#actually ultimate note has 3 credited directors and of those 1 of them is a director on both zi chuan and floating world

[galadrieljones]

Leah Hallucination Theory: the Three Prongs

The three prongs have really been giving me a lot of trouble. I always thought, the way they’re arranged and orchestrated in the episode, that they must be markers, signs, or visual representations of some sort, not just for us, but for Daryl. There’s something about them that’s never really sat right with me, which is that, right before Dog leads Daryl to Leah for the first time in the woods, Daryl sees a different set of prongs: two, sticking out of a tree.

I always figured they had to be connected, somehow, to the cabin, and to the three prongs, and that Daryl knows exactly what they mean. So I went back to the episode a couple days ago, specifically with the prongs in mind. I made some significant discoveries and connections, I think. I will lay them all out here, along with my theory for what the prongs could mean. Maybe this is crazy, I don’t know anymore!!!! Either way, this is a long post, and it was very fun to make, so hold onto your hats!!

When we first encounter three prongs, it’s in the shot below, in the present tense. Carol and Daryl are in the woods with Dog, and they have the conversation about the dead, and how “it’s going to catch up to [them] eventually.” Daryl says, "Only if we let it. I ain’t gonna let it.” Carol looks like she’s going to protest, but then Dog starts growling, like he’s caught a scent, and he runs off. The music becomes foreboding and tense, with loud, rhythmic drums. Dog leads them to a cabin with three prongs in the door. This is the inciting incident of the episode, the moment that is going to lead us down the rabbit hole to come.

When I saw the original three prongs, from Daryl’s point of view, I was intrigued, but ofc I didn’t know why. I just knew that they were somehow connected to this mysterious red-haired woman, who he envisions immediately after seeing them. Then, later, when we see the three prongs in the door, my brain jumped through a hoop. I assumed they were the same prongs we’d seen before, but they’re not. 

The prongs in the door are similar, but they’re not the same as the first three we see. These are more evenly distributed, and they’re on the wrong side of the shot to be the prongs that Daryl sees first upon entering the clearing. Further, this cabin has a big, covered porch. These prongs are not visible from outside, other than maybe through a screen or window. 

Once I realized these were not the same prongs, I went to check the first time we see the three prongs, through Daryl’s POV, to figure out what’s going on. The cinematography here is very tricky! The visual association is strong. The director wants us to read this episode closely, but they also want to confuse us. They want us to see what Daryl sees. 

If you watch closely, when Carol and Daryl first chase Dog into the clearing with the cabin, you can see the first set of prongs, sticking out of what must be a tree. They’re hidden, on the lefthand side of the shot, in the extreme foreground, out of focus. The prongs must be real, as opposed to imagined, because they are always in the scene, but they don’t come into focus until Daryl sees them, because only he knows what they mean. Note that, after Dog and Carol run through the shot, the camera cuts away to Daryl for several more shots before cutting back to the prongs, which then rack into focus as he looks at them. We know they’re the same prongs in both shots, because the shots are paralleled, composition-wise: a little faded leaf with a touch of red in the foreground, near the prongs, and the tall weed plant in the background. 

Remember when Daryl approaches the house, the house is on his left. We see this through a POV shot. But then, if you follow his eye line, the prongs are on his right. These prongs seem to be pointing to the cabin, like a sign, or an arrow. They are not the same prongs in the door jamb. (Side note: I went back to try and see if there is any established visual of the three prongs in the door during the “flashbacks” with Leah. I couldn’t find anything conclusive.)

So what do the prongs mean, through the hallucination lens?

Let’s return to the first scene after the storm. If you’re recall from my original post about Leah being a hallucination, I theorize that the storm represents Daryl’s psychotic break from reality. A talk with @frangipanilove has revealed to me even further that the map in the scene may not actually be destroyed, but that this is ALSO a hallucination, as Carol interacts with the map years in the future.

After the storm, a year goes by. Daryl is just walking along in the woods. It’s early autumn, as most of the leaves are still green, but they’re starting to change, with little bits of color. Daryl sees two metal prongs, hammered into a tree. 

This is the moment that confused me for a long time. The moment he sees the two prongs, it’s like he recognizes them, like he knows what they mean, and what’s coming next. Reedus plays it as a little scared, a little surprised. They’re like a warning. The music changes and becomes more foreboding and ominous, with loud, rhythmic drums, and then Dog appears and leads him to Leah for the very first time. The rhythmic drums at this point in the episode are reminiscent of the drums in that very similar scene where Dog gets excited and leads Carol and Daryl to the cabin, in the present-tense. I think the music is important in this episode, in building a map toward what is real and what isn’t. But I’m not a music theorist. If anybody is, and has the vocabulary for this, please talk to me!!

Anyway. It’s important to realize, too, that these prongs are similar, like they’re made of the same kind of old metal, but they’re part of a different set of prongs from the other set in the woods, which are different from the first set of prongs Daryl sees, and the three prongs in the door. They are at distinctly inverted angles, pointing toward each other instead of away, and instead of three, there are only two. 

So, there are three sets of prongs:

The (2) prongs in the tree in the woods.

The (3) prongs in the tree pointing to the cabin. 

The (3) prongs in the cabin door.

I think the prongs are visual stimuli, or triggers, for Daryl, which initiate a sequence of events that lead him to Leah. I think that, given how he reacts to them, Daryl may have put those prongs there, as both a geographical marker, but also as a visual association, a way of triggering his mental loop with Leah. Here’s the sequence, as we see it: He sees two prongs in the woods, which trigger the scene with Dog, who leads him to the three prongs in the tree, which point to the cabin with three prongs in the door. The repetition of three would signal the end (rather than a continuation) of the sequence. 

PTSD Associations: It’s probable the sequence was initiated by real events, since Dog is real, and since the sequence seems to plays out in present tense with Carol. Since I believe Daryl had been with Dog, at least part of the time, before he imagined Leah (more on that soon), it’s possible that, the first time Daryl met Leah, it was because this very sequence of events played out: Daryl was just walking along in the woods, and then in true Lassie form, Dog showed up, leading him to the cabin. Like @twdmusicboxmystery​ has pointed out, it’s possible that when Daryl got there, a woman was actually in trouble but died shortly thereafter, or that she was already dead. Daryl’s inability to “save” her, such as Carol suggests at the end of the episode, would have triggered past traumas and losses for which he blames himself, particularly with Beth and Rick. This creates a feedback loop, a common symptom of PTSD, in which a trauma survivor effectively relives their trauma over and over again. What’s more, Daryl’s mind attempts to conquer this dilemma by creating Leah (or recreating her, as it’s possible she was real before she died), a survivor and a pretty woman who strongly and assertively does not want to be saved. 

Since the cabin is real, it’s possible Daryl may have stumbled upon it a couple of times afterward, only to find it empty, and/or be confused about what it was for. This might be the ultimate purpose for the three prongs in the door: to trigger his memory of the exact sequence of events that first led him to his imagined version of Leah, marking the cabin specifically as “Leah’s cabin.” (For more unique insight into reading Daryl’s experience and this episode through the PTSD lens, read @weapon13whitefang​​’s awesome addition to another excellent Leah Hallucination theory by @twdmusicboxmystery​.)

Remember, right after he sees the three prongs in the tree, with Carol, Daryl immediately visualizes Leah, sitting on the porch, with Dog, almost like it is an obvious association. The sequence with the prongs is hard to follow at first when we watch, because we see the sequence out of order, and we never see all sets of prongs in the same sequence, or scene. We do, however, see both sets of prongs in the woods over the course of the episode, during separate scenes with strong parallels to one another in both the action and music, ie: the music changes, something is amiss with Dog, who runs off to the cabin, and then Daryl follows. This disorganization of the sequence is purposeful, I believe, in order to simulate Daryl’s confusion with the audience.

The whole thing reminds me, somewhat, of a psychologically strenuous version of Gareth and the Terminus crew, marking the trees in season 5 so they can “find their way home.” Only there is no home to go back to. Gareth even says so. It also makes me wonder if there is a single prong somewhere, to officially begin the sequence, leading Daryl to the scene with Dog, who then leads him back to Leah’s cabin: 1...2...3...Leah. 

First Prong? Remember in the beginning of the episode, right after the opening credits, Daryl makes a big to-do with Carol about where they are, in case they get split up, so they can find each other? He tells Carol they've gotten “5 miles due southeast of the gate.” He tells her it’s “right near that, uh...” and then she finishes his sentence: “...small fork in the road by the dying white oak?” We don’t actually know what he was going to say, because Carol makes a very assertive supposition, and then he just says, “Right.” Isn’t it possible he was going to say something else? Or that he realized he didn’t want to say what he was initially going to say, for fear she would get concerned? I did search for a prong in the scene where Daryl dumps his bike, but I couldn’t find anything conclusive. Having gotten to know this show pretty well by now, I think that would have been too obvious. I wonder if, perhaps, we’ll see it later, or next season, ie: if Daryl, or even another character will see a single-prong in a tree, nearer to Alexandria. Perhaps it will be in the “dying white oak near the fork in the road.” ? That is a highly specific, loaded, and memorable turn of phrase. I remember it calling attention to itself, even before I knew what I was looking for. 

Does Daryl know what’s real? So as Daryl and Carol go deeper into the woods, after they leave the bike, Daryl tells Carol, in a concerned manner, that it’s important she remember this spot, and that she “stay close.” Reedus’s performance here is super important. Daryl is worried about them getting separated, but it’s unclear why. We know that Carol can take care of herself in the woods, and we know that Daryl knows that, too. I thought perhaps he knows, subconsciously, where he is. He’s at the beginning of the sequence, and he’s not worried about Carol getting lost. He’s worried he might get lost, that he might lose her and end up back somewhere he doesn’t know if he wants to be. She is sure to remind him that she’s “not going anywhere.” 

There are two more things I find super interesting in this scene, looking back. First, they are only FIVE MILES away from the gate. They don’t get that much further. They travel totally on foot, and time passes, but they also stop to fish. They are most likely still within ten miles of home. So even after being gone for literal years, we know that Daryl has been close to home for a lot of that time (we also know this because Carol visits him periodically, ofc). Second, it’s Daryl who suggests they come here, after parking the bike. I know I’m not the first person to point out how strange this is. It’s almost like he is sending himself back there because he needs to know for sure: Is any of this real? Did any of it actually happen? I don’t think he fully knows at this point, in the beginning of the episode.

I think when he comes upon the cabin, he is confused. He is hesitant to go inside and waits a while before entering. You can see it in his face, and his demeanor, that he is surprised, or that he did not fully expect to end up here. That’s weird, right? Because he’s been living in these woods for a long time. Perhaps he doesn’t know what is real, and what isn’t. He couldn’t remember if the cabin was real, so he came back here to make sure. He realizes then that the cabin IS real, just like Dog, just like the map, because all of these things, Carol interacts with. Remember when Carol asks Daryl if Leah lived here, Daryl doesn’t really answer. He just says, “It was a long time ago.” I am not sure if he actually knows at this point. Remember that he doesn’t invite Carol to come, but he doesn’t stop her either. I wonder if, her being there, that emboldens him to investigate what “happened,” to see what she can see, and to use her as an anchor to the truth. We don’t know where Daryl was planning to go prior to Carol hopping on for the ride. It’s only after they ride out five miles from the gate, and they stash the bike, that he suggests the river.

Leah and Dog: I think Daryl may have been coming here, a lot, intermittently over many years, reliving old experiences obliquely through various hallucinated interactions with Leah. It’s close to home, so perhaps every time he got close enough to go back to Alexandria, he would find the prongs and end up back here instead. Eventually, however, he has to make a choice: go forward, to Alexandria, embrace reality, move on with his life, or go backward, to the cabin, to Leah, to the past, etc., where it’s safe, and where he is in control. I think Daryl found Dog as a puppy, and Dog was always real, and Dog was often with him, even before the storm, and I think Dog may have even inspired Leah’s appearance. If you look at Leah, especially when she wears the red fox pelt, she is visually reminiscent of Dog. Her red hair, like Dog’s, is so specific, so different from any of the other women in the show, calling back to the autumn leaves in the trees. In fact, the first time we see Leah, it comes as a vision, or a flashback, right after Daryl sees the three prongs in the tree. Her face is veiled by her red hair, and Dog’s face is hidden as well, almost as if they are a single red entity ensconced in a haze of dreamy green.

I wonder if Daryl met Dog, then it was the storm, then he created Leah, and he found himself in a cycle, or feedback loop, sequenced and triggered by the prongs. He rewrote the loop in his mind, and then eventually clawed his way out by creating a fight with Leah, in which she gives him an ultimatum, forcing him once and for all to make his choice to return to Alexandria and face his family. Of course, the theme of “cycles” is not only implicit but explicit in this episode: Right at the end, Daryl tells Carol that they are having the “same conversation over and over again.”

One more thing: In 9.14 “Scars,” we see a flashback in which Daryl takes a break from his hunt for Rick to help Michonne track Jocelyn, who’s taken Judith. Michonne is very pregnant, easily in her third trimester. This means it’s been eight or 9 months since Rick’s disappearance. This takes place 2-3 months before he first meets Dog (hence: 5 Years Ago), and then in another year, he’ll “meet” Leah. I thought it was interesting how, in “Scars,” Michonne talks to Daryl about all of these good memories she has of Jocelyn, and how Jocelyn was a good friend who helped her through some of the most difficult times in her life. She says she “wanted her to be that again,” and that this clouded her judgment. This is a very emotional scene, in which Daryl and Michonne talk while sitting on what looks like an old swing set. I think it foreshadows what happens with Daryl and Leah, and how he relives many memories with her, both difficult and joyful, that he wants her to be these things, and then she turns out to be nothing but a deception.

Again, this is all a theory. But it’s a REALLY fun one lol. I am now convinced that this episode is much MUCH deeper and more meaningful than I initially thought. It is a puzzle for sure, and I know there is still probably a lot of stuff I’m missing. If you have thoughts or additions, let me know!

#the walking dead #10.18 #find me #daryl dixon #bethyl #team delusional #twd meta #leah is a hallucination #ptsd

[warriordreamer95]

RWBY Volume 7 Crew Commentary Notes!

All credit goes to Sweetfable over on Reddit! Sweet, if you’re on Tumblr and have already posted this or want to, let me know and I’ll take this down!

Chapter 1

Featuring Kerry Shawcross and  Miles Luna.

Miles says he was hoping people didn’t figure out Atlas was a floating city in the sky before they got there. Even in World of Remnant, they were very careful with how they worded things to avoid spoiling this fact.

A large portion of ep 1 was intended to be in V6

Originally it was going to end with Penny being revealed, dealing with the Grimm, and ending on “Salutations”

Almost everything up until the Penny moment was how it was going to be in V6. For production and story reasons they decided to end V6 with just seeing Atlas.

Mantle is a little more Blade Runner and utilitarian looking, while Atlas was made to look like it was created by Apple. Two different futuristic looks.

When making the four kingdoms, they compared it to parts of the real world. Atlas and Mantle were two different versions of America

The drunk guy (Drunk Mann) we see insulting Blake is based off of Joel Mann and the other is Dustin Matthew (Grape-kun).

We saw Pietro (his hand) for the first time in Volume 3. They didn’t want to make him too similar to Dr. Weller from gen:LOCK, and so they made him to be like a ‘big’ kid. It’s where Penny gets a lot of her attitude from.

Kerry wants to do a show with all the old RWBY characters

V8 was harder to write than V7

It was a challenge in this episode to make it clear that Atlas is a new place for some characters, but a familiar one for several others, but that the Atlas in V7 is a different one than what they remember.

They try to theme the grimm to the location. So Grimm from Atlas are those that are from the Ice Age.

Miles compare Grimm to Pokemon. Some will pop up in every region, while others are region specific.

They had a lot of discussion surrounding what they wanted Penny 2.0 to look like. They considered giving her a conflict of her being a clone or not having her memories, but ultimately with the amount of stuff that needed to happen this volume they felt that it wouldn’t have been able to be done well.

Chapter 2

Featuring Kerry, Conner (director), and Kiersi

Forest became a fan-favorite

This episode was tricky to write because it was getting close to being an exposition dump

They had to balance movement and how much the characters can emote (especially when characters lie this episode)

Ironwood’s office shifting to present his plan was a cool idea + it was another way to stay in the room without having things get boring

Really wanted team RWBY to feel like they were on the right path and had something to follow. Establishing the trust theme early on.

Qrow and Ironwood’s relationship is super interesting to Kerry, and he wishes they could have explored it more. Conner pushed for Qrow’s hand to be lower in the hug scene (lol)

Conner jokes that he also proposed Ironwood should propose to Oscar when kneeling

Ironwood giving the relic back was his biggest sign of trust

They comment about how positively Penny states ‘it’ll be just like Beacon again!’ when she got destroyed there in V3

Kerry calls Watts ‘Daddy Long Legs’

Chapter 3

Featuring Kerry and Miles

They were confused when they saw people on Reddit and Tumblr think that this volume would have a shopping montage

Team RWBY jumping out of a plane is a callback to landing strategies and to see how far they have come since V1

The crew thought everyone would love Jaune’s new haircut, and was shocked when everyone immediately hated it. Miles wanted to see Jaune grow up a bit, so he liked the change.

They wanted team RWBY to start acting like and learning from professional huntsman

Miles wanted Atlas to feel like the Beacon days at first, and first came up with the idea that some Atlas academy professors would teach them. But that evolved into mentors, which eventually became Atlas’s best of the best.

The Ace-Ops are not only fun characters, but also foils to some of our main characters to help move their stories along

The Ace-Ops having five members + a team name not based on a color was very intentional. It was to show that Ironwood doesn’t care about Oz’s rules and would rather have an efficient team.

Eddy came up with the name Ace-Ops. Each member is based off an Aesop fable.

The mine scene has us seeing the SDC logo everywhere. Adam, as a terrible of a person as he was, when he was younger, was arguing with someone at a SDC place and the other person grabbed a brand and gave him his scar. So seeing the logo all over the mine was very intentional to put that in the forefront of Blake’s mind, and Yang notices

The fight with the Centinel grimm was originally supposed to be a bit longer and there was going to be an alpha variant of the centinel (which they imply we will see in the future)

Some characters got more upgrades than others. Weiss is already perfect, so she didn’t need any changes. Miles was excited that they were able to give Ren heavy rounds to shoot with. Ren has his father’s dagger on his arm

Many things that seem like retcons are actually not, and instead is just Kerry and Miles learning how to tell a story while simultaneously telling a story. So things were not always explained well early on.

Qrow and Clover were an interesting couple of characters, Miles says. For a long time Qrow was the guy that worked best alone (compared to Shadow the Hedgehog) and wanted him to interact with people that aren't his nieces and their friends. Clover was made to be a total bro and like Captain America- who always makes luck puns. He constantly feels like he is in an action movie because things always go right for him, so he doesn’t need to look where he’s about the jump. Which ultimately leads to someone who relies too much on their semblance. He rides the line of confidence vs arrogance. Clover is kind of person that Qrow always wanted to be. At the beginning of their friendship, Qrow doesn’t really like Clover and finds him irritating. But eventually it evolved into friendship, and later tragedy.

They left RWBY out of the battle of the Ace Ops vs the Geist to showcase how they didn’t need RWBY to get things done. It was their moment to shine

Wanted to give a sense in these first few episodes that, maybe everything will work out okay

Spoiler alert: It won’t

Chapter 4

Featuring Paula (co-director), Dustin (co-director), Eddy Rivas, Kerry Shawcross

Wanted a chance for the characters to breathe a bit before bigger things went down

Kerry loves the lighting in the first scene. They referenced how lighting looks in the tundra

The first draft of the scene where Ironwood is giving orders originally happened in his office

From V5 they learned it’s great to be efficient with sets but they can fatigue the audience and the crew

Originally the celebration wasn’t going to be in Amity, and instead it was going to be in Atlas’s version of an auditorium.

The ship Jacques arrives in is the same one Winter arrives from in V3. It’s a Schnee company ship

Paula thought it was important that Blake hold Weiss’s hand and be the first to stand by her side when Jaques is yelling at Weiss since Blake knows what it is like to be in an abusive relationship. Ruby and Yang didn’t even really know a father would talk like that to his daughter.

