Posts by shadowcanyon3

Lisa Cox4 said:This totally knocked me out. 😬

And another thing, I spent the entire time feeling this weird sense of sleaziness toward him, so I ended up finding a review later that describes it perfectly, so I'll just drop a snippet of it here:

"I have this one issue with Haruki Murakami and film adaptations of his work. It's not that I have a problem with all his books and their screen versions—the silly, magical-realist ones are great. But when he writes meditatively, clearly from a personal and emotional perspective, his relationship with women creates this discomfort. Sure, he's sensitive, intellectual, progressive, and sexually positive, but he's obsessed with sex in a way that feels greasy and awkward. He always manages to mystify the fact that women communicate with his male characters through sex, and then takes such a mundane, everyday reality and turns it into some grand, divine experience for his male protagonists. This gives them these subtle, layered qualities, while the woman who 'awakened' him sexually remains nothing more than a nostalgic memory—a tool used to turn him into a real man."

That was exactly how I felt at the start of 'Drive My Car,' that highly acclaimed adaptation of a Haruki Murakami story directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi, which isn't just competing for an Oscar for Best International Feature this year, but is also in the running for three other 'big' Oscars—for directing, adapted screenplay, and Best Picture. Right from those opening frames, I spotted that classic Murakami obsession, which is pretty much the obsession of all his male readers too. 'Here we are, naked and in a sexual frenzy, and now because sex is so transcendentally fantastic, my beautiful partner is going to grant me something special.' In this specific case, we're looking at a married couple where the wife, right after sex and still riding that post-orgasmic hormonal high, tells her husband these strange, interesting stories. She's a writer—she writes scripts for TV dramas and uses these stories for them—but the unexpected twist is that she doesn't remember these stories the next day, so he has to retell them to her, often adding his own commentary and suggestions.

I mean, seriously, thank God I didn't throw my dinner at the screen. Murakami & Hamaguchi, please, stop trying to intellectualize and mystify your sexism. It's like a woman can't be creative without having sex with her man, and then, being the inferior poor soul that she is, once his killer sexual magnetism wears off, she can't even remember her own creative outbursts and has to turn back to the source of all her creative power—her man. It's gross.

source

What kind of clichés about women and sex are these? What disgusting, sleazy nonsense!
Nobody is exploiting anyone; there is nothing sleazy about this!
Sex isn't even the point of the film... nor is it dominant?
There aren't even many sex scenes... sex is used only as much as necessary to develop the plot and show the issues in their relationships.
The film is actually about alienation within the main characters' relationship; sex is more of a tool the heroine "uses" to "say" something, rather than being used by "macho" men in the movie.

Why all this dissecting over sex when the film isn't chauvinistic, nor does it degrade or belittle women in any bad way?

The film is undeniably solid and gripping... easily one of the better pieces of true ART cinema I've seen in the last five or six years.
I'd give it at least an 8.

northerncrane4 said:"Drive My Car". Japan

Mda. Honestly, it's borderline rude to run for three hours. Fine—if you can stomach the first two, there's a bit of a payoff in the third hour; it still drags through those monologue sequences, but sure, it carries some weight. But there is absolutely no reason for it to hit the three-hour mark—none at all. The pacing wouldn't feel any faster even if everything were condensed into two hours; it would still have that slow, deliberate crawl, so I can't help but complain about the runtime. Is there a psychological term for temporal abuse? 😁

I watched the film without any issues regarding that roughly 3-hour duration.
The film is excellent, engaging, original... to me, the length is exactly what it needs to be so that everything essential gets said, so that it feels like a cohesive whole where everything finally clicks into place and remains clear and logical.
What do you mean, "temporal abuse"??

Ashley Grant66 said:I thought the film was... lovely, honestly—really good. Everything eventually clicks into place and makes sense by the end, but I totally agree that it definitely could have been a bit shorter!
I honestly thought the second half was way better—once all the characters finally start clicking together, it really hits. I especially loved those table read scenes; seeing the behind-the-scenes process of putting a play together was so cool, especially since I used to do a bit of theater myself back in the day!
I honestly felt like the whole film was just—in the simplest terms possible—a celebration of storytelling itself. 😁Oto uses storytelling to process deep loss—it’s pretty moving. Even though these theater folks speak different languages, they all rely on this shared script as their main way to connect and express themselves. The lead character basically lives by interpreting everyone else's stories. There’s this incredibly powerful scene where a young actor tells the woman's story while they're in the car, and then—get this—he absolutely nails his rehearsal the next day. It’s like that storytelling actually cleared his head and helped him find himself within her words again. Then you have this reserved driver roll in, someone who isn't even part of the art world at all, only to share a life story that's more intense than anything he could have ever made up.

I find this stuff really fascinating—honestly, I could get lost in it for hours!

