, Life On Mars and Happy Town,” Averill said.

The cast and crew of Star-Crossed sit on a panel at the 2013 San Diego Comic-Con International. Series creator Meredith Averill, third from left, spoke with Curiata.com.

Now, Appelbaum and Nemec are serving as executive producers on Averill’s show, which marks her transition into the role of show creator.

The new title brings a set of new challenges. Averill is in charge of more than 200 employees at Star-Crossed’s offices in Los Angeles as well as on location in New Orleans, where filming has posed its own challenges. Averill spends most of her time in L.A. with the writers and isn’t able to be on set as often as she would like. However, the advantages to be being a creator outweigh those drawbacks.

“When you work on someone else’s show, you are always trying to anticipate what they might like to see, how they might write a certain character, but it’s fun to be able to apply your own unique voice to these characters,” Averill said. “The best part of being able to create a show … is that the world is yours to play with.”

For Star-Crossed, the creative process began with a three-minute trailer from a Spanish production company. The trailer, titled Oxigeno, centered on a group of alien teenagers being integrated into a high school. The trailer languished as an unrealized project until Averill brought it to life.

“The original idea, I can’t take credit for,” Averill said, “but we got to develop the whole world around it, which was a fun process.”

The series was initially named Oxygen, a translation from the Spanish, but the title had to be changed due to a rights issue with the Oxygen Network.

But what’s in a name?

The new title, Star-Crossed, is befitting of a story in which the main characters come from two different worlds that are not supposed to mix. The titles of the episodes are also taken from lines in Romeo and Juliet. The show, however, is not a modern retelling of Shakespeare’s play.

“We didn’t go out of our way to make any other Shakespearean parallels in the series,” Averill explained. “But I’m sure if you wanted to go looking for some, you could find them.”

Much about the series is indeed original, including the main characters. Emery, played by Aimee Teegarden, is a human girl who has been sick for much of her life and has spent a lot of time in the hospital. Entering high school is an especially new experience for her.

“When thinking about the character of Emery, I liked the idea that she could relate to the Atrians in a way — that she, too, felt like an outsider on her first day of school,” Averill said.

Teegarden was the production team’s first choice to play Emery, and she was the first cast member hired, partly as a result of her role in NBC’s Friday Night Lights. Averill and several other executive producers were fans of the high school football drama, so they were already familiar with Teegarden’s work.

“We knew we needed Emery to have a girl-next-door quality and be instantly likable, but also strong and confident,” Averill said. “We loved [Teegarden] so much on FNL, and after we met with her and found out she is also a huge sci-fi fan, we knew she’d be a great fit.”

Roman, portrayed by Matt Lanter, is the son of the leader of the Atrians, “but he’s also someone who is a bit rebellious and constantly questioning whether integration is really the right move,” Averill said.

Lanter was one of the last cast members to be hired.

“We had a very hard time casting Roman,” Averill said, “because the role requires so much: he has to be noble and strong-willed, but also vulnerable — and, of course, gorgeous, because it is still the CW.”

In fact, it was the teen-oriented network that first suggested Lanter, after the cancellation of his previous show, 90210.

“We met with him and felt immediately he was the right choice, and he was very excited to play a role unlike any other he had played before,” Averill said.

The distinctiveness of Lanter’s character was a conscious choice for Averill and her team. They wanted the Atrians to be a singular extraterrestrial race, but it took several episodes to establish some of their trademark characteristics.

“We knew certain details about the Atrians when we were developing the pilot — the birthmarks, the idea that they had this herb called ‘cyper’ that may or may not have curative properties,” Averill said. “But it wasn’t until we got into the season — and I have to give our writing staff credit for contributing to this — that we really developed who they are as a race, what makes them unique and unlike any other alien race you’ve seen depicted on television or in movies before.”

Averill poses with fellow executive producer Scott Rosenberg and lead actor Matt Lanter on-set in New Orleans.

One other alien race that some fans have been quick to draw a comparison with have been the aliens of another teen sci-fi drama, Roswell. Even without looking too closely, though, there is one big difference between the two shows: Roswell’s aliens had to live in secret, while the world knows about Star-Crossed’s Atrians. The presence of the Atrians, including the fact that thousands of them live in an internment camp, serves as a backdrop for some of the more serious motifs underlying the series: the politics of integration and the government’s treatment of the Atrians.

“Even though we don’t try to hit you over the head with this theme, Star-Crossed is also a show about racism — and how we treat ‘the other,'” Averill said. “I think that’s what makes it unique and unlike other sci-fi shows you’ve seen.”