They were excited to write Penny and Winter’s ‘mirror-destiny’, which they laid some of the foundation for this episode

Qrow talking to Ruby was barely on the outline for the episode, but it was on their wish list if they had time to get it in.

Dustin says ‘fatherly’ when describing the moment and Kerry is like, ‘you just opened up a whole can of worms’

Eddy loves the ‘Jim’ gag when referring to Jaune.

Watt’s entrance was a difficult shot to execute properly because of the door.

Chapter 5

Featuring Conner, Eddy, and Kerry

They originally weren’t sure about having a montage in this episode

The penguins we see for a moment were possibly going to be grimm penguins

Kerry wants RT to sell the cards Clover has, and Eddy thinks it’s funny he would have cards with him emblem on them.

They liked having the moment of Clover and Qrow in the middle of this episode to show that Qrow is now becoming a mentee of sorts.

Adding in the Robin encounter was a late addition to the outline. She wasn’t going to be introduced until Chapter 6 during her rally

But they wanted to put the two factions head to head earlier on.

It was also the first moment of Clover being a bit duplicitous.

The plot line of tying the supplies through Robin’s storyline was a late addition while writing

Weiss vs Winter with summoning is a callback to V3C4 with them training together

Weiss being able to sit on hard-light (a block) is something Kerry was unsure about at first

Originally Weiss and Winter going to see Fria was going to be Winter getting an alert from Ironwood and having to leave, and Weiss following her suspiciously. But it worked better as Winter revealing a secret while Weiss was still keeping one

Chapter 6

Featuring Paula, Kiersi, Miles, Eddy, and Kerry

Eddy is the one who came up with the idea for the middle part of the season while he had a really bad fever

Originally Tyrian was going to make it look like a bunch of Atlas soldiers fired on civilians in Mantle. Then Eddie thought it should frame RWBY, but ultimately they went with framing Penny.

Nobody has ever offered Penny a fist bump before, so she wanted to do it perfectly

An old draft had the team and Ironwood doing an investigation at this warehouse post-massacre

There was also no montage in C5, just them sitting around a table talking about what they did

Miles also mentions there was going to be a scene in C3 with Marrow trying to bond with Blake about being a Faunus, and also about him specifically being a Faunus in Atlas who is a part of Atlas’s military team. But that episode was so packed they wanted to move it to C6, but then that episode also became too packed. But they plan to get to it in future volumes

They wanted to show how much the Happy Huntresses care about each other and about Mantle

They also originally did not want to have anything political in this season. But the more iterations they did, they felt it was the best course of action to do that with the story.

They wanted to give the heroes a high personal moment with Renora kissing right before things went down

Penny was not used to fighting sneaky enemies, so that is how Tyrian got the upper hand

While they don’t usually check back up on extras, things turned out that we kept seeing Drunk Mann and Grape-kun throughout the season to represent the city of Mantle

Chapter 7

Featuring Conner, Kiersi, Miles, Eddy, and Kerry

Fiona’s semblance was originally going to be Torchwick’s semblance, and it was called Deep Pockets. But they never found a moment for him to use it. So they decided he could be a great example of how some people don’t unlock their semblances

Originally some of C7 was meant for C4 where they found out earlier that Tyrian was involved with things

Miles wrote the description we got of Tyrian’s past (Salem first contacting Tyrian), and it was one of his favorite things to write.

Qrow looking at Clover when he is willing to go with Ironwood’s plan was meant to show some distance growing between the two

We were going to get more of Ren explaining why he was feeling the way he was and agreeing with Ironwood, but ultimately they are pushing it to next volume

Originally Blake and Yang were going to directly reference Adam when they had their talk, but they later figured out how to reference him indirectly

The arm robot Pietro has in his office was originally going to have more of a character like the robotic arm Tony Stark has

They tried hard to get Maria more scenes, but there was often no room for it

Miles realizes he was dumb to suggest that Pietro cover Watt’s face with his thumb while looking at a picture since they already did that with Raven in V3

The lady in the photograph with black hair is not Cinder’s mom (which was apparently a fan theory)

Robin encountering the Bees was a late edition to the outline. But it gave every member of RWBY a moment

They wanted the vault in the Academy to feel similar to the one in Haven but not a direct copy

Miles believes that if Ironwood would allow himself to be more vulnerable more often things would’ve gone differently

The invitation to the Schnee manor was originally going to be to a news conference

Chapter 8

Featuring Dustin, Miles, and Kerry

They didn’t specify what the hood ornament on the car would be, so Dustin was happy when it came back as a velociraptor, which references a raptor Monty Oum would put in photos with RWBY characters

Fans have guessed what direction they are going with Whitley. He starts off as a jerk, but Miles implies that is going to change. It is also an easy way to remind the audience of how the elite act

At the table, Jacques’s chair is bigger than everyone else's

Miles wrote the gag of JNR sabotaging Whitley’s conversation with Weiss and expected it to take only a few seconds, but as more people worked on it the longer it got

The stack of food was taller than Dustin expected it to be, and they even had to scale it back because it was going to be even taller

Another power move of Jacques is to only give a few people wine, as well as not giving Penny any food

Willow was originally going to be in the intro

A joke was made about Salem being Jaune’s sister in the V6 intro before everyone knew who she was

None of the writers expected Penny and Winter to have such a bond this volume initially

Miles wanted to portray when Weiss is talking to Willow that she doesn’t really know how to act around an adult with such an adult issue. Since Weiss is quite young (Miles compared it to him having to help an adult with an adult issue when he was 13)

Chapter 9

Featuring Paula (director), Kiersi, Eddy, and Kerry

It was difficult to keep the shots interesting in the dining room

We see Grape-kun and Drunk Mann again this episode

In earlier chapters they made sure to have an orange glow to represent the heating in Mantle since they knew it would be turned off in chapter 8

They wanted to showcase that Ironwood was starting to have doubts, which would later be clearly seen in episode 11

The foot soldiers (AKs) that the Grimm are able to overwhelm in only a few seconds were meant to represent that Atlas wouldn’t provide them with much defense against Grimm because they don’t care enough

Every storyline was coming together in this episode, and it’s tricky to make a setup episode like this not seem like filler

Ruby and Oscar’s awkward interaction came from them both ‘riding the high’ of the moment where it seems like they each have great plans that will go well.

Oscar is starting to tap into some of Ozpin’s memories, as alluded to when he mentions how Atlas is held to a higher standard

Terry the grimm being hit by a fireball (part of a plane I believe) was a call back to Jurassic Park

They struggled a long time with where to put the Neo reveal

Chapter 10

Featuring Conner, Dustin, Kiersi, and Kerry

They felt that if they showed a lot in the first scene of the episode, they wouldn’t have to saturate the background with other fires and crowds.

The shot of Weiss’s knight being summoned and overshadowing Marrow is setting up their fight in C12

When seeing the shots of the enemies infiltrating the kingdom, they didn’t know if they wanted to show Neo and Cinder or Tyrian and Watts first. But they went with Neo and Cinder because it would show that they thought their cover was blown, when it would really be about the other two.

The place Neo and Cinder are staying at is an Atlas ‘high-life’ apartment

They always knew Elm would have a rocket launcher/bazooka, but never got the time needed to show it until now

They had to restructure Mantle a bit to allow the huge elephant to fit in the streets

The main characters working with the Ace Ops in this episode was to make it so things hurt so much more after events in the following one

All the background characters apparently have little backstories as they made sure they didn’t appear in two places at the same time

Ironwood jumps down a ridiculous number of feet to meet Watts. They had to cheat to not make that so obvious as well as say this is animation logic so people working on the shot would stop questioning how he could possibly make it.

Chapter 11

Featuring Kerry, Paula, and Miles

Originally a gravity biome in Amity was going to appear in V3C5. It was going to be Sun and Neptune vs Pyrrha and Nora. It was written, boarded, and ready to go but they realized there wasn’t time for it

This was a hard episode to write. A lot of stuff that needed to happen, and happen in a specific way

Watt’s gun was inspired a 20-shot revolver Kerry saw on Reddit

Ironwood losing another hand represents him losing another part of his humanity (possibly confirming he lost his one organic arm)

The first cut of this episode was 23 minutes and was deemed too long so they had to scale back, but they still felt they kept in everything that was needed to make the episode great

Initially the Tyrian vs Qrow, Robyn, and Clover fight was going to be a chase that turns into a fight that turns into another chase. And Qrow is the only one that could keep up with Tyrian since he can transform into a bird. Qrow would land in front of Tyrian and say ‘that’s enough’ and Tyrian would ask, ‘are you able to talk when you’re a bird or do you have to wait until you’re a person to throw your one-liners?’ (Tyrian asking the real questions here) Tyrian’s lack of self-preservation would be shown even more. He would have run down an alley packed with Grimm and would just trust that he could’ve made it through

The fight with Tyrian was initially going to be more of a Tyrian vs Qrow fight, but Miles loves that they made it a 3 v 1 so it could show off Tyrian’s exceptional skill

The fight was also a callback to the first Tyrian vs Qrow fight, where Ruby tried to be good back up for Qrow but was ineffective. But instead this time have Robyn and Clover be effective and more experienced teammates

Clover is defense, Qrow is offense, and Robyn is picking away at Tyrian with her long-ranged weapon

There was going to be more discussion of where Oscar was at the end of the episode, as well as a whole bit where the Ace Ops and the kids land and they get a hand-written note saying they’ve been compromised instead of getting it via scroll, but it turned out to be too much

The scene of Ironwood talking to RWBY and his turn to being against them was the most important scene in the episode, and something everything in the season had to build up to

Miles said it was about time the two sides met face to face with RWBY meeting Salem

They wanted to make Ironwood’s progression into villainy subtle and make sense

Salem made things personal for Ironwood, so he felt like he had to come up with a solution

They wanted more Cinder and Neo in the volume but had to cut back. But to compensate they had to be instrumental to the collapse of Ironwood (Miles first said collapse of Atlas so wonder if he slipped up)

Chapter 12

Featuring Dustin, Conner, Kiersi, Eddy, and Kerry

They wanted to have a false sense of resolution in the previous episode just to blow everything up here

Eddy handled the Ace Ops vs RWBY and Winter scenes while Kiersi handled the rest

Kerry learned from V5 that having everyone in one room for a fight doesn’t work well

Eddy is a big Weiss stan

Clover has no idea who he’s up against with Tyrian, and thinks of Qrow as the big threat, as well as Tyrian manipulating Qrow

Clover saw both Qrow and Tyrian on the wrong side of the law, so he felt like he had to fight both of them no matter what

They made sure team RWBY can’t just stomp on the Ace Ops, but still show their teamwork. Plus the lack of Clover being there didn’t allow for the team to have a ‘cheat code’

This is another episode they had to trim down in length

Cinder was always going to lay waste to the medical facility and attack Winter

They also wanted to do a Qrow vs Tyrian reprisal

Kerry said he loves Clover

It was crazy for Qrow to meet someone that was a genuinely good person

Chapter 13

Featuring Miles, Kerry, and Eddy

The Neo vs ORNJ fight could have been shorter

At one point they wanted to show Cinder using maiden magic to bring some dead AKs (Atlesian-Knight) back to life to fight Penny (was going to be some sort of puppet joke).

But Miles realized that Cinder could just blow up the room and bust through the walls

Ren is struggling with some heavy emotional stuff that is not resolved at all this volume, but it is hinted there will be a lot more for him next volume.

The writers knew a lot of people wouldn’t be happy with Ren’s attitude this volume. But he still cares about Nora, even if he doesn’t always communicate it well

Miles cried during the voice over session of Fria’s scenes for this episode

They had a lot of talks about how the maiden power would be transferred. They debated if Penny would have to kill Fria.

Originally one pod was going to be broken, with the one with Fria being in tact. But because Penny is a robot, she could ‘remote-interface in’ and get the powers. But that still felt like stealing, and they didn’t want to go that route.

Oscar has matured so much in his role (joking call him Farm Man)

Ironwood is still expecting Oz to show up. He still really wants that guidance

Ironwood arguing with Oscar was the finale scene they wrote this episode

Ironwood feels that he is backed into a corner and is doing the only sensible thing.

Winter was waiting to be the Winter Maiden her whole life, but in a split second she gives it all up

There was one line in Oz’s monologue they were struggling with for a whole day

They loved the idea of ending the volume on almost an identical shot from where they started

Neo’s look after Cinder takes the relic and doesn’t thank Neo for getting it is setting up some things for V8 (probably a betrayal)

Oz came back at that moment because he heard what Oscar said to Ironwood and that made him brave enough to return

Miles reveals that the Grimm whale is based on Monstro from Pinocchio

It is once again said that Volume 8 is the hardest one they had to write so far. Miles seems super excited about it

Volume 8 was made with some fan-input in mind (since it was still being written by the time V7 ended), but Volume 9 will be the first one written in a vacuum

#RWBY #RWBY Volume 7

[omgthatdress]

How to make Cats a good movie.

I watched Cats, and once I got over the initial horror, I was actually pretty entertained and found myself enjoying the shit out of it. Like god bless it, for as nightmare-inducing as much as it was, Tom Hooper was clearly *committed* to his vision and you gotta give him credit for that. The scenery was actually really beautiful and the cinematography was frequently breathtaking. Like it really did have a lot of elements that really worked for it. But for every bit of genius, there was something terrible that the movie just couldn’t overcome. So let’s dive in.

First of all, you kind of have to understand Cats: the musical. It’s an adaptation of poems that T.S. Elliott of nihilistic lost generation fame wrote for his godchildren about cats. And the poetry is charming af and totally captures the nature of cats and why they’re so lovable. In the in the 1970s, Andrew Lloyd Webber did a shit ton of cocaine and decided to make a musical out of these poems. As a result, Cats has no plot. It’s a bunch of cats singing their songs about who they are and doing a lot of dancing. The thinnest of narrative devices is created with the “jellicle” ball and the deciding of which cat gets to ascend to heaven or some shit. So yeah. Cats is actually pretty controversial among theater nerds, it’s very much a you either love it or hate it thing. Is it stupid? Yes.  Is it going to make everyone happy? No. Does it lend itself well to film adaptation? fuck no. I get the feeling that Tom Hooper was really going for deep, meaningful poetic cinema here and trying to make another Les Mis (which was way overly long and ultimately sank under its own sheer weight as a movie and probably is better viewed as a play). I’m operating under the assumption that Hooper was going for ground-breaking cinema that would have made millions and swept up during awards season and cemented him as a legendary director and gone down in movie history, because every little detail of Cats is clearly meant for maximum impact. You kind of need to drop all expectations going into Cats, so once you’re there, you can have fun with it. So how do you make it a good film?

1. The HORRIBLE hyper-realistic cgi human-cat hybrids. YES, it’s a technical marvel, and the CGI artists who made it all deserve a ton of credit for the work they did. And I understand why the actors were kept in their human shapes: live dance is a huge part of what makes Cats work. One of the smart decisions made was hiring theater veterans for the filler roles in the cat chorus, so when you have the choreographed numbers, it’s really spectacular. It’s just the end result was way too uncanny valley and bizarre for any of the film’s good parts to ever rise above it. I think a minimalist approach would have actually worked best. Cat ears and simple costumes with clean lines that show off the dancer’s bodies. Go for the suggestion of cats, and kind of let the viewer’s imagination take over, and showcase the cat’s personality. A huge part of what I enjoyed was hearing the poetry and imagining these cats and how they all relate to cats I’ve known. The dance and the music helped heighten this experience, but hybrids kept reminding me of the joke: what do you get when you cross a human and a cat? An immediate cessation of funding and a stern rebuke from the ethics committee.

2. The schlocky, honestly amateurish attempts at slapstick humor. I’m gonna come out and say it and say that Hooper is pretty deeply entrenched in *dRaMa* and has no sense of how comedy works. There was a lot of added in comedic bits from Rebel Wilson and James Corden, and it was honestly terrible. I mean really, a crotch hit? That kind of lowbrow comedy is so crude and base that it’s actually really hard to pull it off well. Slapstick comedy actually lends itself to the whimsical tone, and slapstick done well can be utterly sublime, but Cats seemed satisfied that fat people falling over is the height of comedy and should be left at that. And a second note on the comedy? Weirdly fat-shame-y. A saw a post about how odd it is to see James Corden, who has been very frank about how he’s struggled with dieting and come to accept that his body is fat and can’t be made not fat, playing this role where fat is added to his body, his CGI vest strains at the buttons, and he’s literally stuffing his face with garbage. The theme of fat people as lazy, stupid, and slovenly carried over from Rebel Wilson’s role, in which she also plays a fat lazy cat who is leaned on heavily for comic relief. I know the role is about a fat cat, and gently laughing at a fat lazy cat who loves to eat is fine, but, speaking as a fat person myself, this felt like a gleeful exploitation of a nasty and cruel stereotype. James Corden and Rebel Wilson are both extraordinarily funny people who happen to be fat, and their comedic gifts were tremendously mis-used here, reducing them to simply two fat bodies to be laughed at.

3. Jennifer Hudson. She’s a talented actress who can sing and emote like a motherfucker. And emote she did. She was clearly GOING for that second Oscar. I really don’t want to call her performance bad. The same level of emotion, tears running and snot flowing, in another movie, would have been devastating (Hello, Viola Davis in Fences). But this isn’t Fences, it’s fucking Cats. You need a level of character depth and development that Cats doesn’t afford to make those tears hit. All the crying and misery was an odd maudlin and over-dramatic break in the fun and whimsy. With a subtler performance and a hint of self-awareness, it could have actually brought in an emotional anchor for this light-as-air film, but Cats doesn’t make any attempt at nuance, and as a result the scenes just hit you out of nowhere like a load of bricks. 

4. Francesca Hayward. Okay, before we go anywhere, I want to say that this girl is not un-talented. She’s the principal ballerina of the Royal Ballet, and has a very long list of ballets that she’s lead in. So it makes sense that she’d be hired for a role that’s primarily ballet. This girl is a really really great DANCER. But Cats was clearly trying to make an A-list actress out of her. They tried to make her into Florence Pugh, who has been acting for a while and is blowing up right now because she’s very talented. Like everything about Francesca’s role in the film said “This is a star-making role.” A new song was written just for her to sing as an addendum to Cats’s show-stopping signature song. But the song was just okay, it didn’t carry nearly the emotional weight or all-around beauty of “Memories,” and all in all felt wedged-in and totally unnecessary and really just felt like a grab at that “best original song” Oscar. Francesca’s voice is high, thin, and child-like. It’s not unpleasant, but next to the richness and depth of Jennifer Hudson’s voice, it crumbles, and it’s not the sort of voice that I want to seek out to listen to over and over again. As for her overall performance, she largely keeps the same look of wide-eyed wonder throughout her numerous close-ups, so much so that I found myself thinking of the the MST3K “dull surprise” sketch. But I don’t know if that’s really entirely her fault. There was an attempted romantic storyline with the magic cat, but again, because of the nature of Cats and its lack of real character development or depth, the chemistry fell flat. There really isn’t much of a chance to show off a lot of dramatic range, so to keep going back to her character, it kept reinforcing the one-notedness of her performance. Really, I just kept wanting to see Francesca dance. Ironically, I think they really blew an opportunity trying to make an A-list actress out of her. All she really need to make people want to see more of her is one spectacular dance number, but for some reason, she never really gets that show-stopping moment. 

5. Dignity? I guess this goes back to the whole CGI cat thing, but there were a lot of moments when I felt this tremendous wave of second-hand embarrassment hit me on behalf of the talented actors in this film. Watching Gandalf lap up milk from a saucer was a wholly uncomfortable experience, like come on, grant the great Ian McKellan some fucking DIGNITY here. Which goes back to whatI said earlier that a suggestion and interpretation of cats would have worked better than all-out just being a cat. Or it could again just be how much Cats just fails its attempts at comedy. But then again there was no fucking reason at all for Idris Elba to be that fucking NAKED. I guess they were trying to make him sexy? But his sexy smolder and just being Idris Elba wasn’t enough they had to make sure that we all saw his chiseled pecs and thick thighs. And then at the end when he’s dangling off of the rope of a hot air balloon and what’s supposed to be a funny scene, I think, I kept thinking “I’m so sorry this is happening to you, Idris.” 

