Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Think Outside of the Non-Box

In 2003, for no other reason than "just because" magician/illusionist David Blaine sat for 44 days without food in a 7'-by-7' glass or plastic box (depending on which news report you want to believe, but it WAS see through!) that was suspended over the River Thames. No real reason, other than causing people to wonder how one can go for so long without food. (Truth be known, humans can go for a really long time without long as you have enough water. It's the water that the human body really NEEDS every day in order to keep us upright and above ground.) And as one would imagine, he did attract a lot of attention while doing the stunt. Hey, it's not every day you see a crazy man sitting in a box that isn't cardboard and isn't in an alleyway.

So when I read over there at that David Arquette (also known as Mr. Courtney Cox) wanted to raise a bunch of money for the homeless and the hungry and to do so "...he will live in a plastic box in New York City for two days." Most excellent! That will definitely draw attention. Wait. Two days? That's it?? Wimp.

Ah, it's for a good cause, so I probably shouldn't be knocking the guy for raising money for the homeless and the hungry. Two days or twenty days, it's a long time to spend in a box, right? Well, you'd THINK. According to SFGate "The star will eat and sleep in a Plexiglas box above Madison Square Garden's marquee on Tuesday and Wednesday". Got all of that? Let's just review for a moment, shall we?

Here we have David Blaine in 2003 sitting in a see-thru box that was suspended over the River Thames in London for 44 days without food. He is doing so because he wanted to. With me?

Here we have a one David Arquette. He is going to raise awareness and hopefully money for the homeless and the hungry by EATING and SLEEPING in a see-thru box above Madison Square Garden's marquee. I'm going to leave alone all of the irony of "eating" while raising money for the hungry because it pales in comparison to this:

David Arquette and his bullhorn alerting the masses below:

And David Arquette in his "plastic box" that is "above Madison Square Garden's marquee". Behold!

Wait. What now? What the hell is that? That's not a "box". No, that's a "living room". Are you kidding me? Hold on. I HAVE to be missing something because otherwise that would make this one of the stupidest things I've run across in a long time. Let me just check some things..... Hmmm...Well, again from our friends over yonder at, apparently Mr. Arquette is "...confident he won't be getting bored in a box for two days: "I'm going on Facebook and blogging from here. Just passing the time hanging out. It's fun." " Fun! Just like real hunger! (Seriously, what in the hell is going on here?!)

Over at, they too are going with the "David Arquette is moving into a Plexiglas box above the Madison Square Garden marquee" angle on this story. Though they do provide us with additional information that wasn't gleaned from other sources and that is extremely relevant to this bizarre tale. "Arquette, 37, plans to spend about eight hours a day in the box Tuesday and Wednesday. (This isn’t a hunger strike; he will be eating during his stay.)" Wait. Again?

EIGHT HOURS?? EACH day? For TWO days? 16 hours? In a living room that's a tad on the warm side?! WITH food?!?! What the hell? I'm SO confused. This makes NO sense. He's bringing attention to the people out there who are hungry and he's doing so by eating? Whose idea was this? Oh, good Lord, the damn thing is sponsored by Snickers.

Why is EVERY SINGLE media outlet reporting this as if he's going to be doing this a la David Blaine style?! I keep seeing headlines for this "story" like "David Arquette Has Not Lost His Mind", "David Arquette Plans to Encase Himself in a Plexiglas Box" (Look, it's not really a "box" and there's no "encasing". He can walk in and out!),"Arquette to live in a box to raise money for hungry" (Um, it's not really a "box".), "Arquette swelters in New York box" (No, listen, see, it's not like a "box".) "Arquette stays in box to raise money for US hungry" (FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD, IT'S NOT A FRIGGIN' BOX!!) Do you SEE the couch? The CHAIR? The LAPTOP from which he will be BLOGGING?!?! (And "sweltering"? Puh-lease. How hot was it? Oh, 85 degrees? Why is everyone making it sound like he's trapped in there. He can walk in and out. It's not like he can't go outside where it's likely cooler. Or he can always move into the shade and sit ON THAT COUCH! But don't you worry about him. He'll be fine! That's because "....despite the 85 degree Fahrenheit heat -- he was happy to be on show: "It is starting to get a little hot up here -- but I had no hesitation saying yes." We're SO doomed.)

This is amazing to me. Look! He's even been able to change clothes during his eight hour shift in the second story outdoor cubicle. (It's not a BOX!)

Wow, he seems awfully pleased with his own act. There are some fabulous photos of this ridiculousness over here at Socialite Life if you'd like to see more like this one where David Arquette is standing in front of the empty space that he can walk in and out of as he stands next to a rack of Snickers bars while hoping to raise money to fight hunger. (If it wasn't so sad, it'd be really funny.) Behold!

It's bad enough that the media can't report accurately on things that matter, but now they can't even report accurately on things that don'tNow THIS is a HUNGRY guy in a BOX! matter? (Not that hunger doesn't matter. It does. It matters a lot, especially when I'm the one who is hungry. But come on!) Why are all of these headlines making it out to be something it isn't. The man wasn't a saint before and he certainly isn't a saint now. He's no more of a saint than that living room is a box. David Blaine didn't eat for 44 days and it took him six months to get his body back to normal after his stunt (for NO charity) above the Thames. It's going to take David Arquette what? A shower to get his body back to normal? After his grueling eight hour shift? Can't even spend the night in the faux living room, can ya Dave? That's a shame. And so is the whole display of sub-par mediocrity which is attempting to portray itself as sacrificial. It's pathetic and sad.

See the difference? One guy is in a BOX, the other one is NOT.

But it's not as sad as people who are hungry. So do whatever you feel like doing (if anything) about that on your own. But if you go sit on a patio somewhere and claim to be living in a box for hunger, people will hate you. Not as much as they'll hate someone in some makeshift sitting quarters in New York, but they'll still hate you.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

No comments: