I'm Gavie! I am a freelance journalist living in Houston at the moment and love film and anything to do with it as well as life. I aspire to one day write for an entertainment or a chic magazine and love what I do.
I started this blog last year, but have shamefully neglected it, up until now. I plan to update weekly and possibly post a few in between if something really sparks my interest and feel I need to share with you fine people. So, Enjoy! And thanks for reading!
Have you ever trusted someone with every fiber of your being despite the numerous times the person let you down? Accepted the countless, remorseless apologies of how sorry (s)he was for the act committed when really the apology was merely an empty gesture that redeemed some type of your allegiance back?
Unfortunately, I have. But I never could give up. The friendship meant too much to me. I’d put too much work into holding it together, always letting go of the previous incidents where the trust had been agitated, each time diminishing it just a little more, until now where it has been tarnished beyond repair.
I would guess most would agree when I say we can’t hold onto relationships of any sort when trust is no longer present, when that trust has been tested time and time again only to fail each of those times. But what do we do when still a shred of us wants to continue the relationship? At what point should we tell ourselves to let go or keep holding on when we know things won’t ever change? This is my dilemma.
Just recently, I learned the importance of honesty, how it can set you free from yourself and the thoughts held captive in your mind, the things you so desperately want or need to tell the people in your life but won’t dare utter aloud for fear of rejection, hurting someone’s feelings or whatever fear that might be. The truth, I’ve found, is an addiction once you’ve discovered it and can only create a stronger relationship and encourage the trust present to continue building itself.
I am grateful for this lesson, for it is one I can carry with me, let it empower me when I know I have the strength to be truthful instead of accepting cowardice as an easy solution. I only wish more people accepted and practiced this ideology of truth.
After Kevin Costner recently dropped out of Quentin Tarantino’s newest film in the works Django Unchained, many pondered who could take on the deviant role of Ace Woody, the plantation owner Calvin Candie’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) ruthless and maliciously foul slave trainer who prepares male slaves to battle to their deaths for Candie and his patrons’ entertainment. However, Tarantino may have found his man.
Christoph Waltz to play the role of German Bounty Hunter Dr. King Schultz injured while training for "Django"
Kurt Russell is now in talks to take up the role of Woody and work with Tarantino once again. As fans might remember, Russell worked with Tarantino in his 2007 film Death Proof as the sadistic serial killer, Stuntman Mike, who prayed on young women. If Russell can bring any of that lunacy and malice to the character of Woody, he does indeed show promise to create a memorably nasty villain. Additionally, Russell working with DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson, who is cast to portray Candie’s right-hand man and house slave Stephen, to be the villainous trio creates potential for Django to be an unstoppable force with its cast of remarkably talented actors and Tarantino’s genius of delivering a signature revenge film and pushing the limits.
Kurt Russell in talks to play role of battle slave trainer Ace Woody
Apart from Russell most likely joining the cast forDjango, in other related pre-production news on the film, actor Christoph Waltz who plays the role of the German bounty hunter helping Django (Jamie Foxx) seek revenge on Candie and rescue his enslaved wife, was injured while training with his horse for the film. “Waltz is currently being treated for a dislocated pelvic bone and is looking forward to getting back in the saddle,” said Waltz’s rep. However, he is expected to fully recover and be ready for production when it begins in November. Django Unchained is schedule to hit theaters in December 2012.
Since his last film Inglourious Basterds, released back in 2009, Tarantino has left fans wondering when his next kick-ass film in all of its blood-filled, action packed glory will be released. With news of production to begin in November of this year according to HitFix, he sets to work again on gathering up the perfect, yet so expectedly unexpected cast for his newest film Django Unchained set to be released Christmas day 2012.
Django is a period piece set in the 1800s where slavery still thrived on Mississippi plantations, where a master’s cruelty was overlooked and battles to the death between the slaves were entertainment. However, no one embraces revenge and ensures the bastard at hand indeed gets what he deserves in the end more than Tarantino. Django is no different in the aspect of the hunt for the perpetrator. The title character, Django (Jamie Foxx) gains freedom when a German dentist/bounty hunter Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz) buys him to help on his own manhunt. The two inevitably become friends and the good doctor agrees to help Django return to the plantation to face his former master Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), along with his two right-hand men Ace Woody and Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), and rescue his wife (a rumored Kerry Washington) who still remains in Candie’s grasp.