There’s a bunch of other small, nit-picky things that I could go into. Those cockroaches would have worked so much better if they weren’t humans with an extra set of arms. Watching them get eaten was some horror movie shit. Taylor Swift’s Macavity song would have worked a lot better if the cat chorus full of cats we’ve gotten to know had sung it, but instead Taylor Swift is brought in as a new cat we don’t know whose only purpose is to sing the Macavity song? but of course a big oscar-bait movie needs to have that pop star that draws in the people who wouldn’t otherwise see it and making her a part of the cat chorus would have had her performing throughout the whole movie and she would have floundered the way pop stars tend to do when performing musical theater around a bunch of musical theater actors. So I guess I get why she was thrown in.

So.... yeah? Is there anyone else who found themselves enjoying it in spite of everything? I’m glad I have dogs and didn’t have to watch this mess with actual cats around me.

#Cats 2019 #Cats

[wazafam]

Between the 1980s and before a decline in the early 2000s, the erotic thriller was one of cinema's most popular and risque genres. Usually, an erotic thriller features storylines that focus heavily on romance and contain graphic nudity and sex scenes.

RELATED: 10 Great Thriller Movies You Won't Believe Are Not On IMDb's Top 250

Some of these films have been praised while some have been considered "trashy" for focusing more on the salacious elements instead of the story. And while not as popular today, recent hits like Fifty Shades Of Grey prove there is still a market. During its heyday, Hollywood produced some great erotic thrillers that are still viewed by audiences looking for a dangerous and naughty evening.

10 In The Cut (2003) - 5.3

Directed by acclaimed filmmaker Jane Campion, In The Cut's story revolves around a teacher, Frannie, (Meg Ryan) who gets questioned by an investigator, Malloy, (Mark Ruffalo) after the limb of a murdered girl is found in her garden. The two begin a relationship. but Frannie starts to suspect the murderer might be Malloy himself.

Upon release, the film was controversial for graphic sex and for Meg Ryan's nude scenes, which many believed to be brave due to her wholesome image and for normally appearing in light romantic comedies. Despite mixed reviews, Ryan's performance has been praised as one of her best.

9 Crash (1996) - 6.4

Perhaps one of the most controversial erotic thrillers of all time is Crash. Directed by acclaimed filmmaker David Cronenberg, the film concerns a TV director (James Spader) who gets involved with a group of people who become aroused after watching automobile collisions.

Crash's premiere screening at the Cannes Film Festival incited "boos," but it was awarded a Special Jury Prize, which jury president and Godfather director Francis Ford Coppola refused to present to Cronenberg, due to his distaste for the film. The movie was banned in many countries around the world because of its subject matter and sex scenes, and its American release was delayed for several months.

8 Wild Things (1998) - 6.5

During their popularity, erotic thrillers were mostly made for mature adults, however, Wild Things was aimed at the younger 20-something generation. The film concerns a guidance counselor (Matt Dillion) accused of rape by two female students, but the detective (Kevin Bacon) investigating the charge detects a conspiracy is afoot.

Remembered for its verging-on-pornographic sex scenes, Wild Things actually has some clever twists and turns, plus a surprising performance by Bill Murray. Salacious on the surface, audiences enjoyed the fact there was more to it than just sex. Notably, the end credits connect the dots for the viewer on the film's twists.

7 Sea Of Love (1989) - 6.8

Similar in premise to Basic Instinct, Sea Of Love concerns a detective (Al Pacino) on the trail of a serial killer. He attempts to find the killer by placing a personal ad for himself to lure them on a date, but he ultimately begins falling for one of the suspects (Ellen Barkin).

Unlike Basic Instinct, which puts emphasis on the sexual chemistry between the leads, Sea Of love puts the emphasis on the romantic chemistry, making the viewer hope the killer isn't the sexy Ellen Barkin. Over the years, Sea Of Love has become a favorite among Pacino fans.

6 Fatal Attraction (1987) - 6.9

Perhaps the most popular erotic thriller of all time, Fatal Attraction succeeds not because of its more lurid and graphic moments, but because those moments elevate and make more meaningful everything else in the movie.  The film concerns Dan (Michael Douglas), who has an affair with Alex (Glenn Close). Unfortunately, she grows attached to him, and when he tries to break off the relationship, he realizes she won't give him up easily, leading to dangerous consequences.

RELATED: 10 Best Thrillers Involving Husbands And Wives

Director Adrian Lyne crafts a thriller for adults with the intention to not just thrill and titillate but to ask viewers important questions about fidelity and marriage. Lyne would have similar success in the genre with Indecent Proposal and Unfaithful. Ultimately, Fatal Attraction was a huge box-office hit, earning a Best Picture Oscar nomination and a Best Actress Oscar nomination for Close's brilliant performance.

5 Basic Instinct (1992) - 7.0

Following Fatal Attraction's immense popularity, Basic Instinct kicked the genre into high gear. Erotic thriller veteran Michael Douglas stars alongside, at the time, rising star Sharon Stone. Douglas plays a detective, Nick, investigating a murder that resembles the work of a writer, Catherine Trammel. As Nick investigates further, he begins an affair with the seductive and possibly murderous Trammel.

Known at the time for its graphic sex scenes, Basic Instinct is not only salacious but a well-crafted, and at times, Hitchcockian thriller. The screenwriter, Joe Ezsterhas, would eventually write more erotic thrillers like Sliver, Jade, and others. A sequel, Basic Instinct 2, with Stone, would be released 14 years later, but by then the genre had declined in popularity.

4 Dressed To Kill (1980) - 7.1

Considered to be the erotic thriller that started the trend, Dressed To Kill is directed by suspense master Brian DePalma, who constructs the film with elaborate Hitchcock-style sequences. Starring Michael Caine, the plot concerns a woman who witnesses the murder of a psychiatrist's patient by a mysterious blonde woman, only to find herself the murderer's next target.

Praised by critics and audiences at the time for being suspenseful, lurid, and shocking, Dressed To Kill has since been considered problematic due to its depiction of women and violence toward them.

3 The Last Seduction (1994) - 7.1

After stealing drug money from her husband, sexy and alluring Bridget (Linda Fiorentino) flees to Chicago, seduces a local man, and devises a way to get him to kill her pursuing husband. Because of the script, the production company responsible for the movie felt The Last Seduction would be something for late-night television audiences that want a sexy watch, however, the filmmakers set out to make the movie something much more than that.

RELATED: Taxi Driver & 9 Other Neo-Noir Masterpieces

Despite being an erotic thriller, the film received great reviews upon release for its wit, dry humor, and especially for Linda Fiorentino's sexy performance. In the years since, viewers have praised Fiorentino's character as a refreshing spin on the femme fatale character type.

2 Bound (1996) - 7.3

Before the Wachowskis directed The Matrix, they needed to make a "practice film" to prove they could do it, and the result was Bound - an erotic thriller about two lesbian lovers who attempt to steal millions of mafia money. At the time, it was rare for a  lesbian relationship, let alone lesbian sex, to be depicted in a mainstream film.

When released, critics praised the film's stylish direction and neo-noir plot, and for having LGBTQ+ leads without the plot revolving around it. From there, the Wachowskis went on to make The Matrix and more cinematic history.

1 Body Heat (1981) - 7.4

Inspired by the classic film Double Indemnity, Body Heat centers around lawyer Ned (William Hurt), who kills the wealthy husband of his sexy lover, Matty (Kathleen Turner), so that she can inherit his money and they can run away together. However, Ned soon discovers Matty isn't who she seems.

At the time, the film was noted for its many graphic sex scenes, with even more left on the cutting room floor. Fortunately, what director Lawrence Kasdan clearly really cared about was the hard-boiled thriller elements, which are stylish and skillfully crafted. In addition, Kathleen Turner gives a powerhouse and obviously sexy performance in her screen acting debut.

NEXT: 10 Best Movies About Cheating And Infidelity, According To IMDb

10 Best Erotic Thrillers, Ranked By IMDb | ScreenRant from https://ift.tt/33BFltx

#Blogger

[loyolafilmcircle]

“There was an idea...”

by Renzo Guevara

edited by Anna Cayco

Avengers: Infinity War (2018) is the 19th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), a franchise that has been relatively consistent in terms of quality and vision for the last 10 years. It’s the massive culminating event that has constantly been set up with the three phases of movies with each of the individual heroes’ adventures leading up to this film.

But Marvel’s massive reputation and cultural impact was not as prominent as it is today. They sold some of their most recognizable characters’ movie rights to other companies such as the X-men and the Fantastic Four to 20th Century Fox and Spiderman to Sony. Their first movie, Iron Man (2008) was a risk to say the least. The concept of an Avengers movie was merely just a thought but never an actual legitimate vision. A fun little innocent scene was placed at the end of the credits, showcasing Samuel L. Jackson’s now iconic character Nick Fury showing up to talk to Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark about the Avengers initiative. Conversations about this scene grew until Marvel Studios revealed its plan to produce more superhero movies to lead up to an Avengers film. Thus, the MCU was born.

The first real culminating event was 2012’s Avengers directed by Joss Whedon. To say that the film was a success is an understatement compared to how exactly fans and critics responded to it. It featured breathtaking action sequences, entertaining interactions between the characters and a carefully crafted three-act structure that successfully combined all the elements that were set-up during the standalone movies. Included in Phase 2 was its sequel, Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), which featured new characters such as Scarlett Witch, Quicksilver and Vision. Unlike its predecessor, it was met with mixed reactions between the audience and critics. Some commended it for the sheer spectacle on display and seeing our heroes assemble again but in time people soon accepted the fact that the film had a disjointed narrative, a disappointing villain and a few unlikeable characters.

Regardless, these first two Avengers films successfully assembled the heroes and characters we’ve all come to love. It’s not wrong to say that some of us may have garnered some sort of attachment to them that naturally makes us care for what happens throughout the series, especially in Infinity War where stakes are at an all-time high with talks of possible permanent deaths and ending of contracts of certain actors.

What could possibly have created this attachment to this universe is how these movies always tried to set themselves apart not just in their tonality also in the production behind it. The directors the studio hired were not your typical action filmmakers but were more story, character and comedy focused. And it’s also not uncommon to see the MCU go with the recent trend of giving blockbuster projects to directors who mostly made a name for themselves in the indie scene or in television. Filmmakers Anthony and Joe Russo, who were mostly known for the TV series Community (2009-2015), were hired for Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) and then for Civil War (2016). Both films were met with commercial and critical praise. With engaging plots that were grounded in reality setting it apart from the rest of the MCU, it was a clear choice for Feige to call upon the Russo brothers again to work their magic. And boy did they deliver with Infinity War.

The 3rd Avengers film features an incredible roster of every hero that has been established alongside the Guardians of the Galaxy. This feat has been so monumental in scale and scope that it has often been regarded as the most ambitious crossover event in cinematic history and if I’m being completely honest, it definitely earns that title.

Immediately, the film starts off incredibly strong with the chilling rightful introduction of the main event, Thanos. Gone are the days of post credit setups or small cameos, here we are placed face to face with him alongside his team who are not to be messed with. Thanos as a villain is truly an achievement for the film. You would think that him being a purely CGI creation would make him feel weightless and absent but that’s far from the case. Josh Brolin gives a hauntingly calculated performance that was beautifully motion captured as real emotions were seen, and true terror was felt whenever he was on screen. The MCU has always faced criticism about its villains but recently they have been nailing it in that department especially with Thanos. When people say that Infinity War is a Thanos movie instead of an Avengers one, it’s a valid statement to say. This is ultimately Thanos’ story and the Avengers are simply background characters. Some could even look at them as the real antagonists of the story as Thanos’ actions may be grim but once you deconstruct his motivations, they actually present a proper argument to a certain extent.

A massive cast is something that’s unavoidable with this being a culmination of 10 years’ worth of movies. At times, the film, struggles with the weight it has to carry as it tries to give each character their own individual adventures that all come down to stopping Thanos. Despite this, it doesn’t feel overly bloated. Each of the heroes get a decent amount of screen time. Some may shine more than others, but this can easily be forgiven given that this is technically a two-part storyline and the film was already nearly three hours long.

Considering the run time, the film is still a rollercoaster ride that rarely lets you take a breather. Just from the very first shot all the way to the last you will be left speechless and in pure state of either awe or shock. If in previous MCU movies, the stakes were rarely felt and a sense of danger was minimal, Infinity War turns this over your head and whacks you with it continuously. I wouldn’t say that there were certain throwaway scenes that could’ve been left on the cutting room floor but there were definitely some moments where I was more invested in than others. This can mainly be due to personal attachments to certain characters or just a simple desire to get back to the action. Character moments between our heroes are highly entertaining with the filmmakers and writers taking advantage of each of their quirks and antics that play off of each other. But what’s more impressive is that in its core, the identity of its characters remains intact. When the Guardians are on screen, it feels like a Guardians movie and so on.

But it’s also worth noting that some characters may not act the way we were accustomed to them in their solo movies. This should be expected given the difference of directors and writers and visions towards what and who they are. None were too different to the point where it’s a complete 180 of a character trait but just subtle enough to be noticed a bit or can be argued as part of their arc.

The action sequences in Infinity War are spectacle in its purest form. The Russo brother’s first two films in the MCU, The Winter Soldier and Civil War both contained amazing action scenes but most of them would regularly use quick jump cuts and an overly reliance on shaky and handheld camera work. Infinity War is arguably their first “fantastical” movie as their previous projects in the Captain America franchise were mostly grounded in reality. Thankfully they improved their craft in this one utilizing mostly wide shots and steady cams. The fight choreography and the breathtaking visual effects that supplement them invoke an epic feeling that is so much more emphasized with the familiar iconic score of the Avengers theme. One moment in particular near the climax had all these elements come together to create one bombastic moment that had the entire theater screaming in delight.

On the topic of the Avengers theme, Alan Silvestri’s score for this film also deserves much praise for what it accomplished. Although it should be expected given that the Avengers score is one of the most recognizable themes today, Silvestri’s new pieces in this film are as memorable and impactful as the scene themselves. The action sequences are injected with auditory adrenaline rush coupled with the masterful sound design and mixing but even the slower, more emotionally driven moments in the film contain some of the best scores to come out of the MCU.

All in all, it really was incredible to witness the development of the MCU franchise from its humble beginnings with Iron Man all the way down to Infinity War. All the stories the directors have told and all the elements they had to set up all coming into fruition in this one epic cinematic event. The Russo brothers deserve all the praise they could get for accomplishing this monumental task. Many have tried and failed to launch a cinematic universe such as the DCEU or Universal Studio’s Dark Universe, but it’s with the MCU that truly believes in its own vision and in the stories they tell.

All the beats in Infinity War hit when they need to. Wonder and spectacle alongside tension and emotion jell together for one massive sweep that generally satisfies majority of the hype that developed over the years. A global cinematic event that deserves to be seen and a proper payoff to all those years of excellence. Infinity War is definitely up there with the best of the MCU and it cements itself as one we would be talking about years down the line. The future of the franchise looks bright and with the continuation of the storyline scheduled to release next year, it’s only a matter of time till we see our favorite heroes assemble once again.

Photo sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6

#infinity war #avengers #avengers infinity war #film review #renzo guevara #anna cayco

[complexion-me]

Dr Seemal R. Desai on Cyspera

Dr. Seemal R. Desai is a Diplomate of the American Board of Dermatology, and a Board Certified Dermatologist. He graduated with honors from Emory University. He received his medical training at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and received his Doctor of Medicine degree with Magna Cum Laude with honors. He’s also an expert at treating skin of color and pigment disorders, and is the Immediate Past President of the Skin of Color Society. He also serves on the AAD Board of Directors, and is Past President of the Texas Dermatological Society.

1) Could you tell a little more on Cyspera and the main ingredient in it?

This is a very interesting product in my opinion, the active ingredient is cysteamine. This is an amino acid derivative of the naturally occurring amino acids cysteamine in the body.

2) What’s the typical patient you recommend Cyspera to? Are there any contraindications for using Cyspera?

In my practice, I am recommending this product as a non-hydroquinone-based option for skin lightening. This has been especially helpful for patients who don’t want to be on prescription-based therapy and want to try an alternative. It is also helpful for patients with sensitive skin and who want to take a more tailored approach to their hyperpigmentation and specifically melasma. In my practice, this product has been extremely well tolerated. The only contraindications for me have been if the patient is allergic to any component of the product. Otherwise, this has been a very successful Incorporation into my treatment regimen.

3) What skincare products (other than sunscreen) do you recommend pairing with Cyspera? Should it be used in the AM/PM?

Patients with hyperpigmentation require a combination approach that takes into account both their pigmentation process, aesthetic goals for their skin overall, and any other important components of their medical history. I often time combine cyspera both with topical antioxidants such as topical vitamin C, photoprotection with sunscreen, and sometimes even with prescription therapy that may be on or off label. For example a patient could use a prescription based product in the morning and then use the Cyspera at night. The most important thing and of paramount importance in any form of hyperpigmentation is photo-protection using broad spectrum sunscreens minimum SPF 30 or higher. In general, I typically have patients use the Cyspera in the evening.

4) Azelaic acid (Finacea) is used a ton for pigmentation and acne. Can this be safely used with Cyspera?

I can speak to this from personal experience, that I have combined these two options together. For example, the azelaic acid is used in the morning whereas the Cyspera is used at night. There have not been any direct studies on the combination use of this. It’s important to remember that many prescription products for hyperpigmentation are considered off label so it’s based on your clinical judgment and counselling the patient for their best treatment outcomes. I have found this to be effective in my patients. I do like using azelaic acid for hyperpigmentation and for acne.

5) Should anyone leave Cyspera on their face for longer than 15 minutes?

I recommend my patients to 15 minutes of treatment to avoid irritation and to create a consistent pattern of application. There are some colleagues of mine who do this for longer in areas of more stubborn pigmentation, however I find the 15 minutes is quite effective and allows for a consistent pattern of results.

6) Can Cyspera be safely used in conjunction with hydroquinone based topicals like Tri-Luma or with Tretinoin/Retinol?

For some of my patients with more stubborn hyperpigmentation, I have used hydroquinone and retinol-based therapy in a prescription compounded formulation and I typically have patients do that in the evening. In that case, I would have them use the cyspera in the morning. I do not have patients use a prescription and something like Cyspera at the same time as I think they can be irritating. Even in these patients photo protection is of paramount importance and I often even combine topical antioxidants like vitamin C.

7) Tranexamic acid has been the latest buzzword in the skincare world. Could you tell us how it works both topically and orally?

This is indeed a buzz word and an exciting option for patients with melasma. It’s important to note that this is an off label use of tranexamic acid. This works in essence as an anti-inflammatory because it blocks the production of prostaglandins and a record on an acid metabolites which ultimately up regulate tyrosinase enzyme activity. If you up regulate the enzyme activity you make or pigment. So the tranexamic acid through multiple complex mechanism steps actually stops the production of pigment via down regulation of  tyrosinase enzyme activity.

There are oral formulations available as well as cosmeceutical‘s in topical formulation. Topical formulation could also be compounded for some patients. In the topical form it’s typically a 3% concentration that works best in my opinion. There are a variety of publications that have been published on this and I would encourage readers to take a look at those. More studies are needed but it is indeed a promising option for recalcitrant pigment patients.

8) Lastly, do you have any advice for someone dealing with stubborn melasma that’s resistant to topical treatment?

The most important thing that I think as a board-certified dermatologist who specializes in pigmentation of the skin of color is that I offer my patients hope. Many of my patients have been to multiple other physicians have tried many treatments and are really frustrated with their condition. I tell my patients that melasma is not something that gets cured, but I can help them control the disease process as best as we can using combination treatment modality. I also encourage more research funding for pigment in skin diseases and skin of color. We do perform clinical trials and try to enrol patients in these type of studies. There are newer combination approaches both prescription and nonprescription like cysteamine that are available now and give our patients increase optimism for treatment outcomes. Credits 

cyspera.com

https://www.innovative-dermatology.com/index.html

instagram.com/seemalrdesaimd

https://twitter.com/seemalrdesaimd

#interviews

[kcaruth]

Movie Mania: Top 10 of 2019

Another year of movies, another year a Star Wars film sadly did not make the cut for my list. With 2019′s The Rise of Skywalker, it is absolutely clear that the folks at Disney/Lucasfilm had no roadmap for this sequel trilogy whatsoever, which is an utter shame given their abundance of resources and proven ability to produce quality content as seen with the success of The Mandalorian.