So what will Star-Crossed‘s fans have to look forward to this season? According to Averill, a lot.

“The benefit of doing 13 episodes in the first season is that we really jam-packed every episode with as many reveals and juicy mysteries as we could.”

The Atrians’ “powers” — what makes them unique — will be exposed fairly early in the series. About midway through the season, the reason for the Atrians’ crash-landing on Earth will be revealed. The show will also be introducing “warring factions” within each race: the anti-human Trags and the anti-Atrian Red Hawks.

“They’re both equally evil and out for blood,” Averill said. “Their constant battle for power is what drives much of the action in the season — and how our characters work to stop them.”

And, for the teen demographic so important on the CW, Averill teases the romances of the series.

“A new love interest will complicate things for Emery and Roman, who are not our only couple in the show. Some interesting and surprising other pairings will emerge.”

The premiere of Star-Crossed is a big moment in Averill’s career. But Averill, who has also been a producer and writer for The Good Wife, is quick to note that her success would not be possible without plenty of support, both in the television industry and back home in Pottsville.

“I don’t remember who gave it to me, but the best advice I’ve ever been given is, ‘Don’t be a jerk,'” Averill said. “[Television is] a small industry and people know who the jerks are and you don’t want to be one. Be as courteous to the assistants as you would be to the executive producers.”

As for the father who fanned the flames of her passion with those trips to New York when she was a girl, he now lives in Florida and surprised Averill last year by flying to Comic-Con where the cast and crew of Star-Crossed introduced the series. Averill’s mother still lives in Pottsville, and both her parents are just as supportive as ever.

“They’ve now each seen the pilot probably 20 times,” Averill said, “but I know for sure they’ll still be watching [Monday] while wearing their Star-Crossed t-shirts.”

Bringing a television series to the screen is no small accomplishment for the girl from coal country. But Monday’s pilot episode, of course, is just the beginning of a new story.

“I just watched our finale, which we filmed in December, and I feel like I’m not exaggerating or over-selling when I say the season ends with one of the most intense, shocking cliffhangers I’ve seen on television — it’s incredible. And I can’t wait for everyone else to see it!”

RoboCop reboot? I’d buy that for a dollar!

Sequels, prequels, adaptations, reboots, and spinoffs. That seems to be all Hollywood knows how to make. But is that necessarily bad?

Movie studios saw a seven-year fall in home video sales alongside the rise of Internet streaming and illegal downloading. In order to combat that loss of revenue, studios have invested most of their resources into franchises they can bet on.

And we hand over our money, so it can’t possibly be all that bad. These cinematic retreads are part of our culture now, and even if they aren’t the same as the original, they are often quite good. Maybe we should give these movies a fair shake.

Outside of Footloose and The Amazing Spider-Man, no reboot has received as much criticism before its release as RoboCop, which opened in American theaters this week. José Padilha’s attempt at telling the tale of the first robotic police officer was hardly even announced when fans of the 1987 original began denouncing the film. The original is a classic, they argue. And perhaps they are right. However, the original is older than I am, and it should be acceptable for a story to be retold for every generation.

Even if you disagree with repeating old stories, fear not: the new RoboCop flick is a completely different movie, with the only similarities to the original being tons of satire and lots of shooting.

The 2014 edition begins with a look into a near future that seems far too real. The United States has grown excessively belligerent in its foreign policy and has morphed its unmanned drone program into one of full humanoid robots. These machines operate brilliantly, being able to assess threats in seconds before taking action. The robots are shown “keeping the peace” in Tehran, where it is evident the United States has finally decided to invade.

From the beginning, it becomes clear the filmmakers are not glorifying the advanced drone program. The robot warriors, manufactured by OmniCorps, are promoted heavily by an obnoxious, biased political pundit, played by Samuel L. Jackson, despite the drones causing more problems than they are solving.

The robots are initially shown to be efficient and infallible, but events quickly go awry. Iranian freedom fighters try to fight off the invading mechanical army and, in a heartbreaking scene, one of the robots sees a child wielding a knife, determines he is a threat, and fires on the young boy. The message is clear: without a human element, drones cannot be trusted to implement fair and merciful policy.

Public sentiment against the robots causes OmniCorp’s CEO, Raymond Sellars, to issue a new directive: put a human in the machine. Alex Murphy, a Detroit police officer looking to root out corruption in his department, is chosen for the procedure. Murphy, played by Joel Kinnaman, is left with only his original brain, lungs, and right hand as he becomes the RoboCop. Again the message is obvious: regardless of how much of the RoboCop is machine, a human hand is still pulling the trigger.