Django Unchained to be released December 2012
Though much of the key roles have been casted already, one villainous character in particular still needs to be filled. Ace Woody, the role of Candie’s sadistic slave trainer who prepares these men for their deaths, was set to be played by Kevin Costner; however, he dropped out due to scheduling conflicts between Tarantino’s film and Zack Snyder’s Superman film Man of Steel where he will play the role of Clark Kent’s father.
As seen in many a Tarantino film, he often casts a crucial male role with a seasoned actor who has been off the silver screen for quite some time and creates a role unlike any they have portrayed in the past only presenting the perfect opportunity to resurrect their careers. With Costner, Tarantino continued his trend, but now that Costner has pulled out of the film, chatter turns to who will Tarantino instead resurrect to embody his vision of Woody and his deviantly cruel training.
Upon learning of pre-production for Django, I was ecstatic to read that the auteur was working on a new film, especially one where DiCaprio portrays the villain, a side of the Oscar-nominated actor we have not seen much of. Even with his lack of on-screen venomous roles, I expect his portrayal of Candie should be an intensely gratifying performance as he never fails to deliver. Additionally, I am anxious to see who will be cast as Woody and who can fuel the ferocious wickedness of the slave-battle trainer. As for Foxx, I’m unsure, and to be honest a bit skeptical, if he can bring the wrath often present in Tarantino’s avenger characters. Since Ray in 2004 when he won an Oscar for his portrayal of the legendary Ray Charles, Foxx has acted in mediocre, mostly non-leading roles that don’t depend on his character much to drive the film. As he will be the title character of Django Unchained I expect something more in his performance than he has previously given. However, I have faith in Tarantino and his casting based on his past films, so I may just in fact be proven mistaken. Until the release next year though, we will just have to anticipate what Tarantino has in store for his next tale of bloody revenge.
There are always those people, especially women, who take pride in their bodies and have no hesitation to show it off. However, the way in which they choose is usually modest, at least in partially covering up the goodies and showing off more of the shape. And even more so when they’ve reached middle age. A woman who walked in with her husband and a male friend yesterday, though, apparently praised hers.
She walked into the store, and I greeted them, not really noticing anything unusual at first,as I was looking at her face. As the woman walked away with her back towards me, I noticed she was wearing a black, sheer blouse but lacked a bra. “She’s not wearing anything underneath that top,” I thought. “Well, maybe she has pasties.”
I let them walk around the store for a little while before asking if they needed help. When I finally did approach them, I couldn’t help but to look down to see if she was covered. But I was right! She had nothing; not even pasties. But as I am professional about my job, I made no comment nor did I react. I merely continued to help her. As I did so, we walked past the bachelorette party section, and the woman’s husband pointed out a sippy cup shaped like a large penis. “Here you go, hun. You wanna drink out of this?” her husband laughed, lifting the cup to show her. The woman chuckled and said, “Oh please, like I’d walk around in public drinking from that!”
I couldn’t believe what I’d just heard. This woman would rather walk around in public with her breasts showing than sipping from a penis-shaped cup?! How could the first option win out? So, I thought, where is the line drawn of being proud of your body and just being obnoxious about it? Also, at what point does one decide it’s less embarrassing to bare breasts than drink from a phallic cup? Is it easier to be comfortable with your own body than being comfortable playing with items that look like genital parts in public?
Whichever the case, it’s fine to be proud of your body. More power to you! However, take into consideration that, sure, more may be better, but baring all leaves nothing to the imagination.
So, this is my first post in a couple of months, and I have since then left Cindie’s. But for those who enjoyed story-time from my adventures at the adult store, no need to fret! I am at another place of business of the same line of work, and the customers and people are just as entertaining as ever! Stay tuned!
The other day while having a conversation with a friend about men’s post-sex habits, I realized something about most men. During or most often after intimacy, men will ask their partners, “How many orgasms did you have,” or something of the like. Women understand that men ask because they want to be pleasing lovers, but does the question derive more out of pride or insecurity of having induced a faux orgasm.