In a rare occurrence, I saw most of the films nominated in the major categories for the Academy Awards. In fact, the Academy nominated seven out of my top 10 films for at least one award. I would say that 2019 was a markedly stronger year for film than 2018, so I have allowed myself a couple of extra honorable mention slots. One quick housekeeping note before I unveil my 2019 list: I’m retroactively moving Game Night and A Quiet Place ahead of Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book on my 2018 list. Now it is time to jump into my favorite films of 2019. (No spoilers!)

Honorable Mention: Joker

Nominated for a whopping 11 Oscars (equaling The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King [which swept all 11], The Godfather [Parts 1 and 2], West Side Story, and Saving Private Ryan, among others), Joker should get an award for most divisive film of the year. Directed by Todd Phillips (yes, the same guy who directed The Hangover), Joker is a psychological thriller staring Joaquin Phoenix that provides a possible origin story for Batman’s arch-nemesis. Before becoming the Joker, Phoenix’s character, Arthur Fleck, dreams of becoming a famous stand-up comedian. His gradual descent into insanity, nihilism, and violence mirrors the chaotic anarchy slowly consuming the decaying Gotham City as its citizens revolt against the wealthy and better-off.

Despite the concerns surrounding Joker that it would inspire real-world violence, the film has grossed over one billion dollars, making it the first R-rated film to do so. Phoenix disappears into his role, and Icelandic composer Hildur Guðnadóttir’s haunting score brilliantly conveys the inner pain and turmoil in Arthur’s mind as well as the dying light of Gotham. (Guðnadóttir made history as the first solo woman to win a Golden Globe for best original film score.) In an interview with Forbes, Guðnadóttir explained the concept of her turbulent score. “In the beginning, it’s almost just like a solo cello, but in reality, there’s a whole symphony orchestra behind the cello. It’s almost like this hidden force that he doesn’t know about and as he starts to kind of discover what he’s gone through and what’s actually happened to him, the forces become louder and more aggressive. The orchestra takes over and almost eats the cello alive.”

Although Joker is a powerful film and and makes strong statements about mental illness and poverty, its gruesome, unhinged violence can be hard to handle. Everything is shown in graphic, bloody detail, making the thought of a repeat viewing undesirable. I also could have done without a couple of choices that were made involving the Waynes, especially one scene that we have seen over and over again.

Honorable Mention: Ford v Ferrari

As someone who really does not care all that much about cars and their inner workings, this film did the one thing it needed to do for me: It made me come out exclaiming, “Yeah, cars!”

In all seriousness, James Mangold’s sharp direction smartly focuses not on the sport of racing but rather on its big personalities. Those personalities gripped me so much that I immediately started researching their lives after the film ended. The plot follows Carroll Shelby and Ken Miles as they are dispatched by Henry Ford II to dethrone the dominant Ferrari racing team with an American-made car. Along the way, they have to deal with mechanical setbacks and corporate interference to achieve their goal.

This film’s cast is outstanding. Matt Damon and Christian Bale’s deep but sometimes heated friendship as Shelby and Miles is the heart of the film. Tracy Letts as Ford II and Josh Lucas as Leo Beebe, senior executive vice president of Ford, give off the perfect amount of corporate stench to make them unlikable but not unbelievable. 14-year-old Noah Jupe comes off his great performance in 2018′s A Quiet Place to deliver another stellar outing here as Miles’ young son. However, Jon Bernthal felt a bit underused as Lee Iacocca, vice president of Ford, and Cautriona Balfe’s role as Mollie Miles, Ken’s wife, though well-acted, felt like it could have been removed entirely without much consequence to the film overall.

With a moving score and great cinematography, Ford v Ferrari unexpectedly tugged at my heartstrings, and the infectious passion Shelby, Miles, and these other characters have for cars managed to rub off on me, which might be the ultimate testimonial for this film.

Honorable Mention: 1917

1917 has been hyped as “that World War I movie with one continuous take,” but it is so much more than that. World War I was a stark clash between 20th-century technology and 19th-centry tactics. With soldiers largely trapped in trench warfare, conflicts commonly turned into battles of attrition. That does not exactly translate into exciting cinema, which explains why there are so many more films about World War II. Karl Vick acknowledges this in Time magazine, writing, “motion pictures do require a certain amount of motion, and the major accomplishment of 1917...may be that its makers figured out what the generals could not: a way to advance” (Karl Vick. Time. "Escaping the Trench". January 20, 2020. Page 38-41.)

What more can one say about Roger Deakins at this point? What he and director Sam Mendes created with the cinematography of this film is nothing short of fantastic. With its cinematic achievement of what is made to look like one continuous shot, 1917 presents most of its actors with only a small amount of screen time to make an impact, and they are more than up to the challenge. Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, Richard Madden, and others all leave a lasting impression with their extremely short encounters with the film’s main characters, Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman [Tommen!]) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay). Mendes places the bulk of the weight of the film on Chapman and MacKay’s shoulders, and they luckily carry it with natural ease. Working together with the one continuous take style, Thomas Newman’s riveting score keeps viewers on the edge of their seat and makes them feel like they are part of this life-or-death mission with the lance corporals.

If I had to list a couple of flaws with the film, I would say that one of the characters feels like he has untouchable plot armor. It almost seems like Mendes and company hope that the awe-inspiring cinematography will make viewers forgiving or even ignorant of the amount of times this character should be fatally shot or even injured, but I understand that some artistic license is necessary to convey the story they want to tell. The nature of the cinematography employed here also makes it difficult to get a grasp on distances and positioning because the shot is never really allowed to zoom out or give an aerial view since it is fixed on the lance corporals.

Unfortunately, I experienced this breathtaking film with one of my worst theater audiences of 2019. Much of the film was drowned out by the ladies sitting next to me who felt the need to constantly narrate everything that was happening on screen. “He’s going down into the trenches.” “Look! He’s jumping into the water.” Etc., etc. This is not your living room, people! If people want to talk over a film like this and provide running commentary and narration, they should wait for its home release. Your fellow audience members are not blind, and we would greatly appreciate it if you remained quiet.

#10: Spider-Man: Far From Home

After Avengers: Endgame released earlier in the year, the spotlight promptly shifted to Jon Watts’ Spider-Man: Far From Home, and he did a tremendous job with this film. Serving as both the epilogue to Endgame and the sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming, Far From Home effectively closes out phase three and sets the stage for the next era of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Far From Home is the first Spider-Man film to pass the billion-dollar mark, and it is not hard to see how it managed to pull that off. The returning cast led by Tom Holland as Peter Parker/ Spider-Man retains its great chemistry, and Jake Gyllenhaal is the perfect choice to play Quentin Beck/ Mysterio, complete with a great theme from returning composer Michael Giacchino. Fans of Spider-Man have been waiting forever to see this character on the big screen, and I am happy to report the film does him justice. Watts especially knocks his character out of the park with a certain sequence about halfway through the film that I was beyond thrilled to see.

The film is set immediately after the events of Endgame and finds Peter and his high school class taking an international field trip to Europe. The writers do an amazing job explaining the ramifications of Endgame, and the way they weave plot details and character motivations together all the way back from phase one of the MCU is mind-blowing. Watts realizes that there needs to be some levity after Endgame, so this film is full of laugh-out-loud humor and charmingly awkward teen road-trip set-pieces. Oh, and did I mention it has one of the best mid-credits scenes in the entire MCU that dramatically alters the characters’ futures going forward?

#9: Toy Story 4

I have a deep personal connection to the Toy Story franchise. I grew up watching Toy Story and Toy Story 2 on repeat, and Toy Story 3 came out during my senior year of high school. Those who have seen that film know why it especially resonated with me at that age. In my opinion, Toy Story 3 ended the trilogy perfectly; there was no way another film could top its emotional ending. When I heard that Pixar was coming out with Toy Story 4, I was not going to pass up another opportunity to hang out with Woody, Buzz, and the gang, of course, (neither was anyone else, seeing as this is the highest grossing film of the franchise) but I set my expectations to a low, manageable level.

Although I was disappointed that Buzz and the rest of Andy’s old toys were not as heavily involved in the plot and did not have all that much time to interact with Woody, I was impressed overall with the new characters and was happy to see Bo Peep return. In this film, Bo breaks through her porcelain design and exhibits a character with total agency over her choices. Everything about her redesign and the way she carries herself is awesome. Keanu Reeves’ Canadian daredevil Duke Caboom steals every scene he is in, and Christina Hendricks’ Gabby Gabby gave me terrifying flashbacks to Talky Tina from the “Living Doll” episode of The Twilight Zone.

As audiences have come to expect from Pixar, the film delivers stunning animation and a signature big emotional gut punch, which it earns it by building up genuinely heartwarming moments throughout its run time that address themes such as the difficulty of change, the beauty of imperfection, the mystery of creation and the meaning of life, and the importance of serving others. As Matt Zoller Seitz writes for RogerEbert.com, “This franchise has demonstrated an impressive ability to beat the odds and reinvent itself, over a span of time long enough for two generations to grow up in. It's a toy store of ideas, with new wonders in every aisle.”

#8: Doctor Sleep

Writer-director Mike Flanagan took on the unenviable task of pleasing two different parties when Warner Bros. hired him in January 2018: fans of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining from 1980 and Stephen King and fans of his books The Shining and Doctor Sleep. Somehow, he managed to pull it off.

After visiting the Timberline Lodge in Oregon, the location used in Kubrick’s film for the exterior of the Overlook Hotel, this past summer, I decided it was finally time to watch The Shining. I can attest it is just as much a masterpiece as many people say it is. My favorite part: it is a horror movie that does not rely on jump scares. When I heard the Flanagan wanted to chop away at the horror genre’s reliance on jump scares, I was even more excited to see Doctor Sleep. Flanagan said, “When we were developing the project and when we were talking about the metered expectations audiences have about, in particular, jump scares and startles and the pacing of those, which we’re utterly uninterested in this film, I would say, ‘What’s your favorite jump scare in The Shining?’ There isn’t one. The same is true here. We used a lot of the lessons that Kubrick taught us about how to do a psychological thriller, a supernatural thriller, in a way that is more about suffocating atmosphere and tension than it ever is about the kind of traditional scares as we understand them today.”

It is well known that King really disliked Kubrick’s adaptation of his book. He disliked it so much, in fact, that he wrote and executive-produced a new version with the 1997 television miniseries. In his approach to Doctor Sleep, Flanagan first read King’s book, which was published in 2013, and then consulted closely with the author to reconcile the differences between the book and film version of The Shining. After reading Flanagan’s script, King felt like his least favorite parts of Kubrik’s film had been “redeemed.”

Set several decades after The Shining, Doctor Sleep reunites audiences with Danny Torrance, played by everyone’s favorite Jedi, Ewan McGregor. Danny continues to struggle with the childhood trauma he endured at the Overlook Hotel during the events of The Shining, turning to alcohol to numb the pain and his psychic abilities. Meanwhile, the True Knot, a cult of psychic vampires led by Rose the Hat (Rebecca Ferguson), is on the hunt for children with psychic abilities like Danny’s, and they are hot on the trail of young Abra Stone, played by Kyliegh Curran in her feature film debut.

With the benefit of having just seen The Shining a couple of months before this film, I was able to appreciate Flanagan’s careful attention to detail. He is clearly a fan of both King and Kubrick, but he does not let his admiration for them impede his own creative vision. He expertly balances original content with just the right amount of fan service and callbacks to The Shining. Even without jump scares, the film has plenty of horrifying moments, especially one involving young actor Jacob Tremblay that echoed in my mind long after the film had ended. Ewan McGregor is fabulous, as always, convincingly portraying Dan’s fight with his inner demons, and Rebecca Ferguson looks like she is having a devilishly good time as Rose the Hat. Above all, I was surprised to learn that this was Kyliegh Curran’s film debut. She is so comfortable on camera and has painted a bright future for herself out of the darkness of this film.

Doctor Sleep gave me all sorts of chills down my spine, induced by the eerie atmosphere of certain scenes as well as extremely well-timed tie-ins to its predecessor, that left me hungry for even more Stephen King stories.

#7: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Set in 1969 Los Angeles, Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film stays true to its name and delivers an alternate version of events that unfolded in Hollywood that year. In addition to Sharon Tate, Roman Polanski, and the Manson Family, the film tells the story of fictional characters Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth. Dalton is a veteran Hollywood actor most famous for starring in a Western television series called Bounty Law who believes he is approaching the end of his career. Booth, a war veteran with a shady past, is Dalton’s best friend and longtime stunt double. Together, they attempt to navigate the final stretch of Hollywood’s Golden Age.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt work incredibly well together as Dalton and Booth, respectively, with neither star trying to outshine the other. Margot Robbie, on the other hand, does not get a lot of material to work with as Tate. (Do not tell Tarantino that.) Conversely, Julia Butters blew me away as Trudi Fraser, Dalton’s eight-year-old co-star in the pilot of a new American Western series. She more than holds her own acting side by side with DiCaprio.

Although the film moves at a slow pace, leaving me to wonder at times where this story was even going or if I was just watching a day in the life, Tarantino’s usual engaging, snappy dialogue entertains even when there is no real action happening on screen. With this being Tarantino, audiences have to accept his signature peculiarities, like close-up shots of feet, to be treated to another perfectly crafted soundtrack, complete with classic rock and roll, old-time DJ chatter, and period-accurate radio commercials. In the end, the slow pacing of Tarantino’s script actually helps enhance the heart-stopping standoff at the halfway point and the absurd payoff at the end. Clearly, this film is Tarantino’s passion project. In fact, he said it is “probably my most personal. I think of it like my memory piece... This is me. This is the year that formed me. I was six years old then. This is my world. And this is my love letter to L.A.” No wonder he publicly referred to it as Magnum Opus while he was writing it.

#6: El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie

Written and directed by the creator himself, Vince Gilligan, El Camino serves as the epilogue to Breaking Bad, giving fans closure on certain questions and characters. Many favorites from the series return in some form or fashion (shout-out to Jesse Plemons for absolutely crushing his role here), but the focus always remains on Jesse Pinkman. Whereas Breaking Bad was Walter White’s story, El Camino puts Jesse center stage, and Aaron Paul gives one of the best performances of his career, fully tapping into his character’s desperate, damaged psyche.

Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul are two of my favorite television shows, and I think Gilligan is one of the best show runners in the business. He manages to incorporate the tone and atmosphere from the world of those two shows into this film seamlessly, and he rewards longtime fans with a nice amount of Easter eggs. Cinematographer Marshall Adams deserves so much praise for the jaw-dropping shots that grace the screen, especially the ones that show off the New Mexico landscape. He has an astonishing ability to make every frame look like a detailed painting. Editor Skip Macdonald should also be recognized for his work, particularly for the way his editing of Jesse searching for something in an apartment reinforces Gilligan’s non-linear revelatory style of storytelling.

El Camino does not waste any time with exposition, so someone who has not seen Breaking Bad cannot jump right into this film and understand what is going on. Then again, what rock have you been hiding under if you have not seen Breaking Bad at this point? What are you waiting for? Let this be your motivation to finally watch it, and then once you have made it through the series and El Camino, keep the good times rolling and watch Better Call Saul, which is just as good, if not maybe even a little better than, Breaking Bad.

#5: Jojo Rabbit

Only the whimsical genius of Taika Waititi could have concocted this irreverent, dark satire set against the backdrop of World War II Nazi Germany. Based on Christine Leunens’ book Caging Skies, Jojo Rabbit stars Roman Griffin Davis as the titular Johannes “Jojo” Betzler, a jingoistic 10-year-old German boy enrolled in the Hitler Youth. Jojo lives with his mother, Rosie, played by Scarlett Johansson. As far as Jojo knows, his father is fighting on the Italian Front, so he often turns to his imaginary friend, a wacky version of Adolf Hitler (Waititi), for advice and support as Germany becomes more desperate as the war starts to reach its conclusion.

Jojo Rabbit’s black comedy places viewers in plenty of predicaments in which they want to laugh, are not sure its entirely appropriate, but still end up doing so anyway. The film balances this out by keeping a good amount of heartrendingly emotional and genuinely sweet moments tucked up its sleeve. Waititi and Romanian cinematographer Mihai Mălaimare, Jr.’s visual storytelling is on a whole different level, carefully using ordinary imagery as subconscious foreshadowing, leading to one of the biggest breath-stealing shocks of the entire year that stopped my heart and rocked me to my core. Michael Giacchino seems to have been criminally overlooked by the Academy for his simultaneously jaunty and intimate score that adds yet another impressive layer to the film’s wide range of emotional beats. Living in a world fueled by hate, Davis, Johansson, and Thomasin McKenzie’s characters show how compassion and the willingness to try to come to a common understanding can change, and in some cases save, lives.

#4: Marriage Story

Writer-director Noah Baumbach paints what may be the most brutally honest picture of divorce I have ever seen on screen in Marriage Story. Before Marriage Story, I had never seen one of Baumbach’s films, but I get the sense from this film that he takes a very grounded approach to storytelling.

Marriage Story stars Adam Driver and Scarlet Johansson as Charlie and Nicole Barber. Charlie is an acclaimed theater director, and Nicole is his muse. Despite her acting skills, Charlie always receives all the praise, leaving Nicole to congratulate him from the back seat and contemplate what kind of professional movie and television acting career she possibly gave up to be with him. She also misses living in Los Angeles and being close to her family. At the center of this tenuous relationship is the couple’s young son, Henry. As things go from bad to worse in their relationship, Charlie and Nicole start down the path to divorce, initially wanting to approach everything amicably without involving lawyers, but quickly walking back on that as they begin to doubt each other’s motives and end goals, especially in regards to Henry.

Driver and Johansson both put on a masterclass of acting here, but I would have to give Driver my nod in choosing the stronger performance of the two. He is a tour de force in this film, unyielding to the unflinching camera. Alan Alda and Laura Dern keep pace with Driver and Johannson beat for beat as Bert Spitz and Nora Fanshaw, Charlie and Nicole’s lawyers. Baumbach smartly chooses not to wallow in the melodrama of the messy divorce, showing that small, flickering sparks of love still exist between Charlie and Nicole, maybe not enough to reignite the flame that brought them together in the first place, but enough to convince you that they still have a hope for some kind of happiness.

#3: Knives Out

After the Internet firestorm that was Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Rian Johnson did the best thing he could have possibly done—he went far, far away from any established franchises, rounded up an all-star ensemble cast, and wrote and directed his own original murder mystery film. Through some ingenious plotting, Johnson revitalizes the entire genre and turns the classic whodunit on its head, all the while delivering some timely social commentary. Complete with Daniel Craig delivering a monologue about donut holes in a southern gentleman accent, Knives Out is an absolute delight.

The events of the film center around the Thrombey family, with the main mystery beginning after patriarch and rich crime writer Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is found dead in an apparent suicide the morning after his big 85th birthday party with his family at his mansion. An anonymous source informs private detective Benoit Blanc (Craig) of Harlan’s death and hires him to investigate.

A huge fan of classical mystery thrillers and comedies, Johnson’s love of the genre is tangible, but he never allows the narrative to become overly meta, referential, or even reverential, for that matter. I have already mentioned Craig and how much fun he looks like he is having in his role as Blanc, but Ana de Armas breaks out as Marta Cabrera, Harlan’s caretaker, and is the heart of the film. The rest of this high caliber ensemble cast has its moments, and I only felt like a couple of the characters were completely disposable, such as Jaeden Martell’s Jacob Thrombey, for example.

Johnson keeps his audience on its toes for the entire film. Just when the solution seems obvious, he throws another twist at them to throw them off the scent. It is a true shame that Knives Out received only one nomination from the Academy, but Johnson more than deserves that nomination for best original screenplay.