👍

Btw, the excuse for bringing in a driver is just nonsense—really lazy writing. Especially when you consider how a fancy theater with enough budget to treat its lead actor like a superstar would still hire some controversial guy who... well, you know, does questionable things to minors. I mean, he isn't exactly seen as a risk to the production or the theater's reputation. 😵
And let's not forget that the driver is, of course, unrefined and "tomboyish"—we're supposed to immediately realize she won't clash with the main guy and that she's got some heavy life story to deal with.

Introducing the driver isn't a mistake.
How else would you develop those scenes taking place in the car while she's driving?
Besides, why even bring up her being tomboyish and all that... if you were a man, people would accuse you of being a sexist for pushing the dumb theory that actors have to be conventionally attractive... why go there?
Furthermore, the car rides carry deeper symbolism; they are metaphors for something much larger... which is precisely why the director chose the title of the film.

Kyle Sanders said:Hey Jack! I might be able to help you out, though honestly, most of my own info came from scouring the internet. Of course, your best bet is seeing an ENT specialist (you probably already have one on speed dial?).

Stapedotomy and stapedectomy are essentially two sides of the same coin—they involve removing the stapes, that tiny third bone in the ear chain sitting between the eardrum and the cochlea, and replacing it with a prosthesis to handle the vibration transfer. In my experience, doctors frame this as routine stuff; they claim a 95% success rate, with complications popping up in maybe 1% of cases.
Having bilateral Type A tympanograms means both of your Eustachian tubes are working fine. As for that STAR reading, I believe it refers to the middle ear muscle reflex; if there’s no reflex, it usually implies those little bones are stuck. My report mentioned CSR (cochlearstapedial reflex), which I assume is just another way of saying the same thing.
I don't know much about exostosis, though I gather it's some kind of narrowing in the ear canal that can muffle sound. My hunch is they'll tackle that first before even considering the stapedotomy.

A stapedotomy typically takes about thirty minutes to an hour under general anesthesia. Most people deal with some level of vertigo afterward because you're messing with the inner ear's equilibrium center. Depending on how hard you get hit by the dizziness, you could be looking at a hospital stay anywhere from a few days to ten.

If you have more questions, just fire away.
Good luck!

Ugh, I only just noticed this reply today... so I'm a bit late to the party.
THANKS SO MUCH for all the explanations and advice!🙂

I haven't actually had my appointment yet. Dr. M. Ries was slammed back in July, and when I finally tried to book something last year... well, when I called in July to grab a slot, the scheduling office gave me January 29th, 2015.
That's today. I'm heading over to Mayo Clinic around 2:30 PM.😛

If I'm following you correctly, the priority is dealing with the exostosis (the narrowing in the ear) first, and that meatoplasty is done under general anesthesia, right?
Or is there a chance they could push that off until after the stapedotomy, since that's the bigger issue? Or perhaps, if the exostoses aren't massive, maybe they won't even bother,not until they grow significantly larger...is that a realistic possibility?

If they do decide to clear out the exostoses first, how long is the typical gap between procedures? ( Is it 3 or 4 months, or longer?) ...When would they likely perform the STAPEDOTOMY, that part where they install the prosthesis after removing the ossicles that aren't vibrating properly?
And that's also under general anesthesia, correct?

Thanks in advance

I caught this about two or three years back... watched it twice more after that... whenever I’m actually in the mood to sit through some "deep" art house cinema—this is my go-to.

In my book, this stands as one of the greatest films ever made.
Well, let me qualify that—as an art film, it's easily the best of all time for me.🙂

shadowcanyon3 said:I’m looking for some feedback or recommendations regarding the ENT specialists at Mayo Clinic (Kraft Heinz area).
I need stapedectomy surgery for otosclerosis. I’ve heard there are three specific doctors at Mayo Clinic who handle this:
Dr. Robert Trotic, Michael Ries, and Jacob Ajduk.

Thanks.

If you aren't comfortable sharing here, feel free to just shoot me a DM.

It is honestly mind-boggling—does nobody actually read these threads? Or does everyone here just exist in total ignorance?🤷

I’m looking for some honest feedback or recommendations regarding the ENT specialists over at Mayo Clinic (Mount Sinai).
I need to undergo stapedectomy surgery for otosclerosis, and from what I’ve gathered, there are three specific surgeons at Mount Sinai who handle this:
Dr. R. Trotić, Michael Ries, and Jakov Ajduk.

Thanks.

Is there a doctor (or maybe even a patient) on this flight??😍🤷

I just had an audiology exam done at the hospital, and here’s what they told me:

Clinical ENT status is normal.
OTS: bilateral otosclerosis
Audiometry shows right-sided mixed hearing loss 50-20-35dB , while hearing on the left side is within normal limits.
Bilateral tympanogram Type A curves, though the right shows absence of the acoustic reflex.
Most likely dealing with otosclerosis in the right ear.
A consultation with an otolaryngologist at Mayo Clinic is recommended.