Someone I once knew compared making a woman climax to being like a kid winning a prize at the carnival; sometimes it may be a challenge, but in the end, the excitement of having won is exhilarating. On the contrary, I’ve known men who say they ask because they are unsure whether their partner truly climaxed or if it was a feigned orgasm.
However, could the question be a product of both pride and insecurity? Can a man be so insecure to worry that his ego would be bruised that he has to ask? Regardless of the reason for the question, if the woman climaxed, there is no reason to ask how many times. For most women, achieving one orgasm is enough to be satisfied.
Society and the media through magazines, television and advertisements have always been blamed for portraying to people what appearances and actions should be the norm. Models and celebrities are idolized and have many striving to embody these personas and lifestyles, leaving some insecure or self conscious. However, this is the mainstream end of that projection on people to be acceptable as normal. Most would never consider that pornography has the same effect on people’s sex lives.
Like any of the other media sources that influence what should be typical of people, porn does the same for the bedroom and one’s self body image. Often times, couples watch porn and think that their sex lives should be as exciting as what they’re watching or that perhaps their bodies should be similar to those on the screen; however, like striving to be like those models and celebrities, most won’t live up to the expectation.
On more than one occasion, I have heard men saying they wish they were more endowed than they were, despite their consistent ability to please their partner. Other times, men have said they did not realize they were larger than average, but actually thought they were at average or just below it. For all the times I’ve heard about their self-consciousness about their bodies, the reason for their idea of their “smaller” members is the same: “Well, the guys in porn are big, so I just thought I was a lot smaller than normal.” Only later do the men learn they are above par when they begin relationships and act intimately. But this may not put their minds at ease as men have said they believe their partners only tell them these things because it’s what they believe the man wants to hear rather than it being the truth.
So like any other media source, pornography sets up a certain notion about what sex should actually be like and how big a man’s private areas should be in comparison to the reality of what is standard. However, unlike most people realizing that a scarce amount of people are like the idolized, those who watch porn, especially men, still believe that they are the ones who are not the average.
Often times in a place like Cindie’s, customers feel that just walking into the store to shop is a difficult enough act without actually purchasing anything. With that said, many shoppers just want to be left alone, especially with something as personal as buying erotic merchandise. For the most part, we offer our help, but leave them be if they do not want it so they can feel comfortable looking for what they want. However, as we might try to make them feel at ease in the store, we cannot control what other customers do, but only react to their actions.
About a week ago, a woman wearing a dress was shopping throughout the store, and we helped her whenever she needed it. She had no problems and seemed to be comfortable in her environment. A short while later, an elderly man came into the store and wandered around looking for nothing in particular. The woman must have caught his attention because he began to suddenly become interested in the products around the areas she was shopping. A co-worker pointed out to me that the man seemed to be following her, and the woman took notice. She told my co-worker she was beginning to get creeped out by the man. He continued to follow her into the lingerie area. As the woman looked through the garments, the man “shopped” close by. At one point, the woman bent down to look at a packaged garment on the wall. At nearly the same moment, the man bent down, pretending to tie his shoe. The woman noticed what the man was doing and confronted him. “Would you just quit following me?!” she said. The man denied her accusations, saying he was only tying his shoe, but she told him she knew what he was doing; he bent down almost as soon as she did, knowing very well she was wearing a dress. We saw the incident and asked the man to leave the store. He continued to deny he was following her, but he left without protest.
The woman apologized to us for shouting but said she felt uncomfortable. We said we understood and told her it was unacceptable behavior for the man. We all questioned why a man would choose to follow a woman in such a confined place where he must have known it would be noticeable if he were following someone.
Many may think having creepy men or people in general in erotic shops is typical, but in truth, most want to stay to themselves, get what they’re looking for and get out. So, why would someone invade the personal space of another, especially in this type of environment? What would compel a person to stalk someone in any place? The only conclusion I come to is that perhaps the man is a voyeur, someone who habitually seeks sexual stimulation by visual means, especially through anything relating to sexuality.
In any case, stalking seems to be something most people hear about but never witness, but what do we do when the moment we realize what the person is doing comes and that perhaps it’s an act of personal stimulation, such as voyeurism? At that point is it too late to where the person already feels violated? When do we ask: Am I jumping to conclusions, or is this person really following me, possibly to gain sexual gratification?