#2: Avengers: Endgame

It has all led up to this, the culmination of phases one through three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Admittedly, I was not the biggest fan of Avengers: Infinity War; I did not care for its overall slow pacing. Avengers: Endgame, however, is everything I wanted in this grand finale of the Infinity Saga. Whereas Infinity War felt overcrowded, Endgame brings it all back home to the original Avengers team for the majority of its surprisingly swift 182-minute run time, allowing them to essentially take a victory lap before the next phase of this cinematic universe begins. In the interest of not giving anything away, I will keep this brief, and trust me when I say that I could go on and on talking about how much I enjoyed this film. I will just end by saying that directors Anthony and Joe Russo and producer Kevin Feige certainly reward the dedication of fans who have watched all 21 films leading up to Endgame, and Robert Downey, Jr. submits one of his best performances as Tony Stark/Iron Man. #ILoveYou3000

#1: Parasite

Far and away my favorite film of 2019 was Bong Joon-ho’s Parasite, a South Korean dark comedy home-invasion thriller about a poor family plotting to improve their circumstances by tricking an extremely wealthy family into hiring them by posing as unrelated, highly skilled individuals.

I came into this film ignorant of its premise, and I was completely floored. This is Bong Joon-ho in total control of his craft. Parasite has a mesmeric rhythm to it that is aesthetically energized, allowing the film’s strikingly bold tonal shifts to work so well. Every act increases the ever-present nail-biting suspense, supplemented by cinematic moments of pure genius like the nearly five-minute long montage towards the end of the first hour. Every single member of the cast knocks it out of the park, and there is enough social commentary to fuel college essays for years. The twists zig when you think they are going to zag; it is a truly wild ride. To put it quite simply, Parasite is a masterpiece.

The following are a list of films I saw from 2019, in no particular order:

·         Glass

·         How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World

·         Captain Marvel

·         Shazam!

·         Avengers: Endgame

·         Aladdin

·         Booksmart

·         Rocketman

·         X-Men: Dark Phoenix

·         Men in Black: International

·         Toy Story 4

·         Spider-Man: Far From Home

·         Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

·         Joker

·         Parasite

·         Jojo Rabbit

·         The Lighthouse

·         Doctor Sleep

·         Ford v Ferrari

·         Frozen II

·         Knives Out

·         Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

·         1917

·         The Two Popes

·         The Irishman

·         Marriage Story

·         El Camino

·         Uncut Gems

·         One Piece: Stampede

I somehow completely forgot I saw The Peanut Butter Falcon and absolutely adored it; I definitely recommend checking out this feel-good film.

My 2018 film list: https://kcaruth.tumblr.com/post/182182411291/movie-mania-top-10-of-2018

My 2017 film list: https://kcaruth.tumblr.com/post/171040800751/movie-mania-top-15-of-2017

My 2016 film list: https://kcaruth.tumblr.com/post/156340406236/movie-mania-top-15-of-2016

#movies #film #oscars #academy awards

[myprincecandy]

[ENG] Men’s health - Huang Zitao: Nothing can weaken me

scans credit to lunchbox

On 27th May, the movie “Edge of Innocence” will be released in China. His very first movie was praised widely by experienced actors. In the 2nd season of “Takes A Real Man”, he’s the rebellious soldier who in the end, became the top soldier. And now he’s the endorser of the 2017 Super Boy show, with the words “Follow Me” displayed proudly on the posters. Is this still the “Huang Zitao” you knew from before?

The interview took place after the photoshoot. Exhausted, Huang Zitao was sprawled out on the chair, letting the make-up artist remove his make-up first, taking a break before indicating that the interview can begin. Because the chat was done with him facing the make-up mirror, it resulted in a rather symbolic scene. He would stare very hard at himself in the mirror as he answered the questions; at times he would answer back, staring at us in the mirror. Or he would be answering, seeming spaced out, staring into himself in the mirror.

There seemed to be no predictable pattern to him, as he suddenly swings from being high to angry, talkative and then refusing to explain things. But actually, according to psychology, people usually understand themselves through what they see in the mirror. As such, when Huang Zitao’s staring at himself at the mirror while answering the questions, those are things that he’s actually saying to himself. When he’s staring at us (or rather, the people who care about him in the room) and answering, what’s being expressed is the understanding he hopes to gain from others, and the emotional connection. When he’s staring at the interviewer through the mirror (i.e. unfamiliar bystanders) and answering the questions, the cautious attitude is a display of the defensive measures he has put in the place to protect against the hurt he had suffered from before. And as for spacing out and staring at himself or into the distance as he answers, those are things that he’s saying to the future.

This time round, let’s might as well make things a tad more special, and show, in its original form, how the interview took place, and categorize it according to the above categories, throw it a bit of background information, and ultimately, help you get to personally know Huang Zitao.

“Super confident in himself”

Q: We’re having a military theme for this photoshoot, do you like it?

T: Yes! Actually I look good in just about everything.

Q:  Which part of you do you think is good looking? Tell us so that we can take note of it more.

T: All of me looks good. When taking photos please photo the right side.

With regards to his looks, Huang Zitao’s forever super satisfied with himself. We’ve heard that he’ll even examine his photos carefully, and tell himself, “Actually I didn’t really put on that much weight, I’m still very handsome.” He’s also very disciplined when it comes to eating. He worries that if he thinks only about eating every day, he’ll look so bad on camera that no one will look at him again. However, afterwards we found out that he’s been taking traditional Chinese medication as he wasn’t feeling well. That’s why he has to eat 3 meals daily, which is quite a challenge as he used to eat only 1 meal a day.

Q: You think you do have a gift for acting, right?

T: I’m a genius. Really. I feel that I have come to this earth with a great mission and responsibility given to me by the heavens. Once I’ve completed with the mission I can go back.

With regards to his acting, a few veteran actors, such as Wang Xueqi from “The Game Changer”, has given high praise for Huang Zitao’s acting, saying that he has a bright future ahead of him. In the filming of “Railroad Tigers”, Huang Zitao’s refusal to use stunt doubles and the ferocity at which he did the stunts himself, made Jackie Chan felt as if he was looking at his younger self. Since then, he has called Huang Zitao as his “beloved student”. Actually what Huang Zitao’s really calling out for is the following, “When everyone’s doubting you, on a very quiet set, when everyone’s looking to see if you can deliver that scene. Be it crying or getting angry, in any case, it’s those sort of important scene. When you are done with the scene, and everyone’s clapping for you. When the silence is broken by the thunderous applause, that kind of recognition is really a great comfort to me. Hence I feel that I do have the talent for this, and have shown my abilities. When everyone feels that I don’t have what it takes, I’ll show them with my abilities. Everyone then slowly start to jokingly call me the best actor. Well of course, it’s because I acted well. So since everyone’s praising me, I’ll accept it.”

Q: In the 2nd season of “Takes A Real Man”, why did you manage to take the spot of the top soldier, i.e. “soldier king”?

T: What do you think is the reason? It’s because I’m a true soldier. I retired from the Leishen commando squad at the age of 23.

Actually that is just a national education program. But Huang Zitao still transformed from a wild, untamed horse, into a real soldier. From him not really knowing where’s home or who’s his family, to slowly growing up step by step, that growth has brought about a whole new understanding of him for everyone. Before leaving the squad, the squad leader gave him a medal from the special operations team. He has tattooed the medal on himself, forever defining himself as a soldier.

Q: What’s your definition of the C-POP that you wish to develop? What’s the style like?”

T: I’m C-POP. C-POP is me. Time can and will prove everything. When you all interview me again 10 years later, I would be the representative of C-POP.

Actually when Huang Zitao first made his debut, what he saw was Korea’s music, K-POP, that had become wildly popular. It’s a mix of Korea’s popular music, electronic music, hip hop, dance etc. He wants to make China’s very own China-POP. Currently for all his songs, it’s arranged and produced by Daryl.K (of his age), while he himself is in charge of most of the composing and lyrics.

“Laying bare his heart”

Q: You’ve previously practiced martial arts, so you must have excellent control over your body. Did you have problem performing the lines when you made your first movie?

T: Initially it was tough remembering the lines. When making EOI, I remembered that there was a rainy scene. Perhaps it was the noise in the surrounding area, but that scene was taking me forever and it just wasn’t good. I got very angry and so I asked the director to give me a minute to rest. I went to vent my frustrations against the wall, hitting it. Once I was done, I went back to the scene again and it was finally done. Now I only need to read it once to remember it.

A lot of times, Huang Zitao has expressed his admiration for those who “really has the skills and abilities.” Because he had benefited a lot from his senior’s experiences. For example, Jackie Chan, whom he met on his second film. Jackie Chan taught him to take note of the position of the cameras. No matter who he’s in the scene with, he has to remember not to block the others from the camera. He has to coordinate his position according to how the cameras moved, and Jackie Chan went into specifics as to what to do at each point, such that he was able to act naturally and at the same time, take note of the cameras.

Q: Are you thankful to the reality TV shows for being such a turning point for your career?

T: I didn’t go on all the reality TV shows for fun.   To me, even if those shows are not popular, they are valuable life experiences for me. For example, I went on Korea’s Law of the Jungle when I was 18 years old. I went on it again in China when I was 23. It’s because it gives me memories. You can’t experience that kind of life in reality. Despite not having anything, every day we’re laughing so happily. Nowadays people have basically everything, but yet every day they are so unhappy.

Q: Are you different from the other popular young male idols because you have trained in martial arts since young and hence is not afraid of hardship?

T: Everyone’s afraid of hardship. It all depends on whether you are willing to endure it.  I said this during the concert tour press launch earlier on. Artists are actually no different from your cleaners, or normal office workers. It’s just a job. So do it well since a job is given to you. Making a fuss and wanting to go home over a small cut is just so pretentious. I feel that those really are very trivial matters. I’ve never felt that the things I’ve done are hard/tough. Those are my choices. I only have one thought and that is to complete it and do it well.”

It’s precisely this declaration of wanting to do things to the best of his ability once he’s made up his mind, that Super Boy decide to pick him as the spokesperson. He represents that special characteristic of this era; of the freedom and abandon at which the 90-ers expresses themselves, unafraid of controversy and of being “anti-ed”. Having long been “anti-ed” and “vilified”, Huang Zitao has this suggestion for this year’s Super Boy participants, and that is to be always confident in themselves. In this internet age, many people may come under immense stress, getting attacked scolded & vilified online. When that happens, you should always be confident in yourself, never give in and never follow the masses blindly.  It’s just like what his lyrics has always conveyed: “to always work hard, and rule this world.”

Q: How’s preparations for the concert?

T: About to start dance practice soon. I’m not good at dancing, so gotta practice.

In the world of music, Huang Zitao’s like a very persistent, hot blooded youth. His staff witnesses how he stays from noon till late into midnight at the recording studio every day.  Present in all of his original works, are his persistence towards pursuing C-POP, and his attitude towards life. It’s also as he had said, ‘if you want to really understand me, go listen to my songs.’ There was once when he, after finishing a song, played it for his staff. And it moved one of his female staff, who had recently been through some setbacks in her relationship, to tears. She was sitting at the back, and cried as she listened to it. Huang Zitao quietly passed her some tissue after seeing that, and only said, “I cried too when I was writing the lyrics for this.”

I will not go die easily

Q: Do you still care about how others think about you?

T: 10 years ago when I was in school, I told everyone that I wanted to be a star. No one believed me, and they all felt that there’s something wrong with me, scolding and mocking me. 10 years later, I’m sitting here. I have become a star. I don’t care about whatever it is you say now, it’s really not worth caring about. I only care about whether my future will be better. Right now, I’m just waiting for the right time for all my things (to happen), because I’m ahead of time. As for my talk on my dreams of the future, it really doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not. Because 10 years later I can definitely do it. I can achieve all the things I want to achieve.

Q: We have toy bombs as props today in our photoshoot, and it’s kind of similar to those nasty rumors. Are you still afraid of those things? Previously you have said that though you may not appear to care, deep inside your heart has been pierced through a million times already.

T: I’ve not been afraid (of those) for a very long time.

Q: Do you want to argue/show that you are very hardworking?

T: There’s no need to. What’s the use? Everyone knows how to talk about it.

Q: So does that make the way you live even more unadulterated and individualistic?

T: The way I live my life is very simple. I like the people whom I like, and just do my things. Don’t give a damn about what others say. Isn’t this how life is like? Everyone will die someday, so all the more you must make the most out of the way you live. Those who are wasting time every day, I really don’t know what he’s after. So why should I bother with them? There are better people for me to meet in the future. There are things that I need to slowly think through, and I need to make sure each step I take is a solid/grounded, so I won’t fall down. That’s my life. I have said that I will definitely fulfill my dreams and achieve all that I wish to do. Why? It’s because I have the self-confidence. Because I can. Because I’ll persevere. You can choose not to believe in it. But just wait and see 10 years later. I just want to be the best I can be. I’m working hard to achieve the value of life, and that’s ok. Whether you like me or not it’s up to you.

Q: What if others are unkind to you?

T: Stay far away from him. Even if others harm me, I won’t harm others. That’s my principle.

Q: Who are the people whom you respect?

T: I respect people who are capable, talented and kind. I respect everyone around me, those who are good to me, I respect my family, teacher, friends and fans. As for those whom I don’t know, and who are prejudiced against me despite not knowing the truth, they really don’t matter to me.

Postscript

Lastly, you really don’t need to try to decide whether you like Huang Zitao or not based on your preferences or emotions. We just happened to have one image in our minds.  Once there was a young boy who practiced martial arts. Much wrong was done to him and as he gritted his teeth and carried on, he thought, “Why don’t you like me? I don’t care even if you don’t like me! I’m not afraid of hardship; one day I’ll make my name known throughout this world…..” and all the while, he’s  practicing his moves tirelessly.

#tao #huang zitao #ztao

[brokenmusicboxwolfe]

I saw:

 Star Wars- If you don’t know the story you won’t care. Why bother summerizing when you can rant!

Yep, I still call the first film “Star Wars” or “the original Star Wars”. Look, I’m old enough that as a little girl I saw it more than once in it’s original release back in 1977, and it was just called Star Wars then. It was called that for a long time. Wanna see how much history I had with Star Wars before the rebranding?

When I saw my first academy awards (or actually fell asleep a few minutes in...I was little!) hoping to see it win Best Picture. Halloween and me in a Princess Leia costume Mom made me and then R2D2 on my birthday cake. I saw The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi at their releases, each at least twice. My family had the 8mm cut down film version, then I worked my ass off one summer to buy the films at rental price,  then eventually upgrading to a VHS widescreen set. I’d seen the movies 100 times each before the 20th anniversary, and I know because I counted! The Star Wars Holiday Special (yes, it’s original airing), the fun animated Droids and Ewoks, the so bad I never wanted to see them again Ewok tv movies, tons of making of specials and guest appearances of people from the films. The entire run of the original Marvel comics. I fell asleep to the  music on 8track every night and then during the day I’d play my drums and cymbals to the vinyl soundtrack. (My parents were very understanding! LOL) I’d also listen  to the “Story of Star Wars”record (flip as the tractor beam pulls them in), that Meco disco album, and upgraded  the soundtracks, first to tape and then CD...more than once. I had lightsaber battles so feirce with my brother we had to get new ones to replace the smashed up old ones. My room had several posters and I wore Star Wars tee shirts.  I collected tons of action figures, dolls, plushes, model ships, blasters and the like, right up until the figures went on clearance post Jedi (just found an old package yesterday between books). Too much merchandise to count. I wore my Han Solo vest every day one year in high school, purchased through the fan club I’d been a member of since it started. I read every single book or magazine to do with the movie or spun off it I could find. And through all of it back then Star Wars was still the default title of the first film....

So, as you can tell, I had a long history of just knowing it as Star Wars. Childhood. Teen. Young adult. While the “A New Hope” subtitle was added to the crawl in one of the rereleases, it was just Star Wars when anyone talked about it. I can’t remember now exactly when the rebranding got aggressive, with the anniversary in 1997 or the release of the prequels, but for at least 20 years I only ever heard anyone call it Star Wars.  

When Lucasfilms started to try to make “A New Hope” a thing I kind of rolled my eyes. No one was confused by the film series for Planet of the Apes, The Thin Man or The Pink Panther sharing a name with their first films, so why bother? Now, I can get that after the subtitle got added to the opening crawl that it would make sense technically to make the titling of the films uniform. But I also knew it didn’t matter. It isn’t like it was a person asking you to use another name. The only people that cared were the more obsessive fans that liked to be smug about knowing the “real” title and George BLOODY Lucas. I rolled my eyes and doubted people would rewrite their memories just to make them happy. 

I was wrong.

And so here we are at a time where people mock you if you call it “Star Wars” insteas of “A New Hope” So why do I still defiantly cling to the original title? Because it’s part of the mutilation and rewriting Lucas started doing. I’d been bothered reading interviews when I was a girl where he would contradict himself on the stories behind the stories, going so far as to claim things were “always” intended that reading early drafts showed no mention of. But ok, I knew creation is a process and some people want everyone to think it’s actually just a miraculous whoosh springing out fully formed. And despite the fact I knew full well that other people worked on the films, in the case of Empire and Jedi other directors and writers, I still shrugged it off and gave him the ultimate credit for everything. He was flawed and human, with an ego under that mild exterior, some of what he said was total BS and maybe my brother was right after watching an interview when he said the god of the Star Wars universe had no one anymore to question him...but still I trusted Lucas.

I was wrong.

 Never mind the mind blowingly huge problems with the prequels, my disilusioning started right here, with the Special Editions. Most of the changes were pointless but some actually seemed to damage the films. Take my top three grumbles:

1) Tatoonie should NOT be a rosy pink! Before it was bright clear sunlight, unrelenting hot, parching and desolate, unforgiving...now it’s all pretty, colorful and warm. It reduces the sunbaked heat, but more important the dry barren sense of a colorless place Luke would ache to leave.

2) Han’s conversation with Jabba should not be in this film. I know it was filmed originally and cut for technical reasons, I’ve had a bootleg of it since my first convention, but loosing it was a good thing. Jabba should remain a shadowy unseen threat, someone that wants Han’s hide enough it looms over our scoundrel until the third film. The reveal of Jabba gains power in Jedi because you don’t know the extent of his powers but he’s supposed to be scary and we see him up in a position or authority over the room. Here Jabba looses power by not only being on the same level as Han and seeming smaller, but for crying out loud there is the gag of Han stepping on his tail while seeming completely unconcerned! And speaking of people being reduced...Boba Fett is this mysterious bounty hunter not just some damn henchman to Jabba. What part of mysterious don’t they get!

3) Mos Eisley does not need to me so cluttered up with CGI characters! This is a middle of nowhere planet with a scattered population and a climate many people wouldn’t enjoy. Sure it’s a spaceport but with buildings, many of which are at least partly underground as relief from the environment. The streets actually gain a sense of unease by being underpopulated, giving a sense that people (of whatever sort) could be watching from doorways. Like you could be attacked and no one would notice. But nope, now it’s bustling, so full of effects life that they actually wreck the look of shots by having gratitous critters and droids moving to block us seeing our characters.

Yes, I didn’t mention the Greedo thing. It doesn’t bother me as much as the rest, but you all know that if Lucas HAD wanted to film it that way originally it would have been just as easy as what we got.

Still, I wouldn’t be bothered at all if this was just an alternate version. Blade Runner, E.T. and others have given you a choice of which version to watch in DVD sets. I was sure both versions would stay easily available.

I was wrong. 

Lucas decided that whatever version was his current take should be the only one out there. The DVDs with the original (close enough) cuts long ago went out of print (and in my case the DVDs failed!) so if you want to see Star Wars not going to look at all like my first 100 times seeing it. 

And that’s my problem. Rejiggered versions have become the only version. If out of preference, curiosity or nostalgia you want to see something from before the monkeying around you have to look to illegal means. As far as Lucas is concerned he would like everyone to pretend any prior versions existed. History is rewritten and we aren’t supposed to grumble. All hail the genius of Lucas or some rot and forget anything you saw on screen and anything he said before. And it bugs me because I resent being told to forget

 Retitling the movie, not subtitle but what we are supposed to call it, is just a tiny part of the emperor’s dictates. And my refusal to use that name is symbollic. In fact this insignificant gesture is a bit like something....Now what’s the word?

Ah yes.

Rebellion.

LOL 

But not to worry. My generation will die off eventually. Those that grew up without special editions, prequels, and so forth will die out. In 100 years everyone will call it “A New Hope” and will not even realize anything was ever changed. But for now some of us still remember another Star Wars.......

