saturday night was oddly refreshing. i went for a play at the actor's studio bangsae..."stories for amah"...basically it tells the story of a eurasian girl who's telling her life story [so far] to her dead grandmother. the narrative is told in quasi-flashbacks, and it's rather cool. i think it ended its run last night, though i think that it'd probably come back due to popular demand one day. it was my first time in a play for a while...i can't honestly remember for the life of me when the last time i went into a play was. erm. unless the wizard of oz counts, but i don't think it does. performances were okay. i'm not going to write a damning crtique about something i have no experience in whatsoever, though the general consensus was that the second act was a little draggy, with most of the limelight going to ruth, our protagonist. the first act was good due to the involvement of the other characters...ruth's parents, her uncle zak and his family, her mother's sister...the second act's quasi-monologue [for better use of the word quasi since i don't know anything else that comes close to it] was a bit tedious...but still good. mmph. i might do this more. like i've said, dropping proletariat values for bourgeoise values might be a good thing to let me advance through life...though not yet.

aren't all youths part of proletariat culture by default? i mean, look at it...we aim to be better than our actual state, we desire more things, we want to be trendy, young, suburban yuppies with a 3 series in the garage and a high paying job, as well as an apartment that rivals in style and comfort to chandler and monica's...the fact that there's an obvious border between where we are and where we're going to already throws it in our face that by not doing anything, we can never be where we want to be. it's not possible to become bourgeiose instantaneously...it's more of an acqiured taste. and despite what my father does, i doubt that i'd ever really have that bourgeiose bug in me. after watching the play, i was wondering about why we're conditioned to do the things that we do. is etiquette really that important? social acceptance is such a pain, really. then again, it's like asking why i went to the play in the first place [though i can say that it was just for hannah, but that'd be wrong, really]. well...i went to the play because (a) i had nothing better to do; (b) i haven't been to one in ages and (c) i wanted to feel the bourgeois-ness. and i think i did, really, mingling with all those arty-farty types during the intermission, mingling with these suburban upper crust folk, sipping on their red wine and chatting about nothing in particular, clutching to their programme guides like it was the most valuable thing on earth...i wanted to be one of, nay, i wanted to BE them.

mmmph. who knows.

yesterday was spent at bangsar. i was with patrick [who's bourgeois but not enough] and justin [ditto] at devi's corner [bourgeois proletariat place...a contradiction of sorts]. patrick was flipping through the photos i had of brazil, and i guess that he was suitably impressed, how this guy who lives in a run-down house and who drives the crappiest car to walk the earth [exaggeration...i love my car ] can live semi-extravagantly and have the chance to drive one of the finest cars that have ever walked the earth. overseas, i'm the total opposite of what i am here; over there, i'm well-built, elegant, eloquent, arrogant, classy and possibly even suave. over here?...bum, bum, bum, bum, though i'm working on that first part. i guess that you can't have everything anymore.

and talking about the whole bourgeoise thing...i was buying groceries at tmc [proletariat accidentally viewed as bourgeois - their advantage], and i found out that bovril is expensive. i always thought it was cheaper way back when, but...RM 13 and RM 21 for a small and large bottle respectively doesn't really sound appealing...but due to my craving for it, i bought the smaller one. bad choice. three teaspoons' worth of it has almost cut it down by half. no luck. i also bought large chachos and 2 sacks of maggi. typical sunday.

we always talk about rebelling and leaving behind our wants and desires and possibly attaining a close approximation of nirvana tha we can get, but when you see brad pitt giving jennifer aniston a diamond ring [or was it a set of them?] worth more than value itself, you have to differentiate between tyler durden and brad pitt. [for the uninitiated, tyler durden was a man hell-bent on anarchy and making the world a better place by wiping out consumerism and class imagery]. i guess that it's the idea of rebelling that appeals to us all...but i mean, rebelling against the upper class sort while decked in kanga berets and nike feet doesn't exactly bring about the right impression, does it? it's the idea of rebellion...rebellion is part of the pop, as opposed to being distanced from it. why do we rebel? because we want things our own way, more or less...it's right to be selfish as long as you believe in what it is you want, i say. after all, to be bourgeois is great and all...but wouldn't it be better if you could pull everyone else down to your level?

i threw a brick through a window.