In an industry where people come in to learn about themselves and methods of arousal , many often experiment with a variety of products and acts to become erotically liberated.
The other evening, a woman in her early forties was in the video room looking for a film about threesomes with no particular preference in the dominant gender of the ménage a trois. She told me she was interested in seeing if this would be something she would consider. The woman had began dating a younger man who she discovered was bisexual. She was surprised at the news but accepted it. After a while, she said she contemplated the idea of a threesome, also with no preference of dominant gender, but was unsure whether she would be aroused by it. To figure out whether a threesome was indeed something she might like, she rented a couple of DVDs and went on her way.
Although this woman was researching one of the ever-sought out acts of sexual liberation for a couple, she was basing her decision to do it on whether it aroused her while watching the trio. However, is that enough validation? It seems that to discover what one may like sexually, the person would have to try the act first hand. Experience and trial by error are usually the best way to go in determining what one may like or dislike, regardless if the subject at hand be general or sexual acts.
So I pose these questions: Can someone be aroused by watching a certain act and not like that act while doing it him or herself, or vice versa? Or do the two come hand in hand?
The highly anticipated adaptation and remake of “Alice in Wonderland” seemed to have missed the wonderful aspect with a spotty plot line that left audiences with a sense of confusion and uncertainty, but the film succeeded in its wow factor with visually stunning effects and a distinct art direction and darkness commonly associated with director Tim Burton.
A story many are familiar with, “Alice in Wonderland” tells of a young woman named Alice who follows a peculiar rabbit wearing a waist coat and carrying a pocket watch down a hole into a fantasy world she has seen in her dreams where the impossible becomes reality. After various interactions with animals who can speak and people who are mentally unsound, Alice learns she is part of a prophecy to be the savior of Wonderland and release it from the reign of the foul Red Queen and back into the kind hands of the White Queen. Alice denies her role and says she cannot defeat the Red Queen’s beast, the Jabberwocky, but later claims her duty of overthrowing the Red Queen in a battle and fights to an end.
Like much of Burton’s work, “Alice” kept many of the elements he used in other films consistent, such as original music composer, actors and art direction style. Although these aspects have been successful in his other films, they did not seem to be enough to make “Alice” as successful.
Fans of both Burton and Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” waited long months and had high expectations for Burton’s rendition of the classic tale only to be disappointed with a plot that had a few rabbit holes of its own. An important aspect of the film, the audience knows that the Red Queen, portrayed by Helena Bonham Carter, has overthrown her sister the White Queen, who is played by Anne Hathaway, and taken control over Wonderland. However, the story of why or how she came to do it was absent. Also, Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter gave a genuinely raving performance, but he seemed to come in and out of the portrayal with a seemingly random Scottish accent that was never really understood by the audience its purpose. It is known that the Hatter is clearly maniacal and all over the place, but what is the significance of the Scottish aspect of the Mad Hatter about? Some of these small gaps in back story or the plot were enough to distract audiences from the film’s focus.
Though the story line faltered, Burton assembled a fantastical cast and crew that created the dream world Alice new as Wonderland. Mia Wasikowska portrayed the title character of Alice with the curiousness and bravery expected of Alice, despite the age difference in the book and the film (Alice is meant to be seven in Carroll’s version, while Burton’s has her 19). Between Depp and Carter, the performances were colorful and vibrant, leaving the audience entertained as well as humored. Like the acting, the visual factors of the film were also vibrant and embraced the ability to create the fantasy of Carroll’s tale. For “Alice,” the talents of production designer Robert Stromberg came through brilliantly, just as they did when he worked on Avatar. Similar to Avatar, “Alice” has nice color pallets that lend to the strange and dream-like world, but some of Burton’s signature darkness and gothic art direction is still present with intricately twisted trees and structures and saturation of color. Another element lending a hand to create Wonderland was the original music done by Burton favorite and regular, Danny Elfman. Elfman’s orchestrated and complex compositions give the film its mystery and suspense creating nicely the mood “Alice” needed to draw in its audience.
Despite the faulty plot, “Alice” had aesthetics that couldn’t go unnoticed, but is this enough to keep audiences fully attentive and flowing into box offices for Burton’s latest, or will they be just as eager as the Red Queen to yell, “Off with his head!”?