The rest of the movie raises questions about the morality of drones and the distance being placed between the American public and American wars. The film also warns of a future when drones could be used on American soil — a future for which Jackon’s character lobbies hard.

Setting aside the scathing satire, the movie’s MVPs are two Batman veterans: Sellars is played by Michael Keaton, the man who originally brought the crime fighter in black to the silver screen; and Gotham’s Commissioner Gordon, Gary Oldman, portrays Dr. Dennett Norton. Both men play their roles to perfection.

Keaton is the prototypical evil CEO character, determined to make money no matter the cost in human lives and suffering. While Sellars is a bit of a shallow character, Keaton still shines when using his fake sincerity to manipulate everyone around him. Still, I found myself wondering if OmniCorps’s CEO was actually guilty of committing any crimes. The most chilling aspects of this movie were how possible all of it is, and how legal culpability does not always line up with moral responsibility.

Giving another tremendous performance, Oldman continues to prove his worth. (Hopefully, Lucasfilm is taking notes and the rumors will prove true about Oldman being cast in Star Wars 7.) Oldman’s Dr. Norton character is easily the best-written of the movie. A man who obviously began work in robotics to give second chances to the suffering, Norton is the embodiment of the slippery slope argument. At first, Norton is concerned about the morality of OmniCorp’s actions. Then, Norton gradually consents to worse and worse actions, slowly removing more and more of Murphy’s humanity until the officer of the law becomes more machine than man.

The 2014 RoboCop is a movie that would benefit from having a unique identity to avoid drawing comparisons to the original. However, Hollywood needs familiar names tagged onto big releases to feel safe in taking the financial risk. That doesn’t mean there is a lack of artistic risk in new movies; it just means we are more likely to see that fresh perspective pasted on a rehashed character.

The original RoboCop, released 27 years ago, was an entirely different work from the current version. The film, starring Peter Weller, was a thematic portrayal of Reagan-era America and all of its associated problems. Showcasing the fears of liberals and conservatives alike, this dystopian Detroit is riddled with white-collar and blue-collar crime that are both terribly out of hand, requiring a new type of hero to rein in the trouble.

Paul Verhoeven’s RoboCop antagonists were almost cartoonishly evil people, leaving no room for audience sympathy. When Murphy’s robotic hands pulls the trigger, you are never left wondering if the criminal’s gruesome demise was justified.

The original and the reboot both tackle the problems inherent in defense contracting and privatization of public services. The original goes much further in showing the profit-over-morality mentality of Omni Consumer Products, with a board member blatantly stating the company’s goal to profit off “markets traditionally regarded as non-profit: hospitals, prisons, space exploration.”

Both movies have fun taking shots at the media. In the 1987 movie, news anchors casually discuss terrible tragedies with no regard for the human suffering. Today, Jackson’s Pat Novak character is a perfect stand-in for Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity as the modern news pundit demanding that the world change to adhere to his beliefs. Jackson, of course, kills it, with his over-the-top anger that would look perfectly at home on the Fox News Channel.

Fans of the original movie will immediately notice a distinct lack of blood in the reboot. Many would argue that’s a good thing, but aren’t we all a little nostalgic for a simpler time, when movies were filled with eviscerations and exploding body parts?

Padilha did a good job creating a compelling satire of the military-industrial complex and U.S. drone policy that is more relevant to 2014 audiences than the 1987 baddies are. At times, the satire is a bit heavy-handed, but that is the case in the original as well. Ultimately, RoboCop is a reflection of the times, which is necessary for any successful story, especially when it’s being retold in a fresh perspective.

In that respect, 2014’s RoboCop movie is a success. Still, don’t feel the need to rush to your nearest theater. A nice DVD rental should suffice.

Shiraz throws fruit bombs from Down Under

My first real introduction to dry red wines was by way of Australia. The bold red wines produced there match the personality of its people: lively and exciting, with an explosion of flavor. Australian wines (and its people) are rarely subtle or boring.

Shiraz is the grape that really put Australian wine on the map, but it’s actually the same grape as Syrah, which is widely planted in France. The Syrah grape is the fourth-most-planted in France, with a large percentage grown in the Rhône valley, but like with most wines from that country, Syrah is often mixed with other varietals to make custom French blends.