One last note: I think the double whammy of the SEs and the prequels did something I thought impossible....I fell out of love with Star Wars. I rarely watch it since I only have the SE and when I do I spend some of the time grumpy at alterations I don’t like  and all of it a bit empty. It’s the only time in my life that I’d ever stopped loving anyone or anything. For me usually live cools but the warmth remains to quickly rekindle. When the Force Awakens came out I felt my affection return a bit to the franchise for the first time this century and I thought my love could be reborn. But tonight, rewatching Star Wars, I realized something has been permanently lost. It no longer hurts to watch but the heart has gone out of it for me........

#movies #star wars

[tjromeland]

Today we’d like to introduce you to TJ Romeland.

TJ Romeland is a German-born “Army Brat” He and his family returned to North America, 3 years after his birth. The family traveled all over the United States, before finally settling in Southern, California in 1980.

By the time TJ was a preteen, he was aware he had a lot to offer, however growing up in challenging settings, he was saddled with questions of whether or not he would be able to “Deliver” on the promises he made to himself, to succeed. (TJ was his own support system at young age) But such worries were soon put to rest.

At a mere nineteen years of age, he embraced the creative talents by becoming a self-taught Barber, TJ attended Beauty School then became a Credited and Featured Hair Stylist. Shortly after turning 22 in 1995, TJ received his first agent and wasted no time in becoming a Celebrity Hair Stylist & Male Groomer. Three years later in 1998, equipped with nothing short of an incredible drive and a fierce determination to be the Best Artist he could be. TJ attended the famed Sunset-Gower/Beauty Makeup Academy located in Hollywood, California. There he became a Certified TV, Commercial, & Film Makeup Artist by the age of 25. The young artist quickly became known as the “Triple Threat” around Tinsel Town.

After working as a Credited MUA in the glowing lights of Hollywood’s Entertainment Industry, TJ decided to broaden his horizons and travel. So in 2000, he chose to pack up and move to the city that never sleeps, New York, NY. There TJ successfully becomes a MAC Cosmetics Makeup Artist @ the Famous MACY’S Herald Square in Manhattan, by the following year.

In 2001, young Romeland was drawn back to the West Coast, once again attracted by the undeniable allure of Hollywood’s Film & TV Industries. The allure, that was fueled by the success of TJ’s makeup skills in the Popular Cult Cheerleader Film, “BRING IT ON” that was shot in LaJolla, Calif. (circa 1999).

Upon returning to Los Angeles, TJ began working in Commercial Production 2002-2004. Teaming with Stiefel & Company and Radical Media Productions on many National Commercials headed by Directing Team, Andrew Becker & Gabi Simson-Frank.

By 2005, TJ was hired as a Makeup Artist & Hair Stylist by Top News Magazine Show, ACCESS HOLLYWOOD (05’-07’). After eleven years in Hollywood, TJ became an IATSE Local-706/Union Member & Network TV/Makeup Artist in 2006.

While also freelancing with ABC & NBC, TJ starting working with PieTown Productions on a few of their HGTV shows namely “Design on a Dime” & “My House is Worth, What?” w/Kendra Todd (Season-3/The Apprentice Winner)

During his years as a Makeup Artist, Hair Stylist & Male Groomer, TJ has had the pleasure of working with Noted Celebrities, such as: Sir. Richard Branson (Virgin Owner) Kelly Ripa, Spike Lee, Stevie Wonder, Tony Bennett, Tyra Banks and many more.

TJ’s also worked many Major Award Shows & Red Carpets including: The Golden Globes, The Grammys, and The Oscars. As well as working with Major Networks & Studios, including: Disney, MTV, and NBC/Universal.

The mastery of his craft “Soft Beauty” is what keeps this young veteran striving to be one of the Beauty & Entertainment Industries, Best and Finest.

“Helping people feel and become more confident about their appearances is a major reason why I LOVE, what I do. Whether I am working with Models, Celebrities, Brides, or any of my male Clientele, providing my clients with the certainty that they look their best, it’s my highest priority. Being a Multi-Faceted Artist, allows me to do that for them.” -TJR

With his creative vision and professionalism, he understands that his talents and abilities are meant to be shared, for the betterment of others and their appearances. As the industry consistently changes, TJ continues to set the standard for “Star Style & Soft Bridal Beauty”.

While on another stint in The BigApple, this time for 5 years (2010-2015) TJ kept expanding his brand and name, he also became a Member of L’Oreal/SoftSheen-Carson’s National “Style Squad” as Contracted Makeup Artist & Stylist Asst., that’s headed by Director of Education; Mezei Jefferson.

While being on the “Style Squad” TJ has been a part of “Au Natural’s” product Launch. He was also chosen to work with Magic Shave’s Brand Ambassador: Actor, Lance Gross on the Launch of their Newly Formulated “No Razor” Shave Cream, by way of Facebook Connect Internet Marketing Video campaign (which TJ was featured in). He also, worked 2013 NYFW w/Parisian Designer, Elie Kuame and in 2014 NYFW w/British Designer, Chantell Walters.

Working hard branding himself in New York, the driven Artist was featured on TLC Network’s HIT, “SayYES to the Dress/The BIG Day” twice. First, in early 2013, then 2014.

After being seen on those show’s, TJ was also booked as Makeup Artist & Hair Stylist with TLC’s New Show “Curvy Brides”, in addition to being chosen & booking for a New TLC Bridal Reality Pilot that was “Green Lit” to become an actual show, set to Launch/Air sometime Summer 2015.

Also while on the east coast, TJ worked in Miami, So. Florida. Where he freelanced w/Premier Beauty Brands CHANEL and NARS Cosmetics, in addition to working with Agency Represented Models in Fashion Shows and Shoots. He also shot a Reality Show Pilot “Blown Away” with Show Creator/Producer; Russell LaFrieniere during the Fall of 2014.

TJ was asked back to New York City, Winter2014 to work the TLC Network again, this time as Key Makeup & Hair alone, for their new bridal show #BridesGoneStyled, also freelancing with Complex Media, Yahoo News (and other Magazines under their brand).

Then late 2015, TJ relocated back to Hollywood, CA. Doing what he loves and is best at, working with a range of Celebrities, making whoever he works with look their best in front of the camera.

In 2016, TJ worked with TLC again, this time shooting their Special: Say Yes To The Prom with Laura Marano in Miami, Florida., He completed working on Google’s first Web Series #GodComplx for YouTube, working steadily with Actors: Malcolm-Jamal Warner, Tory Kittles, and Trevor Jackson on their respected gigs & appearances, TJ was personally requested to work on a LEXUS “Man and Machine” Commercial for 2017 SUPER BOWL w/ his long time client Lil’ Buck..

2017 is off to a great start, with just wrapping up a Nike/AirMax 2017 Commercial, along with shooting a SPOTIFY/Complex Media Produced-Video Series soon to be released.

TJ has other current projects he’s affiliated with slated 2017 release, Stay Tuned…

Has it been a smooth road? My God, NO it hasn’t always been a smooth road (there’s no such thing, as a Smooth Road in Hollywood). I realize my walk has been very different and more challenging from most that just stick to 1 thing. And once they become great at that one thing, most ride that 1 thing, out.

That isn’t my story, I knew early on that my interests were never Singular. I’m actually extremely proud of all that I’ve accomplished starting out a self-taught Barber, then becoming Trained Hairstylist and lastly becoming a Certified Makeup Artist, all by the age of 25.

Many of the challenges I faced was nonstop having to prove myself and that I’m, first capable of doing 3 different professions, but also could I do them well and fast. Honestly, that’s proved stressful many times and in many ways.

But I never gave up!… I began to master my confidence, my skills, my timing and proficiency to do what was needed and what I was being hired for. (to this day I STILL find excitement and joy in it.)

Early on, I realized that there are so many degrees of Artistry in Entertainment. I had to find my own lane and discover what MY purposes were in this Exciting and Scary Universe which is “The Entertainment Business”

Yes, I found myself admiring others Careers & Career Moves. But I clearly knew that I could not mimic others “Walks” or “Paths” I had to create my own. Which I did, proudly.

Getting into my Union (IATSE Local 706) was an 11year struggle for me, it was not easy by any respects… Even after getting into this Illustrious Union, there’s even more struggles progressing in it, to this day. (All Truth!!)

But, this is the “Big Leagues” and if it were easy, everyone would be in it and that’s just not how it works in Hollywood… HOLLYWOOD/SHOW BUSINESS isn’t for the timid… It is Very Much a BUSINESS folks…

So let’s switch gears a bit and go into the TJ Romeland story a little more. TJ Romeland is the epitome of Season Artist.

He specializes in, Men’s Grooming, Hair Styling and Soft Beauty Makeup Services, primarily in Entertainment.

TJ is known for being “The Image Guy” in Hollywood, New York & Miami, respectfully. His abilities as a multi-faceted Artist allows him to shift his skill set at a moment’s notice. He enjoys being capable of enhancing anyone appearances in all forms of media, wherever a production takes him. He has his sights on a few overseas markets next.

What TJ is most proud of, is in his 20th Year as a Professional Artist (2015) when he lived in New York, after being featured twice on a popular Bridal cable show on (TLC’s “Say Yes To The Dress”) The Networks Producers chose TJ to shoot a pilot, which ultimately became the 1st Season of “Brides Gone Styled”..

On that show, TJ was a 1-Man Beauty Team for the Show’s Hosts & the 8-Bridal Transformations, doing both Makeup and Hair Styling, at the same time. Being handpicked for this gig, brought everything full circle for the Artist…

What sets TJ Romeland apart from others, is his diverse past and immense experiences (in TV, Film, Commercial, Print, Red Carpets, Internet Marketing, Fashion & PR), his 3-Part Professions, his undeniable passion, and lastly his drive to consistently stay relevant in Media, Today.

How do you think the industry will change over the next decade? In the next 5-10 years, I see Entertainment going into more personalized content and choices, with all forms of Media shifting more and more to social platforms, it just screams GROWTH. That also means more work for more talented creatives in the world. That seriously excites me, because I love being a part of most creative processes or mediums.

#VoyageLA Magazine #Hollywood #MultiFaceded #Celebrity #Artist #TJ Romeland

[vancejhiller]

Dr Seemal R. Desai on Cyspera

Dr. Seemal R. Desai is a Diplomate of the American Board of Dermatology, and a Board Certified Dermatologist. He graduated with honors from Emory University. He received his medical training at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and received his Doctor of Medicine degree with Magna Cum Laude with honors. He’s also an expert at treating skin of color and pigment disorders, and is the Immediate Past President of the Skin of Color Society. He also serves on the AAD Board of Directors, and is Past President of the Texas Dermatological Society.

1) Could you tell a little more on Cyspera and the main ingredient in it?

This is a very interesting product in my opinion, the active ingredient is cysteamine. This is an amino acid derivative of the naturally occurring amino acids cysteine in the body.

2) What’s the typical patient you recommend Cyspera to? Are there any contraindications for using Cyspera?

In my practice, I am recommending this product as a non-hydroquinone-based option for skin lightening. This has been especially helpful for patients who don’t want to be on prescription-based therapy and want to try an alternative. It is also helpful for patients with sensitive skin and who want to take a more tailored approach to their hyperpigmentation and specifically melasma. In my practice, this product has been extremely well tolerated. The only contraindications for me have been if the patient is allergic to any component of the product. Otherwise, this has been a very successful Incorporation into my treatment regimen.

3) What skincare products (other than sunscreen) do you recommend pairing with Cyspera? Should it be used in the AM/PM?

Patients with hyperpigmentation require a combination approach that takes into account both their pigmentation process, aesthetic goals for their skin overall, and any other important components of their medical history. I often time combine cyspera both with topical antioxidants such as topical vitamin C, photoprotection with sunscreen, and sometimes even with prescription therapy that may be on or off label. For example a patient could use a prescription based product in the morning and then use the Cyspera at night. The most important thing and of paramount importance in any form of hyper pigmentation is photoprotection using broad spectrum sunscreens minimum SPF 30 or higher. In general, I typically have patients use the Cyspera in the evening.

4) Azelaic acid (Finacea) is used a ton for pigmentation and acne. Can this be safely used with Cyspera?

I can speak to this from personal experience, that I have combined these two options together. For example, the azelaic acid is used in the morning whereas the system is used at night. There have not been any direct studies on the combination use of this. It’s important to remember that many prescription products for hyperpigmentation are considered off label so it’s based on your clinical judgment and counseling the patient for their best treatment outcomes. I have found this to be effective in my patients. I do like using azelaic acid for hyperpigmentation and for acne.

5) Should anyone leave Cyspera on their face for longer than 15 minutes?

I recommend my patients to 15 minutes of treatment to avoid irritation and to create a consistent pattern of application. There are some colleagues of mine who do this for longer in areas of more stubborn pigmentation, however I find the 15 minutes is quite effective and allows for a consistent pattern of results.

6) Can Cyspera be safely used in conjunction with hydroquinone based topicals like Tri-Luma or with Tretinoin/Retinol?

For some of my patients with more stubborn hyperpigmentation, I have used hydroquinone and retinol-based therapy in a prescription compounded formulation and I typically have patients do that in the evening. In that case, I would have them use the cyspera in the morning. I do not have patients use a prescription and something like Cyspera at the same time as I think they can be irritating. Even in these patients photo protection is of paramount importance and I often even combine topical antioxidants like vitamin C.

7) Tranexamic acid has been the latest buzzword in the skincare world. Could you tell us how it works both topically and orally?

This is indeed a buzz word and an exciting option for patients with melasma. It’s important to note that this is an off label use of tranexamic acid. This works in essence as an anti-inflammatory because it blocks the production of prostaglandins and a record on an acid metabolites which ultimately up regulate tyrosinase enzyme activity. If you up regulate the enzyme activity you make or pigment. So the tranexamic acid through multiple complex mechanism steps actually stops the production of pigment via down regulation of  tyrosinase enzyme activity.

There are oral formulations available as well as cosmeceutical‘s in topical formulation. Topical formulation could also be compounded for some patients. In the topical form it’s typically a 3% concentration that works best in my opinion. There are a variety of publications that have been published on this and I would encourage readers to take a look at those. More studies are needed but it is indeed a promising option for recalcitrant pigment patients.

8) Lastly, do you have any advice for someone dealing with stubborn melasma that’s resistant to topical treatment?

The most important thing that I think as a board-certified dermatologist who specializes in pigmentation of the skin of color is that I offer my patients hope. Many of my patients have been to multiple other physicians have tried many treatments and are really frustrated with their condition. I tell my patients that melasma is not something that gets cured, but I can help them control the disease process as best as we can using combination treatment modality. I also encourage more research funding for pigment in skin diseases and skin of color. We do perform clinical trials and try to enroll patients in these type of studies. There are newer combination approaches both prescription and nonprescription like cysteamine that are available now and give our patients increase optimism for treatment outcomes. Credits 

cyspera.com

https://www.innovative-dermatology.com/index.html

instagram.com/seemalrdesaimd

https://twitter.com/seemalrdesaimd

Dr Seemal R. Desai on Cyspera -- read full story here: https://complexion-me.tumblr.com/post/618444280904695808

#beauty #hairstyle

[wellesleyunderground]

Little Women reviewed by Shloka Ananthanarayanan ‘08 (@shlokes)

This review originally appeared on Shloka’s blog, Pop Culture Scribe.

A year ago, I learned that Greta Gerwig had written and directed an adaptation of Little Women and it would be released on Christmas Day 2019. Since that announcement, this movie is what I have been most looking forward to all year. Little Women is one of my most cherished novels. The 1994 film (also a Christmas Day release) is a highlight of my childhood and I have watched it countless times. I have been in love with the character of Jo March my entire life, and I thought no one would supplant Winona Ryder as Jo in my imagination. But it has now happened, because Saoirse Ronan (and really, Greta Gerwig, who is the true Jo of this movie) has stolen my heart. The following review lists out everything I so deeply loved about this film and as such is brimming with spoilers. Please watch this movie first and read this review later. You deserve to treat yourself to this cinematic feast. However, if you do want a teaser, I highly recommend this Vanity Fair video where Gerwig and some of the cast dissect a scene in the movie. It will immediately tell you everything you need to know about how much love and artistry went into making this film.

1. The casting. Every character in this film has been impeccably cast: shout out to casting directors Kathy Driscoll and Francine Maisler. Yes, Saoirse Ronan as Jo is perfect, with her angular face and wild carefree attitude that is so at odds with the women of her day. But Emma Watson is also the perfect Meg, the beauty of the family who is gentle but strong, tempted by riches but wise enough to know that love is more important. Eliza Scanlen is a wondrous Beth, demonstrating her crippling shyness but also the efforts she takes to acknowledge others' kindnesses and give of herself in myriad ways until she no longer can. And Florence Pugh is a delight as Amy, the most irritating March sister. While it's definitely a hard ask to play 12-year old Amy in the childhood scenes, Pugh does a creditable job, highlighting what a brat Amy can be, but helping us to understand how she fits into this family and how her mind had been molded to think that her only escape from her existence will be to marry well. Then of course there's Laura Dern as the indomitable Marmee, the woman who is tirelessly raising these little women while her husband is off to war and does it with a cheerful composure that masks her own frustration and fatigue. And there's Meryl Streep as the cantankerous Aunt March, a horribly plain-speaking woman who wants the March sisters to do well but has very little hope that they will. We also get the wonderful Jayne Houdyshell as the hardworking Hannah, the Marches' maid who ensures they are fed and clothed and keeps things moving while the girls are off on their adventures. Moving from the women, we have Timothee Chalamet as Laurie, who is charming and always a treat opposite Saoirse Ronan: that casting helps as the two are such great friends in real life and it shows on screen. But he suffers from the opposite problem as Florence Pugh: while he's lovely as young Laurie, the older, more careworn adult is a harder thing to pull off and I'm not sure that he succeeds. For now, Christian Bale from the 1994 film will still be my Laurie. Louis Garrell as Professor Bhaer is also an interesting choice, because he's French, not German, which is a departure from the novel. But given how Gerwig treats that particular plot point (more on that later), it makes sense she wouldn't be too fussed about his nationality. We also have Chris Cooper as Laurie's grandfather, and this movie really amps up what a tender-hearted friend and surrogate father figure he becomes to the March women. Which brings us to the only casting decision that I found bizarre: Bob Odenkirk as Mr. March. To me, Odenkirk will always be Saul Goodman or some sort of comic relief, and I can't take him seriously as the patriarch of the March household. But he is barely in the film, so it doesn't really matter. 

2. The script. This movie captures everything I love about the novel. Every vignette, every line of dialogue, every plot point. They're all in there. But rather than following the straight timeline as the girls grow into women, Gerwig starts with the adult Jo marching into a New York editor's office to sell a sensational story, and then flashes back and forth between childhood and adulthood. This lends novelty to the piece since all the prior film adaptations have never messed with the novel's structure. But it also helps to develop these characters and remind us of what events in their childhood led to the decisions they made as adults. Meg's marriage to John Brooke is so much more compelling when immediately contrasted with her girlish fantasies of high society. Amy's desire for a rich husband is so much more nuanced when you see her as a young girl being taught by Aunt March that she is her family's only hope to rescue them from poverty. And most devastatingly of all, we contrast the first time Beth falls ill from scarlet fever and recovers to the second time when she dies, and it broke my heart. Beth's death is always sad, but told in this fashion, it is utterly devastating. Of note, the book and movies always seemed to focus on Jo's sadness when her favorite sister dies, but in this movie, it was Marmee's reaction that destroyed me. Massive kudos to Gerwig and editor Nick Houy for successfully executing all these time jumps and ensuring the story remains intact. As detailed in the Vanity Fair video, credit is also due to cinematographer Yorick Le Saux, as the childhood scenes are suffused with a "golden glow," which also helps to delineate timelines.

