There’s no such thing as bad publicity, but what about anything for publicity?

In searching the news this week, I discovered that as long as it can promote the movie it’s worth writing about. You will not believe this, but Mickey Rourke’s, the star of the new Oscar nominated film The Wrestler, dog has died. I know, I know, hold back the tears; I was just as shocked as you are. Obviously, I’m joking, I’m just sad that this was actually a news story. I understand that people have a tendency to get a little celebrity obsessed and want to know what’s going on in their personal lives even if they don’t actually know them and it is really none of their business, but this is obviously a lame, desperate ploy to get publicity for the movie The Wrestler. I don’t know why, the film is nominated for an Oscar, and what more publicity do they need? I know Mickey Rourke is having another comeback and he has been through a lot with coming back from the drug and alcohol abuse to star in an Oscar nominated film, but I don’t care about the fact that his dog died. Don’t get me wrong I love dogs and it is sad that it is dead but I do not need to know about it. And basically, it is just not newsworthy. Of course, I am being a little hypocritical because really the only thing worse than writing a lame story about his dog dying is me blogging about his dog dying. It just goes to show that as long as it can plug a movie it is worth writing about. But I don’t know what do you think? Here is the website: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Oscars/story?id=6897261&page=1

What the @%#& is he talking about?

Even though I am of the mind that context and not words have true meaning, I still know that censorship has a purpose. For example, when it comes to these blogs I understand that we try to censor ourselves out of respect to each other and the grandmother rule, even though, I have known a couple of grandmothers with mouths like sailors. Also, to emphasize the point that context has true meaning over words, take my title for example. Even though, I did not use a swear word in the title, I’m sure almost everyone of you inserted your own swear word, whether it was @#%& or!%&@ or maybe even &#!%. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is even though I understand the purpose of censorship, I still have to ask myself, where’s that line? Where is the line where we can censor classic plays and still call ourselves artists? I don’t know if any of you know, but I am currently in the production of “Death of a Salesman” by Arthur Miller (shameless plug, show times are next week February 18-21st, 7:30, free to students with ID in Vangstad). This play was written in 1947 and it uses language like “goddamit” and “Jesus Christ.” Now I know some people might find this language a tad offensive but I refuse to believe that the “little, old, blue haired ladies” in the audience would refuse or complain about a classic play such as this because the language was a little blue collar. But, these words have been removed from next week’s performances, except for one line. I believe the art suffers from this changing of language, in the play the swearing is even referenced as a point of hypocrisy between father and son. Not to sound pretentious, but as a writer of plays myself, I believe Arthur Miller had intention with every sentence in that play and to change it is irreverent. But maybe it is just me, maybe I am reading too much into it. What do you think?