In Australia, however, there are plenty of single varietal Shiraz bottlings. I use the term “single varietal” with some qualification: different countries have different rules about what can be put on the label. In Australia, up to 15 percent of the wine can be from a different grape while still being called a single varietal. (For example, a bottle labeled Shiraz might have up to 15 percent Cabernet Sauvignon blended in.)

Australian wine did not register on the radar of most drinkers in the United States until the 1990s, when imports rose dramatically (from 578,000 cases in 1990, to 20 million cases in 2004). The Shiraz/Syrah wines from Australia were and still can be big, tannic, jammy, full-flavored “fruit bombs” with a peppery finish.

If you’re like me and appreciate the tannins (which create that puckering, cotton-mouth sensation), Aussie Shiraz makes for an easy introduction to dry red wines, because of the overwhelming fruit flavor characteristics. (If you don’t like the tannins, try Merlot or Pinot Noir instead.) In my experience, wines from McLaren Vale and the Barossa Valley tend to fall in this “fruit bomb” category: rich, intense, with higher alcohol and flavor profiles in the “dark fruit” category, like black cherries and blackberries.

If the fruit bomb style is too over-the-top for you, not all Aussie Shiraz is that way. In cooler climate regions, like the Yarra Valley, Eden Valley, and Coonawarra, Shiraz is definitely more low-key, with “red fruit” characteristics, lower alcohol, and higher acidity. Check the region on the label before you make a quick purchase.

The “fruit bomb” style has predominated in Australian Shiraz, but the pendulum is swinging toward a blend of fruity and savory flavors with a little bit of restraint. But don’t worry — it’s still Australian wine, and “restraint” is a relative term.

Penfolds Grange is the premier Shiraz of Australia, ranking at the top of the wine world alongside Grand Cru Bordeaux blends. But it’ll set you back quite a bit — say, hundreds of dollars per bottle. I recently saw the 2008 selling for $850. Yikes!

Fortunately, Australian wine is flooding the market right now. In the early 2000s, when demand for Australian wine was huge, wineries planted more and more vines and increased production. Now that demand has plateaued, and even decreased on occasion, there’s more wine sitting around than there is demand for it. (Some have even called for wineries to rip vines out of the ground to lower future supply.) As a result, you can probably find some great Shiraz that won’t break the bank.

If you’re trying Aussie Shiraz for the first time, don’t bother with Yellow Tail; it’s not even sold in Australia, and Aussies themselves laugh about Yellow Tail the same way they do about Foster’s Beer. Instead, check out Jacob’s Creek or Rosemount Estate for inexpensive introductions.

For a bit more cash, around $18 to $20, the 2008 Blackbilly Shiraz is great: a dark garnet, almost purple, color with crushed dark fruit on the nose, intense dark berries on the palate, hints of coffee, chocolate, and a little bit of a savory, gamey flavor. The 2010 Gatekeeper Shiraz is nice as well, showing raspberry, licorice, and chocolate on the nose, with flavors of cherries, plum, and black pepper on the palate, for a cool $14.

There is some debate as to the value of of aging Australian wines. Many ask if the flavors will hold up after 15 or 20 years. In the past, most people said they would not. But in recent years, some experts have begun to change their minds.

In my own experience, the best Australian Shiraz I’ve ever had was The Gate from the excellent 2002 vintage. This was by no means a top-dollar bottle, but after 11 years in my cellar, my wife and I drank it for our fifth wedding anniversary and it performed beautifully: dark berries, licorice, dusty and aged on the nose. A mix of blueberries and blackberries, vanilla, savory herbs, leather, crushed black cherries, molasses, and licorice on the palate. The finish was gloriously long. Not overly complex, but the time spent in the cellar brought out some great flavors.

Aged or not, Shiraz is a spectacular introduction to dry red wines, and the Australian single varieties are often a delicious choice.

Valentine’s Day a sham; no one really likes it

Does anyone really enjoy Valentine’s Day? Sure, you may think you do, and you may remember some amazing moments in the past, but did any one of those moments surpass your hopes?

If you answered yes, then you are certainly in the minority, because despite what we all want to believe, very few people — married, dating, or single — end up happy at the end of February 14.

Let’s start with the obvious. Single people hate Valentine’s Day. This day that is supposed to be celebrating the martyrdom of a Catholic Saint has turned into a greeting card holiday about expressing your undying love for that “one person” in your life. To single folks, that means a stark reminder once a year that you are alone and no one loves you. Great.