3. The feminism. As faithful as the script is to the novel, Gerwig throws in some curveballs and amps up the feminist manifesto. This is all in keeping with author Louisa May Alcott, a woman who never married and said she preferred to be "a free spinster and paddle her own canoe." Alcott was always my role model and I loved that quote, so nothing delighted me more than when Jo actually says it in this movie when she's trying to convince Meg not to get married. What is so important, however, is that this film doesn't sideline the ambitions of any of the other women and say that Jo is the only one who's living a proper woman's life. When Jo is being petulant and saying Meg shouldn't feel obligated to get married, Meg gently explains to her that, "Just because my dreams are different from yours, it doesn't mean they're unimportant." There are plenty of scenes in the movie where Amy grapples with how marriage is an "economic proposition" and Jo is railing against the unfairness of being a woman and we are reminded repeatedly of how few options these women had to lead independent lives. But the moral of the story is never that everyone should be like Jo and forge ahead with a brilliant literary career and no husband. Instead, the feminist moral is that all women should have the freedom to pursue their own dreams. They should be allowed to dream, and accomplish those dreams, without judgment from society or their own sister. Ultimately, all four sisters have very different fates, but there is never any doubt that they followed their hearts' desire, and that is what makes Little Women such a feminist masterpiece. Of course, the one quibble is Jo's marriage to Professor Bhaer, a twist that Alcott was forced to include to make the novel more commercially viable. I won't spoil what Gerwig does with that ending in this movie, but let's just say that she lends her true auteur's stamp to that particular plot point. Some diehard fans of the book won't like it, but Louisa May Alcott would be proud.

4. The costumes. The Vanity Fair video gave me a primer before the movie but I would have been captivated by these costumes even if I had no inkling of the effort that costume designer, Jacqueline Durran, put into them. Jo is always clad in something a little masculine and comfortable, while the other women are always a little more constrained. In one scene, Jo is walking arm-in-arm with Amy and Meg, and it is so bracing to see her uncorseted with no hoops in her skirt, unencumbered by all that burdensome femininity, embodying the tomboy attitude that made her such a heroine to me as a child. I kept noticing the color palette, with Jo wearing pops of red, Meg usually in something green, Beth in pinks and browns, and Amy in that gorgeous light blue that captured all of her desire to be refined and elegant. Early on in the movie, there is a scene in a Parisian park that genuinely looks like something out of a Monet painting and it quite took my breath away. While the focus is on Amy, Laurie, and Aunt March, I couldn't help gazing at the extras carrying parasols and furbellowed gowns and marvelling at how picturesque everything looked. It was a short scene, but every element was as perfect as if the entire movie was to be shot in that park, and it showcases the art that went into every frame of this film. 

5. The humanity. All of the above elements of the movie work together beautifully to create the world and develop these magnificent characters. As I watched the film, I was incandescently happy, because even though I knew every story element and who these women were, it somehow felt like I was seeing them through fresh eyes. The constant flashbacks meant that my emotions were always seesawing, which encapsulates the human condition; there are always ups and downs and these women go through events that can seem like utmost tragedy, only to recover the next day and have a laugh about it. Gerwig aptly captures the relationships between the sisters and gives all four women their due. She shows how they fight - not like petulant girls, but like proper sisters who want to tear each others' hair out when they have been wronged (paritcularly in the case of Jo and Amy). All of this leads to you feeling a bit emotionally on edge throughout the movie. And then we get to Jo's monologue after Beth's death, a moment when she is feeling unsettled, unsure of what her next steps are going to be, sad and purposeless. She first delivers a speech that is actually from another Alcott novel, Rose in Bloom, but which feels very apt for Jo March. It's a speech that's in the trailer, so you may have already heard it, but it is a screed about how women are full human beings, capable of so much, but are always just told that love is all they're fit for. On its own, it's a powerful speech. But what breaks your heart is what follows. Because Jo now confides to her mother that if Laurie were to propose to her again, she would probably say yes. And when Marmee asks, "Do you love him?" she can only reply, "I want to be loved." And when Marmee wisely declares, "that's not the same thing," Jo declares, "I'm so lonely." It is the most fundamental declaration of the pain of being human. We are capable of so much, and can do so many things, but sometimes the price of pursuing our dreams is that we are so incredibly lonely. It is something I have declared many times, and to see my heroine, my idol, espouse the same sentiment on screen, made me sob buckets. I had to re-read that chapter of the book, and realized that while that exchange does take place in the novel, Gerwig has wisely re-worked it to give it a more fiery intensity and pathos. As far as I'm concerned, she deserves an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay for that one scene alone.

So that's Little Women. I went into this movie with insurmountable expectations, and somehow those expectations were blown out of the water. It is told with so much warmth, humor, brilliance, and insight, and it is as close to perfect as any movie could be. It is a cinematic masterpiece that I plan on rewatching multiple times and luxuriating in for decades to come.

#wu review #little women #movie recommendation #shloka ananthanarayanan

[zhumeimv]

Bill Skarsgard Hints At Exciting Story For It: Chapter 3 Movie

Bill Skarsgard Hints At Exciting Story For It: Chapter 3 Movie

Date: 2019-10-10 14:00:04

[aoa id=’0′][dn_wp_yt_youtube_source type=”101″ id=”PCqS4Nimapg”][/aoa]

It: Chapter One scared the pants off of audiences when it debuted in 2017, becoming the highest-grossing horror movie of all time and leaving fans hungry for more. And It: Chapter Two is certainly keeping pace with its predecessor at the box office. According to the Los Angeles Times,

“[The film]…

View On WordPress

[dangkynhanhieusanphamcom]

What Went Wrong (and Right) with Conservative Philanthropy – Law & Liberty

  To those who know the history of American conservatism, it is a familiar and oft-told story. Oversimplifying: From a relatively small base up until then, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater’s traumatic loss in the 1964 presidential election birthed an ideologically driven conservative “counter-establishment” of journals and magazines, academic centers, and think tanks that took shape slowly, and then grew to the point at which it could help intellectually anchor, and make effective arguments for, the rise of Ronald Reagan, after which it helped implement his proposals.

Conservative philanthropic giving played a vital role in the initial creation and the growth of this counter-establishment. The individuals and institutions who underwrote the conservative movement were able to balance the formulation of ideas and the application of them, yielding policies that were geared toward results over the long term. Liberals generally do not contest this story, and they sometimes even honestly laud the effectiveness of the givers who were a key part of it.

Donald Trump’s dramatic victory in Election 2016 was traumatic, too—to liberals, who assumed their candidate would win, but also to what had become an actual, outright conservative establishment of its own. Trump was neither a product nor a beneficiary of the latter. For the most part, and for many reasons, nonprofit giving on the Right basically “missed” Trump and that which gave rise to him.

Not only did politically-minded conservative givers largely support other candidates in the Republican primaries, but policy-oriented and ideas-driven conservative givers didn’t seem to grasp the underlying causes for his overtaking those candidates. If the presidency was a victory that conservative givers were looking to help inform and assist, they failed.

Something was off-balance.

The Goldwater and Trump milestones were dramatic (and traumatic) for conservatism but in opposite ways. With some exceptions, conservative givers cannot plausibly claim much credit for policy victories achieved by Trump either now or for the rest of his tenure, which might extend to 2024. In fact, Trump would probably have been helped very much, before his victory and now, by a better giving balance between the three basics: ideas, policy, and patience. Conservatism, too, would have benefited from a better balance between these. However defined or redefined, conservatism would likely have been more securely anchored in lasting ideas, its policies probably better vetted and more likely to be instituted and implemented, over a longer term.

After Goldwater’s loss, there were years’ worth of ideas-driven building of institutions—then ultimate success, including electorally. There was not the same type or length of building before Trump’s electoral success. A rebalanced giving may still yield benefits in the future, so it is well worth considering how to go about achieving this.

Initially, Ideas

First, a backward look is necessary. Let us turn for guidance to James Piereson—a noted political theorist and the author of 2007’s Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, Piereson was the last executive director of the John M. Olin Foundation which, by design, depleted its assets in 2005. As he has recounted, after the end of the Second World War, “despite critics who viewed the concept of conservative ideas as a contradiction in terms,” many conservative philanthropists, “including the classical liberals in this camp, looked at books and ideas for guidance to a surprising degree.”[1]

This postwar period was the “classical era of conservative philanthropy,” in the words of Johns Hopkins political theorist Steven Teles. Both Piereson and Teles (at an important colloquium seven years ago at the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal) cited the guidance provided to conservative grantmakers by the thought of F.A. Hayek, most notably the Austrian economist’s 1944 book The Road to Serfdom. Conservatives took to heart Hayek’s warning about the danger of tyranny resulting from governmental central planning. As Piereson notes: “modern conservatives and classical liberals have generally been able to work toward a common goal of limiting the reach the state and the intrusion of politics into the life of civil society.”

In general, Hayek strongly emphasized the importance of ideas as the undergirding base of any successful political movement. An example that Hayek knew well: socialism. “In every country that has moved toward socialism,” said Hayek in a 1949 essay, “the phase of the development in which socialism becomes a determining influence on politics has been preceded for many years by a period during which socialist ideals governed the thinking of the more active intellectuals.”

Teles points to three philanthropies as typifying this “classical era,” and significantly, none was in Washington, D.C., or even on the East Coast. They were the William Volker Fund in Kansas City, Missouri, the Earhart Foundation in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Pierre F. Goodrich’s brainchild, the Liberty Fund of Indianapolis, patron and publisher of the web site you are now reading.

Their Hayekian giving clearly and purposely balanced ideas with patience. These ideas were immanent.

Teles brought to light a 1956 internal Volker Fund document, blandly entitled Review and Recommendations, describing its grantmaking—which, as is the case for all private foundations, went to organizations that were classified under the Internal Revenue Code’s §501(c)(3) as being created for “charitable purposes,” including the education of policymakers and the public.

The Volker Fund’s list of principles included:

Risk-taking that involves disappointments;

Patience on the order of generations for ideas to germinate;

Actively seeking out people and ideas to support as opposed to waiting for requests to come in “over the transom”; and

The placement of ideas and values over mere metrics, mechanics, and techniques in grant consideration.

Adding Policy

The 1960s saw a cultural and political assault on many things, among them conservative ideas and conservatism—as evidenced in the lopsided, 44-states-to-six, 61.1 percent to 38.5 percent electoral result of November 3, 1964 in favor of President Lyndon Johnson. The liberally energetic Great Society that followed, and its aftermath, stirred action on the part of discontented conservative givers. Not a few were formerly liberal intellectuals who had grown weary of liberalism’s overreach and the damage it had wrought.

Conservative givers now mixed with many a “neoconservative” thinker and writer, their work in a tradition linked to Edmund Burke. The intellectual energy among these distinct intellectual tendencies was deemed worthy of substantial support.

According to Piereson:

The neoconservatives came from the left, accepted the New Deal, not necessarily the Great Society, dismissed the argument for free enterprise and placed great weight on cultural arguments in defense of the family, religion, and the institutions of civil society. . . . Few were academics. None that I know was an economist. They were essayists and editors used to making arguments about politics and culture, and in contrast to the Hayekians, they wanted to address immediate controversies. Far more than the classical liberals, they were interested in foreign policy, religion, and culture.

To some of them, the immanent religious ideas were transcendent.

Givers associated with this later era of conservative philanthropy (its “modern era,” as Teles labeled it during the 2012 discussion) include the now-defunct Olin Foundation in New York City, the Smith Richardson Foundation in Westport, Connecticut, and two not on the East Coast: the Scaife Foundations in Pittsburgh, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee. One of the prime influencers of this group of institutions was the writer and editor Irving Kristol, considered the “godfather of neoconservatism.” Their Kristolian giving consciously balanced the three basics to which we referred: ideas, policy, and patience.

According to William A. Schambra, our former colleague at the Bradley Foundation, at Kristol’s urging, Olin, Scaife, and Bradley all underwrote studies that were “aimed at recovering the political philosophy of the American Founding, as expressed most authoritatively in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.” These studies were undertaken at the University of Chicago, Harvard, Claremont McKenna College, and other campuses, and at think tanks like AEI, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution.

This burst of activity marked a revival of “otherwise obscure and seemingly antiquated political philosophers . . . that American progressivism had long since dismissed as so 18th century—so hopelessly out of step with the needs of modern society,” said Schambra. He made these observations at an underappreciated 2006 seminar held at Duke University, where he went on to say:

If conservative foundations did one thing during the rise of modern conservatism that was not likely to have been done by anyone else—that was, in other words, its unique and indispensable contribution—it was precisely funding the scholars, university centers, and policy institutes aimed at recapturing the Founders’ understanding of America, which would then animate and unite conservatism’s specific political, social, and economic programs.[2]

The roster of ideas and proposals came to include: supply-side economics and across-the-board tax cuts, “law and economics” and deregulation, aggressive foreign policy and national security stances through the whole of the Cold War and afterwards, “broken-windows” policing, work-based welfare reform, school choice in the form of vouchers and later charter schools, and a place for faith in the “public square.”

There were policy defeats, to be sure. Americans do not have individualized retirement accounts, higher education has not been reformed, and Obamacare was put in place. In and for the long term, however, conservative philanthropy ultimately helped yield some substantial policy achievements beginning when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, more than a quarter of a century after Goldwater’s loss. Among them: an expanding economy and bull market, victory in the first Gulf War, the fall of the Soviet Union, welfare reform, and expanded school choice.

External Envy

Conservatives have well-chronicled the philanthropic role in conservatism’s successes. John J. Miller’s 2003 Philanthropy Roundtable monograph Strategic Investment in Ideas: How Two Foundations Changed America is especially good, as is Miller’s 2005 book A Gift of Freedom: How the John M. Olin Foundation Changed America.

The success was so marked that liberals accepted the premises of conservative effectiveness—usually while enviously urging its replication by the foundations on the Left. In No Mercy: How Conservative Think Tanks and Foundations Changed America’s Social Agenda (1996), for example, Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado of the University of Colorado Law School write: “We could not help being impressed with the professionalism and cold precision with which the right has been waging and winning struggle after struggle. . . . The dedication, economy of effort, and sheer ingenuity of much of the conservative machine are extraordinary.”

For another example, in the influential National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s Moving a Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations (1997), Sally Covington thoroughly examined the grantmaking of 12 conservative philanthropies: Earhart, Olin, the Sarah Scaife and related Carthage Foundations, Smith Richardson, and Bradley, along with the Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch Charitable Foundations, the related Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the Philip M. McKenna Foundation, the JM Foundation, and the Henry Salvatori Foundation. There was also a 1996 report from Norman Lear’s People for the American Way, the invidiously titled Buying a Movement: Right-Wing Foundations and American Politics, which included the Adolph Coors Foundation in its study. Inside Philanthropy, moreover, noted that the Searle Freedom Trust should be included among effective conservative foundations.

“Although this effort has often been described as a ‘war of ideas,’ it has involved far more than scholarly debate within the halls of academe,” Covington writes. “Since the 1960s, conservative forces have shaped public consciousness and influenced elite opinion, recruited and trained new leaders, mobilized core constituencies, and applied significant rightward pressure on mainstream institutions, such as Congress, state legislatures, colleges and universities, the federal judiciary and philanthropy itself.”

In a 1998 American Prospect article about the “Lessons of Right-Wing Philanthropy”, Karen Paget, at the time a fellow of the Open Society Institute supported by George Soros, lamented that “the conservative infrastructure has far outstripped the left’s organizational capacity and resources. … The left has recently lost repeated battles to this conservative coalition over major initiatives such as affirmative action, welfare, immigration, English-only programs, and school vouchers.”

These self-critiques on the Left helped pave the way for the establishment, in 2003, of the liberal Center for American Progress think tank in Washington, and also the creation of the Democracy Alliance group of active liberal donors in 2005. Covington’s report in particular, said the Democracy Alliance’s president, Gara LaMarche, “crystallized for a lot of progressives the idea that the conservative foundations were kind of eating their lunch and then they were setting the terms of the debate in a way that the progressive foundations were not doing.”

“So looking to Olin and looking to Bradley, there was a challenge that was really laid down,” said LaMarche. He expressed admiration for “a very strategic use of money” by conservatives even though he disagreed with the ends of conservative philanthropy.

Internally, Another Explanation

Just as the Volker Fund internally catalogued what it believed were the characteristics of successful grantmaking in its 1956 review, Bradley program staff in Milwaukee made a similar effort in an internal 1999 document bearing the rather provocative title, The Bradley Foundation and the Art of (Intellectual) War. The two descriptions are quite consistent with each other.

According to Bradley’s Sun Tzu piece, there are four stages of policy initiatives: initiation, development, implementation, and consolidation. These yield 10 “rules of thumb” for good grantmaking:

Think of public policy making as a morality play, not an academic debate;

Be patient;

Do each step in order;

There are no shortcuts;

The best projects are found, not created;

Be prepared for unorthodox allies;

Measurement of results is tricky;

Try it “at home” first;

Learning curves should become shorter; and

Change should become incrementally cumulative, unpredictable, and self-generating.

Following these steps enabled ideas, policy, and patience to be balanced, in large part to good effect.

Worries and Warnings

In 2005, near the end of an article he wrote for Commentary magazine, “Investing in Conservative Ideas,” Piereson noted an important development: that the institutional emphasis on ideas was “giving way to a greater focus on politics and the nuts and bolts of policy.” As Schambra had observed at the above-mentioned Duke seminar, “Resurrecting an understanding of the American constitutional order that had been airbrushed from history by a century of scholarship would be no quick or easy task.” It wasn’t, and a certain impatience had set in among grantmakers on the Right.

This led many of them, in fact, to begin emulating grantmakers on the Left. According to Teles, “Metrics, measurement, logic models and the rest of the apparatus of new philanthropy [were] becoming as popular among the conservative philanthropists who go to Philanthropy Roundtable meetings as they [were] to mainstream and liberal foundations.”

Content was yielding to functionalism. Crudely, ends were yielding to means, with major consequences for the organizations. The growing demand for numericized proof of progress was something that neither Hayek nor Kristol would have thought prudent. In fact, they would probably have thought reliance on metrics to betray a lack of faith in the truth of conservatism’s core content, its underlying ideas.

Presentism and Politics

The new way included shorter time horizons by which to measure grantmaking success. The ends of short terms are always imminent, of course. They are seldom conducive to long-lasting results.

At times, the shorter-term thinking risked becoming so short as to correspond with certain officeholding terms. That is to say, private foundations had become more mindful than before of the political calendar, and those givers in a position to do so began to weigh supporting §501(c)(3) charitable-purpose organizations against organizations classified under §501(c)(4). The latter is for entities promoting “social welfare,” and this classification permits givers to engage in partisan political campaign activity and lobbying, so long as it is not their “primary” purpose or activity.

Conservative philanthropy was becoming more explicitly political, and as it did so, it became aligned with one political party. This yielded some successes, including the rise of the Tea Party and many state-level reforms, including meaningful labor-policy ones.

Yet it would not be accurate to conclude that this altered balance caused the surprising results of November 8, 2016—30 states and 304 electoral votes for the Republican Trump, as against 20 states and 227 electoral votes for the Democrat Hillary Clinton. By the same token, if results matter, one must note that the altered giving balance was consonant with those important results. In hindsight, one wonders whether a different balance might have been preferable for the conservative ideas supposedly being furthered by the giving.

For clearly the Republican candidate rejected many of the ideas espoused by the intellectual infrastructure of the Right and, for the most part, stylistically rejected those very intellectuals and their institutions. Representatively, almost all of the contributors to the attention-getting “Against Trump” symposium that National Review published in January 2016 had some affiliation with one or more conservative (c)(3) nonprofit groups.

Trump’s successful performance cannot be considered a product of conservative political spending, including in the nonprofit sphere. (He got almost all of his media for free.) Other contenders in the Republican primaries benefited much more from support from conservatives, as did Clinton benefit more from liberal political spending in the general election.

There have been good and serious outcomes for conservatives during the last two years, including an economy growing at nearly four percent per year, tax and regulatory reform, a positive peopling of the federal judiciary, the retaking of virtually all territory held by ISIS, and an overdue buildup of the U.S. military. Moreover, some (but by no means all) conservatives would count criminal justice reform as a success. There have been big defeats, too; debt and deficits, if they count, and Obamacare’s survival among them.

Rebalancing and Reordering

Goldwater lost, badly. Trump won, barely—in large part by dismissing or at least questioning conservatism as it had been understood, and supported, by conservative philanthropists. His victory should cause givers on the Right to continue critically questioning themselves. They should also consider how to go about best effectuating their or their donor’s intent.

Even if only as a perhaps-helpful intellectual exercise, they should ask whether it might have been better had Henry Olsen’s The Working-Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-Collar Conservatism (2017) or Patrick J. Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed (2018) appeared before Election 2016. Or if Yoram Hazony’s The Virtue of Nationalism (2018) or Oren Cass’s  The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the Renewal of Work in America (2018) had appeared before Election 2016. Or for that matter, if a version of Victor Davis Hanson’s new The Case for Trump had done so. Or if the American Affairs journal, founded in 2017, had preceded the current administration.

