rare pattern

Task management can be a challenge if you have a lot of stuff going on. "Urgent" things are always distracting you: the phone rings, colleagues interrupt you, a client asks for help, emails, newsletters, snail mail, IMs, Tweets....

You could be buzzing like a bee, getting a whole lot of things done, but not getting done the right things.

I would love to be using a Franklin-Covey Planner program on my Mac, but they don't make one for Mac. So the choices are:

1. Run the Franklin-Covey Planner on Wine or Windows using Parallels;
2. Run the newer Franklin-Covey software on Windows using Parallels;
3. Use the kludgey online version;
4. Use the Franklin-Covey system on paper; or
5. Adapt an existing Mac-friendly app for task management, with workflows to make it as close as possible to Franklin-Covey.

I've tried the first four, and after total fail with each, I'm now going with the last option.

And I think I found something with OmniFocus.

OmniFocus and Getting Things Done

I've been trying out OmniFocus off and on since the OmniGroup was doing private alphas. They have come a long long way. The app is much much improved now. They've really nailed some usability shine.

But I confess that the main reason I went back to OmniFocus (after working with Things for a few months) was that there's an OmniFocus iPhone app that syncs with the desktop versions over MobileMe. (So far, Things has syncing across wireless, but not via MobileMe.) And the iPhone app itself is quite robust, including geotagged contexts (which is helpful when out and about running errands).

That said, I'm not a GTD acolyte. Dogmatists can bark at the urgent and the easy. I don't have the time, and need to focus on the important.

OmniFocus and Franklin-Covey

The Franklin-Covey method involves a daily review of the tasks to be done. Each item is given an A, B or C, or left in a long-term "sometime" pile.

A

Must be done today.

B

Should be done today.

C

Could be done today.

In OmniFocus, I use the flag feature to mark the A items.

Context isn't everything (but it sure helps)

One of the wonderful things about OmniFocus is the Context feature. You can sort your tasks by context -- where you are, what program you're using, etc. At first I had a hard time figuring out context, but now I've gotten the hang of it.

What Franklin has that GTD doesn't

The needs are not covered.

1. To live.
2. To love and be loved.
3. To feel important.
4. Variety.

Governing values are not covered.

Long-term objectives are not covered.

Those things are more homeworky than specifically task-related, but you are supposed to work those things as reference points to make your prioritization process easier.

Speaking of prioritizatin.... If you have too many things to do? There is no prioritization, no automatic escalation. You have your top things, flagged, and the rest. Getting out of reactive mode and into proactive mode seems to be pretty much outside of the GTD system. You're on your own there.

In OmniFocus, I use the color coding for what's due in the next 24 hours and what is now past due to sort of have an upcoming lower priority list.

It's not perfect, but it's something ... a kludge to make what otherwise is a pretty cool and useful (by being available by all my Macs and my iPhone) app.

For some sage advice on getting over last year, check out paulag01's BlogHer post.

Sono otoko, kyôbô ni tsuki (Japanese title)

*** mild spoilers ***

He's not ready with the witty verbal quips – just the opposite, actually – but Detective Azuma is otherwise not all that unlike Dirty Harry. He slaps teenage punks around, would rather beat up than arrest drug dealers, and doesn't hesitate to run down a cop killer.

The plot eventually becomes about Azuma's investigation of a drug syndicate and how it's controlling more than it seems. But I have to warn Dirty Harry fans: This is no Magnum Force. In some ways, the Dirty Harry films are fairy tales compared with this movie. They are also much more sharp and focused in the western cinematic tradition. Violent Cop is very Japanese in understatedness of plot.

For those who like to see other cities, other cultures, like I do, there are lots of scenes on the streets of what might be Kyoto. (Filming location info is not currently found on Wikipedia or IMDB.) Much of the story takes place during the daytime, so there's much to see. (City streets at night could be almost anywhere.)

Interestingly, the movie was originally conceived as a comedy. IMDB:

The original script was a comedy. Kitano was then very concerned about the audience recognizing his acting skills and he didn't feel that a comedy would allow him to act nor allow the audience to abstract from his comic TV personality. So he rewrote the script, removed all comedy and turned it into a drama.

One wonders what elements of the final film could have been comedic in another context.

Hancock probably could not be considered anything more than a halfway decent scifi/fantasy movie if it weren't for Will Smith. The concept is interesting enough, but the storyline ends up falling a bit short, even compared with your basic superhero movies. Yet with Will Smith's performance, you almost don't notice.

Without spoilers, I feel safe noting the premise of the movie: Hancock (Will Smith) is a sloppy, careless guy with superhero powers. Smith makes this guy truly compelling, though. He's tragically lonely and hates his life so much he drinks heavily just to blot out the clear perception of it all. At times you almost want to cry for him. And that's all Smith.

In fact, I'd say that Will Smith's performance is more key to this movie than Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance is to Iron Man. There's plenty of humor in the story, but Smith actually plays it straight ... which of course makes it all the funnier.

Now I'll take a moment to note that Charlize Theron is one of my favorite actresses, so it should not surprise for me to say that she brings some fun to the movie. Charlize Theron is one of those actresses who brings a lot to even the smallest role. And yet she never tries to upstage anyone ... which of course makes her all the more compelling.

The Blu-ray is high quality. I didn't poke around much at the extras. If you're a Will Smith fan, then this is one to see. He does not disappoint.

So last night I saw 13 Going on 30 on DVD, and while I enjoyed it, the movie left me in something of a funk. It took me a little while to figure out why. After all, the movie was funny, Jennifer Garner was really terrific -- what a shock that this is her first big comedic leading role in a feature! -- and the tone at the conclusion was uplifting. But I was just ticked off after the movie.

And then it hit me.

The really schmaltzy, supposedly romantic ending. That's what did it. That's what made the movie utterly depressing. Not because it was romantic, but, well....

Okay, here's the obligatory spoilers warning, for those of you who might want to spend the 5 bucks for the bargain DVD and check it out....

The movie goes fine, all the way through the sometimes very funny learning curve the now-30 year old "Jenna" has in catching up to her fabulously successful fashion magazine career, and continues on fairly solid light comedy footing all the way up through the point where Mark Ruffalo's character, "Matt," turns Jenna down and marries the other girl. They were childhood pals until the moment Jenna jumped from 13 to 30 years old. Apparently in the intervening years, Jenna had become a total bitch liar and backstabber, and Mark couldn't forget.

"I've moved on," he says. And for the movie, it's a powerful moment.

It's after this that the movie turns south. Jenna goes outside and in tears wishes herself back to 13 years old. She stays buddies with young Matt, and then 17 years later they get married and move into their pretty suburban house.

And I'm sorry, but that is just total bulloney. Or at least that's the part that I found so depressing!

After all, in life there are no do-overs. Sure, it's nice that Jenna gets to do over her life, but the real empowering ending would have been to see her move on, and rebuild her life despite the mistakes made in the past.

As it is, the movie gives the lesson that (a) a woman cannot succeed in a career without being a conniving witch, (b) if a nice girl slips through, she's backstabbed by some other conniving witch of a career woman, and (c) the only happy path for a woman is to never have gone into a career and instead stayed the sweet girl and married the childhood sweetheart.

The Devil Wears Prada smacks of a similar kind of message, though the movie (unlike the book) has the good grace to end on a little ambiguity as to whether our heroine really does choose her loser, jealous, spiteful boyfriend and other so-called friends over the career she's dreamed for. (Prada deserves a post of its own. Hopefully I can someday.)

What about the woman who wakes up to the awful life she's living, and remakes her life without ditching the career, without running to the boy, without flashing back to June Cleaver's kitchen?