Single Valentine’s Days are the worst. If you are recently single, the day reminds you of your lost opportunities. You sit alone, watching you ex’s favorite romantic comedy, eating Ben and Jerry’s, wondering what you could have done better.

If you’ve been single for a while, like I have, you spend the entire day trying to figure out how your life got so sad that you spend your nights watching anime, hoping the kung fu god and the demon-hunting vampire will finally get together. You are left with a crushing feeling of emptiness as you wonder what it is about you that just is not good enough, while you know that plenty of the worst kinds of people are out for steak dinners and wine.

This feeling of self-doubt is usually a bogus one, too. If you love who you are and where you are in life, why does it matter if no one else sees what makes you great?

People often tell me that I need to lower my standards. Why? I’m not looking for a rocket scientist/supermodel with an encyclopedic knowledge of Batman stories. But what is so wrong with wanting a person who understands me and accepts me and is attractive to me? We should not have to settle for somebody who doesn’t make us happy.

So, if you are spending Valentine’s Day alone, drinking Captain Morgan and watching Clerks 2, just remember that it’s better than being out with someone you don’t like, trying desperately to make him or her happy, even though you know deep in your heart that you just don’t care.

I have been single for the past four Valentine’s Days. Obviously, that must say something about me. I get it. I can be pretty abrasive and very self-assured. But that certainly wasn’t always the case.

There was a time when my smugness was just an outer shell, and I was looking for someone with whom I could share the world. Valentine’s Day was the day every year when all I wanted was to be with someone and to show her how much I cared. Of course, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would I want to be with someone just so I could tell her how much she mattered on one particular day each year? Doesn’t it make more sense to actually fall in love with someone and spend a day of your choosing devoted to showing that person how special he or she is to you? Valentine’s Day acts as a constraint for some relationships in order to fulfill some false sense of what should be.

And then there are the couples. While I’m sure millions of couples have sweet Valentine’s dates with each other, how many of those dates have at least one person wondering, “Is this it?” Do these sweet dates of restaurants and movies ever truly measure up to what we expect when February 14 rolls around?

One of the few times I was actually in a relationship on Valentine’s Day, my then-girlfriend asked me what I wanted for the holiday. I, of course, trying to be sweet, answered that all I wanted was time with her. My girlfriend, sarcastic human being that she is, got me a clock and a picture of her. Time. With her. Just what I asked for.

It was brilliant. It was funny. It was completely clever and I was so frustrated by it. Not because I wanted a gift or because I didn’t laugh, but because I actually just wanted to spend time with this girl. Unfortunately, we were busy people and we really were unable to spend any time together for the holiday, so I spent the day angry.

A lot of people share stories of disappointment with Cupid’s favorite day. The problem is that we all have ridiculous hopes for what is supposed to happen, our realities shattered by John Hughes movies and every season finale of Glee. Even those among us who know not to expect much will still hold out hope that, somehow, things will change and our own romantic comedy will begin.

For those of you who are married, I first offer my respect. Marriage is difficult and requires a lot of sacrifice. But for wedded couples who are in a rut, Valentine’s Day is a painful reminder of a love whose romance has waned after years of living together, paying bills and raising kids. Sure, there are always exceptions, but I have to believe they are rare.

Marriage is obviously a different animal than young love. Marriage, when done right, is an evolving love, uniting two partners whose shared experiences will forever bind them even if their romantic feelings fade into oblivion. And for 364 days a year, that evolving love is enough. However, Valentine’s Day is the one day each year when even the happiest couples are left wanting more. They want to have a romantic dinner and a memorable night ending with fireworks and lovemaking like neither has never experienced. That won’t happen. That doesn’t happen.

In theory, Valentine’s Day is a wonderful thing. We should take a moment to tell our significant others how much we love them. Perhaps designating one day a year to this task is helpful for the aloof among us.

The problem with this holiday is only in the heightened expectations, driven by works of fiction, that destroy the beauty of those true moments of actual love between two individuals. We see so many last-minute confessions and public displays of affection that simply lying on a couch holding each other is not enough on the most romantic holiday of the year. And those of us who spend the day alone just wish we had someone to hold.

If you have someone to spend Valentine’s Day with this year, I hope you enjoy yourself. Treat each other well, and make sure you remember that this is the real world and not a Nicholas Sparks novel. Love each other for who you are, not what you want your partner to be.

Those of us who are likely to spend the day alone will be sad. But don’t worry about us. There’s always Netflix.

curiata

provoke your curiosity