The Fabulous Adventures of Astera: Writer/Actress for Hire: October 2006

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

All Hallow's Eve

Now I know I'm 30. This is the first year in recent memory that I haven't dressed up and engaged in some sort of Halloween activity. True, I am going to have drinks with friends later tonight, but it's a little hole-in-the-wall type of place...not the sort to be hosting a costume contest. And we won't get any trick-or-treaters, because we live on a dark, dark street, down a dark, dark lane.

I guess I'm in Halloween limbo this year. I'm not going to any parties myself, and I don't have any small children to dress up in adorable costumes, so I'm not even getting any vicarious Halloween thrills. Well, it doesn't help that Halloween is on a Tuesday this year. It also doesn't help that Mr. Pink hates Halloween. Alas!

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Shameless Plug

This is a shameless plug for my husband, Mr. Pink. He needs to find a new job quickly, because the environment at his current place of employment is less than desirable. So, check out his nifty Web site! And if you happen to need a graphic designer with a cutting-edge, youthful sensibility, contact him immediately! Thank you very much to all of my loyal readers...all 50 of you.

Friday, October 20, 2006

More Auditions

I had two auditions this week. One was for an industrial, or training film, for a retail outlet. The other was for a SAG regional commercial for a gym.

The industrial audition was fine...it was a pretty basic scene where I played a sales associate trying to convince a customer to sign up for the store credit card. We did it twice, the director seemed to like it, and then we left. But I didn't get a really strong feeling about it either way.

Today was another story. The auditions were running late, and of course I had something scheduled right afterward, so I was worried about getting out of there on time. Then I found out that my agent had given me a little bit of bad information. I wasn't supposed to be the "hot girl in accounting" like she told me. I was supposed to be the "just one of the guys" girl in accounting who's a little envious of the hot girl and so decides to join this gym. That was fine, because I had been a bit surprised about being called in as the "hot girl." I am attractive enough, but I definitely don't fit the typical Hollywood "hot girl" standard.

Anyway, I was a little stressed going into the audition. I was supposed to improv saying hi to the guys, being jealous of the hot girl, deciding to join the gym, and making some personal change and getting an injection of confidence and flirtatiousness. The point is, if I had known all the before the audition, I would have brought my glasses, so I could do the stereotypical change where Plain Jane takes off the specs and is suddenly oh-so-pretty.

But even if I had brought the glasses, I think I was doomed from the beginning, because when I walked in, the guy running the audition said, "Did you change your hair color recently?" Well, I did get some subtle highlights a few days ago, but my hair doesn't look any different than it does in my headshot. Then he said, "Does anyone ever tell you that you look like Paris Hilton?" My mouth must have dropped open, because he said, "Oh, just in the face, you know?" (Well, I certainly don't have her body, although that wouldn't be so bad. But thankfully, I also don't have her intellect, or lack thereof.) No one has ever compared me to Paris Hilton in any way, shape or form. The only celebrity I ever get compared to is Dorothy Hamill.

Paris Hilton? Seriously? I wasn't sure if I had been complimented or insulted, but I think it was the latter. So. I don't think I'll be getting that part, either. Maybe next time!

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Confidential to My Republican Friends

Okay, so you all know I'm a Democrat. And although I wish my party would get some backbone already, that's not going to change. But I have been really confused by the Republican party lately, and I would like some answers. Can someone please explain Republicans to me? I'm serious. I thought that Republicans stood for small government, less intrusion into the personal lives of citizens, less spending, and family values.

Well, clearly the family values thing went out the window with Foley. (And don't try to compare his actions to Clinton--Clinton lied about a sexual relationship, too, yes. But he didn't stalk Monica Lewinsky. They had a consenting relationship between two adults, not a creepy weird thing where he was sending explicit messages to those under the age of consent.)

But what about the rest of it? Why is it that under a Republican president, we have a government that has authorized unwarranted wiretaps? If Republicans are supposed to be for small government, why is the FCC so concerned with everything we see on TV? Where's the individual autonomy to pick up the remote and take two seconds to change the channel?

And what about the spending? Didn't we have a surplus under Clinton? Now all we have is a deficit that's growing by the day. In a recent AP story, Bush was quoted as saying, "The Democrats' approach to cutting the deficit is taking more of your money to pay for their spending. The Republican approach is to restrain spending." Restrain spending? He certainly hasn't done that!

Why is our president, along with his cohorts, trying to restrain freedom of the press? Why are those who expose information that could be damaging to the war on terror or the war in Iraq (two entirely separate things, mind you) attacked, and in some cases, called treasonous? (Okay mostly by pundits like Melanie Morgan, but still.) Why does our vice president want the right to torture people?

Have the ideals of the Republican party been totally corrupted by the Christian right? Why is it okay for Christians to be extremists, but not for Muslims? And why, in South Dakota, is a woman's right to an abortion being conflated with encouragement to have an abortion? (See this LA Times article for more.) Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion! It means the woman gets to choose! It means the government doesn't get to decide for her!

I really would like a Republican to explain this to me, because I don't feel that the Republican Party's actions are consistent with historical party ideals. What's going on here?

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Not So "Good"

This evening, I saw a television commercial that exhorted the benefits of Proposition 1D, which is a California proposition that will reduce class sizes, increase the number of science labs, and provide vocational training. That sounds good. I am certainly pro-education. But this ad left me wishing its creators would go back to school. The narrative said, "The race for good-paying jobs is getting tougher..." Then it went into the spiel about all the good things that would happen if Prop 1D were to pass. It ended by saying that Prop 1D should pass, "so that our children, whether they're headed to college or not, learn the skills for today's good-paying jobs."

It's well, people. Well-paying jobs. Jobs that pay well. Not jobs that pay good. Well. It's just like, if someone asks, "Hey, how are you?", you respond, "I am well," not, "I'm good." Well, at least you should respond with "well." Just like in the paragraph above, I wouldn't write, "That sounds well." The two words are not interchangeable!

Is this a difference too subtle for most to grasp? Am I the only one who is driven crazy by the unintended irony of bad grammar in a commercial seeking to increase educational funding? Was it supposed to be, I don't know, folksy or something? Was it supposed to underscore just how badly we need more educational funding? Seriously, people. Seriously.

The Fabulous Adventures of Astera: Writer/Actress for Hire