Soft 'ehs', Hard 'ohs'

Massa-CHEW-settes offers its visitors, and sometimes, residents a lesson in grammar and pronunciation. I have been corrected on more words that I thought I knew how to pronounce, than I care to imagine. Its "WOOOO-burn" not "Wo-bern", "Con-cerd" not "Con-cord" and "Wo-shter" instead of "War-shter". I used o think "New England" was a bit of a misnomer - I mean an area at the heart of the American Revolution can hardly be comparable to England (didn't they throw off that 'repressive chain'?). But these New Englanders take pronunciation as seriously as anyone at the BBC. And they will spend hours trying to correct you - I secretly think they take pleasure in it.

Moreover my southern-Ontario accent does me no favors when trying to blend in with the locals. Sure I call in Door-chester, not Daw-chester and Har-vard not Ha-vard. If I didn't have the typical Southie accent I figured I could at least pass for someone from Boxborough or Framingham. But no my vowels are a big give away. I say "p-ah-sta" not "paw-sta" and "dr-ah-ma" not "draw-ma" so all too many people hear me speak and say "Hey, you're not frowm around here are you?" The double vowels of my southern Ontario accent have betrayed me more than once.

I've found myself on the phone at work apologizing to reporters for being a foreigner, when simple conversations about what-ever topic turn into accusatory discussions of my secret identity. I've been asked to drop words from presentations because I don't no how to say them right. And on, and on.

And I don't even need to use the 'aboot' thing before everyone has me pegged. My accent remains the demarcation point. Period.

From the Silent Screen to the Screaming Screen

Toronto to me is a movie town - we make 'em (much to the chagrin of the Govenator), we show 'em and we even have a festival dedicated to 'em. Toronto audiences, we are told each September, are 'some of the best in the world.' I always thought that was a weird statement. I mean what makes a good audience? We shut up and don't say anything? We clap politely at the credits? We ask mild and unthreatening questions during the Q&A after films are shown at the film festival, so as not to try and intimidate actors in drug-induced stuppors (and anyone around the festival knows that these do exist)?

Well, yes to all of the above. Now I'm not going to say that Bostonians are poor audiences for films, but they are extremely vocal. Its kinda like a Fenway-cinema experience. If an audience likes a film in Boston you know - they will laugh and applaud loudly after a character gives a dramatic speech, they will also heckle productions that they feel are not up to scratch. The concept of heckling always astounds me, its not as if the actor can turn around and do the performance over again?

I went to see two movies that made this clear to me - A History of Violence and Good Night and Good Luck. WHile Boston audiences cheered Clooney's movie and Murrow's speech against Joe, his Red Menace and censorship, Cronnenberg's film was heckled openly throughout by its audience to the point of annoyance. But I guess that is to be expected - while Clooney's movie is a very safe exploration of the Red scare in American that relies on mostly archival footage to make its point, Cronnenberg challenges his audience by playing with, exaggerating and destroying the stereotypes of everyday life. One although meant to be intimidating ends up looking old and dated, the other is shocking by looking so ordinary.

But my movie experience re-emphasized something else to me - the importance of the film experience still. Question is are we up for the challenge, or would we prefer the noose-bleed seats open to hecklers?

Sports in the City

On one of my recent trips from Hogtown to Beantown, my landing to Logan was 'enlightened' by a series of baseball fields across the city. You don' t really notice it from the ground, but on that evening, from up in the clouds, there seemed to be a baseball field in every direction. From the vantage point they looked to be no more than 4 inches apart either - and for as far as the eye could see. "Wow - can a city really be THAT into baseball?" I thought.

Yep - they can be and are. Sports are what people live and breathe in this city, from all parts of the region and all social/economic classes. Clearly sports can bring diverse groups together. Now I'm frow a town known to be crazy for hockey (although really I think Montrealers win that one - we don't riot after games the same way they do), but nothing could have prepared me for the total enthusiasm for sports. I had also heard that Boston was a hockey town - compared to most of the US that might be true, but the sport really takes a back seat to two other sports that rule around here.

Baseball and football. Bostonians seem to be side-swipe-shocked that neither team made it through the playoffs this year, and have resentfully watched Chicago, Pittsburgh and Seattle sweep to glory in 'their sports'.

What does this sports obsession have to say about the place? Well I think its representative of the competitive attitude among Bostonians in general. They do get all fired up for games, and bring a lot of that same intesity to their places of work. Its quite popular to use the sports analogy of 'playing to win' in the board room, and success is spoken of as 'wins', 'victory' and 'scores'. Does it make them more successful? Yes, I think so. If you don't settle for second, you play to win. At home an attitude like that is sometimes spoken of as not being 'accomodating' enough to those with 'other advantages.' The problems is, we play at the international economy games to - but are we in it to win?

And the hockey thing kinda has me bummed - I mean I thought the fact my dad grew up in Parry Sound, around the corner from Bobby Orr would win me some brownie points! Most people just say "Bobby who?" when I tell 'em.