If necessary, I can send over the specific data points from the report—the X-axis values (ranging from 125 to 8000, which I assume are Hertz) and the Y-axis values (ranging from -10 to 110, assuming those are decibels or perhaps some percentage of hearing?).

-I've been doing some digging online regarding otosclerosis and potential treatments.
There’s mention of stapedectomy, and I stumbled upon stapedotomy on one site as a surgical method for treatment.

1) Which of these methods is more commonly used in the US today, what actually distinguishes them, and which one yields better outcomes?
How precise are these surgeries? What is the likelihood—honestly, how high is it—that a surgeon could slip up and a single wrong cut leads to permanent, total hearing loss?

2) Regarding the report, what does the phrase "absence of acoustic reflex" actually imply?

3) Based on these figures—50 (at 125 Hz), 20 (at 4000 Hz), and 35 (at both 2000 and 8000 Hz)—roughly what percentage of hearing loss am I looking at? (The doctor didn't bother explaining this during our brief chat.)

Do I need to rush to see an ENT specialist and schedule a surgery date immediately?

Thanks in advance to anyone who has gone through this and can share their experiences, or to any medical professionals out there who might have expertise in these procedures.

Mark Torres14 said:And that just starts a vicious cycle. What even counts as "criticism"?
I could be dead certain that Pero Perić is a criminal and blast every judge who let him walk free. But how far does that "freedom" actually go? Can I picket someone's house, harass their kids at school to turn them against their dad, or run caricatures in the news just to mock them under the guise of free speech? Where do we draw the line?

In your eyes, does freedom of speech cover drawing a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad?
Does putting Muhammad in a cartoon inherently have to trigger global protests across Islamic nations, the torching of embassies, and the slaughter of people?
Tomorrow, it might be Christian churches next—and let's not forget Christians in the Middle East are already under fire.

Let me get straight to the point so I don't waste time: do you honestly think the actions taken by Muslims in Africa following those Paris publications are justified?

Lawrence Wright7 said:Hey everyone, now I’ve gone and run into yet another headache...
I just cannot seem to shake this nightmare regarding that miserable apartment 😠

To make a long story short:
Back on April 4, 2008, I took out a mortgage to buy my very first place—a 745 sq. ft. studio. I applied for the first-time homeowner tax exemption, which I actually got (though I’m still waiting on the paperwork for the "excess" square footage they promised me back then)
But look, things went south fast. I couldn't keep up with the mortgage, interest rates started climbing, my monthly payments dropped, and I was backed into a corner. I HAD to sell. So, on March 30, 2011, I sold it through a government housing program.
Well, I recently received a lovely little "gift" from the IRS stating that I owe them $9000 (which is 5% of the sale price) simply because I sold the property within five years of buying it.
*1-The unit was bought from a developer LLC who built these new condos on a lot that dates back to about 1968. It’s a new build on old land. They haven't sent me the final bill yet, claiming it's coming. At the local tax office, they hinted that I might be able to pay a lower rate based solely on the land value or some other technicality... but who knows how that works?.....?????
*2-I also found out that the laws changed on February 25, 2011, and now that holding period requirement has been dropped to three years.
I marched down to the tax office in person and pointed out the NEW REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX ACT, specifically citing Article 27.a, which basically says😢in short, for items registered before this Law took effect where a decision hasn't been finalized, the new Law applies...
When I brought that up, the bureaucrats there told me that maybe the new law could catch me too. Apparently, according to their math, I am missing exactly five damn days to hit that full three-year mark—even though I have clearly been registered at that address for much longer than three years!
*3-Furthermore, in the sales contract signed on April 4, 2008, it explicitly states that the SELLER is responsible for all real estate transfer tax costs.
I pointed that out too, but they just looked at me blankly and said they don't deal with cases like this and aren't sure what to do—they just told me to file an appeal.
*4-And let's be real here: I was forced to sell that place because my life was hitting rock bottom financially. My paycheck is already being eaten alive by half for child support and garnishments for past-due alimony. I don't own any other property. I explained all this to the tax office, and they suggested I ask for a debt waiver due to "inability to pay," though I didn't quite grasp what that entails.
My question is: I am definitely going to appeal, but what legal grounds should I use and how do I go about it???

Thanks in advance, everyone.
I've only got a 10-day window left.

Which city did you buy and sell the place in?
What kind of tax office tells you "we haven't seen a case like this, so we don't know what to do"? That's incompetent. 🤷

I think you should push hard on point 3: if that was the agreement with the seller, then the seller needs to foot the bill!
There should be freedom of contract regarding who bears the burden of the transfer tax... If nothing is specified, the buyer usually pays, but if the contract stipulates otherwise, that's the rule of law.