Why, one might ask, did they all come after?

An easy answer is that Trump’s victory at the polls heightened intellectual energy on the Right—the same effect that was seen after Goldwater’s defeat at the polls. “This time it is not centralized in a few journals, institutes, and godfathers,” wrote Christopher DeMuth in an astute essay in the Claremont Review of Books. DeMuth cited some of the above-mentioned works, adding:

Rather—reflecting the spread of wealth and education and improvements in communications …—it is distributed and reticulated. Dozens of new and old journals, websites, and think tanks, plus innovations such as long-form podcasts and celebrity recirculation platforms, are variously devoted to politics, policy, law, economics, society, culture, philosophy, and security and foreign policy. The digitized, networked competition of ideas has generated new conservative and libertarian divisions and alliances, a parade of impressive new talents, and the appearance almost daily of substantial books and essays and vigorous rebuttals and surrebuttals to what was published last week.

The energy is again worth supporting. For a better-anchored and longer-lasting conservatism in the future—however it ends up being defined or redefined in the coming years—conservative givers should wonder whether a rebalancing of ideas, policy, and patience on their part might be in order. They should summon the discipline to develop and hew to a clear-eyed, longer-term worldview.

And they should humbly allow the immanent to transcend the imminent, for as long as they can.

  [1] James Piereson’s comments, and those of Steven Teles and Gara LaMarche, are from a 2012 event convened at the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal. The discussion allowed Piereson to update the thoughts on philanthropy laid out in his 2005 article in Commentary magazine, “Investing in Conservative Ideas,” which is reproduced as a chapter in his 2015 book, Shattered Consensus: The Rise and Decline of America’s Postwar Political Order. He is now president of the William E. Simon Foundation and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

[2] Presentation by William A. Schambra, “How Effective is Conservative Philanthropy?,” Terry Sanford Institute of Public Affairs, Duke University, December 6, 2006.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments);if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); (function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.5"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, "script", "facebook-jssdk"));

The post What Went Wrong (and Right) with Conservative Philanthropy – Law & Liberty appeared first on NEWS - EVENTS - LEGAL.

source https://dangkynhanhieusanpham.com/what-went-wrong-and-right-with-conservative-philanthropy-law-liberty/

#dangkynhanhieusanpham

[ciathyzareposts]

Interview with Brian Cody, Co-Creator of Fooblitzky

By Joe Pranevich

From time to time, it has been our pleasure to not only play and explore the classic games, but to discuss them with their creators. We’ve spoken to game designers and game illustrators, but I am pleased to have been able to spend some virtual time with someone who was both: Brian Cody, the co-creator of Fooblitzky, Infocom’s first and last computer board game. If you missed our coverage of that game, you can find it here. Brian was not only responsible for much of the game design, he also developed the game’s unique graphical style.

The following interview has been assembled from a series of emails in January 2019 and edited together for your reading enjoyment.

A fine example of Mike’s “textbook”-style illustration

How you got your start at Infocom and what you had been doing prior to that?

I came from a commercial art background, having graduated from Massachusetts College of Art in the mid-seventies, and worked in a variety of art-related jobs: freelance illustrator, TV cartoon animator and art director in children’s book publishing. My last position before joining Infocom was as staff graphic designer for Houghton Mifflin’s Children’s Book Division, a position I found very slow-moving and boring. I was anxious to try something different.

Can you tell us more about the children’s books that you illustrated of cartoons that you worked on before Infocom?

Children’s book publishing is broken into 2 types:

Trade books: those big colorful picture books you typically find in all children’s book department. Many successful star illustrators have emerged from this category and earn a good living. I was not one of them.

Educational publishing: huge publishing programs that produce 200-300-page textbooks for grades K-12 and, in the lower grades, are filled with fun, colorful, spot art. Textbook illustrators do not make big money. That was me.

So, consequently, there are no trade books with my name on them. But if you had a grade school child in the late 70’s, 80’s, 90’s or early aughts then they undoubtedly experienced my work; you would have to dig through the back of the textbook to locate the paragraph, invariably set in 6-point mouse type, to find my name listed along with 25 other illustrators. I did thousands of illustrations for all the major textbook publishers: Houghton Mifflin, Brown, Scholastic, Harcourt/Brace, etc.

Just FYI, If you ever travel back in time and need to call Brian, he’s extension 61.

As a child of the 80s, I no doubt saw some of your illustrations! Unfortunately, I didn’t steal any textbooks to allow me to go back and check now. Can you tell us about the Infocom Graphics group, what was done when you arrived and what was not? How did it get started?

There was never any Infocom Graphics Group per se. Infocom author and interactive text game-designer Mike Berlyn hired Dan Horn, an Atlanta-based, experienced computer gamer, and myself in late 1982 to design Infocom’s first graphics game. We were sort of like the company’s skunk works; nobody knew what we were doing, least of all us. Mike was our manager and his first assignment was for us to go play computer games for six months so that we could learn what an actual, re-playable game was. We met weekly to discuss learnings. At around the six-month mark Mike decided it was time for Dan and me to produce some graphical game concepts, most probably to justify our existence.

How did development of Fooblitzky get started?

My first idea for a graphics game was of a huge, unwieldy, ill-defined meta game supported by six smaller, simpler games that required solving before gaining access to the big meta-thingie. What ultimately became Fooblitzky was at first one of those six smaller games, a computerized scavenger hunt involving stores and collectable items. During my presentation, composed of just Mike, Dan and myself, Mike allowed me enough rope to hang myself by trying to explain the meta mess. Once I proved I had no idea of the scope of what I was proposing, Mike looked at Dan and me and said, paraphrasing, “See that scavenger hunt? That’s your game.”

So I had a direction. Using the same blue-lined graph paper we all used in fifth grade science class, I mocked up a crude gameboard showing sidewalks, stores and items to be collected. We rolled Monopoly dice and moved around the board, keeping rough notes on who bought what. It must’ve shown some potential as a multi-player, family-oriented computer board game, of which there were few on the market at the time. But it had to be more Infocom-weird.

A “Koala Pad”, courtesy of Wikimedia commons. Uploaded by Nynexman4464.

What happened next? How did the team come together?

Up until that point in early 1983, I was producing near unintelligible computer graphics on a Koala pad with stylus and no printable output. Then Infocom management showed up with something called a “Macintosh”, a pre-release, 128K Apple prototype, intended for use in the development of future Infocom products. Mouse-driven, with both word processing and graphics programs, Mike recognized what it could be and soon appropriated it for my graphical use only. It did not take long to master both MacWord and MacPaint and I was soon producing graphics with supporting text for our weekly meetings, demonstrating what this computerized scavenger hunt might look and play like. It was at this point that one of Infocom’s original founders, Marc Blank, began to occasionally join the graphics meetings, most probably at Mike’s urging. 

In the meantime, Mike began inviting a couple of different subject experts to our weekly graphics meetings. Poh C. Lim, an MIT graduate and software engineer at Infocom, was added to begin the conversion of my Macintosh graphics files into a format acceptable to Infocom’s proprietary, virtual ZIL-machine compiler. Poh soon became an almost full-time member of the still-informal graphics group, providing not only deep technical support but also many different game suggestions and improvements. Brian Moriarty, a former tech editor at ANALOG Computing and combination tech editor/game designer at Infocom, also joined the group for our weekly meetings; while his principal function seemed to be to remind us every week of how stupid we were to be designing a graphics game in an interactive text gaming company, Brian’s long background in computer gaming often proved invaluable in keeping the game’s design and implementation on track.

If this is composed of reused tiles, I sure can’t tell. 

[ Ed Note: You can read about Brian Moriarty’s ANALOG career and his first game published in that magazine here. ]

What was Poh Lim’s role on the development team?

It was Poh who first understood and articulated the need to establish a limit on the graphics used to produce the scavenger hunt. Otherwise it would grow too large and slow for the mainframe-based ZIL graphical compiler to be able to digest and convert into Apple II, IBM PC and Atari-compatible software. If memory serves me, I was given 240 separate and distinct blocks (8×8 pixels? Not sure.) to use to illustrate, color and animate the entire game. For instance, a single black block could be used a thousand times to outline the four-quadrant gameboard, the multiple iterations of the animated dog, the 18 different store items, the Chanceman and so on and the compiler would still recognize and count all those things as being comprised of only a single, black block. To a degree, that explains the game’s blocky look and feel; the entire thing is built on a grid.

As the game took further shape, mid-to-late 1983, and Poh was able to preview online the most basic functions using my Macintosh illustrations – gameboard, stores, spinning game wheel, animated items and animated dog, etc. – weekly graphics meeting became important in fleshing out the actual gameplay. I’d come up with the game’s concept and look/feel but the gameplay itself needed more fun, more randomness, maybe even some strategy. Which is where the addition of Marc and Brian to our group of Mike, Dan, Poh and myself became so valuable; the Chanceman, crosswalks, the falling piano, UGH, bumping, lockers, pawn shops and more elements of chance all came careening out of this collective group. Marc came up with the name Fooble to describe the game’s coins and eventually named the game Fooblitzky. 

Oh yes. We know all about Cornerstone. *shudder*

How did the development of Cornerstone affect what you were doing and how it was released?

Other internal projects, including Infocom’s answer to Lotus Software’s groundbreaking 1-2-3 spreadsheet software, named Cornerstone, continued pulling at Mike’s time and he began to back out of the babysitting portion of managing Fooblitzky. Jon Palace was hired to project manage the graphics project as well as other ongoing interactive text projects. By this time, I knew what Fooblitzky was and I knew what was required, from a graphics POV, to finish it; just keep drawing. Jon joined our weekly graphics meetings and his scheduling discipline became important to helping keep development on track. 

You’ve mentioned Mike Berlyn, Marc Blank, and Poh Lim, but there is a fourth person credited for Fooblitzky. How did Paula Maxwell come to join the team?

In very early 1984, I was able to hire Paula Maxwell to help with the game’s animation. Her responsibility was to complete animations I’d begun, using a rough style guide for direction. Paula worked in the graphics group for about six months and then decided to return to her native California.

By mid/late-1984 we had a fingers-crossed finish date for development of Fooblitzky of December 1984. I’d mocked-up a prototype of the game box and worksheets, shown them to Mike, Marc and the group and, with their approval released it to Carl Genatossio, Infocom’s Creative Director, for production. A rough cut of the game was in Testing for debugging and it had been previewed with Public Relations and the senior interactive writer’s group. “Doubtful” was the word I think best described their puzzled reaction. In late 1984 I was unexpectedly laid off. Graphical work on Fooblitzky stopped. 

That is unexpected! Do you know how the game was finished?

In 1985, I was hired back as an independent contractor to finish the remaining Fooblitzky graphics and animations. January and February are what it took I believe. Mike had, at that point I think, left the company.

Original Fooblitzky box for the PC

The launch of Fooblitzky was strange– mail order-only for the first six month. Leaked sales records suggest it may have sold only sold 500 copies that way. (It sold more later.) Do you know anything else about the release?

I had no input into the game’s production, release, and distribution. It would not strike me as silly to find that Carl had 500 boxes printed and management put minimum effort into trying to sell them in order to clear warehouse shelf space.

I later heard anecdotally through Infocom friends that the development of Cornerstone had far outgrown anyone’s estimate for time, budget, and headcount required to finish. And that all non-mission-critical internal projects had to end in order to get Cornerstone out the door. Just company gossip.

What have you been up to since then?

I returned to my core expertise in late 1985, what was once called “commercial art”. I held a variety of positions involving illustration, graphic design and art direction. Eventually I moved into management, spending 10 years at Digital Equipment and culminating in five years as Director of Marketing Services at relational database manufacturer Sybase, then one of the 10 largest software manufacturers in the U.S.

I am fortunate to have a wonderful 43-year marriage to my wife Joel. We have 2 great kids and are starstruck daily by our four granddaughters, two of whom live in Seattle and two locally in Ipswich; the latter pair I fruitlessly attempt to provide daycare for. Fooblitzky was a breeze compared to these two. 

This is amazing! Thank you for sharing your story.

Brian really does find unique character in his art.

I want to thank Brian for spending as much time as he did talking with us. Reading over our conversation for the first time was like turning on a light into an otherwise unknown portion of Infocom history. There is a lot here to digest, but it’s clear that Brian had a much larger role in the development of the game than is popularly understood. Perhaps we can have a follow-up interview with Mike Berlyn in a few months, if he is interested, especially as we have now played all of his adventure games except 1997’s Zork: The Undiscovered Underground. You can find (and purchase!) Brian’s work at his website, BrianCody.com as well as his Zazzle store.

Up next for me will be Dave Lebling’s Spellbreaker, our last Infocom game of 1985. That should be a lot of fun.

source http://reposts.ciathyza.com/interview-with-brian-cody-co-creator-of-fooblitzky/

#retro games #dos games #retro #crpg #adventure #amiga #oldcomputers #8bit #16bit #blog #repost

[digiscreen]

Okay, so in today’s blog I want to address my love and passion and that is, video games. Shocker there, isn’t it? But Josh, what in particular do you want to talk about? Video games are a huge, ever changing and evolving medium, and there’s so much you can possibly cover, how will you ever choose? Well today, I want to approach games from a more textual point of view. We’re going to look at them as if we were looking at them as a film, and in particular, we’re going to look at Naughty Dog’s 2013 release The Last of Us. I am sure that many of you have no doubt heard about this game, and how it has been hailed as an ‘outright masterpiece.’  If you haven’t, don’t worry. I am intentionally leaving things vague for the time being. Just know that it is a story driven game, set in a post-apocalyptic world where zombies roam. Though plenty of narrative heavy games have come before hand, including the Uncharted series, also created and published by Naughty Dog, The Last of Us is a game that truly broke out of the gaming “bubble” and into the cultural zeitgeist. Now there could be several reasons for this; in the years leading up to its release, zombie/post apocalyptic film and television had flooded the market (the superhero boom that is still present today was just beginning to take off) (pardon the pun), with shows like AMC’s The Walking Dead garnering a large amount of attention. It could also be due to the fact that discussions about gaming had started to change and be reshaped. The time of its release (in terms of where consoles were) is also something I personally feel factors into its huge success. Microsoft and Sony were preparing to move into their next generation of consoles (with the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 respectively) and so the The Last of Us was a swan song of sorts for the PlayStation 3. But I digress.

Let’s address the claim then, that ���given video games are non-linear, does this mean we cannot study them using traditional textual lenses?” Well let’s first establish what traditional textual lenses actually mean in this context. What we’re thinking of here, is the ways in which we would normally analyse film. We’d look at shot composition, mis-en-scene, sound, lighting, camera movements; all the technical aspects that go into what is on the screen in front of you. These are all physical, malleable objects that are based in reality. Jean Douchet posits that filmmakers deserve to be called “great precisely because of their near obsessive focus on capturing reality and respecting it.” They know what is in the real world and what can be accomplished. But what about animation then? David Bordwell notes that the “classical model has adapted itself to different media and technologies, adjusting to the introduction of sound as well as to other technical innovations.” The whole discussion on what film is becomes very blurred when you combine those two mindsets, and that argument only gets more muddled when you bring in something like remediation. This idea that cinema takes old outdated forms and repurposes it when it creates new technologies. However, despite this mess I’ve laid out before you, and despite cinema having evolved so much, we can still break it down to it’s bare form.

Looking at the 1st Academy Awards, the categories Best Director, Best Picture, Best Cinematography and Best Story were present, just like they are today. The core elements are all still there. (Wow that was a much longer break down of that concept than I meant it to be) Thankfully non-linear is a bit easier to define. A film/tv show is linear as you as an audience member are passive in the watching of it. That is to say, you have no control over where it is heading, the story and events have all been shot and edited, and you are just experiencing them. Video games give you control, and despite games (generally) having an established story and path they want you to follow, you are by no means obliged to follow that. We won’t delve into it much further than that, or we end up in some weird reality where by my definition, Candy Crush is a linear story because I know when I play that game I have no control over anything happening in it. Anyway, point is, textual lenses=physical things we can look at in the frame or within the frame of a movie, non-linear= multiple ways of progressing (or not) through a story.

Now, the more traditional elements are not lost in The Last of Us at all. Watch the credits for the game below (fear not, you don’t need to watch them all, just the beginning):

As you can see, the game has two listed a directors, Game Director Bruce Straley, and Creative Director Neil Druckman, who is also the writer. You have visual effects artist Eben Cook, Editor Ryan M James, Composer Gustavo Santaolalla, like any credits scene at the end of a film, the list goes on and on. Now of course this isn’t the strongest argument to say that we can look at games through the same textual lenses as film because they have credits, by that logic if I added a list of names to anything they could be classified as “film;” but I do raise the credits first because I’d hazard a guess that if you’re reading this you hadn’t realised that video games could have directors, or composers, or editors.

So let’s watch the opening of The Last of Us. Remember how I told you not to worry earlier and I left the description of the game vague, now’s the time to fix that. Now just a quick note that there is violence in this clip, as well as horror themes. Nothing too intense, but worth mentioning.

Now this probably hyperbole, but I feel that there are little to no other mediums that establish so much about everything you are about to experience in 15 minutes as well as Naughty Dog has done here. The clock ticking immediately creates a sense of unease, and one of the first things we hear Joel see is “I can’t lose this job.” We know he’s down his luck. The relationship between him and Sarah is established as a loving, playful one, as shown when Sarah gifts her father a nice watch, and his response is to pretend it’s broken, and their subsequent casual discussion of selling drugs. This nicely juxtaposes when Sarah is wandering the house alone looking for Joel. Cold, muted colours now fill the pallet, and bits and pieces begin to frame the world we’re entering (the newspaper report on spiking admittance to hospitals, the news report in the background). When we see Jimmy break through the glass the camera places us behind Joel, with out eye line at his back, really conveying the vulnerability and fear Sarah is now experiencing. As the scene progresses the camera stays linked to Sarah as we control her and begin to experience the world as it descends into chaos. The fear she experiences, as well as the emotional bond between Joel wanting to protect her at all costs, is really conveyed through this introduction to the game. It sets up the protagonist Joel, and gives the player a clear understanding of what he has been through to make him the man he is when the actual game commences some 15 years later. All these emotions, the world building, they’re entirely based of cinema conventions and tropes. A small American suburban town is the originating point of a virus; chaos slowly descending as the military desperately try to contain the outbreak. A father doing everything he can to protect his child. It’s all classical Hollywood, but the story it ultimately tells is one of relationships and family, and it achieves this through perfect uses of camera movement and placement, a well written script, a score that encapsulates the emotional resonances, and fantastic acting from the cast. Markku Eskelinen excellently points out that “outside academic theory people are usually excellent at making distinctions between narrative, drama, and games” and The Last of Us is an excellent example of why those sorts of theories need to be re-worked and re-examined. HOWEVER, with all this being said, the question isn’t about whether we can or cannot apply traditional textual lenses to video games, but is actually whether we should. Eskelinen’s full quote finishes saying “If I throw a ball at you I don’t expect you to drop it and wait until it starts telling stories.” Video Games are a medium of their own, and they will always try borrow from other mediums in doing so. They, like cinema, are constantly remediating themselves, only they have a much larger pool they can remediate from. 2018’s God of War is one single take for the whole thing, and has received praise for how cinematic it is (citation needed) and would be very easy to analyze, much like The Last of Us under a traditional lens, but throw something like Epic Games’ Fortnite, one of the biggest games right now which is being enjoyed by millions of people, in the mix, and there is no chance you can study it under traditional means. In the same way that you wouldn’t study a book on its cinematography, you shouldn’t be assessing a video game under that same guise.  

References: Moriarty, Colin. 2013. "The Last Of Us Review". IGN. https://au.ign.com/articles/2013/06/05/the-last-of-us-review.

Elsaesser., Thomas. 2016. Film History As Media Archaeology: Tracking Digital Cinema. The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.

Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. 2000. Remediation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

"The 1St Academy Awards | 1929". 2018. Oscars.Org | Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences. https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/1929.

Eskelinen, Markku. 2001. "The Gaming Situation". Game Studies 1 (1). http://gamestudies.org/1801.

Druckman, Neil, and Bruce Straley. 2013. The Last Of Us. Video. Naughty Dog.