On Glenn Close and Meryl Streep

I always thought of Glenn Close as the poor man's Meryl Streep. Not because I don't think Close is awesome, but for how she seems to be perceived by the masses. She and Streep seem to have a similar amount of acting cred, but Streep wins out by a long shot because, well why?

- Let's start with the fact that Streep is a little prettier than Close, and she appears more approachable and friendlier.

I guess we can end there, really, for this digression.

Freud once said "anatomy is destiny." He meant that to cover gender only. It was also quite contested. That said, if by anatomy you mean all physical traits (looks, weight, deformities, health, etc.),  that's a concept I could defend. If you look around at the people who surround you, do they all seem to be in some kind of role that suits them, physically speaking? And do their personalities fit their looks? Yes, for the most part. If someone has health problems, or a deformity and they seem to be beating the odds with an amazingly happy personality, i.e. people who refuse to let their problem define them, that still means that their physical issue is shaping their personalities. Of course there are many exceptions, there's also intelligence (oh, intelligence, so overrated), and environment and circumstance, but because I am someone who believes that who we become as people is mainly a result of our brain chemistry and physiology, it's an idea I tend to stand behind. I'm a lot of nature, less so nurture. 

Back to Streep and Close.

- No one does a better foreign accent than Meryl. 

- But no one does manipulative better than Glenn Close, and I'm not just saying that just because I finished watching Damages the other day. Great show, a few issues with it, but none with Close.

But Glenn Close has never won an Oscar and Streep has won tons. WTF, Academy? (btw, the Iron Lady, great performance, not so great film). If you recall Close's performance as the conniving Marquise de Merteuil in one of my favorites "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" for which she was nominated but didn't win, then you'd know she was robbed.

People think Glenn Close is amazing and she's been nominated a bunch of times. But they think Streep is Ah-May-Zing, and that might be the issue here. Close deserves an Oscar, but she and Streep are always lumped in the same category, they even confuse the two at times because they sort of look alike, plus they're about the same age. So if Streep won, they'd just as well assumed that Close has won at some point or another. But she hasn't. And that's messed up.

So to conclude one of the more non-sensical whims I've written here, I'd just like to thank the Academy for hearing me out on this. Glenn Close might be a little more angular and mean looking than Streep, but she is a formidable actress who deserves your recognition.

Meanwhile... People reading this are saying, Diane, I think Glenn Close is doing just fine.

Here is my .02

I know there are a lot out there, but here are some of my observations from the last few days post- Sandy Hook tragedy. 

1) It feels like this one is a tipping point for some kind of change. 

2) People actually started caring about gun control -- my own awakening happened after the Aurora shooting. The cumulative effect of all these tragic shootings finally got to me. And then it got me "critically thinking" for myself and trying to understand the purpose behind the second amendment. 

3) Yes, we all know guns are not the only problem, but it's probably the biggest. At the same time, gun advocates are blaming the fact that there just aren't enough guns in America, that we need to teach people self defense and give those people guns and beef up security, like, everywhere. Yes, let's just go down that slippery slope, shall we? I've already argued that deterrence is not necessarily realistic in this case, nor do I believe it will be effective. Others are blaming a loss of family values, media and violence in entertainment. And finally, the people in the middle are blaming mental illness. All these are true. The issue, in my humble opinion, is that these these things are very hard to change. Family values declining... that was a big systemic change that occurred over the last 50 years, what makes us think we can get those particular values back up to pre 1950s levels? We have removed many of the pressures of societal norms such as marriage and having children which is, in my opinion, a good thing, but a long term side effect is a certain loss of respect for family and community as well as an increase in individualistic behavior.  Mental health. I totally agree with this. I think psychiatrists provide an invaluable service and medication actually does work, but see how hard it is to change health care in this country? Good luck with that one. It's something that needs to be addressed, but will likely not see immediate results. Violence in media and entertainment. Art imitates life or life imitates art? I don't know, but I don't think curtailing our 1st amendment rights as a trade off to maintain our 2nd amendment rights is the way to go. 

3) Haters gonna hate and there's nothing I can do about it. Since I was personally attacked on Facebook, called a hormonal, fanatical and narrow minded psychopath, AFTER being called a "simpleton" and having my opinions mocked (but not actually heard. I swear I can't make this shit up), I had to remind myself that there are many people out there whose main goal is to provoke a fight and not care about the outcome. Their aim is to be the smartest person in the room, but ironically, they are the least. Discussions with these kinds of people leave you feeling empty and unproductive. I don't claim to know all the facts, but I do know that there needs to be a bipartisan discussion about firearms in this country. I care about the success of this country, I don't care which side advances the best plan, I just want it to be the best plan possible; and the only way we will know if better gun control is actually going to help curb the issue of gun violence is by *trying it* on a national level. "National" being the operative word here.

4) Actually, screw discussion. I've also realized that logic, common sense and rationality don't actually convince anyone because most people are entrenched in their own opinions and belief systems. But, as my friend Bashir noted, social pressure does. If any change is actually going to happen, it's gonna have to be forced upon us (remember the abolition of slavery and gay rights legislation? Half the country was against those things too).

5) My good friend Bashir and I talk quite a bit about all this stuff. He is a brilliant lawyer who speaks better than me. He pointed out that there are actually probably more convincing arguments against gun control that never occur in discussions because we always get stuck with the dumb ones. (Though I should note that he is pro regulation):

For the past couple of days, I've watched the horrendous argument made over and over: "You can kill someone with a paperclip. What are we gonna do, ban paperclips!?!?!?" 

As explained by Alexander (years ago), this is a miserably poor argument. Guns are a technology for making killing easier. If the host of only-potentially-fatal everyday objects weren't less effective at killing, we would arm our soldiers and police officers with them. We could save an enormous amount on our war efforts if we just gave our soldiers kitchen knives which these people keep claiming are "just as bad." Nor do we regulate in such embarrassingly black and white terms. "Irresponsible drivers can cause fatal accidents at any speed. Therefore, we should have no speed limit at all." Bad argument is bad.